This study explored the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and the evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan-related issues that provide to educational authorities to implement the reference teacher education accreditation system in the future. The quality of teacher education is one of the important factors which are connected with national development and competitiveness. In view of the fact that the evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan is important in determining quality of teacher education, improving the progress of teacher education program, and to pursue excellence of system. The study aims to explore TEAC and its implications for the evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan. The study employs three methods of collecting data, including literature review, G. Z. F. Bereday's Comparative Method, and Delphi Method. So we use the methods to explore of TEAC and its implications for the evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan. According to the results, the following conclusions have been concluded: 1. Lacking of teacher education accreditation institutions dedicated units 2. Evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan lacks characteristics of self-evaluation 3. Evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan must be a standardized set of teacher education accreditation principles, objectives and process sequence 4. Evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan experts and members of the organization to be defined 5. Lacking of regular evaluation procedures and appeal procedures 6. Results of the using are the difference between TEAC and Evaluation of teacher education in Taiwan Based upon the above conclusions, some suggestions have been raised by the researcher to play a solid basis for teacher education accreditation and to upgrade the quality of future institution.

High-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) are linked to positive developmental outcomes for children. Systems have been created to define, measure and promote high-quality ECEC. National accreditation status is deemed the gold standard of a high-quality program, yet many centers are unable to achieve this without assistance. With the help of Accreditation Facilitation Projects (AFPs), many low-income centers are able to achieve accreditation. Centers collaborating with an AFP reap many benefits including financial support, ongoing training and mentoring, and guidance through the accreditation process. AFPs invest greatly in the centers they collaborate with and the longer the center takes to achieve accreditation, the more resources an AFP must expend. The purposes of this study were to understand if the educational level of center director, the total enrollment of a center, or the percentage of children receiving government subsidies could predict the time it takes for a center to complete the accreditation process while receiving assistance from an AFP, and to determine if there are differences in attitudes about program accreditation between center directors and early learning specialists who serve as accreditation mentors to the directors. Findings revealed that a) the higher educational level of program directors is associated with a quicker time to program accreditation, b) both the total enrollment of the center and the percentage of children receiving government subsidies do not predict time to accreditation, c) the number of total staff in a center is associated with a quicker time to accreditation, and d) there is no significant difference between the directors' attitudes and early learning specialists' attitudes toward accreditation and accreditation facilitation projects. AFPs looking to streamline their accreditation process and provide accountability to their stakeholders regarding their investments over time can use these findings to choose to collaborate with centers that have directors who have at least a bachelor's degree in order to shorten the time to accreditation.

No description available.

Accreditation is a federally recognized review process of quality assurance in higher education and is intended to engage institutions in continuous efforts to improve quality. If a college does not receive a positive evaluation as a result of an accreditation review, its regional accrediting agency may impose a sanction until that time when the college can fix deficiencies identified during the evaluation process. In California, the number of public community colleges having a sanction imposed by the western region’s Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) has increased since the turn of the century, rising from one college on sanction in 2003 to as many as 27 colleges on sanction in 2012. From 2008 through 2013, 70 of California’s 112 community colleges had experienced a sanction. Of those, 49 made recommended improvements and had their accreditation reaffirmed within two years. However, some colleges take longer to make improvements and to have the sanction lifted. Focusing on colleges that successfully removed a sanction, this study employed a qualitative research approach using multiple methods: a survey questionnaire and a multiple case study of two colleges. Accreditation Liaison Officers from eight colleges responded to the survey. Two colleges participated in the multiple case study in which administrators, managers, faculty, and classified staff were interviewed. Survey and interview participants were asked what they believed were the organizational behaviors and characteristics that contributed to their successful removal of the sanction. Findings indicate that successful colleges did not delay responding to the sanction; they organized human resources into work groups to accomplish tasks; they mapped out plans and created timelines for completion; they increased communication efforts across campus; they involved many persons from their multiple constituent groups; and they documented all work and accomplishments. Findings also indicate that leaders at successful colleges are effective communicators and organizers; value the accreditation process; exhibit trust, respect, and openness, and work collaboratively and collegially. The findings in this study may provide helpful information to sanctioned colleges in the future. / text

published_or_final_version / Public Health / Master / Master of Public Health

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Liberty University School of Education, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2008. / Title from title screen (site viewed June 26, 2009). PDF text: xi, 298 p. : ill. ; 13 Mb. UMI publication number: AAT 3350298. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in microfilm and microfiche formats.

Athletic training is an allied healthcare profession which at the present time offers two routes for certification. Students can sit for the National Athletic Trainers Association Board of Certification (NATABOC) through successfully completing either an accredited curriculum program or an internship program and pass the NATABOC examination in order to practice as a certified athletic trainer. In January 2004, the internship option towards certification will be eliminated. If institutions want to continue to qualify students to take the NATABOC examination, they must develop curriculum programs that meet the Standards and Guidelines set by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP) before this date. To develop an athletic training education program, Program Directors must implement the new standards into their programs in accordance with CAAHEP and institutional policies. The purpose of this study was to survey current Athletic Training Education Program Directors and identify how they developed their programs, with their available resources, to meet CAAHEP accreditation standards. The population selected to identify and describe the current trends of program development included Program Directors from all currently accredited undergraduate athletic training programs (N = 114). Of the 114 participants surveyed, 53 (46%) responded. Using Internet technology, a cross-sectional survey instrument was constructed to electronically survey current Program Directors of accredited undergraduate athletic training programs. The data gathered were primarily informational, and the analysis of this data was descriptive in nature. Data analysis identified, trends regarding the demographics of current Program Directors, curricular patterns, and institutional support roles. The new CAAHEP standards appear to necessitate greater institutional support in terms of faculty and resources, scientific and technological upgrades in curriculum, and clearly defined academic placement for Program Directors. / Ph. D.

Not available / text

Research studies show that potential barriers may hinder a successful accreditation process. This research study examined perceptions of Mississippi’s community/junior college administrators relating to the accreditation process in general, their communication with the regional accrediting agency, and their institution’s facilitation of the accreditation process. 150 administrators participated in an online survey containing 36 questions. Likert-scale response set type questions were used to provide precise information related to the research. Two open-ended questions were also used to provide for a deeper understanding of the administrators’ perceptions. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. ANOVA tests were run to determine if differences existed in the administrators’ perceptions based on the administrators’ size of institution, latest accreditation process, or position titles. The findings of the study showed that the administrators agreed or strongly agreed with the majority of the survey statements related to the accreditation process in general, their communication with the regional accrediting agency, and their institution’s facilitation of the accreditation process. In addition, the findings indicated that there were no significant differences in administrators’ perceptions related to the accreditation process. An analysis of the responses to the two open-ended questions suggested the need for consistency in elements relating to the peer review committee’s training, experience, and size, and the need for consistency in information and communication from the accrediting agency. Responses also indicated a need for additional funding and personnel. Major themes drawn from the administrators’ documented perceptions included the following: (a) the self-study (compliance certification) was a major component of the accreditation process in general; (b) a liaison between the institution and the accrediting agency was a necessity for communication between the two entities; and (c) the leadership committee provided adequate assistance to facilitate the process at the institutional level. The size of the institution, the latest initiation of the process, and the position titles within the institution made no significant statistical difference in the administrators’ perceptions.