I. The tool used in the evaluation of the whole program is the Accreditation Instrument.  The bases of evaluation are the seven Criteria, which are reflected in the instrument, as:

• Criterion 1.  Governance and Management
  
  
• Criterion 2.  Teaching and Learning
  
  
• Criterion 3.  Faculty
  
  
• Criterion 4.  Research and Development
  
  
• Criterion 5.  Extension, Consultancy and Linkages
  
  
• Criterion 6.  Resources
  
  
• Criterion 7.  Support to Students
  
  

II. Each of the seven Criteria contains more specific parameters which are called Indicators in the APACC accreditation and certification system.  The Indicators contain one or more sub-indicators, herein called Elements.  Thus, in this scheme, we have:

I. Criterion

A. Indicators

1. Elements

which actually are generally called standards at different levels of specificity.

 

III. The Assessors will initially make their own individual evaluation of the Program based on the Self-Study Report.  The final assessment will be made only after validating the Self-Study Report data/information, and gathering additional or missing information by actually conducting interviews, reviewing documents, making observations, and conducting conferences during the on-site survey visit.

The rating system to be used adopts a scoring level of 0%, 75%, 85% and 95% which will be used against each Indicator.  In this scoring, the threshold rating is 70% in which 71%-100% is a passing mark, and 70% or below is non-passing.  The passing percentage marks are the mid-point values, i.e.

75%	-	71-80% Compliant
85%	-	81-90% Compliant
95%	-	91-100% Compliant
0%	-	0-70% Compliant

Where an Indicator includes multiple Elements, the Assessor will consider the number of Elements within each Indicator that must be met to achieve one of the possible rating levels on that Indicator.

Example

Indicator A- Administrative Structure and Bodies	Points
	Weighted	Awarded
	40	34
Is the Governing Body/Board or responsible officials supportive of the technician education program?
Is there a clear organizational structure where the functions of each administrative unit are clearly defined
Are there Academic Committees or bodies that assist the Dean/Department Chairman/Head in deciding academic matters, like, curriculum, grading system, supervision of teaching, etc?
Are there Administrative Committees or bodies that help in making decisions designed to support the technical and vocational education program?

 

Rating:

85%

 

0%	75%	85%	95%
(meets less than 2 of above elements)	(Meets 2 of above elements)	(Meets 3 of above elements)	(Meets all of above elements)

In this example, assuming that Elements 1, 2 and 3
are met, Indicator A gets a rating of 85%.

 

IV. The overall Rating of the Program will numerically form a total of weighted 1000 points which are distributed to the seven Criteria in the following scheme:

Criteria	Weighted Points
Governance and Management	100
Teaching and Learning	300
Faculty	200
Research and Development	50
Extension, Consultancy and Linkages	50
Resources	200
Support to Students	100
Total	1000

The weighted points assigned to each Criterion, (Example: Criterion I - Governance and Management - 100) are further sub-divided among the Indicators within the Criterion (Example: Under Criterion I, Indicator A - Administrative Structure and Bodies, is assigned 40 points out of the 100).

 

V. The rating system will follow this procedure.

• The points to be awarded to each Indicator will be computed by multiplying the rating earned by the weight given to the particular Indicator.  In the example above, since Indicator A is assigned a weightage of 40 and its rating is 85%, multiplying the two figures  gives a product of 34, the awarded points for Indicator A.
  
  
• The points to be awarded to each Criterion is computed by getting the sum of the Awarded Points of all its indicators.  In this case, the total points awarded to Criterion I is 79.
  
  Example: (Partly hypothetical)
  
  Criterion I.  Governance and Management

Indicators	Weighted Points	Earned Points
Administrative Structure and Bodies	40	34
Qualification of Administrative Staff	20	15
Management Systems and Procedures	40	30
Total	100	79

• To complete the overall score (Points Awarded), prepare the Summary of Points of all the Criteria.
  
  Example: (Hypothetical)

Criteria	Weighted Points	Awarded Points
I.    Governance and Management	100	79
II.   Teaching and Learning	300	225
III.  Faculty	200	150
IV.  Research and Development	50	47
V.   Extension, Consultancy and Linkages	50	37
VI.  Resources	200	150
VII. Support to Students	100	75
Total	1,000	763

 

VI. The total number of points (763) will now be used to determine what accreditation status to award.  The cut-off figure is 701 points.  Any program that is awarded 701 points or higher gets an accredited status, and those with 700 or less land to ”not accredited” status.

The accredited programs are then classified into three levels, viz

Level	Total Points	Status Awarded
I	701-800	Accredited for two years.  Barely meets threshold of the standards with deficiencies which can be improved within a period of two years.
II	801-900	Accredited for three years.  Meets standards substantially above the threshold with minor deficiencies which can be improved within a period of one to two years.
III	901-1000	Accredited for four years.  Meets standards substantially way above the threshold with minor deficiencies which can be improved within a period of six months to one year.

 

VII. In this example, the Program qualifies to be awarded a Level I Accredited status effective for a period of two years.

VIII. Indicators of Quality.  The award of accreditation status as presented above is based on quantitative measures.  To capture the qualitative flavor of the Program being assessed, certain indicators shall be assessed, but this portion of the assessment will not be rated, and thus, it will not be given weightage, nor will it  gain points, at thus stage of APACC accreditation

IX. These indicators of quality will be reported as either Commendations, Affirmations or Recommendations

• Commendations are expressions of the demonstrated strengths of the Program, e.g., it excels in providing adequately certain inputs as in excellent internet system in the library; a well-funded scholarship program, etc.  It may also be in the form of healthy practices that are proven to be doing well as in a curriculum being regularly reviewed every two years, with the wide participation of industry, students, faculty, parents, alumni and other stakeholders.  It may also be a commendation to give credit to a special achievement, like, winning in skills Olympics.
  
  
• Affirmations are acknowledgements of adequacy of certain inputs or provisions, healthy practices being adopted, or promising or potential achievements, but have yet to be proven or demonstrated to be successful, to deserve a Commendation.
  
  
• Recommendations are suggested measures to address or improve certain identifiable elements of weakness, e. g., important tools are missing or not operational, obsolete syllabi; centralized decision-making, etc.