Anda di halaman 1dari 3

1. 1. JEAN AILLEN F.

SOLTES
2. 2. Accreditation is …  A process by which institutions or programs continuously upgrade their educational
quality and service through self-evaluation and the judgment of peers.  A concept based on self-regulation
which focuses on evaluation and the continuing reinforcement of educational quality.  A status granted to an
educational institution or programs which meets commonly accepted standards of quality or excellence.
3. 3. a.) its prevailing sense of volunteerism b.) its strong tradition of self- regulation c.) its reliance on evaluation
techniques d.) its primary concern with quality
4. 4.  Based on accepted standards Each school seeking accreditation will be surveyed and evaluated in terms of
the appropriateness and adequacy of its philosophy and objectives and its terms of the degree and competence
and which it achieves its goals.  Concerned with the teacher-learner relationship  Provides opportunities for
institutional growth through self-survey and evaluation and self-regulation.  Admits periodic review, criticism,
and readjustment of its criteria, policies and procedures to changes in education.
5. 5.  Accrediting agencies judge an institution not by comparison with other institutions but primarily by the
degree to which each institution’s own avowed philosophy and objectives, vision-mission are matched by actual
practice in the various areas being evaluated.
6. 6.  “Program Accreditation,” refers to the accreditation of academic courses such as liberal arts, sciences,
education, commerce, law, engineering, nursing, etc. PAASCU’s policy extends accreditation by program. 
“Institutional Accreditation,” refers to the accreditation of the school, college, universities or institution as a
whole. Under PAASCU policy, institutional accreditation is not undertaken by itself; only individual programs are
accredited. Only when all the programs of an institution are accredited may that particular institution be
considered an accredited institution under the PAASCU policy.
7. 7. 1. FAAP (Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines 2. PAASCU ( Philippine Accrediting Association
of Schools, Colleges, and Universities) 3. AACCUP (Accrediting Association of Chartered Colleges and Universities
in the Philippines) 4. PACUCOA (Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Commission on
Accreditation) 5. ACSC-AAI (Association of Christian Schools and College-Accrediting Agency, Incorporated) 6.
IQUAME (Institutional Monitoring Evaluation for Quality Assurance)
8. 8. On the collegiate and secondary levels, the following areas are evaluated: 1. College/School Community 5.
Laboratories Involvement 6. Physical Plant 2. Faculty 7. Student Services 3. Instruction 8. Administration 4.
Library On the grade school level, the library and laboratories (no. 4 and no. 5 above) are omitted; instead,
Student Activity Program is added.
9. 9.  In 1994, the Department of Education was reorganized by an act of Congress into three separate entities:
(1) the Department of Education for primary, secondary, and other forms of basic education; (2) the Technical-
Vocational Education and Skills Development Authority for vocational skills training; and (3) the Commission on
Higher Education for college and university studies.  Commission on Higher Education had to walk a tightrope
between under- regulation and over-regulation. On the one hand a need existed to establish minimum
requirements and standards, especially as this was provided for in law with respect to for-profit institutions.
Hence stringent requirements were imposed on institutions for the initial “permit” period, prior to their official
“recognition” and being allowed to grant degrees.  These requirements included minimum standards for size
of campus, library holdings, laboratory facilities, the percentage of faculty with advanced degrees, and so on. In
addition government prescribed in detail the number of credit hours required in subject areas for each degree
program, which all institutions were required to follow to gain recognition for the degree.
10. 10.  In 1949, the Department of Education issued the first public statement suggesting that quality assurance
through private sector accreditation would be necessary to preserve, if not enhance, good tertiary education. 
However, the private sector did not act to implement an accreditation process until 1951, when Francisco
Dalupan, the President of one of the largest universities in Manila, University of the East, acting on his familiarity
with United States style accreditation, brought together several equally knowledgeable to pursue the subject.
This group formed the unfortunately short-lived (1951-52) Philippine Accrediting Association of Universities
and Colleges (PAAUC), welcoming all three major professional associations of private colleges and universities
to join them. These were:  A Catholic group represented by the Catholic Educational Association of the
Philippines (CEAP)  A protestant group, the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges (ACSC)  A non-
sectarian, for stock and for-profit group, embodied in the Philippine Association
11. 11.  The remaining Catholic association, CEAP, however continued to pursue accreditation within its own
ranks. It formed an Accrediting Committee in 1954 and after field-testing PAAUC’s standards and criteria,
developed a self-survey form, a question-and-answer list to evaluate an institution’s operations.  By the end of
1957 eleven prestigious Catholic HEIs had successfully completed such reviews. However, instead of
constituting the new CEAP accrediting association, this initial group believed it a wiser course to incorporate
separately as a private, voluntary, non-profit and non-stock organization that came to be known as the
Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities, or PAASCU. It registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 1957, declaring its independence from CEAP’s structure.
12. 12. The Department of Education officially recognized PAASCU as an accrediting agency, and eventually
offered certain privileges, one of which was to exempt its accredited member HEIs from the requirement of
obtaining government oversight of the graduation process. With government continuing to support the idea of
private, voluntary accreditation, PAASCU specifically invited both non-Catholic and non-sectarian colleges and
universities to become members, to avoid the perception that it was only for private Catholic HEIs.
13. 13.  Federation of Accrediting Associations of the Philippines (FAAP) in 1977, a body intended by then
Education Secretary Jaime Laya to become a super-body of accrediting agencies in the form of a federation.  By
1979, the Ministry of Education recognized FAAP, and in 1984 gave it, through the Ministry of Education, Culture
and Sports (MECS) Order No. 36, the power to certify, a role traditionally taken by the individual accrediting
agencies. The more recently activated associations, ACSC-AA and PACU-COA, were no match for PAASCU’s
expertise and size. PAASCU was to be the lead accrediting agency, a status owed to its 20-plus years of
experience in the field.
14. 14.  FAAP gave equal amounts of funding to all three accrediting institutions for political expediency at the
price of ignoring the organizational strengths, weaknesses and specific needs of each. This resulted in the two
newer associations occupying the majority bloc of the FAAP, capable of outvoting PAASCU, despite the fact that
the latter possessed more experience and in-depth knowledge of the quality assurance process. Differences also
existed between the sectarian-based association of ACSC-AA and the non-sectarian, mostly for-profit orientation
of PACU-COA members, though they jointly occupied 66% of the membership in FAAP. As described earlier, the
profit motive took priority over quality considerations. These two associations also insisted on comprehensive
institutional accreditation, rather than program accreditation, as the basis for the accreditation judgment. 
PAASCU had long pursued a program-based model. It argued that institutional accreditation would allow weak
programs to be masked by stronger ones. Such “protective coloring” could act in turn as a disincentive to quality
improvement efforts by weaker programs. PAASCU was willing to concede that institutional accreditation was
worth awarding if a majority of programs within an institution were individually accredited. Obviously, sorting
weaker from stronger programs within institutional settings, was in and of itself, no easy task.
15. 15.  A new Minister of Education Culture and Sports was appointed. She was Lourdes Quisumbing, President of
the prestigious Miriam College, and an active PAASCU Director. She quickly indicated her support for voluntary
accreditation by promulgating Department Order No. 27 which superseded Ministry Order No. 36 of 1984.
Under DO 27 FAAP was to serve as a coordinator and funder of accreditation activities in association with FAPE.
FAAP would merely certify accreditation actions taken by various accrediting agencies, which DECS would then
formally recognize. This would make the newly accredited HEI eligible for progressive government benefits. 
Under the new dispensation of President Aquino, the Department of Education authorized FAAP to develop four
levels of accreditation, and accordingly develop four levels of incentives and deregulations, according to which
accredited programs would be exempt from various aspects of DECS bureaucratic requirements, depending on
the levels of accredited status earned. This included rules on increases in tuition fees, the lifeblood of most HEIs.
If accredited, an HEI would have more leeway in setting its own rates, and be
16. 16.  State chartered colleges and universities had grown from 86 in 1990 to 125 in 2008. They were banded
together as the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges, or PASUC.  In 1987 these public
institutions established the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines
(AACCUP), establishing their own standards. The presumption was that the private sector could not fully
understand the regulatory environment governing public institutions. Given that many of these institutions had
been established primarily as vanity institutions for local politicians, the concern over meeting current high
quality standards was real. If they failed in the evaluation process, they would face sanctions, and maybe closure.
 By 2005 this public sub-sector had grown large enough that CHED recognized the existence of the National
Network of Quality Accrediting Agencies (NNQAA) made up of AACCUP and a second accrediting network called
the Association of Local Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation (ALCUCOA).
17. 17.  CHED was to take a more active role in the oversight of the accrediting system--in fact it was to be
responsible for certifying institutional status granted by the accrediting agencies, thus proposing to withdraw
this authority from FAAP. CHED formalized the role and relationships among CHED, FAAP and the accrediting
agencies, to wit: “CHED shall authorize federations/networks of accrediting agencies to certify to CHED the
accredited status of programs/institutions granted by their member accrediting agencies and in accordance
with their own standards, as accepted by the CHED, for granting benefits to institutions/programs at various
accredited levels..”  The institutional process linkage operates as follows: Govt. agency Federation Accrediting
agency member Individual Member CHED --------------------FAAP ------------ PAASCU or ------------------- HEI ACS-
AA or PACU-COA
18. 18.  PAASCU turned 50 years of age in 2007. 255 higher education institutions have gone or are going through
their accreditation process. The other two major agencies, PACU-COA and ACSC-AA, have processed over a
hundred additional HEIs. Still, as reported by CHED, this represents less than half of all private higher education
institutions. Nevertheless, a momentum has built up, and the numbers of applicant institutions in increasing
steadily.  The agencies themselves are rapidly developing. PAASCU, clearly the lead agency, has established
credibility internationally. It was a founding member of the International Network for Quality Assurance
Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), established in 1991. As of 2006, this network includes 150 accrediting
agencies from over 60 different countries.
19. 19.  PAASCU is also a founding member of the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN), a regional network of
higher education quality assurance associations, established in January 2003. Today it includes members from
51 countries or territories across Asia and the Pacific. PAASCU has invited staff from Cambodia’s Ministry of
Education to the Philippines to observe its whole accreditation system and process. It continues to be invited to
assist the development of accreditation in neighboring countries.  The other major accreditation agencies of
the country, under the sustained and effective guidance of FAAP, have had similar successes and have become
more stringent in their requirements. The technical committees for specific program areas, galvanized by the
recommendation of the 2000 Presidential Commission on Education Reform, have come a long way towards a
common standardization of their criteria, instrumentation and processes. Even the for-profit institutions now
recognize that investing in quality for accreditation does not diminish returns, but increases their image and
attracts more students, and thus bringing in even greater revenue.

Silicon Pyranometer, sn: 10891930, 10891931, 10891932, 10891933, 10891936, 10891937, 10891938, 10891939,
10891940, 10891943, 10891944, 10891942, 10891929, 10891935, 10891941, 10891934

6" Diameter pedestal 1468-1468.3

Nov.14, 2014

Anda mungkin juga menyukai