EKU SACS Committees

Purpose:

SACS requires that institutions establish a Leadership Team to oversee the entire institutional review, including the production of the Compliance Certification and the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Responsibilities:

• Coordinating and managing the internal review process, including developing the structure and timelines for ensuring the timely completion of all tasks and attending the orientation session conducted by the Commission on Colleges.
• Overseeing the institutional review of the extent of compliance with the Principles of Accreditation and the documentation of evidence supporting the extent of compliance.
• Developing the Focused Report, if the institution so chooses.
• Overseeing the development of the QEP.
• Ensuring that the institutional community is engaged in the review process and is informed of the progress of the review.
• Overseeing arrangements for the on-site visit.
• Ensuring that the appropriate follow-up activities are in place to address compliance issues and to monitor the progress of the QEP.

Membership:

Purpose:

This committee will conduct the review of data and complete the Compliance Certification document, which will demonstrate the extent to which EKU complies with each of the Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, and federal regulations as presented in the Principles of Accreditation.

Responsibilities:

It is the responsibility of this committee to conduct the institutional analysis for compliance. Committee members should begin their analysis by careful interpretation of the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards to understand each aspect and what information and data must be assembled to document compliance.

Membership:

Purpose:

This committee will provide oversight for development of the Quality Enhancement Plan that is to be developed as part of the SACS Review Project.

Responsibilities:

The responsibility of this committee is to guide the development and implementation of the QEP. According to the SACS Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, the QEP should include but not be limited to the following components:

• A brief descriptive title.
• A topic that is creative and vital to the long-term improvement of student learning.
• A definition of student learning appropriate to the focus of the QEP.
• Evidence that developing the QEP has engaged all appropriate campus constituencies.
• A description of the importance of the QEP that will help others understand its value and appropriateness to the institution.
• Specific, well-defined goals related to an issue of substance and depth, expected to lead to observable results.
• Evidence of careful analysis of the institutional context in which the goals will be implemented and of consideration of best practices related to the QEP’s topic or issues.
• A viable implementation plan that includes necessary resources and a framework that details matters such as timelines, leadership, resource allocation, and assessment schedule.
• A comprehensive evaluation plan clearly related to the QEP goals, with the latitude and flexibility to make adjustments to achieve the desired student learning outcomes.
• Appendices, if applicable.

The final QEP document must not exceed one hundred pages, including a narrative of no more than seventy-five pages and appendices of no more than twenty-five pages.

Membership:

Purpose:

This committee is to provide oversight for institutional effectiveness strategies and processes.

Responsibilities:

It is the responsibility of this committee to ensure that institutional effectiveness strategies and processes are developed and implemented for purposes of continuous improvement. The committee must monitor that these activities are integrated and not redundant.

Membership:

Purpose:

This committee is to facilitate communication between the SACS Committees and the University Community.

Responsibilities:

It is the responsibility of this committee to ensure that the institutional community is engaged in the SACS Reaffirmation process by providing timely information and means of communication. The committee members will serve as resources to the other SACS committees to help with different means of communication such as forums, meetings, Websites, surveys, etc.

Membership:

Support Team

Sharon Bailey, SACS Editor
Philip Gump, Technology Consultant
Bethany Miller, Assistant Director of Institutional Effectiveness
Tina Nix, Administrative Assistant for SACS Project Office
Bogdan Ratiu, Assistant Director of Research
Sherry Robinson, Document Coordinator
Stacy Street, Assessment Coordinator

Purpose:
This committee is to support all other committees in data collection, data analysis, research, Editorial help, etc. for successful completion of the SACS project.

Responsibilities:
Provide assistance to all SACS committees as needed.

Subcommittees

Several subcommittees will be developed to assist in the review process. Each subcommittee will have a chair and a representative on the appropriate “parent” committee. The number and nature of the subcommittees will be largely determined by the areas in the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards.