SACS Fifth Year Midterm Interim Response Report Production Plan

The first draft of our midterm response report will be completed during the spring 2009 term. The process includes a dissemination component, and work plans for the steering committee, administrative compliance subcommittees, academic compliance subcommittees, and the QEP Impact Response subcommittee. Following the completion of the first draft, a group of faculty, staff, students and community members as well as an external review board will review the documents.

Process, Timelines, and Committee Structures

I. Public Information Dissemination/Preliminary Process

* Drs. Hale and Vess and Ms. Bello will make presentations to the president's leadership teams (VPs and Deans) in early March.

*Drs. Hale and Vess and Ms. Bello will hold two forums in March to inform the university community about the SACS Fifth Year Interim Report, the process for compiling the report, explain the need for their support, and request their assistance.

* Drs. Hale and Vess and Ms. Bello will also make a presentation to the faculty at the university faculty meeting held in March regarding the SACS Fifth Year Interim Report, explain the need for University support, and request their assistance.

*Drs. Hale and Vess and Ms. Bello will make a presentation to the university senate at the March senate meeting regarding the SACS Fifth Year Interim Report, explain the need for University support, and request their assistance.

*Drs. Hale, Jones, and Vess, and Ms. Bello will meet with the chairs and facilitators of the various teams outlined below in early March to explain the overall process and the basic elements of the SACS requirements.

*Drs. Hale and Vess and Ms. Bello will meet with each individual committee in March following the meeting with chairs to outline the SACS requirements for their area of responsibility, expectations, timelines, and to give the committees their charge from Dr. Jones.

*Dr. Jones and President Leland will send letters of appointment to committee members in early March. Dr. Vess will draft a template for the letters.

*Dr. Jones will submit this document to President Leland for her approval and she will issue first communication on the process.

II. Committee Structure

Overview

There will be an oversight committee (steering committee), two SACS compliance certification subcommittees (one for academic areas, the other administrative areas), a QEP subcommittee (composed of the responsible parties for QEP data and faculty who will draft the response), and a review board composed of members representing both internal and external constituencies.

A. Steering Committee

Deborah Vess, Chair

Function and duties

The steering committee will review the drafts produced by the Academic Compliance subcommittee, the Administrative Compliance subcommittee, and the QEP subcommittee. The steering committee will provide feedback to all subcommittees and make recommendations for necessary changes to meet the SACS standards during the process at selected stages but particularly when the subcommittees produce their first drafts according to the following schedule:

The steering committee is responsible for compiling the materials from the various teams into a coherent, seamless narrative that meets the SACS requirements. The steering committee will receive and review the second, revised drafts produced by the subcommittees according to the following schedule:

The steering committee will compile the various materials into a coherent document and produce the first draft of the full SACS Fifth Year Interim response by May 29.

Steering committee members will be the facilitators and chairs of the various teams outlined below, IE and IR Directors, faculty members who were involved in the last SACS study, and other experienced administrators and faculty members whose expertise can provide an institutional perspective.

B. SACS Compliance Certification Subcommittees

i. Administrative Compliance Areas

*Administrative Compliance Area Facilitator: Kay Anderson

Process and Timeline

Stage I: Subcommittees collect necessary data by April 3.

Stage II: Subcommittees draft required narratives by April 25 and submit to facilitator of the administrative compliance areas, who then submits materials to the chair of the Steering Committee.

Stage III: Steering Committee returns drafts with comments to Administrative Subcommittee facilitator by May 6.

Stage IV: Subcommittees make recommended changes suggested by facilitator/chairs of subcommittees and steering committee by May 15.

Stage V: Administrative compliance area facilitator and subcommittee chairs review materials and submit to steering committee chair by May 20.

Subcommittee I: Core Requirement 2.8 and Comprehensive Standards 3.4.11 and 3.28(Numbers of faculty, qualified administrative and academic officers, program coordination)

Sandra Gangstead (CoHS), chair

Subcommittee 2: Comprehensive Standard 3.43 and Federal Requirements 4 3 and 4.6 (Student complaints and petitions)

Jason Huffman (CoAS), chair

Subcommittee 3: Comprehensive Standard 3.43 and Federal Requirements 4.3 and 4.6(Admissions and recruiting policies)

Doris Christopher (CAO, Macon), chair

Subcommittee 4: Comprehensive Standard 3.10.31 and Federal Requirement 4.7 (Financial Aid)

Suzanne Pittman (Enrollment Management), chair

Subcommittee 5: Comprehensive Standard 3.11.3 (Facilities)

Joe Windish (RPIPC/Library and Instructional Technology Center labs), chair

ii. Academic Compliance Certification Committees

Stage I: Subcommittees collect necessary data by April 10.

Stage II: Subcommittees draft required narratives by April 20 and their chairs submit necessary materials to steering committee chair.

Stage III: Steering committee returns drafts with comments to academic compliance certification subcommittee chairs by April 30.

Stage IV: Academic compliance certification subcommittees make recommended changes by May 10.

Stage V: Academic Compliance Certification Subcommittee chairs submit materials to steering committee chair by May 15.

Subcommittee 1: Comprehensive Standard 3.3.11 and Federal Requirements 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 (Learning outcomes, student achievement, program length)

Ken Procter (CoAS), chair

Subcommittee 2: Core Requirement 2.10 (Student support services)

Sherry Jones (Center for Testing), chair

C. QEP Response Subcommittee

Subcommittee Facilitator: Deborah Vess

Process and Timeline

Stage I: Responsible parties provide data to Dr. Vess (completed as of 2-10).

Stage II: Drafting QEP subcommittee reviews data, compiles rough draft, and sends to responsible parties and to steering committee by April 10.

Stage III: Responsible parties and steering committee review rough draft, make suggestions, and return to drafting committee by April 15.

Stage IV: Drafting subcommittee finishes rough draft by April 30 and submits to steering committee chair by May 5.

D. Review Board

Members are still to be determined, but will include community members, students, alumni, faculty, and administrators.

The Review Board will review the draft documents at key stages, offer constructive feedback, and provide outside perspectives to the steering committee.

III. External Review Process

The first draft, produced by the steering committee by May 29, will be sent to a committee of external reviewers from comparable institutions and who have first-hand experience with SACS reviews and, in particular, Fifth Year Interim Reports. Comments should be received by June 30.

Strategic Direction One
Exemplary Undergraduate Learning Experience

Continue to build excellence and distinction in the Georgia College undergraduate educational experience consistent with the university's educational values and its undergraduate public liberal arts mission.

Read More