THE PROCESS OF ACCREDITATION

The process for initial and continued accreditation involves a collective analysis and judgment by an institution's internal constituencies, an informed review by peers external to the institution, and a reasoned decision by the elected members of the Commission on Colleges. Accredited institutions periodically conduct internal reviews involving their administrative officers, staffs, faculties, students, trustees, and others appropriate to the process. The internal review allows an institution to consider its effectiveness in achieving its stated mission and its compliance with the accreditation requirements established by the member institutions. Furthermore, it helps an institution evaluate its effort in enhancing the quality of student learning and the quality of programs and services offered to its constituencies as well as challenge itself to examine its successes in accomplishing its mission. At the culmination of the internal review, peer evaluators representing the Commission apply their professional judgment through a preliminary assessment of the institution; elected Commissioners make the final determination of an institution's compliance with the accreditation requirements.

APPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS

The Commission on Colleges accredits degree-granting higher education institutions and entities based on requirements in its Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. The requirements apply to all institutional programs and services, wherever located and however delivered. The Principles of Accreditation is designed to guide institutions in all stages of membership, from application through initial accreditation and reaffirmation of accreditation. Compliance with the requirements is intended to help an institution achieve overall effectiveness. The Commission on Colleges applies the requirements of its Principles to all applicant, candidate, and member institutions, regardless of the type of institution; private for-profit, private not-for-profit, or public.

The Commission evaluates an institution and makes accreditation decisions based on the following:

• Compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, defined as integrity and commitment to quality enhancement (outlined in Section 1).
• Compliance with the Core Requirements
• Compliance with the Comprehensive Standards
• Compliance with additional Federal Requirements

The Commission's philosophy of accreditation precludes denial of membership to a degree-granting institution of higher education on any ground other than an institutions' failure to meet the above requirements in the professional judgment of peer reviewers, or failure to comply with the policies and procedures of the commission.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CORE REQUIREMENTS

Compliance with the Core Requirements is essential for gaining and maintaining accreditation with the Commission on Colleges. The requirements establish a level of development required of an institution seeking initial or continued accreditation. Compliance with the Core Requirements is necessary but not sufficient to warrant accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation. To maintain accreditation, an institution must meet all Core Requirements, including Requirement 2.12. An institution responds to each Core Requirement by either confirming compliance or explaining those situations for which there is non-compliance.

Core Requirement 2.12 requires an institution to develop an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and show that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. Engaging the wider academic community, the QEP is based upon a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment for supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution. It is used to outline a course of action for institutional improvement by addressing one or more issues that contribute to institutional quality, with special attention to student learning. An applicant institution seeking membership with the Commission on Colleges is required to document compliance with Core Requirements 2.1 - 2.11 in order to be awarded candidacy, candidacy renewal, or membership.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS

The Comprehensive Standards set forth requirements in the following three areas: institutional mission, governance and effectiveness; programs and resources . The Comprehensive Standards represent good practices in higher education and establish a level of accomplish expected of all member institutions, Institutions respond to each Comprehensive Standard either by confirming compliance or by explaining those situations that constitute noncompliance. Guidelines for faculty credentials contained in Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 reflect the commonly accepted standards of good practice within the larger community of the Commission's membership and describe one method for documenting faculty competence. Guidelines arc not Comprehensive Standards.

COMPLIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The US Secretary of Education recognizes accreditation by the Commission on Colleges in establishing the eligibility of higher education institutions to participate in programs authorized under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments and other federal programs. Through its compliance with these federal regulations, the Commission assures the public that it is a reliable authority on the quality of education provided by its member institutions. The federal statute includes mandates that the Commission review an institution in accordance with criteria outlined in the regulations of the Amendments developed by the U.S. Department of Education. As part of the review process, institutions are required to document compliance with those criteria and the Commission is obligated to consider such compliance when the institution is reviewed for initial membership or continued accreditation

COMPONENTS OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Review by the Institution

The institution will provide two separate documents as part of its reaffirmation review:

I . Compliance Certification

The Compliance Certification, submitted fifteen months in advance of an institution's scheduled reaffirmation, is a document completed by the institution that demonstrates its judgment of the extent of its compliance with each of the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards.

Signatures by the institution's chief executive officer and accreditation liaison will be required to certify compliance. By signing the document, the individuals certify that the process of institutional self-assessment has been thorough, honest, and forthright, and that the information contained in the document is truthful, accurate, and complete.

2. Quality Enhancement

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), submitted six weeks in advance of the on-site review by the Commission, describes a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined issue or issues directly related to improving student learning. The development

of the QEP involves significant participation by the institution's academic community. The plan should be focused and succinct (no more than seventy-five pages of narrative text and no more than twenty-five pages of support documentation or charts, graphs, and tables).

Review by the Commission

1 . The Off-Site Peer Review

The Off-Site Review Committee, composed of a chair and normally eight evaluators, meets at an off-site location and reviews Compliance Certifications of a group of institutions to determine whether each institution is in compliance with all Core Requirements (except Requirement 2.12) and Comprehensive Standards, and with federal regulations. The group of institutions, called a cluster, normally will consist of five institutions similar in governance and degrees offered. At the conclusion of the review, the Off-Site Review Committee will prepare a separate

report for each institution, recording and explaining its decisions regarding compliance. A report is forwarded to the respective institution's On-Site Review Committee which makes the final determination on compliance.

2. The On-Site Peer Review

Following review by the Off-Site Committee, an On-Site Review Committee of peers will conduct a focused evaluation at the campus to finalize issues of compliance with the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards, evaluate the acceptability of the QEP, and

provide consultation regarding the issues addressed in the QEP. At the conclusion of its visit, the On-Site Review Committee will prepare a written report of its findings noting areas of non-compliance and will make a recommendation to the Commission on Colleges regarding the

institution's accreditation status. The committee's report, along with the institution's response to areas of non-compliance, will be forwarded to the Commission for review and action.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

FOR REPORTING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE

The Commission on Colleges accredits the entire institution and its programs and services, wherever they are located and however they are delivered. Accreditation, specific to an institution, is based on conditions existing at the time of the most recent evaluation and is not transferable. When an accredited institution significantly modifies or expands its scope. Or changes the nature of its affiliation or its ownership, a substantive change review is required. The Commission is responsible for evaluating all substantive changes that occur between an institution's scheduled reviews (normally ten years) to determine whether the change has affected the quality of the total institution and to assure the public that the institution continues to meet defined standards.

DOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE

WHAT IS COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION?

The Compliance Certification document is based upon the institutions internal analysis and assessment of its compliance with thee requirements and standards using documentation as generated by the institution to support its claim. These may include: College catalog, organizational chart, Bylaws of the governing body, faculty files containing credentials denoting qualifications, faculty handbook, financial audits etc. For some requirements and standards, a single document may be sufficient for documenting compliance, other standards may require comprehensive documentation such as trend analysis, survey data, benchmarking, student satisfaction indices, national norms and learning outcome, major fields test scores etc. It is the institutions responsibility to ensure that its evidence for compliance is reliable, current, verifiable, coherent, objective, relevant, and representative. Since the commission required only limited number of hard copies of documents, an institution can submit its materials electronically with hard copies. We are encouraged to use electronic format with appropriate hyperlinks as much as possible. Institutions are reviewed for Compliance, Partial Compliance or Non compliance. Partial and Non compliance requires a detailed explanation in the compliance document as to institutional plan of action for compliance.

WHAT IS A QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN?

The QEP is a component of the accreditation process that describes a carefully designed plan of action that addresses a well defined topic or issue(s) related to enhancing student learning. It should be forward looking. An acceptable QEP satisfies core Requirement 12. The QEP must not exceed 75 pages including supporting materials. The average length of time for developing a QEP is two years. The effort is usually led by a committee (see committee assignment elsewhere in this document). This action plan is reviewed in five years after initial submission and prior to the next reaffirmation, therefore making the accreditation process a continuous activity not "episodic".

¹ Extracted from SACs document entitled the principles of Accreditation: Foundations for quality Enhancement.(2004) This information is for member institution use only.