|
18.1. Site Visit Team
Site visit teams are selected to represent educators, practitioners, and others (including public members) in the proportion necessary to evaluate a college and its programs.
- US – Accreditation site teams are composed of four COE members (current or past), one state veterinary medical association member, one CVMA member, and one AVMA staff member.
- Canada – Accreditation site teams are composed of two COE members (current or past), three CVMA members, one provincial member, and one AVMA staff member.
- Foreign – Accreditation site teams are composed of three COE members (current or past), one CVMA member, two members from the country wherein the college is located and one AVMA staff member.
- Advisory/Consultative site team – These site teams are composed of at least two COE members and one AVMA staff member.
Members are identified and assigned to each team by the chair of the Evaluation Committee. These individuals participate as volunteers and are not eligible for honorariums, but may be reimbursed, when necessary, for transportation, food, lodging, and incidental expenses. Public members are included on site visits, but because of their limited number, do not participate in every visit. However, public members shall fulfill all the duties of a team member and have the right to vote.
The Council on Education requests appropriate state veterinary medical associations to designate a representative to serve as a member of a school or college evaluation team when a school or college located within that state is being evaluated by the Council. The AVMA reimburses the representative for actual travel expenses in accord with current travel policies.
COE members will be cognizant of any possible conflict of interest, either real or perceived, when being considered as a possible member of a site visit team. Members of the Council, public members, or AVMA staff are not eligible to participate in the site visit if a conflict of interest is identified.
A past COE member will be eligible for such an appointment for a period of three years following completion of the member's term on the Council and must sign a Conflict of Interest Statement.
The chair of the site visit team appoints a vice-chair, and has the authority to dismiss any member of the team who has a conflict of interest or who becomes disruptive or unmanageable during any phase of the evaluation. Should a conflict of interest or disruption occur with the chair, the vice-chair can assume leadership of the site team with unanimous consent of the remaining members of the team. If the conflict is identified during the site visit and is not covered by the P&P manual, neutral members of the team, plus an equal number of members from the college appointed by the dean, will resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved by the team, the person is dismissed by the chair.
Two members of the site visit team represent the preclinical science areas, and two represent the clinical science areas to ensure balance of expertise. The chair of each site visit team is a member of the Council. In addition to COE members, each site visit team includes two non-council members, one designated by the state veterinary medical association of the state in which the college is located, and a representative of the CVMA appointed and supported by that organization. No member is assigned to a site visit team until they have completed training and orientation.
An AVMA staff member will accompany each site team and assist in coordinating activities. Staff will consider how each of the standard requirements is being met by the college and note any points not covered in the self-evaluation report. If major deficiencies are found in the material presented, staff is requested to ask the college for supplemental material.
18.2. Conflict of Interest / Confidentiality Statements
Each site team member is required to sign a Conflict of Interest/Confidentiality Statement (see Section 21.1, Appendix A).
18.3. Objective of Site Visit
The objective of a site visit is to verify and supplement information presented in the self-study report. Site visits are made only with the concurrence of the administration of the college and its parent institution. When it appears in the best interest of the college, the university concerned, the AVMA, or another accrediting agency, every effort is made to coordinate and cooperate with other accrediting agencies in request for information and conduct of visits.
18.4. Site Visit Overview
The agenda for the visit is established by the chair of the site visit team in consultation with the college administration.
Site visit teams are fact-finding bodies, usually composed of seven members, including AVMA staff. Using the college self-study as the basis for evaluation, a four-day site visit is conducted. Input is sought from all program factions of the college including faculty, students, staff, and alumni. Facilities, programs, and other pertinent areas are also studied. A factual report of the current status of the college is produced as a result of the site visit. The report is reviewed by all team members for factual correctness.
During the site visit the team audits the college educational program by consulting with the dean and appropriate staff, department heads, representative faculty members, the librarian, representative students at both professional and graduate levels including interns and residents, and appropriate faculty committees. In addition, the team tours the buildings, facilities, equipment, and views case records. The site visit team holds a series of executive sessions to compare notes on its findings, begin formulation of its report, and instruct the chair as to the points to be addressed and recommendations made in the draft report of evaluation. Each member drafts recommendations concerning deficiencies in meeting the standard requirements for which he/she has been assigned responsibility. All recommendations are based on discussion noted in the body of the report. Recommendations are stated as specifically as possible to identify the deficiency involved and suggest possible solutions, without dictating the specific method for achieving the necessary outcome. The entire team discusses and approves all recommendation which become part of the report. If there is disagreement within a team concerning a recommendation, the recommendation remains in the report; the disagreement is called to the attention of the Council when the report is presented.
The final report of evaluation will inform the college of the Council's assessment of student achievement.
18.5. Code of Conduct for Site Team Members
Site team members are required to conduct themselves professionally, courteously, and with the utmost respect for faculty, students, and other representatives of the college educational program visited as well as fellow site visit team members.
Site team members must:
- Remember that the objectives of accreditation include verifying that an institution or program meets established standards, assisting prospective students in identifying acceptable institutions, creating goals for self-improvement of weaker programs and stimulating a general raising of standards among educational institutions, and involving the faculty and appropriate staff comprehensively in institutional evaluation and planning;
- Keep a positive attitude and not offer negative feedback or other criticism during the site visit;
- Remember that all materials, discussions, deliberations, and reports of the site visit are confidential;
- Refrain from discussing the "state of a college" with anyone other than site team members and appropriate AVMA staff;
- Remain open-minded throughout the evaluation process;
- Carefully study the materials contained in the college self-study to acquire a basic understanding of the college and its operation;
- Be prepared for four and a half days of intense work with long evenings;
- Participate in the discussions, both with college administration and personnel, and in the team deliberations;
- Focus on and uphold the Standards of Accreditation;
- Be alert at all times using all senses;
- Be on time for all functions;
- Be involved in all functions of the site visit;
- Dress in corporate/professional attire for all site visit activities (men are asked to wear suits or coats and ties, and women are asked to wear suits, dresses, or pantsuits); and
- Wear AVMA-COE identification badges at all times.
Site team members must not:
- Bring any preconceived ideas about the college to the site visit;
- Have a personal agenda regarding the college, its programs, or people;
- Become separated from the team for any reason unless so assigned by the site team chair;
- Become involved in a confrontation involving any issue of the visit;
- Compare colleges or programs, since each college and its program will be unique and the Council is not attempting to diminish diversity among programs or to hinder or impede innovation;
- Offer judgments on solutions to problems during the course of the visit; these activities are to be reserved for the exit interviews with the college dean and university president;
- Tell "war stories".
Remember at all times, the site team is a guest of the college and is there to assist the college in meeting its mission and goals.
18.6. Site Team Modus Operandi
It is important that the college recognize that comments made during the site visit about the status of the program with respect to a specific standard are in no way a final determination. During the exit interview, the chair of the site visit team should emphasize that the comments made represent the majority view of the site visit team and will be considered as a recommendation by the full Council on Education. The team votes on a classification of accreditation to be recommended to the Council. The final decision on the status of each standard and the accreditation status rests solely with the full COE.
Each evening during the site visit the team meets and reviews the day's activities. The draft report of evaluation is updated and revised in light of new information gained during the day. All members of the team attend the evening meetings. On the last evening of the visit, development of the draft report is completed and recommendations agreed upon. Each recommendation must be based on a "finding" noted at the end of one of the sections of the report. Each finding must be based on information contained in the "background' part of the section involved.
At the conclusion of the site visit the team holds exit interviews with the dean of the college, and with the chief executive officer of the institution to review its findings. The exit interview with the dean and college administrators of the dean's choosing, completes the site visitation of the college and precedes the exit interview with university administration. The exit interview is a critical part of the site visit; therefore, all site team members will attend. The exit interview with university administration normally involves the president of the institution and such other administrative officers as the president may choose. In the absence of the president, the team meets with his duly authorized representative. The dean is usually not present at the interview with the chief executive officer. The chair of the team is responsible for developing remarks for the exit interview. The team assists in preparing the outline for these remarks, and each member comments on items concerning the sections of the report drafted by the respective member.
There is no place in accreditation for adversarial relationships. The college and the Council should proceed with the premise that both parties are dedicated to the common goal of quality in veterinary education. Only through full and open communication and cooperative efforts to correct deficiencies can educational excellence be attained.
Interactions between the Council and the colleges should have a collegial tone, and be based on mutual trust and a desire to arrive at a full understanding of the current status of the educational program of the college. The dean and other administrative officers should be knowledgeable in the definitions of the various levels of accreditation status and the impact of the failure to meet one or more of the standards.
18.7. Guidelines for Site Team Visitors to Foreign Veterinary Colleges
Site team members and AVMA staff are the guests of the host foreign veterinary college. Cultures and customs may differ from those in the US and Canada.
Regarding travel, the host institution is responsible for all expenses. However, the COE has established limitations to enable each site team member to understand the process and avoid misunderstandings. The following guidelines should be followed.
Travel
Air transportation is in business class. Should you choose to use first-class, the additional charges will be the responsibility of the site team member and will not be paid by the host institution. The host institution is responsible for ground transportation to move the site team during the visit.
Lodging
The host institution is responsible for arranging lodging for the site visit. There may be those who want to combine the site visit with personal vacation or business, which is permissible. However, lodging charged to the host institution will be limited to the following:
- For those traveling only for the site visit, two nights of lodging before the site visit are permitted to allow for adjustment to time zone changes. At the end of the site visit (general mid-week at mid-day) air flights may not be available for immediate or convenient departure. In that case, one additional night is permitted. Please use good judgment in choosing the proper options.
- Extenuating circumstances may arise (weather, aircraft maintenance, etc.) which might delay departure on any leg of the flight. The host college is responsible for the cost of lodging during these rare occurrences. Charges resulting from injury or illness of the site team member causing delay in departure are the responsibility of the team member.
- The host institution is not responsible for charges associated with spouses, significant others, or dependents of a site team member.
Meals and Miscellany
The host institution is responsible for all meals and other related incidentals for the team during the site visit, with the same time limitations as lodging.
Telephone Calls
Telephone calls made by site team members for family or business reasons are not paid by the host institution. Calls, if made, are billed directly to the site team member. Use careful judgment related to any other charges.
Gifts
In many countries where special guests are being hosted, it is customary to provide or be provided with gifts. It is AVMA policy that official gifts will not be presented to the host institution. If a host institution wishes to provide a small gift to each participant, acceptance is allowed. However, gifts offered to individuals (and not to all members of the site team) must be refused. It is the desire of the AVMA that no gifts be presented; however, it is not the intent to disregard customs of a given society. It is permissible for site team members (as individuals or as a group) to provide a gratuity for some special services (chauffeur, hotel employees, etc.), but this voluntary gesture should not be charged to the host institution.
18.8. Reports of Evaluation
The final draft report of the site visit team is the responsibility of the team chair. Drafts of report sections previously assigned to individual members of the team are submitted to the chair prior to leaving the site.
Following a general introduction, each section of the report will coincide with a standard requirement and a list of recommendations. The report indicates in what ways the college complies, substantially complies, or does not comply with the standard requirements. Strengths as well as weaknesses are noted. Recommendations are written with enough detail to be helpful to team members on subsequent site visits as well as to the current college administration, but are not intended to be prescriptive.
The chair of the site visit team will provide AVMA staff with an edited draft copy of the report within ten days following the visit for duplication and distribution to the team members. Each member will review the draft, suggest changes, and make corrections. Such suggested changes and corrections will be sent to the chair of the site visit team within ten days of receipt of the draft by each member of the team. The chair of the team will prepare a final draft of the report and forward it to staff within 30 days of the conclusion of the visit. Copies of the final draft are sent by AVMA staff to the dean of the college for correction of factual errors. The final draft, together with any comments by the dean or the university president, is presented to the Council by the chair of the site visit team at the next semi-annual Council meeting.
Recommendations are a part of the report of evaluation. Recommendations may be suggestions for program improvement or citations for standards violations. Standards violations that result in lowered accreditation status are clearly noted by the follow statement: *COE evaluation of the self-study, the site visit report, and all other documentation, confirms that the program does not comply (meet) with the standard. Another notation is used to identify substantial compliance with a standard and is designated by the following statement: **COE evaluation of the self-study, the site visit report, and all other documentation, confirms that the program is in substantial compliance, but not full compliance with the standard.
Within 90 days of mailing the final Report of Evaluation, the COE will request that the dean of the school/college provide written comments on outcome(s) of the accreditation process. Specifically he/she will provide comments regarding the impact of the recommendations on 1) the education and educational process of the DVM/VMD students, 2) student outcomes, 3) program finances, 4) the university, 5) the state legislative process (where appropriate), and 6) other (to be defined by the dean). This report will be used by the Council to determine if the recommendations are clearly understood; and to determine the impact of the recommendations on the school/college/university/state.
|