01STANDARD
Strategic Planning (vision, mission and objectives)
10%
of the total assessment weight
ACQAA · AASHEI · ACCREDITATION
Institutional Accreditation
A structured, evidence-led approach to strengthening higher education across the Arab region. Eight complementary standards guide institutional self-evaluation, external review, and continuous quality improvement.
Self-evaluationIndependent external reviewEvidence-based decisions
AASHEIInstitutional Accreditation Framework
8Main standards
71Sub-criteria
183Checkpoints
AASHEI · QUALITY FRAMEWORK
Eight standards. One comprehensive framework.
The approved assessment weights total 100% and cover the key dimensions of institutional performance. Each standard contributes to the overall evaluation.
What do the percentages mean? Each percentage is the share of the total assessment allocated to that standard — not an application completion percentage.
02STANDARD
Governance, Management and Quality Assurance
15%
of the total assessment weight
03STANDARD
Teaching and Learning
18%
of the total assessment weight
04STANDARD
Students and Graduates
13%
of the total assessment weight
05STANDARD
Faculty, Supporting and Administrative Staff
14%
of the total assessment weight
06STANDARD
Institutional Resources and Sustainability
10%
of the total assessment weight
07STANDARD
Scientific Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship
10%
of the total assessment weight
08STANDARD
Community Engagement and Development
10%
of the total assessment weight
THE ACCREDITATION JOURNEY
A clear process, from self-study to decision
Accreditation follows a sequence of institutional preparation, specialist review and formal consideration of the findings under the Council's approved procedures.
Self-evaluation
The institution analyses its current position, documents achievement of standards and checkpoints, and prepares the self-study and related evidence.
External evaluation
External reviewers examine the self-study and evidence, then verify practices and outcomes through documentary and field review.
Decision
Review findings, reports, data and evidence are considered before the authorised body takes the final decision in line with approved rules and procedures.
EVIDENCE & VERIFICATION
How checkpoints and evidence are assessed
Reviewers apply the defined checkpoint scales and examine the supporting evidence before reaching professional findings.
Binary checkpoint
Some checkpoints use a binary scale according to their nature and evidence requirements.
Graded checkpoint
Other checkpoints use a 0–2 scale to reflect the level demonstrated after review.
Critical checkpoints
The methodology includes critical checkpoints whose consequences are not equivalent to routine documentary evidence.
Evidence classification
Evidence is classified as essential, supporting or optional; reviewers make judgements after documentary and field review.
Important: Submitting the self-study and evidence through the platform does not itself constitute accreditation. Formal decisions are based on review, verification and the authorised Council procedures.
AASHEI · DIGITAL ACCREDITATION
One digital workspace for institutional accreditation
The AASHEI digital platform organises institutional information, self-study materials and supporting evidence against the standards and checkpoints. It helps universities document performance and prepare for assessment.
Specialist review, evidence verification and formal consideration of findings remain essential to the Council's accreditation decisions.
01Institutional profile and data
02Self-study and supporting evidence
03Standards and checkpoint mapping
04Review and verification
Quality assurance combines documented processes, objective evaluation and continuous institutional improvement.