1. What is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)?

Transcription

1 Office of Institutional Research, Effectiveness and Planning University of North Carolina at Asheville SACSCOC 101 UNC Asheville is officially accredited every ten years by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). The University will soon be preparing for its fifthyear interim review in March Here the Office of Institutional Research, Effectiveness and Planning (IREP) has assembled answers to frequently-asked questions about SACSCOC accreditation in general and our upcoming fifth-year interim review in particular. Much of the information is lifted verbatim from SACSCOC publications and the SACSCOC website. 1. What is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)? Founded in 1895, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is currently comprised of the Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (CASI) and the Commission on Colleges (COC). The Commissi1on on Colleges was founded in 1912 and was organized to develop standards and a process for accrediting colleges and universities in the South. SACSCOC accredits institutions throughout 11 southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) and Latin America, that grant associate, baccalaureate, master s and doctoral degrees. The Commission s mission is the enhancement of educational quality throughout the region and the improvement of the effectiveness of institutions by ensuring that they meet standards established by the higher education community that address the needs of society and students. 2. How is the Commission organized? The College Delegate Assembly (CDA) includes one voting representative (the chief executive officer or the officer s designee) from each accredited institution. It elects seventy-seven members to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees to guide the organization s work and to implement the accreditation process. The Commission s Board of Trustees is responsible for recommending to the College Delegate Assembly standards for candidacy and membership, authorizing special visits, taking final action on the accreditation status of institutions, nominating to the College Delegate Assembly individuals for election to succeed outgoing members of the Board, electing an Executive Council that will act for the Board while it is not in session, appointing ad hoc study committees as needed, and approving the policies and procedures of the Commission on Colleges. 1

2 The thirteen-member Executive Council is the executive arm of the Board of Trustees and functions on behalf of the Commission s Board and the College Delegate Assembly between sessions. However, the actions of the Council are subject to review and approval by the Board. The Council interprets Commission policies and procedures, develops procedures for and supervises the work of ad hoc and standing committees of the Commission, approves goals and objectives of the Commission, reviews and approves the Commission s budget, oversees and annually evaluates the work of its president, and initiates new programs, projects, and policy proposals. The Chair, a public member, and a representative from each of the eleven Southern states in SACSCOC region make up the Executive Council membership. Council members are elected by the Board of Trustees. 3. What does it mean to gain or retain SACSCOC accreditation? An institution s accreditation by SACSCOC signifies that the institution: (1) has a mission appropriate to higher education; (2) has resources, programs, and services sufficient to accomplish and sustain that mission; and (3) maintains clearly specified educational objectives that are consistent with its mission and appropriate to the degrees it offers, and that indicate whether it is successful in achieving its stated objectives. 4. What is UNC Asheville s current accreditation status with SACSCOC? UNC Asheville was first accredited by SACSCOC in Its accreditation was last reaffirmed in 2012, with the next comprehensive reaffirmation review scheduled for 2022 and a five-year interim report due in March What are the standards for SACSCOC reaffirmation? The accrediting standards used by the Commission on Colleges are contained in the handbook, Principles of Accreditation. This document provides consistent guidelines for peer review, representing the collective judgment of the membership on standards appropriate for the assurance of quality in higher education. These standards consist of 12 Core Requirements, 14 Comprehensive Standards, and 9 Federal Requirements. Many of these broad standards contain more detailed requirements that must also be addressed in the reaffirmation process. The concept of quality enhancement is at the heart of the Commission's philosophy of accreditation. Each institution seeking reaffirmation of Accreditation is required to develop a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). Engaging the wider academic community and addressing one or more issues that contribute to institutional improvement, the QEP describes a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined topic or issue(s) related to enhancing student learning. UNC Asheville s current QEP, Inquiry ARC, is a plan for improving critical thinking through activities of inquiry, application, reflection and communication embedded in the academic curriculum. A new QEP will be developed as part of UNC Asheville s petition for SACSCOC reaffirmation in

3 6. What is the process for decennial reaffirmation of SACSCOC accreditation? As part of the decennial reaffirmation process, an institution provides two separate documents to SACSCOC: Compliance Certification. The Compliance Certification, submitted approximately fifteen months in advance of an institution s scheduled reaffirmation, is a document completed by the institution that demonstrates its judgment of the extent of its compliance with each of the Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, and Federal Requirements. Signatures by the institution s chief executive officer and accreditation liaison are required to certify compliance. By signing the document, the individuals certify that the process of institutional self-assessment has been thorough, honest, and forthright, and that the information contained in the document is truthful, accurate, and complete. Quality Enhancement Plan. The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is submitted four to six weeks in advance of the on-site review by the Commission. The document (1) includes a process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment, (2) focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution, (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP, (4) includes the broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement. The QEP should be focused and succinct (no more than seventy-five pages of narrative text and no more than twenty-five pages of supporting documentation or charts, graphs, and tables). Decisions regarding reaffirmation of accreditation are based on a peer review of these two documents by an ad hoc Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee, followed by the review of an ad hoc On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. The Committees on Compliance and Reports (C & R), standing committees of the Board, review reports prepared by these two evaluation committees and the institutional responses to those reports. Their recommendation regarding an institution s reaffirmation of accreditation is forwarded to the Executive Council for review. The Executive Council recommends action to the full Board of Trustees, which makes the final decision on reaffirmation and any monitoring activities that it may require of an institution. The full Board convenes twice a year. 7. What are the consequences of a negative SACSCOC reaffirmation review? An institution found to be out of compliance with the Principles of Accreditation must correct the deficiencies or face the possibility of being placed on one of two sanctions: Warning or Probation, in order of degree of seriousness. These sanctions are not necessarily sequential, and the Commission may place an institution on either sanction with or without reviewing a visiting committee s report and with or without having previously requested a monitoring report, depending on the seriousness and extent of noncompliance. In certain circumstances, an 3

4 institution may be removed from membership without having previously been placed on sanction. Warning The less serious of the two sanctions, Warning is usually, but not necessarily, levied in the earlier stages of institutional review and often, but not necessarily, precedes Probation. It cannot, however, succeed Probation. An institution may be placed on Warning or Probation for noncompliance with any of the Core Requirements or significant noncompliance with the Comprehensive Standards. Additionally, an institution may be placed on Warning for failure to make timely and significant progress toward correcting the deficiencies that led to the finding of noncompliance with any of the Principles of Accreditation. An institution may also be placed on Warning for failure to comply with Commission policies and procedures, including failure to provide requested information in a timely manner. The maximum total time during one monitoring period that an institution may be on Warning is two years. Probation Failure to correct deficiencies or failure to make satisfactory progress toward compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, whether or not the institution is already on Warning, may result in the institution being placed on Probation. An institution may be placed on Probation for the same reasons as discussed above regarding Warning if the Commission s Board of Trustees deems noncompliance with the Principles to be serious enough to merit invoking Probation whether or not the institution is or has been on Warning. Probation is a more serious sanction than Warning and is usually, but not necessarily, invoked as the last step before an institution is removed from membership. Probation may be imposed upon initial institutional review, depending on the judgment of the Board regarding the seriousness of noncompliance or in the case of repeated violations recognized by the Board over a period of time. An institution must be placed on Probation when it is continued in membership for Good Cause beyond the maximum two-year monitoring period. The maximum consecutive time that an institution may be on Probation is two years. Removal from Membership - An institution may be removed from SACSCOC membership at any time, depending on the Board of Trustee s judgment of the seriousness of noncompliance with the Principles of Accreditation or with the Commission s policies and procedures. Removal from membership, however, usually occurs after persistent or significant noncompliance during a monitoring period or any time an institution is being followed for Good Cause. A serious instance of noncompliance or repeated instances of noncompliance may result in removal of membership without a monitoring period. If an institution has filed bankruptcy, the SACSCOC Board of Trustees may revoke the institution s accreditation for failure to comply with the Principles of Accreditation during the pendency of the bankruptcy. An institution must be removed from membership if it has not demonstrated compliance with all the Principles of Accreditation within the two-year monitoring period and has not demonstrated Good Cause as to why it should not be dropped from membership. If an institution is continued in membership for Good Cause beyond the two-year monitoring period (and then only on Probation), it may be removed from membership at any time but must be removed from 4

5 membership if it does not demonstrate compliance within the two years beyond the end of the two year monitoring period. 8. How did UNC Asheville fare in its last SACSCOC reaffirmation review? In its 2012 reaffirmation review, the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee identified seven areas of non-compliance, six of which were subsequently resolved before the campus visit of the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. The seventh issue was resolved after the review of the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee, resulting in a clean reaffirmation decision with no subsequent monitoring requirements. Here are the seven non-compliance issues that were identified by the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee: Principle The institution has a sound financial base and demonstrated financial stability to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services. The University s audit report was not completed in time to submit to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee. It became available at the time of the campus visit by the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee, and so was no longer a compliance issue in that Committee s report. Principle The institution is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the most recent Higher Education Act as amended. The University s Eligibility and Certification Eligibility Report (ECAR) to the U.S. Department of Education expired soon after its submission to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee. The new report was made available to the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee, at which time the issue was resolved satisfactorily. Principle The institution provides appropriate academic support services. The original Compliance Certification report submitted to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee did not address how the University provides appropriate academic support services to its distance learning students. The oversight was corrected by the time of the campus visit by the On- Campus Reaffirmation Committee. Principle 2.10 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. The original Compliance Certification report submitted to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee did not address how the University provides appropriate student support programs, services, and activities to its distance learning students. The oversight was corrected by the time of the campus visit by the On-Campus Reaffirmation Committee. Principle At least 25 percent of the credit hours required for the degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree. The Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee noted that the then-extant University policy of requiring a minimum of 30 credit hours required for a degree to be earned at UNC Asheville was not equivalent to the SACSCOC requirement that at least 25% of such hours must be earned at 5

6 UNCA in the case of those degree programs (e.g. the Bachelor of Fine Arts program, the Engineering program) that required more than 120 earned credit hours for receipt of a degree. The policy was reworded to require that a minimum of 25% of credits must be earned at UNC Asheville, thereby resolving the issue at the time of the campus visit by the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. Principle The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. The Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee questioned the qualifications of six faculty. The questions were answered to the satisfaction of the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee at the time of their campus visit. Principle At least 25 percent of the course hours in each major at the baccalaureate level are taught by faculty members holding an appropriate terminal degree usually the earned doctorate or the equivalent of the terminal degree. The Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee found two degree programs Computer Science and Accounting non-compliant on this issue. The University hired two new faculty in Computer Science before the campus visit of the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee, thereby resolving concerns in that program; but the issue of non-compliance in the Accounting program persisted beyond the campus visit until the University reworked the teaching schedules of Accounting faculty to bring the University into full compliance. 9. What is the SACSCOC Fifth-Year Interim Report? SACSCOC is one of only a few accrediting commissions that conducts a comprehensive review of its institutions every ten years. Most accrediting agencies conduct such reviews every five to seven years. The U.S. Department of Education now requires accrediting agencies that it recognizes to monitor its institutions more often to ensure that institutions having access to federal funds continue to meet accreditation standards. The Fifth-Year Interim Report was developed to respond to this federal requirement. For its inaugural Fifth-Year Interim Report, due in March 2018, UNC Asheville will be required to submit (1) a Fifth-Year Compliance Certification document, also (2) a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Impact Report. In the Fifth-Year Compliance Certification, the University must demonstrate its current compliance with 18 specific accreditation requirements mandated by SACSCOC; these requirements comprise roughly half of the full set of accreditation requirements that govern the full decennial compliance certification process. For each of the 18 requirements, the University must provide a convincing argument for compliance and a list of documents (or electronic access to the documents) that provide supporting evidence for this argument. The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Impact Report is a brief document (ten pages or less in length) in which the University must provide: a succinct list of the initial goals and intended outcomes of the QEP; 6

7 a discussion of changes made to the QEP and the reasons for making those changes; a description of the QEP s impact on student learning and/or the environment supporting student learning, as appropriate to the design of the QEP. This description should include the achievement of identified goals and outcomes, and any unanticipated outcomes of the QEP; and a reflection on what the institution has learned as a result of the QEP experience. 10. Who evaluates the Fifth Year Interim Report? The Fifth Year Interim Report is reviewed by an ad hoc Committee to Review Fifth-Year Interim Reports composed of experienced peer reviewers who conduct the review similar to that of the evaluation of the Compliance Certification at the time of decennial reaffirmation. The committee will have five members: a Coordinator, an institutional effectiveness evaluator, two student services evaluators, and two academic program evaluators. Two peer finance reviewers also will participate in the review. 11. What are the possible outcomes of the review? For each of the two documents that comprise the Fifth Year Interim Report the Compliance Certification and the QEP Impact Report -- the evaluators may choose either to accept the document or else to refer it to the Committees on Compliance and Reports (C & R). The C & R have three options: (1) accept the document with no subsequent monitoring required; (2) request a monitoring report which starts the two-year limited monitoring period; or (3) recommend placing the institution on a sanction, with a monitoring report, and with or without a visit to campus. 12. Where can I learn more about SACSCOC and institutional accreditation? The SACSCOC website ( provides links to a wealth of resources about the accreditation process, including: Principles of Accreditation Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation Handbook for Institutions Seeking Reaffirmation The Fifth-Year Interim Report: Information, Forms and Timelines 7