The Self-Study Plan

Reaffirmation of Accreditation
by
The Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

1999-2001


Table of Contents

I. The Reaffirmation Process
II. The Purpose of Reaffirmation
III. The Commission's Expectations for the Self-Study
IV. The Alternate Model Self-Study
V. Roanoke's Alternate Model Self-Study Proposal
VI. Key Stages in the Reaffirmation Process at Roanoke
VII. Roanoke's Self-Study Calendar
VIII. The Organizational Structure for Roanoke's Self-Study
  1. The Reaffirmation Process (taken from the Handbook for Institutional Self-Study, Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1994)

    1. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of six private, nonprofit, voluntary regional accrediting associations established for the purpose of improving education in colleges and schools through a process of evaluating institutions against a set of criteria . . . The Commission on Colleges is the recognized regional body which accredits institutions awarding associate, baccalaureate, master's, specialist's or doctoral degrees in the eleven southern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia and in Latin America (p. 3).

    2. The accrediting standards used by the Commission on Colleges make up the Criteria for Accreditation.  The Criteria is approved by the membership and provides consistent guidelines to peers as they evaluate institutions (p. 3).  Institutions are evaluated every ten years.

    3. A key component in the accreditation process is the self-study.  Each institution applying for initial, continuing, or renewed accreditation is required to conduct a comprehensive study of its purpose, programs, and services.  At the culmination of the self-study, the Commission on Colleges sends a committee of peers to the campus to assess the educational strengths and weaknesses of the institution as outlined in the self-study, to evaluate the institution's effectiveness in reaching its stated goals and in complying with the Criteria, and to consult with the institution on issues important to its advancement.  The committee develops a consensus of its findings and completes a formal written report" (p. 3).  The Criteria have been developed by and may be modified by the College Delegate Assembly, which consists of one member from each of the 780 accredited institutions in the region.

    4. The written report of the Visiting Committee provides the basis on which the Commission decides to grant, continue, reaffirm, or withdraw accreditation.  The Visiting Committee report, the response of the institution to the findings of the committee, and the Chair's evaluation of the institution's response are reviewed by the appropriate Committee on Criteria and Reports.  The Committee on Criteria and Reports recommends action on accreditation to the Executive Council of the Commission . . . which . . . recommends action to the Commission on Colleges, which makes the final decision (p. 4).

    5. The accreditation process . . . involves peers at every level of review: as members of the Visiting Committee; as members of the Committees on Criteria and Reports assigned to review accreditation reports and institutional responses; and as members of the Commission who take final action on the accreditation of institutions (p. 5).

  2. The Purpose of Reaffirmation

    1. The basic purpose of reaffirmation is the continuous improvement of curricular and instructional programs.  In the traditional comprehensive self-study, the peer evaluators and the Commission on Colleges focused on two primary questions:

      1. Is the institution in compliance with the basic standards that have been developed to ensure the delivery of quality higher education within this region?  If Roanoke is not in compliance with any of these standards, the review process is an opportunity to discover that and to take action to bring the college into compliance.

      2. Does the institution actually provide for students what it promises and how does the institution know what it is accomplishing?  It is not unheard of that institutions use language rather loosely in describing themselves and in stating what they offer to students.  It should be easy to agree that false promises ought not be made, so the review process is an opportunity to ensure that Roanoke actually does what it says it will do.  In answering this question, the College will need to demonstrate that it has an effective process in place to assess the extent to which promises are being fulfilled and has taken action to improve in areas where that can occur.

      3. Because Roanoke has been approved for a relatively new version of the self-study, the review team will ask a third question: How well has Roanoke done in studying its selected special focus?  This special focus, described in Section V, offers Roanoke an opportunity to devote significant attention to improving a specific aspect of the college.

    2. The reaccreditation process offers an opportunity to re-evaluate our statement of purpose and our curricular goals; to identify significant institutional issues, strengths, and weaknesses and strategies for evaluating concerns; to improve assessment of institutional effectiveness; to examine the College relative to the Criteria standards; and to work together on a process that leads to a stronger institution (Commission on Colleges, 1994).

  3. The Commission's Expectations for the Self-Study

    1. While the self-study is conducted in the year prior to the site visit, the Commission sees self-analysis and assessment as ongoing processes that should be incorporated into the planning and evaluation activities of the institution.  Roanoke's proposal was written with this ideal in mind.

    2. The Commission on Colleges has articulated that a good self-study:

      1. is comprehensive--assessing all aspects of the institution's operations and programs.

      2. is broadly participatory--involving personnel from all segments of the institution.

      3. is analytical--identifying both strengths and weaknesses.

      4. examines planning and evaluation processes--examining the effectiveness of the institution's planning and evaluation processes.

      5. identifies significant issues--identifying and examining issues significant to the institution's future development.

      6. presents recommendations--seeking to remedy identified weaknesses and enhancing institutional strengths.

      7. develops a follow-up plan--describing adequate procedures for the review and follow up of suggestions and recommendations made in the self-study.

  4. The Alternate Model Self-Study

    1. Since the early 1970s, SACS has offered institutions an opportunity to do an Alternate Model Self-Study (AMS).  While most institutions continue to conduct the traditional model, several are now opting for the alternate approach.  After due consideration last summer and fall, Roanoke College applied for the alternate model and was approved.  Roanoke's project is described in Section V.

    2. The Traditional Model Self-Study (TMS) format required an intensive, broad-based examination of the extent to which the institution was in compliance with the more than 400 "must" statements identified in the Criteria for Accreditation.  The study process typically led to a report of 200-300 pages with a similarly-sized appendix of essential supporting documents.  Faculty who were at Roanoke during previous self-study years recall the major effort and focus that was directed to the self-study.

    3. The Alternate Model Self-Study differs in two important respects from the traditional approach.

      1. First, rather than having a single focus, the AMS includes two phases that are conducted simultaneously:

        1. A compliance audit examines and compiles documentary evidence regarding institutional compliance with the standards set forth in the Criteria.  Essentially, this is an abbreviated TMS.  All of the same must statements must be addressed and all of the same evidence amassed to support institutional statements, but (a) it is (theoretically) presented in a much condensed "audit-like" report that is (2) compiled by a relatively small number of individuals.  The time and energy formerly devoted to this work are thus reduced and this time becomes available to be directed to the second phase.

        2. A strategic study addresses some selected issue considered to be vital to the institution at the time.  This phase is conceived as an opportunity for a broadly participatory study of a strategically important issue to the institution.  The AMS format was designed to involve approximately the same amount of effort as the TMS but reorganized in a manner that would be more helpful to the institution.

        3. In reality, many of the institutions conducting the AMS have produced a compliance audit that is just as long as the former comprehensive report and have added a strategic report of about the same length.  The common wisdom is that doing the AMS is 1 1/2 times or more the amount of work involved in the TMS.  But, institutions that have done the AMS seem very favorably disposed to it.  A common sentiment is that the AMS is more work than a TMS but that the work is done more efficiently and is more valuable to the institution.

      2. The second difference is that the Reaffirmation Committee is divided into two teams that correspond to the two phases of work.  A Compliance team reviews the work of the compliance audit phase, renders judgment about the institution's compliance with the Criteria, provides recommendations and suggestions, and indicates the level of compliance to the Commission on Colleges.  A Consulting Team examines the work done on the strategic phase and offers suggestions relative to that issue.

  5. Roanoke's Alternate Model Self-Study Proposal

    1. A proposal to do an AMS contains two essential components:

      1. A statement and supporting evidence that the institution meets threshold requirements that show the historic and current strength and health of the institution.  This statement must include evidence demonstrating the following features:

        1. The institution has in place a functioning institutional effectiveness program.

        2. The institution states in writing that it believes it is substantially in compliance with the Criteria and will be able to document such compliance.

        3. The recent history (last ten years of the institution) reveals no known major problems with compliance with the Criteria.

        4. The institution demonstrates a recent history of financial stability.

      2. A proposal for a self-study focus on a substantive issue or major concern of the institution.  The topic is presumed to address issues vital to the long- term improvement of the institution in ways which will engage broadly the various constituencies of the institution and be of sufficient breadth and depth to justify intensive study.

        1. Roanoke's strategic study is entitled, "Creating, Assessing, and Refining Personal Development and Intensive Learning Programs at Roanoke College."  Having just enacted several major changes in Roanoke's curriculum and co-curriculum, a logical step was to have our self-study focus on the planning, development, pilot testing, assessing, and refining of our new programs in intensive learning, personal development, and enhanced advising.  The proposal stipulates goals within each area, a timetable for the work, and the use of consultants to assist in our efforts.

        2. Thus, in addition to the general purposes of the compliance audit, Roanoke's purpose of the self-study is to intensively examine our new programs, to develop meaningful assessment measures, and to make refinements in the programs so as to strengthen their role within the institution.

  6. Key Stages in the Reaffirmation Process at Roanoke

    1. Initial preparation for the self-study

      1. Review of the accreditation process; selection of the model to be undertaken; selection of the director of the self-study; attendance at the Commission's annual meeting and early networking with other institutions

      2. Development of an organizational chart and selection of members to key committees

      3. Review of past institutional materials related to accreditation activities and current Commission documents

      4. Review of existing evaluation and planning processes

      5. Identification of key issues to be studied (these are described in the Roanoke AMS proposal)

      6. Identification of self-study goals and expected results

      7. Identification of institutional resources available to the self-study

      8. Determination of reporting relationship of self-study leadership to the institution's administration

      9. Establishment of a self-study library and Steering Committee work space

    2. Development of a self-study plan whose purpose is to provide for the institution in general and for the self-study committees a framework for the purpose and scope of the self-study (this document)

    3. Preparation for consultation (kick-off) visit by Dr. John Orr Dwyer, the Commission's designated staff liaison.  Preliminary organizational plans should include:

      1. The type of self-study to be done

      2. The design of the self-study

      3. Organization of committees

      4. Tentative date for the completion of the self-study

      5. Composition of the visiting committee, including areas to be represented and special consultants required

      6. Date for the visit of the visiting committee

      7. Institutional materials sent to Dr.  Dwyer in advance of visit

    4. Consultation visit by Dr. John Orr Dwyer (February 24, 1999)

      1. Purposes of visit

        1. Orient members of the Steering Committee (who should already be familiar with the Criteria for Accreditation, the Resource Manual for Institutional Effectiveness, and the self-study plan).

        2. Assist with the self-study organization and planning

        3. Explain the nature of the self-study and the peer review process to institutional personnel

        4. Discuss the institution's self-study plan

        5. Provide other information and assistance as appropriate

      2. Activities

        1. Meetings with the Chief Executive Officer and other groups and individuals

        2. Review and guidance with Commission expectations and Roanoke's self-study planning

    5. Development of a self-study manual

      1. Occurs after the self-study plan is endorsed by Roanoke's leadership and the Commission staff

      2. Prepared by the Self-Study Director and the Steering Committee

      3. Includes the self-study plan and other documents, policies, procedures, and guidelines pertinent to the self-study; it can be supplemented as the process continues

      4. May include committee rosters, relevant Commission policies, the organizational plan of the self-study library, authorization policy for self- study-related expenditures, committee deadlines, methods for informing the campus community and responding to their questions and concerns, and other helpful information

    6. Initiation of campus community to the accreditation process and the institutional self-study

      1. President Gring and Dean Garren address the importance of the process to important campus constituencies and articulate the institutional commitment to the process

      2. Dr. Weiss provides an overview of the process to the faculty and to the Student Government Association, and to other campus constituencies

      3. Ongoing communication processes are established (a self-study web site, periodic newsletters, periodic reports to the Board, cabinet, faculty, students, and others)

      4. Dr. Weiss and the Steering Committee provide orientation for all committee members; Committee chairpersons establish protocols with committees

    7. Conduct of the self-study with emphasis on both the compliance audit and the strategic study (details will be developed by the Steering Committee and included in the self-study manual)

    8. Preparation of the self-study report through collection and analysis of information, evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of compliance with institutional requirements, development of assessment mechanisms for the strategic phase of the study, and formulation of recommendations (details will be developed by the Steering Committee and included in the self-study manual)

    9. Campus visit by the Reaffirmation Committee which will be led by a single chair and two teams: a Compliance Team and a Consulting Team; membership of the teams is formulated by the Commission in consultation with Roanoke and the committee chair (details will be developed by the Steering Committee and included in the self-study manual)

      1. The Compliance Team will ensure that Roanoke is in compliance with the basic requirements ("must" statements) identified in the Criteria for Reaccreditation.  This team will be on campus for three or four days and will have access to whomever and whatever they desire.  Their report will identify recommendations (indicating compliance problems), suggestions (advice), or commendations and will be accompanied by sufficient text to understand the rationale for the conclusions.

      2. The Consulting Team will evaluate the work conducted on the strategic phase of the self-study but will be here primarily as consultants to try to help the College to strengthen the work being done.  This team will likely be on campus for three or four days, and their visit may overlap with that of the Compliance Team.  They will provide a summary of their findings and may include suggestions for steps that Roanoke can take to enhance the personal development and intensive learning programs.

    10. Follow-up review and action by the Commission and by Roanoke College

      1. Approximately three to five weeks following the committee visit, the Chair of the Reaffirmation Committee will forward to Roanoke a draft copy of the report of the Visiting Committee.  Roanoke will review the report for factual accuracy only and return it to the Chair.

      2. Shortly after Roanoke's comments are reviewed and corrections made, the Chair will send a final copy to the Commission, and Dr. Dwyer, our Commission liaison, will forward a copy to us.

      3. The institution is required to provide the Commission with a written response to all recommendations contained in the report.  The response is due five months after the conclusion of the committee visit.  The response should be a detailed statement of the actions taken by the college to ensure compliance with specific criteria.

      4. All of these documents are then reviewed by the Commission in a three-step process: review by standing committees, review by the Executive Council, and review by the entire 77-member body of Commissioners in executive session (where the final decision is made).  The institution is notified of the action taken within three weeks.

      5. Based on review and deliberations, the Commission will take one of the following actions:

        1. Grant reaffirmation (with or without follow-up reports)

        2. Grant reaffirmation but place on "Notice" for up to one year

        3. Defer reaffirmation until the next scheduled meeting and seek additional information from the institution

        4. Deny reaffirmation and place the institution on "Warning" or "Probation" for a period of time up to two years

        5. Deny reaffirmation and remove the institution from membership in the Commission on Colleges

  7. Roanoke's Self-Study Calendar

    1. Stage 1: Preliminary Planning (August, 1998 - April, 1999)

      1. Notification of initiation of self-study to institutional constituencies (completed)

      2. Consultation with Commission staff (completed)

      3. Identification of self-study leadership (completed)

      4. Attendance by Dean Garren, Associate Dean Whitson, and Director of Self-Study Weiss at the annual meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (completed)

      5. Appointment of Steering Committee (completed)

      6. Appointment of principle committees (in process)

      7. Review of institution's purpose making necessary revisions (February - May)

      8. Review of institutional effectiveness systems (in process)

      9. Formulation of self-study plan (completed)

      10. Preparation for consultation visit (completed)

      11. Forward of self-study plan to Commission staff (completed)

    2. Stage 2: Initiating the Self-Study (May, 1999 - July, 1999)

      1. Formulation of self-study manual

      2. Conduct of orientation meetings for principal committees

      3. Collection, organization, and publication of basic institutional reference data

      4. Intensive work on the strategic phase of the self-study

      5. Development of writing guidelines

    3. Stage 3: Conducting the Self-Study (August, 1999 - May, 2000)

      1. Activation of principal committees

      2. Review of preliminary reports regarding institutional purpose and effectiveness

      3. Administration of surveys

      4. Review of progress reports from committees

      5. Compilation of survey results

      6. Forwarding of preliminary reports of principal committees to Steering Committee for review and action

      7. Completion of departmental, unit, and preliminary committee final reports

      8. Continuation of committee work as necessary

      9. Completion and forwarding of progress report to Dr. Dwyer

      10. Completion of first draft of self-study report

      11. Conduct of an institution-wide review of the self-study report

      12. Compilation of the final self-study report

      13. Development of follow-up plan to the self-study report

    4. Receiving the Visiting Committee (June, 2000 - October, 2000)

      1. Conduct of preliminary planning for committee visit

      2. Completion and distribution locally of the self-study report

      3. Development of addendum to self-study report

      4. Submission of self-study report to the committee Chair prior to his/her preliminary visit

      5. Preliminary visit by Visiting Committee Chair

      6. Completion of planning and arrangements for committee visit

      7. Mailing of self-study and other materials to committee members and Commission on Colleges

      8. Provision of information to the institutional community of the purpose and activities of the Visiting Committee while on campus

      9. Hosting of the Visiting Committee on campus

    5. Review and Action by the Commission (November, 2000 - July, 2001)

      1. Review of draft of Visiting Committee report for errors of fact

      2. Receipt of and response to recommendations cited in the final Visiting Committee report

      3. Implementation of plan for follow-up of all non-Criteria-related recommendations stemming from the self-study process

  8. The Organizational Structure for Roanoke's Self-Study

    The committees and task forces that are involved in the self-study process and their interrelationship are shown in the diagram above.  The memberships of these groups can be found in the section entitled Committee Membership Lists.

 Top 
Back