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

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.

6

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.

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 CurriculumResourcesStudent OutcomesProgram 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 yearPost-Baccalaureate 2 graduates per yearDoctoral 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

Mission

Critical

+1

-1 +1Effectiveness

MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

IV

IIIII

I

15

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

‘MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

16

Mission

Critical

+1

-1 +1Effectiveness

MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

IV

IIIII

I

17

Mission

Critical

+1

-1 1

•Accounting

•Fam. Health

•Biology

•Gov/Soc

•HPER

•His/Geo

•Mus Therapy

•Foundations Ed

•English

•Pyschology

•Math•Foreign Lang.

•Econ/Fin

•Healthcare Sys

•Early Ch Ed

•Mus/Theatre•Chem.

•Mid Gr Ed

•Marketing

•Management

•Spec. Ed/Admin.

•Adult Health

•Info/Sys

•Art

MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

Large budgets are visually bigger and more difficult to move

IV

IIIII

I

Effectiveness

Inefficient

Low enrollments

Few graduates

18

Mission

Critical

+1

-1 1

•Early Childhood education

•Middle Grades education

‘MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

•Early childhood and• Middle grades Education

IV

IIIII

I

Effectiveness

Inefficient

Low enrollments

Few graduates

19

Mission

Critical

+1

-1 +1Effectiveness

MODIFIED’ BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP MATRIX

IV

IIIII

I

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.