Common use of Guidelines to assist in evaluation of applications for provisional status Clause in Contracts

Guidelines to assist in evaluation of applications for provisional status. Assessing substantial equivalence is a complex matter. The experience of the existing signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient. Confidence can only be achieved through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction between the applicant and signatories including visits to observe accreditation/recognition procedures. In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes. The same words can embrace a wide range of standards. Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can only be reliably judged by experienced people through live interaction. Applicants must give the nominators, the opportunity to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/recognition criteria. Ultimately, the applicant must demonstrate that the level and content of the studies of accredited / recognised programmes are substantially equivalent to those of the current signatories. Therefore, the programme must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution. The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years (Washington Accord), fifteen years (Sydney Accord) and 13 years (Dublin Accord). Accreditation/recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics: C.2.3.1. The signatories to the Accord must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programmes designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region). C.2.3.2. Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes within their jurisdiction. C.2.3.3. An accreditation/recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/recognition procedures and practices. Accreditation/recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as: a) The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity; b) The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programmes must be conducted in confidence; c) Those involved in the accreditation / recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to engineering accreditation / recognition, engineering education and engineering practice. d) Accreditation/recognition is of individual programmes or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole. e) Evaluations of programmes are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit. f) The criteria for accreditation/recognition should include requirements for:

Guidelines to assist in evaluation of applications for provisional status. Assessing substantial equivalence is a complex matter. The experience of the existing signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient. Confidence can only be achieved through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction between the applicant and signatories including visits to observe accreditation/recognition procedures. In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes. The same words can embrace a wide range of standards. Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can only be reliably judged by experienced people through live interaction. Applicants must give the nominators, the opportunity to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/recognition criteria. Ultimately, the applicant must demonstrate that the level and content of the studies of accredited / recognised programmes are substantially equivalent to those of the current signatories. Therefore, the programme must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution. The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years (Washington Accord), fifteen years (Sydney Accord) and 13 years (Dublin Accord). Accreditation/recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics: C.2.3.1. The signatories to the Accord must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programmes designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region). C.2.3.2. Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes within their jurisdiction. C.2.3.3. An accreditation/recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/recognition procedures and practices. Accreditation/recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as: a) The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity; b) The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programmes must be conducted in confidence; c) Those involved in the accreditation / recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to engineering accreditation / recognition, engineering education and engineering practice. d) Accreditation/recognition is of individual programmes or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole. e) Evaluations of programmes are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit. f) The criteria for accreditation/recognition should include requirements for: 1 a suitable environment to deliver the programme; 2 adequate leadership for the programme;

Guidelines to assist in evaluation of applications for provisional status. Assessing substantial equivalence is a complex matter. The experience of the existing signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient. Confidence can only be achieved through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction between the applicant and signatories including visits to observe accreditation/accreditation / recognition procedures. In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes. The same words can embrace a wide range of standards. Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can only be reliably judged by experienced people through live interaction. Applicants must give the nominators, the opportunity to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/accreditation / recognition criteria. Ultimately, the applicant must demonstrate that the level and content of the studies of accredited / recognised programmes are substantially equivalent to those of the current signatories. Therefore, the programme program must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution. The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years (Washington Accord), fifteen years (Sydney Accord) and 13 years (Dublin Accord). Accreditation/Accreditation / recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics: C.2.3.1. C.2.3.1 The signatories to the Accord must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programmes programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region). C.2.3.2. C.2.3.2 Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes programs within their jurisdiction. C.2.3.3. C.2.3.3 An accreditation/accreditation / recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/accreditation / recognition procedures and practices. Accreditation/Accreditation / recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as: a) a. The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity; b) b. The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programmes programs must be conducted in confidence; c) c. Those involved in the accreditation / recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to engineering accreditation / recognition, engineering education and engineering practice. d) Accreditation/d. Accreditation / recognition is of individual programmes programs or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole. e) e. Evaluations of programmes programs are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit. f) f. The criteria for accreditation/accreditation / recognition should include requirements for: 1. a suitable environment to deliver the program;