Accreditation Experts
Most unsuccessful applications are complete, well formatted and internally consistent. What they do not do is establish why this course should exist and why this provider should de
Visit website ↗About Accreditation Experts
Most unsuccessful applications are complete, well formatted and internally consistent. What they do not do is establish why this course should exist and why this provider should deliver it.
There is a persistent belief that course accreditation is an administrative exercise: assemble the required documents, complete them properly, submit, and approval follows unless something was omitted. Applications are prepared on that basis, with enormous attention to formatting and completeness, and a substantial proportion are unsuccessful despite containing everything the template asked for.
The misread is about what the assessment is doing. An accrediting body is deciding whether a qualification should exist in the national landscape, whether it duplicates something already available, whether the outcomes described are genuinely achievable through the delivery proposed, and whether the applicant has the capability to deliver it. Those are judgements about a case, and a complete document set is a precondition rather than an argument.
Accreditation Experts is about getting courses approved and keeping them approved: establishing need, designing something coherent, evidencing consultation and capability, responding to information requests, and meeting the obligations that begin at approval.
The editorial position is that applications are decided on the case rather than on the paperwork, that most preparation effort goes to the parts that matter least, and that the obligations created by approval are routinely underestimated by providers celebrating it.
This publication is independent. It is not affiliated with any accrediting body, regulator, provider or consultancy, it does not accept payment for coverage, and it does not prepare or review applications.