Richland College and SACS COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation

1
Richland College and SACS COC Reaffirmation of
Accreditation

• Mary Frances GibbonsCarole Johnson

2
Topics for DiscussionSACS COC at Richland College

• RLC and SACS COC history
• SACS COC Requirements
• First QEP
• Current QEP
• SACS COC and RLCs Future QEP
• Q A

3
RLC and SACS COC History

• What is SACS COC?
• Original SACS approach
• What is a QEP?
• SACS formative pilot 2000-2002
• Determining the new process 2002-2003
• Implementing the new process 2003-2004
• 5th Year Report
• Next reaffirmation2013

4
SACS COC Two Parts
Compliance Certification Quality Enhancement Plan
70 items Core Requirements Comprehensive Standards Federal requirements Subject of the off-site review (Spring 2012) An ongoing plan that focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution Subject of the on-site review (Fall 2012)
5
Two parts
Compliance Certification Quality Enhancement Plan
70 items Core Requirements (minimums) Comprehensive Standards (best practices) Federal requirements Subject of the off-site review (Spring 2012) An ongoing plan that focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution Subject of the on-site review (Fall 2012)
6
Core requirements
Basic, broad based, foundational requirements
that an institution must meet to be accredited
with the COC. They establish a threshold of
development required of an institution seeking
continued accreditation by the Commission and
reflect the Commissions basic expectations of
candidate and member institutions.
7
Core Requirements
Examples CR 2.1 Degree-granting Authority The
institution has degree-granting authority from
the appropriate government agency or
agencies. CR 2.5 Institutional
Effectiveness The institution engages in
ongoing, integrated, and institution- wide
research-based planning and evaluation processes
that (1) incorporate a systemic review of
institutional mission, goals, and outcomes (2)
result in continuing improvement in
institutional quality and (3) demonstrate the
institution is effectively accomplishing its
mission.
8
Comprehensive Standards
The Comprehensive Standards (CS) are more
specific to the operations of the institution,
represent good practices in higher education, and
establish a level of accomplishment expected of
all member institutions. If an institution is
judged to be significantly out of compliance with
one or more of the CS, its reaffirmation of
accreditation may be denied.
9
Comprehensive standards

• 3.3.1
• 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 educational support services
• 3.3.1.4 research within its educational mission,
  if appropriate
• 3.3.1.5 community/public service within its
  educational mission, if appropriate.

10
Comprehensive Standards
3.7.1 The institution employs competent faculty
members qualified to accomplish the mission and
goals of the institution. When determining
acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an
institution gives primary consideration to the
highest earned degree in the discipline. The
institution also considers competence,
effectiveness, and capacity, including, as
appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees,
related work experiences in the field,
professional licensure and certifications, honors
and awards, continuous documented excellence in
teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and
achievements that contribute to effective
teaching and student learning outcomes. For all
cases, the institution is responsible for
justifying and documenting the qualifications of
its faculty.
11
Federal Requirements
4.5 The institution has adequate procedures for
addressing written student complaints and is
responsible for demonstrating that it follows
those procedures when resolving student
complaints. Always reviewed on campus when any
SACS COC team visits
12
(No Transcript)
13
Benefits First QEP

• Established our infrastructure
• Created a process
• Focused on student in-course retention
• Expanded to student retention and customer
  service
• Established process for institutional assessments

14
Current QEP

• Assessment of student-learning outcomes by
  faculty and staff
• Every RLC employee is an educator!
• Emphasis on student learning across the campus,
  focusing on RLCs Institutional/General Education
  Student-Learning Outcomes
• Goalto improve, not prove
• Importantuse of results to improve student
  success

15
(No Transcript)
16
Future QEP

• New topic will be determined
• Broad-based input
• Assessmentstaple of SACS COC requirements

17

• Compliance Certification Report
• Due March 2012
• Off-site review by peers
• Notification of concerns, problems
• Institutions submits Focused Reports
• Response reviewed by on-site team
• (along with QEP)

18
QEP

• An ongoing plan that focuses on learning outcomes
  and/or the environment supporting student
  learning and accomplishing the mission of the
  institution

19
QEP

• Core Requirement 2.12
• The institution has developed an acceptable
  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that
• includes a broad-based institutional process
  identifying key issues emerging from
  institutional assessment
• focuses on learning outcomes and/or the
  environment supporting student learning and
  accomplishing the mission of the institution
• demonstrates institutional capability for the
  initiation, implementation, and completion of
  the QEP
• includes broad-based involvement of institutional
  constituencies in the development and proposed
  implementation of the QEP, and
• identifies goals and a plan to assess their
  achievement.

20
QEP

• Due Summer 2012
• Reviewed by the on-site team (Fall 2012)
• On-going results documented in 5th year report
  (2017)

21
Points to Remember

• RLCs first QEP is over.
• RLCs second QEP will be determined in the next
  two years.
• Assessment of student-learning outcomes and
  services will always be a part of how RLC serves
  students. It never goes away.