9/9/2011 revision 1
ACCREDITATION MANUAL
FOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL
REHABILITATION EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
Includes accreditation standards, recognition requirements, and evaluation
procedures of the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and
Accreditation (CUSA)
Approved and monitored by the
COUNCIL ON REHABILITATION EDUCATION (CORE)
1699 Woodfield Rd., Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173
(847) 944-1345
www.core-rehab.org
9/9/2011 revision 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I History of Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA)...…...…………. 4
Mission of CORE Accreditation...……….……….. 5
Objectives of Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education Programs (URE)…………..……….. 6
Composition of CORE and Two Commissions……… 7
Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation..………..………. 8
Recognition and Eligibility Criteria ...………. 9
Accreditation Application Procedures………. 10
Evaluation Procedures………..……... 11
Focus on Academic Quality….……… 13
Accreditation Review Process………..……….. 15
Site Visit Process, Policies, and Procedures……… 15
Site Visitor Pool……… 15
Site Visit Team ...……….………... 15
Site Visit Preparation……… 16
Site Visit Agenda………... 17
Preliminary Review Committee Report………..…………. 17
Site Visit Evaluation……….……… 18
Monitoring Process………. 18
Notification of Decisions……… 19
Appeals Procedures………. 19
General Procedures……….…………... 19
Informal Appeals Conference……….………. 20
Formal Arbitration……….……… 21
Reapplication Procedures ……….… 22
Withdrawal Procedures………..……… 22
Annual Time Line………. 23
Annual Fees……… 24
Section II Standards for Undergraduate Rehabilitation Programs………. 24
Background of Standards…..……….. 25
Sect. A - Program Eligibility Criteria…….………... 26
Sect. B - Mission and Objectives……….………… 28
Sect. C - Curriculum Standards………..……….. 28
Sect. D- Program Evaluation……….. 37
Section III Application for Undergraduate Accreditation Evaluation.……… 39
Types of Recognition………. 40
Eligibility Requirements……… 41
Supporting Evidence for Application……… 41
Application for Evaluation – Due Date………..…………. 42
9/9/2011 revision 3
Section IV Policies ……… 44
Accreditation Extension………. 44
Accredited – On Probation………. 45
Annual Program Review……….………..…. 45
Attendance at Meetings……….….... 45
Commission on Standards and Accreditation……… 45
Complaints Received about Standards or Compliance………... 45
On-Site Review………..…..…………46 CORE Actions………. 46 Confidentiality……… 47 Conflict of Interest……….. 47 Consultation Policy………. 48 Double Majors………. 49 Fees………..…... 49 Length of Accreditation………. 50 Licensure Disclosure……….. 51
Minutes of Board, Commission, and Committee Meetings……… 51
Mission Statement……….. 51
Multiple Programs……….. 51
Non-Accreditation………... 51
Non-Discrimination……… 52
Organization Membership on CORE or the Undergraduate Commission……… 52
Outcomes……… 53
Preliminary Review Committee Report………. 53
Public Disclosure……… 53
Public Interest………..… 53
Public Members of CORE………. 54
Recognition……….... 55
Reimbursement Policy……….. 55
Responsibilities of Individual Undergraduate Commission and CORE Members……… 55
Research Policy……….. 56
Retention of Records………. 58
Review of Factual Accuracy………. 58
Specialization………. 58
Standards Revision………..…………...58
Submission Deadline for a Self-Study………..…..58
Substantive Program Changes……….59
Meaning of Substantive Change………..………... 59
Procedures for Substantive Change…...………60
Submission of Undergraduate Self-Study in Electronic Format……….…… 61
Self-Study Accreditation Application………... 61
Preparation of CD/DVDs or Hardcopy……….…… 61
Electronic Format Guidelines………. 62
Terms of Accreditation………. 62
Vitae for All Faculty Teaching in Program………. 63
Web Accessibility Guidelines……… 63
9/9/2011 revision 4
SECTION I
HISTORY OF COMMISSION
ON UNDERGRADUATE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION (CUSA)
When CORE was founded in 1971, it was organized in a way that would permit accreditation for various educational levels and professional specializations within the field of rehabilitation. As early as 1978, CORE began discussing the possibility of accrediting Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education (URE) programs. In fact, a number of universities offered rehabilitation bachelor’s degrees at that time, and many undergraduate educators felt that accreditation standards would promote consistency at that level and strengthen the overall identity of the profession.
In the early 1990s, several undergraduate rehabilitation educators began meeting to promote the idea of accreditation. They met with the CORE Board at several of their annual meetings and received guidance and support for the development of undergraduate program and curriculum standards. Originally called the Commission on Undergraduate Education, these individuals collaborated closely with a rehabilitation educators from the US, Canada, and Ireland in developing culturally inclusive and rigorous academic standards for undergraduate rehabilitation programs. This led to the development of the Undergraduate Registry in 1999, designed to establish program and curriculum standards for such programs. Programs qualified for the Registry by submitting a Self-Study which documented how they met the established standards. No site visit was required as part of this process. If programs demonstrated by their Self-Study that they met the educational and program standards, the Commission recommended to the CORE Board that the program be placed on the Registry. Currently there are 29 programs on the Registry. The Commission is responsible for overseeing the Registry.
Beginning in 2005, annual conferences were held which brought together educators and administrators to discuss the unique needs of URE. The first conference was held in Memphis and resulted in several white papers that addressed the specific needs and challenges of undergraduate rehabilitation accreditation. The white papers provided future direction for the field, making recommendations regarding such important areas as professional identity, scope of practice, credentialing, and accreditation. Conferences in subsequent years were held in Chicago (2006, 2009), University Park, Pennsylvania (2007), and St. Louis (2010). One outgrowth of the conferences was the development and implementation of a national role and function study, which provided an empirical basis for establishing undergraduate curriculum standards.
The CORE Board was apprised of these developments at their annual meetings. In 2008, the Board asked the Commission to develop a process for implementing the accreditation of undergraduate rehabilitation programs. Since that time, a number of work teams have been involved in the overall design of the process and the writing of specific program and curriculum standards. The accreditation process was refined during the summer of 2010 as a result of an accreditation pilot study of selected undergraduate programs. Based on these results, a formal application to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) for a Change of Scope of the accreditation of CORE to include undergraduate rehabilitation accreditation was submitted during the fall of 2011.
9/9/2011 revision 5 MISSION OF CORE ACCREDITATION
The mission of CORE accreditation is to promote the effective delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities by promoting and fostering continuing review and improvement of undergraduate-level rehabilitation andgraduate-level rehabilitation counselor education programs. CORE’s accreditation process promotes program self-improvement rather than outside censure. A concomitant purpose is to meet the personnel needs of both public and private rehabilitation agencies by providing graduates who have demonstrated through academic achievement the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to provide rehabilitation services to individuals with physical, mental, and/or emotional needs. It may also serve to assist in the development and refinement of university-based programs related to the education of persons for professional endeavors associated with the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities.
The broad-based membership of CORE plus the varied composition of its Commissions assures effective, impartial, and objective public representation in CORE’s evaluation, policies, and decision-making processes. This assurance is achieved by maintaining appropriate representation on CORE and the Commissions of relevant publics including rehabilitation educators,
rehabilitation professionals (including rehabilitation counselors, employers of rehabilitation professionals), the public served by rehabilitation professionals, and the public at large.
CORE utilizes a multifaceted approach to access quality of programs and the standards established. CORE bases its activities on the general acceptance of the following objectives of professional education that have been generalized from field surveys of the several constituencies concerned with the education, performance, and goals of practitioners in rehabilitation. A major factor in the review of academic quality by CORE, in addition to curriculum, is examination of the mission and objectives of programs by individuals outside of the academic institution.
Objectives that are based on the CORE mission include:
1. Promoting a high standard of professional education in rehabilitation services and fostering on-going program development for the preparation of competent professionals at the bachelor’s level.
2. Designing innovative learning experiences that are applicable to real life situations and using technology in creative and imaginative ways to broaden the educational experience of students.
3. Reassessing, redefining, and re-evaluating program criteria as the needs of the profession and the needs of people with disabilities evolve.
4. Using a consultative model to assist with the development of new URE programs.
5. Ensuring that all qualified applicants for admission into URE programs, along with all students who participate in URE programs, are treated fairly, respectfully, and without any unfair discrimination.
9/9/2011 revision 6 6. Fostering mutual respect and collaboration between URE programs and master’s programs in rehabilitation counseling, as well as between URE programs and other related undergraduate and graduate programs.
7. Advancing the practice of rehabilitation services by emphasizing the importance of employment in the lives of people with disabilities.
8. Providing competent graduates to meet the personnel needs of community-based, public and private rehabilitation programs
9. Periodically publishing a roster of recognized programs for rehabilitation professionals, the public, government agencies, and prospective students.
10. Enhancing the position of mutual respect and acceptance of URE programs within the academic community.
OBJECTIVES OF UNDERGRADUATE REHABILITATION EDUCATION (URE) The objectives include:
1. A URE Program has an ultimate goal of assuring that individuals with disabilities receive the high quality of services to which they are entitled. It should provide its students with the opportunity to:
a. Acquire a sound, basic education in rehabilitation;
b. Develop the lifelong habit of updating skills and professionalism;
c. Assist individuals with disabilities in developing their own resources and opportunities to meet their developmental, vocational, & educational needs;
d. Nourish a commitment to individual human values;
e. Exercise skills and competencies on a high ethical level and with personal integrity; and
f. Maintain a critical, questioning, and exploratory attitude.
2. A URE Program should contribute to the development of practitioners, educators, and researchers through its program of academic instruction and clinical training toward the overall goal of improving practice in the rehabilitation profession in general and in the specific area of professional application.
3. A URE Program should develop personnel committed to the field of rehabilitation who can provide effective services to individuals with disabilities, including individuals with severe disabilities.
4. A URE Program should contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of rehabilitation through research and the demonstrated application of significant findings.
9/9/2011 revision 7 COMPOSITION OF CORE AND TWO COMMISSIONS
The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) is composed of 12 individuals appointed from CORE sponsoring organizations and two public members. Membership includes public members (2) which represent the consumer public and the public at large. The sponsoring organizations are professional organizations concerned with rehabilitation counseling and include: the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) (2), the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) (1), and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB) (1). The last two members of CORE are the Chairs of the two Commissions on Standards and Accreditation who shall also be voting members of CORE. All appointees to CORE should be Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCs), except the public members. CORE appointees may serve two consecutive four-year terms. The Graduate Commission on Standards and Accreditation is the evaluation component of CORE. It is the responsibility of the Commission to evaluate programs for their compliance with standards and to recommend to CORE the granting of recognition. The Graduate Commission is comprised of at least 15 and no more than 20 individuals who serve for a four-year term with a maximum of two full terms. The Commission consists of representatives from CORE’s sponsoring organizations, professional organizations associated with academic areas to be accredited, and other at-large nominees from rehabilitation organizations, consumer groups, and publics.
Appointments to the Graduate Commission are made by CORE upon receipt of nominations from designated organizations or groups. The sponsoring organizations/groups are as follows: the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) (1), the National Association of Multicultural Rehabilitation Concerns (NAMRC) (1), the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) (2), the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) (2), the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (1), the Vocational Evaluation and Career Assessment Professionals (VECAP) (1), the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR) (1), and the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) (1).
The Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) is responsible for recommendations to CORE for the standards and criteria required for undergraduate programs in Rehabilitation Services and Disability Studies. It will consist of at least 9 and no more than 20 individuals. The Commission shall consist of representatives associated with academic areas addressed in the Registry, and other at-large nominees from undergraduate institutions, rehabilitation organizations, consumers groups, and members of the public. All nominations must be ratified by a majority vote of the CORE membership. Membership shall be for a four-year term with a maximum of two full terms. In the event of a Commissioner resignation, the Commission will nominate a new member by majority vote. That nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the CORE membership and will begin a new term.
9/9/2011 revision 8 COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION CORE is the body responsible for establishing policy and procedures and making final decisions regarding the accreditation of undergraduate and graduate rehabilitation education programs. The Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) is the evaluative component for undergraduate rehabilitation education within CORE. The Undergraduate Commission evaluates programs for their compliance with standards and recommends to CORE the granting of recognition. There shall be at least 9 and no more than 20 members of CUSA. Membership on CUSA takes place after nomination from appropriate organizations (see below) and upon approval by CORE. Terms of membership shall be for four years. Members may serve a maximum of two full terms. Nominees will be asked to complete an application form indicating their interest in, and experience with, undergraduate rehabilitation education.
CORE will consider applications for new organization membership on CORE or the Undergraduate Commission as interest may emerge. Applications may be obtained from the CORE Office and may be submitted at any time. The application must include the following: (1) a brief description of the mission of the organization for which representation is desired, (2) the number of representatives requested, (3) rationale for representation, (4) background information of individual organization desiring representation (name, address, phone, contact person), (5) statement or agreement to cover related expenses for attendance at regularly scheduled meetings, and (6) willingness to participate in and follow the responsibilities of the component as outlined in the CORE Bylaws. Approval of new organization membership on the CORE Board or the Undergraduate Commission requires a two-thirds vote of the CORE membership.
CUSA shall be made up of at least eight representatives from major professional rehabilitation organizations such as the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE), the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Inc. (NCSAB), the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR), the Association of Community Rehabilitation Educators (ACRE), the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP), the International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services (IAPSRS), the National Rehabilitation Association (NRA), and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).
The Undergraduate Commission ideally will also include up to three representatives from consumer groups representing persons with disabilities, such as: the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the Association for Persons in Supported Employment (APSE), the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the Disability Policy Coalition.
There shall be at least one member on CUSA who represents the general public.
Both CORE and its Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation have a responsibility to:
9/9/2011 revision 9 2. Apply the Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education standards in an objective and
consistent manner.
3. Assess the degree to which programs have achieved compliance with all other CORE standards.
4. Exercise professional judgment during program reviews. 5. Attend appropriate CORE or CUSA meetings each year.
6. Actively participate in site visitor training at least once every five years (generally this can be done at spring and fall NCRE conferences).
7. Obtain financial support from the sponsoring organization to attend the annual CORE board meeting or the annual CUSA meeting each year.
RECOGNITION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
There are two types of recognition for URE programs granted by CORE. Recognition is granted only upon recommendation from the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) after that body reviews a program’s compliance with applicable standards. The types of recognition are: Candidate for Accreditation and Full Accreditation. First-time applicants may be granted accreditation for up to three years. Programs previously accredited may be granted accreditation for up to eight years. Based on the nature of the conditions, either type of program may be granted accreditation for two years. Upon correction of the conditions, accreditation may be extended for up to three years for new programs and up to eight years for previously accredited programs.
1. CANDIDATE FOR ACCREDITATION: Recognition granted to programs that are in
the early stages of development or implementation, up to the point of graduating 20 students. This recognition provides evidence that a program complies with all standards except those having to do with the performance of graduates. Programs granted this recognition are considered to be accredited by CORE.
Candidate for Accreditation recognition is granted by CORE only when there is an understanding that the program plans to eventually seek Full Accreditation. A program need not have begun course instruction to apply. Programs not eligible for Full Accreditation are encouraged to seek ongoing consultation with persons experienced and educated in the preparation of programs for URE accreditation. Recognition as a Candidate for Accreditation may be granted to a program for a period of up to three years.
2. FULL ACCREDITATION: Recognition granted to programs that have been fully
operational long enough to allow for the objective assessment of the professional performance of graduates. The program must have at least 20 students who have graduated from the program at the time of the site visit, and have the equivalent of at least one full-time faculty position assigned to the program under consideration. This recognition provides evidence that a program complies with all standards and is deemed capable of maintaining that level of compliance throughout the duration of the recognition period. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The following criteria are the minimal requirements necessary to be considered for either type of recognition:
9/9/2011 revision 10
Have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered;
Have a person designated as coordinator, or the equivalent, in a position who is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) or has a credential that provides evidence of knowledge or experience in rehabilitation education acceptable to the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation.
Have a written statement of the program mission, objectives, curriculum, and criteria for student selection.
ACCREDITATION APPLICATION PROCEDURES
An educational program seeking recognition by CORE must apply for consideration. For any type of recognition a program may seek, the application process is similar and is designed to assure that the program meets the eligibility requirements.
The application consists of an application form, an application fee, and specified program information. The application form requires the signature of the program coordinator and appropriate institutional official(s). It serves as:
1. A contract between CORE and the institution for conducting appropriate evaluations and handling payment of appropriate fees;
2. Authorization for CORE to collect information from specified persons in the evaluation process;
3. Authorization for CORE to inform other relevant accreditation bodies of the fact that the program has applied for recognition;
4. Authorization for CORE to publish any recognition that is granted in listings of recognized programs and to respond to relevant inquiries; and
5. Agreement for the evaluation to be based on standards and procedures in effect at the time of the application, subject to prior notification of those standards and the opportunity to withdraw the application.
The application fee serves to keep the application active for at least one full year unless the institution withdraws its application. The fee is not refundable. Descriptions and data are requested in sufficient detail to determine whether the program meets the eligibility requirements.
Consideration for CORE recognition is an annual process. Applications for recognition are made in April. Data collection and evaluation occur between August of one year through any submission of supplemental information from the program. Application forms and instructions are typically updated annually to indicate the deadline date for application, time lines for eligibility decisions and data collection, and the specifications for program information to be submitted as part of the application.
9/9/2011 revision 11 In considering program eligibility, the CORE office determines: (1) the sufficiency of information submitted for making a decision and requests additional information as needed, (2) whether the mission and goals of the program are relevant to professional preparation that CORE can appropriately evaluate and recognize, and (3) whether the program meets the stated eligibility requirements. If the program meets the eligibility requirements for a type of recognition different from that for which application was made, then that determination is reported to the program. Programs which are eligible for recognition are informed of that fact and entered into further data collection and evaluation during the current cycle.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Once a program is found to be eligible for consideration by CORE, the process is as follows: 1. The CORE administrative office notifies the members of the Commission on
Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) and the regional accrediting body for the parent institution, that the program is being evaluated for a specified type of recognition.
2. Data collection forms and instructions are sent by the CORE office to the undergraduate program coordinator for completion or distribution. The coordinator completes the form providing Self-Study materials and distributes individual questionnaires to students in their final year of the undergraduate program and to recent graduates and their employers.
3. The coordinator sends a listing of persons to whom questionnaires were distributed to the CORE office for use in follow-up and verification.
4. The coordinator sends the completed Self-Study Document to the CORE office.
5. Upon receipt and review of the Self-Study Document, the CORE office may request additional information from the program coordinator or return the document if it is not prepared according to the established guidelines.
6. Upon CORE’s receipt of all information and data from individual respondents, quantifiable responses are tabulated.
7. The Self-Study Document and analysis of program data and ratings are submitted to the site visit team.
8. The site visit is conducted.
9. The site visit team prepares the Preliminary Review Committee Report (PRCR) of program strengths and deficiencies based on information obtained through the program Self-Study and the on-site review. The PRCR is sent to the program coordinator to provide an opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the report.
9/9/2011 revision 12 10. The program coordinator submits any additional factual or clarifying information to the site visit team for consideration in preparation of the Final Review Committee Report to the Undergraduate Commission.
11. At the annual CUSA meeting, at least two Commission members who have not previously reviewed the materials submitted, examine all documentation and prepare a Final Summary Report with appropriate rationale and specific recommendations and/or conditions. 12. In official session, the Commission edits and approves a Final Summary Report of the
program concluding with recommendations to CORE regarding recognition. The Chair of the Commission presents this report to CORE.
13. In the event that the Commission is unable to forward an accreditation recommendation for a program reviewed in a formal Commission meeting, a specific justification for no recommendation will be provided to CORE along with specific recommendations for actions to assist the program in the accreditation process. The Chair of the Commission will submit this rationale to CORE so there is a record of the disposition of the program’s accreditation application and review. CORE, in consultation with the Chair of the Commission, will communicate the decision to the program coordinator and develop appropriate timelines and procedures to complete the review process, if needed. In cases of programs applying for reaffirmation of their accredited status, accreditation of the program will continue until CORE has reached a final decision.
14. In official session, CORE completes final editing and makes a decision on program recognition at its annual meeting.
15. The results of CORE’s decision regarding recognition, conditions and/or recommendations for program improvement, are provided in writing to the program coordinator and chief administrative institutional officer signing the application. The appropriate regional accrediting body is notified of the recognition decision.
16. During the last year of its designated term of recognition, the undergraduate program may reapply for a new term of recognition. All procedures used in the process are the same as for new applicants.
17. Programs that are denied recognition may reapply during the academic year following the decision not to grant recognition or anytime thereafter. Reapplication cannot be initiated during an appeals process.
FOCUS ON ACADEMIC QUALITY
Academic quality is determined by the extent to which each program implements the several standards/criteria that have been established by the profession to effectively deliver important teaching, learning, research, and service to individuals with disabilities. These factors are often listed as components of program mission statements. Evidence of academic quality is demonstrated and achieved by effective use of trained site reviewers, a multi-level accreditation
9/9/2011 revision 13 review process, up-to-date preparation standards, feedback from a variety of stakeholders: employers of graduates, recent graduates and current students in final stages of their rehabilitation programs, as well as, the performance (employment success) of graduates. Continuous evaluation and review of accreditation standards is critical to the success and performance of graduates. CORE has established and revised several procedures for obtaining feedback to assess the success and quality of accredited programs. To evaluate academic quality, input must be obtained regarding the scope of curriculum, the value of internship and related field experiences, the training of program reviewers, the feedback from graduates and employers on the skills and knowledge demonstrated following graduation, the importance of peer review , periodic re-training of program reviewers, staggered turnover of CORE leadership to prevent stagnation and complacency, and the assessment of breadth and relevance of program mission and goals. The frequency of assessment and the mission of accredited programs (service, research, etc.) are also factors that must be monitored and given attention to maintain academic quality.
CORE advances academic quality by conducting on-going evaluation of URE programs and requiring that evaluation results are communicated to institution administration with corresponding recommendations for further improvement, modification, and/or changes. In determining the accreditation status of a program CORE examines a number of factors that influence educational quality including the following:
1. Data analysis from the survey questionnaires. This is provided to URE programs, undergoing accreditation review and is another means of advancing academic quality. Specific areas of a curriculum that need to be addressed by the program can be identified, when graduates and employers rate one area of a curriculum lower than other areas or when an area is rated as unsatisfactory.
2. Review of the syllabi that are submitted as part of the Self-Study. Occasionally syllabi will be missing an important component (e.g. course objectives or course evaluation procedures) or will indicate that outdated texts are used. Academic quality also encompasses the learning environment of students. Although it is not a standard, programs are encouraged to have statements on their syllabi that address the needs of individuals with disabilities, (e.g., “Student who need special accommodations because of a documented disability should make their needs known to the instructor as soon as possible. The instructor will make every effort to accommodate the special needs of students. Please let the instructor know immediately if your needs are not being met.”) 3. Meetings with clinical supervisors during a site visit. Changes in a program’s Practicum
or Internship frequently result from such meetings. These field experiences provide the real evidence for the strength of the academic curriculum.
4. Review of faculty vitae. These are submitted as part of the Self-Study Document or as part of the Monitoring process when changes in faculty occur. It is noted that some programs hire faculty who have no academic credentials specific to rehabilitation services. CORE advances academic quality by assuring that individuals teaching
full-9/9/2011 revision 14 time in a rehabilitation services program have the knowledge and skills to teach in such a program.
5. Review of departmental/RCE admission policies. Since URE programs are frequently located within a larger department, it is essential that site visitors review admission practices and their impact on the program. Because of the importance of this issue, CORE has established a standard that all programs must have enough students to constitute a “viable learning community.”
6. Interviews with faculty and students. It is very helpful to site visitor reviewers to interview current students and recent graduates about the strengths and weakness of a program. This opportunity for face-to-face feedback allows reviewers to gain a better perspective of the quality in the curriculum and faculty that cannot always be obtained from forced-choice questionnaires.
7. Annual review of preparation standards. In order to maintain academic quality CORE reviews its accreditation standards each year to help programs respond to changes and priorities of the profession and trends in the needs of employers. Through communications on the CORE website and updates in annual newsletters, program faculty are informed of recent trends and new research that may influence the curricula and field experience practices. Programs can modify student expectations and provide relevant information through technology and other on-line options to improve academic quality.
ACCREDITATION REVIEW PROCESS
The review process consists of three major elements: a Self-Study Document, data collection from CORE questionnaires, and the site visit. The Self-Study Document contains descriptive, written information and documentation on (e.g., program manuals, syllabi, faculty vitae, etc.).
The use of CORE’s questionnaires enhances objectivity, scope, and consistency within the review process. The questionnaires are distributed to final year students, recent graduates, to employers of the program’s graduates, and to faculty advisors of those students who are currently enrolled. The purpose is to collect evaluative ratings about the program’s operations, quality of educational preparation, and performance of graduates. The data are then collected, analyzed, and provided to members of the Site Review Team for further analysis and review. Refinements in the CORE questionnaires occur periodically to ensure objective and consistent evaluations.
The site visit provides for direct observation and review that, in combination with the program Self-Study, ensures a comprehensive assessment of the undergraduate program. In addition to verifying and supplementing the Self-Study Document, the site visit supplies program operation and outcome information available only through direct observation.
9/9/2011 revision 15 SITE VISIT PROCESS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES
Site Visitor Pool. Site visitors are selected from a site visitor roster comprised of individuals who have completed the Undergraduate Site Visitor Training Program presented by CORE. Each person on the site visitor roster must meet the following criteria:
Be a member of an organization holding membership on CORE or the Commission;
Have successfully completed training on CORE accreditation procedures;
Be certified as a Rehabilitation Counselor or hold another relevant professional credential that is accepted by CORE;
If an educator, hold a rehabilitation-specific graduate degree accepted by CORE and have at least three years of experience as a faculty member in a URE program or a program which offers both undergraduate and graduate rehabilitation education programs;
If a non-educator, have a minimum of three years of experience in the supervision of rehabilitation professionals employed either by an established community rehabilitation program or a state rehabilitation agency;
Have submitted a statement detailing a commitment to participate in the review of programs as prescribed by CORE.
Site Visit Team. Each Site Visit Team is composed of two members who are acceptable to the institution under review and includes at least one individual who is an educator. If a program offers significant distance education (on-line) courses related to the undergraduate degree a third reviewer may be assigned to the site visit team. The Chair of the Site Visit Team must be an individual with prior experience as a CORE site visitor. The Undergraduate Rehabilitation Program identifies any conflict of interest among individuals listed on the site visitor roster. No one is selected to review a particular institution who:
Is a graduate of the program;
Is a recent appointee or employee of the institution or is related to an employee of the institution;
Works in the same state as the program under review;
Has reviewed the institution within the past five years;
Can personally identify any potential or apparent positive or negative conflicts of interest with the program, its faculty, or staff.
Care is taken to avoid potential conflicts of interest within the comparatively small community of rehabilitation educators, but mere acquaintance need not disqualify a potential site visitor. The
9/9/2011 revision 16 essential requirement is that each site visitor be a neutral observer who can focus on the quality of the program in relation to CORE criteria. In addition to demonstrating impartiality, all site visitors must respect the confidentiality of the information gathered during the review.
Site Visit Preparation. The chair of the site visit team contacts the undergraduate rehabilitation program coordinator to establish dates, a provisional schedule, interviews, and logistical arrangements for the site visit. Specific needs (e.g., work space, telephone, computer, etc.) of the team will be communicated to the coordinator. The team chair communicates the site visit information to the other team member(s) and to the CORE Administrative Office. Members of the site visit team are not to be held responsible for any non-personal costs related to the site visit. Members of the site visit team will have thoroughly reviewed and assessed all materials from the program Self-Study and program data provided by the CORE administrative office. Reviewers will determine whether documentation provided through the program Self-Study adequately demonstrates compliance with CORE standards. If not, reviewers will prepare a list of additional information to be provided prior to or as early as possible to be utilized as part of the program site visit. Any inconsistencies between elements within the report are noted and special strengths or deficiencies of the program are identified.
After reviewing the Self-Study materials and prior to the visit, the site visit team chair will confer with the program coordinator to arrange for any changes in the provisional schedule (e.g., to ensure that issues identified in the reviews of the Self-Study are addressed or for any other reason) and to finalize arrangements for the site visit.
Site Visit Agenda. The duration of the site visit may vary depending on unique needs of the undergraduate program but is typically completed over 2 business days. The site visitors meet initially with the program coordinator for a general orientation to the program and to go over key questions/issues that came up in the review of the program Self-Study.
The agenda should include opportunities for the Site Visit Team to interview faculty, staff, students, alumni, employers, advisory committee members, administrative personnel, and fieldwork supervisors. Additionally, the Site Visit Team will typically visit facilities used by students and faculty, such as office spaces, library resources, instructional support, and support services for students with disabilities.
The program coordinator may provide additional materials and records to supplement the Self-Study. The site visit culminates with a final conference between the site reviewers, the program coordinator, institutional administrators, and program faculty. A sample Site Visit Agenda appears in the Undergraduate Training Manual of the Accreditation Process.
Preliminary Review Committee Report. The Preliminary Review Committee Report (PRCR), which is generated by the site visit team following a review of an RCE program’s Self-Study Document and a visit to the program, is a critical document for both CORE and the URE program. It provides a road map for continuing improvements of an URE program and is used by the Commission and CORE to determine accreditation decisions, including any conditions that an URE program must meet. The site visit team should conclude the report with a Summary of
9/9/2011 revision 17 Strengths and Deficiencies, a list of possible recommendations and a list of possible conditions, if needed. Conditions should be listed in the same order as the Standards. The last three report components (summary, recommendations, and conditions) are not included in the PRCR that is sent to the program coordinator.
The Preliminary Review Committee Report is submitted only to the program coordinator. RCE coordinators may provide copies of the Preliminary Review Committee Report to their department heads, deans, and advisory committees. Therefore, the report should be as professional as possible, with complete sentences and appropriate grammar; reports should be proofread carefully by site reviewers.
After the Preliminary Review Committee Report is received and reviewed by CORE’s executive director, the Chair of the Undergraduate Commission, and the administrative office, it is mailed to the program coordinator who then has thirty days to respond to any statements or assessments with which they disagree by submitting three copies of additional evidence to the CORE office. This evidence is then forwarded to the site visit team in sufficient time to allow the site visit team to prepare a revised, or Final Review Committee Report for the Commission.
Because the site visit provides a snapshot of a program at a single point in time, it is inappropriate for that program to develop new procedures, processes, or manuals during the site visit or to supply them as supplemental information following the site visit when they have not been in use. Such changes are appropriately implemented following an accreditation decision by CORE and documented through the Annual Program Progress Report required of accredited programs or as evidence supporting a reapplication for accreditation by CORE. Upon receipt of the program coordinator’s response to the PRCR, the site review team prepares the Final Review Committee Report (FRCR) and submits it to the CORE administrative office for review by the Undergraduate Commission and an accreditation recommendation on the program to CORE.
Site Visit Evaluation. The undergraduate program coordinator is required to evaluate the site visit process after the preliminary report has been sent to the coordinator. The evaluation is returned to the CORE Administrative Office to determine whether the institution found the review process to be fair and impartial, to be appropriately cordial, and whether the self-study process and site visit resulted in recommendations that would help to strengthen the Undergraduate Program. The site visit evaluation is confidential and is not shared with the site visit team.
MONITORING PROCESS
At the Annual Meeting of the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation the status of new undergraduate applicants, along with currently accredited Undergraduate Programs is reviewed. Each accredited URE Program is required to submit to CORE an Annual Program Progress Report that includes (1) demographic data on the program for the current academic year, (2) changes in faculty, courses, coordinator, program affiliation, and (3) responses to any conditions established by CORE. The role of the Commissioners as Monitoring Committee Members is to:
9/9/2011 revision 18
Evaluate the program’s responses to unmet conditions;
Determine the impact of programmatic changes; and
Recommend to CORE whether accreditation should be continued.
For programs that have received a two-year term of accreditation, a determination must be made whether the program has satisfied conditions and whether the term of accreditation should be extended an additional year (for programs in their first period of accreditation) or six additional years (for programs previously accredited).
Each URE Program is reviewed by two individuals on CUSA. If the individuals are in agreement, no further review is necessary. If the two individuals disagree, a third individual evaluates the materials. In situations where (1) conditions have not been met and/or (2) substantial changes have occurred in the program, the program shall be reviewed by the entire Commission.
Conflict of interest guidelines apply to the Monitoring Committee. Members do not review a program that is within their state. (See the Policy Section – Conflict of Interest in the Undergraduate Accreditation Manual for other considerations related to conflict of interest).
NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS
Within 30 days of any CORE decision affecting the status of a URE Program, CORE notifies the chief administrative officer of the institution and program coordinator of the URE Program of the decision and the rationale for the decision.
Immediately after the CORE meeting at which a URE Program is granted the status of Candidate for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a notice to the chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the URE Program detailing the accreditation status granted to the program. This notice indicates the effective date of accreditation status, duration of accreditation status, and any conditions or recommendations specified in the final action (status granted) of CORE.
If a program is denied the status of Candidate for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a letter to the chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the URE Program specifying the details of the program’s denial of accreditation. This notice indicates the effective date of denial of accreditation status and the revocation of recognition by CORE, the rationale for denial, and the CORE appeals process. The chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the URE Program maintain the discretion to distribute the CORE letter and subsequent report as they see fit. In the event that a URE Program or its sponsoring institution publishes or otherwise disseminates information that misrepresents or distorts the CORE action taken with respect to the accreditation process or status of a URE Program, the following occurs:
9/9/2011 revision 19 The chief administrative officer of the sponsoring institution and the program coordinator of the URE Program are notified in writing of the misrepresentation or distortion and are asked to take corrective action in writing regarding the misrepresentation or distortion.
Should representatives of the sponsoring institution and/or the representatives of the URE Program fail to take appropriate corrective action, CORE may publish a statement providing correct information to all appropriate publics. This publication may occur in a newsletter or in whatever form the Executive Committee of CORE deems appropriate.
Permission to duplicate and/or distribute letters or any other documents submitted as documentation in the accreditation review process of a URE Program must be granted by the program coordinator of the URE Program, or, in consultation with the program coordinator, the chief administrative officer of the institution at which the URE Program is housed.
APPEALS PROCEDURES General Procedures
A program may appeal a final CORE decision that denies the program:
Recognition as a Candidate for Accreditation or grants such program recognition for a term of less than three years;
Recognition of Accreditation or grants such program recognition for a term of less than eight years; or
Continued recognition for failure to meet a condition or conditions stated in CORE’s recognition decision.
An interim decision by CORE or by any of CORE’s subordinate functions cannot be appealed. The existing accreditation status of the URE Program appealing a decision of CORE is maintained during the appeals procedure. A program that has appealed a final CORE decision may withdraw the appeal and reapply during the academic year following the final CORE decision to withhold recognition.
An appealing program and CORE will each bear its own expenses incurred in the appeal, and will jointly and equally bear the expenses of Formal Arbitration, incidentals, travel, subsistence, and fee of the Arbitrator.
A program may appeal a final CORE decision alleging that the decision was (1) without due process, or (2) arbitrary, capricious, biased, prejudicial, lacking good faith, or (3) faulty in that in processing the program’s application for accreditation, CORE or CORE’s subordinate functions, to the detriment of the program’s accreditation, failed to comply with or failed to make available to the program, some process step or steps set out in this manual.
9/9/2011 revision 20 There are two appeals stages. The first is the Informal Appeals Conference. Failing to work out a mutually satisfactory Agreement of Settlement at that stage, the program may appeal to the second and final stage, that of Formal Arbitration.
Within 30 calendar days following receipt of notice of CORE’s decision to deny a program accreditation or to deny a program continued recognition, such program may initiate an appeal to the first appeals stage, the Informal Appeals Conference, by forwarding a registered letter to the president of CORE stating an intention to appeal, the allegations regarding CORE’s decision, and the facts to be relied on.
Within 15 calendar days following receipt of the intention to appeal letter, CORE’s president and the person signing the intention to appeal letter will arrange a mutually suitable time and place for the Informal Appeals Conference to convene.
Informal Appeals Conference
The program and CORE will each, respectively, be represented by not more than three persons in the Informal Appeals Conference. Such representatives shall have full authority from their respective principals to enter into an Agreement of Settlement. The conference is intended to be less of an adversary proceeding and more of a joint effort to agree on the method, terms, conditions, circumstances, and time by which the program may achieve the recognition of accredited status for which it has applied.
Discussion in the Informal Appeals Conference will be free and open; full disclosures will be made by each conferee in a good faith effort to work out a mutually satisfactory Agreement of Settlement. No stenographic or other type of record will be made of the discussion; no statement made or position taken in the Informal Appeals Conference shall be to the prejudice of any statement later to be made or position later to be taken. Any Agreement of Settlement shall be stated in full detail including any relevant dates. Such Agreement will take the place of the CORE decision appealed.
If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached, and the program does not indicate an intention to appeal to the second and final step, Formal Arbitration, within five calendar days following the day on which the Informal Appeals Conference was concluded, the CORE decision appealed will become effective on the day after the fifth day.
Formal Arbitration
If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached in the Informal Appeals Conference and the program, within five calendar days following the day on which the conference was concluded indicates by registered letter to the president of CORE an intention to appeal to Formal Arbitration, the program representative and the president of CORE will undertake to agree upon an appropriate person to be the Arbitrator. Failing such agreement, they will request the American Arbitration Association to supply a list of five arbitrators’ names. From this list, each party striking two names will designate an Arbitrator.
9/9/2011 revision 21 Within 30 calendar days after the Arbitrator had been designated, CORE will forward to the Arbitrator all documents, data, records, reports, correspondence, records of telephone conversations – those generated by the program and those generated by CORE or any of CORE’s subordinate functions – which comprise the complete body of information on which CORE based the final decision being appealed. The program’s representative will be afforded opportunity to verify the completeness and accuracy of this submission.
Within the same 30 calendar days, the program and CORE will each forward to the Arbitrator briefs of fact and argument, and exchange these briefs with each other. The program’s brief will contend that the body of information on which CORE based its final decision being appealed supports the program’s appeal allegations. CORE’s brief will support the final CORE decision being appealed. Within 15 calendar days after the exchange of briefs, the parties may forward to the Arbitrator a brief responding each to the other’s original brief. The program shall have the burden of persuasion.
The Arbitrator is asked to make one of two decisions:
The program’s appeal allegations are sustained by the body of information on which CORE based the final decision which has the listed defects. CORE will reconsider its final decision remedying the listed defects, or
The program’s appeal allegations are not sustained. CORE’s final decision shall become effective forthwith.
REAPPLICATION PROCEDURES
It is assumed that a program not granted recognition will implement appropriate program changes and reapply. Reapplication cannot be initiated during an appeals process. The program may reapply during the academic year following the decision to not grant recognition or any time thereafter. Any subsequent application is treated as a new application with new data and an application fee must be submitted.
WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURES
A URE Program maintains the right to withdraw from participation in a CORE program of accreditation at any time. If the URE Program is in the process of applying for Candidate for Accreditation status, and a written request for withdrawal from consideration is received before any final action by CORE, the program is allowed to withdraw from consideration without prejudice. If the program elects to participate in a subsequent accreditation cycle, a new application must be submitted.
All costs related to the application (or withdrawal from application) of a school in Candidate for Accreditation status are paid by the applicant URE Program.
If a URE Program decides to withdraw from accreditation status, after attaining the Candidate for Accreditation status or Accreditation status, the chief administrative officer of the institution
9/9/2011 revision 22 should file a letter of intent to withdraw with the Executive Director of CORE. Within this letter of intent should be content that:
Describes the URE Program that is to be withdrawn from accreditation; The date on which the withdrawal is to be effective;
Rationale for the request; and
Evidence of assurances that enrolled students, appropriate institution officials and appropriate publics have been advised regarding the possible consequences resulting from the change in URE Program accreditation status.
If the students currently enrolled in the URE Program are to be considered as having graduated from a CORE-accredited program, the institution is required to file an acceptable plan for the completion of the program by those students.
The request for withdrawal from any status of accreditation is reviewed by the Commission and its recommendation is forwarded to CORE for consideration and official action.
Upon receipt of notice that a URE Program is withdrawing from accreditation status, the Executive Director of CORE acts to ensure that, after the date indicated in the letter of intent, the program is no longer listed as a CORE-accredited URE Program and that it is withdrawn from accreditation status.
ANNUAL TIME LINE
April 1 Deadline for receipt of completed application in CORE office.
*New applicants: Application Fee, Accreditation Evaluation Fee, and Completed Application Form including required evidence and signatures. *Currently recognized programs reapplying for accreditation must include required evidence.
April 15 Eligibility decision is reached and program coordinators are notified. Self-Study evidence indices sent to programs and acknowledgement of receipt of
accreditation application.
August 1 Program coordinators are provided with a copy of the URE Program Self-Study Guidelines (Coordinator Manual) which includes the instructions for preparation of the Self-Study and the Site Visit Review Process. Programs may choose to submit Self-Study documents either on-line or via hard copy starting in 2011. August 15 Instructions for submission of all survey questionnaires (students, recent graduates, and employers of recent graduates) are available. All surveys will
utilize new CORE Standards and will be available only in on-line/electronic format in 2011.
September 1 Deadline for withdrawal from consideration for accreditation without payment of Accreditation Evaluation Fee. The application is non-refundable.
9/9/2011 revision 23 September 15 Deadline for submission to CORE office of the Questionnaire Distribution List, Conflict of Interest Form, and preferred date for the site visit. (between Feb. 15 and April 1).
October 1 Annual sustaining fee for all programs due.
October 15 CORE provides URE Program with list of non-respondent graduates and students. November 1 CORE provides URE Program with revised list on non-respondent graduates. December 1 Receipt at CORE Office of all survey questionnaire responses and program Self- Study materials. Hard copy submissions require three complete copies of Self- Study materials. On-line/electronic submissions also require one hard copy submitted to the CORE Office. (Programs have the option to submit Self-Study materials in either format in 2011; on-line/electronic submissions will be required of all programs in 2012.)
January 2-15 Self-Study materials, including individual questionnaire data analyses are Distributed to Site Visit Team. Individual questionnaire data analyses are distributed to Program Coordinators.
Feb.15-Mar 31 Site Visits conducted and Preliminary Report Committee Reports are written and submitted to CORE office for review and editing.
April 15 Preliminary Reports distributed to program coordinators.
May 15 Deadline for institutional/program response to Preliminary Report. (Due 30 days following receipt of the Preliminary Report from CORE.)
Mid-July Graduate and Undergraduate Commissions meet to develop final review reports and to prepare recommendations for CORE regarding recognition.
Beginning Effective date for CORE decisions regarding recognition of programs under Fall Term Review. Program coordinators, appropriate institutional officials, Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and regional accreditation bodies are informed of CORE recognition decisions.
ANNUAL FEES
CORE has approved the following fee schedule for undergraduate accreditation:
$1,750 Application and Accreditation Evaluation Fee (for first time applicants and programs that are applying for re-accreditation). This fee includes a $250 non-refundable application fee and the accreditation evaluation fee of $1,500. Due by April 1.
9/9/2011 revision 24 In addition, each URE Program will bear the expense of the site visit when their term of accreditation ends. Expenses will include airfare, lodging, and meals for a minimum of two site visitors for a minimum period of two days. At times it may be most convenient for the program to pay directly (for example, paying for a meal or direct billing hotel expenses to the institution). Otherwise, site visitors will submit an expense report and request reimbursement directly from CORE. CORE will then invoice the URE program.
SECTION II
STANDARDS FOR UNDERGRADUATE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS CORE is committed to adopting professional standards and an accreditation process that are developed through a valid and reliable examination of several data sources. The procedure for revision of CORE standards is outlined in the policy section of the Undergraduate Accreditation Manual. To develop new and modify existing standards, CORE believes strongly in having empirical data as well as other objective information to justify professional standards.
Due to the diversity of employment settings graduates select, the requirements that are established in the standards of professional accrediting organizations are sometimes challenging to write. The standards that CORE has adopted are minimal standards that CORE believes all accredited rehabilitation programs must address for the professional preparation of graduates and the evaluation and administration of its programs.
9/9/2011 revision 25
PROGRAM FACULTY AND STUDENTS ENROLLED IN UNDERGRADUATE ACCREDITED REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY POSITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY FOR SOME CREDENTIALS MAY BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THOSE STATED IN CORE STANDARDS. ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE AWARE OF INDIVIDUAL STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSITIONS THAT MAY SPECIFY LICENSURE OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT FROM CORE.
An extensive body of empirically based knowledge domains have been identified through various research methods resulting in specific outcomes and expectations important to the academic preparation of professionals working with people with disabilities. These domains and outcomes serve as critical components of the standards that are established for the granting of CORE accreditation.
Recognition of program accreditation is dependent upon the applicant being in compliance with all applicable accreditation standards. Standards frequently include phrases like “shall be” or “shall focus” or “shall access”, etc. This means that all examples or lists which follow these phrases must be appropriately addressed before meeting a standard can be confirmed. Failure to comply with any applicable standard may result in the denial of accreditation or probation. Accreditation may also be granted with conditions.
Failure to satisfy a condition of accreditation within the prescribed period of time may result in probation for a program or withdrawal of accreditation. In addition, accreditation decisions shall reflect recommendations to facilitate program improvement to obtain or maintain program accreditation.
Since the CORE accreditation process emphasizes outcome oriented data, the response rates from survey respondent groups are very important in assessing the compliance with standards and the appropriateness of curricular experiences. It is expected that each group’s response return rate be at least 50% for graduates and employers and be at least 90% for current second year students. There must be at least ten total graduates of the program by April 1 of the year in which a program applies for full accreditation or before the site visit of the program. If expected response rates are not attained, programs will be notified they are not in compliance with the requirement and programs will be given a condition in the final accreditation report. Programs will be expected to provide evidence they have obtained an acceptable response rate by the time specified in the condition in the final accreditation report.
Standards include the characteristics and outcomes that, by general consent, state a level of expectation against which programs can be compared. Standards shall not limit program creativity or prevent variability. Programs may adopt innovative procedures or experiences that address standards in a different manner. If a creative approach is utilized, an explanation and rationale of how the standards are met must be included so CORE may accept or reject the appropriateness of such an approach and determine the degree of compliance with the standards.
Only the specific program accredited by CORE may be recognized as CORE-accredited in any publication or website. CORE does not accredit the method of delivery of the curriculum. Other
9/9/2011 revision 26 programs similar in name or content, but not reviewed by CORE, must be publicized and/or listed in a manner that does not suggest CORE accreditation. Statements suggesting future intent of a program to apply for CORE accreditation are not allowed.
SECTION A - PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The following eligibility criteria are the minimal requirements for URE accreditation.
1) Programs should be part of an educational institution that is accredited by the appropriate regional accrediting body and offers undergraduate degrees in areas other than that being evaluated.
a. Evidence should include documentation from the appropriate regional accreditation body.
2) Program must demonstrate that universal access is available to students and employees. The program should document that a barrier-free environment exists in terms of attitudes as well as building and program accessibility. If a barrier-free environment is not available, the university must provide a remediation plan that documents a timeline for barrier removal.
a. Documentation should outline specific accessibility characteristics of the university environment, including both building and program accessibility. This documentation may include website information, program brochures, minutes of accessibility committee meetings, and information regarding accommodations provided by disability student services.
3) Program must have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered. a. Documentation of degree should be provided from institutional catalogue.
b. Bachelor’s degree must consist of at least 120 semester hours or 180 quarter hours of study.
4) Curriculum must be built upon a solid general education/liberal arts foundation.
a. Evidence may include the university’s general education requirements, program brochures, institutional catalogues and websites, and other program information sources.
5) Program must offer an integrated rehabilitation-related curriculum which leads to a bachelor’s degree and which meets the curriculum requirements for undergraduate accreditation. An integrated curriculum is one in which the curriculum has a logical sequence of courses that provides both depth and breadth of content in rehabilitation. It also means that a defined program of study is clearly articulated.
