TEAC Accreditation Judgment Heuristics

Teacher Education Accreditation Council

Heuristic Table 1
Guidelines for Quality Principle I

1.0 Evidence of student learning	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Completeness	All components are analyzed (1.1 - 1.3)	Some components missing in the analysis
Consistency	Evidence is consistent with the claim that each component was learned	Evidence is inconsistent with the claim that each component was learned
Sufficiency	Preponderance of evidence is of sufficient magnitude	Preponderance of evidence is of insufficient magnitude
Precision	Clean or qualified audit opinion	Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 2
Guidelines for Quality Principle II

2.1 Rationale	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Completeness	Credible links between the assessments and the goals, claims, and the program requirements	Incomplete coverage of the links between the assessments and goals, claims, and program requirements
Coherence	Coherence among assessments, goals, claims, and program requirements	Disconnections among assessments, goals, claims, and program requirements
Grounded in scholarship	Accurate & balanced interpretation of the scholarly literature	Misinterpreted literature
Precision	Text is clear and precise	Text is tautological, vague, or ambiguous
2.2 Valid assessment system	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Design (sampling, validity, threats, etc.)	Sound evaluation design	Weak design (inadequate sampling, presence of threats to validity, etc.)
Multiple measures	Measures mostly consistent with each other	Measures mostly inconsistent with each other
Sufficiency	Preponderance of reliability and validity measures of sufficient magnitude	Preponderance of reliability and validity measures of insufficient magnitude
Precision	Clean or qualified audit opinion	Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 3
Guidelines for Quality Principle III

3.1 Decision making	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Basis for past decisions	Some program decisions informed by evidence	*Program decisions are episodic, ad hoc, only by consensus, or fiat*
Basis for future decisions	QCS plan to base decisions for program improvement on evidence where possible	No plan for relying on evidence in program improvement decisions
Precision	Text is clear and precise	Text is tautological, vague, or ambiguous
3.2 Quality Control System	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Completeness	System attends to all components (4.1 – 4.7)	System fails to attend all components (4.1 – 4.7)
Problem-finding	Internal audit identifies areas in the QCS or program for improvement	Internal Audit fails to identify problems in the QCS or in the program
Links to student learning	Plan to investigate links between program capacity and student learning	No plan to investigate links between program capacity and student learning
Quality improvement	Internal audit provides evidence each component is monitored adequately	Internal audit reveals a preponderance of components not monitored adequately
Precision	Clean or qualified audit opinion	Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 4
Guidelines for Capacity

4.0 Factors	ABOVE STANDARD	BELOW STANDARD
Completeness	All subcomponents of capacity (4.1 – 4.7) are addressed	Some subcomponents of capacity (4.1 – 4.7) are not addressed in Inquiry Brief
Commitment*	Parity on the preponderance of components (4.1 – 4.7)	Lack of parity on the preponderance of components (4.1 – 4.7)
Sufficiency	Sufficient evidence for the preponderance of subcomponents	Insufficient evidence for the preponderance of subcomponents
Precision	Clean or qualified audit opinion	Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

* In their audit report, the auditors render the judgment of whether or not the institution is committed to the program seeking accreditation. In accepting the report, the panel does not make a separate decision about commitment.

Heuristic Table 5
TEAC's accreditation decision guidelines
(*Inquiry Brief Proposal only)

Rationale and methods
2.0

Results

Quality control system
(QCS)
3.0

Accreditation decision

Above standard

Above standard

Above standard

Accredit

Above standard

Above standard

Below standard

Provisionally accredit

Above standard*
2.1

Absent*

Above standard*

New Program or preaccredit*

Below standard

Below standard

Above standard

Deny

Above standard

Below standard

Below standard

Deny

Below standard

Below standard

Below standard

Deny

*Inquiry Brief Proposal only

Heuristic Table 6
(If a program is below the capacity standards for program quality in the
final accreditation recommendation and decision)

Accreditation decision in heuristic table 5

Capacity for quality
(4.0)*

Accreditation decision

Accredit

Below standard

Provisionally accredit

Provisionally accredit

Below standard

Deny

Preaccredit or
New program accredit

Below standard
(but above on commitment)

Preaccredit
(with stipulation)

Preaccredit or
New program accredit

Below standard
(but below on commitment)

Deny

* If capacity is above standard there is no change in the decision portrayed in Table 5.