A well-prepared strategic plan can be the key for your university’s accreditation, because this will deliver the tools, variables and leading vision that are needed to exhibit the required evidence to prove that a higher education institution is actually achieving the goals that have been defined in its Mission and Vision, using the paths, process and principles that they stand for.

As US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) President Judith Eaton, says “accreditation has been a very successful enterprise, part of a schema of quality review that has served higher education well. Colleges and universities in the United States are acknowledged throughout the world as having achieved an extraordinary level of access and degree of quality in both teaching and research.” 

“Accreditation – Ms. Eaton continues – has been part of preserving the diversity of higher education institutions and the many types of educational experiences available to students; it has also played a role in maintaining healthy competition among colleges and universities. Accreditation in the United States is one of the most powerful examples of successful nongovernmental oversight of a major social institution in any society.”

According to a previous blog, the most common accreditation challenges that universities face are:

• Costs
• Integration of the entire institution
• Integration of a self-evaluation and regulation culture
• Institutional autonomy

In this context, there has been a long and global discussion about how an educational system (whether if it’s primary, high school or higher education) can be properly measured to know if it is working or not. Clearly, the assessment has to be specially designed to understand how education works and then to identify the right metrics and KPI’s. Only through this way a university can set the path to excellency. 

In some cases, universities have implemented planning and metric measurement processes that they fulfill very carefully, but nothing gets better because they’ve chosen the wrong or the irrelevant metrics, those that won’t bring any improvement for the institution and only will work to deliver an accreditation fulfillment annual report, for a while.

So, all these different approaches lead to the same end: strategic planning as a key for successful accreditation.How do these two elements can work together?

Strategic planning key elements

According to the (US) Society for College and University Planning (SCUP), a strategic plan for a higher education institution is a continuous process that aims to achieve a full engagement culture inside the organization that would lead it to excellency. 

“A well designed and implemented strategic planning process can provide an institution with a forum for campus-wide conversations about important decisions. The process can also be organized to make the assessment, resource allocation and accreditation easier, and be a source of information about progress and achievement with very real meaning to those associated with the institution,” professor Karen E. Hinton explains in SCUP’s Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education. 

In this comprehensive document – prepared by a society founded 50 years ago and formed by North America’s education leaders – five essential components of a strategic plan are settled and explained: 

1. Mission Statement: “This statement delineates, in concise language, why the institution exists and what its operations are intended to achieve.”

2. Values: “They explain what the institution stands for and the way in which it intends to conduct its activities. In some cases, these values are so important the institution has programs and assessment measures to support and sustain them as key elements.”

3. Vision: “Is an institution’s clear description of what it intends to become within a certain timeframe. The vision statement defines the institution’s strategic position in the future and the specific elements of that position with relationship to the mission statement.”

4. Goals and Objectives: “There is much confusion about the terms used to name the parts of a strategic plan. Many people use the words “goal” and “objective” almost interchangeably (…). However, the words goal and objective carry connotations that can help guide their use in the process. The word goal connotes specific achievement; a target reached and “checked off”. The word objective is slightly more general in connotation. An objective helps set a course by giving a general direction, but an objective does not usually contain the specifics of its own completion.”

5. Implementation Plan: “Turning goals and objectives into a working plan is the function of the Implementation Plan. This part of the strategic planning process is not usually for public consumption and seldom is made available to the governing board (…) needs to be directive, clear and documented.”

Accreditation criteria

Now, let’s take a look at the criteria for accreditation and its core components, according to the (US) Higher Learning Commission. We’ll verify that there are many similarities and connections between these and the strategic planning elements:

1. Mission: “Institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations (…). Is articulated publicly (…). The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society (…). The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.”

In order to be understood (and shared) by everyone within the organization, the mission must be clearly expressed and communicated, as the first strategic planning element explains. In other words, to achieve this accreditation criteria a university should implement the first element of strategic planning.

2. Integrity – Ethical and Responsible Conduct: “The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty and staff.”

This accreditation criteria links with the ‘values’ element of strategic planning, because both are based on what a higher education institution stands for and how its attitude is going to be. As in criteria number 1, to accomplish this in an accreditation process, an organization should clearly define its values as a milestone of its strategic planning.

3. Teaching and Learning – Quality, Resources and Support: “The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education (…). Institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs (…). The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services (…). The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching (…). The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.”

To develop and achieve this area of the accreditation process, a university should first clarify its vision, that is, know its current position and establish where they want to be and the path that the institution should walk in order to achieve it.

4. Teaching and Learning – Evaluation and Improvement: “The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.”

This continuous improvement is the driving force that will move the organization throughout the path. Once more, an accreditation goal needs a strategic planning element to be fulfilled.

5. Resources, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness: “The institution’s resources, structures and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.”

As with the previous criterias, this one has a strong link with strategic planning elements such as the vision, but also with the goals and objectives, and the implementation plan, because all of these are elements that are needed to transform values and principles into a real learning experience, a living educational project.

Probably we could make many other matches between accreditation criterias and strategic planning elements, because we’re talking about dynamic processes that mostly depend on how institutions and people evolve. It’s clear that there is a strong link between an accreditation process and a higher education institution’s strategic plan. In fact, a university could assimilate accreditation as a constant element of its strategic planning, forgetting about the stress of achieving accreditation labels and to assume a truly continuous improvement culture.

How important has your university’s strategic planning been for the accreditation process? We invite you to share your ideas and experiences.