View accreditation status explanations for educator preparation providers & programs accredited through:

CAEP Accreditation Statuses

Accreditation Policy 5.10 Accreditation Terms and Decisions

a.Terms
The accreditation term establishes the interval for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the EPP and begins on the date when the Accreditation Council renders the decision and extends until the Council’s next accreditation decision. The terms are:

  1. Seven (7) years for full accreditation
  2. Five (5) years if the EPP’s status was previously a two (2) year probationary or provisional accreditation or a stipulation was assigned and corrected; or
  3. Two (2) years for a probationary or provisional accreditation decision. The term of accreditation can be reduced dependent on the state partnership agreement.

b. Initial Accreditation Decisions
An EPP seeking accreditation for the first time receives one of four accreditation decisions.

  1. Accreditation for seven (7) years is granted if the EPP meets all of the CAEP Standards and required components, even if areas for improvement (AFIs) are identified in the final report of the Accreditation Council.
  2. Provisional accreditation is granted if an EPP fails to meet not more than one (1) required component under any one (1) standard. Failure to submit a response to the stipulation within a two (2)-year time frame results in automatic denial. Failure to correct the condition leading to the stipulation within the specified two (2)-year period results in denial.
  3. Accreditation with stipulations is granted if an EPP receives one (1) stipulation on a nonrequired component under any one (1) standard. Failure to submit a response to the stipulation within a two (2)-year time frames results in automatic denial. Failure to correct the condition leading to the stipulation within the specified two (2)-year period results in denial.
  4. Denial of accreditation for a full term occurs if the EPP fails to meet one or more of the CAEP Standards. In a case where accreditation is denied, the EPP no longer holds the status of CAEP eligible. The EPP can begin the application process after one (1) calendar year from the date of the final decision.

c. Continuing Accreditation Decisions
An EPP seeking continuing accreditation may receive one of the following four accreditation decisions:

  1. Accreditation for seven (7) years is granted if the EPP meets all of the CAEP Standards and required components, even if areas for improvement (AFIs) are identified in the final report of the Accreditation Council.
  2. Probationary accreditation is granted for two (2) years when an EPP does not meet one (1) of the CAEP Standards, or when the EPP fails to meet not more than one required component under any one (1) standard. Failure to submit a response to the stipulation within a two (2)-year time frame results in automatic revocation. Failure to correct the condition leading to the stipulation within the specified two (2)-year period results in revocation.
  3. If the EPP has a successful probationary visit, the EPP is granted the remainder of a seven (7) year accreditation term.
  4. Accreditation is revoked if an EPP does not meet two (2) or more of the CAEP Standards. In a case where accreditation is revoked, the EPP can begin the application process after one (1) calendar year from the date of the final decision.

(d) Probationary Accreditation
An EPP with a decision of probationary accreditation must present evidence at the end of two years that an unmet CAEP Standard has been met in order to be granted accreditation for the remainder of the accreditation cycle. If the standard is not met at the end of the two (2)-year period, the EPP’s continuing accreditation status is revoked. Following revocation, an EPP can apply to CAEP seeking eligibility for initial accreditation.

(e) Areas for Improvement (AFI)
AFIs describe components of standards that must be improved by the time of the next accreditation visit. Progress reports on remediation of AFIs are submitted as part of the Annual Report. EPPs may submit AFIs for review by the Accreditation Council with sufficient evidence to determine corrections were made. AFIs are reviewed in the subsequent accreditation visit if not removed. AFIs not removed by a subsequent accreditation visit may become stipulations if evidence is not sufficient to determine corrections were made.

(f) Stipulations
Stipulations describe serious deficiencies in meeting CAEP Standards and must be brought into compliance in order to continue accreditation. All stipulations and relevant evidence must be submitted for review by the Accreditation Council by the end of the second year from the assignment of those stipulation(s). Failure to correct the condition leading to the stipulation within the specified two-year period results in revocation of accreditation.

NCATE Accreditation Statuses

Accreditation
When all standards have been met and no serious problems exist across standards, the next review is scheduled for five or seven years (determined by the state) from the semester of the onsite visit.

Accreditation for two years with a focused visit
When one or more standard(s) is not met and concerns center on the unmet standard(s), the Commission will request a visit focused on that standard(s) within two years of the semester of the onsite visit.

Accreditation for two years with a full visit
When one or more standard(s) is not met and problems exist across standards, the Commission will request a visit addressing all standards within two years of the semester of the onsite visit.

Deny accreditation
Following a first accreditation visit. When one or more standards is not met and the preponderance of evidence indicates problems across multiple standards, the Commission will deny accreditation.

Revoke accreditation
Following a continuing visit. When one or more standards is not met and the preponderance of evidence indicates problems across multiple standards, the Commission will revoke accreditation.

TEAC Accreditation Statuses

Accreditation (7 years)

Programs that submit an Inquiry Brief and successfully complete the accreditation process with all the requirements of TEAC’s quality principles met earn accreditation for seven years. Programs that hold an accreditation status for seven years are required to submit an Inquiry Brief in the seventh year.

Accreditation (2 years)
Programs that submit an Inquiry Brief and fail to meet all the requirements of TEAC’s quality principles may be granted a two-year accreditation term. Programs that are accredited with stipulations must satisfy the stipulations within two years. They also have the option of submitting an Inquiry Brief which may earn a seven or two-year term.

Initial accreditation (5 years)
First-time programs that submit an Inquiry Brief Proposal and successfully complete the accreditation process with all the requirements of TEAC’s quality principles met earn initial accreditation for five years. Initial Accreditation is a one-time only status that is limited to five years.

Initial accreditation (2 years)
First-time programs that submit an Inquiry Brief Proposal and fail to meet all the requirements of TEAC’s quality principles may be granted a two-year initial accreditation term. Programs that are accredited with stipulations must satisfy the stipulations within two years and are required to provide a new Inquiry Brief or Inquiry Brief Proposal during the second year that demonstrates that the professional education program can now be fully accredited. Those programs that were awarded initial accreditation for only two years have the option of submitting another Inquiry Brief Proposal in the second year which may earn only a two- or three-year term. They also have the option, as do programs that hold accreditation status for only two years, of submitting an Inquiry Brief which may earn a seven or two-year term.

 

Weaknesses in the evidence

The evidence for a particular component or subcomponent of the quality principle may be insufficient, but overall there is other evidence that is sufficient to adequately support the quality principle. In these cases, the panel formally notes the deficiencies in evidence for a quality principle or requirement. It does so in one of two ways, depending on whether the deficiency is in a subcomponent or a component of the quality principle.

 

A weakness is a deficiency in the evidence for a subcomponent that is not so serious that it causes the panel to find one of the components below standard.

 

A stipulation is a deficiency that is serious enough to place a component below the standard, but not so serious that it causes the panel to find one of the elements below standard.

 

If the evidence for a subcomponent is insufficient, the panel formally cites a weakness in the quality principle and cites the subcomponent as weak. If the deficiency is in the evidence for a component, the panel cites a stipulation in the quality principle and states that the quality principle is supported, but with the stipulation that the evidence for the component must be made sufficient and remedied within a two-year period.