st. petersburg college: fifth year interim report dr. julia pet-armacost dr. robert l. armacost...

St. Petersburg College:Fifth Year Interim Report

Dr. Julia Pet-ArmacostDr. Robert L. Armacost

SACSCOC Steering TeamMarch 1, 2013

Overview FYIR requirements How is SPC doing? Who is the reviewer? Critical success factors What makes a good narrative?

March 1, 2013 Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC 2


SPC Fifth Year Interim Report

Mini-compliance certification Due: September 15, 2013 Part III: 17 standards

Two Core Requirements Six Comprehensive Standards Nine Federal Requirements

Part V: QEP Impact Report


How Are You Doing? Seven months from submission Very complete initial drafts No obvious fatal flaws that can’t be fixed GOOD WORK!


What’s Next? Narratives not perfect One chance to provide evidence Must be sufficient to demonstrate compliance Communication challenge

Standards Requiring Attention


Standard

1 –

has m

any

maj

or is

sues

to

addr

ess/

corr

ect;

mos

t lik

ely

will

be

cons

ider

ed

out o

f com

plia

nce

2 –

has s

ever

al

maj

or is

sues

to

addr

ess/

corr

ect

3 –

has s

ome

min

or a

nd/o

r a

few

maj

or is

sues

to

ad

dres

s/co

rrec

t

4 –

near

ly re

ady

for S

ACS

revi

ew;

has a

few

min

or

issu

es to

ad

dres

s/co

rrec

t

5 –

read

y fo

r SAC

S re

view

; mos

t lik

ely

will

be

cons

ider

ed in

co

mpl

ianc

e

CR 2.8--Sufficient faculty XCR 2.10--Student services XCS 3.2.8--Administrative and academic officers XCS 3.3.1.1--Institutional Effectiveness XCS 3.4.3--Admissions policies XCS 3.4.11-Academic program coordination XCS 3.11.3--Physical facilities XCS 3.13.a--Other agencies XCS 3.13.b--Complaint procedures XCS 3.13.4--Distance learning XFR 4.1--Student achievement XFR 4.2--Program curriculum XFR 4.3--Publication of policies XFR 4.4--Program length XFR 4.5--Student complaints XFR 4.6--Recruitment materials XFR 4.7--Title IV program responsibilities XFR 4.8.1--Student authentication XFR 4.8.2--Privacy XFR 4.8.3--Charges XFR 4.9--Definition of Credit Hours X

Communicate To Whom? Review team Experienced reviewers for specific standards Reviewing documents from multiple institutions Expecting to easily see evidence Do not intend to look for evidence to make your case for

you


Review Teams Reviewers are your peers Reviewers will probably read your document on their

laptops while sitting in their living rooms in Mississippi, Texas, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina Possibly slow internet connections They still have a day job May not read the entire report May be from “Missouri”

Reviewers will vary in their interpretation of the same evidence

Incomplete evidence will lead to interpretations based only on reviewer’s experience

8Fifth Year Interim Report for SPCMarch 1, 2013


Critical Success Factors Address every element in the standard and only

address the elements in the standard Organize the content and use subtitles related to the

elements in the standard Keep each narrative as self-contained as possible Try to avoid language that is specific to your institution Remember that integrity is key KISS principle

SACSCOC Guidance for Reviewershttp://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ANALYZING%20A%20CASE%20FOR%20COMPLIANCE_SEPT2010%20_2_.pdf

(October 2010)

Narrative statement Statement is focused solely on the requirement and addresses

each of the components of the requirement Rationale

Clear and concise statement of the reason(s) for the assertion regarding the institution’s perception of compliance with the requirement

Evidence—at least three of the following Reliable, current, verifiable, coherent, objective, relevant,

representative Evidence-based analysis of compliance

Addresses all aspects of requirements in coherent, concise and focused manner


http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ANALYZING%20A%20CASE%20FOR%20COMPLIANCE_SEPT2010%20_2_.pdf


SACSCOC Guidance for Reviewershttp://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ANALYZING%20A%20CASE%20FOR%20COMPLIANCE_SEPT2010%20_2_.pdf

(October 2010)

Overall judgment of case for compliance It directly addresses all aspects of the requirement The evidence provided is sufficient The analysis provided is sufficient The case is coherent




Policies and Procedures--Guidance Applies whether SACSCOC-mandated or internal SPC

policy or procedure Policy or procedure

Is in writing and has been approved through appropriate institutional processes

Is published in appropriate institutional documents accessible to those affected by the policy or procedure

Is implemented and enforced by SPC. If you have never had to apply the policy (e.g., removal of a Trustee), say so.

See http://www.sacscoc.org/policies.asp


http://www.sacscoc.org/policies.asp

What Makes a Good Narrative? Start with a brief summary/abstract

Do not repeat the standard Briefly describe the evidence that shows why you are in

compliance Make it usable for the reviewer to cut and paste into her report

Do not use future tense—it shouts “NON-COMPLIANCE”.

Do not make the reviewer have to search for evidence to make the case for you.

Make sure that you address each point in the requirement or standard.


What Makes a Good Narrative? Consider using an outline to structure the narrative to

create the story line. Consider using a format with appropriate headings to

direct the reviewers focus. Include references whenever you make an assertion. Only include references that are needed to support the

narrative—no extra uncited references. Use relevant excerpts from references

Include relevant content in the narrative Put a box around it in the attachment Do not force the reviewer to search through the whole

reference to find the relevant informationMarch 1, 2013 Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC 14

What Makes a Good Narrative? Do not use superlatives (e.g., outstanding program)

without evidence. This is not a PR marketing document. It is better to be modest and direct Do not challenge the reviewer to find unsubstantiated claims

Do not include material that is not directly relevant to the standard. If you raise it, it is fair game for the reviewer to find problems.

Be PARISMONIOUS. Use as much relevant narrative as needed to make the point, but do not include more.

Limit the use of acronyms.


What Makes a Good Narrative? Read each reference carefully. There may be some

content that you did not intend to share. The reviewers do not know anything about how higher

education works in Florida. If you are not in compliance or partial compliance, say

so and present an action plan. Use the spelling and grammar checkers. Have someone else review your narrative.


Questions and Discussion

More to follow in individual sessions Thank you and good luck on your accreditation journey.


???

st. petersburg college: fifth year interim report dr. julia pet-armacost dr. robert l. armacost...

Documents