May 26, 2005

Dr. Stephen Tomasovic provided a PowerPoint presentation of the final application to SACS. Volumes of the Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards and Federal Requirements were supplied to everyone. A handout was distributed to all attendees to follow and take notes.

Dr. Tomasovic began the presentation with the history of the SACS project which started in August 2002. The initial application was accepted June 20, 2003. A discussion on the structure of the Compliance Report followed the history of this project. Dr. Tomasovic stated that the Compliance Report consists of twelve Core Requirements, sixty-seven Comprehensive Standards and eight Federal Requirements. In addition, he named the members of the Site Review Committee which consisted of Dr. Richard Peppler, Dr. Wilsie Bishop, Dr. Carol Garrison, Mr. Harold Holmes, Dr. Michael Levitzky, Dr. Thomas Robinson, Mr. John Ulmschnieder, Mr. Patrick Wamsley, and Dr. G. Jack Allen. Also, Dr. John Mendelsohn requested that Dr. Tomasovic attend the Exit Review to hear recommendations first hand. Then Dr. Tomasovic began reviewing the twelve Core Requirements.

Core Requirement 2.1: The institution has degree-granting authority from the appropriate government agency or agencies. (Degree-granting authority)

The consultant said this section was solid. There were no issues.

Core Requirement 2.2: The institution has a governing board of at least five members that is the legal body with specific authority over the institution. The board is an active policy-making body for the institution and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the financial resources of the institution are adequate to provide a sound educational program. The board is not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or interests separate from it. Neither the presiding officer of the board nor the majority of other voting members of the board have contractual employment or personal or familial financial interest in the institution. (Governing Board)

Dr. Tomasovic mentioned if there are questions for this requirement, Dr. Mendelsohn will be the person to receive them. Also, Dr. Craven (Board of Regents) may be asked the question about MDACC's ability to operate independently.

Core Requirement 2.3: The institution has a chief executive officer whose primary responsibility is to the institution and who is not the presiding officer of the board. (Chief Executive Officer)

A sentence was added by Dr. Mendelsohn.

Core Requirement 2.4: The institution has a clearly defined and published mission statement specific to the institution and appropriate to an institution of higher education, addressing teaching and learning and, where applicable, research and public service. (Institutional Mission)

Dr. Tomasovic met with the Education Council, Executive Committee of Faculty Senate, Research Council, and Managers Forum regarding the mission statement for changes acceptable to SACS. The Executive Committee made minor changes in the language. Then they visited the Research Council and Management Committee to tell them what they were doing and why. There wasn't a faculty wide involvement in the process. It was their prerogative to make that decision and Dr. Tomasovic was comfortable with how it was handled. The mission statement was approved through the Regents and the Higher Education Coordinating Board in less than a week. Dr. Tomasovic noted that they made a minor change to the mission statement by expanding on what education means at MDACC. He said the change reflected what is really going on and how we are actually operating. For the mission statement, Dr. Tomasovic thought the only issue that might come up would be the fact that there wasn't faculty wide involvement in the revision process.

Core Requirement 2.5: The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that

1. results in continuing improvement, and
2. demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (Institutional Effectiveness)

The following concerns were noted for this core requirement: institutional effectiveness; budget; assessment matrices for HSC and GSBS; institutional research; planning and assessment; and the assessment of activities at Science Park and Bastrop. Dr. Tomasovic mentioned that most institutions receive recommendations in the area of institutional effectiveness. This section receives more recommendations than all of the requirements combined. He stated that we need to emphasize academic planning and benefits because this is an important function not secondary to anything. Dr. Tomasovic recommended that the documentation show MDACC's ongoing assessments and review of programs. He noted that we want to clearly demonstrate how all areas of institutional effectiveness tie into the budget. The matrices from HSC and GSBS would have to consist of actual instruments and examples. Also, Dr. Tomasovic said that HSC and GSBS needed to be prepared to produce evidence and assessment instruments based on information provided in the matrices.

SACS is accustomed to visiting institutions that have a research office to take care of activities linked with planning and selecting data. That office was established through the Department of Institutional Research. Dr. Tomasovic confirmed that the institution is successfully performing assessments yet it may not be in the format that SACS is familiar with seeing.

For the visit, Dr. George Stancel said MDACC needs to have the mindset that the Graduate School is not a partnership. With the attitude that M. D. Anderson controls all faculty members, they really want M. D. Anderson to be completely responsible for Graduate School.

Mr. Leon Leach said that the financial planning narrative needed updating (EFM). Also, they were waiting for documents from Weldon Gage.

Although we had been trying to get the economic forecast policy from Mr. Gage, he said we would not have it until approximately June because we're working with the budget calendar.

Core Requirement 2.6: The institution is in operation and has students enrolled in degree programs. (Continuous Operation)

There was sufficient data for this requirement with no issues showing up.

Core Requirement 2.7 The institution:

2.7.1: offers one or more degree programs based on at least 60 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the associate level; at least 120 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the baccalaureate level; or at least 30 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the post-baccalaureate, graduate, or professional level. The institution provides a written justification and rationale for program equivalency. (Program Length)

There were no problems with this requirement.

2.7.2: offers degree programs that embody a coherent course of study that is compatible with its stated purpose and is based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education. (Program Content)

Dr. Tomasovic said the reviewers would be looking for student outcomes with tables showing MDACC's plans for improvement. There were no particular issues.

2.7.4: provides instruction for all course work required for at least one degree program at each level at which it awards degrees. If the institution makes arrangements for some instruction to be provided by other accredited institutions or entities through contracts or consortia, or uses some other alternative approach to meeting this requirement, the alternative approach must be approved by the Commission on Colleges. In all cases, the institution demonstrates that it controls all aspects of its educational program. (Contractual Agreements for Instruction) (See Commission policy "Core Requirement 2.7.4: Documenting an Alternate Approach)

For 2.7.4e, Mr. Leon Leach needed the current contract from Barbara Brown.

MDACC awards baccalaureate, master's and doctoral degrees. However the institution does not provide general education for the bachelor's degree.

It was noted that we had received exemption on the basis that all Allied Health Programs in UT System function as MDACC. In addition, Dr. Tomasovic said the Deans assess that transfer students have mastered general education requirements with documentation showing how it is determined.

Core Requirement 2.8: 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 Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 for faculty qualifications (Faculty)

Dr. Tomasovic said this is a very important section. A very big issue is having faculty who are teaching appropriate courses according to their qualifications. For example, the reviewers will be on the lookout for someone with a Ph.D. in Immunology who is teaching Biochemistry 101. They will want to see evidence that this person is qualified to teach Biochemistry. Therefore, a table was created for 511 faculty members in Graduate School plus the entire Health Science Center with relevant information on their credentials and courses. Adjustments were made in teaching assignments at SHS and Graduate School.

Dr. Tomasovic said one thing the reviewers will be concerned about is the hospital being more important than the academic programs. He stated that we are serious about our education activities which are not secondary to anything. Dr. Tomasovic noted that we are either a university or we are not.

Dr. Tomasovic mentioned that the exhibits would need to be checked for any incorrect documents from the original application. For the documents that were referenced several times, we would need to make sure that there was no more than one copy in each volume to relieve the reviewers of searching from volume to volume.

The following were suggested questions for Drs. Mendelsohn and Kripke:

• Why do we want our own degree granting status?
• Where do we want to be in ten years with our educational programs?

Core Requirement 2.9: The institution, through ownership or formal arrangements or agreements, provides and supports student and faculty access and user privileges to adequate library collections as well as to other learning/information resources consistent with the degrees offered. These collections and resources are sufficient to support all its educational, research, and public service programs. (Learning Resources and Services)

Here the issue would be Bastrop, Presbyterian Hospital and Smithville where we would need to demonstrate the availability of adequate learning resources. It was noted that scripts would be supplied to Drs. Mendelsohn, Kripke and Satterfield.

Other matters to be aware of were the telephone line, computers, delivery of GSBS courses, housing, transportation, isolation and the relatively low number of faculty at the campus. They had been picking up students who had not been selected by some other program. These tended to be international students who are academically qualified and acceptable yet they are being funded by individual faculty rather than the Graduate School itself.

Core Requirement 2.10: The institution provides student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission that promote student learning and enhance the development of its students. (Student Support Services)

It was mentioned that additional work needed to be identified for main as well as off-site locations. According to the SACS consultant there were unqualified personnel and there could be a recommendation. We would need to insure that all staff members were properly credentialed. There was a slot for a new manager reporting to Dr. Candelari. A Ph.D. counselor had been added. A new Joint Student Advisory Counsel was created to meet regularly for discussions on services and improvements. A script would be provided for this area.

Core Requirement 2.11: The institution has a sound financial base, demonstrated financial stability, and adequate physical resources to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services. (Resources)

Dr. Tomasovic confirmed that funding for Graduate School education comes from the State General Revenue appropriation to MDACC and not from hospital and clinical revenue. If hospital revenue decreases, it does not affect educational programs. No teaching salaries come from the GSBS budget.

If the Health Science Center no longer existed, there would be no programs for Neuroscience, Oral Biology and Genetic Counseling. In addition, we would lose $2 million from them and services of the registrar. Yet we could receive the $2 million from the state's formula funding to help us along with additional monies to hire a counselor, financial officer and registrar. Dr. Tomasovic stated that we are financially stable and committed to the academic programs and that we have the ability to fully operate the Graduate School if the worse case scenario were to occur.

Federal Requirement 4.1: When evaluating success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, the institution includes, as appropriate, consideration of course completion, state licensing examinations, and job placement rates.

Dr. Tomasovic said the students are doing exceedingly well and the programs are strong. There were no problems.

Federal Requirement 4.2: The institution maintains a curriculum that is directly related and appropriate to its purpose and goals and to diplomas, certificates, or degrees awarded.

Some of the board scores for School of Health Sciences seemed to be dropping in some areas and maybe there would need to be an explanation for this. In Radiation Therapy the scores had been cycling up and down in the last couple of years and decreasing relative to the national average. Dr. Mendelsohn recommended that an explanation be included as to why.

It was noted that Radiation Therapy is not on the level of the programs requiring the baccalaureate degree. This was covered in the outcome and evaluation matrices in one of the appendices. In contrast, for the Dosimetry program more college is required so these people are baccalaureate eligible when they come into the program. It was suggested that an explanation for this be inserted near the table for quick access by the reviewers.

Federal Requirement 4.3: The institution makes available to students and the public current academic calendars, grading policies, and refund policies.

The catalog contains pertinent information so no issues were found.

Federal Requirement 4.4: The institution demonstrates that program length is appropriate for each of the degrees offered.

Documentation was provided and there were no problems.

Federal Requirement 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. (See Commission policy "Complaint Procedures for the Commission or its Accredited Institutions.")

This related to the unusual nature of our Graduate School. Dr. Tomasovic mentioned that we would need to work on the SHS grievance policy. He said we would want to have a concise description of the policies and under what circumstances they apply. This would be useful information to give students at orientation. In regard to issues with graduates, Drs. Candelari and Wiener would determine who resolves the various issues that arise. After this meeting Dr. Candelari was scheduled to meet with Deana Reeves of Legal Services for both institutions. For issues like sexual harassment, days of employment, fringe benefits, etc. Dr. Mendelsohn said it has the potential to sound confusing because there are two different HR departments. It's the type of situation where minor differences can become major ones. Therefore, this would need to be as concise as possible.

In regard to scripts and questions they could ask, Dr. Tomasovic confirmed that everyone would receive updated versions if there were side bar scripts like the sinkhole scenario and other issues plus what the arrangements were for Bastrop.

Federal Requirement 4.6: Recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the institution's practices and policies.

No problems were found.

Federal Requirement 4.7: The institution publishes the name of its primary accreditor and its address and phone number. (The publication of this information is presented so that it is clear that inquiries to the Commission should relate only to the accreditation status of the institution, and not to general admission information.)

The documentation was written clearly so there were no issues.

Federal Requirement 4.8: The institution is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments. (In reviewing the institution's compliance with these program responsibilities, the Commission relies on documentation forwarded to it by the U.S. Secretary of Education.)

No problems were found.

Summary of Federal Requirements

Dr. Tomasovic said the plan was to review the application, turn appendices into exhibits, check for inclusion of current documents/exhibits, and make decisions about duplications and current exhibits. He said the final editing for the Core Requirements and the Federal Requirements was scheduled to start on Tuesday, May 31. The idea was to submit the Comprehensive Standards and not route them through Executive Committee. Faculty and students would need to be selected to walk through the review process for Bastrop and Smithville. There would be a need for a follow-up meeting to review scripts and/or practice mock reviews.

Submitted for review by Virginia Peters, Institutional Research

Back to Table of Contents