can be found here - Antioch University : Gateway

87 Pages·2008·1.08 MB·English

REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT

TO

Antioch University
Yellow Springs, OH

April 22-24, 2013

FOR

The Higher Learning Commission
A commission of the North Central Association

EVALUATION TEAM

Dr. William J. Carroll, President, Benedictine University, Lisle, IL 60532

Dr. Connie J Gores, President, Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall, Minnesota
56258

Dr. Richard S. Hansen, Provost Emeritus, Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, OH 45206

Dr. Duane Kilty, Vice President for Business Affairs and Interim Co-President, Indiana Wesleyan
University, Marion, IN 46953

Dr. James B. Martin, Associate Dean of Academics and Quality Assurance, U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027,

Dr. Mary Moore, VP for Research, Planning & International Partnerships, University of
Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46227

Dr. Carey M. Roberts, Associate Dean and Chair, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 24502
(formerly Coordinator of University Assessment, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR
72801),

Dr. Roberta C. Teahen, Associate Provost, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI 49307
(Chair)
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

Contents

I. Context and Nature of Visit ......................................................................................... 2

II. Commitment to Peer Review ...................................................................................... 3

III. Compliance with Federal Requirements ..................................................................... 4

IV. Fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation ................................................................. 4

a. Criterion One ................................................................................................... 4
b. Criterion Two ................................................................................................... 8
c. Criterion Three .............................................................................................. 13
d. Criterion Four ................................................................................................ 18
e. Criterion Five ................................................................................................. 21

V. Team Recommendation .......................................................................................... 26

VI. Embedded Changes in Affiliation Status ................................................................. 28

VII. Additional Comments and Explanations .................................................................. 28

Attachments

a. Interactions with Constituencies .................................................................... 29
b. Documents Reviewed ................................................................................... 30
c. Federal Compliance Worksheet .................................................................... 31
d. Multi-Campus Report(s) ............................................................... Follows FCW

Version 2.0 2013 2 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

I. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT

A. Purpose of Visit
The team conducted a comprehensive visit for continuing accreditation for Antioch University.

B. Institutional Context
Antioch University has been accredited since 1978 as Antioch University. Prior to this time, the
entity was known as Antioch College and initial accreditation is dated 1927, representing 86 years
of accredited status with the Higher Learning Commission. In a high-profile case in 2008, the
University board separated and disposed of the assets of Antioch College, largely because of the
College’s lack of financial sustainability. Creating much media and alumni attention, the
separation challenged the university with public speculation about whether the University was still
in operation or whether both the University and the College had closed. Considerable leadership
turnover through this period produced a difficult environment for the institution to establish its new
identity without Antioch College and move forward to assure its viability.

Additional complexity is added by the fact that Antioch College has reopened under different
leadership and legal structure, so there is now both an Antioch College and Antioch University in
the same small Ohio community. Antioch University is dominantly a graduate institution with
three times as many students enrolled in graduate programs as enroll in undergraduate offerings.
Undergraduate options are typically degree-completion programs. The 2011-12 update reports
that there were 9 baccalaureate degrees, 32 masters’ degrees, and 4 doctorate degrees offered.
A distinguishing characteristic is that different degrees are offered at different branches, giving a
distinctively local flavor to each campus. The total Antioch University headcount reported in
2011-12 was approximately 3,700.

C. Unique Aspects or Additions to the Visit
What seemed unique to the team was the recent history of the University and its public
separation from Antioch College, which had been a foundation of the University’s reputation for its
social justice mission, an experiential approach, and serving adult students. That separation and
renewal of the University’s identity, however, had been sufficiently resolved ahead of the team’s
visit, and the team focused its energies on evaluating the University.

An additional unique aspect was that the team visited each of five branch campuses, including
one located next to the main university offices, as well as making a return visit to the system
office in Yellow Springs, OH, to further explore university operations and alignment with
Commission criteria.

D. Additional Locations or Branch Campuses Visited (if applicable)
In addition to the Midwest Campus, which is based across the street from the system
headquarters in Yellow Springs, OH, the team visited four additional sites: New England in New
Hampshire; Seattle; Santa Barbara; and Los Angeles. These additional campus visits were
conducted by two members each in May and June 2013 and followed similar agendas.

E. Distance Delivery Reviewed
The University presently offers mostly hybrid or what they refer to as “low-residency” options.
Approximately eight graduate programs are classified as distance education. Because the
programs that will soon be offered online are in major redevelopment, the team minimally
reviewed portions of online existing offerings. However, multiple meetings were held with
individuals responsible for distance education that addressed their development, delivery, and
evaluation processes for distance education. Further, as referenced later, the University has
contracted with a national company to assist it with the development of its emerging online
offerings; thus, an entirely different and more advanced product is anticipated as early as January
2014 with a scheduled roll-out of multiple current programs in an online delivery mode.
Version 2.0 2013 3 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

II. COMMITMENT TO PEER REVIEW

A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process
University personnel were extensively engaged with the development of the self-study
document. A complex committee structure was devised that assured representation
from each of the campuses and the corporate headquarters in all key areas. Individuals
interviewed were very knowledgeable about the self-study process and its findings. The
report is thorough and utilizes extensive data and links to a wide array of documents that
support the study. The web-based resource room was easy to navigate, well organized,
and complete. In fact, it was one of the most attractive and functional sites team members had
experienced.

B. Integrity of the Self-Study Report

The team concluded that this was one of the most candid self-studies we have read.
The institution identified the challenges it faces and laid out plans to address them. In
the parlance of peer review, this was an evaluative report, not just a descriptive one. At
the same time, the team found some challenges that they concluded may have been
more significant than the self-study concluded, but great detail about these challenges
was certainly noted in the self-study. In addition to identification of the issues, the
institution implemented improvements immediately in many important areas so that by
the time of the first visit, many improvements were underway. By the time of the return
visit to Yellow Springs, OH, many planned activities were being implemented and
considerable progress had been made in areas such as the planning for expansion of
online learning and university-wide policy development.

C. Adequacy of Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Challenges

In the 2003 comprehensive evaluation, there was a request for a monitoring report
concerning the University’s authority to operate in states where it offers programs. That
monitoring report was filed and accepted by the Commission. This challenge has been
appropriately addressed.

The 2003 visit also included a recommendation for a focused visit on the topics of
resources, planning, budgeting, development, enrollments, and assessments. The
University’s History with the HLC reports that this focused visit was completed in 2006,
although the team did not have this team’s report to identify any lingering issues at that
time. However, there have been many changes at the university subsequent to this
2006 visit. Although following this visit there were required follow-up reports, and the
University still has work to complete, the team concludes that these areas have been
adequately addressed, but many of these topics are areas for continued improvement
that will be identified later in this report.

In 2009, a mandated focused visit prompted by the sale of Antioch College called for a
contingency report within 30 days to address the possible recall of bonds and a progress
report regarding completion of the sale. A sequential mandated visit was required
before action was taken on the 2009 report, due to problems with graduate education
and sufficiency of oversight at the Santa Barbara campus. That report concluded that the
University was sufficiently developing systems of oversight at the university level. No
follow-up action resulted from this visit. And, the sale of Antioch College was completed
as planned. These concerns have been adequately addressed.
Version 2.0 2013 4 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

In summary, the team concluded that the University has made adequate progress on
issues raised over the past several years, but some areas of concern continue to
demand the attention of what is now a new university leadership team and structure.

D. Notification of Evaluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment

The university provided notice to all constituencies and maintained notices on its website
concerning the ability for others to provide comment. The expectations have been met.

III. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The team reviewed the required Title IV compliance areas and the student complaint
information. The required worksheets documenting compliance are attached. The team
concludes that the University is in compliance with federal requirements.

IV. FULFILLMENT OF THE CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION

CRITERION ONE: MISSION. The institution’s mission is clear and articulated
publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

Core Component 1A: The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution
and guides its operations

Evidence:
The mission is pervasive and widely understood by faculty, staff, students, boards, and the
larger community. There is an institutional pride in the mission and a sense that it is a major
differentiator between the institution and others. This finding is based on the following
evidence as a result of the visit and the self-study materials provided.
• Faculty surveys conducted in summer and fall 2011 demonstrated an exceptional
familiarity with the mission
• A similar survey of “non-faculty” employees demonstrated a high level of familiarity
and support of the mission.
• A survey of students in 2011 also suggests that students are knowledgeable of the
mission.
• In 2012, all University Resource Groups (URG) discussed how the mission informed
and guided the operations of the various units.
• The physical evidence of the mission being widely disseminated is impressive. From
bookmarks, banners on the walls, and the webpage, there is a clear and constant
effort to keep the mission in front of all.
• Throughout the site visit by the HLC team, mission was frequently referenced and
used as a warrant for how the institution operates. (1A)

While the mission is considered historical, it periodically undergoes reviews that involve the
entire community. Accordingly, while historical, it is a living and evolving instrument used to
guide the institution. Evidence for this includes:
• An extensive period (November 2010-February 2012) in which a broad group of
stakeholders provided input into the mission framework.
Version 2.0 2013 5 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

• Preliminary versions of the reiteration were met with concerns by some stakeholders
so the Board extended the period for review.
• Extensive on-campus meetings with faculty, staff and students, town hall forums, and
surveys led to an exhaustive and expansive input into the reiteration of the mission
culminating in Board of Governors approval in February 2012.

The success of an institution is measured by the fulfillment of its mission. While the
institution’s mission is historical, it is also recently revised and awaits the test of time. The
institution is also challenged in that it is composed of one in-state and four out-of-state
campuses that implement the single institutional mission differently because of the unique
communities within which each resides. Preliminary developments since the reiteration and
reformulation of the mission indicate the institution is on the right track. The following so
indicate:
• Academic programs, as outlined in the self-study, show a striking parallel between
mission, integration, and responsiveness to the communities in which the institution
resides. From a MA and PhD in Environmental Studies at the New England campus,
an MA in Urban Sustainability at the Los Angeles campus, to an MA in Environment
and Community at the Seattle campus, these programs are a result of the warrant
provided by the mission and demonstrate a unique sensitivity to the community in
which the campuses are located.
• In annual reviews, every academic program must demonstrate how each is
furthering the mission (Self-Study, Resource Room for examples).
• There is a strong focus on serving underrepresented and marginalized members of
society. For example, there is a concentration on LGBT studies in the Clinical
Psychology MA Program at the Los Angeles campus.
• Student populations are reflective of institutional mission and the communities in
which the institution resides.

While it is clear that the institution’s planning priorities align with the mission, the budgeting
priorities are not as clear.
• A concise analysis of the alignment of mission and planning is provided in the self-
study.
• In a 2011 survey of faculty, forty-six percent disagreed with the statement “Budget
planning process is aligned with our mission and enhances our capacity to fulfill our
mission.”
• Throughout the HLC April visit, the team was concerned about ongoing budget
shortfalls, but at that time the University had the expectation of millions of dollars
coming from a settlement with Antioch College.

• In the August return visit, a new sense of urgency existed for increasing enrollments
resulting from the recent appointment of a Vice Chancellor for Enrollment
Management, reorganization of recruiting efforts, and reassignments and new
appointments of other personnel throughout the University to support enrollment
initiatives, leading to a higher level of confidence that enrollments will be improved.
• By August, the Antioch Connected plans for online learning expansion had been
much more fully developed, and the University had contracted with Deltak, an
established national service provider, to assist with the development and
Version 2.0 2013 6 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

redevelopment of Antioch programs. It is the team’s belief that this contract will not
require Commission approval, but the University is advised to consult with its HLC
liaison about the specifics of the agreement and determine if any actions are
required. Plans and responsibilities have been detailed, and projections confirmed
by Deltak suggest that additional enrollments will be realized through these new
offerings.

Team Determination: Core Component 1A is met.

Core Component 1B: The mission is articulated publicly.

The mission is pervasive throughout the institution and the community. This is gleaned from the
following: Wall postings, banners, catalog and marketing vehicles, website, select “handouts”
given to visitors, and conversations and meetings throughout the HLC visit.

The mission is current, having gone through an extended period of review and culminating in
approval in 2012. Through the renewal process, four areas of emphasis were delineated:
instruction and student learning, scholarship and application, public service and social
engagement, and building and serving inclusive communities. The Board of Governors
approved the most recent mission statement in February 2012. In December 2012, Institutional
Emphases in Antioch University Mission Framework was endorsed by the Self-Study Steering
Committee and distributed to key constituencies outlining areas of emphasis and the associated
parts of the mission and core values from which they emanate.

The institution clearly sees and identifies itself with the adult learner and seeks to provide these
students with a student-centered learning environment that prides itself in innovation and social
action. This statement is based on the following evidence:
• A plethora of materials that describe the curriculum as student centered and social
action oriented, including confirmation of these experiences at each of the campuses.
• A long history of “experiential” learning.
• The ability to adapt programs to special constituencies as evidenced through the variety
of programs offered at different sites. There is no single template, but the university
reflects responsiveness to each community’s needs.
• Programs in place that define social, economic, and environmental justice.

Team Determination: Core Component 1B is met.

Core Component 1C: The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the
diversity of society.

Evidence: Historically, the institution has been at the forefront in leading the charge for
inclusion, diversity, and multiculturalism. In the wake of the approval of the new mission in
2012, it continues this history and boldly proclaims that it will continue to push the inclusionary
envelope. Attesting to this are the following:
• In May 2012, the Board of Governors approves “The Statement of Commitment—
Inclusion and Diversity.”
• Significant emphasis demonstrated throughout the HLC visit on welcoming LGBT
members into the institution’s community, including high visibility in Pride initiatives at
the LA Campus.
Version 2.0 2013 7 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

• Inclusive participatory processes that allow individuals a voice at the institution are
evidenced. Examples of these venues include town hall meetings and webinars, such
as those evidenced at the Santa Barbara Campus.
• Because of the nature and locations of the institution’s various campuses, a one-size-
fits-all approach is not appropriate and the campus representatives are eloquent in
articulating the importance of this distinctiveness. Each campus is charged with
developing inclusionary programs and strategies that serve the needs of the local
community. Many have diversity task forces to oversee programs and services being
developed.
• Many of the regional campuses’ trustees are populated by a diversity of individuals
reflective of the community.

The institution has clearly articulated its openness and desire for inclusion at all levels.
Processes and policies are in place to make this happen.
• Relying on the Mission Framework, the Policy on Student Organizations, Speech and
Publications (6.127) clearly delineates a policy of inclusion and acceptance throughout
the institution.
• Institutional employment policies as outlined in the Affirmative Action and Equal
Employment Opportunity Policy (4.005) confirm institutional commitment to foster an
environment in which all are treated equally and with respect.
• The Hiring and Search Committee Policy (4.103) reaffirms a commitment to inclusion
and respect while hiring the best possible candidates.
• Many campus activities from meetings to webinars to town hall meetings engage themes
of openness and inclusion and invite disparate voices to come forward.

Team Determination: Core Component 1C is met.

Core Component 1D: The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.

The institution understands its role for the public and has acted accordingly. This is attested to
by the following:
• Included in the President’s Higher Education Service Community Honor Roll twice (2010
and 2012).
• The Corporation for National and Community Service has recognized the institution as a
leader for its support of volunteering, service learning, and civic engagement.
• In 2006 the New England campus was awarded the “Community Engaged Colleges and
Universities” classification from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching for “Curricular Engagement” and “Outreach and Partnerships.”
• The Los Angeles campus offers free classes to low-income individuals.
• The Santa Barbara campus provides a free social justice film series.
• The Midwest campus provides free lectures on issues of environmental concern.
Serving the public good is a distinguishing positive attribute of Antioch University.

As a 501 c(3) organization, the institution has no shareholders, parent organizations, or
investors to which it is in service. It has a self-perpetuating Board of Governors dedicated to the
preservation and prosperity of the institution in the service of the public good. The 501 c(3)
status is under the oversight of the U.S. Government.

Version 2.0 2013 8 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

The institution has a robust history of interacting with its constituencies and responding to their
needs. Prior to the implementation of new programs, a market analysis including an
assessment of community needs is conducted. The New Degree Program Approval Policy
(5.209) requires that any new proposal needs to demonstrate that the program is “responsive to
regional and/or national needs and appropriate student markets.” Additional examples include:
• Adult accelerated degree programs were developed in response to the special needs of
the adult learner.
• Individual campuses have developed specific programs in response to specific
community needs.
• The socially engaged experiential learning program (also known as cooperative
education) requires virtually some form of engagement by every student in the
community. This engagement is accomplished through internships, traineeships in
community health agencies, graduate field study projects, creative writing internships in
community-based programs, student teaching placement, environmental sustainability
internships in public and private agencies, and real-world change projects by students in
the Leadership and Change program.
• A thorough list of community engagement is found in the Selected Examples of
University Community Engagement found in the Exhibition Hall Resource Room.

Team Determination: Core Component 1D is met.

Team Determination on Criterion One:
X☐ Criterion is met
☐ Criterion is met with concerns
☐ Criterion is not met

Summary Statement on Criterion One: The team has determined that Criterion One and all
core components have been met. The mission is well distributed, known, and acknowledged as
a driver for the institution. Policies, procedures, curricular development, and the RoadMap that
all drive institutional activities revolve around the mission.

However, there is an interesting juxtaposition between the “old” mission and the newly approved
mission and the distinctiveness of the University going forward. The “old” mission is spoken of
quite proudly and as a driver that through the decades distinguished the institution from all
others. The new mission has yet to be tested. The pride in the old mission is palpable and
transferred to the new mission. With the approval of the new mission in 2012, the institution is
poised to roll out how the “new mission” impacts the various parts and life of the institution.

However, the team suggests that the new mission does not stand out from the missions of
hundreds of liberal arts colleges and universities around the country. Most institutions are
“student learning centered” and proclaim a social justice emphasis. The focus on adult learners
is repeated throughout higher education. Factors that once distinguished and differentiated the
institution are commonplace in our institutions. What was innovative and distinctive in the last
quarter of the twentieth century is more commonplace today. The team notes that this
“tradition” is associated with the former Antioch College but is carried over into the fabric of the
culture of Antioch University. The test of the “new Mission” will be to see if the faculty and staff
can regain their entrepreneurial leadership and focus on changing the face of higher education
that the institution has been known for

Version 2.0 2013 9 September 22, 2013
PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527

Whereas the institution is to be commended on its policies and procedures for inclusion, more
needs to be done to make some aspects of inclusion a reality. It is one thing to discuss
inclusion and have its theme manifested throughout the institution; however, this talk needs to
be put into clear and precise action steps that result in a more diversified faculty and staff—a
faculty and staff that is representative of the students enrolled in the institution. The institution
has acknowledged this problem and knows it needs improvement.

CRITERION TWO: Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct. The institution acts
with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

Core Component 2A: The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic,
personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and
processes for its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

Evidence:
AU has expended great effort to ensure that the appropriate ethical policies and procedures
are institutionalized. By-laws of the Board and faculty and staff handbooks contain policies
dealing with conflict of interest, obligations and responsibilities, and designate areas
requiring compliance like HIPAA and FERPA. The institution has an Affirmative Action
Policy and has an identified process for addressing sexual harassment. Close to 75 HR
policies and 100 policies in total have been reviewed, revised, or created for posting in the
recent past (Self Study, pp. 81, 84). For example, AU has defined spending policies
outlining appropriate vendor behavior and interactions. As further evidence of good fiscal
practice, AU has received audits with unqualified opinions, and it maintains an acceptable
credit rating (Moody’s Baa rating, p. 7).

The Office of General Counsel is “charged with the stewardship of policy development
process and of the official policy template, guiding policies through the development process
and maintaining a central repository.” This institution’s digital repository of policies is
accessible through the University portal and website (p. 83). AU has a designated office
with responsibilities for the updating of policy and the archiving of polices.

While some leadership believe that the virtual room established for the Self-Study could be
one tool for communication, and the leadership reports that they have conducted a number
of webinars and published newsletters, it appears that additional communication to
constituents about the structural and policy changes needs to continue to occur on a
consistent basis. The extensiveness of the changes underway at the University demand
great focus on communications strategies to assure that key stakeholders are both informed
and involved. As structures change, and policies and procedures are updated to reflect
these changes, it is the ability to communicate and train employees on the changes that
protects the perception of the institution as transparent, inclusive, and fair.

The development of new policies and the establishment of new procedures are facilitated by
university resource groups (URG’s). URGs were established to create cross-functional
teams around issues and planned changes as these followed from the direction established
in the Strategic Plan and the RoadMap of creating a national AU with five campuses. For
example, the URG that guides academic affairs contributed to the establishment of the
University Academic Council (UAC) and acted upon recommendations that also grew out of
five years of earlier work by the Blue and Red Book Committees addressing faculty
governance.

Version 2.0 2013 10 September 22, 2013