APQN Members
Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP)
Membership Type: Full
Email: manuel.corpus@aaccupqa.org.ph
Year in which Organisation/Agency commenced operations: 1989
Countries/regions/states of operation: Philippines
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Title: Dr
First Name: Manuel
Surname: Corpus
Job Title: Executive Director
Phone: +632-961-3317
Fax: +632-961-3316
Email Id: manuel.corpus@aaccupqa.org.ph
Alternative Email Id: manueltcorpus@yahoo.com
Nominated Contact Person (if different from CEO)
Organisation Details
Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP)
Address: 5A-B Future Point Plaza 3, 111 Panay Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City, Philippines 1103
Philippines
Website: http://www.aaccupqa.org.ph
Additional Contacts
Name 1: Danilo Hilario
Email 1: hilario_danilo@yahoo.com
Criteria Requirements for Full Member
1 Criterion: Nature of the operations of the agency:
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary
education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary
education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
Description: The accreditation of programs and institutions, particularly of state universities and colleges, is the main function of the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP). It is a government-recognized agency registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 1989 although it effectively started operating as early as 1987. Under its charter, the main function of AACCUP is â??to develop a mechanism and conduct the evaluation of programs and institutionsâ?. As of 2005, the Agency counts a membership of 101 out of the 111 state universities and colleges; three local colleges and one foreign university. It is still increasing. Out of its total membership of 105, 88 (or 84%) already have their share of accredited programs.
The AACCUP has developed and adopted its own scheme of accreditation - standards, processes, system of evaluation, accreditation instrument, a pool of accreditors, etc., but is also governed by government policies on accreditation particularly under the provisions of CHED CMO No. 1, dated February 15, 2005.
Since its creation, the AACCUP has been accrediting only at the program level. However, since March 2001, it started its study and development of a model of institutional accreditation which has been finally launched in February 2005. At present, AACCUP accredits both programs and institutions.
The AACCUP has developed and adopted its own scheme of accreditation - standards, processes, system of evaluation, accreditation instrument, a pool of accreditors, etc., but is also governed by government policies on accreditation particularly under the provisions of CHED CMO No. 1, dated February 15, 2005.
Since its creation, the AACCUP has been accrediting only at the program level. However, since March 2001, it started its study and development of a model of institutional accreditation which has been finally launched in February 2005. At present, AACCUP accredits both programs and institutions.
Documents Upload: Download 'CMO_No_1_s_2005.doc'
2 Criterion: Mission statement and objectives:
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
Description: Mission: To make the attainment of quality in education an integral part of the higher education system through internal and external assessment.
Objectives: As defined in its charter, AACCUP shall:
1.develop a mechanism for, and conduct the evaluation of, programs and institutions for accreditation;
2.promote interest in, and acceptance of, voluntary accreditation;
3.establish policies and develop standards and instruments, for evaluating educational programs/institutions;
4.provide or recommend incentives and rewards for accredited programs and institutions;
5.enlarge public understanding, enlist acceptance, and continue the professional practice of accreditation, as effectively adopted to Philippine setting; and
6.perform other activities that may directly or indirectly lead to the attainment of the purposes of accreditation.
In the pursuit of its mission , AACCUP has assessed 666 programs in 85 state universities and colleges, and 3 local colleges from 1992 to the end of 2004.
Objectives: As defined in its charter, AACCUP shall:
1.develop a mechanism for, and conduct the evaluation of, programs and institutions for accreditation;
2.promote interest in, and acceptance of, voluntary accreditation;
3.establish policies and develop standards and instruments, for evaluating educational programs/institutions;
4.provide or recommend incentives and rewards for accredited programs and institutions;
5.enlarge public understanding, enlist acceptance, and continue the professional practice of accreditation, as effectively adopted to Philippine setting; and
6.perform other activities that may directly or indirectly lead to the attainment of the purposes of accreditation.
In the pursuit of its mission , AACCUP has assessed 666 programs in 85 state universities and colleges, and 3 local colleges from 1992 to the end of 2004.
Documents Upload: Download 'Manual_on_Accreditation.doc'
3 Criterion: Agency staff, Numbers, Profile, Roles:
Measure: The profile of the staff is consistent with the Mission Statement
Measure: The profile of the staff is consistent with the Mission Statement
Description: The profile of the staff is very consistent with the mission of the Agency.
Governance is vested in a Board of Trustees composed of 12 Trustees elected to a 2-year term (except the Executive Director who sits as an ex-officio member) during the annual national conference. Four of the Members must be Presidents/Vice Presidents of state universities or colleges; four are Deans/Directors; and three, faculty (teaching) members. The main regional grouping in the country are also represented in the Board:
Luzon - 5
Visayas - 3
Mindanao - 3
The administration of the Agency is the responsibility of the Secretariat/Consultants Group of 16 headed by an Executive Director.
A Technical Review Committee composed of eight members serve on part-time basis to review Survey Team Reports, and make recommendations.
Since training is a regular fixture of AACCUP activities, a core Training Staff of 12 members is organized. They represent the nucleus that mainly plan and organize training of Accreditors.
The federation/network authorized by the Commission on Higher Education to certify programs accredited by AACCUP is the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (NNQAA). It has seven Members of the Board, four coming from the member accrediting agencies, and three prominent educators. A former Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education is member of the Board.
Governance is vested in a Board of Trustees composed of 12 Trustees elected to a 2-year term (except the Executive Director who sits as an ex-officio member) during the annual national conference. Four of the Members must be Presidents/Vice Presidents of state universities or colleges; four are Deans/Directors; and three, faculty (teaching) members. The main regional grouping in the country are also represented in the Board:
Luzon - 5
Visayas - 3
Mindanao - 3
The administration of the Agency is the responsibility of the Secretariat/Consultants Group of 16 headed by an Executive Director.
A Technical Review Committee composed of eight members serve on part-time basis to review Survey Team Reports, and make recommendations.
Since training is a regular fixture of AACCUP activities, a core Training Staff of 12 members is organized. They represent the nucleus that mainly plan and organize training of Accreditors.
The federation/network authorized by the Commission on Higher Education to certify programs accredited by AACCUP is the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (NNQAA). It has seven Members of the Board, four coming from the member accrediting agencies, and three prominent educators. A former Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education is member of the Board.
4 Criterion: Profile of reviewers:
Measure: The profile of the reviewers is consistent with the Mission Statement
Measure: The profile of the reviewers is consistent with the Mission Statement
Description: Since 1992, AACCUP has trained a total of 1612, but has retained a register of 1062 qualified and active accreditors. Accreditors go through a series of screening before being accredited to the Register of AACCUP Accreditors, such as:
1.passing a paper qualification: field of specialization, educational degrees, faculty rank, and personal qualities;
2.successfully completing a 4-day training of accreditors; and
3.passing a practicum test involving two survey visits as an accreditor-in-training. The accreditorâ??s performance continues to be monitored thereafter.
Training of accreditors is a regular activity in AACCUP. The latest series of training held on-site of survey visits started in September 2004 and will continue till the end of 2005. A national workshop of accreditors is held every year. This year, there will be two national workshops: October 17-20, and December 19-22 involving about 500 accreditors.
1.passing a paper qualification: field of specialization, educational degrees, faculty rank, and personal qualities;
2.successfully completing a 4-day training of accreditors; and
3.passing a practicum test involving two survey visits as an accreditor-in-training. The accreditorâ??s performance continues to be monitored thereafter.
Training of accreditors is a regular activity in AACCUP. The latest series of training held on-site of survey visits started in September 2004 and will continue till the end of 2005. A national workshop of accreditors is held every year. This year, there will be two national workshops: October 17-20, and December 19-22 involving about 500 accreditors.
5 Criterion: Independence:
Measure: The judgements and recommendations of the agency’s reports cannot be changed by third parties
Measure: The judgements and recommendations of the agency’s reports cannot be changed by third parties
Description: This agency is fully independent. Its reports cannot be changed by third parties.
Within two weeks after the on-site visit, the leader of the Team of Accreditors submits the Team Report to AACCUP Secretariat. The report goes through the following processes. It is:
1.reviewed by a Technical Review Committee in accordance with standards set by AACCUP, and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees.
2.reviewed in detail by a Member of the Board of Trustees who will â??sponsorâ? its approval/disapproval/deferment during the Board meeting;
3.acted upon by the Board which may award it with an accredited status, deny the award, or defer it.
4.forwarded to the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, which is the body authorized to review and certify the accreditation status awarded by AACCUP, and refer it to its Technical Review Committee.
5.reviewed by the Technical Review Committee in accordance with NNQAA standards, and recommends the action to be taken by the NNQAA Board of Trustees;
6.acted upon by the NNQAA Board of Trustees which certify the program accreditation status. Otherwise, it is disapproved or deferred, and
7.transmitted to the concerned institution together with the results (decision).
Within two weeks after the on-site visit, the leader of the Team of Accreditors submits the Team Report to AACCUP Secretariat. The report goes through the following processes. It is:
1.reviewed by a Technical Review Committee in accordance with standards set by AACCUP, and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees.
2.reviewed in detail by a Member of the Board of Trustees who will â??sponsorâ? its approval/disapproval/deferment during the Board meeting;
3.acted upon by the Board which may award it with an accredited status, deny the award, or defer it.
4.forwarded to the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, which is the body authorized to review and certify the accreditation status awarded by AACCUP, and refer it to its Technical Review Committee.
5.reviewed by the Technical Review Committee in accordance with NNQAA standards, and recommends the action to be taken by the NNQAA Board of Trustees;
6.acted upon by the NNQAA Board of Trustees which certify the program accreditation status. Otherwise, it is disapproved or deferred, and
7.transmitted to the concerned institution together with the results (decision).
6 Criterion: Resources:
Measure: The agency has sufficient resources to run its operations in accordance with its mission statement and objectives
Measure: The agency has sufficient resources to run its operations in accordance with its mission statement and objectives
Description: The AACCUP is endowed with sufficient human, financial and physical resources to run its operation. The leaders, staff, technical consultants, trainors and especially the Accreditors are highly qualified and competent to perform their respective roles in the Agencyâ??s pursuit of its mission.
The physical resources are modest but adequate. At least, AACCUP owns its office which was purchased in 1999.
In terms of finances, in spite of the absence of any subsidy from government, the AACCUP generally has gained excess income over expenses annually.
Funding its annual operations is sourced from the following:
1.annual dues of its members
2.accreditation service fees
3.consultancy fees
4.funds derived from the sale of accreditation materials (instruments, journals, newsletters, manuals, etc.)
5.Proceeds in holding seminars, conferences, and training.
The physical resources are modest but adequate. At least, AACCUP owns its office which was purchased in 1999.
In terms of finances, in spite of the absence of any subsidy from government, the AACCUP generally has gained excess income over expenses annually.
Funding its annual operations is sourced from the following:
1.annual dues of its members
2.accreditation service fees
3.consultancy fees
4.funds derived from the sale of accreditation materials (instruments, journals, newsletters, manuals, etc.)
5.Proceeds in holding seminars, conferences, and training.
7 Criterion: External quality assurance criteria and processes:
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Description: The self-survey is only a part of the Program Performance Profile which includes the program profile; basic data/information which will be used in the evaluation based on the criteria and indicators; and the self-survey. The process is discussed in the Manual on Accreditation.
The processes during the on-site visit are explained in detail in â??Part 4. Procedures: Activities During Accreditation Visitsâ? of the Manual on Accreditation. The tool used in the evaluation is the Master Survey Instrument. This instrument is also used in the self-survey. The Accreditor is also provided with detailed guides which he could use during the 3-day on-site visit in the AACCUP Handbook on Accreditation..
The criteria and indicators of each criteria are well-defined. The Program Performance Profile provides information that are responsive to the criteria. The Accreditation Instrument elicits answers to be able to evaluate the program using the different criteria.
The Team Report on the on-site visit is submitted to AACCUP which is then reviewed by the Technical Review Committee before it goes to the Board of Trustees for its approval/disapproval/deferment of award. The Board action together with the Team Report is then forwarded to the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies for certification that the program qualifies for the accreditation status awarded based on the set standards. The decision of the AACCUP Board of Trustees as confirmed by the NNQAA is transmitted to the concerned institution which also contains the summary of ratings, summary of findings and recommendations, and other suggestions to prepare the program for the next cycle of accreditation visit.
The processes during the on-site visit are explained in detail in â??Part 4. Procedures: Activities During Accreditation Visitsâ? of the Manual on Accreditation. The tool used in the evaluation is the Master Survey Instrument. This instrument is also used in the self-survey. The Accreditor is also provided with detailed guides which he could use during the 3-day on-site visit in the AACCUP Handbook on Accreditation..
The criteria and indicators of each criteria are well-defined. The Program Performance Profile provides information that are responsive to the criteria. The Accreditation Instrument elicits answers to be able to evaluate the program using the different criteria.
The Team Report on the on-site visit is submitted to AACCUP which is then reviewed by the Technical Review Committee before it goes to the Board of Trustees for its approval/disapproval/deferment of award. The Board action together with the Team Report is then forwarded to the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies for certification that the program qualifies for the accreditation status awarded based on the set standards. The decision of the AACCUP Board of Trustees as confirmed by the NNQAA is transmitted to the concerned institution which also contains the summary of ratings, summary of findings and recommendations, and other suggestions to prepare the program for the next cycle of accreditation visit.
8 Criterion: Quality assurance:
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Measure: The description of the processes and criteria applied should be transparent and publicly available and normally include:
self evaluation, site visit, public report and follow-up measure
Description: There are safety nets to assure quality in AACCUP.
The National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, of which AACCUP is a member, is empowered by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to certify programs accredited by AACCUP. It is also charged with the responsibility of ensuring quality.
The oversight of educational programs, including accreditation, is a legal function of CHED. AACCUP is mandated to operate in accordance with CHED CMO No. 1, s. 2005. Aside from this, AACCUP, in its desire to improve its operations, voluntarily invites CHED to its training programs and to on-going accreditation survey visits.
AACCUP holds regularly annual conferences, attended by state universities and colleges and other stakeholders with 400 to 500 participants to evaluate the past yearâ??s operations. In addition special workshops are held to evaluate and revise its documents. Since 1992, The Manual of Accreditation has been revised three times; the Accreditation Instrument, four times; and the training materials, almost yearly.
In 2003, AACCUP studied institutional accreditation in U.K. for seven days under the sponsorship of the British Council. The Council also provided a Consultant to evaluate AACCUPâ??s program accreditation and to consider the potential of adopting institutional accreditation. In 2004 AACCUP studied institutional accreditation in Australia under the AUQA.
As AACCUP has no exposure to accrediting institutions, it sought the assistance of the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN) to send experts to the Philippines to train Accreditors in â??How to Conduct Institutional Accreditationâ?. This is history as it is the first training on institutional accreditation ever held in the Philippines.
AACCUP has adopted an open policy of learning the â??best practicesâ? in quality assurance around the world. It regularly attends and actively participates in the projects of INQAAHE and APQN.
AACCUP puts out two publications. The Journal of Philippine Higher Education Quality Assurance, and the AACCUP Newsletter, published annually and semi-annually, respectively.
The National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, of which AACCUP is a member, is empowered by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to certify programs accredited by AACCUP. It is also charged with the responsibility of ensuring quality.
The oversight of educational programs, including accreditation, is a legal function of CHED. AACCUP is mandated to operate in accordance with CHED CMO No. 1, s. 2005. Aside from this, AACCUP, in its desire to improve its operations, voluntarily invites CHED to its training programs and to on-going accreditation survey visits.
AACCUP holds regularly annual conferences, attended by state universities and colleges and other stakeholders with 400 to 500 participants to evaluate the past yearâ??s operations. In addition special workshops are held to evaluate and revise its documents. Since 1992, The Manual of Accreditation has been revised three times; the Accreditation Instrument, four times; and the training materials, almost yearly.
In 2003, AACCUP studied institutional accreditation in U.K. for seven days under the sponsorship of the British Council. The Council also provided a Consultant to evaluate AACCUPâ??s program accreditation and to consider the potential of adopting institutional accreditation. In 2004 AACCUP studied institutional accreditation in Australia under the AUQA.
As AACCUP has no exposure to accrediting institutions, it sought the assistance of the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN) to send experts to the Philippines to train Accreditors in â??How to Conduct Institutional Accreditationâ?. This is history as it is the first training on institutional accreditation ever held in the Philippines.
AACCUP has adopted an open policy of learning the â??best practicesâ? in quality assurance around the world. It regularly attends and actively participates in the projects of INQAAHE and APQN.
AACCUP puts out two publications. The Journal of Philippine Higher Education Quality Assurance, and the AACCUP Newsletter, published annually and semi-annually, respectively.
Criteria Requirements for Institutional Member
Institutional Member Criteria:
Measure: Institutional Members are institutions of higher education in the region that are in good standing with the relevant quality assurance agency if one exists.
Measure: Institutional Members are institutions of higher education in the region that are in good standing with the relevant quality assurance agency if one exists.
Criteria Requirements for Associate Member
Associate Member Criteria:
Measure:Associate Members are organisations with a major interest and active involvement in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education, but without the responsibility for assuring the quality of institutions, education programs, or external quality assurance agencies
Measure:Associate Members are organisations with a major interest and active involvement in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education, but without the responsibility for assuring the quality of institutions, education programs, or external quality assurance agencies
Criteria Requirements for Intermediate Member
1 Criterion: Nature of the operations of the agency:
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
Measure: The agency is responsible for reviews at institutional or programme level of post-secondary education institutions or post-secondary quality assurance agencies
2 Criterion: Mission statement and objectives:
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
Measure: The agency has formulated a mission statement and objectives which are consistent with the nature of the agency
3 Criterion: :
Proof of the organisation’s good standing with the local QA agency
Proof of the organisation’s good standing with the local QA agency
Criteria Requirements for Observer
Criterion For Observers:
Measure: APQN accepts as Observers organisations outside the Asia-Pacific region, including: external quality assurance agencies; institutions with a major interest in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education; other regional networks that have major interests in and strong links with the region
Measure: APQN accepts as Observers organisations outside the Asia-Pacific region, including: external quality assurance agencies; institutions with a major interest in evaluation, accreditation and quality assurance in higher education; other regional networks that have major interests in and strong links with the region
Documentation and Fees
Additional Information: I will be emailing additional supporting information
Upon approval of my application I agree to pay:
- $500 (Initial Joining Fee: Full Member, Intermediate Member, Associate Member)
- $300 Member Fee: Full Member, Intermediate Member (if not INQAAHE Member)
I will be applying for support for: Both Initial Joining Fee and Membership Fee
Documents Submitted
CMO_No_1_s_2005.docManual_on_Accreditation.doc
AACCUP_and_NNQAA_STAFF.doc
Master_Survey_Instrument.doc
Year-End_Report_of_the_President_2004.pdf
AACCUP_Handbook_for_Accreditors.doc
Journal_of_Philippine_Higher_Education_Quality_Assurance.doc
Located in: APQN Members
