Silakan KLIK link berikut:
http://eduklip.blogspot.co.id/2017/08/perangkat-akreditasi-sma2017.html

Perangkat akreditasi untuk SMA/MA tahun 2017, terdiri atas empat dokumen, yaitu:

1. Komponen Standar Isi, nomor 1 - 9 (9 butir)
2. Komponen Standar Proses, nomor 10 - 30 (21 butir)
3. Komponen Standar Kompetensi Lulusan, nomor 31 - 37 (7 butir)
4. Komponen Standar Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan, nomor 38 - 56 (19 butir)
5. Komponen Standar Sarana dan Prasarana, nomor 57 - 84 (28 butir)
6. Komponen Standar Pengelolaan, nomor 85 - 100 (16 butir)
7. Komponen Standar Pembiayaan, nomor 101 - 116 (16 butir)
8. Komponen Standar Penilaian, nomor 117 - 129 (13 butir)

Definitions

A form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills -- Jon Mueller

"...Engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of or analogous to the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field." -- Grant Wiggins -- (Wiggins, 1993, p. 229).

"Performance assessments call upon the examinee to demonstrate specific skills and competencies, that is, to apply the skills and knowledge they have mastered." -- Richard J. Stiggins -- (Stiggins, 1987, p. 34).

• Examples from teachers in my Authentic Assessment course

How is Authentic Assessment similar to/different from Traditional Assessment?

Let me clarify the attributes by elaborating on each in the context of traditional and authentic assessments:

Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of more meaningful application.

Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.

Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge:Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as well.

Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and designing an assessment.

Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer? We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may be useful.

• Performance Assessment (or Performance-based) -- so-called because students are asked to perform meaningful tasks. This is the other most common term for this type of assessment. Some educators distinguish performance assessment from AA by defining performance assessment as performance-based as Stiggins has above but with no reference to the authentic nature of the task (e.g., Meyer, 1992). For these educators, authentic assessments are performance assessments using real-world or authentic tasks or contexts. Since we should not typically ask students to perform work that is not authentic in nature, I choose to treat these two terms synonymously.
• Alternative Assessment -- so-called because AA is an alternative to traditional assessments.
• Direct Assessment -- so-called because AA provides more direct evidence of meaningful application of knowledge and skills. If a student does well on a multiple-choice test we might infer indirectly that the student could apply that knowledge in real-world contexts, but we would be more comfortable making that inference from a direct demonstration of that application such as in the golfing example above.

• Memberikan informasi tentang kelayakan sekolah/madrasah atau program yang dilaksanakannya berdasarkan SNP. 
• Memberikan pengakuan peringkat kelayakan.
• Memberikan rekomendasi tentang penjaminan mutu pendidikan kepada program dan/atau satuan pendidikan yang diakreditasi dan pihak terkait. 

• Membantu sekolah/madrasah dalam menentukan dan mempermudah kepindahan peserta didik dari satu sekolah ke sekolah lain, pertukaran guru, dan kerjasama yang saling menguntungkan. 
• Membantu mengidentifikasi sekolah/madrasah dan program dalam rangka pemberian bantuan pemerintah, investasi dana swasta dan donatur atau bentuk bantuan lainnya. 
• Acuan dalam upaya peningkatan mutu sekolah/madrasah dan rencana pengembangan sekolah/madrasah. 

• Akuntabilitas: yaitu sebagai bentuk pertanggungjawaban sekolah/madrasah kepada publik, apakah layanan yang dilakukan dan diberikan oleh sekolah/ madrasah telah memenuhi harapan atau keinginan masyarakat
• Pengetahuan, yaitu sebagai informasi bagi semua pihak tentang kelayakan sekolah/madrasah dilihat dari berbagai unsur terkait yang mengacu pada standar minimal beserta indikator-indikatornya. 
• Pembinaan dan pengembangan, yaitu sebagai dasar bagi sekolah/madrasah, pemerintah, dan masyarakat dalam upaya peningkatan atau pengembangan mutu sekolah/madrasah. 

1. Objektif : akreditasi sekolah/madrasah pada hakikatnya merupakan kegiatan penilaian tentang kelayakan penyelenggaraan pendidikan yang ditunjukkan oleh suatu sekolah/ madrasah. Dalam pelaksanaan penilaian ini berbagai aspek yang terkait dengan kelayakan itu diperiksa dengan jelas dan benar untuk memperoleh informasi tentang keberadaannya. Agar hasil penilaian itu dapat menggambarkan kondisi yang sebenarnya untuk dibandingkan dengan kondisi yang diharapkan maka dalam prosesnya digunakan indikator-indikator terkait dengan kriteria-kriteria yang ditetapkan. 
2. Komprehensif: dalam pelaksanaan akreditasi sekolah/madrasah, fokus penilaian tidak hanya terbatas pada aspek-aspek tertentu saja tetapi juga meliputi berbagai komponen pendidikan yang bersifat menyeluruh. Dengan demikian hasil yang diperoleh dapat menggambarkan secara utuh kondisi kelayakan sekolah/madrasah tersebut. 
3. Adil:  dalam melaksanakan akreditasi, semua sekolah/madrasah harus diperlakukan sama dengan tidak membedakan sekolah/madrasah atas dasar kultur, keyakinan, sosial budaya, dan tidak memandang status sekolah/madrasah baik negeri ataupun swasta. Sekolah/Madrasah harus dilayani sesuai dengan kriteria dan mekanisme kerja secara adil dan/atau tidak diskriminatif. 
4. Transparan: data dan informasi yang berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan akreditasi sekolah/madrasah seperti kriteria, mekanisme kerja, jadwal serta sistem penilaian akreditasi dan lainnya harus disampaikan secara terbuka dan dapat diakses oleh siapa saja yang memerlukannya. 
5. Akuntabel: pelaksanaan akreditasi sekolah/madrasah harus dapat dipertanggungjawabkan baik dari sisi penilaian maupun keputusannya sesuai aturan dan prosedur yang telah ditetapkan. 

• Standar Isi, [Permen 22/2006] 
• Standar Proses, [Permen 41/2007]
• Standar Kompetensi Lulusan, [Permen 23/2006] 
• Standar Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan, [Permen 13/2007 Ttg Kasek, Permen 16/2007 Ttg Guru, Permen 24/2008 Ttg Tenaga Adm] 
• Standar Sarana Dan Prasarana [Permen 24/2007] 
• Standar Pengelolaan, [Permen 19/2007] 
• Standar Pembiayaan, [PP. 48/2008] 
• Standar Penilaian Pendidikan. [Permen 20/2007]