The institution has sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty

members to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty, including oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance; establishment of academic credentials for instructional staff; involvement in assessment of student learning. Continuity of Faculty

A bit of history is important to set the context of understanding the nature of faculty continuity currently. Historically, Antioch University has used two primary employment classifications of faculty. The first, core faculty primarily employed on a full-time basis, were engaged in the work of the department as well as in the classroom, and, after two years of full-time service, had limited employment security, as evidenced by one full-year notice of contract renewal. The second category, non-core, were part- time faculty hired either as adjuncts to teach individual classes or as associate faculty to teach and fulfill other faculty responsibilities. In October 2005, the Antioch University Board passed a resolution (Res.10.22.05:20) mandating that the Chancellor and University administration review and make recommendations regarding faculty performance reviews and other contractual

conditions of employment to the Board. In 2006, Chancellor Murdock established, at the request of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, the Blue Book Commission (BBC), a task force of seven faculty and six chief academic officers, to review academic policies and practices across the University system. The goals of the BBC were as follows:

n To create a robust set of standardized

system-wide contractual options with clear paths to achieve them for faculty across Antioch University;

n _{To establish a set of guiding principles}

for performance reviews including peer review and external review in the contractual process as required by the Board mandate; and

n To update faculty appointment

categories and descriptions appropriate to Antioch University of the 21st century, taking into account new faculty roles and responsibilities.

The BBC met for its first face-to-face meeting in January 2007 and concluded its work in 2010. The following three policies were recommended by the Chancellor and the ULC and were approved by the Board of Governors. Core Faculty Contracts, Development Plans, and Evaluation Policy (5.305); Core Faculty Workload Policy (5.313) and Non-Renewal and Termination of Faculty Contracts (5.331). What is significant about these policies relative to this criterion is that they set the stage for assuring continuity and sufficiency of our faculty.

Today, Antioch University core faculty members have responsibility for all classroom and non-classroom faculty roles, as described in the Core Faculty Contracts, Development Plans, and Evaluation Policy (5.305), approved in June 2011. With this policy, the University established the infrastructure for assuring continuity of faculty. Prior to 2011-12, all University core faculty were on one- or two-year fixed-term contracts. Beginning in AY 2011-12, three- year rolling contracts were made available to core faculty, a significant step to increase faculty stability and continuity.

In addition, in Fall 2011, the University developed a set of faculty classifications that provides both continuity and flexibility for campuses to assure sufficiency of faculty. The Faculty Classifications Policy (5.301), approved in September 2011, specifically speaks to the need for sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty members to carry out the classroom and non-classroom roles of faculty in order to provide effective high-quality programs. The new array of faculty classifications helps ensure this. For example, since a core faculty hire requires a national search, if a core faculty member resigns late in the academic year, the campus would be unable to fill that position by the beginning of the next academic year. Through the establishment of one-year faculty appointments, campuses can employ faculty in a timely manner and not disrupt the educational process.

years, and 41% have been employed for four or fewer years.

However, further analysis of longevity has identified two inter-related challenges: faculty retention and faculty age. Whereas faculty members who joined Antioch one or two decades ago are remaining with the University, we have been less successful in retaining more recently hired faculty. In fact, of the core faculty who were hired within the last five years, only about 50-60% remain after three or more years of employment. To further understand the impact of low retention of recent faculty hires, at the request of the UAC, the University conducted an analysis of faculty age. The results indicate that Antioch University is clearly challenged by the graying of faculty (Table 5.3).

It is striking to note that 43% of the core faculty are 60 years of age or older and that a total of 77% of the core faculty are 50 years of age or older!

Furthermore, as compared to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2009 data on faculty age, Antioch University faculty are substantially older, both in terms of the age range percentages and average age (Table 5.4).

Attracting and retaining new faculty is key to assuring that the University has both the continuity and the sufficiency of faculty members to fulfill all faculty roles going forward. We take this seriously. In fact, this very issue was one of the key institutional reasons behind developing and offering more competitive faculty contracts as a way, in part, to attract and retain faculty. The UAC has identified this as one of the central topics for review in AY 2012-13. To begin the conversation, at its December 2012 meeting, the UAC reviewed HR data. Further action will be undertaken as part of the Institutional Recommendation on faculty employment.

Full-time Faculty: Continuity

Antioch is strengthened by the longevity of employment of its full-time faculty. This continuity of faculty is demonstrated in the Fall AU Faculty Longevity Study of full-time core (multi-year contracts) and annual contracted and part-time faculty. Approximately 18% of the full-time core faculty have been with Antioch University for more than 20 years, 33% have been with Antioch University for 10 to 19 years, and nearly 49% of the faculty have been with Antioch University for nine years or less. In other words, even without a tenure system, half of the core faculty have been employed by Antioch University for 10 years or more. There’s more: longevity and stability is further demonstrated by the fact that of the full-time, one-year (non-core) contract faculty, 23% have been employed by the University for 10 or more years; 36% have been employed for between five to nine

Table 5.3: AU Core Faculty Age

Table 5.4: AU Full-time Faculty Age in Comparison to NCES Data Antioch University Antioch University

2012 Data 2012 Data NCES 2009 Data Age Band Core Faculty All Full-time Faculty Faculty

49 or younger 23.1% 24.9% 46.5%

50-65 57.1% 56.2% 44.4%

66+ 20% 19% 9.1%

Average Age 55 55 50

Antioch University Core Faculty Age Compared to NCES Data Antioch University Core Faculty Age, Fall 2012

Core Faculty Age Percentage

30s 6%

40s 17%

50s 34%

60s 37%

In addition, the proportion of full-time to part-time faculty overall, as pulled from institutional IPEDS reports, has not changed significantly over the past five years, with the proportion of full-time faculty hovering around 25% and 75% part-time, although this may vary by campus and even by program (Table 5.6). In contrast to the higher education trend of hiring increasing numbers of adjunct faculty, it is important to recognize that Antioch has retained a fairly constant percentage.

Antioch University part-time faculty are not treated as itinerant faculty but are encouraged to attend and participate in departmental and campus faculty meetings and other activities. Part-time faculty members provide breadth and depth to academic programs, support the scholar- practitioner model of the University, extend the University’s visibility into the community, and add deep commitment to the campuses.

Part-time Faculty: Continuity

Clearly, any reflection on the continuity and sufficiency of faculty at a higher education institution must address the employment of part-time instructors. Antioch University’s academic programs are practitioner-focused and value the power of experiential learning for adult learners. To best provide such an education, Antioch employs practitioner faculty to join our instructor ranks as part- time (adjunct or affiliate) faculty.

The nature of Antioch University’s adjunct model, which employs working practitioners who are at the cutting edge of their fields, is to provide both continuity of faculty and opportunities for new professionals to lead our classrooms. Currently, 35% of the adjunct faculty have been with Antioch University for at least five years; most have been at the institution for up to 10 years (Table 5.5). This demonstrates continuity even within the ranks of our adjunct faculty.

Antioch University Full-Time Faculty – Part-Time Faculty Ratios

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Totals

Full-Time Faculty Number 130 142 155 161 161 749

% 25% 28% 28% 29% 29% 28%

Part-Time Faculty Number 390 372 395 385 396 1938

% 75% 72% 72% 71% 71% 72%

TOTAL 520 514 550 546 557 2687

Table 5.6: AU Full-time to Part-time Faculty Ratio 2007-2012

The 2011 Self-Study Survey of Part-time Faculty confirmed that part-time faculty members overall feel that they are engaged in the academic programs in which they teach as illustrated in Figures 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8. In the survey, 85% agree (31.5% Strongly Agree, 35.1% Agree, and 18.0% Somewhat Agree) that they are welcome at departmental meetings. In addition, 71% agree (16.1% Strongly Agree, 30.4% Agree, and 25.0% Somewhat Agree) that their views on departmental issues are sought and 78% agree (18.2% Strongly, 28.2% Agree, and 30.0% Somewhat Agree) that their views on departmental issues are considered. Nearly all (96%) of the part-time faculty are satisfied with the responsiveness of their chairs to faculty’s questions and concerns (56.3% Very Satisfied, 28.6% Satisfied, and 10.9% Somewhat Satisfied); and the same percentage (46.3% Very Satisfied, 40.5% Satisfied, and 9.1% Somewhat Satisfied) are satisfied with the responsiveness of staff and

Table 5.5: AU Part-time Faculty Longevity

Antioch University Part-time Faculty Longevity

Up to 4 years 65%

5-9 years 20%

10-14 years 10%

Figure 5.4: AU Part-time Faculty Welcome at Departmental Meetings

other faculty. They are invited to participate in commencement ceremonies, Open House events, special department evenings such as student symposia and faculty presentations, and, on some campuses, quarterly or annual lunches.

In terms of non-classroom roles, while integration into the academic program appears to be relatively high among adjuncts, as part of the Self-Study process the University has discovered uneven

practices in terms of the integration of part-time faculty into campus and program operations. Feeling welcome in departmental meetings doesn’t necessarily translate into part-time faculty feeling consulted in governance or about resources. Whereas part-time faculty members are generally invited to attend departmental/ unit meetings, they are not usually invited to participate in campus Faculty Senate or Faculty Assembly meetings. However, 74%

of the part-time faculty indicated satisfaction with representation on campus Academic Senates or Assemblies (6.8% are Very Satisfied, 40.9% Satisfied, and 26.1% Somewhat Satisfied). Currently, at the University level, only core faculty are able to serve as faculty representatives on the University Academic Council.

One way institutions address the roles of adjunct faculty is by providing orientation to the program, campus, and University. Here, too, we have found that the practice varies greatly, with some campuses holding campus-wide adjunct sessions once or twice a year and some campuses leaving this orientation entirely to the academic departments. Financial compensation for participating in these meetings also varies by campus program, with at least one academic department offering $100 to attend meetings, and other departments not offering any compensation. When adjunct faculty are employed by distance programs to participate in instructional residential sessions, their expenses are covered; but, the compensation also varies across programs.

Greater coordination and alignment of practices regarding adjuncts are required to ensure a continuous and standard level of instructional quality across the academic Welcome at Departmental Meetings Strongly Agree 31.5% Agree 35.1% Somewhat Agree 18% Disagree 15% Views on Departmental Issues Are Sought

Strongly Agree 16.1% Agree 30.4% Somewhat Agree 25.0% Disagree 28.5% Views on Departmental Issues Are Considered Strongly Agree 18.2% Agree 28.2% Somewhat Agree 30.0% Disagree 23.6% Satisfaction with Responsiveness of Their Chairs to Faculty Questions and Concerns Very Satisfied 56.3% Satisfied 28.6% Somewhat Satisfied 10.9% Unsatisfied 4.2% Satisfaction with Responsiveness of Staff and Other Faculty Very Satisfied 46.3% Satisfied 40.5% Somewhat Satisfied 9.1% Unsatisfied 4.1% Figure 5.5: AU Part-time Faculty Views Departmental Issues Sought Figure 5.6: AU Part-time Faculty Views Departmental Issues Considered Figure 5.7: AU Part-time Faculty Satisfaction with Chair’s Responsiveness to Questions and Concerns

Figure 5.8: AU Part-time Faculty Satisfaction with Responsiveness of Staff and Other Faculty

programs and support the retention and development of adjunct faculty. Efforts should continue to engage adjunct faculty around student assessment of learning outcomes and program development, as will be discussed in Chapter 6. Because some campuses do not financially compensate their adjuncts, and those that provide compensation may not do so across all campus programs, resource placement – financial or otherwise – remains a major factor in deeper engagement with the academic programs and campuses and leads to an Institutional Recommendation. Stipends, trainings, ongoing professional development, and mentoring are essential to an integrated University that prides itself on teaching effectiveness, quality programs, and student satisfaction.

Antioch University Full-Time to Part-time Faculty / Student Ratios

Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

Full-Time Faculty HC 130 142 155 161 161

Total Faculty HC 520 514 550 546 557

Unduplicated Student

Headcount 3913 3500 3580 3764 3699

Students per FT Faculty 30 25 23 23 23

Students per FT (all types) 8 7 7 7 7

Sufficiency of Faculty

Antioch University has met the standard for sufficiency of faculty by virtue of the fact that core faculty have oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance, establish standards for academic credentials of instructional faculty, and are responsible for the assessment of student learning. In addition, core faculty members fulfill a wide variety of responsibilities to support our pedagogical approach, such as developing partnerships with community organizations and arranging for internships and clinical and school site placements. Most of our faculty members also serve as academic advisors to our students, further demonstrating greater faculty engagement in student learning than strictly classroom-based instruction.

Table 5.7: AU Full-time to Part-time Faculty Ratio 2007-2012

The average class size for Antioch University (excluding independent studies and other courses that are designed for a single student) is 11 students. Of interest is that University-wide, these numbers do not change significantly between undergraduate classes (average 10 students per class), master’s classes (average 10 students per class), and doctoral classes (average 11 students per class). However, variation does occur among the campuses, with the largest average class size at Antioch University Midwest with 16 students per class and the lowest average class size of seven students at Antioch University Santa Barbara. The small average class size is another indication of Antioch University providing the

environment for individualized attention and focused, relevant instruction, which are hallmarks of an Antioch education.

In addition, Antioch University can assert that the faculty-to-student ratio is sufficient, with the full-time faculty-to-student ratio being approximately 1:23, and the all-faculty-to- student ratio being about 1:7 (Table 5.7). As mentioned above, Antioch University part-time faculty members fulfill an important pedagogical need of bringing professional, real-world expertise as scholar-practitioners into our classrooms. In addition, the University has developed new full-time, one-year contracts to ensure sufficiency of faculty in a timely manner. However, in order to ensure that the right mix of faculty carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty,

the University should define the balance of core, non-core full-time, and part-time faculty needed to meet the needs of our students and academic programs, and then develop a plan to reach that goal. This is an area that will be included in the Institutional Recommendations to be addressed

systematically as the University continues to integrate and expand its programs and services.

Another area of challenge going forward is a fuller understanding of the implications of several new faculty-related employment policies on the ability of faculty to sufficiently carry out their classroom and non-

classroom roles. The new University policy on core faculty workloads has increased the expectation for the number of credits taught by core faculty as well as faculty’s productivity in scholarship and service. The increase in required teaching credits, although consistent with practices across higher education, is considered excessive by many core faculty given Antioch’s pedagogical practices. The reasons raised are:

n Faculty at Antioch University often

teach across multiple disciplines and must have a range of expertise that is much broader than typical for graduate faculty.

n Experiential learning requires that time

be devoted not only to content expertise but also to educational design and facilitation.

n _{The narrative evaluation process}

requires more time than a grading system.

n _{The very nature of an Antioch education}

is personalized for students in ways that are unusual in higher education and require greater faculty time.

In reality, to be an effective educator within the Antioch learner-centered context requires unusual amounts of time and energy to stay current in multiple fields, to design creative and engaging learning experiences, and to address the needs of students who expect personalized attention. Given the vital importance of faculty engagement with student learning, the University takes seriously the impact of any practice that may diminish the quality of that engagement. This is one reason why the recent policy and its implementation will be under review in AY 2013-14.

Another aspect relates to the sufficiency of faculty to cover non-classroom responsibilities in the areas of scholarship, service, and institutional citizenship. The new University policy has generously established the goal of a three-month non-scheduled period each year so that core faculty can engage in scholarship and service, as is the practice in general in higher education. However, the reality, is that the multiple and flexible modalities of delivery of our programs year-around mean that the three months comes at significant financial cost to some programs and campuses, at the very time that Antioch is addressing the need to grow enrollments and revenues.

On some campuses, we have not been able to fulfill this goal. We are adjusting

expectations, understanding that the fulfillment of these workload goals will likely be dependent upon the Road Map’s successful implementation. The Chancellor has requested that the University Academic Council consider working with her to identify the most appropriate nature of workload expectations to ensure the sufficiency of faculty to carry out both the classroom and non-classroom roles. This challenge will be addressed as part of the recommendation regarding Antioch’s focus on “Living the Mission” as a workplace.

Subcomponent 3.C.2. All instructors are