What are the typical activities of an accrediting body in conjunction with the accreditation of an educational program? Of course, the actual experience may vary -- depending on the program specifics and the requirements of the accrediting body.

The accreditation process is grounded in the literature published by the accrediting body that specifies criteria, regulations, timelines, and procedures. The key to success is to maintain consistency and transparency of documentation, so that all constituencies can rely on explicit, clear and comprehensive instructions. Schools who prepare for program accreditation depend on the published literature to guide critical activities such as preparations of the self study and organization of data before the visit. Evaluation teams use this literature to focus questions and visit plans on the published criteria, and to ensure that what the evaluation team wishes to observe and discuss is consistent with what the accrediting body specifies as expected and necessary.

Activities by the Evaluation Team

The evaluation team is organized through mutual agreement between the institution and the accrediting body. In some countries, the team is composed of volunteers drawn from professional society membership, academia, government, and industry. In other countries, the team may be organized under the auspices of the government. The team often has a simple structure: a team chair, and one or more evaluators for each program that seeks accreditation.

Significant preparation and communications are required between the evaluation team and the visited program, so that there are no surprises during the visit, and so that shortcomings that can be rectified before the visit may be addressed. These preparations depend on the quality and thoroughness of the self study document that the visited program prepares early in the accreditation cycle. The self study covers all major aspects of the program, and provides detailed statistics, curriculum descriptions, and data on services, budgets, infrastructure, school personnel and students.

The visit itself typically takes two to four days. It involves interviews of faculty members, students, and administrators; review of instructional materials; visits to laboratories, classrooms and other departments that provide support for the visited program; and sampling of assessment data and budgetary information.

The visit is typically concluded by an exit interview which provides the leadership of the program and the school with preliminary findings and conclusions of the visiting team. These are refined by later editing, and by communication between the accrediting body and the program (especially reports of actions taken by the program in response to preliminary findings). Following additional discussions within the accrediting body, exchange of report drafts and editing, the accrediting body votes on and announces its decision on accreditation of the program.

The final accreditation report, which serves as the narrative that explains the accreditation decision, typically reviews the history of the reviewed program, highlight its strengths, and discusses shortcomings. The report may cite evidence that a program lacks sufficient compliance with a certain criterion, policy, or procedure. It may also raise the specter that a currently satisfied criterion, policy, or procedure may not be satisfied in the future. Different accrediting bodies use different terminology to label shortcomings that require further action. These shortcomings range from serious failings that may threaten the accreditation status of the program, to mild infractions whose discussion should be taken as no more than friendly advice. The final decision on accreditation of the program takes into account the number and severity of these shortcomings, and conforms with the expectations set forth in the accrediting body's literature.

Content of the curriculum
Example: Is there enough exposure to discrete mathematics?
Size and skill base of the faculty
Example: Does the Computer Science program have individuals who are trained in artificial intelligence?
Morale and governance of the faculty
Example: Does the faculty feel that the deans and department heads respect legitimate faculty concerns?
Quality of the facilities
Example: Does the Electrical Engineering Program’s Microwave Laboratory have a Spectrum Analyzer?
Admission criteria
Example: Do the admission criteria ensure that incoming students have the basic skills required to attend the program?
Quality of the support services
Example: Do the program’s computing facilities enjoy professional system administration?
Graduate placement
Example: Do the majority of the program graduates find gainful professional employment within six months of graduation?

Data Collection and Measurement of Goals
Here is an example of how data may be collected to verify whether or not the goals of the institution or the program are being satisfied.

Feedback: using data to improve the program
An important element of most accreditation processes is the requirement that the institution/program demonstrate an assessment process, viz. an effective process to collect pertinent data and use to improve the educational program. Here is an example of how gathered data can be used for improvement:

Assessment Methods
In the context of accreditation of educational programs, assessment methods is a collective name for techniques designed to collect and analyze data that would provide educational programs with a rating of their performance with respect to goals and objectives, and will guide improvements. These techniques include analysis of locally developed surveys, interviews with constituents, review of student portfolios, and use of so called “rubrics” -- a set of criteria devised to measure achievement of stated goals through detailed performance rating and analysis of rating trends over time.

In the wake of the adoption of outcome-based methodology by many accrediting bodies, development of assessment tools and implementing them have created a small industry of consultants and paid guides. The usefulness of existing assessment methods, the effort needed to implement them, and the recent introduction of methods labeled “direct assessment,” continue to be a controversial subject in the higher education community.  

About | Benefits | Approaches | Challenges | Accrediting Bodies | Program Prep | Global Trends | Misuse