Supporting Excellence in PA Education: Understanding Members’ Needs

Strong accreditation is essential to PA education – it ensures that our programs meet high standards and maintain the trust of our students, institutions, and the public. While rigorous standards are vital for academic excellence and professional accountability, they must also be realistic for programs to succeed. This balance between excellence and sustainability sits at the heart of effective accreditation.  

At PAEA, we hear you. We recognize that accreditation represents one of the most complex, stressful, and resource-intensive challenges PA programs face. Building on the insights gathered during the 2024 CHEA open comment period, and in response to our members’ consistent calls for advocacy and support, the PAEA Board of Directors launched “Voices of PA Education: Accreditation,” a series of roundtable sessions designed to deepen our understanding of member perspectives, further explore shared challenges, and develop practical solutions.  

Our goal, in line with our members’ feedback, is to foster a healthier, more supportive accreditation environment that champions both excellence and sustainability.  

Listening to Our Members: Methodology 

PAEA conducted ten focused roundtable sessions in Spring 2025, engaging more than 50 PA education stakeholders across a variety of institutions. To capture comprehensive insights, we held targeted sessions with: 

• Developing programs 
• Programs on probation 
• Newly accredited programs 
• Senior institutional leaders (chairs, deans, provosts) 
• New program directors 

Additional written input came from four self-reported ARC-PA site visitors who provided separate feedback to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain objectivity. 

Our analysis followed a rigorous three-step process: 

• Dual note-taking to ensure complete documentation 
• Primary thematic analysis based on direct participant input  
• Independent secondary review for accuracy and clarity 

This methodology ensures our findings reflect the authentic experiences of those who live accreditation every day. 

What We Heard: Key Themes from the Field 

1. Inconsistency and Lack of Clarity in Standards 

Both institutional leaders and program faculty face persistent challenges with Standards interpretation and application. Programs report receiving inconsistent guidance, where workshop presentations, verbal advice from ARC-PA staff members, sample documents, and written standards often conflict with each other. Additionally, programs note that site visitor interpretations of Standards may differ, leading to varying feedback during visits. This overall lack of consistency in Standards interpretation creates considerable uncertainty and stress for programs working to maintain compliance, particularly during high-stakes site visits.  

2. Burnout and Resource Strain 

Programs face mounting pressure from accreditation’s administrative demands, creating significant strain on faculty and staff. The extensive documentation and compliance requirements divert resources from educational innovation and teaching excellence. This administrative burden exceeds that of other health professions accreditors, directly impacting program sustainability, morale, and faculty retention.  

3. Communication with the Accreditor 

Communication challenges with ARC-PA emerged as a significant concern across all participant groups. Programs reported lengthy waiting periods for responses from ARC-PA, often followed by unreasonably tight turnaround deadlines. For instance, after waiting weeks or months for responses, programs might receive requests requiring completion within just three days. These compressed deadlines, coupled with strict requirements about which institutional leaders must respond, create significant operational challenges for programs. Additionally, programs expressed hesitation about seeking direct clarification from ARC-PA, highlighting a fundamental need for more transparent and collaborative relationships between programs and their accreditor.  

Encouragingly, participants noted several recent initiatives by ARC-PA to enhance communication, including launching a conference, updating its website, and sharing practical guidance through LinkedIn. These positive steps demonstrate ARC-PA’s growing commitment to better connecting programs with needed information. While participants emphasized that more work remains to be done, there is optimism that these initiatives signal a path toward more consistent and collaborative communication. 

4. Site Visit Challenges 

Inconsistency in the site visit process remains a persistent challenge for programs. This variability creates unnecessary stress and undermines confidence in the peer review process. Participants described reviews that emphasized technical compliance over programmatic context and quality, with citations often focusing on minor procedural details rather than substantive educational outcomes. Differences in how visits are conducted and how standards are interpreted highlight the need for stronger, more consistent training and guidance from ARC-PA.  

5. Broader Institutional Impact 

Accreditation requirements increasingly affect institution-wide policies and procedures, extending beyond individual PA programs. Participants report that ARC-PA imposes significantly more paperwork and bureaucracy than other accrediting bodies, with stricter signature requirements and expectations that reach farther up institutional hierarchies. 

These broader impacts require leaders to understand complex accreditation demands and their implications for institutional operations. Program directors emphasized the need for enhanced resources to effectively communicate these requirements to institutional leadership.  

6. Perceived Rigid or Punitive Processes 

Participants across all groups characterized the accreditation experience as overly rigid, with a tone that felt more punitive than constructive. Site visits were described as high-pressure and exhaustive, with citations issued even for minor issues. Stacked citations magnify small issues into multiple violations, further intensifying the perceived punitive nature of the process. This dynamic was seen as a barrier to genuine collaboration and innovation.  

7. Financial Burden of Accreditation 

Participants described the costs associated with ARC-PA accreditation as a significant strain, particularly affecting smaller and less-resourced institutions. Beyond annual fees, programs face increasing costs for dedicated staff, site visit preparation, and ongoing compliance work. Programs reported that these expenses force them to redirect resources from educational initiatives to meet accreditation requirements. The growing need for dedicated accreditation staff or consultants adds another layer of financial pressure to program budgets.  

8. Differences Compared to Other Health Professions 

Participants with experience across other health professions highlight distinct differences between ARC-PA and other accreditors. While peer accreditors embrace collaborative approaches and support programs through compliance challenges, ARC-PA’s approach is seen as more restrictive and administratively burdensome. Participants observed that ARC-PA imposes higher expectations for documentation, response timelines, and senior-level institutional involvement. These differences were seen as limiting program agility and leadership bandwidth.  

9. A Call for Stronger Advocacy and Support 

Participants strongly emphasized PAEA’s critical role in accreditation advocacy and support. Members seek more centralized resources including: 

• Standardized templates, checklists, and training 
• Peer mentorship and knowledge sharing 
• Leadership education to help bridge institutional understanding  

There was also interest in exploring broader improvements to the accreditation process over time. 

A Shared Path Forward 

Quality accreditation strengthens PA education and upholds public trust in our profession. This initiative confirms that maintaining rigorous standards and supporting program success are complementary, not competing, goals.  

PAEA will continue advancing member interests by: 

• Advocating for transparency, consistency, and realistic expectations 
• Equipping programs and institutions with tools and resources that improve readiness 
• Developing targeted accreditation resources and expanding peer-to-peer learning opportunities 
• Partnering with ARC-PA to develop solutions that address member concerns and work toward system improvements 
• Listening to and amplifying the voices of PA educators in national discussions 

The insights from our “Voices of PA Education: Accreditation” listening sessions will shape our ongoing work with member programs and inform our engagement with the broader accreditation community. Watch for upcoming communications examining critical issues like financial sustainability and cross-profession comparisons in greater detail. 

Through continued collaboration, we can build an accreditation system that promotes both excellence and innovation.    

Join the Discussion 

Share your program’s perspective at president@PAEAonline.org.