In 2013, during a U. S. Senate hearing, Senator Lamar Alexander challenged the leadership of higher education to prioritize ‘purposeful planning’ to increase the long-term stability in the industry. Senator Alexander discussed four characteristics that he felt were important to improving the quality in leadership and institutions of the United States; institutional autonomy, competition and choice, commitment to excellence, and deregulation.
Institutions of higher education that receive Title IV funding must meet regulatory guidelines for three accreditors that include state, institutional, and federal levels. The oversight of the accreditors creates an intense checks and balances of accountability in achieving the right outcomes centered on the institutions vision (Lacey & Murray, 2015). The state level accreditation commonly regulates specific academic programs or professions (for example, health information, information technology, or pharmacy technician), with a focus on quality, integrity, programming, and leadership (Lacey & Murray, 2015). All levels of accreditors have an expectation that the institutions will abide by a comprehensive set of standards that are reported annually in an in-depth audit. The federal level of accreditors also reviews in-depth that the Title IV programs are controlled as taxpayer dollars are involved. Due to Title IV funding, federal accreditations will also audit the administrative processes, financial stability, admission tactics, compensation practices, and security (Lacey & Murray, 2015).
With accreditation regulations it is imperative that stakeholders have an influence over an institution's mission statement. Stakeholders are made up of students, family members, business owners, or even the board of directors. Most of which are subject matter experts in various capacities related to higher education. It is important to take into consideration their opinion's as each has their knowledge or experience for being a part of the institution to begin with. As higher education institutions are such a blending pot of cultures, it is important to take into consideration everyone that is involved and consider their view points. The consideration is in part due to students attending the institution want an institution they are proud of and a sense of support from that institution. Family members want to support the students in a positive way and if a positive experience is had, then recommendations commonly will follow. For some institutions they rely heavily on their alumni network to help support the institution, it is important to take their opinions in mind as well. Local and national organizations want quality candidates, their consideration helps determine the academics offered at times and the outcomes desired. Faculty and staff both want a sense of belonging, a purpose to be there, a sense of contribution to the personal growth of students and economic growth post-graduation (Immordino, 2016); identifying the stakeholders and their specific needs, or desires, helps in developing the philosophy that is beneficial to everyone involved.
As the stakeholders provide their opinions towards the mission statement, it should be kept in mind that the accreditors will be evaluating the institution on its mission statement. After all, who better to create this statement than the institutions’ stakeholders? The mission statement will serve as an explanation of what the institution does and why they do it. Stakeholders develop the foundation on which the higher education institutions build their strategic plans (Camelia & Marius, 2013). The alignment of the mission statement and the strategic planning by the stakeholders can determine the institutions outcomes and its successes.
Two of the federal accreditation organizations are the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education (CHEA), both provide oversight in the public accountability, quality control, and accreditation for higher education is by assuring regional accreditors follow similar guidelines. The quality control for regional accreditors is conducted every five years through a review process by the U.S. Department of Education (Eaton, 2010). The review process is designed to assure that institutions adhere to federal regulations. In the area of accountability and quality control, U.S. Department of Education in 2010, as an example, required all regional accreditors to enforce a two-year rule. All institutions that receive a recommendation must come into compliance within a two-year period (Accreditation Reference Handbook, 2014). According to Eaton, this type of oversight gave the federal government more influence over quality control of higher education institutions.
Strategic planning builds this aspect of accreditation processes into its systems to ensure the institution and its stakeholders are producing a credible reputation that ensures long-term stability and financial growth. If the institution does not meet accreditation standards then the accreditors at each level have an ethical responsibility to determine whether the institution will continue to remain open. A progressive disciplinary style is used in determining a course of action though, it would rely on the leadership of the institution to develop the right framework for accountable strategic planning. The reputation that is built by the institution over a period of time develops an industry advantage in an increasingly regulated and competitive environment. The institution and its stakeholders continue to challenge themselves to work toward accomplishing its mission statement goals by encouraging everyone to increase their visualization and inspiration for a successful future.
Historically, the lengthy mission statements have taken away from the specifics or have made the statements convoluted. The mission of an institution is to provide a clear statement of the goals. The statement is a foundational component to the institutions long term plan; this prioritizes the basis for developing the culture and the outcomes that are to be achieved. The philosophy and even the traditions of the institution have been included in the institutions mission statement historically (Coffey, 2012). The mission, vision, and goals outline the culture, some mention student learning; mention accreditation and strategic planning for future institutional goals and policies. Things to consider are: be clear, avoid elaborate language, and create buzzwords that can be easily recognizable to others, it should be unique to the institution. It is the reputation and success of the institution that lies on the chopping block.
References
Accreditation Reference Handbook. (2014). In 2014 Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation (p. 1-193). Novato, CA: Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education.Academe, 96(5), 21-24,5.
Camelia, G., & Marius, P. (2013). Mission statements in higher education: content analysis and research propositions. Annals Of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22(2), 653-663.
Coffey, A. (2012). Exploring stakeholder alignment within the requirements planning phase of business integration projects. Walden University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3547566.
Immordino, K. (2016). Evaluating the impact of strategic planning in higher education, Educational Planning, (23,1) 35-51.
Lacey, A., & Murray, C. (2015). Rethinking the regulatory environment of competency-based education. AEI Series on Competency-Based Higher Education. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.