Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Initial SACS report
Post Info TOPIC: Initial SACS report
Black Cat

Date:
Initial SACS report
Permalink Closed

From an internal USM listserv:


The SACS findings are:


1.       The University was found to be in compliance. 7 recommendations for improvement to our compliance plan were offered. These recommendations are guidance for improvements that we can make to our compliance plan prior to it being submitted to the commission.


2.      The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) was accepted and approved. There were 5 recommendations for improvement to the plan for the university to consider prior to final submission to the commission.


3.      The SACs team called our QEP and “exciting plan” noting repeatedly the “expertise and enthusiasm” demonstrated by the faculty, staff and students for this plan. While other plans may address either writing or speaking, the integration of both these skills was noted as excellent work.


4.      Katrina: The team saw the effects of the hurricane and showed appreciation for “our struggle”, and noted the care and concern for students demonstrated. Even as they are empathic, they noted concerns directly resulting from Katrina: short/long-term plans for the Gulf Coast facilities (master planning), financial stability and concern for the effects of the over teaching conditions for a prolonged period of time on the learning process.


5.      This visit was an engagement in improvement for our university. With “constructive helpfulness” there was “collegial exchange” of information all, with the end goal of continual improvement for the betterment of our students. That is, indeed, the goal of the accreditation process.


What’s next?


·         The full report will be available in 2 -3 weeks from the team.


·         The university will have 5 months to prepare a formal response to make revisions to the current compliance plan and QEP based on the recommendations.


·         After the chair of the team’s review of the response, it is submitted to the Commission prior to the December meeting.


·         In December, the Commission reviews the report.


·         In Mid-January we get our formal letter of accreditation.



 


FAQs


Was this a good report, overall?


Yes, this was a good report for the university. The recommendations for improvement are all things we can use as we update and revise our plans prior to final submission.

The acceptance of the QEP topic is a very good report. Other universities may not get there topic approved and have to start over. Not only did they like (accept) the topic but spoke repeatedly about the depth of expertise and overall enthusiasm for this plan.


Is this a lot of recommendations? What do the “recommendations” really mean?


While we have no way of knowing statistically if this is “a lot”, our experience in the field has seen that other institutions getting 20, 30 or 40 recommendations at a visit. Receiving 7 on our compliance plan, particularly relative to the number of things that were related to Katrina, does not appear to be a large number of recommendations. A recommendation is just that – guidance for improvement, constructive helpfulness and ways to enhance things that are already in the plan – so that we can revise the plan prior to final submission to the Commission in December.


Is this out of the ordinary – getting recommendations?


No. It has not been our senior leadership experience to see an institution go through an accreditation visit without getting any recommendations. That is what accreditation visits are for – to improve what you are doing – it is the true purpose of this kind of audit.


Were there other comments of significance or other observations to share?


Yes…here are a few:


·         The faculty involvement, knowledge, and zeal for the QEP were meaningful to the team. The interaction and spirited dialogue by faculty and staff with the team regarding the QEP implementation was impressive.


·         In regard to resources for the QEP – one of our faculty, Dr. Kuskin was even quoted by the team: “No curtailment of imagination” was the phase used when speaking about QEP implementation. The QEP team lead loved this comment.



·         The meeting with the faculty senate was mentioned very briefly by the team chair noting that the shared governance policy needed “common understanding” between administration and faculty. No other actions were needed.


·         Katrina concerns were one of the consistent themes. Planning and space for the coastal facilities was the focus of the concerns (as it is with our own faculty and staff).


·         There was a great appreciation by the team for the hospitality shown to them. They understood how seriously we take accreditation and were very appreciative of the interaction with all faculty and staff during the visit. From this interaction they saw how our operation is responding to their requirements…in some cases, better that then documentation demonstrated on paper.



__________________
Up the creek without a paddle

Date:
Permalink Closed

I guess shared governance is no longer a dimension reviewed by SACS. Who, if anybody, monitors that?

__________________
Jean Moulin

Date:
Permalink Closed


Up the creek without a paddle wrote:
I guess shared governance is no longer a dimension reviewed by SACS. Who, if anybody, monitors that?

AAUP

__________________
stephen judd

Date:
Permalink Closed

Up the creek without a paddle wrote:

I guess shared governance is no longer a dimension reviewed by SACS. Who, if anybody, monitors that?

They may have strengthened our hand. This is tacit recognition from a national accrediting agency that Faculty and the Administration do not agree on shared governance. While it does not lay responsibility in any one corner, it does imply that this is an important academic value and that faculty must be involved in developing a definition of how the insititution defines and implements the concept. 


I think this sends a very clear signal to the Board, at the every least,  that faculty concerns over this issue are real.



__________________
Black Cat

Date:
Permalink Closed

Another take on SACS from Faculty Senate president Bill Powell:


Colleagues,

Representing the Faculty Senate, I attended this morning’s exit conference with the SACS team members. The following notes should be considered exceedingly preliminary and subject to my having garbled what was said; perhaps fellow senators Jeff Evans (representing Academic Council)  and Mary Lux (QEP) can fill in details and make corrections. No written comments or summary statement was provided by the SACS team in this morning’s session, though Joan Exline is to prepare something for distribution later today (It just arrived and I attach it for comparison purposes).

Of the 20 items that that off-site team has cited for non-compliance (see http://www.usm.edu/ie/focused_report/index.html), 13 were deemed to have been satisfactorily addressed. Seven remain:



  • 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 the comprehensive standard for faculty qualifications. The Recommendation was that the university provide evidence of the number of faculty for all programs and sites

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




    • Provide the required audit information. One source of a problem with this requirement is that the IHL/State Auditor has not finished the necessary audit.
    • The team also asked that the university demonstrate that resources are adequate after the effects of Katrina

  • Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 - The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

    • The recommendation is that university provide evidence of program improvements based on the analysis of assessment results

  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.14 - The institution’s use of technology enhances student learning, is appropriate for meeting the objectives of its programs, and ensures that students have access to and training in the use of technology.

    • The recommendation is to provide evidence that the use of technology enhances student learning.

  • Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 - The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies

    • The recommendation is to establish outcomes for all GEC and provide evidence of attainment. Assessment of transfer students was also mentioned

  • Comprehensive Standard 3.10.5 - The institution maintains financial control over externally funded or sponsored research and programs.

    • Sorry my notes are illegible here. There was something about internal controls and a university-wide equipment inventory for research projects

  • Comprehensive Standard 3.10.7 - The institution operates and maintains physical facilities, both on and off campus, that are adequate to serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services, and other mission-related activities.

    • Two recommendations here: (1) Develop a master facility plan for Hattiesburg and (2) review the plan for the Coast post-Katrina.


Interestingly there were three “General Observations” mentioned by the team (take particular note of the second one)



  • They felt that the direct questions asked by the off-site team were not adequately addressed
  • They pointed out that the Senate had asked to meet with team members to discuss the issue of share governance. They noted that shared governance appears in the university mission statement and that it is broadly addressed in the Faculty Handbook. Their observation is that the institution should work to clarify what shared governance means with the goal of a common understanding between faculty and the administration.
  • The observed that the post-Katrina facilities on the Coast may not be adequate and that planning is needed, especially for the long term (Personal note: maybe this will get the IHL moving on addressing coast facilities).


With the QEP, they accepted it with five recommendations (not a clear “pass”). Overall they seemed please with the direction of the QEP and commented repeatedly on the enthusiasm for the project expressed by  the faculty with whom they spoke. One team member, a writing center director, characterized the QEO as “an exciting plan.” The recommendations dealt with the following:



  1. Defining the relationship between the capstone courses and the gen ed core in terms of writing and speaking
  2. Demonstrate how changes in the GEC can result from assessment of capstones (where the QEP training is focused)
  3. Demonstrate the plan for evaluating the QEP
  4. provide evidence that the operational structure and assessment of the QEP is university wide, not within departments
  5. Provide a clear description of faculty training, ongoing support and follow-up activities.


One comment was that the team felt that much of this information was expressed in the meetings, but that it wasn’t adequately reflected in the documentation.



__________________
Flounder

Date:
Permalink Closed

Everybody  (including Meredith, the IHL Board, and SACS) knows there is precious little shared governance at USM. The faculty was over a barrel on this one because to go public could have put USM back on probation. That would have severely hampered next year's presidential search and hurt enrollment, so the faculty made nice. That took the pressure off of SACS to point out the obvious. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that the administration will tell the world what a great job they did arranging the smoke and mirrors.




__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Initial SACS report
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard