The Master’s University Board Responds to Accreditation Charges

On the school website, the board of The Master’s University responded to the probation imposed by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The letter was sent to faculty and staff this morning by John Stead, the provost of the college.

You can read the letter. Here is the closing:

In addition, since receiving the report, the full Board has met on three separate occasions to discuss the findings and requirements in the Final Commission Letter and to develop a definitive action plan. As a result of many hours of discussion and planning, including the tireless work of smaller groups and committees, we have made significant progress.

Working with the administration, faculty, and staff, we have created a comprehensive plan—a thorough set of specific action steps to address every concern WSCUC has raised. To ensure that these steps are implemented, we have assigned all of them to specific staff or members of the Board. We have also laid out a clear timeline in order to demonstrate to the Commission that we are making real progress toward meeting or exceeding their recommendations. The Board will thoroughly assess our institutional progress in implementing this plan at our October

It is our hope that our resolute response will allay concerns among our University and Seminary family. We recognize the crucial importance of this issue to all our students, parents, faculty, staff, alumni, and ministry support partners.

My reaction is that keeping the plan private appears to cut the faculty out of the process. While it may be typical at small schools not to involve or inform faculty, that seems to be part of what the WASC report raised as a concern. I don’t know how hearing that a plan is in the works but not knowing any of the specifics could allay concerns.

Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at

[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]

Image: The Master’s University, by Lukasinla [GFDL ( or CC BY 3.0 (], from Wikimedia Commons 

14 thoughts on “The Master’s University Board Responds to Accreditation Charges”

  1. Hmmmm. “We have made a plan, but we’re not going to tell you what it is” doesn’t strike me as the best way to solve any problem–especially not if the problem involves the people who are going to remain uninformed.

  2. Good morning everyone,

    I believe on how they address the problem demonstrates what the priorities are for the administration.
    Do they want to transform the work conditions of the faculty & staff or get the Western Association of Schools and Colleges off there back? Reading the report gives the impression that this is not a nice place to work.

    This sort of thing is pretty standard HR type of problem and the only thing you have to lay at Satan’s feet is the pride of the Administration.

    – CJ

  3. The people in charge claim that they “are fixing the problem” yet there are absolutely zero specifics communicated to anyone? I have seen that kind of bus run over people before. Reminds me of what KP and other GFA leaders said back in May of 2015, and keep saying over and over again always with no actual specifics. I would note that true repentance always includes specifics. To me this statement, as is, is worse than silence.

  4. Warren, why do you think they are cutting the faculty out of the process? The letter says they are working with them.

    It is probably wise at this stage to keep the plan at least somewhat private or internal because it is early and they are still researching and developing their plan. I imagine any organization would do that. You don’t go public until you know what you know and know what you are doing to do.

    1. The letter said the plan had been created and that it was being implemented by the board and staff. The letter was sent to faculty and staff but there was no outline of what the plan is. All I am saying is make the plan available to the faculty and staff and even to the people paying tuition. They also have a stake in all of this. The quality of their degree is involved.

      1. The plan was created with the faculty, so when you say to make it available, it seems they were in on it from the beginning. There is no reason to think it is not available, unless you have some different information.

        The staff and board are overseeing the implementation. I would presume the faculty would not have the time to do that due to their teaching loads. Overseeing the implementation of the plan is an administrative function. Let the faculty teach. Let someone else handle the nuts and bolts. You teach, right? Do you really want to add overseeing a plan like this to everything else you do as a teacher/professor? I can’t imagine that would be good from any perspective.

        1. I do have other info. Faculty have yet to be surveyed (see the letter). A few faculty may have been consulted but that doesn’t mean the plan was created with the faculty as you state it. It isn’t widely available according to my sources.

        2. The staff and board are overseeing the implementation. I would presume the faculty would not have the time to do that due to their teaching loads.

          Who said the faculty had to be tasked with implementation in order to see the final plan and understand how it is to be implemented? Warren also suggested the people who pay tuition should be made aware of it, and they don’t have a part in implementation either. This is about transparency, particularly among those who have a direct stake in the outcome.

    1. Acknowledging there is a problem does help however. Denial isn’t just de river in de Egypt after all — it seems to flow right through Master’s University.

      Look at the big picture Phiddy.

  5. Keeping the plan private and limiting faculty involvement works great for dictators afraid of transparency and the democratic process of faculty governance. Master’s University, you really aren’t thinking carefully about your future, are you?

Comments are closed.