SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation for Quality Enhancement

T h e P r i n c i p l e s of A c c r e d i t a t i o n: F o u n d a t i o n s f o r Q u a l i t y E n h a n c e m e n t S o u t h e r n A s s o c i ati o n of C ol l e g e s a n d S c h o o l s C o m mi s s i o n o n C o l l e g e s A d o p t e d b y t h e C o l l e g e D e l e g a t e A s s e m b l y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7

The Principles of Ac creditation: F oundations for Qualit y Enhancement Adopted by the C ollege Delegate Assembly: December 20 1 7 Approv ed by College Delegate Assembly: December 2001 Revised by the College Delegat e Assembly: December 20 06, 2007, 200 9, 201 1 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Sixth Edition: F irst Printing

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 3 Mission The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SA CSCO C) is the r eg ional body for the accr editation of degree-granting hig her education institutions in the Southern states. The Commission ’ s mission is the enhancement of education quality throughout the region and the improv ement of the effectiveness o f institutions by ensuring that they meet standards established by the higher education community that address the needs of societ y and students. It serves as the co mmon denominator of shar ed values and pra ctices among the div erse institutions in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ke ntucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, N or th Car olina, South Car olina, T ennessee, T exas, Virginia, Latin America, and other international sites appr oved by SA CSCOC that awar d associate, bac calaureate, master’ s, or doctoral degrees. SACSCOC also acc epts applications from other international institutions of hig her education. A ccreditation by SA CSCOC signifies that the inst itution (1) has a mission approp r iate t o hig her education, (2) has resourc es, pr og rams, and ser vices sufficient to accomplish and s ustain that mission, and (3) maintains clearly specified educational objectives that ar e consistent with its mission and appropriate t o the deg rees its offe rs, and that indicate whether it is succ essful in achiev ing its stated objectiv es.

4 Philosoph y of Accr editation Self-regulation through accr editat ion embodies a philosop hy that a free people can and ought to gov ern themselves through a repr esentative, flexible, and responsive system. Decentralization of authority honors the rich diversity of educational institutions in our pluralistic society and ser ves to p rotect both institutional autonom y and the broader culture of academic freedom in our global society. The empowerment flo w ing fro m self-regulation promotes both innovation and accountability in achieving the goals of educating and training citizens in a repr esentative democracy. Consistent with these ov er ar ching values, ac creditation is best accomplished thr oug h a v oluntar y association of educational institutions. Both a process and a p roduct, ac creditation relies on integrit y; thoughtful and principle d professio nal judg ment; rigor ous application of requir ements; and a conte xt of trust. The process p rovides an assessment of an institution ’ s effectiv eness in the fulfillment of its self-defined mission; its compliance with the requirements of its accrediting association; and its contin uing effor ts to enhanc e the quality of student learning and its programs and serv ices. Based on rigorous analysis and reasoned j udg ment, the process stim ulates evaluation and improv ement, while pr oviding a means of continuing ac countability to the institutions’ stak eholders and to the public. The culmination of the accr editation process is a public statement o f an institution ’ s contin uing capacit y to pr ovide effective programs and serv ices based on agreed-upon require ments. The statement o f an institution ’ s accreditation status with SA CSCOC also represents an affirmation of an institution ’ s continuing commitment to the Commission ’ s principles and philosophy of accreditation. The membership expects its peers to dedicate themsel ves to enhancing the quality of their pr og rams and serv ices within the cont ext of their respectiv e resources and capacities and to creat e an environment in which teac hing and lear ning, research, and public serv ice oc cur, as appr opriate to the institution ’ s self-defined mission. At the heart of SACSCOC’ s philosoph y of accr editat ion, the conc ept of quality enhancement assumes that each member institution is e ng aged in ongoing impro vement of its pr og rams and serv ices and can de monstr ate ho w well it fulfills its stated mission. Although evaluation of an institution ’ s educational qualit y and effectiveness in ac hie ving its mission is a difficult task requiring careful analysis and professio nal judg ment, an institution is expected to document the quality and effectiveness o f all its programs and ser vices.

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 5 SA CSCOC suppor ts the right of an institution to pursue its o w n educational mission as inherent in fundamental val ues of institutional autonom y; the right of faculty members to teach, inv estigate, and publish fr eely; and the right of students to access op por tunities for learning and for the open expr ession and exchange o f ideas. Ho wever, ex ercising these rig hts should not substantially interfer e w ith the ov err iding obligation of an institution to o ffer a sound educational experience that optimizes student achieveme nt outcomes. The Southern Association of Colle ges and Schools C ommission on Colleges (SA CSCOC) adheres to the following fundamental characteristics of accreditation: • Participation in the accr editat ion pr ocess is voluntary and is an earned and renewable status. • Member institutions dev elop, amend, and approve ac creditation requir ements. • The process of accreditation is repr esentative, responsiv e, and appr opriate to the ty pes of institutions ac credited. • Ac creditation is a form of self-regulation. • Ac creditation requires institutional c ommitment and engagement. • Ac creditation is based upon a peer review process. • Ac creditation requires an institutional c ommitment to student learning and achievement. • Ac creditation acknowledges an institution ’ s pr erogative to articulate its mission, including a religious mission, w ithin the rec og nized co ntext of higher education and its responsibility to show that it is ac complishing its mission. • Ac creditation requires institutional c ommitment to the concept of quality enhancement thr oug h c ontinuous assessment and improv ement. • Ac creditation expects an institution to develop a balanced g overning structure designed to promote institutional int eg rity, autonomy and flexibility of operation. • Ac creditation expects an institution to ensure that its pr og rams are complement ed by support st ructures and r esources that allow for the t otal growth and development of its students.

6 Organization Of The Southern Association Of Colleges And Schools Commission On C olleges The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SA CS) is a private, no nprofit, voluntary organization founded in 1895 in A tlanta, Georgia. The Association currently comp r ises the Commission on C olle ges (SA CSCOC) and the Council on A ccreditation and School Impr ovement (SA CSCASI), the K-12 arm of the Association. The two commissio ns car ry out their missions w ith c onsiderable autonomy; they develop their o w n standards and pr ocedures, and govern themsel ves by a delegate assembly. The College Delegate A ssembly (CD A) of SA CSCO C includes one v oting repr esentative (the chief executi ve officer or the offic er’ s designee) from each member institution. Its responsibilities include electing the 77-member SA CSCOC Board of T rustees to guide the organization ’ s work; t o approv e all rev isions in accrediting standar ds as recommended by the Board; to appro ve the dues of candidate and member institutions as rec ommended by the Board; and t o elec t an Appeals Co mmittee to hear appeals of adv erse accreditation decisions, and electing repr esentatives to the Association ’ s Board of T rustees. The SA CSCO C Board of T rustees is responsible for r ecommending to the College Delegate A ssembly standards for candidacy and membership, authorizing special visits, taking final action on the accr editation status of institutions, nominating to the College Delegate A ssembly individuals for election to succeed outgoing me mb ers of the Board, electing an Executi ve Council that will ac t for the Boar d w hile it is not in session, appointing ad hoc study committees as needed, and approving SA CSCOC policies and procedur es. The thirteen-member Ex ecutive Council is the ex ecutive arm of the SACSCOC Board and functions on behalf of the Commission ’ s Board and the College Delegate Assembly between sessions. Ho wever, the actions of the Council ar e subject to the review and approval b y the Board. The Council int erprets Commission policies and proced ures, dev elops procedures f or and super vises the work of ad hoc and standing committees o f the Commission, approv es goals and objec tiv es of the Commission, reviews and approv es the Commission ’ s budget, oversees and ann ually e valuat es the work of its president and initiates new pr og rams, projects, and policy pr oposals. The Council rec eives and acts on reports from all ad hoc and standing co mmittees and submits them to the C ommission ’ s Board of T rustees. In the case o f institutions applying for candidacy, membership, or reaffirmation of accreditation, the Executiv e Council rec eives rec ommendations from the Committees o n Compliance and Reports

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 7 (C&R), which are the standing evaluation committees of the Commission, and, in turn, s ubmits its recommendations to the full SA CSCOC Board of T rustees. The Pr ocess Of Accreditation The process f or initial and continued accreditation in volv es a collective analysis and judgment by the institution ’ s internal c onstituencies, an informed r e view by peers external to the institution, and a reasoned decision b y the elec ted member s of the SA CSCOC B oard of T rustees. A ccredited institutions periodically conduct internal reviews inv olving their administ rativ e officers, staffs, faculties, students, trustees, and others appro pr iate t o the process. The internal review allows an institution to consid er its effectiveness in ac hie ving its stated mission, its compliance with The Principles of A ccreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, its eff or ts in enhancing the quality of student learning and the quality of pr og rams and serv ices offe red to its constituencies, and its successes in ac complishing its mission. A t the culminat ion of the internal review, peer evaluato rs representing the Board apply their pr ofessional judgment through a preliminary assessment of the institution; elected SA CSCOC Board members mak e the final determination of an institution ’ s complianc e w ith the accreditation r equirements. Application of the Requirements SA CSCOC a ccr edits deg r ee-g ranting higher education institutions and entities based on requir ements in The Pr inciples of A ccreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. These requirements apply t o al l institutional pr og rams and serv ices, wherever locat ed or however deliv ered. This includes programs offered thr oug h distance and co r responde nce education, off-campus sit es, and branch campuses. Consequently, when pr eparing documents for the Commission demonstrating complianc e w ith the Principles of A cc reditation, an institution must include these programs in its “Institutional S ummar y Form Pr epared for Commission R ev iews ” and address these pr og rams in its analysis and documentation of compliance (See Commission policy Distance and Correspondence Education). SA CSCOC applies the requir ements of its Princ iples to all applicant, candidate, and member institutions, regardless of the t ype of institution: private, for -profit, pr ivat e not-for-pr ofit, or public. The SA CSCO C Board of T rustees evaluates an institution and mak es accreditation decisions based on the curre nt edit ion of the Princ iples of Accreditation. The Commission ’ s philosophy of accreditation preclud es denial of membership to a degree-granting institution of higher education on any ground other than an

8 institution ’ s failure t o meet the above requir ements in the professional judgment of peer reviewers, or failure to co mply w ith the policies and proc edures of SA CSCOC. Components Of The Review P rocess The SA CSCO C Board of T rustees conducts sev er al types of institutional reviews: (1) Candidate Committ ee rev iews of institutions seeking candidacy, (2) A ccreditation Committee r e views of candidate institutions seeking initial membership, (3) Reaffirmation Co mmittee reviews of member institutions seeking continued accreditation follo w ing a comp rehensive r ev iew, (4) Spe cial Co mmittee rev iews of member institutions seeking c ontinued accreditation following evaluation of institutional circumstances that ar e accreditation relat ed, and (5) Substantiv e Change Committ ee rev iews of member institutions seeking approval and c ontinued accreditation follo w ing the review of a change o f a significant mo dification or expansion to the institution ’ s nature and scope. Each of the abov e t ypes of reviews has its own evaluation documents and peer review procedur es and can b e found on the SA CSCOC web site at www.sacscoc.org. The process d escr ibed below is specific to a member institution seeking reaffirmation of accreditation. Preparation by the Institution As part of the reaffirmation pr ocess, the institution will pro v ide two (2) separate documents: 1. Compliance Certificat ion The Compliance Ce r tification, submitted fifteen (15) months in advance o f an institution ’ s scheduled reaffirmation, is a document complet e d b y the institution that demonstrates its judgment of the ext ent of its compliance with each of the Core R equirements and Standar ds. The signatures of the institution ’ s chief ex ecutive office r and accreditation liaison are req uired. B y sig ning the document, these individuals certify that the process of institutional self-assessment has been thorough, honest, and fo r thright, and that the information contained in the document is truthful, ac curate, and c omplete. 2. Qualit y E nhance ment Plan The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), submitted six weeks in advance of the On-Site R eaffirmation Review Committee, is (1) a topic identified through ongoing, comprehensiv e and evaluation processes, (2) has a broad-based support of institutional c onstituencies, (3) focuses on impr oving spe cific student learning outc omes and/or student successes, (4) commits resour ces to initiate, implement

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 9 and complete the QEP, and (5) inc ludes a plan to assess achievement. The plan should be focused and succinct (no more than 75 pages of narrat iv e text and no more than 25 pages of support documentation or charts, graphs, and tables). Review by the Commission on Colleges 1. The O ff-Site R eaffirmat ion Revie w The Off-Site R eaffirmation Committee, composed of a chair and normally eight to ten peer evaluators, serves as an evaluative c ommittee in the reaffirmation process. The committee meets in Atlanta, Georgia, and reviews Compliance C er tifications of a group of institutions to determine whether each institution is in complianc e with all Core Req uirements and Standards (ex cept 7.2). The g roup o f institutions, called “ a cluster, ” normally will consist of no mor e than three institutions similar in gov ernance and degrees offered. A t the conclusion of the rev iew, the Off-Site Reaffirmation Co mmittee w ill prepar e a separate report for each institution, reco rding and explaining its preliminary findings ab out c ompliance. The repor t is forwarded to the r esp ectiv e institution ’ s On-Site R eaffir mation Committ ee. 2. The On-Site Reaffirmation Re view The On-Site R eaffirmation Committee consists of peers and ser ves as an evaluati ve committee in the r eaffirmation process. Following review by the Off-Site Reaffirmation Co mmittee, an On-Sit e Reaffirmation Committee will conduct a focused evaluation at the campus to finalize issues of compliance with the Core R equirements and Standar ds, evaluate the QEP, and pr ovide consultation regarding the issues addr essed in the QEP. At the conc lusion of its visit, the On-Site Co mmittee w ill finalize the R epor t of the Reaffirmation Committee, a wr itte n repor t of its findings noting areas of noncomplianc e. The R epor t of the Reaffirmation Co mmittee, along with the institution ’ s response t o areas of noncomplianc e, is forwarded t o the SACSCOC Board of T rustees for review and action on reaffirmation of accr editation. 3. Rev iew by the SA CSCOC Board of T rustees The Committees on C ompliance and Reports (C&R), standing committees of the SA CSCOC Board of T rustees, review reports prepar ed by evaluation committees and the institutional r esponses to those reports. A C&R Committee ’ s reco mmendation regarding an institution ’ s reaffirmation of accreditation is forwarded to the Ex ecutive C ouncil for review. The Ex ecutive Council r ecommends action to the full Board of T rustees, which mak es the final decision on reaffirmation and any mo nitoring ac tivities that it may r equire of an institution. The full Board of T rustees con venes twice a year.

10 Institutional Responsibility For Reporting Substantive Change SA CSCOC a ccr edits the entire institution and all programs and ser vices, wherever located or how e v er deliver ed. Accr editation is sp ecific to an institution, is based on conditions at the time of the most recent evaluation, and is not transfer able. W hen an accredit ed inst itution significantly modifies or expands its sc ope, or changes its affiliation, governance, or ownership, a substantiv e change review is required. The Commission is r esp onsible fo r e valuating all substantiv e changes occurring be tween an institution ’ s decennial r ev iews to ensur e the quality of the total institution and to ensure the public that all aspects of the inst itution meet defined standar ds. A member institution is responsible for f ol lo w ing the Substantive Change for SA CSCOC Accredited Institutions policy and procedur es by notifying or secur ing appro val from SA CSCO C, as required, prior to implementation. If an institution is noncompliant with the policy, its accreditation ma y be in jeopardy. Refe r to “Pr ocedure One, ” “Pr ocedure T wo, ” and “Procedur e Three” in the substantive change policy outlining the ty pes of substanti ve change, their respective notification and appro val requirements, and their reporting timelines. If an institution is unclear as to whether a change is substantiv e, it should co ntac t SA CSCOC staff for consultation. An applicant or candidate institution ma y not undergo substantiv e change prior to membership.

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 11 SEC TION 1: The P r inciple of Integrity Institutional integrity is essential to the purpose of higher education. Int eg rity functions as the basic cov enant defining the relationship between the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SA CSCOC) and its member and candidate institutions. The principle ser ves as the f oundat ion of a relationship in which all parties agree to deal honestly and openly with their constituencies and with one another. 1. The institution operates w ith integrit y in all matters. (Int e gr ity) CR SEC TION 2: Mission A clearly defined and compr ehensive mission guides the public ’ s perception of the institution. It con veys a sense of the institution ’ s uniqueness and identifies the qualities, charac te r istics, and values that define its role and distinctive ness w ithin the div erse hig her education c ommunity. F undamental to the structure of an institution ’ s effectiveness, the mission reflects a clear under standing of the institution by its gov erning bo ard, administration, faculty, students, staff, and all c onstituents. 1. The institution has a clearly defined, c omprehensiv e, and published mission specific to the institution and appropriate for higher education. The missio n addresses teaching and lear ning and, where applicable, research and public ser vice. (I nstit utional mission) [CR]

12 SEC TION 3: Basic Eligibility Standard SA CSCOC a ccr edits deg r ee-g ranting institutions in the southern region of the U nited States and those operating in select international locations. T o gain or maintain accreditation with SA CSCOC, an institution is a contin uously functioning organization legally authorized to grant deg rees and other academic cr edentials, and able to demonstrate c ompliance with SACSCOC standards and policies. 1. An institution seeking to gain or maintain accredited status a. has degree-g ranting authorit y from the appr opr iate gov er nment agency or ag encies. (Degree-granting author ity) [CR] b. offe r s all coursew ork required for at least one degree progr am at each level at which it a wards deg rees. (F or exc eptions, see SA CSCOC p olicy Documenting an Alternative A pproach.) (Coursework for deg r ees) [CR] c. is in operation and has students enrolled in degree programs. (Continuous operation) [CR]

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 13 SEC TION 4: Gov erning B oar d The institution ’ s gov erning bo ar d holds in t rust the fundamental auto nomy and ultimate well-being of the inst itution. A s the corporate body, the board ensures both the presenc e of viable leadership and strong financial resourc es to fulfill the institutional mission. Integral to strong gov ernance is the absence of undue influence from ext ernal sources. 1. The institution has a gov er ning board of at le ast fiv e members that: (a) is the legal b ody with spe cific authority ove r the inst itution. (b) ex ercises fiduciar y ov ersight of the institut ion. (c) ensures that both the presiding office r of the board and a majorit y of other voting members of the board are free of an y contractual, emplo y ment, personal, o r familial financial interest in the institution. (d) is not c ontrolled by a minor ity of board members or by organizations or institut ions separate fro m it. (e) is not presided o ver by the chief executiv e officer of the institution. (Governing board characterist ics) [CR] 2. The go verning board a. ensures the r egular rev iew of the institution ’ s mission. (Mission rev iew) b. ensures a clear and ap propriate distinction between the policy- making function of the board and the responsib ilit y of the administration and facult y to administe r and implement policy. (Board/administrative distinct ion) c. se lects and regularly evaluates the institution ’ s chief execu t i ve officer. (CEO evaluation/s election)

14 d. defines and addresses potential conflict of interest for its members. (Conflict of interest) e. has appropriate and fair pr ocesses for the dismissal of a board member. (Bo ar d dismissal) f. protects the institution fr om undue influence by e xternal persons or bodies. (Ex ternal influence) g. defines and r egular ly evaluates its r esponsibilities and expectations. (B oar d s elf-evaluat ion) 3. I f an institution ’ s go verning board does not retain sole legal authority and oper ating c ont r ol in a multiple-level gov ernance system, then the institution clearly defines that autho r ity and contr ol for the following areas within its governanc e st ructure: (a) institution ’ s mission, (b) fiscal stabilit y of the institution, and (c) institutional policy. (M ulti-le vel governance)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 15 SEC TION 5: A dministration and Organization The institution ’ s chief executiv e officer has ultimate r esponsibilit y for priorities and initiatives that ad vance its board-approv ed mission, goals, and priorities. The chief ex ecutive office r oversees an organizational structure that includes k ey a cademic and administrative officer s and decision makers with credentials appro pr iate t o their respective r esponsibilities. 1. The institution has a chief ex ecutive offic er w hose primar y responsibility is to the institution. (Chie f executive officer) [CR] 2. The chie f executi ve officer has ultimat e responsibility for, and ex ercises appr opriate control o ver, the f ol lo w ing: a. The institution ’ s educational, administrativ e, and fiscal pr og rams and serv ices. (CEO control) b. The institution ’ s intercollegiate athletics program. (Control of interco lle giate athlet ics) c. T he institution ’ s fund-raising activ ities. (Control of fund-r aising ac tivit ies) 3. F or any e nt ity organized separately fro m the inst itution and fo r med primarily for the pur pose of suppor ting the institution or its programs: (a) The legal authorit y and operating control o f the institution is clearly defined with respect to that entity. (b) The relationship of that entity to the institution and the extent o f any liability arising from that relationship ar e clearly described in a formal, written manner. (c) The institution demonstrates that (1) the chief executi ve officer contr ols any fund-raising activities of that entit y or (2) the fund-raising activ ities of that entit y are defined in a fo r mal, wr itten manne r that assures those activit ies further the mission of the institution. (Institution-related entit ies)

16 4. The institution emplo ys and regularly evaluates administrative and academic officers with appr opriate experience and qualifications to lead the institution. (Qualified administ rative/academic officers) 5. The institution publishes and impleme nts p olicies r eg ar ding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of non-faculty personnel. (P er sonnel appointme nt and evaluation)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 17 SEC TION 6: F aculty Qualified, effect i ve faculty members are essential to carr ying out the mission of the institution and ensuring the quality and integr ity of its academic pr og rams. The tradition of shared gov ernance within American higher education recognizes the importance of both faculty and administr ativ e inv olvement in the appr oval of educational pr og rams. Because student learning is central to the institution ’ s mission and educational degrees, the facult y is responsible f or directing the learning enterprise, including overseeing and c oordinating educational programs to ensure that each contains essential curricular components, has approp r iate c ontent and pedagogy, and maintains discipline currency. A chievement of the inst itution ’ s mission w ith respect to t eaching, researc h, and serv ice r equires a critical mass of qualified full-time faculty to provide direction and ov ersig ht of the academic programs. Due to this significant role, it is imperative that an effective syst em of evaluation be in place for all faculty members that addresses the institution ’ s obligations to fost er intellectual freedom of faculty to teach, serve, researc h, and publish. 1. The institution employs an adequat e number of full-time facult y members to support the mission and goals of the institution. (F ull-t ime faculty) [CR] 2. F or each of its educational pr og rams, the institution a. J ustifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members. (F aculty qualificat ions) b. Employs a sufficient n umber of full-time facult y members to ensure curriculum and program quality, integrit y, and r ev iew. (Program faculty) c. Assigns appropriate responsibility for pr og ram coor dination. (Program coor dinat ion) 3. The institution publishes and impleme nts p olicies r eg ar ding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of faculty members, regardless of c ontr act or ten ure status. (F aculty app ointment and e valuation)

18 4. The institution publishes and impleme nts appropriate policies and proc edures for prese r v ing and pr otecting academic freedom. (A cademic freedom) 5. The institution pr ovides ongoing prof essional development opportunities for faculty members as teachers, scholars, and practitioners, c onsistent with the institutional mission. (F aculty de velopment)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 19 SEC TION 7: Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Effective institutions de monst rate a c ommitment to principles of continuous impro vement, based on a systematic and documented proc ess of assessing institutional performance with respect to mission in all aspects of the institution. An institutional planning and effectiveness p rocess in volves all pr og rams, ser vices, and constituencies; is linked to the decision-making proc ess at all le v els; and provides a sound basis for budgetary decisions and resource allocations. The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is an integral component of the reaffirmation of accreditation process and is d er iv ed from an institution ’ s ongoing compr ehensive planning and evaluation pr o c esses. It r eflects and affir ms a commitment to e nhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness b y focusing on an issue the institution conside rs impor tant to impr oving student learning outcomes and/or student succ ess. 1. The institution engages in ongoing, comprehensi ve, and integr ated r ese arc h-based planning and ev aluation proc esses that (a) focus on institutional quality and effectiveness and (b) incorporate a systematic rev iew of inst itutional goals and outc omes consistent with its mission. (I nstitut ional Planning) [CR] 2. The institution has a QEP that (a) has a t opic identified through its ongoing, comprehe nsive planning and evaluation pr o c esses; (b) has broad-based support of institutional co nst ituencies; (c) focuses on impro v ing specific student learning outc omes and/or student succ ess; (d) commits r esources to initiate, implement, and co mple t e the QEP; and (e) includes a plan to assess achiev ement. (Quality Enhancement Plan) 3. The institution identifies e xp ected out comes of its administrative support ser vices and demonstrates the exte nt to which the outco mes are achiev ed. (A dministrative effec tiveness)

20 SEC TION 8: Student A chievement Student learning and student succ ess are at the core o f the mission of all institutions of higher learning. Effectiv e institutions focus on the design and improv ement of educational experiences to enhanc e student learning and suppor t student learning outc omes for its educational programs. T o meet the goals of educational pr og rams, an institution pro v ides appr opriate academic and student serv ices to s uppor t student success. 1. The institution identifies, evaluates, and publishes goals and outc omes for student achievement ap propr iate t o the inst itution ’ s mission, the nature of the students it serves, and the kinds of programs offered. The inst itution uses multiple measures t o document student suc cess. (Stude nt achieveme nt) [CR] 2. The institution identifies e xp ected out comes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these out comes, and pro v ides evidence of seeking impro vement based on analysis of the results in the areas belo w: a. Student learning outc omes for each of its educational pr og rams. (Student outcomes: educational programs) b. Student learning outc omes for collegiate-level general education competencies o f its undergr aduate degree pr og rams. (Student outcomes: general education) c. Academic and student se r vices that support student success. (Student outcomes: academic and stude nt ser vices)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 21 SEC TION 9: Educational P rog ram Struc ture and Cont ent Collegiate-level educational programs emphasize both br eadth and depth of student learning. The structure and cont ent of a program challenges students to int e grate knowledge and develop skills of analysis and inquiry. General education is an integral component of an underg raduate degree pr og ram through which students enc ounter the basic content and methodology of the principal areas of knowledge. U ndergraduate and graduate degrees develop advanc e d expertise in an integr ated under standing of one or more academic disciplines or conc entr ations. The institution is responsible for deli vering an appropriate portion of the academic experiences applicable to the d eg rees or cr edentials awarded. 1. Educational programs (a) embody a coherent c our se of study, (b) are compatible with the stated mission and goals of the institution, and (c) are based on fields of study appropriate to higher education. (P rogram content) [CR] 2. The institution offers one or mor e de gree programs based on at least 60 semester credit hours or the equi v alent at the associate level; at least 120 semest er credit hours or the equivalent at the baccalaureate lev el; or at least 30 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the post-baccalaur e ate, graduate, or professional level. The institution provides an explanat ion of equivalencies when using units other than semester credit hours. The institution provides an appropriate justification for all deg ree pr og rams and combined degree programs that include fewer than the requir ed number of semeste r credit hours or its equivalent unit. (Program length) [CR] 3. The institution requires the suc cessful completion of a general education component at the undergraduate level that: (a) is based on a coher ent r ationale.

22 (b) is a substantial component of each undergraduate degree program. F or deg ree c ompletion in associate prog rams, the component c onstitutes a minimum of 15 semester hours or the equivalent; fo r baccalaureate programs, a minim um of 30 semester hours or the equi v alent. (c) ensures breadth of knowledge. These cr edit hours include at least one course from each o f the follow ing areas: humanities/ fine ar ts, social/behavior al scienc es, and natural science/ mathematics. These courses do not narrowly focus on those skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a part icular occupation or professio n. (General education requirements) [CR] 4. A t least 25 percent o f the credit hours requir ed for an undergr aduate degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution a warding the degree. (I nstitut ional credits for an undergraduate degree) 5. A t least one-third of the credit hours requir ed for a g raduate or a post-baccalaur eate professional degree ar e ear ned thr oug h instruction offered by the institution a warding the degree. (Institutional credits for a graduate/pro fessional de gree) 6. P ost-baccalaureate pr ofessional degree programs and gr aduate degree programs are pr og ressi vely more ad vanced in academic cont ent than undergr aduate p rogr ams, and are structured (a) to include kno wledge of the literature of the discipline and (b) to ensure engageme nt in research and/or app ropriate pro fessional practice and training. (P ost-baccalaureate rigor and cur riculum) 7. The institution publishes r equirements for its undergraduate, graduate, and post-bac calaureate pr ofessional programs, as applicable. The require ments conform to c ommonly accepted standards and practices for degree pr og rams. (Program r equirements)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 23 SEC TION 10: Educational P olicies, Pr ocedures, and P rac tices Effective academic policies r elated to an institution ’ s educational programs are developed in conc er t with approp r iate input and participation of the co nstituencies affected by the policies, conform to c ommonly accepted practices and policies in higher education, ac cur atel y p ortray the institution ’ s pr og rams and serv ices, and are disseminated to those benefiting fr om such practices. These academic policies lead to a teaching and learning en vironment that enhances the achiev ement of student outc omes and success. T o advance learning, all c oursework taken for academic cr edit has r igor, substance, and standards connect e d t o established lear ning outc omes. T o protect the integrit y of deg rees o ffered, the institution is r esponsible for the quality of all coursew ork t ranscripted as if it wer e credit earned from the institution. 1. The institution publishes, implements, and disseminates academic policies that adhere to p r inciples of good educational practice and that accurately r epresent the programs and serv ices of the institution. (Academic policies) 2. The institution mak es available to stud ents and the public cur r ent academic calendars, gr ading policies, cost of attendance, and refund policies. (Public information) 3. The institution ensur es the availability of arc hived official catalogs (digital or print) w ith relevant information for c ourse and deg ree requir ements sufficient to serve former and returning students. (A rchived information) 4. The institution (a) publishes and impleme nts p olicies on the authority of facult y in academic and go vernance matter s, (b) demonstrates that educational pr og rams for which academic credit is a warded are app rov ed consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primar y responsib ilit y for the c ontent, qualit y, and effective ness of the curr iculum with its facult y. (A cademic gover nance)

24 5. The institution publishes admissions policies c onsistent with its mission. Recruitment materials and prese ntations accurately repr esent the prac tices, policies, and accreditation status of the institution. The institution also ensures that independent contractors or agents used fo r recruiting pur poses and for admission activities are gov erne d b y the same pr inciples and policies as institutional employ ees. (A dmissions policies and practices) 6. A n inst itution that off ers distance or corresponde nce education: (a) ensures that the stude nt w ho r eg isters in a distanc e or corresponde nce education course or pr og ram is the same student who participates in and completes the c ourse or program and recei ves the credit. (b) has a w ritten pr ocedure for pr otecting the privacy of students enrolled in distanc e and correspondence education c ourses or programs. (c) ensures that stud ents are notified, in w riting at the time of registration or enrollment, of an y projected additional student charges associated with verification of student id entit y. (Distance and cor respondence education) 7. The institution publishes and impleme nts p olicies for d e t er mining the amount and level of credit awar ded for its courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery. These policies require o versight by persons academically qualified to mak e the necessar y judgments. In educational pr og rams not based on credit hours (e.g., direct assessment programs), the institution has a sound means for determining credit equi valencies. (P olic ies for a warding credit) 8. The institution publishes policies for evaluating, awar ding, and acce p ting cr edit not or iginating from the institution. The institution ensures (a) the academic q ualit y of an y credit or cour sework rec orded on its transcr ipt, (b) an appro val process with ov ersig ht by persons academically qualified t o make the necessary judg ments,

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 25 and (c) the credit a warded is comparable t o a desig nated cr edit experience and is c onsistent with the inst itution ’ s mission. (E valuat ing and a warding academic credit) 9. The institution ensur es the quality and integ rity of the work rec orded when an institution transcr ipts courses o r credits as its own when offered thr oug h a c ooper ativ e academic arr angement. The institution maintains formal agreements between the parties in volv ed, and the institution r egularly e valuat es such agreements. (Cooperative academic arrangements)

26 SEC TION 11: Library and Learning/Information Resources T o provide adequate sup p ort for the institution ’ s curriculum and mission, an institution ’ s students, faculty, and staff hav e access to appr opriate collections, services, and other librar y-relat ed resources that support all educational, research, and public serv ice pr og rams wherev er the y ar e offered and at the appropriate degree lev el. The levels and ty pes of educational programs offered determine the nature and ext ent of librar y and learning resour ces needed to support the full r ange of the institution ’ s academic programs. Qualified, effectiv e staff are essential to carr ying out the goals of a librar y/learning resour ce center and the mission of the institution, and t o contributing to the quality and integrit y of academic programs. 1. The institution provides adequate and appro pr iate librar y and lear ning/information resourc es, serv ices, and suppor t for its mission. (Library and learning/infor mation resources) [CR] 2. The institution ensur es an adequate number of professional and other staff with appropriate education or e xper ienc es in libr ary and/ or other learning/information resour ces to acc omplish the mission of the institution. (Library and learning/infor mation staff) 3. The institution pr ovides (a) student and faculty access and user privileges to its librar y ser vices and (b) acc ess to regular and timely instruction in the use of the librar y and other learning/information resour ces. (Library and lear ning/information access)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 27 SEC TION 12: A cademic and Student Suppor t Ser vices Student succ ess is sig nificantly affected b y the lear ning en vironment. An effectiv e institution pro v ides appr opriate academic and student support programs and ser vices, consiste nt w ith the institution ’ s mission, that enhance the educational and personal development e xp erience(s) of students at all levels; c ont ribute t o the achievement of teac hing and lear ning out comes; ensure stude nt success in meeting the goals of the educational programs; and pro v ide an appr opriate range of support ser vices and programs to students at all locations. Qualified and effective faculty and staff are essential to impleme nting the inst itution ’ s goals and mission and to ensuring the quality and integr ity of its academic and student s uppor t programs and serv ices. A n effective institution has policies and pr ocedures that support a stimulating and safe learning environme nt. 1. The institution provides appropriate academic and student support prog rams, ser v ices, and activ ities consist ent w ith its mission. (Student suppor t ser vices) [CR] 2. The institution ensur es an adequate number of academic and student support ser vices staff with approp r iate education or experience in student support serv ice ar eas to acco mplish the mission of the institution. (Student support s erv ices staff) 3. The institution publishes clear and ap propriate statement(s) o f student rights and responsibilities and disseminates the stateme nt(s) to the campus c ommunit y. (Student r ights) 4. The institution (a) publishes app ropriate and clear pr ocedures for addressing written student complaints, (b) demonstrates that it follows the pr ocedures when r esolv ing them, and (c) maintains a rec ord of student c omplaints that can be accessed upon request b y SA CSCOC. (Student complaints)

28 5. The institution pr otects the securit y, c onfidentiality, and integr ity of its student rec ords and maintains securit y measur es to prot ec t and back up data. (Student records) 6. The institution pr ovides information and guidance to help student borrow ers understand how t o manage their debt and repay their loans. (Student de bt)

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 29 Sec tion 13: F inancial and Ph ysical Resources Although missions var y among institutions, both a sound financial base and a pattern of financial stabilit y pr ov ide the foundation fo r accomplishing an institution ’ s mission. A dequate financial resourc es al lo w for deliberate consideration of the effective use of institutional resourc es to fulfill that mission. Adequat e physical resourc es are essential to the educational en v ir onment and include facilities that are safe and appro pr iate fo r the scope of the institution ’ s pr og rams and serv ices. It is reasonable that the general public, gov ernmental entities, and current and pr ospe ctiv e students expect sufficient financial and ph ysical resources nec essar y to sustain and fulfill the institution ’ s mission. 1. The institution has sound financial resourc es and a demonstr ated, stable financial base to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its prog rams and ser vices. (Financ ial resour ces) [CR] 2. The member institution provides the following financial statements: (a) an institutional audit (or Standard R ev iew Report issued in acc ordance with Stateme nts on Standar ds for A ccount ing and R e v iew Ser v ices issued by the AICP A for those institutions audited as part of a system-w ide or stat ew ide audit) for the most recent fiscal y ear prepared by an independent c er tified public acc ountant and/or an appropriate gov er nmental auditing agency employing the appropriate audit (or Standard Review Report) guide. (b) a stateme nt of financial posit ion of unrestr icted net assets, ex clusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, w hich represents the c hange in unrestr icted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent y ear.

30 (c) an annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedur es, and is appr oved by the gov er ning board. (Financial documents) [CR] 3. The institution manages its financial r esources in a r esponsible manner. (Financial responsibility) 4. The institution ex er cises appropriate co nt r ol over all its financial resour ces. (Control of finances) 5. The institution maintains financial c ontrol ov er externally funded or sponsored r esearch and programs. (Control of sponsored research/external funds) 6. The institution (a) is in c ompliance with its program responsibilities under T itle IV of the most recent H ig her Education A c t as amended and (b) audits financial aid programs as requir ed by federal and state regulations. In r ev iewing the institution ’ s co mpliance w ith these program responsibilities under T itle IV, SA CSCOC relies on documentation forwarded t o it by the U.S. Depar tment of Education. (Feder al and state responsibilit ies) 7. The institution ensur es adequate ph ysical facilities and resourc es, both on and off campus, that appro pr iately serve the needs of the institution ’ s educational programs, sup p ort serv ices, and other mission-relat ed a ctivities. (Physical resources) For applicant and candidat e institutions, including an ap plicant seeking separate accreditation fr om a current SACSCOC accr edited institution, the institution provides the financial information, including audit requir ements, specified in the SA CSCOC policy entitled A ccreditation P rocedur es for Applicant I nstitutions.

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 31 8. The institution tak es reasonable steps t o provide a health y, safe, and secure en vironment for all members of the campus community. (Institutional environment)

32 SEC TION 14: T ranspar enc y and Institutional Representation An institution is responsible fo r representing accurately t o the public its status and relationship with SA CSCO C; r epor ting accurately t o the public its status w ith state or the federal gov ernment, if receiving funding from either or both; maintaining openness in all accreditation-r elated activ ities; ensuring the a vailabilit y of institutional policies to students and the public; and publishing appropriate information with respect to student achiev ement. SA CSCOC’ s philosoph y of accreditation pr ecludes remo val from or denial of membership or candidacy to a degree-gr anting institution of higher education on an y g r ound other than an institution ’ s failure to meet the standards of the membership as determined by the prof essional judg ment of peer reviewers, or failure to c omply w ith SA CSCOC policies and procedures. 1. The institution (a) ac cur ately r epresents its accr editation status and publishes the name, address, and telephone number of SACSCOC in acc ordance with SA CSCO C’ s requirements and f eder al policy; and (b) ensures all its branch campuses incl ude the name of that institution and make it c lear that their accreditation depends on the continued ac creditation of the parent campus. (Publication of accreditation status) 2. The institution has a policy and pr ocedure to e nsure that all substantiv e changes are reported in acc ordance with SA CSCOC policy. (S ubstant ive change) 3. The institution applies all appr opriate standards and policies to its distance learning pr o grams, br anch campuses, and off-campus instructional sites. (Comprehensive institutional re v iews) 4. The institution (a) r epresents itself accurately t o all U.S. Department of Education r ecognized accrediting agencies with which it holds accr e ditation and (b) informs those agencies of any chang e of accr e ditation status, including the imposition of public sanct ions.

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 33 (See SA CSCO C policy Ac crediting Decisions of Other Agencies.) (Repr es entation to other agenc ies) 5. The institution c omplies w ith SA CSCOC’ s policy statements that pertain to new or additional institutional obligations that may arise that are not part of the standards in the current Principles of A cc r e ditation. (P olicy compliance) (N ote: For applicable policies, institutions should refer t o the SACSCOC website: www.sacscoc.org)

34 Commission P olicies Definition: A policy is a req uired course of a ction to be follo wed by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SA CSCOC) or its member or candidate institutions. SA CSCO C policies ma y also include procedur es, which are lik ew ise a requir ed course of action to be follo wed by SA CSCO C or its member or candidate institutions. The Princ iples of Ac c reditation requir e that an institution comply with the policies and proc edures of SA CSCOC. P olicies are appro ved by vot e of the SA CSCO C Board of T rustees. A t its discretion, the Board ma y choose to forward a policy to the C ollege De legate Assembly for appr oval. Examples of policy topics include substantiv e changes, standing rules, procedur es for applicant institutions, special committee proc edures, sanc tions and adv erse actions, o r appeals procedures. All policies are a vailable on the SA CSCO C website (www.sacscoc.org). SACSCOC maintains currency on the w ebsite and reserves the right to add, modify, or delete an y of the policies listed. Commission Guidelines Definition: A guideline is an advisory statement designed to assist institutions in fulfilling accreditation r equirements. As such, guidelines describe recommended educational practices for documenting requir ements of the Principles of A cc reditation and are appr oved by the Ex ecutiv e Council of the SA CSCO C Board of T rustees. The guidelines are examples of commonly acc epted practices that constitute c ompliance with the standard. Dep ending on the natur e and mission of the institution, however, other approaches ma y be more appro pr iate and also pr ovide ev idence o f compliance. Examples of guideline topics include adv er tising, stud ent recruitment, contractual relationships, tr a vel and committee visits, or facult y cr edentials. All guidelines are a vailable on the SACSCOC website (www.sacscoc.org). SA CSCOC maintains currency on the website and r eser ves the right to add, modify, or delete any of the guidelines listed. Commission Good Pr ac tices Definition: Good practices are commonly-ac cepted practices within the hig her education community which enhanc e inst itutional quality. Good practices may be formulated by ou tside agencies and organizations and endorsed by the Ex ecutive Council of the SACSCOC Board of T rustees or the Board itself. Goo d practice documents are a vailable on the SACSCOC websit e (www.sacsc oc.org). SA CSCOC

The Principles of Ac creditation: Foundations f or Qualit y Enhancement 35 maintains currency on the website and r eser ves the right to add, modify, or delete any of the good practices listed. Commission P osition Statements Definition: A position state ment examines an issue facing the SACSCOC membership, describes appropriate appr oaches, and states the SA CSCOC stance on the issue. It is endorsed by the E xecutiv e Council of the SA CSCOC B oard of T rustees or the SA CSCOC B oard of T rustees. P osition statements are availab le on the SACSCOC website (www.sacscoc.org). SA CSCOC maintains cur rency o n the website and reserves the right to add, modify, o r delete any of the position statements listed.

S o u t h e r n A s s o c i ati o n of C ol l e g e s a n d S c h o o l s C o m mi s s i o n o n C o l l e g e s 1 8 6 6 S o u t h e r n L a n e D e c a t ur, G A 3 0 0 3 3- 4 0 9 7 4 0 4- 6 7 9- 4 5 0 0 (P h) 4 0 4- 6 7 9- 4 5 5 8 (F x) w w w. s a c s c o c. o r g