Accreditation

In short, NAAB’s governance and management has made decisions that fail to live up to the collaborative vision that led to the organization’s establishment. Moreover, their decisions do not align with their bylaws and IRS regulations, and undermine critical relationships between our allied organizations. 

• Since funding discussions began in June 2022, all four funders have rejected NAAB’s funding proposals, which consistently have called for a nearly 50% funding increase. 
• We hired a facilitator to mediate the negotiations, and NAAB refused to compromise on the amount of its funding increase. In this sense, NAAB does not appear to have entered into negotiations in good faith 
• In its most recent funding announcement (January 9, 2024), NAAB presented a model where 
  • Schools would pay 100% of the cost for accreditation, rather than the 33% they currently pay under the current funding model, because AIA and NCARB’s shares disappeared. 
  • No funding agreement would be signed, leaving the schools unrepresented in any future funding discussions and with no limits on what NAAB could charge. 
• NAAB has amassed $2.2 million in surpluses since 2022, breaking the terms of the funding agreement it signed with ACSA, AIA, NCARB, and AIAS. This agreement said NAAB must use funds contributed during the fiscal year in which they were contributed and not in any other fiscal year. 
• NAAB is not adhering to the terms of its tax-exempt status (see the January 22 presentation for details)

The resolution calls for immediate change in NAAB’s plans to charge schools directly, restore a multi-year funding agreement, and review areas to streamline the accreditation process both within NAAB and for the schools. Should this not happen, the resolution calls on ACSA, AIA, NCARB, AIAS, and other willing stakeholders to convene to seek an alternative means of determining minimum standards for education of future architectural practitioners.

• NAAB’s authority resides in architectural licensing requirements and NCARB’s recognition of NAAB as the sole accrediting organization. A NAAB degree is required for licensure in 38 states. Getting licensed with less education is possible, but it requires additional work experience. NCARB currently specifies NAAB in its Model Law, which recommends statutory and regulatory language for use by NCARB’s Member Boards. A NAAB-accredited degree is also required for an NCARB Certificate, although experience can substitute for that. (If you want to understand more about licensing, visit NCARB’s page.) 
  
• Consequently, schools do not have to be accredited, but accreditation indicates a level of quality, an orientation to the profession, and a commitment to professional education that is not merely vocational training, among other values. For these reasons, ACSA’s position is that we value having accreditation. NAAB’s move toward independence and toward charging schools directly without any written agreement with the organizations that created NAAB represents a radical change in the historic alliance (ACSA, NAAB, AIA, ect). We ask that NAAB change its position. The alternative is to work with our remaining allied organizations to seek new options.

Our member schools and their faculty are ACSA. We are not a regulatory body, and so our power comes in solidarity among schools and speaking and acting in unison. We value differences among schools in regard to pedagogy, curriculum, degrees offered, institutional setting, etc., but we hope that schools understand the risk they face by NAAB’s decision to assert its independence.

• From the beginning, we have wanted a multi-year funding agreement that continues the tradition of expanding funding based on inflation.
• Should there need to be changes in accreditation or the role of education in relationship to architectural licensure, we want a clear and uninterrupted path to licensure for students that does not compromise on their ongoing education. 

• We are fully accountable to our members about funds collected for NAAB. 
• The annual membership renewal letter we sent to heads of schools in July said that approximately $3,200 of the annual dues paid for U.S. Full and Candidate members is passed through to NAAB. Additionally, we noted that in the previous year, we sent less money to NAAB than planned, and so we were holding $73 per school, which we would contribute to NAAB when an agreement is finalized. (Our October 26 presentation also included this information.)
• Beginning January 1, 2024, there is no funding agreement with NAAB, and we are not contributing funds until there is. Of the $3,273 we are collecting/holding from U.S. Full/Candidate member schools, we have contributed $1,093 per school to NAAB.  
• Should NAAB not change its direction, we will work with schools to either refund the money by check or credit their 2024-25 dues for $2,180. Additionally, ACSA’s dues would then not include the additional amount that we would have passed through to NAAB. 

• Depending on your role at a school, you may not regularly focus on accreditation issues, much less how accreditation is paid for, or how decisions get made. This is part of why schools pay dues. ACSA follows NAAB’s activities closely. We advocate for schools’ perspectives to NAAB, whose staff are not architectural educators and whose board can have as few as three educators serving (although currently there are five architectural educators serving). Over the past 16 years, we have had written funding agreements that obligate NAAB to share its financial statements, and we have had numerous negotiations with NAAB, as well as with AIA, NCARB, and AIAS, about NAAB’s funding and scope.
• In the current negotiations (i.e., since June 2022), we have not discussed the detailed points, except within our board of directors. This is a strategic decision because public disclosures can derail sensitive discussions. The aim of the facilitation process was to come to a mutual agreement that would avoid the situation we are in now.  We decided to hold the webinar in October and make a similar presentation during the Administrators Conference in early November because we were nearing the end of our written funding agreement for 2023. Moreover, NAAB’s January 9 announcement of direct fees to schools with no offsetting revenue from other organizations forced ACSA to respond with the resolution, because we no longer believe NAAB is a willing participant.

NAAB acts as a single entity in these decisions. Its board makes the final decisions about how to manage its resources. NAAB has 13 voting directors. They are a mix of educators, practitioners, recent graduates, and public members. NAAB’s executive director came from outside of architecture and has replaced former staff who had architectural experience with staff who do not. We do not think that NAAB is doing a good job managing the accreditation process.

• The short answer is NAAB has made multiple serious financial management mistakes in its past. NAAB’s recently published chart, which shows deficits between 2016 and 2019, actually shows the opposite of what they intend. Explanation:  
  • NAAB has had a history of mismanagement, going back to 2013-2016, when they had to reorganize with an interim executive director and a near complete replacement of staff.
  • Among their missteps was to sign a 12-year office lease, moving out of the AIA building, where they were neighbors with ACSA and AIAS. That lease was signed at a high point in the real estate market. That lease lasted through 2023 and through at least half of that time, NAAB had to move out and sublease the space, at a loss. The collateral organizations paid for this decision. 
  • Additional reasons are the costs that they incurred from 2017 to 2019 for the Accreditation Review Forum, which was supposed to be an ambitious attempt at convening the profession. 
• NAAB also points to a point in 2018 when its funding was reduced due to its reorganization. Again, we do not think that this supports their demand for a near 50% permanent increase in funding. This agreement was arrived based on discussions of NAAB’s current states and declared needs. NAAB signed this and other funding agreements.  

• We cannot speak for NAAB on this, and only can give our interpretation. After the first 9 months of negotiation led to no movement, the four funding organizations asked to hire a facilitator. NAAB dragged its feet in selecting a facilitator. Once we got a facilitator in place and went through several meetings, the facilitator asked NAAB if there was any compromise, and NAAB said no. 
• NAAB has said that it needs the funding to be viable and implement the new Conditions. Our response is that NAAB has many ways to implement the Conditions, and it is up to the board to hold the staff accountable to a budget. 
• Additionally, during the negotiations NCARB announced that it would not sign a new funding agreement unless NAAB charged schools directly. This encouraged NAAB to advance its proposal to charge schools directly without any representation by schools in a funding process. 
  • NAAB will say that there is a process for feedback about fees, which is the 90-day comment period they will open on February 1. However, without a written funding agreement, NAAB has no obligation to curb its costs. And NAAB has no obligation to listen to any feedback it receives about fees, because it has a monopoly on accreditation. 
• AIAS has indicated they believe these increases in costs will end up on the backs of students, and we agree.   

• Our resolution is the first in a series of steps that we would have to take to resist this decision. Because NCARB specifies NAAB in its model law and because 38 jurisdictions require a NAAB degree for licensure, it is not simple to replace NAAB. 
• We have a number of other ideas, but we want to give NAAB a chance at each step to listen and act. 
• Our resolution calls on all the collateral organizations, as well as other stakeholders, to join together to find an alternate option, should NAAB continue to resist.