SACS-COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation Overview Plus Q & A

1. CCPRO Conference, Greensboro, NC September 2011 Kimberly B. Lawing, Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness Cape Fear Community College SACS-COC Reaffirmation of AccreditationOverview PlusQ & A

2. My perspective…

3. The Foundation of Accreditation

4. Integrity and Quality Enhancement • “The first task of the Commission on Colleges when considering accreditation status is to determine the institution’s integrity and its commitment to quality enhancement. These two principles serve as the foundation of the relationship between the Commission and its member and candidate institutions.” Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, SACS-COC, Dec. 2001, 1st Ed.

5. The Relationship

6. “Self-regulation through accreditation embodies a traditional U.S. philosophy that a free people can and ought to govern themselves through a representative, flexible, and responsive system.”Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, SACS-COC, Dec. 2001, 1st Ed.

7. Fundamental Characteristics of Accreditation Listed by COC • Participation in the accreditation process is voluntary and is an earned and renewable status. • Member institutions develop, amend, and approve accreditation requirements. • The process of accreditation is representative, responsive and appropriate to the types of institutions accredited

8. Accreditation is self regulation • Accreditation requires institutional commitment and engagement • Accreditation is based upon a peer review process • Accreditation requires an institutional commitment to student learning and achievement • Accreditation acknowledges an institution’s prerogative to articulate its mission within the recognized context of higher education and its responsibility to show that it is accomplishing its mission

9. Communication • The SACS-COC and member institutions share responsibilityfor keeping each other fully informed.

10. Communication via liaisons • SACS has assigned a staff member to serve as a liaison to each member institution. • Colleges assign a staff member to serve as a liaison to COC.

11. The liaison at SACSCOChas the responsibility to inform the College liaison & CEO of current accreditation issues and requirements, and how those requirements are applied. Also, they keep a file on Colleges, will consult with us during our review and during any substantive changes, and are available to answer questions and to receive comments/input from the Colleges.

12. College Liaison College liaison responsibilities: • Ensure that accreditation requirements are considered not only during the decennial review process, but incorporated, among other institutional goals and objectives, into the planning and evaluation process • Notify the COC in advance of substantive changes and program developments in accord with the substantive change policies of COC

13. College Liaison (cont’d) • Familiarize faculty/staff & students with the Commission’s accrediting policies and procedures, and with particular sections of the accrediting standards and COC policies that have application to certain aspects of the campus • Serve as a contact person for COC staff • Coordinate the preparation of the annual profiles and any other reports requested by COC

14. College Liaison (cont’d) • Serve as a resource person during the decennial review process and help prepare for and coordinate reaffirmation and other accrediting visits • Ensure that electronic institutional data collected by COC is accurate and timely • To be effective, the Liaison will receive a suitable degree of visibility on campus in order to enhance the participation of institution in accreditation activities. (Taken from www.sacscoc.org)

15. The Principles do CHANGE…stay informed by visiting www.sacscoc.org

16. Reaffirmation of Accreditation(decennial review)Off-Site Review &On-Site Review

17. Class of 2011Sample Timeline (estimated) • Late 2008 or early 2009 provide Leadership Team Roster to SACSCOC • January 2009 Leadership Team Orientation • Summer 2009 Summary Report for Compliance Certification Due • Staff Consultation (as needed) • March 2010 Compliance Cert. Due

18. Sample Timeline (cont’d) • May/June 2010 Off-Site Committee Review • July 2010 Discussion with COC on Off-Site Report & Report of Off-Site Findings • Sep 2010 Focused Report & QEP Due • Oct/Nov 2010 On-Site Committee Review. On-site Review Committee has dual role for QEP: compliance and consultation.

19. Sample Timeline (cont’d) • Five months after On-Site Review colleges submit Institutional Response to Recommendations and QEP Evaluation • June 2011 SACSCOC C & R Committee and Board of Trustees reviews QEP and institutional response to Review Committee’s recommendations • Dec 2011 Commission’s Announcement at Annual Meeting

20. How Do Reviewers Evaluate Compliance? • SACSCOC Manuals • Guidance from Chair • Committee discussions & consensus • SACSCOC Staff serves on Committee as resource • Individual experiences • See Mini-Handbook

21. Off-Site Committee Discussion Notes • Reviewers’ response narrative reflects consensus of the committee, not individual • Response narrative should include: • Statement about institution’s perception of compliance • committee’s professional judgment regarding institution’s compliance • what kinds/types of documentation and explanations would demonstrate compliance

22. Committee Focus: 4 Components • Establish the context for the institutions analysis in their Compliance Certification • Is it coherent; align with mission, etc.? • Present the evidence on which review committee’s analysis is based • Arrive at a judgment based on the institutions case for compliance • Form a recommendation based on consensus

23. Off-Site Committee Discussion Notes for IE • Representative sample okay for 3.3.1.1 • Look for persuasive narrative that provides rationale as to why these programs are sample • SLO’s, measure, analyze, effectiveness • Look for process and pattern of I.E. cycle • Is okay to take them at their word on some as long as their case is adequate and there are no gaps

24. Off-Site • See Compliance Certification Form • Note * items as Fifth-Year Interim Report requirements • See Sample Off-Site Review Comments • See Faculty Credential Guidelines

25. On-Site Review • Evaluate QEP is primary focus of On-Site Committee • Follow up on concerns of Off-Site • Focus report • On-site interviews and documentation review

26. QEP On-Site Review—Part I • (CR 2.12) Has the institution developed an acceptable QEP that includes: • Institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment • A focus on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning?

27. QEP On-Site Review—Part II • (3.3.2) Has the institution demonstrated that it has: • Institutional capability to initiate, implement, and complete the QEP • Evidence of broad-based involvement of constituency • Goals for the QEP • A plan for assessing the achievement of the goals?

28. Fifth-Year Interim Report • * items on Compliance Certification document viewed earlier • QEP Impact Report • See Fifth-Year Interim Evaluator Form

29. QEP Tips for Colleges • Track progress regularly • Use assessment to guide and adjust implementation • Consult w/ SACSCOC VP when needed • Creatively address challenges and keep moving forward • Embrace the opportunity • Quotes of Crystal Baird at July 17, 2011 SACSCOC Mtg

30. Questions?