Next Section | Owner: President, Liaison
Section 1: Principles and Philosophy of Accreditation
Institutional Integrity
Integrity is a core value essential to the purpose of higher education, functioning as the basic social contract defining the relationship between the Commission and each of its member institutions. It is a relationship in which all parties agree to commit themselves to honesty and openness in their dealings 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 information to the Commission will be construed as an indication of the lack of a full commitment to integrity and may result in the loss of membership in the Commission on Colleges.
Coker College fully endorses the philosophy of accreditation by peer review, as conducted by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In 2002, the President appointed a liaison and directed the College to begin an internal review using the Principles of Accreditation as a guide (see Preparation of the Report). This review was carried out by many faculty and staff representing all areas of the College. Their work formed the basis for this compliance report. We have made every effort to ensure that the statements found herein accurately and completely reflect the nature and character of the institution, and that supporting documents are used in proper contexts.
To assist in the collection and presentation of information, the College implemented an electronic document archive in the summer of 2002. The College has used this system to store and catalog the supporting documentation found in the links on these pages.
We have consciously tried to provide as much useful information as possible about the College to the reviewing committee and sought to organize it logically. The alternative approach, to include only carefully selected documentation that supports the claims made in the report, was rejected as incompatible with the aim of an off-site review, where available information is already limited. We hope that this transparency will be useful to the reviewers in making their determinations. The full documentation can be seen from the references page. Only documents pertinent to the subject at hand are cited in the report sections.
Except for a few documents prepared specifically for this report, included reference documents were created by College employees in the course of their work. It is entirely possible that these working documents contain an occasional inadvertant inaccuracy or contradiction. Where documentation is cited in the text of the report, however, every effort has been made to ensure that the citation is providing clear, direct, and accurate information concerning that part of the narrative, and that it is in a proper context.
Each section of the report has a denoted owner, who has reviewed the section for accuracy and correctness of the compliance judgment.
Where internal review shows that the College is in partial or non-compliance, the report states the fact. In all cases, the reported compliance status is as of the date of the report. Where the College has judged itself to be in partial or non-compliance, we have provided an action plan to bring it into full compliance.
Adherence to Commission Policy
The Commission's philosophy of accreditation precludes denial or removal 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.
The College complies with Commission policies and procedures.
Substantive Change
The Commission on Colleges accredits the entire institution and its programs and services, wherever they are located or however they are delivered. Accreditation is specific to an institution, is based on conditions existing at the time of the most recent evaluation, and is not transferable. When an accredited 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 decennial reviews to determine whether the change has affected the quality of the total institution and to ensure the public that all aspects of the institution continue to meet defined standards.
A member institution is responsible for following the Commission's substantive change policy and its procedures by informing the Commission of such changes in accord with those 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 General Substantive Change Policy for Accredited Institutions and Procedure One and Procedure Two, outlining the types of substantive changes, their respective approval and notification requirements, and their 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.
The College complies with the substantive change policies. We most recently contacted the Commission about our new Social Work Program in this regard.
Representation of Status
An institution must be accurate in reporting to the public its status and relationship with the Commission. In catalogs, brochures, and advertisements, a member institution describes its relationship 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 relationship 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. Nor may an institution use the logo or seal of the Southern Association in any of its publications or documents.
The academic catalog contains the public statement of accreditation:
Coker College is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097; phone: 404-679-4501) to award baccalaureate degrees. [510, p 10]
The inclusion of the address and phone number of the Commission follows the now-outdated requirement (in the 1998 Criteria). The College will change its publications to omit this information in future publications.
David A. Eubanks, SACS Liaison
B. James Dawson, President