1
|
- Denise Young, Ph.D.
- Asst Provost & Director of Institutional Research
- and
- James E. Klassen, Ph.D.
- Assistant Provost & SACS Liaison
- University of Dallas
|
2
|
- Background
- Compliance Report
- Focused Report (response to off-site committee’s evaluation of
compliance report )
- Quality Enhancement Plan
- Site Visit
- After the Site Visit
|
3
|
- Private liberal arts university
- Enrollment of 3000
- 1200 undergrads
- 1800 graduate students
- 121 fulltime and 90 part-time faculty
- $35 million budget
- Compliance Report submitted August 2003
- Site Visit in April 2004
|
4
|
- December 2001 – Attended SACS Annual Meeting
- May 2002 – SACS Training Session in Atlanta
- Summer 2002 – Regular meetings of SACS Committee
- Sep/Oct 2002 – Meetings with dept heads (acad & non acad) =
to
describe process and expectations from them
- *August 15, 2003 Compliance Report Due
- October 29, 2003 Report from SACS on Compliance Report (phone)
- *March 9, 2004 Focused
Report Due
- *March 9, 2004 Quality
Enhancement Plan Due
- *April 20-22, 2004 Site Visit
- *September 2004 Response Report Due
|
5
|
- Dr. James Klassen, Assistant Provost and SACS Liaison
- Dr. Denise Young, Assistant Provost and Director of Institutional
Research
- Dr. Blake Frank, Associate Dean of College of Business
- Mr. Dale Larson, Director of Finance
|
6
|
- Reviewed all information related to Compliance Report Process
- Discussed each of the 12 Core Requirements, 53 Comprehensive Standar=
ds
and 8 Federal Requirements to arrive at general agreement as to what
each one is asking and what is required for a response and documenta=
tion
- Each of the 73 standards assigned to one or more of the four committ=
ee
members to formulate response, gather documentation, or request it f=
rom
appropriate source
|
7
|
- Decided general issues
- Report and documentation format (electronic, paper, or mix)
- Style of written responses
- One editor
- Due dates and timelines
- All materials collected in a central site where final editing and
collation was done
|
8
|
- Reliable
- Evidence can be consistently interpreted
- Current
- Information supports an assessment of the current status of the
institution
- Verifiable
- Meaning assigned to the evidence can be corroborated, and informati=
on
can be replicated
|
9
|
- Coherent
- Evidence is orderly, logical, and consistent with other patterns of
evidence presented
- Objective
- Evidence is based on observable data and information
- Relevant
- Evidence directly addresses the requirement or standard under
consideration and should provide the basis for the institution̵=
7;s
actions designed to achieve compliance
- Representative
- Evidence must reflect a larger body of evidence and not an isolated
case
|
10
|
- Expect everything to take longer than you plan
- Meet often to check progress, compare notes, and avoid duplication of
effort (i.e., many of the requirements and standards are similar and
require the same documentation)
- Keep a sense of humor
|
11
|
- Response to off-site committee’s evaluation of the Compliance
Report, but the Focused Report itself is evaluated by on-site commit=
tee
- Protocol Change
- 2004 class had only oral feedback from off-site committee via telep=
hone
call with SACS staff
- Now can have both oral feedback and/or written report (recommend ha=
ving
both)
|
12
|
- Include for each standard that you respond to in the Focused Report<=
/li>
- Full text of the accreditation standard
- Full text of your original response (including source of documentat=
ion,
but not actual documentation)
- Summary of off-site reviewer’s comments and requests
- New response and additional documentation
|
13
|
- The Integrated Experience: &nb=
sp;
The Merger of the Liberal Arts and Professional Education
- Goal: To provide every
undergraduate with the opportunity for an educational experience that
merges the foundational elements of a traditional liberal arts educa=
tion
with professional studies.
The merging of disciplines will be accomplished through the
development of an integrated core curriculum that draws on the stren=
gths
of each discipline.
|
14
|
- Joint Committee on Business Education
- Developed a series of “bridge courses” that are the
centerpiece of the degree and serve as the link between the
foundational and universal teachings found in the liberal arts and =
the
professional knowledge and skills found in business education
- Program began for incoming students in Fall 2003, but existing stude=
nts
could transfer to the program
- First graduates are schedule to complete program in May 2005
|
15
|
- QEP developed from campus-wide discussion of how a traditional liber=
al
arts core could be integrated with a professional business curriculu=
m
- This discussion resulted in the development of a proposal for the
creation of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Leadership
- A special curriculum committee consisting of both liberal arts and
graduate business faculty was formed to develop a curriculum that me=
rged
the common core with courses fundamental to the discipline of busine=
ss
|
16
|
- “Broad-based institutional participation in the identification=
of
the topic or issue to be addressed by the QEP”
- QEP is the main focus of site visit
- Select topic early (must submit summary of topic with Compliance Rep=
ort)
- Select a topic that is manageable and focused
- Examine the data – what you have and what you need (student and
alumni surveys, IR data, literature sources)
- Prepare, defend and get buy-in for a QEP budget
|
17
|
- Address one or more critical issues related to enhancing student
learning
- Student learning is broadly defined and may include
- “Changes in students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors, and=
/or
values that may be attributable to the collegiate experience”=
- Goals and evaluation strategies must be closely linked to improving =
the
quality of student learning
|
18
|
- Example of topics and issues
- Enhancing the academic climate for student learning
- Strengthening the general studies curriculum
- Developing creative approaches to experiential learning
- Enhancing critical thinking skills
- Introducing innovative teaching and learning strategies
- Increasing student engagement in learning
- Exploring imaginative ways to use technology in the curriculum
|
19
|
- Focus
- Identifies 1 or more critical issues related to student learning and
justifies its use for the QEP
- Institutional Capability
- Evidence of sufficient resources to implement, sustain and complete=
the
QEP
- Assessment of the Plan
- Means for determining success of the QEP
- Broad-based involvement of the Community
- All aspects of the institution’s community (faculty, staff,
students, board members, administrators) involved in development of=
QEP
|
20
|
- Short and compact visit
- Tuesday afternoon
- Wednesday
- Thursday
- Committee works on written report
- Close-out lunch with small group (campus leadership and those
responsible for compliance issues and QEP)
- Optional exit session (open to campus community) for oral report fr=
om
Chair and SACS staff
|
21
|
- Minimum of 7 on-site committee members
- Chair
- Evaluators in the areas of
- Faculty
- Educational programs
- Learning or student support services
- Institutional effectiveness
- QEP (2)
- Institution provides input on QEP evaluators
- All committee members are responsible for evaluating QEP
|
22
|
- Work with SACS staff to set dates 12-15 months in advance
- Alert Chancellor/President/Provost/Deans (and their staffs) – =
as
well as the campus – of the dates
- Remind everyone of the
dates…frequently
- Book hotel and campus meeting rooms early
- Have everyone available on short notice since last-minute schedule
changes seem to be the norm
|
23
|
- Provide workrooms at hotel and on-campus
- 24-hour locked access
- Support documentation
- Office supplies
- Refreshments
- Computers, printers, and internet access
|
24
|
- Receive draft of On-Site Committee’s report
- Within 3-5 weeks after visit
- Opportunity to review and report any factual errors, but not respon=
d to
any of the committee’s recommendations at this time
- Receive Final Report
- Approx 2-3 months aft=
er
visit
- Contains recommendations that require response
- Response Report to Visiting Committee
- Due approx 2-3 months after receipt of Final Report
- Respond to any recommendations by on-site committee
|
25
|
- www.udallas.edu/ir
- Click on “SACS Reaffirmation”
- Dr. Denise Young
- Dr. Jim Klassen
|