Page 1

Antioch University Southern California

Self-Study Report

Submitted to

Commission on Institutions of Higher Education

The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

August 2002

Antioch University Southern California

13274 Fiji Way

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

iii

Table of Contents

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………..1

Chapter 1. Introduction……...……………………………………………………………3

I. Regional/Campus History and Development………………………………………….3

II. Overview Of Significant Changes Since 1993………………………………………..4

A. Key Milestone…………………………………………………………………4

B. Program Changes...…..………..………………………………………………4

C. Facilities...…......………………………………………………………………6

D. Technology…........…………………………………………………………….6

E. Personnel……....………………………………………………………………6

F. Governance...….....……………………………………………………………8

III. Institutional Response To 1993 NCA Concerns………….…………………………..8

IV. Self-Study Process…………………………………………………………………...12

V. Description Of Self-Study Report Format……………………………………………13

Chapter 2. Criterion One...………………………………………………………………15

I. Mission Statement……………………………………………………………………15

II. Priorities 1993 To 2002……………………………………………………………....17

Chapter 3. Criterion Two…..……………………………………………………………23

I. Organizational Structures And Governance…....……………………………………23

A. Southern California Region………..………………………………………...23

B. Los Angeles Campus…...……………………………………………………24

C. Santa Barbara Campus………………………………………………………27

II. Financial and Physical Resources…………………………………………………...30

A. Enrollment and Financial Resources………………………………………...30

B. Physical Resources…………………………………………………………..33

III. Academic Resources...……………………………………………………………...36

A. B.A. in Liberal Studies Programs…………………………………………...37

iv

III. Academic Resources (cont)

B. M.A. in Clinical Psychology Programs...……………………………………40

C. M.A. in Psychology with Individualized Concentration Programs...…..……44

D. M.A. in Organizational Management Programs………..……………………46

E. M.A. in Education Programs…..…………………………………………….48

F. M.F.A. in Creative Writing Program...………………………………………50

G. Antioch Counseling Center………………………………………………….53

IV. Support Services and Human Resources...……...…………………………………54

A. Administrative Area Support Services..…………………………………….54

B. Student Support Services……………………………………………………56

C. Academic Support Services………...………………………………………..59

D. Instructional Resources………..…………………………………………….62

E. Auxiliary Services...…………………………………………………………64

V. Human Resources...….………………………………………………………………66

A. Students....……………………………………………………………………66

B. Faculty..………………………………………………………………………68

C. Staff…………………………………………………………………………..73

Chapter 4. Criterion Three…...…………………………………………………………77

I. Assessment of Student Learning And Progress...……………………………………78

A. Direct Assessment of Student Learning and Progress..…...…………………78

B. Indirect Assessment of Student Learning and Progress...……………………80

II. Program Assessment…………………………………………………………………84

A. University-Wide Program Review Model...…………………………………85

B. Program Assessment Plan..…………..………………………………………85

Chapter 5. Criterion Four…...…...………………………………………………………91

I. Institutional Planning…..…………………………………………………………….91

II. Future Prospects and Concerns…….……………………………………..……....….92

A. University-wide Organization..………………………………………………92

B. Regional Issue…...…………………………………………………………...93

C. Campus Governance..……..………………………………………………....93

D. Size and Locations of Campuses…………………………………………….94

E. Program Augmentation and Multicultural Infusion……….………………...95

F. New Program Development………….……………………………………...96

G. Human Resource Issues….…………..……………………………………....96

H. Fiscal Issues...……………..…………………………………………………97

v

Chapter 6. Criterion Five….………………..…………………………………………...99

I. Policy Development…………..……………………………………………………...99

II. Exemplary Policies and Practices….………………………………………...……..100

Chapter 7. Conclusion……....…………….……………………………………………103

Appendices...…………….………………………………………………………….…..105

A. University-wide Mission Statement

B. AUSC Mission Statement

C. University-wide Priorities

D. AUSC Strategic Plan

E. AUSC 2001-03 Priorities

F. Regional and Campus Organizational Structure

G. Programmatic Desired Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

vi

List of Tables and Figure

Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary……………………………………..13

Table 3-1. Los Angeles Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)……..31

Table 3-2. Santa Barbara Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)…...32

Table 3-3. AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)...……………...69

Table 3-4. Gender and Ethnicity of Faculty by Employment Category

(As of Fall 2001)….…………………………………………………………70

Table 3-5. Terminal and Professional Degrees/Credentials Held by AUSC Faculty

by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)………………………………..70

Table 3-6. FTE AUSC Staff and Administration by Employment Category

(As of Fall 2001)…………………………………………………………….75

Table 3-7. Gender and Ethnicity of Staff and Administration by Employment

Category (As of Fall 2001)………………………………………………….75

Table 4-1. University-Wide Program Review Schedule………………………………..85

Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005)……………………...88

Figure 4-1. AUSC Program Assessment Model………………………………………...87

1

Preface

The self-study process for Antioch University Southern California began in the Spring of

2000, and the majority of the Self-Study Report was written during Fall 2001 and Winter

2002. During the latter period, President Mark Schulman announced his desire to leave the

presidency and assume a position in the Chancellor’s Office. The Board of Trustees

approved this transition effective April 1, 2002, at which time Los Angeles campus

Executive Dean Chloe Reid was appointed Interim President of AUSC.

The Self-Study Report obviously was written with the priorities and objectives of former

President Schulman in mind, and with his departure, many of these priorities and objectives

are open to revision. This process is currently underway with the leadership of Interim

President Reid, and the Self-Study Report indicates some of the changes that have occurred

since the change of leadership. AUSC will brief the visitation team during the onsite review

regarding further changes that may have occurred after the July 1, 2002, closing date for

changes to the Self-Study Report.

2

3

Chapter 1. Introduction

This chapter provides general background information for understanding Antioch University

Southern California (AUSC) and this Self-Study Report. Areas pursued include:

Regional/campus history and development, overview of significant changes since 1993,

institutional response to 1993 NCA concerns, the Regional self-study process, and a description

of the Self-Study Report format.

I. REGIONAL/CAMPUS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

AUSC is one of the organizational units of Antioch University and is composed of Antioch

University Los Angeles (AULA) and Antioch University Santa Barbara (AUSB). It was

created as a single administrative unit within the University in 1986. The two campuses in

the Region share a common Mission Statement, general approaches to programs, some

common administrative personnel, fiscal guidelines, and overall leadership through the

Office of the President. Although the campuses exercise considerable independence, they

collaborate on some curricular issues, human resource policies, and fiscal strategies. The

Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education licenses each campus to operate

in the state of California, and each campus is authorized to recommend candidates for

teaching credentials to the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing.

AULA was founded in 1972 and enrolls approximately 700 students each quarter. Students

are primarily from Southern California – the Antelope Valley on the north, San Diego on the

south, and Palm Springs on the east -- although increasingly students come from across the

nation and around the world. AUSB was founded in 1977 and enrolls approximately 300

students each quarter. Students are primarily from the Santa Barbara area, although students

also come from Thousand Oaks on the south to San Luis Obispo on the north, and some

students relocate to the Santa Barbara area from other parts of the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

The average AULA student is 36-years old; 75% are women; 23% are persons of color; 65%

are enrolled in graduate programs; and about 93% receive financial aid. The average AUSB

student is 36-years old; 72% are women; 18% are persons of color; 60% are enrolled in

graduate programs; and over 75% receive financial aid. At the Los Angeles campus, about

22 Core Faculty, 100 Associate and Adjunct Faculty, and 30 staff serve the needs of students,

teach and conduct research, and provide community service each quarter. At the Santa

Barbara campus, about 12 Core Faculty, 75 Associate and Adjunct Faculty, and 20 staff

serve the needs of students, teach and conduct research, and provide community service each

quarter. Approximately 60% of faculty in the Region possess the doctorate or other terminal

degrees in their professional fields. Alumni now number about 5,000, and they hold

significant positions in business, education, non-profit organizations, and social service

agencies.

4

II. OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE 1993

The period since the May 1993 NCA visit to AUSC has been active, fruitful, and

challenging. The campuses have grown in reputation in their communities, new programs

have been instituted, and new leadership has assumed responsibility for the Region.

Significant changes since 1993 include those in the areas of key milestones, program

modifications and additions, facilities, technology, personnel, and governance.

A. Key Milestones

A number of major events have highlighted the period since the last NCA visit. First, the

campuses each celebrated anniversaries marking their establishment in Southern California.

In May 1997, the Los Angeles campus hosted some 300 alumni, faculty, and staff at the

Doubletree Hotel in Marina del Rey for an evening of reminiscence and exuberance to

commemorate its twenty-fifth year of service to the Los Angeles community. In October

1997, the Santa Barbara campus hosted students, alumni, faculty, and staff in newly

constructed space to recognize its twentieth year of providing quality education in the Santa

Barbara area. Second, each campus successfully renewed its licensure with the state of

California. In May 1997, the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education

extended each campus’ licensure for 5 years, the longest period possible under legislation.

Again in 2001, each campus gained licensure renewal for 5 years with the Bureau of Private

Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Third, the Los Angeles campus awarded its first

honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree to the Reverend Dr. Cecil L. Murray, a prominent

activist clergyman, at its June 1995 commencement ceremony. Finally, during the period

since the last NCA visit, each campus has endured earthquakes, fires, and floods. The worst

natural disaster was the January 17, 1994, earthquake that moderately damaged the Los

Angeles campus and that left many students, faculty, and staff in awe of and shaken by the

power of such occurrences.

B. Program Changes

Several modifications and additions to existing programs occurred since the last NCA visit.

The BA Programs at each campus introduced new concentrations to the curriculum including

Creative Writing (1997-98) and Child Studies (1998-99) at the Los Angeles campus and

Social Service Administration (1996-97) and Communication/Creative Writing (1998-99) at

the Santa Barbara campus. The Los Angeles campus BA Program also enhanced its math

and writing assessment and remediation emphasis of all incoming students by strengthening

the Math and Writing Center with the appointment of a full-time Core Faculty member. In

Fall 2001, the Santa Barbara BA Program initiated its low-residency Weekend College

Program for business/management students, making use of online study between residencies.

(The Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program also offers its program in the Weekend College

format.)

5

The MACP Programs at each campus have incorporated multi-cultural components into the

curriculum and have made PSY 545 (Society and the Individual) a required entry-level

course for introducing essential concepts and attitudes (Los Angeles campus only). Each

campus also has shifted program emphasis from a private practice model to a community-

based therapeutic model (begun in 1996-97) based on changes occurring in the profession.

In addition, new concentrations have been added to the curriculum at each campus in the

MACP Programs including Child Studies (1997-98) and Community Psychology (2000-01)

at the Los Angeles campus and Integrative Yoga (1996-97), Organizational Psychology

(1997-98), and Professional Development and Career Counseling (1998-99) at the Santa

Barbara campus. The Los Angeles campus MACP Program also extended its successful one-

day-a-week delivery model to Saturdays (1997-98) to serve additional adult student

populations.

The MAOM Programs at each campus solidified curricular offerings during the period and

now offers three concentrations at the Los Angeles campus (human resource management,

organizational development, and leadership) and optional individualized concentrations at the

Santa Barbara campus (e.g., human resource management, non-profit management, and

organizational psychology). In addition, the Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program offers

the degree via the low-residency Weekend College option that began in Fall 2001.

In addition to these modifications of and additions to existing programs, two new degree

programs have been added to the curriculum. The Los Angeles campus added a Master of

Fine Arts in Creative Writing Program (MFA Program) that accepted its first cohort of

students in June 1997, and each campus initiated a Master of Arts in Education Program

(MAE Program) and teaching credential program (Summer 1999) authorized by the

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Project InterAct, a cooperative community outreach program with Inglewood High School

for at-risk students, was active at the time of the last NCA visit and continued until 1995 at

the Los Angeles campus. In 1998, the Community Humanities Education Program (CHE

Program), a donor-supported program to provide humanities exposure to economically

disadvantaged adults, was initiated at the Los Angeles campus and continues to thrive today.

At the Santa Barbara campus, a continuing education program was launched in 2000-01 to

serve local and professional community needs. Community and Professional Education

(CAPE) offers a variety of courses, some for Continuing Education Units and others for

general non-credit education.

To augment the academic program, several educational travel opportunities have been

extended to students and alumni over the past several years. These experiences include the

following Los Angeles campus trips: Costa Rica (March 1994), Cuba (March 1995), the

Ashland Shakespeare Festival (June 1995), and Costa Rica (March 1998). Santa Barbara

campus travel opportunities include: Hong Kong (September 1996), London (September

1997), Italy (September 1998), Beijing (September 1999), Prague (September 2000), Beijing

(September 2001 and then re-scheduled to May 2002), and Spain (September 2002).

6

C. Facilities

Since the last NCA visit, each campus spent considerable time and effort attempting to

identify and purchase property that would provide permanent homes for their activities.

Several of these efforts appeared to be near completion, but the rise in commercial real estate

values during the mid-1990s and the lack of available financing precluded this from

happening. Each campus, therefore, occupies the same facility today that it did in 1993 – the

major difference being that each campus has expanded the number of square feet of space

that it leases. Overall, Los Angeles campus space has increased from about 25,300 square

feet in 1993 to about 30,525 square feet in 2001. Overall, Santa Barbara campus space has

increased from about 6,700 square feet in 1993 to about 14,500 square feet in 2001.

D. Technology

The technological sophistication of each campus in the Region increased significantly since

1993. In the academic area, all Core Faculty at each campus have desktop computers and are

on local area networks maintained by each campus. Core Faculty routinely use email as the

primary method of communication, and access to the Internet is available from desktop

computers. Each campus also has developed computer laboratories that are used by students

for coursework and online bibliographic research. These laboratories as well as selected

classrooms are equipped with Internet access and projection devices for instructional

purposes. In addition, each campus uses technology to directly provide instruction to

students, and some Core Faculty members have been trained in a University-sponsored

online instructional project designed to increase faculty knowledge in this rapidly developing

area. The MFA Program is the institution’s first low-residency online program.

In the administrative area, considerable technological development also occurred since 1993.

This development was sparked by University-wide de-centralization efforts in the early1990s

that required the acquisition of equipment and the training of all administrative personnel.

All staff at each campus have desktop computers and are on local area networks maintained

by each campus. Staff routinely use email as the primary method of communication, and

access to the University’s integrated software package (Datatel) and the Internet are available

to staff from desktop computers. These developments have significantly improved the

campuses’ ability to maintain student records and track student progress through the

institution.

E. Personnel

Numerous changes have occurred in personnel since the 1993 NCA visit. Paramount among

these changes was the appointment of Mark Schulman, Ph.D., to the position of President of

AUSC effective September 1, 1998. (The title of the chief executive officer for the Region

was changed from Provost to President in February 1998 by the Board of Trustees.)

Schulman succeeded long-term President Dale A. Johnston, Ph.D. (1989 to 1998). Upon

7

Schulman leaving the Presidency effective April 1, 2002, Los Angeles Executive Dean Chloe

Reid has served as Interim President of AUSC.

Several steps were taken during the mid-1990s to solidify specific functions at the Regional

level. Among these functions were fiscal affairs, human resources, and academic and

administrative computing. Because the campuses did not feel that their specific needs were

being met, the latter two functions were quickly returned to the campuses, but the chief fiscal

officer position began in 1994-95 and continues today. Donna Starr, M.A., held this position

from its inception until June 30, 2000 at which time Parminder Bajaj, M.B.A., assumed the

position.

The impulse to minimize Regional positions continued with the appointment of Mark

Schulman as President in 1998. Shortly after his appointment, the Regional Dean of

Academic Affairs (Laurien Alexandre, Ph.D.) assumed a position at the University-level, and

former President Schulman eliminated the Regional Academic Dean position. He created

Executive and Academic Dean positions at each campus in an effort to provide more

campus-level leadership and to free him for work in development and external relations.

This arrangement has worked well, particularly at the Santa Barbara campus where Donna

Starr (through June 30, 2000) and Diana Sloane, Ph.D. (since July 1, 2000), and Richard

Whitney, M.A., respectively, have held these positions. At the Los Angeles campus, the

Executive Dean position has functioned well under the leadership of Chloe Reid, J.D., but the

Academic Dean position was difficult to fill and remained vacant for almost 2 years until the

appointment of Linda Moody, Ph.D., in August 2001.

The salary improvement plan that was in place at the time of the NCA 1993 visit was

operational during much of the 1990s, and modest salary targets for Core Faculty, staff, and

administration were met by the mid-1990s. Adjunct Faculty salaries also have increased

some since 1993. Despite these increases, constrained institutional resources and escalating

salaries generally in academia have produced current salaries that are below those at

comparable institutions.

The Core/Associate Faculty seniority-rotation sabbatical leave plan that provides for one-

quarter leave after every 3 years of service was just beginning to function when the NCA

visited the campuses in 1993. Core/Associate Faculty are placed on a revolving list so they

know when their next period of professional development and rejuvenation occurs. That plan

continues to operate with the Los Angeles campus having initiated the plan in 1990-91 and

the Santa Barbara campus beginning the process in 1993-94. (The sabbatical leave plan has

been modified in some years because of fiscal constraints.) In September 1996, the Board of

Trustees also approved another policy affecting Core Faculty. The faculty rank plan provides

a voluntary process whereby Core Faculty members at the two campuses may apply for and

be awarded traditional academic rank. To date, only three people at the Los Angeles campus

have elected to use the process; Core Faculty at the Santa Barbara campus voted not to adopt

the policy.

Because of fiscal constraints that occurred following enrollment decreases that began in

1994-95, significant personnel reductions were necessary at the Los Angeles campus. Many

8

positions have been left unfilled, and during 1996-97, real reductions in personnel were

necessary. During this year, some $330,000 was cut from the operating budget resulting in

two Core Faculty members, one staff member, and two administrators being released from

employment. Several other staff positions also were reduced in percentage of effort. Since

1998-99, enrollment at the Los Angeles campus has stabilized or increased slightly

(primarily the result of the addition of two new programs), but personnel increases have not

yet followed suit.

F. Governance

A basic governance plan was in place at the time of the NCA visit in 1993, and that plan was

modified in minor ways during the 1995-96 year. After taking office in September 1998,

former President Schulman made other changes to the governance plan. These changes

include:

1. Focusing the President’s role primarily on development efforts and external relations.

2. Eliminating the Regional Dean of Academic Affairs position and instituting two key

administrative positions at each campus: an Executive Dean (chief operating officer)

and an Academic Dean (chief academic officer).

3. Streamlining the decision-making process with more concern for timely and informed

decision making, rather than excessive concern for process.

4. Instituting a Regional approach to development of the annual budget through the

Budget Advisory Committee.

III. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO 1993 NCA CONCERNS

As a result of the May 1993 NCA team visitation to all Antioch University campuses, a

Report of a Visit to Antioch University was prepared, and because the “. . . [visitation] team

evaluated the University as a single institution” (p. 1), it is often difficult to determine which

recommendations apply directly to AUSC. The Regional NCA Steering Committee,

therefore, prepared a summary of recommendations of the 1993 NCA visitation report, and

the issues raised in this summary are responded to here. A copy of the Synopsis of

Recommendations and Suggestions from 1993 NCA Visitation Team Report is available in

the campus Resource Rooms.

The seven areas in which recommendations were made by the 1993 visitation team report

include:

1. University Reorganization. On balance, the University reorganization that began in

1993-94 has been beneficial to AUSC; this was particularly the case during the first 5

years of implementation (through June 30, 1997, when Alan E. Guskin left the

9

position of Chancellor). The visitation team report suggested that one purpose of

reorganization is “to empower and motivate operating units” [campuses] (p. 13), and

to a large degree, that has occurred in the Region. The President has assumed

increased responsibility and authority since the mid-1990s, and the Regional chief

financial officer has assumed more control of and responsibility for the campuses’

budgets. Personnel at the campuses also have an increased sense of responsibility and

professionalism regarding their roles in their respective areas.

Since the late 1990s, the benefits of reorganization have grown particularly tenuous

from the perspective of AUSC. Changing economic circumstances within the

University have caused an erosion of some of the benefits that occurred early in the

reorganization process. The promised reduction of University overhead has occurred,

but AUSC provides over $800,000 annually for University-wide expenses (nearly

10% of the annual budget), and recent embargoing of Regional reserve funds by the

University constitutes a de facto increase in University overhead to the Region. From

a campus perspective, there is still work to be done regarding the overhead system

within the University. This may be one of the issues addressed as the Board of

Trustees continues its efforts to re-examine the federal system and its appropriateness

for University governance.

2. Faculty Issues. The 1993 visitation team report raised several issues related to the

faculty of the Region. These include the following:

a. Core and Adjunct Faculty Salaries (p. 17). A salary improvement plan was in

place for the 1989-95 period for Core Faculty, and annual across-the-board

increases have been provided in some years since then. A number of increases to

the Adjunct Faculty salary schedule also have been made, including the most

recent increase in January 2001. These increases for Core and Adjunct Faculty

have improved the level of compensation compared to what it was in 1993, but

compensation has not kept pace with inflation or with salaries at comparable

institutions in Southern California.

b. Number of Core Faculty (pp. 19 and 20). The institution can report that the

number of Core Faculty has increased since 1993. These increases have been

primarily in new programs added to the curriculum, and several programs that

existed when the NCA last visited the Region have lost Core Faculty members as

a result of fluctuations in program enrollment, normal attrition, or reduction in

force. Details regarding the exact figures are available in the campus Resource

Rooms in documents entitled Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002.

c. Role of Faculty Development (p. 44). With the assistance of annual grants from

the Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, faculty have been supported in professional

development activities. In general, the University attempts to provide each Core

Faculty member institutional support to attend one conference per year in his/her

field of study. Some Core Faculty members elect to attend more than one

conference per year, and the institution cooperates by providing flexible schedules

10

to make this possible. With the expiration of the Pierson-Lovelace faculty

development grant after 2000-01, it has been difficult to maintain consistent levels

of support for faculty development, and securing funds for this purpose is a high

priority for fundraising efforts. (It should be noted that the Santa Barbara campus

has continued to fund professional development at the level provided for by the

Pierson-Lovelace grant.) The visitation team also recommended that faculty

development be linked to student outcomes work in the student and program

assessment areas, and some campus-based work has been done on this for Core

Faculty.

d. Core Faculty Involvement in Administrative Activities (p. 17). The 1998-99

reorganization of campus structures to provide for an Executive Dean and an

Academic Dean at each campus enhanced the decision-making process at the

campuses by clarifying when Core Faculty involvement is appropriate and when

it is not. In general, there has been a streamlining of the governance structure in

the Region to improve performance and eliminate overemphasis on process. The

involvement of Core Faculty in administrative activities, therefore, has decreased

some, although more needs be done in this area.

e. Year-Around Academic Calendar (p. 19). The visitation team also linked the

quarterly year-round academic calendar to faculty burnout and lack of

involvement in professional development activities. This is a troublesome issue,

and Core Faculty, except during sabbatical leave, continue to have contracts that

require them to teach and advise students year-round. Former President

Schulman, however, pledged to redefine the full-time Core Faculty load to

provide one quarter off every year and to secure the budgetary adjustments

necessary to accomplish this pledge.

f. Over-Reliance on Adjunct Faculty (p. 18). Finally, the visitation team was

concerned about over-reliance on Adjunct Faculty because the practice may be

academically questionable and relegates programmatic and quasi-administrative

tasks to Core Faculty -- thus contributing to Core Faculty burnout. Reliance on

Adjunct Faculty has not changed substantially since the last NCA visit, and in

several of the practitioner-based programs (the MACP, MAOM, and MAE

Programs), use of professionals in the area is seen as a distinct advantage for the

programs. Core Faculty burnout is still a concern, although less than in 1993.

The new campus organizational structure with an Executive Dean and an

Academic Dean at each campus has relieved Core Faculty of some quasi-

administrative functions, and since 1991, all Core Faculty receive a one-quarter

sabbatical leave after every 3 years of service. In addition, as resources become

available, additional Core Faculty will be hired at the campuses, thus reducing the

need for reliance on Adjunct Faculty.

3. Program Issues. The 1993 visitation team cited two specific programmatic concerns

(p. 28). First, the team was concerned that the Los Angeles campus MACP Program

needed to clarify more specifically what a multicultural perspective in their program

11

means and how this relates to future developments in clinical psychology. The

MACP Program faculty has worked diligently to define and refine their approach to a

multicultural clinical psychology program since the 1993 visit, and the campus

believes that it has been completely responsive to NCA concerns. The 2002 visitation

team is invited to verify this contention during its sessions with the MACP faculty

and by examining the extensive documentation provided in the campus Resource

Room. Similarly, the Santa Barbara campus believes that it has been responsive to

NCA concerns regarding development of a Weekend College as a way of dealing

with the City-imposed enrollment cap. A Weekend College began Fall 2001 with

degrees in business/management, and the City enrollment cap was renegotiated

favorably when the City in 1997 and 2001 authorized building improvements.

4. Program Assessment. The 1993 visitation team report made a number of

recommendations regarding program assessment (pp. 41-4), and considerable time,

energy, and resources have been devoted to addressing these concerns by faculty and

administration at each campus. The campuses believe they have been responsive to

NCA concerns, and the 2002 visitation team is invited to review documentation of the

progress that has been made during their visit to the campuses and by reading Chapter

4 of this Self-Study Report.

5. Financial Aid. The 1993 visitation team report indicated concern about the

distribution of financial aid resources to Antioch College and the adult campuses --

namely, a disproportionate amount of financial aid is allocated to the College in

comparison to the adult campuses (p. 29). This issue is not one that AUSC can

address unilaterally, and to date, no University-wide discussion has occurred

regarding this issue. The effects of the current disproportionate financial aid

allocation system, therefore, remain and have contributed to the difficulty of

recruiting adult students to AUSC campuses.

6. Campus Development Efforts. The 1993 visitation team report suggested that as the

number of alumni at the adult campuses increases so efforts to raise funds from this

constituency should increase. (p. 37). Numerous attempts to implement an effective

development function at the two campuses have occurred over the past 10 years with

nominal success. Former President Schulman expanded the number of persons on the

Board of Visitors and increased their role in fundraising for the Los Angeles campus.

He also committed major portions of his time to the implementation of development

efforts at each campus and did substantial work with major donors in the Region with

the expectation that significant funds would be raised for program development,

faculty development, technology enhancement, and other critically needed functions.

A consultant and Development Team currently work at the Santa Barbara campus on

fundraising (e.g., annual fund, scholarships, and grant writing). The building of a

development function within the Region is a major objective of the President’s

Office.

7. Facilities Issues. Issues related to the purchase of campus facilities and creating a

“quiet space” for students at the Santa Barbara campus were raised by the 1993

12

visitation team report (p. 39). The status of developments in these areas has been

addressed above in II. Overview of Significant Changes Since 1993, C. Facilities, and

are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3. Criterion Two, II. Financial and Physical

Resources.

IV.

SELF-STUDY PROCESS

With the leadership of former President Schulman, a broad-based Regional plan was

developed for the self-study process. In Spring 2000, a Regional Steering Committee was

appointed by the President to coordinate the self-study process for the two campuses.

Strategically, it was determined that the normal administrative structure would be used to

facilitate the development of the Self-Study Report so the Regional Steering Committee

includes Deans from the campus and Regional levels as well as former President Johnston,

who was asked to Chair the group, and an academic support person. The Regional Steering

Committee, therefore, includes:

Dale Johnston, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty, Chair

Dorothy Granger, Academic Resource Consultant (through August 31,2001)

Linda Moody, Los Angeles campus Academic Dean (from September 1, 2001)

Chloe Reid, Interim President of AUSC and Los Angeles campus Executive Dean

Richard Whitney, Santa Barbara campus Academic Dean

Donna Starr, former Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean/current MAOM Program

Chair (through December 31, 2000)

Diana Sloane, Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean (from January 1, 2001)

Parminder Bajaj, Southern California CFO

Blair Smith, Los Angeles campus Academic Program Development Coordinator

The Regional Steering Committee met quarterly beginning Fall 2000 to discuss NCA

accreditation criteria, self-study process issues, the organization of the Self-Study Report, and

responsibilities for preparation of Self-Study Report material. Key documents generated by

the Regional Steering Committee to guide the self-study process include the following:

Southern California Regional NCA Process Schedule

Self-Study Report Outline

Synopsis of Recommendations and Suggestions from 1993 NCA Visitation Team Report

Self-Study Report Responsibilities

NCA Patterns of Evidence

Resource Room Material for NCA Visit

These documents as well as the minutes of Regional Steering Committee meetings are

available in campus Resource Rooms for review.

The self-study process was coordinated by the Regional Steering Committee Chair who also

served as the editor of the Self-Study Report, and the Deans in their respective areas worked

with their constituencies. As various areas produced written material, an iterative process

13

occurred between the Dean and the area, and after the Dean had consolidated material into a

narrative, an iterative process occurred between the Dean and the Regional Steering

Committee Chair as the Self-Study-Report was generated. A similar process occurred

between the Regional Steering Committee and campus constituencies. In a word, care was

taken to involve all elements of the campuses in the process of developing the Self-Study

Report.

A detailed schedule of activities for the preparation of the Self-Study Report is provided in

the Southern California Regional NCA Process Schedule that is available in the Resource

Rooms at each campus. A summary of key activities in the self-study process is provided in

Table 1-1.

V. DESCRIPTION OF SELF-STUDY REPORT FORMAT

Each chapter that follows in this report addresses one of the five NCA Criteria and an

additional chapter provides conclusions that emerge from the self-study process. This report

is designed to reflect the organizational structure and distinct identity of the two campuses

that compose AUSC. Consequently within each chapter, there is a Regional component that

addresses issues common to the two campuses followed, where appropriate, by sections that

address issues unique to a specific campus. The Regional Steering Committee believes that

this approach captures the distinct spirit of each campus and does not homogenize two

distinct campus and educational cultures.

Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary

Activity

Date Accomplished

Regional Steering Committee appointed

June 1, 2000

Presentation to the campuses regarding the

nature of the self-study process

November 6, 2000 (Santa Barbara campus)

November 13, 2000 (Los Angeles campus)

Deans organize self-study process in their

respective areas

Fall 2000

Deans and constituencies interact regarding

area objectives, describe activities, and assess

performance

Winter and Spring 2001

Deans submit written material to Regional

Steering Committee Chair

July 1, 2001

First draft of Self-Study Report distributed to

Regional and University-wide Steering

Committees for review and comments

August 30, 2001

Second draft of Self-Study Report distributed

to Regional Steering Committee

November 16, 2001

Community Meetings held at each campus to

review Self-Study Report

December 3, 2001 (Los Angeles campus)

December 5, 2001 (Santa Barbara campus)

Self-Study Report submitted to University-

wide Steering Committee

December 20, 2001

14

Table 1-1. Self-Study Process Activities Summary (Cont.)

Activity

Date Accomplished

Board of Trustees initial review of Self-Study

Report

February 9, 2002

Board of Trustees approves Self-Study

Report.

June 8, 2002

Self-Study Report submitted to NCA

August 2002

NCA visit to the campuses

October 14 to 16, 2002

15

Chapter 2. Criterion One

“The institution has clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with its mission and

appropriate to an institution of higher education.”

This chapter of the Self-Study Report reviews the development and effectiveness of the

AUSC Mission Statement and provides examples of how the campuses have responded to

established priorities during the 1993 to 2002 period.

I. MISSION STATEMENT

AUSC shares with other campuses of the University a commitment to the historic mission of

Antioch College, the progenitor of the adult campuses. Regional and campus-based program

Mission Statements are consistent with the University-wide Mission Statement (Appendix A)

and reflect the distinct character and spirit of AUSC. In particular, AUSC is committed to

integrating work and study, to fostering the development of students as “whole persons,” and to

educating students with a commitment to social change.

AUSC is a distinctive institution operating in a large, urban, multicultural, and ethnically diverse

environment. It provides an alternative to other educational institutions in the area because of

several distinguishing features – its small scale, its value-based educational approach, its

commitment to social justice, its preparation of adults to challenge the professions, its emphasis

on critical thinking and self-awareness, and its pedagogic philosophy that recognizes the value of

experiential learning. Antioch students receive an education that emphasizes collaboration,

ethics, and moral responsibility. Succinctly stated, AUSC shares a commitment to Antioch’s

historic tripartite educational model – academic excellence, experiential learning, and

community service.

An important part of AUSC’s raison d’etre is to provide this kind of education to adults, an

historically underserved population in American higher education. In form and content, the

institution strives to offer education relevant to adults, with respect for adult students’ multiple

roles, and with acknowledgment of learning that adults experience outside the formal classroom

and prior to entering academic programs. To accomplish these objectives, each campus in the

Region offers flexible class schedules, interactive classroom environments, opportunities for

individualized study, and high levels of student-faculty interaction.

The AUSC Mission Statement (Appendix B) was developed during the latter part of 2000 and

was revised further during 2001. This statement replaces one that had been operative since early

1989. During 2000, each campus held meetings to review a draft of the Mission Statement

proffered by former President Schulman, and considerable discussion and debate occurred

regarding the draft. A series of iterations of the Mission Statement then were developed, and

general consensus about the statement was reached. After a period of reflection, further minor

modifications were made to the Mission Statement in 2001, and the Board of Trustees approved

a final version of the Mission Statement in June 2001.

16

The Regional Mission Statement was written in light of the University-wide Mission Statement

and, therefore, shares much of the language and many of the concepts present in the University-

wide document. It may accurately be said that the AUSC Mission Statement is a regionalization

of the University-wide statement. The AUSC statement is used in many ways to inform the

direction and purpose of the institution. More specifically, the Mission Statement is used as a

template for judging various initiatives; it is at other times used as exhortation to action

consistent with its principles; or on other occasions, it may serve as a guideline for

implementation of programs or policies. One indication of the success of the Regional Mission

Statement is the often-made comment by visitors to the campuses that the entire Antioch

community is imbued with the values that are espoused in the statement.

Each academic program at the two campuses possesses a programmatic Mission Statement

consistent with the Regional statement, and each program develops priorities and objectives that

are framed by the Regional Mission Statement. There, however, are philosophical differences

among the programs and among faculty/staff/administration about the ways in which the mission

of the institution should be manifested. Not having a homogeneous philosophical orientation to

the Mission Statement is viewed by many within the institution as exemplifying respect for

diversity that they feel is the cornerstone of social justice. The institution, therefore, takes pride

in the diverse perspectives and interpretations that its students/faculty/staff/administration bring

to interpreting and actualizing the mission of AUSC in the various worlds in which they live and

function.

In operational terms, the AUSC Mission Statement is disseminated frequently and broadly within

the institution. The Mission Statement is prominently displayed in the Catalogs of each campus,

in quarterly schedule of class documents, in Student Handbooks, in quarterly newsletters, and in

the commencement programs of each campus. The Mission Statement also is used for

discussion and reflection in the entry-level Educational Foundations course in the BA Programs

at each campus. This kind of dialog illustrates AUSC’s approach to education and

communicates to students the philosophical orientation of the institution.

Evaluation of the Mission Statement

In some respects, it is too early to evaluate the Mission Statement that has most recently been

developed through an intense series of meetings and debates. The process for development of

the Mission Statement, however, clearly reflects the values of the institution, and the content is

consistent with the historic mission of the University as a whole and with the current University-

wide Mission Statement. The statement also does not reflect the views of some within the

community who would more sharply focus the statement toward one perspective or another, e.

g., anti-racism, or anti-sexism. The statement is a compromise among many competing

viewpoints, but if Antioch’s history is any predictor, it is safe to say that the principles

enunciated in the Mission Statement will be actively used daily in the professional and personal

lives of Antioch students/faculty/staff/administration. The newly evolved Mission Statement

will be formally reviewed periodically in the future so that it remains vibrant and reflects the

views of the institution’s changing environment, personnel, and culture.

17

II. PRIORITIES 1993 TO 2002

Regional priorities and objectives are based upon University-wide principles developed by the

Board of Trustees. (See Appendix C.) These goals and objectives reflect the values enunciated

in the University-wide Mission Statement, and planning at the campus and program level is done

within this context.

Priorities and objectives are developed annually for the Region and each campus in the context

of budget development. These two processes proceed together so that budgetary priorities reflect

the underlying priorities of the institution. A statement of priorities and objectives for each

annual budget is developed and distributed to the campus communities so that all constituencies

are aware of the objectives.

The following examples illustrate ways in which the Region and campuses have implemented

the current University-wide priorities. These priorities have changed slightly over the years to

reflect current Board of Trustees concerns, but much has remained constant over the 10-year

period. One set of priorities was in place for the 1988-92 period; a revised version of priorities

was instituted for the 1993-98 period; and in 1999, a new set of University-wide priorities was

proffered by the Chancellor and approved by the Board of Trustees. What follows provides

examples of the ways the Region and campuses have worked to actualize the nine priorities

established in June 1999 as contained in a document titled University Plan and Strategic

Objectives for the Years 2000 to 2005. A copy of this document is available in the campus

Resource Rooms.

1. Based upon the new environment and directions outlined in this plan, revisit the institutional

vision and mission to ensure their currency for Antioch in the twenty-first century.

B AUSC through former President Schulman participated in University-wide discussions to

revise and strengthen the vision and mission of Antioch University in its entirety. These

discussions and activities led to the adoption of the new set of priorities that are being used

in the Self-Study Report.

B AUSC has examined its Mission Statement at regular intervals during the last decade. A

major re-thinking of the Mission Statement occurred in 1989, and minor modifications to

this statement were made in 1996. Former President Schulman also initiated a process for

re-examination of the Mission Statement that has resulted in a modified and streamlined

statement of the institution’s basic mission. (See Appendix B.) Through periodic re-

examination of the institution’s Mission Statement, it is believed that our essential mission

has remained relevant, and these discussions have inculcated in members of the University

community an awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the institution’s primary

mission.

2. Increase and diversify student recruitment and enrollment.

B Each campus has centralized the admission function in increasingly professional offices

that coordinate advertising, information meetings, student follow-up, application

18

processing, and acceptance/rejection. Advances also have been made in the use of

Datatel software in the admissions process. In February 2001, the Region also embarked

upon an enrollment management process with the assistance of an external consultant.

B Each campus has developed articulation agreements with local community colleges and

with the extension divisions at the University of California at Los Angeles and Santa

Barbara in efforts to secure greater numbers of students transferring to the institution.

These efforts have been nominally successful, and copies of these agreements are

available in the campus Resource Rooms.

B Each campus has augmented its budget for advertising over the past 10 years. For

example, the Los Angeles campus spent $127,252 in 1994-95 for advertising and in

2001-02 allocated $202,700 for advertising. The Santa Barbara campus spent $58,424 in

1994-95 for advertising and in 2001-02 allocated $101,800 for advertising.

B Each campus has maintained or increased the number of students who attend the

institution. For example, in 1992-93, the student body at the Los Angeles campus was

about 576 annualized FTE; in 2000-01 that number was about 570 annualized FTE. In

1992-93, the student body at the Santa Barbara campus was about 229 annualized FTE;

in 2000-01 that number increased to about 284 annualized FTE.

B Each campus has increased the percentage of persons of color who attend the institution.

For example, in 1992-93, persons of color represented 12% of the student body at the Los

Angeles campus; in 2000-01 that percentage increased to 23%. In 1992-93, persons of

color represented about 9% of the student body at the Santa Barbara campus; in 2000-01

that percentage increased to 18%. Each campus, therefore, has nearly doubled its number

of persons of color enrolled in its educational programs.

3. Antioch University will extend, strengthen, and diversify its academic programs by linking

the educational capabilities of the five-campus federated structure.

B Through the leadership of former Regional Dean of Academic Affairs Laurien

Alexandre, the Region has contributed to the creation of the first University-wide Ph.D.

Program in Leadership and Change. The Ohio Board of Regents approved the program

in July 2001, and the first students entered the program in January 2002.

B In June 1997, the Los Angeles campus inaugurated the MFA Program in Creative

Writing after nearly 2 years of planning. The new program adds another professional-

level master’s degree to the campus offerings and has been extremely successful –

achieving an annual enrollment level of approximately 125 students. This program also

has cooperated with other writing programs at other Antioch campuses by participation in

the Antioch as a Place for Writers initiative.

B In July 1999, each campus began M.A. in Education degree programs with professional

teacher credential options under a special program designed to permit out-of-state

accredited institutions to address the teacher shortage in California. Each campus

19

program has met with success, and as of October 2001, 21 students were enrolled in the

Los Angeles campus program and 20 students were enrolled in the Santa Barbara campus

program.

B Each campus has participated in the West Coast BA Collaboration Project designed to

train faculty in the use of online technology in ways consistent with Antioch’s mission.

Since 2000, twelve faculty from the Region have been trained in state-of-the-art methods

for use of Internet technology in the delivery of online instruction. In addition, several

faculty members from the Santa Barbara campus received training in online pedagogy as

a part of preparation for the initiation of the Weekend College. The courses developed as

a result of these training opportunities offer students greater course selection and

schedule flexibility, and these courses have been well received by students.

4. Implement systematic program assessment across the University to measure student learning

outcomes and program effectiveness.

B AUSC has participated in the University-wide program review process, and during the

past 10 years, all of its programs (except the newly initiated MAE Program) have

received assessments from teams of faculty from other Antioch campuses and campuses

outside the University system. These reviews have been generally complimentary and

have provided a framework and impetus for constructive changes to programs. AUSC

faculty also have served on program review teams that have visited other Antioch

campuses, and through this process, AUSC faculty have contributed to strengthening the

University in general and have had some measure of personal professional development

as well.

B AUSC annually produces a document titled Indicators of Progress Report that chronicles

from year-to-year the institution’s progress based on established indicators. Review of

these documents from year-to-year permits visibility of how well the institution is doing

relative to each indicator. Copies of annual Indicators of Progress Reports for 1993-94

through 2000-01 are available in the campus Resource Rooms.

B To improve its ability to access consistent data for planning and improvement, AUSC

published Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002. These documents provide data about the

Region and the two campuses in a neutral manner using common measures for the

accumulation of fiscal, enrollment, and personnel data regarding the institution. Copies

of these two documents are available in the campus Resource Rooms.

B Each campus also has done much to strengthen its student assessment efforts that

ultimately lead to program improvement. The results of these efforts to date are

presented in Chapter 4 of this Self-Study Report.

20

5. Strengthen the capacity to recruit, retain, and support the most highly qualified faculty and

staff to grow within a collaborative community in meeting the educational needs of students and

Antioch’s academic programs.

B Through support from the Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, Core Faculty have been

supported during much of the past 10 years in professional development activities. This

generous gift has provided support to faculty to attend one conference a year to continue

their professional development.

B Beginning in 2000, the Innovation Fund has provided resources for the training of faculty

in online teaching approaches, and twelve faculty members have benefited from these

efforts thus far. Modest stipends also are provided to faculty the first time they teach an

online course.

B Faculty and staff salaries were raised during the early and mid-1990s to be more

competitive in the Southern California higher education community, but for a number of

years, salaries have not kept pace with the larger employment market. Former President

Schulman was committed to increasing salaries for faculty and staff, and pledged to

modify the faculty workload policy so that Core Faculty teach three of four quarters a

year.

B Core Faculty annually develop with the Program Chair a statement of duties and

responsibilities for the year including identification of professional development

activities. This procedure for mutually determined duties and goals promotes

professional satisfaction and contributes to the retention of faculty.

6. Support implementation of this University plan by strengthening the overall fiscal structure,

reserves, and investment capacity of the University.

B In addition to about 10% overhead and other University assessments, AUSC has balanced

its budget each year, sometimes with the assistance of historic reserves that have been

established. Positive balances at the end of the year also are contributed to these reserves

for potential future use. Currently, AUSC reserves are $237,474, most of which are

unfunded.

B AUSC has contributed annually 1.5% of its budget to a Liquidity Reserve fund to assist

in strengthening the University’s overall fiscal outlook and to satisfy Moody financial

standards. Currently, that fund has a balance of $2,216,167, of which AUSC has

contributed $461,181.

B For the last 2 years, AUSC has established a Regional contingency fund that exceeds that

required by the University. Thus far, $255,320 has been set aside.

21

7. Enhance the capacity of each campus to raise private gifts and grants, and collaborate in a

significant University fund development effort.

B A Board of Visitors was established in 1996, and its membership was increased to twelve

people in 1999. This group assists the President in representing the interests of the

University in the community and in identifying sources of funding for the institution.

B The President devotes a major portion of his time to the raising of funds for each campus,

and is committed to creating an active development office as resources become available

for this purpose.

8. Create a University-wide technology infrastructure that provides for information exchange,

networking of faculty and students, and access to library and other external resources, and

online instructional capability.

B Since 1993, each campus has enhanced its technology infrastructure significantly. All

Core Faculty and staff have desktop computers that are networked so that email

communication and Internet access are now a way of life for faculty and staff.

B Since 1993, each campus has developed computer laboratories for students that provide

access to PCs and Macs for word processing, spreadsheet construction, and PowerPoint

preparation. Students also have access to numerous publicly available bibliography data

bases, e. g., Melvyl, and Hollis, as well as to document retrieval software, e. g.,

PsycAbstracts, ProQuest (until June 2001), and then OhioLINK (after July 2001).

OhioLINK provides access to many education databases and full-text books and journals.

B As a result of technology training received by faculty, partially online degree programs

and numerous courses are now in place at each campus (e. g., individual online courses,

the MFA Program at the Los Angeles campus, and the low-residency Weekend College

at the Santa Barbara campus).

9. Project the space and renovation needs, and the concomitant capital funds, that Antioch

campuses will require by the year 2010, consistent with the changing ways in which teaching

and learning will occur.

B During Summer and Fall 2000, the Los Angeles campus employed the services of

Reynaud E. Moore & Associates, Inc. to assess its facility needs for the foreseeable

future. This assessment was undertaken in conjunction with a site analysis to assist with

determining where the University should seek a permanent home. This study was

curtailed when the Urban Educational Village concept emerged, and although this project

did not ultimately come to fruition, the space assessment portion of this study will inform

future discussions of the institution’s space needs.

22

• Considerable internal space assessment activities occurred at the Santa Barbara campus

during the 2000-01 year in preparation for occupancy of a build-to-suit facility in Santa

Barbara. As a result of these efforts, the space needs of the campus for the foreseeable future

are known and are being used to guide the discussions with developers interested in

providing a build-to-suit facility for the permanent home of the campus.

In addition to these examples of ways in which the Region and campuses have implemented the

current University-wide priorities since 1993, priorities for the years ahead also have been

established. The 2000 Strategic Plan (Appendix D) articulates goals and objectives for a 5-year

period, and specific priorities for the 2001-03 period have been established as presented in

Appendix E.

23

Chapter 3. Criterion Two

“The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary

to accomplish its purposes.”

This Chapter of the Self-Study Report examines and evaluates Regional and campus

organizational structures and governance, financial and physical resources, academic programs,

support services, and human resources.

I. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND GOVERNANCE

AUSC is composed of two campuses that function relatively autonomously, but share a common

Regional administrative structure. This section of the Self-Study Report deals with the

organizational structure and governance of the Region and the two campuses.

A. Southern California Region

A Regional administrative structure has overseen the two campuses since the summer of 1986,

and that structure has undergone several changes since that time. From the inception, the Region

functioned under the leadership of a single chief executive officer (with various titles over the

years -- Director, Dean, Provost, and President), and in 1988, a Regional Dean of Academic

Affairs position was created to lead and coordinate the academic programs at the two campuses.

During the tenure of President Johnston, the general trend was further to regionalize many

functions common to the two campuses. For example, The President worked on development

activities at each campus with the assistance of a Regional Director of Development (1992-94); a

Regional Director of Human Resources was appointed in 1993; and a Regional Director of

Computing was appointed in August 1997. These steps were taken to build interdependence and

cooperation between the two campuses, to reduce fiscal expenditures for common functions, and

to attract top-flight personnel to positions with multi-campus responsibilities.

Former President Schulman modified the Regional administrative structure in 1998-99, after

evaluation of the system that had been in place. A conscious decision was made to streamline

the Regional structure and to minimize the number of positions that were Regional in character.

This was done because each campus felt that its needs were not necessarily being met by a

Regional appointment and because the physical toll on people traveling regularly between Los

Angeles and Santa Barbara, or visa versa, was very deleterious. Former President Schulman also

was concerned with day-to-day management issues that involved the President’s time and

energy, so the current system of an Executive Dean (chief operating officer) and Academic Dean

(chief academic officer) at each campus was instituted in 1999.

The current organizational structure of the Region and campuses is provided in Appendix F.

Currently two key Regional positions exist – the President and the Chief Fiscal Officer (along

with staff support for their offices). The President is responsible for the overall leadership and

24

management of the Region, for development activities at the two campuses, for representing the

institution in a variety of external venues, for participation in the University Leadership Council,

for representing the Region to the Board of Trustees, and for other University-wide functions

requested by the Chancellor. The President reports directly to the Chancellor. The Chief Fiscal

Officer of the Region reports to the President and is responsible for the development of the

annual budget and ongoing monitoring of all financial activities of the Region and the two

campuses.

The two Executive Deans as chief operating officers manage the day-to-day activities of each

campus and report to the President. The two Academic Deans as chief academic officers work

with Program Chairs and other faculty to coordinate the academic activities at each campus and

report to the President. All personnel at each campus report directly or indirectly either to the

Executive Dean or the Academic Dean. This organizational arrangement permits the President

to focus on non-operational issues.

Two primary groups compose the governance system of the Region:

1. Regional Council of Southern California (RCSC). This group meets quarterly to discuss

issues of mutual concern between the two campuses, and it approves the annual budget

that is submitted to the Board of Trustees. The President Chairs RCSC that is composed

of the members of the two campus councils – the Campus Council of Los Angeles

(CCLA) and the Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB). The latter two groups are

composed of faculty, staff, and administrative representatives.

2. President’s Staff (PresWorks). This group is composed of the President, the four campus

Deans, and the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer. Communication occurs twice a week via

telephone conference calls, and several longer face-to-face sessions occur each quarter.

This senior management group advises the President on issues facing the campuses and

serves as a forum for strategic planning.

In addition, former President Schulman also instituted the Budget Advisory Committee in 2000

to lead the annual budget development process.

B. Los Angeles Campus

There is an evolving organizational structure in place at the Los Angeles campus, and

decisions, even those that are difficult, are normally made expeditiously (although recent

University imposed fiscal guidelines have begun to slow down the decision making

processes). Members of the community adhere to a notion of collaborative governance, and

many faculty, staff, and administration work diligently to conduct the business of the

institution in an efficient and effective manner. Overall, the Los Angeles campus has

struggled to institute an organizational structure that is both effective and participatory.

The current organizational structure of the Los Angeles campus is provided in Appendix F.

The Executive Dean and the Academic Dean report directly to the President and supervise all

25

campus personnel. The two Deans in cooperation with Directors and Program Chairs are

responsible for administering the annual employee review process and for generation of

annual budget requests.

The Los Angeles campus Executive Dean is responsible for day-to-day operation of the

campus, and all administrative support Directors and staff are under the jurisdiction of the

Executive Dean. The Executive Dean specifically is responsible for the student services

units (Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar Offices), Human Resources, and the

auxiliary units of the campus (Administrative/Academic Computer Resources, Campus

Services Center, Bookstore, and Cafe). Representative of these areas serve with the

Executive Dean on the Operations Team that conducts the business of campus operations.

The Executive Dean also serves as the ADA compliance officer for the campus.

The Los Angeles campus Academic Dean is responsible for working with the five Program

Chairs and faculty to create, deliver, and evaluate all academic programs. The Academic

Dean has primary responsibility for program development and provides general oversight of

all academic programs as well as the Math and Writing Center and the Counseling Center.

The Academic Dean chairs the Academic Work Group (AcWorks), a bi-monthly meeting

with all Program Chairs to conduct the business of the academic area. Program Chairs are

responsible for direct instructional and curricular leadership within their programs and are

members of the local decision-making body (CCLA) and RCSC. In addition, the Academic

Dean chairs quarterly meetings of the Core Faculty to discuss issues relevant to the academic

programs and to share professional scholarship interests of the faculty.

The Los Angeles campus Executive Dean and Academic Dean have over 35 years of

combined relevant experience in academic institutions and bring a rich understanding of

higher education and Antioch University’s unique role within this sphere. Other

administrative personnel include the Registrar with 26 years experience, the Director of

Facilities with 20 years experience, and the Human Resources Associate with 5 years

experience in the field. (The Director of Admissions and Financial Aid position is currently

vacant.) In addition, to remain current in their respective fields, funds are made available for

campus administrators to attend a professional conference at least every other year.

Several groups participate in the governance process at the Los Angeles campus including:

• Campus Council of Los Angeles (CCLA): an 11-member group chaired by the

Executive Dean and includes the Academic Dean, the Chairs of the five academic

programs, the Registrar, the Director of Admission and Financial Aid, and two staff

representatives. This group provides input to the Budget Advisory Committee that

has responsibility for development of the Regional budget, authorizes the hiring of

personnel, assigns space, approves facility design, etc. as well as makes other

decisions affecting the campus as a whole. The group works on the basis of

consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is

deadlocked.

26

• Operations Team: an 8-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and composed

of the Registrar, Director of Admissions and Financial Aid, Fiscal Officer, Academic

Services Officer, Technology Coordinator, Facilities Manager, and a staff

representative. This group makes decisions affecting campus operations that do not

impact the academic area and recommends policy changes to CCLA. The group

works on the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make

decisions if the group is deadlocked.

• AcWorks: a 6-member group chaired by the Academic Dean and composed of the

Chairs of the five academic programs. This group makes decisions affecting the

academic area and recommends policy to the CCLA. The group works on the basis

of consensus with the Academic Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is

deadlocked.

CCLA holds primary responsibility for governance of the Los Angeles campus. CCLA

meets monthly and is chaired by the Executive Dean. In late 1998, staff expressed discontent

with the lack of adequate representation on CCLA and the perceived lack of substantial input

into decision-making processes. The campus then began to explore alternatives to CCLA

and engaged the services of consultants to teach the principles of self-managed and self-

directed teams. Among the staff, the team approach was well received because it empowered

them in areas of decision-making that affected them directly. The team model had some

success in the academic services area, and for a brief period, an All-Teams Council

functioned in place of CCLA, but maintained a membership similar to CCLA. Ultimately

this approach was deemed non-responsive to campus needs, and effective September 1, 2001,

CCLA was re-established as the primary decision-making body on the Los Angeles campus.

In addition, the campus utilizes task forces, faculty/staff/departmental meetings, and monthly

community meetings where matters related to all campus constituencies are discussed.

One constituency of the campus has regularly not been involved in the governance structure

of the campus, that is, students. For a period in the mid-1990s, student representatives served

on CCLA, but consistent representation was an issue. Since the late 1990s, a student

representative has been present on the Commencement Committee and has made valuable

contributions to planning and implementing this major annual event. Occasionally, students

also participate in community meetings. In addition, students have input into campus

governance through a suggestion box and forms that may be used to make comments directly

to the President. Responses to suggestions and comments are posted on bulletin boards for

all students to see, and student suggestions have resulted in modifications to classroom

furniture, the painting of classroom walls in colorful fashion, the providing of printing

services on campus, and more food variety in the vending machines. On balance, however,

because of lack of time or interest, student participation in governance at the Los Angeles

campus has been sporadic and extremely difficult to foster.

27

C. Santa Barbara Campus

There is a clearly articulated organizational structure in place at the Santa Barbara campus,

and decisions, even those that are difficult, are made expeditiously. Virtually every member

of the campus community adheres strongly to the team concept, and groups work

collaboratively and cooperatively, particularly on a project basis and in resolving

organizational issues. The general tenor of decision making on the Santa Barbara campus is

one in which information is shared openly, discussion of issues is widespread, and issues are

resolved quickly and fairly.

The current organizational structure of the Santa Barbara campus is provided in Appendix F.

The Executive Dean and the Academic Dean report directly to the President and supervise all

campus personnel. The Executive Dean is responsible for day-to-day operation of the

campus, and all administrative support Directors and staff are under the jurisdiction of the

Executive Dean. The Academic Dean is responsible for working with Program Chairs and

faculty to create, deliver, and evaluate all academic programs. The two Deans in cooperation

with Directors and Programs chairs also are responsible for administering the annual

employee review process and for generation of annual budget requests.

The Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean and Academic Dean each have over 20 years of

relevant experience in academic institutions and bring a rich understanding of higher

education and Antioch University’s unique role within this sphere. Other administrative

personnel include the Director of Admissions with 6 years experience, the Registrar with 20

years experience, and the Director of Financial Aid with 12 years experience in the field. In

addition, to remain current in their respective fields, funds are made available for campus

administrators to attend a professional conference at least every other year.

Campus administrators are held accountable for their areas of responsibility, and policies are

well understood by them. Recently, a student project assisted campus offices in creating a

Policy and Procedure Manual for all campus operational units. This manual is housed in an

area accessible to all staff and faculty to be readily available as needed. A copy of the Policy

and Procedure Manual is available in the campus Resource Room.

Several groups participate in the governance process at the Santa Barbara campus including:

• Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB): a 10-member group chaired by the

Executive Dean and includes the Academic Dean, three of the four academic program

Chairs, two student services directors, a staff representative, and two faculty

representatives. This group has the authority to approve the campus budget, authorize

the hiring of personnel, assign space, approve facility design, etc. as well as make

other decisions affecting the campus as a whole. The group works on the basis of

consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the group is

deadlocked.

• Management Team: a 9-member group chaired by the Executive Dean and composed

of the Directors of Admissions and Financial Aid, Registrar, Fiscal Officer, Staff

28

Representative, Academic Services Officer, Technology Coordinator, and Facilities

Manager. This group makes decisions affecting campus operations that do not impact

the academic area and recommends policy changes to CCSB. The group works on

the basis of consensus with the Executive Dean authorized to make decisions if the

group is deadlocked.

• AcWorks: a 6-member group Chaired by the Academic Dean and includes the Chairs

of the four academic programs and the Academic Services Officer. This group makes

decision affecting the academic area and recommends policy to CCSB. The group

works on the basis of consensus with the Academic Dean authorized to make

decisions if the group is deadlocked.

• Student Council: an 8-member group comprised of two student representatives from

each academic program. The council deals with student issues, brings larger issues to

the appropriate governing body, makes recommendations regarding services to

students, and publishes a quarterly newsletter. A faculty representative, selected by

the Student Council, serves in an advisory capacity.

Students also have input into campus governance through a well-used suggestion box and

forms that may be used to make comments directly to the President. Responses to

suggestions and comments are posted in the student mailbox area for all students to see. A

recent spate of suggestions to upgrade classroom furniture has resulted in a plan, as budget

permits, to replace individual student desks with tables for two to three students seated in

comfortable chairs.

Other groups involved in campus governance are the staff team, the all-faculty team, and the

community team (includes Adjunct Faculty and students, in addition to Core Faculty and

staff). These groups do not have formal decision-making authority, but participate in the

governance process by providing input and expressing views in regular open meetings.

Many of these meetings are informational in nature, designed to bring the campus

community up-to-date on various issues and activities.

Evaluation of Regional and Campus Organizational Structures and Governance

The current organizational structure seems to be functioning well, although the structure has not

been fully tested at the Los Angeles campus because the Academic Dean position has not been

occupied for much of the time this structure has been in place. This has caused an inordinate

strain on the President’s responsibilities because he has served as Acting Academic Dean for two

extended periods. With the appointment of Dr. Linda Moody to the Academic Dean position at

the Los Angeles campus in August 2001, this situation was resolved, and now a true test of the

new organizational structure can be experienced.

The current Regional organizational structure is parsimonious. The structure provides for a full-

time Chief Fiscal Officer whose responsibilities transcend that of either campus. This

arrangement provides more fiscal oversight and avoids any claims of favoritism that might

29

emerge from the campuses. The current Regional structure also has solved the issue of having a

Regional Academic Dean whose time is split between the two campuses. This arrangement

provides much more academic leadership directly at the campus level and is a major step

forward.

The Santa Barbara organizational structure operates smoothly, and the creation of a full-time

Academic Dean position has provided much needed academic leadership to the campus. The

Los Angeles organizational structure offers the opportunity for success now that two fully

functioning Deans are in place. The administrative area at the campus has had good leadership

under Interim President and Executive Dean Chloe Reid, but staff reductions and several vacant

positions have made it difficult for this area to function at full capacity. Open positions are being

filled and should bring the administrative area up to adequate staffing levels.

Consistent with the AUSC Mission Statement, the governance structure of the Region and the

campuses provides for a wide-range of opportunities for involvement by all constituencies.

Overall, there has been consistent faculty and staff participation in the governance process. The

reliance on collaborative decision-making is exemplified in the annual budget development

process and in recent discussions at each campus regarding obtaining permanent campus

facilities.

Despite many positive attributes of the current organizational structure, there are still issues that

are often raised. Some campus constituencies suggest that it is not always clear who has

authority to make decisions on which issues, and this leads to indecision and frustration.

Particularly on the part of middle managers, there also is a history of asking for approval prior to

implementation, rather than acting independently. This some times slows down the

implementation of fairly routine procedures.

Other campus constituencies wonder whether the time and energy devoted to collaborative

decision-making is worth the effort. Former President Schulman’s efforts to streamline the

decision making process were largely successful, and this has helped to address this issue.

Collaborative governance by definition involves time and effort on the part of many people, but

the central issue must always be: How much time and energy by how many people and for what

result?

Despite efforts to involve students in the governance process, these efforts have been largely

unsuccessful, particularly at the Los Angeles campus. Adult students working full-time and with

family responsibilities often do not have the impulse or the time to get involved in academic

governance issues. The most notable exception to the lack of student involvement in governance

is at the Santa Barbara campus where a Student Council has been successful operating since

1997. This group has been directly involved in campus governance and has made a significant

contribution to the campus by representing student views in the appropriate forums. This group

is to be commended for its efforts.

30

II. FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Since 1993, AUSC’s capacity to provide quality education to its students has increased

substantially. This section of the Self-Study Report describes and assesses the financial and

physical resources that the institution commits to achieving the mission of the two campuses.

A. Enrollment and Financial Resources

Enrollment for the Region has increased over the past 5 years as has the total budget. In 1995-

96, total enrollment in the Region was about 812 annualized FTE; in 2000-01, enrollment was

about 900 annualized FTE. The total budget for the Region in 1995-96 was $7,545,884; in 2000-

01, the total budget was $11,304,434. During this 5-year period, the average distribution of

funds by percentage for the Region was:

Instruction

35.97%

Academic Support

7.13%

Student Services

11.95%

Institutional Support

26.35%

Plant Maintenance

13.43%

Scholarships

2.63%

1. Los Angeles Campus

The past 5 years have seen a stabilization in student enrollment with about 580 annualized

FTE in 1995-96 compared to about 570 annualized FTE in 2000-01. The campus budget

during this period increased from $5,770,262 in 1995-96 to $6,816,142 in 2000-01. Much of

these revenue increases were a result of tuition increases and the addition of new programs,

and not from growth in existing programs. During this time period, the MACP Program

actually experienced a nearly 30% decline in enrollment (like all similar programs in the

area), which had a tremendous impact on the overall budget. The campus began to diversify

program offerings in 1997 with the introduction of the MFA Program and in 1999 with the

initiation of the MAE Program, and these efforts have contributed to stabilization of campus

enrollment.

Tuition increases at the Los Angeles campus have been in the range of 0% to 5% per year over

the past 5 years, and changes in tuition rates from 1995-96 to 2001-02 are shown in Table 3-1.

The campus also has continued to maintain a good record of collections on student accounts –

consistently at about 99%. Detailed enrollment and fiscal data regarding the Los Angeles

campus may be found in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 that are available in the campus

Resource Room.

31

Table 3-1. Los Angeles Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)

Program

1995-96

2001-02

BA Program

$3,150

$3,700

MACP Program

$3,150

$3,925

MAIC Program

$3,150

$3,925

MAOM Program

$3.150

$3.925

MAE Program

N/A

$3,750

MFA Program

N/A

$4,550*

*MFA Program tuition is per semester.

2. Santa Barbara Campus

The past 5 years have seen a modest, but steady, growth of student enrollment from about

232 annualized FTE in 1995-96 to about 284 annualized FTE in 2000-01. The campus

budget during this period increased from $2,118,559 in 1995-96 to $3,406,682 in 2001-02.

Most of these revenue increases were a result of tuition increases and the addition of new

programs, although some was because of enrollment growth. To ensure continued

responsible growth, the campus added program concentrations during the late 1990s, initiated

the MAE Program in 1999, and launched the Weekend College in 2001. These and other

measures will be necessary in the future to meet the 2% annual growth rate for the next 5

years projected by a recent financial model.

Despite steady modest growth in enrollment over the past 10 years, the projection for 2001-

02 is for no growth because of uncertainty regarding the external economic environment.

Recent financial models indicate that a 2% annual growth rate is necessary over the next 5

years for campus and Regional sustainability. To address this issue, an enrollment

management consultant has been hired, and response to recent on-campus workshops

indicates that his advice and strategies are finding a receptive audience among faculty and

staff.

Tuition increases at the Santa Barbara campus have been in the range of 1% to 5% per year over

the past 5 years, and changes in tuition rates from 1995-96 to 2001-02 are shown in Table 3-2.

The campus also has continued to maintain a good record of collections on student accounts –

consistently above 99%. Detailed enrollment and fiscal data regarding the Santa Barbara campus

may be found in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002 that are available in the campus Resource

Room.

Evaluation of Financial Resources of the Campuses

During the past 10 years, revenue in the Region has increased primarily because of tuition

increases, although recent program additions have begun to alter this situation. With

Increased competition for the adult student market, there is concern that tuition increases

cannot continue to be relied upon as a source of additional revenue. AUSC remains an

32

Table 3-2. Santa Barbara Campus Quarterly Tuition Rates (1995-96 and 2001-02)

Program

1995-96

2001-02

BA Program

$2,850

$3,600*

MACP Program

$3,000

$3,750

MAIC Program

$3,000

$3,750

MAOM Program

$3,000

$3.750*

MAE Program

N/A

$3,750

*An additional $200 per quarter is charged for BA and MAOM Programs in the Weekend

College option.

institution that relies on tuition and fees to generate its primary source of revenue (about 99%),

and these resources are sufficient for basic operational and instructional costs, but not much

more. Each campus has addressed the long-term need to increase enrollment by augmenting

current programs and by adding new programs; more recently each campus has implemented an

enrollment management model with the assistance of an external consultant.

Despite revenue increases, each campus in the Region is under-funded, and critically needed

augmentation in the areas of community outreach, public relations, development and alumni

affairs, salary increases, and technology have not been accommodated. The campuses also

are understaffed in several areas, and Core Faculty positions are needed in a number of

programs. Major investments in technology and technical support personnel also are needed

at each campus to keep pace with rapidly changing educational applications. Despite these

shortages, the educational mission of the institution has not been compromised, and the

quality of instruction and services provided to students remains high. Class size continues to

be kept small, with none of the huge lecture classes that characterize many educational

institutions. Staff and faculty also go above and beyond what is expected to ensure academic

integrity and excellent student services.

During the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, AUSC was extremely successful and

experienced broad-based enrollment increases. During those years, the Region generated

budget surpluses each year, and these resources were used for one-time expenditures,

particularly technology augmentation at the campuses. By 1996, the Region had

accumulated a reserve of some $750,000 in funded and unfunded reserves. During the later

part of the 1990s, the psychology programs at each campus experienced enrollment

decreases, and programs generally decreased in enrollment at the Los Angeles campus. As a

result, accumulated reserves for the Region were expended to produce balanced budgets

during this period. (Current reserves are about $240,000 and mostly unfunded.) The late

1990s and early 2000s saw the two campus enrollments begin to stabilize and increase, and

balanced budgets that did not rely on reserve funds were once again possible.

With changes in governance initiated by former President Schulman, came changes in the

manner in which the annual budget process operates. Historically, the budget development

process occurred at CCLA and CCSB, and then the budget was ratified by RCSC. The

President and the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer took the leadership in the preparation of the

budget. Currently, a Region-wide budget development task force [the Budget Advisory

33

Committee (BAC)] now takes primary responsibility for the annual budget under the

leadership of the Regional Chief Fiscal Officer. BAC discusses Regional/campus priorities,

develops a preliminary budget, solicits feedback from campus constituencies, and makes

recommendations to the President regarding budget allocations. During the construction of

the 2001-02 budget, this process worked well, and BAC effectively made difficult decisions

regarding expenditures. Campus satisfaction with this revised process is generally high.

The fiscal relationship between AUSC and the University has improved, but tension still

exists. The de-centralization of the University that began in the early 1990s has largely been

completed and has generally produced positive results with the adult campuses of the

University having much more autonomy and responsibility. The overhead rate has gradually

decreased from 13.75% to less than 8% in 2002-03, which is a very positive development. In

the last several years, however, budget shortfalls at Antioch College have made it necessary

to use campus contingency funds to balance the overall University budget and have

effectively increased the overhead that the University assesses AUSC. A plan for managing

the University’s fiscal resources needs to be designed and implemented so that successful

budget management is not rewarded by confiscation of funds by the central University and so

that desperately needed Regional modifications – salary improvement, additional academic

programs and student services, a development function, etc. – can be accomplished

B. Physical Resources

1. Los Angeles Campus

Since the last NCA visit, the Los Angeles campus has spent considerable time and effort

attempting to identify and purchase property that would provide a permanent home for its

activities. Several of these efforts appeared to be near completion, but the rise in commercial

real estate values during the mid-1990s precluded this from happening. The Los Angeles

campus, therefore, re-negotiated a favorable lease at its Marina del Rey site in 1998 with

additional space being procured (1,525 sq. ft.), and considerable building modifications were

accomplished during the summer of 1998. As a result of these efforts, the campus reduced

its facilities costs and created a Student Services Center, a Business Services Center, a café

and bookstore area, a unisex ADA-compliant bathroom, a larger student lounge, and several

new faculty office suites.

During this 1998 expansion, the campus engaged in major redesign of office space and the

creation of a “one-stop” Student Services Center on the second floor where students could

access admissions, financial aid, the Registrar’s Office, and the Business Office.

(Subsequently in 1999, the Admissions Office was re-located to the first floor for visibility

reasons.) A Campus Services Center also was created to provide primary photocopy and

FAX services to the community. It has now become the hub of “business services” for the

campus. Mail distribution services, office supply purchasing, classroom scheduling, and

management of all small equipment maintenance (copiers, Faxes, etc.) fall under the auspices

34

of the Campus Services Center. Finally, during that same year, the Antioch Bookstore was

relocated to the first floor, and a small café that seats 24 patrons was created adjacent to it.

In 1999, with the founding of the new MAE Program, a Children’s Literature Library was

created as well as a small computer lab dedicated to MAE Program students. In 2000, new

office space (1,400 sq. ft.) was acquired on the 4

th

floor for Regional officers – President,

Chief Fiscal Officer, Executive Assistant, and an anticipated Chief Development Officer. In

2001, an additional 2,300 sq. ft. was acquired for two more classrooms, administrative office

space, and storage on the second floor.

Since May 1993, the Los Angeles campus has grown from 25,300 sq. ft. to 30,525 sq. ft.

under long-term lease. The campus facility now includes fifteen classrooms, three

conference rooms, sixty-six offices, two computer labs, a tutorial center, a counseling center,

two kitchen areas, a student lounge with vending machines, a bookstore, and a café.

Parking for the campus has become increasingly a concern. Until 1999, parking at the Los

Angeles campus was available in the 140 parking spaces in the parking lot adjacent to the

building, in a 75-space leased parking lot across the street from the campus, and on the street.

With this level of parking available, students, faculty, and staff normally had sufficient

spaces to park near the campus, although some times neighbors complained about students

parking in front of their residencies. Faculty and staff parked in the lot adjacent to the

building using University-funded parking passes.

In 1999, a large apartment building began to be built on the parking lot site across the street

from the campus, and this has heightened the concern about parking. Currently during the

daytime hours, students park in the lot adjacent to the building using parking permits that

they purchase. Faculty and staff park on the streets. In the late afternoon and evening hours,

sufficient spaces normally are available in the lot adjacent to the building for students,

faculty, and staff parking. During one period when parking was inadequate, the University

employed a system of valet parking for students. The current system has worked moderately

well, and complaints from various constituencies and neighbors periodically are voiced.

The lease for the Marina del Rey campus expires in April 2003 with an option for an

additional 5-year period – but at the then prevailing market rate. With the continued increase

of lease rates in the local real estate market, there is concern that a new lease in the current

building will be unaffordable. In late 2000, therefore, campus leadership began discussions

with an outside consultant (Reymaud E. Moore & Associates, Inc.) to investigate potential

relocation opportunities. Specifically, the consultants explored with campus constituencies

feelings regarding relocation in general and a move to downtown Los Angeles specifically.

An initial report was received by the President from the consultant, but not distributed,

because in the intervening period, the campus was approached to join as a partner in a real

estate development in Santa Monica. The Urban Educational Village is being developed by a

non-profit entity and will create synergies among several potential education-related

occupants. After considerable negotiations, it was determined by the Board of Trustees in

September 2001 that insufficient resources were available to participate in this partnership.

At this juncture, a new direction for securing adequate facilities for the Los Angeles campus

35

must be determined. To provide time for this process, Interim President Reid has extended

the existing lease through April 2004.

2. Santa Barbara Campus

Space at the Santa Barbara campus also has expanded since the last NCA visit. In 1993, the

campus occupied about 6,700 sq. ft. of space, and in 1997, an additional 4,200 sq. ft. was

secured. This space provided two classrooms, a conference room, two faculty offices, a

student lounge, and an outdoor balcony area. In September 2001, yet another 3,600 sq. ft. of

space on the second floor was secured, and this space provided six faculty/staff offices, two

small libraries, two classrooms, and a conference room. The Santa Barbara campus facility

now includes nine classrooms, one seminar/conference room, thirty-two faculty/staff offices,

three kitchen areas, one computer lab, two small libraries/reading rooms, and a student

lounge with copy machine, coffee service, vending machines, and an outdoor balcony area.

Mailboxes also are provided for each student so that announcements, correspondence, and

course materials can be easily distributed. A total of about 14,500 sq. ft. now is under long

term-lease by the Santa Barbara campus, and this should be adequate to serve campus needs

for the next several years.

During most class periods (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. to

9:00 p.m.), there are sufficient classrooms. On several evenings, however, scheduling can be

difficult. Santa Barbara campus classroom facilities are not used to capacity, with Mondays,

Fridays, and weekends particularly under utilized. Future enrollment growth and new

program development are planned to take advantage of this classroom availability.

Because parking is a perennial issue at AUSB, students are encouraged to use alternative

transportation methods. Such measures as preferred parking for car-poolers, tuition credit for

walking or biking to campus, and free bus passes ameliorate the downtown parking crunch

during daytime hours. After 5:00 p.m., students may park in any on-campus space so there is

rarely a problem during these periods when many classes are scheduled. This contributes to

student safety during evening hours as well because students do not have to walk to and from

nearby public parking lots. In addition, the building and nearby streets are well lit at night.

Another safety measure is the hiring of a regular security officer from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

when classes are in session. The officer is available to escort students to their vehicles, assist

in emergency situations, lock-up the campus at the end of classes, and escort the evening

administrator to his/her vehicle.

Students’ most frequent complaint with regard to facilities is classroom temperatures being

either too hot or too cold. Mechanical design of existing space was inadequate when

construction occurred in 1988, 1989, and 1997, so there is little that can be done to remediate

the situation. Students are advised to wear several layers of clothing to mitigate changing

classroom temperatures as the sun moves across the ecliptic plane. In the new space

occupied in December 2001, particular attention was paid to the issue of classroom

temperature, and these efforts appear to be successful. The current power crisis in California,

36

however, has meant that air conditioning will be set at 78 degrees for the foreseeable future,

so this may be a moot point.

Long-term, the Santa Barbara campus also must determine whether to continue to lease space

in its current facility, or to purchase a facility for its operations. The campus has carefully

identified it space requirements for the foreseeable future and has been working with a local

developer to secure a build-to-suit facility that will accommodate its programs and services

for the future. At this point, the results of this effort are yet unknown.

Evaluation of Physical Resources

Each campus has adequate facilities for its current educational programs and services, even

though these facilities are sometimes pushed to the limits. Several efforts during the mid-1990s

and early 2000s to secure permanent, University-owned campuses were not successful. The Los

Angeles campus needs to revive its facilities discussions and determine a course of action prior

to April 2003 when the current lease expires, and the Santa Barbara campus needs to bring to

closure the current discussions regarding a build-to-suit building in the City.

Until resolution of these long-term issues occurs, student complaints regarding

uncomfortable classrooms, uncomfortable classroom furniture, lack of adequate quiet study

space, and shortage of parking during selected operating hours will need to be addressed on a

continuing basis. These issues are likely not to go away anytime soon.

As the campuses continue to grow, issues related to facilities will never be totally resolved. The

campuses need to continue to better utilize space on the weekends, and issues related to how a

growing number of low-residency programs may be accommodated on site need to be resolved.

The campuses also need to explore how distance education will affect facility needs for the

future. In addition, the campuses need continually to deal with issues of optimum campus size

based on available facilities, growth as a method of dealing with the need for additional fiscal

resources, and total campus size given the highly interactive pedagogical methods employed in

the classroom.

III. ACADEMIC RESOURCES

The two campuses of AUSC offer an array of programs, most common between the two

campuses and one offered only at the Los Angeles campus. Programs offered by each campus

include: the BA Program, the MACP Program, the MAIC Program, the MAOM Program, and

the MAE Program. Each of these programs at the two campuses has major elements in common

and some elements that are unique to the campus. Also some concentrations offered at one

campus may not be offered at the other campus. The MFA Program is offered only at the Los

Angeles campus. The Los Angeles campus also operates an autonomous Counseling Center that

supports both MACP Program Trainees as well the general community. Each of these programs

is briefly examined in turn in this section of the Self-Study Report, and additional information

regarding each program is available in campus Catalogs.

37

A. B.A. in Liberal Studies Program

AUSC BA Programs are degree completion programs. Students enroll with a minimum of

30-quarter units completed at other institutions, and a maximum of 144-quarter units (of a

total of 180 to 200) may be transferred from another institution. Students are enrolled for at

least four full-time quarters (with a reduction to three full-time quarters possible for students

with at least 100 transferable units). Students with relatively little transfer credit and/or

relatively little college-level experiential learning are in residence longer.

The Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campus BA Programs are similar in structure, although the

Los Angeles campus program is more curriculum driven and the Santa Barbara campus program

provides more opportunities for individualized study. A student’s program (transfer credit,

Antioch course work, and prior experiential learning) must include general studies and an area of

concentration. At the Los Angeles campus, students may concentrate in liberal studies,

psychology, child studies, business, or creative writing. At the Santa Barbara campus, students

may concentrate in liberal studies, psychology, communication, communication/creative writing,

business management, or social services administration. Individualized concentrations also are

possible with advisor approval; they, however, are not encouraged. The BA Programs provide a

liberal education that is intellectually challenging and relevant to the educational needs of adult

students. Their mission emphasizes academic excellence, whole-person education, community

involvement, and social justice.

Experiential learning is an essential component in each campus’ BA Program. A minimum

of 6 units of experiential learning is required (via either current field study, or upper-division

non-classroom college-level learning prior to enrollment). Three of these units must be in

the form of Community Service (including a reflective seminar taught quarterly) at the Santa

Barbara campus. To be credited, experiential learning must be documented so as to

demonstrate that it meets AUSC criteria for college-level learning, according to Antioch’s

descriptions for lower- and upper-division learning. Guidelines for what is appropriate for

prior experiential learning projects and a specific proposal process are among the crucial

elements of academic quality control. Students are now required to take a course on theory

and experiential learning if they wish to document prior learning. Faculty evaluate students’

documentation of prior learning before credit is awarded. Materials related to the prior

experiential learning process are available in the campus Resource Rooms.

1. BA Program at the Los Angeles Campus

A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus BA Program since the last

NCA accreditation visit including:

• A new Program Chair was appointed and has shifted the emphases of the program,

formalized core curriculum in each area of concentration, instituted online instruction,

and created the Community Humanities Education Program.

38

• Enrollment has declined from about 207 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 172

annualized FTE in 2000-01 where it has stabilized.

• A full-time faculty member was hired to direct the Math and Writing Center and

outreach from the Center was expanded to increase needed support and tutorial

services for all students.

• A quarterly colloquia has been instituted that focuses on topics of social interest and

features notables such as Sandra Tsing Loh (writer, performer, and radio program

host), Victor Walker (member of the African Grove Institute), and Peter McLaren

(radical pedagogy theorist and professor of education at UCLA).

• A quarterly All BA Faculty Academic Bash (ABFAB) has been instituted that

combines dinner, faculty team building, and discussion of topics of interest to faculty

(e.g., student narrative evaluations, experiential learning, and improving student

writing skills). The purpose of ABFAB is to emphasize professional development

within the Antioch educational context.

• The Compton-Antioch Project, a program with Compton Community College and

AULA, has resulted in an articulation agreement with the college and has increased

student interest in attending Antioch. Articulation agreements also have been

developed with several other area community colleges including Santa Monica

College, West Los Angeles College, and Pierce College

• BA faculty members have participated in a multi-campus training program sponsored

by the University Innovation Fund to offer some BA Program courses in an online

format.

• The required Educational Foundations class has been revised to better address

program core purposes and assessment issues.

The Los Angeles campus BA Program also has developed a unique educational venture -- the

Community Humanities Education Program (CHE Program). The CHE Program seeks to

address issues of poverty and marginalization in our communities by providing a 9-month

course of study in the humanities (courses in philosophy, literature, art history, and writing)

to persons living within 200% of the federal poverty level. Students, faculty, and staff of the

CHE Program endeavor to create a committed and supportive community of learners intent

on claiming an education by developing a greater sense of agency in the world and a deeper

awareness of the value of intellect and voice. The CHE Program is proud to be housed at

two strategically located sites: the Venice Family Clinic in the Santa Monica community and

the Central American Resource Center in the MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles.

Transportation, childcare, tuition, books, and other materials are provided to all CHE

Program students at no cost to them. This program is funded through the generosity of

private donors.

39

2. BA Program at the Santa Barbara Campus

A number of significant changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus BA Program

since the last NCA visit including:

• A new Program Chair was appointed and has improved the organization of the

program and policies/procedures.

• Enrollment has grown from about 87 annualized FTE in 1992-93 to about 116

annualized FTE in 2000-01.

• A new delivery option, the Weekend College in Management Studies, began in Fall

2001 in conjunction with the MAOM Program.

• The curriculum has expanded in Liberal Studies offerings and in required courses for

two new concentrations: social services administration and communication/creative

writing.

• The percentage of effort of Core Faculty has been increased so that all Core Faculty

are now full-time.

• A new course on adult and experiential learning theory has been added to strengthen

the conceptual component of documenting prior learning.

• Service learning has been incorporated as a vital required part of the curriculum with

many community sites available for student placement.

• A capstone seminar has been added to assess the program’s impact on students.

• A class has been created involving a Diversity Speaker Series.

• The required Educational Foundations and Academic Planning class has been revised

to better address program core purposes and assessment issues.

• The degree planning process has been streamlined, with more emphasis on the faculty

advisor’s role.

• A formal articulation agreement has been developed with Santa Barbara City College,

and informal agreements exist with Oxnard, Ventura, Moorpark, Alan Hancock, and

Cuesta Community Colleges.

Evaluation of BA Programs

The programs have maintained high academic quality and intellectual rigor since the last

NCA visit, infused the curriculum with core purposes, and bolstered the conceptual

40

component of experiential learning, although there are some concerns about the intellectual

rigor of some outside learning activities and prior learning. More learning activities and

more choices of concentrations are offered. There is flexibility in designing students’ plans

and in problem solving. Curricula are clearly defined. Community Service Learning has

become an integral part of the program, and faculty work collaboratively and are accessible

to students. Students receive extensive advising and effective communication from the

Chairs. Class size remains small.

While enrollment growth and/or tuition increases have led to increases in the instructional

budget (both in number of classes and in Adjunct Faculty pay per class), the total Core

Faculty FTE has not grown correspondingly. The result is that Core Faculty have heavy

advising loads and administrative tasks, leaving less time for pursuing intellectually

stimulating activities and professional development (other than during mini-sabbaticals every

3 years). In addition, Adjunct Faculty could be better integrated into the programs so as to

achieve greater consistency in achieving program goals. The Adjunct Faculty Handbook is in

the process of revision and should be completed by June 2002. Despite some improvements,

Adjunct Faculty salaries are lower than they should be.

The CHE Program at the Los Angeles campus has been extremely successful and has served

as an outreach effort for the BA Program. Some CHE students have aspirations to earn a

B.A. degree and are intent on enrolling at the Los Angeles campus. This is a good example

of a successful outreach effort motivated by social justice concerns that has beneficial

consequences for the students involved in the program and for the institution. It also is an

example of what successful fundraising can do to promote meaningful programs in the

community.

B. M.A. in Clinical Psychology Programs

Designed to train counselors and psychotherapists while meeting the educational

requirements for California licensure as a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT), the MACP

Program requires six quarters of full-time enrollment, or its equivalent, and a total of 72

quarter units including an approved traineeship off campus and personal psychotherapy.

Core coursework is required in the traditional content areas of clinical psychology and

marriage and family counseling, infused with issues of social justice, diversity, and

multiculturalism. Elective units are earned through courses and workshops, approved

independent study activities, or additional traineeships. Students are required to participate

as a client in weekly personal psychotherapy for two or more quarters. Prior experiential

learning is not awarded credit in the program, and a thesis is not required.

The eclectic theoretical orientation of the program helps adult students critically evaluate

different traditional and contemporary approaches to therapy and develop the theoretical

orientation most suited to their clinical work. Students study psychodynamic, humanistic-

existential, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, and other theories, along with their

applications to the field of psychotherapy. In addition, experiential learning is emphasized in

the program, particularly in courses focused on clinical skill development.

41

1. MACP Program at the Los Angeles Campus

A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MACP Program since the

last NCA visit including:

• New Program Co-chairs were appointed who have led the faculty in continuing

development of the program's focus on multiculturally sensitive clinical training.

• Enrollment has decreased from nearly 360 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 264

annualized FTE in 2000-01. Enrollment has been stable at this level for the past few

years. (All MFT programs in California experienced decreases of this magnitude

during this time period.)

• The program's curriculum was revised for students entering January 2001 and later,

adding new required courses in Psychological Testing and Psychopharmacology, in

response to a California Board of Behavioral Sciences mandate. At the same time,

the program initiated a new required course, Psychology in the Community,

introducing students to the variety of roles they might play in community settings,

ameliorating social problems, and empowering community residents in issues related

to mental health and well-being.

• New concentrations in Child Studies (1997-98) and Applied Community Psychology

(2001-02) were developed through which students can elect an additional 18 units of

course work and focused clinical experience preparing them for work as MFT

professionals dealing with a wide range of issues associated with children and

community-based psychological issues.

• The program extended its successful one-day-a-week delivery model to Saturdays (1997-

98) to serve additional adult student populations. Other cohorts meet on Tuesdays,

Wednesdays, or Thursdays.

• Online learning was instituted for all one-day-a-week students in the Psychology in

Society and Personality Theory I courses, and was added as an option in the Research and

Professional Writing course. The latter experiment was unsuccessful, and this option has

been discontinued.

• Clinical training sites have continued to increase (a total of about 130 each year are

available to students) and are increasingly diverse (e.g., Didi Hirsch Community

Mental Health Center, Miracle Mile Community Practice, and Friends of the Family).

A half-time Core Faculty member serves as Director of Clinical Training, overseeing

this essential part of the curriculum.

• Diversity training has taken place on a regular basis for the MACP Core Faculty,

augmented with Adjunct Faculty who are involved in teaching multiculturally-

focused courses. In addition, the MACP Faculty has sponsored a series of Diversity

Lunches with programs open to the entire campus community.

42

• The MACP Program strengthened its ties with the Antioch University Counseling

Center with the appointment of an Associate Faculty member as Director of the

Center. A small number of MACP students serve as trainees at the Counseling

Center. The Center also provides on a regular basis educational colloquia open to all

students. In addition, the Counseling Center and Applied Community Psychology

concentration will be cooperating in offering community programs in the future.

2. MACP Program at the Santa Barbara Campus

A number of changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MACP Program since the

last NCA visit including:

• A new Program Chair was appointed and has streamlined some organizational aspects

of the program, developed new program concentrations, and supported program

assessment efforts.

• Enrollment has decreased from about 106 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 84

annualized FTE in 2000-01, and enrollment seems to have stabilized.

• During Winter 2001, the curriculum was revised as follows:

•Added application courses in Multicultural Counseling and Family Therapy.

•Expanded Psychopathology course to Biopsychosocial Models of Diagnosis and

Treatment that integrates psychopharmacology into the course offering.

•Revised Multicultural Awareness, incorporating multicultural dialogue and field

trips (e.g., Museum of Tolerance).

•Revised Clinical Skills I to make it more sensitive to cross-cultural counseling.

•Revised Clinical Skills IV from case consultation class to Professional Seminar:

Integrating Clinical Skills that includes theory, assessment, psychopathology,

treatment planning, etc. This course also has become the capstone course and

serves as a resource for program assessment.

•Offered first online course, Theories of Psychotherapy, during Fall 2000.

• During Winter 1999, the traineeship component of the curriculum was revised in the

following ways:

•Developed traineeship orientation meetings.

•Developed Traineeship Open House inviting supervisors from agencies in the tri-

county area to describe their sites and to network with students.

•Developed Clinical Training Agreement that specifies responsibilities of the

Santa Barbara campus, clinical supervisor, site director, and student.

Evaluation of MACP Programs

AUSC MACP Programs continue to be model programs in the integration of theory and

practice and in the incorporation of social change and cultural diversity emphases into MFT

training. Core Faculty are highly committed to AUSC’s mission and values, and students

43

experience a high level of satisfaction with their learning. Faculty are accessible to students,

and class sizes remain small, particularly in clinical skills and other experiential courses.

Clinical training sites informally communicate to the programs their extremely high

evaluation of Antioch students as trainees. This is partly the result of the emphasis that each

program places on acquisition of clinical skills, self-awareness, and professionalism.

In the past 10 years, the student body has shifted significantly from midlife professionals

returning to school to seek careers in private practice, to the current student body that is

somewhat younger in age with private practice as just one among many options and with

expectations of work that is less highly-paid and more clearly related to community service.

This is a realistic response to changes in the structure of MFT employment in an era of tight

budgets and managed care. AUSC’s curricula changes during this period represent effective

responses to the need to train MFT's for a broader range of roles than in the past. The change

also is consistent with the institution’s social justice mission.

A significant proportion of MACP Program classes are taught by Adjunct Faculty who are

clinicians working professionally in the community. Many have taught at AUSC for a long

time and have a high level of commitment to the program. The advantage is that students are

exposed to a variety of clinical perspectives and to practical wisdom and experience. A

continuing challenge is how to integrate new Adjunct Faculty into the program, particularly

in the areas of diversity and multicultural sensitivity, because most professionals were not

trained in programs with these emphases.

Because of a growing commitment to multicultural issues, Los Angeles campus MACP

Program Core Faculty have worked hard during the past 10-year period to ensure that the

program is indeed meeting this commitment. Program Core Faculty meet regularly to assess

progress on a variety of program goals related to diversity and to ensure that work continues.

Copies of minutes of MACP Program Faculty Meetings at the Los Angeles campus are

available in the campus Resource Room.

Similarly, there are several challenges the Santa Barbara campus MACP Program must face. As

the private practitioner delivery system in psychotherapy looks forward to an uncertain future

and the reality of market glut in the local and tri-county areas, the program needs to find ways to

maintain sufficient enrollment to sustain operations and development. The program also needs

more resources to pay faculty at market levels, to provide more instructional support (e.g.,

tutoring) and clerical/staff support services, to underwrite faculty development (less

administrative work, more intellectual stimulation, and creative activity), and to bring in outside

expertise for special events and consultation. Another concern regards traineeship supervision.

Given that the off-campus agency selects supervisors for the program’s student trainees, more

release-time for the Core Faculty Clinical Director is needed to oversee site selection and

qualification.

44

C. M.A. in Psychology with Individualized Concentration Programs

The MAIC Program is designed for adults who want to pursue a non-clinical interest within

psychology, for those who desire to pursue doctoral education following the completion of

the program, and for international students whose degree need not be structured around

California licensure requirements. The Individualized Concentration parallels the Clinical

Program in emphasizing academic excellence, eclectic theoretical orientation, and current

experiential learning (as appropriate), but offers greater freedom and flexibility in designing

the degree plan to blend traditional subject areas with the student’s interests and needs.

The MAIC Program requires five full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and 60 quarter units, or, in

the case of the Santa Barbara campus Professional Development and Career Counseling

concentration, six full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and 72 quarter units. A core curriculum

is required for each concentration; students then add elective courses in psychology (or, as

appropriate, in Antioch’s other graduate programs in education or management), independent

studies, and practica. Students complete a 4 to 12 unit thesis, a project, or a supervised

practicum experience.

Enrollment in the MAIC Program continues to be small, but meets the needs of its students by

providing low faculty-student ratios and by offering a variety of concentrations. At the Los

Angeles campus, students design concentrations in conjunction with a faculty member in a wide

range of topic areas. At the Santa Barbara campus, students have the option of focusing their

concentration in such areas as Professional Development and Career Counseling, Organizational

Psychology, or Family and Child Studies.

1. MAIC Program at the Los Angeles Campus

Several changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MAIC Program since the last

NCA visit including:

• Enrollment has remained relatively constant with about 12 annualized FTE in both

1994-95 and 2000-01.

• The MAIC degree process has been redesigned for simplicity; a new Student

Handbook has been written and distributed; and administrative forms used in the

program have been redesigned.

• Stronger coordination with the MAOM Program has resulted in a number of MAIC

Program students pursuing management-related concentrations including

participation in the MAOM field study Practicum Project as one option for the MAIC

thesis project.

45

2. MAIC Program at the Santa Barbara Campus

A number of changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MAIC Program since the

last NCA visit including:

• The number of students in the MAIC Program has grown substantially since 1994-95

when the annualized FTE was 1 to an annualized FTE enrollment of about 26 in

2000-01.

• New concentrations in Integrative Yoga (1996-97 and discontinued as of Fall 1999),

Organizational Psychology (1997-98), and Professional Development and Career

Counseling (1999-00) were added to the program to serve more diverse student

populations.

• A Family and Child Studies concentration is currently being developed and is

scheduled to begin in 2001-02.

• A Master’s Project requirement (as an alternative to the a traditional thesis) was

developed for all non-clinical students that meets APA standards for literature review.

• A course on Professional Writing for the Master’s Project was developed to help

students unfamiliar with developing a literature review.

Evaluation of MAIC Programs

The MAIC Programs provide students with quality education while being flexible in responding

to individual differences in intellectual interests, professional goals, and personal needs. The

small size of the program allows for maximum access to faculty and the opportunity to develop

in a supportive environment. At the Los Angeles campus, students pursue Individualized

Concentrations effectively with faculty support. The main program limitation arises because a

10-hour-a-week Associate Faculty member directs the program, and it cannot grow in size

without additional faculty resources. The new Child Studies and Community Psychology

concentrations in the MACP Program also have helped to provide more diversity in course

selection for MAIC students at the Los Angeles campus.

At the Santa Barbara campus, certain other issues arise from the small number of students in

more structured concentrations. With so few students in any one concentration, resources are

limited, and without additional faculty, the MAIC Programs cannot grow. With multiple

concentrations in a limited-resource situation, Core Faculty have some difficulties in linking

students with a variety of experts (Adjunct Faculty) in the student’s chosen specialization. The

course offerings within the concentration also are not extensive, and students do not have a large

number of other students in the same concentration to turn to for peer support.

Faculty have been diligent in emphasizing a diversity focus in the MAIC Program curriculum

and helping each other develop a multicultural awareness, using faculty meetings to

46

incorporate multicultural dialogue into the curriculum and critiquing students in relationship

to the effectiveness of this aspect of the program. Program faculty members meet regularly

to assess the overall effectiveness of the program and to modify the curriculum as

appropriate.

D. M.A. in Organizational Management Programs

AUSC MAOM Programs offer professional education for managers with emphasis on human

relation skills, values, and broadly based education. The core curriculum reflects theoretical

models and leading-edge applications covering such areas as strategic planning, budgets and

finance, organizational theory, ethics, human resource management, and quantitative analysis.

Students are enrolled for a minimum of 5 full-time quarters, or the equivalent, and must earn 60

quarter units of credit for the degree. In addition to required core courses, students choose from

elective courses and may do some independent study.

Experiential learning is a cornerstone of the MAOM Program. Courses are taught by instructors

well grounded in theory and practice, with classroom discussions applying theory to work and

community. In place of a thesis, students complete a Practicum Project and professional

presentation that applies and reflects their learning in the program. Often the Practicum Project

is done in conjunction with other students and in a community-based business setting that

provides “real world” experience to the student.

1. MAOM Program at the Los Angeles Campus

A number of changes have occurred in the Los Angeles campus MAOM Program since the last

NCA visit including:

• A new Program Chair assumed responsible for the program in 1996 and refined program

concentrations and policies/procedures, and instituted the Practicum Project. As of

September 2001, an Interim Program Chair has assumed leadership of the program for 1

year, pending re-filling the Chair position.

• Enrollment in the program has fluctuated over the years, but enrollment was about 32

annualized FTE in 1994-95 and in 2000-01.

• The traditional master's thesis was replaced by a Practicum Project that is more in

keeping with the experiential nature of the program training.

• The curriculum was substantially revised with specializations consolidated and

differentiated to better meet the needs of the students. Current concentrations

include: human resource management, organizational development, and leadership.

47

2. MAOM Program at the Santa Barbara Campus

A number of significant changes have occurred in the Santa Barbara campus MAOM Program

since the last NCA visit including:

• A new Program Chair was appointed in July 2000 to succeed the retiring Chair.

• Enrollment in the MAOM Program has fluctuated, but grown modestly, from nearly

26 annualized FTE in 1994-95 to about 29 annualized FTE in 2000-01.

• In cooperation with the BA Program, a Weekend College delivery option was

initiated in Fall 2001.

• The credit requirement for graduation from the MAOM Program was increased from

56 to 60 quarter units effective the 1996-97 academic year.

• A new concentration in Organizational Psychology was developed collaboratively

with the MACP Program (2000-01).

• Courses in Change Management, the Learning Organization, E-commerce, and

International Studies have been added to the curriculum.

• An annual study abroad program was initiated in1996, and four trips to Europe and

two to Asia have been mounted -- Hong Kong (September 1996), London (September

1997), Italy (September 1998), Prague (September 2000), Beijing (September 2001

and then re-scheduled to May 2002), and Spain (September 2002).

Evaluation of MAOM Programs

In September 1999, both MAOM Programs participated in the University-wide program review

process. Although the review was somewhat cursory, the results showed that the curriculum

continues to create a cohesive experience for students. The program is small, innovative,

coherent, and relevant to students’ professional and personal needs. It is characterized by high

morale among faculty, students, and alumni. Core Faculty are effective and accessible advisors,

and students are kept informed of program information and changes. Classes are small, lively,

and interactive and are seen as places where real learning occurs. A copy of the University-wide

program review materials is available in the campus Resource Rooms.

The MAOM Programs, however, are limited, and the inability of each campus’ program to

reach enrollments larger than 40 annualized FTE constrains them from realizing their full

potential. More resources could increase the number and diversity of Core and Adjunct

Faculty, allow for a broader array of elective courses, and generally support the programs’

further development. Formal structures for including Adjunct Faculty in governance and

decision-making have been attempted, but no systematic approach has been established.

48

Some efforts have been made to create symposia and lecture presentations, including experts

from outside the University, but these efforts have been sporadic and infrequent.

In addition, courses are uneven in terms of rigor, learning expectations, and material covered,

and narrative evaluations of students are uneven in terms of quality. There also is no

structured way to remediate students’ deficiencies in writing and math, although some effort

has been made to use the undergraduate Math and Writing Center to address this issue at the

Los Angeles campus. Further, onsite library holdings are minimal. The holdings that are

present need more organization, and a system for checking out holdings needs to be

developed. (This is less of an issue currently than in the past because online library services

have expanded significantly and are used by students.) Finally, more space is needed for on-

campus study, and technology resources need to be enhanced.

As of January 2002, a critical issue facing the Los Angeles campus MAOM Program is

continued leadership. The Interim Program Chair has agreed to serve for 1 year while a new

Chair is selected. Currently, discussion is underway regarding re-filling the Chair position, and

resolution of this issue will have long-term effects on the program.

E. M.A. in Education Programs

The MAE Program is the newest program offered at the two campuses and is the only program

that has been developed on a Regional basis. The MAE Program offers two interrelated tracks:

(1) an M.A. in Education with a Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (for elementary school

teaching) (MAE/TC), launched in July 1999, and (2) an MAE for Experienced Educators

(MAE/EE), launched in July 2001. The core curriculum is very similar for both tracks

(excluding the requirements for the Teaching Credential), and differences are discussed below.

MAE/TC Program: This program was designed as an AUSC Regional program to be offered

at each campus and is driven by a philosophy emphasizing school reform, social justice, and

teachers as change agents. During the first year’s curriculum, students meet California

requirements for the Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (for elementary school teaching).

This rigorous program includes intensive study of literacy along with instruction on the

teaching of mathematics, social studies, science, art, and other subjects. The use of

technology in teaching also is an essential component of the curriculum. The demands of the

first year leave only limited opportunity for elective coursework. During the second year,

students study leadership and school reform issues while completing their research-based

thesis. Electives and 1-unit intensives also allow for a variety of profession-related topics to

be studied in depth.

The program uses a cohort model, with all students going through the program together and

forming professional peer support groups. The number of new students enrolled each year

ranges from 15 to 20. A minimum of 5 full-time and two half-time quarters are required to

complete the minimum 73 quarter units necessary for the degree. Prior experiential learning

is not credited toward the degree. An Early Decider option allows AUSC BA Program

49

students to begin work on the MAE/TC during their final two quarters in the BA Program,

thereby reducing their MAE/TC residency requirement by 1 to 2 quarters.

More so than any other AUSC program, the MAE/TC Program involves extensive

experiential learning. From their first quarter, students have required fieldwork linked to

their coursework, culminating in full-day student teaching in local elementary schools under

the joint supervision of an Antioch faculty member (Supervisor of Student Teaching) and a

Master Teacher at the elementary school.

MAE/EE Program: The MAE Program for Experienced Educators was designed for students

who have completed their Teaching Credential before entering Antioch and have experience

in a school setting. The only concentration available currently is in Social Justice and

Educational Leadership. The emphasis is on preparing effective change agents by educating

students about leadership, reform, advocacy, schools as organizations/systems, and other

sociopolitical dimensions of social change.

Because students have already completed the requirements for a Teaching Credential, only

45 quarter units are required for completion of the MAE/EE degree. These are acquired

during two full-time and 3 half-time quarters of residency. The program does not use a

cohort model, in that students may enter in more than one quarter during the year, although it

is expected that most students will progress through the program together, thus maintaining

the value of peer support available in strict cohort models.

Experiential learning remains integral to the MAE/EE. Students continue in their roles as

educators, and every effort is made to link coursework to everyday applications in their

school settings. The research-based thesis involves such applications to the classroom or

administrative setting in which students function.

Evaluation of MAE Programs

Because of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s strict requirements, the

MAE/TC program presents certain challenges for faculty as they combine Antioch’s goals

and the state’s requirements. A certain tension is created between the University’s mission

of educating persons interested in initiating progressive social change and the state’s

restrictions on curriculum and student teaching; to over-simplify, it is the alternative

university versus the establishment. To the credit of MAE Program faculty, they have kept

the focus on professionally preparing teachers to provide quality education for children and

to understand the need for (and pitfalls of) school reform.

The MAE Program has excelled in attracting experienced, competent faculty and master

teachers. This has been accomplished even though Adjunct Faculty salaries are lower than

those of faculty in other schools of education in the area. Also, partnerships with local

schools have been successful, and campus Advisory Boards have been established with

representatives from the different roles within the school community (teacher, principal,

district administrator, government, etc.). A special partnership also has been established with

50

Santa Barbara Community College to enhance educational opportunities for students

interested in becoming teachers, and the Los Angeles campus works closely with Santa

Monica College to recruit students into the program.

California requirements for program staffing and activities also make the Teaching

Credential program very expensive to operate, whereas Experienced Educator track expenses

are comparable to other graduate programs (or even less expensive in that much of the

curriculum is shared with the MAE/TC Program). This issue of expense is a crucial one for

each AUSC campus, given the commitment of the program to maintain small class sizes,

intensive supervision of student teaching, and student access to faculty and staff advisors.

The future of the MAE Program depends in part upon the campuses’ ability to build around

the expensive MAE/TC core other revenue-generating (less expensive to operate) programs,

such as the MAE/EE and continuing education for teachers and administrators. Additionally,

external funding via grants is being pursued. Ultimately, whatever the source of new

revenues, the ability of the programs to develop and mature will likely hinge upon fiscal

resources.

Thanks to a grant from the Fletcher Jones Foundation, a Children’s Literature Library has

been created on each campus for MAE students’ use. These libraries house over 1,000

children’s books along with educational journals, technology stations, educational texts, and

curricular materials. The grant also provided funds for the establishment of computer labs at

each campus for the exclusive use of MAE Program students. Three computers are available

at each campus for this purpose.

Another strength of the MAE Programs is that students receive extensive guidance and

support from the staff Credential Analyst/Administrative Coordinator, who assists them in

successfully completing program and state credentialing requirements.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing during its February 2002 on-site

review of the program corroborated the overall quality of the MAE Program. In the words of

the draft report of the visitation team, “Antioch University Southern California meets all

standards of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.” Copies of all material

produced for this review and the final visitation team report are available in the campus

Resource Rooms.

F. M.F.A. in Creative Writing Program

The MFA Program is only offered at the Los Angeles campus and is a new program that

began in June 1997. The program is unique in its structure and approach to offering a

systematic study of the craft and pedagogy of creative writing in order to prepare Antioch

graduates with the tools to enter the world as writers and as teachers of writing and literature.

The program seeks to contribute to the development of writers who can participate

effectively in culturally diverse professional, academic, and community settings.

51

As a low-residency, 2-year degree program, the MFA Program requires 48 semester units for

the degree and offers intense 10-day residencies every 6 months as well as online instruction,

communication, and dialogue with mentor faculty between residencies. The goal of the

program is to offer instruction in the genres of poetry, fiction, and creative nonfiction while

introducing students to the relationship between the artist and society. The program offers

students the opportunity to interact with professionals in the field of writing and publishing

such as literary agents, magazine and journal editors, and letterpress/book art professionals.

One unique aspect of the curriculum is the translation requirement. Students take a

translation seminar and a 5-month interactive on-line translation conference wherein they

translate literary texts and discuss the theory and practice of translation. The MFA Program

also offers a Certificate in the Pedagogy of Creative Writing that requires an additional

semester of study and prepares the student to teach creative writing at the college/university

level.

Students may choose to spend their time in the program studying in one genre, spending one

term out of four in a second genre, or pursing a Dual Concentration (five terms/2.5 years)

working three terms in one genre and two terms in a second genre. MFA Program students

also complete a Field Study, an experiential learning component designed to provide “hands

on” experience across a wide range of writing-related activities.

In the MFA Program, participants are expected to:

• Develop and master writing skills in poetry, fiction, and/or creative nonfiction.

• Compare, contrast, and critique multidisciplinary perspectives regarding art,

aesthetics, and the canonical debate.

• Reflect on the place of creative work in community, culture, and society through

formal and experiential learning.

• Develop an awareness of ethical dilemmas and social values as they interface with the

rights and responsibilities of the artist.

• Reflect on voice, modes of expression, and linguistic styles through the study of the

art of translation, and expand their capabilities both in translating and understanding

the political and linguistic complexities of this art.

• Explore the work and lives of professional writers and network with writers'

communities.

• Where applicable, learn and apply innovative skills and progressive pedagogical

theory to the teaching of creative writing in diverse settings.

52

Evaluation of MFA Program

Systematic assessment methods were built into the program from its inception, and many

opportunities exist to evaluate its effectiveness as well as to measure student learning:

• After each residency, students submit a Residency Log, a Student Learning Analysis

for each learning activity of the residency, and a Residency Review, reflecting on the

success of the infrastructure of the residency.

• Faculty submit a Mid-term Evaluation for each mentee, and each student does a self-

assessment of steps toward the stated goals of her/his Project Period Contract at mid-

term.

• At three-quarter term, faculty again evaluate student work, a requirement of the

Financial Aid Office.

• At the end of each term, faculty write narrative evaluations for each of their mentees,

measuring progress toward the goals of the Project Period Contract; students also

submit a narrative Student Learning Analysis, assessing the work outlined in the

Project Period Contract.

• At each residency, graduating seniors deliver lectures that undergo Peer Review

evaluations. The results are maintained in the Program Office, and copies are

prepared for the graduating students.

In Spring 2002, the graduating classes will be assessed using as a pre/post test the admission

essay questions. But already, one measure of “success” has been the record of student

publication since graduation; for example, three students were successful in securing

publishers for their book length works. In addition, approximately fifteen students have

secured full-time or part-time employment teaching writing at the college/university level.

One student has assumed the directorship of the Idyllwild Summer Poetry Festival, and two

alumni and one current student teach or work in tutorials at the Los Angeles campus.

Another alumna directs one of the Community Humanities Education Program sites for the

BA Program, and another alumna is the Writing Tutor for that same CHE site.

Student success also is measured by the work done in Field Studies. For example, two

students are currently publishing small magazines; one student is interning with a literary

agent; two students are conducting online conferences; two students have completed

letterpress projects; two students have produced hand-made books; and one alumna is writing

a column for a health-related magazine/newsletter and writing book reviews for her local

paper in Oregon.

During the summer of 2002, the program will participate in the University-wide program

review process, and a copy of the team’s review report will be available in the Los Angeles

campus Resource Room.

53

G. Antioch Counseling Center

The Antioch University Counseling Center (AUCC) has a long venerable history dating back to

1974. The Center works in conjunction with the MACP Program to provide Traineeship

opportunities to students and Internship opportunities to graduates of the program and other

professionals in the Los Angeles area. Under the direction of a licensed psychologist and using a

variety of therapeutic techniques, the AUCC currently provides numerous educational and

therapeutic programs including:

• General Therapy: For children, adolescents, and adults dealing with such issues as

depression, anxiety, grief, eating disorders, and HIV in several languages -- English,

Spanish, French, Japanese, Farsi, and Hebrew.

• Career and Psychological Testing: Administration and interpretation of a wide battery of

tests to assist with career and personal issues.

• Life Transitions Support Services: Counseling and workshops to assist men and women

to thrive at midlife.

• Adoption Counseling Services: Supportive counseling for the unique and complex issues

affecting all those impacted by adoption.

• Iranian Counseling Center: For Iranian-Americans dealing with relationship, domestic

violence, substance abuse, and other psychological issues.

• School-Based Counseling Program: Comprehensive on-site counseling and educational

program for students, teachers, and parents operated at Grandview Elementary School

and Kentwood Elementary School.

Through these diverse programs, AUCC provides approximately 3,000 client service hours each

year. All services are offered on a sliding payment scale so that persons of diverse economic

backgrounds may participate. In addition, AUCC provides numerous continuing education

opportunities to professionals in the greater Los Angeles area.

The Counseling Center operates year around, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00

p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Evaluation of AUCC

AUCC has experienced several changes in leadership since the last NCA visit, and as a result,

the Center has functioned at various levels of efficiency and effectiveness. As a self-supporting

entity (based on fees collected from patients), AUCC experienced budget deficits in some years,

and the number of Trainees and Interns has varied depending on the effectiveness of the

leadership provided.

54

Since September 2000, a new Director of AUCC has taken responsibility for leadership and

management, and the operation has made substantial progress since that time. The budget has

been increased as the number of patients has increased, and the number of Trainees and Interns

likewise has increased to about twenty-five. There is currently a sense of dynamism within

AUCC that speaks well for its future success.

IV. SUPPORT SERVICES AND HUMAN RESOURCES

This area of the Self-Study Report examines the support services provided in administrative,

student services, and academic areas as well as the instructional and auxiliary services provided

by the campuses. This examination is followed by an evaluation of these services.

A. Administrative Area Support Services

Support services provided in the administrative area include fiscal services, human resources,

technology, and campus operations at the two locations.

1. Los Angeles Campus

Fiscal Services includes accounts payable, student accounts, collections, and budget monitoring.

The office is staffed by 2 FTE employees and uses Datatel software to accomplish its functions.

Staff has been trained on the Datatel system, and they are proficient at using the basic functions

of this sophisticated software package.

From April 1993 to April 2000, the human resource functions of the Region were provided

by a full-time Human Resources Director who was responsible for all human resource

functions at the two campuses, a full-time Human Resources Associate who was responsible

for Regional salary and benefit data input, and a quarter-time Human Resources Associate (a

portion of the Fiscal Officer’s time) who was responsible for benefit advising and payroll

issues at the Santa Barbara campus. The Director and Associates were housed initially at the

Santa Barbara campus, and the Director traveled to the Los Angeles campus at least once a

week. Later the Director and the full-time Associate were housed at the Los Angeles

campus, and the Director made weekly trips to the Santa Barbara campus. The human

resource function for the Region was re-structured in 2000-01 when it was determined that

the functions of the Regional Human Resources Director should be redistributed and

managed by a Regional Human Resources Team.

The primary factor in electing to re-structure the Regional human resource function was that

neither campus felt its needs adequately were being met by a Regional human resources

officer who split his/her time between the two campuses. Under the new team approach, the

compliance functions of the Director have been distributed between the Executive Deans on

each campus. Payroll/benefit responsibilities for the Region have been shifted entirely to the

Los Angeles campus Payroll Coordinator. This reduction in payroll responsibilities for the

55

Santa Barbara employee permits an increase in hours for other human resources functions,

e.g., benefits counseling, new employee orientation, and employee problem solving. The Los

Angeles campus continues to have a full-time employee responsible for benefits

coordination, counseling, and other general human resources functions. The Regional

Human Resources Team works to develop and define human resource policy for the Region,

and these policies are then implemented by the Executive Deans on the campuses. This

group also is responsible for the maintenance and issuance of the Regional Human Resources

Handbook. This approach to handling human resources is currently under review.

Prior to 1997, administrative and academic computing at the two campuses was handled at

each campus by local staff. From Fall 1997 until Fall 1998, administrative and academic

computing was the responsibility of a Regional Director who supervised staff at the two

campuses. Similar to the experience in human resources, the campuses did not feel that their

needs were being met adequately, so in Fall 1998, responsibility for all campus computing at

the Los Angeles campus was outsourced to a consulting firm. The benefits of outsourcing

were real and apparent -- new wiring, production of a stable network, new network hardware,

maintenance of a stable FirstClass email system, conversion from Appletalk to Ethernet,

upgrade to DSL router capability, and better on-site support.

In Fall 2000, a major equipment purchase (financed by a 4-year lease) enabled the Los

Angeles campus to upgrade all workstations, servers, printers, and software. Approximately

50 new iMac computers and 30 new PC computers were distributed throughout the campus,

including the student labs. The infusion of new hardware and consistent software on all

computers brought the campus into the 21

st

century. As of October 2001, the campus

outsourced daily computer support, FirstClass email maintenance, and web support activities

to three separate vendors.

In Summer 1998, a Campus Services Center was created, initially to provide primary

photocopy and FAX services to students, faculty, and staff. It has now become the hub of

“business services” for the campus. Mail service distribution, office supply purchasing and

distribution, classroom and audiovisual equipment scheduling, management of all small

equipment maintenance (copiers, FAXes, etc.), and parking administration fall under the

auspices of the Campus Services Center. This new functional area has been a very welcome

addition to the services provided on the campus.

2. Santa Barbara Campus

Fiscal Services includes accounts payable, student accounts, collections, and budget monitoring.

The office is staffed by 1.7 FTE employees and uses Datatel software to accomplish its

functions. Staff has been trained on the Datatel system, and they are proficient at using the basic

functions of this sophisticated software system.

As a result of the reorganization in the human resources area in July 2000, these functions are

being handled by a full-time employee who devotes 25% of her time to human resource

activities, particularly benefits administration and counseling and by the Executive Dean who

56

provides policy and procedure direction in the human resource area. The Executive Dean also

serves on the Regional Human Resources Team that oversees the human resource area for

AUSC. Thus far this arrangement has functioned well and is periodically reviewed for

effectiveness.

The organization of technology resources in the administrative and academic areas have been

described in the section for the Los Angeles campus, and the Santa Barbara history takes a

similar path. The only exception is that the Santa Barbara campus has never outsourced the

management of its computer resources. Currently, a full-time professional staff member at the

Santa Barbara campus provides administrative and academic computer support. Additional

technical support, however, is needed to meet the growing demand for services on the campus.

General campus operational functions at the Santa Barbara campus (copying, facilities

management, security, parking management, etc.) are overseen by staff and the Executive Dean’s

Office with the Administrative Associate to the Executive Dean carrying primary responsibility.

Issues are dealt with professionally; potential problems are anticipated; and immediate action is

taken to resolve problems when they occur.

B. Student Support Services

Support services provided in the student services area include admissions, financial aid,

Registrar’s Office, ADA compliance, and alumni at the two campuses.

1. Los Angeles Campus

The admissions function at the Los Angeles campus has developed from an office in the late

1980s that operated independent recruitment efforts for each academic program to one that

effectively recruits students to a growing number of academic programs. During the 1991 to

1997 period, the admissions function was under the direction of the Dean of Advancement who

functioned as an enrollment manager and marketing/public relations director. For the remainder

of the 1990s and into the early 2000s, a Director of Admissions handled the admission function.

Beginning in 2001-02, the offices of admissions and financial aid were combined under the

leadership of one director to maximize the role of each department relative to enrollment

management strategies. (Because of financial constraints, this new combined position has never

been filled.) These combined offices include a Director of Admissions and Financial Aid, an

Assistant Director of Admissions, an Assistant Director of Financial Aid, two admissions

counselors, one financial aid counselor, one administrative assistant, and four work-study

students. The Director of Admissions and Financial Aid reports to the Executive Dean and is

charged with implementing the campus’ new enrollment management strategy.

In Spring 2001, the Los Angeles campus employed the services of an enrollment

management consultant to assess the admission and recruitment efforts of the campus. Based

on work with appropriate personnel, the consultant provided a detailed report that articulated

forty-eight recommendations. The campus has begun to implement the recommendations

57

and is working with an external marketing firm to develop a strategic enrollment and

marketing plan. In addition, the enrollment management consultant conducted a 2-day

training session for staff and a 1-day session for faculty. There now is a more collective

sense of responsibility and accountability by faculty and staff around enrollment issues.

The Financial Aid Office is responsible for awarding all federal, state, and campus aid to

students, and has become an increasingly important component in the Los Angeles campus’

enrollment management strategy since the unification of the office with the admissions area

in 2001-02. In 2000-01, 93% of students received financial aid, up from 65% 5 years ago.

Over the years, student reliance on loans has increased considerably. In1995-96, the office

awarded $5,597,520 in aid compared to $5,994,679 in 2000-01.

The last 5 years also have seen increased automation in the functions of the Financial Aid

Office culminating in a major accomplishment in 1999 -- the elimination of processing paper

checks from individual banking institutions. Presently, all loan proceeds are handled through

Electronic Funds Transfer, which expedites refunds for student disbursement as well as

receiving of funds by AUSC. Since May 2000, the Los Angeles campus has been using

Educational Loan Management (ELM) resources to process approximately $4 million annual

loan volume. ELM resources employ state-of-the-art technology to exchange educational

loan data with lenders, guarantors, servicing organizations, and disbursement agencies. The

Los Angeles campus participates in and relies heavily upon the Federal Work-Study

Program. Total Work-Study Program disbursements for 1994-95 were $158,923 compared

to $104,524 in 2000-01.

The Registrar’s Office at the Los Angeles campus continued its professionalization efforts

following the 1993 NCA visit and became a critical office in providing quality service to

students. The efforts were interrupted by the untimely death of Registrar Stephen Leiter in

1996. A member of the Registrar’s Office staff was later appointed to the position of

Registrar and did an admirable job sustaining the office under constrained fiscal and

personnel conditions. In July 2001, a new, experienced Registrar from outside the institution

was appointed, and systems that had deteriorated were re-established. Also in that year, the

Datatel Coordinator position was re-structured, and a Data Entry Clerk position was added to

the Registrar’s Office. Both of these positions were necessary to keep pace with the

increasing need to manage and effectively use the Datatel system.

All prospective students are notified of the Los Angeles campus’ compliance with federal ADA

accommodation requirements and are provided instructions and materials for requesting such

accommodation. An ADA Student Handbook to assist students in this process is readily

available. Requests are processed and implemented through the Office of the Executive Dean,

and all reasonable requests are accommodated. Thus far, this system has been effective for the

fifteen to twenty student requests that are received each quarter.

Alumni activities continue to be sparse at the Los Angeles campus and have presented a

recurring problem. Organizationally, the President has been involved in this area; during the

1991-96 period, the Dean of Advancement actively functioned to create alumni involvement;

and from 1998 to 2000, the Special Assistant to the President coordinated a series of alumni

58

activities. A Regional newsletter, published 2 to 4 times per year, has helped to bridge the

gap between alumni and the University, and there was an effort by a few recent alumni (and

supported by the institution) to form a Los Angeles campus alumni association in Summer

2001. The primary goal is to raise awareness of the University and to reconnect alumni with

the campus. The results of this effort are still to be seen. The new MAE Program also has

created an alumni organization to connect its graduates to the program and the institution.

The CHE Program has undertaken a similar effort.

2. Santa Barbara Campus

The Admissions Office at the Santa Barbara campus has had the benefit of knowledgeable

and energetic staff members who have effectively recruited students to the University’s

programs. In 1998, the first professional Director of Admissions was brought to the campus

and has strengthened the institution’s capacity to recruit students. Given the increasing

number of new students over the past several years, the addition of new programs, and recent

growth initiatives, the Santa Barbara campus employed during 2001 the services of an

external consultant to address marketing and recruitment issues.

The consultant described the Santa Barbara campus Admissions Office as a “boutique”

operation. The staff processes applicants with a great deal of personal attention, contributing

to a high rate (85%) of applicants to matriculates. The understaffed clerical function and lack

of integrated Admissions technology, however, works against the development of coherent

systems for tracking contacts with inquirers, moving them into the applicant pool, and the

extraction of relevant data about both inquirers and applicants. Recent work with the

consultant has provided recommendations for improving these processes, and the Admissions

Office is beginning to move toward a state-of-the-art enrollment management orientation. A

great deal of staff training, more strategic use of financial aid, and improved management of

prospects (including continued faculty involvement) is needed. In 2000-01, a half-time

Admissions Assistant was added to the office, but this area remains understaffed.

The Financial Aid Office is strongly staffed and efficient, with well-coordinated entrance

interviews, effective counseling about student loans, and consistent exit interviews. The staff

are well-versed in federal regulations and are technologically up-to-date relative to basic

operations. Training and support, however, are needed to implement fully the Datatel

software. For example, additional training is necessary for staff to use the software to full

advantage in the areas of grade level and satisfactory academic progress. The number of

staff also needs to be increased to provide expanded office hours on Fridays and weekends –

particularly with the initiation of the Weekend College.

The Registrar’s Office also is well staffed and trained to use technology effectively to

support operations. Service to students is excellent, and record keeping, data file

maintenance, and permanent records are all exemplary. Datatel support is barely minimal,

consisting of a modest consulting budget, and unsolved problems continue to accumulate.

The campus does not have a permanent Datatel Coordinator, relying only on support

provided by the University, and this results in an extremely slow turnaround time in

59

resolving problems. Datatel modules currently exist within the integrated database to move

the campus toward on-line registration and other web-based processes, but these have not yet

been implemented because of lack of staff support for technology initiatives.

All prospective students are notified of the Santa Barbara campus’ compliance with federal ADA

accommodation requirements and are provided instructions and materials for requesting such

accommodation. An ADA Student Handbook to assist students in this process is readily

available. Requests are processed and implemented through the Office of the Academic Dean,

and all reasonable requests are accommodated. Thus far, this system has been effective for the

relatively small number of requests that are received each quarter.

Considerable success has been experienced at the Santa Barbara campus around alumni services.

For several years in the mid-1990s, an Alumni Coordinator was hired on a limited basis to

provide a quarterly newsletter and to coordinate alumni events. In December 1999, a team of

alumni volunteers formed Antioch’s first permanent Alumni Association. By January 2001, by-

laws were written and a Board of Directors was appointed. Recent elections produced a

permanent Board.

The Antioch Santa Barbara Alumni Association is designed to bring consistency to alumni

communication while involving alumni from all programs. The Board meets regularly each

month, and meetings are open to all alumni. The Board’s purpose is to offer educational, social,

and career networking opportunities, to represent their campus academic programs, and to

participate in fundraising for the Santa Barbara campus. To support the latter activity, alumni

have developed and produced logo merchandise for sale, participated in the Annual Fund Drive,

and represented the institution at college and job fairs. Social events, which include faculty, staff

and students, have rounded out the Association’s 2-year history. In addition, an alumnus of the

BA Program developed and launched an Alumni Association web site, which is linked to the

campus web site.

The campus provides a part-time, benefited Alumni Coordinator to assist the Association in day-

to-day operations, plan meetings and social events, interface with campus constituencies, and

maintain an updated database. The Coordinator publishes a quarterly newsletter that is

distributed to alumni and campus constituencies.

C. Academic Support Services

Academic support services include the Office of the Academic Dean and the

Program/Administrative Coordinators at the Los Angeles campus, and the Office of the

Academic Dean and the Academic Services Office at the Santa Barbara campus. These areas

are explored in this section.

60

1. Los Angeles Campus

From 1988 to 1998, a Regional Dean of Academic Affairs had responsibility for the

academic programs at the two campuses. The Academic Dean was located at the Los

Angeles campus and traveled regularly to the Santa Barbara campus and conducted

considerable business on the telephone. This arrangement was marginally successful, and

ultimately did not satisfy the faculty at either campus. In 1998-99, a full-time Associate

Academic Dean was appointed at the Santa Barbara campus so that each campus then had an

Academic Dean solely devoted to leadership of its academic programs. This appointment

was changed to the position of Academic Dean in 2000.

Long-term Regional Dean of Academic Affairs Laurien Alexandre accepted the position of

Dean of University-wide Programs reporting to the Chancellor of the University in 1999, and

a 2-year period began when the Los Angeles campus was without an official Academic

Dean. One search for a replacement ended without an appointment, and a second search

yielded an appointment, but the appointee was not a good fit with the institution and left the

position after a few months of service. Former President Schulman provided leadership for

the academic programs during this roughly 2-year period until the appointment of Linda

Moody, Ph.D., effective August 2001.

This long period of not having an Academic Dean at the Los Angeles campus has caused

some problems in the academic programs. Program Chairs have been compelled to make

decisions that otherwise might have been made by the Academic Dean; inter-program

policies and procedures have fallen into disuse, or need to be created; inter-program

cooperation has decreased; and new program development has been minimal. Dean Moody

has begun to address these issues, and progress clearly is being made in once again having

concerted academic leadership that is viable and lively and that meets the needs of students.

Support for the academic programs at the Los Angeles campus also is provided by a number

of Program and Administrative Coordinators. A full-time Program Coordinator serves the

BA and MAOM Programs; a full-time Program Coordinator serves the MACP and MAIC

Programs; a full-time Administrative Coordinator serves the MFA Program; and a full-time

Administrative Coordinator serves the MAE Program. The Program/Administrative

Coordinators support the Program Chair and faculty and specifically take responsibility for

program management and communication, course scheduling and book ordering,

maintenance of program syllabi files, Adjunct Faculty communication and orientation,

student communication on behalf of the program, class reservation/registration system,

management of the faculty evaluation system, and maintenance of program curriculum and

personnel databases.

From 1988 to 1998, Program Coordinators functioned out of an Academic Services Office

with their work coordinated by a Senior Program Coordinator. To provide more direct

connection with each academic program, this office was discontinued in 1998, and

Program/Administrative Coordinators were re-located to areas adjacent to the Program

Chairs and faculty. Coordinators cooperate in the preparation of quarterly Schedules of

61

Classes and other overlapping functions, but they now have much more autonomy than they

had under the previous system.

There has been relative stability in the Program/Administrative Coordinator ranks with

several Coordinators serving for 6 to 8 years in their positions. The Coordinators serve as

primary information dissemination centers for the academic programs, and they relate to the

Chair and faculty as well as to students and Adjunct Faculty. Their role is a critical one and

has evolved over time. Coordinators have periodically lobbied for more recognition and

salary consideration, and these efforts have generally been successful, although salary levels

are still probably below comparable positions at other academic institutions. Concerns about

the breadth of responsibility and quantity of work also have been expressed over the years,

and additional staff is necessary in this area.

2. Santa Barbara Campus

From 1988 to 1998, a Regional Dean of Academic Affairs had responsibility for the

academic programs at the two campuses. This arrangement functioned marginally well and

clearly was a compromise conditioned by limited resources. Beginning in 1996, Richard

Whitney, long-term Core Faculty member and BA Program Chair, devoted 25% of his time

to coordinating the academic programs at the campus (as an Associate Dean reporting to the

Regional Academic Dean). This percent of effort was later increased to 50%, and then in

1998-99, Whitney assumed the position of Associate Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara

campus on a full-time basis reporting to the Regional Academic Dean. In 2000, he assumed

the position of Academic Dean for the Santa Barbara campus reporting to the President. His

leadership has provided needed stability to the academic programs, strengthened

infrastructure systems, initiated procedural changes, and promoted program development and

assessment. The addition of a full-time Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus has

substantially strengthened programs at the campus and added to the general organizational

sophistication of the campus.

Under the direction of the Academic Dean, the Academic Services Office provides support

for the Program Chairs and faculty in many ways. Its staff work collaboratively to schedule

classes, hire Adjunct Faculty (at the Chairs’ direction and with the Academic Dean’s

approval), orient new Adjunct Faculty to the campus, work with human resources on payroll

issues, assign classrooms, order textbooks and readers, and provide general assistance to the

Dean, Chairs, and faculty.

Since the last NCA visit, several changes have taken place in the Academic Services Office:

• Staffing has increased from 1.5 FTE staff to 3.5 FTE staff including an

Administrative Coordinator/Credentials Analyst for the Teaching Credential Program,

an Administrative Coordinator for the BA/MAOM Weekend College, and a Program

Coordinator for the Community and Professional Education program.

62

• The Office was reorganized in July 2001 to provide better, more direct support by

designating a point person for each program and reassigning individual staff’s duties

(some inter-program, some program specific).

• An Academic Services Office supervisor position was created to recognize the

higher-level responsibilities associated with the position.

• Changes in staff have occurred fairly often, with only one staff member staying for

more than 2 years.

• A Children’s Literature Library for MAE Program students was created with the

assistance of the Academic Services Office.

• The Office has adapted to changes in all program operations and to the creation of a

local Academic Dean’s Office.

The above changes reflect a turbulent period in academic services at the Santa Barbara

campus. Faculty and staff alike have been critical of this area because prior to July 2001, the

level of staffing was clearly inadequate for the duties and expectations. High turnover

undermined consistency and required training of new staff. In addition, the lack of

uniformity between programs has created difficulties for staff. Each Program Chair has her

own way of scheduling classes, dealing with Adjunct Faculty, etc. which makes staff’s work

more complex. Developing more standardized systems across programs would allow staff to

devote more effort to other projects.

One of the things Academic Services Office staff does well is track the massive amounts of

information that flows through the department. They regularly collect syllabi, book orders,

course materials, and faculty paperwork. They archive information both for record keeping

and for future reference. Even though efforts to maintain the integrity of these data are

complicated by constant updates and changes, the level of accuracy is high.

D. Instructional Resources

Instructional resources at both the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campus have increased

substantially since the last NCA visit. Computer equipment has been upgraded dramatically and

is serviced regularly. All Core Faculty have desktop computers that are networked and provide

email and Internet communication. Computers are available to students in modestly equipped

computer facilities and in MAE Program libraries. Student computers are equipped with Word,

Excel, and PowerPoint software as well as with SPSS statistical software for research activities,

and regular training is available to students in the use of this software. Selected classrooms are

wired for Internet access and equipped with projectors for classroom presentations and

demonstrations. The Santa Barbara campus provides laptop computers for such purposes.

Digital video cams are available for MAE Program students to record their off-campus student

teaching, and similar equipment is available on campus for MACP students to record their

clinical training sessions.

63

Online library services, not available 10 years ago, also have evolved in the past few years

and are available to faculty and students on and off campus. Because of affiliation with

Antioch College in Ohio, students and faculty have access to OhioLINK -- a subscription

collection of electronic research databases and full-text services. Faculty and students can

access approximately 100 specific databases, 3500+ e-journals, and 5000+ e-books in many

fields such as social sciences, arts and humanities, education, business, and the sciences.

Access to OhioLINK has been available since July 2001, and thus far satisfaction with the

system has not been high. In addition, each campus pays for students to obtain library

privileges at university libraries in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas, e.g., University

of California at Los Angeles, University of California Santa Barbara, and University of

Southern California.

The MAE Programs at each campus also maintain an on-campus Children’s Literature Library

consisting of over 1,000 titles. Students have access to this library on a daily basis, and it is

managed through an automated system. Students can check out titles in both children’s literature

and professional development. The MAOM Programs also maintain a small selection of journals

and reference books for use by its students.

The Los Angeles campus maintains a Math and Writing Center that is administered by a full-

time Core Faculty member who devotes 20% of her time to the Center. Three Adjunct

Faculty, two graduate writing students, and a professional tutor provide direct services to

students. The Center serves the needs of primarily undergraduate students, although some

graduate students avail themselves of the full-range of services provided by the Math and

Writing Center. Basic services provided by the Center include courses, tutorials, and other

types of academic assistance. Tutorial services focus on helping students write effective

papers and other documents for classes, and on improving math competency. The Math and

Writing Center is open Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and during

the past 3 years, it has served an average of about 26 different students each quarter, offering

an average of over 27 service-hours each week, of which over 11 hours (almost 42%) were

used.

Another instructional resource provided by the Los Angeles campus is the Clinical Training

Office (CTO). To insure compliance with California Board of Behavior Science mandates,

the MACP Program provides a 0.50 FTE Core Faculty member to direct the CTO and about

0.50 FTE of another Core Faculty member’s efforts to support MACP students as they earn

academic credit at more than 130 authorized clinical training sites. The CTO also employs a

full-time staff member. The CTO promotes high standards of ethics and professionalism in

clinical training, oversees all aspects of registration and credit for clinical training, supports

students in resolving difficulties encountered at training sites, and provides students with

information and support in meeting California Marriage and Family Therapy licensing

requirements.

Instructional support services are minimal at the Santa Barbara campus, even though

remediation is sometimes necessary in writing and math skills. Tutoring is available free of

charge for students with disabilities who request accommodations, but other students do not

benefit from either fee-based or free tutoring. Names of recommended tutors are maintained

64

by the Academic Deans’ Office, and every effort is made to link tutors with students who

request tutoring references, but with occasional exceptions based on financial need, the

University does not pay for tutoring. The issue of instructional support services is under

review by the Academic Dean, and an attempt will be made during the 2001-02 year to

develop a more effective system for providing such services to students who need

remediation.

E. Auxiliary Services

AUSC campuses maintain a number of functions that best can be described as auxiliary services

including the Café, the Bookstore, and vending machines. The Café is operated only at the Los

Angeles campus.

Since 1998, the Los Angeles campus has provided an on-site Café for use by students, faculty,

staff, and administration. The campus contracts with a local food service operator to run this 600

square feet facility located on the first floor of the building. The Café provides salads, soups,

sandwiches, and beverages in a pleasant environment that is conducive to small groups

congregating for lively interaction and socializing. Currently, Simply Delicious, a minority-

owned business from Pasadena, has the contract to operate the Café.

Over the years, the Los Angeles campus has struggled with the issue of how to provide books to

students. In the early 1990s, exclusive arrangements were made with local bookstores to order

and display books required for Los Angeles campus classes. These arrangements necessitated

students traveling to various locations in the Los Angeles area so in 1994 a contract was signed

with Fowlett Bookstores, a national college/university book provider, to operate a bookstore on

the campus. This arrangement worked well for a number of years, but in 1998, Fowlett

terminated the contract because the profit margin at the site was too small.

After another small, local bookstore failed to make a sufficient profit, the Los Angeles

campus opted to operate the bookstore on its own. A loss of $32,600 was reported in 1999-

00; and in 2000-01, the loss was $47,715. The University cannot continue to sustain losses

of this magnitude so a student field-study team from the MAOM Program reviewed

Bookstore operations during Winter 2001. Based upon this comprehensive review, it has

been determined that the Bookstore can break even at the very least, but more importantly

has the potential of producing a profit of at least 25% after expenditures. During the 2001-02

year, the results of implementing the recommendations of the field-study team will be seen,

and the future of the Bookstore determined.

The Santa Barbara campus has attempted for many years to provide course textbooks through

local bookstores, most recently Borders, a national chain. The attempts have met with limited

success; two bookstores were privately owned and went out of business, and the local Borders

experienced a corporate downsizing that left them unable to staff the textbook operation. An

earlier experience with providing texts through the Bookstore at the Los Angeles campus was

unsatisfactory from a student service perspective, and the current Los Angeles campus Bookstore

65

operation is too small to accommodate ordering, book returns, and shipping that would be

required to serve Santa Barbara campus students.

In Summer 2001, the campus made the decision to accept the inevitable and contracted with a

virtual bookstore, MBS Direct. The company offers the opportunity to order online and by a toll

free telephone number, and provides new and used texts and a book buy-back option. In short,

MBS Direct provides all the services of a complete on-site bookstore without the potential

financial risks to the campus.

Santa Barbara campus students have had few complaints regarding MBS Direct, and campus

administrative offices find the staff at MBS Direct to be helpful and accommodating. Students

who are in government supported education programs are able to charge their books for later

billing by the campus Finance Office, and late text changes and additions are accommodated.

All transactions are met with a great customer service attitude on the part of MBS Direct staff.

The campus intends to continue using MBS Direct for the foreseeable future, especially as on-

line and low-residency programs are added.

Each AUSC campus has food and beverage vending machines that provide a variety of high

quality and healthful food products to students on the campuses. These services are provided

under contract with local vendors who supply and service the machines and routinely re-

stock food products. Students appreciate these services, although periodic complaints are

received regarding the kinds of foods provided and the freshness of some items. Revenue

from vending machines is minimal and goes into the general operating budget at each

campus.

Evaluation of Support Services

In general, support services available at the two campuses are of good quality as revealed in

Student Satisfaction Surveys administered during the Winter 2002 Quarter; copies of these

surveys are available in the campus Resource Rooms. With reductions in staff at the Los

Angeles campus and the addition of new programs at the Santa Barbara campus, however,

staffing levels are increasingly less than appropriate. Several offices need augmentation of staff,

and staff salaries need to be reviewed for adequacy and competitiveness. With the

implementation of the Datatel system, staff training has not keep pace with the need for learning

about the capabilities of the system. Much time, effort, and energy has gone into making this

system useable and efficient, and to date, these expenditures have not yielded the practical results

that were expected. Additional training needs to be provided to produce these results.

The student services area at the Los Angeles campus has been particularly impacted by the loss

of personnel and the slowness with which these positions have been re-filled. A Registrar has

been appointed as have several other staff positions. Now the functions and systems related to

these areas can be revitalized, and high levels of service to students can be restored. The next

major personnel requirement is the appointment of a Director of Admissions and Financial Aid.

66

The enrollment management strategy being implemented at each campus with the guidance of an

external consultant offers much potential for increasing student enrollments, and progress in this

area needs to be monitored and documented. This is particularly the case at the Los Angeles

campus where a new Director of Admission and Financial Aid position was created; the

effectiveness of this approach should be reviewed periodically.

The re-organized human resources area offers some cost reduction and appears to be a viable

method for handling personnel and benefits issues at the two campuses. This system will be

reviewed periodically for effectiveness, and changes will be made as necessary.

Academic computing at the two campuses has increased over the last several years and is

currently at a level that serves most, but not all, the needs of students and faculty. As

technological advances occur and more online teaching resources become available, additional

resources will need to be committed to instructional computing, and a plan for these

developments should be created. The new arrangement for providing computer support at the

Los Angeles campus also will require monitoring to ensure effective system administration.

The profit margin at the Los Angeles campus Bookstore should be monitored closely and steps

taken to ensure that operating losses do not continue to occur. It is possible that this service is

too expensive to operate on campus and that an online service provider should be sought, similar

to what is done at the Santa Barbara campus.

The alumni area also is an area that needs attention at the Los Angeles campus. Various

approaches to this issue have been attempted with limited success. The successful Santa Barbara

campus approach to this area has not been tried, and this approach may be worthy of

consideration.

Finally, AUSC believes the current system of allocating federal financial aid within the

University should be reviewed and a more equitable system developed and implemented. This is

the only way that adult campuses can receive their fair share of financial aid resources and be

able to compete effectively for students in today’s highly competitive environment.

V. HUMAN RESOURCES

This section of the Self-Study Report examines and evaluates issues related to specific

campus constituencies – students, faculty, and staff.

A. Students

Enrollment at each campus has been maintained or grown over the years since the last NCA

visit. The Los Angeles campus has seen a decrease in two of its programs (the BA and MACP

Programs), relative stability in two of its programs (MAIC and MAOM Programs), and growth

in its new programs (MFA and MAE Programs). The Santa Barbara campus has grown slowly,

but steadily, over the past 10 years. This growth has been possible because all programs except

67

the MACP Program have grown and the MAE Program has been added to the curriculum. Data

regarding enrollment at the two campuses are available in Fact Book 2000 and Fact Book 2002

which are available in the campus Resource Rooms.

The student body at the two campuses remains predominately white, middle class, and

female. While the campuses continue to serve an adult student population, the number of

younger students has increased so that the average age of a typical student at the campuses is

around 36, down from around 38 in the early 1990s. Female students still represent the

largest group on the campuses with approximately 75% of the student body being female as

of Fall 2000. Minority populations have nearly doubled over the years with approximately

23% of the Los Angeles campus being persons of color in Fall 2000 as compared to about

12% in the early 1990s. Santa Barbara campus minority enrollment has increased from about

10% to 18% during the same period. The international student body has fluctuated. In Fall

1992, a total of nine students were on F-1 student visas at the Los Angeles campus. In Fall

2001, there were a total of four students on the same visa. During the same period, the Santa

Barbara campus had five and fifteen students, respectively, on F-1 visas.

Evaluation of Student-Related Issues

As witnessed in recent student satisfaction and alumni surveys, students are generally very

pleased with their experiences at each campus, although several issues related to students

recur. First, each campus attempts to recruit more male students, but with only nominal

success. Because men are a minority on each AUSC campus, they periodically report feeling

isolated and bothered by the stereotypes that they purportedly represent. Second, the

campuses attempt to recruit more persons of color to the programs, but these efforts have

been marginally successful, even though the percentage of minority students has increased

over the years. If the campuses are to realize their goal of providing a truly multicultural

educational experience for students, additional persons of color need to be attracted to the

campuses.

Third, students expect more from the campuses in terms of career planning and placement.

Neither campus can afford such a function, but students regularly request this service.

Fourth, each campus has struggled to involve students in the governance of the campus, and

many of these efforts have been unsuccessful. The creation of the Santa Barbara campus

Student Council has been a pleasant departure from this pattern. Fifth, the development of an

alumni function at each of the campuses has been sporadic and marginally successful,

although the Santa Barbara campus has recently established an Alumni Association.

Finally, students routinely complain about the temperature in classrooms and parking

problems. Classroom temperatures fluctuate markedly because each campus is housed in

office space that is not designed to accommodate large numbers of people in one area – body

heat raises the temperature in the classrooms and the air conditioning system cannot make

suitable adjustments quickly. Parking also is a problem, particularly during the day, because

building lease arrangements do not provide sufficient numbers of parking space for student,

faculty, and staff use. The Los Angeles campus requires faculty and staff to park on

68

surrounding streets to accommodate students parking in the lot adjacent to the building and

periodically has provided valet parking for students at peak hours. The Santa Barbara

campus leases space in conveniently located parking lots close to the University for student

use. All of these measures are adequate, but they are not sufficient to quell student

complaints, and room temperature and parking will likely be issues continually needing to be

addressed given the campus locations and facilities.

B. Faculty

Since 1996, a voluntary system of faculty rank has been in effect at the Los Angeles campus,

for those faculty who have felt it necessary to be able to use traditional rank designations in

external environments. Three Core Faculty members have availed themselves of the process

to achieve the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor. The Core

Faculty at the Santa Barbara campus decided very consciously not to participate in the rank

plan. Despite the rank system, three faculty designations currently are in use at both

campuses: Core, Associate, and Adjunct. In general, AUSC Core Faculty do not support a

rank system because they do not view it as consistent with Antioch’s ideals.

Core faculty responsibilities include teaching, advising, and a variety of administrative tasks,

as well as community service and professional development. Individualized job descriptions,

negotiated each year with the Program Chair and approved by the Academic Dean, allow for

differences among Core Faculty in emphases and responsibilities. All Core Faculty attend

weekly or bi-weekly department and monthly all-faculty meetings, attend quarterly

Community Meetings at the Los Angeles campus and Faculty/Staff Meetings at the Santa

Barbara campus, and participate on campus committees. Core Faculty receive annual

contracts (from half-time to full-time). In general, a full-time Core Faculty currently advises

up to 40 to 45 individual students and teaches one to two courses per quarter. Core Faculty

duties and workloads vary from program to program and vary annually based on the

individualized job description negotiated for the year.

Since the last NCA visit, Core Faculty have been successful in creating new programs -- the

MFA Program, the MAE Program, and the CHE Program. They also have been very

successful in augmenting the existing curriculum through the development of new

concentrations that are aimed at meeting the needs of the community. (See program

descriptions above.)

Since the last NCA visit, Core Faculty life has improved in some respects. Quarter-long

sabbatical leaves every fourth year have been provided on a seniority-rotation model since

1990-91 at the Los Angeles campus and 1994-95 at the Santa Barbara campus. Some

professional development funds have been available annually for conference attendance,

association membership dues, journal subscriptions, and book purchases. Thanks to virtual

(electronic) library databases (OCLC, ProQuest, and currently, OhioLINK) faculty have

access to professional literature in their area. The campuses also provide letters of

introduction for Core Faculty to local research libraries so that Visiting Faculty library

privileges are granted. Salaries have increased since 1993, but these increases have not been

69

sufficient to maintain faculty salaries at levels consistent with comparable institutions in

Southern California.

Associate Faculty are hired on a quarterly or yearly basis, work less than half-time, and work

responsibilities vary. Some are hired for short-term work, typically when a Core Faculty

member goes on sabbatical leave, and have limited duties such as conducting information

meetings and admissions interviews. Others are hired for longer periods and also advise

students, teach, attend regular faculty meetings, and participate in committee work.

Adjunct Faculty are hired on a quarter-by-quarter basis to teach specific courses as needed.

The pool from which to hire Adjunct Faculty is large in the Southern California area so

preference in hiring Adjunct Faculty has generally been given to individuals with a strong

capacity to relate to adult students, experience as practitioners, and activity within the

community rather than to those with primary interests in academic research. Many are

rehired regularly and demonstrate long-term commitment to AUSC’s mission and purpose.

All-program Adjunct Faculty meetings are conducted three times a year at the Santa Barbara

campus, and at the Los Angeles campus, programs conduct regular meetings for Adjunct

Faculty. Additional meetings are held by some programs to address program-specific needs.

The composition of the AUSC faculty by category of employment as of Fall 2001 is provided

in Table 3-3, and the gender and ethnic make-up of the faculty by employment category as of

Fall 2001 is provided in Table 3-4. In addition, terminal and professional degrees and/or

certificates/credentials held by AUSC faculty by employment category as of Fall 2001 are

presented in Table 3-5. The faculty offered one hundred-eighty different classes, seminars,

and workshops during the Fall 2001 Quarter (Los Angeles campus: 121 and Santa Barbara

campus: 59). Faculty rosters, resumes, and Schedules of Classes are available in the campus

Resource Rooms.

Antioch faculty also distinguish themselves via professional publications, presentations at

conferences, and consultation or other forms of community service. Faculty

accomplishments are chronicled in the annual Indicators of Progress Report. Copies of these

documents and resumes for all faculty are available for review in the campus Resource

Rooms.

Table 3-3. AUSC Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)

Employment

Category

Los Angeles

Campus

Santa Barbara

Campus

AUSC

Core Faculty

Full-Time

17

8

25

> Full-Time

4

3

7

Associate Faculty

3

2

5

Adjunct Faculty

73

48

121

Total

97

61

158

70

Table 3-4. Gender and Ethnicity of Faculty by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)

Unit

Gender

Ethnicity

Los Angeles Campus

Core Faculty

15 female/6 male

17 white/4 POC*

Associate Faculty

3 female/0male

3 white/ 0 POC

Adjunct Faculty

37 female/34 male/

2 unknown

61 white/ 6 POC/

6 unknown

Santa Barbara Campus

Core Faculty

6 female/5 male

10 white/1 POC*

Associate Faculty

1 female/1 male

1 white/1 POC

Adjunct Faculty

28 female/20 male

40 white/8 POC

Total

Core Faculty

21 female/11male

27 white/5 POC

Associate Faculty

4 female/1 male

4 white/1 POC

Adjunct Faculty

65 female/54 male/

2 unknown

101 white/14 POC/

6 unknown

*Person(s) of color (POC)

Table 3-5. Terminal and Professional Degrees/Credentials Held by AUSC Faculty by

Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)

Unit

Terminal Degree

Professional

Degree/Credential

Los Angeles Campus

Core Faculty

14

14

Associate Faculty

0

2

Adjunct Faculty

57

53

Santa Barbara Campus

Core Faculty

8

3

Associate Faculty

1

1

Adjunct Faculty

15

33

Total

Core Faculty

22

17

Associate Faculty

1

3

Adjunct Faculty

72

86

71

Evaluation of Faculty-Related Issues

AUSC considers its faculty to be one of its greatest strengths. They serve competently as

teachers, advisors, administrators, and socially responsible members of many distinct

communities. Many faculty members demonstrate strong commitment to the institution and

its values even though there is no tenure system and most faculty have elected not to

participate in a rank system (except for a limited number of Core Faculty at the Los Angeles

campus). Faculty commitment to AUSC is indicated by their many years of loyal service and

devotion to students. They enjoy the small classes and the opportunity to teach and learn

from adult students. The retention rate among all faculty is very high, especially among Core

Faculty, and there is a strong sense of commitment to the Antioch educational mission and a

shared sense of identity.

Organizational issues in the academic area have been a major concern of Core Faculty at the

Santa Barbara campus for many years and for the Los Angeles Core Faculty since1999 when

Dean Alexandre left her position. Academic program coordination and Core Faculty morale

have suffered at the Los Angeles campus because of a nearly 2-year hiatus in filling the

Academic Dean position. These conditions occurred despite the very real efforts of former

President Schulman to bolster the academic area during this period. Since August 2001,

Dean Moody has taken definitive steps to address these issues, and progress on many fronts

has been made.

A major issue addressed by the Santa Barbara campus Core Faculty since the NCA visit is

academic reorganization. Until about 5 years ago, the lack of an on-site Academic Dean and

the isolation of clusters of faculty behind program walls resulted in an extremely inefficient

model coupled with limited resources, including inadequate academic staff support. In

repeated inter-program faculty meetings, the need for reorganization was thoroughly

discussed, and the faculty’s views communicated to campus and Regional leadership.

Resulting changes include: the selection by the faculty of an inter-program Core Faculty

representative to voice faculty perspectives on campus and Regional governance groups. An

Associate Academic Dean for Santa Barbara also was appointed from the ranks of the faculty

beginning on a part-time basis in 1996 and full-time in 1998-99. In addition, academic

support services have been increased. And although it was decided to maintain the part of

the existing model that assigns Core Faculty to one specific program, nevertheless the faculty

identify themselves as both program-specific and as members of one “full faculty” that meets

at least once a month to discuss issues that transcend program boundaries.

Faculty staffing issues need to be addressed because the number of Core Faculty has not

increased appreciably since the last NCA visit, although many programs have grown in size

and complexity. As a result, the Core Faculty note the increase in advising and other

administrative responsibilities that contribute to an air of over taxation. There also is a lack

of uniformity among the programs in terms of equality of faculty/student ratios, teaching

loads, advising loads, and program administrative work. Even though programs are different,

more standardization of workload expectations is necessary. The impact of these issues has

been most strongly felt in the MFA Program where additional Core Faculty are sorely

needed.

72

Although members of the Adjunct Faculty are fairly diverse at each campus, AUSC has not

been successful in increasing or maintaining diversity among its Core Faculty. For example,

in 1996-97, there was a need to curtail Core Faculty positions. The approach taken to

institute this reduction was a “last-hired first-fired” philosophy, and the two positions lost

were both held by persons of color. In addition, leadership positions seem to be held by

predominately white Core Faculty. Other aspects of diversity (e.g., women and gay/lesbian)

are represented, which are valued. But given the population AUSC serves and its mission, it

also is important to employ a Core Faculty that represents a full-range of ethnic diversity.

Opportunities will exist to achieve this goal as many Core Faculty reach retirement age in the

next several years, and additional persons of color may be hired into the faculty ranks.

Lack of resources continues to be the major obstacle not only to change in academic systems,

but also to improvement in the quality of faculty life. These concerns were expressed in the

institution’s 1993 Self-Study Report, and some progress has been made, but further progress

is still needed in the following areas:

• Administrative burnout remains a threat to Core Faculty. With a four-quarter

calendar year, Core Faculty have little time to pursue creative intellectual work, to

update syllabi with new scholarship, or simply to reinvigorate themselves. The

implementation of mini-sabbatical leaves (3 months after every 3 years of service for

all Core and Associate Faculty) has helped address this problem. Efforts need to be

developed to revise the four-quarter calendar so that Core and Associate Faculty teach

three of four quarters. Additional faculty have been hired as new programs have been

developed, but this has not yet alleviated the heavy advising and general

administrative workload.

• Although both Core and Adjunct Faculty salaries have improved since the last NCA

visit, neither have kept pace with the market. Although talented faculty, new and old,

find it rewarding to teach at AUSC campuses, hiring and retaining qualified faculty

continues to be a time-consuming process for all Program Chairs. In addition, many

Core Faculty feel forced to work beyond normal loads to compensate for salaries that

have not increased consistently or sufficiently.

• The mixed Core/Adjunct Faculty model AUSC uses is effective in many ways and

provides both for stability via a strong Core Faculty presence and increased diversity

(both ethnic and professional) via a larger Adjunct Faculty. But the institution

continues to struggle with integrating Adjunct Faculty into the institution both in

terms of governance and faculty development efforts. Regular Core/Adjunct Faculty

luncheons and program-specific meetings (e.g., on assessment and writing) have

helped, but more progress is needed.

• Clerical support for Program Chairs remains inadequate, although the Program

Coordinator structure at the Los Angeles campus attempts to address this issue.

Similarly at the Santa Barbara campus, an increase in Academic Services Office staff

and re-organization of that area by the Santa Barbara Academic Dean as of July 2001

are expected to improve this situation.

73

C. Staff

AUSC considers its staff to be one of its essential assets. They serve competently to provide

students and faculty with quality service and maintain the essential records of the institution.

Many staff members demonstrate strong commitment to the institution and its values even

though workloads often are heavy and salaries are not as competitive as they should be. Staff

commitment to AUSC is indicated by their many years of loyal service and devotion to

students. One staff member at the Los Angeles campus has enjoyed nearly 30 years of

service in numerous capacities. The retention rate among staff has traditionally been high,

especially among those at the Santa Barbara campus; this has changed some at the Los

Angeles campus in recent years, where turn over rates have been increasing. There is a

strong sense of commitment among staff to the Antioch educational mission and a shared

sense of responsibility for providing quality services to students.

AUSC staff work based on job descriptions that have been developed by the appropriate

supervisor, recommended by the appropriate Dean, and approved by the Regional Human

Resources Team. A system for re-classifying positions exists when job responsibilities

change substantially, and twice a year, requests for re-classification are considered by the

Regional Human Resources Team. A Human Resources Handbook provides details of the

terms of employment and fringe benefits as well as general policies. The handbook is

updated annually, and a copy of the Human Resources Handbook is available in the campus

Resource Rooms.

The work-week for staff is 35 hours, and staff working conditions are generally viewed as

good. Relationships between and among other staff and faculty are congenial and

professional. Staff participate actively in campus governance by serving on various councils

and committees, and their views are sought in the decision-making processes of the campuses

and the Region. Monthly Committee Meetings also are conducted where all members of the

campus community may voice views on issues of interest and concern.

Since the last NCA visit, the quality of life for staff has improved in some respects. Flexible

work hours are possible with the approval of the appropriate supervisor, and all staff

members are encouraged to take accrued vacation so that they obtain regular periods of

rejuvenation. Some professional developments funds are available for staff to attend training

sessions and conferences related to their area of service to the institution, although these

funds have been in short supply during the last several years. Staff salaries also have

increased over the last 10 years, but these increases have not been sufficient, and staff

salaries need to be improved.

Organizational issues have been a major concern of staff at the Los Angeles campus since

1997, and led to the initiation of a team approach to addressing issues on campus. Several

cross-program teams were formed to address issues as they arose and to produce solutions

that emerged from staff themselves, rather than from administration. Former President

Schulman supported the efforts of staff, but the results of this experiment were mixed. Some

staff became disillusioned, and others left the institution for other positions.

74

Staff at the Santa Barbara campus, in general, are viewed as dedicated, competent individuals

who expend much time and energy to serve the needs of students. Turn over among staff is

low: three of the twenty-one staff members have been at the institution for over 10 years;

seven individuals have been employed for 5 years or more; and three have celebrated their

third year at the Santa Barbara campus. Of the remaining positions, six have been added in

the past 3 years. New employees are easily integrated into the team culture and quickly

embrace the values of the organization. There is the sense that, despite inevitable conflicts

and disagreements, staff and administrators understand that the goal of stable enrollment is

directly fostered by attitudes and efforts of staff.

The composition of the AUSC staff and administration by category of employment as of Fall

2001 is provided in Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 provides data as of Fall 2001 regarding the

gender and ethnicity of AUSC staff and administration by employment category.

Evaluation of Staff-Related Issues

As has been stated previously, current fiscal resources are sufficient to support basic

operations, but leave very little room to address issues that are of importance to staff.

Among these are the following:

1. Salaries need to be improved. In virtually every category, Antioch staff have fallen

behind with regard to comparable institutions and the local employment market. A

thorough and thoughtful process, over a period of several years, needs to be initiated,

probably with the assistance of an outside consultant who may be seen as unbiased.

2. Staff and Administrator workloads are considered to be excessive by most employees.

Lack of resources to add staff to existing offices as new programs have been

developed is a common complaint. Although some new staff have been hired, these

employees have been hired primarily to support new programs and so have not

lessened the workload of existing operations.

3. Lack of sufficient technology support has been arguably the primary cause of staff

workload increases. Conventional wisdom holds that technology improvements

increase employee productivity, but AUSC has discovered that lack of staff to support

technology as it is implemented goes against that convention. The major area of

discontent (particularly at the Santa Barbara campus) is the absence of technical

expertise to train new employees, solve problems as they arise, and fully implement

the many features of the Datatel software.

4. Another technology issue is hardware/software compatibility. Several departments

operate with workstations that are incompatible so that the sharing of files and

databases is impossible. Other offices have workstations that are inadequate for their

required activities. Across the board, software must be upgraded to the same version.

75

Table 3-6. FTE AUSC Staff and Administration

by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)

Employment

Category

Region

Los Angeles

Campus

Santa Barbara

Campus

AUSC

Administration

2.00

3.50

4.00

9.50

Administrative

Associate

4.00

6.00

7.25

17.25

Non-Union Staff

0.00

14.71

6.75

21.46

Total

6.00

24.21

18.00

48.21

Table 3-7. Gender and Ethnicity of Staff and Administration

by Employment Category (As of Fall 2001)

Unit

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Administrators

0 female/2 male

1 white/1 POC*

Administrative Associates

2 female/ 2 male

3 white/1 POC*

Non-union Staff

0

0

Los Angeles Campus

Administrators

2 female/2 male

3 white/1 POC*

Administrative Associates

3 female/3 male

5 white/1 POC*

Non-union Staff

12 female/3 male

4 white/11 POC*

Santa Barbara Campus

Administrators

4 female/0 male

3 white/1 POC*

Administrative Associates

7 female/1 male

6 white/2 POC*

Non-union Staff

5 female/3 male

6 white/2 POC*

Total

Administrators

6 female/4 male

7 white/3 POC*

Administrative Associates

12 female/6 male

14 white/4 POC*

Non-union Staff

17 female/6 male

10 white/13 POC*

*Person(s) of Color (POC)

5. Although most employees are moderately satisfied with the level of fringe benefits

offered by the University, many are very unhappy with the third party administrator

(TPA) that the University has retained to administer the self-funded plan. After

several years of complaints, however, University Administration moved to a new

TPA effective January 2002, and whether this resolves these issues remains to be

seen.

76

6. Opportunities for professional staff development are barely adequate at each campus.

Student services directors attend their professional conferences, usually on a yearly

basis, but limited funds exist to permit other staff to attend conferences regularly.

Datatel training in San Francisco and Yellow Springs has been provided on an as

needed basis to new employees. AUSC also provides tuition remission benefits to

employees who wish to enroll in any one of the institution’s academic programs, and

a significant number of employees have done so over the past 10 years. Nonetheless,

no professional development plan exists, and such a plan should be developed and

funded.

In addition, human resources staffing is inadequate at Santa Barbara campus. The previous

configuration with a Regional Director of Human Resources was not satisfactory because the

position was based at the Los Angeles campus and the person was seen as inaccessible. Staff

at the Santa Barbara campus desire a human resources professional, at least half-time, based

in Santa Barbara who would be a resource to help resolve insurance issues, conduct in-

service training, and be an advocate for staff issues.

77

Chapter 4. Criterion Three

“The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.”

AUSC indeed continues to accomplish its educational purposes. In the broadest of terms, the

institution established for itself in the early 1990s the goal of achieving Wolff and Harris’

often mentioned shibboleth of moving from a “culture of conversation” regarding assessment

to a “culture of evidence.” [Ralph A. Wolff and Olita D. Harris, “Using Assessment to

Develop a Culture of Evidence,” Changing College Classrooms, Diane F. Halpern and

Associates, editors (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994), pp. 271-88.] The path to

achieving this goal has been neither easy, nor direct, but AUSC campuses have made

substantial progress in obtaining this goal. Progress has been slower than desired, but it has

been steady, persistent, and systematic at each campus. Issues related to fiscal and human

resources have been addressed and accommodated on many occasions so that the assessment

efforts of the campus could move forward. Each campus is in a better place today regarding

assessment than it was in 1993, and great pride is taken in the progress that has been made.

Today, the objectives of each program are well grounded in both the AUSC Mission

Statement and each Program Mission Statement. The concept of identifying specific learning

outcomes and devising mechanisms for measuring these outcomes has become a part of the

culture of each campus, even though resources have not always been available to press the

measurement of outcomes as far as faculty would like. What is learned from the

measurement devices is then used by program faculty to modify and strengthen the

curriculum so that the gap between anticipated results and actual results is narrowed. As

identified later in this chapter, a clear and well-defined Assessment Plan is understood and

used by faculty to assess student progress and to inform programmatic amelioration of

curricular shortcomings.

Assessment efforts are coordinated through the assessment bodies at each campus and are led

by the respective Academic Dean. The Los Angeles Assessment Task Force was instituted

in 1994 and is composed of faculty representatives from each program. This Task Force

meets regularly with the Academic Dean and provides cross-program leadership to

assessment efforts at the Los Angeles campus. A portion of a Core Faculty member’s job

description also is devoted to assessment efforts, and this person Chairs the Task Force. At

the Santa Barbara campus, the Assessment Task Force composed of faculty from each

program meets with the Academic Dean for discussion of assessment issues and

implementation strategies. With the appointment of a full-time Academic Dean at the Santa

Barbara campus in 1998-99, the Task Force has met more regularly than in the past and has

played a critical role in moving forward the assessment efforts of the campus. By

incorporating the responsibility for assessment leadership into the job descriptions of the

Academic Deans, assessment awareness has been raised at each campus and has become a

routine part of what the Academic Deans and the faculty do in fulfilling their responsibilities

at the institution. The assessment efforts of the two campuses have moved forward

successfully, despite constrained resources at each campus and some shortage of academic

leadership. More remains to be accomplished, but significant progress has occurred since the

78

1993 NCA visit. A “culture of evidence” has slowly, but steadily, developed at the two

campuses.

AUSC is committed to a continuing and serious discussion of issues related to the assessment

of students and programs, and considerable time, energy, and fiscal resources have been

devoted to this effort since the 1993 NCA visit. These efforts have been modestly

successful. The two campuses are committed to further efforts in the future and have

developed a multi-year plan for the improvement of student and program assessment

activities. The remainder of this chapter addresses the direct and indirect measures of student

learning and the specific measures in place for the regular and timely assessment of

programs.

I. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING AND PROGRESS

AUSC is replete with elements that enhance effective student learning and further student

progress, such as small classes, faculty accessibility, innovative curricula, and feedback on

learning activities through narrative evaluations. To assess student learning (in the

traditional sense of acquisition of a specific body of knowledge) and student progress (with

respect to change overtime from matriculation through graduation and beyond), all academic

programs in the Region rely on direct and indirect methods of assessment. Direct methods

refer to those that measure specific competencies; indirect methods refer to those that

describe student competencies short of actually measuring them. Methods of direct

assessment include evaluators' assessments of learning, students' learning analyses and

summative evaluations, portfolios, and capstone projects and seminars, or graduate projects.

Indirect methods of assessment include faculty quarterly and mid-program reviews of student

progress, student/alumni surveys, student acceptance rates for internships and graduate

programs, and employment outcomes. As a result of all of these efforts, there is substantial

evidence that AUSC students are mastering the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of their

respective programs.

A. Direct Assessment of Student Learning and Progress

Several aspects of direct assessment of student learning are common to all programs in the

Region. In lieu of formal grades, student learning (class, internship, experiential work, etc.)

is assessed through narrative evaluations. The knowledge and skills being assessed differ

between classes and programs, but research papers, case studies, reflection papers, class

presentations, and class performance generally form the basis of faculty evaluation of

students. AUSC's small, participatory classroom environment (average 10 to 15 students per

class) enables Instructors to gauge student learning over the quarter. Many courses

incorporate multiple assessment measures, such as term papers, oral presentations, group

critiques, and examinations. The MACP Programs also utilize clinical transcript analysis and

audio or video taped assignments. In some MACP classes, these methods are supplemented

by clinical transcript analysis and/or by direct observation of student skill development in

role-play or in actual therapy sessions. In addition, the MAE Program evaluates student

79

learning in relationship to learning objectives for each course and for the program. Both sets

of learning objectives are listed on the narrative evaluation form, and faculty indicate the

degree to which the objectives are met.

Thus, the narrative evaluation is an effective assessment measure of content-based and skills

learning in conjunction with other documentation. In all programs, the student's faculty

advisor reviews on a quarterly basis the narrative evaluations written for each learning

activity. This provides the basis for the assessment of student progress in the program.

All programs also have developed a systematic student review process through which faculty

members assess student progress and growth over the course of their matriculation. Student

progress is monitored closely by faculty teaching the courses as well as by faculty advisors

and the Program Chairs. This systematic approach starts in the student’s first term at AUSC.

As students enter the institution, they must meet with their faculty advisors to develop their

specific learning goals and degree plans. (The exceptions to this are the MACP and MAE

Programs where the curriculum is largely prescribed by state agencies.) Periodically

throughout their enrollment, students meet with their advisors to ensure that their goals are

being met and that the courses taken satisfy the degree plan. If faculty note unusual

challenges for the student, or determines the need for intervention, she/he may suggest

remediation activities, limit student load in subsequent quarters, or recommend probation. If

further intervention is necessary, Program Faculty Meetings provide an outlet for further

examination and determination of a course of action.

Information from the student review process is then looped back into curriculum discussions

held at Program and All-Faculty Meetings. Often issues also are discussed with appropriate

student services staff as well. Customarily, it is from these discussions that faculty in a

program are motivated to modify the curriculum in response to identified student needs.

In the BA Programs, during the first quarter of residency, the student must obtain approval of

a degree plan, specifying what will be included in the degree. Faculty advisors regularly

monitor degree plans during the course of the student’s progress through the program. At

each campus, during the last quarter of BA Program residency, a candidacy review takes

place, when the student presents all course evaluations. Careful review is done to ensure that

the initial degree plan has been fulfilled and that any variations have been properly

documented. At each campus in the MAE Programs, students also compile portfolios

containing documentation of student learning, and acquisition and development of essential

teaching skills (e.g., lesson plans, reflections on teaching, and statements regarding

philosophy of education). Faculty review portfolios to ensure that students have acquired

requisite academic knowledge and practical skills.

In addition to direct assessment methods that are common to all programs, unique program

approaches also exist at AUSC campuses. For example, because mathematics and writing

competencies are a stated Program Objective (desired outcome) of the BA Program liberal

arts curriculum, all entering students must take a math skills evaluation, and based on this

evaluation, students are placed into appropriate level courses. Students' successful

completion of necessary remediation requirements is examined during the advisor's quarterly

80

review to assure development of college-level quantitative abilities. In addition, a writing

assessment piloted in 1992-93 is now required of all entering undergraduate students. It

assesses existent student skill-levels and is used for course remediation and placement

purposes. In addition, pre- and post-test academic papers are being evaluated to determine

the levels of student writing improvement.

Writing and computer competencies also are assessed prior to entry in the MAOM and MAE

Programs at the Los Angeles campus. In addition, the Santa Barbara campus BA and MACP

Programs have experimented with a reading comprehension/writing skills test during the

student’s first quarter of residency, although both programs were not satisfied with this

approach and have turned their attention to in-class, ongoing demonstrations of writing

competency. At each campus, students in the MAE Programs compile for faculty review

portfolios documenting the development of essential knowledge and skills.

In the Los Angeles campus MACP Program, all students must take and pass in the first

quarter of residency a course that allows assessment of academic skills, clinical readiness,

and capacity for multicultural sensitivity and awareness. Three additional courses must be

passed before a student may enter clinical training in a field setting. Further evaluation of

clinical skills takes place as students participate in clinical traineeships under supervision.

The MACP Programs at each campus require clinical supervisors to provide narrative

evaluations of students' clinical performance and learning.

Capstone assessment instruments have long been present in each campus’ MAOM Programs.

The MAOM Program capstone experience has been a Practicum Project at the Santa Barbara

campus since the program’s inception, and the Los Angeles campus shifted from a traditional

thesis to a team-based field study Practicum Project in 1997. Similarly, the MAE Programs

require an Integrative Thesis Project. Several other academic programs also have recently

added capstone courses or experiences for their students. These include the MFA Program at

the Los Angeles campus and the BA and MACP Programs at the Santa Barbara campus.

Whatever the format, this capstone experience is designed to be an integrative educational

experience during the last quarter of residency and provides the context for summative

assessment before the degree is granted.

B. Indirect Assessment of Student Learning and Progress

Common elements of indirect assessment of student learning and progress exist across all

programs in the Region, and these include quarterly reviews, advising sessions, faculty

discussion of individual cases of student performance, and surveys. During the spring of

2002, each campus administered comprehensive student satisfaction surveys, and several

programs conducted surveys of alumni. The Los Angeles campus also completed a faculty

advisement survey. In addition, the following program specific efforts may be sited.

Several recent surveys have provided a method of indirect assessment of student progress.

At the Los Angeles campus, the MACP Program conducted a systematic assessment, from

1999 through 2001, of graduating students' perceptions of how fully the program mission and

81

broad educational objectives were being achieved. As a result of the information gathered

through exit interviews with last-quarter students, the faculty determined that educational

aims were being carried out most effectively in the multicultural/diversity realm and clinical

skill development. Feedback about other program aims was more mixed, prompting faculty

review of program elements and the institutionalization of new educational components.

This work is still in process.

The Los Angeles campus BA Program also has done extensive surveying of its student

population. In 1996, a survey of alumni of the program between 1973 and 1995 was

conducted to determine best/worst aspects of the BA program and to discover the degree of

influence the program had on the student’s personal, professional, and civic life. In 1998,

another research project was undertaken to determine BA Program attrition and retention by

analyzing enrollment and completion patterns of students enrolled between Fall 1992 and

Winter 1998. Several longitudinal studies of BA student math/ writing development,

emotional development, and perspective taking also have been completed. The findings of

each of these studies, as well as others, prompted programmatic changes, and these reports

are available in the Los Angles campus Resource Room.

At the Santa Barbara campus, a 2000-01 MACP Program survey of clinical trainees revealed

learning outcomes from the experience and satisfaction with the traineeship. Also in 2000-

01, the MACP Program surveyed alumni regarding how well the program prepared them for

career opportunities. All survey instruments, the resulting reports that were written, and a

record of programmatic changes resulting from these surveys are available in the Santa

Barbara campus Resource Room.

In addition, through formal and informal surveys, it is clear that many AUSC BA Program

graduates enroll in graduate school and doctoral studies after program completion. Based on

this information, it can be stated that BA Program graduates have been admitted to Harvard

University, Columbia University, Claremont Graduate University, Smith College, the

University of California (Berkley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Irvine), the University of

Southern California, the California State Universities, California School of Professional

Psychology, the University of Chicago, and the University of Minnesota. This record speaks

to the successful preparation of students for graduate study by the Region’s BA Programs.

Many graduates of the MACP Programs at the two campuses desire to become licensed

Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs) and opt to acquire the 3,000 hours of post-M.A.

degree, supervised clinical experience necessary to take the two-part California examination

to qualify for licensure. AUSC graduates have historically done well on these tests as

documented informally. Since 1999, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences has

published data on pass rates for the written and oral licensing examination for graduates of

California institutions. Compared to other schools, AUSC student pass rate percentages are

among the highest scores in the state. For example, on the July 2001 written examination,

66% (25 of 38) of first-time tests takers from the Los Angeles campus passed the

examination, and 83% (5 of 6) of first time test takers from the Santa Barbara campus passed

the examination. Complete data regarding the performance of AUSC graduates on California

82

MFT examinations are available in the campus Resource Rooms and at

http://www.bbs.ca.gov/exminf-2.htm.

Many MACP Program graduates from the two campuses also continue their study in doctoral

programs. MACP Program students have been admitted to the University of Southern

California, the University of California at Los Angeles, the California School of Professional

Psychology, and other well-recognized doctoral programs. Other students have been

admitted to a range of other traditional and nontraditional schools for doctoral study

including U. S. International University, Robert F. Kennedy University, Saybrook Institute,

Fielding Institute, Pacifica Graduate Institute, the Union Institute, and California Graduate

Institute. Based on this measure, MACP Program graduates are well prepared to pursue

doctoral study at numerous well-established institutions of higher learning.

The Los Angeles campus MAOM Program maintains records of employment progress and

doctoral level education of its students and alumni. Because the advisement process includes

career and professional development guidance, the program faculty participate with both

students and alumni in decisions about professional advancement. Although there is no

formal placement office for students, the faculty and other students assist in finding

employment opportunities. Faculty also counsel students in the choice of doctoral programs.

At present, three Los Angeles campus MAOM students have received Ph.D. degrees, and

three others are current enrolled in doctoral programs. For a small program, this is an

outstanding record.

Graduates of the MFA Program at the Los Angeles campus also have distinguished

themselves in a number of ways that validate the success of the program. Two graduates of

the program have achieved tenure and promotion in their teaching positions at California

State University Northridge; one graduate has secured a tenure track position at Pasadena

City College; another graduate has secured a tenure track position at an Oregon community

college; and several other graduates are working as Adjunct Faculty at colleges/universities

in the Los Angeles area. Two graduates are teaching at the Los Angeles campus, and one

current student in working as a tutor in the Math and Writing Center.

Two graduates also have negotiated book contracts with major publishers, and many

graduates and current students have published fiction, poetry, and creative nonfiction in

magazines and journals. One current student publishes a poetry magazine, 4

th

Street, and she

has produced six issues to date. Two graduates have been accepted into Ph.D. programs to

further their educational aspirations. In addition, two graduates and one current student are

working for the Community Humanities Education Program sponsored by the BA Program at

the Los Angeles campus.

MFA graduates and current students also have used their Field Study requirement to establish

professional positions: two graduates host their own public radio interview programs; one

alumna has her own column in an alternate health care magazine; one graduate developed a

web site on African-American history which he sold to a commercial publisher; one student

interned with a literary agent; and several students have directed online conferences as part of

their interest in gaining online teaching experience.

83

Although the MAE Programs are relatively new, many students have successfully earned a

California State Multiple Subject Teaching Credential with the Cross-Cultural, Learning, and

Academic Development (CLAD) emphasis after the first four quarters in the Program. All

students who have taken the examination have passed the Reading Instruction Competence

Assessment (RICA) test to qualify for a teaching credential. Thus far, twenty-seven students

have completed the Teaching Credential requirements at the Santa Barbara campus and

fifteen at the Los Angeles campus. In addition, while no students have yet completed the

entire MAE degree program at the Santa Barbara campus, eight students received their MAE

degrees at the Los Angeles campus in June 2000. Many of students also have obtained

teaching positions in the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara/Ventura areas --sixteen from the

Santa Barbara campus and fourteen from the Los Angeles campus.

Evaluation of Assessment of Student Learning and Progress

Since the last NCA visit, AUSC campuses have made significant progress in refining and

implementing appropriate measures of student learning and progress in the programs. The

faculty has taken seriously the task of reviewing and evaluating existing student measures

and designing and implementing additional measures, and this has not been done without

considerable effort on the part of many people. Fiscal resources often have been scarce, and

insufficient personnel have been available to accomplish all that has needed to be done. But

in the face of these obstacles, progress has been made in advancing the student assessment

component of all programs within the Region.

Because narrative evaluations document student learning, much discussion has focused on

improving this assessment instrument. The narrative evaluation forms for both

undergraduate and graduate programs have been reviewed with an eye to improving their

usefulness as a direct assessment instrument, and refinements to these forms have been

introduced. One major concern also is tying the evaluation to the Program Mission

Statement and to Program Objectives. This concern prompted the introduction of the End of

the Quarter Evaluation Form for assessing the connection between Program Objectives and

the content and methods explored in the course. This form evaluates faculty performance

and course content and methods, and is now in use in the MAE Programs.

All programs are concerned about the quality of narrative evaluations and "narrative

inflation," especially by a predominately Adjunct Faculty. Inherent vulnerability exists in a

time-consuming evaluation system that requires extensive training of Adjunct Faculty in

order for them adequately to assess student learning and progress. Some training has been

done at ABFAB meetings at the Los Angeles campus in the BA Program and at Adjunct

Faculty Meetings at the Santa Barbara campus. The Los Angeles MACP Program has

developed extensive written material educating Adjunct Faculty on effective use of the

narrative evaluation form, with sample evaluations illustrating how good and less good

student progress may be described. The Los Angeles campus MAOM Program also provides

individual training to Adjunct Faculty and supplies model narrative evaluations for review.

In the MFA Program, faculty are trained in writing narrative evaluations both in initial

training sessions for new faculty and as part of on-going faculty training during residency

84

faculty meetings. More systematic training of Adjunct Faculty in the critical function of

writing narrative evaluations, however, may be necessary.

Several programs use the mid-quarter student conference to great advantage so that faculty

and students each know the progress that is being made toward graduation. In recent years,

this practice has been discontinued in some programs because of excessive workloads.

Efforts should be undertaken to re-instate, or begin, the mid-quarter review in all programs.

In terms of indirect assessment of student progress, concerns exist with the advising process

in some programs. Student enrollment numbers coupled with reductions of faculty in some

programs has resulted in high student-to-faculty ratios in some programs (sometimes

approaching 50:1). Within this context, not all Core Faculty members are equally as diligent

in their reviews and advising sessions, and efforts have been made to provide further training

to these faculty members and/or to assign duties that are more appropriate to their aptitudes

and interests.

AUSC views insufficient and inconsistent fiscal resources as the primary impediment to

furthering student assessment efforts. In some years, modest funds are available for

supporting analysis of direct student measures and implementing survey instruments for

indirect measures. In other years, no resources are available, and efforts are put on hold until

resources again are available. This creates a situation of uncertainty regarding assessment of

student learning and program effectiveness.

Another central issue related to advancing AUSC’s student assessment efforts is the

availability of trained personnel to assist with construction of assessment instruments and

interpretation of resulting data. The Los Angeles campus has committed some funds for

hiring such a person in some years (e.g., 1995 to 1997), and in 2001-02, a Core Faculty

appointment was made with assessment as a central component of the job description. This

appointment in conjunction with the appointment of an Academic Dean supportive of

assessment efforts should move the Los Angeles campus forward significantly during the

next several years. The Santa Barbara campus also has suffered from lack of qualified

personnel assistance in assessment, and most of the assessment success at the Santa Barbara

campus has been the result of Core Faculty who possess training and skills in student

assessment.

AUSC will continue to explore assessment of student learning and progress and will, where

necessary, incorporate new assessment mechanisms into existing systems. This is part of the

overall Assessment Plan that is described in the following section.

II. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

AUSC’s approach to program assessment contains two primary elements – one external and

one internal. The external component is a manifestation of the University-wide program

review model, and the internal component is centered on the Region’s Assessment Plan.

85

Each of these components contributes to the ongoing assessment and strengthening of

academic programs.

A. University-Wide Program Review Model

Since 1992-93, the Chancellor’s Office has coordinated reviews of all programs within the

University, and AUSC has been involved in this process. A description of the entire process

is included in the University Self-Study Report and will not be duplicated here. Suffice it to

say, the peer review process is regular and rigorous, and includes faculty from several

University campuses as well as faculty from other institutions. A document is prepared in

advance by the program being reviewed, and following a 2 to 3 day visit to the campus, the

program review team prepares a written report documenting the visit and offering

suggestions for program improvement to the faculty and the Board of Trustees. This process

has been effective in stimulating program improvement through the use of University-wide

faculty review teams.

Since the last NCA visit, all academic programs offered by the campuses have participated in

the University-wide program review process. The schedule for these reviews is shown in

Table 4-1. Program review documentation regarding each of these University-wide reviews

is available in the campus Resource Rooms.

Table 4-1. University-Wide Program Review Schedule

Program

Los Angeles Campus

Santa Barbara Campus

BA Program

1994

1994

MACP Program

1992

1992

MAIC Program

1992

1992

MAOM Program

1999

1999

MFA Program

2002

N/A

MAE Program

TBA

TBA

B. Program Assessment Plan

Fundamental to a program Assessment Plan is a focus on activities that directly benefit the

program and University by providing faculty and decision-makers with information to use in

institutional improvement. A long-range plan to clarify and improve where existent, and

construct where non-existent, the informal and formal links between the assessment of

student learning and the improvement of educational programs was developed as part of the

Region's Self-Study Report in 1993, and this Assessment Plan subsequently has been refined

and modified to reflect changing circumstances of the campuses.

The development of AUSC’s Assessment Plan creates a clear link between the assessment of

student learning and progress, and program improvement. The faculty of each program is

86

required regularly and routinely to reassess learning goals and desired outcomes for

graduation based upon the institution's Mission Statement and the Program Objectives of

each of the institution’s academic offerings. Faculty are supported in their efforts to go

beyond assessing individual student learning and progress to gathering evidence about the

student population as a whole. Faculty then create mechanisms for translating their

conclusions into program improvement. Where appropriate, the institution integrates these

efforts into campus-wide initiatives that have broad impact on all instructional programs.

The Assessment Plan and the mechanisms inherent in the plan are guided by Antioch's

mission and values.

The Assessment Plan directs each academic program in the Region to review assessment

practices and create (where necessary) innovative, effective assessment measures based on

Program Mission Statements and Program Objectives. It also directs each academic program

to design feedback mechanisms that provide ways to incorporate these assessment data into

institutional communication patterns so that program decision-makers and other AUSC

personnel may institute necessary programmatic changes. The Assessment Plan includes

several ingredients: the assessment cycle, an assessment schedule, and a statement of desired

outcomes and measurement techniques for each program in the Region. Collectively, this

material forms the content of AUSC’s Assessment Plan.

The assessment cycle (Figure 4-1) is based upon a model that describes the elements of

effective program assessment practice and provides a flow chart for the plan's

implementation. The assessment cycle begins with the Mission Statements for the University

as a whole and for AUSC specifically. (See Appendices A and B.) Program Mission

Statements and Program Objectives are then operationalized, and measures and interpretative

frameworks are developed for these objectives. Formal feedback mechanisms to the program

and the campus are developed which, in turn, lead to an evaluation of Program Objectives

and, possibly, to program improvement. Documentation related to each phase of the

Assessment Plan for each program in the Region is available in the campus Resource Rooms.

Based upon the assessment cycle presented in Figure 4-1, a multi-year schedule of program

assessment activities has been developed for AUSC. (See Table 4-2.) Each year focuses on

a critical step in the assessment cycle. During any particular year, all programs will be

mandated to and supported in their efforts to satisfy the Assessment Plan's annual objectives.

Although each campus may implement the assessment schedule in slightly different ways,

the basic schedule guides each campus in its assessment efforts.

Critical to the success of AUSC’s Assessment Plan are programmatic statements of the

desired outcomes of programs, the connection of program components to these outcomes,

and measurement techniques that are used to determine if students achieve the desired

outcomes. Each program in the Region has developed such statements, and these are

presented in Appendix G.

87

Figure 4-1. AUSC Program Assessment Model

88

Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005)

Academic Year

Activities

2000-01

Begin New Assessment Cycle, Orientation,

and Training

•Reappoint campus Assessment Task Forces

Each program will be represented.

At least one member will have expertise

in research and evaluation.

•Determine needed training in and

orientation to program assessment.

•Familiarize faculty with selected assessment

literature.

•Develop a revised Program Assessment Plan

including goals, tasks, timelines, and

persons responsible for each outcome.

2001-02

Review and Recommend

•Review current assessment practices and

results.

Each program will review current

methods of assessing student learning,

student progress, and program

assessment.

Each program will critique

previous/current methods in terms of

value and validity of results,

implications for pedagogy/practice,

and assessment methodology.

•Make budget recommendations to achieve

above goals.

2002-03

Report and Revise

•Task Force monitors and discusses each

program’s ongoing assessment activities:

what has been learned, how faculty have

used the information, and what are next

steps.

•Modify Assessment Plan based on

feasibility and progress.

89

Table 4-2. AUSC Program Assessment Schedule (2000 to 2005) (cont.)

2002-03 (cont.)

Report and Revise (cont.)

•Develop and implement new assessment

efforts (based on conclusions from review of

previous efforts), including new or revised

objectives, sampling, measurement, analysis,

etc. Consider the value of ongoing

(multiyear) repetitions of methods versus

changing to new methods (and/or mixture of

both).

•Task force meets with all faculty to report

on campus progress.

•Articulate formal mechanisms for

channeling assessment data to appropriate

decision-making bodies within and across

programs.

2003-04

Assessment Integration and Expansion

•Use NCA Visitation Team Report to

improve assessment efforts.

•Seek patterns of methods and/or findings

that might transcend programs and inform

integrated assessment efforts, but retain

program individuality in what best

methodology is for that program.

•Broaden assessment effort to include

previously excluded areas (samples,

measures, timing, evaluators, etc.) and

thereby increase generalization of findings.

•Task Force recommends other institutional

research to be undertaken to collect

information needed for fuller picture (e.g.,

data on admissions, enrollment, and

retention; student services; and other areas).

2004-05

Additional Assessment Data Collection

•Collect new institutional data as

recommended in previous year.

•Review progress and revise Plan as needed.

90

Evaluation of Program Assessment

The Assessment Plan instituted in 1993 and refined/modified since that time has guided

assessment of Regional academic programs. Faculty identify Program Objectives that reflect

the Program’s Mission Statement. They operationalize these objectives, collect and analyze

data on the program’s impact upon students, and then report the results. Subsequent

discussion and interpretation of the results inform faculty decisions about clarification of

program objectives, changes in teaching techniques and curriculum, modification of program

components, and/or revisions of assessment methods. This cyclical model has become an

integral part of the operation of each program in the Region.

Since the last NCA visit, each academic program has held faculty meetings to review and

implement the Assessment Plan. With the leadership of the respective Academic Dean, each

campus has developed effective faculty-based groups for advancing the assessment efforts at

the campus. These Assessment Task Forces have effectively led the campus assessment

efforts.

The programs at each campus differ in their progress regarding assessment and in the degree

to which they have moved from a culture of conversation to a culture of evidence, but all

programs have made progress in their assessment efforts since the last NCA visit. There is

still a need for faculty released-time and more assessment resources to achieve the complete

results of the Assessment Plan. But with continued support from faculty and renewed

leadership from full-time Academic Deans at each campus, progress will continue relative to

program assessment, and stronger academic programs will be the result.

In the 1993 Self-Study Report, specific tasks were identified for each of the 5-years following

the NCA visit, and an Assessment Update regarding the progress of these efforts was

provided to NCA in January 1995. A summary of accomplishments related to the activities

articulated in the Assessment Update is provided in program assessment folders that are

available in the campus Resource Rooms. All material mentioned in the above evaluation

also is available in the campus Resource Rooms.

91

Chapter 5. Criterion Four

“The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational

effectiveness.”

AUSC has a tradition of persistent and strong strategic planning that dates to the late 1980s.

Within the context of University-wide goals and objectives, the Region has successfully charted

its direction despite an ever-vacillating external economy, the uncertainties of enrollment,

constrained fiscal resources, and personnel changes. Since the last NCA visit, many changes

have occurred, but one constant element has been the persistence of solid and effective planning

processes to guide the institution.

The planning processes that have been in place during this period have effectively addressed

issues related to the de-centralization of the University, program diversification, staff training,

infusion of multicultural elements into academic programs, augmentation of facilities, and

transitions in personnel. Capable administrative leadership coupled with strong faculty

commitment to quality academic programs and staff determination to provide excellent student

services has supported the institution through the turbulent 1990s and into the new millennium.

These accomplishments are a tribute to the people involved as well as to the strategic planning

mechanisms that have been in place during this period.

What follows in the chapter is a description of the planning process that currently is in place and

an identification of specific issues with which the institution will be grappling during the next 5

years.

I. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING

The institution’s strategic planning process was well established when former President

Schulman assumed his duties in September 1998 so personnel at the campuses were familiar

with the mechanisms involved. Following a period of review, the responsibility for Region

planning shifted to the Strategic Planning Coordinating Team (SPCT). This approach to

planning was the outgrowth of nearly a year of discussion regarding how to accomplish critical

planning functions for the Region. In September 1999, the SPCT was appointed and included

the following representatives from the two campuses:

Mark Schulman, AUSC former President, Chair

Chloe Reid, Interim President of AUSC and Los Angeles campus Executive Dean

Ed Ogawa, Los Angeles campus Data Coordinator

Robert Bowen, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty

Eloise Klein Healy, Los Angeles campus Core Faculty

Donna Starr, Santa Barbara campus Executive Dean

Hymon Johnson, Santa Barbara campus Core Faculty

Carol Flores, Santa Barbara campus Admissions Director

Richard Loebl, Santa Barbara campus MAE Program Administrative Coordinator

92

During 1999-00, the SPCT met regularly to discuss the issues facing the Region and to determine

a course of action. The meetings were characterized by open and vigorous discussion, out of

which consensus around key issues began to develop. A draft of a Strategic Plan was developed

and shared with all constituencies on the campuses. Vehicles for gaining involvement and

support for the plan included numerous meetings with individuals and programs, and

Community Meetings were held at each campus to discuss elements of the plan, solicit feedback,

and gain support for the plan. In June 2000, the Board of Trustees approved the Region’s

Strategic Plan, and this has been the guiding force conditioning decisions at the campuses. A

copy of the AUSC Strategic Plan is provided in Appendix H.

The Strategic Plan has been developed within the context of a clear vision of the future and a

well-articulated Regional Mission Statement. Six major goals are specified in the plan to be

accomplished over the next 5 years. In addition to key goals, detailed implementation strategies

and action plans are identified with concomitant budget implications and effectiveness measures.

Central elements of the plan include a strategy for securing permanent facilities for the

campuses, an initiative for staff reorganization into self-directed and empowered teams, and a

realization of faculty commitment to strengthen and diversify academic programs.

With continued leadership from the SPCT, the Region’s capability to deal with the future is

strong. Challenges will always exist relative to sufficient resources, enrollment uncertainty, staff

turn-over and training, adequate facilities, and new program development, but the strategic

planning process that is in place offers every indication that it is more than able to meet these

challenges. This coupled with the dedication of the institution’s faculty and staff speaks well of

the prospects for the future of AUSC.

II. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND CONCERNS

AUSC has consistently dealt effectively with issues as they have arisen in the past and will

continue to do so in the future. Based on what is known currently, a series of issues will need to

be addressed; these issues are identified and discussed in this section of the Self-Study Report.

A. University-wide Organization

In 1993-94, the de-centralization of many University functions began, and that process has

largely been completed successfully. AUSC has assumed responsibility more directly for fiscal

affairs, human resources, admissions, registrar functions, and financial aid and has implemented

Datatel software to facilitate these efforts. In general, the campuses are satisfied with these

developments, and staff take great pride in the additional responsibilities that have been

assumed. Similar developments on other Antioch campuses have led to cross-campus functional

groups to be formed, and these have been beneficial in creating a renewed sense of the

University as a whole.

Despite the real benefits that have resulted from de-centralization of University functions,

concern exists currently that the fiscal resources that once flowed to the campuses to

93

accommodate the additional functions may slowly being eroded by actual or de facto increases in

University overhead that is assessed to each campus. Annual operating deficits at Antioch

College the last several years have required embargoing campus contingency funds to balance

the overall budget of the University, and this procedure increases the effective overhead rate to

campuses of the University. AUSC maintains that this approach to balancing the University’s

budget must be examined and alternative methods developed to insure the long-term well-being

of the adult campuses.

AUSC also has been concerned about the larger issues of University leadership and organization.

The appointment of James H. Craiglow as Interim Chancellor is a step toward stabilization

within the University, and it is hoped that issues related to University leadership, policy

development, governance, and fiscal stability may now be addressed creatively and effectively.

B. Regional Issues

Issues related to the relationship between the campuses and the role that the Region plays in

resolving or exacerbating these issues have been present since the “shotgun wedding” that

occurred in 1986. In general, relations between the campuses and the Region have improved

with time, and genuine cooperation occurs between various entities and personnel. That is not to

say that issues do not still exist.

The current organizational structure has clarified authority relationships between the campuses

and the Region, and more autonomy has been given to the campuses. The perennial issue of the

parallelism of human resource policies and salary/fringe benefits has been resolved in favor of

uniformity, although some local discretion is permitted. And the current Regional structure

minimizes the number of Regional administrators – which reduces overhead and minimizes the

number of people who must be “itinerant administrators.” The current structure focuses attention

on the campuses where it rightfully belongs and permits more decisions to be made at the

campus level by the Executive and Academic Deans.

The benefits of Regional administration and services (e.g., leadership, efficiency, and shared

resources) are experienced directly and frequently by most members of the campus communities.

The strong ties and excellent communication between Regional officers (President and chief

fiscal officer) and the Executive and Academic Deans at each campus also minimize problems

that might otherwise exist between the campuses and the Region. This, however, does not

impede some faculty and staff from raising questions about Regional costs during the annual

budget process.

C. Campus Governance

Campus governance is an issue that affects the campuses differently because of history, size,

and culture. The Los Angeles campus has a tradition of program autonomy, is larger than the

Santa Barbara campus, and has misgivings about authority. The Santa Barbara campus has a

tradition of program cooperation, is smaller than the Los Angeles campus, and is relatively

94

self-governing. It, therefore, is easy to understand that governance issues at the two

campuses are in quite different places.

For many years, a system involving an Administrative Work Team (AdWorks) and an

Academic Work Team (AcWorks) functioned well as the forum for issues in the respective

areas to be addressed and resolved. The Campus Council of Los Angles (CCLA) met

monthly and dealt with issues affecting several units within the institution or the entire

institution. Over time, the latter body became slow and overly ponderous, and many

constituencies felt that changes were necessary. With Former President Schulman’s support,

a system of self-governing teams was implemented, and an All-Teams Council temporarily

replaced CCLA. Beginning September 1, 2001, however, CCLA was re-instituted as the

primary decision making body on the Los Angeles campus.

The attempt to implement a team system at the Los Angeles campus is emblematic of the Los

Angeles campus’ struggle with governance issues. Many on the campus feel that there is

insufficient involvement in decision-making, and even more are unsure about how the

governance structure functions. A common complaint is that it is often difficult to know how

to get something accomplished. The governance system at the Los Angeles campus needs to

be clarified and strengthened so that all constituencies know how decisions are made and so

involvement of appropriate individuals in decision-making can occur.

In Santa Barbara, a good working model is in place to assure input from different

constituencies (at least as regards staff, core faculty, and administrators) in the running of

campus operations. The Campus Council of Santa Barbara (CCSB) includes representatives

of the above groups, and from time to time its membership has been adjusted in response to

the perception that a particular constituency’s interests were not adequately represented. The

responsiveness of this group to such needs, and the general openness and communication on

campus (via CCSB and other groups as well as via regular staff/faculty meetings), leaves the

feeling that there are no major issues regarding governance in the future. If changes are

needed in the governance structure, they will be made. One possible issue that has not been

fully addressed is the lack of regular representation of students and Adjunct Faculty in

governance. Past attempts to involve representatives of both groups have not succeeded, in

part because of their limited time at the institution (i. e., for Adjunct Faculty, limited hours

per week; for students, limited residency). Informal mechanisms for addressing student and

Adjunct Faculty issues seem to work fairly well, and the formal procedures for grievance

redress seem satisfactory.

D. Size and Locations of Campuses

The increasing costs and requirements of a modern campus (complete with computer

technology and support, and a range of student services, for example) means a greater

resource base is needed for the future. Each campus must grow in the future, and even if

development efforts are successful, tuition will remain the primary source of revenue for the

Region. Simply put, AUSC campuses need to grow, either via development of new

programs and/or via augmentation of existing programs. Exact enrollment projections for the

95

two campuses have not been formulated, but of various models that have been examined, a

2% annual growth rate at each campus is one some constituencies support.

To accommodate necessary growth in enrollment, each campus faces different challenges.

At the Los Angeles campus, the issue to be faced is how to acquire and afford additional

space. Serious issues of affordability of appropriate space to sustain existing programs as

well as for program expansion will need to be faced by the campus. At the Santa Barbara

campus, restrictions on size (number of persons allowed on campus during the week imposed

by a local conditional use permit) mean that, barring relocation of the campus, growth will

have to come primarily via weekend programs and off-site classes, including some use of

online instruction as a supplement to face-to-face classes. One likely prospect for addressing

future growth needs is expansion of the Weekend College that began in Fall 2001. This

might mean expanding both the number of students in the BA and MAOM Management

Studies Program, as well as launching weekend offerings in other disciplines, e. g.,

psychology or social services administration.

In addition, both campuses need to explore seriously the establishment of off-campus sites

for offering selected programs. At the Los Angeles campus, for example, the MAOM

Program might well be offered at sites in various parts of the greater Los Angeles area.

Discussion also has occurred about offering a broad range of the curriculum at an off-site

location in downtown Los Angeles. At the Santa Barbara campus, the development of North

County course offerings, using available space in downtown San Luis Obispo needs to be

explored. Whatever the locations to be considered, the benefits (visibility and fiscal) must be

assessed and plans determined.

E. Program Augmentation and Multicultural Infusion

Two key issues related to the mix and character of the curricula at each campus need to be

addressed in the future. Each campus in the Region has relied historically on programs with

some relationship to the field of psychology. With the advent of the MFA and MAE Programs,

this reliance has been less, but psychology still informs much of the curriculum offered by the

campuses. Because of shifts within the field of psychology, particularly within clinical

psychology, sentiment exists to diversify the program mix at each campus. Programs are

currently being explored at the Los Angeles campus that would break the historic connections to

the field of psychology, and these and other new and cutting-edge areas need to be developed for

the future. Organizational structures and resources need to be developed and committed to the

augmentation of the curriculum so that vital and exciting new programs can become a part of

AUSC’s offerings. The success of these efforts, indeed, may be the fulcrum for propelling the

campuses successfully into the twenty-first century.

Since the mid-1990s, each program at the two campuses has introduced various aspects of

multicultural education into their curricula. These efforts have been particularly successful in the

BA and MACP Programs. With an increasingly diverse potential student body developing in the

Southern California area, multicultural aspects of the curriculum will be even more important in

the future, if AUSC expects to remain competitive for students. Human and fiscal resources

96

need to be developed and committed to raising faculty and staff sensitivity, continuing

thoroughgoing multicultural curricular infusion, hiring more diverse faculty and staff, and

developing programs responsive to a multicultural world.

F. New Program Development

Given a need to increase enrollment at each campus and a changing cultural environment in

Southern California, it appears that one strategy for accomplishing enrollment augmentation is

program development. Efforts are currently underway at the Los Angeles campus to introduce

several new programs, e. g., possible graduate programs in some form of religious studies and

some aspect of media studies. At the Santa Barbara campus preliminary discussions have

occurred regarding introduction of new concentrations in the MAIC Program and expansion of

the Weekend College. Considerable time, effort, and fiscal resources will need to be committed

to program development efforts over the next 5 years for the campuses to meet their enrollment

projections and to address a changing cultural environment in Southern California.

G. Human Resource Issues

Two primary issues must be addressed relative to faculty and staff – workload and salaries.

While Core Faculty complain about workload, the issue needing attention in the future may

be more one of quality of work life, rather than quantity of work. Core Faculty at each

campus feel bogged down by administrative tasks that interfere with their opportunity to

pursue traditional faculty work (teaching, research, writing, and intellectual and creative

activities). Advising loads are heavy, but again the burden is often felt in terms of mundane

advising (e. g., regarding University requirements, policies, and procedures) as opposed to

how advising loads might feel if advising centered upon a faculty member’s research,

intellectual, or creative interests. The success of the Program Coordinator model at the Los

Angeles campus and the recent expansion of staffing in the Academic Services Office at the

Santa Barbara campus may assist in relieving Core Faculty of some of the burdens of routine

administrative functions, but long-term, permanent resolution of this issue needs to be

sought. At the Los Angeles campus, re-instituting staff-level counselor positions to work

with students on routine advising also would assist faculty workloads greatly.

Staff at each campus also feel that workload expectations have become unrealistic, and many

fear that necessary and important tasks are not being accomplished. The root problem is that

staffing patterns have not kept pace with tasks to be accomplished and with the increasing

sophistication of tasks that need to be performed. Although Datatel offers the promise of

integrated information dissemination, this goal has not been achieved, and many staff feel

that the requirements of routine data entry far exceed the benefits gained in data retrieval.

Part of this dilemma is related to insufficient staff and staff training, and part is related to the

labor intense nature of the Datatel software itself. A detailed analysis of staffing patterns at

the two campuses is necessary so that optimum levels of staff may be determined, and

resources need to be established for securing the requisite number of staff and for the

ongoing training of staff.

97

External and internal salary parity issues exist at each campus and need to be ameliorated.

To address external salary issues, salaries of staff and both Core and Adjunct Faculty need to

be increased beyond cost-of-living adjustments to bring these classifications of employees to

market parity. In the immediate future, a consultant needs to be engaged to research

appropriate market sectors and provide systematic data to guide future progress toward parity

with external colleagues. Relative to internal parity, inequities have developed between

some employees over the years, and action needs to be taken to rectify these inequities.

Specifically, the Core Faculty Salary Placement Index needs to be modified to reflect current

salary norms in the area and to embody appropriately placement criteria consistent with the

institution’s mission and values. The Adjunct Faculty salary schedule needs to be examined

and modified so as to bring compensation closer to external markets. Staff salary schedules

need to be examined and modified so they more closely parallel the external market, and the

recent revision of the Reclassification Procedure needs to be monitored to verify that internal

parity issues are addressed adequately. If not, further work needs to be done on the

Reclassification Procedure for staff.

The key to addressing employee workload and salary issues, of course, is fiscal resources. If

program diversification and development efforts are successful, additional resources should

be available to ameliorate the issues identified above. The issue is complicated, however,

because virtually all existing departments need additional support, and at the same time the

campuses also must bolster the development, alumni relations, information technology, and

human resources functions. Also complicating the allocation of resources are the issues of

University overhead and campus autonomy in allocating resources, budget management, etc.

H. Fiscal Issues

A primary issue for the future is the establishment of secure and reliable fiscal resources for

each campus. Resolution of this issue is dependent upon program diversification and

development as well as the establishment of non-tuition revenue sources for the campuses.

An Office of Development needs to be established that appropriately represents the

institution to private donors and foundations so that revenue may be generated to support

academic programs and student services on the campuses. This goal has never been

successfully accomplished at AUSC and needs to be achieved. Further, non-tuition revenue

needs to be pursued through a continuing education program to serve professionals in the

areas of psychology, education, business, and creative writing. Particular attention might be

paid to the in-service training of teachers in the greater Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas.

These efforts could produce revenue and increase institutional visibility in many community

venues.

The issue of University-wide stability in the fiscal area also affects the operations and future

of AUSC. University overhead assessments need to be routinized as they were for most of

the 1990s, and rates need to be as low as possible to enable the campuses to provide quality

educational programs and services. Leadership from the Board of Trustees and the

Chancellor’s Office will be necessary in addressing this critical issue.

98

Despite many pressing issues, the faculty and staff at the two campuses are hopeful and

cautiously optimistic about the future. As a non-traditional, innovative institution, Antioch

has always gone through periods of relative prosperity and relative scarcity. Problems seem

to bring out the best in faculty and staff who rise to the challenges and excel. That certainly

seems to be the case today, and with this sense of historic resolve, the future seems secure for

AUSC. The campuses look forward to celebrating in 2002 the thirtieth anniversary of the

Los Angeles campus and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Santa Barbara campus.

99

Chapter 6. Criterion Five

“The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relations.”

AUSC adheres to high standards of ethics in all its operations and strives accurately to

represent itself to all constituencies. These goals are achieved by hiring faculty, staff, and

administration who hold values consistent with those of the institution. AUSC also has

established procedures for creating and approving responsible policies, and examples of these

policies and practices can be provided. This chapter presents these policy development

procedures and examples of successful policies that foster integrity within the institution.

I. POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The Board of Trustees must approve all new degree programs, significant program revisions,

human resource policies, and annual budgets before they become effective. These actions

emerge at various levels within the institution and typically occur with Dean leadership. All

recommendations for policies, new programs, and annual budgets must be approved by the

appropriate campus governance body and by the RCSC. All Regionally approved policies

requiring Board of Trustees’ approval are carried by the President to the University

Leadership Counsel and then to the Board of Trustees.

Academic policies are developed and monitored at the campus level through collaboration of

the Core Faculty, Program Chairs, and the Academic Dean. Policies include such things as

course requirements, curriculum, student evaluation, internships (and other outside learning

activities), and program development. The Academic Dean, in consultation with the

President and the Core Faculty, also is responsible for policies regarding faculty evaluation,

grievances, professional development, sabbatical and other leaves, program assessment, and

the design of new degree programs. Depending on the policy, final approval is provided by

the campus governance body (CCLA or CCSB), or RCSC, if the policy affects both

campuses.

Administrative policies are developed and monitored at the campus level through

collaboration of the staff, area Directors, and the Executive Dean. Policies include such

things as work-study allocation to students, use of the computer labs, late registration fees,

records storage, and student service hours of operation. The Executive Dean, in consultation

with the President and area Directors, also is responsible for policies regarding staff

evaluation, grievances, professional development, leaves, and area assessment. Depending

on the policy, final approval is provided by the campus governance body (CCLA or CCSB),

or RCSC, if the policy affects both campuses.

The President is responsible for overall policy development and monitoring activities within

the Region and is the final arbiter when disputes regarding policy development, revision, or

interpretation occur. Once developed, policies are applied consistently and fairly across the

institution.

100

To demonstrate the character of policies operative within RCSC, the remainder of this

chapter presents some examples of policies and practices that exemplify the integrity of the

institution.

II. EXEMPLARY POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Several policies and practices at the two campuses serve to illustrate the manner in which the

institution strives to conduct its activities with internal and external constituencies. The

pattern of evidence associated with establishing AUSC’s institutional integrity relative to

internal constituencies includes the following:

1. Governance Plan. The institution possesses a published Governance Plan that

clearly articulates the dimensions of how the Region and the campuses conduct their

business. The document includes information regarding participatory governance,

councils and committees, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution

mechanisms.

2. Personnel Manual and Human Resources Handbook. The University as a whole

regularly publishes a Personnel Manual that articulates the policies that are effective

for all campuses of the University. The most recent version of this document was

issued in November 2001. The Region also possesses a Human Resources Handbook

that contains information specifically related to policies and practices operative in the

Region. This document is being revised to reflect the current practices of the Region,

and a copy will be available for review at the time of the NCA team visit to the

Region.

3. Faculty Handbooks. A core Faculty Handbook currently exists at each campus, but

these documents are not used often and are currently being revised. Copies of the

revised documents will be available for review at the time of the NCA team visit to

the Region. An Adjunct Faculty Handbook has existed at some points in the past, and

some programs have created handbooks for their Adjunct Faculty over the years.

Each campus is preparing Adjunct Faculty Handbooks that will be available for

review at the time of the NCA team visit.

4. Student Information. Information regarding institutional policies is communicated to

students through three primary documents: program brochures, institutional Catalogs,

and programmatic Student Handbooks. All programs in the Region possess brochures

that accurately present the programs and the expectations of students who enter the

course of study. The Santa Barbara campus has a current Catalog (2001-03) that

articulates the institution’s entrance requirements and procedures, costs, academic

policies, and programmatic requirements for each degree program offered by the

campus. The Los Angeles campus is currently preparing a Catalog for the 2002-03

period. In addition, some programs at the campuses provide Student Handbooks that

detail information regarding the programs’ policies and procedures. Such handbooks

101

exist for the MACP, MAIC, and MAE Programs at the Los Angeles campus and the

MAOM and MAE Programs at the Santa Barbara campus.

5. Dispute Resolution. Policies and procedures exist for the resolution of disputes

between and among various constituencies on the campuses. These are specifically

described in such documents as the Governance Plan, Human Resource Handbook,

and the campus Catalogs. Students and/or employees can readily access this

information and can seek resolution of disputes using the procedures articulated in

these resources.

6. Equitable Treatment and Affirmative Action. The campuses provide information

regarding ADA accommodations for students in relevant publications and seek to

make the necessary modifications. The Executive Dean at the Los Angeles campus

and the Academic Dean at the Santa Barbara campus handle requests for

accommodation. AUSC does not have a formal affirmative action policy, although an

official statement of non-discrimination appears in all student publications and in

employee recruitment advertising.

Similar policies and practices exist for dealing with external constituencies in fair and

equitable fashion, and patterns of evidence that attest to this include the following:

1. Recruitment and Admissions. The Admissions and Financial Aid areas collaborate in the

student recruiting process and work effectively together to prove information and

counseling to prospective students. (These areas are organized into one unit at the Los

Angels campus and two separate units at the Santa Barbara campus.) At Information

Meetings, a Financial Aid staff member is present to provide accurate and timely

information about the various Federal, state, and campus aid programs. Limited

scholarship funding exists to provide assistance to under-represented groups, in order to

encourage diversity. In addition, the campuses actively recruit international students and

the Admissions Offices provide assistance with regard to student visas and other INS

matters.

Through Information Meetings, visits to classes, conversations with faculty, and on-going

contact with Admissions and Financial Aid staff, perspective students are provided with a

thorough and accurate introduction to the campuses and their programs.

All advertising and publications used for recruitment purposes represent the institution

accurately. In regular public Information Meetings, the campuses take care to make

certain that prospective students are aware of the particular nature of each program so

that they can make the best decision regarding their application. In subsequent

admissions interviews, prospective students are again questioned regarding their

expectations about the program and whether it fits with their plans and desires. As a

result, the attrition rate for all programs is very low. Copies of advertisements and

publication materials are available for review in the campus Resource Rooms.

102

2. Articulation agreements exist with a number of local colleges and universities, e. g.,

Santa Monica College and Santa Barbara Community College. These agreements outline

the particulars of courses accepted for transfer and other matters. In general,

relationships with other academic institutions are limited to student recruitment and

transfer, the occasional shared program funded by a grant, and student teaching

placement in local elementary schools.

3. The Santa Barbara BA Program has a required Service Learning component in the

curriculum that places students in non-profit organizations in the community. Informal

agreements that underlie these placements are largely verbal, but some written

agreements exist. The Community Humanities Education Program in the Los Angeles

campus BA Program has written agreements with two community agencies (Venice

Family Clinic and Central American Resource Center). In addition, the MACP Programs

at each campus have written agreements with community agencies where students are

accepted for supervised Traineeship experiences. The Los Angeles campus Counseling

Center also has a written rental agreement for off-campus space for the Iranian

Counseling Center to provide services. The Center also has written agreements with

several elementary schools for conducting its Public School Counseling Program in local

settings.

In its dealings with both internal and external constituencies, AUSC seeks to have clear and fair

policies, practices, and agreements. These practices have been extremely effective in developing

good will among the various publics served by the institution. Two specific measures of the

success of these practices are that the institution has never had a complaint file with the Bureau

of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (the California licensure agency for out-of-

state accredited institutions), and only one formal law suit has been filed against the institution

since 1988. (This suit was settled by arbitration, and no court action was taken.) These are,

indeed, remarkable statistics in an ever-increasing litigious era.

103

Chapter 7. Conclusion

The Regional Steering Committee guided the self-study process over the past 2-years, and during

this process, all constituencies at the campuses had an opportunity to discuss the issues

confronting AUSC. The process was salutatory in that it provided a forum for issues to be

identified and explored without preconception and recrimination. From a number of

perspectives, the self-study process may be deemed to have been successful at AUSC campuses,

and a clearer sense of what needs to occur in the future has emerged from the process.

Based on the entire self-study process, the following conclusions are drawn regarding AUSC:

1. AUSC through its President must engage actively in the ongoing dialog at the University-

wide level to assist in resolving issues related to the federal model, the role of the

Chancellor, and the fiscal ground rules for operation. As a part of a larger organization,

AUSC’s interests are best served by active engagement in determining the future of

Antioch University.

2. AUSC’s fiscal stability and future success are dependent upon two primary factors:

increased enrollment growth and non-tuition resources. To increase enrollment, existing

programs must continue to be make appropriate revisions, new programs must be

developed and implemented, and vigorous marketing efforts must be initiated on a

sustained basis. Resources will be needed for all of these efforts, especially for increased

marketing and admission activity. To generate non-tuition revenue, an active

development function must be created, support for a faculty-produced grants/contracts

program must be initiated, and the President’s Office must actively engage in systematic

annual fund and major donor resource development. To accomplish each of these goals,

appropriate planning documents need to be created, personnel assigned, and fiscal

resources allocated; all of this should be accomplished in cooperation with the

University-wide development function.

3. Organizationally, the Regional and campus structures currently in place are functioning

appropriately, although the Los Angeles campus has not had sufficient time to determine

the effectiveness of the structure. Special attention needs to be paid in the next 6 to 12

months to the functioning of this structure, particularly staff involvement, and campus

Deans need to be supported in their efforts to fill all vacant positions and bring

governance structures up to full operational levels.

4. Several issues related to personnel at the campuses must be addressed. First, salaries of

all existing AUSC employees have not kept pace with inflation or with the educational

marketplace in Southern California during the past 5 years. A salary improvement plan

must be developed and implemented that will bring salaries at least into the third quartile

of comparable institutions in the area. The assistance of an external consultant may be

necessary to accomplish this task in a fair and equitable manner. Second, additional

employees are needed at each campus to address the growth that has already occurred and

104

to plan for and accommodate anticipated future growth. This also will address the

increasing concern regarding faculty and staff workloads. Third, critically needed funds

for faculty and staff development must be allocated to ensure the long-term effectiveness

and well being of employees. Re-instatement of faculty sabbatical leaves in accordance

with existing policy should be high on the list of those things to be funded.

5. The campuses currently have marginally adequate technology systems that are rapidly

becoming obsolete. A technology plan for the campuses must be developed and

implemented that addresses critical issues related to long-term networking, classroom

workstations, the role of online education, the platform environment (Apple vs. PC), and

ongoing training of personnel. The needed technology plan must address the larger

educational issues confronting higher education in general and Antioch’s unique

pedagogic approach; hardware and software decisions should then emanate from an

articulate educational philosophy regarding the role of technology in the Antioch

educational process.

6. Lack of resolution of the long-term facilities issue has drained energy, caused anxiety,

and sometimes postponed critical decisions, particularly at the Los Angeles campus.

Because lease expiration deadlines loom, decisions regarding mid- to long-term location

of the campuses need to be given priority in the next 6 to 9 months and resolution

determined. This is necessary for employee peace of mind and, if relocation is

determined, for appropriate planning and marketing efforts to occur in a systematic and

timely manner. All facility decisions need to be made in light of long-term space needs

predicated upon the role of technology in future educational programs.

7. Program assessment activity at each campus has increased substantially since 1993, and

these efforts need to continue and be provided with additional support. The Los Angeles

campus has allocated a portion of a Core Faculty member’s time to assessment efforts,

and this commitment needs to be sustained for the long-term. The Santa Barbara campus

must make a similar commitment of human resources to their assessment efforts in the

near future. In addition, each campus must make modest, ongoing fiscal resources

available for assessment so that the final step in the routinization of this process may be

accomplished.

8. Multicultural curriculum infusion has been successful to date, but these efforts need to be

intensified as the Southern California area becomes increasingly a multi-ethnic social

environment. Support for each campus to continue their unique approaches to implement

multicultural elements into the curriculum need to be provided.

These conclusions from the self-study process provide a framework for informing future

planning at AUSC and will be folded into the existing planning processes of the institution.

Clearly an agenda for future action is evident in these conclusions, and the institution is

committed to implementing this agenda vigorously and with determination. It is these

characteristics that have been a hallmark of AUSC in the past and that will sustain it in the

future.

105

Appendix A. Antioch University Mission Statement

Antioch University provides programs of study leading to the Bachelors, Masters, and Doctors

degrees, as well as other related special programs of study. Founded in 1852 as a College of

Liberal Arts and Sciences, Antioch has evolved into a national multi-campus University serving

over 5,000 students. Governed by a national Board of Trustees, its campuses, which serve

students both on and beyond the physical campuses, currently include Antioch College and The

McGregor School in Yellow Springs, Ohio; New England (Keene, NH); the Pacific Northwest

(Seattle); and Southern California (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara). System administration is

located in Yellow Springs.

All programs of Antioch University aim to develop students and graduates who grow in their

commitment to contribute personally to improvement in the human condition through

responsible leadership that fosters productive, democratic change in the institutions and

communities in which they live and work. These programs are guided by core educational

values that include rigorous scholarship and academic discipline, engaged service,

community involvement, a commitment to multiculturalism at all levels and programs, and

student-centered, well-rounded learning. Committed to finding the most effective

approaches to student learning through innovation and experimentation, Antioch encourages

students to integrate work and study, to incorporate experience with academic study and

reflection, and to address issues within a social and political context.

Adopted by the Board of Trustees by resolution in 1989 and modified in 1999.

106

107

Appendix B. AUSC Mission Statement

Antioch University Southern California is an independent institution that provides an

excellent, innovative graduate and undergraduate education for adults. An Antioch education

empowers the student to act responsibly and to effect personal, social and environmental

change within a global context. The Antioch approach emphasizes:

• the development of the student as a whole person;

• the integration of academic and experiential learning;

• creative, critical, and independent thinking.

This approach to education springs from Antioch’s long-standing heritage of making learning

meaningful and vital while promoting social justice. Given Antioch’s student-centered

approach to education and its commitment to intellectual, social, cultural, and ethnic

diversity, the faculty’s primary duties are to teach and advise, as well as to engage in the

intellectual dialogue of their profession. In addition, faculty, staff and students work with

local communities to provide leadership and service, participating as broadly as possible in

civic affairs.

Vision Statement

Antioch University Southern California strives to promote a spirit of inquiry as a multi-

cultural, intergenerational, and accessible institution, which values and nurtures an

innovative, reflective, and experiential approach to educational excellence.

Building on our history and fostering creativity and leadership, we, the community of

Antioch faculty, students, staff, and alumni -- centering ourselves in compassion, ethical

steadfastness, and a never-ending belief in the possible -- carry this vision into the world.

Values Statement

We value and commit to model in our lives and our work:

• global perspectives and knowledge of the interconnected context in which we act;

• coalitions across groups for building common ground;

• social justice, support for a sustainable environment, and community partnerships;

• anti-racism as an imperative of the historical moment in which we live;

108

• human dignity and dismantling ethnic biases, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ageism,

ableism, discrimination based on religious, cultural and political affiliations, and other

forms of oppression;

• an intellectual climate that acknowledges the whole person, focusing on wisdom,

creativity, experience, and skills needed to promote social change.

109

Appendix C. University-Wide Priorities

The Board of Trustees established nine priorities for the University in June 1999 as contained in

a document titled University Plan and Strategic Objectives for the Years 2000 to 2005. These

priorities are shown below:

1. Based upon the new environment and directions outlined in this plan, revisit the

institutional vision and mission to ensure their currency for Antioch in the twenty-first

century.

2. Increase and diversify student recruitment and enrollment.

3. Antioch University will extend, strengthen, and diversify its academic programs by

linking the educational capabilities of the five-campus federated structure.

4. Implement systematic program assessment across the University to measure student

learning outcomes and program effectiveness.

5. Strengthen the capacity to recruit, retain, and support the most highly qualified faculty

and staff to grow within a collaborative community in meeting the educational needs of

students and Antioch’s academic programs.

6. Support implementation of this University plan by strengthening the overall fiscal

structure, reserves, and investment capacity of the University.

7. Enhance the capacity of each campus to raise private gifts and grants, and collaborate in a

significant University fund development effort.

8. Create a University-wide technology infrastructure that provides for information

exchange, networking of faculty and students, and access to library and other external

resources, and online instructional capability.

9. Project the space and renovation needs, and the concomitant capital funds that Antioch

campuses will require by the year 2010, consistent with the changing ways in which

teaching and learning will occur.

110

111

Appendix D. AUSC Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS

The faculty and staff members of the Antioch University Southern California (AUSC)

community began a strategic planning process in September 1999 to guide the development of

the institution for the next five years. The plan acknowledges and reinforces AUSC's traditional

values and builds on successful academic programs and strong staff support.

Leadership for the planning process has been a Strategic Planning Coordinating Team composed

of administration, faculty and staff. Members and their roles are: Chloe Reid, Executive Dean,

Antioch University Los Angeles (AULA); Ed Ogawa, Staff Representative, AULA; Donna Starr,

Executive Dean, Antioch University Santa Barbara (AUSB); Robert Bowen, Faculty , AULA;

Eloise Klein Healy, M.F.A. Faculty Chair, AULA; Carol Flores, Director, Admissions, AUSB;

Richard Loebl, Staff Representative, AUSB; Hymon Johnson, Faculty , AUSB; Mark Schulman,

President, AUSC. Vehicles for gaining overall faculty and staff involvement in creating the plan

have included community meetings and individual and team input into vision, mission, goals,

strategies, and metrics.

The plan has been developed in the context of a clear vision for the future and a well-articulated

mission. Key elements of the plan are the relocation of the Marina del Rey campus to a

downtown Los Angeles site, the new initiative for staff reorganization into self-directed and

empowered teams, and faculty commitment to strengthen and diversify academic programs. Six

major goals are specified in the plan to be accomplished in five years. In addition to the key

goals, detailed strategies and actions are identified. The planning process that extends to faculty

and staff on both campuses will continue through the remainder of the 2000 calendar year. Staff

teams and faculty departments will specify concomitant budget implications, metrics, and

measures in the next 2 months as they develop implementation plans for the goals and strategies.

This continued process provides opportunities for self-directed staff teams and academic

program faculty to develop goals, strategies, and actions for their responsibilities in realizing the

overall goals and strategies to reach the vision of the plan.

MISSION STATEMENT

Antioch University Southern California is an independent institution that provides an excellent,

innovative graduate and undergraduate education for adults. As Antioch education empowers

the student to act responsibly and to effect personal, social, and environmental change within a

global context. The Antioch approach emphasizes: the development of the student as a whole

person; the integration of academic and experiential learning; and creative, critical and

independent thinking.

This approach to education springs from Antioch's long-standing heritage of making learning

meaningful and vital while promoting social justice. Given Antioch's student-centered approach

112

to education and its commitment to intellectual, social, cultural, and ethnic diversity, the

faculty's primary duties are to teach and advise, as well as to engage in the intellectual dialogue

of their profession. In addition, faculty, staff, and students work with local communities to

provide leadership and service, participating as broadly as possible in civic affairs.

VISION STATEMENT

Antioch University Southern California strives to promote a spirit of inquiry as a multi-cultural,

intergenerational, and accessible institution, which values and nurtures an innovative, reflective,

and experiential approach to educational excellence.

Building on our history and fostering creativity and leadership, we, the community of Antioch

faculty, students, staff, and alumni -- centering ourselves in compassion, ethical steadfastness,

and a never-ending belief in the possible -- carry this vision into the world.

VALUES STATEMENT

While we are, as a community, still engaging in dialogue about our collective values, we believe

the following points will help ultimately to define those shared principles. We value and commit

to model in our lives and our work:

• global perspectives and knowledge of the interconnected context in which we act;

• coalitions across groups for building common ground;

• social justice, support for a sustainable environment, and community partnerships;

• anti-racism as an imperative of the historical moment in which we live;

• human dignity and dismantling ethnic biases, heterosexism, sexism, classism, ageism,

ableism, discrimination based on religious, cultural and political affiliations, and other

forms of oppression;

• an intellectual climate that acknowledges the whole person, focusing on wisdom,

creativity , experience and skills needed to promote social change.

GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS

1. More effectively implement the institutional vision and mission for AUSC in the

twenty-first century.

• Determine the future relationship between the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara

campuses;

113

• Increase our capacity to promote and support issues based on our vision and values;

• Develop effective ways to orient new members of our campus communities to the

values that guide and sustain us;

• Create and maintain effective and all-inclusive decision making processes for all

teams and governing bodies while assuring that they are authentic, democratic, and

participatory;

• Maintain a community that is free of all forms of discrimination and harassment;

• Affirm and embrace a diverse learning community as we struggle to confirm the

value in our differences.

2. Extend, strengthen, and diversify AUSC academic programs.

• Formulate sustainable development statements for all programs;

• Stabilize and strengthen the professional graduate programs already in place;

• Add additional graduate programs in liberal studies;

• Have several partnership plans going forward;

• Develop a fully staffed continuing education or extension division with a clear plan

for producing six-figure income;

• Develop an institutional capacity for on-line research;

• Develop the Multicultural Diversity Initiative on both campuses;

• Expand the Community Humanities Education (CHE) program.

3. Plan, fund and implement required levels of technology and facilities consistent with

the changing ways in which teaching and learning occur.

Technology

• Develop appropriate technological systems for new delivery models (including

distance learning);

• Establish a minimum level of hardware and software for students and faculty as

academic programs grow in their use of technology;

• Improve and expand administrative computing with an appropriate level of support

and resources;

114

• Move to one integrated database and elimination of multiple databases on each

campus.

Facilities

• Establish operational satellite locations (e.g., downtown LA, San Gabriel Valley,

Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Northern Santa Barbara County );

• Increase the comfort and instructional capabilities (especially technological) of

classrooms at both campuses;

• Improve the welcoming qualities at both campuses;

• Create in all facilities environments that are ecologically and ergonomically sound;

• Create public spaces that support lectures, performances and the arts;

• Insure adequate classrooms, gathering spaces, and offices to coincide with academic

program development and expansion.

4. Enhance AUSC's visibility and recognition in our region and increase and diversify

student recruitment and enrollment.

• Offer support and training to provide exceptional service to all callers (especially to

prospects);

• Provide appropriate staff support (including training) and adequate funding to the

admissions offices;

• Create new scholarships for student recruitment beyond Antioch Opportunity Grant

(AOG) monies;

• Stabilize enrollment in all academic programs and increase admissions selectivity;

• Target realistic and reasonable incremental enrollment growth in academic program's

strategic plan;

• Create a realistic action oriented marketing strategic plan (to incorporate news

releases and direct contact with the community);

• Create a minority student recruitment strategic plan for all academic programs;

• Create a strategic plan for community outreach and support newly initiated

development efforts;

115

• Create an advertising strategic plan with appropriate professional guidance and

financial support to position our campuses in our own respective communities;

• Expand alumni activities involvement and networking (including extensive regional

collaboration);

• Expand individual and institutional awareness and involvement with our neighbors

(including other academic institutions);

• Conduct an annual professional development conference for faculty, staff and

administrators to train them and guide them in how they can help recruit.

5. Recruit and support highly qualified faculty and staff to meet the educational needs

of students and academic programs.

Quality of Work Life and Training

• Train all faculty and staff in team structures and processes;

• Provide customer service training programs for all employees;

• Make the workplace family-friendly through early childhood education and create

opportunities for children in the workplace;

• Develop and implement ongoing university-wide educational programs that address

the elimination of racism and social inequality;

• Build professional and personal growth opportunities for every employee;

• Create and encourage opportunities for leadership for all members of the AUSC

community.

Human Resources Policies and Practices

• Develop personnel policies that are clear, concise, and sensible and produce

demonstrable results;

• Establish and maintain ethnic, race, age and gender diversity throughout all positions;

• Review and revise compensation levels of faculty and staff to make them more

competitive with those in the regional marketplace;

• Examine staff workload to identify reasonable tasks and clearly defined jobs;

.

• Decrease reliance on College Work-Study students and part-time staff by increasing

staff and faculty to adequate levels.

116

Recruitment

B Recruit arid retain faculty who can balance teaching, advising, and

scholarship/research.

Customer Service

• Provide excellent customer service to students, faculty, administration, and the

community at large.

Strengthen the fiscal structure and fund raising capacity of AUSC

• Initiate a needs assessment for all areas of the budget. Include a current, planned and

possible programs proposal;

• Create a vision budget that reflects the priorities of the University as it relates to our

mission;

• Establish active fund-raising and development efforts, including the creation of

alumni and community based efforts;

• Incorporate incentives for program teams to seek outside funding (i.e., grants and

donor gifts);

• Expand administrative capacity for grant procurement and financial management

reporting;

• Reduce reliance on tuition-based income;

• Create a formal procedure to review and identify budget needs during he year and

establish contingency funding sources;

• Establish funds for professional development for faculty and staff.

2000 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION

January-June

• Identify and apply for grants for scholarship funds and funds to continue innovative

programs and completion of the strategic planning process.

• Hold community-wide Constructive Dialogue on issues of discrimination, prejudice

and bias.

• Begin exploration of satellite locations and downtown Los Angeles campus.

117

• Begin capital campaign process.

• Continue development of the team structure for staff.

• Continue identification of metrics and budget implications.

• Create overall strategic planning timeline for completion of process (December

2000).

June-December

• Staff teams and faculty refines goals, strategies and metrics.

• Staff, faculty, governance councils, administration identify specific actions to

implement the strategies of the plan.

• Board of Visitors embraces the plan, takes responsibility for funding and leading

community outreach.

• Identify key satellite locations and downtown LA location.

• Develop capital campaign to fund new campuses.

• Develop an evaluation tool to measure results produced by strategic planning process.

118

119

Appendix E. AUSC 2001-03 Priorities

Academic Area

B To reach optimal enrollment in all current academic programs through use of Enrollment

Management Organization concepts;

B To build enrollments in the Weekend College and Professional and Community Studies

Program at the Santa Barbara campus;

B To build enrollments with new graduate programs in Religion and Social Change, and

Media and Social Change at the Los Angeles campus;

B To implement 2000 Strategic Plan enhancements in the academic area.

Fiscal Area

B To create an inclusive and transparent budget process with widespread campus

participation. (This was implemented beginning with the 2001-02 budget development

process.)

B To reduce tuition dependence from nearly 100% to 90% over the next 5 years. (This will

require development of a fundraising and grant writing capability.)

B To achieve annual salary increases of 3% to 5% for staff in order to attract well-qualified

staff and to reduce turnover by being competitive in the local marketplace.

B To establish local reserves of at least 5% of the operating budget within 5 years

(approximately $500,000).

B To lobby for a reduction of University-wide overhead and other charges that currently

exceed $1,000,000 per year.

B To follow Board of Trustee directives in budgeting and maintain a balanced budget.

B To implement 2000 Strategic Plan enhancements in the financial area.

120

Strategic Planning Process

July 2001 to December 2001

B Identify and apply for scholarship grant funds and funds to continue innovative programs

and completion of the strategic planning process.

B Hold community-wide Constructive Dialogue on issues of discrimination, prejudice, and

bias.

B Begin exploration of satellite locations and plan move to Urban Education Village in

Santa Monica.

B Begin capital campaign process.

B Continue development of the team organizational structure for staff.

B Continue identification of metrics and budget implications for the Region and the

campuses.

B Create overall timeline for completion of strategic planning process.

January 2002 to June 2002

B Staff teams and faculty refine goals, strategies, and metrics.

B Staff, faculty, governance councils, and administration identify specific actions to

implement the 2000 Strategic Plan.

B Identify specific list of key satellite locations.

B Develop capital campaign to fund new campuses and satellite locations.

B Develop an evaluation tool to measure results produced by strategic planning process.

July 2002 to December 2002

B Currently being developed.

January 2003 to June 2003

B Currently being developed.

Appendix F. AUSC Regional and Campus Organizational Structures

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Organizational Chart

May 2002

Exec. Assistant

Deborah Lott

Development Officer

Vacant

Admin. Asst.

Karin Pleasant

Registrar

Alan Scott

Dir. Admis. & Fin. Aid

VACANT

Human Resources

Robert Stapp

AUSC Payroll Coord.

Dawn Jackson

Datatel Coord.

Ed Ogawa

Computing Services

The Group Oliver

(outsourced)

Bookstore

Cheryl Francisco

CAFE

(outsourced)

Facilities Manager

Brad Gettle

AULA Exec. Dean

VACANT

Admn. Asst.

Karin Pleasant

Academic Services

Program Coordinators

BA Program

David Tripp

MA Education

Cheryl Armon

MA Management

Susan Nero

MA Fine Arts

Eloise Klein Healy

Clinical Training Office

Claudia Owens Shields

MA Psychology

Joy Turek & Terry Roberts

Developmental Literacy Center

Andrea Richards

Antioch Counseling Center

Eric Day

AULA Dean of Acad. Affairs

Linda Moody

AULA Accounts Pay/Rec

Naomi Castro

AULA Fiscal Office Mgr.

Jeanette Lindsay

AUSB Accounts Pay/Rec

Judy Johnson

AUSB Fiscal Office Mgr

Linda Hackett

AUSC Chief Financial Officer

Parminder Bajaj

Admin. Asst/Fac. Mgr.

Vacant

Registrar

MaryAnn Marwitz

Director of Admissions

Carol Flores

Director of Financial Aid

Karen Morgan

Alumni Affairs Asst.

Vacant

Technical Computing Asst.

Vacant

Human Resources Asst.

Linda Hackett

(1/4 time)

AUSB Exec. Dean

Diana Sloane

Admin. Asst

Diana Groener

(half-time)

BA Program

Lillian Seldeen

MA Education

Michele Britton-Bass

MA Management

Donna Starr

MA Psychology

Catherine Radecki-Bush

Academic Services Asst.

Diana Groener

Weekend College Coord.

Susan Brindle

MAE Admin. Coord.

Rich Loebl

Academic Services

Michael McLure

AUSB Dean of Acad. Affairs

Richard Whitney

AUSC INTERIM PRESIDENT

Chloe Reid

121

122

123

Appendix G. Programmatic Desired Outcomes

and Measurement Techniques

Critical to the success of AUSC’s Assessment Plan are programmatic statements of the

desired outcomes of programs, the connection of program components to these outcomes,

and measurement techniques that are used to determine if students achieve the desired

outcomes. These statements are presented in this Appendix.

124

125

Table G-1. AULA BA Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement

Techniques

1. MULTIPLE

PERSPECTIVES

•Students should learn to

view issues, problems,

arguments, etc. from

multiple points of view

•Various cross-disciplinary

courses

•Courses that are designed to

take multiple perspectives on

issues

•Selman perspective-

taking test

•Course objectives

•Faculty evaluation of

student course work and

learning analyses

2. VARIOUS FORMS OF

KNOWLEDGE

•Students should be able to

use knowledge from across

the disciplines to come to

fuller understanding of

issues, problems, arguments,

etc.

•Required minimum of 6 units

across six domains of

knowledge

•Cross-disciplinary courses

offerings

•Faculty evaluation of

student course work and

learning analyses

3. ACADEMIC WRITING

•Students should be able to

write solid academic papers

that provide evidence of

their learning, and an ability

to articulate their own

thinking

•Writing assessment of all in-

coming students

•Individualized writing

requirements

•New writing curriculum

administered by the Math and

Writing Center

•“Every-course-is-a-writing-

course”

•Writing assessment on

entry to the program

•Faculty evaluation of

student work

•Pre/post writing tests

4. PRESENTATION

SKILLS

•Students should gain skills

and knowledge appropriate

to presenting ideas,

arguments, etc. and

engaging in public discourse

•Some courses have oral

presentation requirements

•Faculty evaluation of

student presentations in

selected courses

126

Table G-1. AULA BA Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

5. CRITICAL AND

ANALYTIC

THINKING

•Students should be able

to analyze and evaluate

issues, problems,

arguments, etc.

•Math assessment of all in-coming

students

•Some courses specifically

designed to apply critical and

analytic skills

•Most courses encourage critical

thinking papers

•Math assessment on

entry to the program

•Faculty evaluation of

student work

6. APPLICATION OF

KNOWLEDGE

•Students should be able

to creatively and

reflectively apply

knowledge gained in

concrete contexts

•Prior learning experiences

•Internship program

•Minimum of 6 units earned

through self-directed experiential

learning

•Faculty evaluation of

student work and

learning analyses

•Advisement process

7. COMPLEXITIES

OF DISCIPLINES

•Students should be able

to map their chosen

field of study

•Core course offerings in various

fields of study

•Advising/mentoring by faculty

•Advising relationship

between faculty and

students

•Student learning

analyses

127

Table G-2. AULA MACP Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. THEORY

•Understanding and mastery

of major clinical and

psychological theories

•Coursework

Personality Theory I

(PSY 532A)

Personality Theory II

(PSY 532B)

Systems Theory and the

Family (PSY 535)

Contemporary Family

Issues (PSY 549)

Child and Adolescent

Development (PSY

543C)

Occasional workshops

•Clinical Training

Practical application of

theoretical skills in

supervised clinical

traineeship experiences

•Licensing Examination

Practical application of

theoretical skills on

both the written and

oral California

examinations

•Successful completion of

required and elective

courses as indicated by

student narrative evaluations

•Successful completion of

required traineeship as

indicated by clinical

supervisor evaluation

•Successful completion of

written and oral California

examinations required for

licensure as indicated by test

scores

2. PROFESSIONALISM

•Understanding and mastery

of ethical principles and

guidelines for the filed of

psychology as outlined by

the BBS, APA, and

standards held within the

profession

•Coursework

Assessment and

Treatment Planning

(PSY 541)

Professional Ethics and

the Law (PSY548)

Process of Interpersonal

Psychotherapy (PSY

501A)

Psychology and the

Community (PSY

545C)

Occasional workshops

(not Required)

•Successful completion of

required and elective

courses as indicated by

student narrative evaluations

128

Table G-2. AULA MACP Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

2. PROFESSIONALISM

(cont.)

•Clinical Training

Practical application of

professional skills in

supervised clinical

traineeship experiences

•Licensing Examination

Practical application of

professional skills and

ethical principles on

both the written and oral

California examinations

•Successful completion of

required traineeship as

indicated by clinical

supervisor evaluation

•Successful completion of

written and oral California

examinations required for

licensure as indicated by test

scores

3. CLINICAL SKILL

ACQUISITION

•Acquisition and mastery of

clinical skills commensurate

with level of training

•Coursework

Assessment and

Treatment Planning

(PSY 541)

Process of Interpersonal

Psychotherapy I (PSY

501A)

Research and

Professional Writing

(PSY 536A)

Chemical Dependencies

(PSY 550)

Psychopharmacology

(PSY 539D)

Psychological Testing

(PSY 542)

Treatment of Children

and Adolescents (PSY

567A)

Intimate Relationships

and Sexuality (PSY

566A)

Group Treatment

Methods (PSY 551A)

Treatment of Families

•Successful completion of

required and elective

courses as indicated by

student narrative evaluations

129

Table G-2. AULA MACP Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

3. CLINICAL SKILL

ACQUISITION (cont.)

Course work (cont.)

(PSY 535C)

Brief Therapies (PSY

509)

Process of Interpersonal

Psychotherapy II (PSY

540C)

Occasional Workshops

(not required)

•Clinical Training

Practical application of

theoretical skills in

supervised clinical

traineeship

experiences

•Licensing Examination

Practical application of

clinical skills on both

the written and oral

California examinations

•Successful completion of

required traineeship as

indicated by clinical

supervisor evaluation

•Successful completion of

written and oral California

examinations required for

licensure as indicated by test

scores

4. SOCIAL JUSTICE

•Acquisition of basic values

associated with Antioch

social justice principles and

skills necessary to apply

these principles in clinical

and community settings

•Coursework

Society and the

Individual (PSY 545)

Field Study: Psychology

and Society (PSY 512A)

Treatment of Diverse

Clients (PSY 546A)

Psychology in the

Community (PSY

545C)

Prevention and

Promotion (ACP

required/ not required

for non-ACP students)

Occasional Workshops

(not required)

•Faculty Development

•Successful completion of

required and elective

courses as indicated by

student narrative evaluations

•MACP Core and Adjunct

Faculty participate in bi-

quarterly diversity training

130

131

Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. PUTTING THEORY

INTO PRACTICE

Applying current

management knowledge to

practical issues and

problems

•Practical application

assignments are given in all

courses

•Field Study Project

requires application of

content from across the

curriculum

•Course faculty evaluation

of student written projects

and presentations for ability

to apply theory

•Field Study Advisor

observation and evaluation

of all Field Study activities

for practical applications of

knowledge

2. PROBLEM SOLVING

ORIENTATION

Learning to think

innovatively, creatively, and

systematically about

management problems and

possibilities. Knowing and

using appropriate

qualitative and quantitative

management tools

•All courses, but most

especially Managerial

Inquiry, require problem

solving exercises, projects,

simulations, case studies,

etc.

•Field Study requires

constant problem solving in

an organizational setting

•Faculty review of final

projects for Managerial

Inquiry course

•Faculty observation of

student Field Study

activities and evaluation of

Field Study problem

solving activities within the

Field Study teams with host

organizations

•Evaluation of final Field

Study Reports

3. INDEPENDENT,

CRITICAL THINKING

Growth in the ability to use

personal experience to

generate independent

critical thought and

informed action

•All course assignments, but

most especially in

Organizational Behavior,

Managerial Inquiry, and

Quantitative Analysis, focus o

critical thinking.

•Field Study activities and fin

Field Study Reports require

demonstration of critical

thinking.

•Course faculty evaluation

of thinking demonstrated in

student papers and

presentations

•Field Study Advisor

evaluation of Field Study

for critical thinking in

project activities and final

report

•Evaluation of final Field

Study Reports

132

Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

4. EFFECTIVE

COMMUNICATION

Verbal, written, and

electronic communication

of ideas to varied audiences

in a professionally

appropriate manner

•Requirements for

successful completion of

Foundations of Business I

course include

demonstration of computer

literacy -- Word, Excel, and

PowerPoint -- and

presentation skills.

•Successful completion of

Organization Behavior

course requires

demonstration of graduate

level essay writing.

•Field Study project

requires professional and

effective communication at

all stages

•Faculty for the

Foundations of Business

course assess computer

literacy and presentation

skills

•Faculty for Organization

Behavior course assess

essay writing

•All faculty evaluate the

quality of student

communications in all

course work

5. HUMAN RELATIONS

SKILLS AND

INTERPERSONAL

COMPETENCE

Demonstrated leadership,

conflict management, and

team development skills

and the ability to stimulate

improved performance in

others, including insight and

effective responses to the

varying demographics and

cultures of organizations

•Most courses require

demonstration of

interpersonal competence in

classroom activities,

especially applied social

science courses such as the

Organization Behavior,

Group Dynamics,

Consultation Skills,

Negotiation and Conflict

Resolution, Personal and

Professional Development,

and Leadership, Motivation,

and Power courses

•Field Study requires

effective team building and

relationship building with

the host organization

•Faculty observation of

student performance in

most courses, but especially

in Group Dynamics;

Consultation Skills;

Negotiation and Conflict

Resolution; Personal and

Professional Development;

and Leadership, Motivation,

and Power courses

•Faculty evaluation of

student Field Study team

activities

133

Table G-3. AULA MAOM Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

6. SOCIAL AND

ETHICAL AWARENESS

Respect for the importance

of values in human affairs

and recognition of the social

contributions of the

manager and the role of

business, including

effective use of resources

and the power to change

and improve society

•Many courses require that

students demonstrate social

and ethical awareness in

their class participation and

course assignments, most

especially in the Social and

Ethical Issues in

Management and Society

and the Individual courses.

•Field Study Project

requires demonstration of

very specific social and

ethical sensitivities to the

unique context of the host

organization

•Faculty observation of

student behavior and

evaluation of assignments

in all courses, most

especially Social and

Ethical Issues in

Management and Society

and the Individual

•Faculty observation and

evaluation of student Field

Study activities

•Faculty valuation of final

Field Study Reports

134

135

Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes

Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. DEVELOP AND

MASTER WRITING

SKILLS IN SELECTED

GENRES (FICTION,

POETRY, OR CREATIVE

NON-FICTION)

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest artists

•Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Residency Student

Learning Analysis (SLA)

and Log

•Faculty and student mid-

term evaluation

•Three-quarter term faculty

reports

•Peer critique in on-line

conferences

•Project Period Contract

SLA

•Faculty Narrative

Evaluation of student

Project Period Contract

work

2. DEVELOP AND

MASTER SKILLS TO

COMPARE, CONTRAST,

AND CRITIQUE

MULTIDISCIPLINARY

PERSPECTIVES

REGARDING ART,

LITERARY

AESTHETICS, AND THE

CANONICAL DEBATES

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest artists

•Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

• Student SLA and Log

•Faculty and student mid-

term evaluation

•Three-quarter term faculty

reports

•Peer critique in on-line

conferences

•Project Period Contract

SLA

136

Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

2. COMPARE, CONTRAST, AND

CRITIQUE (cont.)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Faculty Narrative

Evaluation of student

Project Period Contract

work

3. DEVELOP AND MASTER

SKILLS OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS

OF LITERATURE AND THE

PROCESS OF CRITICAL

READING

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest

artists •Required

Reading List in

Pedagogy

•Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Residency SLA and

Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

•Faculty Narrative

Evaluation of student

Project Period Contract

work

4. REFLECT THROUGH FORMAL

AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

ON THE PLACE OF CREATIVE

WORK IN THE COMMUNITY,

CULTURE AND SOCIETY

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest

artists •Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing and

discussing)

•Field Study

•Residency SLA and

Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

•Field Study Evaluator

Narrative Evaluation of

student Field Study

work

137

Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

4. CREATIVE WORK (Cont.)

•SLA of Field Study

experience

5. DEVELOP AWARENESS OF

ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND

SOCIAL VALUES AS THEY

INTERFACE WITH THE RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

ARTIST

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest

artists (specifically,

Arts, Culture and

Society I and II)

•Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Field Study

•Residency SLA and

Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

•Faculty Narrative

Evaluation of student

Project Period Contract

work

6. REFLECT ON VOICE, MODES

OF EXPRESSION, AND

LINGUISTIC STYLE THROUGH

THE STUDY OF THE ART OF

TRANSLATION

•Required Translation

Seminar and on-line

conference

•Residency SLA/Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

•Faculty Narrative

Evaluation of student

Project Period Contract

work

138

Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

7. UNDERSTAND THE WORK

AND LIVES OF PROFESSIONAL

WRITERS AND NETWORK WITH

WRITERS’ COMMUNITIES

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest

artists •Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Field Study

•Student Learning

Analysis (SLA) and

Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

•Field Study Evaluator

Narrative Evaluation of

student Field Study

work

•SLA of Field Study

experience

For Certificate in the Pedagogy of

Creative Writing Student

8. LEARN AND APPLY

INNOVATIVE SKILLS AND

PROGRESSIVE PEDAGOGICAL

THEORY TO THE TEACHING OF

CREATIVE WRITING IN DIVERSE

SETTINGS

•Seminars with faculty

mentors and guest

artists (specifically,

Orientation to the

Certificate in the

Pedagogy of Creative

Writing and Readings

in the Pedagogy of

Creative Writing)

•Senior Lectures

•Genre writing

workshops

•Student Learning

Analysis (SLA) and

Log

•Faculty and student

mid-term evaluation

•Three-quarter term

faculty reports

•Peer critique in on-

line conferences

•Project Period

Contract SLA

139

Table G-4. AULA MFA in Creative Writing Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

8. PROGRESSIVE PEDAGOGICAL

THEORY (cont.)

•Project Period

Contracts (Individual

Learning Plans)

•On-line conferences

(reading, writing,

critiquing, and

discussing)

•Field Study

•Post-MFA term in

pedagogy (supervised

teaching and on-line

pedagogy conference)

•Pedagogy Paper and

Panel Presentation

•Field Study Evaluator

Narrative Evaluation of

student Field Study

work

•SLA of Field Study

experience

•Faculty and

Supervised Teaching

Evaluator Narrative

Evaluation of Project

Period Contract work

for Pedagogy Term

•SLA of Pedagogy

Term

•Peer Review of

Pedagogy Panel

Presentation

140

141

Table G-5. AULA MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. ENGAGE AND

SUPPORT ALL

STUDENTS IN

LEARNING

•Coursework in lesson/unit

construction

•Specific plans to engage

and support non-traditional

students in lessons

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

•Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Portfolio presentation

•Faculty assessment

meetings

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Follow-up employment

review

2. CREATE AND

MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE

ENVIRONMENTS FOR

STUDENT LEARNING

•Coursework in philosophy

of classroom organization

and development

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

•Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance (classroom

communities)

•Portfolio presentation

•Faculty assessment

meetings

•Exit interviews (LA only)

• Employment follow-up

3. UNDERSTAND AND

COMPETENTLY

ORGANIZE SUBJECT

MATTER FOR STUDENT

LEARNING

•MSAT exam or waiver

•Coursework in lesson/unit

construction

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

•Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance (classroom

communities)

•Portfolio presentation

•Faculty assessment

meetings

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Employment follow-up

142

Table G-5. AULA MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

4. PLAN INSTRUCTION

AND DESIGN

PRODUCTIVE

LEARNING

EXPERIENCES FOR ALL

STUDENTS

•Coursework in lesson/unit

construction

•Designing alternative

strategies for non-traditional

learners

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Proseminar work

•Portfolio process.

•Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Portfolio presentation

•Faculty assessment

meetings

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Follow-up employment

review

5. COMPETENTLY

ASSESS STUDENT

LEARNING.

•Coursework in performing

assessments, particularly

reading and math

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Thesis process.

•Learning evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Portfolio presentations

•Thesis projects

•Exit interviews (LA only)

6. DEVELOP AS

REFLECTIVE,

PROFESSIONAL

EDUCATORS

•Proseminar coursework

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

•Thesis project

•Proseminar narrative

evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Faculty assessment

meetings

•Obtaining and maintaining

employment

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Effective teacher-leader on

planned 2-year follow up

(LA only)

143

Table G-5. AULA MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

7. PROMOTE SOCIAL

AND ECOLOGICAL

JUSTICE

•Coursework in lesson/unit

construction

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

•Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Portfolio presentation

•Thesis projects

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Effective teacher-leader --

2-year follow-up (LA only)

8. USE COMPUTER-

BASED TECHNOLOGY

TO ENHANCE STUDENT

LEARNING

•Coursework in technology

and lesson/unit construction

•Student Teaching

supervision

•Portfolio process

Narrative evaluations

•Student Teaching

performance

•Portfolio presentation

9. PLACE CURRENT

CURRICULUM,

PEDAGOGY, AND

REFORM PRACTICES

WITHIN A HISTORICAL

CONTEXT

•Coursework

•Thesis process

•Narrative evaluations

•Course projects

•Thesis projects

10. PERCEIVE THE

SYSTEMIC NATURE OF

SCHOOLS

•Coursework

•Thesis process

•Narrative evaluations

•Course projects

•Thesis projects

•Exit interviews (LA only)

11. DEVELOP SKILLS

FOR EDUCATIONAL

CHANGE

•Coursework

•Thesis process

•Narrative evaluations

•Course projects

•Thesis projects

144

Table G-5. AULA MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

12. EMPLOY IN-DEPTH

INQUIRY METHODS TO

IMPROVE THEIR OWN

PRACTICE

•Coursework

•Thesis process

•Narrative evaluations

•Course projects

•Thesis projects

•Exit interviews (LA only)

•Effective inquiry use on

planned 2-year follow up

(LA only)

145

Table G-6. AUSB BA Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. CRITICAL THINKING

•Students’ ability to

analyze, synthesize and

evaluate ideas, values and

information. Ability to

present a logical argument

for own and others’ views

•Required courses in

research methodology,

statistics, philosophy,

foundations of liberal

education, and core and

elective courses in the

student’s area of

concentration

•Faculty evaluation of

student essays, term papers,

critiques, and presentations

in classes and capstone

seminar

2. CREATIVE THINKING

AND PROBLEM

SOLVING

Students’ ability to apply

creative and critical

thinking skills to decision-

making and solution of

complex problems. Ability

to integrate theoretical and

practical learning

•Required courses in math,

economics, research

methodology, statistics,

group dynamics, and

foundations of liberal

education

•Required 12 units in

current or prior experiential

learning

•Electives in creative

process, learning and

cognition, etc.

•Faculty evaluation of

student degree plan and

papers, presentations, and

small group projects

3. COMMUNICATION

SKILLS

Students’ ability to

communicate effectively

orally and in writing.

Ability to participate in

groups and leading a group

discussion

•Required courses in

writing, group dynamics,

foundations of liberal

education, and public

speaking or counseling

techniques

•Required experiential

learning outside classroom

•Faculty evaluation of

written work and

performance in class, field

activities, and capstone

seminar

•Field evaluator

assessments of learning

146

Table G-6. AUSB BA Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

4. UNDERSTANDING

DIVERSE

PERSPECTIVES AND

CONTEMPORARY

WORLD

Ability to reflect

thoughtfully upon the

contemporary world from

diverse ideological and

cultural perspectives

•Required courses in

humanities, political

science, sociology or

anthropology, foundations

of liberal education and

electives in cross-cultural

studies, ecology, and global

economics

•Faculty evaluation of

papers and class

assignments and of service

learning internship

5. SELF AWARENESS

AND COMPETENCE FOR

PERSONAL AND

PROFESSIONAL

PURSUITS

Awareness of cognitive,

emotional, and social

influences upon one’s self.

Ability to articulate values

and plan skill development

for one’s life purpose

•Required courses in

psychology, philosophy,

and foundations of liberal

education

•Required experiential

learning

•Required and elective

courses in student’s area of

concentration

•Faculty evaluation of

degree plan and coursework

•Faculty evaluation of

cumulative learning and

skill development

147

Table G-7. AUSB MACP Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. DEVELOPMENT OF

SELF-AWARENESS AND

SELF-REFLECTIVE

CAPACITIES IN

LEARNING AND

THERAPEUTIC

PRACTICE

•Awareness of one’s

assumptions, biases, and

feelings about cross-cultural

differences and the impact

on therapeutic practice

•Required courses in

clinical process/skills and

multicultural awareness

•Required self-reflective

papers in required courses

•Required traineeships

•Instructor's formal

evaluation of student work

in class, in case

presentations, and in video

and audio tapes

•Faculty evaluation of

student reaction papers and

term papers

•Traineeship supervisors’

evaluations of student

clinical work

2. MASTERY OF THE

FUNDAMENTAL BODY OF

KNOWLEDGE AND BASIC

SKILLS IN CLINICAL

PSYCHOLOGY

•Knowledge and skills for

competent multicultural

practice. Ability to

conceptualize and treat human

interpersonal problems through

an integration of knowledge an

skill

•Required courses in human

development, theories of

psychotherapy,

psychopathology, assessment

family systems, multicultural

counseling, and clinical skills

•Instructors’ formal

assessment of student

papers, exams, participation

in class discussions and

presentations

•Traineeship supervisors’

formal quarterly evaluations

of students’ knowledge and

skills

•Core faculty evaluation of

a final case study requiring

the integration of

knowledge and skills in

human development,

theories of psychotherapy,

psychopathology, family

systems, multicultural

competence, and etc.

148

Table G-7. AUSB MACP Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

3. PROFESSIONAL

SOCIALIZATION INTO

PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC

COMMUNITY WITH

EMPHASIS ON AN

UNDERSTANDING OF

THE ETHICS OF

PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICE

•Required orientation meeting

•Required courses in

Professional Ethics and the La

and Process of Group

Psychotherapy

•Quarterly student advising,

supervision in community

traineeships.

•Instructors’ formal

assessment of student work

in coursework

•Traineeship supervisors’

formal quarterly evaluations

of student progress and

achievement

•Quarterly review of student

progress by Core and

Associate faculty (general

faculty review when

needed)

•Core faculty evaluation of

a final case study requiring

the integration of

knowledge and skills in

legal and ethical issues

(capstone)

149

Table G-8. AUSB MAIC Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. DEVELOPMENT OF

SELF-AWARENESS AND

SELF-REFLECTIVE

CAPACITIES

•Awareness of one’s

assumptions, biases and

feelings about cross-cultural

differences and their impact

on practice

•Required courses in

professional skills and

multicultural awareness

•Required self-reflective pape

in required courses.

•Instructor's formal

evaluation of student work

in class, presentations,

student reaction papers, and

term papers

•Practicum supervisors’

evaluations of student work

2. MASTERY OF THE

FUNDAMENTAL BODY

OF KNOWLEDGE AND

BASIC SKILLS IN

PSYCHOLOGY

•Knowledge and skills for

competent multicultural

practice, and ability to

conceptualize and intervene

with human interpersonal

problems through an

integration of knowledge

and skills

•Required psychology

courses in human

development, feminist

theories of psychology,

methods of inquiry,

assessment, and

professional writing

•Instructors’ formal assessmen

of student papers, exams,

presentations, and participatio

in class discussions

3. PROFESSIONAL

SOCIALIZATION IN THE

AREA OF

CONCENTRATION (I.E.,

CAREER COUNSELING,

ORGANIZATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGY, OR

FAMILY AND CHILD

SERVICES)

•Mastery of a specialized

body of knowledge and skill

development in the area of

concentration (i.e., career

counseling, organizational

psychology, or family and

child services)

•Applied courses and

independent studies in the

area of concentration

•Quarterly student advising

•Supervision of thesis

project by advisor and

committee

•Instructors’ formal

assessment of student work

in classes

•Supervisors’ formal

quarterly evaluations of

student progress and

achievement in practicum

150

Table G-8. AUSB MAIC Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

3. PROFESSIONAL

SOCIALIZATION (cont.)

•Supervision in community

practicum

•Quarterly review of student

progress by Core/ Associate

Faculty

•General faculty review,

when needed

•Committee evaluation of

the thesis project

demonstrating the

integration of knowledge

and skills into an applied

project that may be used to

launch the student’s

professional career

151

Table G-9. AUSB MAOM Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. ANALYSIS, DESIGN,

AND IMPLEMENT

ORGANIZATIONAL

MISSION, GOALS,

STRUCTURES, AND

PROCESSES

Knowledge and skills in

effectively developing

strategic organizational

visions and missions;

designing structures

appropriate to

organizational vision and

mission; and developing

effective practices and

processes appropriate for

both human resources and

technical activities

•Required and elective course

in practice of management,

organizational design and

development, strategic plannin

and policy making, managing

cultural diversity, etc.

•Practicum Seminar

•Faculty evaluation of

analytical and reflection

papers and formal

presentations in courses

•Observation of students in

Practicum by seminar leaders

and Program Chair

•Faculty review of student

logs of their activities in

Practicum and/or major

project

•Evaluation of examinations in

specific areas by faculty

2. WORKING WITH

GROUPS

Knowledge, attitudes and

skills which enable the

student in both the member

and leader role, and as a

consultant, to influence

others, facilitate meetings,

assist a group through

developmental stages,

facilitate work in groups, as

well as effectively give and

receive relevant

interpersonal feedback;

work with members of

diverse backgrounds

(culturally and

internationally)

•Required and elective

courses in managing in a

culturally diverse

environment, organizational

and group behavior, group

dynamics and leadership,

and consulting skills

•Professional seminars and

Practicum Seminar

•Observation-based faculty

evaluation of performance in

experiential groups as member

and leader

•Faculty evaluation of

reflection papers in

professional seminars, courses

and practicum

•Practicum Seminar leader’s

assessment of functioning and

leadership in groups at

Practicum

152

Table G-9. AUSB MAOM Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

3. MANAGING

TECHNICAL

FUNCTIONS IN

ORGANIZATIONS

Knowledge and skills

concerning budget

development; research;

information systems;

financial management;

marketing; quality

management; and

management of innovation.

•Required and elective course

in management information

systems, financial

administration, quality

management, marketing acros

cultures, total quality

management, budgeting and

quantitative analysis

•Practicum Seminar

•Evaluation by faculty and

Practicum Seminar leaders of

presentations and projects in

developing budgets,

conducting evaluation

research etc.

•Examinations in developing

budgets and financial

administration

4. EXTERNAL

RELATIONS INCLUDING

INTERNATIONAL

MANAGEMENT

Conceptual knowledge and

practical skills in

identifying appropriate and

legitimate stakeholders such

as customers, boards,

funders, regulatory groups,

etc.; developing effective

relations with each

stakeholder and positioning

an organization and its staff

vis-à-vis each.

•Required and elective

courses in ethics and social

responsibility, board and

staff development, fund

raising and proposal

writing, global economics,

and international trade

•Practicum Seminar

•Evaluation by faculty of written

project analysis and verbal

presentations on external

relations. •Assessment of non-

profit management and marketin

strategy project in Practicum

153

Table G-10. AUSB MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques

Desired Student Outcomes Program Components

Measurement Techniques

1. ABILITY TO MEET

ANTIOCH STANDARDS

BY THE STUDENT

•Engage and support all

students in learning

•Create and maintain

effective environments for

student learning

•Assess student learning

•Plan instruction and design

learning experiences for all

students

•Promote social and

ecological justice

•Understand and organize

subject matter for student

learning

•Develop as a professional

educator

•Practica and student

teaching

•Professional seminar

•Required self-reflective

journals

•Videotaped lessons

•Supervision by university

professional as well as field

mentor

•Faculty evaluation of

student work in seminars

and video and audio tapes

•Faculty evaluation of

student standards-based

portfolios

•Student teaching

supervisors’ evaluations of

teaching by students

2. COMPLETE ALL

REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE CALIFORNIA

MULTIPLE SUBJECT

TEACHING

CREDENTIAL

•Mastery of content areas

and skills necessary to

fulfill California credential

requirements

•Required courses in

educational foundations,

second language learning

and teaching, methods of

teaching reading/language

arts, arts, technology, math,

social studies, and science

•Instructors’ formal

assessment of student

papers, exams,

presentations, and

participation in class

discussions

•Cooperating teacher and

supervisors’ formal

quarterly evaluations of

students’ knowledge and

skills

154

Table G-10. AUSB MAE Program

Desired Educational Outcomes and Measurement Techniques (cont.)

3. PROFESSIONAL

SOCIALIZATION

•Socialization into the

educational community

with emphasis on an

understanding of the nature

of schools as systems and

the leadership roles of

teachers

•Required courses in

research design and

implementation, school

organization, leadership and

change, and curriculum

•Thesis/project based on

student interest in school

reform and/or teacher

leadership

•Instructors’ formal

assessment of student work

in courses and research

practica

•Quarterly review of student

progress by Core/Associate

faculty

•General faculty review,

when needed