Dr. Terry B. Smith,

Executive Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs

Dr. Steve Wiegenstein,

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Dean for Graduate Studies

Misty Bush,

Director of Compliance for Adult Higher Education

2013 PEAQ Workshop

Using HLC Criteria for Institutional Strategic Planning:

The Acid Test

Strategic Planning

“The process of identifying the business of the firm today and the business it wants for the future, and then

identifying the course of action it will pursue, given its opportunities, threats, strengths, and weaknesses. It

specifies who the firm will compete with and how it will compete with them.”

Dressler, Gary. 2001. Management: Leading People and Organizations in the 21st Century, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall), p. 162.

Columbia College• C o l u m b i a C o l l e g e i s a c o m p l e x , d i v e r s e , 1 6 2 -

y e a r o l d p r i v a t e l i b e r a l a r t s a n d s c i e n c e s i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t o f f e r s a r e s i d e n t i a l e d u c a t i o n t o 1 , 0 0 0 t r a d i t i o n a l s t u d e n t s a n d d i s t a n c e e d u c a t i o n ( i n - s e a t a n d o n l i n e ) t o 1 8 , 0 0 0 a d u l t l e a r n e r s .

• P r o g r e s s , i n d e e d s u r v i v a l , r e q u i r e s e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g .

• 2000 – Previous plan was written using a traditional strategic

planning model

• 2005 – Adoption of HLC Model

• 2007 – First update of plan

• 2009 – Next update of plan

• 2011-12 – Next update of plan = first draft of HLC SSR

Strategic Planning at Columbia College

• Appointment of committee

• SWOT analysis

• Subcommittees

• Drafts

• Final draft

• Approval by cabinet and board

• Assignment of responsibilities for key goals

2005 - Adoption of HLC Model for New Plan

• They focus decisively and explicitly on higher education; • They use language familiar to higher education stakeholders; • They provide clear prompts for description and evaluation of

achievements and goals; • They give examples of evidence that can be gathered to

demonstrate achievement; • They permit retrospective and prospective analyses of

organizational effectiveness;• They provide strong guidance for departmental planning activities;

and• The college directly engaged the Criteria as it prepared for its 2012

decennial reaccreditation.

Reasons Columbia College Used HLC Criteria

Old Criterion Four

The College promotes a life of learning for its faculty,

administration, staff and students by fostering and by

supporting inquiry, creativity, practice and social responsibility

in ways consistent with its mission.

The College assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who

will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.

Old Core Component 4c

• The B.A. degree includes a foreign language/foreign culture requirement.

• A culminating experience is required in all baccalaureate and masters programs.

• General education requirements support the liberal arts and sciences mission.

• A comprehensive Assessment Plan was adopted in 2004.

• All programs undergo rigorous review on a regular five-year schedule.

• All master syllabi have been revised to include course objectives and measurable learning outcomes.

• The curriculum is constantly being assessed and restructured to meet the needs of students.

Old Core Component 4c:Accomplishments

• Degree offerings for traditional and non-traditional students will increase.

• The College’s expertise in providing innovative and relevant programs in Adult Higher Education will be further developed and marketed.

• A five-year plan for programmatic expansion of adult learning will be developed.

• An effective way to track and survey new graduates and alumni will be developed.

Old Core Component 4c: Goals

HLC Self-Study Report =

Detailed Update of Strategic Plan

Process was utterly transparent to visit team.

They noted our model but made no comment.

The HLC visit was a comprehensive consultancy on our institutional strategic plan.

When we update the Key Goals in 2013, our source document will be the findings and recommendations

from the team visit report.

Examples of Team Findings and Recommendations that will be converted to Key Goals in the

updated Strategic Plan.

Criterion Two (Institutional Action)

The College’s retention rate is far below that of its peers.

Columbia College’s Day freshman first-year retention rate is 61

percent. Retention rates for freshman cohorts at off-campus

locations, and four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates for the

College also are comparably low. (p.18)

Criterion Four (Institutional Action)

The general education requirement has been in place since 2000,

requires a substantial number of credits, and seems to have little

that is reflective of the unique purpose of a Columbia College

undergraduate education. The self-study suggests that it is time to

revise the general education and one of the Dean’s goals is to

begin that revision process this academic year. The team concurs

that this is necessary (p. 20).

Criterion Four (Commission Follow-up)

THIS WILL GENERATE THE #1 KEY GOAL:

Assessment of both general education and the majors needs attention. Columbia College

has an assessment plan in place that is being implemented but there is little evidence of

course-level assessment (by the College’s own admission) and little evidence of use of

assessment data to make changes in student learning outcomes. A logical place to begin

the revision process for both general education and assessment would be to structure a

new general education program around a purposefully crafted set of general education

student learning outcomes and experiences. As indicated above, the team saw little

evidence of how current data are being used to inform curricular decisions to improve

teaching and student learning. Use of current data is made more challenging by use of

standardized ETSPP and major field tests that may or may not be reflective of the

specific learning outcomes desired by majors in either Day, Adult Higher Education or

online programs (p. 20).

HLC Pathways for Reaffirmation of Accreditation

• Standard Pathway-Available to all accredited institutions at any time

• Open Pathway-The Commission determines whether an institution may participate

The Pathways Seek to Achieve the Following Goals:

• To reduce the reporting burden on institutions by utilizing as much information and data as possible from existing institutional processes and collecting them in electronic form as they naturally occur over time

• To enhance rigor by checking institutional data annually (Institutional Update) and conducting comprehensive evaluations twice in the ten-year cycle

• To integrate as much as possible all HLC processes and requests for data into the reaffirmation of accreditation cycle

• To reduce the reporting burden on institutions by utilizing as much information and data as possible from existing institutional process and collecting them in electronic form as they naturally occur over time

• To enhance rigor by checking institutional data annually (Institutional Update) and conducting Assurance Reviews twice in the ten-year cycle

• To integrate as much as possible all HLC processes and HLC requests for data into the reaffirmation of accreditation cycle

• To enhance institutional value by opening the improvement aspect of accreditation so that institutions may choose Quality Initiatives to suit their current circumstances

Standard Pathway Open Pathway

How does this approach work for the New Criteria?

PEAQ (old)

• Criterion One: Mission and Integrity

• Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future

• Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching

• Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge

• Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

PATHWAYS (new)

• Criterion One. Mission• Criterion Two. Integrity:

Ethical and Responsible Conduct

• Criterion Three. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support

• Criterion Four. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement

• Criterion Five. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness

The Chief Differences?• Specificity

– Example:• PEAQ - Core Component 1A- The organization's mission

documents are clear and articulate publicly the college's commitments.

• Pathways - 1.B. The mission is articulated publicly.– 1. The institution clearly articulates its mission through one or more

public documents, such as statements of purpose, vision, values, goals, plans, or institutional priorities.

– 2. The mission document or documents are current and explain the extent of the institution’s emphasis on the various aspects of its mission, such as instruction, scholarship, research, application of research, creative works, clinical service, public service, economic development, and religious or cultural purpose.

– 3. The mission document or documents identify the nature, scope, and intended constituents of the higher education programs and services the institution provides.

The Chief Differences?• Heightened focus on ethics and

integrity– Separate category, split out from “mission”– Specific evidence:

• Autonomous governing boards• Separation of authority between administration and

faculty• Freedom of expression• Education as primary purpose, not financial return

or support of a parent organization

The Chief Differences?

• Avoidance of overlap– PEAQ 3B: The organization values and supports

effective teaching.– PEAQ 4B: The organization demonstrates that

acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.

– PEAQ 4C: The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.

Impact on Using Criteria for Strategic Planning

• May actually make the process of using criteria for strategic planning easier,

as increased specificity permits a closer alignment with measurable

outcomes

• On the other hand, the greater detail of the standards may leave less room

for mission-specific or unique elements to strategic planning if using HLC

criteria as a template.

• On the other hand, the HLC criteria don’t have to be the entire strategic plan

– other elements can be added as appropriate.

The Quality Initiative

• The inclusion of a mandatory “quality initiative” in HLC accreditation

makes its inclusion in strategic planning a necessity

• Internally considered in Years 3-4, + proposed to HLC and proposal

reviewed in Years 5-7, + report filed and reviewed in Years 7-9 =

must be a long-term project (i.e., one that is part of a strategic plan)

Examples of 2010 Key Goals

1.1 Undergraduate and graduate degrees will be selectively added and strategically retained or eliminated (2a, 4c, 5c).

1.2 By 2012, Day student enrollment will increase to 1,250 with increased admission and retention standards (2d).

1.3 “Good fit” will be the focus of all venues with regard to recruitment and retention (5c).

1.5 Business Development will be integrated as a fundamental component of driving college growth (5a-5d).

Examples of 2010 Key Goals4.1 Necessary property will be acquired (2b).

4.2 Alternative housing to accommodate Day students will be purchased or built (2a, 2c).

4.3 Space planning and acquisition and/or construction will be coordinated with and account for actual and planned staff and faculty growth (2b, 3d).

5.1 The website will be improved (5b).

And so forth. There are a total of 27 Key Goals (8 are listed above).

Lessons Learned• There are no significant disadvantages to using the criteria as

strategic planning guidelines. Initially, the learning curve was steep for

the original planning group but as it became clear that the Criteria,

Core Components and examples of evidence made the process

transparent, the group embraced the task.

• The advantages are numerous and have been noted earlier. The most

significant advantage was realized in 2012, when we wrote the self-

study report for the decennial reaccreditation and simultaneously

updated our strategic plan.

Conclusion• Columbia College began using HLC Criteria for strategic planning in 2005.

• The HLC template makes accomplishments and goals explicit and well-ordered and makes the need to continuously update the plan obvious.

• It organically promotes an awareness of the Criteria and Core Components among constituents who need to be aware.

• It has supported the planning and operational needs of a dynamic institution in ways that previous strategic planning approaches could not.

• It gives strong direction to departmental planning.

• At the same time it uses elements of traditional strategic planning. It can work for all types of institutions.

• Finally, it deeply, broadly and seamlessly prepared us for a successful reaccreditation. reaccreditation.

• Dr. Terry B. Smith, Executive Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs

tsmith@ccis.edu

• Dr. Steve Wiegenstein, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Dean for Graduate Studies

scwiegenstein@ccis.edu

• Misty Bush, Director of Compliance for Adult Higher Education

mabush3@ccis.edu

Questions?