GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW DRAFT
KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS
October 2010
Introduction
Program review is inextricably bound to academic quality and the allocation of resources
within the public universities governed by the Kansas Board of Regents. Its primary
goal is to ensure program quality by: (1) enabling individual universities to align
academic programs with their institutional missions and priorities; (2) fostering
improvement in curriculum and instruction; and (3) effectively coordinating the use
of faculty time and talent.
The Kansas Board of Regents' program review policy reads as follows:
(1) In cooperation with the universities, the Board will maintain a program review
cycle and a review process that will allow the universities to demonstrate that they
are delivering quality programs consistent with their mission. (12-19-86; 6-23-88;
9-18-97)
(2) The review of degree programs shall encompass all levels of academic degrees
from
associate to doctoral. Program reviews are institutionally based and follow the departmental
or unit structure of the institution. “Program” means an academic plan that is approved
by the appropriate governing board and leads to an award, for example, a degree or
a career/technical certificate. (12-17-82; 1-20-84; 6-23-88; 9-18-97; 6-23-05)
On September 18, 1997, the Kansas Board of Regents approved guidelines for the current
program review cycle. These guidelines provide goals for program review at two levels,
campus and system. At the campus level they include assessment to strengthen the quality
and accessibility of academic programs; identifying program needs and campus priorities;
and identifying areas for reorganization, including “modification, merger, and discontinuance.”
Principal goals at the system level include ensuring that programs are consistent
with institutional missions and roles; ensuring optimal student access and use of
resources; minimizing duplication; and encouraging institutional cooperation.
These levels coincide with the two distinctive types of assessment, namely, assessment
for improvement and for accountability. Campus level review of academic programs is
primarily aimed at improvement, while system level review focuses primarily on accountability.
This is not to say that the two goals are mutually exclusive; only to recognize that
they are two different processes that respond to distinct dynamics. It is important
that institutions and Board staff remain mindful of the creative tension that exists
at each level between these two types of review.
Purpose of Academic Program Review.
The Board and Regents universities conceive program review as integral to the academic
planning process that occurs at both the institutional and system levels, with the
overarching purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of academic programs
offered by the system universities. Program review provides an opportunity for faculty
and administrators to reflect on their institution's educational practices and review
the role of their programs in the context of the totality of programs offered by Regents
universities. This is accomplished by ensuring:
1. the highest possible level of academic program quality;
2. an appropriate differentiation of institutional missions and roles within the
Regents system;
3. optimal effectiveness in the use of State and student resources; and
4. maximum responsiveness to the intellectual, cultural and workforce needs of the
state.
Although the overarching purposes remain the same, the goals and operation of program
review vary at the campus and system levels. A differentiation of goals implies that
the campuses and the system have different responsibilities in the program review
process.
Program review begins at the campus level, where its goals include but are not limited
to:
1. strengthening the quality and accessibility of academic programs by assessing
existing program strengths and concerns;
2. augmenting institutional self-management by identifying and articulating academic
program needs and campus priorities; and
3. identifying needs to reorganize academic programs, including modification, merger
and discontinuance.
Individual universities may specify or add to these campus goals for program review.
At the system level, the primary goals for program review include:
1. ensuring that program quality and priorities are consistent with institutional
missions and roles;
2. refining the scope of program offerings to optimize student access and use of
resources; and
3. identifying viable opportunities for minimizing unjustifiable program duplication
and supporting appropriate institutional cooperation.
In addition, as directed by the Board, staff may undertake different types of system
review. Examples of such reviews are the analysis of system-wide program array and
the system-wide review of individual academic program categories.
The Program Review Process
Program Review Cycle
Each public university is charged with the review of its academic programs and the
implementation of its own process for program review. Each academic program offered
by the institution will be reviewed at least once within an eight year cycle determined
by the institution.
The current eight year cycle is 2007–2014, meaning that the next cycle will be 2015
– 2022. Institutions will provide Board staff with the schedule of programs to be
reviewed in the next cycle no later than December 2014. Subsequently, institutions
will provide staff with the schedule of programs to be reviewed in the upcoming cycle
no later than December of the year preceding the first year of that cycle.
Program Review Process and Criteria
Program review documents are due in the Board office by February 16 of each year.
Board staff will review individual program review reports and program data provided
to KSPSD. Based on this review, staff will consult with chief academic officers regarding
any questions, issues or problems that should be addressed.
Although program review is ultimately focused on discrete academic programs, the
larger context of institutional planning, management and budgeting of the university
should be enhanced by the process.
Each program will be examined by the university using the following criteria:
1. centrality of the program to fulfilling the mission and role of the institution;
2. the quality of the program as assessed by the strengths, productivity and qualifications
of the faculty;
3. the quality of the program as assessed by its curriculum and impact on students;
4. demonstrated student need and employer demand for the program;
5. the service the program provides to the discipline, the university and beyond;
and
6. the program's cost-effectiveness.
Additional criteria consistent with institutional mission may be also be added. These
criteria have relevance for all degree programs, regardless of discipline or degree
level. However, the conceptualization, measurement, and application of these criteria
in the review of academic programs will vary according to a variety of factors, including
institutional mission and degree level. Universities may also implement separate review
processes for graduate and undergraduate education.
Institutional reviews may include student learning assessment data, evaluations,
recommendations from accreditation reports, and various institutional data, e.g.,
data on student post-collegiate experiences, data gathered from the core and institution-specific
performance indicators, and/or information in national or disciplinary rankings of
program quality. Specific and/or additional information that relate to these criteria
and that are meaningful and appropriate for the institution can be developed by individual
universities.
Data and Minima Tables
Data collected on each academic program are critical to the program review process.
Based on institutional data housed in the Kansas State Postsecondary Database, Board
staff assemble minima tables for review. The Board has established minima for number
of majors, graduates, faculty and average ACT score. Emphasis is placed on those programs
up for review in a given year, but staff reviews all minima tables to determine those
programs that fail to significantly meet minima requirements.
Based on this review of the data, staff consult with institutions to identify problem
areas. The annual report to the Board will include updates on campus actions to alleviate
those problems.
Data minima are established for the following categories:
Undergraduate programs:
• number of majors;
• number of graduates;
• number of faculty FTE to deliver the program;
• average ACT score.
Master's and Doctoral programs
• number of majors;
• number of graduates;
• number of faculty FTE to deliver the program
Programs Requiring Additional Review or Monitoring for Improvement
The annual program review process includes both review of individual programs on
the regular 8- year cycle, and analysis of the program data provided by campuses to
KSPSD. Based on these reviews, some programs will be identified for additional review,
while others may be recommended for elimination. In each case, Board staff will consult
with staff at institutions and report to the Board on the status of such programs.
Programs Selected for Additional Review or Monitoring
Based on review of both qualitative reports and of these data, Board staff and/or
institutions will identify areas of possible concern and consult with institutions
to determine what, if any, steps should be taken to resolve problem areas. Institutions
may find that some programs require additional review, beyond that provided by the
regular review cycle. In addition, some programs may require monitoring for a period
of time to assess their progress in rectifying problems identified in the regular
program review. Guidelines for prompting additional review or monitoring include minimum
data criteria in specific categories. Academic programs which fail to meet any one
of these minimum criteria may be targeted for intensive reviews in addition to the
regularly scheduled self-study.
Specific data minima that potentially trigger additional review are provided to institutions
annually by Board staff. Guidelines are annually reviewed by the Board's Information
Research and Academic Affairs staff.
In addition to programs identified by the minima tables, the university may designate
any other program for intensive review based on other information in the program review
data base or other information sources, such as assessment results, and accreditation
reports, pertaining to the program's quality or relationship to institutional mission.
Board staff will monitor campus activities regarding programs identified for further
review or monitoring until those issues are resolved. Information about these programs
will be included in the annual report to the Board on program review.
Final Report and Recommendations
Upon the conclusion of the reviews each Regents university will provide the Board
with an executive summary of its annual review and program by program recommendations.
The campus reports to the Board should aim for brevity and include the following:
1. An institutional overview, no more than five pages in length, describing the review
1. process, how data sources were used to shape program recommendations and the most
significant program changes or recommendations resulting from the program review.
2. A one- to two-page summary assessment and institutional recommendations for each
program reviewed, to include the following information:
• Name of program reviewed
• College/Unit in which program is housed
• Brief program description
• Degrees conferred
• Information on assessment of learning outcomes
• Placement of graduates, e.g., types of positions, starting salary
• Sources of external support
• Conclusions and recommendations
3. A one-page institutional estimate of the fiscal implications of any recommended
program changes.
Board staff will develop its required annual program review report on information
provided by the institutions on each program, analysis of data in the minima tables,
and consultation with the institutions.