About Accreditation

About Accreditation:

According to the Landscape Architedcture Accreditation Board, "Accreditation is a non-governmental, voluntary system of self-regulation. Its core is the concept of self-evaluation. The Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) accreditation process evaluates each program on the basis of its stated objectives and compliance to externally mandated minimum standards. The program conducts a self-study to evaluate how well it is meeting its educational goals. LAAB then provides an independent assessment, which determines if a program meets accreditation requirements. Programs leading to first professional degrees at the bachelor's or master's levels in the United States are eligible to apply for accreditation from LAAB.

ABOUT LAAB

The Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) develops and promulgates the accreditation standards, rules and procedures for conducting the accreditation process. LAAB is vested with its authority by the ASLA Board of Trustees (Bylaws, Section 814).

LAAB is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the official accrediting body for first professional programs in landscape architecture. LAAB is a member of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA). CHEA reviews LAAB accreditation standards and procedures to ensure that the policies and procedures meet proper standards.

The official scope of LAAB accreditation is "...first professional programs at the bachelor's or master's level." Others, such as pre professional and advanced professional programs, lie outside LAAB's scope. LAAB reviews eligible programs in the United States and its territories.

The LAAB is comprised of landscape architecture practitioners and academicians, representatives from landscape architecture collateral organizations and public representatives. The collateral organizations are the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB) and Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA)."

One of the program's faculty (Karen C. Hanna) is one of three academic LAAB members.

CalPoly Pomona's undergraduate and graduate programs were last accredited in 2005.

The list of accredited schools is available here.

For additional information on LAAB and accreditation, see the LAAB's website.

HOW IS THE PROGRAM ASSESSED?

After review of the Self-Evaluation Report, meeting with the faculty, staff, students, alumni, local practitioners, administrators, and others, and the review of physical materials and conditions, the team indicates one of three conclusions about the program's compliance with the standard: met, met with recommendation(s), or not met.

Standard Met

Evidence shows that overall program performance in this area meets LAAB minimum standards. A standard may be judged as met even though one or more criteria are not minimally met.

Standard Met With Recommendation

Deficiencies exist in an area directly bearing on accreditation. The problem or problems have observable effects on the overall quality of the program.

A finding of "met with recommendation" must be justified in the rationale section by stating the evidence the team considered, what deficiencies were found, and why, in the team's view, the deficiencies have a serious impact on overall program quality. Since one or more findings of "met with recommendation" may result in provisional accreditation by the Board, the team must provide justification of its assessment.

Standard Not Met

Cited deficiency is so severe that the overall quality of the program is compromised and the program¡¯s ability to deliver adequate landscape architecture education is impaired.

A finding of "not met" must be supported by evidence that the deficiencies in this area are so severe that overall program quality is unacceptably compromised. A program that has even one standard assessed as not met will be denied accreditation.

A full accreditation is granted when all standards are met and as a result, the continued overall quality of the program and its conformance to accreditation standards is likely.

A full accreditation is granted when all standards are met and as a result, the continued overall quality of the program and its conformance to accreditation standards is likely.

A provisional accreditation is granted when one or more standards are met with weakness and the cited deficiencies are such that continued overall program quality and conformance to standards are uncertain.

A full accreditation is granted when all standards are met and as a result, the continued overall quality of the program and its conformance to accreditation standards is likely.