Email #1

Hello Miche,

 

Greetings from Pittsburgh.  My name is Elsie Miranda and I am the ATS liaison for PSR. I am glad to support your research efforts and to offer you some important information.  First, I have attached an excerpt of the ATS Standards related to the MDiv degree program (see below).  The highlights are helpful in developing a general understanding of the requirements of the degree program.  Second, I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to your questions.  With regard to: 

  • “the credit allocation for the development of organizational leadership skills among MDiv programs, accredited by ATS”.

As an accrediting agency we follow guidelines set by the USDE and then we expand upon these for the context of graduate theological education.

A basic MDiv. degree (oriented toward ordination or professional ministry) has a minimum threshold of 72 credits.  Some schools/seminaries have MDiv degrees that are 177 credits (depending upon the denominational contexts or other school specific requirements).   

  • [Are] MDiv programs are required to provide classes on public leadership? Given that ATS is not a prescriptive body therefore we do not tell schools what courses they should offer to achieve their programmatic objectives.  In Standard 4.3 you can see the overarching goals of the degree.  Schools have the freedom to develop curricula that suits their context and the needs of their constituency.  What ATS does is EVALUATE the schools approved programs to assure a level of quality that is substantive.  For example a woman who is in an MDiv program in a Catholic seminary will most likely not be taking a class on Preaching because female preaching is not part of the RC tradition.  On the other hand she may be taking a course on Pedagogical Development for Secondary Schools – the school therefore determines what “Public Leadership” is in the development of their curricula –AND what  the Practicum will involve.  For example some students do 2 Units of CPE, others for Field Placement of  Field education—this always involves some level of “supervision”—again the possibilities are broad and ATS does not prescribe the content or modality—we only evaluate the effectiveness of the program that the school is offering.  

  •  What [does it] means … that “The degree has clearly articulated learning outcomes…”? This question raises a very important issue for the school—and that is Planning and Evaluation (see Standard 2—especially 2.4-8).  As you may know by now, all programs must have clearly articulated Program Learning Outcomes (PLO’s) and Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s).  These include “objectives” that the school is responsible to measure using various forms of evaluation. Professors for example should use a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures to gather data of student performance.  In a Master’s level course a professor needs to determine if a student has “mastered” the concepts, objectives, practical application of theory presented in each course.  They usually have a rubric that determines what is required for an A, B, C, or F.

If a school fails to provide the students with the PLO’s of the degree program (typically found in the Catalog) and SLO’s of the courses (typically found in the syllabus, then they are not conforming to the Standards—(then we would make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and the school would need to attend to this shortcoming in a reasonable amount of time.

 

I hope that you find this information useful—I wish you all the best in your research--  particularly because in the past 10 years the enrollment on MDiv programs has been in decline and the Professional MA (36 credit min) has become more popular.  I would be happy to know what you discover.

 

 

 

ATS  2020 STANDARDS OF ACCREDITATION

 

Master of Divinity
4.1 The Master of Divinity degree prepares people for religious leadership or service in congregations
and other settings, as well as for advanced degrees. This degree requires a minimum of 72 semester
credits or equivalent units

4.3 The Master of Divinity degree is broadly and deeply attentive to the intellectual, human, spiritual,
and vocational dimensions of student learning and formation in ways consistent with the school’s
mission and theological commitments. The degree has clearly articulated learning outcomes that
address each of the following four areas, though the school may use different terms for these areas: (a)
religious heritage, including understanding of scripture, the theological traditions and history of the
school’s faith community, and the broader heritage of other relevant religious traditions; (b) cultural
context, including attention to cultural and social issues, to global awareness and engagement, and to
the multifaith and multicultural nature of the societies in which students may serve; (c) personal and
spiritual formation, including development in personal faith, professional ethics, emotional maturity,
moral integrity, and spirituality; and (d) religious and public leadership, including cultivating capacities
for leading in ecclesial or denominational and public contexts and reflecting on leadership practices.


4.4 The Master of Divinity degree requires supervised practical experiences (e.g., practicum or
internship) in areas related to the student’s vocational calling in order to achieve the learning outcomes
of the degree program. These experiences are in settings that are appropriately chosen, well suited to
the experience needed, and of sufficient duration. These experiences are also supervised by those who
are appropriately qualified, professionally developed, and regularly evaluated.


4.5 The Master of Divinity degree program as a whole and each of its specific student learning outcomes
are regularly evaluated, with the results discussed by faculty and used to improve student learning and
formation.

 

 

Sincerely,

Elsie

 

 

Dr. Elsie M. Miranda | Director of Accreditation and Director of Diversities 

The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting

10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | miranda@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

o 412-788-6505, ext. 237 | m 412-651-9882

Email #2

Hello there Dr. Miranda,

I am SO sorry that it took me forever to respond. I am eternally caught between multiple academic email addresses and should have done a better job connecting it to my computer.

First, thank you so much for your willingness to help and for ATS to help me in my research. A little bit of context is warranted.

When I was doing my MA in Global Leadership at Fuller Theological Seminary, I asked how it was possible that in faith spaces, and churches in particular, certain leadership practices like change management, conflict resolution, HR principles, or basic DEI principles were not upheld. The reason for these questions was a range of anecdotal stories from people, specifically women, who have been mistreated in churches. When those mistreatments were shared with church leadership, their stories were covered up and hidden.

My first line of inquiry was if these faith spaces had any knowledge of inclusive Leadership (I'm specifically referring to the inclusive leadership theory model, not the colloquial term). With that in mind, I researched all US-based Seminaries that were ATS accredited. I narrowed my search to MDiv degrees, as pastors in many churches, specifically nontraditional churches, are the de facto CEOs of their faith spaces. My research showed that 93.5% of MDivs do not treat inclusive Leadership at first glance. The other 6.5% have ambiguous statements in their syllabus and curriculum.

When I started my DMin, I decided to take this research further, which was also around the first time I contacted the ATS. I expanded my search to the following topics: "DEI," "Organizational Administration," "General Leadership," "HR," and finally, "Church-based Leadership." This research shows at least a correlation between mismanagement in faith spaces and the lack of specific leadership education in MDiv programs.

I'm attaching the document showing this research so you can see the results. The research results are why I reached out to you, to find out what role the ATS has in guiding MDiv programs to provide Leadership for their students.

I understand that the ATS is not a prescriptive body, but I'm uncertain if that is the public's perception. I may have to survey that. Seminaries advertise with their ATS accreditation which, at least for me, gives the impression that the accreditation has some prescriptive value. I have talked to some seminaries and heard that the study period is intensive, and accreditation is laborious. This gives me the impression that member schools weigh the opinion of the ATS seriously. It also gives me a gut response that the ATS could require more leadership training since there is at least a correlation between mismanagement in faith spaces and the lack of leadership education in seminaries.

Let me finish with a case study. Last fall, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia voted for a new Bishop. The then assistant Bishop Jennifer Brooke-Davidson was also in consideration but was ultimately not chosen as a nominee. When I asked some congregants, priests, and deacons what they thought the reason was, the consensus seemed to be that her degree was in Global Leadership, and she did not have an adequate theological background. However, my question is: does the Church need someone with people skills and organizational Leadership? Or should a leader have exegetical knowledge and great soteriology?

This email has turned out to be a novel. Is there an opportunity to work with the ATS and explore the possibility of refreshing the evaluation process to advise seminaries to spend more time on Leadership in their curriculum? Especially in this everchanging world and with an ever-expanding batch of nontraditional churches that have CEO-like pastors.

I would love to work together with the ATS on trying to think about solutions for the decline in MDiv programs. I also would be grateful for a zoom call to elaborate on anything unclear. I am Dutch and pretty direct, so I want to make sure that you know that my intentions are academic and for the betterment of the world, and I am very open to critique.

Best,

Miche

ATS research:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JunTmWGM0Ucqc6abCCTO4rIO7srmbk8RZkPiBDmlbRk/edit?usp=sharing

Email #3

Dr. Miranda,

I hope this email finds you well. 

I'm just checking in on some communication that we had in the past. 

As a refresher, I'm a Doctoral student that is investigating the causes for the MDiv decline in the past years as well as advising on some new solutions. I would be thrilled to do this together with the ATS so as to not reinvent the wheel and to see what solutions the ATS already have proposed. 

In my previous email I shared my master sheet where my research assistant and I crunched the data to see how much Seminaries spend on specific topics. Currently I'm in my ABD phase and I hope to defend this December. I'm mostly interested in the following questions

  • If we were to suggest a hybrid MBA/MDiv degree - what core MDiv hours can have an overlap with the MBA (this same question has been asked to the AACSB)?

  • What would the process be for suggesting a

    • different course load?

    • a requirement for organizational leadership? 

  • Since the 2017 MDiv decline report, what has the ATS and its partners done to thwart this trend? 

Best,

Miche van Essen

571-509-9350

Email #4

Dear Miche,

I’m glad to know about your research— I think that your work will benefit Theological Schools that are discerning patterns of student need and changes in ecclesial communities.  To that end I think that my colleagues Debbie Gin and Christopher The would be most helpful in supporting your research needs.  I am cc’ing them in this response. 

Wishing you all the best in your studies—

Elsie 



Elsie M. Miranda. 

Email #5

Greetings, Miche, hope you have been well since last we spoke.

 

My colleagues may have more to add, but let me offer initial comments on background (no attribution, though the items hyperlinked below are public). From your approved study proposal, what can we help you answer? Do you have IRB approval that you might share with us regarding (e.g.) a survey you wish to conduct? Depending on the approved research design, you might consider narrowing the scope to MDiv programs approved over the past 2-3 years and diving deep with those schools on their curricular decisions, if time allows.**

 

There may be no way to address within the timeframe you mention the “motivational” rationale I hear you are ultimately seeking. Generally speaking, any school re/developing an MDiv curriculum will be weighing multiple inputs—not least of which are what might be described as market forces, including student-shouldered costs for a traditionally three-year degree and the “pull factor” / “demand” represented by constituent faith communities. Both the move to offer shorter degrees like an MA and the decision to shorten the MDiv itself (as Fuller has done within the past dozen years) may owe less to conceptual commitments than other reasons.

 

At a membership-level, all ATS schools must be “demonstrably engaged in educating professional leadership” (ATS Membership eligibility criterion I.A)—though, again, as you mentioned, the theoretical/theological approaches are not prescribed by ATS. While there is only a single, uniform MDiv degree nomenclature, ATS-accredited schools may offer various concentrations and focal areas within their MDiv that ATS would not approve solely based on nomenclature (there is one Jewish member school offering programs that are categorically equivalent to the MDiv but are for clear reasons not called the MDiv). On the other hand, most other ATS-approved degrees could include leadership in their nomenclatures—or not—and may be relevant to your research interests.

 

For accrediting purposes, Standard 4.3(.d) comes closest, in my estimation, to your research concerns yet from a principle-based (vs. practice-prescriptive) approach that holistically describes the ATS Standards of Accreditation. Per terms of accreditation, public notice of accredited status is actually a requirement (though other reasons you mention may also apply); see Policies and Procedures VII.A.6, linked here.

 

Elsie, thanks for making the (re)connection; I am encouraged also to know this important work is being done.

 

All the best to you and those you serve,

Chris

Christopher The, MAR, MDiv, PhD | Director of Student Research and Initiative Management
The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting
10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | 412-788-6505, ext. 253 | 鄭 | he/him | the@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

Email #6

Dr. The, 

Thank you so much for taking time to respond to me! 

Fellow Indonesian here! Also, have we met before on a Fuller's Jewish Voice meeting with Dr. Jen Rosner? 

First things first, my degree is focussed on a practical solution based on synthesized research. So I have no IRB since I don't have human subjects. However, this topic has intrigued me quite a bit and I'm considering finding support and funding to pursue a survey in order to have a more in depth look at these trends. At this point, my interest in the ATS is specifically procedural where I'm trying to figure out how certain criteria and standards are being reviewed. 

It is exactly the phrasing of criterion I.A that leaves me with some questions." What exactly is "professional leadership" and how can ATS member schools demonstrate that?" Similarly, what process does the ATS use to review that criterion I.A is fulfilled? Is there a rubric or a set of sub criteria? Finally standard 4.3d is using different language than the criterion language i.e., religious & public vs professional. 

Thanks for the additional notes, they're very helpful. I'm still very interested in understanding why the MA enrollment has exceeded the MDiv enrollment. How do you interpret the data? It looks like the MA degree is picking up a little bit of people but not as much to explain the drop from the MDiv program. 

I'm excited to keep this conversation going - if it's easier to jump on a video call, I'd be happy to do that too. 

Best,

Miche van Essen

Email #7

Hi Miche, thanks for remembering our sessions with Dr. Rosner and colleagues—yes, that was the prior context to which I was referring.

 

Thanks also for your note about not needing IRB approval. Are there specific facets of your project or approved proposal/prospectus that you might share? Having this may help to contextualize your research interest concerning ATS data.

 

You are correct in observing two different yet related articulations, which serve distinct outcomes. The basis and purpose for criterion I.A relates to eligility for gaining associate membership within the ATS—see https://www.ats.edu/Membership-Process and the Association Bylaws. Only associate members of ATS can seek full membership, i.e., accreditation status as accredited members of the ATS Commission on Accrediting, which would be governed by the Standards of Accreditation (cf. area d of Standard 4.3).

 

Publicly available ATS data can be found at https://www.ats.edu/Annual-Data-Tables while interpretations of such trends are generally published here: https://www.ats.edu/Colloquy-Online. Special research items are typically archived here: https://www.ats.edu/Recent-Ats-Research-On-Special-Topics-In-Theological-Education.

 

Trusting this helps,

    Chris

Christopher The, MAR, MDiv, PhD | Director of Student Research and Initiative Management
The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting
10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | 412-788-6505, ext. 253 | 鄭 | he/him | the@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

Email #8

Hello again, and thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions! 

Yes, I see now that you were referring to it. Such a random encounter, haha. I just remember our shared Indonesian heritage and a big "No Justice No Peace" background, respect! 

My hypothesis is as follows:

"Based on analysis of data from Seminaries in the US & Canada, the Association of Theological Schools, and recent events in Church History, it has become clear that in some contexts pastors and church leaders with an MDiv degree did not learn or receive exposure to organizational leadership principles such as Resonant Leadership, Adaptive Leadership, and HR Principles (like change management, conflict resolution, or recruiting & onboarding). Because of that, it is my hypothesis most lack the proper tools to deal with the organizational challenges that running churches effectively poses. My suggested solution is to offer pastors and church leaders additional training and a more informed path to professional leadership."

My data comes from the ATS (of course), a deep dive into the core curriculum of all the US-based MDiv offerings (see sheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JunTmWGM0Ucqc6abCCTO4rIO7srmbk8RZkPiBDmlbRk/edit?usp=sharing), and a selection of church controversies in recent church history that, anecdotal as they are, show a trend in leadership behavior or a lack in management skills. Currently, there seems to be at least a correlation between the skills that MDiv students receive in their education and the organizational structures of churches, in my research, mainly non-traditional churches. It has led me to state that in those non-traditional churches, pastors are often the de facto CEO/CFO/COO of their organizations, and that makes me wonder if they have received the proper training to take on those roles. MDiv students get a good dose of theology but rarely learn different leadership theories and never hear of any HR principles, according to my research. 

My interest is in understanding why there is a lack of leadership skills, how the ATS measures certain qualities, like professional leadership, and what the decline in MDiv enrollments teaches us. On the latter, it seems impossible to find out why prospective students don't choose an MDiv degree. It may be doable to ask MAT students that question, but that leaves out all the prospective students that don't end up as MAT students. On the former, I want to provide additional training to pastors interested in professionalizing their leadership skills for an ever-changing context. My dissertation/capstone project is a proposal to offer a dual MDiv/MBA degree to pilot an approach that would remedy both the lack of leadership skills and the decline in MDiv enrollments. I know this is a very agile approach, but I'm a proponent of trying these things out, collecting data, and adjusting as we need. 

This leads me back to the core question: how does the ATS measure public leadership, e.g., standard 4.3, and how does a school demonstrate to the ATS that they engage in educating professional leadership? This is a question that I can't find an answer to. 

Best,

Miche van Essen

Email #9

Miche,

 

Thanks for your response. Three resources come to mind that stem from a study ATS conducted several years ago, which you may have already seen is not specific to MDiv alums alone:

An updated iteration of this research study should be released in the next year or so.

 

It is possible that the nuances in leadership you mention are resonant with the above research reports, and I wonder whether the approaches and commitments you are seeking could nonetheless be represented yet “buried” in a level of specificity requiring more qualitative approaches (such as the variety of class syllabi). I also wonder about field ed and continuing ed contexts, namely, whether those settings are included in your coding methodology (e.g., a speaker series required for internship might not appear in the institution’s academic catalog). There may be other resources to students in various settings that may not appear in any granular way within a degree summary online or even in print.

 

I assume your work will helpfully clarify how, for example, congregational leadership is defined—perhaps both by schools, in addition to your own analysis. Your note about MDiv/MBA dual degree, along with the other interventions you plan, is encouraging. Such dual-degree programs are often offered in university settings, but not always. A web search shows many schools advertizing MBA/MDiv—which may present the opportunity for informational interviews on how they approach executive leadership, DEI, HR, etc.

 

Finally, regarding how ATS evaluates schools based on Standard 4.3, this accreditation-specific microsite may be helpful to you—in addition to the following resources that ATS schools use to prepare for accredtation visits (the primary context of ATS institutional evaluation):

 

All the best to you and those you serve,

    Chris

Christopher The, MAR, MDiv, PhD | Director of Student Research and Initiative Management
The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting
10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | 412-788-6505, ext. 253 | 鄭 | he/him | the@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

 

PS –See the “self-study ideas” related to Standard 4.3:

Email #10

Dr. The, 

Thank you again so much for your time and effort in answering all my questions. 

The background of my dissertation is now in the review phase, so I'm taking a small break from it to hear what my panel has to say. 

A few thoughts:

  1. I am looking forward to updated research. It is concerning to see that administration, leadership, and finance rank so high among students that end up in a congregational setting. This could indicate that my hypothesis, which was based on independent research, is congruent with the findings of the ATS. 

  2. While I have definitions for congregational leadership, I would be more interested in hearing what the ATS considers professional, religious, and public leadership. There are many leadership theories, and I'm extracting leadership models based on Goleman, Heifets, and Linskey, i.e., the resonant leadership and adaptive leadership theories they propose. 

  3. While some schools claim to have a hybrid MDiv/MBA program, fewer even offer an official hybrid. Palmer Seminary (Eastern University) is the most promising implementation. Most other programs offer an opportunity to do a dual program, but that is wholly self-guided and typically includes getting two full degrees with minimal overlap. My suggestion, however, is to create a hybrid where the MDiv electives are filled with faith-based leadership courses that could count as MBA classes that are accredited with either the AACSB, AMBA, or EQUIS. If permitted by both accrediting institutions, this could mean a 90 Credit hour MDiv/MBA hybrid. 

  4. I have looked at the micro-site and the screenshot, but I'm not entirely sure I can see how a school can demonstrate that they teach professional, religious, and public leadership. Can you point me to someone that assesses these membership and accreditation standards? I was hoping for a rubric of sorts. For example, a product that is certified organic needs to be verified by a USDA-verified agent and has a specific list of requirements it needs to fulfill. Does that make sense? 

Best,

Miche van Essen

Email #11

Miche, thanks for your note. Best of luck with your panel’s review!

 

Let me include @ATS Accrediting on this message for follow up concerning institutional evaluation.

 

All the best to you and those you serve,

    Chris

Christopher The, MAR, MDiv, PhD | Director of Student Research and Initiative Management
The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting
10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | 412-788-6505, ext. 253 | 鄭 | he/him | the@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

Email #12

Good Afternoon,

 

Allow me to share a response from one of our accrediting liaisons:

 

The demonstration that schools provide and that accrediting committees, ATS staff, and the Board of Commissioners assess is both more contextual and qualitative than the certification of “organic” food, as in the example. ATS personnel might develop mental rubrics for assessing the teaching of “religious and public leadership” that are highly contextual since the understanding and performance of leadership takes different forms for schools in different circumstances (denominational affiliation, theological and social commitments, student demographics, etc.). In fact, the application of all the Standards takes this general approach. The 2020 Standards have fewer “bright lines” expected of all schools and emphasize more the context and mission of each school, expecting each school to demonstrate how it fulfills the Standards within its particular situation. The 2020 Standards are more principle-based than oriented to naming particular practices.

 

For religious and public leadership, each school must “cultivate capacities for leading” and engage students in “reflecting on leadership practices” but those are addressed, accomplished, and demonstrated in a variety of ways across the membership. Each member of the ATS accrediting staff, personnel from the schools and other vocations who staff visiting committees, and the Board of Commissioners all collaborate to interpret and apply the Standards in ways that both fulfill the requirements of the Standards with high quality and attend to the distinctive context and mission of each individual school. I think the screen shot Chris provided with the Standard and self-study ideas gives a good example of the basic foundation for this process of discernment about how and whether a school is fulfilling each Standard. But by intention there are not formal, more explicit and detailed expectations that are imposed on each school.

 

I hope this helps,

Leah

 

Leah K. Wright | Accrediting Records Coordinator

The Association of Theological Schools | The Commission on Accrediting

10 Summit Park Drive | Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1110 | 412-788-6505, ext. 240 | wright@ats.edu | www.ats.edu

Email #13

Leah,

This is very helpful, thank you so much! That makes sense.

Best,

Miche