September 20, 2004

Members Present:
Jack Allen, Ph.D. Associate Executive Director, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Stephen Tomasovic, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Michael Ahearn, Ph.D.
Marilyn Greer, Ph.D.
Shaun Caldwell
Dr. Toya Candelari
Donna Hemphill
Kathy Hoffman
Robert Jenkins
Shreya Kant
Victoria Knutson, Ph.D.
George Stancel, Ph.D.
Jon Wiener, Ph.D.

Members Absent:
Weldon Gage
Janet Price, Ph.D.

Dr. Allen indicated that the key factor in forming SACS and all other regional accrediting associations came from voluntary efforts, and continues to be voluntary to some extent. The history of SACS began in the late 1800's. In the south in 1880 to 1890 almost every institution had open admission. This open enrollment caused discord between colleges and high schools because the colleges began enrolling students out of high school at the age of 12 - 14 years old. Chancellor Kirkland of Vanderbilt, one of the main liberal arts schools, was the first one to spearhead admissions standards. This move revolutionized the institution, but also caused the institution to lose a third of its enrollment. The idea of admission standards spread throughout the country creating the first educational system. This system created an articulation of high school students who were prepared to be in college, thus eliminating the need to take remediation or conditioning students for college and resulted in the mixture of very young children with older individuals. SACS worked on the admissions problem for twenty five years. One of the first standards developed in 1895 was that you could not admit a student under 15 years of age. If students did not have certain units of work in high school, then the institution had to create entrance exams. At that time to prove a student had a legitimate entrance exam, exams were sent to SACS for review for acceptance. Dr. Allen concluded by stating that twenty-five years of admission standards was the key to raising quality standards.

In 1920, the association began to involve other areas such as faculty, library and school finances, thus developing a highly structured set of quantitative requirements. As an example, the library standard required ten thousand volumes, which was a large amount for that time period, and an endowment of five hundred thousand dollars. Another quantitative standard that applied to the public institutions included a per student expenditure of a certain amount, and faculty which were paid within a certain range. This practice went on for approximately thirty years. Dr. Allen reiterated that the first institutions were liberal arts during those first thirty years and the association did not admit two year colleges and special purpose institutions like medical schools. Around 1915, Georgia Tech was the first two-year institution to be admitted and in the 1920's the association begin admitting two year colleges and teacher training colleges. Dr. Allen stated that the quantitative standards could not continue with the admittance of all the different types of institutions because they would not apply to all types of institutions. By 1950 the association had admitted into its membership the first medical schools, the first theological seminaries, two year colleges and other special purpose educational institutions.

The association had three sets of quantitative standards; one for teachers colleges, one for arts and sciences and one for two year colleges, but the association finally gave up on the various sets of standards and in 1960 developed one set of standards based on the purpose of the institution. One of the aims of the association was to move institutions forward in areas of those requirements that they had to meet. It was also decided by the association that most of the institutions in the south met accreditation. This decision proved very beneficial to the institutions in the south because it gave the presidents, faculties and the boards the ability to obtain more institutional funding. Initially, the institutions would forward reports to the association on different topics each year, but the second revolution for the association occurred in 1960 when they created periodic visitation which was called the Self Study Program. The next stage the association underwent was the Book of Standards which was confusing to the institutions and provided little guidance. The institutions suggested that the Standards be revised to better prepare institutions for what was expected during the visitation. Upon Dr. Allen's arrival to SACS in the 80's this was the major reform. The association decided for legal reasons they would state what the institutions must do, and make it permissive to take the advice or not by prefacing statements with "should's". This resulted in a Book of Standards that had 450 "MUST" statements (things the institution are required to do). The Self Study that was suppose to be moving the institutions forward began to cause institutions to doubt their ability to meet the accreditation standards. The Self Study consisted of question and answer criteria for accreditation and lacked information that would improve the institution. This went on for a number of years, which brings the association up to the present Compliance Report. Since the standards have changed to non-quantitative, the association needed institutions to understand institutional compliance and began to visit campuses every ten years. The association did not provide site visits prior to this change and were usually only involved when governors participated in conflict of interests.

The Principles of Accreditation (POA) is the latest development of the association, which was designed to make the compliance with accreditation standards less rigorous and broaden the requirements, allowing the institutions to fill in pertinent information. The association is currently working on a companion piece to the POA that will probably be called Resource Pamphlet, to provide more guidance to institutions. The association decided that for reaffirmation they would ask the institutions to submit a Quality Enhancement Plan based on student learning. The Quality Enhancement Plan currently focuses on how you make a difference with students, and can allow the institution to show student outcomes that they have, or provide a plan that shows that the institution is initiating a special topic. Dr. Allen indicated that the association has tried to produce a format for compliance that would be straight-forward and also address major problem areas which included: Planning and Evaluation, General Education and Outcomes, Faculty Credentials, and compiling Compliance Certification. Dr. Allen indicated that the language does not have to be a legal brief to prove compliance beyond a shadow of a doubt. He suggests the report be compiled as if for someone who knows nothing about the institution. The intent of the association was to have the institution carefully consider each one of the requirements and make their own judgment. If the institution does not believe that they are in complete compliance, Dr. Allen stated that it should be indicated on the report form and a plan should be developed or action should be taken to correct the situation immediately.

Dr. Allen indicated to the committee that they have already completed some of the work involving the Core Requirements and have been approved to proceed, and should began to work on other requirements which are applicable to the institution. He suggests that the committee anticipate that reviewers will not know anything about how MDACC is organized or how it does its planning. He indicated that some samples may be requested by reviewers such as program evaluations. He explained that one institution had program reviews and forwarded all program reviews, but inadvertently left out arts and sciences, although they had the program review for arts and sciences, because the reviewers did not see it within the group, they marked the institution non-compliant in that area. Dr. Allen advised to keep in mind what you would like to see if you were an evaluator.

Dr. Allen discussed that the reaffirmation process has changed. In previous years, the committee at the University of Texas Health Science Center would prepare the Self Study to be sent out to the team. A large group of team members would be assembled and make one visit. The team members would review the documentation in advance and would all have assignments. The new reaffirmation process includes one reviewer in Atlanta, which is a paper reviewer, and on the basis of the paper review, the team in Atlanta makes a recommendation on each of the areas and whether the institution is in compliance, and the areas that are not in compliance are reviewed by a second team. On the basis of the off site review the report is sent to the team which visits campuses. The main task of the campus team is to look at the Quality Enhancement Plan and then review any remaining compliance issues. Some follow-up may be applicable.

In the case of MDACC Compliance Certification there is not an off site review in Atlanta by team. The team for MDACC will come to the institution. The number of team members to participate in the visit is unknown at this time. The institution will be required to complete the Compliance Report and send a hard copy of the basic document to the review team, and additional documentation to back the report up may also be included. The basic documents needed in hard copy are: the Compliance Certification signed by the Liaison and President, the narrative that gives the reason behind your decision of compliance, non compliance or partial compliance items, School Catalogs, an Organizational Chart, the audit, a Summary Form that provides the history of the institution, programs offered, campus locations, off-site locations, distance education, and other pertinent documentation, so that whoever reads the document would get a picture of what the institution is like. and the audit. The audit would go to the business officer or finance person on the team. The audit would be required for the preceding year. If possible, add more than one audit to show a pattern of financial stability.

Ms. Donna Hemphill asked, "How much lead time or advance notice is given prior to the visit?"

Dr. Jack Allen indicated that dates have not been discussed, but the request for lead time will be taken into account.

Dr. Tomasovic indicated that our goal is to submit the Compliance Report later this year or early next year which would include the audit for FY04.

Dr. Allen indicated that the time frame for submitting the Compliance Report to SACS is six to eight weeks prior to the campus visit.

Dr. Tomasovic asked, "Taking into consideration everyone's schedule, will the visit be scheduled with the anticipation that the report would be submitted six to eight weeks in advance?"

Dr. Jack Allen affirmed that the report would be submitted six to eight weeks in advance. He was not sure exactly how large the visiting team will be, but is usually not over 8 people. MDACC is in an unusual situation because the institution has received handbooks and resources which contain topics about candidate status and candidate visits, when in actuality the institution is not a candidate, but is currently in the middle of a move to make the institution independently accredited. The work that was previously completed at the institution was accredited as part of the Health Science Center, therefore SACS is taking the components from MDACC and completing an independent accreditation. Although MDACC has no real candidate status, the accreditation project still continues because the institution is technically not accredited, but the programs continue to be accredited. Therefore, the documents received regarding candidacy is only for those institutions who are new and have no programs accredited. Dr. Allen indicated that MDACC also received documentation regarding reaffirmation, however, if the institution is accredited next year, then five years after would be a reaffirmation visit. After the first reaffirmation visit MDACC would be reaccredited every ten years unless there were changes in the requirements.

Dr. Tomasovic asked, "When would we need to complete the Quality Improvement Plan?"

Dr. Jack Allen responded that we would probably start the Quality Improvement Plan in about two and one half to three years prior to the reaffirmation. He also commented that the committee will need to go back to the Core Requirements and ask if there is any additional documentation that should be added. This will involve the Principles of Accreditation and all of the Comprehensive Standards. There is also enclosed documentation on Federal Requirements which were at one time called Federal Mandates. Dr. Allen indicated that because these are Federal Mandates and the Department of Education recognizes accrediting associations, and SACS, as an accrediting agency has to abide by their rules. The association is also evaluated by the Department of Education every five years. The Department of Education performs follow-up visits and even sits in on site visits, one of which could be at MDACC. The Department of Education receives a list of all upcoming campus visits from the association and decides which ones they will attend to perform an accreditation type visit. Also, in the Principles of Accreditation is a section/appendix that discusses Commissions, Policies, Guidelines and Good Practice Statements and a definition of what is meant by policies. All of these are available in a revised form on the SACS website. Many institutions have been placing documentation for certification on the websites and providing passwords to the association to access documentation. Dr. Allen indicated that it is the institutions preference to complete the webpage format or submit the certification all in hard copy. The association does not have any particular preference, but does recommend that if the institution chooses to use the website that it be user friendly, and that the links are valid.

Dr. Allen indicated that some institutions that have off-site reaffirmations have a clarification period in which they are given the opportunity to submit a second report for areas that are found not in compliance before the team visit. However, MDACC does not have that advantage, and the compliance document will stand. However, because the off-site team is only dealing with one institution (MDACC), they can contact the institution directly to gain clarity or additional documentation prior to the visit. Currently, the off-site team deals with five institutions and reviews one a week electronically. The time frame that they work on these reports off-site ranges from 5 to 6 weeks before reporting to Atlanta. Dr. Allen indicated that there have been so many complaints about the work load that the association is contemplating eliminating the pre-reviews week by having the off-site members come to Atlanta for two to three days and complete the reports onsite. He indicates that there will be some changes forthcoming in a number of areas of the reaffirmation visit. Dr. Allen hoped that if the team has some issues that required clarification that they would be resolved prior to the visit. Dr. Allen mentioned that the Chair of the team would make a preliminary visit to the institution to ensure that the certification is ready for review. He indicated that if this was to occur it would be done a number of weeks prior to the 6 to 8 week period in which the institution would submit its Compliance Report. Dr. Allen also stated that it would be up to the institution to determine if they would like a preliminary visit by the chair to review the logistics and organizational structure. One of the jobs of the traditional preliminary visits was to see if compliance documentation was completed.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that we were going to utilize services from the SACS Consulting Network, and asked if the chair or SACS committee would have any objections to their review and/or any actions taken based on that review?

Dr. Jack Allen responded that there would be no problem in implementing the consultant suggestions. He explained that Dr. Tomasovic was referring to what SACS had started years ago, which was an informal way of recommending consultants. Dr. Allen indicated that one of the reasons it didn't work was that consultants would be recommended to give advice and they would give the wrong advice and SACS was not in the business of being consultants. Dr. Allen indicated that his role with MDACC is to help to present the best accreditation effort and on the commission side to make sure that the teams follow procedures and the standards are upheld. The consulting network is not technically part of SACS and none of their staff members are involved, thereby, institutions can maintain complete confidentiality. If the institution chooses to consult with SACS or have Margaret Sullivan, the coordinator of the Consultant Network, to talk with SACS on the institutions' behalf, that can be done in complete confidentiality. Dr. Allen recommended Mr. McGuire of the University of Tennessee if there was an interest in submitting an electronic submission. Mr. McGuire had commented that the SACS website was not user friendly. After reviewing the site, it was concluded that the site was not as user friendly as the association would like it to be, as it is very complicated to find policies. Dr. Allen indicated that this was discussed at the staff retreat and they are currently developing an index that will be more meaningful.

Dr. Toya Candelari asked, "Concerning staff, what type of credentials are required, or considered satisfactory and which individuals does SACS need for that documentation?"

Dr. Jack Allen had no definitive answer. In fact, this requirement could cut across other areas as well, because there is a general requirement about an administrator being appropriately qualified for the job. One institution developed a form for that which he will forward. If a person is obviously qualified, then you probably don't need to provide one, but if someone does not have a degree or other qualifications it may be helpful to provide other qualifications. These principles are designed to allow that type of flexibility, and it is really up to the teams to make that determination. The association tries to maintain some consistency. For instance, when the staff and the off-site people gather in Atlanta in November, each day that institutions are considered, the staff meet the next day at breakfast with the chairs of each of the groups to discuss issues that come up and how requirements are interpreted by each committee. Unfortunately, there is not enough experience to provide definitive answers.

Dr. Tomasovic asked, "If an employee does not have a degree in an area and has grown through experience, would job descriptions, and performance evaluations be the evidence needed to document that the employee is performing in the area of employment?"

Dr. Jack Allen responded that job descriptions and performance evaluations would be evidence of qualification. There is a form, and if MDACC can develop some type of form with basic information and its obvious from what's on the form that the employee is qualified, then MDACC should not provide further information. This works for faculty as well.

Dr. Tomasovic asked, "Is there a form that has been used by other institutions?"

Dr. Jack Allen replied that there was a form. Dr. Greer will follow-up with Dr. Allen to obtain the form so that we can determine if the form will be beneficial to us.

Dr. Jack Allen stated that the SACS teams are always looking for a written record, which unfortunately involves some bureaucratic paper producing efforts. It is the same policy for employee issues.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that an annual evaluation is performed on the job tasks in which myself and Dr. Candelari sign off on and become part of an employees file. This documentation verifies that the employee performs certain job functions satisfactorily.

Dr. Greer asked, "Does electronic documentation require that faculty credentials are online? If so, are there any guidelines regarding this matter?"

Dr. Jack Allen answered that there is a document that discusses electronic submission, and clearly states that SACS does not require that. One of the virtues of the electronic submission is that institutions can provide a link directly to the information. There have been instances in hard copy where institutions have sent entire policy and personnel manuals, when all that was needed may have been a page. Whether MDACC decides to do electronic or hard copy, just ensure that it takes the reviewer to the exact documentation they need to make a judgment call.

Dr. Toya Candelari asked, "What constitutes a satisfactory Student Affairs Office or service, and what are the components that you absolutely have to see? "

Dr. Jack Allen responded that satisfactory services depends on the institution. The intent is to use Common Accepted Good Practice. In some areas the association has policies, guidelines and some good practices that you might want to review. Typically, if the association goes to a campus and a faculty member has a master's in Economics, but is teaching Finance or Accounting, it will not be acceptable, unless it was coupled with an undergraduate degree in the area.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that in thinking about how MDACC might respond, and given MDACC's particular situation, he would define what we think are the needed student services, the criteria we use to judge that student services are satisfactory and how we could evaluate the student services. Then it would be accreditation committee's prerogative to argue that we have not correctly reviewed the services. The accreditation committee may think that there are student services that we should have which we did not consider to be needed.

Dr. Jack Allen responded that if there is something really obvious that MDACC does not have, such as student health or job placement, MDACC should anticipate providing an explanation for excluding the service.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that Dr. Allen said that MDACC could offer suggestions for institutions that are part of SACS that the Compliance Committee considers to be peer institutions and the association would take that into consideration in formulating the accreditation committee. The Compliance Committee may want to research those institutions to gain a better understanding of what the association may consider appropriate for those circumstances.

Robert Jenkins asked "Is it appropriate to look at the reviews from the Health Science Center from the last two or three rounds?"

Dr. Jack Allen affirmed looking at the prior Health Science Center SACS reviews.

Ms. Donna Hemphill asked, "If MDACC completes an outside audit for the accreditation process, then five years later for the reaffirmation process, would you accept the standard review in lieu of the independent audit?"

Dr. Jack Allen responded that SACS had recently completed guidelines relating to the question, and Donna Barrett, a business officer on our staff, would be the best person to respond to your inquiry.

Dr. Tomasovic added that audits are not an insignificant issue, and are really expensive. It is much cheaper to allow the State to perform the audit.

Ms. Donna Hemphill stated that she just wanted to make sure that through the accreditation process that we are committed to the outside audit.

Dr. Tomasovic commented that when we start putting our application together, it looked like the state audit could not be done in time to accompany our application. In addition, from a financial perspective, there were items in an independent audit that we could not see in a state audit. This was how we started off with independent audits, but we have time to do a state audit and it is a lot cheaper given our budget size.

Ms. Donna Hemphill asked, "If I look on the SACS website, will I be able pull down Donna's contact information or should I go through Dr. Greer?"

Dr. Jack Allen said he would give Ms. Hemphill all of the email addresses.

Dr. Jack Allen commented that one of the Federal Requirements; is that we require the institution in 4.7 to publish the name of its primary accreditor with its address and phone number. The association asks the institution to make a certain statement about their accreditation, because there was another commission that accredited post secondary, non-degree granting institutions and used the Southern Association logos, but no one knew which were commission on colleges institutions and which were occupational institutions.

Dr. Jack Allen stated that there was a policy on the website regarding general education. It is one of the few quantitative areas that require a certain number of hours that are equivalent in certain subjects. It is the institutions responsibility to maintain an argument that the courses taught are academically sound.

Dr. Tomasovic asked, "Is the requirement part of the argument predicated on the fact that the accrediting agencies with certain standards, transfer credits from an institution that's accredited, thus allowing some reliance that they have been examined and have met the standards?"

Dr. Jack Allen affirmed the statement and added that this is the case particularly if the institution is similar in nature with similar aims.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that any additional contact or communication with Dr. Allen should be routed through Dr. Greer to avoid duplication.

The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for:
October 20, 2004, 10:00-11:00 a.m., HMB10.123
Submitted for review by Maxine Stredic, Education Research and Assessment

Back to Table of Contents