March 4, 2019
Mr. Steven Weiner President Menlo College 1000 El Camino Real Atherton, CA 94027-4301
Dear President Weiner:
This letter serves as formal notification and official record of action taken concerning Menlo College (MenC) by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) at its meeting February 22, 2019. This action was taken after consideration of the report of the review team that conducted the Special Visit to MenC November 14-16, 2018. The June 2014 Commission voted to impose a Formal Notice of Concern on MenC following the institution’s OSR and Accreditation Visit in March 2016. The focus of the Special Visit was to determine progress made on the recommendations that led to the Notice of Concern and to determine if the Notice could be removed. The Commission also reviewed the institutional report and exhibits submitted by MenC prior to the Special Visit and the institution’s January 24, 2019 response to the team report. The Commission appreciated the opportunity to discuss the visit with you and your colleagues: Angela Schmiede, Vice President for Student Success and Accreditation Liaison Officer, Grande Lum, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Kristina Powers, Director of Institutional Effectiveness. Your comments were very helpful in informing the Commission’s deliberations. The date of this action constitutes the effective date of the institution’s new status with WSCUC.
Actions
1. Receive the Special Visit team report that focused on eight issues: (1) attrition and achievement; (2) financial operating deficits; (3) strategic plan; (4) meaning, quality, and integrity of the degree; (5) assessment; (6) program review and credit hour policy; (7) institutional research capacity; and (8) faculty governance 2. Remove the Formal Notice of Concern 3. Continue with the previously scheduled reaffirmation review with the Offsite Review in fall 2021 and the Accreditation Visit in spring 2022 4. Continue with the previously scheduled Mid-Cycle Review to begin May 1, 2019 5. Schedule an Interim Report to be submitted by November 1, 2020 to address all the recommendations contained in this letter
The Commission commends MenC in particular for the following:
1. Significant improvements made to campus facilities, especially including the increased capacity in the residence halls and major improvements made to the residence halls. This commitment to improving the physical space is enhancing
1 98 5 At l a nt ic Ave nu e , Su it e 10 0, A l a me d a , C A 9 4 5 01 • phone : 5 10.74 8.9 0 01 • www.wscuc.org
the living and learning experiences of students, which contributes to overall campus health. 2. The turn toward becoming cash positive through fundraising, the drawing down of cash reserves, and stabilization of enrollment. 3. The rebranding initiative which included the engagement of students in efforts to develop a marketing plan through an innovative new course led by a trustee. Engaging students in real-world application of knowledge towards innovative solutions is a positive example of the mission in practice. 4. Improved communication between administration and faculty which has resulted in new levels of collaboration and trust.
The Commission requires the institution to respond to the following issues by the time of the Interim Report due November 1, 2020:
1. Continue to build capacity for institutional understanding to increase student retention and degree completion, including engaging in a deeper analysis of student attrition data to look beyond most commonly identified causes, and developing solutions and plans to address those needs. (CFRs 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) 2. Develop more realistic budgeting scenarios that are in line with peer institutions and market trends, and reflect resource allocations that are in alignment with strategic priorities. Leadership should work towards matching expenses with revenues and carefully examine the current resource allocations made to athletics and academics and determine the appropriate levels of funding. (CFR 2.1 and 3.1) 3. Build on the progress evidenced in strategic planning but that greater effort be placed on alignment with Menlo College’s mission & vision. The plan should explicitly address target markets (e.g., student athletes, transfer students, diverse populations and business and psychology career focused students who have high potential and who are interested in the innovation economy). Management should highlight Menlo College’s differentiated offerings and competitive advantages. The plan should also include timelines for accomplishment of objectives, metrics that will allow the tracking of progress, and include clear definitions for successful accomplishment of the plan. (CFRs 3.4 and 4.6) 4. Continue building a culture of assessment with provision made for greater professional development, especially around assessment, for faculty, and that greater staff support be provided to advise and assist faculty with this work. (CFRs 2.4, 2.6, 2.9 and 3.3) 5. Examine the role and responsibilities of the Director of Institutional Effectiveness to determine capacity for completing both the institutional research and assessment functions of the college, as well as providing support for academic, co-curricular, and administrative program review processes. Menlo College needs to ensure sufficient support for academic and co-curricular program review, either through the Institutional Effectiveness position or through other highly trained resources; examine models for leadership and accountability for the program review process. (CFRs 2.2, 2.2a, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.10, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) 2 98 5 At l a nt ic Ave nu e , Su it e 10 0, A l a me d a , C A 9 4 5 01 • phone : 5 10.74 8.9 0 01 • www.wscuc.org
6. Continue to update and edit the Faculty Handbook for accuracy and clarity of policy, procedure, and accountability through the Faculty Senate. Documentation and differentiation between Senate By-Laws and academic roles and responsibilities should be addressed as well as systems for tracking the policies and decisions made. (CFR 3.10)
In accordance with Commission policy, a copy of this letter will be sent to the chair of MenC’s governing board. The Commission expects that the team report and this action letter will be posted in a readily accessible location on MenC’s website and widely distributed throughout the institution to promote further engagement and improvement and to support the institution's response to the specific issues identified in these documents. The team report and the Commission’s action letter will also be posted on the WSCUC website. If the institution wishes to respond to the Commission action on its own website, WSCUC will post a link to that response on the WSCUC website.
Finally, the Commission wishes to express its appreciation for the extensive work that MenC undertook in preparing for and supporting this accreditation review. WSCUC is committed to an accreditation process that adds value to institutions while contributing to public accountability, and we thank you for your continued support of this process. Please contact me if you have any questions about this letter or the action of the Commission.
Sincerely,
Jamienne S. Studley President
JSS/do
Cc: Reed Dasenbrock, Commission Chair Angela Schmiede, ALO Geir Ramleth, Board Chair Members of the Special Visit team Richard Osborn, Vice President
3 98 5 At l a nt ic Ave nu e , Su it e 10 0, A l a me d a , C A 9 4 5 01 • phone : 5 10.74 8.9 0 01 • www.wscuc.org
January 24, 2019
WASC Senior College and University Commission via email @ [email protected]
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Special Visit Report. Our overall impression of the review process was positive. Our preparation engaged all campus stakeholders – students, staff, faculty, senior management, and trustees - to collectively address the challenges that were identified in the 2016 visit report, and as well, to instill a sense of shared ownership in the outcome. Our sense was that the site visit team perceived the success of those efforts.
Even though only two years passed between the last comprehensive site visit and the most recent special visit, we believe that Menlo College is a fundamentally stronger institution today as a result of the attention we placed on the important areas of concern over this period. More importantly, we are convinced that we have put in place the rigor and the resources that will allow us to sustain our progress in such areas as assessment, retention, strategic planning, and outreach. I say that with full appreciation of the enormous effort that will need to continue to be expended to sustain our momentum, but we are committed to it.
I wish to underscore some recent achievements that speak to the promise of Menlo College as a thriving institution as we approach our centennial celebration, including:
Restructured senior leadership to support needed change Key hires in admissions and development to support financial stability, as well as in institutional effectiveness to support data-driven decision making A 361% increase in contributions and grants between 2016 and 2018 As much of the increase in giving to the college was targeted for facility improvements, we were also able to effect dramatic changes across the campus, including a complete renovation of one of our primary classroom buildings, a new student union, new and improved athletic facilities, and more We secured a five-year $1.8 million Title III grant from the US Department of Education in 2018, targeted to support student success for underrepresented students Starting early in 2018, we prioritized the growth of three academic concentrations during the strategic planning and budgeting process: entrepreneurship, real estate, and sports management; as part of the investment in these programs, Menlo College created an Innovation Center in 2017 and The Real Estate Center @ Menlo College in 2018 Between 2017 and 2018, our six-year graduation rate increased by six percentage- points, to 59% (these data will be reported to IPEDS next month)
Office of the President
We improved our athletic program; attesting to the improvement, six of our varsity teams this year ranked in the top 25 of the nation within the NAIA, including our #1- ranked women’s wrestling team (for most of the sports in which Menlo is top-ranked, only significantly larger schools fall anywhere near our ranking) Perhaps most telling, our early indications of fall semester recruitment success are encouraging: compared to this same time last year, our admissions are up 91%, and our commits are up 84%; further substantiating our improvements in recruitment, our campus visits are up 100%, and the number of admitted students who have filed their FAFSA applications are up 118% (another strong indication of interest in Menlo College)
Finally, I offer a few comments in response to the report of the Special Visit Team that speak to the College’s efforts in addressing recommendations, as follows:
Recommendation 1: Better understand attrition/improve retention and graduation The four attrition studies conducted by our institutional effectiveness director (referenced on page 10 of Menlo’s Special Visit Report) provided us with quantitative and qualitative data to better understand why students leave Menlo. The studies also identified additional data gaps and preliminary direction that will be the focus of our retention committee: financial aid and athletics. The college is already drawing on its peer institution analysis to benchmark and guide retention efforts.
Also, the $1.8 million Title III grant from the US Department of Education that was awarded to Menlo College (entitled “Bridging the Achievement and Retention Gap through Tutoring, Technology, and Advising”) will enable us to implement an advising and retention platform that will allow faculty and staff to use data to improve student communication and retention efforts. The grant also provides funding to expand the Menlo College Rising Scholars summer bridge program, as well as the Intensive Math and English Labs; these latter two labs are designed to improve completion rates by offering for-credit, co-requisite intensive support in math and English in lieu of non- credit remedial courses. The resources to launch these initiatives directly support the Commission’s recommendation to “better understand attrition patterns and improve retention and graduation.”
Recommendation 2: Develop realistic plan for eliminating financial operating deficits The report refers to “suboptimal” retention. While we understand that attrition has a significant impact on enrollment numbers, without more detailed context such as the standards by which the Review Team is assessing retention rates, we question the reference to Menlo’s retention as suboptimal. Menlo’s retention rate of 78%, as reported in the peer institution analysis, is above average (average retention of peer institutions is 72%). In addition, the significant improvement in Menlo’s graduation rate since 2015 indicates a positive trend in student success.
Page 2
Recommendation 3: Continue development and implementation of Strategic Plan We are pleased by the progress we made in creating a more collaborative and inclusive strategic planning process. While separate strategic plans for both Enrollment Management and Alumni Engagement & Development were submitted as appendices to the Special Visit Report, the college recognizes that the strategic plans could benefit from including success metrics and clearer timelines, as noted by the Review Team. The Strategic Planning Committee will address these needed improvements in 2019.
The Review Team’s report commends the trustee-led “Market Menlo College” course offered in the fall 2018 semester. The second semester of the course has just launched, building on the success of the first semester, during which trustee Andy Cunningham engaged students in developing marketing plans for Menlo College. The second semester session will focus on creating and implementing specific marketing strategies for the college.
Recommendation 4: Continue development of Meaning, Quality, Integrity of Degrees The MQID Task Force is moving forward with planning focus groups with alumni for spring 2019, which will further inform and crystallize the written statement about the meaning of a Menlo degree.
Recommendation 5: Develop and assess PLOs with faculty ownership Page 14 of the Review Team’s report includes the following statement: “The SVR indicated that some additional assessment of ILOs had taken place since the AV, but there does not appear to be a clear plan for assessing the ILOs moving forward. It will be important for faculty to work through their new committee structures to assess the ILOs on a regular basis.” We note that the 2016 recommendations focused on program learning outcomes. While we have made progress on the ILOs in the last two years, we did not address them in the report we prepared for the Special Visit Team as detailed ILO plans were not part of the recommendation (or requested as a line of inquiry before the visit). We understand the importance of aligning assessment at various levels, and underscore our commitment to continue to assess ILOs on a regular cycle.
Recommendation 6: Continue to adapt and implement program review process With broad participation across campus, we are revising both the academic and co- curricular/administrative Program Review Handbooks. Also, program reviews are being launched per the schedule included in the report shared with the Special Visit Team.
Recommendation 7: Build capacity and leadership of institutional research Over the past year, faculty and senior leadership have heralded the significant improvements we have been able to achieve in institutional research capacity, through leadership provided by the director of institutional effectiveness. Recognizing that institutional effectiveness should be a shared effort, the college is continuing to develop the capacity of its assessment champions, and is launching a "data super user" initiative to empower others on campus through greater access to data. Having an ALO with expertise in assessment also allows for more shared responsibility with institutional effectiveness initiatives.
Page 3
Recommendation 8: Increase collaboration and communication At the most recent Board of Trustees meeting in January 2019, the trustees and faculty leaders acknowledged the markedly improved communication and collaboration among faculty, administration and the Board over the last two years. The Faculty Senate Steering Committee has committed to reviewing the Faculty Handbook over the course of the spring 2019 semester, to identify further refinements that might be appropriate.
We are pleased with the overall recognition of the positive steps our community has taken in the last two years to position Menlo College for success. The sense of progress is palpable on our campus, and we are proud to be part of the institution at this important juncture in its long history.
My colleagues join me in thanking the Special Visit Team for their feedback, and we look forward to our meeting with the WSCUC staff and the Commission panel on February 21.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Weiner President
Copies to: Grande Lum, MC Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs Richard Osborn, WSCUC Vice President Kristina Powers, MC Director of Institutional Effectiveness Angela Schmiede, MC Vice President for Student Success & WSCUC ALO
Page 4
REPORT OF THE WSCUC TEAM SPECIAL VISIT
To Menlo College November 14 – 16, 2018
Team Roster Team Chair: Michael Cunningham, Chancellor, National University System Team Assistant Chair: Laura Massa, Associate Vice President for Academic Programs, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Marcia Bankirer, San Jose Campus Dean, Pacific Oaks College Tracy Tambascia, Professor of Clinical Education, University of Southern California
The team evaluated the institution under the 2013 Standards of Accreditation and prepared this report containing its collective evaluation for consideration and action by the institution and by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). The formal action concerning the institution’s status is taken by the Commission and is described in a letter from the Commission to the institution. This report and the Commission letter are made available to the public by publication on the WSCUC website.
Page 1 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 A. Description of the Institution, its Accreditation History, as Relevant, and the Visit………………. 3 B. Description of Team’s Review Process…………………………………………………………………………………. 5 C. Institution’s Special Visit Report: Quality and Rigor of the Report and Supporting Evidence.. 6 SECTION II – TEAMS’S EVALUATION OF ISSUES UNDER THE STANDARDS…………………………………… 6 A. Issue 1: Better understand attrition patterns and improve retention and graduation………….. 6 B. Issue 2: Develop realistic plan for eliminating financial operating deficits …………………………… 8 C. Issue 3: Continue development and implementation of Strategic Plan (including detailed enrollment plan, detailed development plan, branding and marketing, and linking budget to strategic priorities)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 D. Issue 4: Continue development of Meaning, Quality, Integrity of Degrees at Menlo College. 12 E. Issue 5: Develop and assess Program Learning Outcomes with faculty ownership………………. 13 F. Issue 6: Continue to adapt and implement program review process…………………………………… 15 G. Issue 7: Build capacity and leadership of institutional research function……………………………… 16 H. Issue 8: Increase collaboration and communication to fully implement faculty handbook policies / guidelines with regard to faculty governance……………………………………………………….. 16 SECTION III – OTHER TOPICS, AS APPROPRIATE…………………………………………………………………………… 18 SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TEAM REVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 APPENDICES (if applicable)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Page 2 of 19
SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT A. Description of Institution, Accreditation History, as relevant, and Visit Description of the Institution Menlo College (Menlo) was founded in 1927 as a private, residential, junior college for men. After completion of studies, graduates transferred to a four-year college or university to complete requirements leading to a baccalaureate degree. In 1949, business administration was established as a four-year program. Since that time, the college evolved into a coeducational, four-year, baccalaureate degree-granting institution. Menlo’s mission is to ignite potential and educate students to make meaningful contributions in the innovation economy. Menlo College is located on a 40-acre campus in the residential community of Atherton, California and in close proximity to Stanford University in Palo Alto. Atherton is located approximately 25 miles equidistant from San Francisco and San Jose, California in the center of Silicon Valley. The surrounding towns of Menlo Park and Palo Alto offer a large array of cultural and recreational activities. Menlo is small, enrolling around 760 students, allowing for small class sizes. In fall 2017 the average class size was 18, and 59% of sections had 20 or fewer students. The college is committed to traditional, face-to-face instruction on a single campus. The only degrees students can earn at Menlo are in business or psychology, with about 90% of students earning a business degree. For the fall 2011 cohort, the six-year graduation rate was 53%. Accreditation History Given the concern by the Commission that visiting teams have found the same problems through multiple cycles with inadequate response to the concerns, this report will go back twelve years in reviewing interactions for the past twelve years. Beginning with Menlo’s previous reaccreditation cycle, a Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) was conducted in October 2006. The college’s CPR report and the evaluation by the CPR Team highlighted the new institutional vision and mission statement, curricular and co-curricular live- learn initiatives, revitalization of the general education program, a comprehensive inventory of institutional data, and the college’s budget. The CPR Team report included a substantial list of recommendations related to all four Standards. The Commission found that the college did not meet Standards 1, 3, and 4, with significant issues arising under Standard 2. The Commission acted to continue accreditation, issue a formal Notice of Concern, extend the length of the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER) Visit by one day in fall 2008 to address issues from the CPR, and request a progress report by November 1, 2007 detailing an action plan for addressing the wide range of issues related to the Criteria for Review cited in the February 27, 2007 action letter.
Page 3 of 19 On January 25, 2008, a panel of the Interim Report Committee (IRC) met to evaluate Menlo’s Progress Report, which detailed an action plan as requested by the Commission in the February 2007 action letter. In a letter from the Commission dated February 1, 2008, the panel noted no formal action on the college’s mission or a renewal of program review guidelines, which left questions regarding the adequacy of shared governance procedures. Also noted was a concern about the college’s financial condition in light of enrollment declines, lack of fundraising successes, a projected deficit for that academic year, no detailed retrenchment plans, and continuing controversy with the Menlo School regarding an endowment bequest and facilities when the two parties separated. The panel requested a full financial profile no later than August 1, 2008 and noted that the profile should include the composite ratios required by the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, for the fall 2008 EER visit, the panel requested a full examination of the strategic planning process to demonstrate how it would integrate academic and financial planning, inform day- to-day decisions, have campus-wide support, and demonstrate how the college would continue to make progress towards its educational goals while addressing the precarious financial condition. The EER visit took place from September 30, 2008 to October 3, 2008. In the Commission Action Letter of February 28, 2009, the Commission noted a number of areas for continued attention, including financial stability and the relationship with the Menlo School, faculty enhancement, retention and assessment activities, strategic planning, educational effectiveness, and program review. The Commission acted to remove the formal notice of concern, reaffirm the college’s accreditation, and request an interim report to be submitted by November 11, 2012, covering implementation of the strategic plan, enrollment trends, financial stability, as well as analysis of the development of a new general education program, of new co-curricular initiatives, and of refreshed major programs. The Commission also acted to schedule the next visit for fall, 2015. Menlo submitted to the Commission a structural change proposal for a new Master of Business Administration (MBA) program, and the structural change site visit took place on September 16, 2010. The Commission Letter of January 28, 2011 noted approval of the MBA program, to be implemented within two years. Subsequent to this approval, the college strategically refocused on remaining an undergraduate institution and decided not to pursue implementation of the MBA. On November 11, 2012 the college submitted an Interim Report and attachments via LiveText as requested by the Commission, and an IRC call took place on November 29, 2012. In the subsequent letter of January 11, 2013, the IRC took note of the Institution’s progress on all areas of concern, urged
Page 4 of 19 Menlo to continue its focus on strategic planning, enrollment trends, and financial stability, and urged that “in future reports, data be presented with greater accuracy.” An Accreditation Visit (AV) was conducted at Menlo in Atherton, California from March 21, 2016 through March 24, 2016. The visiting team evaluated evidence presented by Menlo to support fulfillment of the expectations and intentions of the Core Commitments, the four Standards for Accreditation, the Components of the Institutional Report, the Federal Requirements, the remaining issues stemming from the 2009 EER visit cited in the Commission’s action letter dated February 26, 2009 and remaining issues alluded to in the IRC letter of January 7, 2013. The AV Team Report identified eight recommendations, including the need for Menlo to: (1) Better understand attrition patterns and improve retention and graduation; (2) Develop a realistic plan for eliminating financial operating deficits eliminating financial operating deficits; (3) Continue development and implementation of Strategic Plan (including detailed enrollment plan, detailed development plan, branding and marketing, and linking budget to strategic priorities); (4) Continue development of Meaning, Quality, Integrity of Degrees (MQID) at Menlo College; (5) Develop and assess Program Learning Outcomes with faculty ownership; (6) Continue to adapt and implement program review process; (7) Build capacity and leadership of institutional research function; and (8) Increase collaboration and communication to fully implement faculty handbook policies / guidelines with regard to faculty governance. In June 2016, the Commission acted to: (1) Reaffirm accreditation for a period of six years, with the next reaffirmation process scheduled to begin with the Mid-Cycle Review in spring 2019, followed by the Offsite Review in fall 2021 and the AV in spring 2022; (2) Impose a Formal Notice of Concern; and (3) Schedule a Special Visit in fall 2018 to address the eight recommendations. The Commission expressed concern in particular with potential non-compliance with Standards 2 and 4. B. Description of Team’s Review Process A Special Visit was conducted at Menlo from November 13, 2018 through November 16, 2018. Description of Team’s Review Process The Special Visit Team evaluated evidence presented by Menlo to address progress on each of the eight recommendations noted in the Commission Action letter dated July 8, 2016. During the Special Visit interviews were conducted with the president, vice president for student success and ALO, provost and vice president for academic affairs, director of intuitional effectiveness, vice
Page 5 of 19 president for enrollment and athletics, dean of enrollment management, vice president for finance and administration and CFO, members of the Board of Trustees, Strategic Planning Committee, Academic Assessment Committee, MQID Committee, Faculty Steering Committee, Co-curricular and Administrative Assessment Committee, director of the writing center and intensive English program, and open forums with students, staff and faculty. The institution announced the confidential email account to the campus, but no messages were sent to the team through the account. C. Institution’s Special Report: Quality and Rigor of the Report and Supporting Evidence Menlo’s Special Visit Report (SVR) was well organized but did not clearly reflect the progress that was witnessed during the site visit. The report primarily provided documentation on processes followed to address each of the recommendations noted in the Commission Action Letter of July, 2016. The SVR was a collaborative effort facilitated by the ALO. A member of the campus’ WSCUC steering committee served as the lead author of each report section. A faculty member took the lead in writing the response to the recommendation regarding faculty governance. The SVR identified supporting contributors and reviewers for each section of the report. Overall, the SVR characterized the institution as one making incremental progress towards improvement in all identified areas of recommendation. Campus interviews, and additional documentation provided following the team visit provided greater indication of progress on each of the recommendations. SECTION II – EVALUATION OF ISSUES UNDER THE STANDARDS A. Issue 1: Better understand attrition patterns and improve retention and graduation Recommendation 1 from the fall 2016 Accreditation Visit noted that “…the college needs to develop a deeper understanding of student attrition patterns and take action to address achievement gaps across diverse student populations.” (CFRs 1.4, 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Menlo has formed a Retention Committee, an At-Risk Student Committee, begun studying attrition, and hired qualified personnel to support institutional research and data analysis. Shortly after the last WSCUC visit, Menlo hired a Director of Institutional Effectiveness (IE) who has helped the campus begin the process of developing standard reports and processes for reviewing data on a regular basis, (CFR 2.10) After the first director left the position, a part-time director was hired. Each director has supported the needs of the college through compiling campus data, reporting to federal agencies, and helped faculty and administrators develop reports on key issues.
Page 6 of 19 The attrition study presentation shared with the team offered a significant amount of detail on process and methodology, but yielded findings that are intuitive and commonly recognized in the persistence literature, including the fact that undergraduates with higher grade point averages, and those with more earned credits, have a higher chance of completing their degree. The report also reinforced the previously known fact that African American students did not complete a Menlo degree in six years at the same rate as Anglo students. The team questions what was learned through the study that was not known previously, and recommends examining more complex or nuanced issues related to attrition that can be found in the research, including questions around campus climate, sense of belonging, or other issues such as the role of mid-term warnings as predictors of academic probation, which courses serve as gatekeepers to advancing within a major, etc. These are offered as suggestions for ways to examine the complexity of attrition beyond the data that is currently available. Further, the data could be enhanced through both qualitative and quantitative examination, which may help address concerns about small sample sizes. The team was also provided with a copy of the peer campus report, including a comprehensive discussion of methodology. The study identified eight institutions as peer colleges, ranging in student enrollment from 50 to over 1000 students, and located in Georgia, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts and other states. While these eight institutions are indeed comparable on the chosen indices (including endowment, six-year degree completion, percentage of students receiving aid), it is not clear how useful this list may be for understanding Menlo’s competitiveness in context of other small colleges and universities in California. The report included a list and comparison of Menlo against several California colleges. Most of these were small colleges and located in Northern California. It is not clear how this list was derived, and whether they are cross-application colleges, have strong business or psychology programs, or are otherwise competitors. During the special visit, the Director of IE noted that “pockets of data existed all over campus” and went on to describe how she was able to collect information from the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz advising survey, NSSE, and exit surveys to identify overlaps that can connect with anecdotal reports from staff. This work, and the sharing of the findings, is a positive step toward engaging faculty and staff in regular evaluation of systematically collected data. The team noted two examples of use of data-informed action to support student retention. One example was the creation of the Summer Bridge program, which was a positive action taken in response to data on under-prepared students. (CFR 2.12, 2.13) Another example offered during the Special Visit was the hiring of professional advisors to complement
Page 7 of 19 faculty advisement, and bolstering academic support (writing, math) to support under-prepared students. (CFR 2.10) The team noted the absence of the WSCUC Graduate Rate Dashboard in the SVR. The Dashboard shows a Unit Redemption Rate (URR) for Menlo College that is higher than the IPEDS six-year or absolute graduation rate, indicating that Menlo may be doing better than recognized. Menlo College may want to include URR as part of its regular degree completion assessment. In summary, Menlo College has made progress in examining the student experience and potential barriers to degree completion. In the next several years, retention and completion analyses need to move beyond description of plans and processes, to yield substantive and actionable findings. (CFR 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.3) B. Issue 2: Develop realistic plan for eliminating financial operating deficits The Commission recommended that the college develop and implement a realistic plan for eliminating [financial] deficits. (CFR 3.4) The SVR states that the college has reversed the negative deficit trend noted in the Commission Action Letter [July 8, 2016], and ended 2017-18 with a surplus of $894,000. According to the SVR, the turnaround was driven by growth in new students and student housing census, among other strategies. While this is true, and progress has been made, it should be noted that the majority of the increase to the June 2018 year end surplus came from contributions, grants and other revenue, representing an increase of $2,198,151 year over year, constituting an 85% increase. Year over year net revenues from tuition, fees and auxiliary enterprise revenue have decreased $829,154, or 3.7%, while overall expenses have increased $877,350, or 3.3%. New student growth increased by just under 2% per year from 2015 to 2018. However, the growth in new students was not adequate to offset attrition rates, due largely to graduation and also poor retention. Overall enrollment continued to decline slightly per year for the past three years. The Commission, under Recommendation 1, suggested that Menlo invest in the understanding of its attrition issue. The attrition study conducted by the college, while not comprehensive, suggested continued downward pressure on affordability, increased sector-wide competition and a need for
Page 8 of 19 increased student services. It will be important that future financial plans and budgets take these findings into account. The college spent $389,967 for the year ending June, 2018 on advertising, mostly through digital channels. This represents approximately 1.8 percent of annual net revenues from tuition, fees and auxiliary enterprises. The number is well below the mean average for universities with enrollments under 2000 students (according to a CASE study). This suggests that the college has room to invest more in advertising. The college should consider conducting an in-depth analysis of each marketing channel with a goal of optimizing productive channels and eliminating underperforming channels. (CFRs 1.4, 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3) The college is predicting 95-98% occupancy rates in its residence halls through 2023-24 along with a 4% per year rent increase, which is projected to boost rent revenue from $7.4m to just over $9.0m per year. While this is reasonable given the trends in Atherton which may be the nation’s most expensive housing and renting market [https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-atherton-ca- rent- trends/], the college may consider further investigation into the price sensitivity of students when they are faced with increases in room, board, and tuition. Another driver of fiscal improvement was increased fundraising results. Contributions and grants contributed 3.0% to total revenue in 2015-16 and increased to 13.3% in 2017-18. The projected trend is scaled back to 9.0% per year to 2024. Major gifts from two donors accounted for 84% of all gifts in 2017-18. Contributions can be a significant revenue diversifier for colleges where tuition and fees generally constitute a high concentration of risk; however, contributions themselves can be considered a risk if not diversified by source. There were additional contributing factors to the College’s turnaround during the past three years. “Constrained expense growth” and “restated depreciation schedule” were posited as additional turnaround strategies. In reviewing the financial reports supplied by the college, the team noted that operating expenses were $24.4m in 2015-16, $24.5m in 2016-17, and $24.8m in 2017-18. Tuition
Page 9 of 19 revenue declined from $22.1m to $21.7m during the same period. Ordinarily, it would not be expected that operating expenses would increase in a revenue-declining environment. The college reclaimed accumulated depreciation for each of the past three years and projects continuing opportunities for the next six years. The team confirmed that depreciation has not been funded. Therefore, this should be treated as a one-time, short-term solution. On further review of the financial performance and projection supplied by the college, the following factual statements were substantiated: • For the past three years, tuition and fees grew at an annual rate of 0.9%, while tuition discount grew 3.9%. Tuition and fees are projected to grow 6.8% per year for the next six years. The team finds these projections very aggressive. • Funds from contributions and releases from restricted funds constituted 6% of total revenue in 2016 and 20% in 2018. This is a step in the right direction and the board should be commended for its long-term support of the college. Given the aforementioned pricing and enrollment pressures, the board may have to consider raising the budgeted $500,000 per year drawdowns along with additional expense management. • Net tuition revenue declined at the rate of -2.2% in the past three years and projected to grow 7.2% in each of the next six years. The team finds these projections to be unrealistic and not consistent with recent performance and industry trends. The team believes that the college continues to make progress towards sustainability. This progress, combined with a very strong balance sheet, highlighted by no long-term debt, bodes well for the college. This being said, the team believes the current financial projections are too aggressive, and a serious effort should be undertaken which focuses on cost reductions, and a better alignment with the allocation of resources with stated strategic objectives. (CFR 1.7, 1.8, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7. 4.5, 4.7)
Page 10 of 19 C. Issue 3: Continue development and implementation of Strategic Plan (including detailed enrollment plan, detailed development plan, branding and marketing, and linking budget to strategic priorities) The Commission recommended that Menlo continue the development of the strategic plan, following a process based on evidence and that was collaborative in nature. In addition, the Commission recommended that plans for enrollment, development, and branding and marketing be developed, and that the budget reflect allocation to strategic priorities that generate sustainable outcomes (CFRs 3.4, 4.6). While the team sees progress in strategic planning, the existing written plan did not adequately reflect the collective thought as expressed by the majority of the stakeholders at the college. For example, during the interviews of various stakeholder groups it became apparent that specific student enrollment target market segments have been identified and plans were in process to identify prospective students and strategies to address these markets (e.g., student athletes, transfer students, minority or historically underrepresented populations who are interested in the innovation economy). Work still needs to be done with matching enrollment targets from each segment and allocating appropriate resources to support the enrollment and retention goals. The strategic plan needs to be in alignment with Menlo’s mission & vision and should explicitly highlight the college’s differentiated offerings and competitive advantages and align them with each market segment. The plan should also include timelines for accomplishment of objectives, and metrics that will allow the tracking of progress, and include clear definitions for successful accomplishment of the strategic plan. The college has made much progress with their rebranding initiative. We especially commend the college for engaging students in efforts to develop a marketing plan through an innovative new course led by a trustee. Engaging students in real-world application of knowledge towards innovative solutions is a positive example of the mission in practice. To date, this effort has largely been internally focused and is being implemented with external communications and enrollment activities. Faculty, students and staff seem to be very excited about the rebranding campaign and are confident it will resonate with the community as well. Due to a change in leadership and high turnover in the development office, systemic and long- term planning in fundraising and alumni development has been delayed. It is noteworthy that during this transition period, certain board members have significantly increased contributions. This, coupled with a $1,800,000 student success grant, a $250,000 award from an international alumnus, and the recent hiring a qualified staff, puts the college in a good position to further the development of their plan and its subsequent implementation. Page 11 of 19 Lastly, two of the most important responsibilities of an administration is the allocation of resources which are in alignment with the overall strategy, the stated goals and objectives and the mission of the institution and the long-term sustainability of the organization. All stakeholders the team met with expressed the need for more focus and alignment around human capital. Many people commented on wearing “many hats” and being overworked. Careful attention should be given to the balance and prioritization between athletics, academics and co-curricular activities in an effort to generate sustainable outcomes. D. Issue 4: Continue development of Meaning, Quality, Integrity of Degrees at Menlo College During the 2016 AV, the Meaning, Quality and Integrity of the Degree (MQID) Taskforce shared a summary of the meaning of a Menlo education, including key characteristics like experiential learning, community service, and the value placed on fostering a sense of competitiveness and teamwork. The summary was not yet a complete statement of the meaning of a Menlo degree, and while some progress has been made in planning to ensure the quality and integrity of the degree, the MQID statement was incomplete. (CFRs 2.2, 2.2a) In the 2017-2018 academic year, a new taskforce was formed to continue work on the MQID statement. The taskforce, made up of five administrators and a faculty member, created a plan to guide the development of the MQID statement. The plan is being carried out in the 2018-2019 academic year. While no formal MQID statement like that required for completing component three of a full institutional report was included in the college’s Special Visit report, during their interview the team found that the Taskforce was able to articulate the three components of the MQID statement. The Taskforce articulated the meaning of a Menlo degree as being captured in the mission statement of the college, the general education curriculum, the learning outcomes of both the institution and the programs, and the unique skills and knowledge that Menlo helps its students to develop in order for their graduates to be career ready (e.g., an entrepreneurial mindset, ethical competencies). Among other approaches, the quality of the degree is ensured through processes that ask students, alumni and key external constituencies (e.g., employers) what is needed, considering this input, and then designing educational experiences to meet these needs. The integrity of the degree is ensured through various assessment processes, like shared learning outcomes for multi-section courses, curriculum mapping for the institutional learning outcomes to make sure students have sufficient opportunity to learn, and articulating outcomes for all educational experiences (both inside and outside of the classroom) that are then assessed. (CFRs 2.2, 2.2a, 2.4, 4.5)
Page 12 of 19 The team encourages Menlo College to continue to regularly engage in reflective conversations about the meaning of a degree, and how they ensure quality and integrity of their degrees. Writing a formal statement may help the college by serving as a guiding document as new initiatives are considered. The team also encourages Menlo to consider this statement as a ‘living’ one that can be adapted and evolved as the college continues to learn from assessment and other quality assurance practices, as well as from the voices of students, alumni, employers and other constituent groups. For example, the Taskforce discussed the possibility of expanding the institutional learning outcomes beyond the WSCUC core competencies to include some of the specialized knowledge and skills that were described in conversation about the meaning of the degree. E. Issue 5: Develop and assess Program Learning Outcomes with faculty ownership At the time of the 2016 AV, program learning outcomes were included in the Academic Catalog, but apart from Psychology, program-level, assessment was found to be only in the planning stages. Faculty reported that the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Research was responsible for all stages of assessment, with a plan to conduct each program’s assessment as it entered the program review process. Assessment of institution-wide learning outcomes (the five WSCUC Core Competencies) had begun, but faculty were not responsible for their assessment, nor was there a clear plan for assessment of these outcomes. The Commission recommended that faculty take collective responsibility for assessment, and that a detailed plan for meaningful, sustainable assessment be developed. (CFRs 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5) Menlo began its response by building resources for assessment in fall 2016 by purchasing books for an assessment and institutional effectiveness library intended to help faculty develop a better understanding of assessment. In early 2017, an assessment expert was brought in to provide a day of consulting and a half day workshop on assessment fundamentals called “Assuring Student Learning.” (CFR 3.3) In June 2017 the college hired a Director of Institutional Effectiveness (IE), who left the position in April, 2018, and subsequently hired an institutional research consultant in May 2018 who accepted a more permanent, albeit part-time, director of IE role in July 2018. In fall 2017, IE worked with faculty and the administration to implement a new assessment structure and process. The goals set for academic programs during the 2017-2018 academic year included creating a sustainable and practical infrastructure that includes outcomes, a plan for assessing them and analysis of results, and to “instill a culture of assessment.”
Page 13 of 19 To help instill a culture of assessment, the administration created three assessment committees: (1) Academic Assessment Committee, made up of faculty assessment champions who meet every other month; (2) Co-Curricular & Administrative Committee, made up of staff assessment champions from the co-curricular and administrative units of the college that support student success who meets every other month; and (3) the Menlo Assessment Committee (MAC), made up of representatives from the other two committees and meets once per academic terms. The MAC oversees development and progress of assessment at Menlo and will be responsible for overseeing the program review process. To assist faculty with developing assessment infrastructure, IE developed a series of templates for seven deliverables by each academic program, including such items as mission statements, outcomes, rubrics, curriculum maps and data reports. During interviews, faculty indicated that these templates prompted thinking and action, but were not generally perceived as useful. Once completed, faculty were given another set of deliverables including an assessment plan and annual report to be completed by May 2018. During the summer of 2018, the new IE director identified assessment champions for each academic program and co-curricular unit, created a shared inventory of existing program assessment materials, and asked the assessment champions to consolidate and clarify the outcomes in existing submitted materials. During an interview, the assessment champions demonstrated understanding of the basics of academic program assessment, described meaningful use of assessment practice, and appeared invigorated when discussing the ways in which the practice of assessment has engaged them as a community of educators. The team observed that the practice of using evidence to understand and improve learning in courses and academic programs is beginning to become a regular part of the work of educating students at Menlo. Faculty were able to discuss the ways in which their program learning outcomes align to the institutional learning outcomes (ILOs), ways that they have examined their aligned program learning outcomes, and the importance of examining ILOs. The SVR indicated that some additional assessment of ILOs had taken place since the AV, but there does not appear to be a clear plan for assessing the ILOs moving forward. It will be important for faculty to work through their new committee structures to assess the ILOs on a regular basis. (CFR 2.2a, 2.4, 2.6) The team appreciates that Menlo College has taken steps toward improving assessment practice, including hiring a part-time IE director, providing some educational resources, and engaging faculty through a committee structure. It is clear that faculty both need and want additional professional
Page 14 of 19 development around assessment, and that additional staff support for assessment would help to increase capacity for academic program assessment, institutional learning outcome assessment, as well as the recent engagement of staff in co-curricular and administrative program assessment. The team believes that plans for an assessment website and assessment workshops on campus, as well as to send faculty and staff to external professional development opportunities, will help to continue to grow assessment capacity at the institution. Increased understanding of the practice and purpose of assessment will help move Menlo toward a culture of assessment. F. Issue 6: Continue to adapt and implement program review process Recommendation 6 of the Commission Action Letter states “that the college continue to adapt and implement its program review process” (CFRs 4.2, 4.3). The program review schedule proposed in 2016 was not implemented, and as a result, no systematic academic program reviews have taken place. Psychology had embarked on a program review process, but stopped due to the departure of the only other full-time faculty member in the department; that second faculty position has not been filled. During the Special Visit, the Academic Program Assessment Committee offered a well-informed, positive and engaged perspective on academic program assessment. The committee was comprised of full-time faculty from each of the programs, and members spoke about assessments that have helped them improve courses and their programs overall. They also spoke about the larger scope of program review, especially the value of the external review component. What also emerged was the challenge of leading the program review process among teaching, research and other service responsibilities. Several committee members noted challenges leading assessments and program review efforts, especially for programs with only one or two full-time faculty members. (CFR 4.5, 4.6) The program review handbook has not been updated and remains a version minimally adapted from another university. The handbook needs further work before it can be useful, and its revision and adaptation for the Menlo community must be a priority. (CFR 2.7, 4.1, 4.4) It is not clear that the part-time Director of IE will be able to fulfill the institutional research and data analysis work needed while working off-site, and also invest the time needed to support, coordinate and organize the annual program review process for both academic and co-curricular programs (CFR 4.2). While there is a loose system of assessment “champions,” it is not clear how accountability for thoroughness, timeliness and quality of academic program review will be managed. There needs to be both leadership and depth of knowledge in order to accommodate inevitable personnel changes. (CFR 4.4, 4.5, 4.6)
Page 15 of 19 G. Issue 7: Build capacity and leadership of institutional research function At the time of the 2016 AV, the institutional research (IR) function was in a developing stage. This was in part due to insufficient staffing of the IR function. The Commission recommended that Menlo build capacity and leadership of the IR function, and that it undertake an external review of the function. (CFRs 4.2, 4.3) In order to both support IR and assessment, the Director of IE position was created. As noted under Issue 5, this position was initially filled in June 2017, that person left in April 2018, a consultant was hired in May 2018 who was then permanently hired as a part-time director in July 2018. The director of IE has nearly two decades of experiences in higher education and institutional effectiveness, including building multiple IR and IE offices. When the initial IE director was hired, she was tasked with performing a review of the IR function. As a new member of the community with considerable experience, she was able to perform the review in much the same way that an external reviewer would. The review focused on assessment needs, data needed for program review, and efficiencies in completing regular reports. The review resulted in several recommendations intended to bring the IR work into alignment with the aspirational practices outlined by the Association for Institutional Research (CFR 4.2). The current part-time director of IE is having a positive impact on the ability of the campus community to make decisions that are informed by data. The president remarked that the work of IE has been transformative and allowed him to think differently about decision making on campus. The team observed that campus leadership is generally excited to have data available to them, and that a culture of evidence-informed decision making is beginning to take shape on the campus (CFR 4.3). The director of IE will need to work with the campus to make sure that appropriate data is recorded and made available to her so that greater study of the campus will be possible. The team recognizes progress in building capacity and leadership of the IR function, and appreciates that the review of the function led to meaningful recommendations for the college. It is unclear how long it will take the IR function to implement the recommendations, especially given that the director is a part-time employee who is only on campus a few days a month, and who has responsibility for IR, assessment and program review. (CFRs 4.2, 4.3) H. Issue 8: Increase collaboration and communication to fully implement faculty handbook policies / guidelines with regard to faculty governance At the time of the visit in 2016, the team was met with some concerns with regard to communication between faculty and administration, as well as shared governance. The Commission
Page 16 of 19 recommended that the college work toward increasing collaboration and communication to fully implement policies and guidelines in the faculty handbook [CFR 3.10]. The SVR and appendices presented some documentation of the changes made in the operations of the faculty senate and in the faculty handbook. The visit provided additional evidence on the progress made in faculty engagement, participation in strategic planning, program review, and assessment of student learning. Meetings with the Faculty Senate Steering Committee confirmed that the Senate meetings are now inclusive, that faculty are more engaged in all aspects of the institution’s activities, and that the culture and atmosphere of the campus, as a whole, are significantly improved. The faculty reported a feeling of ownership in the new mission statement and pride in the new branding initiatives. The faculty understand their responsibilities and accountability for the curriculum. Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the operations of committees and with the senate are seen as quite positive. The faculty said that they appreciate the increased transparency in communication from administration and the Board of Trustees. Improvement in overall communication among and between board members, administration, and faculty was noted throughout the visit, with all stakeholders. The president and faculty reported that president’s participation with faculty in some of the student-facing activities, as well as in some of the social community events, has helped bridge any previously perceived divides. The board commented on increased collegiality with and among the faculty. Changes made in the faculty handbook have improved the understanding of the operation of the senate. The handbook still needs additional edits for correcting titles, positions, responsibilities and accountability. As stated in the SVR, the institution recognizes the inconsistencies, especially in the area of faculty evaluation, this continues as a work-in-progress. Menlo should address the differentiation between senate by-laws (operations of the Senate) and the rights and responsibilities of faculty (academic operations). Questions regarding faculty workload will continue to be a topic of high importance and should be addressed as explicitly as possible in the handbook. Including assessment and program review as a part of the academic responsibility (instead of as service, as it is currently considered) and, therefore, criteria for academic performance evaluation, would elevate the importance of these activities. Faculty have a good understanding that there are mandatory regulatory and administrative policies and then there are other academic policies, for which they have responsibility. Documentation of the decision-making processes for policy development are not made clear, nor are the actions to
Page 17 of 19 implement approved policy. Systems should be put in place to document process and tracking of policies to assure compliance and maintain a record for changes in personnel. Professional development for faculty currently consists of their attendance at a professional conference, usually at their request. Formalizing the process of providing for the professional growth of faculty and integrating it with the need for improved assessment, accreditation expertise and innovation in teaching and learning, and with their annual goals, would result in positive outcomes for both Menlo College and its individual faculty members. SECTION III – OTHER TOPICS, AS APPROPRIATE Not applicable. SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TEAM REVIEW Overall, the team observed some progress on each of the eight issues identified in the Commission Action Letter of July, 2016. Commendations: The team commends Menlo College for: • Significant improvements made to campus facilities, especially including increasing capacity in the residence halls and major improvements made to residence hall lavatories. This commitment to improving the physical space is enhancing the living and learning experiences of students, which contributes to overall campus health. • Turning cash positive through fundraising, the drawing down of cash reserves, and stabilization of enrollment. • Its rebranding initiative. We especially commend the college for engaging students in efforts to develop a marketing plan through an innovative new course led by a trustee. Engaging students in real-world application of knowledge towards innovative solutions is a positive example of the mission in practice. • Improved communication between administration and faculty has resulted in new levels of collaboration and trust, and we commend Menlo College for this. Recommendations: The team recommends that Menlo College: • Continue to build capacity for institutional understanding to increase student retention and degree completion, including engaging in deeper analysis of student attrition data to look beyond most commonly identified causes, and developing solutions and plans to address those needs. (CFRs 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
Page 18 of 19 • Develop more realistic budgeting scenarios that are in line with peer institutions and market trends, and reflect resource allocations that are in alignment with strategic priorities. Leadership should work towards matching expenses with revenues and carefully examine the current resource allocations made to athletics and academics and determine the appropriate levels of funding. (CFR 2.1, 3.1) • Build on the progress it sees in strategic planning but that greater effort be placed on alignment with Menlo’s mission & vision. The plan should explicitly address target markets (e.g., student athletes, transfer students, diverse populations and business and psychology career focused students who have high potential and who are interested in the innovation economy). Management should highlight Menlo’s differentiated offerings and competitive advantages. The plan should also include timelines for accomplishment of objectives, metrics that will allow the tracking of progress, and include clear definitions for successful accomplishment of the plan. (CFRs 3.4, 4.6) • Continue building a culture of assessment but that provision be made for greater professional development, especially around assessment, for faculty, and that greater staff support be provided to advise and assist faculty with this work. (CFRs 2.4, 2.6, 2.9, 3.3) • Examine the role and responsibilities of the Director of Institutional Effectiveness to determine capacity for completing both the institutional research and assessment functions of the college, as well as providing support for academic, co-curricular and administrative program review processes. Menlo needs to ensure sufficient support for academic and cocurricular program review, either through the Institutional Effectiveness position or through other highly trained resources; examine models for leadership and accountability for the program review process. (CFRs 2.2, 2.2a, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.10, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5) • Continue to update and edit the Faculty Handbook for accuracy and clarity of policy, procedure, and accountability through the Faculty Senate. Documentation and differentiation between Senate By-Laws and academic roles and responsibilities should be addressed as well as systems for tracking the policies and decisions made. (CFR 3.10) APPENDICES (if applicable) Not applicable.
Page 19 of 19
REPORT OF THE WSCUC TEAM For Reaffirmation of Accreditation
To Menlo College
March 21-24, 2016
Team Roster
Dr. Michael Cunningham, Chancellor, National University System Dr. J. Joseph Hoey, Vice President, Accreditation Relations and Policy, Bridgepoint Education Dr. Laura Massa, Director of Assessment, Loyola Marymount University Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia, Associate Professor, Clinical Education, University of Southern California Dr. Dave C. Lawrence, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President for Financial Information, Pacific Union College Dr. Richard Osborn, WSCUC Staff Liaison
The Team evaluated the institution under the 2013 Standards of Accreditation and prepared this report containing its collective evaluation for consideration and action by the institution and by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). The formal action concerning the institution’s status is taken by the Commission and is described in a letter from the Commission to the institution. This report and the Commission letter are made available to the public by publication on the WSCUC website. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT………………………………………………… 1
A. Description of the Institution and its Accreditation History, as Relevant………………1 B. Description of Team’s Review Process…………………………………………………….. 5 C. Institution’s Reaccreditation Report and Update: Quality and Rigor of the Report and Supporting Evidence………………………………………………………. 6
SECTION II – EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ESSAYS………………………….. 7
A. Component 1: Response to previous Commission actions……………………………… 7 B. Component 2: Compliance with the Standards and federal requirements; Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators……………………………………….. 10 C. Component 3: Degree Programs: Meaning, quality and integrity of degrees………... 22 D. Component 4: Educational Quality: Student learning, core competencies, and standards of performance at graduation……………………………………………... 25 E. Component 5: Student Success: Student learning, retention, and graduation………... 28 F. Component 6: Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program review, assessment, use of data and evidence……………………………………………………… 30 G. Component 7: Sustainability: Financial viability, preparing for the changing higher education environment……………………………………………………………… 35 H. Component 8: Optional essay on institution-specific themes…………………………… 38 I. Component 9: Reflection and plans for improvement…………………………………… 38
SECTION III – OTHER TOPICS, AS APPROPRIATE…………………………………….. 41
SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TEAM REVIEW……………………………………. 41
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………. 45
A. Federal Compliance Forms………………………………………………………………….. 45 1. Credit Hour Review…………………………………………………………………. 45 2. Marketing and Recruitment Review……………………………………………….. 47 3. Student Complaints Review………………………………………………………… 48 4. Transfer Policy Review……………………………………………………………… 49 B. Off-Campus Locations, as appropriate…………………………………………………….. 49 C. Distance Education, as appropriate…………………………………………………………49
ii
SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT
Description of the Institution
Menlo College was founded in 1927 as a private, residential, junior college for men. After completion of studies, graduates transferred to a four-year college or university to complete requirements leading to a baccalaureate degree. In 1949, business administration was established as a four-year program. Since that time, the college evolved into a coeducational, four-year, baccalaureate degree-granting institution. Revised and adopted by the Board of
Trustees on October 2, 2009, Menlo College’s mission is to develop future leaders through a liberal arts-based business education that integrates academic study and fieldwork in a Silicon
Valley environment unmatched in its potential for innovation.
Menlo College is located on a 40-acre campus in the residential community of
Atherton, California and in close proximity to Stanford University in Palo Alto. Atherton is located approximately 25 miles equidistant between San Francisco and San Jose, California in the center of Silicon Valley. The surrounding towns of Menlo Park and Palo Alto offer a large array of cultural and recreational activities.
The college is governed by a Board of Trustees that has recently grown to include 21 members. The Board meets three to four times per year. The president reports to the Board of Trustees. Faculty, students, administrators, and staff have a voice in the welfare of the college through the Faculty Senate, Student Government Association, and various committees and working groups. Full-time faculty in fall 2015 numbered 29, including 14
1 male and 15 female faculty members. Seventy-two adjunct faculty members were also employed.
The fall 2015 total headcount is 768 students of which approximately 23 percent are freshmen, 22 percent are sophomores, 30 percent are juniors, and 24 percent are seniors.
Eighty-seven percent of fall 2015 students are Business majors, 3.5 percent have not declared a major or are non-degree seeking, and 9.5 percent are Psychology majors. Fifty-five percent of fall 2015 students are male and 71.6 percent are non-Caucasian, other, or unknown ethnicity. The freshman-to-sophomore retention rates for 2012, 2013, and 2014 are 82 percent,
80 percent, and 71 percent respectively and have increased steadily over the past five years apart from the most recent year when the football program was closed. Overall six-year graduation rates reported to IPEDS were 36 percent for the 2006 entering student cohort year and 43 percent for the entering 2008 cohort year, respectively.
Degree programs are offered in a traditional day format and through an accelerated
Professional Studies Program to accommodate working adults. Degree offerings under the traditional format include a Bachelor of Science in Business with majors in Accounting,
Finance, Marketing, Management (including options in Entrepreneurship, International
Management, Management Information Systems, Real Estate, and Sports Management); a
Bachelor of Arts in Business with major in Management (including a Human Resource
Management Option, a Marketing Communications Option, and an Individualized Option); and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. The Professional Studies Program features a Bachelor of
Science in Business with major in Management (including an International Management
Option and a Management Information Systems Option) and a Bachelor of Arts in Business
2 with major in Management (including an International Management Systems Option and a
Management Information Systems Option).
Accreditation History
Beginning with Menlo College’s previous reaccreditation cycle, a Capacity and
Preparatory Review (CPR) was conducted in October 2006. The College’s CPR report and the evaluation by the CPR Team highlighted the new institutional vision and mission statement, curricular and co-curricular live-learn initiatives, revitalization of the general education program, a comprehensive inventory of institutional data, and the College’s budget. The
CPR Team report included a substantial list of recommendations related to all four Standards.
The Commission found that the College did not meet the expectations of Standards 1, 3, and 4 with significant issues arising under Standard 2. The Commission acted to continue accreditation, issue a formal Notice of Concern, extend the length of Educational Effectiveness
Review Visit by one day in fall 2008 to address issues from the CPR, and request a progress report by November 1, 2007 detailing an action plan for addressing the wide range of issues related to Criteria for Review cited in the February 27, 2007 action letter.
On January 25, 2008, a panel of the Interim Report Committee met to evaluate Menlo
College’s progress report detailing an action plan as requested by the Commission in the
February 2007 action letter. In a letter from the Commission dated February 1, 2008, the panel noted no formal action on the College’s mission or a renewal of program review guidelines, which left questions regarding the adequacy of shared governance procedures. Also noted was a concern about the College’s financial condition in light of enrollment declines, lack of fundraising successes, a projected deficit for the current academic year, no detailed
3 retrenchment plans, and continuing controversy with the Menlo School regarding an endowment bequest and facilities. The panel requested a full financial profile no later than
August 1, 2008 and noted that the profile should include the composite ratios required by the
U.S. Department of Education. In addition, for the fall 2008 EER visit, the panel requested a full examination of the strategic planning process to demonstrate how it integrates academic and financial planning, informs day- to-day decisions, has enthusiastic campus-wide support, and demonstrates how the College would continue to make progress towards its educational goals while addressing the precarious financial condition.
The EER visit took place from September 30, 2008 to October 3, 2008. In the
Commission Action Letter of February 28, 2009, the Commission noted a number of areas for continued attention, including financial stability and the relationship with the Menlo School, faculty enhancement, retention and assessment activities, strategic planning, educational effectiveness, and program review. The Commission acted to remove the formal notice of concern, reaffirm the College’s accreditation, and request an interim report to be submitted by
November 11, 2012, covering implementation of the strategic plan, enrollment trends, financial stability, as well as analysis of the development of a new general education program, of new co-curricular initiatives, and of refreshed major programs. The Commission also acted to schedule the next visit for fall, 2015.
The College submitted to the Commission a structural change proposal for a new
Master of Business Administration (MBA) program, and the structural change site visit took place on September 16, 2010. The Commission Letter of January 28, 2011 noted approval of the MBA program, to be implemented within two years. Subsequent to this approval, the
4
College strategically refocused on remaining an undergraduate institution and decided not to pursue implementation of the MBA.
On November 11, 2012 the College submitted an Interim Report and attachments via
LiveText as requested by the Commission, and an Interim Review Committee (IRC) call took place on November 29, 2012. In the subsequent letter of January 11, 2013, the IRC took note of the Institution’s progress on all areas of concern, urged the College to continue its focus on strategic planning, enrollment trends, and financial stability, and urged that “in future reports, data be presented with greater accuracy.”
B. Description of Team’s Review Process
An Accreditation Visit (AV) was conducted at Menlo College in Atherton,
California from March 21, 2016 through March 24, 2016. The visiting Team evaluated evidence presented by Menlo College to support fulfillment of the expectations and intentions of the Core Commitments, the four Standards for Accreditation, the
Components of the Institutional Report, the Federal Requirements, the remaining issues stemming from the 2009 EER visit cited in the Commission’s action letter dated February
26, 2009 and remaining issues alluded to in the Interim Report Committee letter of January
7, 2013. This report presents the findings of the Accreditation Visit team.
The Accreditation Visit did not include an evaluation of off-campus sites further than
25 miles from the campus, distance education programs, or a special visit to review a new doctoral program as Menlo College does not offer instruction at off-campus sites at a distance
5 greater than 25 miles, deliver programs through distance education, or offer a doctoral program.
C. Institution’s Reaccreditation Report and Update: Quality and Rigor of the Report and Supporting Evidence
Quality and Rigor of the Report and Institutional Evidence
The Institutional Report (IR) was clearly organized and well-written. The report detailed numerous changes through which the College has come since the last reaffirmation of accreditation. As confirmed through interview with the current ALO, the IR was written mainly under her hand with the former ALO and Dean of Business providing consultant support. Involvement of the wider campus in the self-study process, report preparation and commentary included 50 percent of the faculty as well as staff members (IR, page 69). The report featured informative detail in some areas (for instance, detailing the assessment rubrics for Core Competencies) yet lacked the level of specificity, depth and introspective rigor typically associated with an evidence-based self-study. Taken as a whole, the IR characterized the institution accurately as one in transition towards improved student success, greater self- reflection and enhanced curricular focus. Updates received for the Lines of Inquiry addressed most of the important questions posed by the Team, with the exception of a cohesive and meaningful update to the 2008-2013 Strategic Plan.
6
SECTION II – EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ESSAYS
Component 1: Response to previous Commission actions
The Interim Report Committee (IRC) Action Letter of January 7, 2013 focused on seven specific areas: strategic planning, enrollment trends, financial stability, general education, co- curricular initiatives, refreshed major programs, and inconsistencies in the presentation of data related to enrollment and finances.
Strategic Planning: The IRC noted in its letter that “Although the panel would have appreciated receiving more details about the strategic plan in the submission of materials, they commend MC for following through on the major elements of the [2008-2013] strategic plan as the college returns to its roots as a business college.”
Team members were given the March 2014 Update to the Menlo College Strategic Plan
2013-2018 as part of the original submission, but not the 2008-2013 Strategic Plan upon which the 2012 Interim Report to the Commission was based. The 2013-2018 Strategic Plan was developed under the previous president, circulated to the campus community from August to
September, 2013, and approved by the Board of Trustees in October 2013. The plan features six strategic goals, dealing respectively with students, faculty and staff, programs and services, alumni, resource acquisition and usage, and physical/technological infrastructure. The plan is further articulated into objectives/strategies supporting each goal, responsible parties, and accomplishments/status/date of completion or ongoing designation. Qualitative descriptions of accomplishments across many of the stated objectives were given and progress towards implementation was clearly evident. Team members did not find references to data and evidence used in the development of the strategic plan, information on expected or budgeted
7 costs of the objectives/strategies, or metrics by which to judge the success of each objective or strategy. Timelines and milestones were also scarce in the document. Most troubling to the
Team was the lack of prioritization among the goals, and within goals among the objectives/strategies [CFR 4.6].
At the Team’s request, the College provided an update to the strategic plan, Defining the
Future of Menlo College 2015-2020. This document stated five strategic goals (“Five in Five”), articulated initiatives to be undertaken pursuant to each goal, and provided an overview of the metrics being considered. No data to support the draft plan were provided, although a SWOT analysis was later provided to the Team by request. The Team was provided a timeline regarding the new strategic plan that addressed how various constituencies had been involved in the development of the new strategic plan to date, and this was also discussed during the site visit. As with the 2014 strategic plan update, no prioritization among the initiatives proposed was provided. As this new strategic plan is further fleshed out, the Team strongly suggests that the College more broadly involve its constituencies, strategically analyze its position based upon data and evidence, and articulate priorities for action to define the future and direction of the institution [CFR 4.6].
Enrollment Trends: While Team members were apprised of specific enrollment goals in a five- year projection provided, evidence of an enrollment plan to achieve those projected numbers was not apparent; nor were retention rate goals or graduation rate goals given. It is clear from the documentation provided (2009-2014 Enrollment, also student success data on the Menlo
College website) that total enrollment has steadily increased over the past several years.
Information provided on the NCES College Navigator web site notes low overall 6-year
8 graduation rates, but an improvement from 36 percent for the 2006 entering cohort year to 43 percent for the 2008 entering cohort year. In the financial information provided, the College projects adding to its total enrollment by 25 students for each of the next five years, and the IR cites an overall goal of 1000 enrolled students. No information on the data and evidence used to formulate these enrollment projections was provided [CFRs 3.4, 4.6].
Financial Stability: As noted in previous reviews in the IRC Action Letter of January 7, 2013, and as further detailed in the review of Component 7, the financial picture for the College remains a concern. Plans for fundraising were not clarified in the IR, although a new Chief
Advancement Officer recently joined Menlo College and a new development plan was provided to the Team shortly before the Accreditation Visit. A strategy for engaging alumni was included in the development plan, but at the moment this has not been implemented
[CFR 3.4].
General Education: In the January 7, 2013 Action Letter, the IRC panel commended the
College for completely revamping its General Education program through appropriate faculty governance procedures. In addition, the studies engaged in as part of creating the new General Education program resulted in other positive changes such as the creation of a Math Center, the hiring of additional full-time faculty in science, math, and political science, and the creation of remedial English classes for international students taught by an ESL specialist. The Team agreed that the College has clearly taken the Commission’s concerns to heart in regards to general education and amply addressed this concern.
9
Co-curricular Initiatives: The IRC panel offered special commendations for the Freshman
Experience, a program that has gone through several revisions as MC has learned what works best and results in heightened participation. Team members agreed that the recommendation appears to have been well-addressed.
Refreshed major programs: As part of its efforts to become accredited by AACSB, the
College undertook a major study of its signature business programs, a review that resulted in new majors in Accounting, Financing and Marketing. The Interim Report
Committee commended MC for pursuing AACSB accreditation and for the changes already made in business offerings. The recommendation appears to have been addressed.
Inconsistencies in Data: Like the Interim Report Committee, the Team had concerns about the limited presentation of data from the College and its accuracy. For example, no supporting data and evidence were given for either the original strategic plan or the update requested by the Team [CFR 4.2].
Component 2: Compliance with the Standards and federal requirements; Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Standard 1
The Team’s finding, which is subject to Commission review, is that the institution has demonstrated sufficient evidence of compliance with the Standard. The College’s mission statement and stated educational objectives clearly outline the purpose of the institution and its contribution to the public good and align with well-established norms for institutions of higher education [CFRs 1.1, 1.2]. Much work has been done on defining and measuring the core competencies since the last visit. Faculty interviewed by Team members noted the need
10 for more transparency and communication in shared governance, for example in naming of committee members. The College has at this point demonstrated only an emerging sense of shared governance, coupled however with a standing tradition of academic freedoms [CFR
1.3].
The College has a very diverse student body with 52 percent represented by students of color. Diversity amongst faculty and staff has made modest gains since the last visit. Women now constitute the majority (52 percent) of full-time faculty. Asian full-time faculty have increased to 24 percent over the past five years. However, no full-time Hispanic faculty are currently employed despite the College’s sizable population of Hispanic students. Among part-time faculty, modest gains are evident over the past five years in the proportion of
Hispanic, African-American, and Asian faculty employed. The number of women has increased among the part-time faculty and the proportion of full-time women faculty has increased by 6 percentage points over the last five years. The Team agreed that greater clarity in defining roles and responsibilities with regard to increasing the diversity of faculty, staff and students is warranted, and that a faculty hiring plan should be developed to guide further hiring and broadening of diversity [WSCUC diversity policy, CFR 1.4].
Although the educational objectives are clearly stated, there is evidence that all stakeholders do not recognize the objectives and have easy access to them. Moreover, Team members agreed that much further work is needed to enable all College stakeholders to develop and articulate a clear understanding of how course student learning outcomes, programmatic student learning outcomes and institutional student learning outcomes link together to form a cohesive body of knowledge [CFRs 1.1, 1.2]. Further, there is evidence of the
11 need to complete implementation of the institutional self-review recommendations with regard to increasing minimum passing grade requirements on pre-requisite courses and mandating standardized assessment testing as part of specific courses, and to evaluate the impact on student success [CFRs 1.2, 2.6]. The Team agreed that while these are significant concerns, they do not rise to the level of non-compliance.
The Team agreed that progress has been made in the area of student complaints, specifically revising the grading/appeal policies and clearly defining most policies in the student handbook and the academic catalog (IR, July 16, 2015). However clearly defining all student facing policies, and of policy implementation across the board still needs attention
[CFR 1.6].
Standard 2:
The Team’s finding, which is subject to Commission review, is that the institution has demonstrated adequate evidence of compliance with Standard 2. The Team acknowledges the
College’s intensive and successful efforts to achieve AACSB accreditation as a major achievement from a highly rigorous professional accreditor known for some of the most difficult standards in the field. The achievement indicates that the professional accreditor has validated the quality of the program after the institution has spent enormous financial and human resources to achieve this prestigious accreditation. While not neglecting its ongoing commitment to AACSB requirements, the College now needs to turn its attention, focus and sustained commitment to educational effectiveness factors considered important for WSCUC
12 accreditation. In this light, the Team had specific concerns about a number of CFRs included in this standard as detailed below.
The institution offers educational programs that are clearly defined in terms of entrance and graduation requirements, appear to actively involve students in their learning, offers co- curricular programming that supports academic goals of the institution, and offers a variety of student support services; however psychological counseling is currently only informally offered on campus by the associate dean of student affairs who holds a graduate degree in clinical psychology but is not a licensed mental health professional [Institutional Report, p. 47;
CFRs 2.1, 2.5, 2.11, 2.13]. The College recently heard from freshmen students that a professional counselor on campus is needed (Freshmen Focus Group + Survey Report), and during the visit reported plans to hire a professional counselor in the near future. The Team did not find evidence of parity across majors in the opportunities to apply what has been learned; for example, the College expressed that required internships are a signature feature of the institution, but Psychology majors do not have such a requirement [Institutional Report, p.
10; CFR 2.5]. The College does report plans to require an internship of psychology students beginning in the next academic year.
The institution has clearly defined degree requirements, and has developed a statement on the meaning of Menlo College degrees that it is working to evolve [CFR 2.2]. The originally shared Meaning of Menlo College Degrees document focused largely on how the institution addresses the Core Competency requirement within CFR 2.2a, and did not present a coherent philosophy that was clearly expressive of the institution’s mission. Just ahead of the
Accreditation Visit, the College shared a draft of a document called “Meaning, Quality, &
13
Integrity of Degrees: Distinctiveness of a Menlo Degree.” This draft was created by the same committee of faculty and staff (the Meaning of Degrees Taskforce) who drafted the first
Meaning document, incorporating information shared by faculty across the College, and is a good start toward expressing a coherent philosophy, expressive of the College’s mission, that guides the meaning of its degrees. The draft is a work in progress that does not currently connect to the original statement on the meaning of a degree or the identified institutional learning outcomes, something that the Meaning of Degrees Task Force expressed a desire to do, nor is there a clear plan at this point to ensure the quality and integrity of the components shared within the draft.
The Core Competencies, also called Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs), are designed in a way that sets the institution up to be able to make targeted, actionable change.
The Team did not see evidence that the ILOs are widely shared among faculty, students and staff [CFR 2.3, 2.4]. Assessment of the ILOs has begun, and a plan to collect relevant student work each year for each outcome was shared. The Business core curriculum is reported to have been assessed on an annual cycle four times as part of the process of seeking accreditation from AACSB (Institutional Report, p. 21), but was put on hold following the granting of accreditation by AACSB in the spring of 2014 (IEEI) as the resources of the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Research were directed toward ILO assessment.
Assessment of learning outcomes within all degree programs is reported in the IEEI as being planned and in development. The Team did not find evidence of an assessment infrastructure that is adequate to assess learning at the program level, nor did the Team find evidence that faculty capacity to engage in such assessment is being developed, beyond a planned fall 2016
14 workshop on creating learning outcomes [CFR 2.6]. The Faculty Handbook and the Dossier
Requirements Document clearly define expectations for teaching, research, scholarship and creative activity for faculty, but do not recognize assessment of student learning in considerations of teaching effectiveness or promotion [CFRs 2.8, 2.9]. By not placing value on assessment of learning in the processes by which faculty are evaluated or promoted, the institution has created an impediment to the development of a culture of evidence around student learning.
Graduation rates are low. The institution does not give evidence of sustained disaggregation of student success data (Institutional Report, p. 50). While members of the
Center for Academic and Student Success team and other stakeholders have been involved in discussions on retention and graduation improvement, no fully-developed, evidence-based written action plans to address retention and graduation improvement were in evidence to the
Team [CFR 2.10].
The institution collects satisfaction survey data, but does not report extensive or timely use of the data; for example NSSE 2015 data, held by the Associate Director of Accreditation,
Assessment and Institutional Research, will not be examined by the Associate Director until this coming summer, which will be nearly a year since receiving the data. The College has established a plan to better understand and improve academic advising [CFR 2.12]. The Menlo
College Advising Program Assessment Plan is well-thought out and provided a level of detail that gave the Team a clear understanding of the initiative. The College adopted a new program review process in December, 2015 and began to implement it with one program this spring semester. The review process needs further adaptation to best function within the
15 structure of Menlo College, which the Dean of Academic and Professional Success noted will happen as they learn from programs moving through it. The new program review process and the results of the assessment of advising may help to improve graduation rates, especially those of transfer students [CFRs 2.7, 2.12, 2.14].
Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators (IEEI):
The institution provided sufficient detail about existing assessment processes for the
Institutional Learning Outcomes (which are the five WSCUC Core Competencies), general education, and the business core curriculum. Assessment within all degree programs was reported as planned and in development. During the visit the Team found that the Psychology program was engaging in assessment of student learning outcomes, but that faculty in other programs reported that they did not yet have program learning outcomes outside of the business core. This contradicted the IEEI, which indicated that programs did have outcomes, and the Academic Catalog, which includes links to program outcomes for each program.
Faculty reported that the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional
Research is responsible for all stages of assessment, including collecting student work, arranging for it to be scored with rubrics, and reporting data back to faculty. The Associate
Director reported that program assessment activity had not yet begun because of demands for
AACSB accreditation followed by demands for WSCUC accreditation. A timeline for beginning the work of program assessment was not shared with the Team; however it was noted by the Associate Director that she will begin assessment for a program at the time they enter the new program review process, sometime in the next five years. The Team suggests that faculty be made responsible for program assessment, and that this work begin right away.
16
Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure
Quality and Sustainability
The Team’s finding, which is subject to Commission review, is that the institution has demonstrated adequate evidence of compliance with Standard 3. Among the CFRs included in Standard 3, financial sustainability is a crucial success factor for Menlo College to meet along with most specialized programs in the region and nation. In the Institution’s favor it has at present no debt, a $30 million endowment, and very valuable property with 40 acres of land worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the nation’s most expensive median housing market
($4 million median price for a home.) However, given the budget deficits of the past three years and the pro forma budget provided to the Team, the institution needs to develop a 5- year projected budget that is more realistic based on these assets and on the fundraising potential inherent in the College’s wealthy alumni donor base. In this light, the Team had specific concerns regarding several CFRs included in this standard as detailed below.
In the required document “Review under WSCUC Standards” submitted by the College,
CFR 3.4 (concerning financial stability) was rated through self-review as “1 = We do this well; area of strength for us.” And regarding the level of “importance to address at this time,” the
College rated CFR 3.4 as “C=Low priority.” The Team found much evidence to the contrary. In this section, we review the extent to which the College has met this standard, with primary focus on faculty development, financial stability, and organizational governance.
The College is constantly involved in faculty development. There is both internal and external faculty development. In reviewing source and use of faculty development budget, however, it was noted that for the 2014-15 school year, only 58 percent of the faculty
17 development budget was utilized ($47,713 of $82,500). Of the amount utilized, most was spent on faculty travel and conventions. In the interview with Provost Givens, Team members were informed that the low utilization for faculty development for 2014-15 was an anomaly due to a
“leadership void.” Since Provost Givens arrived in July 2015, a Faculty Development Plan has been developed and implemented. The plan extends beyond travel and conventions to include reimbursable research expenses, a variant to past restrictions on these funds. Faculty members interviewed indicated that they were not aware of this plan.
In addition to travel and conventions, resources are also devoted to internal faculty development (including adjuncts and part-time faculty). A fairly recent hire, Marianne
Neuwirth, Director of Oral Communication, reportedly spends approximately 20 percent of her time on internal faculty development. Programs include coaching faculty on professional presentations, conducting focus groups, and conflict resolution. The Faculty Development
Plan 2016-17 includes a variety of workshops: faculty orientation, preparing and delivering lectures, and Integrating Liberal Arts with Business. The Team commends the College for being intentional in encouraging professional development activities for all faculty members as a matter of high priority. Every effort should be made to involve the faculty in the development of the plan as well as effectively communicate the plan to faculty and staff.
Faculty and staff should also be allowed discretion in how funds can be used [CFRs 3.1, 3.3].
The Review under WSCUC Standards documents that “Menlo College has well-developed strategic planning and budgeting processes to align resources with academic and other priorities.” The Team found this to be an aspirational achievement rather than a statement of fact.
18
The Team believes there needs to be resolution of questions pertaining financial stability and operational deficits. The College has had decreases in net assets from financial operating activities (operating deficits) for the past three fiscal years (-$1.51m in 2013, -$2.29m in 2014, and -$2.82m in 2015). It is projecting operating deficits for the current fiscal year (2015-
16) and for the next five years. If materialized, the accumulated deficit over the next five years will be in excess of $10m.
The 5-Year Financial Projection has various assumptions about revenue and expenditure that were not clearly substantiated to the team. There was no evidence that the financial plan was explicitly linked to a strategic plan. No schedule substantiating the veracity of the assumptions were presented to the Team before or during the onsite visit. For example, tuition and fees are projected to rise by 32 percent ($29m to $38m) over the five-year period, through a combination of tuition increase and enrollment growth. However, the College does not yet have a strategic enrollment plan. A comprehensive enrollment plan that is linked to the overall strategic plan should be developed and implemented as a matter of priority.
The IR suggests that President Moran is committed to fundraising and marketing. This was confirmed in an interview with the president. While this level of engagement by the president is admirable, it can prove to be an administrative burden that cannot be sustained as a strategy for the long term. The Team recommends that a development plan and a marketing/branding that link to the overall strategic plan be initiated and implemented without delay.
The declining trend in operating deficits is of concern to the Team. With persistent operating deficits, alternatives become few: cost containment, fundraising, debt financing, or
19 raiding non-core funds (endowment). The Team recommends that the college devise a plan to stem the deficit operations that include a board of trustees’ policy against approving deficit budgets. It also needs to demonstrate how the budget is linked to strategic plan [CFRs 1.7, 1.8,
1.9, 3.4, 3.5, 3.10, 4.2, 4.6, 4.7].
Menlo College’s leadership team is fairly new to the institution. The organizational chart illustrates established clear roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority as required by accreditation standards. The Team was, however, concerned that the EVP for Finance and
Administration appears to have a varied portfolio of responsibilities which includes non- traditional functions like athletics, enrollment management, and marketing. The Team was also concerned that the governance structure for faculty leadership does not include department heads. In both cases, the institution is at risk for not having key leadership predisposed to performing at the highest level possible due to excessive responsibilities. This observation is even more critical as the institution’s goal is set on rapid enrollment growth.
The Team recommends that the college makes it a strategic priority to review its organizational structure to make it more consistent with its purposes, placing place priority on sustaining institutional capacity and educational effectiveness [CFRs 3.6, 3.7].
The governing board of the College is comprised of individuals with diverse qualifications including age, professional background, and areas of expertise (Board of Trustees
Matrix). However, diversity by race, ethnicity and gender is not characteristic of the Menlo
College Board of Trustees at the moment. Of the 19 trustees currently featured on the Menlo
College web site, 16 are white men and 3 are white women. The Team was not presented with any evidence that the Board regularly engages in self-review and training. The Board of Trustees
20
Development & Operations does call for orientation of new members as well as ongoing assessment. The College should work with the Board membership to provide orientation for new members, ongoing assessment, and regular Board development [CFR 3.9].
Standard 4
The Team’s finding, which is subject to Commission review, is that the institution has demonstrated adequate evidence of compliance with Standard 4. However the Team had several noteworthy concerns, as detailed below.
The Team found evidence of curriculum analysis as part of the realignment of programs for AACSB accreditation. The IR states that the analysis undertaken for the AACSB application “effectively acted as an extended program review of the business degrees” (p.52), however Team members did not find evidence to support that an outcomes-based program review process has hitherto been in place, or that assessment processes at the program level have been undertaken at the College in any context outside of preparation for AACSB accreditation. Benchmarking information and use of comparative data from external sources as part of a deliberate quality assurance system were not available. Evidence of tracking learning results was also not available. Although highly aggregated trend data for year-over- year retention and graduation rates are published, no evidence of disaggregation of those data by relevant demographic and other factors was presented. Overall, it is evident that the
College is at the very beginning stages of developing a deliberate quality assurance system
[CFR 4.1].
The January 7, 2013 IRC Action Letter took note of data inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data provided as part of the Interim Report. While required student success data is
21 posted on the College’s website as required, and IPEDS submissions appear to be up to date,
Team members generally experienced difficulties in finding data to back up the progress reported in the 2013-2018 strategic plan update; to provide support for the reported program- level assessment processes in the IEEI (apart from assessment of core competencies and survey research data such as Noel-Levitz survey results); and to enable the campus to achieve an in- depth understanding of disaggregated student retention and success data. Line items for an institutional research (IR) position and professional development of the IR staff person were presented, however no evidence was available that periodic external review of the IR function had taken place. The Team recommends that the College undertake a comprehensive external review of the IR function [CFR 4.2].
The Team found that the College is at the beginning stages of creating a culture of assessment and improvement. The progress that has been made to date is largely due to the mandates of AACSB criteria rather than attention to the broader Educational Effectiveness requirements of WSCUC. Apart from a new manual on academic program review, the Team did not find policies and practices in place and operations that support the creation of a culture of evidence and improvement [CFR 4.3].
The College’s self-review under the WSCUC standards pointed out several instances of how external stakeholders are involved in the assessment and alignment of its programs, including the School of Business Advisory Board, the Accounting Advisory board, and the
Marketing Advisory Board. Alumni surveys have been undertaken every six years, but from the results these surveys appear to function as an address update mechanism rather than a true indirect assessment of student learning at and satisfaction with the institution. A new
22 system of outcomes-based program review was adopted in December 2015 and one program has recently begun review under the new process, but as yet no outcomes-based reviews have been completed. A notable bright spot in the involvement of external constituencies is the nascent feedback system from employers for students doing their internships. The Team encourages Menlo College to utilize this employer feedback in a systematic manner, to relate it to student learning outcomes, and to use the results for improvements in programs and services at the College [CFR 4.5].
The existence of planning processes and implementation of plans are both demonstrated by the completion of initiatives undertaken to fulfill the goals of the 2008-2013 strategic plan, and are detailed in the 2012 Interim Report.
The College repeatedly states its intention to remain a small, focused undergraduate institution that delivers primarily business programs in a traditional campus-based format.
Team members reviewed the extremely competitive environment in which the College exists as well as external trends towards fewer scholarships for foreign nationals enrolling at US institution, and urge the College to conduct a much more comprehensive analysis of the external and competitive environment, as well as the rapidly evolving changes taking place in higher education, for potential impact on the College’s ability to maintain its mission and goals
[CFR 4.7].
This review under the standards represents the Team consensus view, however final determination of compliance with the Standards rests with the Commission.
Component 3: Degree Programs: Meaning, quality and integrity of the degrees
23
The updated Strategic Plan offers an opportunity to further define what makes Menlo
College degree programs distinctive, and to design experiences, competencies and dispositions are unique to an education at Menlo College. While the foundation of some of these distinctions can be found in Menlo College’s history, location and curriculum, the Team observed little consistency in the way in which this was communicated.
The Institutional Report noted that shared experiences for all Menlo students include a
Freshman Year Experience, comprised of Orientation and three courses: STS 100: Transition to
College course, MGT 101: Business Management Practice, and STS 150: Personal Finance for
College. In their senior year all Menlo College students have a culminating experience in the form of a capstone course or thesis. The Institutional Report noted that an additional competency associated with “an understanding and appreciation of diversity issues in the
US” is addressed through mandatory enrollment in one of four diversity courses.
An internship is required for all Business majors, and Menlo College has defined other learning outcomes for these experiences. A review of two internship syllabi revealed very different approaches to the structure of internships, and this is an area that Menlo might revisit to insure consistent and purposeful internship experiences for all students [CFR 2.3].
In the Institutional Report, discussion of the Psychology major curriculum and learning outcomes followed the substantial section for Business majors. The Psychology curriculum follows APA guidelines for content, including a knowledge base in psychology, scientific inquiry & critical thinking, ethical & social responsibility in a diverse world, communication, and professional development. The Psychology curriculum is also mapped
24 against the five APA-recommended content areas. Internships are not yet required for
Psychology majors, though the college is moving towards implementing this requirement now that the Business internship program is established. Overall, the Team has questions regarding parity and the quality of experience for students studying psychology at Menlo College, as the focus appears to be primarily on Business majors. However, it was clear from discussions at the site visit that the Psychology major was valued, but under-resourced with just one full time faculty member assigned. There is one additional full time faculty line that has gone unfilled due to a failed search last year. With just 10 percent of the students, the Psychology major was not viewed as “equal” but important nonetheless [CFR 2.1].
The “Meaning of Menlo College Degrees” was explored through two separate documents shared with the team. The first document, dated March 2015, offered a systematic examination of the degree programs and how courses and learning outcomes are aligned to the ILOs. However, the first document offered a very limited and constrained view of the
Meaning, Quality and Integrity of the Degree (MQID) at Menlo College because the narrative revealed little about how the institution articulates the value and distinction of their degree.
Instead, this document was focused on Institutional and Program Learning Outcomes, and how they are taught. Following feedback from the Off-Site Review, the Meaning of Degrees
Taskforce worked with faculty over the last six months to develop a qualitative data set and summary that reflects a more authentic view of a Menlo education; this document was presented to the Team during the Accreditation Visit. Characteristics include experiential learning, community service, the development of pedagogical tools for inquiry and analysis, internships, and the value placed on fostering a sense of competitiveness and teamwork. The
25
2016 MQID document is not complete, but is well on its way to being developed as a clear document that will engage faculty, students and staff in fostering a meaningful and authentic learning environment at Menlo College. The Team recommends the College continue to develop this statement [CFRs 2.2, 2.2a].
The College has made some progress in establishing a plan to ensure the quality and integrity of the degree, but a great deal more needs to be done. Learning outcomes appear on course syllabi, but faculty and staff are aware that more needs to be done to help students understand all outcomes. It was not apparent to the Team how learning outcomes are discussed by faculty or students or systematically evaluated [CFRs 2.4, 2.6. 4.1].
Component 4: Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of
Performance at Graduation
The institution has developed a set of Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) that consist of the five Core Competencies broken down into component elements. By defining the component elements for each Competency, the institution has set itself up for actionable assessment. This is most clearly seen in the assessment of the written and oral communication
ILOs. By examining how well students demonstrated each ILO through the application of rubrics to student work, the Core Competencies Committee was able to make a number of recommendations for action, which were reported as taken in the 2014-2015 academic year
(Assessment Reports and Template-Tabbed by Competency). For example, for written communication the passing grade for ENG 102, a key prerequisite course, was raised from D- to C-. Additionally, the scoring rubric was reported as being made available to faculty, who
26 were asked to share it with students. These changes have potential to make a positive impact on student learning across the institution [CFRs 2.2a, 2.6].
Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning was undertaken, but Psychology students were not included in the process. This methodology makes it difficult to see how the results apply to all students. Steps have been taken toward assessment of the remaining two required Core
Competencies, including developing a rubric for critical thinking and providing library instruction sections with a quiz for information literacy. The Institutional Report notes that the
ILOs will be assessed annually for three years, and then will be assessed on a rotational basis
(p. 31). The assessment reported to-date does not follow this schedule, nor does it appear to currently follow the Menlo College Outcomes Assessment Plan: 2015-2020 (which indicated that all five ILOs will be assessed this academic year) making it unclear what the schedule for assessment of the ILOs will be. [CFRs 2.2a, 2.6].
A great deal of survey data is reported by the institution, including the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), EBI Undergraduate Business Exit Assessment, and the Noel-
Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory, but data are not consistently incorporated into understanding student learning and the environment that supports that learning when it comes to the ILOs. For example in the Institutional Report, NSSE data are included in the discussion of assessment data for each core competency, but NSSE data are not incorporated in the Assessment Reports spreadsheet. The Core Competencies Committee was not fully aware that NSSE contained data that might inform their understanding of ILO achievement. The
Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Research reported that the
NSSE data from 2015 is available in her office, that she plans to review those data this coming
27 summer, and that she will share those data with appropriate groups in fall 2016. The Team did not find evidence that survey data is utilized appropriately or sufficiently for ILO assessment
[CFRs 4.1, 4.2].
Engagement with ILO assessment, including responsibility for establishing appropriate standards of performance for achievement and engaging in using the results of inquiry to improve, is not widespread at the institution. The ILOs came from a committee, assessment of the ILOs is conducted by the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional
Research, and findings are reported to the Core Competencies Committee. The Institutional
Report notes that about half the faculty have been involved with learning outcomes or their assessment through the makeup of three committees, the Core Competencies Committee, the
Assurance of Learning Committee and the Meaning of Degrees Task Force (p. 38). While engaging half of the faculty in these three major initiatives is admirable, it implies that only a small number are involved in each initiative. The Team found that the important work of using evidence to understand and improve learning as it relates to the ILOs is not happening outside of the Core Competencies Committee [CFRs 2.4, 4.3, 4.4].
Component 5: Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation
Menlo College has well developed academic support, advising and career services resources. The Math Center, a well-staffed Writing Center and part-time oral communication specialist provide support to Menlo students. In addition, an Academic Support Center provides tutoring, disability services and other academic support needs. In 2015, these services
28 were brought together to create the Center for Academic and Professional Success (CAPS) to provide more cohesive and streamlined support services to students [CFR 2.13].
Retention and graduation rates have improved overall since the 2008 WASC visit. The fall to spring semester retention rate for the fall 2008 cohort was 86 percent; for the fall 2014 cohort, the retention rate was 92.8 percent. The six-year graduation rate for the 2002 cohort was 32 percent; for the 2009 cohort, it was 38 percent. However, six year graduation rates are still low, and there seems to be little understanding of why students leave Menlo College. It was not possible to discern patterns or trends based on race or ethnicity based on the two cohort years provided (2008, 2009), except for the fact that enrollments for some groups is very small. For example, in the 2008 cohort there were five Black students and three graduated; for
2009, there were again five Black students and one graduated. While enrollments by under- represented minorities may be small, it may be worthwhile to gather qualitative data in the form of exit interviews or open-ended survey questions instead of focusing on the statistical significance of a small sample.
There is no explanation offered for why more than half of Menlo College students leave before completing a degree. Menlo College does not have a process for collecting or analyzing student data across commonly tracked groups, such as financial need or Pell eligibility, first generation college status, on/off campus residential status, or home state/country. Sometimes it appears these data were collected but not analyzed in context of student attrition. Though there was a good amount of anecdotal evidence (e.g., lack of financial resources, Menlo is too small, or the desired major is not offered), there does not appear to be systematic analysis of
29 student data related to attrition [CFRs 2.10, 4.3]. The Team learned at the onsite visit that the college is initiating an exit interview/survey process soon to begin collecting this information.
While Menlo College has robust academic support and student services in CAPS, the lack of consistent institutional data collection and analysis across key student indicators is a serious impediment to a long term retention and graduation plan [CFRs 2.10; 4.1].
The Student Affairs, student engagement and residential components are well developed and reflect conventional standards for small colleges. It would be important to integrate co-curricular programs and student services in the annual program review process.
Student Affairs was last reviewed in 2011, though an extensive self-study was completed in
2014. Recent Student Affairs surveys on orientation, residential life, and student engagement are informing the work of the staff and offering insight on student needs and expectations. In
2016-17, the office of Student Affairs will be hiring a counselor to provide mental health services on campus [CFR 2.1].
Component 6: Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program Review; Assessment; Use of
Data and Evidence
From the evidence examined, the Team found that Menlo College is in the early stages of developing a culture of evidence and improvement. The program review process is new, and depends on the use of evidence, including assessment evidence, to make decisions about the future direction of the program. The first program, Management, has begun the process of review during the current semester [CFR 2.7]. Program assessment is noted as planned and in
30 development for all degree programs (IEEI), and it was reported during the visit that program assessment will be conducted for each program as they enter program review [CFR 2.6].
A great number of student surveys are conducted on the campus, such as the Noel-
Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory and the NSSE. Survey data appear to be utilized in understanding some academic components of the institution, such as satisfaction with the library (Institutional Report, p. 47), but such use appears to be limited. The recently hired Dean of Student Affairs has administered a number of surveys related to residential life, orientation and student engagement and is using these to modify practices [CFR 2.11].
In the past, the institutional research function was primarily fulfilled by the Dean of
Business and Academic Affairs with support from a Coordinator for Institutional Research.
When the Dean left the College two years ago, the Coordinator for Institutional Research was made the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Research. The
Dean position remains vacant. The Associate Director provides some institutional research functions, but the institutional research function needs further development in order to be able to appropriately provide analysis and interpretation of data that will help the institution fulfill its accreditation, planning and decision-making functions. It will be important for each of the areas described in Component 6 to continue to grow and develop as they are essential for the institution to improve retention and graduation rates. [CFRs 2.4, 2.7, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5]
Program Review
In the Institutional Report it was noted that the faculty had developed a new program review process. The process presented noted that an earlier version had been “approved by the Faculty Senate on September 27, 2007” (p. 52). There was no explanation for how the
31 version shared, dated April 13, 2015, was developed, who had been involved in the development or who had decided upon this process (e.g., Faculty Senate, Academic Dean).
The Institutional Report does note that “the new plan uses the same procedures approved by the Faculty Senate in 2008” (p. 52).
The program review document provided a basic overview of steps for three required elements, including a self-study, a five-year plan and the report of a single external reviewer.
The self-study was largely to consist of the presentation of data that, while not specified, it is assumed the program would receive from institutional research, and a plan for future assessment of student outcomes. The Team was not clear on how the data each program was to present in the self-study would assist the program with making an evidence-based, five- year plan. A timeline for five programs to move through the one-year process of review was provided (Institutional Report, p. 53), with no indication of a plan to review general education, the Professional Studies Program, or Student Affairs (which the Institutional Report noted had gone through the previous process in 2011-2012, p. 52). No committee or office was charged with responsibility for implementing or managing the program review process. The Team had concerns that this process of program review would be limited in its ability to support programs with continuous improvement or evidence-based resource alignment unless a more comprehensive and well-managed plan was developed [CFRs 2.7, 2.11, 4.1].
Upon request for additional documentation, the institution provided a completely new program review process. This process was dated December, 2015 and noted as version 1.0. The process is closely based on the one developed by John F. Kennedy University, which is noted in a footnote on page 3; however Menlo College has not yet adapted the document for its own
32 environment. This process is extensive, highly detailed, and was clearly designed to achieve the goals of continuous improvement, and evidence based resource alignment. That said, the process does not include an audit of credit hour policy compliance, which is specified by the
Menlo College Credit Hour and Program Length Policies and Review Process Guidelines document. The December program review document specifies that the Program Review
Council, in coordination with the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, will implement the program review process as well as outcomes-based learning assessment. No explanation was provided to the Team of the process by which the April 2015 program review document was replaced with the December 2015 version. The five year schedule of one program at a time moving through review will be followed, with the Management Program recently beginning review, just a semester behind schedule (Institutional Report, p. 53).
Team members agreed that the program review processes are at a beginning stage
[CFRs 2.7, 2.10, 2.11, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5].
Assessment of Student Learning
The College reports having been engaged in assessment of student learning since 2008.
Early efforts included examination of written and oral communication, critical thinking and mathematics within the General Education program (Institutional Report, p. 53). In 2010 assessment efforts were largely focused on seeking accreditation by AACSB. In preparation for
AACSB, learning outcomes were established for the business core curriculum [CFR 2.4]. These outcomes were assessed following an annual cycle that utilized a combination of direct and indirect evidence of learning. The process led to a number of meaningful changes for improvement of the business core curriculum. For example, the addition of an applied
33 statistics project, requiring use of descriptive statistics, estimation, and hypothesis testing, was added to MTH 251 in order to further emphasize practice and interpretation (AACSB Self-
Evaluation Report spreadsheet, Statistics Knowledge). However, the IEEI reports business core curriculum assessment activity from 2011 to 2013, and the AACSB Self-Evaluation Report spreadsheet only reports assessment processes through the spring of 2013. During the visit it was reported to the Team that assessment of the business core curriculum has been on hold since the granting of accreditation by AACSB in the spring 2014 semester so that resources could be devoted to the assessment of ILOs in preparation for reaccreditation by WSCUC [CFR
2.6].
The institution described plans to assess the internship program that was launched in
2014 for business students (Institutional Report, p. 55). The psychology program is engaged in assessment of its learning outcomes, but other programs have not begun program learning outcomes assessment. It was noted that the Associate Director of Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Research will begin assessment activities for each program when the program enters program review under the new process [CFRs 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 4.3, 4.4].
In the Institutional Report the College raised the challenges to assessment that it is working to overcome. One of these challenges is that “faculty rightfully object that too much time is or could be devoted to assessment at the expense of instruction” (Institutional Report, p. 56). The partial solution that the institution proposes is the use of existing course assignments. The phrasing of the challenge and solution imply that the institution approaches assessment as an activity that is separate from the teaching and learning processes. Further illustration of this separation was found in faculty interviews, during which faculty reported
34 that, with rare exception, faculty outside of assigned committees are not asked to engage in the process of learning outcomes assessment and responsibility for conducting assessment rests primarily with Institutional Research. Including all faculty in the assessment process will create a more sustainable process that fosters a culture of evidence [CFRs 2.4, 4.3, 4.4].
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial Viability, Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment
In concluding the IR, it is stated that “Menlo College feels it is well positioned to grow and be a recognized leader as a private, residential business-focused college located in the heart of Silicon Valley.” Such aspiration is inextricably hinged on the College being a financially viable concern. As was alluded to earlier in this report, the College continues to be fiscally challenged, ending each of the last three fiscal years with operating deficits. And, the challenges are likely to persist into the intermediate future, as evidenced by a five-year plan that projects deficits for the next five years. Without positive and improving indicators, the likelihood of the College achieving its strategic goals is effectively stymied. Fiscal exigency will always preempt strategic opportunities as the College deals with substantial and growing deferred maintenance.
Menlo College unfortunately fits the profile of small colleges with regards to its financial profile: high cost of attendance ($58,000), low enrollment (768), very high discount rates (48 percent), lack-luster philanthropic support ($1,325 per student), small endowments
($30m), and razor-thin or negative operating margins (-12percent). These small colleges seem unable to stave off the technological, demographic, and economic forces that come to bear on its resources each year.
35
One significant and positive attribute of the college is its non-reliance on debt financing for capital acquisitions or to leverage operations. This presents a significant opportunity for the College if it should ever choose to diversify its capital structure. The College is to be commended for not pursuing debt financing considering that they would have difficulty servicing debt.
To inform its determination of financial viability of Menlo, the Team reviewed the following documents: Menlo College’s Institutional Report, audited financial statements, five- year financial projections, enrollment statistics, the strategic plan, and minutes of the Board of
Trustees’ Audit & Budget Committee. In addition, interviews were conducted with Mr. Steven
Weiner (EVP for Financial Administration), Dr. Richard Moran (President), Dr. Terri Givens
(Provost), the Enrollment Management Team, select Business Office Team members, and Ms.
Jessica Ayres (Director of Financial Aid).
In its institutional report, Menlo pivoted on positive cash flow from operations as the key indicator of financial stability and sustainability (p.59). The IR states that “Since 2008, the college has improved its financial situation and has operated in a positive cash flow position”
(p.68). In a meeting with the Board of Trustees, they too seem resolved to only monitoring cash flow as a matter of expediency until such time that non-cash items like depreciation can be
“funded.” The Team believes that while positive cash flow from operations is certainly a positive financial indicator for any organization, it can lull the institution into losing sight of a more comprehensive picture. For example, positive cash could be the result of investment returns or an increase in liabilities, and not necessarily the result of fiscal prudence. And, for the past two fiscal years, receivables constituted 66 percent of total current assets. Thus, a more
36 inclusive financial risk assessment should include other indicators of viability, returns, and reserve, as recommended by NACUBO and the US Department of Education.
Menlo College has two significant concentrations of risk that could further threaten its financial viability: 1) student revenue dependency, and 2) low philanthropic support from a broad base of donors. Student revenue dependency hovers around 90 percent at Menlo. “For the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, one donor accounted for 100 percent of contributions receivable” (Financial Statements, p.23). Financial sustainability requires that Menlo seek to further diversify its revenue sources. Also, Menlo must intentionally seek broader philanthropic support from alumni, trustees, faculty and staff, as well as friends of the College.
Menlo included a five-year pro forma of its financial operations in its institutional report. Various members of the College’s administration were interviewed by the Team regarding the assumptions used to derive the future financial state of the institution. Based on the evidence only, the Team concluded the assumptions were not informed or supported by empirical data nor were they the result of strategic deliberations. For example, there is no strategic enrollment plan or advancement plan that correlates to the overall strategic plan or the strategic budget. In most cases, the assumptions appear to be aspirational. The Team found no evidence to support the assumptions of the five-year financial projection.
The five-year financial projection also suggests negative financial operating results for each year, following three years of actual negative results. Again, Menlo is focused on positive cash flow derived through elimination of depreciation expenses. Such calculation is commonly acknowledged as a rudimentary estimation of cash flow and not an operating strategy.
Further, best practice would suggest acknowledging prior years’ deficits in budgeting for
37 ensuing years as a strategy to curtailing operating losses. Menlo has chosen not to employ such practice. It is recommended that Menlo embrace the strategy of acknowledging all operating costs in its budget and employ a strategy of approving only balanced budgets.
Component 8: Optional Essay on Institutional Specific Themes
Not applicable – The College included no optional essay.
Component 9: Reflection and Plans for Improvement
Component 9 was addressed in the Institutional Report under four subheadings: (1) Menlo
College since 2008: Key Strengths, (2) Reflections on the Self-Review Process, (3) Next Steps for
Menlo College, and (4) Conclusion. The first section, Key Strengths, detailed positive changes since the last WSCUC EER review in 2008: a focused set of academic programs relevant to the mission, enrollment growth, AACSB accreditation of the College’s business programs, and strategic planning efforts. Team members had been given the 2014 update to the 2013-2018
Strategic Plan along with the original submission of the IR. Upon request following the OSR, the College provided a draft outline of a new Strategic Plan taking shape since President
Moran’s arrival, Defining the Future of Menlo College: 2015-2020. The Team was subsequently provided with two documents describing the planning process, Menlo College Strategic
Planning Process 2015-2016 and Menlo College SWOT Analysis, March 2016. These last two documents served somewhat to address Team concerns around the involvement of campus and other constituencies in the planning process, the College’s awareness of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, the level of detail to be provided in the plan, and the time frame for the development of the plan.
38
While appreciating the provision of more specific planning process documentation,
Team members were unable to discern a basic orientation at the College towards using evidence and data as the basis for planning. The 2014 update to the 2013-2018 Strategic Plan described numerous actions and accomplishments, and provided qualitative evidence that the plan was being implemented. The planning update had few budgetary estimates attached to the objectives and strategies put forward, and concentrated mostly on accomplishments.
Prioritization among the goals and within goals among objectives/strategies was largely absent, as were detailed timelines. Underlying evidence and data serving as a rationale for a particular course of action were not found, nor was a consistent use of baseline measurements, benchmarks, quantitative metrics, or measurable goals, for example decreasing the tuition discount rate from 48 percent to 30 percent. Defining the Future of Menlo College: 2015-2020 articulated five broad strategic goals, with a bulleted list of initiatives and key metrics outlined for each. Specific data and/or evidence used to formulate the goals and initiatives (for example, enrollment projections) were not included. The Menlo College SWOT Analysis, March
2016 cited a number of repeated themes, such as “Many entering students are underprepared for the rigors of work here,” yet the propositions advanced were again not supported by underlying data and evidence. While applauding the growing institutional orientation towards strategic planning, the Team recommends that Menlo College engage in institutional reflection and planning processes that are based on the examination of data and evidence [CFR
4.6].
Reflections on the Self-Review process were provided, chiefly concentrated on detailing increased faculty involvement in assessment. The IR notes that about 50 percent of the faculty
39 were engaged in relevant committees during the self-review (IR p.69), yet this means that of 29 total full-time faculty, only 15 would have been involved. Team members had difficulty regarding that level of involvement as indicative of a faculty-driven review process, and wondered why involvement of the faculty had not been more broad-based. The IR also discussed the activities of the Core Competencies Committee to create appropriate learning outcomes and assess them. Of the WSCUC Core Competencies, written communication, oral communication, and quantitative reasoning are the only ones that have been assessed at this point. According to members of the Core Competencies Committee, assessment of critical thinking and information literacy has begun during the current academic year. Separately, a faculty task force identified institutional and programmatic learning outcomes as part of the
Institution’s efforts to better define the meaning, quality and integrity of the degrees at the
College.
Component 9 also included a section on “Next Steps for Menlo College.” In this section, the IR speaks to furthering the assessment of Core Competencies and participation in the
Assessment Leadership Academy, activities conducive to the future development of a culture of assessment at the College. The hiring of an almost completely new leadership Team and the expansion of the Board of Trustees are noted in the section on new leadership and strategic initiatives, and a development plan for the Board of Trustees was created and provided to the
Team upon request. Not discussed in the IR but noteworthy to the Team is that neither the majority of the institutional leadership team nor new members of the expanded Board of
Trustees have been in place at the College for a sufficient length of time to be able to demonstrate their functioning as high-performing teams. Visiting Team members agreed that
40 the success of these changes has not yet been fully established or sustained [CFRs 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,
3.9].
A section on financial sustainability rounds out the discussion of next steps. The hiring of a new Chief Advancement Officer, the creation of an advancement plan, expanding traditional enrollment, and expanding adult education opportunities are mentioned in that plan. At the Team’s request, a strategic plan for institutional advancement was supplied, yet
Team members were somewhat surprised to see that the advancement plan envisions up to eight new FTE positions and wondered about the sustainability and potential for return on investment of such a plan [CFR 3.4].
Conclusion: Team members regarded the concluding section of Component 7, the
“future evolution of Menlo College” (IR, pages 65-66) as providing a good framework for understanding the future evolution of the College as a “recognized leader as a private, residential business-focused college located in the heart of Silicon Valley” (IR page 65), including leveraging the location advantage of the College, distinguishing the College’s programs through the mandatory internship program, and retaining the inviting small-college atmosphere characterized by high faculty-student interaction.
SECTION III – OTHER TOPICS (such as Substantive Change)
Not applicable.
SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Holistically evaluating the capacity of the College for self-reflection in the context of the many challenges and changes through which it has come since the last reaffirmation of accreditation,
41 the Team view is that the Institutional Report and the process that led to its creation taxed the capacity of the College very nearly to its limits and that the process has already led to a number of positive outcomes.
Commendations
The Team commends the College on its progress since the last WSCUC report.
The Team commends the faculty and staff for taking the bold step of investing in the
AACSB accreditation process.
The Team commends the College for the highest enrollment in its history at 768
students for the 2015-2016 academic year.
The Team commends the College for its impressive Center for Academic and
Professional Success. This center brings academic and support services together in a
way that is a collaborative, integrated blend of student and support services that has
potential to impact retention and student success.
The Team commends Menlo College for integrating required internships as part each
student’s college experience. Once it is implemented across all programs it has the
potential to become a signature program and significant differentiator.
The Team commends the College for its steady increase in incoming student quality, as
evidenced by incoming GPA and standardized test scores.
Recommendations
The College has had three years of financial operating deficits and projects five more
years of operating deficits. The Team recommends that the College develop and
implement a realistic plan for eliminating deficits [CFR 3.4].
42
The Team recommends that the College continue the development and implementation
of the strategic plan. The process should include all stakeholders, be based on data and
evidence, and be socialized throughout the greater community in a timely manner; in
addition:
a. The Team recommends that the College develop and implement a detailed
enrollment plan that aligns with the overall Strategic Plan and the financial forecast
of the Organization; and
b. The Team recommends that the College develop and implement a detailed
development plan that aligns with the overall Strategic Plan and the financial
forecast of the Organization; and
c. The Team recommends that the College develop and implement a comprehensive
branding and marketing plan that draws upon the many differentiating strengths
of Menlo College, and leverages talent available on campus and through Board
leadership [CFRs 4.6, 3.4].
d. The Team recommends that institutional budgets reflect allocation of resources
towards strategic priorities that generate sustainable outcomes [CFR 3.4].
The Team applauds the recent progress on the Meaning of a Menlo College Degree
statement, however the Team recommends that the College engage in continued
development of this statement and in work towards understanding how the College
ensures the Quality and the Integrity of the degree [CFRs 2.2, 2.2a].
43
Assessment is at a nascent stage at the College. Programs have learning outcomes and
those PLOs are included in the 2015-2016 Academic Catalog, but apart from Psychology
program-level assessment was not evident. Assessment of institution-wide learning
outcomes has begun, but faculty need to take collective responsibility for their
assessment. A detailed plan for meaningful, sustainable assessment of the institution-
wide outcomes needs to be developed. The Team recommends that the College further
develop and integrate its assessment efforts [CFRs 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 4.4, 4.5].
The Team recommends that the College continue to adapt and implement its program
review process. In addition, attention should be given to credit hour audits in context
of the program review process [CFRs 2.7, 4.1].
The Team recommends that the College continue to build capacity and leadership of the
Institutional Research function, and that it undertake an external review of the function
[CFR 4.2].
Shared Governance and communication: The Team recommends that the College work
towards increasing collaboration and communication to fully implement policies and
guidelines in the faculty handbook [CFR 3.10].
44
APPENDICES
A. Federal Compliance Forms
1 - CREDIT HOUR AND PROGRAM LENGTH REVIEW FORM Material Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the Comments sections as Reviewed appropriate.) Policy on credit hour Is this policy easily accessible? YES NO Where is the policy located? Abbreviated version p. 84 of 2015-2016 Academic Catalog, called “Course Syllabi” Comments: Full policy shared with Team by request. The Team recommends that the College make the full policy available on its website. Process(es)/ periodic Does the institution have a procedure for periodic review of credit hour assignments to ensure that review of credit hour they are accurate and reliable (for example, through program review, new course approval process, periodic audits)? YES NO Does the institution adhere to this procedure? YES NO Comments: Policy reflected in Curriculum Committee Petition for New Course Approval, but the Chair of the Curriculum Committee was not aware of the policy, and reported that he and the Committee had not engaged in review of credit hour for new course proposals. The Team recommends that the College implement the review process within new course proposals, and include an audit of credit hour within the program review process. Schedule of on-ground Does this schedule show that on-ground courses meet for the prescribed number of hours? courses showing when YES NO they meet Comments:
Sample syllabi or How many syllabi were reviewed? N/A equivalent for online What kind of courses (online or hybrid or both)? and hybrid courses What degree level(s)? Please review at least 1 - 2 from each degree What discipline(s)? level. Does this material show that students are doing the equivalent amount of work to the prescribed hours to warrant the credit awarded? YES NO Comments: The College does not offer online or hybrid courses Sample syllabi or How many syllabi were reviewed? 3 equivalent for other What kinds of courses? 2 internship, 1 directed research kinds of courses that What degree level(s)? Bachelor’s do not meet for the prescribed hours (e.g., What discipline(s)? Human Resource Management (directed research), Accounting, “major field” internships, labs, clinical, independent Does this material show that students are doing the equivalent amount of work to the prescribed study, accelerated) hours to warrant the credit awarded? YES NO Please review at least Comments: Two of the shared syllabi (for directed research in Human Resource Management and 1 - 2 from each degree for internship in “major field”) indicate sufficient required work. The Accounting internship syllabus level. does not provide sufficient detail.
Sample program How many programs were reviewed? 3 information (catalog, What kinds of programs were reviewed? Traditional website, or other What degree level(s)? Bachelor’s program materials) What discipline(s)? Psychology, Accounting, Marketing
45
Does this material show that the programs offered at the institution are of a generally acceptable length? YES NO Comments:
Review Completed By: Laura Massa Date: 3/23/2016
46
2 - MARKETING AND RECRUITMENT REVIEW FORM Under federal regulation*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s recruiting and admissions practices.
Material Questions and Comments: Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment section of Reviewed this table as appropriate. **Federal Does the institution follow federal regulations on recruiting students? regulations X YES NO Comments:
Degree Does the institution provide information about the typical length of time to degree? completion X YES NO and cost Does the institution provide information about the overall cost of the degree? X YES NO Comments:
Careers and Does the institution provide information about the kinds of jobs for which its graduates are qualified, employment as applicable? X YES NO Does the institution provide information about the employment of its graduates, as applicable? X YES NO Comments:
47
3 - STUDENT COMPLAINTS REVIEW FORM Under federal regulation*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s student complaints policies, procedures, and records.
Material Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment section Reviewed of this column as appropriate.) Policy on student Does the institution have a policy or formal procedure for student complaints? complaints X YES NO If so, is the policy or procedure easily accessible? X YES NO If so, where? It is published in the Menlo College 2015-2016 Catalog and in the catalog online. Comments: The general student complaints policy is available online: https://www.menlo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/menlo-college-student-complaint- prodecure.pdf . Grade petitions/academic petitions are addressed in the 2015-2016 Menlo College catalog on page 44. https://www.menlo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/menlo- college-student-complaint-prodecure.pdf. Process(es)/ Does the institution have a procedure for addressing student complaints? X YES NO procedure If so, please describe briefly: Procedures for addressing student academic and non-academic complaints are published in the Menlo College 2015-2016 Catalog and in the Catalog online, see https://www.menlo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/menlo-college-student-complaint- prodecure.pdf. 1. For academic complaints, students can complete a form and file a formal complaint with the Office of the Registrar. The Registrar then forwards the complaint to the Academic Appeals Committee (AAC), which is comprised of faculty. The AAC reviews any specific appeals such as grade or policy appeals and makes a determination that is communicated to the student by the AAC chair. Once the issue is resolved, records are maintained in the Office of the Registrar. 2. Regarding non-academic appeals, the Dean of Student Affairs tracks and resolves any complaints related to student or residential life. Title IX complaints are referred to and tracked by our Title IX Officer (who is our Director of Human Resources). Any documentation regarding Title IX cases are stored securely in his office. If so, does the institution adhere to this procedure? X YES NO Comments: Records Does the institution maintain records of student complaints? X YES NO If so, where? Academic complaints and appeals are maintained in the Office of the Registrar. Records of non-academic appeals and complaints are maintained by the Dean of Student Affairs. Title IX complaint records are maintained by the Title IX Officer, the Director of Human Resources. Does the institution have an effective way of tracking and monitoring student complaints over time? X YES NO If so, please describe briefly: Complaints are monitored and tracked manually by the Registrar (academic complaints and appeals), by the Dean of Student Affairs (non-academic complaints) and by the Director of Human Resources (Title IX complaints). Comments:
*§602-16(1)(1)(ix) See also WASC Senior College and University Commission’s Complaints and Third Party Comment Policy.
Review Completed By: Tracy Tambascia and Joseph Hoey. Dates: 3/24/2016, 4/11/2016
48
4 – TRANSFER CREDIT POLICY REVIEW FORM Under federal regulations*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s recruiting and admissions practices accordingly.
Material Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment section Reviewed of this column as appropriate.) Transfer Credit Does the institution have a policy or formal procedure for receiving transfer credit? Policy(s) X YES NO If so, is the policy publically available? X YES NO If so, where? It is published in the Menlo College Catalog 2015-2016, pages 38-39, and available online. Does the policy(s) include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education? X YES NO
Comments: Transfer requirements, application process and articulation agreements are available online: http://www.menlo.edu/admissions-financial-aid/transferring-to-menlo/ .
*§602.24(e): Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for renewal of accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit policies that--
(1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with 668.43(a)(11); and
(2) Include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education.
See also WASC Senior College and University Commission’s Transfer of Credit Policy. Review Completed By: Tracy Tambascia Date: 3/24/2016
B. Off-Campus Locations Review
Not Applicable. Menlo College offers no programs at off-campus locations further than 25 miles from the main campus.
C. Distance Education, as appropriate
Not Applicable. Menlo College offers no programs via distance education.
49