UT Dallas received positive comments from committee members as they finished their reports regarding our reaffirmation; however the official word has now hit the streets:  UTD was officially reaffirmed as a member of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools with a posting on the SACS web site Tuesday, 16 December 2008.

Thanks to the many, many people who participated in our reaffirmation process and who helped to continue  to improve our internal processes. As a result of our SACS Reaffirmation project, we have now more formally structured our assessment procedures, created better tools for submitting course syllabi, and enhanced our students’ learning opportunities, especially in mathematics and sciences (GEMS).

Another interesting by-product of this process has been a revealing of talent among a number of people, talents that could easily have escaped notice if not for their being tapped to participate in this process.

I am grateful to Simon Kane for having so deftly handled our many technical obstacles; to Serenity King for her selfless editing that has now led to her being named an Assistant Provost who works extensively with new academic program development; to Mona Metcalf who tirelessly worked to scan, scan, and scan some more all the many documents that comprised our 120K page submission (okay, not printed page so much as web page); to Metta Alsobrook who tackled assessment processes with a zeal that defies description; to Abby Kratz and John Sibert who worked with the QEP and developed a successful project now known as GEMS; and to Pete Bernardin, JoyLynn Reed, Julie Allen, Diane Griffith, and a host of others who simply contributed in ways that almost no one else could have possibly noticed but without whose work we simply would have flailed about.  And while it may go without saying, I am grateful to Robert Nelsen who, against his own better judgment, accepted the challenge and thus became a SACS/COC guru whose opinion is now well regarded across the State of Texas. Robert’s leadership, both tireless and nurturing, helped us all meet the demands of the project without imploding (although we came close despite his best efforts now and then).

So, as much as I would love to say, “It’s over,” it is far from over. SACS and COC reaffirmation is an ongoing process that requires UT Dallas stay alert to its internal processes as well as to external requirements and that requires the university continue to monitor its own strengths and weaknesses, particularly in relation to how well we serve our students and our community-at-large.

We may take a break over the coming winter holiday season, but it’s back to business as usual come 5 January 2009. The meetings will continue; the assessment process will continue and continue to improve; the GEMS Center will continue to address student learning outcomes in mathematics and sciences, areas of critical importance to success at UT Dallas; and all of us will continue to review with a more critical eye the ways we can improve the university in its many facets.

…Richard Huckaba

The on-site review committee chair will arrive Sunday for an afternoon meeting that will include the “top brass” of the university to preview the next day’s visit as well as the on-site review following in March. Then it’s time for the game!

Monday, however, it’s back to business, with an early meeting to familiarize the visiting chair with the tools we’ve used locally to develop our reports and web presence. Then it’s on to meetings with each of the major component groups, including student affairs, business affairs, academic associate deans (curriculum), etc. The goal here is to give the visiting chair a chance to lay out his expectations for the visit and get to know the key players - and for the key players to field a few questions about what they should continue to do in final preparation for the visit.

For example, should we put together a war room - or should we keep pushing everything to the web? Should we plan to put together student focus groups about the QEP - or should we just wait and gather a few folks at the last minute? You know–nuts and bolts things.

The nice thing is that it will be nice to put a real face on this process at last.

Sunday, 12 August 2007.

Today we submit a draft version of our Compliance Certification Reports for review by a group of officials at The Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  The submission consists of a memo detailing instructions for navigating the documents, a single 3 MB file that is a .pdf version of our entire certification report (including all the principles and responses), and, possibly today or tomorrow, a submission about our QEP (the review exercise).

Putting this together has been an interesting experience.  People have suddenly gone into high gear to identify the problems that “must be fixed.”  Let’s see:  All those document descriptions that we list with each report (or response to each principle or standard) needed to be reviewed for misspelled words.  Hmmm.  Then some of those descriptions didn’t make any sense.  (HB254 removal?  Uh, no.  That’s HB 254, legislation that removes a restriction on UT Dallas’s student population.  Oh, yes, that.)

Serenity has done yeoman’s service here - editing and re-editing until her eyes seemed permanently glazed over.  Simon turned out new tools and software at rapid pace, breaking even his own land-speed record.  Metta worked into the night to prepare a usable document.  Robert found that there are limits which even he cannot escape in life.  JoyLynn, Rhonda, and  (Mr. QEP himself) John worked and worked to finalize responses to the “review exercise.”  Ben has developed fat fingers from all the last-minute data entry work.  Mona has struggled to keep the rest of us sane while managing to keep her own projects on a steady path.  Abby’s been rewriting text on a couple of major areas.  Hey!  It’s been a rough week!
Alas, we’re about to press the “send” button and ship this stuff off into the ether that is the internet.

The 20 June Executive Committee meeting gave folks a chance to talk about their own progress on each of their various (and myriad) projects.  The gist:  tagging documents, collecting summer syllabi, wrapping up assessment processes for a cycle, AT6, retreats are over (!!!), and corrupted documents.  Whew!

We’re still hoping to hold a mock review in July, but the deadlines are close and we may not be as ready as we’d like.  We’ve targeted 16 and 17 July with five reviewers.

JoyLynn Reed reviewed her ideas about needed improvements in the next assessment cycle. [Hey, we've been doing assessment stuff for years, but trying to broaden the participation base hasn't exactly been a cake walk.  (And for those of you too young to know what a cake walk is, ask someone with grey hair.)]  It’s clear our focus has to shift slightly so that we’re really talking more about improvement rather than accountability.  Some folks are completely turned off by anything that sounds like “No Child Left Behind.”  Everyone’s more engaged with improvement (at least, that’s the way it seems today).  John Sibert added that we need to consider more emphasis on curricular alignment so as to tighten some of the “maps” in some disciplines.

Document security arose again.  What about Academic Program Review documents?  What about the President’s response to the review team?  It seems the answer is much as you might expect:  Some of it is “classified” and some of it isn’t.  (Hey, those CV’s are in there again.)

GEMS!  (No, not the little do-nuts.)  Gateways to Excellence in Mathematic and Science.  Catchy, huh?  The QEP Council continues to meet twice weekly.  Current “plans” will be presented to the President and Provost shortly.

Hey, we’re making headway here.

It seems we continue to visit this topic from time to time.  We have to ask ourselves, “If that were my file, would I want it secured or open to the world?”  My view is generally conservative; I like personal information to be locked down as much as possible.

For example, a CV is a relatively public document.  Faculty members use them to apply for jobs, to support a request for promotion, etc.  If, however, I see an address or the family members’ names, I want to lock it down.  Sure, you can find a faculty member’s home address; it’s not impossible.  Even so, I’d rather err on the side of caution in such a case.

Transcripts?  Easy.  Lock ‘em down.  Too many of us have the old kind of transcript–you know, where the social security number is visible.  Hated that!  Lock ‘em down!

The other stuff is all up for discussion.  A budget document without names and salaries?  Public.  A budget document with SSN’s?  Behind the firewall and a password.  Course evaluations?  Public.  Supervisor’s evaluation of an employee?  Private.

Hey, you want more?  Go file a Freedom of Information request.

Another Wednesday Executive Committee meeting at 9:00 a.m. on 25 October 2006, with a smaller than usual cast of characters.  To show you all that we can be as much fun as the next group, we started this meeting with a celebration:  a happy birthday to Mona, whose birthday is later this week.  (We do this a lot.  We like cake.  We like each other.  We like to share.)

Anyway, it was perhaps the shortest meeting on record.  Quick Quick Quick progress reports, a brief description of the latest version of the Principles for Accreditation (more to follow), closing down summer initiatives, and a quickie view of the NSSE and its relation to SACS principles.

There will be a newsletter soon for general distribution.  It’s a nice touch.  Serenity has been working on this as a side project - side in that it’s not the primary focus of her day - and project in that she still tackled it with the same gusto she does the other parts of her job(s).  Each “edition” will have a featurette about one of the folks who work on the reaffirmation project - and it could almost anyone.  It could be you.

As for the latest version of the principles, let’s just say that the folks in Atlanta shipped out a set of mod’s for comment.  They apparently got comments.  The latest version includes some updates to those updates - and they’ve added a new principle–well, it’s a logical extension of one that already existed - something about library staffing vs. library materials, or something like that.  Other areas had a similar breakout; this just made good sense.

As for NSSE, that’s the National Survey of Student Engagement - and it’s pretty cool stuff.  Annually we survey a cadre of students about their perceptions of the campus and their “engagement” with it (duh).  Someone, somewhere, decided to link the various NSSE questions with the various SACS principles.  Larry Redlinger is pulling the last three years of data to see how they all scan.

As for closing down summer initiatives…. Let’s just say we’ve spent enough time harassing everyone to give us this or that from last summer.  We’re done.  We’re moving on.   But don’t think we won’t be back to check up on the stuff still out for fall; we’ll be calling or emailing or stopping by soon enough.

So, look for the newsletter.  Enjoy the wet weather!  Enjoy the not-100-degrees-weather!

Executive Committee Meeting - 18 October 2006

Fourteen gathered in the SACS conference/work room and offered brief comments regarding progress from the past week.  As examples,

• Mona found more hidden syllabi from the summer (yikes!);
• Simon was finalizing updates for the assessment tool (beta v2) and those went into effect that evening;
• JoyLynn is still struggling under a mountain of assessment plans and reports for general ed courses;
• Justin, Diane and Abby appear to be making considerable headway on finalizing the fall listing for faculty credentialing;
• Diane has finished data input for paperwork to evaluate faculty transcripts from non-US institution;
• (you get the idea)

Robert indicated a need for the group to refine its priority list - at least for the short-term.  Given the recent explosion of data to be entered for other faculty and staff, we’re behind.  (For what it’s worth, we’re offering this support service this term because of the multiple versions of templates, etc., that have been distributed; for next term, that responsibility shifts back to the departments.)  He indicated that “cutting and pasting” needs to move to the head of the list, at least for the team’s immediate focus.  As much as possible, Ben, Metta, and others will work on “getting caught up” on the assessment plans and reports as well as on some of the basic data entry in WEAVEonlnie.

The group also decided that it would be very helpful to find outstanding examples of assessment plans and reports to share with the assessment tool users.  Everyone working with the plans will be seeking such examples to have them posted within the assessment tool.

John Sibert also indicated that he is feeling a real need to form a committee/team to begin reviewing QEP topic suggestions and ideas.  He and Robert will meet to review a list of “possibles.”

So, there you have it.  Another week of progress.  Given we’re nearing the autumnal equinox, I guess this is a good thing.  I only refer to the time in this manner because once the vernal equinox comes back around, we need to be wrapping up this first cycle/draft/process and moving on toward final drafts.

(It is autumnal and vernal, right?  Whatever.)

On Wednesday (11 Oct), the Steering Committee got together as a large group once again and heard an update on the progress in collect common core course assessment plans for both summer and fall terms - and also got word that UTD will be using, essentially, the new or proposed principles for accreditation.  Because the Team’s report (in all its incarnations) will rely on a database, the Team has proposed using an alternate numbering system for referencing all principles until the Commission actually votes on the principles’ changes.  President Daniel joined the group for lunch and took the opportunity to thank the members for thier hard work–and to encourage them to consider whether or not the right people have been involved in the work to date.

Simply, it seems the message just doesn’t always move through the entire communication channel.  Dr. Daniel encouraged the group to ensure that the right people are involved - and that they are the people who have the authority to get the job done and the dedication to participate fully.  President Daniel and Executive Vice President Hobson Wildenthal both indicated they will monitor closely the continued progress of the committee’s work and will assist in encouraging all faculty and staff to be more fully engaged in the reaffirmation process.

As the meeting neared its conclusion, the committee members received the style guide for the compliance documents.  The guide is simple and to the point:  Use active voice, keep it brief, and use tables and graphs in supporting docs, not in the compliance certification itself.  The rest was just as easy.

We’re on the way.

On the “regular” news front, all team members are pushing hard on a variety of projects, the toughest of which may well be the establishment of secure work spaces with all the right people having access to the right folders and sub-folders.  Add to that the desire to have only certain team members with access to other sub-folders, and it gets complicated.  Even so, we’re using the folders as a way to track where all the documents are and which documents are ready for review and for submission to the database.  (There’s a set of folders and sub-folders for every principle.  That’s why it’s so complex.)

Other than that, hey, it’s party time.  We’re celebrating that it’s only another 7 1/2 months until we submit the first draft for review.  (Okay, maybe celebrating isn’t exactly the right word.)

The agenda was simple enough (deceptively so):

1. Progress Reports
2. Deadlines
3. Priority List
4. Meeting with Steering Committee & President

Okay, we didn’t cover #4, but suffice it to say the Steering Committee is meeting with President Daniel next weekfor a lunch meeting.  It’s a chance for Dr. Daniel to inspire (or scare or encourage or dare or — pick a verb –) the troops.  It’s also a chance for us all to sit around and talk about the priorities facing us sooner rather than later.

 As for the rest of the meeting, the progress reports were fairly normal:  we’ve got this, we’re missing this, and we’re focusing on this.  Serenity is closing on the style guide, and Simon is gearing up to update the dox library tools.  John Sibert has altered his strategy a bit for working with groups on introducing the QEP with the development of a more interactive activity that could/should include a topic submission from a group or groups within the larger group of attendees.  (Way to go!)

On deadlines, hey, we have some.  We will start farming those out and seeking the feedback about what is and is not workable.  Deadlines are flexible, but only to a point.  We have a drop-dead date that has no flex in it at all.

As for the priority lists, Robert Nelsen asked for anyone to offer his/her own view of the project’s priorities, not just the team priority or the individual priority.  The discussion was interesting.  Essentially, we echoed what we voiced recently:  We need to focus on the bigger issues, do what we can with the smaller issues, and accept that occasionally some things just won’t happen the way we want. 

Oh, and by the way, Ramona Metcalf joined us today for her first day.  Her first day has included, thus far, two meetings already.  Not a normal first day, even for SACS.

Sometimes I find it difficult to conceptualize just how we’re supposed to “take a snapshot” of the university and its “effectiveness” when all the measures, objectives, and even players keep changing, sometimes as often as the wind changes direction.  Trying just to identify the programs to be assessed can prove daunting–we add a new PhD program, we drop a Master’s program, and we re-name another program altogether–”ya can’t tell the players without a score card” but the score card is written in pencil.

Yes, I know.  That’s university life.  So it is.  Things change, constantly.  Even so, it seems we need to build a better system for monitoring the “big” changes as well as the day-to-day stuff.  We all tend to know when someone leaves the university, but we don’t always know when some shifts responsibility within a department.  We generally know when a new program is approved (after all, it’s taken a remarkably long time to get the thing approved), but we don’t always know when someone decides to stop admitting students into a major.  If there are no new majors, is that a sign the program is being phased out or that someone is just rethinking the program’s goals and processes?

Perhaps not only the SACS Team needs a better communication strategy.  Maybe the university (as well as perhaps even the system) needs a better communication strategy.  Maybe that’s one of the goals we need to bring forward for the community’s response–to help people get the information they need in a more timely, reliable, and public manner.

Okay, that’s about two cents’ worth.