The Accreditation Committee makes one of the following determinations:

Accreditation (Inquiry Brief). A decision to accredit is made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient contrary evidence to the program faculty’s claims that the quality principles and capacity standards are fully warranted and justified, or that support for the claims is at least consistent with evidence derived from contemporary research practices.

Preaccreditation (Inquiry Brief). A decision to grant preaccreditation status is made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient evidence for the program faculty’s claims about Quality Principle I, nor sufficient contrary evidence to the panel’s finding that the claims with regard to the other quality principles and capacity standards were supported.

Preaccreditation (Inquiry Brief Proposal). A decision to grant preaccreditation is also made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient contrary evidence to the faculty’s claims of a sound rationale, commitment, and a quality control system, and that the evidence of Quality Principle I is forthcoming.

New program accreditation (Inquiry Brief Proposal). A decision to grant new program accreditation status is made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient contrary evidence to the faculty’s claims of a sound rationale, commitment, and quality control system and that the evidence of Quality Principle I for the new program is forthcoming.

Preaccreditation or new program status indicates that the program, on the strength of several positive indicators, would be able to provide the evidence required for accreditation within a five-year period.

Provisional accreditation. A decision to grant provisional accreditation is made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient contrary evidence to the program faculty’s claims that Quality Principles I and II are warranted and justified, nor to the panel’s finding that there was insufficient of evidence to support Quality Principle III or the capacity standards.

Provisional accreditation indicates, on the strength of the evidence, that the program faculty can remedy the weaknesses in the Inquiry Brief and become fully accredited within two years.

Denied accreditation. A decision to deny accreditation is made upon the recommendation of the panel when the committee cannot find sufficient evidence to support the program faculty’s claims, nor evidence to indicate that additional evidence and analysis would support the faculty’s claims about the quality principles and capacity standards.

A denied decision usually indicates a weak quality control system and a program faculty that has not been able to react productively at the current time to the weaknesses uncovered in the Inquiry Brief or Inquiry Brief Proposal. Accreditation must be denied in these circumstances. The program has the option of terminating its bid for accreditation in TEAC or returning to candidate status and the eventual formulation of plan that would lead to accreditation.

(Also see TEAC's accreditation categories and terms)

Program's acceptance or appeal of the accreditation decision



Return to Accreditation Committee and accreditation decision