Home / Institutional Accreditation

Institutional Accreditation

The AASHEI framework brings together eight complementary standards for institutional self-evaluation and external review. It provides a structured basis for examining performance, documenting evidence, and verifying achievement against defined quality requirements.

Eight standards Accreditation process Evidence & verification Digital system

8Main standards

71Sub-criteria

183Checkpoints

100%Total weight

AASHEI · ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK

Eight standards and their relative weights

The assessment weights are distributed across the eight standards in the AASHEI framework, reflecting the complementary dimensions of institutional performance.

Strategic Planning (vision, mission and objectives)

Approved weight

10%

Governance, Management and Quality Assurance

Approved weight

15%

Teaching and Learning

Approved weight

18%

Students and Graduates

Approved weight

13%

Faculty, Supporting and Administrative Staff

Approved weight

14%

Institutional Resources and Sustainability

Approved weight

10%

Scientific Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Approved weight

10%

Community Engagement and Development

Approved weight

10%

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Evaluation process and quality-assurance stages

The standards define the areas of institutional assessment, while accreditation proceeds through self-evaluation, external review, and consideration of the findings under the approved decision-making 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.

VERIFICATION METHOD

How are evidence and checkpoints assessed?

0/1

Binary checkpoint

Some checkpoints use a binary scale according to their nature and evidence requirements.

0–2

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: Completion of the self-study and submission of evidence through the platform do not, by themselves, constitute accreditation. Formal decisions are based on review and verification findings in accordance with the Council’s approved procedures and designated authorities.

AASHEI · DIGITAL ACCREDITATION

AASHEI Digital Accreditation Platform

The digital platform supports the organisation of institutional information, self-study materials and supporting evidence against the accreditation standards and checkpoints. This structured approach helps universities document performance and manage the information required for assessment.

Specialist review, evidence verification and consideration of assessment findings remain integral to the accreditation process, in accordance with the Council’s approved procedures.

Quality assurance in higher education

Quality assurance establishes the mechanisms and procedures needed to assess whether institutional and academic performance meets intended levels and aligns with the institution’s mission and relevant benchmarks.

It also encompasses the quality of learning opportunities, research and community engagement, with continuous improvement and stakeholder needs at its core.

Enter accreditation system Register a university