Heuristic table 5 provides a continuation of the part/whole heuristic of decision-making that the panel uses to come to one of the accreditation recommendations.

The heuristic, one of several that could be employed, calls for the separate evaluation of each element of the system (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0) as a way of guiding the decision about the whole system. The table shows how the evaluations of the elements of the TEAC system are combined to inform and guide the panel to making an overall accreditation recommendation.

The table reveals a delicate balance between the weight to be given to the results (1.0) and the weight to be given to the efforts for program improvement and quality control (3.0) in the overall accreditation decision. On balance, a weakness in the quality control system is more serious than weak results, which is why the former leads to provisional accreditation, a status which can be held for only two years, while the latter leads to preaccreditation, a status which can be held for five years. On the other hand evidence of student learning (results) is the pivotal factor in full accreditation.

On logical grounds alone it would seem that compelling evidence could not flow from invalid means of gathering evidence and for that reason heuristic table 5 shows no instance where the evidence for Quality Principle II is below standard and the results (Quality Principle I) are above standard. It may be the case, nevertheless, that a program has solid results, but without evidence of validity and a credible rationale for its assessments even a program with seemingly good results cannot be accredited by TEAC.

Heuristic table 6 indicates how the capacity standards moderate the decisions portrayed in heuristic table 5. If the evidence supporting the capacity standards is collectively below standard, then the program that would otherwise have earned an accredit decision now receives provisional accreditation, and a program that would earn provisional accreditation must be denied accreditation.

If the evidence about commitment in an Inquiry Brief Proposal is below standard, neither preaccreditation or new program accreditation is granted without a plan for improvement that specifically and credibly addresses the elements of commitment that are below standard.

Preaccreditation and new program accreditation are generally based upon the soundness of the quality control system, the claims and assessment rationale, and evidence of capacity. The expectation in any case is that the program faculty can develop evidence supporting the claims of student learning, validity of the measures, and sufficiency of capacity for quality within five years.

Preaccreditation has different connotations depending upon whether an Inquiry Brief or an Inquiry Brief Proposal was submitted. In the case of the Inquiry Brief, it would mean the evidence of student learning is below standard. In the case of the Proposal, it would mean no evidence was available to be submitted and the program faculty members were proposing means to secure evidence.

On logical grounds it would also seem that programs without the capacity for quality (i.e., below standard in 4.0) could not have compelling evidence to support the three quality principles. The theoretical and empirical links between capacity and quality, however, are confused and uncertain in the field of education.

As a result, it is possible that a program could satisfy TEAC’s quality principles and still fail to satisfy all, or even the preponderance, of TEAC’s capacity standards for quality (4.1–4.7). It could do this through heroic efforts on the part of students and faculty, for example. For this reason heuristic table 6 indicates that some programs below standard in their capacity for quality can still be accredited, but only provisionally or with stipulations, on the strength of their demonstrated quality with regard to TEAC’s quality principles.