NSA Assessment Documents

1. Plan for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness (below)

2. Trinity & Institutional Effectiveness, Part I: Assessment as a Watershed Worldview Issue

3. Trinity & Institutional Effectiveness, Part II: A Trinitarian Framework for Assessment

4. Assessment at Small Christian Colleges: Five Principles & Anathemas for Assessment

1. Plan for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness

Revised October 2004

New Saint Andrews College ’s plan for evaluating institutional effectiveness was first developed during the 2000-2001 academic year to meet the assessment standards of the American Academy for Liberal Education. That original plan was revised and modified during the 2001-2002 academic year in part to address the specific standards and criteria of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. The College regularly reviews its performance and modifies its evaluation plan as part of its ongoing efforts to identify our institutional strengths and weaknesses and improve our operations. During calendar year 2003, the College’s faculty, administration, and Board reviewed our evaluation plan—particularly its assumptions—in light of our distinctive institutional mission and growing awareness of the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity for doing faithful work as a Christian institution in a profoundly secular age vacillating between polytheism and Unitarianism. This plan has undergone additional revision, development, and refinement over the past year, seeking to be more and more self-consciously Trinitarian from the assumptions we bring to the assessment process to the specific procedures we employ in evaluating our institution’s personnel, operations, and publics.

I. Context of the College’s Plan for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness

 A.  Mission of the College

New Saint Andrews College 's mission is to provide high quality undergraduate education in the liberal arts and culture from a biblical worldview.

B. Objectives of the College

1. Objectives for Students

The College's primary objective for its students is to educate young Christian men and women in the liberal arts from a distinctively Christian, Reformed perspective, to equip them for lives of faithful service to the Triune God and His kingdom, and to encourage the use of their gifts for the growth of Christian culture. The College expects its students to conduct themselves with all holiness and reverence in word, deed and attitude, to maintain sound doctrine, to nurture a reformational Christian culture, submitting to the Lordship of Christ and His Word in all areas of life, and to practice and preserve high standards of academic integrity.

2. Objectives for Faculty

The College's primary objective for its faculty is to provide excellent classroom instruction, to offer a godly example of spiritual maturity, intellectual rigor, wise judgment, and personal integrity, and to engage in scholarly inquiry and creative activities applicable to the classroom and beyond.  The College expects its faculty to teach and to engage in scholarly inquiry and creative work from a Reformed perspective in their respective fields of expertise, submitting all to the Lordship of Christ and His Word, to practice and preserve high standards of academic integrity, and to disseminate the fruit of their studies and creative work in appropriate scholarly and publicly accessible venues.

3.  Objectives for Administration

The College's primary objective for its administration is to provide academic leadership for the faculty, students and the College as a whole, and to nurture godly personal relationships characterized by mutual submission, respect, and honor with and between the faculty and students.  The College expects its administration to encourage an academic culture more familial than institutional, more personal than bureaucratic, more reformational than conformist, and more biblically faithful than submissive to the dominant secular academic paradigms.

The College’s plan rests on several key assumptions about the ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetoric, methodology, and teleology of education and assessment. More importantly, it rests on assumptions about the importance of the Trinity for shaping and directing how we educate and how we evaluate our work. A review of these assumptions is necessary to understand both the College’s critique of assessment from a Christian worldview and the College’s positive evaluation plan developed from a self-consciously Trinitarian perspective.

1. Assumptions about the Importance of the Trinity for Education and Assessment

The very first tenet all TRACS institutions must affirm in their Biblical Foundation Statements is “1.1.1. the Trinitarian nature of God” (Accreditation Manual, Rev. Ed., 2001, p. 18). The primacy and importance of this doctrine cannot be overstated. All Christians who embrace the historic, biblical faith confess the truth of this doctrine. However, the implications of the Trinity for Christian life and work are rarely discussed or acknowledged and even more rarely practiced self-consciously. In an age dominated by Unitarian liberalism and polytheistic multiculturalism, failure to stress the triune nature of the living God risks confusing the Christian faith with heretical forms of monotheism or equally heretical Tritheism—or worse. Failure to live concretely as Trinitarians, neglecting the practical implications of being made in the image of our Triune God, threatens to make us functional Unitarians or polytheists. For these reasons, the New Saint Andrews evaluation plan has been designed to help us see our institution and our academic labors from a thoroughgoing, self-consciously Trinitarian perspective.

We deny that education is merely the transmission of objective, autonomous facts from one mind to another. We deny that education, if understood biblically as a nurturing and enculturative process, can be measured, verified, or falsified objectively or scientifically, if understood autonomously or independent of the Triune God. We further deny that education is merely culturally relative or a subjective experience. We deny that we live in a materialistic, fragmentary universe, where education is reduced to a process of socially constructing person-variable “realities.” Education and the evaluation of educational institutions cannot be meaningful, valid, or reliable if approached from either Modernist or Postmodernist worldview assumptions and their objectivist or subjectivist (relativist) perspectives.

3. Assumptions About the Nature of Knowledge

We assume that knowledge is multiperspectival (sensory, emotional, moral, aesthetic, etc.) involving the whole person made in the image of our Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Knowledge entails an integrated sensibility toward the Creator and the significance of truth, beauty and goodness in His created order. True knowledge cannot be acquired apart from the revelation of God and the work of Christ through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We confess with the church of all ages that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” As Trinitarians we affirm that all creaturely knowledge is personal, finite, partial, analogical, and sinful (since the fall), yet nevertheless can be valid and reliable when guided by the Spirit through faith, and shaped by the poetry, story, and mystery of God in Christ and His Word (Col. 2:3; Heb. 4:13). As Trinitarians we also assume that knowledge, biblically understood, is never merely propositional or limited to intellectual or rational functions, but is best understood as an aesthetic and moral (poetic) experience of the wonder and delight of the living Truth.

We deny that knowledge consists of the possession of brute facts. There are no autonomous “brute facts” independent of God. We deny Modernism’s claim that autonomous science and the scientific method are the only valid and reliable means of determining truth. We deny the primacy or validity of rationalism and empiricism as comprehensive epistemological theories. We reject as false and unbiblical the Modernist claim that only what is measurable can be reliable or meaningful. We also deny the Postmodern claim that knowledge is a subjective experience of the social construction of reality, determined by environmental and biological factors. We deny Postmodernism’s claim that “reality” is person-variable or context-bound and ultimately relativistic. We deny, on the authority of God’s Word, that the world contains multiple contradictory or dialectically opposed “truths” and “values” of equal merit and worth.

4. Assumptions About Values in Education and Assessment

We assume that education is an inextricably religious process of passing one’s faith, knowledge, and worldview to the next generation, perpetuating the values and way of life that faith entails. Education is thus inescapably “value-laden,” not in the sense that it merely contains certain values, but that it is the intergenerational incarnation of our religion and its values. Education is an act of worship, a work of faith expressed in what and how we teach our children regarding truth, beauty, and goodness. We affirm that the religious nature of education is always subject to the biblical antithesis between belief and unbelief, faith and faithlessness, obedience and disobedience. Education is never religiously neutral. It is either done in obedience to God and His Word, or it is done in the name of some idol at war with Christ and His kingdom. Education cannot serve two masters. We confess with the church of all ages that the Bible is our only ultimate rule for faith and practice in the education of our children. The values of our biblical foundation and Christian worldview apply to both education and the process of evaluating institutional effectiveness.

We deny that education is value-free, religiously neutral, or unbiased. We deny that the Modernist faith in the supremacy of science, the scientific method, objectivity, and quantification as false, reductionistic, ugly, and idolatrous. While we acknowledge that God graciously allows unbelievers to discover truths about His creation, we deny that science is a neutral judge of truth or possesses any power or authority independent of or greater than the Creator and Lord of science. We reject Modernism’s messianic view of education as high-handed rebellion against our God’s Messiah. We further deny Postmodernism’s claim that education is so value-laden and biased as to be hopelessly subjective. We deny the view that there are multiple realities of equal validity constructed socially, and reject the epistemological and axiological relativism this view entails. We condemn Postmodernism’s aggressive hawking of multiculturalism and ethical relativism, where all beliefs and values must be considered equally valid, as forms of polytheism at war with the Christian faith, destructive of civil society and justice, and corrosive to true education.

5. Assumptions About the Rhetoric of Education and Assessment

We assume that the most effective rhetoric for education and assessment will be personal and covenantal, reflecting the true, beautiful, and good God-to-man and man-to-man contexts found in faithful teaching and learning. We affirm that poetic and narrative language best reflects a biblical and Trinitarian understanding of education and the evaluation of its effectiveness. We affirm that our teaching, our institution, and the way we evaluate them should embody the truth, beauty, and goodness of the Trinitarian character of God, and speak with Christ-like eloquence, beauty, and authority in our prophetic, priestly, and kingly voices. We assume the most effective rhetoric for education and assessment will find its truth, beauty, and goodness in “Thus saith the Lord,” with all humility. We believe that Christian education and assessment should be self-consciously Trinitarian in their rhetoric: personal, creative, and loving. And we affirm the normativity and validity of poetry, parables, metaphors, narratives, and songs, as biblically sanctioned modes of expressing truth, beauty, and goodness—appropriate even in annual reports and institutional assessments.

We deny the Modernist trust in impersonal, formulaic, bureaucratic, and mechanistic rhetoric for education and assessment. We find it neither rhetorically effective nor biblically faithful. And it is ugly. We deny that appeals to “measurable data,” quantitative rhetoric, or stilted social scientific language (enshrined in the passive voice), dominant among secular (Modernist) educators and bureaucrats, best identifies or expresses the truth about Christian education and assessment. We hold that such rhetoric, in fact, evades truth and personal accountability. We deny that a formal, technical, or impersonal voice best captures the beauty of Christian education or serves as a model for how we should present our institutional self-evaluations. We hold that such rhetoric, in fact, hates beauty and the way God speaks in creation, His Son, and His Word. We deny that bureaucratic language or objectivistic rhetoric can adequately express what is good or ethical in Christian education or assessment. We hold that such rhetoric, in fact, denies basic biblical values of right and wrong, good and bad, and those who use it evade personal responsibility. We reject all rhetoric that bases its truth, beauty, or goodness on “Thus saith science.” We further deny Postmodernism’s rhetoric of first-person voices, antinomian language, and subjective introspection.  We reject the individualistic and relativistic rhetoric of Postmodernism as little more than “Thus saith me.”

6. Assumptions About the Methods of Education and Assessment

We assume that the most appropriate methods for Christian education and assessment will reflect the triune character of God, in their unity and diversity, and their integration of truth, beauty, and goodness. The most faithful methods will be those that preserve the wholeness of His creatures, framed in the context of their living, personal relationships, and not reduced to isolated or fragmented abstractions. We affirm the importance of poetic knowledge, seeing life as whole persons, body, soul, and mind, and education as an act of love where Christian parents pass on the Way of life to their children in obedience to God’s Word.

We reject the Modern idols of analysis and methodologism, but not the importance of scholarly rigor and diligence. We deny the supremacy of objectivist and quantitative methodologies. While they can have their place in limited circumstances, we deny the appropriateness and adequacy of quantitative social science methodologies for describing or explaining the distinctively covenantal and spiritual character of Christian education. We deny that the deductive process, no matter how rigorous, systematic, scientific, or analytical, can yield truth, exhibit beauty, or demonstrate goodness, if approached autonomously. We also reject Postmodernism’s idols of subjectivism and relativism, but not the importance of personal integrity and relational fidelity in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. We deny the inductive process can yield knowledge or understanding, no matter how much personal experience, contextualization, or familiarity one has with a subject, if approached autonomously. We also reject Postmodernism’s claim that no single method or combination of methods can yield “truth” or “facts.”

7. Assumptions About the Goal of Education and Assessment

We assume that the goal of Christian education is to raise up future generations of faithful, obedient, joyful, submissive servants of Christ, equipped to serve the Triune God with body-soul-mind in all things, as Scripture requires. Education is a joyful Christian duty, whose goal entails the development and use of a student’s God-given gifts to declare Christ’s lordship faithfully over all of life and to advance and nurture the growth of vibrant Trinitarian culture. We believe that a thoroughly Christian education and assessment plan must faithfully reflect the truth, beauty, and goodness of our triune God in holistic fashion, and not advance the goals of the idols of our age.

We reject Modernism’s educational goal of achieving value-free, objective knowledge through secular science, with its pursuit of prediction and control over all ends and means independent of God and His Word. We also reject the Modernist paradigm of educational assessment, dominant in higher education assessment circles, with its goal of producing accurate, measurable, reliable—but religiously autonomous—information as promoting the Modernist educational philosophy and agenda, and denying biblical accountability. We also deny Postmodernism’s philosophical rejection of accountability as intellectual and academic folly, and destructive of true education.

II. The Plan for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness

The College’s plan for evaluating its institutional effectiveness is intended to review and improve all facets of its operations. The plan is comprehensive, evaluating the College’s effectiveness through a regular and systematic review of its personnel, operations, and publics. The plan provides the College with information and insights to take stock of our strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness and to take appropriate actions to improve where necessary. The information gleaned from the various points under review is regularly evaluated by the faculty at their weekly meetings, by the Dean on a continuing basis, and by the Executive Council and Board of Trustees at their regular meetings. Together, these points of assessment and evaluation provide the College with a method of continuous self-review and evaluation, and a venue for making ongoing institutional improvements.

A.     The Evaluation Process

The College has developed this evaluation process that gathers information about our personnel, operations, and publics using a self-consciously Trinitarian framework. The process is not just comprehensive, covering all facets of our institution, but constructed to identify how these facets reflect and express the Trinitarian character of our Creator. For example, all personnel, operations, and publics can be evaluated on how well they reveal or express some of the following attributes of the Trinity. All facets of our institution can be evaluated on how well their various roles and responsibilities reflect or embody the Trinitarian characteristics of Father-Priest-Goodness-Love, Son-King-Beauty-Hope, and Spirit-Prophet-Truth-Faith. These characteristics should be considered distinct, but not mutually exclusive. They are best understood as generally flexible conceptual guides for reviving a Trinitarian sensibility in our academic pursuits as a confessionally Trinitarian institution.

We have developed three graphic summaries (not available online at this time) of our institutional evaluation process based on this Trinitarian perspective. The first two identify the various areas or aspects of the College, which have been grouped under three general headings—Personnel, Operations, and Publics—and how they reflect or fulfill their roles and responsibilities, following the Trinitarian characteristics of Father-Priest-Goodness-Love, Son-King-Beauty-Hope, and Spirit-Prophet-Truth-Faith as our model. The first chart describes these Trinitarian roles and responsibilities, the second provides a framework for collecting information based on these roles and responsibilities, and the third sets the annual schedule for our systematic, continuous, Trinitarian self-evaluation process.

For more on our Trinitarian approach to evaluating institutional effectiveness, see the related documents below:

Return to top of page