|
|
|
| Education > Accreditation > COE manual > Classification |
|
| |
Accreditation Policies and Procedures of the AVMA Council on Education (COE)
Revised April 2008
33. Classification |
| The final evaluation of each college by the Council is determined by review of its total educational program, considering each college's stated objectives and the "Standards of An Accredited College of Veterinary Medicine." A college may appeal any Council on Education decision that results in lowered accreditation status by following the "Appeals of Adverse Accreditation Decisions" procedures.
The Report of Evaluation, the permanent record of each site visit, and the Council's decision regarding each program clearly identify deficiencies in programs that do not meet the Standards or are not in substantial compliance with each Standard. With respect to the preceding "standard requirements," each college evaluated by the Council may be issued a letter of reasonable assurance or assigned to accreditation status 2-5 according to the following guidelines: |
| |
| 33.1. |
Reasonable Assurance |
| 1. |
Reasonable Assurance—Reasonable Assurance is the classification granted to an institution seeking initial accreditation. Reasonable Assurance is not a preaccreditation action by the Council and does not confer accreditation of any kind on a developing college. A letter may be granted to an educational institution indicating that there is reasonable assurance of future accreditation of a developing college of veterinary medicine in the United States or Canada, if such a college is established according to plans presented to the Council, and if these plans demonstrate intent and a realistic plan to comply with the accreditation Standards. Reasonable Assurance may lead to Provisional Accreditation. Reasonable Assurance may be renewed annually by the Council for a maximum of three years based on progress documented in writing twice a year (July and January). If a developing institution granted Reasonable Assurance fails to continue to demonstrate that its plan to develop its program will comply with the Standards, or if the program significantly changes its plan without notifying the Council, the Council may withdraw the classification of Reasonable Assurance. |
|
| |
| 33.2. |
Provisional Accreditation |
| 2. |
Provisional Accreditation—A United States or Canadian college granted Reasonable Assurance which is still in effect, will be granted Provisional Accreditation status on the date the initial class is admitted. The college must provide evidence to assure future compliance with each Standard. The semiannual reports must provide that evidence, and the Council may request additional information and documentation. Additional evidence is collected and evaluated through site visits. Provisional Accreditation status may be granted for no more than five years. If a developing program has been assigned Provisional Accreditation but does not provide continuing evidence that its program will comply with the Standards and its plan, or if it has been on Provisional Accreditation status for five years, it may be placed on Terminal Accreditation and be required to follow the procedures outlined for that accreditation status, thereby protecting the interests of enrolled students. |
|
| |
| 33.3. |
Full Accreditation |
| 3. |
Full Accreditation—An accreditation status granted to a college that complies with the accreditation Standards.. Colleges which meet all the Standards are granted Full Accreditation for a period of no more than seven years contingent upon satisfactory review by the Council of each annual report. A college which is in compliance with all but one or two Standards and the Council is convinced that student outcomes are minimally affected is assigned substantial compliance and more frequent reporting may be required. Deficiencies of programs granted Full Accreditation with substantial compliance are clearly identified in the Council's evaluation. A college assigned Full Accreditation with substantial compliance must correct noted deficiencies and be in full compliance with all Standards within a specified time not to exceed two years, depending on the deficiencies cited. A progress report is required annually for colleges assigned full accreditation, or more often for colleges assigned Full Accreditation with substantial compliance should the Council determine that more frequent reporting is necessary.
Areas of full compliance which are nonetheless deemed to be fragile (i.e., at risk of failing in the future to meet the Standard given trends in finances, personnel, or aging physical plant) are identified as "At-Risk" by the COE. The institution is instructed to specifically address these areas in their annual report. Only potential deficiencies that are expected to impact the educational outcomes are placed in this category. Upon submission and review of the annual report, the COE will closely assess the areas previously designated "At-Risk" and follow the procedures in Section 20.2. |
|
| |
| 33.4. |
Limited Accreditation |
| 4. |
Limited Accreditation2—An accreditation status granted to a college that has specific deficiencies in one or more Standards that affect student outcomes or safety. The deficiencies are considered of a nature that they can be corrected in a reasonable length of time that must not exceed two years. Prior to expiration of this prescribed period, the Council may either review the annual report(s), request that an institutional representative appear before the Council, or conduct a comprehensive or focused site visit to determine if the deficiencies have been corrected.
If at the end of the two-year time period, deficiencies have been corrected and there is evidence to support full compliance, the college may be granted Full Accreditation for the remainder of the accreditation cycle, as determined by the COE. Conversely, if at the end of the two-year time period, the college can provide reasons that must be acceptable by the Council for its inability to comply with all the Standards, the Council may by majority vote extend Limited Accreditation for good cause. Interim measures must be taken to ensure education of DVM students. If the reasons for non-compliance do not have merit, the Council must take immediate action to place the college on Terminal Accreditation. |
|
| |
| 33.5. |
Terminal Accreditation |
| 5. |
Terminal Accreditation—In addition to the circumstances noted above which may result in a program being placed on Terminal Accreditation or voluntarily closes, the Council may revoke accreditation, when evidence indicates that the number or severity of deficiencies in the program with regards to complying with each of the accreditation Standards cannot be corrected before the admission of the next first-year class. "PROCEDURES FOR COLLEGES WITH THE CLASSIFICATION OF TERMINAL ACCREDITATION" must be followed to protect the interests of enrolled students.
Each of the classifications defined above in numbers 2 through 5 (Provisional Accreditation, Full Accreditation, Limited Accreditation, and Terminal Accreditation) provides an accredited status to the college. |
|
| |
| Accreditation decisions of the Council are not reviewed by any other AVMA entity. |
| |
2 In a Report of Evaluation, those recommendations pertaining to a specific standard that specifically address a lowered accreditation status, deny a letter of reasonable assurance, or note a condition resulting in substantial compliance are clearly identified. All other recommendations are made to improve the educational quality of the program being evaluated. |
| |
|
| | |
| | |
American Veterinary Medical Association
|
|
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only
