Using Accreditation to Create and Sustain an Institutional Vision and Effective Planning
Planning is bringing the future into the present so that you can do something with it now.
—Alan Lakein
Accreditation is an episodic process that can be used effectively to engage multiple constituencies toward a new or more effective institutional vision. Such a new vision can then drive institutional planning and management. This chapter explores how to move beyond a compliance mentality with accreditation toward engaging accreditation standards through the self-study process to revitalize an institutional mission, draw constituent groups together, and gain external affirmation from the evaluation team of the directions the institution has developed.
Higher education is in an era of dramatic change. Financial, technological, and enrollment challenges have created an environment where it is not certain that all institutions—public or private—will be able to thrive, let alone survive in the future. The recent decision to close Sweet Briar College (notwithstanding its reopening) reflects the pressures that many small colleges currently face. Public institutions no longer can count on sufficient levels of state support to maintain affordable tuition costs for students, as reflected by the elimination of all state funding for two Arizona Community Colleges. Even for those institutions that seem to be faring well, serious questions are being repeatedly raised whether college is worth the cost (Bennett & Wilezol, 2013), whether students are actually achieving significant learning gains in college (Arum & Roksa, 2011), and whether graduates are well prepared for today’s and tomorrow’s workplace (Grasgreen, 2013).
Realistic visioning and planning in this dynamic environment may be the critical process that will enable institutions to navigate these changes. At any given moment in time, institutions have multiple plans in place, at multiple levels within the institution. Rarely, however, are they coordinated or their effectiveness regularly monitored with targeted outcomes, metrics, and milestones. Most institutions undergo strategic planning periodically, typically at the end of previous planning cycles and often soon after a new president arrives. Little understood is how institutional accreditation can (and should) be used as a major tool both to set an institutional vision and to undertake (or evaluate) the effectiveness of planning across the institution.
Accreditation1 is a substantial multiyear process that all institutions of higher education periodically undergo. While accreditation historically developed as a voluntary process undertaken through associations of schools and colleges, it has now become essential for linkage to federal (and state) financial aid, and acceptance of credit awards and degrees. Organized into six regions (and seven accrediting commissions2), over 3,000 institutions are now accredited by the regional accrediting bodies.
It involves a comprehensive self-study, followed by a site team visit and an accrediting agency action. All too frequently, however, it is seen as a necessary burden primarily to demonstrate conformity to the standards of the accrediting agency, rather than an opportunity to scan the future and create (or renew) an institutional vision and strategic goals, along with planning processes that will pull the institution forward in this era of significant change.
In the course of my work as president of an accrediting agency, I found that nearly all decision letters commented on some element of institutional planning, and the majority of these letters contained recommendations for the institution to improve or undertake some dimension of planning. To assess the currency of this observation, I undertook a review of recent actions taken by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (2015) in June 2014 as reflected in the Commission’s decision letters since they are public. Using a sample of 12 actions, all identified planning as a key issue that led up to the current accrediting review or were cited in the decision letter as an area in need of further improvement. Given that not all accrediting standards were cited in these letters, that all letters cited planning in one fashion or another highlights its centrality to accreditation and institutional effectiveness. In this sample, seven institutions were praised for progress made in planning. At the same time, however, 6 of this group were still charged to improve one or more dimensions of planning as an area of follow-up, and 9 of the 12 institutions overall were called upon to improve planning efforts.
In light of the frequency with which accreditation cites planning as an area in need of improvement or further development, it is useful to consider the ways in which accrediting agencies approach planning and define their expectations. All seven regional commissions have a set of standards regarding multiple aspects of planning. In this regard, accrediting standards identify a number of key components of planning:
1. A clear vision for the future
2. A strategic plan and planning processes to identify key goals and priorities
3. Academic planning processes leading to an academic plan
4. Enrollment plans
5. Financial plans
6. Technology plans
7. Human resource plans
8. Physical facility and deferred maintenance plans
Agencies tie together these several types of plans by calling for integrated and/or comprehensive plans and planning processes. Agencies also expect planning to be ongoing across all departments, academic, co-curricular, and nonacademic. In addition, planning is expected to be evidence-based, data-driven, and tracked over time. These are further described below.
The core principle of accreditation is that quality is mission driven, which allows for the rich diversity of institutions operating in the United States—ranging from highly selective to open access, research-centered to comprehensive teaching centered, and faith-based to specialized colleges and universities. Central to the accrediting process, therefore, is the clarity and integration of the institution’s mission in all institutional operations. This is reflected in the standards of all accrediting agencies. For example, Criterion One of the Higher Learning Commission (2015) (HLC) states: “The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.” Similarly, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) states in Standard 3.1.1:
The mission statement is current and comprehensive, accurately guides the institution’s operations, is periodically reviewed and updated, is approved by the governing board, and is communicated to the institution’s constituencies.
While mission statements are required for accreditation, they can be static, even historical, documents. Building on the mission statement, vision statements and strategic plans chart the direction of the institution and define how to engage the many forces impacting the institution. As stated by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (2011), “The institution’s mission provides the basis upon which the institution identifies its priorities, plans its future and evaluates its endeavors; it provides a basis for the evaluation of the institution against the Commission’s Standards.”
Flowing from the centrality of the institution’s mission is the need for a vision for the institution for the future. Does the vision statement articulate a vision for what the institution is becoming in this era of change?Does it provide an inspiring as well as achievable portrait?In Turnaround, Sandra Elman (p. 158), president of the Northwest Commission on College and Universities (2010), cites creating a vision to sustain institutional identify as a key task for an effective self-study, especially for financially struggling institutions. This is the case today for all institutions. Reassessing the vision for the institution is a valuable exercise for all institutions. Because self-studies necessarily engage a cross section of stakeholders within an institution, the process becomes a valuable vehicle for reaffirming the future direction or identifying areas of needed change.
Vision statements are typically tied to strategic planning, a vision statement identifies where the institution sees itself in the future; a strategic plan identifies the goals and priorities to achieve that vision. For example, NEASC Standard 2.3 calls for strategic planning: “The institution plans beyond a short-term horizon, including strategic planning that involves realistic analyses of internal and external opportunities and constraints.” WASC (Senior) Standard 4.6 similarly states “[Planning] processes assess the institution’s position, articulate priorities, examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions, and resources, and define the future direction of the institution.” HLC Standard 5.C/3 carries this theme as well: “The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole….”
Planning is expected to occur across and throughout the institution, including academic, co-curricular, and support units of the institution. SACS states this well:
3.3.1 The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas:
Institutional Effectiveness
3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes
3.3.1.2 administrative support services
3.3.1.3 academic and student support services
3.3.1.4 research within its mission, if appropriate
3.3.1.5 community/public service within its mission, if appropriate
Planning is also expected to assure both the currency and the effectiveness of academic programs, and build on evidence from student learning outcomes assessments that demonstrate that students are achieving intended learning outcomes. With increased emphasis in recent years on the assessment of student learning outcomes as a key part of the accrediting process, the linkage of outcomes data to academic and institutional planning has become all the more important. NEASC Standard 2.5 states (in part): “[The institution’s] system of evaluation is designed to provide relevant and trustworthy information to support institutional improvement, with an emphasis on the academic program.” The academic strategic plan should drive the campus master plan and financial and facilities planning, and address such issues as future enrollment patterns, faculty growth, uses of technology (distance learning and learning management systems), and support services (Hallowell & Middaugh, 2006, pp. 53–54).
HLC places emphasis in the linkage to student outcomes data in its Standard 5.C.2: “The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting.” Accreditation Council for Community and Junior Colleges (2014) (ACCJC) identifies this as a central focus of institutional planning and evaluation “The institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning.” WASC (Senior) states this focus in Standard 4.6: “Assessment of teaching, learning, and the campus environment—in support of academic and co-curricular objectives—is undertaken, used for improvement, and incorporated into institutional planning processes.”
Planning also needs to include resource planning for future staffing, technology, and facilities. Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2014) (MSCHE) identifies this area well in its Criteria under Standard 6: “fiscal and human resources as well as the physical and technical infrastructure adequate to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered; … and. comprehensive planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology that includes consideration of sustainability and deferred maintenance and is linked to the institution’s strategic and financial planning processes….” NEASC identifies a similar theme in its Standards 2.7: “Based on verifiable information, the institution understands what its students have gained as a result of their education and has useful evidence about the success of its recent graduates. This information is used for planning and resource allocation and to inform the public about the institution.”
Critical to the effectiveness of the multiple dimensions of planning is financial planning and the alignment and allocation of financial resources to fulfill these plans at multiple levels. HLC Standard 5.C.1 states this clearly: “1. The institution allocates its resources in alignment with its mission and priorities.” MSCHE states, in the Criteria under Standard 6: “a financial planning and budgeting process that is aligned with the institution’s mission and goals, evidence-based, and clearly linked to the institution’s and units’ strategic plans/objectives…. WASC (Senior) Standard 4.6 addresses this topic as follows: These processes assess the institution’s position, articulate priorities, examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions, and resources, and define the future direction of the institution.”
Planning is also expected to be participatory, and include key stakeholders inside and outside the institution. NWCCU Standard 3.A.2 characterizes this common theme across all agency standards: 3.A.2 The institution’s comprehensive planning process is broad-based and offers opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies. WASC (Senior) Standard 4.5 identifies a range of stakeholders to be included: “Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, students, and others designated by the institution, are regularly involved in the assessment and alignment of educational programs.”
Increasingly planning needs to be based on data derived from effective institutional research. This is a theme running across all agency standards. WASC (Senior) states this directly in Standard 4.2: “The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes and characteristics. Data are disseminated internally and externally in a timely manner, and analyzed, interpreted, and incorporated in institutional review, planning, and decision-making. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the institutional research function and the suitability and usefulness of the data generated.” NWCCU states this expectation as well in Standard 4A: “The institution engages in ongoing systematic collection and analysis of meaningful, assessable, and verifiable data—quantitative and/or qualitative, as appropriate to its indicators of achievement—as the basis for evaluating the accomplishment of its core theme objectives.”
In light of the multiple planning activities undertaken by institutions, reflected in these agency standards, there is the expectation that institutions periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their planning processes, and the resulting plans. This too is reflected in agency standards. NEASC states this in its Standard 2.8: “The institution determines the effectiveness of its planning and evaluation activities on an ongoing basis. Results of these activities are used to further enhance the institution’s implementation of its purposes and objectives.” ACCJC states this as well in Standard 2.6: “The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and resource allocation processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle, including institutional and other research efforts.”
One forward looking element in many of the agency’s standards is using planning to address the many technology, demographic, and other changes impacting higher education. At WASC (Senior) this has been characterized as addressing the “changing ecology of higher education.” In its Standard 4, this theme is embodied in Standard 4.7: “Within the context of its mission and structural and financial realities, the institution considers changes that are currently taking place and are anticipated to take place within the institution and higher education environment as part of its planning, new program development, and resource allocation.”HLC strikes a similar theme in its Standard 5.C.5: “5. Institutional planning anticipates emerging factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.”
Notwithstanding the extensive set of agency standards laying out the multiple dimensions of planning expected of institutions, there are many pitfalls found by visiting teams as reflected in the survey cited above and personal experience. These include:
• Plans that have too many recommendations to be achieved in a reasonable timeframe, with no priorities being set
• Plans that are “wish lists” without grounding in evidence and data or clear priorities and goals
• Plans disconnected from a vision of the future direction of the institution, with different units having plans that are not aligned with the institution’s strategic plan and vision
• Plans without a clear set of metrics to measure achievement or milestones to assess progress
• Plans without a clear person or committee assigned to monitor progress
• Plans disconnected from financial resources available to fulfill the goals, priorities, and recommendations
• Plans setting targets disconnected from actual enrollment, retention, and completion data
• Plans that have not involved broad consultation and involvement, or have not been communicated well back to these same constituencies
• Lack of sustained leadership for planning
• Lack of follow-through in implementing plans
• Personnel changes or intervening events that lead to ignoring or setting aside previously developed plans without effective communication
As is evident from the foregoing analysis, planning plays a central role in all accrediting agency standards and reviews. And notwithstanding the extensive detail in each agency’s standards regarding planning, problems with planning are still found by peer review teams, leading to required follow-up citations by accrediting commissions. The accrediting process is built on institutional self-study and this process can and should be used to review the multiple dimensions of planning reflected in these standards. In so doing, the self-study can be used to engage multiple constituencies it and to move an institution toward a new vision and establish strategic goals. Planning the self-study with this goal in mind is a critical step, for example, by using the process to ask such questions across the institution as: “do we have a clear vision for the future that is effective; are we achieving our strategic goals and priorities (and do you even know what they are); does your unit have a clear plan that is driving resource allocations and behavior; do planning processes include all the needed stakeholders?”
Using such an inquiry approach creates an environment for candor, provides feedback from throughout the institution, and lays a foundation for future planning. Indeed, based on preliminary surveys of this sort, the self-study process itself could be used to create a new vision statement, or used to revise the strategic plan, etc. Such feedback is invaluable for institutional administration at all levels.
More important is to get ahead of these issues and plan, well ahead of the self-study, to review the timeframe of existing plans and planning processes and determine whether to use the self-study for strategic or academic planning, or to undertake these processes before the self-study and use the self-study to assess progress, establish monitoring mechanisms, etc. In this way, rather than the self-study being externally driven to satisfy an external accreditor, it can become a key management and planning tool in its own right. In conceiving of the self-study this way, there are significant virtues—it uses human capital wisely, aligns processes and avoids duplicative efforts, and reduces costs.
Substantial human capital is involved in the many layers and types of planning typically occurring throughout an institution—strategic visioning and planning, academic planning, financial planning, enrollment planning, technology planning, facilities (and deferred maintenance) planning, faculty and staff planning, and more. Given the many pitfalls that can, and often do occur, in the course of institutional planning, periodic assessment through the accrediting process can make a significant contribution to the institution. Because accrediting reviews are periodic, are mandatory, and emphasize planning in all their multiple dimensions, they provide an excellent framework for institutional reflection, evaluation, and future thinking. They are worth conceiving of the self-study and peer review as a value-adding enterprise that can serve to help any institution plan more effectively.
References
Accreditation Council for Community and Junior Colleges. (2014). Accreditation Standards. [data file]. Retrieved from accjc.org.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bennett, W., & Wilezol, D. (2013). Is college worth it?: A former United States Secretary of Education and a liberal arts graduate expose the broken promise of higher education. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Elman, S. (2009). Accreditation, Fragility, and Disclosure. In Turnaround: Leading Stressed Colleges and Universities to Excellence. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grasgreen, A. (2013, October 29). Qualified in Their Own Minds. Retrieved from www.InsideHigherEd.com.
Higher Learning Commission. (2015). The Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components. Retrieved from www.hlcommission.org.
Hollowell, D., & Middaugh, M. (2006). Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment: A Practical Guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Martin, Samuels & Associates. (2009). Turnaround: Leading Stressed Colleges and Universities to Excellence. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2014). Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation. Retrieved from msche.org.
New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (2011). Standards. Retrieved from neasc.org.
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. (2010). Standards for Accreditation. Retrieved from nwccu.org.
Smith, A. (2015, March 12). Zeroed Out in Arizona. Retrieved from www.InsideHigherEd.com.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2012). The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org.
WASC Senior College and University Commission. (2015). Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from www.wascsenior.org.
________________
1 In this chapter, accreditation refers to institutional accreditation as undertaken by the regional accrediting commissions.
2 The Western Association is unique, being divided into community college and senior college commissions.