ACISC Evaluation Site Visit
Independent Professional Evaluation of Institutional Evidence and Practice
The ACISC evaluation site visit is a substantive stage of institutional accreditation in which an appointed evaluation team examines the institution’s evidence, practices and educational operations against the applicable accreditation standards and defined scope of review.
Following completion and review of the applicable self-study and supporting documentation, evaluators may examine institutional records, meet with members of the institutional community, review educational and administrative practices, verify submitted information and consider evidence of institutional effectiveness.
The evaluation visit is not simply an inspection of facilities. Its purpose is to understand how the institution operates in practice and determine whether institutional representations are supported by appropriate evidence.
Why ACISC Conducts External Evaluation
The institutional self-study represents the institution’s own examination of its practices and evidence. External evaluation adds an independent professional perspective.
Evaluators examine relevant institutional information within the applicable review scope, compare representations with supporting evidence and develop findings concerning the institution’s alignment with applicable accreditation requirements.
This separation between institutional self-evaluation and external professional evaluation strengthens the integrity of the accreditation record.
Verify • Examine • Evaluate
Verify institutional information
Examine supporting evidence
Understand institutional practice
Engage relevant personnel
Evaluate applicable requirements
Develop professional findings
After Applicable Preparation and Self-Study
The evaluation site visit occurs after the institution has completed the applicable preparation and submitted required self-study materials and supporting documentation.
The exact timing, scope and requirements depend on the institution’s accreditation pathway, circumstances and the current ACISC procedures applicable to the evaluation.
Institutions should rely on the current evaluation instructions issued for their review rather than historical schedules, archived documents or previous institutional arrangements.
Application
Establish the institution and proposed accreditation scope.
Self-Study
Evaluate institutional practice against applicable standards.
Evidence
Provide documentation supporting institutional representations.
External Evaluation
Evaluation team examines evidence and institutional practice.
Team Report
Professional findings are documented following evaluation.
Review & Decision
The accreditation record proceeds through subsequent review and formal decision-making.
Qualified Evaluators Conduct the External Review
ACISC appoints evaluators according to the applicable evaluation procedures. The team is responsible for examining relevant evidence and developing professional findings within the assigned scope.
Evaluation team members are expected to conduct their work objectively, professionally and according to applicable ACISC standards, policies and ethical requirements.
The evaluation team performs an evaluative function. It does not independently grant institutional accreditation.
The Review Is Defined by the Institution and Applicable Accreditation Scope
The scope of an evaluation can vary according to institutional structure, size, location, educational activities, programs, delivery methods, campuses, branches, learning sites and the purpose of the review.
Institutions operating multiple locations or different delivery arrangements should maintain accurate information concerning those activities and follow the evaluation instructions applicable to their review.
The institution should ensure that the information presented during evaluation is consistent with the institutional scope represented through its accreditation materials.
Institutional Operations Under Review
Main institution
Applicable campuses or branches
Declared programs
Educational levels
Online or distance provision
Applicable learning sites
Institutional support systems
Prepare the Institution — Not a Performance for the Evaluators
Effective preparation focuses on ensuring that institutional information is accurate, evidence is accessible and personnel understand their actual responsibilities.
The objective should not be to create a temporary presentation designed only for the evaluation visit. Reviewers need to understand how institutional systems operate in normal practice.
Review the Self-Study
Confirm that institutional personnel understand the significant representations and evidence contained in the submitted self-study.
Update Information
Identify material changes occurring after submission and provide applicable updated information when required.
Organize Evidence
Make relevant evidence accessible and clearly connected to applicable standards and institutional representations.
Prepare Personnel
Ensure relevant personnel understand the evaluation purpose and can discuss responsibilities based on direct knowledge.
Prepare Access
Ensure authorized evaluators can access applicable facilities, systems, records and institutional information.
Confirm Logistics
Follow current ACISC instructions concerning scheduling, working arrangements, documentation and applicable visit requirements.
Make Relevant Institutional Evidence Accessible to the Team
Depending on the evaluation, reviewers may require access to a designated work area, secure digital evidence environment or other organized repository containing relevant institutional records.
Evidence should be organized so authorized reviewers can locate and understand applicable materials efficiently while appropriate privacy and confidentiality safeguards are maintained.
Governance
Policies, governance records, organizational information and institutional decision-making evidence.
Educational Provision
Programs, curricula, teaching and learning information, assessment and applicable educational records.
Personnel
Applicable faculty, staff, qualification, responsibility and professional-development records.
Students
Admissions, student information, records, support systems and other applicable evidence.
Resources
Facilities, technology, learning resources and evidence of institutional capacity.
Institutional Effectiveness
Data, reviews, findings, improvement actions and monitoring evidence.
Evaluators May Engage Different Parts of the Institutional Community
Meetings provide an opportunity for evaluators to understand how policies, responsibilities and educational systems operate beyond written documentation.
Participants should answer questions honestly based on their direct knowledge. Institutions should not script substantive answers or require participants to provide predetermined responses.
Leadership & Governance
Institutional purpose, governance, strategy, accountability, resources, quality assurance and improvement.
Faculty & Educational Personnel
Teaching, learning, assessment, educational practice, professional responsibilities and student engagement.
Administrative Personnel
Institutional systems, records, student services, resources and administrative responsibilities.
Students
Where applicable, students may provide perspectives concerning educational experience, support and institutional communication.
Quality Personnel
Institutional evaluation, data, findings, improvement planning and monitoring.
Other Stakeholders
Other participants may be included where relevant to the defined scope and purpose of the evaluation.
Examine Educational Provision in Practice
Where relevant to the evaluation scope, reviewers may examine programs, curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, academic resources, student achievement, academic integrity and institutional processes for evaluating educational effectiveness.
Evaluation considers these areas within the institution’s educational model, mission, applicable accreditation scope and relevant ACISC standards.
Programs & Curriculum
Examine educational structure, intended outcomes and applicable curriculum documentation.
Teaching & Learning
Consider how educational provision is delivered and supported in practice.
Assessment
Examine applicable assessment practices and evidence concerning student learning.
Student Support, Safeguarding and Well-Being
Where applicable to the institution and review scope, evaluators may examine student support, advising, complaints, accessibility, safeguarding, student protection and other aspects of the educational experience.
Institutions serving children or vulnerable learners should ensure that applicable safeguarding responsibilities, procedures and evidence are available for appropriate review.
Submitted Information May Be Compared With Actual Institutional Practice
An important function of external evaluation is verification.
Reviewers may compare information contained in the application, self-study, institutional records, catalogs, website, policies and other submissions with evidence and institutional practice.
Material inconsistencies can require clarification, additional evidence or further evaluation.
Information Should Align Across the Record
Application
Self-study
Institutional website
Catalogs and handbooks
Policies and records
Program information
Institutional data
Observed practice
Evaluation Reflects the Institution’s Actual Delivery Model
Institutions operating multiple campuses, branches, learning sites, online education, distance education or blended delivery should maintain clear information concerning those activities.
Where applicable, evaluation may examine technology systems, faculty engagement, student identity and communication, academic integrity, student support, assessment, resources and quality-assurance arrangements relevant to those delivery environments.
The institution should follow the specific ACISC instructions establishing which locations and delivery arrangements fall within the applicable evaluation.
Evaluation Visits May Carry Applicable Fees and Expenses
Evaluation activity may involve fees, deposits, travel or other visit-related expenses payable by the institution according to the applicable ACISC fee schedule, invoice and current procedures.
ACISC accreditation fees are stated in U.S. dollars (USD) on the applicable current fee schedule. Institutions should confirm the current amount, payment deadline and applicable visit expenses before making financial or travel arrangements.
This page intentionally does not reproduce the complete fee table so that current financial information remains centralized and can be updated without creating conflicting fee information across accreditation pages.
Accuracy, Access and Professional Cooperation
The institution should provide reasonable cooperation and appropriate access to relevant personnel, facilities, systems and evidence within the defined evaluation scope.
Questions should be answered accurately. Where a participant does not know an answer, identifying the appropriate person or evidence is preferable to providing unsupported information.
Both institutional participants and evaluators should maintain professional conduct and appropriate confidentiality throughout the evaluation.
Avoid Problems That Can Reduce Evaluation Quality
Outdated Information
Using institutional information that no longer represents current operations.
Unrelated Evidence
Providing large quantities of documentation without connecting it to applicable requirements.
Conflicting Data
Reporting inconsistent figures or institutional information across different records.
Inaccessible Records
Failing to make requested evidence reasonably available to authorized evaluators.
Planned ≠ Implemented
Presenting proposed policies or future actions as though they are already operating.
Scripted Responses
Preparing personnel to repeat predetermined answers instead of discussing actual institutional practice.
The Team Prepares Its Evaluation Report
Following the applicable evaluation activity, the evaluation team prepares a report documenting findings relating to the areas reviewed.
The institution receives the applicable opportunity to respond according to ACISC procedures. The team report and institutional response then contribute to subsequent professional review and formal accreditation decision-making.
The Evaluation Team Does Not Grant Accreditation
An evaluation team’s role is to examine the institution and develop professional findings within the applicable scope.
The team’s report is an important component of the accreditation record, but it is not itself the formal accreditation decision.
The resulting record proceeds through the applicable ACISC review and decision-making structure before an accreditation outcome is established.
Evaluation ≠ Decision
Evaluation Team
Examines evidence and develops findings.
Institution
Provides the applicable response.
Professional Review
Considers the accreditation record.
Council
Determines the applicable formal accreditation outcome.
Participation in Evaluation Is Not an Accreditation Award
Visit ≠ Accreditation
Completing an evaluation visit does not itself confer accredited status.
Findings ≠ Final Decision
Evaluation findings contribute to subsequent review but should not be represented as the final accreditation outcome.
Accreditation ≠ Government Authorization
ACISC accreditation is distinct from governmental licensing, registration or authorization requirements.
No Guaranteed External Acceptance
Accreditation does not by itself guarantee admission, credit transfer, employment, licensing, immigration eligibility or acceptance by another organization.
Final Institutional Readiness Check
Information Accurate?
Confirm application, self-study and institutional information remain accurate and current.
Evidence Accessible?
Ensure applicable evidence can be located and reviewed efficiently.
Personnel Available?
Confirm relevant institutional participants are available according to evaluation arrangements.
Changes Reported?
Identify material institutional changes requiring disclosure or updated information.
Logistics Confirmed?
Follow current ACISC instructions concerning scheduling and visit arrangements.
Fees Confirmed?
Confirm applicable USD fees, invoices, payment deadlines and visit expenses before the evaluation.
Continue Through the Accreditation Review
Application & Self-Study
Prepare the institutional analysis preceding external evaluation.
Evidence & Evaluation
Understand the evidence framework supporting professional evaluation.
Evaluation Teams
Understand evaluator responsibilities, independence and professional review.
Team Report & Response
Continue to the stage immediately following external evaluation.
Accreditation Fees
Review the current centralized accreditation fee information in USD.
Accreditation Process
Review the complete institutional accreditation pathway.
Self-Study → Evidence → External Evaluation → Findings → Institutional Response
The evaluation site visit provides an independent professional examination of institutional evidence and practice. The resulting findings contribute to the accreditation record but do not independently determine accredited status.