Background on Systematic Program Review

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.

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.

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.

These programs underwent an extensive and detailed review by the external reviewers, who included faculty from other universities as well as from other colleges at the University of Saskatchewan. These reviews, and the responses from the departments and/or from the deans, were submitted to the office of the Vice-President Academic in June and July, 2000.

The Planning Committee received the review material and the evaluations of the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research on February 7, 2001 (see Attachment I). The Committee discussed these evaluations at its meetings over the next eight weeks.

The Committee agreed that it would not re-evaluate the programs themselves. Rather, the Committee determined that its role was to consider the overall planning implications for the university arising from the reviews and to consider any areas where viewpoints conflicted.

All of the category recommendations from the external reviewers were confirmed by the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. During its review, the Planning Committee found no reason to disagree with these evaluations. For each of the programs, the Committee concurred with the evaluation of the Vice President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research.

The Committee concluded that three types of problems were established by these reviews - faculty shortages, requirements for structural changes in programs, and need for other resources.

First, the reviewers noted a significant need for more faculty resources. This need was noted in 21 of the 29 reviews, including two of the four A-rated programs, eight of the 11 B-rated programs, and 11 of the 14 C-rated programs.

Second, several programs had unresolved structural curriculum problems, such as areas of content or focus in courses. In some cases, reviewers felt these structural problems could be resolved by existing faculty; in other cases, reviewers felt additional faculty would be needed before curricula could be revised.

Third, the reviewers occasionally indicated areas where other resources were needed, such as more technical staff.

Conclusion

Council should be aware that the external reviewers, with only a few exceptions, praised the commitment in time and effort of the faculty and praised the quality of faculty in even the "C" programs. We share the opinion of the external reviewers that the faculty members in these programs are outstanding in their dedication to students and to program quality.

Vice-President Academic and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research Recommendations on Outcome Categories for Systematic Program Review 1999-2000