| 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 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 that Standard with additional discussion and confirm its decision or, with supporting evidence, reverse its decision. When Standard 11, Outcomes Assessment, is considered, the Council votes to approve or disapprove the colleges' performance in advancing student achievement.
At the conclusion of review of all the standards and upon recommendation of the site team chair, the accreditation status and the assigned length of time for that status is determined by a vote of the Council unless the Council notes deficiencies which may result in an adverse action. 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. When the Council notes deficiencies which may result in an adverse accreditation action, it will defer the accreditation decision, give written notice to the college of each deficiency and recommendation, and provide the college with an opportunity to respond in writing. The college's response must only include documentation, data, or other information relevant to the deficiencies identified by the Council that may result in an adverse accreditation action. The college must notify the Council of its intent to respond within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the draft report of evaluation and file its response with the Council within thirty (30) days after receipt of the draft report of evaluation. An adverse accreditation action is defined as withholding initial or renewed accreditation, or denial of a request for change in accreditation status, denial of a reasonable assurance status, or assignment of substantial compliance, or terminal accreditation.
If the Council notes deficiencies regarding Standard 2, Finances, that may result in an adverse accreditation action, the college may submit new financial information only if all of the following conditions are met:
- The financial information was unavailable to the college until after the Council made the adverse findings regarding the college's finances; and
- The financial information is significant and bears materially on the financial deficiencies identified by the Council, i.e., the information is of such a nature that if found to be credible it could result in the finding that Standard 2, Finances, is now met; and
- The only remaining deficiency cited by the Council is the college's failure to meet Standard 2, Finances.
An affected college may seek the review of new financial information as described in this section only once per accreditation cycle and any determination by the Council made with respect to that review does not provide a basis for an appeal.
The Council will consider the written response and documentation sent by the college within 30 days of receipt. The Council reserves the right to conduct a focused site visit, as needed to validate information submitted for reconsideration. 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. Immediately following the 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, staff prepares a letter for the dean of the college and the president of the parent institution that accompanies the report of evaluation conveying the accreditation status, length of time a given status is assigned, and any special instructions (for example, substantial compliance instructions). A formal statement of classification or reasonable assurance decision, signed by the Chair of the Council, accompanies the letter and the report.
After opportunities to respond in writing or appeal have passed or the processes completed, the action of the Council is considered final and 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.
The AVMA publishes the final accreditation or reasonable assurance classification of the college and the dates of the last and next evaluation of the college. All requests for details of the report are referred to the dean or the university president. |
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only
