By Douglas A Wymer, Ph.D.
Yes, I know that the change from SACSCOC to The Commission happened some time ago, but I wanted to let that settle in for a bit before reflecting that change in the blog titles. I think it has been long enough.
Anyway, there still is a lot to like in the new standards. I presented on the first draft of the proposed standards at the SACCR meeting back in mid-September and started that presentation with, “Everything I say might be wrong.” As it turns out, many of the areas of concern I brought up to my audience have been resolved in the second draft; however, others have arisen. This continues my series on the second draft of the proposed standards.
20. Faculty Qualifications and Evaluation The institution demonstrates that it (a) implements policies and documents procedures for approval of faculty qualifications that support a high-quality learning experience for students at all credential levels. In instances where an exception to policy is made, the institution (b) provides a clear rationale for the exception and documents the decision-making process, including the alternative credentials or experiences accepted. Additionally, (c) the faculty are regularly evaluated on the performance of their roles or defined performance criteria as established by the institution.
Over the past six years I have given institutions sound advice regarding faculty credentialing that now is bad advice. I hope they are reading this. Up until now it has not been necessary for an institution to have a detailed policy/procedure for credentialing faculty, nor has it been necessary to have any sort of credentialing manual that defines what academic preparation is required for each course/discipline. It has been sufficient to state, “The institution credentials faculty consistent with SACSCOC guidelines.” Well, among other problems with that advice, The Commission’s Faculty Credentials Guidelines no longer exist.
Every institution has a process for evaluating faculty credentials against the courses that the faculty member will be assigned to teach. If they are not in writing, write them down, step by documentable step. If they are written down, review them to make sure that they are accurate. We all know that, over time, practice will migrate away from theory. This will need to include some sort of faculty credentials guidelines or manual that is developed by the institution. I am very interested to look over the new Resource Manual when it becomes available. Institutions credential faculty at the level of individual courses and sometimes by curricular area, typically defined by course prefix (BIO, MAT, ENG, etc.). However, the standard is focused on a high-quality learning experience at the credential level. Not at the course-level or discipline-level. Clearly faculty credentials need to be evaluated beyond, “Sure they can teach in a baccalaureate program.”
Part b about exceptions has always been there. This is column 4 in the current faculty roster. The example that I always fall back on when having a conversation about rigid faculty credentialing requirements is that, back when I was VPAA, I probably would have approved an economics instructor with no college credits if they had won a Nobel Prize in Economics. Faculty credentialing has always been and will remain in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is an institution’s Chief Academic Officer. Unless it is a reaffirmation year, then the beholder is the review committee. Tighten up the credentialing process, write or tune up the credentialing guide, and provide unassailable documentation for the exceptions.
Part c was added in the second draft of the standards. The first draft did not require regular evaluation of faculty performance. If you are keeping track, we see performance evaluations of the CEO and the executive team in standard 4 and the faculty in standard 20. And that is it. No required performance evaluations for the key players in business affairs or student affairs.
Southeastern Accreditation Consultants is always interested in supporting institutions in their accreditation journey. We bring best practices, proven strategies, experienced process review, and new online assessment management and institutional planning platforms to the table. I would love to show you what a platform that has been designed by an accreditation expert with the faculty and staff users in mind can do. We offer individualized services to best meet your needs during the adventure to come. Contact us to get started.