Page 1

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY

IN PREPARATION FOR A VISIT BY A TEAM

REPRESENTING THE

HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION

OF THE

NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION

OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY

Antioch College

Antioch University Seattle

Antioch University Southern California

Antioch New England Graduate School

Antioch University McGregor

August 2002

iii

PREFACE

Antioch University is not the same institution that prepared for a North

Central Association accreditation visit more than a decade ago. At that time,

Antioch had just passed through an extended period of fiscal crisis and

organizational repositioning. Today, as we complete the internal examination of

our progress and present this Self-study, our first realization is the extent to which

this University has evolved, grown, and strengthened its capacities and processes.

The crisis of the 1970s and 1980s is clearly behind us. The plans, decisions, and

programs that subsequently emerged are now the new reality of our daily lives. At

the outset, it is useful to review and reflect upon the accomplishments of the past

ten years, accomplishments that have nurtured us through the period and which

bring us today to this moment of introspection and analysis, taking stock of the

past, but looking forward to a vigorous future.

In 1992, the new five-campus structure of Antioch University was scarcely

five years old. Barely a year had passed since the Board of Trustees had approved

a new governance structure for the reconstituted university. That new governance

recognized the balanced campuses of the university under a single national Board

of Trustees, and effectively provided an equal place in the University Leadership

Council for each campus and a university-wide administration headed by a

chancellor. Little was known about how effective this organization would or could

be.

The University‘s academic programs were limited in number at each

campus, with a focus on areas of Psychology and Education at the non-residential

campuses, and on the liberal arts and sciences at Antioch College. The annual

operating budget was $35 million. All of the operations were controlled and

supervised from the University Central Administration in Yellow Springs, Ohio.

There was little academic cooperation between and among the respective campuses

of the University, and there were almost no administrative and financial systems in

place to facilitate and connect the University as a whole.

Looking ahead from the last NCA visit, the task for the next ten years was to

implement a far-reaching change in governance and administration, in academic

programs and academic quality, transforming a bold plan for a university to a

university in fact.

iv

Today, in 2002, an astounding number of steps have been taken in moving

toward that audacious goal. Much had been accomplished. Indeed, very large steps

have been taken, firmly and successfully. Among the most important are:

Academic expansion and diversification of programs, including an MFA in

Creative Writing, four new Teacher Education programs, two PhD

offerings, greater depth in Environmental Studies and Communications, and

a highly innovative program in Whole Systems Design.

A fully electronic library at Antioch New England and all campuses

connected to Ohiolink through Antioch College.

Individual program accreditations and awards, significant numbers of

graduates, and national recognitions. Increases in external funding, grants

and contracts.

Regular increases in University revenue and an annual budget double that

of 1993.

Growth in University assets, including new campus facilities owned in

Keene, NH, and Seattle, WA; a tripling of the endowment; the total

elimination of internal debt; a cash liquidity fund; and important

investments in systems, faculty, and technology.

At the residential undergraduate campus of Antioch College, an Antioch

education is unique. On the University‘s non-residential campuses for adult

learners, Antioch has opened doors, created opportunities, and redirected lives.

These —adult“ campuses, in their short histories, have distinguished themselves in

their communities as value-based, quality higher education providers. The campus

and university self-studies that have been prepared for this review are

comprehensive in scope. They are the products of self-examination in the areas of

learning, teaching, acquisition and administration of resources, future planning,

and quality enhancement and control. We focus on the 1993 œ 2003 period with

particular attention to planning, governance, academic program growth, and both

the gains and dilemmas the university faces.

We begin this Self-study, then, with a sense of the distance we have come,

the impressive achievements of a decade of astute planning, fiscal prudence, and

plain hard work. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. To begin, we must here

evaluate thoughtfully and candidly where we have come, how far we have

v

progressed, what has worked well and not so well, and what, of our ambitious

goals, remains yet to be accomplished. All of this will occur within a highly

dynamic environment, for we can be certain of only one condition: the constancy

of new challenges evoked by changes in student expectations, the intellectual

demands of the professions, and the uncertain world in which we task. This Self-

study measures our progress in moving toward that goal.

James H. Craiglow

Chancellor

August 1, 2002

vii

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

Preface

Table of Contents

iii

vii

Chapter 1: Antioch University

1

Profile

Founding History

The Self-study Process

Responses to Concerns from 1993 Comprehensive Report

Major Changes Since 1993

Senior Administrative Personnel

Faculty

Programs

Facilities

2

3

12

15

18

18

19

21

22

Chapter 2: General Institutional Requirements

25

Chapter 3: The Mission and Values of Antioch University

NCA Criterion One: Antioch University has clear and publicly stated

purposes consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution

of higher education.

University Mission

Common University Values

Recommendations Concerning Institutional Mission

University Strategic Plan: Goal 1 œ Mission Revision

29

30

31

34

Chapter 4: Governance and Administration

NCA Criterion Two: Antioch University has effectively organized the

human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its

purposes.

Overview

Antioch University Administration

University Organization Chart

Administrative Restructuring and Roles: NCA Concerns

Evaluation and Self-Study

Antioch University Board of Trustees

37

38

39

43

44

45

48

viii

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

(

CONT

‘

D

)

Chapter 5:

Resources

Human Resources

Faculty

Table 1: Antioch University Faculty, 2002

Table 2: Faculty by Gender/Race

Table 3: Faculty by Age

Financial Resources

University Plan: Goal 7 œ Strengthen Fiscal Structure

NCA Concerns

Table 4: Net Cash Basis Budget

Table 5: Revenue 1994/95 œ 2002/03

Background

Actions Taken

Strategies/Recommendations

Physical Resources

University Plan: Goal 10 œ Project Space and Capital

Needs

Physical Facilities

51

52

54

55

56

57

58

59

59

60

62

63

63

Chapter 6:

Educational Programs

NCA Criterion Three: Antioch University is accomplishing its

educational and other purposes.

Students

University Plan: Goal 3 œ Increase and Diversify Student

Body

Table 6: Antioch University Enrollments (Headcount)

Table 7: Antioch University Enrollments (FTE)

Table 8: Student Diversity

Antioch University Academic Programs

Antioch College

Antioch New England Graduate School

Antioch Southern California

Antioch University Seattle

Antioch University McGregor

65

66

67

68

69

70

70

71

72

73

74

ix

Chapter 6

(cont‘d):

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

(

CONT

‘

D

)

Assessment Practices Across the University

University Plan: Goal 5 œ Comprehensive Assessment

NCA Concerns Regarding Assessment

Actions Taken

Assessment of Current Activity

Campus Survey Responses

Culture

Shared Responsibility for Assessment

Resources

Organizational Structures

Summary and Strategies/Recommendations

University-wide Structures and Activity in

Accomplishment of Institutional Purpose

74

77

78

79

80

80

80

81

82

84

85

Chapter 7:

New Directions: The University-wide Ph.D. in

Leadership and Change

Introduction

History, Mission and Underlying Principles

Program Design & Delivery: Curriculum, Faculty and

Students

Assessment

Looking into the Future

89

90

90

94

102

104

108

Chapter 8:

Planning and Effectiveness

NCA Criterion Four: Antioch University can continue to

accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational

effectiveness.

Planning Across the University

Introduction

The University Plan

Campus Strategic Plans

High Leverage Goals and Accomplishments:

University Plan: Goal 2 œ Visibility and Recognition

University Plan: Goal 4 œ Diversify Academic

Programs

University Plan: Goal 6 œ Recruit and Retain Quality

Faculty and Staff

111

112

112

113

114

115

115

117

120

x

Chapter 8

(cont’d):

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

(

CONT

’

D

)

University Plan: Goal 8 – University Development

University Strategic Plan: Goal 9– Invest in

Technology

Conclusion

122

125

127

Chapter 9:

Institutional Integrity

NCA Criterion Five: Antioch University demonstrates integrity in

its practices and relationships.

129

Chapter 10: Federal Compliance

133

Chapter 11: Request for Re-accreditation

137

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Basic Institutional Data Forms

(Separate)

APPENDIX B

Resource Room Inventory

APPENDIX C

Campus Mission Statements

APPENDIX D

Strategic Plans

141

142

143

146

1

Chapter 1

Antioch University

2

P

ROFILE

Founded: 1852

FY 2002-03 Budget: $65,039,883

Campuses: Antioch College

Antioch New England Graduate School

Antioch University McGregor

Antioch University Seattle

Antioch University Southern California

° Los Angeles

° Santa Barbara

Enrollment Fall 2000: 4128

Fall 2001: 3959

Degrees Offered: B.A., B.S., M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.A. Ed.,

M.F.A., M.H.S.A., Psy.D., & Ph.D.

Full-time Faculty: 182

Part-time Faculty: 392

3

F

OUNDING

H

ISTORY

Antioch has played an important role in higher education since its founding in 1852.

Antioch‘s rich history represents a continuing commitment to the development of educational

theories and practices that integrate academic study with experiential learning and community

life and that serve diverse students. Several past presidents of Antioch College, particularly

Horace Mann and Arthur Morgan, marked the institution with distinction.

The first president of Antioch was Horace Mann (1853-1859), architect of the American

public school system. Mann believed that the education of young people was vital to the well

being of a democratic society and designed the Antioch curriculum to develop individual

potential in a non-competitive environment. He pioneered the introduction of coeducation, non-

sectarianism, and non-segregation in order to educate —minds free from prejudice and yearning

after truth.“

A self-taught engineer and president of Antioch College from 1920 to 1936, Arthur

Morgan represented a revolution in education, one that is still with us. His break with tradition,

introducing the work-study program into a liberal arts college, made the Antioch of the 1920s

different from all other colleges of the time. The educational philosophy behind this innovation,

one that seeks to unite study and experience in a truly liberal education, still makes Antioch

distinctive today.

Antioch has also had a long and cherished tradition of democratic participation. Since

1930, Antioch College students and faculty have jointly participated in key college decisions,

creating a community governance structure that permeates the campus and has continued to

instill in generations of students and faculty a deep sense of community. Antioch‘s commitment

to social concerns can be traced back to Horace Mann, but its modern emphasis is directly

related to Morgan‘s leadership, and that of his immediate successor, Algo Henderson.

4

By the 1950s, Antioch College was well established as a leading national liberal arts and

sciences college with highly selective admissions and a distinguished roster of graduates. A more

detailed accounting of the historical background of Antioch College, and of the non-residential

campuses, may be found in the introduction to the Antioch College Self-study report, and each of

the campus self-studies respectively.

1972-1984 Retrenchment and Survival

In 1972 Antioch College reached its maximum size and began a period of precipitous

decline. The period between 1972 and 1984 was dramatic, volatile, and sobering. The baseline of

that story can be seen in the enrollment figures for Antioch College, which in 1972 exceeded

2,000 students and then declined to under 500 by 1984! In 1994, looking back on a 70-year

lifetime career as an Antioch faculty member and administrator, J. Dudley Dawson summed this

up as follows:

Antioch forged a special place in higher education in the 1920s, and was

recognized in the following decades as an excellent liberal arts college with a

unique work-study program. These were times when we were smug, and even

pious, about our greatness, forgetting that we were subject to the same economic

and demographic vagaries as the rest of higher education. We —lost it“ in the early

”70s œ our clarity of purpose, our enrollment, some of our faculty, and our

leadership.

1

What caused this decline is still open to debate. Certainly, as Dawson points out, there

were external factors at play with which the institution was not prepared to contend. We know

that between 1955 and 1987, the national enrollment share captured by liberal arts colleges

declined from 26% to 4.4%, and the proportion of private colleges dropped from 40% to 16%

2

.

Many small liberal arts colleges during this time expanded and reclassified themselves as more

comprehensive operations thus broadening their educational base. Antioch underwent its own

transformation from a single-campus liberal arts institution to a multi-campus national university

1

.An Antioch Career: The Memories of J. Dudley Dawson. (1995). D. Hotaling and D. Scott (Eds.). Antioch

University: Yellow Springs, Ohio.

2

Breneman, D.L. (1993). Liberal Arts Colleges: What Price Survival? In Higher Learning in America: 1980 œ 2000.

A. Levine (Ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 86-99.

5

system, still small and independent, but more complex and comprehensive in scope. Nationally,

the declining numbers of traditional-age college students were made up for in part by returning

adult students, a market that Antioch recognized and began to cultivate in a variety of unique

ways. It began spawning —centers“ throughout the country beginning in the mid-1960s. These

centers offered continuing and adult education, credit for employment and for work and life

experience, and the opportunity to earn an Antioch degree. These centers enrolled largely

historically underserved populations. By 1975 there were approximately thirty-four such centers.

Some functioned well, others barely at all and with little oversight, a fact that jeopardized

accreditation and threatened institutional solvency.

Other efforts to diversify and create a more inclusive learning environment were

underway on the Antioch College campus. In 1964, a 5-year grant from the Rockefeller

Foundation supported an expanded program of interracial education that recruited black students

from Chicago‘s and St. Louis‘ inner city districts. In 1970, the New Directions program further

diversified the campus. These programs provided opportunities for many students who were

academically successful. They also opened Antioch‘s doors to many students who were

academically under-prepared on a campus without the resources to support their efforts. This

circumstance surfaced social and racial issues and concerns at a level not previously seen. Strikes

in 1972 and 1973, including demands for financial aid guarantees and to double the number of

minority students, very nearly closed the institution.

Clearly another external factor was that these were the Viet Nam war years, explosive

years for many college campuses nationally. National social unrest, combined with Antioch‘s

brand of pedagogy that encourages involvement, independence, challenge to authority, and

change, made for a volatile mix. In the early and mid-1970s, the College campus was the site of

on-going sit-ins, strikes, and turmoil. Writing near the end of this period in their 1978 book —The

Perpetual Dream: Reform and Experiment in the American College,“ sociologists Gerald Grant

and David Reisman outlined the evolution of Antioch from Arthur Morgan‘s introduction of the

alternating work-study pattern, through the radicalism that defined the College campus in the

1960s and 70s, and then the expansion of the Antioch network of field centers. Having prepared

6

a chapter on Antioch for inclusion in the volume, Grant and Reisman abandoned it, noting

—Antioch‘s complex metamorphoses have outrun our own ability to keep pace.

3

“

From the late 1970s through the mid-80s, it is probably not overstated to suggest that

Antioch College, now within Antioch University, was sorely neglected by the senior

administration. William Birenbaum, who occupied the presidency during this period, removed

his offices from Yellow Springs, administered from New York, and turned his attention to

bringing some order to the network of adult education centers which had now outstripped the

institution‘s ability to monitor educational quality and maintain financial integrity. The period of

network expansion ran from 1964 to 1976. Under Birenbaum‘s administration, 1976 to 1984,

centers were monitored, many were closed, others consolidated, and fiscal controls implemented.

The College suffered from neglect, poor administration, divisiveness, and feared closure as well.

Matters of race, the war, campus politics, and institutional priorities had divided the campus. In

keeping with the steady declines in student enrollment, the faculty size at the College had shrunk

from about 150 to 60. Those who remained were divided philosophically between traditional

academic rigor and progressive pedagogy. And they were demoralized.

1984 œ 1997 Recapturing the Legacy

1984 marks the time when Antioch University appears to have turned a corner, taken

decisive action and begun to stabilize. By 1984, Antioch University consisted of eight physical

sites. Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH; non-residential campuses serving adult students in

California (Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Francisco); Seattle, WA; Keene, NH;

Philadelphia, PA; and the Antioch Law School in Washington, D.C. In addition, University

Administration in New York City.

In 1985, Alan Guskin succeeded William Birenbaum as president of Antioch University

and moved the president‘s offices back to the campus in Yellow Springs. The two principal

priorities of Guskin and the University Board of Trustees were to put Antioch College back on

the path of reclaiming its earlier stature and to restore the financial health of the University. To

3

G. Grant and D. Reisman, (1978). The Perpetual Dream: Reform and Experiment in the American College, pp. 30-

31.

7

attain these objectives, a series of major decisions were made that would shape the direction and

focus of the University for the coming decades. Immediately the decision was made to close the

Law School in Washington, D.C. This amounted to a forced choice. Antioch College and

Antioch Law School at that time both required a large influx of investment to remain solvent. A

re-investment in the Law School would have ruled out the possibility of rebuilding the College,

understood by all to be the heart of the University. Attention was turned to the state of the

remaining network. Campuses in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara were integrated

administratively. Following the 1988 NCA visit, an unapproved deficit at the San Francisco

campus resulted in a decision to close that campus The Philadelphia campus was closed soon

after.

Antioch had turned the corner. Fiscal controls were tightened and in 1986 the University

had its first clean financial audit in 14 years. Other changes in the late 1980s included the

consolidation of the Antioch Weekend College and Individualized Master‘s Program to create

the School of Adult and Experiential Learning (SAEL), the first incarnation of what is today

Antioch University McGregor. By 1989, the structure of Antioch University had been solidified

into its current five-campus system. At several critical Board meetings and retreats, in particular

those held in October 1988 and October 1990, the Antioch Board of Trustees reconfirmed its

commitment to the entire University, including the College and the five non-residential

campuses.

Attention was then turned to administrative organization and practices. Discussions

began on reorganizing and decentralizing the administration of the campus system in 1990, with

a final Board decision to proceed in 1992. Among the changes called for were: the University

president position was divided into positions of College President and University Chancellor; the

campus provosts were to be elevated to positions of Campus Presidents with commensurate

responsibilities for day-to-day campus operations, budget, enrollment, programs and planning;

the central University administration was cut by 14 positions (45 percent in projected costs); the

University Policy Council was reformulated as the University Leadership Council (ULC) and

was composed of the chancellor, the vice-chancellor for finance and University CFO, and the

five campus presidents. The academic deans and the campus chief fiscal officers were designated

8

as sub-committees of the ULC. Today, this group represents the principal leadership of the

University and makes recommendations to the Board through the Chancellor in areas of budget,

policy, programs, mission, and planning

4

. This governance arrangement was described in

subsequent years as the Federal or Federated Structure. Implementation began to be phased in on

July 1, 1994.

1998 to 2002 New Directions for the 21

st

Century

This most recent period has seen important reaffirmations of direction, reflection,

questioning and resolve that sets the stage for this Self-study. In 1997/98, Alan Guskin stepped

down as Chancellor to be replaced by James W. Hall, formerly president of Empire State College

of the SUNY system. Today Antioch University is an independent five-campus system that

operates in four states and four regional accrediting areas, with accreditation by the North

Central Association Higher Learning since 1927

5

.

Antioch College is one of the 228 colleges in the United States currently classified in the

Carnegie classification system as a BA Liberal Arts institution, or a College that is primarily

undergraduate and offers half or more of its degrees in the liberal arts. Antioch College is unique

among these more than two hundred institutions in several ways but primarily in that since the

1920s it has required each of its students to obtain roughly half of their learning experience in

work settings or —co-op.“

Among the other four of Antioch‘s campuses, three are classified in the Carnegie system

as Masters II institutions, and one as a Doctoral Intensive. Antioch is a single institution, yet

holds three separate Carnegie classifications. These four campuses are non-residential, offering

several BA completion programs for adult learners, but primarily graduate programs in areas of

psychology, education, and management. They range in size from between 500 and 1,000

students.

4

A full description of the activities and responsibilities of the ULC may be found in the University Leadership

Council Policy Handbook in the University Resource Room.

5

When Antioch University notes accreditation since 1927, it is to Antioch College that it is referring. Antioch

College reincorporated as Antioch University in 1978 and extended its umbrella to a network of caompus sites that

stretched across the United States.

9

In 1991, the Antioch University Board of Trustees affirmed a vision for the University. A

College strategic plan followed in 1996. Central to this plan was enrollment growth, investment

in personnel and facilities, and fundraising. A new University Plan followed in 1999, and

planning documents from each of the non-residential campuses were finalized in Spring 2000.

These plans, congruent and complementary to one another, have formed the basis for planning

and action across the University. The plans were and are ambitious. Many of the campus goals

have been met and progress continues to be made in multiple areas. Other goals, particularly

concerning the rate of enrollment growth, have yet to be realized. This fundamental fact caused a

reassessment of priorities and planning and redirected efforts in the 2001/2002 academic year.

Our purposes in this Self-study are to demonstrate to the Commission that each of

Antioch‘s five campuses is a well-integrated academic whole, operating within its region in

concert with the University mission; that the University, as a single entity, has one vision and

mission, is administered as a multifaceted comprehensive institution, and as a whole is more

effective and powerful as an educational agent than any one of its parts might be alone.

The preponderance of evidence for the demonstration that each campus unit is an

integrated academic whole may be found in the respective campus self-study documents. The

weight of the evidence for the demonstration that the University operates as an integrated and

effective whole may be found in this document and its supplemental appendices and resources.

Since the last NCA review in 1993, the University has undergone much change. New

forms of governance and organization have been implemented, questioned, and re-evaluated.

Administrative decentralization, completed in 1996, has proven effective and cost-efficient in

many areas, not in others. The University Administration has undergone changes in size and

composition. Revenues have steadily grown, yet expenditures in the form of investment in

necessary infrastructure are more demanding than ever. Enrollments at individual campuses have

risen and fallen but across the University remain nearly identical to 1993 figures. As these

examples illustrate, Antioch continues to make gains. With each gain, new challenges appear. It

is a dynamic institution that sets high goals, takes calculated risks to attain those goals, and

learns from its shortcomings.

10

Casual observers and those whose primary reference points at any one moment in time

often wonder how sustainability and survival is possible in an atmosphere of constant change,

fiscal constraints, and perceived chaos, but Antioch University is a resilient and fluid institution

that is brutally honest about acknowledging its issues and problems, and yet doggedly buoyed by

a mission and purpose that have produced a remarkable story and compelling mural throughout

the decade which has passed since the last NCA visitation. Highlights of that story, cited briefly

in the Preface, are briefly summarized again below:

B

The University has grown from a budget of $35 million in FY 1993-1994, to a

budget of $65 million in FY 2002-2003.

B

The University‘s assets have grown to include

V New campuses owned in Keene, New Hampshire, and Seattle,

Washington (combined value: $13.8 million);

V An endowment that has more than tripled from $9 million in 1993 to

$31 million in 2002;

V The elimination of an internal debt of $3.3 million dating to 1979 and

paid off in 1999;

V A cash liquidity reserve that has accumulated $2.2 million by 2000-01.

B New academic programs have been added since 1993, including the MFA in

Creative Writing in Los Angeles, Teacher Education programs in Los

Angeles, Santa Barbara, Seattle, and McGregor, and two new Ph.D.

programs (Environmental Studies in Keene, and Leadership and Change

university-wide);

B Significant increases in external funding, grants and contracts, particularly

in Seattle and Keene;

B Enhanced visibility of each campus in its state and region;

B A much strengthened technological infrastructure which includes Datatel (an

integrated system for accounting, budgeting, human resources, admissions,

financial aid, registrar and student accounts); and FirstClass software

communications system on all but one campus, a fully electronic library at

11

Antioch New England Graduate School, and all other campuses linked to

Ohiolink at Olive Kettering Library at Antioch College.

The next chapters of this document and the self-study documents from each of the

campuses elaborate further on these accomplishments.

12

T

HE

S

ELF

-S

TUDY

P

ROCESS

The initial plan for self-study was formulated in late summer 2000 and submitted to NCA

for review September 12. At that time, Paul Ewald, Associate to the Chancellor, was designated

coordinator for self-study, and a university-wide Steering Group was assigned. The group

included Ewald, James Craiglow, then president of Antioch New England Graduate School,

Laurien Alexandre, Dean of University-wide Programs and Director of the Ph.D. program in

Leadership and Change, and representing faculty, Steve Schwerner, Professor, Antioch College.

The self-study plan proposed a timeline of tasks and activities beginning in summer 2000

and continuing through the re-accreditation visit

6

. The plan also identified the principal goals and

structure of the study, and identified coordinators at each of the campuses. In addition to

responding to the General Institutional Requirements and accreditation criteria, several specific

Antioch goals were identified in the plan. These included

B an examination of strategic planning practices and accomplishments across the

university,

B an evaluation of the administrative reorganization carried out in the mid-1990s,

B doctoral-level program development,

B evaluation of efficacy operating as a single university in multiple regions, and

B progress in student outcomes assessment at all campuses.

While the University‘s self-study plan identified a common general structure and set of goals,

each campus also carried out its own self-study activities in accordance with local committee

structures and task forces, or as needed, developed new ones. Antioch University campuses have

had representation at the annual NCA meeting for the past three years, including participation in

the pre-conference workshops for coordinators. Antioch‘s NCA staff liaison, Karen Kietzman,

reviewed the self-study plan in fall 2000 and provided feedback and suggestions. At Antioch‘s

invitation, Dr. Kietzman visited the Yellow Springs campuses in June 2001 to provide some

valuable consultation on the self-study process. Dr. Kietzman met with the chancellor and the

6

The self-study plan with timeline is in the University Resource Room.

13

coordinators of the self-studies for the University, Antioch College, and Antioch University

McGregor.

All of Antioch‘s non-residential campuses submitted full drafts of their self-studies to the

University‘s Steering Group in September and again in December of 2001. Antioch College

submitted a full draft in December 2001. The Steering Group provided critiques of first and

second drafts and penultimate drafts were submitted in May 2002.

In February 2002, the self-study plan was updated and re-submitted to NCA

7

. Dr. Kietzman

again commented on the self-study plan and participated in a meeting with Antioch self-study

coordinators and others at the conclusion of the March 2002 NCA annual meeting. The purpose

of the meeting was to discuss progress on the self-studies, review recent policy changes and

discuss expectations for the team selection and logistics for the visit. Thirteen consultant-

evaluators for Antioch were identified in February 2002, and had been extended invitations by

the time of the March meeting

8

.

During May and early June 2002, the University Board of Trustees‘ Academic Affairs

Committee, the presidents, and the academic deans reviewed drafts and provided comment and

feedback for final revision. Near-final and final drafts of self-study documents were made

available for review to Antioch‘s many constituencies including students and employees. All

feedback and comment was reviewed and changes incorporated where appropriate. In June,

drafts were shared with Dr. Kietzman before going to production.

Six Antioch self-studies were produced as a result of this process. In addition to this

University self-study document, each Antioch campus (the College, McGregor, Seattle, Southern

California, and New England) produced a report specific to that campus. Each of these reports

addresses the five criteria for accreditation. Each campus collected Basic Institutional Data

(BID) information for that campus.

7

The Plan is available in the University Resource Room. Italicized entries reflect all additions of 2/02.

8

Notes from this meeting may be reviewed in the University Resource Room.

14

The University Self-study addresses each of the five criteria for accreditation, though

with different emphases than the campuses. University strategic goals are addressed under the

NCA criteria to which they relate. The University Self-study includes a separate appendix of the

BID data. General Institutional Requirements and Federal Compliance information is presented

only in the University Self-study. Antioch‘s recently developed Ph.D. in Leadership and Change

represents the only university program that operates across all five campuses, meaning it is a

university-wide and not a campus-based program: it is the only academic program to be

discussed at length in the University Self-study

9

.

This comprehensive review is intended to consider both the academic integrity of each

campus as a functioning unit and the University as a single institution. The self-study process

and presentation of information and evidence is intended to mirror this approach.

9

This Ph.D. program is presented as Chapter 7 in this Self-study.

15

R

ESPONSES TO

C

ONCERNS

F

ROM THE

1993 C

OMPREHENSIVE

R

EPORT

The 1993 review team found strengths throughout the University. Those that were

highlighted included strong leadership at the Board level and in the senior administration; a clear

mission, well understood by all campuses and constituencies, and being effectively implemented;

enthusiastic, committed and responsive staff, faculty, and administrators on all campuses; clear

evidence that the University had effectively stabilized its finances and was proceeding cautiously

and pursuing new priorities; evidence that the planned decentralization was well thought through

and would distribute responsibility and authority appropriately.

The report from the review team identified five concerns. Each is briefly addressed here with

full coverage and explication appearing throughout this document.

1. In the early 1990s, as part of the administrative decentralization and restructuring, the

Antioch University Board of Trustees separated the positions of Chancellor and

President of the College, and planned the continued development of the other campus

chief administrators. The team raised concerns over anxieties, morale, and

communication as these changes unfolded and recommended careful monitoring

10

.

The administrative structure and organizational reporting lines for Antioch University have

undergone steady monitoring throughout the interval since the last review. The decision has been

reaffirmed to maintain separate executive officers of the College and University, and the campus

provosts were reassigned as presidents in 1998 in fulfillment of a plan following careful study

and widespread input from all campuses. There has been higher-than-average turnover in the

senior executive positions, but evaluation and self-study suggests that this was not principally a

direct result of position definitions and responsibilities. Measures have been put in place to

insure adequate flow of information

11

and additional measures are being taken to improve

10

See reviewer‘s comments, pages 50-51 in Report of a Visit to Antioch University, in the University Resource

Room.

11

Datatel, a university-wide integrated system for accounting, budgeting, human resources, admissions, financial

aid, registrar, and student accounts, fulfills this function.

16

communications (e.g., the university is moving to video conferencing, additional governance

linkages are under discussion)

12

.

2. University finances were a concern

13

.

The Antioch University budget has grown substantially over the past 10 years. Endowment

has tripled. The University balanced its budget every year through 2000. In FY 2001, despite

growth in revenue, a deficit was realized. The deficit was attributable to endowment losses from

the stock market and unrealized enrollment projections. The University began a financial

stabilization planning process in summer 2001 and revised its enrollment planning assumptions

in 2002

14

. The Trustees and Administration have put in place the necessary controls and longer

range fiscal plans to bring the budget into balance over the next two years.

3. Assessment plans were found to be uneven in regard to specificity and completeness.

Assessment planning did not yet meet the five NCA criteria (in effect at that time).

Antioch was asked to submit assessment plans for each of its campuses

15

.

All Antioch campuses engaged in planning activities and obtained consultation in the years

1993-1995. Assessment plans were submitted to NCA in January of 1995. Some campuses

proceeded to begin implementation of their plans, sometimes with false starts and revision of

original plans. Other campuses lapsed in activity for 2 or 3 years. Beginning in 1998/99, all

campuses revived their efforts, reviewed and re-evaluated their planning documents, and began

or continued implementation. Considerable progress has been made between 1999 and 2002. A

university-wide review of activity and evaluation of progress identified both strengths and

weaknesses in the approaches. Each campus self-study reviewed progress for that campus in

some detail with much supporting documentation in campus resource rooms

16

.

12

The administrative restructuring is discussed more fully under Human Resources in Chapters 4 and 5.

13

Report of a Visit, p. 51.

14

University finances are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

15

Report of a Visit, p. 51.

16

This self-study presents a university-wide overview in Chapter 6.

17

4. The team recognized the critical importance of College enrollments and stressed the

need for a comprehensive enrollment management plan.

College enrollments have remained essentially flat since 1993. A comprehensive plan was

undertaken as part of the College strategic plan developed in 1997

17

. The plan called for the

attainment of an enrollment of 800 by the year 2000 at Antioch College. Small incremental gain

and occasional losses resulted in virtually no net gain. Throughout this time, however, substantial

improvement in retention was realized. In Winter 2001, an admissions planning committee began

work on a revised plan. This committee will continue as a working group for the foreseeable

future. The initial findings of this committee suggested considerable under-investment in

recruitment and marketing relative to competing peer institutions, and a lower level of financial

assistance relative to competitors. New pricing strategies were introduced and substantial

increases in both need-based and merit aid were adopted

18

.

5. The final concern addressed decentralization of administrative functions. The concern

was how administrative functions such as registrar, assessment of foreign transcripts,

national reports, and appeals would be handled across the university

19

.

There is no single answer to this concern as it is directed to the overall success and

effectiveness of the decentralization plan. For the examples given above, each campus has its

own full-time registrar and fully staffed registrar‘s office. Transcripts from Antioch‘s closed

campuses from the past, and related appeals or grievances, are handled by the College Registrar.

Registrarial activity for the new Ph.D. program is handled by the program administrator with

oversight from the Seattle Registrar‘s Office. Completion of national data reports, requests, and

surveys are coordinated through the Chancellor‘s Office. Each of these administrative functions

are monitored by the University Leadership Council. Training needs are identified periodically.

Recently, some consolidation of administrative functions took place at the Yellow Springs

campuses

20

.

17

Available in the University Resource Room.

18

Details of enrollment planning and newly adopted strategies, including projections, are presented in the Antioch

College self-study and the College Resource Room.

19

Report of a Visit, pp. 51-52.

20

These items are addressed further in Chapter 5, Part 1.

18

M

AJOR

C

HANGES

S

INCE

1993

Senior Administrative Personnel

21

At the time of the re-accreditation visit in 1993, Alan Guskin was president of both

Antioch College and Antioch University. In July 1994, this position changed to Chancellor of

Antioch University. Effective January 1, 1998, James W. Hall, former president of Empire State

College of the State University of New York, became the second Chancellor of Antioch

University. Chancellor Hall announced his retirement effective December 2002. In February

2002, James H. Craiglow assumed the position of Chancellor of the University. The national

search for a new chancellor will be conducted during the 2002/03 academic year. In 1996, Glenn

Watts became the University Vice-Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer. In this same year,

Lois Mann was appointed Vice Chancellor for Development, a newly created position. Laurien

Alexandre, Regional Dean of Academic Affairs for Southern California, left that position in

1999 for a university reassignment as Dean of University-wide Programs and Director of the

Ph.D. in Leadership and Change.

In August 1994, James Crowfoot became President of Antioch College and was

succeeded in August 1996 by Robert Devine. Devine stepped down from the presidency for

health reasons in Fall 2001. Joan Straumanis, formerly with the Fund for the Improvement of

Postsecondary Education, became the president of Antioch College in February 2002.

In 1994, Robert Miller, Provost of The McGregor School at the time of the last re-

accreditation visit was replaced by Sandra Cheldelin, who served in that post until 1996 when

Steve Brzezinski became Acting Provost. In May 1999, Barbara Gellman-Danley, formerly

Vice-Chancellor for Technology at Monroe Community College, became president of Antioch

University McGregor.

21

Vitas for all currently employed senior administrative personnel are available in the University Resource Room.

19

Dale Johnston served as provost and then president of Antioch Southern California from

1989 until 1998. Mark Schulman served as president from Fall 1998 to Spring 2002. Chloe

Reid, Executive Dean for AUSC, stepped in as Acting President on April 1, 2002.

At the time of the 1993 review, Gary Zimmerman held the position of Provost at

Antioch University Seattle. With Zimmerman‘s resignation in 1995, Gail Martin became Acting

Provost. In 1997, Toni Murdock became provost and president in 1998.

Chancellor James Craiglow, who was provost at the time of the last review and assumed

the presidency as that title changed in 1998, retired from the presidency of the New England

campus on June 30, 2002, after sixteen years. Peter Temes was named as the second President

of Antioch New England, effective Fall 2002.

Faculty

The reviewers in 1993 noted that Antioch‘s faculty were —enthusiastic, committed and

responsive.“ That has not changed. Antioch faculty remain the backbone of our multi-campus

institution. Much more detail on faculty will be found in the campus self-studies, and in a more

aggregate fashion, in this University Self-study in the section on resources, and in the final

section on achievement of University goals. At this point in the Self-study, however, we identify

significant changes since the last review.

The size of Antioch‘s Core Faculty has increased approximately 4% since 1993, from

175 to 182, although the number was as large as 203 until the recent budget reductions.

Associate faculty, who are hired quarterly and work less than half-time, constitute a relatively

small percentage and the change in this category has been negligible. The overall use of adjunct

faculty between 1993 and 2002 has increased somewhat to 270. The size of the adjunct pool

varies from campus to campus. These are detailed in the individual campus self-studies

22

.

22

See full descriptions in the Antioch University Human Resources Policies and Procedures, pages 9-10, in the

University Resource Room.

20

Another change since 1993 has been the establishment of a rank policy and sabbatical

leaves for the non-residential Antioch campuses. While only Antioch College has a rank and

tenure system, it was believed that providing a manner for faculty at the other campuses to

achieve rank was an important aspect of faculty development and professionalization. The

Trustee policy provides for campuses to decide whether they wish to offer a rank process and at

the writing of this Self-study, several campuses, including Antioch Los Angeles and Antioch

New England have established rank as an option for their faculty. The Ph.D. In Leadership and

Change does award rank, and all of the program‘s founding Core Faculty are senior scholars at

the rank of full professor

23

.

During this 10-year period, a number of the non-residential campuses also established

faculty sabbaticals. This was an extremely significant development that represents the

institution‘s support for its faculty and a commitment to faculty scholarship and service. For

example, starting in the mid-90s, Core Faculty at Antioch Los Angeles and Santa Barbara could

request one-quarter sabbatical leave on a rotating three-year cycle. Faculty in the new Ph.D. in

Leadership and Change can request a half-year sabbatical every five years.

Another change occurring during this period has been a number of efforts at faculty

collaboration across campuses. For example, a university-wide faculty conference has been held

at least every other year since 1993. A group of faculty representing the five campuses works on

conference planning and implementation. Ten to fifteen faculty from each campus typically

attend the 3-day meeting, which is hosted on a rotating basis among the various campuses

24

.

Another example, supported by university funds, was a cross-campus collaboration in which

approximately 25 faculty from 4 campuses participated in a 6-week on-line training on pedagogy

in 1999-2001. Other examples of faculty collaboration, such as the Innovation Team, are detailed

in other sections of this self-study.

23

Vitas for faculty teaching in this Ph.D. program are available in the University Resource Room. Vitas for all other

Antioch faculty are available at their respective campuses.

24

A packet of materials from the most recent University-wide faculty conference, held at Antioch College in

November of 2000, is available in the University Resource Room.

21

Programs

Approximately seventy percent of Antioch students study at the graduate level. Among

the thirty percent studying for the bachelor‘s degree, most are traditional age students enrolled at

Antioch College in Yellow Springs, with the balance comprised of returning adults completing a

bachelor‘s degree at campuses in Yellow Springs, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, or Seattle. At

Antioch College, students are enrolled year-round and must complete five cooperative

educational experiences (five full semesters with an employer usually outside of Yellow Springs)

in fulfillment of their degree requirements. While it is possible to complete the degree

requirements in four years, most students take four and a half to five years to complete. The

College offers the B.A. and B.S. degrees with majors available in eight interdisciplinary areas. In

the adult B.A. degree completion programs, concentrations and majors vary depending on which

campus one is enrolled

25

.

At the master‘s level, degrees are offered on all non-residential campuses in the areas of

psychology, management, and education. A variety of more specific degree designations exist

within these areas (e.g., clinical, organizational and general psychology; family or dance therapy;

education certification, licensure, and experienced educator‘s programs; organizational

management, systems design, and M.A. and M.S. offerings in management, etc.

26

). Beyond

psychology, education, and management, other disciplinary master‘s level programs are offered

in environmental studies (Antioch New England), environment and community (Antioch

Seattle), and creative writing (Antioch Southern California).

Antioch currently offers three doctoral degrees. Antioch New England Graduate School

began its Psy.D. program in 1982. A Ph.D. in Environmental Studies followed in 1996, also at

Antioch New England. In January of 2002, the first university-wide degree offering was

implemented, a Ph.D. in Leadership and Change. Though administered from Yellow Springs,

25

See campus self-studies for additional detail.

26

For a comprehensive listing of all degree offerings by campus, see Antioch University Degree Offerings in the

Appendix.

22

this program holds quarterly residencies at Antioch campuses and makes use of resources and

personnel on all campuses

27

.

Since 1993, a number of the degree offerings outlined above are new. Antioch Los

Angeles began its Master of Arts in Creative Writing in 1997, and both Southern California

campuses added Master of Arts in Education programs in 1998. Antioch University McGregor

reorganized its Individualized Master of Arts IMA such that one of its tracks, Conflict

Resolution, was broken out as a freestanding new degree offering, and another, Intercultural

Relations, was discontinued. McGregor‘s Teacher Certification program began in 1996. Antioch

University Seattle has introduced a Teacher Certification program, a Bachelor‘s in Liberal Arts

with Teacher Certification, and an Art Therapy program. And, as indicated, both of Antioch‘s

Ph.D. degrees are new since the last review.

Within these degree offerings, Antioch continues to introduce clearly defined tracks of

study, concentrations, and certificate programs to focus on specific skill areas that are responsive

to our students and changing markets. In addition, new program development activity has

received additional support in recent years through a University Innovation Fund. This fund,

which was fifty thousand dollars its first year and one hundred thousand the second, provided

supplemental support to faculty on all campuses through a competitive granting process. All

programs throughout the University have undergone at least one program review since the last

NCA review. Campus self-studies comment on the findings and impact of these reviews.

Facilities

Several major renovations and purchases have taken place since 1993. At Antioch

College, two separate one million dollar gifts from Hadley Case provided for the renovations of

South Hall (1993/94) and Birch Hall (1997). South Hall houses faculty offices and classrooms, a

gallery, the co-op department, and community space. Birch Hall is the largest of the dormitories

for the College.

27

The Ph.D. in Leadership and Change is presented fully in Chapter 7.

23

Two campuses have purchased their own facilities since the last re-accreditation. The

Board approved the purchase of the New England campus building in 1992, and it opened in

1994. The purchase of the Seattle campus was approved in 1995, with occupancy by the campus

community in 1997. At this writing, only Southern California leases its facilities. All other

campus facilities are University owned

28

.

28

Additional detail can be found in Chapter 5, Physical Resources, and in campus self-studies.

25

Chapter 2

General Institutional Requirements

26

MISSION

1.

Antioch University has a mission statement stating that it is an institution of higher

education

29

.

2.

Antioch University grants degrees at the level of bachelors, masters, and doctoral.

AUTHORIZATION

3.

Antioch University has all appropriate legal authorizations to offer its degrees and meets

all of the legal requirements in each of the states in which it conducts business.

4.

Legal documents confirming institutional status as a private not-for-profit institution of

higher education are available for review

30

.

GOVERNANCE

5.

Antioch University has a governing Board of Trustees that possesses and exercises

necessary legal power to establish and review basic policies that govern the institution.

The current Board membership appears on the university web-site

31

.

6.

All members of the all-volunteer Board are private citizens sufficiently autonomous from

the institution to assure integrity in governance. Each reviews and signs a conflict of

interest document

32

.

7.

The institution has an executive officer designated by the Board to provide administrative

leadership for the institution. James Craiglow is currently serving as Chancellor of

Antioch University

33

.

8.

Antioch University‘s affiliation with the Commission is authorized by its Board.

FACULTY

9.

Antioch University and its campuses employs faculty that hold degrees from accredited

institutions appropriate to the level of instruction provided

34

.

10.

A sufficient number of faculty are fulltime employees of the institution

35

.

29

See Antioch University Mission Statement in Chapter 3.

30

University Resource Room.

31

Board membership including resumes and biographical information may also be found in the University Resource

Room.

32

These documents may be reviewed in the University Resource Room under —Governance.“

33

The Chancellor‘s curriculum vita is in the University Resource Room.

34

Faculty vitas are available for review in the campus Resource Rooms.

35

See Antioch University Profile at the start of this document and campus self-studies.

27

11.

Faculty play a significant role in developing and authorizing all of the institutions

educational programs

36

.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

12. Antioch University confers degrees.

13.

Antioch University has degree programs in operation with students enrolled in them.

14.

Antioch‘s degree offerings are consistent with its mission and are in recognized fields of

study.

15.

Antioch degrees are appropriately named and follow practices common to institutions of

higher education in designating program length and content.

16.

Antioch University undergraduate degree programs include coherent general education

requirements consistent with the institution‘s mission and are designed to ensure breadth

of knowledge and promote intellectual inquiry

37

.

17.

Antioch University and each of its campuses has admissions policies that are consistent

with its mission and appropriate to its educational programs

38

.

18. Each campus provides student support services for its degree programs

39

.

36

The following documentation is available for review: the Academic Program Review Policy in the ULC Policy

Manual (University Resource Room); faculty handbooks for each campus at campus sites; faculty developed

assessment plans described in each of the campus self-studies and available for review in the campus resource

rooms.

37

See campus self-study descriptions and catalogues.

38

All policies are published in campus brochures and informational bulletins and are available for review in

university and campus Resource Rooms.

39

See campus self-studies.

28

FINANCES

19.Financial audits are conducted annually by Ernst & Young Associates

40

.

20.

Antioch financial documents demonstrate that allocation and use of resources are

appropriate to support its educational programs

41

. See University Budgets, in the

University Resource Room under —Financial.“

21.

Antioch University financial practices, records, and reports demonstrate fiscal viability.

PUBLIC INFORMATION

22. Antioch University campus catalogues include the University mission statement along

with full and accurate descriptions of its educational programs and degree requirements,

academic calendars, learning resources, policies and practices, charges and refund

policies, and the academic credentials of its faculty and administrators

42

.

23.

Antioch University accurately discloses it‘s standing with accrediting bodies with which

it is associated.

24.

Upon request, the University makes available accurate records of its financial status and

condition.

40

Available in University Resource Room for FY2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002.

41

See University Budgets in University Resource Room under —Financial.“

42

Campus Catalogues for the whole University are available in the University Resource Room and individually at

each of the campuses.

29

Chapter 3

The Mission and Values of Antioch

University

NCA Criterion One: Antioch University has clear and publicly stated purposes

consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education.

30

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 Antioch University McGregor in Yellow

Springs, Ohio; New England (Keene, NH); the Pacific Northwest (Seattle); and Southern California (Los

Angeles and Santa Barbara). University 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, 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.

Each of Antioch‘s campuses has developed statements of mission, vision, and/or purpose

in conjunction with its campus-based strategic planning. These statements serve to bridge the

University Mission Statement, Statement of Values, and Strategic Plan with the goals, efforts,

and planning processes on the campuses. The statements range from brief and concise to broader

statements of philosophy and values. They appear in Appendix C.

31

Common University Values œ Distinctive Campus Emphases

Antioch University has had a clear and consistent mission since the time it was founded.

It is a university that is acutely aware of its history. Reference to Horace Mann, its founder, is

commonplace on Antioch campuses and the university community continually struggles to live

up to the ideals that Mann enumerated for self and society, particularly that each individual has

obligations to humanity that must be evident in how they live their lives. The purpose of the

University is to prepare students for that life.

The current Antioch University Mission presents an elegant statement of the University

structure and purpose (five campuses, bachelors through doctorate degrees), and identifies the

core institutional values that bind the University and its educational programs together (rigorous

academics, engaged service and community involvement, and student-centered well rounded

learning). Each of the University‘s non-residential campuses, as part of strategic planning,

undertook a process of self-examination that engaged all members of the community and

resulted in statements of mission, value, and purpose

43

. Antioch College is on a different

timetable for strategic planning

44

. These processes were conducted independently by campuses

and were informed by the University Mission statement and by knowledge of Antioch‘s history

and traditions. A simple content analysis of the statements is revealing.

The University values appear throughout the statements of the separate campuses. First is

the value of rigorous scholarship and academic discipline. Antioch College stresses the function

of the —academic curriculum“ in broadening knowledge and instilling thinking and intellectual

skills; Antioch New England‘s statement includes multiple references to —scholarship“ and

—research“; Antioch Southern California, Seattle, and McGregor all provide clear statements of

how they define educational —excellence.“

43

Antioch College carried out strategic planning and implementation on a different timetable than the non-

residential campuses. See the —Antioch College Strategic Plan, 1997“ in the University or College Resource Rooms.

44

See College Self-study.

32

Central to the institutional value system, and perhaps the values that most define an

Antioch education, are engaged service and community involvement

45

. The University mission

statement calls on Antioch students to —consider issues within a social and political context.“ The

oft-quoted proclamation by Horace Mann: —Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory

for humanity,“ embodies these values of engaged commitment. The quote is literally carved in

stone at Antioch College, appears in brochures and mailings, and is spoken aloud at every

commencement ceremony across the University. The College mission states unequivocally that

the empowerment of students to rise to this challenge is its primary goal. Antioch College

students are expected to become, among other things, —courageous practitioners.“ One of the

three components of the College experience, along with the curriculum and co-op, is active

involvement in their own community decision-making. Antioch New England challenges its

students to be activists and improve the quality of life in their communities and the world.

Antioch Southern California stresses the need to work toward common ground with others and to

build and contribute to just and sustainable communities. McGregor speaks of the need to be

responsive to social concerns and to participate in community life. Antioch Seattle strives to

engage learners in lifelong development, become change agents in a changing world, and

engaged in their communities.

In tandem with this emphasis on social involvement and contribution, much emphasis has

always been placed on the development of the individual. Antioch seeks to develop leaders who

become the vehicles for social change. This is done primarily through educational programs that

integrate work and study in an effort to develop the whole person fully. The University mission

statement describes the educational approach as —student-centered“ and directed toward —well-

rounded learning.“ This emphasis appears throughout the campus mission statements. The first

two components of an Antioch College education, the academic curriculum and cooperative

education are, in large part, student self-designed with faculty oversight and input, and directed

toward the enhancement and development of individual values, and traits such as —independence,

confidence, and self-motivation.“ Antioch New England views its learning approach as

45

A recent example of Antioch University‘s focus on engaged community service can be found in a Washington

Monthly study in conjunction with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, published in

January 2002, indicating that Antioch University ranked 4

th

among American higher educational institutions in the

percent of FWSP funds expended on community service activities.

33

—transformative“ through the linkage of scholarship and activism, and stresses the value of self-

understanding. Seattle also states as its principal goal —transformative education.“ Antioch

Southern California refers in its value statements to —the whole person.“ Antioch University

McGregor stresses development of intellectual, emotional, and ethical aspects of the self and

seeks to —contribute to the betterment of the individual.“

Anyone familiar with these campuses will recognize each in its statements, and yet there

are threads emanating from the University mission that run through all of them. The University

statement stresses academic study and reflection. Three of the five Antioch campus statements

use the term —reflection“ to describe their educational process. The University statement points to

the importance of responsible leadership. Three of the five campuses identify —leadership“ as an

intended outcome. The University mission statement describes the institutional philosophy and

approach to education as innovative and experimental. Three campuses refer to —innovation“ in

their statements, and four refer either to producing experimenters, or research, inquiry, and/or

entrepreneurial activity. Throughout all the statements are clear emphases on social

responsibility, engagement, and involvement. The University statement speaks of the importance

of understanding issues in a social and political context; Antioch College refers to knowledge of

self and society, responsibility for social issues, and respect for society; Antioch New England

states its commitment to promote social justice, advance the common economic good, sense of

belonging and community; Antioch Southern California values global perspectives, social

justice, and social change; McGregor emphasizes societal needs, acting in accordance with

principles of democracy, social responsibility, and commitment to the betterment of the wider

society; and Antioch Seattle stresses —agency in a changing world“ and —community

engagement.“

Along with these common themes and threads, each of the campus‘ mission and value

statements reflects the distinctiveness of that campus. Antioch College has a clear tripartite

approach to liberal arts education for the traditional age undergraduate and this is clearly

expressed in its statements. Antioch New England, whose programs are exclusively graduate and

where two of the three doctoral programs are housed, stresses the centrality of research and

scholarship to its particular mission within the University. Antioch University Southern

34

California, reflecting its multicultural and urban environment and consciousness, stresses above

all else social equality and actively opposing racism and the many other ”isms‘ of contemporary

culture and society. Antioch McGregor stresses the leadership and entrepreneurial values of its

namesake while emphasizing cultural diversity and an international perspective in its programs.

Seattle emphasizes integration, access, engagement, and learner-centeredness in unambiguous

terms.

Recommendations Concerning Institutional Mission

The first goal of the University Plan, approved by the Board of Trustees in 1999, reads as

follows:

Goal One: Revise the institutional vision and mission of Antioch in the twenty-first century.

Objectives:

1) The Board will conduct, following the next accreditation, a full review of both the

University Vision and Mission statements.

1) All University campuses will review their mission statements to assess their congruence

with the University Mission, Vision, and Values.

For the non-residential campuses, the second objective was accomplished as part of the

campus strategic planning processes in 1999/2000 and was just reviewed. In response to the first

objective, the Board will review the University mission in 2003 as a part of The Future of

Antioch.

Recommendation 1: A small part of the mission review will be simple updating. For

example: reflecting the change in name for Antioch University McGregor, and the more

commonly used and accurate term of University administration rather than system or central

administration.

Recommendation #2: At the more substantive level, the Board will carefully consider

whether the mission, as currently stated, accurately reflects changes in the institution since 1989.

35

Recommendation #3: More significant, the Board will need to consider whether the mission

accurately charts the course it intends to take for the foreseeable future. The Board should attend

carefully to three sources of information in its review of the mission: the findings of the —Future

of Antioch“ task forces to be completed in October 2003

46

, the report and recommendations of

the NCA comprehensive review team for re-accreditation, and the advice and direction of the

new chancellor of the University and the University Leadership Council.

Recommendation #4: Throughout the mission revision process, Antioch and all her

constituencies should carefully attend to the connections, or lack of connections, between the

educational purposes, values, and stated outcomes contained in these statements, and the

assessment practices in place within programs on each of the campuses.

46

Discussed further in Chapter 8.

37

Chapter 4

Governance and Administration

NCA Criterion Two: Antioch University has effectively organized the human,

financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.

38

O

VERVIEW

The structure of the University results in both opportunity and challenge. Within Antioch,

there is a notion of —dual citizenship,“ whereby faculty, staff, students and administrators belong

to and participate in the life of a campus and its local culture, and are also members of a larger

university community. This larger institutional entity is connected through a common mission, a

single Board of Trustees, a shared history, shared resources, and a complex set of financial

agreements. The balance of local campus versus university-wide decision-making is a delicate

one that rests on negotiation, tradition, and performance. From time to time the balance is re-

negotiated and restructured. The full extent of —dual citizenship“ as a lived reality varies

considerably from campus to campus and constituencies within each campus. It is fair to say that

there are students, faculty, and staff who are minimally aware or informed of Antioch University

beyond their local campus. The geographical dispersion of campuses and the bifurcation of

traditional-age college students and programs and nontraditional, non-residential adult education

reinforce this separation.

This awareness is made acute on each campus by University finances and budget planning.

Antioch operates its campuses in distinctive regional locations and with different markets. In any

given year, financial performance may be uneven. Since each campus budget constitutes one part

of the single University budget that ultimately must come into balance, and because historically

Antioch is a tuition-driven institution, campuses often interact most around what is arguably the

most sensitive, and at times contentious, aspect of University operations and planning. This

results in varied feelings and perceptions of each campus toward the others. The University

budget often serves to draw out the distinctions between the non-residential adult education

campuses and the traditional-age residential liberal arts college, the latter clearly being the most

expensive operation and enrollment-challenged in today‘s higher education environment.

On the other hand, there is a general awareness throughout the University of the distinctive

historical place that Antioch College holds in American higher education. This is a source of

pride throughout the system and; the source of the University legacy and mission emphasis on

39

social justice, humanistic values, innovation, integration of work and study, education of the

whole person, and community involvement. The dynamics of our structural arrangement

sometimes result in conflict, but often that conflict is dynamic, creative, and productive.

From 1998 to the present, the themes that provide context for an understanding of the

University include strategic planning, governance, self-evaluation, and transition. Strategic

planning occupied much of the time and energy of the University Leadership Council, first

through the development of the University Plan in 1998 and 1999, then through the planning

processes and subsequent implementation of goals on each of the campuses

47

.

The past 3 years have served as a test of the durability and efficacy of the federated

University governance structure that came out of the reorganization process that was engineered

during the latter half of the Guskin administration. There was not only a new chancellor, but also

at every one of the campuses save New England, new chief executive officers appointed between

1997 and 1999. The focus of this chapter is how a unique multi-system structure requiring on-

going negotiation and balance accommodates new leadership and the shifting challenges of five

campuses.

Self-evaluation followed from this arrangement. In addition to the affirmation of chief

executives on several campuses, 2001 marked the beginning of a time of transition with

retirements and shifting responsibility in several key areas of leadership. The University Board

of Trustees has also undergone considerable self-evaluation over the past two years

48

.

Antioch University Administration

The reorganization of the University administrative structure, which redefined

administrative roles in the University and at the College, began in 1993 and was fully

implemented by July 1994. The integrated administrative computing software in the financial

area was implemented in July 1995. Finally, in February 1998, the designation of campus chief

administrative officers at the non-residential campuses was changed from Provost to President.

47

Discussed in detail in Chapter 8 and addressed throughout this document.

48

These issues are addressed in Chapters 4 and 8.

40

This reorganization created a totally new central administrative structure. In this federal

structure, each campus is responsible for initiation and management of its academic programs,

for its own faculty and staff, student enrollment and expectations, management of fiscal

resources and facilities, and related operations. The Board further mandated that each of the non-

residential campuses establish a Board of Visitors and become responsible for fund-raising to a

greater extent. Each campus is expected to experiment and be self-governing within the

principles and policies necessary to the University as a whole.

The underlying assumption of the federal model is that each campus is also related to

every other member, carrying a dual citizenship. Each has allegiance to the basic purpose,

mission, philosophy and well-being of the entire University. That allegiance is through

accountability to the University Leadership Council (ULC), to the chancellor and to the Board of

Trustees for fulfilling the mission of the University, meeting the policies and supporting

procedures established by the Board of Trustees, the effective management of the campus, and

for upholding and representing the shared values and purposes for which Antioch University

stands.

This federal structure significantly changed the previous assumptions and operating

practices of the University administration. The aim was to create a collaborative decision-making

culture across the University, avoiding the command structure typical of most organizations. The

central administration became University-wide administration. At the same time, overhead costs

associated with University-wide administration were reduced by nearly half of previous levels,

ensuring that University-wide administration focus on truly University-wide issues and do so

efficiently. These include fulfillment of mission and Board policies, fiscal oversight,

encouragement and coordination of fund raising.

The chancellor‘s role is focused on building partnerships and collaboration, facilitating

university-wide policy development, developing and sustaining integrating mechanisms, systems

and services that enhance the whole, and system leadership through negotiation and planning.

The chancellor retains the capability, authority, and obligation to invoke the unwritten covenant

41

that binds the institution together and gives it coherence, character and quality in the external

world, and has final authority on matters related to University-wide budget development.

As the federal model evolves, there is a continuing need to balance the campus-based

forces with a strong counter-force of integration and common purpose. This balancing act

requires the chief executive of each campus and the University to function as leaders in the midst

of a good deal of uncertainty. On controversial matters there can be no clear winners and losers;

everyone has to take part in a negotiation held in the context of the University as a whole and the

reality that there will be other days and other issues. This tension, between campus interests and

common ground, more often than not, is a healthy and creative tension. It is also true that a

model of governance based on federalist principles is both complex and often misunderstood by

many in the at-large University community.

The ULC considers all significant administrative matters and recommends to the

chancellor those policies that it believes are necessary or desirable for the proper functioning of

the University, for submission by the chancellor to the Board of Trustees. The ULC is comprised

of the chancellor, the vice-chancellor for finance, and the presidents of the five campuses of the

University. The chancellor has also designated the vice-chancellor for development, the associate

to the chancellor, and the dean for University-wide programs as participants at all ULC meetings.

There are also two ULC subcommittees: the Academic Deans‘ Subcommittee, and the Chief

Fiscal Officers‘ Subcommittee.

The ULC meets at least six times per year. Twice a year, usually in July and December,

an expanded ULC, including the complete Academic Deans‘ Subcommittee, meets in retreat to

deal with major strategic and policy issues. Once a year, usually in the spring, the ULC,

including the Chief Fiscal Officers Subcommittee, meets to review and approve the annual

budgets of each of the campuses and the University Administration. Three times a year, the ULC

meets prior to the Board of Trustees meeting to deal with University-wide administrative issues

and prepare for the Board meeting. The ULC makes use of conference calling between these

face-to-face meetings to deal with other University business as needed.

42

The activities of the ULC are as follows:

B Reviews proposed changes in mission statements for each campus and for the

University and makes recommendations to the Board through the chancellor;

B Develops strategic priorities/directions for the University and, where appropriate,

makes recommendations for approval to the Board through the chancellor;

B Reviews and approves annual budget proposals for each campus and for the

University and makes recommendations to the Board through the chancellor;

B Reviews preliminary concept papers and full proposals for new degree programs

throughout the University and makes recommendations to the Board through the

chancellor;

B Develops, reviews, and approves University-wide policies and implementation

plans and makes recommendations to the Board through the chancellor;

B Reviews and approves proposals for significant program changes or additions;

B Conducts periodic program reviews and assessments;

B Reviews and approves proposals for major organizational changes at the campus

and University levels;

B Reviews major planning documents for each campus and develops and approves

University-level plans;

B Develops and discusses other important campus and University activities and

issues deemed appropriate by the chancellor or any member of the ULC or as

requested by the Board through its Chair.

More informally, the Council functions as a forum for information exchange, for mutual

consultation and support and, most important, for nurturing a shared vision for the University

49

.

49

Minutes from ULC meetings are available for review in the University Resource Room.

43

44

Administrative Restructuring and Roles

The concern with restructuring stated by the 1993 review team was as follows:

NCA Concern: The decision of the Board of Trustees to create separate

positions of chancellor of the University and president of the College, along

with the continued development of the roles of the adult campuses‘ chief

administrators, requires delicate balance, careful adjustments, and monitoring.

Without on-going communication engaged in by all constituencies and at all

locations with provision for constant flow of information regarding what

adjustments are being put forward and considered, the anxieties attendant on

such change could seriously undermine morale, particularly at the College. In

addition, without this attention to information-sharing and participatory

interaction, the Antioch-valued tradition of community will be gravely

compromised

50

.

1.

Background. At the time of the 1993 review, Antioch began implementation of a

restructuring plan of the University administration in the form of decentralizing many

administrative functions.

The restructuring plan was implemented by 1996. The title Provost at the non-residential

campuses, was changed to President by Board resolution in February 1998. As described earlier,

the vehicle through which this group conducts business and carries on the critical communicative

functions identified by the 1993 reviewers is the University Leadership Council (ULC)

51

.

As noted earlier in Changes since the last review, we have experienced considerable

changeover in senior personnel throughout the University. Along with the considerable and

expected turnover in Board composition over the ten-year period, a relatively new cast of

administrators is now in place to test the robustness of the new structure. In effect, with few

exceptions, those who designed the administrative restructuring are no longer those who

currently operate within it.

50

Report of a Visit, pp. 50-51.

51

The governance structure of this administrative body (the ULC), and its relationship to the Board of Trustees, is

described in much of Antioch‘s documentation and literature as The Federal Model. See Chapter 3.

45

Evaluation and Self-Study

During 2000/2001, with the completed decentralization now six years old, a systematic

evaluation of both the Board and the ULC took place. Each body evaluated itself, the other, and

the quality of the working relationship between the two. The University retained for consultation

The Chatham Group, with offices in Boston and Cleveland, to assist with this evaluation. Mr.

Fred Miller of the Chatham Group attended Fall, Winter, and Spring Antioch Board meetings in

2000/2001, facilitated extended discussions, maintained communications with Board and ULC

members throughout the year, and surveyed all members of ULC and the Board. Survey

information was fed back to both groups for reflection, processing, and further discussion. The

conditions under which the surveys were conducted guaranteed confidentiality to participants.

General themes that emerged from the discussions, and areas where improvement was needed,

however, are summarized below.

ULC on ULC: The principal concerns with effectiveness and challenges facing the

University Leadership Council revolved around key themes of trust, authenticity, and the

challenge presidents have in balancing the institutional needs of their campuses with the

institutional needs of the University. The ULC is perceived to work best when members focus on

the big picture of the University rather than the smaller picture of their own campuses or areas of

responsibility. The ULC is perceived to work best as a place for collegial problem-solving and

support.

ULC on the Board: There was general agreement that ULC-Board relations were not

optimal. Members felt there was lack of clarity around roles, authority, and lines of

communication. Communication avenues and channels between the two bodies were not always

clear.

The Board on ULC: Communication was seen as inadequate. The Trustees felt they were

not sufficiently informed about concerns, dilemmas, decisions, and actions of the ULC.

46

The Board on the Board: Board members felt they were not being used effectively and

were not providing full value to Antioch. They also felt they were not focusing on the —big

issues“ that they needed to be addressing.

Actions Taken. Based on these evaluative assessments, it was recommended that the

Board of Trustees focus its attention on three areas. First, University finances required attention.

University resources were stretched to the limit resulting in an environment that was driven by

unmet need and demands, low morale, a perception of ineffective management, and low self-

evaluation. Ways to more effectively manage and control available funds were needed, increases

in donated funds needed to be pursued, and escalating the University‘s preparedness for a capital

campaign needed to be given top priority.

Second, University planning required attention. The University Plan set laudable goals

but failed to take into account internal factors and variables that prevented progress. The Plan

needed to be carefully reconsidered, Trustee buy-in needed to be greater, attention to operating

plans and budgets was necessary to insure success of the Plan and the Capital Campaign.

The third area for attention that came out of the self-evaluation is how leadership across

the University is understood and exercised. This includes reporting and communication lines in

both directions between and among the presidents, the chancellor, and the Board.

University Finances. In order to address these areas of concern, the Board of Trustees

resolved to work with the ULC through several mechanisms. At the June 2001 Board Meeting in

Keene, New Hampshire, two Board ad hoc committee structures were put into effect. The first

was a Financial Stabilization Committee to be charged with a careful review of the University‘s

finances resulting in recommendations that would address both immediate short-term difficulties

as well as long-term strategic and structural improvements that would sustain the institution‘s

long-term viability. This committee worked over the summer of 2001 and made its

recommendations to the Board in October 2001 (see below). Following this report, the ad hoc

committee was dissolved.

47

Strategic Planning. The second group began its work during the June 2002 Board

meeting with a focus on the future of Antioch University. A plan for Task Force working groups

chaired by campus presidents and including Board and other University constituency

involvement, was recommended in order to study key areas of University operations. Priority

areas for study identified jointly by the University Leadership Council and the Board of Trustees

at the June 2002 Board meeting are 1) cooperation and collaboration across the University in

support of the University mission, 2) program growth and innovation, 3) build-up of University

infrastructure and capacity, and 4) promotion of the University‘s reputation and visibility. The

findings from these work groups are to inform strategic planning, goals and timelines and are due

for completion at the time of the October 2003 Board meeting.

Other critical Board-initiated actions originating at Keene in June 2001 were introduced

and implemented:

A. Following a report from Ketchum Inc., on the campaign potential of Antioch University,

a resolution was introduced and passed authorizing the beginning of the silent phase of

the campaign.

B. In order to bridge communications between the Board and the ULC, to begin the early

groundwork for the capital campaign, and to assist in the leadership transitions in

2001/2002, several role clarifications and new assignments were made. The Board chair

would shift considerable time and energy to work on the Campaign, and a Vice-Chair of

the Board was designated. The Chancellor would shift time and attention to academic

developments and the NCA accreditation process, and an Executive Vice-Chair from the

Board was designated who would work with the ULC over the coming months.

The Board Stabilization Committee worked through Summer 2001 and made its first formal

report with recommendations to the ULC in October. The committee considered University

finances in light of poor overall performance in the 2000/2001 fiscal year, poor returns on the

endowment in the first several months of the current fiscal year, growth in tuition discounting at

Antioch College, slow progress toward the enrollment goal of 800 FTE at Antioch College, and

finally, growing uncertainty created by the tragic events of September 11. In general, the

committee found that the growing gap between rates of revenue and expenditure growth was

48

unsustainable and called for systemic alterations in budget assumptions and budget planning.

Campus presidents were asked to begin work immediately to close the gap for the current fiscal

year, and to consider changes in planning, processes, and practices that would insure stabilization

over the long term and position Antioch to carry through with its capital campaign plans.

Leadership. Currently, Antioch University is undergoing considerable change in

leadership. Three campus presidents and the new chancellor will have been in office less than a

year at the time of the re-accreditation review. During the evaluation and self-assessment of the

University Leadership Council in 1999/2000, a question that was raised several times was

whether the difficulties the ULC experienced at times were attributable to the dynamics of the

personalities involved, the structure itself, or some other variable(s). Or more accurately, how

much relative influence do personalities and structure exert on the effectiveness of the ULC, and

in what measure? While this question cannot be answered definitively and is largely a matter of

perception and judgment, the implications for action are considerable. The Board committee

charged with reviewing the findings of the self-evaluations identified the relationship between

the University chancellor and the College president as most critical to effective functioning of

the leadership team, as did NCA in its concerns. The committee concluded that the so-called

—Federal Model“ in itself was not necessarily problematic, but that clarification of the roles and

reporting relationships between these two positions was necessary. At present, despite the

relative newness of its membership, the ULC is perceived to be functioning effectively as a

group, and its interactions with the Board are viewed as positive.

Antioch University Board of Trustees

52

The By-laws of Antioch University set the size of the Board: —…The number of trustees

shall be not less than fifteen and not more than forty persons of legal majority….“ (Article 2.2.1)

At the time of the 1993 review, the Antioch University Board of Trustees had twenty-six regular

members, and two ex officio members. In July 2002, the Board membership stands at eighteen,

with three emeritus members, and two ex officio members. Two of the current regular Board

members were members in 1993. Sixteen of the current eighteen regular members are graduates

52

Resumes for all current Board members are available in the University Resource Room.

49

of Antioch (mostly from the College). Members of the Board are elected by the membership for

three-year terms that are renewable for a maximum of four total terms. Current membership

includes corporate executives, university professors, physicians, attorneys, and community

leaders. The University By-laws were amended in Fall 2001 to increase the maximum size of the

Board from thirty to forty, and an explicit goal of the Board is to build its membership to a larger

constituency with broader representation of influential individuals working in areas consistent

with Antioch‘s mission and values.

The Antioch Board of Trustees operates with an executive committee and six standing

committees (trusteeship, finance, investment, development, academic affairs, and physical

facilities). The Board meets three times annually in Fall, Winter, and Spring, and as needed via

teleconference between regularly scheduled meetings. The Board rotates its meetings around the

University campuses, which affords the opportunity to interact with campus constituencies and

continually reinforce the concept of Antioch as a single University. The University chancellor,

vice-chancellors, campus presidents, and other designates of the chancellor or Board sit with the

Board and participate in its open meetings

53

.

Throughout the discussions of governance, above, one finds frequent reference to

interactions with the Board of Trustees. Antioch University has a strong, engaged national board

that works closely with the ULC to establish policy, monitor performance and hold the

University to high standards of accountability.

As noted earlier, over the past several years the Board has engaged in its own self-

examination, engaging consultants and holding several retreats. Dr. John Merselis, then vice-

chair of the Board and chair of the trusteeship committee, reported the analysis and findings at

the recent meeting of the Board in June 2002. We summarize those conclusions here:

The Board of Trustees shares a strong belief in Antiochian values and in a

values-based education. The Board strongly affirms the concept of university and

is committed to making it work. The Board is fully aware of difficult issues that

must be addressed, including especially money, strategy and leadership.

53

The By-laws of Antioch University, Board agendas, and official minutes of all Board meetings are available in the

University Resource Room.

50

In dealing with money, the Board has approved a financial stabilization plan, and

authorized both a feasibility study and, subsequently, a capital campaign for

endowment at Antioch College.

Strategy will be addressed over the next two years through a Future of Antioch

study, an in-depth review and plan for our future, led by the Board in

consultation with the entire University community.

Leadership issues have already been addressed in the first half of 2002 by

establishing a chancellor succession plan; b) engaging a new College president;

and c) a Board succession plan leading to the election of a new Board Chair and

slate of officers.

51

Chapter 5

Resources

52

H

UMAN

R

ESOURCES

The Faculty

Faculty are the University‘s essential resource. As the following charts (Tables 1,2, and

3) show, there are 182 full-time faculty in the University as of Spring 2002, with slightly over

50% in the age range of 35-50. Approximately 58% are women, and approximately 17% are

faculty of color. Part-time faculty number 392. These numbers and percentages vary campus by

campus and, within a campus, between programs. That detail, in terms of campus-based

characteristics and composition, can be found in the individual campus self-studies. It should

also be noted that the faculty of the new Ph.D. program have not been included in these charts

because of the timing of production of this University Self-study, but detail on the Ph.D. Program

can be found in Chapter 7.

Faculty in the Antioch system have different contractual arrangements at each campus.

Faculty at Antioch College have contracts that reflect the rank and tenure system. Core Faculty at

the non-residential campuses have one-year or multiyear contracts, depending upon the campus.

All faculty in the Ph.D. in Leadership Program have multi-year contracts. Associate and Adjunct

faculty at all Antioch campus have quarterly contracts.

The University requires that all Core Faculty be evaluated annually if they hold one-year

contracts, and that the process includes self-, student-, and peer-evaluation elements, where

possible. Each campus has slight variations within this University mandate and is detailed in

campus self-studies. What is critical is that faculty are evaluated fairly and regularly, in a

process that supports and encourages excellence in teaching, advising, scholarship and

contributions to program, campus and profession.

An example of each campus‘ variation to the University‘s evaluation mandate

is exemplified by the Ph.D. in Leadership‘s preface to its evaluation procedure: the Ph.D.

Program‘s approach to evaluation is to develop and engage in an evaluative process that fits the

organizational culture of respecting both program priorities and individual innovation, and helps

53

faculty define and focus their work within a model of faculty well-being and program health.

The central characteristics of the process are: a process that supports reflective practice,

recognizes creative and vigorous scholarship and service, reinforces effective and caring

teaching and advising/mentoring, and encourages a collaborative faculty and learning

community.

Although Antioch University, except for Antioch College, does not offer tenure, there is

very little turnover among faculty. Again, this will vary campus to campus and more detail can

be found in individual self-studies. However, some examples here may be illustrative: Antioch

Santa Barbara has had a very stable Core Faculty since the 1993 visit, with no turn-over in the

BA Completion program, one retirement in the Management program, and of the four faculty

that left the Psychology program, all have been replaced with faculty who have now been there

for over five years. The fact that so many of Antioch‘s faculty remain at Antioch for years,

despite the lack of tenure, provides evidence of the faculty‘s commitment to the institution and

its students. As was apparent back in 1993, the same commitment and responsiveness is a

hallmark of our faculty today.

Issues. There are a number of areas of faculty work life and responsibilities with which

the institution continues to struggle. The first is faculty compensation. Across the system, Core

Faculty salaries are not at the level we would like them to be. While the overall compensation

package includes generous benefits, such as a 13% institutional contribution to TIAA-CREF,

baseline salaries over the past 10 years have generally increased only 2-4% on each campus for

most years. Antioch College faculty raises have ranged up to 8%. Many campuses have

established new salary target goals but fiscal constraints have made achieving those goals

difficult these past several years. At the time of this writing, the ULC has begun the process of a

salary and compensation review for the entire University system

54

.

A second area of faculty work life that is being addressed on a number of Antioch‘s

campuses is the range and diversity of faculty workload, in essence, the deployment of faculty

resources. This is a challenging area at all institutions of higher learning, but it is particularly

54

Average salaries by rank by campus may be found in the BIDs.

54

challenging in systems that employ individualized annual faculty job descriptions, provide both

classroom and on-line teaching, and offer program delivery models that range from course-based

to competency-based, and structured to individualized. Each campus strives to address faculty

workload issues in ways that are consistent with their campus culture and organizational model.

As new programs are established and as new faculty and administrators join campuses, decisions

about workload must be re-visited and re-negotiated.

Another area of faculty work life that is being addressed is professional development.

Each campus sets aside monies and release time to support faculty development, but in recent

years, that support has been limited given financial belt-tightening. Despite this, faculty

scholarship on some campuses, such as Antioch New England, has been extraordinarily high.

At the same time, and in addition to the campus-based support, some University funds were

released during this period to support professional development in the area of on-line teaching.

However, the financial constraints of the past several years, coupled with heavy workloads in

year-round systems, means that it is challenging for faculty at many of the Antioch campuses to

find the time and support to engage in research and scholarship. Some campuses, and programs,

have been more successful than others, as is apparent from the list of faculty publications

identified in the Indicators of Progress of each campus.

TABLE #1

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY FACULTY

Spring 2002

CAMPUS

Full-time

Part-time

Total

Antioch College

Antioch McGregor

Antioch Seattle

New England

Los Angeles

Santa Barbara

57

16

42

37

21

9

8

67

51

79

73

114

65

83

93

116

94

123

University Totals

182

392

574

Source: Campus Basic Institutional Data Forms, Spring 2002.

55

TABLE #2

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY FACULTY (F/T)

Gender and Race

Spring 2002

GENDER

RACE

CAMPUS

Male

Female

White Black Asian

Native

American

Hisp. Other

College

28

29

47

5

3

--

2

--

McGregor

6

10

13

2

1

--

--

--

Seattle

15

27

31

3

2

2

--

4

New England

19

18

35

1

1

--

--

--

Los Angeles

6

15

17

3

1

--

--

--

Santa Barbara

2

7

8

1

--

--

--

--

TOTALS

76

106

151

15

8

2

2

4

TOTAL %

42%

58%

83%

Source: Basic Institutional Data Forms, Spring 2002.

56

Table #3

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY FACULTY (F/T)

Age Distribution

Spring 2002

Age Range

CAMPUS

20-35

35-50

50-65

>65

Antioch College

13

15

26

3

Antioch McGregor

2

6

8

0

Antioch Seattle

1

17

24

0

Antioch New England

0

16

21

0

Antioch Los Angeles

1

8

10

2

Santa Barbara

0

4

5

0

TOTALS

University-wide

17

66

94

5

University-wide (%)

9.35%

36.3%

51.6%

2.75%

Source: Basic Institutional Data Forms, Spring, 2002.

57

Financial Resources

University Plan: Goal Seven œ Strengthen the Fiscal Structure

NCA Concerns: Antioch University, like most not-for-profit institutions, operates within

stringent fiscal boundaries. In the 1993 Self-study, the University identified its primary financial

challenge, its strategy for dealing with that challenge, and the need to redirect the strategy if it

was found not to be effective.

Despite the substantial increase in the fiscal health of the University over the last five

years, a number of concerns remain. Enrollment at the College must continue to grow to

sustain the rebuilding process. Even with the substantial direct and indirect subsidies

from the University, there are considerable un-funded needs at the College. More capital

is needed to enhance the academic program, expand student services and campus

maintenance program, increase salaries, increase faculty and staff development, and

augment capital and expense budgets. In fact, the present operations of the College and

the building of the curriculum are predicated on modest enrollment growth over the next

few years. An enrollment of 700+ FTE will begin to meet these needs. Obviously, if this

enrollment is not met, then changes will be required to meet the College‘s need to

maintain a balanced budget based on tuition revenues and the existing University

subsidy

55

.

In its 1993 report, the review team complimented Antioch administrators and the Board

for —sound planning“ that established —clear and appropriate priorities and policies between

units.“ The team noted —since 1985, the University has dealt skillfully and creatively with serious

financial issues that would have closed most institutions.“ Nonetheless, in its concluding section,

the 1993 review team stated —University finances remain a serious concern.“

56

As a result, NCA requested that Antioch file a financial status report annually, a process

that was continued until FY 1999. As the following table shows, Antioch University ran a

balanced or net cash basis surplus budget from FY 1996 until FY 2001 (at this writing, the books

on FY 2002 have not been closed but will be available at the time of the visit). The following

tables depict (a) the revenue growth history of the University since 1992 œ 1993, and (b) the net

cash surplus beginning in FY 1996.

55

Antioch University, An Institutional Self-Study, 1993, Volume I, pp. 40-41.

56

Report of a Visit, page 35; page 51.

58

TABLE #4

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY

Net Cash Basis Budget

FY 1996 œ FY 2002*

1996

$119,915

1997

440,171

1998

638, 477

1999

1,384,861

2000

1,457,894

2001

-847

2002

Not yet known

*Implementation of FSB 116-117 began in 1996

59

TABLE #5

Antioch University

TOTAL REVENUE BY YEAR

1994-95 to 2002-03 (projected)

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

$55,000,000

$60,000,000

$65,000,000

$70,000,000

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002E FY2003P

The operating or accrual budget in FY 2001 showed a deficit of approximately $1.6

million, due largely to revenue shortfalls at Antioch College and endowment losses due to the

poor performance of the stock market.

Background. In its 1997 Strategic Plan, Antioch College set an enrollment goal of 800

FTE students by Fall 2000. Growth to this level was deemed necessary to maintain fiscal health.

At this writing, FTE enrollment at Antioch College stands at 685. This number represents a

modest gain from the level prevailing in 1996-97 (644), but remains 115 students short of the

target. At the same time, operating expenses at Antioch College have grown faster than operating

revenue, creating a growing gap that is not sustainable. The major components of the operating

expense increases, cited above, are salaries and benefits, business operations, student financial

aid, and plant maintenance.

60

Actions Taken: In order to address a persistent shortfall in enrollment and to improve

student retention, Antioch College made significant new investments in faculty, staff, admissions

and recruitment during the period 1997-2001. This ramping up was supported by the chancellor

and the Board of Trustees as an essential investment in the College‘s academic program and

infrastructure. It required a significant commitment of supplemental funds to fill the gap between

tuition revenue and operating expenses. In recent years, the gap between costs and revenue, as

for all private liberal arts colleges, has been closed through three sources of supplemental

income: unrestricted gifts from benefactors; endowment earnings; and subsidies from the

University. University subsidies are of two kinds: 1) a direct cash payment from the University

(provided by the adult campuses) of $600,000 or more per year for the past 3 years; 2) an

indirect subsidy by the non-residential campuses to meet the entire cost of the University

overhead, thus exempting the College from about $1 million in expenses.

Recently, however, with the College enrollment seemingly unable to move to the targeted

levels, it became clear that even these supplementary sources of College income would be

insufficient. Because the non-residential campuses have reached the limits of their capacity to

provide assistance to the College, we cannot expect to increase their contributions. There is

broad agreement that increased subsidies are not an answer to the College‘s gap problem. For

this reason, the Board and the University Administration created a special Board Fiscal

Stabilization Committee to examine and redirect budget planning. During the past two years,

their focus has been on two strategies:

1) Increase endowment dramatically through a targeted capital campaign. Although this

strategy is discussed in another section of this report, we note here that the quiet phase of the

campaign has already yielded an increase in the range of $15 million, virtually ensuring that

Antioch‘s existing endowment expenditure policy (i.e., 5% of a 12-quarter moving average of

the endowments value) will yield future increases in budgeted funds to Antioch College. We

project further significant increases as capital campaign endowment gifts are received over the

next five years.

2) Reduce expenses gradually, containing the overall size of the budget gap to be filled

by supplementary funds at a manageable level, consistent with maintaining the quality of the

61

program. In Fall 2001, when enrollments were known and the potential magnitude of the

problem identified, a multi-track process was put into effect to address the problem in both the

current fiscal year and longer term. First, the Board Stabilization Committee, with input from the

campus presidents, recommended to the ULC a broad slate of possible remedies for

consideration. These ranged from consolidation of back-office administrative functions in

Yellow Springs, to sale and lease-back of campuses, to personnel cuts. All of these were

suggestions for review, not mandates, with revenue and expense targets built on the gap and risk

analysis. The presidents then began working with their campus constituencies to reorganize and

redraft their budgets. Antioch College, under Acting President and Chancellor James Hall, was

asked to charge a group close to College operations to come up with ways to address the expense

side of the worst-case scenario for the 2001/02 fiscal year, including also a series of positive

possibilities, such as increased Spring enrollments, a strong stock market performance, bequests,

etc. With support from the College‘s Administrative Council (AdCil), over $1 million in

projected expenses were saved in FY 2002.

The enrollment and cost problems at Antioch College are not the only point of fiscal

vulnerability for Antioch University, but they are the most significant one. Antioch, like most

other institutions, has also experienced a market-driven decline in its endowment investments

over the past two years. While these investment changes are not easily controllable in the short

term, the University has taken actions to address those expenses that can be controlled.

Currently, we project that the operating deficit at the College in FY 2003 will be approximately

$600,000, a significant improvement over the expected final $1.6 million figure in FY 2002. For

the longer term, as a key aspect of The Future of Antioch process, the University needs to

address long-term budget planning, including plans to increase campus reserves, program

investment funds, funds to support faculty and staff compensation levels, and facilities

requirements.

62

Strategies/Recommendations

1. Undertake a five-year budget plan for the University as a part of The Future of Antioch

process.

2. Implement new strategies for admissions, coordinated with a revised, targeted financial

aid award process.

3. Complete the planned capital campaign for College endowment.

4. Consolidate many of the administrative functions at Antioch College, Antioch McGregor,

and University Administration, producing operating efficiencies and improved services for

the Yellow Springs operations

57

.

57

See the revised organization chart which depicts the new joint administration services unit.

63

P

HYSICAL

R

ESOURCES

University Plan: Goal Ten œ Project Space and Capital Needs

Physical Facilities. Antioch University owns and maintains ninety-one buildings. Most of these

facilities are in Yellow Springs, Ohio. The others include the campus buildings in Seattle and

Keene, New Hampshire. Southern California‘s facilities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles are

leased. Among the buildings in Yellow Springs, approximately forty make up the Antioch

College Campus along with the Sontag-Fels building, which houses Antioch University

McGregor. The remaining buildings are scattered throughout the Glen Helen Nature Preserve,

and includes barns, sheds, garages, and stables.

In addition to maps showing the locations of University holdings, the Inventory of

Antioch University Buildings

58

presents each building‘s date of construction, dates of any

renovations, type of construction, size, and ratings of the building‘s condition and adaptability

59

.

The University began the process of developing 5-year capital budgets in 1999. These

budgets are intended to consider needs for major acquisitions of facilities, maintenance and

upgrades, technology, and other capital expenditures beyond a single year. These budgets are

presented campus by campus with an accompanying narrative on current and planned

expenditures. A schedule summarizing items by category is included. The Board adopts the

Capital Budget each year along with the annual operating budget. Many of the expenditures are

directed toward addressing short-term replacement, repair, and renewal needs and are prioritized

by safety requirements, student residential needs, academic support needs, and ability to fund

60

.

Environmental Safety. The campuses of Antioch University take all possible precautions and

make every effort to provide students with a safe and healthy environment. All campuses comply

58

University Resource Room.

59

Reviewers may also refer to the documents titled —Antioch College Facility Planning, 1999-2001,“ in —Facility

Condition and Assessment Survey, April 6, 1999“ conducted by Antioch College, for more detailed assessments of

buildings. These are available in the Antioch College Resource Room.

60

Five-year Capital Budgets are in the University Resource Room.

64

with the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. Urban campuses provide such

precautionary measures as escorts to student cars in the evening at the student‘s request. Several

campuses have active wellness programs in place.

65

Chapter 6

Educational Programs

NCA Criterion Three: Antioch University is accomplishing its educational and

other purposes.

66

Students

University Plan: Goal Three œ Increase and Diversity the Student Body

Enrollments for Antioch University as a whole have remained relatively flat in recent

years. Approximately seventy-percent of enrolled Antioch students study at the graduate level. A

third doctoral degree offering was added in 2002, and sixteen master‘s degrees are offered across

the University. Most undergraduates are traditional-age students attending Antioch College in

Yellow Springs. Three of the four non-residential campuses, however, offer BA completion

degrees for transfer students, primarily returning adult students.

Increasing enrollment across the University has been a priority, though at varying rates at

different campuses. This was an explicit goal for Antioch College for whom an enrollment of

800 undergraduates was targeted in its strategic planning efforts for the latter 1990s. Though

unable to attain this goal, Antioch College did improve retention rates and shows clear evidence

of having successfully offered a strong academic program throughout the decade.

In the past year, Antioch College has made substantial revisions in its recruiting and

admissions department. Of note, beginning with the Fall 2002 entering class, 100% of need-

based student aid is being met and the amount of merit-based aid has doubled. In addition, the

recruiting budget has been increased significantly to be more in keeping with Antioch‘s

competitors. We expect to see clear gains as a result of these efforts within the next two to three

years.

At the non-residential campuses, particularly on the west coast, enrollments in masters-

level psychology degree programs showed a considerable decline, bottoming out at half their

previous level by 1994. Management programs also showed enrollment losses across the

University. Some campus management programs made modifications in delivery, scheduling

and/or curricula, and recovered; others still struggle with under-enrollment. Declines in these two

program areas, and unrealized enrollment targets at the College, were made up in part by the

67

introduction of several new education certification, licensing, and degree offerings, and several

new degree areas across the University. These efforts to modify existing programs and introduce

new ones allowed the University to maintain enrollment levels and, in some areas show

incremental increases, but overall growth to date has not occurred at the level we would like to

see, and anticipate in the future.

While speculative, we suspect that the overall flatness in the enrollment numbers of the

last seven to eight years at the University‘s non-residential adult campuses may be attributable,

in part, to the fact that the nation enjoyed a strong and even robust economy until the past year.

Uncertain economic conditions historically have caused students to return to post-baccalaureate

education to acquire additional skills to become more competitive or to change career direction.

It will be interesting to monitor trends in the current climate of economic downturn. Increased

competition from other institutions targeting adult learners has also been a factor.

TABLE 6

68

TABLE 7

Student demographic patterns have also reflected a change during the past decade. While the

average age of students on Antioch‘s adult campuses has not changed in any significant way,

there is some evidence of a characteristic bimodal distribution, with more, younger students (25-

29 age range) enrolling in programs, primarily because of the relationship of advanced degree to

career development. Pedagogical approaches, student service expectations and technological

integration are examples of areas that have been impacted by this shifting demographic. Student

diversity has increased somewhat in recent years, especially since 1998.

69

Student Diversity - University Wide

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

Caucasian African-American Hispanic Other Non-Caucasian

TABLE 8

70

A

NTIOCH

U

NIVERSITY

A

CADEMIC

P

ROGRAMS

In academic year 2000/2001, Antioch University awarded 1,341 academic credentials.

This included 293 bachelors degrees, 936 master‘s degrees, 33 doctorates, and 79 certificates

61

.

The University continues to invest in library acquisitions, technology resources, and student

services. In the past five years, Antioch University has added new degree programs, new

certificates, and new tracks within existing programs. We follow with a brief overview of the

academic programs of Antioch University at each campus. A more extensive presentation of the

University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change follows in Chapter 7. This new program receives

singular attention in this Self-study because it represents a new direction for the University.

Following the presentation of academic programs is a more detailed review and discussion of

educational achievements and a general description of current assessment practices at Antioch.

Antioch College

In keeping with the mission and purposes of the University, Antioch College seeks to

produce graduates able to commit themselves personally to working toward improvement of the

human condition. The primary means of accomplishing this goal is through participation in a

program that produces a unique blend of work and academic integration along with substantial

responsibility for community governance and decision-making. Through this set of experiences,

Antioch College seeks to produce leaders.

Following two consecutive terms of on-campus study, Antioch College students alternate

cooperative work arrangements with off-campus employers with return trips to Yellow Springs

where they resume their study and coursework toward completion of one of eight

interdisciplinary majors. While in Yellow Springs they participate in a community governance

system through which they take responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the campus and

where they share equal voice with faculty, staff and other community members. This

combination of study, work, and community involvement is intense, fully engaging, and

challenging. Students who partake of this unusual undergraduate experience often develop a

61

Detailed information regarding program enrollments and graduates may be found in the BIDs.

71

deep sense of loyalty and connection to the institution. This sense of connection to community

and institution often generalizes to life after Antioch and produces engaged members of

communities, leaders, and innovative thinkers.

This form of undergraduate education comes at some costs as well. It is a demanding

culture and curriculum that appeals to a select group of eighteen-year-olds and thus requires

unusual recruiting resources. It demands an independent mindedness and maturity from its

students not often found in many recent high school graduates. Because students spend

considerable time away from campus, involved in challenging and engaging work, Antioch

College has always struggled against higher-than-average attrition. The logistics of organizing a

curriculum for students who are coming and going throughout their college careers is daunting.

The governance structures are elaborate and time-consuming and often slow the decision-making

processes considerably. Despite these challenges, students, staff, and faculty generally

acknowledge that they are getting something here they could not obtain elsewhere and they value

it highly.

Indications that Antioch College is achieving its purposes are detailed in the Antioch

College Self-Study. They include an array of assessment data from multiple academic units;

employer evaluations of student work; extremely high scores on the National Survey of Student

Engagement for consecutive years; and historically, a high number of graduates that go on to

complete Ph.D.s. In preparation for the NCA review and as a part of the University‘s academic

review processes, the College engaged a group of faculty from peer institutions in the Great

Lakes Colleges Association (GLCA) to review its undergraduate program

62

.

Antioch New England Graduate School

Antioch New England Graduate School is the oldest of the non-residential campuses

having just passed its thirty-eighth anniversary. It is the only Antioch campus offering

exclusively graduate study. Through five departments, Antioch New England offers 16 master‘s

degrees with multiple specializations within them, and two doctorates. The departments include

62

The GLCA review of Antioch College, along with College responses to it, are available for review in the

University Resource Room and in the College Resource Room.

72

applied psychology, clinical psychology, organization and management, environmental studies,

and education. There is also an interdisciplinary studies option that students may elect that

combines content from two or more areas. The doctoral degrees include a Psy.D. that has been

operating for twenty years and is APA-accredited at the seven-year, or maximum level. The

Ph.D. in environmental studies is now eight years old. The master‘s degrees in psychology

include counseling, substance abuse counseling, dance and movement therapy, marriage and

family therapy, and clinical psychology. Management offers a masters of science, a master‘s in

human services administration, and a master‘s in education with or without certification. Along

with its doctoral offering, the Environmental Studies Department offers a master‘s of science

with four specializations. The Education Department offers master‘s degrees in elementary

and/or early childhood, and in educational foundations.

There exist several concentrations within each of these degree programs. All of these

degree areas have obtained specialized accreditations from their professional accrediting

authorities. Each department conducts assessment of student achievement as well as faculty and

program performance. Like all Antioch campuses, New England stresses theory and practice,

blending work, in the form of internships, practicum, service learning and civic engagement,

with study and scholarly accomplishment. As a longer established campus within the system and

focusing entirely on graduate study, ANE‘s mission includes research and scholarly productivity

to a greater extent than the other campuses. ANE generates more contract and grant activity than

any other campus.

Antioch University Southern California

AUSC consists of two campuses œ one in Los Angeles and one in Santa Barbara. It was

created as a single administrative unit within the University in 1986 by President Guskin as part

of initial re-organization efforts. 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 share most program offerings (with individual

differences based on local needs). These programs include a BA degree-completion program in

liberal studies and master‘s degrees in clinical psychology, organizational management, and

73

education. An individualized concentration at the master‘s degree level also is offered by each

campus for students who desire advanced, non-clinical training in psychology. In addition, the

Los Angeles campus offers an MFA degree in Creative Writing as well as a certificate in the

teaching of creative writing.

Assessment efforts are coordinated through 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 (normally the Program

Chair). 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 is composed of faculty from

each program and meets regularly with the Academic Dean for discussion of assessment issues

and implementation strategies. 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. A broad array of assessment related materials is

available in the Resource Rooms at each campus.

Antioch University Seattle

Antioch University Seattle offers a BA degree in liberal studies that may be obtained with

a teaching certificate. In 2001, AUS reorganized its departmental structure into three —Centers,“

each housing several programs. In addition to the Centers, the BA in liberal studies stands alone.

The Center for Creative Change includes master‘s programs in environment and community,

organizational psychology, whole systems design, and management. The Center for Programs in

Education houses a master‘s degree for experienced educators, and a graduate teacher‘s

certification. It also offers the teaching certificate in conjunction with the BA in Liberal Studies.

The Center for Programs in Psychology has four degree programs including art therapy, couples

and family therapy, integrative studies, and mental health counseling. Most programs have

capstone projects and many include service-learning components. Several of the offerings are

74

targeted to historically underserved populations. All attempt to link theory with practice. In

addition to uniform evaluations and assessments of teaching effectiveness and program review,

each program assesses student learning outcomes. Antioch Seattle has established a standing

assessment committee that reviews progress and reports to the president.

Antioch University McGregor

The newest of the Antioch adult campuses is Antioch University McGregor, formerly the

McGregor School, and before that, the School of Adult and Experiential Learning. Antioch

McGregor has six degree program offerings, one of which is an undergraduate degree

completion program. The other five include the IMA (individualized master‘s degree), the MA in

Conflict Resolution, an MA in Management, a teacher licensure program, and an MA in

Educational Leadership. Antioch University McGregor enrolls students from across the country

but as much as 60% of the campus enrollment comes from the Miami Valley and Dayton area.

The school caters to adult students most of whom are working and bring considerable work and

life experience to the classroom. McGregor was one of the pioneers nationally in weekend

college programs and continues to offer innovative formats and flexible programming. As

providers of education for adults, McGregor‘s mission is to provide intensive experiential

courses that emphasize dialogue and involvement and ignite and sustain a passion for lifelong

learning. The programs utilize a range of traditional and less traditional assessment practices

with many programs conducting analyses of portfolios and inclusion of capstone courses.

A

SSESSMENT

P

RACTICES

A

CROSS THE

U

NIVERSITY

University Plan: Goal Five œ Comprehensive Assessment

Antioch University takes a three-tiered approach to on-going assessment of progress

toward institutional goals. The first is a set of institutional progress indicators completed

annually by each of the University‘s campuses. The annual Indicators of Progress is based on six

University priorities adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1991. They include:

1) Indicators of the University‘s tripartite educational model of academic excellence,

experiential learning, and community participation and service.

75

2) Indicators of student, faculty, and programmatic content diversity.

3) Indicators of academic innovation and experimentation.

4) Indicators of the University‘s impact on society.

5) Indicators of fiscal health.

6) Indicators of quality of life for students, faculty and staff.

The Indicators of Progress for the last six years are available for review in the University

Resource Room.

The second area of data collection, and quality control and improvement, is program review.

The University‘s Academic Program Review Policy was adopted by the Board of Trustees in

1994. The policy calls for regular periodic review of all Antioch academic programs. The policy

outlines a peer-review process that begins with the collection of program information. The

program faculty responds to a standard series of university questions concerning educational

program goals, program strengths and weaknesses, and measurement of student achievement.

The four-person program review committee (consisting of an academic dean, 1-2 external

members to the campus, and one faculty member from the campus) may add questions that are

tailored to the particular program under review. The committee then reviews all materials and

conducts a three-day site visit that may involve review of additional materials and

documentation, interviews with faculty, administrators, staff, students, and alumni.

At the conclusion of the visit, the team chair produces a report that documents the findings

and recommendations of the review team, which is then shared with program faculty and the host

campus academic dean in an exit interview. The campus president or dean will consult with the

faculty and provide a response to the report recommendations outlining steps to be taken to

improve the program. Finally, this statement, along with a copy of the report, is shared with the

Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. These reviews have resulted in support of

current progress and, in some cases, significant modifications in program design and delivery. In

one instance a program was discontinued following the review process.

76

It was determined that each Antioch degree program would be reviewed once between

the 1993 and 2002 team visits

63

. Note that when programs are required to undergo a specialized

accreditation review, they are exempted from the regular University peer-review process.

Antioch College, whose undergraduate curriculum is reviewed as a single program, requested an

alternative review by a team composed of faculty from peer institutions in the Great Lakes

College Association (GLCA) to which Antioch College belongs. This is allowed for in the policy

and was granted. All of Antioch New England Graduate School‘s programs undergo separate

specialized reviews.

The third piece of Antioch‘s three-tiered self-evaluation is assessment of student learning

outcomes. Practices employed in the assessment of student learning outcomes are more variable

than those for programs or progress indicators. Variation in campus culture, content area,

graduate vs. undergraduate, course-based and competency-based, and other factors all contribute

to higher variability in practice. Consequently, much student outcome assessment is local,

faculty-generated, and diverse

64

. As part of the self-study process to gauge assessment activity, a

University-wide survey was distributed to campus assessment coordinators or other designees

during winter 2001/02. On some campuses, surveys were responded to by the standing

committee. This instrument requested narrative responses to 43 questions from each campus

65

.

Responses are summarized below.

In recognition of the diversity of programs and assessment approaches, the University

implemented an assessment policy in 1992 to enforce some uniformity in assessment purposes

and goals. This policy 1) requires each University program to implement an ongoing process of

assessment that is grounded in and follows from Antioch‘s distinctive mission; 2) identifies

skills, knowledge, and perspectives expected of students; 3) requires use of multiple measures to

assess learning; 4) requires that assessment activity be incorporated into program and budget

63

See Academic Program Review Policy in the University Leadership Council Policy Handbook, University

Resource Room. Program review reports are available for review in the University Resource Room and respective

campus resource rooms.

64

One exception to this is the National Survey of Student Engagement survey that Antioch College participates in,

which allows for percentile comparison with a larger external peer group.

65

Available in the University Resource Room.

77

planning; and 5) corrects identified program weaknesses and maintains strengths. The survey

mentioned above served as one indicator of compliance with this policy.

Assessment of student learning and program review overlap. Program reviews consider

student outcome assessment, including effective planning, implementation, and use of data, as an

important component of program effectiveness. In 2000, the Program Review Policy was

amended. Prior to June 2000, the program reviews required only that the program director

describe assessment practices, comment on effectiveness, and discuss any future plans. In all

program reviews since June 2001, program directors now also submit the most recent cycle of

assessment data, a narrative analysis of that data, and proposed changes, if any, resulting from

the analysis of the data. This permits the program review team to make determinations about the

extent of progress and/or needs of program faculty with respect to assessment.

Detailed descriptions of local assessment practices in place on campuses may be found in

the campus self-studies. A summary of findings from the University-wide survey of Antioch‘s

assessment progress appears below and provides a general indicator of University-wide progress

in assessment implementation. Individual program reviews also include additional evaluation of

assessment practices.

NCA Concerns Regarding Assessment

At the time of the 1993 review, all three of the evaluative data collection procedures

described above œ Indicators of Progress, Program Reviews, and Assessment of Student

Outcomes -- were in place, but some were only very recently begun and limited data and

progress were available. The NCA review team gave high marks to the Indicators of Progress

and Program Reviews as mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating institutional progress and

achievement of purpose. The team noted that these two approaches —both represent a systematic

approach to continuous improvement.“ Regarding the third element, assessment of student

learning outcomes, the team made the following observations:

What the team found lacking, however, was a set of assessment plans specific and complete

enough for each campus to assure the development of a systematic, articulated process

connecting mission statement, program outcomes for student achievement, course outcomes,

and standards for levels of achievement. (p. 41) The Antioch University general assessment

78

plan carefully specifies requirements for a program on each campus to assess student

academic achievement. The individual campus plans all show some movement toward a

systematic process to develop such a program. They make clear that on each campus there

are in place significant mechanisms for assessment, as well as collected samples of student

performance. However, the individual plans are uneven in regard to specificity and

completeness. They do not clearly show how existing discrete elements will be incorporated

into a coherent, faculty-owned process based on articulated goals and standards that

distinguish required levels of performance

66

.

The review team recommended that

…in the area of assessment, the University needs to build on the work it has in place and the

raw data it has in hand….More complete assessment plans need to be in operation before the

next recommended NCA visit (2002 œ2003). Hence the University is to file by 15 January

1995 for each campus an assessment plan that successfully meets all five of the components

enumerated by the North Central Association

67

.

Actions Taken

In the Fall following the NCA visit, Antioch formed a university-wide Assessment Task

Force composed of the academic deans and/or a faculty representative from each campus. In

November of that year, the Task Force invited Dr. Georgine Loacker from Alverno College, who

served as a reviewer during the 1993 visit, to provide technical consultation and advice on the

further development of assessment plans for the campuses. In addition, Dr. Loacker provided

specific feedback on existing plans for each campus.

Subsequent to this work with Dr. Loacker, the University Policy Council, with members

of the Task Force, created a timeline for plan development and coordination of institutional

efforts. A full report of assessment activity was made to the Academic Affairs Committee of the

Board of Trustees, and the Task Force continued to facilitate campus efforts to comply with the

University Assessment Policy.

In the Spring of 1994, in conjunction with the Antioch University Faculty Conference, an

all-day workshop was held with Dr. William Moore, Director of Outcomes Research and

Analysis for Washington State‘s Community College system. Over 40 Antioch faculty

66

Report of a Visit, p. 51.

67

Report of a Visit, p. 56.

79

representing all campuses attended the workshop. The primary focus of the workshop was

assessment of experiential learning, an aspect of all Antioch programs.

These efforts and activities resulted in detailed plans for the implementation of

assessment activity on each of the campuses. These plans were submitted to NCA in January of

1995

68

.

Assessment of Current Activity

Through the self-study process in preparation for this comprehensive evaluation, all

Antioch campuses have reviewed progress toward assessment goals relative to both University

policy and new expectations put forward by the Higher Learning Commission.

With respect to University policy, the campuses have considered the clarity of programmatic

goals and objectives and their connection to the University and campus mission statement;

measures in current use; use of data in program planning and budgeting; and on-going regular

evaluation and revision of assessment plans and products.

In a broader sense, using the NCA Levels of Implementation as a general guide only, we

have considered the extent to which assessment has been institutionalized within the University

culture; the degree to which the responsibility for assessment is shared by campus constituents

including administrators, faculty, staff, and students; the degree to which resources have been

made available in support of assessment activity; specific organizational structures that have

been put in place to sustain assessment; and the overall effectiveness of the assessment plans and

programs in bringing about programmatic and institutional improvement. Each campus, through

an assigned assessment coordinator or with the input of assessment committees, responded to a

45-item questionnaire

69

concerning their progress on assessment. Responses are summarized

below.

68

The 1995 plans are available for review in the University Resource Room.

69

Available in the University Resource Room.

80

Campus Survey Responses

Culture. Antioch University is firmly committed to comprehensive and meaningful feedback on

performance that benefits students, employers, and teaching faculty. The Antioch University

culture has historically been resistant to practices of grading and evaluating that were traditional,

norm-referenced or comparative. The faculties of Antioch‘s campuses have been in agreement

that symbolic letter and numerical grades do not adequately accomplish their evaluation goals,

and so, adopted narrative forms of evaluation, which became University policy in 1991. This

predisposition toward narrative evaluation contributed to skepticism of any assessment activity

that makes use of checklists, ratings, comparative data, or evaluative information that was not

adequately contextualized.

During the early 1990s, the faculties began reading and educating themselves about

assessment activity. By the mid-1990s, the job descriptions of faculty, program heads, and

directors were altered to include assessment responsibilities and expectations. Assessment

language and clear expectations for assessing student learning now appears in the University and

campus strategic plans and other policy documents. In addition to assessment of student learning

outcomes, several campuses have focused assessment activities on surveys of the currency and

relevance of their program offerings, surveys and studies of multicultural attitudes, services, and

competencies, and on one campus, overall student services.

All programs and departments across the University now have clearly stated learning

goals and objectives that tie in directly with the University mission. Measures, approaches, and

emphases vary considerably and are anchored in local concerns and circumstances. Two

campuses have standing assessment committees with designated coordinators or chairs who

receive stipend support or release time. Other campuses assign this activity to the academic dean

or a standing curriculum committee or sub-committee. Since at least 1999, assessment has been

prominent in campus-based discussions of course offerings, program development, and degree

requirement revisions and emphases.

Shared Responsibility for Assessment. Understanding of assessment practices, techniques, and

procedures has improved throughout the University compared to ten years ago. All acknowledge,

81

however, that additional professional development opportunities are needed. Assessment goals

enjoy support from faculty; there is buy-in on the value of assessment activity and data, and

minimal resistance to assessment efforts. There is also near unanimous agreement that senior

administrative officers advocate and support faculty efforts and advancement of assessment

initiatives, but also that resources and material support have lagged. This has sometimes

compromised follow-through.

Each campus is able to identify some local expertise among its faculty and indicates that

this expertise is shared through both formal and informal channels. Additional expertise and

professional development are needed. Shortage of resource support for professional development

is a recurring theme in campus responses. One effect of this is that there is little added incentive

to engage in assessment work that competes directly with support for other professional

development needs and interests. Incentives such as summer study stipends and funding to attend

assessment conferences are not available. In the absence of such forms of material support,

activity and interest level becomes more localized and variable across departments and

programs. Mechanisms have been put in place to better regularize assessment activity at the local

level including scheduled reviews of plans and sharing of data within the campus community.

Antioch students learn about assessment through orientation programs, as part of data

collection, and following program changes and improvements. To date, however, Antioch

generally has not effectively involved students in planning assessment activity. Students have

had some participation on assessment committees, but with varying success.

Resources. Each campus has devoted limited funds and some faculty and staff time to support

efforts to coordinate and monitor assessment. Beyond this, specific budget lines are not

earmarked for assessment, unless programs elect to direct program development funds toward

this activity. There has been support for consultants and conference attendance in the past, but in

recent years, given competing budgetary demands, no campuses report having set aside funds

specifically for assessment-related professional activity and development. In many instances,

assessment results are fed back to budget planning committees, who will use that information in

their deliberations. On some campuses, deans do have the authority to allocate funds for

assessment, and have done so from time to time.

82

Organizational Structures. Each campus has a calendar in place that tracks assessment activity

on the campus. As mentioned, coordinators, deans, or committees are designated on each campus

to encourage, track and hold others accountable for assessment activity and effort. Collected data

is archived on each campus, either within programs or departments or in a more centralized

fashion. This data is reviewed and program modifications identified and implemented. Regularly

scheduled program reviews include evaluation of assessment for that program.

Efficacy. A sampling of assessment-driven program improvements includes:

B Changes in the curricular sequencing in the Seattle BA program

B Enhancement of the Seattle writing component across the curriculum

B Additional multicultural content and perspectives across the Seattle curriculum.

B The MA psychology program in Los Angeles increased coverage of theory

following an analysis of student exit interview data.

B The Los Angeles advising process was modified following a student

retention/attrition survey.

B At the Santa Barbara campus, the BA program revised its foundations course and

created portfolio and capstone courses based in part on information obtained

through assessment activity.

B Changes were made in the teacher preparation sequence in Santa Barbara

following data collected during student teaching.

B At Antioch McGregor, the Conflict Resolution program added a capstone course

and developed improved methods for assessing portfolios in two programs

following a program review.

B Addition of new courses in every academic department at Antioch New England.

B Development of an environmental organizing and advocacy track at Antioch New

England.

B Conduct of a diversity audit at ANE led to revising reading materials with all

programs to reflect emphasis on multiple and diverse —voices“ and perspectives.

B Enhanced use of technology to accompany delivery option changes at Antioch

New England.

83

B Ongoing modification in summer offerings at Antioch College result from

continuous assessment of students and faculty. Recent changes include

diversifying the range of summer offerings, changes in summer academic

advising, invitations extended to visiting writers and theatre artists, and

involvement of alumni. These changes have contributed to increased enrollments

in summer courses and institutes.

B Multiple course offerings during the regular academic terms at Antioch College

have been modified following assessments. Examples include the Introduction to

Multicultural Literacy in the Literature, Languages, and Culture major; a new

course in the Arts Major, Introduction to Theatre: Performing Community; and

greater emphasis on quantitative reasoning in introductory courses in the Social

and Global Studies major.

Evaluation of curricular modifications occurs formally at the time that the program

undergoes an internal University program review, and more informally through on-going

departmental monitoring. Those responsible for monitoring assessment activity on each campus

reported in winter 2001/02 that the level of activity, use of assessment data, and implementation

of assessment-driven educational improvement was highly variable across programs on their

campus. Where assessment plans are weak or programs are struggling, most campuses have

resource people in place in the form of committees or coordinators to work with those weak

areas.

The vast majority of programs on campuses report assessments with units of analysis

above the level of the single classroom. Similarly, most use multiple measures. Both direct and

indirect measures of learning are utilized. Campuses vary also in terms of how student‘s learning

successes are celebrated and highlighted. At least two campuses reported that there is not nearly

enough celebration of success on their campuses and this was an area they hope to improve.

84

Summary and Recommendations

Those who responded to this survey were clear in pointing out that they are operating in a

resource-poor environment and that much of what has been done and will be done in the future is

low-cost, embedded in existing practices and programs, and constrained. Clearly, in looking

toward the future, increasing resource allocation would go a long way toward shoring up existing

efforts and meeting some of the identified needs. Several faculties felt that more faculty learning

and study was needed on their campuses. They identified the need for regular forum sessions

with occasional full-day opportunities for faculty to focus on and consider this aspect of their

work in depth. Use of outside speakers and expertise is valued, as is networking with other

institutions and consortia to build skills and understanding. In some instances, there is a need to

get a greater understanding of faculty strengths and weaknesses in order to focus these efforts

strategically. Some additional funding for release time would go a long way.

An unexpected outcome of this survey exercise was the recognition that the campuses

could be doing much more to involve and inform their students of assessment activity. There has

been a tendency to think of assessment as something that is done to and for students, but not in

planning partnerships with them. In addition, not much thought has been given to the explicit and

implicit messages faculty are giving or should be giving students about the purpose and place of

assessment in their education.

Several respondents would like to focus more attention on assuring that key

administrators have sufficient background and training. Though assessment responsibility is now

included in job descriptions, it should be reviewed, given higher priority and clarified.

Administrators should be more collaborative partners in assessment efforts.

Finally, with respect to assessment methods, there were cautionary notes stressing the

importance of utilizing practices which are built from the ground up around learning outcomes,

not externally imposed top-down practices. Others maintained that awareness of whole person,

constructionist methodologies and individuality should always be part of assessment practices at

Antioch. Some stated the importance of vigilance against number-crunching approaches, and the

need to keep Antioch values at the center of assessment practice.

85

U

NIVERSITY

-

WIDE

S

TRUCTURES AND

A

CTIVITY

IN

A

CCOMPLISHMENT OF

I

NSTITUTIONAL

P

URPOSE

.

With the decentralization of University administrative functions beginning in 1994

Antioch‘s campuses began to function with a higher degree of campus initiative than under the

earlier centralized administrative system. Day-to-day operational functions and decision-making

became more localized and the campuses were charged to take control over their own planning,

budgets, programs, fundraising and future. As the campuses have matured over the last decade,

the question arises œ what makes Antioch a University as opposed to a loose confederation of

somewhat similar campuses? This question is more than academic and is of interest to alumni,

accreditors, and campus constituencies. Answers exist at the levels of mission and values

70

,

financial structures and arrangements

71

, governance

72

, academic programming

73

, and at a more

practical operational level as described below.

Each of Antioch‘s campuses maintains active systems of governance to address

curriculum, programs, and day-to-day needs and operations. University governance takes place

at the University Leadership Council made up principally of campus presidents, vice-chancellors

for finance and development, and the chancellor. The ULC recommends to the Board of Trustees

through the chancellor. The single University Board is the final governing authority for the

University as a whole

74

. The leadership council, primarily at the direction of the presidents,

identifies needs, works at problem solving, and pools resources and expertise to the benefit of the

University as a whole. Below are examples of University activities, and taken together, provides

one set of answers to the question œ ”what makes Antioch a University?‘ The campuses of the

University engage with each other in cooperative enterprises and initiatives and consult with

each other on an on-going basis.

70

See Chapter 3.

71

See Chapter 5, Part IV.

72

See Chapter 4.

73

This Chapter.

74

These operations are fully described in Chapter 4.

86

Cooperation

B

Each year, the presidents and chief financial officers work together to develop the

annual operating budget for the University as a whole, which they then

recommend to the Board of Trustees at the annual June meeting.

B

Through retreat and annual business meetings, the ULC comes to agreement on

University priorities, which then become part of the planning and budgeting of

each campus.

B

Introduction and implementation of Datatel, a University-wide integrated system

for accounting, budgeting, human resources, admissions, financial aid, registrar

and student accounts; as well as FirstClass software communications system on

all but one campus.

B

With the introduction of the University technology plan in 2000, the campuses

are working together to pool resources, plan jointly, and acquire and build

technology resources in a cost-effective and sustainable manner (Antioch New

England, Antioch Southern California, Seattle, and the University-wide Ph.D.

program now outsource First Class administrative support to the same company,

—What if?“ of Portland, Maine).

B

Through the leadership of the ULC, a University Plan was developed and

approved in 1999.

B

Academic deans from across the University coordinate and oversee the review of

all academic programs and development of University-wide academic policy.

B

Through coordination by the presidents and academic deans, new program

development is organized, reviewed, and recommended to the Board.

B

With oversight from the ULC, publications and public relations efforts for the

University are developed and funded.

B

The deans and presidents oversee the funding and allocation of monies for new

programs through the University Innovation Fund (see below).

B

The development of the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change was a University-wide

collaboration that draws on resources from all campuses in its implementation

including library support (Antioch New England), financial aid (Antioch

University McGregor), and registrar consultation (Antioch University Seattle).

87

B

Thirty faculty from four campuses collaborated recently in training for on-line

teaching and course delivery.

B

Representatives from each campus and the University chancellor‘s office

collaborate every 12 to 24 months on the organization of a University-wide

faculty conference.

B

Beginning in 2001, the Olive Kettering Library at Antioch College began the

process of adding Antioch McGregor, Southern California, and Seattle to their

database subscriptions allowing them to access OhioLink resources on-line.

Consultation. As circumstances arise, campuses share expertise and consult with each other on a

wide variety of issues and functions. Some examples from recent years include:

B

Antioch Southern California consulted with Antioch New England and Antioch

University Seattle in the development of its teacher certification program.

B

Presidents from Antioch New England and Antioch McGregor served in a

consulting capacity with the faculty in Seattle on governance matters.

B

Three campuses (New England, Seattle, and Los Angeles) consulted with

McGregor to further develop and improve registrar operations.

B

Antioch New England collaborated with Antioch Education Abroad in the

development of a Brazil trip for environmental studies.

B

Staff at Glen Helen Nature Preserve consulted with environmental studies faculty

at Antioch New England on educational curriculum and activity.

Antioch has sought to strike a balance between local campus control of operations and

University-wide institutional integrity. Campuses function more smoothly when they have local

control over day-to-day operations such as payroll, registrar, marketing, and hiring. University

integrity is maintained through effective communications, shared decision-making, and

institution-wide planning and budgeting. Campuses develop and administer their own budgets,

but those budgets are reviewed by the presidents from all campuses and then approved by the

University Board of Trustees. Each campus has a fulltime chief administrative officer, but that

officer reports to the University chancellor and is accountable to her peer presidents. Each

campus is empowered under Board policy to initiate and sustain its own academic programs, but

those programs only receive Board approval after approval by the full contingent of academic

88

deans across the University, and by the presidents through the University Leadership Council.

Programs, once approved, are reviewed through a University process with University

participation. Each campus is authorized to grant degrees in the state in which they reside. This

balance of responsibility and authority is dynamic and renegotiated from time to time. As a

University, Antioch maintains that the whole of the University is greater than the sum of its

parts, and through the University structure each campus is stronger than it would be were it to

stand alone.

89

Chapter 7

New Directions: The University-wide

Ph.D. in Leadership and Change

90

Introduction

At present, the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change is Antioch University‘s only University-

wide program. All other Antioch degree programs described in the Self-study reside at one or

another campus. Besides its unique position within the University‘s organizational structure, this

Ph.D. program is distinctive in many other ways: it offers an interdisciplinary and rigorous core

and individualized curriculum designed for non-traditional doctoral students (working

professionals) and it is delivered as a low-residency networked model that utilizes technology to

complement peer and individualized learning. The program is based on an annual term, with

three pre-candidacy years, and credit is awarded for the demonstration and mastery of learning

rather than —seat-time“ in classes. Program offices are in Yellow Springs, Ohio, while faculty

and students live and work across the country, coming together quarterly for learning residencies

held at the various Antioch campuses.

Materials in on-site resource rooms provide in-depth information on the program‘s

curriculum, faculty, students, learning goals and assessment, and organizational design. This

chapter, as part of the University‘s Self-study, primarily details the program‘s unique position

within the University system, how it addresses the University‘s mission and represents a major

step in the University‘s organizational maturation; and finally, the chapter provides a general

overview to the program‘s curriculum and delivery model. The chapter is divided into four parts:

(1) History, Mission and Underlying Principles; (2) Program Design and Delivery; 3)

Assessment; and (4) Looking into the Future.

I. History, Mission and Underlying Principles

History: The idea for a University-wide doctoral program in leadership first emerged from

discussions initiated by a University-wide Innovation Team (19 Antioch University faculty

leaders and academic deans) that met from 1995 to 1997 and was funded by a $250,000 grant

from the Pierson-Lovelace Foundation. Out of that initiative, a Ph.D. planning process began

which included focus groups of potential students, an analysis of likely competitors,

75

and

extensive discussions with the University Leadership Council (ULC) as well as the Academic

Deans‘ Sub-Committee of that body. An initial proposal was discussed at the April and then

75

See Planning Documents in the University Resource Room with Ph.D. documentation.

91

June 1998 meetings of the ULC, and with the University‘s Board of Trustees in June 1998. At

that June Board of Trustees meeting, a resolution was approved to establish this Ph.D. program

contingent on securing the necessary approvals.

76

The Director was hired in mid-September

1999, after the University received a $500,000 three-year gift to support the program‘s

development and implementation.

Between September 1999 and September 2001, the Program Director worked in

consultation with a team of academic consultants, faculty, and staff (a staff administrator was

hired in October 1999), to develop the curriculum, learning outcomes and assessment, to

establish administrative and student support functions in coordination with the rest of the

University, to field and respond to inquiries, and to prepare for authorizations and approvals.

Throughout this period, the Chancellor‘s Office maintained regular contact with NCA,

informing it of the program‘s progress as the University sought the necessary approval from the

Ohio Board of Regents. All materials developed for that approval process were forwarded to

NCA. Provisional approval from the Board of Regents was secured in September 2001

77

. NCA

agreed that its review of the program would occur as part of the University‘s regular

accreditation process. In addition, all appropriate education agencies in the states where the

program holds residencies were notified of the program and approval to operate was secured.

The Ph.D. in Leadership and Change admitted its first cohort of students in January 2002.

Mission. The Ph.D. in Leadership and Change fulfills the mission of Antioch University in

important ways. As the mission states (see Chapter 3), the University is committed to

developing the qualities of responsible leadership in its graduates and confirms that Antioch

degree programs are built upon the philosophy that learning is most powerful when it is student-

centered and integrated with direct work experience. Thus, the Program complements the

strengths of traditional Ph.D. education including research training and academic preparation at

the highest level, professional experience, and reflective practice. The University‘s goal of

responsible leadership that fosters productive democratic change is realized through the

76

The resolution is included in the Resource Room.

77

Documentation in the Resource Room.

92

Program‘s requirement for the design and implementation of a real-world change project, as well

as through the curricular emphasis on applied research and on the social context for the

examination of leadership theories and strategies. The Ph.D. program, with its Core and

Individualized Curriculum, and its required experientially based Organizational Change Project

and research-based Doctoral Dissertation, follows a flexible, intensive residency, cohort-

structured format, and a non-graded, competency-based evaluation system that represents the

fulfillment of student learning through experimentation, another goal of the University‘s mission.

Finally, the Ph.D. program also represents Antioch University‘s current stage of

institutional development and strategic planning. The University Strategic Plan identified the

following relevant priorities: enhance the national visibility; increase and diversify the student

body; broaden program offerings including University-wide offerings; and, recruit and retain

highly qualified faculty. In addition, the University‘s own self-study goal is to explore doctoral-

level development and capacity in the University. The Ph.D. program addresses all of these

University priorities and goals.

Relationship to Antioch University. As a University-wide degree, the program utilizes resources

within the University system in new and effective ways, making available to non-residential

doctoral students the best University services without duplicating institutional overhead. Thus,

comprehensive graduate research library services are provided by the graduate library at Antioch

New England Graduate School. Financial aid services are provided by the Financial Aid Office

at Antioch University McGregor. While the Program operates its own registrarial systems and

procedures, it engages the services of one of the University‘s senior registrars to audit the

program‘s student records and files at the Yellow Springs program office. The University‘s

central financial offices oversee the program‘s student accounts. The campus of Antioch College

and Antioch University McGregor serve as the site for the weeklong annual summer residency,

and the program‘s main office is located in the University Kettering Building in Yellow Springs,

Ohio. Finally, in terms of faculty, the program‘s full-time faculty are employed solely by the

Ph.D. Program, and have been hired and retained by the Ph.D. program as the result of national

searches; however, many mentor faculty (who work with particular students on their

93

individualized learning plans and are contracted per student), come from many of the Antioch

campuses where they are employed as Core Faculty.

This structure may seem complex, but it is consistent with the growing trend towards

geographically dispersed, technologically networked organizations. It is also well-suited to the

twenty-first century reality of the Internet and the adult student population, which is composed of

individuals who reside in all parts of the United States and possibly overseas, who work fulltime,

and who utilize the Internet and other computer technologies on a daily basis. And, it is

particularly opportune for a nation-wide university that desires to maximize its national visibility

and optimize its cost efficiency by holding overhead costs in check.

Educational Principles. In addition to Antioch‘s historic mission of academic rigor, experiential

learning and social responsibility, much of the national discussion on re-thinking doctoral

education is also relevant to the framing of Antioch‘s Ph.D. in Leadership and Change. Of the

many national conferences, papers, and foundation explorations that have focused on this

question for the past several years, consensus among stakeholders is forming around several key

recommendations. Among those that are most relevant to Antioch‘s program are the

recommendations for:

° More professional options and career paths beyond those at research/doctoral

universities;

° The need for more interdisciplinary study;

° The need for more reflection on personal and professional goals, engaged mentoring and

systematic feedback;

° The need to encourage more opportunities for teamwork and collaboration.

Within this context, Antioch‘s Ph.D. in Leadership and Change is designed for working

professionals who will understand and lead organizational change in their professions as

reflective practitioners and engaged scholars. Understanding and leading change in the

professions requires the essential elements of the scholar as professional: to be a reflective

practitioner, to be responsible and act with integrity as one leads, and to be communal in one‘s

learning, leading, and reflecting. In essence, our program posits scholarship is not site-bound nor

94

limited to the academy, and it believes that working professionals can, in fact, be working

scholars in the best sense of that tradition and community.

The Ph.D. in Leadership and Change puts learning center stage as doctoral students work

through a curriculum of cycles of scholarship, practice and reflection. Rather than standardized

courses that may have little relation to what is actually learned, the program focuses on the

demonstrations of the student‘s actual learning. Competency demonstrations in areas of the core

and individualized curriculum replace courses as the building blocks of depth and breadth

knowledge. Oriented towards balancing the student‘s intellectual passions with program

standards and (inter)disciplinary interests, each competency requires familiarity with the field, a

demonstration of the learning, and required reflection on the meaning of that learning.

Consistent with the national discussions on re-thinking doctoral education, this program

views mentoring as a foundational concept. Mentoring is less about transmitting knowledge than

about interlocking intellectual, personal, and professional relationships within a community of

scholars in which knowing, experiencing and reflecting are questioned, constructed, and

challenged. The program‘s entire design rests profoundly on mentoring in a collaborative

environment whose primary focus is the students‘ learning and success.

The program is decidedly interdisciplinary, drawing primarily from the social sciences,

management and education to focus on curricular themes that themselves cannot be reduced to a

singular disciplinary vantage point. One of the most apparent examples of this interdisciplinary

commitment is the composition of the Core Faculty team whose disciplinary homes are political

science, counseling psychology, social psychology, communication studies, and adult education.

II. Program Design & Delivery: Curriculum, Faculty and Students

In order to address issues of learning and program assessment, it is necessary to provide

an overview of the program‘s design. Based on the educational principles, organizational design

and University resource sharing articulated above, the program‘s curriculum and delivery are

characterized by a number of unique characteristics:

95

1.

The program focuses on the active adult learner who is a practicing professional. This

will be addressed more fully in the section on students. However, based on the non-traditional

student population for whom the program is designed, non-traditional services must be

established for student success. Thus, the program‘s time, place, policies and procedures are

designed to meet life and work demands of adult learners who are active professionals.

Examples of this are: the flexibility of self-pacing one‘s learning within the program‘s structure

and requirements; one-stop-shop student services via the program‘s electronic First Class

desktop learning community; complete electronic graduate research library services; and

automatic re-enrollment in year-long terms unless the program is otherwise notified. All program

policies, procedures, guidelines are published in the annual program handbook

78

, posted on the

FirstClass desktop, and also available on the program‘s website

79

.

2.

The program‘s course of study is structured around a common interdisciplinary core

curriculum and a student-designed/faculty mentored individualized curriculum. The Core

Curriculum is designed and delivered by the program‘s Core Faculty and focuses on two main

areas œ leadership and change, and research/inquiry skills -- and paces these curriculum tracks at

different levels of intensity and sophistication over the three pre-candidacy years. For each

curriculum track, a set of learning goals with required student learning products and benchmarks

has been established by the program

80

. Learning goals, criteria for demonstration of learning,

learning products, and recommended timelines are all provided to students in the Learner‘s

Guide

81

.

An example of this curricular approach may be instructive. The overarching direction for

the leadership and organizational change curriculum is that students become, or further develop,

their abilities as reflective scholar-practitioners and, toward that end, the program intends that all

students have a broad and deep understanding of and practical engagement with ethical and

participatory leadership in the design and implementation of organizational change activities.

The specific learning goals for this Core content area are:

78

The Program Handbook is available in the University Resource Room.

79

The website address is www. phd.antioch.edu.

80

See Three Year to Candidacy Timeline in the Resource Room.

81

Available in the University Resource Room.

96

1.

To understand the major theoretical perspectives in leadership and organizational

change literature regarding:

a. the complexities of organizational leadership at the beginning of the 21

st

Century;

b. the rationale for and difficulties of creating new organizational forms; and

c. the strengths and weaknesses of different organizational change strategies in

relation to different organizational settings.

2.

To apply major theoretical perspectives in the leadership and organizational change

literature to real-life cases and to reflect on these applications.

3. To reflect and act on one‘s own ideas, analyses, values and personal and

organizational interests in relation to issues of participatory leadership, new

organizational forms and desired organizational change strategies.

The specific learning products required of students for the demonstration of learning in

this core area include in the first year (1) a reflective leadership essay, (2) a case study, and (3) a

leadership literature review; and in the second year, (4) an organizational change project.

Similarly, the overarching direction of the inquiry/research track is that students will

gain an understanding of scholarly inquiry that is both practice-based and theory based, and will

have the knowledge and methodological tools with which to carry out original research. Toward

that end, the specific learning goals for this area are:

1. To understand and critique research and scholarly literature in leadership and

organizational change.

2. To design original research that adds to the knowledge base of one‘s own field.

3.

To reflect and act on one‘s own ideas, analyses, and values as a researcher-practitioner.

The learning products required for the research track over three years include (1) a mini-

prospectus; (2) a research methods literature review; (3) a research redesign essay; (4) a

Dissertation Proposal, and (5) a Dissertation.

97

Where possible, the two core curriculum tracks complement and integrate with each

other. For example, student study ethics in research which is as applicable to the mini-

prospectus as to their organizational change project. Another example, is the end-of-first-year

leadership literature review, which serves both to demonstrate the student‘s familiarity with the

breadth of leadership literature and, at the same time, to demonstrate the student‘s familiarity

with research methods.

The other major axis of student learning revolves around the Individualized Curriculum,

which is developed by the student in consultation with the Mentor Faculty to address the criteria

and requirements of the Individualized Learning Plan and Individualized Learning Agreements

82

.

The Individualized Curriculum begins at the end of the second year with the development of the

Individualized Learning Plan, which offers the student the possibility to study in-depth areas in

which s/he desires content expertise. It is expected that these areas will focus on his/her

profession and professional practice.

A brief description of the learning products in the core and individualized curriculum can

be found in the Resource Room.

The Ph.D. in Leadership and Change is designed on an annual term basis. Thus,

the units awarded are calculated as annual units, not quarter or semester units. In

terms of an equivalency between these calculations, annual unit equals one semester

hour. To follow this calculation more fully, one semester hour is generally equivalent to

15 in-class hours and 30-45 study hours for a total of 60 hours per semester hour. This

is a 63-annual unit program (equivalent to 63 semester hours).

3.

Student learning is anchored in four intensive face-to-face residencies per year during the

three pre-candidacy years, and a cohort-based pro-seminar that holds students together during

inter-residency periods. The residencies, meeting quarterly and held at various Antioch

campuses, include orientation workshops, one-on-one and group advisor/advisee meetings, and

82

See Learner‘s Guide in University Resource Room.

98

seminars addressing the core curriculum in a variety of formats, from lecture, discussion, and

deep reading to hands-on experiential learning

83

. Some residency sessions are open to all

students from all cohorts, whereas other sessions are more appropriate to students at a particular

point in their learning process. While attendance at 12 residencies during the three pre-

Candidacy years is required of all students, these residencies are not, themselves, credit-bearing.

A record of attendance is maintained in the student‘s official file. All Core Faculty attend and

participate in all residencies.

The cohort-based Pro-seminar is conceived of as required learning activity in which

students discuss, integrate and make meaning of their learning. The Pro-seminar is rooted in the

core curricular themes and its purpose is (a) to prepare students for upcoming residencies and to

”debrief‘ students from residencies just past; (b) to expose the students to the variety of learning

tools that they will be using throughout the curriculum; (c) to deepen the student‘s experience of

the learning cycle (activity, reflection, learning, application); and, (d) to create an environment

of self- and group-initiated learning experiences. Each year of the Pro-seminar emphasizes one

of the three curriculum themes œ reflective learner, reflective practitioner/leader, and reflective

scholar. The Pro-seminar experience is achieved through synchronous and asynchronous

learning formats. In the synchronous environment students participate in faculty-facilitated

group discussion and student-only group discussions during each day of the program residencies.

In the asynchronous, on-line environment FirstClass software is the primary interface for student

contact.

4.

The program is competency-based, not course-based. This means that students

demonstrate competency (i.e. mastery) in Core and Individualized learning areas based on

established learning goals and criteria for satisfaction of these goals. Standards to which the

learning must aspire are rigorous, appropriate for doctoral level, and are clearly articulated by the

Program from the outset. Credit is awarded upon the student‘s successful completion of the

demonstration of competency (i.e. mastery) of the learning areas. All learning products are

evaluated by two faculty, the faculty content area expert and the student‘s Core Faculty Advisor.

83

Sample residency schedules are included in the Appendix. A complete set of residency schedules will be available

in the Resource Room. Pro-seminar syllabi are also available in the Resource Room.

99

While the first evaluator reviews the learning products to determine if the work satisfactorily

demonstrates mastery of the learning goals, the second evaluator, the Advisor, evaluates the

learning product in terms of the student‘s intellectual and scholarly development over time.

Faculty complete the evaluation of a student‘s learning product and submit it electronically to the

Registrar‘s Office and to the student simultaneously

84

. In addition, the Portfolio for

Advancement to Candidacy is reviewed by two program faculty as well as external faculty. The

Dissertation Committee includes four members, one of whom may be from outside the program.

5.

The program promotes a culture of mentoring in which students initiate their learning in

collaboration with Faculty Advisors and a network of approved Mentor Faculty, and in which

faculty collaborate fashion to support student learning. Learning is primarily student-initiated

and faculty-mentored. All students are assigned a Faculty Advisor from among the program‘s

Core Faculty upon admission to the program. Advisors maintain regular contact with their

advisees by phone, e-mail, and face-to-face at residencies. In addition, students select a Mentor

Faculty to guide their individualized learning areas. Core and Mentor Faculty work together with

the student as a learning team, supporting the student‘s successful and timely completion of the

program.

In this program, the role of these Faculty Advisors is to advise primarily around issues of

program requirements, the core curriculum, and the student‘s overall progress through the

program over time. As noted previously, Advisors are the second evaluators on all learning

products and in this way, they can track the student‘s growth over time. This ”two sets of eyes‘

approach to evaluation also encourages the program‘s faculty to calibrate each other and to

develop a shared understanding regarding standards and consistency in their application.

6.

The program models a commitment to the integration of theory and practice, within the

context of principles of ethical and participatory leadership practice. This is exemplified by the

requirement of the planning and implementation of an Organizational Change Project as well as

the requirement of a research-based Doctoral Dissertation. It is also exemplified in the fact that

all learning products have both a theory and reflection component. Another example is found in

84

Forms and electronic processes are available for review in the University Resource Room.

100

the trajectory of the inquiry/research track which begins from practice, students‘ own inquiry

into questions about their profession and work, rather than from abstract methods and

methodologies. A final example is in the design of residencies, in which students encounter a

range of sessions, some of which are more focused on theoretical understanding, others that

address learning based on experience, and still others that attempt to draw experience and theory

together.

7.

The Program is characterized by a unique networked learning community which, while

distanced, is also intensely collaborative. This paradox is manifest in virtually all aspects of the

program‘s design. On the student side, while students live all over the country, the program

places high value on peer learning, and has structured opportunities for student-initiated study

groups and joint demonstrations of learning products. Students also can present and seek

feedback on their works-in-progress at the Studio site of the FC desktop and their finished works

can be posted at the Gallery site. Another example of the student collaboration is evidenced in

the intensity of the cohort bonding, which is supported by the residency meetings and the pro-

seminar discussions.

In terms of the networked model and the collaborative relationships of faculty, although

faculty live all over the country, they meet face-to-face at quarterly day-long meetings to address

program policies, curriculum issues, and student assessment, in addition to bi-weekly two-hour

faculty conference calls. Faculty also hold an annual Spring retreat at which they determine

program priorities and individual contributions toward those goals.

In addition, faculty work as a team to build the program. In the case of the curriculum,

faculty have designed the course of study collaboratively and, in fact, while one core faculty

member has primary responsibility for a core track, a second faculty member functions as

support in that track. Further evidence of this collaboration can be found in the approach to

compensation which, in addition to base salary, faculty are compensated for achieving program

priorities as well as their individual achievements. The faculty annual evaluation process

includes peer review and group discussion around the program‘s priorities and individual

contributions to these goals. In this way, a culture of mutual accountability is being developed.

101

The Faculty. As indicated, the faculty model is as unique as the program‘s design and

curriculum. The faculty of the program demonstrate the experience, skills, scholarly record, and

requirements of doctoral-level faculty in terms of scholarship, teaching, and service. The Core

Faculty of this program all have national reputations and are senior scholars at the rank of full

professor. What is perhaps most distinctive about the faculty, however, is their commitment to

student learning, which is at the heart of the program. There are three distinct faculty roles in this

networked community. The program uses the same faculty ”employment‘ categories as the

University as a whole, although the particular responsibilities of each category reflect the

unusual nature of this program. The Core faculty, generally fulltime, function as the core of the

program in terms of governance, curriculum, and assessment. The program‘s Core faculty do

hold rank and have 10-month annual contracts. The program does not offer tenure. —Adjunct“

faculty in this program are the Mentor Faculty, hired on a per-student basis, to oversee

individualized learning plans. Visiting Faculty work as consultants advising the program‘s core

faculty on curriculum and assessment. Both Mentor and Visiting Faculty may be asked to guest

lecture if appropriate. Visiting Faculty, who work at other doctoral institutions, also serve on the

Portfolio Review Committee

85

.

The program is in the process of building its Core Faculty team. It began in September

2001 with 1.75 faculty FTE, and a first entering cohort of 13 students. At the time of the writing

of this self-study, the program has a Core Faculty FTE of 3.00 to a student FTE of 40. At this

writing, the program is initiating a search for two full-time core faculty to be hired in academic

year 2003-04. For each of the next three years, the Core Faculty will increase by 1.0 FTE, for a

total of 6 FTE for a projected 100-120 student FTE. In fact, it is the program‘s goal to hire two

Core Faculty in 2003-04, which would bring the projected faculty/student ratio next year to 5:65

(projected), or approximately 1:13. In addition, the program retains a 1.0 Library Faculty, to be

hired in Fall/Winter 2003

86

.

85

Generic faculty job descriptions are in the Resource Room.

86

See faculty vitas and publications in the University Resource Room.

102

All policies related to faculty are published in the faculty handbook.

87

Many of the

employment personnel policies are, in fact, University-wide policies. However, a number of the

program‘s faculty policies, while consistent with University-wide policy, have been designed to

address the particularities of this program. The development of many of the policies and

procedures have been the result of discussion by the founding faculty of the program. In

particular, we have tried to address faculty roles and performance evaluations in a fashion

consistent with the program‘s emphasis on collective responsibility. As well, the program has

had to develop policies regarding sabbatical and vacation that address the distinctive qualities of

this program‘s year-round model.

The Students: Admissions and Student Profile. Admission to the program is a selective

process (approximately 50% of applicants are offered admission at the time of this writing). A

Faculty Admissions Committee evaluates all applications. Applicants who proceed to the first

round are interviewed via phone by a member of the admissions committee. As part of the

application process, a complete record of transcripts is reviewed as well as a writing sample, in-

depth admissions essay, three letters of recommendation, and computer competency. The

selection process weighs factors such as the applicant‘s professional experience, capacity for

self-directed doctoral learning, academic skills and potential, and an interest in interdisciplinary

study and applied research. Applicants must demonstrate a strong potential for individual and

professional growth and an interest in being a socially engaged professional. Standardized tests

are not required for admission, although students may submit scores from the Graduate Record

Exam and/or Miller‘s Analogy Test with their application.

87

See Faculty Handbook, University Resource Room.

103

A profile of the program‘s first 75 applications (received in the program‘s first six

months) is instructive of the non-traditional nature of the student body.

Gender:

60% female

40% male

Age:

12% 20-29 years old

19% 30-39 years old

31% 40-49 years old

28% 50-59 years old

4%

over 60 years old

6%

did not identify

Ethnic/Racial Diversity:

53% Anglo

33% African American/African

4%

Asian-American/Asian/Pacific Island

3%

Latino/Hispanic

3%

Native American

4%

did not identify

Professional Sector:

40% Education

(20% K-12 Administration and a few teachers; 20% Higher Ed Administration)

43% Business/Corporate

17% Non-profits (administrators of community organizations, arts centers,

foundations)

Location:

47% Midwest

25% West/Northwest

17% East/Northeast

8%

South

3%

International

104

III. Assessment

The program has developed and incorporated an array of assessment components to

provide continuous evaluation of the program‘s features and student learning.

Student Learning. As with all Antioch University programs, student learning is evaluated

using narrative evaluations rather than grades. All individual student-learning products in the

Ph.D. Program are evaluated by two-program faculty

88

.

Core Faculty, as a whole, review each student‘s progress annually. Advisors prepare

summary reviews of their advisees‘ work to date and these are shared and discussed with the

faculty team as a whole. In this way, Core Faculty review issues of satisfactory academic

progress, timeliness and quality of work of individual students and also of the cohort group as a

whole. Questions most pertinent at these annual meetings are: Do students master each of the

competencies set forth? Do they achieve them on schedule? Which seem to give students as a

whole the most and least trouble? What accounts for this? How much variability exists in student

accomplishment? To what extent might this be traceable to students‘ entering characteristics? To

what extent does this require modification(s) in residency sessions? The first such annual review

of students‘ progress will occur in Summer 2002 as the faculty look at the first term of the

entering class

89

.

In terms of the student learning over time, the faculty have determined that they are most

interested in examining the effectiveness of the Core Curriculum experience in preparing

students for the Individualized Curricula, whether and how students integrate reflection into their

own professional practices, and what are the most and least powerful learning experiences.

Sources of evidence for these determinations will be:

Student portfolios. Students are required to maintain portfolios of their best work, including

their demonstrations of both Core and Individual competencies. When submitted for review at

88

Samples of faculty evaluations of student work are in the University Resource Room.

89

Survey results are in the University Resource Room.

105

the time of advancement to candidacy, these portfolios contain an integrative reflective essay in

which students assess their entire learning experience to that point. They are expected to identify

major accomplishments, watershed learning experiences and personal insights, to show how

individual program components knit together and relate to individual learning goals, and to

demonstrate how their learning products have met curricular requirements. Students will be

expected to write coherently about how their learning related to their professional practice, and

compellingly about how they are now ready to undertake a dissertation.

This is a critical juncture in the students‘ doctoral studies. These portfolios are reviewed

by a team of Core and Visiting (external) Faculty and the team‘s written review of each Portfolio

will be shared with the Program Director who will in turn share at the annual faculty review.

Student evaluation forms: Students evaluate virtually every aspect of the program‘s curriculum

and delivery including each residency, as well as advisor and mentor relationships. These

evaluations are submitted to the Program Director, who aggregates the data where appropriate

and shares with the faculty at regular intervals. Individually relevant data, such as that on

advising and mentoring, is also shared with the respective faculty member. This feedback has

already had an impact on the design of residencies and the pro-seminar, where modifications

were made to the pro-seminar focus for Cohort 1 to tie it more closely with the learning

products

90

.

Faculty Performance. Given this unique faculty model, the program must be attentive to

examining faculty roles and both individual and team performance. Among the questions most

pressing in this examination are: (1) How does the program support individual faculty goals as

well as the unit‘s priorities? (2) How accessible and responsive are faculty at a distance? How

effective is the networked faculty model? To what extent does it help or hinder student learning?

and (3) How well does this model provide opportunities for faculty governance and

colleagueship?

90

Student evaluation forms are in the University Resource Room.

106

There are a number of sources of evidence.

Faculty job descriptions and evaluations: Evidence of individual contributions to unit priorities

can be found in the individualized job descriptions, which are partly the product of peer

conversations about the year‘s priorities. Evidence of the accomplishment of both individual and

unit priorities can be found in the faculty member‘s year-end annual evaluation, which includes

the personal self-evaluation of achievement as well as a peer conversation about contributions

91

.

Student evaluations of faculty: Evidence of the accessibility and responsiveness of faculty can

be found in the student evaluations of residencies and in the evaluation of their advisors. In both

formats, students are asked to address issues of timeliness, availability, responsiveness and

quality of feedback where appropriate. These forms are submitted to the Program Office which

in turn shares the data in the aggregate with the full faculty, and shares relevant individual

information with the respective faculty.

Program‘s implementation: As a start-up program in which virtually every aspect of student

learning and faculty life must be designed from scratch, evidence of faculty governance and

colleagueship can also be found in the very success of student learning and the effectiveness of

the program‘s features.

Program Features

Given the distinctive characteristics of this distanced learning community, it is important

to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the program, particularly as it supports student

learning. Among the questions that the program believes are important to assess are:

To what extent is the Program attracting an appropriately diverse range of students?

To what extent do admissions decisions honor this diversity without compromising academic

standards?

In what ways does the program support, or not support, effective student learning?

Do students have sufficient access to faculty members and mentors?

91

Job descriptions and the first year‘s year-end evaluations are in the University Resource Room.

107

Are students able to access needed support services at a distance?

Are technology resources, in particular, deployed effectively?

Do the library resources support doctoral student research needs effectively?

How do student networks and other linked communication help or hinder learning?

Does the sum total of student learning add up to all that is expected of practicing scholar-

practitioners with a Ph.D. in Leadership and Change?

Where are the gaps, if any?

Which parts of the curriculum receive too much, or too little, emphasis?

Sources of evidence to address the assessment of program features are varied and include:

Data on applicant and student body. Monitoring data on both applications and on matriculate

students provides information on the program‘s ability to attract and retain an appropriately

diverse range of students. Initial data, as shared earlier in terms of the profile of the first 75

applications, indicates a wide range of diversity, especially in terms of age, ethnicity,

professional affinities, and geography.

Student Satisfaction surveys. Students will complete both end-of-residency and end-of-year

evaluations of their learning experiences. They will respond to questions about faculty and

program quality, support services, facilities, and logistics. Each summer residency will also

include an oral group debriefing session with students

92

.

Program appraisal by external educators. External faculty who have been involved in Portfolio

Reviews will be asked to share with the program their assessment of the quality of the student‘s

doctoral level preparedness as scholar-practitioners based on their review of the compilation of

student work and integrative essay. The first group of students are expected to petition for

advancement to candidacy in Summer 2004.

Post-graduation surveys of alumni and employers. The Program expects to conduct a mail-out

survey of former students and their organizations, assessing the impacts the Program had on both

92

Completed surveys, from summer 2002, are available for review in the University Resource Room.

108

the person and the organization to which they belong (if any). Obviously, the first of these post-

graduation surveys will not occur until sometime in 2005.

IV. Looking Into the Future

The program admits a 25- to 30-person cohort annually, with each year‘s opening

residency held in the Summer in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Based on that growth rate, and

projecting a 35-40% attrition rate, at its full capacity the program will have 100-125 FTE

students in five years, with approximately 20-25 of those students in the dissertation writing

stage. By that time, the program will have six fulltime faculty FTE, a cadre of close to 50

approved Mentor Faculty , and a small group of select Visiting Faculty. The program will have a

small, efficient Yellow Springs office and will continue to utilize and pay for services obtained

from campuses of the University. The program will not only be self-sustaining, it will also be

able to contribute to the University‘s growth by paying its share of overhead. It will also

contribute to the University‘s national visibility and innovation by hiring and retaining excellent

faculty with national reputations, by diversifying its student body and preparing high quality

Ph.D.‘s who are committed to scholar-practitioner change in their professions.

The program faces a series of reviews during the next several years. This NCA Review

is but one of a series of upcoming reviews of this new and distinctive doctoral program. The

Ph.D. program will undergo the Antioch University internal program review in 2003-04, and will

be reviewed by the Ohio Board of Regents at the conclusion of the three-year provisional

approval period, also in 2003-04.

As we look to that future, we are prompted to ask several key questions that this NCA

Review may explore with us.

1) As a competency-based program for working professionals, we ”live‘ in the tension of

upholding the importance of rigorous scholarship while supporting individual creativity and

reflective practice. There are no absolutes in the resolution of these tensions, which we

believe are healthy and at the core of the program‘s dynamism. Are there additional ways to

work in the midst of these tensions?

109

2) The program has developed a multi-layered approach to program assessment and the

assessment of student learning as outlined in the following chapter. Given the distinctive

nature of this program, gathering the relevant data on student learning, faculty work, and

program effectiveness is extremely important. Have we addressed all the pertinent questions

or are there others that would be worth examining?

111

Chapter 8

Planning and Effectiveness

NCA Criterion Four: Antioch University can continue to accomplish its

purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness.

112

P

LANNING

A

CROSS THE

U

NIVERSITY

Introduction. Future planning has taken multiple forms at Antioch in recent years.

1) A University Plan was developed in 1998/99 and passed by Board resolution in

June 1999, with implementation to begin in 2000. That plan, with ten stated goals,

became one basis for academic and financial planning across the University in

subsequent years. (See Appendix D.)

2) Each of the non-residential campuses of the University developed strategic plans,

linked to the University Plan, that were finalized in the Spring of 2000 and

currently serve as a framework for planned growth, program development, and

new campus initiatives. (See Appendix D.)

3) Antioch College developed its five-year strategic plan in 1997. A new strategic

planning process will be implemented in the coming year under the leadership of

the new College president. One goal of the 1997 plan was the initiation of a

Capital Campaign for the College. This led to a feasibility study, completed in

2001, which in turn identified major investment priorities for the College. The

Capital Campaign is currently in the quiet phase and has to date raised

$21,000,000 in gifts and pledges.

4) A draft of an Antioch University Technology Plan was generated in 2000, and has

served as a working outline for on-going planning and assessment of technology

needs. In Spring 2002, Information Technology in Yellow Springs was

consolidated among Antioch College, Antioch University administration, and

Antioch University McGregor. In July 2002, all technology resource managers

across the University held a two-day retreat in Yellow Springs to further

technology planning and coordination efforts

93

.

5) The Antioch University Board of Trustees established a committee structure and

has charged this group with researching areas of strong interest and importance to

the University. This group, The Future of Antioch Task Force, is focusing on four

93

Minutes, including recommendations, from this retreat are available in the University Resource Room.

113

top priorities identified jointly by the University Leadership Council and the

Board of Trustees. These priorities 1) cooperation and collaboration across the

University in support of the University mission, 2) program growth and

innovation, 3) build-up of University infrastructure and capacity, and 4)

promotion of the University‘s reputation and visibility. Each topic area will be

studied by a sub-committee with cross representation from the Board, the ULC,

campus committees, alumni, and community representation. Findings, results, and

conclusions are expected by Spring 2003.

These five areas of activity are the most recent organized efforts to plan for the future in

what has become an ongoing planning environment.

The University Plan. Antioch‘s second University Chancellor, Dr. James Hall, took office in

January 1998. Among Chancellor Hall‘s first initiatives was to put into place an ad hoc

University-wide planning committee structure. With representation from all campuses, faculty,

staff, and administration, six study groups were convened with emphases on the following:

vision and mission; students and academic programs; professional development; fiscal modeling;

fund development; and facilities, technology and infrastructure. Throughout 1998, these groups

studied the internal and external factors bearing on these topical areas, current trends and

practices in higher education, and conducted periodic discussion meetings via teleconferencing.

In February 1999, all members of the strategic planning sub-committees met at Antioch

University Seattle, following an annual faculty conference, and shared their findings with the

University community. Between February and June of that year, the University Leadership

Council (ULC) with input from sub-groups of the Board of Trustees and additional feedback

from the planning groups, refined the recommendations and consolidated them into ten

University strategic goals. These priorities are serving as planning tools for the period 2000 to

2005 and are identified below.

1) Revision, as appropriate, of the institutional vision and mission.

2) Enhance Antioch University‘s regional and national visibility.

3) Increase and diversify the Antioch student body.

4) Broaden program offerings including University-wide offerings and campus linkages.

114

5) Implement comprehensive assessment practices of student learning and program

effectiveness.

6) Enhance recruitment, retention, and support of highly qualified faculty and staff.

7) Strengthen the University‘s fiscal structure, reserves, and investment capacity.

8) Increase fund development capacity for each campus.

9) Create and further upgrade the University‘s technology infrastructure.

10) Plan and project space needs, renovation, and capital fund requirements.

The Antioch University Board of Trustees approved The Antioch Idea, Imagination and

Innovation Since 1852: Strategic Plan 2000 œ 2005 at its annual meeting in Yellow Springs in

June 1999. In July 1999, the University Leadership Council and Academic Deans met in Santa

Fe, New Mexico, for the annual summer retreat. The ULC and Deans worked with consultant

Mike Little to identify those strategic University goals that held the greatest promise to

—leverage“ the University. High leverage goals were thought of as those with the highest return

on investment in a resource-restricted environment. At the end of three days of meetings and

discussion the five —high leverage“ goals to be given priority across the University were:

B bring greater regional and national visibility to Antioch,

B diversify academic programs,

B attract and retain quality faculty and staff,

B build development capacity, and

B invest in technology.

It was agreed that each campus would address these five issues in their respective

strategic planning and budgeting processes in order to advance each goal. It was understood that

each campus would pursue each goal at its own pace and in ways consistent with the priorities of

its campus and local constituencies.

Campus Strategic Plans. Informed by the University strategic goals and with the —high

leverage“ goals identified at the summer retreat in mind, each of the non-residential campuses

developed campus-based strategic plans during the 1999/00 academic year with final drafts

completed in the spring. The Antioch College strategic plan predates the University plan, but

115

there are clear common goals there as well. The following section details how each campus

proceeded to incorporate the high leverage goals into their planning process and the

accomplishments in each area of the last two years.

—High Leverage“ Goals and Accomplishments

University Plan: Goal 2 - Enhanced Visibility for Antioch University

Visibility for the University and its campuses can take many forms and may be directed

to multiple constituencies. In each of these high-leverage areas, Antioch‘s campuses make

strategic decisions from year to year on where to invest resources and energies. Some years the

priority may be alumni engagement, in others outreach to new student groups. Variation by

campus is assumed and may occur at different points in the five-year planning period.

In its planning, Antioch Seattle stated as its fourth goal —community engagement.“

Included under this goal was to build a strong board of visitors, the creation and implementation

of a strong public relations plan, develop partnerships and alliances, and encouragement of

students to act as ambassadors.

Antioch Southern California‘s fourth stated goal was to enhance regional visibility and

recognition including the development of a marketing plan and a plan for community outreach.

The Antioch New England campus clustered goals into sections of its plan with each

cluster of goals presented as responses to key questions. Section Six of the ANE plan asked how

the campus could best identify and reach new markets. Goal statements included exploration of

commercial radio spots for specific programs, continuing to highlight the ANE Speakers Series,

a plan for the 38

th

anniversary celebration, continued support for faculty conference

presentations, directing more resources to the public relations budget, and seeking more press

coverage.

116

Within its enrollment management goals, Antioch University McGregor seeks to develop

a new marketing plan that promotes programs and services to appropriate populations, and to

implement a communications strategy that reaches all stakeholders in a consistent professional

manner. In Admissions they intend to increase outreach to area human resource directors,

develop and implement on-line applications and increase application access on the Web.

Due to differences in planning calendars, Antioch College‘s work in the five high

leverage goal areas is more retrospective of accomplishments than future planning at this time. In

the area of national visibility, the two most significant areas of accomplishment for the College

are in the areas of admissions and assessment of student achievement. In FY 1998 the College

invested significantly more resources than previous years in outreach to high school sophomores

and juniors with the explicit goal of getting Antioch‘s name into high schools and high school

students‘ heads much earlier in the college selection decision-making process. This has resulted

in substantially more inquiries. Second, the College has participated in the National Survey of

Student Engagement for the past two years resulting in measures of student engagement and

indirect measures of achievement that are among the highest in the country among liberal arts

colleges. These results have brought some national attention to Antioch College.

The Seattle campus has invested considerable time in cultivating the media as part of its

efforts to increase visibility, sponsoring numerous tables at the various Seattle organizational

luncheons, delivering academic forums open to the public, and having Board of Visitors

members host workshops open to the public. The campus recently received a Gates Foundation

grant to establish early college models in high schools that serve the Native American

communities, which has brought considerable national and local press attention to Antioch

Seattle. The president, in collaboration with Tom Van Ark of the Gates Foundation, has had an

op-ed piece published in the Seattle Times concerning the status of public education, spoke at a

national press conference in New York City, and was asked to talk about this topic at the June

2002 ACE National Women‘s President‘s Conference in Washington, D.C. The directors of

academic programs have been urged to deliver public forums on topics highlighting and related

to their areas of expertise. For example, faculty in the Center for Creative Change have presented

forums regarding organizational change while Board of Visitors members have designed and

117

hosted workshops on —Religion in Public Schools“ and —Race and the Media.“ All of these

programs were advertised to the public and had strong attendance. Review of the Seattle

advertising budget over the last four years reveals a measurable increase with greater diversity in

the types of ads and their placement.

University Plan: Goal 4 œ Extend, Strengthen, and Diversity Academic

Programs

As in 1993, Antioch‘s non-residential campuses continue to have masters level programs

in education, management, and psychology. Each of these areas has seen enrollments rise and

fall over the past ten years. Beginning in 1995, it was evident that master‘s level psychology

degrees were losing ground in student demand, particularly on the west coast. Enrollments in

these programs have since leveled out but at a lower base than the peak year of 1994.

Management degrees, which have varied in emphases on each of the campuses, began to show

declines at all three west coast programs after 1997. Some of these programs have since

stabilized; others have not. Education enrollments have risen sharply on all four non-residential

campuses and new certification and licensure programming has been developed and

implemented in response to demand. These programs, however, are among the most labor

intensive and expensive to operate and are capped on most campuses. Given these trends, it

became evident that Antioch University would benefit greatly and could further its mission by

broadening its program base and diversifying its offerings.

Since the time of the last review in 1993, a number of degree offerings are new. Antioch

Southern California began its Master‘s of Arts in Creative Writing in 1997, and a Master‘s of

Arts in Education in 1998. Antioch University McGregor reorganized its Individualized Master‘s

of Arts such that one of its tracks, Conflict Resolution, was broken out as a free-standing new

degree offering; another, Intercultural Relations, was discontinued. McGregor‘s Teacher

Certification program began in 1996. Seattle introduced new programs in Management, Art

Therapy, and a BA with Teacher Certification. And, as indicated, both of Antioch‘s Ph.D.

degrees (Environmental Studies, and Leadership and Change) are new since the last review.

118

Program activity, including expansion or enhancement of existing programs and

development of new programs, occurs at Antioch in a variety of ways. One goal of the

University Strategic Plan was to begin to explore University-wide programming, which is to say

programs not tied to any single campus, collaborations across campuses, or programs that draw

on resources from two or more campuses. Progress was made in two programmatic areas.

Foremost, in January of 2002, Antioch University held the first residency for its newly developed

Ph.D. in Leadership and Change, the culmination of a five-year development process

94

. The first

cohort of admitted students numbered 11. A second cohort, beginning Summer 2002, enrolled 30

students. This program, as part of this comprehensive review, is presented in some detail in

Chapter 7 of this Self-study. Another exploratory area of University-wide programming was in

the area of on-line course offerings. Faculty from Antioch Southern California‘s two regional

campuses, Antioch Seattle, and Antioch College all participated in training for on-line teaching,

and offered courses in Spring 2001, Fall 2001, and Winter 2001/02 open to students from all

campuses. These offerings were supported by University funds for program development (see

Innovation Fund below).

Another promising new program area is a community college administration track within

the Master‘s in Management degree program at Antioch University McGregor. Exploration is

underway for other new degree offerings on all campuses.

University Innovation Fund. In an effort to seed and support program innovation and

development, the University Leadership Council put into effect a University program innovation

fund in 1999. These funds were not intended to replace campus funding of development effort,

but to offer modest supplemental support for promising ideas. The fund operated for two years

and was then suspended in FY 2002 due to constricting budgets. A call for proposals went out to

all campuses in Fall 2000, and again in Fall 2001, with a review by academic deans each winter

resulting in funding allocated to promising proposals. Proposals could be for entirely new

program development ideas, or enhancement of existing programs by extension or addition of

new tracks or concentrations. The following proposals received University funding.

94

See Chapter 7.

119

2001

B Antioch Seattle reorganized four programs (Environment and Community, Management,

Organizational Psychology, and Whole Systems Design) into what is now called the

Center for Creative Change in order to support interdisciplinary program development

and teaching;

B Antioch Southern California further developed technological enhancements for low

residency BA and MA programs;

B Antioch University McGregor conducted a feasibility study for a community college

administration track within the management program;

B Antioch Southern California‘s MA in Education received funding for development of a

specialized track;

B Antioch College worked to strengthen ties with co-op employers;

B Faculty from the three west coast campuses trained in on-line course delivery and

offered courses.

2002

B Antioch Seattle developed its educators professional certification;

B Antioch McGregor worked on program development for the community college

administrators track within its management program;

B Antioch New England developed a program in elder care management;

B Antioch New England also established a Coalition of Essential Schools Regional Center

in partnership with Keene State University;

B Antioch College further enhanced the co-op program and extended the number of

available co-op jobs;

B The MA in Education/Teacher Certification program at Antioch Los Angeles provided

professional development workshops for educators;

B The West Coast campuses and the College participated in on-line faculty training and

course development.

Evaluation of Effectiveness. The Innovation Fund was funded modestly at $50,000 in

2000/2001. A call for proposals elicited five requests for funds. It was decided, given the

120

relatively small pool of money available, to fund all five at some level. The following year

$100,000 in funds were made available. Eleven proposals were submitted in response to the call

for proposals. The academic deans from all campuses participated in a thorough review of the

proposals, prioritized them, and recommended to the University Leadership Council that the top

seven be funded.

In September 2000, all of those funded in the first round of awards submitted final reports

of progress and accomplishment. Final progress and accomplishment reports on the second

round of awards were submitted in September 2001

95

. The Innovation Fund was suspended for

2002/03 due to budget restrictions. The suspension decision was not a reflection on the quality of

work completed with assistance from the fund. A review of the final reports shows a wide range

of accomplishment. Academic Deans across the University felt this was money well spent. An

added benefit of the fund was to increase awareness of the University role in institutional

development and academic work among all campus constituencies. The cross-campus on-line

collaboration in particular served to demonstrate how future collaborative enterprises might be

conducted.

University Plan: Goal 6- Recruit and Retain Quality Faculty and Staff

One of the goals of the University Plan is to recruit and retain quality faculty. Both at the

campus and university levels, this goal has been taken seriously. Progress on its achievement

has been mixed and this section will first present the successes and then comment on the

continuing challenges.

Recent searches at a number of our campuses have demonstrated the institution‘s ability

to attract high quality faculty with national reputations. Antioch New England‘s Ph.D. in

Environmental Studies, Antioch Los Angeles‘s MFA in Creative Writing, and the University‘s

new Ph.D. in Leadership & Change are three examples where individuals with national

reputations and extensive publications/research have been attracted to Antioch. The Ph.D. in

Leadership‘s two founding Core Faculty, in fact, both left tenured full professorships at top

institutions, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Richmond, to join this

95

Reports are available in the University Resource Room.

121

exciting new program. The attraction was the distinctive design, the unusual faculty roles and

opportunities, and the legacy of Antioch. In the case of LA‘s MFA, the new program has gone

from start-up to a competitive nationally known low-residency program, largely because of the

reputations of its roster of high quality and extensively published writers/artists. A recent

Program Review site visit highlighted the importance of this roster in attracting other faculty

and, of course, in attracting students.

All searches for Core Faculty (except in very rare exceptions requiring the approval of a

campus president) involve open, national searches. In addition to the traditional process

involving posting the vacancy in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a number of campuses

pursue extensive efforts to increase the diversity of pools through more varied placement of

announcements and the mining of student, board and community networks. The College and

Antioch Seattle, for example, both have rather extensive search guidelines to this effort. Our

campuses report that they are generally successful in faculty searches, regularly securing the top

candidates in their pools. More detailed information can be gleaned from the campus self-

studies.

Faculty retention, particularly in the case of the institution‘s Core Faculty, remains one of

Antioch‘s successes. We continue to retain excellent, committed faculty at the non-residential

campuses in high numbers, despite the lack of tenure at these campuses. The College has

experienced some turnover in the past few years as a relatively large group of new junior faculty

who entered the system at a time of rapid growth in faculty have gone through the normal faculty

promotion and tenure processes. Details of campus-based faculty retention rates can be found in

campus self-studies.

While recruiting, hiring and retaining high quality faculty has its successes, as

demonstrated above, each area also has its challenges and the University‘s strategic goal

continues to be one towards which we strive.

In terms of recruitment, while we have been successful in attracting high quality faculty

to a number of our programs, this is not absolute. Some campuses find themselves running

academic searches over several times and often, the reason for candidate‘s rejections of offers is

122

because they do not find the salaries to be competitive. In addition, campus reports demonstrate

that diversity of the Core Faculty has not increased significantly at most campuses during this

period.

As mentioned earlier in this document, while salaries have increased slightly for most

years at all campuses throughout the period under review, the baseline faculty salary ranges are

generally in the lower quartile of competitive institutions. This is something each campus is

committed to improving. Perhaps the most notable improvement was the College‘s significant

increases for several years to raise its faculty salaries. However, all campuses‘ efforts were

stalled during the most recent financial belt-tightening. We are hopeful that progress at a

quickened rate can now take place. Toward that goal, the ULC initiated this year a University-

wide review of faculty salary and compensation packages. At the same time, each campus in

2002-03 provided between a 2-4% increase. As with other aspects of this report, the campus

self-studies provide more specific detail.

Another issue which many Antioch campuses are struggling with is the —graying of the

faculty.“ While not an uncommon situation facing many institutions of higher education today,

it is particularly challenging at a small institution like Antioch, which does not generally have the

opportunity to fill large numbers of new positions and, as noted earlier, benefits from strong

retention of existent Core Faculty.

University Plan: Goal 8 - Strengthen University Fund Development

The 2000 œ 2005 University Plan identified a series of objectives designed to build the

capacity for fundraising across the University. These objectives included raising awareness and

establishing the importance of fund development on each campus, building campus Boards of

Visitors, maintaining active alumni organizations, and identifying targets, goals and plans for

each campus. Each campus has pursued these general objectives in its own way and according to

its own development timelines.

The needs and goals of the College have been long understood. Throughout the nineties,

much of the groundwork for a second capital campaign was being laid. The College Strategic

Plan, completed in 1997, clearly identified building up of endowment in conjunction with

123

increasing enrollments as the top priorities for the campus. Endowment growth for the College is

understood not only to be a critical College goal, but a clear University goal. Endowment

growth, which would contribute to stabilizing the College‘s financial structure, would also

relieve considerable pressure from the non-residential campus budgets.

In June 1999, Ketchum Inc., the firm retained to conduct the feasibility study for the

College Campaign, presented its results to the Board of Trustees

96

. Three Ketchum consultants

conducted 67 personal interviews in April and May of 2001. Interviews were conducted with

board members, former board members, potential top donors, alumni, and members of the

University leadership. The interview format was designed to elicit advice, impressions, opinions,

the availability of gifts that would be sought, the viability of a campaign, and identification of

possible leaders and volunteers. In their report to the Board, Ketchum identified positive factors

as well as factors to be overcome in order to insure a successful campaign. On balance,

conditions favored a campaign, and Ketchum recommended that Antioch immediately proceed

with a major endowment campaign for the College. Currently, during the initial quiet phase, the

infrastructure is being built to sustain a four- to five-year effort and $21,000,000 in contributions

and pledges has been obtained to date. The success of the quiet phase will determine the overall

goal of the campaign. In preparing the case statement for the campaign, College funding

priorities were identified. Top priorities include student scholarship funding, endowed

professorships and faculty development funding, library endowment, and investment and

improvement in facilities, especially the library, the science building, and technology

infrastructure.

In Fall of 2000, Antioch New England Graduate School (ANE) hired a full time

professional to serve as Special Assistant to the President for Development and Alumni and

External Relations. The ANE annual fund now stands at about $75,000 a year. The Board of

Trustees has recently approved ANE‘s first capital campaign effort. Campaign funds would be

directed toward scholarships, teaching fellowships and assistantships, technology infrastructure,

and capital needs. A firm campaign goal has not yet been established but at this time at least

96

See —A Special Report on the Fund-Raising Potential of Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio,“ conducted by

Ketchum, Inc., in the University Resource Room.

124

three million appears feasible. The structure for the campaign is being put in place and the quiet

phase will proceed through October 2002.

Antioch University Seattle has been gradually building its development staff and

capabilities over the past three years. The staff currently stands at four including a director of

development, director of integrated marketing, an administrative assistant, and a dean of

University relations. Next they intend to fund a position for alumni relations. Alumni recruitment

and interest has increased and the University relations office produces quarterly alumni

newsletters. In addition, the office hosts a December and June celebration for new graduates to

which all alumni are invited. Antioch Seattle has an active Board of Visitors whose membership

currently stands at ten. The Board meets quarterly. The Board has been active in growing the

scholarship endowment fund, which was started three years ago and currently stands at $23,000.

In 2002, an additional $6,000 was raised in unrestricted scholarship money. The annual fund is

$30,000. National attention came to the campus with an award of a $3,000,000 five-year grant

from the Gates Foundation and a $1.5 million five-year grant from the Kellogg Foundation to

establish early college models at high schools that serve Native American communities in

Washington State. The campus is working on establishing contacts with donor prospects with the

goal of increasing annual giving and both unrestricted and major restricted gifts.

In 1999, the newly appointed president of Antioch University McGregor identified

alumni and community outreach as a top priority. The following year a fulltime professional

development director was hired. The major focus of this office is to increase gift giving to the

campus. McGregor has an active Board of Visitors including many leaders from the Dayton

business community.

Antioch Southern California‘s two regional campuses are just beginning to build

development capacity and infrastructure. The Los Angeles campus has been successful in

obtaining a number of considerable gifts for program development. Santa Barbara recently

received $270,000 out of a one million dollar partnership grant. They have used those funds to

hire an alumni affairs staff person and an executive assistant.

125

University Plan: Goal 9 - Invest in Technology

Following Board approval of the University Strategic Plan, a technology task force

representing the University offices and the campuses was appointed. This task force began its

work in 1999 and produced a working plan in 2000. The plan includes internal and external

environmental analyses, user survey results, a historical overview of technology capability and

usage at Antioch University, and specific plans and recommendations by campus and for the

University. Also for the purposes of technology planning, beginning in 1997, the University

initiated a process of developing a five-year capital budget to be updated annually

97

. The purpose

was to formalize planning for major acquisitions over a period longer than a single year. This

necessitated a revision of budgeting processes on the campuses and does not yet have the

structure and involvement initially intended, though each year brings some improvement. The

Five-Year Capital Budget deals primarily with facilities and technology. It is assumed that these

two areas will account for the largest share of capital expenditures for the foreseeable future.

These two documents, the Technology Plan and the Five-Year Capital Budget combined, serve

as a roadmap for technology investment, upgrading, and planning.

Accomplishment Highlights. In 1998/99, Antioch College brought Olive Kettering Library on-

line and made connections to OPAL and OhioLink fully operational. At that time, one-third of

the faculty were not yet networked, and the dormitories were only partially wired. The following

year the College wired the Union building, Mills Hall, and the Science Building. They also

upgraded student instructional support, library computer labs, and further upgraded faculty and

administrative computing facilities.

In 2000/01, Antioch New England invested approximately $18,000 in computer and

software replacement and upgrades. They also began leasing to meet new needs. They

outsourced the email system and hired additional personnel support. Investments in technology

are projected to increase at a rate of 20-30% over the course of the capital plan.

97

See the Five-Year Capital Budget documents for the last four years in the University Resource Room.

126

In 1999, Antioch University McGregor obtained its own dedicated Internet connection to

provide faster and better service to students. In 2000, McGregor completely renovated its

education and multimedia lab. Twenty new iMac computers were installed with a laser printer

and mobile instruction presentation cart and LCD projector. They also set up a new computer lab

with 13 IBM PCs, a mobile instruction cart and LCD projector. In 2001, McGregor obtained a

web-based course delivery system and joined the Ohio WebCT Consortium. They currently

deliver on-line graduate courses through this format.

Since the last NCA review, Southern California has obtained desktop computers for all

faculty and linked them to area networks maintained by each campus. Each campus has

developed computer laboratories that are used by students for bibliographic searches and other

coursework. The labs as well as some classrooms are equipped with Internet access and

projection devices. Some faculty have obtained training for on-line instruction and some courses

are being taught on-line.

At Antioch University Seattle, all faculty and staff have a desktop computer linked to an

area network. The campus has expanded their computer lab and established a separate computer

classroom, both of which were enlarged with the remodeling done in 2001. The full-service lab

contains 14 computers for student use, all networked with high-speed Internet access and laser

printing. There are two high-end graphics stations with scanners and software for graphics and

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

speed Internet access. This classroom can accommodate 22 students. There is also a mobile

projector and laptop stations for use in presentations in any classroom in the building. All

students are given accounts on First Class, the email and conferencing system, which provides

for internal communication, on-line dialogue and information sharing for classes, and student

documentation through personal homepages. Students are trained in its use, and different

programs utilize the functionality of the system depending on their unique needs.

As part of the decentralization plan initiated in 1994, the University administration

converted to Datatel in 1997 as a common system-wide means of integrating accounting,

budgeting, human relations, admissions, financial aid, registrar, and student accounts. It has

127

taken some time for all campuses to become comfortable and effective in using the system and

though successful overall, training needs remain. The University administration also uses First

Class as an emailing and conferencing system.

Conclusion. Antioch has made great strides in technology since the last NCA review. By

normative standards it is not, and does not aspire to be, a high-tech university. It lacks the

sophistication and infrastructure that many universities developed throughout the nineties. The

University is committed to using technology in ways that are aligned with its mission and values.

Technology is understood to be a critical component of teaching and learning today, and

Antioch‘s overall goal is to meet the expectations of its students and compete with peer

institutions while staying true to its mission.

A review of our technology plan and capital budgets will reveal that we are not yet where

we would like to be or feel we need to be. Yet we have clarified for ourselves what our goals are,

have made initial incremental progress in achieving those goals, and now seek to obtain

additional outside funding sources and opportunities to continue to make more significant

progress.

129

Chapter 9

Institutional Integrity

NCA Criterion Five: Antioch University demonstrates integrity in its practices

and relationships.

130

Each campus Self-study describes campus-relevant institutional integrity issues such as

policies and procedures bearing on behavioral norms and expectations and dealings with

students, employees, other institutional entities and constituencies. As part of this self-study

process, campuses conducted an internal review of policies, practices and procedures as they

related to questions of integrity. Campus self-studies should be referenced for these reviews.

In addition to these recent local reviews, Martin, Browne, Hull & Harper, Antioch

University general legal counsel, were retained for the purposes of conducting audits of the

human resources and academic operations of the University. These audits were done in phases

between 1999 and 2001. Phase I addressed human resource functions including job descriptions

and hiring procedures, compensation and benefits, non-discrimination and affirmative action,

health and safety, employee relations and communications, and files and record-keeping,

Phase II included sections on accreditation status, licensure and authorization to offer

degrees and credit, grading and evaluation policies and practices, collaborations and affiliations

with other entities, and faculty-student relationships. For each phase, campuses completed

extensive questionnaires and provided supplemental documentation. These audits were done as

an assessment of campus practices in dealings with their constituencies, to determine needs of

the campuses, and identify risk. They were conducted under confidential attorney-client

privilege. Review and critique followed submission of the materials with follow-up as

appropriate.

Antioch University Board members, upon election to the Board and annually thereafter,

complete a conflict of interest disclosure form and are bound to comply with the University

Conflicts of Interest Policy prohibiting pecuniary benefit transactions between Trustees and the

University. This practice insures that Trustees of the institution are autonomous actors and

protects the integrity of the institution.

131

Human Resources policies and procedures of Antioch University and each of its

campuses comply with appropriate federal, state, and local laws, regulations and statutes

(including the Family Medical Leave Act, The Higher Education Act of 1992, and the Fair Labor

Standards Act). The Antioch University equal employment and non-discrimination policy is

displayed on the University web page, on all job application forms, and on numerous University

publications and notices. The Antioch University Human Resources Policies and Procedures

Manual was most recently reviewed and revised in 1997

98

. All policies in the manual are Board

approved and apply to all units of the University except where otherwise specified in the

policies. Some University policies explicitly state which campuses or units the policy applies to,

or who is exempted. Antioch campuses may develop local policies that supercede University-

wide policies; however, all local policies are subject to Board approval. In some instances,

University policies specify broader parameters within which local policies may be developed and

where in some instances local policy development is expected.

University policy specifies hiring practices and processes and the expectations for

employee evaluation. Grievance and appeals processes are outlined, up to and including final

appeal to the University Chancellor. In the two-year period leading up to the NCA review (at the

time of this writing) no employee grievances have been filed with the University.

Contained within the Board-approved University Policies are prohibitions against sexual

harassment and a University Sexual Offense Policy. The University Drug and Alcohol Policy

complies with the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1990 and the Drug-Free

Workplace Act of 1988. Antioch University is an affirmative action institution.

Each campus of Antioch University has student, staff, and faculty and employee

handbooks that describe institutional relationships, grievance policies, and programs

99

.

98

Available in the University Resource Room.

99

See campus self-studies and Resource Rooms.

133

Chapter 10

Federal Compliance

134

I.C.9. Credits, Program Length, and Tuition

Antioch University campuses use both semester and quarter credits. Antioch College and

Antioch New England Graduate School are on a semester calendar. The other three campuses all

operate on a quarter system. Formulas for equating credits and program length are based on

standard practice. Two programs offer credits not based on this. The MFA in Creative Writing at

Antioch Los Angeles and the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change both operate on an intensive

residency schedule, holding three and four residencies per year respectively. The MFA

description can be found in the Antioch Southern California self-study. The Ph.D. program

provides descriptive information in its Student Handbook of how credits are awarded. Briefly,

the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change is designed on an annual term basis. Thus, the units

awarded are calculated as annual units, not quarter or semester units. In terms of an equivalency

between these calculations, annual unit equals one semester hour. To follow this calculation

more fully, one semester hour is generally equivalent to 15 in-class hours and 30-45 study hours

for a total of 60 hours per semester hour. This is a 63-annual unit program (equivalent to 63

semester hours).

Tuition levels for all programs are set by campus administrators and approved by the

Board of Trustees at the annual June Board meeting. Tuition schedules for the 2002/2003

academic year can be found in the 2002-2003 Budget in the University Resource Room.

I.A.5. Institutional Compliance with the Higher Education Reauthorization Act

Antioch University‘s university-wide default rate has been 1.6 percent since 1998.

Department of Education verification of this rate may be found in the University Resource Room

in the Finance section where audits are also available for review.

IV.B.2. Institution‘s Advertising and Recruitment Materials

Antioch University provides fair and accurate information about its programs in all

advertisement and recruitment materials. As part of this Self-study, all campuses identified

publications that indicate the institution‘s affiliation with the Higher Learning Commission,

including electronic and print media. It was found that the University and its campuses do not

135

routinely include the phone number and address of the Commission. This has been corrected on

all electronic materials. The next editions of all catalogues, advertising, and recruitment

materials will include this information.

III.A.1. Professional Accreditation

In addition to regional accreditation with the NCA Higher Learning Commission,

Antioch University holds professional program accreditations by the following groups and

associations:

B The American Psychological Association (Antioch New England)

B The Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education

(Antioch New England)

B The American Dance Therapy Association (Antioch New England)

These professional accreditations affect less than one-third of our students and programs.

No adverse actions have ever been taken against the University by any of these associations.

III.A.3. Requirements of Institutions Holding Dual Institutional Accreditation

Antioch University is singly accredited by the North Central Association Higher

Learning Commission.

IV.A.8. Public Notification of Comprehensive Visit

Public Notification of the Comprehensive Visit was posted on the Antioch University

web-site and all Antioch campus web-sites in mid-July 2002. Notice was also published in the

following news publications:

B The Yellow Springs News (Antioch College)

B The Dayton Daily News (Antioch University McGregor)

B Keene Sentinel (Antioch New England Graduate School)

Comments received may be viewed in the respective resource rooms of each of the campuses.

137

Chapter 11

Request for Re-accreditation

138

Request for Accreditation

Based upon the information, analysis, and assessments presented in this Self-

study, Antioch University requests re-affirmation of its accreditation by the Higher Learning

Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The University also

requests that the stipulation in its Record of Status and Scope regarding prior Commission

approval for new degree sites be removed.

The Five NCA Criteria and supporting evidence are found in each chapter of the study,

or appropriate reference is made to backup information located in the University or Campus

Resource Room files.

General Institutional Requirements are addressed in Chapter 2, with references to other

materials throughout the Study.

Criterion One (Purposes and Mission) is addressed in Chapter 3.

Criterion Two (Organization of Human, Financial and Physical Resources) is addressed

in Chapters 4 and 5.

Criterion Three (Accomplishing Educational Purposes) is found in Chapters 6 and 7.

Criterion Four (Continue to Accomplish Purposes and Strengthen) is the subject of

Chapter 8.

Criterion Five (Demonstrates Integrity) is reported in Chapters 9 and 10.

In addition, the Self-study also relates these Criteria and General Requirements to the

University Plan‘s ten long-term goals.

Finally, we believe that our current state of institutional maturity, combined with a highly

structured process for review, approval and monitoring of academic programs at all locations,

insures that the excesses experienced over thirty years ago cannot reoccur. Our internal control

processes are rigorous in ensuring prudent deployment of resources and ensuring academic

integrity in all programs. We reaffirm our strong conviction that the accomplishments of Antioch

University over the past decade, objectively viewed, are exceptionally strong and compelling.

139

This Self-study has attempted to report accurately and candidly the realities, strengths and

problems that we face, describing how we are or will find solutions. With a committed faculty

and staff, an experienced administrative team, and a strong Board of Trustees, we look positively

to the future and with great optimism for Antioch University.

141

Appendix A

Basic Institutional Data Forms

[Available Separately]

142

Appendix B

Resource Room Inventory

° Self-study Plan and Timeline

° Notes, March 26 Meeting

° Full BIDs

° 1993 Report of a Visit

° Assessment Survey Questions and Submitted Responses

° Antioch Degree Offerings

° Legal Authorizations to Operate by State

° All Administrative CVs

° University Academic Policies

° ULC Policy Manual

° Admissions Policies

° Ernst & Young Financial Audits

° University Budgets dating back to…

° All Campus Catalogues

° ULC Minutes, three years…

° Dean‘s Minutes, three years…

° Chatham Group Survey Questions

° Capital Budgets

° All Campus Self-Studies

° Indicators of Progress, six years worth…

° Assessment Survey to Campuses Q&As

° University Strategic Plan

° Campus Strategic Plans

° RFP on Innovation Proposals

° Ketchum Feasibility Study & Case

° University HR Policies

° Inventory of Antioch University Buildings

° List of Current Board Membership

° Resumes of Board members

° Board Bylaws and Meeting Minutes

° Board Conflict of Interest Document

143

Appendix C

Campus Mission Statements

Antioch College

Mission and Vision (as stated in —This is Antioch College“ œ Antioch College Catalog):

Educational and social pioneer Horace Mann, Antioch‘s first president, offered these parting

words to Antioch students, which continue to inspire succeeding generations of Antioch College

students: —Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.“ The primary goal

of an Antioch education is to empower its students with an education which will provide them an

opportunity to win that victory.

Antioch‘s distinctive vision of a liberal arts education is realized in three interrelated

educational arenas:

° The academic curriculum provides students with a broad general education that

challenges students‘ values and perspectives, and increases their knowledge, ability to

question, and general intellectual consciousness about themselves and the society in

which they live.

° The cooperative education (—co-op“) program of alternating terms of study and work

provides life and work experiences that develop independence, confidence, and self-

motivation.

° The campus community structure offers significant responsibility for the social,

cultural, financial, and policy issues that govern college life.

Antioch students are expected to reach beyond conventional learning. With classroom

and co-op faculty, and within the context of the curriculum, students plan their own education,

reflect upon their experiences, and broaden their perspectives. The goal is for Antioch students to

become intelligent experimenters, informed risk-takers, creative thinkers, and courageous

practitioners. Antioch College encourages its students to have a balanced respect for all life œ

self, other, society, and the earth.

Antioch New England Graduate School

Mission and Values Statement:

Antioch New England Graduate School is a community of civic-minded adult learners,

practitioners, scholars, and leaders. We provide a transformative education by linking the worlds

of scholarship and activism, and by fostering the process of lifelong learning. Antioch challenges

its members to improve the quality of life locally and globally through research, community

action, professional service, scholarship, and the stewardship of the natural world.

Antioch New England values a learning process which emphasizes self-understanding, critical

thinking and reflection; diversity of life, thought, and opinion; collegial collaboration and the

creation of community-based forums for open dialogue.

144

Antioch New England recognizes and cherishes the human community. In the local community,

the region, and the world, we promote social justice, ecological literacy, organizational integrity,

common economic good, and respect for the whole person.

Antioch New England is acutely aware of the importance of relationships and of diversity. We

strive to cultivate a sense of belonging and community within our institution, and to develop

mutually beneficial interconnections and partnerships with individuals and organizations outside

of the Antioch New England community.

Antioch University Southern California

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:

B The development of the student as a whole person;

B The integration of academic and experiential learning;

B 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 faculties 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 œ centering ourselves in compassion, ethical steadfastness,

and a never-ending belief in the possible œ carry this vision into the world.

Values Statement:

We value and commit to model in our lives and 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 religious 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.

145

Antioch University McGregor

Mission Statement:

The McGregor School of Antioch University, established in 1988, offers academic programs for

adults that are responsive to emerging societal needs. Each program encourages critical thinking,

provides opportunities for collaborative learning, emphasizes cultural diversity and an

international perspective, and promotes the integration of life and work experience with

academic knowledge. We believe that education is most effective when students, faculty, staff,

and administration unite as a community of learners.

Our approach to education stems from Antioch University‘s historical emphasis on intellectual,

emotional, and ethical development. The principles promoted by Douglas McGregor, President

of Antioch College from 1948 to 1954, also inspired the School. McGregor, well known for his

teachings in participatory management and leadership, believed that organizational effectiveness

depends on the cooperative efforts of the entire community. He asserted that all have the right to

express their views openly and to act on the basis of their beliefs, provided that they act in accord

with the principles of democracy, and with honesty and integrity.

Antioch University McGregor is imbued with an entrepreneurial spirit and strives to provide

high quality, socially responsive, flexible, and innovative educational programs. McGregor seeks

to pass on to its graduates a legacy of passion for lifelong learning and a commitment to the

application of knowledge toward the betterment of our workplaces, our communities, and the

wider society.

Vision Statement:

Antioch University McGregor contributes to the betterment of the individual and the community

by fostering academic excellence and providing socially responsive, flexible, and innovative

education programs for adult learners.

Antioch University Seattle

Mission Statement:

To provide transformative education that engages adult learners in lifelong development and

agency in a changing world.

Vision Statement:

To be an institution of innovation and excellence in adult higher education grounded in the four

principles of

1) Learning-centered,

2) Access,

3) Community engagement, and

4)

Integration.

146

Appendix D

Strategic Plans

[Available Separately]