Transcript The Academic Program Prioritization Process September 2012-May 2013 Program Prioritization Defined A process of clarifying institutional purposes and setting academic priorities Dickeson, “Prioritizing Academic Programs and.

The Academic Program
Prioritization Process
September 2012-May 2013
Program Prioritization Defined
A process of clarifying institutional purposes and
setting academic priorities
Dickeson, “Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating
Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance” (2010; p. xiii)
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN?
• Adherence to mission
MSU-Northern, a teaching institution, serves a diverse student population
by providing liberal arts, professional and technical education programs
ranging from certificates through master's degrees. The university
promotes a student centered and culturally enriched environment
endorsing lifelong learning, personal growth and responsible citizenship.
The university partners with a variety of community and external entities
to enhance collaborative learning, provide applied research
opportunities, stimulate economic development and expand student
learning experiences.
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN?
• Fulfillment of Vision
Montana State University-Northern will be known for
its supportive, student-centered environment in
which a unique mix of academic programs are
responsive to local, regional, and state workforce
needs, offered in an atmosphere that promotes
student success.
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN?
•
•
•
•
Realities of competition
Niche market strategy
Location
Preponderance of programs for a small
campus
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN?
• Preparation for shifts in funding
scenarios (e.g., performance-based
funding)
• Maximization of resources
• An overall goal to increase quality and
strengthen reputation
…and an MSUN Reality
“Of 35 academic programs [those granting associate,
baccalaureate, or master’s degrees], 15 currently have
ten majors or less. This ratio is not sustainable in the
long term . . “
Chancellor Limbaugh
Charge to the Academic Council
September 10, 2012
Four Options for each Program
•
•
•
•
Grow
Maintain
Integrate/Revise
Phase Out (e.g., moratorium or
termination)
Seven Evaluation Criteria
1. Centrality (advancement of MSUN mission,
vision, core themes)
2. Productivity (SCH, degrees granted, time-todegree)
3. Demand-external (market demand,
economic/social trends, stakeholder
partnerships)
Seven Evaluation Criteria
4. Demand-internal (support for other
programs; e.g., general education)
5. Quality (State, national reputation; faculty
achievements)
6. Size (“critical mass”)
7. Cost-Effectiveness (program efficiency,
potential economies of scale)
1. Chancellor's charge
to Academic Council
September 10, 2012
2. Academic Council built
a knowledge base on
program review process
by reading Robert C.
Dickeson's work
3. Academic Council
identified criteria to rate
programs and developed a
scoring rubric
5. Deans and
Chairs
collaborated with
faculty to
complete the
review process
4. Internal
site was
developed
for faculty
to enter
program
data
6. Academic Senate
reviewed and
made
recommendations
7. Academic
Council reviewed
and made
recommendations
8. Provost’s
Recommendations
9. Chancellor’s
Decisions: May 2013
10. Process continuation
(OCHE, BOR, new program
development)
Outcome of the Process
• Of 74 programs* reviewed…
– 19 identified to grow
– 26 identified to be maintained at current levels
– 4 identified to be reduced in scope or integrated
– 25 identified to be placed into moratorium or
terminated
* Including certificates and minors
81% (60 out of 74) of the decisions
made by the Chancellor were in
agreement with recommendations
from faculty and academic
leadership.
Next Steps
• Necessary paperwork submitted for
moratorium/termination
• Students notified
• Teach-out has begun
• Initial strategy sessions based on decisions
made (how to grow, etc.)
• Initial dialogues on new programs unique to
MSUN
Resources Re-Allocated
• As of this writing, one (1) faculty position has
been shifted from a program slated for
moratorium (HPE Secondary Education) into
Health Promotion.
• Re-allocation of resources will be a multi-year
initiative
Lessons Learned
• Collaboration an absolute necessity
• Erratic data in some areas was problematic in
certain situations
• While the process was intensive (and created
isolated concerns), expanding the timeline
would have prompted other issues