Antioch University Southern California Self-Assessment Report (2002 Accreditation)

↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library

Page 1 Antioch University Southern California Self-Study Report Submitted to Commission on Institutions of Higher Education The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools August 2002 Antioch University Southern California 13274 Fiji Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Page 2 Page 3 iii Table of Contents Preface…………………………………………………………… ………………………..1 Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………………… …………………………3 I. Regional/Campus History and Development………………………………………….3 II. Overview Of Significant Changes Since 1993………………………………………..4 A. Key Milestone……………………………………………………… …………4 B. Program Changes……..………..……………………………… ………………4 C. Facilities…………………………………… ……………………………………6 D. Technology………..…………………………… ……………………………….6 E. Personnel……….……………………………………… ………………………6 F. Governance………..…………………………… ………………………………8 III. Institutional Response To 1993 NCA Concerns………….…………………………..8 IV. Self-Study Process…………………………………………………………… ………12 V. Description Of Self-Study Report Format……………………………………………13 Chapter 2. Criterion One……………………………………………………………… …15 I. Mission Statement……………………………………………………… ……………15 II. Priorities 1993 To 2002……………………………………………………………… .17 Chapter 3. Criterion Two…..……………………………………………………………23 I. Organizational Structures And Governance…….……………………………………23 A. Southern California Region………..…………………………………………23 B. Los Angeles Campus……………………………………………………… …24 C. Santa Barbara Campus………………………………………………………27 II. Financial and Physical Resources………………………………………………….. .30 A. Enrollment and Financial Resources…………………………………………30 B. Physical Resources……………………………………………………… …..33 III. Academic Resources………………………………………………… ………………36 A. B.A. in Liberal Studies Programs……………………………………………37 Page 4 iv III. Academic Resources (cont) B. M.A. in Clinical Psychology Programs………………………………………40 C. M.A. in Psychology with Individualized Concentration Programs……..……44 D. M.A. in Organizational Management Programs………..……………………46 E. M.A. in Education Programs…..…………………………………………….48 F. M.F.A. in Creative Writing Program…………………………………………50 G. Antioch Counseling Center………………………………………………….53 IV. Support Services and Human Resources………………………………………… …54 A. Administrative Area Support Services..…………………………………….54 B. Student Support Services……………………………………………………56 C. Academic Support Services…………………………………………………. .59 D. Instructional Resources………..………………………………………… ….62 E. Auxiliary Services…………………………………………………… ………64 V. Human Resources…….………………………………………… ……………………66 A. Students….……………………………………………… ……………………66 B. Faculty..……………………………………………………… ………………68 C. Staff………………………………………………………………… ………..73 Chapter 4. Criterion Three…………………………………………………………… …77 I. Assessment of Student Learning And Progress………………………………………78 A. Direct Assessment of Student Learning and Progress..………………………78 B. Indirect Assessment of Student Learning and Progress………………………80 II. Program Assessment…………………………………………………… ……………84 A. University-Wide Program Review Model……………………………………85 B. Program Assessment Plan..…………..………………………………………85 Chapter 5. Criterion Four………………………………………………………… ………91 I. Institutional Planning…..………………………………………………… ………….91 II. Future Prospects and Concerns…….……………………………………..……. …….92 A. University-wide Organization..………………………………………… ……92 B. Regional Issue…………………………………………………………… ……93 C. Campus Governance..……..…………………………………… …………….93 D. Size and Locations of Campuses…………………………………………….94 E. Program Augmentation and Multicultural Infusion……….…………………95 F. New Program Development………….…………………………………… …96 G. Human Resource Issues….…………..…………………………………….. ..96 H. Fiscal Issues………………..…………………………………… ……………97 Page 5 v Chapter 6. Criterion Five….………………..………………………………………… …99 I. Policy Development…………..………………………………… ……………………99 II. Exemplary Policies and Practices….…………………………………………… …..100 Chapter 7. Conclusion……….…………….…………………… ………………………103 Appendices……………….…………………………… …………………………….…..105 A. University-wide Mission Statement B. AUSC Mission Statement C. University-wide Priorities D. AUSC Strategic Plan E. AUSC 2001-03 Priorities F. Regional and Campus Organizational Structure G. Programmatic Desired Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Page 6 vi List of Tables and Figure Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary……………………………………..13 Table 3-1. Los Angeles Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)……..31 Table 3-2. Santa Barbara Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)……32 Table 3-3. AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)…………………69 Table 3-4. Gender and Ethnicity of Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)….…………………………………………………………70 Table 3-5. Terminal and Professional Degrees/Credentials Held by AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)………………………………..70 Table 3-6. FTE AUSC Staff and Administration by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)…………………………………………………………….75 Table 3-7. Gender and Ethnicity of Staff and Administration by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)………………………………………………….75 Table 4-1. University-Wide Program Review Schedule………………………………..85 Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005)………………………88 Figure 4-1. AUSC Program Assessment Model…………………………………………87 Page 7 1 Preface The self-study process for Antioch University Southern California began in the Spring of 2000, and the majority of the Self-Study Report was written during Fall 2001 and Winter 2002. During the latter period, President Mark Schulman announced his desire to leave the presidency and assume a position in the Chancellor’s Office. The Board of Trustees approved this transition effective April 1, 2002, at which time Los Angeles campus Executive Dean Chloe Reid was appointed Interim President of AUSC. The Self-Study Report obviously was written with the priorities and objectives of former President Schulman in mind, and with his departure, many of these priorities and objectives are open to revision. This process is currently underway with the leadership of Interim President Reid, and the Self-Study Report indicates some of the changes that have occurred since the change of leadership. AUSC will brief the visitation team during the onsite review regarding further changes that may have occurred after the July 1, 2002, closing date for changes to the Self-Study Report . Page 8 2 Page 9 3 Chapter 1. Introduction This chapter provides general background information for understanding Antioch University Southern California (AUSC) and this Self-Study Report . Areas pursued include: Regional/campus history and development, overview of significant changes since 1993, institutional response to 1993 NCA concerns, the Regional self-study process, and a description of the Self-Study Report format. I. REGIONAL/CAMPUS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUSC is one of the organizational units of Antioch University and is composed of Antioch University Los Angeles (AULA) and Antioch University Santa Barbara (AUSB). It was created as a single administrative unit within the University in 1986. The two campuses in the Region share a common Mission Statement, general approaches to programs, some common administrative personnel, fiscal guidelines, and overall leadership through the Office of the President. Although the campuses exercise considerable independence, they collaborate on some curricular issues, human resource policies, and fiscal strategies. The Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education licenses each campus to operate in the state of California, and each campus is authorized to recommend candidates for teaching credentials to the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing. AULA was founded in 1972 and enrolls approximately 700 students each quarter. Students are primarily from Southern California – the Antelope Valley on the north, San Diego on the south, and Palm Springs on the east — although increasingly students come from across the nation and around the world. AUSB was founded in 1977 and enrolls approximately 300 students each quarter. Students are primarily from the Santa Barbara area, although students also come from Thousand Oaks on the south to San Luis Obispo on the north, and some students relocate to the Santa Barbara area from other parts of the U.S., Canada, and Europe. The average AULA student is 36-years old; 75% are women; 23% are persons of color; 65% are enrolled in graduate programs; and about 93% receive financial aid. The average AUSB student is 36-years old; 72% are women; 18% are persons of color; 60% are enrolled in graduate programs; and over 75% receive financial aid. At the Los Angeles campus, about 22 Core Faculty, 100 Associate and Adjunct Faculty, and 30 staff serve the needs of students, teach and conduct research, and provide community service each quarter. At the Santa Barbara campus, about 12 Core Faculty, 75 Associate and Adjunct Faculty, and 20 staff serve the needs of students, teach and conduct research, and provide community service each quarter. Approximately 60% of faculty in the Region possess the doctorate or other terminal degrees in their professional fields. Alumni now number about 5,000, and they hold significant positions in business, education, non-profit organizations, and social service agencies. Page 10 4 II. OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE 1993 The period since the May 1993 NCA visit to AUSC has been active, fruitful, and challenging. The campuses have grown in reputation in their communities, new programs have been instituted, and new leadership has assumed responsibility for the Region. Significant changes since 1993 include those in the areas of key milestones, program modifications and additions, facilities, technology, personnel, and governance. A. Key Milestones A number of major events have highlighted the period since the last NCA visit. First, the campuses each celebrated anniversaries marking their establishment in Southern California. In May 1997, the Los Angeles campus hosted some 300 alumni, faculty, and staff at the Doubletree Hotel in Marina del Rey for an evening of reminiscence and exuberance to commemorate its twenty-fifth year of service to the Los Angeles community. In October 1997, the Santa Barbara campus hosted students, alumni, faculty, and staff in newly constructed space to recognize its twentieth year of providing quality education in the Santa Barbara area. Second, each campus successfully renewed its licensure with the state of California. In May 1997, the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education extended each campus’ licensure for 5 years, the longest period possible under legislation. Again in 2001, each campus gained licensure renewal for 5 years with the Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Third, the Los Angeles campus awarded its first honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree to the Reverend Dr. Cecil L. Murray, a prominent activist clergyman, at its June 1995 commencement ceremony. Finally, during the period since the last NCA visit, each campus has endured earthquakes, fires, and floods. The worst natural disaster was the January 17, 1994, earthquake that moderately damaged the Los Angeles campus and that left many students, faculty, and staff in awe of and shaken by the power of such occurrences. B. Program Changes Several modifications and additions to existing programs occurred since the last NCA visit. The BA Programs at each campus introduced new concentrations to the curriculum including Creative Writing (1997-98) and Child Studies (1998-99) at the Los Angeles campus and Social Service Administration (1996-97) and Communication/Creative Writing (1998-99) at the Santa Barbara campus. The Los Angeles campus BA Program also enhanced its math and writing assessment and remediation emphasis of all incoming students by strengthening the Math and Writing Center with the appointment of a full-time Core Faculty member. In Fall 2001, the Santa Barbara BA Program initiated its low-residency Weekend College Program for business/management students, making use of online study between residencies. (The Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program also offers its program in the Weekend College format.) Page 11 5 The MACP Programs at each campus have incorporated multi-cultural components into the curriculum and have made PSY 545 (Society and the Individual) a required entry-level course for introducing essential concepts and attitudes (Los Angeles campus only). Each campus also has shifted program emphasis from a private practice model to a community- based therapeutic model (begun in 1996-97) based on changes occurring in the profession. In addition, new concentrations have been added to the curriculum at each campus in the MACP Programs including Child Studies (1997-98) and Community Psychology (2000-01) at the Los Angeles campus and Integrative Yoga (1996-97), Organizational Psychology (1997-98), and Professional Development and Career Counseling (1998-99) at the Santa Barbara campus. The Los Angeles campus MACP Program also extended its successful one- day-a-week delivery model to Saturdays (1997-98) to serve additional adult student populations. The MAOM Programs at each campus solidified curricular offerings during the period and now offers three concentrations at the Los Angeles campus (human resource management, organizational development, and leadership) and optional individualized concentrations at the Santa Barbara campus (e.g., human resource management, non-profit management, and organizational psychology). In addition, the Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program offers the degree via the low-residency Weekend College option that began in Fall 2001. In addition to these modifications of and additions to existing programs, two new degree programs have been added to the curriculum. The Los Angeles campus added a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing Program (MFA Program) that accepted its first cohort of students in June 1997, and each campus initiated a Master of Arts in Education Program (MAE Program) and teaching credential program (Summer 1999) authorized by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Project InterAct, a cooperative community outreach program with Inglewood High School for at-risk students, was active at the time of the last NCA visit and continued until 1995 at the Los Angeles campus. In 1998, the Community Humanities Education Program (CHE Program), a donor-supported program to provide humanities exposure to economically disadvantaged adults, was initiated at the Los Angeles campus and continues to thrive today. At the Santa Barbara campus, a continuing education program was launched in 2000-01 to serve local and professional community needs. Community and Professional Education (CAPE) offers a variety of courses, some for Continuing Education Units and others for general non-credit education. To augment the academic program, several educational travel opportunities have been extended to students and alumni over the past several years. These experiences include the following Los Angeles campus trips: Costa Rica (March 1994), Cuba (March 1995), the Ashland Shakespeare Festival (June 1995), and Costa Rica (March 1998). Santa Barbara campus travel opportunities include: Hong Kong (September 1996), London (September 1997), Italy (September 1998), Beijing (September 1999), Prague (September 2000), Beijing (September 2001 and then re-scheduled to May 2002), and Spain (September 2002). Page 12 6 C. Facilities Since the last NCA visit, each campus spent considerable time and effort attempting to identify and purchase property that would provide permanent homes for their activities. Several of these efforts appeared to be near completion, but the rise in commercial real estate values during the mid-1990s and the lack of available financing precluded this from happening. Each campus, therefore, occupies the same facility today that it did in 1993 – the major difference being that each campus has expanded the number of square feet of space that it leases. Overall, Los Angeles campus space has increased from about 25,300 square feet in 1993 to about 30,525 square feet in 2001. Overall, Santa Barbara campus space has increased from about 6,700 square feet in 1993 to about 14,500 square feet in 2001. D. Technology The technological sophistication of each campus in the Region increased significantly since 1993. In the academic area, all Core Faculty at each campus have desktop computers and are on local area networks maintained by each campus. Core Faculty routinely use email as the primary method of communication, and access to the Internet is available from desktop computers. Each campus also has developed computer laboratories that are used by students for coursework and online bibliographic research. These laboratories as well as selected classrooms are equipped with Internet access and projection devices for instructional purposes. In addition, each campus uses technology to directly provide instruction to students, and some Core Faculty members have been trained in a University-sponsored online instructional project designed to increase faculty knowledge in this rapidly developing area. The MFA Program is the institution’s first low-residency online program. In the administrative area, considerable technological development also occurred since 1993. This development was sparked by University-wide de-centralization efforts in the early1990s that required the acquisition of equipment and the training of all administrative personnel. All staff at each campus have desktop computers and are on local area networks maintained by each campus. Staff routinely use email as the primary method of communication, and access to the University’s integrated software package (Datatel) and the Internet are available to staff from desktop computers. These developments have significantly improved the campuses’ ability to maintain student records and track student progress through the institution. E. Personnel Numerous changes have occurred in personnel since the 1993 NCA visit. Paramount among these changes was the appointment of Mark Schulman, Ph.D., to the position of President of AUSC effective September 1, 1998. (The title of the chief executive officer for the Region was changed from Provost to President in February 1998 by the Board of Trustees.) Schulman succeeded long-term President Dale A. Johnston, Ph.D. (1989 to 1998). Upon Page 13 7 Schulman leaving the Presidency effective April 1, 2002, Los Angeles Executive Dean Chloe Reid has served as Interim President of AUSC. Several steps were taken during the mid-1990s to solidify specific functions at the Regional level. Among these functions were fiscal affairs, human resources, and academic and administrative computing. Because the campuses did not feel that their specific needs were being met, the latter two functions were quickly returned to the campuses, but the chief fiscal officer position began in 1994-95 and continues today. Donna Starr, M.A., held this position from its inception until June 30, 2000 at which time Parminder Bajaj, M.B.A., assumed the position. The impulse to minimize Regional positions continued with the appointment of Mark Schulman as President in 1998. Shortly after his appointment, the Regional Dean of Academic Affairs (Laurien Alexandre, Ph.D.) assumed a position at the University-level, and former President Schulman eliminated the Regional Academic Dean position. He created Executive and Academic Dean positions at each campus in an effort to provide more campus-level leadership and to free him for work in development and external relations. This arrangement has worked well, particularly at the Santa Barbara campus where Donna Starr (through June 30, 2000) and Diana Sloane, Ph.D. (since July 1, 2000), and Richard Whitney, M.A., respectively, have held these positions. At the Los Angeles campus, the Executive Dean position has functioned well under the leadership of Chloe Reid, J.D., but the Academic Dean position was difficult to fill and remained vacant for almost 2 years until the appointment of Linda Moody, Ph.D., in August 2001. The salary improvement plan that was in place at the time of the NCA 1993 visit was operational during much of the 1990s, and modest salary targets for Core Faculty, staff, and administration were met by the mid-1990s. Adjunct Faculty salaries also have increased some since 1993. Despite these increases, constrained institutional resources and escalating salaries generally in academia have produced current salaries that are below those at comparable institutions. The Core/Associate Faculty seniority-rotation sabbatical leave plan that provides for one- quarter leave after every 3 years of service was just beginning to function when the NCA visited the campuses in 1993. Core/Associate Faculty are placed on a revolving list so they know when their next period of professional development and rejuvenation occurs. That plan continues to operate with the Los Angeles campus having initiated the plan in 1990-91 and the Santa Barbara campus beginning the process in 1993-94. (The sabbatical leave plan has been modified in some years because of fiscal constraints.) In September 1996, the Board of Trustees also approved another policy affecting Core Faculty. The faculty rank plan provides a voluntary process whereby Core Faculty members at the two campuses may apply for and be awarded traditional academic rank. To date, only three people at the Los Angeles campus have elected to use the process; Core Faculty at the Santa Barbara campus voted not to adopt the policy. Because of fiscal constraints that occurred following enrollment decreases that began in 1994-95, significant personnel reductions were necessary at the Los Angeles campus. Many Page 14 8 positions have been left unfilled, and during 1996-97, real reductions in personnel were necessary. During this year, some $330,000 was cut from the operating budget resulting in two Core Faculty members, one staff member, and two administrators being released from employment. Several other staff positions also were reduced in percentage of effort. Since 1998-99, enrollment at the Los Angeles campus has stabilized or increased slightly (primarily the result of the addition of two new programs), but personnel increases have not yet followed suit. F. Governance A basic governance plan was in place at the time of the NCA visit in 1993, and that plan was modified in minor ways during the 1995-96 year. After taking office in September 1998, former President Schulman made other changes to the governance plan. These changes include: 1. Focusing the President’s role primarily on development efforts and external relations. 2. Eliminating the Regional Dean of Academic Affairs position and instituting two key administrative positions at each campus: an Executive Dean (chief operating officer) and an Academic Dean (chief academic officer). 3. Streamlining the decision-making process with more concern for timely and informed decision making, rather than excessive concern for process. 4. Instituting a Regional approach to development of the annual budget through the Budget Advisory Committee. III. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO 1993 NCA CONCERNS As a result of the May 1993 NCA team visitation to all Antioch University campuses, a Report of a Visit to Antioch University was prepared, and because the “. . . [visitation] team evaluated the University as a single institution” (p. 1), it is often difficult to determine which recommendations apply directly to AUSC. The Regional NCA Steering Committee, therefore, prepared a summary of recommendations of the 1993 NCA visitation report, and the issues raised in this summary are responded to here. A copy of the Synopsis of Recommendations and Suggestions from 1993 NCA Visitation Team Report is available in the campus Resource Rooms. The seven areas in which recommendations were made by the 1993 visitation team report include: 1. University Reorganization. On balance, the University reorganization that began in 1993-94 has been beneficial to AUSC; this was particularly the case during the first 5 years of implementation (through June 30, 1997, when Alan E. Guskin left the Page 15 9 position of Chancellor). The visitation team report suggested that one purpose of reorganization is “to empower and motivate operating units” [campuses] (p. 13), and to a large degree, that has occurred in the Region. The President has assumed increased responsibility and authority since the mid-1990s, and the Regional chief financial officer has assumed more control of and responsibility for the campuses’ budgets. Personnel at the campuses also have an increased sense of responsibility and professionalism regarding their roles in their respective areas. Since the late 1990s, the benefits of reorganization have grown particularly tenuous from the perspective of AUSC. Changing economic circumstances within the University have caused an erosion of some of the benefits that occurred early in the reorganization process. The promised reduction of University overhead has occurred, but AUSC provides over $800,000 annually for University-wide expenses (nearly 10% of the annual budget), and recent embargoing of Regional reserve funds by the University constitutes a de facto increase in University overhead to the Region. From a campus perspective, there is still work to be done regarding the overhead system within the University. This may be one of the issues addressed as the Board of Trustees continues its efforts to re-examine the federal system and its appropriateness for University governance. 2. Faculty Issues. The 1993 visitation team report raised several issues related to the faculty of the Region. These include the following: a. Core and Adjunct Faculty Salaries (p. 17). A salary improvement plan was in place for the 1989-95 period for Core Faculty, and annual across-the-board increases have been provided in some years since then. A number of increases to the Adjunct Faculty salary schedule also have been made, including the most recent increase in January 2001. These increases for Core and Adjunct Faculty have improved the level of compensation compared to what it was in 1993, but compensation has not kept pace with inflation or with salaries at comparable institutions in Southern California. b. Number of Core Faculty (pp. 19 and 20). The institution can report that the number of Core Faculty has increased since 1993. These increases have been primarily in new programs added to the curriculum, and several programs that existed when the NCA last visited the Region have lost Core Faculty members as a result of fluctuations in program enrollment, normal attrition, or reduction in force. Details regarding the exact figures are available in the campus Resource Rooms in documents entitled Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 . c. Role of Faculty Development (p. 44). With the assistance of annual grants from the Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, faculty have been supported in professional development activities. In general, the University attempts to provide each Core Faculty member institutional support to attend one conference per year in his/her field of study. Some Core Faculty members elect to attend more than one conference per year, and the institution cooperates by providing flexible schedules Page 16 10 to make this possible. With the expiration of the Pierson-Lovelace faculty development grant after 2000-01, it has been difficult to maintain consistent levels of support for faculty development, and securing funds for this purpose is a high priority for fundraising efforts. (It should be noted that the Santa Barbara campus has continued to fund professional development at the level provided for by the Pierson-Lovelace grant.) The visitation team also recommended that faculty development be linked to student outcomes work in the student and program assessment areas, and some campus-based work has been done on this for Core Faculty. d. Core Faculty Involvement in Administrative Activities (p. 17). The 1998-99 reorganization of campus structures to provide for an Executive Dean and an Academic Dean at each campus enhanced the decision-making process at the campuses by clarifying when Core Faculty involvement is appropriate and when it is not. In general, there has been a streamlining of the governance structure in the Region to improve performance and eliminate overemphasis on process. The involvement of Core Faculty in administrative activities, therefore, has decreased some, although more needs be done in this area. e. Year-Around Academic Calendar (p. 19). The visitation team also linked the quarterly year-round academic calendar to faculty burnout and lack of involvement in professional development activities. This is a troublesome issue, and Core Faculty, except during sabbatical leave, continue to have contracts that require them to teach and advise students year-round. Former President Schulman, however, pledged to redefine the full-time Core Faculty load to provide one quarter off every year and to secure the budgetary adjustments necessary to accomplish this pledge. f. Over-Reliance on Adjunct Faculty (p. 18). Finally, the visitation team was concerned about over-reliance on Adjunct Faculty because the practice may be academically questionable and relegates programmatic and quasi-administrative tasks to Core Faculty — thus contributing to Core Faculty burnout. Reliance on Adjunct Faculty has not changed substantially since the last NCA visit, and in several of the practitioner-based programs (the MACP, MAOM, and MAE Programs), use of professionals in the area is seen as a distinct advantage for the programs. Core Faculty burnout is still a concern, although less than in 1993. The new campus organizational structure with an Executive Dean and an Academic Dean at each campus has relieved Core Faculty of some quasi- administrative functions, and since 1991, all Core Faculty receive a one-quarter sabbatical leave after every 3 years of service. In addition, as resources become available, additional Core Faculty will be hired at the campuses, thus reducing the need for reliance on Adjunct Faculty. 3. Program Issues. The 1993 visitation team cited two specific programmatic concerns (p. 28). First, the team was concerned that the Los Angeles campus MACP Program needed to clarify more specifically what a multicultural perspective in their program Page 17 11 means and how this relates to future developments in clinical psychology. The MACP Program faculty has worked diligently to define and refine their approach to a multicultural clinical psychology program since the 1993 visit, and the campus believes that it has been completely responsive to NCA concerns. The 2002 visitation team is invited to verify this contention during its sessions with the MACP faculty and by examining the extensive documentation provided in the campus Resource Room. Similarly, the Santa Barbara campus believes that it has been responsive to NCA concerns regarding development of a Weekend College as a way of dealing with the City-imposed enrollment cap. A Weekend College began Fall 2001 with degrees in business/management, and the City enrollment cap was renegotiated favorably when the City in 1997 and 2001 authorized building improvements. 4. Program Assessment. The 1993 visitation team report made a number of recommendations regarding program assessment (pp. 41-4), and considerable time, energy, and resources have been devoted to addressing these concerns by faculty and administration at each campus. The campuses believe they have been responsive to NCA concerns, and the 2002 visitation team is invited to review documentation of the progress that has been made during their visit to the campuses and by reading Chapter 4 of this Self-Study Report . 5. Financial Aid. The 1993 visitation team report indicated concern about the distribution of financial aid resources to Antioch College and the adult campuses — namely, a disproportionate amount of financial aid is allocated to the College in comparison to the adult campuses (p. 29). This issue is not one that AUSC can address unilaterally, and to date, no University-wide discussion has occurred regarding this issue. The effects of the current disproportionate financial aid allocation system, therefore, remain and have contributed to the difficulty of recruiting adult students to AUSC campuses. 6. Campus Development Efforts. The 1993 visitation team report suggested that as the number of alumni at the adult campuses increases so efforts to raise funds from this constituency should increase. (p. 37). Numerous attempts to implement an effective development function at the two campuses have occurred over the past 10 years with nominal success. Former President Schulman expanded the number of persons on the Board of Visitors and increased their role in fundraising for the Los Angeles campus. He also committed major portions of his time to the implementation of development efforts at each campus and did substantial work with major donors in the Region with the expectation that significant funds would be raised for program development, faculty development, technology enhancement, and other critically needed functions. A consultant and Development Team currently work at the Santa Barbara campus on fundraising (e.g., annual fund, scholarships, and grant writing). The building of a development function within the Region is a major objective of the President’s Office. 7. Facilities Issues. Issues related to the purchase of campus facilities and creating a “quiet space” for students at the Santa Barbara campus were raised by the 1993 Page 18 12 visitation team report (p. 39). The status of developments in these areas has been addressed above in II. Overview of Significant Changes Since 1993, C. Facilities, and are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3. Criterion Two, II. Financial and Physical Resources. IV. SELF-STUDY PROCESS With the leadership of former President Schulman, a broad-based Regional plan was developed for the self-study process. In Spring 2000, a Regional Steering Committee was appointed by the President to coordinate the self-study process for the two campuses. Strategically, it was determined that the normal administrative structure would be used to facilitate the development of the Self-Study Report so the Regional Steering Committee includes Deans from the campus and Regional levels as well as former President Johnston, who was asked to Chair the group, and an academic support person. The Regional Steering Committee, therefore, includes: Dale Johnston, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty, Chair Dorothy Granger, Academic Resource Consultant (through August 31,2001) Linda Moody, Los Angeles campus Academic Dean (from September 1, 2001) Chloe Reid, Interim President of AUSC and Los Angeles campus Executive Dean Richard Whitney, Santa Barbara campus Academic Dean Donna Starr, former Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean/current MAOM Program Chair (through December 31, 2000) Diana Sloane, Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean (from January 1, 2001) Parminder Bajaj, Southern California CFO Blair Smith, Los Angeles campus Academic Program Development Coordinator The Regional Steering Committee met quarterly beginning Fall 2000 to discuss NCA accreditation criteria, self-study process issues, the organization of the Self-Study Report , and responsibilities for preparation of Self-Study Report material. Key documents generated by the Regional Steering Committee to guide the self-study process include the following: Southern California Regional NCA Process Schedule Self-Study Report Outline Synopsis of Recommendations and Suggestions from 1993 NCA Visitation Team Report Self-Study Report Responsibilities NCA Patterns of Evidence Resource Room Material for NCA Visit These documents as well as the minutes of Regional Steering Committee meetings are available in campus Resource Rooms for review. The self-study process was coordinated by the Regional Steering Committee Chair who also served as the editor of the Self-Study Report , and the Deans in their respective areas worked with their constituencies. As various areas produced written material, an iterative process Page 19 13 occurred between the Dean and the area, and after the Dean had consolidated material into a narrative, an iterative process occurred between the Dean and the Regional Steering Committee Chair as the Self-Study-Report was generated. A similar process occurred between the Regional Steering Committee and campus constituencies. In a word, care was taken to involve all elements of the campuses in the process of developing the Self-Study Report . A detailed schedule of activities for the preparation of the Self-Study Report is provided in the Southern California Regional NCA Process Schedule that is available in the Resource Rooms at each campus. A summary of key activities in the self-study process is provided in Table 1-1. V. DESCRIPTION OF SELF-STUDY REPORT FORMAT Each chapter that follows in this report addresses one of the five NCA Criteria and an additional chapter provides conclusions that emerge from the self-study process. This report is designed to reflect the organizational structure and distinct identity of the two campuses that compose AUSC. Consequently within each chapter, there is a Regional component that addresses issues common to the two campuses followed, where appropriate, by sections that address issues unique to a specific campus. The Regional Steering Committee believes that this approach captures the distinct spirit of each campus and does not homogenize two distinct campus and educational cultures. Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary Activity Date Accomplished Regional Steering Committee appointed June 1, 2000 Presentation to the campuses regarding the nature of the self-study process November 6, 2000 (Santa Barbara campus) November 13, 2000 (Los Angeles campus) Deans organize self-study process in their respective areas Fall 2000 Deans and constituencies interact regarding area objectives, describe activities, and assess performance Winter and Spring 2001 Deans submit written material to Regional Steering Committee Chair July 1, 2001 First draft of Self-Study Report distributed to Regional and University-wide Steering Committees for review and comments August 30, 2001 Second draft of Self-Study Report distributed to Regional Steering Committee November 16, 2001 Community Meetings held at each campus to review Self-Study Report December 3, 2001 (Los Angeles campus) December 5, 2001 (Santa Barbara campus) Self-Study Report submitted to University- wide Steering Committee December 20, 2001 Page 20 14 Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary (Cont.) Activity Date Accomplished Board of Trustees initial review of Self-Study Report February 9, 2002 Board of Trustees approves Self-Study Report . June 8, 2002 Self-Study Report submitted to NCA August 2002 NCA visit to the campuses October 14 to 16, 2002 Page 21 15 Chapter 2. Criterion One “The institution has clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education.” This chapter of the Self-Study Report reviews the development and effectiveness of the AUSC Mission Statement and provides examples of how the campuses have responded to established priorities during the 1993 to 2002 period. I. MISSION STATEMENT AUSC shares with other campuses of the University a commitment to the historic mission of Antioch College, the progenitor of the adult campuses. Regional and campus-based program Mission Statements are consistent with the University-wide Mission Statement (Appendix A) and reflect the distinct character and spirit of AUSC. In particular, AUSC is committed to integrating work and study, to fostering the development of students as “whole persons,” and to educating students with a commitment to social change. AUSC is a distinctive institution operating in a large, urban, multicultural, and ethnically diverse environment. It provides an alternative to other educational institutions in the area because of several distinguishing features – its small scale, its value-based educational approach, its commitment to social justice, its preparation of adults to challenge the professions, its emphasis on critical thinking and self-awareness, and its pedagogic philosophy that recognizes the value of experiential learning. Antioch students receive an education that emphasizes collaboration, ethics, and moral responsibility. Succinctly stated, AUSC shares a commitment to Antioch’s historic tripartite educational model – academic excellence, experiential learning, and community service. An important part of AUSC’s raison d’etre is to provide this kind of education to adults, an historically underserved population in American higher education. In form and content, the institution strives to offer education relevant to adults, with respect for adult students’ multiple roles, and with acknowledgment of learning that adults experience outside the formal classroom and prior to entering academic programs. To accomplish these objectives, each campus in the Region offers flexible class schedules, interactive classroom environments, opportunities for individualized study, and high levels of student-faculty interaction. The AUSC Mission Statement (Appendix B) was developed during the latter part of 2000 and was revised further during 2001. This statement replaces one that had been operative since early 1989. During 2000, each campus held meetings to review a draft of the Mission Statement proffered by former President Schulman, and considerable discussion and debate occurred regarding the draft. A series of iterations of the Mission Statement then were developed, and general consensus about the statement was reached. After a period of reflection, further minor modifications were made to the Mission Statement in 2001, and the Board of Trustees approved a final version of the Mission Statement in June 2001. Page 22 16 The Regional Mission Statement was written in light of the University-wide Mission Statement and, therefore, shares much of the language and many of the concepts present in the University- wide document. It may accurately be said that the AUSC Mission Statement is a regionalization of the University-wide statement. The AUSC statement is used in many ways to inform the direction and purpose of the institution. More specifically, the Mission Statement is used as a template for judging various initiatives; it is at other times used as exhortation to action consistent with its principles; or on other occasions, it may serve as a guideline for implementation of programs or policies. One indication of the success of the Regional Mission Statement is the often-made comment by visitors to the campuses that the entire Antioch community is imbued with the values that are espoused in the statement. Each academic program at the two campuses possesses a programmatic Mission Statement consistent with the Regional statement, and each program develops priorities and objectives that are framed by the Regional Mission Statement. There, however, are philosophical differences among the programs and among faculty/staff/administration about the ways in which the mission of the institution should be manifested. Not having a homogeneous philosophical orientation to the Mission Statement is viewed by many within the institution as exemplifying respect for diversity that they feel is the cornerstone of social justice. The institution, therefore, takes pride in the diverse perspectives and interpretations that its students/faculty/staff/administ ration bring to interpreting and actualizing the mission of AUSC in the various worlds in which they live and function. In operational terms, the AUSC Mission Statement is disseminated frequently and broadly within the institution. The Mission Statement is prominently displayed in the Catalogs of each campus, in quarterly schedule of class documents, in Student Handbooks , in quarterly newsletters, and in the commencement programs of each campus. The Mission Statement also is used for discussion and reflection in the entry-level Educational Foundations course in the BA Programs at each campus. This kind of dialog illustrates AUSC’s approach to education and communicates to students the philosophical orientation of the institution. Evaluation of the Mission Statement In some respects, it is too early to evaluate the Mission Statement that has most recently been developed through an intense series of meetings and debates. The process for development of the Mission Statement, however, clearly reflects the values of the institution, and the content is consistent with the historic mission of the University as a whole and with the current University- wide Mission Statement. The statement also does not reflect the views of some within the community who would more sharply focus the statement toward one perspective or another, e. g., anti-racism, or anti-sexism. The statement is a compromise among many competing viewpoints, but if Antioch’s history is any predictor, it is safe to say that the principles enunciated in the Mission Statement will be actively used daily in the professional and personal lives of Antioch students/faculty/staff/administ ration. The newly evolved Mission Statement will be formally reviewed periodically in the future so that it remains vibrant and reflects the views of the institution’s changing environment, personnel, and culture. Page 23 17 II. PRIORITIES 1993 TO 2002 Regional priorities and objectives are based upon University-wide principles developed by the Board of Trustees. (See Appendix C.) These goals and objectives reflect the values enunciated in the University-wide Mission Statement, and planning at the campus and program level is done within this context. Priorities and objectives are developed annually for the Region and each campus in the context of budget development. These two processes proceed together so that budgetary priorities reflect the underlying priorities of the institution. A statement of priorities and objectives for each annual budget is developed and distributed to the campus communities so that all constituencies are aware of the objectives. The following examples illustrate ways in which the Region and campuses have implemented the current University-wide priorities. These priorities have changed slightly over the years to reflect current Board of Trustees concerns, but much has remained constant over the 10-year period. One set of priorities was in place for the 1988-92 period; a revised version of priorities was instituted for the 1993-98 period; and in 1999, a new set of University-wide priorities was proffered by the Chancellor and approved by the Board of Trustees. What follows provides examples of the ways the Region and campuses have worked to actualize the nine priorities established in June 1999 as contained in a document titled University Plan and Strategic Objectives for the Years 2000 to 2005 . A copy of this document is available in the campus Resource Rooms. 1. Based upon the new environment and directions outlined in this plan, revisit the institutional vision and mission to ensure their currency for Antioch in the twenty-first century. B AUSC through former President Schulman participated in University-wide discussions to revise and strengthen the vision and mission of Antioch University in its entirety. These discussions and activities led to the adoption of the new set of priorities that are being used in the Self-Study Report . B AUSC has examined its Mission Statement at regular intervals during the last decade. A major re-thinking of the Mission Statement occurred in 1989, and minor modifications to this statement were made in 1996. Former President Schulman also initiated a process for re-examination of the Mission Statement that has resulted in a modified and streamlined statement of the institution’s basic mission. (See Appendix B.) Through periodic re- examination of the institution’s Mission Statement, it is believed that our essential mission has remained relevant, and these discussions have inculcated in members of the University community an awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the institution’s primary mission. 2. Increase and diversify student recruitment and enrollment. B Each campus has centralized the admission function in increasingly professional offices that coordinate advertising, information meetings, student follow-up, application Page 24 18 processing, and acceptance/rejection. Advances also have been made in the use of Datatel software in the admissions process. In February 2001, the Region also embarked upon an enrollment management process with the assistance of an external consultant. B Each campus has developed articulation agreements with local community colleges and with the extension divisions at the University of California at Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in efforts to secure greater numbers of students transferring to the institution. These efforts have been nominally successful, and copies of these agreements are available in the campus Resource Rooms. B Each campus has augmented its budget for advertising over the past 10 years. For example, the Los Angeles campus spent $127,252 in 1994-95 for advertising and in 2001-02 allocated $202,700 for advertising. The Santa Barbara campus spent $58,424 in 1994-95 for advertising and in 2001-02 allocated $101,800 for advertising. B Each campus has maintained or increased the number of students who attend the institution. For example, in 1992-93, the student body at the Los Angeles campus was about 576 annualized FTE; in 2000-01 that number was about 570 annualized FTE. In 1992-93, the student body at the Santa Barbara campus was about 229 annualized FTE; in 2000-01 that number increased to about 284 annualized FTE. B Each campus has increased the percentage of persons of color who attend the institution. For example, in 1992-93, persons of color represented 12% of the student body at the Los Angeles campus; in 2000-01 that percentage increased to 23%. In 1992-93, persons of color represented about 9% of the student body at the Santa Barbara campus; in 2000-01 that percentage increased to 18%. Each campus, therefore, has nearly doubled its number of persons of color enrolled in its educational programs. 3. Antioch University will extend, strengthen, and diversify its academic programs by linking the educational capabilities of the five-campus federated structure. B Through the leadership of former Regional Dean of Academic Affairs Laurien Alexandre, the Region has contributed to the creation of the first University-wide Ph.D. Program in Leadership and Change. The Ohio Board of Regents approved the program in July 2001, and the first students entered the program in January 2002. B In June 1997, the Los Angeles campus inaugurated the MFA Program in Creative Writing after nearly 2 years of planning. The new program adds another professional- level master’s degree to the campus offerings and has been extremely successful – achieving an annual enrollment level of approximately 125 students. This program also has cooperated with other writing programs at other Antioch campuses by participation in the Antioch as a Place for Writers initiative. B In July 1999, each campus began M.A. in Education degree programs with professional teacher credential options under a special program designed to permit out-of-state accredited institutions to address the teacher shortage in California. Each campus Page 25 19 program has met with success, and as of October 2001, 21 students were enrolled in the Los Angeles campus program and 20 students were enrolled in the Santa Barbara campus program. B Each campus has participated in the West Coast BA Collaboration Project designed to train faculty in the use of online technology in ways consistent with Antioch’s mission. Since 2000, twelve faculty from the Region have been trained in state-of-the-art methods for use of Internet technology in the delivery of online instruction. In addition, several faculty members from the Santa Barbara campus received training in online pedagogy as a part of preparation for the initiation of the Weekend College. The courses developed as a result of these training opportunities offer students greater course selection and schedule flexibility, and these courses have been well received by students. 4. Implement systematic program assessment across the University to measure student learning outcomes and program effectiveness. B AUSC has participated in the University-wide program review process, and during the past 10 years, all of its programs (except the newly initiated MAE Program) have received assessments from teams of faculty from other Antioch campuses and campuses outside the University system. These reviews have been generally complimentary and have provided a framework and impetus for constructive changes to programs. AUSC faculty also have served on program review teams that have visited other Antioch campuses, and through this process, AUSC faculty have contributed to strengthening the University in general and have had some measure of personal professional development as well. B AUSC annually produces a document titled Indicators of Progress Report that chronicles from year-to-year the institution’s progress based on established indicators. Review of these documents from year-to-year permits visibility of how well the institution is doing relative to each indicator. Copies of annual Indicators of Progress Reports for 1993-94 through 2000-01 are available in the campus Resource Rooms. B To improve its ability to access consistent data for planning and improvement, AUSC published Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 . These documents provide data about the Region and the two campuses in a neutral manner using common measures for the accumulation of fiscal, enrollment, and personnel data regarding the institution. Copies of these two documents are available in the campus Resource Rooms. B Each campus also has done much to strengthen its student assessment efforts that ultimately lead to program improvement. The results of these efforts to date are presented in Chapter 4 of this Self-Study Report . Page 26 20 5. Strengthen the capacity to recruit, retain, and support the most highly qualified faculty and staff to grow within a collaborative community in meeting the educational needs of students and Antioch’s academic programs. B Through support from the Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, Core Faculty have been supported during much of the past 10 years in professional development activities. This generous gift has provided support to faculty to attend one conference a year to continue their professional development. B Beginning in 2000, the Innovation Fund has provided resources for the training of faculty in online teaching approaches, and twelve faculty members have benefited from these efforts thus far. Modest stipends also are provided to faculty the first time they teach an online course. B Faculty and staff salaries were raised during the early and mid-1990s to be more competitive in the Southern California higher education community, but for a number of years, salaries have not kept pace with the larger employment market. Former President Schulman was committed to increasing salaries for faculty and staff, and pledged to modify the faculty workload policy so that Core Faculty teach three of four quarters a year. B Core Faculty annually develop with the Program Chair a statement of duties and responsibilities for the year including identification of professional development activities. This procedure for mutually determined duties and goals promotes professional satisfaction and contributes to the retention of faculty. 6. Support implementation of this University plan by strengthening the overall fiscal structure, reserves, and investment capacity of the University. B In addition to about 10% overhead and other University assessments, AUSC has balanced its budget each year, sometimes with the assistance of historic reserves that have been established. Positive balances at the end of the year also are contributed to these reserves for potential future use. Currently, AUSC reserves are $237,474, most of which are unfunded. B AUSC has contributed annually 1.5% of its budget to a Liquidity Reserve fund to assist in strengthening the University’s overall fiscal outlook and to satisfy Moody financial standards. Currently, that fund has a balance of $2,216,167, of which AUSC has contributed $461,181. B For the last 2 years, AUSC has established a Regional contingency fund that exceeds that required by the University. Thus far, $255,320 has been set aside. Page 27 21 7. Enhance the capacity of each campus to raise private gifts and grants, and collaborate in a significant University fund development effort. B A Board of Visitors was established in 1996, and its membership was increased to twelve people in 1999. This group assists the President in representing the interests of the University in the community and in identifying sources of funding for the institution. B The President devotes a major portion of his time to the raising of funds for each campus, and is committed to creating an active development office as resources become available for this purpose. 8. Create a University-wide technology infrastructure that provides for information exchange, networking of faculty and students, and access to library and other external resources, and online instructional capability. B Since 1993, each campus has enhanced its technology infrastructure significantly. All Core Faculty and staff have desktop computers that are networked so that email communication and Internet access are now a way of life for faculty and staff. B Since 1993, each campus has developed computer laboratories for students that provide access to PCs and Macs for word processing, spreadsheet construction, and PowerPoint preparation. Students also have access to numerous publicly available bibliography data bases, e. g., Melvyl, and Hollis, as well as to document retrieval software, e. g., PsycAbstracts, ProQuest (until June 2001), and then OhioLINK (after July 2001). OhioLINK provides access to many education databases and full-text books and journals. B As a result of technology training received by faculty, partially online degree programs and numerous courses are now in place at each campus (e. g., individual online courses, the MFA Program at the Los Angeles campus, and the low-residency Weekend College at the Santa Barbara campus). 9. Project the space and renovation needs, and the concomitant capital funds, that Antioch campuses will require by the year 2010, consistent with the changing ways in which teaching and learning will occur. B During Summer and Fall 2000, the Los Angeles campus employed the services of Reynaud E. Moore & Associates, Inc. to assess its facility needs for the foreseeable future. This assessment was undertaken in conjunction with a site analysis to assist with determining where the University should seek a permanent home. This study was curtailed when the Urban Educational Village concept emerged, and although this project did not ultimately come to fruition, the space assessment portion of this study will inform future discussions of the institution’s space needs. Page 28 22 • Considerable internal space assessment activities occurred at the Santa Barbara campus during the 2000-01 year in preparation for occupancy of a build-to-suit facility in Santa Barbara. As a result of these efforts, the space needs of the campus for the foreseeable future are known and are being used to guide the discussions with developers interested in providing a build-to-suit facility for the permanent home of the campus. In addition to these examples of ways in which the Region and campuses have implemented the current University-wide priorities since 1993, priorities for the years ahead also have been established. The 2000 Strategic Plan (Appendix D) articulates goals and objectives for a 5-year period, and specific priorities for the 2001-03 period have been established as presented in Appendix E. Page 29 23 Chapter 3. Criterion Two “The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.” This Chapter of the Self-Study Report examines and evaluates Regional and campus organizational structures and governance, financial and physical resources, academic programs, support services, and human resources. I. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND GOVERNANCE AUSC is composed of two campuses that function relatively autonomously, but share a common Regional administrative structure. This section of the Self-Study Report deals with the organizational structure and governance of the Region and the two campuses. A. Southern California Region A Regional administrative structure has overseen the two campuses since the summer of 1986, and that structure has undergone several changes since that time. From the inception, the Region functioned under the leadership of a single chief executive officer (with various titles over the years — Director, Dean, Provost, and President), and in 1988, a Regional Dean of Academic Affairs position was created to lead and coordinate the academic programs at the two campuses. During the tenure of President Johnston, the general trend was further to regionalize many functions common to the two campuses. For example, The President worked on development activities at each campus with the assistance of a Regional Director of Development (1992-94); a Regional Director of Human Resources was appointed in 1993; and a Regional Director of Computing was appointed in August 1997. These steps were taken to build interdependence and cooperation between the two campuses, to reduce fiscal expenditures for common functions, and to attract top-flight personnel to positions with multi-campus responsibilities. Former President Schulman modified the Regional administrative structure in 1998-99, after evaluation of the system that had been in place. A conscious decision was made to streamline the Regional structure and to minimize the number of positions that were Regional in character. This was done because each campus felt that its needs were not necessarily being met by a Regional appointment and because the physical toll on people traveling regularly between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, or visa versa, was very deleterious. Former President Schulman also was concerned with day-to-day management issues that involved the President’s time and energy, so the current system of an Executive Dean (chief operating officer) and Academic Dean (chief academic officer) at each campus was instituted in 1999. The current organizational structure of the Region and campuses is provided in Appendix F. Currently two key Regional positions exist – the President and the Chief Fiscal Officer (along with staff support for their offices). The President is responsible for the overall leadership and Page 30 24 management of the Region, for development activities at the two campuses, for representing the institution in a variety of external venues, for participation in the University Leadership Council, for representing the Region to the Board of Trustees, and for other University-wide functions requested by the Chancellor. The President reports directly to the Chancellor. The Chief Fiscal Officer of the Region reports to the President and is responsible for the development of the annual budget and ongoing monitoring of all financial activities of the Region and the two campuses. The two Executive Deans as chief operating officers manage the day-to-day activities of each campus and report to the President. The two Academic Deans as chief academic officers work with Program Chairs and other faculty to coordinate the academic activities at each campus and report to the President. All personnel at each campus report directly or indirectly either to the Executive Dean or the Academic Dean. This organizational arrangement permits the President to focus on non-operational issues. Two primary groups compose the governance system of the Region: 1. Regional Council of Southern California (RCSC). This group meets quarterly to discuss issues of mutual concern between the two campuses, and it approves the annual budget that is submitted to the Board of Trustees. The President Chairs RCSC that is composed of the members of the two campus councils – the Campus Council of Los Angeles (CCLA) and the Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB). The latter two groups are composed of faculty, staff, and administrative representatives. 2. President’s Staff (PresWorks). This group is composed of the President, the four campus Deans, and the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer. Communication occurs twice a week via telephone conference calls, and several longer face-to-face sessions occur each quarter. This senior management group advises the President on issues facing the campuses and serves as a forum for strategic planning. In addition, former President Schulman also instituted the Budget Advisory Committee in 2000 to lead the annual budget development process. B. Los Angeles Campus There is an evolving organizational structure in place at the Los Angeles campus, and decisions, even those that are difficult, are normally made expeditiously (although recent University imposed fiscal guidelines have begun to slow down the decision making processes). Members of the community adhere to a notion of collaborative governance, and many faculty, staff, and administration work diligently to conduct the business of the institution in an efficient and effective manner. Overall, the Los Angeles campus has struggled to institute an organizational structure that is both effective and participatory. The current organizational structure of the Los Angeles campus is provided in Appendix F. The Executive Dean and the Academic Dean report directly to the President and supervise all Page 31 25 campus personnel. The two Deans in cooperation with Directors and Program Chairs are responsible for administering the annual employee review process and for generation of annual budget requests. The Los Angeles campus Executive Dean is responsible for day-to-day operation of the campus, and all administrative support Directors and staff are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Dean. The Executive Dean specifically is responsible for the student services units (Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar Offices), Human Resources, and the auxiliary units of the campus (Administrative/Academic Computer Resources, Campus Services Center, Bookstore, and Cafe). Representative of these areas serve with the Executive Dean on the Operations Team that conducts the business of campus operations. The Executive Dean also serves as the ADA compliance officer for the campus. The Los Angeles campus Academic Dean is responsible for working with the five Program Chairs and faculty to create, deliver, and evaluate all academic programs. The Academic Dean has primary responsibility for program development and provides general oversight of all academic programs as well as the Math and Writing Center and the Counseling Center. The Academic Dean chairs the Academic Work Group (AcWorks), a bi-monthly meeting with all Program Chairs to conduct the business of the academic area. Program Chairs are responsible for direct instructional and curricular leadership within their programs and are members of the local decision-making body (CCLA) and RCSC. In addition, the Academic Dean chairs quarterly meetings of the Core Faculty to discuss issues relevant to the academic programs and to share professional scholarship interests of the faculty. The Los Angeles campus Executive Dean and Academic Dean have over 35 years of combined relevant experience in academic institutions and bring a rich understanding of higher education and Antioch University’s unique role within this sphere. Other administrative personnel include the Registrar with 26 years experience, the Director of Facilities with 20 years experience, and the Human Resources Associate with 5 years experience in the field. (The Director of Admissions and Financial Aid position is currently vacant.) In addition, to remain current in their respective fields, funds are made available for campus administrators to attend a professional conference at least every other year. Several groups participate in the governance process at the Los Angeles campus including: • Campus Council of Los Angeles (CCLA): an 11-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and includes the Academic Dean, the Chairs of the five academic programs, the Registrar, the Director of Admission and Financial Aid, and two staff representatives. This group provides input to the Budget Advisory Committee that has responsibility for development of the Regional budget, authorizes the hiring of personnel, assigns space, approves facility design, etc. as well as makes other decisions affecting the campus as a whole. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. Page 32 26 • Operations Team: an 8-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and composed of the Registrar, Director of Admissions and Financial Aid, Fiscal Officer, Academic Services Officer, Technology Coordinator, Facilities Manager, and a staff representative. This group makes decisions affecting campus operations that do not impact the academic area and recommends policy changes to CCLA. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. • AcWorks: a 6-member group chaired by the Academic Dean and composed of the Chairs of the five academic programs. This group makes decisions affecting the academic area and recommends policy to the CCLA. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Academic Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. CCLA holds primary responsibility for governance of the Los Angeles campus. CCLA meets monthly and is chaired by the Executive Dean. In late 1998, staff expressed discontent with the lack of adequate representation on CCLA and the perceived lack of substantial input into decision-making processes. The campus then began to explore alternatives to CCLA and engaged the services of consultants to teach the principles of self-managed and self- directed teams. Among the staff, the team approach was well received because it empowered them in areas of decision-making that affected them directly. The team model had some success in the academic services area, and for a brief period, an All-Teams Council functioned in place of CCLA, but maintained a membership similar to CCLA. Ultimately this approach was deemed non-responsive to campus needs, and effective September 1, 2001, CCLA was re-established as the primary decision-making body on the Los Angeles campus. In addition, the campus utilizes task forces, faculty/staff/departmental meetings, and monthly community meetings where matters related to all campus constituencies are discussed. One constituency of the campus has regularly not been involved in the governance structure of the campus, that is, students. For a period in the mid-1990s, student representatives served on CCLA, but consistent representation was an issue. Since the late 1990s, a student representative has been present on the Commencement Committee and has made valuable contributions to planning and implementing this major annual event. Occasionally, students also participate in community meetings. In addition, students have input into campus governance through a suggestion box and forms that may be used to make comments directly to the President. Responses to suggestions and comments are posted on bulletin boards for all students to see, and student suggestions have resulted in modifications to classroom furniture, the painting of classroom walls in colorful fashion, the providing of printing services on campus, and more food variety in the vending machines. On balance, however, because of lack of time or interest, student participation in governance at the Los Angeles campus has been sporadic and extremely difficult to foster. Page 33 27 C. Santa Barbara Campus There is a clearly articulated organizational structure in place at the Santa Barbara campus, and decisions, even those that are difficult, are made expeditiously. Virtually every member of the campus community adheres strongly to the team concept, and groups work collaboratively and cooperatively, particularly on a project basis and in resolving organizational issues. The general tenor of decision making on the Santa Barbara campus is one in which information is shared openly, discussion of issues is widespread, and issues are resolved quickly and fairly. The current organizational structure of the Santa Barbara campus is provided in Appendix F. The Executive Dean and the Academic Dean report directly to the President and supervise all campus personnel. The Executive Dean is responsible for day-to-day operation of the campus, and all administrative support Directors and staff are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Dean. The Academic Dean is responsible for working with Program Chairs and faculty to create, deliver, and evaluate all academic programs. The two Deans in cooperation with Directors and Programs chairs also are responsible for administering the annual employee review process and for generation of annual budget requests. The Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean and Academic Dean each have over 20 years of relevant experience in academic institutions and bring a rich understanding of higher education and Antioch University’s unique role within this sphere. Other administrative personnel include the Director of Admissions with 6 years experience, the Registrar with 20 years experience, and the Director of Financial Aid with 12 years experience in the field. In addition, to remain current in their respective fields, funds are made available for campus administrators to attend a professional conference at least every other year. Campus administrators are held accountable for their areas of responsibility, and policies are well understood by them. Recently, a student project assisted campus offices in creating a Policy and Procedure Manual for all campus operational units. This manual is housed in an area accessible to all staff and faculty to be readily available as needed. A copy of the Policy and Procedure Manual is available in the campus Resource Room. Several groups participate in the governance process at the Santa Barbara campus including: • Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB): a 10-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and includes the Academic Dean, three of the four academic program Chairs, two student services directors, a staff representative, and two faculty representatives. This group has the authority to approve the campus budget, authorize the hiring of personnel, assign space, approve facility design, etc. as well as make other decisions affecting the campus as a whole. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. • Management Team: a 9-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and composed of the Directors of Admissions and Financial Aid, Registrar, Fiscal Officer, Staff Page 34 28 Representative, Academic Services Officer, Technology Coordinator, and Facilities Manager. This group makes decisions affecting campus operations that do not impact the academic area and recommends policy changes to CCSB. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. • AcWorks: a 6-member group Chaired by the Academic Dean and includes the Chairs of the four academic programs and the Academic Services Officer. This group makes decision affecting the academic area and recommends policy to CCSB. The group works on the basis of consensus with the Academic Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is deadlocked. • Student Council: an 8-member group comprised of two student representatives from each academic program. The council deals with student issues, brings larger issues to the appropriate governing body, makes recommendations regarding services to students, and publishes a quarterly newsletter. A faculty representative, selected by the Student Council, serves in an advisory capacity. Students also have input into campus governance through a well-used suggestion box and forms that may be used to make comments directly to the President. Responses to suggestions and comments are posted in the student mailbox area for all students to see. A recent spate of suggestions to upgrade classroom furniture has resulted in a plan, as budget permits, to replace individual student desks with tables for two to three students seated in comfortable chairs. Other groups involved in campus governance are the staff team, the all-faculty team, and the community team (includes Adjunct Faculty and students, in addition to Core Faculty and staff). These groups do not have formal decision-making authority, but participate in the governance process by providing input and expressing views in regular open meetings. Many of these meetings are informational in nature, designed to bring the campus community up-to-date on various issues and activities. Evaluation of Regional and Campus Organizational Structures and Governance The current organizational structure seems to be functioning well, although the structure has not been fully tested at the Los Angeles campus because the Academic Dean position has not been occupied for much of the time this structure has been in place. This has caused an inordinate strain on the President’s responsibilities because he has served as Acting Academic Dean for two extended periods. With the appointment of Dr. Linda Moody to the Academic Dean position at the Los Angeles campus in August 2001, this situation was resolved, and now a true test of the new organizational structure can be experienced. The current Regional organizational structure is parsimonious. The structure provides for a full- time Chief Fiscal Officer whose responsibilities transcend that of either campus. This arrangement provides more fiscal oversight and avoids any claims of favoritism that might Page 35 29 emerge from the campuses. The current Regional structure also has solved the issue of having a Regional Academic Dean whose time is split between the two campuses. This arrangement provides much more academic leadership directly at the campus level and is a major step forward. The Santa Barbara organizational structure operates smoothly, and the creation of a full-time Academic Dean position has provided much needed academic leadership to the campus. The Los Angeles organizational structure offers the opportunity for success now that two fully functioning Deans are in place. The administrative area at the campus has had good leadership under Interim President and Executive Dean Chloe Reid, but staff reductions and several vacant positions have made it difficult for this area to function at full capacity. Open positions are being filled and should bring the administrative area up to adequate staffing levels. Consistent with the AUSC Mission Statement, the governance structure of the Region and the campuses provides for a wide-range of opportunities for involvement by all constituencies. Overall, there has been consistent faculty and staff participation in the governance process. The reliance on collaborative decision-making is exemplified in the annual budget development process and in recent discussions at each campus regarding obtaining permanent campus facilities. Despite many positive attributes of the current organizational structure, there are still issues that are often raised. Some campus constituencies suggest that it is not always clear who has authority to make decisions on which issues, and this leads to indecision and frustration. Particularly on the part of middle managers, there also is a history of asking for approval prior to implementation, rather than acting independently. This some times slows down the implementation of fairly routine procedures. Other campus constituencies wonder whether the time and energy devoted to collaborative decision-making is worth the effort. Former President Schulman’s efforts to streamline the decision making process were largely successful, and this has helped to address this issue. Collaborative governance by definition involves time and effort on the part of many people, but the central issue must always be: How much time and energy by how many people and for what result? Despite efforts to involve students in the governance process, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful, particularly at the Los Angeles campus. Adult students working full-time and with family responsibilities often do not have the impulse or the time to get involved in academic governance issues. The most notable exception to the lack of student involvement in governance is at the Santa Barbara campus where a Student Council has been successful operating since 1997. This group has been directly involved in campus governance and has made a significant contribution to the campus by representing student views in the appropriate forums. This group is to be commended for its efforts. Page 36 30 II. FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES Since 1993, AUSC’s capacity to provide quality education to its students has increased substantially. This section of the Self-Study Report describes and assesses the financial and physical resources that the institution commits to achieving the mission of the two campuses. A. Enrollment and Financial Resources Enrollment for the Region has increased over the past 5 years as has the total budget. In 1995- 96, total enrollment in the Region was about 812 annualized FTE; in 2000-01, enrollment was about 900 annualized FTE. The total budget for the Region in 1995-96 was $7,545,884; in 2000- 01, the total budget was $11,304,434. During this 5-year period, the average distribution of funds by percentage for the Region was: Instruction 35.97% Academic Support 7.13% Student Services 11.95% Institutional Support 26.35% Plant Maintenance 13.43% Scholarships 2.63% 1. Los Angeles Campus The past 5 years have seen a stabilization in student enrollment with about 580 annualized FTE in 1995-96 compared to about 570 annualized FTE in 2000-01. The campus budget during this period increased from $5,770,262 in 1995-96 to $6,816,142 in 2000-01. Much of these revenue increases were a result of tuition increases and the addition of new programs, and not from growth in existing programs. During this time period, the MACP Program actually experienced a nearly 30% decline in enrollment (like all similar programs in the area), which had a tremendous impact on the overall budget. The campus began to diversify program offerings in 1997 with the introduction of the MFA Program and in 1999 with the initiation of the MAE Program, and these efforts have contributed to stabilization of campus enrollment. Tuition increases at the Los Angeles campus have been in the range of 0% to 5% per year over the past 5 years, and changes in tuition rates from 1995-96 to 2001-02 are shown in Table 3-1. The campus also has continued to maintain a good record of collections on student accounts – consistently at about 99%. Detailed enrollment and fiscal data regarding the Los Angeles campus may be found in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 that are available in the campus Resource Room. Page 37 31 Table 3-1. Los Angeles Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02) Program 1995-96 2001-02 BA Program $3,150 $3,700 MACP Program $3,150 $3,925 MAIC Program $3,150 $3,925 MAOM Program $3.150 $3.925 MAE Program N/A $3,750 MFA Program N/A $4,550* *MFA Program tuition is per semester. 2. Santa Barbara Campus The past 5 years have seen a modest, but steady, growth of student enrollment from about 232 annualized FTE in 1995-96 to about 284 annualized FTE in 2000-01. The campus budget during this period increased from $2,118,559 in 1995-96 to $3,406,682 in 2001-02. Most of these revenue increases were a result of tuition increases and the addition of new programs, although some was because of enrollment growth. To ensure continued responsible growth, the campus added program concentrations during the late 1990s, initiated the MAE Program in 1999, and launched the Weekend College in 2001. These and other measures will be necessary in the future to meet the 2% annual growth rate for the next 5 years projected by a recent financial model. Despite steady modest growth in enrollment over the past 10 years, the projection for 2001- 02 is for no growth because of uncertainty regarding the external economic environment. Recent financial models indicate that a 2% annual growth rate is necessary over the next 5 years for campus and Regional sustainability. To address this issue, an enrollment management consultant has been hired, and response to recent on-campus workshops indicates that his advice and strategies are finding a receptive audience among faculty and staff. Tuition increases at the Santa Barbara campus have been in the range of 1% to 5% per year over the past 5 years, and changes in tuition rates from 1995-96 to 2001-02 are shown in Table 3-2. The campus also has continued to maintain a good record of collections on student accounts – consistently above 99%. Detailed enrollment and fiscal data regarding the Santa Barbara campus may be found in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 that are available in the campus Resource Room. Evaluation of Financial Resources of the Campuses During the past 10 years, revenue in the Region has increased primarily because of tuition increases, although recent program additions have begun to alter this situation. With Increased competition for the adult student market, there is concern that tuition increases cannot continue to be relied upon as a source of additional revenue. AUSC remains an Page 38 32 Table 3-2. Santa Barbara Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02) Program 1995-96 2001-02 BA Program $2,850 $3,600* MACP Program $3,000 $3,750 MAIC Program $3,000 $3,750 MAOM Program $3,000 $3.750* MAE Program N/A $3,750 *An additional $200 per quarter is charged for BA and MAOM Programs in the Weekend College option. institution that relies on tuition and fees to generate its primary source of revenue (about 99%), and these resources are sufficient for basic operational and instructional costs, but not much more. Each campus has addressed the long-term need to increase enrollment by augmenting current programs and by adding new programs; more recently each campus has implemented an enrollment management model with the assistance of an external consultant. Despite revenue increases, each campus in the Region is under-funded, and critically needed augmentation in the areas of community outreach, public relations, development and alumni affairs, salary increases, and technology have not been accommodated. The campuses also are understaffed in several areas, and Core Faculty positions are needed in a number of programs. Major investments in technology and technical support personnel also are needed at each campus to keep pace with rapidly changing educational applications. Despite these shortages, the educational mission of the institution has not been compromised, and the quality of instruction and services provided to students remains high. Class size continues to be kept small, with none of the huge lecture classes that characterize many educational institutions. Staff and faculty also go above and beyond what is expected to ensure academic integrity and excellent student services. During the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, AUSC was extremely successful and experienced broad-based enrollment increases. During those years, the Region generated budget surpluses each year, and these resources were used for one-time expenditures, particularly technology augmentation at the campuses. By 1996, the Region had accumulated a reserve of some $750,000 in funded and unfunded reserves. During the later part of the 1990s, the psychology programs at each campus experienced enrollment decreases, and programs generally decreased in enrollment at the Los Angeles campus. As a result, accumulated reserves for the Region were expended to produce balanced budgets during this period. (Current reserves are about $240,000 and mostly unfunded.) The late 1990s and early 2000s saw the two campus enrollments begin to stabilize and increase, and balanced budgets that did not rely on reserve funds were once again possible. With changes in governance initiated by former President Schulman, came changes in the manner in which the annual budget process operates. Historically, the budget development process occurred at CCLA and CCSB, and then the budget was ratified by RCSC. The President and the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer took the leadership in the preparation of the budget. Currently, a Region-wide budget development task force [the Budget Advisory Page 39 33 Committee (BAC)] now takes primary responsibility for the annual budget under the leadership of the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer. BAC discusses Regional/campus priorities, develops a preliminary budget, solicits feedback from campus constituencies, and makes recommendations to the President regarding budget allocations. During the construction of the 2001-02 budget, this process worked well, and BAC effectively made difficult decisions regarding expenditures. Campus satisfaction with this revised process is generally high. The fiscal relationship between AUSC and the University has improved, but tension still exists. The de-centralization of the University that began in the early 1990s has largely been completed and has generally produced positive results with the adult campuses of the University having much more autonomy and responsibility. The overhead rate has gradually decreased from 13.75% to less than 8% in 2002-03, which is a very positive development. In the last several years, however, budget shortfalls at Antioch College have made it necessary to use campus contingency funds to balance the overall University budget and have effectively increased the overhead that the University assesses AUSC. A plan for managing the University’s fiscal resources needs to be designed and implemented so that successful budget management is not rewarded by confiscation of funds by the central University and so that desperately needed Regional modifications – salary improvement, additional academic programs and student services, a development function, etc. – can be accomplished B. Physical Resources 1. Los Angeles Campus Since the last NCA visit, the Los Angeles campus has spent considerable time and effort attempting to identify and purchase property that would provide a permanent home for its activities. Several of these efforts appeared to be near completion, but the rise in commercial real estate values during the mid-1990s precluded this from happening. The Los Angeles campus, therefore, re-negotiated a favorable lease at its Marina del Rey site in 1998 with additional space being procured (1,525 sq. ft.), and considerable building modifications were accomplished during the summer of 1998. As a result of these efforts, the campus reduced its facilities costs and created a Student Services Center, a Business Services Center, a café and bookstore area, a unisex ADA-compliant bathroom, a larger student lounge, and several new faculty office suites. During this 1998 expansion, the campus engaged in major redesign of office space and the creation of a “one-stop” Student Services Center on the second floor where students could access admissions, financial aid, the Registrar’s Office, and the Business Office. (Subsequently in 1999, the Admissions Office was re-located to the first floor for visibility reasons.) A Campus Services Center also was created to provide primary photocopy and FAX services to the community. It has now become the hub of “business services” for the campus. Mail distribution services, office supply purchasing, classroom scheduling, and management of all small equipment maintenance (copiers, Faxes, etc.) fall under the auspices Page 40 34 of the Campus Services Center. Finally, during that same year, the Antioch Bookstore was relocated to the first floor, and a small café that seats 24 patrons was created adjacent to it. In 1999, with the founding of the new MAE Program, a Children’s Literature Library was created as well as a small computer lab dedicated to MAE Program students. In 2000, new office space (1,400 sq. ft.) was acquired on the 4 th floor for Regional officers – President, Chief Fiscal Officer, Executive Assistant, and an anticipated Chief Development Officer. In 2001, an additional 2,300 sq. ft. was acquired for two more classrooms, administrative office space, and storage on the second floor. Since May 1993, the Los Angeles campus has grown from 25,300 sq. ft. to 30,525 sq. ft. under long-term lease. The campus facility now includes fifteen classrooms, three conference rooms, sixty-six offices, two computer labs, a tutorial center, a counseling center, two kitchen areas, a student lounge with vending machines, a bookstore, and a café. Parking for the campus has become increasingly a concern. Until 1999, parking at the Los Angeles campus was available in the 140 parking spaces in the parking lot adjacent to the building, in a 75-space leased parking lot across the street from the campus, and on the street. With this level of parking available, students, faculty, and staff normally had sufficient spaces to park near the campus, although some times neighbors complained about students parking in front of their residencies. Faculty and staff parked in the lot adjacent to the building using University-funded parking passes. In 1999, a large apartment building began to be built on the parking lot site across the street from the campus, and this has heightened the concern about parking. Currently during the daytime hours, students park in the lot adjacent to the building using parking permits that they purchase. Faculty and staff park on the streets. In the late afternoon and evening hours, sufficient spaces normally are available in the lot adjacent to the building for students, faculty, and staff parking. During one period when parking was inadequate, the University employed a system of valet parking for students. The current system has worked moderately well, and complaints from various constituencies and neighbors periodically are voiced. The lease for the Marina del Rey campus expires in April 2003 with an option for an additional 5-year period – but at the then prevailing market rate. With the continued increase of lease rates in the local real estate market, there is concern that a new lease in the current building will be unaffordable. In late 2000, therefore, campus leadership began discussions with an outside consultant (Reymaud E. Moore & Associates, Inc.) to investigate potential relocation opportunities. Specifically, the consultants explored with campus constituencies feelings regarding relocation in general and a move to downtown Los Angeles specifically. An initial report was received by the President from the consultant, but not distributed, because in the intervening period, the campus was approached to join as a partner in a real estate development in Santa Monica. The Urban Educational Village is being developed by a non-profit entity and will create synergies among several potential education-related occupants. After considerable negotiations, it was determined by the Board of Trustees in September 2001 that insufficient resources were available to participate in this partnership. At this juncture, a new direction for securing adequate facilities for the Los Angeles campus Page 41 35 must be determined. To provide time for this process, Interim President Reid has extended the existing lease through April 2004. 2. Santa Barbara Campus Space at the Santa Barbara campus also has expanded since the last NCA visit. In 1993, the campus occupied about 6,700 sq. ft. of space, and in 1997, an additional 4,200 sq. ft. was secured. This space provided two classrooms, a conference room, two faculty offices, a student lounge, and an outdoor balcony area. In September 2001, yet another 3,600 sq. ft. of space on the second floor was secured, and this space provided six faculty/staff offices, two small libraries, two classrooms, and a conference room. The Santa Barbara campus facility now includes nine classrooms, one seminar/conference room, thirty-two faculty/staff offices, three kitchen areas, one computer lab, two small libraries/reading rooms, and a student lounge with copy machine, coffee service, vending machines, and an outdoor balcony area. Mailboxes also are provided for each student so that announcements, correspondence, and course materials can be easily distributed. A total of about 14,500 sq. ft. now is under long term-lease by the Santa Barbara campus, and this should be adequate to serve campus needs for the next several years. During most class periods (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.), there are sufficient classrooms. On several evenings, however, scheduling can be difficult. Santa Barbara campus classroom facilities are not used to capacity, with Mondays, Fridays, and weekends particularly under utilized. Future enrollment growth and new program development are planned to take advantage of this classroom availability. Because parking is a perennial issue at AUSB, students are encouraged to use alternative transportation methods. Such measures as preferred parking for car-poolers, tuition credit for walking or biking to campus, and free bus passes ameliorate the downtown parking crunch during daytime hours. After 5:00 p.m., students may park in any on-campus space so there is rarely a problem during these periods when many classes are scheduled. This contributes to student safety during evening hours as well because students do not have to walk to and from nearby public parking lots. In addition, the building and nearby streets are well lit at night. Another safety measure is the hiring of a regular security officer from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. when classes are in session. The officer is available to escort students to their vehicles, assist in emergency situations, lock-up the campus at the end of classes, and escort the evening administrator to his/her vehicle. Students’ most frequent complaint with regard to facilities is classroom temperatures being either too hot or too cold. Mechanical design of existing space was inadequate when construction occurred in 1988, 1989, and 1997, so there is little that can be done to remediate the situation. Students are advised to wear several layers of clothing to mitigate changing classroom temperatures as the sun moves across the ecliptic plane. In the new space occupied in December 2001, particular attention was paid to the issue of classroom temperature, and these efforts appear to be successful. The current power crisis in California, Page 42 36 however, has meant that air conditioning will be set at 78 degrees for the foreseeable future, so this may be a moot point. Long-term, the Santa Barbara campus also must determine whether to continue to lease space in its current facility, or to purchase a facility for its operations. The campus has carefully identified it space requirements for the foreseeable future and has been working with a local developer to secure a build-to-suit facility that will accommodate its programs and services for the future. At this point, the results of this effort are yet unknown. Evaluation of Physical Resources Each campus has adequate facilities for its current educational programs and services, even though these facilities are sometimes pushed to the limits. Several efforts during the mid-1990s and early 2000s to secure permanent, University-owned campuses were not successful. The Los Angeles campus needs to revive its facilities discussions and determine a course of action prior to April 2003 when the current lease expires, and the Santa Barbara campus needs to bring to closure the current discussions regarding a build-to-suit building in the City. Until resolution of these long-term issues occurs, student complaints regarding uncomfortable classrooms, uncomfortable classroom furniture, lack of adequate quiet study space, and shortage of parking during selected operating hours will need to be addressed on a continuing basis. These issues are likely not to go away anytime soon. As the campuses continue to grow, issues related to facilities will never be totally resolved. The campuses need to continue to better utilize space on the weekends, and issues related to how a growing number of low-residency programs may be accommodated on site need to be resolved. The campuses also need to explore how distance education will affect facility needs for the future. In addition, the campuses need continually to deal with issues of optimum campus size based on available facilities, growth as a method of dealing with the need for additional fiscal resources, and total campus size given the highly interactive pedagogical methods employed in the classroom. III. ACADEMIC RESOURCES The two campuses of AUSC offer an array of programs, most common between the two campuses and one offered only at the Los Angeles campus. Programs offered by each campus include: the BA Program, the MACP Program, the MAIC Program, the MAOM Program, and the MAE Program. Each of these programs at the two campuses has major elements in common and some elements that are unique to the campus. Also some concentrations offered at one campus may not be offered at the other campus. The MFA Program is offered only at the Los Angeles campus. The Los Angeles campus also operates an autonomous Counseling Center that supports both MACP Program Trainees as well the general community. Each of these programs is briefly examined in turn in this section of the Self-Study Report , and additional information regarding each program is available in campus Catalogs . Page 43 37 A. B.A. in Liberal Studies Program AUSC BA Programs are degree completion programs. Students enroll with a minimum of 30-quarter units completed at other institutions, and a maximum of 144-quarter units (of a total of 180 to 200) may be transferred from another institution. Students are enrolled for at least four full-time quarters (with a reduction to three full-time quarters possible for students with at least 100 transferable units). Students with relatively little transfer credit and/or relatively little college-level experiential learning are in residence longer. The Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campus BA Programs are similar in structure, although the Los Angeles campus program is more curriculum driven and the Santa Barbara campus program provides more opportunities for individualized study. A student’s program (transfer credit, Antioch course work, and prior experiential learning) must include general studies and an area of concentration. At the Los Angeles campus, students may concentrate in liberal studies, psychology, child studies, business, or creative writing. At the Santa Barbara campus, students may concentrate in liberal studies, psychology, communication, communication/creative writing, business management, or social services administration. Individualized concentrations also are possible with advisor approval; they, however, are not encouraged. The BA Programs provide a liberal education that is intellectually challenging and relevant to the educational needs of adult students. Their mission emphasizes academic excellence, whole-person education, community involvement, and social justice. Experiential learning is an essential component in each campus’ BA Program. A minimum of 6 units of experiential learning is required (via either current field study, or upper-division non-classroom college-level learning prior to enrollment). Three of these units must be in the form of Community Service (including a reflective seminar taught quarterly) at the Santa Barbara campus. To be credited, experiential learning must be documented so as to demonstrate that it meets AUSC criteria for college-level learning, according to Antioch’s descriptions for lower- and upper-division learning. Guidelines for what is appropriate for prior experiential learning projects and a specific proposal process are among the crucial elements of academic quality control. Students are now required to take a course on theory and experiential learning if they wish to document prior learning. Faculty evaluate students’ documentation of prior learning before credit is awarded. Materials related to the prior experiential learning process are available in the campus Resource Rooms. 1. BA Program at the Los Angeles Campus A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus BA Program since the last NCA accreditation visit including: • A new Program Chair was appointed and has shifted the emphases of the program, formalized core curriculum in each area of concentration, instituted online instruction, and created the Community Humanities Education Program. Page 44 38 • Enrollment has declined from about 207 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 172 annualized FTE in 2000-01 where it has stabilized. • A full-time faculty member was hired to direct the Math and Writing Center and outreach from the Center was expanded to increase needed support and tutorial services for all students. • A quarterly colloquia has been instituted that focuses on topics of social interest and features notables such as Sandra Tsing Loh (writer, performer, and radio program host), Victor Walker (member of the African Grove Institute), and Peter McLaren (radical pedagogy theorist and professor of education at UCLA). • A quarterly All BA Faculty Academic Bash (ABFAB) has been instituted that combines dinner, faculty team building, and discussion of topics of interest to faculty (e.g., student narrative evaluations, experiential learning, and improving student writing skills). The purpose of ABFAB is to emphasize professional development within the Antioch educational context. • The Compton-Antioch Project, a program with Compton Community College and AULA, has resulted in an articulation agreement with the college and has increased student interest in attending Antioch. Articulation agreements also have been developed with several other area community colleges including Santa Monica College, West Los Angeles College, and Pierce College • BA faculty members have participated in a multi-campus training program sponsored by the University Innovation Fund to offer some BA Program courses in an online format. • The required Educational Foundations class has been revised to better address program core purposes and assessment issues. The Los Angeles campus BA Program also has developed a unique educational venture — the Community Humanities Education Program (CHE Program). The CHE Program seeks to address issues of poverty and marginalization in our communities by providing a 9-month course of study in the humanities (courses in philosophy, literature, art history, and writing) to persons living within 200% of the federal poverty level. Students, faculty, and staff of the CHE Program endeavor to create a committed and supportive community of learners intent on claiming an education by developing a greater sense of agency in the world and a deeper awareness of the value of intellect and voice. The CHE Program is proud to be housed at two strategically located sites: the Venice Family Clinic in the Santa Monica community and the Central American Resource Center in the MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles. Transportation, childcare, tuition, books, and other materials are provided to all CHE Program students at no cost to them. This program is funded through the generosity of private donors. Page 45 39 2. BA Program at the Santa Barbara Campus A number of significant changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus BA Program since the last NCA visit including: • A new Program Chair was appointed and has improved the organization of the program and policies/procedures. • Enrollment has grown from about 87 annualized FTE in 1992-93 to about 116 annualized FTE in 2000-01. • A new delivery option, the Weekend College in Management Studies, began in Fall 2001 in conjunction with the MAOM Program. • The curriculum has expanded in Liberal Studies offerings and in required courses for two new concentrations: social services administration and communication/creative writing. • The percentage of effort of Core Faculty has been increased so that all Core Faculty are now full-time. • A new course on adult and experiential learning theory has been added to strengthen the conceptual component of documenting prior learning. • Service learning has been incorporated as a vital required part of the curriculum with many community sites available for student placement. • A capstone seminar has been added to assess the program’s impact on students. • A class has been created involving a Diversity Speaker Series. • The required Educational Foundations and Academic Planning class has been revised to better address program core purposes and assessment issues. • The degree planning process has been streamlined, with more emphasis on the faculty advisor’s role. • A formal articulation agreement has been developed with Santa Barbara City College, and informal agreements exist with Oxnard, Ventura, Moorpark, Alan Hancock, and Cuesta Community Colleges. Evaluation of BA Programs The programs have maintained high academic quality and intellectual rigor since the last NCA visit, infused the curriculum with core purposes, and bolstered the conceptual Page 46 40 component of experiential learning, although there are some concerns about the intellectual rigor of some outside learning activities and prior learning. More learning activities and more choices of concentrations are offered. There is flexibility in designing students’ plans and in problem solving. Curricula are clearly defined. Community Service Learning has become an integral part of the program, and faculty work collaboratively and are accessible to students. Students receive extensive advising and effective communication from the Chairs. Class size remains small. While enrollment growth and/or tuition increases have led to increases in the instructional budget (both in number of classes and in Adjunct Faculty pay per class), the total Core Faculty FTE has not grown correspondingly. The result is that Core Faculty have heavy advising loads and administrative tasks, leaving less time for pursuing intellectually stimulating activities and professional development (other than during mini-sabbaticals every 3 years). In addition, Adjunct Faculty could be better integrated into the programs so as to achieve greater consistency in achieving program goals. The Adjunct Faculty Handbook is in the process of revision and should be completed by June 2002. Despite some improvements, Adjunct Faculty salaries are lower than they should be. The CHE Program at the Los Angeles campus has been extremely successful and has served as an outreach effort for the BA Program. Some CHE students have aspirations to earn a B.A. degree and are intent on enrolling at the Los Angeles campus. This is a good example of a successful outreach effort motivated by social justice concerns that has beneficial consequences for the students involved in the program and for the institution. It also is an example of what successful fundraising can do to promote meaningful programs in the community. B. M.A. in Clinical Psychology Programs Designed to train counselors and psychotherapists while meeting the educational requirements for California licensure as a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT), the MACP Program requires six quarters of full-time enrollment, or its equivalent, and a total of 72 quarter units including an approved traineeship off campus and personal psychotherapy. Core coursework is required in the traditional content areas of clinical psychology and marriage and family counseling, infused with issues of social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism. Elective units are earned through courses and workshops, approved independent study activities, or additional traineeships. Students are required to participate as a client in weekly personal psychotherapy for two or more quarters. Prior experiential learning is not awarded credit in the program, and a thesis is not required. The eclectic theoretical orientation of the program helps adult students critically evaluate different traditional and contemporary approaches to therapy and develop the theoretical orientation most suited to their clinical work. Students study psychodynamic, humanistic- existential, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, and other theories, along with their applications to the field of psychotherapy. In addition, experiential learning is emphasized in the program, particularly in courses focused on clinical skill development. Page 47 41 1. MACP Program at the Los Angeles Campus A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MACP Program since the last NCA visit including: • New Program Co-chairs were appointed who have led the faculty in continuing development of the program’s focus on multiculturally sensitive clinical training. • Enrollment has decreased from nearly 360 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 264 annualized FTE in 2000-01. Enrollment has been stable at this level for the past few years. (All MFT programs in California experienced decreases of this magnitude during this time period.) • The program’s curriculum was revised for students entering January 2001 and later, adding new required courses in Psychological Testing and Psychopharmacology, in response to a California Board of Behavioral Sciences mandate. At the same time, the program initiated a new required course, Psychology in the Community, introducing students to the variety of roles they might play in community settings, ameliorating social problems, and empowering community residents in issues related to mental health and well-being. • New concentrations in Child Studies (1997-98) and Applied Community Psychology (2001-02) were developed through which students can elect an additional 18 units of course work and focused clinical experience preparing them for work as MFT professionals dealing with a wide range of issues associated with children and community-based psychological issues. • The program extended its successful one-day-a-week delivery model to Saturdays (1997- 98) to serve additional adult student populations. Other cohorts meet on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays. • Online learning was instituted for all one-day-a-week students in the Psychology in Society and Personality Theory I courses, and was added as an option in the Research and Professional Writing course. The latter experiment was unsuccessful, and this option has been discontinued. • Clinical training sites have continued to increase (a total of about 130 each year are available to students) and are increasingly diverse (e.g., Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Center, Miracle Mile Community Practice, and Friends of the Family). A half-time Core Faculty member serves as Director of Clinical Training, overseeing this essential part of the curriculum. • Diversity training has taken place on a regular basis for the MACP Core Faculty, augmented with Adjunct Faculty who are involved in teaching multiculturally- focused courses. In addition, the MACP Faculty has sponsored a series of Diversity Lunches with programs open to the entire campus community. Page 48 42 • The MACP Program strengthened its ties with the Antioch University Counseling Center with the appointment of an Associate Faculty member as Director of the Center. A small number of MACP students serve as trainees at the Counseling Center. The Center also provides on a regular basis educational colloquia open to all students. In addition, the Counseling Center and Applied Community Psychology concentration will be cooperating in offering community programs in the future. 2. MACP Program at the Santa Barbara Campus A number of changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MACP Program since the last NCA visit including: • A new Program Chair was appointed and has streamlined some organizational aspects of the program, developed new program concentrations, and supported program assessment efforts. • Enrollment has decreased from about 106 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 84 annualized FTE in 2000-01, and enrollment seems to have stabilized. • During Winter 2001, the curriculum was revised as follows: •Added application courses in Multicultural Counseling and Family Therapy. •Expanded Psychopathology course to Biopsychosocial Models of Diagnosis and Treatment that integrates psychopharmacology into the course offering. •Revised Multicultural Awareness, incorporating multicultural dialogue and field trips (e.g., Museum of Tolerance). •Revised Clinical Skills I to make it more sensitive to cross-cultural counseling. •Revised Clinical Skills IV from case consultation class to Professional Seminar: Integrating Clinical Skills that includes theory, assessment, psychopathology, treatment planning, etc. This course also has become the capstone course and serves as a resource for program assessment. •Offered first online course, Theories of Psychotherapy, during Fall 2000. • During Winter 1999, the traineeship component of the curriculum was revised in the following ways: •Developed traineeship orientation meetings. •Developed Traineeship Open House inviting supervisors from agencies in the tri- county area to describe their sites and to network with students. •Developed Clinical Training Agreement that specifies responsibilities of the Santa Barbara campus, clinical supervisor, site director, and student. Evaluation of MACP Programs AUSC MACP Programs continue to be model programs in the integration of theory and practice and in the incorporation of social change and cultural diversity emphases into MFT training. Core Faculty are highly committed to AUSC’s mission and values, and students Page 49 43 experience a high level of satisfaction with their learning. Faculty are accessible to students, and class sizes remain small, particularly in clinical skills and other experiential courses. Clinical training sites informally communicate to the programs their extremely high evaluation of Antioch students as trainees. This is partly the result of the emphasis that each program places on acquisition of clinical skills, self-awareness, and professionalism. In the past 10 years, the student body has shifted significantly from midlife professionals returning to school to seek careers in private practice, to the current student body that is somewhat younger in age with private practice as just one among many options and with expectations of work that is less highly-paid and more clearly related to community service. This is a realistic response to changes in the structure of MFT employment in an era of tight budgets and managed care. AUSC’s curricula changes during this period represent effective responses to the need to train MFT’s for a broader range of roles than in the past. The change also is consistent with the institution’s social justice mission. A significant proportion of MACP Program classes are taught by Adjunct Faculty who are clinicians working professionally in the community. Many have taught at AUSC for a long time and have a high level of commitment to the program. The advantage is that students are exposed to a variety of clinical perspectives and to practical wisdom and experience. A continuing challenge is how to integrate new Adjunct Faculty into the program, particularly in the areas of diversity and multicultural sensitivity, because most professionals were not trained in programs with these emphases. Because of a growing commitment to multicultural issues, Los Angeles campus MACP Program Core Faculty have worked hard during the past 10-year period to ensure that the program is indeed meeting this commitment. Program Core Faculty meet regularly to assess progress on a variety of program goals related to diversity and to ensure that work continues. Copies of minutes of MACP Program Faculty Meetings at the Los Angeles campus are available in the campus Resource Room. Similarly, there are several challenges the Santa Barbara campus MACP Program must face. As the private practitioner delivery system in psychotherapy looks forward to an uncertain future and the reality of market glut in the local and tri-county areas, the program needs to find ways to maintain sufficient enrollment to sustain operations and development. The program also needs more resources to pay faculty at market levels, to provide more instructional support (e.g., tutoring) and clerical/staff support services, to underwrite faculty development (less administrative work, more intellectual stimulation, and creative activity), and to bring in outside expertise for special events and consultation. Another concern regards traineeship supervision. Given that the off-campus agency selects supervisors for the program’s student trainees, more release-time for the Core Faculty Clinical Director is needed to oversee site selection and qualification. Page 50 44 C. M.A. in Psychology with Individualized Concentration Programs The MAIC Program is designed for adults who want to pursue a non-clinical interest within psychology, for those who desire to pursue doctoral education following the completion of the program, and for international students whose degree need not be structured around California licensure requirements. The Individualized Concentration parallels the Clinical Program in emphasizing academic excellence, eclectic theoretical orientation, and current experiential learning (as appropriate), but offers greater freedom and flexibility in designing the degree plan to blend traditional subject areas with the student’s interests and needs. The MAIC Program requires five full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and 60 quarter units, or, in the case of the Santa Barbara campus Professional Development and Career Counseling concentration, six full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and 72 quarter units. A core curriculum is required for each concentration; students then add elective courses in psychology (or, as appropriate, in Antioch’s other graduate programs in education or management), independent studies, and practica. Students complete a 4 to 12 unit thesis, a project, or a supervised practicum experience. Enrollment in the MAIC Program continues to be small, but meets the needs of its students by providing low faculty-student ratios and by offering a variety of concentrations. At the Los Angeles campus, students design concentrations in conjunction with a faculty member in a wide range of topic areas. At the Santa Barbara campus, students have the option of focusing their concentration in such areas as Professional Development and Career Counseling, Organizational Psychology, or Family and Child Studies. 1. MAIC Program at the Los Angeles Campus Several changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MAIC Program since the last NCA visit including: • Enrollment has remained relatively constant with about 12 annualized FTE in both 1994-95 and 2000-01. • The MAIC degree process has been redesigned for simplicity; a new Student Handbook has been written and distributed; and administrative forms used in the program have been redesigned. • Stronger coordination with the MAOM Program has resulted in a number of MAIC Program students pursuing management-related concentrations including participation in the MAOM field study Practicum Project as one option for the MAIC thesis project. Page 51 45 2. MAIC Program at the Santa Barbara Campus A number of changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MAIC Program since the last NCA visit including: • The number of students in the MAIC Program has grown substantially since 1994-95 when the annualized FTE was 1 to an annualized FTE enrollment of about 26 in 2000-01. • New concentrations in Integrative Yoga (1996-97 and discontinued as of Fall 1999), Organizational Psychology (1997-98), and Professional Development and Career Counseling (1999-00) were added to the program to serve more diverse student populations. • A Family and Child Studies concentration is currently being developed and is scheduled to begin in 2001-02. • A Master’s Project requirement (as an alternative to the a traditional thesis) was developed for all non-clinical students that meets APA standards for literature review. • A course on Professional Writing for the Master’s Project was developed to help students unfamiliar with developing a literature review. Evaluation of MAIC Programs The MAIC Programs provide students with quality education while being flexible in responding to individual differences in intellectual interests, professional goals, and personal needs. The small size of the program allows for maximum access to faculty and the opportunity to develop in a supportive environment. At the Los Angeles campus, students pursue Individualized Concentrations effectively with faculty support. The main program limitation arises because a 10-hour-a-week Associate Faculty member directs the program, and it cannot grow in size without additional faculty resources. The new Child Studies and Community Psychology concentrations in the MACP Program also have helped to provide more diversity in course selection for MAIC students at the Los Angeles campus. At the Santa Barbara campus, certain other issues arise from the small number of students in more structured concentrations. With so few students in any one concentration, resources are limited, and without additional faculty, the MAIC Programs cannot grow. With multiple concentrations in a limited-resource situation, Core Faculty have some difficulties in linking students with a variety of experts (Adjunct Faculty) in the student’s chosen specialization. The course offerings within the concentration also are not extensive, and students do not have a large number of other students in the same concentration to turn to for peer support. Faculty have been diligent in emphasizing a diversity focus in the MAIC Program curriculum and helping each other develop a multicultural awareness, using faculty meetings to Page 52 46 incorporate multicultural dialogue into the curriculum and critiquing students in relationship to the effectiveness of this aspect of the program. Program faculty members meet regularly to assess the overall effectiveness of the program and to modify the curriculum as appropriate. D. M.A. in Organizational Management Programs AUSC MAOM Programs offer professional education for managers with emphasis on human relation skills, values, and broadly based education. The core curriculum reflects theoretical models and leading-edge applications covering such areas as strategic planning, budgets and finance, organizational theory, ethics, human resource management, and quantitative analysis. Students are enrolled for a minimum of 5 full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and must earn 60 quarter units of credit for the degree. In addition to required core courses, students choose from elective courses and may do some independent study. Experiential learning is a cornerstone of the MAOM Program. Courses are taught by instructors well grounded in theory and practice, with classroom discussions applying theory to work and community. In place of a thesis, students complete a Practicum Project and professional presentation that applies and reflects their learning in the program. Often the Practicum Project is done in conjunction with other students and in a community-based business setting that provides “real world” experience to the student. 1. MAOM Program at the Los Angeles Campus A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MAOM Program since the last NCA visit including: • A new Program Chair assumed responsible for the program in 1996 and refined program concentrations and policies/procedures, and instituted the Practicum Project. As of September 2001, an Interim Program Chair has assumed leadership of the program for 1 year, pending re-filling the Chair position. • Enrollment in the program has fluctuated over the years, but enrollment was about 32 annualized FTE in 1994-95 and in 2000-01. • The traditional master’s thesis was replaced by a Practicum Project that is more in keeping with the experiential nature of the program training. • The curriculum was substantially revised with specializations consolidated and differentiated to better meet the needs of the students. Current concentrations include: human resource management, organizational development, and leadership. Page 53 47 2. MAOM Program at the Santa Barbara Campus A number of significant changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program since the last NCA visit including: • A new Program Chair was appointed in July 2000 to succeed the retiring Chair. • Enrollment in the MAOM Program has fluctuated, but grown modestly, from nearly 26 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 29 annualized FTE in 2000-01. • In cooperation with the BA Program, a Weekend College delivery option was initiated in Fall 2001. • The credit requirement for graduation from the MAOM Program was increased from 56 to 60 quarter units effective the 1996-97 academic year. • A new concentration in Organizational Psychology was developed collaboratively with the MACP Program (2000-01). • Courses in Change Management, the Learning Organization, E-commerce, and International Studies have been added to the curriculum. • An annual study abroad program was initiated in1996, and four trips to Europe and two to Asia have been mounted — Hong Kong (September 1996), London (September 1997), Italy (September 1998), Prague (September 2000), Beijing (September 2001 and then re-scheduled to May 2002), and Spain (September 2002). Evaluation of MAOM Programs In September 1999, both MAOM Programs participated in the University-wide program review process. Although the review was somewhat cursory, the results showed that the curriculum continues to create a cohesive experience for students. The program is small, innovative, coherent, and relevant to students’ professional and personal needs. It is characterized by high morale among faculty, students, and alumni. Core Faculty are effective and accessible advisors, and students are kept informed of program information and changes. Classes are small, lively, and interactive and are seen as places where real learning occurs. A copy of the University-wide program review materials is available in the campus Resource Rooms. The MAOM Programs, however, are limited, and the inability of each campus’ program to reach enrollments larger than 40 annualized FTE constrains them from realizing their full potential. More resources could increase the number and diversity of Core and Adjunct Faculty, allow for a broader array of elective courses, and generally support the programs’ further development. Formal structures for including Adjunct Faculty in governance and decision-making have been attempted, but no systematic approach has been established. Page 54 48 Some efforts have been made to create symposia and lecture presentations, including experts from outside the University, but these efforts have been sporadic and infrequent. In addition, courses are uneven in terms of rigor, learning expectations, and material covered, and narrative evaluations of students are uneven in terms of quality. There also is no structured way to remediate students’ deficiencies in writing and math, although some effort has been made to use the undergraduate Math and Writing Center to address this issue at the Los Angeles campus. Further, onsite library holdings are minimal. The holdings that are present need more organization, and a system for checking out holdings needs to be developed. (This is less of an issue currently than in the past because online library services have expanded significantly and are used by students.) Finally, more space is needed for on- campus study, and technology resources need to be enhanced. As of January 2002, a critical issue facing the Los Angeles campus MAOM Program is continued leadership. The Interim Program Chair has agreed to serve for 1 year while a new Chair is selected. Currently, discussion is underway regarding re-filling the Chair position, and resolution of this issue will have long-term effects on the program. E. M.A. in Education Programs The MAE Program is the newest program offered at the two campuses and is the only program that has been developed on a Regional basis. The MAE Program offers two interrelated tracks: (1) an M.A. in Education with a Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (for elementary school teaching) (MAE/TC), launched in July 1999, and (2) an MAE for Experienced Educators (MAE/EE), launched in July 2001. The core curriculum is very similar for both tracks (excluding the requirements for the Teaching Credential), and differences are discussed below. MAE/TC Program : This program was designed as an AUSC Regional program to be offered at each campus and is driven by a philosophy emphasizing school reform, social justice, and teachers as change agents. During the first year’s curriculum, students meet California requirements for the Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (for elementary school teaching). This rigorous program includes intensive study of literacy along with instruction on the teaching of mathematics, social studies, science, art, and other subjects. The use of technology in teaching also is an essential component of the curriculum. The demands of the first year leave only limited opportunity for elective coursework. During the second year, students study leadership and school reform issues while completing their research-based thesis. Electives and 1-unit intensives also allow for a variety of profession-related topics to be studied in depth. The program uses a cohort model, with all students going through the program together and forming professional peer support groups. The number of new students enrolled each year ranges from 15 to 20. A minimum of 5 full-time and two half-time quarters are required to complete the minimum 73 quarter units necessary for the degree. Prior experiential learning is not credited toward the degree. An Early Decider option allows AUSC BA Program Page 55 49 students to begin work on the MAE/TC during their final two quarters in the BA Program, thereby reducing their MAE/TC residency requirement by 1 to 2 quarters. More so than any other AUSC program, the MAE/TC Program involves extensive experiential learning. From their first quarter, students have required fieldwork linked to their coursework, culminating in full-day student teaching in local elementary schools under the joint supervision of an Antioch faculty member (Supervisor of Student Teaching) and a Master Teacher at the elementary school. MAE/EE Program : The MAE Program for Experienced Educators was designed for students who have completed their Teaching Credential before entering Antioch and have experience in a school setting. The only concentration available currently is in Social Justice and Educational Leadership. The emphasis is on preparing effective change agents by educating students about leadership, reform, advocacy, schools as organizations/systems, and other sociopolitical dimensions of social change. Because students have already completed the requirements for a Teaching Credential, only 45 quarter units are required for completion of the MAE/EE degree. These are acquired during two full-time and 3 half-time quarters of residency. The program does not use a cohort model, in that students may enter in more than one quarter during the year, although it is expected that most students will progress through the program together, thus maintaining the value of peer support available in strict cohort models. Experiential learning remains integral to the MAE/EE. Students continue in their roles as educators, and every effort is made to link coursework to everyday applications in their school settings. The research-based thesis involves such applications to the classroom or administrative setting in which students function. Evaluation of MAE Programs Because of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s strict requirements, the MAE/TC program presents certain challenges for faculty as they combine Antioch’s goals and the state’s requirements. A certain tension is created between the University’s mission of educating persons interested in initiating progressive social change and the state’s restrictions on curriculum and student teaching; to over-simplify, it is the alternative university versus the establishment. To the credit of MAE Program faculty, they have kept the focus on professionally preparing teachers to provide quality education for children and to understand the need for (and pitfalls of) school reform. The MAE Program has excelled in attracting experienced, competent faculty and master teachers. This has been accomplished even though Adjunct Faculty salaries are lower than those of faculty in other schools of education in the area. Also, partnerships with local schools have been successful, and campus Advisory Boards have been established with representatives from the different roles within the school community (teacher, principal, district administrator, government, etc.). A special partnership also has been established with Page 56 50 Santa Barbara Community College to enhance educational opportunities for students interested in becoming teachers, and the Los Angeles campus works closely with Santa Monica College to recruit students into the program. California requirements for program staffing and activities also make the Teaching Credential program very expensive to operate, whereas Experienced Educator track expenses are comparable to other graduate programs (or even less expensive in that much of the curriculum is shared with the MAE/TC Program). This issue of expense is a crucial one for each AUSC campus, given the commitment of the program to maintain small class sizes, intensive supervision of student teaching, and student access to faculty and staff advisors. The future of the MAE Program depends in part upon the campuses’ ability to build around the expensive MAE/TC core other revenue-generating (less expensive to operate) programs, such as the MAE/EE and continuing education for teachers and administrators. Additionally, external funding via grants is being pursued. Ultimately, whatever the source of new revenues, the ability of the programs to develop and mature will likely hinge upon fiscal resources. Thanks to a grant from the Fletcher Jones Foundation, a Children’s Literature Library has been created on each campus for MAE students’ use. These libraries house over 1,000 children’s books along with educational journals, technology stations, educational texts, and curricular materials. The grant also provided funds for the establishment of computer labs at each campus for the exclusive use of MAE Program students. Three computers are available at each campus for this purpose. Another strength of the MAE Programs is that students receive extensive guidance and support from the staff Credential Analyst/Administrative Coordinator, who assists them in successfully completing program and state credentialing requirements. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing during its February 2002 on-site review of the program corroborated the overall quality of the MAE Program. In the words of the draft report of the visitation team, “Antioch University Southern California meets all standards of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.” Copies of all material produced for this review and the final visitation team report are available in the campus Resource Rooms. F. M.F.A. in Creative Writing Program The MFA Program is only offered at the Los Angeles campus and is a new program that began in June 1997. The program is unique in its structure and approach to offering a systematic study of the craft and pedagogy of creative writing in order to prepare Antioch graduates with the tools to enter the world as writers and as teachers of writing and literature. The program seeks to contribute to the development of writers who can participate effectively in culturally diverse professional, academic, and community settings. Page 57 51 As a low-residency, 2-year degree program, the MFA Program requires 48 semester units for the degree and offers intense 10-day residencies every 6 months as well as online instruction, communication, and dialogue with mentor faculty between residencies. The goal of the program is to offer instruction in the genres of poetry, fiction, and creative nonfiction while introducing students to the relationship between the artist and society. The program offers students the opportunity to interact with professionals in the field of writing and publishing such as literary agents, magazine and journal editors, and letterpress/book art professionals. One unique aspect of the curriculum is the translation requirement. Students take a translation seminar and a 5-month interactive on-line translation conference wherein they translate literary texts and discuss the theory and practice of translation. The MFA Program also offers a Certificate in the Pedagogy of Creative Writing that requires an additional semester of study and prepares the student to teach creative writing at the college/university level. Students may choose to spend their time in the program studying in one genre, spending one term out of four in a second genre, or pursing a Dual Concentration (five terms/2.5 years) working three terms in one genre and two terms in a second genre. MFA Program students also complete a Field Study, an experiential learning component designed to provide “hands on” experience across a wide range of writing-related activities. In the MFA Program, participants are expected to: • Develop and master writing skills in poetry, fiction, and/or creative nonfiction. • Compare, contrast, and critique multidisciplinary perspectives regarding art, aesthetics, and the canonical debate. • Reflect on the place of creative work in community, culture, and society through formal and experiential learning. • Develop an awareness of ethical dilemmas and social values as they interface with the rights and responsibilities of the artist. • Reflect on voice, modes of expression, and linguistic styles through the study of the art of translation, and expand their capabilities both in translating and understanding the political and linguistic complexities of this art. • Explore the work and lives of professional writers and network with writers’ communities. • Where applicable, learn and apply innovative skills and progressive pedagogical theory to the teaching of creative writing in diverse settings. Page 58 52 Evaluation of MFA Program Systematic assessment methods were built into the program from its inception, and many opportunities exist to evaluate its effectiveness as well as to measure student learning: • After each residency, students submit a Residency Log, a Student Learning Analysis for each learning activity of the residency, and a Residency Review, reflecting on the success of the infrastructure of the residency. • Faculty submit a Mid-term Evaluation for each mentee, and each student does a self- assessment of steps toward the stated goals of her/his Project Period Contract at mid- term. • At three-quarter term, faculty again evaluate student work, a requirement of the Financial Aid Office. • At the end of each term, faculty write narrative evaluations for each of their mentees, measuring progress toward the goals of the Project Period Contract; students also submit a narrative Student Learning Analysis, assessing the work outlined in the Project Period Contract. • At each residency, graduating seniors deliver lectures that undergo Peer Review evaluations. The results are maintained in the Program Office, and copies are prepared for the graduating students. In Spring 2002, the graduating classes will be assessed using as a pre/post test the admission essay questions. But already, one measure of “success” has been the record of student publication since graduation; for example, three students were successful in securing publishers for their book length works. In addition, approximately fifteen students have secured full-time or part-time employment teaching writing at the college/university level. One student has assumed the directorship of the Idyllwild Summer Poetry Festival, and two alumni and one current student teach or work in tutorials at the Los Angeles campus. Another alumna directs one of the Community Humanities Education Program sites for the BA Program, and another alumna is the Writing Tutor for that same CHE site. Student success also is measured by the work done in Field Studies. For example, two students are currently publishing small magazines; one student is interning with a literary agent; two students are conducting online conferences; two students have completed letterpress projects; two students have produced hand-made books; and one alumna is writing a column for a health-related magazine/newsletter and writing book reviews for her local paper in Oregon. During the summer of 2002, the program will participate in the University-wide program review process, and a copy of the team’s review report will be available in the Los Angeles campus Resource Room. Page 59 53 G. Antioch Counseling Center The Antioch University Counseling Center (AUCC) has a long venerable history dating back to 1974. The Center works in conjunction with the MACP Program to provide Traineeship opportunities to students and Internship opportunities to graduates of the program and other professionals in the Los Angeles area. Under the direction of a licensed psychologist and using a variety of therapeutic techniques, the AUCC currently provides numerous educational and therapeutic programs including: • General Therapy: For children, adolescents, and adults dealing with such issues as depression, anxiety, grief, eating disorders, and HIV in several languages — English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Farsi, and Hebrew. • Career and Psychological Testing: Administration and interpretation of a wide battery of tests to assist with career and personal issues. • Life Transitions Support Services: Counseling and workshops to assist men and women to thrive at midlife. • Adoption Counseling Services: Supportive counseling for the unique and complex issues affecting all those impacted by adoption. • Iranian Counseling Center: For Iranian-Americans dealing with relationship, domestic violence, substance abuse, and other psychological issues. • School-Based Counseling Program: Comprehensive on-site counseling and educational program for students, teachers, and parents operated at Grandview Elementary School and Kentwood Elementary School. Through these diverse programs, AUCC provides approximately 3,000 client service hours each year. All services are offered on a sliding payment scale so that persons of diverse economic backgrounds may participate. In addition, AUCC provides numerous continuing education opportunities to professionals in the greater Los Angeles area. The Counseling Center operates year around, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Evaluation of AUCC AUCC has experienced several changes in leadership since the last NCA visit, and as a result, the Center has functioned at various levels of efficiency and effectiveness. As a self-supporting entity (based on fees collected from patients), AUCC experienced budget deficits in some years, and the number of Trainees and Interns has varied depending on the effectiveness of the leadership provided. Page 60 54 Since September 2000, a new Director of AUCC has taken responsibility for leadership and management, and the operation has made substantial progress since that time. The budget has been increased as the number of patients has increased, and the number of Trainees and Interns likewise has increased to about twenty-five. There is currently a sense of dynamism within AUCC that speaks well for its future success. IV. SUPPORT SERVICES AND HUMAN RESOURCES This area of the Self-Study Report examines the support services provided in administrative, student services, and academic areas as well as the instructional and auxiliary services provided by the campuses. This examination is followed by an evaluation of these services. A. Administrative Area Support Services Support services provided in the administrative area include fiscal services, human resources, technology, and campus operations at the two locations. 1. Los Angeles Campus Fiscal Services includes accounts payable, student accounts, collections, and budget monitoring. The office is staffed by 2 FTE employees and uses Datatel software to accomplish its functions. Staff has been trained on the Datatel system, and they are proficient at using the basic functions of this sophisticated software package. From April 1993 to April 2000, the human resource functions of the Region were provided by a full-time Human Resources Director who was responsible for all human resource functions at the two campuses, a full-time Human Resources Associate who was responsible for Regional salary and benefit data input, and a quarter-time Human Resources Associate (a portion of the Fiscal Officer’s time) who was responsible for benefit advising and payroll issues at the Santa Barbara campus. The Director and Associates were housed initially at the Santa Barbara campus, and the Director traveled to the Los Angeles campus at least once a week. Later the Director and the full-time Associate were housed at the Los Angeles campus, and the Director made weekly trips to the Santa Barbara campus. The human resource function for the Region was re-structured in 2000-01 when it was determined that the functions of the Regional Human Resources Director should be redistributed and managed by a Regional Human Resources Team. The primary factor in electing to re-structure the Regional human resource function was that neither campus felt its needs adequately were being met by a Regional human resources officer who split his/her time between the two campuses. Under the new team approach, the compliance functions of the Director have been distributed between the Executive Deans on each campus. Payroll/benefit responsibilities for the Region have been shifted entirely to the Los Angeles campus Payroll Coordinator. This reduction in payroll responsibilities for the Page 61 55 Santa Barbara employee permits an increase in hours for other human resources functions, e.g., benefits counseling, new employee orientation, and employee problem solving. The Los Angeles campus continues to have a full-time employee responsible for benefits coordination, counseling, and other general human resources functions. The Regional Human Resources Team works to develop and define human resource policy for the Region, and these policies are then implemented by the Executive Deans on the campuses. This group also is responsible for the maintenance and issuance of the Regional Human Resources Handbook . This approach to handling human resources is currently under review. Prior to 1997, administrative and academic computing at the two campuses was handled at each campus by local staff. From Fall 1997 until Fall 1998, administrative and academic computing was the responsibility of a Regional Director who supervised staff at the two campuses. Similar to the experience in human resources, the campuses did not feel that their needs were being met adequately, so in Fall 1998, responsibility for all campus computing at the Los Angeles campus was outsourced to a consulting firm. The benefits of outsourcing were real and apparent — new wiring, production of a stable network, new network hardware, maintenance of a stable FirstClass email system, conversion from Appletalk to Ethernet, upgrade to DSL router capability, and better on-site support. In Fall 2000, a major equipment purchase (financed by a 4-year lease) enabled the Los Angeles campus to upgrade all workstations, servers, printers, and software. Approximately 50 new iMac computers and 30 new PC computers were distributed throughout the campus, including the student labs. The infusion of new hardware and consistent software on all computers brought the campus into the 21 st century. As of October 2001, the campus outsourced daily computer support, FirstClass email maintenance, and web support activities to three separate vendors. In Summer 1998, a Campus Services Center was created, initially to provide primary photocopy and FAX services to students, faculty, and staff. It has now become the hub of “business services” for the campus. Mail service distribution, office supply purchasing and distribution, classroom and audiovisual equipment scheduling, management of all small equipment maintenance (copiers, FAXes, etc.), and parking administration fall under the auspices of the Campus Services Center. This new functional area has been a very welcome addition to the services provided on the campus. 2. Santa Barbara Campus Fiscal Services includes accounts payable, student accounts, collections, and budget monitoring. The office is staffed by 1.7 FTE employees and uses Datatel software to accomplish its functions. Staff has been trained on the Datatel system, and they are proficient at using the basic functions of this sophisticated software system. As a result of the reorganization in the human resources area in July 2000, these functions are being handled by a full-time employee who devotes 25% of her time to human resource activities, particularly benefits administration and counseling and by the Executive Dean who Page 62 56 provides policy and procedure direction in the human resource area. The Executive Dean also serves on the Regional Human Resources Team that oversees the human resource area for AUSC. Thus far this arrangement has functioned well and is periodically reviewed for effectiveness. The organization of technology resources in the administrative and academic areas have been described in the section for the Los Angeles campus, and the Santa Barbara history takes a similar path. The only exception is that the Santa Barbara campus has never outsourced the management of its computer resources. Currently, a full-time professional staff member at the Santa Barbara campus provides administrative and academic computer support. Additional technical support, however, is needed to meet the growing demand for services on the campus. General campus operational functions at the Santa Barbara campus (copying, facilities management, security, parking management, etc.) are overseen by staff and the Executive Dean’s Office with the Administrative Associate to the Executive Dean carrying primary responsibility. Issues are dealt with professionally; potential problems are anticipated; and immediate action is taken to resolve problems when they occur. B. Student Support Services Support services provided in the student services area include admissions, financial aid, Registrar’s Office, ADA compliance, and alumni at the two campuses. 1. Los Angeles Campus The admissions function at the Los Angeles campus has developed from an office in the late 1980s that operated independent recruitment efforts for each academic program to one that effectively recruits students to a growing number of academic programs. During the 1991 to 1997 period, the admissions function was under the direction of the Dean of Advancement who functioned as an enrollment manager and marketing/public relations director. For the remainder of the 1990s and into the early 2000s, a Director of Admissions handled the admission function. Beginning in 2001-02, the offices of admissions and financial aid were combined under the leadership of one director to maximize the role of each department relative to enrollment management strategies. (Because of financial constraints, this new combined position has never been filled.) These combined offices include a Director of Admissions and Financial Aid, an Assistant Director of Admissions, an Assistant Director of Financial Aid, two admissions counselors, one financial aid counselor, one administrative assistant, and four work-study students. The Director of Admissions and Financial Aid reports to the Executive Dean and is charged with implementing the campus’ new enrollment management strategy. In Spring 2001, the Los Angeles campus employed the services of an enrollment management consultant to assess the admission and recruitment efforts of the campus. Based on work with appropriate personnel, the consultant provided a detailed report that articulated forty-eight recommendations. The campus has begun to implement the recommendations Page 63 57 and is working with an external marketing firm to develop a strategic enrollment and marketing plan. In addition, the enrollment management consultant conducted a 2-day training session for staff and a 1-day session for faculty. There now is a more collective sense of responsibility and accountability by faculty and staff around enrollment issues. The Financial Aid Office is responsible for awarding all federal, state, and campus aid to students, and has become an increasingly important component in the Los Angeles campus’ enrollment management strategy since the unification of the office with the admissions area in 2001-02. In 2000-01, 93% of students received financial aid, up from 65% 5 years ago. Over the years, student reliance on loans has increased considerably. In1995-96, the office awarded $5,597,520 in aid compared to $5,994,679 in 2000-01. The last 5 years also have seen increased automation in the functions of the Financial Aid Office culminating in a major accomplishment in 1999 — the elimination of processing paper checks from individual banking institutions. Presently, all loan proceeds are handled through Electronic Funds Transfer, which expedites refunds for student disbursement as well as receiving of funds by AUSC. Since May 2000, the Los Angeles campus has been using Educational Loan Management (ELM) resources to process approximately $4 million annual loan volume. ELM resources employ state-of-the-art technology to exchange educational loan data with lenders, guarantors, servicing organizations, and disbursement agencies. The Los Angeles campus participates in and relies heavily upon the Federal Work-Study Program. Total Work-Study Program disbursements for 1994-95 were $158,923 compared to $104,524 in 2000-01. The Registrar’s Office at the Los Angeles campus continued its professionalization efforts following the 1993 NCA visit and became a critical office in providing quality service to students. The efforts were interrupted by the untimely death of Registrar Stephen Leiter in 1996. A member of the Registrar’s Office staff was later appointed to the position of Registrar and did an admirable job sustaining the office under constrained fiscal and personnel conditions. In July 2001, a new, experienced Registrar from outside the institution was appointed, and systems that had deteriorated were re-established. Also in that year, the Datatel Coordinator position was re-structured, and a Data Entry Clerk position was added to the Registrar’s Office. Both of these positions were necessary to keep pace with the increasing need to manage and effectively use the Datatel system. All prospective students are notified of the Los Angeles campus’ compliance with federal ADA accommodation requirements and are provided instructions and materials for requesting such accommodation. An ADA Student Handbook to assist students in this process is readily available. Requests are processed and implemented through the Office of the Executive Dean, and all reasonable requests are accommodated. Thus far, this system has been effective for the fifteen to twenty student requests that are received each quarter. Alumni activities continue to be sparse at the Los Angeles campus and have presented a recurring problem. Organizationally, the President has been involved in this area; during the 1991-96 period, the Dean of Advancement actively functioned to create alumni involvement; and from 1998 to 2000, the Special Assistant to the President coordinated a series of alumni Page 64 58 activities. A Regional newsletter, published 2 to 4 times per year, has helped to bridge the gap between alumni and the University, and there was an effort by a few recent alumni (and supported by the institution) to form a Los Angeles campus alumni association in Summer 2001. The primary goal is to raise awareness of the University and to reconnect alumni with the campus. The results of this effort are still to be seen. The new MAE Program also has created an alumni organization to connect its graduates to the program and the institution. The CHE Program has undertaken a similar effort. 2. Santa Barbara Campus The Admissions Office at the Santa Barbara campus has had the benefit of knowledgeable and energetic staff members who have effectively recruited students to the University’s programs. In 1998, the first professional Director of Admissions was brought to the campus and has strengthened the institution’s capacity to recruit students. Given the increasing number of new students over the past several years, the addition of new programs, and recent growth initiatives, the Santa Barbara campus employed during 2001 the services of an external consultant to address marketing and recruitment issues. The consultant described the Santa Barbara campus Admissions Office as a “boutique” operation. The staff processes applicants with a great deal of personal attention, contributing to a high rate (85%) of applicants to matriculates. The understaffed clerical function and lack of integrated Admissions technology, however, works against the development of coherent systems for tracking contacts with inquirers, moving them into the applicant pool, and the extraction of relevant data about both inquirers and applicants. Recent work with the consultant has provided recommendations for improving these processes, and the Admissions Office is beginning to move toward a state-of-the-art enrollment management orientation. A great deal of staff training, more strategic use of financial aid, and improved management of prospects (including continued faculty involvement) is needed. In 2000-01, a half-time Admissions Assistant was added to the office, but this area remains understaffed. The Financial Aid Office is strongly staffed and efficient, with well-coordinated entrance interviews, effective counseling about student loans, and consistent exit interviews. The staff are well-versed in federal regulations and are technologically up-to-date relative to basic operations. Training and support, however, are needed to implement fully the Datatel software. For example, additional training is necessary for staff to use the software to full advantage in the areas of grade level and satisfactory academic progress. The number of staff also needs to be increased to provide expanded office hours on Fridays and weekends – particularly with the initiation of the Weekend College. The Registrar’s Office also is well staffed and trained to use technology effectively to support operations. Service to students is excellent, and record keeping, data file maintenance, and permanent records are all exemplary. Datatel support is barely minimal, consisting of a modest consulting budget, and unsolved problems continue to accumulate. The campus does not have a permanent Datatel Coordinator, relying only on support provided by the University, and this results in an extremely slow turnaround time in Page 65 59 resolving problems. Datatel modules currently exist within the integrated database to move the campus toward on-line registration and other web-based processes, but these have not yet been implemented because of lack of staff support for technology initiatives. All prospective students are notified of the Santa Barbara campus’ compliance with federal ADA accommodation requirements and are provided instructions and materials for requesting such accommodation. An ADA Student Handbook to assist students in this process is readily available. Requests are processed and implemented through the Office of the Academic Dean, and all reasonable requests are accommodated. Thus far, this system has been effective for the relatively small number of requests that are received each quarter. Considerable success has been experienced at the Santa Barbara campus around alumni services. For several years in the mid-1990s, an Alumni Coordinator was hired on a limited basis to provide a quarterly newsletter and to coordinate alumni events. In December 1999, a team of alumni volunteers formed Antioch’s first permanent Alumni Association. By January 2001, by- laws were written and a Board of Directors was appointed. Recent elections produced a permanent Board. The Antioch Santa Barbara Alumni Association is designed to bring consistency to alumni communication while involving alumni from all programs. The Board meets regularly each month, and meetings are open to all alumni. The Board’s purpose is to offer educational, social, and career networking opportunities, to represent their campus academic programs, and to participate in fundraising for the Santa Barbara campus. To support the latter activity, alumni have developed and produced logo merchandise for sale, participated in the Annual Fund Drive, and represented the institution at college and job fairs. Social events, which include faculty, staff and students, have rounded out the Association’s 2-year history. In addition, an alumnus of the BA Program developed and launched an Alumni Association web site, which is linked to the campus web site. The campus provides a part-time, benefited Alumni Coordinator to assist the Association in day- to-day operations, plan meetings and social events, interface with campus constituencies, and maintain an updated database. The Coordinator publishes a quarterly newsletter that is distributed to alumni and campus constituencies. C. Academic Support Services Academic support services include the Office of the Academic Dean and the Program/Administrative Coordinators at the Los Angeles campus, and the Office of the Academic Dean and the Academic Services Office at the Santa Barbara campus. These areas are explored in this section. Page 66 60 1. Los Angeles Campus From 1988 to 1998, a Regional Dean of Academic Affairs had responsibility for the academic programs at the two campuses. The Academic Dean was located at the Los Angeles campus and traveled regularly to the Santa Barbara campus and conducted considerable business on the telephone. This arrangement was marginally successful, and ultimately did not satisfy the faculty at either campus. In 1998-99, a full-time Associate Academic Dean was appointed at the Santa Barbara campus so that each campus then had an Academic Dean solely devoted to leadership of its academic programs. This appointment was changed to the position of Academic Dean in 2000. Long-term Regional Dean of Academic Affairs Laurien Alexandre accepted the position of Dean of University-wide Programs reporting to the Chancellor of the University in 1999, and a 2-year period began when the Los Angeles campus was without an official Academic Dean. One search for a replacement ended without an appointment, and a second search yielded an appointment, but the appointee was not a good fit with the institution and left the position after a few months of service. Former President Schulman provided leadership for the academic programs during this roughly 2-year period until the appointment of Linda Moody, Ph.D., effective August 2001. This long period of not having an Academic Dean at the Los Angeles campus has caused some problems in the academic programs. Program Chairs have been compelled to make decisions that otherwise might have been made by the Academic Dean; inter-program policies and procedures have fallen into disuse, or need to be created; inter-program cooperation has decreased; and new program development has been minimal. Dean Moody has begun to address these issues, and progress clearly is being made in once again having concerted academic leadership that is viable and lively and that meets the needs of students. Support for the academic programs at the Los Angeles campus also is provided by a number of Program and Administrative Coordinators. A full-time Program Coordinator serves the BA and MAOM Programs; a full-time Program Coordinator serves the MACP and MAIC Programs; a full-time Administrative Coordinator serves the MFA Program; and a full-time Administrative Coordinator serves the MAE Program. The Program/Administrative Coordinators support the Program Chair and faculty and specifically take responsibility for program management and communication, course scheduling and book ordering, maintenance of program syllabi files, Adjunct Faculty communication and orientation, student communication on behalf of the program, class reservation/registration system, management of the faculty evaluation system, and maintenance of program curriculum and personnel databases. From 1988 to 1998, Program Coordinators functioned out of an Academic Services Office with their work coordinated by a Senior Program Coordinator. To provide more direct connection with each academic program, this office was discontinued in 1998, and Program/Administrative Coordinators were re-located to areas adjacent to the Program Chairs and faculty. Coordinators cooperate in the preparation of quarterly Schedules of Page 67 61 Classes and other overlapping functions, but they now have much more autonomy than they had under the previous system. There has been relative stability in the Program/Administrative Coordinator ranks with several Coordinators serving for 6 to 8 years in their positions. The Coordinators serve as primary information dissemination centers for the academic programs, and they relate to the Chair and faculty as well as to students and Adjunct Faculty. Their role is a critical one and has evolved over time. Coordinators have periodically lobbied for more recognition and salary consideration, and these efforts have generally been successful, although salary levels are still probably below comparable positions at other academic institutions. Concerns about the breadth of responsibility and quantity of work also have been expressed over the years, and additional staff is necessary in this area. 2. Santa Barbara Campus From 1988 to 1998, a Regional Dean of Academic Affairs had responsibility for the academic programs at the two campuses. This arrangement functioned marginally well and clearly was a compromise conditioned by limited resources. Beginning in 1996, Richard Whitney, long-term Core Faculty member and BA Program Chair, devoted 25% of his time to coordinating the academic programs at the campus (as an Associate Dean reporting to the Regional Academic Dean). This percent of effort was later increased to 50%, and then in 1998-99, Whitney assumed the position of Associate Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus on a full-time basis reporting to the Regional Academic Dean. In 2000, he assumed the position of Academic Dean for the Santa Barbara campus reporting to the President. His leadership has provided needed stability to the academic programs, strengthened infrastructure systems, initiated procedural changes, and promoted program development and assessment. The addition of a full-time Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus has substantially strengthened programs at the campus and added to the general organizational sophistication of the campus. Under the direction of the Academic Dean, the Academic Services Office provides support for the Program Chairs and faculty in many ways. Its staff work collaboratively to schedule classes, hire Adjunct Faculty (at the Chairs’ direction and with the Academic Dean’s approval), orient new Adjunct Faculty to the campus, work with human resources on payroll issues, assign classrooms, order textbooks and readers, and provide general assistance to the Dean, Chairs, and faculty. Since the last NCA visit, several changes have taken place in the Academic Services Office: • Staffing has increased from 1.5 FTE staff to 3.5 FTE staff including an Administrative Coordinator/Credentials Analyst for the Teaching Credential Program, an Administrative Coordinator for the BA/MAOM Weekend College, and a Program Coordinator for the Community and Professional Education program. Page 68 62 • The Office was reorganized in July 2001 to provide better, more direct support by designating a point person for each program and reassigning individual staff’s duties (some inter-program, some program specific). • An Academic Services Office supervisor position was created to recognize the higher-level responsibilities associated with the position. • Changes in staff have occurred fairly often, with only one staff member staying for more than 2 years. • A Children’s Literature Library for MAE Program students was created with the assistance of the Academic Services Office. • The Office has adapted to changes in all program operations and to the creation of a local Academic Dean’s Office. The above changes reflect a turbulent period in academic services at the Santa Barbara campus. Faculty and staff alike have been critical of this area because prior to July 2001, the level of staffing was clearly inadequate for the duties and expectations. High turnover undermined consistency and required training of new staff. In addition, the lack of uniformity between programs has created difficulties for staff. Each Program Chair has her own way of scheduling classes, dealing with Adjunct Faculty, etc. which makes staff’s work more complex. Developing more standardized systems across programs would allow staff to devote more effort to other projects. One of the things Academic Services Office staff does well is track the massive amounts of information that flows through the department. They regularly collect syllabi, book orders, course materials, and faculty paperwork. They archive information both for record keeping and for future reference. Even though efforts to maintain the integrity of these data are complicated by constant updates and changes, the level of accuracy is high. D. Instructional Resources Instructional resources at both the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campus have increased substantially since the last NCA visit. Computer equipment has been upgraded dramatically and is serviced regularly. All Core Faculty have desktop computers that are networked and provide email and Internet communication. Computers are available to students in modestly equipped computer facilities and in MAE Program libraries. Student computers are equipped with Word, Excel, and PowerPoint software as well as with SPSS statistical software for research activities, and regular training is available to students in the use of this software. Selected classrooms are wired for Internet access and equipped with projectors for classroom presentations and demonstrations. The Santa Barbara campus provides laptop computers for such purposes. Digital video cams are available for MAE Program students to record their off-campus student teaching, and similar equipment is available on campus for MACP students to record their clinical training sessions. Page 69 63 Online library services, not available 10 years ago, also have evolved in the past few years and are available to faculty and students on and off campus. Because of affiliation with Antioch College in Ohio, students and faculty have access to OhioLINK — a subscription collection of electronic research databases and full-text services. Faculty and students can access approximately 100 specific databases, 3500+ e-journals, and 5000+ e-books in many fields such as social sciences, arts and humanities, education, business, and the sciences. Access to OhioLINK has been available since July 2001, and thus far satisfaction with the system has not been high. In addition, each campus pays for students to obtain library privileges at university libraries in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas, e.g., University of California at Los Angeles, University of California Santa Barbara, and University of Southern California. The MAE Programs at each campus also maintain an on-campus Children’s Literature Library consisting of over 1,000 titles. Students have access to this library on a daily basis, and it is managed through an automated system. Students can check out titles in both children’s literature and professional development. The MAOM Programs also maintain a small selection of journals and reference books for use by its students. The Los Angeles campus maintains a Math and Writing Center that is administered by a full- time Core Faculty member who devotes 20% of her time to the Center. Three Adjunct Faculty, two graduate writing students, and a professional tutor provide direct services to students. The Center serves the needs of primarily undergraduate students, although some graduate students avail themselves of the full-range of services provided by the Math and Writing Center. Basic services provided by the Center include courses, tutorials, and other types of academic assistance. Tutorial services focus on helping students write effective papers and other documents for classes, and on improving math competency. The Math and Writing Center is open Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and during the past 3 years, it has served an average of about 26 different students each quarter, offering an average of over 27 service-hours each week, of which over 11 hours (almost 42%) were used. Another instructional resource provided by the Los Angeles campus is the Clinical Training Office (CTO). To insure compliance with California Board of Behavior Science mandates, the MACP Program provides a 0.50 FTE Core Faculty member to direct the CTO and about 0.50 FTE of another Core Faculty member’s efforts to support MACP students as they earn academic credit at more than 130 authorized clinical training sites. The CTO also employs a full-time staff member. The CTO promotes high standards of ethics and professionalism in clinical training, oversees all aspects of registration and credit for clinical training, supports students in resolving difficulties encountered at training sites, and provides students with information and support in meeting California Marriage and Family Therapy licensing requirements. Instructional support services are minimal at the Santa Barbara campus, even though remediation is sometimes necessary in writing and math skills. Tutoring is available free of charge for students with disabilities who request accommodations, but other students do not benefit from either fee-based or free tutoring. Names of recommended tutors are maintained Page 70 64 by the Academic Deans’ Office, and every effort is made to link tutors with students who request tutoring references, but with occasional exceptions based on financial need, the University does not pay for tutoring. The issue of instructional support services is under review by the Academic Dean, and an attempt will be made during the 2001-02 year to develop a more effective system for providing such services to students who need remediation. E. Auxiliary Services AUSC campuses maintain a number of functions that best can be described as auxiliary services including the Café, the Bookstore, and vending machines. The Café is operated only at the Los Angeles campus. Since 1998, the Los Angeles campus has provided an on-site Café for use by students, faculty, staff, and administration. The campus contracts with a local food service operator to run this 600 square feet facility located on the first floor of the building. The Café provides salads, soups, sandwiches, and beverages in a pleasant environment that is conducive to small groups congregating for lively interaction and socializing. Currently, Simply Delicious, a minority- owned business from Pasadena, has the contract to operate the Café. Over the years, the Los Angeles campus has struggled with the issue of how to provide books to students. In the early 1990s, exclusive arrangements were made with local bookstores to order and display books required for Los Angeles campus classes. These arrangements necessitated students traveling to various locations in the Los Angeles area so in 1994 a contract was signed with Fowlett Bookstores, a national college/university book provider, to operate a bookstore on the campus. This arrangement worked well for a number of years, but in 1998, Fowlett terminated the contract because the profit margin at the site was too small. After another small, local bookstore failed to make a sufficient profit, the Los Angeles campus opted to operate the bookstore on its own. A loss of $32,600 was reported in 1999- 00; and in 2000-01, the loss was $47,715. The University cannot continue to sustain losses of this magnitude so a student field-study team from the MAOM Program reviewed Bookstore operations during Winter 2001. Based upon this comprehensive review, it has been determined that the Bookstore can break even at the very least, but more importantly has the potential of producing a profit of at least 25% after expenditures. During the 2001-02 year, the results of implementing the recommendations of the field-study team will be seen, and the future of the Bookstore determined. The Santa Barbara campus has attempted for many years to provide course textbooks through local bookstores, most recently Borders, a national chain. The attempts have met with limited success; two bookstores were privately owned and went out of business, and the local Borders experienced a corporate downsizing that left them unable to staff the textbook operation. An earlier experience with providing texts through the Bookstore at the Los Angeles campus was unsatisfactory from a student service perspective, and the current Los Angeles campus Bookstore Page 71 65 operation is too small to accommodate ordering, book returns, and shipping that would be required to serve Santa Barbara campus students. In Summer 2001, the campus made the decision to accept the inevitable and contracted with a virtual bookstore, MBS Direct. The company offers the opportunity to order online and by a toll free telephone number, and provides new and used texts and a book buy-back option. In short, MBS Direct provides all the services of a complete on-site bookstore without the potential financial risks to the campus. Santa Barbara campus students have had few complaints regarding MBS Direct, and campus administrative offices find the staff at MBS Direct to be helpful and accommodating. Students who are in government supported education programs are able to charge their books for later billing by the campus Finance Office, and late text changes and additions are accommodated. All transactions are met with a great customer service attitude on the part of MBS Direct staff. The campus intends to continue using MBS Direct for the foreseeable future, especially as on- line and low-residency programs are added. Each AUSC campus has food and beverage vending machines that provide a variety of high quality and healthful food products to students on the campuses. These services are provided under contract with local vendors who supply and service the machines and routinely re- stock food products. Students appreciate these services, although periodic complaints are received regarding the kinds of foods provided and the freshness of some items. Revenue from vending machines is minimal and goes into the general operating budget at each campus. Evaluation of Support Services In general, support services available at the two campuses are of good quality as revealed in Student Satisfaction Surveys administered during the Winter 2002 Quarter; copies of these surveys are available in the campus Resource Rooms. With reductions in staff at the Los Angeles campus and the addition of new programs at the Santa Barbara campus, however, staffing levels are increasingly less than appropriate. Several offices need augmentation of staff, and staff salaries need to be reviewed for adequacy and competitiveness. With the implementation of the Datatel system, staff training has not keep pace with the need for learning about the capabilities of the system. Much time, effort, and energy has gone into making this system useable and efficient, and to date, these expenditures have not yielded the practical results that were expected. Additional training needs to be provided to produce these results. The student services area at the Los Angeles campus has been particularly impacted by the loss of personnel and the slowness with which these positions have been re-filled. A Registrar has been appointed as have several other staff positions. Now the functions and systems related to these areas can be revitalized, and high levels of service to students can be restored. The next major personnel requirement is the appointment of a Director of Admissions and Financial Aid. Page 72 66 The enrollment management strategy being implemented at each campus with the guidance of an external consultant offers much potential for increasing student enrollments, and progress in this area needs to be monitored and documented. This is particularly the case at the Los Angeles campus where a new Director of Admission and Financial Aid position was created; the effectiveness of this approach should be reviewed periodically. The re-organized human resources area offers some cost reduction and appears to be a viable method for handling personnel and benefits issues at the two campuses. This system will be reviewed periodically for effectiveness, and changes will be made as necessary. Academic computing at the two campuses has increased over the last several years and is currently at a level that serves most, but not all, the needs of students and faculty. As technological advances occur and more online teaching resources become available, additional resources will need to be committed to instructional computing, and a plan for these developments should be created. The new arrangement for providing computer support at the Los Angeles campus also will require monitoring to ensure effective system administration. The profit margin at the Los Angeles campus Bookstore should be monitored closely and steps taken to ensure that operating losses do not continue to occur. It is possible that this service is too expensive to operate on campus and that an online service provider should be sought, similar to what is done at the Santa Barbara campus. The alumni area also is an area that needs attention at the Los Angeles campus. Various approaches to this issue have been attempted with limited success. The successful Santa Barbara campus approach to this area has not been tried, and this approach may be worthy of consideration. Finally, AUSC believes the current system of allocating federal financial aid within the University should be reviewed and a more equitable system developed and implemented. This is the only way that adult campuses can receive their fair share of financial aid resources and be able to compete effectively for students in today’s highly competitive environment. V. HUMAN RESOURCES This section of the Self-Study Report examines and evaluates issues related to specific campus constituencies – students, faculty, and staff. A. Students Enrollment at each campus has been maintained or grown over the years since the last NCA visit. The Los Angeles campus has seen a decrease in two of its programs (the BA and MACP Programs), relative stability in two of its programs (MAIC and MAOM Programs), and growth in its new programs (MFA and MAE Programs). The Santa Barbara campus has grown slowly, but steadily, over the past 10 years. This growth has been possible because all programs except Page 73 67 the MACP Program have grown and the MAE Program has been added to the curriculum. Data regarding enrollment at the two campuses are available in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 which are available in the campus Resource Rooms. The student body at the two campuses remains predominately white, middle class, and female. While the campuses continue to serve an adult student population, the number of younger students has increased so that the average age of a typical student at the campuses is around 36, down from around 38 in the early 1990s. Female students still represent the largest group on the campuses with approximately 75% of the student body being female as of Fall 2000. Minority populations have nearly doubled over the years with approximately 23% of the Los Angeles campus being persons of color in Fall 2000 as compared to about 12% in the early 1990s. Santa Barbara campus minority enrollment has increased from about 10% to 18% during the same period. The international student body has fluctuated. In Fall 1992, a total of nine students were on F-1 student visas at the Los Angeles campus. In Fall 2001, there were a total of four students on the same visa. During the same period, the Santa Barbara campus had five and fifteen students, respectively, on F-1 visas. Evaluation of Student-Related Issues As witnessed in recent student satisfaction and alumni surveys, students are generally very pleased with their experiences at each campus, although several issues related to students recur. First, each campus attempts to recruit more male students, but with only nominal success. Because men are a minority on each AUSC campus, they periodically report feeling isolated and bothered by the stereotypes that they purportedly represent. Second, the campuses attempt to recruit more persons of color to the programs, but these efforts have been marginally successful, even though the percentage of minority students has increased over the years. If the campuses are to realize their goal of providing a truly multicultural educational experience for students, additional persons of color need to be attracted to the campuses. Third, students expect more from the campuses in terms of career planning and placement. Neither campus can afford such a function, but students regularly request this service. Fourth, each campus has struggled to involve students in the governance of the campus, and many of these efforts have been unsuccessful. The creation of the Santa Barbara campus Student Council has been a pleasant departure from this pattern. Fifth, the development of an alumni function at each of the campuses has been sporadic and marginally successful, although the Santa Barbara campus has recently established an Alumni Association. Finally, students routinely complain about the temperature in classrooms and parking problems. Classroom temperatures fluctuate markedly because each campus is housed in office space that is not designed to accommodate large numbers of people in one area – body heat raises the temperature in the classrooms and the air conditioning system cannot make suitable adjustments quickly. Parking also is a problem, particularly during the day, because building lease arrangements do not provide sufficient numbers of parking space for student, faculty, and staff use. The Los Angeles campus requires faculty and staff to park on Page 74 68 surrounding streets to accommodate students parking in the lot adjacent to the building and periodically has provided valet parking for students at peak hours. The Santa Barbara campus leases space in conveniently located parking lots close to the University for student use. All of these measures are adequate, but they are not sufficient to quell student complaints, and room temperature and parking will likely be issues continually needing to be addressed given the campus locations and facilities. B. Faculty Since 1996, a voluntary system of faculty rank has been in effect at the Los Angeles campus, for those faculty who have felt it necessary to be able to use traditional rank designations in external environments. Three Core Faculty members have availed themselves of the process to achieve the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor. The Core Faculty at the Santa Barbara campus decided very consciously not to participate in the rank plan. Despite the rank system, three faculty designations currently are in use at both campuses: Core, Associate, and Adjunct. In general, AUSC Core Faculty do not support a rank system because they do not view it as consistent with Antioch’s ideals. Core faculty responsibilities include teaching, advising, and a variety of administrative tasks, as well as community service and professional development. Individualized job descriptions, negotiated each year with the Program Chair and approved by the Academic Dean, allow for differences among Core Faculty in emphases and responsibilities. All Core Faculty attend weekly or bi-weekly department and monthly all-faculty meetings, attend quarterly Community Meetings at the Los Angeles campus and Faculty/Staff Meetings at the Santa Barbara campus, and participate on campus committees. Core Faculty receive annual contracts (from half-time to full-time). In general, a full-time Core Faculty currently advises up to 40 to 45 individual students and teaches one to two courses per quarter. Core Faculty duties and workloads vary from program to program and vary annually based on the individualized job description negotiated for the year. Since the last NCA visit, Core Faculty have been successful in creating new programs — the MFA Program, the MAE Program, and the CHE Program. They also have been very successful in augmenting the existing curriculum through the development of new concentrations that are aimed at meeting the needs of the community. (See program descriptions above.) Since the last NCA visit, Core Faculty life has improved in some respects. Quarter-long sabbatical leaves every fourth year have been provided on a seniority-rotation model since 1990-91 at the Los Angeles campus and 1994-95 at the Santa Barbara campus. Some professional development funds have been available annually for conference attendance, association membership dues, journal subscriptions, and book purchases. Thanks to virtual (electronic) library databases (OCLC, ProQuest, and currently, OhioLINK) faculty have access to professional literature in their area. The campuses also provide letters of introduction for Core Faculty to local research libraries so that Visiting Faculty library privileges are granted. Salaries have increased since 1993, but these increases have not been Page 75 69 sufficient to maintain faculty salaries at levels consistent with comparable institutions in Southern California. Associate Faculty are hired on a quarterly or yearly basis, work less than half-time, and work responsibilities vary. Some are hired for short-term work, typically when a Core Faculty member goes on sabbatical leave, and have limited duties such as conducting information meetings and admissions interviews. Others are hired for longer periods and also advise students, teach, attend regular faculty meetings, and participate in committee work. Adjunct Faculty are hired on a quarter-by-quarter basis to teach specific courses as needed. The pool from which to hire Adjunct Faculty is large in the Southern California area so preference in hiring Adjunct Faculty has generally been given to individuals with a strong capacity to relate to adult students, experience as practitioners, and activity within the community rather than to those with primary interests in academic research. Many are rehired regularly and demonstrate long-term commitment to AUSC’s mission and purpose. All-program Adjunct Faculty meetings are conducted three times a year at the Santa Barbara campus, and at the Los Angeles campus, programs conduct regular meetings for Adjunct Faculty. Additional meetings are held by some programs to address program-specific needs. The composition of the AUSC faculty by category of employment as of Fall 2001 is provided in Table 3-3, and the gender and ethnic make-up of the faculty by employment category as of Fall 2001 is provided in Table 3-4. In addition, terminal and professional degrees and/or certificates/credentials held by AUSC faculty by employment category as of Fall 2001 are presented in Table 3-5. The faculty offered one hundred-eighty different classes, seminars, and workshops during the Fall 2001 Quarter ( Los Angeles campus : 121 and Santa Barbara campus : 59). Faculty rosters, resumes, and Schedules of Classes are available in the campus Resource Rooms. Antioch faculty also distinguish themselves via professional publications, presentations at conferences, and consultation or other forms of community service. Faculty accomplishments are chronicled in the annual Indicators of Progress Report . Copies of these documents and resumes for all faculty are available for review in the campus Resource Rooms. Table 3-3. AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001) Employment Category Los Angeles Campus Santa Barbara Campus AUSC Core Faculty Full-Time 17 8 25 > Full-Time 4 3 7 Associate Faculty 3 2 5 Adjunct Faculty 73 48 121 Total 97 61 158 Page 76 70 Table 3-4. Gender and Ethnicity of Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001) Unit Gender Ethnicity Los Angeles Campus Core Faculty 15 female/6 male 17 white/4 POC* Associate Faculty 3 female/0male 3 white/ 0 POC Adjunct Faculty 37 female/34 male/ 2 unknown 61 white/ 6 POC/ 6 unknown Santa Barbara Campus Core Faculty 6 female/5 male 10 white/1 POC* Associate Faculty 1 female/1 male 1 white/1 POC Adjunct Faculty 28 female/20 male 40 white/8 POC Total Core Faculty 21 female/11male 27 white/5 POC Associate Faculty 4 female/1 male 4 white/1 POC Adjunct Faculty 65 female/54 male/ 2 unknown 101 white/14 POC/ 6 unknown *Person(s) of color (POC) Table 3-5. Terminal and Professional Degrees/Credentials Held by AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001) Unit Terminal Degree Professional Degree/Credential Los Angeles Campus Core Faculty 14 14 Associate Faculty 0 2 Adjunct Faculty 57 53 Santa Barbara Campus Core Faculty 8 3 Associate Faculty 1 1 Adjunct Faculty 15 33 Total Core Faculty 22 17 Associate Faculty 1 3 Adjunct Faculty 72 86 Page 77 71 Evaluation of Faculty-Related Issues AUSC considers its faculty to be one of its greatest strengths. They serve competently as teachers, advisors, administrators, and socially responsible members of many distinct communities. Many faculty members demonstrate strong commitment to the institution and its values even though there is no tenure system and most faculty have elected not to participate in a rank system (except for a limited number of Core Faculty at the Los Angeles campus). Faculty commitment to AUSC is indicated by their many years of loyal service and devotion to students. They enjoy the small classes and the opportunity to teach and learn from adult students. The retention rate among all faculty is very high, especially among Core Faculty, and there is a strong sense of commitment to the Antioch educational mission and a shared sense of identity. Organizational issues in the academic area have been a major concern of Core Faculty at the Santa Barbara campus for many years and for the Los Angeles Core Faculty since1999 when Dean Alexandre left her position. Academic program coordination and Core Faculty morale have suffered at the Los Angeles campus because of a nearly 2-year hiatus in filling the Academic Dean position. These conditions occurred despite the very real efforts of former President Schulman to bolster the academic area during this period. Since August 2001, Dean Moody has taken definitive steps to address these issues, and progress on many fronts has been made. A major issue addressed by the Santa Barbara campus Core Faculty since the NCA visit is academic reorganization. Until about 5 years ago, the lack of an on-site Academic Dean and the isolation of clusters of faculty behind program walls resulted in an extremely inefficient model coupled with limited resources, including inadequate academic staff support. In repeated inter-program faculty meetings, the need for reorganization was thoroughly discussed, and the faculty’s views communicated to campus and Regional leadership. Resulting changes include: the selection by the faculty of an inter-program Core Faculty representative to voice faculty perspectives on campus and Regional governance groups. An Associate Academic Dean for Santa Barbara also was appointed from the ranks of the faculty beginning on a part-time basis in 1996 and full-time in 1998-99. In addition, academic support services have been increased. And although it was decided to maintain the part of the existing model that assigns Core Faculty to one specific program, nevertheless the faculty identify themselves as both program-specific and as members of one “full faculty” that meets at least once a month to discuss issues that transcend program boundaries. Faculty staffing issues need to be addressed because the number of Core Faculty has not increased appreciably since the last NCA visit, although many programs have grown in size and complexity. As a result, the Core Faculty note the increase in advising and other administrative responsibilities that contribute to an air of over taxation. There also is a lack of uniformity among the programs in terms of equality of faculty/student ratios, teaching loads, advising loads, and program administrative work. Even though programs are different, more standardization of workload expectations is necessary. The impact of these issues has been most strongly felt in the MFA Program where additional Core Faculty are sorely needed. Page 78 72 Although members of the Adjunct Faculty are fairly diverse at each campus, AUSC has not been successful in increasing or maintaining diversity among its Core Faculty. For example, in 1996-97, there was a need to curtail Core Faculty positions. The approach taken to institute this reduction was a “last-hired first-fired” philosophy, and the two positions lost were both held by persons of color. In addition, leadership positions seem to be held by predominately white Core Faculty. Other aspects of diversity (e.g., women and gay/lesbian) are represented, which are valued. But given the population AUSC serves and its mission, it also is important to employ a Core Faculty that represents a full-range of ethnic diversity. Opportunities will exist to achieve this goal as many Core Faculty reach retirement age in the next several years, and additional persons of color may be hired into the faculty ranks. Lack of resources continues to be the major obstacle not only to change in academic systems, but also to improvement in the quality of faculty life. These concerns were expressed in the institution’s 1993 Self-Study Report , and some progress has been made, but further progress is still needed in the following areas: • Administrative burnout remains a threat to Core Faculty. With a four-quarter calendar year, Core Faculty have little time to pursue creative intellectual work, to update syllabi with new scholarship, or simply to reinvigorate themselves. The implementation of mini-sabbatical leaves (3 months after every 3 years of service for all Core and Associate Faculty) has helped address this problem. Efforts need to be developed to revise the four-quarter calendar so that Core and Associate Faculty teach three of four quarters. Additional faculty have been hired as new programs have been developed, but this has not yet alleviated the heavy advising and general administrative workload. • Although both Core and Adjunct Faculty salaries have improved since the last NCA visit, neither have kept pace with the market. Although talented faculty, new and old, find it rewarding to teach at AUSC campuses, hiring and retaining qualified faculty continues to be a time-consuming process for all Program Chairs. In addition, many Core Faculty feel forced to work beyond normal loads to compensate for salaries that have not increased consistently or sufficiently. • The mixed Core/Adjunct Faculty model AUSC uses is effective in many ways and provides both for stability via a strong Core Faculty presence and increased diversity (both ethnic and professional) via a larger Adjunct Faculty. But the institution continues to struggle with integrating Adjunct Faculty into the institution both in terms of governance and faculty development efforts. Regular Core/Adjunct Faculty luncheons and program-specific meetings (e.g., on assessment and writing) have helped, but more progress is needed. • Clerical support for Program Chairs remains inadequate, although the Program Coordinator structure at the Los Angeles campus attempts to address this issue. Similarly at the Santa Barbara campus, an increase in Academic Services Office staff and re-organization of that area by the Santa Barbara Academic Dean as of July 2001 are expected to improve this situation. Page 79 73 C. Staff AUSC considers its staff to be one of its essential assets. They serve competently to provide students and faculty with quality service and maintain the essential records of the institution. Many staff members demonstrate strong commitment to the institution and its values even though workloads often are heavy and salaries are not as competitive as they should be. Staff commitment to AUSC is indicated by their many years of loyal service and devotion to students. One staff member at the Los Angeles campus has enjoyed nearly 30 years of service in numerous capacities. The retention rate among staff has traditionally been high, especially among those at the Santa Barbara campus; this has changed some at the Los Angeles campus in recent years, where turn over rates have been increasing. There is a strong sense of commitment among staff to the Antioch educational mission and a shared sense of responsibility for providing quality services to students. AUSC staff work based on job descriptions that have been developed by the appropriate supervisor, recommended by the appropriate Dean, and approved by the Regional Human Resources Team. A system for re-classifying positions exists when job responsibilities change substantially, and twice a year, requests for re-classification are considered by the Regional Human Resources Team. A Human Resources Handbook provides details of the terms of employment and fringe benefits as well as general policies. The handbook is updated annually, and a copy of the Human Resources Handbook is available in the campus Resource Rooms. The work-week for staff is 35 hours, and staff working conditions are generally viewed as good. Relationships between and among other staff and faculty are congenial and professional. Staff participate actively in campus governance by serving on various councils and committees, and their views are sought in the decision-making processes of the campuses and the Region. Monthly Committee Meetings also are conducted where all members of the campus community may voice views on issues of interest and concern. Since the last NCA visit, the quality of life for staff has improved in some respects. Flexible work hours are possible with the approval of the appropriate supervisor, and all staff members are encouraged to take accrued vacation so that they obtain regular periods of rejuvenation. Some professional developments funds are available for staff to attend training sessions and conferences related to their area of service to the institution, although these funds have been in short supply during the last several years. Staff salaries also have increased over the last 10 years, but these increases have not been sufficient, and staff salaries need to be improved. Organizational issues have been a major concern of staff at the Los Angeles campus since 1997, and led to the initiation of a team approach to addressing issues on campus. Several cross-program teams were formed to address issues as they arose and to produce solutions that emerged from staff themselves, rather than from administration. Former President Schulman supported the efforts of staff, but the results of this experiment were mixed. Some staff became disillusioned, and others left the institution for other positions. Page 80 74 Staff at the Santa Barbara campus, in general, are viewed as dedicated, competent individuals who expend much time and energy to serve the needs of students. Turn over among staff is low: three of the twenty-one staff members have been at the institution for over 10 years; seven individuals have been employed for 5 years or more; and three have celebrated their third year at the Santa Barbara campus. Of the remaining positions, six have been added in the past 3 years. New employees are easily integrated into the team culture and quickly embrace the values of the organization. There is the sense that, despite inevitable conflicts and disagreements, staff and administrators understand that the goal of stable enrollment is directly fostered by attitudes and efforts of staff. The composition of the AUSC staff and administration by category of employment as of Fall 2001 is provided in Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 provides data as of Fall 2001 regarding the gender and ethnicity of AUSC staff and administration by employment category. Evaluation of Staff-Related Issues As has been stated previously, current fiscal resources are sufficient to support basic operations, but leave very little room to address issues that are of importance to staff. Among these are the following: 1. Salaries need to be improved. In virtually every category, Antioch staff have fallen behind with regard to comparable institutions and the local employment market. A thorough and thoughtful process, over a period of several years, needs to be initiated, probably with the assistance of an outside consultant who may be seen as unbiased. 2. Staff and Administrator workloads are considered to be excessive by most employees. Lack of resources to add staff to existing offices as new programs have been developed is a common complaint. Although some new staff have been hired, these employees have been hired primarily to support new programs and so have not lessened the workload of existing operations. 3. Lack of sufficient technology support has been arguably the primary cause of staff workload increases. Conventional wisdom holds that technology improvements increase employee productivity, but AUSC has discovered that lack of staff to support technology as it is implemented goes against that convention. The major area of discontent (particularly at the Santa Barbara campus) is the absence of technical expertise to train new employees, solve problems as they arise, and fully implement the many features of the Datatel software. 4. Another technology issue is hardware/software compatibility. Several departments operate with workstations that are incompatible so that the sharing of files and databases is impossible. Other offices have workstations that are inadequate for their required activities. Across the board, software must be upgraded to the same version. Page 81 75 Table 3-6. FTE AUSC Staff and Administration by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001) Employment Category Region Los Angeles Campus Santa Barbara Campus AUSC Administration 2.00 3.50 4.00 9.50 Administrative Associate 4.00 6.00 7.25 17.25 Non-Union Staff 0.00 14.71 6.75 21.46 Total 6.00 24.21 18.00 48.21 Table 3-7. Gender and Ethnicity of Staff and Administration by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001) Unit Gender Ethnicity Region Administrators 0 female/2 male 1 white/1 POC* Administrative Associates 2 female/ 2 male 3 white/1 POC* Non-union Staff 0 0 Los Angeles Campus Administrators 2 female/2 male 3 white/1 POC* Administrative Associates 3 female/3 male 5 white/1 POC* Non-union Staff 12 female/3 male 4 white/11 POC* Santa Barbara Campus Administrators 4 female/0 male 3 white/1 POC* Administrative Associates 7 female/1 male 6 white/2 POC* Non-union Staff 5 female/3 male 6 white/2 POC* Total Administrators 6 female/4 male 7 white/3 POC* Administrative Associates 12 female/6 male 14 white/4 POC* Non-union Staff 17 female/6 male 10 white/13 POC* *Person(s) of Color (POC) 5. Although most employees are moderately satisfied with the level of fringe benefits offered by the University, many are very unhappy with the third party administrator (TPA) that the University has retained to administer the self-funded plan. After several years of complaints, however, University Administration moved to a new TPA effective January 2002, and whether this resolves these issues remains to be seen. Page 82 76 6. Opportunities for professional staff development are barely adequate at each campus. Student services directors attend their professional conferences, usually on a yearly basis, but limited funds exist to permit other staff to attend conferences regularly. Datatel training in San Francisco and Yellow Springs has been provided on an as needed basis to new employees. AUSC also provides tuition remission benefits to employees who wish to enroll in any one of the institution’s academic programs, and a significant number of employees have done so over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, no professional development plan exists, and such a plan should be developed and funded. In addition, human resources staffing is inadequate at Santa Barbara campus. The previous configuration with a Regional Director of Human Resources was not satisfactory because the position was based at the Los Angeles campus and the person was seen as inaccessible. Staff at the Santa Barbara campus desire a human resources professional, at least half-time, based in Santa Barbara who would be a resource to help resolve insurance issues, conduct in- service training, and be an advocate for staff issues. Page 83 77 Chapter 4. Criterion Three “The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.” AUSC indeed continues to accomplish its educational purposes. In the broadest of terms, the institution established for itself in the early 1990s the goal of achieving Wolff and Harris’ often mentioned shibboleth of moving from a “culture of conversation” regarding assessment to a “culture of evidence.” [Ralph A. Wolff and Olita D. Harris, “Using Assessment to Develop a Culture of Evidence,” Changing College Classrooms , Diane F. Halpern and Associates, editors (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994), pp. 271-88.] The path to achieving this goal has been neither easy, nor direct, but AUSC campuses have made substantial progress in obtaining this goal. Progress has been slower than desired, but it has been steady, persistent, and systematic at each campus. Issues related to fiscal and human resources have been addressed and accommodated on many occasions so that the assessment efforts of the campus could move forward. Each campus is in a better place today regarding assessment than it was in 1993, and great pride is taken in the progress that has been made. Today, the objectives of each program are well grounded in both the AUSC Mission Statement and each Program Mission Statement. The concept of identifying specific learning outcomes and devising mechanisms for measuring these outcomes has become a part of the culture of each campus, even though resources have not always been available to press the measurement of outcomes as far as faculty would like. What is learned from the measurement devices is then used by program faculty to modify and strengthen the curriculum so that the gap between anticipated results and actual results is narrowed. As identified later in this chapter, a clear and well-defined Assessment Plan is understood and used by faculty to assess student progress and to inform programmatic amelioration of curricular shortcomings. Assessment efforts are coordinated through the assessment bodies at each campus and are led by the respective Academic Dean. The Los Angeles Assessment Task Force was instituted in 1994 and is composed of faculty representatives from each program. This Task Force meets regularly with the Academic Dean and provides cross-program leadership to assessment efforts at the Los Angeles campus. A portion of a Core Faculty member’s job description also is devoted to assessment efforts, and this person Chairs the Task Force. At the Santa Barbara campus, the Assessment Task Force composed of faculty from each program meets with the Academic Dean for discussion of assessment issues and implementation strategies. With the appointment of a full-time Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus in 1998-99, the Task Force has met more regularly than in the past and has played a critical role in moving forward the assessment efforts of the campus. By incorporating the responsibility for assessment leadership into the job descriptions of the Academic Deans, assessment awareness has been raised at each campus and has become a routine part of what the Academic Deans and the faculty do in fulfilling their responsibilities at the institution. The assessment efforts of the two campuses have moved forward successfully, despite constrained resources at each campus and some shortage of academic leadership. More remains to be accomplished, but significant progress has occurred since the Page 84 78 1993 NCA visit. A “culture of evidence” has slowly, but steadily, developed at the two campuses. AUSC is committed to a continuing and serious discussion of issues related to the assessment of students and programs, and considerable time, energy, and fiscal resources have been devoted to this effort since the 1993 NCA visit. These efforts have been modestly successful. The two campuses are committed to further efforts in the future and have developed a multi-year plan for the improvement of student and program assessment activities. The remainder of this chapter addresses the direct and indirect measures of student learning and the specific measures in place for the regular and timely assessment of programs. I. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING AND PROGRESS AUSC is replete with elements that enhance effective student learning and further student progress, such as small classes, faculty accessibility, innovative curricula, and feedback on learning activities through narrative evaluations. To assess student learning (in the traditional sense of acquisition of a specific body of knowledge) and student progress (with respect to change overtime from matriculation through graduation and beyond), all academic programs in the Region rely on direct and indirect methods of assessment. Direct methods refer to those that measure specific competencies; indirect methods refer to those that describe student competencies short of actually measuring them. Methods of direct assessment include evaluators’ assessments of learning, students’ learning analyses and summative evaluations, portfolios, and capstone projects and seminars, or graduate projects. Indirect methods of assessment include faculty quarterly and mid-program reviews of student progress, student/alumni surveys, student acceptance rates for internships and graduate programs, and employment outcomes. As a result of all of these efforts, there is substantial evidence that AUSC students are mastering the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of their respective programs. A. Direct Assessment of Student Learning and Progress Several aspects of direct assessment of student learning are common to all programs in the Region. In lieu of formal grades, student learning (class, internship, experiential work, etc.) is assessed through narrative evaluations. The knowledge and skills being assessed differ between classes and programs, but research papers, case studies, reflection papers, class presentations, and class performance generally form the basis of faculty evaluation of students. AUSC’s small, participatory classroom environment (average 10 to 15 students per class) enables Instructors to gauge student learning over the quarter. Many courses incorporate multiple assessment measures, such as term papers, oral presentations, group critiques, and examinations. The MACP Programs also utilize clinical transcript analysis and audio or video taped assignments. In some MACP classes, these methods are supplemented by clinical transcript analysis and/or by direct observation of student skill development in role-play or in actual therapy sessions. In addition, the MAE Program evaluates student Page 85 79 learning in relationship to learning objectives for each course and for the program. Both sets of learning objectives are listed on the narrative evaluation form, and faculty indicate the degree to which the objectives are met. Thus, the narrative evaluation is an effective assessment measure of content-based and skills learning in conjunction with other documentation. In all programs, the student’s faculty advisor reviews on a quarterly basis the narrative evaluations written for each learning activity. This provides the basis for the assessment of student progress in the program. All programs also have developed a systematic student review process through which faculty members assess student progress and growth over the course of their matriculation. Student progress is monitored closely by faculty teaching the courses as well as by faculty advisors and the Program Chairs. This systematic approach starts in the student’s first term at AUSC. As students enter the institution, they must meet with their faculty advisors to develop their specific learning goals and degree plans. (The exceptions to this are the MACP and MAE Programs where the curriculum is largely prescribed by state agencies.) Periodically throughout their enrollment, students meet with their advisors to ensure that their goals are being met and that the courses taken satisfy the degree plan. If faculty note unusual challenges for the student, or determines the need for intervention, she/he may suggest remediation activities, limit student load in subsequent quarters, or recommend probation. If further intervention is necessary, Program Faculty Meetings provide an outlet for further examination and determination of a course of action. Information from the student review process is then looped back into curriculum discussions held at Program and All-Faculty Meetings. Often issues also are discussed with appropriate student services staff as well. Customarily, it is from these discussions that faculty in a program are motivated to modify the curriculum in response to identified student needs. In the BA Programs, during the first quarter of residency, the student must obtain approval of a degree plan, specifying what will be included in the degree. Faculty advisors regularly monitor degree plans during the course of the student’s progress through the program. At each campus, during the last quarter of BA Program residency, a candidacy review takes place, when the student presents all course evaluations. Careful review is done to ensure that the initial degree plan has been fulfilled and that any variations have been properly documented. At each campus in the MAE Programs, students also compile portfolios containing documentation of student learning, and acquisition and development of essential teaching skills (e.g., lesson plans, reflections on teaching, and statements regarding philosophy of education). Faculty review portfolios to ensure that students have acquired requisite academic knowledge and practical skills. In addition to direct assessment methods that are common to all programs, unique program approaches also exist at AUSC campuses. For example, because mathematics and writing competencies are a stated Program Objective (desired outcome) of the BA Program liberal arts curriculum, all entering students must take a math skills evaluation, and based on this evaluation, students are placed into appropriate level courses. Students’ successful completion of necessary remediation requirements is examined during the advisor’s quarterly Page 86 80 review to assure development of college-level quantitative abilities. In addition, a writing assessment piloted in 1992-93 is now required of all entering undergraduate students. It assesses existent student skill-levels and is used for course remediation and placement purposes. In addition, pre- and post-test academic papers are being evaluated to determine the levels of student writing improvement. Writing and computer competencies also are assessed prior to entry in the MAOM and MAE Programs at the Los Angeles campus. In addition, the Santa Barbara campus BA and MACP Programs have experimented with a reading comprehension/writing skills test during the student’s first quarter of residency, although both programs were not satisfied with this approach and have turned their attention to in-class, ongoing demonstrations of writing competency. At each campus, students in the MAE Programs compile for faculty review portfolios documenting the development of essential knowledge and skills. In the Los Angeles campus MACP Program, all students must take and pass in the first quarter of residency a course that allows assessment of academic skills, clinical readiness, and capacity for multicultural sensitivity and awareness. Three additional courses must be passed before a student may enter clinical training in a field setting. Further evaluation of clinical skills takes place as students participate in clinical traineeships under supervision. The MACP Programs at each campus require clinical supervisors to provide narrative evaluations of students’ clinical performance and learning. Capstone assessment instruments have long been present in each campus’ MAOM Programs. The MAOM Program capstone experience has been a Practicum Project at the Santa Barbara campus since the program’s inception, and the Los Angeles campus shifted from a traditional thesis to a team-based field study Practicum Project in 1997. Similarly, the MAE Programs require an Integrative Thesis Project. Several other academic programs also have recently added capstone courses or experiences for their students. These include the MFA Program at the Los Angeles campus and the BA and MACP Programs at the Santa Barbara campus. Whatever the format, this capstone experience is designed to be an integrative educational experience during the last quarter of residency and provides the context for summative assessment before the degree is granted. B. Indirect Assessment of Student Learning and Progress Common elements of indirect assessment of student learning and progress exist across all programs in the Region, and these include quarterly reviews, advising sessions, faculty discussion of individual cases of student performance, and surveys. During the spring of 2002, each campus administered comprehensive student satisfaction surveys, and several programs conducted surveys of alumni. The Los Angeles campus also completed a faculty advisement survey. In addition, the following program specific efforts may be sited. Several recent surveys have provided a method of indirect assessment of student progress. At the Los Angeles campus, the MACP Program conducted a systematic assessment, from 1999 through 2001, of graduating students’ perceptions of how fully the program mission and Page 87 81 broad educational objectives were being achieved. As a result of the information gathered through exit interviews with last-quarter students, the faculty determined that educational aims were being carried out most effectively in the multicultural/diversity realm and clinical skill development. Feedback about other program aims was more mixed, prompting faculty review of program elements and the institutionalization of new educational components. This work is still in process. The Los Angeles campus BA Program also has done extensive surveying of its student population. In 1996, a survey of alumni of the program between 1973 and 1995 was conducted to determine best/worst aspects of the BA program and to discover the degree of influence the program had on the student’s personal, professional, and civic life. In 1998, another research project was undertaken to determine BA Program attrition and retention by analyzing enrollment and completion patterns of students enrolled between Fall 1992 and Winter 1998. Several longitudinal studies of BA student math/ writing development, emotional development, and perspective taking also have been completed. The findings of each of these studies, as well as others, prompted programmatic changes, and these reports are available in the Los Angles campus Resource Room. At the Santa Barbara campus, a 2000-01 MACP Program survey of clinical trainees revealed learning outcomes from the experience and satisfaction with the traineeship. Also in 2000- 01, the MACP Program surveyed alumni regarding how well the program prepared them for career opportunities. All survey instruments, the resulting reports that were written, and a record of programmatic changes resulting from these surveys are available in the Santa Barbara campus Resource Room. In addition, through formal and informal surveys, it is clear that many AUSC BA Program graduates enroll in graduate school and doctoral studies after program completion. Based on this information, it can be stated that BA Program graduates have been admitted to Harvard University, Columbia University, Claremont Graduate University, Smith College, the University of California (Berkley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Irvine), the University of Southern California, the California State Universities, California School of Professional Psychology, the University of Chicago, and the University of Minnesota. This record speaks to the successful preparation of students for graduate study by the Region’s BA Programs. Many graduates of the MACP Programs at the two campuses desire to become licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs) and opt to acquire the 3,000 hours of post-M.A. degree, supervised clinical experience necessary to take the two-part California examination to qualify for licensure. AUSC graduates have historically done well on these tests as documented informally. Since 1999, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences has published data on pass rates for the written and oral licensing examination for graduates of California institutions. Compared to other schools, AUSC student pass rate percentages are among the highest scores in the state. For example, on the July 2001 written examination, 66% (25 of 38) of first-time tests takers from the Los Angeles campus passed the examination, and 83% (5 of 6) of first time test takers from the Santa Barbara campus passed the examination. Complete data regarding the performance of AUSC graduates on California Page 88 82 MFT examinations are available in the campus Resource Rooms and at http://www.bbs.ca.gov/exminf-2 .htm . Many MACP Program graduates from the two campuses also continue their study in doctoral programs. MACP Program students have been admitted to the University of Southern California, the University of California at Los Angeles, the California School of Professional Psychology, and other well-recognized doctoral programs. Other students have been admitted to a range of other traditional and nontraditional schools for doctoral study including U. S. International University, Robert F. Kennedy University, Saybrook Institute, Fielding Institute, Pacifica Graduate Institute, the Union Institute, and California Graduate Institute. Based on this measure, MACP Program graduates are well prepared to pursue doctoral study at numerous well-established institutions of higher learning. The Los Angeles campus MAOM Program maintains records of employment progress and doctoral level education of its students and alumni. Because the advisement process includes career and professional development guidance, the program faculty participate with both students and alumni in decisions about professional advancement. Although there is no formal placement office for students, the faculty and other students assist in finding employment opportunities. Faculty also counsel students in the choice of doctoral programs. At present, three Los Angeles campus MAOM students have received Ph.D. degrees, and three others are current enrolled in doctoral programs. For a small program, this is an outstanding record. Graduates of the MFA Program at the Los Angeles campus also have distinguished themselves in a number of ways that validate the success of the program. Two graduates of the program have achieved tenure and promotion in their teaching positions at California State University Northridge; one graduate has secured a tenure track position at Pasadena City College; another graduate has secured a tenure track position at an Oregon community college; and several other graduates are working as Adjunct Faculty at colleges/universities in the Los Angeles area. Two graduates are teaching at the Los Angeles campus, and one current student in working as a tutor in the Math and Writing Center. Two graduates also have negotiated book contracts with major publishers, and many graduates and current students have published fiction, poetry, and creative nonfiction in magazines and journals. One current student publishes a poetry magazine, 4 th Street , and she has produced six issues to date. Two graduates have been accepted into Ph.D. programs to further their educational aspirations. In addition, two graduates and one current student are working for the Community Humanities Education Program sponsored by the BA Program at the Los Angeles campus. MFA graduates and current students also have used their Field Study requirement to establish professional positions: two graduates host their own public radio interview programs; one alumna has her own column in an alternate health care magazine; one graduate developed a web site on African-American history which he sold to a commercial publisher; one student interned with a literary agent; and several students have directed online conferences as part of their interest in gaining online teaching experience. Page 89 83 Although the MAE Programs are relatively new, many students have successfully earned a California State Multiple Subject Teaching Credential with the Cross-Cultural, Learning, and Academic Development (CLAD) emphasis after the first four quarters in the Program. All students who have taken the examination have passed the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) test to qualify for a teaching credential. Thus far, twenty-seven students have completed the Teaching Credential requirements at the Santa Barbara campus and fifteen at the Los Angeles campus. In addition, while no students have yet completed the entire MAE degree program at the Santa Barbara campus, eight students received their MAE degrees at the Los Angeles campus in June 2000. Many of students also have obtained teaching positions in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara/Ventura areas –sixteen from the Santa Barbara campus and fourteen from the Los Angeles campus. Evaluation of Assessment of Student Learning and Progress Since the last NCA visit, AUSC campuses have made significant progress in refining and implementing appropriate measures of student learning and progress in the programs. The faculty has taken seriously the task of reviewing and evaluating existing student measures and designing and implementing additional measures, and this has not been done without considerable effort on the part of many people. Fiscal resources often have been scarce, and insufficient personnel have been available to accomplish all that has needed to be done. But in the face of these obstacles, progress has been made in advancing the student assessment component of all programs within the Region. Because narrative evaluations document student learning, much discussion has focused on improving this assessment instrument. The narrative evaluation forms for both undergraduate and graduate programs have been reviewed with an eye to improving their usefulness as a direct assessment instrument, and refinements to these forms have been introduced. One major concern also is tying the evaluation to the Program Mission Statement and to Program Objectives. This concern prompted the introduction of the End of the Quarter Evaluation Form for assessing the connection between Program Objectives and the content and methods explored in the course. This form evaluates faculty performance and course content and methods, and is now in use in the MAE Programs. All programs are concerned about the quality of narrative evaluations and “narrative inflation,” especially by a predominately Adjunct Faculty. Inherent vulnerability exists in a time-consuming evaluation system that requires extensive training of Adjunct Faculty in order for them adequately to assess student learning and progress. Some training has been done at ABFAB meetings at the Los Angeles campus in the BA Program and at Adjunct Faculty Meetings at the Santa Barbara campus. The Los Angeles MACP Program has developed extensive written material educating Adjunct Faculty on effective use of the narrative evaluation form, with sample evaluations illustrating how good and less good student progress may be described. The Los Angeles campus MAOM Program also provides individual training to Adjunct Faculty and supplies model narrative evaluations for review. In the MFA Program, faculty are trained in writing narrative evaluations both in initial training sessions for new faculty and as part of on-going faculty training during residency Page 90 84 faculty meetings. More systematic training of Adjunct Faculty in the critical function of writing narrative evaluations, however, may be necessary. Several programs use the mid-quarter student conference to great advantage so that faculty and students each know the progress that is being made toward graduation. In recent years, this practice has been discontinued in some programs because of excessive workloads. Efforts should be undertaken to re-instate, or begin, the mid-quarter review in all programs. In terms of indirect assessment of student progress, concerns exist with the advising process in some programs. Student enrollment numbers coupled with reductions of faculty in some programs has resulted in high student-to-faculty ratios in some programs (sometimes approaching 50:1). Within this context, not all Core Faculty members are equally as diligent in their reviews and advising sessions, and efforts have been made to provide further training to these faculty members and/or to assign duties that are more appropriate to their aptitudes and interests. AUSC views insufficient and inconsistent fiscal resources as the primary impediment to furthering student assessment efforts. In some years, modest funds are available for supporting analysis of direct student measures and implementing survey instruments for indirect measures. In other years, no resources are available, and efforts are put on hold until resources again are available. This creates a situation of uncertainty regarding assessment of student learning and program effectiveness. Another central issue related to advancing AUSC’s student assessment efforts is the availability of trained personnel to assist with construction of assessment instruments and interpretation of resulting data. The Los Angeles campus has committed some funds for hiring such a person in some years (e.g., 1995 to 1997), and in 2001-02, a Core Faculty appointment was made with assessment as a central component of the job description. This appointment in conjunction with the appointment of an Academic Dean supportive of assessment efforts should move the Los Angeles campus forward significantly during the next several years. The Santa Barbara campus also has suffered from lack of qualified personnel assistance in assessment, and most of the assessment success at the Santa Barbara campus has been the result of Core Faculty who possess training and skills in student assessment. AUSC will continue to explore assessment of student learning and progress and will, where necessary, incorporate new assessment mechanisms into existing systems. This is part of the overall Assessment Plan that is described in the following section. II. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AUSC’s approach to program assessment contains two primary elements – one external and one internal. The external component is a manifestation of the University-wide program review model, and the internal component is centered on the Region’s Assessment Plan. Page 91 85 Each of these components contributes to the ongoing assessment and strengthening of academic programs. A. University-Wide Program Review Model Since 1992-93, the Chancellor’s Office has coordinated reviews of all programs within the University, and AUSC has been involved in this process. A description of the entire process is included in the University Self-Study Report and will not be duplicated here. Suffice it to say, the peer review process is regular and rigorous, and includes faculty from several University campuses as well as faculty from other institutions. A document is prepared in advance by the program being reviewed, and following a 2 to 3 day visit to the campus, the program review team prepares a written report documenting the visit and offering suggestions for program improvement to the faculty and the Board of Trustees. This process has been effective in stimulating program improvement through the use of University-wide faculty review teams. Since the last NCA visit, all academic programs offered by the campuses have participated in the University-wide program review process. The schedule for these reviews is shown in Table 4-1. Program review documentation regarding each of these University-wide reviews is available in the campus Resource Rooms. Table 4-1. University-Wide Program Review Schedule Program Los Angeles Campus Santa Barbara Campus BA Program 1994 1994 MACP Program 1992 1992 MAIC Program 1992 1992 MAOM Program 1999 1999 MFA Program 2002 N/A MAE Program TBA TBA B. Program Assessment Plan Fundamental to a program Assessment Plan is a focus on activities that directly benefit the program and University by providing faculty and decision-makers with information to use in institutional improvement. A long-range plan to clarify and improve where existent, and construct where non-existent, the informal and formal links between the assessment of student learning and the improvement of educational programs was developed as part of the Region’s Self-Study Report in 1993, and this Assessment Plan subsequently has been refined and modified to reflect changing circumstances of the campuses. The development of AUSC’s Assessment Plan creates a clear link between the assessment of student learning and progress, and program improvement. The faculty of each program is Page 92 86 required regularly and routinely to reassess learning goals and desired outcomes for graduation based upon the institution’s Mission Statement and the Program Objectives of each of the institution’s academic offerings. Faculty are supported in their efforts to go beyond assessing individual student learning and progress to gathering evidence about the student population as a whole. Faculty then create mechanisms for translating their conclusions into program improvement. Where appropriate, the institution integrates these efforts into campus-wide initiatives that have broad impact on all instructional programs. The Assessment Plan and the mechanisms inherent in the plan are guided by Antioch’s mission and values. The Assessment Plan directs each academic program in the Region to review assessment practices and create (where necessary) innovative, effective assessment measures based on Program Mission Statements and Program Objectives. It also directs each academic program to design feedback mechanisms that provide ways to incorporate these assessment data into institutional communication patterns so that program decision-makers and other AUSC personnel may institute necessary programmatic changes. The Assessment Plan includes several ingredients: the assessment cycle, an assessment schedule, and a statement of desired outcomes and measurement techniques for each program in the Region. Collectively, this material forms the content of AUSC’s Assessment Plan. The assessment cycle (Figure 4-1) is based upon a model that describes the elements of effective program assessment practice and provides a flow chart for the plan’s implementation. The assessment cycle begins with the Mission Statements for the University as a whole and for AUSC specifically. (See Appendices A and B.) Program Mission Statements and Program Objectives are then operationalized, and measures and interpretative frameworks are developed for these objectives. Formal feedback mechanisms to the program and the campus are developed which, in turn, lead to an evaluation of Program Objectives and, possibly, to program improvement. Documentation related to each phase of the Assessment Plan for each program in the Region is available in the campus Resource Rooms. Based upon the assessment cycle presented in Figure 4-1, a multi-year schedule of program assessment activities has been developed for AUSC. (See Table 4-2.) Each year focuses on a critical step in the assessment cycle. During any particular year, all programs will be mandated to and supported in their efforts to satisfy the Assessment Plan’s annual objectives. Although each campus may implement the assessment schedule in slightly different ways, the basic schedule guides each campus in its assessment efforts. Critical to the success of AUSC’s Assessment Plan are programmatic statements of the desired outcomes of programs, the connection of program components to these outcomes, and measurement techniques that are used to determine if students achieve the desired outcomes. Each program in the Region has developed such statements, and these are presented in Appendix G. Page 93 87 Figure 4-1. AUSC Program Assessment Model Page 94 88 Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005) Academic Year Activities 2000-01 Begin New Assessment Cycle, Orientation, and Training •Reappoint campus Assessment Task Forces Each program will be represented. At least one member will have expertise in research and evaluation. •Determine needed training in and orientation to program assessment. •Familiarize faculty with selected assessment literature. •Develop a revised Program Assessment Plan including goals, tasks, timelines, and persons responsible for each outcome. 2001-02 Review and Recommend •Review current assessment practices and results. Each program will review current methods of assessing student learning, student progress, and program assessment. Each program will critique previous/current methods in terms of value and validity of results, implications for pedagogy/practice, and assessment methodology. •Make budget recommendations to achieve above goals. 2002-03 Report and Revise •Task Force monitors and discusses each program’s ongoing assessment activities: what has been learned, how faculty have used the information, and what are next steps. •Modify Assessment Plan based on feasibility and progress. Page 95 89 Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005) (cont.) 2002-03 (cont.) Report and Revise (cont.) •Develop and implement new assessment efforts (based on conclusions from review of previous efforts), including new or revised objectives, sampling, measurement, analysis, etc. Consider the value of ongoing (multiyear) repetitions of methods versus changing to new methods (and/or mixture of both). •Task force meets with all faculty to report on campus progress. •Articulate formal mechanisms for channeling assessment data to appropriate decision-making bodies within and across programs. 2003-04 Assessment Integration and Expansion •Use NCA Visitation Team Report to improve assessment efforts. •Seek patterns of methods and/or findings that might transcend programs and inform integrated assessment efforts, but retain program individuality in what best methodology is for that program. •Broaden assessment effort to include previously excluded areas (samples, measures, timing, evaluators, etc.) and thereby increase generalization of findings. •Task Force recommends other institutional research to be undertaken to collect information needed for fuller picture (e.g., data on admissions, enrollment, and retention; student services; and other areas). 2004-05 Additional Assessment Data Collection •Collect new institutional data as recommended in previous year. •Review progress and revise Plan as needed. Page 96 90 Evaluation of Program Assessment The Assessment Plan instituted in 1993 and refined/modified since that time has guided assessment of Regional academic programs. Faculty identify Program Objectives that reflect the Program’s Mission Statement. They operationalize these objectives, collect and analyze data on the program’s impact upon students, and then report the results. Subsequent discussion and interpretation of the results inform faculty decisions about clarification of program objectives, changes in teaching techniques and curriculum, modification of program components, and/or revisions of assessment methods. This cyclical model has become an integral part of the operation of each program in the Region. Since the last NCA visit, each academic program has held faculty meetings to review and implement the Assessment Plan. With the leadership of the respective Academic Dean, each campus has developed effective faculty-based groups for advancing the assessment efforts at the campus. These Assessment Task Forces have effectively led the campus assessment efforts. The programs at each campus differ in their progress regarding assessment and in the degree to which they have moved from a culture of conversation to a culture of evidence, but all programs have made progress in their assessment efforts since the last NCA visit. There is still a need for faculty released-time and more assessment resources to achieve the complete results of the Assessment Plan. But with continued support from faculty and renewed leadership from full-time Academic Deans at each campus, progress will continue relative to program assessment, and stronger academic programs will be the result. In the 1993 Self-Study Report , specific tasks were identified for each of the 5-years following the NCA visit, and an Assessment Update regarding the progress of these efforts was provided to NCA in January 1995. A summary of accomplishments related to the activities articulated in the Assessment Update is provided in program assessment folders that are available in the campus Resource Rooms. All material mentioned in the above evaluation also is available in the campus Resource Rooms. Page 97 91 Chapter 5. Criterion Four “The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness.” AUSC has a tradition of persistent and strong strategic planning that dates to the late 1980s. Within the context of University-wide goals and objectives, the Region has successfully charted its direction despite an ever-vacillating external economy, the uncertainties of enrollment, constrained fiscal resources, and personnel changes. Since the last NCA visit, many changes have occurred, but one constant element has been the persistence of solid and effective planning processes to guide the institution. The planning processes that have been in place during this period have effectively addressed issues related to the de-centralization of the University, program diversification, staff training, infusion of multicultural elements into academic programs, augmentation of facilities, and transitions in personnel. Capable administrative leadership coupled with strong faculty commitment to quality academic programs and staff determination to provide excellent student services has supported the institution through the turbulent 1990s and into the new millennium. These accomplishments are a tribute to the people involved as well as to the strategic planning mechanisms that have been in place during this period. What follows in the chapter is a description of the planning process that currently is in place and an identification of specific issues with which the institution will be grappling during the next 5 years. I. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING The institution’s strategic planning process was well established when former President Schulman assumed his duties in September 1998 so personnel at the campuses were familiar with the mechanisms involved. Following a period of review, the responsibility for Region planning shifted to the Strategic Planning Coordinating Team (SPCT). This approach to planning was the outgrowth of nearly a year of discussion regarding how to accomplish critical planning functions for the Region. In September 1999, the SPCT was appointed and included the following representatives from the two campuses: Mark Schulman, AUSC former President, Chair Chloe Reid, Interim President of AUSC and Los Angeles campus Executive Dean Ed Ogawa, Los Angeles campus Data Coordinator Robert Bowen, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty Eloise Klein Healy, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty Donna Starr, Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean Hymon Johnson, Santa Barbara campus Core Faculty Carol Flores, Santa Barbara campus Admissions Director Richard Loebl, Santa Barbara campus MAE Program Administrative Coordinator Page 98 92 During 1999-00, the SPCT met regularly to discuss the issues facing the Region and to determine a course of action. The meetings were characterized by open and vigorous discussion, out of which consensus around key issues began to develop. A draft of a Strategic Plan was developed and shared with all constituencies on the campuses. Vehicles for gaining involvement and support for the plan included numerous meetings with individuals and programs, and Community Meetings were held at each campus to discuss elements of the plan, solicit feedback, and gain support for the plan. In June 2000, the Board of Trustees approved the Region’s Strategic Plan, and this has been the guiding force conditioning decisions at the campuses. A copy of the AUSC Strategic Plan is provided in Appendix H. The Strategic Plan has been developed within the context of a clear vision of the future and a well-articulated Regional Mission Statement. Six major goals are specified in the plan to be accomplished over the next 5 years. In addition to key goals, detailed implementation strategies and action plans are identified with concomitant budget implications and effectiveness measures. Central elements of the plan include a strategy for securing permanent facilities for the campuses, an initiative for staff reorganization into self-directed and empowered teams, and a realization of faculty commitment to strengthen and diversify academic programs. With continued leadership from the SPCT, the Region’s capability to deal with the future is strong. Challenges will always exist relative to sufficient resources, enrollment uncertainty, staff turn-over and training, adequate facilities, and new program development, but the strategic planning process that is in place offers every indication that it is more than able to meet these challenges. This coupled with the dedication of the institution’s faculty and staff speaks well of the prospects for the future of AUSC. II. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND CONCERNS AUSC has consistently dealt effectively with issues as they have arisen in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Based on what is known currently, a series of issues will need to be addressed; these issues are identified and discussed in this section of the Self-Study Report . A. University-wide Organization In 1993-94, the de-centralization of many University functions began, and that process has largely been completed successfully. AUSC has assumed responsibility more directly for fiscal affairs, human resources, admissions, registrar functions, and financial aid and has implemented Datatel software to facilitate these efforts. In general, the campuses are satisfied with these developments, and staff take great pride in the additional responsibilities that have been assumed. Similar developments on other Antioch campuses have led to cross-campus functional groups to be formed, and these have been beneficial in creating a renewed sense of the University as a whole. Despite the real benefits that have resulted from de-centralization of University functions, concern exists currently that the fiscal resources that once flowed to the campuses to Page 99 93 accommodate the additional functions may slowly being eroded by actual or de facto increases in University overhead that is assessed to each campus. Annual operating deficits at Antioch College the last several years have required embargoing campus contingency funds to balance the overall budget of the University, and this procedure increases the effective overhead rate to campuses of the University. AUSC maintains that this approach to balancing the University’s budget must be examined and alternative methods developed to insure the long-term well-being of the adult campuses. AUSC also has been concerned about the larger issues of University leadership and organization. The appointment of James H. Craiglow as Interim Chancellor is a step toward stabilization within the University, and it is hoped that issues related to University leadership, policy development, governance, and fiscal stability may now be addressed creatively and effectively. B. Regional Issues Issues related to the relationship between the campuses and the role that the Region plays in resolving or exacerbating these issues have been present since the “shotgun wedding” that occurred in 1986. In general, relations between the campuses and the Region have improved with time, and genuine cooperation occurs between various entities and personnel. That is not to say that issues do not still exist. The current organizational structure has clarified authority relationships between the campuses and the Region, and more autonomy has been given to the campuses. The perennial issue of the parallelism of human resource policies and salary/fringe benefits has been resolved in favor of uniformity, although some local discretion is permitted. And the current Regional structure minimizes the number of Regional administrators – which reduces overhead and minimizes the number of people who must be “itinerant administrators.” The current structure focuses attention on the campuses where it rightfully belongs and permits more decisions to be made at the campus level by the Executive and Academic Deans. The benefits of Regional administration and services (e.g., leadership, efficiency, and shared resources) are experienced directly and frequently by most members of the campus communities. The strong ties and excellent communication between Regional officers (President and chief fiscal officer) and the Executive and Academic Deans at each campus also minimize problems that might otherwise exist between the campuses and the Region. This, however, does not impede some faculty and staff from raising questions about Regional costs during the annual budget process. C. Campus Governance Campus governance is an issue that affects the campuses differently because of history, size, and culture. The Los Angeles campus has a tradition of program autonomy, is larger than the Santa Barbara campus, and has misgivings about authority. The Santa Barbara campus has a tradition of program cooperation, is smaller than the Los Angeles campus, and is relatively Page 100 94 self-governing. It, therefore, is easy to understand that governance issues at the two campuses are in quite different places. For many years, a system involving an Administrative Work Team (AdWorks) and an Academic Work Team (AcWorks) functioned well as the forum for issues in the respective areas to be addressed and resolved. The Campus Council of Los Angles (CCLA) met monthly and dealt with issues affecting several units within the institution or the entire institution. Over time, the latter body became slow and overly ponderous, and many constituencies felt that changes were necessary. With Former President Schulman’s support, a system of self-governing teams was implemented, and an All-Teams Council temporarily replaced CCLA. Beginning September 1, 2001, however, CCLA was re-instituted as the primary decision making body on the Los Angeles campus. The attempt to implement a team system at the Los Angeles campus is emblematic of the Los Angeles campus’ struggle with governance issues. Many on the campus feel that there is insufficient involvement in decision-making, and even more are unsure about how the governance structure functions. A common complaint is that it is often difficult to know how to get something accomplished. The governance system at the Los Angeles campus needs to be clarified and strengthened so that all constituencies know how decisions are made and so involvement of appropriate individuals in decision-making can occur. In Santa Barbara, a good working model is in place to assure input from different constituencies (at least as regards staff, core faculty, and administrators) in the running of campus operations. The Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB) includes representatives of the above groups, and from time to time its membership has been adjusted in response to the perception that a particular constituency’s interests were not adequately represented. The responsiveness of this group to such needs, and the general openness and communication on campus (via CCSB and other groups as well as via regular staff/faculty meetings), leaves the feeling that there are no major issues regarding governance in the future. If changes are needed in the governance structure, they will be made. One possible issue that has not been fully addressed is the lack of regular representation of students and Adjunct Faculty in governance. Past attempts to involve representatives of both groups have not succeeded, in part because of their limited time at the institution (i. e., for Adjunct Faculty, limited hours per week; for students, limited residency). Informal mechanisms for addressing student and Adjunct Faculty issues seem to work fairly well, and the formal procedures for grievance redress seem satisfactory. D. Size and Locations of Campuses The increasing costs and requirements of a modern campus (complete with computer technology and support, and a range of student services, for example) means a greater resource base is needed for the future. Each campus must grow in the future, and even if development efforts are successful, tuition will remain the primary source of revenue for the Region. Simply put, AUSC campuses need to grow, either via development of new programs and/or via augmentation of existing programs. Exact enrollment projections for the Page 101 95 two campuses have not been formulated, but of various models that have been examined, a 2% annual growth rate at each campus is one some constituencies support. To accommodate necessary growth in enrollment, each campus faces different challenges. At the Los Angeles campus, the issue to be faced is how to acquire and afford additional space. Serious issues of affordability of appropriate space to sustain existing programs as well as for program expansion will need to be faced by the campus. At the Santa Barbara campus, restrictions on size (number of persons allowed on campus during the week imposed by a local conditional use permit) mean that, barring relocation of the campus, growth will have to come primarily via weekend programs and off-site classes, including some use of online instruction as a supplement to face-to-face classes. One likely prospect for addressing future growth needs is expansion of the Weekend College that began in Fall 2001. This might mean expanding both the number of students in the BA and MAOM Management Studies Program, as well as launching weekend offerings in other disciplines, e. g., psychology or social services administration. In addition, both campuses need to explore seriously the establishment of off-campus sites for offering selected programs. At the Los Angeles campus, for example, the MAOM Program might well be offered at sites in various parts of the greater Los Angeles area. Discussion also has occurred about offering a broad range of the curriculum at an off-site location in downtown Los Angeles. At the Santa Barbara campus, the development of North County course offerings, using available space in downtown San Luis Obispo needs to be explored. Whatever the locations to be considered, the benefits (visibility and fiscal) must be assessed and plans determined. E. Program Augmentation and Multicultural Infusion Two key issues related to the mix and character of the curricula at each campus need to be addressed in the future. Each campus in the Region has relied historically on programs with some relationship to the field of psychology. With the advent of the MFA and MAE Programs, this reliance has been less, but psychology still informs much of the curriculum offered by the campuses. Because of shifts within the field of psychology, particularly within clinical psychology, sentiment exists to diversify the program mix at each campus. Programs are currently being explored at the Los Angeles campus that would break the historic connections to the field of psychology, and these and other new and cutting-edge areas need to be developed for the future. Organizational structures and resources need to be developed and committed to the augmentation of the curriculum so that vital and exciting new programs can become a part of AUSC’s offerings. The success of these efforts, indeed, may be the fulcrum for propelling the campuses successfully into the twenty-first century. Since the mid-1990s, each program at the two campuses has introduced various aspects of multicultural education into their curricula. These efforts have been particularly successful in the BA and MACP Programs. With an increasingly diverse potential student body developing in the Southern California area, multicultural aspects of the curriculum will be even more important in the future, if AUSC expects to remain competitive for students. Human and fiscal resources Page 102 96 need to be developed and committed to raising faculty and staff sensitivity, continuing thoroughgoing multicultural curricular infusion, hiring more diverse faculty and staff, and developing programs responsive to a multicultural world. F. New Program Development Given a need to increase enrollment at each campus and a changing cultural environment in Southern California, it appears that one strategy for accomplishing enrollment augmentation is program development. Efforts are currently underway at the Los Angeles campus to introduce several new programs, e. g., possible graduate programs in some form of religious studies and some aspect of media studies. At the Santa Barbara campus preliminary discussions have occurred regarding introduction of new concentrations in the MAIC Program and expansion of the Weekend College. Considerable time, effort, and fiscal resources will need to be committed to program development efforts over the next 5 years for the campuses to meet their enrollment projections and to address a changing cultural environment in Southern California. G. Human Resource Issues Two primary issues must be addressed relative to faculty and staff – workload and salaries. While Core Faculty complain about workload, the issue needing attention in the future may be more one of quality of work life, rather than quantity of work. Core Faculty at each campus feel bogged down by administrative tasks that interfere with their opportunity to pursue traditional faculty work (teaching, research, writing, and intellectual and creative activities). Advising loads are heavy, but again the burden is often felt in terms of mundane advising (e. g., regarding University requirements, policies, and procedures) as opposed to how advising loads might feel if advising centered upon a faculty member’s research, intellectual, or creative interests. The success of the Program Coordinator model at the Los Angeles campus and the recent expansion of staffing in the Academic Services Office at the Santa Barbara campus may assist in relieving Core Faculty of some of the burdens of routine administrative functions, but long-term, permanent resolution of this issue needs to be sought. At the Los Angeles campus, re-instituting staff-level counselor positions to work with students on routine advising also would assist faculty workloads greatly. Staff at each campus also feel that workload expectations have become unrealistic, and many fear that necessary and important tasks are not being accomplished. The root problem is that staffing patterns have not kept pace with tasks to be accomplished and with the increasing sophistication of tasks that need to be performed. Although Datatel offers the promise of integrated information dissemination, this goal has not been achieved, and many staff feel that the requirements of routine data entry far exceed the benefits gained in data retrieval. Part of this dilemma is related to insufficient staff and staff training, and part is related to the labor intense nature of the Datatel software itself. A detailed analysis of staffing patterns at the two campuses is necessary so that optimum levels of staff may be determined, and resources need to be established for securing the requisite number of staff and for the ongoing training of staff. Page 103 97 External and internal salary parity issues exist at each campus and need to be ameliorated. To address external salary issues, salaries of staff and both Core and Adjunct Faculty need to be increased beyond cost-of-living adjustments to bring these classifications of employees to market parity. In the immediate future, a consultant needs to be engaged to research appropriate market sectors and provide systematic data to guide future progress toward parity with external colleagues. Relative to internal parity, inequities have developed between some employees over the years, and action needs to be taken to rectify these inequities. Specifically, the Core Faculty Salary Placement Index needs to be modified to reflect current salary norms in the area and to embody appropriately placement criteria consistent with the institution’s mission and values. The Adjunct Faculty salary schedule needs to be examined and modified so as to bring compensation closer to external markets. Staff salary schedules need to be examined and modified so they more closely parallel the external market, and the recent revision of the Reclassification Procedure needs to be monitored to verify that internal parity issues are addressed adequately. If not, further work needs to be done on the Reclassification Procedure for staff. The key to addressing employee workload and salary issues, of course, is fiscal resources. If program diversification and development efforts are successful, additional resources should be available to ameliorate the issues identified above. The issue is complicated, however, because virtually all existing departments need additional support, and at the same time the campuses also must bolster the development, alumni relations, information technology, and human resources functions. Also complicating the allocation of resources are the issues of University overhead and campus autonomy in allocating resources, budget management, etc. H. Fiscal Issues A primary issue for the future is the establishment of secure and reliable fiscal resources for each campus. Resolution of this issue is dependent upon program diversification and development as well as the establishment of non-tuition revenue sources for the campuses. An Office of Development needs to be established that appropriately represents the institution to private donors and foundations so that revenue may be generated to support academic programs and student services on the campuses. This goal has never been successfully accomplished at AUSC and needs to be achieved. Further, non-tuition revenue needs to be pursued through a continuing education program to serve professionals in the areas of psychology, education, business, and creative writing. Particular attention might be paid to the in-service training of teachers in the greater Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas. These efforts could produce revenue and increase institutional visibility in many community venues. The issue of University-wide stability in the fiscal area also affects the operations and future of AUSC. University overhead assessments need to be routinized as they were for most of the 1990s, and rates need to be as low as possible to enable the campuses to provide quality educational programs and services. Leadership from the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor’s Office will be necessary in addressing this critical issue. Page 104 98 Despite many pressing issues, the faculty and staff at the two campuses are hopeful and cautiously optimistic about the future. As a non-traditional, innovative institution, Antioch has always gone through periods of relative prosperity and relative scarcity. Problems seem to bring out the best in faculty and staff who rise to the challenges and excel. That certainly seems to be the case today, and with this sense of historic resolve, the future seems secure for AUSC. The campuses look forward to celebrating in 2002 the thirtieth anniversary of the Los Angeles campus and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Santa Barbara campus. Page 105 99 Chapter 6. Criterion Five “The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relations.” AUSC adheres to high standards of ethics in all its operations and strives accurately to represent itself to all constituencies. These goals are achieved by hiring faculty, staff, and administration who hold values consistent with those of the institution. AUSC also has established procedures for creating and approving responsible policies, and examples of these policies and practices can be provided. This chapter presents these policy development procedures and examples of successful policies that foster integrity within the institution. I. POLICY DEVELOPMENT The Board of Trustees must approve all new degree programs, significant program revisions, human resource policies, and annual budgets before they become effective. These actions emerge at various levels within the institution and typically occur with Dean leadership. All recommendations for policies, new programs, and annual budgets must be approved by the appropriate campus governance body and by the RCSC. All Regionally approved policies requiring Board of Trustees’ approval are carried by the President to the University Leadership Counsel and then to the Board of Trustees. Academic policies are developed and monitored at the campus level through collaboration of the Core Faculty, Program Chairs, and the Academic Dean. Policies include such things as course requirements, curriculum, student evaluation, internships (and other outside learning activities), and program development. The Academic Dean, in consultation with the President and the Core Faculty, also is responsible for policies regarding faculty evaluation, grievances, professional development, sabbatical and other leaves, program assessment, and the design of new degree programs. Depending on the policy, final approval is provided by the campus governance body (CCLA or CCSB), or RCSC, if the policy affects both campuses. Administrative policies are developed and monitored at the campus level through collaboration of the staff, area Directors, and the Executive Dean. Policies include such things as work-study allocation to students, use of the computer labs, late registration fees, records storage, and student service hours of operation. The Executive Dean, in consultation with the President and area Directors, also is responsible for policies regarding staff evaluation, grievances, professional development, leaves, and area assessment. Depending on the policy, final approval is provided by the campus governance body (CCLA or CCSB), or RCSC, if the policy affects both campuses. The President is responsible for overall policy development and monitoring activities within the Region and is the final arbiter when disputes regarding policy development, revision, or interpretation occur. Once developed, policies are applied consistently and fairly across the institution. Page 106 100 To demonstrate the character of policies operative within RCSC, the remainder of this chapter presents some examples of policies and practices that exemplify the integrity of the institution. II. EXEMPLARY POLICIES AND PRACTICES Several policies and practices at the two campuses serve to illustrate the manner in which the institution strives to conduct its activities with internal and external constituencies. The pattern of evidence associated with establishing AUSC’s institutional integrity relative to internal constituencies includes the following: 1. Governance Plan . The institution possesses a published Governance Plan that clearly articulates the dimensions of how the Region and the campuses conduct their business. The document includes information regarding participatory governance, councils and committees, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution mechanisms. 2. Personnel Manual and Human Resources Handbook . The University as a whole regularly publishes a Personnel Manual that articulates the policies that are effective for all campuses of the University. The most recent version of this document was issued in November 2001. The Region also possesses a Human Resources Handbook that contains information specifically related to policies and practices operative in the Region. This document is being revised to reflect the current practices of the Region, and a copy will be available for review at the time of the NCA team visit to the Region. 3. Faculty Handbooks. A core Faculty Handbook currently exists at each campus, but these documents are not used often and are currently being revised. Copies of the revised documents will be available for review at the time of the NCA team visit to the Region. An Adjunct Faculty Handbook has existed at some points in the past, and some programs have created handbooks for their Adjunct Faculty over the years. Each campus is preparing Adjunct Faculty Handbooks that will be available for review at the time of the NCA team visit. 4. Student Information. Information regarding institutional policies is communicated to students through three primary documents: program brochures, institutional Catalogs , and programmatic Student Handbooks . All programs in the Region possess brochures that accurately present the programs and the expectations of students who enter the course of study. The Santa Barbara campus has a current Catalog (2001-03) that articulates the institution’s entrance requirements and procedures, costs, academic policies, and programmatic requirements for each degree program offered by the campus. The Los Angeles campus is currently preparing a Catalog for the 2002-03 period. In addition, some programs at the campuses provide Student Handbooks that detail information regarding the programs’ policies and procedures. Such handbooks Page 107 101 exist for the MACP, MAIC, and MAE Programs at the Los Angeles campus and the MAOM and MAE Programs at the Santa Barbara campus. 5. Dispute Resolution. Policies and procedures exist for the resolution of disputes between and among various constituencies on the campuses. These are specifically described in such documents as the Governance Plan , Human Resource Handbook , and the campus Catalogs . Students and/or employees can readily access this information and can seek resolution of disputes using the procedures articulated in these resources. 6. Equitable Treatment and Affirmative Action. The campuses provide information regarding ADA accommodations for students in relevant publications and seek to make the necessary modifications. The Executive Dean at the Los Angeles campus and the Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus handle requests for accommodation. AUSC does not have a formal affirmative action policy, although an official statement of non-discrimination appears in all student publications and in employee recruitment advertising. Similar policies and practices exist for dealing with external constituencies in fair and equitable fashion, and patterns of evidence that attest to this include the following: 1. Recruitment and Admissions. The Admissions and Financial Aid areas collaborate in the student recruiting process and work effectively together to prove information and counseling to prospective students. (These areas are organized into one unit at the Los Angels campus and two separate units at the Santa Barbara campus.) At Information Meetings, a Financial Aid staff member is present to provide accurate and timely information about the various Federal, state, and campus aid programs. Limited scholarship funding exists to provide assistance to under-represented groups, in order to encourage diversity. In addition, the campuses actively recruit international students and the Admissions Offices provide assistance with regard to student visas and other INS matters. Through Information Meetings, visits to classes, conversations with faculty, and on-going contact with Admissions and Financial Aid staff, perspective students are provided with a thorough and accurate introduction to the campuses and their programs. All advertising and publications used for recruitment purposes represent the institution accurately. In regular public Information Meetings, the campuses take care to make certain that prospective students are aware of the particular nature of each program so that they can make the best decision regarding their application. In subsequent admissions interviews, prospective students are again questioned regarding their expectations about the program and whether it fits with their plans and desires. As a result, the attrition rate for all programs is very low. Copies of advertisements and publication materials are available for review in the campus Resource Rooms. Page 108 102 2. Articulation agreements exist with a number of local colleges and universities, e. g., Santa Monica College and Santa Barbara Community College. These agreements outline the particulars of courses accepted for transfer and other matters. In general, relationships with other academic institutions are limited to student recruitment and transfer, the occasional shared program funded by a grant, and student teaching placement in local elementary schools. 3. The Santa Barbara BA Program has a required Service Learning component in the curriculum that places students in non-profit organizations in the community. Informal agreements that underlie these placements are largely verbal, but some written agreements exist. The Community Humanities Education Program in the Los Angeles campus BA Program has written agreements with two community agencies (Venice Family Clinic and Central American Resource Center). In addition, the MACP Programs at each campus have written agreements with community agencies where students are accepted for supervised Traineeship experiences. The Los Angeles campus Counseling Center also has a written rental agreement for off-campus space for the Iranian Counseling Center to provide services. The Center also has written agreements with several elementary schools for conducting its Public School Counseling Program in local settings. In its dealings with both internal and external constituencies, AUSC seeks to have clear and fair policies, practices, and agreements. These practices have been extremely effective in developing good will among the various publics served by the institution. Two specific measures of the success of these practices are that the institution has never had a complaint file with the Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (the California licensure agency for out-of- state accredited institutions), and only one formal law suit has been filed against the institution since 1988. (This suit was settled by arbitration, and no court action was taken.) These are, indeed, remarkable statistics in an ever-increasing litigious era. Page 109 103 Chapter 7. Conclusion The Regional Steering Committee guided the self-study process over the past 2-years, and during this process, all constituencies at the campuses had an opportunity to discuss the issues confronting AUSC. The process was salutatory in that it provided a forum for issues to be identified and explored without preconception and recrimination. From a number of perspectives, the self-study process may be deemed to have been successful at AUSC campuses, and a clearer sense of what needs to occur in the future has emerged from the process. Based on the entire self-study process, the following conclusions are drawn regarding AUSC: 1. AUSC through its President must engage actively in the ongoing dialog at the University- wide level to assist in resolving issues related to the federal model, the role of the Chancellor, and the fiscal ground rules for operation. As a part of a larger organization, AUSC’s interests are best served by active engagement in determining the future of Antioch University. 2. AUSC’s fiscal stability and future success are dependent upon two primary factors: increased enrollment growth and non-tuition resources. To increase enrollment, existing programs must continue to be make appropriate revisions, new programs must be developed and implemented, and vigorous marketing efforts must be initiated on a sustained basis. Resources will be needed for all of these efforts, especially for increased marketing and admission activity. To generate non-tuition revenue, an active development function must be created, support for a faculty-produced grants/contracts program must be initiated, and the President’s Office must actively engage in systematic annual fund and major donor resource development. To accomplish each of these goals, appropriate planning documents need to be created, personnel assigned, and fiscal resources allocated; all of this should be accomplished in cooperation with the University-wide development function. 3. Organizationally, the Regional and campus structures currently in place are functioning appropriately, although the Los Angeles campus has not had sufficient time to determine the effectiveness of the structure. Special attention needs to be paid in the next 6 to 12 months to the functioning of this structure, particularly staff involvement, and campus Deans need to be supported in their efforts to fill all vacant positions and bring governance structures up to full operational levels. 4. Several issues related to personnel at the campuses must be addressed. First, salaries of all existing AUSC employees have not kept pace with inflation or with the educational marketplace in Southern California during the past 5 years. A salary improvement plan must be developed and implemented that will bring salaries at least into the third quartile of comparable institutions in the area. The assistance of an external consultant may be necessary to accomplish this task in a fair and equitable manner. Second, additional employees are needed at each campus to address the growth that has already occurred and Page 110 104 to plan for and accommodate anticipated future growth. This also will address the increasing concern regarding faculty and staff workloads. Third, critically needed funds for faculty and staff development must be allocated to ensure the long-term effectiveness and well being of employees. Re-instatement of faculty sabbatical leaves in accordance with existing policy should be high on the list of those things to be funded. 5. The campuses currently have marginally adequate technology systems that are rapidly becoming obsolete. A technology plan for the campuses must be developed and implemented that addresses critical issues related to long-term networking, classroom workstations, the role of online education, the platform environment (Apple vs. PC), and ongoing training of personnel. The needed technology plan must address the larger educational issues confronting higher education in general and Antioch’s unique pedagogic approach; hardware and software decisions should then emanate from an articulate educational philosophy regarding the role of technology in the Antioch educational process. 6. Lack of resolution of the long-term facilities issue has drained energy, caused anxiety, and sometimes postponed critical decisions, particularly at the Los Angeles campus. Because lease expiration deadlines loom, decisions regarding mid- to long-term location of the campuses need to be given priority in the next 6 to 9 months and resolution determined. This is necessary for employee peace of mind and, if relocation is determined, for appropriate planning and marketing efforts to occur in a systematic and timely manner. All facility decisions need to be made in light of long-term space needs predicated upon the role of technology in future educational programs. 7. Program assessment activity at each campus has increased substantially since 1993, and these efforts need to continue and be provided with additional support. The Los Angeles campus has allocated a portion of a Core Faculty member’s time to assessment efforts, and this commitment needs to be sustained for the long-term. The Santa Barbara campus must make a similar commitment of human resources to their assessment efforts in the near future. In addition, each campus must make modest, ongoing fiscal resources available for assessment so that the final step in the routinization of this process may be accomplished. 8. Multicultural curriculum infusion has been successful to date, but these efforts need to be intensified as the Southern California area becomes increasingly a multi-ethnic social environment. Support for each campus to continue their unique approaches to implement multicultural elements into the curriculum need to be provided. These conclusions from the self-study process provide a framework for informing future planning at AUSC and will be folded into the existing planning processes of the institution. Clearly an agenda for future action is evident in these conclusions, and the institution is committed to implementing this agenda vigorously and with determination. It is these characteristics that have been a hallmark of AUSC in the past and that will sustain it in the future. Page 111 105 Appendix A. Antioch University Mission Statement Antioch University provides programs of study leading to the Bachelors, Masters, and Doctors degrees, as well as other related special programs of study. Founded in 1852 as a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Antioch has evolved into a national multi-campus University serving over 5,000 students. Governed by a national Board of Trustees, its campuses, which serve students both on and beyond the physical campuses, currently include Antioch College and The McGregor School in Yellow Springs, Ohio; New England (Keene, NH); the Pacific Northwest (Seattle); and Southern California (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara). System administration is located in Yellow Springs. All programs of Antioch University aim to develop students and graduates who grow in their commitment to contribute personally to improvement in the human condition through responsible leadership that fosters productive, democratic change in the institutions and communities in which they live and work. These programs are guided by core educational values that include rigorous scholarship and academic discipline, engaged service, community involvement, a commitment to multiculturalism at all levels and programs, and student-centered, well-rounded learning. Committed to finding the most effective approaches to student learning through innovation and experimentation, Antioch encourages students to integrate work and study, to incorporate experience with academic study and reflection, and to address issues within a social and political context. Adopted by the Board of Trustees by resolution in 1989 and modified in 1999. Page 112 106 Page 113 107 Appendix B. AUSC Mission Statement Antioch University Southern California is an independent institution that provides an excellent, innovative graduate and undergraduate education for adults. An Antioch education empowers the student to act responsibly and to effect personal, social and environmental change within a global context. The Antioch approach emphasizes: • the development of the student as a whole person; • the integration of academic and experiential learning; • creative, critical, and independent thinking. This approach to education springs from Antioch’s long-standing heritage of making learning meaningful and vital while promoting social justice. Given Antioch’s student-centered approach to education and its commitment to intellectual, social, cultural, and ethnic diversity, the faculty’s primary duties are to teach and advise, as well as to engage in the intellectual dialogue of their profession. In addition, faculty, staff and students work with local communities to provide leadership and service, participating as broadly as possible in civic affairs. Vision Statement Antioch University Southern California strives to promote a spirit of inquiry as a multi- cultural, intergenerational, and accessible institution, which values and nurtures an innovative, reflective, and experiential approach to educational excellence. Building on our history and fostering creativity and leadership, we, the community of Antioch faculty, students, staff, and alumni — centering ourselves in compassion, ethical steadfastness, and a never-ending belief in the possible — carry this vision into the world. Values Statement We value and commit to model in our lives and our work: • global perspectives and knowledge of the interconnected context in which we act; • coalitions across groups for building common ground; • social justice, support for a sustainable environment, and community partnerships; • anti-racism as an imperative of the historical moment in which we live; Page 114 108 • human dignity and dismantling ethnic biases, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, discrimination based on religious, cultural and political affiliations, and other forms of oppression; • an intellectual climate that acknowledges the whole person, focusing on wisdom, creativity, experience, and skills needed to promote social change. Page 115 109 Appendix C. University-Wide Priorities The Board of Trustees established nine priorities for the University in June 1999 as contained in a document titled University Plan and Strategic Objectives for the Years 2000 to 2005 . These priorities are shown below: 1. Based upon the new environment and directions outlined in this plan, revisit the institutional vision and mission to ensure their currency for Antioch in the twenty-first century. 2. Increase and diversify student recruitment and enrollment. 3. Antioch University will extend, strengthen, and diversify its academic programs by linking the educational capabilities of the five-campus federated structure. 4. Implement systematic program assessment across the University to measure student learning outcomes and program effectiveness. 5. Strengthen the capacity to recruit, retain, and support the most highly qualified faculty and staff to grow within a collaborative community in meeting the educational needs of students and Antioch’s academic programs. 6. Support implementation of this University plan by strengthening the overall fiscal structure, reserves, and investment capacity of the University. 7. Enhance the capacity of each campus to raise private gifts and grants, and collaborate in a significant University fund development effort. 8. Create a University-wide technology infrastructure that provides for information exchange, networking of faculty and students, and access to library and other external resources, and online instructional capability. 9. Project the space and renovation needs, and the concomitant capital funds that Antioch campuses will require by the year 2010, consistent with the changing ways in which teaching and learning will occur. Page 116 110 Page 117 111 Appendix D. AUSC Strategic Plan INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS The faculty and staff members of the Antioch University Southern California (AUSC) community began a strategic planning process in September 1999 to guide the development of the institution for the next five years. The plan acknowledges and reinforces AUSC’s traditional values and builds on successful academic programs and strong staff support. Leadership for the planning process has been a Strategic Planning Coordinating Team composed of administration, faculty and staff. Members and their roles are: Chloe Reid, Executive Dean, Antioch University Los Angeles (AULA); Ed Ogawa, Staff Representative, AULA; Donna Starr, Executive Dean, Antioch University Santa Barbara (AUSB); Robert Bowen, Faculty , AULA; Eloise Klein Healy, M.F.A. Faculty Chair, AULA; Carol Flores, Director, Admissions, AUSB; Richard Loebl, Staff Representative, AUSB; Hymon Johnson, Faculty , AUSB; Mark Schulman, President, AUSC. Vehicles for gaining overall faculty and staff involvement in creating the plan have included community meetings and individual and team input into vision, mission, goals, strategies, and metrics. The plan has been developed in the context of a clear vision for the future and a well-articulated mission. Key elements of the plan are the relocation of the Marina del Rey campus to a downtown Los Angeles site, the new initiative for staff reorganization into self-directed and empowered teams, and faculty commitment to strengthen and diversify academic programs. Six major goals are specified in the plan to be accomplished in five years. In addition to the key goals, detailed strategies and actions are identified. The planning process that extends to faculty and staff on both campuses will continue through the remainder of the 2000 calendar year. Staff teams and faculty departments will specify concomitant budget implications, metrics, and measures in the next 2 months as they develop implementation plans for the goals and strategies. This continued process provides opportunities for self-directed staff teams and academic program faculty to develop goals, strategies, and actions for their responsibilities in realizing the overall goals and strategies to reach the vision of the plan. MISSION STATEMENT Antioch University Southern California is an independent institution that provides an excellent, innovative graduate and undergraduate education for adults. As Antioch education empowers the student to act responsibly and to effect personal, social, and environmental change within a global context. The Antioch approach emphasizes: the development of the student as a whole person; the integration of academic and experiential learning; and creative, critical and independent thinking. This approach to education springs from Antioch’s long-standing heritage of making learning meaningful and vital while promoting social justice. Given Antioch’s student-centered approach Page 118 112 to education and its commitment to intellectual, social, cultural, and ethnic diversity, the faculty’s primary duties are to teach and advise, as well as to engage in the intellectual dialogue of their profession. In addition, faculty, staff, and students work with local communities to provide leadership and service, participating as broadly as possible in civic affairs. VISION STATEMENT Antioch University Southern California strives to promote a spirit of inquiry as a multi-cultural, intergenerational, and accessible institution, which values and nurtures an innovative, reflective, and experiential approach to educational excellence. Building on our history and fostering creativity and leadership, we, the community of Antioch faculty, students, staff, and alumni — centering ourselves in compassion, ethical steadfastness, and a never-ending belief in the possible — carry this vision into the world. VALUES STATEMENT While we are, as a community, still engaging in dialogue about our collective values, we believe the following points will help ultimately to define those shared principles. We value and commit to model in our lives and our work: • global perspectives and knowledge of the interconnected context in which we act; • coalitions across groups for building common ground; • social justice, support for a sustainable environment, and community partnerships; • anti-racism as an imperative of the historical moment in which we live; • human dignity and dismantling ethnic biases, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, discrimination based on religious, cultural and political affiliations, and other forms of oppression; • an intellectual climate that acknowledges the whole person, focusing on wisdom, creativity , experience and skills needed to promote social change. GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS 1. More effectively implement the institutional vision and mission for AUSC in the twenty-first century. • Determine the future relationship between the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campuses; Page 119 113 • Increase our capacity to promote and support issues based on our vision and values; • Develop effective ways to orient new members of our campus communities to the values that guide and sustain us; • Create and maintain effective and all-inclusive decision making processes for all teams and governing bodies while assuring that they are authentic, democratic, and participatory; • Maintain a community that is free of all forms of discrimination and harassment; • Affirm and embrace a diverse learning community as we struggle to confirm the value in our differences. 2. Extend, strengthen, and diversify AUSC academic programs. • Formulate sustainable development statements for all programs; • Stabilize and strengthen the professional graduate programs already in place; • Add additional graduate programs in liberal studies; • Have several partnership plans going forward; • Develop a fully staffed continuing education or extension division with a clear plan for producing six-figure income; • Develop an institutional capacity for on-line research; • Develop the Multicultural Diversity Initiative on both campuses; • Expand the Community Humanities Education (CHE) program. 3. Plan, fund and implement required levels of technology and facilities consistent with the changing ways in which teaching and learning occur. Technology • Develop appropriate technological systems for new delivery models (including distance learning); • Establish a minimum level of hardware and software for students and faculty as academic programs grow in their use of technology; • Improve and expand administrative computing with an appropriate level of support and resources; Page 120 114 • Move to one integrated database and elimination of multiple databases on each campus. Facilities • Establish operational satellite locations (e.g., downtown LA, San Gabriel Valley, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Northern Santa Barbara County ); • Increase the comfort and instructional capabilities (especially technological) of classrooms at both campuses; • Improve the welcoming qualities at both campuses; • Create in all facilities environments that are ecologically and ergonomically sound; • Create public spaces that support lectures, performances and the arts; • Insure adequate classrooms, gathering spaces, and offices to coincide with academic program development and expansion. 4. Enhance AUSC’s visibility and recognition in our region and increase and diversify student recruitment and enrollment. • Offer support and training to provide exceptional service to all callers (especially to prospects); • Provide appropriate staff support (including training) and adequate funding to the admissions offices; • Create new scholarships for student recruitment beyond Antioch Opportunity Grant (AOG) monies; • Stabilize enrollment in all academic programs and increase admissions selectivity; • Target realistic and reasonable incremental enrollment growth in academic program’s strategic plan; • Create a realistic action oriented marketing strategic plan (to incorporate news releases and direct contact with the community); • Create a minority student recruitment strategic plan for all academic programs; • Create a strategic plan for community outreach and support newly initiated development efforts; Page 121 115 • Create an advertising strategic plan with appropriate professional guidance and financial support to position our campuses in our own respective communities; • Expand alumni activities involvement and networking (including extensive regional collaboration); • Expand individual and institutional awareness and involvement with our neighbors (including other academic institutions); • Conduct an annual professional development conference for faculty, staff and administrators to train them and guide them in how they can help recruit. 5. Recruit and support highly qualified faculty and staff to meet the educational needs of students and academic programs. Quality of Work Life and Training • Train all faculty and staff in team structures and processes; • Provide customer service training programs for all employees; • Make the workplace family-friendly through early childhood education and create opportunities for children in the workplace; • Develop and implement ongoing university-wide educational programs that address the elimination of racism and social inequality; • Build professional and personal growth opportunities for every employee; • Create and encourage opportunities for leadership for all members of the AUSC community. Human Resources Policies and Practices • Develop personnel policies that are clear, concise, and sensible and produce demonstrable results; • Establish and maintain ethnic, race, age and gender diversity throughout all positions; • Review and revise compensation levels of faculty and staff to make them more competitive with those in the regional marketplace; • Examine staff workload to identify reasonable tasks and clearly defined jobs; . • Decrease reliance on College Work-Study students and part-time staff by increasing staff and faculty to adequate levels. Page 122 116 Recruitment B Recruit arid retain faculty who can balance teaching, advising, and scholarship/research. Customer Service • Provide excellent customer service to students, faculty, administration, and the community at large. Strengthen the fiscal structure and fund raising capacity of AUSC • Initiate a needs assessment for all areas of the budget. Include a current, planned and possible programs proposal; • Create a vision budget that reflects the priorities of the University as it relates to our mission; • Establish active fund-raising and development efforts, including the creation of alumni and community based efforts; • Incorporate incentives for program teams to seek outside funding (i.e., grants and donor gifts); • Expand administrative capacity for grant procurement and financial management reporting; • Reduce reliance on tuition-based income; • Create a formal procedure to review and identify budget needs during he year and establish contingency funding sources; • Establish funds for professional development for faculty and staff. 2000 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION January-June • Identify and apply for grants for scholarship funds and funds to continue innovative programs and completion of the strategic planning process. • Hold community-wide Constructive Dialogue on issues of discrimination, prejudice and bias. • Begin exploration of satellite locations and downtown Los Angeles campus. Page 123 117 • Begin capital campaign process. • Continue development of the team structure for staff. • Continue identification of metrics and budget implications. • Create overall strategic planning timeline for completion of process (December 2000). June-December • Staff teams and faculty refines goals, strategies and metrics. • Staff, faculty, governance councils, administration identify specific actions to implement the strategies of the plan. • Board of Visitors embraces the plan, takes responsibility for funding and leading community outreach. • Identify key satellite locations and downtown LA location. • Develop capital campaign to fund new campuses. • Develop an evaluation tool to measure results produced by strategic planning process. Page 124 118 Page 125 119 Appendix E. AUSC 2001-03 Priorities Academic Area B To reach optimal enrollment in all current academic programs through use of Enrollment Management Organization concepts; B To build enrollments in the Weekend College and Professional and Community Studies Program at the Santa Barbara campus; B To build enrollments with new graduate programs in Religion and Social Change, and Media and Social Change at the Los Angeles campus; B To implement 2000 Strategic Plan enhancements in the academic area. Fiscal Area B To create an inclusive and transparent budget process with widespread campus participation. (This was implemented beginning with the 2001-02 budget development process.) B To reduce tuition dependence from nearly 100% to 90% over the next 5 years. (This will require development of a fundraising and grant writing capability.) B To achieve annual salary increases of 3% to 5% for staff in order to attract well-qualified staff and to reduce turnover by being competitive in the local marketplace. B To establish local reserves of at least 5% of the operating budget within 5 years (approximately $500,000). B To lobby for a reduction of University-wide overhead and other charges that currently exceed $1,000,000 per year. B To follow Board of Trustee directives in budgeting and maintain a balanced budget. B To implement 2000 Strategic Plan enhancements in the financial area. Page 126 120 Strategic Planning Process July 2001 to December 2001 B Identify and apply for scholarship grant funds and funds to continue innovative programs and completion of the strategic planning process. B Hold community-wide Constructive Dialogue on issues of discrimination, prejudice, and bias. B Begin exploration of satellite locations and plan move to Urban Education Village in Santa Monica. B Begin capital campaign process. B Continue development of the team organizational structure for staff. B Continue identification of metrics and budget implications for the Region and the campuses. B Create overall timeline for completion of strategic planning process. January 2002 to June 2002 B Staff teams and faculty refine goals, strategies, and metrics. B Staff, faculty, governance councils, and administration identify specific actions to implement the 2000 Strategic Plan . B Identify specific list of key satellite locations. B Develop capital campaign to fund new campuses and satellite locations. B Develop an evaluation tool to measure results produced by strategic planning process. July 2002 to December 2002 B Currently being developed. January 2003 to June 2003 B Currently being developed. Page 127 Appendix F. AUSC Regional and Campus Organizational Structures ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Organizational Chart May 2002 Exec. Assistant Deborah Lott Development Officer Vacant Admin. Asst. Karin Pleasant Registrar Alan Scott Dir. Admis. & Fin. Aid VACANT Human Resources Robert Stapp AUSC Payroll Coord. Dawn Jackson Datatel Coord. Ed Ogawa Computing Services The Group Oliver (outsourced) Bookstore Cheryl Francisco CAFE (outsourced) Facilities Manager Brad Gettle AULA Exec. Dean VACANT Admn. Asst. Karin Pleasant Academic Services Program Coordinators BA Program David Tripp MA Education Cheryl Armon MA Management Susan Nero MA Fine Arts Eloise Klein Healy Clinical Training Office Claudia Owens Shields MA Psychology Joy Turek & Terry Roberts Developmental Literacy Center Andrea Richards Antioch Counseling Center Eric Day AULA Dean of Acad. Affairs Linda Moody AULA Accounts Pay/Rec Naomi Castro AULA Fiscal Office Mgr. Jeanette Lindsay AUSB Accounts Pay/Rec Judy Johnson AUSB Fiscal Office Mgr Linda Hackett AUSC Chief Financial Officer Parminder Bajaj Admin. Asst/Fac. Mgr. Vacant Registrar MaryAnn Marwitz Director of Admissions Carol Flores Director of Financial Aid Karen Morgan Alumni Affairs Asst. Vacant Technical Computing Asst. Vacant Human Resources Asst. Linda Hackett (1/4 time) AUSB Exec. Dean Diana Sloane Admin. Asst Diana Groener (half-time) BA Program Lillian Seldeen MA Education Michele Britton-Bass MA Management Donna Starr MA Psychology Catherine Radecki-Bush Academic Services Asst. Diana Groener Weekend College Coord. Susan Brindle MAE Admin. Coord. Rich Loebl Academic Services Michael McLure AUSB Dean of Acad. Affairs Richard Whitney AUSC INTERIM PRESIDENT Chloe Reid 121 Page 128 122 Page 129 123 Appendix G. Programmatic Desired Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Critical to the success of AUSC’s Assessment Plan are programmatic statements of the desired outcomes of programs, the connection of program components to these outcomes, and measurement techniques that are used to determine if students achieve the desired outcomes. These statements are presented in this Appendix. Page 130 124 Page 131 125 Table G-1. AULA BA Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES •Students should learn to view issues, problems, arguments, etc. from multiple points of view •Various cross-disciplinary courses •Courses that are designed to take multiple perspectives on issues •Selman perspective- taking test •Course objectives •Faculty evaluation of student course work and learning analyses 2. VARIOUS FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE •Students should be able to use knowledge from across the disciplines to come to fuller understanding of issues, problems, arguments, etc. •Required minimum of 6 units across six domains of knowledge •Cross-disciplinary courses offerings •Faculty evaluation of student course work and learning analyses 3. ACADEMIC WRITING •Students should be able to write solid academic papers that provide evidence of their learning, and an ability to articulate their own thinking •Writing assessment of all in- coming students •Individualized writing requirements •New writing curriculum administered by the Math and Writing Center •“Every-course-is-a-writing- course” •Writing assessment on entry to the program •Faculty evaluation of student work •Pre/post writing tests 4. PRESENTATION SKILLS •Students should gain skills and knowledge appropriate to presenting ideas, arguments, etc. and engaging in public discourse •Some courses have oral presentation requirements •Faculty evaluation of student presentations in selected courses Page 132 126 Table G-1. AULA BA Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 5. CRITICAL AND ANALYTIC THINKING •Students should be able to analyze and evaluate issues, problems, arguments, etc. •Math assessment of all in-coming students •Some courses specifically designed to apply critical and analytic skills •Most courses encourage critical thinking papers •Math assessment on entry to the program •Faculty evaluation of student work 6. APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE •Students should be able to creatively and reflectively apply knowledge gained in concrete contexts •Prior learning experiences •Internship program •Minimum of 6 units earned through self-directed experiential learning •Faculty evaluation of student work and learning analyses •Advisement process 7. COMPLEXITIES OF DISCIPLINES •Students should be able to map their chosen field of study •Core course offerings in various fields of study •Advising/mentoring by faculty •Advising relationship between faculty and students •Student learning analyses Page 133 127 Table G-2. AULA MACP Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. THEORY •Understanding and mastery of major clinical and psychological theories •Coursework Personality Theory I (PSY 532A) Personality Theory II (PSY 532B) Systems Theory and the Family (PSY 535) Contemporary Family Issues (PSY 549) Child and Adolescent Development (PSY 543C) Occasional workshops •Clinical Training Practical application of theoretical skills in supervised clinical traineeship experiences •Licensing Examination Practical application of theoretical skills on both the written and oral California examinations •Successful completion of required and elective courses as indicated by student narrative evaluations •Successful completion of required traineeship as indicated by clinical supervisor evaluation •Successful completion of written and oral California examinations required for licensure as indicated by test scores 2. PROFESSIONALISM •Understanding and mastery of ethical principles and guidelines for the filed of psychology as outlined by the BBS, APA, and standards held within the profession •Coursework Assessment and Treatment Planning (PSY 541) Professional Ethics and the Law (PSY548) Process of Interpersonal Psychotherapy (PSY 501A) Psychology and the Community (PSY 545C) Occasional workshops (not Required) •Successful completion of required and elective courses as indicated by student narrative evaluations Page 134 128 Table G-2. AULA MACP Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 2. PROFESSIONALISM (cont.) •Clinical Training Practical application of professional skills in supervised clinical traineeship experiences •Licensing Examination Practical application of professional skills and ethical principles on both the written and oral California examinations •Successful completion of required traineeship as indicated by clinical supervisor evaluation •Successful completion of written and oral California examinations required for licensure as indicated by test scores 3. CLINICAL SKILL ACQUISITION •Acquisition and mastery of clinical skills commensurate with level of training •Coursework Assessment and Treatment Planning (PSY 541) Process of Interpersonal Psychotherapy I (PSY 501A) Research and Professional Writing (PSY 536A) Chemical Dependencies (PSY 550) Psychopharmacology (PSY 539D) Psychological Testing (PSY 542) Treatment of Children and Adolescents (PSY 567A) Intimate Relationships and Sexuality (PSY 566A) Group Treatment Methods (PSY 551A) Treatment of Families •Successful completion of required and elective courses as indicated by student narrative evaluations Page 135 129 Table G-2. AULA MACP Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 3. CLINICAL SKILL ACQUISITION (cont.) Course work (cont.) (PSY 535C) Brief Therapies (PSY 509) Process of Interpersonal Psychotherapy II (PSY 540C) Occasional Workshops (not required) •Clinical Training Practical application of theoretical skills in supervised clinical traineeship experiences •Licensing Examination Practical application of clinical skills on both the written and oral California examinations •Successful completion of required traineeship as indicated by clinical supervisor evaluation •Successful completion of written and oral California examinations required for licensure as indicated by test scores 4. SOCIAL JUSTICE •Acquisition of basic values associated with Antioch social justice principles and skills necessary to apply these principles in clinical and community settings •Coursework Society and the Individual (PSY 545) Field Study: Psychology and Society (PSY 512A) Treatment of Diverse Clients (PSY 546A) Psychology in the Community (PSY 545C) Prevention and Promotion (ACP required/ not required for non-ACP students) Occasional Workshops (not required) •Faculty Development •Successful completion of required and elective courses as indicated by student narrative evaluations •MACP Core and Adjunct Faculty participate in bi- quarterly diversity training Page 136 130 Page 137 131 Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE Applying current management knowledge to practical issues and problems •Practical application assignments are given in all courses •Field Study Project requires application of content from across the curriculum •Course faculty evaluation of student written projects and presentations for ability to apply theory •Field Study Advisor observation and evaluation of all Field Study activities for practical applications of knowledge 2. PROBLEM SOLVING ORIENTATION Learning to think innovatively, creatively, and systematically about management problems and possibilities. Knowing and using appropriate qualitative and quantitative management tools •All courses, but most especially Managerial Inquiry, require problem solving exercises, projects, simulations, case studies, etc. •Field Study requires constant problem solving in an organizational setting •Faculty review of final projects for Managerial Inquiry course •Faculty observation of student Field Study activities and evaluation of Field Study problem solving activities within the Field Study teams with host organizations •Evaluation of final Field Study Reports 3. INDEPENDENT, CRITICAL THINKING Growth in the ability to use personal experience to generate independent critical thought and informed action •All course assignments, but most especially in Organizational Behavior, Managerial Inquiry, and Quantitative Analysis, focus o critical thinking. •Field Study activities and fin Field Study Reports require demonstration of critical thinking. •Course faculty evaluation of thinking demonstrated in student papers and presentations •Field Study Advisor evaluation of Field Study for critical thinking in project activities and final report •Evaluation of final Field Study Reports Page 138 132 Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 4. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Verbal, written, and electronic communication of ideas to varied audiences in a professionally appropriate manner •Requirements for successful completion of Foundations of Business I course include demonstration of computer literacy — Word, Excel, and PowerPoint — and presentation skills. •Successful completion of Organization Behavior course requires demonstration of graduate level essay writing. •Field Study project requires professional and effective communication at all stages •Faculty for the Foundations of Business course assess computer literacy and presentation skills •Faculty for Organization Behavior course assess essay writing •All faculty evaluate the quality of student communications in all course work 5. HUMAN RELATIONS SKILLS AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE Demonstrated leadership, conflict management, and team development skills and the ability to stimulate improved performance in others, including insight and effective responses to the varying demographics and cultures of organizations •Most courses require demonstration of interpersonal competence in classroom activities, especially applied social science courses such as the Organization Behavior, Group Dynamics, Consultation Skills, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Personal and Professional Development, and Leadership, Motivation, and Power courses •Field Study requires effective team building and relationship building with the host organization •Faculty observation of student performance in most courses, but especially in Group Dynamics; Consultation Skills; Negotiation and Conflict Resolution; Personal and Professional Development; and Leadership, Motivation, and Power courses •Faculty evaluation of student Field Study team activities Page 139 133 Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 6. SOCIAL AND ETHICAL AWARENESS Respect for the importance of values in human affairs and recognition of the social contributions of the manager and the role of business, including effective use of resources and the power to change and improve society •Many courses require that students demonstrate social and ethical awareness in their class participation and course assignments, most especially in the Social and Ethical Issues in Management and Society and the Individual courses. •Field Study Project requires demonstration of very specific social and ethical sensitivities to the unique context of the host organization •Faculty observation of student behavior and evaluation of assignments in all courses, most especially Social and Ethical Issues in Management and Society and the Individual •Faculty observation and evaluation of student Field Study activities •Faculty valuation of final Field Study Reports Page 140 134 Page 141 135 Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. DEVELOP AND MASTER WRITING SKILLS IN SELECTED GENRES (FICTION, POETRY, OR CREATIVE NON-FICTION) •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Residency Student Learning Analysis (SLA) and Log •Faculty and student mid- term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on-line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Faculty Narrative Evaluation of student Project Period Contract work 2. DEVELOP AND MASTER SKILLS TO COMPARE, CONTRAST, AND CRITIQUE MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES REGARDING ART, LITERARY AESTHETICS, AND THE CANONICAL DEBATES •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) • Student SLA and Log •Faculty and student mid- term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on-line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA Page 142 136 Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 2. COMPARE, CONTRAST, AND CRITIQUE (cont.) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Faculty Narrative Evaluation of student Project Period Contract work 3. DEVELOP AND MASTER SKILLS OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE AND THE PROCESS OF CRITICAL READING •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists •Required Reading List in Pedagogy •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Residency SLA and Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Faculty Narrative Evaluation of student Project Period Contract work 4. REFLECT THROUGH FORMAL AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING ON THE PLACE OF CREATIVE WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND SOCIETY •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing and discussing) •Field Study •Residency SLA and Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Field Study Evaluator Narrative Evaluation of student Field Study work Page 143 137 Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 4. CREATIVE WORK (Cont.) •SLA of Field Study experience 5. DEVELOP AWARENESS OF ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND SOCIAL VALUES AS THEY INTERFACE WITH THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ARTIST •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists (specifically, Arts, Culture and Society I and II) •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Field Study •Residency SLA and Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Faculty Narrative Evaluation of student Project Period Contract work 6. REFLECT ON VOICE, MODES OF EXPRESSION, AND LINGUISTIC STYLE THROUGH THE STUDY OF THE ART OF TRANSLATION •Required Translation Seminar and on-line conference •Residency SLA/Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Faculty Narrative Evaluation of student Project Period Contract work Page 144 138 Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 7. UNDERSTAND THE WORK AND LIVES OF PROFESSIONAL WRITERS AND NETWORK WITH WRITERS’ COMMUNITIES •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Field Study •Student Learning Analysis (SLA) and Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA •Field Study Evaluator Narrative Evaluation of student Field Study work •SLA of Field Study experience For Certificate in the Pedagogy of Creative Writing Student 8. LEARN AND APPLY INNOVATIVE SKILLS AND PROGRESSIVE PEDAGOGICAL THEORY TO THE TEACHING OF CREATIVE WRITING IN DIVERSE SETTINGS •Seminars with faculty mentors and guest artists (specifically, Orientation to the Certificate in the Pedagogy of Creative Writing and Readings in the Pedagogy of Creative Writing) •Senior Lectures •Genre writing workshops •Student Learning Analysis (SLA) and Log •Faculty and student mid-term evaluation •Three-quarter term faculty reports •Peer critique in on- line conferences •Project Period Contract SLA Page 145 139 Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 8. PROGRESSIVE PEDAGOGICAL THEORY (cont.) •Project Period Contracts (Individual Learning Plans) •On-line conferences (reading, writing, critiquing, and discussing) •Field Study •Post-MFA term in pedagogy (supervised teaching and on-line pedagogy conference) •Pedagogy Paper and Panel Presentation •Field Study Evaluator Narrative Evaluation of student Field Study work •SLA of Field Study experience •Faculty and Supervised Teaching Evaluator Narrative Evaluation of Project Period Contract work for Pedagogy Term •SLA of Pedagogy Term •Peer Review of Pedagogy Panel Presentation Page 146 140 Page 147 141 Table G-5. AULA MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. ENGAGE AND SUPPORT ALL STUDENTS IN LEARNING •Coursework in lesson/unit construction •Specific plans to engage and support non-traditional students in lessons •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process •Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Portfolio presentation •Faculty assessment meetings •Exit interviews (LA only) •Follow-up employment review 2. CREATE AND MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR STUDENT LEARNING •Coursework in philosophy of classroom organization and development •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process •Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance (classroom communities) •Portfolio presentation •Faculty assessment meetings •Exit interviews (LA only) • Employment follow-up 3. UNDERSTAND AND COMPETENTLY ORGANIZE SUBJECT MATTER FOR STUDENT LEARNING •MSAT exam or waiver •Coursework in lesson/unit construction •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process •Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance (classroom communities) •Portfolio presentation •Faculty assessment meetings •Exit interviews (LA only) •Employment follow-up Page 148 142 Table G-5. AULA MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 4. PLAN INSTRUCTION AND DESIGN PRODUCTIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR ALL STUDENTS •Coursework in lesson/unit construction •Designing alternative strategies for non-traditional learners •Student Teaching supervision •Proseminar work •Portfolio process. •Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Portfolio presentation •Faculty assessment meetings •Exit interviews (LA only) •Follow-up employment review 5. COMPETENTLY ASSESS STUDENT LEARNING. •Coursework in performing assessments, particularly reading and math •Student Teaching supervision •Thesis process. •Learning evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Portfolio presentations •Thesis projects •Exit interviews (LA only) 6. DEVELOP AS REFLECTIVE, PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS •Proseminar coursework •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process •Thesis project •Proseminar narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Faculty assessment meetings •Obtaining and maintaining employment •Exit interviews (LA only) •Effective teacher-leader on planned 2-year follow up (LA only) Page 149 143 Table G-5. AULA MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 7. PROMOTE SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE •Coursework in lesson/unit construction •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process •Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Portfolio presentation •Thesis projects •Exit interviews (LA only) •Effective teacher-leader — 2-year follow-up (LA only) 8. USE COMPUTER- BASED TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE STUDENT LEARNING •Coursework in technology and lesson/unit construction •Student Teaching supervision •Portfolio process Narrative evaluations •Student Teaching performance •Portfolio presentation 9. PLACE CURRENT CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY, AND REFORM PRACTICES WITHIN A HISTORICAL CONTEXT •Coursework •Thesis process •Narrative evaluations •Course projects •Thesis projects 10. PERCEIVE THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF SCHOOLS •Coursework •Thesis process •Narrative evaluations •Course projects •Thesis projects •Exit interviews (LA only) 11. DEVELOP SKILLS FOR EDUCATIONAL CHANGE •Coursework •Thesis process •Narrative evaluations •Course projects •Thesis projects Page 150 144 Table G-5. AULA MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 12. EMPLOY IN-DEPTH INQUIRY METHODS TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN PRACTICE •Coursework •Thesis process •Narrative evaluations •Course projects •Thesis projects •Exit interviews (LA only) •Effective inquiry use on planned 2-year follow up (LA only) Page 151 145 Table G-6. AUSB BA Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. CRITICAL THINKING •Students’ ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate ideas, values and information. Ability to present a logical argument for own and others’ views •Required courses in research methodology, statistics, philosophy, foundations of liberal education, and core and elective courses in the student’s area of concentration •Faculty evaluation of student essays, term papers, critiques, and presentations in classes and capstone seminar 2. CREATIVE THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING Students’ ability to apply creative and critical thinking skills to decision- making and solution of complex problems. Ability to integrate theoretical and practical learning •Required courses in math, economics, research methodology, statistics, group dynamics, and foundations of liberal education •Required 12 units in current or prior experiential learning •Electives in creative process, learning and cognition, etc. •Faculty evaluation of student degree plan and papers, presentations, and small group projects 3. COMMUNICATION SKILLS Students’ ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing. Ability to participate in groups and leading a group discussion •Required courses in writing, group dynamics, foundations of liberal education, and public speaking or counseling techniques •Required experiential learning outside classroom •Faculty evaluation of written work and performance in class, field activities, and capstone seminar •Field evaluator assessments of learning Page 152 146 Table G-6. AUSB BA Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 4. UNDERSTANDING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND CONTEMPORARY WORLD Ability to reflect thoughtfully upon the contemporary world from diverse ideological and cultural perspectives •Required courses in humanities, political science, sociology or anthropology, foundations of liberal education and electives in cross-cultural studies, ecology, and global economics •Faculty evaluation of papers and class assignments and of service learning internship 5. SELF AWARENESS AND COMPETENCE FOR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL PURSUITS Awareness of cognitive, emotional, and social influences upon one’s self. Ability to articulate values and plan skill development for one’s life purpose •Required courses in psychology, philosophy, and foundations of liberal education •Required experiential learning •Required and elective courses in student’s area of concentration •Faculty evaluation of degree plan and coursework •Faculty evaluation of cumulative learning and skill development Page 153 147 Table G-7. AUSB MACP Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-AWARENESS AND SELF-REFLECTIVE CAPACITIES IN LEARNING AND THERAPEUTIC PRACTICE •Awareness of one’s assumptions, biases, and feelings about cross-cultural differences and the impact on therapeutic practice •Required courses in clinical process/skills and multicultural awareness •Required self-reflective papers in required courses •Required traineeships •Instructor’s formal evaluation of student work in class, in case presentations, and in video and audio tapes •Faculty evaluation of student reaction papers and term papers •Traineeship supervisors’ evaluations of student clinical work 2. MASTERY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND BASIC SKILLS IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY •Knowledge and skills for competent multicultural practice. Ability to conceptualize and treat human interpersonal problems through an integration of knowledge an skill •Required courses in human development, theories of psychotherapy, psychopathology, assessment family systems, multicultural counseling, and clinical skills •Instructors’ formal assessment of student papers, exams, participation in class discussions and presentations •Traineeship supervisors’ formal quarterly evaluations of students’ knowledge and skills •Core faculty evaluation of a final case study requiring the integration of knowledge and skills in human development, theories of psychotherapy, psychopathology, family systems, multicultural competence, and etc. Page 154 148 Table G-7. AUSB MACP Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 3. PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION INTO PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY WITH EMPHASIS ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ETHICS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE •Required orientation meeting •Required courses in Professional Ethics and the La and Process of Group Psychotherapy •Quarterly student advising, supervision in community traineeships. •Instructors’ formal assessment of student work in coursework •Traineeship supervisors’ formal quarterly evaluations of student progress and achievement •Quarterly review of student progress by Core and Associate faculty (general faculty review when needed) •Core faculty evaluation of a final case study requiring the integration of knowledge and skills in legal and ethical issues (capstone) Page 155 149 Table G-8. AUSB MAIC Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-AWARENESS AND SELF-REFLECTIVE CAPACITIES •Awareness of one’s assumptions, biases and feelings about cross-cultural differences and their impact on practice •Required courses in professional skills and multicultural awareness •Required self-reflective pape in required courses. •Instructor’s formal evaluation of student work in class, presentations, student reaction papers, and term papers •Practicum supervisors’ evaluations of student work 2. MASTERY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND BASIC SKILLS IN PSYCHOLOGY •Knowledge and skills for competent multicultural practice, and ability to conceptualize and intervene with human interpersonal problems through an integration of knowledge and skills •Required psychology courses in human development, feminist theories of psychology, methods of inquiry, assessment, and professional writing •Instructors’ formal assessmen of student papers, exams, presentations, and participatio in class discussions 3. PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION IN THE AREA OF CONCENTRATION (I.E., CAREER COUNSELING, ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, OR FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICES) •Mastery of a specialized body of knowledge and skill development in the area of concentration (i.e., career counseling, organizational psychology, or family and child services) •Applied courses and independent studies in the area of concentration •Quarterly student advising •Supervision of thesis project by advisor and committee •Instructors’ formal assessment of student work in classes •Supervisors’ formal quarterly evaluations of student progress and achievement in practicum Page 156 150 Table G-8. AUSB MAIC Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 3. PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION (cont.) •Supervision in community practicum •Quarterly review of student progress by Core/ Associate Faculty •General faculty review, when needed •Committee evaluation of the thesis project demonstrating the integration of knowledge and skills into an applied project that may be used to launch the student’s professional career Page 157 151 Table G-9. AUSB MAOM Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. ANALYSIS, DESIGN, AND IMPLEMENT ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION, GOALS, STRUCTURES, AND PROCESSES Knowledge and skills in effectively developing strategic organizational visions and missions; designing structures appropriate to organizational vision and mission; and developing effective practices and processes appropriate for both human resources and technical activities •Required and elective course in practice of management, organizational design and development, strategic plannin and policy making, managing cultural diversity, etc. •Practicum Seminar •Faculty evaluation of analytical and reflection papers and formal presentations in courses •Observation of students in Practicum by seminar leaders and Program Chair •Faculty review of student logs of their activities in Practicum and/or major project •Evaluation of examinations in specific areas by faculty 2. WORKING WITH GROUPS Knowledge, attitudes and skills which enable the student in both the member and leader role, and as a consultant, to influence others, facilitate meetings, assist a group through developmental stages, facilitate work in groups, as well as effectively give and receive relevant interpersonal feedback; work with members of diverse backgrounds (culturally and internationally) •Required and elective courses in managing in a culturally diverse environment, organizational and group behavior, group dynamics and leadership, and consulting skills •Professional seminars and Practicum Seminar •Observation-based faculty evaluation of performance in experiential groups as member and leader •Faculty evaluation of reflection papers in professional seminars, courses and practicum •Practicum Seminar leader’s assessment of functioning and leadership in groups at Practicum Page 158 152 Table G-9. AUSB MAOM Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 3. MANAGING TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS Knowledge and skills concerning budget development; research; information systems; financial management; marketing; quality management; and management of innovation. •Required and elective course in management information systems, financial administration, quality management, marketing acros cultures, total quality management, budgeting and quantitative analysis •Practicum Seminar •Evaluation by faculty and Practicum Seminar leaders of presentations and projects in developing budgets, conducting evaluation research etc. •Examinations in developing budgets and financial administration 4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT Conceptual knowledge and practical skills in identifying appropriate and legitimate stakeholders such as customers, boards, funders, regulatory groups, etc.; developing effective relations with each stakeholder and positioning an organization and its staff vis-à-vis each. •Required and elective courses in ethics and social responsibility, board and staff development, fund raising and proposal writing, global economics, and international trade •Practicum Seminar •Evaluation by faculty of written project analysis and verbal presentations on external relations. •Assessment of non- profit management and marketin strategy project in Practicum Page 159 153 Table G-10. AUSB MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques Desired Student Outcomes Program Components Measurement Techniques 1. ABILITY TO MEET ANTIOCH STANDARDS BY THE STUDENT •Engage and support all students in learning •Create and maintain effective environments for student learning •Assess student learning •Plan instruction and design learning experiences for all students •Promote social and ecological justice •Understand and organize subject matter for student learning •Develop as a professional educator •Practica and student teaching •Professional seminar •Required self-reflective journals •Videotaped lessons •Supervision by university professional as well as field mentor •Faculty evaluation of student work in seminars and video and audio tapes •Faculty evaluation of student standards-based portfolios •Student teaching supervisors’ evaluations of teaching by students 2. COMPLETE ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA MULTIPLE SUBJECT TEACHING CREDENTIAL •Mastery of content areas and skills necessary to fulfill California credential requirements •Required courses in educational foundations, second language learning and teaching, methods of teaching reading/language arts, arts, technology, math, social studies, and science •Instructors’ formal assessment of student papers, exams, presentations, and participation in class discussions •Cooperating teacher and supervisors’ formal quarterly evaluations of students’ knowledge and skills Page 160 154 Table G-10. AUSB MAE Program Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.) 3. PROFESSIONAL SOCIALIZATION •Socialization into the educational community with emphasis on an understanding of the nature of schools as systems and the leadership roles of teachers •Required courses in research design and implementation, school organization, leadership and change, and curriculum •Thesis/project based on student interest in school reform and/or teacher leadership •Instructors’ formal assessment of student work in courses and research practica •Quarterly review of student progress by Core/Associate faculty •General faculty review, when needed