This is the Planning Committee's second report to Council regarding its evaluation of the Systematic Program Review rankings.

One of the purposes of Systematic Program Review is to identify those academic programs at the University of Saskatchewan which require improvement, and to determine what improvements should be made. SPR demonstrates accountability for programs, provides information to assist in decision-making and resource allocations, and identifies outstanding programs.

The SPR policy and procedures, which were approved by Council in 1999, require that each program be given a letter grade of A, B, C or D by the reviewers. The Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research then evaluate the reviewers' findings and either agree or disagree with the evaluations. Finally, the Planning Committee determines whether it agrees or disagrees with the evaluations

SPR envisaged the following outcomes for program review (section XIII):

Category A: Commitment to at least sustain the program at the existing levels and provide additional resources where justified. Examples of justified additional resources might include resources to serve more students; to develop interdisciplinary initiatives; to enhance significantly student experience in the program; to enhance a national and international reputation in the discipline.

Category B: Commitment to sustain the program at approximately the current level and to consider additional resource needs in the context of regular university resource allocation processes.

Category C: Requirement for development of a concrete and realistic action plan by the unit/College to address deficiencies within an identifiable time frame. Possible outcomes include:

Commitment of College/university to provide essential additional resources to remedy deficiencies.

Consideration of potential for reallocation of resources.

Consideration of phasing out or consolidating subspecialties within a unit or between units.

Consideration of an early date for subsequent review.

Category D: Requirement to consider initiation of approved Council procedures for program termination.

SPR also indicates that other specific outcomes can include, for Council, the identification of programs as areas of potential institutional priority; identification of programs for possible discontinuation; preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on the next year's operating budget; and preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on the next year's capital budget.

2000-2001 Reviews

The Planning Committee has considered the 2000-2001 reviews and has developed several recommendations for Systematic Program Review administration:

1. Rankings

   The quality of the reviewers involved in SPR is extremely high. This year, however, the committee noted a few instances of advocacy, where a reviewer appeared to regard the review report as a way of supporting the program.

   The B ranking may be too broad, covering programs which appear to be strong enough to deserve new resources and weak enough to require them. One of the most important reasons the Planning Committee reviews the Systematic Program Review results is to try to ensure that the rankings are comparable across the campus.

2. Interdisciplinarity

   If interdisciplinary programs are to be encouraged, as suggested by the Strategic Directions statement, their administration and academic support must be resolved.

3. Policy on program revisions

   The Planning Committee has discussed with Acting Dean Wishart the practice of the College of Graduate Studies and Research not to revise programs within two years of review. The Planning Committee has asked that the "two-year rule" or any practice which prevents program changes be rescinded; the SPR review schedule should be altered in cases where a department implements a major program change.

Update on 1999-2000 Reviews

In 1999-2000, the Systematic Program Review process reviewed 29 programs from five different colleges, including all of the degree programs in the College of Agriculture, all of the degree programs in the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, the graduate program in Toxicology, the graduate programs in Educational Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, and the Master of Business Administration program.

Last April, the Planning Committee reported to Council that it concurred with the evaluations given by the external reviewers for these programs.

The next step is the development of Action Plans for revision of the programs rated at the C level. The following programs received this rating: undergraduate programs in Agricultural Chemistry, Applied Microbiology, Environmental Science, Food Science (both BSA and BSc), Horticulture Science; graduate programs in Applied Microbiology, Food Science, Horticulture Science, Plant Ecology, Education of Exceptional Children , Educational Psychology, Pharmacy, and the Master of Business Administration. The Committee concluded that three types of problems were evident in these reviews: faculty shortages, requirements for structural changes in programs, and need for other resources. The Action Plans for these programs should identify whether these programs should be revitalized or deleted.

The College of Graduate Studies and Research asked that plans for the graduate programs be submitted by January 15, and is now reviewing these plans. It is anticipated that the College Plans now being developed as part of the university's integrated planning initiative will clarify the changes needed in undergraduate programs. Deans have been asked by the Vice-President Academic to incorporate college-level responses to Systematic Program Review into their college plans.

Planning Committee of Council:

Jene Porter (Political Studies) chair
Glenn Feltham (Accounting)
Linda Ferguson (Nursing)
George Khachatourians (Agriculture)
Ted Leighton (Veterinary Medicine)
Larry Sackney (Educational Administration)
Bill Slights (English)
John Thompson (Sociology STM)
Bruce Waygood (Coordinator of Health Research)
Ken Coates (Dean, Arts & Science)
Jack Wallace (USSU academic vice-president)
Joan Bobyn (GSA president)
Ruth Thompson (Sessional Lecturer)
Michael Atkinson, Vice-President Academic and Provost
Tony Whitworth, Vice-President (Finance and Administration)
Michael Corcoran, Vice-President (Research)
Peter MacKinnon, President
Barrie Dubray, University Studies Group
Pauline Melis, Office of the VP Academic Secretary
Cathie Fornssler, Office of the University Secretary