Richland College and SACS COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation

1. Richland College and SACS COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation Mary Frances GibbonsCarole Johnson

2. Topics for DiscussionSACS COC at Richland College • RLC and SACS COC history • SACS COC Requirements • First QEP • Current QEP • SACS COC and RLC’s Future QEP • Q & A

3. RLC and SACS COC History • What is SACS COC? • Original SACS approach • What is a QEP? • SACS formative pilot 2000-2002 • Determining the new process 2002-2003 • Implementing the new process 2003-2004 • 5th Year Report • Next reaffirmation—2013

4. SACS COC: Two Parts

5. Two parts:

6. Core requirements • Basic, broad based, foundational requirements that an institution must meet to be accredited with the COC. • They establish a threshold of development required of an institution seeking … continued accreditation by the Commission and reflect the Commission’s basic expectations of candidate and member institutions.

7. Core Requirements Examples: CR 2.1 Degree-granting Authority The institution has degree-granting authority from the appropriate government agency or agencies. CR 2.5 Institutional Effectiveness The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution- wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systemic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

8. Comprehensive Standards The Comprehensive Standards (CS) are more specific to the operations of the institution, represent good practices in higher education, and establish a level of accomplishment expected of all member institutions. If an institution is judged to be significantly out of compliance with one or more of the CS, its reaffirmation of accreditation may be denied.

9. Comprehensive standards • 3.3.1 • The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas: • 3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes • 3.3.1.2 administrative support services • 3.3.1.3 educational support services • 3.3.1.4 research within its educational mission, if appropriate • 3.3.1.5 community/public service within its educational mission, if appropriate.

10. Comprehensive Standards 3.7.1 The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty.

11. Federal Requirements 4.5 The institution has adequate procedures for addressing written student complaints and is responsible for demonstrating that it follows those procedures when resolving student complaints. *Always reviewed on campus when any SACS COC team visits

13. Benefits First QEP • Established our infrastructure • Created a process • Focused on student in-course retention • Expanded to student retention and customer service • Established process for institutional assessments

14. Current QEP • Assessment of student-learning outcomes by faculty and staff • Every RLC employee is an educator! • Emphasis on student learning across the campus, focusing on RLC’s Institutional/General Education Student-Learning Outcomes • Goal—to improve, not prove • Important—use of results to improve student success

16. Future QEP • New topic will be determined • Broad-based input • Assessment—staple of SACS COC requirements

17. Compliance Certification Report • Due March 2012 • Off-site review by peers • Notification of concerns, problems • Institutions submits Focused Reports • Response reviewed by on-site team • (along with QEP)

18. QEP • An ongoing plan that focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution

19. QEP Core Requirement 2.12 The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that: includes a broad-based institutional process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP includes broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.

20. QEP • Due Summer 2012 • Reviewed by the on-site team (Fall 2012) • On-going results documented in 5th year report (2017)

21. Points to Remember • RLC’s first QEP is over. • RLC’s second QEP will be determined in the next two years. • Assessment of student-learning outcomes and services will always be a part of how RLC serves students. It never goes away.