Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Summary Time Line
An Overview of the Reaffirmation Process
Key SACSCOC Policies & Materials
Documents of the Reaffirmation Process
Steps in the Reaffirmation Process
QEP Stage
Review and Response Stage
Detailed Time Lime for Reaffirmation
Reaffirmation at Gordon State College: Stages and Responsibilities
Groundwork Stage
Compliance Certification Stage
2
3
14
5
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
13

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 2
With leadership by the President and administration by the Accreditation Liaison, the Fall
2014 semester will mark the beginning of a three year plan for reaffirmation of accreditation at Gordon State College.
Under the 2014 version of SACSCOC Handbook for Institutions Seeking Reaffirmation, reaffirmation proceeds in nine steps:
1.
The Orientation Meeting
2.
Advisory Visit (Optional)
3.
Compliance Certification
4.
Off-Site Review and Report
5.
Review of the Report
6.
Materials for the Committee
7.
On-Site Visit and Report
8.
Response to the Visiting Committee Report
9.
Board of Trustees Action
Beginning with presentation of the reaffirmation plan to the faculty and staff and appointment of a reaffirmation Leadership Team, the process will proceed in four overlapping stages:
In the Groundwork Stage (Fall 2014 – Fall 2015), a Compliance Certification Task
Force will ensure that the college is prepared to document compliance with all requirements using a comprehensive platform for managing accreditation functions.
In the Compliance Certification Stage (Spring 2015 – Spring 2016), a Compliance
Certification Workgroup will prepare the text and documentation for the
Compliance Certification. A draft of the Compliance Certification will be reviewed by a Mock Review Team and subsequently revised by the workgroup prior to submission to SACSCOC on March 15, 2016.
In the QEP Stage (Spring 2015 – Summer 2017), a QEP Committee will engage the campus in defining a focus for improvement and writing a Quality Enhancement
Plan to address the focus.
In the Review/Response Stage (Spring 2016 – Fall 2017), a Response Team will respond to findings of both the off-site review and the on-site review in anticipation of the Commission’s reaffirmation action in June 2017.
While top-level responsibility for the process rests with the Leadership Committee, the attached reaffirmation plan calls for six additional (but likely overlapping) committees and task forces, justified by the complexity of the process, to execute the various steps of the process. The plan which follows is meant as a “roadmap” for the process. Each of the four stages will require more detailed planning to be carried out by the relevant committees and task forces working with the Leadership Team and the Accreditation
Liaison.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation
Semester
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Summer 2015
Fall 2015
•
Completion of all gapclosing plans
Groundwork Stage Compliance Certification
Stage
•
Present plan to faculty & staff
•
Designate Leadership Team
•
Design reaffirmation website
•
Document survey
•
Designate Compliance
Certification Task Force
•
Review requirements and identify gaps
•
Develop plans for addressing
• gaps
SACSCOC Conference and Orientation (Dec. 9)
• Institutional Summary
Form Due (January)
•
Implement gap-closing plans
•
Develop website
•
Populate documents library
•
•
Designate and charge
Compliance Certification
Workgroup
Begin preparation of CC text for complex sections
•
Continue gap-closing plans
•
Continue preparation of CC text
QEP Stage
• Discuss QEP at December
Faculty Meeting
• Designate and charge QEP
Committee
•
Explore potential QEP focus
•
Finalize QEP focus
•
Develop plan for QEP preparation
•
Engage the campus in planning the QEP
•
Designate and Charge the
Mock Review Team
•
Review Team begins evaluation of CC draft
•
Complete CC draft
•
Begin revisions as Mock
Review Team produces feedback
Review and Response Stage
3

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation
Spring 2016
Summer 2016
Fall 2016
Spring 2017
Summer 2017
4
•
Complete final CC
• Submit Compliance
Certification to SACSCOC
(March 1)
• Submit Updated
Institutional Summary
Form (March 1)
• Audit for the most recently ended fiscal year (March 1)
•
Prepare QEP draft
•
Complete QEP
• Submit the names of 2
QEP Lead Evaluators to
•
Commission Staff by May
Submit QEP to SACSCOC
(6 weeks prior to on-site review July/Aug)
•
Complete review of CC draft
•
Designate and charge
Response Team
•
Designate and Charge a Site
• Off-site Review conducted
•
Visit Arrangements
Committee in Atlanta (April 19-22)
Receive verbal report from off-site review
•
Decision on Focused Report
•
If necessary begin FR
•
Plan for site visit
•
Complete FR prior to site-
• visit
On-Site Peer Review –
Review of unresolved compliance items and the
QEP (October 24-27)
•
Begin preparing response to site-visit
• Response to On-Site
Committee report
• SACSCOC action on reaffirmation –Public
Announcement (June 13-
16, 2017)

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 5
The following three sections provide SACSCOC’ “official” overview of the reaffirmation process and are taken verbatim from the referenced sources.
1
The SACSCOC website (www.sacscoc.org) is a rich repository of materials that can assist institutions as they move through the reaffirmation process. From the perspective of compliance, The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement and SACSCOC policies and procedures are binding documents for member institutions.
Guidelines, good practices, and position statements are advisory and consultative in nature. Forms provide templates for moving through the initial accreditation process.
Materials can be accessed through “Institutional Resources” and “Policies and
Publications.” The Glossary and Reference Guide in the Appendix of this handbook provides a lexicon of accreditation terminology with cross-references to sections of this handbook and to resources on the SACSCOC website.
The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement . Because it provides the Commission’s formal statement of its accreditation process and standards,
The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement is the
Commission’s primary source document for the reaffirmation review process. Multiple copies of the Principles are mailed to each member institution prior to the Orientation
Meeting for Institutional Leadership Teams; the document is also available online at www.sacscoc.org
. Participants in the review process should consult The Principles of
Accreditation throughout the reaffirmation process. Its four sections contain the (1)
Principle of Integrity, (2) Core Requirements, (3) Comprehensive Standards, and (4)
Federal Requirements with which institutions must comply in order to be reaffirmed.
Section 1, the Principle of Integrity, establishes the foundation for the relationship between the SACSCOC Commission on Colleges and its member institutions.
Integrity, essential to the purpose of higher education, functions as the basic contract defining the relationship between the Commission and each of its member and candidate institutions…The Commission’s requirements, policies, processes, procedures, and decisions are predicated on integrity…The
Commission on Colleges expects integrity to govern the operation of institutions and for institutions to make reasonable and responsible decisions consistent with the spirit of integrity in all matters.
1 http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20seeking%20reaffirmation.pdf
pages 9-11

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 6
In order to be reaffirmed, member institutions must be deemed compliant with the
Principle of Integrity. The Commission’s expectations for integrity include:

Ensuring that all documents submitted to the Commission are candid and provide all pertinent information, whether complimentary or not.

Responding in a timely manner to requests for additional information.
 Ensuring that information contained in the Application for Membership and in the
Compliance Certification is complete, accurate, and current.

Cooperating in the preparation for visits, receiving all committees in a spirit of collegiality, and maintaining an attitude of openness and cooperation during visits.

Reporting accurately to the public its status with the SACS Commission on
Colleges.
The Principles of Accreditation distinguishes the significance of the Core
Requirements from the position of the Comprehensive Standards and the Federal
Requirements in the reaffirmation process. Because Core Requirements are “basic, broadbased, foundational requirements,” documentation of compliance with Core
Requirements 1-11 is necessary for reaffirmation. Failure to document compliance with the Core Requirements will result in sanction or adverse action. (“Sanctions, Denial of
Reaffirmation, and Removal from Membership” is available under Policies at www.sacscoc.org.) The Principles of Accreditation notes, however, that compliance with the Core Requirements alone will not result in reaffirmation. Institutions must also document compliance with the standards in Sections 3 and 4, the Comprehensive
Standards and the Federal Requirements, and, as noted above, with the Principle of
Integrity in Section I.
More specific than the Core Requirements, the Comprehensive Standards “establish a level of accomplishment expected of all member institutions” in four specific areas: (1) institutional mission, governance, and effectiveness; (2) programs; (3) resources; and (4) institutional responsibility for Commission policies. Federal Requirements reflect several of the criteria outlined in the U.S. Secretary of Education’s Criteria for Recognition that are not addressed elsewhere in the standards.
Policies and Procedures.
A policy is a required course of action to be followed by the
Commission on Colleges or its member institutions. SACSCOC policies may also include procedures, which are likewise a required course of action to be followed by the
Commission on Colleges or its member institutions. The Principles of Accreditation requires that an institution comply with the policies and procedures of the Commission.
(See Comprehensive Standards 3.12 and 3.13.) Available at www.sacscoc.org,
SACSCOC policies are updated twice annually following the meetings of the SACSCOC
Board. Immediately relevant to some institutions seeking reaffirmation are two policies that address special circumstances involving two Core Requirements -- “Documenting
Core Requirement 2.3: Documenting an Alternative Approach” and “Documenting Core
Requirement 2.7.4: Documenting an Alternative Approach.” In addition, “Integrity and
Accuracy in Institutional Representation” provides helpful insight into the Commission’s
Integrity Principle, and the “Distance and Correspondence Education” policy assists

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation institutions in identifying compliance considerations embedded in these modes of delivery. Taking the time to become acquainted with SACSCOC policies early in the reaffirmation process is recommended, for doing so can help to ensure that the institution has adequate time to build a documented history of compliance with Comprehensive
Standard 3.13 (Policy compliance).
Guidelines.
Approved by the Executive Council, a guideline is an advisory statement describing recommended educational practices for documenting compliance. As such, guidelines are examples of commonly accepted practices that constitute compliance with a standard. Depending on the nature and mission of the institution, however, other approaches may be more appropriate and also provide evidence of compliance.
Guidelines are available at www.sacscoc.org
.
Good Practices.
Good practices, which are commonly-accepted practices for enhancing institutional quality, may be formulated by outside agencies and organizations.
Good practices that have been endorsed by the Executive Council or the SACSCOC
Board of Trustees are available at www.sacscoc.org
.
Position Statements.
A position statement examines an issue (such as diversity or transfer of credit) facing the Commission’s membership, describes appropriate approaches, and states the Commission’s stance on the issue. Position statements endorsed by the Executive Council or the SACSCOC Board are available at www.sacscoc.org
.
Forms.
Forms play an important role in the reaffirmation process. Some templates, such as the Compliance Certification, organize the presentation of information about an institution and its documentation of compliance with SACSCOC standards; others, such as the Report of the Reaffirmation Committee, organize the findings of the peer evaluation of the institution. Some forms, such as the Faculty Roster form, help institutions format information for presentation to the Commission. Others, such as the
Information Outline for a Committee Visit, enable institutions to format logistical information for visiting committees. SACSCOC forms are available at www.sacscoc.org
.
2
Five documents are key elements of the reaffirmation process; four (Compliance
Certification, Institutional Summary Form, Quality Enhancement Plan, and Focused
Report) are prepared specifically for the reaffirmation process, and the institutional profiles are completed on an annual basis.
1.
Compliance Certification
. The Compliance Certification is the document completed by the institution to demonstrate its compliance with Core
2 http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20seeking%20reaffirmation.pdf
pages 11-12
7

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 8
Requirements (except for 2.12), Comprehensive Standards (except for 3.3.2), and
Federal Requirements. Principle 1.1 is also an exception. Part II of this handbook addresses preparation of the Compliance Certification. The signatures of the chief executive officer and the accreditation liaison attest to the institution’s honest, forthright, and comprehensive institutional analysis and the accuracy and completeness of its findings. The completed Compliance Certification is forwarded to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee and to the institution’s
Commission staff representative. The template for the Compliance Certification is available at www.sacscoc.org under Institutional Resources.
2.
Institutional Summary Form Prepared for Commission Review.
The
Institutional Summary Form provides evaluators and Commission staff the following information: a list of educational programs and degrees offered, identification of governance control, a brief history and institutional characteristics, a list of off-campus sites and distance learning modalities, accreditation status with other agencies, and the institution’s relationship with the
U.S. Department of Education. It is provided to Commission staff at the time of the Orientation Meeting, revised for inclusion with the Compliance Certification, and updated and forwarded to the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. Available at www.sacscoc.org under “Institutional Resources,” this document is used to help plan the reaffirmation visit as well as to provide an official record of the programs, sites, and delivery modes included in the reaffirmation review.
3. Quality Enhancement Plan.
The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) describes a course of action for enhancing educational quality. Core Requirement 2.12 requires that an institution develop an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan that focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning.
Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 requires that the institution ensure that it has the capacity to implement and sustain the QEP, that a broad base of stakeholders was involved in the process, and that the QEP identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievements. Part IV of this handbook addresses the development of the
QEP, which is forwarded to the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee prior to its campus visit and to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees prior to action on the institution’s reaffirmation.
4.
Focused Report
. Although preparation of the Focused Report is optional, most institutions prepare one to provide updated or additional documentation in response to a judgment by the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee regarding requirements or standards with which the committee found the institution to be in non-compliance or which the committee did not review. The Focused Report is prepared for the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. Part IV of this handbook addresses development of the Focused Report.
5.
Institutional Profiles
. Institutional Profiles are submitted annually to the
Commission to provide updates of general institutional information, financial information, and enrollment data. This information is maintained by the

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 9
Commission and is made available to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee to use in identifying financial and enrollment trends and other indicators of institutional stability.
Phase 1: Preparation
3
1.
The Orientation Meeting.
Commission staff conduct an Orientation Meeting for the institution’s Leadership Team. This orientation explores critical issues pertaining to the completion of the Compliance Certification and the development of the Quality Enhancement Plan and provides time to discuss timelines and other reaffirmation issues with the institution’s assigned Commission staff representative.
2.
Advisory Visit.
The institution’s assigned Commission staff representative may conduct an optional advisory visit as a follow up to the Orientation Meeting. This consultation may take the form of a telephone conference call, videoconference, or in-person. The timing of this consultation is determined in conversations between the SACSCOC staff representative and the institution’s liaison. There is a fee for this service.
Phase 2: Off-Site Review
3.
Compliance Certification.
The institution prepares and submits its Compliance
Certification, relevant supporting documentation, and an updated “Institutional
Summary Form Prepared for Commission Reviews” to Commission staff and to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee.
4.
Off-Site Review and Report.
The Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee remotely reviews the institution’s Compliance Certification and then meets to finalize the report of its findings. Part III of this handbook discusses the role and responsibilities of this committee, the materials to be sent to each member, and the report that it writes.
5.
Review of the Report.
Commission staff transmit the Off-Site Reaffirmation
Committee report to the institution and invite the Leadership Team to schedule a telephone conference call or videoconference with them to discuss the findings.
Phase 3: On-Site Review
6.
Materials for the Committee.
The Commission sends the On-Site Reaffirmation
Committee a copy of the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee’s report. The institution submits its updated Institutional Summary Form Prepared for
Commission Reviews, Compliance Certification (narratives only), catalog(s),
3 http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20seeking%20reaffirmation.pdf
pages 12-14

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 10 written response to Third Party comment (if applicable), Quality Enhancement
Plan, and Focused Report (if one is prepared) to the Commission and to the On
Site Reaffirmation Committee members. Part IV of this handbook provides guidelines for developing the Focused Report and the Quality Enhancement Plan.
7.
On-Site Visit and Report.
The On-Site Reaffirmation Committee visits the institution, including a selection of off-campus sites, if applicable, to evaluate and determine the acceptability of the QEP, to review areas of non-compliance noted by the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee, to review standards and requirements related to the criteria established by the U.S. Department of Education, and to review any areas of concern that may surface during the visit. The On-Site
Reaffirmation Committee completes the Report of the Reaffirmation Committee, which is submitted to the Commission. The institution’s Commission staff representative transmits the Committee’s final report to the institution. Part V of this handbook discusses the role and responsibilities of this Committee, the materials to be sent to each member, and the report that it writes. Part V also provides information about hosting the Committee during its campus visit.
Phase 4: Board of Trustees Review
8.
Response to the Visiting Committee Report.
The institution prepares a response to the recommendations in the Report of the Reaffirmation Committee, if any, and submits it to the Commission along with a copy of the QEP. The Commission staff representative sends a copy of the response to the Chair of the On-Site
Reaffirmation Committee for evaluation. Part VI of this handbook describes the
Board of Trustee’s three-step review process, addresses preparation of the materials to be submitted for Board review, and provides guidance for responding to requests for subsequent monitoring and for preparing the Fifth-Year Interim
Report.
9.
Board of Trustees Action.
After review of the three primary reaffirmation documents -- Report of the Reaffirmation Committee, the QEP, and the institution’s response – and two analyses of the institution’s response, one by
Chair of the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee and one by the institution’s
Commission staff representative, the SACSCOC Board of Trustees takes action on the institution’s reaffirmation.
“Officially” starting the reaffirmation process at the beginning of the Fall 2014 semester gives us seventeen months to prepare the Compliance Certification and two years to complete the QEP. We can organize our work in four stages: Groundwork, Compliance
Certification, QEP, and Review/Response. Note that the four stages will have considerable overlap in their timing.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 11
The first step in laying the groundwork for reaffirmation will be the President’s appointment and charge of a
Leadership Team
, responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the reaffirmation process run smoothly with guidance and support at the highest levels of the college. Five members of the Team will attend an Orientation which will be held on the last day of the Annual Conference in Nashville.
The Leadership Team assures guidance and support at the highest level.
The Team may include the President and his Cabinet, SACSCOC Liaison and a faculty and staff representative.
While attendance at the January orientation session is limited, attendance at the
SACSCOC conference in December is open to as many individuals as we’re willing to pay for. The Leadership Team should take advantage of the 2014 (and 2015) conference, and carefully consider the composition of a team of attendees which can benefit most from the specific conference sessions.
During the Groundwork Stage, the entire faculty and staff should become familiar with the reaffirmation plan, and an on-line infrastructure, consisting of a reaffirmation website and a documents library, will be built not only to facilitate preparation of the Compliance
Certification and the QEP, but also to serve as a communications medium by which the entire college community can stay informed about the process.
A critical aspect of the Groundwork Stage will be the completion of a number of efforts, some of which are already under way, to ensure that we are fully able to demonstrate our compliance with all accrediting standards. Specifically, the Leadership Team will appoint a Compliance Certification Task Force to review all requirements and identify those areas where gaps may exist in our ability to fully document compliance.
The Compliance Certification Task Force, to begin work in Fall 2014, will review all accreditation standards, find areas with potential compliance or documentation gaps, and implement plans to close the gaps. The task force should include members thoroughly familiar with the following compliance areas:
• Curriculum
• Financial/Physical/Foundation
• Faculty
• Governance
• Library/Technology
• Mission, Planning, and Evaluation
• Policies
• Students Affairs and Services
This task force may best be chosen from academic department heads, administrative directors, and chairs of relevant committees.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 12
This Task Force will then work with faculty, staff, and existing committees (e.g.
Assessment, Planning, APC, etc.) to develop and implement plans to “close the gaps,” so that all requirements can be fully documented by December, 2015. In some cases, such as general education and program assessment, these plans are already under way, and the key challenge will be to ensure that present targets are met.
Preparation of the Compliance Certification is specifically not meant to involve the entire community. If the documentation gaps are properly closed, then preparation of the
Compliance Certification is largely an administrative chore, to be completed by a
Compliance Certification Workgroup
.
The Compliance Certification Workgroup to begin work in Spring
2015, will prepare the actual text of the Compliance Certification.
Consisting of individuals familiar with the compliance areas listed above, the workgroup will likely have considerable overlap with the
Compliance Task Force, but may include other appropriate members of the faculty and staff as well.
The workgroup will begin by familiarizing itself with all accreditation requirements and proposing a schedule for preparing text and references documenting each requirement.
The comprehensive platform for managing accreditation functions will have a compliance certification template in place for entering text and hyperlinks to the document library which the workgroup will use to actually write the compliance report.
Several of the requirements involve complex documentation, and the committee should identify those requirements and begin working on them during Spring 2015. Work will continue during the summer so that a draft of the Compliance Certification will be completed some time in the Fall 2015 semester.
Early in Fall 2015, the Leadership Team will appoint and charge a Mock Review Team, which will view the draft compliance report from the perspective of the Off-Site Review
Committee.
`
The Mock Review Team, to begin work in Fall 2015, will simulate the off-site review. The team should consist of faculty and staff who are not on the Compliance Certification Task Force or the Compliance
Workgroup. We may want to consider including outside consultants or arranging to “exchange” mock reviewers with other schools undergoing reaffirmation.
The Mock Review Team and the Compliance Workgroup will work iteratively, with the
Workgroup making revisions to the draft based on the Review Team’s comments. A final version of the Compliance Certification will be prepared early in the Spring 2016 semester for submission to SACSCOC on March 16, 2016.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 13
Unlike the Compliance Certification, the Quality Enhancement Plan is meant to involve a broad spectrum of the college community. A specific need for improvement is identified, and a plan is designed and implemented for addressing the need.
The QEP Committee, to begin work in Spring 2015, will be responsible for preparing the QEP. The QEP Committee must be available during
Summer 2016 to make final revisions to the QEP based on findings from the on-site visit.
The actual QEP for presentation to SACSCOC should be prepared during Spring and
Summer 2016 for submission on August 15. The QEP Committee must be available during Summer 2016 to incorporate any changes which derive from the off-site review committee’s findings.
The review process begins in May, 2016, with the off-site review of our Compliance
Certification.
The Response Team, to begin work in Spring 2016, will work with the
Leadership Team in preparing the Focused Report, if we decide to submit one, as well as our response to the findings of the on-site review. The Response Team will likely have a composition similar to the Compliance
Certification
Task Force, emphasizing knowledge in those areas most needing response. The Response Team must be available over Summer 2016 for preparing the Focused Report.
Within two weeks of the off-site review, the SACSCOC staff will conduct a conference call with the Leadership Team to transmit a verbal summary of the report. In collaboration with the Response Team, the Leadership Team should make a determination of whether a Focused Report, addressing compliance issues raised by the off-site review, should be prepared. Since the Focused Report must be submitted prior to the on-site review, it needs to be written over Summer 2016. Additionally, the QEP
Committee will need to review the findings of the off-site review to determine whether any last minute changes to the QEP are necessary prior to its submission on August 15.
The Site-Visit Arrangements Committee, to begin work in Spring 2016, will work with logistics of the site-visit.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 14
The on-site review occurs in September or October with the purpose of reviewing the
QEP and following up on issues generated by the off-site review. Within three to five weeks following the review, the college will receive a draft of the committee report. The
Response Team will review the document for factual correctness and report any errors to the review committee, which will make any necessary revisions. The final written report from the review committee will include recommendations regarding any standards with which the college is not in compliance and may make suggestions for improvement as well. The college must respond to all recommendations but is not required to respond to suggestions. The Response Team will prepare a response to the report prior to the
Commission’s accreditation decision on June 17, 2017.
Fall 2014 Activities
Throughout the Semester

The Accreditation liaison works with the Leadership Team and Computer
Services to design a web site which will serve as a focus for the reaffirmation effort, serving as a means of communication, a means of entering data for the
Compliance Certification, and a document library.

Institutional Research completes a survey of all presently available documents to be put in the website library.
August, 2014

Accreditation Liaison presents reaffirmation plan to faculty and staff.

President designates and charges leadership team.

Accreditation Liaison presents reaffirmation plan and compliance reporting overview to leadership team.
September, 2014

Leadership Team designates a Compliance Certification Task Force which will review all accreditation standards.

Leadership Team and Compliance Certification Task Force jointly review requirements, identifying and defining any compliance gaps.
October, 2014

Compliance Certification Task Force develops plans for closing any compliance gaps by December 2015 and assigns responsibility for implementing plans.

The Leadership Team and other selected attendees reviews the program for the
December SACSCOC conference in Nashville.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 15
November, 2014

Implementation of plans for closing gaps begins. Compliance Certification Task
Force takes responsibility for monitoring progress on plans.
December 5-9, 2014

SACSCOC Conference in Nashville.
Spring 2015 Activities
Throughout the Semester

Implementation of gap-closing plans continues as monitored by the Compliance
Certification Task Force.

Computer Services completes development of the Reaffirmation Website.

Institutional research works with Computer Services to populate the documents library with all relevant material.
March 2015

The Leadership team designates and charges the Compliance Certification
Workgroup, with responsibility for textual preparation of the Compliance
Certification. The Compliance Certification Workgroup will be trained to use
“Weave Performance Cloud” to prepare the Compliance Certification.
March-April, 2015

The Compliance Certification Workgroup sets a schedule for documentation of each requirement.

Leadership Team and Faculty Senate Planning Committee work with faculty, staff, students, and community to develop potential QEP focus.
April, 2015

Based on probable QEP Focus, the Leadership Team designates and charges a
QEP Committee with responsibility for preparing the QEP.

The Compliance Certification Workgroup begins preparation of the Compliance
Certification, initially focusing on the more complex requirements.
Summer 2015 Activities
Throughout the Semester

The Leadership Team and the QEP Committee jointly finalize the QEP focus.

The QEP Committee develops a plan, for implementation in Fall 2015, to engage the campus in preparing the QEP.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Implementation of gap-closing plans continues as monitored by the Compliance
Certification Task Force.

The Compliance Certification workgroup continues preparation of the
Compliance Certification.
Fall 2015 Activities
Throughout the Semester

The Compliance Certification Task Force completes its mission with all gapclosing plans fully implemented.

The QEP Committee seeks campus-wide involvement in planning for the QEP.
September, 2015

The Leadership Team designates and charges a Mock Review Team, with responsibility for reviewing the Compliance Certification draft and identifying deficiencies.
October, 2015

The Compliance Certification Workgroup completes a draft of the Compliance
Certification.

Mock Review Team begins evaluation of the Compliance Certification.
November, 2015

Based on feedback from the Mock Review Team, the Compliance Certification
Workgroup begins revision of the draft Compliance Certification.
Throughout the Semester
Spring 2016 Activities

The QEP Committee completes a draft of the QEP for review by the Leadership
Team and the College community.
January, 2016

The Mock Review Team completes its mission of fully reviewing the Draft
Compliance report.
January-February, 2016

The Compliance Certification Workgroup completes the final Compliance
Certification, finishing its mission.
March 15, 2016

The Leadership Team submits the Compliance Certification to SACSCOC.
16

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 17
April, 2016

The Leadership Team designates and charges a Response Team, which will have responsibility for both the Focused Report and Gordon State’s response to the site visit.

The Leadership Team designates and charges a Site Visit Arrangements
Committee which will have responsibility for the site visit logistics.
May, 2016

Off-site review.
Summer 2016 Activities
Throughout the Semester

Site Visit Arrangements committee plans for fall site visit.

Final revisions to QEP.
May-June, 2016

Submit the names and pertinent information for at least two persons for the selection of the QEP Lead Evaluator to the Commission staff representative at least three months before the on-site reaffirmation visit.

The SACSCOC VP assigned to Gordon State gives a verbal report of the Off-Site
Review Committee’s findings to the leadership team, noting preliminary findings regarding areas of non-compliance.

Based on the preliminary findings, a decision is made on producing a Focused
Report, which must be prepared prior to the site visit.
Aug 1, 2016

The college submits the QEP to the Commission.
Fall 2016 Activities
Sept-Oct, 2016

Site visit to review QEP and areas of non-compliance and other concerns noted by off-site review.
Oct-Nov, 2016

Response Team reviews the draft report from the Site Visit Review Committee and corrects factual errors.

Gordon State College Plan for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 18

Response Team begins preparation of Gordon State’s response to the Site Visit
Committee’s report.
Winter 2017 Activities
Throughout the Semester

Response Team prepares and submits Gordon State’s response to Site Visit
Committee’s report.
Summer 2017 Activities
June, 2017

Commission on Colleges reviews site visit findings and institutional response and takes action on Gordon State’s reaffirmation.