Accreditation Standards
A single, configurable standards library. The framework maps to leading accreditation models — Cognia, CIS, WASC, and Middle States — so the same evidence and self-study work serves whichever review you face. Each standard below names its performance indicators, evidence requirements, a self-assessment prompt, the gaps reviewers most often find, and recommended next moves. Click any standard to expand it.
Standards are organized into six quality domains and crosswalk to Cognia performance standards, CIS domains, WASC criteria, and Middle States standards. The standards and evidence shown are illustrative; the library is configurable to any accreditation model your institution uses.
Standards Library — six quality domains
Twelve standards, grouped two per domain. Click to explore indicators, evidence, and recommendations.
1.1 · Vision, Mission & Strategic Direction
Performance indicators: a clear, shared vision drives decisions; a current strategic plan with measurable goals; staff and stakeholders can articulate priorities.
Evidence requirements: strategic plan, vision/mission statements, board-approved goals, communication artifacts.
Self-assessment prompt: Can every staff member explain how their work advances the mission?
Common gaps: a plan that exists on paper but is not used to guide budgets or decisions; goals without measures.
Improvement recommendations: tie the strategic plan to the annual budget and calendar; review progress against goals each quarter.
1.2 · Governance, Ethics & Accountability
Performance indicators: the board operates within defined roles; policies are current and followed; conflicts of interest are managed.
Evidence requirements: board minutes, policy manual, code of ethics, delegation-of-authority matrix.
Self-assessment prompt: Does the board govern (set direction and monitor) rather than manage day-to-day operations?
Common gaps: outdated policies; blurred lines between board and staff; minutes that do not show decisions.
Improvement recommendations: adopt a policy-review cycle; document decisions and follow-through in minutes.
2.1 · Curriculum Alignment & Coherence
Performance indicators: a documented, aligned curriculum from grade to grade; standards mapped to units and assessments; vertical coherence.
Evidence requirements: curriculum maps, scope & sequence, alignment to standards, pacing guides.
Self-assessment prompt: Is there a written curriculum that teachers actually teach, or a gap between the two?
Common gaps: a written/taught curriculum gap; missing vertical alignment; assessments not matched to standards.
Improvement recommendations: audit alignment by sampling units; close vertical gaps in collaborative planning time.
2.2 · Instructional Quality & Assessment
Performance indicators: consistent, high-quality instruction; varied formative assessment; data used to adjust teaching.
Evidence requirements: walkthrough data, lesson samples, assessment calendar, data-team agendas.
Self-assessment prompt: How do teachers know, in the moment, whether students are learning?
Common gaps: assessment used to grade rather than to inform; uneven instructional quality across classrooms.
Improvement recommendations: establish a walkthrough rubric; build short data cycles into PLC routines.
3.1 · Achievement & Growth
Performance indicators: strong outcomes against benchmarks; positive growth trends; results monitored across cohorts.
Evidence requirements: outcome data, growth reports, benchmark assessments, trend analyses.
Self-assessment prompt: Are students growing — not just achieving — and who is being left behind?
Common gaps: reporting status without growth; data not disaggregated; trends not acted upon.
Improvement recommendations: report growth alongside achievement; review disaggregated data each term.
3.2 · Equity & Student Wellbeing
Performance indicators: equitable access and outcomes; supports for all learners; a positive, safe climate.
Evidence requirements: gap analyses, support/intervention records, climate & wellbeing surveys.
Self-assessment prompt: Do outcomes differ by group, and what is being done to close those gaps?
Common gaps: persistent gaps with no targeted plan; wellbeing data collected but unused.
Improvement recommendations: set explicit equity goals; connect survey results to action and re-measure.
4.1 · Staff Qualifications & Development
Performance indicators: qualified, certified staff; coherent professional development tied to goals; evaluation that supports growth.
Evidence requirements: credential records, PD plan, evaluation framework, PD impact evidence.
Self-assessment prompt: Is professional development connected to strategic priorities and student need?
Common gaps: one-off PD with no follow-through; evaluation as compliance rather than growth.
Improvement recommendations: align PD to the improvement plan; measure PD impact on practice.
4.2 · Engagement, Retention & Culture
Performance indicators: high engagement; healthy retention; a collaborative professional culture.
Evidence requirements: staff surveys, retention data, collaboration structures, recognition practices.
Self-assessment prompt: Why do staff stay — and why do they leave?
Common gaps: surveys not acted upon; retention issues unexamined; little structured collaboration.
Improvement recommendations: close the loop on survey feedback; protect time for collaboration.
5.1 · Financial Stewardship & Resources
Performance indicators: sound financial management; resources aligned to priorities; transparent budgeting.
Evidence requirements: budgets, audited financials, resource-allocation rationale, internal controls.
Self-assessment prompt: Does the budget reflect the strategic plan's priorities?
Common gaps: spending disconnected from goals; weak internal controls; no multi-year view.
Improvement recommendations: link line items to plan goals; strengthen controls and reserves.
5.2 · Facilities, Safety & Technology
Performance indicators: safe, well-maintained facilities; reliable technology; effective systems and emergency planning.
Evidence requirements: safety records, maintenance logs, technology plan, emergency procedures.
Self-assessment prompt: Are the environment and systems supporting — or hindering — learning?
Common gaps: deferred maintenance; untested emergency plans; aging or unsupported technology.
Improvement recommendations: schedule preventive maintenance; drill emergency procedures; plan technology refresh.
6.1 · Evidence-Based Improvement Cycles
Performance indicators: regular improvement cycles; decisions grounded in evidence; documented impact over time.
Evidence requirements: improvement plans, monitoring data, cycle artifacts (plan → act → monitor → reflect).
Self-assessment prompt: Can you show a change you made because of evidence — and its result?
Common gaps: plans without monitoring; activity mistaken for improvement; no documented impact.
Improvement recommendations: assign owners and dates; monitor leading indicators; reflect each cycle.
6.2 · Stakeholder Engagement & Communication
Performance indicators: stakeholders inform improvement; results are communicated; engagement is two-way.
Evidence requirements: stakeholder survey data, communication plan, advisory/feedback structures.
Self-assessment prompt: How do families, students, and staff shape improvement decisions?
Common gaps: communication that is one-directional; feedback gathered but not visibly used.
Improvement recommendations: publish how feedback changed decisions; create standing feedback channels.
Self-Study Narrative Generator
Draft a starting-point self-study narrative for any quality domain. Name your institution, choose a domain, and generate an evidence-linked outline you can adapt. Drafts are illustrative templates — make every claim true and tie it to evidence.
Choose a domain and generate to draft an evidence-linked self-study narrative here. Your draft will outline context, strengths with evidence, areas for growth, standards alignment, and the continuous-improvement cycle.