Myth Buster: Achieving Accreditation is the Finish Line
There’s a persistent myth in the world of continuing education and training that achieving accreditation marks the end of the road—a final validation that quality has been assured and the work is done.
But that framing misses something essential.
Accreditation is not the finish line. It’s a waypoint—a moment to pause, reflect, and realign—but not to stop.
In reality, accreditation operates at the intersection of quality assurance (QA) and quality improvement (QI). Understanding this balance—and the healthy tension between these two goals—is key to unlocking the true value of accreditation.
This is more than just a philosophical distinction. It’s a lens we use to shape recommendations, craft guidance, and interpret standards in a way that preserves rigor without stifling innovation. The goal isn’t just to determine whether an organization checks all the boxes, but to consider how their systems are maturing to serve learners better.
So…is Accreditation About Quality Assurance or Quality Improvement?
The simplest answer is: Yes.
Quality assurance is about consistency and compliance. It asks:
- Are you doing what you say you’re doing?
- Are your policies clear, implemented, and effective?
- Are you meeting the established standard?
Meanwhile, quality improvement is about intentional progress. It asks:
- How are you evaluating your impact?
- What feedback loops do you have in place?
- How do you respond to changing learner needs and industry expectations?
If QA is the foundation, QI is the framework being continually refined on top of it. One ensures credibility; the other fuels relevance.
Importantly, this isn’t just conceptual—it’s embedded in the ANSI/IACET 1-2018 Standard for Continuing Education and Training. For instance, Element 1.5 requires that "The Provider shall have a periodic internal review process that ensures adherence to the current ANSI/IACET 1-2018 Standard." While the standard doesn’t prescribe a specific timeframe, best practice recommends that providers conduct this review at least annually, though many do so more frequently. This is a clear quality assurance mechanism designed to maintain compliance and consistency over time.
Are QA and QI in Conflict?
Not inherently, but there is tension between the two, which requires thoughtful management.
QA can sometimes feel rigid or prescriptive. QI leans toward flexibility and adaptability. It’s easy to see how a system focused too heavily on one could create friction:
- Too much QA without pliancy, and you risk bureaucracy and stagnation.
- Too much QI without grounding, and you risk inconsistency and confusion.
The best accreditation frameworks understand that the two are not opposites but partners. And the most effective providers demonstrate solid infrastructure and a culture of growth.
This integration is also codified in Category 9: Evaluation of Learning Events.
- Element 9.1 requires “a comprehensive, systematic evaluation of the learning events,” ensuring providers are actively gathering feedback from learners and stakeholders.
- Element 9.2 then goes further, requiring “a process for analyzing evaluation results and sharing them... to ensure these results are incorporated into continuous process improvement.”
These two elements are explicitly about QI; they ensure that evaluation isn’t a formality but a catalyst for evolving and improving learning experiences.
Does One Lead to the Other?
Ideally, yes.
A healthy QA system should create the conditions for meaningful QI. Standards like Element 1.5 and Category 9 don’t just verify whether quality exists—they push organizations to build mechanisms that help them grow.
But when the accreditation process is misunderstood as a one-time achievement, opportunities for ongoing development can be missed. That’s why it’s so important to view accreditation as a waypoint, not a destination.
The Tension We Must Navigate
This balance isn’t theoretical; it plays out in real-world decisions every day:
- When a provider introduces a novel delivery model, is it innovation or deviation?
- When documentation reflects an iterative improvement process, is it non-compliant or forward-thinking?
- When providers face external constraints, how do we uphold standards without becoming inflexible?
Whether we’re developing guidance, advising peer reviewers, or evolving the standards themselves, this tension between QA and QI is a guiding principle. The goal is not to favor one over the other but to ensure they’re integrated in a way that reflects learner needs and organizational maturity.
Myth, Busted.
Let’s retire the idea that accreditation is the final hurdle.
It’s not the finish line. It’s a waypoint. A signal that the provider has achieved something meaningful and they’re ready to keep going.
The real work begins when compliance meets curiosity, stability fuels innovation, and accreditation becomes less about maintaining the status quo and more about striving for what’s next.
About the Author
Randy is a seasoned executive leader currently serving as the President and CEO of IACET, a non-profit accrediting body in the continuing education and training sector. With a focus on strategic vision and operational excellence, he effectively leads the organization to achieve its mission and goals.
With over two decades of experience in various leadership roles, Randy has a proven track record of driving organizational success. His expertise lies in aligning technological solutions with strategic objectives, ensuring operational efficiency and sustainable growth.