Clues for Solving t he Mystery of the Fifth-Year Interim Report

1. Clues for Solving the Mystery of the Fifth-Year Interim Report 2013 SACSCOC Annual Meeting December 7-10, 2013 Atlanta, Georgia

2. UCF Team • Tace Crouse –coordinator of UCF’s Fifth-Year Report and peer reviewer • Diane Chase – current SACSCOC liaison for UCF and peer reviewer • Heidi Watt – member of UCF Fifth-Year Report leadership team and manages on-going SACSCOC compliance activities • Denise Young – former SACSCOC liaison for UCF and peer reviewer (including Fifth-Year reports)

3. University of Central Florida • second largest university in U.S. • one of twelve Florida state universities 60,000 students 200+ programs Research I University SACSCOC Level VI Multiple campuses

4. Workshop Outcomes To prepare for their next report, participants will analyze the Fifth-Year Interim Report process including the: • previous performance of institutions • new and most challenging standards • litmus test questions • technology tools • evaluator’s perspective • organizational matrix

5. Workshop Agenda • background check • providing clues for preparing accreditation reports with a focus on the SACSCOC Fifth-Year Interim Report • input from peers Evaluator perspectives and input into an Organizational Matrix are embedded throughout to provide you with clues for how your work might be reviewed and a jump start on your next report!

6. Background Check of Fifth-Year Report • Why a fifth-year report requirement? • response to federal oversight (Higher Education Opportunity Act) • ten-year span for major review deemed too long • What is the SACSCOC Fifth-year Report? • four or five-part report describing your institution, how it complies with designated standards, impact of its QEP, and action letter follow-up reports as required • may include a visit to off-campus sites initiated since previous reaffirmation • revised in 2012

7. Background Check of Fifth-Year Report…continued • includes many of the most challenging standards • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Impact Report • rigor required equal to that of decennial report • evaluators scrutinize 10+ reports at one time • quick deadline if referral report needed • referral reports evaluated by the Compliance and Reports Committee

8. SACSCOC Fifth-Year Report Standards (2012) 1. CR 2.8 Number of full‐time faculty 2. CR 2.10 Student support services 3. CS 3.2.8 Qualified administrative and academic officers 4. CS 3.3.1.1 Institutional effectiveness: educational programs 5. CS 3.4.3 Admissions policies 6. CS 3.4.11 Qualified academic program coordinators 7. CS 3.11.3 Physical facilities 8. FR 4.1 Student achievement 9. FR 4.2 Program curriculum 10. FR 4.3 Publication of policies 11. FR 4.4 Program length 12. FR 4.5 Student complaints 13. FR 4.6 Recruitment materials 14. FR 4.7/CS 3.10.2 Title IV program responsibilities/financial aid audits 15. FR 4.8 Distance and correspondence education 16. FR 4.9 Definition of credit hours 17. CS 3.13 Policy compliance

9. What is “new” about the SACSCOC Fifth-Year Report? • language changes in CR 2.8, 2.10, CS 3.2.8, FR 4.1, 4.2, and 4.7 • new standards: FR 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, and 4.9 • policy compliance: CS 3.13.1, 3.13.3, and 3.13.4 • more on these later…

10. The Fifth-Year Report – a Challenging Mystery, Indeed 76 percent of 2012 and 2013 institutions were required to submit at least one referral report Reported in Busting Myths about SACSCOC by Michael Johnson, SACSCOC Senior Vice President

12. Form your Accreditation Scene Investigator (ASI) Teams • 8-10 members • meet and greet • color-coded for inclusive responding • designate a reporter

13. Referral Trends - ASI Teamwork (five-minute drill) • Do you believe the results for 2013 were unusual? • What do you think were the top five referral producers for Fifth-Year Reports over the last four years and why have they been problem areas?

14. Top Five Referral Report Producers 2010-2013 (Combined Tracks A and B) 5 - FR 4.5 Student Complaints - 17% 4 - CS 3.10.2/FR 4.7 Financial Aid/Title IV - 21% 3 - CS 3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators – 32% 2 - CR 2.8 Number of Full-time Faculty – 42% 1 - CS 3.3.1.1 Institutional Effectiveness: Educational Programs, to include Student Learning Outcomes – 49%

15. Referral reasons Failure to communicate compliance clearly Failure to provide sufficient or appropriate evidence for compliance Make a case for compliance with the wrong criteria due to a misinterpretation of the standard Rarely, but sometimes, we do not comply.

16. Detecting clues for preparing all SACSCOC accreditation reports

17. Clues for Accreditation Leadership It takes a village… but it also takes a president who is strongly committed to accreditation through peer review

18. Clue for leadership team All Fifth-Year Report leadership team members should attend SACSCOC Summer Institute and/or Annual Meeting at least once prior to their submission year.

19. Building your team - optimal characteristics of report leaders • effective delegators and facilitators • able to “cut to the chase” in addressing each requirement • pragmatic: able to move the process along; intervene when needed • respectful of the process and those who implement it • extensive knowledge of institution • well-known and respected on campus

20. Applying Optimal Characteristics -ASI Individual work (five-minute drill) Using your Organizational Matrix, identify individuals in your institution who exhibit these characteristics and would make good leaders for guiding the process for each standards. Guiding questions: • Do you choose to have a few or many people overseeing the report? • Do you choose to have one coordinator with multiple information providers? • Do you choose to have information providers also write? • Do you have a succession plan for people who leave? Share your challenges and your results with your team.

21. Managing the calendar SACSCOC Fifth-Year Report schedule • notification of report requirements sent from SACSCOC 11 months prior to due date • report due March 25th for Track B and Sept 15th for Track A • Fifth-Year Report Review Committee reviews occur in May/June for Track B and in December for Track A • referral reports due July-ish or January-ish and reviewed by Compliance and Reports Committee in December or June

22. Schedule clues • begin early • begin early • begin early • pace the data collection, writing, and internal review processes to finish well ahead of the due date • monitor the progress regularly • remember Murphy’s Law

23. More schedule clues An institution’s own report preparation schedule is dependent upon the complexity of the institution and the preparers having: • a thorough understanding of the institution • timely access to needed data • time to focus on the report • previous report-writing experience • access to reports on related issues • access to internal/external reviewers who can respond quickly Again, assume Murphy’s Law will apply!

24. Sample schedule Track A schools – work backward from September 15 deadline Track B schools – work backward from March 25 deadline • 16-18 months to submission • orient/organize – president or designee • assignment of reporting requirements and determine review structure/editor • initiate development of technology tools: Web shell, report platform • 13-16 months to submission • organizational meetings: vice presidents, deans • more complex institutions may begin readiness audit/gap analysis (especially for CR 2.8 and CS 3.3.1.1)

25. Sample schedule…continued 8-12 months to submission • complete readiness audit and first draft of QEP Impact report • receive letter of notification from SACSCOC (11 months out) • review of readiness audit and act on areas of immediate need • review CR 2.8 rationales for FT faculty numbers for all programs

26. Sample schedule…continued • clarify necessary terms, documentation timespans • identify a representative sample of CS 3.3.1.1 IE plans and reports • review credentials and rationales for CS 3.2.8 administrators and officers and CS 3.4.11 academic coordinators • ensure all publications have consistent information (Web sites, catalogs, brochures, presentations) • update boards and institutional community on progress regularly

27. Sample schedule…continued 6-7 months to submission • first draft of narratives (Parts II, III, and QEP Impact) completed and reviewed 4-6 months to submission • second draft of narratives reviewed • narratives deemed “final” are uploaded to submission platform 1-3 months to submission • final narratives reviewed • pdf’s of all evidence documents created • prep Final Reports; load on platform and test DVDs/drives • test all DVDs/drives using PC’s and Apple computers

28. Sample schedule…continued 0-1 month to submission • introduction/submission letter from president • loose ends finalized • submit Partly borrowed from Hillsborough Community College Web site **Review UCF’s actual CS 3.3.1.1 schedule

29. Your schedule- ASI Individual and Teamwork (five-minute drill) Organization Matrix time! • When is your Fifth-Year Interim Report due? • Count back from that 16 or 18 months to determine when to begin your process and then input the dates you wish to use in as many places on the matrix as you can. Share your challenges and your results with your team.

30. Dosand Don’tsfor accreditation report preparation

31. DO • analyze each standard carefully • highlight each of its components • clarify terms and timespans to be reported (Resource Manual is great help)

32. Analyze the Standard - ASI Teamwork (two-minute drill) What are the major areas that must be addressed/clarified for CS 3.3.1.1? • 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 the following area: • 3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes

33. Analyzing CS 3.3.1.1Sample answers The institution • identifies expected outcomes in [all] educational programs, to include student learning outcomes, • assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes • provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results

34. Analyzing CS 3.3.1.1…continued • clarifies terms • “student learning outcomes” measurable, define targets • provides “evidence of improvement based on analysis of results” What’s the +? • clarifies timespans for data For example: • Year 1: data analysis indicates a change is needed and faculty determine what change is needed • Year 2: change implemented; initial results [could be] collected on change impact • Year 3: results collected on change impact; [could] determine if change was an improvement

35. DO • use the Resource Manual for SACSCOC reports (more on this later) • conduct a gap analysis/readiness audit of the status of how your institution has addressed each standard to enable time for correction, if needed (16-18 months before deadline)

36. DO • explore reaffirmation reports from your sister institutions – remembering that you are unique http://www.mcneese.edu/sacs

37. DO assemble all the evidence: identify and collect appropriate data for the necessary time periods to support the case for compliance Clue: much of the evidence can be used for multiple standards Ex: The institution’s mission statement is used many times. Certain components can be extracted for specific standards.

38. DO use technical writing techniques, not creative writing techniques that embellish the argument or cover up inadequacies • use only the evidence that applies: be precise; address the specific standard; don’t say too much; don’t say too little • analyze and assemble the information so it clearly communicates compliance • address every standard and every part of every standard

39. Where did these go wrong? • FR 4.1 Student achievement: Forty percent of the 2013 Best College nursing students passed the NCLEX exam on their first attempt. This was up from 2012 when thirty percent passed. Two nursing instructors are set to retire in 2015 and we should be able to hire more qualified faculty to help the students do better after that. • CR 2.8 Number of full-time faculty: All our faculty members have appropriate credentials for teaching in their programs as attested by the Faculty Roster included in the addenda.

40. Let’s Investigate an example -ASI Teamwork (five + minute drill) How would you improve each of the following?

41. CS 3.3.1.1 The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, including student learning outcomes • Data from assessment measures were collected from students located on the main campus. The online and branch campuses were not included due to their low enrollments. • The assessment process for academic programs involves creating outcomes, implementing measures, and collecting results. One academic year of data provided us with a wealth of data to verify the process is being followed. • Listed as an IE process improvement: Implemented a new mathematics learning platform faculty members saw demonstrated at the MAA conference. Student performance increased by 25 percent on mid-term and final exam scores.

42. DO use multiple reviewers (internal and external) to judge clarity and completeness Reminder: Reviewers add time to the process!

43. DO ensure ease of navigation throughout the materials (both for reading and for using the technology)

44. Technology is great when it works • Test every flash drive or dvd on multiple types of computers • Label each narrative clearly • Ensure every link to evidence works • Ensure you can close one standard’s narrative and go directly to another without having to go out of the whole document and start over …more on technology clues later

45. DO ensure consistency and accuracy with the use of primary sources of evidence Post resources used in multiple sections in a centralized site for all writers to use.

46. DO contact your SACSCOC Vice President to discuss unclear requirements or uncertainties on how you plan to address standards

47. Don’t • rely on one person to prepare the entire report • assume writing a portion of an accreditation report is an intuitive process and everyone’s top priority • submit the report without reviewing for correctness and consistency

48. Several accreditation standards reference the institution’s mission statement which is to be specific to and appropriate for the institution and must be easy to access. DON’T • provide outdated or inconsistent copies of the mission • refer the reader to the whole student catalog or any other entire document as evidence of publication of the mission • fail to rectify inconsistencies between the mission and institutional activities

49. Break Time

50. Uncovering clues for remaining general areas, specific standards and the QEP Impact Report.