WASC Accreditation - Does it mean anything?

[over_here]

I teach at an IB school that does not have any American accreditation but are looking at accreditation agencies. We have no problem getting students into top colleges overseas. I have friends working in schools that are WASC accredited and they tell stories of reports produced by principals that are complete works of fiction and how one school with a high teacher, principal and student turnover still got accredited just for shmoozing up to the right people by chasing them to conferences and wining and dining them. Others have mentioned how visits do not include talking to teachers alone but only those who are 'hand-picked' by admin. and how the team just believes everything they are given, are buddies with admin suck up the p.r. rhetoric and rubber stamp automatically.

Many teachers think WASC is just another business. What do other teachers think about how much value WASC accreditation has got seriously? How many schools - if any - ever actually lose their accreditation? Insights?

[eion_padraig]

Do you mean does accreditation mean anything in terms of how it impacts the school? Or does it mean anything in terms of how other organizations treat the diploma and student's transcript/credits?

I'm sure you could contact WASC or the other North American accreditation agencies to get a sense of how schools lose their accreditation.

These agencies are not governmental regulatory groups the way most countries certify their school's programs. They're non-profit organizations that look at what is given to them to see if it's all consistent. The people who go to the site visits are other experienced educators, but not serving as detectivess. They hope that schools are dealing with them in good faith as the accreditation process is meant to help the schools identify ways to improve and grow.

If a school just looks as it as something to add to their marketing material and not looking at how the school can grow, it's probably a big waste of time and resources. It does take a lot of time and effort to work through all the paperwork, so less organized schools typically have a hard time doing that effectively.

[sid]

As an experienced school visitor, I can assure you that there is ample opportunity for individuals to talk to members of the visiting team. I've been on visits where it seemed someone at the school was trying to control this, but it backfired big time. The agenda/timetable for the whole visit has to be written in advance and agreed by the visiting team, so usually any such attempt would be picked up before the visit even starts. And during the visit, the visitors can and do make changes according to what they are seeing and hearing.
Do schools ever try to get away with being naughty? Yes. Far less often than rumors suggest, but yes.
Are visiting teams fooled? Not likely.
But it's true, we aren't detectives.

You seem to think your school is pretty good. Why then suggest that it might attempt these shady practices? Or do you mean that if other schools practice them, your school might be tainted by association?

[Cheery Littlebottom]

Accreditation means you are talking the talk in your school documentation, and then walking that walk. The last time I was part of a 3 agency accreditation it was extremely helpful. Hard work, true, but then any school that doesn't regularly take long hard looks at what it's doing isn't worth it's salt. Frankly, accreditation can be a huge opportunity for schools to make changes that they've secretly known they should be pushing along anyway. Then a school can then get the right people on the bus......read into that what you will...
My final thought is that this sort of objective observation can be great to instruct a school board. Poorly operating school boards can be the bane of hard working and well intentioned admin and faculty. One of the delightful aspects of accreditation is that it can expose bad practise and educate boards as to how they should be functioning.