PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION Open Forum January 16, 2013

Program Prioritization Website

Overview of Progress Completed conversations with colleagues at peer institutions with prioritization initiatives. Communication strategies, campus feedback. Choice of criteria and data Review process Created multiple drafts of criteria and indicators by adapting models from other institutions. Debated categories of analysis and reliability of quantitative and qualitative data.

Overview of Progress Revised criteria based on data reliability and availability (from 29 to 10 major points). Created and revised program review list. – Stand-alone minors omitted pending additional data discussion. Debated and drafted process of review for Phase 1 and follow-up in Phase 2.

Timeframe 21 January – End of January Office of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness receives final criteria for Phase 1 data reports IPE produces and distributes reports to program directors and department heads – Review and resolve data issues with IPE – Write 600 word qualitative narrative based on three prompts – Program directors / Department heads provide number of faculty members primarily assigned to program (This may be fractional, in the case of faculty with split assignments across programs

Timeframe 15 February Program reports due to Anne Aldrich / Office of the Provost; submit as electronic files. February & March Prioritization Task Force reads and reviews all program reports, sorting them into three categories:

Timeframe Category 1: programs recommended for investment. Category 2: programs requiring no additional study or discussion. Category 3: programs requiring additional study or discussion.

Timeframe Late March PPTF produces initial program assessments – Completion of process for Category 2 programs April & early May Secondary assessments (Phase 2) for programs in Categories 1 and 3. – Written reports (Categories 1 and 3). – Program director and department head meetings with Task Force (Category 3 only). Late May Final PPTF report and recommendations submitted to the Chancellor.

Initial Program Screening Criteria

Number of Majors (Enrolled at Fall Census): Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctoral. Number of majors declared in Banner as of Census. Comparative Standard: WCU Median Numbers at UNC Peers Unit of Analysis: 9-Digit CIP

Initial Program Screening Criteria Degrees Awarded (per Academic Year): Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctoral. Number of degrees conferred within a complete academic year. Comparative Standard: WCU Median Numbers at UNC Peers Unit of Analysis: 9-Digit CIP

Initial Program Screening Criteria Student Success: Retention Rate; Graduation Rate. This portion will capture the program-level retention and graduation rates. Comparative Standard: WCU Average for program level Unit of Analysis: Program Code

Initial Program Screening Criteria SCHs Generated: Total Annual SCH’s. This is the annual total of SCHs generated within all the prefixes housed within a department. Comparative Standard: WCU median Unit of Analysis: Department

Initial Program Screening Criteria Generated / Allocated Faculty FTE: Ratio of allocated to generated faculty FTE. Comparative Standard: Allocated faculty FTE = Generated FTE Unit of Analysis: Department

Initial Program Screening Criteria Instructional Cost: Cost per SCH Direct Instructional expenditures per SCH. Instructional Cost: Cost per Student. Direct instructional cost per FTE student. Comparative Standard: National average per the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs Unit of Analysis: 4 Digit CIP Code

Initial Program Screening Criteria Number of Faculty: Faculty headcount per program. This is a count of faculty by program, and will be provided by the academic units directly. Comparative Standard: WCU Median Unit of Analysis: Department / Program

Initial Program Screening Criteria Percentage of courses taught by faculty type: Tenured / tenure track faculty Fixed term faculty Part-time faculty Comparative Standard: WCU Average Unit of Analysis: Department

Initial Program Screening Criteria QUALITATIVE STATEMENT no more than 600 words, including the following three items: 1.Brief context for the last five years of program data; 2.Specific ways the program relates to WCU’s 2020 strategic plan; 3.Program distinction in the region and the state (you may include discussions of community engagement / service, student quality outcomes, faculty contributions to the program in scholarship and creative works, uniqueness in the state, accreditation, awards, revenue, grants or other program income generation.

PPTF Process of Review Each Task Force member will read each program report, assigning program a category Categorization based on: – Sample reports as pilot data – Common lists of expectations per category. Task Force will meet March to create a final assessment for Phase 1.

Questions for you What additional items might we ask for in qualitative statements? How can we better communicate with the campus community? When would forums be useful? What else do we need to know to make the process more transparent or useful?

Program Prioritization Webpage: Feedback: