| Decisions on accreditation or reasonable assurance evaluations for site visits that occurred less than 90 days prior to the next scheduled COE meeting will usually be deferred to the following meeting. The Council meets twice annually.
A Council member who has a conflict of interest with the college under consideration absents himself/herself from the room during discussion and voting that leads to accreditation actions.
Council members read and review draft reports of evaluation (provided in the COE meeting agenda book) for each college being considered for accreditation and come to the meetings prepared to discuss the findings of the site team and/or seek additional information necessary to evaluate that college. A copy of the self-study for each college under consideration is provided at the meeting. The Chair of the site team, or his/her designee, presents an accurate summary of the draft report of evaluation, leads discussion, and provides the recommendation of the site team for each Standard. Each Standard is presented and discussed separately, followed by a recommendation from the site team chair regarding the college's compliance with that standard. COE members then vote (a majority is required) on that recommendation. After compliance with all Standards has been approved/disapproved, an individual voting in the majority regarding a specific standard may propose a motion for reconsideration of that Standard based on substantive reason(s). The Council may reconsider (majority vote required) that Standard with additional discussion and confirm its decision or, with supporting evidence, reverse its decision (majority vote required). When Standard 11, Outcomes Assessment, is considered, the Council votes to approve or disapprove the colleges' performance in advancing student achievement; and the college is notified in writing of the assessment.
At the conclusion of review of all the standards and upon recommendation of the site team chair, the accreditation status and the assigned time for that status is determined by majority vote of the Council; or by majority vote, the Council cites the college for substantial compliance or noncompliance with a Standard(s). If substantial compliance with a Standard(s) is assigned, the Council proposes a remedy for the deficiency and sets a time line for the college to come into compliance. Special notation is made in the recommendation section of the final report of evaluation when a college is in substantial compliance or non-compliance with a standard(s). Other recommendations are suggestions for improvement of the educational program. Staff prepares a letter for the college
that accompanies the final report of evaluation conveying the accreditation status, length of time a given status is assigned, and any special instructions (for example, substantial compliance instructions).
The same process used for accreditation is used for a letter of reasonable assurance. Should accreditation status be lowered, or a letter or reasonable assurance denied, or another adverse accreditation action taken for a specific college, the college is notified in writing of the reasons for the action and reminded of the appeal process.
After the action of the Council, a final report of evaluation is prepared, including recommendations and a classification of accreditation or reasonable assurance. Copies of the final report are sent to the dean of the college, the chief executive officer of the institution, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. The officials of the college and the institution are authorized to disseminate all or part of the content of the report at their discretion. Should an institution choose to make public disclosure, it must disclose its accreditation status accurately, including the specific academic program covered by that status, and specify that the AVMA-COE, the accrediting agency, is located at 1931 North Meacham Road, Suite 100,
Schaumburg, IL (847-925-8070). Any incorrect or misleading information regarding preaccreditation or accreditation released by the institution will be corrected by the COE. These corrections include, but are not limited to 1) the accreditation or preaccreditation status, 2) content of reports of on-site visits, and 3) the accreditation or preaccreditation action by the COE with respect to the program. The content of the report is not available from AVMA, CVMA, Council members, or the site visit team. Except under the conditions cited above, all findings, the self-study, correspondence, recommendations, and related information and documentation of the site visit and the evaluation are confidential to the Council and will not be publicly disclosed.
Immediately following action of the Council, the Chair notifies the dean via telephone of the accreditation or reasonable assurance decision of the Council. Within 30 days after action of the Council, the dean of the college and the president of the parent institution receive a letter indicating the accreditation status of the college and the principal findings detailed in the report of evaluation. A formal statement of classification or reasonable assurance decision, signed by the Chair of the Council, accompanies the letter and the report. At the appropriate time, AVMA publishes the accreditation or reasonable assurance classification of the college. All requests for details of the report are referred to the dean or the university president.
When the classification is less than Full Accreditation, publication is delayed at least 30 days and until after any appeal has been resolved. After expiration of the thirty-day period for appeal of a decision of the Council, AVMA publishes the accreditation or reasonable assurance status and the dates of the last and next evaluation of the college. |
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only
