SACS Working Group Meeting
Minutes
8/31/2011
Location: EpiCenter - 1-324
Time: 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Attended: Anne Cooper, Carol Weideman, Cynthia Grey, Cynthia Jolliff-Johnson,
Darlene Westberg, Doug Duncan, Eric Tucker, Frank Appunn, Gail Lancaster, George
Greenlee, Janice Thiel, Jesse Coraggio, Joseph Leopold, Kim Molinaro, Kim Wolff,
Laurie King, Leigh Goldberg Hopf, Michael Hughes, Richard Flora, Shirley Johnson,
Stan Vittetoe, Tom Furlong, Tom Philippe, Wendy Rib, Cathy Ladewig, Jennifer
Fernandes
Topics:
I)
Members who attended the Summer SACSCOC meeting in Fort Worth, TX shared
key points that were drawn from the speakers’ presentations. See matrix of key
issues on page 3. See last pages for comprehensive notes on Assessment of Student
Learning Outcomes (page 4-6) and the Fifth Year Interim Report (page 7-10).
A)
Key factors from the sessions on Metacognition focused on teaching students
how to learn and teaching faculty how to explain effective learning strategies
to students. As part of this process, it was suggest that including Bloom’s
Taxonomy pyramid be included in all classes as a tool to achieve these goals.
By discussing and including Bloom’s Taxonomy in classes, students will
understand the level at which learning occurs is important.
B)
Each session seemed to carry common themes
1) Focus on improvement
2) Focus on being a learner-centered institution
3) Focus on assuring equivalency in learning and student support for distance
and face-to-face education
4) Align assessments with outcomes
5) In areas of substantive change, address distance education, off cite
facilities, mergers and acquisitions
6) Common errors in the Fifth-Year Interim Report which include: 1) failing
to address the changes in item 5 above, 2) not providing sufficient
evidence to support statements made in the report, 3) not assuring that
all material information align, 4) not providing supportive data
including explanations to support faculty credentials and administrators
and academic officers.
II)
A quick assessment was done from the representatives of each standard to identify
where each team is at in the review process (0-10 scale).
III)
Quick Topics
*Action Item
1 of 11
SACS Working Group Meeting
Minutes
8/31/2011
A)
Fall SACS awareness contest went well. Manuel Gerakios was the winner.
Foundation made an offer to match the $50 prize, which we have asked to
hold for another reward opportunity.
B)
A discussion was had on the inclusion of students and possible new
faculty/administrators to the working group. SGA will be approached on
inviting interested students to become part of the working group. Several
faculty members have already had contact with SGA representatives and the
response has been positive. We will also add new faculty/administrators to
the standard groups when we receive requests.
C)
SACSCOC Annual Meeting in Orlando December 4-6: Potential for sending
faculty and staff from the SACS Working Group. Please reply if
interested/available to attend.
IV)
Tightening the Timeline: We have scheduled two more meetings before the year’s
end (see below), and we will schedule meetings monthly beginning in January.
V)
In addressing our mission, a rough draft of a mission statement was presented: “To
effect change in practices resulting in educational improvement and maintaining
good standing with our accrediting bodies.” Please forward your suggestion for
changes.
VI)
It was discussed that at the end of every meeting the group would list what
identified requests for changes should be submitted to the Student Achievement
Committee as we go through the standards review process. Please review and relay
any comments/suggestions:
A)
Establish methods for maintaining lists of those assigned primary
responsibilities (e.g., curriculum developers)
B)
Revisit college goals (consider workforce)
C)
Improve efficiencies of maintaining faculty lists and documenting
qualifications/credentials
VII) Dr. Furlong met with SACS and provided the document on pages 11-12 for your
review. The correspondence focuses on how SACS is working with institutions
with baccalaureate degrees that have associate degrees as their foundation.
VIII) Next Meetings
A)
Thursday, October 6, 2:00-3:00 p.m., EpiCenter – 1-324 Please note the
earlier time to not interfere with the standing Deans/Provosts Meeting.
B)
Wednesday, November 30, 2:30-3:30 p.m., EpiCenter – 1-324
C)
Monthly, beginning January 2012
*Action Item
2 of 11
Faculty (2.8)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston
Student Support Services (2.10)
Tonjua Williams, Cynthia JolliffJohnson
Qualified Administrative/Academic
Officers (3.2.8)
Patty Jones
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Institutional Effectiveness (3.3.1.1)
Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf
X
X
X
X
X
X
Admissions Policies (3.4.3)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston
Academic Program Coordination
(3.4.11)
Anne Cooper
X
Physical Facilities (3.11.3)
Doug Duncan
Student Achievement (4.1)
Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf
X
X
X
X
Program Curriculum (4.2)
Stan Vittetoe, Anne Cooper, Kay
Burniston, Jim Olliver
X
X
Publication of Policies (4.3)
Tonjua Williams, Richard Flora
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Program Length (4.4)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston
Student Complaints (4.5)
Tonjua Williams
Accreditation
Myths
Common Areas of
Non-Compliance:
2.8
3.3.1.1
3.4.11
3.11.3
Alignment of
Assessments
and Outcomes
Faculty Ratios
Substantive
Changes
Off Site
Campuses
Distance
Education
Management of
Information
Metacognition
Blooms
Taxonomy
Student
Accountability/
Responsibility
Fifth-Year Interim Report and Key Issues
Key Take-Aways from SACS
Institute
Recruitment Materials (4.6)
Patty Jones
X
Title IV Program Responsibilities
(4.7) and Financial Aid Audits
(3.10.3) Michael Bennett, Tonjua
Williams
X
X
X
Notes from Ashley Hendrickson:
SACS Institute Topic: Alignment of Assessments and Outcomes:
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes:
It’s about evaluating the effectiveness of programs, courses, and services, NOT
individual students.
Closing the loop:
Identifying the gap between what the goal was and what actually is and outlining a plan
for closing the disconnect between the two.
Institutions tend to give copies of Allied Health program courses as their sample for
SACs reviewers. Don’t do this….they want to see other programs that aren’t necessarily
going through regular accreditation!
Course level assessment is NOT required in any SACs requirement, however, in order to
show assessments at the program level, all sections of a course have to assess
performance AND they should be consistent…otherwise, how can you say you are
assessing the program if the program is made up of courses.
Distance Ed – it’s about equivalency of learning. Were these programs/courses taught in
the same way as traditional courses?
Identify high risk courses. Those with high enrollments and low completion rates…these
are problematic.
Institutions spend too much time with trying to engage faculty that just don’t want to
participate….they should concentrate on and put more effort into those that are at the
table.
63% are found in non-compliance on 3.3.1
Course grades are not sufficient evidence of program assessment
Goals and strategies are not assessments.
No results = no use = no improvement = NON COMPLIANCE.
Advanced IE institutions…
 Recognize that surveys are indirect, subjective, incomplete assessments of
academic programs.
 Have modified more than the assessment measure or means (not just adding a
study session…data driven instruction)
 Understand what outcomes are and how they are written
 Have refined and aligned assessments with outcomes
*Action Item
4 of 11








Exhibit multiple years of data to illustrate improvement
Benchmark against other institutions (not required…but, this is a good practice
Have established standards for success in meeting their outcomes/goals
Exhibit polished documentation (e.g. comparing to prior years’ results)
Offer cogent analysis
Use an assortment of well-matched assessment types
o Academic units: major field tests, cert exams, exit interviews, surveys,
folios, etc
o Admin units: internal logs, financial records, financial audit…
Can differentiate between strategic planning and IE
o Planning is long term future, targeted goals. It moves beyond the status
quo
o Operational, covers the bases, maintains the core operations, and sees that
you accomplish your reason for existence. Unless the scope of the acad
prog or dept changes, these outcomes don’t change much from year to
year. Strategies for accomplishing these outcomes or goals……
It is NOT necessary to assess every outcome every year, as long as each one is
assessed.
IE Reviewers need to see….
 Policy
 Practice – how you do things
 Product – evidence, documentation, proof. Narratives for 2.5 and 3.3.1 could be
as short as a page…it’s the evidence
 Numbers, percentages, comparative and longitudinal data….research-based. 2.5
 There is no magic number of cycles to go through. Minimum of two years is
recommended. If providing a representative sample, better be GOOD. This
system should be systematic and ongoing.
 Leaders analyze, share, discuss, and act upon the results. Analysis…Integrated
into budget. 3.3.1. Could be in a budget cycle, part of cabinet meeting, showing
that when it comes time to make budget decisions that IE is considered
 Highlighted sections pointing to the proof. Evidence of improvement…3.3.1
For reports that may have a lot of information college wide, exec sum is good.
Where does the IE reviewer begin?
 Org charts (functional…with detail and higher-level with departments), policy
books, catalogs, websites
Problems with organization of evidence:
 No overview of which units submit IE and when
 Multiple formats for documentation
*Action Item
5 of 11

Confusion about programs offered in traditional vs non-traditional formats, main
campus vs sites, etc.
Saying outright that you don’t have something for a year here or there for different
departments, but have sufficient evidence over the course of the review period, that
adds credibility to the institution rather than trying to make it look like we did
everything perfect.
Organize narrative by key terms. Instead of “2.5”….
 Onging
 Integrated
 Institution-wide
 Research-based
 Systematic
 Accomplishing mission
Many institutions struggle with their response to CS 3.3.1: Institutional Effectiveness. In
fact, CS 3.3.1 continues to be among those Standards with the highest percentage of
negative findings. It states:





The institution identifies 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
3.3.1.1 NonCompliance
Review Point
SACS Institution Level I and II
SACS Institution Levels III - VI
% NonIssue rank
% Noncompliant
compliant
Off Site Review 79%
#3 issue
89%
On Site Review
43%
#3 issue
59%
C&R Review
21%
#1 issue
34%
If 50% or more of a program is online, they must be assessed separately.
Issue rank
#1 issue
#1 issue
#1 issue
Grades are like when you get your temperature taken at the doctor’s office…it doesn’t
tell you anything but “direction”. Without more tests you won’t know WHY you are sick
and you won’t know how or what to fix or change.
*Action Item
6 of 11
Notes from Cynthia Grey:
Fifth Year Interim Report
Common issues
2.8 Number of Full-time faculty
- providing data without presenting a case for why the number is adequate. They
are not telling colleges what the ratio should be….but are expecting the colleges to
support why the ratio is adequate. If you should find that during analysis your ratio is not
adequate, explain the plan for meeting compliance.
- Not addressing faculty loads. -Provide information about faculty loads and
expectations for faculty outside of the classroom like required committee work, service,
advising, and curriculum development.
- Not providing disaggregated data down to the program or discipline level.
Include information in faculty teaching in all program, include those teaching via
distance and at off campus sites.
2.10 Student Support Programs
- Alignment with media and reality i.e. website and/or catalog details identify
student services that are not mentioned in the report. Student support program
descriptions are inadequately explained. Explain how the services meet the needs of the
students. Be sure to address support provided for distance and off-campus learners.
3.2.8 Qualified Administrators and Academic Officers
- Providing lists or vitae without explanations. Provide a description of
qualification for administrators and academic officers; build a case for why they are
qualified to fulfill their roles.
- Not providing an organizational chart to help evaluators understand who
oversees what.
- Providing degree level information without listing a major.
- Consider using the SACCOC faculty roster form
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/FACULTY%20ROSTER%20INSTRUCTIONS.pdf
3.3.1.1 Institutional Effectiveness: Educational Programs
- Lack of defined learner outcomes and methods of assessing the outcomes.
- Use mature data. Emphasis on demonstrating ongoing compliance
- If using representative sampling, be sure the sample is indeed representative. Be
sure to include a rationale for what makes the sample representative of the programs
offered.
- Again, be sure to include programs offered off campus and distance
3.4.3 Admissions Policies
- Provide a clear and consistent narrative of these policies
- Address special admissions policies for specific programs
3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators
- Identify coordinators for all programs, including off-campus and distance
- List coordinator’s degree and major
- Make a case for the coordinator’s qualifications to oversee the development of
the program.
- Again, recommendation to use Faculty Roster form.
*Action Item
7 of 11
3.11.3 Physical Facilities
- Include supporting documentation i.e. current facilities master plan, space
utilization reports, and facilities maintenance schedules.
- Again, address off campus sites.
FR4.1 Student Achievement
- Avoid using select program graduation rates alone to evaluate overall student
achievement. Include a variety of measures, general and program-specific graduation
rates, job placement rates, course completion rates, licensure exam pass rates.
FR4.2 Program Curriculum
- Provide a rationale for the programs offered, including supporting
documentation. Be sure to include a discussion of distance education and offcampus sites.
- Explain how the mission and curriculum are related
- Document how the curriculum is developed
FR4.3 Publication of Policies
- Be sure that all versions of published versions are current and
accurate…calendar, grading and refund policies.
- Include information on how the information is disseminated to distance
learners and off-campus sites.
FR4.4 Program Length
- Identify measures of program length for all programs including off campus
and distance learners; Explain why the measures are appropriate for all
programs including compressed/accelerated programs; be sure program
lengths are within the appropriate ranges; verify that the program lengths
published are accurate.
FR4.5 Student Complaints
- Provide a copy of student compliance issues, examples of real student
(Emphasis on student) complaints with the names redacted; be sure to include
distance education programs and off-campus locations.
FR4.6 Recruitment Materials
- Address how the institution ensures that recruitment materials and
presentation are accurate representations of institutional practices and policies.
FR4.7 Title IV Program Responsibilities and CS 3.10.2 Financial Audits
- Work with auditors well in advance of your report to ensure that the audit
reports are available by the due date. Include evidence of financial aid audits
as required by the state, not just the federal governments.
*Action Item
8 of 11
Accreditation Myths
This was a round table discussion forum
-
Shared that SACS’ focus is on continuous improvement…How can we
improve teaching to improve learning
SACS is the path to doing better.
The goal of SACS is to help every institution create a culture of continuous
quality improvement
*Action Item
9 of 11
*Action Item
10 of 11
*Action Item
11 of 11