At one point we had a Director of Institutional Research (for the entire university) who reported to the President and VPAA and provided a wealth of helpful information for the seminary for accreditation and ongoing evaluation. I do not know if we still have such a position or, if not, why it was eliminated. I do not know what kind of evaluation "informs the school's planning and budgeting process" but the trustees have adopted a strategic plan that no doubt informs strategic and managerial decisions. Of course, COVID upended everything. Dr. Mark Ward should have significant information on current planning and evaluation at the university level.
Given all the staff changes in the past decade, ATS might well ask what factors (besides budget) led to the changes and what evaluation of the structure of the school resulted in changes in position descriptions and structure of the school. They will be most interested in how the current structure is working and how we know that. Are position descriptions clear and sustainable? Was New Day Dawning part of the thinking? How do we annually evaluate admissions methods and results? Who has been responsible for this?
As to the micro level, like others I find the midterm evaluations helpful but not for the current year. The end-of-semester evaluations are useful as are the ordination exam results (particularly, for me, for the History and Confessions of the PCUSA course). The Graduating Student questionnaires and alumni questionnaires provide helpful information but I do not remember discussing those on any regular basis nor any curricular changes coming as a result. Many changes in the recent past have come from grant proposals. I do not know if they were motivated in any way by evaluative data or simply by Lilly's guidelines.
Having a representative standing seminary committee that regularly reviews different programs on a three-year rotation might be helpful. It strikes me that before launching into curricular reviews, it might be well to ask what is working and not working on a macro level vis-a-vis the dramatic changes in the landscape of denominations in the US so we can build/revise structures/programs that address the church as it is/will be and the dynamic marketplace of theological higher education. Sustainable, market-sensitive theological education built with significant input from the communion of saints would be key.