SPR Home

University News Office of Communications University of Saskatchewan E280 Administration Building 105 Administration Place Saskatoon, SK    S7N 5A2 Tel: (306) 966-6607    Fax: (306) 966-6815 http://www.usask.ca/communications/ U of S Announces Outcome of Program Reviews

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - April 19th, 2001

Today the University of Saskatchewan announced the first outcomes of a major review of the university's academic programs, which is set to improve the quality of education it delivers to students.

The Systematic Program Review (SPR) looked at all undergraduate and graduate programs in agriculture, pharmacy and nutrition, as well as some graduate programs in toxicology, education and commerce.* Programs were evaluated according to the quality of curriculum, faculty, learning environment, infrastructure and outcomes, demand for courses and efficiency in the use of resources.

This new review process is designed to encourage program improvement, demonstrate accountability and provide information to guide decisions about programs and resources. Each review includes a self-study by the program, a site visit and report by external reviewers, responses from Deans and program heads, decision on outcome categories, and action-plans to implement the recommendations.

There are four possible outcome categories: A (few, if any, changes required; program will be sustained); B (some changes required; program will be sustained at approximately current level); C (fundamental changes required; concrete action plan must be developed to address deficiencies); and D (requirement to consider termination). **

Of the programs reviewed in 1999/2000, four were rated A, 11 were rated B and 14 were rated C. There were no Ds.

University Vice-President Academic and Provost, Michael Atkinson, said: "These sorts of reviews are standard practice in most universities and aim to maintain academic quality. The review standards the U of S sets for itself are quite remarkable and very ambitious. If all of our programs were to receive an A rating, we would certainly be in league with the most elite post-secondary institutions in North America.

"While we can take pride in our world-class A programs and the good, solid Bs, we're already working together to address the issues raised by the Cs. Some program mergers are in the pipeline, and other revisions and restructuring are on the way.

"Some of the problems identified are the result of resource shortfalls, so we're hoping governments will pay attention to the very real impact that their budgetary decisions have on program quality."

External reviewers were recruited from some of the best universities in North America. Ernie Barber, Dean of Agriculture, said he "was impressed with the reviewers. Their guidance will be a tremendous help as we continue our academic renewal. In Agriculture, we will build on our strengths and improve in areas of strategic importance. We learned a lot from the SPR process that will help us to be a preferred place in Canada for agricultural education."

Further reviews are currently underway for law, nursing, graduate education, and some undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. Outcomes for these programs will be available later this year. Preparation has also begun for next year's reviews of engineering and the natural sciences.

For further information, contact:

General information:
Michael Atkinson
Vice-President Academic and Provost
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-8484

Gary Kachanoski [after April 22]
Dean College of Graduate Studies and Research
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-5759

Information from Deans and Program Heads:
Ernie Barber
Dean College of Agriculture
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-4050

Ken Jacknicke
Dean College of Education
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-7647

Dennis Gorecki
Dean College of Pharmacy & Nutrition
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-6328

Lou Hammond Ketilson
Associate Dean of Commerce
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-4786

Karsten Liber
Director, Toxicology Centre
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-7441

Information on Council decision:
Jene Porter
Chair, Planning Committee of Council
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-5218

**Outcomes of programs reviewed in 1999/2000
AGRICULTURE
Agriculture Biology
B	BSA in Agricultural Biology
Agriculture Chemistry
C	BSA in Agricultural Chemistry
Agriculture Economics
A	BSA in Agricultural Economics
A	Grad programs in Agricultural Economics
Agronomy
B	BSA in Agronomy
Animal Science
B	BSA in Animal Science
B	Grad programs in Animal Science
Soil Science
C	BSA in Environmental Science
A	BSA programs in Soil Science
A	Grad programs in Soil Science
Applied Microbiology/Food Science
C	BSA in Applied Microbiology
C	BSA in Food Science
C	BSc in Food Science
C	Grad programs in Applied Microbiology
C	Grad programs in Food Science
Plant Sciences
B	BSA in Crop Science
C	BSA in Horticulture Science
B	BSA in Plant Ecology/Rangeland Resources
B	Grad programs in Crop Science
C	Grad programs in Horticulture Science
C	Grad programs in Plant Ecology
COMMERCE
C	Master of Business Administration
EDUCATION
C	Grad programs in Educational Psychology
C	Grad programs in Education of Exceptional Children
PHARMACY AND NUTRITION
B	BSP in Pharmacy
C	Grad programs in Pharmacy
B	BSc (Nutrition) in Nutrition
B	Grad programs in Nutrition
TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM (interdisciplinary)
B*	Grad program in Toxicology. * If the Northern Ecosystems Toxicology Initiative (NETI) goes ahead.

---

*Systematic Program Review

The Systematic Program Review (SPR) process was approved by Council in principle in 1994 and in detail in February 1999. It maps out an ongoing, seven-year cyclical schedule for the review of all U of S undergraduate and graduate programs.

Colleges and departments under review complete self-study reports on their programs, and teams of internal and external reviewers visit the campus, taking an in-depth look at program offerings and facilities, and interviewing students, professors, deans, department heads, administrators and others involved.

All stages of the SPR process - college and department self studies, site visits and reports by reviewers, responses by the colleges and departments involved, final assessment by the Vice-President (Academic), Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, and their committees, and action-plans for the programs - are aimed at improving instructional programs, encouraging program innovation, demonstrating university accountability, and helping the U of S plan program revisions, program deletions and resource allocation.

Recommendations from the reviewers have already begun to be implemented. Action plans will specify detailed strategies, timelines and responsibilities to address the issues raised by reviewers.

Description of Categories

Category A: The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a significant period of time. It has achieved at least a national reputation, and might be expected to develop as a centre of excellence. Few, if any, fundamental changes are required. There will be a commitment to at least sustain the program at existing levels and provide additional resources where justified.

Category B: The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a period of time but has some weaknesses. Some fundamental changes should be made. Modifications may include program changes (e.g. curriculum revisions), internal redirection of faculty resources, additional resource allocations, (both faculty and non-faculty), and, measures to improve student satisfaction/quality of experience in the program. There will be a 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: The program is supported by some evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service but has identifiable deficiencies which should be rectified in a given timeframe. It is characterized by sufficient demand, and/or may be essential to the service requirements of other units. Several fundamental changes must be made to achieve adequacy and provide a credible program. Deficiencies may be identified as program (e.g., curricular), faculty/scholarly activity (e.g. quality and quantity of scholarship or breadth of expertise of faculty), and non-faculty resources. There will be a requirement for development of a concrete and realistic action plan by the unit/College to address deficiencies within an identifiable time frame.

Category D: The program, over a period of years, has shown little evidence of academic vitality in teaching or scholarly/artistic work or extension/public service. Such a program may suffer from additional liabilities including low quality to cost ratio, low student demand, and lack of provision of an important service component to other programs. The academic quality of the program area is unlikely to improve without significant additional resources. Many fundamental changes are required. There will be a requirement to consider initiation of approved Council procedures for program termination.