Skip to the content

Kansas State University

Kansas Board of Regents Program Review Process

 

For many years, the Kansas Board of Regents (BOR) had conducted program reviews using a standard process and format. Under this system, all degree programs were reviewed in one year. Normally, these reviews occurred every five to ten years apart. After much discussion, the BOR developed a new process and format.

In September 1997 the Kansas Board of Regents (BOR) approved a Program Review Document outlining their general approach to Academic Program Review in the Kansas Regents System (Approved September 18, 1997). As stated in the Regents' document:

Each Regents university is charged with the review of its academic program and the implementation of its own process and criteria for program review, within a system wide framework of expectations for the review and a shared timeline for various phases. Each Regents university is responsible for the design and implementation of its own program review process and schedule consistent with the timelines on . . . Each Regents university will submit its plan for program review for consideration by the Board at the March 1998 Meeting .

The Kansas Board of Regents felt that Program Review is critical to the self-knowledge and effective self-management of the six universities governed by them. All degree programs within the Regents university system will be reviewed on an eight-year cycle through a departmental self-study and recommendation process. In addition, a common set of data across universities is collected on an annual basis giving administrators and Regents a statistical overview of each academic program. The overviews include information such as student enrollment and graduation counts, faculty workload, cost per student, and the allocation of resources.

At Kansas State University , the Provost named the Program Review Task Force to develop the Program Review Report, which included, a) designation of the general assumptions, b) outline of the process, and c) definitions of the reports required by the process. The full report can be found at http://www.k-state.edu/provost/planning/strategy/archives/program.htm . The basic goal of this process was to provide the BOR with the information necessary to make sound decisions about each degree program offered by Kansas State University . These decisions must be made within the context of each Department, Unit, or Program and be consistent with the needs and requirements of the BOR system:

Program review serves the purpose of attainment of future goals, fresh curricula, and meeting the needs of students, faculty, and Board of Regents. The Program Review Task Force has seriously considered what faculty and Department administrators should provide to make the review useful while avoiding unnecessary work.

In developing the process and reports associated with program review, the committee adopted the following assumptions:

  1. The system will be College based.
  2. When graduate programs are involved, it is expected that the Dean of the Graduate School will play a significant role in the process.
  3. Consistent with the BOR program review document ( Academic Program Review in the Regents System ), the Program Review Task Force (PRTF) will develop processes and procedures for program review.
  4. All academic Departments (or similar units) will provide a program review report (PRR) to the appropriate College Dean, Dean of the Graduate School , and CCOP.
  5. A list of issues to address in a PRR will be developed and will include items required for all programs (e. g., five year plans) and optional items that could be requested by the College Dean, Dean of the Graduate School , and CCOP (e.g., response to low enrollments).
  6. The review cycle will be College based and, with the exception of the College of Arts and Sciences, all programs for a College will be reviewed in one year. Departments in the College of Arts and Sciences will be reviewed over three years. The total review cycle for the University will be seven years (see Table 1 for Schedule for Program Review of Colleges).
  7. To ensure the needed coverage of issues and programs, the College Dean in consultation with the Dean of the Graduate School and with the aid and advice of CCOP can add ad hoc members to the process.

The following process will be followed in developing PRR:

  1. The Departments, College Dean, CCOP, and Graduate School Dean will receive the most recent copy of the BOR' statistical report from Planning and Analysis at the beginning of the Fiscal Year. Additional reports and information (e.g., faculty teaching loads, number of grant proposals, etc.) may, at the request of the Deans, be used to aid the process.
  2. Using the criteria and standards established by the BOR, the College Dean will call a meeting(s) of the Graduate School Dean and CCOP to review the statistical reports and other relevant information. Based on the meeting(s), the College Dean, in consultation with the Graduate School Dean and CCOP, will make recommendations on whether additional information will need to be provided by a Department. This will be in addition to the common information (see Common Information section below) a Department will need to address in the PRR.
  3. The College Dean will forward these recommendations for additional information to the Provost for comment.
  4. The Deans and CCOP will incorporate any comments from the Provost, and the College Dean will forward the final recommendations regarding additional information to the Departments for the development of a draft PRR.
  5. A draft PRR document will be developed with the aid and advice of the faculty responsible for the degree programs under review and submitted to the College Dean for review and comment. The College Dean will forward the draft PRR to the Graduate school Dean and CCOP for review and comment.
  6. The College Dean will call a meeting(s) of the Graduate School Dean and CCOP to review and comment on draft PRRs and provide feedback to the Departments about any needed changes for the final PRRs.
  7. Once the final PRRs are received, the College Dean will call a meeting(s) of the Dean of the Graduate School and CCOP to review the final PRR. The College Dean, in consultation with the Dean of the Graduate School and CCOP, will prepare a two page Summary Assessment and Institutional Recommendations Report for each academic program (by CIP code) as required by the BOR. The two page report(s) will cover all degree levels (bachelor, master's and/or doctoral) for each CIP code degree offered by the Department.
  8. The College Dean will be responsible, in consultation with the Graduate School Dean and CCOP, for transmitting the two page report(s) back to Departments with additional feedback as appropriate.
  9. The College Dean will forward the final PRRs and two page summaries to the Provost and for review and comment.
  10. The Provost will return any comments on the PRR to the College Dean. If comments are received from the Provost, the College Dean will call a meeting of the Dean of the Graduate School and CCOP to make appropriate revisions to the PRR and two page summaries and send the revised documents to the Provost.
  11. Using the final PRRs and two page summaries, the Provost will, in consultation with the appropriate Deans, prepare the five-page Institutional Overview Report and the one page Institutional Estimate of the Fiscal Implication specified by the BOR.
  12. The appropriate Dean(s) will be expected to attend the BOR session when program reviews are presented.

The materials specified below are consistent with the six criteria (see Table 2) identified by the BOR in their program review document. Departments will provide information on their instructional, scholarship, and service activities and programs. Deans will have received a detailed Statistical Overview prepared by the Office of Planning and Analysis and specified by the BOR.

Each Department will prepare a Program Review Report containing common information. In preparing the PRR, the Colleges and Departments need to be aware of degree standards for number of majors, number of degrees granted annually, number of faculty supporting a degree, and the quality of undergraduate students (see Table 3) suggested by the BOR. The following list of materials will be prepared for all academic Departments or programs being evaluated in an annual cycle. This report is expected to be 10 pages or less and submitted to the College Dean for review and comment.

  1. INTRODUCTION.

    1. College, Department, and date.
    2. Person(s) responsible for preparing the report.
    3. Brief description of the Department.
    4. Brief history of the Department.
    5. A listing of all degrees offered by the Department (by CIP code).
  2. DEPARTMENTAL PURPOSE.
    1. Brief mission statement.
    2. Brief statement of the centrality of the Department and its academic degrees to the College, University, and State.
    3. Brief statement of the uniqueness of the Department's academic degrees to the College, University, Regents System, State, Region, and Nation.
    4. Brief account of the Department's goals for academic degrees for the next 7 years.
  3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS.
    1. Identify the major instructional, scholarship, and service responsibilities of the Department. Include interdisciplinary programs where appropriate.
    2. Provide a brief description of the facilities and equipment for the Department.
    3. Provide information on any special information resources and services (e.g., library collections).
    4. Briefly indicate the Department's contributions to general education.
    5. Briefly indicate the Department's role in providing instructional services to students outside the Department.
  4. SELF EVALUATIONS OF FACULTY AND GENERAL PROGRAMS.

    Using appropriate indicators, briefly describe the quality of the faculty teaching, research/scholarship, service, and extension/outreach activities. Provide appropriate indicators for each area.

  5. SELF EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC DEGREE(S).

    The following steps should be repeated for each CIP degree and cover all levels of the CIP degree; Bachelor, Master's and Doctoral.

    1. Using appropriate indicators, briefly describe the quality of the academic CIP degree.
    2. Using appropriate indicators, briefly describe the quality of the students in the CIP degree.
    3. Briefly indicate the student demand for the CIP degree.
    4. Briefly indicate the employment demand for students in the CIP degree.
    6. Assessment of Student Learning (ASL) - A cumulative report since the last review or since 2006. (This section will be in lieu of the Annual Progress Report on ASL that is due in March of each year.)
    1. List the student learning outcomes that were assessed during the period of the review.
    2. For each learning outcome, describe the measures used (over a three-year period approximately one-half of the measures used are to be direct measures, and at least one direct measure must be used for each student learning outcome), the sample of students from whom data were collected, the timetable for the collection, and the forum in which the measures were administered. (Examples of direct measures can be accessed at http://www.k-state.edu/assessment/plans/measures/direct.htm ).
    3. Describe the results of the assessments.
    4. Describe the process by which faculty reviewed the results and decided on the actions and/or revisions that were indicated by them.
    5. Describe the actions and/or revisions that were implemented in response to the assessment results.
    6. Describe the effects on student learning of the actions and/or revisions.

After a review of the Program Review Report and the information in the Statistical Overview by the College Dean, Graduate School Dean and CCOP, additional information may also be requested. This information may be needed to deal with special cases, problems, or future opportunities for the Department.

  1. Adequacy of resources.
  2. Comparative advantages.
  3. Unique future opportunities.
  4. Explanations of enrollment trends (e.g., increases or decreases).
  5. Further information on special programs.
  6. Details about sub-specialties within a degree program.
  7. Further information about program duplication.
  8. Details on interdisciplinary programs.
  9. Future research opportunities.
  10. Information on economic development activities.
  11. Clarifications on program quality.
  12. Explanations about low numbers of majors in a program.
  13. Explanations about low and/or slow graduation rates.
  14. Further information on faculty involvement with degree programs.
  15. Details on faculty scholarship activities.

The final report is submitted to the BOR in January. Even though programs are scheduled for formal review within the eight-year period, each program is reviewed each year to see if the program meets the minimum thresholds established by the BOR (see Table 2). Essentially, the BOR has developed Guidelines for Prompting Intensive Program Review to better assess program efficacy and quality. Academic programs that fail to meet these minimum criteria will be targeted for intensive reviews in addition to the regularly scheduled eight-year cycle. Through the program review process, improvements in curriculum and instruction and the use of faculty time and talent can be achieved.

The nature of system-wide guidelines means that many programs may fail to meet a stated criterion, while at the same time maintaining exceptional quality and/or serving a crucial role within the university. To ensure that these types of programs are not identified as requiring intensive review, but as serving a specific role within the university, the following coding system is used.

Programs that do not meet one of the criteria included in the Regents Guidelines will be categorized as:

  1. Academic Support Program: Academic support programs provide coursework and other academic support for other majors within the University. Many of the programs in this category may fail to meet criteria for majors or degrees conferred.

     

  2. Interdisciplinary and Coordinated Programs: Interdisciplinary programs are generally characterized by a significant contribution in donated faculty time from affiliated departments. As such, interdisciplinary programs may have few students or faculty, but nonetheless reflect an institutional attempt to maximize the efficient use of resources. Similarly, some programs are cooperative ventures between two, or more units. For example, some students preparing to become French instructors at the secondary level, may be enrolled in Education, or French, depending on the campus and specific program.

     

  3. Research Support Program: Many programs, especially at the graduate level, are closely tied to the research enterprise and to the mission of the institution. These programs are necessary for institutional success.

     

  4. Service Support Program: Many programs are closely tied to the service mission of the institution and are necessary to support that mission.

     

  5. New Programs: New programs include those that have been initiated within the past five years. Many of these programs are still building an enrollment base.

     

  6. Discontinued Programs: These programs have are in the process of being phased out. Some students, however, may still be enrolled in the programs and progressing toward graduation.

     

  7. Additional Review: Programs in this category will be screened by the institution and a recommendation will be made regarding the need for an intensive review on the part of the Board.

     

  8. Monitoring Program for Improvement - These programs were initially triggered for additional review and have undergone a review process specified by the respective institution. The programs continue to be monitored by the institution and retain this code until (a) their regular review; (b) their discontinuance by the institution; (c) their reclassification; or (d) their attainment of Board guidelines.

     

Codes will be assigned as part of the on-campus program review process and will be subject to review by the Board.


Table 1 - Schedule for Program Review of Colleges

 

Year 1 (2006) ........................................ Business Admin., Technology & Aviation and Animal Science

Year 2 (2007) .............................. Arts and Sciences (Physical and Quantitative Sciences), Architecture Planning and Design, and Agriculture (ATM, Entomology, Grain Science, Plant Pathology)

Year 3 (2008) ..................... Agriculture (Agronomy, Food Science, Genetics) and Veterinary Medicine

Year 4 (2009) .................................................................................... ................................ Engineering

Year 5 (2010) ......................... Arts and Sciences (Humanities and Biological Sciences) and Agriculture (Horticulture, Parks Management, and Communications)

Year 6 (2011) .................................................. Agricultural Economics, Education and Human Ecology

Year 7 (2012) ............................................................................... Arts and Sciences (Social Sciences)

 

 

Table 2- Board of Regents Program Review 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.

     

 

Table 3 - Board of Regents Program Review Standards

 

  1. Number of Majors:
    Undergraduate = 25 (Junior and Senior)


    Masters = 20
    Doctorate = 5

     

  2. Number of Degrees Granted Annually:
    Associate = 10
    Bachelor = 10
    Masters = 5
    Doctoral = 2

     

  3. Number of Faculty with Terminal Degrees:
    Bachelors = 3
    Masters = 6 (unless just masters, then 3)
    Doctoral = 8 (unless just doctoral, then 5)

     

  4. Average ACT Composite Score:
    The mean ACT Composite Score for undergraduate majors in a degree should be above the 20 th percentile for the ACT institutional distribution.