Accreditation Decisions
Formal Outcomes of the ACISC International Accreditation Process
The Accrediting Council for International Schools and Colleges (ACISC) reaches accreditation decisions through a structured process that considers applicable accreditation standards, institutional evidence, external evaluation findings, relevant institutional responses and formal professional review.
An accreditation decision establishes the institution’s formal position within the applicable ACISC accreditation framework and, where accreditation is granted, identifies the status and approved scope associated with that decision.
ACISC separates institutional evaluation from formal decision-making so that evaluation findings contribute to, rather than substitute for, the authorized accreditation decision.
What Is an Accreditation Decision?
An ACISC accreditation decision is the formal outcome reached after the applicable institutional accreditation requirements and review stages have been considered.
The decision is based on the applicable accreditation standards and the institutional record developed through the accreditation process.
This record may include institutional documentation, self-study materials, supporting evidence, external evaluation findings, institutional responses and other information relevant to the applicable review.
The purpose of formal decision-making is to determine the appropriate accreditation outcome based on the evidence and requirements applicable to the institution.
A Decision Is Built on the Accreditation Record
Applicable accreditation standards
Institutional self-study
Supporting institutional evidence
External evaluation findings
Evaluation or team report
Applicable institutional response
Professional review
Formal decision-making
From Institutional Evidence to Accreditation Outcome
The applicable accreditation pathway develops an institutional record through successive stages of preparation, evaluation, review and decision-making.
Standards
Applicable ACISC accreditation standards establish the requirements against which the institution is evaluated.
Evidence
The institution provides self-study materials and evidence demonstrating institutional practice and effectiveness.
Evaluation
External evaluation examines institutional evidence and practice against applicable accreditation standards.
Findings
Evaluation findings document matters relevant to subsequent accreditation review.
Response
Where applicable, the institution responds to findings and provides clarification, corrective action or additional evidence.
Review
The applicable review process considers the relevant institutional record and evaluation information.
Decision
The authorized ACISC decision-making body determines the formal accreditation outcome.
Continuing Status
Where accreditation is granted, the institution enters the applicable continuing accreditation cycle.
Professional Evaluation Informs the Decision
External evaluation provides an informed examination of the institution against applicable ACISC accreditation standards.
Evaluators review relevant evidence, examine institutional practice and develop findings within the scope of the applicable evaluation.
The evaluation team does not itself grant institutional accreditation.
Evaluation findings contribute to the institutional record considered through ACISC’s applicable review and formal decision-making process.
Evaluation and Decision Have Distinct Roles
Evaluation
Examines institutional evidence and practice.
Findings
Document conclusions arising from the evaluation.
Institutional Response
Provides applicable clarification, evidence or corrective action.
Formal Review
Considers the relevant accreditation record.
Decision
Establishes the formal accreditation outcome.
Evidence and Response Form Part of the Accreditation Record
Where the applicable procedure provides for an institutional response, the institution has an opportunity to address relevant evaluation findings.
A response may provide clarification, additional evidence, information concerning corrective action or other material relevant to the accreditation review.
Effective responses connect institutional statements with documented evidence and clearly address the matters identified through evaluation.
The response becomes part of the information considered through the applicable review process.
An Effective Institutional Response
Addresses the relevant finding directly
Provides appropriate supporting evidence
Explains corrective action where applicable
Identifies responsible institutional action
Demonstrates implementation where relevant
Connects improvement with institutional practice
The Formal Outcome Reflects the Applicable Review
The accreditation outcome depends on the institution’s applicable pathway, accreditation record, evidence, evaluation findings and governing ACISC procedures.
Depending on the applicable circumstances and procedures, the formal outcome may grant accreditation, require further action or review, defer a decision, deny accreditation or establish another outcome permitted under the applicable accreditation framework.
The formal written decision establishes the applicable outcome and any related requirements, conditions, scope or next steps.
The Written Decision Establishes the Institution’s Position
The applicable decision may address:
Accreditation outcome
Accreditation status
Approved accreditation scope
Applicable effective period
Conditions or requirements where applicable
Required institutional action
Continuing review or monitoring
A Decision Establishes Accreditation Within a Defined Scope
Where ACISC grants international accreditation, the institution’s accreditation should be understood together with the approved scope established through the applicable accreditation decision and record.
Educational programs formally declared and included within an accredited institution’s approved accreditation scope are covered within that institution’s ACISC international accreditation.
The applicable accreditation record provides the authoritative reference for understanding the institution’s current status and approved scope.
Institutions are responsible for accurately communicating their accreditation status and for maintaining current information concerning educational provision included within their approved scope.
Understanding the Accreditation Record
Formal accreditation decision
↓
Institutional accreditation status
↓
Approved accreditation scope
↓
Formally included educational programs
↓
Continuing accreditation responsibilities
Accreditation Decisions Connect With Current Institutional Information
ACISC maintains public accreditation resources so stakeholders can identify institutions holding ACISC international accreditation and understand applicable accreditation information.
A current accreditation position is best understood by considering institutional identity, status, approved scope, relevant dates and subsequent accreditation actions together.
Where an earlier accreditation decision has been followed by renewal, scope modification, status change or another formal action, the current institutional record should be used to understand the institution’s present position.
Read the Complete Accreditation Record
Institutional identity
Current accreditation status
Approved accreditation scope
Relevant accreditation dates
Subsequent accreditation actions
Current continuing position
Verify the Current Accreditation Position
Students, institutions, education professionals, employers, partners and other stakeholders can use ACISC’s verification resources to confirm current institutional accreditation information.
Verification connects an accreditation claim with the applicable ACISC institutional record and helps establish the institution’s current status and approved scope.
When accreditation information is important to a decision, users should consider the current record rather than relying on historical announcements or earlier accreditation information.
Verification Pathway
Identify the institution
↓
Confirm current status
↓
Review approved scope
↓
Check relevant dates
↓
Review subsequent actions
↓
Use the current ACISC record
The Accreditation Relationship Continues After the Decision
A grant of accreditation establishes an institutional accreditation relationship that continues through the applicable accreditation period.
Institutions holding ACISC international accreditation remain responsible for maintaining applicable standards, educational quality, institutional evidence and approved accreditation scope.
Institutions also participate in applicable reporting, monitoring, review, institutional-change and reaccreditation processes.
Continuing accreditation connects the formal decision with sustained institutional effectiveness and continuous improvement.
After Accreditation
Maintain accreditation standards
Maintain institutional evidence
Maintain approved scope
Report applicable institutional changes
Participate in required monitoring
Respond to applicable accreditation actions
Prepare for continuing review or reaccreditation
Advance continuous improvement
Standards, Evidence and Professional Judgment
ACISC accreditation decisions apply professional judgment within an established framework of accreditation standards, institutional evidence and defined review procedures.
Evidence-based review provides a structured basis for evaluating institutional performance and supports consistent consideration of matters relevant to accreditation.
Clear separation among institutional preparation, external evaluation and formal decision-making supports accountability throughout the accreditation process.
Institutional Accreditation With Professional Accountability
Defined standards
Relevant evidence
Professional evaluation
Institutional response
Structured review
Formal decision authority
Continuing accountability
Formal Decisions Within the ACISC International Accreditation Framework
ACISC accreditation decisions connect institutional evidence and professional evaluation with structured review and formal decision-making.
Where accreditation is granted, the decision establishes the institution’s accreditation position and approved scope and begins the applicable continuing accreditation responsibilities.