ASHEBORO — Bob Shackleford was so “shocked and confused” that he called a public meeting to give “overwhelming, irrefutable evidence” for an opposite conclusion.

The president of Randolph Community College had just received a final report from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) on accreditation. While remaining fully accredited, RCC was placed on “warning” status for 12 months before reconsideration of the SACS committee.

In an effort to explain what had happened and to refute the SACS ruling, Shackleford met with about 150 students, faculty, staff, trustees and community partners in the RCC Learning Resources Center auditorium last Thursday. Using an overhead projector, he made a PowerPoint presentation to bolster his case.

“I was expecting a call (from the SACS committee) congratulating me in making (recommended) changes,” he said. Instead, he was told the efforts to meet SACS recommendations were considered “non-responsive.”

Accreditation for RCC began with a self study from 2006 to 2009, which was sent to SACS headquarters in Atlanta. The accreditation committee reviewed the report in the spring of 2009. RCC then sent SACS a focus report and Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) last July.

The SACS committee visited the campus last September before turning over in December a report of recommendations to the school.

RCC then responded in March 2010 to the SACS recommendations and SACS made known its ruling at the end of June.

Shackleford said the SACS recommendation for compliance was to “hire more full-time faculty and reduce teaching loads to ensure quality of instruction.” As for the QEP, SACS recommended provision of an “adequate staff for QEP,” “adequate funding” and “adequate professional development.”

RCC’s response to the SACS recommendation, according to Shackleford, was a reduction in teaching loads for 82 percent of the faculty during the spring semester, hiring of nine full-time faculty members, elimination of overloads, clarification of teaching load policy and clarification of overload policy.

Responding to QEP recommendations, Shackleford said RCC had appointed a QEP director, hired a writing specialist, hired a writing coordinator for 2011, expanded the Writing Center, relocated QEP-related offices adjacent to the Writing Center and established a plan for professional development.

SACS then responded to the changes with the 12-month warning status.

“They were not satisfied with our response to their recommendations,” said Shackleford. “They considered it a ‘non-response.’”

While noting that the “warning” status is the least severe of SACS sanctions, it’s also not subject to appeal, he said.

“We will submit a  follow-up report in spring 2011 for SACS’s reaffirmation in June 2011,” said Shackleford.

Then he asked the question, “How did we get here?” He said colleges typically receive several recommendations, but RCC only had one, related to the teaching loads of faculty.

“They insisted on the following,” Shackleford said: “Hire more full-time faculty. Faculty should be teaching a maximum of 15 hours of classes per week.”

Shackleford, however, said the 15-hour maximum “is not a SACS standard. I told them we are not budgeted that way (by the state). I was told, ‘That’s not our problem.’”

He continued that SACS had suggested cutting off enrollment to new students and to unemployed workers, reducing faculty salaries by one-third and/or reducing teaching loads and then prorating salaries down for more money to hire additional faculty.

Instead, Shackleford said, RCC chose to increase teaching loads for one semester, have professional staff members to teach classes and hire adjunct faculty to cover other classes. In the spring semester, RCC reduced faculty loads and hired more full-time faculty.

Shackleford said RCC chose to indicate to SACS “our commitment to serve our community, the  exceptional quality of our instructional programs and the impressive strides we made – in spite of woefully inadequate resources – to meet their recommendations in just three  months.

“Most importantly, we chose to keep the doors open to our students and our community in the  very time when they needed us the most.”

RCC, faced with a 16 percent increase in enrollment and an 11 percent cut in budget, felt the only viable option was to increase faculty loads for one semester and fill in the gaps with professional staff and adjunct instructors, said Shackleford.

At the same time RCC was placed on warning status, two other community colleges – Robeson and Tri-County – received full accreditation, he said. The two were accredited despite having the same faculty teaching loads as RCC.

Shackleford then gave data showing that RCC has been among the top 11 community colleges of the 58 in the state for the past two years. Transfer students from RCC to four-year colleges outperform native students in those colleges and there is a high rate of satisfaction expressed by graduating students and the employers who hire them.

In summary, Shackleford said, “I believe we made the right choice. The evidence indicates that we are one of the top-performing community colleges in the state. I believe SACS badly missed this call.”

Opening the floor to questions, Shackleford was asked if RCC had been judged by SACS under a higher standard, due to the success of the past two years.

“The SACS process is very subjective,” he said. “Different committees go to different colleges. It depends on who the committee is. ... Some bend over backward for you, others make you grovel.”

Bob Morrison, CEO of Randolph Hospital, told Shackleford that “we know the quality (of instruction) because we’re hiring your graduates.”

Randolph County Sheriff Maynard Reid agreed: “The quality of (RCC) students we’re hiring are by far the best officers I’ve ever had. They’re topnotch. I’d have to disagree with SACS.”

Shackleford ended by saying the SACS ruling is “something I can’t change. What I can do is tell the truth.”