The consideration of each program conforms to the following format:

1. Presentation of the case. One member of the Committee, selected beforehand by the Chair, gives an overview of the Panel’s recommendations and the evidence that the TEAC staff complied with TEAC’s policies and regulations.

2. Certification of the process. Certification that TEAC has followed its procedures in the case before the Committee is determined by a majority vote of the Committee. The Committee examines the documentation described in Table 8 and certifies that the TEAC’s procedures, policies, regulations were followed. In cases where the Committee finds that the staff’s failure to satisfactorily comply with the procedures was of some consequence, it orders remedies for the errors made by the staff.

3. Acceptance of the panel’s recommendations. Once the Committee certifies the process (i.e., determines that the process was not unduly compromised), the Committee examines each finding and recommendation the Panel has made. In the case of an Inquiry Brief Proposal, the Committee scrutinizes the Panel’s conclusions with regard to (1) the rationale required for Quality Principle II, (2) the program’s internal audit of its quality control system required for Quality Principle III, and (3) the evidence of institutional commitment to the program required in the standard of capacity for quality. In other words the Committee must examine the Panel’s conclusions about the following elements of the TEAC system: 2.1, 3.2, and 4.0 (with the exception of the links to student learning.)

Because the Inquiry Brief Proposal is a proposal about how the program faculty will acquire the evidence to support Quality Principles I and II, the Panel evaluates only those parts of these quality principles that do not rely directly on the proposed evidence. Nevertheless, each quality principle is treated in some fashion in the Inquiry Brief Proposal. The program’s claims about the contents of Quality Principle I are presented in the rationale, for example, even though the evidence for each claim may not yet have been secured. Similarly, the program’s evidence about Quality Principle II, namely, that its assessments are reliable and valid, must await the results of the assessments, but the proposed rationale for the assessments and the plan for establishing and investigating the validity of the assessments for the program is presented in the Inquiry Brief Proposal along with any pilot data the program may have about the validity of the assessments it plans to continue using. Along the same lines, while some of the program’s evidence that it has the capacity for quality must await the evidence for Quality Principle I, the remainder of the case for the program’s capacity for quality is presented in the Inquiry Brief Proposal. It is treated (1) through the requirement that the quality control system address each component of TEAC’s standard of program capacity, (2) through the evidence that the institution is committed to the program overall and in each component (4.1 – 4.7), and (3) through the individual requirements of 4.1 – 4.7).

In most cases, the Panel, based on its evaluation of the entire record, has found that the Inquiry Brief Proposal supports the program’s overall claim that it can produce an acceptable Inquiry Brief within five years if it follows the plan presented in the Inquiry Brief Proposal. The Committee’s task is to see if there is credible evidence to show that the program faculty will not succeed. If there is none of consequence, the Committee should accept the Panel’s recommendation. If the Panel, on the other hand, had not recommended new program or preaccreditation status, then the Committee would seek evidence that the program can produce an acceptable Inquiry Brief within five years if it follows the plan presented in the Inquiry Brief Proposal. If the Committee finds credible and persuasive evidence that the program can produce an acceptable Inquiry Brief, the Committee should reject the Panel’s recommendation to deny accreditation and award the appropriate accreditation status.

In the case of an Inquiry Brief, where the recommendation typically is for initial or continuing accreditation, the Committee similarly scrutinizes the Panel’s conclusions, including any stipulations and weaknesses the Panel has formulated with regard to each of the three quality principles and the standard of program capacity for quality.

5. Committee’s decision, minutes, and report. After the Committee has made its decision by majority vote, it discusses the contents of the draft minutes of its meeting. The Committee’s minutes in the instance where it accepts the Panel’s recommendations can be brief and simply state the outcomes of the Committee’s deliberations. In the cases where the Committee rejects any of the Panel’s recommendations, including those about stipulations and weaknesses, and makes a new accreditation decision, the Committee must fully justify its findings and decision. This will require a separate report to the program faculty and to the TEAC staff.

The Committee’s minutes also presents its findings, decision on the certification of TEAC’s procedures, and any remedies it has ordered. The minutes may also present recommendations to the staff and the full Board of Directors about changes in TEAC’s policies, regulations, and procedures.

6. Debriefing. At the close of its meeting, the Committee will analyze its own decision-making, particularly with reference to its individual and collective confidence in its conclusions and accreditation decision and to procedural modifications it would like to implement at its next meeting.


Return to Accreditation Committee and Accreditation Decision