↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
)
.’ ;;S>
l]COPY
ASSURANCE SECTION
REPORT OF A COl1PREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT
TO
Antioch University
Yellow Springs, Oh.i;?
October 14-16, 2002
FOR
The Higher Learning Commission
A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
EVALUATION TEAM
Larry A. Braskamp, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, II.,
Thomas Brown, Davenport University, Grand Rapids, Ml
Anne Caldwell, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA (NEASq
Stephen G. Jennings, University ofEvaD.sville,Evansville, m
Keith Johansen, Capella University,Spring LakiPark, ~
David O. Justice, DePaul University, Chicago, II.,
Ann Leffler, Utah State University, Logan, UT (NWCCU)
Janet M. McNew, illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, II.,
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, II..
Kathleen White Smith.,Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI
Roger Dale Smjtter, North Central College, Nap~rville, II.,
. Randall L. Thompson, Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, II.,
, .’ ·
Table of Contents
Assurance Section
L Context and Nature of Visit
A. Purpose of Visit
B. -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
n. 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
m. Compliance with Federal Requirements
N. Affirmation of the General Institutional 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. Definers of Relationship
C. Commission Follow-up
..’ .0
Antioch University (02C1527)
Page
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
7
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
14
16
17
18
18
18
19
6/10/2003
0° .”
Assurance Section
ASSURANCE SECTION
1. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT
Antioch University (02C1527)
A. Purpose of Visit
The purpose of the visit was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation for continued accreditation at
the doctoral level.
B. Institutional Context:
Antioch University is a single.institution with two campuses located in Yellow Springs, Ohio
(Antioch College and Antioch University McGregor); one campus in Keene, New Hampshire
(Antioch New England Graduate School); one campus in Seattle Washington (Antioch University
Seattle); and a campus in Southern California that operates in two sites – Los Angeles and Santa
Barbara (Antioch University Southern Califomia) .
.c. Unique Aspects of Visit:
Antioch University is a single institution accredited by the Higher Learning 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 (NWCCU), and the Tf.,Testern Association 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 in
-the country.
D. Sites or Branch Campuses Visited:
.Antioch College – Il team members
(pre-visit: 10/2-3/02; Evaluation visit 10/14-16/2002)
*Antioch New England Graduate School- 2 members, plus 1 member from NEASC
(pre-visit: 10/7-8/2002; Evaluation visit: 10/21-22/2002) .
* Antioch University McGregor – 2 members
(Pre-visit: 10/2:’313003;Evaluation visit: 1Q112-16/2002)
*Antioch Seattle – 2 members, plus 1 member from NWCCU
(pre-visit: 10/7-8/2002; Evaluation visit: 10/21-22/2002)
*Antioch University Southern California – 2 members, plus 1 member from WASC
(Evaluation visit 10/7-8/2002)
* Referred to by the University as “non-residential campuses” and/or “adult campuses.”
E. Distance Education Reviewed:
Antioch 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
…. Jo •••,’
.’ .
Assurance Section
F. Interactions t”ith Institutional Constituencies:
… ;.,.
Chancellor
Chancellor Emeritus
Vice Chancellor & Chief Financial Officer
Vice Chancellor for Development and
External Relations
Director of Human Resources
University. Comptroller
Exec. Dir., Glen Helen Ecol,ogy Institute
Antioch University (02C1527)
Professor History; Editor of the Antioch
Review
Station Manager – WYSO public radio
Director ofInfonnation Systems
University-wide Dean and Director, PhD in
Leadership
PhD Program Administrator/Registrar
Board of Trustees (6), including Chair
President
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 (WellnesslDean
of Students area)
~M’. ‘Gh~I<'1':!!'if.~. ='=~="",:~!?~~
Director of Housing
Director of CCL
Director of Physical Plant
Director Student AccountslBusiness
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
Committees
Assessment (chair; faculty - 1 active and
1 emeritus)
Faculty Executive Committee (5 members)
Facultv
Antioch Education Abroad
Arts
Biology
Co-Op Education Programs
Creative Writing
.Cultural & Interdisciplinary Studies
Forums
Administrators
Faculty
Staff
Students (17)
Students (40 at infonnallunch interactions)
3
ComCil (135)
General Education (5 faculty)
Environmental Sciences
Executive Management
Literature, Language, ,Culture
Physical Sciences
Social & Global Studies
Sociology (SeI:t: Society, Culture)
6/10/2003
" ....
..
"'iJ'
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
President Program Director, ILPS
Academic Dean . Director, Enrollment Management
Registrar Student Alumni Services
Director, Financial Aid Director, IT Services
Program Director, Bachelor's Board of Visitors, 5 members
Completion
Facultv
. Conflict Resolution, Program Director
Education
Th1A
Graduate Management
Committees
Cuni.culum Committee, Chair
Forums
Students (30)
Open (20)
President
Director of Administrative Operations and Finance
Director of Antioch New England Institute CANEI)
Registrar
Director of Financial Aid
Director of Admissions
Associate Director of Student Accounts
Director of Human Resources and Fiscal Services
Director of Facility Services
Administratiye Forum: Consisted of President's Council & Department.Chairs
(president, Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer, Chair-Clinical Psychology, Director of Admissions,
Associate Chair-Clinical Psychology, Chair--organi~ation and Management, ChaiI'-Education,
Chair-Environmental Studies)
•
Facultv:
Education Department: (Chair and six faculty)
Education by Design Program: (program Administ:ator and Assistant Director)
Environmental Studies Department
(Chair and three faculty)
Organization and Ma.I?-~gement Department (Chair and four faculty)
Applied Psychology Department - Chair and three faculty(directors
~linical Psychology Department - Chair and three faculty/directors
Psychological Services Center (pSC) - Director and Assistant Director
Forums:
Administrators (9)
Staff Forum (I 7)
Students (12)
4
Clinical Doctoral students (8)
Alumni (11)
6/10/2003 .~
{
Assurance Section
President
Director of Library Services
Dean of Administration & Finance
Academic Dean
Special Assistant to President/Self
Study Committee Chair
Forums
Core Faculty (28)
Students (
Support Staff (30)
A. Los Anaeles
President
De~ of Academic Affairs
Regional Chief Financial O~cer
Antioch University (02C1527)
.Anti6clI .1Univ.e"rsi· Seattle.. ". . ..~~~..;!}, .-};~ :
Director, Center for Programs in Psychology
Financial Aid Officer
Board of Visitors (Chair & member!
former Trustee)
Project director of the "Early College High
Schools for Native Youth" program .
Registrar .
Director of Facilities
Committees:
College Council of Los Angeles (2 Deans,S program chairs, Registrar, director of
Admissions and Financial Aid, 2 staff representatives)
AcWorkslLA (Academic Dean, plus 6 program chairs)
BA Degree Completion Program - Chair
Education Program - Chair
Fine Arts - Creative Writing Program - Chair
Organizational Management Program - Chair
Psychology and Clinlcal Psychology Programs - Chair
Forums:
Staff (15 attendees)
Student (14 attendees)
IB. Santa Barb~ra
Executive Dean
Dean of Academic Affairs
Faculty:'
Psychology Program - Chair
I
Committees:
College Council (10 members)
AcWorks (6 attendees)
Forums:
Core Faculty Forum (12 attendees)
Student Forum (16 attendees)
~ 5
: .. , .. ".
Faculty (17 attendees)
Alumni (13 attendees)
Registrar
Information Technology staff
Org~ational Management Program .;.. Chair
PresW orks (6 attendees)
Alumni FGIllID (10 attendees)
6/10/2003
AsSurance Section Antioch University (02C1 527)
G. Principal Documents, Materials, and Veb Pages Reviewed:
Self-Study materials for all Antioch campus sites were reviewed. Other infoID1ation:
University
1. Auditor's University Financial Statements-June, 2000
2. Report to the Board of Trustees-June, 2000
3. Year End Projections & Proposed 2001 Budget
4. 1999 Strategic Plan .
5. Five-Year Capital Budget: June 2002· .
6. University Overhead, Rebates, and Subsidies, Streamlining the Process: April, 2001
7. Antioch UniversitYBudget Planning for Fiscal Year 2002: April, 2001
8. Needs Assessment for Institutional Support to Strengthen Antioch University:
March, 2001 .
9. Inventory of Antioch University Buildings: November 2001
10. Report to Board ofTros~ees Five Year Capital Budget 2002-2006 (University):
June 2002
11. Report to'Board of Trustees 2001-02 Year End,Projection/2002-2003 Proposed
Budget .
12. First Class for the Ph.D. program in Leadership, including link to New England
library.
13. Datatel system and its screens.
14. TechLeaming Circle, A Proposal to FISPE: May 24,2002
15. Information Technology Infrastructure Plan 1997-2001
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: January-August 200i
20. Antioch College Facility Planning 1999,·2001
21. Antioch College Campaign Progress Report: September 2002
22. Antioch College Facility Condition Assc:ssment Survey ,
23. Computer- Hardware 'Inventory: October 2001
24. A Report on the Capital Campaign for Antioch College 1986-1993
25. Antioch College Three-Year GiftComparisons: 2000-2002
26. A Special Study and Report on the Fund-Raising Potential of Antioch College:
May 2001
27. Organizational Chart Antioch College Office of Development & Alumni Relations:
October, 2002
28. Reviewed Home Page aIi.d web pages associated with admission.
McGregor
29. Indic.ators of Progress
30. Self-Study Addendum and Updates
31. Board of Visitors purposes and Goals
32. BA degree audit forms
6 6/10/2003 .
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527).
33. Random student portfolio files in Registrar's office
34. Sample degree plans and course outlines for IMAlILPS courses
35. Thesis approval forms
36. Sample ILPA Assessment instruments (completed)
37. Sample Instucotr's Evaluation form (compelted)
38. IMAJILPS Faculty Responses to 1999 Antioch University Program Review
39. McGregor Strategic Plan
40. IMAJILPS Student Handbook
41. 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. CourselIn.structor Evaluation Forms
50. Antioch New England Student Handbook 2002-03
51. 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 StrcitegicPlan 1999/2000-2003/2004
Academic Team Minutes
57. Reviewed web pages associated with admission.
Seattle
58. Seattle team reviewed all documents in the Resourc~ Room, including samples of
student work, faculty evaluations, and the Antioch Seattle web page
59. 'ADS Strategic Plan 2000-2005
. 60. State of Washington Degree Authorization correspondence: August 22,2002
61. ADS Revenue and Expense Statement June 30, 2002
62. Report of Extemal Evaluation of ADS by Altes & Nolan: December 21,2000
63. Antioch University Seattle'Catalog 2002-2003
64. Antioch Seattle NCA Self-Study Update
65. ADS OrgaI)ization Chart: 2002-200J
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 Iqnovative
Leadership: August 12, 1998
68. Correspondence (3) related to School for Leadership ContractlNCA approval:
August 23 & 29, 200 1
" .
7
...~ .
6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
69. Memo to NCA and Request forInstitutional Change regarding-School for
Leadership Contract: Augp.st 30, 2001
70. Letter to Ternlinate Agreement with School for Innovative Leadership effective
12/31/2002: September 27, 2001
71. Continuation and Termination Agrl~ernent with the School for Innovative
Leadership: June 12, 2002 -
72. Letter of Agreement with Heritage Institute: August I, 2000
73. Contractual Agreement with Organ:lzation Systems Renewal Midwest:
November 1, 1999 .
74. Correspondence (3) related to authorization to do business in the State of Illinois:
August 16, 1999
75. Sample Student TranscriptslRecords
76. Log of Student Complaints
77. List of students not making adequatf: Satisfactory Academic Progress
78. Course Syllabi
79. Student Projects
80. Publiqations by AUS faculty and studen~
81. Student evaluations of faculty
82. Minutes of Academic Council and administrativelPresident's Team meetings
83. Copies of Grant :proposaIslFunded ~ants
84. Review of library materials and data bases
85. Review of texts andmaterials in Bookstore
86. Web sites, e.g.,
Southern California
?7. Antioch Southern California NCA Self-Study and BIDs
88. AULA General Catalog
89. AUSB General Catalog
90. AUSC Core Fa~ulty Handbook
91. AUSB and AULA Fall 2002 Course S,chedules
92. AULA and AUSB Telephone Directories
93. MFA in Creative Writing Internal Program Assessment and Residency Guide
94. MA in Education and Teacher Cred.entiding Student Teacher Handbook .
95. Student Handbooks in Education, Psychology, and Organizational Management
96. AUSC Strategic Plan
97. State Licensure Materials
98. Admissions Materials regarding transfer of credit
99. Sample print media ads
100. Selected Carel Adjunct Faculty Narrative Evaluations of Students
101. MA in Organizational Management Program Review
102. Annual Budgets
103. Fact Book 2000-2002
104. Personnel Files of Regional Employees
105. Accreditation Task Force Administrative Materials
106. Minutes of Regional Council Southern California
107. Student Complaint Logs for Santa Barbara and Los Angeles
6/10/2003
Assurance Section
II. COl1MITMENT TO PEER REVIEV
Antioch University (02C1527)
A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process:
Antioch University chose to engage in a de-centralized self-study process, reflective
of the semi-autonomC?usoperating style of the University. Representation on each of
the self-study teams varied by the campus, but from comments at open meetings’ and
intervie’Ys’tilth 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’.
8. 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
structi.I.reand 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 form 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.
1. 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.
2. Antioch College
Overall, the Antioch College Self Study Report was accurate and cont,ainedmany
evaluative sections that were helpful to the Team. Summaries of quantitative data
visually through charts and tables would have been helpful.
3. McGregor .
The McGregor Self-Study Report addressed the major issues facing the
institution. ~aterials in the Team room were comprehensive and helpful.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Southern California
Overall, the AUSC Self-Study Report was accurate, valid, and bas 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.
” .
9 6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1 527)
}
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. Decentralization of the Uriiversity administration structure.
D. Notification ofE”aluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment:
, Requirements wer~ fulfilled.
Ill. ‘ COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUlREl’vfENTS’ ..
The Team reviewed the required Title IV compliance areas and the student complaint
, information. ‘
IV. AFFIRl1ATION OF THE GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL :REQUIREMENTS
Based 9n the self-study review and other documentation, the Team co~s that the
institution continues to meet each of the twenty-four General Institutional
Requirements.
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.
Salient Evidence of FulfIllment 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 experientialleammg and community service.
b. Interviews indicate a clear understanding and commitment to the historical values
of the Ccrllege 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.
e. Students, faculty and staff at the non-residential campuses expressed knowledge
of, and passion for, the ‘mission statement of their campus.
”
10 6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
. 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 cop.tinue to
generate on-going discussion concerning the question of singleness of Pl:trP0se,
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and,
Commission follow-up.
None noted.
Recommendation of the Team’ .
Pattern of evidence sufficiently demonstrated; 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
1. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion is met
a~ The University has improved its ability to effectively budget and manage
financial resources to ~ccomplish its purposes. In particular:
•
•
•
•
Finances of the University 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.
In1plementation of an integrated computerized financial system (Datatel).
Institutional advancement is improving with a realistic feasibility study, early
successes in a five-year $100 million Sesquicentennial College Campaign, and
recent increases in grants, contracts, and the College Endowment
Investment of $11 million in the Yellow Springs plant and infrastructure.
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.
11 6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
c. Trustees have reaffirmed the key role of the Chancellor in the administration of
Antioch University.
d. The University Leadership 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 admimstrative technology. The·
University also implemente9 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 identifymg 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 repqrt 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, experientiallearniD.g, and community serVice.
1. 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 arid 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.
12
, .’
6/10/2003
‘. :.
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 aI) 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 University’s most pressing problem is a lack of financial resources for the
educational programs that it offers.
b. 11le 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
Recommendation of the Team
Pattern of evidence demonstrated; Commission follow-up warranted.
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. Eviden,ce that demonstrates that the criterion is met:
a. Students, faculty; staff, and alumni from an campus sites conf~ 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.
13 6/1 0/2003
, . ~ .. :
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C 1527)
c. Graduate academic programs are clearly defined, coherent and intellectually
challenging. The new PhD program in Leadership and Change effectively utilizes
resources from all oithe 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, enabl~s students to,structure an individualized program of study.
e. Students at the College indicated the Co-op Program was a significant enrollment
factor and it was crucial to their Antioch educational experience.
f. Academic progriuns throughout the University stimulate the examination and
understanding of personal, social and civic values.
g. Antioch College maintains a broad-based international study program. ‘
h. At the non-residential canipuses, the academic programs emphasize ~l
thinking, self-reflection, mentoring, focused research, workplace applications; and
intellectual interaction betWeenstudents, and among faculty ~d students.
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention
a. The College does not have sufficient resources to support all of,its current
academic majors.
. .
b. Staffing and fInancial resources are limited across the University, adversely
affecting the delivery of programs and services, as well as’ the upkeep of facilities.
c. The University as a whole, and particularly the College, has failed to achieve
enrollment goals for the past five years.
d. The College attr,itionrate 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. There ‘is a lack of institutional research on students – for admissions and retention.
i4
….
6/10/2003
Assurance Section
Recommendation of the Team
Antioch University (02C1 527)
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.onaleffectiveness.
Salient Evidence of Fulfillment 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 them. New initiatives have
already been implemented.
b. A College campus plan that supports the University plan has been developed.
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
a. The College looks to the past for its powerful1egacy, foundations and me.thod 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 quickIy 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.
” .
.l • … … ….
15 6/10/2003
‘. , .’.. :
AssLirance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
3. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up.
a. Antioch University has changed its :strategicplanning processes with.each change
of leadership, both at the University level and at individual campuses. Planning’ is
primarily ad hoc and situational. There is no consistent formal process linking
campus-planning initiatives with an overall University planning structure. Plans
often state intended outcomeswith no corresponding accountability. It’s not
always clear who is,responsiblefor actions or when results are expected.
Planning is not clearly connectedto fmancial resources and budgetary decisions.
b. The College’s ,inability to meet enrollment goals jeopardizes the entire University,
c Significant fInancial resources are nee~ed at the College and across the University
to increase stud.ent enrollment,recruit and retain new and experienced faculty and
improve the physical plant.
Recommendation of the Team
Pattern of evidence demonstrated.; 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 Fuirillmentof Criterion
1. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion is met:
a. Antioch University handbooks, view books and publications are·up-to-date and
accurate and meet the expectations of the Higher Learning Commis~ion regardIDg ,
operations and relationships.
h: 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.
:’.. .. – .. .” ”
16
0″‘ ‘.. . ~ …….
6/10/2003
…. ~ ~
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1 527)
3. Evidence that demonstrates the, criterion requires institutional attention and
Commission follow-up:.
a. Antioch University Seattle has a number of partnership agreements. The Team is
concerned about appropriate University oversight for these partners~ps.
b. 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 warranted.
The Team recommends a Monitoring Report on ,whether the University has the
legal authority.to operate iIi every state in which it offers educational programs.
VI. ACCREDITATION RELATIONSHIP
A. CONTINUED ACCREDITATION
Next Comprehensive Visit: 2012-2013
Rationale: In the past ten years, Antioch University has improved many aspects of
its administrative and financial operations. While there are still a number of serious
issues ~at need to be addressed, the Team concludes that the University meets all of
the GIR’s and the Criteria. Based 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.
B. DEFThTERSOF RELATIONSBlP
1. Degree Level Doctor’s
Rationale: Retain original wording
2. Ownership Private, not for profit institution
Rationale: Retain original wording
3. Stipulations None
.: ..
Rationale: Retain original wording
6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
4. Ne’w D~gree Sites: No Prior Commission approval required for Antioch-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 reSQ”QI’cesto achieve institutional objectives.
2. Effectiveness of linking planning, budgeting, development and enrollment
management
3. Implementation ·of assessment of student learning.
Note: If the University does not demonstrate progress in these areas, the date oftbe
next comprehensive visit should be moved forw~d..
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 n.eeds
that are not being addressed. Significant fInancial resources are needed to increase
student enrollmen~ recruit and retain new and experienced faculty and staff and to
improve the physical plant
College and University enrollments have nat achieved budget targets for the past
decade. Antioch must either recruit, admit and/or retain more students, or fmd new
sources of income. With a limited endowment,· this ins~tution caimot continue much
longer to tolerate these shortfalls. The results of the upcoming development
campaign are crucial to the continued viability of the institution. The continuing
inability to meetei:lrollment 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:
• • &, •
18
…. » ‘.’ •
6/10/2003
Assurance Section Antioch University (02C1527)
1. That it has adequate fmancial 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 programS,
administrative programs and services and.student support services ..
a. Staffing, programs and services need to match institutional resources.
‘b. Staffing, programs and services need to be adequate to meet student
expeptations 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. Significant additional investment of funds in Yellow Springs facilities,
‘equipment, technology, infrastructure and housekeeping/maintenance
operations to dramatically improve the quality of academic programs, the
appearance of the campus; the maintenance. and safety of buildings and the
adequacy offacilities for the academic programs.
4. That it p.as an effective system that links planning, setting priorities and allocating
resources.
a. Ifreso~ces 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 assessmg student
performance and the University must, demonstrate 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.
….. .’ ..
19
,… . …..
6/10/2003
.-.,-. 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 reviewed 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 programs. . .
The Team’s concerns about Antioch University’s “legal authority” are:
1. If Antioch is a single iristitutioI4 the University IIl:ustdemonstrate how each of its
non-residential, “adult” campuses iiJ. states other than Ohio (i.e.-,Antioch
University Seattle, Antioch 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 documeiltation 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
the proper legal authority to grant AUS academic credit for courses offered
via contractual relationships with educational training companies in other
.. states, including but not limited to Illinois and Indiana.
20
. ‘. .~ ” ·
6/10/2003
ADVANCEMENT SECTION
REPORT OF A COl1PREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT
TO
Antioch University
Yellow Springs, Ohio
October 14-16, 2002
FOR
Th~ Higher Learning Commission
A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
EVALUATION TEAl1
Larry A. Braskamp, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
.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, 1.1N
David O. 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 Morrison, Argosy University-San Francisco Bay Area, Point Richmond, CA (‘iNASC)
Manfred Ruddat, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL .
Kathleen White Smith, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, rvrr
Roger Dale Smitter, North Central College, Naperville, IL
Randall L. Thompson, Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL
•… • , J ‘……
,’.-;
”
Advancement Section
Table of Contents
Advancement Section
Overall Observations about the Institution
Consultations of the Team
Antioch University (02C1527)
Page
2
3
Recognition of Significant Accomplishments, Significant Progress
and/or Exemplary and Innovative Practice
10
6/10/2003
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
1. 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 small 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 and
remodeling; quite frayed around the edges.. Indeed, it was ~ot 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 administrators, 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 ofthe Team’s concerns about fmances, 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 jntioch mission, history and programs, as well as admira~ion
for their commitment and accomplishments. However, in 2002, Antioch seems to be an
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 apath of “too little, too la~e.” While plans for changes are visible everywhere, one
is left with an overwhelming 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
entrepreneurial approach to the “business” of higher education. For example, the
academic programs at Antioch College appear to be transparent’ and unknown to the
Wider, nationwide audience that must be tapped if the institution is to survive ‘and thrive.
Antioch College is a place where everyone SCl:ems to be tradition-bound to a fault, while
. the very survival ofllie overall institution appears to be injeopardy. Antioch University
is a place where people who should know 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 21st century realities of American higher education, it will gain greater
control over its destiny, while experiencing renewal and a more prosperous future.
2 6/10/2003
“.'” 0,
Advancement Section Antioch University (02C1527)
Although Antioch University is clearly intact, and has met the GIR’s and five criteria for
continued accreditation, the Coll~ge appears to be in failing health according to all
important indicators: a frayed physical apl)earance, high student attrition and the
collective voices and faces of especially faculty and staff that sho~ 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 .
administrators, 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
well-integrated ~cademic whole, operating within its region in qQncert with the
University miss~on; that the Qniversity, as a single entity has one vision and mission, is
administered as a.multifaceted comprehensive institution … ” Team Interviews with
administrators, staff, facultY and stu~ents at all sites reveal differing
