ETSU Reaffirmation Accreditation Review Project
Pilot Institution Commission On Colleges
Southern Association Of Colleges And Schools

SACS Staff-ETSU Visit
January 30, 2001
Notes

Dr. Tom Benberg
Associate Executive Director
Commission on Colleges
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

SACS Task Force Members
Dr. Ellen Weed
Dr. Mary Barker
Dr. Wilsie Bishop

ETSU Leadership Team
Paul E. Stanton, Jr., President
Bert C. Bach, Provost
Linda D. Doran, Vice-Provost, SACS Staff Liaison
M. Marshall Grube, SACS Faculty Director
Rebecca A. Pyles, SACS Editor

8:00-8:30
Continental Breakfast
Presidents Conference Room
informal gathering / no notes taken

8:30-10:00
Leadership Team and the Strategic Planning
Presidents Conference Room
Institutional Effectiveness Committee (SPC)
[Focus: SPCs role]

Present:
Andrews, Bach, Barker, Benberg, Doran, Edwards, Grube, Kelley, MacRae, Pyles, Sanders, Stanton, Steadman, Taylor (for Bowman), Weed (Dr. Hales was out of town)

Philosophy behind the Proposed Criteria Changes and Opportunities (This topic and information were presented by Dr. Benberg at each meeting throughout the day; they are not repeated again in these notes.):

Factors leading to accreditation review project were examined 22 years ago in terms of how the Commission on Colleges (COC) was doing business and include:

• Too many criteria
• Redundancy
• Amount of time & energy institutions must invest to do the report
• Extensive paperwork
• Poor cost / benefit ratio
• Changes in the marketplace (e.g., distance learning)
• Criteria too specific / allow little to no flexibility
• Criteria that don't change as needs change
• Institutions have the potential to migrate to lowest level of compliance without emphasis on quality improvement
• Less focus on core values as evidence of quality outcomes
• Cookie cutter framework

Goals for the Accreditation Review Project and Pilot Project (This topic and information were presented by Dr. Benberg at each meeting throughout the day; they are not repeated again in these notes.):

With effectiveness becoming central to evaluation, the goals of the changes include:

• Reduction of burden of accreditation process on institution while maintaining rigors of regulatory (threshold) function
• Reduction of criteria from 400+ to 60+
• More significant opportunities for quality enhancement that will be meaningful for institution
• Larger emphasis on electronic communication / less documentation and paperwork
• Smaller visiting committees
• Less intrusive on energy and focus of institution
• More flexibility / ambiguity offers institutions the chance to self-define qualitative standards and use their own creativity
• Qualitative improvement focus
• Purpose of compliance audit becomes to continue to improve (use the data, close the loop)
• Enhance motivation for process itself
• Avoid strong institutions putting great effort in re-accreditation for little benefit
• Quality enhancement focus results in benefit to institution beyond certification of compliance only
• All work done by the institution for re-accreditation is meaningful

Benefits exist for COC as well:
Core requirements / criteria-they should be:

• Important
• Stated clearly
• Meaningful in application to the institution
• Fair
• Reasonably applicable to the institution
• Able to be revised as we go along

Feedback to COC from the pilot institutions will differ among institutions because each institution has its own level of creativity and its own leadership focus

• Off-site and on-site review processes will be more individualized for each institution
• What kinds of materials are needed to do evaluation?
• What is the COC staff role in the processes?
• What was meaningful in the process?
• What needs to be revised or removed from the process?
• What do other institutions need to know in order to enhance the probability of their success?
• How has the shift to electronic communication effected the institution? Start up pains? Payoffs?

Overall, student achievement / outcomes become the anchor of all Quality Enhancement Plans (QEP).

ETSU will have to submit a plan, time lines, and periodic progress reports, but closing the loop in evaluation and quality enhancement is not completely clear at this time. The plan for the QEP is to be completed by January 2002 followed by a site visit February 2002. Reporting on the QEP will be done periodically throughout the 10-year re-affirmation cycle, so its not a short term project.

Dr. Benberg's role (this topic and information were presented by Dr. Benberg at each meeting throughout the day; they are not repeated again in these notes):

Dr. Benberg views his role as

• Facilitator / resource person to help us reach our goal of re-accreditation
• Relater of feedback from our institution to SACS on how the pilot program is going

SPCs role in integrating campus assessment and planning and in the pilot project:

History:

• ETSUs history with Total Quality Management dates back to 1994 and involvement with Eastman Chemical Company
• Eastman personnel consulted with ETSU to establish a Continuous Improvement (CI) environment
• SPC took on the role of seeking out opportunities for improvement
• Improvement became mission-driven but still marched to dictates of external forces (TBR, state reports, THEC, etc.)
• SPC integrated all improvement for ETSU
• Planning calendar established
• All things must link, must be integrated

This project (SACS reaffirmation / pilot institution) will be opportunity to help pull efforts together:

• Strategic Planning, TBR 5-year cycle, Performance Funding, SACS cycles are all at the same time, providing great coherence: response to one of them equals response to all.
• ETSU is shifting focus from external to internal workings by bringing in a formal improvement system. External forces become less worrisome. Internal forces should take precedence.
• The university community is invested in the improvement process. They know they can bring anything to the attention of SPC, so the people are interested in making the improvements.
• Planning continues to be linked to evaluation.
• ETSUs approach to the Compliance Audit as well as the QEP can be an integrated coherent planning model, something exportable to other institutions.
• SPC and ETSU don't just "talk"; actual improvement is evidence of Ado" (e.g. the Advisement Resource Center is the result of a CI project).
• SPCs challenge is still to get the "idea" of CI to all people on campus.

Clarification on follow-up reports, Institutional Profile Reports, other reports:

Dr. Benberg indicated that the biennial profiles would continue, that the upcoming Spring Profile would include new and additional requests for information, and that the Task Force had not yet decided how the profiles would function as follow-up documents.

Report due Fall (focus on student enrollment and retention) and Winter (focus on resources and finances).

Q / A Dialogue:

Q Is there major faculty reluctance toward the initiative for integrated planning?
A The faculty is beginning to see the effectiveness of integrated planning, but its challenging to bring faculty around to support and see the benefits. They are seeing evidence that integrated planning (TracDat) will work for the faculty later on despite intense up-front loading. It encourages faculty to use data already available. Involvement in integrated planning is easier for departments already in the "outcomes" mode.

Q How do other regional accrediting bodies assess their processes? Or are they?
A First hand information is not available, but common guidelines for all "regionals" are posted on the web (draft only). Further questions arise: Will regional accreditation survive? Will accreditation be "national" only? Most regional accrediting bodies are making major revisions in their criteria and processes, but they have not been able to agree on acceptable arrangement for institutions that open branch operations in other regions.

Q What about new pedagogy (i.e., distance learning, on-line classes / degrees, Regents degrees)? Will SACS look at cost and quality of these? SACS should provide standards.
A Distance education is a big topic, and SACS does not have a set of separate standards for Distance Education; the quality standards for traditional programs should apply to all programs (e.g., comparable services to students regardless of class / learning location). Any criteria will involve substantive change, but it is hoped that that process will be simplified.

Q We need to show the effectiveness of the institutions wise use of resources (partnerships with business and individuals). Is this best recognized through SACS criteria or media coverage?
A Both would be effective. The standards need to make it possible in concert with articles; this will make the information more visible to the taxpayers.

10:15-11:15
The Compliance Audit
Culp Auditorium (Right)
[Focus: Process and Product]

Present:
Bach, Barker, Benberg, Doran, Grube, Pyles, Stanton, Weed, and members of the Compliance Audit Teams and SPC

Introductory Notes:

ETSU was chosen out of 700 member-institutions as one of eight pilot institutions based on our solid record of commitment to integrity and to achievement as well as commitment to continuous progress.

• Other institutions will benefit greatly from what ETSU does as a pilot institution
• Responsibility of the institution:
• Create a solid approach to the challenge of ambiguity in the process
• Have leadership to implement the plan
• Ensure integrity and self-disclosure
• Integrate the process across whole campus; everyone must know what's going on and be a part of it; the university community must recognize what makes us strong
• Show honesty and willingness to disclose
• Be creative with strengths and challenges
• Internalize an effective infrastructure that enables the institution to perform continually, not just for SACS evaluation
• Provide candid feedback to COC / SACS on the pilot project (what works, what doesn't work)
• Keep documentation on the process / COC is greatly interested in refinement of the process

The ETSU Compliance Audit process, calendar, and status:

The institution:

• Is obligated to research and satisfy itself in terms of compliance with core requirements
• Must define for itself certain qualitative standards
• In the long run will be greatly served by the team approach to defining the standards
• Must have documentation readily accessible to provide evidence of compliance

Three answers to compliance:

yes: the institution is in compliance and documentation is available

no: the institution is not in compliance, but a plan is in place to come into compliance

conditional: the institution is in partial compliance and a plan is in progress to complete compliance

Q / A Dialogue:

What we say internally is the "right" answer.

We're beginning to understand the interrelatedness of all of our internal efforts for improvement and reporting with our external reporting. It becomes a relief to know that the majority of the documentation needed is "out there" and needs to be "corralled" to a central location to be helpful in reporting to all constituencies, not just SACS.

Q We want to set a "high" standard, but is "high" relative to resources available?
A The reviewers chosen for this institution will be from peer institutions so that views on resources and appropriate threshold standards will be more likely to match. Going "above" the threshold will be different for each institution.

• Key points for the defining standards internally include:
• The minimum standard is met and exceeded
• The standard should be in line with our mission
• We can document our compliance
• The purpose is not to equalize campuses but to enhance the process of review and redesign the criteria appropriate to the institution thus honoring the mission of each institution
• We can focus on our uniqueness and use resources to carry out that uniqueness
• We can separate ourselves from others in the marketplace by differentiating the kind and quality of education offered here
• Freedom and creativity to find "Who We Are"

The focus of the process moves from "meeting the threshold" to the enhancement of student learning

Q We have the concern that in the past we've used SACS and other accreditation criteria as a tool to get necessary resources internally and externally. Without more defined criteria, will that tool become unavailable?
A The minimum threshold criteria must still be met, so the "leverage" of the criteria still exists even if the number of criteria is reduced. The flexibility of the revised criteria will enable the institution to hone in on the most salient issues as well as encourage tweaking of the criteria. There is a greater responsibility on the institution in setting its own standards and define its own needs, not just Athis is for SACS" as a rationale.

We'll continue to gather and use data as leverage for resources. But even though limited in resources, we can still meet criteria and show advancement.

Q Has SACS, through this criteria reduction and redefinition, abdicated some of its gatekeeper role? In other words, will the emphasis on self-regulation invite some institutions simply wanting the accreditation to set standards that are very low?
A The peer review process with the new criteria will, it is anticipated, highlight accountability and public disclosure.

Q ETSU is a willing participant in the pilot project, but what is our contribution to COC to help refine the standards and how will our involvement impact or help other institutions that we can communicate to them?
A The methodology used to approach the standards; the complete the entire project well will contribute.

• Good templates to create framework for departments to work together (getting people together) to channel energies to come up with what is needed for the institution as a whole to make decisions about itself.
• Web based management and integrated database to satisfy various assessment mandates.
• Commitment to integrating requirements into regular planning and assessment processes rather than a flurry of activity in the 8th year.

Q What have the members of the audit committees learned that will help the institution improve itself? Is there anything that has helped you progress beyond "Why do I have to do this?" What is frustrating you?
A In addressing the standards on documentation of evidence, an institutional goal cannot be reduced to statements of evidence. We should frame goals in terms of what we want to accomplish, not just in terms of standards of evidence.

• We can collect information from the campus with less "guilt" because we can show that we are creating an information structure various users can draw from for years to come (e.g., students having more access to information on classes).
• Finding documentation that validates criteria is proven a challenge. Some may have to be created.
• We may have missed the opportunity to involve more faculty / staff on teams. It appears that we may be over-extending a few individuals.
• We have learned that we all deal with different accrediting bodies with different requirements, but were seeing overlap in criteria and can see them in a relationship that we need to explore more closely.
• It has helped in getting us together to have the organizational process that has been established (e.g., training sessions, planning, communication, activities, overall involvement of the campus community).

11:30-1:00
Lunch with Steering Committee & Leadership Team
Tennessee Room
[Focus: Roles and Responsibilities of COC and Steering Committee]

Present:
Alley, Anderson, Andrews, Bach, Bader, Barker, Benberg, Bishop, Brown, Collins, Czuchry, Day, Doran, Flanigan, Grube, Hayes, Lura, Parfitt, Pate, Pyles, Stanton, Stout, Weed

Integrity is the key to taking on this project and establishing effective programs. Honest disclosure must occur. The disclosure must be "honest," however. For example, on occasion, SACS has investigated data presented by US News and World Report that doesn't match was reported to them.

Dr. Bishop presented a brief overview of her visit to Texas A&M University, also a pilot institution:

• University-wide thinking at ETSU is easier for us because we do that already, especially through our improvement projects; they think in "silos," strongly decentralized, at the college level only
• Easier for us to mobilize our campus
• 40,000 students there; 12,000 here-their issues are different; management is different
• Our approaches to the process of defining the criteria (committee structure) are similar
• Learning outcomes apply to graduate and undergraduate; they will have to broaden their outlook on the learning environment / outcomes
• Larger institutions will approach the criteria differently than we will
• Tradition will play a part
• Their focus is mainly on the QEP; the compliance audit has a "lets just get this done" attitude and are taking more time than ETSU
• They, too, are interested in the "meta review": how their process of responding as pilot institution will impact / influence / help larger
• They are not focusing on web based reference; they are struggling with documentation issues
• The issue of how much to do at the individual unit level is also before them

Q / A Dialogue on Texas A&M:

Q What are their processes / protocols for bench marking, and how much emphasis is on this issue in terms of outcomes and costs?
A Beginning discussions only. They are concerned with "how do you get to some of the data?" particularly in terms of funding sources (lots of different revenue streams) and the difficulty in getting bench marking data. They are interested that this project will lead to more bench marking information particularly in the academic area.

Q / A Dialogue from Steering Committee:

Q Were struggling with definitions of terms in the core requirements, particularly with "academic program" and what that is.
A Review the institutional mission: institution will define Aprogram" differently; outcomes from a coherent learning experience (set of courses, studies, experiences, etc.) should be used to measure student achievement, but that achievement should be in line with the mission. The institution must decide. Again, integrity is the key. More discussion will follow on how to "define" programs.

Q How should we approach consensus on definitions?
A One goal of the Steering Committee should be to look across the standards; chairs should become familiar with all criteria in order to find other teams with whom they need to dialogue.

Q What are other items before the Steering Committee? What are your biggest challenges?
A We have both integrity and courage to "tell it like it is"; the process will be self-purifying

• Our role is to help audit teams as they define what it is they do
• Qualitative term teams will give draft to SPC of definitions and standards on February 14; the Steering Committee will keep in touch with team chairs, monitor progress, facilitate, watch for ways to get the information needed to meet the February 28 deadline for a solid draft audit report to present to SPC and then to the campus community
• Steering Committee should become aware of definitions between units to avoid confusion in wording of criteria
• The editor is important
• Identify problem terms as early as possible

Q Do you view your agenda a successful?
A Its compressed and therefore more difficult (2 years work in 6 months) but doable; our CI culture makes the process easier; were already examining ourselves

• Listen well and communicate well with each other
• Don't get hung up on Ahow to define"; make decision, move on, dont wait
• Be willing to respond with patience and be willing to give a lot extra for the next couple of months
• Be comfortable with ambiguity by remembering to look at the big picture

1:15-2:15
Quality Enhancement Plan Meeting Room 6
[Focus: The Process and Expected Product]

Present: Andrews, Barker, Bayes, Benberg, Bragg, Chi, Collins, Countermine, Doran, Dunham-Taylor, Edwards, Fields, Grube, Hall, Hopson, Johnson, Kelley, Kerley, Kirkwood, Libby, Logan, MacRae, McKinney, Mystery Person, Pate, Patrick, Pyles, Robertson, Sanders, Stanton, Steadman, Stone, Stout, Taylor, Weed, Whitson (These individuals represent the SPC, Leadership Team, and executive committees of Student Government Association, Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and the Council of Academic Chairs)

SACS COC purpose and expectation:

The QEP will

• Impact student learning
• Be meaningful to the entire institution
• Be in line with the mission
• Be determined by the institution
• Be completed by 2002 (site visit follows; visitors will have experience in the area chosen for the QEP)
• Reflect the core requirements
• Help in creating future programs to enhance student learning
• Enfranchise more departments currently not undergoing disciplinary accreditation processes
• Be monitored, reported on, and changed as needed in the future
• Give all units the chance to be connected to each other

The institution will give feedback during the process on refinement of core requirements and how they fit into the QEP commit to a completed plan provide a 75-page report (additional 25 pages appendices allowed) on QEP address student improvement opportunities

This group will define the opportunities to be addressed for consideration as the QEP connect the QEP to Strategic Planning provide leadership during the process

Q / A Dialogue:

Q Should we look at this as a continuous reaffirmation?
A The view should be more internal than external; this is continuous improvement, not necessarily reaffirmation.

Q Do we file interim reports?
A Yes, 2 reports are required (a third is probable). The first report (fall) focuses on enrollment, the second (winter) focuses on resources / finances

Q Is bench marking effective for the institution? Particularly in terms of resource allocation?
A Looking at peer accomplishments should become part of an institution's on-going evaluation.

Q How will we set our own standards? What will help us determine that standard?
A Bench marking is helpful. The institution must decided what is right.

Q Do we consider the results of other accrediting bodies?
A SACS is glad to get information reported elsewhere, but it makes its own decisions. Dont, however, overlook these results during this process.

Q Are we measuring student outcomes accurately? Its easier to address 450+ "must" statements.
A That's what the institution must decide and document for itself. Are you satisfied that students get degrees because they know the material from your department or do they know the connections between disciplines?

Q Will the Carnegie reclassification impact SACS?
A No. No realignment or organizational changes are needed.

Advice:

• Pick a focused area for the QEP; this will make the whole project more meaningful. Remember that this is a 2-step process: compliance audit (threshold test for accreditation) that will set higher goals for the institution than just meeting "minimums" and the QEP, a creative way to positively impact student achievement that is consistent with the mission
• Don't let yourselves become overwhelmed
• Identify core issues on student achievement and address something therein
• Integrated fragmented data and disseminate in such a way that it can be useful to the majority of people
• Realize that there are commonalities between programs and capitalize on those areas of overlap so that time, energy, and other resources are better utilized
• Work smart; use the data already available

2:30-3:45
Open Meeting Culp Auditorium (right)
[Focus: Clarification of Project to the Campus Community]

Present:
Bach, Barker, Benberg, Bishop, Doran, Grube, Pyles, Stanton, members of the campus community including representatives from Faculty and Staff Senates, Presidents Council, Academic Council, SGA, Council of Chairs, Standing Committees

Items of Interest not already presented in previous meetings:

• Our actions as a pilot institution are highly visible, especially our web presence, and will most likely result in national headlines
• Pilot institutions will be making presentations to COC in December 2002

Q / A Dialogue:

Q How will the reports be used after reaffirmation?
A SACS will notice major shifts in resources and / or sharp directional changes between reports and will investigate if deemed necessary.

Q Will the new criteria really level the playing field for all departments?
A The criteria gives even footing in the sense that each unit must measure itself.

Q How does TracDat fit with SACS?
A Both are beneficial but are not dependent on one another. SACS is concerned with continuous improvement and student outcomes. TracDat is a tool to integrate information, goals, and objectives that will assist in continuous improvement and student outcomes. They are both complementary to our value on stewardship.

Q What about buzzwords (e.g., adequate, sufficient)?
A Since the goal / definition is set by us, we own the goal. We determine how not only what adequate is, but how far above that self-defined minimum we are and can go.

4:00-4:30
Exit Meeting w / Leadership Team & SPC Presiden'ts Conference Room
[Focus: Impressions of COC members]

Present:
Andrews, Bach, Benberg, Bishop, Doran, Edwards, Grube, Kelley, MacRae, Pyles, Sanders, Stanton, Steadman, Taylor

• The days activities were all positioned well
• Having so many leaders there was impressive
• University has focused resources well for this project
• We are moving forward to defining our own future
• We are working together to initiate an infrastructure that will be useful on an ongoing basis
• COC is comfortable with where we are

Evaluators Questions (to be reported to SACS COC):

Q Which standards are the most difficult?
A Short answer, where standards must be defined.

Q How many committees were established to address this project?
A SPC already in place. Created were the Steering Committee, the Leadership Team, and Compliance Audit Teams

Q How can COC be helpful?
A Continue communication as 2-way street; provide timely feedback so we can improve, not just pass / fail

Q What additional assistance does ETSU need in relation to the project?
A None

Q To what degree is your technology response?
A 100%

Q Are you on schedule?
A Yes, the calendar is in place; were on target

Q Can we finalize a Visiting Committee / Site Visit date?
A February 2002 is fine. Finalized date to be confirmed via e-mail in the next few days.

Other Issues:

Must be watchful that, with COC seeming to be relinquishing its gatekeeper role with less criteria, there may be more opportunities for institutions to Alow ball"

We've got to market ourselves, get the message out how, where, and why were improving. Our challenge is to communicate to the market that what we have to offer of a better value (worth more) than a A12 easy steps" approach to a degree.

reference room | pilot project | compliance audit | enhancement plan
search | contact | home

East Tennessee State University
alphabetical site index

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O
P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z