The 7 Biggest Mistakes Institutions Make When Seeking Accreditation

There’s something admirable, almost endearing, even about the enthusiasm surrounding a new higher education institution. The founders’ eyes sparkle with excitement as they explain how their world-changing mission will disrupt higher education by removing barriers and ensuring affordability. And, for many of these institutions, they make it happen. For those institutions that choose to work with us, we get an opportunity to roll up our virtual sleeves to come alongside them and watch their dreams become reality. Then somewhere between the latest higher ed podcast and the next Board of Trustees or venture capital pitch, a stark realization settles in as the thought of pursuing accreditation starts to splash water on the fire of excitement that once permeated the start of every conversation. Suddenly, a vibrant, achievable dream hits the regulatory brick wall of compliance requirements and what founders hear as the inflexibility of higher education.

We work with a lot of institutions just starting up, trying to gather their bearings, before they make the strategic decision to pursue initial accreditation, and let us tell you: some mistakes are more than just growing pains. Some can be deal-breakers. The kind that can abruptly stop the entire process in its tracks, resulting in a significant loss of time and precious financial resources.

We decided to stop gatekeeping and let you in on the top 7 mistakes new institutions make (it was originally 5, but we’re overachievers here). If you can avoid these, you’ll already be ahead of the curve and less likely to find yourself heading face-first into a compliance brick wall.

1. Operating Without Proper State Licensure

This is the first regulatory requirement that tends to cause the most confusion for institutions, primarily because most think that simply registering the business is all that’s needed. Accreditation is not your first legal hurdle. If you’re offering instruction in a state (whether onsite or online) you must be licensed or authorized to operate, first, in your home state. Then, if you choose to offer online or some form of hybrid education to students outside of your home state, then you must be either exempt, registered, or licensed (otherwise known as state authorized) in every single state where you have students.

And we do mean every single state where you enroll and serve students. You cannot assume you’re exempt in Oklahoma just because you were exempt in Wyoming (even if you do not maintain a physical presence in either location). Each state has its own rules, definitions, and processes. Some may offer exemptions based on a lack of physical presence, program type, or business-specific training. Others will require full authorization no matter what. A universal standard does not exist (while the institution is not accredited), and guesswork (or ChatGPT) is not a great strategy—both will lead to mistakes.

To meet eligibility requirements for most accreditors, institutions must demonstrate compliance with state regulations before beginning the accreditation process. Many won’t even let you apply unless your licensure is in order. And yes, this still applies if you’re just offering a three-semester credit hour online micro-course in alpaca grooming. If you’re enrolling residents in a state, you’re on that state’s radar.

Before you write a single word of your self-study, complete a full licensure audit. Identify every state where your students live and confirm that you’re authorized to operate in each one. Missing this step isn’t just a minor oversight. It can prevent you from progressing through the accreditation process before it even begins.

2. Hiring Unqualified Faculty

We know your cousin teaches marketing at the community center and is really inspiring. We love that for her. But accreditors aren’t going to be impressed unless that cousin has earned an academic credential from an accredited institution in the subject they’re teaching (or has a documented, policy-backed reason why they’re an exception).

One of the biggest missteps new institutions make is assuming that “industry experience” or “teaching passion” is a substitute for academic qualifications. It's not. Particularly for general education or graduate-level instruction, faculty must meet clearly defined credentials. And yes, accreditors will check.

But don’t panic. This doesn’t mean you need to fire everyone and start over. It does mean you need a clearly written faculty qualifications policy. This policy should define the minimum credentials for each type of course and include criteria for making documented exceptions. If you’re going to count a master’s degree and relevant work experience as a qualifying combo, spell that out and apply it consistently.

This one is a deal-breaker because if you’ve hired an entire faculty pool who do not have the right academic credentials, you need to remedy the situation, which could get real uncomfortable if your cousin relies on this employment. Your policy should protect the integrity of your programs—not just make room for the dean’s brother-in-law, even if he is a great guy.

3. No Institutional Effectiveness Plan

Say it with us: “Plan, assess, improve.” That cycle is at the heart of every accreditor’s standards, and if your institution doesn’t engage in a formal, documented, and consistent process of continuous improvement, that’s a major red flag. You might say, we just opened the doors, all the more reason to put a plan together. Catch what’s not working and catch it early.

Institutional effectiveness isn’t just a buzzword or a committee that meets once a year and says, “the vibes are good.” It’s a comprehensive, campus-wide process that connects your mission to measurable goals, tracks your progress, and uses real data to make informed decisions. Your academic assessment, student learning outcomes, budgeting, staffing, and support services should all be part of that same feedback loop.

Accreditors expect that not only do you have a written institutional effectiveness plan, but that you’ve been collecting data on key aspects of your institution for as long as it has been operating. If you say you make “data-informed decisions,” be prepared to show exactly what that data was, how it was analyzed, and what changes were made as a result. We’ve seen institutions claim to use data for improvement, only to come up empty-handed when asked to produce it. Don't let that be you. Data collection and analysis shouldn’t begin with your accreditation application, it should already be a part of your daily operations from day one.

This one’s a deal-breaker because it shows whether your institution is actively managing itself or just hoping for the best. If you’re not measuring anything, you’re not improving anything. And if you can’t demonstrate improvement over time, accreditors have no way of knowing whether your institution is effective or sustainable.

What’s more, trying to backfill that data after the fact, when you’re already preparing your application and materials, is a nightmare (trust us). It leads to confusion, inconsistencies, and results in a scramble to invent or reverse-engineer evidence that should already exist. We’ve seen schools waste months trying to reconstruct assessment timelines, dig up lost surveys, or justify strategic decisions they never actually measured. It’s exhausting, it’s transparent, and accreditors can see right through it. If you’re serious about accreditation, institutional effectiveness needs to be proactive, not reactive.

4. Missing or Weak Learning Outcomes

If your academic programs don’t have clear, measurable learning outcomes, you’re in trouble. If you do have them, but no one is assessing whether students are actually achieving them, you're still in trouble.

Learning outcomes are the core of academic credibility. They’re how you demonstrate that a degree or credential means something. And no, “students will understand the basics of marketing” doesn’t cut it. Outcomes need to be specific, measurable, and appropriate for the credential level.

We highly recommend using an established framework when crafting these outcomes. This is not the time for your Chief Academic Officer to improvise based on personal preference or favorite verbs. Every learning outcome should be grounded in research and informed by widely accepted frameworks, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy or the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP). This ensures that your outcomes are rigorous and aligned with national expectations and best practices. It also helps you clearly communicate expectations to your students, which, believe it or not, is part of what accreditors are looking at too.

More importantly, you need to show that you’re using the results of those assessments to improve your courses, programs, and support services. If you’re collecting data, identifying issues, and then shelving the findings, that’s not very helpful. Assessment only matters if it leads to action.

5. Strategic Planning That’s All Vision, No Roadmap

A lot of new schools have really big dreams. That’s why they exist in the first place. They see a gap in the educational landscape, and they want to fill it in bold and meaningful ways. That kind of ambition is important, and accreditors aren’t looking to dampen it. But they are looking to see whether those dreams are backed by a viable, growth plan.

Too many institutions lead with vision but forget the roadmap. A compelling mission to revolutionize education or increase access isn’t enough if there’s no five-year plan, no staffing model, no budget forecasts, and no measurable outcomes to track progress. Accreditation isn’t a leap of faith. It’s a demonstration of operational readiness.

A strong strategic plan should outline exactly how your institution will achieve its goals: realistic timelines, detailed resource planning, measurable objectives, and a direct connection to your mission based on existing and future capacity. Without that structure, even the most exciting institutional concept can start to look like an empty promise.

You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be specific. Accreditors don’t expect your school to fully scale overnight, but they do expect you to know how you’ll get from here to there.

6. Relying on Financial Projections Instead of Reality

Today, we watch Cinderella stories come to life, with only $5, a big idea, and a passion for education—like, say, Llama Studies University. While inspirational, as any institutional founder will tell you, big dreams require big (or at least consistent) investment. Llamas won’t forage and feed themselves.

Start-up institutions can secure funding in a variety of ways, depending on their organizational structure,  but accreditors are not in the business of granting accreditation to institutions that may not be around in 5-10 years. They’re looking for evidence of long-term financial viability, not just aspirational projections. Too often, they see start-up institutions base their financial forecasts on ambitious enrollment projections, assuming prospective students will eagerly enroll in an unaccredited institution. That’s risky. And it’s not enough.

Ensuring adequate financial resources and a plan that considers multiple income streams is essential. An institution’s strategic planning, personnel allocations, and entire operational framework must be based on actual, available resources. Accreditors want to see that your institution can sustain operations without relying on enrollment miracles. Realistic, well-documented budgets demonstrate that you’re building something durable.

This one’s a deal-breaker because financial challenges can’t be resolved overnight, unless you have a really rich cousin (and even then, accreditors might ask for audited statements). Whether your institution is independently funded or supported by a parent organization, you’ll need to prove long-term financial health, not just initial enthusiasm.

7. Relying Only on Internal Expertise

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: accreditation is not a solo sport. One of the most dangerous traps institutions fall into is believing that they can do this all on their own because they “have people who’ve done this before.” And that might be true. Maybe you’ve got a team of seasoned higher ed professionals. Maybe your academic dean worked on an accreditation team in 2004. Maybe your registrar reads federal regs for fun. (We’ve met those people. We salute them.)

Institutional self-reliance is commendable. Insularity is not. Accreditation standards change, state requirements evolve, best practices get updated, and even the most brilliant internal team can develop blind spots, especially when they're knee-deep in daily operations. This requires perspective, and you can’t get that by sitting in the same room with the same people every week.

Seek external feedback. Partner with other institutions who’ve recently gone through the process. Use mentors, attend webinars, join working groups. Engage accreditation consultants who can provide both strategic guidance and a fresh pair of eyes (hi!). Shameless plug: this is literally our job. We exist to help you not miss things.

Relying solely on internal expertise is a mistake because accreditation requires objectivity, strategy, and clarity. And those are hard to cultivate when you’re too close to the process.

Final Thoughts

Accreditation is rigorous for a reason: it’s meant to protect students, ensure institutional quality, and safeguard public trust. It’s not meant to be easy, but it is absolutely achievable if institutions are prepared, honest, and thorough.

Avoiding these seven mistakes won’t guarantee accreditation, but it will keep you from stepping on some of the biggest landmines that can stall progress and increase costs in the process. And if you need help making sure your institution is on the right track, well, you know where to find us.