Choosing the right fit

Schools have many options in regards to accreditation agencies, as outlined in the previous section.

While there are many common elements, different accrediting agencies serve different purposes and it is vital to find the right fit.

In order to help choose the right fit, the following guidelines are offered.

Coherence with guiding statements

When considering which accrediting body(ies) for a school it is essential that there is a high degree of coherence between the school’s guiding statements and those of the accrediting body.

When considering this, it is encouraged that schools begin the process of choosing an accrediting body in one of two ways.

The first way forward is for the school to engage in an evaluation of its guiding statements and identify the core values of the school that will need to cohere with the accrediting body.

The accrediting body could then provide outside validation as well as support for the school realising its stated values. In this sense, the accrediting body provides verification and validation of what the school has previously set out to do and the degree to which this has already been realised. Here, it is suggested that the leadership team, along with the Board of Trustees engage in a critical analysis of the existing guiding statements in order to identify those core values that it wants mirrored in an accrediting body.

Then the task is to cross-reference these with the foundational values of the various accrediting bodies in order to determine the best fit. Here, the school has already set its targets and acted to realise its goals, and the accrediting body would be used as a mechanism of accountability for what the school has already tried to become, and the process of accreditation serves to reaffirm this.

The other starting point for selecting an accrediting body is for the the leadership team (along with the board) to look aspirationally at the current vision and mission of the school to identify core values that need to be brought to life.

The leadership team and board would then engage in a critical reflection of the accrediting bodies to determine which organisation best represents the school’s aspirations. In other words, the school would use the accrediting body as a target to work towards and focus on. The accrediting body would act as a mechanism of accountability for what the school intends to become.

The choice of an accrediting body can either be forward-looking, or backward-looking. Either way, there must be strong coherence between the accrediting body and the vision and mission of the school.

This must first be critically examined in regards to the guiding statements and values of the school, to ensure coherence in regards to the “why of education”. Thereafter, there must also be coherence in regard to the what and how of education.

If a school, for example, teaches its students in a manner that expects their learning to be self-driven expecting its students to be critically aware and reflective, and this is seen in its guiding statements, then it needs to choose an accrediting body that is of the same vision. The accrediting body selected could then set out systems of accountability grounded in a process of a self-study that is validated by external sources. In other words, the accreditation process would fundamentally be done within the school with external validation, rather than having a system being imposed upon the school by an outside accrediting agency.

Requirements of key stakeholders

When considering which accrediting body to choose it is important to consider the key stakeholders served in the school, focusing here on the students and parents.

The vision and mission of the school will outline the key groups the school is serving and the purpose. For example, if the school is set up overseas and primarily is driven to serve expats from a predominant nationality to be able to repatriate to continue their children’s K-12 education ‘back home’, then an accrediting body from that national educational system will be required.

A key consideration is the finishing credential offered by a given accrediting body and the degree to which this credential will open doors to universities.

If it is the case that a given school has students from many different national settings who will return to ‘home’ for university, an accrediting body that offers a credential that will be accepted widely will be of great importance. However, if a given school’s mission is to primarily prepare students for a given country’s university system, then choosing an accrediting body that aligns with this, will be most important.

National requirements

It is also important for schools to consider any requirements of accreditation from the national system in which the school is located.

Certain national systems may require an international school offering the IB program to also meet national curricular requirements, for example. In other situations, the school (set up by an embassy or non-governmental organisation) may be grounded in a memorandum of agreement that exempts a given school from being required to meet any national requirements from the country in which the school is located.

Synchronised visits

Many international schools will choose to be accredited by multiple bodies. For example, a school offering a US High School Diploma, as accredited by NEASC, may also be accredited by the IB, as well as CIS. These three accrediting bodies can work in unison and a synchronised visit is possible. This is much more efficient than going through the process of three independent visits. Looking for organisations that offer synchronised visits also helps a school focus and gain coherence in its mission and vision.

Externally evaluated versus externally verified

Accrediting bodies are framed by different paradigms in shaping the accreditation. There is not a perfect split between the two main paradigms (externally evaluated and externally verified), but a given accrediting body will tend towards one of the two.

On one hand, an accrediting body would solicit key documents and evaluate the degree to which that which a school is claiming to realise actually realises it, and then moves forward to draw conclusions. This process of external evaluation can be framed as something done to the school.

In contrast, certain accrediting bodies outline a process that schools need to go through in order to self-assess and determine areas of strength and areas of growth, based upon the criteria set by the accrediting body. In this situation, the accrediting body verifies the process that the school went through, but is not charged with drawing conclusions necessarily.

As noted, accrediting bodies tend towards one paradigm. For example, while the IB is intended to be a system of verification rather than evaluation, it is the case that the IB will formally sanction a school to offer a given IB program, or not. In this sense, while working with a school, and while being grounded in shaping self-driven processes, the IB will also make overall conclusions as to the quality of program delivery in order to give its formal stamp of approval.

In considering the two broad paradigms that shape accrediting bodies (externally evaluated and externally verified) it is important to keep in mind that there are strengths and limitations to each approach.

A process driven by verification may empower the school to feel like it is driving the process and more in control of the overall assessment of strengths and areas in need of improvement, and this is a significant benefit. However, a process driven by self-study may not be as objective, possibly being too hard on itself, or too easy on itself. The key is for the school to be aware of the strengths and limitations each accrediting body brings with its underlying paradigm.

Making the decision tangible

In going through the process of evaluating a school’s guiding statements and then considering the key criteria by which to choose an accrediting body, the leadership team is encouraged to create a table documenting the degree to which its key criteria are met by what it perceives as the top three to four accrediting bodies.

The process of designing the table will force the establishment of the key criteria, and then the completion of the table will force the investigation of various accrediting bodies with greater objectivity.