APS 1019 - Implementation of Regent Policy on Program Review

Brief Description:  Procedures for review of all colleges, schools, and academic units within an established timetable.

Reason for Policy:  To implement Regent Policy 4-C.

This policy establishes procedures for review of all colleges, schools, and academic units, hereafter referred to as programs, within an established timetable. 

1. University Objectives of Program Review
   1. The Board of Regents directed the faculty and administration to develop systematic procedures for review of all colleges, schools, and academic units within an established timetable that provides for review of each unit once every five years where feasible, but at least once every seven years.
      
      The review procedures are to be designed to:

1. 1. 1. Identify strengths and weaknesses of each academic program; and
      2. Provide constructive options for program development and modification
         
         The ultimate goals of these procedures are to promote and maintain high-quality academic programs that are administered efficiently.
         
         Such procedures are to address, where appropriate, the review of the undergraduate curriculum, with the goal of providing students with a broader exposure to a wide range of subject matters. The Board of Regents is to receive periodic reports and recommendations for action, where appropriate, based upon and resulting from the reviews.
   2. A program review shall be considered a basic planning document for the program under review. The unit, campus and university system shall generally use the program review as a guide in making decisions regarding resource allocation, faculty staffing, program focus, admission standards, curriculum content, and other appropriate academic matters. The program review may include major recommendations, minor recommendations, and supportive recommendations. It is recognized that implementation of recommendations included in a program review is contingent upon availability of resources, consistency with campus plans, and other factors.
   3. A program review may be scheduled to coincide with professional accreditation reviews. In addition, with approval of the appropriate dean and the provost, the self-study, external review, and other aspects of an accreditation review may be incorporated into the program review. In either case, each program review must address the goals and the requirements of this policy.
2. Campus Program Review Procedure
   1. All program reviews shall contain a self-study that includes analysis of student outcomes data, an external review conducted by one or more individuals in the discipline(s), and an internal review by faculty and administration outside of the unit under review.  Each campus shall have a standing campus-wide Program Review Panel to assist the chancellor and provost in the review of existing programs and to make recommendations for program improvement.  
   1. 1. Self-study
         The unit under review will develop a report that contains the following information, when appropriate:
      1. 1. Review of academic programs, including analysis of student outcomes data;
         2. Review of unit’s criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion and post-tenure review, if any, to determine whether these criteria reflect appropriate and current standards of professional performance and serve to ensure that faculty have the professional competence needed to achieve the goals of the unit, college/school, campus and the Board of Regents;
         3. Review of unit’s efforts with regard to mentoring and faculty development;
         4. Review of unit’s scholarly activity/research productivity; and
         5. Review of unit’s service activities.
      2. External review:
         The external review committee shall:
         1. Review the unit report;
         2. Meet with unit faculty members to discuss aspects of the report;
         3. Develop a summary review of unit programs; and
         4. Meet with the head of the unit, dean of the appropriate school/college, and internal review team, to discuss external report findings.
      3. Internal review:
         The internal review team shall:
         1. Review the unit report;
         2. Develop a summary review of unit programs; and
         3. Meet with the external reviewer(s), head of the unit, and dean of the appropriate school to discuss internal report findings.
            
            The written reports of the above bodies will be reviewed by the appropriate dean, the provost and chancellor.  When appropriate, each of the administrators may attach comments to the final report. 
            
            If the evaluation of the program is largely positive, an action plan for remedying weaknesses must be developed by the unit and, within the framework of overall resource priorities, needed resources committed.
            
            If the results of the internal and external evaluations are negative and lead to a recommendation for program termination, the chancellor will follow established procedures for internally initiated program discontinuance.
            
            In all cases, the results of the review will be reported to the Board of Regents.
             
   2. Annual follow-up to program review.
      
      Each campus shall report on the progress of units that have undergone program review in the previous three years, addressing major developments, significant achievements, issues included in the original report which have not been addressed, and the status of program improvement.
       
3. Review of Program Reviews by the President's Office
    
   1. By July 15 of each year, all campuses shall submit to the system Office of Academic Affairs (OAA):
      1. A comprehensive five-year schedule of upcoming program reviews
      2. An overview of the completed review process for the year, together with a copy of the reviews themselves (see appendix)
      3. An overview of progress made on recommendations in reviews from the three previous years (see appendix)
      4. A list of new degree programs that are likely to be proposed or existing programs that may be discontinued in the next five years
   2. When a unit or school with one or more coordinated programs is scheduled for review, OAA shall be notified so that the review may be carried out in conjunction with the other campuses with which the degree is coordinated.
   3. By September 1 of each year, the system OAA shall submit to the president and Board of Regents a summary report on the program reviews and progress reports on previously reviewed programs.  Because of their length, the full reports will not be forwarded to the board, but rather will be made available upon request. 

The Board of Regents passed a resolution at its November 1980 meeting requiring the review of all academic programs once every five years where feasible, but at least once every seven years. The resolution also identified the goals for those reviews.

Replaces policy dated September 1, 2006

1. The format for campus program review reports shall be as follows:
    
   1. Length: The program review report should not normally exceed fifteen (15) pages.
   2. Organization: The basic organization of the report should be consistent with the following format:
   1. 1. Chancellor's letter of transmittal
      2. Basic Report Structure:
      1. 1. General description of the review process
         2. Description of implementation of previous program review recommendations, if appropriate
         3. Summary of the self-study
         4. Summary of outcome of internal unit review
         5. Summary of findings of external review
         6. General observations and conclusion of the review by the Program Review Panel including:
            • Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the program under review
            • Recommendations for program improvement and future program development
            • Timetable for decisions that affect the program reviewed.
               
2. Annual Progress Reports on Programs Previously Reviewed
   
   The report shall address the following items for all programs that have been reviewed in the prior three years by the campus:

1. 1. A progress report on major developments indicating achievements, need for follow-up, etc.
   2. An implementation schedule for major issues included in the original report which have not been addressed or for which action is incomplete.
   3. A general statement as to the status of program improvement, the program review process, and any link with quantitative measures, such as student outcomes assessment.