Editor's note: The New York State Veterinary Medical Society is recommending to the AVMA Executive Board that the AVMA no longer accredit foreign veterinary schools. Attached below is the proposed resolution. What are your thoughts on this? Please comment below on why or why not you agree with the resolution. Your SAVMA Executive Board wants to share the voice of the students with the AVMA Executive Board.
Resolution 1—Winter 2014 Regular Winter Session
Submitted by New York State Veterinary Medical Society
THE AVMA WILL NO LONGER ACCREDIT FOREIGN VETERINARY SCHOOLS, DEFINED AS THOSE SCHOOLS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Resolved, that the House of Delegates recommend to the Executive Board that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) will-
1. Initiate steps to cease the accreditation of foreign veterinary schools by the AVMA Council on Education (COE). Foreign veterinary schools are defined as those schools that operate outside the United States and Canada.
2. Permit foreign veterinary schools currently accredited by the COE to maintain their accreditation until such time as that accreditation expires. Upon expiration, there will not be an opportunity for said schools to be re-accredited unless said school meets the criteria set forth in paragraph 3 below.
3. Permit those students currently enrolled in a foreign AVMA COE-accredited program to complete their education and upon graduation, be considered graduates of an AVMA COE-accredited program. For those schools whose COE-accreditation expires prior to the graduation of their freshman class, a one-time accreditation extension will be granted until the time of graduation of that freshman class.
Statement about the Resolution
The accreditation of veterinary schools is a resource intensive process. It requires a great deal of effort from AVMA members and staff as well as being logistically challenging. This is particularly true when accrediting a veterinary school in a foreign country, where English may not be the native language. These concerns are exemplified in the reports by the AVMA’s Task Force on Accreditation of Foreign Veterinary Schools and the recent Staff Report to the Senior Department Official on Recognition of Compliance Issues by the U.S. Department of Education.
The focus of the Council on Education should be to continually improve the quality of the graduates, programs, and institutions of Domestic and Canadian veterinary Colleges. This is best accomplished by adhering to the Standards of Accreditation and ceasing to accredit foreign veterinary schools.
In July 2011, the AVMA House of Delegates passed a resolution for a task force to evaluate the accreditation of foreign veterinary schools. The report of the Task Force on Foreign Veterinary School Accreditation was made available in March of 2013.
The task force listed a number of concerns in the conclusion of its report. Chief among those concerns is the following:
a. Recognition as a competent accrediting body of veterinary schools by the USDE and CHEA requires the COE to apply accreditation standards consistently across schools. The diversity among countries suggests that the COE encounters an ever wider programmatic variety in schools and ever greater complexity of applying a common set of standards to them. Lack of familiarity with the intricacies of the accreditation process can contribute to individual perceptions of uneven application of accreditation standards, and such misunderstanding can be exacerbated by the necessary confidentiality adhered to by the COE.
b. The Task Force believes that the COE should clarify the criteria for determining whether a veterinary school is part of a larger institution of higher learning asrequired by Standard 1 or is a free-standing institution and thus not eligible for
accreditation c. Because the Task Force finds it is unclear how clinical education and outcomes
assessment standards are met across diverse institutions, the Task Force believes it is unclear how the COE–accredited foreign veterinary schools consistently matriculate graduates that are equal to US entry-level veterinarians.
d. Aside from the overall accreditation process, objective data to measure competency of graduates of accredited foreign and domestic programs are lacking.
e. The Task Force sees a contradiction in the role of the NAVLE in accreditation. Although the NAVLE is not required for accreditation, there is a pass-fail threshold for those schools whose graduating seniors generally take the NAVLE. The Task Force believes that this use of the NAVLE creates an inconsistency that the COE should address.
f. The NAVLE cannot provide comparative data across all COE-accredited veterinary schools because it is not a requirement for accreditation. With the exception of Ross University and St. George’s University, most graduates from accredited foreign schools do not take the NAVLE because they are not pursuing licensure in the United States or Canada. However, for schools whose graduating senior students normally take the NAVLE, the COE expects a pass rate of 80% or more.
In December of 2012, the U.S. Department of Education met to evaluate a Petition for Continued Recognition. The Department of Education recommended to continue the AVMA’s recognition as the accrediting body for only the next 12 months, as opposed to the typical five years. The AVMA is expected to come into compliance within 12 months of that report’s issuance. Quoting from the report: “It does not appear that the agency (Council on Education) meets the following sections of the Secretary’s Criteria for Recognition.” It appears obvious that if the USDE has questioned our methods of accreditation for domestic schools, we ourselves must question our criteria for the even more difficult task of effectively accrediting the ever- growing number of foreign veterinary schools.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 12:01PM 
