Academic Program Review Process, Timelines and Forms FALL 2011
I. INTRODUCTION During the 2010-2011 academic year, Lake Erie College embarked upon initial steps to prepare for a thorough review of its academic programs. Program review is a key component of the criteria for accreditation as set forth by the HLC and this particular project started with a curriculum mapping process that identified key assessments in each program and course. In an effort to provide timely and informative information to the Deans and Senior Administration, and ultimately the Board of Trustees, the Office of Academic Affairs has established, and is implementing, an academic program review process to be completed during the Fall semester 2011 with a final report and recommendation being presented early in the Spring semester 2012. The purpose of this academic program review is to develop a collaborative process to identify and support the core strengths of the College, consistent with the institutional mission, characteristics and strategic directions as outlined in the LEC strategic plan, Strategic Directions 2010-2013, and to guide academic priorities based upon an evaluation of programs. This includes a review of all academic programs at LEC which lead to an undergraduate major or minor or a graduate degree. Evaluation is based on scoring, using a consistent set of criteria that are intended to characterize the nature and quality of programs. The need for review arose from a number of factors including the lack of internal processes that lead to a thorough, comprehensive and comparative evaluation of academic programs across all schools within the college. Over the past decade, a critical evaluation of programs has not been completed leading to a lack of information and guidance related to strategic decision making within the office of Academic Affairs. A second consideration has been the need in recent years to examine budgets and make cuts each of the past 3 years in order to assist in balancing the institution s operating budget. This has been done without benefit of a comprehensive program evaluation. This process has been developed with an eye toward strong correlation between overall scores received by academic programs and the prioritization categories to which programs will be assigned. Without this strong correlation and consistency in evaluation between overall program scores and program category assignments, the academic program review process would not be viewed as credible or transparent. There is no doubt that many improvements can and should be made in future LEC Academic Program Review -- Process Page 2
attempts at program review and prioritization. Nonetheless, a substantial first attempt must be made in order to have baseline from which to measure ourselves moving forward. II. THE PROCESS OF PROGRAM REVIEW AND PROIRITIZATION A. Process Design A review of numerous academic program review processes from similar institutions, as well as those within the purview of the HLC, was conducted by the office of Academic Affairs. The Indiana State University Prioritization model provided a framework from which to begin and was adapted based on the needs of LEC, as well as incorporating concepts from other review processes. B. School and Program Reports School Reports will provide an overall description of the school in which specific programs reside. These reports will include important information about the program that was not evaluated in the Academic Program Review process. For example, school personnel descriptions are important in understanding context, but typically not meant to be evaluated in the review process. Program Reports will be completed by school representatives using templates provided by the VPAA and EPP. These templates include data provided by the office of Academic Affairs regarding program specific statistics and are formatted to provide a standardized reporting method. Writers are given instructions regarding page limits and formatting for each section of the report and are asked to provide an explanation of the data provided in each section and to address each criterion in the context of their discipline and their specific program. C. Scoring Programs Reports Each program report will be scored by an independent review team composed of faculty, by the Deans of the schools in which the programs are housed, as well as EPP. Scores generated by these review teams are expected to reflect a consensusbuilding process that will begin with comparison of rates, based on a scoring rubric, given to the subcategories within the program evaluation criteria (strategic direction, demand, quality, revenues, potential). Examination of these ratings and discussions among the review teams will lead to an overall consensus rating for individual criteria. Final program scores will be generated as a weighted average of these consensus ratings for individual criteria with weights equal to 15% (Mission & Strategic Direction), 20% (Demand), 30% (Quality), 20% (Cost and Efficiency) and LEC Academic Program Review -- Process Page 3
15% (Potential), with a total possible score of 100 points per program. Extra bonus points (0-5) can be awarded on the basis of an additional Other section in the program reports. Thus, a maximum program score is theoretically equal to 105 points. In addition to generating numerical scores for program reports, review teams, the Deans, and EPP will have an opportunity to provide written comments concerning various aspects of program reports. Such comments, it is hoped, will point out things such as when demand for a particular major is very strong, but demand for a specific option in that same major is extremely low and/or if the cost of a specific option seemed unusually expensive when compared to other options offered in the same major. However, these comments are not intended to be the primary factor on which EPP bases its final sorting into categories. For a specific program, an overall program score will be calculated from the independent review team scores, the dean s review score and that of EPP x 2 as: (Team + Deans+(2 x EPP)/4). D. Sorting Programs into Prioritization Categories EPP will use the overall program scores and comments provided by the review teams to assign each program to one or more of the categories listed below: 1. Enhance Programs assigned to this category will generally receive high overall program scores. Investment in these programs should be a priority to strengthen the academic performance of the college. 2. Maintain Programs assigned to this category will generally receive medium to high overall program scores. Continued support of these programs, at or near their current resource allocation, is central to maintaining the academic performance of the college. 3. Review Programs assigned to this category will generally receive medium to low program scores. Programs in this category contribute to the academic quality of the college, but curricular reorganization and/or resource reduction is required for long-term viability or contribution of these programs. LEC Academic Program Review -- Process Page 4
4. Restructure Programs assigned to this category will generally receive low program scores. Restructuring or eliminating these programs will permit the redistribution of resources to other targeted programs and/or will enhance the academic performance of the college. 5. Revisit Programs assigned to this category will generally be those which have been recently implemented or restructured and therefore will not be able to be adequately assessed at this time, but have potential to contribute to the academic performance of the college. A careful review of these programs will be conducted within the next 3 years. E. Timeline September 6 and 7, 2011: Presentation to EPP and Deans Cabinet by VPAA September 26, 2011: Statistical information from Academic Affairs provided to each school relative to their specific programs September 30, 2011: Dean s Reports due to VPAA See Tab A October 24, 2011: Program Review Reports due to VPAA See Tab B October 31, 2011: Dean s Reports and Program Review Reports distributed to review teams November 28, 2011: Program Prioritization Individual Worksheets (Scoring/Review process) due to EPP/ VPAA See Tabs C & D December 16, 2011: EPP to complete compilation of Individual Worksheets and provide summary score sheet for each program to VPAA January 13, 2012: Draft of final report to be reviewed by EPP January 19, 2012: Draft report presented by EPP to Faculty Senate January 26, 2012: Report presented to President and Cabinet February 10, 2011: Report presented to APP committee of the Board February 11, 2011: Update presented at Board meeting LEC Academic Program Review -- Process Page 5