-By Jennifer Thiele Busch

Throughout its 35-plus year history, the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA), formerly FIDER, has evaluated the interior design programs of hundreds of colleges and universities throughout North America, and currently some 200 programs have received CIDA accreditation. Though opinions among practitioners on the general quality of design education in the United States and the absolute necessity of such accreditation continue to vary, the CIDA standards are generally accepted as the most significant measure of the quality of an interior design education.

Standards for accrediting interior design programs are formulated by a special Standards Committee, consisting of educators, practitioners, and allied professionals, which conducts an annual review to monitor relevant issues and determine areas for immediate revision as changes in the profession and an expanding body of knowledge influence the practice of interior design in the real world. Then, every eight to 10 years, CIDA undertakes a major review that results in a comprehensive revision of standards.

This past June, CIDA's board of directors adopted new quality standards for interior design higher education, designed to better prepare graduates for entry into the profession. "CIDA is proud to partner with education, practice, and industry in introducing the next generation of accreditation standards," says Cary Johnson, CIDA board chair.

In explaining how the new standards raise the bar against the current standards, Holly Mattson, CIDA's executive director, says, "Criteria that measure a program's success in developing critical thinking, professional values, and design processes are elevated and emphasized in the new standards." These criteria measure the learning that defines the framework of interior design practice, including global context for design, human behavior, design process, collaboration, communication, and professionalism and business practice. "These items certainly exist in the current standards, but not in the same way," continues Mattson. Other standards that measure historical, theoretical, and technical contents of interior design practice are not de-emphasized, but are separated for clarity.

For example, the Profession Standards 2009 specifically address the following areas (among others), where practitioners routinely complain that young designers are lacking appropriate skills, or where current trends have raised expectations:

• In the area of global context for design, the new standards state that entry-level interior designers should have a global view and weigh design decisions within the parameters of ecological, socio-economic, and cultural contexts. Students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts, principles, and theories of sustainability as they pertain to building methods, materials, systems, and occupants; understand globalization and the implications of practicing design within a world market; and comprehend how design needs may vary for different socio-economic populations.

• In the area of collaboration, entry-level designers are expected to engage in multi-disciplinary collaborations and consensus building. Students are expected to be aware of team work structures and dynamics and the nature and value of an integrated design practice.

• In the area of communication, the goal is to ensure that entry-level interior designers are effective communicators. Under the new standards, students should be able to express ideas clearly in oral and written communications; use sketches as a design and communication tool; produce competent presentation drawings across a range of appropriate media; produce competent contract documents to show how design solutions and interior construction are related; and integrate oral and visual materials to present ideas clearly.

"Major revisions offer an opportunity not only to update content, but to re-conceptualize how standards are structured as a whole," adds Mattson. "In other words, to revise how weighting and expectations are communicated through grouping of criteria, hierarchy, use of key terms to describe learning levels, degree of detail, etc. Deciding on a model for structuring standards is one of the most challenging aspects of a major revision. It's a balancing act between being clear about what's required to become accredited, while also supporting program autonomy and innovation." One of the stated goals of CIDA standards is to encourage a wide variety of educational approaches, supporting diversity and innovation in interior design programs.

"Comparing the current and new standards, it would be fair to say that the content of the two are similar, but the emphasis on certain elements is very different," says Mattson. "Additionally, expectations are less prescribed to allow programs many possible approaches to meeting them."

For a complete copy of the Professional Standards 2009, visit http://www.accredit-id.org/standards09.pdf.