MUSC Medical Links Charleston Links Archives Medical Educator Speakers Bureau Seminars and Events Research Studies Research Grants Catalyst PDF File Community Happenings Campus News

Return to Main Menu

University reaccreditation

Evaluating SACS reaffirmation of accreditation process, timeline

by Cindy Abole
Public Relations
This is the second of a series of articles that will provide an overview of the purpose, process and content of the current accreditation reaffirmation of MUSC by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). It focuses on the process and the organization MUSC has put together to state MUSC’s compliance with the requirements. Every member of the MUSC faculty and staff should be thoroughly aware of and familiar with this initiative so essential to the future of our institution.
 
As noted in the opening article (The Catalyst, Dec. 2, 2005), SACS reaffirms accreditations every 10 years, and each reaffirmation of accreditation is a totally new exercise requiring complete, candid answers and documentation for all required information. For the past four years, the SACS focus has switched from process orientation to documenting student outcomes. The reaffirmation process is based on peer reviews of written documentation an institution provides that affirms its compliance with published standards in two areas, each with different due dates, and somewhat different reviews:
  • Compliance Certification—14 Core Requirements and 61 Comprehensive Standards (including eight Federal Requirements). This must be completed and submitted by September. The subject of each compliance request and the types of supporting documentation are specified by SACS. This comprehensive document submitted in September of this year will be reviewed off site in mid-November with a focus on whether we are in compliance with each of the 75 compliance standards.
  • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)—Presents a 10-year “course of action for institutional improvement crucial to enhancing educational quality that is directly related to student learning” and must have institution-wide impact with adequate identified resources for long term implementation. A five-year quantitative evaluation report of the success of the QEP will be due in 2012. The student learning topic of the QEP is determined by MUSC and is based on the SACS specified overall parameters. It will be submitted in February 2007.  The  QEP, as well as  any compliance statements requiring clarification and or additional information as requested by the off-site review team, will be the subject of an on-site visit by a second SACS team, scheduled for March 27-29, 2007.
 
The current process was set in motion during the 2004-2005 academic year by several meetings of Office of Academic Affairs personnel which resulted in organizing and implementing a process, operational procedures, and definitive timelines to complete the required cooperative effort with a wide, but effective, array of university faculty and staff resources. This resulted in the appointment of 11 separate working committees involving 108 members of faculty, staff, and student body from all six colleges, and relevant university staff and organizations to deal with all aspects of this 2007 reaffirmation of accreditation process.

Seven of these committees are responsible for researching and certifying university compliance with SACS standards. All must complete their reports no later than Sept. 1. Two committees are responsible for drafting responses to the findings of the SACS peer review committees. One committee will have the responsibility of developing the QEP and one will oversee the entire reaffirmation process.
  • Core Requirements Committee—Chaired by Sabra Slaughter, Ph.D., this eight-member committee is charged with responding to 10 of the 12 core requirements by either confirming compliance or explaining those situations for which there is less than compliance. Its first meeting was Sept. 26, 2005. Among other things, it will document degree-granting authority, jurisdiction of the Governing Board, responsibility of top administration, focus of institutional mission/continuity, and quality of education programs and faculty as well as learning resources/services and other student support areas. Meeting these requirements is mandatory for achieving reaffirmation of accreditation.
  • Institutional Effectiveness Committee—Is charged with responding to core requirement five and comprehensive standard 16, both of which deal with institutional effectiveness, by demonstrating and documenting compliance or explaining those situations for which there is less than compliance. With 16 members, and chaired by Tom Basler, Ph.D., the committee met initially Sept. 10, 2005, and will document that MUSC identifies and evaluates educational/administrative programs, using results of such assessments for ongoing improvement.
  • Governance Committee—Chaired by Vice President for Finance and Administration Lisa Montgomery, this eight-member committee is charged with reviewing 15 of the 61 comprehensive standards, and ensuring that the university is in compliance with all of them for reaffirmation of accreditation. It initially met on Oct. 19, 2005, and will document such things as the carrying out the institutional mission, authority and span of control of the Board of Trustees and executive administration, comprehensiveness and fairness of faculty/staff employment policies, affiliation agreements, and intellectual property policies. 
  • Programs Committee—Is charged with responding to 19 of the 61 comprehensive standards by demonstrating and documenting compliance or explaining those situations for which there is less than compliance. Meeting initially Oct. 28, 2005, and chaired by Jim Begany, this 22-member group will document organization, availability, and effectiveness of all education programs.
  • Faculty, students, and Learning Resources Committee—Chaired by Valerie West, Ed.D., this 17-member committee is charged with reviewing 11 of the 61 comprehensive standards, and ensuring that the university is in compliance with all of them for reaffirmation of accreditation. It initially met Oct. 11, 2005, and will document such things as faculty credentials/capabilities, adequacy of learning resources, student services, and records security/confidentiality.
  • Resources Committee—Is charged with responding to 7 of the 61 comprehensive standards by demonstrating and documenting compliance or explaining those situations for which there is less than compliance. Meeting initially Oct. 21, 2005, and chaired by Patrick Wamsley, this 11-member group will document adequacy and control of fiscal and physical resources as well as environmental health and safety concerns, and adequacy of budgetary resources.
  • Federal Requirements Committee—Chaired by Jim Begany, this 12-member committee is charged with reviewing the last 8 of the 61 comprehensive standards (all of the federal requirements), and ensuring that the university is in compliance with all of them for reaffirmation of accreditation. It initially met Oct. 27, 2005, and will document such issues as licensing, recruitment, grievance procedures, accreditations, and compliance with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. Meeting these eight federal requirements is mandatory for achieving reaffirmation of accreditation.
 
Once these committees have completed their work, two additional committees will deal with the findings of two SACS peer reviews once they have been submitted. 
  • On-Site and Off-Site Review Response Committees—These two committees will be responsible for responding to findings and comments of the SACS On-site and Off-site Review Committees. The Off-site Review Response Committee, chaired by West, will prepare a written “Focused Report” to be submitted to SACS through the Reaffirmation Oversight Committee.  The On-site Review Response Committee, chaired by Tom Higerd, Ph.D., will respond to the final report of the SACS On-site Review explaining thoroughly the actions taken by MUSC to ensure compliance with all core requirements and comprehensive standards especially those brought into question by this SACS review committee. 
 
Then there is the committee specifically charged with the other major component of accreditation.
  • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee—With a chair to be announced, this broadly representative university group will prepare the Quality Enhancement Plan which will describe the focus of the plan on student learning, set forth MUSC capability to initiate and continue the prescribed plan, assess the outcomes of the QEP, and provide for broad-based involvement of the MUSC academic community. The QEP will be submitted to SACS in February 2007.
 
Finally, there are two broad oversight and administrative groups that will remain active during the entire time until the official endorsement of the accreditation decision is received from SACS following the SACS Commission on Colleges annual meeting in December 2007.

  • Reaffirmation Oversight (Overview) Committee(ROC)—Chaired by MUSC President Raymond Greenberg, M.D., Ph.D., this 13-member group is charged with review of MUSC’s SACS reaffirmation efforts and products. The ROC will serve as gatekeepers of all reports and data submitted to SACS, and approve the focus and details of the Quality Enhancement Plan.
  • SACS Steering Committee—This is the working group providing administrative guidance and support to all aspects of the process, ultimately pulling the wide array of disparate report drafts into a unified and consistent final draft.  It is chaired by Higerd of the Provost Office, along with Jim Gilbert, Ph.D., and Carol Lancaster, Ph.D., of the same office,  Mary Mauldin, Ed.D., of the Center for Academic Research & Computing,  David Ward, Ph.D., of the College of Health Professions, and Walker Coleman of the President’s Office.    
  
MUSC-SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Milestones
  • SACS Reaffirmation Orientation of MUSC Leadership (June 2005)
  • Submission of Compliance Certification (September 2006)
  • SACS Off-site Review (November 2006)
  • MUSC Response to Off-site Review Report (January 2007)
  • Submission of a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) (February 2007)
  • SACS On-site Review (March 27—March 29, 2007)
  • MUSC response to On-site Review Report (June 2007)
  • SACS endorsement of reaffirmation (December 2007)
 

Friday, March 17, 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 papers at 849-1778, ext. 201.