As UNCG’s administration has continued to listen to ideas and concerns about the academic program review process, adjustments are being made accordingly.
“As a result of conversations with Deans Council, past chairs of the Senate and current Senate leadership, and various others, modifications have been made to the program review process and the support documents,” Provost David H. Perrin said in a detailed June 7 email to everyone on the Program Review web site listserv.
[Any members of the campus community wishing to be on this listserv – where you receive updates on the process the moment new documents or information are posted to the Program Review web site – may sign up at http://opa.uncg.edu/programreview/listserv/.]
Program Review Update from Provost David H. Perrin
June 7, 2011
As a result of conversations with Deans Council, Past Chairs of the Senate and current Senate leadership, and various others, modifications have been made to the program review process and the support documents:
• Purpose: The purpose statement has been revised to provide more specific information about the context and possible outcomes of program review:
The purpose of this review is to position UNCG to be as strong academically as possible while maintaining a sound and balanced educational program that is consistent with its mission, strategic plan, and its functions and responsibilities as an institution of higher education. The review committees will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the University’s academic programs in terms of their contributions to these three areas. The context of this review includes an environment of diminishing resources in higher education, changes in mandates from the North Carolina legislature and UNC Board of Governors, and the impending UNC GA review of program duplication across the UNC system. One outcome of this process is likely to be the reallocation of resources, which may involve the enhancement of some programs and the discontinuation, curtailment, or combination of others.
- An outside consultant has checked the centrally-provided data for accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness. His report is posted on the website.
- The staff/faculty ratio and graduation rate for graduate students have been eliminated as criteria.
- An ad hoc committee of faculty are meeting with the Director of Institutional Research and the outside consultant to refine the definitions previously provided.
- An ad hoc committee of faculty and staff will be meeting with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to review the appropriateness of the centrally-provided efficiency data (Criterion C) and will be making recommendations to the Provost regarding which of these data should be reviewed by the University Program Review Committee when it starts its work.
- A decision was made to have the efficiency data reviewed only at the University level and not to require program leadership to respond to it in the department and program surveys.
• Timeline: The timeline has been adjusted to allow program leadership to respond to the program and department surveys by August 15, to allow time for review committee chairs to meet during the week of August 22, and to extend the University Program Review Committee deadline to March 1, 2012.
• University Program Review Committee Roster: The Provost is in the process of inviting two additional faculty to serve on the University Program Review Committee. These faculty were chosen from the members of Faculty Senate and the Student Learning Enhancement Committee (the only curriculum committee with no representation originally). One will be from a science and the other from a humanities program.
• Unit Committee Process: The Provost has charged the Dean of each academic unit to work with his or her unit program review committee to consider the relative relevance of the criterion to the unit’s programs and to agree upon a process for reviewing them. An outline for the reports to be submitted to the University Program Review Committee by the Deans and unit committees has been developed. By November 24, the Chair of each unit program review committee shall submit the following items to the University Program Review Committee for further review: a unit program report form for each program including rubric scores for program quality and function/demand, a SWOT analysis, and suggestions or recommendations regarding the program’s future; a list of the members of the unit program review committee; a description of the unit review process; and a concise narrative including any other general information the unit program review committee would like the University Program Review Committee to consider. Unit committees will no longer be required to submit an overall rubric score or to divide the unit’s programs the unit into thirds. By December 2, the Dean of each unit shall provide to the University Program Review Committee, a concise commentary on the report of the unit program review committee, its process, and its rankings.
• Process Document: The process document has been revised to reflect the changes listed above.
• In addition, the following documents have already been added to the UNCG Program Review Process website (http://opa.uncg.edu/programreview):
- The AAUP Policy Document,
- Procedures to be followed to report program changes to SACS and GA,
- A feedback form so members of the community can make suggestions throughout the process,
- The names of faculty and staff employed by departments each year so staff and faculty FTE’s can be interpreted,
- The external funding received by department and faculty so that sums can be verified,
- Revisions of the program process document and timeline, and
- Outline for unit committee response.
• As soon as possible and by June 25 at the latest, the following documents will also be uploaded to the Program Review Process website:
- System-wide data on programs by CIP code for use in determining what programs share markets;
- AOS codes within CIP codes for UNCG programs to help with interpretation of the market share data;
- Changes to the composition of the University Program Review Committee and the unit program review committees;
- Revised list of criteria, refined definitions, and revised rubrics;
- The report from the outside consultant.