The accreditation decision is made by the Acredita CI Technology Council and depends on the assessment that this council makes of each of the evaluation criteria.
A criterion is met when there is evidence that the policies and mechanisms are known and applied systematically, showing results that are periodically reviewed.
Otherwise, we are in the presence of a weakness: the criterion does not met and will be valued either as in development or as inexistent. A criterion that is not met is in development when there is evidence that the program includes in its design the 12 Graduate Attributes which are incorporated through its own graduation profile. The policies and mechanisms are known and applied, with preliminary results, but there is no evidence yet that it is systematic. A criterion that is not met is inexistent when the program has defects in its design, does not contemplate the 12 Graduate Attributes or it does not have formal or systematic policies or mechanisms in its educational process, or there are only statements, but without evidence of its application.
The process leads to one of the following three results:
- Accredited for 7 years
- Accredited for 3 years
- Not Accredited
1.- Accredited for 7 years:
The program demonstrates that it meets the Acredita CI evaluation criteria. The program includes in its design the 12 Graduate Attributes, which are incorporated through its own graduation profile. It has mechanisms for continuous improvement to achieve committed education, with evidence that the policies and mechanisms are known and applied systematically, showing results that are periodically reviewed.
2.- Accredited for 3 years:
The program meets the criteria of Acredita CI, and may present some criteria with weaknesses in the category “does not meet-in development”. The program includes in its design the 12 Graduate Attributes which are incorporated through its own graduation profile. There is evidence that learning outcomes are achieved. However, the evidence is recent, failing to verify its permanence over time.
When accreditation is for 3 years:
- Before the expiration of the accreditation, the process contemplates, by definition, that the program present a report to the Agency with substantive evidence that the detected weaknesses have been overcome. The report will be submitted within six months prior to the expiration date.
- From the review of this report, the Technology Council will determine if it is necessary to visit the program in the field to verify the progress or the evidence presented in the report is sufficient to decide, based on the documentary review.
- In any of these cases and verifying progress in overcoming weaknesses, the accreditation of the program will be extended in 4 years.
- In the event that the weaknesses are not overcome, the accreditation will not be extended to the program, losing its accredited status and it must be submitted to the process again in two years from that date.
- If the program does not present the report or does not present it within the indicated period, it loses its accredited status.
3.- Not Accredited:
The program does not accredit when it has one or more evaluation criteria with weaknesses in the category “does not meet-inexistent”, because it presents defects in its design, does not contemplate the 12 Graduate Attributes or does not have formal or systematic policies or mechanisms in its educational process, or there are only statements, but without evidence of their application.
Prior to the accreditation decision process, Acredita CI will send a Preliminary Report issued by the Technology Council, so that the program can verify that the Council has considered all the evidence. In the event that, in the judgment of the program, any element is missing, it may send the information deemed appropriate. This shall constitute substantive and documented evidence of compliance with the criteria. The program will have a period of 20 calendar days to send this information to the Agency.
With this information, the Council will decide on the accreditation of the program, in a session called for this purpose.
Only in the event that the program does not accredit may appeal the decision to the Agency.
The appeal consists of a document in which the program presents additional information, such as substantive and documented evidence of compliance with the evaluation criteria, to support the request. This evidence, in any case, will be accepted as valid only if it existed until the moment in which the program presented its observations to the Preliminary Report of the Technology Council.
The appeal will be analyzed by an Appeals Committee arranged for this purpose, who will make a final decision.
The result of this stage of the process is final and the program will receive an Accreditation Resolution under international criteria informing the reasons for the decision and an Accreditation Certificate, if applicable.
The result of the accreditation is published on the Agency’s Website, Accredited Programs section, that specifically indicate the expiration date of the accreditation granted, which defines the date for the next accreditation process.