欢迎光临悉尼协议研究院网站!

咨询电话:16601035877 邮箱:wfqzmyq@126.com

国际协议

INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING ALLIANCE: EDUCATIONAL ACCORDS

发布:悉尼协议研究院  点击:

WASHINGTON ACCORD 1989 

SYDNEY ACCORD 2001 

DUBLIN ACCORD 2002 

 

PREAMBLE

The Washington Accord, Sydney Accord and Dublin Accord are three multi-lateral agreements between groups of jurisdictional agencies responsible for accreditation or recognition of tertiary-level engineering qualifications within their jurisdictions who have chosen to work collectively to assist the mobility of engineering practitioners (i.e. professional engineers, engineering technologists and engineering technicians) holding suitable qualifications.  Membership (called being a signatory) is voluntary, but the signatories are committed to development and recognition of good practice in engineering education.  The activities of the Accord signatories (for example in developing exemplars of the graduates’ profiles from certain types of qualification) are intended to assist growing globalisation of mutual recognition of engineering qualifications.  

 

The documents presented in this compendium are current as at 3rd June 2016.

       

FOUNDATION DOCUMENTS

This compendium of documents covers the three international accords relating to mutual recognition of accreditation / recognition systems and / or qualifications.  It is constructed at three levels:

A.     Governance Documents

The Accords themselves.

B.     Rules and Procedures

Mandatory requirements and protocols which expand the governance document – These are changeable according to a defined process after a notice period to all signatories of any proposed change.

C.     Guidelines

Representing the "norm" of how things are done within the context of the Accords, but which are not mandatory – These are changeable according to a defined process after a notice period to all signatories of any proposed change.

Whilst governed independently of each other, the three Accords have adopted the principle that where possible Rules and Procedures and Guidelines should be similar between Accords.  This has meant the adoption of a common glossary, and led to a development of generic documents which apply to all Accords unless a specific exception is stated.  Accordingly, there is only one set of Rules and Procedures in Section B, and only one set of Guidelines in Section C.


       

SECTION A – GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS

1.     WASHINGTON ACCORD

Recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineers at the Professional level.

Agreement

The signatories have exchanged information on, and have examined, their respective processes, policies and procedures for granting accreditation to engineering academic programmes, and have concluded that these are comparable.  Through the Washington Accord, which comprises this Agreement, the Rules and Procedures, the signatories recognise the substantial equivalence of such programmes in satisfying the academic requirements for the practice of engineering at the professional level.  

1.       Accreditation of engineering academic programmes is a key foundation for the practice of engineering at the professional level in each of the countries or territories covered by the Accord.  The signatories therefore agree: 

a)   that the criteria, policies and procedures used by the signatories in accrediting engineering academic programmes are comparable;

b)   that the accreditation decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and that those signatories will so indicate by publishing statements to that effect in an appropriate manner;

c)   to identify, and to encourage the implementation of, best practice, as agreed from time to time amongst the signatories, for the academic preparation of engineers intending to practice at the professional level and;

d)   to continue mutual monitoring and information exchange by whatever means are considered most appropriate, including: regular communication and sharing of information concerning their accreditation criteria, systems, procedures, manuals, publications and lists of accredited programmes; invitations to observe accreditation visits; and invitations to observe meetings of any boards and / or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the accreditation process, and meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.

2.       Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing professional engineers to practice in its country or territory accept the substantial equivalence of engineering academic programmes accredited by the signatories to this agreement.  

       

3.       The Accord applies to recognition of programs accredited by signatories within their national or territorial boundaries (their jurisdiction). Additionally, provided there is the same majority support as there would be for admission of a new signatory, the signatories may adopt protocols setting out how the Accord applies to recognition of accreditation by signatories of programs delivered:

i.            in the jurisdictions of more than one signatory,

ii.           both within the jurisdiction of one or more signatories and in non-Accord

jurisdictions,

iii.         in a non-Accord jurisdiction that cannot support its own accreditation

4.       he admission of new signatories to the Accord will require the unanimous approval of the existing signatories, and will be preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination.  Applicants for provisional status must be nominated by two of the existing signatories, and will be accepted only through a positive vote by at least two-thirds of the existing signatories.  

5.       Appropriate Rules and Procedures will be established by the signatories to ensure that this Agreement can be implemented in a satisfactory and expeditious manner.  The adoption of, or amendment to, such Rules and Procedures will proceed only through a positive vote by at least two-thirds of the signatories.  

6.       There shall be biennial General Meetings of the representatives of the signatories to review the Rules and Procedures, effect such amendments as may be considered necessary, and deal with applications for provisional status, and for admission.  

7.       The management of the Accord will be facilitated by a Committee consisting of a Chair and a Deputy Chair appointed in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made pursuant to this Agreement.  

8.       The administration of the Accord will be undertaken by a secretariat established and operated in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made under the provisions of this Agreement.  

9.       The Accord will remain in effect for so long as it is acceptable and desirable to the signatories.  

10.    Any signatory wishing to withdraw from the Accord must give at least one year's notice to the committee.  

11.    Removal of any signatory will require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the signatories.

 

       

Washington Accord Signatories

Signed in 1989 by:

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers

Engineering Council United Kingdom

Institution of Engineers Australia

Institution of Engineers, Ireland

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Signed in 1995 by:

Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

Signed in 1999 by:

Engineering Council of South Africa

Signed in 2005 by: 

Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education 

Signed in 2006 by:

Institution of Engineers Singapore

Signed in 2007 by:

Chinese Taipei: Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan

Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea

Signed in 2009 by:

Board of Engineers Malaysia

Signed in 2011 by:

MUDEK- Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Engineering Programmes

Signed in 2012 by:

AEER – Association for Engineering Education of Russia

Signed in 2014 by:

National Board of Accreditation India (NBA) (applies only to programmes accredited by NBA offered by education providers accepted by NBA as Tier 1 institutions).

Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka Signed in 2016 by:

 

       

2.     SYDNEY ACCORD

Sydney Accord recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineering

Technologists

Definition

For the purposes of this Agreement, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Agreement, engineering technology academic programmes are defined as the programmes through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:

Engineering Technologist

Australia

Certified Engineering or Applied Science Technologist

Canada

Associate Member of HKIE

Hong Kong China

Associate Engineer

Ireland

Engineering Technologist

New Zealand

Professional Technologist (Engineering)

South Africa 

Incorporated Engineer

United Kingdom

The term "engineering technologist" is used throughout this Agreement to refer to practitioners engaged in any or all of the above roles.  

Preamble

The signatories have exchanged information on, and have examined, their respective processes, policies and procedures for granting accreditation to engineering technology academic programmes, and have concluded that these are comparable.  Through the Sydney Accord, which comprises this Agreement and the Rules and Procedures, the signatories recognise the substantial equivalence of such programmes in satisfying the academic requirements for the practice of engineering technology at the appropriate level within the engineering team.

1.       The accreditation of academic programmes is a key foundation for the practice of engineering technology in each of the countries or territories covered by the Accord, and:

     the criteria, policies and procedures used by the signatories in accrediting engineering technology academic programmes are comparable; 

     the accreditation decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and that those signatories will so indicate by publishing statements to that effect in an appropriate manner; 

     the signatories will identify, and encourage the implementation of, best practice, as agreed from time to time amongst themselves, for the academic preparation of engineering technologists intending to practice at the professional level; 

     the signatories will continue mutual monitoring and information exchange by whatever means are considered most appropriate, including: 

     regular communication and sharing of information on their accreditation criteria, systems, procedures, manuals, publications and lists of accredited programmes; 

     invitations to observe accreditation visits; and 

     invitations to observe meetings of any boards and / or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the accreditation process, as well as meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.  

2.       Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for certifying, registering or licensing engineering technologists to practise in its country or territory accept the substantial equivalence of engineering technology academic programmes accredited by the signatories to this Agreement.  

3.       The Accord applies to recognition of programs accredited by signatories within their national or territorial boundaries (their jurisdiction). Additionally, provided there is the same majority support as there would be for admission of a new signatory, the signatories may adopt protocols setting out how the Accord applies to recognition of accreditation by signatories of programs delivered:

i.            in the jurisdictions of more than one signatory,

ii.           both within the jurisdiction of one or more signatories and in non-Accord

jurisdictions,

iii.         in a non-Accord jurisdiction that cannot support its own accreditation system.

4.       The Accord applies only to accreditations conducted by signatories within their national or territorial boundaries (their jurisdiction).  Additionally, the signatories may agree to

i.            define protocols for establishing responsibility for accreditation of programmes offered in the jurisdictions of more than one signatory,

ii.           define protocols for accreditation of programmes offered both within the jurisdiction of a signatory and of a non-signatory.

5.       The admission of new signatories requires approval by a majority determined according to the following pattern: all existing signatories if there are five or fewer existing signatories, all but one if there are between 6 to 15 signatories, all but two if there are between 16 and 25 signatories, and so on. Admission will be preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination.  Applicants for provisional status must be nominated by two of the existing signatories, and will be accepted only with the approval of at least two-thirds of the existing signatories.

6.       Appropriate Rules and procedures will be established by the signatories to ensure that this Agreement can be implemented in a satisfactory and expeditious manner.  The adoption of, or amendment to, such Rules and procedures will proceed only through a positive vote by at least two-thirds of the signatories.  

7.       There shall be biennial General Meetings of the representatives of the signatories to review the Rules and procedures, effect such amendments as may be considered necessary, and deal with applications for provisional status, and for admission.  

8.       The management of the Accord will be facilitated by a Committee consisting of a Chair and a Deputy Chair appointed in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made pursuant to this Agreement.  


9.       The administration of the Accord will be undertaken by a secretariat established and operated in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made under the provisions of this Agreement.  

10.    The Accord will remain in effect for so long as it is acceptable and desirable to the signatories.  

11.    Any signatory may withdraw from the Accord by giving at least twelve months’ notice to the committee.  

12.    Removal of any signatory will require a resolution supported by at least two-thirds of the signatories.  No such removal will, of itself, affect standing granted prior to that cessation by other signatories, to engineering technologists within the jurisdiction of such signatory, on the basis of this Agreement.

Sydney Accord Signatories

Signed on 25 June 2001 by:

Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists

Engineering Council of South Africa

Engineering Council United Kingdom

Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

Institution of Engineers Australia

Institution of Engineers, Ireland

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Signed in 2009 by:

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, United States of America

Signed in 2013 by:

Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea

Signed in 2014 by: 

Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan

Recognition of qualifications gained prior to the signing of the accord

The following agreement was ratified at the June 2003 General Meeting of the Accord held in Rotorua, New Zealand: 

Programmes in accreditation at the time of signing of the Sydney Accord in June 2001 would be automatically defined as eligible for recognition under the Accord.  In the case of any course accredited prior to the “in accreditation at time of signing” period, the signatory to which the application is made, obtains confirmation from the accreditation signatory that the course is deemed to be substantially equivalent to the currently accredited course.  The course would then be eligible under the Accord 

(Source: Item 5 of the Sydney Accord Minutes, IEM 2003)      

3.     DUBLIN ACCORD

Recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineering Technicians

Agreement

Signed 13 May 2002 at the Institution of Engineers of Ireland, Dublin

Definition

For the purposes of this Agreement, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Agreement, the educational base for engineering technicians is defined as the programmes through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:

Certified Engineering Technician

Canada

Engineering Technician

Republic of Ireland

Professional Engineering Technician

Republic of South Africa

Engineering Technician

United Kingdom

Engineering Technician

New Zealand

Engineering Associate

Australia

Engineering Technician

United States

Engineering Technician

South Korea

The term “engineering technician” is used throughout this Agreement to refer to practitioners engaged in any or all of the above roles.

Preamble

The signatories have exchanged information on, and have examined, their respective processes, policies and procedures for recognising the educational base for engineering technicians, and have concluded that these are comparable, and that those successfully completing this educational base can be relied on to have acquired the broad outcomes listed in Annexe A.  Through the Dublin Accord, which comprises this Agreement and any future Rules and Procedures, the signatories recognise the substantial equivalence of the educational base within signatory economies in satisfying the academic requirements for practice as an engineering technician within the engineering team.  Details of the exemplifying qualifications in use in each of the economies, together with the overall description of the expected output of exemplifying academic courses, are listed in Annexe A to this agreement.  


The Signatories Therefore Agree as Follows:

1.       The educational base is a key foundation for practice as an engineering technician in each of the economies covered by the Accord, and: 

     the criteria, policies and procedures used by the signatories in recognising engineering technician academic programmes including quality assurance processes and practice are comparable; 

     the recognition decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and those signatories will so indicate by publishing statements to that effect in an appropriate manner within their jurisdictions; 

     the signatories will identify, and encourage the further implementation of, good practice, as agreed from time to time amongst themselves, for the academic preparation of engineering technicians intending to practice at the professional level; 

     the signatories will continue mutual monitoring and information exchange by whatever means are considered most appropriate, including: 

     regular communication and sharing of information on their recognition criteria, systems, procedures, manuals, publications and lists of accredited programmes; 

     invitations to observe recognition procedures; and 

     invitations to observe meetings of any boards and / or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the recognition process, as well as meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.  

2.       Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for certifying, registering or licensing engineering technicians to practise in its jurisdiction accept the substantial equivalence of engineering technician academic programmes recognised by the signatories to this Agreement.  

3.       The Accord applies to recognition of programs accredited by signatories within their national or territorial boundaries (their jurisdiction). Additionally, provided there is the same majority support as there would be for admission of a new signatory, the signatories may adopt protocols setting out how the Accord applies to recognition of accreditation by signatories of programs delivered:

i.            in the jurisdictions of more than one signatory,

ii.           both within the jurisdiction of one or more signatories and in non-Accord

jurisdictions,

iii.         in a non-Accord jurisdiction that cannot support its own accreditation system.

4.       The Accord applies to recognition of educational base conducted by the signatories within their national or territorial boundaries (their jurisdiction).  Additionally, the signatories may agree to

i.            define protocols for establishing responsibility for recognition of the educational base of programmes offered in the jurisdiction of more than one signatory,

ii.           define protocols for recognition of the educational base of programmes offered both within the jurisdiction of a signatory and of a non-signatory.


5.       The admission of new signatories required approval by a majority determined according to the following pattern: all existing signatories if there are five or fewer existing signatories, all but one if there are between 6 and 15 signatories, all but two if there are between 16 and 25 signatories, and so on. Admission will be preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination.  

Applicants for provisional status must be nominated by two of the existing signatories, and will be accepted only with the approval of at least two-thirds of the existing signatories.

6.       Appropriate Rules and Procedures will be established by the signatories to ensure that this Agreement can be implemented in a satisfactory and expeditious manner.  The adoption of, or amendment to, such Rules and Procedures will proceed only through a positive vote by at least two-thirds of the signatories.  

7.       There shall be biennial General Meetings of the representatives of the signatories to review the working of the Accord and the Rules and Procedures, to effect such amendments as may be considered necessary, and deal with applications for provisional status, and for admission.  

8.       The management of the Accord will be facilitated by a Committee consisting of a Chair and a Deputy Chair appointed in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made pursuant to this Agreement.  

9.       The administration of the Accord will be undertaken by a secretariat established and operated in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made under the provisions of this Agreement.  

10.    The Accord will remain in effect for so long as it is acceptable and desirable to the signatories.  

11.    Any signatory may withdraw from the Accord by giving at least twelve months’ notice to the committee.  

12.    Removal of any signatory will require a resolution supported by at least two-thirds of the signatories.  No such removal will, of itself, affect standing granted prior to that cessation by other signatories, to engineering technicians within the jurisdiction of such signatory, on the basis of this Agreement.

Dublin Accord Signatories

Signed in 2002 by:

Engineering Council United Kingdom

Institution of Engineers, Ireland

Engineering Council of South Africa

Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists

Signed in 2013 by:

Engineers Australia

Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology - USA

ANNEXE A

1.     EXEMPLIFYING ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS

Canada

Exemplifying academic qualifications are Technician programmes which meet the criteria set out in the National Technology Benchmarks®.  

Republic of Ireland 

Exemplifying academic qualifications are national or Technician Certificate in Engineering.  

Republic Of South Africa 

Exemplifying academic qualifications are accredited National Diplomas in Engineering.  

United Kingdom 

Exemplifying academic qualifications are Edexcell or SQA National Certificate or National Diploma, Advanced General National Vocational Qualification, National Vocational Qualifications at level 3 and City Guilds Part 3 qualifications in an engineering discipline.  In each case specified pathways apply.  

Engineers Australia

Exemplifying academic qualifications are an accredited Advanced Diploma or an Accredited Associate Degree.

Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea

Exemplifying academic qualification is the Associate of Science in Engineering Technology. 

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Exemplifying academic qualifications are accredited New Zealand Diplomas in Engineering.

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (USA)

Exemplifying academic qualifications are Associate level Engineering Technology Programs.


2. OUTCOME STATEMENTS FOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EDUCATION BASE

The roles of Engineering Technicians involve them in the implementation of proven techniques and procedures to the solution of practical problems.  They carry a measure of supervisory and technical responsibility and are competent to exercise creative aptitudes and skills within defined fields of technology, initially under the guidance of engineering practitioners with appropriate experience.  

Engineering Technicians contribute to the design, development, manufacture, commissioning, operation and maintenance of products, equipment, processes and services.  They apply safe systems of work.  

A course of education which can be recognised as underpinning a planned career as an Engineering Technician is expected to: 

         Provide a foundation for progression and develop a positive attitude towards lifelong learning, from which the Engineering Technician will be able to develop a detailed understanding of the principles and a mastery of the knowledge and analytical skills required for engineering practice.  Motivate students towards the practice of engineering and stimulate their learning.  

         Ensure that science and mathematics are taught within the context of real engineering applications, integrating theory with current industrial practice and design requirements 

         Develop awareness of the social, legal, economic and political contexts within which engineers and technicians operate 

         Contribute to the personal and professional development of students in the context of the applications of engineering, through the development of ‘key skills’.         

3.     DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACCORDS

As set out below, the three Accords differ in only two significant ways – the majority needed to admit new signatories, and the nature of equivalence.  Therefore the Rules and Procedures can be the same in all matters not affected by these differences.

Attribute 

Washington Accord 

Sydney Accord 

Dublin Accord 

Basis            of

agreement 

Substantially equivalent accreditation systems leading to recognition of substantial equivalence of programmes in satisfying academic requirements for the practice of engineering at professional level 

Substantially equivalent accreditation systems leading to recognition of substantial equivalence of programmes in satisfying academic requirements for the practice of engineering technology at the

appropriate level 

Substantially equivalent means for recognising the educational base qualifications to meet expected outcomes for engineering technicians according to exemplifying academic

qualifications 

Provisional status 

Requires                   two

nominators and twothirds majority, prescribed period, normally four years, in which comprehensive examination undertaken 

Requires                   two

nominators and twothirds majority, prescribed period, normally four years, in which comprehensive examination undertaken 

Requires                   two

nominators and twothirds majority, prescribed period, normally four years, in which comprehensive examination undertaken 

Admission        of new

signatories 

Requires unanimous agreement of

signatories 

Requires 90% majority of signatories 

Requires 90% majority of signatories 

Requirement for General

Meetings 

Biennial 

Biennial 

Biennial 

Office holders created 

Chair and Deputy Chair elected in accordance with rules and

procedures 

Chair and Deputy Chair elected in accordance with rules and

procedures 

Chair and Deputy Chair elected in accordance with rules and

procedures 

Amendment of

Accord 

Unanimous    agreement

of the signatories 

Unanimous    agreement

of the signatories 

Unanimous    agreement

of the signatories 

Amendment of Rules and

procedures 

Two-thirds majority 

Two-thirds majority 

Two-thirds majority 

Resignation 

On one year’s notice 

On one year’s notice 

On one year’s notice 

Duration        of

Accord 

As long as signatories desire and accept it 

As long as signatories desire and accept it 

As long as signatories desire and accept it 



SECTION B – RULES AND PROCEDURES

Acronyms and abbreviations relating to IEA agreements are defined on the IEA website at http://www.ieagreements.com/glossary-of-terms.cfm

B.1                     DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 

Definition                       Interpretation

Accreditation      [of a programme]

Is the acknowledgement by a competent agency that the programme meets applicable criteria as a result of an evaluation process.

Agreement participant

Either a signatory or an organisation holding provisional status.

Applicant

An organisation that has applied for provisional status within an Accord to be recognised as the authoritative accrediting agency for the jurisdiction they represent.  Any such organisation must be independent of the academic institutions delivering accredited or recognised programmes within their jurisdiction.  

Assessment

(Verification)

The process by which an organisation with provisional status is evaluated to determine whether the requirements to be a signatory are met (also known as Verification).

Assessor

A person nominated by a signatory and appointed by the committee to the Assessment Team that visits and reports to the signatories on the substantial equivalency of the accreditation / recognition system of an organisation with provisional status as part of the evaluation of the applicant’s progression towards becoming a signatory.  

Chair, Deputy Chair,

Committee             and

Secretary

The Chair and Deputy Chair are the elected officers of an Accord. The Committee is the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Accord acting as a managing committee of the Accord.  In these roles the office-holder acts for the Accord and cannot represent the signatory with which they are affiliated.  (In the Sydney and Dublin Accords, the term “secretariat” consisting of the Chair and Secretary is used. In respect of these Accords the term “Secretary” shall be taken to mean Deputy Chair and the term “secretariat” to mean Committee).

Conditional status

The status to which a signatory is downgraded if, as an outcome of monitoring and review, other signatories consider that the accreditation/recognition system has significant deficiencies requiring immediate attention.  Organisations holding conditional status do not have the right to vote, and the benefits to graduates for the years during which conditional status is in place are suspended.  

Disclosure      [of       a

pathway]

The inclusion of information on the pathway followed by the student on the student’s qualification certificate or academic transcript/record.

Education provider

A tertiary (post-secondary) education teaching establishment such as a university, polytechnic, vocational teaching college or similar higher educational institution.  


Governing group

The overarching governing body for the International Engineering Alliance, for which the IEA governance structure and procedures establishes their terms of reference.

Graduate      attribute exemplars

Exemplars of the graduate attributes of a programme of sufficient quality to be accredited under the relevant Accord.

International

Engineering        Alliance meetings (IEAM)

A coordinated set of meetings of various international agreements related to mutual recognition of engineering education and engineering competence.

IEA governance structure and

procedures

The foundation document setting out the structure of the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) by which the Accords are constituents within the overall IEA (available on the IEA website www.ieagreements.org).

Jurisdiction

The territory, country, economy or region throughout which an organisation undertaking accreditations is regarded as having the uncontested right to conduct such accreditation/recognition activities as the acknowledged professional authority.  

Low                 volume

accreditation/Recognit ion system

An accreditation or recognition system operated by a prospective signatory that does not provide the opportunity for an assessment panel to observe a sufficient programme of accreditation/recognition activity within a single assessment visit to make a recommendation on upgrading to full signatory status.

Meetings

General Meetings of each Accord are held every two years (in oddnumbered years) at a time and place agreed by the signatories of the various agreements.  

Mid-term Meetings of an Accord may be held as required in even numbered years to cover urgent business matters – the signatories of each Accord shall decide if there is a need for a Mid-term Meeting for that Accord.

Special Meetings of an Accord may be called at any time by the process set out in the Rules.

Meeting Method

General and Mid-term Meetings will normally be held face to face, but business at Special Meetings may also be conducted under urgency through teleconference (a meeting method in which signatories simultaneously join an active method of communication such as teleconference), or electronic polling (a meeting method in which signatories either vote to agree or disagree with a proposal put to the vote).  

Mentee

A jurisdiction being mentored and which is committed to gaining provisional status or to becoming a signatory of one or more of the Accords.  

Mentor

A signatory assigned by the Committee to act on behalf of an Accord and work with an applicant through a programme of visits and advice in order to assist the applicant with its progress to provisional status and / or to being a signatory.  The term ‘mentor’ may also refer to mentoring team appointed by the Committee of the relevant Accord.  The mentoring team will consist of two or three representatives from signatories of the Accord.  


Mentoring

A process by which an appointed mentoring team provides support and guidance to an accreditation / recognition body that wishes to apply for provisional status or to become a signatory to one or more of the Accords.  The mentoring role will focus on providing advice and guidance on the accreditation / recognition policies and procedures and education standards of the mentee so that the mentee is given every opportunity, on application, to gain provisional status or become a signatory of the relevant Accord.  

Nominator

A signatory who holds sufficient detailed knowledge of an applicant’s accreditation/recognition system to propose that applicant for provisional status.  By choosing to act as a nominator the signatory is stating that in its opinion the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system meets the criteria for admission to provisional status.  In support of its nomination it shall supply other signatories with information on how its appraisal of the applicant was performed and how that led to the decision to nominate.   

Pathway

A prescribed/defined arrangement of teaching, learning and assessment within a programme.

Principal part [of a pathway]

Contains at least the equivalent of one academic year of the courses/modules/credits including those in which final assessment of students against graduate attributes takes place.

Programme

A structured, integrated teaching and learning arrangement with a defined purpose, leading to the award of a qualification.

Provisional status

An applicant will achieve provisional status having demonstrated that the accreditation / recognition system for which it has responsibility appears to be conceptually similar to those of other signatories of the Accord.  

Qualification

A specified learning achievement, usually awarded on successful completion of a programme. (= Award)

Recognition [under an Accord]

Is the acceptance by each signatory of accreditation decisions made by other signatories as indicating that graduates of the programme have attained outcomes substantially equivalent the Accord exemplar standard and are accorded equivalent privileges.  

Requirements

The Requirements for admission as a signatory of an Accord are defined as demonstration that:

The accreditation system and processes are substantially equivalent to those of other signatories of the Accord, and

The graduate outcomes standard applied for accreditation is substantially equivalent to that of the Accord (as illustrated by the Accord graduate attributes exemplar).  

The organisation conducting the accreditation/recognition actions and its accreditation/recognition system is sufficiently well established and managed that it has made in the recent past, and is likely to continue making, consistent accreditation or recognition decisions.

Review (also known as Monitoring)

The process by which an existing signatory’s accreditation / recognition system is evaluated by other signatories to ensure that the standards and systems are still substantially equivalent to those of other signatories.

Secretariat

An entity providing administrative support to the Committee with delegated authority to give advice, but not to make decisions, under the Rules and Procedures. (Note: the term “secretariat” used in the Sydney and Dublin Accords refers to the “Committee” of that Accord).  

Signatory

An organisation entitled to fully participate in an Accord, enjoying the same rights and obligations as all other signatories.  Signatories must be independent of the academic institutions delivering accredited or recognised programmes within their jurisdiction.  They are typically authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering profession and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programmes designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to the practicing engineering community within the jurisdiction.

Substantially equivalent

Achieving outcomes that whilst not individually identical to those of the standard or exemplar of that standard, taken cumulatively achieve the same overall outcome.  

Supporting part [of a pathway]

Offers courses/modules/credits not contained in the principal part of the pathway.



B.2     ADMISSION

B.2.1       Admission to Provisional Status

B.2.1.1.  The criteria for admission to provisional signatory status in an Accord are stated in Schedule B1. Applications for provisional status are recommended to follow the advice stated in the guidelines given in Section C.2.  

B.2.1.2.  Applicants must provide information demonstrating that they meet the criteria stated in Schedule B1.  

B.2.1.3.      Applications must be provided in the English language 

B.2.1.4.  Applications must be received by the secretariat no later than 120 days before the commencement of an IEAM if the application is to be considered at the relevant Accord meeting during the IEAM.  

B.2.1.5.  Applications must be accompanied by written statements of nomination from two signatories (Nominators), each nomination containing a declaration that the nominator considers that the applicant’s accreditation / recognition system meets the requirements for provisional status.  

B.2.1.6.  The secretariat must distribute the application to all signatories no later than 90 days before the commencement of the next IEAM.  

B.2.1.7.  Any signatories may provide written questions to the secretariat no later than 60 days before the IEAM, in which case the applicant has until 30 days prior to the IEAM to provide written answers to the secretariat for distribution of both the questions and answers to all signatories so that they can be considered before the IEAM.  

B.2.1.8.  Applicants must appear in person at the Accord meeting as part of the IEAM to formally present their application and answer questions.  

B.2.1.9.               Applicants must meet all the direct costs of making their application, including

but not limited to funding any reasonable actions required by potential nominators to evaluate the systems of the applicant.  

B.2.1.10.  The signatories must consider each application at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the three following actions:  

a)   that the applicant be granted provisional status (provided that there is a twothirds majority), or

b)   that the application be declined (in which case reasons would normally be stated), or 

c)   that the decision on the application be deferred (in which case the reasons must be stated).


B.2.1.11.  The signatories may agree to consider a deferred application at a Special Meeting held by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled General or Mid-term Meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting may occur sooner than 60 days after the applicant or a nominator provides the necessary information to the secretariat.  

B.2.1.12.  Provisional status is normally granted for a period of four years, but may be extended for one or more further periods of two years if in the view of signatories, as attested by a two-thirds majority vote at a Meeting, sufficient progress towards becoming a signatory is being made. 

B.2.1.13.  Achievement of provisional status in itself is regarded as significant, and is a first stage towards becoming a signatory.  Organisations holding provisional status must acknowledge that progression is not guaranteed and must represent their status accordingly. 

B.2.1.14.  Soon after admission to provisional status, if the applicant is not currently a full signatory of another IEA Accord, the applicant must request the Committee to appoint at least one mentor by lodging a request with the secretariat. The mentor would normally be one of the two nominators.

B.2.2        Becoming A Signatory

B.2.2.1.           The criteria for admission to and maintenance of signatory status in an Accord

are stated in Schedule B2. Applicants are recommended to follow the advice stated in the guidelines in Section C.4.

B.2.2.2.       An application for admission to signatory status to an Accord must:

a)   Include a self-study report containing information demonstrating that they meet the criteria stated in Schedule B2, and a gap analysis of the applicant’s accreditation criteria against the Graduate Attribute exemplars;

b)   Include Accreditation statistics and other requested information listed in the template provided by the Secretariat;

c)   If mentoring is required, at least one letter of support by a mentor: 

i      Made from first-hand knowledge of the applicant’s accreditation system and operating context; and

ii     Declaring that the mentor(s) consider that the applicant’s accreditation system meets the criteria for signatory status;

d)   Be prepared in the English language;

e)   Be received complete in all respects to the Secretariat no later than 120 days before the IEAM at which the applicant wishes the application to be considered.

B.2.2.3.      The application received will be processed as follows:

a)   The Secretariat must distribute the application to all Accord signatories no later than 90 days from the start of IEAM; 

b)   The signatories must review the application and provide questions/comments no later than 45 days prior to IEAM;

c)   Questions/comments received shall be forwarded to the applicant no later than 30 days prior to IEAM;

d)   Arrangement of three Assessors to visit the organization’s jurisdiction shall commence upon voting in the IEAM by all eligible voting accord signatories with two-thirds majority. 

e)   Assessors must not be from signatories which have served as nominators and/or mentors of the applicant.

B.2.2.4.  The organisation applying to become a signatory must provide the Assessors with reasonable notice of proposed visit dates, which must all be no later than 150 days prior to the IEAM at which the organisation wishes its application for upgrading to come a signatory to be considered.  

B.2.2.5.  The Assessors and the organisation seeking upgrading must, without unreasonable delay, jointly develop a proposed assessment programme, which will normally include visits to at least 2 education providers, including a total of at least 4 programmes undergoing evaluation.  If possible the programme will be co-ordinated as part of a single visit to the jurisdiction by all three Assessors, but organisations operating low volume accreditation or recognition systems may need to arrange for more than one visit by Assessors.  At least two Assessors must observe each individual accreditation/recognition visit that forms part of the assessment programme.  The assessment programme must also include observation (by an method approve by the Committee) of a least one meeting of the accreditation/recognition board or other body responsible for the final accreditation/recognition decisions at which reports from the observed accreditation/recognition visits are considered.

B.2.2.6.  The assessment programme must be approved by the Committee.  The Committee must satisfy itself that the assessment programme is sufficient in coverage, taking into account the range of engineering disciplines, the sizes and types of education provider in the jurisdiction, the number of programmes actually or likely to be accredited or recognised within the jurisdiction, and the overall cumulative experience of the organisation in undertaking accreditation or recognition activity in the context of the International Engineering Alliance.

B.2.2.7.  The management of assessments shall conform with any policy approved by the International Engineering Alliance in regard to risks to the safety and security of Assessors.

B.2.2.8.      The Assessors will evaluate the standards and systems of the applicant against the Requirements defined in section B1 – Definitions and Interpretations.  The Assessors will be guided in their evaluation by the Indicators of Attainment/Characteristics of Accreditation/Recognition Systems set out in section C.4.5.3  

B.2.2.9.  The Assessors will furnish a written report to the signatories no later than 90 days prior to the IEAM at which the application for upgrading will be considered, unless a shorter period (of at least 30 days) is agreed by the Committee to be sufficient in the circumstances.  

B.2.2.10.  All discussions concerning the assessment must be held in confidence by the Assessors.  The Assessors shall prepare a report with recommendations.  This report shall be sent to the Committee in draft form to ensure that it specifically addresses the need of the Accord.  This may be done at the same time as the draft report is sent to the applicant for checking on matters of fact.

B.2.2.11.  The signatories must consider the Assessors’ report at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the four following actions:  

a)   that the organisation holding provisional status be made a signatory and the date at which recognition by the other signatories of the substantial equivalence of the engineering academic programmes concerned shall become effective is stated (this would normally be the date on which the new signatory is admitted), or

b)   that the organisation holding provisional status be declined becoming a signatory, but that provisional status be extended for a further period (in which case reasons must be stated), or 

c)   that the organisation holding provisional status be declined becoming a signatory and that provisional status not be extended (in which case the reasons must be stated), or 

d)   that the decision on the assessment recommendations be deferred for a specified period of time (in which case the reasons must be stated).

B.2.2.12.  During consideration of an Assessors’ report each signatory which chooses not to support the recommendation from the Assessors must provide to all other signatories its reasons.   

B.2.2.13.  When the decision in regard to an application for upgrading is deferred, the signatories may agree to reconsider the application by a Special Meeting held by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled General or Mid-term Meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting will occur sooner than 60 days after the organisation holding provisional status or the Assessors provides the necessary information to the secretariat.


B.2.3       Acceptance of Obligations

B.2.3.1.  Signatories and organisations which hold either conditional or provisional status accept obligations of three types:

     Financial obligations

     Obligations to participate

     Obligations to provide benefits to graduates of accredited or recognised programmes of other signatories.

B.2.3.2.     Financial obligations – these are set out in the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures.

B.2.3.3.             Obligations to participate – these include, but may not be limited to:

     Attendance and active participation in all meetings and workshops by wellbriefed representatives and provision of reports to those meetings,

     Preparedness and delegated authority to vote (as allowed under the Rules) on all issues either set out in Meeting agendas, or that might reasonably be expected to arise as a consequence of discussion of pre-circulated Meeting papers. 

     Active participation in working groups set up by the Accord where the signatory or organisation has people with relevant skills and experience,

     Commitment to continuity of participation through maintaining a sufficient size pool of people holding appropriate knowledge about the Accord,

     Training and nomination of suitable persons to be reviewers, assessors and mentors in a timely manner (signatories only),

     Identification and mentoring of people with suitable skills that they may be considered by the Accord signatories as a potential Chair or Deputy Chair (signatories only),

     Commitment to meet the relevant costs of participation in the Accord, including the costs of Reviews or Assessments of its own jurisdiction

     Commitment to maintain an accurate web-based listing of all accredited programmes in a manner consistent with the guidelines in Section C.


B.2.3.4. Obligations to provide benefits to graduates of accredited or recognised programmes of other signatories – each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing professional engineers to practice in its country or territory accept the substantial equivalence of engineering academic programmes accredited by the signatories to this agreement (signatories only).


       

B.3     REVIEW OF SIGNATORIES

B.3.1        Review Protocols

B.3.1.1.     Each of the systems for accreditation or recognition of the educational base for which a signatory is responsible, (including its application within other jurisdictions), shall be subject to comprehensive review and report by representatives of the other signatories at intervals of not more than six years.  

B.3.1.2.  Any signatory which effects a substantial change to its accreditation criteria, policies or procedures is obliged to report such a change to the Committee via the secretariat and thereby to provide the other signatories with the opportunity to require that the scheduled Review and report be brought forward.  

B.3.1.3.  The Committee must establish and the secretariat publish annually, no later than 1 July, a schedule for the programme of review activities, this schedule covering at least the upcoming six years.  

B.3.1.4.  Upon receipt of the schedule each signatory must immediately inform the Committee whether it wishes to be reviewed by Periodic Review or by Continuous Review.  In the event that a signatory does not select one or other procedure then the Periodic Review procedure is assumed to have been selected.  

B.3.1.5.  The type of Review to be used for any individual signatory must be approved by the signatories via a suitable meeting method prior to the commencement of any Review actions.

B.3.2       Nomination of Persons to Form Teams

B.3.2.1.  Upon request from the secretariat, each signatory must provide as soon as possible one or more names of persons considered competent to form part of the panel from which Review Teams may be drawn.

     If Continuous Review is used, in determining the suitability of proposed Team members signatories must note that the Reviewers fulfil a dual role, firstly as accreditation panel members and secondly as the Accord Review Team.  

     Signatories shall not normally be required to provide more than one Reviewer in any calendar year for any one Accord.

B.3.3       Periodic Review

B.3.3.1.  Each signatory to be reviewed must receive a notice from the secretariat no less than six months prior to the year in which the Review Team activities will be undertaken.  


B.3.3.2. Three Reviewers from three different signatories, one of whom will be designated the Team leader, must be selected from the persons nominated under section B.3.2.1 by the Committee to form the Review Team.  

The secretariat must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the persons selected through this process has had any substantial prior involvement in or commitment to the signatory being reviewed.

B.3.3.3.  The signatory responsible for the accreditation system to be reviewed must be advised by the secretariat of the proposed composition of the Review Team, and invited to show cause why any member of the Review Team is not suitable.  In the event that such an objection is lodged, the secretariat must advise the Committee to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate to resolve the objection.  If unable to do so, the Committee must consult all signatories before confirming the membership of the Review Team.  

B.3.3.4.  The Review process must include observation of accreditation visits to educational providers offering engineering academic programmes and to the meetings at which the outcomes of such visits are discussed and decided.  

B.3.3.5.  The signatory whose accreditation system is to be reviewed shall be invited to propose a suitable process, timetable and administrative support mechanism, for consideration by the Review Team.  

B.3.3.6.  All discussions concerning the Review must be held in confidence by the Review Team.  The Review Team shall prepare a report with recommendations.  This report shall be sent to the Committee in draft form to ensure that it specifically addresses the needs of the Accord. This may be done at the same time as the draft report is sent to the signatory under review for checking on matters of fact.  

B.3.3.7.  At the conclusion of the Review activities, the Review Team must forward its report and recommendations to the secretariat as soon as reasonably practicable.  A copy of that report must be furnished to each signatory through the secretariat.  

B.3.3.8.  The recommendations open to the Review Team are as follows: 

a)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes substantially equivalent to the those recognised by the Accord; or 

b)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of not more than two years subject to the responsible signatory providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address the specific issues identified by the Review Team; or 



c)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question has serious deficiencies, that the signatory be downgraded immediately to conditional status, and that urgent and specific assistance be provided by the other signatories to help address the deficiencies.  

B.3.4       Continuous Review

B.3.4.1.  At the beginning of the six year Review period, three Reviewers from three different signatories, one of whom will be designated the Team leader, must be selected from the persons nominated under section B.3.2.1 by the Committee to form the Overall Review Team (ORT).  The secretariat must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the persons selected through this process has had any substantial prior involvement in or commitment to the signatory being reviewed.  

The secretariat will inform those signatories that they will be required to nominate persons who are able to fulfil dual roles as accreditation panel members, and as the Accord Review Team.  

B.3.4.2.  If for any reason a member of the ORT should become unavailable during the Review period, the committee may appoint a replacement Team member following consideration of nominations from the signatory who provided the initial Team member.

B.3.4.3.  The signatory responsible for the accreditation system to be reviewed must be advised by the secretariat of the proposed composition of the Overall Review Team, and invited to show cause why any member of the ORT is not suitable.  In the event that such an objection is lodged, the secretariat must advise the Committee to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate to resolve the objection.  If unable to do so, the Committee must consult all signatories before confirming the membership of the ORT.

B.3.4.4.  The signatory will provide the Committee with an overall Review programme for the Review period indicating when Accord Review Team visits are likely to occur.  The programme will ensure that Accord Review Teams (ART) participate in not less than three accreditation visits within the Review period, where possible to separate educational providers.

B.3.4.5.  An ART consisting of a subset of the ORT will be formed by the ORT Team leader and the signatory being reviewed for each designated accreditation visit.  An ART will consist of two ORT members for major accreditation visits or one for smaller visits.  The ORT Team leader will appoint one of the ART as the ART Team leader for each review visit. 

B.3.4.6.     Each ART will produce a report, a copy of which will be provided to the signatory being reviewed, members of the ORT and the Committee.

B.3.4.7.  Any issues or recommendations identified by one ART will be considered by subsequent ARTs, with the expectation that signatory under review will provide a report on changes made between ART visits.

B.3.4.8. The signatory being reviewed must ensure that at least one member of the ORT, in the last two years of the six year Review period, meets with the accreditation / recognition agency, reviews the accreditation / recognition procedures with the agency and observes an accreditation / recognition board decision meeting.  

B.3.4.9.  All discussions concerning the Review must be held in confidence by the ORT and ARTs as appropriate.  

B.3.4.10.  Prior to the end of the Review period the Chair of the ORT will prepare a summary report and recommendations to the secretariat.  A copy of that report must be furnished to each signatory through the secretariat, no later than 90 days prior to the next General or Mid-term meeting of the Accord signatories.  

B.3.4.11.  If, after at least 2 ART visits, but before the end of the Review period, the ORT concludes that there are substantive matters that call into question the substantial equivalence of the accreditation system of the signatory being reviewed, the ORT may prepare a summary report and recommendations to the secretariat. This report shall be sent to the Committee in draft form to ensure that it specifically addresses the needs of the Accord. 

This may be done at the same time as the draft report is sent to the signatory under review for checking on matters of fact.   A copy of the report must be furnished to each signatory through the secretariat for consideration at the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord signatories.

B.3.4.12.  The recommendations open to the Overall Review Team are as follows:

a)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes substantially equivalent to those recognised by the Accord; or 

b)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the responsible signatory providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address the specific issues identified by the Overall Review Team; or 

c)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question has serious deficiencies, that the signatory revert immediately to conditional status, and that urgent and specific assistance be provided by the other signatories to help address the deficiencies.


B.3.5        Consideration of Recommendations

B.3.5.1. Recommendations from Review activities under either Periodic Review or Continuous Review are considered by the other signatories in committee at a General or Mid-term Meeting.  

B.3.5.2.  The Review Team leader, and if possible other Team members shall normally be available to answer questions prior to and during the Meeting through adoption of any communication method considered appropriate.  The Committee shall ensure they are personally briefed in advance by the Review Team Leader. B.3.5.3.  The signatories may decide only one of the following:

a)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of six years; or 

b)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the signatory in question providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or 

c)   that the signatory immediately be downgraded non-voting conditional status for a period of not more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated.  

B.3.5.4.  A decision for (a) or (c) shall require support from two-thirds of the signatories, and in the absence of that majority the outcome shall be (b) in which case the specific issues to be addressed must be stated.  

B.3.5.5.  In the event that recommendation (b) is decided, and within the two year period adequate steps are taken to the satisfaction of at least two thirds of signatories, the signatories shall also normally decide to extend the accreditation to six years from the date of the review.

B.3.5.6.                   (For SA and DA only) In a case where the review visit procedure has been

completed except for observing the signatory’s decision process the team must report on all aspects of the review except observations of the decision meeting and make a provisional recommendation from B.3.5.3 a, b or c. The team must then submit a supplementary report on observation of the decision meeting and their conclusions, together with a final recommendation, with reasons if this differs from the provisional recommendation as follows:

a)   To a forthcoming General Mid-term Meeting if the supplementary report is available before the meeting; or

b)   To a meeting convened for further consideration and a decision in terms of Rule B.3.5.3 when the supplementary report is not available for the General or Mid-term Meeting.


B.3.6       Request for Reconsideration

B.3.6.1.     The subject signatory may, within 60 days of notification of a decision, request reconsideration of a decision imposing conditional status and request independent reconsideration of its case.  Requests for reconsideration must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

a)   that there was a failure to follow these Rules, and / or

b)   that there were substantial errors of facts in the report considered by the signatories which were likely to have affected the decision reached by the signatories, and / or 

c)   that the report considered by the signatories did not include relevant information, and had that information been placed before the signatories there was a reasonable likelihood that a different decision would have been made.  

B.3.6.2.  If reconsideration is requested, and the Committee determines that the request is valid, the Committee must ensure that within six months of the decision, a reconsideration panel which is established in the same manner as a Review Team using Periodic Review, but has no membership in common with, the original Review Team(s) is established and reports its outcomes.  

B.3.6.3.  During reconsideration the signatory will continue to enjoy the full benefits of being a signatory.  

B.3.6.4.  The reconsideration panel shall determine the procedures and criteria under which it operates, but at all times its procedures must be consistent with these Rules and procedures as far as this is reasonably possible.  

B.3.6.5.     The full costs of any such reconsideration must be borne by the subject signatory.  

B.3.6.6.          The right to request reconsideration may be exercised only once.  

B.3.6.7.  The recommendations of a reconsideration panel must be considered by the signatories by a Special Meeting using a suitable meeting method as soon as reasonably possible, and one of the following decisions made: .  

a)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of six years; or 

b)   that the accreditation / recognition system in question be accepted by the other signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the signatory concerned providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or 

c)   that the signatory immediately be downgraded to a non-voting conditional status for a period of not more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated.

B.3.7       Upgrade From or Continuation of Conditional Status

B.3.7.1. Where conditional status is imposed by the other signatories the Committee must provide, in writing within 30 days of the decision, the specific requirements to be addressed by the organisation downgraded to conditional status, and state the process by which assessment of whether the requirements have been met will be made.

B.3.7.2.  The assessment will normally involve written reports submitted by the organisation holding conditional status at intervals of six months to the Review Team who conducted the Periodic Review or ORT in the case of Continuous Review, involving a visit by one or more members of the Review Team or ORT, and will involve progress reporting by the Review Team or ORT at six-monthly intervals to the Committee.

B.3.7.3.  When, in the view of the Committee the most recent report from the Review Team or ORT indicates that the requirements have been satisfactorily addressed, the Committee must immediately call a Special Meeting of the signatories by a suitable meeting method to consider the reinstatement of the organisation back to being a signatory, and to decide whether graduates from accredited programmes during the years in which conditional status was in place should receive rights of recognition under the Accord.  

B.3.7.4.  In the event of re-instatement to being a signatory, voting rights are immediately restored and the date of the next review set at six years from the date of the review that led to downgrading.  

B.3.7.5.  In the event that an organisation is re-instated from conditional to being a signatory graduates from accredited programmes in the year in which reinstatement occurs shall enjoy the benefits of recognition under the Accord.  

B.3.7.6.  Where the signatories are satisfied that an organisation holding conditional status is making progress towards once again being a signatory, but that at the end of the period of conditional status has not fully met the requirements the signatories may agree to extend the period of conditional status for no more than two further years.



B.4 ISSUE RESOLUTION, RESIGNATION, DOWNGRADING AND TERMINATION

B.4.1       Issue Resolution

B.4.1.1.     If any signatory is of the view that another signatory is not meeting its reasonable obligations to participate, or to provide benefits to graduates as set out in section B.2.3, or an organisation holding provisional or conditional status is not meetings its obligations to participate (also set out in section B.2.3) then it shall endeavour to resolve those issues by communication between the two parties.

B.4.1.2.    If, after reasonable opportunity has been given, the two parties have not resolved

the issue, the signatory expressing concerns may choose to notify the Committee, and the Committee, at its discretion may assist to seek resolution.

B.4.1.3.  If the matter remains unresolved, the party expressing concerns may request an issue resolution session, open only to signatories, where issues can be raised in a solution-focused environment.  Prior to an issue being accepted by the Committee for discussion in such a session, it must be demonstrated that substantive discussions leading up to the meeting were undertaken but issues were not able to be resolved.  Both individual cases and trends or systemic issues may be raised within the context of the obligations set out in section B.2.3.  

B.4.1.4.  If the Committee receives information which in its view suggests a signatory or organisation holding provisional or conditional status is not meeting its obligations it shall raise the concerns directly.  If, after reasonable opportunity has been given but the response is considered unsatisfactory by the Committee, it may invoke an issue resolution session of the type set out in section B.4.1.3.    

B.4.1.5.  Requests for an issue resolution session, with supporting documentation, shall be submitted to the Committee at least 60 days prior to an Accord meeting, and the Committee, after communicating with both parties concerned must make a decision as to whether to proceed to hold the session, at least 30 days prior to the meeting.  The secretariat shall circulate the notice of the session and the relevant documentation immediately the Committee has decided to schedule the issue resolution session.  In instances where the matter relates to the obligation to provide benefits, and the signatory is not the licensing or registration body, the signatory is expected to provide evidence of procedures and processes that it has undertaken to encourage full implementation of the Accord in their jurisdiction.  

B.4.1.6.  If a number of signatories can provide substantive evidence of failure of a signatory or organisation holding provisional or conditional status to meet its Accord obligations, they may choose to invoke the provisions under Rule B.4.3 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory.  


B.4.2        Resignation

B.4.2.1. A signatory may resign from an Accord by giving at least one year’s written notice to all other signatories.  The period in which the organisation was a signatory will be deemed to end on 31 December of the year after that in which notice was given. 

During its period of notice the resigning signatory must continue to fulfil its obligations as a signatory, but loses its right to vote on all matters.  For the avoidance of doubt, in such circumstances the signatory that has given notice of resignation will be excluded when determining the total number of votes available to be cast.  

B.4.2.2.  Provided the resigning signatory provides to all other signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other signatories.  

B.4.2.3.     An organisation holding provisional status may resign from that provisional status at any time by giving 6 months written notice to all signatories.  

B.4.3       Downgrading for Failure to Demonstrate On-going Substantial Equivalence

B.4.3.1.  If a signatory has been downgraded from signatory to conditional status for failure to meet the necessary standard of substantial equivalence of recognition or accreditation, and the organisation fails to satisfy the signatories within the period of time allowed that it has met the specific requirements, and the signatories are unwilling to continue the period of conditional status, the organisation shall lapse from conditional status to provisional status.  

B.4.3.2.  Provisional status shall be granted in these circumstances for no more than two years, the specific time being selected by the Committee so that the end of the term coincides with a scheduled General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord signatories.

B.4.3.3.  Provided the downgraded signatory provides to all other signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a signatory.

     Graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the signatory was a signatory in the Accord (including the year in which downgrading to conditional status occurred) will continue to receive the same benefits of recognition as graduates of other signatories.  

     Graduates completing their programme during the period of conditional status will not enjoy the benefits of graduates of Accord signatories.



B.4.4               Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory

B.4.4.1. If in the view of a two-thirds majority of other signatories, a signatory is failing to meet its reasonable obligations (other than financial obligations) under an Accord, the other signatories may give notice to that effect to the signatory concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.  

B.4.4.2.  Any signatory which receives notice from the other signatories that in their view shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfilment of its obligations.  

B.4.4.3.  If, after a year, two-thirds of other signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement shall be extended by either six months or one year as the signatories may decide.  

B.4.4.4.  If, in the view of at least two-thirds of other signatories, a signatory which has been given notice under the provisions above has not taken adequate corrective actions within the specified period the signatory is deemed to have been removed from being a signatory.  The date of removal shall be the end of the calendar year in which the decision to terminate was made.  

B.4.4.5.  The process for termination through failure to meet financial obligations is set out in the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures.  If the process has been followed then the defaulting signatory shall be removed from being a signatory of all relevant Accords.  

B.4.4.6.  Reinstatement following removal for failure to meet financial obligations shall be according to the processes set out in the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures. 

B.4.4.7.  Provided the terminated signatory provides to the satisfaction of the Committee and all other signatories, a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same benefits of recognition as graduates of other signatories.  


B.4.5        Termination of Provisional Status

B.4.5.1. At each General Meeting of the Accord the signatories must review the length of period for which provisional status has been granted to each organisation holding that status (which period is normally four years but which may be extended by one or more further terms of two years).  

B.4.5.2.  If in the view of a two-thirds majority of signatories, an organisation holding provisional status is making insufficient progress towards becoming a signatory or is failing to meet its reasonable (non-financial) obligations under an Accord, the signatories may give notice to that effect to the organisation concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.  

B.4.5.3.  An organisation holding provisional status may be terminated for failure to meet financial obligations according to the processes set out in the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures.  Reinstatement shall be according to the processes set out in the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures.

B.4.5.4.  Any organisation holding provisional status which receives notice from the signatories shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfilment of its obligations and progress towards becoming a signatory.  

B.4.5.5.  If, after that year, the majority of the signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement must be extended by one year.  

B.4.5.6.  If, in the view of a majority of signatories, an organisation holding provisional status which has been given notice under the provisions above has not taken sufficient corrective actions within the specified period the organisation is deemed to have been removed from provisional status.  The date of removal must be immediate from the date of notice to that effect.


B.5   CONDUCT OF MEETINGS, RIGHTS OF AND OBLIGATIONS ON SIGNATORIES AND ORGANISATIONS HOLDING PROVISIONAL STATUS

B.5.1        Meetings

Unless otherwise set out in the Rules and Procedures, the following provisions shall apply:

B.5.1.1.  A General Meeting of the signatories must be held every two years at a time and place selected by the previous General Meeting, or if not possible, as soon after as possible by the Committee following appropriate consultation with the signatories.  

B.5.1.2.  At every General Meeting, signatories and organisations holding either conditional or provisional status must present a report on accreditation-related matters within their jurisdiction according to any guideline agreed by the signatories.  

B.5.1.3.  At every General Meeting, and at any other time the signatories decide, there will be a session closed to observers at which signatories can raise in confidence any issue pertaining to the operation of the Accord, seeking resolution in a constructive manner.  Organisations holding provisional or conditional status may be invited to attend this session if the signatories agree to this prior to the commencement of the session.  The signatories may agree a set of guidelines for conduct of such sessions.  

B.5.1.4.  At every General Meeting the signatories shall decide if there is sufficient business to warrant the holding of a Mid-term Meeting.

B.5.1.5.  If two or more signatories request a Special Meeting of an Accord in relation to a particular matter, the question of whether to hold a special meeting shall be decided under urgency (see section B.5.1.20), and if so agreed the meeting shall be held at a venue or by a meeting method to be decided by the Committee no sooner than 90 days and no later than 180 days after the decision to hold the Special Meeting is notified to all signatories and organisations holding provisional status.

B.5.1.6.  A draft agenda must be circulated by the secretariat to all signatories at least 180 days prior to a General or Mid-term Meeting and 90 days prior to a Special Meeting of an Accord.  

B.5.1.7.  Notice of items for the agenda should be notified to the Committee through the secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting.


B.5.1.8.  Items for discussion at a General or Mid-term Meeting and all necessary background papers should be submitted to the Committee via the secretariat at least 60 days prior to the meeting.  The Committee reserves the right to not admit late items.  

B.5.1.9.  The agenda and business papers will be approved by the Chair and normally be distributed to the signatories by the secretariat at least 45 days prior to the meeting.  

B.5.1.10.  Each signatory must arrange for at least one representative to attend each General or Mid-term Meeting and will commit to being briefed on the matters to be raised and to engaging fully in the business of the meeting.  

Signatories may bring more than one representative to such meetings but are obligated to restrict the number of representatives in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation.

B.5.1.11.  Organisations holding conditional or provisional status are required to accept the same commitment to interaction and exchange as the signatories.  They will receive copies of appropriate correspondence and reports (other than those papers relating to admission, termination, applications for upgrading to signatory and Review of signatories), and are invited to send representatives to all meetings of the signatories.  They are obligated to restrict the number of representatives in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation.  

B.5.1.12.  At a General, Mid-term or Special Meeting, each signatory will have one vote, and the Chair shall have a casting vote.  

B.5.1.13.  (WA only) A simple majority will suffice for a decision on any matter, unless otherwise specified in the governing Accord or in these Rules and Procedures.  Any casting vote will normally be regarded as cast for the status quo on any matter. 

B.5.1.13.  (SA and DA only) A simple majority will suffice for a decision on any matter, unless otherwise specified in the governing Accord or in these Rules and Procedures, or involves the extension of benefits to graduates by signatories (in which case the required majority shall be that required for admission to the relevant Accord).  If any Rule implies a higher majority than a simple majority but does not specifically state the required majority, then the majority required will be interpreted as the same as required for admission of a new signatory to the Accord.  Any casting vote will normally be regarded as cast for the status quo on any matter. 

B.5.1.14.  Representatives of organisations holding conditional or provisional status will have the right of audience except when excluded under a resolution by the signatories to move into committee (also known as closed session) and debate at such General, Mid-term or Special Meetings, but are not permitted to vote.  

B.5.1.15.  Upon decision of the Chair, organisations with interests in the relevant Accord may be invited to be in attendance (as “observers”) for parts of a General or Midterm Meeting as may be decided by the Chair.  The opportunity to attend does not confer the right to speak unless so invited by the Chair.  Unless otherwise prescribed by the Chair the maximum number of people in the delegation of any observer will be three.  

B.5.1.16.  Signatories and organisations holding conditional or provisional status must declare any conflict of interest on any agenda item in advance of that item being discussed, and if so requested by the Chair must leave the meeting during discussion of that item.  

B.5.1.17.  Draft minutes prepared by the secretariat will be reviewed for correctness by the Committee prior to their dissemination to all signatories for their comment.  Such dissemination should occur within 60 days of the meeting and comment should be made within 90 days of the date of the meeting.  

The Committee will review comments received and within 120 days of the date of the meeting approve that the secretariat circulate to all signatories and organisations holding conditional or provisional status “minutes for approval”.

B.5.1.18.  Minutes of each Meeting of the Accord must be recorded by the secretariat and at each Meeting the minutes of the previous General or Mid-term Meeting and the minutes of any recent Special Meeting must be submitted to the meeting for approval and then signed by the Chair, before any other business is transacted.

B.5.1.19.  The meeting method may be varied from face to face to any other means enabling open discussion between representatives (e.g. teleconference) provided that there is a two-thirds majority of the signatories in favour of such a proposal.  

B.5.1.20.  Urgent matters (decided to be urgent by either a previous meeting, or by the Committee on the basis that undue delay would unreasonably penalise an affected party) may be decided out of session from General or Mid-term meetings by an electronic polling Special Meeting method as follows:

a)   The written proposal setting out the motion, the rationale supporting it, and the reasons for urgent consideration of that proposal are circulated to all signatories in writing 

b)   Each signatory has 60 days to make a response in two parts – agreeing to consider the matter urgently, and recording its votes on the motion.  Votes are to be provided directly to the secretariat and the Committee 

c)   The secretariat will issues reminders after 30 and 45 days to those signatories who have not responded 

d)   The matter shall be determined by the Committee as passed if there is the necessary majority for the matter concerned both for the vote to consider the matter urgently, and for the motion itself.  

e)   The Committee may require any signatory to provide a faxed signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.  

f)    The Committee must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement 

g)   The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by signatories at the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord 

B.5.1.21.  Any signatory unable to be present at a meeting may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving a particular matter.  In the event that further changes to the proposal are made during the meeting the Chair must exercise the proxy consistently with the intention of the signatory concerned, and if in doubt must abstain the proxy on the matter.  

B.5.1.22.  The signatories, organisations holding conditional or provisional status and observers are required to meet a fair share of the costs of staging a meeting of an Accord in addition to their own costs for attendance at such meetings.  

B.5.1.23.  The chair of any Meeting may choose to conduct the Meeting with a minimum of formality provided that the proceedings are conducive to the fair hearing of all matters and the agreement of outcomes.  

However if, of his / her own volition or on request of the majority of the signatories present at the meeting, the Chair deems it necessary to formalise the Meeting he / she may apply some or all of the following standing orders, as is considered reasonable and necessary for effective conduct of the meeting:

a)   At each General Meeting, Mid-term or Special Meeting of the Accord, the Chair, or in his or her absence the Deputy Chair, shall take the chair.  

b)   In the above cases if the specified officers are not present the signatories shall elect an acting Chair.  

c)   Except as otherwise agreed by the signatories the order of business will be as set out on the agenda paper.

d)   Each motion or amendment not seconded shall lapse without discussion and shall not be recorded in the minutes except by the permission of the signatories.  

e)   After each motion or amendment has been moved and seconded it shall not be withdrawn without the permission of the signatories.  

f)    Except with the permission of the signatories no motion or amendment shall be proposed which in the opinion of the Chair is the same in substance as any motion or amendment which during the same Meeting has been resolved in the affirmative or negative.

g)   Where no specific procedure is laid down the Chair shall refuse to accept a motion to rescind any resolution or other vote if he or she considers that insufficient notice has been given. 

h)   Before putting each motion or amendment to the vote the Chair shall ensure that the motion or amendment is understood by all Meeting participants.

i)    A motion may be amended by leaving out words; by leaving out certain words and substituting other words; by inserting words; or by adding words.  

j)    Each amendment shall be relevant to the original motion.  

k)   No amendment may be accepted that produces a direct negative of the motion.

l)    Amendments to a motion may be moved without notice.  

m) Amendments may be moved in any order considered satisfactory by the Chair.

n)   When an amendment has been carried, the amended motion shall become the substantive motion and shall be open to amendment.

o)   At the discretion of the Chair amendments to an amendment shall be allowed.

p)   The Chair may restrict the number of times and the length of time that each Meeting participant may speak on a matter.

q)   All questions of order or procedure not provided for in these Standing Orders shall be decided by the Chair.

B.5.2        Workshops

B.5.2.1.     The signatories of an Accord may choose to hold a workshop at any time for the purpose of dialogue aimed at developing recommendations for consideration at a Meeting of the Accord.  Such workshops would normally be held at the time of a General or Mid-term Meeting.

B.5.2.2.  In general, organisations holding conditional or provisional status would only be invited to attend a workshop if the signatories consider they can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed.  

B.5.2.3.  Observers would not normally be invited to attend workshops, and an exception would only be granted if the signatories are collectively of the view that observers can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed.  

B.5.2.4.  The Chair of each Accord shall decide the maximum number in each delegation from signatories to such workshops. 

B.5.2.5.  In the event that organisations holding conditional or provisional status are invited to participate, the Chair of each Accord shall decide their maximum number in each delegation and rights of participation 

B.5.2.6.  If observers are allowed to attend, the Chair of the Accord shall decide the maximum numbering the delegation and rights of participation 

B.5.2.7.  During any such workshop, the Chairs of any session may exclude all but signatories for any particular item.  

B.5.2.8.  In the interests of effective interchange at workshops, the protocols and procedures will be consistent with these Rules and Procedures, but decision making will be by consensus.  No votes will be taken, but informal polling to determine the level of support for particular proposals may be conducted.

       

B.6   CHANGES TO ACCORD AGREEMENTS, RULES AND PROCEDURES, AND

GUIDELINES

B.6.1        Changes to Accords

B.6.1.1.  Changes to an Accord requires the unanimous approval of all signatories, originally determined by a vote, but then signified by the written signature of their representative to a document to be regarded as an addendum to the Accord.  Until all signatories present at the time of the vote have signed in this manner the change shall be inoperative.  Signatories voting by proxy may sign at a later time and this will not delay the implementation of the change.

B.6.1.2.  Proposals for change may be made by one or more signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the Meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The secretariat must circulate the proposals to all signatories and those organisations holding conditional or provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting.  

B.6.1.3.  If further revisions to the proposal are suggested during a Meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, those signatories may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days notice before the revised proposal can be further considered.  

B.6.1.4.  Any signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposal.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the revised proposal.  

B.6.2        Changes to Rules and Procedures

B.6.2.1.  Changes to the Rules and Procedures of an Accord require the two-thirds majority approval of all signatories, determined by a vote.  Changes to Rules and Procedures will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the meeting at which they are approved.  Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced under earlier Rules and Procedures may continue to proceed to completion under those Rules and Procedures if in the view of the Committee application of the changed Rule or Procedure would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter.  

B.6.2.2.  Proposals for revisions may be made by one or more signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the Meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The secretariat must circulate the proposals to all signatories and those organisations holding conditional or provisional status at least 90 days prior to the Meeting 

B.6.2.3.  If further revisions to the proposal are suggested during a Meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, those signatories may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days notice before the matter can be further considered.  

B.6.2.4.  Any signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed revision.  In the event that further revisions to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the revised proposal.

B.6.3       Changes to the guidelines

B.6.3.1.  Changes to the Guidelines of an Accord require the two-thirds majority approval of all signatories, determined by a vote.  The new guidelines will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the Meeting at which they are approved.  Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced using earlier guidelines may continue to proceed to completion using those guidelines if in the view of the Committee application of the changed guideline would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter.

B.6.3.2.  Proposals for revision may be made by one or more signatories, and should be provided to the Committee and secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the Meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The secretariat must circulate the proposals to all signatories and those organisations holding conditional or provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting

B.6.3.3.  Further revisions to the proposal may be made suggested during a Meeting of the Accord, and may be approved by a two-thirds majority of signatories voting for the revisions.

B.6.3.4.  Any signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed revisions.  In the event that further revisions to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the revised proposal.

B.6.4        Voting

B.6.4.1.  Matters on which a required majority is not stated in the Accord Agreements or Rules and Procedures must be decided by a simple majority vote of signatories present at the time of the decision.

B.6.4.2.  Unless otherwise stated, a casting vote by a chair shall be deliberative and cast only in situations where a simple majority is required.


B.7      ELECTION OF OFFICERS

B.7.1 The officers of the Accord shall be the Chair and the Deputy Chair who must be elected from nominations made by the signatories.  

B.7.2 The officers act for the Accord, and may not simultaneously represent or vote on behalf of any signatory on any matter.  For the avoidance of doubt, officers are not included in the headcount of delegations from their home signatory.  

B.7.3 A person may hold office for no more than two terms, each term of two years (defined as the time between biennial General Meetings) unless specifically agreed by a unanimous vote of all signatories present at a General Meeting.  A term is completed at the end of the General Meeting at which an election is held.  

B.7.4 The Deputy Chair shall undertake the duties of the Chair if the Chair is unavailable for any length of time, or has declared a conflict of interest on any matter, and has temporarily stood down from the Chair whilst that matter is considered.  

B.7.5 At least 120 days in advance of a General Meeting, the secretariat will send all signatories the invitation to make nominations for Chair and Deputy Chair positions.  

B.7.6 To be eligible for nomination a person must be affiliated with a signatory and have the support of that signatory.  

B.7.7 Nominations must be moved and seconded by two different signatories, and the nomination form signed by the nominee, nominator and seconder must be received by the secretariat no later than the day prior to the commencement of the IEAM at which the General Meeting will be held.  The secretariat will distribute the nominations to the signatories prior to the start of the General Meeting.  

B.7.8 No person may be nominated to a position for which the retiring incumbent is a person affiliated with the same signatory unless the permission of at least twothirds of signatories is obtained.  

B.7.9 Voting will be held by secret ballot during a General Meeting, and will be supervised by two independent scrutineers appointed by the General Meeting.  

B.7.10        In the event that there are more than two candidates and no candidate achieves more than 50% of the votes cast in the ballot, the lowest polling candidate will be eliminated and a further poll held.  This process will be repeated as many times as is necessary until one candidate achieves more than 50% of the votes.  In the event of a tie in respect of eliminating a candidate the candidate to be eliminated will be established by the drawing of lots by the scrutineers.  In the event of a tie on the last poll the Chair will exercise a casting vote.  


B.7.11 In the event that the Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Deputy Chair shall temporarily hold the position until the next General Meeting.  Such service shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Chair.  

B.7.12 In the event that the Deputy Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Chair shall decide whether the position may remain vacant (if the remaining part of the term is less than 180 days), or whether to call for nominations, and hold an election using the process for deciding matters under urgency.  Service of a person elected under urgency shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Deputy Chair.   B.7.13 If required, elections may be conducted urgently as follows:

b)   The ballot papers must be distributed to all signatories in writing 

c)   Each signatory has 60 days to record its vote.  Votes are to be provided directly to the secretariat.

d)   The secretariat will issue reminders after 30 and 45 days to those signatories who have not responded 

e)   For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee may require any signatory to provide a faxed signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.  

f)    The secretariat shall be responsible for counting the votes and arranging scrutineering by at least 2 independent persons.

g)   The Chair must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement 

h)   The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by signatories at the next General Meeting of the Accord.

i)    Notwithstanding the above, the signatories may agree that an election be held under urgency at a Mid-term Meeting through the calling for nominations and voting entirely within the timeframe of the Meeting.


B.8   PROTOCOLS FOR APPLICATION OF THE ACCORDS OUTSIDE SIGNATORY

JURISDICTIONS

B.8.1        Observance of Sovereignty

B.8.1.1.  Any signatory undertaking accreditation/recognition outside its own jurisdiction must observe the sovereignty of the jurisdiction in which the programme is delivered, ensuring compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements of that jurisdiction.

Note:  Clauses B.8.2 to B.8.5 apply to only SA and DA. Clauses B.8.2X to B.8.5X apply to WA only

B.8.2        Interpretation (SA & DA Only)

B.8.2.1.  Accredited and recognised programmes are identified by reference to the provider which awards the qualification.  Where the provider distinguishes between different possible pathways when making the award of the qualification then each pathway must have its own distinct accreditation or recognition status of a programme.

B.8.2.2.     The signatory of the jurisdiction in which the programme provider is headquartered (hereinafter call the headquarters signatory) has the primary role to ensure that the Rules are adhered to, and unless it is otherwise stated is the lead agency in any coordinated accreditation/recognition activity.

B.8.2.3.  Where provision of the programme is in three or more jurisdictions the Rules should be interpreted by applying, as appropriate: either section 8.3 or 8.4 to signatory jurisdictions; either section 8.4 or 8.5 to non-signatory jurisdictions.

B.8.3   Recognition of programmes under Clause 3(i) of an Accord: Award by a provider in a signatory jurisdiction involving pathway(s) in other signatory jurisdiction(s) (SA & DA Only)

B.8.3.1.  The signatories of the jurisdictions involved must agree with the provider(s) the

pathways and programmes to be considered for accreditation in each signatory’ jurisdiction.

B.8.3.2.  The signatories involved must agree the respective responsibilities, processes and protocols for evaluating and coming to accreditation decisions on each pathway that is identified. In doing so, the signatories should:

a)   ensure that any legislative need relating to accreditation of a particular pathway or programme is respected by the signatories involved; and

b)   ensure that binding requirements of each participating signatory’s policies are not compromised; and

c)   consider opportunities to minimise the assessment load on both signatories and providers; and

d)   rely on the headquarters signatory to take the lead when required.

B.8.3.3.     The signatories must ensure that processes and standards applied are substantially equivalent to those of the Accord.

B.8.3.4.        For recognition under the Accord, the following requirements must be satisfied:

a)   Both the headquarters and local signatories must consider the reports of the processes agreed in 8.3.2 and make an accreditation decision on the programme. Any outcome not to accredit disqualifies the pathway or programme from Accord recognition; and

b)   If the awarding provider discloses the pathway followed by the graduate in the degree certificate and/or academic transcript separate accreditation decisions must be published for each pathway. If the awarding provider does not disclose the pathway in the degree certificate and or academic transcript a single accreditation decision applies to all pathways. All pathways to which the decision applies must be listed; and

c)   The headquarters signatory, in an annotation to the listing of the accredited program, must refer to the local jurisdiction signatory listing for information on recognition of the programme under the Accord. The local signatory accreditation decision is, subject to B.8.3.4.a, accompanied by a statement that the program is recognised under the Accord.

B.8.4   Recognition of programmes under Clause 3(ii) of an Accord: Award by a provider in a signatory jurisdiction involving pathway(s) in nonsignatory jurisdiction(s) (SA & DA Only)

B.8.4.1.  A provider making award(s) in a signatory jurisdiction seeking accreditation and recognition of programmes involving pathway(s) in non-signatory jurisdiction(s) must offer programs in the signatory jurisdiction that are accredited by the signatory.

B.8.4.2.  The signatory must agree with the provider the pathways and programmes in non-signatory jurisdiction(s) to be considered for accreditation.

B.8.4.3.  The signatory must determine the processes and protocols for evaluating and coming to accreditation decisions on each pathway that is identified. In doing so, the signatory must ensure that any legislative need relating to accreditation of a particular pathway or program is respected.

B.8.4.4.     The signatory must ensure that processes and standards applied are substantially equivalent to those of the Accord and are reported in the periodic review process.

B.8.4.5.  A program accredited under Rule B.8.4 and so reflected in the signatory’s listing is recognised under the Accord.

B.8.5 Recognition of programmes signatories acting as an accreditation agent in non-accord jurisdictions under Clause 3 (ii) of an Accord (SA and DA only)

B.8.5.1.  This provision may only be applied in circumstances where at least the required majority of signatories is satisfied that:

a)   The jurisdiction is not capable of supporting an engineering accreditation agency;

b)   A sufficiently authoritative organisation in the non-Accord jurisdiction has concluded an agreement with a single signatory to act on its behalf for the accreditation of specific programmes within its jurisdiction and

c)   The signatory concerned can demonstrate that it has an interest in accreditation of programs identified in b, through either

i      An on-going tradition of support from the signatory jurisdiction to the nonAccord jurisdiction; or

ii     A significant proportion of graduates of the programme are likely to enter the signatory jurisdiction for engineering employment or further studyB.8.5.2 To extend the benefits of the Accord to graduates of programmes in the non-Accord jurisdiction that are accredited/recognised under this provision the other signatories must agree, by the same majority as would be needed to admit a new signatory.

B.8.5.2.     The signatory must ensure that processes and standards applied are substantially equivalent to those of the Accord.

B.8.5.3.  To extend the benefits of the Accord to graduates of programmes in the nonAccord jurisdictions that are accredited under this provision the other signatories must agree, by the same majority as would be needed to admit a new signatory that conditions a,b and c in B.8.5.1 and B.8.5.2 are satisfied.

B.8.5.4.                     The accreditation system applied by the signatory to programmes in the non-

Accord jurisdiction shall be reviewed as part of the signatory’s periodic review.


Additional clauses relating the Washington Accord

Note:  Clauses B.8.2X to B.8.5X apply to WA only and were numbered B.8.1 to B.8.4 in earlier versions of the Rules and Procedures.

B.8.2X  Programme implemented without differentiation in two different jurisdictions, each with accrediting bodies who are signatories to the accord (WA only):

Accreditation / recognition of the off-shore implementation of the programme will be undertaken on a collaborative basis, initiated by the signatory of the jurisdiction in which the programme is headquartered.  The offshore implementation, of the programme, must satisfy the accreditation / recognition criteria and requirements of both signatories.  

B.8.3X     Differentiated programme offered within the jurisdiction of a signatory (WA only):

Accreditation / recognition of the off-shore programme offering must be undertaken by the signatory of the jurisdiction in which the programme is delivered in consultation with the signatory of the jurisdiction in which the provider is headquartered.  

B.8.4X Undifferentiated or differentiated programme offered within a nonaccord jurisdiction (WA only):

Accreditation / recognition of the off-shore programme offering must be undertaken by the signatory of the jurisdiction in which the programme is headquartered.  

B.8.5X     In applying the Accords, a further allowed exception is defined for

accreditation of engineering programmes offered by non-accord jurisdictions (WA only):

Accreditation may be undertaken by signatories and recognised by the Accord under the following circumstances:

     The non-Accord jurisdiction is unable to support an accreditation body, and 

     The non-Accord jurisdiction requests a signatory to act on its behalf, and

     The other Signatories agree that the accreditations carried out in the non- Accord jurisdiction by the Signatory should be recognised by the Accord.


B.9     SECRETARIAT

B.9.1 From time to time the signatories shall appoint an organisation, normally affiliated with a signatory, to provide a secretariat for that Accord for a fixed length of time (this organisation shall be referred to as the provider of secretariat services).  

B.9.2   The secretariat has no decision making power, but acts in the best interests of

the Accord by faithfully implementing the Procedures and Rules and the Guidelines, including referring matters to the Chair or Committee for decision.  

B.9.3 The secretariat must maintain a record of the deliberations and decisions at each General, Mid-term or Special Meeting must facilitate and record exchanges of information between the signatories, maintain a relevant website, and must seek to advise signatories and others as to the policies and procedures to be adopted to give effect to the terms of the Accord.  

B.9.4 The secretariat will be paid a fee for the provision of a schedule of services agreed by the Signatories.  

B.9.5 The performance of the secretariat will be monitored by the Committee to ensure that the secretariat serves the Accord effectively and in good faith.  

B.9.6 These Rules will be given effect by a IEA Governance Structure and Procedures between the Accords and other agreements participating in the International Engineering Alliance, and a specific contract agreed between the provider of secretariat services and the Governing Group established by the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures to act on behalf of the Accord and all other agreements served by the secretariat.


B.10 CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS

B.10.1      Principle

B.10.1.1.  The general principle that underpins the Accords is that signatories, organisations holding conditional or provisional status and those expressing interests in the Accords should be responsible for meeting their own costs of becoming involved, and then maintaining their involvement.  

B.10.2     In-Kind Contributions

B.10.2.1.  Signatories are expected to make reasonable and equitable (taking into account the resources available to the signatory and its size) contributions of staff or volunteer time, without charge, for participation in the affairs of the Accord including, but not limited to, participating in meetings, correspondence and submissions on issues, development of policies and procedures, provision of people to undertake Assessment and Review activities, and mentoring.

B.10.3      Direct Costs

B.10.3.1.  Applicants to any Accord will be expected to pay an application fee determined by the Governing Group to cover the cost of providing the services needed to facilitate the assessment of the application.  Application fees shall be held by the provider of secretariat services for purposes deemed appropriate by the Governing Group.

B.10.3.2.  Prospective and actual signatories and those seeking or holding conditional or provisional status are expected to meet the direct costs (e.g. travel, accommodation, meals) of those involved in processes required or recognised (e.g. mentoring) under the Accord for gaining or maintaining either signatory or provisional status.  

B.10.3.3.  Such costs shall be reimbursed via the organisations with whom the person is affiliated or, with the agreement of the organisation, directly to the person.   

B.10.3.4.  Arrangements shall be made by the host acting in agreement with the person travelling.  

B.10.3.5.  The cost basis shall be that air travel shall be by economy class except that flights exceeding 8 hours duration or overnight shall be by the next highest available class.

B.10.3.6.  Accommodation shall be fully serviced, corresponding to 3 Star plus to 4 Star level on common international rating systems.

B.10.3.7.  On a long term basis, all signatories and those holding conditional or provisional status are expected to make fair contributions to the costs of operating the secretariat as determined by the IEA Governance Structure and Procedures.


Schedule B1: Criteria for Admission to Provisional Signatory Status in an Accord

An accrediting agency must satisfy the following requirements to be admitted to provisional status in an Accord:

1.       The accrediting agency has the following characteristics:

a)     Is non-governmental;

b)     Is legally incorporated in its home jurisdiction;

c)     Is the uncontested accreditation agency of the engineering community in the jurisdiction; or, if circumstances in the jurisdiction allows multiple accreditation agencies, the applicant must be the prominent authority in accreditation of programmes;

d)     Is a statutory or professionally recognised authority to accredit programs satisfying academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration) in a jurisdiction; 

e)     Accredits programmes at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher education degrees qualifications;; 

f)      Has policies to set, approve, evaluate and execute accreditation criteria  and procedures; 

g)     Is independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes in its jurisdiction; 

h)     Has autonomy to make accreditation decisions independent of stakeholder influence.

2.       The accrediting agency has an operational accreditation system with documented procedures and practices conforming to the following principles:

a)     The accreditation criteria and procedures are documented, publicized, and applied in accordance with set policies;

b)     The system accredits programmes or coordinated groups of individually identified programmes;

c)     Programme assessors are academic and industry peer reviewers; 

d)     There are mechanisms and documentation for training the programme assessors;

e)     Programme evaluation requires a self-evaluation and site visit; 

f)      Periodic re-evaluation is required to maintain accreditation; 

g)     Individual program evaluation is conducted in confidence;

h)     Mechanisms for addressing conflict of interest at all stages of the process exist; 

i)      A list of accredited programmes is published; 

j)      An appeal process exists.

3.       The accreditation agency’s criteria for accreditation include requirements for: 

a)     Programme outcomes that are consistent with the purpose of the programme

b)     A curriculum providing a broad basis for engineering practice; 

c)     A suitable environment to deliver the programme; 

d)     Adequate leadership for the programme; 

e)     Suitably qualified engineering practitioners teaching in the programme; 

f)      Appropriate entry and progression standards; a 

g)     Adequate human, physical and financial resources for the programme.


Note: Programme outcomes in item 3a are not expected to conform fully to the Graduate

Attribute exemplars at this stage.                                                  

Schedule B2: Criteria for Admission to and Maintenance of Signatory Status in

an Accord

The criteria defined in this schedule apply in the following cases:

1.       A provisional signatory under consideration for admission as signatory to an Accord; or 

2.       A signatory undergoing periodic monitoring.


Accreditation agencies under review must:

1.       Continue to satisfy the requirements defined in Schedule B1; and 

2.       Satisfy criteria 4, 5 and 6 below:


4.       The agency’s accreditation system and processes conform to the Accord accepted practice as exemplified by: 

a)                     High standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity;

b)                     All involved in programme evaluation are competent in the agency’s accreditation system, and are of high standing as educators or practitioners in the profession;

c)                      The defined evaluation standards and processes are applied consistently and fairly;

d)                     The accreditation report records and justifies accreditation recommendations in sufficient detail to support decision-making and clearly differentiates recommendations from requirements.

e)                     The decision making body demonstrates capacity to make difficult decisions in a way likely to be beneficial to the engineering community in the longer term.

5.       The graduate outcomes standard applied for accreditation is substantially equivalent to the Accord as exemplified by the Graduate Attribute exemplars as reflected in: 

a)                     The agency’s documented programme outcome standard; 

b)                     The standard required of accredited programs in practice.

6.       The agency and its accreditation system are sustainable and adequately managed as indicated by: 

a)                     Data from institutions offering educational programs that have sought accreditation in the jurisdiction; 

b)                     Data regarding programs that have sought accreditation in the jurisdiction; 

c)                      The extent to which programs have gone through a full accreditation cycle and been re-evaluated;

d)                     The depth of considerations observed during the accreditation visit and decision making meeting enabling appropriate accreditation outcomes to be achieved for a range of evidence of programme quality;

e)                     Mechanisms for the periodic review of accreditation policies, criteria and procedures;

f)                       The depth of training of programme assessors;

g)                     The accreditation programme is led by personnel with appropriate expertise in engineering education, engineering practice and educational quality assurance

h)                     Separation of policy making from accreditation decision making

i)                       Mechanism exists to make consistent accreditation decisions sustainably;

j)                       The agency’s history of involvement (if any) with other Education Accords under the International Engineering Alliance with evidence of general, consistent conformance with published accreditation policies and procedures.

_________________________________________________________________________


       

SECTION C – GUIDELINES

C.1                 GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE EXAMPLARS

Graduate Attribute Exemplars for Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accord programme are contained in the document ‘Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies’ available on the IEA Website.

http://www.ieagreements.org/GradProfiles.cfm  

These exemplify the graduate attributes of a programme of sufficient quality to be accredited under the relevant Accord for that programme.

C.2            APPLYING FOR PROVISIONAL STATUS

C.2.1        Preliminary steps prior to making application

C.2.1.1.     The relevant Rules and Procedures are in Section B.2.1 of the Rules and Procedures

C.2.1.2.  An applicant wishing to become a signatory should first contact the secretariat.  

C.2.1.3.  The secretariat will provide the necessary documentation on procedures and will invite the applicant to provide an application fee and preliminary documentation on its accreditation / recognition system.  The applicant will be informed that a mentoring service is available should they want to make use of it.  

C.2.1.4.  The Committee may provide advice on the level of detail required in the documentation, taking into account the extent to which the applicant has submitted relevant prior documentation in other contexts within the International Engineering Alliance, and the extent of access that the signatories have to the prior documentation. 

C.2.1.5.  The secretariat will provide the preliminary documentation to the Committee for evaluation.  If in the opinion of the Committee the accreditation/recognition standards and systems do not appear to be potentially compatible with the Requirements, the Committee will advise the applicant that its system differs from the Requirements in certain fundamental respects (to be indicated). The Committee will determine whether the applicant wishes to undertake the major development work and pursue its application further when it believes the issues identified have been addressed.  

C.2.1.6.  If the documentation appears to the Committee to be compatible with the Requirements and, if it is the wish of the applicant, the Committee may assign a team of two or three signatories as Mentors to assist the applicant in progressing towards provisional status.  

C.2.1.7.     When the applicant chooses to proceed with its application for Provisional status, it will request two of the existing signatories to act as Nominators.  

C.2.1.8.  When potential Nominators consider the applicant’s accreditation / recognition system has the potential to achieve the Requirements, they should inform the applicant that they are prepared to act as Nominators.  

C.2.1.9.  There is no obligation on applicants to ensure that all signatories are familiar with the applicant’s accreditation / recognition system.  However, in addition to the Nominators, it is helpful if up to three further signatories have had the opportunity to become familiar with the accreditation / recognition system prior to the application being considered.  

C.2.1.10.  The management of visits by potential Nominators shall conform with any policy approved by the International Engineering Alliance in regard to risks to the safety and security of visitors.

C.2.2        Documentation in support of applications

The applicant must meet all the requirements set out in the Rules and Procedures (Section B).  The documentation provided on the accreditation/recognition system should include the following sections, but the level of detail shall be as advised by the Committee: C.2.2.1.  Accrediting/Recognising organisation:

Provide the name of the organisation.  List the names of the officers of the organisation with brief CVs.  Describe the affiliations of the organisation with other engineering bodies, government and industry within the jurisdiction.   C.2.2.2.  Introduction:

Provide information about the jurisdiction and the context of engineering. C.2.2.3.  Education:

Provide a description of primary, secondary and tertiary education.  Describe the nature of programmes, including admission standards.  Provide the number and type of engineering institutions and programmes.  Indicate whether the institutions are publicly or privately funded or both.

C.2.2.4.     Structure Of The Engineering Community

Describe the context of engineering practice and the degree of regulation (i.e. registration vs licensing).  Describe if there a protected title and scope of practice.  Describe any differing categories of engineering practitioners and their academic requirements.  Describe the relationship of the organisation to licensing, registration or certifying agencies, and the extent to which the organisation can influence the acceptance of accreditations / recognition by those agencies.  


C.2.2.5.      Role of Accreditation/Recognition

Describe the role of accreditation/recognition in registration.  Given that accreditation / recognition are normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.  

C.2.2.6.     Accreditation/Recognition System

Describe the development of the accreditation/recognition system and its maturity.  Provide a description of the Accreditation/Recognition Board including its composition and authority.  List the objectives of accreditation / recognition.  Provide the criteria for accreditation/recognition (general, programme specific; curriculum content – technical and non-technical; incorporation of practical experience; length of the programme; naming of the programme; faculty requirements).  Provide details for conducting the accreditation/recognition evaluation and making the accreditation/recognition decision; include relevant documentation (initiation of visit; self-evaluation questionnaire; selection of evaluation team; organisation of the visit; due process).  Provide a list of currently accredited / recognised programmes and a schedule of upcoming evaluations.  Describe relationships with external engineering organisations including any agreements.  

C.2.3                Guidelines to assist in evaluation of applications for provisional status

Assessing substantial equivalence is a complex matter.  The experience of the existing signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient.  Confidence can only be achieved through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction between the applicant and signatories including visits to observe accreditation/recognition procedures.  

In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes.  The same words can embrace a wide range of standards.  

Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can only be reliably judged by experienced people through live interaction. Applicants must give the nominators, the opportunity to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/recognition criteria.  

Ultimately, the applicant must demonstrate that the level and content of the studies of accredited / recognised programmes are substantially equivalent to those of the current signatories.  Therefore, the programme must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution.  The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years (Washington Accord), fifteen years (Sydney Accord) and 13 years (Dublin Accord).  

Accreditation/recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics:

C.2.3.1.  The signatories to the Accord must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programmes designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region).  

C.2.3.2. Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes within their jurisdiction.  

C.2.3.3.  An accreditation/recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/recognition procedures and practices.  Accreditation/recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as:

a)   The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity; 

b)   The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programmes must be conducted in confidence; 

c)   Those involved in the accreditation / recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to engineering accreditation / recognition, engineering education and engineering practice.  

d)   Accreditation/recognition is of individual programmes or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole.  

e)   Evaluations of programmes are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit.  

f)    The criteria for accreditation/recognition should include requirements for: 

1    a suitable environment to deliver the programme; 

2    adequate leadership for the programme; 

3    suitably qualified engineering practitioners teaching in the programme; 

4    an engineering curriculum providing a broad basis for engineering practice; 

5    appropriate entry and progression standards; 

6    adequate human, physical and financial resources to support the programme.  

g)   The process should include periodic re-evaluation to maintain accreditation/recognition status.  


C.3     MENTORING

An increasing number of jurisdictions are expressing interest in being part of one or more international agreements that have as their main purpose the international benchmarking of engineering education or engineering practice standards.  

Accord signatories, when requested by the Committee, are willing to provide support, advice and guidance through a mentoring system to jurisdictions that are anticipating making formal application for provisional status or applying for upgrading to signatory of an Accord.  

The management of mentoring arrangements shall conform with any policy approved by the International Engineering Alliance in regard to risks to the safety and security of mentors.

C.3.1        Principles

C.3.1.1.     Mentoring for provisional and/or full status:

a)   Applicants for provisional status may decide whether they would like to participate in the Accord mentoring process. 

b)   Applicants for full-signatory status, i.e. provisional signatories, must have at least one mentor during the accreditation development process if the applicant is not currently a full signatory of an IEA Accord. The mentor would normally be one of the two nominators.  

C.3.1.2.  Appointment of mentors is made by the Committee. This is initiated by an organization lodging a request with the secretariat.  

C.3.1.3.  Mentoring relationships are set up for a set purpose and for a set period of time.  The purpose, programme, and time period should be negotiated between the mentee and the mentor and approved at their first meeting.  

C.3.1.4.  Mentoring is separate from the processes of applying for provisional status or upgrading to become a signatory.  Having participated in a mentoring relationship will not guarantee a mentee successful admission to an Accord either at the level of holding provisional status or becoming a signatory.  

C.3.1.5.  Mentors are acting on behalf of the relevant Accord.  They must perform their duties in a professional and timely manner and must keep the Committee informed of the agreed programme for the mentoring relationship, when and what mentoring activities have been undertaken.  

C.3.1.6.  The advice provided by the mentor is confidential to the mentee and mentors.  

C.3.1.7.     There will be free and unfettered disclosure to each other by both the mentor and the mentee.


C.3.2        Appointment of mentors

C.3.2.1.  On receipt of a formal request from an organisation for mentoring, the Committee will allocate two or three signatories that will each be expected to identify an appropriate person to represent them on the mentoring team.  Each representative must be knowledgeable of the accreditation / recognition systems and engineering education standards within their own jurisdiction.  

C.3.2.2.  When allocating mentor signatories the Committee will take cognisance of the size of the organisation to be mentored.  There should be at least one representative on the mentoring team whose home organisation is of equivalent size and composition.  Cognisance should also be taken of the geographical closeness of the mentor signatories to the organisation to be mentored.  

C.3.3        Reporting

C.3.3.1.     Mentor to Mentee:

Mentors may advise the mentee verbally and in writing.  The advice is confidential to the mentors and the mentee.  Nevertheless, in order to provide helpful and accurate advice any issue may be discussed by the mentors with the body managing the quality assurance process for accreditation / recognition within their home organisations for quality assurance to ensure consistency of approach.  

Written advice may only be released to others, including the Committee, by permission of the mentee.  

A professional / accreditation / recognition body seeking provisional membership that had been mentored could include mentoring reports in the written information they provide to demonstrate that their accreditation / recognition systems and standards are substantially equivalent to those of other signatories. C.3.3.2.  Mentor Report to Accord Signatories:

Mentors will provide the secretariat with an annual report to be distributed to signatories stating:

      the agreed terms or reference of the mentoring relationship; 

      the facts of mentor visits to the organisation of the mentee e.g. dates of visits, activities undertaken during the visit; 

      a general statement as to progress toward provisional or status or signatory.


C.3.4        Consultants

Professional / accreditation / recognition bodies sometimes contract the services of a consultant to provide them with support in the development of accreditation / recognition systems and qualification standards.  These consultants are paid a fee for their services and are not recognised as representatives of the signatories of the Accords.  If a professional / accreditation / recognition body chooses to contract the services of a consultant they must do so at their own risk.  If a signatory is providing consultancy support to a professional / accreditation / recognition body they must inform other signatories of the relevant Accord so as to declare any pecuniary interest.  

C.3.5        Mentoring provided by individual signatories

Professional / accreditation / recognition bodies often approach signatories directly to request support through a mentoring arrangement.  If signatories accept this request then they must inform the secretariat so that other signatories are made aware of the private mentoring arrangement.  The Accord, as a whole, cannot be responsible for the quality of advice and support provided through this private mentoring arrangement, which has not been approved by the Committee nor coordinated through the secretariat.

       

C.4     BECOMING A SIGNATORY

C.4.1 During the period of provisional status, it shall be open to all signatories to visit the applicant at their own cost, but this is not a requirement, nor part of the Assessment process towards becoming a signatory.  

C.4.2 Organisations holding provisional status shall seek guidance from their mentor/s (if any) and the Committee as to how soon during their granted period of provisional status they might apply for Assessment towards becoming a signatory.

C.4.3 Upon processing of the application as stated in Section B.2.2.3, the Committee must assign signatories to provide three Assessors to review on-site the applicant’s accreditation system and make recommendations to all signatories. 

C.4.4 The Assessors may be guided in their approach to undertaking the assessment by the guidelines for conducting a Periodic Review of an existing signatory set out in sections C.5.2.2 and C.5.2.3. 

C.4.5 The Assessors will evaluate the standards and systems of the applicant against the Requirements.  Indicators of attainment and/or typical characteristics of accreditation/recognition systems operated by other signatories and meeting the Requirements are set out below:

C.4.5.1 The accreditation system and processes are substantially equivalent to those of other signatories of the Accord:

     Accreditation criteria and accreditation processes are clearly documented and publically available

     The criteria for accreditation/recognition include requirements for:

o      A suitable environment to deliver the programme o Adequate leadership of the programme

o      Suitably qualified engineering practitioners teaching in the programme o An engineering curriculum providing a broad basis for engineering

practice

o      Appropriate entry and progression standards o Adequate human, physical and financial resources to support the programme

     There are mechanisms for addressing conflicts of interest for all involved in the accreditation/recognition process including visiting teams, accreditation/recognition decision-makers and policy makers

     There is an appropriate decision making body that demonstrates a capacity to make difficult decisions in a way likely to be beneficial to the engineering community in the longer term

     The accreditation process involves:

o      A self-review by the education provider seeking accreditation

o      An on-site review by a visit team comprised of peers o Periodic re-evaluation to maintain accreditation/recognition status o An accreditation report is produced that documents and justifies accreditation recommendations against published criteria and clearly differentiates between requirements and recommendations

o      Decision making processes are clearly defined, demonstrably objective and include provision for appeal

C.4.5.2 The graduate outcomes standard applied for accreditation is substantially equivalent to that of the Accord (as illustrated by the Accord graduate attributes exemplar).

     There is a documented accreditation outcome standard that is publically available

     Substantial equivalence to exemplar graduate profile of relevant Accord

C.4.5.3 The organisation seeking signatory status, and its accreditation/recognition systems are sufficiently well established and managed that it has made in the recent past, and is likely to continue, making consistent accreditation or recognition decisions

     It is generally expected that signatory organisations will satisfy the following general characteristics:

o      Legal incorporated in their home jurisdiction o Representative of the engineering community with statutory powers or recognised professional authority for the accreditation of engineering education programmes designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practising status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region)

o      Accredits /recognises programmes at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher education degrees/qualifications

o      Accreditation/recognition is consistent with the organisation’s mission

o      Independent of   educational providers   delivering     accredited

programmes, within the jurisdiction o Non-governmental o Has the autonomy to set policies and make accreditation/recognition decisions independent of stakeholder influence

     Indicators of a sufficiently well established and managed accreditation/recognition system include:

o      Percentage of institutions offering engineering education programmes that have sought accreditation/recognition 

o      The extent to which programmes have gone through a full accreditation / recognition cycle and been re-evaluated o Evidence that a range of accreditation / recognition outcomes is actually achieved, or could be achieved given the depth of consideration observed during the accreditation/recognition visit and decision making meeting

o      The organisation’s history of involvement (if any) with other Education Accords under the International Engineering Alliance

o      Evidence       of   general,       consistent   conformance      with       published

accreditation/recognition policies and procedures

o      Has mechanisms for the periodic review of accreditation policies and procedures

o      Has mechanisms for the training of accreditation/recognition panel members 

o      The accreditation/recognition programme is led by personnel with appropriate expertise in engineering education, engineering practice and educational quality assurance 

       

C.5     REVIEW OF SIGNATORIES

C.5.1        General protocols

C.5.1.1.  Review Teams must embody a range of expertise and must include at least one academic and one industrial representative.  According to the Accord Rules and Procedures, the Committee must select at least three members for the Review Team.  In selecting the Review Team the Committee will give consideration to the following:

Team Compositions

     The review team normally comprises two academic persons and one industry person each from different jurisdictions.

     The review team leader, who is selected by the Committee, should desirably have been a member of a previous international review or evaluation team.

     The team should desirably cover a range of disciplines. Team Member Characteristics

Essential Criteria:

     Experienced in the relevant national accreditation or competence assessment in their own jurisdiction

     Possesses good communication skills including being able to communicate in English

     Understands protocols for working in different cultures

     Able to work collaboratively in a self-managed international peer group, noting that the team produces its report without secretarial assistance

     Has time available (including 7-14 days for a review visit or a number of shorter reviews over a 3 year period) without remuneration

     Familiar with the IEA review requirements and exemplars

     Prepared to contribute feedback to improve the review process

Desirable Criteria

     Been a Visit Chair of accreditations and/or served on the Accreditation Board or equivalent decision making body in their own jurisdiction

     Has previous experience as a review team member of the relevant IEA Accord

     Able to communicate in the language of the jurisdiction being reviewed

     Available to act as a team member for at least three years


C.5.1.2.  In selecting the Review Team, the Committee as well as the secretariat must be cognisant of any activities that may impede individuals from participating due to conflict of interest.  

C.5.1.3.  The chair of the Review Team must be appointed by the Committee at the time of notification of the team composition. 

C.5.1.4.  The management of reviews shall conform with any policy approved by the International Engineering Alliance in regard to risks to the safety and security of Review Team members.

C.5.1.5.  After appointment of a Review Team, the signatories from which the Review Team are drawn shall each have the responsibility to prepare the Review Team member from their jurisdiction for the task by familiarisation with the Rules and relevant guidelines, and sharing of any relevant previous knowledge or experience of good accreditation/ recognition practice.

C.5.1.6.  The Committee shall brief the Review Team leader on what is expected of the Review Team, and the manner in which the Review Team must report.

C.5.1.7.     The following protocols are to be observed for non-English speaking organisations where the Review Team members are not fluent in the language of the jurisdiction being reviewed:

a)   English translations shall be provided of the key parts of the pre-visit documents for each visit that is to be observed and must include sufficient information for the observers to become familiar with the observed institutions, programmes, and visiting teams.  

b)   For Periodic Review: a single translator at each visited programme shall be provided.  The selection of translators is an important issue.  The accreditation / recognition organisation being observed should be responsible for that selection, but should select individuals who, in addition to having good language skills and a knowledge of the accreditation / recognition process, agree to hold a neutral position with regard to the observation process 

c)   When multiple programmes are to be observed at the same institution, it is recommended that the Review team remain as a group with their translator, but that they time-share their participation among the multiple visiting panels.  

d)   For Continuous Review: translators must be provided for each panel on which there is an ART observing the accreditation visit.  


C.5.1.8.  At the conclusion of a visit to a given signatory (Periodic Review) or prior to the end of a Review period for a signatory (continuous Review), the Review Team shall prepare a report with recommendations.  This report shall be sent to the Committee in draft form to ensure that it specifically addresses the needs of the Accord. Once the draft report is determined by the Committee to meet the needs of the Accord the Committee shall authorise the secretariat to distribute it to the other signatories.  The report shall be submitted no less than 120 days prior to the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord signatories. C.5.1.9.  The Final Report shall include:

a)   An executive summary outlining major educational and accreditation/recognition system characteristics and citing recommended action with the appropriate action statement.  

b)   An overall introduction to accreditation / recognition system under review and its standards 

c)   Information on accreditation / recognition policies / procedures and criteria for the system under review, including a comprehensive analysis of how the accreditation / recognition process addresses marginal, difficult conditional actions 

d)   A brief description of the educational provider and a listing of the programmes and results in order set the context for the review 

e)   Information on the conformity of the system with its own published accreditation / recognition policies and procedures 

f)    Indications of any stated or observed substantial change to the accreditation / recognition criteria, policies or procedures of the system under review and the rationale for the change 

g)   A statement as to whether the standard of the graduates of accredited / recognised programmes are substantially equivalent to graduates of other Accord signatories, which would normally be determined by:

o      consideration by the reviewers as to whether they consider that the accreditation standard is substantially equivalent to those in their home jurisdictions, and

o      a collective judgement by the Team as a whole as to whether the accreditation standard is substantially equivalent to that of the Accord  as illustrated by the exemplar graduate attributes of the relevant Accord. 


h)   Any statement of weakness or deficiency.  A weakness indicates that the accreditation / recognition system is satisfactory but lacks the robustness that assures that the quality of the system not be compromised prior to the next general review.  A deficiency indicates that the processes, policies and procedures for granting accreditation / recognition to programmes have been examined and found not to be equivalent to comparable practices of other signatories that assess the quality of programmes.  

i)    The recommendations open to the Review Team are as outlined in section

B.3.6.7. 

C.5.1.10.  All discussions concerning the Review must be held in confidence by the Review Team.  Review reports may be not be communicated to any signatory except through the secretariat but may be communicated to the agency being reviewed, but solely to ensure factual accuracy.  

C.5.1.11.  In Continuous Review, the Overall Review Report shall additionally focus on the remedial actions taken by the signatory to address the deficiencies or weaknesses cited by the earlier Review Teams and shall be submitted to the secretariat.  

C.5.1.12.  Conditional status of a signatory means that:

     the signatory must upgrade its policies and procedures to meet the Accord requirements within a specified period

     the Review report will specify what further report or visit will be required to confirm the satisfactory upgrading of policies and procedures 

     these reports shall be received before the end of the defined period

     graduates who complete academic degrees during the period of conditional status will not be recognised

     the status as a signatory will be revoked unless the upgrading requirements are met.

C.5.2        Periodic review

C.5.2.1.  The review process will normally include visits to at least two educational providers including a total of at least four programmes undergoing evaluation and normally at least two Team members will physically take part in the visit.  In addition, at least one Team member shall attend a meeting of the accreditation / recognition board or other body responsible for final accreditation / recognition actions.  

C.5.2.2.       The Review team should normally adopt the following overall approach:

a)   Individual desk review of provided documentation (at least 60 days in advance of any visit to allow for any other information to be requested and provided). A copy of the most recent Review report will be made available to the Review Team.  

b)   Preliminary meeting(s).  These can be by teleconference in advance, but normally sufficient time should be allowed at the commencement of the visit for a substantive meeting. At the preliminary meetings the Review Team should review data, determine aspects to be examined in more detail, outline the report structure, allocate individual Team member responsibilities.   

c)   Initial briefing on signatory systems.  Prior to the first accreditation to be observed there should be an explanation by the signatory of its systems, and explanation in response to any questions from the Review Team. 

d)   Observation of accreditation visits. The visit or visits accompanying the accreditation / recognition panels shall take place in accordance with the protocols below.  

e)   Consolidation of findings from accreditation visits. This Team meeting should attempt to structure the report and if possible prepare parts of it in outline. 

f)    Observation of the accreditation decision process (by at least one of the team), and follow-up on any items raised after the accreditation visits. The Review Team, or one member of it, may return to observe the decision making of the actual accreditations observed if the Team determines that such a visit is required.  

g)   Preparation of preliminary report and verification by the signatory under review of factual accuracy.

h)   Submission of the draft report to the Committee for confirmation it meets the needs of the Accord.   

C.5.2.3.  In general the protocols to be observed by the Review Team during the visit should be:

a)   The Team should be non-participatory observers.  

b)   The Team should refrain from making comments on the procedures or outcomes during the visits and only comment to the accreditation / recognition panel when requested to do so, after visits have been concluded and the intended recommendations made known to the educational providers concerned.  

c)   When necessary and in order to achieve complete coverage the Team should split to accompany accreditation / recognition sub-panels according to the individual specialisation of the Team members.  

d)   The Team may participate in the discussions with students as their questions in these forums may assist the Team to understand the educational culture and student perceptions.  This is judged to not unduly influence the accreditation / recognition process.  


C.5.3        Continuous Review

The process set out in the Rules should be followed.  Specific elements relating to the role of the Overall Review Team (ORT) are set out below.  In addition, Review team members should follow the guidelines for Periodic Review Teams to the extent they are applicable in establishing good practice.

C.5.3.1.  The signatory will provide the Committee with an overall Review programme for the Review period indicating when Accord Review Team visits are likely to occur.  The programme will ensure that Accord Review Teams (ART) participate in not less than three accreditation visits within the Review period, where possible to separate educational providers.

C.5.3.2.  An ART consisting of a subset of the ORT will be formed by the ORT Team leader and the signatory being reviewed for each designated accreditation visit.  ART will consist of two ORT members for major accreditation visits or one for smaller visits.  The ORT Team leader will appoint one of the ART as the ART Team leader for each review visit. 

C.5.3.3.     Each ART will produce a report, a copy of which will be provided to the signatory being reviewed, members of the ORT and the Committee.

C.5.3.4.  Any issues or recommendations identified by one ART will be considered by subsequent ARTs, with the signatory under review expected to provide a report on changes made between ART visits.

C.5.3.5.  The signatory being reviewed must ensure that at least one member of the ORT, in the last two years of the six year Review period, meets with the accreditation / recognition agency, reviews the accreditation / recognition procedures with the agency and observes an accreditation / recognition board decision meeting.  

C.5.3.6.  All discussions concerning the Review must be held in confidence by the ORT and ARTs as appropriate.  

C.5.3.7.  Prior to the end of the Review period the Chair of the ORT will prepare a summary report and recommendations to the secretariat.  A copy of that report must be furnished to each signatory through the secretariat, no later than 90 days prior to the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord signatories.  

C.5.3.8.  If, after at least 2 ART visits, but before the end of the Review period, the ORT concludes that there are substantive matters that call into question the substantial equivalence of the accreditation system of the signatory being reviewed, the ORT may prepare a summary report and recommendations to the secretariat.  A copy of that report must be furnished to each signatory through the secretariat for consideration at the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord signatories.


C.6             FULFILMENT OF REPORTING OBLIGATIONS

C.6.1        Biennial reporting by signatories

C.6.1.1.  Each Accord places obligations on signatories including that signatories will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing members to practice in its jurisdiction accept the substantial equivalence of programmes accredited by the signatories to the Accord.  

C.6.1.2.  Accordingly, at each biennial meeting of an Accord, each signatory is required to submit a written report on fulfilment of its obligations.  This report must be submitted to the secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting.  The report shall include:

a)   Updated contact information 

b)   Updated key personnel 

c)   Updated accreditation / recognition information  i Any changes in the scope of accreditation / recognition  ii Changes in accreditation / recognition standards / criteria 

iii    Number of currently accredited / recognised programmes (as at 30 June in the year of the bi-annual meeting) 

iv    Number of other accredited programmes to which Accord recognition does not apply 

v     Overview of the accreditation / recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years (comprehensive and provisional accreditation / recognition)

d)   Any recent major activities 

e)   Any changes in operating environment 

f)    Updated statement of fulfilment of signatory obligations to other signatories 

i Any changes in the structure of the licensing / registration / regulatory system for provision of engineering services within the jurisdiction of the signatory  ii Changes in the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership bodies 

iii    Changes in the relationship of the signatory with the relevant licensing / registration / regulatory / membership bodies 

iv    Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited / recognised by the signatory in the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership processes within the jurisdiction 

v     Credit given to graduates of other Accord signatories in the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership processes within the jurisdiction 

vi    A copy of a statement that can be widely publicised by other signatories stating the level of recognition that the relevant licensing / registration / regulatory / membership bodies are presently providing to graduates of programmes of other signatories.  

g)   The experiences of graduates of programmes accredited by the signatory in seeking recognition of their engineering education within the jurisdictions of other signatories.

C.6.2       Biennial reporting by organisations holding conditional or provisional status

C.6.2.1.  At each biennial meeting of an Accord or at more frequent intervals prescribed by the signatories in individual cases, organisations holding conditional status are required to submit a written report. This Report must be submitted to the Secretariat 90 days prior to the meeting. The report shall include:

a)   Updated contact information 

b)   Updated key personnel 

c)   Updated accreditation / recognition information  i Any changes in the scope of accreditation / recognition  ii Changes in accreditation / recognition standards / criteria 

iii    Number of currently accredited / recognised programmes (as at 30 June in the year of the bi-annual meeting) 

iv    Number of other accredited programmes to which Accord recognition does not apply 

v     Overview of the accreditation / recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years (comprehensive and provisional accreditation / recognition) 

d)   Any recent major activities 

e)   Any changes in operating environment 

f)    Updated statement on the potential ability to fulfil obligations to signatories if readmission as a signatory was to occur in the future: 

i Any changes in the structure of the licensing / registration / regulatory system for provision of engineering services within the jurisdiction of the signatory  ii Changes in the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership bodies 

iii    Changes in the relationship of the signatory with the relevant licensing / registration / regulatory / membership bodies 

iv    Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited / recognised by the signatory in the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership processes within the jurisdiction 

v     Credit already given to graduates of Accord signatories within the licensing / registration / regulatory / membership processes within the jurisdiction 

g)   Report on progress toward satisfying conditions set by signatories for reinstatement 

C.6.2.2.  At each biennial meeting of an Accord or at more frequent intervals prescribed by the signatories in individual cases, organisations holding provisional status are required to submit a written report. This Report must be submitted to the Secretariat 90 days prior to the meeting. 

The report shall include:

a)   Updated contact information 

b)   Updated key personnel 

c)   Information on accredited / recognised programmes: numbers of programmes of the type proposed for recognition under the relevant Accord:  i Estimate of total number of programmes offered in the jurisdiction  ii Number of programmes accredited / recognised to date 

iii    Number of programmes due for accreditation / recognition in the next two years 

iv    Number of programmes that have had at least one re-evaluation after the first application of the normal accreditation / recognition cycle. 

d)   Any significant changes to the information submitted with application for provisional status: 

i Jurisdiction of the body  ii Structure or governance of the body 

iii    Accreditation / recognition criteria 

iv    Accreditation / recognition processes  v Structure of the engineering community 

vi Role of accreditation / recognition. 

e)   Mentoring: describe any active mentoring or accreditation / recognition benchmarking process? 

f)    Graduate attributes: 

i      Has the body performed (or updated in the last year) an analysis of gaps between its outcome standard and the Graduate Attribute exemplar? (A template is available to aid this analysis, which need not be submitted with this report.)  

ii     Have the mentor(s) or other signatories commented on this analysis? 

g)   Best practice in accreditation / recognition: 

i Has the body performed (or updated in the last year) an analysis of gaps between its accreditation / recognition process and policy and Accord best practice in accreditation / recognition summarised in the available template? (The completed analysis need not be submitted with this report.)  ii Have the mentor(s) or other signatories commented on this analysis? 

h)   When does the body estimate it will be ready to apply to advance to signatory status? 


C.7     GUIDELINES FOR WEB-BASED LISTINGS OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES

C.7.1        Key attributes

C.7.1.1.      Key attributes of an accreditation listing are:

a)   It must be presented in English as well as any other language of importance to the jurisdiction. 

b)   The currency of the listing should be identified with the latest publication date identified along with an indicative frequency of update.

c)   The listing should be comprehensive; showing all currently and previously accredited or recognised programmes.  It must be clear whether the accreditation applies to all pathways to the award of the qualification.  It not, the specific pathway must be shown.  Information as to which other signatory has jurisdiction over other pathways should be given.

d)   The listing should be available in a web based version to maximise access, and should provide users with the ability to search by education provider, geographical region or engineering discipline if more than (say) 100 programmes are listed. Web based versions should be clearly linked from the home page of the host jurisdiction’s website and the relevant Accord web page at www.ieagreements.org It is recommended that the listing also include links to the website of the provider of each accredited programme.

e)   Where a jurisdiction accredits programmes that are recognised under different

Accords, and/or programmes that are not recognised under any of the Accords, there should be clear differentiation of programmes, clearly indicating recognition status under particular Accords.  Ideally, programmes accredited under different Accords should be maintained in discrete lists or sections.  However, if a combined list is used, users should be able to search for programmes recognised under a particular Accord.

f)    The listing should have a clear introductory section that introduces the relevant Accord, explains the status of the host jurisdiction and sets out the obligations of other signatories under the Accord (see below for detailed guidance).

g)   The listing should also provide clarity over the scope of (or limitations to the scope of) accreditation (see below for detailed guidance).

h)   Where provisional accreditation is accorded, programmes with provisional accreditation should be clearly identified and the implications of this for the recognition of graduates should be clearly stated.

i)    Finally, the listing should include the date for the next accreditation review of each programme, or the date for the next general review of the programmes offered by an individual provider.

C.7.2        Detailed guidelines for web listings

C.7.2.1.     Introductory Section

Introductory information on the Accord should be clearly accessible, preferably as part of (or linked from) the front page of the listing or search page.

The introduction should, as a minimum:

     introduce the Accord and its purpose,

     include a link to the Accord web page,

     advise the date from which the host jurisdiction became a signatory to the Accord,

     explain the obligations of other signatory jurisdictions to recognise graduates from accredited programmes, taking account of key dates.

The following generic introductory statement is provided and signatories are encouraged to adapt it to their own situation:

Engineering programmes listed below have been accredited by [host signatory organisation] and are recognised as meeting the initial academic requirements for [engineering role] in [country/jurisdiction/territory].  International recognition of these programmes is provided through the [name] Accord, which was signed in [year].  

Signatories to the [name] Accord have undertaken to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible or registering or licensing [engineering role] to practise in its country or territory mutually recognise the substantial academic equivalence of engineering academic programmes accredited by other Accord signatories.

[Host signatory organisation] was a founding signatory to the [name] Accord/became a signatory to the [name] Accord in [year] and other signatories are under no formal obligation to recognise the graduates of accredited programmes prior to [year agreement signed]/that year.  Individual Accord signatories recognise [host signatory organisation] accredited programmes gained prior to [year] at their own discretion.

Further details about the [name] Accord and details of all current signatories with links to all accreditation listing information can be found at: www.ieagreements.org

The introductory information should also include any interpretive statement necessary to explain terminology and assist in interpretation (see below).


C.7.3        Clarity over scope of accreditation

C.7.3.1.  It is essential that users of the lists can readily identify programmes and pathways that are accredited or recognised by the signatory body within the jurisdiction, and differentiate those which are accredited/recognised under a particular Accord from those that are not.

C.7.3.2.  Listings of accredited/recognised programmes should be maintained in discrete lists, discrete sections, or in a combined list that enables searching by Accord Agreement

C.7.3.3.  Users also need sufficient certainty over whether programmes of study that have different pathways to the award of qualification covered by the scope of accreditation/recognition. 

Examples of this may be:

     programmes offered at the home campuses within the jurisdiction,

     programmes offered at the home campus within the jurisdiction and at other campuses external to the jurisdiction – e.g. international campuses,

     programmes offered in multiple delivery modes,

     programmes that may be awarded both with and without honours. 

C.7.3.4.                       In general terms, signatories are encouraged to list accredited/recognised

programmes with the level of pathway information shown on the graduate’s qualification certificate/testamur/parchment.

C.7.3.5.  Where multiple pathways to the award of a programme qualification exist and are covered under the scope of a single undifferentiated accreditation/recognition, a general clarifying statement to this effect should be provided. The following generic wording is suggested for adaptation by signatories to the specific jurisdiction: 

“Unless explicitly stated, accreditation/recognition under the [name] Accord, extends to the award of listed programmes based on delivery across all pathways by which the programme is offered”.

C.7.3.6.  Where programmes offered by the same provider are differentiated by pathway on the qualification certificate/testamur/parchment and can be accredited/ recognised on an individual basis, separate listings of accreditations/recognition by pathway must appear.

C.7.3.7.  Where multiple pathways are not all accredited/recognised by the provider, information as to where to find information on accreditation/recognition of other pathways by other providers must be given on the web listing of the headquarters signatory. 

C.7.3.8.     Where an Accord signatory provides, as a service under Rule B.8.5, accreditation or recognition of programmes offered in a non-Accord jurisdiction; or is    approved     by Accord   signatories   to   provide,       as a    service, accreditation/recognition of programmes offered in a non-Accord jurisdiction, then a separate listing of recognised/accredited programmes should be provided by the Accord signatory for that jurisdiction. The recognition or accreditation status assigned by the Accord signatory for each programme should be clearly stated following the guidelines above. In addition there must be a clear statement of the implication this has for the granting of benefits to graduates of the programme under the Accord. 

C.7.3.9.  The first date from which accreditation/recognition applies to graduates should be clearly stated, along with the final date for any programme that is no longer accredited/recognised.  The listing should provide clarity over whether the dates relate to the year of programme enrolment, completion or graduation.

       

C.8 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR ACCORD SIGNATORIES WORKING

INTERNATIONALLY

These principles are intended to provide a generally accepted framework for signatories working in jurisdictions where there is no organisation that is a signatory of the relevant Accord.  They are intended to strengthen the international stature of the Accord Agreement, strengthen the working relationship among Accord signatories and international quality assurance agencies, and encourage and enhance ongoing cooperation and communication.

C.8.1        Principle 1: Considerations For Accord Signatories When Determining To

Undertake Quality Assurance Evaluations In Another Jurisdiction Not A Member Of The Accord

Accord signatories will:

         Affirm their organisational capacity to provide evaluative services (e.g., language, trained staff and evaluators, budget, experience, basic information about the jurisdiction); 

         Clarify the relationship of the proposed services to the priorities of the accrediting organisation; 

         Communicate with other Accord signatories about the service relationship; 

         Promulgate a clear statement of the scope of the evaluative services  and the use of the recognition status by an institution or programme in another jurisdiction, especially with regard to transfer of credit and degree and qualifications equivalency; 

         Assure clear understanding of the relationship of the evaluative services to any international agreements that address quality assurance.   C.8.2 Principle 2: Expectations For Conduct Of Evaluative Services

Accord signatories will:

         Inform jurisdiction quality assurance agencies in jurisdictions where evaluative services are provided and, where appropriate, seek information, guidance, and concurrence from these agencies; 

         Communicate with rectors and other college and university officials at institutions where they are conducting evaluations; 

         Assure that staff and evaluators are adequately informed about higher education and quality assurance in the jurisdictions in which they are conducting evaluative services to preclude the appearance of cultural insensitivity; 

         Communicate fully and clearly about costs and currencies associated with a providing services.  


C.8.3       Principle 3: Quality Assurance Of Online And Web-Based Instruction And Programmes

Accord signatories will:

         Work as closely as possible with their institutional and programmatic exporters of online and web-based education to assure quality as offerings are made available in a variety of jurisdictions, especially when the offerings involve instructional strategies that are unfamiliar to the host jurisdiction; 

         Urge that these exporters review language, literacy and study skills levels of the target audience for these offerings, preparing separate or supplemental material to meet special needs if appropriate.

C.8.4         Principle 4: Responsibilities To Students And Colleagues

Accord signatories will:

         Work with the appropriate agencies in non-signatory jurisdictions to provide the most comprehensive and accurate information available about educational services and programmes to avoid the export of diplomas of questionable quality offered for a fee; 

         Develop, in coordination with international colleagues, the appropriate protocol to assist non-signatory jurisdictions in reviewing educational imports from questionable provenance.  

C.8.5     Principle 5: Working In Jurisdictions Which Are Developing Countries

         When a signatory seeks approval to accredit programmes offered by providers in a non-Accord jurisdiction, a written agreement must be signed between the parties.  This agreement put before the meeting of signatories when seeking approval to accredit.  

         Recognition of programmes commences with accreditation visits subsequent to the formal approval by the Accord’s signatories.  

         Only one approved signatory will be chosen by the Accord signatories for a non-Accord jurisdiction.  

         The approved signatory, with the assistance of other signatories as appropriate, may assist the jurisdiction to establish an accreditation system and mentor the jurisdiction to a point where it is ready to apply for provisional status.  In such a case, a joint accreditation process may operate for a period.  

         The approved signatory, with the assistance of education providers with accredited programmes as appropriate, may assist an education provider in a jurisdiction that is a developing country that seeks recognition to improve its programmes to the level of substantial equivalence.  The signatory’s input would focus on creating an understanding of criteria acceptable to the Accord and the quality assurance process.  

友情链接
合作伙伴