SACS-COC Fifth Year Interim Report Administrative Subcommittee 1 Overview

1
SACS-COCFifth Year Interim ReportAdministrative
Subcommittee 1Overview

• Core Requirement 2.8
• Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11
• Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8

2
Standard for Evidence -Institutions should
ensure that the evidence it presents has the
following characteristics.

• Evidence must be
• Reliable. The evidence can be consistently
  interpreted.
• Current. The information supports an assessment
  of the current status of the institution.
• Verifiable. The meaning assigned to the evidence
  can be corroborated, and the information can be
  replicated.
• Coherent. The evidence is orderly, logical, and
  consistent with other patterns of evidence
  presented.
• Objective. The evidence is based on observable
  data and information.
• Relevant. The evidence directly addresses the
  requirement or standard under consideration and
  should provide the basis for the institutions
  actions designed to achieve compliance.
• Representative. Evidence must reflect a larger
  body of evidence and not an isolated case.
• Additionally, evidence should
• Entail interpretation and reflection those
  responsible for submitting the evidence should
  have thought about its meaning and be able to
  interpret it appropriately to support a
  conclusion.
• Represent a combination of trend and snapshot
  data.
• Draw from multiple indicators.

3
Core Requirement 2.8 Number of Qualified
Faculty

• The number of full-time faculty members is
  adequate to support the mission of the
  institution and to ensure the quality and
  integrity of its academic programs.

4
Rationale and Notes for CR 2.8

• Adequacy of faculty resources is necessary to
  ensure the quality and the integrity of an
  institutions academic programs. Moreover, the
  mission of the institution will govern the type
  of faculty employed, including the number of
  full-time faculty members. The achievement of the
  institutions mission with respect to teaching,
  research, and/or service will require a critical
  mass of permanent, full-time, qualified faculty
  to provide direction and oversight of academic
  programs. The number of such faculty will need to
  be sufficient to fulfill basic faculty functions
  of curriculum design, development, and
  evaluation teaching identification and
  assessment of appropriate student learning
  outcomes student advising research and creative
  activity and institutional and professional
  service. The work of the core faculty may be
  supplemented and enhanced by judicious assignment
  of part-time faculty and graduate teaching
  assistants whose special qualifications broaden
  and enrich the curriculum and increase learning
  opportunities for students.
• Note This requirement addresses the adequacy of
  faculty personnel, not the adequacy of academic
  support services and resources

5
Relevant Questions for Consideration for CR 2.8

• What are the institutions definitions of terms
  such as full-time faculty, regular/permanent
  faculty, student-faculty ratio?
• How does the mission of the institution determine
  the number and type of faculty employed?
• How does the institution determine the number of
  full-time faculty needed to achieve its mission?
• What is the responsibility of the full-time
  faculty and do they constitute a sufficient
  resource for carrying out basic faculty
  functions?
• What are the ways in which members of the
  institution other than full-time faculty carry
  out some of these functions?
• What are the institutions policies on employment
  of part-time or adjunct faculty?

6
Sample Documentation for CR 2.8

• Definitions of terms such as full-time faculty,
  regular/permanent faculty, student-faculty ratio
• Data such as number of faculty student-faculty
  ratios faculty loads proportion of courses
  taught by full-time faculty, part-time faculty,
  and graduate assistants comparisons of peer
  institutions etc.
• A narrative describing the relation of the type
  and number of faculty to the mission of the
  institution
• Policies describing the role of full-time faculty
  (and others) in the carrying out of the basic
  functions of the faculty as described in the
  rationale
• Policies governing the employment of part-time
  faculty and graduate assistants.

7
Additional Supporting Documentation for CR 2.8

• Completed official Commission roster for
  instructional staff, listing all full-time and
  part-time faculty teaching credit courses during
  the academic term the compliance certification is
  submitted and for the two terms preceding that
  term.

8
GCSU 2004 CR 2.8 Submission Pg 2

• CORE REQUIREMENT  8 -- Numbers of faculty
• The number of full-time faculty members is
  adequate to support the mission of the
  institution. The institution has adequate faculty
  resources to ensure the quality and integrity of
  its academic programs.  In addition, upon
  application for candidacy, an applicant
  institution demonstrates that it meets the
  comprehensive standard for faculty
  qualifications.
•  
• Judgment of Compliance
• Yes, GCSU is able to provide a portfolio of
  evidence supporting compliance.                   
                                            
•  
• Explanation of Rationale for Judgment of
  Compliance
• Mission
• GCSU is a Carnegie Level IV institution, which
  offers baccalaureate and masters/specialist
  degrees.  GCSU is also Georgias public liberal
  arts university, with a mission primarily focused
  on teaching, as stated in its Principles
•  
• While GCSU faculty are committed to community
  service and are creatively engaged in their
  fields of specialization, they focus their
  attention primarily on maintaining excellence in
  instruction and guiding students. Students are
  endowed with both information and values through
  small classes, interdisciplinary studies, close
  association with the faculty and staff in and
  beyond the classroom, lively involvement in
  cultural life, and service to the community.
•  
• Adequacy
• Since receiving its liberal arts mission from the
  BOR in July 1996 (scroll to end of minutes, p.
  14), GCSU has sought to increase the quantity
  and quality of its full-time faculty,
  particularly in the School of Liberal Arts
  Sciences.  BOR support of GCSU and its mission
  have made this possible.  While GCSU, like most
  schools, has not funded new faculty positions in
  the last two years, the new tenure track lines
  awarded to GCSU for FY 02 reflect a pattern
  that began in 1996, which shows a commitment to
  lessening class size and increasing course
  offering in arts and sciences.  New faculty lines
  for FY 02 were as follows
• Arts and Sciences 41
• Education 10
• Business 3
• Health Sciences 2
•  

9
GCSU 2004 CR 2.8 Submission Pg 2

• The average lecture class size as of Spring 2003
  at GCSU was 20 students.  The overall average
  class size was 14.  In Spring 2003, GCSU had 292
  full-time faculty members teaching 88.4 of
  classes, and 118 part-time instructors teaching
  11.6 of classes.  The breakdown of
  faculty-to-students in each school during Fall
  2002, presented online in the Campus Profile, is
  as follows
•  
• School of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• 2,233 undergraduate students251 graduate
  students164 faculty
• J. Whitney Bunting School of Business
• 1,110 undergraduate students224 graduate
  students43 faculty
• John H. Lounsbury School of Education
• 433 undergraduate students496 graduate
  students42 faculty
• School of Health Sciences
• 627 undergraduate students79 graduate
  students31 faculty
• General College
• 627 students
•  
• Credentials
• All full-time and part-time faculty members meet
  the degree-credential guidelines or have
  legitimate alternative qualifications.  This
  information is fully available online in the
  Faculty Information section of the GCSU Profile
  System.
•  

10
Example 2008 5 Yr IR CR 2.8 Submission

•  
• Part III The Abbreviated Compliance
  Certification
•  
• 1. The number of full-time faculty members is
  adequate to support the mission of the
  institution and to ensure the quality and
  integrity of its academic programs. (Core
  Requirement 2.8)
•  
• X Compliance ___ Non-Compliance
•  
• Narrative
• As of August 2008, Mountain View College (MVC)
  employs seventy-six full-time faculty members.
  These full-time faculty members are adequate to
  support the MVC mission and to ensure the quality
  and integrity of its academic programs. All core
  curriculum course disciplines have at least one
  full-time faculty member. All active technical
  programs have full-time faculty members with the
  exception of the E-Commerce Technology program.
  MVC is currently reviewing options for the future
  of E-Commerce Technology Program. (1.1)
• MVC ensures that all new and current full-time
  and part-time faculty have academic credentials
  that satisfy the "Faculty Credential Guidelines"
  as referenced in the Commission on Colleges,
  Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1. MVC deans use the
  MVC Faculty Credentials Review Form to
  officially document and ensure that all
  applicants for faculty positions and existing
  faculty have appropriate academic credentials and
  experience. (1.2)
• For the past five years, 50-55 of MVC Fall and
  Spring semester student course enrollments and
  54-56 of the associate contact hours have been
  taught by full-time faculty. (1.3)
•  
• References
• Curriculum Areas and Responsible Faculty Members
  Table August 2008
• MVC Faculty Credentials Review Form
• MVC Full-Time Vs Part-Time Faculty Enrollment
  Distribution Summary Report
•  
•  
•  

11
Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 - Academic program
coordination

• For each major in a degree program, the
  institution assigns responsibility for program
  coordination, as well as for curriculum
  development and review, to persons academically
  qualified in the field. In those degree programs
  for which the institution does not identify a
  major, this requirement applies to a curricular
  area or concentration.

12
Rationale and Notes for CS 3.4.11

• This standard assumes that individuals competent
  in the field oversee all majors or curricular
  areas or areas of concentration in undergraduate
  and graduate degree programs in order to ensure
  that each contains essential curricular
  components, has appropriate content and pedagogy,
  and maintains currency in the degree. Degree
  programs normally are coordinated by academically
  qualified faculty who hold degree credentials or
  other qualifications appropriate to the degree
  offered. If responsibility for coordination for
  curriculum development and review are assigned to
  persons other than faculty, then the institution
  should provide appropriate documentation.

13
Relevant Questions for Consideration for CS 3.4.11

• What evidence exists that the coordinator for
  each major, curricular area, or concentration in
  an undergraduate or graduate degree program has
  the qualifications and credentials for leadership
  in the development and review of the curriculum?
• What evidence exists that the coordinator
  provides oversight for assessing the quality of
  the curriculum for the respective undergraduate
  or graduate degree programs and for ensuring that
  the curriculum, as well as the delivery of the
  curriculum, is educationally sound?

14
Sample Documentation for CS 3.4.11

• List of program coordinators, their areas of
  responsibility, and their qualifications
• Description of coordinator responsibilities

15
GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission Pg 1

• PROGRAM STANDARD 13 -- Curriculum development,
  program coordinators
• For each major in a degree program, the
  institution assigns responsibility for program
  coordination, as well as for curriculum
  development and review, to persons academically
  qualified in the field.  In those degree programs
  for which the institution does not identify a
  major, this requirement applies to a curricular
  area or concentration.
•  
• Judgment of Compliance
• Yes, GCSU is able to provide a portfolio of
  evidence supporting compliance.                   
                                            
•         
• Explanation of Rationale for Judgment of
  Compliance
• The BOR Policy Manual Section 302.06 states,
•  
• 302.06  Faculty Rules and Regulations
• The faculty, or the council, senate, assembly, or
  such other comparable body, shall make, subject
  to the approval of the president of the
  institution, statutes, rules and regulations for
  its governance and for that of the students
  provide such committees as may be required
  prescribe regulations regarding admission,
  suspension, expulsion, classes, courses of study,
  and requirements for graduation and make such
  regulations as may be necessary or proper for the
  maintenance of high educational standards. A copy
  of the statutes, rules and regulations made by
  the faculty shall be filed with the Chancellor.
  The faculty shall also have primary
  responsibility for those aspects of student life
  which relate to the educational process, subject
  to the approval of the president of the
  institution. (BR Minutes, 1986- 87, p. 333).
•  
• Following BOR policy, faculty members of GCSU
  have primary responsibility for the content,
  quality, and effectiveness of program
  coordination and curricula.  All schools follow
  established procedures for course proposals and
  have curriculum committees that function to
  approve curricula.  Except for core courses,
  curriculum changes originate with individuals or
  committees of faculty, go through a series of
  departmental and school reviews, and are then
  submitted to the Vice President Dean of
  Faculties.  Degree program changes are then
  forwarded to the BOR.  Changes in the curricula
  of the Core also go through a series of faculty,
  departmental, chair, and dean approvals. Under
  the previous governance structure these changes
  were submitted to the Committee on Core Outcomes
  and Assessment before going to Academic Council
  for approval before going through the Office of
  Academic Affairs to the BOR Committee on General
  Education for Core Courses.  Under the new
  governance structure these changes will be
  forwarded to the University Senate Committee on
  Academic Governance for approval before going
  through the Office of Academic Affairs to the BOR
  Committee on General Education for Core Courses.
  (See Program Standard 12 for further discussion.)
    
•                                                   
                                                    
                                  
• At the undergraduate level, advisors are assigned
  to students by department chairs. At the graduate
  level, program graduate coordinators who serve at
  the pleasure of their schools dean are either
  self-selected or appointed by the chair or
  identified through a search process.  For some
  disciplines, the department chair also serves as
  the program coordinator.  In all cases,
  academically qualified individuals provide
  leadership and accountability for program
  coordination.  (see GCSU Academic and Faculty
  Information Systems)  
•  
•  

16
GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission Pg 2

• The School of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
  Curriculum and Instruction Committee (see Article
  II B) is responsible for the integrity and
  coherence of all curricula and programs in the
  school and recommends to its faculty members
  course offerings, major and/or minor programs,
  degree requirements and other academic matters.
  After a comprehensive series of approvals,
  information is sent to the Vice President Dean
  of the Faculties for submission to the BOR. 
  Bylaws and recent official minutes for the School
  of Liberal Arts and Sciences are posted online. 
  Older school minutes and school committee minutes
  are located in room 2-50 of the Arts and Sciences
  Building.
•  
• The J. Whitney Bunting School of Business
  Committee on Undergraduate Admissions,
  Curriculum, and Standards is comprised of
  representatives from each of the four departments
  and has the following responsibilities
• the admissions and transfer requirements for the
  School of Business
• the undergraduate curriculum (courses and degree
  programs )
• the standards set forth by AACSB (the Association
  to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). 
•  
• The Committee submits recommendations for
  additions, deletions, or changes involving
  admissions, curriculum, or standards to the
  School of Business faculty. 
• Further, it recommends to the Dean of the School
  of Business the creation of ad-hoc committees for
  specific purposes and needs relative to
  undergraduate admissions, curriculum, and study. 
  The Bylaws of the School of Business, which
  explain the duties of this committee, along with
  committee minutes, and past school minutes are
  available in Atkinson 203.  Recent minutes for
  the School of Business are available online.
•  
• Similarly, the Graduate Admissions, Curriculum,
  and Standards Committee maintains familiarity
  with accreditation issues and other requirements
  related to graduate programs and endeavors to see
  that these standards are met by the School of
  Business.  It makes recommendations to the Dean
  of the School of Business concerning curricula
  changes required to meet accreditation standards
  monitors course content for accreditation
  standards monitors statements, such as course
  descriptions set forth in the Graduate Catalog
  reviews and makes recommendations to the School
  of Business faculty members for action on
  admissions, all changes in the graduate
  curriculum, and standard policies and procedures
  relative to the graduate program.
•  
• The John H. Lounsbury School of Education
  Educator Preparation Council Curriculum Committee
  (see Article V) has responsibility for matters
  relating to the curriculum of the School of
  Education, including but not limited to, review
  of new courses and other curriculum developed
  new or changed programs matters such as grades,
  hours of courses, and other academic issues. 
  This committee serves as a forum for curricular
  matters.  The School Bylaws and recent minutes
  for the School of Education are posted on line. 
  Older school minutes and committee minutes can be
  found in Kilpatrick 228.
•  
• The School of Health Sciences Curriculum and
  Instruction Committee develops and monitors
  implementation of curriculum and annually
  evaluates its effectiveness in achieving the
  philosophy, purposes, and goals of the School of
  Health Sciences formulates and presents to
  faculty members proposals and recommendations for
  curriculum change reviews proposed courses and
  course revisions and makes recommendations to the
  faculty members considers recommendations
  pertaining to curriculum development and
  implementation as they are received from faculty,
  committees, students, and others recommends
  additional personnel and resources needed for the
  attainment of the goals of the School of Health
  Sciences formulates methods of evaluating the
  curriculum and the programs of study monitors,
  reviews and suggests revisions to special
  academic programs within the School and assists
  the SHS Director of International Studies by
  providing a panel of faculty representatives,
  when requested, to interview applicants for the
  SHS International Study Program.  Bylaws and
  recent minutes for the School of Health Science
  are online.  Older school minutes and committee
  minutes can be found in room 202 of the Health
  Sciences Building.
•  

17
GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission Pg 3

• The School of Health Sciences Graduate Committee
  is responsible for the policies related to
  graduate programs in the School of Health
  Sciences, including decisions about graduate
  courses and programs, nominations for permanent
  membership to the University Graduate Faculty,
  criteria for admission to graduate programs, and
  graduate student petitions. The decisions are
  forwarded to the Dean of the School of Health
  Sciences for approval/disapproval who then
  forwards proposals to the GCSU Graduate Council
  for approval/disapproval.
•  
• The record of actions taken by the faculty in
  each school is found in the minutes of the school
  faculty meetings. 
•  
• Oversight Committees
• Departments presenting proposals for curriculum
  changes must send their proposals, in writing, to
  the Dean of their school, who forwards the
  proposal and data justifying the need for it,
  with recommendation, to the Academic Governance
  Committee, a standing committee of the University
  Senate (formerly, Academic Council, section B). 
  Graduate curriculum changes are similarly sent to
  the subcommittee on Graduate Affairs (In former
  statutes, Graduate Council, section C).  Both
  committees make recommendations to the Vice
  President Dean of Faculties concerning issues
  of admission, graduation standards, operating
  procedures, changes in programs, courses,
  curriculum, majors, and degrees.
•  
• In addition to considering new courses and
  program proposals, the Educator Preparation
  Council (Section D) is the primary council
  responsible to the Dean of the School of
  Education and the Dean of the College of Liberal
  Arts and Sciences. Information for review and
  reaction is then presented to the Academic Vice
  President Dean of Faculties. The Educator
  Preparation Council also acts as an advisory
  group for continuous planning and serves as an
  information link to state Educator Preparation
  criteria and to other faculty and departments at
  the University.
• All proposals for new degrees or majors conform
  to the outline in the BOR Academic Affairs
  Handbook.
• As a part of the Comprehensive Review Program all
  non-accredited programs are reviewed every five
  years.  A review committee headed by an external
  reviewer, with one member from the Curriculum and
  Instruction Committee of the school and one
  member from the Academic Council (outside of the
  school being reviewed) has been established. A
  systematic process has been developed to allow
  GCSU to assess program changes, to examine their
  strengths and weaknesses, and to identify areas
  for strategic change.  The process outlined was
  developed to adhere to the policy outlined by the
  USG while simultaneously recognizing the unique
  mission of this institution.

18
Example 2008 5 Yr IR CS 3.4.11 Submission

• 4. For each major in a degree program, the
  institution assigns responsibility for program
  coordination, as well as for curriculum
  development and review, to persons academically
  qualified in the field. In those degree programs
  for which the institution does not identify a
  major, this requirement applies to a curricular
  area or concentration. (Comprehensive Standard
  3.4.11)
•  
• X Compliance ___ Non-Compliance
•  
• Narrative
• For each major that is part of a degree or
  certificate program at Mountain View College, and
  for each curriculum or discipline area offered at
  MVC, there is a faculty member or academic dean
  responsible for the course offerings in that
  particular area. Each assigned faculty member is
  academically qualified to teach in the area in
  which they are responsible for. (4.1)
• Many of these individuals are also members of the
  Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD)
  Curriculum Committee that oversees specific
  disciplines and/or degree programs. The DCCCD
  curriculum committee is responsible for
  reviewing, revising and coordinating the
  curriculum on an annual basis. Additionally, a
  separate local MVC Curriculum Committee is
  charged with attending MVC Instructional Council
  meetings to hear presentations by the MVC DCCCD
  Curriculum Committee representatives in each
  discipline. The MVC Instructional Council
  considers curricular changes proposed by the
  DCCCD committee and reviews and gives written
  recommendations in response to those curriculum
  changes to the MVC Vice-President of Instruction.
  
• MVCs provisions for curriculum evaluation and
  revision are outlined in the DCCCD policy
  Curriculum Development and Revision EE (Local).
  (4.2) The faculty role and responsibility for
  curriculum planning and revision are outlined in
  the DCCCD policy Educational Role and Mission,
  Purpose, and Responsibility AD (Local). (4.3)
•  
• References
• Curriculum Areas and Responsible Faculty Members
  Table August 2008
• DCCCD policy Curriculum Development and Revision
• DCCCD policy Educational Role and Mission,
  Purpose, and Responsibility (pages 4-5)
•