Antioch University Seattle Self-Assessment Report (2002 Accreditation)

↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library

Page 1 ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SEATTLE A CAMPUS SELF-STUDY Prepared for North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Reaccreditation Team Visit August 2002 Page 2 Page 3 AUS Self study 2002 iii Acknowledgements………….. ………………………… ………………………… …………….v Antioch University Seattle Profile-2002……………… ………………………… ……….. vii Introduction……………… ………………………… ………………………… ………………….. 1 Self-Study Methodology………………. ………………………… ………………… 4 Organization of the Report ………………………… ………………………… …… 5 CHAPTER ONE: Criterion I – Mission and Purpose………………….. ……………… 7 Mission of the Campus…………………… ………………………… ……………… 8 Congruence between the University & Antioch Seattle Vision & Mission ………………………… ………………………… ………………… 9 Strategic Planning Process ………………………… ………………………… ….. 9 Evaluation of Purposes ………………………… ………………………… ……… 12 Understanding of Stated Purposes…………………. ………………………… 13 Informing the Public ………………………… ………………………… ………….. 14 Summary………………….. ………………………… ………………………… ……. 14 CHAPTER TWO: Criterion II – Organized Effectively………………. ……………… 15 Structure – Administrative Units ………………………… ……………………… 15 Policies and Procedures……………….. ………………………… ……………… 21 Personnel………………… ………………………… ………………………… …….. 21 Facility…………………. ………………………… ………………………… ………… 24 Financial Stability………………… ………………………… ……………………… 25 Governance……………….. ………………………… ………………………… …… 26 CHAPTER THREE Criterion III – Accomplishing Purposes ………………………. 31 Academic Programs…………………. ………………………… …………………. 32 Faculty ………………………… ………………………… ………………………… … 38 Assessment……………….. ………………………… ………………………… …… 39 Summary………………….. ………………………… ………………………… ……. 52 Page 4 AUS Self study 2002 iv CHAPTER FOUR: Criterion IV – The Future…………………… …………………….. 53 Degree and Non-Degree Programs…………………. …………………………. 53 Institutional Capacity…………………. ………………………… ………………….. 54 Student Services ………………………… ………………………… ……………….. 55 Alliances………………… ………………………… ………………………… ………… 56 Employees ………………………… ………………………… ……………………….. 57 Technology……………….. ………………………… ………………………… ……… 58 Financial Base…………………….. ………………………… ………………………. 58 Summary………………….. ………………………… ………………………… ……… 60 CHAPTER FIVE: Demonstrates Integrity ………………………… …………………… 63 Students…………………. ………………………… ………………………… ……….. 63 Faculty and Staff……………………. ………………………… …………………….. 64 Contractual relationships…………….. ………………………… …………………. 65 Summary………………….. ………………………… ………………………… ……… 66 Conclusions………………. ………………………… ………………………… ………………. 67 Appendix A: Organizational Chart Appendix B: Core Faculty Evaluation Report Appendix C: Student Feedback on Courses 2000/2001 Appendix D: Outcome Assessment Forms Appendix E: Audited Financial Statements of Antioch Seattle for FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 (Provided separately in the University Resource Room) Page 5 AUS Self study 2002 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This process began in Fall 2000. Since that time, self studies were completed by each academic program and administrative unit and three task forces were formed to focus on criterion #1, #2, #4, #5. Along the way, many others were asked to contribute or review drafts. I would like to thank those who chaired the self studies for their programs: Ann Blake and Lisa Lynch, Integrative Studies in Psychology ; Gerri Douglas, Bachelor of Arts with Teaching Certificate Program; Ned Farley, Clinical Programs in Psychology; Betsy Geist, Whole Systems Design; Anne Harvey, B.A. in Liberal Studies; Shana Hormann, Organizational Psychology; Mark Hower, Management Program; Pam Joseph, Experienced Educator Program; Susie Murphy, Graduate Teachers Certificate Program; and Shierry Nicholson, Environment and Community Program. I would like to thank those who chaired the self studies for their administrative units: Peggy Baldwin, Library; Kathy Battraw, Financial Aid; Leona Dolan, Front Desk; Mel Jackson, University Relations; Katie Kelso, Registrar; Bert Hopkins, Computing; Dianna Larsen, Enrollment Services; Lynne Nakamura, Bookstore; Rosalie Revesz, Accounting; and Dan Watts, Human Resources. And I would like to thank those who served on the task forces: Criterion #1, Linda Campbell, Chair, Gwen Jones, Candace Harris, and Rebecca Sandel; Criterion #2 & #4, Tammy Snow, Chair, Shana Hormann, Lynn Nakamura and Richard Norris; and Criterion #5, Bill Forisha and Dianna Larsen, co-chairs, Jennifer Brown and Katie Kelso. I would also like to thank Sharon Sernius for her ongoing efforts in the production of the self study and for Sharon and Diane Shimizu for tracking down information and resource materials. Finally, I would like to thank all of those who have reviewed either sections or the complete document. This includes members of Academic Council, Planning and Budget Council, and Student Services Council; Directors Anne Harvey, L. Tien, and Kristin Woolever; Deans Mel Jackson, Richard Norris and Ormond Smythe; and Page 6 AUS Self study 2002 vi President Toni Murdock. It also includes alumni, students and members of the Board of Visitors contacted by the University Relations Office. Shanae Ellsworth, Core Faculty, and Chair of the Antioch University Seattle Self Study Committee Page 7 AUS Self study 2002 vii ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SEATTLE PROFILE 2001/2002 Established 1975 Annual Operating Expenses: $9,500,00 47% to direct instructional expense and academic support Program Enrollment by FTE (annualized) Delivery System (Full Time Equivalent) Delivery system varies by academic B.A. in Liberal Studies 101 program and includes an individual- Center for Creative Change 202 ized degree process model, a Center for Programs in Education 486 competency-based model, cohort- Center for Programs in Psychology 215 based weekend intensive model, and site-based model. Total FTE 1,004 Other Programs Total Headcount 1,246 Center for Community and Professional Learning provides non- degree educational programs to Student Body-Fall 2001 professionals in counseling, Female 69% education, and environmental Male 31% and organizational sustainability. Minority/International 20% During 2001/2002 there were 5,301 enrollments. Faculty-Fall 2001 Building Square Footage Core Faculty 42 50,568 s.f. (64,800 s.f. including Associate/Adjunct 51 unrelated leased area.) Faculty Page 8 Page 9 1 INTRODUCTION In 1993, the last NCA Evaluation Team to visit Antioch University listed several strengths, two of which are germane to Antioch Seattle. They noted that the “mission was clearly understood on all campuses and by all constituencies and is being carried out effectively.” They also noted that the “administration, faculty and staff show enthusiasm, vigor and dynamism as they work to create and deliver an excellent, responsive curriculum to strong, eager students who give evidence of being transformed.” We believe that both of these remain true today. The Evaluation Team also noted several concerns and suggestions. The ones most germane to Antioch Seattle include finances, outcome assessment, university decentralization of the administrative structure, confusion about the program director role, proportion of multiethnic faculty, faculty salaries and professional development, and facilities. We have made significant progress in most of these areas. In Fall 1992, 608 students were registered accounting for 481.8 FTE. In Fall 2001, 892 students were registered accounting for 745.8 FTE. Our revenue has increased 70 percent. In nine of the last ten years, we have balanced our budget. The one-year we did not balance (1995/19996), we were off by less than $2,000. During the past five years, we generated $800,000 surplus. We have an Outcome Assessment Committee that reports directly to the President. This is a campus-wide effort with all academic programs and administrative units expected to incorporate assessment into their ongoing work. The Committee reviews plans and results from each academic program and administrative unit on an annual basis. In the wake of University decentralization, Presidents replaced Provosts as CEOs in 1998 on the adult campuses. This underscored the transition to local responsibility and authority for the campuses. Adult campuses were also charged with establishing a fund-raising board. Seattle replaced its small “kitchen cabinet” advisory board with a Board of Visitors. In 2002, the Board of Visitors has nine noted community members and by-laws reflective of most foundations and fundraising boards. All campuses were charged with increasing and sustaining enrollments. In response, the Page 10 2 Seattle campus admissions process, previously located in the academic programs, was centralized and financial aid was incorporated to create an enrollment services office. Finally, the administrative staff at Antioch Seattle has increased from 34 to 56. The intention, particularly in the past few years, has been to build an administrative infrastructure to actualize a semi-autonomous campus and hire staff with more experience, thus increasing the professionalism of our operations. In preparation for moving our academic programs toward a center structure (see Chapter Four), the role of director was reexamined and a common job description developed and used as the base for filling these positions. Three new directors joined us in 2001, all attending a national workshop on administrative leadership with our new academic dean followed by a series of orientation sessions on campus. The intent behind these activities was to ensure that there was a common understanding of the role and responsibilities of this position. The multiethnic diversity of our faculty, staff, administrators and students has increased. The goal in our strategic plan is to have the same percentage of faculty, staff, administrators and students as the geographic region has. As of Fall 2001, 28 percent of all regular employees were persons of color compared to 30 percent for Seattle. The percentage of students is not as high, 20 percent. However, it is a significant increase from 1992 when only 10 percent of our students were persons of color. Some programs are showing much higher percentages; for example over 60 percent of the students in the Bachelor of Arts with teaching certificate program are people of color. We believe that one key to increasing this percentage is to offer more financial aid options and scholarships. Towards this end, for the third year in a row, we introduced a bill into the state legislature that allows our students to be eligible for state financial aid. That bill was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in March 2002. With the recent restaffing of our University Relations Office, we also expect to make progress in building an annual scholarship fund and an endowment for scholarships. Antioch Seattle has made a strong commitment to increase the salaries for faculty and staff, giving modest raises during the past nine years. We have also agreed upon a comparison group and set our target. We are currently at 94 percent of the Page 11 3 mean for staff and 90 percent for faculty, which is up from 88 percent and 80 percent when the survey was first conducted six years ago. Though progress has been made, this is still an area of concern. Faculty has up to 20 days per year of professional development leave and access of up to $400 for professional development. Again progress has been made but it is still an area that needs attention. Antioch Seattle purchased and moved into its own building in 1997. We were able to expand our square footage in Fall 2001 when space initially leased became available. Owning our own building makes a statement to ourselves and to the community that we are here to stay. Antioch Seattle’s concerns, as noted in the 1992 Self Study, also included the need for a campus level strategic plan, a longer time frame for budgeting, development activities, and a new governance structure. The campus initiated a strategic planning process in 1998 that included wide participation by all constituencies. As part of that process, we forged a campus mission statement. (A small ad hoc committee wrote the last campus mission statement.) Over a period of twelve months of bi-weekly meetings and three campus-wide meetings, we developed a strategic plan with seven goals, which then served as the basis for each academic program and administrative unit to build their own strategic plan. Plans are updated annually and guide the budget process. In 1997, after several false starts in years past, the position of Dean of University Relations was created with staffing to support work in development and alumni relations. A new governance system was instituted with three councils composed of faculty, staff, administrators and students holding policy-making responsibility in the areas of academics, planning and budgeting, and student services. Most importantly our academic programs have continued to evolve. Two new programs have been added, Environment and Community and the Bachelor of Arts with Teaching Certificate. The Counseling Program in Psychology has been replaced by three programs, each representing a more focused area of study: Art Therapy, Couple and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling. The Human Resource Development Program, originally leading to an MA in Psychology, is now the Organizational Psychology Program leading to an MA in Organizational Psychology. Page 12 4 We have also expanded the means through which programs are offered, thereby increasing accessibility for our students. The Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies piloted a limited number of classes on-line and have been encouraged by the President to continue and expand these courses. Education offers on-site programs throughout the Seattle/Tacoma area. The Environment and Community and Management Programs have incorporated on-line learning to bridge work in the classroom. We continue to seek ways to better serve our communities. Examples include the Bachelor of Arts with teaching certificate, which serves paraprofessionals in the surrounding school districts by bringing the classroom to them and the Tulalip and proposed Muckleshoot programs, both offered in partnership with local Native American tribes. In order to create a structure to help our academic programs continue to evolve, we have formed three Centers of Innovation and Excellence in the areas of Creative Change, Education, and Psychology. We expect that our Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies will form the basis for the fourth Center with a focus in Fine Arts and Liberal Studies. Our new initiative, funded by the Gates and Kellogg Foundations, to work with the 29 Native American tribes of Washington to establish 8 early college models is further evidence of our move toward greater community engagement. As the remainder of this self-study will demonstrate, Antioch Seattle’s expectations of its future at the time of the last self-study has been met and exceeded. Self Study Methodology We decided to approach the self-study in a decentralized fashion in order to maximize the involvement of faculty, staff and students. A faculty member was appointed as chair. Each academic program and administrative unit completed a self- study. Program chairs or their designates worked together to develop the outline to guide the work of the academic programs. A small group of administrators developed the outline for use by the administrative units. Three task forces, focusing on criterion #1, criterion #2 & #4, and criterion #5, were also appointed. Each of these task forces was chaired or co-chaired by a faculty member and included staff and administrators. We were not successful in recruiting students to serve and subsequently have sought Page 13 5 their input in ways that require a more limited time commitment. These task forces conducted their self-studies using a variety of methods. Finally, each of our governance councils was asked to list their notable successes and areas of challenge. Our first draft was based on input from all of these sources. This draft was reviewed at the campus level, by the members of each task force, the academic directors and deans. After revisions, several students and alumni, the three Governance Councils, and members of the Board of Visitors then reviewed the draft. Announcements were also posted to the community so that any faculty, staff, or student could review the draft and make comments. This feedback was incorporated into the final report. Organization of Report This chapter is followed by five chapters, which correspond to NCA’s five criteria, then a chapter summarizing our strengths and outlining current concerns. Additional documentation and evidence will be available on campus at the time of the NCA site visit. Page 14 Page 15 7 CHAPTER ONE MISSION AND PURPOSES Criterion I: The campus has clear and publicly stated purposes, consistent with its mission and appropriate to a postsecondary educational institution. In May 1998, Antioch Seattle set out to create a campus-wide strategic plan, including mission, vision, goals and objectives that would guide academic and administrative units for the next five years. The community spent a total of three days throughout the next year involved in campus-wide meetings attended by faculty, staff, students and alumni. The meetings identified Antioch Seattle’s historical roots both as a part of the larger University and as an adult satellite campus, current threats and opportunities, and values associated with the campus and its stakeholders. In Fall 1998, the larger work of the campus was sent to the newly formed Planning and Budget Council, a body charged with the task for wedding strategic planning to the annual budget cycle. The Council includes faculty, staff, administrators and students. A consultant worked with the Council for three months condensing and clarifying the direction Antioch Seattle wanted to pursue during its next five years of existence. At the end of the three months, the vision, purpose, goals and objectives were identified but needed more work to capture the life and spirit of Antioch so aptly experienced in the larger campus meetings. During the remainder of the 1998/99 academic year, smaller groups worked on the language of the actual document and clarification of the vision for a concept of creating Centers for Innovation and Excellence. In May 1999, the strategic plan was officially rolled out. This document incorporated two elements: (1) strategic goals, objectives and plans of the campus; and (2) a vision for the future of Antioch Seattle that includes reorganization and adoption of the four principles by which the new centers will operate. Page 16 8 Antioch Seattle’s Mission To provide transformative education that engages adult learners in lifelong development and agency in a changing world. Antioch Seattle’s Vision To be an institution of innovation and excellence in adult higher education grounded in the four principles of learning centered, access, community engagement, and integration. Antioch Seattle’s Goals • Deliver outstanding degree and non-degree programs with a dual focus on innovation and excellence. • Achieve institutional capacity in student enrollment while increasing diversity and the quality of the student body. • Provide responsive, accessible and high quality student services that meet the needs of a diverse adult population. • Create dynamic alliances that support educational services to the community and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of Antioch University Seattle. • Attract, develop, motivate and retain an exceptional and diverse group of employees. • Use technology in innovative and appropriate ways to support a learning centered educational environment. • Create a healthy, diversified financial base that supports institutional excellence and innovation. Each center and program is required to have a mission statement that is congruent with the campuses. The center statements appear below. Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies To prepare students to be humane, as well as effective citizens within the historical context in which they find themselves. Center for Creative Change To engage learners in the co-creation of humane and sustainable organizations and communities. Center for Programs in Education (Currently under development) Page 17 9 Center for Programs in Psychology To provide higher education and training in the theory and practice of psychology in a variety of settings. Our curriculum promotes values of ethical practice, social responsibility and cultural pluralism and our classes promote self-exploration, empowerment and whole person learning. We seek to balance traditional and contemporary perspectives in the field of psychology. We educate students to become informed and effective practitioners and change agents in our complex world. Congruence between the University and Antioch Seattle’s Vision and Mission Antioch Seattle’s mission and vision is very consistent with the University’s. Antioch Seattle’s statement of preparing students to pursue “agency in a changing world” speaks to the University Mission statement of seeking “to develop students and graduates who will grow in their commitment to contribute to the improvement of the human condition, who will provide effective responsible leadership fostering productive change and democratic participation in the institutions and communities where they live and work.” Antioch Seattle envisions centers of innovation and excellence with “four principles: learning centered, access, community engagement, integrated” with the University’s statement of “guided by a set of core educational values, rigorous scholarship and academic discipline, engaged service, community involvement, and student-centered, whole-person learning.” Antioch Seattle is proud of its heritage, incorporating it into publications, open sessions with prospective students, orientations for new students, and at all graduations. Horace Mann’s quote, “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity,” is proudly displayed in our building. It is also part of every graduation when the President speaks about the meaning that phrase has for those about to graduate. Strategic Planning Process In Fall 1999, the academic and administrative units were directed by the Planning and Budget Council to begin developing their own five-year plans based on the strategic goals and objectives. To guide this work, the Council created a form specifying information to be provided. For each campus objective that the program or unit Page 18 10 addressed in their plan, they were asked to indicate: (1) program/unit level objective; (2) activities; (3) timeframe; (4) evidence of outcomes; (5) personnel responsible; (6) resources; and (7) cost. Since this was Antioch Seattle’s first attempt at a detailed strategic plan by unit, the substance in these documents varied in detail and clarity. The plans ranged from specific activities with timelines to plans to develop a plan and establishing objectives to activate the goals. During the 2000/2001 academic year, three refinements were made. First, the Planning and Budget Council asked that programs and units update their plans early in the fall so that the information could be used in setting priorities to guide decisions around allocation of resources. This update included a review and assessment of its success in meeting its plan and a revised strategic plan for the upcoming three to five years. Each dean was also asked to recommend a short list of priorities. Based on both sets of information, the Council developed a campus wide list of priorities, which then were used to guide budgetary decisions. Second, information on accomplishments was compiled and shared with the campus. This was helpful for tracking our progress and making it visible to the campus community. Finally, the Council organized two meetings in the spring. The first included directors and chairs of the academic programs and all cost center managers. This group was asked to help refine the campus objectives under each goal, note accomplishments, and identify new objectives. The Council then followed with a campus wide meeting to share the suggested changes and gather input. During the 2001/2002 academic year, the Planning and Budget Council, wanting to involve the whole community, began initial discussion of its priorities in early November 2001. A “rough cut” of goals was developed so that the members could begin to familiarize themselves with the issues and converse with others on campus. This proposed list was sent to faculty and staff through meeting minutes, along with an email from the committee chair requesting feedback from the community. Both faculty and staff responded with several helpful suggestions or amplifications. In addition, the faculty, through Faculty Assembly, generated a short list of its most important priorities and communicated them to the committee. The committee discussed the insights gathered through this process and incorporated several points into the initial list. Page 19 11 During this process, the committee also reviewed the strategic plan and matched the developing priorities to already established goals. We discovered that most of the goals were in fact covered; though a few were not. After this additional review of the strategic plan, one more priority was identified. The priorities for 2002/2003 are listed below: • Compensation: improve the overall compensation package to make it more competitive • Enrollment: increase student enrollment • Financial independence: increase through fundraising, resource development, outreach and marketing activities • Academic Quality: enhance academic program quality by decreasing the use of adjunct faculty • Efficiency and innovation: review money management and other administrative systems to encourage innovation and collaboration • Student Services: establish a position with the Academic Dean’s Office • Access: review and adjust hours of operations and services • New Programs: develop with future financial health of Antioch Seattle as a priority As a means of modeling use of the goals and objectives, the President’s Team uses the strategic plan as a guide for setting priorities and goals for the year. The President’s Team encourages all centers to do the same. A strategic plan should be viewed as a loose-leaf notebook since the future is not predictable. It holds the dreams and desires of the institution and its people, but often the paths to reach those ideas are numerous and situational. Consequently, the strategic plan must be reviewed and revised each year to reflect internal progress and external influences. Given our values for wide community involvement, we have tried to craft a process that encourages dialogue and widespread participation by faculty, staff and students. Page 20 12 Evaluation of Purposes The strategic planning process incorporates an annual update that asks each academic program or administrative unit to provide evidence of outcomes. Response in this area, as with the plans in general, ranges with regard to specificity of information provided. We continue to improve with each iteration. In addition, our outcome assessment effort is also tied to the goals and objectives in the strategic plan. Annually, all academic programs and administrative units must provide a summary of results for the past year indicating how the information was used for program or unit improvement and develop an annual assessment plan for the upcoming year. This is another area in which we have made progress, yet have much more to do. The Outcome Assessment Committee has recently requested that the Deans assume responsibility for completing an initial review of plans/updates. The intention of this request has been to underscore the importance of outcome assessment and hopefully help link it more directly into assessing progress toward our goals and objectives. More on outcome assessment is included in Chapter Four. As part of our outcome assessment effort, we conducted a survey of graduates. Nine hundred and ninety-five graduates from Summer 1995 through Spring 2000 were sent surveys, 216 (23 percent) responded. Along with questions about their experience at Antioch Seattle and current employment, questions were included that relate to our goals as embodied in our mission statement, educational transformation, life long learning and agency in a changing world. With respect to educational transformation, alumni were asked to indicate Antioch’s impact in four areas: ability to think critically; awareness of personal biases; cultural awareness; and self-confidence. On a four-point scale, from none to extensive impact, the average ratings ranged from 3.22 to 3.39. With respect to lifelong learning, we asked if graduates belonged to professional organizations, attended conferences and workshops or pursued life long learning in some other manner. All respondents indicated some means of pursuing learning. Fifty- six percent reported belonging to a professional organization and 45 percent attended a conference or workshop during the previous year. With respect to agency in a changing world, we asked if they had volunteered, served on a board or were making an impact in some other way. Again, all respondents indicated some area where they felt they were Page 21 13 making a difference. Sixty percent volunteered and 43 percent served on a board. These results suggest that we are achieving our purpose of providing transformative education that leads to lifelong development and agency in a changing world. Understanding of Stated Purposes Faculty and staff, some students, and a few alumni have participated in the development and implementation of the strategic planning process. We believe that this participation has led to a wide understanding, particularly among faculty and staff, of Antioch Seattle’s purposes. In preparation for the self-study, a faculty and staff task force electronically surveyed faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni and the Board of Visitors, asking them to tell us of accomplishments, if any in relation to the following items: (1) achieving our mission of transformative adult education; (2) importance of the mission; (3) offering creative and innovative programs that contribute to personal transformation and encourage participation in social justice; (4) increasing diversity of students, faculty and staff; (5) providing appropriate adult student services; (6) using technology to support student learning; and (7) partnering with the broader community. It should be noted that these items overlap with our strategic goals. The response rate was disappointingly low (69 responses, 25 from faculty, staff and administrators, 35 from students, 5 from alumni, and 4 from others including adjuncts and members of the Board of Visitors). However, the response included representation from all constituencies. Consistent themes emerged from the surveys. All constituencies, faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni and members of the Board of Visitors, agreed that they were well aware of AUS’s mission to provide transformative adult education. Likewise, all groups asserted that the institutional mission was personally significant to them. There was less agreement, however, about how well we achieved our goals in pursuit of our mission. While maintaining that our degree programs were, for the most part, innovative, creative and capable of promoting personal transformation and participation in social justice initiatives, suggestions were made to strengthen the focus, quality and rigor of our offerings. Four areas were highlighted as needing additional attention and resources: (1) increasing student and employee diversity; (2) improving student services; (3) using Page 22 14 technology more effectively; and (4) extending our community outreach. According to those who responded to the questionnaire, the achievement of these goals was contingent upon an infusion of financial resources and fresh perspectives. These concerns are addressed in the next chapter. Informing the Public To determine how widely and consistently the public is informed about our purposes through media and publications, the task force reviewed such things as the catalog, website, admission materials, program brochures and handbooks, print advertisement and radio spots. It concluded that we did a good job of communicating the mission and purpose in key documents and media like the catalog and website. However, it was noted that program brochures and handbooks tend to focus on the specifics of the program without an explicit link to the larger campus mission. They also noted that employee handbooks and documents such as job postings did not include reference to the institution’s purposes. The findings raised the question of where and how our campus mission should be promoted. The Dean of University Relations and his staff have recently undertaken a review of media and publications in response to these findings. Summary Antioch Seattle has made great strides in developing our vision and mission and in implementing a strategic planning process to help us move forward. In 1993, we had no campus mission, so a small ad hoc committee working on the self-study asked for input only from program directors and crafted a proposed mission statement never approved by the campus community. Ten years later, as a community, we developed a purpose and vision statement and a strategic plan. The strategic plan continues to guide us through the efforts of the Planning and Budget Council that includes broad representation of faculty, staff and students. Each year, we have refined our approaches, incorporating greater specificity and more accountability. As importantly, our processes encourage continued conversations in academic programs and administrative units and within the community as a whole. Page 23 15 CHAPTER TWO ORGANIZED EFFECTIVELY Criterion II: The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes. In Fall 1992, Antioch Seattle enrolled 608 students accounting for 481.8 FTE. In Fall 2002, Antioch Seattle enrolled 892 students accounting for 745.8 FTE. This represents a 47 percent increase in the number of students served and a 35 percent increase in FTE. We are continuing to grow and serve a greater proportion of part-time students. As importantly, students are now on campus seven days a week from morning through evening. The number of off-campus sites has increased. Several sites serve students of color working toward teaching certificates. In order to better serve current students, we have restructured our academic programs (see Chapter Four), expanded our administrative units, developed policies and procedures, added new faculty, staff and administrators, moved to a permanent location, stabilized our financial situation, and implemented a new governance procedure. (See Appendix A for an organizational chart.) This represents significant change in ten years with most occurring in the last five years! Administrative Units To meet the need of a larger number of students, comply with greater government regulation, maintain a campus we now own, and address the decentralization of the university, staff have been added in the following areas: admissions, bookstore, computing, front desk and facilities, financial aid, human resources, library and student accounts. The result of these additions has been increased service to our students through enhanced staffing and extended hours of service. A new telephone/voice mail system was purchased in 2000, which provided direct-dial telephone numbers for each employee and student service office. In the future we plan to research integration of e-mail and voice mail. Equipment has been regularly upgraded to match demand. Page 24 16 Efforts have been made to increase electronic access through on-line admission, application for student financial aid, entrance/exit counseling, and electronic transfer of financial aid funds. Further, on-line registration and on-line submission of faculty narrative evaluations of student work and electronic dissemination of the same to the students is currently being piloted and should be fully implemented in 2002/2003. We also hope to introduce on-line payment in 2002/2003. Antioch Seattle is located in an urban area, near downtown Seattle. To ensure the safety of our students and employees, our campus is monitored during the day by our reception staff and the facilities manager. On weekends and evenings, lobby attendants monitor the building. Last year, we purchased a cell phone so the lobby attendants or the facilities manager could be reached during all campus hours. Lobby attendants are available to walk students to their cars until 10p.m. Security video cameras are planned for installation in 2002/2003. Antioch Seattle has a Safety Committee, which reviews reports of accidents on campus. We also have developed a relationship with the Seattle Police Department Crime Prevention Unit, which has surveyed our campus and made recommendations which have been implemented to improve safety and security and has held several safety workshops on campus open to students and employees. Admissions. In Winter 1999, following several years of unpredictable and alarming enrollment declines in some programs, we began to centralize the admissions function. To move toward a more coordinated support service model, financial aid was joined with admissions to create an Office of Enrollment Services. During the recent remodel in Summer 2001, the admissions group was finally able to co-locate in Fall 2001. Much work was done in 2000/2001. Following training by an outside consultant in Summer 2000, admissions staff, along with representatives from the academic programs, developed a nine-point system for following up on inquiries. With the arrival of the new Director of Enrollment Services, this nine-point system was implemented, a procedures manual was developed, admissions associates were crosstrained, a means for tracking progress was instituted and expectations were established for admissions associates to reach out into the community, actively recruiting rather then responding. It Page 25 17 is too early to tell whether these shifts will be successful but we believe that we are on the right track. Bookstore. In 1999, the bookstore began coordinating the production of course packets and readers. These packets allow faculty to present material from many sources while following the federal guidelines set forth in the 1976 Copyright Act. In 2000, the bookstore took its first steps toward the electronic age with the creation of a web page. Students are able to get information regarding store hours, location, returns policy as well as browse for textbooks. We await the installation of a secure server to take the next step – processing on-line orders. In 2001, the bookstore instituted quarterly textbook buybacks for students. In addition to offering these items as “used books,” the bookstore also seeks additional titles and quantities through three national used textbook marketers. The bookstore also piloted a textbook mailing program for site-based students. Since then various methods have been explored to find one method that best serves this population. Computing. With the move into a permanent building in 1997, we were able to expand our computer lab and establish a separate computer classroom, both of which were enlarged with the remodeling in 2001. Our full-service lab contains 14 computers for student use, all networked with high-speed Internet access and laser printing. There are two high-end graphics stations with scanners and software for graphics and video editing. The computer classroom contains 11 computers, all wireless networked to a high-speed Internet access. This classroom can accommodate 22 students. There is a mobile projector and laptop stations for use in presentations in any classroom in the building. All students are given accounts on First Class, our e-mail and conferencing system, which provides for internal communication, on-line dialogue and information sharing for classes, and student documentation through personal homepages. Students are trained in its use and programs utilize the system differently depending on their unique needs. On the administrative side, every faculty and staff member has a computer on their desks and we have established a three-year cycle for upgrading hardware and software. The University converted to Datatel in 1997 as the common integrated system for accounting, budgeting, human relations, admissions, financial aid, registrar Page 26 18 and student accounts. It took two years to get everyone on-board and we are now able to build historical data in this system. Financial Aid Office. The Financial Aid Office has focused on means for streamlining its operation and increasing accessibility of their service to students. We currently provide application on the Antioch website, FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) application through the Antioch website, entrance/exit counseling through the Internet, electronic transfer of funds and the master promissory note. We also have the capability to process student loans through the Internet and with the master promissory note so the student only needs to fill out one loan application for their entire Antioch program. Deferments are electronically reported to the National Student Loan Data System through the clearinghouse, cutting down on the student’s responsibility every year. Human Resources. This is an area that was grossly neglected until recently. In 1992, there was one staff member who had limited experience. Following the university decentralization in 1996/1997, there was a delay in building the infrastructure on the adult campuses in order for them to function in a decentralized manner. Finally, in 2002, we have 2.6 staff in Human Resources and all have significant professional experience. Progress has been made in developing local policies and procedures relating to compensation, discipline, employment, grievance, job evaluation/reclassification, recruitment, salary structure/advancement/movement, sexual harassment, work schedules and work time. Policies and procedures currently under development include affirmative action, safety plan, staff grievance and alternative resolution procedures, general discrimination and harassment procedures, orientation procedure and work place violence procedure. Library/Computer Lab. Upgrading the library has been a campus wide priority for the past three years. Given the size of the campus, we are not attempting to be a general repository research library. Our students can and do use local university libraries such as University of Washington at our expense for that service. Instead, we are trying to support specific courses in the curriculum with books, academic journals, and reserve materials, as well as a myriad of electronic resources. Our library web page lists all of our holdings, has links to other area library catalogs, websites for Page 27 19 specific programs and other useful links requested by academic directors. In addition, our electronic resources include the following: FirstSearch – 60 academic databases, Proquest – a service of about 2,000 full-text journal articles and OhioLINK – a 91 databases/indexes and full text shared though the Antioch University licensing. All of our electronic services have licenses, which allow remote access as well as on-campus access. Training in all of these electronic resources is available for both on campus and off-site classes. Additionally, we have increased staffing from a part-time librarian to full time librarian and half-time assistant. As part of the recent renovation, the library was expanded and renovated including more bookshelves for a growing collection and a means of centralizing materials previously stored throughout the building, which makes for easier and more efficient access. The computer lab was also fully integrated with the library to provide a full range of services to our students. Our next goal is to provide interlibrary loans. Student Services. The Student Life Office, which is staffed by work-study students, serves as a hub for peer contact, creating a welcoming atmosphere (lights on, coffee and tea out), maintaining the bulletin board and putting out the student newspaper. These work-study students also hear student issues more immediately and help to funnel student concerns needing attention for problem solving. This year we have added the role of Special Assistant to the Academic Dean for Student Services to work with the Student Life Office. This person is a member of the core faculty and 10 percent of her time is allocated to her role as Special Assistant. She meets with staff in the Student Life Office regularly, helping to problem solve issues that come up as well as helping to plan activities around such themes as Black History month. By increasing the amount of this position to 40 percent next year, we are hoping that it will be a step towards institutionalizing a student services function. Career counseling is offered to students free of charge through an arrangement that Antioch Seattle has with The Centerpoint Institute for Life and Career Renewal. Students can sign up for individual sessions with a career counselor or for workshops which are offered throughout the year. Both individual sessions and workshops are held on campus. Page 28 20 The Writing Lab is staffed by a part-time faculty member an average of three hours per week. We see this as the beginning of a Learning Resource Center. In the past, the BA Program has coordinated this service. In the interest of providing more visibility and hopefully increasing access by students in other programs, the Writing Lab is now centrally located and managed by the Academic Dean. This move is partly in response to a survey conducted among graduate faculty in the summer of 2001. A majority of respondents thought that approximately 10% of their students could not write at a level of proficiency consistent with that required for graduate level studies. It is also in response to the steadily increasing numbers of graduate students using the lab. Antioch Seattle is committed to providing equal opportunities to academically qualified students with disabilities. We have a history of working successfully with students with disabilities and a commitment to continue. In 1996, the position of ADA Coordinator was formally established in the budget. Currently, the position is 10 percent of an academic staff position. During 2000/2001, 40 students were served. Some examples of reasonable accommodations are early registration, access to recorded text, tutorial assistance and assistance with use of technology, tailoring requirements to individual needs, and extended deadlines on assignments. Because of the student-oriented nature of our faculty and staff, we have not had as much need for special staff and facility accommodation. However, this is an area where we recognize that more resources are needed than currently allocated. University Relations. In 1997, the University Relations division, lead by a Dean, was established. Until that time, advertising was the primary means of outreach with a few sporadic attempts at fundraising. The new University Relations division has a more comprehensive function, including development, alumni relations, community outreach, advertising, strategic marketing and public relations. Staffing gaps and transitions have slowed the anticipated development of the University Relations function. However, progress has been made. We now have a stable base of experienced staff from which to grow, have purchased a powerful fundraising database, have upgraded the website so that it has become a useful communications vehicle with dynamic content, and developed full-year strategic advertising plans. Page 29 21 Policies and Procedures Development and/or revision of policies and procedures have occurred in three areas. The first relates to students. A Student Handbook was distributed Fall 2001 after several years of no campus-wide handbook being available. Work on the handbook spanned several years with efforts made to pull together all the policies related to students, develop a code of conduct and then finally add in helpful information including names, e-mail and phone numbers for all student offices on campus. During 2001/2002, Academic Council completed work on the student grievance process. As noted earlier, policies and procedures related to human resources have been completed or work is currently underway. New budget policies and guidelines were developed in 1998. More recently, cost center managers can now electronically access current status of budget information on a daily basis. Previously, they had to rely on a monthly printout. Finally, all administrative units, accounting, bookstore, front office, facilities, and student accounts have developed written procedures. This has helped in streamlining day-to-day operations and in responding to emergency situations. Personnel Faculty. In Fall 2001, we had 42 core faculty, 9 more than in 1992. More of our core faculty are 100 percent and so the increase in faculty FTE is actually 13.75. Five of these positions are currently filled by temporary appointments. We have three types of faculty; core, associate and adjunct. Core faculty are those on contract for more than 50 percent of their time. Associates are less than 50 percent, on an annual contract, and advise as well as teach. Adjunct faculty are hired on a course basis. As indicated above, most of our core faculty are full-time, a shift from ten years ago. Hiring core faculty with doctorates has been a priority in the last five years and we have made significant progress in this area. As of Fall 2001, 88 percent of core faculty hold doctorates, compared to 76% in Fall 1992. More information on credentials is included in Chapter Four. During the past ten years, we have developed and refined the core faculty salary scale. During 1996/1997 and 2000/2001, efforts were made to address salary Page 30 22 compression. Our most recent market assessment in 2000 indicates that we are at 90 percent of the mean for our comparison group. This is up from 80 percent when we did the survey six years earlier. During the past ten years, faculty raises averaged 4 percent. Compensation for adjuncts has also been a concern. Since 1992, the base pay for a new adjunct has increased 45 percent with the increases in compensation occurring during the past four years. While we have made significant gains in compensation for adjuncts, they are still paid significantly less than those teaching at other institutions in the area. Staff. In Fall 2001, we had 56 staff, 22 more than in 1992. Our goal has been to raise the bar with every new hire. Accordingly, 25 positions have been upgraded. Antioch Seattle is located in a tough job market with, until recently, relatively high wages and lots of job possibilities. During the past ten years we have developed and refined a staff salary scale. Our most recent market assessment in 2000 indicates that we are at 94 percent of the mean for our comparison group. This is up from 88 percent when we did the first survey six years earlier. During the past ten years, staff have received an average 3.5 percent raise. Administration. There has been a significant change of personnel in top leadership positions and a number of interim appointments. While we believe we now have a strong leadership team, it has been difficult at times. The University Board accepted the previous Provost’s resignation, in response to concerns raised by the faculty, in December 1995. The then Academic Dean served as Interim Provost for eighteen months until our current Provost/President arrived in July 1997. The Academic Dean moved back to her role for one year before retirement. For two and a half years, 1999-2001, we had two individuals serve as Interim Academic Dean. The new Academic Dean arrived in September 2001. Since 1999, four people have held the position of Director of Education. Both directors stayed less then a year, one interim served two years, and the position is currently filled by an interim who accepted the position in March 2002. The Director of BA in Liberal Studies has been held by an interim for two years, 2000-2002. During the past year, several other leadership positions have been filled: Dean of University Relations, August 1, 2001, after being unfilled for 8 months; Director of Page 31 23 Center for Creative Change, January 1, 2001; Director of Center for Programs in Psychology, July 1, 2001; and Director of Enrollment Services, January 1, 2001. Along with a sense of permanence, a common theme with all of these hires is increased knowledge and experience. Moreover, two of these new hires are individuals of color, which is consistent with our goal of increasing diversity of faculty, staff, administrators and students. These individuals have brought new ideas, fresh perspectives and enthusiasm. (With the unexpected death of the Dean of University of Relations in June 2002, the campus will engage in another search and possibly a reorganization of the office.) As indicated earlier, concerns raised by faculty about our previous Provost lead to his resignation in 1995. In 1999/2000 concerns were raised about our current President’s leadership. In Spring 2000, 18 of 46 faculty and administrators with faculty appointments supported a vote of no confidence. This was followed by visits from the University Chancellor who, after holding several meetings with faculty and the President, asked that the campus work together to resolve the issues. After continued communication from some faculty, the Chancellor proposed that a team of two presidents from other Antioch campuses assess the situation. They visited the campus in July 2000 and provided a report that included a series of recommendations. The campus formed a task force to study the recommendations. This task force worked through the summer though, in the opinion of some faculty, little progress was made in addressing the issues. The University Board of Trustees, responding to continued communication from some faculty, sent a two-person team of external evaluators to the campus in December 2000. After reviewing their report, the Board passed a resolution in support of the President and requested that all members of the Seattle campus community work together to “restore a campus climate of respect and collegiality.” Toward this end, two consultants worked with the campus over a six month period, March-August, 2001, facilitating two campus retreats, several meetings between the President and smaller groups, and with an ad hoc Communication task force that was charged with acting on the recommendations made at the two campus retreats. Progress has been made. There has been continued clarification of the governance structure, which was one area of concern. Also, communication, another Page 32 24 area of concern, has increased between administration and campus. For example, during Fall 2001, when the University was facing financial problems, the community was kept informed through open sessions and memos. It was also during this time that the faculty voted to support the President’s position on the latest university budget situation. Communication has also been increased through posting minutes from councils and teams. Facility In 1993, Antioch Seattle had 14 classrooms and seminar rooms spread over three buildings. In Fall 1997, Antioch Seattle moved into a newly purchased and remodeled building with 17 classrooms and seminar rooms. Two large classrooms can be divided into two giving us the capacity for 19 classrooms. One classroom is equipped with computers. Three classrooms have tile floors and two have sinks to provide spaces that support art and movement projects. New, more comfortable chairs have been purchased for all classrooms and old chalk and white boards have been replaced with new white boards. We have created two gathering and studying areas for students, one on the second floor around the skylight, and the other in our main atrium area on the first floor. Moving to our own building also allowed us to increase the size of the bookstore and add a café, which serves as another gathering area for students. Full spectrum lighting has been used throughout our new building and a computer controlled HVAC system gives better control over classroom temperatures. A student survey conducted in Fall 1999 (154 students from a sampling of classes in each program) indicated that though they generally found the facility satisfactory they also found it was too sterile. In response, an Aesthetics Committee has organized a series of art exhibits and raised money to purchase our own art. During the past year, art shows included work by the street life gallery, youth at risk, disabled artists, employee exhibit and two by former students. In 2001 we remodeled an additional 4200 square feet of space. This space includes two additional classrooms, a new computer classroom and an art studio. This renovation also gave us space to increase the size of the library and computer lab, co- Page 33 25 locate all admission staff, all university relations staff, and all faculty and staff in the Center for Creative Change. There has also been a dramatic increase in the use of our building by outside groups, which supports our goal of becoming more connected with the community. The symbolism of owning our own facility cannot be over- exaggerated in terms of its positive effect on the faculty, staff, students and alumni and in terms of the message of permanence it sends to potential students in the Seattle area and the Northwest. Financial Stability Since 1993/1994 our revenue has increased 70 percent. We have established goals to both diversify our revenue sources and diversify our program offerings so as not to be so dependent on one program. In addition, we have established goals and started a scholarship endowment, a capital savings plan to meet deferred maintenance on our new facility and President’s contingency fund for emergencies. Since 1993/1994 the percentage of our budget coming from tuition and fees has dropped from 96 percent to 91 percent. This is a modest gain, but is clearly going in the right direction. Previously, over 50 percent of our revenue came from the counseling psychology program. This is no longer the case. The shift was accomplished by adding two programs, Bachelor of Arts with a Teaching Certificate and the Environment and Community Program, and by adding tracks within programs, site based in the Experienced Educator Program and Corporate Leadership in the Management Program. In addition, a growing continuing education office has added the dimension of non-degree academically generated revenue to our mix. The new building has stabilized the cost of providing urban facilities. The cost of leasing space in downtown Seattle has doubled in the past 10 years; our bond payments are close to a fixed rate for the future. When we moved into the new and expanded size of the facility, the challenge from our board was to do it at the same cost as our lease in 1995/1996. This challenge was accomplished. During the 1999/2000 budget development process we established a capital reserve fund. To date we have set aside $50,000 toward future repairs on our building. Page 34 26 With the new requirement to budget our depreciation it is expected that within the next 5 years that fund will exceed $500,000. Our scholarship endowment established three years ago is a modest $29,000 but growing. Governance In January 1998, Antioch Seattle set out to design a new governance system. A task force, including four faculty, three staff and the President, began work in January 1998. During the winter, the task force identified the strengths and weaknesses of the current operations and reviewed governance systems of other higher education institutions thought similar to Antioch Seattle in some relevant way, i.e., size, mission, philosophy, etc. In the spring, it sought input from various constituencies of the Antioch community (faculty, staff and academic program directors) about issues and concerns they had around governance issues. It was also a time when the task force wrestled with principles around issues of accountability and decision-making, shared governance, open communication and participation. Actual work of designing the proposed system followed during which key groups in the governance system were identified, ideas of separating the day-to-day work of teams and the policy-making work of councils came forth, and relationships between the various bodies were discussed. Finally, in early June, the task force produced a draft proposal, which they asked the community to comment on. Feedback was solicited through academic programs and administrative units. Special efforts were also made to inform and solicit feedback from students. In early fall, the group met to fine-tune their proposal, based on feedback received. The new governance system was launched October 1, 1998. This governance system is based on the interrelationship between councils, policy-making bodies, assemblies, constituency groups and teams managing day-to-day operations. As such it is not a hierarchical structure, rather best thought of as concentric circles. This system is consistent with our history of open communication, broad participation and being a learning community. Councils are bodies with representation across academic programs and administrative units that formulate, recommend and/or determine university policies and procedures dependent on the nature of the issues. Some council membership is Page 35 27 determined by role and other membership is by election or appointment for a specified term. All councils include faculty, staff, administrators and students with membership ranging from 10 to 16. There are three councils: Planning and Budget Council, Academic Council, and Student Services Council. The following descriptions are from the governance document. The Planning and Budget Council is an advisory and recommending body to the President for strategic planning and the annual budgetary process. Specifically, it is charged to establish and maintain a campus-wide strategic planning process including faculty, staff and students, review and evaluate the strategic plans emanating from each of the programs/units, ensure that the Seattle campus strategic plan is in concert with the University-wide strategic plan, and monitor the strategic plans through a short summary update received each year from the programs/units. In addition, the Planning and Budget Council is responsible for establishing the process to work with the community, faculty, staff and students to develop the annual budget. It is to make recommendations to the President for the annual budget, which would include tuition levels, salary and compensation, and approval of any new budget requests deriving from units and programs. The Academic Council is responsible for helping to ensure the effectiveness and quality of the academic programs and mission of Antioch University Seattle. Its charge is to review and recommend possible actions regarding the following: new or changes to campus-wide academic policies affecting academic programs; cross-program and/or interdisciplinary academic ideas; new academic program initiatives; substantial changes in program design, curriculum or credits; campus policies regarding periodic review and evaluation of academic programs; review of university and other outside evaluations of academic programs; and changes to campus and program requirements for admissions and enrollment. The Student Services Council is responsible for maintaining the long-term vision and mission of Antioch University Seattle for all student services. The primary function of the Council is to promote quality and efficient services for students and receive and address student concerns. Assemblies were initially comprised of three constituencies, faculty, staff and students. Each assembly has the right to choose its own leadership team, elect representatives to the various councils, address matters within its purview, and to frame and forward policy proposals or recommendations to appropriate councils. The following descriptions are from the governance document. Page 36 28 The Faculty Assembly represents the voice of the faculty as a whole and is responsible for ensuring the academic quality and integrity of Antioch University Seattle. The Faculty Assembly has functions in two basic areas: initiate and/or review, and forward policy recommendations regarding campus-wide academic matters; and development and support of faculty. The Staff Assembly is responsible for maintaining the long-term vision and mission of Antioch University for all non-faculty staff. The Assembly exists to represent staff interest and present a representative voice for staff on matters that concern staff. The Student Assembly exists to give the student body a forum for raising and discussing issues of student concern and interest, and the authority to formulate proposals to forward to the appropriate governance bodies. Teams are constituted around each of the Deans (Academic, Administration and Finance, and University Relations) and the President, and are informal bodies intended to facilitate the coordination of day-to-day operations and decision-making in relation to each Dean’s area of responsibility and authority. The respective Dean or President determines team membership. As indicated above, one of our operating assumptions is that regular review will occur to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. The first review was scheduled for Spring 1999. Along with providing an assessment of the governance system, each Council, Assembly and Team was asked to submit their by-laws and operating procedures. A small committee chaired by a faculty member met to review the feedback. No recommendations were made at that point because no significant themes were identified for change except that the councils were too large. In Spring 2000, these groups were again asked for feedback and a summit was convened in Fall 2000, which included the chairs of each of the councils and assemblies. During that meeting, it was agreed that two years was too short a timeframe for determining whether or not the governance system was working and that the focus, at least for the next year or so, should be on fine-tuning what we had. We also agreed that it was important to formalize by-laws and operating procedures. Consistent with our governance system, these were forwarded to the President for review and approval. Finally, recommendations were made regarding changes, primarily in membership on the councils. Most notably was the addition of faculty Page 37 29 representation on the Student Service Council. This Council had struggled with questions regarding their authority. They had initiated several proposals not implemented because the academic programs would not support them. It was believed that having academic programs directly involved in the development and review of such proposals would increase their support. Since the changes impacted representation on the Council, it was agreed that the Assemblies would review these recommendations and the recommendations along with comments from the Assemblies would be forwarded to the President for final review and approval, which occurred. The President also reviewed by-laws and operating procedures and followed up with a memo to the community noting areas that needed further clarification. During Spring 2001, each Council and Assembly recommended changes, additions, and deletions to the Fall1998 governance document. The recommendations that the President approved were incorporated into a new document, which was distributed to the campus in September 2001. Beyond minor changes, the entire section covering the Student Assembly was rewritten. The proposed concept of a Student Assembly had not been successful or feasible owing to the nature of our student body. The President approved a recommendation made by the Student Services Council that a small committee of students, representatives of the three centers and BA program, be formed and charged to represent student issues and concerns. At the end of 2001/2002, this committee had not been formed and Student Services Council proposed a revision of their membership to include student and center representatives from each of the academic departments on the Council. This proposal is currently under discussion. We believe that the revised document strengthened the governance system by evaluating and recommending by-laws, operational procedures and changes in membership to all groups. The present revision enhances the original document by incorporating more clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and operational procedures. During the 2001/2002 academic year, conversation regarding the governance system at Antioch Seattle continued. The Communication Team, an outgrowth of the campus-wide retreats held in Spring 2001, have scheduled a series of “brown bags” to talk about the various models, types and definitions of governance. Page 38 30 Even more importantly, we believe that this governance system reflects our values as a campus and the principles we aspire to of respect for each other and the honoring of a diversity of opinions and participation. The strength of our governance system is in the wide participation of faculty and staff in policy level discussions and decisions. The challenge is twofold, the time involved for this participation and ensuring that the voices of other constituencies, particularly that of students, are represented. In preparation for the Self-Study, each Council was asked to identify accomplishments and areas of concern. A common theme with respect to accomplishments across all the Councils was refinement of the governance document and clarification of each Council’s role and operational procedures. Common areas of concern relate to the need to fully realize the potential of this governance model, concerns about the workload and finally, participation of students so their perspective can be more fully present during policy level discussions. Page 39 31 CHAPTER THREE ACCOMPLISHING PURPOSES Criterion III: The campus is accomplishing its educational and other purposes. The academic programs are the heart of this campus and so this chapter will focus on the students, the academic programs, the faculty and means of assessment. Students There have always been more female students than male at Antioch Seattle and while that is still the case, the proportion of male students overall has increased during the past ten years. For Fall 2001, 69% of our students were women; 66% of the students in the Center for Creative Change, 67% in the Center for Programs in Education, and 73% in B.A. in Liberal Studies and the Center for Programs in Psychology. As noted earlier, the proportion of students of color has increased during the past ten years. In Fall Quarter 2001, 20% of our students were students of color (see Table One). The Center for Creative Change with 10% has the smallest proportion of students of color and the Center for Programs in Education with 32% has the largest proportion. Table One Student Ethnicity Fall Quarter 2001 B.A. Liberal Studies Creative Change Education Psychology Overall # % # % # % # % # % African American 12 7% 8 4% 50 18% 6 3% 76 9% Asian/Pacific Islanders 8 5% 8 4% 17 6% 5 2% 38 4% Hispanic/Latino/Chicano 2 1% 4 2% 6 2% 3 1% 15 2% Native American/Alaskan 5 3% 1 1% 6 2% 1 0% 13 1% Other 11 7% 6 3% 10 4% 8 3% 35 4% TOTALS 38 23% 27 14% 89 32% 23 10% 177 20% Page 40 32 Academic Programs As displayed in Table Two, there has been a growth in the number of programs and in the number of degrees offered. In 1992/1993, there were five academic programs offering five degrees. In 2001/2002, there were twelve academic programs/tracks leading to seven degrees. These changes are the result of two factors. One is the continued program development effort, first in Psychology and most recently in Education. The other is the move of the Environment and Community Program from Antioch McGregor to Antioch Seattle in 1997, as it was believed that the northwest was a better location than Ohio for such a program. The B.A. in Liberal Studies program is designed for adults returning to college to complete a bachelor’s degree in liberal studies. Each student develops a design for an educational program that integrates previous college studies, prior life and work experiences, and current work within a liberal arts framework. The Center for Creative Change brings together four degree programs in an integrated model of graduate education to prepare students to understand the world as an integrated system and to become effective leaders in facilitating positive and sustainable change in organizations, communities and the environment. Programs include Environment and Community – focus on the interdependence of environmental and social issues; Management – focus on the management of change; Organizational Psychology – focus on self-awareness, interpersonal skills and understanding of organizations; and Whole Systems Design – focus on living systems perspectives and creative design approaches. The Center for Programs in Education offers three tracks leading to a teaching certificate; Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies with a teaching certificate, Washington State Certificate, and Master of Arts in Education with a teaching certificate. Their fourth program, Experienced Educators, emphasizes preparation for leadership in educational change. Page 41 33 Table Two Academic Programs and Degrees 1992-1993 2001-2002 B.A. in Liberal Studies B.A. in Liberal Studies Education, M.A. Center for Creative Change • Individualized • Environment & Community, M.A. • Management, M.S. • Teacher’s Certification • Organizational Psychology, M.A. (formally Human Resource Development) • Whole Systems Design, M.A. Management, M.S. Center for Programs in Education Psychology, M.A. • Bachelor or Arts w/Teacher Certification Education, M.A. • Counseling • Experienced Educators • Human Resource Development • Graduate Teacher Certification • Individualized Center for Programs In Psychology (M.A. in Psychology) Whole Systems Design, M.A. • Couple & Family Therapy • Couple & Family Therapy w/Art Therapy • Integrative Studies • Mental Health Counseling • Mental Health Counseling w/Art Therapy Page 42 34 The Center for Programs in Psychology offers intensive, challenging programs of graduate study emphasizing multidimensional learning, integration of practice, and the interweaving of personal and professional development. Programs include Couple and Family Therapy – treating clinical problems in the context of couple and family relationships; Mental Health Counseling – training for ethical, creative, socially responsible counselors; Art Therapy – specialized training for clinical competencies in art therapy combined with CFT or MHC; and Integrative Studies in Psychology – self- directed study of psychology for varied applications. We have also introduced a new structure for organizing our academic programs. Discussions during the strategic planning process identified concerns about the rigidity of the current programs in seeing and responding to opportunities to serve new groups of students or develop partnerships with other entities. There were also concerns about the size of many programs, too small to afford breadth of faculty or to respond to opportunities. In 1999, as an outgrowth of these discussions, President Murdock proposed the concept of centers in her white paper, “Future Directions for Antioch University Seattle.” As discussed in the white paper, the purpose of moving toward a structure of Centers for Innovation and Excellence was to allow new programs to be developed within the center rather than as separate entities and independent programs, to foster the creation of innovative programs and the redesign of current programs by removing the boundaries and barriers established between programs over time, encourage the intermingling among programs of our faculty and students to create a diverse and rich environment that promotes innovation and provide more options and opportunities for both students and faculty by creating an environment that allows for research, consulting, and continuing education programs. The first center, recently named the Center for Creative Change, brought together four programs (Environment and Community, Management, Organizational Psychology and Whole Systems Design) sharing a common focus on organizations and communities. The process leading up to the establishment of this center occurred over a two-year period and involved all constituencies. An informal group of faculty began exploring the overlap between the programs in 1999. Later that year, a proposal Page 43 35 development group was formed which included faculty from all the programs, a staff member and a student. This group worked over the course of six months, seeking ideas from the outside and periodically asking for reactions from faculty, staff and students in the four programs. Their work led to a recommendation to proceed and a proposal for doing so. The appropriate bodies on campus reviewed the proposal and ultimately the President who gave her approval. Since its formal launch in July 2000 and the arrival of a new director in January 2001, the Center for Creative Change has found ways to open up curriculum to students across all programs, designed a set of center-wide courses, established an advisory board of community leaders, held a series of panels, lectures and workshops for faculty to present their work, and sponsored community events and workshops featuring guest presenters. All these attest to the potential for enriching the experience of our students. They are currently looking to partner with businesses and/or corporations. The center had its University program review in Spring 2002 and the result of that assessment will direct a major portion of the center’s work in the future. Education has also embraced the center concept. The Center for Programs in Education has taken the lead in looking outward to address the needs of the community. We are the only institution delivering educational programs on the I-5 freeway corridor with the launching of site-based programs leading to a bachelors with teaching certificate, masters with teaching certificate and a masters in education for those who already have a teaching certificate. We are also working with schools and tribal communities who desire to improve high school retention and college access for Native youth. This work is being supported by a Gates grant which Antioch received after a decade of offering teacher education programs at Indian schools at the pre- service and in-service levels Under discussion is the idea of expanding the center to include a certification for administrators and professional certification for new teachers. The latter is in response to new state guidelines requiring new teachers to complete a three-to-five year process for professional certification. While Psychology has adopted the title of Center for Programs in Psychology, there is no clear agreement within Psychology as to what that means. A new Director Page 44 36 came on board in July 2001, which prompted revisiting their vision. With the decision to relocate the Organizational Psychology Program within what has become the Center for Creative Change, the Center for Programs in Psychology have focused more sharply on clinical and individualized degree programs. These programs are already integrated, with a common set of introductory courses serving all students. Their challenge relates to stabilization and continuing to improve quality through seeking accreditation of the programs. The Center for Programs in Psychology have also begun offering undergraduate courses and a post-master certificate for counselors in Foster Care and Adoption Therapy. Under discussion is expanding the center to include a doctorate in psychology plus the addition of more post-masters certificates for counselors. The BA Program in Liberal Studies has continued to hold discussions about the center concept and is in the process of recruiting for a new director. We expect that they will begin the process of moving forward in the 2002/2003 academic year into a center in liberal studies. We are excited about the potential of this structure. With arrival of our new academic dean and directors, we have spent this year (2001/2002) and plan to spend next year (2002/2003) exploring what each center could do to move forward. We are also concerned about the challenge of integration across centers. Currently our academic programs share three elements in common: clearly defined student outcome objectives and courses of study, emphasis on self-reflection and service to the community, and integration of theory and practice. Each of these will be briefly discussed. Each academic program has clearly defined student outcome objectives and a course of study. These are included in the program handbooks that are updated annually and distributed to students when they enter the program. As part of our outcome assessment efforts, each program focuses on three or more student outcome objectives each year. Objectives are selected based on centrality of the objective to the program, concern about how students are doing in a particular area or an area where development work is occurring. Information is gathered throughout the year and analyzed and shared with the program and the Outcome Assessment Committee twice Page 45 37 a year. Additional information on Outcome Assessment is included in a later section in this chapter. Antioch Seattle’s mission incorporates the three elements: transformative education, lifelong development and agency in a changing world. Each of our programs has incorporated means for addressing these elements in their programs. Transformative education and lifelong development begins with a solid understanding of self, followed by practicing skills in self-reflection. Our belief is that students need to understand themselves and their values and beliefs in order to be of service to others. Many programs incorporate this into their introductory coursework and then weave it into the degree process. In addition, most programs have a capstone project that includes an element related to self-reflection. Agency in a changing world means making a difference and reflects Horace Mann’s challenge to “be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” Programs use various means for achieving this. Community service projects are incorporated into some courses. Antioch sponsors various activities and students join in as an opportunity to be of service. Some programs require completion of a service project as part of their degree requirements. Programs have also been designed for underserved populations; the Bachelor of Arts/Teaching Certificate Program is the latest example. This is a site-based program where the students, most of whom work in schools as paraprofessionals, are committed to their communities and to education. This program provides them the opportunity to complete a bachelors degree and earn a teaching certificate, thus qualifying for K-12 teaching positions. In every program, faculty work closely with students, helping them to link theory with practice. Some programs accomplish this through an individualized degree process. Other programs focus on an internship or practicum, providing weekly consultation groups and/or frequent visits to the site. Finally, several programs incorporate thesis or research projects with faculty members, usually the student’s advisor, providing guidance. Page 46 38 Faculty Student/faculty ratios range from a low of 20 to 1 in the B.A. program to 28 to 1 in Psychology. Advising loads range from a low of 6 to 10 in Education to 28 to 32 in the B.A. Program. Annual teaching loads range from a low of 9 to 12 quarter hours in the B.A. Program, 15 in Psychology, and 18 in the other graduate programs. Table Three displays credentials for all faculty that were at Antioch Seattle in Fall 2001. Eighty-eight percent of our core faculty holds Ph.D.s. Many of our core faculty are engaged in writing and research. Last year, 15 (38 percent) published, 18 (46 Table Three Faculty Credentials Fall 2001 CORE TEMPORARY ASSOCIATE/ADJUNCT Ph.D Masters Ph.D Masters Ph.D Masters Bachelors Number Number Number Number Number Number Number B.A. Liberal Studies 4 3 2 2 5 Ctr. for Creative Change 7 3 3 4 Ctr. for Programs in Education 11 1 1 1 4 11 4 Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 7 1 3 15 At Large 1 TOTALS 30 (88%) 4 (12%) 1 (13%) 7 (87%) 12 (24%) 35 (69%) 4 (8%) percent) presented, 12 (31 percent) held leadership positions in professional organizations and 23 (59 percent) attended professional conferences or workshops. Faculty have up to 20 days of professional leave per academic year. They use this time for writing, research, development of new curriculum, and exploration of new areas of study. Each faculty member is allocated up to $400 to support professional development. Funds are typically used to offset the cost of attending a conference. Additional funds are available through the Academic Dean’s office. This money is typically earmarked for development activities that are in line with program priorities. We Page 47 39 acknowledge that more money needs to be made available for professional development and in support of scholarship. Core faculty are evaluated annually. Each member of the faculty completes the core faculty evaluation report (see Appendix B), which asks for information about advising, teaching, program, campus, university activities, and contributions outside the university including community activities, professional and scholarly activities, and professional development activities. These reports are reviewed by the program chair and form the basis for a meeting between the faculty member and the program chair. Based on the report and follow-up meeting, the chair forwards a written summary to the director and the academic dean. This summary, along with the core faculty evaluation report, is placed in the faculty member’s file in the academic dean’s office. A need to revise this process has been identified as a top priority for next year. It will reflect current work on a faculty code of conduct and faculty handbook and the recognition that the current process does not assist in the rejuvenation of faculty. Assessment Discussion of assessment includes advising, instruction, student outcomes and programs. Each will be discussed below. Academic Advising. Table Four displays the range and average advising load by centers for Fall 2001. Core faculty, Education being the exception, do most advising. Associate or adjunct faculty advises approximately half of the students in Education. The average load of core faculty ranges from 10 for core faculty in Education to 25 for core faculty in Psychology. Page 48 40 Table Four Student Advising Load By Type of Faculty Fall Quarter 2001 Core Associate/Adjunct Range Mean Range Mean B. A. in Liberal Studies 8-30 23 Ctr. for Creative Change 3-37 12 4-7 6 Ctr. for Programs in Education 1-25 10 1-17 7 Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 11-36 25 TOTALS 1-37 16 1-17 7 Although the informal faculty culture is extraordinarily emphatic about valuing an “advising intensive ” approach to work with students, the campus lacks a fully developed approach to assessing the quality of advising services. The core faculty evaluation report asks faculty to indicate the number of advisees per quarter, advising evaluations (some programs have implemented annual surveys or asked for feedback as part of exit interviews), and additional comments regarding advising including accessibility to students, encouraging self direction and facilitating the degree process. However, we do not at present have a mechanism in place that permits student evaluation of individual advisors by name with results fed back into a professional development program to improve advisor performance or to take account of advising performance as part of a systematic faculty evaluation strategy. Questions on advising were included in a student survey conducted during Fall quarter 2000. One hundred and fifty four students from a random sampling of courses in each program were asked to complete a survey focusing primarily on satisfaction with student services, but with items included on quality of advising and instruction. Students used a four-point scale: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), strongly Page 49 41 disagree (1), to respond to the following question, “I feel the quality of academic advising at AUS is excellent.” Table Five displays results. Average ratings ranged from 3.0 to 3.35. These findings suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality of advising. Table Five Student Satisfaction with Academic Advising Measured on a 4 Point Scale RANGE MEAN B.A. Liberal Studies 3-4 3.4 Ctr. for Creative Change 2-4 3.3 Ctr. for Programs in Education 3-4 3.3 Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 2-4 3.0 TOTALS 2-4 3.3 Effective Instruction. Table Six displays the number of courses taught in the BA Program and in each Center, and by whom, core or associate/adjunct. Core faculty teach just over 39 percent of our classes. This varies from 30 percent in Psychology to 48 percent in the B.A. Program. Page 50 42 Table Six Number and Percent of Courses taught by Type of Faculty 2000/2001 Core Associate/Adjunct Number % Number % B.A. Liberal Studies 32 48% 35 52% Ctr. for Creative Change 53 42% 74 58% Ctr. for Programs in Education 85 42% 119 58% Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 48 30% 110 70% TOTALS 218 39% 338 61% Table Seven Range and Mean of Class Size By Center/Program Fall Quarter 2001 Classes Students in Class Unused Seats in Class Number Range Mean Range Mean B.A. Program 16 6-20 14.31 0-2 4.44 Ctr. for Creative Change 24 4-18 9.13 +2-17 8.79 Ctr. for Programs in Education 39 8-25 15.95 +7-11 1.8 Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 34 7-23 13.62 2-21 10.29 OVERALL 113 4-23 13.57 +7-2 6.40 Page 51 43 Table Seven displays the range and average number of students in classes and the range and average number of seats unfilled in those classes. Overall, classes ranged from 4 to 23 students with 14 students as an average. Unused capacity, that is the capacity or number of seats in the class that are not filled (based on limits set by the programs), ranged from 7 more than the class limit to 21 below the class limit. The average was 6 below the class limit. Most classrooms have a design capacity of 20 or fewer students and all have a seminar style furniture arrangement. The campus does not have a single chair-desk in its inventory. Tension does exist between the desire to maintain low student/faculty ratios and the need to be cost effective. Students, in the Fall quarter 2000 survey described above, were asked to use a four-point scale: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), strongly disagree (1), to respond to the following question, “I feel the quality of classes I am taking at AUS is excellent.” Table Eight displays the results. Average ratings ranged from 3.3 to 3.6. As with advising, these findings suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality of instruction. Table Eight Student Assessment of Quality of Course Instruction Measured on a Four Point Scale RANGE MEAN B.A. in Liberal Studies 2-4 3.6 Center For Creative Change 3-4 3.6 Ctr. for Programs in Education 3-4 3.34 Ctr. for Programs in Psychology 3-4 3.4 TOTALS 2-4 3.36 Page 52 44 All courses are assessed using a standardized form. Students are asked to complete the form during their last or second to last class session. The form includes 17 items, rated on a 6-point scale, very poor (1), poor, fair, good, very good, excellent (6), relating to course organization and design, instructor knowledge and teaching, and overall assessment of the course and of the instructor. Students are also asked to comment on the strengths of the course and needed changes. Instructors receive copies of the forms after they have completed their student assessments. The forms are also reviewed by the faculty liaison for the course. For core faculty, course evaluations are included in the performance review. For associate and adjunct, course evaluations influence the decision to rehire. Many programs also distribute a midterm assessment form, the results of which are compiled and shared with students. In preparation for the self-study, evaluations from a random sample of 80 courses taught during 2000/2001 were reviewed (twenty per center, half by core, half by adjunct). Table Nine displays a summary of results for the four main areas covered by the form: 1) course organization and design; 2) instructor knowledge and teaching; 3) course overall; and 4) instructor overall. All ratings fell between 5 and 6 (very good to excellent). These findings also suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality of instruction. (Appendix C contains complete information for all items on the form). Table Nine Summary of Student Feedback on Courses Measured on a Six Point Scale 2000/2001 B.A. in Liberal Studies Range Mean Creative Change Range Mean Education Range Mean Psychology Range Mean Overall Range Mean Course Organization/ Design 1-6 5.05 2-6 5.29 1-6 5.18 2-6 5.27 1-6 5.18 Instructor Knowledge/ Teaching 1-6 5.31 1-6 5.39 1-6 5.34 1-6 5.31 1-6 5.33 Course Overall 1-6 5.40 2-6 5.57 2-6 5.41 3-6 5.36 1-6 5.42 Instructor Overall 1-6 5.08 2-6 5.33 1-6 5.22 2-6 5.37 1-6 5.23 Page 53 45 There has been concern about the comparative quality of courses taught by core and by associate or adjunct, particularly since core teach less than half of our courses overall. A comparison of the ratings indicated that there was little difference. For example, on the item related to the course as a whole, the average rating for core faculty was 5.29, for associate/adjunct, 5.13, and on the item related to the instructor overall, the average rating for core faculty was 5.51, for associate/adjunct 5.33. We have maintained the liaison system reported in 1992 in which a core faculty member works closely with every associate/adjunct, providing orientation, reviewing syllabi and course evaluations and being available if problems arise. The data suggest the system is working to ensure quality of instruction by associates/adjuncts. Outcome Assessment. Assessment of student outcomes is the responsibility of every academic program. Following the last NCA visit, academic programs were asked to develop outcome assessment plans. In 1999, in preparation for this visit, each campus was asked to assess implementation of those plans. We found that programs ranged with respect to implementation. Some had developed a plan, some implemented the plan for awhile and some implemented part of the plan. In all cases, the information was not being analyzed on a regular basis and use was not documented. During 1999/2000, a faculty member was appointed as a coordinator with 30 percent release time. It was agreed that we would approach outcome assessment as a campus initiative, required of all academic programs and administrative units. That individual, working with a committee of faculty, and later a committee of faculty and staff, developed an approach for use on this campus based on the work of James Nichols. A set of forms was designed asking programs and units to specify on an annual basis, the mission of their program/unit, the goal from the strategic plan being addressed, their objectives for the upcoming year, and for each objective, means of measurement and criteria of success (see Appendix D). At the end of each year, programs/units are asked to provide a summary of the results and indicate how the information was used. Our goal in reviewing the first round of plans was to ensure that each program and unit had a plan that was not overly ambitious. We felt that the first year of Page 54 46 implementation would help us learn about how to integrate outcome assessment into our ongoing work. During 2000/2001, each program and unit was asked to submit a 6-month progress report. As expected we found that many programs and units were using the year to develop and pilot instruments. At the end of the year, programs and units were asked to submit results from the first year and plans for the next year. Since many programs and units had used the first year to develop and pilot instruments, little data was available. However, it was clear that what information was available was being used. In reviewing the plans for 2001/2002, the Outcome Assessment Committee was much more critical. More than half the programs and units were asked to redo some aspect of their plan and resubmit it to the Committee. The Committee also spent more time talking about means to support the programs and units, including informal mentoring (with faculty on the committee agreeing to work with certain programs), hosting a series of forums on outcome assessment, and requesting more investment in professional development for faculty in next year’s budget. During this time, the Outcome Assessment Committee clarified its purpose and procedures and asked to be recognized as a standing committee reporting to the President. This has been approved. We think that this arrangement underscores the importance placed on outcome assessment and the commitment to instituting it as part of our ongoing processes. In reviewing their efforts in preparation for the self study, the committee noted that progress has been made. All academic programs have plans in place and all but two submitted six-month updates in January 2002. However, there is a reliance on student self report or global assessments by faculty. Also, while faculty and administrators are involved and supportive of outcome assessment, students are not. Results are not shared in any systematic way with students and few are aware of their program’s work in this area. As part of the committee’s work this summer, they will recommend a course of action to increase faculty expertise in this area. A brief discussion by center follows illustrating some of the work being done and areas needing to be addressed. Page 55 47 The BA Program in Liberal Studies has used information from outcome assessment on student writing to develop a sequence of writing courses. The B.A Program faculty have also chosen to use program meeting time (a portion of 1 meeting per quarter) to discuss students with specific kinds of writing challenges, to provide support to faculty advisors and assist faculty in developing specific plans for each of these students. In the next year the program will explore other means to assess this criterion. Closer attention is also now paid to admissions criteria regarding writing and to working with adjunct faculty in this area. The B.A. Program has also established an exit interview, required of all graduating students, which can be conducted by phone or in person. This information is being used to assist the program faculty in developing a better understanding of students’ experience in this program and specifically what aspects of transformation and learning about diversity have indeed occurred for students. The program definition of “transformation” is now under review and further clarification of the learning objectives for the Art of Learning II: Diversity, is currently taking place in a subcommittee of faculty working on the Art of Learning. In all of the Center for Creative Change programs, faculty use written work, oral presentations (with audiences varying from degree committees, to classes, to the larger community), and self-reported evaluations to assess student development. In several programs, current student surveys and exit interviews add other measures of assessment, and the alumni survey sent to all of the graduates of AUS provides even more useful information. However, to make outcome assessments more valuable to the Center, data on students’ progress through each program and the value of the integrated experience students have as a result of crossing program boundaries needs to be gathered. To that end, the Center is moving toward a more strategic process that includes more assessment measures and gathers data over greater time periods: (1) more carefully defining across programs the admissions criteria at the students’ entry point as a baseline; (2) monitoring the students’ development in individual programs through the use of portfolios, papers, oral presentations, faculty evaluations, and self- reporting; (3) establishing a Center-wide student survey to gather data on the integrative experience; (4) establishing a required capstone course – the “reflective practicum” – Page 56 48 where students work in cross-program teams to complete a community project; (5) continuing to use the alumni survey but at a more standardized period of two years after graduation for each student; and (6) developing an employer survey to measure the effectiveness of our students and alumni in the workplace. In the Center for Programs in Education, outcomes based requirements from the Washington Board of Education provide the focus for most of the programs. The measures of outcome assessment in the Center for Programs in Psychology are either in development or have only been recently implemented. It is not clear how useful the current set of information will be for the purpose of program evaluation. The results from the student practice exams, which focus on clinical knowledge and theories, need to be compared to the actual pass rate for licensure examination to assess the validity or the usefulness of administering the practice exams in the clinical program. The other two forms of assessment, which focus on application of clinical skills and multicultural competence, in the clinical programs may rely too heavily on subjective reporting. To gain fuller understanding of student satisfaction in their degree program and the success of our graduates, other types of information needs to be collected. Examples of other types of information may be alumni survey, objective measurements such as licensure rates for graduates from the clinical programs and/or job/salary attainment. Program Reviews. Formal university conducted program reviews were scheduled for all programs during the interval between accreditation reviews. Review teams are chaired by a faculty member from another campus and include a faculty member from the local campus and at least one outside expert. Special reviews can also be scheduled at any time. In addition, our certification programs in education are reviewed by the Washington State Board of Education. All the reviews indicated that programs were clear about their mission and that what was being delivered was consistent with that mission. Some reviews noted the uniqueness of the program, for example, the integration of social and natural sciences in Environment and Community. Other reviews spoke to the exemplary model, for example, the integration of educational and cultural values in Education. Other reviews spoke to the impact of the program on the students, for example it was noted that even Page 57 49 though there was no shared understanding of what was meant by transformative in the Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies Program, there was a shared sense that change was occurring. As would be expected, concerns varied by program and time of review. However, a few themes did stand out. One theme was the need to assess how well the programs were doing with respect to impact on students, and how well programs were achieving their goals. The other common theme related to lack of faculty scholarship. Reasons cited by evaluators for this included strong student orientation, commitment to the campus and consequently heavy involvement on campus wide committees, and twelve-month contract. There was also a consistent urging in the reviews for faculty to make scholarship a priority. Currently, programs are reviewed by the university every ten years. We think a five to seven year interval would be more helpful. A brief discussion by Center follows highlighting actions taken and areas that are still of concern. The B.A. Program in Liberal Studies has made changes in two areas in response to the program review completed in 1995. First, in response to the concern regarding student involvement/input there is a mechanism for soliciting student input on curriculum planning on an annual basis through both online and written feedback. Second, they have worked hard to further refine how the goals, structure and philosophy of the program are articulated, particularly in publications and marketing materials. This is an area for ongoing attention. An example of this refinement is the articulation of focus areas in creative and expressive arts, psychology and spirituality, and professional studies. The Center for Creative Change was reviewed in April 2002. The review team’s recommendations called for a “quantum redesign.” The center has begun discussions and has been asked to present preliminary plan in September 2002. Three of the four programs in the Center for Creative Change have been reviewed individually in the past, and they have responded positively to the suggestions that emerged from those reviews. The following, briefly, are some of the measures being taken in each of the four programs: Page 58 50 The Environment and Community Program has been redesigned to rename and consolidate the coursework for the two tracks. Rather than having a Seattle Weekend Option and a Limited Residency Option meeting at different times during the year, a Pacific Northwest Option and an International Option have been created that will share classes. The Graduate Management Program has been redesigned to appeal to an audience wider than mid-level managers. While use of technology continues to improve, this an area that needs more attention. The Organizational Psychology Program has recently been granted its own degree. In the past two years, the faculty has developed a clear mission statement and set of goals, and has established a strong curriculum and internship program to allow students to meet those goals. Articulation of the Whole Systems Design (WSD) degree remains a problem, and the faculty is in process of reviewing and redesigning their curriculum and their marketing materials to express more clearly the value such a program offers students. The new degree process and required curriculum creates a much greater balance among Holism, Systems, and Design, and the program is making use of faculty across the Center to provide students with opportunities to apply the WSD approach in specific areas of practice (environment, management, organizational development, and so forth). A recent review of the three tracks within the Center for Programs in Education leading to a teaching certificate by the Washington Board of Education concluded that these programs “reflect the integrity associated with the profession. Life long learning is emphasized and the faculty reinforce this concept through their scholarship. . . . Reflection is definitely a strength . . . and is taught and practiced.” They also found that “faculty make course revisions based on student evaluation data and faculty assess students at multiple times in multiple ways. However, there is no integrated unit system for collecting and analyzing candidate performance data, a system that then can be used to inform collective programmatic changes.” At the time of the last program review, the two clinical programs in what is now known as the Center for Programs in Psychology had been in existence for less then Page 59 51 two years and the two individualized programs were also new in their development. Since then they have added the combined art therapy/counseling degree, re-named as well as re-designed one individualized program and lost the individualized program in organizational psychology. Throughout these changes the faculty and staff endeavored to better articulate their mission. The psychology mission statement has been revised twice, most recently in 2002. They continue to discuss their mission in light of considerations for adding a doctoral program and in light of a new program director. There are three areas where they are not clear and do not hold consensus. One area is whether or not the clinical programs are designed to serve the future clients or to serve the current students. Another area relates to the Antioch tradition and the dictates of a prescribed licensure driven professional clinical training program. Whether or not the clinical and the individualized program share a vision is the third area. The specific programs have matured with greater clarity and differentiation for the role of the chair. The curricula are more integrated between the programs in psychology. Faculty teach across programs, and students take courses across programs. This cross-program activity has enriched and enlivened both the faculty and the students. Based on feedback from the students regarding progress through the program, changes in the core curriculum were instituted. The most significant change was the elimination of the professional development series, required course work during a student’s first two quarters in the program. One fall out from the elimination of the pro- sem is a lesser sense of student community. This may give rise to a greater sense of isolation experienced by students. The core faculty as a whole is not actively engaged in the development and stewardship of the programs with a sense of empowerment. Upwards of 80% of the courses are taught by adjunct faculty who are not well integrated into the program. The disengagement of both core and the adjunct faculty continue to present a challenge to the program. The disengagement of the adjunct faculty is more problematic to address. A variety of activities have been attempted in the last eight years to bridge the gap with the adjunct faculty. At different times the program has hosted lunches, breakfast, orientation sessions, and meetings with course liaisons. It appears there are significant Page 60 52 numbers of adjunct faculty who say they teach at Antioch specifically because they are not required to engage with the program. The Psychology Programs continue to work on designing ways to institute more systematic contact with the adjunct faculty. In 2002 the program secured and outfitted an office within the psychology space for the use of adjunct faculty. In 2002/03 funds were made available to reimburse adjunct faculty to attend orientation and program meetings. Summary All of our academic programs have clearly defined student outcome objectives, which serve as the basis for an ongoing assessment effort. We have maintained a strong emphasis on integration of theory and practice. And, we have become clearer as a campus about the values we hold (lifelong development and agency in a changing world). Assessment is an area of need. We currently have a part-time faculty member coordinating our efforts in outcome assessment. In order to move forward, we need to provide more support to the programs. We also need to support faculty development in this area, and we need to support campus wide initiatives such as exit interviews and alumni and employer surveys. Allocating more resources for faculty development in general is also critical, particularly in a time when we know that our academic programs need to change to better serve the community. Page 61 53 CHAPTER FOUR THE FUTURE Criterion #4: The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness. Our strategic plan outlines our future direction and provides a mechanism to help us move forward; this chapter is organized by the seven strategic goals. In thinking about the future, we have chosen a five-year time frame. Outstanding Degree and Non-Degree Programs As indicated earlier, the centers form the structure to facilitate greater programmatic innovation and flexibility by allowing new programs to be developed within the center rather than as separate entities, remove the boundaries and barriers established between programs over time, encourage the intermingling among programs of faculty and students, and provide more options and opportunities for both students and faculty. Also as noted earlier, progress has been made in developing the vision for each center. With new academic leadership now in place, we have begun to move from vision to plans for achieving that vision. Four directions, which are consistent with the campus’s focus on life-long learning, are being explored by many of the centers. Several are exploring the possibility of adding doctorate-level programs. For example, Center for Programs in Psychology has developed a preliminary proposal for a doctorate in psychology. This preliminary proposal has been reviewed by Academic Council, and approval was given to develop a full proposal. During 2002/2003, approval will be sought from the University Leadership Council and the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee. Several centers are exploring the possibility of adding additional masters programs. Under discussion are a master’s in fine arts and a master’s in liberal studies. Several centers are developing certificates. Two were mentioned earlier, Professional Certification for Educators developed by the Center for Programs in Education and Post-Masters Certificate in Adoption and Foster Care Therapy developed by the Center Page 62 54 for Programs in Psychology. Both certificates will be offered through our continuing education arm, the Center for Community and Professional Learning. Finally, most centers are expanding other types of continuing education offerings. Recent examples include two workshops offered this spring the Center for Creative Change related to leadership. These workshops were attended by current students, alumni and other professionals in the field. All these efforts are aimed at diversifying our programs by expanding what is offered. For those degree programs in professions and disciplines that are regulated by either professional accrediting bodies or state licensure, Antioch Seattle continues its commitment toward program accreditation. The dynamic tension between innovation and accreditation/licensure dictates contextualize the review and implementation for program growth and change. We also need to maintain our efforts in outcome assessment. Toward that end, the Academic Dean and Center Directors are beginning to take a more active role and more resources will be earmarked to support faculty development in this area. In addition to assessment at the program level, we would like to institutionalize campus- wide initiatives that would provide data encompassing students in all programs. This could include an annual survey on student services, exit interviews with students, alumni and employer surveys. Institutional Capacity As of Fall 2001, 892 students were enrolled. Our goal is 1,200 students within the next five years. Where that growth will occur is under discussion. Objectives in this growth are to obtain a greater balance of enrollment among our centers, thereby decreasing revenue dependency on one center; and to determine the desired ratio between campus and site-based programs. We think that this would provide the level and economy of scale at which we can support the educational programs, student services and administrative structure. There are concerns as to whether we have the infrastructure in place to help us reach this level. As indicated earlier, part of our mission is to serve a diverse population of students. Our target is to have the same proportion of students of color as in the Page 63 55 Seattle area. In Fall 2001, 20 percent of our students were people of color compared with 10 percent in 1992. Though our target, based on census data for Seattle is 30 percent, we have made strides! Access to scholarship monies is a critical component in helping us move forward. We are in the third year of building our scholarship endowment. It is a slow process starting from zero. We will continue to aggressively encourage contributions to our endowment from alumni and individual donors. The Board of Visitors has also made raising monies for scholarship endowment their priority. During 2001/2002, the Board of Visitors sponsored two fund-raising events. Our focus over the next few years will be to approach corporations and foundations and other entities for six figure contributions to produce an endowment that generates an amount that provides meaningful scholarships for recruitment and retention of our students. After three years of resource investment, we have been successful in having a legislative bill passed that allows our undergraduate students to be eligible for state financial grant and workstudy aid. This additional funding will greatly assist our recruiting work for the bachelors and bachelors with teaching certificate programs. We will also put forth a greater effort in the major and planned gifts area. It is possible that within the next five years that we might investigate the feasibility of conducting a “capital” fundraising campaign. Because of the developmental stage of the campus, the emphasis for such a campaign will be on raising money for the scholarship endowment and program development as opposed for use on capital or operational expenses. Accessible, High Quality Student Services During the past ten years, we have funded services including support for students with disabilities, tutoring in writing, training and support in use of computer and library, and career counseling. Our plan is to move toward a learning resource center concept that would encompass what is currently provided with additional services. Building the capacity so that these services are available on-line and accessible by our site-based students is of particular importance. In addition, we are developing increased electronic access to our services. Library, student accounts, financial aid and Page 64 56 the registrar are all making strides in this area. We have also extended support to students in off-site programs. Currently, this support is limited to admission and financial aid visitation, bookstore delivery, training and assistance with computing, and access to library resources. As more programs are offered in an off-site format, we will need to address what and how we provide services to these students. We also support the Student Life Office, which is staffed by work-study students. As noted earlier, this year we have added the role of Special Assistant to the Academic Dean for Student Services to work with this group. This person is a member of the core faculty and 40 percent of her time will be allocated to her role as Special Assistant during 2002/2003. Dynamic Alliances Our purpose in creating partnerships is to increase Antioch University Seattle’s connection with and impact on the community. We believe the structure of the academic centers allows for greater programmatic innovation and flexibility, two ingredients essential in the development of partnerships. Our goal is for each center to establish partnerships by the end of the next three years. Some of the initiatives currently being explored are for the Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies Program to partner with arts organizations and develop a closer ties with the community colleges i.e. articulation agreements with community colleges offering human service programs; for the Center for Creative Change to partner with businesses and organizations to provide on-site certificates or degrees; for the Center for Programs in Education to partner with a school, a school district, or Native American tribe; and the Center for Programs in Psychology to partner with a community agency to provide clinical services. Academic directors are also out in the community, serving on boards and involved in civic activities. Several of the centers are exploring the idea of advisory boards as a means for connecting with the community and ensuring that our programs are responsive to local needs. The Center for Creative Change has established such an advisory board of local business and community agency people. Page 65 57 University Relations has focused on building alliances with local businesses and foundations such as Columbia Bank, US Bank, the Gates Foundation, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser. The Board of Visitors is doing their part by holding public forums and workshops on such topics as public education and religion and race and the media. Exceptional and Diverse Group of Employees Our approach to this goal with faculty is a focus on recruitment and retention and quality control. Our current salary structure allows no room for flexibility regarding what salary we can offer to an individual. This has caused challenges in recruitment and retention, particularly with faculty of color. Our faculty salary structure is currently under review. We are also reviewing our process for faculty evaluation. New policies and procedures being included in the faculty handbook clarify expectations and the process for evaluating performance. With staff, our approach to this goal has been to raise the bar by increasing professionalism. We have made great strides in upgrading and filling staff vacancies with individuals who bring more experience than their predecessors had and we will continue to do so. As with students, our diversity goal with employees is to match the proportion of persons of color in the Seattle area. As of Fall, 2001, the percentage of regular employees at Antioch Seattle who were persons of color was 28.15 percent compared to 30 percent for Seattle. Thus, Antioch Seattle is very near the same as that of Seattle over all. It is our belief that Antioch Seattle has more than demonstrated its commitment to diversity hiring since 1995 when it had 3.39 percent persons of color in its employ. Our focus is now on efforts to manage the diversity to insure fairness in promotional opportunities for persons of color as well as over all harmony while not diminishing our efforts to maintain or improve the ratios. Workshops on diversity have been held on campus with the numbers of employees attending quite high. It should also be noted that our faculty and staff are diverse in other ways, such as gender and sexual orientation and have been for some time. Both faculty and staff have above average benefits compared to other higher education institutions. However, money for professional development and salary Page 66 58 continue to be areas of challenge and priority. We have agreed upon salary targets based on a comparison group and struggle to make advancements in relationship to those targets. Technology in Innovative Ways Since the University-wide adoption of Datatel in 1997, we have made great strides in such areas as accounting and budgeting, admissions, financial aid, human resources and registration. These improvements have allowed us to streamline operations and provide needed information for management and planning. Our attention is now on providing systems that will make it easier for our students to apply, qualify for financial aid, register, access their courses evaluations, and track their progress. Most of these advances are currently well underway or completed. Better use of technology, web-site and software has enabled fund-raising to move to a more professional operation. We still have a way to go in using technology to provide accurate, informative and timely data reports to assist in decision making. The role that technology will play in learning is less clear. Some courses in all programs incorporate on-line as an adjunct to course work, usually in the form of ongoing conversations about the course content or a means for small groups to work together on projects. We have also piloted on-line courses in collaboration with the Southern California campus. However, this is an area in which we need to develop our own campus vision. Healthy, Diversified Financial Base Regarding our financial stability as an institution, the question becomes how can we be more accessible, particularly to students of color; how can we be more affordable; how can we be adaptable to the changes in the needs of society; and how can we be accountable for the service we provide our students. Our answer is to make our organization as lean and efficient as possible, build endowments, develop partnerships, write grants, and seek new revenue sources. In nine of the past ten years, we have balanced our budget. In the past five years, we have returned $800,000 in revenue to the University. Moreover, in several of Page 67 59 those years we did not make our target enrollments and had to make mid-year adjustments in order to balance. The point is that we have demonstrated an ability to live within our means. As we move forward, our intent is to make our organization as lean and efficient as possible by looking at our faculty and staff to student ratios and utilizing technology as a means to increase our efficiency and service to students while holding our system and individuals accountable for the quality of the education we provide. Programs are now accountable for their costs. Direct expenses such as copying, phones, and postage have been moved into program budgets. Revenue to expense ratios have also been introduced. Our second intent is to seek new revenue sources. In 1993, 96 percent of our revenue was from tuition and fees, last year it was 91 percent. We are making progress. The Gates Foundation gift and the state eligibility are examples of that progress. However, we need to do more. Our four-fold strategy includes auxiliary enterprises, gifts, grants and non-credit offerings. For the next five to ten years, the only auxiliary enterprise that the Seattle campus will operate is the bookstore. There have been conversations about expanding the size of the bookstore to make it more accessible and attractive to the neighborhood, where the number of the high-rise business and residential buildings is increasing. Expansion will mean another renovation project, which should be feasible toward the end of the next five years. The other possible auxiliary enterprise is the café. If anything happens regarding the partnership with FareStart café, we will need to determine whether the institution itself should become a provider of food service. We will continue to have the leasing of our extra space to tenants as another source of non- tuition income. Having a strong Board of Visitors (BOV) is essential to identifying and locating other potential sources of revenue. The strategic plan calls for the BOV to have at least 12 to 15 members (by 2002) who are not only expected to contribute personally to the institution but who provide a network to assist in forming business and community partnerships and finding grants. We are well on the way with nine members. Expanding our grant capacity is an area that sorely needs to be developed. It takes time to establish a reputation to attract and cultivate grant-awarding organizations. Page 68 60 Currently grant generation is dependent on the energy and desire of individual faculty. By the end of five years, our goal is to have personnel resources in the University Relations office dedicated to grant generation. An accompanying factor in successful grant activity is the research orientation of the faculty. Therefore, within the next five years, the institution must invest in the professional development of its faculty by increasing the funds available and it must explore the creation of doctoral programs in both education and psychology. The continuing education office, Center for Community and Professional Learning, has only “reinvented” itself within the past few years. Even so, during 2000/2001, 1330 non-matriculated students were served, generating $210,877. It is natural for an adult education campus to operate a life-long learning office and it is essential in meeting the mission of the campus and our academic programs. As the demand for increased certification in a variety of fields continues, the campus will build its investment in continuing education. Within five years, the campus should see a well- staffed continuing education office that is providing services to all the academic programs and to the Seattle area in general. Investing in our future is also key to future financial stability. We will continue to set aside money to grow our capital reserve fund, maintain a President’s emergency reserve fund, focus fundraising efforts on our endowment, and establish an internal academic program development fund. Summary Antioch Seattle will continue to accomplish its purposes building on what we have been able to accomplish during the past five years. We now have a strategic plan and a process for annual review. Decisions as to campus priorities are made by a representative group of faculty, staff, administrators and students serving on the Planning and Budget Council. We have a structure that we believe will support and continue to revitalize our academic programs. We are providing greater diversity of student services with extended hours of availability. We are making strides in increasing the diversity of our students and employees. We have expanded the use of Page 69 61 technology in support of our administrative functions. We have learned to live within our means and establish a structure to approach sources of funding. Our continued challenge is to support our academic programs as they engage in the process of “reinventing” themselves; to build on our base of student services to provide better support to all students, particularly those who are in off-site programs; to reach out to the community to develop partnerships; and, to diversify our financial base. Once the University and College decreases its dependency on the adult campuses for revenue, released funds will greatly assist Seattle to invest in its future in such areas as recruitment, fundraising, and program development. Until the financial system of Antioch University is stabilized, Seattle and the other adult campuses will continue to struggle with financial and enrollment issues. Page 70 Page 71 63 CHAPTER FIVE DEMONSTRATES INTEGRITY Criterion 5: The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships. Antioch Seattle strives to ensure consistency of expression regarding ethical values and practices in publications and applications in a variety of academic, administrative, admission, registration and financial aid practices. To determine if statements of commitment, mission and policies are actually put into practice, a task force reviewed Antioch’s publications; policy and procedure manuals; admissions, registration and financial aid practices; advertising statements and materials; and the university website. Information was compared among the items listed below with the objective of investigating accuracy and consistency of information between publications, statements of outcomes and statements of procedure or process: Antioch University Seattle Catalog Viewbook Quarterly schedule of classes (multiple quarters) General Application Handbook and two application handbooks for the education programs Financial aid brochures and instructional pamphlets ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ sheets for each program Student handbook Staff handbook Policy and procedure manuals FirstClass e-mail system Website Print and radio advertising Students The task force concluded that academic policies concerning admissions, financial aid, Veterans Administration benefits, registration procedures, tuition refunds, evaluation procedures, transfer credit and prior learning credits are appropriately described in publications such as the catalog, the quarterly schedule, the application handbook, and the new student handbook. Policy and procedures are also listed for transcripts, visiting students, student visas, students with disabilities, grievance, security Page 72 64 and safety. A complete statement on access, equity and diversity is listed in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, and other state and federal laws. The task force also concluded that admissions, registration, financial aid and student accounts staff follow set guidelines to process applications, candidate documentation, enrollment forms, transfer and prior learning credit, aid, scholarships, loans and payments. These guidelines are stated in the annual catalog and quarterly schedules and procedures are followed appropriately. Faculty and Staff Newly hired faculty and staff are given an orientation. Directors and managers are given the Administrative and Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual from the Human Resources office. This manual is updated as necessary. It delineates equal opportunity and affirmative action policies, classifications of employment, evaluation procedures, disciplinary action procedures, sexual harassment policies and procedures, and other matters of importance. It is the responsibility of human resources to make sure these policies are in compliance with state and federal regulations. To that end, appropriate drug and sexual harassment policies were recently implemented. However, some policies have either not been clearly articulated or, if they have been articulated, have not yet been published and distributed. An example includes policies and procedures related to procedures for enforcement of drug policies. Human Resources is presently following up on the concerns noted. The task force also found that confusion has occurred because there are different benefits available to different classes of employees. It was recommended that all benefits for all classifications be listed in one central location. The faculty handbook has not been revised in some time. Work has begun and we expect to have it completed by January 2003. Development of a staff handbook is under discussion. Page 73 65 Contractual Relationships Contractual relationships fall into three types: tracks within academic programs; continuing education; and tenants. We have contracts with three not for profit organizations to provide tracks within two of our degree programs, Master of Arts in Whole Systems Design and Master of Science in Management. We have a long- standing contract with the Organizational Systems Renewal Institute to provide a cohort-based track within the Whole Systems Design Program. We also have a contract with the Organizational Systems Renewal Midwest to offer a similar program in the Midwest. In both of these cases, the degree program provides oversight. More recently, we have established a contract with the School for Innovative Leadership to offer the Corporate Leadership Program, a cohort-based, off-site track within the Management Program. Again the program provides oversight. Recently we have reviewed the Corporate Leadership Program and have determined to end our contract within 24 months (when the current group of Corporate Leadership Program students completes the program). In order to establish a common approach to these relationships, the President, in 1998, worked with legal counsel to develop consistency in the contracts and establish a base contract for use in any new situation. In the area of continuing education, we have had a long-term relationship with the Heritage Institute, a not for profit organization. This organization provides continuing education for teachers. We review syllabi, instructor credentials and publications such as their catalog. More recently we have established relationships with several other partners who provide continuing education to teachers. A standard format is used as the basis for these contracts. We are in the midst of clarifying responsibility for oversight. Tenants in our building all have formal leases. Two are done on the standard commercial brokers association lease form. Two others are done in a custom legal format due to the nature of the organization and our relationship with them. One of the two is a telecommunications company and required a more complex lease. The other is a non-profit organization that serves homeless people. It was given a lease more appropriate to a partnership where the values and needs of both organizations are recognized. Page 74 66 Summary The review of various documents, publications, policies and procedures confirms that Antioch Seattle provides accurate and consistent information to the public, our students, faculty and staff. Faculty and staff assemblies also serve as another forum for sharing information and responding to questions and concerns. Page 75 67 CONCLUSION We found that the mission of Antioch Seattle – to provide transformative education that engages adult learners in lifelong development and agency in a changing world – is clearly understood by all constituencies and is being carried out effectively. Though clearly understood, the mission is not uniformly interpreted, in fact it is the subject of lively and healthy debate. Furthermore, we found that faculty, staff and administration are committed to create and deliver excellent and responsive academic programs to our students and that there is evidence that those programs do indeed help our students transform themselves. Significant progress has been made in establishing a new governance system, which involves faculty, staff and students in a clearer means for setting policy. More specifically, the Academic Council has developed and implemented better processes for review and recommendation of approval for new academic initiatives and academic policies. It will now turn its attention to ongoing review of programs. Similarly, the Planning and Budget Council has implemented a strategic planning process that involves the community and helps ensure that we move forward with intention. Finally, the Student Services Council is working toward a better infrastructure to support academic programs and provide services to students. The Centers for Innovation and Excellence, grounded in the four principles of learning centered, access, community engagement and integration, have begun to take shape. Furthermore, new academic leadership is now in place bringing experience and vision. We do have challenges. Six seem most critical. The first area of challenge relates to enrollment. Enrollments remain relatively flat in spite of additional staffing with increases in some programs and declines in others. Efforts are underway to re- examine the factors that influence an individual’s choice and a possible restructure of the unit. The second area of challenge relates to finances. We have made progress in diversifying sources of revenue but need to do more. We also look to the University to Page 76 68 stabilize finances overall so that we can count on the use of our contingencies and reserves. The third area of challenge relates to outcome assessment. Outcome assessment has become an expectation for all academic programs and administrative units. Moreover, the academic leadership has begun to take on the responsibility to ensure that it remains a priority. However, our efforts are still in their infancy. Academic programs vary with respect to quality of efforts and connection to program development. This is an area where professional development of faculty is needed. Efforts were made to institute in-house mentoring during 2001/2002 and to build more support in the budget for these activities during 2002/2003. The fourth area of challenge relates to our faculty, particularly use of faculty time and support for professional development. We are currently reviewing faculty workload with the hope of rebalancing responsibilities with a reduction in administrative work and participation on campus committees. We are also exploring adoption of a ten-month contract to provide a bigger block of time for professional development activities and allocation of resources at the center level so those Directors can work with faculty to support professional development in relationship to the needs of the center. A related goal is to reduce the proportion of courses taught by adjunct faculty. The fifth area of concern relates to further refinement of our governance structure. Each of the Councils believes that they have made a lot of progress during the past four years. However, there is still need for further clarification of roles and responsibilities and processes and procedures. A continuing concern is the balance between our values regarding widespread participation and the proportion of time faculty and staff spend in meetings. The final area of concern relates to infrastructure. Though much has been accomplished in increasing our infrastructure and the professionalism of staff in those areas, we still need to continue to expand our services, particularly in the areas related to student services. On balance this is an exciting time at Antioch Seattle and we believe that we have what we need to continue to move forward. Page 77 69 APPENDIX A ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Page 78 Page 79 Board of Trustees Chancellor President University Leadership Council Board of Visitors Executive Assistant Secretary Planning & Budget Council Integrated Mktg. Develop- ment Special Asst. to the President Admin Asst. ADA Coord. Academic Dean Dean of Finance & Administration Dean of University Relations Student Services Student Life Office A cademic Council Faculty Assembly Staff Assembly Heritage Institute Admissions Cont. Education Budget Anal y st Bookstore Front Office Psych. Center Enroll- ment Services Educ. Center Library Services Center for Creative Change Registrar B.A Program Computer Technolo gy Admin. Services Account- ing Human Resources Facilities Executive Assistant Special Assistant Admin. Assistant Financial Aid 71 Page 80 Page 81 73 APPENDIX B CORE FACULTY EVALUATION REPORT Page 82 Page 83 75 CORE FACULTY EVALUATION REPORT I. COVER SHEET Date Name: Prepared: Campus: Program: Annual Aver. Percentage of Job Title Time Employed Evaluation Time Period Beginning Month/Yr. Ending Month/Yr. Job Description & Goals (briefly stated) APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION Recommendation Signature Date Program Director Evaluation Committee Campus Provost President (multi-year contract only) Page 84 76 II. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY A. Education Year Institution Major/Field Degree Awarded B. Previous Professional History Attach Vita ANNUAL SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES III. CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTIOCH A. Teaching Activities 1. Courses Taught Title Credits 2. Independent Studies Supervised Title Credits 3. Curriculum Development (such as experimentation with new methods and materials, development of new syllabi, etc.) 4. Course Evaluations Attach Summaries 5. Additional Comments Regarding Your Teaching (knowledge of teaching, stimulation of student learning, integration of theory and practice, etc.) B. Advising Activities 1. Advising Load Quarter No. of Advisees No. EMF 2. Advising Evaluations Attach Summaries Page 85 77 3. Additional Comments Regarding Your Advising (accessibility to students, encouraging self-direction, facilitating degree process, etc.) C. Program/Center/University Activities (where applicable, be sure to indicate formal administrative and leadership roles) 1. Program Assignments/Committees/Projects 2. Center Assignments/Committees/Projects 3. University-Wide Activities 4. Additional Comments Regarding Your Program/Center/University Activities (contributions to program development, committee projects, etc.) IV. CONTRIBUTIONS OUTSIDE OF ANTIOCH A. Community Activities (where applicable, indicate formal administrative and leadership roles) 1. Consulting/Training 2. Other Professional Practice (if applicable) 3. Participation in Community Organizations B. Professional/Scholarly Activities (where applicable, indicate formal administrative and leadership roles) 1. Consulting/Training 2. Other Professional Practice 3. Research: Describe on-going research/inquiry currently under way or initiated over the past year. 4. Publications: Give bibliographical data on materials published during this academic year; include monographs, articles, books, tests, etc. 5. Non-Published Materials a. Documents Prepared for Classes b. Documents Awaiting Publication 6. Other Creative Work (teaching aids, short stories, films, tapes, poems, learning packets, art work, etc.) Page 86 78 7. Professional Memberships 8. Professional Presentations (speaking engagements, papers, readings, etc.) 9. Honors and Awards C. Professional Development Activities 1. Conferences Attended Activity Dates 2. Workshops and Seminars Attended Activity Dates 3. Courses Taken Activity Dates 4. Other Relevant Activities (personal development, expansion of thinking, whole person learning, etc.) D. Comments Regarding Your Community/Professional/Scholarl y Contributions (service to others, advancement of new knowledge, enhancement of competencies, etc.) Page 87 79 APPENDIX C STUDENT FEEDBACK ON COURSES 2000/2001 Page 88 Page 89 81 APPENDIX C Student Feedback on Courses 2000-2001 B.A. in Liberal Studies Center for Creative Change Education Psychology Overall COURSE ORGANIZATION/DESIGN Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean 1. Clarity of course goals. CORE 1-6 5.06 3-6 5.30 2-6 5.16 4-6 5.46 1-6 5.20 ADJUNCTS 1-6 4.94 2-6 5.19 1-6 5.13 2-6 5.14 1-6 5.10 2. Clarity of student responsibilities and assessment criteria. CORE 2-6 5.10 3-6 5.41 2-6 5.0 4-6 5.45 2-6 5.19 ADJUNCTS 2-6 4.95 2.6 5.13 3-6 5.27 2-6 5.10 2-6 5.13 3.Quality of course readings. CORE 1-6 5.08 3-6 5.19 2-6 5.05 2-6 5.27 1-6 5.12 ADJUNCTS 2-6 4.95 3-6 5.24 2-6 5.13 3-6 5.18 2-6 5.12 4. Relevance of assigned work. CORE 1-6 5.24 3-6 5.42 2-6 5.24 4-6 5.53 1-6 5.33 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.13 4-6 5.41 3-6 5.26 2-6 5.29 1-6 5.26 Page 90 82 B.A. in Liberal Studies Center for Creative Change Education Psychology Overall COURSE ORGANIZATION/ DESIGN Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean 5. Opportunity for applying what was learned. CORE 1-6 4.99 3-6 5.35 2-6 5/26 2-6 5.57 1-6 5.24 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.12 3-6 5.29 2-6 5.18 2.6 5.18 1-6 5.19 6. Congruence between stated course goals & depth of course work. CORE 1-6 5.06 3-6 5.36 3-6 5.30 2-6 5.51 1-6 5.27 ADJUNCTS 1-6 4.92 3-6 5.12 3-6 5.18 2-6 5.13 1-6 5.10 SUBTOTALS 1-6 5.05 2-6 5.29 1-6 5.18 2-6 5.27 1-6 5.18 INSTRUCTIONAL KNOWLEDGE/ TEACHING 7. Instructor’s knowledge of the course subject matter. CORE 3-6 5.69 2-6 5.74 3-6 5.60 4-6 5.82 2-6 5.69 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.46 4-6 5.65 2-6 5.38 3-6 5.68 1-6 5.52 Page 91 83 B.A. in Liberal Studies Center for Creative Change Education Psychology Overall INSTRUCTIONAL KNOWLEDGE/ TEACHING Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean 8. Instructor’s enthusiasm. CORE 4-6 5.73 4-6 5.76 3-6 5.61 4-6 5.82 3-6 5.72 ADJUNCTS 2-6 5.56 3-6 5.49 3-6 5.53 3-6 5.46 2-6 5.51 9. Quality of instructor’s presentation. CORE 2-6 5.51 3-6 5.62 3-6 5.39 3-6 5.52 2-6 5.50 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.16 3-6 5.31 3-6 5.33 3.6 5.24 1-6 5.26 10. Ability of instructor to facilitate student discussion. CORE 3-6 5.40 4-6 5.55 3-6 5.46 2-6 5.39 2-6 5.45 ADJUNCTS 1-6 4.98 1-6 5.25 1-6 5.14 2-6 5.09 1-6 5.11 11. Instructor’s presentation of different points of view. CORE 3-6 5.33 4-6 5.50 2-6 5.30 3-6 5.45 2-6 5.38 ADJUNCTS 1-6 4.84 2-6 5.09 1-6 5.13 2-6 4.83 1-6 4.98 Page 92 84 B.A. in Liberal Studies Center for Creative Change Education Psychology Overall INSTRUCTIONAL KNOWLEDGE/ TEACHING Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean 12. Instructor’s responsiveness to student’s learning needs. CORE 3-6 5.40 3-6 5.43 1-6 5.33 3-6 5.52 1-6 5.40 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.0 1-6 5.23 1-6 5.25 2-6 5.20 1-6 5.18 13. Instructor’s incorporation of multicultural perspectives. CORE 2-6 5.45 3-6 5.37 2-6 5.33 3-6 5.20 2-6 5.37 ADJUNCTS 1-6 4.98 1-6 4.83 2-6 5.05 2-6 5.02 1-6 4.96 14. Quality of instructor feedback on student work. CORE 2-6 5.42 3-6 5.35 2-6 5.38 2-6 5.34 2-6 5.38 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.02 2-6 4.85 3-6 5.25 2-6 5.0 1-6 5.06 Page 93 85 B.A. in Liberal Studies Center for Creative Change Education Psychology Overall INSTRUCTIONAL KNOWLEDGE/ TEACHING Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean Range/ Mean 15. Degree of challenge to do your best work. CORE 1-6 5.22 3-6 5.51 3-6 5.40 3-6 5.56 1-6 5.39 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.09 2-6 5.13 1-6 5.21 1-6 5.08 1-6 5.13 SUBTOTALS 1-6 5.31 1-6 5.39 1-6 5.34 1-6 5.31 1-6 5.33 GENERAL SUMMARY 16. The course as a whole. CORE 1-6 5.14 2-6 5.49 3-6 5.32 4-6 5.61 1-6 5.34 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.01 3-6 5.13 1-6 5.14 2-6 5.23 1-6 5.13 17. The instructor overall CORE 2-6 5.55 4-6 5.71 3-6 5.50 4-6 5.34 2-6 5.51 ADJUNCTS 1-6 5.19 2-6 5.41 2-6 5.34 3-6 5.39 1-6 5.33 KEY SCORES 1 = Very Poor 3 = Fair 5 = Very Good 2 = Poor 4 = Good 6 = Exceptional Page 94 Page 95 87 APPENDIX D OUTCOME ASSESSMENT FORMS Page 96 Page 97 89 ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR (Instructional Degree Program) (Degree Level) (Assessment Period Covered) (Date Submitted) Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage: Institutional Mission Reference: Campus/University Goal(s) Supported: . Program Mission: Intended Educational (Student) Outcomes: 1. 2. 3. 4 5. Page 98 90 ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR (Instructional Degree Program) (Degree Level) (Assessment Period Covered) (Date Submitted) Intended Educational (Student) Outcome: NOTE: There should be one form C for each intended outcome listed on form B. Intended outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome number entered in the blank spaces. First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above: Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success: Summary of Assessment Data Collected: Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program: Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above: Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success: Page 99 91 Summary of Assessment Data Collected: Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program: Page 100 92 ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR (Administrative or Educational Support Unit) (Assessment Period Covered) (Date Submitted) Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage: Institutional Mission/Goal(s) Reference: Administrative or Educational Support Unit Mission Statement: Intended Administrative Objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. Page 101 93 5. Page 102 94 ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR (Administrative or Educational Support Unit) (Assessment Period Covered) (Date Submitted) Intended Administrative or Educational Support Objective: NOTE: There should be one form C for each intended objective listed on form B. The intended unit objective should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended objective number entered in the blank spaces. First Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above: Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success: Summary of Assessment Data Collected: Use of Results to Improve Unit Services: Second Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above: Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success: Page 103 95 Summary of Assessment Data Collected: Use of Results to Improve Unit Services: Page 104