August 11, 2004
POLICY DIRECTIVE
TO:
Members, State University Presidents Association
FROM:
Debra Austin, Chancellor
SUBJECT:
Academic Program Review
AUTHORITY:
Article IX, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of
Florida
Florida Board of Governors Resolution, October 22,
2003
Florida Administrative Code 6C-3.001 - Systemwide
Uniform Procedures, as adopted by the Florida Board
of Governors on January 7, 2003
POLICY/PURPOSE:
The Florida Board of Governors shall provide for the
cyclic review of all academic programs in state
universities at least every 7 years. Program reviews
shall document how individual academic programs are
achieving stated student learning and program
objectives within the context of the institution’s
mission. The results of the program reviews shall
inform strategic planning, program development, and
budgeting decisions at the institutional level.
Introduction
Academic program review has a lengthy history in the State University System of
Florida, as efforts have been made to periodically analyze how degree programs
meet standards of quality, efficient management, and optimum service to students
and the citizens of the State. Effective reviews have been valuable tools as
university personnel have worked to continuously improve their academic
offerings.
Members, State University Presidents Association
August 11, 2004
Page 2
To remain effective, review processes must be continuously reviewed themselves and must be
responsive to changing requirements and educational/political contexts. In recent years, there
has been a noticeable increase in the emphasis placed on the assessment of student learning
outcomes in higher education. Simultaneously, under the direction of the Florida Board of
Governors, more emphasis has been placed on the devolution of authority to the universities,
campus-level decision making, and institutional accountability. Therefore, a streamlined and
increasingly “local” approach to program review that focuses on student learning outcomes is
appropriate. In the process of making this transition, due diligence is required from institutional
and Division personnel to certify that:
•
Institutions are in compliance with System requirements regarding academic program
review and continuous improvement processes;
•
Program review processes and summary reports reflect current expectations regarding the
identification and assessment of student learning outcomes in higher education; and
•
Program review processes and summary reports reflect the current governance structure
for the State University System of Florida.
Seven-Year Program Review Plans
Each institution is required to submit and maintain a proposed seven-year
University Program
Review Plan
(currently operating under 2000-2007 plans) to the Office of Academic and Student
Affairs in the Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU). Each
University Program Review
Plan
must include a proposed schedule within the seven-year cycle for the submission of
summary program review reports for every degree program, unless otherwise approved by DCU
staff.
1
Program review designs may be configured by degree programs and/or by cross-cutting
issues and themes, but DCU staff shall review each
Plan
to ensure that all programs receive
sufficient review, with appropriate input from external experts, within the negotiated seven-year
cycle. University personnel shall incorporate revisions to the
Plans
as needs and opportunities
arise. Updated
Plans
must be submitted to DCU by January 15 each year.
State University System Program Review and Continuous Improvement Processes
Each institution shall develop and publish clearly defined policies and procedures for reviewing
academic degree programs and ensuring their continuous improvement. These policies and
procedures should be aligned with System policies, the university’s mission, and the Board of
Governor’s Strategic Plan. Institutional program review policies and procedures (including any
changes made over time) must be reviewed and approved by staff from the Office of Academic
and Student Affairs in the Division of Colleges and Universities. A current copy of university
guidelines shall remain on file in the Division.
Members, State University Presidents Association
1
In some instances, exceptions to the seven-year cycle may be negotiated to align a review with a specialized
accreditation cycle.
August 11, 2004
Page 3
As part of the State University System program review and continuous improvement processes,
institutional program personnel—with appropriate input from external expert(s) in the given
discipline(s)—must do the following. (Please note the difference between the processes that
must be in place at each institution versus the documentation that must be submitted to the
Division of Colleges and Universities in the form of summary program review reports.)
1. Articulate the mission(s) and purpose(s) of the program(s) within the context of the
institutional mission and the Florida Board of Governors’ strategic plan.
2. Review responses to recommendations from previous reviews, and respond as appropriate.
[Include a brief synopsis of actions taken in the summary program review report.]
3. Identify teaching, research, service, and other program goals/objectives, including expected
outputs and outcomes. Specifically, identify and publicize expected student learning
outcomes in the areas of content knowledge and skills, communication skills, and critical
thinking skills. Expected student learning outcomes for baccalaureate degree programs
shall be included in Academic Learning Compacts, as mandated by the Florida Board of
Governors.
[Include a copy of the Academic Learning Compact for each reviewed
baccalaureate degree program in the summary program review report.]
4. Develop assessment systems to determine how well program goals/objectives are being
met and how well students are achieving expected learning outcomes.
5. Implement and/or modify the program(s) to achieve the articulated goals/objectives.
6. Collect data and information on actual outputs and outcomes.
7. Analyze the data and information to determine how well articulated program goals/
objectives have been accomplished within the context of the mission.
8. Specifically, analyze how well students are meeting expected learning outcomes, both as
articulated by program personnel and as deemed appropriate in the discipline within the
context of the individual institution’s mission.
9. For baccalaureate programs, examine approved common prerequisites to ensure that they
provide appropriate preparation for success in the specific degree program, and that the
selected courses continue to be relevant to the discipline in general. Any recommended
changes in prerequisites should be brought to the attention of the Articulation Coordinating
Committee (Oversight Committee). For those programs that have been approved as
Limited Access, examine the ongoing need for limited access status and identify what
Members, State University Presidents Association
August 11, 2004
Page 4
resources would be needed to eliminate limited access (if possible), so that this information
can inform budget planning for the State University System.
10. Assess the sufficiency of resources and support services to achieve the program
goals/objectives.
11. Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOTs) that support or impede
achievement of program goals.
2
[Include in the summary program review report.]
12. Generate recommendations based on review findings.
[Include in the summary program
review report.]
13. Use the results of the program reviews to plan for continuous program improvement, as
well as to inform strategic planning, program development, and budgeting decisions at the
institutional level.
14. Provide written confirmation from the president or provost that each program review
included all of the processes outlined above and was conducted according to approved
university policy.
[Include in the summary program review report.]
15. Submit a
summary program review report
to the Division of Colleges and Universities by
March 31 or June 30, depending on the time negotiated as part of a university’s seven-year
University Program Review Plan
. Each summary program review report must include a
delineation of the specific academic programs (with levels) that were included in a given
review, as well as a brief description of the nature of the review (e.g., part of an
accreditation review, self-study with a site visit by an external consultant, etc.). Directory
information on external reviewers is requested.
Each summary program review report
must include, at a minimum, a delineation of the requested items noted in 2, 3, 11, 12,
and 14 listed above.
2
It will be extremely helpful if the authors of the program review summary reports note any identified issues and
opportunities that face a given discipline at the time of the review to help DCU staff understand the more global
status of the discipline. Report authors also are asked to note any issues and opportunities that appear to cross over
programs within the university (to help institutional and DCU staff recognize university-wide strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), as well as any issues and opportunities that appear to cross over universities
within the State University System (to help DCU staff identify and understand issues that rise to a State level of
interest).
Members, State University Presidents Association
August 11, 2004
Page 5
Format for Summary Program Review Reports
Because program reviews are designed to address multiple needs, the format of a given summary
report may be dictated by the expectations for the review. University personnel may submit
existing documents to the DCU, as opposed to writing a new summary program review report, as
long as all of the elements specified in item 15 above are included in the documentation and
information is provided that indicates exactly where in the documentation each of the elements
listed in item 15 can be found.
Contact: Office of Academic and Student Affairs
SUNCOM 205-0467, Local 245-0467
DA/cdm
c: Carolyn Roberts, Chair, Florida Board of Governors
Members, SUS Council of Academic Vice Presidents
Members, SUS Program Review Committee
Scott Kittel, Office of the Governor