↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
ASSURANCE SECTION
REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT
Antioch University
Yellow Springs, Ohio
October 14-16,2002
FOR
The Higher Learning Commission A
A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
EVALUATION TEAM
Lany A Braskamp, Loyola University of Chicago, chicago, IL
Thomas Brown, Davenport University, Grand Rapids, h4l
he CaldweIl, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA (NEASC)
Stephen G. Jennings, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN
Keith Johansen, Capella University, Spring Lake Park, MN
David 0. Justice, DePaul University, Chicago, IL
Ann Leffler, Utah State University, Logan, UT (NWCCU)
Janet M. McNew, IILinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL
James E. Moore, Creighton University, Omaha, NE (Chair)
Andrea Morrison, Argosy University-San Francisco Bay Area, Point Richmond, CA (WASC)
Manfred Ruddat, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
Kathleen White Smith, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI
Roger Dale Smjtter, North Central College, Naperville, IL
Randall L. Thompson, Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Antioch University (02~1527)
Table of Contents
Assurance Section
I. Context and Nature of Visit
A. Purpose of Visit
El. Institutional Context
C. Unique Aspects of Visit
D. Sites or Branch Campuses Visited
E. Distance Education Reviewed
F. Interactions with Institutional Constituencies
G. Principle Documents, Materials and Web Pages Reviewed
II. Commitment to Peer Review
A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process
B. Integrity of the Self-Study Report
C. Capacity to Address Previously Identified Challenges
D. Notification of Evaluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party
Comment
HI. Compliance with Federal Requirements
N. mation of the General ktitutional Requirements
V. Fulfillment of the Criteria
A. Criterion One
B. Criterion Two
C. Criterion Three
D. Criterion Four
E. Criterion Five
VI Accreditation Relationship
A. Continued Relationship
B. Defmers of Relationship
C. Commission Follow-up
Page
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
7
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
ASSwCE SECTION
I. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT
A. Purpose of Visit
The purpose of the visit was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation for continued accreditation at
the doctoral level.
B. Institutional Contest:
Antioch University is a single institution with two campuses located in Yellow Springs* Ohio
(Antioch College and Antioch University McCJTegor); one campus in Keene, New Hampshire
(Antioch New England Graduate School); one campus in Seattle Washington (Antioch Umver~ity
Seattle); and a campus in Southern California that operates in two sites – Los Angeles and Santa
Barbara (Antioch University Southern California).
C. Unique Aspects of Visit:
Antioch University is a single institution accredited by the Higher Leaming Commission, but three
of its campuses are located in areas that are under the accreditation oversight of other accrediting
organizations: the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the Northwest
Commission of Senior Colleges and Universities (NWCCTJ), and the UTestem &~ociation of
Schools and Colleges (WASC).
) Integral to an Antioch College education is the liberal arts co-operative educational experience.
This may be the only “liberal arts,” institution-wide, undergraduate, co-op educational program
-the country.
D. Sites or Branch Campuses Visited:
, Antioch College – 11 team members
(Pre-visit: 10/2-3/02; Evaluation visit- 10/14-1612002)
* Antioch New England Graduate School – 2 members, plus 1 member from NEASC
(Pre-visit: 10/7-8/2002; Evaluation visit: 10/2 1-22/2002)
* Antioch University McGregor – 2 members
(Pre-visit: 1 O/2-3 b003; Evaluation visit: 10/12-16/2002)
* Antioch Seattle – 2 members, plus 1 member from NWCCU
@re-visit: 10/7-8 /2002; Evaluation visit: 1012 1-22/2002)
* Antioch University Southern California – 2 members, plus 1 member from WASC .
(Evaluation visit: 1017-812002)
* Referred to by the University as “non-residential campuses” andlor “adult campuses.”
Distance Education Reviewed:
htioch is just beginning to offer significant numbers of courses and programs online. Currently
only the Ph.D. program in Leadership and Innovation is designed to fully use the capabilities of
online learning to provide full interactive communication, including instant messaging, phone
support, private chat rooms; dedicated library support, and assessment. Distance education
programs are also being developed at the New England, McGregor and Southern California (SB).
– 2 6/10/2003
>. .- . *. . .- . ” -. .
Assurance Section Antioch University (02121 527)
F. Interactions with Institutional Constituencies:
Vice Chancellor & Chief Financial Officer Station Manager – WYSO public radio
Vice Chancellor for Development and Director of Information Systems
External Relations University-wide Dean and Director, PD in
Director of Human Resources Leadership
University. Comptroller PhD Program Administrator/Registra
Exec. Dir., Glen Helen Ecology Institute Board of Trustees (6), including Chair
Dean of Faculty
Associate Dean of Faculty
Dean, Admissions & Financial Aid
Registrar
Director of Financial Aid
Director. Multicultural Affairs
Dean of Students
Associate Dean of Students
Director, Academic Support Center
Counseling Ctr. Director
Health Advocate (WellnessDean
of Students area)
Committees
Assessment (chair; faculty – 1 active and
1 emeritus)
Faculty Executive Committee (5 members) a
Faculty
Antioch Education Abroad
Arts
Biology
Co-Op Education Programs
Creative Writing
Cultural & Interdisciplinary Studies
Forums
Administrators
Faculty
Staff I
Students (1 7)
Students (40 at informal lunch interactions)
Director of CCL
Director of Physical Plant
Director Student Accounts/Business
Operations
Director of Kettering Library
Director of Academic Advising
College Professor Emeritus
Chair, Arts Department
Chair, Masters in Education Program
Director of Co-Op Education Program
ComCil(135)
General Education (5 faculty)
Environmental Sciences
Executive Management
Literature, Language, .Culture
1 Physical Sciences
Social & Global Studies
Sociology (Self, Society, Culture)
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Academic Dean
Registrar
Director, Financial Aid Director, IT Services
Program Director, Bachelor’s Board of Visitors, 5 members
Completion
Faculty – Conflict Resolution, Program Director
Education
IMA
Graduate Management
Committees Forums
C~culum Committee, Chair Students (30) .
Open (20)
Director of Admkistrative Operations and Finance
Director of Antioch New England Institute (WI)
1. Registrar
Director of Financial Aid
Director of Admissions
Associate Director of Student Accounts
Director of Human Resources and Fiscal Se~ces
Director of Facility Services
trative FO-: Consisted of President’s Council & Department Chairs
(Tresident, Chancellor, Chief Ficial cer, Chair~linical Psychology, Director of Admissions,
Associate ChairÑClinica Psychology, Chair-arganization and Management, Chair-Education,
Chair-Environmental Studies)
0
Faculty:
f
b-ator and Assistant Director)
eat (Chair and four faculty)
and three faculty/directors
three f aculty/directors
PcychrtIo@cal Sei-i/ices Center (PSO – Director and Assistant Director
Forums:
Administrators (9)
Staff Forum (1 7)
Students ( 1 2)
Clinical Doctoral students (8)
Alumni (1 1)
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
irector of Library Services Financial Aid Officer
Dean of Administration & Finance Board of Visitors (Chair & member/
Academic Dean former Trustee)
Special Assistant to President/Self Project director of the “Early College High
Schools for Native Youth” program ‘ Study Committee Chair
Forums
Core Faculty (28)
Students (
Support Staff (3 0)
President Registrar f
Dean of Academic Affairs Director of Facilities
Regional Chief Financial Officer
Committees:
College Council of Los Angeles (2 Deans, 5 program chairs, Registrar, director of
Admissions and Financial Aid, 2 staff representatives)
AcWorksLA (Academic Dean, plus 6 program chairs)
B A Degree Completion Program – Chair
Education Program – Chair
Fine Arts – Creative Writing Program – Chair
Organizational Management Program – Chair
Psychology and Clinical Psychology Programs – Chair
Forums:
Staff (1 5 attendees) Faculty (1 7 attendees)
, Student (14 attendees) Alumni (13 attendees)
Dean of Academic Affairs Information Technology Staff .
Faculty:’
Psychology Program – Chair Organizational Management Program – Chair
1
Committees:
College Council (10 members) PresWorks (6 attendees)
AcWorks (6 attendees)
Forums:
Core Faculty Forum (12 attendees) Alumni Forum (
Student Forum (1 6 attendees)
0 attendees)
Assurance Section
–
Antioch University (02C1527)
G. Principal Documents, Materials, and Web Pages Reviewed:
Self-Study materials for all Antioch campus sites were reviewed. Other infomiation;
University
1. Auditor’s University Financial S tatements-June, 2000
2. Report to the Board of Trustees-June, 2000
3. Year End Projections & Proposed 200 1 Budget
4. 1999 Strategic Plan
5. Five-Year Capital Budget: June 2002
6. Universiq Overhead, Rebates, and subsidies, Streamlining the Process: Apil, 2001
7. Antioch University Budget Planning for Fiscal Year 2002: April, 2001
8. Needs Assessment for Institutional Support to Strengthen Antioch University:
March. 200 1
9. Inventory of Antioch University Buildings: November 200 1
10. Report to Board of Trustees Five Year Capital Budget 2002-2006 (University):
June 2002
. 1 1. Report to~oard of Trustees 2001 -02 Year End Projectiod2002-2003 Proposed
Budget
12. First Class for the Ph.D. program in Leadership, including link to New England
library.
13. ata at-el system and its screens.
14. Tech-Leaming Circle, A Proposal to FISPE: May 24,2002
1. 15. Information Technology hhstructure Plan 1997-200 1
16. Indoor Air Quality Survey Report: April 2002
College
17. Capital Projects 5-Year Plan for Antioch College FY 2002-2004
18. Outline for a Case Statement for Antioch College: June 2002
19. ComCil Minutes: Janimy-August 2002
20. Antioch CoiIege Facility Flaming 1999,-200 1
2 1. Antioch College Campaign Progress Report: September 2002
22. Antiocb College Facility Condition Assessment Survey .
23. Computer Hardware 1nvktor-y: October 2001
24. A Report on the Capital Campaign for Antioch College 198 6- 1 993
25. Antioch College Three-Ye Cornpiinsons: 2000-2002
26. A Special Study and Report on the Fund,-Raising Potential of Antioch College:
May 200 1
27. Orga&zational Chairt htioch College Ofice of Development & Alumni Relations:
October, 2002
28. Reviewed Home Page and web pages associated with admission.
McGresor
29. Indicators of Progress
30. Self-Study Addendum and Updates
3 1. Board of Visitors purposes and Goals
32. BA degree audit fomis
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
33. Random student portfolio files in Registrar’s office
34. Sample degree plans and course outlines for IMA/ILPS courses
35. Thesis approval forms
36. Sample ILPA Assessment instruments (completed)
37. ~im~le’hstucotr’s Evaluation form (compelted)
38. IMA/JLPS Faculty Responses to 1999 Antioch University Program Review
3 9. McGregor Strategic Plan
40. WPS Student Handbook
4 1. Classics Assessment (completed),
42. Sample capstone projects and theses
43. Enrollment data
New England
44. Budget Reports: Institution, Programs, Audits, last five years
45. Governance Documents, Minutes, Reports
46. Antioch New. England Annual Reports, last five years
47. Academic Admissions Policies
48. Policies for Curricular Reviews .
49. Course/Instructor Evaluation Forms
50. Antioch New England Student Handbook 2002-03 .
5 1. Antioch New England Personnel Manual
52. Departmental Handbooks
53. Faculty Publications
54. External Accreditation & Licensure Approvals
55. Department of Organization and Management Faculty Handbook
56. Antioch New England Graduate’ School strategic Plan 1999/2000-2003f2004
Academic Team Minutes
57. Reviewed web pages associated with admission.
Seattle –
58. Seattle team reviewed all documents in the Resource Room, including samples of
student work, faculty evaluations, and the Antioch Seattle web page
59. AUS Strategic Plan 2000-2005 l
60. State of Washington Degree Authorization correspondence: August 22, 2002
61. AUS Revenue and Expense Statement June 30,2002
62. Report of External Evaluation of AUS by Altes & Nolan: December 2 1, 2000
63. Antioch University Seattle Catalog 2002-2003
64. Antioch Seattle NCA Self-study Update
65. AUS Organization Chart: 2002-2002
66. Future Directions for Antioch University Seattle White Paper by President
Murdock: May, 1999
67. Affiliation Agreement with the School for Innovative Leadership: September 15,
1998Amendment to Affiliation Agreement with the School for Innovative
Leadership: August 12, 1998
68. Correspondence (3) related to School for Leadership ContractNCA approval:
August 23 & 29,2001
7 * 6/10/2003
.. . . . .*A . – ., . . .’ . . .
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
69. Memo to NCA and Request for Iniititutional Change regarding-School for
Leadership Contract; August 30,200 1
70. Letter to Terminate Agreement with School for Innovative Leadership effective
12/3 1/2002: September 27,2001
71. Continuatj~n and Temination Agreement with the School for Innovative
Leadership: June 12,2002 ‘
72. Letter of Agreement with Heritage Institute: August 1,2000
73. Contractual Agreemeat with C&mization Systems Renewal Midwest:
November 1,1999
74. Conespondence (3) related to author&ation to do business ~II the State of Illinois:
August 16,1999
75. Sample Student Transcripts/Records
76. Log of Student Complaints
77. ht of students not g &$equate Satisfactory Academic Progress
78. Course Syllabi
79. Student Projects
80. Pub1icatio’ns by AUS faculty and students
8 1. Studeat evaluations of faculty
82. Minutes of AC ComciI and aC1mmistrative/PresidentYs Team meetings
83. Copies of Grant ProposalsFunded Grants
84. Review of library materials and databases
85. Review of texts and materials in BooJcstore
i . . 86. Web sites, e.g., ewww. osr-nw.or^>
Southern California
87. Antloch Southern California NCA Self-S tudy and BIDS
89. AUSB General Catalog
9 0. AUS C Core Faculty Handbook
91. AUSB and A- all 2002 Come Schedules
92. AULA and AUSB Telephone
93. MFA in Creative Writing Internal Program Assessment and Residency Guide
94. MA in Education and tialing Student Teacher Handbook
95. Student Handbooks in chology, and Organizational Management
9 7. State Licemure Materials
9 8- Admissions Materials regadkg transfer of credit
99. Sample print media ads
100. Selected Core/Ad+ct Faculty Nairative Evaluations of Students
1 0 1. MA in Organizational Management Program Review
102. Annual Budgets
1 03. Fact Book 2000-2002
1 04. Personnel Files of Regional Employees
105. Accreditation Tezk Farce Ad-mtivt: Materials
106. Minutes of Regional Council Southern California
107. Student Complaint Logs for Santa Barbara and Los Angeles
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
II. COMMITMENT TO PEER REVIEW
A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process:
Antioch University chose to engage in a de-centralized self-study process, reflective
of the semi-autonomous operating style of the University. Representation on each of
the self-study varied by the campus, but from comments at open meetings and
interviews with students, faculty, and staff, the Team concludes that most of the
major sectors of the University participated in the self-study process. Given the
unique nature of Antioch University, the de-centralized form of self-study was a ,
comprehensive process.
B. Integrity of the Self-Study Report:
Reflecting the general Antioch approach, the University and each of the non-
residential adult campuses carried out its own self-study activities in accordance with
local committee structures. The result was that each self-study report differed in
structure and approach, which made it somewhat difficult for the Team to collectively
assess the non-residential sites, While there were some similar elements in the
reports, there was not a consistent fonn of presentation. Each of the reports touched
on the major issues facing the institution and the campuses. However, some
appendices referred to in the reports were not included. Materials in the Team rooms
were comprehensive and helpful to the team.
Antioch University
Overall, the Antioch University Self-Study Report was accurate and valid. The
Report was designed around the five evaluative criteria. The AU Report
appropriately reviewed the institutional evaluative criteria differently than the
individual campus reports.
Antioch College
Overall, the Antioch College Self Study Report was accurate and contained many
evaluative sections that were helpful to the Team. Summaries of quantitative data
visually through charts and tables would have been helpful.
McGregor
The McGregor Self-Study Report addressed the major issues facing the
institution. Materials in the Team room were comprehensive and helpful.
New England,Graduate School
Overall, the ANE Self-Study Report was accurate and valid. The Report was well
designed around the evaluative criteria and was sequenced appropriately.
Seattle
The Antioch-Seattle self-study report accurately listed the challenges faced by the
campus. The challenges are a fairly valid representation of the facts as
determined by observations, documents and interviews during the site visit.
Southern California
Overall, the AUSC Self-Study Report was accurate, valid, and has well served
both the Team and institution in identifying and addressing the most significant
issues facing the region. The Report is open, honest, and exceptionally analytical.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
. – C. Capacity to Address Previously Identified Challenge
Based on the institution’s response, to previously identified challenges, the Team
concludes that the institution has inadequately addressed the following issues.
1. The University’s “administrative decentralization and restructuring” and concerns
about “anxieties, morale, and communication” throughout the University.
2. University finances
3. Assessment plans were found to be uneven
4. College enrollments
5. DecentraIization of the University administration structure.
D. Notification of Evaluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment:
‘ Requirements were fulfilled.
I . COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREIMENTS
The Team reviewed the required Title IV compliance areas and the student complaint
. information.
IV. AFFIRMATION OF THE GENERAL INSTTTUTTONAL REQUIREMENTS
Based on the self-study review and other documentation, the Team confirms that the
institution continues to meet each of the twenty-four General Institutional
Requirements.
1
V. FULFILLMENT OF THE CRITERIA
. A. CRITERION ONE
The institution demonstrates that it has clear and publicly stated purposes
consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education.
saHent Evidence of FuffiIIrnent of Criterion
1. Evidence that demonstrates that the criterion is met:
a. Antioch University has remained committed for 150 years to its core mission of
integrating academic study with experiential learning and community service.
b. Interviews indicate a clear understanding and commitment to the historical values
of the College and Antioch University.
c. The University mission statement is clearly stated in its University publications.
d. The mission statement of each of the non-residential campuses is clearly stated in
the publications of each campus.
. Students, faculty and staff at the non-residential campuses expressed knowledge
of, and passion for. the’mission statement of their campus.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02127 527)
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
a. Even though each campus of the University remains committed to the historical
values of the College, each non-residential campus has crafted an individualized
mission statement that reflects local priorities. These differences continue to
generate on-going discussion concerning the question of singleness of purpose.
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up.
None noted.
Recommendation of the Team’
Pattern of evidence sufficiently demonskated; no Commission follow-up.’
. recommended.
B. CRITERION TWO
The institution demonstrates that it has effectively organized the human, financial,
and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.
Salient Evidence of Fulfillment of Criterion i
1. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion is met
a. The University has improved its ability to effectively budget and manage
financial resources to accomplish its purposes. In particular:
Finances of the Universiq are stabilizing as evidenced by the elimination of
the internal debt of $3.1 million in 1999 and in an improved current asset to
current liability ratio.
A budget building and monitoring process under the Vice Chancellor and
Chief Financial Officer has been able to generate a small surplus on a net cash
basis recently, with a small cash liquidity reserve of $2 million.
Implementation of an integrated comp a1 system @atatel).
Institutional advancement is improving with a realistic feasibility study, early
successes in a five-year $100 million Sesquicentenmal College Campaign, and
recent increases in grants, contracts, and the College Endowment
Investment of $1 1 million in the Yellow Springs plant and iTifrastrucme.
Acquisition of permanent campus facilities in Seattle and New England.
An increase in external funding, grants, contracts, and College Endowment.
b. Interviews indicate that all constituencies believe the University organizational
structure allows for frequent and meaningful participation on committees and
inclusion in campus governance.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
c. Trustees have reaffirmed the key role of the Chancellor in the administration of
Antioch University.
d. The University ~eadershi~ Council (ULC), under direction of the Chancellor,
considers all significant administrative matters.
e. The University improved oversight and coordination of administrative functions,
most notably in the areas of finance and administrative technology. The
University also implemented cost savings measures to decrease expenditures.
f Each non-residential campus has an organizational structure, such as a Board of
Visitors and/or a community task force, to assist in identifyGg key issues for the
institution and to create linkages between the campus and the local community.
g. Faculty and staff at the non-residential campuses report mutual respect for each
other and demonstrated an obvious spirit of teamwork to the Team.
h. ‘ The faculty of each Antioch campus is well qualified to provide educational
experiences consistent with each institution’s commitment to academic
excellence, experiential learning, and community service.
i. The Registrar function is working better under the coordination of the University
Comptroller and through regular collaboration among the campus Registrars.
j. The Human Resource function has been centralized and each campus has an on-
site HR generalist who has provided a more timely, efficient and higher quality
delivery of services, policies and standards to local campus employees.
k. The three-year-old Academic Support Center at the College provides an important
service to a great number of students (over 25% of the student body).
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
*
a. Low Fall 2002 enrollments at the College and some non-residential campuses
jeopardized University enrollment planning and contributed to serious budget
problems. The University needs a more effective student enrollment plan.
b. The non-residential campuses are responsible for providing approximately $3
million annually in support of the University Administration, other University-
wide operations, and the College. This constitutes essentially all campus
surpluses and produces a strain on their operation, growth, and development.
c. Significant deterioration in facilities and deferred maintenance compromise the
capacity of the College to attract and retain students.
d. Each campus has physical facility and maintenance needs that are not addressed.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
e. The University lacks a chief academic officer and therefore lacks coherence and
consistency among academic programs throughout the University.
f. Key staff positions have gone unfilled for extended periods of time. Turnover
among faculty and staff continues to be one of the University’s greatest human
resources challenges,
g. The Datatel software does not extend uniformly to all campuses and in some
cases is not adequately used on all campus sites.
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up.
a. The Universiq’s most pressing problem is lack of financial resources for the .
educational programs that it offers.
b. The University has operated at a deficit for the past two fiscal years, and projects
another deficit this fiscal year, in part because of an increase of $1.5 million in
tuition discounts at the College.
c. AS is 1993, student enrollment at Antioch College continues to be low. The
Strategic Plan goal to enroll 800 new students has not been met. 1
Recommendation of the Team
Pattern of evidence demonstrated; Commission follow-up wamnted.
The Team recommends a Focused Visit to determine if the institution has
‘ adequate resources to achieve institutional objectives.
C. CRITERION THREE
The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.
Salient Evidence of Fulfillment of Criterion
1. Evidence that demonstrates that the criterion is met:
a. Students, faculty, sta& and alumni fiom all campus sites codm that the
institution is accomplishing its stated purposes.
, .
b. Interviews with students and alumni across the university reveal a high level of
satisfaction with the academic experience – faculty, programs, experiential
learning, personal attention, small classes, and effective support systems.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
c. Graduate academic programs are clearly defined, coherent and intellectually
challenging. The new PhD program in Leadership and Change effectively utilizes
resources from all of the Antioch campuses.
d. The redesign of the College curriculum to consolidate the 23 majors into 8
interdisciplinary majors is a creative and bold way to make best use of scarce
faculty resources to deliver a comprehensive liberal arts education to a small
student body. The revised College General Education Program, linked with the
Co-op program, enables students to structure an individualized program of study.
e. Students at the CoIlege indicated the Co-op Program was a significant enrollment
factor and it was crucial to their Antioch educational experience.
f Academic pro&- tbroughout the Universiq stimulate the examination and .
understanding of personal, social and civic values.
g. Antioch College maintains a broad-based international study program. ‘
L. h. At the non-residential campuses, the academic prom emphasize cnhcal -,- .
thinking, self-reflection, mentoring, focused research, workplace applications; md
intellectual interaction between students, and among faculty and students.
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
The College does not have sufficient resources to support all of its current
academic majors.
Sta£Ein and facial resources are limited across the University, adversely
affecting the delivery of programs and services, as well as’ the upkeep of facilities.
The University as a whole, and particularly the College, has failed to achieve
enrollment goals for the past five years.
I
The College attrition rate is high and the 6-year graduation rate is low.
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up.
a. The “student portfolio” system of evaluating student course performance is
unevenly applied at the College.
b. Multiple methods to assess student learning are inadequate in some areas and
uneven across the University.
c. Thereis a lack of institutional research on students – for admissions and retention.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Recommendation of the Team
Pattern of evidence demonstrated; Commission follow-up warranted.
The Team recommends a Focused Visit on the implementation of assessment of
student learning.
D. CRITERION FOUR
The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its
educati.ona1 effectiveness.
Salient Evidence of FuIfiUment of Criterion
1. Evidence that demonstrates that the criterion is met:
a. The Board of Trustees and the Chancellor are aware of the serious issues that
need to be addressed and committed to acting on the&. New initiatives have
already been implemented.
b. A college campus plan that supports the University plan has been developed.
I
c. The non-residential campuses continue to meet the needs of the regions in which
they are located.
d. Fundraising success in the $5 to 6 million range is evidence of the continuity of
leadership in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Development Further
evidence of this momentum has been the 24 million dollars pledged or in-hand in
the “quiet phase” of a campaign
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
l
a. The College looks to the past for its powerful legacy, foundations and method of
governance, even as the composition of the student body changes.
b. The system of governance currently in use at the College slows decision-making
at.a time when the University needs to quickly make important decisions to
ensure the viability of the institution.
c. Additional resources will be required in the area of institutional research to
implement new programs, especially in the marketing and admissions.
d. The non-residential campuses have the potential to prosper, but only if the
enrollment and financial problems of the College are resolved.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up.
Antioch University has changed its strategic planning processes with.each change
of leadership, both at the University level aud at kdividua1 c~p~s~. Pl-g.
primarily ad hoc and situational. There is no consistent formal process linking
campus-planning initiatives with an overall University pimmhg sMm!xre. 3’1-
often state intended outcomes with no corresponding accountability. It’s not
always clear who is responsible for actions or when results are expected. .
Planning is not clearly connected to financial resources and budgetary decisions.
The College’s inability to meet enrollment goals jeopardizes the entire University.
Significant financial resources arc needed at the College and across the University ‘.
to increase student enrollment, recruit and retain new and experienced faculty and
improve the physical plant.
Recommendation of the Team
PaBern of evidence demonstrate& Commission follow-up warranted
The Team recommends a focused visit on the effectiveness of linking planning,
.budgeting, development and enrollment management.
E. CRITERION FIVE
The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships.
Salient Evidence of Fulfillment of Criterion
1. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion is met:
r
a. Antioch University handbooks, view books and publications are-up-to-date and
accurate and meet the expectations of the Higher Learning Commission regarding
operations and relationships.
b. Handbooks for student, staff and faculty reflected appropriate grievance
procedures and policies on Drug and Alcohol Use, Behavioral Standards, Sexual
Harassment, Research on Human Subjects, Intellectual Property Rights and
Academic Appeal processes.
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
a. Some Antioch publications do not consistently describe components of the
institution.
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
3. Evidence that demonstrates the-criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up: .
Antioch University Seattle has a number of partnership agreements. The Team is
concerned about appropriate University oversight for these partnerships.
The Team is concerned whether the University has the legal approval from the
appropriate agencies in states where contract programs are provided to offer some
of its educational programs.
Recommendation of the Team:
Pattern of evidence demonstrated; Commission follow-up wairanted.
The Team recommends a Monitoring Report on.whether the University has the
legal authority to operate in every state in which it offers educational programs.
VI. ACCREDITATION RELATIONSHIP
Next Comprehensive Visit: 20 12-20 13
Rationale: In the past ten years, Antioch University has improved many aspects of
its administrative and nnmtiom. While there are still a number of serious
issues that need to be addressed, the Team concludes that the University meets all of
the GR’s and the Criteria. Rased its review, the Team concludes that Antioch
University has demonstrated an awareness of the serious issues that need to be
addressed. The Board of Trustees has committed to resolving these issues and has
hired a Chancellor who has already begun to address these issues. These initiatives
provide the evidence to warrant another ten-year accreditation cycle.
DEFIATERS OF RELATIONSHIP …
L Degree Level Doctor’s
Rationale: Retain original wording
J-
2. Ownership Private, not for profit institution
Rationale: Retain original wording
3. Stipulations None
Rationale: Retain original wording
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
4. New Degree Sites: No Prior Commission approval required for A-ntioch-Seattle
to offer BA and MA site based programs for educators in the state of Washington.
Rationale: Retain original wording
C. COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP
Focused Visit: Spring 2006
Report Topics:
1. Adequacy of resources to achieve institutional objectives.
2. Effectiveness of linking planning9 budgeting development and enrollment
maxiagement ‘
3. Implementation-of assessment of student learning.
Note: If the University does not demonstrate progress in these areas, the date of the
next comprehensive visit should be moved forward.
Rationale and Expectations:
The University’s most pressing problem is a lack of financial resources for the
educational programs that it offers. Each campus has facility and maintenance needs
that are not being addressed. Significant financial resources are needed to increase
student enrollment, recruit and retain new and experienced faculty and staff and to
improve the physical plant
College and University enrollments have not achieved budget targets for the past
decade. Antioch must either recruit, admit andlor retain more students, or find new
sources of income. With a limited endowment, this institution cannot continue much
longer to tolerate these shortfalls. The results of the upcoming development
campaign are crucial t’o the continued viability of the institution. The continuing
inability to meet enrollment goals jeopardizes the entire University.
Assessment is done well in some settings, but is unevenly addressed across the
University. There is not a consistent understanding of the benefits and limitations of
a multi-faceted assessment program. Based on reviews of numerous student files, the
portfolio system is used inconsistently, and there is no quality review to ensure the
integrity of the system of evaluation. There is little infrastructure to support the
institution’s assessment program. There is limited institutional research.
Expectations:
In preparation for the focused visit, the University will need to provide evidence that .
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
1. That it has adequate financial resources to accomplish the mission of the
University. Adequate resources may be demonstrated by the following:
a. A demonstrated increase in student enrollment, especially at Antioch College.
b. A realistic enrollment management plan.
c. Demonstrated annual enrollments that reflect the plan goals.
d. Increased revenues – from tuition, gifts or Development Office campaign
efforts – to adequately support University programs and services at all of its
campus sites.
e. An end to annual deficits.
f. An increase in annual funding from the endowment, which assumes growth in
the endowment
2. That it has adequate human resources to adequately offer academic program,
administrative programs and services and.student support se~ces.
a. Staffing. programs and services need to match institutional resources.
I b. Staffing, programs and services need to be adequate to meet student
expectations of the institution.
3. That it has adequate physical resources, -to include:
a. Adequate facility lease or purchase arrangements for Antioch University
Southern California;
b. Sigmficant additional investment of funds in Yellow Springs facilities,
equipment techoIogy, fiastructure and housekeeping/maintenance
operations to dramatically improve the quality of academic programs, the
appearance of the campus; the maintenanceand safety of buildings and the
adequacy of facilities for the academic programs.
4. That it has an effective system that links planning, setting priorities and allocating
resources.
a. If resources have not been sufficient, demonstrate how the institution has
adjusted its academic and administrative programs and services.
5. That it demonstrate the implementation of an assessment program that meets the
expectations of the Commission. Each campus may utilize a different assessment
– plan, one that is appropriate to its student population. Each component of the
assessment program’must include multiple measures of assessing student
performance and the University musttdemonstrate how the feedback from the
assessment program is used to improve the educational program at each campus.
a. The portfolio system of evaluation must have standards that are consistently
applied,’and there must be a system of quality review to ensure the integrity of
the portfolio system of evaluation.
b. There must be evidence of an infrastructure to support the institution’s
assessment program, and an institutional research program.
c. Antioch must provide evidence that it is using the results of its assessment
program to improve student learning.
d. Antioch must provide evidence that it is using the results of its’ institutional
research programs to improve institutional planning and decision-making.
-“-.
– Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Monitoring report:
Antioch University must provide a report on its legal authority to operate in every
state in which it offers educational programs. If the University cannot provide
evidence of this legal authority for each state, then those programs must be
terminated. The report is due September 15,2003.
Rationale and Expectations:
Based on materials revie — -. .-wed by the Team, the Team has concerns about the legal
authority of Antioch University to grant credit in some states where it offers courses
and proerams
The Team’s concerns about Antioch University’s “legal authority” are:
1. If Antioch is a single jnstitiltion, the University must demonstrate how each of its
lion-residential, “adult” campuses in states other than Ohio (i.e., Antioch
University Seattle, Aatioch New England Graduate School and Antioch
University Southern California) has the legal authority to operate as an out-of-
state institution or as a separately authorized campus.
2. The University must provide documentation of its legal authority to offer
education programs in every state in which it or its agents operates.
a. In particular, Antioch must demonstrate how Antioch University Seattle has
1 the proper legal authority to grant AUS academic credit for courses offered
via contractual relationships with educational trainjng companies in other
states, including but not limited to Illinois and Indiana.
ADVANCEMENT SECTION
REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT
Antioch University
Yellow Springs, Ohio
October 14-16,2002
FOR
The Higher Learning Commission
A Commission of the Nod Central Association of Colleges and Schools
EVALUATION TEAM
Lany A. Braskamp, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, EL
Thomas Brown, Davenport University, Grand Rapids, MI
Anne Caldwell, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA (NEASC)
Stephen G. Jennings, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN
Keith Johansen, Capella University, Spring Lake Park, MN
David 0. Justice, DePaul University, Chicago, IL
Ann Leffler, Utah State University, Logan, UT (NWCCU)
Janet M. McNew, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL
James E. Moore, Creighton University, Omaha, NE (Chair)
Andrea Momson, Argosy University-San Francisco Bay Area, Point Richmond, CA (WASC)
Manfred Ruddat, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
Kathleen White Smith, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI
Roger Dale Smitter, North Central College, Naperville, IL
Randall L. Thompson, Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL
Advancement Section
Table of Contents
Advancement Section
Overall Observations about the Institution
Consultations of the Team
Antioch University (02C1527)
Page
Recognition of Significant Accomplishments, Significant Progress
and/or Exemplary and Innovative Practice
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
I. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE INSTITUTION
While Antioch University impresses the Team as an authentic and idealistic academic
institution, at the same time the visual element of the Antioch College and other facilities
in Yellow Springs are unimpressive. While the setting is mail town and picturesque,
there are few signs that the campus itself has been carefully tended. In fact, the grounds
and many of the buildings appear to be seriously overdue for maintenance sod
remodeling; quite frayed around the edges. Indeed, it was not until after frequent and
. focused dialogues with administrators, faculty, staff and students, and observations of
documents, records and artifacts on all campus sites that the Team developed a degree of
respect and admiration for the institution. This is a place where adminisbators, faculty
and staff appear to be extraordinarily committed to implementing the Antioch mission
and academic excellence. The spirit of idealism and academic excellence is alive at
Antioch’ University. In spite of the Team’s concerns about finances, enrollments and
facilities, the Team believes that Antioch is a place that has earned continued
accreditation – primarily because of the people who work for the University.
As academic colleagues from other campuses, the Team’s visit to Yellow Springs
generated great respect for Utioch mission, history and propuns, as welI as admiration
for their commitment md accomplishments. However, in 2002, Antioch seems to be rn
institution that has somehow neglected to reach its potential and lost its ability to
maintain and renew itself.
Antioch University is a complex institution (comprised of multiple campuses) that may
be on a path of “too little, too late.” While plans for changes are visible everywhere, one
is left with an ov g impression that the institution’s viability in the 21st century
is still in serious question. The strategic plan of the institution appears to be still missing
some essential ingredients for survival, including, most notably, a savvy, aggressive and
eurial approach to the “business” of higher education. For example, the
at htioch College appear to be transparent and unknown to the
wider, nationwide audience thdt must be tapped if the institution is to survive and thrive. .
Antioch College is a place where everyone seems to be tradition-bound to a fault, while
the very survival of the overall institution appears to be in jeopardy. Antioch University
is a plk where people who should how better seem to be content with hoping that
more students “find us,” when they should be taking charge and openly, aggressively
experimenting with new ways to market its true strengths.
Antioch University has academic programs that are critically important to the lifeblood
and perpetuation of American society, but today in 2002, its own health and potential as a
sustainable institution is seriously in question. One is left with the impression that
Antioch is too self absorbed, strangely more concerned with preserving traditions than in
taking charge of its own destiny. If Antioch University can find a way to adapt to and
leverage the 21* century realities of American higher education, it will gain greater
control over its destiny, while experiencing renewal and a more prosperous future.
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Although Aritioch University is clearly intact, and has met the GIR’s and five criteria for
continued accreditation, the College appears to be in failing health according to all
important indicators; a frayed physical appearance, high student attrition and the
collective voices and faces of especially faculty and staff that show signs of fatigue and
strained optimism. The obvious pride and commitment to the Antioch mission is
sometimes juxtaposed and over-ridden by voices that include signs of stress, frustration
and resignation. The hope for a better future is palpable, yet in the eyes of
strators, faculty and staff that future appears to be far away.
II. CONSULTATIONS OF THE TEAM
Advice – Mission
The Antioph University Self Study Report states: “each of Antioch’s five campuses is a
academic whole, operating within its region in concert with the
university mission; that the University, as a single entity has one vision and mission, is
administered as a multifaceted comprehensive institution.. .” Team Interviews with
adminisPators, stae faculv md students at all sites reveal difkhg opinions .
tfae accuracy of this claim. Faculty members at the non-residential sites are not clear
about how their focus on adult learners relates to the residential College’s co-op/study
focus for traditional-aged undergraduates.
‘ The Team recommends that the University consider creating a single mission statement
. for the institution, and eliminate individual campus mission statements. Instead, the ‘. individual campuses could describe their unique characteristics through goals, objectives,
and strategies as prescribed by a standardized strategic planning process.
Advice – Organizational Structure
The 1993 NCA Team expressed several concerns related to the reorganization of Antioch
University, along with related issues of leadership and management Since then, the
University has continued to search for the optimum balance between centralization and
decentralization; shared or dedicated governance; and national or regional or local
management of shared services. .
r
Apart from the accreditation question, Antioch University would be well served by
making a decision about how it will be governed and managed, and .then clarifying the
formal and informal relationships between the: University, the College, the uon-residential
campuses and the regional accrediting organizations. It needs to determine the optimum
my, and determine how those relationships
a1 management, and organizational
effectiveness. Antioch’s history of shared governance, participative decision making,
and consensus building might be viewed is living the institution’s mission, but those
same characteristics inhibit its growth and make it difficult to attract and keep strong
leaders in key positions.
. .
One question that has surfaced during discussions with faculty and staff is the specific
question of whether or not the College and the group of non-residential adult campuses
are really tvo very different kinds of institutions that might require a new and creatively
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
different organizational structure in the future. It would be helpful now that a new
leadership team is in place to clearly articulate the structure, not simply through
electronic and published media, but through several face-to-face meetings with all
constituencies of the College and ,the greater University.
The Team recommends that, because of its strong leadership, its long and stable history,
its regional board members, and its educational reputation, the Antioch New England
campus take the lead in defining and describing an overall University organizational
structure that more clearly articulates collaborative benefits and intercampus
relationships.
Advice – University Leadership
The.Team recornends the University Leadership Council strengthen the hand of the
Chancellor. This would send a clear signal to all of the campus sites of Antioch
University. Additionally, itwould underscore the interest of the Board of Trustees in the
transformation of University governance.
The Team agrees with the many individuals on the collective campus sites who*suggested
that greater collaboration and increased unity among campuses can only occur with
strong centralized leadership and operational coordination. Without Board andfor ULC
action, this leadership and coordination would be dificult to evolve, primarily because of
geographical boundaries, differences in institutional culture, and historical differences.
Advice – Academic Leadership
The Team recommends that the University create a position for a university-wide
academic leader, such as a provost, who could provide needed direction in areas of
mutual interest, such as uniform degee requirements, assessment, faculty development,
program development, support services, and technology. Another reason to create a chief
academic officer position is because of the increasing demands that the campus
presidents are facing.
Advice – Contracts
The Team is concerned whether or not Antioch University has an established procedure
for its individual campus sites to enter into contractual agreements with other legal
entities to offer academic courses for Antioch credit, and whether or not these agreements
meet state, federal, and accreditation requirements. In particular, the Team is concerned
about such matters as faculty oversight of the curriculum, ensuring quality control,
awarding of federal financial aid, obtahing required accreditation and other approvals,
assuring appropriate university course/ pro °ree requirements, delegating
(s) representing the Univ y, establishing appropriate financial terms,
sioas contained within these contracts from both legal and
educational perspectives. A summary ofthe concern is.presented below:
In a discussion of the new Ph.D. in Leadership and Change in the University Self-
Study Report, it is stated that Provisional Approval was obtained from the Ohio
Board of Regents in September 2001 and “in addition, all appropriate education
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
agencies in the states where die program hold residencies were notified of the
program and approval to operate was secured (p. 91). The team is uncertain about
. what state approvals were secured, and, in particular, the team is concerned about
conducting residencies at Antioch Seattle as evidenced by the following
statement:
“Antioch University Seattle has not been aut/~oi-bed to offer a PhDprogram in
Washington State. Reference to a PhD program was made in a promotional
brochure submitted with the application [renewal for Certificate of Authorization].
should ~ntioch University Seattle wish to offer the PhDprogram or any other
additional programs, please contact the HECB/DAAA to apply/or authorization
prior to their offering. Programs mav not [emphasis addea be mentioned in any
promotional literature until such time as authorization may be granted. ” (Higher
Education Coordinating Board Correspondence, August 22,2002).
Heritase Institute. In September 2000 Antioch University Seattle entered into a
three-year agreement with Heritage Learning, Inc. dba Heritage Institute (HLI).
A review of this agreement indicated that Antioch University Seattle shall make
available university credit for all HLI course offerings (regular classes, field.
studies, external education & independent study) for K-12 educators in
Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho and other states that HLI selects for
expansion in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Agreement
During the course of the on-site visit the AUS did not provide evidence that it
andlor Heritage Institute had approval to offer graduate courses in the states listed
above nor that Antioch University had approval from the Higher Learning
Commission. Antioch University should review Antioch Seattle’s contractual
relationship with Heritage Institute to ensure quality control and that it meets
appropriate state(s) aufiority and Higher Learning Commission approval.
Organizational Systems Renewal. Documentation was provided to the Team
detailing an agreement dated November, 1999 between Antioch University Seattle .
and Organization Systems Renewal Midwest, Inc. (OSR-MW) located in
Chicago, Illinois. Students enrolled in the OSR-MW Chicago program who earn
70-quarter credit hours earn a Master of Arts Degree in Whole Systems Design
from Antioch Seattle. OSR-MW has its own faculty.
In addition, there are two M.A. program options in Whole Systems Design
offered on the Seattle campus offered by Antioch Seattle faculty. The 2002-2003
Catalog describes two options for obtaining the M-A. degree. The degree on-
campus “Individualized Option” has one set of admission, required and elective
courses (60 cr. his.) and degree requirements, whereas the degree program offered
either on-campus or in Chicago by Organization Systems Renewal has different
admission requirements, individually designed curriculum, and 70 credit hours for
graduation.
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Although Chicago, Illinois is listed as “Other degree sites in other states” on
Antioch University’s Statement of Affiliation Status, the Team is of the opinion
that Antioch University1 Antioch Seattle may not have provided the Commission
on Higher Learning with approval to operate a degree program in Chicago from
the appropriate State of Illinois agency (i-e., Illinois Board of Higher Education
vs. Illinois Secretary of State). Furthermore, the University should review
Antioch Seattle’s contractual relationship with both OSR-NW and OSR-MW to
ensure that its meets appropriate state authority and the accreditation concern of
the educational appropriatenes,~ of awarding the. same degree with different
requirements.
School for Innovative Leadership. In September 1998 Antioch University
Seattle entered into an affiliation agreement with the School for Innovative
Leadership (SIL), a not-for-profit educational and consulting corporation
chariered in Washington State. This agreement allowed employees of Aluminum
Corporation of American (ALCOA) to earn a Master of Science in Management.
The primary site was in Gatlinburg, Tennessee and subsequently relocated to
Indianapolis, Indiana in September 2001. During the Team visit, evidence was
provided that the University had exercised is option to terminate this agreement
effective December 3 1,2002. Approximately six months later a Continuation and
Termination Agreement extended this relationship until December 3 1,2003.
Documentation provided the Team indicated that the University adminismtion
realized in August 200 1 that approval from the Higher Learning Commission had
not been obtained and a Request for Institutional Change was drafted and perhaps
submitted. Nevertheless, the Seattle team was not provided with evidence that the
, University had appropriate authority from either of the respective states
(Tennessee nor Indiana) or the Higher Leamhg om mission This matter is of
concern to the Team and a teach-out plan should be developed that will satisfy all
parties (e.g. SIL, enrollees, Antioch University, Antioch Seattle, State of Indiana,
and Higher Learning Commission).
Advice: The Team recommends the University file a Monitoring Report on this topic.
Advice – Faculty
The Team recommends that the University consider how to develop and encourage
leadership among the faculty.
The College faculty can lay claim to the intellectual heritage of the Antioch vision. The
University needs to fmd ways to bring academic leadership into institutional prominence.
These moves toward greater faculty prominence and power will take careful negotiation
with students and staff members who might otherwise see the professors as tinning away
from sharing power with them. If they are skillful, these faculty leaders will find ways to
demonstrate how the Antioch community as a whole would benefit from intellectual
leadership centered in the faculty.
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Faculty at the non-residential campuses are deeply committed to the core principles of the
Antioch vision that serve adult learners, while infusing them with regional values. They
believe that the vision and heart of the University lives in the faculty. These faculty are
concerned that new campus administrators may not understand this vision and that their
new leadership may sever the vital connection to the Antioch mission if they do not find
ways to put faculty and academics back at the center of policy and planning for the
University.
Faculty on the non-residential campuses believe that their campus sites are in serious
danger of beihg starved of the resources they need to feed the academic mission in which
they so strongly believe. Especially in areas where the cost of living is extremely high,
the low faculty salaries need immediate attention. Perhaps more pressing, however, is me
oppressive workload of the core faculty who teach year-round on a four-quarter calendar
without regular sabbatical leave or dependable professional development funding for
their own research or for c~cular innovation Faculty members g
scant on-site resources for instructional support, andbudgets often do not allow for more
than minimal materials-videos, books-to do .the creative things in fhe classroom that
they believe necessary.
.In times of scarce resources, these faculty members need some assurance that Antioch is
focusing on its educational heart-the faculty and academic programs. The faculty is any
university’s most valuable resource, and no university can afford to defer maintenance of
‘. its intellectual heart.
. .-
Perhaps the most effective way for fee collective Antioch faculty to make its concerns -A
.and needs known is to consider its own goveinance structures. Each campus site tends to
-focus on its own local interests, and within each campus, each program operates
relatively autonomously. How might the faculty organize itself so that it operates as a
united entity and speaks with one voice about its needs and interests? A careful
consideration of how the faculty might lendmore significant authority and support to its
leaders, both deans and elected officers, would be a’good first step toward this goal,
‘ The College faces major challenges in the areas ofrecruitment and retention of a diverse
faculty: obtaining a budget that will enable fair and competitive compensation for faculty,
and obtaining the money to properly recruit and train new minority faculty.. Retention of
minority faculty and staff at the College, especially of African Americans, is problem
because of low salaries and the lack of a support system on a small campus in a small
town.
i
Advice – Assessment
The Team recommends that a comprehensive program. of assessing student learning be
developed. This was a concem 10 years ago and continues to be a concem. Examination
of student files and portfolio evaluations at the College suggest that the narrative
assessment is sometimes formulaic and not clearly evaluative the individual student’s
performance. Portfolio evaluations are better done at most of the non-residential campus
sites. A set of standards is needed for the entire University (whether uniform for the
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
entire institution or specific for each campus site), as is a system to monitor portfolio
comments to ensure the proper application of those standards.
Faculty assessment of learning should include more direct as opposed to indirect
measures. In addition, faculty should receive periodic training, supervision and coaching
about how to write clear, complete and consistent narrative evaluations, to summary,
assessment is about more than portfolios and specifics techniques. -It is about having an
institutional process that gathers and uses data to improve learning. The most important
step for Antioch University is to provide evidence of how it uses the results of assessment
to improve student learning.
Advice – Institutional Research
& Antioch University has worked for the last ten years to reorganize and refocus its
attention on the structure of the University and its five campuses, several challenges have
been consistently identified and discussed. Everyone seems to agree that the institution
needs to grow enrollment and improve its financial position in order to remain vital and
to prosper in the future. Overall, however, plans to achieve these goals have been, at
best, only modestly successful. For the most part, these challenges have been accurately
identified and discussed from within, but frequently outside resources have been
employed to help resolve them.
The Team agrees with the many individuals with whom the Team met who suggested that
it might be more productive to address these issues from within- All campus sites need
the same things, but lack the understanding or resources to adequately secure them. The
Team recommends that a central administrative team in Ohio, working in taudem with an
office of institutional research, be completely focused on the institution’s most pressing
problems, and thereby enable all sites to mutually benefit. Effective internal research
would help the institution understand who its students are, where they come from, why
they attend, where they go, and where they could be found in greater numbers. Such
research could lead to consistent and effective marketing and promotion strategies,
admissions and enrollment management strategies, new processes for program-
‘
development, a comprehensive package of alumni se~ces, career development
initiatives, and improved development efforts.
Advice – Marketing
The Team recommends that the University develop a University-wide marketing
campaign in order to generate wider name recognition.and emphasize the institution’s
core values of experiential learning and social justice. Such a campaign has the potential
to attract more students to the collective campuses.
Advice – Program Development
The Team recommends that the University consider developing additional academic
programs that would increase enrollment while enhancing the mission of the institution.
Many individuals at lion-residential campus sites believe that more business programs
should be offered, with the MBA most often mentioned. There is a feeling that many
prospective students who otherwise would desire the Antioch experience go elsewhere
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
because they are not interested in the MAOM. The majority of prospective students
inquiring about the MBA are men; a group the institution is attempting to attract to help
reach its diversity goals. Efficiencies could possibly be gained through an additional
program that could share core courses.
The Team recommends that the University consider developing educational programs
&at would appeal to aid. ~~ may be interested in engaging in post-degree
educational experiences including discipline specific seminars, post-graduate professional
certification pro s, or just continuing education in their fields.
Advice – Career Services:
Students and alumni expressed a need for a more formal approach of delivering career
and employment services. Because of the institution’s commitment to the integration of
study and work, many students are either already employed or expect to -secure new
employment through related internships or community connections. Still, they articulated
a need for services that would better enable them to search new careers, to participate in
career development experiences, to learn how to be the demands of work and
family, and to achieve assistance when interested in g new jobs after initial
placement, and how to network with colleagues in their professions.
The Team recommends that the institution consider a centralized approach toward the
.:development of career services. This could prove to be a unifying initiative while at the
1 ¥sam time providing job and networking opportunities for students and alumni
throughout the nation, and even internationally because of the worldwide co-op initiatives
at the College.
-XnternationalStudents, Language and Study-Abroad Programs
The Team recommends that the University review its “international” programs (advising
and supporting visa students, study abroad programs and language instruction) and make
a mission-based decision about whether suf3cient resources exist to support these
programs’. Currently, some international students are advised by-a member of the study
abroad office, while others are advised by the Dean of Students. Evidence was not clear –
that the current program of advisement meets the needs of all students.
The University should review whether on-campus language instruction can support its
study abroad options. While language study is not the main focus of many of the Antioch
. study abroad pro integration into the student’s field of study being the primary
god – it would the availability of language study on campus has some impact
on participation in study abroad pro am and its impact on student learning.
Advancement Section ~ntioch University (02C1527)
in. RECOGNITION OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS,
SIGNIFICANT PROCESS, AND/OR EXEMPLARY AND INNOVATIVE
PRACTICE
PhD in Leadership and Change
The new designed Ph. D. program in Leadership and Change is the only University-wide
academic program, building on the identity of Antioch and utilizing the resources of all
campuses. This program reflects the spirit and identity of Antioch – its concern for the
common good and engagement.i.n society. The program h& been thoroughly researched
and is built on a premise that it is will be most applicable and useful for the practitioner-
schola. The program uses the latest in educational technology to organize and manage
both the program and individual courses. The learning environment relies on the twelve
residencies – four per year for thefirst three years – to build community, to motive the
students, to develop a structure, and to provide feedback to the students. The program
has built in a high level of interaction among the students and faculty.
The faculty selected for the program are highly noted for their scholarship and leadership
in their respective fields, have embraced the philosophy of the.academic program, and are
academically and socially secure in leading this innovative academic program. The
program has a business plan to be financially solvent, partly due to the low overhead
required for the program and the use of existing resources and facilities. The interest in
such a program is initially high, with the program finding a niche in the advanced degree
academic program field. It is however too early to know how sustainable the interest will
be in the program.
Cooperative Education:
Arthur Morgan, President of Antioch College from 1920- 193 6, introduced the Antioch
work-study program, makhg the institution different fiom all other colleges of the time.
Although cooperative education is no longer a unique strategy in higher education,
Antioch’s un&uIly strong commitment to developing and maintaining linkages of study
and work in a liberal arts institution remains one of its most distinguishing characteristics.
Antioch students clearly are attracted to the College and remainbecause of the perceived .
importance of the program. r
Requiring students to complete five units of work experience in their degree programs is
no easy task; it demands a large number of faculty and staff completely dedicated to
helping students locate, design and complete their co-op experiences. The task has been
further complicated because of the role of multiculturalism, which has necessitated a
large number ofinternational work assignments-there were 104 such assignments
during 200 1-2002.
It’s also a demanding task for students, requiring them to become self-sufficient, flexible,
and resolute in their determination to complete a degree. Many find thernselves’moving
on and off campus several times during the pursuit of their studies, and there is little
doubt that these complexities have a somewhat negative effect on retention. However, the
College and its students continue to benefit from this fine program.
Antioch University (02C1527) . Advancement Sec
–
It would be tempting for the College to reduce co-op requirements and/or to replace
faculty with lower paid staff to manage the cooperative education center, especially
during times of limited financial resources, but it has done neither. The College has
remained steadfast in its determination to continue advancing the vision of Arthur
Morgan and is to be commended for doing so. The program continues to be, even if no
longer unique, still special in liberal arts higher education.
The non-residential sites have also created ways to integrate work and study, but because
of their need to meet the needs of part-time adult students they have out of necessity had
to take a different approach than the College. Instead of requiring traditional co-op
experiences they have creatively found ways to have students document work and .
community experiences as part of their programs of study. Students at these locations
consistently identified these linkages as one of the primary reasons they chose to enroll at
Antioch.
WORKSHEET FOR STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION STATUS
TYPE OF REVIEW:
ANTIOCH UNrvERSITY
150 E. South College St.
Yellow Springs, OH 45387
Continued Accreditation
DATE OF THE REVIEW: October 14,2002 – October 16,2002
COMMISSION ACTION:
STATUS: Accredited (1927- .)
Institution Recommended Wording: : RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING
Team – Recommended Wording: RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING
HIGHEST DEGREE
AWARDED: Doctor’s.
Institution Recommended Wording RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING .
Team – RewmmeÂ¥nde Wording RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING’
MOST RECENT
ACTION: November 28,2001.
STIPULATIONS ON
AFFILIATION STATUS: None. ‘
Institution Recommended Wording None.
Team – Recommended Wording: None.
Page 2 MOCH UNIVERSITY
NEW DEGREE
SITES: No prior Commission approval required for Antioch-Seattle to offer BA and
MA site basedpgra~~~sfor educators in the state of Wasl~ington.
Institution Recommended Wording: RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING
2ka2Z Recommended Wording: RETAIN ORIGINAL WORDING
PROGRESS REPORTS
REQUIRED: None.
Team Recommended Wording: None.
, MONITORING REPORTS’
REQUIRED: None.
Team Recommended Wording: 9/15/03; A report on legal authority to operate
in every state in which it offers educational
programs. If the University cannot provide.
evidence of this legal authority for each state
then those programs must be temiinatad.
!
CONTIN~ENCY REPORTS
REQUIRED: None. –
Team – Recommended Wording: None.
OTHER VISITS
REQUIRED:. None.
Team Recommended Wording 2005-06; A focused visit on resources, planning,
budgeting, development, enrollment and
, assessment.
LAST COMPREHENSIVE
EVALUATION: 1992-93.
NEXT COMPREHENSIVE
EVALUATION: 2002-03.
Recommended Wording: 2012-13.
