Accreditation Proposal Samples

AAQEP members often request samples of other programs’ Accreditation Proposals to help guide their own writing. The excerpts below are grouped by proposal section, introduced by a brief summary of that section’s purpose and possible ways to present it (see also the Guidelines for Writing an AAQEP Proposal or Section 5 of the 2020 Guide to AAQEP Accreditation). Thanks to the member faculty and programs who have agreed to share these samples!

Please note that these samples represent options for approaching the Accreditation Proposal and are not intended as templates. 

Section 1: Introduction/overview of the program(s) and context

What’s the point of Section 1?

The introduction identifies the particular programs seeking accreditation and presents a high-level overview of the provider’s context. Although brief (generally two to four pages), it should include important details for reviewers to understand about programs’ design, candidate population, geographic factors, mission or other commitments, and relevant state requirements. 

How do authors present this section?

Section 1 may be successfully presented in a variety of ways. Some introductions are pure narrative, while others organize content under separate headings or include graphics, such as organizational charts, to illustrate hierarchies and relationships. Additionally, some authors helpfully include a glossary to introduce reviewers to terms and acronyms associated with their programs and assessments. 


Section 2: Measures to be used as evidence for Standards 1 and 2

What’s the point of Section 2?

Section 2 describes the evidence sources the author intends to use to explicitly address each aspect of Standards 1 and 2. Reviewers also look for a clear articulation of the alignment of assessments used throughout the program, the aspects they address, and the perspectives they represent (which must include program faculty, P-12 partners, program completers, and completers’ employers, although not all perspectives must be represented for each aspect). 

How do authors present this section?

To organize and document these essential components of the evidence set, authors employ a variety of tables. Some proposals organize the evidence by aspect, while others do so by measure. The tables may also show the frequency of a measure’s use over time and denote whether the data source is currently in use or planned, and/or whether it is a direct or indirect measure.


Section 3: Explanation of how the validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and fairness of these measures has been (or will be) established

What’s the point of Section 3?

This section describes how the provider is examining each proposed measure from a data-quality standpoint. In particular, it’s essential to document how locally developed measures have been (or will be) evaluated for validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and fairness. For more widely available measures, links to related data-quality studies are also helpful, but more pertinent may be an explanation of how such measures accurately reflect candidate success (e.g., consideration for curriculum alignment, fidelity of implementation). It’s helpful to append instruments to the proposal or include links to sample measures.

How do authors present this section?

This section can benefit from a tabular presentation, or it may list and describe each measure and the stakeholders involved in determining data quality. Some authors opt for narrative explanations of how they have addressed or plan to address a particular data quality concept.


Section 4: Description of contextual challenges and planned or implemented innovations

What’s the point of Section 4?

Section 4 identifies new or emerging features of the programs being reviewed, how the provider plans to monitor these changes, and what markers will be used to guide and evaluate them. Proposal authors should note if the measure used to secure this evidence is not previously discussed in the proposal. 

How do authors present this section?

Authors generally use a narrative format to tell this story. To help reviewers understand the program’s rationale for proposed changes, authors identify contextual challenges and describe how they have spurred innovations. 


Close Menu