1 / 21

Existing Academic Program Review

Existing Academic Program Review. Arkansas Department of Higher Education April 24, 2008. What Is An Existing Academic Program Review?. An objective process that evaluates academic programs and leads to program improvement. Why Do Existing Academic Program Reviews?.

keiji
Download Presentation

Existing Academic Program Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Existing Academic Program Review Arkansas Department of Higher Education April 24, 2008

  2. What Is An Existing Academic Program Review? An objective process that evaluates academic programs and leads to program improvement.

  3. Why Do Existing Academic Program Reviews? • To meet the statutory requirements of ACA §6-61-214. In order to promote a coordinated system of higher education in Arkansas and to assure an orderly and effective development of each of the publicly supported institutions of higher education, the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board shall have the power and duty to establish minimum standards of quality and cost effectiveness, and review each existing academic degree program in the state institutions of higher education at least every ten (10) years, but no more frequently than every seven (7) years.

  4. Why Do Academic Existing Program Reviews? (con’t.) • To improve academic programs through a systemic, cyclical review process. • To answer questions important to institutions, students and the State. Do faculty teaching, research, and service activities adequately sustain a vital, effective program? Is program curriculum intellectually and creatively challenging and does it offer students an opportunity realize a high quality education? Are institutional resources sufficient to support continued delivery of the program? What means and measures are used by faculty and staff to assess the program’s effectiveness?

  5. Helps determine if key campus objectives are being met. Reaffirms the important role of data in improvement plans. Assures that student learning is based on program- or discipline-specific outcomes. Promotes departmental follow-up, efficiency, and accountability. Why Are Existing Academic Program Reviews Important for Institutions?

  6. Helps determine progress in meeting statewide goals. Emphasizes the importance of education and teaching at all levels. Establishes program expectations from a state policy perspective. Promotes institutional follow-up, efficiency, and accountability. Why Are Existing Academic Program Reviews Important for the State?

  7. What Can AHECB Gain from the Existing Academic Program Review Process? • Information related to institutional and program efficiencies • Critical data about program size and stability • Insight into necessary and unnecessary program duplication • Current and future resource needs • Statewide academic strengths and concerns • How the program contributes to the institution’s mission and State higher education goals

  8. Legislative History of Existing Academic Program Reviews • Act 560 of 1977 Required AHECB to review existing programs. • Act 397 of 1989 Required AHECB to establish minimum program quality and cost effectiveness standards and to periodically review existing academic programs. • July 1989 AHECB set productivity standards at an average of 3 graduates/year for undergraduate programs, 2 graduates/year for master’s programs, and 1 graduate/year for doctoral programs. The average is calculated over a 5-year period.

  9. Legislative History of Existing Academic Program Reviews (con’t.) • Act 376 of 1993 Designated productivity standards 10 graduates per year at the undergraduate level and 5 graduates per year at the graduate level for Uniform Reporting and Cost Accounting purposes. • Act 523 of 1999 Deleted language that specified Uniform Reporting/Cost Accounting productivity standards. Required AHECB to set program productivity standards.

  10. What Is the Current AHECB Existing Academic Program Review Policy? • Institution conducts program review that includes: Faculty Curriculum Resources Student Outcomes Program Improvements • Institution reports results and modification plans for under performing programs to ADHE/AHECB. • AHECB program productivity standards are based on an annual average over a 5-year period: Undergraduate programs 3 graduates per year Post-Baccalaureate 2 graduates per year Doctoral programs 1 graduate per year

  11. The value of academic program review rests on its processes, outcomes, and usefulness.

  12. It is essential that we collect useful information and make appropriate decisions based on existing program review results.

  13. Need to strengthen AHECB oversight of Academic Programs • Key component of the AHECB Charge • Can be used to encourage degree productivity • Assure quality • Encourage time to degree

  14. II III I IV MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX +1 Mission Critical -1 +1 Effectiveness

  15. ‘MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX I. Poor Performers • Start up initiative that expends extensive resources with yet little proof of effectiveness. Need revisions in order to be effective. • Older program that have lost effectiveness. May have garnered select support from significant folks, but no longer as mission critical. II. Shows Promise • Programs that are central to the mission, have some public interest, but have yet shown enough effectiveness to come into their own. III. Successful • Programs that are central to the mission, very popular with the public and are very effective. IV. Older projects • Effective, low visibility, but less popular activities that are not as related to the mission as they once were. • May need redesign to be more mission critical and to maintain effectiveness

  16. II III I IV MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX +1 Mission Critical -1 +1 Effectiveness

  17. II III I IV MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX Large budgets are visually bigger and more difficult to move +1 • Gov/Soc • Math • English Mission Critical • Foreign Lang. • Biology • Mus/Theatre • Art • Chem. • His/Geo • Pyschology • Econ/Fin Inefficient Low enrollments Few graduates • Mus Therapy • Info/Sys • Marketing • Spec. Ed/Admin. • Mid Gr Ed • Early Ch Ed • Management • Adult Health • Healthcare Sys • HPER • Accounting • Foundations Ed • Fam. Health -1 1 Effectiveness

  18. II III I IV ‘MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX +1 Mission Critical • Early childhood and • Middle grades Education Inefficient Low enrollments Few graduates • Middle Grades education • Early Childhood education -1 1 Effectiveness

  19. II III I IV MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX +1 Mission Critical -1 +1 Effectiveness

  20. Areas of Possible modification • Revision of process • Increase degree productivity threshold • Reduction in paperwork Program Productivity Excel sheet

  21. Proposed process for reviewing AHECB policy on Academic Program Review. • Discuss the need to review Academic Program Review with AHECB board • Work with institutions to determine areas in which there is agreement on improving criteria and processes. • Recommend policy changes at the October AHECB board meeting.

More Related