commission on colleges accreditation processirp.utep.edu/portals/1108/previous projects and...

Southern Association of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)Colleges and Schools (SACS)

Commission on Colleges Commission on Colleges Accreditation ProcessAccreditation Process

Please do not cite, disseminate, or reproduce without permission of the

Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning

The New SACS Accreditation Model

SACS Accreditation 1

The peer review process of the SACS Commission on Colleges evaluates an institution and makes accreditation decisions based on its compliance with:

Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (3/03)

A. Principles of Accreditation: integrity and commitment to quality enhancement

B. Core Requirements: 12C. Comprehensive Standards: 61D. Requirements of Federal Mandates: 8

SACS Expectations


It is implicit that all policies or proceduresare:


• In writing,• Approved through appropriate

institutional processes,• Published in appropriate institutional

documents accessible to those affected by the policy or procedure, and

• Implemented and enforced by the institution.

A. Principles of AccreditationThe SACS Commission on Colleges assumes that institutions:

have an effective and operationalplanning and evaluation process in place.

have gained sophistication beyond the prescriptive statements of the Criteria for Accreditation and have a clear under-standing of good higher educational processes.

SACS Accreditation 3Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (3/03)

A. Principles of Accreditation (con.)

The SACS Commission on Colleges assumes that institutions:

understand that the foundations for the new process require integrity andcommitment.

take responsibility for providing information and evidence of compliance rather than relying on prescriptive criteria.


B. Two Essential Core Requirements

4. Has a clearly defined mission statementaddressing teaching and learning and, where applicable, research and public service.

5. Is engaged in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes, including a systematic review of programs and services that:a) results in continuing improvement, andb) demonstrates that the institution is

effectively accomplishing its mission.


An institution:


B. Two New Core Requirements

10. Provides student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission that:a) promote student learning and,b) enhance the development of its students.

12. Has developed an acceptable “Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)” and demonstrates that the QEP is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process.


An institution:


1) Institutional Mission, Governance, and Effectiveness

2) Programs: - Undergraduate and Graduate Educational Programs- Faculty- Library and Other Learning Resources- Student Affairs and Services

3) Resources: Financial and Physical

C. Comprehensive Standards


Three Major Areas:


Identifies expected outcomes for ALL of its educational programs and ALL of its administrativeand educational support services.

Assesses whether the outcomes were achieved.

Provides evidence of improvement based on theiranalysis of their unit’s assessment results.

Identifies competencies within the general educationcore and provides evidence that graduates have attained those college-level competencies.

C. Comprehensive Standards (con.)

Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (3/03) SACS Accreditation 8

The institution:

(1) Compliance Certification

(2) Quality Enhancement Plan

Two Major Documents to Submit


Compliance CertificationThe institution completes a review of its compliance with each Core Requirement and each Comprehensive Standard:

The President and the Accreditation Liaisonwill sign the Compliance Certification attesting to the campus analysis and findings.

The institution will provide documents,including an independent financial audit, andother formal evidence of compliance with theaccreditation requirements.


Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)An institution should engage the wider academic community in a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of its learning environment to:

Support student achievementAccomplish its mission


The resulting Quality Enhancement Planwill be incorporated into the institution’s existing planning and evaluation process.



Documentation of UTEP’s Assessment and Improvements through Use of Results from the University’s Planning and Evaluation System

Compliance Certification

Campus analysis of UTEP’s compliance with:

• Core Requirements • Comprehensive

Standards Documentation and evidence of compliance

QEP - Quality Enhancement Plan Campus analysis of the effectiveness of UTEP’s learning environment for:

• student achievement • attainment of

institutional mission Plan for improvement

2004 - 06 Re-Accreditation

SAC

S

Com

mis

sion

on

Col

lege

s

The Re-Accreditation Process9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

There are nine major steps

in the SACS Commission on CollegesRe-Accreditation Process.


Step 1: Leadership Team Orientation

The UTEP Leadership Team,led by the President,

attends a formal Accreditation Orientation

in Atlanta. Monday, June 14, 2004


Step 2: Compliance Certification

UTEP completes the review of its compliance with

SACS accreditation requirementsand submits its

Compliance Certification. Monday, September 10, 2005


Step 3: Off-Site Peer Review

The SACS Commission on CollegesOff-Site Peer Review Committee

meets in Atlanta to review UTEP’s Compliance Certification.

November 2005


Step 4: Findings of Off-Site Peer Review

The Off-Site Peer Review Committee forwards its findings to SACS

and to theOn-Site Peer Review Committee

that will visit UTEP. November-December 2005


Step 5: Quality Enhancement Plan

UTEP completes itsQuality Enhancement Plan

and submits its QEPto SACS.

January - March 2006


Step 6: Site Visit

The On-Site Peer Review Committeevisits UTEP to review

its Quality Enhancement Plan and any portion of the

Compliance Certification as advised by the

Off-Site Peer Review Committee.March – April 2006


Step 7: Re-Accreditation Report

The On-Site Peer Review Committeeforwards

the re-accreditation reportto SACS and to UTEP.

Summer 2006


Step 8: UTEP’s Response to Report

UTEP completesits institutional response

to the re-accreditation reportand submits it

to SACS.October 2006


Step 9: Re-Accreditation Decision

The SACS Commission on Collegesreviews the report

and UTEP’s responsein its Annual Meeting

and makes a decision.December 2006


Steps in the Re-Accreditation ProcessStep 9 –

Step 8 –

Step 7 –

Step 6 –

Step 5 –

Step 4 –

Step 3 –

Step 2 –

Step 1 –

Re-Accreditation Decision: December 2006

UTEP’s Response to Report: October 2006

Re-Accreditation Report: Summer 2006

Site Visit: March – April 2006

Quality Enhancement Plan: January-March 2006

Findings of Off-Site Peer Review: November-December 2005

Off-Site Peer Review: November 2005

Compliance Certification: September, 2005

Leadership Team Orientation: June 14, 2004


Access to Information

Website with key documents, meeting minutes, reports, etc. that serve as evidence of compliance

How will the UTEP campus community


have input and opportunity to review findings?

Website with the Compliance Certification and itssupporting documentation and the QualityEnhancement Plan, including documentation ofcampus engagement in the Plan’s analysis

How will the SACS review teams determine that UTEP merits re-accreditation?


The new SACS model = No Self-Study Report

Presidential decisions about:

Organization of UTEP’s Process


(1) StructureLeadership Team (required)Accreditation Liaison (required)Work Groups

(2) ProcessWebsiteCampus input and reviewDevelopment of the two documents

- Compliance Certification- Quality Enhancement Plan


Resources


SACS Commission on CollegesWebsite where current information about the new accreditation model and process will be

regularly posted:Home: http://www.sacscoc.org/index.aspPrinciples and Standards:

http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Proposed%20Principles%20of%20Accreditation.pdf

Florida Atlantic UniversityExample of a website developed by an institution for its re-accreditation -- this university

received a commendation from SACS for the documentation of its institutional effectiveness review process that relies almost exclusively on the website:

Home: http://iea.fau.edu/inst/SACS: http://www.fau.edu/sacs

East Tennessee State UniversityExample of the website developed by a Doctoral/Research Intensive university for its

re-accreditation process under the new model:Home: http://www.etsu.edu/SACS: http://www.etsu.edu/sacs/


http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Proposed Principles of Accreditation.pdf

http://iea.fau.edu/inst/

http://www.fau.edu/sacs

http://www.etsu.edu/

http://www.etsu.edu/sacs/

UTEP’s Re-Accreditation TimelineUTEP SACS Commission on Colleges

Summer Organization of processFall Begin the process

2003

Compliance Certification

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

October UTEP’s response to the re-accreditation report

2004 June 14 Orientation of Leadership Team in Atlanta

Sept. 10

NovemberOff-site Review of UTEP’s Compliance in Atlanta and report to SACS and to On-Site Review team

Jan.-March

DecemberReview of re-accreditation report and UTEP’s responseDecision on re-accreditation

March-April

Site visit by On-Site Review Committee and submission of re-accreditation report to SACS and UTEP

2006

2005


-- QUESTIONS? FOLLOW-UP? --Staff from the

UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation,Research and Planning

would be pleased to present this material to faculty and/or staff

in your administrative unit(s).

Please call or e-mail:X 5117

[email protected] or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]