FAQs about the AVMA Council on Education (COE)

Quick links

AVMA and COE
COE and Veterinary Colleges
CHEA recognition
COE and other accrediting bodies
Foreign accreditation
The accreditation process
Accreditation and you
Site visits
Student attrition
Veterinary technology programs

The AVMA Council on Education (COE) has a very long and successful history of contributions to maintain the high standards of veterinary education in the United States. Indeed, we have an accreditation system that others seek to emulate. The United States and Canada continue to be world leaders in veterinary medical education, due in large part to the diligent efforts of the COE and its predecessors sponsored by the AVMA. Since its inception, the Council has consistently applied the standards of accreditation to all schools that seek accreditation.

The COE follows its published policies and procedures with great care throughout the accreditation process. Council members spend hundreds of hours annually gathering, validating, and studying information related to the accreditation of veterinary colleges.

The accreditation process can sometimes be complex and confusing, even to those who are intimately involved with it. Here are answers to some of the questions we are asked most frequently.

AVMA and COE

Q: Who sits on the COE, and who are the Council's current members?

A: The Council on Education, which by regulation includes a balance of private practitioners and academic veterinarians, as well as three public members, weighs all the evidence and thoughtfully applies the standards of accreditation in accordance with the provisions of the COE policies and procedures.

See the roster of the current COE members

Q: How are COE standards evaluated?

A: The COE conducts a comprehensive, statistically valid survey of stakeholders to confirm the validity and reliability of the accreditation standards every four years and a similar survey that is open to all. The latest survey was completed in Fall 2014. Satisfaction with each standard was above 80%.

Q: What is the overall level of satisfaction with the COE?

A: The AVMA conducted a carefully designed, statistically valid performance survey in 2014 to determine member expectations and satisfaction with AVMA programs and services. The results of that survey ranked accreditation among the most important services sponsored by the AVMA on behalf of the profession and also gave it an overall performance rating above 70% (3.55/5.0), one of the higher ratings among AVMA programs and services. Would we like that to be higher? Of course, and we're working toward that goal.

Q: Is there any evidence of undue influence on the COE by the AVMA Board of Directors?

A: Critics have expressed concerns about perceived conflicts of interest regarding the interactions of the COE and the AVMA Board of Directors. The centerpiece of this argument is the belief that the AVMA Board of Directors forced the COE to accredit the Western University of Health Sciences (WUHS) College of Veterinary Medicine under threat of lawsuit. The basis for this belief is the fact that the lawsuit was dropped shortly after the College received a Letter of Reasonable Assurance (LRA) from the Council indicating the proposed program was feasible, if executed as planned. In fact, the LRA was denied twice by the Council and both subsequent appeals failed before the LRA was finally granted. Each time the WUHS plan was reviewed and denied due to non-compliance with one or more accreditation standards, the university made adjustments. Each attempt resulted in compliance with additional accreditation standards. By the third review, the university had addressed all of the Council's concerns and earned the LRA. The COE never stopped working with the university in accordance with its published policies and procedures. Instead of receiving preferential treatment, the college actually received far greater scrutiny due to the use of a non-traditional curriculum that included 100% problem–based learning (PBL) for didactic courses and a distributed model of clinical education. Since first proposed in 2000, the college has been visited by the COE more than any other accredited college (five focused and four comprehensive site visits as of mid-2015) over the same length of time. Graduate outcomes have been very good. In fact, we've seen comments from members who, despite expressing the belief that the college was "substandard," stated that the graduates with whom they had worked were competent and knowledgeable.

The AVMA Board of Directors has taken a variety of steps to reduce perceived conflicts of interest relative to the COE in response to stakeholder input over the past several years, including the following:

• Eliminated the requirement for Board approval of changes to COE policies and procedures (2007) and the accreditation standards (2013).
• Initiated changes that share responsibility for sponsoring the COE with the AAVMC. These changes were modeled after the medical education accreditation system, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which is jointly sponsored by the AMA and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
• At its April 2015 meeting:
  • Terminated the Board liaison position with the COE
  • Agreed to fund independent legal counsel for the COE
  • Received notice from the COE that the opportunity for Board members to observe accreditation site visits was being eliminated.
  • Revised the COE Selection Committee description to include two former COE members and three at-large members. Members of the Committee will not be allowed to serve simultaneously on the Board of Directors or House of Delegates.

The firewall established by the AVMA BOD and HOD to ensure the autonomy of the COE is more robust than those in place to safeguard the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) from the influence of its sponsor, the American Dental Association, and on par with those in place to ensure the autonomy of the LCME from its sponsors, the AMA and AAMC. Like the COE, the CODA and LCME are autonomous entities housed within the sponsoring organizations. Neither is a completely independent entity.

Q: How does the COE staff support the COE?

A: The AVMA provides the primary support staff for the Council on Education (COE). The AAVMC also provides a staff member to support the Council in addition to those designated by the AVMA. COE staff members attend Council meetings and site visits to support Council members and COE site visitors. The responsibility of staff is not to create policy nor to make accreditation decisions. Rather, it is to provide sufficient background information to allow members to make informed decisions and to execute those decisions. Staff serve strictly an administrative role. They have no vote and limited voice during Council meetings. Staff provide a source of institutional memory and member training to ensure continuity and consistency in the accreditation process.

Staff members are obligated to follow COE policies and procedures first and foremost when carrying out their responsibilities. It is not always apparent to every COE member that staff work through the COE Chair and Executive Committee to serve the Council on a day-to-day basis, which can lead to misperceptions regarding how staff function. If there is any question about the interpretation of COE policies and procedures or a COE decision, the Chair is always consulted. If the issue is time sensitive and the Chair believes the decision or interpretation of existing policy requires wider input, the COE Executive Committee is consulted. If the Chair and/or the COE Executive Committee believe the situation calls for consultation with the entire Council, then e-mails are sent or a conference call is scheduled. Staff notifies the full Council of any significant decisions or actions taken between meetings at the direction of the Chair. Decisions that are not time sensitive automatically go on the agenda for consideration by the full Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Q: Does sponsorship of the COE limit the AVMA's ability to advocate on behalf of its members?

A: No. The AVMA sponsors the Council on Education (COE), but an effective firewall separates the AVMA from the accreditation process. Antitrust law applies to the AVMA whether it sponsors the COE or not. The AVMA must not engage in anti-competitive activities nor any violations of antitrust laws. What AVMA can do is exactly what it is doing: collecting, analyzing and publishing in-depth information on the economic health of the profession in order to identify, promote, and implement programs and services that protect and enhance the economic well-being of its members. The AVMA in 2015 published information that accurately quantified the amount of excess capacity in the veterinary workforce for the first time. The AVMA Economics Division continues to monitor and report on this baseline, as well as detailed analysis of the factors driving the veterinary economy. Articles on the net present value of the veterinary degree demonstrate the financial challenges associated with major clinical practice areas.

The purpose of academic accreditation in the U.S. is to ensure educational quality. Accrediting agencies are not allowed to use accreditation to manipulate the workforce; the mandate of accreditation is limited to the quality of education. Therefore, no accrediting agency can make accreditation decisions designed to limit the number of schools or graduates, as long as the quality of education is maintained. Such activity would be viewed as anti-competitive.

Q: Is there a COE annual report?

A: No. The list of accredited schools and the accreditation status of each school are updated on a continual basis. This list is forwarded to the USDE annually.

Q: Does someone oversee the activities of the COE?

A: The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) regulates educational accreditation, and the AVMA COE must adhere to its standards and follow proper reporting procedures.

AVMA COE is also recognized by a nongovernmental accreditors' recognition body called the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and must meet its requirements to remain recognized.

The AVMA COE also adheres to standards, including a Code of Good Practice, set by the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA), a professional association for accreditors.

Q: Is there student representation on the Council on Education?

A: There is no student representation on the AVMA Council on Education. Given the amount of time it takes to serve on the Council and participate in the processes of accreditation, it would not be practical for current veterinary students to do so. Although the composition of the Council varies, it generally includes at least five or six members who are current faculty members at accredited veterinary schools and are thus very aware of, and sensitive to, issues of concern to veterinary students.

Q: How does the Council handle conflicts of interest?

A: AVMA COE members are expected to adhere to the confidentiality policy, Statement on Integrity, and the Conflict of Interest Statement.

COE and Veterinary Colleges

Q: Is there any evidence that the quality of graduates has decreased?

A: All evidence suggests that the quality of graduates has remained high. There is no evidence that the quality of education received at any accredited veterinary school is substandard or has diminished over time. Concern has been expressed that it is simply not possible for some of the more recently accredited schools (2008 to present) to provide an adequate veterinary medical education. By all indications, this concern is based on misperceptions and assumptions rather than evidence.

The accreditation of established schools requires review of a 100-page self-study with multiple links to online information, an in-depth, on-site visit that consists of a comprehensive facility inspection including all core clinical instruction sites (not elective externship sites), interviews with students, faculty, staff, administrators, and alumni, placement data, as well as the results of graduate and employer surveys. The accreditation process for new schools is similar, although entry into the process is based on submission of a plan to develop a new school over, typically, a 6- to 8-year period that is deemed feasible by the Council on Education (COE). The Council requires a self-study explaining how each accreditation standard will be met and conducts multiple site visits, including facility tours, and interviews with administrators, initial faculty, and any collaborators in order to evaluate the initial plan.

The Council also reviews results of the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) for graduates of each accredited college who take the NAVLE as one of many ways to assess outcomes. The NAVLE is a rigorous, nationally standardized test designed to assess graduate preparedness at an entry level. It is prepared by the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners in conjunction with the National Board of Medical Examiners. Graduates of more recently accredited schools have consistently performed at or above the national average for all graduating seniors from accredited schools. In fact, a recent AVMA/AAVMC survey indicates that their graduates compete successfully for internships and residencies at other accredited veterinary schools. Further, there is no indication that their graduates entering clinical practice have received a disproportionate number of complaints from any state veterinary licensing board.

Accreditation standards are established to ensure graduates are capable of meeting societal needs for the services they provide. Accreditation is a pass/fail system, not a ranking system designed to distinguish elite from adequate programs. It is based primarily on the assessment of graduate and program performance or outcomes. The COE uses a variety of widely utilized outcome assessment measures that also help validate whether or not the accreditation standards have been established and applied appropriately (e.g., graduate and employer surveys and student attainment of the nine clinical competencies). The 2015 AVMA Veterinary Employment Survey found that 2008 and 2012 graduates of U.S. veterinary medical schools reported no significant differences among clinical competencies (practice preparedness) regardless of the school attended. The availability of a standardized, national licensing exam provides an important check and balance to ensure accreditation standards have been established and applied appropriately. The NAVLE is based on formal job analysis that establishes entry-level achievement requirements across a broad range of learning domains. When accreditation standards are established and applied appropriately, graduates of accredited schools should perform very well on the NAVLE. The pass rate on the NAVLE among graduates of COE-accredited veterinary medical schools consistently averages over 90%, according to the NVBME Technical Report. The pass rate among graduates of non-accredited schools consistently averages at or below 40%.

Q: Why does the COE accredit distributive-model schools?

A: All accredited veterinary colleges are required to meet the same standards of accreditation; however, they are not required to use identical methods to do so. The Council on Education's accreditation standards are designed to have enough flexibility to allow innovation and creativity, as required by the USDE recognition guidelines. This flexibility is what allows higher education to advance and adapt to changing societal needs. The USDE recognition process is focused on evidence of student achievement; that is, has the educational process prepared graduates to meet the needs of society at an entry level. The COE accreditation standards also focus on outcomes, as required, but not without evidence that the resources needed to prepare entry-level graduates are in place, including adequate administrative capacity, finances, facilities, clinical resources, admission requirements, faculty, curricular management, and research programs.

The Council goes to great lengths to ensure the effectiveness of the distributive model of clinical education and has placed rigorous requirements on its use from inception. It is the responsibility of the veterinary faculty to establish learning objectives, appropriate assessment rubrics, and acceptable levels of student achievement for all core clinical rotations. Supervising veterinarians must receive appropriate training, and student progress must be monitored closely during each core rotation. Practices used in the core (non-elective) curriculum (equivalent to an on-site veterinary teaching hospital) must meet the requirements established for an on-site teaching hospital. The majority of core clinical sites used to date are specialty practices. Students are involved in daily clinical rounds on-site and/or virtual rounds with a veterinary faculty member. Each student must demonstrate an acceptable level of progress in meeting the specific learning objectives established for the rotation. Colleges are required to review the adequacy of these sites to achieve student learning objectives and must assure that sites meet the requirements as a facility resource. The COE visits each core site during each comprehensive site visit, which occur at the beginning of each accreditation cycle (seven years, if fully compliant). The Council may require a site visit whenever an annual report or complaint necessitates an on-site inspection. The standardized form used to evaluate each core clinical site is published on this website, as well as the rubric used to conduct a comprehensive site visit.

The Council also developed a special set of requirements for colleges that use the distributive clinical model with or without a veterinary teaching hospital on site. Careful review of the requirements placed on the use of distributed clinical education demonstrates that it is entirely different than learning through an apprenticeship or vocational school education. Almost all accredited veterinary colleges require some off-site clinical instruction in order to provide adequate clinical resources to cover all the major domestic species. The Council monitors the quality of clinical training programs through annual interim reports, regular accreditation site visits, and when indicated through focused site visits.

We've heard statements that distributive-model schools are "substandard," but the statement is often qualified with a follow-up statement complimenting the quality of the graduates. It is common sense that a "substandard" school would not produce competent graduates; however, the evidence supports the fact that these schools produce competent, entry-level veterinarians, as do all currently accredited schools.

Q: What is the best veterinary school?

A: The COE does not rank veterinary schools; nor do we recommend schools. The COE never compares schools to one another. The COE evaluates each school individually based on the 11 Standards of Accreditation. The AVMA accredited schools that adhere to these standards offer high-quality educational experiences. To find out the best school for you and your individual career goals, we suggest you contact the schools directly.

Q: Are online distance learning programs available?

A: No, some schools may offer a few courses online but none of the schools offer a complete distance learning curriculum. Contact the individual schools to learn more about their curriculum.

Q: What is the COE looking for in a college's SOPs?

A: The Council is not that prescriptive. A college is expected to evaluate its needs and to develop systems that meet those needs effectively. It's important to demonstrate that the SOPs are current and in use. For example, if students or faculty are asked about SOPs related to bio-security or isolation procedures, they should be aware that the SOPs exist, demonstrate some familiarity with them, and know where they are available for reference.

Q: What is an effective records retrieval system?

A: The COE is not that prescriptive. A college is expected to consider what material their students and faculty need to retrieve and why (e.g. teaching purposes, retrospective studies, reference to previous cases to aid with current cases, etc.) and then design a system that meets those needs. The Council has not been concerned about "retrievability" across/among colleges. Use of SNOMED-CT is great if that serves your needs, but the Council will not be enforcing its use in the near future. That would require stakeholder comment and a lengthy phase-in period before compliance could be mandated.

Q: Does the performance of a college's graduates on licensing examinations have any effect on a college's accreditation status?

A: Yes. Of a college's graduates taking the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE), 80% must pass. If this pass rate falls below 80% for two or four successive years, an accreditation status of limited or terminal accreditation status, respectively, may be granted.

CHEA recognition

Q: What does CHEA recognition mean?

A: In addition to the recognition by the U.S. Department of Education for the purposes of federal student aid eligibility and quality assurance, the AVMA Council on Education (COE) is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CHEA is a national association of 3,000 degree-granting colleges and universities and serves as a national advocate for self-regulation of academic quality through accreditation. The council currently recognizes 60 institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations in the United States.

Like USDE recognition, the CHEA recognition process is voluntary. The COE was recognized by a CHEA precursor, the National Commission on Accrediting, in 1949 and has been recognized continuously since then. Recognition by CHEA "affirms that standards and processes of accrediting organizations are consistent with quality, improvement, and accountability expectations that CHEA has established." Recognition by CHEA involves a peer-review process to ensure that the accrediting agency meets a number of strict criteria. The Council completed a full CHEA recognition review in 2011 with no deficiencies. A mid-term review was completed in June 2015; once again, recognition was continued with no deficiencies.

Q: Why does COE seek recognition from the U.S. Department of Education?

A: Recognition by the U.S. Department of Education is a voluntary process and is not required for the COE to accredit veterinary medical colleges, but it's important to the Council, the AVMA, and the profession. Continued recognition by the USDE is important to the COE for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the eligibility for veterinary students attending participating U.S. colleges to receive Health Professions Student Loans (HPSLs) under Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act. Last year, the HPSL program distributed about $12 million to approximately 12% of U.S. citizens attending veterinary school. It is this link to a federal program that allows COE to meet one of the eligibility requirements for recognition by the USDE. Another significant reason is that the AVMA and COE highly value and plan to preserve their vital role in assuring the quality and integrity of veterinary medical education – a role we have proudly served since 1921 when the Essentials of an Approved Veterinary College were first established by the AVMA Committee on Intelligence and Education, which became the COE in 1946. USDE recognition requires compliance with 100 pages of guidelines.

Q: What are the remaining issues of non-compliance with the USDE recognition guidelines in 2014, and what is the status?

A: The remaining issues are as follows:

Section 602.13

The agency (in our case, the COE) must demonstrate wide acceptance among educators and practitioners.

Acceptance by practitioners and educators is the intended outcome of the process required under section 602.21(a)(b) listed below, that is, a written review process that clearly provides the opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to provide input in the review process is required.

Status: The evidence provided by the COE at the time of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) hearing adequately demonstrated the wide acceptance among educators and satisfied this part of the USDE requirement. However, the USDE required additional evidence to demonstrate acceptance by practitioners. In response, the COE review process has been greatly expanded.

• The COE held open listening sessions at NAVC (January 2015) and WVC (February 2015); session transcripts are posted on the AVMA website.
• A listening session was held for veterinary students at the SAVMA Symposium in March 2015; the session transcript also was posted on the AVMA website.
• A combined COE update/listening session was held at the AVMA Convention in July 2015 to report on actions taken to address stakeholder concerns, including rationale, and to gather stakeholder feedback. The session transcript is available online.
• An open online survey was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the accreditation standards and to complement the much larger random sample, statistically valid survey to assess the standards conducted every four years.
• The COE reformatted and increased the publication of its newsletter, the COE Standard, to keep members better informed; the COE Standard content is also published on the AVMA@Work blog, which is accessible to the public.
• The AVMA distributed a large, random-sample, statistically valid performance survey to the membership to assess member understanding and satisfaction with the accreditation process; the survey was open through the end of June 2015.

This overall plan was discussed with USDE staff at a face-to-face meeting with AVMA volunteers and staff on April 22, 2015. USDE staff were pleased with this approach and complimentary of the efforts.

602.16(a)(1)(i)

The agency must ensure it has and applies a compliant student achievement standard.

USDE staff had difficulty interpreting how the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) pass rate was being used to evaluate foreign and domestic veterinary schools and whether all schools were being treated the same way. The Council edited Standard 11, Outcomes Assessment, at its Spring 2015 meeting. However, the proposed changes must be circulated to all stakeholders for review and comment, followed by Council consideration of the comments, final editing, and approval prior to publication. Stakeholder comments are currently under consideration.

In addition to the NAVLE pass rate, the analyst also expressed concern about the evaluation of graduate placement rate and course completion rate for each accredited school. Placement and completion rates at accredited schools are consistently high, making both parameters ineffective measures of program quality. Nonetheless, the Council subsequently established thresholds and appropriate consequences if they're not met. Stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes is under consideration. In addition, the 2015 AVMA Employment Survey conducted by the AVMA Economics Division provided additional evidence that the COE-accredited veterinary medical school attended has no impact on placement rate (or salary).

602.21(a)(b)

The agency must have compliant written policies for its systematic program of review and demonstrate that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.

The deficiency was discussed above under section 601.13. The COE's written policy on the program review is being revised to include additional efforts to involve relevant constituencies. The current version of the policy is available online and includes regular surveys to evaluate the standards.

602.21(c)

The agency must ensure that it has compliant written policies for its revision of standards.

The Council's written policies were not actually out of compliance with this section. The appropriate timeline for addressing stakeholder concerns was already included in section 17.3 of the COE policies and procedures manual, but was simply overlooked by USDE staff during their review.

602.15(a)(6)

The agency administrative capability, specifically, that it applies clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, by the agency's Council under 602.15.

This deficiency was added at the NACIQI hearing in response to opinions expressed by a former COE member regarding dismissal from the Council. The COE Conflict of Interest policies, including the Code of Conduct and a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and result of the subsequent appeal, will be submitted to the USDE for consideration.

In summary, the COE and AVMA have made extensive efforts to reach out to members and stakeholders to listen to their concerns. Substantial changes have been made to address several of these concerns and all remaining areas of non-compliance with USDE recognition guidelines. The USDE did not feel the remaining issues warranted a moratorium on new COE accreditation activity and instead complimented the diligent, cooperative efforts of the Council in its progress and efforts to reach full compliance.

Due to a change in the Higher Education Act, the UDSE will no longer evaluate individual foreign veterinary medical colleges after July 1, 2015, for the purposes of awarding Title IV federal financial aid to U.S. citizens who choose to attend. Instead, the USDE established a new program to evaluate the standards and accreditation processes of accrediting agencies that accredit foreign veterinary medical schools. The new approval program is separate from the USDE recognition process for domestic accrediting agencies. Under the new program, any accrediting agency, foreign or domestic, can apply to the USDE for acceptance as an accreditor. The COE and several foreign accrediting agencies submitted applications for acceptance, and the COE was notified that its standards and accreditation processes are acceptable to the Department.

Q: How does the COE address transparency?

A: The COE meets the transparency requirements of the USDE, CHEA and the Code of Good Practice published by the Association of Specialized and Programmatic Accreditors (ASPA). From the COE policies and procedures manual:

The COE provides written notice of its accrediting decisions to the USDE*, appropriate state licensing or authorizing agency*, appropriate accrediting agencies**, and the public*** according to the following requirements of the USDE:

(A) Within 30 days:

(1) A decision to award initial accreditation or pre-accreditation to a veterinary school

(2) A decision to renew or provide initial accreditation or pre-accreditation to a veterinary school

(B) At the same time the school is notified, but no later than 30 days after the decision:***

(1) A final decision to place a school on probationary accreditation

(2) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or reaccreditation of a veterinary school****

* The USDE and appropriate state licensing or authorizing agency will be notified by letters sent electronically or by mail.

** Accrediting agencies are notified by posting written notice on appropriate list serve for regional and programmatic accreditors.

*** Please note: All public notification is provided in the public area of the AVMA web site and will include the date of the COE meeting the decision was made. This is done within 24 hours of notification of the program for (B) (1) and (2).

**** Not later than 60 days after any final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or pre-accreditation of a veterinary school, the COE will notify the USDE, state and other authorizing agencies, and public with a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the agency's decision and the official comments that the affected school may wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the affected school has been offered the opportunity to provide official comment.

The COE will provide written notice to the USDE, appropriate state licensing or authorizing agency, appropriate accrediting agencies, and, upon request, the public if:

(1) A school decides to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or pre-accreditation, within 30 days of receiving notification from the school that it is withdrawing voluntarily from accreditation or pre-accreditation; or

(2) Lets its accreditation or pre-accreditation lapse, within 30 days of the date on which accreditation or pre-accreditation lapses.

Information related to currently accredited veterinary medical colleges and schools, the accreditation status, and the date of the next accreditation or pre-accreditation site visit is published annually in the AVMA House of Delegates Report and on the AVMA website (at www.avma.org) in the public access area. The COE does not provide the AVMA with non-public information regarding accreditation decisions, except to the extent such information constitutes privileged legal information.

When the accreditation decision is finalized, each college of veterinary medicine must notify the public of its performance in educating veterinarians by posting on its website 1) the accreditor (AVMA COE), accreditation status of the college, and the date of the next site visit; 2) an explanation of the reasons for non-compliance if probationary accreditation has been assigned and the college must provide an evaluation of the impact of non-compliance on the enrolled students; 3) the NAVLE pass rate for the college compared to the pass rate required by the COE standard for Outcomes Assessment (currently 80%); and 4) any other outcomes information that the college feels would educate the public regarding the quality of education at the specific institution. Information released to the public must be readily accessible. The information released to the public must be sent to the COE for verification in the annual report of each college.

COE and other accrediting bodies

Q: How is COE different from, or similar to, the accrediting body for dentistry (CODA)?

A: The Commission on Dental Accreditation is a semi-autonomous agency of the American Dental Association. The duties of CODA as noted in the ADA Bylaws ensure that CODA has full autonomy related to its accreditation program and process; in this regard, CODA and the COE are similarly governed.

The COE budget is prepared by AVMA staff based on the expenses incurred the previous year and the number of site visits scheduled. It is approved by the AVMA Board of Directors. However, the Board of Directors has placed no limit on expenditures related to accreditation activities of the Council and has paid all outside legal and consultant fees without restriction. Similarly, CODA's budget is prepared by CODA staff, reviewed and approved by the ADA Board of Trustees with final approval by the ADA House of Delegates. The ADA charges accreditation fees to help defray the cost of accreditation.

CODA has authority to modify its Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures Manual (CODA's version of the COE's P&P Manual) in all matters related to the accreditation program, e.g. accreditation standards, accreditation policies and procedures, and the appeal process. CODA's Rules of Operation, included in the CODA Evaluation and Operational Procedures Manual, which describe the Commission's mission, composition, powers, duties, meetings, quorum, appeal board, accreditation program, and officers may be changed through submission of a resolution, and achieve a majority approval vote, through the ADA House of Delegates. The COE, like the CODA, has complete autonomy to change the standards of accreditation and its policies and procedure without approval from the AVMA Board of Directors or AVMA House of Delegates. Its charge and structure are described in the AVMA Bylaws.

The 2008 ADA Task force on CODA Report and Recommendations stated that benchmarking revealed "that CODA is less autonomous in regard to the ADA than other agencies are to their sponsoring organizations."

It is correct that a white paper, published by CODA in August 2014, discussed a potential transition to an independent agency under ADA Bylaws, as part of a strategic planning process; however, there are no immediate plans for separation from the ADA as CODA is still in the discovery phase.

Q: How is COE different from, or similar to, the accrediting body for human medicine (LCME)?

A: There are similarities and differences between the two accrediting bodies. Like the COE, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) is supported by the professional organization (AMA) and by the organization of medical schools (Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC]); but unlike the COE, which is largely funded by the AVMA and fees charged to colleges, the LCME is financially supported 50/50 by the AAMC and AMA. Both LCME and COE are programmatic accreditors, and both have been recognized by USDE since the first list of accreditors was published in 1952. The COE is also recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), but the LCME is not. CHEA recognition is based on best practices for accreditation.

Both accrediting bodies have autonomy in their decision making; accreditation decisions are made by the accrediting body itself, with no input or approval from the governing bodies of the associations.

The process of member selection is similar for COE and LCME. The AMA Council on Medical Education selects seven members of the LCME and one student member. The AAMC also selects seven professional members and one student member. The LCME selects two public members. The new AVMA COE Selection Committee selects eight COE private-practitioner members and the new AAVMC COE Selection Committee selects eight academic members. The COE selects three public members.

Both the COE and LCME have a representative from Canada, chosen by the organization they represent (the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools, respectively). All current professional members of the LCME are deans (9) or associate deans (5) of medical schools except the Canadian member (professor). The academic members of the COE currently include one dean and three associate deans of veterinary medical schools, including the Canadian member.

Both accrediting bodies accredit schools in Canada. The COE accredits schools in nine countries outside of Canada and the U.S. The LCME currently accredits one medical school in Puerto Rico; a school in the U.S. Virgin Islands has applied for LCME accreditation.

Both the COE and LCME accredit distributive-model schools.

The AVMA shares the cost of accreditation of domestic veterinary schools with the accredited colleges. The schools pay 50% of the direct and indirect costs of accreditation plus 100% of the site visit expenses. New domestic schools and foreign schools pay 100% of the direct and indirect costs associated with accreditation, including all site visit expenses. The LCME charges developing programs for the accreditation process, but the accreditation process is free for established schools.

Q: How is the COE different from, or similar to, the accreditation body for engineering education?

A: Engineering accreditation uses a different operational model. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is a federation of 34 engineering societies that serves the interests of its member societies. The member societies set policy, develop strategy, and conduct accreditation activities worldwide on behalf of their professions. ABET accredits approximately 3,400 programs at nearly 700 colleges and universities in 28 countries. Each year, over 2,200 volunteers from 34 member societies contribute to the accreditation of programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology education, serving as program evaluators, committee and council members, commissioners, and members of the ABET Board of Directors. Directors are selected and appointed by their member societies, with each society appointing at least one but not more than three directors. The ABET board establishes the vision and direction for the organization. It approves changes to the ABET Constitution, Bylaws, Rules of Procedure and accreditation criteria. It adopts policies and approves programs and initiatives to support its Vision, Mission and Strategic Plan. The board reviews and approves accreditation criteria and decides appeals of accreditation decisions. It also elects its officers, and approves the annual budget and fees, the assessment formula, and financial policies.

ABET operates four accreditation commissions that lead and conduct its accreditation activities. Each commission reviews programs related to different sectors of the technical disciplines:

• Applied Science Accreditation Commission
• Computing Accreditation Commission
• Engineering Accreditation Commission
• Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission

Each commission is responsible for reviewing educational programs and making the final accreditation decision for each program. Their members make final decisions about all program accreditation actions, except for appeals, which fall to the Board of Directors. Each accreditation commission is responsible for the continuous review and enhancement of its particular criteria, policies, and procedures. All changes to the accreditation criteria and policies require the Board's approval. ABET is not recognized by the USDE. It maintains recognition by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) only.

Q: Is the COE accreditation process different from, or similar to, other accrediting bodies?

A: The basic elements of the accreditation process differ little among all professional accreditors, including the COE and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME); that is, submission of a self-study by the college, on-site visit by a peer review team, site visit report, accreditation decision by committee of peers, and periodic review between site visits.

For further comparisons, we've created a chart that includes the accrediting bodies for the veterinary, dental, medical, pharmacy and physical therapy professions.

The firewall between the COE and AVMA is very similar to and no less effective than the firewalls used by the dental and medical professions to insulate their accreditation entities from internal influence.

Foreign accreditation

Q: Which European veterinary colleges are accredited?

A: There are seven AVMA-accredited European colleges. These are: the University of London, the University of Bristol, the University College of Dublin, the State University of Utrecht, the VetAgro Sup, the University of Glasgow, and the University of Edinburgh. Get more information on these and other AVMA accredited colleges.

Q: What does the reciprocity agreement with foreign countries mean?

A: When a foreign school requests AVMA-COE accreditation the licensing body of that country must recognize that graduates of U.S. and Canadian AVMA-COE accredited veterinary schools have met the same educational standards as graduates of the AVMA-COE accredited school in that country. In addition those countries must apply the same licensing procedures and requirements to graduates of U.S. and Canadian AVMA-COE accredited schools wishing to practice in their country as to the graduates of AVMA-COE accredited schools in that country. In effect what this means is that U.S. and Canadian graduates can go to a foreign country, where a reciprocity agreement exists and practice veterinary medicine as long as they conform to the licensing requirements and immigration laws of that country and a graduate of an AVMA-COE accredited school in that country can come to the U.S. and practice veterinary medicine as long as they comply with the state licensing requirements and federal immigration laws. For more information on international accreditation see the Council's Policy and Procedure manual.

The accreditation process

Q: What is academic accreditation?

A: Accreditation is a dynamic quality assurance process that closely monitors and responds to ongoing changes at accredited colleges. Accredited colleges are required to report substantive changes to the COE and receive approval prior to implementation of those changes. In addition, accredited colleges must submit compliance reports annually or more frequently, as directed. The quality assurance provided by the COE is dependent on continuous monitoring and enforcement.

Q: Who initiates the accreditation process?

A: Accreditation is voluntary; the COE does not solicit applications. To initiate the accreditation process, a written request must be received by the COE from the dean of the veterinary school and the president/provost of the university.

Q: When is the self-study report due?

A: No later than six weeks before the site visit, the college must provide the self-study as a hard copy and in electronic format to the AVMA office. The electronic copy should be sent either by e-mail or CD ROM. Sufficient electronic and hard copies must also be prepared and shipped by the college to each site team member. Failure to file a suitable report by the deadline, and in the format specified, may result in postponement of the site visit.

Q: Are there reviews between site visits?

A: Accreditation is not static. Accredited schools continue to be monitored through yearly reports which must demonstrate continual self-evaluation and improvement in all aspects of each standard. These annual reports are reviewed by members of the COE and then presented for discussion to the full Council at the spring meeting. Accreditation status may change after that meeting, with movement from limited to full accreditation if a school demonstrates correction of deficiencies or movement from full to limited if a school does not demonstrate progress toward correction of deficiencies formerly identified or if new problems arise.

Q: Is accreditation an "all or none" classification?

A: You are partially right about "all or none." The AVMA Council on Education (COE) accredits DVM or equivalent educational programs. The AVMA COE assures that minimum standards in veterinary medical education are met by all AVMA-accredited colleges of veterinary medicine, and that students enrolled in those colleges receive an education that will prepare them for entry-level positions in the profession. When a student graduates from a veterinary school or college that is operating under any classification of AVMA-COE accreditation, the student is considered a graduate of an accredited school for purposes of licensing examinations or other certification that requires graduation from an AVMA COE-accredited institution as a prerequisite. Different classifications of accreditation, however, do exist and reflect the compliance of an institution with the Standards of Accreditation. For more detail, read about the different types of accreditation classifications.

Q: What does "accredited" mean?

A: Veterinary colleges that meet all Standards of Accreditation are granted an accreditation classification of accredited by the AVMA Council on Education (COE) for a period of no more than seven years, contingent upon satisfactory review by the COE of annual progress reports.

Q: What happens if a college doesn't meet the criteria for a classification of "accredited"?

A: Colleges that are found to have deficiencies in one or more Accreditation Standards that have little to no impact on student learning or safety will receive a classification of accredited with minor deficiencies. These deficiencies must be corrected within one year.

Colleges that have specific deficiencies in one or more Accreditation Standards that adversely affect student learning or safety are granted an accreditation status of probationary accreditation. Probationary accreditation may also be granted to a college that has been accredited with minor deficiencies if the college has not corrected those deficiencies within one year. Measures must be taken to ensure the education and safety of the students. Colleges operating under probationary accreditation and accredited with minor deficiencies must provide biannual progress reports, and colleges with probationary accreditation must correct the cited deficiencies within two years (one year if it was originally identified as a minor deficiency). For more information, read about the different types of accreditation classifications.

Q: What happens if a college with probationary accreditation status doesn't correct its deficiencies?

A: If colleges do not correct deficiencies cited while operating under probationary accreditation status, a college is granted a status of terminal accreditation. The college must cease enrollment of additional students and commit resources adequate to complete the education of currently enrolled students. For more information, read about the different types of accreditation classifications.

Q: How does a new veterinary college become accredited?

A: Newly established colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States and Canada function under provisional accreditation, contingent upon their demonstration of plans and intent to administer a program that will comply with the Standards of Accreditation. Site visits by the AVMA Council on Education (COE) are conducted during the period of provisional accreditation, in addition to review of semi-annual reports by the college. Provisional accreditation cannot exceed five years, after which the school is visited and assessed by the COE and granted one of the other (accredited or terminal) accreditation classifications. For more information, read about the different types of accreditation classifications.

Q: Why might a school not be accredited?

A: There are 11 standards that schools must meet. If the full Council feels that any aspect of a standard is not being met, that is made clear to the school through written and verbal communications. Schools are placed on probationary accreditation if they have major deficiencies in one or more standards, or if a minor deficiency has not been corrected in one year. That school has two years to demonstrate resolution of deficiencies (one if a minor deficiency) or significant progress towards resolution. Schools may request an additional year for good cause. Once the school demonstrates compliance with the standard, accredited status may be granted after review by the full Council.

Accreditation and you

Q: What is the value of accreditation for students?

A: Accreditation provides assurance that veterinary colleges comply with a published set of quality standards and promotes continuous improvement in veterinary education. Accreditation protects the value of your degree. Any individual wishing to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine in any state in the United States must pass the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) and any specific state board examination required by that state. Candidates cannot take the NAVLE unless they have graduated from an AVMA COE accredited school or obtained a certificate from the Educational Commission on Foreign Veterinary Graduates (ECFVG) or Program for Assessment of Educational Equivalence (PAVE). Accreditation also makes a number of federal loans available to veterinary students.

Q: What If I have a concern about a program?

A: If you believe that a college has not met the requirements for compliance in one or more areas of the 11 Standards of Accreditation, the Council provides opportunity for interested parties to submit comments concerning qualifications for accreditation. This is outlined in the policies and procedures manual in section 1.7.3.

To submit a formal complaint, you may either email COEavma [dot] org (COE[at]avma[dot]org) outlining your concerns relative to the Standards, or send a written and signed letter to the Council on Education, c/o Education and Research Division, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Rd., Suite 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.

Site visits

Q: Who pays for site visits?

A: All site visit expenses for evaluation and site visits for all colleges (U.S. and Canadian, existing and proposed new colleges and foreign colleges) are the responsibility of the college.

Q: Does the Council ever refuse to go on a site visit?

A: The Council can deny the request for a site visit to a college in a country where conditions exist that might place the safety of the site team members at risk. In the case of a consultative visit the Council can refuse to conduct the visit if, after reviewing the self-study material, it is determined that the college falls short of meeting one or more standards.

Q: What happens on a site visit?

A: A given school has a COE site visit at not more than a seven-year interval. More frequent site visits may be scheduled for colleges on probationary accreditation or for a developing college still under a reasonable assurance or provisional accreditation designation. Prior to the site visit, the school completes a self-study that is presented to the site visit team no later than six weeks before the visit. The goal of the self-study is to help the school recognize its strengths and challenges and to give the site team as complete knowledge of the school as possible. The site team consists of several COE site visitors or two COE observers, and an AVMA staff member. Up to two observers can also accompany a site team. The site visit lasts at least four days and includes inspection of the facilities and meetings and interviews with administration staff members, faculty, students, and standing committees such as admission and curriculum. This allows the site team to gather different opinions about the program. Upon completion of the visit the site team writes a Report of Evaluation and makes a recommendation for accreditation status which is presented to the full COE at its next meeting. The COE makes the final accreditation decision.

Student attrition

Q: What is the percentage of absolute attrition?

A: Colleges are required to provide an analysis of outcomes involving student achievement, including analyzing the reasons why students leave the program. The percentage of absolute attrition is the number of students who will not return, divided by the original number of students in their class when they entered the program.

Q: In calculation student attrition, what should be put in the first attrition column of the attrition table (Table B)?

A: The first attrition column of Table B meant to capture all students who will not graduate with their class regardless of reason.

Q: In calculation student attrition, what should be in the "relative attrition — personal" column of the attrition table (Table B)?

A: This includes just those who left for a personal reason.

Veterinary technology programs

Q: How do I find out the accreditation status of a veterinary technician school?

A: The COE is only involved in the accreditation of veterinary programs leading to the receipt of a DVM degree or equivalent. The AVMA's Committee on Veterinary Technician Education Activities is involved in accrediting vet tech schools. For specific information on veterinary technician programs and their accreditation status please consult the CVTEA website or contact jhorvathavma [dot] org (Ms. Julie Horvath).

---

Got a question that's not answered above? Email coeavma [dot] org (coe[at]avma[dot]org).