Nonformal education, which aims at providing the public with well-organized and systematic learning activities, is often designed to meet the needs of divergent learners. The curriculum accreditation policy of Taiwan's nonformal education was initiated in 2005 and launched in 2006. Due to the many controversial issues entangled in the policy implementation process, such as comprehensiveness of regulations, focus of curriculum accreditation, credits granting and transfer, and integral bridging between formal and nonformal education, there emerges great demand for systemic policy analysis. The authors undertake a multiple approach to research design, including focus group interview, on-site visit, systemic analysis and collective dialogue of the world café as well as literature review and long-term policy implementation experiences. They first review the policy development and implementation of the curriculum accreditation and then trace the polarization of original ideals for learning achievement accreditation. Research findings are threefold: Firstly, "learning achievement accreditation", being formally framed in "Life-long Learning Law", has been misinterpreted as "curriculum accreditation" in the policy design and negotiation process. Meanwhile, the creditcourses granting and overemphasis on bridging formal and nonformal education systems have delineated from the original spirit of learning achievement accreditation claimed by many local and international scholars. Secondly, since "Nonformal Learning Achievement Accreditation Regulations" were not intended to design "professional certificate accreditation" or professionalize adults' life-long learning abilities, the policy itself becomes less appealing to many adults. Thirdly, nonformal education should not be regarded as extension or expansion of formal education. To professionalize the nonformal education, institution-based and curriculum or instruction-featured development should receive more emphasis. Most importantly, integration of policy development, law design and regulations implementation should be systemically developed, all of which should be grounded on pioneering thoughts, systemic perspectives and feasible implementation.