How Accreditation Agencies Develop Standards and Ensure Quality

Most conversations about accreditation begin with the standards themselves, such as which standard applies, what evidence is needed, or when the site visit will occur. Yet one of the most important questions is rarely asked: How are accreditation standards developed, and how do accrediting agencies ensure that their decisions are fair, credible, and consistent?

Understanding that process provides valuable perspective. Accreditation standards are generally not created in isolation or intended to serve as compliance checklists. Rather, they represent a profession's shared expectations for quality, developed through research, collaboration, and ongoing refinement as educational needs and evidence evolve.

Standards Reflect the Shared Perspectives of the Profession

Accreditation standards are developed through an intentional and collaborative process. While the details vary among accrediting organizations, standards are typically reviewed on a regular cycle to ensure they remain relevant and responsive to changes in the profession.

The process often begins with a review of current research, policy, and trends within the field. Various committees examine existing standards, consider emerging issues, and draft proposed revisions. Those drafts are then shared for public comment, allowing educator preparation faculty, P–12 partners, state agencies, professional organizations, and other stakeholders to provide authentic feedback. Public hearings, listening sessions, and written comments frequently shape subsequent revisions before standards are formally adopted. While this is not always the case, this is the general consensus of how they are created and modified.

This deliberate process serves an important purpose. Accreditation standards influence educator preparation programs, the candidates they serve, and ultimately the schools and communities those completers will support. Taking time to gain diverse perspectives makes sure that standards are both meaningful and adaptable across institutions with different missions, sizes, and contexts.

It also explains why standards are often written broadly. Effective standards must provide a common framework for quality while allowing institutions flexibility in demonstrating how those expectations are met.

Different Accrediting Agencies View Quality Through Different Lenses

Although accrediting agencies share a commitment to quality assurance and continuous improvement, there is no universal definition for quality. Each accrediting body has its own view of rigor, relevance, and what quality should look like. Understanding those differences helps programs better interpret expectations and prepare meaningful evidence.

For example, CAEP emphasizes alignment to established standards supported by common measures, with particular attention to validity, reliability, and the use of disaggregated data. AAQEP takes a different approach, asking educator preparation providers to build a compelling case for quality using evidence that reflects their mission, context, and the effectiveness of their own systems. AAQEP essentially allows the institution to select and define their own data points and how these will support the programs that are seeking accreditation. CAEP, on the other hand, has already defined this for institutions.

State approval agencies, by contrast, focus primarily on statutory requirements, licensure regulations, and state policy. Institutional and regional accreditors evaluate broader aspects of institutional quality, including governance, fiscal stability, student learning, and organizational effectiveness, while programmatic accreditation examines discipline-specific expectations within that larger institutional framework.

These approaches are not opposing definitions of quality, but they prioritize different layers of quality based on each organization's mission and responsibilities.

Ensuring Quality Requires More Than Well-Written Standards

Even the strongest standards are only as effective as the review process used to apply them. This is the exact reason accrediting bodies invest significant effort in preparing reviewers and designing processes that promote consistency, fairness, and unbiased professional judgment.

Peer reviewers are usually experienced educators and practitioners who receive intense training on accreditation policies, standards, and evaluation procedures. Many agencies also use calibration activities to strengthen consistency across review teams. Teams are comprised with attention to institutional type, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest to help ensure an objective review.

Another important component is the separation between the site visit and the final accreditation decision. While review teams evaluate evidence and prepare findings, the ultimate accreditation decision is generally made by a commission or governing body that considers the team's report, the institution's response, and established decision-making criteria. This multi-level review process helps strengthen the credibility and integrity of accreditation decisions.

Many accrediting organizations also monitor reviewer performance over time, examine decision patterns across review teams, and maintain formal processes for institutional responses and appeals. These practices recognize that professional judgment is an essential part of peer review and that consistency requires continual attention.

Who Ensures the Quality of Accrediting Agencies?

Accrediting agencies are expected to demonstrate that their processes are rigorous, transparent, and consistently applied.

Depending on the accrediting organization and its recognition status, agencies may undergo periodic external reviews of their standards, governance structures, reviewer preparation, decision-making processes, and operational policies. These reviews help ensure that accrediting organizations continue to meet recognized expectations for quality assurance and maintain confidence in the decisions they make.

Like the institutions they evaluate, accrediting agencies engage in ongoing reflection and continuous improvement to strengthen their own practices over time, which is an essential element that institutions need to realize.

Implications for Educator Preparation Programs

Understanding how accreditation standards are developed can help programs approach the accreditation process more strategically.

Rather than focusing fully on documenting compliance, programs benefit from considering the broader purpose behind each standard. Guidance documents, explanatory materials, and supporting research often provide valuable insight into what accrediting bodies are seeking to understand about program quality.

Programs can also strengthen their own understanding by participating in public comment periods during standards revisions and by encouraging faculty and administrators to serve as peer reviewers. Reviewing another institution's evidence often provides valuable perspective on how accreditation standards are interpreted and applied in practice.

In the end, accreditation is not measured by the quantity of evidence collected. It is demonstrated through a logical, evidence-informed narrative that clearly shows how a program prepares educators, evaluates its effectiveness, and uses data to support continuous improvement.

Point to Ponder

Accreditation standards continue to evolve as educator preparation evolves. If your accrediting body were to revise its standards tomorrow, what aspects of program quality would you advocate for, and does your current assessment system provide evidence that those qualities are being achieved?