Policies of AccreditationThis section contains statements of the operating policies of ACEJMC. Scroll through, or click on the item you wish to see.
ACEJMC accredits units that offer professional programs that prepare students for careers in journalism and mass communications. The Council has jurisdiction only over such professional programs.
The Council evaluates only professional, not academic, master’s programs. The Council does not evaluate Ph.D. programs or other graduate and undergraduate programs that are designed as preparation for academic careers or that provide non-professional education. A professional master’s degree program in journalism and mass communications is one that prepares students to:
A professional master’s degree program would require that more than half of its courses are of a professional nature and require a professionally oriented thesis, project or comprehensive examination.
If a unit requests that its professional graduate program(s) be evaluated for accreditation, it integrates material about the graduate program into its self-study report, with information about the graduate program clearly identified in the Indicators and Evidence sections for each standard. The burden of proof is on the unit to explain how its professional graduate program meets appropriate indicators.
Site-visit teams will make a separate overall recommendation for the accreditation status of the graduate program. It is possible that a team could recommend (and the Committee and Council approve) a different status for a unit’s undergraduate program and its professional graduate program.
Every precaution must be taken to ensure that all participants in the accrediting process develop and express objective opinions and make decisions free from self-interest and personal bias. It is essential that the accrediting process be as free as possible from even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Accordingly, members of site visit teams, the Committee and the Council must disqualify themselves from accepting site visit invitations or participating in the discussion of and voting upon accreditation issues in which they have a conflict of interest. The Council's administrative staff members also must guard against conflicts of interest in all accreditation activities.
The primary responsibility for determining potential conflicts of interest rests with each participant in the accrediting process. Participants who question whether they have a conflict of interest should consult with the President of the Council.
Those with conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
Committee or Council members whose units are being considered for accreditation or reaccreditation may not vote on those units. Such Committee or Council members must leave the table, but may remain in the room. Such members may not participate during the discussion but may respond to questions when requested to do so by other Committee or Council members.
Committee or Council members who have been a part of a site team for the unit under discussion may not vote on that unit. They must leave the table but may remain in the room and respond to questions from other Committee or Council members. They must not introduce more information into the discussion than is already available from the formal written materials before the Committee or the Council. The purpose here is to create fair and equitable conditions for those units whose site teams may not be represented on the Committee and Council.
Conflict-of-interest challenges will be resolved by the Chair of the Committee and the President of the Council at their respective regular meetings.
This policy refers to the concept of conflict of interest in the context of accreditation decisions. The prohibitions and limitations are not intended to exclude participation and decision-making in other areas, such as policy development and standard setting.
When the Council decides to award provisional accreditation or to deny accreditation altogether, the president of the Council, in a letter, informs the president of the institution and the administrator of the journalism/mass communications unit and gives the reasons for the Council's action. The appeal procedure open to the institution is explained in this letter.
If the president of the institution desires to appeal the decision, it must be done in writing within thirty (30) days of notification of the accrediting decision by the ACEJMC president. Appeals of accreditation decisions must be based on one or both of the following grounds: 1) evidence that the Council failed to adhere to applicable adopted procedures; 2) evidence that, based upon the record before the Council, the decision was arbitrary and capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. Appeals must be made in writing and must be based on concrete evidence that was in the record before the Council at the time of the original decision.
The ACEJMC president shall, within thirty (30) days after receiving a statement of appeal, send each of the members of the Appeals Board a copy of the statement. The chair of the Appeals Board immediately shall notify the members of the visit team, sending to each member a copy of the statement of appeal. The visit team members shall, within fifteen (15) days, respond to the appeal statement in writing addressed to the chair of the Appeals Board, who shall send copies of the visit team's responses to each member of the Board.
The Appeals Board will meet in open session at some time preceding the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council. The chief administrative officers of the institution making the appeal and the site team chair shall be notified of the time, date, and place of the meeting. They may attend the meeting, present oral and written arguments, and receive questions from the Appeals Board. The institution has the right to representation by counsel in any appeal proceedings.
Ordinarily, the Appeals Board will base its recommended decision upon relevant written documents, but at its discretion it may consider the points raised in the oral and written presentations. The chair writes a summary of the Appeals Board's recommendation to ACEJMC. The Appeals Board's recommendation and the chair's written summary should be given to Council members not later than the night before the ACEJMC meeting. The chair of the Appeals Board presents the recommendation to ACEJMC members.
ACEJMC then considers the recommendation by the Appeals Board and exercises its responsibility for making the final accreditation decision. The ACEJMC president will notify the chief administrator of the institution and the administrator of the journalism and mass communications unit in a letter of the decision on the appeal and the reasons for the decision.
All expenses of the appeal, including travel, shall be paid by the institution initiating the appeal. Eighty percent of the estimated costs of the appeal hearing must be sent to the ACEJMC office two weeks before the date of the scheduled Appeals Board meeting.
While an appeal is pending and before a decision on the appeal is made by ACEJMC, there shall be no change in the accredited status for the institution making the appeal.
Students, faculty, staff, administrators and other persons may report incidents in which they can present evidence an accredited unit or ACEJMC has violated accreditation standards, policies or procedures. The Council requires administrators of accredited units to inform their units of this policy.
All meetings of the Accrediting Council and its committees are open to the public. This includes meetings of the Accrediting Committee and the Appeals Board. Votes on accrediting decisions are taken in open session. The Council may go into closed session when the discussion centers on individuals; however, no official action may be taken in closed session, and all other discussions that do not focus on individuals will be open.
If any of these methods reveals potential problems, the Council may appoint a committee to examine any standard and determine whether it remains a valid, reliable and relevant indicator of educational quality. This examination may lead to a recommendation for revision of the standard. Potential problems of validity, reliability or relevancy of the Council's processes may be resolved similarly, or may be resolved administratively.
The Council measures the validity of its accreditation standards and the processes by which they are applied by determining whether they actually assess 1) the quality of a journalism/mass communications program and 2) the efforts of a program to improve its quality. The Council measures the relevancy of the standards and processes by determining whether they are related to the current educational and training needs of students of journalism and mass communications. The Council measures the reliability of the standards and processes by determining whether they provide a consistent basis for assessing the educational quality of different programs.
The Council uses the following methods to ensure the validity and relevancy of its standards and processes:
Congruency with external agencies' recognition criteria: The Council's staff examines the standards and processes annually to determine whether they remain congruent with the recognition criteria set by the Commission on Higher Education Accreditation.
Validation by affected parties: After each annual accreditation review cycle, the Council's staff sends a questionnaire to each site team chair and the administrator of each program that has been reviewed. This questionnaire specifically asks these individuals to assess the validity, reliability and relevancy of the Council's standards and processes. The Council's staff conducts a statistical analysis of responses to the survey.
Broad contributions to revision: The Council ensures and documents that the broadest possible communities of interest contribute to developments or revisions of the standards and processes.
Review of noncompliance findings: The Council's staff reports annually to the Council the number of noncompliance findings reported for each standard.
Regular review of standards: Every 10 years, the Council appoints a Standards Review Committee. This committee undertakes a full review of the accrediting standards, using the records of the above-mentioned processes and any other appropriate sources. This committee may recommend revision of the standards.
The Council uses the following methods to ensure the reliability of its standards and processes:
Preparation of site team members: The Council conducts several training sessions annually designed to increase site team members' knowledge of the accrediting process. Attendance at these sessions is not required of experienced team members but is strongly encouraged for potential new team members. Each site team member receives a manual that explains the activities and responsibilities of a site team.
Evaluation of site visits: After each site visit, the unit administrator and the chair of the site visit team are each asked to provide an evaluation of the site visit and the work of the team members. The evaluations are sent to the executive director. The purposes of this review are to evaluate the process and the procedures used in making site visits, to guide the executive director and others in the selection of team members for subsequent visits, and to develop general information about the work of site visit teams for training sessions for prospective team members.
Experience of site team chairs: Individuals are assigned to the position of site team chair only after they have served as members of several site teams and have demonstrated leadership and an understanding of the accreditation process.
Records of previous decisions: The Council's staff maintains records that show, for each accreditation decision, findings of noncompliance with standards, accreditation recommendations by site teams and the Accrediting Committee, accreditation decisions by the Accrediting Council, and explanatory comment. These records may be used to ensure that current decisions are congruent with previous decisions.
Within 30 days of the decision, the Council notifies other appropriate accrediting agencies, appropriate State regulatory agencies, and the public of: final decisions to award accreditation, re-accreditation, or provisional accreditation; final decisions to deny, withdraw, suspend, or terminate any unit's accreditation, or take other adverse action; and final decisions by units to voluntarily withdraw from accreditation or allow their accreditation to lapse.
Within 60 days of a final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, or terminate any unit's accreditation, or take other adverse action, the Council makes available to other appropriate accrediting agencies, appropriate State regulatory agencies, and the public on request, a brief statement of the reasons for the decision, accompanied by any comments the affected unit may wish to make regarding the decision.
The Council submits to the Commission on Higher Education Accreditation copies of its annually updated directory of accredited programs; any proposed changes in its policies, procedures, or accreditation standards that might alter its scope of recognition or compliance with requirements of the Commission; any annual report it may prepare; and any annual data summary, or other information, that the Commission may request.
Shortly after its meetings, ACEJMC releases a report of the Council's actions regarding the accreditation status of institutions that it reviews. The public announcement of its actions is made after ACEJMC notifies the institutions and provides them an explanation of the decisions.
Schools that receive provisional status will carry that designation in all of the Council's published information. These schools are required by the Council, when they use the term "accreditation," to list themselves as having provisional status. Schools seeking accreditation for the first time may be granted provisional status; however, they will not be listed in any Council material until they obtain full accreditation.
ACEJMC also encourages its accredited institutions to publicize the accredited designation in school literature and on their web pages. Institutions should ensure that such publicity about accreditation accurately reflects ACEJMC actions. Ideally, such publicity will include the specific academic or instructional programs covered by accreditation status and the name, address and telephone number of ACEJMC. The institution should ensure that making public a portion of the team report does not present a misleading picture of the content of the overall evaluation.
The Council president or executive director will notify the president of an institution when ACEJMC becomes aware that the school's use of the term "accreditation" or the release of a portion of the team's report is not in accord with ACEJMC action or is otherwise misleading. ACEJMC will ask the institution to correct the situation. If the institution is unwilling to do so, the Council may release the full report or issue a statement to clarify the accreditation status of a unit or specialty.
The Council keeps complete and accurate records of accreditation reviews of each program, including: site team reports; responses by units to team reports; reports of any interim, periodic, or special reviews; and the program's most recent self-study report. The Council also keeps complete records of: all accreditation decisions; minutes of Council and Committee meetings; correspondence and supporting documents relating to appeals and complaints; general correspondence; and other documents related to its accrediting activities.