↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
STATUS OF ACCREDITATION REVIEW
I. Overview and Update
In the fall of 2002 a group of between 8 and 13 external consultant-evaluators (higher
education experts, faculty, and administrators), will read documentation and evidentiary
information compiled by Antioch campuses and the university as a whole, and visit all
campus sites. They will be considering 1) the integrity of each campus as an academic
unit, and 2) how the university holds together and functions as a single university.
Antioch, with physical presences in four regions, is singularly accredited in one region
(the North Central – NCA – region). The burden to make the case for singular
accreditation is on Antioch, not the accreditor.
Through this process of peer review the review team will render a judgment concerning
Antioch University’s continued accreditation status. Review teams can recommend
reaccreditation for up to 10 years, they can request subsequent specialized visits if they
believe those are necessary, they can recommend that an institution be placed on
probation, and/or they can recommend an institution have its accreditation be taken away.
Through a process of self-study and examination all five campuses and the university
administration are expected to address the following five accreditation criteria:
1. Consistency and appropriateness of mission;
2. Effective organization of human, financial, and physical resources;
3. Accomplishment of educational purpose;
4. Ability to continue to accomplish purpose, and
5. Institutional integrity.
Status: Antioch’s self-study is on schedule. The four nonresidential campuses have at
this writing completed second drafts of their self-studies and had them reviewed for
comment and criticism by a university-wide steering group (membership below).
Rewrites are now underway with expectation for completion in May. Antioch College
submitted a full first draft in December and a rewrite is now underway. Each of the self-
studies demonstrates clear strengths on the respective campuses. For all self-studies, the
University-wide steering committee still has some concerns around criteria 2,3, and 4,
that vary in degree and by campus.
In addition to responding to the standard criteria for the university as a whole, the
Antioch University-wide self-study is expected to respond to concerns expressed by the
review team in 1993. Those concerns were:
1. University governance: NCA noted that the structural administrative decisions
made by the BOT to separate the chancellor and college presidency requires
careful monitoring.
2. NCA noted that University finances are a serious concern.
3. Campus plans for the assessment of student outcomes needs further development.
4. The need for a comprehensive enrollment management plan at the College.
5. NCA raised questions about the effectiveness of decentralization of university
administrative functions.
Status: The bulk of the work on the university self-study is scheduled for this spring with
completion to coincide with the campus self-studies in May. Preliminary writing around
known entities (history, background, basic data) has begun. However, substantive writing
addressing NCA’s concerns, especially 1, 2, and 5, is at a standstill. In some cases, the
University-wide steering committee does not have the required information, or access to
it, necessary to proceed at this time. Around other concerns, it is simply not clear to us
what the BOT’s response would be. Failure to respond effectively to these items in the
next three months carry potentially serious and lasting consequences to Antioch
University’s accreditation status.
University Steering Group
Paul Ewald, Associate to the Chancellor
Jim Craiglow, President, ANE
Laurien Alexandre, Dean of University-wide Programs and Director, Ph.D. in Leadership
and Change
Steve Schwerner, Antioch College, Professor
Below is one example of the “standstill”:
II. Example: Antioch University Governance (Concern #1)
Background: The concern around the governance structure identified in 1993 derives
from the examination of Antioch’s presentation of evidence and planning (in ’93) to the
reviewers concerning Criterion Two, which states that:
“The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical
resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.”(p. 35, NCA Handbook, 2nd Ed.)
The NCA Handbook further states that
“Determining whether an institution has the “necessary” resources and whether
they are “effectively organized”…involves more than counting resources and
finding the charters, by-laws, and manuals that outline governing structures; it also
involves determining whether the decision-making, administrative, and
communications structures and processes are well-understood and appropriately
used by the institutions constituencies.” (p. 38)
NCA stresses the need for sufficient breadth of evidence and provides examples
including:
• “Effective administration through well-defined and understood
organizational structures, policies, and procedures;
• Qualified and experienced administrative personnel who oversee institutional
activities and exercise appropriate responsibility for them;
• Systems of governance that provide dependable information to the
institutions constituencies and, as appropriate, involve them in the decision
making process.” (p. 39)
The commission recognizes variation among institutions. Different kinds of evidence
are appropriate to different circumstances. (“The stated purposes of the institution
and the present opportunities and challenges facing it will determine not only
the types of evidence provided but also the relative importance assigned to each
by the Evaluation Team.” p. 40).
Among examples of possible circumstance-appropriate evidence are:
• An institution has experienced rifts among the trustees, the President, and
faculty. Institutional efforts to develop new avenues for intra-institutional
communication might be important evidence that the institution is
committed to fostering more effective organizational communication
structures.
• An institution has revised its decision-making and administrative structures
and processes as a result of the self-study process. Evidence that the
institution has become more aware of the importance of participatory
governance or more effective administration, or has recognized ways it could
make its present organization and processes more effective might be
important.” (pp. 39-40)
In discussing how the University should respond to Criterion Two, given NCAs stated
concern about the governance structure, the University steering group has raised the
following issues, thoughts and questions to which it does not have any answers:
• While one could describe the evolution of a federal model, it appears to most that
federalism “died” in May-June 2001. How would one describe the model of
governance at this point and would that inspire confidence in a reviewer’s mind?
• Roles of campus administrators were clarified somewhat by BOT approval of the
title of President rather than Provost in 1998; however, the changing of power and
authority of the Chancellor and the extension of operational authority and power to a
new BOT position suggests that the “monitoring” caution of NCA resulted in a “no
confidence” vote in the Chancellor and/or position and brought into question the role,
power and authority of the campus presidents. Beyond descriptive paragraphs, is it
the intention of the BOT to permanently change the model, replace the model, or keep
the current model for an undetermined period of time? If this is an interim strategy,
what is the roll out plan for the future model? How does this plan take into account
the leadership vacancies across the system?
• How would the NCA Self-Assessment respond to a perspective that indicates
there is and or has been managerial instability and high turnover rate in key
leadership positions?
• Given governance issues, the complexities of dual citizenship, and difficulties of
defining with consistency Antioch as a University, what are cogent arguments for a
strong central system instead of a loose confederation, with each campus having its
own regional accreditation?
• The Board may need to be clear that IT believe the federal model is
dead…understand the implications of that….and then articulate a conscious direction
to all this, which incorporates how it sees leadership transitions and job authorities,
where decentralization still makes sense to them, and where not.
The Steering Committee believes that answers to the questions above, and clarification
around the points made, is a necessary beginning to providing the reviewers with a
coherent response and supporting evidentiary data to the criteria and concern.
The preliminary university self-study work, the current lack of clarity around decision
making and authority in the university, the limbo status of leadership transitions and
vacancies, the protracted activities concerning financial planning, cuts and
consolidations, and uncertainty concerning the “Future of Antioch”, (committee or JI
otherwise) all result in the net effect of an inability to frame cogent or convincing J
responses to accreditation criteria and concerns.
Given these circumstances, we ask the BOT to advise the Steering Group on how it
would like it to proceed.
