Transcript Existing Academic Program Review | 04.24.08

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.
2
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.
3
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?
4
Why Are Existing Academic Program
Reviews Important for Institutions?
• 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.
5
Why Are Existing Academic Program
Reviews Important for the State?
• 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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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
Post-Baccalaureate
Doctoral programs
3 graduates per year
2 graduates per year
1 graduate per year
10
The value of academic program
review rests on its processes,
outcomes, and usefulness.
11
It is essential that we collect useful
information and make appropriate
decisions based on existing program
review results.
12
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
13
MODIFIED’
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX
+1
Mission
Critical
II
III
I
IV
-1
+1
Effectiveness
14
‘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
15
MODIFIED’
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX
+1
Mission
Critical
II
III
I
IV
-1
+1
Effectiveness
16
MODIFIED’
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX
Large budgets are
visually bigger and more
difficult to move
+1
•Math
Mission
Critical
Inefficient
•Gov/Soc
•Foreign Lang.
•Mus/Theatre
•Chem.
•Art
•His/Geo
•Biology
•Pyschology
II
III
I
IV
•Econ/Fin
•Info/Sys
Low enrollments
•English
•Marketing
•Mus Therapy
•Spec. Ed/Admin.
•Mid Gr Ed
•Early Ch Ed
•Management
•Adult Health
Few graduates
•HPER
•Accounting
•Fam. Health
-1
•Healthcare Sys
•Foundations Ed
Effectiveness
1
17
‘MODIFIED’
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX
+1
Mission
Critical
Inefficient
II
III
I
IV
•Early childhood and
• Middle grades Education
•Middle Grades education
Low enrollments
•Early Childhood education
Few graduates
-1
Effectiveness
1
18
MODIFIED’
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX
+1
Mission
Critical
II
III
I
IV
-1
+1
Effectiveness
19
Areas of Possible modification
• Revision of process
• Increase degree productivity threshold
• Reduction in paperwork
Program Productivity Excel sheet
20
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.
21