2014 WASC Interim Report

July 11, 2014

Michael Engh President Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, California 950553-0015

Dear President Engh:

At its meeting via teleconference on July 10, 2014, a panel of the Interim Report Committee considered the report of Santa Clara University (SCU) submitted on March 1, 2014, along with the supporting documents which accompanied it. The members appreciated the opportunity to discuss the interim report with your colleagues: Dennis Jacobs, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; Diane Jonte-Pace, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; and Ed Ryan, Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness and ALO. The discussion was informative and helped the panelists to understand more clearly SCU’s responses to the Commission Action Letter dated July 5, 2011 following the EER Visit of February 7-9, 2011.

That Commission letter asked the institution to address four issues related to the activities of the institution: (1) promoting a community of inclusive excellence; (2) integrating the Jesuit School of Theology (JST) into the life of SCU; (3) refining and expanding assessment and program review; and (4) enhancing shared governance and communication. The panel commended SCU for an exemplary report. It was well-organized, thoughtfully balanced between description and analysis, amply supported by appropriate evidence, and characterized by a forthright and candid perspective. There was significant evidence of progress in each of the areas, even as the institution was grappling with a significant campus event. The conversation with your colleagues complemented and enhanced the laudable work presented in the report itself.

With respect to promoting a community of inclusive excellence, the panel found that the specific acts of establishing an Office for Diversity and Inclusion and creating a comprehensive diversity dashboard are potent evidence of the institution’s intent to foster inclusion. When coupled with focused programs designed to increase recruitment and strengthen retention for underrepresented students, SCU has created the foundation and initial floor for the community it seeks. The panel understands that these efforts are relatively new, and that assessment of their efficacy will take time. However, the indication that these efforts are achieving modest success at this early stage is encouraging. The panel was similarly pleased to learn of efforts to attract and retain qualified African American faculty members, and encourages the institution to continue on its described paths.

It is evident from the report that work to integrate JST and SCU personnel and programs has proceeded positively. While there are natural bonds among Religious Studies, Pastoral Ministries and JST, it is intriguing to know that possible collaborations may be forged between JST and the School of Education and Counseling Psychology as well. It appears that academic integration is on a productive course. With respect to non-academic and organizational integration, the panel notes that a goal of a 2% increase enrollment over the next will be important to achieve the fiscal

985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: (510) 748-9001 efax: (510) 748-1477 [email protected]

President Michael Engh July 11, 2014 Page 2 of 3 balance desired, and that SCU has taken the necessary steps to provide resources to enhance recruiting. When coupled with the expanded assessment efforts, it is apparent that the appropriate attention, review, and organizational assets have been assigned to monitor and promote further integration.

The panel reviewed the multiple activities being undertaken to expand academic assessment infrastructure and program review. It recognized that the reorganization of the Provost’s Office, and the designation of a key administrator for institutional effectiveness, seats assessment and review in a central position. This vantage point allows resources to be allocated both where they are most needed and will have the most impact. The panel was pleased to learn, when it queried institutional staff, that the amount of work being embraced includes the recalibration and support of work that is already being done, thereby lessening the prima facie burden that might occur if all of the initiatives relied on new activity. The panel also noted the significant work being done to assess graduate education. In addition, SCU’s plans to expand assessment to co-curricular programs over the next two years are evidence of a considered broadening of its efforts.

Activities to enhance governance and communication have been comprehensive, inclusive, and challenging. The panel concurred with the institutional representatives that the singular contested issue during the past year is not representative of a systemic dilemma. Indeed, the types of governance practiced by SCU are models which others might follow. The institution has invested enormous energy and time in order to clarify practices and improve communication. The fact that some of those efforts have had less success than desired is not atypical, and the panel commends the representatives’ report on the actions taken at the recent spring retreat to identify both issues and next steps. SCU’s continuing commitment to improve its communications and governance practices is estimable.

After deliberation, the panel acted to:

1. Receive the institution’s interim report.

2. Continue with the scheduled reaffirmation reviews, with the Offsite Review set for spring 2020 and the Accreditation Visit set for spring 2021. [Note: In later correspondence with the ALO, it has been agreed to move the Accreditation Visit to fall 2020 in order to promote a more integrated review process]

3. Encourage the institution to continue its fine work in all of the areas reviewed.

With respect to the next WSCUC review, please be advised that the Commission acted at its June 19 – 21, 2013 meeting, to approve the final version of the 2013 Handbook of Accreditation and the new Institutional Review Process as outlined in that Handbook. Proceeding forward, the institution should rely upon the new Handbook as the appropriate guide for matters related to Standards and CFRs. Please contact me if you have specific questions about these changes.

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues at Santa Clara University.

985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: (510) 748-9001 efax: (510) 748-1477 [email protected]

President Michael Engh July 11, 2014 Page 3 of 3

Sincerely,

Christopher N. Oberg Vice President/COO

Cc: Ed Ryan, Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness and ALO Members of the Interim Report Committee

985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: (510) 748-9001 efax: (510) 748-1477 [email protected]

Western Association of Schools and Colleges

Santa Clara University Interim Report

Presented on behalf of

Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95050-0460

Submitted on March 24, 2014, by Edward Ryan, PhD, WASC Accreditation Liaison Officer 408-554-5182 [email protected]

Western Association of Schools and Colleges List of Topics

Santa Clara University was asked to submit an Interim Report to WASC in March 2014 addressing four topics:

• Promoting inclusive excellence • Integrating the Jesuit School of Theology into the life of SCU • Refining and expanding assessment and program review • Enhancing shared governance and communication

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Institutional Context

Santa Clara University is a comprehensive Jesuit, Catholic university with more than 8,800 students, a main campus in Santa Clara, California, a branch campus in Berkeley, California, two satellite sites in San Jose, California, and one satellite site in Palo Alto, California. Founded in 1851 and initially accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 1949, Santa Clara offers a rigorous undergraduate curriculum in arts and sciences, business, and engineering, plus graduate and professional programs in business, law, engineering, education, counseling psychology, pastoral ministries, and theology. The University boasts a diverse community of scholars offering a values-oriented curriculum characterized by small class sizes and a dedication to educating students for competence, conscience, and compassion. The traditions of Jesuit education—educating the whole person for a life of service—run deep in all of its curricular and co-curricular programs.

Santa Clara University offers undergraduate degrees leading to the bachelor of arts (B.A.), bachelor of science (B.S.), and bachelor of science in commerce (B.S.C). The College of Arts and Sciences offers the B.A. degree and the B.S. degree in 37 subject areas. The Leavey School of Business offers the B.S. degree in commerce with majors in seven subject areas. The School of Engineering offers a B.S. degree with majors in seven subject areas.

The School of Law offers programs leading to the degrees of juris doctor (J.D.) and master of laws (LL.M.). J.D. students may earn certificates of specialization in high technology law, international law, and public interest and social justice law. A broad curriculum also includes business and commercial law, taxation, criminal law and trial advocacy, environmental law, estate planning, labor law, health law, legal writing and research, as well as opportunities for externships, clinical work, and professional skill development.

The Leavey School of Business offers graduate programs leading to the master of business administration (MBA) degree with coursework in accounting, economics, finance, management, marketing, and operations management and information systems. The executive MBA program is an intensive 17-month program designed for seasoned professionals. The business school also offers a graduate program leading to the master of science (M.S.) in information systems, entrepreneurship, or finance. In conjunction with the law school, the business school also offers joint degree programs leading to a J.D./MBA or J.D./MSIS degree.

The School of Engineering offers graduate programs leading to the master of science (M.S.) degree in applied mathematics, bioengineering, civil engineering, computer science and engineering, electrical engineering, engineering management, mechanical engineering, software engineering, and sustainable energy; and the engineer’s degree in computer science and engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. The engineering school also offers the doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in computer science and engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering.

The two departments in the School of Education and Counseling Psychology offer credential and graduate programs. The Department of Education focuses on preparing teachers and

administrators for public and Catholic schools. It offers programs in teacher preparation leading to credentials (i.e., California preliminary multiple-subject and single-subject teaching credentials and California Clear credential) and the master of arts in teaching (MAT) degree. Its programs in educational administration prepare public K–12 administrators (i.e., the Preliminary California Administrative Services credential and the California Clear Administrative Services credential) and Catholic school leaders through the certificate program in Catholic School Leadership. The department also offers an M.A. program in interdisciplinary education (with emphases in curriculum and instruction; science, technology, environmental education, and mathematics (STEEM); and educational administration. The departments of Education and Counseling Psychology jointly offer the certificate program in alternative and correctional education. The Department of Counseling Psychology offers two degree programs: an M.A. in counseling psychology and an M.A. in counseling. The M.A. in counseling psychology can lead to state licensure for marriage and family therapists and/or licensed professional clinical counselors. The department includes emphasis programs in health, correctional, and Latino counseling.

On July 1, 2009, the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley became the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University. The Jesuit School of Theology is one of only two Jesuit theological centers in the United States operated by the Society of Jesus, as the order of Catholic priests is known. Additionally, it is one of only two Jesuit theological centers in the country that offer three ecclesiastical degrees certified by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, and it also offers four additional advanced theological degrees as well as sabbatical and certificate programs for clergy, religious, and lay people.

Finally, Santa Clara prepares women and men to enter professional ministries in Church and society through the Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries. The Program offers a M.A. in four areas of emphasis: Catechetics, Liturgical Music, Pastoral Liturgy, and Spirituality. Students and graduates of the program serve in parishes, education, diocesan offices, and non-profits in a variety of roles.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Statement on Report Preparation

Four working groups were formed and charged with drafting a section of the Interim Report. Individuals with experience in one of the four areas that WASC asked the University to address were invited to participate. The working group on inclusive excellence included:

• Aldo Billingslea, Professor, Theatre and Dance; Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion • Lester Deanes, Assistant Dean, Office of Student Life • Sandra Hayes, Dean, Undergraduate Admission • Ed Ryan, Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness • Barbara Stewart, Director, Institutional Research

The team focused on the integration of the Jesuit School of Theology (JST) included:

• Bruce Lescher, Associate Academic Dean, Jesuit School of Theology • Rob McChesney S.J., Director of Intercultural Initiatives, Jesuit School of Theology • Ed Ryan, Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness • Shelly Wolf Servatius, Assistant Dean for Finance and Administration, Jesuit School of Theology

The working group for program review and assessment consisted of:

• Chris Bachen, Associate Professor, Communication; Director of Assessment • Bruce Lescher, Associate Academic Dean, Jesuit School of Theology • Susan Parker, Professor, Accounting; Associate Dean of Curriculum • Jeanne Rosenberger, Vice Provost for Student Life • Ed Ryan, Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

Finally, the working group on governance and communication included faculty and staff who have been actively engaged in shared governance:

• Diane Jonte-Pace, Professor, Religious Studies; Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs • Barbara Molony, Professor, History; former Faculty Senate President (resigned on January 21, 2014) • Dan Ostrov, Professor, Mathematics and Computer Science; former Chair of the University Coordinating Committee (resigned on January 21, 2014) • Jim Rowan, Senior Programmer Analyst, Information Technology; former Staff Senate President

It should be noted that two faculty members from the working group on governance and communication resigned as a result of a difference of opinion regarding whether comments collected in an open-ended survey should be shared with the campus community.

After the report was drafted, a reading committee consisting of faculty from Civil Engineering and Classics, and staff from Information Technology, Student Life, and the University Library was convened to review the Interim Report and determine if it fully addresses the questions raised by WASC. Members included:

• Robert Boyd, Manager, Student Admin Systems Management, Information Technology • Steven Chiesa, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering • Matthew Duncan, Associate Dean, Office of Student Life • Helen Moritz, Associate Professor, Classics • Jennifer Nutefall, University Librarian, University Library

A draft of the report was also shared with the campus community, and two fora were held to solicit feedback. Faculty and staff also provided feedback using a blog. In all, 25 participants attended the fora and more than 40 comments were posted to the blog. Finally, the report was presented to the Planning Action Council (PAC), a University Policy Committee that promotes, coordinates, and oversees planning at the University level. Feedback from the reading committee, the open fora, the blog, and the PAC was used to revise the Interim Report.

While the campus community generally agreed with the sections of the report that focused on inclusive excellence, the Jesuit School of Theology, and program review, there was debate about the section that dealt with shared governance and communication. Through the open fora and blog, some indicated that they believed that the section was “whitewashed” and did not accurately capture the nature of governance issues on campus. Others stated that the section was balanced and that it highlighted the fact that there is much work to be done surrounding governance and communication. Still, others were troubled by the resignation of the faculty who worked on the governance and communication section of the report.

In the following pages, there are four sections of the report. Each section includes a discussion of the issue, a description of the actions that have been taken to address the issue, an analysis of the effectiveness of the actions taken, and a conclusion with a set of recommendations and a timeline for future action.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence

Santa Clara University identified “Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence” as a theme it wanted to explore in greater depth in its 2009 Capacity and Preparatory Review report. Embedded in the theme were three goals: increase diversity and inclusiveness; foster a deeper understanding of the goal of promoting diversity and inclusive excellence; and develop more effective ways of promoting diversity and inclusive excellence through structures and resources.

In the 2011 Commission Action Letter, President Wolff offered insightful feedback on Santa Clara’s efforts to promote inclusive excellence. In his summary, Dr. Wolff indicated that Santa Clara had made great progress in reaching a number of the aforementioned goals. For example, he acknowledged that the campus is successfully working to integrate the concept of inclusive excellence into the academic life of the University, and shared that Santa Clara is making significant progress towards a seamless integration of the term inclusive excellence into much of the campus experience.

At the same time, President Wolff emphasized the need for Santa Clara to develop focused attention, leadership, coordination, resource commitment, and accountability to the goals of inclusive excellence. Additionally, he pointed out the importance of developing a culture of evidence through the use of a diversity dashboard, and highlighted the need to strengthen the enrollment and completion of African American students and the recruitment and retention of African American faculty (CFRs 1.4, 2.10, 3.1). This report provides an update on Santa Clara University’s efforts to promote a Community of Inclusive Excellence.

Actions Taken: Demonstrate Focused Attention, Leadership, Coordination, Resource Commitment, and Accountability Over the past decade, Santa Clara has developed a number of programs and resources to support and promote inclusive excellence. While many projects began on a small scale in a single administrative or academic unit, Santa Clara has been working to provide greater institution- wide leadership, increase coordination, allocate additional resources, and strengthen its overall efforts. Below is a summary of Santa Clara’s recent efforts to foster inclusive excellence. Some of these efforts were discussed in earlier CPR and EER reports. They are also included in this document as they continue to have a positive impact on Santa Clara’s efforts to foster a diverse and inclusive community.

Council on Inclusive Excellence The Provost’s Office established the Provost’s Council on Inclusive Excellence to advance inclusive excellence on the Santa Clara campus. It was later expanded and renamed the Council on Inclusive Excellence. Since its inception, the Council has worked to nurture a diverse University community rooted in mutual understanding and respect; educate students, staff, and faculty about the importance of a diverse community; continue promoting social justice as a cornerstone of its mission; support innovation in approaches to enhance access and retention of underrepresented students, staff, and faculty; and seek connections among different reference groups by fostering a climate of intergroup dialogue.

Between 2008 and 2012, the Council:

• Developed three-year campus-wide conversations and programing on key issues related to identity and inclusion. Themes included: (a) Identity: Individuality and Community; (b) Humanity: Exploring Our Identity to Understand Ourselves and Others; and (c) How We Relate in the World. Major guest speakers included Sean Theriault, Sylvia Hurtado, and Troy Duster, who addressed topics such as “Growing Up Gay in the Catholic Church” and “Whitewashing Diversity in Academia: What’s Behind the Strong Resistance to Multiculturalism?”

• Established programs for Engaged Dialogue to provide students, faculty, and staff with opportunities for acquiring the knowledge and capacity to engage in civil discourse on topics related to identity, religion, sexuality, and cultural diversity.

• Implemented Perspectives, a peer-educator program, which seeks to provide student leaders with the tools and training needed to foster an inclusive community. The program consists of three components: (a) Exploring Perspectives, which focuses on exploring one’s own social identity and multiple identities; (b) Understanding Perspectives, which focuses on developing an understanding of intergroup communication; and (c) Challenging Perspectives, which focuses on obtaining skills to engage in and challenge intergroup dialogue.

• Instituted annual Inclusive Excellence Awards to honor students, faculty, and staff who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to enhancing the University’s multicultural community.

• Established the Inclusive Excellence Roundtable to identify best practices for faculty recruitment. Important Roundtable goals include identifying shared norms and best practices to guide the campus and enhance the University’s efforts to further diversify its recruitment and candidate pools and ultimately its faculty.

• Established an Inclusive Excellence Student Advisory Council to serve in an advisory capacity to the Council on Inclusive Excellence. In addition, one of the advisory group’s members serves on the Council.

• Worked with the Office of Institutional Research to develop a diversity dashboard.

In 2010–2011, the Council began to ask itself whether Santa Clara would benefit from developing a more centralized effort to promote inclusive excellence. At roughly the same time, the WASC external review team indicated that Santa Clara could benefit from centralizing its diversity and inclusion efforts. Taking this feedback seriously, Santa Clara developed an Office for Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) and allocated 1.0 staff FTE and 0.5 faculty FTE to the Office.

Office for Diversity and Inclusion In July 2013, the Provost appointed the University’s first Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion, and a Program Director was hired in January 2014. Together, these individuals will work closely with members of the University community to enhance the recruitment, retention,

and success of faculty from underrepresented groups. In addition, they will promote a student climate of inclusive excellence by collaborating with many University offices in sponsoring a variety of curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular programs, and coordinate with the offices of Enrollment Management, Affirmative Action, and Human Resources in efforts to recruit a more diverse student body and staff.

In the eight months that the Office for Diversity and Inclusion has been in existence, the Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion has been working to establish a foundation for moving forward in a collaborative way with other campus units. The Associate Provost’s activities have included a listening tour to hear the concerns and suggestions of the University community, meetings with numerous groups such as the Women of Color Network, the Office of Undergraduate Admission, the faculty of the School of Education and Counseling Psychology, the Drahmann Academic Advising Center, the Division of Student Life, the Office of Affirmative Action, the Department of Athletics and Recreation, the Academic Deans, and the Council of Chairs in the College of Arts and Sciences. Information gathered during the listening tour has proved useful in a number of ways, not the least of which has been the decision to engage an outside vendor, Hanover Research, to assist in procuring major grants to address the issue of diversity.

The Office for Diversity and Inclusion has worked with the Dean’s Office in the College of Arts and Sciences to (1) formulate a new schedule for the Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows program, and (2) work with that office and the Director of the rapidly growing Public Health Program to hire an African American as the Dean’s Executive Professor of Public Health to serve as both a faculty member and a public intellectual.

Job Elephant, an online recruiting resource, has been secured by the Office for Diversity and Inclusion. Through this partnership, the University works with a dedicated advertising manager who posts all University job positions on six websites focused on underrepresented groups (Hispanicsinhighered.com, Asiansinhighered.com, Blacksinhighered.com, LGBTinhighered.com, NativeAmericansinhighered.com, and Veteransinhighered.com. When search chairs contact the advertising manager to use departmental funds to focus on more discipline-specific sites, she also looks for more area-specific sites for underrepresented groups.

Future plans include developing a process and tool kit for departments and search committees to promote inclusive excellence faculty search processes; collaboration between the Faculty Development Office, the Affirmative Action Office, the Global Engagement Office, and the Drahmann Academic Advising Center, and the Office of Multicultural Learning to create a workshop series to promote faculty awareness when interacting with diverse populations; and helping to support a new student-initiated peer-mentoring program for underrepresented ethnic minorities and first-generation college students.

Office for Multicultural Learning In 1999, Santa Clara, with the support of a grant from the James Irvine Foundation, formed the Center for Multicultural Learning. When the grant concluded in 2007, diversity and multicultural learning initiatives moved to the Office of the Provost. The program, renamed the Office for Multicultural Learning (OML), was subsequently formed in conjunction with the Council on

Inclusive Excellence. In 2012, the OML moved from the Provost’s Office to the Division of Student Life. This reorganization created opportunities for the OML to build stronger networks and increase collaboration with the Center for Student Leadership and the Office of Student Life. When the OML transitioned to its new organizational home, the Division of Student Life increased its FTE by 0.5 with a new position, the Assistant Director for Multicultural Learning and Student Organizations.

The OML is designed to coordinate, collaborate, and promote cross-campus programming and related initiatives for purposes of enhancing Santa Clara University’s goals in the areas of diversity and inclusive excellence. In partnership with the Council on Inclusive Excellence, the newly formed Office for Diversity and Inclusion, and a host of campus departments, it seeks to cultivate a campus environment that supports diverse perspectives and dialogues among individuals from varied cultural backgrounds, social classes, religious traditions, sexual orientations, disability groups, and genders.

The OML fulfills its work by coordinating and facilitating an array of academic and co-curricular programming. Though varied in their target and focus, each program serves to link, highlight, or recognize differences between groups while asserting the essential unity of human experience and need. Intergroup dialogue is encouraged, not to eliminate differences but to understand and appreciate the richness multiple cultures bring to campus. Broadly conceived and deliberately defined, these programs create a culture and climate of diversity. They are crucial elements that encourage and foster a multicultural campus community at Santa Clara University.

While programming varies from year to year, there is a cadre of programs that have been offered annually since 2007. These programs include:

• Annual Multicultural Welcome Dinner: An opportunity for the University community to welcome the new and transfer students who make up Santa Clara University’s multicultural populations.

• Asian-Pacific Islander Month, Black History Month, and Chicano-Latino Heritage Month: OML works with the Multicultural Center, the Division of Student Life, and a cadre of academic departments to create educational and social programs that recognize the contributions that people and communities of color have made to enrich the history and culture of this country.

• Difficult Dialogues: A two-part program consisting of self-reflection and group reflection. Part One is a series of weekly conversations in which participants explore various aspects of their identities. Part Two is a Multicultural Retreat that helps students build the skills needed to have effective cross-cultural dialogue about critical issues and foster a truly inclusive community.

• Dine and Discuss: Coordinated by the Diversity Committee in the Residential Learning Communities, Dine and Discuss is a series of interactive workshops that use films and panel discussions as a focal point to dialogue around race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other forms of diversity.

• Tunnel of Oppression: An interactive program that highlights contemporary issues of oppression in its various forms. The program is designed to introduce participants to the concepts of oppression, privilege, and power and to educate and challenge them to think more deeply about related issues.

• Senior Ceremonies: A series of commencement activities for graduating seniors who identify as African American or Black, Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or Chicano or Latino. The celebratory ceremonies are designed to foster a sense of accomplishment and develop a culturally relevant opportunity for students to recognize their friends and family. Celebrations include student and keynote speakers and cultural entertainers.

In addition, the OML staff serves as advisors to the Multicultural Center (MCC) and the Rainbow Resource Center. The MCC is a chartered student organization that serves as the multicultural programming body and the racial and ethnic advocacy voice for students. The Rainbow Resource Center is a safe space created by a collaborative group of students, faculty, and staff. The Center aims to promote greater acceptance and visibility of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, Asexual, and Ally (LGBTQQIPAA) community.

In an effort to expand on the depth of programming to match its breadth, OML has launched a planning process to identify and incorporate a set of multicultural competencies that can be used as learning objectives and a basis for assessment of co-curricular learning. It is also assuming leadership of the Loop mentorship program (discussed in greater depth in a subsequent section of this report).

LEAD Scholars Program Building upon the success of a smaller bridge program, the LEAD (Leadership Excellence and Academic Development) Scholars is a four-year program that is designed for first-generation college students and is focused on academics, community engagement, and service. Administered by the University Honors Program, this program seeks to enhance the academic success and retention of first-generation college students.

Since its inception, the program has served 4 to 5 percent of each entering freshman cohort. In 2007, 43 first-time freshmen participated in the program. Since then, cohorts have grown in size, and the program now serves approximately 60 new students each academic year. Between fall 2007 and spring 2013, a total of 317 students participated in the program. Of those, 20.5 percent identified as Black or African American, 55.0 percent as Latino or Hispanic, 15.1 percent as Asian or Asian American, 5.6 percent as white, and 3.7 percent as other.

In the fall of their first year, LEAD Scholars participate in a one-week program that introduces them to the University’s academic culture. They start their English 1A (Critical Thinking and Writing) course early. They also complete an introductory course in Engineering, Chemistry, Business, or Religious Studies, and participate in a series of workshops that introduce them to important campus resources. During LEAD Week, participants have the opportunity to engage with their peer mentors, who offer advice and coordinate a host of team-building activities that foster community and inclusion.

During the academic year, LEAD Scholars continue to study in community through their English 1A and 2A courses and their LEAD seminars. English 1A and 2A are linked courses that focus on critical thinking, analysis, and writing. Through sequenced courses, participants are able to engage with the same faculty member and classmates for both terms and develop their skills in an academically challenging but supportive environment. There are two LEAD seminar courses that address students’ transition to college. In the first quarter, students examine various resources on campus and how these resources can assist in a successful transition to college. In the second term, students explore campus leadership opportunities and how to take advantage of these opportunities.

LEAD Scholars who are pursuing a degree in the natural sciences are encouraged to enroll in Quantitative Skills in Chemistry in the fall quarter, and Problem Solving Skills in Chemistry in the winter. Taken in conjunction with Chemistry 11 and 12, these workshop-style courses are designed to reinforce topics in mathematics and approaches to problem solving that can help overcome barriers to successful performance in general chemistry. A typical class will include an introduction to a quantitative concept, both its context and its application. This is followed by worksheets and student work “at the board” to move a small group of learners along the path to more competence and confidence in quantitative skills and problem-solving reasoning.

After their first year, LEAD Scholars continue to receive support. Participants are provided timely academic advising, priority registration, and quarterly workshops on topics such as study abroad and graduate school. LEAD Scholars are expected to participate in at least two LEAD Scholars activities each year. These activities include attending or planning a LEAD event or serving as a guide for a LEAD-sponsored tour for K–12 students.

Finally, LEAD Scholars are encouraged to participate in LEAD courses that are designed to promote critical analysis and rigorous inquiry. LEAD 10 focuses on creating college-going communities. The course provides an opportunity for first- and second-year students to fulfill their Experiential Learning for Social Justice and Diversity core requirements by learning about college access issues for underrepresented students and leading college workshops at high schools. LEAD students can also participate in LEAD 100, a seminar for juniors and seniors that fosters the development of research and writing skills while helping students explore their vocations.

To gauge program success, Santa Clara compared the persistence of students in the LEAD Scholars program to that of all other first-time freshmen who entered in the same years as the LEAD Scholars. First-year retention rates of LEAD Scholars (mean = 97.2 percent) were higher than those of other first-year students (mean=93.7 percent). While LEAD students were more likely to return after their first year, their cumulative GPA after the first year (mean = 3.03) was slightly lower than their counterparts’ (mean = 3.18). Four-year graduation rates were also examined for the 2007–2009 cohorts. LEAD Scholars graduated at a slightly higher rate than other first-year students (79.2 percent vs. 76.9 percent), but the difference is not statistically significant. Taken together, the results suggest that LEAD Scholars are as academically successful as their peers.

Santa Clara is proud of its efforts to foster student success and retention of first-generation college students. The LEAD Scholars program provides academic and social support, helps develop academic skills and leadership abilities, and offers opportunities to become deeply engaged in the academic life of the University. As part of its Strategic Plan, the University seeks to strengthen and grow the LEAD Scholars program. The program has already begun to engage transfer students who are first generation, and there are plans to double the size of entering cohorts by 2020.

Summary The Provost’s Office has introduced a number of initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion on the Santa Clara campus. Some of these, such as the Council on Inclusive Excellence and the Office for Multicultural Learning, work to engage the entire campus community by providing thought-provoking programming, resources, and training designed to foster an inclusive community. Others, including the LEAD Scholars program, were designed to support a specific community. Each of these initiatives, in its own way, has helped nurture a diverse University community rooted in mutual understanding and respect.

The Council on Inclusive Excellence, for example, has served as an institutional champion for diversity and inclusion. By developing and promoting projects such as Perspectives, and campus- wide conversations on identity and community, the Council has elevated the level of discourse and provided the campus with critical resources on diversity and inclusion. Working in collaboration with the Council, the Office for Multicultural Learning has facilitated hundreds of programs over the past six years. Each of these programs has worked to create opportunities for faculty, staff, and students to explore issues of identity and culture so that their perceptions of the world expand and become more accurate. Significant attention has also been paid to ensuring the success of first-generation students, many of whom are students of color. Through the LEAD Scholars program, first-generation students are introduced to the academic culture of Santa Clara and provided with the resources needed to be successful.

Santa Clara is proud of these initiatives and firmly believes that they have had a positive impact on the campus community. At the same time, Santa Clara values the WASC Visiting Team’s recommendation to provide greater institution-wide leadership, increase coordination, allocate additional resources, and strengthen its overall efforts. In response to this recommendation, Santa Clara developed an Office for Diversity and Inclusion and allocated 1.0 staff FTE and 0.5 faculty FTE to the Office. Since his appointment in June 2013, the first Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion has been actively engaged in enhancing the recruitment, retention, and success of faculty from underrepresented groups and working with other offices to promote a student climate of inclusive excellence. The Associate Provost, along with the Program Director, will play a critical role in working with the Council on Inclusive Excellence, the Office for Multicultural Learning, the Division of Student Life, and the Schools and College to coordinate institutional efforts to promote inclusive excellence. Santa Clara is also committed to expanding the scope of the LEAD Scholars program. As part of the Strategic Plan, the University is working to double the number of participants.

Action Taken: Develop a Culture of Evidence through the Use of a Diversity Dashboard In the fall of 2010, the Council on Inclusive Excellence formed a working group to begin a process of reviewing data related to diversity. Work continued in 2011 with the Council discussing the development of a diversity dashboard and identifying a preliminary list of components for the dashboard. The working group consulted with the Office of Institutional Research to refine components, identify benchmark institution groups, and determine appropriate data sources. The Council determined that the diversity dashboard should serve as a tool to provide a statistical portrait of Santa Clara’s progress toward diversity and inclusion, with the University Community as the intended audience.

Council discussions continued in 2012 about a proposed dashboard website and about appropriate goals to include as part of an annual report on diversity. The indicator categories were refined to three: a) measures of representation among students, faculty, and staff by gender and race/ethnicity; b) measures of student outcomes or success by group; and c) indicators of campus climate. The dashboard was developed in phases by the Office of Institutional Research, with a Level 1 report to present indicators providing a high-level current-year overview of the representation of diversity of Santa Clara students, faculty, and staff, along with indicators of campus climate for undergraduate students. Data is presented by gender and race/ethnicity where data sources permitted. For race/ethnicity, detailed categories as well as roll-up groups of underrepresented minorities and persons of color are provided, again where data permitted. Later, a Level 2 report will be developed to allow drill-downs to disaggregated and longitudinal indicators, and possibly the inclusion of additional indicators.

The Level 1 Diversity Dashboard Report Metrics in the Level 1 report present data in the three reporting categories established by the Council. To facilitate comparisons with benchmark institutions, the dashboard uses the racial and ethnic classifications as reported to the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). For the first two dashboard reporting categories, vertical bar charts provide a comparison between Santa Clara and a set of benchmark institutions. Each bar is divided into quartiles, with the middle line representing the median for the indicator. A diamond- shaped indicator represents Santa Clara’s position among the benchmark institutions.

For the first category, measures of representation for students, faculty, and staff by gender and race/ethnicity, the dashboard examines undergraduate and graduate students enrolled as well as degrees conferred for Santa Clara and a group of comparison institutions. The comparison institution list for undergraduate indicators is based on the number of Santa Clara cross-admits and represents institutions with which Santa Clara typically competes for undergraduate students. For graduate student indicators, schools without graduate programs are excluded from the benchmark list for undergraduate indicators. For faculty, “full-time faculty by tenure status” is the selected indicator, using comparison institutions that appear on at least two faculty salary comparison lists used by Santa Clara in faculty recruitment and salary benchmarking. The staff indicator, “staff by professional and non-professional status,” uses the undergraduate benchmark institution comparison list. For an indicator of the degree of economic disadvantage of undergraduate students, the percentage of undergraduates receiving Pell Grant aid is included, again using the undergraduate benchmark comparison institution list. Pell Grant data are not available by gender or race/ethnicity.

The second diversity dashboard category includes measures of student outcomes or success by gender and race/ethnicity. The first two indicators provide internal (within-SCU) comparisons only for undergraduate first-to-second-year retention rates and four-year graduation rates, as IPEDS comparison data for these measures are not available. The third indicator, six-year graduation rates, provides a comparison with the same undergraduate benchmark institutions used for undergraduate indicators in the first diversity dashboard category.

The third and final diversity dashboard category includes indicators of campus climate, using “constructs” from the national Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) College Senior Survey (CSS). The CSS examines the impact of college by collecting information on important outcomes of college and the experiences and student traits that lead toward greater gains in both cognitive and affective areas. The survey constructs are weighted averages of responses to a set of related survey questions, such as questions providing evidence of positive cross-racial interaction. These constructs provide insights into how students in different groups perceive the Santa Clara climate and to some extent allow us to compare overall perceptions of climate with sets of comparison schools.

Two sets of charts are presented for each construct. One compares Santa Clara’s responses with two comparison institution groups: (a) all private universities participating in the survey; and (b) all public and private universities and public four-year colleges. Data are presented for all students and by gender. Data by race/ethnicity are not available. The second set of charts provides internal (within-SCU) responses by gender and race/ethnicity. Responses are divided into high, average, and low responses, with tests of statistical significance provided below each chart.

Next Steps Future plans include development of a more concise and streamlined summary report of key indicators; determination of appropriate data from the Level 1 report to present publicly; development of indicators for additional dimensions of diversity and inclusion; and the establishment of goals related to diversity and inclusion. For the Level 2 report, the Office of Institutional Research is evaluating tools to facilitate multi-year data presentation and to permit drill-downs.

Action Taken: Provide Clear Evidence of Progress in Recruitment of African American Students Santa Clara has been working to achieve a set of enrollment goals that are aligned with the institution’s Strategic Plan. Embedded in these goals is a desire to enroll a cohort that is academically talented, civically engaged, and ethnically, socio-economically, religiously, and geographically diverse. As part of its overall enrollment plan, Santa Clara seeks to enroll a class in which African Americans comprise between 2.5 and 5 percent of the entering cohort. This goal was set in part based on the pool of college-bound high school graduates in the western region of the United States, an area in which Santa Clara recruits heavily. According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), which has been producing high school graduate forecasts for over 30 years, Black, non-Hispanic students are projected to account for five percent of public high school graduates in the West in 2014-15. While

enrollments goals need to be regularly evaluated as demographic patterns shift, Santa Clara’s current goal appears to be in congruence with the pool of available applicants. To meet this and other goals, Santa Clara engages in an array of activities to increase the number of applicants and matriculants. These efforts are described in detail in the following section.

Recruitment Strategies Undergraduate Admission employs a well-crafted recruitment strategy in which specific admission counselors develop strong networks in different regions of the country. By engaging in recruitment fairs, individual high school presentations, and social networking, counselors introduce prospective students to the values and culture of Santa Clara. In the course of their work, Admission staff pay particular attention to engaging students from underrepresented communities. Undergraduate Admission also facilitates a number of on-campus programs, including Open House, Preview Days, and Shadow SCU. These daylong programs showcase the opportunities and resources that Santa Clara offers. Embedded in the events are workshops that highlight the programs that have been developed to support first-generation students and students of color.

In collaboration with Undergraduate Admission, there are several other programs that assist in the recruitment of students of color. Since 1998, Undergraduate Admission has worked with the Fulfillment Fund, a private, nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles that seeks to “help promising students from disadvantaged backgrounds to graduate from high school, pursue advanced education, and become contributing members of the community.” Santa Clara works with the Fulfillment Fund to host an overnight program for high school students who live in the greater Los Angeles area. Many of the participants have never considered nor visited universities outside of Los Angeles. While at Santa Clara, participants attend class and engage in a full schedule of activities including a guided campus tour, an admission information session, a student panel and a social event with current students. While not all of these students will apply to Santa Clara, the visit experience has proven to be valuable in exposing them to options beyond their local communities while building on the work that the Fulfillment Fund has already begun in advancing a college going culture.

The SCU-Future Teachers Project (FTP) is another recruitment program. It was established in 1995 in an effort to provide college-preparatory programming and support to students who want to become teachers in urban and underserved communities. The program is designed to strategically attract students from traditionally underrepresented groups, provide culturally relevant support services, and develop leaders capable of making an immediate impact on their respective communities upon graduation. In practice, the Future Teachers Project recruits high school students who are committed to becoming teachers in urban communities; supports these students in their college application process; provides financial, academic, and social support for students accepted into the program; and prepares them for their credential and first teaching position.

Finally, the Summer Engineering Seminar (SES) is a one-week summer program for students who have completed their junior year of high school. It is designed to motivate young people, particularly those who are underrepresented in the sciences, to pursue science and engineering majors in college so they can ultimately participate in the scientific and technical workforce. It

provides participants with a chance to explore the possibility of engineering as a career while living in University residence halls and experiencing campus life. During their stay on campus, SES participants attend introductory level workshops spanning several disciplines of engineering, work with faculty on a mini design project, attend admissions and financial aid workshops, and connect with current Santa Clara students.

Yield Events Undergraduate Admission facilitates a number of yield events for students who have applied to and been accepted to Santa Clara. An annual outreach phone campaign is an integral part of the yield plan for African American students who have been admitted. Four dates during winter and spring terms are scheduled each year for current students to place personal congratulatory calls to admitted students and invite them to the SADIE (Students of African Descent Invitational Experience) program. In addition to establishing a personal connection with the admitted student, these call campaigns also serve as a “food and fellowship” bonding opportunity for current students who are anxious to see their community expand and want to support enrollment of a critical mass of new students.

As part of its yield activities, Undergraduate Admission hosts the Asian and Pacific Islander Experience (APEX), Noche Latina, and SADIE. These are two-day recruitment events designed specifically for students of color who have been admitted to the University. The programs celebrate the students’ admission to Santa Clara and highlight resources that Santa Clara offers to ensure that they grow academically, personally, and professionally. As part of the visit, participants attend classes, meet with key faculty and staff, stay overnight in the residential learning communities, and participate in workshops. APEX, Noche Latina, and SADIE serve as an important program for newly admitted students. Participants have an opportunity to forge relationships with other prospective and current students and build social networks, which assist in the transition to the college environment. These yield events have been useful in the matriculation of students of color. In 2013, 84% of applicants who attended SADIE enrolled at Santa Clara. Noche Latina and APEX were also successful with respective yield rates of 68% and 69%.

Taken together, these recruitment efforts have had a positive impact on the recruitment and enrollment of African American students at the undergraduate level. In 2004, African Americans accounted for 1.78 percent1 of the incoming freshman class. That percentage has fluctuated, but

1 Prior to the introduction of the new race ethnicity data collection mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, Santa Clara assigned a single race/ethnic category using a rule set commonly referred to as the “Santa Clara Rules.” Under the Santa Clara rules, there is no “two or more races” category, and applicants or students who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories were assigned to a single category in rank order: Black Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White. This rule set continues to be used at Santa Clara for internal planning and decision making and is maintained in the Institutional Research Data Mart.

In October of 2007, the Federal Register published Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education, which mandated changes in both the collection and reporting of race/ethnic data for all campus populations (undergraduates, graduates, staff, and faculty). Under this guidance, the requirements for collection are distinct from those for reporting. In particular, educational institutions are required to collect racial and ethnic data using a two-part question that permits respondents to identify with multiple race/ethnic categories, yet they must report data to the Department of Education (IPEDS) such that individuals are assigned to a single race/ethnic category. This method of collecting race/ethnicity data, commonly referred to as

there has been a steady increase in the percentage of incoming students who identify as African American (see Table 1). In the three most recent years for which data are available, African Americans made up 4.13 percent (2011), 5.39 percent (2012), and 5.57 percent (2013) on the incoming freshman class.

Table 1: Percentage of Fall, First-Time, Entering Cohort Who Identify as African American, Fall 2004–Fall 2013

Next Steps Santa Clara continues to make progress in identifying and addressing the unique challenges of attracting, recruiting, and enrolling African American Students. Yet, more focused work is needed. The campus community is aware that these students and their parents are sophisticated consumers whose college choices are increasingly linked to an institution’s ability to meet their academic, social, and financial needs. For example, some first generation, low income, and ethnic minority students who readily qualify for admission to Santa Clara University choose to go elsewhere because of their belief that they will be among a small minority on campus. Identifying and addressing these needs at each decision point along the way will be critical in successful accomplishment of our enrollment goals.

Future plans include:

• Revision of the “We Want You at SCU” campaign. The refreshed campaign will have a specific focus on African American and Latino prospective students who may not yet be convinced that they are wanted, welcomed, and valued at Santa Clara.

“IPEDS Ethnicity,” became mandatory for higher education institutions in 2010. The first question is whether the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question is whether the respondent is from one or more races, using the following five racial groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents are not to be offered the choice of selecting a “Two or more races” category. The IPEDS “trumping rules” require that all persons who identify as Hispanic or Latino be reported as Hispanic or Latino independent of any other race self-identification. Those who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino but select two or more race categories are reported as “Two or more races”; otherwise, persons are reported in the single race/ethnic category provided as a response. The IPEDS “trumping rules” are applied to all data available in the university system of record, PeopleSoft. This includes data for individuals who identify with multiple race/ethnic categories prior to the mandatory collection requirement of 2010. In practice, employing the new IPEDS data definition limits the University’s ability to understand the specific races and ethnicities of those students who identify with more than one race/ethnicity. 18

• Acknowledgement of possible differences in quality and rigor of high school academic experience of some students that may account for standardized score depression. While Santa Clara like other highly ranked colleges and universities seeks to recruit students who have SAT and ACT scores that are above average, the undergraduate admission evaluation process will be continually monitored and revised to ensure that the effect on admission of African American students is not negatively impacted.

• Examination of the college choice patterns among African American families. Undergraduate Admission seeks to better understand how and why students choose a college and whether or not Santa Clara currently provides the services and social support that they expect college to provide.

• Collaboration between the Council on Inclusive Excellence and Undergraduate Admission on pipeline issues for African American communities.

Action Taken: Strengthen the Retention of African American Students Santa Clara has a strong record of retention and completion. Between 2003 and 2012, the first- to-second-year retention rate has been between 92 and 95 percent for all students and between 81.3 and 94.2 percent for African American students (see Table 2).

Table 2: Percentage of Fall, First-Time Entering Cohort Who Persist to the Second Year, 2003–2012

In part, Santa Clara students’ success is connected to the first-year experience and the Core Curriculum. At the heart of the first-year experience are two sequences, each consisting of two courses that focus on critical thinking and writing, and on cultures and ideas. Students take these two-course sequences in community with the same faculty. The students’ experiences in these sequences and in the Core Curriculum are complemented by a range of opportunities for engagement that take place over the course of four years. Throughout their academic career, students engage deeply with their academic majors and minors, residential learning communities, clubs, and dozens of other campus organizations. As a whole, the Santa Clara experience challenges students to go beyond the routine and familiar to explore new approaches to learning; encourages exploration of complex, multi-dimensional topics in a rigorous intellectual environment; and promotes reflection and depth of thought within the Jesuit context of educating citizens and leaders of competence, conscience, and compassion.

The strong combination of curricular and co-curricular learning appears to have a meaningful impact on students. Through the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Senior Survey, graduating seniors note that they have a strong Sense of Belonging, a construct that measures the extent to which students feel academically and socially integrated into the fabric of the campus. In 2013, seniors reported a substantial positive effect for this construct when compared to graduates of other public and private universities (effect size = 0.20 [0.09, 0.31]). Santa Clara’s strong focus on community also seems to have a substantial and significant positive effect on students’ Positive Cross-Racial Interaction, a measure of students’ level of positive interaction with diverse peers (effect size = 0.30 [0.19, 0.41]). In slight contrast, Santa Clara students score at par on the Negative Cross-Racial Interaction construct when compared to peers at other public and private institutions (effect size = -0.01 [-0.18, 0.17]). Taken together, data from the HERI survey suggest that Santa Clara is fostering a strong community whose members respect and care for one another. Such a community plays a meaningful role in a student’s decision to persist and graduate.

Santa Clara is also proud of its six-year graduation rate, which for the entering classes between 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 has been between 84.0% and 87.3% (see Table 3). At the same time, it recognizes that the six-year graduation rate for African American students has been more variable and lower than for the entire cohort (between 56.3% and 80.0% for the same period). Still, there has been significant improvement since last reported in the Educational Effectiveness Review; outcome data for the 2002 cohort indicate that Santa Clara graduated African American students at 87% of the rate of their white counterparts; for the 2007 cohort this relative rate is modelled at 92%, closing the gap by five points (see Graph 1). This analysis of the long-term trend in rates shows incremental improvement (p = 0.0570) and roughly parallels the experience of Hispanic students. The 1990 cohort of Hispanic students evidenced a relative rate of 92%, and by 1999 Hispanic students achieved parity with their white counterparts—parity that has been maintained. Notwithstanding these results, African American students started this process from a lower baseline, and any gap, even a smaller one, is of concern. Given its deep concern about the retention and completion of all students and in particular those from communities that are underrepresented, the University is strengthening its efforts to engage academically struggling students. The Drahmann Academic Advising and Learning Resources Center has revised several protocols to engage students earlier, and the University has developed an academic mentorship program for academically at-risk students.

Table 3: Percentage of First-Time Entering Cohort Who Graduate within Six Years, 1999–00 to 2007–08

Graph1: Relative Risk Estimates with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals by Race/Ethni9cty First, Time, Fall-entering, Degree-seeking Undergraduate Cohorts, 1983-2007

Drahmann Academic Advising and Learning Resources Center Each term, approximately 80 students (1.5 percent of the undergraduate population) are on academic probation. Over the past year, the Drahmann Center and the Undergraduate Studies Council have engaged in conversations regarding strategies Santa Clara can employ to support these students in their efforts to return to good standing. Thus far, the Drahmann Center has revised several protocols to better engage academically struggling students. For example, in fall 2012, it implemented an early alert system for first-year students who have been identified as struggling in introductory courses; implemented an academic hold for students on probation, which requires them to meet with a University Advisor; created an assessment tool and an academic agreement for students on probation; and begun to develop a series of workshops for students in academic difficulty.

The outreach to students on probation has been particularly useful. By mandating an advising meeting and requiring an academic agreement between Center and student, University Advisors have been able to engage students in frank conversations about their academic progress, identify particular challenges, and suggest beneficial resources. Although it is too early to demonstrate the impact the revised strategies are having, initial reports indicate that the early intervention has helped 10 students return to good standing in less than two academic terms.

Loop Mentorship Program The Office of Student Life and the Office for Multicultural Learning are piloting a mentoring project for students who are struggling to develop an academic or social connection to Santa

Clara. Of students who are struggling to maintain good academic standing (2.0 cumulative GPA), approximately 70 percent are men and roughly one-third are students of color. Seeking to engage these students, in the spring of 2013, the Office of Student Life developed a pilot program to provide academic and social support to at-risk students, with coaching from current Santa Clara faculty and students.

The program consisted of a faculty member and a peer mentor coaching two undergraduate male students of color during one academic term. During this period, the faculty member and peer mentor met with the student virtually or in person each week for eight weeks. The interaction was designed so that the faculty member and student could identify academic challenges the student was facing, discuss possible strategies to address those challenges, and explore campus resources that might be of value. The goal of this pilot program was to ensure that students facing academic probation had every possible opportunity to succeed.

The initial project met with mixed results. While some students benefited from the mentorship and structure of the program, a number of them found it challenging to engage in weekly interactions. This finding is not surprising, as a number of students in academic difficulty struggle with time management.

The Office of Student Life has been working with the Office for Multicultural Learning (which is assuming leadership for the program) to review and strengthen the program. In its next incarnation, the program will be for two academic terms and will match trained juniors and seniors to freshmen and sophomores. Mentoring triads (one mentor to two mentees) will also be connected to faculty and staff mentors. Thus far, 18 mentors and 39 mentees have signed up to participate. At the conclusion of the second pilot, there will be another review of the program to better understand its impact.

Summary Recognizing the need to strengthen the six-year graduation rate for African American students, Santa Clara has taken a number of steps to provide additional support to those students who are having difficulty connecting to the academic and social life of the University. Early intervention from the Drahmann Academic Advising and Learning Resources Center, coupled with the support from the Loop mentorship programs, should have a notable impact. At the same time, the LEAD Scholars program is revising its screening process to increase the number of African Americans who participate and benefit from it. The Council on Inclusive Excellence will also be working with the Office of Student Life, the Drahmann Center, and the Office of Multicultural Learning to conduct an analysis of those African Americans who did not complete their degree within six years. Careful attention will be paid to institutional and sociocultural factors that shape students’ decision to withdraw. The Council believes it can use data gleaned from the study to develop programs and resources to better support African American students.

Action Taken: Strengthen the Recruitment and Retention of African American Faculty It has been a challenge to recruit and retain African American faculty at Santa Clara. Between 2003 and 2013, the percentage of all faculty members who identify as African American has varied between 1.84 and 3.09 percent. For full-time faculty, it has fluctuated between 1.89 and 3.18 percent (see Table 4). Deeply aware of the richness a diverse faculty brings to the

curriculum and to the academic community, Santa Clara has been actively working to increase the number of faculty who are underrepresented.

Table 4: Percent of Faculty who Identify as African American, Fall 2003- Fall 2013

Over the past seven years, Santa Clara has been employing a number of strategies to strengthen faculty diversity. As previously noted, the Council on Inclusive Excellence developed the Inclusive Excellence Roundtable to identify best practices in faculty recruitment. The Roundtable was composed of one representative from each of the recruitment and appointment committees actively engaged in searches during any calendar year. It met regularly during the course of the academic year, and designated members discuss the goals, strategies, and practices used in their respective department’s or School’s current recruitment with an explanation of the environment in which the recruitment is taking place. After the initial presentations, the members provide updates on the progress of their respective recruitment efforts, engage in shared reflection on the recruitment progress, and identify shared norms and best practices to guide the campus. With the development of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion, the Associate Provost and program director are evaluating the success of the Roundtable and developing new recruitment strategies. ODI will be working with academic departments to strengthen the new hire proposal process, develop a hiring toolkit that focuses on inclusive searches, facilitate faculty search committee trainings, build a multi-year hiring pipeline, and employ Job Elephant, an online recruiting resource, to advertise future positions to applicants from underrepresented communities.

The Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows program is another effort designed to diversify the faculty. Developed by the College of Arts and Sciences, the program is designed for recent graduates of doctoral programs who come from communities that are underrepresented in the academy. The postdoctoral fellows receive a two-year teaching and research appointment and maintain a teaching load of three courses in the first year (three quarters) and four courses in the second year. With a reduced teaching load, fellows are able to dedicate 50 percent of their time to research and collaboration with Santa Clara faculty mentors whose research areas are similar in methodology or subject matter. The appointment provides an invaluable opportunity for the fellows to strengthen their research and teaching in a supportive and nurturing environment. At

the same time, Santa Clara faculty and students benefit as the fellows help expand the breadth of curriculum and offer insight into new areas of inquiry. At the conclusion of the appointment, the Inclusive Excellence postdoctoral fellows are encouraged to apply for open full-time positions at Santa Clara when they are available.

Since its inception, 10 fellows have participated in the program. Five identify as African or African American, two identify as Asian or East Indian, two identify as Latino, and one identifies as belonging to two or more races. Seven have completed their two-year appointment, and three are in their first year of fellowship. Of the seven who have completed their appointment, three have been hired into tenure-track lines at Santa Clara, one has been hired into a lecturer line at Santa Clara, and three have obtained tenure-track positions at other institutions. Santa Clara is proud of the success of its Inclusive Excellence postdoctoral fellows. Through the program, 10 recent graduates have had the opportunity to strengthen their teaching and research while receiving focused and supportive mentorship. Given the success of the program, the University is working to double the number of participants each year.

Santa Clara has also been working to instill a culture of accountability as it relates to faculty hiring. The Office of Affirmative Action requires that each School and College provide an annual report that discusses that unit’s search processes, efforts to recruit a diverse faculty, and the hiring results of all open searches. By requiring each academic unit to document its recruitment work, the Office of Affirmative Action is creating a record and a benchmark by which to judge future efforts.

Finally, the Provost has been working to increase faculty diversity through the strategic use of target-of-opportunity hires. In cases where a department or program has a faculty member on phased retirement or can anticipate a faculty member departing in the next five years, the Provost has authorized the department to recruit opportunistically a truly exceptional individual whom the department has identified as someone who would greatly enrich the faculty by bringing outstanding teaching, scholarship and diversity to the department, even in if there is not an open tenure-track line available in that department.

In terms of retention, Santa Clara has developed a strong Faculty Development program that works to support the professional development of all faculty as teaching scholars. The program helps faculty become more effective teachers by exploring how to cultivate student learning; supports and promotes faculty scholarship; and helps faculty plan and manage their academic careers and maintain work–life balance. As part of its charge, the program facilitates a mentoring program that pairs new faculty with mentors outside their department to assist with teaching, scholarship, and career planning. Recognizing the specific challenges for faculty of color, Faculty Development has partnered with Santa Clara’s Women of Color Network and the Women and Gender Studies program to identify effective mentors for faculty of color. Additionally, Faculty Development has an institutional membership in the National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity, a professional development, training, and mentoring community that offers online training workshops, leadership development programs, and coaching. Through the membership, individual faculty have access to facilitated learning communities; monthly training workshops; access to audio, slides, and transcripts of all previous workshops; and a private peer mentoring forum.

Santa Clara is committed to increasing the number of faculty who are underrepresented within the academy. The Council of Inclusive Excellence and the Office for Diversity and Inclusion have been working to provide hiring departments and committees with resources to assist in recruiting a more diverse pool of candidates, whereas the Provost’s Office and the College of Arts and Sciences have been creating opportunities through the Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellow program and targets of opportunity hiring. These efforts appear to have some positive impact on the overall ethnic diversity of Santa Clara faculty. Since fall 2011, Santa Clara has hired 38 new tenure-track faculty members. Of those 34.2 percent identify as Asian, 5.2 percent as Black or African American, 10.5 percent as Hispanic of any race, 2.6 percent as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 47.3 percent as White. While there is still much work to be done, Santa Clara is confident that it is employing thoughtful strategies and programs that will have strengthen the diversity of our faculty.

Timeline, Planned Steps, and Expected Outcomes Action One: Focus Attention, Leadership, Coordination, Resource Commitment, and Accountability As previously noted, Santa Clara has developed a number of programs and resources to promote inclusive excellence. Over the past three years, Santa Clara has been working to provide greater institution-wide leadership, coordination, and resources in support of these efforts. Notable accomplishments include:

• Office of Diversity and Inclusion: In July 2013, the Provost appointed the University’s first Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion, and a Program Director was hired in January 2014. In the next two years, the Office plans to

o develop a process and tool kit for departments and search committees to enable more successful faculty hires;

o collaborate with the Faculty Development Office, the Affirmative Action Office, the Global Engagement Office, and the Drahmann Academic Advising Center to create a workshop series to promote faculty awareness when interacting with diverse populations;

o support the development of a new student-initiated peer-mentoring program for underrepresented ethnic minorities and first-generation college students.

• Office for Multicultural Learning: OML has launched a planning process to identify and incorporate a set of multicultural competencies that can be used as learning objectives and a basis for assessment. It is also working with ODI and Student Life to assume leadership of the Loop mentorship program. Both of these efforts began in fall 2013 and will continue through the 2014–2015 academic year.

• LEAD Scholars program: The program has already begun to engage transfer students who are first generation, and there are plans to double the size of entering LEAD cohorts by 2020.

Efforts to provide focused attention to inclusive excellence should have an impact on the campus culture. Santa Clara plans to use the HERI faculty and graduating senior surveys to measure impact. Santa Clara will continue to examine the Sense of Belonging and Positive Cross-Racial Interaction constructs on the graduating senior survey and benchmark results against those at other institutions. At the faculty level, HERI has developed a module of questions that focus on campus climate. Santa Clara recently administered the 2014 survey and will use the results as a baseline. Given that the faculty survey is administered every three years, Santa Clara expects that its work to promote inclusive excellence will have a positive effect on faculty attitudes toward campus climate in the 2017 and 2020 results.

Action Two: Develop a Culture of Evidence through the Use of a Diversity Dashboard In the next two years, ODI will work with Institutional Research and the Council for Inclusive Excellence to develop a more concise and streamlined summary report of key indicators, a set of data from the Level 1 report to present publicly, and indicators that explore additional dimensions of diversity and inclusion. It is anticipated that the dashboard will serve as a tool to provide the campus community with an easy-to-understand snapshot of its progress on efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.

Action Three: Strengthen the Recruitment and Retention of African American Students To strengthen the recruitment of African American students, Undergraduate Admission, working with the campus community, will:

• Revamp the “We Want You at SCU” campaign that was initially launched in 2004 as a general undergraduate recruitment campaign. The refreshed campaign will have a specific focus on prospective African American and Latino students who may not yet be convinced that they are wanted, welcomed, and valued at Santa Clara.

• Acknowledge possible differences in quality and rigor of the high school academic experience of some students, which may account for standardized-score depression. While Santa Clara, like other highly ranked colleges and universities, seeks to recruit students who have SAT and ACT scores that are above average, the undergraduate admission evaluation process will be continually monitored and revised to ensure that the effect on admission of African American students is not negatively impacted.

• Review college choice patterns among African American families. Undergraduate Admission seeks to better understand how and why students choose a college and whether Santa Clara currently provides the services and social support that they expect a college to provide.

Santa Clara is also employing a number of strategies to increase retention and graduation rates among African American students. As previously noted, early intervention from the Drahmann Academic Advising and Learning Resources Center, coupled with support from the Loop mentorship programs, should have a notable impact. The Council on Inclusive Excellence will also be working with the campus to conduct a qualitative survey of those African Americans who did not complete their degree within six years. The Council believes it can use data gleaned from the study to develop programs and resources to better support African American students. The aforementioned efforts are designed to support the recruitment and retention of students who

are traditionally underrepresented within the academy. By 2020, these efforts should contribute to a more diverse student body than in 2013 and a stronger and more consistent six-year graduation rate for African American students.

Action Four: Strengthen the Recruitment and Retention of African American Faculty Santa Clara is committed to increasing the number of faculty who are underrepresented within the academy. The Council of Inclusive Excellence and the Office for Diversity and Inclusion have been working to provide hiring departments and committees with resources to assist in recruiting a more diverse pool of candidates. In addition, Santa Clara, through the Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows and the annual budget process, is working to increase the diversity of faculty. Over the next six years, Santa Clara will double the number of Inclusive Excellence postdoctoral fellows and seek new funding to strengthen faculty diversity.

Summary In 2011, the WASC visiting team emphasized the need for Santa Clara to develop focused attention, leadership, coordination, resource commitment, and accountability to the goals of inclusive excellence. Additionally, the group pointed out the importance of developing a culture of evidence through the use of a diversity dashboard, and highlighted the need to strengthen the enrollment and completion of African American students and the recruitment and retention of African American faculty.

Santa Clara is proud to report it has made significant strides in each of these areas. The University recently developed an Office for Diversity and Inclusion and allocated 1.0 staff FTE and 0.5 faculty FTE to it. The newly formed office will help centralize and expand Santa Clara’s recent efforts to build a more diverse and inclusive community of faculty, staff, and students. Although it is only six months old, the Office is beginning to make significant strides in supporting faculty and students. Santa Clara has also developed a diversity dashboard. Working with the Office of Institutional Research and the Council on Inclusive Excellence, ODI will continue to refine this tool and use it to demonstrate the extent to which Santa Clara is meeting and exceeding its diversity goals. Finally, Santa Clara is diligently working to increase the recruitment and retention of African American faculty and students. As noted in the preceding sections of this report, Santa Clara has developed a number of programs to increase recruitment and strengthen retention. It is confident that programs such as SADIE, the LEAD Scholars, and the Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows program will continue to foster a community whose members understand and appreciate the richness multiple cultures bring to campus.

Appendices At the conclusion of this report, there are a set of appendices that provide additional data and information on topics discussed in this section of the report:

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Appendix B: Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity--Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled, SCU Ethnic

Appendix C: Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity--Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled, IPEDS Ethnicities

Appendix D: Cohort Retention and Graduation Rates by Ethnicity and Race

Appendix E: Faculty Headcount Ethnicity and Sex--Excluding Full-time Administrators, SCU Ethnicities

Appendix F: Faculty Headcount Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators, IPEDS Ethnicities

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Integration of the Jesuit School of Theology

In the 2011 Commission Action Letter, President Wolff acknowledged the “good work being done to integrate the Jesuit School of Theology (JST) into SCU in ways that enhance the intellectual life of both the University and the School.” At the same time, President Wolff highlighted Santa Clara’s need to develop a realistic and achievable model for JST enrollment and finances. It also indicated that Santa Clara’s processes for assessing student learning should be extended to JST. This report provides an update on both efforts (CFRs 3.4, 3.9, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4).1 It also discusses recent effort to strengthen the integration of the two campuses.

Background The Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University (JST) is accredited by both the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). In 1998, the School (at that time called the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, or JSTB) was given a 10-year approval by both accrediting agencies. Then, in 2007–2008, when JSTB was in the process of exploring affiliation, the accrediting agencies decided to postpone their accreditation visit. JST became a graduate school of Santa Clara University in July 2009. ATS and WASC had a joint protocol at that time, so JST had their Capacity and Preparedness Visit in October 2009 and their Educational Effectiveness Visit in January 2011.

Action Taken: Restructure JST Finances As the integration with the University proceeded, JST’s finances were gradually incorporated into the University budget. Three general budget components were created: school administration and programs; housing; and indirect facility, technology, and support costs.

Table 1: Jesuit School of Theology Summary Budget and Projections

2012-13 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Budget Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection (in millions) Revenue by Budget Component School Administration & Programs $4.1 $4.0 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 Housing 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Institutional Support Facility, Technology & Support 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Total Revenue and Support $5.3 $5.4 $5.5 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2

Expense by Budget Component School Administration & Programs $4.4 $4.0 $4.6 $4.7 $4.8 $5.0 Housing 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Facility, Technology & Support 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Total Expense $5.7 $5.7 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3

Total Operating Excess/(Deficit) ($0.4) ($0.3) ($0.4) ($0.2) ($0.2) ($0.1)

1 As part of its regular review process, ATS asked JST to provide follow-up reports on the Schools’ assessment efforts, its financial plan, and the Masters in Theology program. These reports were submitted to ATS in 2012 and 2013.

School Administration and Programs This budget component includes all school revenues and direct costs for administration of the school and its educational programs. The long-term financial plan for the school calls for expenses associated with school administration and programs to be fully funded from school revenues and fundraising.

In fiscal year 2012–2013, JST produced $4.0 million in revenue and other funds. Approximately 60 percent of the revenue was generated from tuition and fees, and 40 percent came from annual gifts and endowment distributions. The $4.0 million in revenue was used to cover direct costs for administration of the school and educational programs, including costs associated with faculty and staff salaries, benefits, student wages, operating expenses, and financial aid. It should be noted that tuition, annual gifts, and endowment distributions in fiscal year 2012–2013 generated less revenue than was needed for projected expenses associated with school administration and programs. However, because JST has been a good steward of resources, it was able to save approximately $390,000 in salaries and operating expenses, which resulted in a balanced budget for school administration and programs.

Recognizing that it may be challenging to conserve as many resources in future years, JST is diligently working to grow its enrollment, annual giving, and endowment. In terms of enrollment, JST is taking a measured approach to increase its enrollment by 2 percent a year and ultimately move from a headcount of 147 to 170. If JST is able to grow 2 percent for the next three fiscal years, it will generate sufficient revenue to meet expenses associated with the administration of the school and educational programs. Given recent efforts to hire an additional recruiter, develop an online MTS program, and strategically repackage financial aid to attract new students, Santa Clara and JST are confident that an annual enrollment growth of 2 percent is feasible. JST is also working to expand annual giving, which will help bolster the endowment. As JST strengthens its revenue, Santa Clara is committed to providing funding to offset operating budget deficits associated with the administration of the school and educational programs.

Housing The housing designation includes all revenues and expenses associated with the operation of the school’s housing facilities. The long-term financial plan for the school provides for expenses associated with JST housing to be fully funded through housing revenues. In the fiscal year 2012–2013, JST generated approximately $500,000 in housing-related revenue while incurring $800,000 in housing-related costs. The $300,000 deficit was caused by three expenditures: approximately $130,000 was associated with non-capital, one-time maintenance costs, $140,000 with debt service, and $30,000 with staffing and benefits. Moving forward, the housing revenue and expenses should come in line with one another as the non-capital maintenance issues have been addressed and the debt service is projected to decrease by $120,000 in fiscal year 2013– 2014. In future years, revenue generated from housing should cover all associated costs.

Indirect Facility, Technology, and Support Costs This budget category includes expenses associated with support services provided by the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), library services provided by GTU, the operation and maintenance of facilities and technology, and reserves for renewal and replacement of facilities

and technology. In fiscal year 2012–2013, JST expended approximately $900,000 for indirect costs. The $900,000 in University support is expected to decrease slightly in future years (see Table 1). The long-term financial plan for JST provides for expenses associated with indirect costs—such as facilities, technology, and support services—to be funded through University resources.

Next Steps While a small decline in revenue has affected the JST’s budget, the School is positioning itself to increase enrollment and expand annual giving and the endowment, which will bring the budget into balance. In the meantime, Santa Clara is committed to supporting the School’s indirect costs and improving its administrative processes. In a similar fashion, housing operations will be self- supporting in future years and revenue will cover all associated costs.

Action Taken: Strengthen the Assessment of Student Learning To ensure that the Jesuit School of Theology employed appropriate assessment processes, the JST faculty began working with the Office of Assessment in 2008–2009 to formulate revised goals and objectives for each of its academic programs. These goals and objectives provide measurable standards for assessing student learning. With these new standards in place, the faculty began to align their syllabi with program goals and objectives. Doing so provided students with a better understanding of the ways in which a particular class fits within the larger program. Finally, beginning in the fall of 2011, JST was integrated into the cycle of annual assessment reports required by Santa Clara University. The JST administration, working closely with staff in the Provost’s Office, developed a schedule by which all JST programs would be assessed across a common learning goal (Goals 1, 2, and 3 are similar across all JST programs). At the same time, all the goals for one program are assessed every year, and the data are fed into the program review process.

Implementing Assessment of Learning Outcomes – Master of Divinity (MDiv) Following the cycle of assessment reports noted above, the faculty assessed the MDiv program in terms of the first stated goal. Goal 1 aims for students to “gain a broad theological foundation and hone it in the light of assuming leadership roles within the Church.” This goal is further delineated by two objectives: 1A) students will demonstrate an understanding of Biblical Studies, Historical-Systematic Theology, and Pastoral-Moral Theology, according to the competencies articulated by each of these areas; and 1B) students will apply a theological foundation to preaching, teaching, presiding, celebrating, listening, and counseling. Two pools of data—one direct and one indirect—were used to evaluate whether this goal is being satisfied and at what level of achievement.

Direct data consist of recent faculty evaluations of MDiv oral and written comprehensive examinations from the last two academic years for which results have been tabulated (2009– 2010, 2010–2011). At the end of each examination, each faculty member fills in an evaluation form. In areas specifically linked to program goals and objectives, the faculty members rank student performance on the examination as “Excellent,” “Satisfactory,” “Less than Satisfactory,” or “N/A” (indicating that they did not have sufficient evidence to judge). The total number of students evaluated was 45, two-thirds of whom were male or female religious, and one-third lay men or women. Note that the data for the second objective employ broader categories than those

listed above (preaching, teaching, presiding, celebrating, listening, and counseling). The instrument used in gathering direct data of this sort of material employed different terms, focusing on broad categories of ministerial values (cultural contextualization, collaborative leadership, etc.) rather than individual practices (preaching, teaching, etc.).

The data here are a compilation of these faculty evaluations and focus on those items in the form that relate to Goal 1.

• In biblical and historical-systematic studies, 97% of responses indicate that student performance was either “satisfactory” or “excellent.” • In pastoral-moral, it was 100%. • In pastoral-cultural, it was 93%, with 2% reporting “Less than Satisfactory” and 4% indicating “N/A.” • On ecclesial self-understanding, it was 86%, with 14% indicating “N/A.” • On collaborative leadership, it was 60%, with 7% reporting “Less than Satisfactory” and 23% indicating “N/A.” • On ministerial ethics, it was 60%, with 40% reporting “N/A.”

The results indicate that students do very well in terms of gaining a “broad theological foundation.” Regarding the N/A’s on some of the items, the most obvious explanation is that the comprehensive examination may not be the best means of gauging student performance in these areas (especially the last two), which are manifested in behavioral situations. Thus honing their knowledge “in the light of assuming leadership roles within the Church” may be better assessed through field education.

In terms of indirect data, student evaluations of the same two objectives are based on data collected in the spring semester of 2011. Student response categories were: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree,” or “N/A.” Four course evaluation topics concern Objective 1A:

Table 2: Student Course Evaluation Feedback for Objective 1A Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly N/A Agree Disagree Developed competency 49% 41% 5% 4% 1% skills Better understanding of 56% 36% 4% 2% 2% disciplines Better understanding of theoretical 48% 45% 6% 1% 0% frameworks Developed research 29% 42% 7% 4% 19% skills

Overall, students overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed with all four evaluative criteria.

Table 3: Student Course Evaluation Feedback for Objective 1B Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly N/A Agree Disagree Helped hone critical 48% 24% 6% 1% 21% fidelity, faith justice Recognized links between faith, culture 52% 41% 2% 2% 2%

Again, students overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed with all evaluative criteria. The current MDiv curriculum is constantly under review by faculty and students. Experience indicates that given the unique combination of theological and pastoral components to this professional degree program, each year’s unique mix of students—in terms of such categories as male/female, religious/lay, nationality, age, and academic background—provides an ever- expanding resource of evaluative data by which faculty and staff may critique and improve the program. Available data suggest that the program is meeting the expectations of students in both academic and pastoral preparation for ministry within the church, both lay and religious.

Implementing Assessment of Learning Outcomes – Master of Theological Studies (MTS) In a similar fashion, JST assessed the MTS program in terms of the first stated goal. Goal 1 aims for students to “gain a broad theological foundation that will undergird inquiry into a select area of concentration.” This goal is further delineated by three objectives: a) Students will demonstrate an understanding of Biblical Studies, Historical-Systematic Theology, and Pastoral- Moral Theology, according to the competencies articulated by each of these areas; b) students will integrate their understanding of the above areas in exploring a chosen area of concentration; and c) students will demonstrate a depth of knowledge in their area of concentration. Two pools of data—one direct and one indirect—were used to evaluate whether this goal is being satisfied and at what level of achievement.

First, final theses were randomly chosen from the past five years of MTS graduates and evaluated by three faculty members. Goal 1 was elaborated according to four standards. These include: 1) whether the paper demonstrated an in-depth knowledge in the chosen area of concentration; 2) whether the paper indicated a background in sound theological studies; 3) whether the paper demonstrated a working knowledge and use of scholarship in the disciplinary area of focus; and 4) whether the paper demonstrated a working knowledge of relevant theory and/or method in the focused discipline. The faculty evaluators rated each thesis in these four areas. Categories of “excellent” (exceeding requirements), “good” (meeting all requirements), “fair” (meeting requirements in minimal fashion), and “poor” (failing to meet requirements) were the scoring categories for each standard.

Direct data derived from the evaluation of the MTS theses are a compilation of the responses of the faculty evaluators; each thesis was reviewed by faculty members of the Statutes and Curricula Committee, which oversees academic programs. The data are listed in Table 4: Table 4: Evaluation of Standards for MTS Degrees Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A Standard 1 44% 44% 11% 0% 0% Standard 2 27% 61% 11% 0% 0% Standard 3 50% 38% 11% 0% 0% Standard 4 44% 44% 11% 0% 0%

The data from this sample of students’ theses suggest that students are building a broad theological foundation as the basis for their concentrated study during the program as represented in the theses. The results also suggests that while 11% of the projects studied meet these standards in only a minimal fashion, the other 89% are achieving the goal of “gaining a broad theological foundation that will undergird inquiry into a select area of concentration” or are even exceeding it. No thesis elicited a judgment of a lack of achievement of Goal 1. This concurs with the advising protocol at JST that does not allow students to advance to final theses without having achieved minimal competency in both their broad theological studies and their area of concentration. Satisfactory completion of course work in both a variety of required theological disciplines and in one concentrated discipline is the basis of this evaluation.

The indirect data of MTS student evaluations for spring 2011 courses reinforce the direct data. The course evaluations indicate that 100% of the 11 MTS students evaluating courses indicated they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the various courses in which they were enrolled helped them “develop competencies and skills needed in the fields most related to this course”; that they “acquired a better understanding of the discipline(s) relevant to this course”; that the courses “helped me to understand key theoretical frameworks related to the topic”; and “helped me develop research skills suited to the topic.”

At this time, the current curriculum requirements of the MTS degree, culminating in the final thesis, appear to be satisfying Goal 1 of the program. It might be noted that the recent tendency of students to submit MTS theses that are interdisciplinary predisposes students to gain a broad grounding as preparation for this final work. In addition, recent changes to the required MTS seminar, which students take in their final semester, focus, in part, on achieving a synthesis for their thesis by drawing upon the broad grounding of theological disciplines in which they have had course work.

Implementing Assessment of Learning Outcomes – Master of Theology (ThM) Finally, the faculty examined the ThM program in terms of the first stated goal. Goal 1 states that “students will acquire a depth of knowledge and practical skills within a particular area of concentration.” The goal is further delineated by two objectives: a) Students will be able to employ the hermeneutical principles and research methods germane to their selected area of concentration; and b) students will be able to marshal what they have learned about their area of concentration in addressing a particular issue or problem. The committee sought to examine two pools of data—one direct and one indirect—to evaluate whether this goal was being satisfied and at what level of achievement.

First, five final theses with which each student’s program concludes were randomly chosen from the past five years of ThM graduates and evaluated by three faculty members. Goal 1 was elaborated according to four standards. These include: 1) whether the paper demonstrated an in- depth knowledge in the chosen area of concentration; 2) whether the paper demonstrated a mastery of research methods proper to the area; 3) whether the paper demonstrated an explicit understanding of the hermeneutical issues proper to the topic; and 4) whether the paper demonstrated skill at formulating research questions and hypothesis and crafting arguments supported by evidence. The faculty evaluators rated each thesis in these four areas. Categories of

“excellent” (exceeding requirements), “good” (meeting all requirements), “fair” (meeting requirements in minimal fashion), and “poor” (failing to meet requirements) were the scoring categories for each standard.

Direct data derived from the evaluation of the ThM theses are a compilation of the responses of the faculty evaluators; each thesis was reviewed by faculty on the Statutes and Curricula Committee, which oversees academic programs. The data are listed in Table 5:

Table 5: Evaluation of Standards for ThM Degrees Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A Standard 1 33% 53% 13% 0% 0% Standard 2 33% 33% 33% 0% 0% Standard 3 33% 60% 7% 0% 0% Standard 4 40% 40% 20% 0% 0%

The faculty committee sought correlation with indirect data as they did with the MTS evaluation. However, in spring 2011, the semester for which course evaluation was disaggregated by program, there were no students in the ThM program. This is a historically small program, usually consisting of four to five students.

The data from this sample of students’ theses suggest that students are achieving a depth of knowledge and practical skills within their area of concentration. None of the theses was rated as below standards (poor). On the other hand, one-third of the theses met the requirements in only minimal fashion (fair) on the second standard, which dealt with the mastery of research methods proper to the area of concentration. The ThM is the shortest (two semesters) of the master’s degrees that JST offers. During their studies students take courses at the advanced master’s level (4000), courses which necessarily reflect a specialized interest. But these students do not have what students in other programs have: a form of seminar that provides them with an overview of various research methods.

In November 2012 the Dean at JST held a breakfast for students in the MA, MTS, and ThM programs. Following the discussion at this breakfast, the decision was made to hold regular seminars in which students in these programs (all of which are advanced master’s degrees in theology) can present proposals of their work to receive feedback from their peers as well as from the faculty coordinator. Thus far, ThM and STL students have met as a cohort and MA and MTS students have met as a separate cohort. This will be a step in the direction of addressing the need in the ThM program.

Related Activities In the fall of 2011, JST was one of the schools of the University to implement e-portfolios for all incoming students in degree programs (except the MA, which is accredited through the Graduate Theological Union). The portfolios are based on program goals and objectives and allow students to track their progress. The students’ academic advisors have access to the portfolios and check that students are uploading artifacts. The program directors have review capacity and can rate portfolios based on a rubric. The faculty is hopeful that e-portfolios will provide another means of assessment. However, at this point, the School is early in the process of implementation.

Next Steps Since its integration into Santa Clara University, the Jesuit School of Theology has made significant progress in assessing student learning outcomes in a comprehensive and systematic manner. At the same time, there are still refinements that can be made to the School’s procedures, particularly in integrating e-portfolios and in spreading the work of assessment more evenly among the faculty. The assistance provided by the Provost’s Office and the Office of Student Assessment at Santa Clara University has been invaluable in bringing JST to this point, and JST looks forward to further collaboration.

Action Taken: Continue to Strengthen the Integration of the School and University Faculty, staff, and administrators on both campuses have been diligently working to strengthen programmatic ties and address organizational issues. Below is a summary of recent efforts.

Strengthening Programmatic Ties Since the integration of the School and University, the campus community has been building relationships and exploring partnerships. In the years immediately following the transition, faculty from the Jesuit School of Theology met with colleagues in the College of Arts and Sciences, including faculty from Pastoral Ministries and Religious Studies, to discuss the goals and objectives of each program, the research expertise of the faculty, and potential areas of intersection and collaboration. These initial conversations led to faculty exchanges, in which faculty from Religious Studies teach regularly at JST. This arrangement benefits both campuses: students at JST learn from a broader cohort of esteemed theologians; at the same time, the Religious Studies faculty are energized by their work with graduate students.

This type of relationship building also contributed to the development of the Hispanic Ministry Initiative and the creation of a new master’s degree program. It is a collaboration of JST’s Instituto Hispano and SCU’s Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries (GPPM). Designed in response to a request of the Steering Committee of the Regional Summer Seminar on Formation for Hispanic Ministry of the Region XI Bishops, the initiative offers an online, hybrid master’s degree in Pastoral Ministries, with an emphasis in Hispanic Ministry. The 15-course MA curriculum is enriched by two-week, face-to-face summer programs in Spanish, offered by the Instituto Hispano. Students may receive academic credit for the Instituto program through an online course bracketing the face-to-face experience.

Over the past year, an integrated leadership team with representatives from the Provost’s office, GPPM, JST, and Educational Technology has

• ensured that Santa Clara University is prepared to offer a strong curriculum that will lead to a master’s degree in Pastoral Ministries; • integrated JST’s Instituto Hispano into the degree program; • clarified roles and responsibilities of participating units within Santa Clara University; • developed a successful accreditation proposal to offer the master’s degree through a hybrid modality.

In fall 2013, the GPPM Program Director, working closely with the JST’s Instituto Hispano Director, reached out successfully to dioceses throughout Region XI with recruitment materials.

Between 20 and 30 new students from the dioceses of Fresno, San Bernardino, and Sacramento are expected to enroll in the master’s degree program in 2014.

Addressing Organizational Issues When JST integrated with Santa Clara, administrators had to examine and resolve a host of issues related to JST’s organization, infrastructure, and relationship to the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) in Berkeley. Significant work took place on a range of issues related to student records, student services and housing, financial services, information systems and technology, human resources, and facilities. Embedded in these conversations were questions about whether the University, the School, or the GTU would assume primary responsibility for a particular function or issue. Although significant progress has been made, some organizational issues still persist.

As the School and University examined these organizational questions, it became clear that many are closely associated with staffing. In an effort to fully resolve these remaining issues and ensure appropriate staffing levels, the Provost asked a Senior Advisor (a former Vice Provost) to work with an outside consultant and engage the JST faculty and staff in an organizational analysis to examine the following questions:

• What organizational and staff changes could be made at the Jesuit School of Theology to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative operations of the School and to improve staff morale? • Is there appropriate staffing in each of the administrative and programmatic areas of the School? • Are there opportunities for organizational consolidation or other restructuring that could address staffing concerns and would contribute to increased efficiency and effectiveness? • What are the organizational and staffing implications of the School’s being located on a separate campus from the other schools and administrative units of the University? • What are the organizational and staffing implications of the School’s being affiliated with both the Graduate Theological Union and Santa Clara University?

The Senior Advisor and the outside consultant have concluded their interviews with the School’s leadership and staff and are developing a set of recommendations for the Provost and the Dean. Although this evaluation is still ongoing, Santa Clara and JST are confident that it will lead to greater integration and organizational efficiency.

Timeline, Planned Steps, and Expected Outcomes Action One: Restructure JST Finances While a small decline in revenue has affected JST’s budget, the School is positioning itself to increase enrollment and expand annual giving and the endowment, which will bring the budget into balance. By 2016–2017, JST should generate sufficient revenue to cover all expenses associated with School administration and programs. Similarly, housing operations will be self- supporting by the end of the 2014–2015 academic year. Finally, there is approximately $900,000 in expenses associated with indirect costs. The long-term financial plan for JST provides for indirect costs to be funded from University resources and for Santa Clara to help JST improve its administrative processes.

Action Two: Strengthen the Assessment of Student Learning Over the next two academic years, JST will continue to work to integrate e-portfolios more fully into the assessment process. It will also engage additional faculty in assessment and spread the work more evenly among faculty.

Action Taken: Continue to Strengthen the Integration of the School and University Over the next academic year, the Provost and Dean will review the staffing recommendations, consult with faculty and staff at JST, and implement those recommendations that contribute to greater integration and efficiency.

Conclusion Faculty, staff, and administrators at the Jesuit School of Theology and Santa Clara University have been working diligently to build a community of scholars who collaborate in ways that enhance the academic life of the University and the School. Thus far, there has been a tremendous amount of success. Faculty across campuses have collaborated on research and teaching, and partnerships have been forged between the Department of Religious Studies, the Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries, and JST.

While the integration has been a success, the external reviewers noted that Santa Clara and JST should work to develop a realistic model for enrollment and finances and strengthen the assessment process. Santa Clara is pleased to report that administrators, faculty, and staff at both sites have been working to build a sustainable financial plan for the School. The School has also made great strides in expanding its assessment processes. Over the past four years, the faculty at JST have revised goals and objectives for each of their academic programs and aligned their syllabi with the revised standards. The School has also developed a process to assess a common learning goal each year, and the related data are fed into the program review process.

Broadly speaking, the University and the School believe that they have developed sound enrollment, financial, and assessment processes that position JST to be an academically challenging institution grounded in an engaged pedagogy for the formation of theological and ministerial leaders of competence, conscience, and compassion.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Refinement and Expansion of Assessment and Program Review

In its Commission Action Letter of July 5, 2011, WASC commended Santa Clara for its “model assessment program, including systems and processes, an emphasis on results, and strong support within the faculty. The use of results from assessment to refine the new and innovative Core Curriculum is but one example of SCU’s effectiveness as a teaching and learning organization.” The letter also notes that Santa Clara has “an effective system for assessing and improving student learning at the course and program level,” systemically addresses institution- level outcomes, and has become “a leader among universities in demonstrating how complex, personal, ‘ineffable’ objectives can be assessed by creative methods.”

Since 2011, the faculty and staff have continued to strengthen and refine the institution’s comprehensive assessment program in ways that will be explained below. At the same time, Santa Clara has addressed the following issues articulated in the Commission Action Letter: “As SCU explores ways to make assessment sustainable, attention should also be given to expanding assessment practices into the graduate and professional programs and to assessing student learning and development through co-curricular programs. Finally, the value of SCU’s assessment efforts will be enhanced by ensuring that the results of assessment are utilized consistently in program reviews” (CFRs 1.2, 2.1, 2.2b, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)

This report will first address our broad efforts to refine and extend assessment and program review, followed by efforts to expand assessment practices in the graduate programs, and conclude with a description of assessment efforts in co-curricular programs.

Action Taken: Improve Program-Level Assessment and Expansion of Assessment in Program Review Since 2011, a number of actions have been taken to contribute to clarifying, refining, and reinforcing program-level assessment of student learning and the importance of these results within program review. The faculty has continued to take steps to strengthen the assessment infrastructure and provide additional support for academic programs as it undertakes assessments of student learning. This leads to higher-quality assessments that prove more helpful for ongoing program improvement and for the program review process. In sum, Santa Clara has taken a two- pronged approach through actions that (a) further expand and refine program-level assessments of student learning, and (b) reinforce the importance of assessment within the program review process.

Expanding and Refining Program-Level Assessments of Student Learning Santa Clara has employed four significant efforts to strengthen program-level assessment:

• Identification of Assessment Positions within Each School: Each of the five schools has appointed at least one Associate Dean or Director who is responsible for assessment in his or her school. Additionally, the Provost created a new position – the Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness – to oversee the institution’s assessment efforts and to help direct future resources to programs where they are most needed and can have greatest impact. This has expanded and led to a critical mass of faculty and staff working on assessment

issues and program review together. In addition to the Director of Assessment, all school- level Assessment Coordinators are members of the University Assessment Committee (UAC), a group that meets at least three times each academic year to discuss assessment issues and challenges.

• Expanded Involvement of the University Assessment Committee: In 2011–2012, the UAC in consultation with the Director of Assessment—agreed to expand its role to provide peer feedback on the Annual Assessment Reports (AAR) provided by the departments and programs. They adopted this practice for three key reasons: (1) It enabled members to form a “learning community,” in which they could learn from one another and strengthen their assessment practices; (2) each member could then take that learning back to his or her respective school, where it could be shared formally or informally; and (3) the peer process was seen as building a stronger culture of assessment grounded in the work of faculty, where the purpose is program improvement rather than compliance. For continuity, the Director of Assessment (who chairs the UAC) participates in the peer review with at least one member of the UAC.

Drawing upon examples from other universities, the UAC developed a feedback template that guides the review of the reports and leaves space for comments and suggestions by the Committee. The template emphasizes best practices in assessment, and the Committee’s feedback to the program makes reference to those practices, thus reinforcing these standards as aspirational. Santa Clara is concluding its second year of peer formative assessments, and the responses from the departments have been favorable—the Director of Assessment has received some unsolicited positive feedback. For example, one department chair wrote:

On behalf of the [Academic] Department, I want to acknowledge that the University Assessment Committee’s reflection on and reply to our report covering 2011–12 was genuinely helpful. It encouraged reflection concerning difficulty tradeoffs for which there are no easy answers, such as the balance between expedience/manageability (which might argue in favor of use of single measures of student performance) vs. questions of validity (which might argue in favor of introducing multiple measures). Feedback from the University Assessment Committee was an important background factor, encouraging chair efforts to nudge department discussions in a broader direction when the natural momentum might have been to simply state whether or not our success standards were met. Very important discussions followed…. University Assessment Committee feedback contributed to a climate in which there was more fruitful discussion of a wider range of issues. Thank you!

In addition, the AAR template asks programs for their views on the usefulness of the assessment feedback and what other support they desire. The departments that chose to respond to this question indicated that they find the feedback helpful and also let the Committee know what further support or information is needed.

In 2012, the UAC also generated a statement of principles underlying assessment at Santa Clara. This document emphasizes that assessment is a faculty-driven process, encourages the nature of the assessment activity to hold educational value for students, and states that as an institution, Santa Clara values assessment practices that answer the most important questions about student learning, while being mindful of the time, energy, and financial resources required to undertake assessment projects (Appendix G).

• Continuing Education in Assessment: Santa Clara supports the continued education of faculty and staff involved in assessment through funding participation in conferences or programs dedicated to assessment (among them, WASC, AAC&U, ABET, AACSB, AAEEBL). Support is also provided to outside consultants in the disciplines when it is determined that they may have a beneficial impact on program-level assessment. For example, the School of Engineering has a consultant visit in spring 2014 to discuss ways to streamline undergraduate and graduate assessment.

• Refinement of Core Curriculum Assessments: While remaining committed to assessments of student learning that rely on embedded assignments, Santa Clara has made some changes in the way it approaches assessment of a number of its institutional learning outcomes as reflected in the Core Curriculum. Designated areas of the Core are being assessed within the same time frame in order to gather evidence of student learning on related Core goals and student learning objectives. The institution is adopting VALUE rubrics (adapted as necessary) so that faculty will be able to compare student learning at Santa Clara with other institutions and draw from the extensive body of research that has developed from this AAC&U initiative.

With these changes, Santa Clara anticipates being able to complete a full cycle of assessment of student learning more rapidly and to better understand the relationships across areas of student learning. Academic programs intend to complement the assessments of student learning with data from NSSE and other survey instruments in order to provide a more nuanced look at student learning.

Finally, the faculty is beginning experimentation with electronic portfolios as a way to provide authentic assessment of student learning. Initially, Santa Clara is testing ePortfolios in two areas: to examine Information Literacy, Critical Thinking, and Written Communication within our first- year and advanced writing courses, and to examine integrated learning through our Pathways requirement. We are conducting a research project to explore the impact of ePortfolios on student learning within Pathways. The University Director of Assessment, the Associate Dean for Curriculum at the Leavey School of Business, and the Curriculum Manager for Experiential Learning and Social Justice are participating in a three-year research cohort with the Inter/National Coalition for ePortfolio Research in Washington, DC. A feature article about Pathways and the ePortfolio research appeared in the December 2013 edition of the AAC&U News. The ePortfolio research is also a component of SCU’s participation in the Aspen Institute’s Undergraduate Business Education Consortium.

In all these Core-related assessments, Santa Clara involves faculty directly in all key stages: creating and offering feedback on the rubrics; scoring of student work; providing feedback and interpretations on the assessment; and “closing-the-loop activities,” such as planning faculty workshops for discussing assignments and strategies to support student learning. By working on Core assessment, faculty develop skills that they bring back into their own programs.

Reinforcing the Importance of Assessment within the Program Review Process The University Assessment Guidelines and the AAR template were modified in 2011 to align with the Program Review Guidelines (Appendix H). Additionally, the Program Review

Guidelines were revised to provide greater emphasis on the assessment of student learning. The role of the assessment of student learning in the analysis of a program’s strengths and weaknesses is emphasized in several sections, including Section 4 (on program effectiveness) and Section 7, the guidelines for integration of program review into planning. A suggested timeline emphasizes the role of continual assessment of student learning leading up to program review, with time for the department to synthesize those results and reflect upon its strengths and weaknesses.

These documents were reviewed by the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC), which sought input from the faculty. The final versions reflect faculty and AAC recommendations, several of which identified ways to ensure these activities were sustainable. For example, the revised protocols extend the period of program review to two years to give programs more time to identify, synthesize, and reflect upon critical issues. A second example was to emphasize the goal of completing all assessments of program-level learning objectives within six years in order to have time to meaningfully synthesize these results and focus on the assessment of other program goals and objectives dealing with scholarship or service.

Santa Clara also emphasizes the importance of ongoing assessment at an annual meeting led by the University Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO). The meeting is held for all programs in the spring prior to the year they begin their program review. Normally, the department chair and one or two other members of the department attend, ensuring broader exposure to the information. The materials emphasize the critical role that assessments of student learning play in the evaluation of program effectiveness. The Director of Assessment makes a presentation at this meeting, and she routinely consults with programs as they analyze their assessment findings.

Discussions surrounding assessment are also embedded in the program review itself. As part of the process, external reviewers are asked to comment specifically on a program’s assessment methods and findings in their reports. This provides departments with a more comparative view of their assessment practices and findings. This feedback, along with the action plan from the department, is shared with the Director of Assessment.

As programs develop their action plans following program review, they have the opportunity to engage with a school-level Associate Dean or Director who supports assessment for that school. Additionally, the Dean’s and Provost’s staff are involved in meetings with each department to review findings and recommendations that emerge from the department’s self-study, including assessment findings. These meetings provide another source of input as programs may move to refine their mission, goals and objectives, curriculum alignment matrices, and assessment plans. The Director of Assessment is also available for consultation. Once new assessment plans are developed, changes to goals, learning outcomes, and the curriculum matrix for each department are submitted to the UAC. The Director of Assessment, in conjunction with the University Assessment Committee, then provides feedback on these.

Finally, the UAC employs technology to make the distribution of materials more sustainable. All assessment and program review materials have been migrated from a repository in the learning management system to electronic portfolios. This will simplify the completion of new AARs and provide an easily accessible historical record of departments’ past assessments and program

reviews. Departments are encouraged to use this electronic portfolio as a workspace to advance their own assessments or program review efforts. Additionally, the ePortfolio may be utilized to develop a more holistic and comprehensive profile of student learning over time.

Summary Santa Clara has taken a number of steps to refine and expand the assessment of student learning, and to strengthen the connection between assessment and program review. Informed by faculty, the revised guidelines for assessment and program review are clearer and Santa Clara offers more multi-faceted ways of orienting departments and programs to the processes involved. As a result of the revisions, departments and programs that enter program review are now exposed to a much more systematic and thorough introduction to the role of assessment in program review. The greater number of Assessment Coordinators and the involvement of the UAC provide additional opportunities for consultation and peer-to-peer collaboration.

There is some indication that the revised protocols are having an impact on program-level assessment. Programs that have had less regular or thorough assessment are working with the Office of Assessment to plan a more comprehensive assessment strategy, especially following program review. In the upcoming year, the UAC will analyze the assessment reports from programs in 2014–2015 to identify areas for improvement in assessment practices. The UAC will also analyze the program review materials to determine how the results of assessment of student learning are being used in program review.

Action Taken: Strengthen Assessment in the Graduate and Professional Programs Currently, each graduate program is actively addressing the assessment of student learning. The Schools of Business and Engineering, which have undergraduate programs, have benefitted from assessment expertise developed at the undergraduate level. In addition, assessment programs have been strengthened by the appointment of staff or faculty within each School to provide specific support for assessment. In the case of the Law School, the increasing attention from the American Bar Association about assessment of student learning is providing a larger disciplinary context for expanding assessment beyond such metrics as bar passage rates. Because each of the five schools is at a different stage of development in their assessment programs, their actions, challenges, and progress are discussed separately.

School of Business In 2011, the AACSB Review Team expressed concerns about the assurance of learning (AOL) efforts. Since the Review Team’s visit, a formal plan for direct assessment of student learning for both the undergraduate and graduate programs was laid out in the Six Year Review Report (Appendix I). A brief summary of the actions and assessment plan is provided below.

The School of Business pursues an AOL assessment plan for each of its degree programs, in conformity with AACSB requirements. The AOL plan is intended to support the overall mission of the University and School by providing regular feedback on the efficacy of courses and curriculum in assuring student learning. The goal of the School’s AOL activities is to involve faculty in a systematic process that will provide useful information that can be acted on to guide meaningful changes for improving student learning.

Two important structural changes were initiated in 2011 that have strengthened the School’s assessment program. First, the new position of Associate Dean of Curriculum was established, which includes the responsibility for leading assessment efforts for all the School’s degree programs and coordinating assessment efforts with the University. Secondly, an MBA Leadership Team was formed to direct the graduate business curriculum. Each department is represented in this group, under the supervision of separate faculty Directors. These faculty groups are responsible for new course approval, monitoring the Core learning goals for relevancy, and assisting with the implementation and review of AOL activities.

AOL activities are guided by program learning goals tailored for each program and reviewed by faculty on a regular basis. The latest review of learning goals took place in 2010 and 2011, and as a result, the goals for the MS in Information Systems, the evening MBA, and the Executive MBA programs were revised. Detailed sub-goals were developed to support each of the overall program learning goals and provide structure for the assessment process.

The Associate Dean responsible for curriculum and assessment works with individual faculty and course coordinators to develop designated assignments for assessment and to develop rubrics when needed. Student work product includes both examinations and other kinds of student work. Depending on the academic area, assessment of student work is conducted in a variety of ways— by the Associate Dean, by the faculty teaching the related classes, or by independent groups of faculty.

Annual assessment of the graduate program learning goals has begun in each of the graduate degree programs. Annual reports are prepared to summarize the results of AOL efforts and the related curricular revision and are submitted to the Dean of the School and to the University Assessment Committee for review and comment. Multiple learning goals and learning objectives within each graduate program have been assessed using embedded student assignments across multiple relevant course sections. Benchmarks have been set for each of the learning objectives under each of these goals. The reports of these assessments are being shared with faculty and have led to actions to improve programs accordingly. Each program learning goal (with accompanying objectives) is assessed twice in a five-year period, consistent with AACSB guidelines.

In conclusion, the Business School has made excellent progress in establishing an effective assessment program informed by best practices. The appointment of the Associate Dean with assessment responsibilities and the oversight of the MBA Leadership Team will help ensure that the School maintains the current level of performance. The School is meeting the usual challenges in assessment (faculty participation, closing the loop) head-on and can offer valuable experience and ideas for other graduate programs.

School of Education and Counseling Psychology Since the last WASC review in 2011, there have been a number of significant staffing changes at the School of Education and Counseling Psychology. The School hired a Director of Assessment in May 2011 and an Associate Dean of Faculty in December 2013. The Associate Dean of Faculty works closely with the Director of Assessment and department chairs in the coordination of assessment efforts. There have also been curriculum revisions since the last WASC review. In

2012, the School of Education and Counseling Psychology reconfigured its teacher education program. In the past, students earned a preliminary teaching credential program without an accompanying degree. Under the new curriculum, students earn a Master of Arts in Teaching in combination with a preliminary teaching credential. Starting in 2011, an extensive education assessment plan was implemented for all the education credentialing programs: (a) the Master of Arts in Teaching + Preliminary Multiple Subject Teaching Credential program, (b) the Master of Arts in Teaching + Preliminary Single Subject Teaching Credential program, (c) the Clear Teaching Credential program, (d) the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential program, and (e) the Clear Administrative Services Credential program (Appendix J).

For the Master of Arts in Teaching and Clear Credential programs, program learning outcomes were developed and mapped to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) standards. Multiple reviewers assess education students with both formative and summative assessments multiple times per year. In order to help students grow and develop as teachers, faculty and field supervisors have created a formative assessment tool, which they use when observing students teaching in the classroom. Classroom master teachers also complete the formative assessment tool, and feedback is provided to students three to four times per quarter. In addition, education faculty developed a summative assessment tool based on the California State teaching standards. Students also receive summative evaluations from their field supervisor, their master teacher, and their supervising principal. As additional sources of data, students are required to complete a qualitative assessment about the program in the middle of the academic year, and a self-assessment on the extent to which the program met learning outcomes at the end of their program. Master teachers also complete an assessment that identifies the student’s ability to meet program learning outcomes. Finally, alumni who are teaching complete an assessment of how well the program prepared them across learning outcomes.

Since the last CTC review, faculty have also worked to strengthen the initial passage rates on the California Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA). Faculty solicited feedback from stakeholders and candidates, and implemented a number of strategies, such as providing supplemental candidate workshops to reinforce key concepts that are tested on the TPAs. Based on TPA data, pass rates increased from 89.5 percent in 2009 to 96.5 percent in 2012.

Program learning outcomes for the Administrative Services Credential programs are mapped to the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. Similar formative and summative assessments are used for the Administrative Services Credential programs. Students receive both formative and summative feedback throughout their time in the program. They also complete an exit survey to provide feedback for program improvement.

Faculty and staff in the Counseling Psychology department are working to review and revise their student learning outcomes. The faculty has also developed an assessment tool for evaluating students when they are in practicum to identify areas of strength and weakness in the following categories: (a) communication, (b) interviewing, (c) diagnosis, (d) treatment, (e) case management, (f) agency operations, and (g) professional orientation. Students complete three quarters of practicum and receive three assessments on their progress in these areas.

School of Engineering SCU has two graduate-level programs in Applied Mathematics and Engineering Management and Leadership. In addition, it has five Engineering departments (Computer, Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, and Bioengineering) that offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.

The graduate programs’ assessment programs are at different levels of development. Computer Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Engineering Management, and Electrical Engineering have conducted graduate-level assessments of their learning outcomes. The Mechanical and Civil Engineering departments are in the process of reviewing their learning outcomes and detailing new assessment plans. Bioengineering, a new program, has specified learning objectives and laid out an assessment plan that will begin this academic year.

Each of the programs’ assessment practices includes the requirement for each graduate class to have a list of learning outcomes that has been approved by the department (this is a required component of the syllabus). Another shared feature is the fact that most of the relevant data represent a combination of assessment by the instructor, student self-assessment and interviews conducted by external parties (such as industrial advisory boards or alumni boards). The Graduate Services Office also conducts an exit survey, whose results are periodically reviewed by the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs. Given the broad spectrum of courses that are offered at the graduate level, most departments tend to identify a smaller subset that they examine and evaluate in any given year. Assessment tools that are used in this process range from midterms, final exams, and projects to in-class surveys and student interviews.

There is increased recognition in the School of Engineering that a number of its assessment practices could be streamlined and refined to more effectively analyze whether graduates of the various programs are achieving their respective learning outcomes. There is additional concern that the current assessment practices are not sustainable.

The Director of Assessment has been working with the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Engineering and the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies on ways to address these issues. They are currently working with Shannon Sipes, Director of Assessment at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, to plan a two-day workshop for the School of Engineering that will address ways to refine assessment practices in the School. By engaging all departments in this workshop, the School can develop a more consistent and centralized approach to assessment. The workshop will also address specific assessment challenges at the graduate level, such as the need to rely on adjunct faculty for assessment and the varying numbers of graduate students in different programs. The Director of Assessment will continue to work closely with the Associate Deans and departments in the School to support their efforts in developing and refining assessment practices and ensuring their sustainability at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The University Assessment Committee will pay particular attention to providing feedback or consultation on changes to the revised assessment plans.

School of Law The School of Law regularly reviews student grades in key courses (first-year, bar exam subjects, legal writing, and professional skills), employer evaluations of student externs, and bar exam passage and post-graduation employment rates. The Law School Survey of Student

Engagement (LSSSE) also provides indirect measures from 2010 to 2013 to benchmark our students’ experiences over time and with peer institutions. A 10-year study of SCU California bar exam passage rates identified high-risk populations and some significant differences between different models of analysis and writing courses. This 2011 study (and subsequent updates) led to adjustments in course and program design. Programs and centers have made progress in defining student learning outcomes and measures. For example, the law faculty has adopted learning objectives for all first-year legal writing sections, as well as uniform rubrics for evaluation of oral and written advocacy.

A competency model drafted by a new Curriculum Committee in 2013 will encourage all course instructors to articulate and measure defined student learning outcomes and program goals. Drawing from legal practice and many faculty discussions, the model identifies nine competencies, and multiple performance benchmarks within each competency. A faculty survey to pinpoint the introduction, practice, and reinforcement of these competencies in current courses and programs is under way. The results will allow the mapping of law school courses onto this outcomes-based framework. Increasing measurement and assessment will follow. The law faculty has also begun to hold regular monthly meetings about effective teaching, assessment, and the use of technologies to support outcomes-based course design.

The School of Law’s next self-study for the University dovetails with its accreditation review by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association in 2014–2015. Newly proposed standards for outcomes and assessment by the ABA, changes in the legal services industry and legal education, and a new Dean of the School of Law make this an opportune time to refresh the school’s assessment plan. Five of them are competencies that the Committee concluded all lawyers should have (research, writing, legal knowledge, analysis, and professional responsibility), and four are specific to Santa Clara Law students (creative problem solving, interpersonal skills, initiative, and conscience and compassion).

Jesuit School of Theology1 To ensure that the Jesuit School of Theology employed appropriate assessment processes, the JST faculty began working with the Office of Assessment in 2008–2009 to formulate revised goals and objectives for each of its academic programs. These goals and objectives provide measurable standards for assessing student learning. With these new standards in place, the faculty began to align their syllabi with program goals and objectives. Doing so provided students with a better understanding of the ways in which a particular class fits within the larger program. Finally, beginning in the fall of 2011, JST was integrated into the cycle of Annual Assessment Reports required by Santa Clara University. The JST administration, working closely with staff in the Provost’s Office, developed a schedule by which all JST programs would be assessed across a common learning goal (Goals 1, 2, and 3 are similar across all JST programs). At the same time, all the goals for one program are assessed every year, and the data are fed into the program review process.

1 An in-depth description of the Jesuit School of Theology’s assessment effort is provided in the Integration of the Jesuit School of Theology section of this report.

Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries The Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries (GPPM) conducted its initial program review in 2009–2010. From that process, GPPM received valuable feedback from external reviewers on its assessment protocol and practices. Since then, the GPPM faculty has worked to clarify learning objectives and curricular goals, design assessable assignments, and develop a robust plan for the assessment of student learning. As part of its work, the faculty has instituted a culminating experience for students. At the conclusion of their studies, students are required to submit an electronic portfolio that includes papers or projects from three Foundations courses and three Emphasis courses that demonstrate the achievement of the five major learning objectives; five one-page essays that reflect on how the papers or projects demonstrate the learning objectives; and a concluding integrative essay that reflects on how the courses have enhanced the student’s ability to serve as a pastoral minister. Then, the faculty uses information collected from the culminating experience to assess the depth of student learning.

GPPM has made significant progress in establishing an effective assessment program. The development of revised learning goals and a culminating experience will help ensure the program’s continued success. As GPPM moves forward, it will continue to refine and enhance its assessment efforts.

Summary Over the past three years, each of the Schools has engaged in significant work to strengthen the assessment of student learning within its graduate program. As part of their efforts, the Schools have appointed a faculty or staff member to coordinate assessment processes and provide ongoing support to faculty and departments. This cadre of coordinators has engaged faculty and staff in the revision of program goals, objectives, and assessment protocols so that they are in alignment with best practices and professional standards of their respective professional organizations. While significant progress has been made, each of the Schools will continue to refine its assessment efforts. For example, the School of Engineering is in the process of working with an external consultant to create consistent and centralized processes. Similarly, faculty in the School of Law and the department of Counseling Psychology are continuing to enhance their efforts by mapping courses onto an outcomes-based framework and redesigning program learning goals and objectives, respectively. As these Schools continue to make good progress, the Director of Assessment and the UAC are committed to working with them to build a sustainable culture of evidence and assessment.

Action Taken: Assess Student Learning through Co-Curricular Programs Santa Clara has embarked upon an effort to assess student learning through a thoughtful and deliberate examination of co-curricular programs. In 2011 and 2012, the Vice Provost for Student Life began to engage a number of departments that provide critical student services in conversations about the benefits of regular assessment and program review. Using Santa Clara’s academic assessment and program review processes as templates, the Vice Provost and an assessment consultant have been working with four departments to develop co-curricular assessment materials.

Thus far, the Career Center, the Office of Student Life, and the Office of Residence Life have worked with the consultant to provide departmental staff with an orientation to assessment and

program review, and to help them develop processes and materials. Each of these departments has drafted a mission and goals statement and identified preliminary program outcomes. These three offices have been particularly inclusive in their approach to assessment, involving staff in the process at all stages—mission, goals and outcomes development, assessment planning, data collection and analysis, interpretation of assessment results, and identification of actions that can be taken to improve program quality.

There are currently three assessment deliverables due annually: (a) the Annual Assessment Plan, (b) the Annual Assessment Report, and (c) the Quality Improvement Report. Submitted at the beginning of the academic year, the Annual Assessment Plan documents the program, identifies the outcomes to be assessed during the academic year, and describes the methods that will be used. The Annual Assessment Report, which is drafted at the conclusion of the academic year, describes the outcomes that were assessed and the methods that were used, provides a summary of results, and lists actions that will be taken to improve program quality. Finally, the Quality Improvement Report provides the program with an opportunity to succinctly describe substantive changes it has implemented in the prior 12 months in response to assessment findings or changing student needs.

The Career Center is beginning its third year of annual assessment. The department has written three Annual Assessment Plans and two Annual Assessment Reports. The Offices of Student Life and Residence Life are beginning their second annual assessment cycle, having completed Annual Assessment Plans for 2012-13 and 2013-14 and Annual Assessment Reports for 2012- 13. Given that three departments have successfully developed an assessment process, the Vice Provost is now engaging one additional department in conversations about regular assessment. The Center for Student Leadership has begun to lay the groundwork for performing its first assessment by developing a new mission and goals statement and identifying program outcomes.

Next Steps The assessment work undertaken thus far appears to be leading to an improved understanding of program performance as well as to the identification of opportunities for improvement. Within the Division of Student Life, there are plans to implement a Program Review process and report. A Program Review Guidance document for the Division of Student Life has been drafted in support of the co-curricular program review process. It is expected that programs will undergo program review—a highly comprehensive evaluation of program capacity and effectiveness— every four years. It is anticipated that the Career Center will be the first program to undertake program review, beginning in fall 2014, followed by the Office of Student Life and Office of Residence Life in fall 2015.

Preliminary conversations are also taking place concerning the review of co-curricular programs that do not organizationally fall within the Division of Student Life. For example, program components of the Office of Global Engagement, the Drahmann Academic Advising and Learning Resources Center, the Honors Program, the LEAD Scholars program, and the Centers of Distinction could benefit from regular assessment and program review. Given that these programs vary in scope and fall under different organizational units, significant conversations about the structure and process of assessment still need to take place. The newly appointed Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness is charged with exploring this issue and

collaborating with the respective Program Directors to develop an effective and sustainable assessment plan. It is anticipated that a workable model will be developed and functional by fall 2017.

Timeline, Planned Steps, and , Expected Outcomes Action One: Improve Program-Level Assessment The University Assessment Committee will analyze the assessment reports from programs in 2014–2015 to identify areas for improvement in assessment practices. The UAC will also analyze the program review materials to determine how the results of assessment of student learning are being used in program review.

Action Two: Strengthen Assessment in the Graduate and Professional Programs Several schools are continuing to refine their assessment efforts. Notable projects include:

• School of Education and Counseling Psychology: Faculty and staff in the Counseling Psychology department are working to review and revise their student learning outcomes. Revised protocols should be in place by the 2015–2016 academic year.

• School of Engineering: The School is working with a consultant from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology to plan a two-day workshop that will address ways to refine assessment practices in the School. By involving all the departments in this workshop, it is hoped that a more consistent and centralized approach to assessment can be designed and implemented by the 2015–2016 academic year.

• School of Law: The School’s next self-study for the University dovetails with its accreditation review by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association in 2014–2015. Newly proposed standards for outcomes and assessment by the ABA should be implemented by the 2015–2016 academic year.

Action Three: Assess Student Learning through Co-curricular Programs Within the Division of Student Life, there are plans to implement a program review process and report. A Program Review Guidance document for the Division of Student Life has been drafted in support of the co-curricular program review process. It is expected that programs will undergo program review—a highly comprehensive evaluation of program capacity and effectiveness— every four years. It is anticipated that the Career Center will be the first program to undertake program review, beginning in fall 2014, followed by the Office of Student Life and the Office of Residence Life in fall 2015.

Preliminary conversations are also taking place concerning the review of co-curricular programs that do not organizationally fall within the Division of Student Life. Given that these programs vary in scope and fall under different organizational units, significant conversations about the structure and process of assessment still need to take place. The newly appointed Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness is charged with exploring this issue and collaborating with the respective Program Directors to develop an effective and sustainable assessment plan. It is anticipated that a workable model will be developed and functional by fall 2017.

Summary In the 2011 Commission Action Letter, President Wolff called upon Santa Clara to (a) use the results of assessment consistently in program review, (b) expand assessment practices into the graduate and professional programs, and (c) assess student learning and development through co- curricular programs. Santa Clara is proud to report that it has made significant progress in each of these areas, has worked to strengthen assessment and program review, and is using the information collected from these processes to improve the delivery of programs.

Since 2011, Santa Clara has worked to expand its assessment infrastructure and provide additional support for academic programs as they engage in assessment. For example, the University has appointed an Assessment Coordinator in each of the Schools and the College, expanded the work of the University Assessment Committee, supported continuing education in assessment, and refined the Core Curriculum assessment process. The University has also revised the program review process to ensure the academic programs and departments place a greater emphasis on the assessment of student learning. Significant progress has also been made in the graduate programs. While each School is at a different stage in the refinement of its assessment processes, they have been working with their Assessment Coordinators to revise program goals and objectives, and to develop sustainable strategies to assess student work and graduate program learning goals. Finally, Santa Clara is embarking upon the review and evaluation of co-curricular learning. The Division of Student Life has taken the lead and developed assessment processes within three departments. Over the next two years, Student Life will expand its assessment efforts to additional units and the Provost’s Office will be developing an assessment plan for co-curricular programs that are located in other parts of the campus.

Santa Clara continues to review and refine the use of assessment and program review. Over the past three years, the University Assessment Committee, in partnership with faculty and staff in each of the academic programs, has worked diligently to build a sustainable model. They have also engaged in conversations at the national level, as evidenced by their work with the Inter/National Coalition for ePortfolio Research to explore and employ the use of technology in program review. As the institution moves forward, it will continue to promote exemplary strategies that provide meaningful results and contribute to the improvement of student learning.

Appendices At the conclusion of this report, there are a set of appendices that provide additional information on topics discussed in this section of the report:

Appendix G: University Assessment Committee Statement of Principles

Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Appendix I: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Sixth Year Review with details on assessment

Appendix J: Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report with details on assessment

Appendix K: Annual Assessment Plan for Co-Curricular Programs

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Enhancing Governance and Communication

SECTION I: DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE Background: Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Santa Clara University’s shared governance model, developed in the 1990s, is structured around a set of University Policy Committees responsible for reviewing significant policy changes. The model was praised for its effective design in an AAUP award received in 1998. The principles underlying the model include a strong commitment to communication, collaboration, openness and accessibility, and to “strengthen(ing) academic excellence and the Catholic and Jesuit identity of the University.” (University Policy Committees Charter, scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.)

As the University’s governance website (http://www.scu.edu/governance/ ) states, the Santa Clara system is based on a set of nine normative principles for good practices in governance:

1. Strengthen academic excellence and the Catholic and Jesuit identity of the University in a mutually reinforcing way. 2. Ensure that the Statement of Purpose guides policy development, decision making, and priority setting.1 3. Exercise collaboration based on the recognition that Santa Clara University can flourish only if there is a healthy sense of community in which all members have a role in working for the common good. 4. Recognize the domains of primary authority and responsibility of the various University components and expect participants in the process to be held accountable for carrying out their responsibilities. 5. By means of clear and appropriate communication be open, accessible, and understandable to members of the University community. 6. Be efficient, effective, and productive. 7. Foster innovation and change. 8. Strive for continuous improvement and a culture of active participation. 9. Ensure timely and effective response to the changing external environment.

Concerns about Governance and Communication at SCU: Background in WASC Visiting Team Reports and Commission Action Letter During the Capacity and Preparatory Review visit in 2009 some members of the University community raised concerns about shared governance and campus communication processes. The Visiting Team addressed these concerns by including a recommendation in the 2009 Visiting Team Report.

CPR Visiting Team Report In their 2009 Capacity and Preparatory Visiting Team Report, the WASC visitors encouraged the University to enhance both the governance processes and communication, and to initiate a

1 See the Faculty Handbook, Section 1.2 for the Statement of Purpose.

52 review of its approach to shared governance. Task forces on governance and on communication were subsequently created. Both are described below.

EER Visiting Team Report and Commission Action Letter The 2011 Educational Effectiveness Review Visiting Team Report expressed appreciation for the “considerable efforts made by the University” on governance and communication. The Visiting Team recommended bringing the efforts to a timely conclusion. The 2011 Commission Action Letter identified Governance and Communication as one of four areas for attention in an interim report.

Additional Context: Recent Events on Campus Recent campus events on campus have led to further concerns about governance and communication. In October 2013 the President of Santa Clara University announced a decision to eliminate health care coverage for elective abortions. The announcement led to expressions of significant concern on campus about both the decision and the process of decision-making. In December 2013, the Faculty Senate approved a resolution asking the Board of Trustees to overturn the President’s decision and to direct the President to follow the procedures of shared governance. On February 14, 2014, the Board of Trustees responded with an affirmation of the President’s decision. A letter from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees dated February 14, 2014, also stated that the Trustees

are confident that the President will continue to follow the provisions of the University's shared governance structure. The Trustees support the renewed efforts to continue building trust in administration, faculty, and staff relations, which will strengthen campus governance and communication.

The tone of the letter, however, angered some of the faculty. This report will not address the current debate in depth, but it should be noted that responses to a survey, administered in November 2013 by a WASC Interim Report Working Group on Governance and Communication, appear to be influenced by these and other recent events. The preparation of the Interim Report and, in particular, the administration of the survey, created additional tensions on campus.

The survey contained both open-ended questions and multiple-choice items. The preface to the survey itself stated “No information that can be used to identify you is being collected as part of this survey; all responses are anonymous” (See Appendix P, November 2013 Survey Questions.) The initial invitation to participate in the survey indicated that the survey results would be shared with the campus community but that individual responses would be kept anonymous. A reminder sent seven days later, and additional reminders sent during the following week, however, indicated that all comments would be shared with the campus community. Both faculty members of the Working Group felt strongly that the verbatim responses – especially from faculty – to all open-ended survey questions should be released to the campus community. Because of the promise of anonymity in the initial invitation to participate in the survey, however, other members of the Working Group felt strongly that the verbatim responses to the

53 open-ended questions should not be released.2 This disagreement led to the resignation of the two faculty members. The verbatim faculty responses were released by one of those who resigned, and Vice Provost Jonte-Pace, the administrative member of the Working Group, responded with an apology for the release. These events exacerbated tensions on campus.

SECTION II. ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION

Executive Task Force on Governance After the WASC Visit in 2009, President Engh contacted the University Coordinating Committee (UCC) to request nominations for a task force on governance. An Executive Task Force on Governance was formed with three faculty, three staff, and three administrators. The charge was to review the University’s shared governance practices, and make recommendations for enhancing the shared governance process.

The Executive Task Force on Governance studied previous governance documents; interviewed many members of the University community; and held focus groups. They identified a number of broad issues and assigned each issue to subgroups within the Task Force. They produced an extensive report with approximately 50 recommendations. The report outlined the concerns heard by the task force and provided a rationale for each recommendation.

The 26 page (not including appendices) final report of the Task Force was submitted in July 2011, and is available at http://www.scu.edu/provost/office/committees/upload/Final-Report- Executive-TF-on-Governance-2010-11.pdf. The introduction to the report states that “the recommendations are designed so that, after they are discussed, amended (if necessary) and supported by the Santa Clara University community, they can be integrated…into a coherent, clear, governance document” (page 3).

In the following months (i.e., throughout the academic year 2011-12) the University Coordinating Committee considered the report and recommendations of the Task Force, consulting widely with the campus community throughout the year. They “solicited input from the campus community through an online feedback process; consulted with the Academic Affairs Committee, Planning Action Council, Faculty Senate Council and Staff Senate; conducted a University forum; and surveyed the faculty and staff to gauge their support for the revised

2 The Working Group discussed at length the meaning of “anonymity”: does anonymity mean that names are not explicitly associated with responses, or does it refer to the protection of individuals from potential identification? Did respondents expect their answers to be released, or did they expect a summary report to be released? The underlying conflict involved a tension between the principle of transparency and the principle of protection of privacy. The group felt that there were several responses whose authors could potentially be identified. The group reviewed best practices in survey administration, and considered, but opted not to pursue, a “redaction” approach. Ultimately, the Working Group asked a professional survey analyst to code the responses, to provide examples of typical comments, and to provide a summary report (See Appendix S, Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items).

54 recommendations.” (See http://www.scu.edu/governance/upload/Institutional-Action-Plan-to- Enhance-Shared-Governance.pdf )

An open forum held in May 2012 provided an opportunity for campus wide discussion of the recommendations. In addition, the full SCU community of faculty and staff was invited to provide input through a survey stating, “Please indicate whether you support the recommendations enhancing shared governance as described in the document ‘Recommendations to Enhance Shared Governance’ dated May 30, 2012.” Seventy three percent of the respondents to the survey expressed support. On June 19, 2012, an email message was sent to the campus community by the Chair of the University Coordinating Committee and the University President, thanking the Task Force for their work and announcing the endorsement and approval of the recommendations for implementation in fall 2012. (See www.scu.edu/provost/office/committees/upload/Institutional-Action-Plan-to-Enhance-Shared- Governance.pdf)

The approved Recommendations to Enhance Shared Governance contained approximately 45 distinct components.3 Most were very similar to the recommendations in the Executive Task Force’s final report. Some recommendations were changed for greater flexibility or for consistency with policies in the Faculty Handbook, and a few were omitted.

Task Force on Communication and Collaboration In October 2011, at the President’s request, the UCC created a Task Force on Communication and Collaboration with 15 members. The charge of the Task Force was to: • Consider recent surveys and the Information Services self-review to focus consultation with the University community to determine their needs for communication and collaboration tools • Identify privacy and security issues that should be addressed related to those tools • Identify issues related to data ownership and possible future migration to newer tools associated with outsourced solutions • Review communication and collaboration toolsets provided by other higher education institutions • Based on the above, recommend tools and processes to provide Santa Clara University students, faculty and staff with: Communication, including communication to specific groups; Calendaring; Collaborative creation and editing of documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc.; File sharing; Web-based conferencing; Other identified or emerging tools that the task force believes are important, either for current implementation or to track for possible future implementation • Identify best practices for use of the recommended tools to improve communication at the University, particularly from various levels of administration to constituents.

The Task Force consulted widely, interviewed vendors, and created a blog for campus communication. They made a number of recommendations, including the elimination of the

3 There are 37 bulleted items. Thirty-one of these are single-item statements or recommendations. Six bulleted items have 2, 3, or 4 separate recommendations embedded in the bullet point.

55 Groupwise email and calendar system and the implementation of the Google Apps for Education system. After further consultation and review by governance groups, this recommendation was approved by the President, and installation of the new system occurred in December 2012. The work of this task force is available at http://www.scu.edu/is/communication/.

SECTION III. ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE TO IMPROVE GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION

WASC Working Group on Governance and Communication: Methods The WASC Interim Report Working Group on Governance and Communication was formed to assess the current effectiveness of governance and communication on the campus, to review the effect of efforts to improve governance and communication, and to draft this portion of the interim report on behalf of the University. The Working Group included two faculty members, one staff member, and one administrator. The group’s activities included the following: • Carefully studied a variety of governance documents, conducted research, and compiled summaries documenting the work of governance groups since 2009, and created a number of tables contained as appendices to this interim report: o A table of agenda items and action items from University Coordinating Committees, University Policy Committees, and other Committees and Task Forces over the last four years (Appendices L and M, UPC and Task Force Summary 2009-2013, and Benefits, Research and UCC 2009-2013) o A table comparing the 2011 recommendations of the Executive Task Force on Governance to the 2012 recommendations that were endorsed and approved for implementation (Appendix N, Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012) o A table tracking the implementation of the recommendations (Appendix O, Implementation Table). • Interviewed numerous groups and individuals who had been active in the shared governance process in the last four years. o Members of the Executive Task Force on Governance o Past and current members of the University Coordinating Committee o Past and current chairs of most of the University Policy Committees (UPCs) o Ex-officio members of most of the University Policy Committees • Conducted a campus-wide survey of attitudes toward governance and communication among faculty and staff (Appendices P, November 2013 Survey Questions, Q, Frequency Distribution of Responses, R, Analysis of Statistical Relationships and S, Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Responses) • Met approximately weekly from November 2013 through January 2014 to compile this portion of the interim report.

Review of Governance Documents, Websites, Committee Action Items, and Communications A careful review of documents, websites, agendas, minutes, and reports of University Policy Committees since 2009 reveals that the work of governance groups has, for the most part, been effective. University Policy Committees and other committees have followed the University’s procedures and have responded appropriately to proposals. A table, drawn from minutes and annual reports, lists action items and discussion items of committees between 2009 and 2013. (See Appendix L, UPC and Task Force Summary, and Appendix M, Benefits, Research, and

56 UCC Summary). The tables show evidence of substantial work on the part of UPCs, Task Forces, and other committees, and demonstrate that participants in the governance process follow the procedures outlined in the Charter by working collaboratively to resolve differences so that the most common outcome of UPC deliberations is the approval of their recommendations by the relevant administrator. The table also shows that a few items undertaken by UPCs and Task Forces in the last four years are still in process, under review, or pending.

These records demonstrate that the ongoing work of governance progressed effectively between 2009 and 2013. Significant accomplishments through the shared governance system in this period include a new strategic plan approved in 2011, a new appointment model for lecturers providing greater continuity and a path to promotion, a new smoking policy (currently pending approval), a change in the Tuesday and Thursday class schedules, several new academic degree programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level, an online master’s degree option in Pastoral Ministries, a Good Samaritan medical policy for students, a Scholarly Course Release Initiative providing eight course releases for faculty, a Summer Stipend for Scholarship program for faculty, an equalization of the University’s contributions to the medical insurance plans, a reimbursement option for employees waiving medical coverage, new inexpensive funds for retirement investing, an increase in life insurance benefit for employees, etc.

Several challenges, however, are evident. First, this record of accomplishments is not widely understood as part of the shared governance process. It may be important for UPC chairs and other governance leaders to communicate more clearly the role of governance groups in proposal, review, recommendation, and implementation processes.

Another challenge lies not only in communicating what has been accomplished, but also in clarifying what is and is not included in the scope of governance. The Governance Charter provides guidance on the question of scope of responsibilities of UPCs. It highlights the role of UPCs as the final collaborative bodies with the authority to “formulate and recommend new University policy and major strategic change” and “review significant change in existing policy.” It also notes that UPCs, will “recommend and monitor the effectiveness of major policies and major strategic initiatives.” The Charter notes that “prudential judgment about what is substantive is dependent on the majority opinion of the relevant UPC or the UCC.” In addition, each individual UPC has a specific purpose and charge that is detailed in the Shared Governance Charter. ( See www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.)

Still another challenge involves continuity and follow-through. Some policy discussions have been unintentionally abandoned or forgotten before resolutions have been reached. This seems to have occurred when the issue has been assigned to more than one committee or when the discussion carries across more than one academic year. The UCC is working to improve the monitoring of policy discussions, and to re-introduce issues that need resolution.

Interviews A number of interviews were held with governance leaders, including members of the Executive Task Force on Governance, members of current and former University Coordinating Committees, chairs and ex-officio members of University Policy Committees, etc.

57 Meeting with Members of the Executive Task Force on Governance: Staff and faculty members of the Executive Task Force on Governance expressed concerns about the process of reviewing, revising, and approving the recommendations in the report they had submitted in 2011. These included, in particular, the removal of a recommendation to increase staff support, the removal of a recommendation describing governance orientation processes, and the removal of the “rule of three.”4 An overarching perception expressed by several was a sense that the revisions enacted a subtle shift toward communication and consultation by electronic posting rather than by face-to- face engagement. The group also expressed concerns about delays in implementation.

Meeting with the 2011-12 UCC: The Working Group met with the members of the University Coordinating Committee that had taken responsibility for reviewing, adapting, and recommending approval for the Task Force’s recommendations. The UCC group expressed appreciation for the work of the Executive Task Force on Governance, explaining that they had not interpreted their editorial work as a dramatic revision. They acknowledged that some changes in the 2011 recommendations had been motivated by a sense that some of the recommendations, while aspirational, were unrealistic and, if implemented, would be very time- consuming. However, they had not intended to enact a shift from active engagement to passive posting. Their primary goal had been to ensure timely communication and collaboration among all parties without creating obligations to attend multiple meetings. The UCC group also expressed appreciation for those who moved the implementation forward (by, for example, launching the Orientation) in years after their roles on the UCC ended.

To better understand the divergent views of the Task Force members and the UCC members, the WASC Interim Report Working Group on Governance and Communication compiled a table comparing the 2011 and 2012 versions of the recommendations to enhance governance, indicating similarities and differences through a color-coded system. The table (Appendix N, Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012) was shared with both the Executive Task Force members and the UCC members, and feedback on the table was invited. One member of the Task Force objected to the analysis of similarities and differences, providing a point-by-point critique. No concerns were raised by others. A summary of the comments from the Task Force member, along with notes from the conversation with the UCC members, are included in response columns following the comparison table in Appendix N.

A Comment on Communication of Expectations in Relation to Governance Procedures: Task Forces at Santa Clara typically submit recommendations that are reviewed, discussed, and often modified before implementation. The process followed in the review, approval, and implementation of the recommendations of the Executive Task Force was typical of University task force processes. However, some members of the Executive Task Force held different expectations for their work: some indicated that they had anticipated rapid approval and implementation without modification. A clarification of processes and procedures for Task Force recommendations will be important for the University in the future.

4 The “rule of three” involves consulting with stakeholders at three stages in any process: when defining a problem, at early formulations of solutions, and in final modifications.

58 The Executive Task Force report itself provides language that can assist with this significant clarification: as noted earlier, the introduction to the Executive Task Force report states that “the recommendations are designed so that, after they are discussed, amended (if necessary) and supported by the Santa Clara University community, they can be integrated…into a coherent, clear, governance document” (page 3, emphasis added).

Meetings with UPC chairs, Ex-officio Administration Members of UPCs, and UCC Members: The working group asked current and recent governance leaders to comment on the effectiveness of the actions taken by the University to improve governance and communication, and to describe recent changes or improvements in governance processes as a result of the Recommendations to Enhance Shared Governance. Most UPC chairs were unaware of changes, but ex-officio members, most of whom have held their roles for several years, stated that the orientations of new members within UPCs had been improved due to the influence of the Recommendations, a fact that the chairs, with their shorter terms, might not have known. Governance leaders also pointed to an increased effort to post agendas and minutes in a consistent and timely manner, as well as an increase in communication between UPCs and the Faculty Senate Council.

Chairs of UPCs articulated several concerns about the functioning of the committees. Questions were raised about the role, charge, and processes of the UPCs on which they served, about what constituted appropriate consultation, and about which governance group had responsibility for particular issues. Other comments included the following: • Clarification is needed regarding “policy vs. procedure” in the governance process. A few stated that issues are sometimes identified as procedures rather than policies. They recommended that some procedural issues be subjected to the open consultation of the shared governance process. • Clarification is needed regarding the roles of the ex-officio members. • Concerns were raised by one former chair about transparency and access to information while serving on a UPC a few years ago. • One former chair, who had the experience of interacting with the Trustees, expressed concerns about the interaction, stating that “the Trustees had little understanding of faculty work. They didn't understand the challenge of hiring and sustaining faculty.” Deepening the Trustees’ understanding of faculty roles would benefit the University. Some chairs also expressed interest in developing a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Trustees.

Ex-officio members of UPCs noted ambiguity about their roles – for example, they held different views on whether or not they should vote in UPC decisions; on what their role should be in determining the direction of the UPC; and on setting agendas and schedules. Concerns were raised in relation to tracking or monitoring issues when multiple governance groups are involved or when discussions span more than one academic year.

Suggestions made by governance leaders included the following: • Improve the annual orientation of UPC members • Encourage all UPCs to hold mini-orientations to orient new members and refresh the understanding of continuing members

59 • Include the administrator to whom the UPC reports in the mini-orientation • Clarify the role and responsibilities of the ex officio member • Allow committees to post minutes after their next meetings rather than meeting a two- week deadline • Improve communication of UPC accomplishments to the campus community • Encourage UPCs to be more proactive and strategic in fulfilling their charges • Consider reinstating the Facilities Planning Council (Note: this is in process) • Expand staff support (Note: this is in process) • Compensate chairs with either time or stipends for their work

Campus-wide Survey As noted above, a survey was sent to the campus in fall 2013 (see Appendices P, November 2013 Survey Questions, Q, Frequency Distribution of Survey Responses, R, Analysis of Statistical Relationships, and S, Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items). Two hundred sixty four faculty, 166 staff, and 20 administrators responded to the survey. This corresponds to a 29% response rate for the faculty and a 14% response rate for the staff.

There were four key quantitative questions in the survey. Two of these key quantitative questions concerned the overall state of both governance and communication: • (Question 2) On a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent), how would you rate shared governance at SCU? The overall mean response was 4.4. The mean rating for faculty (4.0) was significantly lower than that for staff (4.8) and for administrators (6.2). • (Question 3) On a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent), how would you rate communication at SCU? The overall mean response was 4.8. The mean rating for faculty (4.5) did not differ from that of staff (5.0) but was significantly lower than that of administrators (6.2).

Two comparative quantitative questions were only asked of employees who had been present at SCU in 2009: • (Question 5) Four years ago, WASC recommended SCU work to improve the shared governance system at SCU. How would you rate shared governance now compared to where it was in 2009? Here, the scale was 0 (significantly worse) to 10 (significantly better). The overall mean response was 4.1. The faculty mean (3.7) and staff mean (4.7) were below the administration mean (5.8).

• (Question 6) For the same question about communication the overall mean response was 4.5. The faculty mean (4.1) was significantly lower than that for staff (4.9) and for administrators (5.9).

Two questions asked respondents to describe their ideal of shared governance. The first (Question 7) addressed the scope of shared governance: “Ideally, the scope of governance includes….” Seven possibilities were listed with the instructions “select as many as apply.” Over 70% supported shared governance covering the following cluster of issues: University-wide Policy Changes, Academic Changes, Contractual Changes, and Potentially Controversial Issues.

Some statistical patterns in the survey responses can be identified (see Appendix R, Analysis of

60 Statistical Relationships, for further analysis of these patterns): 57% of respondents identified the cluster of four areas identified above. Between 53 and 55% supported shared governance covering Jesuit Catholic Mission and Identity, University Budget Allocations, and Facilities Master Planning although these areas did not fall into patterns of statistical relationships. Generally, respondents who endorsed larger numbers of areas gave lower ratings to Shared Governance. This relationship was strongest for faculty, followed by staff. Note: the percentages associated with statistical patterns are not mutually exclusive.

The second question focusing on the ideal form of shared governance at SCU attempted to identify foundational assumptions about decision-making practices. This question differentiated a consensus model from a recommendation model:

Of the two models described below, which generally represents the IDEAL form of governance for SCU? A CONSENSUS MODEL: University Policy Committees consult widely; they reach consensus or vote; they notify the relevant administrator of their recommendation. If the administrator disagrees the administrator meets with the UPC; they discuss until consensus is achieved by all. A RECOMMENDATION MODEL: University Policy Committees consult widely; they reach consensus or vote; they notify the relevant administrator of their recommendation. After reviewing the UPC’s recommendation, the administrator makes a decision. If the administrator disagrees the UPC’s recommendation, the administrator meets with the UPC to explain his/her decision.

Overall, 58% identified the consensus model as the ideal model for Santa Clara. Majorities of administrators and staff who responded identified the recommendation model (58% and 53%, respectively) as the ideal model for Santa Clara, while 65% of faculty who responded identified the consensus model as the ideal model.

Campus-wide Survey: Analysis In the four key quantitative questions, the average administration response is above a 5, while the average faculty and staff responses are at or below a 5. This is particularly striking for the questions comparing governance and communication between 2009 and now. On average, administrators believe improvements have been made in both areas, whereas staff and faculty, on average, believe that governance and communication are worse, not better, now.

Staff, on average, identified fewer areas in the ideal scope of governance (in Question 7).

For all groups, the identification of the consensus-based model as the ideal model for Santa Clara corresponds to a lower rating of the state of governance at SCU, and to a larger number of areas endorsed for the ideal scope of shared governance. This is particularly evident for faculty.

To better understand the reasons behind the survey data, respondents were asked to describe the strengths and weaknesses of governance and communication in open-ended comments. In general, the open-ended comments suggest that campus concerns about governance and

61 communication are heavily influenced by the decision to eliminate health care coverage for elective abortion and other recent events.

Survey participants identified 159 strengths of governance and 350 weaknesses. (The total counts of strengths and weaknesses exclude responses of “none” or “n/a”). Strengths most commonly mentioned included: provides venue for dialogue; current structure is good; shared governance exists in theory; committees work as intended. Among the themes most commonly named as weaknesses in governance were the following: autonomous governance style of President, Provost, and administration; autocratic, ecclesiastical, or paternalistic style of President; administration as oligarchy, theocracy, or patriarchy; failure of administration to understand shared governance; duplicity/lack of transparency and accountability; lack of respect; shared governance not clearly understood; participation illusory; process slow; faculty role diminished; committee make-up problematic; faculty voice not representative; staff underrepresented; and inadequate resources. Approximately 44% of the weaknesses recorded were attributed to the administration, with specific references to the President and Provost.

Survey participants identified 209 strengths and 310 weaknesses of communication, excluding responses of “none” or “n/a”. Strengths most frequently presented included the following: President’s emails, website, and state of the University address; President’s and Provost’s attendance at Faculty Senate Council meetings; email communications; and external communications. Themes identified as weaknesses of communication include: “after the fact”; top down or lacks dialogue; lack of transparency/duplicity; administration communication impersonal/insular, email overused; etc.

A summary report on the open-ended comments, with sample comments, is included as Appendix S, Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items.

Although the survey did not ask respondents to describe whether they considered SCU’s current model a consensus model or a recommendation model, comments made by UPC chairs suggest that many members of the university community believe that SCU’s model is intended to be a consensus model.

The Working Group notes that current governance practice is ultimately based on a recommendation model, although governance groups are expected to work together closely to resolve differences. See the UPC Charter and the 2012 Recommendations to Enhance Governance. As noted above, the Charter states,

It is expected that faculty, staff, students, and administrators will work closely to resolve differences and that the normal outcome of UPC deliberations will be the approval of their recommendation by the appropriate administrator. The administrator is expected to provide a response to the recommendation within 45 days…In rare instances where a UPC and appropriate administrator are unable to reach agreement, even after further discussion following the administrator’s response, the UPC may submit its position document to the President or through the President to a Trustee Committee for consideration. Trustees hold the ultimate legal and moral responsibility and authority

62 for the University, and therefore, must ultimately determine and approve University policies and major strategic changes. www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm

An improved Orientation may bring clarification and common understanding to the decision- making process.

Conclusion: Analysis of Effectiveness of Actions Taken Based on survey data, interviews with stakeholders, the review of the work of UPCs and other governance groups since 2009, etc., the following can be concluded:

As demonstrated by Appendix L (UPC and Task Force Summary) and M (Benefits, Research and UCC Summary), much of the ongoing labor of shared governance in the University Policy Committees proceeds consultatively and effectively. Communication to the campus community about the effectiveness of the governance process, however, needs improvement.

The University has attempted to enhance governance and communication through the work of the two Task Forces, but challenges remain. An Executive Task Force on Governance produced an extensive report in 2011. The recommendations, after some emendations, were endorsed in 2012. Many of the recommendations to enhance shared governance have been implemented, although, as Appendix O (Implementation Table) shows, full implementation has not yet been achieved.

Several members of the Executive Task Force on Governance feel that their recommendations were changed substantially prior to 2012, although this concern was not raised by other members of the University community in interviews or in the survey. The University Coordinating Committee of 2011-12 indicated that they had not intended dramatic changes in the Task Force’s recommendations. See Appendix N, Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012.

A Communication and Collaboration Task Force completed a review of the University’s email and communication system, and, as a result, the University shifted to a new provider. The shift to the new email system was accomplished smoothly, through a strong system of regular communications, frequent training opportunities, and numerous workshops.

The work of the Communication and Collaboration Task Force, however, has not yet yielded all the fruit that was hoped for. Many had imagined that there would be 1) enhanced University support for collaborations involving teaching, research, and service, and 2) an increase in improved communication and collaboration practices throughout the University community. While the technological elements recommended by the Task Force are largely (although not entirely) available, users have been slow to adopt all of the features. Calendaring, for example, is not widely used by faculty; document-sharing is rare; and emails with attachments still make up the majority of formal communications within Santa Clara University.

In spite of the significant work of the two Task Forces, the University community continues to face challenges related to governance and communication, particularly in faculty-administration relations, and in collaboration. Renewed efforts to rebuild trust and to increase clarity about what falls within the scope of shared governance will be important in strengthening governance and

63 communication on campus in the future. Renewed efforts to support collaborative practices will be important as well.

IV. PROPOSED PLAN FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION: OUTCOMES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TIMELINE

Expected Outcomes Many members of the University community participating in this review expressed a strong hope for a future characterized by the following outcomes: • trust in a shared governance process, • increased clarity about the scope of shared governance, and • faith in the ability of faculty, staff, and administrators to respect the principles and processes of shared governance and to listen to each other’s views.

Embracing the opportunity to move toward such a future, the University is committed to: • Acknowledging the need to rebuild trust and improve communication • Engaging in serious collaborative efforts aimed at improving trust and communication • Building on the strong tradition of effective governance at Santa Clara by refreshing the campus understanding of the governance Charter and other key documents. • Fully implementing the 2012 Recommendations to Enhance Shared Governance • Continuing the ongoing process of improving shared governance by using the University’s procedures and policies • Enhancing collaborative practices throughout the University community

Recommendations for achieving these outcomes5 1. General Improvements • Enhance the annual Orientation for leaders of UPCs and other governance groups (This is in process: the 2013 Orientation focused on communication strategies; the 2014 Orientation will focus as well on governance processes.) • Improve staffing to support shared governance (This is in process: a portion of an additional staff member’s time has recently been dedicated to the support of the UPCs and the maintenance of records.) • Ensure that governance documents are consistent with the University Policy Committee Charter. (This project has recently been initiated by the UCC.) • Enhance support for collaborative practices.

2. Clarify foundational procedures and expectations

5 In the process of interviewing colleagues for this report, members of the Working Group received numerous suggestions for improving governance and communication on campus. These included many innovative ideas focusing on, for example, new groups (such as a governance advisory board and a Task Force on communication); length of terms of governance leaders; use of votes; clarification of survey design and practice; compensation/recognition for participants in the governance process; faculty membership on Board of Trustees; feedback on administrators’ work; feedback on facilities projects; discussions of mission and identity; encouragement of strategic thinking among governance groups; improvement of communications between governance groups and deans; increased communication through email updates from administrators, etc. These suggestions will be compiled and submitted to the University Coordinating Committee for discussion.

64 • Clarify consensus vs. recommendation approaches to decision-making. As noted above, the Charter describes a model based on extensive consultation, efforts to resolve differences, and, normally, approval of recommendations. (www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm)

• Clarify how Task Forces function. Task Forces sometimes produce recommendations that are revised by UPCs before implementation. Typically Task Forces last less than a year and thus lack time for the multi-stage consultation process that UPCs enjoy. (The UCC will be asked to address this question.)

3. Clarify the scope of shared governance • Mission and identity: Interview and survey data indicate the need for clarification of issues related to Mission and Identity both at the University in general, and within shared governance in particular. While the President has, as a primary duty, the obligation to enhance the identity and mission of Santa Clara as a Jesuit, Catholic University, his responsibility for mission and identity does not exclude or limit members of the University community or governance groups from also advancing the university’s mission. For example, the UPC Charter lists, as one of the nine principles for good practices in governance the “strengthen[ing] of academic excellence and the Catholic and Jesuit identity of the University in a mutually reinforcing way.” Increased clarity about the scope of governance in relation to Mission and Identity will be valuable.

• Policy and procedure: Interview and survey data indicate the need for clarification regarding the scope of shared governance in relation to policy vs. procedure. As noted above, the Charter notes that the six University Policy Committees were structured to have a focus on “major policies and major strategic initiatives” and “substantive changes in existing policy.” The Charter states that “prudential judgment about what is substantive is dependent on the majority opinion of the relevant UPC or the University Coordinating Committee.” Each individual UPC also has a specific purpose and charge that is detailed in the Shared Governance Charter.

4. Improve Communication and Collaboration • Interview and survey data indicate a need for improvement of open communication and trust throughout the University community. (A number of initiatives are currently in process: the President, the Provost, and some of the Deans, are improving communications by sending regular updates with links to a blog, a drive, or a website. Faculty and staff are using the University’s governance processes to raise questions and concerns. Fora, lunches, coffees, etc. are creating new opportunities for communication. A series of faculty/staff/administrator lunches has been initiated, based on a recent proposal to the Presidents’ office from a faculty member. ) • Faculty Senate Council representatives and department chairs can improve communication between the departmental Council representative and the department itself. • The work of the University Policy Committees can be more clearly communicated to the community by maintaining an integrated and ongoing record, visible on the web,

65 listing policy recommendations and consultations in process of all UPCs. (Appendices L and M of this report, UPC and Task Force Summary 2009-2013, and Benefits, Research and UCC 2009-2013, can be extended and modified to support ongoing communication about the work of governance and to ensure that issues under discussion by multiple groups or across multiple years are not forgotten.) • The University can provide further programming and support to enhance collaborative practices in teaching, research, and service. Although the technological tools are available, collaborative practices and behaviors have been slow to change.

Timeline Academic Year 2013-14 • March: Fora for feedback on WASC Interim Report • March: Submit Interim Report to WASC • April: UCC and Senates review recommendations • May: Annual governance leaders meeting • Spring: Off-site full-day retreat of governance leaders and administrators focused on improving shared governance and communication. A professional facilitator will be crucial in ensuring the success of the retreat.

Academic Year 2014-15 • September: Governance Orientation • Fall: UCC hosts Fora on improving shared governance and communication at SCU • Fall: Discussion of how to support a move from installation to implementation in technologically-enhanced collaborative practices • May: annual governance leaders meeting

Academic Year 2015-16 • September: Governance Orientation • May: annual governance leaders meeting

Academic Year 2016-17 • September: Governance Orientation • May: annual governance leaders meeting

Academic Year 2017-18 • September: Governance Orientation • May: annual governance leaders meeting

Academic Year 2018-19 • September: Governance Orientation • Fall: Re-administer survey containing the same 4 quantitative questions gauging the overall state of shared governance and communication, along with whether or not shared governance and communication has improved in the previous 4 years. The average response for each of these four questions should be at least a 7. The survey will clearly describe how responses will be reported.

66 • May: annual governance leaders meeting

Appendices At the conclusion of this report, there are a set of appendices that provide additional information on topics discussed in this section of the report:

Appendix L: UPC and Task Force Summary

Appendix M: Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Appendix N: Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Appendix O: Implementation Table

Appendix P: November 2013 Survey Questions

Appendix Q: Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Appendix R: Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Appendix S: Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

67 Western Association of Schools and Colleges Identification of Other Changes and Issues Currently Facing the Institution

Below is a summary of significant changes and issues facing Santa Clara University.

Significant Changes Strategic Planning Process In 2011, the Board of Trustees approved the 2011 Strategic Plan. Since that time, efforts have been made to integrate the Strategic Plan with an enrollment plan and a facilities master plan. An elaborated Strategic Plan known as Santa Clara 2020 moves the University forward from the 2011 Strategic Plan by building on the strategic priorities through the development of concrete strategic goals and objectives that leverage the University's strengths, capitalize on opportunities, and provide clear direction for the future of Santa Clara.

Changes in Key Personal Dennis Jacobs, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Santa Clara University In 2011, Santa Clara hired Dennis Jacobs to serve as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. He also holds an appointment as a Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry. Provost Jacobs was previously with the University of Notre Dame, where he served as Vice President and Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies.

James Lyons, Vice President for University Relations In 2013, Santa Clara hired James Lyons to lead the University’s fundraising, government relations, alumni relations, and marketing and communications activities. Vice President Lyons previously served as vice president for university relations at the University of Portland in Portland, Oregon with responsibility for development, alumni relations, marketing and communications, and university events.

Robert Warren, Vice President for Administration and Finance After more than two decades of distinguished service at Santa Clara, Robert Warren has announced his plans to retire in December 2014. A search is currently underway for his replacement.

Issues Facing Santa Clara As discussed in the report, governance and communication continue to be a challenge at Santa Clara. A complete description of the issues and a plan for improved governance and communication are described in the body of the report.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Concluding Statement

Below are a set of summary thoughts for each section of the report.

Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence In 2011, the WASC visiting team and Commission Action Letter emphasized the need for Santa Clara to develop focused attention, leadership, coordination, resource commitment, and accountability to the goals of inclusive excellence. Additionally, WASC pointed out the importance of developing a culture of evidence through the use of a diversity dashboard, and highlighted the need to strengthen the enrollment and completion of African American students and the recruitment and retention of African American faculty.

Santa Clara is pleased to report it has made significant strides in each of these areas. The University recently launched an Office for Diversity and Inclusion and allocated 1.0 staff FTE, 0.5 faculty FTE, and significant operating dollars to it. The newly formed office will help centralize and expand Santa Clara’s recent efforts to build a more diverse and inclusive community of faculty, staff, and students. Although it is only six months old, the Office is beginning to make significant strides in supporting faculty and students. Santa Clara has also developed a comprehensive diversity dashboard. Working with the Office of Institutional Research and the Council on Inclusive Excellence, ODI will continue to refine this tool and use it to demonstrate the extent to which Santa Clara is meeting and exceeding its diversity goals. Finally, Santa Clara is diligently working to increase the recruitment and retention of African American faculty and students. Santa Clara has developed a number of programs to increase recruitment and strengthen retention. It is confident that programs such as SADIE, the LEAD Scholars, and the Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows program will continue to foster a community whose members understand and appreciate the richness multiple cultures bring to campus.

Integration of the Jesuit School of Theology Since the integration of the Jesuit School of Theology into Santa Clara University, faculty, staff, and administrators on both campuses have been working diligently to build a community of scholars who collaborate in ways that enhance the academic life of the University and the School. Thus far, there has been a tremendous amount of success. Faculty across both campuses have collaborated on research and teaching, and partnerships have been forged between the Department of Religious Studies, the Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries, and JST. Preliminary discussions about future collaboration between JST and the School of Education and Counseling Psychology are also under way.

While the integration has been a success, the external reviewers noted that Santa Clara and JST should work to develop a realistic model for enrollment and finances and strengthen the assessment process. Santa Clara is pleased to report that administrators, faculty, and staff at both sites have been working to build a sustainable financial plan for the School. As previously noted, JST revenues are expected to cover all direct costs associated with the administration of the School and its academic programs. While a small decline in revenue has affected the budget, JST is positioning itself to increase enrollment and expand annual giving, which will bring the budget

into balance. In the meantime, Santa Clara is committed to supporting JST’s indirect costs and to helping improve its administrative processes. The School has also made great strides in expanding its assessment processes. Over the past four years, the faculty at JST have revised goals and objectives for each of their academic programs and aligned their syllabi and course evaluations with the revised standards. The School has also developed a process to assess a common learning goal each year, and the related data are fed into the program review process.

Refinement and Expansion of Assessment and Program Review The 2011 WASC Commission Action Letter called upon Santa Clara to (a) use the results of assessment consistently in program review, (b) expand assessment practices into the graduate and professional programs, and (c) assess student learning and development through co- curricular programs. Santa Clara is pleased to report that it has made significant progress in each of these areas, has worked to strengthen assessment and program review, and is using the information collected from these processes to improve the delivery of programs.

Since 2011, Santa Clara has worked to expand its assessment infrastructure and provide additional support for academic programs as they engage in assessment. For example, the University has appointed an Assessment Coordinator in each of the Schools and the College, expanded the work of the University Assessment Committee, supported continuing education in assessment, and refined the Core Curriculum assessment process. In addition, responsibilities within the Provost’s office have been restructured to support an integrated focus on institutional effectiveness. The new Vice Provost for Planning and Institutional Effectiveness oversees the University’s assessment and program review efforts and will direct future resources (faculty, staff, facilities, finances) where they are most needed and can have the greatest impact, thereby closing the loop on assessment initiatives. The University has also revised the program review process to ensure the academic programs and departments place a greater emphasis on the assessment of student learning. Significant progress has also been made in the graduate programs. While each School is at a different stage in the refinement of its assessment processes, they have been working with their Assessment Coordinators to revise program goals and objectives, and to develop sustainable strategies to assess student work and graduate program learning goals. Finally, Santa Clara is embarking upon the review and evaluation of co-curricular learning. Student Life has taken the lead and developed assessment processes within three departments. Over the next two years, Student Life will be expanding its assessment efforts to additional units and the Provost’s Office will be developing an assessment plan for co-curricular programs that are organizationally located in other parts of the campus.

70 program review. As the institution moves forward, it will continue to promote exemplary strategies that provide meaningful results and contribute to the improvement of student learning.

Enhancing Shared Governance and Communication The WASC Visiting Teams and Commission Action Letter requested an assessment of how ongoing communication can be improved and sustained, and a review of the University’s shared governance process. The Visiting Team recommended updating shared governance processes while preserving the University’s historic values of collaboration and community.

The University attempted to enhance governance and communication through the work of two Task Forces. An Executive Task Force on Governance produced an extensive report in 2011. Their recommendations, after some emendations, were endorsed in 2012. Many of the recommendations to enhance shared governance have been implemented, although full implementation has not yet been achieved. A Communication and Collaboration Task Force successfully accomplished a review of the University’s email and communication system, and, as a result, the University shifted to a new provider. The shift was accomplished smoothly, through a strong system of regular communications, frequent training opportunities, and numerous workshops. The work of the Communication and Collaboration Task Force, however, has not yet yielded all the fruit that was hoped for. Many had imagined that there would be 1) enhanced University support for collaborations involving teaching, research, and service, and 2) an increase in improved communication and collaboration practices throughout the University community.

In spite of the strong work of the two Task Forces and the ongoing effectiveness of the University Policy Committees, the University community continues to face challenges related to governance and communication, particularly in faculty-administration relations. Renewed efforts to rebuild trust and to increase clarity about the scope and foundational processes of shared governance will be important in strengthening both governance and communication on campus in the future. Renewed efforts to support collaborative practices will be important as well.

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix A Diversity Dashboard: Level 1 Indicators Working Draft 3/4/14

Overview:

The purpose of the diversity dashboard is to provide a statistical portrait of Santa Clara University’s progress toward diversity and inclusion. The dashboard will be developed in phases. The first “Level 1” set of indicators provide a static, higher-level overview of representation by gender, race, and ethnicity among SCU students, faculty, and staff, as well as indicators of campus climate among undergraduate students drawn from survey responses. Where possible, SCU is compared with benchmark institutions. Later, “Level 2” indicators will allow users to drill down interactively to more disaggregated and longitudinal indicators.

The metrics presented in the Level 1 report can be broken into three broad categories. The first group includes measures of representation among students, faculty, and staff, by gender and race/ ethnicity. For students, we examine numbers enrolled as well as degrees conferred. To facilitate comparisons with benchmark schools, we use the racial and ethnic categories reported to the U.S. Dept. of Education’s IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System). The second category includes measures of student outcomes or success by group, in this case as indicated by the retention rates and degree attainment rates (graduation) for undergraduates. Finally, our third category reports some indicators of campus climate, using “constructs” from the national CIRP College Senior Survey. These constructs are weighted averages of responses to a set of related survey questions, such as questions providing evidence of “positive cross-racial interaction.” These constructs provide insights into how students in different groups perceive the SCU climate, and to some extent allow us to compare overall perceptions of climate with sets of comparison schools.

As with any presentation of statistics, the dashboard must be interpreted cautiously, with an awareness of its limitations. In most cases ethnic identity is self reported, but assignment to specific racial and ethnic categories follows the rules used by IPEDS, to facilitate comparisons across institutions. These may not be the categories of greatest interest for some purposes. For some of our measures, sample sizes are small for some groups, so differences must be interpreted carefully. Where relevant, we try to provide an indication of which results are statistically significant, using conventional methods.

In this report, we introduce each chart or set of charts with a brief explanation and interpretation. An appendix at the end of the report provides more detail about the sources, methods, benchmark comparisons, etc.

Indicators:

A. Composition and representation by gender and race/ethnicity: students, faculty, staff (1) Undergraduate enrollment compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2010-2011 (2) Bachelor’s degrees conferred compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010 (3) Undergraduates receiving Pell Grant aid (percent) compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010 (4) Graduate student enrollment compared to graduate benchmark institutions, 2010-2011 (5) Graduate degrees conferred compared to graduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010 Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(6) Full-time faculty head count, by tenure status, compared to faculty benchmark institutions, 2009- 2010 (7) Staff head count, grouped by professional and non-professional status, compared to staff benchmark institutions

B. Undergraduate retention and degree attainment rates (8) Undergraduate retention rate (1st-2nd year), first-time degree-seeking students, compared within SCU-only, 2009 cohort (9) Undergraduate 4-year degree attainment rate, first-time fall-entering full-time students, compared within SCU-only, 2006 cohort (10) Undergraduate 6-year degree attainment rate, first-time fall-entering full-time students, compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2004 cohort

C. Climate (CSS constructs) (11) Overall Satisfaction (12) Sense of Belonging (13) Pluralistic Orientation (14) Positive Cross-Racial Interaction (15) Negative Cross-Racial Interaction

A. Composition and representation by gender and race/ethnicity: students, faculty, staff

Section A presents measures of representation among students, faculty, and staff, by gender and race/ ethnicity. For students, we examine numbers enrolled as well as degrees conferred. To facilitate comparisons with benchmark schools, we generally use the racial and ethnic categories reported to the U.S. Dept. of Education’s IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System).

Indicators are presented for detailed ethnic groups, and for two alternative broader groupings. The category of underrepresented minorities combines African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The category of persons of color consists of the underrepresented minorities, plus Asians and individuals who reported two or more races. Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are always counted as persons of color, but may or may not be included in the underrepresented minority category, depending on the indicator, due to data availability.

Interpreting the bar charts: For each indicator, vertical bars provide a comparison between SCU and a set of benchmark schools. Each bar is divided into the quartiles for the schools in the comparison set. The middle line is the median for the indicator: half the schools reported values above that amount, and half below. The diamond shape indicates SCU’s position, with the number next to each diamond being the actual value for SCU; for example, in the first chart shown below, 51% of SCU undergrads in 2010-2011 were women.

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(1) Undergraduate enrollment compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2010-2011

These three charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of enrolled SCU undergrads with that of a set of benchmark schools. The 20 comparison schools were chosen based on the number of Santa Clara cross-admits, and thus represent schools with which we typically compete for undergraduate students.

Undergraduate Enrollment: % Female

100%

90%

80%

70% Quartile 4 60% Quartile 3 51% 50% Quartile 2 40% Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara 20% University

10%

0% 2010-11 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Undergraduate Enrollment: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) (other=non resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 80%

70%

60% Quartile 4

50% Quartile 3

Quartile 2 40% 41% Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara University 22% 20% 17% 14% 10% 4% 0% 1% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian Native Haw/Pac White Am Indian/Ak Other Am Isl Nat

2010-11 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research

Undergraduate Enrollment: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) Under-represented minorities exclude Asian, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns; students of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian and two or more races) 70%

60% Quartile 4

50% Quartile 3

41% Quartile 2 40% Quartile 1

30% Santa Clara University 22% 20%

10%

0% Under-represented Minorities Students of Color 2010-11 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(2) Bachelor’s degrees conferred compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010

These three charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of bachelor’s degrees conferred to SCU undergrads with that of a set of benchmark schools. The 20 comparison schools were chosen based on the number of Santa Clara cross-admits, and thus represent schools with which we typically compete for undergraduate students.

Bachelor's Degrees Conferred: % Female 100%

90%

80% Quartile 4

Quartile 3

70% Quartile 2

Quartile 1 60% 57% Santa Clara University

50%

40%

30% 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Bachelor's Degrees Conferred: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) (other=non resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 80% 70%

60%

50% 49% Quartile 4 Quartile 3 40% Quartile 2

30% Quartile 1 24% Santa Clara 20% University 14% 10% 12%

2% 0% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian/Nat White non- Am Indian/Ak Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Hispanic Native

Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research 2009-10

Bachelor's Degrees Conferred: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) (Under-represented minorities exclude Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns; students of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, and two or more races) 60%

50%

40% Quartile 4

33% Quartile 3 30% Quartile 2

20% Quartile 1 Santa Clara University 14% 10%

0% Under-represented Minorities Students of Color 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(3) Undergraduates receiving Pell Grant aid (percent) compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010

This chart compares the percentage of SCU undergraduates receiving Pell Grant aid with that of a set of benchmark schools. Pell Grants are commonly cited as an indicator of the degree of economic disadvantage of undergraduate students. The 20 comparison schools were chosen based on the number of Santa Clara cross-admits, and thus represent schools with which we typically compete for undergraduate students. Gender and ethnic breakdowns are not available for this indicator.

Undergraduates: % Receiving Pell Grants

40%

35%

30%

Quartile 4 25% Quartile 3

20% Quartile 2

15% Quartile 1 12% Santa Clara 10% University

2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(4) Graduate student enrollment compared to graduate benchmark institutions, 2010-2011

These three charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of students enrolled in SCU graduate and professional programs with that of a set of benchmark schools. The comparison schools are drawn from the same list as the set of undergrad benchmark schools, excluding schools without graduate programs.

Graduate & Professional Enrollment: % Female

90%

80%

70%

Quartile 4 60% Quartile 3 50% Quartile 2 43% 40% Quartile 1

30% Santa Clara University 20%

10%

0% 2010-11

Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Graduate and Professional Enrollment: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) (other=non resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns)

80%

70%

60%

50% Quartile 4 Quartile 3 40% 36% Quartile 2 30% 31% Quartile 1

24% Santa Clara 20% University

10% 6% 1% 0% 0% 2% Black/African Hispanic Asian Native White Am Indian/Ak Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Nat

2010-11 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Graduate and Professional Enrollment: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) Under-represented minorities exclude Asian, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns; students of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian and two or more races)

70%

60%

Quartile 4 50% Quartile 3 40% Quartile 2 34% 30% Quartile 1

Santa Clara 20% University

10% 9%

0% Under-represented Minorities Students of Color

2010-11 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(5) Graduate degrees conferred compared to graduate benchmark institutions, 2009-2010

These three charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of graduate and professional degrees conferred to SCU undergrads with that of a set of benchmark schools. The comparison schools are drawn from the same list as the set of undergrad benchmark schools, excluding schools without graduate programs.

Graduate & Professional Degrees Conferred: % Female

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Quartile 4

50% Quartile 3 44% 40% Quartile 2

Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara 20% University

10%

0% 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Graduate and Professional Degrees Conferred: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) (other=non resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 80% 70%

60%

50% Quartile 4

40% Quartile 3 37% Quartile 2 30% 30% Quartile 1 24% 20% Santa Clara University 10% 8% 0% 2% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian/Nat White non- Am Indian/Ak Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Hispanic Native

Source: IPEDS 2009-10 Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research

Graduate and Professional Degrees Conferred: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) (Under-represented minorities exclude Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns; students of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, and two or more races) 45%

40%

35% 35% 30% Quartile 4

25% Quartile 3 Quartile 2 20% Quartile 1 15% Santa Clara 10% 10% University 5%

0% Under-represented Minorities Students of Color 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(6) Full-time faculty head count, by tenure status, compared to faculty benchmark institutions, 2009- 2010

These charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of full-time SCU faculty with that of a set of benchmark schools. The 16 comparison schools were those that appeared on at least two faculty salary comparison lists used by SCU schools and colleges in faculty recruitment and salary benchmarking.

The charts are organized as follows. The first chart shows the percentage female, broken down by tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty, and for all full-time faculty combined. The next two charts are organized similarly, reporting the percentage of faculty belonging to under-represented minorities, and the percentage persons of color, again by rank and for all full-time. The final four charts show detailed ethnic breakdowns of the faculty, with one chart each for tenured, tenure-track, and non- tenure-track faculty, and for all full-time faculty combined.

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(7) Staff head count, grouped by professional and non‐professional status, compared to staff benchmark institutions, 2009-10

These charts compare the gender and ethnic composition of SCU staff with that of a set of benchmark schools. The 20 comparison schools were chosen based on the number of Santa Clara cross‐admits, and thus represent schools with which we typically compete for undergraduate students.

The charts are organized as follows. The first chart shows the percentage female by IPEDS staff employment categories of professional (executive, administrative, managerial, other professionals, technical and paraprofessionals), non-professional (clerical, secretarial, skilled crafts, service/maintenance), and for all staff combined. The next two charts are organized similarly, reporting the percentage of staff belonging to under‐represented minorities, and the percentage persons of color, again by staff employment category. The final three charts show detailed ethnic breakdowns of the staff, with one chart each for professional, non-professional, and for all staff combined.

Staff By Employment Category: % Female

90%

80%

70% 67% 60% 60% 55% 50% Quartile 4

40% Quartile 3 Quartile 2 30% Quartile 1

20% Santa Clara University 10%

0% Professional Non-Professional Total

2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Staff: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) Under-represented Minorities (Under-represented minorities exclude Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns)

80%

70%

60% Quartile 4

50% Quartile 3

Quartile 2 40% 35% Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara University 23% 20% 16% 10%

0% Professional Non-Professional Total Source: IPEDS 2009-10 Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Staff: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) Of Color (of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, and two or more races) 80% 70%

60% Quartile 4 50% 45% Quartile 3 40% 37% Quartile 2 32% 30% Quartile 1 Santa Clara 20% University

10%

0% Professional Non-Professional Total 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Staff: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) Professional (other=non-resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 100% 90% 80%

70% 68% 60% Quartile 4 50% Quartile 3 Quartile 2 40% Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara 20% University 16% 10% 11% 5% 0% 0% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian/Nat White Am Indian/Ak Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Nat 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Staff: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) Non-Professional (other=non-resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 100% 90% 80% Quartile 4 70% 60% Quartile 3 55% 50% Quartile 2 40% Quartile 1

30% 29% Santa Clara University 20% 10% 10% 4% 2% 0% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian/Nat White Am Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Indian/Ak Nat 2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Staff: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) Total (other=non-resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 100% 90% 80% 70% Quartile 4 60% 63% Quartile 3 50% Quartile 2 40% Quartile 1 30% Santa Clara 20% 18% University 14% 10% 5% 1% 0% 0% Black/African Hispanic Asian/Nat White Am Indian/Ak Other Am Haw/Pac Isl Nat

2009-10 Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

B. Undergraduate retention and degree attainment rates

The indicators in this section measure student outcomes or success by group—specifically, retention rates and degree attainment rates (graduation) for undergraduates. The first two indicators provide internal (within-SCU) comparisons only, for undergraduate 1st-2nd-year retention rates and four-year graduation rates. The third indicator (six-year graduation rate) provides comparisons with undergraduate benchmark institutions.

Interpreting the bar charts: For indicators (8) and (9), the height of each bar indicates the percentage of SCU students within that group who continued from the first to the second year or graduated within four years of entering. The charts for indicator (1) have the same set-up as the charts in Section A.

(8) Undergraduate retention rate (1st-2nd year), first-time degree-seeking students, compared within SCU- only, 2009 cohort

These charts show the retention rate between the first and second year for SCU undergraduates, with comparisons by gender and ethnic group. These data are not currently available for benchmark schools.

(see next page) Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(9) Undergraduate 4-year degree attainment rate, first-time fall-entering full-time students, compared within SCU-only, 2006 cohort

These charts show the percentage of SCU freshmen who had completed their degree within four years after starting at SCU, for the cohort who entered in Fall 2006, with comparisons by gender and ethnic group. These data are not currently available for benchmark schools.

(see next page) Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

(10) Undergraduate 6-year degree attainment rate, first-time fall-entering full-time students, compared to undergraduate benchmark institutions, 2004 cohort

These charts show the percentage of SCU freshmen who had completed their degree within six years after starting at SCU, for the cohort who entered in Fall 2004, by gender and ethnic group, with comparison to a set of benchmark schools. The 20 comparison schools were chosen based on the number of Santa Clara cross-admits, and thus represent schools with which we typically compete for undergraduate students.

Six-Year Degree Attainment: Gender First-Time Fall-entering, Full-time 2004 Cohort 100%

95%

90% 88% 87% 85% Quartile 4

80% Quartile 3 Quartile 2 75% Quartile 1

70% Santa Clara University 65%

60%

55%

50%

Female Male Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Six-Year Degree Attainment: Ethnic Composition (Detailed) First-Time Fall-entering, Full-time 2004 Cohort (other=non-resident aliens, two or more races, and unknowns) 100%

90% 92% 93% 87% 86% 80% 76% 70% 67% Quartile 4 60% Quartile 3

50% Quartile 2 Quartile 1 40% Santa Clara University 30%

20%

10%

0% Black/African Am Hispanic Asian/Nat Haw/Pac White Am Indian/Ak Nat Other Isl Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research

Six-Year Degree Attainment: Ethnic Composition (Groupings) First-Time Fall-entering, Full-time 2004 Cohort Under-represented minorities exclude Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, two or more races, non resident aliens and unknowns; students of color include under-represented minorities plus Asian/Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islanders, and two or more races) 100% 90% 85% 89% 80% Quartile 4

70% Quartile 3

60% Quartile 2

50% Quartile 1

40% Santa Clara University 30% 20% 10% 0% Under-represented Minorities Students of Color Source: IPEDS Prepared by Office of Institutional Research Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

C. Climate: Undergraduate seniors

The five climate indicators are “constructs” from the HERI/CIRP College Senior Survey. The College Senior Survey examines the impact of college by collecting information on important outcomes of college and the experiences and student traits that lead towards greater gains in both cognitive and affective areas. SCU administers the College Senior Survey biennially to all graduating seniors, and responses are representative by school/college of degree and race/ethnicity. While women respond at a higher rate, this is the case across most institutions. The most recent administration was to the Class of 2011.

CIRP Constructs combine individual survey items into thematic measures that are designed to capture experiences and outcomes of a complex and multifaceted nature, using Item Response Theory (IRT).

The five constructs reported here are: (11) Overall Satisfaction: a unified measure of students’ satisfaction with the college experience. (12) Sense of Belonging: a measure of the extent to which students feel a sense of academic and social integration on campus. (13) Pluralistic Orientation: a measure of skills and dispositions appropriate for living and working in a diverse society. (14) Positive Cross-Racial Interaction: a unified measure of students’ level of positive interaction with diverse peers. (15) Negative Cross-Racial Interaction: a unified measure of students’ level of negative interaction with diverse peers.

For each construct we present two sets of charts, presented in two pages. The first page compares SCU’s responses with responses for two comparison groups of schools: comparison group 1 consists of all private universities participating in the survey; comparison group 2 consists of all public and private universities and public four-year colleges. For these comparisons with other schools, we can present the results for all students and by gender, but not by ethnicity.

Responses are divided into high, average, and low response categories. The bar charts show the percentage of responses falling into each of these three categories, for SCU and the two comparison sets. In the tables at the top of each page, tests of statistical significance are provided for the difference between SCU and the comparison schools for the “high” response.

The second page shows the responses for SCU students only, broken down by gender and by race/ ethnicity. These bar charts again divide the responses into high, average and low responses. Because of small sample sizes in survey responses, especially for some groups, apparent group differences should be interpreted with caution. Tests of statistical significance are provided below each chart.

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard2011 College Senior Survey CIRP Construct Percentage Report Overall Satisfaction Graduating Seniors

Overall Satisfaction is a unified measure of students’ satisfaction with the college experience.

Total Men Women Santa Clara University Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Total (n) 373 5,210 9,535 142 2,396 3,638 231 2,814 5,897 High Overall Satisfaction 50.9% 46.0% 43.2% 51.4% 45.4% 42.9% 50.6% 46.6% 43.4% Average Overall Satisfaction 33.0% 36.1% 38.8% 31.0% 36.2% 38.3% 34.2% 36.0% 39.1% Low Overall Satisfaction 16.1% 17.9% 18.0% 17.6% 18.4% 18.8% 15.2% 17.4% 17.5% Significance (based on High score group) - * - - Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Total Men Women

100% 100% 100%

80% 43.2% 80% 42.9% 80% 43.4% 50.9% 46.0% 51.4% 45.4% 50.6% 46.6%

60% 60% 60%

40% 38.8% 40% 36.2% 38.3% 40% 39.1% 33.0% 36.1% 31.0% 34.2% 36.0% 20% 20% 20% 16.1% 17.9% 18.0% 17.6% 18.4% 18.8% 15.2% 17.4% 17.5% 0% 0% 0% Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

Survey items and estimation 'weights': * Satisfaction with overall college experience (3.69) * If you could make your college choice over, would you still choose to enroll at your current college? (1.90) * Satisfaction with overall quality of instruction (1.69)

2E Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard2011 College Senior Survey CIRP Construct Percentage Report Sense of Belonging Graduating Seniors

Sense of Belonging measures the extent to which students feel a sense of academic and social integration on campus.

Total Men Women Santa Clara University Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Total (n) 373 5,154 9,475 142 2,374 3,614 231 2,780 5,861 High Sense of Belonging 41.0% 42.0% 38.0% 39.4% 41.7% 39.2% 42.0% 42.2% 37.2% Average Sense of Belonging 40.2% 38.8% 41.4% 38.7% 39.0% 39.3% 41.1% 38.6% 42.7% Low Sense of Belonging 18.8% 19.2% 20.6% 21.8% 19.2% 21.5% 16.9% 19.2% 20.0% Significance (based on High score group) - - - Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Total Men Women

100% 100% 100%

80% 41.0% 42.0% 38.0% 80% 39.4% 41.7% 39.2% 80% 42.0% 42.2% 37.2%

60% 60% 60%

41.4% 38.7% 39.3% 42.7% 40% 40.2% 38.8% 40% 39.0% 40% 41.1% 38.6%

20% 20% 20% 18.8% 19.2% 20.6% 21.8% 19.2% 21.5% 16.9% 19.2% 20.0% 0% 0% 0% Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

Survey items and estimation 'weights': Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: * I feel I am a member of this college (5.10) * I feel a sense of belonging to this college (4.62) * I see myself as part of the campus community (3.13) * If asked, I would recommend this college to others (2.33)

2F Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard2011 College Senior Survey CIRP Construct Percentage Report Pluralistic Orientation Graduating Seniors

Pluralistic Orientation measures skills and dispositions appropriate for living and working in a diverse society.

Total Men Women Santa Clara University Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Total (n) 373 5,143 9,466 142 2,370 3,611 231 2,773 5,855 High Pluralistic Orientation 33.8% 34.8% 31.9% 43.0% 37.8% 36.7% 28.1% 32.2% 28.9% Average Pluralistic Orientation 49.6% 47.2% 48.2% 45.1% 44.6% 45.3% 52.4% 49.4% 49.9% Low Pluralistic Orientation 16.6% 18.0% 19.9% 12.0% 17.7% 18.0% 19.5% 18.4% 21.1% Significance (based on High score group) - - - Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Total Men Women

100% 100% 100%

33.8% 31.9% 28.1% 32.2% 28.9% 80% 34.8% 80% 43.0% 37.8% 36.7% 80%

60% 60% 60%

48.2% 52.4% 49.9% 40% 49.6% 47.2% 40% 44.6% 45.3% 40% 49.4% 45.1%

20% 20% 20% 19.9% 21.1% 16.6% 18.0% 12.0% 17.7% 18.0% 19.5% 18.4% 0% 0% 0% Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

Survey items and estimation 'weights': Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your age: * Tolerance of others with different beliefs (3.35) * Ability to work cooperatively with diverse people (3.14) * Openness to having my views challenged (2.76) * Ability to see the world from someone else's perspective (2.55) * Ability to discuss and negotiate controversial issues (2.11)

2I Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard2011 College Senior Survey CIRP Construct Percentage Report Positive Cross-Racial Interaction Graduating Seniors

Positive Cross-Racial Interaction is a unified measure of students’ level of positive interaction with diverse peers.

Total Men Women Santa Clara University Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Total (n) 373 5,145 9,464 142 2,370 3,609 231 2,775 5,855 High Positive Cross-Racial Interaction 60.3% 48.2% 41.9% 57.0% 44.6% 40.2% 62.3% 51.2% 42.9% Average Positive Cross-Racial Interaction 35.1% 40.1% 41.1% 35.2% 43.1% 43.3% 35.1% 37.5% 39.8% Low Positive Cross-Racial Interaction 4.6% 11.7% 17.0% 7.7% 12.3% 16.5% 2.6% 11.2% 17.3% Significance (based on High score group) - *** *** - * ** - * *** Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Total Men Women

100% 100% 100%

80% 41.9% 80% 40.2% 80% 42.9% 48.2% 44.6% 51.2% 60.3% 57.0% 62.3% 60% 60% 60%

40% 40% 43.3% 40% 41.1% 43.1% 39.8% 40.1% 37.5% 35.2% 20% 35.1% 20% 20% 35.1% 17.0% 16.5% 17.3% 11.7% 7.7% 12.3% 11.2% 0% 4.6% 0% 0% 2.6% Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

Survey items and estimation 'weights': To what extent have you experienced the following with students from a racial/ethnic group other than your own? * Had intellectual discussions outside of class (3.57) * Had meaningful and honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class (2.46) * Shared personal feelings and problems (3.52) * Studied or prepared for class (2.22) * Dined or shared a meal (2.72) * Socialized or partied (2.12)

2J Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard2011 College Senior Survey CIRP Construct Percentage Report Negative Cross-Racial Interaction Graduating Seniors

Negative Cross-Racial Interaction is a unified measure of students’ level of negative interaction with diverse peers.

Total Men Women Santa Clara University Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Total (n) 372 5,144 9,463 142 2,370 3,609 230 2,774 5,854 High Negative Cross-Racial Interaction 41.7% 38.1% 33.8% 47.2% 43.1% 39.8% 38.3% 33.7% 30.1% Average Negative Cross-Racial Interaction 40.9% 45.6% 46.9% 40.1% 43.2% 44.2% 41.3% 47.7% 48.5% Low Negative Cross-Racial Interaction 17.5% 16.3% 19.4% 12.7% 13.7% 16.0% 20.4% 18.6% 21.5% Significance (based on High score group) - * - - Note: Significance * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Total Men Women

100% 100% 100% 30.1% 38.1% 33.8% 80% 80% 38.3% 33.7% 80% 41.7% 47.2% 43.1% 39.8%

60% 60% 60%

46.9% 47.7% 48.5% 40% 40.9% 45.6% 40% 44.2% 40% 41.3% 40.1% 43.2% 20% 20% 20% 21.5% 17.5% 16.3% 19.4% 12.7% 13.7% 16.0% 20.4% 18.6% 0% 0% 0% Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2 Your Inst Comp 1 Comp 2

Survey items and estimation 'weights': To what extent have you experienced the following with students from a racial/ethnic group other than your own? * Had tense, somewhat hostile interactions (3.81) * Felt insulted or threatened because of your race/ethnicity (2.63) * Had guarded interactions (2.10)

2K Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

Appendix: Benchmark institutions

• Student indicators: undergrad cross-admit benchmark list (1a): Loyola Marymount University Gonzaga University University of San Francisco Chapman University‐Orange Claremont McKenna College Pitzer College Scripps College University of San Diego Seattle University California Polytechnic State University Occidental College Southern Methodist University St Mary's College of California University of California‐Berkeley University of California‐Davis University of California‐Los Angeles University of California‐Santa Barbara University of Portland University of Southern California Whitman College • Faculty indicators: schools appearing on at least two of the faculty salary benchmark lists: Loyola Marymount University University of Notre Dame Villanova University University of San Francisco American University Loyola University Chicago Pepperdine University University of San Diego George Washington University Babson College Boston University Fordham University Southern Methodist University Gonzaga University Seattle University University of California Davis

Appendix A: A Draft of the Diversity Dashboard

• Staff indicators: undergrad cross-admit benchmark list (1a): Loyola Marymount University Gonzaga University University of San Francisco Chapman University‐Orange Claremont McKenna College Pitzer College Scripps College University of San Diego Seattle University California Polytechnic State University Occidental College Southern Methodist University St Mary's College of California University of California‐Berkeley University of California‐Davis University of California‐Los Angeles University of California‐Santa Barbara University of Portland University of Southern California Whitman College

Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix B Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled SCU Ethnic Overall

16,000 0.7 Applicants Acceptance Rate Yield 14,000 0.6

12,000 0.5

10,000 0.4

8,000

Applicants 0.3 6,000

0.2 4,000

0.1 2,000

0 0 Fall 2003 Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2004 Fall 2006 Fall 2008 Fall 2010 Fall 2012

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2003 6,386 4,221 66.10% 897 21.25% Fall 2004 7,649 4,403 57.56% 1,172 26.62% Fall 2005 8,900 5,437 61.09% 1,198 22.03% Fall 2006 8,667 5,763 66.49% 1,340 23.25% Fall 2007 9,458 5,816 61.49% 1,204 20.70% Fall 2008 10,124 5,834 57.63% 1,221 20.93% Fall 2009 10,226 6,057 59.23% 1,085 17.91% Fall 2010 11,787 6,830 57.95% 1,296 18.98% Fall 2011 13,342 7,263 54.44% 1,283 17.66% Fall 2012 14,339 7,344 51.22% 1,278 17.40% Fall 2013 14,980 7,456 49.77% 1,291 17.31%

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Applied, Admitted, Enrolled with %s by Ethnicity - SCU Ethnic 1.1_ Feb 24, 2014 12:35:13 PM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix B Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled SCU Ethnic

By Ethnicity then Term

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Am. Indian Fall 2003 48 28 58.33% 8 28.57% Fall 2004 55 29 52.73% 8 27.59% Fall 2005 52 33 63.46% 8 24.24% Fall 2006 53 31 58.49% 5 16.13% Fall 2007 29 19 65.52% 2 10.53% Fall 2008 87 46 52.87% 10 21.74% Fall 2009 102 51 50.00% 7 13.73% Fall 2010 233 133 57.08% 33 24.81% Fall 2011 268 132 49.25% 18 13.64% Fall 2012 302 131 43.38% 28 21.37% Fall 2013 258 106 41.09% 14 13.21% Asian Fall 2003 1,271 815 64.12% 143 17.55% Fall 2004 1,575 861 54.67% 225 26.13% Fall 2005 1,703 1,080 63.42% 211 19.54% Fall 2006 1,564 1,053 67.33% 220 20.89% Fall 2007 1,370 858 62.63% 184 21.45% Fall 2008 1,743 1,042 59.78% 262 25.14% Fall 2009 1,891 1,165 61.61% 213 18.28% Fall 2010 2,415 1,333 55.20% 233 17.48% Fall 2011 2,800 1,540 55.00% 201 13.05% Fall 2012 3,288 1,689 51.37% 281 16.64% Fall 2013 3,668 1,852 50.49% 301 16.25% Black Fall 2003 156 91 58.33% 16 17.58% Fall 2004 226 104 46.02% 40 38.46% Fall 2005 276 155 56.16% 31 20.00% Fall 2006 192 115 59.90% 40 34.78% Fall 2007 214 153 71.50% 62 40.52% Fall 2008 293 192 65.53% 49 25.52% Fall 2009 373 221 59.25% 61 27.60% Fall 2010 455 229 50.33% 72 31.44% Fall 2011 527 217 41.18% 53 24.42% Fall 2012 545 211 38.72% 69 32.70% Fall 2013 555 199 35.86% 72 36.18% Hispanic Fall 2003 779 449 57.64% 127 28.29% Fall 2004 1,009 486 48.17% 150 30.86% Fall 2005 1,236 629 50.89% 143 22.73%

By Ethnicity then Term

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Hispanic Fall 2006 1,033 579 56.05% 168 29.02% Fall 2007 876 562 64.16% 172 30.60% Fall 2008 1,304 799 61.27% 235 29.41% Fall 2009 1,597 891 55.79% 198 22.22% Fall 2010 2,008 1,024 51.00% 224 21.88% Fall 2011 2,361 1,023 43.33% 215 21.02% Fall 2012 2,537 942 37.13% 209 22.19% Fall 2013 2,636 876 33.23% 216 24.66% Not Specified Fall 2003 303 214 70.63% 34 15.89% Fall 2004 368 198 53.80% 47 23.74% Fall 2005 853 506 59.32% 88 17.39% Fall 2006 1,380 920 66.67% 204 22.17% Fall 2007 2,336 1,387 59.38% 229 16.51% Fall 2008 2,093 1,187 56.71% 188 15.84% Fall 2009 1,823 1,113 61.05% 187 16.80% Fall 2010 932 596 63.95% 94 15.77% Fall 2011 958 575 60.02% 110 19.13% Fall 2012 910 531 58.35% 66 12.43% Fall 2013 1,004 551 54.88% 85 15.43% White Fall 2003 3,829 2,624 68.53% 569 21.68% Fall 2004 4,416 2,725 61.71% 702 25.76% Fall 2005 4,780 3,034 63.47% 717 23.63% Fall 2006 4,445 3,065 68.95% 703 22.94% Fall 2007 4,633 2,837 61.23% 555 19.56% Fall 2008 4,604 2,568 55.78% 477 18.57% Fall 2009 4,440 2,616 58.92% 419 16.02% Fall 2010 5,744 3,515 61.19% 640 18.21% Fall 2011 6,428 3,776 58.74% 686 18.17% Fall 2012 6,757 3,840 56.83% 625 16.28% Fall 2013 6,859 3,872 56.45% 603 15.57%

By Term then Ethnicity

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2003 Am. Indian 48 28 58.33% 8 28.57% Asian 1,271 815 64.12% 143 17.55% Black 156 91 58.33% 16 17.58% Hispanic 779 449 57.64% 127 28.29% Not Specified 303 214 70.63% 34 15.89% White 3,829 2,624 68.53% 569 21.68% Fall 2004 Am. Indian 55 29 52.73% 8 27.59% Asian 1,575 861 54.67% 225 26.13% Black 226 104 46.02% 40 38.46% Hispanic 1,009 486 48.17% 150 30.86% Not Specified 368 198 53.80% 47 23.74% White 4,416 2,725 61.71% 702 25.76% Fall 2005 Am. Indian 52 33 63.46% 8 24.24% Asian 1,703 1,080 63.42% 211 19.54% Black 276 155 56.16% 31 20.00% Hispanic 1,236 629 50.89% 143 22.73% Not Specified 853 506 59.32% 88 17.39% White 4,780 3,034 63.47% 717 23.63% Fall 2006 Am. Indian 53 31 58.49% 5 16.13% Asian 1,564 1,053 67.33% 220 20.89% Black 192 115 59.90% 40 34.78% Hispanic 1,033 579 56.05% 168 29.02% Not Specified 1,380 920 66.67% 204 22.17% White 4,445 3,065 68.95% 703 22.94% Fall 2007 Am. Indian 29 19 65.52% 2 10.53% Asian 1,370 858 62.63% 184 21.45% Black 214 153 71.50% 62 40.52% Hispanic 876 562 64.16% 172 30.60% Not Specified 2,336 1,387 59.38% 229 16.51% White 4,633 2,837 61.23% 555 19.56% Fall 2008 Am. Indian 87 46 52.87% 10 21.74% Asian 1,743 1,042 59.78% 262 25.14% Black 293 192 65.53% 49 25.52% Hispanic 1,304 799 61.27% 235 29.41% Not Specified 2,093 1,187 56.71% 188 15.84% White 4,604 2,568 55.78% 477 18.57%

By Term then Ethnicity

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2009 Am. Indian 102 51 50.00% 7 13.73% Asian 1,891 1,165 61.61% 213 18.28% Black 373 221 59.25% 61 27.60% Hispanic 1,597 891 55.79% 198 22.22% Not Specified 1,823 1,113 61.05% 187 16.80% White 4,440 2,616 58.92% 419 16.02% Fall 2010 Am. Indian 233 133 57.08% 33 24.81% Asian 2,415 1,333 55.20% 233 17.48% Black 455 229 50.33% 72 31.44% Hispanic 2,008 1,024 51.00% 224 21.88% Not Specified 932 596 63.95% 94 15.77% White 5,744 3,515 61.19% 640 18.21% Fall 2011 Am. Indian 268 132 49.25% 18 13.64% Asian 2,800 1,540 55.00% 201 13.05% Black 527 217 41.18% 53 24.42% Hispanic 2,361 1,023 43.33% 215 21.02% Not Specified 958 575 60.02% 110 19.13% White 6,428 3,776 58.74% 686 18.17% Fall 2012 Am. Indian 302 131 43.38% 28 21.37% Asian 3,288 1,689 51.37% 281 16.64% Black 545 211 38.72% 69 32.70% Hispanic 2,537 942 37.13% 209 22.19% Not Specified 910 531 58.35% 66 12.43% White 6,757 3,840 56.83% 625 16.28% Fall 2013 Am. Indian 258 106 41.09% 14 13.21% Asian 3,668 1,852 50.49% 301 16.25% Black 555 199 35.86% 72 36.18% Hispanic 2,636 876 33.23% 216 24.66% Not Specified 1,004 551 54.88% 85 15.43% White 6,859 3,872 56.45% 603 15.57%

Reports Undergraduate student Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollments.

Description These reports summarize the distribution of Undergraduate Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity.

Years/Terms Fall 2004 through Fall 2013, Fall Terms only.

Format Data are summarized by Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments.

Ethnicity - SCU Ethnic White, Non-Hispanic: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Black, Non-Hispanic: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Hispanic: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Asian/Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, including, for example,Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam; a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. American Indian/Native Alaskan: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community attachment. Not Specified: The category used to report individuals whose race and ethnicity are not known. It includes individuals whose ethnicity is mapped in PeopleSoft to a category of "multi ethnic" but for whom no corresponding detailed ethnicity data are available to interpret and categorize the mapping. Of Color: All groups above except White, Non-Hispanic and Not Specified. SCU calculated category.

Population First-time, first-year Undergraduates.

Methods of reporting race/ethnicity: SCU Ethnic: Prior to the introduction of the new race ethnicity data collection mandated by the U.S. Department of Education (see below), Santa Clara assigned a single race/ethnic category using a rule set commonly referred to as the "Santa Clara Rules". Under the Santa Clara rules, there is no "Two or more races" category, and applicants or students who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories were assigned to a single category in rank order: Black Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White. This rule set continues to be used at Santa Clara for internal planning and decision-making and is maintained in the Institutional Research Data Mart. IPEDS Ethnicity: In Oct 2007, the Federal Register published Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education, which mandated changes in both the collection and reporting of race/ethnic data for all campus populations (undergraduates, graduates, staff, and faculty). Under this guidance, the requirements for collection are distinct from those for reporting. In particular, educational institutions are required to collect racial and ethnic data using a two- part question which permits respondents to identify with multiple race/ethnic categories, yet must report data to the Dept. of Ed. (IPEDS) such that individuals are assigned to a single race/ethnic category. This method of collecting race/ethnicity data, commonly referred to as “IPEDS Ethnicity” became mandatory for higher educational institutions in 2010. The first question is whether the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question is whether the respondent is from one or more races using the following five racial groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents are not to be offered the choice of selecting a ‘‘Two or more races’’ category. IPEDS "trumping rules" require that all persons who identify as Hispanic or Latino be reported as Hispanic or Latino independent of any other race self- Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix B Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled SCU Ethnic identification. Those who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino but select two or more race categories are reported as "Two or more races", otherwise persons are reported in the single race/ethnic category provided as a response. IPEDS "trumping rules" are applied to all data available in the university system of record, PeopleSoft. This includes data for individuals who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories prior to the mandatory collection requirement of 2010.

16,000 0.7 Applicants Acceptance Rate Yield 14,000 0.6

12,000 0.5

10,000 0.4

8,000

Applicants 0.3 6,000

0.2 4,000

0.1 2,000

0 0 Fall 2003 Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2004 Fall 2006 Fall 2008 Fall 2010 Fall 2012

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Applied, Admitted, Enrolled with %s by Ethnicity - IPEDS 1.2_ Feb 24, 2014 12:33:03 PM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix C Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled IPEDS Ethnicities

By Ethnicity then Term

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield American Indian or Alaska Native Fall 2003 24 15 62.50% 5 33.33% Fall 2004 46 23 50.00% 6 26.09% Fall 2005 48 30 62.50% 8 26.67% Fall 2006 52 30 57.69% 5 16.67% Fall 2007 28 18 64.29% 2 11.11% Fall 2008 30 18 60.00% 1 5.56% Fall 2009 22 12 54.55% 3 25.00% Fall 2010 24 16 66.67% 3 18.75% Fall 2011 26 13 50.00% 1 7.69% Fall 2012 35 19 54.29% 3 15.79% Fall 2013 22 7 31.82% 0 0.00% Asian Fall 2003 1,158 729 62.95% 123 16.87% Fall 2004 1,447 792 54.73% 208 26.26% Fall 2005 1,556 981 63.05% 179 18.25% Fall 2006 1,468 986 67.17% 191 19.37% Fall 2007 1,304 832 63.80% 174 20.91% Fall 2008 1,328 796 59.94% 208 26.13% Fall 2009 1,423 867 60.93% 159 18.34% Fall 2010 1,906 1,017 53.36% 170 16.72% Fall 2011 2,173 1,162 53.47% 144 12.39% Fall 2012 2,622 1,320 50.34% 212 16.06% Fall 2013 2,882 1,423 49.38% 231 16.23% Black or African American Fall 2003 124 70 56.45% 12 17.14% Fall 2004 205 90 43.90% 33 36.67% Fall 2005 260 145 55.77% 28 19.31% Fall 2006 183 107 58.47% 35 32.71% Fall 2007 212 152 71.70% 62 40.79% Fall 2008 217 150 69.12% 44 29.33% Fall 2009 245 148 60.41% 51 34.46% Fall 2010 291 144 49.48% 46 31.94% Fall 2011 340 155 45.59% 35 22.58% Fall 2012 328 124 37.80% 34 27.42% Fall 2013 345 135 39.13% 51 37.78% Hispanic of any race Fall 2003 799 458 57.32% 130 28.38% Fall 2004 1,012 486 48.02% 150 30.86% Fall 2005 1,240 632 50.97% 143 22.63%

By Ethnicity then Term

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Hispanic of any race Fall 2006 1,033 579 56.05% 168 29.02% Fall 2007 876 562 64.16% 172 30.60% Fall 2008 1,330 813 61.13% 238 29.27% Fall 2009 1,660 924 55.66% 202 21.86% Fall 2010 2,166 1,096 50.60% 252 22.99% Fall 2011 2,540 1,085 42.72% 228 21.01% Fall 2012 2,741 1,019 37.18% 236 23.16% Fall 2013 2,816 927 32.92% 228 24.60% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Fall 2003 5 3 60.00% 1 33.33% Fall 2004 5 2 40.00% 1 50.00% Fall 2005 53 37 69.81% 14 37.84% Fall 2006 52 34 65.38% 9 26.47% Fall 2007 62 23 37.10% 10 43.48% Fall 2008 75 40 53.33% 12 30.00% Fall 2009 62 31 50.00% 5 16.13% Fall 2010 39 13 33.33% 3 23.08% Fall 2011 45 18 40.00% 2 11.11% Fall 2012 44 17 38.64% 3 17.65% Fall 2013 62 20 32.26% 3 15.00% Race and ethnicity unknown Fall 2003 302 213 70.53% 34 15.96% Fall 2004 367 197 53.68% 46 23.35% Fall 2005 847 503 59.39% 87 17.30% Fall 2006 1,373 914 66.57% 204 22.32% Fall 2007 2,330 1,381 59.27% 228 16.51% Fall 2008 2,048 1,170 57.13% 187 15.98% Fall 2009 1,817 1,112 61.20% 187 16.82% Fall 2010 932 596 63.95% 94 15.77% Fall 2011 958 575 60.02% 110 19.13% Fall 2012 910 531 58.35% 66 12.43% Fall 2013 1,004 551 54.88% 85 15.43% Two or more races Fall 2003 165 124 75.15% 25 20.16% Fall 2004 204 114 55.88% 34 29.82% Fall 2005 162 110 67.90% 36 32.73% Fall 2006 132 111 84.09% 72 64.86% Fall 2007 17 14 82.35% 2 14.29% Fall 2008 522 297 56.90% 57 19.19%

By Ethnicity then Term

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Two or more races Fall 2009 635 394 62.05% 66 16.75% Fall 2010 686 434 63.27% 88 20.28% Fall 2011 832 479 57.57% 77 16.08% Fall 2012 902 474 52.55% 99 20.89% Fall 2013 990 521 52.63% 90 17.27% White Fall 2003 3,809 2,609 68.50% 567 21.73% Fall 2004 4,363 2,699 61.86% 694 25.71% Fall 2005 4,734 2,999 63.35% 703 23.44% Fall 2006 4,374 3,002 68.63% 656 21.85% Fall 2007 4,629 2,834 61.22% 554 19.55% Fall 2008 4,574 2,550 55.75% 474 18.59% Fall 2009 4,362 2,569 58.90% 412 16.04% Fall 2010 5,743 3,514 61.19% 640 18.21% Fall 2011 6,428 3,776 58.74% 686 18.17% Fall 2012 6,757 3,840 56.83% 625 16.28% Fall 2013 6,859 3,872 56.45% 603 15.57%

By Term then Ethnicity

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2003 American Indian or Alaska Native 24 15 62.50% 5 33.33% Asian 1,158 729 62.95% 123 16.87% Black or African American 124 70 56.45% 12 17.14% Hispanic of any race 799 458 57.32% 130 28.38% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 5 3 60.00% 1 33.33% Race and ethnicity unknown 302 213 70.53% 34 15.96% Two or more races 165 124 75.15% 25 20.16% White 3,809 2,609 68.50% 567 21.73% Fall 2004 American Indian or Alaska Native 46 23 50.00% 6 26.09% Asian 1,447 792 54.73% 208 26.26% Black or African American 205 90 43.90% 33 36.67% Hispanic of any race 1,012 486 48.02% 150 30.86% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 5 2 40.00% 1 50.00% Race and ethnicity unknown 367 197 53.68% 46 23.35% Two or more races 204 114 55.88% 34 29.82% White 4,363 2,699 61.86% 694 25.71% Fall 2005 American Indian or Alaska Native 48 30 62.50% 8 26.67% Asian 1,556 981 63.05% 179 18.25% Black or African American 260 145 55.77% 28 19.31% Hispanic of any race 1,240 632 50.97% 143 22.63% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 53 37 69.81% 14 37.84% Race and ethnicity unknown 847 503 59.39% 87 17.30% Two or more races 162 110 67.90% 36 32.73% White 4,734 2,999 63.35% 703 23.44% Fall 2006 American Indian or Alaska Native 52 30 57.69% 5 16.67% Asian 1,468 986 67.17% 191 19.37% Black or African American 183 107 58.47% 35 32.71% Hispanic of any race 1,033 579 56.05% 168 29.02% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 52 34 65.38% 9 26.47% Race and ethnicity unknown 1,373 914 66.57% 204 22.32% Two or more races 132 111 84.09% 72 64.86% White 4,374 3,002 68.63% 656 21.85% Fall 2007 American Indian or Alaska Native 28 18 64.29% 2 11.11% Asian 1,304 832 63.80% 174 20.91% Black or African American 212 152 71.70% 62 40.79% Hispanic of any race 876 562 64.16% 172 30.60%

By Term then Ethnicity

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2007 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 62 23 37.10% 10 43.48% Race and ethnicity unknown 2,330 1,381 59.27% 228 16.51% Two or more races 17 14 82.35% 2 14.29% White 4,629 2,834 61.22% 554 19.55% Fall 2008 American Indian or Alaska Native 30 18 60.00% 1 5.56% Asian 1,328 796 59.94% 208 26.13% Black or African American 217 150 69.12% 44 29.33% Hispanic of any race 1,330 813 61.13% 238 29.27% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 75 40 53.33% 12 30.00% Race and ethnicity unknown 2,048 1,170 57.13% 187 15.98% Two or more races 522 297 56.90% 57 19.19% White 4,574 2,550 55.75% 474 18.59% Fall 2009 American Indian or Alaska Native 22 12 54.55% 3 25.00% Asian 1,423 867 60.93% 159 18.34% Black or African American 245 148 60.41% 51 34.46% Hispanic of any race 1,660 924 55.66% 202 21.86% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 62 31 50.00% 5 16.13% Race and ethnicity unknown 1,817 1,112 61.20% 187 16.82% Two or more races 635 394 62.05% 66 16.75% White 4,362 2,569 58.90% 412 16.04% Fall 2010 American Indian or Alaska Native 24 16 66.67% 3 18.75% Asian 1,906 1,017 53.36% 170 16.72% Black or African American 291 144 49.48% 46 31.94% Hispanic of any race 2,166 1,096 50.60% 252 22.99% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 39 13 33.33% 3 23.08% Race and ethnicity unknown 932 596 63.95% 94 15.77% Two or more races 686 434 63.27% 88 20.28% White 5,743 3,514 61.19% 640 18.21% Fall 2011 American Indian or Alaska Native 26 13 50.00% 1 7.69% Asian 2,173 1,162 53.47% 144 12.39% Black or African American 340 155 45.59% 35 22.58% Hispanic of any race 2,540 1,085 42.72% 228 21.01% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 45 18 40.00% 2 11.11% Race and ethnicity unknown 958 575 60.02% 110 19.13% Two or more races 832 479 57.57% 77 16.08% White 6,428 3,776 58.74% 686 18.17%

By Term then Ethnicity

Year Applicants Accepted Acceptance Rate Enrolled Yield Fall 2012 American Indian or Alaska Native 35 19 54.29% 3 15.79% Asian 2,622 1,320 50.34% 212 16.06% Black or African American 328 124 37.80% 34 27.42% Hispanic of any race 2,741 1,019 37.18% 236 23.16% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 44 17 38.64% 3 17.65% Race and ethnicity unknown 910 531 58.35% 66 12.43% Two or more races 902 474 52.55% 99 20.89% White 6,757 3,840 56.83% 625 16.28% Fall 2013 American Indian or Alaska Native 22 7 31.82% 0 0.00% Asian 2,882 1,423 49.38% 231 16.23% Black or African American 345 135 39.13% 51 37.78% Hispanic of any race 2,816 927 32.92% 228 24.60% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 62 20 32.26% 3 15.00% Race and ethnicity unknown 1,004 551 54.88% 85 15.43% Two or more races 990 521 52.63% 90 17.27% White 6,859 3,872 56.45% 603 15.57%

Reports Undergraduate student Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollments.

Description These reports summarize the distribution of Undergraduate Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity.

Years/Terms Fall 2004 through Fall 2013; Fall Terms only.

Format Data are summarized by Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments.

Population First-time, first-year Undergraduates.

Ethnicity - IPEDS Hispanic of any race: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community attachment. Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Two or more races: Individuals who select two or more races (other than Hispanic). Race/ethnicity unknown: The category used to report individuals whose race and ethnicity are not known Of Color: All groups above except White and Race/Ethnicity unknown. SCU calculated category.

Methods of reporting race/ethnicity: SCU Ethnic: Prior to the introduction of the new race ethnicity data collection mandated by the U.S. Department of Education (see below), Santa Clara assigned a single race/ethnic category using a rule set commonly referred to as the "Santa Clara Rules". Under the Santa Clara rules, there is no "Two or more races" category, and applicants or students who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories were assigned to a single category in rank order: Black Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White. This rule set continues to be used at Santa Clara for internal planning and decision-making and is maintained in the Institutional Research Data Mart. IPEDS Ethnicity: In Oct 2007, the Federal Register published Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education, which mandated changes in both the collection and reporting of race/ethnic data for all campus populations (undergraduates, graduates, staff, and faculty). Under this guidance, the requirements for collection are distinct from those for reporting. In particular, educational institutions are required to collect racial and ethnic data using a two- part question which permits respondents to identify with multiple race/ethnic categories, yet must report data to the Dept. of Ed. (IPEDS) such that individuals are assigned to a single race/ethnic category. This method of collecting race/ethnicity data, commonly referred to as “IPEDS Ethnicity” became mandatory for higher educational institutions in 2010. The first question is whether the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question is whether the respondent is from one or more races using the following five racial groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents are not to be offered the choice of selecting a ‘‘Two or more races’’ category. IPEDS "trumping rules" require that all persons who identify as Hispanic or Latino be reported as Hispanic or Latino independent of any other race self- Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix C Admissions Headcount: Ethnicity Undergraduate by Applied, Accepted, and Enrolled IPEDS Ethnicities identification. Those who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino but select two or more race categories are reported as "Two or more races", otherwise persons are reported in the single race/ethnic category provided as a response. IPEDS "trumping rules" are applied to all data available in the university system of record, PeopleSoft. This includes data for individuals who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories prior to the mandatory collection requirement of 2010.

Special Notes Ethnicity Ethnic group is self-reported. Students may change their race/ethnicity through HR self-service. This report represents the most recent race/ethnicity recorded in the university’s system of record, PeopleSoft. For consistency in multi-year reporting, any changes made to race/ethnicity are retroactively applied to all prior year data for each individual. Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix D: Cohort Retention and Graduation Rates by Ethnicity/Race Cohorts First-time, Full-time, Fall-entering Degree-seeking Undergraduates 1999-2012 ACADEMIC YEAR OF ADMISSION (fall term) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 TOTAL Valid N 1092 1023 1014 1118 894 1169 1196 1340 1201 1220 1084 1296 1281 1276 Retention Rate .92 .93 .92 .92 .91 .94 .94 .92 .93 .92 .93 .94 .95 .95 Four-year rate .77 .79 .79 .78 .78 .80 .77 .79 .77 .78 .76 Six-year Rate .84 .86 .84 .85 .85 .87 .85 .86 .84 Eight-year Rate .85 .87 .85 .86 .86 .88 .86 SCU Ethnic White, non- Valid N 656 589 602 695 566 701 715 703 552 476 418 640 685 623 Hispanic Retention Rate .91 .92 .92 .92 .91 .93 .94 .91 .93 .91 .91 .93 .94 .94 Four-year rate .78 .81 .78 .79 .79 .80 .75 .80 .78 .75 .77 Six-year Rate .84 .86 .83 .86 .85 .86 .85 .86 .84 Eight-year Rate .84 .86 .84 .86 .86 .86 .85 Black, non- Valid N 21 16 30 24 16 40 31 40 62 49 61 72 53 69 Hispanic Retention Rate .90 .88 .90 .96 .81 .95 .87 .93 .98 .90 .97 .93 .91 .94 Four-year rate .71 .44 .60 .75 .56 .68 .61 .58 .66 .71 .62 Six-year Rate .81 .56 .73 .92 .75 .80 .68 .78 .77 Eight-year Rate .81 .63 .73 .92 .75 .83 .74 Hispanic Valid N 144 144 137 128 127 150 143 168 172 235 198 224 215 209 Retention Rate .93 .94 .89 .97 .92 .97 .97 .97 .91 .92 .96 .96 .96 .96 Four-year rate .74 .79 .80 .79 .76 .75 .85 .82 .75 .80 .78 Six-year Rate .81 .88 .85 .89 .84 .88 .90 .91 .84 Eight-year Rate .85 .89 .86 .91 .84 .89 .91 Asian/Pacific Valid N 212 187 195 245 143 224 211 220 184 262 213 233 200 281 Islander Retention Rate .94 .96 .96 .93 .93 .95 .97 .91 .97 .95 .93 .96 .98 .96 Four-year rate .80 .80 .80 .75 .78 .86 .81 .77 .83 .85 .78 Six-year Rate .88 .88 .88 .81 .86 .92 .87 .84 .89 Eight-year Rate .89 .89 .89 .84 .86 .92 .88 American Valid N <10 <10 <10 12 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 <10 33 18 28 Indian/Alaska Retention Rate .86 1.00 1.00 .92 .88 .86 1.00 .80 1.00 .80 1.00 .88 .94 .93 Native Four-year rate .71 .75 1.00 .67 .50 .71 .75 .80 1.00 .40 1.00 Six-year Rate .86 .75 1.00 .75 .63 .71 .75 .80 1.00 Eight-year Rate .86 .75 1.00 .75 .63 .71 .75 Race/ethnicity Valid N 52 83 47 14 34 47 88 204 229 188 187 94 110 66 unknown Retention Rate .92 .93 .91 .79 .91 .96 .91 .91 .92 .94 .91 .96 .98 .94 Four-year rate .65 .72 .79 .79 .82 .83 .73 .78 .74 .76 .75 Six-year Rate .85 .83 .81 .79 .88 .89 .81 .86 .83 Eight-year Rate .85 .86 .81 .79 .88 .89 .81 IPEDS White Valid N 654 588 601 690 564 693 701 656 551 473 411 640 685 623 Ethnicities Retention Rate .91 .91 .92 .92 .91 .93 .94 .91 .93 .91 .91 .93 .94 .94 Four-year rate .78 .81 .79 .79 .79 .81 .76 .79 .78 .75 .77 Six-year Rate .84 .86 .83 .86 .85 .86 .85 .86 .83 Eight-year Rate .84 .86 .84 .86 .86 .86 .85 Race/ethnicity Valid N 52 82 46 14 34 46 87 204 228 187 187 94 110 66 unknown Retention Rate .92 .93 .91 .79 .91 .96 .91 .91 .92 .94 .91 .96 .98 .94 Four-year rate .65 .72 .78 .79 .82 .83 .72 .78 .74 .75 .75 Six-year Rate .85 .83 .80 .79 .88 .89 .80 .86 .83 Eight-year Rate .85 .85 .80 .79 .88 .89 .80 Hispanic of Valid N 144 145 138 130 130 150 143 168 172 238 202 252 228 236 any race Retention Rate .93 .94 .89 .96 .92 .97 .97 .97 .91 .92 .96 .96 .94 .97 Four-year rate .74 .79 .80 .78 .76 .75 .85 .82 .75 .80 .78 Six-year Rate .81 .88 .85 .88 .85 .88 .90 .91 .84 Eight-year Rate .85 .89 .86 .90 .85 .89 .91 American Valid N <10 <10 <10 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Indian or Retention Rate .83 1.00 1.00 .90 .80 .83 1.00 .80 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .67 Alaska Native Four-year rate .67 .67 1.00 .60 .60 .67 .75 .80 1.00 0.00 1.00 Six-year Rate .83 .67 1.00 .70 .60 .67 .75 .80 1.00 Eight-year Rate .83 .67 1.00 .70 .60 .67 .75 Asian Valid N 193 175 183 236 123 207 179 191 174 208 159 170 143 212 Retention Rate .93 .95 .96 .93 .94 .95 .97 .91 .97 .96 .94 .95 .97 .97 Four-year rate .80 .79 .80 .75 .78 .86 .80 .76 .82 .85 .79 Six-year Rate .88 .87 .89 .81 .87 .92 .87 .83 .89 Eight-year Rate .89 .88 .89 .84 .87 .92 .88 Black or Valid N 18 13 25 21 12 33 28 35 62 44 51 46 35 34 African Retention Rate .89 .85 .92 1.00 .83 .94 .86 .91 .98 .89 .96 .91 .94 .97 American Four-year rate .78 .46 .56 .76 .50 .61 .61 .54 .66 .73 .59 Six-year Rate .78 .62 .72 .95 .75 .76 .68 .74 .77 Eight-year Rate .78 .62 .72 .95 .75 .79 .75 Native Valid N <10 <10 n/a n/a <10 <10 14 <10 10 12 <10 <10 <10 <10 Hawaiian or Retention Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .89 1.00 .92 1.00 1.00 1.00 .67 Other Pacific Four-year rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .79 .67 .90 .83 1.00 Islander Six-year Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .86 .78 1.00 Eight-year Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .86 Two or more Valid N 24 16 18 17 25 33 36 72 <10 57 66 88 77 99 races Retention Rate 1.00 1.00 .89 .94 .84 .97 .92 .99 1.00 .93 .92 .92 1.00 .92 Four-year rate .75 .88 .72 .82 .76 .85 .69 .89 1.00 .81 .76 Six-year Rate .92 .88 .83 .88 .76 .94 .81 .96 1.00 Eight-year Rate .92 .94 .83 .88 .76 .94 .81 Cohorts adjusted per IPEDS exclusions. † Data collected from admission applications for Fall 2007 are insufficient to assign students to the `Two or more races` category. ‡ For a description of `SCU ethnic` and `IPEDS Ethnic`, see note on WASC Degrees Conferred exhibit Non-disclosure: <10=fewer than 10 students in cohort category. Direct inquiries to [email protected] filename: EXAS130379pub; revised for publication 07MAR14rev Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix E Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators SCU Ethnicities

2003-2004 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Total Universityunvdet Total 572 13 36 62 <5 11 112 428 267 695 Faculty Full-time 340 9 30 34 <5 <5 73 261 155 416 Part-time 232 <5 6 28 <5 8 39 167 112 279

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 297 6 22 22 <5 <5 51 195 157 352 Faculty Full-time 193 <5 18 11 <5 <5 33 136 91 227 Part-time 104 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 18 59 66 125

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 93 <5 <5 13 <5 <5 17 88 23 111 Faculty Full-time 62 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 15 64 14 78 Part-time 31 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 24 9 33

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 63 <5 <5 24 <5 5 30 81 17 98 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 15 30 11 41 Part-time 38 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 15 51 6 57

School of Education, Counseling Total 35 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 6 17 25 42

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 12 18

*Non disclosure: <5 = counts fewer than 5. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_SCU_Ethnicities_1.4 1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:53:47 AM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix E Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators SCU Ethnicities

2003-2004 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 13 24 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 83 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 46 45 91 Faculty Full-time 45 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 25 27 52 Part-time 38 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 21 18 39

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2004-2005 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Total Universityunvdet Total 567 13 40 69 <5 15 123 430 275 705 Faculty Full-time 344 8 32 35 <5 <5 76 260 163 423 Part-time 223 5 8 34 <5 12 47 170 112 282

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 304 6 25 27 <5 6 59 205 164 369 Faculty Full-time 204 <5 20 11 <5 <5 35 143 98 241 Part-time 100 <5 5 16 <5 <5 24 62 66 128

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 89 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 18 83 25 108 Faculty Full-time 56 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 15 57 15 72 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 26 10 36

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 65 <5 <5 24 <5 7 29 79 22 101 Faculty Full-time 26 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 14 30 10 40 Part-time 39 <5 <5 14 <5 7 15 49 12 61

School of Education, Counseling Total 41 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 7 22 27 49

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 13 20

2004-2005 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Part-time 24 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 14 29 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 68 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 41 37 78 Faculty Full-time 41 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 9 23 27 50 Part-time 27 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 18 10 28

2005-2006 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 596 18 43 70 18 131 457 288 745 Faculty Full-time 360 12 32 39 <5 83 276 171 447 Part-time 236 6 11 31 14 48 181 117 298

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 315 9 26 26 11 61 216 171 387 Faculty Full-time 208 6 19 14 <5 39 147 103 250 Part-time 107 <5 7 12 8 22 69 68 137

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 94 <5 <5 14 <5 18 92 22 114 Faculty Full-time 59 <5 <5 11 <5 15 61 14 75 Part-time 35 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 31 8 39

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 64 <5 <5 24 <5 29 79 17 96 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 10 <5 14 30 9 39 Part-time 39 <5 <5 14 <5 15 49 8 57

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 46 <5 7 <5 <5 8 23 32 55

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 12 23

2005-2006 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 26 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 12 20 32 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 77 6 <5 5 <5 15 47 46 93 Faculty Full-time 48 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 27 33 60 Part-time 29 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 20 13 33

2006-2007 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 595 18 43 72 16 133 440 304 744 Faculty Full-time 384 12 33 42 5 87 289 187 476 Part-time 211 6 10 30 11 46 151 117 268

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 320 9 29 28 8 66 206 188 394 Faculty Full-time 231 6 20 15 <5 41 156 119 275 Part-time 89 <5 9 13 5 25 50 69 119

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 99 <5 <5 18 <5 22 94 28 122 Faculty Full-time 62 <5 <5 14 <5 18 65 16 81 Part-time 37 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 29 12 41

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 56 <5 <5 21 <5 26 68 17 85 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 9 <5 13 27 11 38 Part-time 31 <5 <5 12 <5 13 41 6 47

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 43 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 24 26 50

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 22 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 12 25

2006-2007 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 21 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 14 25 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 77 6 <5 <5 <5 14 48 45 93 Faculty Full-time 44 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 28 29 57 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 20 16 36

2007-2008 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 618 20 49 73 17 142 461 316 777 Faculty Full-time 406 12 38 47 8 97 299 212 511 Part-time 212 8 11 26 9 45 162 104 266

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 331 11 30 25 9 66 219 187 406 Faculty Full-time 240 6 24 15 5 45 158 132 290 Part-time 91 5 6 10 <5 21 61 55 116

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 101 <5 5 20 <5 25 100 29 129 Faculty Full-time 67 <5 <5 16 <5 20 68 21 89 Part-time 34 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 32 8 40

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 59 <5 <5 20 <5 25 68 18 86 Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 10 <5 14 27 11 38 Part-time 35 <5 <5 10 <5 11 41 7 48

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 47 <5 7 <5 <5 8 26 30 56

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 12 27

2007-2008 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 23 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 11 18 29 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 79 6 5 7 <5 18 48 51 99 Faculty Full-time 50 <5 5 6 <5 15 31 35 66 Part-time 29 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 17 16 33

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2008-2009 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 602 19 51 86 14 156 459 313 772 Faculty Full-time 402 15 38 56 <5 109 294 221 515 Part-time 200 <5 13 30 10 47 165 92 257

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 310 11 32 31 5 74 203 186 389 Faculty Full-time 238 9 24 19 <5 52 155 138 293 Part-time 72 <5 8 12 <5 22 48 48 96

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 102 <5 5 26 <5 31 102 32 134 Faculty Full-time 68 <5 <5 19 <5 23 68 24 92 Part-time 34 <5 <5 7 <5 8 34 8 42

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 62 <5 <5 23 <5 28 75 17 92 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 13 <5 16 29 12 41 Part-time 37 <5 <5 10 <5 12 46 5 51

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 43 <5 6 <5 <5 6 27 26 53

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 23 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 13 27

2008-2009 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 13 26 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 81 5 6 6 <5 17 49 51 100 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 5 5 <5 14 28 33 61 Part-time 34 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 21 18 39

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2009-2010 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 624 17 52 97 16 166 476 330 806 Faculty Full-time 338 11 34 51 <5 96 258 178 436 Part-time 286 6 18 46 14 70 218 152 370

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 333 8 28 34 6 70 210 199 409 Faculty Full-time 202 <5 18 11 <5 33 136 101 237 Part-time 131 <5 10 23 <5 37 74 98 172

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 100 <5 5 30 <5 35 104 32 136 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 <5 21 <5 25 54 18 72 Part-time 53 <5 <5 9 <5 10 50 14 64

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 66 <5 <5 25 <5 31 77 24 101 Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 14 <5 18 28 14 42 Part-time 42 <5 <5 11 <5 13 49 10 59

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 36 <5 8 <5 <5 9 25 23 48

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 16 <5 5 <5 <5 6 10 12 22

2009-2010 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 11 26 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 85 5 8 8 <5 21 56 52 108 Faculty Full-time 49 <5 5 5 <5 14 30 33 63 Part-time 36 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 26 19 45

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2010-2011 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 632 24 55 106 23 185 498 342 840 Faculty Full-time 347 10 34 54 <5 98 266 183 449 Part-time 285 14 21 52 19 87 232 159 391

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 329 9 31 35 9 75 217 196 413 Faculty Full-time 197 <5 18 12 <5 34 131 103 234 Part-time 132 5 13 23 6 41 86 93 179

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 102 <5 <5 30 <5 34 102 34 136 Faculty Full-time 48 <5 <5 24 <5 27 55 20 75 Part-time 54 <5 <5 6 <5 7 47 14 61

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 62 5 <5 27 <5 36 80 22 102 Faculty Full-time 26 <5 <5 13 <5 17 29 14 43 Part-time 36 <5 <5 14 <5 19 51 8 59

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 40 <5 6 <5 <5 11 27 27 54

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 7 11 18

2010-2011 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 27 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 20 16 36 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 84 5 8 11 <5 24 54 56 110 Faculty Full-time 51 <5 5 5 <5 13 32 32 64 Part-time 33 <5 <5 6 <5 11 22 24 46

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 <5 17 Faculty Full-time 12 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2011-2012 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Total Universityunvdet Total 621 22 51 113 <5 23 188 484 348 832 Faculty Full-time 371 12 37 59 <5 <5 108 281 202 483 Part-time 250 10 14 54 <5 19 80 203 146 349

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 310 9 27 36 <5 7 72 193 196 389 Faculty Full-time 213 6 22 12 <5 <5 40 137 119 256 Part-time 97 <5 5 24 <5 <5 32 56 77 133

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 100 <5 5 33 <5 <5 39 101 38 139 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 <5 25 <5 <5 28 58 22 80 Part-time 48 <5 <5 8 <5 <5 11 43 16 59

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 69 <5 <5 29 <5 <5 36 87 22 109 Faculty Full-time 28 <5 <5 15 <5 <5 19 33 14 47 Part-time 41 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 17 54 8 62

School of Education, Counseling Total 34 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 13 23 27 50

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 8 12 20

2011-2012 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Part-time 19 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 15 15 30 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 86 5 8 11 <5 <5 24 58 55 113 Faculty Full-time 50 <5 5 6 <5 <5 14 32 32 64 Part-time 36 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 10 26 23 49

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 7 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 18 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 6 21 Faculty Full-time 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6

2012-2013 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Total Universityunvdet Total 616 22 57 121 23 200 480 359 839 Faculty Full-time 371 16 38 72 6 126 290 213 503 Part-time 245 6 19 49 17 74 190 146 336

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 307 11 30 33 7 74 195 193 388 Faculty Full-time 219 9 23 16 <5 48 144 127 271 Part-time 88 <5 7 17 <5 26 51 66 117

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 101 <5 5 34 <5 39 101 40 141 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 <5 29 <5 32 58 21 79 Part-time 54 <5 <5 5 <5 7 43 19 62

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 67 5 <5 36 7 45 87 32 119 Faculty Full-time 27 <5 <5 18 <5 22 32 18 50 Part-time 40 <5 <5 18 6 23 55 14 69

School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and Total 36 <5 7 <5 <5 9 22 27 49

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 16 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 9 12 21

2012-2013 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific Not Subtotal: Of Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Specified Color

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 15 28 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 85 5 10 12 <5 27 54 60 114 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 5 7 <5 16 35 33 68 Part-time 33 <5 5 5 <5 11 19 27 46

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 17 6 23 Faculty Full-time 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 14 Part-time 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 9

2013-2014 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Total Universityunvdet Total 630 27 54 131 <5 31 213 507 367 874 Faculty Full-time 374 16 39 72 <5 8 127 292 217 509 Part-time 256 11 15 59 <5 23 86 215 150 365

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 309 13 31 42 <5 10 86 203 202 405 Faculty Full-time 213 9 22 18 <5 <5 49 141 125 266 Part-time 96 <5 9 24 <5 6 37 62 77 139

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 101 <5 5 38 <5 <5 44 107 41 148 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 <5 28 <5 <5 31 63 21 84 Part-time 49 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 13 44 20 64

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 72 <5 <5 34 <5 8 40 91 29 120 Faculty Full-time 32 <5 <5 17 <5 <5 21 33 21 54 Part-time 40 <5 <5 17 <5 7 19 58 8 66

School of Education, Counseling Total 47 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 13 29 35 64

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 16 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 6 9 13 22

2013-2014 White, Non- Black, Non- Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Not Subtotal: Male Female Total Hispanic Hispanic Islander Indian/Native Specified Of Color Alaskan

Part-time 31 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 20 22 42 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 78 <5 7 12 <5 <5 23 51 53 104 Faculty Full-time 51 <5 6 7 <5 <5 17 34 34 68 Part-time 27 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 6 17 19 36

Universitycoldet Total 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 8 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 8

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 20 5 25 Faculty Full-time 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 <5 10

Reports Faculty Headcount by Sex/Ethnicity/ Excluding Full-Time Administrators

Description These reports summarize the distribution of faculty by College or School.

Years/Terms 2003-2004 through 2013-2014 /Fall only

Format Data are summarized by College or School, and for the entire University.

Definitions

Headcount/FTE: Full Time and Academic Year Term Faculty Headcount: Total headcount of faculty. Full-Time Faculty FTE: Full-time equivalent for faculty. For full-time faculty, this is equal to headcount except in cases of reduced appointments such as phased retirements or other reductions in workload as approved by the Dean and Provost. Academic Year Term Faculty FTE: FTE represents the full-time equivalent at the time of hire (based on a full-time equivalent course load of six courses for Law and nine courses for all other schools/colleges) Quarterly Faculty Headcount: Total headcount of faculty assigned to teach classes during the term. Quarterly Faculty FTE: Full-time equivalent for faculty. The FTE for quarterly part-time faculty is calculated based on actual classes taught. For the School of Law, a full-time teaching load is 2.57 classes for a term, while for all other schools/colleges a full-time teaching load is 3 for a term. So every academic class (see Special Notes below) is assigned an FTE of 0.389105058 for Law and 0.33333333 for all other schools/colleges. For independent study classes, the number

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_SCU_Ethnicities_1.4 1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:53:47 AM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix E Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators SCU Ethnicities of credit hours for the class is divided by 12 (for Law) or 15 (for all other schools/colleges). If a class is team-taught, the FTE is divided among the instructors.

Faculty categories: Full-time faculty: Tenured: Faculty who are tenured Tenure-Track: Faculty who are on tenure-track but are not tenured Non Tenure Track Continuing: Senior Lecturer: Faculty who hold the rank of senior lecturer Other: Faculty who hold special continuing appointments as adjunct professor, adjunct associate professor, or adjunct assistant professor. There are no faculty in this category after 2004-05. Non Tenure Track Term: Faculty who are not tenured and who do not accumulate credit toward tenure. Renewable Term Lecturer: Faculty holding renewable-term lecturer appointments of an initial term of three years. This category was formalized in 2006-07. Fixed Term Lecturer: Faculty holding fixed-term lecturer appointments of not more than three years. This category was formalized in 2006-07. Prior to 2006-07, this category includes all faculty holding lecturer appointments. Other: Faculty holding term appointment other than lecturer. Examples of these appointments include: Dean's Executive Professor, Legal Analysis, Research and Writing Instructor, Supervising Attorney, Director of the Legal Analysis, Research and Writing Program, Director, Academic Success Program, Teaching Scholar, Senior Fellow, Staff Attorney, University Professor. From 2004-2005 forward, the category includes appointments of adjunct professor, adjunct associate professor, and adjunct assistant professor. Part-time faculty: Renewable Term Lecturer: Faculty holding renewable-term lecturer appointments of an initial term of three years. They are not tenured and do not accumulate credit toward tenure. FTE is >= .5 and < 1.0 and is based on a full-time equivalent course load of six courses for Law and nine courses for all other schools/colleges. This category was formalized in 2006-07. Fixed Term: Faculty hired for a period of one academic term or one academic year. They are not tenured and do not accumulate credit toward tenure. FTE is >= .5 and <1.0 and is based on a full time equivalent course load of six courses for Law and nine courses for all other schools/colleges. This category was formalized in 2006-07. Prior to 2006-07, this category includes all faculty holding academic year appointments with FTE >= .5 and < 1.0. Quarterly/Semester: Faculty appointed for one quarter to teach classes. Full time administrators: Faculty appointed to a full-time faculty position who hold a full-time administrative position. Examples include the President, Provost, and Academic Deans.

Methods of reporting race/ethnicity: SCU Ethnic: Prior to the introduction of the new race ethnicity data collection mandated by the U.S. Department of Education (see below), Santa Clara assigned a single race/ethnic category using a rule set commonly referred to as the "Santa Clara Rules". Under the Santa Clara rules, there is no "Two or more races" category, and applicants or students who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories were assigned to a single category in rank order: Black Non- Hispanic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White. This rule set continues to be used at Santa Clara for internal planning and decision-making and is maintained in the Institutional Research Data Mart. IPEDS Ethnicity: In Oct 2007, the Federal Register published Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education, which mandated changes in both the collection and reporting of race/ethnic data for all campus populations (undergraduates, graduates, staff, and faculty). Under this guidance, the requirements for collection are distinct from those for reporting. In particular, educational institutions are required to collect racial and ethnic data using a two-part question, which permits respondents to identify with multiple race/ethnic categories, yet must report data to the Dept. of Ed. (IPEDS) such that individuals are assigned to a single race/ethnic category. This method of collecting race/ethnicity data, commonly referred to as “IPEDS Ethnicity” became mandatory for higher educational institutions in 2010. The first question is whether the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question is whether the respondent is from one or more races using the following five racial groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents are not to be offered the choice of selecting a ‘‘Two or more races’’ category. IPEDS "trumping rules" require that all persons who identify as Hispanic or Latino be reported as Hispanic or Latino independent of any other race self-identification. Those who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino but select two or more race categories are reported as "Two or more races", otherwise

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_SCU_Ethnicities_1.4 1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:53:47 AM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix E Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators SCU Ethnicities persons are reported in the single race/ethnic category provided as a response. IPEDS "trumping rules" are applied to all data available in the university system of record, PeopleSoft. This includes data for individuals who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories prior to the mandatory collection requirement of 2010.

Criteria Full-Time Faculty were selected using the following criteria: - Hired on a full-time annual contract of at least nine months. - Employment status is as of Fall term. - Faculty on phased retirement or a similar reduced FTE appointment are included. - Visiting faculty are excluded. - Faculty on leave of absence or sabbatical are included. - Faculty holding full-time or part-time administrative positions are included.

Special Notes Ethnicity Ethnicity is self-reported. Faculty may change their race/ethnicity through HR self-service. This report represents the most recent race/ethnicity recorded in the university’s system of record, PeopleSoft. For consistency in multi-year reporting, any changes made to race/ethnicity are retroactively applied to all prior year data for each individual. Non Disclosure Institutional Research restricts disclosure of personally-identifiable information per recommendations provided by the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Working Paper 2 - Report on Statistical Disclosure and Disclosure-Avoidance Techniques. These techniques include removal of identifier labels, suppression based on cell size, and aggregation across categories. For detailed information on this policy or other data-release questions, contact [email protected]

2003-2004 White Race and Hispanic American Indian Asian Black or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any or Alaska Native African more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 571 10 36 <5 61 12 <5 114 428 267 695 Faculty Full-time 340 <5 30 <5 34 8 <5 74 261 155 416 Part-time 231 8 6 <5 27 <5 <5 40 167 112 279

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 297 <5 22 <5 22 6 <5 52 195 157 352 Faculty Full-time 193 <5 18 <5 11 <5 <5 34 136 91 227 Part-time 104 <5 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 18 59 66 125

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 93 <5 <5 <5 13 <5 <5 17 88 23 111 Faculty Full-time 62 <5 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 15 64 14 78 Part-time 31 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 24 9 33

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 63 5 <5 <5 23 <5 <5 30 81 17 98 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 15 30 11 41 Part-time 38 <5 <5 <5 13 <5 <5 15 51 6 57

School of Education, Counseling Total 35 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 17 25 42

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 12 18

*Non disclosure: <5 = counts fewer than 5. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_IPEDS_Ethnicities_1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:51:37 AM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix F Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators IPEDS Ethnicities

2003-2004 White Race and Hispanic American Indian Asian Black or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any or Alaska Native African more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 13 24 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 82 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 9 46 45 91 Faculty Full-time 45 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 25 27 52 Part-time 37 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 21 18 39

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2004-2005 White Race and Hispanic American Asian Black or Native Hawaiian Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any Indian or African or Other Pacific more Of Color unknown race Alaska Native American Islander races

Total Universityunvdet Total 567 14 40 <5 67 12 <5 <5 124 430 275 705 Faculty Full-time 344 <5 32 <5 35 7 <5 <5 77 260 163 423 Part-time 223 12 8 <5 32 5 <5 <5 47 170 112 282

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 304 5 25 <5 27 6 <5 <5 60 205 164 369 Faculty Full-time 204 <5 20 <5 11 <5 <5 <5 36 143 98 241 Part-time 100 <5 5 <5 16 <5 <5 <5 24 62 66 128

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 89 <5 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 <5 18 83 25 108 Faculty Full-time 56 <5 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 <5 15 57 15 72 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 26 10 36

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 65 7 <5 <5 22 <5 <5 <5 29 79 22 101 Faculty Full-time 26 <5 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 14 30 10 40 Part-time 39 7 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 15 49 12 61

School of Education, Total 41 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 22 27 49 Counseling Psychology, and Faculty

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Full-time 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 13 20

Part-time 24 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 14 29 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 68 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 41 37 78 Faculty Full-time 41 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 9 23 27 50 Part-time 27 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 18 10 28

2005-2006 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 596 17 43 67 17 <5 <5 132 457 288 745 Faculty Full-time 360 <5 32 38 11 <5 <5 84 276 171 447 Part-time 236 14 11 29 6 <5 <5 48 181 117 298

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 315 10 26 26 9 <5 <5 62 216 171 387 Faculty Full-time 208 <5 19 14 6 <5 <5 40 147 103 250 Part-time 107 8 7 12 <5 <5 <5 22 69 68 137

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 94 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 <5 18 92 22 114 Faculty Full-time 59 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 <5 15 61 14 75 Part-time 35 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 31 8 39

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 64 <5 <5 22 <5 <5 <5 29 79 17 96 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 14 30 9 39 Part-time 39 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 15 49 8 57

School of Education, Counseling Total 46 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 23 32 55

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 12 23

2005-2006 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 26 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 12 20 32 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 77 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 15 47 46 93 Faculty Full-time 48 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 27 33 60 Part-time 29 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 20 13 33

2006-2007 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 594 15 43 67 17 <5 5 135 440 304 744 Faculty Full-time 384 <5 33 41 11 <5 <5 88 289 187 476 Part-time 210 11 10 26 6 <5 <5 47 151 117 268

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 320 7 29 27 9 <5 <5 67 206 188 394 Faculty Full-time 231 <5 20 15 6 <5 <5 42 156 119 275 Part-time 89 5 9 12 <5 <5 <5 25 50 69 119

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 99 <5 <5 17 <5 <5 <5 22 94 28 122 Faculty Full-time 62 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 <5 18 65 16 81 Part-time 37 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 29 12 41

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 55 <5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 27 68 17 85 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 9 <5 <5 <5 13 27 11 38 Part-time 30 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 14 41 6 47

School of Education, Counseling Total 43 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 24 26 50

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 22 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 12 25

2006-2007 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 21 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 14 25 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 77 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 14 48 45 93 Faculty Full-time 44 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 28 29 57 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 20 16 36

2007-2008 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 617 16 49 68 19 <5 6 144 461 316 777 Faculty Full-time 406 7 38 46 11 <5 <5 98 299 212 511 Part-time 211 9 11 22 8 <5 <5 46 162 104 266

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 330 8 30 24 11 <5 <5 68 219 187 406 Faculty Full-time 240 <5 24 15 6 <5 <5 46 158 132 290 Part-time 90 <5 6 9 5 <5 <5 22 61 55 116

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 101 <5 5 20 <5 <5 <5 25 100 29 129 Faculty Full-time 67 <5 <5 16 <5 <5 <5 20 68 21 89 Part-time 34 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 32 8 40

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 59 <5 <5 17 <5 <5 <5 25 68 18 86 Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 14 27 11 38 Part-time 35 <5 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 11 41 7 48

School of Education, Counseling Total 47 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 26 30 56

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 12 27

2007-2008 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 23 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 11 18 29 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 79 <5 5 6 5 <5 <5 18 48 51 99 Faculty Full-time 50 <5 5 5 <5 <5 <5 15 31 35 66 Part-time 29 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 17 16 33

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2008-2009 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 600 12 51 76 17 7 9 160 459 313 772 Faculty Full-time 402 <5 38 54 13 <5 <5 110 294 221 515 Part-time 198 9 13 22 <5 6 5 50 165 92 257

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 310 <5 32 26 10 <5 <5 75 203 186 389 Faculty Full-time 238 <5 24 19 8 <5 <5 53 155 138 293 Part-time 72 <5 8 7 <5 <5 <5 22 48 48 96

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 102 <5 5 26 <5 <5 <5 31 102 32 134 Faculty Full-time 68 <5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 23 68 24 92 Part-time 34 <5 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 8 34 8 42

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 61 <5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 29 75 17 92 Faculty Full-time 25 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 16 29 12 41 Part-time 36 <5 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 13 46 5 51

School of Education, Counseling Total 43 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 27 26 53

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 23 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 13 27

2008-2009 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 13 26 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 80 <5 6 5 <5 <5 <5 18 49 51 100 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 28 33 61 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 21 18 39

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2009-2010 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 623 14 52 80 16 9 12 169 476 330 806 Faculty Full-time 338 <5 34 46 10 <5 <5 97 258 178 436 Part-time 285 13 18 34 6 5 9 72 218 152 370

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 333 5 28 28 8 <5 <5 71 210 199 409 Faculty Full-time 202 <5 18 11 <5 <5 <5 34 136 101 237 Part-time 131 <5 10 17 <5 <5 <5 37 74 98 172

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 99 <5 5 27 <5 <5 <5 36 104 32 136 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 25 54 18 72 Part-time 52 <5 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 11 50 14 64

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 66 <5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 31 77 24 101 Faculty Full-time 24 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 18 28 14 42 Part-time 42 <5 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 13 49 10 59

School of Education, Counseling Total 36 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 25 23 48

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 16 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 10 12 22

2009-2010 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 15 11 26 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 85 <5 8 6 <5 <5 <5 21 56 52 108 Faculty Full-time 49 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 30 33 63 Part-time 36 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 26 19 45

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

2010-2011 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Total Universityunvdet Total 634 16 55 89 22 11 13 190 498 342 840 Faculty Full-time 347 <5 34 48 9 <5 5 100 266 183 449 Part-time 287 14 21 41 13 7 8 90 232 159 391

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 329 6 31 29 8 <5 6 78 217 196 413 Faculty Full-time 197 <5 18 12 <5 <5 <5 36 131 103 234 Part-time 132 5 13 17 <5 <5 <5 42 86 93 179

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 101 <5 <5 28 <5 <5 <5 35 102 34 136 Faculty Full-time 48 <5 <5 22 <5 <5 <5 27 55 20 75 Part-time 53 <5 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 8 47 14 61

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 62 <5 <5 21 5 <5 <5 36 80 22 102 Faculty Full-time 26 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 17 29 14 43 Part-time 36 <5 <5 11 <5 <5 <5 19 51 8 59

School of Education, Counseling Total 40 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 27 27 54

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 7 11 18

2010-2011 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific Islander more Of Color unknown race American races

Part-time 27 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 20 16 36 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 84 <5 8 8 <5 <5 <5 24 54 56 110 Faculty Full-time 51 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 32 32 64 Part-time 33 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 22 24 46

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 16 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 6 20 Faculty Full-time 12 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5

2011-2012 White Race and Hispanic American Asian Black or Native Hawaiian Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any Indian or African or Other Pacific more Of Color unknown race Alaska Native American Islander races

Total Universityunvdet Total 624 14 51 <5 97 20 13 11 194 484 348 832 Faculty Full-time 371 <5 37 <5 51 10 6 6 110 281 202 483 Part-time 253 12 14 <5 46 10 7 5 84 203 146 349

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 310 <5 27 <5 31 8 <5 5 75 193 196 389 Faculty Full-time 213 <5 22 <5 12 5 <5 <5 42 137 119 256 Part-time 97 <5 5 <5 19 <5 <5 <5 33 56 77 133

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 100 <5 5 <5 30 <5 <5 <5 39 101 38 139 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 <5 <5 22 <5 <5 <5 28 58 22 80 Part-time 48 <5 <5 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 11 43 16 59

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 69 <5 <5 <5 24 <5 <5 <5 36 87 22 109 Faculty Full-time 28 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 19 33 14 47 Part-time 41 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 <5 <5 17 54 8 62

School of Education, Total 34 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 23 27 50 Counseling Psychology, and Faculty

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Full-time 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 8 12 20

Part-time 19 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 9 15 15 30 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 86 <5 8 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 24 58 55 113 Faculty Full-time 50 <5 5 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 14 32 32 64 Part-time 36 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 26 23 49

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 7 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 21 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 17 8 25 Faculty Full-time 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time 8 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 5 10

2012-2013 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific more Of Color unknown race American Islander races

Total Universityunvdet Total 615 19 57 104 20 12 12 205 480 359 839 Faculty Full-time 371 <5 38 66 14 5 6 129 290 213 503 Part-time 244 16 19 38 6 7 6 76 190 146 336

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 307 <5 30 29 10 <5 5 77 195 193 388 Faculty Full-time 219 <5 23 16 8 <5 <5 51 144 127 271 Part-time 88 <5 7 13 <5 <5 <5 26 51 66 117

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 100 <5 5 31 <5 <5 <5 40 101 40 141 Faculty Full-time 47 <5 <5 26 <5 <5 <5 32 58 21 79 Part-time 53 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 8 43 19 62

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 67 7 <5 29 5 5 <5 45 87 32 119 Faculty Full-time 27 <5 <5 16 <5 <5 <5 22 32 18 50 Part-time 40 6 <5 13 <5 <5 <5 23 55 14 69

School of Education, Counseling Total 36 <5 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 9 22 27 49

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet Faculty Full-time 16 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 9 12 21

2012-2013 White Race and Hispanic Asian Black or Native Hawaiian or Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any African Other Pacific more Of Color unknown race American Islander races

Part-time 20 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 15 28 School of Education, Counseling

Psychology, and Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 85 <5 10 9 <5 <5 <5 27 54 60 114 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 5 6 <5 <5 <5 16 35 33 68 Part-time 33 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 19 27 46

Universitycoldet Total <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 17 6 23 Faculty Full-time 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 14 Part-time 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 9

2013-2014 White Race and Hispanic American Asian Black or Native Hawaiian Two or Subtotal: Male Female Total ethnicity of any Indian or African or Other Pacific more Of Color unknown race Alaska Native American Islander races

Total Universityunvdet Total 624 32 54 <5 117 25 11 10 218 507 367 874 Faculty Full-time 372 7 39 <5 66 14 5 6 130 292 217 509 Part-time 252 25 15 <5 51 11 6 <5 88 215 150 365

College of Arts and Sciencescoldet Total 305 11 31 <5 38 12 <5 <5 89 203 202 405 Faculty Full-time 211 <5 22 <5 17 8 <5 <5 52 141 125 266 Part-time 94 8 9 <5 21 <5 <5 <5 37 62 77 139

Leavey School of Businesscoldet Total 100 <5 5 <5 36 <5 <5 <5 45 107 41 148 Faculty Full-time 52 <5 <5 <5 26 <5 <5 <5 31 63 21 84 Part-time 48 <5 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 <5 14 44 20 64

School of Engineeringcoldet Total 71 8 <5 <5 29 <5 <5 <5 41 91 29 120 Faculty Full-time 32 <5 <5 <5 15 <5 <5 <5 21 33 21 54 Part-time 39 7 <5 <5 14 <5 <5 <5 20 58 8 66

School of Education, Total 47 <5 8 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 29 35 64 Counseling Psychology, and Faculty

Pastoral Ministriescoldet Full-time 16 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 9 13 22

Part-time 31 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 20 22 42 School of Education, Counseling Psychology, and

Pastoral Ministriescoldet

School of Lawcoldet Total 78 <5 7 <5 9 <5 <5 <5 23 51 53 104 Faculty Full-time 51 <5 6 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 17 34 34 68 Part-time 27 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 17 19 36

Universitycoldet Total 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 8 Faculty Full-time <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Part-time 6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 8

Jesuit School of Theologycoldet Total 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 20 5 25 Faculty Full-time 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 <5 15 Part-time 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 <5 10

Reports Faculty Headcount by Sex/Ethnicity Excluding Full-Time Administrators

Description These reports summarize the distribution of faculty by College or School.

Years/Terms 2003-2004 through 2013-2014 /Fall only

Format Data are summarized by College or School, and for the entire University.

Definitions

Ethnicity - IPEDS Hispanic of any race: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community attachment. Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, including, for example,Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Two or more races: Individuals who select two or more races (other than Hispanic). It includes individuals whose ethnicity is mapped in PeopleSoft to a category of "multi ethnic". Race/ethnicity unknown: The category used to report individuals whose race and ethnicity are not known. Of Color: All groups above except White and Race/Ethnicity unknown. SCU calculated category.

Methods of reporting race/ethnicity: SCU Ethnic: Prior to the introduction of the new race ethnicity data collection mandated by the U.S. Department of Education (see below), Santa Clara assigned a single race/ethnic category using a rule set commonly referred to as the "Santa Clara Rules". Under the Santa Clara rules, there is no "Two or more races" category, and applicants or students who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories were assigned to a single category in rank order: Black Non- Hispanic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White. This rule set continues to be used at Santa Clara for internal planning and decision-making and is maintained in the Institutional Research Data Mart. IPEDS Ethnicity: In Oct 2007, the Federal Register published Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education, which mandated changes in both the collection and reporting of race/ethnic data for all campus populations (undergraduates, graduates, staff, and faculty). Under this guidance, the requirements for collection are distinct from those for reporting. In particular, educational institutions are required to collect racial and ethnic data using a two-part question, which permits respondents to identify with multiple race/ethnic categories, yet must report data to the Dept. of Ed. (IPEDS) such that individuals are assigned to a single race/ethnic category. This method of collecting race/ethnicity data, commonly referred to as “IPEDS Ethnicity” became mandatory for higher educational institutions in 2010. The first question is whether the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question is whether the respondent is from one or more races using the following five racial groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents are not to be offered the choice of selecting a ‘‘Two or more races’’ category. IPEDS "trumping rules" require that all persons who identify as Hispanic or Latino be reported as Hispanic or Latino independent of any other race

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_IPEDS_Ethnicities_1.4 1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:51:37 AM Western Association of Schools and Colleges Interim Report Appendices for Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence Appendix F Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and Sex Excluding Full-time Administrators IPEDS Ethnicities self-identification. Those who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino but select two or more race categories are reported as "Two or more races", otherwise persons are reported in the single race/ethnic category provided as a response. IPEDS "trumping rules" are applied to all data available in the university system of record, PeopleSoft. This includes data for individuals who identified with multiple race/ethnic categories prior to the mandatory collection requirement of 2010.

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY - INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH - Faculty_HC_EthnSex_ExclAdm_IPEDS_Ethnicities_1.4 1.4 Mar 11, 2014 10:51:37 AM Appendix G Principles Guiding the Assessment of Student Learning at Santa Clara University Endorsed by the University Assessment Committee 5/15/12

Santa Clara University aspires to provide its students with an outstanding education informed and enriched by the Jesuit tradition. To help realize that aspiration Santa Clara actively encourages all of its units—academic and co-curricular—to evaluate the efficacy of their efforts in order to systematically improve their programs. The primary purpose of these ongoing inquiries or assessments of student learning is to provide information that can be used to enhance or make improvements in programs. The important auxiliary use of assessment findings is to demonstrate to external stakeholders that the university is successfully meeting its educational goals.

Assessment of student learning outcomes occurs both in the academic units and co-curricular units on campus. This assessment includes:

1. Determining the scope and appropriateness of student learning outcomes that reflect standards from their field of study. 2. Assessing level of success in achieving outcomes guided by the mission and strategic priorities of the university.

Within academic departments or programs, the faculty have the primary responsibility for the development, implementation, and ongoing use of academic assessment activities within their departments or programs. Similarly, learning outcomes within co-curricular programs are guided by relevant norms or standards within higher education, and the university mission and strategic plan.

In the best of cases, assessment activities have educational value for the students, contributing to student learning as well as providing a reflection of their learning. The observations and measurements used to demonstrate achievement of student learning outcomes should go beyond self-evaluation by students of their own educational experiences or learning and—in the case of academic departments or programs— course grades, to demonstrate student mastery of or application of knowledge and competencies.

Support for assessment activities is provided through many offices on campus. The purposes of the University Assessment Committee are to collaborate with the Office of Assessment to provide periodic peer review of department or program assessment activities, provide opportunities to discuss varying approaches to assessment, and offer recommendations to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Vice Provost for Student Life in support of meaningful and sustainable approaches to assessment on campus.

Santa Clara University recognizes that developing and sustaining a thoughtful and effective assessment program takes time and that this process includes learning from our efforts—not just about student learning, but the very process of assessment as a form of inquiry. We are committed to building assessment practices that answer the questions about student learning the faculty and other program directors deem most important, while being mindful of the time, energy, and financial resources required to undertake assessment activity. Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

May 9, 2011

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW 2011-12

Table of Contents

Sec. 1 Introduction 1

Sec. 2 Eight-Year Program Review Cycle 6 Sec. 3 Two-Year Self Study Schedule 9 Sec. 4 Guidelines for Self Study Report 12 Sec. 5 Guidelines for Visiting Teams 18 Sec. 6 Guidelines for Revised Action Plan 21 Sec. 7 Guidelines for Integration of Program Review into Planning 22

Appendix A Data Provided by the Office of Institutional Research 23 Appendix B Strategies for Departments Undertaking Self Studies 25 Appendix C Broader Context of Assessment and Program Review 28 Appendix D Summary of 2011 Strategic Plan 36

Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW 2011-12

SECTION I INTRODUCTION

“The University pursues its vision by creating an academic community that educates the whole person within the Jesuit, Catholic tradition, making student learning our central focus, continuously improving our curriculum and co- curriculum, strengthening our scholarship and creative work, and serving the communities of which we are a part in Silicon Valley and around the world.” -- Santa Clara University Mission

OVERVIEW OF PROCESS

As part of its commitment to academic excellence as a Catholic and Jesuit university, Santa Clara University supports an ongoing process of program improvement. Every academic unit participates in an annual assessment of student learning and a comprehensive self study or program review once every eight years, unless professional accreditation schedules require more frequent review. (See Section 2: Eight-Year Program Review Cycle.)

The comprehensive self study conducted by each program culminates in a self study report and an action plan focused on self improvement. (See Section 4: Guidelines for Self Study Report.) The self study report is reviewed with the Dean, who offers feedback to the program, and is then sent to an external visiting team. After a campus visit, the external visiting team submits an independent report to the program, the Dean's Office, and the Provost's Office. (See Section 5: Guidelines for Visiting Teams.)

The self study typically begins at the start of a designated fall term and is completed by the end of the following academic year. An orientation is held during the spring quarter prior to the fall term. (See Section 3: Two-Year Program Review Schedule.)

The program then discusses the visiting team report and submits a brief follow-up report to the Dean and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. (See Section 6: Guidelines for Revised Action Plan.)

1 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

The self study concludes after the program revises its action plan in light of feedback from the external reviewers and the Dean and/or Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

The program meets with the Dean and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to discuss the Revised Action Plan and the next steps to enhance academic quality. (See Section 7: Guidelines for the Integration of Program Review into Planning).

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM REVIEW

The purpose of program review at Santa Clara University is to provide a regular opportunity for programs to engage in systematic self-examination in order to improve their educational effectiveness.

Several core principles guide Santa Clara’s program review process:

Program review is intended to foster academic excellence in the context of Santa Clara’s mission as a Catholic and Jesuit university committed to education for competence, conscience, and compassion. In the words of the University’s Mission, “The University pursues its vision by creating an academic community that educates the whole person within the Jesuit, Catholic tradition, making student learning our central focus, continuously improving our curriculum and co- curriculum, strengthening our scholarship and creative work, and serving the communities of which we are a part in Silicon Valley and around the world.”

Program review is aimed at self-improvement. Its emphasis is on how individual programs can better realize their own aspirations for teaching, learning, and scholarship within a general framework of the University’s vision, mission, values and strategic goals as outlined in the Strategic Plan. Careful analysis and reporting of both strengths and weaknesses are essential for self-improvement. Programs are not punished for identifying weaknesses; they are supported for addressing them seriously.

While calling for serious attention to all aspects of a program, including scholarship, program review places a special emphasis on student learning. The University’s mission statement declares that Santa Clara “makes student learning its central focus.” If program review is to improve educational effectiveness, it must give particular attention to what students are actually learning. Therefore program review includes annual assessment of student learning.

Another important component of program review is the external perspective gained by learning about the best practices of similar programs and inviting feedback from peers at other institutions of higher education.

2 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Program review is designed as a snapshot of an ongoing process of organizational learning, assessment, and improvement that begins before the program self study is initiated and continues after it is completed.

EXCEPTIONS TO GUIDELINES

Programs may request exceptions to the official guidelines or calendar if such changes would be conducive to a more effective program review. Such exceptions must be approved in writing by the Dean in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVE SELF STUDY REPORTS

The following criteria will be used in determining whether or not a program self study has been successful:

1. The program follows the guidelines provided in this document unless alternatives have been approved in advance by the Dean in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

2. The self study process reflects broad participation by program faculty in defining issues, analyzing evidence, and formulating plans.

3. The self study is consciously designed to provide insights the program can use for self- improvement within the resources available to it.

4. The recommendations in the Self Study Report are based on analysis of relevant quantitative and qualitative evidence, with special attention to evidence about student learning.

5. The Self Study Report exhibits rigor and candor in evaluating strengths and weaknesses of the program.

6. The program responds to the self study with actions designed to improve educational effectiveness.

7. All participants in the process, including the Dean’s Office and the Provost’s Office, act with an understanding that the primary purpose of program review is to stimulate improvement by the program itself within the broad framework of goals set by the University and the relevant College or School.

3 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

RETENTION OF PROGRAM REVIEW MATERIALS

Programs must retain documentation relating to program review in a systematic and retrievable fashion for at least eight years. Such documentation includes at minimum the annual reports of assessment of student learning, materials related to their ongoing assessment of student learning outcomes, the Self Study Report, the Visiting Team Report, the Revised Action Plan, other reports generated or used in the self study, and any pertinent correspondence.

The Annual Assessment Report is described in Guidelines for Assessment of Learning Outcomes, which specifies that programs must retain a representative sample of student work products assessed by the program and questionnaires, rubrics, and other instruments used to supplement the annual reports of individual assessments conducted.

These materials are important for planning purposes, future self studies, and accreditation processes. Accreditation visiting teams will expect these materials to be available for scrutiny.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES

The program is responsible for following all guidelines presented in this document, unless exceptions have been approved in advance by the Dean; for acting upon the program review to make improvements in its educational effectiveness; and for retaining all relevant materials as described above.

The Dean is responsible for offering timely feedback on documents submitted by the program, consulting with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs as indicated, and providing adequate support for the program to conduct its self study. The Dean is also responsible for working with programs to ensure the integration of the program review into planning and budgeting during the years following the self study.

The Vice Provost for Academic Affairs is responsible for working with the Dean to provide feedback and support to the program, as well as for overseeing the program review process in general at the University level.

The Academic Affairs Committee is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the program review process in general and recommending changes to improve the process.

4 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

BROADER CONTEXT OF PROGRAM REVIEW

Program review is required by the University’s accrediting agencies and mandated by its Board of Trustees and Strategic Plan. The current process grew out of recommendations of the 1996 faculty Task Force on Academic Program Review. The guidelines are updated regularly.

For additional information, see Appendix C: Broader Context of Assessment and Program Review and Appendix D: Strategic Plan Summary.

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

For further information or advice about program review, programs should consult with their Dean or one of the following:

Diane Jonte-Pace Vice Provost for Academic Affairs [email protected] 204A Walsh Administration Building (408) 554-4751

The Director of the Office of Assessment is also available to provide advice and technical assistance on all aspects of the assessment of student learning outcomes, which is an integral part of the program review process.

Christine Bachen, Interim Director, Office of Assessment, 2011-12 [email protected] Communication Department, Arts & Sciences Building 227 (408) 554-4921

Office of Assessment Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.scu.edu/provost/assessment/

The Director of the Office of Institutional Research provides data to support the program review process and can assist programs with data analysis.

Barbara Stewart, Director, Office of Institutional Research [email protected] Walsh Administration Building, Lower Level

5 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 2 EIGHT-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW CYCLE

Each academic program engages in a formal review every eight years unless professional accreditation cycles require more frequent reviews. Related disciplines usually undertake program review on the same cycle. The schedule is subject to change with approval from the Provost. Program reviews are scheduled as follows:

YEAR Review Participating Programs Begins

- 2010 Reflections on program review process, updating of guidelines

College of Arts and Sciences, Pastoral Ministries

School of Engineering: Undergraduate Engineering Programs: Reflections on ABET review; updated action plan due Spring 2011.

1 Fall 2011 College of Arts and Sciences, Humanities: Classics, English, History, Philosophy, Religious Studies

Leavey School of Business: MBA Accelerated and Evening Programs

2 Fall 2012 College of Arts and Sciences, Mathematics and Natural Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics and Computer Science, Physics, Modern Languages and Literatures

Leavey School of Business: Finance

3 Fall 2013 College of Arts and Sciences, Social Sciences: Anthropology, Communication, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology

Leavey School of Business: Economics, MSIS

Jesuit School of Theology: Degrees in STL and STD

Law School: Aligned with School-wide ABA accreditation

6 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

4 Fall 2014 College of Arts and Sciences, Creative and Performing Arts: Art and Art History, Music, Theater and Dance

Leavey School of Business: Marketing, Executive MBA

5 Fall 2015 College of Arts and Sciences, Non-Departmental Programs: Ethnic Studies, Environmental Science, Environmental Studies, Liberal Studies, Public Health Program, Women’s and Gender Studies

Leavey School of Business: Accounting

6 Fall 2016 Leavey School of Business: Operations Management and Information Systems, Management

School of Engineering: Undergraduate Programs in Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. Mechanical Engineering: supplementary to ABET accreditation. Open University Certificate, Graduate Engineering, and Bio-Engineering. B.S. in Web Design, Computer Science in Engineering, Software Engineering. Non-Departmental Graduate and Undergraduate Programs in Engineering

Undergraduate Core curriculum: Meta-review

7 Fall 2017 College of Arts and Sciences: college-wide reflection on program review process

Leavey School of Business: non-departmental programs

School of Engineering: Full program review for Graduate Programs in Applied Mathematics, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Engineering Management and Leadership, Mechanical Engineering

School of Education and Counseling Psychology: Department of Counseling Psychology; Department of Education (or aligned with earlier CTC accreditation schedule).

Jesuit School of Theology: Master of Divinity, Master of Theological Studies, and Master of Theology

8 Fall 2018 Reflections on program review process; revision of guidelines as needed

9 (1) Fall 2019 Cycle begins again

7 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Professional Accreditation Schedules

Education: The Department of Education’s program review will be aligned with the accreditation schedule of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC).

School of Engineering: The undergraduate program reviews in the School of Engineering will be aligned with the ABET accreditation scheduled for 2016.

Jesuit School of Theology: The program reviews of the Master of Divinity, Master of Theological Studies, and Master of Theology in the Jesuit School of Theology will be aligned with the accreditation cycle of the Association of Theological Studies (ATS).

Law: The program review for the Law School will be aligned with the ABA accreditation scheduled for 2014-15.

Leavey School of Business: Program reviews for the Leavey School of Business will be aligned, when possible, with the AACSB accreditation cycle.

8 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 3 TWO-YEAR SELF STUDY SCHEDULE

The comprehensive self study process begins in fall term and typically ends no later than spring of the following academic year. Specific dates in the process are set by the appropriate Dean in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the programs involved. An orientation is held during the spring quarter prior to the fall term of Year 1. Unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, program self studies include the steps listed below, which are completed sequentially.

SPRING QUARTER PRIOR TO YEAR 1

ORIENTATION: An orientation is held during the spring quarter prior to the fall term when the program initiates the self study. Deans, chairs of the programs scheduled for self studies, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, and the Director of Institutional Research (IR) attend the meeting. The orientation provides an overview of the scope and content of the process and a review of the data supplied to the program by IR. See Appendix A, Data Provided by the Office of Institutional Research. Exemplary Self Study Reports from previous cycles will be available to programs initiating program review.

YEAR 1: FALL

1. The program resolves any questions about the scope and content of the process as early as possible with the Dean in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

2. The program designs its self study so as to be able to complete its Self Study Report by winter quarter of year 2. (See Section 4: Guidelines for Self Study Report.)

3. The program begins its self study. A brief written or verbal update describing progress on the self study is communicated to the Dean by December 15. The Dean provides timely advice and feedback.

YEAR 1: WINTER

1. The program continues its self study. A brief written or verbal update describing progress on the self study is communicated to the Dean by March 15. The Dean provides timely advice and feedback.

YEAR 1: SPRING

9 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

2. The program continues its self study. A brief written or verbal update describing progress on the self study is communicated to the Dean by June 15. The Dean provides timely advice and feedback.

YEAR 2: FALL

1. The program and the Dean identify suitable external reviewers who will review the Self Study Report, visit the campus, and make appropriate recommendations. (See Section 5: Guidelines for Visiting Teams.)

2. The program invites two external reviewers approved by the Dean to serve on the visiting team. (See Section 5: Guidelines for Visiting Teams.)

YEAR 2: WINTER

1. The program submits its draft Self Study Report to the Dean and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs by January 15. (See Section 4: Guidelines for Self Study Report.)

2. The Dean in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs provides feedback on the Self Study Report to the program.

3. The program makes any necessary revisions of the Self Study Report and sends it, along with supporting materials, to the external reviewers, the Dean, and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs at least three weeks before the external reviewers visit the campus.

4. The visiting team conducts a campus visit and submits a report with findings and recommendations to the program. (See Section 5: Guidelines for Visiting Teams.)

YEAR 2: SPRING

1. The program discusses the Visiting Team Report and decides how to respond It submits a Revised Action Plan to the Dean and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs by April 15. This document is a revision of the Action Plan section of the Self Study Report. (See Section 6: Guidelines for Revised Action Plan.)

2. The Dean, in consultation with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, provides feedback on the Revised Action Plan and approves it after any necessary revisions.

10 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

3. The program implements the next steps in program improvement with assistance, as appropriate, from the Dean.

FALL QUARTER FOLLOWING YEAR 2, AND EACH SUBSEQUENT FALL QUARTER

FOLLOW-UP: The program continues implementing the recommendations in the Revised Action Plan, with assistance, as appropriate, from the Dean. (See Section 7, Guidelines for the Integration of Program Review into Planning).

11 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 4 GUIDELINES FOR SELF STUDY REPORT

The Self Study Report is the centerpiece of program review. This document should be no longer than 35 pages (plus required attachments and others as needed) and is to be submitted to the Dean with a copy to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty on continuing appointment are expected to review and discuss this document.

The Self Study Report must include the following sections:

INTRODUCTION

In no more than two paragraphs, present a succinct overview of your program and describe the self study process the program has conducted in preparation of this report.

MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES See the program’s recent Annual Assessment Reports for A, B, and C below.

A. Mission Statement Include the program’s current mission statement.

B. Student Learning Goals and Objectives Include the program’s current goals and objectives for student learning outcomes.

C. Other Program Goals and Objectives Include current goals and objectives related to curriculum and pedagogy, scholarship and creative work, and service.

D. Contribution to Mission and Goals of the University and College or School Discuss the contribution the program makes to the mission and goals of the University and the College or School, and, as appropriate, the ways the program contributes directly to the University Core Curriculum or advances Core learning goals; ways in which the program engages with the Residential Learning Communities, Centers of Distinction, or other centers or institutes; and ways in which the program responds to the priorities identified in the Strategic Plan, including diversity and inclusive excellence.1

1“Inclusive excellence” is the term used by the Association of American Colleges and Universities to describe efforts to integrate “diversity and educational quality efforts and embed them into the core of academic mission and institutional functioning.”

12 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

E. Reflection on Previous Program Review Discuss progress made in areas identified in the Revised Action Plan submitted in the previous program review, or in other areas.

EVALUATION OF PROGRAM QUALITY

This two-part section focuses on the underlying capacity of the program to achieve and sustain educational effectiveness. Most of the data for the first section (Program Capacity) will be provided by the Office of Institutional Research during the Orientation; data for the second section (Educational Effectiveness) will usually be provided by the department. The analysis of data related to program capacity should inform the discussion of educational effectiveness.

Program Capacity

Summary and analysis of data for each of the profiles listed below are fundamental to all academic planning. If possible, describe trend data. (See Appendix A, Data Provided by the Office of Institutional Research.)

A. Faculty Profile Briefly summarize and analyze the demographics, credentials, areas of expertise, and teaching loads of full-time and part-time faculty. Include CV’s of full-time faculty as an attachment.

B. Student Profile Briefly summarize and analyze the demographics, preparation, and general performance of majors and other students served by the program. Describe any significant enrollment trends.

C. Course Profile Briefly summarize and analyze the number of courses offered for the major, minor and Core, discussing, for instance, class sizes, the percentage of classes taught by full-time and part-time faculty, and other relevant course data for the past three years. Describe any significant trends.

D. Resource Profile Briefly summarize and analyze the budget, facilities, equipment, and computing and library resources available to the program. Describe significant trends.

13 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

E. General Discussion

Program Effectiveness

This section is the core of the self study and focuses on actual performance in achieving educational effectiveness.

A. Teaching, Learning, and Student Success i. Student Learning and Student Success Summarize and analyze how the program displays intentionality about its learning goals and objectives, including ways in which it makes these program-level goals and objectives known to students and understood by them. Present evidence of actual student learning. If the program contributes to the Core Curriculum, discuss the most recent Core Assessment Report with relevance to the program. (See the Core Assessment Reports at http://www.scu.edu/provost/assessment/core2009/assessmentreports.cfm.) Summarize and discuss data available to the program about alumni satisfaction, graduate program admission, employment after graduation, or other forms of student success.

This section should address program learning objectives and, if relevant, Core learning objectives, in an analytical and reflective manner. Include as attachments your current Assessment Plan (described in the separate document on Guidelines for Assessment of Learning Outcomes) as well as all reports of specific assessments the program has conducted in the past six years.

ii. Curriculum Include as an attachment the Curriculum Alignment Matrix described in the separate document on Guidelines for Assessment of Learning Outcomes. Include as attachments a list of all courses offered in each of the past three years; syllabi for required courses in the major; and syllabi for courses offered as part of the University Core Curriculum. Learning objectives should be included on all syllabi.

Reflecting on the Curriculum Alignment Matrix and the other attachments listed here, summarize and discuss the breadth and depth of the curriculum; its coherence and sequencing; its reflection of major areas and issues in the discipline; its contribution to University and College or School goals; its alignment with the program’s own goals and objectives for student learning; and its effectiveness in supporting the program’s goals and objectives for student learning.

iii. Pedagogy

14 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Summarize and analyze the kinds of pedagogy used within the program to foster expected learning outcomes; the teaching effectiveness of full-time and part-time faculty as reflected in student learning, course evaluations, annual performance reviews, and classroom observations; and grade distributions compared with those of similar programs.

B. Scholarship and Creative Work Summarize and analyze the scholarship or creative work of full-time faculty, noting areas of special research emphasis at the program level; the record of the program in obtaining external grants; the involvement of students in research or creative projects; the effectiveness of the program in fostering individual and collaborative scholarship; the extent to which the program reflects a “community of scholars”; and the extent to which scholarship in the program reflects the priorities in the University’ strategic plan.

C. Professional Service Summarize and analyze any notable contributions the program makes to the discipline or profession. Also summarize any notable contributions it makes to the community or the University by virtue of its distinctive disciplinary expertise including contributions to the University’s mission and strategic goals.

D. General Discussion Synthesize the analyses above, or provide additional information, as appropriate.

COMPARATIVE PROGRAMS

One of the most important steps to take toward program improvement is comparison with programs at other institutions deemed better in important ways. Program faculty should identify two or three issues or challenges faced by the program, and two or three aspirational programs, with the goal of determining what makes these programs better in relation to these issues. Communication with faculty in comparison or “aspirational” programs, and examination of data related to their programs, should contribute to thinking about how your program can accomplish desired improvements. The Dean or the Office of Institutional Research, upon request, can, assist departments in selecting appropriate programs for comparison.

A. Insights Based on Comparisons Describe salient features of the programs selected for comparison. Describe how the comparison programs responded to the issues, problems, or challenges selected for focus in your self study. Describe ways your program can and should improve educational effectiveness and academic excellence based on your comparative analysis.

15 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

B. Unique Features of Santa Clara Program Describe any unique features of your program that make it a model for other programs in the discipline.

SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Provide an overall evaluation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses and identify the three most critical issues facing the program.

PRELIMINARY ACTION PLAN

Based on your evaluation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, discuss where you want your program to go and what resources you need to get there. (Note: This section will be revised after the External Visitors’ Report has been received. See Section 6, Guidelines for Revised Action Plan.) This section should include:

A. Vision Statement Articulate a vision for your program that is both aspirational and achievable. This vision should guide the program in its improvement efforts over the next several years. It should be no more than three or four sentences.

B. Improvements Using Current Resources Describe specific actions the program is taking or will take to improve quality by building on identified strengths and correcting identified weaknesses. These actions might entail the addition, elimination, or refocusing of program priorities or activities. Explain how the program will deploy its existing resources to carry out this plan.

C. Improvements Requiring New Resources Describe improvements that are important to the program but that require additional resources. Explain how the program would obtain these resources and what help, if any, it would need from the University.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Clearly articulate several questions or concerns on which you would like guidance from the external visiting team and others responding to your self study.

REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS

16 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

A. Entry for program in Undergraduate Bulletin or relevant graduate bulletin B. CV’s of full-time faculty C. List of courses offered in each of the past three years D. Curriculum Alignment Matrix E. Syllabi for required courses in major F. Syllabi for courses offered as part of University Core Curriculum G. Assessment Plan H. Reports on assessment of student learning outcomes

17 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 5 GUIDELINES FOR VISITING TEAMS

SELECTION OF VISITING TEAM

The visiting team will consist of two external reviewers selected jointly by the program and the Dean.

Reviewers may be faculty at other institutions or practitioners in the field. Every visiting team should include at least one faculty member.

In selecting members of visiting teams, programs and deans should look for persons of recognized accomplishment in the discipline or field who can provide honest, objective, and useful advice to the program. Reviewers should ideally have some experience with assessment of learning outcomes. Faculty members on visiting teams should ordinarily come from programs of equal or higher quality than the one they are asked to review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest in participating in the review. Individuals asked to participate are expected to decline to serve in the evaluation of the program if they have, or if it might reasonably appear that they have, a conflict of interest.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM

In cooperation with the Dean, the program engaging in the review is responsible for:

● Arranging the schedule for the visiting team at least four weeks prior to the visit.

● Providing the visiting team with the following materials at least three weeks prior to the visit: logistical arrangements; schedule of visit; Self Study Report; applicable Guidelines for Academic Program Review; and any other supporting material the program deems appropriate.

● Making arrangements for transportation, lodging, and meals as needed.

● Providing meeting space for the visiting team, including access to computers and a printer.

● Making a representative sample of student work available for review by the visiting team.

18 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

EXPECTATIONS OF VISITING TEAM

The visiting team is expected to:

● Review the Self Study Report and all supporting materials carefully.

● Conduct a two-day site visit, which includes a tour of facilities and interviews with faculty, students, and administrators.

● Review examples of student work.

● Provide honest and objective advice to the program, the Dean, and the Provost about the quality of the Self Study Report and self study process, strengths and weaknesses of the program, adequacy of assessment activities, and opportunities for program improvement.

● Submit a final written report to the program, the Dean, and the Provost within three weeks of the campus visit.

CAMPUS VISIT SCHEDULE

The first meeting on Day One should be with the Dean and the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The purpose of this 45-minute meeting is to orient the team, discuss the purpose and structure of the visit and the program review process in general, and respond to any needs the team has.

If possible, the team should meet with tenured faculty individually. It may meet with other faculty either individually or in groups as appropriate.

A meeting with students should be scheduled at a time most convenient to students. Separate meetings should be scheduled for undergraduate and graduate students as appropriate to the program being reviewed.

Meetings with faculty or administrators from other Santa Clara programs are strongly recommended when relevant.

Meetings with staff are appropriate but are ordinarily a lower priority than meetings with faculty and students as described above.

19 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Facilities tours should be kept sufficiently brief so as not to displace time for meetings with faculty and students.

The visiting team should be provided with sufficient private time to discuss its observations and draft its report. It is generally best to let the team dine alone at dinner on Day One and at lunch on Day Two. The team should have three hours (including lunch) to begin drafting its findings and recommendations on the afternoon of Day Two before its last two scheduled meetings.

The penultimate meeting on Day Two should be with the Chair and tenured faculty of the program. The purpose of this meeting is for the visiting team to discuss its findings and recommendations with the faculty. At their discretion, the tenured faculty may invite others to participate in this meeting.

The final meeting on Day Two should be with the Provost, Dean, and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The purpose of this 60-minute meeting is for the visiting team to inform these administrators of its findings and recommendations. Only in very rare circumstances should the team raise issues that it has not already shared with the chair and tenured faculty of the program.

The visiting team ordinarily does not submit a written report during the campus visit. This report should be completed within three weeks of the visit.

20 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 6 GUIDELINES FOR REVISED ACTION PLAN

The Revised Action Plan is the program’s response to the internal and external feedback it has received during the program review process. In this document, the program should comment on this feedback, update its Preliminary Action Plan (See Section 4, Guidelines for the Self Study Report) as appropriate, identify the next steps it will take to promote program improvement, provide a timetable for these steps, and identify issues that require further discussion within the program or between the program and the Dean’s Office. This document should be no more than five pages.

To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty on continuing appointment should review and discuss this document.

21 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

SECTION 7 GUIDELINES FOR INTEGRATION OF PROGRAM REVIEW INTO PLANNING

To ensure that program reviews result in the enhancement of academic quality, the program learning and institutional learning resulting from program review should be integrated into future planning.

● Recommendations in Revised Action Plans may take more than one year to implement. Each year following the program review, the program chair will consult with the Dean on progress toward implementation of the recommendations in the Revised Action Plan. Deans will provide support as appropriate.

● To ensure that the insights in the self study are integrated into future planning and that the insights are not forgotten, Deans will engage in discussions with new chairs focusing on the program’s Revised Action Plan and progress made toward implementation of the Plan.

● Requests for new faculty positions, facilities, equipment, or resources should draw upon the recommendations and evidence presented in the most recent Self Study Report.

● Plans for significant changes in curriculum or structure emerging from the self study may require approval by the Academic Affairs Committee. (See “Approval of Academic Program Changes,” on the Provost’s website, http://www.scu.edu/provost/Policies- and-Procedures.cfm. )

● Reflections on the program review process After completing a review, program leaders will provide feedback on the process to the Dean and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The Guidelines will be updated as needed.

22 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

APPENDIX A

DATA PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

The following data are provided by the Office of Institutional Research to support the evaluation of program quality:

Faculty Data ● Faculty Headcount by Sex/Ethnicity/Program/Department Including Full-time Administrators ● Faculty Headcount by Sex/Ethnicity/Program/Department Excluding Full-time Administrators ● Faculty Headcount and FTE by Program/Department by Instructor Categories Including Full-Time Administrators ● Faculty Headcount and FTE by Program/Department by Instructor Categories Excluding Full-Time Administrators ● Faculty Headcount and FTE by Program/Department Including Full-Time Administrators ● Faculty Headcount and FTE by Program/Department Excluding Full-Time Administrators Student Data ● Enrollment ○ Undergraduate Students by Major – Fall Terms ○ Undergraduate Students by Major, Ethnicity & Sex - Fall Terms ○ Graduate & Law Students by Major – Fall Terms ○ Graduate & Law Students by Major, Ethnicity & Sex – Fall Terms ○ Student Headcount/FTE by Career and Major—Fall Term ● Completions (Degrees Conferred) ○ Undergraduate Level – Degrees Conferred with Honors by Academic Year with Leading Summers; Population : Entered as First-time, Full-time Freshmen ○ Undergraduate Level – Degrees Conferred with Honors by Academic Year with Leading Summers; Population : Entered as Transfer Students ○ Graduate Degrees Conferred with Honors by Academic Year with Leading Summers ○ Undergraduate Degrees Conferred by Ethnicity and Sex by Academic Year with Leading Summers ○ Graduate Degrees, Certificates and Credentials Completed by Ethnicity and Sex by Academic Year with Leading Summers ○ Undergraduate Level – Average GPA and Units Earned at Degree Completion; Population: Entered as First-time, Full-time Freshmen

23 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

○ Undergraduate Level – Average GPA and Units Earned at Degree Completion; Population: Entered as Transfer Students ○ Graduate Level – Average GPA and Units Earned at Degree Completion ○ Undergraduate Degrees--Average High School GPA and SAT Scores; Population : First-Time Freshmen by Academic Year with Leading Summers ● Undergraduate Alumni: Selected Results of the Survey of Recent Graduates Course Data ● Class Size ● Classes Taught by Faculty Type

24 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

APPENDIX B

STRATEGIES FOR DEPARTMENTS UNDERTAKING SELF STUDIES

This Appendix provides suggested strategies and recommended procedures that may be useful to departments undertaking self studies.

As noted in Section 1 of the Program Review Guidelines, academic program review at Santa Clara University provides regular opportunities for faculty to engage in structured dialogue and examination of academic programs with the goal of improving educational effectiveness and assuring academic excellence. Program self studies serve multiple purposes. They support institutional improvement; they help the institution demonstrate program quality to accrediting agencies; and they clarify ways faculty can contribute to continuous enhancement of the program.

Every academic program engages in annual assessment of student learning and conducts a formal self study on a regular cycle. The cycle of program review provides systematic and continuous means for faculty to evaluate their programs by analyzing and evaluating various kinds of data that serve as measures of quality, and by engaging in on-going discussion of the findings. The self study takes place over a period of two years and culminates in a formal report, a visit by external reviewers, and an action plan based on the self study and recommendations from external reviewers.

Section 3 of the Program Review Guidelines provides the schedule for the program’s self study, which begins with an orientation the spring quarter prior to year 1. Prior to the orientation session, faculty who will provide leadership during the self study are appointed. This group reviews findings and recommendations from the previous self study report(s) and recent annual reports on assessment of student learning. All full-time faculty on continuing appointments are expected to participate in the self study, discuss drafts of the report, and contribute to its revision.

At the orientation session, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Deans, and Director of Institutional Research (IR) provide an overview of the scope and content of the process and review the data provided to the program by IR. Program leaders should begin to identify issues remaining from the previous action plan, questions the data from IR will help the program faculty answer, and additional questions relevant to program aspirations for improvement.

The self study should be meaningful to the program and manageable for participants. The following questions may help program faculty identify issues or questions to investigate during

25 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

the self study. These questions are intended to assist programs in developing the self study. Programs are not required to answer all the questions below.

Suggested questions

● What would enhance student learning? Are students achieving the desired learning outcomes for the program? Are they achieving those outcomes at the expected level, and how is that expected level determined? Are they graduating in a timely fashion? Are they well prepared for advanced study, the world of work, and civic responsibility?

● What changes would enhance the curriculum? For example, how responsive is the program curriculum to changes in the discipline and needs of students? Does it offer sufficient breadth and depth of learning for the degree(s), minor(s), and concentrations offered by the program? Does the curriculum provide appropriate scaffolding and/or sequencing for required courses? Are the courses students need to complete for the degree(s), minor(s), and concentration(s) reliably available when students need to take them? How well does the curriculum align with student learning objectives for the major and for the Core Curriculum. What effects, if any, do program commitments to teaching courses in the Core Curriculum have on the curriculum for the major and minor? How does the curriculum compare to those at other institutions? Does the curriculum reflect the value the University places on diversity and inclusive excellence? Does the curriculum address student need to increase information literacy?

● What changes would enhance pedagogy in the program? How effective are the pedagogies characteristic of the teaching in the program? Are appropriate technologies used to enhance teaching and support learning?

● Is there a need to enhance the student profile of the program? What is the profile of the students in the program and how does the profile relate to or enhance the mission and goals of the program? Do students in the program reflect the diversity and inclusive excellence valued by the University? Are there changes in student enrollment trends in the program over the last 6-8 years? Do enrollment changes suggest the need for adjustments in curriculum or pedagogy?

● Would benefits accrue from enhancing relationships with alumni of the program? What is the profile of alumni in the program? What could alumni contribute to student learning in the program?

● What would enhance the faculty profile of the program? What are the qualifications and achievements of the faculty in the program in relation to the program mission and goals?

26 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

How do faculty members’ background, expertise, research, and other professional work contribute to the quality of the program? Do faculty in the program reflect the diversity and inclusive excellence valued by the University?

● What disciplinary issues, problems, or challenges should the program address in order to improve educational effectiveness and academic quality?

● What would enhance program viability and sustainability? Is the program viable and sustainable? Is the faculty sufficient to maintain and improve program quality? Is appropriate advising and tutoring support available for student success? Are information and technology resources adequate for teaching, learning, and scholarship in the program? Are classroom facilities appropriate for program instruction? Are offices appropriate for faculty and staff? Do students have access to appropriate study spaces? Is the staff sufficient to support teaching, learning, and scholarship? Is the operational budget appropriate for the program?

Reminder: the questions above are not required. They are suggestions developed to assist programs undertaking self studies.

27 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

APPENDIX C

BROADER CONTEXT OF ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM REVIEW

Although program review and the assessment of student learning objectives are separate processes, they are closely related. Assessment of student learning is an integral part of program review.

Both assessment and program review benefit the students, the faculty, and the University as a whole. Assessment supports deep learning and excellent teaching. Program review supports program improvement and academic excellence. In addition, both assessment and program review fall under a broadly consistent mandate from the University and external agencies.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The University’s mission statement, as it appeared in the University’s 1996 Strategic Plan, described Santa Clara as an institution that “makes student learning its central focus, promotes faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning as it deals with the challenges facing it.” Building on this general commitment, the Strategic Plan (as revised in 2001) articulated two specific goals:

Initiate program review to promote overall quality and consistency with the vision, mission, and values of the University. [3.E.1.]

Assess learning outcomes and use performance indicators to improve educational quality and administrative effectiveness. [3.E.3.]

These goals are consistent with the 1996 recommendations of the faculty Task Force on Academic Program Review, which noted:

Program planning and review systematizes the process by which the interrelated activities of learning, scholarship and service are continuously observed and improved.....Preparing planning reports provides the program with an opportunity to think about where they are, where they want to go and how to get there. To know where they are, the programs need to develop methods to measure learning outcomes, scholarly production, and service. Instead of assuming they are doing a good job (a culture of self-evidence), programs need to demonstrate that they are doing a good job (a culture of evidence).

28 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

Santa Clara’s stated commitment to program review and assessment mirrors a strong external mandate. The U.S. Department of Education requires that all institutions receiving federal funds engage in assessment of learning outcomes, leaving it up to regional accrediting agencies to assure compliance. Santa Clara’s regional accrediting agency, WASC, as well as its professional school accrediting agencies such as AACSB, ABA, ABET and CTC, have all placed increasing emphasis on assessment of learning outcomes as an accreditation requirement.

Santa Clara’s 1999 Self Study for Reaffirmation of Accreditation by WASC made several recommendations approved by the University Planning Council, including:

● Provide the expertise needed to support assessment of learning outcomes with more use of objective, longitudinal, and comparative data.

● Implement a more systematic process of assessment-based review of academic majors and co-curricular programs that allows for local experimentation guided by identified learning outcomes.

In response to these recommendations and its own findings, the WASC visiting team recommended in 2000 that Santa Clara “link teaching and learning with a systematic, multi-year faculty development plan for assessment support,” “clarify administrative accountability for institutional assessment of student learning and educational effectiveness,” and “move quickly in implementing a systematic approach to program review.” More specifically, the visiting team stated that “[I]ncreased resource allocation for learning assessment should be included in budget planning.”

The subsequent Action Letter issued by the WASC Commission identified five areas of specific concern. Two of these areas were assessment and program review. The WASC Commission endorsed the recommendations of the visiting team and noted that “A broad and sustainable infrastructure is needed for the assessment of quality and student learning at the program level. Such processes and structures are vital to assure program currency and quality, and can be an important way to engage faculty in determining how well program learning objectives are achieved.”

At its February 2000 meeting, Santa Clara’s Board of Trustees approved a resolution calling on the University “to adopt a more systematic approach to program review that is centered on the goal of ‘educating for competence, conscience, and compassion.’ This approach should be based on assessment of learning outcomes distinctive to a Santa Clara education, place the focus on academic and co-curricular programs as learning programs, and support strengthening the connection between the evaluation of teaching and the assessment of learning.”

29 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

In 2010, in response to the University’s Capacity and Preparatory Review for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, the WASC Commission letter commended Santa Clara for “building a robust structure for assessment of student learning and developing an enhanced process for program review.” And in 2011, after a site visit focused on Educational Effectiveness, the WASC visiting team encouraged the university to make program reviews more consistent across academic units and to ensure closer attention to the assessment of student learning as an essential part of the review.

Santa Clara’s Strategic Plan approved in February 2011 reiterated the University’s commitment to assessment and program review, stating, “to strengthen our academic community, we will…advance our ability to assess student learning and programs in ways that are manageable and used systematically to improve learning in the curriculum and co-curriculum.” (5.D)

CURRENT WASC FRAMEWORK

Since Santa Clara’s WASC visit in 1999, WASC has revised its accreditation standards. In the revision adopted in February 2008, WASC places even greater emphasis on the importance of assessment and program review as tools for increasing educational effectiveness. The following framework appears in the WASC Core Commitments and Standards (www.wascsenior.org) as a context for applying the specific standards of accreditation:

The institutions accredited by WASC represent a remarkable range of diversity in terms of mission, size, and relative maturity. They are bound together, however, by a common pair of commitments – to institutional capacity and to educational effectiveness. The WASC process begins by asking institutions to ground their efforts in these two commitments. In this way, each institution connects more closely to its own distinctive character and to its responsibilities to its stakeholders. By reaffirming these core commitments, the institution more fully owns both the process and the outcomes from an accreditation review.

Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity:

The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.

The Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity enables the institution to consider resource issues from a holistic perspective, and to consider capacity as an institutional attribute beyond minimum compliance and a review of assets. Looking at itself through a “lens” of institutional capacity enables the institution to reexamine what it is in terms of its capacity to fulfill its aspirations, and to integrate and synthesize findings and recommendations for improvement gained through its self-review under Commission Standards. While the Standards provide an opportunity to review institutional performance within a defined area, the

30 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

framework of institutional capacity allows an institution to explore cross-cutting issues such as whether resources, structures and processes are aligned with the institution’s mission and priorities, and whether the institution has the capacity to measure, interpret, and use evidence about its effectiveness. An important dimension of institutional capacity is the institution’s readiness to define and sustain educational effectiveness. This dimension is reflected in the review cycle by the name assigned to the first review, the Capacity and Preparatory Review.

Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness:

The institution evidences clear and appropriate educational objectives and design at the institutional and program level. The institution employs processes of review, including the collection and use of data, which ensure delivery of programs and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree or certificate awarded.

The Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness provides an opportunity for the institution to explore holistically its approaches to educational effectiveness. The institution assesses whether its systems, such as course and program design, faculty support, and program review, are effectively linked to evidence of student learning and are consistent with the educational goals and academic standards of the institution. By design, elements of educational effectiveness were incorporated into all four Commission Standards, so that institutions would explore the relationships between capacity and educational quality and effectiveness. Each of the four Accreditation Standards describes key elements of educational effectiveness.

To help institutions and others interpret and apply the Core Commitments to Institutional Capacity and to Educational Effectiveness, the Commission has defined Standards for Accreditation (www.wascsenior.org). These Standards are intended to serve several purposes:

● To guide institutions in self-review as a basis for assessing institutional performance, and to identify needed areas of improvement

● To provide a framework for institutional presentations to the Commission and review teams

● To serve as the basis for judgment by evaluation teams in the institutional review process — for the Capacity and Preparatory Review in addressing the Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity and for the Educational Effectiveness Review in addressing the Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness

31 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

● To provide a foundation for Commission actions and the basis for required institutional follow up to such actions

● To assist those involved in the accrediting process, in higher education generally, and members of the public, in defining institutional quality and educational effectiveness, and in promoting the development and sharing of practices leading to the improvement of quality.

The following excerpts from the WASC standards illustrate its expectation that all accredited institutions must have effective systems of assessment and program review in place.

Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives

The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with its purposes and character. It has a clear and conscious sense of its essential values and character, its distinctive elements, its place in the higher education community, and its relationship to society at large. Through its purposes and educational objectives, the institution dedicates itself to higher learning, the search for truth, and the dissemination of knowledge. The institution functions with integrity and autonomy.

1.2. Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program, and course levels. The institution has a system of measuring student achievement, in terms of retention, completion, and student learning. The institution makes public data on student achievement at the institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the institution.

Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions The institution achieves its institutional purposes and attains its educational objectives through the core functions of teaching and learning, scholarship and creative activity, and support for student learning and success. It demonstrates that these core functions are performed effectively and that they support one another in the institution’s efforts to attain educational effectiveness.

2.2. All degrees—undergraduate and graduate—awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry- level requirements and in terms of levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits.

32 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

2.2a. Baccalaureate programs engage students in an integrated course of study of sufficient breadth and depth to prepare them for work, citizenship, and a fulfilling life. These programs also ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies including, but not limited to, college- level written and oral communication; college-level quantitative skills; information literacy; and the habit of critical analysis of data and argument. In addition, baccalaureate programs actively foster an understanding of diversity; civic responsibility; the ability to work with others; and the capability to engage in learning. Baccalaureate programs also ensure breadth for all students in the areas of cultural and aesthetic, social and political, as well as scientific and technical knowledge expected of educated persons in this society. Finally, students are required to engage in an in-depth, focused, and sustained program of study as part of their baccalaureate programs.

2.2b. Graduate programs are consistent with the purpose and character of their institutions; are in keeping with the expectations of their respective disciplines and professions; and are described through nomenclature that is appropriate to the several levels of graduate and professional degrees offered. Graduate curricula are visibly structured to include active involvement with the literature of the field and ongoing student engagement in research and/or appropriate high-level professional practice and training experiences. Additionally, admission criteria to graduate programs normally include a baccalaureate degree in an appropriate undergraduate program.

2.3. The institution’s student learning outcomes and expectations for student attainment are clearly stated at the course, program and, as appropriate, institutional level. These outcomes and expectations are reflected in academic programs and policies; curriculum; advisement; library and information resources; and the wider learning environment.

2.4. The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and widely shared among its members (including faculty, students, staff, and where appropriate, external stakeholders). The institution’s faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of these expectations.

2.6. The institution demonstrates that its graduates consistently achieve its stated levels of attainment and ensures that its expectations for student learning are embedded in the standards faculty use to evaluate student work.

2.7. All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion, and, where appropriate,

33 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

results of licensing examination and placement and evidence from external constituencies such as employers and professional organizations.

2.10. The institution collects and analyzes student data disaggregated by demographic categories and areas of study. It tracks achievement, satisfaction, and campus climate to support student success. The institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its students and assesses their preparation, needs, and experiences.

2.11. Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co-curricular programs.

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry, research, and data collection are used to establish priorities at different levels of the institution, and to revise institutional purposes, structures, and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.

4.3. Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness, including student learning.

4.4. The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes, periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes include assessing effectiveness, tracking results over time, using comparative data from external sources, and improving structures, processes, curricula, and pedagogy.

4.5. The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes and objectives. Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes. Included in the institutional research function is the collection of appropriate data to support the assessment of student learning. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the research function and the suitability and usefulness of data.

4.6. Leadership at all levels is committed to improvement based on the results of the processes of inquiry, evaluation and assessment used throughout the institution. The faculty takes responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process and uses the results for improvement. Assessments of the campus environment in

34 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

support of academic and co-curricular objectives are also undertaken and used, and are incorporated into institutional planning.

4.7. The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning, as well as into the conditions and practices that promote the kinds and levels of learning intended by the institution. The outcomes of such inquiries are applied to the design of curricula, the design and practice of pedagogy, and to the improvement of evaluation means and methodology.

4.8. Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, and others defined by the institution, are regularly involved in the assessment of educational programs.

35 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF THE 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN

The University’s Strategic Plan, approved in 2011, begins with a statement of Vision: Santa Clara University will educate citizens and leaders of competence, conscience, and compassion and cultivate knowledge and faith to build a more humane, just, and sustainable world.

The plan then presents the University Mission, stating, The University pursues its vision by creating an academic community that educates the whole person within the Jesuit, Catholic tradition, making student learning our central focus, continuously improving our curriculum and co-curriculum, strengthening our scholarship and creative work, and serving the communities of which we are a part in Silicon valley and around the world.

The plan identifies five strategic goals and priorities: 1. Excellence in Jesuit Education 2. Engagement with Silicon Valley 3. Global Understanding and Engagement 4. Justice and Sustainability 5. Academic Community

1. Excellence in Jesuit Education

A Santa Clara education is distinguished by its attention to the formation of the whole person – one who has the knowledge and skills to act effectively (competence), the determination to reason morally (conscience), and the capacity to feel solidarity with the poor and powerless as well as the will to relieve suffering (compassion).

To cultivate these qualities, which are inseparable in a well-educated person, requires us to pursue an ever more integrated approach to Jesuit education. Such an education includes opportunities to acquire breadth and depth of knowledge, use that knowledge for the common good, and deepen a faith that does justice through spiritual development, interreligious dialogue, and creative engagement with culture and society.

To enhance excellence in Jesuit education, we will:

A. Foster the development and integration of competence, conscience, and compassion.

36 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

B. Ensure successful implementation of the undergraduate Core Curriculum. C. Establish the University as a national and international leader in theological study and service to the wider Catholic community. D. Advance the University’s mission and identity as a Jesuit, Catholic university. E. Increase our standing in American higher education as an example of excellence in Jesuit education.

2. Engagement with Silicon Valley

There are many reasons why people from all over the world choose to work, study, and live in Silicon Valley – its spirit of technological and scientific innovation, entrepreneurialism, cultural diversity, and natural beauty to name a few. Silicon Valley is more than a location; it is a state of mind characterized by an innovative and imaginative approach to creating new opportunities in our globalizing world.

By strengthening ties with our surrounding communities and our local alumni network, the University can offer students, faculty, and staff opportunities to think in new ways, and to learn from and contribute to both the leading institutions that make Silicon Valley attractive, and to the most marginalized groups in Silicon Valley that call out for help.

While learning from Silicon Valley’s culture of innovation, Santa Clara University can also play an important role in raising the moral and ethical questions that inevitably arise with the creation and use of new technologies.

To promote engagement with Silicon Valley, we will:

A. Increase learning, service, and research opportunities with Silicon Valley corporations, institutions, and communities. B. Strengthen distinctive academic niches, particularly at the graduate level, that will address the needs of Silicon Valley, both locally and in its global outreach. C. Promote Jesuit values in ways that enhance the humanity and common good of the Silicon Valley community. D. Partner with Silicon Valley companies to enhance student learning, provide state-of- the- art delivery of course content, and improve the University’s administrative functions through technology.

3. Global Understanding and Engagement

A 21st century education requires global understanding, an understanding that leads to action and engagement. Santa Clara will extend its ties with others around the world to offer

37 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

our students a deeper understanding of the global context of their lives and work. Through our existing study abroad and immersion programs, our academic curriculum, our membership in the global network of Jesuit universities, and our Silicon Valley location and its global reach, we are well-equipped to promote understanding of global issues and prepare students to use their knowledge and skills to help address these issues.

To foster global understanding and engagement, we will:

A. Enhance and expand global learning opportunities here and abroad including those resulting from our relationships with Silicon Valley-based international corporations and organizations. B. Attract more international students and visiting scholars. C. Build partnerships with universities in the international network of Jesuit universities and other targeted institutions.

4. Justice and Sustainability

Our integration of social justice, as a priority of the Society of Jesus, into our teaching, research, and community engagement has established Santa Clara as a leader in American higher education. More recently, Santa Clara has drawn national attention for our commitment to sustainability, including the promotion of environmental stewardship in our campus operations. Santa Clara can distinguish itself further by advancing academic and public understanding of the ways in which social justice and sustainability, broadly defined, intersect. As a Jesuit university in Silicon Valley, we are in an excellent position to illustrate the connections among a healthy environment, just societies, and a vibrant economy that meet all people’s fundamental needs, especially those of the global poor.

Santa Clara’s focus on advancing understanding of a just sustainability should inspire a broad and enlivening range of activities and perspectives. We understand sustainability as involving three components: environmental protection, economic development, and social development. Questions of sustainability and justice are not the province of a single discipline, or point of view, but can be illuminated by all fields and perspectives. The co- curriculum also offers many opportunities to integrate these questions into students’ lives.

To advance justice and sustainability, we will:

A. Increase and enhance curricular and co-curricular learning specific to sustainability and justice. B. Develop a distinctive and substantial research focus on justice and sustainability.

38 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

C. Model how a Jesuit university can contribute to sustainability and justice through its service, operations, and outreach.

5. Academic Community

Santa Clara must continue to strengthen the quality and diversity of the academic community – our faculty, staff, and students – by providing the strong and sustainable infrastructure needed to make the University’s vision a reality.

Our efforts must begin with renewed investment in the faculty. We will hire more full-time faculty, both tenure track and non-tenure track, and provide them resources to pursue new knowledge. Students learn best when they engage with professors whose passion for teaching informs their active scholarship and professional engagement, which in turn inform their teaching. Providing more time and resources for an increased number of full-time faculty will enhance teaching effectiveness by helping the faculty to stay current with rapidly changing knowledge and methods. This will attract better undergraduate and graduate students, provide more opportunity for them to conduct research with faculty, and strengthen their preparation for future work and study. It will also attract more external research funding to support the University; produce new knowledge that makes the world more humane, just, and sustainable; and boost Santa Clara’s reputation in national rankings of universities.

Our vision also depends upon attracting students who have the preparation and motivation to take full advantage of the distinctive educational experience Santa Clara offers. It depends as well upon retaining experienced and effective staff, many of whom contribute directly to learning and scholarship, and all of whom help to create the financial, technological, and operational conditions for a successful university.

To strengthen our academic community, we will:

A. Provide greater support for excellence in and integration of teaching and scholarship. B. Recruit and retain a diverse community of outstanding faculty, staff, and students. C. Add and upgrade facilities to support learning, scholarship, and community. D. Advance our ability to assess student learning and programs in ways that are manageable and used systematically to improve learning in the curriculum and co- curriculum. E. Strengthen the University’s shared governance structure and processes. F. Increase integration of strategic planning, program review, budgeting, facilities master planning, and capital campaign planning.

39 Appendix H: University Guidelines for Program Review

The complete Strategic Plan, with metrics and an appendix identifying fundamental values, can be found on the President’s web site.

40 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

AACSB International Sixth Year Review

Leavey School of Business Santa Clara University January 16, 2012

S. Andrew Starbird Dean

Sixth Year Review Team S. Andrew Starbird, Dean Narendra Agrawal, Associate Dean Susan Parker, Associate Dean

1 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

2. Assurance of Learning

In this section, we address the AACSB Review Team’s concerns related to assurance of learning (AOL) efforts. Since the Review Team’s visit in April 2011, we have developed a formal plan for direct assessment of students’ learning in each of our programs and conducted assessment of at least one learning goal in each program. Details of the formal plan and of the assessment results are included here.

In its final report, the Review Team stated that “While the school has recently begun significant efforts at developing a program of assurance of learning and assessment, the progress is not what is expected of business schools being currently evaluated against AACSB standards. The school has performed direct assessment of only 1 undergraduate core learning goal, and the school is only now developing a timetable and standardized method for direct assessments of the learning goals for the undergraduate business core. Direct assessment of learning goals for the graduate programs has not yet begun. In its sixth‐year report, the school should provide a timetable for assessment of both the undergraduate and graduate business programs along with the results of some assessments for all programs. (Standards 15‐20: Assurance of Learning)”

Organizational Changes in support of Assurance of Learning

In response to the 5th year review report, there have been a number of organizational changes in support of the School’s AOL efforts. In order to direct School‐wide AOL efforts and ensure that adequate resources are available, the Dean appointed a new Associate Dean of Curriculum in July 2011. The Associate Dean’s responsibilities include leading the assessment efforts for all the School’s degree programs, coordinating assessment efforts with the University, and facilitating the curriculum review process (see Section 1). In addition, the coordination of the MBA programs was revised, with a single faculty director appointed in September 2011 to lead the evening MBA, Accelerated MBA (AMBA) and Executive MBA (EMBA) programs. Finally, the AMBA and EMBA programs were brought under the aegis of the MBA Leadership Team, which is expected to improve coordination and policy consistency among the programs and to provide a central location for addressing curricular issues, including those related to assurance of learning.

2 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Coordination of Assessment Efforts

During the late spring to fall, the Dean and Associate Dean responsible for assessment met multiple times with the Assessment Coordinator for the University to discuss the coordination of overall AOL efforts. The Associate Dean subsequently met with many different faculty groups, including at the Business School faculty retreat in Fall 2011, regular monthly meetings of the MBA and Undergraduate Leadership Teams, Chairs’ Meetings, and special meetings of the Executive MBA Theme Coordinators. There were also many individual meetings between the Associate Dean and department chairs, course coordinators and individual faculty. These meetings resulted in revision of the program learning goals for the MSIS and EMBA, and the development of plans for assurance of learning activities in all of the degree programs offered. These plans were put into operation, with some assessment activities taking place in each degree program.

General Approach to Assurance of Learning

Our AOL plan is intended to support the overall mission of the School by providing continuous feedback on the efficacy of courses and curriculum in assuring student learning in each of our programs. The goal of our assurance of learning activities is to provide useful information that faculty can act on to guide lmeaningfu changes that improve student learning. To this end, a key objective of the assurance of learning plan is to engage faculty in assessment and continuous improvement efforts.

Program Learning Goals

Shortly after the appointment of the new Associate Dean of Curriculum, the Associate Dean and the faculty reviewed the program learning goals (PLGs), the course learning objectives, and the matrices relating PLGs and course learning objectives (the curriculum matrices are available upon request). More detailed subgoals were developed to support each of the overall program learning goals and provide structure for the assessment process, and these are included in the accompanying Appendix Table 2‐1a to Table 2‐1d.

In some programs, the faculty decided to revise program learning goals that had not been reconsidered recently (EMBA, MSIS), in others (Undergraduate and MBA, including the AMBA) reviews are scheduled for the near future, though current AOL activities follow the existing learning goals.

Assessment Methods

3 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

After the program learning goals were agreed upon, the Associate Dean worked with individual faculty to locate courses and assignments for assessment, and to develop rubrics when needed. For test‐based assessment, the grading was completed by the faculty members and the results compiled and summarized by the Associate Dean, for reporting to the faculty, Chair, faculty program director and appropriate leadership team. Where rubrics were used to assess written or oral student work, the evaluation was completed by faculty and the Associate Dean, and summarized and reported by the Associate Dean to the same parties.

Timetable

Every program learning goal will be assessed twice in a 5‐year period. The timetables for assessment in each program over the next five years are presented in Appendix Table 2‐2a‐d.

Results of Assurance of Learning Efforts Since April 2011

In this section, we summarize the learning goals and the results of our AOL efforts since the AACSB visit in April 2011. We present results for (1) the undergraduate business program, (2) the MBA program (evening and accelerated), (3) the executive MBA program, and (4) the MSIS program.

(1) The Undergraduate Business Program

Responsibility for Program Assessment Our undergraduate business curriculum is directed by the Undergraduate Leadership Team (ULT), which is a faculty committee with representation from each academic department, led by a faculty program director, Carolyn Evans. The ULT is responsible for proposing changes to the core curriculum, approving new courses, assisting with AOL efforts, and reviewing and acting on the AOL results. The ULT is also instrumental in monitoring program learning goals for relevancy, and recommending revisions to the faculty as needed. The most recent revision of our undergraduate program learning goals was in 2008‐2009, and the ULT is again in the process of reviewing the core curriculum for undergraduates (beginning in 2010‐2011).

AOL activities and associated program learning goals are reviewed by the ULT, in cooperation with the Business School’s Associate Dean of Curriculum, and with the Department Chairs and faculty. Some courses with many sections have an assigned course coordinator, and those course coordinators are involved in AOL planning and review as well.

4 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Undergraduate Program learning goals

Students will learn to: Understand the economic foundations of business and the place of business in PLG1 contemporary society.

PLG2 Analyze data and evidence to make better business decisions.

Understand each business function, how they interact, and how they contribute to PLG3 organizational objectives.

PLG4 Integrate political, social, and cultural considerations into business decision‐making.

PLG5 Integrate global and ethical considerations into business decision‐making.

PLG6 Work effectively as a team‐member and as a team‐leader.

Understand how information is collected, reported, and used to manage PLG7 organizations.

PLG8 Communicate analysis, results, decisions, and recommendations

Tables 2‐1a and 2‐2a summarize the program learning goals, subgoals, method of assessment, and timetable for assessment for the undergraduate program.

Determination of satisfactory performance As a benchmark for the achievement of the program learning goals, the ULT has established a guideline that at least 20% of students should exceed expectations, at least 60% should meet expectations, and no more than 20% should fail to meet expectations for each measure. When these guidelines are not met, the ULT and other relevant faculty will evaluate why the results fell short of expectations, whether additional information is needed and what corrective action may be appropriate.

AOL Results for the Undergraduate Business Program Since our accreditation review in April 2011, we have completed assessment of student learning in four program areas: Analyze data and evidence to make better business decisions (PLG 2), understand each business function, how they interact, and how they contribute to organizational objectives (PLG 3), integrate global and ethical considerations into business

5 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

decision‐making, (PLG 5, ethics portion) and communicate analysis, results, decisions, and recommendations (PLG 8).

PLG 2: Analyze data and evidence to make better business decisions. The faculty coordinator for the core statistics courses has developed a set of test questions that are used by all instructors teaching our two course sequence in business statistics: OMIS 40 and OMIS 41 (Statistics and Data Analysis I and II). These test questions are used to measure the students’ learning with respect to five program subgoals associated with PLG 2. The subgoals, course number, and the mapping to exam questions are shown in the following table:

PLG2: Learning subgoals Course Questions Describe the world quantitatively OMIS 40 7 Evaluate sources of data for bias and reliability OMIS 40 6 Understand uncertainty and risk OMIS 40 19 Utilize samples to make inferences about parameters OMIS 41 7 Appreciate the value and limitations of models OMIS 41 1

In Spring, 2011, data were gathered from all 4 sections of OMIS 40 (110 students) and all 3 sections of OMIS 41 (89 students). The results of the AOL analysis are presented in the following table:

Does not Meets Exceeds

meet expectations expectations PLG2: Learning subgoals expectations Describe the world quantitatively 19 (17%) 52 (47%) 38 (35%) Evaluate sources of data for bias and 16 (15%) 51 (46%) 43 (39%) reliability

6 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Does not Meets Exceeds

meet expectations expectations PLG2: Learning subgoals expectations Understand uncertainty and risk 30 (27%) 64 (58%) 16 (15%) Utilize samples to make inferences about population parameters 11 (12%) 45 (51%) 33 (37%)

Appreciate the value and limitations of 6 (7%) 37 (42%) 46 (52%) models

These results are generally within our guidelines, except with respect to subgoal 3 (understand uncertainty and risk) and were reported to the course coordinator and instructors in detail. During Winter quarter, the faculty will analyze the causes of the relatively high number of students not meeting expectations in the one area, and determine whether additional data are required or what the appropriate corrective measures might be. (Added May 29, 2012: This meeting took place, with the result that the common test will be revised to refresh the content, individual faculty will meet with the coordinator or review their students’ results and receive coaching if needed, the faculty will meet during the summer to discuss improved teaching around subgoal 3, the coordinator will meet with the ULT to discuss needs of downstream classes and those needs will also be considered over the summer in the course review).

PLG 3: Understand each business function, how they interact, and how they contribute to organizational objectives. Every undergraduate business student takes BUSN 70 (Contemporary Business Issues) during the first year at Santa Clara University. The BUSN 70 classes use a computer‐based simulation that allows the students to (as individuals) manage the primary functions of a business to maximize shareholder value. The students are allowed to run the simulation as many times as they like, adapting their management decisions each time. The BUSN 70 faculty members have used the simulation for several years and are confident that the ability to increase shareholder value is driven by the students’ understanding of each business function and how they interact.

In consultation with the faculty, it was decided that an ending shareholder value of less than $20 per share indicates an unacceptable level of understanding, $20‐$60 results from an acceptable comprehension and students with share values above $60 are have exceeded expectations. Bankruptcy is a possible outcome, so scores of zero are possible. Three sections of Business 70 were taught in Fall 2011, and the results, collected by the instructors, are shown below:

7 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG3: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Understand each business function, how they interact, and how they contribute to 4 (5%) 60 (75%) 16 (20%) organizational objectives.

These results show that the majority of students are meeting expectations in this area, so no follow‐up was considered necessary.

PLG5: Integrate global and ethical considerations into business decision‐making. As a part of their core assessment program, the University assessed student competency in ethics in Spring 2011. We weree abl to use their sample of student work (9 papers, randomly selected) from Management 6 (Business Ethics). The students’ work was assessed independently of the University assessment process, according to our rubric. The results are as follows:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG5: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations

Recognize a dilemma. 0 (0%) 7 (78%) 2 (22%)

Describe relevant parties and issues, both 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 2 (22%) within and outside the organization. Evaluate the ethical implications of 3 (33%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%) intervention (action). Articulate an ethically justifiable response 1 (11%) 5 (56%) 3 (33%) to the situation.

The number of students who could not provide an adequate evaluation of the ethical implications of an intervention is higher than anticipated under our guidelines, while the results for the remaining subgoals are satisfactory. Based on the relatively small number of papers reviewed, it was decided to ask the faculty to review the assignment to be sure it adequately elicits the discussion of the ethics of intervening, and repeat the assessment process in Spring quarter.

PLG8: Communicate analysis, results, decisions, and recommendations. In summer and fall of 2011, the instructors for three sections of Business Writing (ENGL 179 and 183) collected student work (from Business School students only), and this work was assessed within the Business School by two Business School faculty members and the Associate Dean. A sample of 23 papers was chosen from a population of 44. The assignments were not standardized, and

8 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

only 9 of the selected papers allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of visual representation of analyses. Fifteen papers included a requirement for the use of references.

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG8: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Overall structure and style of the communication is appropriate to its 48% 43% 9% purpose. Appropriate language, business tone. 4% 91% 4% Mechanics are correct, sentence structure is varied, appropriately complex and 26% 70% 4% correct. Effective visual representation of 22% 67% 11% qualitative and quantitative analysis Facts are credible and referenced 73% 27% 0%

The review is limited to the analysis of a sample of papers from three faculty members, primarily from fall quarter. Overall, the student’s ability to select an appropriate business tone is strong. The significant areas of concern to the reviewers were the inclusion of unsupported information and a limited ability overall to construct work that effectively met a goal of advocating, persuading or informing the reader in a convincing way. The ULT is currently considering this information, along with other data, in formulating a curriculum revision proposal related communications skills.

(2) MBA Program (Evening and Accelerated)

Responsibility for Program Assessment Our graduate business curriculum is directed by the MBA Leadership Team (MBALT), with an organizational structure similar to that of the undergraduate program. Each department is represented, and the overall MBA program director (George Chacko) leads the committee. The MBALT’s responsibilities are also similar to those of the ULT, including new course approval, monitoring the core learning goals for relevancy, and assisting with the implementation and review of AOL activities.

AOL activities and results are reviewed by the MBALT, in cooperation with the Business School’s Associate Dean of Curriculum, and with the Department Chairs and faculty. Some courses with many sections have an assigned course coordinator, and those course coordinators are involved in AOL planning and review as well.

9 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

The evening MBA and the accelerated MBA programs have the same program learning objectives and AMBA and MBA students have similar learning experiences. The key differences between the programs are in the cohort nature of the first year of the accelerated program and the timing of content delivery. The AMBA classes tare taugh on a more intensive schedule and in two 15 week sessions and an intersession, instead of 3 quarters. Many of the evening MBA core classes are combined – for example, Accounting 300 and 302 in the evening program (Financial and Managerial Accounting) are combined into the 15 week AMBA Accounting 851. Our intent is to assess a particular learning goal in the same period in both programs to the extent possible, in order to understand in part whether delivery methods are affecting student learning. For that reason, we have not scheduled assessment during Winter quarter, except for those classes etaught in th intersession.

MBA and AMBA Program Learning Goals

Students will learn to:

PLG1 Gather, organize, and analyze data to make decisions.

Understand the economic foundations of society and the contribution of each business PLG2 function within the organization. Identify and analyze factors that determine the performance of teams and PLG3 organizations Address the organizational impacts of technology, rapid change, global integration, PLG4 and a culturally diverse workforce.

PLG5 Incorporate ethical judgments and social responsibility in the evaluation of decisions.

PLG6 Communicate analyses and conclusions to support decisions.

These goals were revised in February 2010, on the recommendation of the MBALT. Tables 2‐1b and 2‐2b summarize the program learning goals, subgoals, method of assessment, and timetable for assessment for the evening and accelerated MBA program.

Determination of Satisfactory Performance As a benchmark for the achievement of the program learning goals, the MBALT has established a guideline that at least 25% of students should exceed expectations, at least 60% should meet expectations, and no more than 15% should fail to meet expectations for each measure. When these guidelines are not met, the MBALT will evaluate why the results fell short of our

10 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

expectations, whether additional information is needed and what corrective action may be appropriate.

AOL Results for the MBA Program Since our accreditation review in April 2011, we have assessed PLG1 (Gather, organize, and analyze data to make decisions), PLG5 (Incorporate ethical judgments and social responsibility in the evaluation of decisions) and PLG6 (Communicate analyses and conclusions to support decisions).

PLG1: Gather, organize, and analyze data to make decisions. This program learning goal was assessed by examining student analysis of corporate financial statements. Students were provided with a variety of data, determined what data to use, prepared an analysis and discussed the results of the analysis. This analysis was done in Accounting 300 (Financial Accounting) in the evening program, and Accounting 851 (Accounting Practices for Effective Decisions) in the AMBA program in Fall 2011.

Two sections of Accounting 300 (64 students) and one section of Accounting 851 (25 students) were taught, and all the student work was evaluated by the instructors and reviewed by the Associate Dean of Curriculum. Students scoring between 65% and 85% on the analysis were considered to meet expectations, and those below 65% were scored as ‘not meeting expectations”. Scores above 85% exceeded expectations. The results of the assessment are summarized in the following table:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG1: Gather, organize and analyze data to expectations expectations expectations make decisions Accounting 851 (Accelerated MBA) 12% 60% 28% Accounting 300 (Evening MBA) 14% 53% 34%

The overall results meet our guidelines for satisfactory student achievement.

PLG 5: Incorporate ethical judgments and social responsibility in the evaluation of decisions. This program learning goal was assessed through analysis of student papers in the MGMT 505 (Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Policy) class. In Fall 2011, the instructor for the two sections offered collected students’ written assignments incorporating ethical issues into decision‐making. A sample of 20 papers was selected randomly, discussed with the instructor and scored by the Associate Dean, using the rubric in Appendix 1. The results of the assessment are as follows:

11 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG5: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Recognize a dilemma 0 (0%) 19 (95%) 1 (5%) Describe relevant parties and issues, both 5 (25%) 12 (60%) 3 (15%) within and outside the organization Evaluate the ethical implications of 6 (30%) 11 (55%) 3 (15%) intervention (action) Articulate an ethically justifiable response 4 (20%) 13 (65%) 3 (20%) to the situation

The proportion of students not meeting expectations is somewhat higher than we expected.. The sole instructor for this class is using the ‘Giving Voice to Values’ teaching approach for the first time, and she continues to refine her teaching methods and expectations. She will continue to collect the same assignment for assessment in future quarters, and we will monitor changes in the results.

PLG6: Communicate analyses and conclusions to support decisions. In Spring 2011, instructors teaching similar marketing content (MKTG 551 in the evening program and MKTG 856 in the AMBA) collected written student work consisting of analysis of marketing plans. sThi work was assessed within the Business School by two faculty members (the instructor for the course, and the Associate Dean) for the quality of the written presentation. Twenty‐two student papers were collected from the MKTG 856 and 33 from MKTG 551. All of the MKTG 856 papers and 21 randomly chosen papers from MKTG 551 were assessed.

The results for written communications are as follows for the accelerated MBA program:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG6: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Overall structure and style of the communication is appropriate to its 9% 32% 59% purpose. Appropriate language, business tone. 0% 50% 50% Mechanics are correct, sentence structure 0% 68% 32%

12 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

is varied, appropriately complex and correct. Effective visual representation of 5% 18% 68% qualitative and quantitative analysis Facts are credible and referenced 14% 18% 68%

The results of the assessment for the evening MBA program are show below:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG6: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Overall structure and style of the communication is appropriate to its 10% 86% 5% purpose. Appropriate language, business tone. 5% 90% 5% Mechanics are correct, sentence structure is varied, appropriately complex and 33% 62% 1% correct. Effective visual representation of 15% 85% 0% qualitative and quantitative analysis Facts are credible and referenced 67% 33% 0%

These results related to writing are consistent with anecdotal reports from some faculty members that the level of MBA student writing skills is lower than expected. The difference between the AMBA and MBA classes was marked, and was discussed with the Senior Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs. Her suggestion was that the AMBA students take this class relatively later in their graduate studies and their skills have improved as a result. In contrast, the MBA students’ skills may be less developed at this point.

The mechanical and other errors were largely those anticipated from non‐native speakers. In addition to discussions within the Business School, the results were reviewed with the Director of the University Writing Resource Center (The Hub). As a result, we are developing an immediate plan to identify students needing additional training in written English for business purposes and inform them of the University resources available. Two Hub‐provided intensive classes will be offered in the summer of 2012 as a pilot program, and will be available to Business students. Both beginning and advanced classes will be offered, and students will have the opportunity to take one or both, depending on their level of need. The timing of the classes will preclude most of our working students from participating, but a number of our non‐native speakers are full‐time students, and would likely benefit from the program. In addition, this

13 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

issue will be considered by the MBA Curriculum Review Committee in the context of curriculum revisions.

In addition to the assessment of the written communications skills, students making presentations in the Accounting 300 class were videotaped, and 15 randomly chosen presentations were reviewed by the faculty member teaching the class, a second faculty member and the Associate Dean of Curriculum. The results for oral communication are below:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG6: Learning objectives expectations expectations expectations Overall structure and style of the communication is appropriate to its 7% 80% 13% purpose. Appropriate language, business tone. 20% 60% 20% Presentation is fluent and confident. 20% 60% 20% Effective visual representation of 0% 67% 33% qualitative and quantitative analysis Supporting examples are appropriate, supporting facts are credible and 7% 67% 27% referenced

The results did not meet the MBALT’s guidelines in the areas of appropriate language and tone and fluency in both the ‘does not meet’ and ‘exceeds expectations’ categories. In addition, the proportion of students who exceeded expectations for ‘overall structure and style’ was lower than the guideline. These results will be reported to the MBALT and consideration will be given to improving the students’ oral skills, perhaps by referring them to The Hub’s public speaking workshops or providing other opportunities to view their own presentations and improve them.

(3) Executive MBA (EMBA) Program

Responsibility for Program Assessment The EMBA program is led by the MBA Faculty Coordinator, in consultation with the EMBA theme coordinators. The EMBA theme coordinators’ and faculty director’s responsibilities include monitoring the content of the program and learning goals to ensure they meet the needs of students and employers and assisting with the implementation and review of AOL activities.

14 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

The EMBA program is organized by interdisciplinary theme, with the addition of ‘just‐in‐time’ boot camps, which introduce the foundation skills needed for the succeeding theme. Currently, there is one EMBA cohort per year, of approximately 20‐25 students.

Program learning goals

Students will learn to:

PLG1 Students will master fundamental business concepts and technologies

PLG2 Students will manage rapid innovation and commercialization in a global marketplace

PLG3 Students will manage cross‐functional collaboration and synergies

PLG4 Students will be able to think holistically about business decisions

These goals were revised in Fall of 2011, by the EMBA theme coordinators. Prior to that time, the learning goals were the same as those for the MBA program, but were revised in recognition of the differences in the capacities of the entering student group, and the goals of the program. Tables 2‐1c and 2‐2c summarize the program learning goals, subgoals, method of assessment, and timetable for assessment for the executive MBA program.

Determination of Satisfactory Performance As a benchmark for the achievement of the learning goals, the faculty has established a guideline that at least 30% of students should exceed expectations, at least 60% should meet expectations, and no more than 10% should fail to meet expectations for each measure. When these guidelines are not met, the MBA Faculty Director and theme coordinator will evaluate why the results fell short of expectations, whether additional information is needed and what corrective action may be appropriate.

AOL Results for the Executive MBA Program Since our accreditation review in April 2011, we have completed assessment related to PLG1 (Students will master fundamental business concepts and technologies), and PLG2 (Students will manage rapid innovation and commercialization in a global marketplace).

PLG 1: Students will master fundamental business concepts and technologies. This program learning goal was assessed in Fall 2011. Included in this program learning goal are two boot

15 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

camp skills (accounting and team leadership) that are not fully incorporated in subsequent themes, and thus are assessed separately. Core accounting competencies were assessed through review of the boot‐camp (EMBA 804, Accounting Bootcamp) final examination, while leadership skills were assessed through a review of the results of a leadership survey instrument.

The following table summarizes the results of the assessment of learning related to fundamental accounting skills in EMBA 804:

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG8: Learning subgoals expectations expectations expectations Identify relevant costs 22% 39% 39% Understand how costs flow through the 0% 22% 78% financial statements Read and analyze financial statements 4% 17% 78%

The results suggest that the proportion of students who cannot accurately identify relevant costs is higher than our guidelines. These results were shared with the instructor and he is developing different examples and materials that should be more effective in conveying the relevant cost concept, as well as test questions that will better isolate the students’ understanding of the specific concept.

The leadership competency was assessed through a comparison of Kouzes Posner Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) results from the beginning and end of the EMBA program. The LPI instrument is completed by multiple people, external to the EMBA program, who interact (typically professionally) with the student. The LPI consists of 30 questions related to 5 areas of leadership. We compared the LPI results of the 18 EMBA students completing the program in 2011 and assessed whether the students were perceived on average by the respondents as having positive changes in behavior in each area. Our objective is that in each of the 5 areas, the majority of students will be perceived as improving.

Did not improve (%) Improved (%) PLG8: Learning objections Model the way 44 56 Inspire a shared vision 22 78 Challenge the process 37 61 Enable others to act 33 67

16 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Did not improve (%) Improved (%) PLG8: Learning objections Encourage the heart 28 72

In each area, the majority of students were perceived as improving. Given that many students begin the process scoring relatively high, and thus have little room for improvement, and that some students experience professional changes or challenges during the program, the results were considered satisfactory. Nonetheless, in discussions with the EMBA program director and the MBA Faculty Director, it was decided to provide three (rather than the previous two) opportunities for structured peer feedback on team participation and team leadership during the program, and to make all three performance discussions mandatory. Our hope is that providing more structured feedback and reflection on these skills during the program will help the students make additional improvement in their leadership skills outside the program.

(4) Masters of Science in Information Systems

Responsibility for Program Assessment The MSIS program is led by the MSIS Program Director in consultation with the MSIS faculty. The Program Director’s responsibilities faculty include monitoring the content of the program and learning goals to ensure they meet the needs of students and employers and assisting with the implementation and review of AOL activities.

The MSIS program includes both classes within the MBA core and specialized MSIS classes. Assessment activities within the common core are conducted within the appropriate MBA classes.

Program learning goals

Students will learn to: Define, design, develop, and implement information system projects and products to PLG1 address organizational needs. Integrate information systems theory and practice with knowledge of business PLG2 fundamentals to make informed decisions about the application of information technology to business problems. Incorporate broad business and real world perspectives with social and ethical PLG3 considerations into the evaluation of information systems decision alternatives.

17 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Students will learn to: Develop communication, interpersonal, and team building skills needed to construct PLG4 and evaluate technical and business decision alternatives. Apply information systems management principles to link systems across functional PLG5 areas within an organization

These goals were revised in Fall of 2011. Prior to that time, the learning goals were those developed when the program was implemented, in 2005. Tables 2‐1d and 2‐2d summarize the program learning goals, subgoals, method of assessment, and timetable for assessment for the MSIS program.

Determination of Satisfactory Performance As a benchmark for the achievement of the learning goals, the faculty have set a standard that at least 30% of students should exceed expectations, at least 55% should meet expectations, and no more than 15% should fail to meet expectations for each measure.

AOL Results for the MSIS Program PLG 1: Define, design, develop, and implement information system projects to address organizational needs. This program learning goal was partially assessed in Fall 2011. This program learning goals is supported by learning objectives in three different courses. Forty‐five students completed exams including questions relating to two objectives that support this program learning goal. Students scoring 5 points or more on each question were determined to have met expectations, and those scoring below were considered to have not met expectations.

Does not meet Meets Exceeds PLG1: Learning objections expectations expectations expectations Appropriately define the organizational requirements to be addressed through the 23 (51%) 22 (49%) 0 (0%) application of an information system Create a viable design for an information system which addresses the organizational 15 (33%) 25 (56%) 5 (11%) requirements

18 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

Two additional courses, the MSIS capstone course, and MSIS 601, have learning objectives that support PLG1 in the MSIS program. These courses are taught in the winter and spring for MSIS students, so we haven’t had the opportunity to assess them since April 2011.

The instructor for the MSIS 602 class is new to teaching and acknowledges that his expectations may be too high. In Winter quarter we will review these results with the Director of the program and the prior instructor for the class to determine whether there is agreement on the students’ achievement, and to consider what remedial actions may be necessary.

Future objectives for the AOL program

Our experience in Assurance of Learning since April 2011 has suggested several enhancements and improvement to our assessment efforts:

1) As we move forward with our assurance of learning efforts, we plan to revise the curriculum matrices to better depict the curriculum. In particular, we plan to develop more detailed information about how and where the student engages with the program learning goals, i.e. where the competency is introduced, and where it is practiced, demonstrated or reviewed. We have completed this process for the accounting department’s curriculum, and will pursue updating the matrices for the other programs. This will both facilitate finding the most appropriate place to conduct direct assessment, and help us understand the core structure better.

2) We will continue to improve our rubrics to better represent the core competencies we want our students to have and the criteria for assessing their attainment.

3) We will focus on creating a transparent process in which the overall assessment plan for each program, yearly summary reports of activities and communications from the AACSB are made available to faculty and faculty are updated regularly on the overall assessment outcomes and provide input into program improvement. We will also move towards building a culture that values measurement of student learning.

In this Section 2, we described our efforts directed toward Assurance of Learning. In Section 3, we address the AACSB Review Team’s concerns regarding the Academic Qualifications of the Business School’s faculty.

19 Appendix I: Examples of Assessment from the AACSB Sixth Year Review of the School of Business

20 Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

Institution: Santa Clara University

Date Report Submitted: December 21, 2012

Name of Program(s) Credential Awarded Page Numbers MS/SS Preliminary Multiple Subject Preliminary Single Subject 4-25 Clear General Education Clear 26-32 Admin Services Preliminary Administrative Services 33-41 Clear Administrative Services 42-49

Is this program offered at more than one site? No Program Contact Dr. Lisa S. Goldstein Title Professor and Director of Teacher Education University Coordinator of CTC Credential Programs Phone # 408-551-1611 E-Mail [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name Title Phone # E-mail Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION

PART I – Contextual Information for all Programs

The CTC credential programs offered at Santa Clara University are housed in the Department of Education in the School of Education and Counseling Psychology. We presently offer five credential programs: Preliminary Multiple Subject Preliminary Single Subject General Education Clear Preliminary Administrative Services Clear Administrative Services

The permanent faculty in the Education Department are one full professor, two associate professors with tenure, two assistant professors, and two senior lecturers. The department also employs a cadre of contingent faculty: five lecturers with three-year renewable contracts, two annual year academic lecturers with one-year contracts, one professor of the profession, and a varying number of quarterly adjunct lecturers (with non-renewable quarterly contracts) who teach individual courses in one or more of our programs each quarter.

The following CTC credential and certificate programs were withdrawn as of January 20, 2011: Education Specialist Mild/Moderate Disabilities Level I and Level II Credentials Education Specialist Mild/Moderate Intern Option Education Specialist Early Childhood Special Education Level I and Level II Credentials Education Specialist Early Childhood Special Education Intern Option Education Specialist Early Childhood Certificate Reading and Language Arts Specialist Credential Reading Certificate Preliminary Multiple Subject Intern Option Preliminary Single Subject Intern Option We have continued to support all candidates in completing credential and/or certificate requirements in the sunsetting programs. We anticipate the candidates will complete their respective program requirements by December 2012.

Program Specific Candidate Information Numbers of candidates and completers/graduates for two years reported 2010-11 2011-2012 All programs use the “traditional” Number of Number of Number of Number of delivery style with courses on Candidates Completers/ Candidates Completers/ campus or at a satellite location in a Graduates Graduates local school district Preliminary Multiple Subject 26 21 18 18 Preliminary Single Subject 36 29 26 23 Preliminary Multiple Subject Intern 1 1 NA NA Preliminary Single Subject Intern 2 1 NA NA General Education Clear NA NA 9 8 Preliminary Administrative Services 49 12 64 24 Clear Administrative Services 12 4 11 6 Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity

After receiving Accreditation with Major Stipulations at our CTC site visit in March 2010, our unit successfully addressed the stipulations and was granted Accreditation at our revisit in March 2011. Since the revisit we have done the following:

• Implemented a unit-wide assessment system

• Implemented a general education clear credential program (written to the 2009 program standards) in Fall 2011 and graduated our first cohort in 2012.

• Successfully petitioned for and received permission from the University’s Board of Trustees to award our credential program completers a Master of Arts in Teaching degree along with a credential recommendation.

• Restructured the preliminary MS and SS credential program curricula in ways that o Decrease redundancy across course offerings o Strengthen candidate preparation in assessment of student learning (MS only) o Strengthen candidate preparation in subject-specific instructional methods (SS only) o Prepare candidates to use accountability data to improve student learning outcomes o Prepare candidates to implement the Common Core State Standards o Align course and field experience grading standards with CTC’s standards-based scoring expectations for the CalTPA

• Implemented a range of strategies designed to improve preliminary MS/SS credential candidates’ ability to successfully complete each of the four CalTPA tasks on their first attempt; these efforts were undertaken in response to data presented in our previous Biennial Report. More information about these changes is provided in this Biennial Report.

• Received approval from University administration to conduct two national faculty searches during the 2012- 2013 academic year—one in Secondary Education with a science focus and one in Educational Administration and Leadership— with both positions starting in Fall 2013. In addition, an Academic Year Adjunct Lecturer (AYAL) position in the Administrative Services program was approved to teach five courses during the 2012-2013 academic year.

• The March 2011 revisit team specifically requested that we include an update on our progress building stable administrative leadership in our unit in our 2012, 2014, and 2016 Biennial Reports. We have three significant updates to report:

1. A new provost, Dr. Dennis Jacobs, began his appointment in August 2011.

2. A successful search for a dean for Santa Clara University’s School of Education and Counseling Psychology was completed in June 2012. Dr. Nicholas Ladany began his appointment in August 2012. Prior to the start of the 2012-13 academic year, Dean Ladany worked to familiarize himself with our CTC credential programs through one-on-one and small group meetings with faculty, staff, and students. Dean Ladany is very aware of the central role of educator credentialing in the work of the School and of the importance of maintaining the highest expectations for program effectiveness and accountability.

3. The University administration approved the creation of a Director of Assessment position for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology. A national search was conducted; the position was filled in May 2011.

December 2012 2 Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA PART II – Candidate Competence and Program Effectiveness Information

Overview The conception of program effectiveness shaping our unit-wide assessment system includes three components: candidate competence, course instructor and field-based supervisor performance, and stakeholder satisfaction with program outcomes. These three components of program effectiveness are defined and assessed in the same ways across our five credential programs.

Component Effectiveness defined as Effectiveness assessed using Candidate Mastery of CTC-established 1. Course grades competence learning outcomes/standards and 2. Ratings on signature assignments attainment of program-specific 3. Formative and summative evaluations of practice completed by learning goals identified by SCU field experience supervisor and supervising site-based program faculty practitioner 4. Scores on California Teaching Performance Assessments (Preliminary MS/SS candidates only) Course Mean scores of 3.0 or higher 1. Data gathered from credential candidates instructor and survey (on a 4-point scale) or a. Course instructor evaluations (quantitative) field-based 3.75 or higher (on a 5-point b. Course instructor evaluations (narrative) supervisor scale) on every element of a c. Evaluation of SCU field experience supervisor performance performance evaluation d. Evaluation of supervising site-based practitioner Stakeholder Mean scores of 3.0 or higher (on 1. Quarterly program feedback from candidates satisfaction a 4-point scale) on every 2. Exit surveys completed by with program element in a targeted stakeholder a. Credential program completers outcomes satisfaction survey b. Completers’ supervising site-based practitioners 3. Satisfaction surveys completed by a. Alumni (1+ years after program completion) b. Alumni’s employers

As illustrated in the following table, the three program effectiveness components are assessed across the academic year(s) in all five credential programs. Credential Programs Prelim MS/SS General Prelim Clear (Traditional Education Admin Admin & Intern) Clear Services Services

Components of Program Effectiveness ctor Performance ctor Candidate Competence Candidate InstructorPerformance Satisfaction Stakeholder Competence Candidate InstructorPerformance Satisfaction Stakeholder Competence Candidate Instru Satisfaction Stakeholder Competence Candidate InstructorPerformance Satisfaction Stakeholder Admission • • • • Entry into clinical practice • Advancement to student teaching • Continuation in student teaching • Completion of clinical practice • Mid-point of each academic quarter • • • • • • • • End of each academic quarter • • • • • • • • Mid-point of program •

Assessment Points Assessment Coursework completion • • • • Program completion • • • • • • • • • • • • Annual • • • •

December 2012 3 Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA PRELIMINARY MULTIPLE SUBJECT AND SINGLE SUBJECT TEACHING CREDENTIAL PROGRAMS

PART II (a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential?

Assessment Benchmark Document Evidence of Candidate Progress/Competence point Assessed by Start of Fall Permission to Begin • CTC-authorized fingerprint clearance (Certificate of Clearance Presession Clinical Practice Field or 30-Day Emergency Substitute permit) (August) Placement Checklist • Evidence of negative TB test results Credential analyst • Bachelor’s degree Fall Quarter Candidates receive • Informal feedback from field supervisor, master teacher(s) • Assignment grades from course instructors End of Fall Permission to Advance to • Coursework grades of B or better Quarter Student Teaching Checklist • Completion of TPA Task 1- SSP (December) Field supervisor, master • Satisfaction of all basic skill, subject matter, US Constitution teacher(s), practicum requirements instructor, candidate, • Adult-Pediatric CPR certification Director of Teacher • Approval from field supervisor, master teacher(s), practicum Education instructor, candidate, Director of Teacher Education Winter Candidates receive Quarter • Formative feedback from field supervisor, master teacher(s) • Summative feedback from field supervisor, master teacher(s) • Assignment grades from course instructors End of Permission to Continue in • Coursework grades of B or better Winter Student Teaching Checklist • Completion of TPA Task 2-DI Quarter Field supervisor, master • No student teaching evaluation ratings below 3 on TPE-based (March) teacher(s), practicum summative assessment. Candidates with any scores below 3 instructor, candidate, continue in student teaching with specific conditions to be met. Director of Teacher • Approval from field supervisor, master teacher(s), practicum Education instructor, candidate, Director of Teacher Education Spring Candidates receive Quarter • Formative feedback from field supervisor, master teacher(s). Intensive support is provided to candidates who continued in student teaching with conditions. • Summative feedback from field supervisor, master teacher(s) • Assignment grades from course instructors End of Completion of Student • Coursework grades of B or better Spring Teaching Checklist • Completion of TPA Tasks 3-AL and 4-CTE Quarter Field supervisor, master • No student teaching evaluation ratings below 3 on TPE-based (June) teacher(s), practicum summative assessment instructor, candidate, • Approval from field supervisor, master teacher(s), practicum Director of Teacher instructor, candidate Director of Teacher Education Education Program CTC credential • Passing scores on all 4 TPA tasks Completion recommendation • Passing score on RICA (MS candidates only) Credential analyst • Verification of completion of all SCU program requirements • Verification of completion of all CTC program requirements

December 2012 4 Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA PART II (b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-making?

The table below presents all the sources of candidate competence and program effectiveness used in the preliminary MS/SS credential programs. Data from the tools highlighted in yellow are provided in Part II (c) of this report.

CANDIDATE COMPETENCE Assessment tool Description Data Collected Summative assessment of candidate Course instructors’ assessment of Course grades attainment of course objectives and candidate mastery of course-specific TPEs linked to those objectives TPEs TPE-linked rating scale and narrative Master teacher’s assessment of Student Teaching comments assessing candidate candidate mastery of TPEs Summative Evaluations- performance in the final student Master Teacher teaching placement Student Teaching TPE-linked rating scale and narrative University field supervisor’s Summative Evaluations- comments assessing candidate assessment of candidate mastery of University Field Supervisor performance in the final student TPEs teaching placement Performance assessment designed by Calibrated assessors’ evaluation of CalTPA scores CTC to assess candidate mastery of the candidate mastery of TPEs TPEs STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION Assessment tool Description Data Collected Candidate satisfaction with courses, Candidate evaluation of program field experiences, preparation for Candidate exit survey effectiveness. Contains rating scales practice, and experience in the and open-ended response questions. program Master teacher evaluation of program Master teacher satisfaction with Master teacher exit survey effectiveness. Contains rating scales candidate preparation and program and open-ended response questions. components Assessment of program effectiveness Program completer satisfaction with provided by program completers who professional preparation after Alumni survey (First year have finished their first – fifth year of working as a teacher for one-five completer survey) teaching. Contains rating scales and years open-ended response questions. Assessment of program effectiveness Supervising administrator provided by supervising administrators satisfaction with the professional Alumni employer survey of teachers who earned their credential preparation of teachers who earned (First year completer in our program in the previous 1-5 their preliminary credential employer survey) years. Contains rating scales and recommendation from our program. open-ended response questions.

CalTPA Assessment Report AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 Number of CalTPA assessors used 8 8 Number of new assessors trained 5 0 Number of assessors recalibrated 9 9 Inter-rater agreement .73 .55 Inter-rater reliability .35 .28 Modifications made to assessor selection, training, recalibration None None

December 2012 5

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Part II (c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b).

ASSESSING CANDIDATE COMPETENCE

1. CANDIDATE GRADES IN CREDENTIAL COURSEWORK AY 2010-11

Fall 2010 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 250 Social Foundations Educ 25 2 27 251 Psych Foundations of Educ 24 3 1 28 252 Intro Teaching in Sec Sch 8 2 1 2 1 1 15 252 Intro Teaching in Sec Sch 4 2 1 1 1 1 10 253 First/Second Lang Acquis 16 5 21 253 First/Second Lang Acquis 16 5 2 23 261 Math Found & Methods 6 5 3 1 1 16 271 Instr Tech for Teachers 10 5 5 20 271 Instr Tech for Teachers 20 2 22 275 Managing the Classroom 16 1 17 275 Managing the Classroom 26 26 284 Intro to Teaching Reading 13 3 1 17 284 Intro to Teaching Reading 15 5 20 290 Issues in Assessment 25 25 290 Issues in Assessment 19 1 20 306A Immersion Experience 20 20 306A Immersion Experience 14 14 320 Directed Teaching 20 20 320 Directed Teaching 16 16 320 Directed Teaching 1 12 13 320 Directed Teaching 1 7 1 9 324 Directed Teaching 4 4 Winter 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 256 Content Specific Methods 24 24 256 Content Specific Methods 11 3 1 1 1 17 256L Content Specific Methods 11 11 256L Content Specific Methods 1 4 2 2 1 10 256L Content Specific Methods 4 2 1 7 256L Content Specific Methods 9 2 1 1 13 260 Language Arts 25 25 262 Science Found & Methods 9 3 12 262 Science Found & Methods 12 1 1 14 276 Tchg Nonconvent Youth 20 20 276 Tchg Nonconvent Youth 12 1 1 1 15 283 Literacy Dev. Sec School 20 20 283 Literacy Dev. Sec School 15 2 1 18 285 Lit Across the Curriculum 15 4 1 1 21 321 Directed Teaching 19 19 321 Directed Teaching 2 2 321 Directed Teaching 24 24 321 Directed Teaching 7 7 324 Directed Teaching 4 4

Spring 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total

December 2012 6

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

263 Social Studies Methods 20 2 2 2 1 27 287 Reading in Content Areas 14 2 2 5 1 24 287 Reading in Content Areas 15 1 1 1 18 322 Directed Teaching 13 1 14 322 Directed Teaching 12 12 322 Directed Teaching 9 9 322 Directed Teaching 1 16 17 323 Inclusive Educ Practices 28 28 323 Inclusive Educ Practices 22 3 1 26 324 Directed Teaching 4 4

Summer 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 250 Social Foundations of Edu 11 11 251 Psych Foundations of Educ 18 18 252 Intro Teaching in Sec Sch 8 8 253 First/Second Lang Acquis 21 2 23 261 Math Found & Methods 5 3 1 4 13 271 Instr Tech for Teachers 13 2 1 16 271 Instr Tech for Teachers 16 16 275 Managing the Classroom 26 26 283 Literacy Dev. Sec School 11 11 285 Lit Across the Curriculum 14 14 306A Immersion Experience 13 13 306A Immersion Experience 9 9

AY 2011-12

Fall 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 250 Social Foundations Education 18 5 2 3 28 251 Psych Foundations Educ 24 24 252 Intro Tchg Sec School 14 2 3 2 1 22 253 First & Second Language Acquis 9 5 1 1 1 1 18 253 First/Sec Language Acquis 4 5 4 13 261 Math Foundations & Methods 1 5 3 2 1 1 13 271 Instr Tech for Tchrs 12 3 15 271 Instr Tech for Tchrs 8 8 275 Managing the Classroom 17 2 1 1 21 284 Intro to Teaching Reading 15 1 16 290 Issues in Assessmt 28 1 29

320 Directed Tchg 11 11 320 Directed Tchg 5 5 320 Directed Tchg 12 12 320 Directed Tchg 1 12 13 Winter 2012 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 256 Content Specific Methods 3 3 4 1 11 256 Content Specific Methods 4 5 3 2 14 256L Content Specific Methods 6 1 1 8 256L Content Specific Methods 1 4 1 6 256L Content Specific Methods 6 6 256L Content Specific Methods 3 1 1 5 276 Tchg Nonconventional Youth 24 5 29 260 Language Arts 21 21 262 Science Found & Methods 5 11 2 18

December 2012 7

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

283 Lit Devel in Sec School 23 1 2 26 285 Lit Across the Curric 13 13 321 Directed Tchg 16 16 321 Directed Tchg 2 2 321 Directed Tchg 12 12 321 Directed Tchg 10 10

Spring 2012 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 263 Soc Stud Methods 16 4 1 21 287 Reading in the Content Areas 17 1 2 1 21 322 Directed Tchg 10 10 322 Directed Tchg 5 5 322 Directed Tchg 13 13 322 Directed Tchg 12 12 323 Inclusive Educ Practices 12 11 2 1 26 323 Inclusive Educ Practices 17 17

Summer 2012* A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 251 Tech for K-12 Teachers 1 2 3 252 Soc/Ethical Foundations of Ed 1 2 1 4 253 Psych Foundations of Ed 6 6 273 1st/2nd Lang Acquis 7 5 1 1 1 15 274 Classroom Mgt 17 17 276 Tech for K-12 Teachers 2 3 3 8 277 Soc/Ethical Foundations of Ed 1 3 2 1 7 278 Psych Foundations of Ed 6 6 * Course numbers and titles were changed during the curriculum restructuring that occurred with the implementation of the new Master of Arts in Teaching-Teaching Credential program.

2. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE BY CANDIDATES’ UNIVERITY FIELD SUPERVISORS AND MASTER TEACHERS

AY 2010-2011 MULTIPLE SUBJECT Student Teaching Summative Evaluations by Field Supervisors and Master Teachers, 2010-11 2010-11 MS 2010-11 MS TPE Competencies (5-point scale) Field Sups Master Tchrs 1. Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter N Mean N Mean Candidate demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of CA content standards for

the grade level and is able to teach those standards in all circumstances. A. English-Language Arts 21 4.71 21 4.86 B. Mathematics 21 4.67 21 4.86 C. Science 21 4.71 21 4.76 D. Social Studies 21 4.67 21 4.76 2. Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction A. Appropriately monitors at key points 21 4.74 21 4.81 B. Appropriate pacing 21 4.45 21 4.52 C. Reteaches based on evidence gathered using a variety of methods 21 4.64 21 4.62 D. Anticipates, checks for, and addresses student misunderstandings 21 4.79 21 4.76 3. Interpretation and Use of Assessments A. Uses a variety of informal and formal assessment tools to determine student 21 21 progress 4.43 4.67 B. Uses assessment results to develop and modify instruction 21 4.45 21 4.71 C. Gives students specific, timely feedback on their learning 21 4.83 21 4.81 December 2012 8

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

D. Maintains accurate records of student achievement 19 4.42 21 4.57 4. Making Content Accessible A. Uses a variety of appropriate strategies, activities, procedures, and experiences 21 4.86 21 4.86 B. Reinforces content standards 21 4.95 21 4.86 C. Reinforces content in multiple ways 21 4.81 21 4.81 D. Uses appropriate motivational techniques 21 4.81 21 4.76 5. Student Engagement A. Communicates instructional objectives to students 21 4.71 21 4.81 B. Ensures active participation of all students 21 4.83 21 4.81 C. Re-engages students when appropriate 21 4.95 21 4.81 6. Developmentally Appropriate Practice Candidate uses knowledge of child and adolescent development to select age-

appropriate instructional materials and activities to teach the content standards. A. Grades K - 2 21 4.71 21 4.79 B. Grades 3 - 5 9 4.72 9 4.89 C. Grades 6 - 8 NA NA 2 5.00 7. Teaching English Learners A. Modifies all instruction to meet the needs of English learners 21 4.40 21 4.57 B. Implements appropriate instructional programs and uses appropriate materials 21 and strategies 4.48 21 4.76 C. Uses knowledge of students’ backgrounds and assessed proficiency levels to 21 adapt instruction 4.31 21 4.62 D. Uses sheltered instructional strategies to make content comprehensible for 21 English learners 4.38 21 4.57 E. Demonstrates understanding of California ELD standards 21 4.45 20 4.60 F. Understands the purpose of and interprets information from the CELDT 19 4.37 18 4.56 8. Learning About Students A. Draws on knowledge of child and adolescent development and is responsive to 20 students’ needs 4.67 20 4.73 B. Uses informal and formal assessment methods 21 4.55 20 4.90 C. Assesses students’ prior knowledge 21 4.55 21 4.81 D. Encourages parent involvement 16 4.19 15 4.47 E. Identifies students needing specialized learning opportunities 20 4.50 20 4.70 9. Instructional Planning A. Plans comprehensive instruction 21 4.76 21 4.95 B. Establishes clear short and long term goals based on California content 21 standards 4.60 21 4.76 C. Uses a variety of teaching methods 21 4.86 21 4.90 D. Sequences instruction appropriately 21 4.71 21 4.90 E. Connects content with students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, 21 experiences, interest, and developmental levels 4.57 21 4.62 F. Plans differentiated instruction; adapts lessons to meet students’ learning 21 needs 4.43 21 4.76 10. Instructional Time A. Maximizes learning opportunities for all students 21 4.64 21 4.69 B. Establishes and maintains efficient procedures and routines 21 4.79 21 4.74 C. Manages transitions smoothly 21 4.71 21 4.50 D. Redirects inappropriate student behavior effectively 21 4.71 21 4.62

December 2012 9

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

11. Social Environment A. Maintains clear expectations for academic and social behavior 21 4.86 21 4.81 B. Promotes student effort and engagement 21 4.90 21 4.90 C. Creates a positive classroom climate 21 4.95 21 4.90 D. Writes and implements a fair and consistent discipline plan 19 4.55 20 4.65 E. Establishes rapport with students and families 21 4.74 21 4.76 12. Professional and Legal Obligations A. Takes responsibility for students’ academic learning outcomes 21 4.83 21 4.86 B. Demonstrates understanding of all California and federal laws and procedures 21 related to learners 4.64 19 4.74 C. Able to identify cases of child abuse and aware of mandate to report such cases 17 4.76 12 4.75 D. Honors legal and professional obligations 21 4.90 18 4.78 E. Understands and honors all laws relating to professional misconduct 20 4.90 18 4.78 13. Professional Growth A. Uses self-evaluation, reflection, and feedback to develop goals for 21 improvement 4.81 21 4.86 14. Moral and Ethical Behavior A. Is aware of personal values and biases and takes steps to minimize their impact 20 on students 5.00 20 4.90 B. Resists racism and acts of intolerance 21 5.00 20 4.90 C. Models ethical behavior 21 5.00 21 4.95 D. Models empathy 21 5.00 21 4.95

SINGLE SUBJECT Student Teaching Summative Evaluations by Field Supervisors and Master Teachers, 2010-11 2010-11 SS Field 2010-11 SS TPE Competencies (5-point scale) Sups Master Tchrs 1. Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter N Mean N Mean A. Candidate demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of CA content standards for the content area and is able to teach those standards in all circumstances. 31 4.65 23 4.83 2. Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction A. Appropriately monitors at key points 30 4.53 24 4.62 B. Appropriate pacing 31 4.39 24 4.63 C. Reteaches based on evidence gathered using a variety of methods 31 4.45 24 4.50 D. Anticipates, checks for, and addresses student misunderstandings 31 4.58 24 4.58 3. Interpretation and Use of Assessments A. Uses a variety of informal and formal assessment tools to determine student progress 30 4.53 23 4.57 B. Uses assessment results to develop and modify instruction 28 4.41 23 4.52 C. Gives students specific, timely feedback on their learning 31 4.61 23 4.63 D. Maintains accurate records of student achievement 27 4.59 23 4.65 4. Making Content Accessible A. Uses a variety of appropriate strategies, activities, procedures, and experiences 31 4.61 24 4.63 B. Reinforces content standards 31 4.58 24 4.71 C. Reinforces content in multiple ways 31 4.48 24 4.63 D. Uses appropriate motivational techniques 31 4.37 24 4.73 5. Student Engagement December 2012 10

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

A. Communicates instructional objectives to students 31 4.65 24 4.58 B. Ensures active participation of all students 31 4.32 24 4.33 C. Re-engages students when appropriate 31 4.48 24 4.50 6. Developmentally Appropriate Practice Candidate uses knowledge of child and adolescent development to select age- appropriate instructional materials and activities to teach the content standards. A. Grades 6 – 8 8 4.25 5 4.80 B. Grades 9 – 12 31 4.65 24 4.60 7. Teaching English Learners A. Modifies all instruction to meet the needs of English learners 28 4.21 21 4.5 B. Implements appropriate instructional programs and uses appropriate materials and strategies 30 4.47 22 4.68 C. Uses knowledge of students’ backgrounds and assessed proficiency levels to adapt instruction 27 4.26 20 4.55 D. Uses sheltered instructional strategies to make content comprehensible for English learners 27 4.26 20 4.50 E. Demonstrates understanding of California ELD standards 25 4.32 20 4.43 F. Understands the purpose of and interprets information from the CELDT 23 4.22 20 4.48 8. Learning About Students A. Draws on knowledge of child and adolescent development and is responsive to students’ needs 30 4.57 24 4.71 B. Uses informal and formal assessment methods 31 4.58 24 4.67 C. Assesses students’ prior knowledge 31 4.61 24 4.60 D. Encourages parent involvement 19 4.32 18 4.22 E. Identifies students needing specialized learning opportunities 25 4.48 24 4.54 9. Instructional Planning A. Plans comprehensive instruction 31 4.61 24 4.65 B. Establishes clear short and long term goals based on California content standards 31 4.48 24 4.50 C. Uses a variety of teaching methods 31 4.58 24 4.62 D. Sequences instruction appropriately 30 4.57 24 4.65 E. Connects content with students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, experiences, interest, and developmental levels 30 4.33 24 4.54 F. Plans differentiated instruction; adapts lessons to meet students’ learning needs 26 4.38 22 4.34 10. Instructional Time A. Maximizes learning opportunities for all students 31 4.47 23 4.61 B. Establishes and maintains efficient procedures and routines 31 4.40 24 4.44 C. Manages transitions smoothly 31 4.35 24 4.33 D. Redirects inappropriate student behavior effectively 31 4.34 24 4.27 11. Social Environment A. Maintains clear expectations for academic and social behavior 31 4.45 24 4.54 B. Promotes student effort and engagement 31 4.61 24 4.56 C. Creates a positive classroom climate 31 4.61 24 4.75 D. Writes and implements a fair and consistent discipline plan 29 4.19 23 4.30 E. Establishes rapport with students and families 31 4.58 24 4.50 12. Professional and Legal Obligations A. Takes responsibility for students’ academic learning outcomes 31 4.71 24 4.79

December 2012 11

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA B. Demonstrates understanding of all California and federal laws and procedures related to learners 29 4.52 23 4.76 C. Able to identify cases of child abuse; aware of mandate to report 21 4.71 16 4.81 D. Honors legal and professional obligations 31 4.74 22 4.82 E. Understands and honors all laws relating to profess. misconduct 29 4.66 22 4.82 13. Professional Growth A. Uses self-evaluation, reflection, and feedback to develop goals for improvement 31 4.84 24 4.75 14. Moral and Ethical Behavior A. Is aware of personal values and biases and takes steps to minimize their impact on students 29 4.86 23 4.87 B. Resists racism and acts of intolerance 31 4.90 24 4.96 C. Models ethical behavior 31 4.97 24 4.92 D. Models empathy 31 4.87 24 4.92

AY 2011-2012 MULTIPLE SUBJECT Student Teaching Summative Evaluations by Field Supervisors and Master Teachers, 2011-12 2011-12 MS 2011-12 MS TPE Competencies (4 point scale) Field Sups Master Tchrs 1. Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter N Mean N Mean Candidate demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of CA content standards for the grade level and is able to teach those standards in all circumstances. A. English-Language Arts 18 3.67 17 3.82 B. Mathematics 17 3.71 17 3.88 C. Science 14 3.86 15 3.67 D. Social Studies 15 3.73 17 3.71 2. Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction A. Appropriately monitors at key points 18 3.83 17 3.76 B. Appropriate pacing 18 3.67 17 3.59 C. Reteaches based on evidence gathered using a variety of methods 18 3.61 17 3.82 D. Anticipates, checks for, and addresses student misunderstandings 17 3.65 17 3.76 3. Interpretation and Use of Assessments A. Uses a variety of informal and formal assessment tools to determine student progress 18 3.78 17 3.65 B. Uses assessment results to develop and modify instruction 16 3.75 17 3.76 C. Gives students specific, timely feedback on their learning 18 3.72 17 3.88 D. Maintains accurate records of student achievement 16 3.56 17 3.71 4. Making Content Accessible A. Uses a variety of appropriate strategies, activities, procedures, and experiences 18 3.94 17 4.00 B. Reinforces content standards 18 3.78 17 3.76 C. Reinforces content in multiple ways 18 3.78 17 3.88 D. Uses appropriate motivational techniques 18 3.83 17 3.94 5. Student Engagement A. Communicates instructional objectives to students 18 3.67 16 3.81 B. Ensures active participation of all students 18 3.67 17 3.76 C. Re-engages students when appropriate 18 3.78 17 3.88 6. Developmentally Appropriate Practice December 2012 12

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

Candidate uses knowledge of child and adolescent development to select age- appropriate instructional materials and activities to teach the content standards. A. Grades K - 2 15 3.80 11 4.00 B. Grades 3 - 5 6 3.67 8 3.75 C. Grades 6 - 8 0 0 7. Teaching English Learners A. Modifies all instruction to meet the needs of English learners 18 3.61 14 3.71 B. Implements appropriate instructional programs and uses appropriate materials and strategies 18 3.61 15 3.67 C. Uses knowledge of students’ backgrounds and assessed proficiency levels to adapt instruction 14 3.50 12 3.58 D. Uses sheltered instructional strategies to make content comprehensible for English learners 18 3.44 17 3.59 E. Demonstrates understanding of California ELD standards 17 3.32 16 3.44 F. Understands the purpose of and interprets information from the CELDT 16 3.53 16 3.50 8. Learning About Students A. Draws on knowledge of child and adolescent development and is responsive to students’ needs 18 3.83 17 3.88 B. Uses informal and formal assessment methods 18 3.67 17 3.82 C. Assesses students’ prior knowledge 17 3.41 16 3.63 D. Encourages parent involvement 14 3.36 16 3.75 E. Identifies students needing specialized learning opportunities 17 3.74 16 3.75 9. Instructional Planning A. Plans comprehensive instruction 18 3.72 17 3.82 B. Establishes clear short and long term goals based on California content standards 18 3.72 17 3.71 C. Uses a variety of teaching methods 18 3.89 17 3.94 D. Sequences instruction appropriately 18 3.78 17 3.76 E. Connects content with students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, experiences, interest, and developmental levels 18 3.58 17 3.65 F. Plans differentiated instruction; adapts lessons to meet students’ learning needs 18 3.47 17 3.76 10. Instructional Time A. Maximizes learning opportunities for all students 18 3.75 17 3.88 B. Establishes and maintains efficient procedures and routines 18 3.83 17 4.00 C. Manages transitions smoothly 18 3.83 17 3.82 D. Redirects inappropriate student behavior effectively 18 3.78 17 3.71 11. Social Environment A. Maintains clear expectations for academic and social behavior 18 3.89 17 3.88 B. Promotes student effort and engagement 18 3.89 17 3.94 C. Creates a positive classroom climate 18 3.89 17 3.94 D. Writes and implements a fair and consistent discipline plan 16 3.56 16 3.81 E. Establishes rapport with students and families 17 3.76 17 3.94 12. Professional and Legal Obligations A. Takes responsibility for students’ academic learning outcomes 18 3.89 17 3.82 B. Demonstrates understanding of all California and federal laws and procedures related to learners 18 3.47 16 3.50 C. Able to identify cases of child abuse and aware of mandate to report such cases 15 3.73 10 3.50 D. Honors legal and professional obligations 18 3.83 17 3.71 December 2012 13

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

E. Understands and honors all laws relating to professional misconduct 18 3.89 17 3.76 13. Professional Growth A. Uses self-evaluation, reflection, and feedback to develop goals for improvement 18 3.83 17 3.94

SINGLE SUBJECT Student Teaching Summative Evaluations by Field Supervisors and Master Tchrs, 2011-12 2011-12 SS 2011-12 SS TPE Competencies (4 point scale) Field Sups Master Tchrs 1. Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter N Mean N Mean A. Candidate demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of the California content standards for the content area and is able to teach those standards in all circumstances. 22 3.52 21 3.74 2. Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction A. Appropriately monitors at key points 22 3.59 21 3.62 B. Appropriate pacing 22 3.55 21 3.48 C. Reteaches based on evidence gathered using a variety of methods 22 3.50 21 3.52 D. Anticipates, checks for, and addresses student misunderstandings 22 3.55 21 3.67 3. Interpretation and Use of Assessments A. Uses a variety of informal and formal assessment tools to determine student progress 22 3.36 21 3.57 B. Uses assessment results to develop and modify instruction 22 3.41 21 3.52 C. Gives students specific, timely feedback on their learning 22 3.64 21 3.48 D. Maintains accurate records of student achievement 22 3.45 21 3.71 4. Making Content Accessible A. Uses a variety of appropriate strategies, activities, procedures, and experiences 22 3.73 21 3.64 B. Reinforces content standards 22 3.59 21 3.57 C. Reinforces content in multiple ways 22 3.41 21 3.43 D. Uses appropriate motivational techniques 22 3.55 21 3.52 5. Student Engagement A. Communicates instructional objectives to students 22 3.41 21 3.57 B. Ensures active participation of all students 22 3.45 20 3.60 C. Re-engages students when appropriate 22 3.55 21 3.57 6. Developmentally Appropriate Practice Candidate uses knowledge of child and adolescent development to select age- appropriate instructional materials and activities to teach the content standards. A. Grades 6 - 8 2 3.50 2 4.00 B. Grades 9 - 12 20 3.35 20 3.55 7. Teaching English Learners A. Modifies all instruction to meet the needs of English learners 22 3.23 21 3.43 B. Implements appropriate instructional programs and uses appropriate materials and strategies 22 3.41 20 3.45 C. Uses knowledge of students’ backgrounds and assessed proficiency levels to adapt instruction 22 3.23 20 3.45 D. Uses sheltered instructional strategies to make content comprehensible for English learners 21 3.10 21 3.38 E. Demonstrates understanding of California ELD standards 19 3.16 20 3.43 F. Understands the purpose of and interprets information from the CELDT 18 3.28 20 3.50

December 2012 14

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

8. Learning About Students A. Draws on knowledge of child and adolescent development and is responsive to students’ needs 22 3.41 21 3.52 B. Uses informal and formal assessment methods 22 3.50 20 3.65 C. Assesses students’ prior knowledge 22 3.41 21 3.57 D. Encourages parent involvement 16 3.28 19 3.34 E. Identifies students needing specialized learning opportunities 20 3.45 21 3.48 9. Instructional Planning A. Plans comprehensive instruction 22 3.68 21 3.71 B. Establishes clear short and long term goals based on California content standards 21 3.71 20 3.55 C. Uses a variety of teaching methods 22 3.77 21 3.86 D. Sequences instruction appropriately 22 3.59 21 3.62 E. Connects content with students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, experiences, interest, and developmental levels 21 3.43 20 3.60 F. Plans differentiated instruction; adapts lessons to meet students’ learning needs 22 3.27 21 3.52 10. Instructional Time A. Maximizes learning opportunities for all students 22 3.55 21 3.57 B. Establishes and maintains efficient procedures and routines 22 3.55 21 3.57 C. Manages transitions smoothly 22 3.45 21 3.48 D. Redirects inappropriate student behavior effectively 22 3.45 21 3.43 11. Social Environment A. Maintains clear expectations for academic and social behavior 22 3.41 21 3.52 B. Promotes student effort and engagement 22 3.64 21 3.62 C. Creates a positive classroom climate 22 3.80 21 3.81 D. Writes and implements a fair and consistent discipline plan 21 3.24 20 3.45 E. Establishes rapport with students and families 21 3.57 21 3.62 12. Professional and Legal Obligations A. Takes responsibility for students’ academic learning outcomes 22 3.50 21 3.67 B. Demonstrates understanding of all California and federal laws and procedures related to learners 21 3.38 21 3.48 C. Able to identify cases of child abuse and aware of mandate to report such cases 21 3.14 19 3.53 D. Honors legal and professional obligations 22 3.55 20 3.65 E. Understands and honors all laws relating to professional misconduct 20 3.65 19 3.58 13. Professional Growth A. Uses self-evaluation, reflection, and feedback to develop goals for improvement 22 3.84 21 3.74

December 2012 15

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

3. CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE ON THE CAL TPA

All Candidates TPA 1 -SSP TPA 2- DI TPA 3-AL TPA 4- CTE N 53 53 46 43 Passed on first attempt 48 45 40 41 2009-10 % Passing on first attempt 90% 84% 86% 95% N 58 54 52 48 Passed on first attempt 51 51 51 46 2010-11 % Passing on first attempt 87% 94% 98% 95% N 42 42 40 40 Passed on first attempt 41 40 39 39 2011-12 % Passing on first attempt 97% 95% 97% 97%

Multiple Subject Candidates TPA 1 -SSP TPA 2- DI TPA 3-AL TPA 4- CTE N 23 23 22 22 Passed on first attempt 20 22 20 21 2009-10 % Passing on first attempt 87% 96% 91% 96% N 24 22 20 18

Passed on first attempt 22 22 20 18 2010-11 % Passing on first attempt 91% 100% 100% 100% N 17 18 18 18 Passed on first attempt 16 18 18 18 2011-12 % Passing on first attempt 94% 100% 100% 100%

Single Subject Candidates TPA 1 -SSP TPA 2- DI TPA 3-AL TPA 4- CTE N 30 30 24 21 Passed on first attempt 28 23 20 20 2009-10 % Passing on first attempt 94% 76% 84% 96% N 34 32 32 30 Passed on first attempt 29 29 31 28 2010-11 % Passing on first attempt 85% 90% 96% 93% N 25 24 22 22 Passed on first attempt 25 22 21 21 2011-12 % Passing on first attempt 100% 91% 95% 95%

ASSESSING STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION

1. CANDIDATE EXIT SURVEYS

2010-11 2011-12 MS Completers’ Perceptions of Program Effectiveness Completer N =21 Completer N=18 TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 13 3.23 9 3.44 Using a variety of teaching approaches 13 3.38 9 3.44 Designing instruction to meet students' needs 13 3.46 9 3.56 Responding effectively to discipline problems 13 2.77 9 3.00 Including students with special needs in your classroom 13 3.08 9 3.22

December 2012 16

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

Adapting instruction for English language learners 13 3.46 9 3.11 Supporting students with reading difficulties 13 3.31 9 3.00 Assessing student learning 13 3.08 9 3.22 Implementing the California State Content Standards 13 3.77 9 3.56 Developing both long range and short range plans NA NA 9 2.89 Understanding the ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 13 3.77 9 3.44 Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 13 3.62 9 3.11 Integrating technology into your teaching 13 3.00 9 2.56 Teaching reading in the content areas 13 3.23 9 3.22 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 13 3.23 9 2.89 Improving your teaching through reflection 13 3.54 9 3.44

2010-11 2011-12 SS Completers’ Perceptions of Program Effectiveness Completer N=29 Completer N=23 TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 19 3.11 14 2.86 Using a variety of teaching approaches 19 3.26 14 3.21 Designing instruction to meet students' needs 19 3.26 14 2.86 Responding effectively to discipline problems 19 2.95 14 2.57 Including students with special needs in your classroom 19 2.89 14 2.86 Adapting instruction for English language learners 19 3.16 14 3.00 Supporting students with reading difficulties 19 3.05 14 2.71 Assessing student learning 19 3.37 14 3.43 Implementing the California State Content Standards 19 3.42 14 3.29 Developing both long range and short range plans NA NA 14 3.07 Understanding the ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 19 3.58 14 3.36 Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 19 3.42 14 2.86 Integrating technology into your teaching 19 2.89 14 3.07 Teaching reading in the content areas 19 3.16 14 2.93 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 19 3.11 14 2.86 Improving your teaching through reflection 19 3.58 14 3.07

December 2012 17

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

2. MASTER TEACHER EXIT SURVEYS

MS Master Teachers’ Perceptions of SCU Program Effectiveness 2010-11 2011-12 TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 16 2.50 10 3.20 Using a variety of teaching approaches 16 3.00 10 3.70 Designing instruction to meet students' needs 16 2.94 10 3.80 Responding effectively to discipline problems 16 2.50 10 3.30 Including students with special needs in your classroom 16 2.67 10 3.50 Adapting instruction for English language learners 16 2.63 10 3.50 Supporting students with reading difficulties 16 2.50 9 3.33 Assessing student learning 16 3.06 10 3.50 Implementing the California State Content Standards 16 3.13 10 3.80 Developing both long range and short range plans 16 2.69 9 3.67 Understanding the ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 16 3.00 9 3.56 Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 16 2.81 9 3.56 Integrating technology into your teaching 16 2.75 8 3.63 Teaching reading in the content areas 16 2.81 8 3.50 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 16 2.81 9 3.44 Improving your teaching through reflection 16 3.25 9 3.89

SS Master Teachers’ Perceptions of Program Effectiveness 2010-11 2011-12 TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 10 2.40 6 2.83 Using a variety of teaching approaches 10 2.80 6 3.33 Designing instruction to meet students' needs 10 2.60 6 3.33 Responding effectively to discipline problems 10 2.00 6 3.00 Including students with special needs in your classroom 10 2.40 5 3.40 Adapting instruction for English language learners 10 2.40 5 3.20 Supporting students with reading difficulties 10 2.40 6 2.67 Assessing student learning 10 2.70 6 3.17 Implementing the California State Content Standards 10 3.00 6 3.50 Developing both long range and short range plans 10 2.50 6 3.33 Understanding the ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 10 3.20 6 3.83 Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 10 3.10 6 3.33 Integrating technology into your teaching 10 2.80 6 3.67 Teaching reading in the content areas 10 2.70 5 3.40 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 10 2.50 6 3.17 Improving your teaching through reflection 10 2.80 6 3.33

December 2012 18

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

3. ALUMNI SATISFACTION SURVEYS

MS First Year Completers’ Satisfaction with Program 2010-11 2011-12

TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 4 3.25 6 2.83

Using a variety of teaching approaches 4 3.25 6 3.17

Designing instruction to meet students' needs 4 3.25 6 2.67 Responding effectively to discipline problems 4 3.00 6 2.67

Including students with special needs in your classroom 4 2.50 6 3.00 Adapting instruction for English language learners 4 3.00 6 3.67

Supporting students with reading difficulties 4 3.00 6 2.67 Assessing student learning 4 3.50 6 2.83

Implementing the California State Content Standards 4 3.75 6 3.00

Developing both long range and short range plans 4 3.00 6 3.00 Understanding ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 4 3.75 6 3.50 Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 4 3.25 6 3.50

Integrating technology into your teaching 4 3.00 6 3.00

Teaching reading in the content areas 4 3.50 6 3.33 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 4 3.00 6 2.83 Improving your teaching through reflection 4 3.50 6 3.50

SS First Year Completers’ Satisfaction with Program 2010-11 2011-12

TPE-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Managing a classroom 8 2.38 6 2.50 Using a variety of teaching approaches 8 2.38 6 2.83 Designing instruction to meet students' needs 8 2.63 6 2.67

Responding effectively to discipline problems 8 2.25 6 2.50 Including students with special needs in your classroom 8 2.75 6 2.50 Adapting instruction for English language learners 8 2.88 6 2.83 Supporting students with reading difficulties 8 2.13 6 2.50

Assessing student learning 8 3.00 6 3.33 Implementing the California State Content Standards 8 3.13 6 3.17 Developing both long range and short range plans 8 3.25 6 3.33 Understanding ethical/professional obligations of being a teacher 8 3.50 6 3.50

Addressing cultural diversity in your classroom 8 2.75 6 3.17 Integrating technology into your teaching 8 2.75 6 3.17 Teaching reading in the content areas 8 2.50 6 2.83 Supporting students with difficulty in various subject areas 8 2.38 6 2.67

Improving your teaching through reflection 8 3.38 6 3.83 December 2012 19

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

4. ALUMNI EMPLOYERS’ SATISFACTION SURVEYS

MS/SS Alumni Employers’ Satisfaction with Program MS/SS Principals 2010-12 TPE-linked Competencies N Mean Teaching the standards for the grade level or content area 3 3.67 Planning and sequencing instruction to support student achievement 3 3.33 Checking for student understanding at key points during instruction 3 3.33 Using a variety of assessment tools to determine student progress 3 3.33 Using assessment data to plan effective instruction 3 3.67 Using varied instructional strategies and motivation techniques 3 3.67 Planning learning experiences that reflect student needs, interests, and backgrounds 3 3.33 Developing short and long range plans 3 3.67 Implementing multiple approaches to ensure student engagement 3 3.33 Redirecting inappropriate student behavior 3 3.67 Using developmentally appropriate teaching strategies 3 3.67 Identifying and responding to student need for specialized instruction or adaptations 3 3.67 Establishing and maintaining positive relationships with students and their families 3 3.67 Implementing classroom procedures and routines that maximize instructional time 3 3.33 Making instructional adjustments to optimize learning opportunities/outcomes for all students 3 3.33 Communicating clear expectations for academic and social behavior 3 3.67 Creating a respectful, productive learning environment 3 3.67 Responding to the legal and professional obligations of being a teacher 3 3.67 Using self-evaluation, reflection, feedback from others to improve tching 3 3.33

Part III- Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Strengths Weaknesses Candidate Increase in the percentage of MS and SS candidates who In comparison to 2011 MS program completers, 2012 Competence earned a passing TPA score on their first attempt of each MS completers’ assessment of their preparation for task from AY 2009-10 to AY 2011-12. teaching declined on 9 of 15 competencies on the exit survey. Candidates’ student teaching performance is consistently assessed as meeting or exceeding expectations by both their In comparison to 2011 SS program completers, 2012 university field supervisors and their site-based master SS completers’ assessment of their preparation for teachers. teaching declined on 14 of 15 competencies on the exit survey. Program Compared to the perceptions of the Spring 2011 MS/SS Our difficulty tracking our program completers into Effectiveness program completers, alumni, and master teachers, the Spring the early years of their careers, along with a low 2012 respondents demonstrated greater satisfaction with the response rate from the alumni we are able to contact, quality of SCU’s professional preparation. Improvements makes it challenging to get a clear picture of the kind relative to Spring 2011 include of teachers our completers become. (1) Master teachers’ perceptions of the quality of the MS and SS teacher preparation provided by our institution Master teachers typically gave candidates higher on all 16 TPE-linked competencies assessed on our teaching performance ratings than the field stakeholder satisfaction survey supervisors: in AY 2011-12, multiple subject master (2) MS first year completers’ satisfaction with their teachers gave ratings higher than the field preparation in strategies for instructing students with supervisors’ for 73% of the elements on the special needs, instructing EL students, and addressing summative evaluations; single subject master cultural diversity in their classrooms teachers gave higher ratings than the field (3) SS first year completers’ satisfaction with the supervisors on 82% of the elements on the preparation they received in 14 of 16 competencies. summative evaluations.

December 2012 20

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

Part IV- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

DATA-DRIVEN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES IMPLEMENTED SINCE PREVIOUS BIENNIAL REPORT

1. Increasing Our Candidates’ First-Attempt Passing Rate on the CalTPAs

Data Source TPA Scores Applicable Program or Common Standard(s) Common Standard 9 Program Standards 16-18

In our 2009 Biennial Report, we listed strategies planned to increase the percentage of candidates passing each TPA task on their first attempt. In AY 2009-10 we implemented some of those strategies. In addition, from 2009-2012 we sought input on the CalTPA preparation/support process from our Program Advisory Committee members and continually solicited formative feedback from credential candidates on their satisfaction with the strategies we were implementing. Each year we used the recommendations we received—along with our own observations and interpretations—to adjust our strategies for increasing the first-time passing rate. The table below documents our specific efforts during this period.

Strategies For Improving Candidate CalTPA Preparation and Increasing Candidate First-Attempt Pass Rate Strategies Implemented Implemented Implemented AY 2009-10 AY 2010-2011 AY 2011-12 Mandatory preparation workshops for each task    Development and implementation of detailed TPA calendar (including    workshops, due dates, score return dates, etc.) Inclusion of TPA-related information in Candidate Handbook    Drop-in TPA work sessions    TPA Study Halls    Moving candidates’ clinical practice placement start date from mid- Strongly September to early August  recommended,  not required Providing supplemental candidate workshops to introduce and Strongly reinforce key concepts/practices  recommended,  not required Faculty TPA training followed by syllabus revision and alignment   

The combination of (1) frank and insightful feedback received from stakeholders and candidates, (2) MS/SS program faculty’s willingness to experiment and to discard ineffective strategies quickly, and (3) encouragement from our interim deans to make significant programmatic changes rather than small surface- level adjustments enabled us to improve and stabilize our candidates’ first-time passing rate (see below).

Percent of Preliminary MS/SS Credential Candidates Passing CalTPA 1-4 on Their First Attempt, 2008-2012 Task 1-SSP Task 2-DI Task 3-ASL Task 4-CTE 2009 completers 78% 96% 88% 96% 2010 completers 90% 84% 86% 95% 2011 completers 87% 94% 98% 95% 2012 completers 97% 95% 97% 97%

2. Standardizing Our Procedures for Formative Assessment of Student Teachers’ Practices

Data Source Formative assessment tools used by field supervisors and master teachers in student teaching placements Applicable Program or Common Common Standards 7, 9 Standard(s) Program Standards 2, 14

December 2012 21

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

A detailed review of the student teaching assessments completed by master teachers and field supervisors from AY 2008-09 through AY 2010-11 revealed that the program’s two existing formative assessment tools were used inconsistently, supplemented with other hand-written feedback, and modified by the field supervisors and master teachers who used them in the field. The shortcomings of the tools themselves, the irregularities in the way they were used, and the need to provide candidates with appropriate, targeted, TPE-linked feedback prompted the development and implementation of a new formative assessment tool.

In Spring and Summer 2011, the field supervisors and the Director of Teacher Education collaborated on the development of an effective, user-friendly, and valid formative assessment tool that would reflect the expertise of the field supervisors, the recent research on the evaluation of student teaching, and the TPEs. The group also decided to switch from a 5-point scale to a 4-point scale to make our assessment ratings consistent with the scale used for the CalTPAs. The language established for each score level on our tool is:

1- Far below expectations; 2- Approaching expectations; 3- Meets expectations; 4- Exceeds expectations.

After stakeholders, including the Director of Assessment, provided input, a draft tool was developed and a two- step calibration process was implemented.

Step One: A small group of experienced supervisors watched four Culminating Teaching Experience videos made by recent program completers (with their permission), independently evaluated each student teacher’s performance using the new tool, and discussed their scores and their reasoning. With the guidance of our Director of Assessment, many small adjustments and clarifications were made to the tool during this iterative process. The final outcome of this step was a set of four calibration videos with accompanying anchor score documents ready for use in calibrating the remaining field supervisors.

Step Two: A whole-group calibration session, led by the Director of Teacher Education and the Director of Assessment with the assistance of the field supervisors who had been involved in Step One of the process, was conducted for all field supervisors in December 2011. This was the first time SCU’s field supervisors had been calibrated on any assessment tool. During the session, the formative assessment tool was polished and readied for piloting. A lengthy conversation about the specific meaning and use of the rating scores enabled the group to set the expectation that teacher candidate performance would always be judged in relation to mastery of the TPEs: a rating of “meeting expectations” would indicate that the student teacher was performing at a level of proficiency that would warrant recommendation for a preliminary credential. At the start of student teaching, then, candidates should expect to receive mainly scores of 2 (approaching expectations). This shift was a significant change from existing practices.

The formative assessment tool was introduced to credential candidates in Fall 2011 and then implemented at the start of student teaching beginning in Winter 2012. In June 2012, the field supervisors convened to discuss their experiences using the formative assessment tool with student teachers in the field and to share informal feedback from the master teachers, especially those who had experience with the old formative assessment forms. All reports were favorable and no changes were made to the tool. We will implement the tool with our current cohort of credential candidates beginning in January 2013 and will continue to monitor its effectiveness.

3. Developing and Implementing Explicit and Consistent Program-Level Grading Expectations

Data Source Credential candidate transcripts, university-generated course grade distribution tables Applicable Program or Common Standard 9 Common Standard(s) Program Standard 1

December 2012 22

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Difficult experiences with teacher candidates who had significant academic difficulties and required intensive faculty support and yet still achieved high GPAs in the preliminary credential program led to a review of the grade distributions in the preliminary MS/SS credential program and discussions about grade inflation. Ultimately, faculty identified the need to establish clear and consistent grading polices that would be used across all courses in the program.

Faculty discussed the recent alignment of the formative assessment tool with the expectations embedded in the CalTPA process and agreed that our new grading policy should be closely aligned to the other two sources of data on candidate competence. Doing this would create a coherent and defensible evaluation framework for the program. See the table below for the grading expectations that were established:

Far Below Approaching Meets Exceeds Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations Score on 4- 1 2 3 4 point scale Letter grade D C B A equivalent Description of The candidate’s The candidate’s The candidate’s The candidate’s independent, unassisted this level of performance/product performance/ performance/ performance/product clearly, performance demonstrates an product product consistently, and convincingly overall lack of demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates high levels of proficiency proficiency in many partial, inconsistent proficiency in in all aspects of the skills/TPEs assessed. of the skills/TPEs proficiency in the all aspects of The performance/product goes beyond assessed. Some skills/TPEs the skills/TPEs completion and accuracy by required parts of the assessed. Some assessed. All demonstrating strong evidence of performance/product required parts of required parts original, creative thought and/or are missing and some the performance/ of the sophisticated insight into the students required parts of the product are performance/ and the context. Performance/product performance/ product incomplete, product are exceeds expectations in ways that are are inaccurate. limited, ambiguous complete and appropriate, meaningful, relevant, or inaccurate. accurate. accurate, clear, and detailed. The performance/product’s added features are deliberately aimed at maximizing and deepening learning for all students in the class.

The faculty plan for implementing the new grading expectations was to ramp up in Fall 2011 and go to full implementation in Winter 2012.

However, as the AY 2011-12 course grade data presented in this report illustrate, full implementation of the new grading expectations did not occur. This inconsistency in grading was a source of confusion and frustration for our credential candidates as well as for the faculty members who implemented the agreed-upon expectations. Further, many candidates were upset to learn that meeting all expectations on an assignment or in a course did not result in an A grade. These feelings are clearly visible in their program exit surveys: the data gathered from the 2011-12 program completers show a dramatic decline in perceptions of preparedness for teaching in comparison to the data gathered from the 2010-11 program completers. Meeting expectations but only earning Bs, rather than As, on some assignments and in some courses left our candidates feeling like they were under-performing, unsuccessful, and underprepared for teaching.

These data are a concern for department faculty. Efforts were made to examine and discuss the 2011-12 grade distribution data with the program faculty in Fall 2012 and will continue throughout this academic year. We are considering a range of strategies aimed at increasing faculty implementation of the new grading standards, such as providing additional training and including “adherence to the grading expectations for the program” as an element taken into consideration in faculty performance evaluations and consideration for merit raises. However, these steps do not impact candidates’ perceptions of the grades they receive or of the quality of their December 2012 23

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA preparation for teaching.

PROPOSED DATA-DRIVEN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES BASED ON DATA FROM THIS BIENNIAL REPORT

1. Improving Master Teachers’ Understanding of our Formative Assessment Tool and Rating Scale

Data Source Completed formative and summative student teaching evaluation documents Applicable Program or Common Standard 9 Common Standard(s) Program Standard 1

All of our field supervisors are calibrated on our new formative assessment tool. However, the master teachers are not calibrated. Rather, they receive an overview of the tool and our scoring expectations. A review of our candidates’ formative and summative student teaching evaluations reveals that master teachers’ ratings of our credential candidates’ teaching competencies are consistently higher than the ratings awarded by our calibrated field supervisors.

We intend to make efforts to strengthen the master teachers’ understandings of our rating scale and performance expectations. This could occur in a variety of ways: (a) Master teachers could be calibrated on the formative assessment tool using a process like the one used with the field supervisors. (b) Field supervisors and master teachers could participate in a workshop that would calibrate the master teachers and recalibrate the field supervisors and serve to develop greater clarity, shared expectations, and common language (c) Field supervisors could dedicate time at the December 3-way Advancement to Student Teaching benchmark meeting to review the rating scale and performance expectations. By this point in the program the credential candidates will have already had the opportunity to practice using the formative assessment tool by evaluating YouTube videos of student teachers and could help guide the conversation. (d) Each teacher candidate would teach a lesson in Fall quarter that would be observed jointly by her or his master teacher(s) and field supervisor. At the conclusion of the lesson, the master teacher and field supervisor would debrief their ratings and discuss the areas in which their assessment of the candidate’s performance differed. The intent of this exercise would be to help the master teacher understand and internalize our credential program’s expectations, not to come to consensus or negotiate a compromise.

2. Developing and Implementing Strategies for Alumni Relations and Management

Data Source Stakeholder Satisfaction surveys Applicable Program or Common Standard 2, 9 Common Standard(s)

Because maintaining contact and connection with program completers is critically important for the collection of stakeholder satisfaction data, we need to develop and implement an alumni relations strategy that will enable us to maintain connections to our alumni. Further, recent trends in the field suggest teacher preparation programs may soon be expected to provide “value added” data that establish causal connections between the experiences provided in the preparation program, the practices of the program completers, and the academic outcomes of the program completers’ students. Beginning alumni relations work now will enable us to move quickly and efficiently in response to requests for those data.

Our ability to keep track of our program completers is constrained by young adults’ high mobility rates, young December 2012 24

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA women’s tendency to change their last names when they get married, continual changes in email addresses (including losing their SCU email address after graduation) and preferred phone numbers, and school districts’ email firewalls that screen/block emails sent to their employees. As a result, our efforts to keep track of our program completers have been inconsistent and ineffective. We intend to design, implement, and routinze a centralized system that enables us to keep tabs on the whereabouts of our program alumni, to encourage and nurture their connection to SCU, and to tap into their work in local schools and districts.

December 2012 25

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

GENERAL EDUCATION CLEAR TEACHING CREDENTIAL PROGRAM

PART II (a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential?

Assessment Benchmark Evidence of Candidate Progress/Competence point Assessed by Start of Fall Admission Data Form • Possession of a valid preliminary MS/SS credential Program • Evidence of Employment at a WASC-accredited Catholic school Completed by credential (September) • Completed “Verification of Unavailability of Commission- analyst Approved Induction Program” Form (CTC CL-855)

Fall Quarter Candidates receive

• Formative feedback from SCU faculty coach • Assignment grades from course instructor End of Fall Continuation in program • Coursework grades of B or better Quarter Course instructor/SCU • Assessment scores of 2.0 or higher on CSTP-based teaching (December) faculty coach/Program evaluation tool Director Winter Candidates receive Quarter • Formative feedback from SCU faculty coach • Assignment grades from course instructor End of Continuation in program • Coursework grades of B or better Winter Course instructor/SCU • Assessment scores of 2.5 or higher on CSTP-based teaching Quarter faculty coach/Program evaluation tool (March) Director Spring Candidates receive Quarter • Formative feedback from SCU faculty coach. • Assignment grades from course instructors

End of Continuation in program • Coursework grades of B or better Spring • Assessment scores of 3.0 or higher on CSTP-based teaching Course instructor/SCU Quarter evaluation tool faculty coach/Program (June) Director

Summer Candidates receive guidance, support, and direction from Program Director as they complete their Quarter Capstone Projects End of Completion of program • Coursework grade of B or better Summer Course instructor, SCU • Successful completion of Capstone Project Quarter faculty coach, program (July) director, candidates’ school principals Program CTC credential • Verification of completion of all SCU program requirements Completion recommendation • Verification of completion of all CTC program requirements (August) Credential analyst

PART II (b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-making?

The table below presents all the sources of candidate competence and program effectiveness used in the general education clear credential program. Data from the tools highlighted in yellow are provided in Part II (c).

December 2012 26

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA CANDIDATE COMPETENCE Assessment tool Description Data Collected Course grades Summative assessment of candidate attainment of Course instructors’ assessment of course objectives and California Standards for the candidate mastery of course-specific Teaching Profession linked to those objectives California Standards for the Teaching Profession Quarterly teaching CSTP-linked rating scale and narrative comments University field supervisor’s evaluations assessing candidate performance in their Catholic assessment of candidate mastery of all school classroom CSTPs Signature assignment grades CSTP-linked rubric assessing candidate Faculty assessment of candidate performance on key course assignments mastery of specific CSTPs Capstone project evaluation CSTP-linked rubric assessing candidate Assessment of candidate competence performance on the capstone project provided by candidate, course instructor, program director, Catholic school principal(s), and classmates STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION Assessment tool Description Data Collected Candidate exit survey Candidate satisfaction with courses, Candidate evaluation of program effectiveness. field experiences, improvement of Contains rating scales and open-ended response teaching practice, and experience in the questions. program Candidate’s supervising Supervising administrator evaluation of program Supervising administrator satisfaction administrator exit survey effectiveness. Contains rating scales and open- with candidate outcomes and program ended response questions. components Alumni survey (1st year Assessment of program impact and effectiveness Program completer satisfaction with the completer survey) provided by program completers who completed impact of the program on teaching the program within the past 1-5 years. Contains practice improvement and other rating scales and open-ended response questions. professional dimensions. Alumni employer survey (1st Assessment of program impact and effectiveness Supervising administrator satisfaction year completer survey) provided by the supervising administrators of with the impact of the program on teachers who completed the program within the teacher practice and other professional past 1-5 years. Contains rating scales and open- dimensions. ended response questions.

Part II (c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b).

Please note that the General Education Clear credential program enrolled its first cohort of students in Fall 2011. Therefore, there are no data candidate competence data presented for AY 2010-2011 and no stakeholder satisfaction data from program alumni and alumni employers.

ASSESSING CANDIDATE COMPETENCE

1. CANDIDATE GRADES IN CREDENTIAL PROGRAM COURSEWORK

AY 2011-12 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- F Total Fall 2011 330 Integ Theory & Prac in Class 5 2 2 9 Winter 2012 331 Integ Theory & Prac in Class 7 2 9 Spring 2012 332 Integ Theory & Prac in Class 6 1 1 1 9 Summer 2012 333 Clear Capstone Project 7 1 1 9

December 2012 27

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA 2. EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE TEACHING PERFORMANCE BY UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR Clear Credential SCU Faculty Coach Quarterly Teaching Evaluations, AY 2011-12 (N=9) Fall Winter Spring CSTP Competencies (4-point scale) Mean Mean Mean Engaging and supporting all students in learning 3.11 3.33 3.44 Creating /maintaining effective environments for student learning 2.44 2.78 2.89 Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning 2.78 2.89 3.00 Planning instruction/designing learning experiences for all students 2.67 3.11 3.11 Assessing student learning 2.22 2.56 3.00 Developing as a professional educator 2.89 2.89 3.44

3. CANDIDATE CAPSTONE PROJECT PERFORMANCE Clear Candidate Performance on Capstone Projects, AY 2011-12 (N=9)

CSTP Competencies Mean Rating Engaging and supporting all students in learning 3.58 Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning 3.61 Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning 3.59 Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students 3.53 Assessing student learning 3.53 Developing as a professional educator 3.67

ASSESSING STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION

1. CANDIDATE EXIT SURVEY

Program Program Completers’ Satisfaction with Clear Credential Program Effectiveness, AY 2011-12 Completers (N = 7) CSTP-linked Competencies Mean Use a variety of instructional strategies, resources, and technologies to meet students’ diverse learning needs 3.29 Monitor student learning and adjust instruction while teaching 3.14 Promote social devel/responsibility within a caring community where each student is treated fairly respectfully 3.14 Create learning environments that promote student learning, reflect diversity, encourage constructive, productive 3.29 interactions among students Create a rigorous learning environment with high expectations/appropriate support for all students 3.00 Employ classrooms routines, procedures, norms, and supports for positive behavior to ensure a climate in which 3.00 all students can learn Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter, academic content standards, curriculum frameworks 2.43 Apply knowledge of student development and proficiencies to ensure student understanding of subject matter 3.29 Use and adapt resources, technologies, and standards-aligned instructional materials to make subject matter 3.43 accessible to all students Develop and sequence long-term and short-term instructional plans to support student learning 2.71 Collect and analyze assessment data from a variety of sources to inform instruction 3.00 Uses assessment data to establish learning goals and to plan, differentiate, and modify instruction 3.00 Establish professional goals, engage in continuous/purposeful professional growth/ development 3.43 Collaborate with colleagues and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learning 3.43 Work with families to support student learning 2.43

December 2012 28

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

2. SUPERVISING PRINCIPAL EXIT SURVEY

Completers’ Program Completers’ Employers’ Satisfaction with Clear Credential Program Effectiveness, AY 2011-12 Principals (N = 4) CSTP-linked Competencies Mean Use a variety of instructional strategies, resources, and technologies to meet students’ diverse learning needs 3.20 Monitor student learning and adjust instruction while teaching 3.25 Promote social devel/responsibility within a caring community where each student is treated fairly and respectfully 3.00 Create learning environments that promote student learning, reflect diversity, encourage constructive, productive 3.20 interactions among students Create a rigorous learning environment with high expectations/appropriate support for all students 3.00 Employ classrooms routines, procedures, norms, and supports for positive behavior to ensure a climate in which all 3.00 students can learn Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter, academic content standards, curriculum frameworks 3.25 Apply knowledge of student development and proficiencies to ensure student understanding of subject matter 3.00 Use and adapt resources, technologies, and standards-aligned instructional materials to make subject matter 3.00 accessible to all students Develop and sequence long-term and short-term instructional plans to support student learning 2.75 Collect and analyze assessment data from a variety of sources to inform instruction 2.25 Uses assessment data to establish learning goals and to plan, differentiate, and modify instruction 2.75 Establish professional goals, engage in continuous/purposeful professional growth/ development 3.00 Collaborate with colleagues and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learning 2.75 Work with families to support student learning 2.75

Part III- Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Strengths Weaknesses Candidate Demonstrated mastery of the CSTPs, as All assessment of candidate competence and development while Competence observed by university supervisor in the participating in the program is conducted by SCU faculty. The candidates’ classrooms, improved candidates’ site-based supervisors (or other Diocese personnel) are consistently over the duration of the considered partners/stakeholders in the success of the candidates and program. the program but do not provide input into our understanding of the candidates’ skill development while in the program. Candidate performance on the capstone projects exceeded assignment expectations on all six elements of the CSTPs.

Program Stakeholder satisfaction survey narrative Both the candidates and their site-based supervisors indicated the Effectiveness data indicated that both the candidates and program did not meet their expectations in relation to strengthening their principals felt the program design candidates’ ability to work with families to support student learning or (including the design, structure, developing and sequencing long-term and short-term instructional organization, content, experiences, plans to support student learning. instructional practices and course assignments) was extremely beneficial to Candidates and their site-based supervisors differed (rating the candidates’ development as Catholic differences between 0.43 and 0.82 rating points) in their assessment of school teaching professionals. the program’s effectiveness on several CSTP-linked competencies.

December 2012 29

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Part IV- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

PROPOSED DATA-DRIVEN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES

1. Reconsidering/Renegotiating The Role of Candidates’ Site Principals in the Clear Program

Data Source Stakeholder satisfaction surveys Applicable Program or Program Standard 2 Common Standard(s)

Our general education clear credential program serves only Catholic school teachers; most of our candidates are employed in the Diocese of San Jose. When we were developing this program, we conducted a series of design meetings to solicit input from teachers, principals, and administrators in the Diocese of San Jose. The principals expressed concern about the potential for candidates to receive conflicting feedback from the two different individuals who would be providing evaluative input on their teaching practice. The principals requested that the program make a clear distinction between the teaching observations and assessments conducted by the candidates’ SCU faculty coaches (as required by the program standards) and the teaching observations and evaluations conducted by the candidates’ principals as a condition of their ongoing employment.

In response to the principals’ request, we structured our program so that the SCU faculty coach observes each clear credential candidate teaching a lesson once per quarter and provides the candidate with formative feedback framed by the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and each candidate’s supervising administrator follows the Diocesan procedure for assessing teachers’ practices and sharing the results of the assessment. Unless the clear candidate elects to share the evaluations, the coach’s feedback is not seen by the principal and the principal’s feedback is not seen by the coach.

Although this structure was put in place in response to the request of our Diocesan partners, our experiences during the first year of the program suggest that the experiences associated with earning a clear credential would be more powerful for the candidates and have a stronger and more visible impact on the candidates’ individual school sites if the Diocesan principals were to play a more active role in the program.

For example, the stakeholder satisfaction survey data collected from the program completers and their principals reveal some notable differences in the perceptions of program effectiveness held by these two groups. The relatively large gaps between the candidates’ mean and the principals’ mean on certain CSTP-linked competencies imply that the candidates and principals might have some different assumptions about where the program should focus and/or what the candidates would be learning. Finding ways to develop shared understandings of the goals of the program and of the way those goals work within the Diocese’s larger plans for teacher professional development would enrich and deepen the experience for the candidates. Asking the principals to do a brief teaching observation of their clear candidates using the clear credential program’s CSTP short form document and debriefing with the candidate afterward would create an opportunity for discussing the program and its expectations. This completed CSTP short form would also provide the program with an evaluation of candidate competence completed by a site-based practitioner who supervises the candidate.

SCU faculty involved in our Catholic education program offerings could engage in needs analysis activities with program stakeholders in the Diocese of San Jose to rethink the role of the candidates’ principals in the general education clear program. The first step would be to gather summative feedback—using a tool specifically designed to examine the relationship between the parts of the program housed in the university and the experiences that occur out in the schools—from (a) the current program completers, (b) the elementary and secondary school administrators who employ and supervise the current program completers, and (c) the SCU faculty members responsible for implementing the program, developing and delivering the coursework and planning and supervising the program-related experiences in candidates’ classrooms. Responses from these December 2012 30

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA individuals would highlight the strengths and limitations of the current model and be used to create a structured protocol to focus the next round of needs analysis activities.

Opportunities would be created to gather input from all Diocese stakeholders, including but not limited to: the current credential candidates, the site administrators who employ and supervise the current candidates, other Catholic school site administrators who have not had any experience with the program, personnel from the Diocese district office, and so on. Face-to-face discussion forums or focus groups would be the most productive and efficient way to generate rich data and brainstorm new directions for this professional relationship, but structured telephone or Skype conversations (using the focus group protocol) would also be effective.

2. Gathering Baseline Data About Credential Candidates’ Performance

Data Source Stakeholder satisfaction surveys Applicable Program or Common Common Standard 2, 9 Standard(s)

Baseline data about perceptions of credential candidates’ performance should be gathered from both the candidates and their site-based supervisors for later comparison with the data gathered by the stakeholder satisfaction surveys completed at the end of the program. a. At the start of the program, the candidate exit survey (or a slightly modified version of the tool) could be used to allow candidates to rate their perceptions of their current levels of performance of the CSTPs presented on the tool b. At the start of the program, the principal exit survey (or a slightly modified version of the tool) could be used to allow principals to rate their perceptions of the credential candidate’s current level of proficiency in the CSTPs presented on the tool. Comparing the baseline documents to the exit surveys would allow us to pinpoint the specific impact of the program on the candidates’ professional development over the year.

3. Fine-tuning the Stakeholder Satisfaction Exit Survey

Data Source Stakeholder satisfaction surveys Applicable Program or Common Common Standard 2, 9 Standard(s) Program Standard 2

Analysis of the exit surveys submitted by the clear credential candidates and their supervising site-based administrators identified several flaws in the tool. The following steps will be taken to improve the tool: a. Clarify the wording The discrepancies between the responses of program completers and their supervising site-based administrators on the stakeholder satisfaction surveys may be the result of differing interpretations of the directions for completing the tool. The directions should very specific (e.g., “think about your/your employee’s skill levels at the start of the program in relation to your/your employee’s current skill levels and rate the impact of the clear credential program on the changes that have occurred this year) rather than general (e.g., “rate your satisfaction with the clear credential program’s impact on your/your employee’s ability to…”). Clearer guidelines will make the resulting data less ambiguous and more useful for continuous program improvement. b. Align the CSTP-linked elements included in the stakeholder satisfaction exit survey with the clear credential program content Low ratings on several elements of the stakeholder satisfaction survey suggest there might be a mismatch between the program curriculum content and the CSTP-linked elements on the survey. The existing tool should be reviewed to evaluate the relationship between every element on the survey and program content, December 2012 31

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA experiences, and areas of focus. Faculty involved in the leadership of the clear teaching credential program should review the general education clear program standards, discuss the goals of the program, and make the necessary adjustments to the program content and/or the stakeholder satisfaction tool.

December 2012 32

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CREDENTIAL PROGRAM

PART II (a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential?

Assessment Benchmark Evidence of candidate progress/competence point Assessed by Admission Admission data form • Hold a valid California prerequisite credential Credential analyst • At least three years’ full time experience working in a school with the prerequisite credential at time of program completion End of each Continuation in program • Coursework grades of B or better academic Course instructors, • Signature assignment grades of “Meets Expectations” or quarter program faculty “Exceeds Expectations” Completion of Continuation in program • Evaluation of candidate performance in field experience field experience Course instructors, completed by SCU field supervisor using CPSEL-linked program faculty assessment tool • Evaluation of candidate performance in field experience completed by supervising site-based practitioner using CPSEL-linked assessment tool Completion of CTC credential • Verification of completion of all SCU program requirements program recommendation • Verification of completion of all CTC credential requirements Credential analyst

PART II (b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-making?

The table below presents all the sources of candidate competence and program effectiveness used in the preliminary administrative services credential program. Data from the tools highlighted in yellow are provided in Part II (c) of this report.

CANDIDATE COMPETENCE Assessment tool Description Data Collected

Course grades Summative assessment of candidate attainment of Course instructors’ assessment course objectives and California Professional of candidate mastery of course- Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs) linked to specific California Professional those objectives Standards for EducationLeaders Signature assignment CPSEL-linked rubrics assessing candidate Faculty assessment of candidate grades performance on key course assignments mastery of specific CPSELs Capstone grade CPSEL-linked rubric assessing candidate Assessment of candidate performance on the capstone project competence provided by candidate, course instructor(s), program director, classmates Field experience CPSEL-linked rating scale and narrative comments Field supervisor’s assessment evaluation (completed assessing candidate performance of the assigned of candidate mastery of all by university field administrative responsibilities at the home school CPSELs supervisor) site Field experience CPSEL-linked rating scale and narrative comments Supervising site-based evaluation (completed assessing candidate performance of the assigned administrator’s assessment of by supervising site- administrative responsibilities at the home school candidate mastery of all based administrator) site CPSELs

December 2012 33

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS Assessment tool Description Data Collected Candidate exit survey Candidate satisfaction with courses, Candidate evaluation of program effectiveness. field experiences, development of Contains rating scales and open-ended response professional skills, and experience questions. in the program Candidate’s Supervising administrator evaluation of program Supervising administrator supervising site-based effectiveness. Contains rating scales and open- satisfaction with candidate outcomes practitioner exit survey ended response questions. and program components Alumni survey Assessment of program effectiveness provided Program completer satisfaction with by program completers who have completed 1-5 professional preparation provided by years in an administrative position. Contains the program after completing 1-5 rating scales and open-ended response questions. years as school administrator Alumni employer Assessment of program impact and effectiveness Supervising administrator survey provided by the supervisor of an administrator satisfaction with the program who completed the credential program within outcomes based on evidence the past 1-5 years. Contains rating scales and provided by graduate’s performance open-ended response questions.

Part II (c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b).

ASSESSING CANDIDATE COMPETENCE

1. CANDIDATE GRADES IN CREDENTIAL PROGRAM COURSEWORK

AY 2010-2011

Fall 2010 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 360 Leadership in Ed 11 11 360 Leadership in Ed 10 10 363 Ethics, Law & Govern 11 4 15 364 Interpersonal Comm 10 10 365 Human Res Fiscal Svs 6 10 2 18 367 Field Work Sch Admin 1 1 370 Cultural Div & Equality 11 2 13 371 Sch Intervention Prgs 5 5

Winter 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 361 Curric & Instr Strateg 10 10 362 School Org and Mgmt 9 2 11 362 School Org and Mgmt 9 1 10 364 Interpersonal Comm 22 22 365 Human Res Fiscal Svs 5 2 7 366 Community/Public Rels 14 2 1 17 367 Field Work Sch Admin 7 7 368 Princip of Assessment 10 10 371 Sch Intervention Prgs 10 1 11

Spring 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 361 Curric & Instr Strateg 12 2 14 363 Ethics, Law & Govern 8 2 10 365 Hum Res Fiscal Svs 10 1 11 367 Field Work Sch Admin 6 6 367 Field Work Sch Admin 4 4 368 Princip of Assessment 6 1 7

December 2012 34

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

370 Cultural Div & Equality 14 2 16 372 Politics-Marketing Strat 14 14 372 Politics-Marketing Strat 10 1 11

Summer 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total 361 Curric & Instr Strateg 16 16 362 School Org and Mgmt 10 10 366 Community/Public Rels 7 7 369 Action Research 14 14 369 Action Research 10 1 11 370 Cultural Div & Equality 10 1 11 371 Sch Intervention Prgs 16 1 17 376 Tech Enhance Ldrshp 6 4 10

AY 2011-2012

Fall 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- F NS I Total EDUC 360 Leadership in Education 14 14

EDUC 360 Leadership in Education 11 11

EDUC 360 Leadership in Education 7 7

EDUC 363 Ethics Law Governance 7 4 1 12

EDUC 363 Ethics Law Governance 7 7

EDUC 367 Field Work in Sch Admin 4 4

EDUC 369 Action Research 7 1 1 9

EDUC 370 Cultural Div and Equality 9 2 11

EDUC 371 Sch Intervention Prgms 9 1 10

EDUC 371 Sch Intervention Prgms 9 9

Winter 2012

EDUC 361 Curric & Instruc Strateg 4 2 2 8

EDUC 362 School Org and Mgmt 9 1 10

EDUC 362 School Org and Mgmt 13 13

EDUC 364 Interpersonal Comm 13 13

EDUC 365 Human Res Fiscal Svs 10 1 11

EDUC 365 Human Res Fiscal Svs 6 2 8

EDUC 366 Community Public Rels 12 12

EDUC 367 Field Work in Sch Admin 10 10

EDUC 374 Curr Issues Ed Admin 12 12

Spring 2012

EDUC 361 Curric & Instruc Strateg 8 1 1 1 11

EDUC 362 School Org and Mgmt 10 10

EDUC 363 Ethics, Law and Govern 15 15

EDUC 364 Interpersonal Comm 10 10

EDUC 367 Field Work in Sch Admin 5 5

EDUC 367 Field Work in Sch Admin 9 9

EDUC 368 Principles of Assessment 15 1 16

EDUC 374 Curr Issues Ed Admin 19 1 1 21

Summer 2012 December 2012 35

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

EDUC 364 Interpersonal Comm 16 16

EDUC 366 Community Public Rels 8 8

EDUC 368 Principles of Assessment 19 19

EDUC 369 Action Research 7 2 9

EDUC 369 Action Research 13 1 14

EDUC 370 Cultural Div and Equality 5 1 1 7

EDUC 374 Curr Issues Ed Admin 10 10

EDUC 376 Tech to Enhance Ldrship 13 5 18

2. EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD PERFORMANCE BY UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR

AY 2010-2011 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 1 1 Winter 2011 7 7 Spring 2011 6 6 Spring 2011 4 4

AY 2011-2012 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2011 4 4 Winter 2012 10 10 Spring 2012 5 5 Spring 2012 9 9

3. CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE ON SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENTS

AY 2010-11 CPSEL #1 COURSE- EDUC 360 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #1: Personal Vision Statement EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 11 11 Fall 2010 10 10

CPSEL #2 COURSE- EDUC 368 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #2: School Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Winter 2011 10 10 Spring 2011 7 6 1

CPSEL #3 COURSE- EDUC 371 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #3: School Safety Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 5 5 Winter 2011 11 10 1 Summer 2011 17 16 1

December 2012 36

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA CPSEL #4 COURSE- EDUC 362 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #4: School Communication Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Winter 2011 11 9 2 Winter 2011 10 9 1 Summer 2011 10 10

CPSEL #5 COURSE- EDUC 366 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #5: Sensitive Issue Press Release EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Winter 2011 17 14 3 Summer 2011 7 7

CPSEL #6 COURSE-EDUC 365 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #6: Team Analysis of a Legal Issue EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 18 6 12 Winter 2011 7 5 2 Spring 2011 11 10 1

AY 2011-12 CPSEL #1 COURSE-EDUC 360 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #1: Personal Vision Statement EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS F 2011 14 14 F 2011 11 11 F 2011 7 7

CPSEL #2 COURSE-EDUC 368 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #2: School Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Sp 2012 16 15 1 Sp 2012 19 19

CPSEL #3 COURSE-EDUC 371 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #3: School Safety Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS F 2011 10 9 1 F 2011 9 9

CPSEL #4 COURSE-EDUC 362 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #4: School Communication Plan EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS W 2012 10 9 1 W 2012 13 13 Sp 2012 10 10

CPSEL #5 COURSE-EDUC 366 SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT #5: Sensitive Issue Press Release EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS W 2012 12 12 Sum 2012 8 8

December 2012 37

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

ASSESSING STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION

1. CANDIDATE EXIT SURVEY

Preliminary Administrative Services Program Completers’ Perceptions of 2010-11 2011-12 Program Effectiveness Completer N= 12 Completer N =24 CPSEL-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Help facilitate the development of a shared vision of learning 5 3.20 7 3.43 Use multiple sources of data to develop and revise a shared vision of learning 5 3.00 7 3.29 Use and integrate technology to implement and attain the vision for all students 5 2.80 7 3.43 Display advocacy for equity, fairness and respect among all members of the 5 3.60 7 3.86 community of schools, parents, and stakeholders Promote a culture in which high expectations are the expectation for each 5 3.60 7 3.57 student Create opportunities for professional development of all staff 5 3.20 7 3.43 Encourage school structures and processes that support student learning 5 3.60 7 3.57 Protect the safety of students and staff by sustaining a safe, efficient, clean, and 5 3.40 7 3.29 productive school environment Evaluate programs/staff to determine where to best allocate funds 5 3.00 7 3.43 Promote collaboration and consultation with peers/others 5 3.60 7 3.86 Respect the goals and aspirations of our school/district and community groups 5 3.40 7 3.86 Consider and incorporate family and community expectations in school decision- 5 3.20 7 3.57 making and activities Establish partnerships with community, business, institutional, and civic groups 5 3.20 7 3.43 Model ethical behavior, integrity, justice, and fairness and expects the same 5 3.40 7 4.00 from others Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum 5 3.40 7 3.86 Engage in professional development 5 3.60 7 3.86 Demonstrate skills in decision-making, critical thinking, conflict management, 5 3.60 7 3.57 and evaluation View administrators and principals both as leaders of a team and also as 5 3.60 7 4.00 members of a larger team Facilitate constructive conversations about ways of improving our 5 3.60 7 3.43 schools/district as a whole Engage with governing board, district, local leaders to influence policies that 5 3.00 7 3.29 benefit students and improve teaching and learning Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, 5 3.20 7 3.43 state, and local laws

December 2012 38

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA 2. ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

Preliminary Administrative Services Alumni Perceptions of Program Effectiveness Completed Program in 2007-10 N Mean Overall satisfaction with program 5 3.2

3. PROGRAM ALUMNI EMPLOYERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

Employers’ Perceptions of Administrative Services Credential Program Effectiveness (Combined Preliminary and Clear Administrative Services), AY 2010-12 CPSEL-linked Competencies N Mean Help facilitate the development of a shared vision of learning 8 3.38 Use multiple sources of data to develop and revise a shared vision of learning 8 3.25 Use and integrate technology to implement and attain the vision for all students 8 3.38 Display advocacy for equity, fairness and respect among all members of the community of schools, 8 3.63 parents, and stakeholders Promote a culture in which high expectations are the expectation for each student 8 3.50 Create opportunities for professional development of all staff 8 3.50 Encourage school structures and processes that support student learning 8 3.50

Protect the safety of students and staff by sustaining a safe, efficient, clean, and productive school 8 3.75 environment Evaluate programs and staff to determine where to best allocate funds 8 3.25 Promote collaboration and consultation with peers/others 8 3.75 Respect the goals and aspirations of our school/district and community groups 8 3.25 Consider and incorporate family and community expectations in school decision-making and activities 8 3.25 Establish partnerships with community, business, institutional, and civic groups 8 3.25 Model ethical behavior, integrity, justice, and fairness and expects the same from others 8 3.50 Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum 8 3.75 Engage in professional development 8 3.88 Demonstrate skills in decision-making, critical thinking, conflict management, and evaluation 8 3.62 View administrators and principals both as leaders of a team and also as members of a larger team 8 3.63 Facilitate constructive conversations about ways of improving our schools/district as a whole 8 3.38 Engage with the governing board, district, and local leaders to influence policies that benefit students 8 3.13 and improve teaching and learning Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, state, and local laws 8 3.50

Part III- Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Strengths Weaknesses Candidate Candidates’ coursework No candidate competence data were provided from the candidates’ Competence performance typically supervising site-based practitioners (e.g., building principals); all evaluation warranted a grade of A or of candidate competence was completed by SCU course instructors. “Exceeds expectations” Course grades, field experience ratings, and grades on signature assignments have limited value as a measure of candidate competence due to the preponderance of A grades and “Exceeds expectations” ratings awarded.

December 2012 39

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Program 2011 and 2012 credential No stakeholder satisfaction data from the candidates’ supervising site-based Effectiveness program completers’ practitioners (e.g., building principals) were available perceptions of their preparation for work as Low response rates on all stakeholder surveys make data somewhat school administrators ranged unreliable. from “well prepared” to “extremely well prepared.”

Program alumni rated their overall satisfaction with the program as slightly exceeding their expectations.

Part IV- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

PROPOSED DATA-DRIVEN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES

1. Adopting and Implementing Explicit and Consistent Program-Level Grading Expectations

Data Source Credential candidate transcripts, university- generated course grade distribution tables Applicable Program or Common Standard 2, 9 Common Standard(s)

Establishing uniform CPSEL-linked grading expectations for this program is critically important. Candidate competence cannot be determined unless coursework, performance in their field experience, and work on the program’s signature assignments are evaluated thoughtfully and assessed in relation to a set of standards. Clarity and consistency in grading practices is particularly important in a program, like this one, in which the majority of courses are taught by adjunct faculty.

Efforts will be made to implement the standards-based grading expectations currently in place in the MS, SS, and General Education Clear credential programs in the two Administrative Services programs. Consistent grading expectations across all our credential programs will create a seamless experience for students who elect to earn all their credential recommendations at SCU as well as facilitate unit-wide conversations about student performance and assessment of student performance.

2. Securing Engaged Participation From Credential Candidates’ Supervising Site-based Practitioners

Data Source Stakeholder satisfaction data Applicable Program or Common Standards 2,4,7,9 Common Standard(s) Program Standard 2, 7, 9

Candidates’ supervising site-based practitioners (typically building administrators) should be expected to support the credential candidate’s growth by providing feedback during her/his field experience performance. This specific type of feedback is a necessary complement to the candidate competence data provided by the SCU course instructors. Supervising site-based practitioners should also be involved in providing their assessment of the program’s effectiveness to ensure it is meeting the needs and expectations of the local schools. There is a stakeholder satisfaction tool already available for this purpose.

3. Developing and Implementing Strategies for Alumni Relations and Management

Data Source Stakeholder Satisfaction surveys December 2012 40

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Applicable Program or Common Standard 2, 9 Common Standard(s)

Maintaining contact and connection with program completers is critically important for the collection of stakeholder satisfaction data. Our ability to keep track of our program completers is constrained by many factors and, as a result, our efforts to keep track of our program completers have been inconsistent and ineffective. We must design, implement, and routinze a centralized system that enables us to keep tabs on the whereabouts of all program alumni, to encourage and nurture their connection to SCU, and to tap into their work in local schools and districts.

December 2012 41

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA CLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CREDENTIAL PROGRAM

PART II (a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential?

Assessment Benchmark Evidence of candidate progress/competence point Assessed by Admission Admission data form • Hold a valid California prerequisite credential Credential analyst • At least two years’ successful experience as a full time administrator while holding the preliminary administrative services credential End of each Continuation in program • Coursework grades of B or better academic Course instructors, • Successful completion of signature assignments quarter program faculty Completion of Continuation in program • Evaluation of candidate performance in field experience field experience SCU field supervisor, completed by SCU field supervisor using CPSEL-linked supervising site-based assessment tool administrator • Evaluation of candidate performance in field experience completed by supervising site-based practitioner using CPSEL-linked assessment tool Completion of CTC credential • Verification of completion of all SCU program requirements program recommendation • Verification of completion of all CTC credential requirements Credential analyst

PART II (b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-making?

The table below presents all the sources of candidate competence and program effectiveness used in the clear administrative services credential program. Data from the tools highlighted in yellow are provided in Part IIc.

CANDIDATE COMPETENCE Assessment tool Description Data Collected Course grades Summative assessment of candidate Course instructors’ assessment of attainment of course objectives and California candidate mastery of course- Professional Standards for Education Leaders specific California Professional (CPSELs) linked to those objectives Standards for Education Leaders Signature assignment grade CPSEL-linked rubric assessing candidate Faculty assessment of candidate performance on specific course assignments mastery of specific CPSELs Field experience evaluation CPSEL-linked rating scale and narrative Field supervisor’s assessment of (completed by university comments assessing candidate performance of candidate mastery of all CPSELs field supervisor) the assigned administrative responsibilities at the home school site Field experience evaluation CPSEL-linked rating scale and narrative Supervising site-based (completed by supervising comments assessing candidate performance of administrator’s assessment of site-based administrator) the assigned administrative responsibilities at candidate mastery of all CPSELs the home school site

December 2012 42

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS Assessment tool Description Data Collected Candidate exit survey Candidate satisfaction with Candidate evaluation of program courses, field experiences, effectiveness. Contains rating scales and development of professional open-ended response questions. skills, and experience in the program Candidate’s supervising Supervising administrator Supervising administrator evaluation of site-based practitioner exit satisfaction with candidate program effectiveness. Contains rating scales survey outcomes and program and open-ended response questions. components Alumni survey Assessment of program effectiveness provided Program completer satisfaction by program completers who have completed with professional preparation 1-5 years in a senior administrative position. provided by the program after Contains rating scales and open-ended completing 1-5 years in a senior response questions. administrative position.

Alumni employer survey Assessment of program impact and Supervising administrator effectiveness provided by the supervisor of an satisfaction with the clear administrator who completed the clear program outcomes based on credential program within the past 1-5 years. evidence from the graduate’s Contains rating scales and open-ended performance response questions.

Part II (c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b).

ASSESSING CANDIDATE COMPETENCE

1. CANDIDATE GRADES IN CREDENTIAL PROGRAM COURSEWORK

AY 2010-2011

Fall 2010 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total Induction Planning and 400A Monitoring 6 6 Assessment and 400B Portfolio 6 6 Field Activities and 407 Contributions 6 6

Winter 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total Induction Planning and 400A Monitoring 7 7 Assessment and 400B Portfolio 6 6 Field Activities and 407 Contributions 7 7

Spring 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total Induction Planning and 400A Monitoring 3 3 Assessment and 400B Portfolio 3 3 Field Activities and 407 Contributions 5 5

Summer 2011 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F NP P W Total Induction Planning and 400A Monitoring 1 1 Assessment and 400B Portfolio 1 1 Field Activities and 407 Contributions 2 2 December 2012 43

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

AY 2011-12

Subject, number, title A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- F NS I Total Fall 2011 EDUC 400A Induction Planning and Monitoring 3 3 EDUC 400B Assessment and Portfolio 2 2 EDUC 407 Field Activities and Contributions 3 3 Winter 2012 EDUC 400A Induction Planning and Monitoring 1 1 EDUC 400B Assessment and Portfolio 1 1 EDUC 407 Field Activities and Contributions 4 4 Spring 2012 No courses offered 0 Summer 2012 No courses offered 0

2. EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD PERFORMANCE BY UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR

AY 2010-2011 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 6 6 Winter 2011 7 7 Spring 2011 5 5 Summer 2011 2 2

AY 2011-2012 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2011 3 3 Winter 2012 4 4 Spring 2012 0 Spring 2012 0

3. CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE ON SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENTS

AY 2010-2011 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2010 6 6 Winter 2011 6 6 Spring 2011 3 3 Summer 2011 1 1

AY 2011-2012 EXCEEDS MEETS BELOW FAR BELOW QUARTER/YEAR N EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS Fall 2011 2 2 Winter 2012 1 1 Spring 2012 0 Summer 2012 0

December 2012 44

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

ASSESSING STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION

1. CANDIDATE EXIT SURVEY

Clear Administrative Services Program Completers’ Perceptions of Program 2010-11 2011-12 Effectiveness Completer N=4 Completer N=6 CPSEL-linked Competencies N Mean N Mean Help facilitate the development of a shared vision of learning 3 3.33 1 4 Use multiple sources of data to develop and revise a shared vision of learning 3 3.00 1 3 Use and integrate technology to implement and attain the vision for all students 3 2.00 1 4 Display advocacy for equity, fairness and respect among all members of the 3 4.00 1 4 community of schools, parents, and stakeholders Promote a culture in which high expectations are the expectation for each student 3 4.00 1 4 Create opportunities for professional development of all staff 3 4.00 1 3 Encourage school structures and processes that support student learning 3 3.67 1 3 Protect the safety of students and staff by sustaining a safe, efficient, clean, and 3 3.33 1 4 productive school environment Evaluate programs and staff to determine where to best allocate funds 3 3.33 1 3 Promote collaboration and consultation with peers/others 3 4.00 1 4 Respect the goals/aspirations of school/district and community groups 3 3.67 1 3 Consider and incorporate family and community expectations in school decision- 3 4.00 1 4 making and activities Establish partnerships with community, business, institutional, and civic groups 3 2.67 1 4 Model ethical behavior, integrity, justice, and fairness and expects the same from 3 4.00 1 4 others Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum 3 3.00 1 3 Engage in professional development 3 4.00 1 4 Demonstrate skills in decision-making, critical thinking, conflict management, and 3 3.67 1 3 evaluation View administrators and principals both as leaders of a team and also as members of 3 3.33 1 3 a larger team Facilitate constructive conversations about ways of improving our schools/district as 3 3.67 1 4 a whole Engage with the governing board, district, and local leaders to influence policies that 3 2.67 1 4 benefit students and improve teaching and learning

Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, state, 3 3.33 1 4 and local laws

2. ALUMNI SURVEY

Clear Administrative Services Credential Program Alumni Perceptions of Program Effectiveness Completed in 2007-10 N Mean Overall satisfaction with program 3 3

December 2012 45

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA 3. ALUMNI EMPLOYER SURVEY

Perceptions of Administrative Services Credential Program Effectiveness Held by Employers of Program Alumni (Includes employers of both preliminary and clear administrative services program alumni), AY 2010-11 CPSEL-linked Competencies N Mean Help facilitate the development of a shared vision of learning 8 3.38 Use multiple sources of data to develop and revise a shared vision of learning 8 3.25 Use and integrate technology to implement and attain the vision for all students 8 3.38

Display advocacy for equity, fairness and respect among all members of the community of schools, 8 3.63 parents, and stakeholders Promote a culture in which high expectations are the expectation for each student 8 3.50 Create opportunities for professional development of all staff 8 3.50 Encourage school structures and processes that support student learning 8 3.50 Protect the safety of students and staff by sustaining a safe, efficient, clean, and productive school 8 3.75 environment Evaluate programs and staff to determine where to best allocate funds 8 3.25 Promote collaboration and consultation with peers/others 8 3.75 Respect the goals and aspirations of our school/district and community groups 8 3.25

Consider and incorporate family and community expectations in school decision-making and activities 8 3.25 Establish partnerships with community, business, institutional, and civic groups 8 3.25 Model ethical behavior, integrity, justice, and fairness and expects the same from others 8 3.50 Demonstrate knowledge of the standards-based curriculum 8 3.75 Engage in professional development 8 3.88 Demonstrate skills in decision-making, critical thinking, conflict management, and evaluation 8 3.62 View administrators and principals both as leaders of a team and also as members of a larger team 8 3.63 Facilitate constructive conversations about ways of improving our schools/district as a whole 8 3.38 Engage with the governing board, district, and local leaders to influence policies that benefit students 8 3.13 and improve teaching and learning Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, state, and local laws 8 3.50

Part III- Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Strengths Weaknesses Candidate Candidates’ field activities and No candidate competence data were provided from the candidates’ Competence signature assignments earned no supervising site-based practitioners (e.g., building principal); all evaluation grade lower than “Exceeds of candidate competence comes from one SCU course instructor. expectations” Course grades, field experience ratings, and grades on signature assignments have limited value as a measure of candidate competence due to the lack of variance among students. Program 100% of the program alumni who 75% of the 2010-11 program completers indicated that the program did not Effectiveness responded to the stakeholder prepare them well to “use and integrate technology to implement and attain satisfaction survey (N=3) felt the the vision for all students,” to “establish partnerships with community, program had prepared them well for business, institutional, and business groups,” or “to engage with the their continued work as school governing board, district, and local leaders to influence policies that benefit administrators. students and improve teaching and learning.”

December 2012 46

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Part IV- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

PROPOSED DATA-DRIVEN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES

1. Developing a Customizable Exit Survey for Clear Administrative Services Candidates

Data Source Candidate Exit Survey Applicable Guideline 2- Evaluation of Program Quality Program or Guideline 4- Individualized Mentoring Plan Common Guideline 5- Provision of Mentoring, Support, and Standard(s) Assistance

The candidate exit survey currently used in both the preliminary and clear administrative services credential programs is not an appropriate tool for assessing the clear administrative services candidates’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. Both the preliminary and clear administrative services programs are focused on mastery of the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs), however the learning experiences framed in our responses to the California Guidelines for Clear Administrative Services Credential Guidelines-based Programs are much more focused and specific than the broad and general CPSELs.

As discussed in the Guidelines for Guidelines-based Programs, each of our clear candidates works with a university mentor at the outset of the program to develop an Individualized Mentoring Plan. The plan specifies the particular skills that the candidate will be developing within her or his current administrative role and lists specific additional responsibilities the candidate will take on during the two-year program as growth opportunities to expand her or his capacity for effective school leadership. Since each candidate’s plan is unique, her or his perceptions of the effectiveness of the clear administrative services program must be assessed using a tool that targets the specific activities and responsibilities identified in that candidate’s Individualized Mentoring Plan.

The 2010-11 completers who appeared to be dissatisfied with the program’s contribution to the development of their ability to “use and integrate technology to implement and attain the vision for all students,” “establish partnerships with community, business, institutional, and civic groups,” and “engage with the governing board, district, and local leaders to influence policies that benefit students and improve teaching and learning” might not have included those particular skills in their individual mentoring plans. So, rather than dissatisfaction with the program, those low rating scores might reflect the candidates’ acknowledgment of their own lack of participation in those particular activities during the program because their individualized mentoring plans included different activities. Likewise, the seven elements on the stakeholder exit survey that earned ratings of 4.00 might be evidence of high levels of program effectiveness in areas that were included in those candidates’ individualized mentoring plans.

We will develop an CPSEL-linked exit survey for use with clear administrative services credential program completers that includes some common elements and four blank spaces for use in assessing the four specific activities identified in their Individualized Mentoring Plan and completed in the EDUC 407- Field Mentoring and Assistance course. Clear administrative services program completers will hand-write each of the four specific activities into a blank space and then rate their satisfaction with the mentoring and support they received from the program in those particular activities/areas of focus. This will allow us to gather information about the degree to which we are meeting the identified needs of each individual administrator.

December 2012 47

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA

2. Adopting and Implementing Consistent Program-Level Grading Expectations

Data Source Credential candidate transcripts, university- generated course grade distribution tables Applicable Program or Common Standard 2, 9 Common Standard(s)

Establishing and implementing uniform grading expectations linked to the CPSELs for this program is critically important. Candidate competence cannot be determined in a meaningful way unless coursework, performance in the field experience, and work on the program’s signature assignments are evaluated thoughtfully and assessed in relation to a set of standards.

3. Securing Engaged Participation From Credential Candidates’ Supervising Site-based Practitioners

Data Source Stakeholder satisfaction data Applicable Program or Common Standards 2,4,7,9 Common Standard(s)

Clear administrative services candidates are employed as school administrators, but they are also novices who need guidance and assistance to reach their full potential. Presently, we expect clear candidates’ supervising site-based practitioners to support their credential candidates’ professional growth and development by providing feedback regarding their job-related performance as well as their progress in the four field experience activities specified in their Individualized Mentoring Plans. This feedback is a necessary complement to the feedback provided to clear credential candidates by their SCU course instructors and by the university-based mentors who visit them in their workplaces. In the past, information about our clear candidates’ performance has been exchanged between a candidate’s supervising site-based practitioner and university-based mentor through face-to-face or telephone conversation or by some other informal method. These data have never been documented formally, collected systematically, or managed in a manner that would allow for analysis, interpretation, and program improvement.

Supervising site-based practitioners should also be involved in providing their assessment of the program’s effectiveness to ensure we are meeting the needs and expectations of the local schools. There is a stakeholder satisfaction tool already available for this purpose, however it might be necessary to create separate tools for the preliminary and clear credential programs.

4. Developing and Implementing Strategies For Alumni Relations and Management

Data Source Stakeholder Satisfaction surveys Applicable Program or Common Standard 2, 9 Common Standard(s)

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA factors and, as a result, our efforts to keep track of our program completers have been inconsistent and ineffective.

We must design, implement, and routinze a centralized system that enables us to keep tabs on the whereabouts of our program alumni, to encourage and nurture their connection to SCU, and to tap into their work in local schools and districts.

December 2012 49

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA SECTION B. INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY AND PLAN OF ACTION

A careful review of the data provided in Section A for each of our five credential programs showcases the effectiveness of our recently developed unit-wide assessment system. All credential programs provided the same evidence of candidate competence: (a) course grades, (b) evaluation of professional performance in clinical practice school sites, and (c) results of a written task (or tasks) designed to assess mastery of the credential program’s learning outcomes (the TPEs, the CSTPs, or the CPSELs). Likewise, all credential programs provided the same evidence of stakeholder satisfaction with program effectiveness: (a) credential candidate exit surveys, (b) alumni satisfaction surveys (no alumni satisfaction surveys were available for the general education clear credential program because the first cohort of candidates completed in June 2012), and (c) supervising school-based practitioners’ satisfaction surveys which, depending on the program, included master teachers, school principals, and employers. This uniform structure enables us not only to track improvement and monitor areas of concern over time within each program, but also to make comparisons across credential programs. This will also allow us to import particularly strong, successful practices or program delivery models from one credential program to another.

Other strengths that emerge from examination of the Section A data across programs include the preliminary multiple subject and single subject and the general education clear teaching credential programs’ efforts to introduce and implement rigorous and consistent grading expectations. Although the new grading expectations appear to have had a negative impact on the 2012 preliminary MS/SS program completers’ perceptions of their professional competence and preparation for teaching (seen in a comparison of the 2011 completer exit surveys to the 2012 exit completer surveys), the master teachers of these 2012 completers rated their student teachers’ performance higher than that of the 2011 completers on every one of the 16 TPE-linked competencies assessed on the stakeholder satisfaction survey. This suggests the quality of the program and of the preparedness of our candidates are actually increasing rather than decreasing. The preliminary and clear administrative services programs will be expected to implement the same rigorous and consistent grading expectations in the 2013-14 academic year, thereby creating a coherent set of academic performance expectations across all our CTC credential programs.

As a unit, our most significant, over-arching area for growth is in alumni relations and management. The stakeholder satisfaction elements of our unit-wide assessment system are significantly less robust and useful than they could be due to our difficulty establishing and maintaining a comprehensive, accurate, and current database of personal and professional information about our program completers. We are currently considering a variety of different strategies and software packages that would ensure that all program completers provide the Dean’s Office with contact information and other relevant data before graduation (e.g., moving the alumni relations work from a central university function to a School-specific function) and update their information on an annual basis. This would enable us to develop an active network of affiliated educators credentialed at our institution that can be tapped to serve in a range of capacities that will support our current and future programming.

Other areas for growth that recur across programs in the unit, along with the steps we intend to take to address our needs, are presented in the following table:

Area for growth Programs Affected Steps to be taken Strengthen specific General Education Clear 1. Charge faculty study groups with assessment tools Clear Administrative Services tweaking and adjusting the existing tools 2. Field test the new tools with a small number of students from each program and adjust tools accordingly December 2012 50

Appendix J: Examples of Assessment from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report for the School of Education and Counseling Psychology

CTC Biennial Report, AY 2010-2012 Santa Clara University, Santa Clara CA Increase school General Education Clear 1. Survey principals of 2012 program administrator engagement Prelim Administrative Services completers in impacted programs to with credential program Clear Administrative Services assess their satisfaction with the current candidates, activities and levels of communication and assessment engagement with the program and to solicit their suggestions for ways to increase administrator participation. 2. Program faculty analyze survey results and make data-driven recommendations for improvement. Implement coherent, Prelim Administrative Services 1. Consider the difficulties faced by the consistent grading Clear Administrative Services three teaching credential programs expectations when they implemented the new grading expectations and strategize ways to avoid the same problems 2. Work with Coordinator of CTC Programs to gather all information, rubrics, guidelines, explanations and supporting documents from the teaching credential programs’ roll-out of the standards-based grading system and adjust the documents to reflect the specific details of the administrative services credential programs. 3. Develop an implementation timeline and distribute it to students well in advance. Create open forums and other opportunities for students to engage in consideration of the new standards among themselves and with faculty.

December 2012 51

Appendix K: Annual Assessment Plan for Co-Curricular Programs

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLAN 2014‐15 FOR CO‐CURRICULAR PROGRAMS

DUE TO VICE PROVOST FOR STUDENT LIFE BY OCTOBER 2014

The Annual Assessment Plan describes a co‐curricular program’s mission and goals and contains a list of objectives for the program. The Annual Assessment Plan identifies the specific objectives that will be assessed the coming academic year and specifies the methods that will be used to assess achievement of objectives. The Annual Assessment Plan for 2014‐15 is due from co‐curricular programs by the end of October 2014.

CONTENT OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLAN

1. MISSION AND GOALS STATEMENT The mission and goals statement describes the purpose of the program, what it does, and for whom it does it. The mission and goals statement defines the general types of knowledge, skills, abilities, and values the ideal graduate develops as a result of interacting with the program. The statement describes services the program provides to students, faculty, and/or staff and how these services benefit these constituents. The statement clearly articulates how the program directly and indirectly supports the university’s mission and outcomes and goals of the Student Life Division. The mission and goals statement should reflect standards, policies and best practices established by relevant professional organizations and accreditors.

2. STUDENT LEARNING AND OTHER OBJECTIVES Whereas the mission and goals statement describes the general categories of skills, knowledge, abilities and values possessed by the ideal graduate, student learning objectives are specific skills, knowledge, abilities and values that can be demonstrated and measured. Student learning objectives are succinct descriptions of what students are expected to know and be able to do as a result of interacting with a program. While some co‐curricular programs will have most or all learning objectives, some programs have goals that are not directly related to changing a student’s knowledge or skills and may have a few or no learning objectives. These programs may have other objectives that it deems essential to achieve, but which are not student learning objectives.

For example, the Career Center may seek to ensure students know how to write a professional resume or conduct an effective job interview and may have learning objectives that state students will demonstrate these abilities. The Career Center may also seek to ensure students thoughtfully reflect upon their skills and interests and identify career paths that will provide a meaningful work experience. This can be an objective the Career Center seeks to achieve, that is not a learning objective.

3. STUDENT LEARNING AND OTHER OBJECTIVES TO BE ASSESSED THE 2014‐15 ACADEMIC YEAR It is not necessary to assess all objectives for a program every year, but all program objectives should be listed in the Annual Assessment Plan. The goal is to have assessed all program objectives at least once within a six‐year period, prior to the program undergoing review.

1 Appendix K: Annual Assessment Plan for Co-Curricular Programs

Methods of Assessing Learning Objectives For each learning objective, it is ideal to use multiple direct methods to assess student proficiency. With respect to assessment of student learning, direct measures of students’ knowledge and abilities are superior to indirect measures. Indirect assessments can supplement and enrich direct assessments, but should never be used instead of direct measures. Indirect assessments typically allow students to subjectively self‐report their perceptions of their learning and opinions of their abilities and often produce biased results. While surveys and focus groups are appropriate methods for assessing other program objectives, these methods are not ideal for assessing student proficiency.

Methods of assessment that are appropriate for assessing student proficiency include systematically evaluating student work products to objectively determine how well students meet expectations as defined by the program. Using a rubric, the following can be systematically judged and scored to determine student proficiency:

 Reflective journals or essays  Resumes  Cover Letters  Mock interviews  Writing assignments  Homework assignments  Senior theses or major projects  Portfolios  Case studies  Capstone projects

For example, the Student Life Office might use reflective essays to assess the extent to which students gained insight into their choices and behavior as a result of undergoing the Judicial Affairs process. The Career Center might use a rubric to score student resumes or mock interviews. Other direct methods of assessment include reviews of performances, exhibitions or presentations and employer evaluations of externships or job performance. It is also possible to use results of comprehensive exams, certification exams, and licensure exams to evaluate student proficiency when relevant.

Methods of Assessing Other Objectives While it is essential to directly assess students’ knowledge and skills to determine proficiency, there are many important objectives that co‐curricular programs seek to achieve that are not learning objectives. In evaluating achievement of other objectives, it is acceptable to rely on a wide range of assessment methods.

For example, whereas asking a student to judge their knowledge and skills is not ideal for determining student proficiency, student satisfaction, student confidence, sense of belonging, sense of safety, attitudes, values and opinions can be examined via surveys and focus groups. Many co‐curricular programs seek to provide services to students, faculty, and others on campus. Assessing customer satisfaction makes perfect sense for a program that seeks to ensure its customers are satisfied and to identify opportunities for improving customer service. Surveys, focus groups, individual interviews and secondary data analysis are but a few methods that are appropriate for assessing achievement of program objectives that are not student learning objectives.

2 Appendix K: Annual Assessment Plan for Co-Curricular Programs

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLAN 2014‐15 FOR CO‐CURRICULAR PROGRAMS

Program: Staff who participated in the development or approval of this Point of Contact: Annual Assessment Plan:

1. MISSION AND GOALS STATEMENT The mission and goals statement describes the purpose of the program, what it does, and for whom it does it. The mission and goals statement defines the general types of knowledge, skills, abilities, and values the ideal graduate develops as a result of interacting with the program. The statement describes services the program provides to students, faculty and/or staff and how these services benefit these constituents. The statement clearly articulates how the program directly and indirectly supports the university mission and outcomes and achievement of the mission and goals of the Student Life Division. Indicate when the mission and goals statement was last revised and the rationale behind any changes. The mission and goals statement should reflect standards, policies and best practices established by relevant professional organizations and accreditors.

3 Appendix K: Annual Assessment Plan for Co-Curricular Programs

2. STUDENT LEARNING AND OTHER PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Please list all objectives that are currently defined for the program. Indicate when these objectives were last revised and describe the rationale behind any changes.

3. STUDENT LEARNING AND OTHER OBJECTIVES TO BE ASSESSED IN 2014‐15 List one or two objectives (selected from the complete list of objectives shown above) that will be assessed in the current academic year. Briefly describe the methods that will be used. If a rubric or other data collection instrument has been developed, include it with this plan.

OBJECTIVE

Method(s) of Assessment

OBJECTIVE

Method(s) of Assessment

4 WASC Open Forum and Blog Feedback

Planning Action Council Feedback Inclusive Excellence There should be a more detailed section on faculty retention.

The goals for LEAD and the Postdoctoral fellows program are ambitious. Can we achieve them? Would it make sense to include language about the capital campaign?

Faculty recruitment varies significantly by discipline. ODI is doing a good job but every department has a role.

The report does not focus on staff. Should it?

Jesuit School of Theology Is the enrollment plan realistic?

There is not enough discussion of the academic integration.

Should there be more discussion of GPPM and JST?

Program Review The four-year cycle for co-curricular program review is ambitious. Is it realistic?

Does the University have resources in place to sustain academic program review?

Shared Governance and Communication The section on the dean’s efforts to communicate is not completely accurate and should be revised.

The discussion about policy vs. procedure seems to be addressed in the charges of the AAC and FAC. This section should be revised to reflect that.

Why are discussions around mission and identity carved out? It seems that all UPC should be able to discuss those topics.

Open Forum Feedback Inclusive Excellence What is a multi-year hiring pipeline? What is cluster hiring? How does it work? More clarification might be useful. You could also consider engaging pre-doc students as possible hires.

How accessible will the dashboard be to the campus as a whole? What kind of information/data will be incorporated?

Is there talk of increasing first-generation student recruits? Or expanding financial aid to help students?

Why do students leave? If financial aid an issue?

Do students who struggle in a given major do so because of parental pressure?

There was a suggestion to aim higher and do more than double the number of LEAD Scholars by 2020.

Have there been discussions about resources for goals (capital campaign)?

Have we done research to identify subgroups (e.g., African American men) who are particularly in need of attention/academic support and intervention? Should we add a section to discuss this group?

Jesuit School of Theology How is strategic growth of JST related to strategic growth of GPPM?

Program Review There should be mention of the GPPM Assessment in the graduate section.

Shared Governance and Communication Who has direct responsibility for initiating shared communication?

Does the report address lateral improvements (as different from hierarchical) in communication and in governance?

Communication using Google tools – Many goals set when SCU transitioned to Google have not occurred. Google capabilities was an installation, not an implementation. This should be reflected in the report.

Communication should be a tool to change the email barrage. This has not happened.

Who needs to participate in the retreat proposed by President Engh?

What problem would be addressed by the retreat; it seems we would need to be clear on this before asking “who should be present?”

Separate “steps” from “outcomes” in the report. It is confusion and lacks clarity.

Report seems to imply that the recent crisis (abortion issue) is the crux of the problem. Broader issues of governance are the real issue. There is a real lack of trust and respect. The Board and the President do not respect the faculty. This should be noted.

Do faculty who worked on this report accept it? I don’t think they do.

The report needs to be clear about who has responsibility for implementation: clarify where responsibility lies.

Some people are reluctant to speak publically. There is a fear of the administration. There is also a fear the some colleagues who are in a position of powers will hold one’s comments against them at a later date.

Communication is clearly an issue.

How does one move forward? How do you build trust and respect? The report should help generate a path forward.

Blog Comments Governance and Communication

New Comment If you have no faculty members who will endorse the report on Shared Governance and Communication, then how can you say there has been shared governance here? It simply won’t do for YOU to say the report was nearly complete before they resigned in protest. THEY would have to say that and would have to endorse the report. If they don’t, then this certainly seems like another attempt to avoid shared governance on the part of the Administration.

Response In response to questions recently raised regarding the process of appointment of the WASC Working Groups, we would like to provide some clarifications.

The University Coordinating Committee was consulted in October 2013, by email, regarding the Interim Report process in general. It was not necessary for the UCC to appoint the members of the ad hoc working groups, because the groups were not University Policy Committees. Rather, the working groups were constituted to provide input and advice on the University’s interim report to WASC. Individuals, who had vast experience and/or responsibility in one of the four areas WASC asked the University to address, were invited to serve on the relevant working group.

The members of the working group for Program Review and Assessment included the Director of Assessment, the Vice Provost responsible for co-curricular program review, and representatives from programs that have recently completed their program review and assessment. Similarly, the working group on Inclusive Excellence included representatives from Admissions, Institutional Research, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and Student Life – each of these areas is relevant to the questions WASC asked the University to address in the Inclusive Excellence section of the report. The working group on governance and communication included individuals who have been actively engaged in shared governance: a former Staff Senate President who also served on the Executive Task Force on Governance; a former Faculty Senate President; a former UCC Chair who also serves on the Benefits Committee; and one of the Provost’s delegates to a UPC. Finally, the working group on the

integration of the JST included representatives from the JST and the Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries.

Members of the working group on governance and communication met with the UCC in November 2013. The UCC provided some valuable suggestions regarding groups and individuals with whom the working group should consult as part of their inquiry.

It may be useful to note that SCU’s broad process of consultation on the Interim Report goes well beyond WASC’s requirements: WASC’s guidelines for Interim Reports indicate that because of the focused nature of an Interim Report, the widespread and comprehensive involvement of various institutional constituencies is not normally required.

The faculty members on the working group on governance and communication later resigned as a result of a difference of opinion regarding the question of whether the verbatim comments recorded in an anonymous survey should be released to the campus community. Because the research and drafting of the report was already nearly complete when the resignations occurred, there was no need to appoint replacement committee members. We welcome further questions and comments through the WASC blog and at the fora. Thank you.

New Comment Philip makes an important point. Are the views of the faculty members who resigned from the committee going to be represented here?

New Comment Thanks for creating this blog space that I think might have the potential (if people bookmark it and consult regularly) to be a useful space. if it does get regular use, I would like to see someone help transition it into a broader blog on governance issues, with categories and tags and a cleaner look (with light moderation to ensure a modicum of civility). Such a space could reduce the downside aspects of faculty-wide email exchanges.

New Comment The report on shared governance and communication is clearly biased to minimize the elephants in the room about how bad the administration and the trustees' behavior has been. We could all blog until we're blue in the face: the response would not be to add a line containing the full truth like "Many felt this report was whitewashed."; it would instead add some tepid line like "Some had concerns about the report."

New Comment Hear, hear! Much of it is whitewashed. Some of it is just hogwash.

New Comment Yeah, add in my vote for whitewashed.

New Comment The question on the huge expansion of the number of students without adequate increase in resources is absolutely relevant since it deals with how important decisions are made without

adequate consultation with faculty, thus violating shared governance. The report is rather condescending: it implies that the huge dissatisfaction with governance reported in the survey is just a temporary faculty over-reaction to the abortion decision and when faculty report that they believe a consensus model is the ideal model, it concludes that faculty fail to understand that SCU governance is a recommendation model not a consensus model . This is just another example of the administration's disrespect for faculty intelligence and capabilities. How can this report be submitted in good conscience without faculty participation in the actual drafting of the document and in designing the recommendations? Fora are just a way to let faculty let off steam - will the document really reflect the faculty concerns? I am doubtful.

Here are a couple of examples of how the report is misleading: p. 11: "Survey participants identified 196 strengths and 358 weaknesses." If you read the faculty comments, more than 40 of 143 said there were no strengths or they did not know. Many of the responses that identified strengths were quite weak. p. 6: "In general, policies fall within the scope of the governance process; procedures do not." Yet here is Section 2.9.2.2 of the faculty handbook: "The Faculty Affairs Committee works with the Provost to promote the professional development of faculty. In this capacity it serves as the final locus of dialogue in the formulation of University programs, policies, and procedures pertaining to the responsibilities of the faculty." Instead of addressing the real problem of how to determine which issues can be decided administratively and which require faculty consultation, the report implies faculty are uninformed and says that decisions on procedures do not require faculty input. p.5: "A careful review of the documents, websites, agendas, minutes, and reports of university Policy Committees since 2009 reveals that the work of governance groups has, for the most part, been effective." later on the same page: "administrators have consistently approved recommendations from committees." Of course they have: recommendations do not leave a UPC until there is agreement and the administration's representative on the UPC makes sure that the other members are told what is acceptable to the administrator and what is not so recommendations are revised until they are acceptable before being sent to the administrator. p. 6: "First, this record of accomplishments is not widely understood as part of the shared governance process." So again, faculty just fail to understand how successful governance has been so we just need to be educated.

Response Thank you for your questions, and for your concern that the draft Interim Report is misleading. I particularly appreciate your points about specific statements in the text. Let me respond briefly to three of your examples of misleading passages.

1. Page 11 (page 59 in the posted document).

Thanks for pointing out this problem. You are correct that the Interim Report is misleading in stating that “Survey participants identified 196 strengths…” Appendix H, Summary of Open

Ended Comments, page 2, http://www.scu.edu/provost/pla..., notes that 23 of the “strengths” were “none.” However, the survey analyst did not remove the “nones” from the total count of strengths. A more accurate statement would indicate that “Survey participants identified 173 strengths (this figure excludes 23 responses of “none”).” This will be corrected in the Interim Report. Thank you for pointing out this misleading statement.

2. Page 6 (page 54-55 in the posted document).

Thanks for your question about the paragraph containing the following statement: “In general, policies fall within the scope of the governance process; procedures do not.” This statement was not intended to imply that faculty are misinformed or to communicate disrespect. Rather, the statement and paragraph intended to summarize that, within the Shared Governance Charter, the set of six UPCs were structured to have a focus on “major policies and major strategic initiatives.” Each individual UPC has a specific purpose and charge that is detailed in the Shared Governance Charter. The paragraph in the interim report will be revised to better reflect the language of the Charter.

3. Page 5 (page 54 in the posted document)

I appreciate your query regarding the effectiveness of the governance process and the approval of recommendations. You are correct that (as the Charter states) “faculty, staff, students, and administrators will work closely to resolve differences and that the normal outcome of UPC deliberations will be the approval of their recommendation by the appropriate administrator.” Although there have been occasional examples of recommendations that were not approved, such instances are rare. Shared governance at its best does include close communication among all participants during the formation of recommendations that advance the common good.

New Comment I was one of many faculty who served on the original WASC review committees. During that process, we were reminded by a high-level administrator that one of the goals of the report was to ensure that the WASC team would not have any reason to come back to campus before the next scheduled review. This seemed like a stunning admission to me at the time, yet most of the committee members nodded their heads knowingly. Instead of a commitment to identifying and solving issues and problems, the entire process seemed far more committed to covering up or minimizing problems and creating the appearance of solutions. I am seeing exactly that same orientation in this interim report and in the replies below to the questions and concerns raised about expansion plans: an administration that works very hard to hide the very real problems that plague this campus beneath a veneer of false expressions of dedication to improvement. It is beyond disappointing.

New Comment This is deeply disturbing. Why aren't we more open and inclusive?

New Comment Sorry, this has nothing to do with the current discussion, but it is about the Shared Governance and Communication at SCU part of the report. The report states that "the Santa Clara system is

based on the following principles: • “A collaborative model of shared governance • Fora to include all components of the campus community: students, staff, faculty, and administration • A set of six policy committees that bring together representatives from these communities • A balance of elected and appointed (for interest and expertise) representatives to make the system both efficient and representative • Structures of communication to ensure participation, feedback, and timely information • Regular and broadly participatory opportunities for critical appraisal and assessment.”

These are not principles. I realize that there is a statement on the front governance webpage that this is taken from, but it has always confused me, and I hate to see it propagated further. If you look at the UPC Charter you can find the principles on which the system is created.

"The normative principles for good practices in governance that will serve as guides for developing structures and processes and for making decisions are

1. Strengthen academic excellence and the Catholic and Jesuit identity of the University in a mutually reinforcing way. 2. Ensure that the Statement of Purpose guides policy development, decision making, and priority setting. 3. Exercise collaboration based on the recognition that Santa Clara University can flourish only if there is a healthy sense of community in which all members have a role in working for the common good. 4. Recognize the domains of primary authority and responsibility of the various University components and expect participants in the process to be held accountable for carrying out their responsibilities. 5. By means of clear and appropriate communication be open, accessible, and understandable to members of the University community. 6. Be efficient, effective, and productive. 7. Foster innovation and change. 8. Strive for continuous improvement and a culture of active participation. 9. Ensure timely and effective response to the changing external environment."

Can we correct this statement of "principles"?

New Comment The report says "but significant challenges remain in achieving a common understanding of the scope of shared governance and of foundational processes, procedures, and expectations" and "significant challenges remain in achieving a common understanding of the scope of shared governance and of foundational processes, procedures, and expectations." What it needs to say is "The president and the provost have trampled on established policies and procedures as outlined in the faculty handbook. The result is an inappropriate and unhealthy concentration of power in these two offices. Faculty have been disenfranchised."

The report reiterates that the UPC is involved only in "major" changes in policy. This echos Fr. Engh's weak reasoning that ignoring our governance system was justified because his action was not a major change. "Recent events" have made it clear to everyone on campus and to the world outside the university that it was anything but minor. They have also made it crystal clear that we don't have shared governance on this campus--what we have is a lot of committees that eat up time and have no effectiveness or power when it comes to major issues. It's unfortunate that the situation has become adversarial, but 100% of that can be laid at the president's door. There will be no "trust" on this campus until the faculty side of governance has some *real* leverage.

The shared governance section of the interim report whitewashes any topic that approaches the substance of our problem. Most troubling, as a whole, it appears to be attempting to manipulate the WASC process so as to further disempower faculty. If the visiting team is smart, it will talk to random faculty--not the ones handpicked by the (ever-bloating) administration--and to lots of us.

This section of the report also should note that the breakdown of governance on this campus and the decision to run the U as an arm of the church, as if it was a parish (which it is not) is *already* undercutting the U's pursuit of inclusive excellence. The effect of this on the U's efforts to increase the diversity of its community should be noted.

New Comment I think the report can fairly be called whitewashed. Let me explain why in the context of the issue you bring up: knowledge about shared governance.

First, of course you are right that our model is a recommendation model. However, the intent is to build consensus where possible, and that's important. Yes, administrators and trustees hold the power to overturn recommendations, but that is, as you quote, to be in "rare" instances.

But now note the reports' different treatment of the Trustees and the Employees in regard to understanding this system.

The report quotes from the Trustees' decision that “Trustees are confident that the President will continue to follow the provisions of the University's shared governance structure.” But the report ignores the key quote that pretty much eviscerates this very structure: “the Trustees decline the Faculty Senate's request to instruct the President to follow and be bound by the 'long established procedures of shared governance'". The Trustees do not understand what it means to have a recommendation based model. Their decision says that on issues of Jesuit, Catholic Mission and Identity, the President does not even need to hear a recommendation; he can just jump to a decision as he did. In other words, in writing, the Trustees have shown that they do not understand the model.

Now contrast that to report's treatment of the employees in the community. "(C)omments made by UPC chairs suggest that a) many members of the university community believe that SCU’s model is intended to be a consensus model, and that b) these community members are often disappointed when consensus is neither attempted nor achieved." The report then goes on to chastise these members for not understanding our model and suggests "improved orientation."

Employees who read our governance documents understand that members of the community have every right to be upset if consensus is not "attempted." The system is designed to try to reach consensus where possible. The report goes out of its way on flimsy evidence (hearsay from some chairs?) to bash employees.

But when the Trustees show, in writing, a shocking lack of understanding of the same system from the other side, the report stays silent.

That, to me, is whitewashed. There is not a fairness here, and that is why you feel you can use your name, while I feel I have to remain anonymous.

New Comment After reading the section of the Interim Report on Shared Governance and Communication, I would make a few comments. The first has to do with the characterization of the Report in some of the blog comments. The report cannot fairly be described as a whitewash. Problems with shared governance are detailed and the report admits that "significant challenges remain in achieving a common understanding of the scope of shared governance and of foundational processes, procedures, and expectations. … Renewed efforts to rebuild trust and increased clarity about the scope and foundational processes of shared governance will be important in strengthening both governance and communication on campus in the future." A whitewash would not detail conflicts nor suggest that further work needs to done. There are problems and the report presents them with all the warts, so to speak. There are serious problems still to be addressed and the report says so.

Second, much of conflict over shared governance, as the report points out, comes from different assumptions about the model of shared governance under which SCU operates. Clearly SCU has operated and continues to operate under a recommendation model of faculty governance. Twice the report quotes the relevant policy:

“the normal outcome of UPC deliberations will be the approval of their recommendation by the appropriate administrator. The administrator is expected to provide a response to the recommendation within 45 days…In rare instances where a UPC and appropriate administrator are unable to reach agreement, even after further discussion following the administrator’s response, the UPC may submit its position document to the President or through the President to a Trustee Committee for consideration. Trustees hold the ultimate legal and moral responsibility and authority for the University, and therefore, must ultimately determine and approve University policies and major strategic changes.” (Italics mine)

Under such a model, faculty and staff can recommend polices and procedures, but only recommend. Under a consensus model of governance, as the report points out, consensus must be reached by all concerned to adopt a policy or procedure. SCU operates under the former, not the later model of faculty governance, as indeed do many other universities. In pointing this out, I am not arguing for or against the recommendation model. It may be considered not governance at all by some. It is, however, the model under which SCU presently operates. Clearly, if faculty and/or staff assumed they are operating under a consensus model, conflict and even serious

conflict, can result when consensus is not reached on a policy and/or procedure which is then adopted by the administration. Again, this is not a defense of any particular model, rather an observation about why and how conflict can occur. The report does address this point. In so far as the President and Trustees followed the present policy, they were not trampling on anyone's rights nor were faculty disenfranchised. The present policy may be said to do that, but then the entire policy needs to discussed, not the moral intregity of those who followed it.

Third, there is an important point the report does not address. Much has been written of the faculty rights, but not much about faculty responsibility. How many faculty serve on University, College and Departmental committees? How many read commitee reports, policies and procedures when they are posted online for critique? I am not suggesting that most or even many do not take their resposibilities seriously. I am suggesting that we simply do not have the data to know. Rights imply responsibilities. Faculty as a whole need to participate if they want to insist on their rights. For that reason, the report would do well to poll the faculty to find out how many do participate. How many have served on committees in the last five years? How many read reports, policies and procedures when they are posted? How many attend town hall meetings? It may be many, it may be few, but we should know. It makes a difference. If, for instance, the majority of the faculty do not take their responsibilities seriously, then shared governance will not work in either model.

Finally, whatever suggestions or proposals are broached, they should help the campus rebuilt trust. Our common goals are to produce great teaching, great research and students who make the world a better place. We also have a strategic long range plan to critique and, if we wish, implement. All of this is much harder to do this in an atmosphere of mistrust, so the least we should be working towards is creating the conditions under such trust can be established. I am not naive; this will take hard work on all sides. It may be the best way to reach the common goals of the University, however, and we should also keep those goals upper most.

New Comment I think your points generally are well-taken. But I think there is a gap between taking a sharp literal interpretation of a "recommendation" model and a "standard practice" of consensus and collaboration, except when inconvenient and then reversion to "recommendation" model. I think precisely that kind of practice is what leads to faculty disenchantment, and hence lower participation? And I think President Engh's "I took this decision but I'll listen to you." message in the Fall really made that gap salient, clarifying what for many faculty had been an amorphous unease about governance.

Moreover, I think the structuring of opportunities for collaboration outside of formal committee work often produces predictable outcomes: a town hall meeting with no agenda, no documents circulated in advance, no action items, no criteria for "who is relevant to the meeting"... well, we live in Silicon Valley and we should know what Steve Jobs thought about meetings like that.

I agree with you that there is lots of room for improvement all around. I think the lively discussions on this blog (perhaps more substantive than many meetings I have participated in over the years) give room for optimism about faculty and administration capacity and willingness to participate in meaningful shared governance.

New Comment 1. I guess I have always understood the word "anonymous" in its common-sense meaning (the first one that shows up on Google, as being "(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name." Anonymous is not the same as "confidential" (by which one typically means "intended to be kept secret"). But I suppose many colleagues could have gotten those terms confused. Given the standard definition, it does not appear that there was any inconsistency in the messages; they promised anonymity, not confidentiality, and anonymity was respected, it seems to me. The names were not associated with comments. That some people chose to write their comments in ways that would clearly identify them (by, say, allusions to French phrases), seems like... well, "tant pis." 2. A thought to bear in mind is that it would seem that in the future, if any single faculty member (or staff) did not want others to see the results on an open-ended anonymous survey question, all they would have to do is "forget" to remain anonymous by putting their name into the middle of their comments... 3. Prose is a powerful thing. Reading the (good and bad) prose of 300 faculty at a good university is quite different from the report of a professional who codes, provides analysis and extracts "typical" comments. Both might be useful. But surely the summary is quite different in its rhetorical effects compared with the underlying text, especially for an issue like the issue at hand (governance). (I fully admit there are plenty of cases where everyone involved might agree to have a professional summarize comments that were fairly mundane or uncontroversial.) 4. Unfortunately Appendix H no longer seems to be available on the website; or maybe I get an off-campus version of the page because I am at home and not at a campus IP. I will check when I am back on campus 5. Thanks for sharing that some people were upset by the release of the comments. It is important for us to know that. 6. It would seem straightforward to include an option for "Anonymous but releasable" and one for "Confidential." The ratio of choices over various forms of transparency would be interesting in and of itself.

Thanks again for the reply, it is illuminating. Perhaps the incident should be discussed more forthrightly in the report. I imagine the people at WASC would enjoy exploration of this "terrain inconnu.

Response Your suggestions for dealing with the issue of anonymity, confidentiality, and transparency in future surveys are interesting. In some ways your ideas parallel the options discussed in the article I mentioned. Here's the reference, in case you're interested: "Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research," by Karen Kaiser, Qualitative Health Research, 2009, 19(11): 1632-1641. The author argues for a "re-envisioned informed consent process."

You may have already located Appendix H of the Interim Report, but in case you haven't here's the path: go to the SCU WASC webpage called "Reports and Data," http://www.scu.edu/provost/pla... You'll need to log in using your username and password. That will bring you to the full (64 page) draft of the Interim Report and the eight appendices. The last appendix, Appendix H, is called "Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items." (As I noted in an earlier post, the Appendix will be edited to correct some errors noted by a blogger.)

Thanks too for suggesting a more explicit discussion in the Report itself of the debate regarding the interpretation of anonymity in the open-ended survey responses. I appreciate the recommendation.

New Comment I noticed this sentence: "Because of the promise of anonymity in the initial invitation to participate in the survey, however, other members of the Working Group felt strongly that the verbatim responses to the open-ended questions should not be released."

I confess I did not read the open-ended responses completely- skimming them made the sentiment abundantly clear, but I do wonder whether the committee members actually felt that anonymity would be compromised. Are there any faculty members actually identified in the survey? Has any faculty member complained? Was it likely that someone would "reverse engineer" faculty statements to determine their identity? Presumably the administrators of the network in any case know the identities of the respondents (or perhaps the system really is anonymous?). If someone chooses to reveal their identity in a comment, is that a responsibility fo the committee to anonymize them? This is an interesting and important issue going forward (there will inevitably be more open-ended surveys on other questions). I, for one, would not be in favor of having a blanket policy that open-ended question responses are never circulated or become part of the 'record." I have a hard time thinking of a real scenario where one would want to hire a professional "smoother" to "render" comments (other than perhaps for crude language, defamation, etc. My sense from the comments was that some respondents went overboard ... e.g. "dictator" being over-used and hence presumably back-firing in its rhetorical effects... but none sunk so low as to have to be redacted.

Response Thank you for your question about anonymity in relation to the open-ended survey questions. I want to respond by reiterating some points I made in email messages to the campus community in recent weeks and by providing some additional clarifications.

First, as I think you know, there were inconsistencies in the survey invitation. The original invitation to participate in the survey stated that the responses would be anonymous; reminder messages sent a week to two weeks later added that all responses would be shared. I apologize for the inconsistencies in the survey invitations sent by the group.

Some serious tensions emerged in the Working Group over the question of how to report the survey results. While the Working Group agreed that the staff would not want the verbatim responses released, the two faculty members on the Working Group felt strongly that faculty expected the verbatim responses from the entire faculty to be released. The Group talked at length about the meaning of “anonymity”: does anonymity mean that names are not explicitly associated with responses, or does it refer to the protection of individuals from potential identification? Did respondents expect their answers to be released, or did they expect a summary report to be released?

The underlying conflict involved a tension between the principle of transparency and the principle of protection of privacy. The group felt that there were several responses whose authors

could potentially be identified. The group consulted with the Office of Institutional Research on best practices in survey administration, and considered, but opted not to pursue, a “redaction” approach. I contracted with a professional survey analyst, not to serve as a redactor, nor to serve as what you’ve called a “smoother”, but rather to code the responses, to provide an analysis, and to provide examples of typical comments. I hope you will look over report on the survey in Appendix H. I think you will see that it provides a professional and valuable summary. (It does contain some misleading elements that were noted by contributors to this blog -- these will soon be corrected.)

You have asked whether anyone complained about the release of the responses. The answer is yes. Several faculty colleagues have contacted me individually to share concerns about the release of the verbatim responses. These colleagues stated that they had responded to the survey with the assumption that their comments would be summarized but not disseminated, and that they were surprised or offended that the comments were released. Some also expressed concerns about whether the University community would be willing to provide narrative responses to future surveys.

I concur with your expression of concern about the potential development of a set of inflexible guidelines preventing the release of open-ended questions to any survey. Perhaps, however, guidelines could suggest clear ways of communicating, in any letter inviting survey participation, how responses will be used and reported after the survey is completed. That way, each respondent will know in advance precisely how his/her survey responses will be disclosed. I received from one faculty member an article from the journal Qualitative Health Research with a very thoughtful analysis of the benefits and risks of various reporting methods. I’d be happy to share it with you if you’re interested. Again, I deeply regret the inconsistency in the survey messages and the exacerbation of tensions that resulted from the survey and the efforts of the Working Group. Thank you for your good questions.

New Comment Michael, your view not only fits better with the closer reading of this paragraph, but also with the culture we have had on campus as long as I've been here. It makes me sad to see this report go so far out of its way to devalue the important consensus oriented aspects of our governance system. Instead, this report favors a cold, legalistic, less inclusive, less caring view for what, apparently, the administration wants shared governance to become. If I am not right, we'll see the report change in the aspects that you suggest, Michael. I hope that's the case.

New Comment Gary Macy (and the Interim report itself) raised the interesting and relevant point of whether the governance model at Santa Clara is consensus or recommendation model. He cites (as does the report) the following passage as being dispositive:

a Trustee Committee for consideration. Trustees hold the ultimate legal and moral responsibility and authority for the University, and therefore, must ultimately determine and approve University policies and major strategic changes.”

Gary (perhaps?), and the report (perhaps?), focus on the word "recommend." But it seems to me that the spirit of the paragraph is not in that word "recommend" but rather in the two words "normal" and "rare." "Normally" there is consensus and collaboration, "rarely" does the administration not strive for consensus. I interpret the passage as saying that consensus should be so common that there is actually a provision of "complaining" direct to the Trustees (like Dr. Strangelove's doomsday machine!) when consensus is not reached. This seems to me the essence of a consensus "model." A "model" doesn't tell us what happens in every contingency, it tells us what "normally" happens for the great majority of contingencies. One doesn't have to be naive and not understand that in any organization "the buck stops somewhere," to believe that the above that passage signals a consensus model. I think this is an interesting point well worth further discussion in the report!

New Comment The reason I am posting anonymously is that the recent campus climate makes me fear that those who will evaluate my future petition for promotion and tenure will associate anything I say in this discussion with my petition. I fear being seen by those who criticize the administration as unsupportive of the faculty, but I also fear that the administration, who will make the final decision about my petition whatever the faculty recommends, might reject my petition if I am seen as a troublemaker. How can we claim to be a university with free exchange of ideas of people like me feel we are supposed to just shut up and do our jobs? Even now I fear to post this, because the reality is that someone could probably learn my identity, despite my attempt at anonymity.

New Comment I think that trying to split hairs about whether SCU governance is a consensus or recommendation model is a red herring. Worse, it tends to lead to the conclusion that faculty do not understand governance and just need to be educated, diverting us from the real issues that people have raised in this blog and in emails, fora, and the FSC. The way policy is made under the SCU governance model is that the representative of the administration sitting on the UPC informs the faculty members of what is and what is not acceptable to the relevant administrator. Negotiation takes place until the final policy is acceptable to the faculty members of the UPC and the administrator's representative at which point the policy is "recommended" to the relevant administrator who then approves it. The faculty understand that no policy can be implemented without the administrator's approval, yet the faculty do have a voice through the UPCs to negotiate policy. Policies are not recommended to the relevant administrator without the approval of the faculty members of the UPC. And policy proposals are not recommended to the relevant administrator if informed by the administrator's representative that he would not approve them, instead they are renegotiated. This is a form of consensus with the understanding that the administrator has more power and policy cannot be implemented without his consent. Therefore, Michael is correct: in all cases with which I am familiar, it would be "rare" for policy recommendations to be submitted to the Trustees, instead they are negotiated until acceptable to the responsible parties.

Governance and Strategic Plan New Comment In the new 2020 strategic plan, the enrollment target is projected to increase significantly (by 20%) at the undergraduate level, to 6,000 students. I am curious whether this plan went through all the governance channels? I was on sabbatical last year so may have missed that. A search through past emails didn't turn anything up on this important issue. Are there internal documents that elaborate on this plan? Given classroom and faculty office constraints, how would an extra 20% undergraduate population impact class sizes, faculty hiring needs, and faculty offices? How will this mesh with a longer-term goal of the university of gradually moving to a 2-2-1 teaching load? (And I can't resist adding... at long last we don't have to worry about parking. The new structure is convenient and seems plenty big!) I like this forum a lot for discussing and learning about these nitty-gritty issues, maybe more appropriate anyway than a Town Meeting, but thanks for reminder.

Response Thank you for your inquiry about the Santa Clara 2020 plan. Details about the elaborated strategic plan, the enrollment plan, the facilities master plan, as well as the planning process can be found at http://www.scu.edu/santaclara2.... There will also be three additional town hall conversations in which the plan will be described in detail.

The plan calls for ten percent growth in the undergraduate student enrollment from 5,435 students in fall 2013 to 6,000 students in fall 2020. Although the University admittedly does not have the faculty, staffing, or facilities in place today to serve this larger population, careful planning is preparing the University for measured and realistic growth over the next seven years. This includes identifying the faculty and staff resources as well as the classroom and laboratory space needed to support the proposed enrollment growth. There will not be any significant enrollment growth until the University has the resources in place to support the plan.

The enrollment planning process has included numerous consultations with the Planning Action Council and the University Budget Council. Additional information about the planning and consultation process can be found at http://www.scu.edu/santaclara2.... Should you have additional questions, consider attending one of the upcoming town halls. They are scheduled for

Friday, February 28 from 11:45 a.m.-12:50 p.m. in the Recital Hall Monday, March 3 from 3:30-4:45 p.m. in the Williman Room Thursday, March 6 from 12:15-1:30 p.m. in Kennedy Commons

Thank you again for your inquiry.

New Comment I’d love to investigate a little further about when/how extensively the Planning Action Council (which I guess is the relevant shared governance committee discussed the planning for the increased enrolment, but I confess the website is hard to navigate when one is searching for something like that. How would you go about finding the relevant documents online?

For example I searched this on google: enrollment plan increase site:scu.edu/governance/

I get lots of hits, of course. But when I limit it to “past year” I get nothing.

This search also comes up with nothing: enrollment 6000 site:scu.edu/governance/

How would you suggest going about searching for pertinent information like this?

Incidentally, one of the earlier hits is this: "Bob [Warren] said that it was decided to stabilize undergraduate enrollment at 4800 full-time students" in minutes of Faculty Senate from March 10, 2010, so the increase to 6000 in terms of policy really is about 25% from what appears to have been 2010 policy.

New Comment Sorry to be a bother about this but someone was kind enough to point me to the minutes for the PAC (I now see the link appears on the menu to the left when you click on a particular committee... sorry for not noticing that earlier). But when I look through the minutes of PAC I don't find any discussion of the enrollment plan in 2012 or 2013 (I'll admit I didn't read every single page, I opened each document and searched for "enrol" and it didn't get any hits.). Perhaps it was discussed and not captured in the minutes, of course, or perhaps I am using the wrong search term?

Response Thanks for the follow up question. Most discussions surrounding year to year enrollment planning take place in the University Budget Council whereas long-term enrollment planning discussions occur in the Planning Action Council.

Planning Action Council meeting minutes from the past several years can be found at www.scu.edu/governance/committ.... Most recently, PAC discussed the Integrated Plan, including the enrollment plan, at its January and February 2014 meetings. The University Budget Council does not publish minutes from monthly meetings but provides a year-end summary: www.scu.edu/governance/committ....

In regard to Bob Warren’s comments in March 2010, I would like to offer one clarification and one comment. The University Finance Office chooses to track enrollment using a three-term, full-time equivalency (FTE) average, whereas the Provost’s Office often reports headcount for the fall term, representing a peak enrollment for the year. I believe that Bob was referring to average FTE, which is always lower than fall headcount. In contrast, the SCU 2020 plan is referencing a fall headcount projection. If one calculates FTE for the 2020 plan, the three-term average FTE enrollment would be closer to 5,700 FTE.

When Bob Warren spoke to the Faculty Senate Council in March 2010, Santa Clara University had just come off a difficult recruiting year (2009-10) in which the freshmen class was approximately 150 students below target. The resulting budget shortfall, combined with poor endowment returns, resulted in a 0% pay increase for faculty and staff in 2010-11. Stabilizing the enrollment decline was critical to Santa Clara’s financial wellbeing. Santa Clara hired a new Vice President for Enrollment Management (Mike Sexton), who has helped SCU be more successful and stable in its recruitment efforts. As the University moves forward, it needs to pay

careful attention to ensuring that sufficient resources are in place to serve our undergraduate and graduate populations. The Provost’s Office has been working on this issue with the College and Schools. For example, in the budget that was recently passed by the Board of Trustees, funding was provided to support several new tenure-track lines.

As noted in the earlier post, the University is committed to providing resources to support future enrollment growth and is currently engaged in careful planning. Moving forward, there will not be any significant enrollment growth until the University has the resources in place to support the plan. Thank you again for the question.

New Comment Exactly how many classrooms to we have now and exactly how many classrooms do we intend to have if we receive enough money to put these 2020 plans into action?

New Comment While reviewing some of the PAC minutes I came across Diane Jonte-Pace and Suzanne Dancer's analysis of classroom space in 2011; at that time there were 65 classrooms (and a lot of other more specialized rooms occasionally used for teaching). Their report recommended the changing of the Tu-Th schedule, which was done, and which opened up more time for better utilization of classroom space. We have a few new buildings since then, so presumably there is more space, but enrollment also has increased since then, so presumably we are still at 90% peak utilization which their report suggested (and most faculty and students know) does not leave much flexibility for inevitable stuff (class sizes bigger than capacity, disability accommodation, etc.). Just going by the existing ratio then of, say 5000 FTE students using, say, 70 classrooms, then 5700 FTE would need about 80 classrooms... so about 10 more? That would be my guesstimate, obviously just a guesstimate... presumably is less because you spread the increase in students around... so maybe 7 or 8 new classrooms? So one extra building? Is that ballpark right, Ed?

Response Thanks for the inquiry. Santa Clara is committed to developing the appropriate number of classrooms to meet enrollment growth, support student learning, and foster faculty collaboration. There are currently sixty-five general purpose classrooms and several specialized laboratory and seminar rooms. Four classrooms were added or brought back on line in 2012 (Graham 163 and 164, Varsi 231, and Kenna 105). It should also be noted that the Task Force on Classroom Utilization found that while utilization at peak times reached 90 percent or above in 2011, overall classroom utilization was 68 percent.

Recognizing that classroom space is an issue, the 2020 Facilities Master Plan (www.scu.edu/santaclara2020/pla... calls for:

The Edward M. Dowd Art and Art History Building, which will add two new general-purpose classrooms and several specialized studios to Santa Clara’s inventory

A unified facility for the School of Law on the northeast corner of campus

A cluster of buildings in the center of campus to house the School of Engineering, departments in the natural sciences and mathematics, and the Center for Science, Technology and Society. This cluster will include significant state-of-the-art space for classrooms, labs, and offices.

The remodeling of Alumni Science Hall and demolition of Daly Science Hall will provide the University with additional, flexible academic space in the campus core to add instructional capacity and promote multidisciplinary collaboration.

New classrooms in two new residence halls

At this point, the exact number of new classroom and laboratory spaces is still being determined through a comprehensive space programming analysis. Over the next eighteen months, the Santa Clara Planning and Projects team will be working with faculty and staff from a range of disciplinary clusters to engage in a space and programming planning process, which will contribute to the development of building designs. I hope you will participate in the conversations about space needs and building designs.

Finally, I should point out that this blog was designed to solicit feedback on the WASC Interim report. Questions about the SCU 2020 plan can be addressed at the remaining town halls and the upcoming theme discussions. Thank you.

New Comment Thanks Ed for the fast reply. I'm primarily interested in the longer tem enrollment plan, so the PAC I guess indeed was the right place to be looking, and since the 2014 minutes are not posted yet (and neigther are the June 2013 minutes) that explains why I didn't find anything in my quick search of earlier minutes. (BTW Sept 2012 apparently did not include discussion of the enrollment plan.) I'll look forward to reading those when posted.

New Comment Your responses are well written but don't respond to the issues and what you do say makes little sense. The real issue--- yet again--- is that decisions are made that affect the very nature of the school and its curriculum without any consultation with faculty. Indeed, as the Provost explained, 600 more students will bring in more money. What he did not note was that this will only happen if we increase the student-faculty ratio or move, as the university seems to be moving, to using non tenure track people. Perhaps it would be good to look at the huge gaps in our offerings and consider how we can be a better school not what money we can get for whatever project some funder will fund. This, I was told in an A and S forum by one of the increasing numbers of Assistant Provosts, was confirmed when she told us that what "neighborhood" happened was determined by what project had willing funders. As yet, there is no indication that the administration gets it that they have destroyed the governance structure that saved us from unionizing when it was established and resulted in mostly sane, well thought through decisions for decades. Nor, it seems do they have the courage to deal with faculty and staff directly.

New Comment

1. The increase in number of students from 4,800 to 5,435 is 635 with another 600 on the horizon. We have 4 classrooms that are new or "brought back on line". Can you explain how this is sufficient - I can't make the math work out - how do 4 classrooms accommodate 636 students who will take 4 classes each? Am I missing something?

2. Inflation in the Bay Area exceeds 2%, more like 2 1/2%. That means a 3% salary increase next year increases purchasing power by about 1/2%. It will take a long time to restore 2007 purchasing power at that rate, let alone provide some increase in standard of living in response to years of service and productivity. This is why faculty are not particularly grateful, they don't have to see the numbers - they know that they are struggling more and more.

3. Vague descriptions of salary rankings don't pay our bills. Detailed studies such as those done by Don Dodson would be a much better way to convince faculty that they are being fairly compensated. For those who are interested, here is a link to faculty salaries at USF - it looks to me that USF salaries are higher than SCU's:

http://www.usfca.edu/HR/Compen...

Response Thank you for the inquiry. I would like to offer a clarification regarding the question about enrollment growth. An earlier post referenced the number of 4,800 students in 2010. The 4,800 number is a full-time equivalency (FTE) calculation that is averaged over the three academic terms. The University Finance Office uses this calculation for budgeting purposes. Santa Clara also examines enrollment using a fall headcount calculation, which is based on the actual number of students enrolled in fall. In practice, the three-term FTE calculation is approximately 94 percent of the headcount calculation. To clarify, the 2010 FTE calculation was approximately 4,800, and the fall 2010 headcount was 5,110. Between fall 2010 and fall 2013, the undergraduate headcount grew by 325.

In terms of classroom space, the Task Force on Classroom Utilization found that there is some capacity at non-peak hours. In addition, the revised Tuesday, Thursday schedule added some flexibility and the additional four classroom provided space for 48 class sections per term (28 sections on MWF and 20 sections on T,TH). The enrollment growth between 2010 and 2013 generated an additional need for 48 sections per term, which was in part offset by the addition of the four classrooms.

With that being said, it has been noted that there is a real need for classroom space. Over the next eighteen months, the Santa Clara Planning and Projects team will be working with faculty and staff from a range of disciplinary clusters to engage in a space and programming planning process, which will contribute to the development of building designs. There will not be additional enrollment growth until the University has the resources in place to support the plan.

Finally, there is agreement about the need for a detailed study of faculty compensation. As noted in an earlier posting, the University is planning to review and revise faculty compensation to ensure that Santa Clara continues to recruit and retain an exceptional faculty. The Provost’s Office will work with the Faculty Affairs Committee to launch this process.

New Comment Would you please provide information on how many tenure-track faculty have been added since enrollment increased from 4,800 to 5,435, that is, net after subtracting those tenured faculty members who have moved into administration?

Response An earlier post referenced the number of 4,800 students in 2010. The 4,800 number is a full-time equivalency (FTE) calculation that is averaged over the three academic terms. The University Finance Office uses this calculation for budgeting purposes. Santa Clara also examines enrollment using a fall headcount calculation, which is based on the actual number of students enrolled in fall. In practice, the three-term FTE calculation is approximately 94 percent of the headcount calculation. To clarify, the 2010 FTE calculation was approximately 4,800, and the fall 2010 headcount was 5,110. Between fall 2010 and fall 2013, the undergraduate headcount grew by 325.

Since 2010, the University Budget Council has requested and the Board of Trustees has approved funding for more than two-dozen new tenure-track lines to support enrollment growth and inclusive excellence. As the University looks to 2020-21, careful planning is preparing the University for measured and realistic growth over the next seven years. This includes identifying the faculty and staff resources as well as the classroom and laboratory space that will need to be put in place before the proposed enrollment growth can be achieved. Thanks.

New Comment My memory is that SCU typically has historically had 4,800 undergraduates. Any increase in undergraduate enrollment requires expansion of resources, especially classrooms and faculty. Two questions:

1) Would you please give us an idea of how resources have been increased in the last several years to accommodate the current 5,435 students?

2) You mention the lack of faculty salary increase in 2009, implying that it was partly due to the enrollment shortfall as well as the decline in the endowment. Now enrollment is substantially above 4,800 and the endowment has recovered over the 2007 level. Since 2009, most faculty salaries have risen less than inflation implying that the purchasing power of salaries is lower than it was 5 years ago. Is there a commitment to address this horrible situation with a significant increase in faculty salaries such as was implemented long ago through the leadership of Don Dodson?

Response Thank you for the note. This blog was designed to solicit feedback on the WASC Interim report. Questions about the SCU 2020 plan can be addressed at the remaining town halls and the upcoming theme discussions. Information about the town halls can be found at www.scu.edu/santaclara2020/cal.... Moving forward, responses will be provided to questions related to the WASC Interim report.

As the University has grown over the past several years, resources have been provided to support growth. Four general purpose classroom were added or brought back on line in 2012 (Graham 163 and 164, Varsi 231, and Kenna 105). Additionally, the University has secured funding for new tenure-track lines and for the conversion of adjunct appointment to renewable term appointments in each of the past three annual budget processes.

Questions about faculty recruitment, retention, and compensation are of concern, particularly as the University works to maintain access and ensure affordability. Over the past decade, Santa Clara has been working to offer the compensation needed to recruit and retain an exceptional faculty. As part of its efforts, Santa Clara offers a faculty housing program for tenured and tenure-track faculty and contributes ten percent of one’s base compensation to a 401(a) retirement plan.

Recent analyses suggest that Santa Clara is offering competitive salaries to tenured and tenure- track faculty. According to AAUP data reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Santa Clara’s average faculty salaries in 2012-13 placed it 51st, 53rd, and 46th respectively in the country for full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, out of more than 1,200 colleges and universities that reported data.

Among all private, four-year institutions, Santa Clara placed 37th for full professors, 42nd associate professors and 37th for assistant professors. Among California institutions, it placed 8th for full professors, 10th for associate professors, and 8th for assistant professors. The top ten California institutions also included the California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of San Francisco, University of Southern California, UC Berkeley, and UC Los Angeles for all three professorial ranks; and Claremont Graduate University, Claremont McKenna College and UC San Diego for two ranks.

Santa Clara also analyzes data maintained by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) as it allows for a more refined analysis by discipline and rank. Using data from 21 comparable institutions that are located in regions with a high cost of living, Santa Clara is able to compare salary data across 27 departments at the professor, associate professor, and assistant professor ranks. Santa Clara continues to be competitive with these benchmark institutions.

National rankings aside, Santa Clara recognizes that compensation is a significant issue. In the 2014-15 budget, the Board of Trustees approved a three percent merit pool, which is an increase over previous budgets. The Provost’s Office is also committed to examining compensation as part of the strategic planning process. Over the next two years, the University will review and revise faculty compensation to ensure that Santa Clara continues to recruit and retain an exceptional faculty. The Provost’s Office will work with the Faculty Affairs Committee to launch this process.

New Comment The current classroom situation should be seen as a symptom of our shared governance problem. If faculty concerns were routinely attended to, our classroom crisis might never have occurred.

A few years back, when the Swig remodel was being planned, students and staff were asked for their input, but the RLC faculty directors were not. I wrote a memo anyway, asking the design committee to consider a classroom. I explained how silly it was when my students and I trekked from Swig to Casa Italiano for class. In the end, Swig gained a dance studio, a theater, two music practice rooms, an additional laundry room, two new conference rooms, and a large game room for billiards and ping-pong. No classroom.

For many years Daly 106 was assigned for my classes. I found it difficult to teach classes such as "Nature and Imagination" in a room with no windows, and would always have to scrounge on my own for alternative space. Thinking myself clever, I asked our department AA to make a notation on the assignment list that I preferred not to teach in Daly 106. The following year, all six of my classes were assigned to Daly 106.

Having come from teaching at a unionized community college were the classrooms were marvelous, I have repeatedly tried to impress on administrators how poor classroom situations negatively affect teaching. When Fr. Engh had a round of getting-to-know-you coffees when he first came aboard, I attended the very first one and said, "We need more classrooms and better classrooms." I did the same thing when Provost Jacobs came aboard.

So here I am, once again screaming about the classroom situation. Will it make any difference? Such concerns are not likely to register in a university where faculty have no voice.

Response Thank you for offering comments about classroom space. You raise an important issue, one that has also been raised during the recent set of town halls conversations. Last year, the Provost contracted learning spaces consultant, Shirley Dugdale, to complete an inventory of Santa Clara’s formal and informal learning spaces; to conduct a survey and a series of workshops with faculty and staff focusing on teaching, learning, and learning space design; to develop a palette of designs for learning spaces on campus; and to propose a multi-year plan for the improvement of the University’s learning spaces. More than fifty faculty participated in learning space workshops in 2013. Shirley Dugdale and her team will return in 2014 to offer additional workshops and to host further discussion of the faculty survey and the palette of designs to support Santa Clara’s multifaceted learning environment. After receiving nominations from the Faculty Senate Council, the Provost appointed a small advisory committee on learning spaces. The committee participated in meetings with Shirley Dugdale in 2013, and will reconvene in 2014 to discuss next steps to enhance faculty participation in decisions around classroom design. As part of the strategic planning process, there is a commitment to developing learning space and classrooms to meet enrollment growth, support student learning, and foster faculty collaboration. I hope you will participate in the ongoing conversations

New Comment Thank you, Ed, for the kind invitation to participate in the ongoing conversations. If I falter, it will be because I'm so overwhelmed currently with service opportunities. This year I sit on the Senior Lecturer Promotion Committee, which entailed an enormous amount of work, and on the task force on the Culture and Ideas courses. To make it all work I had to resign from a Faculty Core Committee even though I had only served one year of a three-year term. This may be the

22 problem with shared governance at SCU, that so many of us work so hard on various committees and task forces, and yet feel that we often don't have a collective voice in important decisions, such as expanding the size of the student body.

When I hear that a high-priced consultant was hired to advise us on classroom space, I'm not certain whether to rejoice or to weep. This quarter I'm teaching my Baja course, which caps at sixteen students. Because of the relatively small size, I always request a seminar room. In the past seven years that I've taught this course, I've only been granted a seminar room twice, in each case because I found a seminar room empty after the quarter began. What a difference it makes to sit around a table with engaged students! I don't need those fancy rolly things they're experimenting with over in Graham, or a classroom with 47 screens. Just a table and some chairs. Round is better, but I'll settle for oval. Or square, even.

The university gets a lot of mileage out of my Baja course. Photos have appeared in numerous admissions brochures, we got an eight-page article in the Santa Clara Magazine, and even had a two-page spread in one of the president's annual reports. Next time they send a photographer my way, I ought to hold up a sign saying, "This class is taught by a teacher who can't rate a seminar room.

New Comment John is right. Adding more students while reducing the number of classrooms makes no sense. A few years ago, the Work-Life Committee made a presentation to the Faculty Senate Council stating that any new building on campus should have classrooms. This is a university: faculty and classrooms should be priority #1. If faculty were involved in planning, the university would not veer off-course and overlook the obvious.

Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

UPC Academic Year Issue Recommendation Admin Decision Approval Date Implementation Revision of Guidelines for Approval of Academic Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Program Changes Approval Approved September 2012 immediately Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Leavey School of Business (LSB) Core Revision Approval Approved October 2012 fall 2013 MS in Entrepreneurship from the Leavey School of Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Business Approval Approved January 2013 summer 2013 Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 MS in Finance from the Leavey School of Business Approval Approved January 2013 summer 2013

Two new modalities (online and off-campus programs) January 2013 (off-campus Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 in the Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries Approval Approved proposal later withdrawn) fall 2013 Department of Physics double-dipping option for Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Physics and Engineering Physics majors not at this time concured with rec. N/A Allow the faculty the option of giving students grades of Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 A+ Proposal withdrawn N/A N/A Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Teach-Out Policy Approval Approved April 2013 immediately Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Revise policy on students' absences from class In discussion pending pending Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Revise policy on academic probation Approval approved May 2013 immediately Request for postponement of Core Curriculum (Core review Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Implementation Review Approval Approved September 2012 launched 2013) Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Proposal for "Core Curriculum Committee" Discussion tabled Academic Affairs 2012 - 2013 Student Honor Code In discussion pending pending Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Entrepreneurship Minor Approval Approved October 2011 fall 2012 Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Neuropsychology Minor Proposal withdrawn N/A Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 OMIS to correct name of major Approval Approved December 2011 immediately Environmental Studies to eliminate minor designed for Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Engineering Students under old core Approval Approved December 2011 fall 2012 Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Master of Arts in Teaching Approval Approved January 2012 fall 2012 Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Bioengineering Department and Masters Degree Approval Approved April 2012 fall 2012 Certificate in Digital Signal Processing from Electrical Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Engineering Approval Approved April 2012 fall 2012 Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Change in Tuesday/Thursday Schedule Approval Approved May 2012 fall 2013

Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Revision of Guidelines for Annual Assessment Reports Approval Approved November 2011 spring 2012 Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Development of Credit Unit Policy Approval Approved March 2012 immediately Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Clarification of Academic Integrity Protocol approval Approved April 2012 fall 2012 Core review Academic Affairs 2011 - 2012 Review of Core Curriculum Procedures Discussion tabled N/A N/A launched 2013

Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 New degree, Master of Science in Sustainable Energy Approval Approved September 2010 fall 2010 Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Name change for OMIS Approval Approved October 2010 fall 2010 Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Refocus Department of Education Approval Approved November 2010 immediately Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Name change, Liberal Studies Program Proposal withdrawn N/A N/A Revision of Guidelines for Approval of Academic Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Program Changes Approval Approved January 2011 immediately Changes in Environmental Studies Institute (Establish a department and a stand-alone BS in Environmental Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Studies) Approval Approved April 2011 fall 2011 Academic Affairs 2010 - 2011 Consider changing SCU contact hours approval not rec. concurred with rec. May 2011 N/A Academic Affairs 2009 - 2010 Minor in Latin American Studies Approval Approved September 2009 fall 2010 Academic Affairs 2009 - 2010 Ethnic Studies Companion Major Approval Approved November 2009 fall 2010 Academic Affairs 2009 - 2010 Graduate Certificate Program in Renewable Energy Approval Approved January 2010 fall 2010

Faculty Affairs 2009 - 2010 Policy language in regards to JST Faculty Approved Approved 2010 2010 Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Changes to Faculty Handbook section 3.1.1 Approval Approved February 2013 2013 Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Changes to Faculty Handbook section 3.6.3.4 Approval Approved February 2013 2013 New procedues for mid-probationary review of tenure- Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 track faculty Approval Approved April 2013 2013 Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Changes to Faculty Handbook section 3.7.3 Approval approved February 2013 2013 Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Faculty Code of Conduct for the University Proposal withdrawn N/A N/A Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Policy for addressing faculty on long-term leaves In discussion N/A N/A Faculty Affairs 2012 - 2013 Changes to copyright policy in Faculty Handbook In discussion N/A N/A Reconsideration for Lecturer reappoinment decisions Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 proposal Approval Pending N/A Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 Proposal for Reduced-Time Appointments Approval Pending N/A Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 Changes to the consulting policy Approval Approved 11/9/2011 2011 Changing requirement from 18 quarters to 9 quarters of Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 service for Senior Lecturers (section 3.7.1.1) Approval Approved 10/26/2011 2011 Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 Changes to Faculty Handbook 3.4.4.2 Approval Approved 10/14/2011 2011 Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 Changes to Faculty Handbook 3.1.2.2 Approval Approved 10/14/2011 2011 Faculty Affairs 2011 - 2012 Changes to Faculty Handbook 3.1.2.1.3 Approval Approved 10/14/2011 2011

Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Faculty Appointment Policies Discussion and Review N/A N/A Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Changes to Faculty Handbook section 3.7.4.1 Approval Approved 5/18/2011 2011 Concerns regarding gender bias in teaching Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 evaluations Discussion and Review N/A Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Changes to Faculty Handbook section 3.2.2.1 Approval Appproved 5/18/2011 2011

Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Harassment and Discrimination Policy Discussion and Review pending pending Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Rank and Tenure commitee members' participation in Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 deliberations of a candidate from their own department Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Sabbatical Policy for Senior Lecturers Discussion and Review N/A N/A Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Course Releases for Rank and Tenure Committees Discussion Tabled N/A N/A Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 Jesuit Service Committees Discussion Tabled N/A N/A Faculty Grievance Committee Procedures (section Faculty Affairs 2010 - 2011 3.10.1.3) Approved Approved 5/18/2011 2011 Faculty Affairs 2009 - 2010 Faculty Appointment Policies Approved Approved 2010 2010 Faculty Affairs 2009 - 2010 Modified Duties Policy Approved Approved 2010 2010

Student Affairs 2013-14 Revise policy on students' absences from class In discussion

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Student Pedestrian Safety Initiative Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Honor Code Proposal Discussion and Review Pending Pending

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Fall Orientation Proposal from SLURP students Discussion and Review N/A N/A Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Shuttle Service Approval Approved 2013 immediately

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Performance Venue Rental Fees Discussion and Review N/A N/A Endorsed with minor Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Pedestrian Bike Coasting Device Safety Policy edits N/A N/A Endorsed with minor Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Smoke Free Campus Policy edits Pending Pending

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Proposed Changes to Facility Use Policies Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 University Policy on Academic Probation Discussion and Review Approved May 2013 immediately

Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Eligibility Policy for Participation in Student Activities Approval Pending N/A Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Policy, Endorsed with minor Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Reporting Protocol, and Student Judicial System edits N/A August 2013 Immediately ASG: Recommended Rechartering; KSCU Postponed until 2013- Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Rehartering Review for ASG and KSCU 14 Approved September 19, 2013 Immediately Recommended Student Affairs 2012 - 2013 Chartering proposal for Into the Wild Chartering Approved October 25, 2013 Immediately Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Programming Protocol for use of Kennedy, Locatelli Recommended for Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 and the Bronco approval Approved N/A Recommended for Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 Good Samaritan/Medical Amnesty policies approval Pending Pending Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 Student Safety Escort Program Endorsement N/A N/A Feedback on Classroom Utilization Task Force Discussion and Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 presentation Feedback N/A N/A Discussion and Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 ASG Honor Pledge Proposal Feedback N/A N/A

Student Affairs 2011 - 2012 Late-night Programming Discussion and Review N/A N/A Discussion and Student Affairs 2010 - 2011 Medical Amnesty/Good Samaritan Policy Feedback Continuation of pilot N/A Immediately

Student Affairs 2010 - 2011 Medical Marijuana Policy Discussion and Review Approved N/A 2011-12 Handbook

Student Affairs 2010 - 2011 Weapons in the Residence Hall Policy Discussion and Review Approved N/A 2011-12 Handbook

Student Affairs 2010 - 2011 Harassment and Discrimination Policy Discussion and Review pending pending

Student Affairs 2010 - 2011 Residence Life Alcohol Policy Discussion and Review Approved N/A 2012-13 Handbook

Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Unit Overload Policy Discussion and Review N/A N/A Not implemented

Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Greek Life Relationship Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Earthquake Preparedness Discussion and Review N/A N/A Recommended for Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Medical Amnesty Policy Approval Approval of pilot N/A Immediately Discussion and Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Medical Marijuana Policy Feedback Approved N/A 2010-11 Handbook Discussion and Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Patent Policy Feedback N/A N/A Discussion and Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Final Exam Policy Feedback N/A N/A Discussion and Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Weapons Policy Feedback Approved 6/29/2010 2010-11 Handbook Recommended for Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Missing Persons Notification Policy Approval Approved June 2010 2010-11 Handbook Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Recommended for Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Student Records and Release of Information Approval Approved June 2010 2010-11 Handbook Skateboarding, In-line Skating, Roller Skating and Discussion and Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Bicycle Riding POlicy Feedback 2010-11 Handbook

Student Affairs 2009 - 2010 Dining Services Policy Guide Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Staff Affairs 2012 - 2013 Smoke-Free Campus Approval Pending N/A Staff Affairs 2012 - 2013 Increase in Basic Life Insurance Coverage Approval Pending N/A Staff Affairs 2012 - 2013 Staff Compensation Administration Guidelines Revision Pending N/A Staff Affairs 2011 - 2012 Policy 305 - Confidential Infomation Approval Approved March 2012 Policy 310 - Corrective Action for Performance Staff Affairs 2011 - 2012 Problems Approval Approved March 2012 Staff Affairs 2011 - 2012 Policy 307 - Telecommuting Discussion tabled N/A N/A Staff Affairs 2011 - 2012 Policy 309 Revision Revised January 2012 Staff Affairs 2010 - 2011 Policy 401 Approval Approved February 2011 Staff Affairs 2010 - 2011 Policy 404 Approval Approved February 2011 Staff Affairs 2010 - 2011 Policy 602 - Health and Welfare Benefits Revision Revised October 2010 Staff Affairs 2010 - 2011 Policy 605 - Paid Time Off Revision N/A N/A Staff Affairs 2010 - 2011 Policy 600 Revision N/A N/A

University Budget Council 2012 - 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 Operating and Capital Budgets Approval Approved February 2013 7/1/2013 University Budget Council 2011 - 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Operating and Capital Budgets Approval Approved February 2012 7/1/2013 University Budget Council 2010 - 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Operating and Capital Budgets Approval Approved February 2011 7/1/2011 University Budget Council 2009 - 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets Approval Approved February 2010 7/1/2010

Planning Action Council 2012 - 2013 Commencement 2012 Debrief Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Discussion of article, Disruptive Adaptation: The New Planning Action Market for Higher Education, focusing on challenges Council 2012 - 2013 (economic, demographic, etc.) in higher education Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2012 - 2013 SCU Global Engagement Discussion and Review N/A N/A Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

The Promise and Perils of Innovation: Challenges to Planning Action the Traditional Higher Education Model (Guest speaker Council 2012 - 2013 Matt Pellish) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Place-based Initiative with the Ignatian Center for Jesuit Council 2012 - 2013 Education (McCarthy) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Teaching and Learning with Technology: Planning for Council 2012 - 2013 SCU's Future (Jonte-Pace/Danielson) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Updated Vision and Strategic Decisions for the Planning Action Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and Center for Council 2012 - 2013 Science, Technology and Society Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Elaborating SCU's Educational Vision and Strategic Council 2012 - 2013 Planning Process Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2011 - 2012 Update on Strategic Plan (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Long term planning of undergraduate & graduate Council 2011 - 2012 enrollments (Jacobs) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2011 - 2012 Planning for WASC Interim Report (Jonte-Pace) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Process for refining implementation plan to advance Council 2011 - 2012 the strategic priorities (Jacobs) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action University Relations and Strategic Plan update Council 2011 - 2012 (Gunsalus) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Governance Task Force Report and Council 2011 - 2012 Recommendations: Next steps Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Task Force on Classroom Utilization Report and Council 2011 - 2012 Recommendations (Jonte-Pace, Dancer) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Communication and Collaboration Task Force Council 2011 - 2012 (Griffith/Danielson) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2011 - 2012 Union Negotiations Status Report (Ottoboni/Warren) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Campus Crisis Communication Plan Council 2011 - 2012 (Engh/Jacobs/Warren) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Community of Fundraisers and Strategic Planning Council 2011 - 2012 (Gunsalus) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2011 - 2012 SCU Athletics (Coonan) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2011 - 2012 Update on Task Forces Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2010 - 2011 Strategic Plan Review (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Planning Action Council 2010 - 2011 WASC Education Effectiveness Report (Jonte-Pace) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2010 - 2011 Faculty Resource Analysis: Capacity Review (Erekson) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2010 - 2011 Report on NCAA Certification (Neustadter) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Governance Task Force Report and Recommendations Council 2010 - 2011 (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Report on Estimates Related to Cost of Strategic Plan Council 2010 - 2011 (Dodson/Erekson) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Contemplating the Real: The Ignatian Imagination & Council 2010 - 2011 Well-educated Solidarity (Ravizza) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Preliminary Progress Report on University Relations Council 2010 - 2011 (Gunsalus) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Highlights of Regents' Discussion of the Strategic Plan Council 2010 - 2011 (Gunsalus) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Feedback on Brochure and Website Rollout for the Council 2010 - 2011 Strategic Plan (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2010 - 2011 Strategic Plan Implementation Reports (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Strategic Planning Process (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Capacity Study and Review: Student Enrollments, Council 2009 - 2010 Faculty size Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Campus Master Planning Process (Warren) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Report on Undergraduate Admission Strategies Council 2009 - 2010 (Sexton) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Campus Climate in light of Theme Party (Engh) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 WASC Recap Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 JST Integration (Sonny Manuel and Rob McChesney) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Proposal for Villa Apartments Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Recruitment Strategy for Graduate Programs (Gilbert) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Planning Action Council 2009 - 2010 Implementation of Core Curriculum (Jonte-Pace) Discussion and Review N/A N/A Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Planning Action Results of the National Survey of Student Engagement Council 2009 - 2010 (Gittens) Discussion and Review N/A N/A

Task Force Date Issue Recommendation Admin Decision Implementation Date Classroom Space: use some specialized teaching spaces for regular classes if they're not needed for Classroom Utilization 2010-11 Classroom Space: Specialized Teachings Spaces specialized purposes. Approved 2012 (March 16)

Classroom Space: have University master plan include a commitment to maintaining a classroom utilization rate of 65 to 70 percent Classroom Utilization 2010-11 Classroom Space: Utilization rate during the week.

Classroom Space: planning for new construction or changing the size of the student populations needs to take into account teaching space and include faculty in Classroom Utilization 2011 Classroom Space: planning process discussion.

Classroom Space: immediate improvement some spaces (namely O'Connor and Kenna) Some improvements should be improved as summer 2013, additional Classroom Utilization 2011 Classroom Space: O'Connor and Kenna soon as possible. Ongoing improvements planned Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Classtime Distribution: distribute classes more broadly throughout the day (see revised Guidelines for Class fall 2012 (See Guidelines Classroom Utilization 2011 Classtime Distribution: broader distribution of classes Scheduling). Approved on Registrar's website) Classtime Distribution: create an additional two- day per week class period by decreasing the length of each Tue.Thur class by 10 minutes to create an eighth class Tue/Thur period. (Recommendation sent to AAC for further fall 2013 implementation of review; AAC new TR schedule (instead Classtime Distribution: create an additional two-day per recommended change approval of AAC of task force Classroom Utilization 2011 week class period in TR schedule.) recommendation recommendation) Classtime Distribution: expand the two-day per week scheduling options by adding a few Classtime Distribution: expand the two-day per week MF and WF options Classroom Utilization 2011 scheduling options after 3 p.m. approved 2012 Classtime Distribution: schedule a few more classes to meet once a week on Friday 2012 (although few Friday morning, mid-day or once/week classes have Classroom Utilization 2011 Classtime Distribution: Friday classes afternoon. approved been offered) Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Communications: establish a clear method for communicating problems and needs related to classrooms to the Registrar, Media 2012 Registrar receives Services, Facilities communications abaout and/or Deans and problems; registrar establish a strategy for responds directly and Communications: establish a clear method for responding rapidly to contacts Media Services, Classroom Utilization 2011 communicating problems identified needs. approved Facilites, etc. as needed.

Communications: chairs and administrative assistants should communicate to faculty the range of scheduling options and consider also listing available Implementation in 2012 equipment, furniture (communication should be Classroom Utilization 2011 Communications re scheduling and classroom options and room options. Approved reiterated)

Identify campus needs for communication and Transition to Google Communication and collaboration services and the tools and practices to approved 2012; Collaboration 2011 (June) support those needs Transition to Google Approved implementation 2013 Enhance University support for collaborations involving Communication and teaching, research and Collaboration 2011 (June) Support for collaboration service. Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Increase the use of communication and collaboration practices for teaching, research, service, and other areas, among members Communication and of the University Collaboration 2011 (June) Increase effective practices community.

The evaluation of teaching should be based on at least two sources of evidence: Evaluation of student evaluations and Teaching 2011 (Spring) sources of evidence peer evaluations.

Peer evaluation of teaching should include multiple in-class observations and the Evaluation of examination of relevant Teaching 2011 Peer evaluation of teaching course materials.

The process by which the University evaluates Evaluation of teaching must be Teaching 2011 transparent and timely process transparent and timely. As a rule, the unit of implementation should Evaluation of be the academic Teaching 2011 unit of implementation department.

Each academic unit should be responsible for articulating a set of norms and criteria that Evaluation of define the various levels Teaching 2011 norms and criteria of teaching quality. Appendix L UPC and Task Force Summary

Any significant change in existing practices should be piloted on a small scale, assessed, and refined prior to Evaluation of implementation on a Teaching 2011 small scale pilots for changes broader basis.

The Universisty should convene a committee or task force to explore the ways in which the student evaluation Evaluation of instruments presently in Teaching 2011 SET task force use can be improved. approved 2013

Student Evaluation Charge: Examine the ways in which the University's of Teaching (SET) 2013 (January) various SET instruments can be improved in process

Executive TF on Examine SCU's collaborative governance model See separate Governance 2010 (developed in 1994-95); recommend changes spreadsheet

Subcommittee on harassment and discrimination Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Academic Admin. Approval UPC or TF Year Issue Recommendation Decision Date Implementation Change in tuition Benefits 2010‐11 tuition remission remission eligibility.

Feasibility of retiree November 2011 (open health benefits; set enrollment period); effective Health Care Benefits 1/1/2012, and credit will be Waiver premium at taxable income effective with Benefits 2010‐11 retiree health benefits $150. Approved Winter 2011 1/22/12 paycheck. Health Care Benefits Waiver of $150 per Benefits 2010‐11 Health Care Waiver month. Approved Fall 2011 Implemented as of 2012

employees may divert Improve Fidelity 401(a) percentages of future raises to and 403(b) by 403(b) or to automatically divert Incorporating automatic maximum possible contribution Fidelity 401(a) and retirement fund builder to 403(b) without filling out a Benefits 2010‐11 403(b) into 403(b) forms. Winter 2011 new form every year Publish comparison of SCU health care plans Comparisons & with those of peer Benefits 2010‐11 benchmarks institutions. Winter 2011

Create workshops about the basics of investment planning in 401(a) and Benefits 2010‐11 workshops 403(b) plans. Winter 2011 Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

a. Fidelity – Introduction of Fidelity Freedom Index Funds to retirement plans b. Default fund changed to Fidelity Freedom Index Funds based on expected age of retirement c. Vanguard Funds – 19 Vanguard funds hosted on Fidelity Platform d. Automatic Rebalancing is now available on a quarterly basis on the Fidelity Platform. Before, Improve retirement it was only available on Benefits 2010‐11 funds an annual basis. Approved Spring 2011 Implemented by Fidelity Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

SCU receives renewal data late in August or early September 2011. Benefits Advisory Committee meets twice weekly during the month of September to discuss plan options, etc. in preparation for Calendar Year 2012 rates; SCU Broker attends meetings Benefits 2010‐11 Renewal process as often as needed. Spring 2011 Retirement Plan Benefits 2011‐12 Retirement plan Education. Spring 2011 Held in October 2011 Benefits and Health Benefits 2011‐12 Benefits expo Expo. Spring 2011 Held 10/31/11 Conduct Dependent Study conducted by Bright Care Study to review Horizons; contract with childcare and eldercare Care.com implemented; Benefits 2011‐12 Dependent Care issues. approved Fall 2011 childcare discussion ongoing Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

a. University equalizing employer contribution among plans while offering choice among plans. b. Anthem Blue Cross and Stanford Hospitals & Clinics came to agreement in November 2011 with no interruption to service and coverage levels for SCU employees c. Anthem Blue Cross members with an Express Scripts prescription drug plan (Walgreen Pharmacies) had contract terminated, not a formal Benefits 2012‐13 Discussion & updates 1/1/12. recommendation N/A immediate Approve rates with 7% Rejected, but then Renewal rates for increase to SCU negotiated to ~4% and Benefits 2012‐13 medical plans contribution. approved. Fall 2012 Implemented as of 2013

Increase life insurance max to average SCU salaries (now $70K) (recommendation made Benefits 2012‐13 Life insurance 5/2/13). Approved Implemented as of 2014 Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Use electronic W‐2s that will provide interface with electronic tax preparer applications like Turbo Tax (recommendation made Approved to be Benefits 2012‐13 W‐2 interface 5/2/13). worked on still in process

No decision was made. Delay plan to increase After meeting with KOC tuition (made FSC, VP of AF approved Tuition increase postponed; KOC Benefits 2012‐13 Kids on Campus tuition 5/2/13). delay spring 2013 Task force formed

University fully equalized Renewal rates for employer contribution Benefits 2013‐14 medical plans among plans. Approved by VP of AF Fall 2013 Implemented as of 2014 Make available to all employees; receive 1% discount on Blue Cross Benefits 2013‐14 Blue View Vision plan medical rates. Approved by VP of AF Fall 2013 Implemented as of 2014 Have one to connect Benefits 2013‐14 Benefits Forum with the community. Fall 2013 Held Fall 2013

Implement competitive Support faculty research grant process for Research 2009‐10 with summer stipend summer stipends. Approved by Provost Spring 2009 Implemented 10‐11 Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Faculty Course Release Initiative: award 10 course releases a year on a competitive basis to research‐active tenured faculty to encourage high‐ quality faculty scholarship and creative Support teaching‐scholar activity and promote a model; enhance support strong and supportive Research 2009‐10 for faculty research research environment. Approved by Provost Spring 2010 Implemented 10‐11

Release contents of the Capacity Study once it is Research 2010‐11 Capacity Study in its final form. approved 2010 Capacity study released 2010 sabbaticals, course releases, summer Reviewed proposals, Research 2011‐12 stipends made recommendations. approved by provost 2011‐2012 immediately sabbaticals, course releases, summer Reviewed proposals, Research 2012‐13 stipends made recommendations. approved by provost 2012‐2013 immediately

Form a Grievance Committee in the School of Education and UCC 2009‐10 Grievance Committee Counseling Psychology. November 2009 Committee formed Clarify makeup and Benefits Committee charter of Benefits Assistant Vice President for HR UCC 2009‐10 Charter Committee. January 2010 will chair the committee. Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Have outside health‐care consultant meet with Benefits Committee to orient members on health plans before the Orienting Benefits Committee meets each UCC 2009‐10 Committee year.

Have Benefits Committee look at other University benefits, including tuition UCC 2009‐10 University Benefits remission and childcare.

Committee periodically reviews parking regulations, applications Parking Committee Change charter for of the regulations and concerns UCC 2009‐10 Charter Parking Committee. 5/1/2010 about their enforcement.

Bicycle riders earn a free parking pass every five times they ride a bike to work in the winter and a Negotiate for bicycle free pass every time they ride a Free Parking Passes for riders to earn free bike to work 10 times during the UCC 2009‐10 Bicycle Riders parking passes. summer. Formed to review and make recommendations regarding access to campus facilities and Form a Facilities Fee Task the fee structures currently in UCC 2009‐10 Facilities Fee Force. November 2009 place. Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Define how staff can be University Governance more involved in UCC 2009‐10 Staff Involvement University governance.

Provided nominations for Reviewing governance on Task Force to review UCC 2009‐10 campus Governance on campus. UCC 2009‐10 UPC Charter Amend UPC Charter.

Faculty Salary Advisory Committee suggested preparation of a "white paper" to outline trade‐ Sent letter of thanks to offs in setting salary committee and agreed UCC 2009‐10 "White Paper" Proposal policy, including benefits. to proposal. 4/1/2010 Further discussion of Executive Task Force on Governance (some members attend the AAUP conference in UCC 2009‐10 Governance Review November). Review process of implementing recommendations included in Provost's budget proposal to Implementing assure their UCC 2009‐10 recommendations implementation. Form an "Improving Improving Communication Task UCC 2009‐10 Communication Force." Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Note: Minutes not UCC 2010‐11 available for 2010‐11 Proposal to reduce Reducing Undergraduate undergraduate class Asked AAC to consider UCC 2011‐12 Class Time time. the issue

Work with deans to replace UAC members to ensure representation from all Schools and the UCC 2011‐12 Replacing UAC members College. Discussion of possible Task Force to address Issues on functioning as a issues on functioning as a UCC 2011‐12 system system. Consider Task Force to address possible gender Decided not to form bias in faculty task force at this time. UCC 2011‐12 Faculty evaluations evaluations. Revisit in the fall.

Change the UCC charter to include member of the Core Curriculum UCC 2011‐12 UCC Charter Implementation Team.

Have UCC assume a UCC's role in assigning larger role in assigning UCC 2011‐12 issues issues to UPCs. Consider having someone assigned to a position to coordinate Coordinator for shared shared governance UCC 2011‐12 governance system system. Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Form task force to advise UCC 2011‐12 Replacing GroupWise on replacing GroupWise.

One undergrad and one grad student should Students on the Student serve on the Student UCC 2011‐12 Affairs Committee Affairs Committee.

Form a Task Force for UCC 2011‐12 Evaluation of Teaching Evaluation of Teaching. 9/1/2011 Allow faculty to give students an A+ grade Forwarded proposal to Giving students a grade when their work was the Academic Affairs UCC 2011‐12 of A+ truly exceptional. Committee. Campus‐wide non‐ Adopt a campus‐wide UCC 2011‐12 smoking policy non‐smoking policy. Forwarded to UPCs

Terms extended to 3 years and 4 Modify the terms served months to allow for continuity Benefits Committee by the Benefits and overlap of membership UCC 2011‐12 Terms Committee members. 6/1/2012 during its busiest months

forward to VP for Ask Benefits Committee Administration SCU considers ways that allow to request a Voluntary Business and Finance retirees to stay connected to the Voluntary Retirement Retirement Assistance for review and SCU community and offer UCC 2011‐12 Assistance Program Program. comment temporary financial assistance Appendix M Benefits, Research, and UCC Summary

Establish a Teaching Evaluation Task Force that is a separate group of faculty who review Reviewing student student evaluation UCC 2011‐12 evaluation instruments instruments. 11/1/2012 Task Force formed

Create Working Group UCC 2011‐12 Student Honor Code on Student Honor Code. Group formed Note: Minutes not UCC 2012‐13 available for 2012‐13 Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Governance Spreadsheet: Recommendations to Enhance Shared Governance 2011 and 2012

Feedback from an Feedback ETFG from UCC re: Item # Category 2011 Exec Task Force Recommendations 2012 Distillation of Earlier Recommendations Notes member rationale

The UPCs will be the final collaborative (FL 1) The UPCs are the final collaborative bodies with the bodies with the authority to formulate and authority to formulate and recommend new University policy 2011 text recommend new University policy and major and major strategic change and to review significant change intended to Final Locus of Dialogue - strategic change, and review significant in existing policy as detailed below and at change 1 UPCs change in existing policy. http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm. Similar existing policy

Shift was intended to create more It is expected that key stakeholders or their (CF 9) UPCs, or their equivalent, that are actively considering realistic representatives will be invited into dialogue major policy issues are expected to report and seek input at process with UPCs at appropriate stages of decision- various stages during their deliberations by (a) posting Text mentions a) b) and Shift to without losing making (the rule of three: when defining the agendas in advance of their deliberations, (b) sharing minutes c) but does not explicitly passive emphasis on problem, early formulation of solutions, final of meetings summarizing deliberations in progress, and (c) mention Rule of Three. approach consultation Final Locus of Dialogue - modifications) resulting in pooled judgments posting final recommendations/report at Note difference in from active and "seeking 2 UPCs and conflict resolution. http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. sequence approach input"

(FL2) A special University task force or committee dealing The changes A special task force or committee dealing with policy issues of importance similar to a UPC, such as the create a with a policy issue of gravitas similar to a Research Committee and the Benefits Committee, should misstatement Final Locus of Dialogue - UPC should conform to the same process also conform to the process detailed for UPCs below and at of the 2011 3 UPCs norms as a UPC. http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm. Almost identical intention Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Shift intended to ensure that "Free to chairs would attend" is not have Chairs of Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs, (CF 1) The chairs of the Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs, different from excessive and Staff Affairs should attend their and Staff Affairs UPCs should feel free to attend the "should time 4 Communication Flow corresponding Senate. corresponding Senate meetings when appropriate. Similar attend" commitments (CF 10) Before and after each Faculty Senate Council and Staff Senate meeting, the corresponding chair will send 2011: Go to Concern was electronic copies of the agenda and minutes, respectively, to Similar (note: sequence is senate to for time The Senates should receive a regular report the governance webmaster for immediate posting at different in 2011 and report vs commitments 5 Communication Flow from the chair of each relevant UPC. http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. 2012 recommendations) send copies of participants (CF2) At least two days before and no later than two weeks after each UPC meeting, the UPC chair will send electronic The governance website copies of the agenda and minutes, respectively, to the 2 week period Goal was http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/ Faculty and Staff Senate presidents and to the governance rushes limit. timely will provide regularly the minutes from each webmaster for immediate posting at No time for communi- 6 Communication Flow committee. http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. Almost identical/Similar discussion cation

Summary meeting This may An annual summary report, based on the (CF 3) In August, each UPC will submit to the governance missing. have been an annual UPC summary meeting, will be webmaster an annual summary report, in a concise Less error. UCC provided to the University community. It will standardized format, and the next year's membership roster. opportunity did not intend include UPC membership rosters for the The entire faculty and staff will be directed to the governance Almost identical (meeting for to eliminate 7 Communication Flow upcoming year. * website for this information. continues in practice) transparency. meeting The administrator who regularly receives (CF4) The administrator who regularly receives policy policy recommendation from a UPC will recommendations from a UPC will serve on the committee or serve on the committee or appoint a appoint a designate. designate. If the administrator appoints a Ex officio designate, that individual should be becomes empowered to act with the full authority of the reporter No intention administrator in this capacity, to avoid rather than to change creating a layering of designate and engaged practice or 8 Communication Flow administrator. * Similar participant. procedure Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

The administrator (or his/her proxy) is (CF 5) The administrator (or his/her designate) is expected to expected to attend the UPC meetings; for attend the UPC meetings; for each issue before the UPC, the each issue before the UPC, the UPC and the UPC and the administrator should clarify who is the administrator should clarify who is the responsible decision-maker. 9 Communication Flow responsible decision-maker. Almost identical "Recommen- dation from No intention (CF 6) The administrator should observe the timelines UPC" implies to imply that described in the 2008 Charter at administra- administra- The administrator should observe the http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm when tion is not part tion is not part 10 Communication Flow timelines described in the 2008 Charter. deliberating on the recommendations from a UPC Similar of UPC of UPC In the spirit and interests of shared governance as well as effective policy collaboration, members of UPCs and other collaborative university committees and task forces should be given all information necessary for fruitful discussion. It is the responsibility of administrators and committee members to insure that all (CF 7) Members of University committees and task forces relevant information is provided in a timely should be provided in a timely manner with the information 11 Communication Flow fashion. they need for fruitful discussion and policy consideration. Almost identical

Transparency in the decision process should be held as a principle at all levels. In unique "Confidential" circumstances, some information that is (CF 8) Transparency in the decision process should be is different shared with the Committee may be pursued at all levels. Occasionally, however, information that from "not No intention designated as not appropriate to be shared is shared with a committee may be designated as approrpriate to change 12 Communication Flow with outside constituencies. confidential. Almost identical to be shared" meaning Note: Sequence differs in 2011 and 2012 documents. CF 10 13 Communication Flow Note is above; CF 11 is below.

Goal was This profile of a successful committee "Profile" clarity of provides best practices to be used to removed. language. No structure current university committees and (UCC 6) The UCC shall develop a set of best practices to be That was a intention to Profile of Successful create processes for the ongoing operation of used to structure current university committees and guide "best change 14 Committee those committees. processes for the ongoing operation of those committees. Similar practice." meaning Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

"Promptly" is gone, (UCC1) If an administrator wishes to initiate or propose a governance No intention Any administrator who initiates or proposes a change in University policy, the administrator shall notify the role is to weaken University Coordinating policy change shall promptly notify the UCC UCC so that the appropriate UPC or equivalent committee potentially governance 15 Committee or the same. can be engaged. Similar weakened role The UCC shall direct issues to the appropriate UPC or UPCs and shall monitor (UCC 2)The UCC shall direct issues to the appropriate UPC the consideration and coordination of policy or equivalent committee and shall monitor the consideration decisions. It shall also ensure that the UPCs and coordination of policy decisions. It shall also encourage University Coordinating consult with their respective constituent members of such committees to consult with their respective 16 Committee groups. constituent groups. Same

When policy issues arise that significantly affect more than one segment of the (UCC 3) When policy issues arise that significantly affect community (faculty, staff, students), the UCC more than one segment of the community (faculty, staff, will determine the appropriate coordination students), the UCC will determine the appropriate process. If the overlap is limited, informal coordination process. If the overlap is limited, informal consultation between the relevant UPCs will consultation between the relevant UPCs will be required. For University Coordinating be required. For significantly greater overlap, significantly greater overlap, a joint committee may be 17 Committee a joint committee may be formed. formed. Same The UCC shall select the Appointments Committee membership from the individuals Not present: This University Coordinating nominated by the individual schools and duplicates Appointments 18 Committee colleges. See Appointments Committee below (duplicate). Committee below The final membership of the Appointments Committee shall be based on the criteria specified in Appointments Committee Not present: This University Coordinating Recommendation One, B. (See Report duplicates Appointments 19 Committee Recommendation 5 below). See Appointments Committee below (duplicate). Committee below Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

(UCC 4) The UCCs responsibilities include "appointing to each Policy Committee members who ar competent to perform the work of that committee" (Faculty Handbook 2.9.1) as prescribed in the "Composition of UPCs" section of the UPC charter at http://www.scuedu/governance/committees/policy.cfm. To more effetively pursue this goal, the UPC will consult with the SCU comunity to find qualified potential candidates for service on UPCs or the equivalent, and on University task forces, in the following manner: a) each September the UCC will advise the mebmers of the FSC and SS of known positions…that need to be filled by the UCC over the coming year…The governance webmaster wil lalso indicate these positions on the governance website. The UCC will ask that the FSC and SS or any of their members, forward suggestions for faculty and staff to fill these positions. b) throughout the year the UCC may again ask the FSC or SS for additional names of faculty or staff for consideration for such service. Also the UCC will, in general No intention consult with the FSC/SS (or, if more appropriate, directly with the to faculty/staff for suggestions on appointments of faculty/staff to deemphasize positions for significant ad hoc University committees, task forces, staff roles. The UCC shall also make the final selection etc. The UCC will also distribute (at minimum every three yers) a This limits Emphasis on of individuals to sit on the various UPCs as questionnaire to eligibile faculty and staff, seeking self-referrals and access of consulting well as committees and task forces dealing nominations form colleagues, to serve on specific UPCs or thier staff to managers equivalent. In addition, the governance website will accept, at any with governance level policies based on the positions in and time, nominaitons and self-referrals to fill positions on UPCs or their recommendations of the Appointments equivalent. c) throughout the year the UCC may also consult with Change (Note: change governance administrators Committee from the self-nominations, Faculty administrators, managers, and any other members of the SCU developed in order to (through not intended and Staff Senate recommendations, and community whose competencies and responsibilies provide them maintain consistency with emphasis on to prioritize University Coordinating ongoing dialogue with the Deans, Directors, withknowledge of canddates with relevant skills and aptitude for Faculty Handbook 2.9.1 academic academic 20 Committee and managers. service on specific UPCs or their equivalent, and task forces. and UPC charter) units) units. Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

UCC and UPC members includes administrative Limits and senate orientation to heads, but (UCC 5) The UCC shall oversee the coordination of shared UPC's - omits point is good: governance and arrange an annual orientation for all administrative an inclusive University Coordinating The UCC shall oversee the governance members of UPCs. Concerns about irregular practice within + senate meeting is 21 Committee process and orientation. * shared governance should be reported to the UCC. Similar heads important Good point: a University Coordinating There shall be an annual orientation meeting Not present in text, but meeting meeting is 22 Committee ... for all UPCs with the UCC. See Orientation, below. present in practice removed important

Not present, but meeting Good point: a University Coordinating [There shall be] an annual summation of UPC chairs with UCC meeting meeting is 23 Committee meeting for all UPCs with the UCC. occurs annually removed important (UCC 7) At the start of each quarter, the chairs of the UPCs and other governance-level committees will email their The UCC shall meet with the chairs of committee’s goals for the coming quarter to the UCC; the Faculty Affairs, Staff Affairs and Student governance webmaster shall post these at goal is University Coordinating Affairs at the start of each quarter to review http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/ in accord with email vs communicatio 24 Committee the coming months’ agenda. the UPC charter. Similar meeting n

UCC may consider and recommend the (UCC 8) The UCC, after broad consultation with appropriate creation of additional UPC committees or constituencies, may consider and recommend to the converting long standing ad hoc committees President the creation of additional UPCs or the conversion of Shifts or task forces into permanent committees if longstanding ad hoc committees or task forces into responsibility Intent was University Coordinating the policy area of the committee or task force permanent committees if the UCC deems it responsive to the from UCC to shared 25 Committee meets the criteria of governance level issues. needs of shared governance. Almost identical President responsibility Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Create Appointments Committee as a Not present: Faculty Subcommittee to the University Coordinating Handbook identifies UCC Create Appointments Committee. The Appointments Committee as appointing committee 26 Committee would consist of six faculty and six staff. N/A: Duplicates UCC item above. (duplicates item above)

Not present: Faculty The final membership of the Appointments Handbook identifies UCC Create Appointments Committee would be the responsibility of the as appointing committee 27 Committee UCC. N/A: Duplicates UCC item above. (duplicates item above)

The Committee's primary purpose would be to nominate well-qualified candidates for Change (See UCC 4: UPCs as well as special committees and task Faculty Handbook and Create Appointments forces dealing with issues delineated in the N/A: See UCC 4: Faculty Handbook and UPC Charter assign UPC Charter assign this 28 Committee Locus of dialogue recommendation. this responsibility to UCC. responsibility to UCC)

All tenure track faculty, senior lecturers, and renewable term lecturers are eligible to serve on UPCs and other university committees or (CA 2) All tenure-stream faculty, senior lecturers, and task forces, should they wish to be lecturers (on renewable terms) are eligible to serve on UPCs Almost identical (Slight 29 Committee Appointments considered. * and other university committees or task forces. change in sequence) Removes "should they wish..." Text is more Staff, whose jobs permit their participation, coercive; are eligible for staff positions on UPCs and (CA 3) Staff, with the permission of their supervisors, are more other university committees or task forces eligible for staff slots on UPCs and other University emphasis on No intent to 30 Committee Appointments should they wish to be considered. committees or task forces. Similar supervisor be coercive Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

We suggest using the expression “based on a matrix of competencies” specific to the challenges a UPC or special committee is charged with in a particular time period... A (CA 1) Committee appointments should reflect four UPC and the UCC should reflect on the desireable domains of competencies: relevant skill, Removes “matrix of competencies” desired in their experience, and knowledge; respect of constituencies; deans role - charge to the Appointments Committee in connections to established stakeholder networks; and Deans know Goal was 31 Committee Appointments any given year. relevant intergenerational and rank representation. Almost identical/similar faculty clarification

Those who elect to serve on UPCs, Similar (See Faculty committees, and task forces should receive (CA 4) Those who serve on UPCs, University committees, Handbook, Faculty change in commensurate credit for their university and University task forces should be appropriately credited Senate Bylaws, Staff language Goal was 32 Committee Appointments service in their faculty or staff evaluations. for their university service in their faculty or staff evaluations. Senate Bylaws) troubling clarification

No individual should be compelled to serve or considered derelict if they decline to serve because it would put too much pressure on them when they are in the tenure or promotion process, in the case of faculty, or have personal and professional Loss of responsibilities which would make committee Not present in text, but protection of 33 Committee Appointments work an undue extra burden. present in practice faculty Jesuit School of Theology faculty and staff will, for the purpose of committee membership, be eligible for membership on UPCs and governance level committees and (CA 5) Jesuit School of Theology faculty and staff are eligible "should they task forces should they wish to be for membership on UPCs and governance level committees wish" is 34 Committee Appointments considered. and task forces. Almost identical removed

If approval of a policy change is required by an authority beyond that of the administrator on the UPC or other governance level (R&A 1 a) If approval of a policy change is required by an committee, that authority shall respond within authority, beyond that of the administrator on the UPC or its 45 days of receiving the proposed policy equivalent, that authority shall respond within 45 days of 35 Responses and Appeals change. receiving the proposed policy change. Almost identical Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

If a response is not received within 45 days, "inform" vs the proposing committee shall inform the (R&A 1 b) If a response is not received within 45 days, the "remind" higher level administrator of the need for a proposing committee shall remind the authority of the need shifts 36 Responses and Appeals decision. for a decision. Almost identical emphasis

(R&A 2) If the authority chooses to reject or significantly modify a recommended policy change advanced by a UPC or its equivalent, the authority shall attend a future committee If a policy change is expressly rejected by a meeting to discuss the reasons for that decision and to higher authority or if no response is received, explore whether an alternative solution might be acceptable. the Academic Affairs, Staff Affairs, Student (R&A 3) As stated in the UPC charter at This shifts Affairs, or governance-level committee may http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm, “In process from appeal the rejection to the next higher rare instances where a UPC and appropriate administrator engaged authority (the University president, or are unable to reach agreement, even after further discussion model to No intent to through the President to the Board of following the administrator’s response, the UPC may submit reporting change 37 Responses and Appeals Trustees). its position document to the President.” Similar model process University Budget Council and Planning This was Action Council recommendations go directly requested by to the University President and cannot be Not present in text, but administrators 38 Responses and Appeals appealed. present in practice on ETFG

Relevant UPCs (with the exception of the Change: Duplication UBC and Staff Affairs) are expected to report integrated into single on their deliberations on policy issues recommendation; direct Goal was relevant to the faculty three times to the Note: See Communication Flow 1 and 10: Duplication in adoption inconsistent efficient Faculty Senate in the course of their sections of 2011 recommendations; Also see Faculty Senate with Faculty Senate Rule of Three communicatio 39 Role of Faculty Senate deliberation of any policy issue. Bylaws. Bylaws removed n The Chairs of the UCC, Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs, Research Committee, and the faculty representative on Student Affairs, as well as a faculty representative on the UBC or any UPCs created in the future Executive relating to faculty interests, should be ex- Note: Creation of an Executive Council of the Faculty Senate Not present: would council was officio members of the Executive Council of would require a change in the Faculty Handbook Appendix A, require change in Faculty under 40 Role of Faculty Senate the Faculty Senate. Bylaws of the Faculty Senate. Handbook development Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Faculty Senate Council minutes will be sent Change: Duplication to the President’s Office for presentation to See Communication Flow 11 in Relations with Trustees: integrated into single This hasn't 41 Role of Faculty Senate the Board of Trustees. Duplication in sections of 2011 recommendations. recommendation happened

On the university governance website, add a brief explanatory paragraph above the (RT 1) On the University governance website, add brief OK, but names on the web pages for trustees and paragraphs explaining the roles that the Trustees and removes 42 Relations with Trustees regents. Regents play in the life of the University. Almost identical names - To the Trustee page, add a list of the current (RT 2) To the Board of Trustees page, add a list of the 43 Relations with Trustees Trustee committees. current Trustee committees and their charters. Almost identical (RT 3) After each Board of Trustees meeting, the President's After each Trustee meeting, publish skeleton update blog and accompanying email sent to faculty and staff meeting minutes (obviously excluding shall include a brief description of special presentations, Less info, confidential or sensitive dialogue), perhaps discussion items reported out, and action items approved at less 44 Relations with Trustees as an entry in the President’s monthly blog. the meeting. Similar transparency Trying to keep Trustee Trustees agenda is At each Trustee meeting, add one report item abreast of trustee 45 Relations with Trustees on a program or unit of timely interest. Not present in text issues responsibility

At each Trustee meeting, create an opportunity for informal social contact with a (RT 4) For each Board of Trustees meeting, try to plan an selected group of faculty and/or students, opportunity for Trustees to engage in formal or informal social Good that 46 Relations with Trustees perhaps over a meal or during a reception. contact with a select group of faculty, staff and/or students. Almost identical staff added More passive Change (sequence differs model: (CF 11) The Provost will regularly direct University Trustees in 2011 and 2012) website Goal was Invite the chair of the Academic Affairs sitting on their Academic Affairs Committee to the Trustees AAC often posting vs efficient Committee to sit ex-officio on the Trustee governance website for updated information on the work of all invites visitors relevant to actual communicatio 47 Relations with Trustees Academic Affairs Committee. UPCs and Senates. their agenda engagement n

Is Orientation (O 1) Orientation programs for new faculty and staff should for ALL or is it Continuous Orientation for the University include an introduction to shared governance at Santa Clara for new 48 Orientation Community As a Whole. University presented in consultation with the UCC. Similar employees? Appendix N Governance Recommendations 2011 and 2012

Orientation for Those Involved in UCC and See UCC 5 (Similar items incorporated into single Change: Incorporated 49 Orientation UPC Committees Each Year. recommendation). into UCC 5

Staffing Support to Ensure Effectiveness of Assign Responsibility for Conducting an See UCC 5 (Similar items incorporated into single Change: Incorporated 50 Governance Process Annual Orientation Program. recommendation). into UCC 5 Staffing Support to Ensure Effectiveness of Include an orientation committee with key See UCC 5 (Similar items incorporated into single Change: Incorporated This loses No intent to 51 Governance Process stakeholder representatives. recommendation). into UCC 5 staff role eliminate staff To support the governance process, a staff person who understands the governance process should be tasked with and given Not present in text This was a Staffing Support to Ensure resources for coaching, mentoring, and although current staff best practice Effectiveness of evaluating each year's governance member holds some of from 52 Governance Process endeavors. these responsibilities conference

green= same/nearly Note: The sequence differs in the 2011 and 2012 documents: same blue / 2012 CF 2, 10, and 11, for example, are out of alignment in turquoise = similar order to maintain consistency with 2011 document. See also orange = change UCC 6, etc. In some cases 2011 recommendations are red = not present in 2012 reiterated in more than one section. In those cases, cross no color = duplicates referencing and notes explain the 2012 parallels or lack another item Key 2011 and 2012 thereof. Appendix O Implementation Table

Implementation Table Governance Recommendations February 2014

Recommendation to Enhance Shared Governance (2012) Progress toward Comment Implementation Final Locus of Dialogue – University Policy Committees (UPCs)

The UPCs are the final collaborative bodies with the authority to Statement of principle, not recommendation per se. formulate and recommend new University policy and major strategic change and to review significant change in existing policy as detailed below and http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm. (new) A special University task force or committee dealing with policy Partial: clarification Clarification needed re: expectations for Task Forces. Task Forces issues of importance similar to a UPC, such as the Research Committee needed often provide recommendations that are reviewed consultatively and the Benefits Committee, should also conform to the process and revised before implementation. detailed for UPCs below and at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm. Research and Benefits committees do not function fully as UPCs although process is similar.

Communication Flow

The chairs of the Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs, and Staff Affairs Implementation Chairs are invited regularly and attend more frequently. UPCs should feel free to attend the corresponding Senate meetings complete when appropriate. (new) At least two days before and no later than two weeks after each Partial Most minutes are posted within two weeks; minutes are UPC meeting, the UPC chair will send electronic copies of the agenda sometimes posted but not sent directly to Senate Presidents. The and minutes, respectively, to the Faculty and Staff Senate presidents transition to Google Docs will facilitate this process. and to the governance webmaster for immediate posting at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. (new) In August, each UPC will submit to the governance webmaster Most governance groups post annual summary, although many an annual summary report, in a concise standardized format, and the faculty and staff are not aware that this information is available. next year's membership roster. Partial Faculty and staff have not been directed to website. Clarify who The entire faculty and staff will be directed to the governance website should send the reminder. for this information. The administrator who regularly receives policy recommendations Implementation from a UPC will serve on the committee or appoint a designate. consistent

Appendix O Implementation Table

The administrator (or his/her designate) is expected to attend the UPC Implementation meetings; for each issue before the UPC, the UPC and the administrator consistent should clarify who is the responsible decision‐ maker. The administrator should observe the timelines described in the 2008 Implementation Charter at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm consistent when deliberating on the recommendations from a UPC. Members of University committees and task forces should be provided Typically done in a timely manner with the information they need for fruitful discussion and policy consideration. (new) Transparency in the decision process should be pursued at all Typically achieved Transparency generally achieved, with clear understanding of levels. Occasionally, however, information that is shared with a confidentiality when appropriate. Ongoing attention to this issue committee may be designated as confidential. will be valuable. (new) UPCs, or their equivalent, that are actively considering major Partial policy issues are expected to report and seek input at various stages Posting and communication have improved. during their deliberations by (a) posting agendas in advance of their deliberations, (b) sharing minutes of meetings summarizing UPCs now seek input more regularly. deliberations in progress, and (c) posting final recommendations/report at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. (new) Before and after each Faculty Senate Council and Staff Senate meeting, the corresponding chair will send electronic copies of the Implementation agenda and minutes, respectively, to the governance webmaster for consistent immediate posting at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/. (new) The Provost will regularly direct University Trustees sitting on In process This will be implemented immediately. their Academic Affairs Committee to the governance website for updated information on the work of all UPCs and Senates. University Coordinating Committee (UCC)

If an administrator wishes to initiate or propose a change in University Partial: Clarification Normally achieved. However, there are differences of opinion policy, the administrator shall notify the UCC so that the appropriate needed regarding which issues fall within the scope of the shared UPC or equivalent committee can be engaged. governance process.

(new) The UCC shall direct issues to the appropriate UPC or equivalent Partial Issues that come to the UCC are directed appropriately. committee and shall monitor the consideration and coordination of policy decisions. It shall also encourage members of such committees Monitoring of issues and encouragement of consultation can be to consult with their respective constituent groups. improved

When policy issues arise that significantly affect more than one Implementation UCC appropriately applies this principle segment of the community (faculty, staff, students), the UCC will consistent determine the appropriate coordination process. If the overlap is limited, informal consultation between the relevant UPCs will be required. For significantly greater overlap, a joint committee may be formed. Appendix O Implementation Table

(new) The UCC’s responsibilities include “appointing to each Policy In process Improved outreach to Senate Council and Senate has occurred Committee members who are competent to perform the work of that Web posting is under development. committee…” To more effectively pursue this goal the UCC will consult with the SCU community to find qualified potential candidates for service on UPCs or the equivalent, and on University task forces, in the following manner: Each September, the UCC will advise the members of the Faculty Senate Council (FSC) and the members of the Staff Senate (SS) of known positions (on UPCs or the equivalent, task forces, etc.) that need to be filled by the UCC over the coming academic year. The governance webmaster will also indicate these positions on the governance website. The UCC will ask that the FSC and SS, or any of their members, forward suggestions for faculty and staff to fill these positions. (new) Throughout the year the UCC may again ask the FSC or SS In process Questionnaire is under development by UCC. members for additional names of faculty or staff for consideration for such service. Also, the UCC will, in general, consult with the FSC/SS (or, Website nomination and self‐referral structure is under if more appropriate, directly with the faculty/staff) for suggestions on development. appointments of faculty/staff to positions for significant ad hoc University committees, task forces, etc. The UCC will also distribute (at minimum every three years) a questionnaire to eligible faculty and staff, seeking self‐referrals– and nominations from colleagues– to serve on specific UPCs or their equivalent. In addition, the governance website will accept, at any time, nominations and self‐referrals to fill positions on the UPCs or their equivalent. Throughout the year, the UCC may also consult with administrators, Implementation managers, and any other members of the SCU community whose consistent competencies and responsibilities provide them with knowledge of candidates with relevant skills and aptitude for service on specific UPCs or their equivalent, and task forces. (new) The UCC shall oversee the coordination of shared governance In process The UCC offered an orientation in 2013 (future orientations and arrange an annual orientation for all members of UPCs. should include a more substantial discussion of governance principles and processes). Concerns about irregular practice within shared governance should be Concerns about regular practices are sometimes brought to UCC. reported to the UCC. Sometimes concerns are brought to other groups such as Faculty Senate Council. (new) The UCC shall develop a set of best practices to be used to In process Currently under development. structure current university committees and guide processes for the ongoing operation of those committees. (new) At the start of each quarter, the chairs of the UPCs and other In process Forthcoming plans are often included in minutes and shared with governance‐level committees will email their committee’s goals for the Senates. Better orientation of UPC chairs can further improve coming quarter to the UCC; the governance webmaster shall post these communication regarding future goals. at http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/ in accord with the UPC charter.

Appendix O Implementation Table

(new) The UCC, after broad consultation with appropriate constituencies, may consider and recommend to the President the creation of additional UPCs or the conversion of longstanding ad hoc committees or task forces into permanent committees if the UCC deems it responsive to the needs of shared governance. Committee Appointments

The membership of a UPC, or the equivalent, should reflect four domains of competencies: relevant skill, experience, and knowledge; respect of constituencies; connections to established stakeholder‐ Implementation networks; and appropriate intergenerational and rank representation. consistent All tenure‐stream faculty, senior lecturers, and lecturers (on renewable Implementation terms) are eligible to serve on UPCs and other university committees consistent or task forces. Staff, with the permission of their supervisors, are eligible for staff Implementation slots on UPCs and other University committees or task forces. consistent Those who serve on UPCs, University committees, and University task Implementation Governance roles of faculty are credited as part of faculty forces should be appropriately credited for their university service in consistent responsibility for service. Governance roles of staff are credited in their faculty or staff evaluations. annual evaluations. Jesuit School of Theology faculty and staff are eligible for membership Implementation on UPCs and governance level committees and task forces. consistent Responses and Appeals

(new) If approval of a policy change is required by an authority, Partial While this practice is followed for UPCs, Task Forces, as noted beyond that of the administrator on the UPC or its equivalent, that above, differ. The expectation of a decision within 45 days creates authority shall respond within 45 days of receiving the proposed policy disappointment among Task Force members when delays occur. change. If a response is not received within 45 days, the proposing Clarification of expectations will be beneficial. committee shall remind the authority of the need for a decision.

(new) If the authority chooses to reject or significantly modify a recommended policy change advanced by a UPC or its equivalent, the authority shall attend a future committee meeting to discuss the Typically followed reasons for that decision and to explore whether an alternative solution might be acceptable.

Appendix O Implementation Table

As stated in the UPC charter at Appeal to President has not recently occurred, although appeal http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm, “In rare was submitted to Trustees in 2013. instances where a UPC and appropriate administrator are unable to reach agreement, even after further discussion following the administrator’s response, the UPC may submit its position document to the President.” Relations with Trustees

(new) On the University governance website, add brief paragraphs Implementation http://www.scu.edu/about/administration/regents/role.cfm explaining the roles that the Trustees and Regents play in the life of the complete http://www.scu.edu/about/administration/trustees/trustees‐ University. facultyhandbk.cfm (new) To the Board of Trustees page, add a list of the current Trustee Implementation http://cms.scu.edu/about/administration/trustees/trusteecomm committees and their charters. complete ittees.cfm (new) After each Board of Trustees meeting, the President's update See, for example, June 2013, blog and accompanying email sent to faculty and staff shall include a http://www.scu.edu/president/messages/index.cfm?month=6&y brief description of special presentations, discussion items reported Implementation ear=2013, and October 2013, out, and action items approved at the meeting. consistent http://www.scu.edu/president/messages/index.cfm?b=313&c=1 7862 Implementation Typical events include lunches with faculty senate (new) For each Board of Trustees meeting, try to plan an opportunity consistent representatives; lunches with student leaders, and meetings with for Trustees to engage in formal or informal social contact with a selected student guests. select group of faculty, staff and/or students. Orientation

(new) Orientation programs for new faculty and staff should include an In process This will be included in next year’s orientations. introduction to shared governance at Santa Clara University presented in consultation with the UCC.

See also cell 7 in UCC, above: “The UCC shall…arrange an annual orientation…”

Appendix P November 2013 Survey Questions Governance and Communication Survey

We appreciate your participation in this survey. Responses to this survey will assist the WASC Working Group in drafting its report on how SCU has addressed the issues of governance and communication since the comprehensive reaccreditation review that began in 2009 and concluded in 2011.

No information that can be used to identify you is being collected as part of this survey; all responses are anonymous. Items 1 and 4 require a response; responses to all other items are optional. Survey results will be shared with the campus community and included in the WASC Interim Report.

Part I contains multiple choice items; Part II invites narrative responses.

PART I. MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS *1. Which category best describes your position at SCU?

nmlkj Faculty

nmlkj Staff

nmlkj Administration

2. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate SHARED GOVERNANCE at SCU? 10 = 0 = Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Excellent nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

3. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate COMMUNICATION at SCU? 10 = 0 = Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Excellent nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

*4. Were you employed at SCU in 2009?

nmlkj Yes

nmlkj No Appendix P November 2013 Survey Questions Governance and Communication Survey

5. Four years ago, WASC recommended SCU work to improve the SHARED GOVERNANCE system at SCU. How would you rate shared governance now compared to where it was in 2009? 0 = 10 = Significantly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Significantly worse better nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

6. Four years ago, WASC recommended SCU work to improve COMMUNICATION at SCU. How would you rate communication now compared to where it was in 2009? 0 = 10 = Significantly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Significantly worse better nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Appendix P November 2013 Survey Questions Governance and Communication Survey

The two questions that follow ask about foundational assumptions regarding shared governance.

7. IDEALLY, the scope of shared governance includes: (select as many as apply)

gfedc POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES: Any potentially controversial decision should be handled through the shared governance process.

gfedc JESUIT CATHOLIC MISSION AND IDENTITY: Universitywide issues that impact the application of the institution’s Jesuit Catholic mission and identity should be handled through the shared governance process.

gfedc POLICY: Any decision involving universitywide policy changes should be handled through the shared governance process.

gfedc FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING: Decisions relating to significant university construction and master planning should be handled the shared governance process.

gfedc UNIVERSITY BUDGET ALLOCATIONS: All budgetary decisions in which University resources are annually allocated to schools/divisions/offices should be handled through the shared governance process.

gfedc ACADEMIC CHANGES: Any decision involving significant academic changes, such as new degree programs, should be handled through the shared governance process.

gfedc CONTRACTUAL ISSUES: Any contractual decision (such as decisions involving the Faculty Handbook Chapter 3) should be handled through the shared governance process.

8. Of the two models described below, which generally represents the IDEAL form of governance for SCU?

nmlkj A CONSENSUS MODEL: University Policy Committees (UPCs) consult widely; they reach consensus or vote; they notify the relevant administrator of their recommendation. If the administrator disagrees with the UPC, the administrator meets with the UPC; they discuss until consensus is achieved by all.

nmlkj A RECOMMENDATION MODEL: University Policy Committees (UPCs) consult widely; they reach consensus or vote; they notify the relevant administrator of their recommendation. After reviewing the UPC’s recommendation, the administrator makes a decision. If the administrator disagrees with the UPC’s recommendation, the administrator meets with the UPC to explain his/her decision. Appendix P November 2013 Survey Questions Governance and Communication Survey

PART II. NARRATIVE QUESTIONS

9. What are the current strengths of SCU's shared governance system? 5

10. What are the current weaknesses of SCU’s shared governance system? 5

11. What are the current strengths of communication at SCU? 5

12. What are the current weaknesses of communication at SCU? 5

Thank you for responding to this survey. Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at Santa Clara University

Survey administered November 2013

Responses to four open-ended items included in the survey are summarized elsewhere. Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 1. Which category best describes your position at SCU? Faculty Staff Admin Overall Total who responded 264 166 20 450 Response Rate 29% 14% 22%

Item 2. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate shared governance at SCU?

Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % 0 39 15% 18 11% 1 5% 58 13% 1 24 9% 9 6% 1 5% 34 8% 2 36 14% 14 9% 1 5% 51 12% 3 28 11% 13 8% 41 9% 4 18 7% 7 4% 1 5% 26 6% 5 37 14% 25 16% 2 10% 64 15% 6 16 6% 22 14% 1 5% 39 9% 7 19 7% 22 14% 6 30% 47 11% 8 22 9% 16 10% 5 25% 43 10% 9 10 4% 7 4% 1 5% 18 4% 10 9 3% 6 4% 1 5% 16 4% Total who responded 258 100% 159 100% 20 100% 437 100% Did not respond to this item 6 7 13

Mean 4.0 4.8 6.2 4.4 Median 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 St Dev 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.9

Item 3. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate communication at SCU?

Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % 0 20 8% 15 9% 2 10% 37 8% 1 17 7% 5 3% 1 5% 23 5% 2 34 13% 18 11% 52 12% 3 36 14% 11 7% 47 11% 4 27 10% 11 7% 1 5% 39 9% 5 33 13% 27 17% 60 14% 6 23 9% 20 12% 4 20% 47 11% 7 21 8% 23 14% 5 25% 49 11% 8 25 10% 16 10% 3 15% 44 10% 9 13 5% 10 6% 4 20% 27 6% 10 11 4% 6 4% 17 4% Total who responded 260 100% 162 100% 20 100% 442 100% Did not respond to this item 4 4 8

Mean 4.5 5.0 6.2 4.8 Median 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 St Dev 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 4. Were you employed at SCU in 2009?

At SCU in 2009 Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Yes 226 86% 129 78% 14 70% 369 82% No 38 14% 37 22% 6 30% 81 18% Total 264 100% 166 100% 20 100% 450 100%

Item 5. Four years ago, WASC recommended SCU work to improve the shared governance system at SCU. How would you rate shared governance now compared to where it was in 2009? (Only those respondents who indicated that they were employed at SCU in 2009 received this question.)

Respondents who were employed at SCU in 2009 Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % 0 42 19% 7 6% 1 7% 50 14% 1 15 7% 7 6% 2 14% 24 7% 2 21 10% 11 9% 32 9% 3 26 12% 14 12% 1 7% 41 12% 4 22 10% 12 10% 34 10% 5 45 21% 34 28% 1 7% 80 23% 6 10 5% 8 7% 2 14% 20 6% 7 14 6% 8 7% 2 14% 24 7% 8 9 4% 11 9% 1 7% 21 6% 9 3 1% 3 3% 3 21% 9 3% 10 9 4% 5 4% 1 7% 15 4% Total who responded 216 100% 120 100% 14 100% 350 100% Did not respond to this item 10 9 19

Mean 3.7 4.7 5.8 4.1 Median 4.0 5.0 6.5 4.0 St Dev 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.8

Item 6. Four years ago, WASC recommended SCU work to improve communication at SCU. How would you rate communication now compared to where it was in 2009? (Only those respondents who indicated that they were employed at SCU in 2009 received this question.)

Respondents who were employed at SCU in 2009 Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % 0 33 15% 6 5% 1 7% 40 11% 1 14 6% 6 5% 1 7% 21 6% 2 21 10% 8 7% 1 7% 30 9% 3 24 11% 13 11% 1 7% 38 11% 4 14 6% 11 9% 25 7% 5 50 23% 33 28% 1 7% 84 24% 6 21 10% 15 13% 1 7% 37 11% 7 15 7% 7 6% 4 29% 26 7% 8 13 6% 12 10% 1 7% 26 7% 9 4 2% 3 3% 7 2% 10 9 4% 6 5% 3 21% 18 5% Total who responded 218 100% 120 100% 14 100% 352 100% Did not respond to this item 8 9 17

Mean 4.1 4.9 5.9 4.5 Median 5.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 St Dev 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.7 Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 7. Ideally, the scope of shared governance includes (Respondents instructed to select as many as apply):

University-wide Policy Changes Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 218 87% 126 88% 19 95% 363 87% Not selected 34 13% 18 13% 1 5% 53 13% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Academic Changes Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 227 90% 102 71% 17 85% 346 83% Not selected 25 10% 42 29% 3 15% 70 17% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Contractual Issues Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 222 88% 106 74% 15 75% 343 82% Not selected 30 12% 38 26% 5 25% 73 18% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Potentially Controversial Issues Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 197 78% 115 80% 12 60% 324 78% Not selected 55 22% 29 20% 8 40% 92 22% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Jesuit Catholic Mission and Identity Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 156 62% 79 55% 12 60% 247 59% Not selected 96 38% 65 45% 8 40% 169 41% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

University Budget Allocations Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 157 62% 73 51% 11 55% 241 58% Not selected 95 38% 71 49% 9 45% 175 42% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Facilities Master Planning Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Selected 142 56% 85 59% 11 55% 238 57% Not selected 110 44% 59 41% 9 45% 178 43% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Did not respond to this item 12 22 0 34 Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 8. Of the two models described below, which generally represents the ideal form of governance for SCU?

Form of Governance Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Consensus 162 65% 67 47% 8 42% 237 58% Recommendation 87 35% 77 53% 11 58% 175 42% Total who responded 249 100% 144 100% 19 100% 412 100% Did not respond to this item 15 22 1 38 Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 1. Which category best describes your position at SCU?

FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL Rate 264 166 20Survey450 Respondents 450

400 264 166 200 20 0 Respondents Nbr FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL

Item 2. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate shared governance at SCU?

100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FAC 39 24 36 28 18 37 16 19 22 10 9 N 258 Mean 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Median 4.0 50 39 36 37 STAFF 18 24 9 14 28 13 7 25 22 22 16 7 FAC6 St Dev 2.9 18 16 19 22 10 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DNR* 6 ADMIN0 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 5 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100ALL 58 34 51 41 26 64 39 47 43 18 16 N 159 Mean 4.8 50 Median 5.0 25 22 22 STAFF St Dev 2.9 18 14 13 16 9 7 7 6 DNR* 7 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100

N 20 Mean 6.2 50 ADMIN Median 7.0 St Dev 2.6 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 5 1 1 0 DNR* 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100 N 437 58 64 51 Mean 4.4 41 47 43 50 34 39 Median 5.0 26 18 16 ALL St Dev 2.9 Respondents Nbr 0 DNR* 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rating

* DNR = did not respond to this item Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 3. On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate communication at SCU?

100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FAC 20 17 34 36 27 33 23 21 25 13 11 N 260 Mean 4.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Median 4.0 50 34 36 STAFF 15 5 18 1127 1133 27 20 23 16 10 FAC6 St Dev 2.8 20 23 21 25 17 13 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DNR* 4 ADMIN0 2 1 1 4 5 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100ALL 37 23 52 47 39 60 47 49 44 27 17 N 162 Mean 5.0 50 Median 5.0 27 23 STAFF St Dev 2.8 15 18 20 16 5 11 11 10 6 DNR* 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100

N 20 Mean 6.2 50 Median 7.0 ADMIN St Dev 2.8 2 1 1 4 5 3 4 0 DNR* 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100 N 442 60 52 Mean 4.8 47 47 49 44 50 37 39 Median 5.0 27 St Dev 2.8 23 17 ALL

Respondents Nbr DNR* 8 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rating

* DNR = did not respond to this item Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 4. Were you employed at SCU in 2009?

FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL Yes 226 129 Employed14 369 at SCU in 2009? No 400 38 37 6 81 81 Yes No 38 200 37

226 129 369 Respondents Nbr 0 FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL

100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N 216 FAC 42 15 21 26 22 45 10 14 9 3 9 Mean 3.7 45 Median 4.0 50 42 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 St Dev 2.8 21 26 22 FAC STAFF 7 15 7 11 14 12 3410 148 9 8 11 9 3 5 3 DNR* 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ADMIN 0 1 1 2 2 3 1 4 5 61 72 8 2 9 1 10 3 1

100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALL 50 24 32 41 34 80 20 24 21 9 15 N 120 Mean 4.7 50 34 Median 5.0 STAFF St Dev 2.5 11 14 12 11 7 7 8 8 3 5 DNR* 9 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100

N 14 Mean 5.8 50 ADMIN Median 6.5 St Dev 3.3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 0 DNR* 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100 80 N 350 50 Mean 4.1 41 50 32 34 Median 4.0 24 20 24 21 ALL St Dev 2.8 9 15 Respondents Nbr DNR* 19 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rating

* DNR = did not respond to this item Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FAC 33 14 21 24 14 50 21 15 13 4 9 N 218 Mean 4.1 0 1 2 3 450 5 6 7 8 9 10 Median 5.0 50 STAFF 33 6 6 8 13 11 33 15 7 12 3 6 St Dev 2.8 21 24 21 FAC 14 14 15 13 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 8 9 10 DNR* 8 ADMIN0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100ALL 40 21 30 38 25 84 37 26 26 7 18 N 120 Mean 4.9 50 Median 5.0 33 STAFF St Dev 2.5 13 11 15 12 6 6 8 7 3 6 0 DNR* 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100

N 14 Mean 5.9 50 ADMIN Median 7.0 St Dev 3.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 0 DNR* 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100 84 N 352 Mean 4.5 50 40 38 37 Median 5.0 30 25 26 26 21 18 ALL St Dev 2.7 7 Respondents Nbr 0 DNR* 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rating

* DNR = did not respond to this item Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 7. Ideally, the scope of shared governance includes (Respondents instructed to select as many as apply):

University-wide Policy Changes 400 University-wide Policy Changes Not selected Selected 53 FAC 34STAFF ADMIN ALL Selected200 218 126 19 363 18 Not selec 34 218 18 1 53 416 363 126 0

Academic Changes FAC STAFF ADMIN AcademicALL Changes 400 Selected 227 102 17 346 70 Not selec 25 25 42 3 70 416 200 42 227 102 346 Contractual0 Issues FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL Selected 222 106 15 343 Contractual Issues Not selec 30 38 5 73 416 400 73 30 Potentially200 Controversial Issues 38 FAC 222STAFF ADMIN 106ALL 343 Selected0 197 115 12 324 Not selec 55 29 8 92 416

Potentially Controversial Issues 400 Jesuit Catholic Mission & Identity 92 FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL 55 Selected200 156 79 12 247 Not selec 96 65 8 29 169 197 115 416 324 0

University Budget Allocations FAC STAFF ADMINJesuit CatholicALL Mission & Identity 400 Selected 157 73 11 241 169 Not selec 95 71 9 175 416 200 96 156 65 247 Facilities0 Master Planning 79 FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL Selected 142 85 11 238 Not selec 110 59 University9 178 Budget Allocations416 400 175 200 95 157 71 241 0 73

Facilities Master Planning 400 178 200 110 142 59 238 0 85 Respondents Nbr FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL

Did not respond to this item Fac Staff Admin All 12 22 0 34 Appendix Q Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication

Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Item 8. Of the two models described below, which generally represents the ideal form of governance for SCU?

FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL Consen 162 67 Ideal Form8 of237 Governance for SCU Recom400 87 77 11 175 Consensus Recommendation 175 200 87 77 162 237

Respondents Nbr 67 0 FAC STAFF ADMIN ALL

Did not respond to this item Fac Staff Admin All 15 22 1 38 Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Overall Survey Response Rates Faculty Staff Admin Overall Nbr of Respondents 264 166 20 450 Response Rate 29% 14% 22%

Shared Governance

Ratings of Shared Governance now vs. 2009 (Item 5) Ratings of Shared Governance at SCU (Item 2) by persons employed at SCU in 2009 At SCU in Rating At SCU in Rating 2009 statistics Faculty Staff Admin Overall 2009 statistics Faculty Staff Admin Overall Yes M 3.8 4.8 5.8 4.2 Yes M 3.7 4.7 5.8 4.1 SD 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 SD 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.8 N 221 123 14 358 N 216 120 14 350

No M 4.7 4.8 7.2 4.9 SD 2.8 3.1 1.7 2.9 N 37 36 6 79

All M 4.0 4.8 6.2 4.4 SD 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.9 N 258 159 20 437

Mean Ratings ofFaculty Shared GovernanceStaffAdministrator at SCU Overall Mean Ratings of SharedFaculty GovernanceStaff AdministratorNow vs. 2009 Overall 10 At SCU in 20 3.8 4.8 5.8 4.2 10 At SCU in 20 3.7 4.7 5.8 4.1 Not at SCUAt inSCU in 20094.7 Not at SCU4.8 in 2009 7.2 All 4.9 Not at SCU in 0.0At SCU in 20090.0 0.0 0.0 All 4.0 4.8 6.2 4.4 All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 7.2 8

6.2 5.8 5.8 6 6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.4 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.7 4 4 Mean Rating Mean Rating

2 2

0 0 Faculty Staff Administrator Overall Faculty Staff Administrator Overall

The mean rating for faculty (M = 4.0) was significantly lower than that for The mean rating for faculty (M = 3.7) did not differ from that for staff (M = 4.7). Means staff (M = 4.8) and for administrators (M = 6.2). for faculty and staff were significantly lower than that for administrators (M = 5.8). (p < .05 for both tests, based on Dunn-Bonferroni's test of non-orthogonal comparisons) (p < .05 based on Dunn-Bonferroni's test of non-orthogonal comparisons) Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Overall Survey Response Rates Faculty Staff Admin Overall Nbr of Respondents 264 166 20 450 Response Rate 29% 14% 22%

Communication

Ratings of Communication now vs. 2009 (Item 6) Ratings of Communication at SCU (Item 3) by persons employed at SCU in 2009 At SCU in Rating At SCU in Rating 2009 statistics Faculty Staff Admin Overall 2009 statistics Faculty Staff Admin Overall Yes M 4.4 4.9 5.8 4.6 Yes M 4.1 4.9 5.9 4.5 SD 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 SD 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.7 N 222 125 14 361 N 218 120 14 352

No M 5.5 5.3 7.2 5.5 SD 2.7 3.0 1.7 2.8 N 38 37 6 81

All M 4.5 5.0 6.2 4.8 SD 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 N 260 162 20 442

Mean RatingsFaculty of CommunicationStaffAdministrator at SCU Overall Mean Ratings of FacultyCommunicationStaff NowAdministrator vs. 2009 Overall 10 At SCU in 20 4.4 4.9 5.8 4.6 10 At SCU in 20 4.1 4.9 5.9 4.5 Not at SCUAt in SCU in 20095.5 Not at 5.3SCU in 2009 7.2 All 5.5 Not at SCU in 0.0At SCU in 20090.0 0.0 0.0 All 4.5 5.0 6.2 4.8 All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 7.2 8

6.2 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.5 6 4.9 5.0 6 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.1 4 4 Mean Rating Mean Rating

2 2

0 0 Faculty Staff Administrator Overall Faculty Staff Administrator Overall

The mean rating for faculty (M = 4.5) did not differ from that of The mean rating for faculty (M = 4.1) was significantly lower than that for staff (M = 5.0) but was significantly lower than that of administrators (M = 6.2). staff (M = 4.9) and for administrators (M = 5.9). (p < .05 based on Dunn-Bonferroni's test of non-orthogonal comparisons) (p < .05 for both tests, based on Dunn-Bonferroni's test of non-orthogonal comparisons) Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Comparison of Ratings for Shared Governance and Communication Ratings of Shared Governance and Communication at SCU (Items 2 & 3) based on persons who responded to both items Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall statistics Gov Comm Gov Comm Gov Comm Gov Comm M 4.0 4.5 4.8 5.0 6.2 6.2 4.4 4.8 SD 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 N 258 258 159 159 20 20 437 437

Mean Ratings for Shared Governance and Communication 10 Shared GoveCommunication Shared Governance Faculty 4.0 4.5 Communication 8 6.2 6.2 6 4.5 Staff 4.8 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.0 4.4 4 Administrator 6.2 6.2 2 Overall 4.4 4.8 0 Faculty Staff Administrator Overall

For faculty, as well as for respondents overall, the mean rating for communication was higher than the mean rating for shared governance, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .001 based on Student's t-test for match groups). For staff and administrators, mean ratings for communication did not differ from those for shared governance.

Comparison of Ratings for Shared Governance Now and Communication Now vs. 2009 Ratings of Governance & Communication Now vs. 2009 (Items 5 & 6) based on persons who were employed by SCU in 2009 and responded to both items Rating Faculty Staff Admin Overall Gov Comm Gov Comm Gov Comm Gov Comm statistics now now now now now now now now M 3.7 4.1 4.7 4.9 5.8 5.9 4.1 4.5 SD 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.7 N 216 216 120 120 14 14 350 350

Mean Ratings for Shared Governance Now and Communication Now vs. 2009 10 Shared GoveCommunication Shared Governance Faculty 3.7 4.1 8 Communication 5.8 5.9 6 Staff 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.7 4.1 4.1 4 Administrator 5.8 5.9 2 Overall 4.1 4.5 0 Faculty Staff Administrator Overall

For faculty, as well as overall, the mean rating for communication now vs. 2009 was higher than the mean rating for shared governance now vs. 2009, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .001 based on Student's t-test for match groups). For staff and administrators, mean ratings for communication now did not differ from those for shared governance now. Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Ideally, the scope of Shared Governance includes . . .

University-wide Policy Changes Faculty Staff Admin Overall N % N % N % N % Yes 218 87% 126 88% 19 95% 363 87% No 34 13% 18 13% 1 5% 53 13% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Academic Changes Yes 227 90% 102 71% 17 85% 346 83% No 25 10% 42 29% 3 15% 70 17% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Contractual Issues Yes 222 88% 106 74% 15 75% 343 82% No 30 12% 38 26% 5 25% 73 18% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Potentially controversial issues Yes 197 78% 115 80% 12 60% 324 78% No 55 22% 29 20% 8 40% 92 22% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Jesuit Catholic Mission and Identity Yes 156 62% 79 55% 12 60% 247 59% No 96 38% 65 45% 8 40% 169 41% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

University Budget Allocations Yes 157 62% 73 51% 11 55% 241 58% No 95 38% 71 49% 9 45% 175 42% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100%

Facilities Master Planning Yes 142 56% 85 59% 11 55% 238 57% No 110 44% 59 41% 9 45% 178 43% Total 252 100% 144 100% 20 100% 416 100% Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Ideally, the scope of Shared Governance includes . . .

As indicated in the tables above, Policy Change was the area most often endorsed as ideally within the scope of shared governance. The second most highly endorsed area was Academic Change , etc. The table below reflects a hierarchy of areas and the number (%) of respondents who selected the areas. This table shows that 57% of respondents indicated that ideally, the scope of shared governance includes the four areas of Policy Changes , Academic Changes , Contractual Issues , and Potentially Controversial Issues . Endorsement for adding other areas to the ideal scope of governance was less than 50%.

Areas for Inclusion in Scope of Shared Governance Persons Who Responded to Item 7 of Survey Contro- Mission Univ Facilities Policy Acad Contract versial & Budget Master Faculty Staff Admin Total Change Change Issues Issues Identity Allocation Planning (N = 252) (N = 144) (N = 20) (N = 416) N % N % N % N % Yes 218 87% 126 88% 19 95% 363 87% Yes Yes 198 79% 91 63% 17 85% 306 74% Yes Yes Yes 181 72% 73 51% 14 70% 268 64% Yes Yes Yes Yes 163 65% 64 44% 9 45% 236 57% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 127 50% 43 30% 7 35% 177 43% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 103 41% 35 24% 6 30% 144 35% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 88 35% 34 24% 6 30% 128 31% Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Relationship of Number of Areas Endorsed for Ideal Scope of Shared Governance and Rating of Shared Governance at SCU

The table and chart below show an inverse relationship between number of areas endorsed by a respondent for ideal scope of Shared Governance and her/his rating of Shared Governance at SCU. Generally, respondents who endorsed larger numbers of areas gave lower ratings to Shared Governance. This relationship was strongest for for faculty (rxy = -0.52, N = 249), followed by staff (rxy = -0.24, N = 141). For administrators, there was no relationship between the two variables (rxy = -0.04, N = 20). For all respondents, the correlation between the two variables was rxy = -0.41.

Nbr of areas endorsed for Rating of ideal scope of Shared Gov at Shared Gov SCU (x) (y) Faculty Staff Admin All 1 Mean 8.0 5.0 7.6 N 12 2 14 Relationship of Number of Areas Endorsed for Ideal Scope of Shared Governance andFaculty Mean RatingStaff of SharedAdmin GovernanceAll 2 Mean 6.3 5.2 6.7 5.9 1 8.0 5.0 7.6 N 13 12 3 28 2 6.3 5.2 6.7 5.9 10 Faculty Staff Admin All 3 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.2 3 Mean 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.2 4 4.4 5.7 6.7 5.2 N 23 20 2 45 8 5 3.8 3.8 5.4 3.9 6 3.1 4.2 8.0 3.5 4 Mean 4.4 5.7 6.7 5.2 6 7 2.6 3.9 6.2 3.1 N 27 28 3 58 4 5 Mean 3.8 3.8 5.4 3.9 N 43 27 5 75 2 Mean Rating of Governance 6 Mean 3.1 4.2 8.0 3.5 0 N 44 18 1 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nbr of Areas Endorsed for Ideal Scope of Governance 7 Mean 2.6 3.9 6.2 3.1 N 87 34 6 127

Overall Mean 3.9 4.7 6.2 4.3 N 249 141 20 410

rxy -0.52 -0.24 -0.04 -0.41

NOTE: Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient, signified by rxy, is an index used to measure the relationship between two variables. Correlations range in value from -1.0 to +1.0. Negative values signify an inverse relationship; positive values signify a direct relationship. Values near 0 signify no relationship. In the social sciences, a correlation with a value near +/- 0.50 is generally considered quite strong. Appendix R Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Summary of Responses to Survey on Shared Governance and Communication at SCU Survey Administered in November 2013

Ideal Form of SCU Governance Endorsed by Respondents, and Its Relationship to Rating of Shared Governance at SCU and Number of Areas Endorsed for Ideal Scope of Shared Governance

Ideal Form of Governance at SCU Ideal Form of Governance Endorsed Recommendation Consensus Faculty Staff Admin All 100% N % N % N % N % 35%Faculty Staff53% Admin 58%All 42% Consensus 162 65% 67 47% 8 42% 237 58% 80%Consensus 65% 47% 42% 58% Recommendation 87 35% 77 53% 11 58% 175 42% 60%Recommen35% 53% 58% 42% Overall 249 100% 144 100% 19 100% 412 100% 65% 40% 58% 47% 42% 20% 0% Faculty Staff Admin All

Relationship of Ideal Form of Governance at SCU to Rating of Shared Governance Faculty Staff Admin All Mean Rating Mean Rating of Shared Governance, Consensus of Gov 2.8 3.6 4.4 3.1 by Form of Governance Endorsed N 162 67 8 237 Faculty ConsensusStaff Admin RecommendationAll 10Consensus 2.8 3.6 4.4 3.1 Mean Rating 8 Recommendation of Gov 6.1 5.7 7.4 6.0 6Recommen6.1 5.7 7.4 6.0 N 85 75 11 171 4 2 Overall Mean Rating 3.9 4.7 6.1 4.3 0 N 247 142 19 408 Faculty Staff Admin All

Relationship of Ideal Form of Governance at SCU to Number of Areas Endorsed for Ideal Scope of Shared Governance Faculty Staff Admin All Mean Nbr of Number of Areas Endorsed for Scope of Governance, Consensus Areas 5.9 5.4 5.0 5.7 Facultyby FormStaff of GovernanceAdmin EndorsedAll N 162 67 8 237 Consensus 5.9 Consensus5.4 5.0 Recommendation5.7 Recommen4.0 4.2 4.5 4.1 7 Mean Nbr of 6 Recommendation Areas 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.1 5 N 85 75 11 171 4 3 Mean Nbr of 2 1 Grand Total Areas 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.1 Faculty Staff Admin All N 247 142 19 408 Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

Survey on Shared Governance and Communication Santa Clara University--November 2013 Summary Report on Open‐Ended Survey Items

A survey on Governance and Communication at Santa Clara University was administered in November 2013 to faculty, staff, and administrators as part of the process of preparing the WASC Interim Report. This report provides an analysis of the narrative input collected for these four open-ended questions:

9. What are the current strengths of SCU's shared governance system? 10. What are the current weaknesses of SCU’s shared governance system? 11. What are the current strengths of communication at SCU? 12. What are the current weaknesses of communication at SCU?

The numbers of respondents who provided narrative input by question are presented in Table 1: Table 1. Total Respondents Question Faculty Respondents Staff Respondents Administrator Total Respondents Respondents 9 143 57 9 209 10 163 70 10 243 11 129 58 10 197 12 135 63 9 207

The open-ended nature of the questions resulted in many respondents including multiple strengths/weaknesses in their answers. Many responses included discussion of both strengths and weaknesses within the same question. Some responses included discussion of topics of interest which may not have been specifically relevant to the question. Content of responses varied greatly from answers of a few words to composition length, some with enumerated lists. Strengths and weaknesses were identified after close reading of the response and filtering out discussions of strengths if the question pertained to weaknesses (and vice versa), examples of supporting statements, and expressions of emotion - fear, disgust, anger, alienation, etc. Identified strengths and weaknesses were then classified into thematic categories to provide a guide for detached evaluation and to create a dataset that could be tabulated for each question. Table 2 is a summary count of the strengths identified for questions 9 and 11 and weaknesses identified for questions 10 and 12.

Table 2. Tabulated Responses (excludes categories of None and N/A) Question Faculty Staff Responses Administrator Responses Total Responses Responses 9 111 strengths 42 strengths 6 strengths 159 strengths 10 249 weaknesses 89 weaknesses 12 weaknesses 350 weaknesses 11 131 strengths 68 strengths 10 strengths 209 strengths 12 205 weaknesses 95 weaknesses 10 weaknesses 310 weaknesses

Some respondents provided answers that were classified as “None” (“there are none”, “I see none”, etc.) or N/A (“I don’t know”, “not sure”, “no idea”, etc.). As all responses to the questions were included, these responses were also tabulated. Table 3 is a summary count of “None” and “N/A” responses by question.

Table 3. Tabulated Responses for None and N/A only Question Faculty Staff Responses Administrator Responses Total Responses Responses 9 26 10 1 37 10 3 4 1 8 11 17 7 1 25 12 5 3 2 10

Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

Only the responses to questions 9 through 12 were provided for this analysis. Because of this, it was not possible to connect an individual respondent’s answer to question 9, for example, with that same individual’s answer to question 10. As a result, responses such as “see above” were excluded from this analysis. This report highlights the thematic categories frequently mentioned by the respondents, but the discussions may include consideration of qualifying context filtered out during the classification process, and may include other strengths/weaknesses reported less frequently that are thematically related or to assure representation of all respondent populations (Faculty, Staff, and Administrators). Percentages in this report are based on the totals of strengths and weaknesses coded for the respondent population identified, and exclude responses coded as “None” or “N/A”. Percentages are not based on the number of participants in any respondent population. Qualifying statements for strengths generally served to moderate while those provided with weaknesses usually served to provide examples or other context to justify the remark.

Question 9: What are the current strengths of SCU's shared governance system? Of the 209 survey participants who responded to this question, 159 strengths of Santa Clara’s shared governance system were identified, Following are the four most frequently cited strengths in the shared governance system. A. Provides A Venue For Expression of Voice/Dialogue This strength was cited most often by Faculty and Staff. A vehicle for the voice of any constituency, an opportunity to share, and a forum for discussion of the issues were characteristics included in participants' descriptions of this strength of shared governance. Sample Comments: 1. Shared governance seeks input from folks with various backgrounds and experiences. People have the chance to be heard. (Staff) 2. The current strength is that faculty have the opportunity to share in the vision and implementation of that vision. (Faculty) 3. The governing/consultative bodies give the University faculty and staff ample opportunity to participate in discussions. (Staff) 4. It can provide essential faculty input on academic matters for which we have responsibility… (Faculty) B. Structure of Current Governance System Is Good Another cited strength refers to the design of the current system as it is understood by the respondent, regardless of current practice. Sample Comments: 1. The strength is that it's a beautifully designed system that encourages compromise and also encourages connections between faculty, staff, and administration. As to how well that actually happens in reality, there is a lot to say in the section on weaknesses! ... (Faculty) 2. The formal structure of the shared governance system is quite good and does not need to be replaced. (Staff) 3. it is very well-defined and conceived (Faculty) C. Shared Governance Exists in Theory This strength is attributed to the fact that there is a governance system recorded on paper or collectively believed in theory, even if it is not practiced or if the current practice is flawed. Sample Comments: 1. The fact that it exists as an ideal to guide us. (Faculty) 2. That it exists in the first place. It attempts to permit dialog (most of the time) with faculty and staff... (Staff) D. Committees Work As Intended Various committees function according to the shared-governance model and the work of their members is recognized and appreciated. Sample Comments: 1. Faculty on UPCs, FCCs, and major committees such as Rank & Tenure take their work seriously and perform it conscientiously. (Faculty) Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

2. …The UCC and the UPCs are all comprised of members elected by the faculty; hence, they have (1) an expertise as faculty and (2) the trust of their peers. These committees provide a forum within which faculty can exercise its voice in areas of its competence...(Faculty) 3. The current policy committees cover a broad range of topics that are relevant to the university community. The current committee chairs are working towards making their processes as transparent as possible with the university community. (Staff) Other themes related to strengths in shared governance are commitment/participation of parties, shared governance works well, faculty senate performance, efficient process for decision making, transparency exists, collaborative, faculty vote on changes to handbook, fora, includes accountability, is limited to small incremental changes, civility, deeply flawed system has protective benefits, past practice has built trust, policies are developed by consensus with administration, provides a sense of empowerment, respectful, sense of community, works sometimes, and works within Jesuit context.

Question 10: What are the current weaknesses of SCU’s shared governance system? For the 243 respondents to this question, 350 weaknesses were cited in Santa Clara’s shared governance system in responses that were often detailed and emotional in content. The discussion below excludes the response that "Shared Governance Does Not Exist" which was reported 23 times and represented 6.6% of all weaknesses reported. A. Administration-related Weaknesses Approximately 44% of the weaknesses recorded were attributed to the Administration, with specific references to the President and Provost. In the interest of continuity, Administrative-related weaknesses cited by participants are addressed in one summary, regardless of where the responses place in the hierarchical frequency of all reported weaknesses.  Governance Style—Autonomous President/Provost/Administration The Administration, President and Provost were most frequently described as having an autonomous style of governance and if consultation was mentioned, it was described as performed "after the fact." Other terms used to describe their governance style were theocratic and patriarchal. Sample Comments: 1. Autonomous decision-making by administrators, lack of open communication well before any decisions have been made and a poor understanding by the administration about what constitutes sound practices of shared governance and community-building. (Faculty) 2. Top-down administrative control of virtually everything, as well as decision making by administrators without any consultation whatsoever. … (Faculty) 3. President ignores it…(Faculty) 4. No matter what amount of work any number of committees or task forces may do, the President can decide to do whatever he wants, no matter how unpopular, unfair, or authoritarian, because at the end of the day the Jesuits are in charge… (Staff)  Governance Style Exclusive to the President--Autocratic/Ecclesiastical Influences/Paternalistic In addition, the President was described as autocratic, paternalistic, and lacking in consultation about decisions. There was an expression of concern about the influence of Catholic doctrine in the governance process. Sample Comments: 1. Autocratic president, taking decisions wihtout [sic] consulting (Faculty) 2. ...But the recent decision to remove abortion benefits without consultation with the campus community was a violation of shared governance and this kind of unilateral imposition of Church doctrine will be very harmful to SCU if it continues... (Faculty) 3. I am extremely worried about the top-down, heavy handed approach by the Office of the President. The recent situation with the health plan reveals a paternalistic, authoritarian mindset, and a lack of understanding of the University's own rules of shared governance (which are public and available on the website)… (Faculty)  Governance Style--Other President/Provost/Administration These responses include describing the Administration/President as members of an oligarchy, and/or characterized as theocratic, or patriarchal. Sample Comments: Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

1. Most major decisions at the university are top-down and patriarchal in approach. That is, the president (always male, always a Jesuit) tells us what we are doing, and we are supposed to agree with him ... (Faculty) 2. …We don't have a senate, we have an oligarchy consisting of the president and provost. (Faculty) 3. …They use the excuse that they know what God wants, so they can dictate to us, because. (Faculty) 4. Information is shared with a few, mostly men, at the top. (Staff)  Governance—Other The Administration /President/Provost are cited as failing to understand and/or violating shared governance. Sample Comments: 1. Apparently the current President and Provost have radically different understandings of shared governance than most members of the faculty. (Faculty) 2. I am not sure our current Provost "gets it." (Faculty) 3. The administration does not abide by the principles stated for shared governance.(Faculty)  Duplicity/Lack of Transparency and Accountability Lack of transparency and the Administration's less than aboveboard dealings with the various constituencies that comprise the shared governance system are seen as contributing to its overall weakness. The practice of referring to a policy issue as a procedural one in order to bypass the requirements of consultation with committees and senates is an example of behavior that, at minimum, does not embrace the spirit of "shared" governance. Related to this theme, a lack of accountability was included in the list of deficits afflicting shared governance. Sample Comments: 1. The structure lacks real accountability. In spite of everyone's good will, decisions which substantially impact faculty/staff and students are regularly made unilaterally by administrators or through mechanisms that bypass meaningful faculty/staff input. For example, substantial decisions on changing the mid-probationary review process were made under the guise of procedural adjustments as opposed to policy changes… (Faculty) 2. ... The administration has been manipulative and dishonest. This is a very sad state of affairs. (Faculty) 3. There is little accountability. It is difficult to know who is involved in the process let alone what issues are being addressed… (Staff)  Lack of Respect The Administration is perceived as lacking respect for shared governance and ignoring the opinions of participants in the process who are outside of the Administration. Sample Comments: 1. …Recent events suggest that the President and Provost could show a lot more respect for shared governance than they do now. (Faculty) 2. …lack of respect and representation of ALL employees,.... (Staff) B. Shared Governance Structure Not Understood/Communicated Clearly Frequently cited were comments about the lack of clarity about how the shared governance system works and lack of readily available reference resources for educating the community about its structure. The role of university constituents in shared governance is unclear, and there is expression of a lack of awareness about shared governance and what it really means. Sample Comments: 1. don't think many people know what it really is, how it works, and where the "power" lies. (Staff) 2. Confusion among many faculty of what constitutes shared governance, with people not participating in things they should and wanting to take on duties best left to regular administration…. (Faculty). 3. Execution of purpose seems inconsistent. There appears to be a lack of a clear definition of the word 'governance'. A handful of people seem to be in the 'know' leaving out the vast majority of the community. (Staff) C. Participation in Shared Governance by Parties Other Than Administration is Ineffective/Illusory Efforts made by non-administrative parties and the results of their work, while genuine, are ignored. Participants in shared governance described their experience as a charade, a symbolic gesture, or as a process that has no teeth. Sample Comments: 1. Those seem very clear: that it hasn't been treated as something other than window dressing by the current administration (Staff) Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

2. …The main purpose of the shared governance system right now seems to be to function as a screen which creates the illusion of participation by the faculty and staff, behind which administrators can continue to make their own decisions… (Faculty) D. Shared Governance Process Is Slow The shared governance model involves processes that require a long lead time to see results. It can be inefficient and time consuming, leading to fatigue for participants in the process. Sample Comments: 1. Slow and deliberative process - appropriate but sometimes painfully slow… (Faculty) 2. Slow moving, results in compromise and is not very "innovative" (Faculty) 3. …System is bulky and slow. System is not built to allow the organization to be able to respond in real time to opportunities that may arise… (Staff)

Thematic areas discussed below were reported with less frequency, but were important to the constituencies who contribute to shared governance. E. Diminished Role of Faculty Faculty feel their role is diminished and that they are delegated only the most inconsequential matters to evaluate. Regardless of the efforts that are made they feel their work on any matter is ignored. Sample Comment: 1. ... Shared governance is not about giving the remaining scraps of governance you don’t want to the staff and faculty to gnaw over. It is about respecting them. ... (Faculty) F. Committee Makeup Committee makeup is a source of concern. Lack of diversity and having administrators serve as members were mentioned as weaknesses. Sample Comments: 1. A small number of faculty and staff participate in shared governance; often the same group year after year (Administrator) 2. ...On some committees the administrative rep has been calling the meetings and playing far too large a role in determining the agenda of the group.... (Faculty) 3. ...those groups are narrowly tailored to only include faculty, staff and administrators who are "true believers" in the topic, it often results in a conclusion or recommendation that is taken to the Trustees that is NOT broadly acceptable or palatable to the majority of faculty or staff… (Staff) G. Faculty Voice Related to the issue of committee makeup, several faculty participants included comments that the "voice" of the faculty is not representative of the whole faculty and mention intolerance exhibited towards those with minority opinion. Sample Comment: 1. …Dialogue and free exchange of ideas--so prized by faculty in conversation with administrators--are undermined by a certain strident intolerance by some faculty toward those with minority opinion. (Faculty) H. Staff Underrepresented in Shared Governance System The Staff feel underrepresented in the process and, like the Faculty, cite lack of support for participating when there are opportunities. Sample Comment: 1. It's faculty heavy, which may simply be because the majority of the policy committee focus around issues that impact the academic side of the house. (Staff) I. Inadequate Resources/Relief Provided to Participants to Mitigate Effects of Time/Effort Deficit on Other Responsibilities Both Faculty and Staff participants mention lack of participation due to negative effects resulting from time away from their normal duties. Sample Comments: 1. Work load issues prevent some qualified faculty from accepting nomination to serve as Faculty Senate President or Chair of the UCC… (Faculty) Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

2. …The staff senate meetings are hard to attend during work hours, and this may discourage people from joining the senate. (Staff) Other themes expressing shared governance weaknesses include committee/senate recommendations ignored/not followed, commitment/participation of parties, is consultative not consensus driven, class of employees excluded, committee makeup not broad and inclusive, does not include staff/student interests, Catholic morality intruding on private lives, need for faculty representation on Board of Trustees, WASC recommendations not followed, lack of trust, expression of fear, and task force report on governance ignored.

Question 11: What are the current strengths of communication at SCU? Of the 197 survey participants, 209 current strengths of communication were reported for Santa Clara. This question is a broad one as evidenced by the responses spanning the spectrum from means of communication (communication channels) to the quality of communication among various parties at the University to specific published content. Following are strengths most frequently listed by the survey respondents. A. President's Communication The President's use of email and his website were cited as strengths. Also noted were the convocation and the state of the university addresses. The President’s and Provost’s attendance at Faculty Senate meetings were also recognized as strengths. Sample Comments: 1. I think the president's emails and his postings of his activities are an improvement… (Faculty) 2. The president's new website that provided summaries of his activities and his updates. The state of the university talks. (Faculty) 3. The president and provost do make themselves available at faculty senate meetings to engage in dialog. (Faculty) B. Communication Channels Communications Channels in general were cited as strengths. Communication channels for this report are defined as the means by which a message is conveyed to its anticipated audience. Respondents generally felt positive about the channels in place. Among channels cited were email, other Google Applications, and the use of the Web. Sample Comments: 1. SCU has the infrastructure in place for quick and widespread communication. (Faculty) 2. Strong electronic communication channels… (Faculty) 3. The campus community is communicated with a number of different ways (email, University functions, letters mailed, etc.), which I appreciate… (Staff) C. Communication Channels--Email Use of email on campus was singled out as a strength with positive comments about its utility for rapid communication and the availability of a Listserv that provides the opportunity to broadcast. Sample Comments: 1. …Email is quick, and reaches many… (Faculty) 2. Pretty open email system, allowing interchange of ideas and reactions. (Faculty) 3. Lots and lots of emails with links to web postings of articles, features, programs and meetings. Better to have too much communication than not enough... (Staff) D. External Communications Staff/Publications The Office of Marketing and Communications was recognized for its efforts to support communication. In addition, content of the office’s publications were cited as a strength. Sample Comments: 1. Many efforts made - web magazines (FYI), memorable publications, SCU magazine all communicate and share info well... (Faculty) 2. The magazine, which reaches internal and external audiences, has occasionally tried to cover some of the difficult issues that are part of a university and its governance. That's what good university magazines do… (Staff) Other themes related to strengths in communicate include efforts are being made, fora, consistent/frequent/robust, civility, commitment/participation of parties, communication between faculty, department communication good, minutes posting for committees/senates/council, feel informed, is satisfactory, is good, happens but often after the fact, transparency exists, is honest/timely, improving, informed communication channels, small campus promotes Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items communication, administration is open to dialogue, ad hoc committee work is clearly communicated, administration’s communication improving/inclusive, and athletic communication good.

Question 12: What are the current weaknesses of communication at SCU? Of the 207 respondents to this question, there were 310 categorized weaknesses in communication for Santa Clara University. The nature of the question yielded responses that addressed many themes. There are responses associated with shared governance, but also ones regarding communication channels, campus-wide communication, and communication between academic offices outside of Walsh Administration. Not every participant identified the parties (individuals, departments, units, etc.) to which their comments referred; these comments were categorized in the theme Communication with a description of the weakness.

Responses that mirrored the issues brought out in Question 10 (weaknesses in the shared governance system) also covered here are: communication after the fact, the hierarchical nature of the communication model at Santa Clara University with regard to policy decisions, and lack of transparency. Weaknesses attributed to the Administration follow. If an Administration issue pertained to a shared governance theme, it is included with the shared governance theme. A. After The Fact Whether attributed to the President and Administration, or generally stated, it is the practice of communicating policy decisions after they have been made that are described as weaknesses in communication at SCU. Responses often included examples of policy issues where decisions bypassed communication with parties charged with the responsibility of contributing to the decision- making process or parties who were affected most by these decisions. Sample Comments: 1. …Communicating after the fact is not communicating--it is dictating (Faculty) 2. …Announcements after decisions affecting the greater SCU community shared later and without recourse… (Faculty) 3. Communication seems to be an after-the-fact mechanism of communicating the result of a decision, not an effort beforehand to seek input (this also ties in with the shared governance questions above). (Staff) B. Top/Down—Lacks Dialogue Communication is a process that requires dialogue. The vertical nature of communication at Santa Clara University effectively limits dialogue. Sample Comments: 1. its [sic] pretty much one way, we receive a great deal of instructions, etc. from the Provost's office and little to no feedback/follow up (Faculty) 2. It's communication by decree. (Faculty) 3. …Information seems to flow top down with limited input from colleges and departments... (Staff) 4. From the top down very poor (Administrator) C. Lack of Transparency/Duplicity Secretive communications among members of the administration, the President, and the Board of Trustees was cited as a weakness. Comments about duplicity and self-serving or dishonest communications were also expressed. Sample Comments: 1. Serious lack of transparency at all levels, and the higher up one goes, the worse it gets. There appears to be no policy about transparency (as in "shared governance requires transparency," committees don't post minutes, etc.)... (Faculty) 2. Inadequate transparency of decision making, esp. regarding University finances. (Faculty) 3. Lack of Transparency about Administrative Processes/Decisions-- There is no transparency about processes related to budget decisions, new funding, elimination of funding, creating and filling new positions, to name a few areas ... (Staff) 4. …Secrets are the name of the game at SCU; they definitely do not communicate with faculty or the administrators that are not in the "inner circle." ... (Administrator) D. Administration Communication Weaknesses Beyond the issue of shared governance communication, many responses singled out members of the administration to comment on their lack of effective communication skills. Insular, impersonal, condescending, too religious, and defensive are all adjectives characterizing communications received from their offices. Appendix S Summary Report on Open-Ended Survey Items

Sample Comments: 1. The upper levels of administration can be insular and lack clarity in their communication sometimes, especially when the issue is potentially controversial… (Staff) 2. …There seems a tendency toward circling the wagons, with lawyers running the show… (Staff) 3. …Administrators, even when they mean well, get so isolated by their frequent meetings, e-mails, and spread sheets that they lose touch with the faculty… (Faculty) 4. The President's emails have pretty limited information; the Board of Trustees sends out condescending ones ... (Faculty) 5. …The President's communication mechanisms are ineffective. The information being delivered to us via email and blog by the administrative staff in the President's Office is not important information the university community needs to know about his leadership ... (Staff)

E. Email Overused Although also mentioned as a strength, there are problems associated with this primary communication channel according to several survey respondents. Generally, email is overused, and is the default method, when other communication channels may be more efficient. Mention was made of poorly constructed messages with ambiguous subject lines that do not allow for efficient filtering by individuals who are overwhelmed with the sheer volume of messages received on a daily basis. Listservs, which have the benefit of allowing one to communicate with broad audiences, are not always optimized with many messages sent to larger audiences than necessary. Sample Comments: 1. E-mails are sometimes not well written with suitable subject lines ...(Faculty) 2. Too many emails from different areas. Not enough centralized information (Staff) 3. Over-abundance of messages through faculty email list without prioritization makes it easy to accidentally overlook important messages… (Faculty) Other themes expressing communication weakness include communication needs improvement, website issues identified, cross/lateral communications among university constituencies, too much communication, lack of up-to-date campus news source, information resources difficult to identify, lack of central event calendar, senate and committee agenda/minutes not published or easily available, communication channels technologically not state of the art, communications are self- serving, disrespect faculty, are not timely, or reflect patriarchal governance style. There were criticisms about the fora as insulting or constructed to inhibit discussion, a need for a communication repository, and problems with communications with facilities/physical plant.