REPORT OF THE WSCUC TEAM
For Reaffirmation of Accreditation

San Diego Christian College
March 1 – 4, 2016

Team Roster
Jim J. Adams, Team Chair
President, Life Pacific College
John A. Hughes, Team Assistant Chair
V.P. for Institutional Planning & Research, The Master’s College & Seminary
Dawn Dirksen, Team Member
VP for Finance & Operations, Providence Christian College
Paula S. Krist, Team Member
Director, Institutional Research & Planning, University of San Diego
Doretha A. O’Quinn
Provost, Vanguard University of Southern California
Christopher Oberg, WSCUC Liaison

The team evaluated the institution under the 2013 Standards of Accreditation and prepared this
report containing its collective evaluation for consideration and action by the institution and by the
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC).
The formal action concerning the institution’s status is taken by the Commission and is described in
a letter from the Commission to the institution. This report and the Commission letter are made
available to the public by publication on the WSCUC website.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT
A. Description of the Institution and its Accreditation History ....................................... pg. 1
B. Description of Team’s Review Process ..................................................................... pg. 2
C. Institution’s Reaccreditation Report and Update:
Quality and Rigor of the Report and Supporting Evidence ........................................ pg. 3
SECTION II – EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ESSAYS
A. Component 1: Response to previous Commission actions ...................................... pg. 4
B. Component 2: Compliance with the Standards and federal
requirements; Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators ........................ pg. 7
C. Component 3: Degree Programs: Meaning, quality and
integrity of degrees ............................................................................................... pg. 15
D. Component 4: Educational Quality: Student learning, core
competencies, and standards of performance at graduation ................................ pg. 17
E. Component 5: Student Success: Student learning, retention,
and graduation ...................................................................................................... pg. 22
F. Component 6: Quality Assurance and Improvement:
Program review, assessment, use of data and evidence ....................................... pg. 27
G. Component 7: Sustainability: Financial viability,
preparing for the changing higher education environment .................................. pg. 32
H. Component 9: Reflection and plans for improvement ............................................. pg. 37
SECTION III – Distance Education Review ...................................................................... pg. 39
SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE TEAM REVIEW
A. Commendations......................................................................................................... pg. 41
B. Recommendations .................................................................................................... pg. 41

SDC AV Team Report

pg. i

 APPENDICES
A. Federal Compliance Forms
1. Credit Hour Review .............................................................................................. pg. 44
2. Marketing and Recruitment Review .................................................................... pg. 45
3. Student Complaints Review ................................................................................. pg. 46
4. Transfer Policy Review ........................................................................................ pg. 47
B. Distance Education Review ...................................................................................... pg. 48

pg. ii

4/18/2016

 SECTION I – OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT
A. Description of Institution and Reaccreditation Process
San Diego Christian College (SDC) is a private, non-profit college now located in Santee,
California in the greater San Diego metropolitan area. SDC was founded as Christian Heritage
College in 1970 through the efforts of what is now Shadow Mountain Community Church in El
Cajon.
In 2005 the College changed its name to San Diego Christian College as part of its
commitment to establish its identity as an independent, faith-based liberal arts college. In
January 2014 the College completed an additional step in establishing its identity, moving from
its original, church-owned facilities in El Cajon, California to a new campus being developed in
nearby Santee.
The College had its initial visit by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
in 1975 and was granted Candidacy in 1976. Accreditation was granted in 1984, and was
followed by numerous challenges and Commission actions requiring several focused and special
visits to the College. The College has been placed on Probation twice and was under Show
Cause action by the Commission in 2006.
In 2007 changes to the Board of Trustees and the hiring of a full-time president provided a
foundation to address the issues identified by the Commission in its 2006 Show Cause action.
The College had its last Comprehensive Visit in 2008, which was followed by Special Visits in
2012 and 2014.

Both special visits focused on concerns about the Institution’s financial

sustainability (CFR 3.4), strategic planning (CFR 4.6), and continued progress on assessment of
learning. (CFRs 2.3-2.7, 4.1)
The WSCUC Action Letter following the 2014 Special Visit included five specific
recommendations relating to: 1) continued attention to graduation and retention efforts, 2)

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 1

 framing a unified vision for traditional and Adult & Professional Studies (APS) academic
programs, 3) expanding assessment efforts to provide for educational quality comparisons, 4)
defining assessment of co-curricular programs, and 5) enhancing & integrating technology
systems.
Since the 2014 Special Visit, SDC has continued efforts to develop its new Santee campus,
as well as expand its degree program offerings. They have recently received WASC Senior
College & University Commission (WSCUC) substantive change approvals to offer four new
online degree programs (BA in Communication, BA in Psychology, BS in Aviation
Management, and BA in Leadership & Justice), as well as a Master of Arts (MA) in Teaching.
The fall 2015 enrollment totaled 917 students which included 483 in traditional programs,
397 in APS Face to Face (F2F) and online programs, and 37 in Education-related programs. This
was a decrease from the fall 2014 total enrollment of 966 students.
B. Description of Team’s Review Process
SDC’s Institutional Review (IR) Report was submitted to WSCUC in August 2015 along
with a number of supporting attachments. This information was reviewed by the WSCUCappointed Visit Team in advance of the Off-Site Review (OSR) meeting that was conducted at
the WSCUC offices on October 19-20, 2015. The OSR resulted in the Team identifying eight
lines of inquiry to pursue further during the Accreditation Visit (AV).

In addition, they

requested 13 additional documents and items of information, which SDC provided on a timely
basis prior to the campus visit.
The Team arrived on March 1, 2016 for consultation and planning. From March 2 – 4, the
Team conducted onsite reviews of institutional documents and interviews with administrative
personnel, trustees, faculty, staff, and students to further refine its initial findings.

pg. 2

4/18/2016

 C. Institution’s Reaccreditation Report and Update: Quality and Rigor of the Report and
Supporting Evidence
SDC submitted an 84 page Institutional Review (IR) Report and 51 attachments to support
their reaffirmation of accreditation. The IR Report followed the eight component organizational
structure outlined in the 2013 WSCUC Handbook of Accreditation. In general, each section of
the report addressed the topic areas specified by the 2013 Handbook. However, at times, it
required some effort on the part of the reader to locate key information relating to some of the
2013 Handbook component requirements. The addition of sub-section titles and other formatting
devices could have helped to clarify what topics areas were being addressed within the report
components. The IR Report included appropriate references to 2013 Handbook Criteria for
Review (CFRs) and provided SDC attachments. The attachments that were originally submitted
with the IR Report, along with their prompt submission of the additional information requested
by the Team, provided useful evidence to support the assertions they made in the various
sections of their report.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 3

 SECTION II – EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ESSAYS
A. Component 1: Response to Previous Commission Actions
As described earlier, the July 10, 2012 WSCUC Action letter identified three specific areas
of recommended action for SDC following their spring 2012 special visit. They included: 1)
financial stability; 2) strategic planning; and 3) program review. The SDC IR Report outlined a
number of steps that had been taken since that time to respond to each of these three
recommendation areas. As will be cited in later sections of this Team Report, the Institution has
given continued attention in regard to each of these recommendation areas.
The 2014 Special Visit Team Report identified the following five recommendations for
action that were documented in the July 7, 2014 WSCUC Action Letter to SDC:
1. Continue attention to graduation and retention efforts. (CFRs 1.2, 2.10, & 2.13)
2. Frame a unified vision for traditional and APS/online academic programs. (CFRs 3.7,
4.1, & 4.4)
3. Expand assessment efforts to provide for educational quality comparisons. (CFRs 2.4,
2.6, & 2.7)
4. Define student learning outcomes for co-curricular programs. (CFR 2.11)
5. Enhance and integrate technology systems. (CFR 3.5)
Unfortunately, Component 1 of the SDC IR Report did not present a clear, organized description
of the actions they had taken to specifically respond to each of these five recommendations. A
review of other components of the IR Report provided some insight into steps that SDC has
taken to respond to several of these recommendations.
SDC IR Report Section 5 provided some information relating to the focus on improving
retention and graduation rates. In recent years SDC has begun focusing on establishing “identity
groups” (e.g., sports teams, the DHM Leadership Program, Speech & Debate team), and
recruiting students into these groups whenever possible. They believe that connecting students

pg. 4

4/18/2016

 into a group with like interests can have a positive effect on retention.

As it relates to

recruitment into athletic teams, they have adjusted playing roster sizes to ensure the students on
those teams are able to have reasonable playing time (an earlier dissatisfaction with overly large
team rosters). They have also created “student success coaches” for their residential, APS onsite,
and online programs to provide students with a more personal connection for mentoring and
advising. There have been steps taken to better equip online faculty to engage students in the
online environment. Based on the longitudinal summaries of retention and graduation rates
provided in the report and appendices, it is unclear to what extent these steps have yet resulted in
significant improvements in these areas.
In regard to framing a unified vision for the traditional, APS onsite, and online academic
programs, a description about overall meaning and degree expectations for SDC graduates was
included as part of Component 3 in the SDC IR Report. Discussions with the President, faculty,
and the Academic Vice President indicated that there is a shared across-program vision for SDC
as expressed in their:


Highly-visible around campus motto of “Truth, Purpose, Impact.”



“Six big rocks” that were outlined in their Vision 2019.



Recently developed strategic initiatives (known as their ABCs): “Academically
Equipped, Biblical Worldview, and Cultural Involvement.”

Discussions with faculty and academic leadership revealed that SDC has recently taken a
number of practical steps to strengthen the working relationship between the traditional and APS
programs through means such as:


Placing three traditional program faculty on the APS Senate.



APS providing instructional design support to traditional faculty to convert their courses
to an online format.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 5

 

Increasing the number of traditional faculty teaching in APS.



Offering selected online courses in a “high-flex” format that allows students to complete
their course requirements for any given week in either an in-class or online modality. The
hope is to be able to develop an increasing number of courses in this “multiple-modality”
format to better serve students, and hopefully improve student retention.

As it relates to developing assessment strategies that allow for educational quality
comparisons, SDC IR Report Section 4 describes the Institution’s intention to use the Association
of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) VALUE rubrics as the basis for comparison of
SDC student mastery of the WSCUC-required core competencies with student mastery levels at
peer institutions. (CFR 2.2a) They have implemented use of the Oral Communication and
Information Literacy VALUE rubrics, and are considering their use in the Critical Thinking and
Quantitative Reasoning competency areas.
The report also indicated that SDC had reinstituted administration of the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) Proficiency Profile as a possible means of gaining external comparison data
relating to SDC student mastery of core competencies. However, the Dean of Assessment &
Institutional Research indicated that the results from this pilot test were disappointing, in part
due to a lack of student motivation and effort for taking the test. As a result, the value of the
results for comparison purposes were in question.
The SDC IR Report indicated that significant progress had been made in regard to assessment
of the co-curricular programs. (CFR 2.11) At the time of the current visit, Program-level
Learning Outcomes (PLOs) had been developed for all twelve of their co-curricular programs,
and one program review (the DHM Leadership program) had been completed. Discussions with
the Student Life staff and the Co-curricular Committee revealed that considerable work had been
done in completing the Residential Life program review, but that the director of that program had

pg. 6

4/18/2016

 left prior to its completion, and a significant portion of the work completed to that date was lost.
The Team was able to review the progress that the Athletic program has made to-date on their
program review, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of May 2016.
The SDC IR Report did not completely address the fifth WSCUC Action Letter
recommendation to enhance and integrate technology systems. (CFR 3.5) in their narrative of
this Component. However, brief descriptions of steps being taken in regard to technology
development were included in several other sections of the report (e.g., pg. 11, 26, and 62). In
addition, the team was pleased that discussions with the Director of APS Programs and a review
of supporting documentation revealed that considerable progress had been made by SDC to
design an approach for integrating their major technology systems.

They are currently

evaluating the best strategy for upgrading or replacing their Student Information System (SIS)
since it serves as a foundational component within the overall technological infrastructure.

B. Component 2: Compliance with the Standards & Federal Requirements; Inventory of
Educational Effectiveness Indicators
1. Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes & Ensuring Educational Objectives
The institution’s brief mission statement is well disseminated and states, “San Diego
Christian College exists to educate and inspire students through the truth of Scripture and the
development of competencies that prepare graduates whose purpose is to impact the world.”
(CFR 1.1) In 2014 SDC launched its five-year cycle for strategic planning entitled “Vision
2019.” The following three overarching initiatives provide a roadmap to fulfilling the plan:
1. Equip an Academic and Learning Community,
2. Foster a Community Committed to a Biblical Worldview and Godly Character,
3. Inspire Cultural and Global Involvement.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 7

 Known by a shorthand “The ABCs” (Academically Equipped, Biblical Worldview, Cultural
Involvement), the fundamentals of the strategic plan are published on the College website, with a
robust and systematic process in place to monitor progress. (CFRs 4.4-4.6) The team noted a
widespread and comprehensive “buy-in” to the ABC strategic plan that was apparent in
discussions with a broad group of stakeholders including students, faculty, staff, and trustees.
(CFR 1.1, 1.6) Most departments tie budget requests to the strategic plan. Clearly, SDC excels
at providing and disseminating widely through all levels a clear sense of purpose, vision, and
values. In addition, SDC publishes student retention and completion data to the public on its
website. (CFR 1.2)
The Institution places substantial importance on its developing identity as a WSCUCaccredited faith-based institution of higher education. Following years of struggle, the relocation
of the campus has undoubtedly rallied all stakeholders around common purposes and objectives.
Moreover, SDC demonstrates a commitment to the public good (CFR 1.1) through the means of
its Christian mission as expressed in the three overarching ABC strategic initiatives. The Team
found the President and College leadership already engaging with new community relationship
initiatives in their new city of residence, Santee.
In its IR Report, the College admits to continuing struggles with comprehensive data
management. (CFR 4.2) SDC does not have dedicated full-time staff in its institutional research
office. Institutional research is assigned to the Dean of Assessment & Institutional Research,
among other duties (i.e. Dean of Business & Education), whose work is supported by an
assessment committee and a co-curricular assessment committee. While the College has recently
instituted a new software package for managing institutional data, there appears to be ongoing
difficulties with unneeded duplications and higher workload among those who collect, analyze,

pg. 8

4/18/2016

 and use data for decision-making. (CFRs 1.2 & 4.2) That said, the team found evidence of
widespread collaborative decision-making based on data such as are available.
Faculty and staff roles, responsibilities, and academic freedom are clearly detailed in
appropriate handbooks, including statements explaining SDC’s worldview and Christian beliefs.
(CFR 1.3) Likewise, the Institutional catalog and student handbooks specify the rights and
responsibilities of students, including conduct expectations. In its published practices and
policies, SDC appears to adhere to its mission and values as a higher education institution
dedicated to advancing the pursuit of educational goals in a faith-based context. Faculty
governance is clearly outlined, with full-time faculty expected to participate actively in various
committees and consultative processes. (CFR 1.7)
SDC has experienced remarkable growth in the percentage of underrepresented students over
the past five years. (CFR 1.4) During the visit interview meetings, the Team noted that many
individuals from the faculty and staff are highly engaged with students of color, international
students, and first-generation students. In fact, the Team sensed a high level of commitment by
all members of the community to embrace and celebrate the increasingly diverse student body.
However, the Team found that the multicultural committee is not currently using data and
analysis for decision-making to support students or recommend institutional improvement and
change.
2. Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions
SDC provided clear evidence relating to most Standard 2 CFRs of its commitment to achieve
its purposes and attain its educational objectives at the institutional and program level through
the core functions of teaching and learning (CFRs 2.1-2.7), scholarship and creative activity
(CFRs 2.8-2.9), and support for student learning and success. (CFRs 2.10-2.14)

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 9

 In the area of teaching and learning, SDC academic programs have clearly written Courselevel Learning Outcomes (CLOs), syllabi, and assessment rubrics. (CFRs 2.3-2.7) The course
syllabi reference the six Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs), and Program-level Learning
Outcomes (PLOs) in alignment with ILOs. CLOs that engage students in owning their learning
experience, and rubrics are provided that set criteria for the knowledge and skills required to be
successful as a student at SDC.
At the program level, SDC has well-developed curriculum maps, and assessment plans that
measure student success. (CFRs 2.2-2.4) Program reviews are conducted on a regularly
scheduled basis, and involve both internal and external reviewers. (CFR 2.7)
To advance teaching and learning, SDC recently began the development of two key offices
(Community Engagement and Career Services) that will support the academic PLOs outside the
classroom through community outreach as well as in preparation for internships and employment
after graduation. (CFR 2.5)
It will be important for SDC to pay close attention to number of qualified faculty for the type
and level of curricula offered. It will be important for them to identify and implement strategies
that will result in employing more faculty with terminal degrees in their field of study. (CFRs 2.1
& 3.1)
In the area of scholarship and creative activity (CFRs 2.8, 2.9, 3.3), SDC provides
professional development funds to support scholarship and creative activity that is governed by a
faculty committee. This committee’s funding process affords SDC the capacity to ensure that
academic scholarship, teaching, assessment of student learning, and service is promoted. Faculty
described opportunities they have had to attend and present at professional conferences, personal
development, and co-presenting with students or colleagues. There are requirements that all

pg. 10

4/18/2016

 faculty rewarded professional development funds return to campus to share their experiences
with the full faculty at SDC’s monthly scholarly forum.
As indicated earlier, it is only recently that SDC co-curricular programs (tutoring and
disabilities services, financial aid counseling, Student Success Coaches, residential life, career
counseling, etc.) have developed PLOs and drafted plans for assessing student mastery of those
PLOs. Residential Life began the process but with recent staff turnover the data could not be
restored. Based on discussions with Athletic department, the currently in-process Athletic PR
would benefit from broader participation by the athletic staff and coaches.
SDC currently has inadequate assessment data processes relating to its co-curricular
programs to make informed decisions about how Student Life and other academic support
services contribute to the effectiveness of students learning and success. (CFR 2.11) SDC must
be committed to give immediate attention to collecting and analyzing data that will inform
overall educational effectiveness.
3. Standard 3: Developing & Applying Resources & Organizational Structures to Ensure
Quality & Sustainability
SDC has qualified faculty and staff who are tremendously committed. (CFR 3.1) The Team
was impressed with the level of engagement of the faculty and staff with the strategic plan
institutional initiatives, and how this has been infused in the day-to-day operations of the College
through the “Division, to Department, to Desk” initiative. Through the annual employee review
process, employees are engaged in assessing how their individual work and goals contribute to
the Strategic Plan initiatives. (CFR 3.2) However, the Team encourages SDC to make a priority
of evaluating the professional requirements of each position and ensuring that those filling the
positions are appropriately qualified and/or supported to reach that status through professional
development and/or further formal education. (CFR 3.3)

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 11

 Since becoming financially independent from the church, through the work of the CEO, the
CFO, and the support of his professional staff, SDCs financial oversight, processes, and
procedures have been raised sufficiently to meet the needs of a growing institution of higher
education. (CFRs 3.4, 3.6) Positive annual financial results are now the “norm” rather than the
exception with “clean” annual financial audits, and a realistic and data-informed multi-year
budgeting process integrated with the strategic plan for allocation of resources. The Team
appreciated that the various community groups understood how requests for resources made their
way into the annual budgeting process for consideration. (CFR 3.7)
The Team congratulates SDC on the relocation of the College and encourages SDC
leadership to continue executing the vision to expand the physical footprint as resources allow in
order to support the immediate and growing needs of the student community. Along with this,
attention should be given to allocate sufficient resources to support the ongoing work of the
Technology Taskforce in its effort to address the critical need for integrated information
management systems across the institution. (CFR 3.5) The projected growth of the institution
makes this a high-priority issue.
SDC leadership, from the board on down, is composed of well-qualified and highly-engaged
professionals. (CFRs 3.8-3.10) They are deeply committed to the mission and vision of the
institution. There are established, admirable structures and processes for planning, decisionmaking, and communication. (CFR 3.7) SDC has made tremendous progress toward educational
effectiveness and it is a high-priority to the entire community.

4. Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional
Learning & Improvement
SDC has established student learning outcomes for all of its academic and co-curricular
programs. (CFR 4.1) Traditional academic programs show three to five years of data from

pg. 12

4/18/2016

 capstone evaluations. Through recent development efforts, APS programs now use the same
rubrics for capstone projects as the traditional programs of the same type. Discussions with
faculty revealed that different software platforms are currently being used to collect and
summarize assessment data from the traditional and APS programs. Transitioning to the use of a
single assessment data management system for both academic areas could provide great benefits
enabling efficient analysis and comparison of assessment data across SDC programs and student
populations. Institutional Research is becoming well established, but could be significantly
strengthened through increased technology and personnel support. (CFR 4.2)
The Leadership is committed to evidence-based improvement. (CFR 4.3)

A review of

provided documentation revealed that SDC has very detailed faculty and staff evaluations (CFR
3.2) that are aligned with the institution’s strategic plan. In addition, faculty are observed
teaching in the classroom and the results of the observation are included in their annual
evaluations. The results are used to foster improvement in teaching. (CFRs 2.9, 4.4)
There are some processes in place to seek the feedback of multiple stakeholders, and SDC is
urged to continue to develop these efforts. (CFR 4.5) The College has developed ways to
institutionalize the new mission, vision and strategic plan at every level which became evident
during discussions with students, faculty, staff, and the Board of Trustees. (CFR 4.6. The focus
on expansion of graduate and on-line programs will need to be tempered by the adequacy of
resources. (CFRs 3.5, 4.7)
The team’s finding, which is subject to Commission review, is that the Institution has
demonstrated sufficient evidence of compliance with the Standards

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 13

 5. Federal Requirements:
a. Credit Hours & Program Length Review
SDC includes its credit hour policy and program length online and in several documents
for current and prospective students, including the catalog. Information about both can be
found using a search electronically at the SDC website. Standards, program requirements,
and definitions are clear. SDC is in compliance with CFR 2.2.
b. Marketing & Recruitment Review
Upon review of the SDC website and internal processes, it was found that SDC
student recruiting practices follow federal guidelines. SDC confirms through its
Institutional Report that information regarding typical length of time to degree and
overall cost of degree are made available to students through avenues such as the SDC
website, the catalog, and work with “student success coaches” for traditional and
“graduation coaches” for non-traditional programs. SDC describes the kinds of jobs
graduates are prepared for on the website under each major program description.
However, information about the employment of SDC graduates was only noted in the
institutional report.
c. Student Complaints Review
SDC has a clearly written Student Grievance Policy & Procedure. Students have
access to this policy in the Catalog, website, Student Handbook (pgs. 25-26), and through
student life staff.

There are written procedures that occur at multiple levels for

addressing both informal and formal student complaints to ensure successful conflict
resolution.

pg. 14

4/18/2016

 d. Transfer Policy Review
A review of SDC’s website and current Course Catalog was completed prior to the
accreditation visit, and it was found verified that SDC has formal published policies for
receiving student transfer credit from other institutions of higher education.

These

policies are clear and easily accessible for students and the public.
e. Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
An inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators was completed by SDC and
included as an attachment to their IR Report. A review of a sampling of web pages and
syllabi revealed that PLOs for all programs are available in the catalog and in course
syllabi. The web pages for some but not all academic programs included a statement of
PLOs. Inclusion of these would provide a useful benefit for prospective students. As new
programs are launched, SDC can use the IEEI to ensure that assessment of student
learning is planned and conducted.

C. Component 3: Degree Programs: Meaning, Quality and Integrity of Degrees
Although not required to do so by WSCUC, SDC chose the Lumina Foundation’s Degree
Qualifications Profile (DQP) to initiate discussions among faculty about the meaning, quality,
and integrity of degrees at San Diego Christian College. Among other findings, the faculty
determined that “regardless of the degree program … there was a clear expectation established
for students to be trained in academic skills and knowledge in rigorous programs that include
SDC’s faith integration” (SDC IR Report, p. 24). Furthermore, the faculty found agreement that
“a degree from San Diego Christian does more than train the mind, as there is a holistic approach
to equip all aspects of the human learner” (ibid, pg. 24).

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 15

 These faculty findings were later confirmed by Academic Affairs and the Academic Council.
However, it was noted that there should be further examination relating to the quality of the
degrees. Following these deliberations each department has begun to work on plans to better
represent the degrees on the webpages associated with the degree programs. In addition, the
faculty have continued dialogue about quality indicators.
In interviews and meetings with faculty members and academic administrators, the Team
verified that SDC was continuing active faculty discussions, especially at the department level
and in the General Education committee. (CFRs 2.2, 2.4, 3.10) Although the meaning of a
degree at SDC is not yet fully defined, faculty are actively seeking to improve their curricula
through student outcome-based measures.
According to the IR Report, SDC is seeking to produce “quality degree programs through
challenging but engaging educational programs, increased performance outcomes, and a staffing
plan that supports the curriculum and student learning” (p.27). A summer 2015 proposal was
introduced to bring together support elements by providing a full-service academic service
office. However, the Team found no evidence that the proposal has yet been adopted.
Student learning outcomes are regularly updated and widely disseminated to better align with
the revised mission and vision. The six new ILOs seek to serve as a touch point for institutional
learning and quality across all degree programs. They are as follows:
1. Obtain a foundational knowledge of humanities, sciences, and social sciences and a
lifelong learning framework.
2. Specialize in at least one academic discipline specific career and life applications.
3. Demonstrate effective communication and social skills.
4. Apply critical thinking skills to scholarly, professional, and personal endeavors.
5. Exercise commitment to a lifestyle that identifies God’s preeminent perspective on life
based on biblical principles and godly character.

pg. 16

4/18/2016

 6. Interact effectively through cultural and Global involvement in preparation for a lifestyle
service.
These ILO’s are commendable, and the Team found that the Assessment Committee and the
Dean of Assessment & Institutional Research, along with the department reviewers, monitor and
evaluate the ILOs on a regular basis. The Team suggests that SDC continue to further develop
its definitions, processes, and evaluation practices related to the meaning, quality, and integrity
of all degree programs at the institution.

D. Component 4: Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and
Standards of Performance at Graduation
As indicated above, SDC has developed a set of six ILOs. (CFRs 1.2, 2.3) There are also
established PLOs for all academic major programs, as well as 14 PLOs addressing expectations
for student mastery of general education (GE) related areas. The development of PLOs for the
co-curricular area at SDC has just recently been completed. (CFR 2.11)
A review of selected curriculum maps indicated that SDC faculty have structured the
requirements and sequence of courses in the undergraduate majors to systematically build
students’ skills and knowledge toward mastery of PLOs in their major and emphasis areas.
Discussions with SDC faculty during the visit confirmed their purposefully attentive curricular
design work in this regard.
SDC has taken the approach of requiring students to complete a major project in the context
of a core senior-year capstone course to evaluate student mastery of major PLOs, as well as a
number of the GE PLOs and core competencies. (CFRs 2.4, 2.6) SDC’s traditional major
programs currently use LiveText as the software tool to manage their assessment and program
review processes. Students submit their capstone assignments as portfolio items into the LiveText
system. Faculty are able to evaluate student work using previously-developed rubrics. Scoring

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 17

 information is stored in LiveText in a format that enables faculty to summarize, analyze, and
disaggregate performance data along a number of dimensions. They have also implemented a
LiveText capability to evaluate inter-rater reliability to ensure that faculty are using the rubrics
consistently in their assessment of student mastery levels. Discussions with faculty confirm that
they use the inter-rater reliability information to improve their scoring practices to more fully
utilize the rubric results for program improvement.
SDC’s APS programs also require students to complete a senior-level capstone project that
provides the basis for evaluating student mastery of major and GE PLOs. Currently, student
work and the rubric-based evaluations are uploaded and maintained in Edvance 360, which is the
Learning Management System (LMS) used at SDC.
SDC traditional program faculty meet annually following the end of the spring semester to
examine the results of the capstone assessments and identify needed revisions to the major and
GE curricula.

Capstone review reports were provided for almost all of the traditional major

programs. Capstone review reports were also submitted for the APS program, but these seemed
to be more often completed by the individual faculty member who was assigned to teach that
session of the capstone course. The Team reviewed a sampling of the Capstone Review reports,
and found that SDC faculty used capstone results to systematically examine and discuss
strengths, weaknesses, and needed course/curricular changes to promote stronger student
performance relating to each major PLO. (CFRs 2.10, 4.1, 4.2) The Capstone Review template
also required the department to list actions taken in regard to the previous year’s review
recommendations.
SDC has designed their capstone projects to also enable them to evaluate graduating student
mastery levels in the written communication, oral communication, and information literacy core
competency areas (CFR 2.2a) in the context of their academic majors. While the capstone

pg. 18

4/18/2016

 projects have been designed to also provide an opportunity to assess student mastery of the
critical thinking core competency, SDC has not yet implemented a LiveText rubric to assess that
skill area.
SDC recently reinstituted the administration of the ETS Proficiency Profile to assess senior
student critical thinking skill levels. This testing instrument also provides SDC insight into
student math skills, and a second assessment strategy of student written communication
competency. Unfortunately, the level of student effort in taking this assessment was
disappointing, and SDC is still considering alternate ways to assess these core competency areas.
Visit Team findings relating to each of the five core competencies are summarized in the
paragraphs below:

Written Communication:
As indicated earlier, SDC uses a LiveText rubric-based assessment of senior student capstone
projects, as well as writing sub-score on the ETS Proficiency Profile to assess the written
communication core competency. In addition, SDC has identified several formative assessments
of writing skill during students’ freshmen and sophomore years. However, data from those
formative assessments have not yet been systematically integrated and coordinated with their
summative writing assessment.
The LiveText written communication scoring rubric used to evaluate written communication
competency includes seven assessment factors. The faculty assessment of spring 2015 capstone
projects indicated that at least 85% of SDC senior students demonstrated an adequate, strong, or
excellent level in each of the seven written communication assessment factors.
The summary of SDC student scores from 2008 to 2012 on the writing portion of the ETS
Proficiency Profile indicated that they are performing at around the 55th percentile based on ETS
2010-15 comparison data.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 19

 Oral Communication:
SDC began implementation of an institution-wide assessment of oral communication in
spring 2014. They have chosen to use the AAC&U VALUE rubric for assessment of student
mastery in that skill area. This rubric was integrated in to the LiveText-based assessment of the
capstone projects. SDC is still early in the implementation process with only eleven senior
student capstone presentations being evaluated in spring 2015. The summary of results indicated
that at least 82% of SDC senior students performed at an adequate level or better in regard to
each of the six evaluation factors. SDC is also beginning a parallel AAC&U VALUE rubric
formative assessment of entering students in their first year oral communication courses.
Information Literacy:
While SDC faculty have discussed evaluating this skill area for some time, it was only in
spring 2014 that the decision was made to implement use of a LiveText-based rubric to assess
senior student capstone projects. This rubric includes most of the AAC&U VALUE Information
Literacy rubric factors along with several additional institutionally-defined factors. The faculty
assessment of spring 2015 senior student capstone projects indicated that percent of students
performing at the accomplished or mastery level on each information literacy assessment factor
ranged between 54% and 65%. SDC has begun to take steps to strengthen the instruction
relating to student research practices, and to provide more electronic resources to students
relating to this area.
Critical Thinking:
SDC has used the ETS Proficiency Profile Critical Thinking sub-score to assess student
mastery in regard to this core competency area. The summary of SDC student sub-scores from
2008 to 2012 indicate that they are performing at around the 48th percentile based on ETS 2010-

pg. 20

4/18/2016

 15 comparison data. The faculty are currently discussing how to improve both their strategy for
assessing students in this area, as well as strengthening student critical thinking skill levels.
Quantitative Reasoning:
SDC has not yet implemented any institution-wide strategy to assess student skill levels in
regard to this core competency. A few of the academic departments have begun to include a
quantitative element as part of their capstone project requirements. The math sub-score of the
ETS Proficiency Profile provides some limited insight into SDC student skill levels in this area.
The summary of 2008-12 data indicates that SDC students scored at the 56th percentile based on
ETS 2010-15 comparison data.
The Team encourages SDC to continue its implementation of the capstone project, where
appropriate, as a summative student assessment strategy of both core competencies and majorspecific PLOs. In the written communication, oral communication, and information literacy core
competency areas, this will involve broadening the number of students and faculty across major
departments in the assessment process.

In other areas, it should be a priority to come to

consensus on, and move quickly toward implementation of appropriate assessment strategies as
part of and/or in addition to the capstone project to assess the remaining core competencies as
well as major-related PLOs across academic departments. SDC also would also benefit from the
development of more explicitly-defined mechanisms for formatively assessing student mastery
levels in core competencies and major-related PLOs.
The development of processes to benchmark SDC student performance with students from a
peer set of institutions has not yet been undertaken at any substantial level by SDC faculty.
Implementation of the AAC&U VALUE rubrics in some of the core competency areas holds yetto-be-developed potential in this regard. Their long-standing use of the ETS Proficiency Profile
has provided some level of national comparison data. Several different methods for obtaining

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 21

 external major-related benchmarking data have been adopted by SDC’s academic departments
including: the ETS Major Field Test in Biology, participation in a national computer-based
simulation by business major students, and professional licensing pass rates in the kinesiology
and aviation fields. The Team recommends that near-term attention be given to the design and
implementation of benchmarking strategies to compare SDC student performance with students
from a peer group of institutions. (CFR 2.4)

E. Component 5: Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation
SDC’s Board of Trustee Vision statement has provided direction to enable the administration
to reorganize the College’s operational structure to more effectively accomplish the three
strategic initiatives to enhance student success. As described earlier, the three new strategic
initiatives are referenced as the “ABCs” - Academically Equipped, Biblical Worldview, Cultural
Involvement. This new vision affords the institution the opportunity to focus on strengthening
SDC’s students’ learning, retention, and graduation, as well as communicate to its external
community a clear commitment to student success.
The President and his administrative leadership team demonstrated exceptional ability to be
inclusive in the communication process as a mechanism to insure that all stakeholders knew
about the revisions, could own them, and live them out – both in and out of the classroom. It
was evident to the Team through conversations with students, faculty, staff, and around the
campus that the ABCs are not just a catchy reference but a critical move forward to the success
of SDC students both in the traditional undergraduate as well as the APS programs. (CFRs 1.11.2)

pg. 22

4/18/2016

 Student Learning:
SDC’s academic programs are designed to ensure students meet the defined ILOs, PLOs, and
CLOs to demonstrate mastery in meeting the academic requirements for graduation. In their
review of a sample of course syllabi, the Team found a framework that was comprehensive and
detailed to help provide a successful teaching and learning experiences for the student. The
course requirements, learning outcomes, credit hours, grading policy, assignments and other
essential guidelines for the successful classroom experience were provided in detail. (CFRs 2.12.6)
SDC’s academic curriculum is designed to build on the foundational GE core coursework
in a variety of ways appropriate to the major fields of study. There are curriculum maps that
were designed by the faculty in their programs to ensure skill development from introductory to
mastery throughout the course of study at SDC. (CFR 2.4) These maps have allowed the
programs to implement benchmark signature assignments to assess mastery of learning in the
academic fields of study. The assessment results of student work are used by the faculty,
department chairs, and the Assessment & Institutional Research office to determine the quality of
the student learning experience in each SDC major program. It also assists the faculty to identify
needed course changes, and department chairs to evaluate possible program changes important
for contributing to academic student success. (CFR 2.7)
SDC has developed a number of co-curricular programs that serve as a complement to the
academic programs and are purposefully designed to contribute to student success. They include
student life, campus ministry, residential life, spiritual life, outreach, career services, registrar,
student success coaches, athletics, disability services, library services, math and writing tutorial
services, and the multicultural committee. (CFR 2.11)

As indicated earlier, each of these

programs has a set of recently developed PLOs that flow from SDC’s ILOs and the three

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 23

 strategic initiatives. Measureable assessment strategies have been preliminarily designed to
assess the student experience in the co-curricular area. The Team found that the co-curricular
programs had little official data as evidence to measure effectiveness of these programs to enrich
the students learning outside the classroom at SDC.
During meetings with the Team, the SDC co-curricular staff shared some qualitative and
anecdotal data that would affirm the effectiveness and importance of these programs. However,
there was little systematically-collected quantitative assessment data provided. This makes it
more difficult for the Team to validate how effectively these programs contribute to SDC student
success. One example in this regard is the use of student success coaches to promote retention
and graduation.

The Team heard and observed that success coaches provided exceptional

support to students, faculty, and athletic coaches to assure students are being advised correctly,
transfer students are admitted with limited hurdles, and at-risk students are supported, with the
overarching goal of enhancing student retention and graduation rates.

There were verbal

conversations with Team members by faculty, staff, and students expressing appreciation for the
work of the success coaches.

However, there are little assessment data that measure

effectiveness as it relates to improving student retention and graduation rates.
In summary, implementing objective assessment strategies, based on the drafted PLOs for
these programs, will provide valuable decision-making data to help refine co-curricular program
structures, processes, and resourcing to further enhance the potential for SDC student success.
Retention & Graduation:
SDC provided the Team with a table report summarizing fall student enrollment (2005-15),
fall-to-fall student retention (2012-15), and graduate rates (entry in 2006-08). The enrollment
and retention data was disaggregated by program (traditional vs. APS). Retention and graduation
rate data were provided for both first-time freshmen and transfer students. A review of these

pg. 24

4/18/2016

 data indicated that one-year retention rates for traditional program full-time freshmen have
declined somewhat over the past three years, while the retention rates for transfer students have
been mixed. (CFRs 1.2, 2.7, 2.10, 4.1) Retention rates for APS program F2F and online transfer
students (the large majority of their student population) have decreased over the past three years.
The six-year graduation rates appear mixed for first-time freshmen students (averaging around
41%) beginning in 2006-08. The six-year graduation rates for transfer students over the same
period has trended upward in both the traditional program (averaging around 58%), and the APS
F2F program (averaging around 68%).

While comparison data were not provided, these

retention and graduation rates appear to be somewhat below the rates published in recent U.S.
News& World Report rankings for typical peer institutions.
SDC provided additional summaries of retention and graduation rate data for athletes. While
there are sport-to-sport and year-to-year differences, the overall rates seem to be similar for those
of the larger student population. Enrollment data, disaggregated by ethnicity, was provided, but
accurate retention and graduation rate data seemed less readily available.
SDC is encouraged to expand its institutional research processes to produce a standard set of
enrollment, retention, and graduation reports that provide easily-interpreted summaries both
aggregated across and disaggregated by dimensions such as program, gender, and ethnicity.
Many institutions have benefited from development of a series of dashboard-type reports in this
regard. These types of data will be critical for SDC to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the
various retention initiatives they are currently implementing.
SDC has launched a number of initiatives that are focused on improving their student
retention and graduation rates. As described earlier in Section II.A of this Team Report, these
include attempting to connect students into identity groups, limiting the roster size of athletic
teams, and implementing the use of Success/Graduation Coaches for student advising.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 25

 During Team discussions with the Student Life department, the staff indicated that little had
been done to identify and quantify the reasons for students leaving SDC. It is often assumed that
a student has a hardship with financial resources when in reality there are often other reasons for
her/his departure. To date, there seems to have been limited outreach to exiting students. SDC is
encouraged to consider implementing some type of exit process that would provide an
opportunity to systematically collect concrete data in this regard of how to assist these students.
SDC currently has a standing Multicultural Committee that could provide the institution with
valuable ideas for strategies to engage diverse students.

They could also be assigned the

responsibility for collecting and analyzing data to better identify why ethnic, international, and
other students leave the Institution. The administrative leadership is urged to strongly encourage
the work of the Multicultural Committee or an identified group to look closely at data collection
on the students of color and their challenges with retention.

It will be important for the

Administration to give this committee adequate resources and personnel support to maximize the
opportunity for what the data could provide for strategic planning and increase retention at SDC.
(CFRs 1.2, 1.4, 4.1)
As part of their recent organizational restructuring, the President has placed the co-curricular
and academic programs under the same Vice President. This can provide a great opportunity for
the co-curricular and academics programs to build synergy in implementing strategies with
potential to increase graduation rates.

SDC is encouraged to engage in conversations and

approaches to jointly identify, collect, and analyze data in order to support a data-driven plan for
increasing retention and graduation rates. (CFRs 4.1, 4.2)
Overall, it is clear that student success is important to SDC leadership. The revisiting and
change of the mission, vision, goals and strategic initiatives provides clear evidence of SDC’s
commitment to its students. The faculty has built a comprehensive approach to identifying

pg. 26

4/18/2016

 educational effectiveness in their academic majors. The co-curricular programs have limited,
mostly anecdotal data to provide evidence of assumptions made about how and what students are
learning as a direct outcome of being involved in co-curricular activities. SDC is encouraged to
continue to implement strategies that have potential to improve student success, retention, and
graduation. (CFRs 1.2, 1.4, 1.6)

F. Component 6: Quality Assurance & Improvement: Program Review, Assessment, Use
of Data and Evidence
Academic Program Review
SDC has an Academic Program Review process that includes a well-constructed template for
the academic programs which establishes the required elements to be included in the review.
They have also developed a Handbook for Comprehensive Program Review that provides greater
detail about requirements for each element of academic program review. Expectations include
an examination of analyses of student achievement relating to major PLOs. It also includes a
requirement to examine retention and graduation rate data, as well as evidence from external
constituencies, such as employers. (CFR 2.7) The handbook also describes the roles and
responsibilities of faculty and other personnel involved in academic program review.
The Team was able to review the published master schedule that defines a six-year cycle for
review of all academic programs. An examination of the program review documents showed
that the program reviews started in 2012-13 had only a few years of student learning outcome
data to summarize, rather that the full set of years since the previous review. SDC indicated that
the process to collect and examine multiple years of student learning data is relatively young.
The Institution is now using LiveText to collect and summarize capstone rubric information for
their traditional academic programs.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 27

 Internal and/or external review are components of SDC’s program review process. There was
ample evidence that, for those programs that had an external reviewer, the department had
integrated the observations and recommendations of the reviewer into their action plans. It was
not clear that all programs had been examined by an external reviewer.
SDC has developed a rubric for evaluating the quality of the program reviews conducted.
The Assessment Committee also provides the WSCUC Program Review Rubric to the
department/program faculty/staff when they begin to conduct their review. Academic program
reviews address each of the elements of the rubric. The Dean of Assessment and Institutional
Research uses the rubric, housed in LiveText, to assess each element as it is completed in the
process. The rubric has been utilized for those academic programs that have completed the
review process. It is expected that the rubric will also be implemented with co-curricular
programs and new academic programs as they become more mature in the program review
process.
SDC traditional program faculty meet annually following the end of the spring semester to
examine the results of the capstone assessments and identify needed revisions to the major and
GE program. It is expected that program review documents summarize the findings of the
capstone outcomes. The Team carefully reviewed a sample of the program review documents.
Program review documents for Aviation include an analysis of student achievement, examining
several dimensions of success, and comparisons with standards. Faculty reflection and actions
based on these results are well-documented. Documents examined for Psychology from 2008 –
2013 summarize how students are assessed and faculty actions regarding the assessment of
student learning, but do not indicate the results of student learning outcomes assessment on
which the actions are based. Documents examined for Biology describe the evidence and provide
the analysis of the results from the ETS Major Field Test. History/Social Science presents a

pg. 28

4/18/2016

 good summary of the interpretation of the results of assessment of student learning outcomes.
The external reviewer’s report was not uploaded to the exhibit area.
Overall, the attached Capstone Reviews don’t include the results of the assessments on which
the interpretations are made.

The team recommends ensuring that assessment summaries,

including a summary of the data are recorded in LiveText annually so that the data may be
aggregated over several years and enable faculty to assess the effectiveness of changes made to
the curriculum.
SDC’s APS program review included a review of the division, and of each program in the
division. Data for APS programs are summarized on a table of first-year enrollment patterns,
and a table of retention and graduation outcomes for students in each of the programs. It does not
include a summary of student achievement for each of the programs. The Department Actions
Page contains an actions checklist of steps to achieve the departmental objectives. There are no
academic program specific actions related to program improvement.

It is not clear in the

program review documents how the APS academic programs assess the achievement of student
learning outcomes. The review includes an examination of student survey responses aggregated
across all APS programs. However, there is no evidence that faculty have examined survey
evidence disaggregated by program. (CFR 2.10)
The Team suggests that APS more closely follow the SDC program review guidelines. Also,
it is important that they assure that reviews are completed at the major program rather than just
the department level. Each program of study benefits from external review, even if the same
reviewer were to look at all of the programs in one department or division.
Co-Curricular Program Review
SDC has a co-curricular review process and a Co-Curricular Program Review Template that
was patterned after their academic program review processes and template. (CFR 2.11) As

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 29

 programs move through the process, SDC may want to seek their feedback to ensure that the
template includes all appropriate elements for the co-curricular areas to examine.
Since the time of the last WSCUC visit, SDC’s co-curricular program reviews have had a
slow start. Although SDC has developed a master schedule for co-curricular program review, as
well as the Co-Curricular Program Review Template, SDC has had a number of delays in this
area. In particular, Residential Life began the process, but the data were housed on an individual
computer and were lost when there was a change in personnel. Documents and discussions
during the campus visit indicate that Athletics is currently conducting its co-curricular review
using the co-curricular template and expects to have the process completed in May. The team
was able to verify that the Dr. Henry Morris Leadership program has completed a co-curricular
program review and that Student Ministry is starting the process at the time of the on-site visit.
The co-curricular area leaders are committed to collecting annual assessment data that will
inform their programs.
The student role in program review is not clear. Although students are surveyed by most
academic and some co-curricular areas, there is no evidence that students are involved in focus
groups to follow up on survey results. Student work seems to have been reviewed by many of the
external reviewers. None of the reports from external reviewers mention meeting with students.
Quality Assurance
SDC has a program approval process that is outlined in the Program Change and Approval
Process document provided to the Team for the Offsite Review. The Team recommends that this
document be expanded or supplemented with more detail on the proposal and approval process
for a new program. At present it states, “New program recommendations should be submitted to
the Academic Vice President and will be processed initially through Academic Affairs.” In

pg. 30

4/18/2016

 addition, SDC would benefit from clearly articulated substantive change policies and procedures
for existing programs (e.g., converting an onsite program to an on-line program).
SDC has a framework for assessment that includes almost all aspects of the institution’s
operations. (CFR 4.1) Typically, a framework for assessment zeroes in on the assessment of
educational quality and student achievement. As academic and co-curricular programs develop
and refine their assessments of student learning outcomes, SDC might consider using a more
standard “cycle of assessment” model of assessment as a guide for the process. It is clear from
the documentation of the relationship between ILOs, GE PLOs, and major PLOs, as well as from
meetings during the Team’s on-site visit, that much attention is being given to student learning at
SDC.
The College Assessment Committee, led by the Dean of Assessment and Institutional
Research, has representatives from programs and departments recently or actively involved in
the process of academic or co-curricular program review. Those who are experienced in the
process assist those starting their program reviews. As this group becomes more experienced in
assessment, there will be great opportunity to provide increased assistance to the Dean of
Assessment and Institutional Research regarding the oversight and improvement of annual
program assessment and the program review process.
Institutional Research Capacity
At the time of this review, SDC has a Dean for Assessment and Institutional Research who is
also serving as Dean of Business and Education and SDC’s Accreditation Liaison Officer
(ALO). She is also temporarily overseeing Student Disability Services. This is a great deal of
responsibility for one person, albeit a very capable person. The data functions of institutional
research would be significantly improved by the integration of technology resources and
increased attention to improving the current SIS to facilitate data reporting. The team further

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 31

 suggests that SDC carefully evaluate strategies for ensuring a breadth of involvement and
adequate resources to support institutional research and assessment efforts.

G. Component 7: Sustainability: Financial Viability, Preparing for the Changing Higher
Education Environment
Over the last ten years SDC has faced significant financial challenges, overcoming important
obstacles to obtain financial independence and seek financial viability. In 2011 the College
strengthened its financial and operational oversight through the hiring of an experienced finance
professional, Steve Chaney of Chaney and Associates. He, under the leadership of the president,
executed the full separation of the College’s finances from the church. (CFR 1.5) Mr. Chaney
continues in the role of Chief Financial Officer. (CFR 3.8) In response to earlier
recommendations and identified internal needs for more robust and accurate financial planning,
the CFO developed a 5-year budget model that has been actively used since its inception in
2011/12. This tool has aided in the positive financial results for the following years. For fiscal
years 2011/12 and 2012/13 the total change in net assets were $2,545,077 and $1,702,513
respectively, and total net assets end-of-year were $4,562,651 and $6,265,164 respectively, per
the annual audited financial statements. Each of these years resulted in surpluses of well over
$1MM in cash from operations which was earmarked by the administration to support the
successful purchase of and relocation to the Santee property. (CFR 3.4)
The 2013/14 fiscal year brought with it significant challenges – some expected and others
unexpected by the SDC administration. In January 2014 SDC moved the entire College from its
former location on the Greenfield property of Shadow Mountain Community Church to the new
Santee campus. From the IR Report the Team learned that “The College was not able to transfer
all of its real property for the Greenfield Campus property. This required the write-down of
assets of $2.5MM that resulted in a loss of disposition of assets of $295K.” And, although SDC

pg. 32

4/18/2016

 leadership had strategically allocated surpluses from the two prior fiscal years for move-related
expenses, “the relocation build-out required an additional $1.7MM to complete.”
In addition, challenges with transition to a new recruiting partner for the non-traditional
program resulted in lower than expected enrollment and related tuition revenue. SDC also
engaged a new audit firm, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, for the 2013/14 audit of the financial
statements and the A-133 related to the federal student aid program. Through the work of the
audit, it was noted that “In prior years, deferred revenue was not recorded properly in accordance
with GAAP. As a result of this restatement [of net assets for the prior year], previously reported
unrestricted and total net assets decreased by $269,317 (Note 13).” The Team learned from the
IR Report that “The affected net change reduced income by $750K.” The total change in net
assets per the annual audited financial statements was ($2,413,824), reducing the total net assets
at end of year to $5,995,847.
The negative change in net assets for 2013/14 resulted in a Composite Financial Index (CFI)
score of -1.4 and a U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) composite financial score of 0.1.
Having a composite financial score below 1.0 pushed the College into the “fail” zone, resulting
in the requirement to post an irrevocable letter of credit for $1.47MM to secure the Title IV
federal student aid for the coming fiscal year. For the 2014/15 fiscal year, both the CFI score and
the USDOE composite score both had been published and brought up to 2.2 and 1.2,
respectively. The increase in the USDOE composite score means that at next review SDC will be
released from the letter of credit. While these important key performance indicators (KPI) have
increased, SDC is urged to continue monitoring these very closely and to establish specific
internal “financial health” goals for these KPIs that are tied directly to the 5-year
budget/financial plan.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 33

 The difficulties for 2013/14 were compounded by the finding of nine significant deficiencies
that were disclosed related to the audit of the major federal award programs for SDC.
Conversations with the President and the CFO confirmed that all nine findings have been
addressed and that structures and processes have been refined or instituted in order to ensure full
compliance going forward. The final 2014/15 audit report confirms this by stating that there were
no findings. The Team believes that SDC should continue to closely monitor these changes,
particularly with recent and future personnel changes, to ensure they are adhered to.
Through the IR Report the Team understands that “The College leadership believe that fiscal
year ended June 30, 2014 was an isolated year.” After reviewing the 2014/15 financial audit, the
updated 5-year budget and completing interviews with the CEO and CFO, the Team supports
this assertion. The successful build-out of and relocation to the new beautiful campus is to be
commended, even with the challenges it presented. This very necessary and strategic move has
given new life to the College community, and inspired a renewed love and long-term
commitment to SDC by the entire community. The IR Report expresses it this way, “Our campus
has collectively dedicated our focus to achieving the marks of viability and sustainability desired
from our accreditors and our Board of Trustees, and ones that we believe should be marks of our
identity.” (pg. 10)
SDC recovered financially in the fiscal year 2014/15, and was able to realize a positive
change in net assets of $283,955 contributing to net assets at end-of-year totaling $3,865,978.
SDC also engaged a new auditor for the 2014/15 fiscal year, KPM Accounting & Management
Solutions. Admirably, SDC expeditiously completed the annual financial audit so that audited
financial results would be available to inform the IR Report and serve as valuable evidence of
financial progress.

pg. 34

4/18/2016

 One minor issue was discovered. In Note 6, the audit report states that, “In conjunction with
its loans, the College is required to comply with certain reporting and ratio covenants. The
College was not in compliance with all of the covenants as of June 30, 2015.” In discussion with
the CFO, it was reported that the lender of record had used for-profit covenant standards rather
than those pertaining to a not-for-profit organization. The CFO states that the lender has not
required any response at this time and that the College is currently in the process of refinancing
its debt.
While the financial “bottom line” showed positive for the 2014/15 fiscal year, it was not
without its own financial and operational challenges. SDC over awarded $1.4MM of institutional
financial aid. Interviews with the CEO and CFO confirm that the VP for Student Affairs at that
time, who was responsible for admissions and financial aid was not performing his job in
conformity to the established SDC policies and procedures. SDC leadership acted quickly to
address the issue, including change in personnel, reorganization of certain departments to other
divisions for closer oversight, and the implementation of new internal structures and processes to
ensure this is not likely to go undetected in the future. The CFO assumed oversight of Student
Accounts (which was formerly under Student Affairs) and gave closer attention to the activities
of the Financial Aid department. The College recently added a financial assistant to provide
administrative support to the CFO and serve the needs of the staff who need essential and
accurate reports from the Finance office. The CEO, who has prior experience in higher education
enrollment and marketing, is now directly managing the Admissions department, and the
Academic VP now oversees Student/Spiritual life and Athletics departments. Satisfied that the
major issues have been resolved, the CEO admits that this is a short-to-mid-term solution and is
carefully and cautiously analyzing his options for the future.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 35

 The final challenge SDC faced in 2014/15 was a realization that the partnership with the 3rd
party recruiter for the online program, to whom SDC paid a significant up-front service fee, was
not meeting the goals of the College. SDC began immediately looking for a partner that could
meet their needs and also negotiating the release of the existing vendor. The Team was informed
during interviews with the CEO and CFO that SDC has successfully negotiated a satisfactory
release from the agreement with the original vendor and secured the services of the new vendor
under a more favorable “revenue share” model. While the enrollment projections for the online
program have been significantly constricted in the 5-year projected budget for the years 20162020, SDC is optimistic that this is a much better partnership.
SDC regularly receives well over 90% of its revenues to cover operating expenses from
tuition and fees. It is generally accepted that institutions that receive over 60% of their revenues
from tuition and fees are considered “tuition dependent” and extremely sensitive to fluctuations
in student enrollment. SDC understands this issue and has identified two specific ways they
intend to mitigate this concern. The first way is to build specific allowances in the 5-year budget
projection model to insulate SDC from the normal fluctuations in enrollment. They intentionally
budget “flat” for future fiscal years of traditional enrollment and 35% below the projection for
online enrollment. (These projections for online enrollment are provided by the 3rd party
recruitment vendor with whom SDC partners.) This has worked for SDC in the past, and was the
strategy used to build the cash reserves needed to relocate the campus. The second way is
through an intentional and strategic fundraising effort. SDC recently hired an experienced
Director of Development who has the skills, passion, and resources necessary to begin steadily
increasing the annual gift income year by year. Provided they are successful, these strategic
initiatives can support the efforts of SDC in securing the resources necessary to achieve financial
stability for the long-term.

pg. 36

4/18/2016

 The interim January 2016 financial statements look positive, with both revenue and expenses
on track to meet budget. Budgeted net income for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 is projected at
just over $88K.
The SDC Board and Finance Committee meet three times per year, and are provided with
regular updates on the financial status of the College, including period financial statements and
the most recently updated iteration of the 5-year budget. The Team believes that the SDC
leadership is capable and competent to make data-informed decisions to ensure the long-term
viability of the College. (CFRs 3.4, 3.7, 3.9)
It is clear that SDC leadership are informed and engaged with the changing higher education
environment and thoughtfully consider these issues at the appropriate level. The CFO discussed
with the Team potential consequences of final guidance expected regarding the termination of
the Perkins Loan Program. SDC holds $178K Perkins Loan liability that could potentially need
to be repaid, depending on the final guidance issued. The CFO thoughtfully discussed the
unsustainability of the current higher education economic model of higher pricing and
discounting, a subject that weighs on institutions across the nation. SDC leadership are actively
discussing religious freedom issues and taking thoughtful action to protect SDCs ability to
continue to adhere to their deeply held religious convictions.

H. Component 9: Reflection and Plans for Improvement
There is much to celebrate at SDC as the Institution continues to mature and stabilize
following its move to Santee. The Team agrees with the Institution’s reflection that the self-study
revealed an elevated sense of mission and identity (CFR 1.1), increasing external partnerships
enabling better ties to both the local and higher education communities, remarkable enrollment
and program growth, and commendable growth in diversity with a commitment to serve the
entire student demographic at SDC in increasingly effective ways. (CFR 1.4)

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 37

 The Team appreciated SDC’s self-reflection on areas for improvement including an
immediate need to increase the comprehensive and consistent use of data analysis for decisionmaking (CFR 4.3), standardized testing, competency standards (CFR 2.2a), and improvements in
academic support. (CFRs 2.10, 3.5) The Institution also recognized the need to deepen cocurricular program review. (CFRs 2.7, 2.11) The Team found that SDC continues to experience
challenges in developing traction toward progress in assuring all co-curricular programs are
regularly evaluated, with findings used for improvement.
While SDC noted a “secured… sense of sustainability in the growth of assets as well as a
smart financial model” (p. 80), the Team is concerned about the financial sustainability of the
Institution, given the expenses related to the recent move to Santee, a less-than-aggressive
fundraising program, as well as troubling USDE composite and CFI scores. The Team observed
that the Institution did not identify financial stability and sustainability as an individual focus in
the plan for improvement, while further noting that the Institution has improved considerably
financially, and that there are multiple, intentional, and concerted efforts in place to continue this
improvement.

pg. 38

4/18/2016

 SECTION III – DISTANCE EDUCATION REVIEW
In large part the description and analysis of SDC’s APS online programs has been included
in the broader discussions in Sections I and II of this report. The Distance Education Review –
Team Report Appendix briefly outlines many of the critical aspects of the program’s history and
design.
To summarize, SDC began offering online programs in 2010, and these programs currently
account for approximately 25% of their undergraduate enrollment. An Associate of Arts (AA)
degree and eight BA degree programs are available in the online format. Undergraduate courses
are structured in a five week term format, and delivered using the Edvance 360 learning
management system. APS has begun designing 8 and 15 week versions of some of the online
courses to be more accessible to traditional SDC students. They are experimenting with use of a
“high-flex” delivery strategy in which students can choose on a week-by-week basis whether to
complete that week’s course requirements on-campus or online. While there could be great
benefit to students to have this level of flexibility to accommodate their personal life schedules, it
will be critical for SDC to implement fairly advanced attendance and assignment tracking
mechanisms that enable both students and faculty to have a clear, current, and accurate snapshot
of student status within the course.
SDC has contracted with a 3rd party firm to recruit students in their online programs.
WSCUC staff liaison, Dr. Christopher Oberg, has reviewed the contract, and discussed its terms
with SDC staff. He has indicated that the terms of the contract are reasonable and fall within
WSCUC guidelines.
SDC online programs and courses are developed by the APS staff working with SDC faculty
and other subject matter experts. A mixture of full-time traditional program faculty and adjunct
faculty are used as instructors to administer developed courses each time they are offered.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 39

 Courses have been designed to include assignments that are used to assess student mastery
toward PLOs. Each program includes a major capstone assignment as part of their final course
that provides a summative assessment of student mastery levels. (CFRs 2.2-2.4)

It is

recommended that SDC consider transitioning to use of an assessment management system that
would allow for more efficient analysis and reporting of assessment results that span across years
and across program modalities. (CFR 4.1) In addition, it is recommended that within each major
program, APS involve as many faculty as possible in the annual review of the capstone
assessments in order to strengthen and broaden the quality of the review process. (CFRs 2.4, 2.7)
SDC APS staff regularly review online courses to ensure they meet their established credit
hour policy requirements. However, to date, those results have not been formally documented.
SDC is strongly encouraged to implement a formal documented audit process on a periodically
scheduled basis.
Finally, SDC has given attention to providing a number of co-curricular support services to
online students as appropriate to that modality. They have implemented the use of “Graduation
Coaches” who serve as a contact point for students to be able to obtain assistance in a wide range
of areas including: class enrollment, degree audit, financial aid assistance, technical help using
Edvance 360, etc. This is one of the strategies that they hope will improve online student
retention levels that are currently somewhat below those of traditional SDC students. (CFRs 1.2,
2.10, 4.1) SDC is encouraged to continue to pursue mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness
of the current co-curricular services available to online students as a means of improving
program quality and student success. (CFR 2.11)

pg. 40

4/18/2016

 SECTION IV – FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the campus visit and a review of San Diego Christian College’s accreditation
history, IR Report, and supporting documents, the Team has developed the following
commendations and recommendations.

A. Commendations
The Team commends SDC for:


A noteworthy and highly dedicated president, widely respected throughout the
institution, as well as an engaged, well-informed, and high-performing trustee board
passionately dedicated to the success of SDC.



The successful move of the college, under challenging circumstances, to an attractive
and practical new physical plant cementing the identity of the institution and
providing new opportunities for growth and community engagement.



Its engagement with and communication of the mission. Faculty, staff and students
represent an inclusive faith-based environment where individuals feel cared for and
valued.



Embracing WSCUC reaffirmation for accreditation as a beneficial, value-added
process for institutional improvement.



A meaningful, living strategic plan with initiatives broadly incorporated throughout
the daily operations and activities of the entire institution.

B. Recommendations
The Team recommends that:


Following unsuccessful attempts over past years to institutionalize and regularize cocurricular reviews, it is critical that SDC take immediate steps to complete all overdue

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 41

 reviews and continue to carry-out future co-curricular assessment processes on the
established cycle. (CFRs 2.7, 2.11)


SDC continues to press forward with the in-process efforts to integrate administrative
technology systems that can provide efficient access, summarization, and reporting of
the institutional information critical to data informed decision-making across the
Institution. (CFRs 3.5, 4.2)



SDC engage teams such as the Multicultural Committee and the Enrollment and
Retention Committee in the use of data to track diverse students (domestic and
international) and to identify strategies for engagement and intervention to promote
retention, persistence, and graduation. (CFRs 1.4, 2.2a, 2.10)



SDC continues to closely monitor the 5-year budget forecasting tool and the overall
financial health of the College, as demonstrated by self-identified Key Performance
Indicators, such as the CFI and USDE composite score. In addition, the Institution is
urged to closely monitor, and refine as appropriate, the recent personnel and process
changes initiated to address oversight of Admissions and Financial Aid. (CFRs 3.4,
3.6, 3.7)



SDC carefully balance their vision and planning for future programmatic expansion
with the present foundational need to adequately equip current personnel, and the
need to resource existing academic and student service programs. (CFRs 3.3, 3.5, 3.7)

pg. 42

4/18/2016

 APPENDICES
A. Federal Compliance Forms
1. Credit Hour Review
2. Marketing and Recruitment Review
3. Student Complaint Review
4. Transfer Policy Review
B. Distance Education Review Form

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 43

 1 - CREDIT HOUR AND PROGRAM LENGTH REVIEW FORM
Material
Reviewed
Policy on credit hour

Process(es)/ periodic
review of credit hour

Schedule of on-ground
courses showing when
they meet
Sample syllabi or
equivalent for online
and hybrid courses
Please review at least 1 2 from each degree
level.

Sample syllabi or
equivalent for other
kinds of courses that do
not meet for the
prescribed hours (e.g.,
internships, labs, clinical,
independent study,
accelerated)
Please review at least 1 2 from each degree
level.
Sample program
information (catalog,
website, or other
program materials)

Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the Comments sections as
appropriate.)
Is this policy easily accessible?  YES  NO
If so, where is the policy located? The policy is on line, in the catalog, as well on syllabi.
Comments:
Does the institution have a procedure for periodic review of credit hour assignments to ensure
that they are accurate and reliable (for example, through program review, new course approval
process, periodic audits)?  YES  NO
If so, does the institution adhere to this procedure?  YES  NO
Comments: It is apparent that there are several procedures to review the policies. Program Review
includes a review, but faculty are engaged at least annually to ensure that each program’s credit
hours are appropriate, and to ensue that this information is clear for student and prospective
students.
Does this schedule show that on-ground courses meet for the prescribed number of hours?
 YES  NO
Comments: Sample schedules show that on-ground course meet the prescribed number of hours.
How many syllabi were reviewed? 6
What kind of courses (online or hybrid or both)? both
What degree level(s)?  AA/AS  BA/BS  MA

 Doctoral

What discipline(s)? Biblical Studies, Business, Communication Human Development, Research
(required for several disciplines in Adult & Professional Studies)
Does this material show that students are doing the equivalent amount of work to the prescribed
hours to warrant the credit awarded?  YES  NO
Comments: The Credit Hour Policy is in included on each syllabus.
How many syllabi were reviewed? 0
What kinds of courses?
What degree level(s)? AA/AS

BA/BS

MA

 Doctoral

What discipline(s)?
Does this material show that students are doing the equivalent amount of work to the prescribed
hours to warrant the credit awarded? YES  NO
Comments: Labs are considered part of a regular science course. Internships and clinical
experiences are generally included within a course and meet the required hours. No syllabi for
independent study were reviewed. (It is clear that independent study is a rare exception.)
How many programs were reviewed? 13
What kinds of programs were reviewed? Traditional and Adult & Professional Studies
What degree level(s)? AA/AS  BA/BS  MA  Doctoral
What discipline(s)? What discipline(s)? Aviation, Biblical Studies, Biological Science, Business,
Communication, Education, English, History/Social Science, Human Development, Kinesiology,
Leadership & Justice, Performing Arts, Psychology
Does this material show that the programs offered at the institution are of a generally acceptable
length?  YES  NO
Comments: Information in the catalog is very clear in terms of requirements for each of the
programs. Catalog and other information is available on the website.

Review Completed By: Paula Krist
Date: 3/4/16

pg. 44

4/18/2016

 2. MARKETING AND RECRUITMENT REVIEW FORM
Under federal regulation*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s recruiting and
admissions practices.
Material
Reviewed
**Federal
regulations

Degree
completion
and cost

Questions and Comments: Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment section of this
table as appropriate.
Does the institution follow federal regulations on recruiting students?
 YES  NO
Comments:
For traditional undergraduate student recruitment, SDC follows federal guidelines.
For APS student recruitment, SDC follows federal guidelines.
For Online student recruitment, SDC contracts with a 3rd party vendor under a proprietary agreement. This
agreement was review by WASC liaison and confirmed to follow federal regulations.
Does the institution provide information about the typical length of time to degree?
 YES  NO
Does the institution provide information about the overall cost of the degree?
 YES  NO
Comments: From the SDC IR:
…over the past two years there has been a concerted effort to improve both the communication of
programs and policies, and the technology available to inform students of their progress and financial
options. In the most recent iteration of the College Catalog, and on web pages, transfer students are
informed about the ability to complete a degree in the two years that most transfers desire.
The cost of attendance calculator was added to the website within the requirements of the Department of
Education several years ago. When asked to provide accurate information on standard costs, fees, and
special assessments, the SDC staff copied the information from the website demonstrating our intended
transparency. (CFRs 1.6, 2.14)

Careers and
employment

Currently, we have all costs, benefits, policies, procedures, program applications, and grievance processes
posted on our public website.
Does the institution provide information about the kinds of jobs for which its graduates are qualified, as
applicable?  YES  NO
Does the institution provide information about the employment of its graduates, as applicable?  YES 
NO
Comments:
Evidence of the kinds of jobs graduates are prepared for is on the website under each major program
description. Could not locate information about employment of graduates on the website, however the
report said this: We have been able to learn that 53% of our graduates are employed full time or part time
in a job related to their field of interest.
Another 30% are employed in a job unrelated to the course of study. Finally, 7% were pursuing a graduate
degree as their main focus after obtaining a degree from SDC, leaving 10% between jobs or in transition of
some kind. (CFRs 2.13, 4.5)

*§602.16(a)(1)(vii)
**Section 487 (a)(20) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) prohibits Title IV eligible institutions from providing
incentive compensation to employees or third party entities for their success in securing student enrollments.
Incentive compensation includes commissions, bonus payments, merit salary adjustments, and promotion decisions
based solely on success in enrolling students. These regulations do not apply to the recruitment of international
students residing in foreign countries who are not eligible to receive Federal financial aid.
Review Completed By: Dawn Dirksen
Date: March 3, 2016

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 45

 3 - STUDENT COMPLAINTS REVIEW FORM
Under federal regulation*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s student complaints
policies, procedures, and records.
Material
Reviewed
Policy on student complaints

Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment
section of this column as appropriate.)
Does the institution have a policy or formal procedure for student complaints?
YES  NO
If so, is the policy or procedure easily accessible? Is so, where?
The policy and procedures were in the student handbook and on a formal document
with the Student Success Coordinator. The Vice President for Academic Affairs also
maintains the file in his office since he is the final decision maker based on their
protocols.
Comments:

Process(es)/ procedure

Does the institution have a procedure for addressing student complaints?
 YES  NO
If so, please describe briefly:
There is a step process that allows the student to meet with the faculty, Student
Success Coordinator, Student Life and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
If so, does the institution adhere to this procedure?  YES  NO
Students are aware of the process and will often find resolution at the Student Success
Coordinator level.
Comments:

Records

Does the institution maintain records of student complaints? YES  NO
If so, where?
The records are kept with the Student Success Coordinator. However, the Director of
Student Life and the Vice President for Academic Affairs may have the records of
resolutions that would reach their level.
Does the institution have an effective way of tracking and monitoring student
complaints over time?
 YES  NO
If so, please describe briefly:
The Student Success Coordinators are central to the tracking and monitoring process of
student related concerns, issues and complaints.
Comments:

*§602-16(1)(1)(ix)
See also WASC Senior College and University Commission’s Complaints and Third Party Comment Policy.
Review Completed By: Doretha O’Quinn
Date: March 15, 2016

pg. 46

4/18/2016

 4 – TRANSFER CREDIT POLICY REVIEW FORM
Under federal regulations*, WSCUC is required to demonstrate that it monitors the institution’s recruiting and
admissions practices accordingly.
Material
Reviewed
Transfer Credit
Policy(s)

Questions/Comments (Please enter findings and recommendations in the comment section
of this column as appropriate.)
Does the institution have a policy or formal procedure for receiving transfer credit?
 YES  NO
If so, is the policy publically available?  YES  NO
If so, where? In the SDC College Catalog and on their website.
Does the policy(s) include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding
the transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education?
 YES  NO
Comments:
The SDC Transfer Credit Policy is easily accessible. It provides clear information about the
process for having possible transfer credit evaluated, and criteria for what types of credit will
be accepted.

*§602.24(e): Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for renewal of
accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit policies that-(1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with 668.43(a)(11); and
(2) Include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of credit earned
at another institution of higher education.
See also WASC Senior College and University Commission’s Transfer of Credit Policy.
Review Completed By: John Hughes
Date: February 18, 2016

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 47

 B. Distance Education Review-Team Report Appendix
Institution:

San Diego Christian College

Type of Visit:

Accreditation Visit

Name of reviewer/s: John Hughes
Date/s of review:

March 1 – 4, 2016

1. Programs and courses reviewed (please list)
a. Programs:
 Aviation Science (online)
 Human Development (online)
 Psychology (online)
 Christian Ministries (online)
 Communication (online)
b. Courses:
 BI391: Biblical Perspectives
 CM410: Nurture & Discipleship
 Math115: Liberal Arts Math
 AVT405: Practical Aviation Law
 ICS 305: Intercultural Communication
 RSH 495A: Research Capstone 1
 HD460: Transition, Loss, & Grief
 BI393: Historical Perspectives of the Gospels

2. Background Information (number of programs offered by distance education; degree levels;
FTE enrollment in distance education courses/programs; history of offering distance
education; percentage growth in distance education offerings and enrollment; platform,
formats, and/or delivery method)
Figure 1 presents a summary of background and fall 2015 enrollment data for current SDC
online degree programs.
Figure 1: SDC Online Programs
Year Initially
Fall 15
Offered
Enrollment
AA in General Studies
August 2013
21
BA in Christian Ministries
August 2010
66
BA in Communication
May 2014
7
BA in Human Development
August 2010
73
BA in Leadership & Justice
October 2015
New Program
BA in Psychology
May 2014
23
BS in Business Administration
August 2010
53
BA in Aviation Management
June 2014
0
Majors & Degree Levels

Percent of Total Fall
15 Enrollment
2.3%
7.3%
0.7%
8.1%
NA
2.5%
5.8%
0%

In fall 2010, SDC began offering online courses toward BA degrees in Christian Ministries,
Human Development, and Business Administration. The WSCUC-provided SDC Accreditation

pg. 48

4/18/2016

 History indicates that in August 2013, they received WSCUC substantive change approval to
offer an online AA degree in General Studies. In May 2014 approval was received to offer online
BA programs in Communication and Psychology. Their online BA program in Aviation
Management was approved in June 2014. Just recently, in October 2015, approval was received
for an online BA in Leadership & Justice.
Figure 2 provides a summary of the growth of the SDC online programs since their beginning
until now.
Figure 2: Growth in Student Enrollment in Online Programs
Fall Semester Student Enrollment
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Enrollment in all SDC programs

508

676

804

914

966

917

Enrollment in SDC online programs

15

134

271

258

239

245

Percent of online programs
enrollment vs. total enrollment

3%

20%

34%

28%

25%

27%

Percent growth of online programs
from previous year

N/A

793%

102%

-5%

-7%

3%

SDC currently uses the Edvance 360 learning management system for the delivery of their
online program courses.
All undergraduate courses are offered in a 5 week term format. Online programs are
structured in a rolling non-term format with students being entered into the SDC student
database system in either a fall or spring term. The term dates are different than those for the
traditional program, but generally run on the same calendar as the APS onsite programs. For
example, the fall 2015 APS term for online runs from 8/17/2015 through 2/21/2016 while the
spring 2016 APS term will run 2/22/2016 through 8/14/2016. The number of five week sessions
varies for each term depending on the calendar. It is planned that courses in the graduate
programs will be eight rather than five weeks in length.
The course requirements for onsite and online versions of the APS majors are equivalent in
order to allow students to move between the face-to-face format and the online format when
needed. This provides flexibility in the lives of their adult students.
SDC has contracted with a 3rd party recruiting firm to locate and assist individuals through
the admission process for the ASP onsite and online programs. This past year they concluded
their contractual arrangement with one firm, and have transitioned to work with a second
recruiting firm that has provided better service and a more favorably financial revenue-share
based arrangement to the Institution.

3.

Nature of the review (material examined and persons/committees interviewed)
The Team reviewed a variety of program and course level documentation provided by SDC
prior to the visit. This included policy manuals, sample syllabi, assessment summaries,
enrollment, retention and graduation data, and the most recent APS Program Review report.

SDC AV Team Report

pg. 49

 The Edvance360 online instructional materials courses listed in #1 were reviewed by one visit
Team member.
During the campus visit, Team members had a series of meetings with the Academic VP, the
APS leadership team, APS faculty, and APS program students.
Observations and Findings
Lines of Inquiry (refer to relevant CFRs to
assure comprehensive consideration)

Observations and Findings

Follow-up Required
(identify the issues)

Fit with Mission. How does the institution
conceive of distance learning relative to its
mission, operations, and administrative
structure? How are distance education
offerings planned, funded, and
operationalized?

SDC’s vision is to provide students the options for
“multiple-modality” instruction that best meets their
needs. They are working toward a unified vision built
around their mission statement and strategic plan. The
program is one department in the Academic division.
Their budget development & management follow the
same processes as the other academic departments.

Connection to the Institution. How are distance
education students integrated into the life and
culture of the institution?

Online students are included in a portion of the normal
communication flow that goes to all SDC students. All
online students are assigned a “graduation coach” who
provides a contact for information and support with any
issues they might encounter.

Quality of the DE Infrastructure. Are the
learning platform and academic infrastructure
of the site conducive to learning and
interaction between faculty and students and
among students? Is the technology
adequately supported? Are there back-ups?

SDC uses Edvance 360 as their LMS. It has provided a
very adequate learning platform for online students
including interaction between students and faculty. The
College would benefit from stronger integration with its
other software platforms.

A stronger strategy for
collecting &
summarizing
assessment data
across semester is
needed.

Student Support Services: What is the
institution’s capacity for providing advising,
counseling, library, computing services,
academic support and other services
appropriate to distance modality? What do
data show about the effectiveness of the
services?

SDC graduation coaches provide a contact point for
many of the academic services needed by APS online
students. Students are very positive about the support
of their graduation coaches. There is limited data about
the effectiveness of other services.

Implement
mechanisms to more
systematically collect
data relating to
student services.

Faculty. Who teaches the courses, e.g., fulltime, part-time, adjunct? Do they teach only
online courses? In what ways does the
institution ensure that distance learning
faculty are oriented, supported, and integrated
appropriately into the academic life of the
institution? How are faculty involved in
curriculum development and assessment of
student learning? How are faculty trained and
supported to teach in this modality?

The APS online program uses a combination of full-time
SDC traditional program faculty and adjunct faculty to
develop and teach online courses. SDC staff teach some
sections of courses. A growing number of APS online
courses are becoming available to traditional program
students. Online faculty are required to participate in
initial orientation and annual renewal training.

A broader range of
APS faculty should be
involved in the
assessment of
capstone projects, and
discussions about
possible program
changes.

Curriculum and Delivery. Who designs the
distance education programs and courses?
How are they approved and evaluated? Are
the programs and courses comparable in
content, outcomes and quality to on-ground
offerings? (Submit credit hour report.)

Programs are designed by APS staff working with
faculty. Courses are designed by subject matter experts
(faculty & others) working with their designers. Courses
are designed to be as close to traditional and APS F2F
courses as possible. They check credit hour requirements
every cycle the class is offered.

Periodically complete
& document a formal
credit hour audit.

pg. 50

4/18/2016

 Retention and Graduation. What data on
retention and graduation are collected on
students taking online courses and programs?
What do these data show? What disparities
are evident? Are rates comparable to onground programs and to other institutions’
online offerings? If any concerns exist, how are
these being addressed?

SDC online programs have not operated long enough to
provide useful graduation rate data. SDC provided
summaries of retention data for SDC programs in all
modalities. Retention rates for online students are
somewhat less than for the residential programs. A
number of initiatives have been implemented to begin
improving in this area.

Student Learning. How does the institution
assess student learning for online programs
and courses? Is this process comparable to
that used in on-ground courses? What are the
results of student learning assessment? How
do these compare with learning results of onground students, if applicable, or with other
online offerings?

Assessment strategies for online programs have been
designed to mirror those used in their APS F2F program.
Student performance levels appear comparable, but
more time and data collection will be necessary before
anything definitive can be determined.

Contracts with Vendors. Are there any
arrangements with outside vendors
concerning the infrastructure, delivery,
development, or instruction of courses? If so,
do these comport with the policy on Contracts
with Unaccredited Organizations?

WSCUC staff liaison, Dr. Christopher Oberg, has reviewed
the 3rd party recruiting contract, and discussed its terms
with SDC staff. He has indicated that the terms of the
contract are reasonable and all fall within WSCUC
guidelines in this area.

Quality Assurance Processes: How are the
institution’s quality assurance processes
designed or modified to cover distance
education? What evidence is provided that
distance education programs and courses are
educationally effective?

SDC APS department uses the same process and
template for Program Review (PR) that is used by
traditional academic programs. Their most recent PR
was in 2014. There is a need to update the PR with
analysis of student performance data that is specific to
each APS major program being offered.

SDC AV Team Report

Give continued
attention to
implementing
strategies for
improving online
student retention
rates.

Complete an annual
review of APS
Capstone projects that
involve a wider group
of APS online faculty.
Update the APS online
PR with separate
assessments of each
major program being
offered.

pg. 51