REPORT OF THE WASC VISITING TEAM

EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW

To
La Sierra University

February 28-March 3, 2010

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Team Roster
Dan Angel, Chair
Jackie Donath, Assistant Chair
Lynn Beck
john Cebula
Diane Harvey, WASC staff liaison

The evaluation team in conducting its review was able to evaluate the institution
under the WASC Commission Standards and Core Commitments and therefore submits
this Report to the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges for action and to the institution for
consideration.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I. OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT

A. Description of the Institution and Visit 3

B. The Institution's Educational Effectiveness Review Report: 4

Alignment with the Proposal
Quality and Rigor of the Review and Report

C. Response to Issues Raised in the Capacity and Preparatory Review 5

SECTION II. EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

UNDER THE STANDARDS
A. Evaluation of the Institution's Educational Effectiveness Inquiry 8

Theme 1: Student Learning and Institutional Improvement 8

Theme 2: Institutional Efforts to Promote Student Success 11

Theme 3: Using Data for Growth: Update on Strategic Planning 15

B. Institution's Systems for Enhancing Educational Effectiveness and

Student Learning 15

Other Issues Arising from the Standards and CFRs 17

WASC Standard 1 17

WASC Standard 2 20
Sustainability of Educational Effectiveness 28

WASC Standard 3 28
Current Economic Impact 30

WASC Standard 4 32

SECTION III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CAPACITY

AND PREPARATORY REVIEW AND THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW 35

2
SECTION I - OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT
Description of Institution and Visit
La Sierra University describes itself as a small, co-educational, comprehensive university in
Riverside, California that is owned and operated by the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-
Day Adventists. La Sierra College received accreditation as a four-year liberal arts college in
1946. In 1967, La Sierra College merged with Loma Linda University, located in Loma Linda,
California, and the Riverside campus of La Sierra acted as Loma Linda's College of Arts and
Sciences. Over the years, the Riverside campus grew to include a School of Education (1968),
School of Business (1986), an Evening Adult Degree Program (1986), and a School of Religion
(1987.)

In 1989, upon receiving notification of plans to reorganize the merged institution into two
separate campuses, Loma Linda and La Sierra, the Commission requested that each campus
prepare a report on concerns raised in 1989. In 1990, the WASC Commission approved the
separation of the two campuses and continued La Sierra University's accreditation on
probationary status, with a campus visit in 1991. Probation was removed in 1992, and
accreditation reaffirmed in 1996 (after a special visit) and in 2002 (after a regular visit.) The
Capacity and Preparatory Visit was scheduled for the fall of 2008. In June 2005, the Commission
set the Educational Effectiveness Review for spring 2010.

With the division of Loma Linda University into two institutions, the Riverside campus became
La Sierra University. La Sierra University consists of four schools---the College of Arts and
Sciences, the School of Business, the School of Education, and the School of Religion---and a
Division of Continuing Studies, an evening adult degree program. The University also offers off-
campus and distributed distance education which were reviewed during the Capacity and
Preparatory Review. Reports on the Team's review of these programs were attached in an
appendix to the CPR and the programs are referenced, as appropriate, in the body of this
report.

The campus offers a wide variety of programs to approximately 1860 students. There are thirty-
two baccalaureate-granting programs, ten master's degree programs, four programs granting
{(specialist in education" degrees, and a doctoral program in education. In the 2008-2009
academic year, La Sierra University conferred 219 bachelor's degrees, 132 Mastersl degrees, 7
specialist in education degrees (Ed. S.) and 12 doctorates in education. In fall 2009, La Sierra
University employed 93 full-time faculty and 87 part-time faculty members.

A team from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges visited La Sierra University from
February 28- March 3, 2010 for an Educational Effectiveness Review. During the visit, team
members met with faculty, administrators, members of the Board, students and staff who
discussed the self-study documents, and the campus' ability to fulfill its core commitments to
educational effectiveness.

During the visit, the Team established an independent e-mail account. Campus constituents
were invited to submit confidential messages about any issues that they wished to bring to the

3
Team's attention. The Assistant Chair monitored the e-mail account, read all the messages and
relayed their content to the team. The messages included several responses to issues that were
raised at various meetings and a number of laudatory comments.

The Team would like to acknowledge the collegiality and graciousness of all those with whom it
met during the visit. Their willingness to respond to the Team's questions and to provide
additional information and insights greatly enhanced the Team's understanding of the campus.
Senior leadership has clearly been central in supporting campus-wide preparation for this
review and for providing a responsive atmosphere for the Team. The Team would also like to
make special note of the efforts of the La Sierra University's ALO, Dr. Paul Mallery, whose
arrangements for the Team's comfort and responsiveness to the Team's requests were
exemplary.

The Institution's Educational Effectiveness Review Report

Alignment with the Proposal
La Sierra University's Institutional Proposal suggested an audit format for the Educational
Effectiveness Review to allow the University to evaluate whether it was "reaching the
educational goals we have set for ourselves, rather than merely hoping or assuming that this is
the case" (La Sierra University 2006 Institutional Proposal, p. 6.) The University intended to go
through the audit process twice between the completion of the Capacity and Preparatory
Review and the preparation of the Educational Effectiveness Review. The University identified
three main focus areas for the Educational Effectiveness audit process: supporting and
achieving the University mission; assessing student success; and attracting, retaining and
building the faculty. In the Institutional Proposal, each focus area was organized around lines of
inquiry and expectations for the uses of the insights and data generated by the audit.

While the audit model has since been removed from the suggested approaches to a
comprehensive visit, the audit approach proposed by La Sierra University was approved for the
institution's Educational Effectiveness Report in fall 2006. In the period between the
completion of the Capacity and Preparatory Review and the Educational Effectiveness review,
the University undertook two cycles of focused data gathering and evaluation (cycle 1
conducted in 2007 and cycle 2 conducted 2008-2009) which drew on an audit approach to
assess the effectiveness and learning-centeredness of core institutional processes.

As a result of the findings of the Capacity and Preparatory Report and Review and the
institutional audits which were the foundation of LA Sierra University's educational
effectiveness report activities, the La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Self Study represents an
evolution of the three foci identified in the La Sierra 2006 Institutional Proposal. Initial
institutional interest in the support and achievement of the University mission described in the
Institutional Proposal became Theme 1 of the Educational Effectiveness Report: Student
learning and Institutional Improvement. This section of the self study includes case studies
produced after two audit cycles on five academic units (University Studies, Chemistry and
Biochemistry, English and Communications, Music, and School Psychology and Counseling) and
three non-academic units (Advancement and Development, Information Technology and

4
Residential Life. The proposal's emphasis on assessing student success is the basis of Theme 2
of the self-study: Institutional Efforts to Promote Student Success. The Institutional Proposal's
focus on attracting, retaining and building the faculty has been subsumed by Theme 3: Using
Data for Growth: Update on Strategic Planning. The Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study
does not treat the issue of attracting, retaining or building its facuJty with the detail found in
the University's earlier Institutional Proposal and Capacity and Preparatory Review. The visiting
team has addressed this area in its review of Standard 2, CFRs 2.8 and 2.9 (see p. 24 of this
report.)

Quality and Rigor of the Review and Report

La Sierra University's educational effectiveness report also includes reflection on the WASC
process and the usefulness of the audit process. The University believes that this process has
supported an institution-wide conversation about, and involvement in, issues central to
educational effectiveness while also demonstrating to La Sierra University that it must develop
and strengthen its data collection in a number of areas in order to strengthen and support a
culture of data-driven decision-making and institutional improvement.

Response to Issues Raised in the Capacity and Preparatory Review

The Capacity and Preparatory Review Visiting Team made a number of recommendations in its
report:
1. Before the Educational Effectiveness Review, La Sierra should have clear evidence in place to
demonstrate what program review entails, how it is conducted, and how the results are being
used to maintain the institution's commitment to its mission (CFR. 1.2);
The University has developed a program review structure that has explicit guidelines and
structures as well as a timeline to evaluate all academic programs by the end of the 2014
academic year. At the time of the Educational Effectiveness Review, only the Psychology, Art,
and English and Communications programs had begun a formal program review cycle, and only
the Psychology Department had completed the external review process. Program review for co-
curricular and service units is less developed.

2. The distinctive roles and specific contributions and responsibilities of curricular and co-
curricular structures and programs should be clarified, contextualized and assessed in order to
ensure that graduates have met the institution's learning goals (CFRs 2.3, 2.6);
La Sierra University is well on its way to clarifying the specific roles, responsibilities, and
contributions of curricular and co-curricular structures and programs. A key step in this process
was the establishment of a working set of University-wide learning outcomes. This, as the La
Sierra Educational Effectiveness Self-Study notes, has been followed by the development and
implementation of assessment plans in all academic and the development of plans for some co-
curricular units. Case studies conducted as a part of the Academic Audit processes suggest that
these assessment processes have prompted the initial clarification of the roles and
contributions of a number of academic and several co-curricular programs, such as housing and
residential life, in the pursuit of the educational effectiveness.

5
3. We recommend that the institution act on its commitment to learning and improvement and
that La Sierra University devote serious, focused and immediate attention to strengthening the
structures and process need to create a comprehensive assessment system, aligning roles and
responsibilities of program and departmental, course, co-curricular, and institutional level
learning outcomes, activities and assessments (CFRs 2.4,2.10, 2.11, 2.13 4.10);
As the La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Self Study makes clear La Sierra University has made
l

significant progress on this recommendation. The Assessment Committee has provided

leadership in this regard and faculty members are participating to varying degrees and there
are a variety of levels of departmental success. Alignment of institutional-level learning
outcomes and assessment activities is beginning and the faculty and administration are
collaborating. Co-curricular program assessment is still in the initial stages. The sustainability of
these efforts, at the current pace may be problematic1 especially in light of IIfaculty assessment
fatigue."

4. The Team recommends that LSU develop a long-term capital investment plan, including a
cash flow projection, which both supports the specific project elements of the 2007 campus
master plan and sets realistic timetables for realizing capital campaign gift pledges (CFR 3.5);
The La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Self-Study asserts that the University has developed a
short-term capital investment plan, and long- and short-term capital campaign goals (p.45.).
The Visiting Team's reading of the 2007 campus master plan is that it is more of a "framework"
for the campus which sets perimeters and limits ---and is not an action plan for construction or
development. The Budget and Finance Committee stated that the University, when developing
a capital campaign, includes plans for the creation of an endowment for building maintenance.
The next new building project is the School of Business building, which is currently in the
beginning stages of design and development.

5. Building on the recent work of the new IT director, the Visiting Team recommends that LSU
develop and begin to implement a strategic plan for information technology to address the
immediate and long term needs of students, faculty and administrative staff (CFR 3.7);
This area continues to be a significant issue for La Sierra University. Issues of responsibility for
entering and maintaining lIc1eanll data continue to plague the University, and have impeded a
number of efforts to deepen the sophistication and usefulness of the data provided to
members of the University community for the purposes of decision-making, program
improvement and information.

Shortly after the Capacity and Preparatory Review, the newly-hired IT director resigned. The
University had an interim IT director until a recent hire. Despite not having a permanent IT
Director over the past year, the University was able to accomplish several "upgrades." They
have installed a wireless network to the entire campus, increased internet speeds, added more
"smart" classrooms, and improved Banner response times. These improvements, along with
others, have raised the satisfaction levels of the IT unit's constituents. According to the CFO,
some future IT improvements are planned that will be funded by the 2008 bond proceeds (La
Sierra University Educational Effectiveness Self-Study, p. 45.)

6
Members of the Visiting Team were able to meet with the IT Director and his team, and were
provided with hard copy of an IT department vision statement. A review of this document and
meetings with students and staff made clear that La Sierra University is well on its way to
addressing the immediate and long term needs of students, faculty and administrative staff
(CPR 3.7.) The IT Director has assigned an IT staff person to address faculty technology needs.
This individual has begun to film classroom presentations and is providing the faculty with a
disc of these presentations for future use as a potential assessment tool. This has received a
good response by faculty.

The IT staff has also begun to assist the Registrar's Office with implementation of
improvements to the online interface between faculty and this office. The IT staff is currently
helping the Student Finance Council replace their postal mailings of student invoices with an e-
mail process. This effort has been supported by a pilot project, funded by an alumnus through
Student Life, which provided i-phones or iPod Touches to all incoming freshmen in the fall of
2009.

6. The Visiting Team recommends that La Sierra University review its organizational and
committee structures to streamline decision-making to help faculty members better balance
their workload (CFRs 3.8, 3.11)
A Faculty Senate Task Force examining the most efficient and effective use of faculty resources
was organized in response to this recommendation and that group is due to provide its final
report in late spring 2010;

7. La Sierra University should begin to realistically assess the institution's ability to grow to 2500
students and begin to put in place an incremental, sustainable plan for the nearfuture (CFRs
4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
The University has revised its growth plans and the Planning for University Growth Task Force
of the Strategic Planning Committee has begun to organize a realistic and sustainable plan for
enrollment in both the long- and short-term;

8. The University should monitor and analyze its retention rates. Goals should be set and
benchmarked in order to demonstrate improvement (CFRs 4.3" 4.4.)
La Sierra University has done a fine job of monitoring and analyzing its retention rates and has
seen steady improvement in these rates since the development of the Center for Student
Academic Success and its programs. The La Sierra University Educational Effectiveness Self-
Study and conversation~ with various leaders on campus demonstrate that this is an
institutional priority and that the campus is succeeding in this area.

In addition to the Team's recommendations, the Commission action letter of March 6, 2009
emphasized two areas in which La Sierra University should focus its efforts:
First, continue to ensure that the goals outlined in the campus master plan, and
particularly those for student growth, are realistic and sustainable. Plans to increase
student numbers should be multifaceted, based upon the needs of individual
students, and should take into account annual and six-year retention and graduation

7
 rates (CFRs 3.5J 3.7J 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.)
La Sierra University is in the process of revising and clarifying its student growth
goals as part of its strategic planning process.

SecondJ the commitment to improvement with respect to student learning and student
success should continue to receive seriousJ focused attention. To this endJ campus
structures and processes should support a comprehensive assessment system,
including robust program review (CFRs 1.2J 2.3J 2.4J 2.6J 2.10J 2.11, 2.13, 3.8, 3.11,
4.3, 4.4, 4.10.)
The University has devoted energy and resources to the development of a
sustainable process of annual department assessment activities and reporting.
The program review process, which is in its first iteration, is attached to yearly
assessments and was demonstrated by a review of the completed reports,
includes external review. Co-curricular programs and student support units are
beginning to develop assessment processes. Similarly, institutional-level learning
goals and assessment are being considered. Conversations with members of the
Assessment Committee, department faculty, and the Provost suggest that these
efforts are sustainable and authentic and that La Sierra University is making
progress on developing a comprehensive system.

SECTION II. EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS UNDER THE

STANDARDS
Evaluation of the Institution's Educational Effectiveness Inquiry
La Sierra University organized its Educational Effectiveness Self Study around the three major
themes described above. The WASC visiting team's review of these themes in this section and
the Team's review of the WASC Standards include analysis of the University's response to the
requirement of reporting in detail on student success and program review. The self-study
report demonstrates that the institution evaluated information about the structures, processes
and findings associated with educational effectiveness at La Sierra University in detailed,
meaningful and proactive ways.

THEME 1: Student learning and Institutional Improvement

This section of La Sierra University's Educational Effectiveness Report focuses on its core
commitment to student learning and the ways in which the University manifests this
commitment in its curriculum, academic programs and non-academic units. Additionally this
section discusses the ways in which scholarship contributes to the creation of an organizational
emphasis on creating and supporting a positive environment for learning at all levels of the
institution (CFRs 2.1-2.4.).

Assessment, of a variety of programs, at a variety of levels, is a critical component of this

commitment. Like many institutions of higher education, La Sierra University's performance
and progress in this area is uneven. Although the University has worked on assessment for a
long time, the institution describes its assessment activities as "varied by program in type,
scope, quality and consistency" (p. 13.) However, as part of the WASC review process, the

8
University committed to improving its use of student learning data to inform the University's
strategic planning and to improve on a process which the institution itself referred to as
"unsystematic at best"(p. 13.)

In response to these insights, the Provost, in consultation with the Assessment Coordinator,
established an Assessment Committee which began its work in January 2009 (CFR 4.4) The
Committee includes four faculty members, two staff members and the Director of Institutional
Research, as an ex officio member.

The Assessment Committee receives funding to provide re-assigned time for the Director,
summer contracts for committee members, some clerical support, experises associated with
external program reviewers and some money to support faculty development activities. The
Assessment Committee has been charged to:
Develop and manage the institutional assessment plan for academic and non-
academic programs;
Approve and oversee the University's assessment activities;
Develop university-wide assessment instruments, including those for course
evaluations;
Receive, review and approve programs' annual assessment reports;
Provide guidance for program assessment activities;
Recommend assessment policy changes to the University Council;
Report annually on the University's assessment activities

In the first six months of its existence, the Assessment Committee met bi-weekly and was
extremely productive. In the summer of 2009, the Committee produced a report that
summarized the assessment activities undertaken by academic programs in 2008-2009;
evaluated the University's progress on its institutional assessment plans; described the
University's expectations for progress in assessment by August 2011; prepared a timeline to
achieve those goals; and made resource recommendations to support the University's
assessment goals.

The Assessment Committee (simultaneously with case studies undertaken by the WASC Audit
Focus Area Group 1) reviewed academic programs' annual reports and evaluated the infusion
of course-level student learning outcomes across the curriculum. Their findings were generally
positive, although the Committee made specific recommendations to programs with large
numbers of part-time faculty. Additionally, the Assessment Committee made clear that all
programs were expected to report alignment of their student learning goals with the
University's student learning outcomes in their reports for 2009-2010 (CFRs 2.4, 2.6, 2.7.)

Perhaps most interestingly, the Assessment Committee evaluated each program's self-
assessment using a rubric based on WASC's General Education Assessment and Quality of
Academic Programs Learning Outcomes resources. This effort, led to the evaluation of each
department's curricular alignments with its learning outcomes, assessment plans,
implementation and use of results. This process was intended to provide a meaningful snapshot

9
of the state of student learning assessment at La Sierra University; offer examples of good
practice within the institutional community; and clarify necessary next steps. Visiting team
members reviewed a number of assessment plans and spoke to faculty and students in
programs whose assessment plan activities (according to the La Sierra Educational Effectiveness
Review Self-Study) ran the gamut from lIinitial" to "highly developed" (pp. 19-26.)

In response to its discovery of the unevenness of academic program assessment reporting, the
Assessment Committee is focusing its efforts on developing structures and procedures to
improve the consistency and meaningfulness of the assessment process. For example, the
Committee has revised the annual reporting template to include matrices which will eventually
evolve to illustrate the curriculum's developmental progression. Course syllabi excerpts which
relate to the learning goals being assessed will be included in upcoming annual reports as a
mechanism to support the Committee's interest in the effectiveness of program
communication of learning goals to students. Similarly, for the 2009-2010 assessment cycle, the
Committee required that programs define their learning outcomes in measurable terms, use a
matrix to demonstrate alignment between program curricula and student learning outcomes,
develop instruments to measure student learning, implement them, and use the data to
support program improvement and modification.

The Committee's ongoing work includes the creation of a student learning outcome alignment
matrix at the University level, which will include developmental categories, such as
introductory, developing and master, for each course. The Committee is also planning to
choose a University-wide assessment tool for student evaluations of teaching and also will work
to standardize peer evaluations of teaching (CFR 3.3)

These efforts in the academic programming sphere are also setting the stage for the
Assessment Committee to begin to work on the assessment of non-academic programs, most
significantly, those with responsibilities in the area of Student Life and student support services.
The La Sierra University WASC Educational Effectiveness Self-Study reveals that creation of
assessment processes and documents in the non-academic, support areas are a major element
of the Committee's agenda for the 2010-2011 academic year (CFRs 2.10, 2.11.)

The report identifies major challenges to continued progress in academic assessment:

Institutional Research continues to be a major stumbling block to effective program and
institutional assessment (inconsistencies in the institutional database are of immediate
concern); assessment and reporting fatigue in the midst of heavy academic workloads (esp. for
chairs); and an ongoing need for faculty development resources. As a result of the persistence
of these issues, and the relationship of weaknesses in Institutional Research and a number of
other assessment and improvement concerns at La Sierra University, the visiting team
recommends that

La Sierra University devote focused attention and significant resources to the issue of an
Institutional Research Director and to clarifying the support and reporting responsibilities of
this office.

10
In addition to annual assessment reporting, academic programs at La Sierra University are
required to engage in program review on a five-year cycle. Program review is intended to
provide each program with an opportunity to do more holistic evaluation of educational
effectiveness and program capacity, and to build on the findings of annual assessment
reporting. The University recognizes that, in the past, program review was haphazard and the
Assessment Committee has also taken responsibility for improvements in this area. A schedule
of program reviews was developed at the suggestion of the Provost which will see all programs
reviewed by 2014. The Art and Psychology departments began their cycles in 2009 and team
members were able to review copies of their completed self-studies. By the time of the team's
visit in March 2010, only the Psychology department had completed the entire program review
cycle of self, study, external review and response. By August 2011, English and
Communications, Health and Exercise Science, Music, and the Schools of Education, Religion
and Social Work are scheduled to complete their program reviews following working guidelines
developed by the Assessment Committee. These guidelines are detailed in the La Sierra
University Educational Effectiveness Self-Study (pp. 18-19) and include deadlines for both
program self study and external report, an outline of information and materials to be included,
and procedures for on-campus review. Co-curricular programs are just beginning to be
integrated into the program review process (CFRs 2.10,2.11.)

The team would describe La Sierra University's program review efforts as "initial,/I and expects
that the University will report significant and meaningful activity in this area during its next
WASC review cycle. Systematic assessment and program improvement activities are underway
at La Sierra University. The next step in the University's evolution in this important area of
educational effectiveness will be to provide a wider context for these efforts. While the yearly
assessment report process seems to be detailed and consistent, and program review is in its
infancy, the connections between departmental assessment, program reviews, institutional
planning and strategic priorities and resource allocations at La Sierra University still need some
development, a full cycle of implementation, and possible refinement. Therefore, the visiting
team recommends that

As academic and support units continue to develop a system of yearly assessment reporting
and program assessment they should align their efforts in an explicit way with the
University's mission statement and strategic plan. Special attention should be paid to ensure
that these processes can be linked to changes and improvements in student learning (CFRs
2.4,2.5,2.7,2.10,4.1-4.3)

THEME 2: Institutional Efforts to promote student success

La Sierra University has expressed strong commitment to promoting student success. In
response to the findings of the Capacity and Preparatory Review, LSU broadened its vision of
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). With the leadership of the Assessment Committee and with
input and "buy in" from the Strategic Planning Committee, the Dean's Council, and the Faculty
Senate, the faculty at-large began to articulate revised University-wide SLOs (CFRs 1.2, 2.4, 2.5,

11
3.11). The University's current Student Learning Outcomes are communicated in a number of
documents such as assessment reports and guidelines, WASC documents, and University
promotional materials. The institution's goal is that La Sierra University graduates will be able
to:

Demonstrate general and discipline specific knowledge and skills

Acquire, critically evaluate, and synthesize information
Understand and appreciate differences
Communicate effectively with others
Act in ethical and socially responsible ways
Demonstrate knowledge about Seventh-day Adventist heritage, culture, and values
Reflect on their spiritual lives and development

In addition to focused efforts in the academic units to ensure that students and graduates
accomplish these objectives, LSU has undertaken a careful analysis of the ways in which the
institution both supports and inhibits students' success and taken steps to establish systems
and structures which build on strengths and address problems or areas of need.

The first and perhaps central step in LSU's analysis of its student success structures was a
careful analysis of the students applying to, attending, and graduating from La Sierra
University (CFR 2.10, 2.14). This included reviewing LSU student characteristics in relationship
to various IPEDS comparison groups and surveying students, faculty, and staff in an effort to
gain a complete picture of the expectations and perceptions of these various constituencies.
This analysis revealed, among other things, that LSU's students are much more diverse than
their IPEDS peers, that students are generally satisfied with their LSU experience, that
students' are divided as to whether college is easier or harder than expected, that students'
primary motivation for remaining in college is lImoney" (the realities that money has been
invested in their education and that completing college will enable them to get jobs where
they can payoff student loan debts), and that students contact with University offices are
generally positive with some frustration over lost paperwork, poor communication, and
waiting in crowded offices. The analysis also revealed that faculty members' expectations for
entering students' academic abilities, in general, were slightly higher than their perceptions of
students' actual abilities. It also revealed that, in two areas, writing and quantitative skills,
students entered LSU with abilities that were markedly below what faculty members expected.

The second step in LSU's analysis of student success structures involved a careful review of
recruitment and admission processes and of student support systems after they enrolled (CFR
2.13, 2.14). This review, in many ways, offered a mixed picture of LSU's success in supporting
student success. On the one hand, student responses to a first year student survey were
reasonably positive about experiences with Enrollment Services/ Admissions, the Registrars
Office, Student Financial Services, and other support units. (28% were positive about the
support they received from Enrollment Services and Admissions offices, and 33% were positive
about interactions with staff.) There were, however, enough negative responses to cause
alarm. Indeed, almost a quarter of the respondents (22%) expressed concerns about poor

12
communication, lost transcripts and the like. When upper division students were surveyed
about their experiences, the number of negative responses jumped alarmingly with more than
60% of the upper level students expressing concerns about Student Financial Services. A
report 'from the Lime Twig Group (2009), a marketing consultant company, who collected and
analyzed constituent perceptions of LSU indicated that students are quite displeased with the
Financial Aid Office, the Registrar's Office, and Admissions, noting that these offices are "seen
by students as not only problematic, but as unhelpful" (Lime Twig Report, p. 12, quoted in La
Sierra University WASC Educational Effectiveness Self-Study, p. 39.)

The third step in the process of assessing and improving institutional support for student
success involved an analysis on student persistence, retention, and degree completion
(CFR4.4). The La Sierra University WASC Educational Effectiveness Self-Study indicates that in
2006, only 60% of the freshmen returned for their second year of student at LSU. This figure
increased, however, in 2007 (to 71%) and in 2008 (to 74%). The La Sierra University
Educational Effectiveness Self Study pointed to the IItwo primary initiatives" {p.35)--- the
development of better placements processes into remedial courses and the creation of the
Center for Student Academic Success---as likely factors contributing to these improved figures.
LSU's degree completion rate, like its retention rate, has historically been low {between 1998
and 2002, "the six year degree completion rate averaged 33%" (po 33). This lower-than-desired
rate inspired a careful and in-depth analysis of completion rates for entering freshmen and
transfers disaggregated by ethnicity, and first time college attendance status. The review also
included comparisons of LSU data to peer institutions including independent, masters level
institutions with enrollments between 1000 and 5000, identified aspirational peers, and other
Seventh-day Adventist institutions. (For a complete list of peers, see Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
supporting documents.) The data suggest that La Sierra University's degree completion rates
continue to be slightly lower than peer institutions. Although there has been progress in this
area, the WASC team suggests that the University establish benchmarks for recruitment,
retention, and graduation rates, a timeline for achieving those benchmarks, and a plan for
ongoing monitoring of these areas.

A fourth step in the analysis process involved careful review of several academic issues
affecting student success and persistence (CFR 2.10.) For example, using data on entering
students in 2007, the University undertook a careful review of the accuracy and_
appropriateness of placements in remedial courses. This review led to revised placement
processes. Improved student grades and improved retention from first to second year as
reported in the Educational Effectiveness Self Study suggest that the new processes are,
indeed, having the desire effect. The University also has continued to analyze the impact of
faculty issues (e.g. satisfaction with work conditions, work load, etc.) as they relate to faculty
members' ability and willingness to foster student learning. Data collected through faculty
satisfactions surveys indicate that faculty, in general, are highly committed to La Sierra
University's mission and that they continue to work to foster student learning in spite of heavy
demands on their time. This conclusion was supported by comments from faculty members
who noted that they place a high priority on personal interactions with students even through
these take time.

13
As reported in the La Sierra University WASC Educational Effectiveness Self Study, the data
collected through a variety of analyses and reviews led University leadership (administrative,
faculty, and staff) to focus on several areas in their efforts to increase student success. These
include:

IIFind[ing] students for whom La Sierra University is a good match (recruitment)" (p. 32)
Creating processes and structures to provide academic and other support (/to improve
student-institutional match and persistence" (p. 35)
Developing co-curricular and student support programs that (/contribute to the success of
[its] students" (p. 38)

Admittedly finding the "right" students for LSU is a complex task. The institution's dual
commitments to academic excellence and to ensuring access to higher education for diverse
students (CFR 1.5) in the region and Seventh-day Adventist Church, in many ways, mean that
the Office of Enrollment Services must work harder and more strategically than colleagues at
non-Seventh-day Adventist peer institutions.

Processes and structures to provide academic and other support developed since the writing of
the Capacity and Review Report and improved since the WASC's team CPR review in 2008
include refined ---and data-driven---processes to ensure that students are appropriately placed
in remedial classes and ongoing development and support of the Center for Student Academic
Success (C-SAS). The C-SAS was noted and praised in the CPR report for its apparent
contribution to dramatic improvements in student retention. Evidence presented in the La
Sierra WASC Educational Effectiveness Self-Study suggests that the CSAS is continuing to
contribute, not only to student retention, but to student success: "Grades [of LSU freshmen)
increased from 2006 (before C-SAS) through 2009. This pattern [sic] for freshmen continued
through winter quarter and, to a lesser extent, for sophomores who had been in the C-SAS
program" (p. 32.)

The La Sierra WASC Educational Effectiveness Self-Study discussed various co-curricular and
student support programs that are intended support student learning (CFRs 2.11, 2.13).
Evidence presented in conjunction with the report suggest that services and programs such the
Learning Support and Testing Center and the Counseling Center are generally viewed favorably
by LSU students, but little data were presented that indicated the impact of these
services/programs beyond student satisfaction. It is also unclear if/how these programs have
developed/changed in response to an analysis of their impact on student learning and
development. The self-study also discussed various offices/ programs including Financial Aid,
the Registrar's Office, and Student Financial Services. It is clear that the University has collected
data indicating that students often perceive these offices, and the services they offer, as less
than helpful. Although the University has engaged the services of an external consultant, at the
time of the Team visit, it was not clear what was being done institutionally to respond to these
data.

14
THEME 3: Using Data for Growth: Update on Strategic Planning
La Sierra University has created four working groups comprised of members of the Strategic
Planning Committee in order to analyze and propose action in four major areas: strategic
academic opportunities, strategic co-curricular opportunities, strategic financial opportunities
and planning for University growth. These groups reported their findings to the Strategic
Planning Committee in May 2009. The President and Provost distributed the recommendations
to the appropriate vice presidents and nine months later, for the most part, the
recommendations are still under consideration. The Team has included details on this theme in
its treatment of WASC Standard 4 on pages 31-34 of this report. An update on La Sierra
University's financial status and planning has been added to the Team's review of Standard 3.

B. Institution's Systems for Enhancing Educational Effectiveness and Student Learning

WASC guidelines for Educational Effectiveness Reviews instruct visiting teams to review
institutional analyses of retention, graduation and other student success data; to consider and
evaluate institutional plans that grow out of these analyses; and to assess progress and impact
of the implementation of these plans. The next section uses the guiding questions offered by
WASC to offer an evaluation of LSU's progress in analyzing and using student success data to
develop and implement plans to better support student success:

What plans have been developed since the CPR analysis?

As described above, several plans related to institutional support for student success at La
Sierra University have been developed since the Capacity and Preparatory Report and Review
(CFR 2.10, 2.11, 2.14.) These include:

Strategic efforts to recruit students who are a good match for the institution, and, at least, a
preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of these efforts through quantifying the
numbers and characteristics of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students and
examining their relationships to various IPEDS comparison groups;

Data-driven efforts to place students appropriately in remedial courses, to support students

who need such courses, and to track the impact of these courses on student's academic
progress and persistence.

The Center for Student Academic Success (C-SAS) was established in 2007, about one year
before the CPR visit, and it developed and implemented several plans to support student
success. The most noteworthy of these is the establishment of a system of academic coaches
who work with first-year students. While the C-SAS is not "technically" a plan developed since
the CPR visit, it was established as a part of LSU's preparation for the Capacity and Preparatory
Review visit. The WASC team commended the work of the C-SAS in its CPR report, and it
appears that the institution is continuing its support of the work of the C-SAS with careful
tracking of the impact of this work on student grades and persistence.

Any plans to implement more effective structures in the registrar's office, student financial
systems, and financial aid, if they exist, were not clear from the EER Report. During the team's

15
visit, there was evidence of collaborations between the IT staff and the Offices of the Registrar
and Student Financial Services to implement on-line improvements.

Have these plans been implemented and assessed?

The process of refining recruitment efforts is ongoing and particularly complex at La Sierra
ll
University where there are admittedly "several inherent tensions (p. 32.) These tensions
include those between the University's strong Seventh-day Adventist commitments and the
desire to build a large applicant pool; as well as the tension inherent in an institutional desire to
attract well-qualified students as well as the desire to serve all students and, especially, those
from the Seventh-day Adventist community. The University assesses its recruitment efforts by
tracking inquiries, applications, admissions, and numbers and types of students enrolled and
comparing these with various peer institutions. Recently, LSU also conducted a student
concerns survey of its students (CFR 2.10). This survey is a valuable assessment of the
effectiveness of student recruitment efforts and of the degree to which they yielded students
who were a good "match" with La Sierra University._The reality that "first-year students [have]
provided more positive evaluations than upper division students" (p. 39) when rating a range of
dimensions of life at LSU, suggests that efforts to recruit students who are a good match for the
institution is, indeed, working.

The effectiveness of the revised placement system is being assessed by a careful analysis of
students' progression through the remedial courses (CFR 4.4.) C-SAS data suggest that
placement is more focused and appropriate and that the combination of better placement and
greater academic support is leading to increased retention, better grades, and more positive
perceptions of the University from these students.

What progress has been made in achieving a deeper understanding of student success?
Promoting student success?
Since 2007, La Sierra University has made significant progress in analyzing various dimensions
of student success through attention to student persistence data, student grades, student
satisfaction, and faculty expectations and perceptions of students' academic abilities. This
analysis has led to a deeper understanding of barriers to student success at the University and
has provided clues to factors promoting student success. These barriers include lack of
academic readiness for college and inexperience with navigating processes such as financial aid,
seeking academic assistance, and the like. Programs developed by the Center for Student
Academic Success (C-SAS) were developed to assist students in these areas. C-SAS stands as a
shining example of one program, developed after analyzing the data, which is helping to
promote success of La Sierra University students.

Have there been any changes in performance data on retention and completion? What do
these changes mean?
As discussed earlier, student retention data collected since 2006 (CFR 4.4) indicates
improvement in retention between freshmen and sophomore years. The WASC Educational
Effectiveness Self Study also suggests that a likely major contributor to enhanced retention is
the C-SAS, with its student support program and activities, but it is also likely that other

16
institutional efforts, including better placement into remedial courses, more targeted support
from students in remedial courses, and better coordination of support for these students, are
all having a positive impact on retention.

La Sierra University has collected and analyzed various data with the goal of understanding
institutional barriers and contributors to student success (CFR 4.4.) Most of these data have
been in the form of IPEDS and other similar information, student perceptions/satisfaction
surveys, and faculty expectations/perception surveys. The results of these analyses have led to
refined recruitment plans, refined placement (into remedial courses), and a well-developed set
of programs through the Center for Student Academic Success. There is some evidence (in the
form of improved grades and increased retention) that these plans have been implemented
effectively and are having an impact. However, it is not clear if the institution has yet
connected either the retention/grades data, or the programs that seem to have contributed to
these data, to larger institutional student learning outcomes.

C. Other Issues Arising from the Standards and CFRs

Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives

Institutional Purposes (CFRs 1.1-1.3)

The heart of the Educational Effectiveness Review visit focuses on CFR 1.2. The visiting team's
review of the University's self-study and audit themes detailed earlier in this report reflects La
Sierra University's commitment to CFRs 1.1-1.3. CFR 1.2 is also strongly connected to Standard
2: Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions, which is examined in detail in a
separate section of this report.

Integrity (CFRs 1.4-1.9)

The Team paid special attention to CFRs 1.4 and 1.6 in light of a particular series of events on
the campus since the Capacity and Preparatory Review. Over the past fifteen months, the issue
of creationism vs. evolution has been the subject of considerable attention at La Sierra
University. The Seventh-day Adventist Church -- the sponsoring organization for La Sierra
University -- has a historic and current belief in the six-day creation of the world. At the same
time, the University places high value on critical evaluation and science education.

As evidence on evolution has accumulated, there has been periodiC conflict between those who
support the scientific position and those who support the basic Adventist belief that the earth
was created in six days. Several times in the past, Adventist scientists and theologians have
been brought together to develop a consensus on creation and evolution, with the most recent
effort being in 2003. No consensus has been reached and there has been ongoing tension
between those who support a strictly creationist view and those for whom evolution provides
the most likely explanations for the functioning of the natural world.

Since spring 2009, La Sierra University, and several biology faculty specifically, have been the
focal point of that tension. While exposing students to creationist views, faculty members also
incorporate evolutionary theory into the curriculum. Although only a handful of students felt

17
that La Sierra presented evolution as fact rather than theory, the issue took on an off-campus
life of its own. A website posted class syllabi, PowerPoint presentations, emails between
students and professors regarding grades on papers, and letters and articles by church
members and church leaders. The website directed a constant stream of criticism toward the
faculty, instruction in biology, the University, the President, and the Board of Trustees. The
situation became more intense as the website gathered more than 5,000 signatures of concern
and opposition to teaching evolution as fact----independent of whether that was actually being
done at La Sierra University or not.

The University responded to the criticism in various ways. The Faculty Senate, after reviewing
what was happening in class, passed a resolution affirming support for their biology colleagues:

Whereas, the Department of Biology

has trained at the undergraduate level in biological sciences thousands of students who
have become successful professional physicians, dentists, and pharmacists, as well as
academic scientists;
has excelled in the scholarly publication of scientific research;
is recognized for its outstanding teaching, enhancing the excellence that has long
characterized La Sierra;
has been active in service to the community and to the church; and
Whereas} certain off-campus persons
have publicly attacked and circulated a petition against the (biology) faculty for including in
their classes the evolutionary aspects of the modern biosciences;
have attempted to dictate to the University, including its administration, trustees, and
faculty, the content of aspects of the bioscience curriculum;
have not followed the protocol established by Jesus and outlined in Matthew 18: 15-17;
have thus made the work and lives of these dedicated Adventist professors more stressful
and difficult;

Therefore, be it resolved} that the Faculty Senate of La Sierra University, representing the
combined faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business} the School of
Education, and the School of Religion, affirm our strong support for our colleagues in the
Department and affirm our commitment to the preservation of academic freedom with
intellectual and moral integrity in the context of our heritage and service as a Seventh-day
Adventist Christian university.

The University President issued a statement rejecting the charge that atheistic evolution was
being taught and supported the open exchange of ideas "in a supportive Adventist
environment." The President wrote both a public letter and personal letters to church leaders,
made public relations statements stressing the strengths of the Biology program,
communicated with other Adventists schools in the state, and made presentations to alumni.

The Board of Trustees has also acted by pronouncing that IIboth academic responsibility and
commitment to Adventist beliefs are important parts of a vibrant university." The issue

18
appeared on four Board agendas, as the University controversy gained national attention via a
number of publications.

Before the visit, the Team reviewed a variety of the websites and articles which referred to this
conflict. During the visit, the team met one-on-one with four Biology Department faculty
members who were mentioned on the website, the Chair of the Biology Department, biology
students, the Faculty Senate, the President of the University and five members of the Board of
Trustees including the Board Chair in order to learn more about this issue.

The Team focused its evaluation of these events in terms of WASC Standard 1. Of primary
concern was La Sierra University's performance in relationship to CFR 1.4: liThe institution
publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff and students, and acts
accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their
convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching
and in their writing." The Team also reflected on the significance of this issue in the context of
CFR 2.2 which requires that IIBaccalaureate programs ..ensure the development of core
learning abilities and competencies .. [and] breadth for all students in the areas of ...scientific
and technical knowledge expected of educated persons in this society." The evolution-creation
question also triggers the issue of university autonomy and the expectations of CFR 1.6---Does
the University operate with appropriate autonomy from the Church?

The Team undertook a thorough review of documents and had multiple and direct discussions
with a variety of University constituents. As a result of examining the University's treatment of
the issue from the students' perspective (of interest to the Team was the fact that not one
student mentioned this issue when asked on several occasions for lIissues of concern");
interviewing faculty and reviewing the faculty's responses (including the Faculty Senate
Resolution); raising the issue with the President (discussing his handling of the situation); and
meeting with representatives of the Board ( and reviewing Board minutes and public
statements), the Visiting Team believes that La Sierra University is operating in alignment with
Standard 1, CFRs 1.4 and 1.6 and Standard 2, CFR 2.2.

Additionally, the Team found evidence of La Sierra University's commitment to CFRs 1.5, 1.7,
1.8 and 1.9. The University has consistently positioned issues of diversity as a core component
of the institution's educational mission. La Sierra University has been recognized by u.s. News
and World Report as having one of the most diverse student populations among comprehensive
universities in the western United States. -rhe University communicates its commitment
through its public Statement of Shared Values: Diversity," which provides for lIequal
If

opportunity for all individuals" and defines diversity as encompassing lIage, color, ethnicity,
gender, national origin, a disability or handicap, race, religion, socioeconomic background, or
unique individual style" (CFR 1.5.)

The practices of lIintegrity, compassion and mutual respect" which underpin the University's
mission also characterize the efforts of all the units on campus: academic, support and co-
curricular. Academic policies, programs and services are evaluated and revised on a systematic

19
basis and the student, faculty, and staff handbooks provide evidence of established practices
and procedures to ensure an environment of open communication and ethical practices (CFRs
1.7-1.9.)

Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

Teaching and Learning (CFRs 2.1-2.7)
In the past eighteen months, in response to findings of the institution's Capacity and
Preparatory Report and the WASC Team's review, La Sierra University broadened its vision of
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). With the leadership of the Assessment Committee and with
input and IIbuy in" from the Strategic Planning Committee, the Dean's Council, the Faculty
Senate, and the faculty-at-Iarge, University-wide SLOs have been revised and articulated (CFRs
1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.11.)

In order to ensure that institutional efforts---within both academic and support units---are
aligned and focused on ensuring graduates attain these outcomes, the University has made a
concerted commitment to IIformalize" (La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study, p.
13) assessment of student learning and to determine if and how various units and functions are
contributing to student outcomes (CFR 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7.) The formation of an Assessment
Committee with far-reaching responsibilities was one important result of the effort to
IIformalize" assessment. The Committee has established protocols and procedures to ensure
that each academic unit clarifies objectives for student learning, aligns these with institutional
goals, assesses the degree to which students attain identified student learning outcomes and
changes programs based on student data. Units IIvary greatly" in their work in this area. The
material contained in the La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study report and in the
related unit reports suggests that all units have developed student learning outcomes and there
is evidence of IIcourse level inclusion of student learning outcomes" (p. 15) in most, if not all,
units. A review of current course syllabi and of the 2009-2010 University Bulletin reveals that
expectations for student learning are communicated to students (CFR 2.4.)

The WASC Capacity and Preparatory Review visiting team was favorably impressed with the
University's academic programs. It singled out the University Studies Program and the well-
developed Service Learning Program as two that were especially impressive but noted that lIa
number of programs ... are worthy of commendation for the ways they enable the University
(and its students) to achieve agreed-upon educational objectives" (WASC CPR Report, 2009, p.
21.) Notably, the Capacity and Preparatory Review team noted no programs that were not
appropriate and sufficient to achieve their educational purposes. The team further noted that
both faculty and students who were interviewed (and who participated in open forums) were
quite articulate in their discussions of the meaning of an LSU education. Data presented in the
La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study report suggests that the educational
effectiveness of the academic programs noted over a year ago persist today. For example, the
Lime Twig Report (2009) contains impressive evidence of student learning. The following quotes
are, apparently, typical of the responses the Lime Twig firm received when it surveyed students
on their perceptions of their educational experiences:

20
 The academics on campus are very good as compared to other SDA programs,
especially science and business. We are the most academically rigorous campus.

One of the highlights of my experience here has been strengthening my personal beliefs
and finding a balance between my academic life and my spiritual life.

This Service-Learning has opened my eyes more than any other project I have done with
the Service-Learning program. I'm sure other students might be more affected by
working with children or volunteering to clean graffiti; but this one affected me the
most. I suppose the biggest reason is because I went there with an entire set of
preconceived notions that were all vanquished once I began spending regular time with
the patients there. I went in thinking 'Okay, let's get this over with' and I left with 'I'm
really going to miss this place.' They endeared themselves to me in a way thatfew can.

The student comments cited above, coupled with corroborating comments from faculty,
administrators, parents, and others interviewed by Lime Twig reveal that La Sierra University's
academic programs that are fulfilling institutional objectives and enabling students to achieve
identified student learning outcomes (CFR 2.2.) Furthermore, the service learning program,
opportunities for undergraduate research, and the small and personal nature of learning
environments at LSU, which are all made evident in various ways in the Educational
Effectiveness Review Self-Study report and materials, indicate a high level of student
engagement.

While La Sierra University focuses on undergraduate education, the University's 2009-2010

Graduate Bulletin reveals that La Sierra University offers graduate programs in one department
in the College of Arts and Sciences (English) and in the Schools of Business, Education, and
Religion. Assessment reports from these four units demonstrate at least an adequate level of
attention to ensuring that programs are rigorous and appropriate and that students are
attaining identified outcomes. Because the University is primarily an undergraduate institution,
there is relatively little evidence associated with graduate programs presented in the
Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study materials. Faculty members working with these
programs, in several interviews, indicated their belief that the programs would benefit from
increased attention from the larger University. Specifically, they believe that expanded
graduate programs could be a source of higher visibility and enhanced enrollments. The Visiting
Team acknowledges the strength of the current programs and recommends that,

Although La Sierra is primarily an undergraduate institution, the team recommends that

graduate programming be given increased consideration as the University moves forward
with its strategic planning (CFRs 2.1, 2.2, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11,2.13,3.2,3.4,3.5)

The Team's review of graduate programs at La Sierra University, as well as conversations with
faculty in both graduate and undergraduate programs, suggest that the Assessment
Committee, as well as other stakeholders, may soon want to consider the integration of
professional and discipline-specific accreditation with the University's assessment and program
21
review activities. Additionally, while the Assessment Committee has made great strides by
requiring a standardized approach to assessment, once the departments have had more
experience with yearly reports, it may make sense to allow programs to pilot innovative
activities or combinations of activities that reflect their particular needs and responsibilities to
both internal and external stakeholders. The Team therefore recommends that

As assessment at La Sierra University becomes an increasingly normative practice, the

Assessment Committee should entertain proposals for variations to allow programs to
improve both the meaningfulness and usefulness of their assessment and program review
activities (CFRs 2.4-2.7, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8);

Standard 2 also requires that the institution provide information and learning resources beyond
the classroom. For example, the Library Audit report indicates that the library staff members
are focused, primarily, on supporting students in the accomplishment of the following
university wide objectives:

Demonstrate general and discipline specific knowledge and skills

Acquire, critically evaluate, and synthesize information

Library staff members have developed courses that are linked directly with English 113. They
also have developed bibliographic courses for most disciplines across campus. Conversations
with library staff reconfirm the findings of the 2007 WASC Audit report. These staff members
also devote considerable time to individual work with students, faculty, and programs (CFR 2.3.)

The Library Audit report indicated that the library staff collects and reviews data on their
impact. These data include observations, student and faculty evaluations (available on request),
faculty and student surveys, and data collected through formal and informal solicitations of
feedback. The Audit report noted at least one change in the introductory courses that was
made as a result of reviewing assessment data (CFR 2.7.)

The Library Audit report did not discuss the adequacy of the library resources, although a
conversation with the chief librarian indicated that she felt the Library was being well
supported (CFR 3.6.)

Additionally, in support of educational effectiveness, La Sierra University has devoted

significant time, planning and resources to developing appropriate marketing and recruitment
plans and materials, improving the clarity of its communications to its potential and current
stakeholders, and providing adequate support to all students as they apply, enroll, seek aid and
move toward completion of their degrees.

Evidence in the Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study materials suggests that La Sierra
University has done a reasonable job of communicating about its programs, commitments, etc.
--- especially within the Seventh-day Adventist community. Materials presented in the La Sierra
Educational Effectiveness Self-Study and found in additional materials such as the student
22
surveys and the Lime Twig Report further suggest that the University is seriously attending to
the importance of clear marketing of its messages in order to find "students for whom La Sierra
is a good match" (p. 32.) It appears that efforts to more clearly and accurately market and
communicate La Sierra's unique opportunities---both internally and externally ---are ongoing.
All published documents do, however, appear to be detailed and accurate (CFR 2.3.)

As noted previously, the process of refining recruitment and retention efforts, like the process
of marketing, is ongoing and admittedly complex at LSU where there are admittedly IIseveral
inherent tensions" (Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study p. 32.) For example, students'
experiences with student services after their arrival at La Sierra University are admittedly
uneven (CFR 2.3.) The Lime Twig Report included a fairly long and alarming set of criticisms for
these offices. For example, the Report offered the following statements drawn from a survey in
the School of Business and suggested that they were typical of many other comments:

Communication between students and financial services office sucks!

Customer service is bad
Less run around when trying to register for classes
Student relations-this campus doesn't care about students
Better coordination between departments-especially for loans
Records office and registration needs improvement
Finance office-better communication and financial support
Customer service-administration should listen more to students
The way administration is run-no one helps you directly, too many hoops to jump through

The Lime Twig Report also acknowledged some progress and positive features of these offices.
A campus-wide survey of student perceptions, while not overwhelmingly positive, actually
offered a somewhat more positive view of these services ---especially from first and second
year students.

These data, taken in total, suggest that the core functions of support for students as they apply,
enroll, register and pay for their LSU education are not yet contributing optimally to student
success (CFR 2.3.) As indicators of areas in which performance may potentially be improved, La
Sierra University would be well served by focusing immediate attention on these support
functions (CFRs 2.11-2.13.)

The WASC Senior Commission's letter (March 6,2009) recommended that LSU work to ensure
that "campus structures and processes ... support a comprehensive assessment system including
program review" (Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study, p. 2). The University has
responded to this recommendation through the establishment of a university-wide Assessment
Committee with far-reaching responsibilities and through the establishment of a system of
program review (CFR 2.7.)

Under the leadership of the Assessment Director, the Assessment Committee has worked with
academic and other units on creating and measuring student learning outcomes (CFR 1.2, 2.3,

23
2.4) and on aligning department/ unit work with these outcomes. The Assessment Committee
has reviewed plans from academic units and rigorously and honestly evaluated them. The
l1
Committee has also established a formal timeline for the establishment of ildeveloped and
aligned outcomes and assessment plans (CFR 2.6.) It is difficult to determine the degree to
which the Assessment Committee has authority to go beyond encouragement of units, and this
lack of authority may inhibit its work. Nevertheless, it appears that progress has been made in
assessment since the CPR Review and that the Committee is at least partially responsible for
this progress.

Under the leadership of the Assessment Committee, La Sierra University has also taken the first
steps to establish and implement a process for program review (CFR 2.7.) This process includes
self-studies, reviews by outside and internal reviews, feedback to the unit(s), and sharing of the
results with key University offices and committees including the Provost's Office, the
University's Strategic Planning Committee, the Budget Committee, etc. Certainly the structure
and procedures which frame these reviews appears to be thorough and well-defined. As the
cycle of program review is just beginning, however, progress in this area will need to be
monitored and maintained.

Scholarship and Creative Activity (CFRs 2.8, 2.9)

Data on faculty perceptions of their La Sierra University experience suggest that most faculty
members are satisfied with their work and agree with the University's mission. These data
further suggest that faculty see linkages among various dimensions of their work (Comments in
one faculty survey included several that articulated the perception of connections between
teaching and IIservice" linked to LSU's Christian commitment) (CFR 2.9.) These data, though,
also suggest that at least some faculty are struggling with lower-than-desired salaries, heavy
teaching loads, and some frustration with students who are not entirely prepared. Some of the
responses contain hints that the most frustration occurs among the "adjunct faculty" (CFR 3.3.)

The Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study notes two significant challenges that La Sierra
University faces as it works to ensure that faculty resources are adequate to support quality
teaching, research, and service. The first of these is the reality that faculty salaries are " not at
parity" with aspirational comparison institutions (CFR 2.8, 3.3.) The report did, however, note
that some progress has been made in this area ---especially in salaries for newer faculty. The
second challenge is related to the institution's requirement that:

At least 90 percent of the full-time faculty must be Seventh-day Adventists.

Furthermore, the majority of the full time faculty in any school and/or
department shall be Seventh-day Adventists (Faculty Handbook, 2009, p. 30.)

This requirement limits the pool of qualified faculty for La Sierra University. This commitment
also, pOSSibly, affects faculty recruitment and morale in other ways. La Sierra University is
engaged in a thoughtful and careful effort to balance its commitments to Seventh-day
Adventist tenets and the faith traditions of the Adventist Church with supportive, open, and
non-discriminatory hiring practices (Faculty Handbook, 2009, Appendix C), the principles of

24
"academic responsibility" (p. 22) and principles of academic freedom. Recently, the institution's
ability to balance these sometimes competing forces has been challenged with the major
debate about the teaching of evolution in science classes/ programs (CFRs 1.6, 2.8.)

Evidence from the Capacity and Preparatory Review suggested that the LSU faculty is strongly
committed to student success. Data included in the Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study
suggest that these commitments continue and that faculty members are beginning to assess
the impact of their work with students through departmental assessment plans (CFRs 2.5, 2.6,
2.7). During the Educational Effectiveness Team's visit, faculty members spoke favorably about
several University-supported initiatives that, in their view, have helped them promote the
achievement of student learning goals. These included the ongoing support of the C-SAS
programs to support student learning and retention through the use of academic coaches; the
development of a very effective assessment committee that has both prodded and assisted
departments and some co-curricular units in developing, implementing, and beginning to
analyze assessment plans and data; and the encouragement of faculty attendance at WASC
workshops and retreats where faculty learn about models of assessment at other universities.
Similarly, evidence from the Capacity and Preparatory Review further suggested that the La
Sierra University faculty is also committed to scholarship and service. During the Educational
Effectiveness visit, conversations with faculty members, and review of faculty CVs and selected
sabbatical reports provide evidence of significant scholarly productivity on the part of the La
Sierra University faculty.

At La Sierra University, faculty members also provide a critical linking of scholarship, teaching,
student learning, and service through their impressive commitment to student research
projects. These projects were noted by a number of students, in several disciplines, as being a
highlight of their time at La Sierra University. They include opportunities to do research in
various scientific disciplines, opportunities to travel/study abroad in the honors programs, and
a variety of service learning opportunities that link faculty scholarship, teaching, and service.

Support for Student Learning (CFRs 2.10- 2.14)

La Sierra University recently undertook two university-wide data collection efforts, a survey of
students and faculty and the commissioning ofa study and report by the Lime Twig Marketing
group, to buttress the work of the Assessment Committee and to inform the University as a
whole of areas of strength and weakness (CFR 2.10.) Major portions of the Educational
Effectiveness Review Self-Study describe institutional efforts to respond to data on students and
student characteristics.

Processes and structures to provide academic and other support were developed after the
writing of the Capacity and Review Report and have been refined since the WASC's team CPR
review in 2008. These include refined ---and data-driven---processes to ensure that students
are appropriately placed in remedial classes and ongoing development and support of the
Center for Student Academic Success (C-SAS.).The C-SAS was noted and praised in the CPR
report for its apparent contribution to dramatic improvements in student retention. Evidence
presented in the self study suggests that the C-SAS is continuing to contribute, not only to

25
student retention, but to student success. ('Grades [of LSU freshmen) increased from 2006
(before C-SAS) through 2009. This pattern continued through winter quarter and, to a lesser
extent, persisted for sophomores who had been in the C-SAS program" (Educational
Effectiveness Review Self-Study, p. 32.)

The Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study discussed various co-curricular and student
support programs that are intended to support student learning (CFR 2.11, 2.13.) Evidence
presented in conjunction with the Report suggest that services and programs such the Learning
Support and Testing Center and the Counseling Center are generally viewed favorably by LSU
students, but little data were presented that documented the impact of these services and
programs beyond student satisfaction.

La Sierra's service learning program, by all accounts a curricular program that contributes to
and is supported by a IIprimary campus culture" (Lime Twig Report, p. 6), has resulted in
numerous co-curricular activities. Many of these are apparently linked with the institution's
faith commitments and seem, at least to a large degree, to be sponsored by the office of the
University Chaplain. Indeed, the Lime Twig Report contained glowing quotes from students and
others who spoke of meaningful co-curricular service work that informed academic learning.
The following are typical:

My daughter loves the opportunity to do mission work. Next week~ she is helping the
American Indians. . (Parent)
"Right after the Katrina fiasco we sent large groups ofstudents. There was no
academic requirement. The kinds of/kids who come here are the kind who roll up
their sleeves and get involved helping the community." (Faculty member)
Our generation wants to help out. Here at La Sierra~ they make it easy to. They put
the opportunities right in front of you. " (Student)

Another center for academically focused co-curricular programs is the Residential Life Unit on
campus. The Associate Vice President of Student life is considered the Dean of Students and has
line-responsibility for the professionals of Residential Life. In an interesting way, it appears that
residential life at LSU both supports and inhibits student learning. The Case Study on Residential
Life (May, 2009) provides evidence that work in Residential Life is directly linked to the
attainment of LSU's educational objectives. For example, {{The resident hall staff are
responsible for systematically maintaining and upgrading comfortable living accommodations,
promoting ethical and moral practices within their communities, and encouraging leadership
skills, self-awareness, responsible citizenship and concern for others within a Christian context"
(p. 14.) Certainly this work contributes directly to students' capacity to meet the University's
institutional learning goals for its graduates.

Data presented in the case study suggest that the Residential Life Staff is, in fact, helping to
ensure that LSU students do develop in ways aligned with the institution's objectives (CFR 2.4,
2.1.) Residential Life staff members are also close partners with the C-SAS Staff in supporting
students academically. The excellent programs offered by C-SAS are discussed briefly in the

26
previous section and in some detail in other sections of this report. These programs are
exemplary co-curricular programs that have had a major impact on student success at La Sierra
University (CFR 2.11)

Ironically, data from the Case Study on Residential Life and the Lime Twig Report, both
completed in 2009, also suggest that other aspects of residential life may be undermining
student success by contributing to decisions to leave campus. For example, a significant amount
of data in those two reports focused on issues like the physical conditions in the residential
halls. At first glance, these issues are, at best, indirectly related to LSU's educational objectives.
However, the case can be made that satisfaction, or the lack thereof, with residential life is an
important factor in retention and persistence of students. This is an area that was cited by the
Lime Twig Report as one of "vulnerability." Indeed, the Lime Twig Report summarizes students'
complaints as "a litany of horror stories" (p. 12.) La Sierra University is clearly aware of these
concerns, and it is important to note that addressing them is not the sole responsibility (or even
the primary responsibility) of Residential Life Staff (CFRs 2.3, 4.1, 4.4.)

While there seem to be issues in some areas of student life at La Sierra University, there is
evidence in the Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study and in supporting materials that
suggests that students are receiving adequate-to-very-good academic advising from faculty and
very good academic advising through C-SAS (CFRs 2.11, 2.12, 2.14.) Once again, C-SAS was
singled out for praise by students and high school counselors. The former group, after a C-SAS
orientation noted:
Everyone was there to guide me when I first walked in. It made me feel relaxed
because I didn't have to be nervous or tense.
Having many people open to helping us through each process and answering our
questions very knowledgeably. They knew what they were talking about.
The advisors were very helpful and friendly ... they know you don't know anything
about where things are and they are very understanding.
I had no idea what kind of choices I would make academically before coming here.
Now I'm excited to start.
Before I attended orientation I had basically no idea on how to prepare for school.
But because of the valuable help administered by the LSU staff, I am aware J

prepared and even excited about college.

J

Alii have to do is basically just show up on the 22nd for classes with no worries. (p.8)

Two high school counselors stated:

I absolutely love the C-SAS program. It is so good and I try to really promote that. I don't
think enough parents know about that. If they knew more, they would feel stronger
about their kids going to La Sierra.
It [La Sierra University] is a great school for the kids who don't know where they are goingJ
unsure about their majors, need a little structure and handholding. It's great because of
the CSAS department, so they get the support they need. That first year is a really hard
yearfor many students. La Sierra is certainly a strong academic university. But C-SAS is
an extra component that gives students support that they need to reach that level of

27
 academics. (p.8)

A wide array of data suggests that the advising from C-SAS and academic units for entering
freshmen and transfer students is providing students with appropriate academic guidance
(CFRs 2.12, 2.13.)

The Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study and supporting materials present strong
evidence that suggests that La Sierra University either meets, or is the process of meeting, all
CFRs that are directly linked to Standard 2.

Sustainability of Educational Effectiveness Work

The La Sierra Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study, assessment reports from all academic
units, and interviews with faculty and administrators conducted during the Educational
Effectiveness Review convinced the WASC Visiting Team that progress has been made on
developing systems and processes to ensure that students achieve identified learning
outcomes. The Assessment Committee has developed timelines for implementing this system
and initiated a plan for evaluating and supporting work within the units. In order to build on
this important work, the University must commit sufficient time, energy and resources to make
assessment and the use of assessment data a normative process. To accomplish these ends,
the team recommends that

As academic and support units continue to develop a system of yearly assessment

reporting and program assessment they should align their efforts in an explicit way with
the University's mission statement and strategic plan. Special attention should be paid to
ensure that these processes can be linked to changes and improvements in student
learning (CFRs 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11, 2.13, 3.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5-4.7)

As a part of this effort, the team suggests that the University establish clear benchmarks for
measuring student success institutionally with a timeline for achieving those benchmarks.
These, in turn, will guide assessment efforts in the units and programs and will provide a
framework to guide data collection, aggregation, disaggregation, and comparisons by the
Director of Institutional Research and his or her staff.

Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure

Sustainability
Faculty and Staff (CFRs 3.1-3.4)
La Sierra University appears to have well-qualified (and diverse) faculty and staff and are
committed to the mission and long term success of the institution (CFR 3.2). Indeed, the
diversity of faculty is impressive and an example of good practice. Among the full-time faculty,
43% are non-Caucasian and 43% of full time faculty members are women. Part -time faculty are
29% non-Caucasian and 45% female. Faculty policies (CFR 3.3) and faculty and staff professional
development (3.4) appear to be adequate. Students consistently revealed in group and
individuals conversations, that they illook up" to the faculty as more than educators and
consider them "mentors." There was wide spread student satisfaction regarding faculty

28
performance (CFR 3.3.) The Assessment Committee, which has a reputation for extreme
efficiency, and high marks from both faculty and administrators, is developing a university-wide
assessment tool for student evaluations of teaching and working to standardize the peer
evaluation of teaching (CFR 3.3.)

The recruitment, orientation and evaluation practices for faculty and staff appear to be well-
aligned with LSU's mission and objectives as evidenced by the commitment of the institution's
employees to its mission, its students and its long-term viability. However, recruitment is
hindered by the University requirement that a high percentage of full-time faculty members
must be Seventh-day Adventists.

This requirement limits the pool of qualified faculty for La Sierra University and thus may
hamper the University's efforts to meet its staffing needs. During the Team's visit, there were a
number of references to a feeling on the part of some faculty and departments that they were
overloaded. Another contributing factor to this sense of being overworked may also be the
frequency with which the University offers sabbaticals. The Provost explained to several Team
members that the University's practice has been to allow the tenure-track faculty a quarter's
sabbatical every ih quarter dependent on approval from the appropriate Dean and the
University Council. However, particularly in view of the University's assessment expectations
and budget realities, perhaps La Sierra University should revisit this practice. The Faculty Senate
might provide a natural and meaningful forum for a discussion of the impact of sabbaticals on
the scheduling of courses and faculty responsibilities and workload.

Fiscal, Physical and Information Resources (CFRs 3.5-3.7)

La Sierra University received another unqualified opinion for their June 30, 2009 audited
financial statements. However, the University incurred another decrease in net assets (second
year in a row), this time of $13.1M, of which $10.6M was from unrealized losses (footnote 4 of
audited financial statements.) The endowment lost roughly 25% of its value, which is not
unreasonable given the current state of the economy. According to both the President and the
Chief Financial Officer, a substantial part (approximately 60%) of the unrealized loss had been
recovered by the time of the Educational Effectiveness Review Team's visit. Based on the
strength of the balance sheet, and the prudently conservative manner in which the Board and
University leadership manage its finances, La Sierra University seemingly has the resources to
ensure its long-term viability at its current expense level (CFR 3.5.)

During the Educational Effectiveness Review, team members were able to meet with the
Budget and Finance Committee, which is chaired by the CFO (CFR 3.10.) A detailed and
forthright discussion of the University's current fiscal challenges revealed a number of ways in
which the current economic recession is affecting the campus, including a 2% decline in
enrollment; an increase in financial aid; and a decline in the number of students living on
campus. The University anticipates theses negative variables to be offset by savings in other
areas of the budget (this year.) In order to accomplish these "savings," the University has frozen
vacant positions. The Strategic Planning Committee is anticipating a 1.5% increase in student
enrollment; however, as part of its fiscally conservative budget decisions, the University is not

29
including any possible enrollment increase income in its next budget plan.

The Budget and Finance Committee does not expect any changes to next year's budget.
However, members of the committee have discussed, and are prepared to take, corrective
action if necessary. In order to keep the budgeting process responsive as actual information
becomes available, the Budget and Finance Committee will take corrective action in the
following order: (1) freeze hiring on vacant positions (where possible); (2) cut program
(department) expenses; (3) eliminate raises; (4) suspend progress on salary adjustments.
The lesson of the past few years for La Sierra University has been to budget very conservatively
and this should produce less dramatic budget variances in the future.

La Sierra University continues to improve its facilities. As stated in the Capacity and Preparatory
Review report, the University has developed a list of priority deferred and major maintenance
projects that are to be funded from the proceeds of the recent bond issue. Many of the projects
have been designed to directly address concerns voiced by students in a series of focus groups
conducted by the Vice President for Student life. These include upgrading plumbing in the
men's dormitory, adding air conditioning to the residence halls and constructing a fence along
the perimeter of the campus. During the Educational Effectiveness Review, the Team observed
that these improvements had been accomplished. These improvements in security and comfort
foster a safer learning environment (CFR 3.5.) The campus is beautiful and well-maintained.

Current Economic Impact

The WASC Commission requires teams to review the institution's responses to three questions
developed to provide information about current and long-term financial status.

How has the institution been effected by the current financial situation?
The Budget and Finance Committee which is chaired by the Chief Financial Officer, described
the impact of the current economic recession as a 2% decline in enrollment, a simultaneous
increase in financial aid needs and a decline in the number of students living in campus housing.

How has the institution responded?

La Sierra University expects the negative variables to be offset by savings in other areas of the
budget for this fiscal year. In order to accomplish these "savings," the University has frozen
hiring and has a number of vacant positions. The Strategic Planning Committee anticipates a
1.5% increase in student enrollment in the coming academic year, but will act conservatively
and will not include that increase in budgeting for next year. The Budget and Finance
Committee does not expect any changes to next year's budget. However, contingency plans
and corrective actions have been discussed.

What plans has the institution made. should this be the new financial reality in which it must
operate?
As budget information becomes "real" and available, the Budget and Finance Committee has a
plan in place to take a series of actions, as needed, in the following order: 1] freeze new
vacancies (if possible); 2] cut program and department expenses; 3] forgo raises; 4] eliminate

30
salary adjustments.

Over the past few years, La Sierra University has learned to budget very conservatively and this
experience should produce less dramatic budget variances in the future.

In contrast to the attention given to La Sierra Universitys fiscal and physical resources,
concerns with information resources and institutional research identified during the Capacity
and Preparatory Review have not been addressed as effectively. While the University appears
to have sufficient information resources for student and faculty support for educational
purposes (CFR 3.6) and is developing other structures for IT support of University services, the
Team has some concern that the University's needs for IT and IR are not sufficiently supported.
In the Team's view, the University needs to have both highly efficient and effective institutional
technology and institutional research functions and to consider the ways in which these two
offices might best support one another.

CFRs 3.8-3.11: Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes:

La Sierra University has an elaborate and well-defined organizational structure and decision-
making process, culminating with policy decisions made by the institution's independent Board
of Trustees.

However, during the Educational Effectiveness Review visit, the Team heard from faculty and
staff that the decision-making process is not effectively communicated to the University
community. The faculty and staff questioned the rationale for some of the decisions made by
University leadership. This lack of clear communication has led to some negative attitudes
among members of the University community. While it seems clear to the Team that La Sierra
University has a long history of faculty governance and the current administration is committed
to the meaningful participation of all members of the community----every campus constituency
is represented on every committee---the Team recommends that

La Sierra University should improve its institutional communications and efforts at

transparency, especially in regards to sensitive issues, such as budgeting and strategic
planning.

This is also a period of important personnel transition at La Sierra University, as the long-term
Provost will be returning to full-time faculty status and a new Provost has not yet been
appointed, As a result, efforts of faculty and administrative collaborations such as program
review and assessment of department and institutional learning goals will require significant
commitments from the new Provost in order for La Sierra University to continue its progress in
this area.

The creation of the Assessment Committee appears to have been an effective and responsive
way to create a system of consistency, collaboration, and responsibility within the
organizational structure. The Strategic Planning Committee, the Dean's Council, and the Faculty
Senate all reviewed drafts of the University-level Student Learning Outcomes, as did the full-

31
time faculty-at-Iarge, who received the draft via faculty-wide email (CFR3.11.) Departments
began aligning these SLOs with program-level learning outcomes last spring and the
Assessment Committee will be able to determine how integrated they are in the
majors/programs.

However, it appears that the faculty is {lover-stretched" and this could affect future efforts in
this and other important areas. At the time of the Team's visit the Task Force on Governance
and Faculty Effectiveness shared some of its findings and the Visiting Team commends its
forthcoming comprehensive report on effective and efficient use of faculty resources.

It is clear to the Team that the faculty and administration are committed to continuing La Sierra
University's tradition of academic quality and educational purpose. Additionally, the Board has
explicitly stated that its goal is to promote a safe learning environment so that individuals are
able to express their beliefs and to protect the mission of the University (CFRs 3.9- 3.11.)

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement

Strategic Thinking and Planning (CFRs 4.1-4.3)
The WASC Commission Action letter of March 6, 2009 emphasized that La Sierra University
needed to, It • • • continue to ensure that the goals outlined in the campus master plan, and
particularly those for student growth, are realistic and sustainable. Plans to increase student
numbers should be multifaceted, based upon the needs ofindividual students, and should take
into account annual and six-year retention and graduation rates." In response to the
Commission letter, the La Sierra University Strategic Planning Committee, chaired by the
PreSident, developed four working groups, headed by the Provost, the C-SAS Director, a Dean,
and the Chief Financial Officer. The Educational Effectiveness Review Visiting Team was able to
review minutes from the numerous meetings which were held following the Capacity and
Preparatory Review Team's visit and to meet with members of the Strategic Planning
Committee:

The Strategic Academic Opportunities Task Force was tasked with the development of a
system for data-driven program analysis in order to assess academic programs. They
were to explore and recommend maintenance, growth, and transformation
opportunities, and to recommend deletion or development of new academic programs
based upon the results of the analysis. The Task Force on Academic Opportunities
proposed adding academic programs that have potential for significant growth such as
Environmental Science and to pursue programs that could grow with modest additional
funding or lift, such as Computer Science. The group also urged that online courses be
marketed aggressively and that the Division of Continuing Studies be given wide
latitude. The group strongly backed periodic assessment of ongoing programs. They
sought to create a list of factors to be considered when reviewing proposals for new
university offerings. They made recommendations regarding Academic Unit Productivity
Metrics, and conducted and analyzed strategic survey results.

The Strategic Co-Curricular Opportunities Task Force was charged with measuring student

32
 satisfaction, opportunities related to student activities, and student life. Members of
this task force also explored university life and student activities, including athletics. The
Task Force on Co-Curricular Opportunities analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the
co-curricular program. Among the strengths were Division III athletics. Its work was
also informed by research from Lime Twig, a higher education marketing consulting
group which had found significant areas for improvement. This group found that
students were frustrated by lack of standard, professional business practices across the
campus. They came forward with eight recommendations including the development of
consistent, courteous, and professional standards for all departments; more training for
new and continuing employees; improved responsiveness to student needs and
expectations; development of user-friendly student transfer information and processes;
a website overhaul to better showcase the University; and a focus on the quality and
improvement of campus communications.

The Strategic Financial Opportunities Task Force focused its attention on prioritizing
additional funding; developing performance measures to be used in decision-making;
and exploring mission-driven investments in academic programs. This task force
recommended that the University undertake efforts to create an improved system of
targeted funding priorities through an open, data-driven, and strategic planning process.
Members of this group concluded that new programs or projects that required startup
funding would have to meet three criteria: 1) provide tactical plans, 2) serve the core
mission and/or promise high return on investment, and 3) be evaluated via qualitative
and quantitative performance standards.

The WASC Capacity and Preparatory Review Visiting Team expressed specific concerns in
the areas which were the responsibility of the Planning for University Growth Task
Force. The Task Force on University Growth attempted to identify the key challenges to
be addressed in order for the university to grow. Their work focused on five growth
concerns:
First, a need to come to grips with the key issues of La Sierra University's Adventist
identity. Discussion of these issues centered on two key questions: first, can La
Sierra University be a progressive university while serving both liberal and
conservative constituencies? And, second, what percentage of the student body
should be Adventist and what percentage non-Adventist?

In support of the necessity of data-driven decision making, the task force

recommended the establishment of a data depository;

The task force attempted to determine which academic programs have the capacity
to grow and lead to careers with strong market demand;

This planning group also discussed strategies to make customer service and student
satisfaction an institutional priority;

33
 And finally, this group considered the issue of efficient growth, and the possibility
that the University should identify optimal program size in concert with physical
infrastructure.

Each of these Strategic Planning Committee Task Forces met frequently and produced
thoughtful and well-grounded reports which have been turned over to the appropriate Vice
President for further development (CFRs 4.1-4.2.) However, none of the four reports has made
its way into a revised or renewed Strategic Master Plan. La Sierra University needs to establish
a timetable, layout the process, and complete a specific strategic plan that has campus-wide
support and a compelling action dimension (CFR4.1.) Therefore the visiting team recommends
that

In these extremely challenging times, it is important that La Sierra University complete the
strategic planning cycle by setting priorities, developing timelines, and preparing for strategic
actions (CFRs 3.5, 3.8,4.1-4.3,4.6)

On the specific issue in the Commission action letter referencing the question of the reality and
sustainability of La Sierra's vision for enrollment growth, there has been some progress and
clarification. During the Capacity and Preparatory Review visit in 2008, the team found high
numbers mentioned by various segments of the community. Some mentioned a desired goal of
2,500 students. Others mentioned 5,000 students. There was no common understanding of
whether that was head count or full-time equivalence.

During the Educational Effectiveness Review visit, it became clear that the potential growth
numbers relate to head count. Furthermore, there is an improved and widely-held
understanding on campus as to how the original figures came into being. Both numbers were
part of a city of Riverside Master Plan report regarding perceived campus capacity. The
discussions and dialogue in the Growth Task Force have demonstrated the University's
realization that an immediate or short range expectation of a 2500 student headcount is
unrealistic. Current campus headcount is 1859. Enrollment grew 8.5% in FY 2009 and dropped
2% for FY 2010. Pipeline plans now seem leaning toward an annual growth rate of 1.5% for the
next three years; perhaps rising after that time. These expectations appear more realistic and
seem to more effectively address issues of sustainability. Everyone with whom the Educational
Effectiveness Review Team spoke during its visit about this issue, however, was concerned with
the "Great Recession" implications of the past two years and with how quickly those conditions
will change (CFR 4.1, 4.2.)

One bright spot in terms of Standard 4 is that the University has made some marked
improvement in marketing over the past year. The decision to hire a Vice President for
Marketing was made shortly before the Capacity and Preparatory Team visit of 2008. There is
strong evidence of a Communication and Marketing Plan based on two goals: to increase both
brand awareness and receptivity in target markets; and to strengthen the University's level of
support and enthusiasm among current stakeholders and University community members so
that they become a "sales force" for the institution.
34
A second bright spot in the area of strategic planning and thinking is the work of the Faculty
Senate Task Force examining the most efficient and effective use of faculty resources. That
group has met 15 times since February of 2009 and is due to provide its final report later in
spring 2010 (CFR 4.2.)

All in all there has been focus, deliberation, and progress in the area of Strategic Planning. La
Sierra University is excellent at allowing for process, collaboration and reflection. The University
now needs to move its Strategic Planning beyond mere revision of the 2002-2008 Plan to an
official University Plan for 2010 and beyond. That needs to be done with deliberate speed and
in light of appropriate quantitative and qualitative data (CFR 4.3.)

Commitment to Learning and Improvement (CFRs 4.4-4.8)

Since the Capacity and Preparatory Review visit, La Sierra University has made great progress in
the establishment and implementation of assessment plans in its academic units. While only
some departments (e.g. Psychology, Biology) currently report using data to make program
revisions, the faculty-in-general indicate a willingness to do so once they have enough data to
make informed decisions (CFR 4.4.) As noted inthe current Team recommendations, one aspect
that, to date, has not been strong at the University is Institutional Research (CFR 4.5) and
improvements in that unit should have a positive effect on data-based decision-making.

The impressive work of the Assessment Committee appears to be taking place with strong
support from both faculty and University leadership and appears to be moving the University in
an appropriate direction in relationship to CFRs 4.5 and 4.7. As noted above, over the next few
years, the University will want to attend to using assessment data to improve courses, curricula,
and programs. Finally, La Sierra University, especially in its programs that connect directly with
various professions (e.g. education, business) appears to be using input from stakeholders as
one means of assessment (CFR 4.8). The School of Education, for example, works closely with
both Seventh-day Adventist and some public schools in the region and uses data collected from
teachers and administrators as a part of its assessment process. C-SAS and other units on
campus also collect data from external stakeholders, including parents, school counselors, and
others, to help determine the effectiveness of their efforts.

SECTION III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY
REVIEW AND THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
In its Institutional Proposal, dated September 2006, La Sierra University committed itself to
using the WASC Review Process to continue to improve by, among other goals, developing and
executing a "workable" plan to evaluate its educational effectiveness. Constructing a
framework for the review process that drew on a Focused Audit Model, the University
organized its review around the WASC Criteria for Review and the "interests and concerns" of
its constituencies----supporting and achieving the University's mission; assuring student
success; and attracting and retaining a high quality faculty.

35
La Sierra University's desire to use the audit model for its Educational Effectiveness Report
appears to be based on its sense that, as an institution that wanted to "focus on improvement,"
is "Iess centralized," and has a high level of "heterogeneity and complexity," this approach
would be compatible with its culture and offer a structure of analysis and method that would
be both meaningful and useful. La Sierra University focused its use of the audit on assessing the
effectiveness and learning-centeredness of its core processes and educational activities. There
is continuity between the institution's procedures and findings in the Capacity and Preparatory
Report and the Educational Effectiveness Self-Study which reflects La Sierra University's
distinctive character and enhances the narrowing of focus that occurred in the process of the
two reviews. However, the audit model may have also resulted in a shift from the issues
identified in the Institutional Proposal and treated in the Capacity and Preparatory Review----
for example, the Educational Effectiveness Review Self-Study does not devote significant or
detailed attention to the University's previously identified concern for recruiting, retaining and
building its faculty.

The comprehensive WASC review process has allowed La Sierra University to focus its energies
on the issues of greatest importance to its continued status as a unique institution within the
Seventh-day Adventist educational system while also considering challenges and opportunities
within the landscape of the larger world of 21st century higher education.

Three members (the chair, assistant chair and an expert on educational practice) of the
Capacity and Preparatory Visiting Team to La Sierra University were able to also participate in
the Educational Effectiveness Review. This continuity provided the team with the opportunity
to develop and build on the role of lIcritical friend" which is so central to the success of peer
review.

The Capacity and Preparatory Review Visiting Team made a number of recommendations in its
report. The institution's response to these and the Commission's recommendations are treated
in detail on pages 5-7 of this report. In summary, the visiting team believes La Sierra University
has been responsive to the eight team recommendations and two Commission action letter
recommendations which grew out of the Capacity and Preparatory Review.

As a result of its recent review of the La Sierra University WASC Educational Effectiveness
Review Self-Study, supporting materials, and its site visit, the Educational Effectiveness Review
Team offers the following commendations and recommendations:

COMMENDATIONS
The Educational Effectiveness Review Visiting Team commends:
• the dedication, hard work and supportive nature of the La Sierra community;

• the Task Force on Governance and Faculty Effectiveness for its expansive work and
forthcoming comprehensive report on effective and efficient use of faculty
resources;

36
 • the University's commitment to marketing demonstrated by hiring staff, funding,
and developing a communication and marketing plan which captures La Sierra's ten
best and most distinctive qualities;

• the University's continued progress on student support and retention;

• the hard work and progress on assessment at La Sierra University under the
leadership of the Assessment Committee;

The Team was impressed with La Sierra students and commends the faculty for its engagement
with active student learning through such initiatives as undergraduate and graduate research
activities, service learning and student travel opportunities.

RECOM IV! EN DATIONS:

• As academic and support units continue to develop a system of yearly assessment
reporting and program assessment they should align their efforts in an explicit way
with the University's mission statement and strategic plan. Special attention should
be paid to ensure that these processes can be linked to changes and improvements
in student learning (CFRs 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 2.13, 3.5, 4.1-4.3, 4.5-4.7);

• La Sierra University should devote focused attention and significant resources to the
appointment of an Institutional Research Director and to clarifying both the support
and reporting responsibilities of this office (CFRs 3.6, 3.7,4.3-4.6);

• As assessment at La Sierra University becomes an increasingly normative practice,

the Assessment Committee should entertain proposals for variations to allow
programs to improve both the meaningfulness and usefulness of their assessment
and program review activities (CFRs 2.4-2.7, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8);

• La Sierra University should improve its institutional communications and efforts at

transparency, especially in regards to sensitive issues, such as budgeting and
strategic planning (CFRS 3,8, 4.1, 4.2);

• Although La Sierra is primarily an undergraduate institution, the team recommends

that graduate programming be given increased consideration as the University
moves forward with its strategic planning (CFRs 2.1, 2.2, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.2,
3.4,3.5):

• In these extremely challenging times, it is important that La Sierra University

complete the strategic planning cycle by setting priorities, developing timelines, and
preparing for strategic actions (CFRs 3.5, 3.8,4.1-4.3, 4.6.)

37