The Accreditation Panel

Role
After the auditors have determined that the evidence in the Brief is sufficiently accurate and trustworthy, the Accreditation Panel reviews the case. The panel’s charge is to address two questions, and, based on the findings, make a recommendation to the Accreditation Committee:

• Does the evidence of student learning indicate that the program’s graduates are competent, caring, and qualified?
• Does the program have the capacity to monitor and achieve quality and improvement?

To answer these questions, the panel examines and evaluates the evidence about each element and component of the TEAC system (1.0–4.0) to see (1) if there are other plausible interpretations of the evidence, and (2) if the evidence presented is sufficient to satisfy TEAC’s requirements.

In their deliberations, the Accreditation Panel members consider the following documents, all prepared in advance of the meeting: the Brief; the audit report; any responses to the audit report from program faculty; reports from any consulting reviewers; the staff analysis of the case (which sets out the case for accreditation and notes the degrees to which the program satisfies TEAC’s principles and standards); and the staff’s summary of the panelists’ worksheets.

On the basis of its findings, the panel recommends to the Accreditation Committee one of the following categories of TEAC accreditation. The Accreditation Committee, a subcommittee of the TEAC board of directors, then reviews the accreditation report and all the materials related to the case, and makes the accreditation decision:

New program or preaccreditation (there is insufficient evidence of student accomplishment and learning, but sufficient evidence for the other elements of the TEAC system)

Provisional accreditation (there is insufficient evidence of capacity for the improvement of the quality of the program, but sufficient evidence for the other elements and components of the system)

Denied accreditation (preponderance of evidence is insufficient and inconclusive about essential elements of the TEAC system) (Return to Accreditation Panel)

Composition and responsibilities
The director of the Accreditation Panel, a TEAC staff member, manages the Accreditation Panel’s work and supervises and directs panel functions and meetings. The director serves as chair of all Accreditation Panel meetings and is an ex-officio voting member. The director also assists TEAC’s president in recruiting and training members of the Accreditation Panel.

The panel’s seven members are appointed by TEAC’s president for their expertise in the evaluation of evidence and to represent, collectively, the following categories:

Teacher educators: program faculty, chairs, directors, and deans

Higher education faculty and administrators: non-education program faculty and campus administrators

P-12 practitioners: teachers in the case of teacher education programs, and other practicing professionals in the case of other professional preparation programs

The public: parents and others interested in maintaining the highest standards for professional education programs

Education policy makers: state education agency personnel, legislators, legislative staff, members and staff of state boards of education, and local school board members

Education policy scholars: individuals concerned with relevant research and policy issues

TEAC auditors: the lead auditor of the audit team is an ex-officio, non-voting member of the panel.

At least one member of the Accreditation Panel is someone who is familiar with institutions similar in size, mission, and context to the one offering the program.

In addition, so that they may be fully aware of the issues and reasoning that played roles in the panel’s recommendations for the program’s accreditation, representatives of the program are entitled to attend (in person, by video- or teleconference) the meeting of the Accreditation Panel at which their program is considered for accreditation. They are invited to observe, without comment, the panel’s deliberations and voting process. They also answer any remaining questions the TEAC staff and panel members may have about the Brief. But they do not present their Brief or debate their case; nor do they introduce new evidence, as it would not have been audited.

Any or all of the panelists may participate in a meeting of the panel by conference telephone or by e-mail or video conferencing. As long as everyone participating in the meeting is able to hear or read one another’s messages, the panelist is considered present.

Terms of service on the panel. The panel is assembled from a pool of about a dozen persons. The members of the pool are appointed to an initial three-year term and may be reappointed for one additional term of up to three years. No member serves in the pool for more than two consecutive terms (i.e., consecutive terms cannot exceed six years).

Training for the panelists. All members of the Accreditation Panel pool receive initial and periodic training in the TEAC system and operational policies.

Frequency of panel meetings. The Accreditation Panel convenes twice a year, and on an as-needed basis, but usually no more than three times a year. (See TEAC audit schedule.)

Any action required or permitted to be taken by the panel may be taken without a meeting if consent in writing, setting forth the action to be taken, is signed by all the panelists authorizing the action. The panelists’ consent has the same force and effect as their unanimous vote would in a meeting.

Voting protocol. Accreditation recommendations require no less than four affirmative votes. This means that a four-person quorum must provide a unanimous recommendation for an accreditation recommendation to be forwarded to the TEAC Accreditation Committee. Similarly, five- and six-member panels must achieve at least four affirmative votes to advance a positive recommendation. (Return to Accreditation Panel)

Process

Before the meeting
At least two weeks before the meeting, all participants receive the Briefs and supporting materials. The panelists are expected to study the materials thoroughly, complete and submit the evaluation worksheets on each program before the meeting, review the staff’s analysis of the program’s case for accreditation, and be prepared to make and defend a recommendation about each Brief in accordance with TEAC’s principles and standards.

For the meeting, the TEAC staff assembles all relevant material, including a summary of the panelists’ evaluative worksheets, noting the points of consensus and disagreement about the evidence for each element and component of the TEAC system and citing any potential weaknesses and stipulations that were nominated by the panelists.

The panel director assures that all necessary materials for the meeting are assembled, and that rules related to the meeting quorum and composition are satisfied. Any supporting documents not mailed to panelists are made available for review prior to the beginning of the opening panel session.

Order of business for the panel’s meeting. During its meetings, the Accreditation Panel follows Roberts Rules of Order. A simple majority vote is required to affirm all procedural motions

During the meeting
At the opening session, the director reminds panelists and observers of the guidelines for the meeting and reviews pertinent information, including the availability of materials and the schedule. The panel’s deliberation of each program will conform to the following format.

Motion. TEAC requires that the accreditation motion be placed before the panel at the outset of its deliberation. So, to open the deliberation, the director of the Accreditation Panel forwards a motion for the accreditation status requested by the program faculty and seeks a pro forma second from members of the Accreditation Panel.

Review of materials. The initial discussion among the panel members concerns the documents pertinent to the case, particularly the findings in the audit report, the staff analysis, and the staff summary of the worksheets. During this open discussion, the panelists may query the auditors and staff about these documents and any matters relating to them.

Questions for the program representatives. During this portion of the meeting, the panelists formulate any questions that may be addressed to the program’s representative(s). The director of the panel and TEAC staff record these questions.

Review of questions. If there are questions, the director of the Accreditation Panel then reviews with the panel the questions that have emerged during this discussion and indicates they will be asked of the program representative(s).

Clarifications by the program representatives. The program representative(s) responds briefly to each question, which is posed by the director of the Accreditation Panel on behalf of the panel. The answer must be limited to the question asked and should not be a response to other issues heard during the panel’s opening discussion, except to correct an error of fact. The purpose of this part of the meeting is only the clarification of points of fact pertinent to an accreditation recommendation. It is not an occasion for debate, presentation, or the introduction of new evidence and information.

Panel’s deliberation. After the program representative(s) has responded, the panel members deliberate two points: (1) if there are any credible alternative explanations of the evidence, and (2) if the evidence adequately supports the claims in the Brief.

At this point, the director of the panel or the staff reviews the staff analysis and staff’s summary of the panelists’ worksheets. The panel members will have indicated in their worksheets any alternative explanations of the evidence in the Brief that might undermine a faculty’s claim and whether the evidence is sufficient for each element and component of the TEAC system.

Once the plausible alternatives are dismissed to the satisfaction of the panel members, the panel moves on to consider the heuristics (presented in heuristics tables 1 through 4) and whether or not the evidence is of sufficient magnitude to support each element adequately.

Consideration of candidates for stipulation and weakness. It is expected that before the meeting and during their deliberations, the panel members will have noted if any evidence for some claims made in the Inquiry Brief is weaker than the evidence for other claims.

The director of the panel reviews any possible stipulations and weaknesses, both those that were noted in the panelists’ worksheets, and any new ones that emerged during the discussion. Following a discussion, the director notes any weaknesses and stipulations for inclusion in the accreditation report.

Panel’s judgment. After the panel has set aside any plausible rival explanations for the evidence, determined that the evidence is of a sufficient magnitude, noted any areas of weakness and potential stipulation, and determined if the program makes the case for satisfying each TEAC element (1.0–4.0), according to the TEAC heuristics (tables 1–4), the director turns the panel’s deliberations to the opening accreditation motion. Using a paper ballot, the panel seeks an accreditation recommendation, guided by the heuristics described in tables 5 and 6.

The evidence for a particular component or subcomponent of the TEAC quality principles and standards may be insufficient, but, overall, the program’s evidence sufficient to adequately support the program’s claim that it meets the quality principles and standards. In these cases, the panel formally notes the deficiencies in evidence for the particular quality principle or standard of capacity. It does so in one of two ways, depending on whether the deficiency is in a subcomponent or a component of the quality principle or capacity standard.

If the evidence for a subcomponent is insufficient, the panel formally cites a weakness in the principle or standard and cites the subcomponent as weak.

If the deficiency is in the evidence for a component, the panel cites a stipulation in the quality principle or standard and states that the principle or standard is supported but with the stipulation that the evidence for the component must be made sufficient and remedied within a two-year period.

• Problems with the program’s evidence for subcomponents are noted as weak-nesses.
• Problems with the program’s evidence are cited as stipulations.
• Problems with the program’s evidence for Quality Principle I (1.0) results in a recommendation that the program be awarded preaccreditation status.
• Problems with the program’s evidence for Quality Principle III (3.0) or the standard for capacity (4.0) result in a recommendation for provisional accreditation.
• Problems with the program’s evidence for two or more elements result in a recommendation to deny accreditation.

Voting. The motion must be voted on and passed with a minimum of four votes (a meeting quorum consists of four voting Accreditation Panel members).

If the motion does not receive at least four positive votes, the chair enters a substitute motion that is guided by the heuristic presented in tables 5 and 6. A second to this motion is, then, secured from members of the Accreditation Panel.*

At the conclusion of this portion of the meeting, any program representatives are excused from the room, with the panel’s appreciation.

Accreditation justifications. After the panel approves the final accreditation recommendation and any formal stipulations and weaknesses, its deliberations are concluded. The panelists now review their worksheets to (1) sharpen the justifications for their evaluations and recommendations; (2) amend their descriptions of any weaknesses they noted in the program’s compliance with TEAC’s standards and principles; and (3) assess the program’s performance with regard to student achievement, as required by USDE regulations. The panelists’ individually written comments are used (without attribution) by the director to provide justification and feedback to the program in the accreditation report.

The panel then turns to the next case on the agenda.

Debriefing. After all cases are considered, the Accreditation Panel discusses the meeting and offers the director suggestions for improving the quality and efficiency of the review and deliberation process.

Accreditation report and follow-up activities. The director of the Accreditation Panel writes an accreditation report, drawing on the panel’s deliberations, findings, and the written comments on the worksheets. The accreditation report contains

• The vote and the accreditation recommendation;
• The panel’s justification, based on its findings, for the recommendation;
• Feedback to the program about the program’s performance with respect to student achievement;
• Recommendations about any weaknesses that must be addressed in the program’s annual report or subsequent Inquiry Brief to TEAC;
• Recommendations for any stipulations that must be removed within two years.

The director submits the report to TEAC’s president within five business days of the panel’s decision. The president of TEAC, in turn, sends the accreditation report to the program faculty for comment. The program faculty then has two weeks to respond in writing to the arguments and findings in the accreditation report.

In anticipation of the next meeting, the meeting of the Accreditation Committee, the president of TEAC collects, reviews, and distributes the appropriate documents from the accreditation process. (Return to Accreditation Panel)


*Protocol for an unlikely scenario. Should the motion for accreditation, weakness, or stipulation fail, another motion is made until one is passed by at least four votes. In the event of a tie, the president of TEAC will cast a tie-breaking vote and enable a majority report. In the unlikely event that four votes cannot be found for any motion, the members in majority write an accreditation report and the members of the minority write a minority report in which they explicate their contrary recommendation. The two reports are sent to the Accreditation Committee for a decision.

The program is able to appeal the lack of a single panel recommendation if there are adequate grounds. If there are no qualifying grounds, the two reports are sent to the Accreditation Committee. The above scenario is unlikely because TEAC’s formative evaluation would prevent an ambiguous Brief from going forward for audit and for the panel’s deliberation. (Back)