Preparing for the New Standards: A SACS PreAudit for Compliance Ronald Head Lisa Kleiman Tidewater C - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 41
About This Presentation
Title:

Preparing for the New Standards: A SACS PreAudit for Compliance Ronald Head Lisa Kleiman Tidewater C

Description:

... Tidewater Community College (TCC) decided to conduct a pre-audit in 2003-04 ... Nevertheless, the pre-audit revealed that while the college had a strong, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:26
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: ronal59
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Preparing for the New Standards: A SACS PreAudit for Compliance Ronald Head Lisa Kleiman Tidewater C


1
Preparing for the New StandardsA SACS Pre-Audit
for ComplianceRonald HeadLisa
KleimanTidewater Community CollegeNorfolk,
Virginia
2
PURPOSE To prepare for its compliance
certification in 2007 by the Commission on
Colleges (COC) of the Southern Association for
Colleges and Schools (SACS), Tidewater Community
College (TCC) decided to conduct a pre-audit in
2003-04
3
  • KEY PLAYERS
  • Lisa Kleiman, Director of Institutional
    Effectiveness, was charged with administrative
    responsibility for the pre-audit.
  • Ronald Head, former SACCR president, was
    contracted in November 2003 to conduct the
    pre-audit and to serve as the colleges
    Accreditation Project Officer.

4
BACKGROUND
5
The new Principles of Accreditation, which went
into effect in early 2003, replaces the Criteria
for Accreditation. Instead of roughly 450 must
statements, there are now 15 Core Requirements
53 Comprehensive Standards 8 Federal
Requirements Instead of a Self-Study there is
now a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
6
Core Requirements are basic qualifications that
an institution must meet to be accredited with
the Commission on Colleges (Principles, p. 13).
The Comprehensive Standards represent good
practices in higher education and establish a
level of accomplishment expected of all member
institutions (Principles, p. 8). Title IV of
the 1998 Higher Education Amendments contains
criteria that SACS is mandated to consider when
it reviews an institution for accreditation.
These Federal Requirements are part of the
compliance certification.
7
The Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards,
and Federal Requirements constitute an
institutions Compliance Certification. The
Compliance Certification is a document completed
by the institution that demonstrates its judgment
of the extent of its compliance with each of the
Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards
(Principles, p. 9).
8
The Compliance Certification is submitted 15
months in advance of an institutions scheduled
reaffirmation.   Scheduled reaffirmation June
2008 Off-Site Review by SACS May
2007 Compliance Certification due March 2007
9
SACS has developed a Compliance Certification
form to be used to show compliance with all
requirements and standards.
Commission on Colleges
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools  
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION   Name of Institution
Date of Submission     In order to be
accredited by the Commission on Colleges, an
institution is required to conduct a compliance
audit prior to the filing of the Compliance
Certification. The Compliance Certification,
signed by the institution?s chief executive
officer and accreditation liaison, attests to
compliance with the accreditation requirements of
the Commission on Colleges (Core Requirements and
Comprehensive Standards).     Signatures
Attesting to Compliance   By signing below, we
attest to the honest assessment of compliance and
the complete and accurate disclosure of
information regarding the compliance of (name
of institution) with the Core Requirements and
Comprehensive Standards of the Commission on
Colleges.  
10
Unlike the Self-Study, which involved a large
number of people from all constituencies of an
institution, the Compliance Certification is
conducted by a small Leadership Team.  The
Leadership Team typically consists of the
President, the SACS liaison, the academic Vice
President, one faculty member, and others as
designated by the President.  Many institutions
find it helpful to add a technical advisor or web
master to the Leadership Team.
11
In addition to the Compliance Certification, an
institution must also submit to the Commission on
Colleges a Quality Enhancement Plan, or QEP as it
is more commonly known.  The QEP describes a
carefully designed and focused course of action
that addresses a well-defined issue or issues
directly related to improving student learning
(Principles, p. 9).  The development of the QEP
involves significant participation by the
institutions academic community (Principles,
pp. 9-10).
12
The QEP is submitted six weeks in advance of the
on-site review by the commission.   Scheduled
reaffirmation June 2008 On-Site Review by
SACS September-October 2007 QEP
due July-September 2007
13
TCC Pre-Audit
14
  • A compliance certification instrument was
    prepared in November-December 2003.
  • The instrument combined the new core
    requirements and comprehensive standards with the
    old compliance criteria.
  • The instrument was designed to determine
    compliance or non-compliance for each
    requirement, standard, and criterion.
  • The table of contents is shown on the next slide.

15
(No Transcript)
16
  • For each core requirement or comprehensive
    standard
  • A determination of compliance, partial
    compliance, or non-compliance is made.
  • Support documentation is listed (to include live
    links to the actual documents).
  • All applicable criteria are listed and
    determination of compliance is made for each.

17
Calendar
18
Compliance Definitions Compliance The
institution meets the requirement and provides a
convincing argument in support of its
determination, and a list of documents (or
electronic access to the documents) demonstrating
compliance.  Partial Compliance The institution
meets some, but not all, aspects of the
requirement. For those aspects meeting the
requirement, the institution provides a
convincing argument in support of its
determination, and a list of documents (or
electronic access to the documents) demonstrating
compliance. For those aspects not meeting the
requirement, the institution provides the reason
for checking partial compliance, a description of
plans to comply, and a list of documents that
will be used to demonstrate future
compliance.  Non-Compliance The institution
does not meet the requirement and provides the
reason for checking non-compliance, a description
of plans to comply, and a list of documents that
will be used to demonstrate future compliance.
19
Pre-Audit Sample Form

20
Pre-Audit Actual Form

21
Sample Core Requirement 1. The institution has
degree-granting authority from the appropriate
government agency or agencies.   ? Compliance
? Partial Compliance ? Non-Compliance  
22
Sample Core Requirement (contd.) Narrative/Justi
fication for Judgment of Compliance
As authorized by Virginia statute, the State
Board of Community Colleges (SBCC), the governing
board of the Virginia Community College System
(VCCS), has granted formal authority to award
degrees, certificates, and diplomas to all 23
community colleges, including Tidewater Community
College (TCC).
23
Sample Core Requirement (contd.)
24
Sample Core Requirement (contd.)
25
Faculty Credentials
26
  • Faculty Credentials
  • A major area of concern for TCC was faculty
    credentials. The college needed to determine how
    many faculty met the guidelines of both the old
    criteria and the new standards. With this in
    mind, the project consultant manually reviewed
    the personnel files of all full- and part-time
    faculty who taught classes during Fall Semester
    2003.
  • Between February and June 2004, nearly 1,400
    faculty files were reviewed.

27
  • Faculty Credentials (contd)
  • A Microsoft Access database was developed to
    audit faculty files.
  • A number of forms and reports were developed to
    collect and report data.
  • Full-time faculty credentials were completed in
    early March and a report issued.
  • Part-time faculty credentials were completed in
    late May and a report issued in early June.

28
Faculty Credentials (contd.)
29
  • Faculty Credentials Findings
  • A large number of facultyespecially
    adjunctsdid not have documentation of relevant
    work experience.
  • In a number of cases, official transcripts were
    missing (in many instances, unofficial
    transcripts were on file).
  • In only a few cases were faculty demonstrably
    unqualified to teach a class. In the majority of
    cases, documentation was the issue.
  • Problem areas included Speech and
    interdisciplinary Humanities classes.
  • Because faculty may teach different courses in
    2005-06 than they did in Fall 2003, their
    credentials for any new courses must be checked.

30
  • Faculty Credentials Findings(Contd.)
  • Because the old criteria are stricter than
    Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1, some faculty who
    did not meet the criteria in the pre-audit do
    meet the new standard and are qualified to teach.
  • Many problems can be addressed by memos from
    Provosts or other appropriate administrators
    listing and justifying a faculty members
    qualifications to teach in a specific discipline
    or disciplines.

31
  • Faculty Credentials - Actions
  • In April, 2004, the Vice-President for
    Instruction and Student Services developed an
    Action Plan to address faculty credential
    issues relating to full-time faculty
  • Issues were divided into eight categories
  • For each category, a plan was implemented and
    responsibility assigned to the appropriate
    administrator(s)
  • A timetable to complete corrective actions was
    established. A deadline of June 15th was
    established for all full-time faculty to be in
    compliance
  • Essentially the same Action Plan was developed
    for part-time faculty with a completion date of
    early fall 2004

32
  • Faculty Credentials - Actions(Contd.)
  • Because many faculty still did not meet
    qualifications in Fall 2004, renewed emphasis was
    placed on ensuring that all faculty meet the
    requirements of Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1.
  • Some faculty members are not being allowed to
    teach certain courses.
  • Any faculty member who does not have sufficient
    documentation in his/her personnel file will not
    be allowed to teach in Fall 2005 or Spring 2006.
  • Because the new standard provides some
    flexibility, TCC is justifying the
    qualifications of certain faculty members who do
    not technically meet the guidelines listed under
    Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1.
  • Documentation to justify faculty members will
    be provided electronically with the official
    faculty roster provided to the off-site SACS team.

33
Institutional Effectiveness
34
  • Institutional Effectiveness
  • Tidewater Community College has an outstanding
    institutional effectiveness program, and in the
    last SACS accreditation in 1997 no
    recommendations or suggestions were offered.
  • Nevertheless, the pre-audit revealed that while
    the college had a strong, central IE program,
    certain areas of the college lacked effective
    planning documentation.
  • To remedy this, the college has developed and is
    implementing an IE template that covers every
    academic program and every administrative and
    support service area.

35
Sample IE Template
36
Other Areas
37
  • Findings in Other Areas
  • Partial or non-compliance were reported in other
    areas besides faculty credentials and
    institutional effectiveness.
  • In all cases, specific recommendations and
    suggestions were made by the consultant.
  • In many instances, issues can easily be
    addressed. For example, the mission statement is
    published in all major institutional documents
    with the exception of the Student Handbook. A
    new edition of the Student Handbook, published in
    2005, contains the mission statement.

38
Pre-Audit Status Today
39
  • Pre-Audit Status as of July 2005
  • Audit findings were completed for all core
    requirements and comprehensive standards in late
    fall, 2004, a draft report was issued in
    December, and a final report was issued in
    January.
  • An action plan to address all issues was
    developed by TCC administrators in the spring of
    2005.
  • Additional audits of faculty files continue to
    reveal issues with credentials.

40
Timeline
41
Questions ?????????
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com