1. University of Akron Academic Program Review 2017-2018
Dr. John C. Green, Interim President

2. APR General Overview

3. What is Academic Program Review?
An effort to evaluate the performance of curricula, departments, faculty, and/or students in the context of a degree-granting program.

4. No Universally-Accepted Model, But Often Includes:
A regular multi-year cycle of reviews (5-7 years), linked to accreditation
Faculty-driven self-study of degree program(s)
Assessment of self-study by individuals external to the unit
A comprehensive evaluation of self-study and assessment, resulting in formative or summative recommendations

5. Akron APR: Overview

6. UA APR Was:
Motivated by accreditation and the need for strategic resource allocation to increase enrollment and meet market demand; not a short-term budget exercise.
Managed by faculty executive/advisory committee appointed by Provost.
Based on a common quantitative data set provided to all units and qualitative data provided by unit faculty.
Assessed by categorizing and prioritizing programs according to academic quality, mission alignment, and opportunity to increase enrollment.

7. Goal
To engage our faculty colleagues in a holistic, university-wide, summative process to examine degree programs and advise college-level and university-level leadership about: 
the quality of programs
program alignment with UA mission and market demand
allocation of current and future resources

8. Logistics Reviewed all 414 degree/degree tracks in a single year.
Self-studies of degree programs written by faculty in each academic unit.
Self-studies assessed independently by three groups external to the units:
college deans;
special faculty committee appointed from across UA;
and Faculty Senate.
Comprehensive evaluation of self-studies and three assessments by senior administration, resulting in recommendations for change.

9. Timeline Spring & Summer 2017 Process developed Fall 2017
September-November: Self-studies written by faculty and forwarded to deans/chairs for evaluation
Winter 2018
January: Deans forwarded self-studies and their assessments to APR Committee
February: APR Committee evaluated all programs
Spring 2018
March: APR Committee forwarded all materials and its assessment to Faculty Senate Committee
March-April: Senate committee reviewed all materials and sent report to full Faculty Senate
May: Faculty Senate voted to send report and all materials to President’s office
Summer 2018
June-July: Senior administration reviewed all materials and developed recommendations
August: Senior administration presented specific recommendations to BOT

10. Akron APR: Elements

11. Faculty Self-Study Reports
Self-study reports must address five topics:
Student Recruitment
Education and Graduation
Assessment and Learning Outcomes
Market Demand
Increasing Enrollment
No requirement to prioritize or categorize programs at the department level
WHAT THE SELF-STUDY IS:
A faculty analysis of the status of these aspects of their programs,
and how these aspects can be improved

12. Program Categorization and Prioritization
Exceptional programs; Distinctive; High market demand; High number of degrees currently being awarded. C2
Average/Good programs C3
Low number of degrees awarded; Little market demand; Few number of degree seeking students
Who Assesses
1. Deans/chairs categorize and prioritize college-level programs;
2. Faculty committee categorizes and prioritizes all programs;
3. Faculty Senate reviews categorization and prioritization of all programs
Classify each program into one of three categories – C1, C2, C3
2. At least 20% of the programs in each category
C1 and C3 must be further classified as P1 (high priority) with no more than 50% of programs; the balance must be P2 (low priority)

13. Comprehensive Evaluation
Senior administration conducted a final holistic review of the APR materials.
Initial results were reviewed with each college dean and adjusted in response to their input.
Final recommendations were taken to the Board of Trustees and adopted unanimously.
The Board decisions were then communicated to the campus (faculty, staff and students) and the community.

14. Akron APR: Results

15. Results 1: Most Degree Programs Performing Well
A total of 334 degrees and degree tracks (81 percent of the total) had a solid academic foundation, a healthy enrollment, and/or potential for growth.
95 percent of all admitted UA students were enrolled in these 334 academic programs.
UA has begun a seven-year cycle of formative program reviews in fall 2018.

16. Results 2: Initial Investments In Faculty Positions
A total of 33 degrees and degree tracks (10 percent of the total) were identified as having the highest potential for increasing enrollment (included in previous 81 percent).
UA is hiring 31 full-time faculty (23 tenure-track positions) and a contract professional in many of the 33 programs for fall 2019.
The investment will equal $6.3 million.

17. Results 3: Degrees Identified For Phasing Out
A total of 80 degrees and degree tracks (19% of the total) were identified to be phased out.
Immediate suspension of new admissions to these programs.
The phased-out programs include 10 doctoral, 33 masters, 20 bachelors, and 17 associate degrees.
5 percent of all admitted UA students were enrolled in these 80 academic programs.

18. Results 4: Implementation
All students currently admitted to those degrees and degree tracks will be able to complete their degrees at UA.
No involuntary elimination of regular faculty, contract professionals, or staff positions is planned due to these actions. Personnel will be reallocated within the academy.
If the degree phase outs were completed today, they would generate an estimated $6 million in resources for reallocation.

19. A pre-planned, well-executed communications plan was successful:
Reactions:
A pre-planned, well-executed communications plan was successful:
Strong positive support from editorial boards; media coverage largely focused on phase-outs, but included details on investments.
About 35 s and letters from alumni, faculty, and students asked the Board and president to reverse decisions on specific phase outs.
Each or letter received a direct response as quickly as possible.
Responses used specific APR data to illustrate why programs were identified for phase out.
Informational meetings were held with industry and advisory groups that had received complaints from alumni/faculty.
Student complaints were handled individually and swiftly.

20. Shared Governance
UA Shared Governance operates under a principle of consultative decision-making, whereby faculty input is sought but decision-making authority remains with the Board of Trustees and its appointed agent, the University President.
APR process provided extensive opportunities for faculty input, including the college deans, who by rule and contract are the formal representatives of their academic units.
Some faculty disagree with consultative decision-making and/or how it was applied in APR. They said their opinion and advice should have been sought on the final list of degree programs to be phased out before Trustees voted on the list.
As expected, faculty union filed tentative grievances about some phase outs and the effects on faculty affected.

21. Lessons Learned

22. Simultaneous review of all degrees programs created challenges in:
assembling a common data set – resulting in uneven treatment of key topics in the unit self-studies.
communicating details and goals internally – some confusion about APR still lingers months after its completion.
evaluating programs without an updated strategic plan in place – less efficient and effective than anticipated.

23. Simultaneous review of all degrees programs enabled:
Benefits:
Simultaneous review of all degrees programs enabled:
a comprehensive evaluation of all university degree programs to address accreditation issues.
the coupling of investment and reallocation decisions to focus resource allocation strategically to increase enrollment.
effective communication with key constituencies, and the development of a three-year strategic plan based on the APR self-studies and recommendations.

24. Questions