Page 1

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SEATTLE

A CAMPUS SELF-STUDY

Prepared for

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

Reaccreditation Team Visit

August 2002

AUS Self study 2002

iii

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................v

Antioch University Seattle Profile-2002........................................................... vii

Introduction..................................................................................................... 1

Self-Study Methodology...................................................................... 4

Organization of the Report .................................................................. 5

CHAPTER ONE: Criterion I - Mission and Purpose......................................... 7

Mission of the Campus........................................................................ 8

Congruence between the University & Antioch Seattle

Vision & Mission ................................................................................. 9

Strategic Planning Process ................................................................. 9

Evaluation of Purposes ..................................................................... 12

Understanding of Stated Purposes.................................................... 13

Informing the Public .......................................................................... 14

Summary.......................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER TWO: Criterion II - Organized Effectively..................................... 15

Structure - Administrative Units ......................................................... 15

Policies and Procedures.................................................................... 21

Personnel......................................................................................... 21

Facility.............................................................................................. 24

Financial Stability.............................................................................. 25

Governance...................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER THREE Criterion III - Accomplishing Purposes ............................ 31

Academic Programs.......................................................................... 32

Faculty ............................................................................................. 38

Assessment...................................................................................... 39

Summary.......................................................................................... 52

AUS Self study 2002

iv

CHAPTER FOUR: Criterion IV - The Future.................................................. 53

Degree and Non-Degree Programs..................................................... 53

Institutional Capacity........................................................................... 54

Student Services ................................................................................ 55

Alliances............................................................................................. 56

Employees ......................................................................................... 57

Technology......................................................................................... 58

Financial Base.................................................................................... 58

Summary............................................................................................ 60

CHAPTER FIVE: Demonstrates Integrity ...................................................... 63

Students............................................................................................. 63

Faculty and Staff................................................................................. 64

Contractual relationships..................................................................... 65

Summary............................................................................................ 66

Conclusions.................................................................................................. 67

Appendix A: Organizational Chart

Appendix B: Core Faculty Evaluation Report

Appendix C: Student Feedback on Courses 2000/2001

Appendix D: Outcome Assessment Forms

Appendix E: Audited Financial Statements of Antioch Seattle for FY 1999-00 and

FY 2000-01 (Provided separately in the University Resource Room)

AUS Self study 2002

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This process began in Fall 2000. Since that time, self studies were completed by

each academic program and administrative unit and three task forces were formed to

focus on criterion #1, #2, #4, #5. Along the way, many others were asked to contribute

or review drafts.

I would like to thank those who chaired the self studies for their programs: Ann

Blake and Lisa Lynch, Integrative Studies in Psychology ; Gerri Douglas, Bachelor of

Arts with Teaching Certificate Program; Ned Farley, Clinical Programs in Psychology;

Betsy Geist, Whole Systems Design; Anne Harvey, B.A. in Liberal Studies; Shana

Hormann, Organizational Psychology; Mark Hower, Management Program; Pam

Joseph, Experienced Educator Program; Susie Murphy, Graduate Teachers Certificate

Program; and Shierry Nicholson, Environment and Community Program.

I would like to thank those who chaired the self studies for their administrative

units: Peggy Baldwin, Library; Kathy Battraw, Financial Aid; Leona Dolan, Front Desk;

Mel Jackson, University Relations; Katie Kelso, Registrar; Bert Hopkins, Computing;

Dianna Larsen, Enrollment Services; Lynne Nakamura, Bookstore; Rosalie Revesz,

Accounting; and Dan Watts, Human Resources.

And I would like to thank those who served on the task forces: Criterion #1,

Linda Campbell, Chair, Gwen Jones, Candace Harris, and Rebecca Sandel; Criterion

#2 & #4, Tammy Snow, Chair, Shana Hormann, Lynn Nakamura and Richard Norris;

and Criterion #5, Bill Forisha and Dianna Larsen, co-chairs, Jennifer Brown and Katie

Kelso.

I would also like to thank Sharon Sernius for her ongoing efforts in the production

of the self study and for Sharon and Diane Shimizu for tracking down information and

resource materials.

Finally, I would like to thank all of those who have reviewed either sections or the

complete document. This includes members of Academic Council, Planning and

Budget Council, and Student Services Council; Directors Anne Harvey, L. Tien, and

Kristin Woolever; Deans Mel Jackson, Richard Norris and Ormond Smythe; and

AUS Self study 2002

vi

President Toni Murdock. It also includes alumni, students and members of the Board of

Visitors contacted by the University Relations Office.

Shanae Ellsworth, Core Faculty, and

Chair of the Antioch University Seattle Self Study Committee

AUS Self study 2002

vii

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SEATTLE PROFILE

2001/2002

Established

1975

Annual Operating Expenses: $9,500,00

47% to direct instructional expense and academic support

Program Enrollment by FTE (annualized)

Delivery System

(Full Time Equivalent)

Delivery system varies by academic

B.A. in Liberal Studies

101

program and includes an individual-

Center for Creative Change

202

ized degree process model, a

Center for Programs in Education 486

competency-based model, cohort-

Center for Programs in Psychology 215

based weekend intensive model, and

site-based model.

Total FTE

1,004

Other Programs

Total Headcount

1,246

Center for Community and

Professional Learning provides non-

degree educational programs to

Student Body-Fall 2001

professionals in counseling,

Female

69%

education, and environmental

Male

31%

and organizational sustainability.

Minority/International

20%

During 2001/2002 there were 5,301

enrollments.

Faculty-Fall 2001

Building Square Footage

Core Faculty

42

50,568 s.f. (64,800 s.f. including

Associate/Adjunct

51

unrelated leased area.)

Faculty

1

INTRODUCTION

In 1993, the last NCA Evaluation Team to visit Antioch University listed several

strengths, two of which are germane to Antioch Seattle. They noted that the “mission

was clearly understood on all campuses and by all constituencies and is being carried

out effectively.” They also noted that the “administration, faculty and staff show

enthusiasm, vigor and dynamism as they work to create and deliver an excellent,

responsive curriculum to strong, eager students who give evidence of being

transformed.” We believe that both of these remain true today.

The Evaluation Team also noted several concerns and suggestions. The ones

most germane to Antioch Seattle include finances, outcome assessment, university

decentralization of the administrative structure, confusion about the program director

role, proportion of multiethnic faculty, faculty salaries and professional development,

and facilities. We have made significant progress in most of these areas.

In Fall 1992, 608 students were registered accounting for 481.8 FTE. In Fall

2001, 892 students were registered accounting for 745.8 FTE. Our revenue has

increased 70 percent. In nine of the last ten years, we have balanced our budget. The

one-year we did not balance (1995/19996), we were off by less than $2,000. During the

past five years, we generated $800,000 surplus.

We have an Outcome Assessment Committee that reports directly to the

President. This is a campus-wide effort with all academic programs and administrative

units expected to incorporate assessment into their ongoing work. The Committee

reviews plans and results from each academic program and administrative unit on an

annual basis.

In the wake of University decentralization, Presidents replaced Provosts as

CEOs in 1998 on the adult campuses. This underscored the transition to local

responsibility and authority for the campuses. Adult campuses were also charged with

establishing a fund-raising board. Seattle replaced its small “kitchen cabinet” advisory

board with a Board of Visitors. In 2002, the Board of Visitors has nine noted community

members and by-laws reflective of most foundations and fundraising boards. All

campuses were charged with increasing and sustaining enrollments. In response, the

2

Seattle campus admissions process, previously located in the academic programs, was

centralized and financial aid was incorporated to create an enrollment services office.

Finally, the administrative staff at Antioch Seattle has increased from 34 to 56. The

intention, particularly in the past few years, has been to build an administrative

infrastructure to actualize a semi-autonomous campus and hire staff with more

experience, thus increasing the professionalism of our operations.

In preparation for moving our academic programs toward a center structure (see

Chapter Four), the role of director was reexamined and a common job description

developed and used as the base for filling these positions. Three new directors joined

us in 2001, all attending a national workshop on administrative leadership with our new

academic dean followed by a series of orientation sessions on campus. The intent

behind these activities was to ensure that there was a common understanding of the

role and responsibilities of this position.

The multiethnic diversity of our faculty, staff, administrators and students has

increased. The goal in our strategic plan is to have the same percentage of faculty,

staff, administrators and students as the geographic region has. As of Fall 2001, 28

percent of all regular employees were persons of color compared to 30 percent for

Seattle. The percentage of students is not as high, 20 percent. However, it is a

significant increase from 1992 when only 10 percent of our students were persons of

color. Some programs are showing much higher percentages; for example over 60

percent of the students in the Bachelor of Arts with teaching certificate program are

people of color. We believe that one key to increasing this percentage is to offer more

financial aid options and scholarships. Towards this end, for the third year in a row, we

introduced a bill into the state legislature that allows our students to be eligible for state

financial aid. That bill was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in

March 2002. With the recent restaffing of our University Relations Office, we also

expect to make progress in building an annual scholarship fund and an endowment for

scholarships.

Antioch Seattle has made a strong commitment to increase the salaries for

faculty and staff, giving modest raises during the past nine years. We have also agreed

upon a comparison group and set our target. We are currently at 94 percent of the

3

mean for staff and 90 percent for faculty, which is up from 88 percent and 80 percent

when the survey was first conducted six years ago. Though progress has been made,

this is still an area of concern.

Faculty has up to 20 days per year of professional development leave and

access of up to $400 for professional development. Again progress has been made but

it is still an area that needs attention.

Antioch Seattle purchased and moved into its own building in 1997. We were

able to expand our square footage in Fall 2001 when space initially leased became

available. Owning our own building makes a statement to ourselves and to the

community that we are here to stay.

Antioch Seattle’s concerns, as noted in the 1992 Self Study, also included the

need for a campus level strategic plan, a longer time frame for budgeting, development

activities, and a new governance structure. The campus initiated a strategic planning

process in 1998 that included wide participation by all constituencies. As part of that

process, we forged a campus mission statement. (A small ad hoc committee wrote the

last campus mission statement.) Over a period of twelve months of bi-weekly meetings

and three campus-wide meetings, we developed a strategic plan with seven goals,

which then served as the basis for each academic program and administrative unit to

build their own strategic plan. Plans are updated annually and guide the budget

process. In 1997, after several false starts in years past, the position of Dean of

University Relations was created with staffing to support work in development and

alumni relations. A new governance system was instituted with three councils

composed of faculty, staff, administrators and students holding policy-making

responsibility in the areas of academics, planning and budgeting, and student services.

Most importantly our academic programs have continued to evolve. Two new

programs have been added, Environment and Community and the Bachelor of Arts with

Teaching Certificate. The Counseling Program in Psychology has been replaced by

three programs, each representing a more focused area of study: Art Therapy, Couple

and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling. The Human Resource

Development Program, originally leading to an MA in Psychology, is now the

Organizational Psychology Program leading to an MA in Organizational Psychology.

4

We have also expanded the means through which programs are offered, thereby

increasing accessibility for our students. The Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies piloted

a limited number of classes on-line and have been encouraged by the President to

continue and expand these courses. Education offers on-site programs throughout the

Seattle/Tacoma area. The Environment and Community and Management Programs

have incorporated on-line learning to bridge work in the classroom.

We continue to seek ways to better serve our communities. Examples include

the Bachelor of Arts with teaching certificate, which serves paraprofessionals in the

surrounding school districts by bringing the classroom to them and the Tulalip and

proposed Muckleshoot programs, both offered in partnership with local Native American

tribes.

In order to create a structure to help our academic programs continue to evolve,

we have formed three Centers of Innovation and Excellence in the areas of Creative

Change, Education, and Psychology. We expect that our Bachelor of Arts in Liberal

Studies will form the basis for the fourth Center with a focus in Fine Arts and Liberal

Studies. Our new initiative, funded by the Gates and Kellogg Foundations, to work with

the 29 Native American tribes of Washington to establish 8 early college models is

further evidence of our move toward greater community engagement.

As the remainder of this self-study will demonstrate, Antioch Seattle’s

expectations of its future at the time of the last self-study has been met and exceeded.

Self Study Methodology

We decided to approach the self-study in a decentralized fashion in order to

maximize the involvement of faculty, staff and students. A faculty member was

appointed as chair. Each academic program and administrative unit completed a self-

study. Program chairs or their designates worked together to develop the outline to

guide the work of the academic programs. A small group of administrators developed

the outline for use by the administrative units. Three task forces, focusing on criterion

#1, criterion #2 & #4, and criterion #5, were also appointed. Each of these task forces

was chaired or co-chaired by a faculty member and included staff and administrators.

We were not successful in recruiting students to serve and subsequently have sought

5

their input in ways that require a more limited time commitment. These task forces

conducted their self-studies using a variety of methods. Finally, each of our governance

councils was asked to list their notable successes and areas of challenge.

Our first draft was based on input from all of these sources. This draft was

reviewed at the campus level, by the members of each task force, the academic

directors and deans. After revisions, several students and alumni, the three

Governance Councils, and members of the Board of Visitors then reviewed the draft.

Announcements were also posted to the community so that any faculty, staff, or student

could review the draft and make comments. This feedback was incorporated into the

final report.

Organization of Report

This chapter is followed by five chapters, which correspond to NCA’s five criteria,

then a chapter summarizing our strengths and outlining current concerns. Additional

documentation and evidence will be available on campus at the time of the NCA site

visit.

7

CHAPTER ONE

MISSION AND PURPOSES

Criterion I: The campus has clear and publicly stated purposes, consistent with its mission and

appropriate to a postsecondary educational institution.

In May 1998, Antioch Seattle set out to create a campus-wide strategic plan,

including mission, vision, goals and objectives that would guide academic and

administrative units for the next five years. The community spent a total of three days

throughout the next year involved in campus-wide meetings attended by faculty, staff,

students and alumni. The meetings identified Antioch Seattle’s historical roots both as a

part of the larger University and as an adult satellite campus, current threats and

opportunities, and values associated with the campus and its stakeholders.

In Fall 1998, the larger work of the campus was sent to the newly formed

Planning and Budget Council, a body charged with the task for wedding strategic

planning to the annual budget cycle. The Council includes faculty, staff, administrators

and students. A consultant worked with the Council for three months condensing and

clarifying the direction Antioch Seattle wanted to pursue during its next five years of

existence. At the end of the three months, the vision, purpose, goals and objectives

were identified but needed more work to capture the life and spirit of Antioch so aptly

experienced in the larger campus meetings. During the remainder of the 1998/99

academic year, smaller groups worked on the language of the actual document and

clarification of the vision for a concept of creating Centers for Innovation and

Excellence.

In May 1999, the strategic plan was officially rolled out. This document

incorporated two elements: (1) strategic goals, objectives and plans of the campus; and

(2) a vision for the future of Antioch Seattle that includes reorganization and adoption of

the four principles by which the new centers will operate.

8

Antioch Seattle’s Mission

To provide transformative education that engages adult

learners in lifelong development and agency in a changing

world.

Antioch Seattle’s Vision

To be an institution of innovation and excellence in adult

higher education grounded in the four principles of learning

centered, access, community engagement, and integration.

Antioch Seattle’s Goals

• Deliver outstanding degree and non-degree programs with a

dual focus on innovation and excellence.

• Achieve institutional capacity in student enrollment while

increasing diversity and the quality of the student body.

• Provide responsive, accessible and high quality student

services that meet the needs of a diverse adult population.

• Create dynamic alliances that support educational services

to the community and enhance the quality and

distinctiveness of Antioch University Seattle.

• Attract, develop, motivate and retain an exceptional and

diverse group of employees.

• Use technology in innovative and appropriate ways to

support a learning centered educational environment.

• Create a healthy, diversified financial base that supports

institutional excellence and innovation.

Each center and program is required to have a mission statement that is

congruent with the campuses. The center statements appear below.

Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies

To prepare students to be humane, as well as

effective citizens within the historical context

in which they find themselves.

Center for Creative Change

To engage learners in the co-creation of humane

and sustainable organizations and communities.

Center for Programs in Education

(Currently under development)

9

Center for Programs in Psychology

To provide higher education and training in the theory and

practice of psychology in a variety of settings. Our curriculum

promotes values of ethical practice, social responsibility and

cultural pluralism and our classes promote self-exploration,

empowerment and whole person learning. We seek to balance

traditional and contemporary perspectives in the field of

psychology. We educate students to become informed and

effective practitioners and change agents in our complex world.

Congruence between the University and Antioch Seattle’s Vision and Mission

Antioch Seattle’s mission and vision is very consistent with the University’s.

Antioch Seattle’s statement of preparing students to pursue "agency in a changing

world" speaks to the University Mission statement of seeking "to develop students and

graduates who will grow in their commitment to contribute to the improvement of the

human condition, who will provide effective responsible leadership fostering productive

change and democratic participation in the institutions and communities where they live

and work."

Antioch Seattle envisions centers of innovation and excellence with "four

principles: learning centered, access, community engagement, integrated" with the

University’s statement of "guided by a set of core educational values, rigorous

scholarship and academic discipline, engaged service, community involvement, and

student-centered, whole-person learning." Antioch Seattle is proud of its heritage,

incorporating it into publications, open sessions with prospective students, orientations

for new students, and at all graduations. Horace Mann’s quote, "Be ashamed to die

until you have won some victory for humanity," is proudly displayed in our building. It is

also part of every graduation when the President speaks about the meaning that phrase

has for those about to graduate.

Strategic Planning Process

In Fall 1999, the academic and administrative units were directed by the Planning

and Budget Council to begin developing their own five-year plans based on the strategic

goals and objectives. To guide this work, the Council created a form specifying

information to be provided. For each campus objective that the program or unit

10

addressed in their plan, they were asked to indicate: (1) program/unit level objective;

(2) activities; (3) timeframe; (4) evidence of outcomes; (5) personnel responsible; (6)

resources; and (7) cost. Since this was Antioch Seattle’s first attempt at a detailed

strategic plan by unit, the substance in these documents varied in detail and clarity.

The plans ranged from specific activities with timelines to plans to develop a plan and

establishing objectives to activate the goals.

During the 2000/2001 academic year, three refinements were made. First, the

Planning and Budget Council asked that programs and units update their plans early in

the fall so that the information could be used in setting priorities to guide decisions

around allocation of resources. This update included a review and assessment of its

success in meeting its plan and a revised strategic plan for the upcoming three to five

years. Each dean was also asked to recommend a short list of priorities. Based on

both sets of information, the Council developed a campus wide list of priorities, which

then were used to guide budgetary decisions. Second, information on accomplishments

was compiled and shared with the campus. This was helpful for tracking our progress

and making it visible to the campus community. Finally, the Council organized two

meetings in the spring. The first included directors and chairs of the academic

programs and all cost center managers. This group was asked to help refine the

campus objectives under each goal, note accomplishments, and identify new objectives.

The Council then followed with a campus wide meeting to share the suggested changes

and gather input.

During the 2001/2002 academic year, the Planning and Budget Council, wanting

to involve the whole community, began initial discussion of its priorities in early

November 2001. A “rough cut” of goals was developed so that the members could

begin to familiarize themselves with the issues and converse with others on campus.

This proposed list was sent to faculty and staff through meeting minutes, along with an

email from the committee chair requesting feedback from the community. Both faculty

and staff responded with several helpful suggestions or amplifications. In addition, the

faculty, through Faculty Assembly, generated a short list of its most important priorities

and communicated them to the committee. The committee discussed the insights

gathered through this process and incorporated several points into the initial list.

11

During this process, the committee also reviewed the strategic plan and matched

the developing priorities to already established goals. We discovered that most of the

goals were in fact covered; though a few were not. After this additional review of the

strategic plan, one more priority was identified.

The priorities for 2002/2003 are listed below:

• Compensation: improve the overall compensation package to make it more

competitive

• Enrollment: increase student enrollment

• Financial independence: increase through fundraising, resource development,

outreach and marketing activities

• Academic Quality: enhance academic program quality by decreasing the use

of adjunct faculty

• Efficiency and innovation: review money management and other

administrative systems to encourage innovation and collaboration

• Student Services: establish a position with the Academic Dean’s Office

• Access: review and adjust hours of operations and services

• New Programs: develop with future financial health of Antioch Seattle as a

priority

As a means of modeling use of the goals and objectives, the President's Team

uses the strategic plan as a guide for setting priorities and goals for the year. The

President's Team encourages all centers to do the same.

A strategic plan should be viewed as a loose-leaf notebook since the future is not

predictable. It holds the dreams and desires of the institution and its people, but often

the paths to reach those ideas are numerous and situational. Consequently, the

strategic plan must be reviewed and revised each year to reflect internal progress and

external influences. Given our values for wide community involvement, we have tried to

craft a process that encourages dialogue and widespread participation by faculty, staff

and students.

12

Evaluation of Purposes

The strategic planning process incorporates an annual update that asks each

academic program or administrative unit to provide evidence of outcomes. Response in

this area, as with the plans in general, ranges with regard to specificity of information

provided. We continue to improve with each iteration.

In addition, our outcome assessment effort is also tied to the goals and

objectives in the strategic plan. Annually, all academic programs and administrative

units must provide a summary of results for the past year indicating how the information

was used for program or unit improvement and develop an annual assessment plan for

the upcoming year. This is another area in which we have made progress, yet have

much more to do. The Outcome Assessment Committee has recently requested that

the Deans assume responsibility for completing an initial review of plans/updates. The

intention of this request has been to underscore the importance of outcome assessment

and hopefully help link it more directly into assessing progress toward our goals and

objectives. More on outcome assessment is included in Chapter Four.

As part of our outcome assessment effort, we conducted a survey of graduates.

Nine hundred and ninety-five graduates from Summer 1995 through Spring 2000 were

sent surveys, 216 (23 percent) responded. Along with questions about their experience

at Antioch Seattle and current employment, questions were included that relate to our

goals as embodied in our mission statement, educational transformation, life long

learning and agency in a changing world. With respect to educational transformation,

alumni were asked to indicate Antioch’s impact in four areas: ability to think critically;

awareness of personal biases; cultural awareness; and self-confidence. On a four-point

scale, from none to extensive impact, the average ratings ranged from 3.22 to 3.39.

With respect to lifelong learning, we asked if graduates belonged to professional

organizations, attended conferences and workshops or pursued life long learning in

some other manner. All respondents indicated some means of pursuing learning. Fifty-

six percent reported belonging to a professional organization and 45 percent attended a

conference or workshop during the previous year. With respect to agency in a changing

world, we asked if they had volunteered, served on a board or were making an impact in

some other way. Again, all respondents indicated some area where they felt they were

13

making a difference. Sixty percent volunteered and 43 percent served on a board.

These results suggest that we are achieving our purpose of providing transformative

education that leads to lifelong development and agency in a changing world.

Understanding of Stated Purposes

Faculty and staff, some students, and a few alumni have participated in the

development and implementation of the strategic planning process. We believe that this

participation has led to a wide understanding, particularly among faculty and staff, of

Antioch Seattle’s purposes. In preparation for the self-study, a faculty and staff task

force electronically surveyed faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni and the

Board of Visitors, asking them to tell us of accomplishments, if any in relation to the

following items: (1) achieving our mission of transformative adult education; (2)

importance of the mission; (3) offering creative and innovative programs that contribute

to personal transformation and encourage participation in social justice; (4) increasing

diversity of students, faculty and staff; (5) providing appropriate adult student services;

(6) using technology to support student learning; and (7) partnering with the broader

community. It should be noted that these items overlap with our strategic goals.

The response rate was disappointingly low (69 responses, 25 from faculty, staff

and administrators, 35 from students, 5 from alumni, and 4 from others including

adjuncts and members of the Board of Visitors). However, the response included

representation from all constituencies. Consistent themes emerged from the surveys.

All constituencies, faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni and members of the

Board of Visitors, agreed that they were well aware of AUS’s mission to provide

transformative adult education. Likewise, all groups asserted that the institutional

mission was personally significant to them. There was less agreement, however, about

how well we achieved our goals in pursuit of our mission. While maintaining that our

degree programs were, for the most part, innovative, creative and capable of promoting

personal transformation and participation in social justice initiatives, suggestions were

made to strengthen the focus, quality and rigor of our offerings.

Four areas were highlighted as needing additional attention and resources:

(1) increasing student and employee diversity; (2) improving student services; (3) using

14

technology more effectively; and (4) extending our community outreach. According to

those who responded to the questionnaire, the achievement of these goals was

contingent upon an infusion of financial resources and fresh perspectives. These

concerns are addressed in the next chapter.

Informing the Public

To determine how widely and consistently the public is informed about our

purposes through media and publications, the task force reviewed such things as the

catalog, website, admission materials, program brochures and handbooks, print

advertisement and radio spots. It concluded that we did a good job of communicating

the mission and purpose in key documents and media like the catalog and website.

However, it was noted that program brochures and handbooks tend to focus on the

specifics of the program without an explicit link to the larger campus mission. They also

noted that employee handbooks and documents such as job postings did not include

reference to the institution’s purposes.

The findings raised the question of where and how our campus mission should

be promoted. The Dean of University Relations and his staff have recently undertaken

a review of media and publications in response to these findings.

Summary

Antioch Seattle has made great strides in developing our vision and mission and

in implementing a strategic planning process to help us move forward. In 1993, we had

no campus mission, so a small ad hoc committee working on the self-study asked for

input only from program directors and crafted a proposed mission statement never

approved by the campus community. Ten years later, as a community, we developed a

purpose and vision statement and a strategic plan. The strategic plan continues to

guide us through the efforts of the Planning and Budget Council that includes broad

representation of faculty, staff and students. Each year, we have refined our

approaches, incorporating greater specificity and more accountability. As importantly,

our processes encourage continued conversations in academic programs and

administrative units and within the community as a whole.

15

CHAPTER TWO

ORGANIZED EFFECTIVELY

Criterion II: The institution has effectively organized the human, financial,

and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.

In Fall 1992, Antioch Seattle enrolled 608 students accounting for 481.8 FTE. In

Fall 2002, Antioch Seattle enrolled 892 students accounting for 745.8 FTE. This

represents a 47 percent increase in the number of students served and a 35 percent

increase in FTE. We are continuing to grow and serve a greater proportion of part-time

students.

As importantly, students are now on campus seven days a week from morning

through evening. The number of off-campus sites has increased. Several sites serve

students of color working toward teaching certificates.

In order to better serve current students, we have restructured our academic

programs (see Chapter Four), expanded our administrative units, developed policies

and procedures, added new faculty, staff and administrators, moved to a permanent

location, stabilized our financial situation, and implemented a new governance

procedure. (See Appendix A for an organizational chart.) This represents significant

change in ten years with most occurring in the last five years!

Administrative Units

To meet the need of a larger number of students, comply with greater

government regulation, maintain a campus we now own, and address the

decentralization of the university, staff have been added in the following areas:

admissions, bookstore, computing, front desk and facilities, financial aid, human

resources, library and student accounts. The result of these additions has been

increased service to our students through enhanced staffing and extended hours of

service. A new telephone/voice mail system was purchased in 2000, which provided

direct-dial telephone numbers for each employee and student service office. In the

future we plan to research integration of e-mail and voice mail. Equipment has been

regularly upgraded to match demand.

16

Efforts have been made to increase electronic access through on-line admission,

application for student financial aid, entrance/exit counseling, and electronic transfer of

financial aid funds. Further, on-line registration and on-line submission of faculty

narrative evaluations of student work and electronic dissemination of the same to the

students is currently being piloted and should be fully implemented in 2002/2003. We

also hope to introduce on-line payment in 2002/2003.

Antioch Seattle is located in an urban area, near downtown Seattle. To ensure

the safety of our students and employees, our campus is monitored during the day by

our reception staff and the facilities manager. On weekends and evenings, lobby

attendants monitor the building. Last year, we purchased a cell phone so the lobby

attendants or the facilities manager could be reached during all campus hours. Lobby

attendants are available to walk students to their cars until 10p.m. Security video

cameras are planned for installation in 2002/2003. Antioch Seattle has a Safety

Committee, which reviews reports of accidents on campus. We also have developed a

relationship with the Seattle Police Department Crime Prevention Unit, which has

surveyed our campus and made recommendations which have been implemented to

improve safety and security and has held several safety workshops on campus open to

students and employees.

Admissions. In Winter 1999, following several years of unpredictable and

alarming enrollment declines in some programs, we began to centralize the admissions

function. To move toward a more coordinated support service model, financial aid was

joined with admissions to create an Office of Enrollment Services. During the recent

remodel in Summer 2001, the admissions group was finally able to co-locate in Fall

2001. Much work was done in 2000/2001. Following training by an outside consultant

in Summer 2000, admissions staff, along with representatives from the academic

programs, developed a nine-point system for following up on inquiries. With the arrival

of the new Director of Enrollment Services, this nine-point system was implemented, a

procedures manual was developed, admissions associates were crosstrained, a means

for tracking progress was instituted and expectations were established for admissions

associates to reach out into the community, actively recruiting rather then responding. It

17

is too early to tell whether these shifts will be successful but we believe that we are on

the right track.

Bookstore. In 1999, the bookstore began coordinating the production of course

packets and readers. These packets allow faculty to present material from many

sources while following the federal guidelines set forth in the 1976 Copyright Act. In

2000, the bookstore took its first steps toward the electronic age with the creation of a

web page. Students are able to get information regarding store hours, location, returns

policy as well as browse for textbooks. We await the installation of a secure server to

take the next step – processing on-line orders. In 2001, the bookstore instituted

quarterly textbook buybacks for students. In addition to offering these items as “used

books,” the bookstore also seeks additional titles and quantities through three national

used textbook marketers. The bookstore also piloted a textbook mailing program for

site-based students. Since then various methods have been explored to find one

method that best serves this population.

Computing. With the move into a permanent building in 1997, we were able to

expand our computer lab and establish a separate computer classroom, both of which

were enlarged with the remodeling in 2001. Our full-service lab contains 14 computers

for student use, all networked with high-speed Internet access and laser printing. There

are two high-end graphics stations with scanners and software for graphics and video

editing. The computer classroom contains 11 computers, all wireless networked to a

high-speed Internet access. This classroom can accommodate 22 students. There is a

mobile projector and laptop stations for use in presentations in any classroom in the

building. All students are given accounts on First Class, our e-mail and conferencing

system, which provides for internal communication, on-line dialogue and information

sharing for classes, and student documentation through personal homepages.

Students are trained in its use and programs utilize the system differently depending on

their unique needs.

On the administrative side, every faculty and staff member has a computer on

their desks and we have established a three-year cycle for upgrading hardware and

software. The University converted to Datatel in 1997 as the common integrated

system for accounting, budgeting, human relations, admissions, financial aid, registrar

18

and student accounts. It took two years to get everyone on-board and we are now able

to build historical data in this system.

Financial Aid Office. The Financial Aid Office has focused on means for

streamlining its operation and increasing accessibility of their service to students. We

currently provide application on the Antioch website, FAFSA (Free Application for

Federal Student Aid) application through the Antioch website, entrance/exit counseling

through the Internet, electronic transfer of funds and the master promissory note. We

also have the capability to process student loans through the Internet and with the

master promissory note so the student only needs to fill out one loan application for their

entire Antioch program. Deferments are electronically reported to the National Student

Loan Data System through the clearinghouse, cutting down on the student’s

responsibility every year.

Human Resources. This is an area that was grossly neglected until recently. In

1992, there was one staff member who had limited experience. Following the university

decentralization in 1996/1997, there was a delay in building the infrastructure on the

adult campuses in order for them to function in a decentralized manner. Finally, in

2002, we have 2.6 staff in Human Resources and all have significant professional

experience. Progress has been made in developing local policies and procedures

relating to compensation, discipline, employment, grievance, job

evaluation/reclassification, recruitment, salary structure/advancement/movement,

sexual harassment, work schedules and work time. Policies and procedures currently

under development include affirmative action, safety plan, staff grievance and

alternative resolution procedures, general discrimination and harassment procedures,

orientation procedure and work place violence procedure.

Library/Computer Lab. Upgrading the library has been a campus wide priority for

the past three years. Given the size of the campus, we are not attempting to be a

general repository research library. Our students can and do use local university

libraries such as University of Washington at our expense for that service. Instead, we

are trying to support specific courses in the curriculum with books, academic journals,

and reserve materials, as well as a myriad of electronic resources. Our library web

page lists all of our holdings, has links to other area library catalogs, websites for

19

specific programs and other useful links requested by academic directors. In addition,

our electronic resources include the following: FirstSearch - 60 academic databases,

Proquest - a service of about 2,000 full-text journal articles and OhioLINK - a 91

databases/indexes and full text shared though the Antioch University licensing. All of

our electronic services have licenses, which allow remote access as well as on-campus

access.

Training in all of these electronic resources is available for both on campus and

off-site classes. Additionally, we have increased staffing from a part-time librarian to full

time librarian and half-time assistant. As part of the recent renovation, the library was

expanded and renovated including more bookshelves for a growing collection and a

means of centralizing materials previously stored throughout the building, which makes

for easier and more efficient access. The computer lab was also fully integrated with

the library to provide a full range of services to our students. Our next goal is to provide

interlibrary loans.

Student Services. The Student Life Office, which is staffed by work-study

students, serves as a hub for peer contact, creating a welcoming atmosphere (lights on,

coffee and tea out), maintaining the bulletin board and putting out the student

newspaper. These work-study students also hear student issues more immediately and

help to funnel student concerns needing attention for problem solving. This year we

have added the role of Special Assistant to the Academic Dean for Student Services to

work with the Student Life Office. This person is a member of the core faculty and 10

percent of her time is allocated to her role as Special Assistant. She meets with staff in

the Student Life Office regularly, helping to problem solve issues that come up as well

as helping to plan activities around such themes as Black History month. By increasing

the amount of this position to 40 percent next year, we are hoping that it will be a step

towards institutionalizing a student services function.

Career counseling is offered to students free of charge through an arrangement

that Antioch Seattle has with The Centerpoint Institute for Life and Career Renewal.

Students can sign up for individual sessions with a career counselor or for workshops

which are offered throughout the year. Both individual sessions and workshops are

held on campus.

20

The Writing Lab is staffed by a part-time faculty member an average of three

hours per week. We see this as the beginning of a Learning Resource Center. In the

past, the BA Program has coordinated this service. In the interest of providing more

visibility and hopefully increasing access by students in other programs, the Writing Lab

is now centrally located and managed by the Academic Dean. This move is partly in

response to a survey conducted among graduate faculty in the summer of 2001. A

majority of respondents thought that approximately 10% of their students could not write

at a level of proficiency consistent with that required for graduate level studies. It is also

in response to the steadily increasing numbers of graduate students using the lab.

Antioch Seattle is committed to providing equal opportunities to academically

qualified students with disabilities. We have a history of working successfully with

students with disabilities and a commitment to continue. In 1996, the position of ADA

Coordinator was formally established in the budget. Currently, the position is 10

percent of an academic staff position. During 2000/2001, 40 students were served.

Some examples of reasonable accommodations are early registration, access to

recorded text, tutorial assistance and assistance with use of technology, tailoring

requirements to individual needs, and extended deadlines on assignments. Because of

the student-oriented nature of our faculty and staff, we have not had as much need for

special staff and facility accommodation. However, this is an area where we recognize

that more resources are needed than currently allocated.

University Relations. In 1997, the University Relations division, lead by a Dean,

was established. Until that time, advertising was the primary means of outreach with a

few sporadic attempts at fundraising. The new University Relations division has a more

comprehensive function, including development, alumni relations, community outreach,

advertising, strategic marketing and public relations. Staffing gaps and transitions have

slowed the anticipated development of the University Relations function. However,

progress has been made. We now have a stable base of experienced staff from which

to grow, have purchased a powerful fundraising database, have upgraded the website

so that it has become a useful communications vehicle with dynamic content, and

developed full-year strategic advertising plans.

21

Policies and Procedures

Development and/or revision of policies and procedures have occurred in three

areas. The first relates to students. A Student Handbook was distributed Fall 2001

after several years of no campus-wide handbook being available. Work on the

handbook spanned several years with efforts made to pull together all the policies

related to students, develop a code of conduct and then finally add in helpful information

including names, e-mail and phone numbers for all student offices on campus. During

2001/2002, Academic Council completed work on the student grievance process.

As noted earlier, policies and procedures related to human resources have been

completed or work is currently underway.

New budget policies and guidelines were developed in 1998. More recently, cost

center managers can now electronically access current status of budget information on

a daily basis. Previously, they had to rely on a monthly printout.

Finally, all administrative units, accounting, bookstore, front office, facilities, and

student accounts have developed written procedures. This has helped in streamlining

day-to-day operations and in responding to emergency situations.

Personnel

Faculty. In Fall 2001, we had 42 core faculty, 9 more than in 1992. More of our

core faculty are 100 percent and so the increase in faculty FTE is actually 13.75. Five

of these positions are currently filled by temporary appointments. We have three types

of faculty; core, associate and adjunct. Core faculty are those on contract for more than

50 percent of their time. Associates are less than 50 percent, on an annual contract,

and advise as well as teach. Adjunct faculty are hired on a course basis. As indicated

above, most of our core faculty are full-time, a shift from ten years ago. Hiring core

faculty with doctorates has been a priority in the last five years and we have made

significant progress in this area. As of Fall 2001, 88 percent of core faculty hold

doctorates, compared to 76% in Fall 1992. More information on credentials is included

in Chapter Four.

During the past ten years, we have developed and refined the core faculty salary

scale. During 1996/1997 and 2000/2001, efforts were made to address salary

22

compression. Our most recent market assessment in 2000 indicates that we are at 90

percent of the mean for our comparison group. This is up from 80 percent when we did

the survey six years earlier. During the past ten years, faculty raises averaged 4

percent. Compensation for adjuncts has also been a concern. Since 1992, the base

pay for a new adjunct has increased 45 percent with the increases in compensation

occurring during the past four years. While we have made significant gains in

compensation for adjuncts, they are still paid significantly less than those teaching at

other institutions in the area.

Staff. In Fall 2001, we had 56 staff, 22 more than in 1992. Our goal has been to

raise the bar with every new hire. Accordingly, 25 positions have been upgraded.

Antioch Seattle is located in a tough job market with, until recently, relatively high wages

and lots of job possibilities. During the past ten years we have developed and refined a

staff salary scale. Our most recent market assessment in 2000 indicates that we are at

94 percent of the mean for our comparison group. This is up from 88 percent when we

did the first survey six years earlier. During the past ten years, staff have received an

average 3.5 percent raise.

Administration. There has been a significant change of personnel in top

leadership positions and a number of interim appointments. While we believe we now

have a strong leadership team, it has been difficult at times. The University Board

accepted the previous Provost’s resignation, in response to concerns raised by the

faculty, in December 1995. The then Academic Dean served as Interim Provost for

eighteen months until our current Provost/President arrived in July 1997. The Academic

Dean moved back to her role for one year before retirement. For two and a half years,

1999-2001, we had two individuals serve as Interim Academic Dean. The new

Academic Dean arrived in September 2001.

Since 1999, four people have held the position of Director of Education. Both

directors stayed less then a year, one interim served two years, and the position is

currently filled by an interim who accepted the position in March 2002. The Director of

BA in Liberal Studies has been held by an interim for two years, 2000-2002.

During the past year, several other leadership positions have been filled: Dean of

University Relations, August 1, 2001, after being unfilled for 8 months; Director of

23

Center for Creative Change, January 1, 2001; Director of Center for Programs in

Psychology, July 1, 2001; and Director of Enrollment Services, January 1, 2001. Along

with a sense of permanence, a common theme with all of these hires is increased

knowledge and experience. Moreover, two of these new hires are individuals of color,

which is consistent with our goal of increasing diversity of faculty, staff, administrators

and students. These individuals have brought new ideas, fresh perspectives and

enthusiasm. (With the unexpected death of the Dean of University of Relations in June

2002, the campus will engage in another search and possibly a reorganization of the

office.)

As indicated earlier, concerns raised by faculty about our previous Provost lead

to his resignation in 1995. In 1999/2000 concerns were raised about our current

President’s leadership. In Spring 2000, 18 of 46 faculty and administrators with faculty

appointments supported a vote of no confidence. This was followed by visits from the

University Chancellor who, after holding several meetings with faculty and the

President, asked that the campus work together to resolve the issues. After continued

communication from some faculty, the Chancellor proposed that a team of two

presidents from other Antioch campuses assess the situation. They visited the campus

in July 2000 and provided a report that included a series of recommendations. The

campus formed a task force to study the recommendations. This task force worked

through the summer though, in the opinion of some faculty, little progress was made in

addressing the issues. The University Board of Trustees, responding to continued

communication from some faculty, sent a two-person team of external evaluators to the

campus in December 2000. After reviewing their report, the Board passed a resolution

in support of the President and requested that all members of the Seattle campus

community work together to “restore a campus climate of respect and collegiality.”

Toward this end, two consultants worked with the campus over a six month period,

March-August, 2001, facilitating two campus retreats, several meetings between the

President and smaller groups, and with an ad hoc Communication task force that was

charged with acting on the recommendations made at the two campus retreats.

Progress has been made. There has been continued clarification of the

governance structure, which was one area of concern. Also, communication, another

24

area of concern, has increased between administration and campus. For example,

during Fall 2001, when the University was facing financial problems, the community was

kept informed through open sessions and memos. It was also during this time that the

faculty voted to support the President’s position on the latest university budget situation.

Communication has also been increased through posting minutes from councils and

teams.

Facility

In 1993, Antioch Seattle had 14 classrooms and seminar rooms spread over

three buildings. In Fall 1997, Antioch Seattle moved into a newly purchased and

remodeled building with 17 classrooms and seminar rooms. Two large classrooms can

be divided into two giving us the capacity for 19 classrooms. One classroom is

equipped with computers. Three classrooms have tile floors and two have sinks to

provide spaces that support art and movement projects. New, more comfortable chairs

have been purchased for all classrooms and old chalk and white boards have been

replaced with new white boards. We have created two gathering and studying areas for

students, one on the second floor around the skylight, and the other in our main atrium

area on the first floor. Moving to our own building also allowed us to increase the size

of the bookstore and add a café, which serves as another gathering area for students.

Full spectrum lighting has been used throughout our new building and a computer

controlled HVAC system gives better control over classroom temperatures.

A student survey conducted in Fall 1999 (154 students from a sampling of

classes in each program) indicated that though they generally found the facility

satisfactory they also found it was too sterile. In response, an Aesthetics Committee

has organized a series of art exhibits and raised money to purchase our own art.

During the past year, art shows included work by the street life gallery, youth at risk,

disabled artists, employee exhibit and two by former students.

In 2001 we remodeled an additional 4200 square feet of space. This space

includes two additional classrooms, a new computer classroom and an art studio. This

renovation also gave us space to increase the size of the library and computer lab, co-

25

locate all admission staff, all university relations staff, and all faculty and staff in the

Center for Creative Change.

There has also been a dramatic increase in the use of our building by outside

groups, which supports our goal of becoming more connected with the community.

The symbolism of owning our own facility cannot be over- exaggerated in terms

of its positive effect on the faculty, staff, students and alumni and in terms of the

message of permanence it sends to potential students in the Seattle area and the

Northwest.

Financial Stability

Since 1993/1994 our revenue has increased 70 percent. We have established

goals to both diversify our revenue sources and diversify our program offerings so as

not to be so dependent on one program. In addition, we have established goals and

started a scholarship endowment, a capital savings plan to meet deferred maintenance

on our new facility and President’s contingency fund for emergencies.

Since 1993/1994 the percentage of our budget coming from tuition and fees has

dropped from 96 percent to 91 percent. This is a modest gain, but is clearly going in the

right direction. Previously, over 50 percent of our revenue came from the counseling

psychology program. This is no longer the case. The shift was accomplished by adding

two programs, Bachelor of Arts with a Teaching Certificate and the Environment and

Community Program, and by adding tracks within programs, site based in the

Experienced Educator Program and Corporate Leadership in the Management

Program. In addition, a growing continuing education office has added the dimension of

non-degree academically generated revenue to our mix.

The new building has stabilized the cost of providing urban facilities. The cost of

leasing space in downtown Seattle has doubled in the past 10 years; our bond

payments are close to a fixed rate for the future. When we moved into the new and

expanded size of the facility, the challenge from our board was to do it at the same cost

as our lease in 1995/1996. This challenge was accomplished.

During the 1999/2000 budget development process we established a capital

reserve fund. To date we have set aside $50,000 toward future repairs on our building.

26

With the new requirement to budget our depreciation it is expected that within the next 5

years that fund will exceed $500,000. Our scholarship endowment established three

years ago is a modest $29,000 but growing.

Governance

In January 1998, Antioch Seattle set out to design a new governance system. A

task force, including four faculty, three staff and the President, began work in January

1998. During the winter, the task force identified the strengths and weaknesses of the

current operations and reviewed governance systems of other higher education

institutions thought similar to Antioch Seattle in some relevant way, i.e., size, mission,

philosophy, etc. In the spring, it sought input from various constituencies of the Antioch

community (faculty, staff and academic program directors) about issues and concerns

they had around governance issues. It was also a time when the task force wrestled

with principles around issues of accountability and decision-making, shared

governance, open communication and participation. Actual work of designing the

proposed system followed during which key groups in the governance system were

identified, ideas of separating the day-to-day work of teams and the policy-making work

of councils came forth, and relationships between the various bodies were discussed.

Finally, in early June, the task force produced a draft proposal, which they asked the

community to comment on. Feedback was solicited through academic programs and

administrative units. Special efforts were also made to inform and solicit feedback from

students. In early fall, the group met to fine-tune their proposal, based on feedback

received. The new governance system was launched October 1, 1998.

This governance system is based on the interrelationship between councils,

policy-making bodies, assemblies, constituency groups and teams managing day-to-day

operations. As such it is not a hierarchical structure, rather best thought of as

concentric circles. This system is consistent with our history of open communication,

broad participation and being a learning community.

Councils are bodies with representation across academic programs and

administrative units that formulate, recommend and/or determine university policies and

procedures dependent on the nature of the issues. Some council membership is

27

determined by role and other membership is by election or appointment for a specified

term. All councils include faculty, staff, administrators and students with membership

ranging from 10 to 16. There are three councils: Planning and Budget Council,

Academic Council, and Student Services Council. The following descriptions are from

the governance document.

The Planning and Budget Council is an advisory and

recommending body to the President for strategic planning and the annual

budgetary process. Specifically, it is charged to establish and maintain a

campus-wide strategic planning process including faculty, staff and

students, review and evaluate the strategic plans emanating from each of

the programs/units, ensure that the Seattle campus strategic plan is in

concert with the University-wide strategic plan, and monitor the strategic

plans through a short summary update received each year from the

programs/units. In addition, the Planning and Budget Council is

responsible for establishing the process to work with the community,

faculty, staff and students to develop the annual budget. It is to make

recommendations to the President for the annual budget, which would

include tuition levels, salary and compensation, and approval of any new

budget requests deriving from units and programs.

The Academic Council is responsible for helping to ensure the

effectiveness and quality of the academic programs and mission of

Antioch University Seattle. Its charge is to review and recommend

possible actions regarding the following: new or changes to campus-wide

academic policies affecting academic programs; cross-program and/or

interdisciplinary academic ideas; new academic program initiatives;

substantial changes in program design, curriculum or credits; campus

policies regarding periodic review and evaluation of academic programs;

review of university and other outside evaluations of academic programs;

and changes to campus and program requirements for admissions and

enrollment.

The Student Services Council is responsible for maintaining the

long-term vision and mission of Antioch University Seattle for all student

services. The primary function of the Council is to promote quality and

efficient services for students and receive and address student concerns.

Assemblies were initially comprised of three constituencies, faculty, staff and

students. Each assembly has the right to choose its own leadership team, elect

representatives to the various councils, address matters within its purview, and to frame

and forward policy proposals or recommendations to appropriate councils. The

following descriptions are from the governance document.

28

The Faculty Assembly represents the voice of the faculty as a

whole and is responsible for ensuring the academic quality and integrity of

Antioch University Seattle. The Faculty Assembly has functions in two

basic areas: initiate and/or review, and forward policy recommendations

regarding campus-wide academic matters; and development and support

of faculty.

The Staff Assembly is responsible for maintaining the long-term

vision and mission of Antioch University for all non-faculty staff. The

Assembly exists to represent staff interest and present a representative

voice for staff on matters that concern staff.

The Student Assembly exists to give the student body a forum for

raising and discussing issues of student concern and interest, and the

authority to formulate proposals to forward to the appropriate governance

bodies.

Teams are constituted around each of the Deans (Academic, Administration and

Finance, and University Relations) and the President, and are informal bodies intended

to facilitate the coordination of day-to-day operations and decision-making in relation to

each Dean’s area of responsibility and authority. The respective Dean or President

determines team membership.

As indicated above, one of our operating assumptions is that regular review will

occur to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. The first review was

scheduled for Spring 1999. Along with providing an assessment of the governance

system, each Council, Assembly and Team was asked to submit their by-laws and

operating procedures. A small committee chaired by a faculty member met to review

the feedback. No recommendations were made at that point because no significant

themes were identified for change except that the councils were too large.

In Spring 2000, these groups were again asked for feedback and a summit was

convened in Fall 2000, which included the chairs of each of the councils and

assemblies. During that meeting, it was agreed that two years was too short a

timeframe for determining whether or not the governance system was working and that

the focus, at least for the next year or so, should be on fine-tuning what we had. We

also agreed that it was important to formalize by-laws and operating procedures.

Consistent with our governance system, these were forwarded to the President for

review and approval. Finally, recommendations were made regarding changes,

primarily in membership on the councils. Most notably was the addition of faculty

29

representation on the Student Service Council. This Council had struggled with

questions regarding their authority. They had initiated several proposals not

implemented because the academic programs would not support them. It was believed

that having academic programs directly involved in the development and review of such

proposals would increase their support. Since the changes impacted representation on

the Council, it was agreed that the Assemblies would review these recommendations

and the recommendations along with comments from the Assemblies would be

forwarded to the President for final review and approval, which occurred. The President

also reviewed by-laws and operating procedures and followed up with a memo to the

community noting areas that needed further clarification.

During Spring 2001, each Council and Assembly recommended changes,

additions, and deletions to the Fall1998 governance document. The recommendations

that the President approved were incorporated into a new document, which was

distributed to the campus in September 2001. Beyond minor changes, the entire

section covering the Student Assembly was rewritten. The proposed concept of a

Student Assembly had not been successful or feasible owing to the nature of our

student body. The President approved a recommendation made by the Student

Services Council that a small committee of students, representatives of the three

centers and BA program, be formed and charged to represent student issues and

concerns. At the end of 2001/2002, this committee had not been formed and Student

Services Council proposed a revision of their membership to include student and center

representatives from each of the academic departments on the Council. This proposal

is currently under discussion.

We believe that the revised document strengthened the governance system by

evaluating and recommending by-laws, operational procedures and changes in

membership to all groups. The present revision enhances the original document by

incorporating more clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and operational procedures.

During the 2001/2002 academic year, conversation regarding the governance

system at Antioch Seattle continued. The Communication Team, an outgrowth of the

campus-wide retreats held in Spring 2001, have scheduled a series of “brown bags” to

talk about the various models, types and definitions of governance.

30

Even more importantly, we believe that this governance system reflects our

values as a campus and the principles we aspire to of respect for each other and the

honoring of a diversity of opinions and participation. The strength of our governance

system is in the wide participation of faculty and staff in policy level discussions and

decisions. The challenge is twofold, the time involved for this participation and ensuring

that the voices of other constituencies, particularly that of students, are represented.

In preparation for the Self-Study, each Council was asked to identify

accomplishments and areas of concern. A common theme with respect to

accomplishments across all the Councils was refinement of the governance document

and clarification of each Council’s role and operational procedures. Common areas of

concern relate to the need to fully realize the potential of this governance model,

concerns about the workload and finally, participation of students so their perspective

can be more fully present during policy level discussions.

31

CHAPTER THREE

ACCOMPLISHING PURPOSES

Criterion III: The campus is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.

The academic programs are the heart of this campus and so this chapter will

focus on the students, the academic programs, the faculty and means of assessment.

Students

There have always been more female students than male at Antioch Seattle and

while that is still the case, the proportion of male students overall has increased during

the past ten years. For Fall 2001, 69% of our students were women; 66% of the

students in the Center for Creative Change, 67% in the Center for Programs in

Education, and 73% in B.A. in Liberal Studies and the Center for Programs in

Psychology.

As noted earlier, the proportion of students of color has increased during the past

ten years. In Fall Quarter 2001, 20% of our students were students of color (see Table

One). The Center for Creative Change with 10% has the smallest proportion of students

of color and the Center for Programs in Education with 32% has the largest proportion.

Table One

Student Ethnicity

Fall Quarter 2001

B.A. Liberal

Studies

Creative

Change

Education

Psychology

Overall

# %

# %

# %

# %

# %

African American

12 7%

8 4%

50 18%

6 3%

76 9%

Asian/Pacific Islanders

8 5%

8 4%

17 6%

5 2%

38 4%

Hispanic/Latino/Chicano

2 1%

4 2%

6 2%

3 1%

15 2%

Native American/Alaskan

5 3%

1 1%

6 2%

1 0%

13 1%

Other

11 7%

6 3%

10 4%

8 3%

35 4%

TOTALS

38 23%

27 14%

89 32%

23 10%

177 20%

32

Academic Programs

As displayed in Table Two, there has been a growth in the number of programs

and in the number of degrees offered. In 1992/1993, there were five academic

programs offering five degrees. In 2001/2002, there were twelve academic

programs/tracks leading to seven degrees. These changes are the result of two factors.

One is the continued program development effort, first in Psychology and most recently

in Education. The other is the move of the Environment and Community Program from

Antioch McGregor to Antioch Seattle in 1997, as it was believed that the northwest was

a better location than Ohio for such a program.

The B.A. in Liberal Studies program is designed for adults returning to college to

complete a bachelor’s degree in liberal studies. Each student develops a design for an

educational program that integrates previous college studies, prior life and work

experiences, and current work within a liberal arts framework.

The Center for Creative Change brings together four degree programs in an

integrated model of graduate education to prepare students to understand the world as

an integrated system and to become effective leaders in facilitating positive and

sustainable change in organizations, communities and the environment. Programs

include Environment and Community – focus on the interdependence of environmental

and social issues; Management – focus on the management of change; Organizational

Psychology – focus on self-awareness, interpersonal skills and understanding of

organizations; and Whole Systems Design – focus on living systems perspectives and

creative design approaches.

The Center for Programs in Education offers three tracks leading to a teaching

certificate; Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies with a teaching certificate, Washington

State Certificate, and Master of Arts in Education with a teaching certificate. Their

fourth program, Experienced Educators, emphasizes preparation for leadership in

educational change.

33

Table Two

Academic Programs and Degrees

1992-1993

2001-2002

B.A. in Liberal Studies

B.A. in Liberal Studies

Education, M.A.

Center for Creative Change

• Individualized

• Environment & Community, M.A.

• Management, M.S.

• Teacher's

Certification

• Organizational Psychology, M.A.

(formally Human Resource

Development)

• Whole Systems Design, M.A.

Management, M.S.

Center for Programs in Education

Psychology, M.A.

• Bachelor or Arts w/Teacher Certification

Education, M.A.

• Counseling

• Experienced Educators

• Human Resource

Development

• Graduate Teacher Certification

• Individualized

Center for Programs In Psychology

(M.A. in Psychology)

Whole Systems Design, M.A.

• Couple & Family Therapy

• Couple & Family Therapy w/Art

Therapy

• Integrative Studies

• Mental Health Counseling

• Mental Health Counseling w/Art

Therapy

34

The Center for Programs in Psychology offers intensive, challenging programs of

graduate study emphasizing multidimensional learning, integration of practice, and the

interweaving of personal and professional development. Programs include Couple and

Family Therapy – treating clinical problems in the context of couple and family

relationships; Mental Health Counseling – training for ethical, creative, socially

responsible counselors; Art Therapy – specialized training for clinical competencies in

art therapy combined with CFT or MHC; and Integrative Studies in Psychology - self-

directed study of psychology for varied applications.

We have also introduced a new structure for organizing our academic programs.

Discussions during the strategic planning process identified concerns about the rigidity

of the current programs in seeing and responding to opportunities to serve new groups

of students or develop partnerships with other entities. There were also concerns about

the size of many programs, too small to afford breadth of faculty or to respond to

opportunities. In 1999, as an outgrowth of these discussions, President Murdock

proposed the concept of centers in her white paper, "Future Directions for Antioch

University Seattle." As discussed in the white paper, the purpose of moving toward a

structure of Centers for Innovation and Excellence was to allow new programs to be

developed within the center rather than as separate entities and independent programs,

to foster the creation of innovative programs and the redesign of current programs by

removing the boundaries and barriers established between programs over time,

encourage the intermingling among programs of our faculty and students to create a

diverse and rich environment that promotes innovation and provide more options and

opportunities for both students and faculty by creating an environment that allows for

research, consulting, and continuing education programs.

The first center, recently named the Center for Creative Change, brought

together four programs (Environment and Community, Management, Organizational

Psychology and Whole Systems Design) sharing a common focus on organizations and

communities. The process leading up to the establishment of this center occurred over

a two-year period and involved all constituencies. An informal group of faculty began

exploring the overlap between the programs in 1999. Later that year, a proposal

35

development group was formed which included faculty from all the programs, a staff

member and a student. This group worked over the course of six months, seeking

ideas from the outside and periodically asking for reactions from faculty, staff and

students in the four programs. Their work led to a recommendation to proceed and a

proposal for doing so. The appropriate bodies on campus reviewed the proposal and

ultimately the President who gave her approval.

Since its formal launch in July 2000 and the arrival of a new director in January

2001, the Center for Creative Change has found ways to open up curriculum to students

across all programs, designed a set of center-wide courses, established an advisory

board of community leaders, held a series of panels, lectures and workshops for faculty

to present their work, and sponsored community events and workshops featuring guest

presenters. All these attest to the potential for enriching the experience of our students.

They are currently looking to partner with businesses and/or corporations. The center

had its University program review in Spring 2002 and the result of that assessment will

direct a major portion of the center’s work in the future.

Education has also embraced the center concept. The Center for Programs in

Education has taken the lead in looking outward to address the needs of the

community. We are the only institution delivering educational programs on the I-5

freeway corridor with the launching of site-based programs leading to a bachelors with

teaching certificate, masters with teaching certificate and a masters in education for

those who already have a teaching certificate. We are also working with schools and

tribal communities who desire to improve high school retention and college access for

Native youth. This work is being supported by a Gates grant which Antioch received

after a decade of offering teacher education programs at Indian schools at the pre-

service and in-service levels

Under discussion is the idea of expanding the center to include a certification for

administrators and professional certification for new teachers. The latter is in response

to new state guidelines requiring new teachers to complete a three-to-five year process

for professional certification.

While Psychology has adopted the title of Center for Programs in Psychology,

there is no clear agreement within Psychology as to what that means. A new Director

36

came on board in July 2001, which prompted revisiting their vision. With the decision to

relocate the Organizational Psychology Program within what has become the Center for

Creative Change, the Center for Programs in Psychology have focused more sharply on

clinical and individualized degree programs. These programs are already integrated,

with a common set of introductory courses serving all students. Their challenge relates

to stabilization and continuing to improve quality through seeking accreditation of the

programs. The Center for Programs in Psychology have also begun offering

undergraduate courses and a post-master certificate for counselors in Foster Care and

Adoption Therapy. Under discussion is expanding the center to include a doctorate in

psychology plus the addition of more post-masters certificates for counselors.

The BA Program in Liberal Studies has continued to hold discussions about the

center concept and is in the process of recruiting for a new director. We expect that

they will begin the process of moving forward in the 2002/2003 academic year into a

center in liberal studies.

We are excited about the potential of this structure. With arrival of our new

academic dean and directors, we have spent this year (2001/2002) and plan to spend

next year (2002/2003) exploring what each center could do to move forward. We are

also concerned about the challenge of integration across centers.

Currently our academic programs share three elements in common: clearly

defined student outcome objectives and courses of study, emphasis on self-reflection

and service to the community, and integration of theory and practice. Each of these will

be briefly discussed.

Each academic program has clearly defined student outcome objectives and a

course of study. These are included in the program handbooks that are updated

annually and distributed to students when they enter the program. As part of our

outcome assessment efforts, each program focuses on three or more student outcome

objectives each year. Objectives are selected based on centrality of the objective to the

program, concern about how students are doing in a particular area or an area where

development work is occurring. Information is gathered throughout the year and

analyzed and shared with the program and the Outcome Assessment Committee twice

37

a year. Additional information on Outcome Assessment is included in a later section in

this chapter.

Antioch Seattle’s mission incorporates the three elements: transformative

education, lifelong development and agency in a changing world. Each of our programs

has incorporated means for addressing these elements in their programs.

Transformative education and lifelong development begins with a solid understanding of

self, followed by practicing skills in self-reflection. Our belief is that students need to

understand themselves and their values and beliefs in order to be of service to others.

Many programs incorporate this into their introductory coursework and then weave it

into the degree process. In addition, most programs have a capstone project that

includes an element related to self-reflection.

Agency in a changing world means making a difference and reflects Horace

Mann’s challenge to "be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."

Programs use various means for achieving this. Community service projects are

incorporated into some courses. Antioch sponsors various activities and students join in

as an opportunity to be of service. Some programs require completion of a service

project as part of their degree requirements.

Programs have also been designed for underserved populations; the Bachelor of

Arts/Teaching Certificate Program is the latest example. This is a site-based program

where the students, most of whom work in schools as paraprofessionals, are committed

to their communities and to education. This program provides them the opportunity to

complete a bachelors degree and earn a teaching certificate, thus qualifying for K-12

teaching positions.

In every program, faculty work closely with students, helping them to link theory

with practice. Some programs accomplish this through an individualized degree

process. Other programs focus on an internship or practicum, providing weekly

consultation groups and/or frequent visits to the site. Finally, several programs

incorporate thesis or research projects with faculty members, usually the student's

advisor, providing guidance.

38

Faculty

Student/faculty ratios range from a low of 20 to 1 in the B.A. program to 28 to 1 in

Psychology. Advising loads range from a low of 6 to 10 in Education to 28 to 32 in the

B.A. Program. Annual teaching loads range from a low of 9 to 12 quarter hours in the

B.A. Program, 15 in Psychology, and 18 in the other graduate programs.

Table Three displays credentials for all faculty that were at Antioch Seattle in Fall

2001. Eighty-eight percent of our core faculty holds Ph.D.s. Many of our core faculty

are engaged in writing and research. Last year, 15 (38 percent) published, 18 (46

Table Three

Faculty Credentials

Fall 2001

CORE

TEMPORARY

ASSOCIATE/ADJUNCT

Ph.D

Masters

Ph.D

Masters

Ph.D

Masters

Bachelors

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

B.A. Liberal Studies

4

3

2

2

5

Ctr. for Creative Change

7

3

3

4

Ctr. for Programs in

Education

11

1

1

1

4

11

4

Ctr. for Programs in

Psychology

7

1

3

15

At Large

1

TOTALS

30 (88%)

4 (12%)

1 (13%)

7 (87%)

12 (24%)

35 (69%)

4 (8%)

percent) presented, 12 (31 percent) held leadership positions in professional

organizations and 23 (59 percent) attended professional conferences or workshops.

Faculty have up to 20 days of professional leave per academic year. They use

this time for writing, research, development of new curriculum, and exploration of new

areas of study. Each faculty member is allocated up to $400 to support professional

development. Funds are typically used to offset the cost of attending a conference.

Additional funds are available through the Academic Dean’s office. This money is

typically earmarked for development activities that are in line with program priorities. We

39

acknowledge that more money needs to be made available for professional

development and in support of scholarship.

Core faculty are evaluated annually. Each member of the faculty completes the

core faculty evaluation report (see Appendix B), which asks for information about

advising, teaching, program, campus, university activities, and contributions outside the

university including community activities, professional and scholarly activities, and

professional development activities. These reports are reviewed by the program chair

and form the basis for a meeting between the faculty member and the program chair.

Based on the report and follow-up meeting, the chair forwards a written summary to the

director and the academic dean. This summary, along with the core faculty evaluation

report, is placed in the faculty member's file in the academic dean's office. A need to

revise this process has been identified as a top priority for next year. It will reflect

current work on a faculty code of conduct and faculty handbook and the recognition that

the current process does not assist in the rejuvenation of faculty.

Assessment

Discussion of assessment includes advising, instruction, student outcomes and

programs. Each will be discussed below.

Academic Advising. Table Four displays the range and average advising load by

centers for Fall 2001. Core faculty, Education being the exception, do most advising.

Associate or adjunct faculty advises approximately half of the students in Education.

The average load of core faculty ranges from 10 for core faculty in Education to 25 for

core faculty in Psychology.

40

Table Four

Student Advising Load By Type of Faculty

Fall Quarter 2001

Core

Associate/Adjunct

Range

Mean

Range

Mean

B. A. in Liberal Studies

8-30

23

Ctr. for Creative Change

3-37

12

4-7

6

Ctr. for Programs in Education

1-25

10

1-17

7

Ctr. for Programs in Psychology

11-36

25

TOTALS

1-37

16

1-17

7

Although the informal faculty culture is extraordinarily emphatic about valuing an

"advising intensive " approach to work with students, the campus lacks a fully

developed approach to assessing the quality of advising services. The core faculty

evaluation report asks faculty to indicate the number of advisees per quarter, advising

evaluations (some programs have implemented annual surveys or asked for feedback

as part of exit interviews), and additional comments regarding advising including

accessibility to students, encouraging self direction and facilitating the degree process.

However, we do not at present have a mechanism in place that permits student

evaluation of individual advisors by name with results fed back into a professional

development program to improve advisor performance or to take account of advising

performance as part of a systematic faculty evaluation strategy.

Questions on advising were included in a student survey conducted during Fall

quarter 2000. One hundred and fifty four students from a random sampling of courses

in each program were asked to complete a survey focusing primarily on satisfaction with

student services, but with items included on quality of advising and instruction.

Students used a four-point scale: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), strongly

41

disagree (1), to respond to the following question, "I feel the quality of academic

advising at AUS is excellent." Table Five displays results. Average ratings ranged from

3.0 to 3.35. These findings suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality of

advising.

Table Five

Student Satisfaction with

Academic Advising Measured on a 4 Point Scale

RANGE

MEAN

B.A. Liberal Studies

3-4

3.4

Ctr. for Creative Change

2-4

3.3

Ctr. for Programs in Education

3-4

3.3

Ctr. for Programs in Psychology

2-4

3.0

TOTALS

2-4

3.3

Effective Instruction. Table Six displays the number of courses taught in the BA

Program and in each Center, and by whom, core or associate/adjunct. Core faculty

teach just over 39 percent of our classes. This varies from 30 percent in Psychology to

48 percent in the B.A. Program.

42

Table Six

Number and Percent of Courses taught by Type of Faculty

2000/2001

Core

Associate/Adjunct

Number

%

Number

%

B.A. Liberal Studies

32

48%

35

52%

Ctr. for Creative Change

53

42%

74

58%

Ctr. for Programs in Education

85

42%

119

58%

Ctr. for Programs in Psychology

48

30%

110

70%

TOTALS

218

39%

338

61%

Table Seven

Range and Mean of Class Size By Center/Program

Fall Quarter 2001

Classes

Students in Class

Unused Seats in

Class

Number

Range Mean

Range Mean

B.A. Program

16

6-20 14.31

0-2 4.44

Ctr. for Creative Change

24

4-18 9.13

+2-17 8.79

Ctr. for Programs in Education

39

8-25 15.95

+7-11 1.8

Ctr. for Programs in Psychology

34

7-23 13.62

2-21 10.29

OVERALL

113

4-23 13.57

+7-2 6.40

43

Table Seven displays the range and average number of students in classes and

the range and average number of seats unfilled in those classes. Overall, classes

ranged from 4 to 23 students with 14 students as an average. Unused capacity, that is

the capacity or number of seats in the class that are not filled (based on limits set by the

programs), ranged from 7 more than the class limit to 21 below the class limit. The

average was 6 below the class limit. Most classrooms have a design capacity of 20 or

fewer students and all have a seminar style furniture arrangement. The campus does

not have a single chair-desk in its inventory. Tension does exist between the desire to

maintain low student/faculty ratios and the need to be cost effective.

Students, in the Fall quarter 2000 survey described above, were asked to use a

four-point scale: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), strongly disagree (1), to

respond to the following question, "I feel the quality of classes I am taking at AUS is

excellent." Table Eight displays the results. Average ratings ranged from 3.3 to 3.6. As

with advising, these findings suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality of

instruction.

Table Eight

Student Assessment of Quality of Course Instruction Measured

on a Four Point Scale

RANGE

MEAN

B.A. in Liberal Studies

2-4

3.6

Center For Creative Change

3-4

3.6

Ctr. for Programs in Education

3-4

3.34

Ctr. for Programs in Psychology

3-4

3.4

TOTALS

2-4

3.36

44

All courses are assessed using a standardized form. Students are asked to

complete the form during their last or second to last class session. The form includes

17 items, rated on a 6-point scale, very poor (1), poor, fair, good, very good, excellent

(6), relating to course organization and design, instructor knowledge and teaching, and

overall assessment of the course and of the instructor. Students are also asked to

comment on the strengths of the course and needed changes. Instructors receive

copies of the forms after they have completed their student assessments. The forms

are also reviewed by the faculty liaison for the course. For core faculty, course

evaluations are included in the performance review. For associate and adjunct, course

evaluations influence the decision to rehire. Many programs also distribute a midterm

assessment form, the results of which are compiled and shared with students.

In preparation for the self-study, evaluations from a random sample of 80

courses taught during 2000/2001 were reviewed (twenty per center, half by core, half by

adjunct). Table Nine displays a summary of results for the four main areas covered by

the form: 1) course organization and design; 2) instructor knowledge and teaching; 3)

course overall; and 4) instructor overall. All ratings fell between 5 and 6 (very good to

excellent). These findings also suggest that many students are satisfied with the quality

of instruction. (Appendix C contains complete information for all items on the form).

Table Nine

Summary of Student Feedback on Courses

Measured on a Six Point Scale

2000/2001

B.A. in Liberal

Studies

Range Mean

Creative

Change

Range Mean

Education

Range Mean

Psychology

Range Mean

Overall

Range Mean

Course

Organization/

Design

1-6 5.05

2-6 5.29

1-6 5.18

2-6 5.27

1-6 5.18

Instructor

Knowledge/

Teaching

1-6 5.31

1-6 5.39

1-6 5.34

1-6 5.31

1-6 5.33

Course Overall

1-6 5.40

2-6 5.57

2-6 5.41

3-6 5.36

1-6 5.42

Instructor Overall

1-6 5.08

2-6 5.33

1-6 5.22

2-6 5.37

1-6 5.23

45

There has been concern about the comparative quality of courses taught by core

and by associate or adjunct, particularly since core teach less than half of our courses

overall. A comparison of the ratings indicated that there was little difference. For

example, on the item related to the course as a whole, the average rating for core

faculty was 5.29, for associate/adjunct, 5.13, and on the item related to the instructor

overall, the average rating for core faculty was 5.51, for associate/adjunct 5.33. We

have maintained the liaison system reported in 1992 in which a core faculty member

works closely with every associate/adjunct, providing orientation, reviewing syllabi and

course evaluations and being available if problems arise. The data suggest the system

is working to ensure quality of instruction by associates/adjuncts.

Outcome Assessment. Assessment of student outcomes is the responsibility of

every academic program. Following the last NCA visit, academic programs were asked

to develop outcome assessment plans. In 1999, in preparation for this visit, each

campus was asked to assess implementation of those plans. We found that programs

ranged with respect to implementation. Some had developed a plan, some

implemented the plan for awhile and some implemented part of the plan. In all cases,

the information was not being analyzed on a regular basis and use was not

documented.

During 1999/2000, a faculty member was appointed as a coordinator with 30

percent release time. It was agreed that we would approach outcome assessment as a

campus initiative, required of all academic programs and administrative units. That

individual, working with a committee of faculty, and later a committee of faculty and

staff, developed an approach for use on this campus based on the work of James

Nichols. A set of forms was designed asking programs and units to specify on an

annual basis, the mission of their program/unit, the goal from the strategic plan being

addressed, their objectives for the upcoming year, and for each objective, means of

measurement and criteria of success (see Appendix D). At the end of each year,

programs/units are asked to provide a summary of the results and indicate how the

information was used.

Our goal in reviewing the first round of plans was to ensure that each program

and unit had a plan that was not overly ambitious. We felt that the first year of

46

implementation would help us learn about how to integrate outcome assessment into

our ongoing work.

During 2000/2001, each program and unit was asked to submit a 6-month

progress report. As expected we found that many programs and units were using the

year to develop and pilot instruments. At the end of the year, programs and units were

asked to submit results from the first year and plans for the next year. Since many

programs and units had used the first year to develop and pilot instruments, little data

was available. However, it was clear that what information was available was being

used.

In reviewing the plans for 2001/2002, the Outcome Assessment Committee was

much more critical. More than half the programs and units were asked to redo some

aspect of their plan and resubmit it to the Committee. The Committee also spent more

time talking about means to support the programs and units, including informal

mentoring (with faculty on the committee agreeing to work with certain programs),

hosting a series of forums on outcome assessment, and requesting more investment in

professional development for faculty in next year’s budget.

During this time, the Outcome Assessment Committee clarified its purpose and

procedures and asked to be recognized as a standing committee reporting to the

President. This has been approved. We think that this arrangement underscores the

importance placed on outcome assessment and the commitment to instituting it as part

of our ongoing processes.

In reviewing their efforts in preparation for the self study, the committee noted

that progress has been made. All academic programs have plans in place and all but

two submitted six-month updates in January 2002. However, there is a reliance on

student self report or global assessments by faculty. Also, while faculty and

administrators are involved and supportive of outcome assessment, students are not.

Results are not shared in any systematic way with students and few are aware of their

program’s work in this area. As part of the committee’s work this summer, they will

recommend a course of action to increase faculty expertise in this area. A brief

discussion by center follows illustrating some of the work being done and areas needing

to be addressed.

47

The BA Program in Liberal Studies has used information from outcome

assessment on student writing to develop a sequence of writing courses. The B.A

Program faculty have also chosen to use program meeting time (a portion of 1 meeting

per quarter) to discuss students with specific kinds of writing challenges, to provide

support to faculty advisors and assist faculty in developing specific plans for each of

these students. In the next year the program will explore other means to assess this

criterion. Closer attention is also now paid to admissions criteria regarding writing and

to working with adjunct faculty in this area.

The B.A. Program has also established an exit interview, required of all

graduating students, which can be conducted by phone or in person. This information is

being used to assist the program faculty in developing a better understanding of

students' experience in this program and specifically what aspects of transformation and

learning about diversity have indeed occurred for students. The program definition of

"transformation" is now under review and further clarification of the learning objectives

for the Art of Learning II: Diversity, is currently taking place in a subcommittee of faculty

working on the Art of Learning.

In all of the Center for Creative Change programs, faculty use written work, oral

presentations (with audiences varying from degree committees, to classes, to the larger

community), and self-reported evaluations to assess student development. In several

programs, current student surveys and exit interviews add other measures of

assessment, and the alumni survey sent to all of the graduates of AUS provides even

more useful information. However, to make outcome assessments more valuable to the

Center, data on students' progress through each program and the value of the

integrated experience students have as a result of crossing program boundaries needs

to be gathered. To that end, the Center is moving toward a more strategic process that

includes more assessment measures and gathers data over greater time periods: (1)

more carefully defining across programs the admissions criteria at the students' entry

point as a baseline; (2) monitoring the students' development in individual programs

through the use of portfolios, papers, oral presentations, faculty evaluations, and self-

reporting; (3) establishing a Center-wide student survey to gather data on the integrative

experience; (4) establishing a required capstone course - the "reflective practicum" -

48

where students work in cross-program teams to complete a community project; (5)

continuing to use the alumni survey but at a more standardized period of two years after

graduation for each student; and (6) developing an employer survey to measure the

effectiveness of our students and alumni in the workplace.

In the Center for Programs in Education, outcomes based requirements from the

Washington Board of Education provide the focus for most of the programs.

The measures of outcome assessment in the Center for Programs in Psychology

are either in development or have only been recently implemented. It is not clear how

useful the current set of information will be for the purpose of program evaluation. The

results from the student practice exams, which focus on clinical knowledge and

theories, need to be compared to the actual pass rate for licensure examination to

assess the validity or the usefulness of administering the practice exams in the clinical

program. The other two forms of assessment, which focus on application of clinical

skills and multicultural competence, in the clinical programs may rely too heavily on

subjective reporting. To gain fuller understanding of student satisfaction in their degree

program and the success of our graduates, other types of information needs to be

collected. Examples of other types of information may be alumni survey, objective

measurements such as licensure rates for graduates from the clinical programs and/or

job/salary attainment.

Program Reviews. Formal university conducted program reviews were

scheduled for all programs during the interval between accreditation reviews. Review

teams are chaired by a faculty member from another campus and include a faculty

member from the local campus and at least one outside expert. Special reviews can

also be scheduled at any time. In addition, our certification programs in education are

reviewed by the Washington State Board of Education.

All the reviews indicated that programs were clear about their mission and that

what was being delivered was consistent with that mission. Some reviews noted the

uniqueness of the program, for example, the integration of social and natural sciences

in Environment and Community. Other reviews spoke to the exemplary model, for

example, the integration of educational and cultural values in Education. Other reviews

spoke to the impact of the program on the students, for example it was noted that even

49

though there was no shared understanding of what was meant by transformative in the

Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies Program, there was a shared sense that change was

occurring.

As would be expected, concerns varied by program and time of review.

However, a few themes did stand out. One theme was the need to assess how well the

programs were doing with respect to impact on students, and how well programs were

achieving their goals. The other common theme related to lack of faculty scholarship.

Reasons cited by evaluators for this included strong student orientation, commitment to

the campus and consequently heavy involvement on campus wide committees, and

twelve-month contract. There was also a consistent urging in the reviews for faculty to

make scholarship a priority. Currently, programs are reviewed by the university every

ten years. We think a five to seven year interval would be more helpful. A brief

discussion by Center follows highlighting actions taken and areas that are still of

concern.

The B.A. Program in Liberal Studies has made changes in two areas in response

to the program review completed in 1995. First, in response to the concern regarding

student involvement/input there is a mechanism for soliciting student input on curriculum

planning on an annual basis through both online and written feedback. Second, they

have worked hard to further refine how the goals, structure and philosophy of the

program are articulated, particularly in publications and marketing materials. This is an

area for ongoing attention. An example of this refinement is the articulation of focus

areas in creative and expressive arts, psychology and spirituality, and professional

studies.

The Center for Creative Change was reviewed in April 2002. The review team’s

recommendations called for a “quantum redesign.” The center has begun discussions

and has been asked to present preliminary plan in September 2002. Three of the four

programs in the Center for Creative Change have been reviewed individually in the

past, and they have responded positively to the suggestions that emerged from those

reviews. The following, briefly, are some of the measures being taken in each of the

four programs:

50

The Environment and Community Program has been redesigned to rename and

consolidate the coursework for the two tracks. Rather than having a Seattle Weekend

Option and a Limited Residency Option meeting at different times during the year, a

Pacific Northwest Option and an International Option have been created that will share

classes.

The Graduate Management Program has been redesigned to appeal to an

audience wider than mid-level managers. While use of technology continues to

improve, this an area that needs more attention.

The Organizational Psychology Program has recently been granted its own

degree. In the past two years, the faculty has developed a clear mission statement and

set of goals, and has established a strong curriculum and internship program to allow

students to meet those goals.

Articulation of the Whole Systems Design (WSD) degree remains a problem, and

the faculty is in process of reviewing and redesigning their curriculum and their

marketing materials to express more clearly the value such a program offers students.

The new degree process and required curriculum creates a much greater balance

among Holism, Systems, and Design, and the program is making use of faculty across

the Center to provide students with opportunities to apply the WSD approach in specific

areas of practice (environment, management, organizational development, and so

forth).

A recent review of the three tracks within the Center for Programs in Education

leading to a teaching certificate by the Washington Board of Education concluded that

these programs “reflect the integrity associated with the profession. Life long learning is

emphasized and the faculty reinforce this concept through their scholarship. . . .

Reflection is definitely a strength . . . and is taught and practiced.” They also found that

“faculty make course revisions based on student evaluation data and faculty assess

students at multiple times in multiple ways. However, there is no integrated unit system

for collecting and analyzing candidate performance data, a system that then can be

used to inform collective programmatic changes.”

At the time of the last program review, the two clinical programs in what is now

known as the Center for Programs in Psychology had been in existence for less then

51

two years and the two individualized programs were also new in their development.

Since then they have added the combined art therapy/counseling degree, re-named as

well as re-designed one individualized program and lost the individualized program in

organizational psychology. Throughout these changes the faculty and staff endeavored

to better articulate their mission. The psychology mission statement has been revised

twice, most recently in 2002. They continue to discuss their mission in light of

considerations for adding a doctoral program and in light of a new program director.

There are three areas where they are not clear and do not hold consensus. One area is

whether or not the clinical programs are designed to serve the future clients or to serve

the current students. Another area relates to the Antioch tradition and the dictates of a

prescribed licensure driven professional clinical training program. Whether or not the

clinical and the individualized program share a vision is the third area.

The specific programs have matured with greater clarity and differentiation for the

role of the chair. The curricula are more integrated between the programs in

psychology. Faculty teach across programs, and students take courses across

programs. This cross-program activity has enriched and enlivened both the faculty and

the students.

Based on feedback from the students regarding progress through the program,

changes in the core curriculum were instituted. The most significant change was the

elimination of the professional development series, required course work during a

student’s first two quarters in the program. One fall out from the elimination of the pro-

sem is a lesser sense of student community. This may give rise to a greater sense of

isolation experienced by students.

The core faculty as a whole is not actively engaged in the development and

stewardship of the programs with a sense of empowerment. Upwards of 80% of the

courses are taught by adjunct faculty who are not well integrated into the program. The

disengagement of both core and the adjunct faculty continue to present a challenge to

the program. The disengagement of the adjunct faculty is more problematic to address.

A variety of activities have been attempted in the last eight years to bridge the gap with

the adjunct faculty. At different times the program has hosted lunches, breakfast,

orientation sessions, and meetings with course liaisons. It appears there are significant

52

numbers of adjunct faculty who say they teach at Antioch specifically because they are

not required to engage with the program. The Psychology Programs continue to work

on designing ways to institute more systematic contact with the adjunct faculty. In 2002

the program secured and outfitted an office within the psychology space for the use of

adjunct faculty. In 2002/03 funds were made available to reimburse adjunct faculty to

attend orientation and program meetings.

Summary

All of our academic programs have clearly defined student outcome objectives,

which serve as the basis for an ongoing assessment effort. We have maintained a

strong emphasis on integration of theory and practice. And, we have become clearer as

a campus about the values we hold (lifelong development and agency in a changing

world).

Assessment is an area of need. We currently have a part-time faculty member

coordinating our efforts in outcome assessment. In order to move forward, we need to

provide more support to the programs. We also need to support faculty development in

this area, and we need to support campus wide initiatives such as exit interviews and

alumni and employer surveys.

Allocating more resources for faculty development in general is also critical,

particularly in a time when we know that our academic programs need to change to

better serve the community.

53

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FUTURE

Criterion #4: The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes

and strengthen its educational effectiveness.

Our strategic plan outlines our future direction and provides a mechanism to help

us move forward; this chapter is organized by the seven strategic goals. In thinking

about the future, we have chosen a five-year time frame.

Outstanding Degree and Non-Degree Programs

As indicated earlier, the centers form the structure to facilitate greater

programmatic innovation and flexibility by allowing new programs to be developed

within the center rather than as separate entities, remove the boundaries and barriers

established between programs over time, encourage the intermingling among programs

of faculty and students, and provide more options and opportunities for both students

and faculty. Also as noted earlier, progress has been made in developing the vision for

each center. With new academic leadership now in place, we have begun to move from

vision to plans for achieving that vision.

Four directions, which are consistent with the campus’s focus on life-long

learning, are being explored by many of the centers. Several are exploring the

possibility of adding doctorate-level programs. For example, Center for Programs in

Psychology has developed a preliminary proposal for a doctorate in psychology. This

preliminary proposal has been reviewed by Academic Council, and approval was given

to develop a full proposal. During 2002/2003, approval will be sought from the

University Leadership Council and the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee.

Several centers are exploring the possibility of adding additional masters

programs. Under discussion are a master’s in fine arts and a master’s in liberal studies.

Several centers are developing certificates. Two were mentioned earlier, Professional

Certification for Educators developed by the Center for Programs in Education and

Post-Masters Certificate in Adoption and Foster Care Therapy developed by the Center

54

for Programs in Psychology. Both certificates will be offered through our continuing

education arm, the Center for Community and Professional Learning.

Finally, most centers are expanding other types of continuing education offerings.

Recent examples include two workshops offered this spring the Center for Creative

Change related to leadership. These workshops were attended by current students,

alumni and other professionals in the field. All these efforts are aimed at diversifying

our programs by expanding what is offered.

For those degree programs in professions and disciplines that are regulated by

either professional accrediting bodies or state licensure, Antioch Seattle continues its

commitment toward program accreditation. The dynamic tension between innovation

and accreditation/licensure dictates contextualize the review and implementation for

program growth and change.

We also need to maintain our efforts in outcome assessment. Toward that end,

the Academic Dean and Center Directors are beginning to take a more active role and

more resources will be earmarked to support faculty development in this area. In

addition to assessment at the program level, we would like to institutionalize campus-

wide initiatives that would provide data encompassing students in all programs. This

could include an annual survey on student services, exit interviews with students,

alumni and employer surveys.

Institutional Capacity

As of Fall 2001, 892 students were enrolled. Our goal is 1,200 students within

the next five years. Where that growth will occur is under discussion. Objectives in this

growth are to obtain a greater balance of enrollment among our centers, thereby

decreasing revenue dependency on one center; and to determine the desired ratio

between campus and site-based programs. We think that this would provide the level

and economy of scale at which we can support the educational programs, student

services and administrative structure. There are concerns as to whether we have the

infrastructure in place to help us reach this level.

As indicated earlier, part of our mission is to serve a diverse population of

students. Our target is to have the same proportion of students of color as in the

55

Seattle area. In Fall 2001, 20 percent of our students were people of color compared

with 10 percent in 1992. Though our target, based on census data for Seattle is 30

percent, we have made strides!

Access to scholarship monies is a critical component in helping us move forward.

We are in the third year of building our scholarship endowment. It is a slow process

starting from zero. We will continue to aggressively encourage contributions to our

endowment from alumni and individual donors. The Board of Visitors has also made

raising monies for scholarship endowment their priority. During 2001/2002, the Board of

Visitors sponsored two fund-raising events. Our focus over the next few years will be to

approach corporations and foundations and other entities for six figure contributions to

produce an endowment that generates an amount that provides meaningful

scholarships for recruitment and retention of our students. After three years of resource

investment, we have been successful in having a legislative bill passed that allows our

undergraduate students to be eligible for state financial grant and workstudy aid. This

additional funding will greatly assist our recruiting work for the bachelors and bachelors

with teaching certificate programs.

We will also put forth a greater effort in the major and planned gifts area. It is

possible that within the next five years that we might investigate the feasibility of

conducting a “capital” fundraising campaign. Because of the developmental stage of

the campus, the emphasis for such a campaign will be on raising money for the

scholarship endowment and program development as opposed for use on capital or

operational expenses.

Accessible, High Quality Student Services

During the past ten years, we have funded services including support for

students with disabilities, tutoring in writing, training and support in use of computer and

library, and career counseling. Our plan is to move toward a learning resource center

concept that would encompass what is currently provided with additional services.

Building the capacity so that these services are available on-line and accessible by our

site-based students is of particular importance. In addition, we are developing

increased electronic access to our services. Library, student accounts, financial aid and

56

the registrar are all making strides in this area. We have also extended support to

students in off-site programs. Currently, this support is limited to admission and

financial aid visitation, bookstore delivery, training and assistance with computing, and

access to library resources. As more programs are offered in an off-site format, we will

need to address what and how we provide services to these students.

We also support the Student Life Office, which is staffed by work-study students.

As noted earlier, this year we have added the role of Special Assistant to the Academic

Dean for Student Services to work with this group. This person is a member of the core

faculty and 40 percent of her time will be allocated to her role as Special Assistant

during 2002/2003.

Dynamic Alliances

Our purpose in creating partnerships is to increase Antioch University Seattle's

connection with and impact on the community. We believe the structure of the

academic centers allows for greater programmatic innovation and flexibility, two

ingredients essential in the development of partnerships. Our goal is for each center to

establish partnerships by the end of the next three years. Some of the initiatives

currently being explored are for the Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies Program to

partner with arts organizations and develop a closer ties with the community colleges

i.e. articulation agreements with community colleges offering human service programs;

for the Center for Creative Change to partner with businesses and organizations to

provide on-site certificates or degrees; for the Center for Programs in Education to

partner with a school, a school district, or Native American tribe; and the Center for

Programs in Psychology to partner with a community agency to provide clinical

services.

Academic directors are also out in the community, serving on boards and

involved in civic activities. Several of the centers are exploring the idea of advisory

boards as a means for connecting with the community and ensuring that our programs

are responsive to local needs. The Center for Creative Change has established such

an advisory board of local business and community agency people.

57

University Relations has focused on building alliances with local businesses and

foundations such as Columbia Bank, US Bank, the Gates Foundation, Boeing and

Weyerhaeuser. The Board of Visitors is doing their part by holding public forums and

workshops on such topics as public education and religion and race and the media.

Exceptional and Diverse Group of Employees

Our approach to this goal with faculty is a focus on recruitment and retention and

quality control. Our current salary structure allows no room for flexibility regarding what

salary we can offer to an individual. This has caused challenges in recruitment and

retention, particularly with faculty of color. Our faculty salary structure is currently under

review. We are also reviewing our process for faculty evaluation. New policies and

procedures being included in the faculty handbook clarify expectations and the process

for evaluating performance.

With staff, our approach to this goal has been to raise the bar by increasing

professionalism. We have made great strides in upgrading and filling staff vacancies

with individuals who bring more experience than their predecessors had and we will

continue to do so.

As with students, our diversity goal with employees is to match the proportion of

persons of color in the Seattle area. As of Fall, 2001, the percentage of regular

employees at Antioch Seattle who were persons of color was 28.15 percent compared

to 30 percent for Seattle. Thus, Antioch Seattle is very near the same as that of Seattle

over all. It is our belief that Antioch Seattle has more than demonstrated its

commitment to diversity hiring since 1995 when it had 3.39 percent persons of color in

its employ. Our focus is now on efforts to manage the diversity to insure fairness in

promotional opportunities for persons of color as well as over all harmony while not

diminishing our efforts to maintain or improve the ratios. Workshops on diversity have

been held on campus with the numbers of employees attending quite high. It should

also be noted that our faculty and staff are diverse in other ways, such as gender and

sexual orientation and have been for some time.

Both faculty and staff have above average benefits compared to other higher

education institutions. However, money for professional development and salary

58

continue to be areas of challenge and priority. We have agreed upon salary targets

based on a comparison group and struggle to make advancements in relationship to

those targets.

Technology in Innovative Ways

Since the University-wide adoption of Datatel in 1997, we have made great

strides in such areas as accounting and budgeting, admissions, financial aid, human

resources and registration. These improvements have allowed us to streamline

operations and provide needed information for management and planning. Our

attention is now on providing systems that will make it easier for our students to apply,

qualify for financial aid, register, access their courses evaluations, and track their

progress. Most of these advances are currently well underway or completed. Better

use of technology, web-site and software has enabled fund-raising to move to a more

professional operation. We still have a way to go in using technology to provide

accurate, informative and timely data reports to assist in decision making.

The role that technology will play in learning is less clear. Some courses in all

programs incorporate on-line as an adjunct to course work, usually in the form of

ongoing conversations about the course content or a means for small groups to work

together on projects. We have also piloted on-line courses in collaboration with the

Southern California campus. However, this is an area in which we need to develop our

own campus vision.

Healthy, Diversified Financial Base

Regarding our financial stability as an institution, the question becomes how can

we be more accessible, particularly to students of color; how can we be more

affordable; how can we be adaptable to the changes in the needs of society; and how

can we be accountable for the service we provide our students. Our answer is to make

our organization as lean and efficient as possible, build endowments, develop

partnerships, write grants, and seek new revenue sources.

In nine of the past ten years, we have balanced our budget. In the past five

years, we have returned $800,000 in revenue to the University. Moreover, in several of

59

those years we did not make our target enrollments and had to make mid-year

adjustments in order to balance. The point is that we have demonstrated an ability to

live within our means. As we move forward, our intent is to make our organization as

lean and efficient as possible by looking at our faculty and staff to student ratios and

utilizing technology as a means to increase our efficiency and service to students while

holding our system and individuals accountable for the quality of the education we

provide. Programs are now accountable for their costs. Direct expenses such as

copying, phones, and postage have been moved into program budgets. Revenue to

expense ratios have also been introduced.

Our second intent is to seek new revenue sources. In 1993, 96 percent of our

revenue was from tuition and fees, last year it was 91 percent. We are making

progress. The Gates Foundation gift and the state eligibility are examples of that

progress. However, we need to do more. Our four-fold strategy includes auxiliary

enterprises, gifts, grants and non-credit offerings.

For the next five to ten years, the only auxiliary enterprise that the Seattle

campus will operate is the bookstore. There have been conversations about expanding

the size of the bookstore to make it more accessible and attractive to the neighborhood,

where the number of the high-rise business and residential buildings is increasing.

Expansion will mean another renovation project, which should be feasible toward the

end of the next five years. The other possible auxiliary enterprise is the café. If

anything happens regarding the partnership with FareStart café, we will need to

determine whether the institution itself should become a provider of food service. We

will continue to have the leasing of our extra space to tenants as another source of non-

tuition income.

Having a strong Board of Visitors (BOV) is essential to identifying and locating

other potential sources of revenue. The strategic plan calls for the BOV to have at least

12 to 15 members (by 2002) who are not only expected to contribute personally to the

institution but who provide a network to assist in forming business and community

partnerships and finding grants. We are well on the way with nine members.

Expanding our grant capacity is an area that sorely needs to be developed. It

takes time to establish a reputation to attract and cultivate grant-awarding organizations.

60

Currently grant generation is dependent on the energy and desire of individual faculty.

By the end of five years, our goal is to have personnel resources in the University

Relations office dedicated to grant generation. An accompanying factor in successful

grant activity is the research orientation of the faculty. Therefore, within the next five

years, the institution must invest in the professional development of its faculty by

increasing the funds available and it must explore the creation of doctoral programs in

both education and psychology.

The continuing education office, Center for Community and Professional

Learning, has only “reinvented” itself within the past few years. Even so, during

2000/2001, 1330 non-matriculated students were served, generating $210,877. It is

natural for an adult education campus to operate a life-long learning office and it is

essential in meeting the mission of the campus and our academic programs. As the

demand for increased certification in a variety of fields continues, the campus will build

its investment in continuing education. Within five years, the campus should see a well-

staffed continuing education office that is providing services to all the academic

programs and to the Seattle area in general.

Investing in our future is also key to future financial stability. We will continue to

set aside money to grow our capital reserve fund, maintain a President’s emergency

reserve fund, focus fundraising efforts on our endowment, and establish an internal

academic program development fund.

Summary

Antioch Seattle will continue to accomplish its purposes building on what we

have been able to accomplish during the past five years. We now have a strategic plan

and a process for annual review. Decisions as to campus priorities are made by a

representative group of faculty, staff, administrators and students serving on the

Planning and Budget Council. We have a structure that we believe will support and

continue to revitalize our academic programs. We are providing greater diversity of

student services with extended hours of availability. We are making strides in

increasing the diversity of our students and employees. We have expanded the use of

61

technology in support of our administrative functions. We have learned to live within our

means and establish a structure to approach sources of funding.

Our continued challenge is to support our academic programs as they engage in

the process of “reinventing” themselves; to build on our base of student services to

provide better support to all students, particularly those who are in off-site programs; to

reach out to the community to develop partnerships; and, to diversify our financial base.

Once the University and College decreases its dependency on the adult campuses for

revenue, released funds will greatly assist Seattle to invest in its future in such areas as

recruitment, fundraising, and program development. Until the financial system of

Antioch University is stabilized, Seattle and the other adult campuses will continue to

struggle with financial and enrollment issues.

63

CHAPTER FIVE

DEMONSTRATES INTEGRITY

Criterion 5: The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships.

Antioch Seattle strives to ensure consistency of expression regarding ethical

values and practices in publications and applications in a variety of academic,

administrative, admission, registration and financial aid practices. To determine if

statements of commitment, mission and policies are actually put into practice, a task

force reviewed Antioch’s publications; policy and procedure manuals; admissions,

registration and financial aid practices; advertising statements and materials; and the

university website. Information was compared among the items listed below with the

objective of investigating accuracy and consistency of information between publications,

statements of outcomes and statements of procedure or process:

Antioch University Seattle Catalog

Viewbook

Quarterly schedule of classes (multiple quarters)

General Application Handbook and two application handbooks for the education

programs

Financial aid brochures and instructional pamphlets

‘Frequently Asked Questions’ sheets for each program

Student handbook

Staff handbook

Policy and procedure manuals

FirstClass e-mail system

Website

Print and radio advertising

Students

The task force concluded that academic policies concerning admissions, financial

aid, Veterans Administration benefits, registration procedures, tuition refunds,

evaluation procedures, transfer credit and prior learning credits are appropriately

described in publications such as the catalog, the quarterly schedule, the application

handbook, and the new student handbook. Policy and procedures are also listed for

transcripts, visiting students, student visas, students with disabilities, grievance, security

64

and safety. A complete statement on access, equity and diversity is listed in

accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendment of

1972, and other state and federal laws.

The task force also concluded that admissions, registration, financial aid and

student accounts staff follow set guidelines to process applications, candidate

documentation, enrollment forms, transfer and prior learning credit, aid, scholarships,

loans and payments. These guidelines are stated in the annual catalog and quarterly

schedules and procedures are followed appropriately.

Faculty and Staff

Newly hired faculty and staff are given an orientation. Directors and managers

are given the Administrative and Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual from the

Human Resources office. This manual is updated as necessary. It delineates equal

opportunity and affirmative action policies, classifications of employment, evaluation

procedures, disciplinary action procedures, sexual harassment policies and procedures,

and other matters of importance.

It is the responsibility of human resources to make sure these policies are in

compliance with state and federal regulations. To that end, appropriate drug and sexual

harassment policies were recently implemented. However, some policies have either

not been clearly articulated or, if they have been articulated, have not yet been

published and distributed. An example includes policies and procedures related to

procedures for enforcement of drug policies. Human Resources is presently following

up on the concerns noted.

The task force also found that confusion has occurred because there are

different benefits available to different classes of employees. It was recommended that

all benefits for all classifications be listed in one central location.

The faculty handbook has not been revised in some time. Work has begun and

we expect to have it completed by January 2003. Development of a staff handbook is

under discussion.

65

Contractual Relationships

Contractual relationships fall into three types: tracks within academic programs;

continuing education; and tenants. We have contracts with three not for profit

organizations to provide tracks within two of our degree programs, Master of Arts in

Whole Systems Design and Master of Science in Management. We have a long-

standing contract with the Organizational Systems Renewal Institute to provide a

cohort-based track within the Whole Systems Design Program. We also have a

contract with the Organizational Systems Renewal Midwest to offer a similar program in

the Midwest. In both of these cases, the degree program provides oversight. More

recently, we have established a contract with the School for Innovative Leadership to

offer the Corporate Leadership Program, a cohort-based, off-site track within the

Management Program. Again the program provides oversight. Recently we have

reviewed the Corporate Leadership Program and have determined to end our contract

within 24 months (when the current group of Corporate Leadership Program students

completes the program). In order to establish a common approach to these

relationships, the President, in 1998, worked with legal counsel to develop consistency

in the contracts and establish a base contract for use in any new situation.

In the area of continuing education, we have had a long-term relationship with

the Heritage Institute, a not for profit organization. This organization provides

continuing education for teachers. We review syllabi, instructor credentials and

publications such as their catalog. More recently we have established relationships with

several other partners who provide continuing education to teachers. A standard format

is used as the basis for these contracts. We are in the midst of clarifying responsibility

for oversight.

Tenants in our building all have formal leases. Two are done on the standard

commercial brokers association lease form. Two others are done in a custom legal

format due to the nature of the organization and our relationship with them. One of the

two is a telecommunications company and required a more complex lease. The other is

a non-profit organization that serves homeless people. It was given a lease more

appropriate to a partnership where the values and needs of both organizations are

recognized.

66

Summary

The review of various documents, publications, policies and procedures confirms

that Antioch Seattle provides accurate and consistent information to the public, our

students, faculty and staff. Faculty and staff assemblies also serve as another forum for

sharing information and responding to questions and concerns.

67

CONCLUSION

We found that the mission of Antioch Seattle – to provide transformative

education that engages adult learners in lifelong development and agency in a changing

world – is clearly understood by all constituencies and is being carried out effectively.

Though clearly understood, the mission is not uniformly interpreted, in fact it is the

subject of lively and healthy debate. Furthermore, we found that faculty, staff and

administration are committed to create and deliver excellent and responsive academic

programs to our students and that there is evidence that those programs do indeed help

our students transform themselves.

Significant progress has been made in establishing a new governance system,

which involves faculty, staff and students in a clearer means for setting policy. More

specifically, the Academic Council has developed and implemented better processes for

review and recommendation of approval for new academic initiatives and academic

policies. It will now turn its attention to ongoing review of programs. Similarly, the

Planning and Budget Council has implemented a strategic planning process that

involves the community and helps ensure that we move forward with intention. Finally,

the Student Services Council is working toward a better infrastructure to support

academic programs and provide services to students.

The Centers for Innovation and Excellence, grounded in the four principles of

learning centered, access, community engagement and integration, have begun to take

shape. Furthermore, new academic leadership is now in place bringing experience and

vision.

We do have challenges. Six seem most critical. The first area of challenge

relates to enrollment. Enrollments remain relatively flat in spite of additional staffing

with increases in some programs and declines in others. Efforts are underway to re-

examine the factors that influence an individual’s choice and a possible restructure of

the unit.

The second area of challenge relates to finances. We have made progress in

diversifying sources of revenue but need to do more. We also look to the University to

68

stabilize finances overall so that we can count on the use of our contingencies and

reserves.

The third area of challenge relates to outcome assessment. Outcome

assessment has become an expectation for all academic programs and administrative

units. Moreover, the academic leadership has begun to take on the responsibility to

ensure that it remains a priority. However, our efforts are still in their infancy. Academic

programs vary with respect to quality of efforts and connection to program development.

This is an area where professional development of faculty is needed. Efforts were

made to institute in-house mentoring during 2001/2002 and to build more support in the

budget for these activities during 2002/2003.

The fourth area of challenge relates to our faculty, particularly use of faculty time

and support for professional development. We are currently reviewing faculty workload

with the hope of rebalancing responsibilities with a reduction in administrative work and

participation on campus committees. We are also exploring adoption of a ten-month

contract to provide a bigger block of time for professional development activities and

allocation of resources at the center level so those Directors can work with faculty to

support professional development in relationship to the needs of the center. A related

goal is to reduce the proportion of courses taught by adjunct faculty.

The fifth area of concern relates to further refinement of our governance

structure. Each of the Councils believes that they have made a lot of progress during

the past four years. However, there is still need for further clarification of roles and

responsibilities and processes and procedures. A continuing concern is the balance

between our values regarding widespread participation and the proportion of time

faculty and staff spend in meetings.

The final area of concern relates to infrastructure. Though much has been

accomplished in increasing our infrastructure and the professionalism of staff in those

areas, we still need to continue to expand our services, particularly in the areas related

to student services.

On balance this is an exciting time at Antioch Seattle and we believe that we

have what we need to continue to move forward.

69

APPENDIX A

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Board of Trustees

Chancellor

President

University Leadership Council

Board of Visitors

Executive Assistant

Secretary

Planning & Budget

Council

Integrated

Mktg.

Develop-

ment

Special Asst. to the

President

Admin

Asst.

ADA

Coord.

Academic Dean

Dean of Finance &

Administration

Dean of University Relations

Student

Services

Student Life

Office

A

cademic

Council

Faculty

Assembly

Staff Assembly

Heritage

Institute

Admissions

Cont.

Education

Budget

Anal

y

st

Bookstore

Front

Office

Psych. Center

Enroll-

ment

Services

Educ.

Center

Library

Services

Center for

Creative

Change

Registrar

B.A

Program

Computer

Technolo

gy

Admin.

Services

Account-

ing

Human

Resources

Facilities

Executive

Assistant

Special

Assistant

Admin.

Assistant

Financial

Aid

71

73

APPENDIX B

CORE FACULTY EVALUATION REPORT

75

CORE FACULTY EVALUATION REPORT

I. COVER SHEET

Date

Name:

Prepared:

Campus: Program:

Annual Aver. Percentage of

Job Title

Time Employed

Evaluation Time Period

Beginning Month/Yr.

Ending

Month/Yr.

Job Description & Goals (briefly stated)

APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation

Signature

Date

Program

Director

Evaluation

Committee

Campus

Provost

President

(multi-year

contract only)

76

II. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

A. Education

Year

Institution

Major/Field

Degree

Awarded

B. Previous Professional History

Attach Vita

ANNUAL SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC

AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

III. CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTIOCH

A. Teaching Activities

1. Courses Taught

Title

Credits

2. Independent Studies Supervised

Title

Credits

3. Curriculum Development (such as experimentation with new methods and

materials, development of new syllabi, etc.)

4. Course Evaluations

Attach Summaries

5. Additional Comments Regarding Your Teaching (knowledge of teaching,

stimulation of student learning, integration of theory and practice, etc.)

B. Advising Activities

1. Advising Load

Quarter

No. of Advisees

No. EMF

2. Advising Evaluations

Attach Summaries

77

3. Additional Comments Regarding Your Advising (accessibility to students,

encouraging self-direction, facilitating degree process, etc.)

C. Program/Center/University Activities (where applicable, be sure to indicate formal

administrative and leadership roles)

1. Program Assignments/Committees/Projects

2. Center Assignments/Committees/Projects

3. University-Wide Activities

4. Additional Comments Regarding Your Program/Center/University Activities

(contributions to program development, committee projects, etc.)

IV. CONTRIBUTIONS OUTSIDE OF ANTIOCH

A. Community Activities (where applicable, indicate formal administrative and

leadership roles)

1. Consulting/Training

2. Other Professional Practice (if applicable)

3. Participation in Community Organizations

B. Professional/Scholarly Activities (where applicable, indicate formal administrative

and leadership roles)

1. Consulting/Training

2. Other Professional Practice

3. Research: Describe on-going research/inquiry currently under way or initiated

over the past year.

4. Publications: Give bibliographical data on materials published during this

academic year; include monographs, articles, books, tests, etc.

5. Non-Published Materials

a. Documents Prepared for Classes

b. Documents Awaiting Publication

6. Other Creative Work (teaching aids, short stories, films, tapes, poems, learning

packets, art work, etc.)

78

7. Professional Memberships

8. Professional Presentations (speaking engagements, papers, readings, etc.)

9. Honors and Awards

C. Professional Development Activities

1. Conferences Attended

Activity

Dates

2. Workshops and Seminars Attended

Activity

Dates

3. Courses Taken

Activity

Dates

4. Other Relevant Activities (personal development, expansion of thinking, whole

person learning, etc.)

D. Comments Regarding Your Community/Professional/Scholarly Contributions

(service to others, advancement of new knowledge, enhancement of competencies,

etc.)

79

APPENDIX C

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON COURSES

2000/2001

81

APPENDIX C

Student Feedback on Courses

2000-2001

B.A.

in Liberal

Studies

Center

for

Creative

Change

Education Psychology

Overall

COURSE

ORGANIZATION/DESIGN

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

1. Clarity of course goals.

CORE

1-6 5.06 3-6

5.30

2-6

5.16

4-6

5.46

1-6

5.20

ADJUNCTS

1-6

4.94

2-6

5.19

1-6

5.13

2-6

5.14

1-6

5.10

2. Clarity of student responsibilities

and assessment criteria.

CORE

2-6

5.10

3-6

5.41

2-6

5.0

4-6

5.45

2-6

5.19

ADJUNCTS

2-6

4.95

2.6

5.13

3-6

5.27

2-6

5.10

2-6

5.13

3.Quality of course readings.

CORE

1-6

5.08

3-6

5.19

2-6

5.05

2-6

5.27

1-6

5.12

ADJUNCTS

2-6

4.95

3-6

5.24

2-6

5.13

3-6

5.18

2-6

5.12

4. Relevance of assigned work.

CORE

1-6

5.24

3-6

5.42

2-6

5.24

4-6

5.53

1-6

5.33

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.13

4-6

5.41

3-6

5.26

2-6

5.29

1-6

5.26

82

B.A.

in Liberal

Studies

Center

for

Creative

Change

Education

Psychology

Overall

COURSE

ORGANIZATION/

DESIGN

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

5. Opportunity for applying

what was learned.

CORE

1-6

4.99

3-6

5.35

2-6

5/26

2-6

5.57

1-6

5.24

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.12

3-6

5.29

2-6

5.18

2.6

5.18

1-6

5.19

6. Congruence between

stated course goals & depth

of course work.

CORE

1-6

5.06

3-6

5.36

3-6

5.30

2-6

5.51

1-6

5.27

ADJUNCTS

1-6

4.92

3-6

5.12

3-6

5.18

2-6

5.13

1-6

5.10

SUBTOTALS

1-6

5.05

2-6

5.29

1-6

5.18

2-6

5.27

1-6

5.18

INSTRUCTIONAL

KNOWLEDGE/

TEACHING

7. Instructor’s knowledge of

the course subject matter.

CORE

3-6

5.69

2-6

5.74

3-6

5.60

4-6

5.82

2-6

5.69

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.46

4-6

5.65

2-6

5.38

3-6

5.68

1-6

5.52

83

B.A.

in Liberal

Studies

Center

for Creative

Change

Education

Psychology

Overall

INSTRUCTIONAL

KNOWLEDGE/

TEACHING

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

8. Instructor’s enthusiasm.

CORE

4-6

5.73

4-6

5.76

3-6

5.61

4-6

5.82

3-6

5.72

ADJUNCTS

2-6

5.56

3-6

5.49

3-6

5.53

3-6

5.46

2-6

5.51

9. Quality of instructor’s

presentation.

CORE

2-6

5.51

3-6

5.62

3-6

5.39

3-6

5.52

2-6

5.50

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.16

3-6

5.31

3-6

5.33

3.6

5.24

1-6

5.26

10. Ability of instructor to

facilitate student discussion.

CORE

3-6

5.40

4-6

5.55

3-6

5.46

2-6

5.39

2-6

5.45

ADJUNCTS

1-6

4.98

1-6

5.25

1-6

5.14

2-6

5.09

1-6

5.11

11. Instructor’s presentation

of different points of view.

CORE

3-6

5.33

4-6

5.50

2-6

5.30

3-6

5.45

2-6

5.38

ADJUNCTS

1-6

4.84

2-6

5.09

1-6

5.13

2-6

4.83

1-6

4.98

84

B.A.

in Liberal

Studies

Center

for

Creative

Change

Education

Psychology

Overall

INSTRUCTIONAL

KNOWLEDGE/

TEACHING

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

12. Instructor’s responsiveness

to student’s learning needs.

CORE

3-6

5.40

3-6

5.43

1-6

5.33

3-6

5.52

1-6

5.40

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.0

1-6

5.23

1-6

5.25

2-6

5.20

1-6

5.18

13. Instructor’s incorporation

of multicultural perspectives.

CORE

2-6

5.45

3-6

5.37

2-6

5.33

3-6

5.20

2-6

5.37

ADJUNCTS

1-6

4.98

1-6

4.83

2-6

5.05

2-6

5.02

1-6

4.96

14. Quality of instructor

feedback on student work.

CORE

2-6

5.42

3-6

5.35

2-6

5.38

2-6

5.34

2-6

5.38

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.02

2-6

4.85

3-6

5.25

2-6

5.0

1-6

5.06

85

B.A.

in Liberal

Studies

Center

for Creative

Change

Education

Psychology

Overall

INSTRUCTIONAL

KNOWLEDGE/

TEACHING

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

Range/

Mean

15. Degree of challenge to

do your best work.

CORE

1-6

5.22

3-6

5.51

3-6

5.40

3-6

5.56

1-6

5.39

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.09

2-6

5.13

1-6

5.21

1-6

5.08

1-6

5.13

SUBTOTALS

1-6

5.31

1-6

5.39

1-6

5.34

1-6

5.31

1-6

5.33

GENERAL SUMMARY

16. The course as a whole.

CORE

1-6

5.14

2-6

5.49

3-6

5.32

4-6

5.61

1-6

5.34

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.01

3-6

5.13

1-6

5.14

2-6

5.23

1-6

5.13

17. The instructor overall

CORE

2-6

5.55

4-6

5.71

3-6

5.50

4-6

5.34

2-6

5.51

ADJUNCTS

1-6

5.19

2-6

5.41

2-6

5.34

3-6

5.39

1-6

5.33

KEY SCORES

1 = Very Poor

3 = Fair

5 = Very Good

2 = Poor

4 = Good

6 = Exceptional

87

APPENDIX D

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT FORMS

89

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

(Instructional Degree Program)

(Degree Level)

(Assessment Period Covered)

(Date Submitted)

Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage:

Institutional Mission Reference:

Campus/University Goal(s) Supported:

.

Program Mission:

Intended Educational (Student) Outcomes:

1.

2.

3.

4

5.

90

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

(Instructional Degree Program)

(Degree Level)

(Assessment Period Covered)

(Date Submitted)

Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:

NOTE: There should be one form C for each intended outcome listed on form B. Intended outcome should

be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome number entered in the blank spaces.

First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:

Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:

Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:

Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:

Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:

91

Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:

92

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

(Administrative or Educational Support Unit)

(Assessment Period Covered)

(Date Submitted)

Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage:

Institutional Mission/Goal(s) Reference:

Administrative or Educational Support Unit Mission Statement:

Intended Administrative Objectives:

1.

2.

3.

4.

93

5.

94

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

(Administrative or Educational Support Unit)

(Assessment Period Covered)

(Date Submitted)

Intended Administrative or Educational Support Objective:

NOTE: There should be one form C for each intended objective listed on form B. The intended unit objective

should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended objective number entered in the blank spaces.

First Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:

Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

Use of Results to Improve Unit Services:

Second Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:

95

Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

Use of Results to Improve Unit Services: