There is a bunch to unpack in the faculty standards and these usually represent quite a challenge for institutions as the case for compliance is built. Let’s look at these one by one.
6.1 Full-time faculty–This core requirement is focused on the institution’s mission and needs a narrative that shows that the institution has enough full-time faculty to deliver that mission. There is a formula for this one that I share with clients, but overall this core requirement is very permissive.
6.2.a Faculty qualifications–The most frequent problem area for institutions in the off-site review step of a reaffirmation. The guidance provided by SACSCOC is clear, yet leaves ample room for non-traditional credentials. This flexibility makes this one permissive, but remember that you need to present those non-traditional credentials in such a way that they can convince a committee of your peers.
6.2.b Program faculty–The focus here is a bit different from 6.1, here the standard is looking for enough faculty in each program or curricular area to ensure program quality and integrity. There is a formula for this one too. Overall, the guidance is useful, but open-ended. This one is permissive.
6.2.c Program coordination– This one can be a challenge, particularly for small colleges that rely on part-time faculty for a significant portion of the credit hours offered. SACSCOC wants a full-time faculty member with the credentials to be the subject matter expert for every program and we call this one proscriptive for that reason.
6.3 Faculty appointment and evaluation–Institutions need to lean on their HR policies here. All institutions have policies regarding the appointment and evaluation of faculty, but the execution of these policies is often in question. This is permissive since there are no requirements about what needs to be these policies; however, if you are not following your own policies you will find yourselves out of compliance.
6.4 Academic freedom–This is another policy-driven narrative. There are no requirements about what is in your academic freedom policy so this one is permissive, but you must have one and must demonstrate that you follow it.
6.5 Faculty development–This standard always leads me to think that I have read the same narrative a hundred times. We have another permissive standard here and one that does not have much of an effectiveness piece to it. There does not seem to be an expectation that you report effectiveness or even participation in available faculty development.