Southern Polytechnic State University
Policy and Procedure Manual
P&P Number:  306.0
Original Date: October 2000
Previous Revisions: none
Approved: August 26, 2002
 
Academic Program/Unit Review
Contents This P&P includes the following main sections:
  • Background
  • Review process
Background The academic program review (APR) process affords Southern Polytechnic the opportunity to conduct comprehensive reviews of all academic programs, the Library, the Extended University, and other units that report to the vice president of academic affairs (VPAA).
  • The primary goals of this assessment are to address the standards of viability, quality, centrality, vitality, cost efficiency, program faculty credentials, and compliance with Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) criteria. A standard procedure is outlined below to support institutional consistency and to provide the necessary data for long-range planning (1) to ensure curricular flexibility, (2) to discontinue or to modify programs, or (3) to add new programs.
  • The review must emphasize the need for, and the goals of, the program or unit in terms of their relationship to the needs and mission of the university. Other issues that must be considered include resources available, and resources not available but needed to meet these needs and goals. Success in achieving past and current program objectives is an important criterion. The review also serves to establish future program objectives and is a key part of the university’s ongoing strategic and budget planning cycles.
  • Academic program reviews are conducted on a 5-year cycle that would accommodate accreditation cycles, SACS review schedules, and periodic reviews of deans. There are two reasons for this cycle:
    1. With some exceptions, it appears to fit either the cycle or half-cycle for accreditation reviews, thereby reducing duplication of efforts
    2. It distributes the reviews so that a manageable number of program reviews are scheduled in any given year.
Review Process
Step Process Description
1. The vice president for academic affairs (VPAA), in conjunction with the deans and appropriate program heads, establishes an Academic Program Review Committee (APRC) for each program reviewed. The committee comprises the following members:
  1. Two external representatives (one can be from industry)
  2. One internal representative from a program other than the one under review
  3. One representative appointed by the VPAA
2. The Department of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment provides historical data about the program (for at least six years or since the last review) including enrollments, student credit hours taught, number of majors, alumni placement, and other relevant data.
3. Program(s) and /or areas under review prepare a 12-15 page self-study that emphasizes evaluation rather than description of the program(s) or areas and that addresses at least the following:
  1. Strategic vision
  2. Curriculum
  3. Outcomes assessment
  4. Student enrollment and cost effectiveness
  5. Faculty contributions
  6. Changes in the discipline/field that could affect the program
  7. Its programs or plans for the next 5 years
4. The program or academic unit under review sends the self-study to the APRC one month in advance of the scheduled review.
5.
  1. As part of the review it conducts, the APRC interviews faculty and students, reviews program assessment process and files, and looks at course syllabi, etc.
  2. Upon completing its review, the APRC sends a draft of its report (no longer than five pages) to the dean/director of the program or area having undergone review.
  3. The dean sends a copy of the draft report to the program head/director.
6.
  1. The draft report is reviewed by the program/area having undergone review, and the dean/director.
  2. After correcting the report for any factual errors, the dean/director sends both the dean’s and the program’s comments back to the APRC and awaits the final report of that body.
7. The final report is sent to the dean/director of the program or area having undergone review, with a copy to the program area.
8. The dean or director sends a copy of the final report and a proposed plan for addressing the recommendations and suggestions contained in the report to the VPAA.
9.
  1. The dean or director, the VPAA, and the program head meet to discuss the report and the proposed action plan.
  2. If there are no changes, all parties sign the action plan; or, if changes occur, they sign the amended version.
  3. If there is disagreement, the VPAA determines the final version of the action plan that will go forward to the president for approval.


    4. Note:
    An action plan does not become operative without the endorsement of the president.
10. For a period of three years following the year in which the academic program review was conducted, each program or area having undergone review submits a brief progress report to the VPAA by the end of spring semester. The report should address any progress made relative to the implementation plan and plans for completing any remaining tasks.

Note:
The review of progress over the past five years will be a part of periodic performance reviews of deans, directors, and program heads.