Generally, this study delved on the performance of Teacher Education Institutions in state universities and colleges of Region IV-B in relation to their Level II accreditation status. The levels of performance of Teacher Education Institutions were seen in terms of the following indicators: 1) faculty with specific provisions in teaching performance and professional development; 2) curriculum and instruction with specific provisions in board examination performance and admission-graduation ratio; 3) research outputs; and 4) extension services. Descriptive and documentary analysis types of research were adopted. Data extracted from the Agency Performance Rating (APR) instrument which is basically the measurement the tool for Normative Financing Scheme of DBM, the SUC Leveling instrument of CHED, the National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461-Qualitative Common Evaluation (QCE) instrument, the Performance Evaluation System (PES) of the Civil Service Commission and the AACCUP Survey Instrument were used. As an offshoot of the study, a sustainable accreditation plan was proposed. The respondents of the study were the Teacher Education Institutions in the main campus of six state universities and colleges in Region IV-B offering Bachelor of Elementary Education and Bachelor of Secondary Education during the SY 2011-2012. Generally, the findings revealed that the level of performance as perceived by the SUC-TEIs under study and based from the ratings of AACCUP varies in different descriptions. Comparative analysis showed that board examination performance and admission-graduation ratio got statistically similar ratings from the two evaluation systems and that their assessments as far as academic performance is concerned are the same on the aforementioned areas. However, a significant difference was reflected on the areas of teaching performance, professional development and extension Services and highly significant difference on research as perceived by the SUC-TEIs and AACCUP. Documents supplemental to the data elucidated that the six TEIs of state universities and colleges in Region IV-B have common strengths and limitations in the four major (4) areas of accreditation. Conclusions were drawn out of the findings and strengthened the concept that despite gaining level II accreditation status, there were some areas that need considerable improvement in performing the academic functions of Teacher Education Institutions to achieve institutional effectiveness. An overview of the general result showed that several items have no significant difference between the perception made by SUC-TEIs respondents under study and the accreditation ratings by AACCUP concluding, therefore, that the two groups of organization had almost the same analysis as to the effectiveness of academic performance of these six TEIs. Common limitations were identified in almost all Teacher Education Institutions. For these reasons, it was recommended that faculty members of each college/dept should sustain a strong academic focus and further strengthen capabilities in research and extension. Re-evaluation of the areas with low performance was also suggested for possible interventions that can be resulted to an effective and efficient delivery of services to stakeholders. Other areas that did not contribute significant effects to the performance of the College/Department of Education should be given emphasis and attention by the school administration in preparation for the next higher level of accreditation. Finally, adoption of the proposed sustainable accreditation plan for the University/College and replication of this study among other SUCs located in other regions or maybe used by other programs are advocated.