Return to Main Menu

University reaccreditation SACS Comprehensive Standards 2 reviewed by Cindy Abole Public Relations This is the sixth in a series of articles providing an overview of the purpose, process and content of the current accreditation reaffirmation of MUSC by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).    This second of five parts covering “Comprehensive Standards” focuses on those 19 of the total 65 standards that involve university programs. The remaining three parts will cover Faculty/Student/Learning Resources, University Resources, Federal Requirements, and Institutional Effectiveness.    Initial information gathering about and documentation of these standards is a responsibility of the Comprehensive Standards Committee—programs, as chaired by James Begany.   Following is a brief overview of each standard as well as the associated documentation required. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.1: Educational Programs’ Approvals and Evaluation—institution demonstrates faculty/administration approval as well as evaluation for each program (and associated learning outcomes) awarding academic credit. Documentation would include approval policies/procedures, minutes where approved, representative program and learning outcomes, descriptions of resultant student achievement outcomes, and evaluation reports including examples of outcome and evaluation improvements over time. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.2: Continuing Education, Outreach, and Service Programs—must all be consistent with the university mission. Documentation would include policies for all three as they relate to the mission, examples of the program offerings and audiences served, and proof of regular evaluation relative to institution’s mission as well as specific program goals. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.3: Published Admissions Policies Consistent with Mission—documentation includes catalog admission sections, specific program recruitment materials, admission decision processes/procedures, minutes—all demon-strate evidence of regular policy evaluations relative to acceptable higher education practices, and system policy or legislation relative to admissions. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.4:  Published Mission Consistent Policies for Academic Transfer, Experiential Learning, Advanced Placement, and Professional Certificates—must ensure course work and learning outcomes and their academic quality are at collegiate level. Documentation includes catalogues and other publications with credit policies, transfer policies, process/criteria for accepting transfer credits, copies of agreements/contracts with other institutions or organizations, and description of periodic evaluation of credit policies. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.5: Published and Widely Disseminated Academic Policies Adhering to Principles of Good Educational Practices—documentation would include mission-related institutional criteria for educational practices, lists of policies as well as documents (and Web sites) disseminating such as catalogues/handbooks (student and faculty), similar documents describing process for their development/approval/review, and minutes where policies are modified or approved. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.6: Valid Practices Determining Course Work Levels of Credit—must be sound, acceptable, and consistent regardless of format or mode of course work delivery. Documentation includes process for equivalent credit determination, policies determining levels/amount of credit, and catalog identifying credits assigned and types of instructional modes if non-traditional. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.7: Programs/Courses Offered Through Consortia Agreements and/or Contractual Arrangements—should ensure quality of programs, ongoing compliance with SACS comprehensive requirements, and institutional mission relational evaluations. Documentation would include contracts/agreements assuring responsibilities for program/course quality as well as evidence that they are evaluated from perspective of institutional purpose and with SACS accredited institutions where relevant. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.8: Academic Credit for Noncredit Course Work—must only be awarded with documentation of equivalency to a designated credit experience. Documentation would include policies/processes for determining equivalency as well as evidence of their wide dissemination enforcement. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.9: Provision of Appropriate Academic Support Services—documentation includes publica-tions (e.g., catalog, Student handbook) and Web sites (e.g., academic support services) describing availability and access paths, usage data, and periodic evaluation and ongoing improvement. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.10: Published Undergraduate General Education Requirements and Major Requirements for All Programs—documentation for major programs should include peer instructional comparative data, professional accreditations, external reviews, and curriculum committees’ minutes. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11: Policies  Protecting Security, Confidentiality, and Integrity of Student Academic Records—including maintenance of special back-up data protection security measures. Documentation includes confidentiality/security descriptions in university publications, written policies including those for backup records, and evidence of faculty/staff training to assure knowledge and compliance with such policies. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.12: Primary Faculty Responsibility for Curriculum Content, Quality, and Effectiveness—documentation includes faculty handbook, curriculum development policies (manuals), meeting minutes describing faculty responsibilities, and faculty curriculum evaluations focusing on quality and effectiveness. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.13: Academically Qualified Assignments for Program Coordination and Curriculum Development/Review—must be qualified in specific programmatic fields.  Documentation would include a list of coordinators along with areas of responsibility, specific responsibilities, and qualifications. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.14: Student Learning Technology—must be accessible (including training), meet programs’ objectives, and enhance student learning. Documentation would include usage policies/procedures, evidence of appropriateness/effectiveness, access/training evidence, and ongoing assessment in related student competencies used for continuous improvement. Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1: Identified and Attained College Level Competencies in General Education Core—documentation includes identification of competencies as well as their defining/evaluation justification and evidence of undergraduate attainment. Comprehensive Standard 3.5.2: Degrees Must Earn Minimum 25 percent of Required Credit Via Instruction by Institution—documentation includes applicable degree completion policies and evidence verifying the 25 percent minimum requirement.  Comprehensive Standard 3.6.1: Graduate Programs Progressively More Content Advanced Than Undergraduate And Each Other—documentation includes samples at each level of learning outcomes and intended student achievement for outcomes assessed. Comprehensive Standard 3.6.2: Graduate Instruction/Resources Foster Independent Learning—enabling graduates to contribute to a profession or field of study. Documentation includes degree requirements, syllabi, independent learning outcome expectations, examples of related project/portfolios/dissertations, and evidence of adequate independent learning support resources. Comprehensive Standard 3.6.3: Majority of Graduate Credits Earned Through Degree Awarding Institution—documentation includes policies, procedures, and operational manuals regarding awarding credits as well as examples of implementation and dissemination of policies. Comprehensive Standards Committee James Begany James T. Begany, chair,Dr. Gail A. Barbosa, McKay B. Crowley, Adam Luis Fernandez, Norman B. Fine, Dr. Sandra S. Garner, Dr. David R. Garr, Dr. Phillip D. Hall, Dr. Thomas B. Higerd, Christopher M. Malanuk, Dr. Stephen  W. Malley, Dr. Jacqueline F. McGinty, Cameron McIlwain, Dr. Maralynne D. Mitcham, Sandra Morris, Leslie C. Robinson, Dr. Robert M. Sade, Dr. Kathleen Simon, Elaine C. Smith, Dr. Becki A. Trickey, Dr. Adam J. Smolka, Dr. Jeffrey G. Wong     Friday, June 23, 2006 Catalyst Online is published weekly, updated as needed and improved from time to time by the MUSC Office of Public Relations for the faculty, employees and students of the Medical University of South Carolina. Catalyst Online editor, Kim Draughn, can be reached at 792-4107 or by email, catalyst@musc.edu. Editorial copy can be submitted to Catalyst Online and to The Catalyst in print by fax, 792-6723, or by email to catalyst@musc.edu. To place an ad in The Catalyst hardcopy, call Island Publications at 849-1778, ext. 201.