A College Tale

Or. . . The story of how one college survived the SACS-

un invasion

Once upon a time in a land not so far away, a small college

stood amidst peanut fields and cow pastures.

The SACS-uns demanded that the college meet their

requirements for accreditation or cease enrolling students.

Fortunately, the efforts of the inhabitants succeeded in

satisfying the SACS-uns, and the invaders returned to their lair, leaving the inhabitants free to continue enrolling students in their exemplary educational

programs.

Ten years passed, and , lo, the

governing body once again

appeared on the horizon. The

SACS-uns sent a courier with the message that their demands

had changed and that the process

for meeting those demands would

differ from that of olden days.

. . . The college

embarked on the quest to comply with

the requirement

s of the governing

body. And, thus, our

tale begins. . . .

SACS Re-affirmation Process

An Overview

LEADERSHIP TEAM

• Sue Baum• Tammy Bunyan• Jean Bynum• Betty Cully• Leslie Gibson• Scott Smith• Susan Steck

• Sam Covington• Wanda Flowers• Kathy Haynes• Judy Snyder• Judy Miller• Linda Gordon• Stafford

Thompson

LEADERSHIP TEAM

• Oversees the Compliance Certification process

• Provides leadership, organization, and inspiration in developing the Quality Enhancement Plan

Key Elements of SACS Review

• The Principles of Accreditation (2 major components)

• The Compliance Certification

• The Quality Enhancement Plan

Compliance Certification:

The Principles of Accreditation

•Comprehensive Standards –12 general statements that

focus on outcomes;– a broad review of the

institution;–not intended to be redundant.

Compliance Certification (cont’d.)

• Core Requirements - focus on institutional processes for accomplishing outcomes– Institutional Mission,

Governance, and Effectiveness– Programs (Educational Programs,

Faculty, Library, Student Affairs and Services)

– Resources (Financial and Physical Resources)

– Federal Mandates (Title IV Funds)

Compliance Certification (cont’d.)

•The institution’s response to the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards

• Indicates compliance, non-compliance, or conditional compliance

•Accompanied by documents to verify compliance

The Quality Enhancement Plan

• Developed as a course of action for improvement in student learning and achievement

• Based on a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment

Quality Enhancement Plan

•Does not exceed 75 pages of narrative

• Intended to be an outgrowth of the institution’s planning and evaluation process

•Supplements the institution’s planning and evaluation process

The Peer Review Process

• College prepares and submits Compliance Certification

• Off-Site Review Committee reviews the report and advises On-Site Committee regarding compliance issues

The Peer Review Process

• College prepares and submits its QEP

• The On-Site Committee visits the college to review progress on QEP and address compliance issues

Overview of Team VisitPrevious vs. Proposed

• Size of Team : 11-15

• Length of Stay: 4 days

• Opening reception and dinner

• Focus of Team: Comprehensive Review of accreditation requirements

• Size of Team: 5 - 7• Length of Stay: 3

days• No opening

reception or dinner• Focus of Team:

Quality Enhancement Plan; other issues as adv. by off-site team

Overview of Team VisitPrevious vs. Proposed

• Individual interviews days 2 and 3 of visit

• Team delivers exit report to President on day 4 of visit

• Chair edits team report

• Selected group interviews day 2 only

• Committee Chair delivers exit report to President on day 3

• Chair assembles team’s assessment of compliance and QEP

Pilot Institutions

• October 2000, eight institutions began process under proposed guidelines

• Representative of all types of institutions: private and public, 2-year and 4-year

• Submitted Compliance Certification in September 2001

• Quality Enhancement Plan in January 2002

• Visit Feb. - April 2002

Timeline (Unofficial)

•September 2002 - Commission on Colleges notifies institution of reaffirmation visit in 2004; provides dates for submission of reports

•September 2003 - Compliance Certification due to COC

Timeline (cont’d.)

•September 2003 - Off-site team reviews Compliance Certification

• January 2004 - Quality Enhancement Plan due to COC

•February - April 2004 On-site team visits institution

•September 2004 - Institutional response to on-site visit due to COC

Timeline (cont’d.)

•November-December 2004 COC review to determine reaffirmation

• January 2005 - Continued monitoring of QEP

SACS Annual Meeting7 - 10 December 2002

• San Antonio, Texas

• Focus on changes in process as recommended following pilot program

• Final word on reporting process

For more information, visit

www.sacscoc.org

. . . And the saga continues

Watch for the best-selling sequel, “The

Quality Enhancement Plan”