The
panel’s accreditation recommendation
Inquiry Brief
A recommendation to accredit is made when, guided by the factors
in heuristic tables 5
and 6, the panel finds
that the Inquiry Brief, coupled with the auditors’
findings, indicates that the program faculty’s claims about
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.
A recommendation to grant provisional
accreditation is made when, guided by the factors in heuristic
tables 5 and 6, the panel finds that the Inquiry Brief,
coupled with the auditors’ findings, indicates that the program
faculty’s claims about Quality Principles I and II
are warranted and justified, but there is 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.
A recommendation to grant preaccreditation
status is made when, guided by the factors in heuristic tables 5
and 6, the panel finds that the Inquiry Brief, coupled
with the auditors’ findings, fails to support the program
faculty’s claims about Quality Principle I, but there
is sufficient evidence to support the claims with regard to the
other quality principles and capacity standards.
Inquiry Brief Proposal
A recommendation to grant preaccreditation is made
when, guided by the factors in heuristic
tables 5 and 6, the
panel finds that the Inquiry Brief Proposal, coupled with
the auditors’ findings, indicates that there is evidence of
a sound rationale, commitment, and a quality control system, and
that the evidence of Quality Principle I is forthcoming.
A recommendation for new program accreditation
status is made when, guided by the factors in heuristic tables 5
and 6, the panel finds that the Inquiry Brief Proposal,
coupled with the auditors’ findings, indicates that there
is evidence of a sound rationale, commitment, and quality control
system and that the evidence of Quality Principle I 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.
Accreditation denied
A recommendation to deny accreditation is made
when, guided by the factors in heuristic
tables 5 and 6, the
panel finds that the Inquiry Brief or the Inquiry Brief
Proposal, coupled with the auditors’ findings, fails
to support the program faculty’s claims and there is little
likelihood that additional evidence and analysis would indicate
the faculty’s claims about the quality principles and capacity
standards could be supported.
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.
Panel’s consideration
and designation of stipulations and weaknesses
In their evaluation of the evidence for and against each quality
principle,*
the panelists may find that the evidence for a particular component
or subcomponent of the principle is insufficient, but that overall
there is other evidence that is sufficient to adequately support
the quality principle. In these cases, the panel formally notes
the deficiencies in evidence for a quality principle or the capacity
standard. 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 the capacity standard.
A weakness is a deficiency in the evidence that
is not so serious that it causes the panel to find one of the components
below standard. A stipulation is a deficiency that
is serious enough to place a component below the standard, but not
so serious that it causes the panel to find one of the elements
below standard.
If the evidence for a subcomponent is insufficient,
the panel formally cites a weakness in the quality principle 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 and states
that the quality principle is supported, but with the stipulation
that the evidence for the component must be made sufficient and
remedied within a two year period.
For example:
- Weaknesses. If the
program does not publish an academic calendar (as required
in 4.6.2) but there is sufficient other evidence for
4.6, this circumstance would lead the panel to cite
the failure to publish a calendar as a weakness in the
evidence for capacity. If the evidence for one of the
cross-cutting themes** associated with a component of Quality Principle
I was insufficient, the panel would cite a weakness
in the quality principle.
- If the evidence for technology in
the subject matter (or learning to learn or multicultural
competence) was insufficient, but the rest of the evidence
for subject matter knowledge were sufficient, the weakness
in subject matter attributed to technology would be
formally noted as a weakness in the evidence for subject
matter technology.
-
Stipulations. It
might be the case that the evidence for the resolution
of student complaints is insufficient (4.7),
but the evidence for the rest of 4.0 is adequate. In this case the panel would conclude that
4.0 was satisfied in its entirety, but with the stipulation
the deficiencies in evidence for the successful resolution
of student complaints (4.7) be remedied in two years.
- Or, it might be the case that the
evidence for pedagogical knowledge (1.2) was insufficient,
but that the evidence for 1.1 and 1.3 and the cross-cutting
themes was so strong that the Panel concluded that Quality
Principle I was satisfied. In that case, the panel
would cite pedagogical knowledge as a stipulation. In
other words, the panel would find that the evidence
for Quality Principle I was sufficient but
with the stipulation that deficiencies in evidence for
pedagogical knowledge be remedied.
- Or it might be the case that the
program has insufficient evidence for the reliability
of its assessments (2.2), but has a particularly persuasive
and comprehensive rationale for the assessments (2.1).
The panel might find that overall Quality Principle
II was satisfied, but with the stipulation that
the deficiencies in the evidence of reliability and
validity be remedied in the future.
|
Weaknesses, stipulations, and the panel’s
accreditation recommendation
- Problems with the program’s evidence for subcomponents
are noted as weaknesses.
- Problems with the program’s evidence for components are
noted as stipulations.
- Problems with the program’s evidence for element 1.0 results
in a recommendation that the program be awarded preaccreditation
status.
- Problems with the program’s evidence for elements 3.0
0r 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.
*Or in the standard of capacity
for program quality [element 4.0, which has seven components (4.1–4.7),
each of which has three to four subcomponents (4.1.1, etc.)]. (Back)
** The cross-cutting themes serve as subcomponents
of the components of Quality Principle I with regard to
the citations of weaknesses. (Back)
Return to Accreditation Panel |
