Statement of Integrity
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools is the regional body for the accreditation of higher education institutions
in the Southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) and
Latin America that award associate, baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral degrees.
Accreditation by the Commission on Colleges signifies that an institution has a purpose appropriate to higher education and has resources, programs, and services sufficient to accomplish and sustain that purpose. Accreditation indicates
that an institution maintains clearly specified educational objectives that are
consistent with its mission and appropriate to the degrees it offers, and that it is
successful in achieving its stated objectives.
Self-regulation through accreditation embodies a traditional U.S. philosophy that a free people can and ought to govern themselves through a representative, flexible, and responsive system. Accordingly, accreditation is best accomplished
through a voluntary association of educational institutions. Accreditation
enhances educational quality throughout the region by improving the effectiveness
of institutions and ensuring that institutions meet standards established by the higher education community, and serves as a common denominator of shared values and practices among the diverse institutions.
Both a process and a product, accreditation relies on integrity, thoughtful and
principled judgment, rigorous application of requirements, and a context of
trust. It provides an assessment of an institution’s effectiveness in the fulfillment
of its mission, its compliance with the requirements of its accrediting association,
and its continuing efforts to enhance the quality of student learning and its
programs and services. Based upon reasoned judgment, the process stimulates
evaluation and improvement, while providing a means of continuing accountability
to constituents and the public.
The product of accreditation is a public statement of an institution’s continuing
capacity to provide effective programs and services based on agreed-upon
requirements. The statement of an institution’s accreditation status with the
Commission on Colleges is also an affirmation of that institution’s continuing
commitment to the Commission’s principles and philosophy of accreditation.
The Commission on Colleges supports the right of an institution to pursue its
established educational mission; the right of faculty members to teach, investigate, and publish freely; and the right of students to access opportunities for learning and for the open exchange of ideas. However, the exercise of these
rights should not interfere with the overriding obligation of an institution to offer its students a sound education.
The Commission on Colleges adheres to the following fundamental characteristics of accreditation:
Participation in the accreditation process is voluntary and is
an earned and renewable status.
Member institutions develop, amend, and approve
accreditation requirements.
The process of accreditation is representative, responsive,
and appropriate to the types of institutions accredited.
Accreditation is self-regulation.
Accreditation requires institutional commitment and
engagement.
Accreditation is based upon a peer review process.
Accreditation requires an institutional commitment to
student learning and achievement.
Accreditation acknowledges an institution’s prerogative to
articulate its mission within the recognized context of
higher education and its responsibility to show that it is
accomplishing its mission.
Accreditation expects an institution to develop a balanced
governing structure designed to promote institutional
autonomy and flexibility of operation.
Accreditation expects an institution to ensure that its
programs are complemented by support structures and
resources that allow for the total growth and development
of its students.
The first task of the Commission when considering accreditation status is to
determine the institution’s integrity and its commitment to quality enhancement.
These two principles serve as the foundation of the relationship between
the Commission and its member and candidate institutions.
Integrity
Integrity, essential to the purpose of higher education, functions as the basic
contract defining the relationship between the Commission and each of its
member institutions. It is a relationship in which all parties agree to deal honestly
and openly with their constituencies and with one another. Without this
commitment, no relationship can exist or be sustained between the
Commission and its member institutions. The Commission’s requirements,
policies, processes, procedures, and decisions are predicated on integrity.
The Commission on Colleges expects integrity to govern the operation of
institutions. Therefore, evidence of intentionally withholding information,
deliberately providing inaccurate information to the public, or failing to provide
timely and accurate information to the Commission will be seen as the
lack of a full commitment to integrity and may result in the loss of membership
in the Commission on Colleges. (See Commission policy “Integrity and
Accuracy in Institutional Representation.”)
Quality Enhancement
The Commission on Colleges expects institutions to dedicate themselves to enhancing the quality of their programs and services within the context of their missions, resources, and capacities, and to create an environment in which teaching, public service, research, and learning occur. The concept of quality enhan cement is at the heart of the Commission’s philosophy of accreditation; this presumes each member institution to be engaged in an ongoing program of improvement and able to demonstrate how well it fulfills its stated mission. Although evaluation of an institution’s educational quality and its effectiveness in achieving its mission is a difficult task requiring careful analysis and professional judgment, an institution is expected to document quality and effectiveness in all its major aspects.
Return to Statement of Integrity index page
AN ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is a private, nonprofit, voluntary
organization founded in 1895 in Atlanta, Georgia. The Association comprises
the Commission on Colleges, the Commission on Secondary and Middle
Schools, and the Commission on Elementary and Middle Schools. The three
Commissions carry out their missions with considerable autonomy: they develop
their own standards and procedures, and govern themselves by a delegate assembly. All three operate under the Association’s Board of Trustees.
The College Delegate Assembly includes one voting representative (the chief
executive officer or the officer’s designee) from each member institution. Its
responsibilities include electing the seventy seven- member Commission on
Colleges to guide the organization’s work; to approve all revisions of accrediting
standards as recommended by the Commission; to approve the dues of candidate
and member institutions as recommended by the Commission; and to
elect an Appeals Committee to hear appeals of certain accreditation decisions.
The Commission on Colleges is responsible for preparing a statement on the
standards for candidacy and embership; authorizing special visits; taking
final action on the accreditation status of institutions based only on its published
standards, policies, and procedures; nominating to the College Delegate
Assembly persons to succeed outgoing members of the Commission; electing
an Executive Council of the Commission that will act for the Commission
while it is not in session; appointing ad hoc study committees as needed; and
approving the policies and procedures consistent with the Association’s charter
and bylaws.
The thirteen-member Executive Council is the executive arm of the
Commission and functions on behalf of the Commission and the College
Delegate Assembly between sessions. However, the actions of the Council are
subject to the review and approval of the Commission. The Council interprets
Commission policies and procedures; develops procedures for and supervises
the work of ad hoc and standing committees of the Commission; approves goals
and objectives of the Commission; reviews and approves the Commission’s
budget; oversees and annually evaluates the work of its executive director; and
initiates new programs, projects, and policy proposals.
The Council receives and acts on reports from all ad hoc and standing committees
and submits them to the Commission. In the case of institutions applying
for candidacy, membership, or reaffirmation of accreditation, the
Executive Council receives recommendations from the Committees on
Compliance and Reports, the standing evaluation committees of the
Commission, and in turn submits its recommendations on these institutions
to the Commission for final action.
Return to Statement of Integrity index page
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 efforts 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 forprofit,
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 (outlined in
Section 2).
Compliance with the Comprehensive Standards (outlined in
Section 3).
Compliance with additional Federal Requirements
(outlined in Section 4).
The Commission’s philosophy of accreditation precludes denial of membership
to a degree-granting institution of higher education on any ground other
than an institution’s 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 accomplishment 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 are not Comprehensive Standards.
Compliance with additional Federal Requirements
The U.S. 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 (see Section 4).
Return to Statement of Integrity index page
COMPONENTS OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Review by the Institution
The institution will provide two separate documents as part of its reaffirmation
review:
1. 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 Plan
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 ccreditation status. The committee’s report, along with the
institution’s response to areas of non-ompliance, will be forwarded to
the Commission for review and action.
Return to Statement of Integrity index page
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 accredit
ed 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.
A member institution is responsible for following the substantive change policy
by informing the Commission of changes in accord with the Commission’s
procedures and, when required, seeking approval prior to the initiation of the
change. If an institution fails to follow the procedures, its total accreditation may
be placed in jeopardy. (See Commission policy, “Substantive Change for
Accredited Institutions,” outlining the types of substantive changes, approval
and notification requirements, and reporting timelines.) If an institution is
unclear as to whether a change is substantive in nature, it should contact
Commission staff for consultation.
An applicant or candidate institution may not undergo substantive change
prior to action on initial membership.
REPRESENTATION OF STATUS
An institution must be accurate in reporting to the public its status with the Commission. In all official institutional publications, a member institution describes its status with the Commission only according with the following statement:
(Name of institution) is accredited by the Commission on Colleges
of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award
(name specific degree levels).
A candidate institution describes its status with the Commission only according
to the following statement:
(Name of institution) is a candidate for accreditation with the
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools to award (name specific degree levels).
No statement may be made about the possible future accreditation status with
the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools nor may an institution use the logo or seal of the Southern
Association in any of its publications or documents.
Return to top
