Lessons from the field…Preparing for the Decennial

SACS Reaffirmation

Dr. Jeff Metcalf

Kentucky Christian University

What is a “Decennial Reaffirmation”?

• All of our schools are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)

• Our accreditation is “reaffirmed” every 10 years

• Process is substantially different than just a few years ago.

• Off-site review of Compliance Certificate and on-site review of Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

Top 10 mistakesMistake 1

• Failure to communicate to campus constituents the value and importance of the process.

Why should we invest this time and effort?

• To enhance the quality of educational programs at our institution.

• To ensure our focus on student learning.• To ensure a “culture of integrity” and

transparency in all of our academic and support operations.

• To engage in the peer review process that is foundational to scholarship (i.e., familiar).

Mistake 2

• Failure to adequately inform the campus community of the timeline. (handout)

Mistake 2 - Timeline milestones (KCU Example)

• Compliance Certificate Due – September 10, 2009

• Off-site peer review of CC – November 2-5, 2009

• QEP Due – February 10, 2010

• On-site visit - March 30-April 1, 2010

Mistake 3

• Failure to understand the audience for your report.

Mistake 3 - Peer Evaluators and the Compliance Certificate

– Peer evaluators are astute, high-caliber academic professionals trained to be constructively critical.

– It is our place to demonstrate compliance, not theirs to discover (more in a bit).

– We often assume we will receive the benefit of the doubt. We will not.

Mistake 4

• Failure to adequately address ALL PARTS of every CR or CS

Mistake 4 - The Compliance Certificate – Addressing all parts of

the standard

– Example: CS 3.9.1 – The institution publishes a clear and appropriate statement of student rights and responsibilities and disseminates the statement to the campus community.

• 3 elements to response1. Do we publish?

2. Is it clear and appropriate?

3. Is it adequately disseminated to campus community?

Mistake 5

• Failure to distinguish between asserting and documenting.

– Example: (2.7.1) All undergraduate programs at Big Orange University require a minimum of 120 semester credit hours.

– Better: As detailed in Appendix C (Degree Program Requirements), all 78 bachelors degree programs at BOU require a minimum of 120 semester credit hours. The range of credit hours required for bachelors degrees is 120 – 143…

Mistake 6

• Failure to understand and appreciate the Paradox of Assessment.

– Good assessment work leads to discovery of weakness. Encourage this!

• Ex: Preamble to program reviews at KCU; inclusion of changes/improvements made as a result of assessment work in faculty promotion criteria.

– Applies not only to IE process, but to assessment of compliance with Principles.

Mistake 6Paradox of Assessment

• We all want to appear in a good light, and present our institutions positively.

• We can all design assessments that tell us what we want to hear.

• As a leader, do you want “yes persons” around you, or do you want the unfiltered truth so you can address areas of weakness?

Mistake 7

• Failure to adequately document faculty credentials.

Mistake 7

• Language sounds more relaxed in new Principles, but this may be deceiving.

• Can document justification but committees tend to resort to “old” thinking of masters and 18 credit hours in field taught.

• Our colleges tend to not have a lot of specialized Ph.D.s so we must be very careful to document justifications for faculty teaching in related disciplines.

– Ex.: D.B.A. teaching accounting classes.• 15 graduate hours in Accounting• CPA• Published journal articles on accountancy• 7 years as senior level accountant at Eastman Kodak

Mistake 7

• SACS Faculty Roster (handout)

The QEP

• Quality Enhancement Plan– Through this process we chart a course of

action that improves our educational quality in a manner that is directly related to student learning.

– The QEP is forward-looking. The process is intended to launch the institution into a meaningful and purposive engagement in improving student learning.

– Not tabula rasa, but an opportunity to re-think our strategy

Assessment of the QEP

• Four major areas are assessed: 1. Focus. The institution identified one or more

critical issues related to student learning and justifies its use for the QEP.

2. Institutional Capability and the Initiation/Continuation of the plan. The institution provides evidence that it has sufficient resources to implement, sustain, and complete the QEP.

Assessment of the QEP (cont.)

3. Assessment of the plan. The institution demonstrates that it has means for determining the degree of success of the QEP.

– Identifies and uses relevant internal and external measures to evaluate the plan.

– Identifies an internal system for evaluating and monitoring the progress of the plan.

Assessment of the QEP (cont.)

– Describes the process used to incorporate evaluation findings into the ongoing enhancement of the institution.

4. Broad involvement

Mistake 8Linking the QEP to Student Learning

• Failure to adequately connect the QEP to student learning.

– Ex: New administrative software system for a university. Tough to connect to learning.

• Must be student-centered in your thinking.– At KCU, after agreeing corporately that we

would address the first year experience, I instructed the QEP committee to begin their work by answering this question: by the end of their first year, KCU students will …

Mistake 8Linking the QEP to Student Learning

• Classic example = Retention– We all want to improve retention– Maybe a good secondary measure– “Real” issue is improving ability to succeed (i.e.,

learning skills, knowledge and values) and retention is a by-product

• Keep an eye on IE plans and look for areas of weakness that are related to student outcomes. You are far ahead if you can demonstrate that your QEP emerged from your IE process.

Mistake 9

• Failure to adequately articulate student-focused goals and the process by which they will be assessed.– Goals are often too process-related

• Ex. A writing center will be developed and staffed by two remedial education experts

– A fine plan, but it does not address the efficacy of they Writing Center

Mistake 9Assessment of the QEP - Exercise

– If my QEP is related to the first-year experience (writing skills has been identified as a weakness), and one of my proposals is to develop a WAC process, what might be some student-focused goal statements?

• Students’ collective writing scores on a nationally normed test will raise by 10 percentile points.

• Students will demonstrate proficiency in multiple writing styles (i.e., research, business communication, self-reflection, creative, etc.) before gaining entrance to a degree-granting division.

• Upper division professors will report incresed writing proficiency among students.

•

Mistake 10Financing and sustaining the QEP

– Fatal mistake is failure to demonstrate sufficient funding to ensure the implementation and continuation of the QEP

• ex.: Addition of ¼- time QEP Director covered by grant monies.

A few notes about the On-Site visit

• The on-site visit generally lasts parts of three days (about one day shorter than the previous process).

• Team members schedule far fewer interviews with campus personnel and the scope of interviews is much more focused.

• Most compliance issues have been resolved by the off-site team while the on-site team’s work centers on the QEP.– Institution’s Focused Report (response to

recommendations made by the off-site committee) will be evaluated by the team.

A few notes about the On-Site visit• Teams are comprised of good folks who donate

their time to further the collective goal of improving the quality of higher education.

• Usually on campus parts of 3 days.• The team will consist of a minimum of seven

reviewers (chair, faculty, educational programs, student services, institutional effectiveness, and two QEP evaluators).

• Team members generally reflect the mission, nature and character of the institution being reviewed.

Parting thoughts

• Get key individuals on campus (i.e., President, QEP Director, Compliance Certificate Director, etc.) on SACS teams, even as observers.

• Have your SACS staff person on campus for an advisory visit.

• Take advantage of the consultative nature of the visit (especially your QEP evaluators).

• Have your deans or chairs start recording credentialing information for all teaching assignments immediately.