What’s New in SACS
Reaffirmation
Ephraim Schechter
September 23, 2004
Western Carolina University
SACS/COC
New Process, New Criteria
• Piloted 2002, implemented 2004
• Less prescriptive, more flexible
• Compliance and
Quality Enhancement Plan
Compliance
• Still emphasizes outcomes
assessment
• Less prescriptive / more flexible than
previous Criteria
– Flexible  ambiguous
• Includes “acceptable QEP”
• May submit electronically
• Off-site review to flag compliance
problems
• On-site review of remaining issues
Compliance
• Still emphasizes outcomes
assessment
– of student learning
– of administrative and service activities
• Less prescriptive / more flexible than
previous Criteria
– From 460 Criteria/”Must” statements to
73 Requirements & Standards
• Eliminated redundancy
• Generalized, reduced detail and “must”
Compliance
• Flexible  ambiguous
E.g.: Institutional Effectiveness
– Previous
• 3 pages, 12 “must” statements
(Criteria 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)
– Current
• 2 paragraphs
(Core Requirement 2.5,
Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1)
Compliance
• Includes “acceptable QEP”
– Core Requirement 2.12: The institution
has developed an acceptable Quality
Enhancement Plan and demonstrates
that the plan is part of an ongoing
planning and evaluation process.
• May submit electronically
– Electronic or hardcopy
– Internet &/or self-contained CD
Compliance
• Off-site review to flag compliance
problems
– Off-site team reviews multiple
institutions
• On-site review of remaining issues
Quality Enhancement
Plan
• The QEP
– is for institutional improvement
– must address student learning
– in one or more “critical issue” topics
chosen by the institution
• On-site review
• 5th-year follow-up
Quality Enhancement
Plan
• SACS wants
– A forward-looking action plan on
issue(s) related to enhancing student
learning
– Related to but not replacing planning &
evaluation processes
– Clear assessment of impact and
progress
– For the good of the institution, not
“just for SACS”
– Broad involvement, institutional
commitment
(from SACS/COC Handbook for Reaffirmation of
Accreditation pp. 21-27)
Quality Enhancement
Plan
• The QEP should demonstrate:
– Focus: clear conception, importance for
improving quality of student learning
– Institutional capability: evidence of
resources/commitment to implement,
sustain, and complete the plan
– Assessment: process to evaluate the
plan & achievement of goals/outcomes,
especially re student learning
– Broad-based development involving all
aspects of campus community
(from SACS/COC Handbook for Reaffirmation of
Accreditation On-site Review Guidelines pp. 27-28)
Quality Enhancement
Plan
• On-site review
– Team with expertise in QEP area(s)
(and remaining compliance areas)
• For your institution, your QEP
• You recommend 1-2 members
• 5th-year Impact Report to SACS
– Effects on student learning outcomes?
– Changes? Why?
– Unanticipated outcomes?
Quality Enhancement
Plan
• Developing a QEP
– Approaches vary – examples at this
workshop include
• LSU: from ongoing strategic planning
process
• NC State: small planning group develops
potential topics; key campus groups winnow;
executive officers select; campus committees
& forums sharpen
• Austin Peay: campus input from leadership
retreat, faculty senate meeting(s), fall
convocation, etc.
Reaffirmation Timeline
• SACS/COC Timeline
(in your handout packet)
Resources
• Principles of Accreditation: Foundation for
Quality Enhancement (SACS, 2004)
http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp
• Handbook for Reaffirmation of
Accreditation (SACS/COC, 2003)
• Handbook for Review Committees
(SACS/COC, 2003)
• SACS/COC Policies
http://www.sacscoc.org/commpub1.asp
Ephraim I. Schechter, Ph.D.
University Planning & Analysis
North Carolina State University
919 / 515-2776
eischech@unity.ncsu.edu