2011 SACS Annual Meeting Attendees
Key Issues Relating to the Fifth-Year Interim Report
Key points from “Compliance
Certification” and “Fifth Year
Interim Report” sessions (see
presentation handout)

Updated 2012 Principles of Accreditation now available:
www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp

Explore the SACSCOC website for updated policies. The updates should be on
the website by 2/12.

**Report substantive changes.

**Institutions are required to have a substantive change policy and procedures
document. Substantive Change—our SACS rep noted we will need to show that
the Board has a process on substantive change requests for SACS, to show that a
single campus cannot add a site or program without consideration by the
president and Board and then a message to SACS—the policy on this was what
they were saying is needed

**Provide evidence to support your narrative. Consider: Will the evaluators
understand your proof by what you are providing.

Assure that the institution is in line with college mission

Do not send data not required or answer questions not asked—if they raise
questions they can lead to referrals as not compliant when a college is actually
sending in more than is necessary at the 5 year point when not all standards are
being looked at
Common Pitfalls
General Recommended
Actions

Narrative with no evidence.

Incomplete responses…connect the dots – failure to make the institution’s
case.

Policy expectations – be sure to provide policy and experiential evidence, i.e.
how have you used the policy. If you have not had to invoke a policy, be sure
to state that in the report.

In a nut shell – show the policy and provide artifacts that show that you apply
that policy.


Need to review/revise College Mission Statement
Need to review College Goals (current working under 2009-12 goals). We need
to create goals in 2012-13 for the 2013-15 goals (need to add additional
student focus and include workforce)
Need to create College Vision statement and College Values
Based on the SACS discussion, we need to ensure consistency across modalities
in terms of policy (e.g., student services, etc.), and assessment/evaluation
Need a faculty credentialing tool (web-based) and defined process
Need a comprehensive planning process that includes measurable goals and
assessment measures as well as ‘unit’ level planning




Need to prioritize goals:
Now -
6 months Longer term -
Standard
Issues/Concerns/Observation
Recommended Actions
Faculty (2.8)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston,
Frank Appunn, Shirley Johnson,
Cynthia Grey, Tom Philippe
Revised – The number of full-time
faculty members is adequate to
support the mission of the institution
and to ensure the quality and integrity
of each of its academic programs.
Analyze ratios for current
faculty/programs. Develop rationale.
Comment: The proposed change makes
it clear that there is an expectation to
disaggregate the information by
academic program and modality rather
than providing summative information.
The revised Resource Manual will ask
institutions to define academic
programs and to take into
consideration off-campus sites/branch
campuses when documenting
compliance with this standard.
One of the most frequently cited.
What is expected of faculty?
Student survey results/access to faculty
One of the key points in this area is the
need for a rationale. Low full-time
faculty counts by program or modality
is not necessarily an issue if there is a
well define rationale for why that is so
along with a discussion of how things
like faculty professional development
and support are maintained.
***One outstanding concern is the
need for a faculty credentialing tool
(web-based) and defined process
Key points from CS-48 Faculty
qualifications.
Faculty is comprised of individuals
whose objective is to accomplish the
mission and goals of SPC.
In credentialing faculty, all faculty, full
and part time from all
locations/programs, are to be included.
Included in this section it would be
appropriate to include SPC’s mission
statement, documentation pertaining
to hiring/employment practices/BOT
approval of qualifications, policy and
procedures for credentialing and
exceptions, policy and procedures for
faculty evaluations (remove the
variation among faculty evaluatorshave observable standards that allow
for differences in teaching styleincrease sensitivity to different
teaching modalities while maintaining
academic standards) , make sure all
documents are user friendly and that
any hyperlinks work.
The speaker emphasized the
importance of the following points:

It is up to the institution to
make its case for credentialing
(I read this as we have flex if
we document properly). In
2002 the guidelines were
changed to allow for flexibility
- to accept alternative criteria
for credentialing.

It is the institution’s
responsibility to make the case
for faculty qualifications.

Be sure that the you take a
critical look at the information
so that the reviewer is able to
understand what is
presented…i.e. no codes
Identified as lessons learned by the
presenter for this segment:
1. Start early
2. Input multiple sources for
artifacts
3. The use of administrative
assistants from all departments
were very instrumental in
compiling artifacts.
4. Although transcripts are not
required, including transcripts
in the institution’s process
would be helpful in supporting
alternative qualifications.
5. Institutionalize the process.
**Key take away from the conference
regarding credentialing – purchase
existing software to house/manage
SPC’s credentialing. Example: Xitracs,
Campuslabs through Campus Assist,
and TaskStream
Move to electronic portfolios. Stronger
commitment to qualifying faculty by
experience rather than strictly
academics. Tracking of faculty
achievements and classroom activities.
Awareness of classroom activities in
ways different than student
evaluations. Who sets standards for
determining faculty performance?
Wide range of variation in assessment
among supervising personnel can raise
flags.

Number of full time faculty not
provided at the disaggregate level
by program.

Distance Ed and off campus sites
not addressed for comparability.

Provide faculty expectations
outside of the classroom – i.e.
advising, committees

Enough full time faculty to keep a
healthy program
AA degree and majors or programs—
we will need to be clear that our AA
sub-units have individually met faculty
credential requirements and faculty full
time percentage goals..will no longer
take overall faculty percentages..so,in
AS this is easy as each area like dental
hyg need percentages;for the AA,if we
had majors it would be each major like
History..we do not have majors like this
now so we will need to be careful as we
evolve and any sub-units will need to
track faculty credentials etc;
Faculty Credentials—SACS staff
reiterated that all faculty credential
data should be submitted digitally—the
committee will want to look at this and
if it is not available then they will refer
it for an onsite committee to look at it
hands on—we need to show how we
collect data to assure each full and part
time faculty member meets the
credential requirements even if we do
sampling with the various teams
Student Support Services
(2.10)
Tonjua Williams, Cynthia JolliffJohnson
Revised – The institution provides
student support programs, services,
and activities consistent with its
mission that are intended to promote
student learning and enhance the
development of its students.
Comment: This proposed change
clarifies that there is no expectation to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
student services area as part of this
requirement. That evaluation is part of
CS 3.3.1. The expectation is to ensure
that the student support services,
programs, and activities are in line with
the mission of the institution.
Qualified
Administrative/Academic
Officers (3.2.8)
Patty Jones, Cynthia Grey
Add mission – why appropriate to
mission
Address distance education
Online services—we will need to show
student services are equal for face to
face and online students—said it would
be easy in some areas but in some like
financial aid planning and support it is
difficult to be equal at a distance—we
need to show how we overcome this
Revised – The institution has qualified
administrative and academic officers
with the experience and competence
to lead the institution.
Comment: The use of the word
“qualified” seemed to be redundant
with the other descriptors in the
standard; however, the Committee
retained “experience and competence”
and eliminated “capacity” since it is
Build and online interactive organization
chart, where when clicking on title/name,
anchor-linked to table with name, job title,
job description, credentials: vita/resume,
degree and major, other qualifications,
etc.
more difficult to evaluate.
Major decision-makers – how far down
the hierarchy?
Again the idea of a strong rationale is
important…why are they considered
qualified?…especially when it may not
be directly apparent based solely on
their degree qualifications
Sufficient numbers of deans, etc. for
programs, rationalize.

Do not just provide a listing,
include of narrative

Include an organizational chart
with narrative

Include VITA and job descriptions
Look to Sacs website for templates for
faculty and administration credentials.
A recurring theme that kept coming up
was administration evaluation
process—the key was having one and
having it well documented—the
question was not whether the
evaluations were good or bad but that
the process was in place (includes the
president)
Credentials for academic
administrators like Deans..they would
prefer each major have someone like a
Dean..but we can cluster some
together as we did with
Orthotics/Dental Hyg/and HAS but then
the lead dean needs to show he/she
has worked closely with each area
under them and each area needs a
program chair or lead faculty
member..the approach used needs
narrative to show it has overcome the
lack of a dean in each area where there
is an academic specialty like
Orthotics—I think our Dean approach
will be ok as long as we are consistent
and really spell out how we are doing
this in each case..the 5 year team is off
campus and if there is any non-clarity
they will refer such cases to the C and R
Committee
Institutional Effectiveness
(3.3.1.1)
Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf,
Wendy Rib, Carol Weideman
Revised – 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 academic and student support
services
3.3.1.4 research within its mission, if
appropriate
3.3.1.5 community/public service
within its mission, if appropriate
Comment: CS 3.3.1 generated the most
suggested changes from responders. (1)
The proposed changes are meant to
address the definition of “educational
support services” by clarifying them to
mean “academic and student” support
services. (2) There was some confusion
about the use of the word
“educational” as descriptors in 3.3.1.4 –
3.3.1.5, so
the Board of Trustees eliminated it to
ensure that the standard meant that an
institution was to evaluate its outcomes
based upon how it defined its mission.
(3) There were a few comments about
eliminating CS 3.5.1 (College-level
competencies) and incorporating the
standard into CS 3.3.1.1 above, but the
Board of Trustees felt that doing so
would de-emphasize the importance of
general education competencies. The
Board also suggested that the Resource
Manual address the population referred
to in 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5.
One of the most frequently cited.
Evidence of improvement
Provide a story of how data are used to
make changes and bring about
improvements
Explain how samples are determined
Samples should be representative (e.g.,
14 of 65 programs)
Current only responsible for 3.3.1.1.,
however, this could change by the time
we are up for the fifth year interim
report. We are not as strong in
assessment of areas outside of
academics
***Another outstanding concern is the
need for a comprehensive planning
process that includes measurable
goals and assessment measures as
well as ‘unit’ level planning
We need to have a good process and
need to show it is used in doing budget
development and understood by all the
various units on campus who propose
budget needs. This is beyond the
section on Institutional Effectiveness
 Lack of defined outcomes
Admissions Policies (3.4.3)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston,
Suzanne Preston
Academic Program
Coordination (3.4.11)
Anne Cooper, Kim Molinaro,
Laurie King
Physical Facilities (3.11.3)
Doug Duncan, Jim Wallis
Student Achievement (4.1)
Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf, Gail
Lancaster, Carol Weideman

Lack of documentation

Define learning objectives and
outcomes

Include how you are evaluating
the objectives/outcomes

Include how you are planning on
using that data to make
improvements.

Do not use a non-representative
sample (on-sight team could ass
for all data)

Distance Ed and off campus sites
not addressed for comparability.
Transparent, comprehensive,
consistent, and clear
Conduct an internal audit of this area.
One of the most frequently cited.
Reference faculty handbook
Explain how they are evaluated
Can be a group, rather than an
individual
One of the most frequently cited.
Describe staff
Provide survey results
Provide documentation
Provide a table with program name,
name(s) of responsible individual(s), job
title, job description, credentials:
vita/resume, degree and major, other
qualifications, etc.
Stronger faculty interaction with facilities
to provide input. Not just faculty to
physical facilities, but also input on the
capabilities of facilities in relation to the
educational goals.
Revised – The institution evaluates
success with respect to student
achievement consistent with its
mission. Criteria may include:
enrollment data; retention, graduation,
course completion, and job placement
rates; state licensing examinations;
student portfolios; or other means of
demonstrating achievement of goals.
Comment: The proposed changes more
closely reflect the revised 2009 Federal
requirements regarding the types of
criteria that might be used and it also
ties the standard to the institution’s
mission. The Resource Manual will
address the Commission’s obligation
that visiting committees review the
criteria used to evaluate student
achievement.
For all federal requirements: Explain
our process for meeting their
requirements, not just at SACS
reporting time, but to assure we’re
always in compliance
We have a number of defined
processes in this area. We need to
define how we use this information
more comprehensively as an institution
as opposed to just program-level
reports and action items. Also need to
continue integrating the four-year
programs into the assessment and
program review processes.
 Be sure to make your case
Program Curriculum (4.2)
Stan Vittetoe, Anne Cooper,
Kay Burniston, Jim Olliver,
Darlene Westberg

Include variety of measures

Distance Ed and off campus sites
not addressed for comparability.

Include job placement rates
Revised – The institution’s curriculum is
directly related and appropriate to the
mission and goals of the
institution and the diplomas, certificates,
or degrees awarded.
Comment: This proposed change is
editorial and provides consistency in the
use of the term “mission” in lieu of
“purpose” throughout the Principles.
Aligned to mission
Evaluate gen ed courses to assure they
are, in deed, general and not programspecific
***Yet another outstanding concern is
the need to eliminate program specific
Gen Ed requirements. It was stated at
the conference that Gen Ed
requirements cannot be program
specific (see Ethics for Dental Hygiene)
 Who made these decision

Was the decision in-line with the
college mission?
Examples were used of special
programs like our plan to have a Global
Certificate to show our students are
graduating with global awareness..the
key here is to well define the intent,the
criteria and have numeric data on the
numbers getting the certificate etc
Again, the goal is for the offsite group
to have enough data and narrative to
not send it to the C and R committee
which gets the process back into areas
which can lead to sanctions..Some will
be sent but the fewer the better..
Publication of Policies (4.3)
Tonjua Williams, Richard Flora,
Jennifer Fernandes
Don’t say, “see catalog” either link or
provide excerpt
Transparent, comprehensive,
consistent, and clear
 Avoid inconsistencies within all
documentation.

Program Length (4.4)
Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston,
Wendy Rib
Student Complaints (4.5)
Tonjua Williams, George
Greenlee, Michael Hughes
Be sure catalogue is in a user
friendly format
Transparent, comprehensive,
consistent, and clear
Transparent, comprehensive,
consistent, and clear
Show a case and how it was resolved,
beginning to conclusion, process and
documentation
 No evidence of implementation

Inappropriate examples

Include evidence of a log of
student complaints

Distance Ed and off campus sites
not addressed for comparability.
Recruitment Materials (4.6)
Patty Jones, Cynthia Grey
Title IV Program
Responsibilities (4.7) and
Financial Aid Audits (3.10.3)
Michael Bennett, Tonjua
Williams, Eric Tucker
Transparent, comprehensive,
consistent, and clear
Revised: The institution is in
compliance with its program
responsibilities under Title IV of the
most recent Higher Education Act as
amended. (In reviewing the
institution’s compliance with these
program responsibilities, the
Commission relies on documentation
forwarded to it by the U.S. Secretary of
Education.)
Comment: Elimination of reference to
the 1998 Higher Education Act and the
insertion to “Act as amended” prevents
the standard from being dated.
One of the most frequently cited. Most
citations were the results of the timing
associated with a complete audit.
 Try to assure that the most
current information is
available from the auditors

Distance Education (4.8)
Work with auditors to
have document when
needed.
Added to Fifth-Year – An institution
that offers distance or correspondence
education
4.8.1 demonstrates that the student
who registers in a distance or
correspondence education course or
program is the same student who
participates in and completes the
course or program and receives the
credit by verifying the identity of a
student who participates in class or
coursework by using, at the option of
the institution, methods such as (a) a
secure login and pass code, (b)
proctored examinations, or (c) new or
other technologies and practices that
are effective in verifying student
identification.
4.8.2 has a written procedure for
protecting the privacy of students
enrolled in distance and
correspondence education courses or
Assign Vicki Westergard to take lead.
Look into student services for online
students.
programs.
4.8.3 has a written procedure
distributed at the time of registration
or enrollment that notifies students of
any projected additional student
charges associated with verification of
student identity.
Comment: The addition of the new
standard addresses the U.S.
Department of Education’s expectation
that recognized accrediting
commissions need to require its
accredited institutions to authenticate
that students registering in distance or
correspondence education are the same
students participating in class or
coursework and receiving credit. In
accord with DOE policy, the standards
also require a procedure protecting the
privacy of students enrolled in such
programs and also expect an institution
to have procedures for notifying
students of any additional student
charges associated with the verification
of student identity.
Definition of credit
hours (4.9)
We need a very ‘strong’ rationale for
the way we verify student identity
(secure password, proctoring, etc.)
Substantial number of ways to do this
but need consistency.
Online student identification process—
there is everything from simple Pin’s to
retinal imaging but the key is we need
to show our consistent approach to
assure we know the student taking a
test is really our student..eg,UF
requires students to have a mentor
identified in advance who is nearby
when a test is taken in their master’s
programs; we need a policy and proof
we use it
Added to Fifth-Year – The institution
has policies and procedures for
determining the credit hours awarded
for courses and programs
that conform to commonly accepted
practice in higher education and
Commission policy. (See Commission
policy “ Credit Hours.”)
Comment: The addition of the new
Broaden to include all modalities
(curriculum handbook); should be in
student handbook.
Lead? Curriculum Office/Deans
standard addresses the U.S.
Department of Education’s expectation
that recognized accrediting
commissions require an institution to
have a policy that outlines how an
institution defines and awards credit
hours for courses and programs.
QEP Impact Report
Janice Thiel, Ashley
Hendrickson, Gail Lancaster
Will need to include the Credit Hour
Commitment model as part of this
discussion, so that we can define credit
hour across the various modalities.
See resources for QEP evaluators
10-pages
Think high level
Summation table(s)
Narrative
Reflective
Be clean and clear
Use headings – see instructions
What we started off to do
What we ended up doing
Why, based upon assessment
What did we learn
Did it make a difference – if not, OK
Direct impact on student learning
QEP cannot exceed 10 pages—it should
tie back to the QEP summary approved
during the 10 year reaffirmation
process
Key points from Roundtable discussion
for the QEP.
Give rational for any changes.
The Goals should have stayed the same
throughout the QEP although the
actions taken could change.
Clear connection between the QEP and
the SPC’s mission.
Demonstrate Impact on QEP on
student learning.
Review the following blog.
“Assessing the Elephant”
highered.blogspot.com