SPR Home

Systematic Program Review Policy and Procedures

---

Approved by Council, February 1999

 

1. Preamble

   Council has, on several recent occasions enumerated below, expressed its wish to implement systematic program review at the University of Saskatchewan.

   Unit, and occasionally program, reviews are commonplace features of operation of most major universities in Canada and elsewhere.

   Systematic program review is intended to provide the University of Saskatchewan with a rational, coherent, transparent, and understandable mechanism to make academic decisions. In A Framework for Planning, systematic program review is described as follows:

   Systematic program review involves a thorough consideration, on a periodic basis, of the objectives of an academic program, the content of the curriculum, the qualifications of the faculty, and the outcomes of the teaching, learning and service enterprises. Systematic program review is intended to provide a learning opportunity and a chance to improve and incorporate innovations. It is also an educational opportunity, a chance to assess quality in a national and international context and to determine how programs are contributing to the University's broader goals. (page 8)

   Systematic program review is a key strategy that will help the University of Saskatchewan to meet its academic aspirations as stated in A Framework for Planning:

   At the university, the principle test of quality lies in how well our work is appreciated outside of the institution, in short, by what others have to say. Being driven by quality means listening to others: peers when it comes to research, students when it comes to teaching, the community when it comes to service. It also means setting standards and estimating progress toward goals. (page 4)

    

2. Definitions

   According to the approved nomenclature of the University of Saskatchewan, a program is a generally defined set of courses and other requirements described in the calendar, which the student must successfully complete to obtain a specific degree, certificate or diploma or other recognized qualification, such as meeting the admission requirements to another program.

   For the purposes of this policy, a program head means a Dean, a Department Head, a graduate chair, or an interdisciplinary program committee chair.

   For the purposes of this policy, the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research is not a program head as defined above; i.e., the Dean is not required to provide a response to the reports of the Review Team, nor to participate in the review process other than in an evaluative capacity as defined below.

    

3. Timing

   This policy and procedures will come into effect when approved by University Council. Once approved, the Vice-President Academic will announce the review schedule for the first cycle of reviews.

   This policy and procedures may be reviewed at any time at the request of University Council, but in any case, no later than June 30, 2004, in the first instance.

    

4. Purpose

   The primary purpose of university-wide program review at the University of Saskatchewan is to evaluate the University 's instructional programs, by providing an assessment of their quality and by comparing them with similar programs at other universities. Systematic program review is intended to encourage units to improve and incorporate innovations into programs. The results of systematic program review will also be used to inform decisions on program revisions, program deletions and resource allocations, by Council and its committees, and by university administrators. The review process will also satisfy the need for university accountability with respect to its instructional programs.

    

5. Benefits

   Assessment of the quality of the academic/instructional programs offered at the University of Saskatchewan should provide the following direct benefits to the University:
   

   • Provision of an opportunity at predictable intervals to examine the quality of the program(s) offered by each unit within the University.
   • Evidence of responsiveness by the program(s) under review to trends within the discipline(s).
   • Provision of a mechanism for periodic, formal communication with students, both present and past to determine their level of satisfaction with their educational experience.
   • Collection of information in a coordinated and systematic manner and maintenance of a central repository of information on program reviews openly available to the university community for purposes of informing decisions of Council, its committees and university administrators.
   • Information gathered in the review process provides a mechanism for change through strong and compelling evidence of the quality of the instructional programs and identification of areas of greatest excellence and need.
   • Evidence of accountability to Governments of the quality of the instructional programs delivered (for the dollars expended) and of the prudent stewardship of resources.
   • Evidence of public accountability with respect to the quality of the programs offered and delivered, given the "arm 's length" nature of the review process and the comparison of University of Saskatchewan programs with others of a similar nature in Canada.

    

6. Background and Authority

   According to the University of Saskatchewan Act (1995), University Council is responsible for overseeing and directing the university 's academic affairs. Specifically, among other powers, it may "authorize the board to provide for the establishment or disestablishment of any College, school, Department, chair, endowed chair or institute" and "prescribe curricula, programs of instruction and courses of study in colleges, schools or departments". Council may also "do any other thing & necessary, incidental or conducive to exercising its powers, to promoting the best interests of the university &".

   Exercising this mandate, University Council has approved the following documents that relate to systematic program review at the University of Saskatchewan:

   • A Systematic Program Review Process for the University of Saskatchewan (approved April 1994)
   • A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes (approved June 1996)
   • A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan (approved March 1998)

   When the policy document on systematic program review was approved in 1994, University Council gave approval "in principle" to the establishment of a regular review process whose primary focus was the programs offered to students rather than the unit(s) delivering the program. Following this approval, the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee (a subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee of Council) developed A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes, which described the most important characteristics of programs and criteria for their evaluation. The Framework was first used in the APPC 's comprehensive study of the array of programs offered at the University of Saskatchewan (The Program Audit Project, December 1995). All three policy documents are available on the Planning Committee 's website: http://www.usask.ca/university_council/planning.

   When Council approved A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan in March 1998, it reaffirmed its commitment to the implementation of a university-wide program review process that would inform the recommendations of Council and the decisions of the senior administration of the University.

   The College of Graduate Studies and Research approved a program review process in February 1998. The graduate program review process has been incorporated into the university-wide systematic program review process.

    

7. The Role of Council and Council Committees

   The University of Saskatchewan Act assigns responsibility for overseeing and directing the University 's academic affairs rests to Council. This means that Council must take an active role in the articulation of policies and procedures that protect the academic interests of the University of Saskatchewan, including the protection of the quality of the academic programs.

   To administer the policies and procedures that it establishes, Council must work in cooperation with the University administration. Council, having approved policies and procedures for systematic program review, appoints the Vice-President Academic to administer the process as described below. In so doing, Council retains its authority with respect to systematic program review and its right to make all final decisions involving implementation of changes. That is, proposals for program revision, program deletion, and new programs resulting from the review process, will continue to be subject to the normal procedures of Council and its committees.

   It is incumbent on University Council, once it has approved this policy and its procedures, to ensure that they are effective and achieve the ends that they were developed to support. It is, therefore, the responsibility of University Council, through the Planning Committee, to review and recommend changes to this policy once approved. The Planning Committee will take the lead role in monitoring the implementation of this policy and for reviewing it to assess its continued viability after a reasonable period has elapsed from the date of its initial approval.

   Council committees are expected to use the information obtained in the program review process to inform their decisions.

    

8. Administrative Responsibility

   The Vice-President Academic will be responsible for managing the university-wide systematic program review process. This responsibility is consistent with the job description of the Vice-President Academic which indicates that the Vice-President Academic is responsible for defining and implementing academic priorities within the University and for actively encouraging excellence in teaching, scholarship and research. Leadership in maintaining criteria and mechanisms for periodic reviews of academic programs, undergraduate and graduate, is an essential component of that responsibility and authority.

   The Dean of Graduate Studies and Research will share this responsibility for program review, as it pertains to graduate programs. This is consistent with the Dean 's job description that states, in part, that the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research is ultimately responsible for ensuring and maintaining the quality of the graduate programs.

   The Deans of Colleges will work cooperatively with the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research in the program review process. They will provide advice and guidance for program review in recognition of their role in the assignment of duties to faculty and in the allocation of budgets within their colleges. This is consistent with their job descriptions that state, in part, that the Dean is responsible for the development, review, and revision of academic programs. While not explicitly stated, it is understood that the Deans have direct responsibility for the undergraduate programs and shared responsibility for the graduate programs within their College. In recognition of that responsibility, they will play an important role in the identification of the structure of the review process, in the submission of the self-study document, in the response to the review, and in the creation of the action plan resulting from the review.

    

9. General Procedures

   The Vice-President Academic will announce the schedule of reviews; appoint (after consultation) the Review Team including the external and internal reviewers; receive the reports of each review (including the Self-Study document, the Review Team 's report, and the responses from the program head and the Dean of the College responsible for the program); identify specific outcomes for program review; and, ensure that action plans are implemented within a specified time period. The Committees of Council will have access to the review reports and are expected to take these reports into consideration when fulfilling their mandates.

   Common Elements of All Reviews:
   All instructional programs at the University of Saskatchewan will be reviewed, normally in a seven-year cycle, through a process that provides for the following:

   • A self-study document [based on A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes].
   • A review and reports by recognized external experts in the discipline and internal faculty from cognate disciplines.
   • A response from the program head to the Review Team 's report.
   • A response from the Dean responsible for the program, providing a College perspective, to the Review Team 's report.
   • A recommendation from the Vice-President Academic to the Planning Committee and from the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research to the Ph.D. Committee of the College of Graduate Studies and Research on the assessment category to be assigned to each program reviewed.
   • A plan identifying follow-up actions and a timetable for implementation agreed upon by the Dean of the College responsible for the program under review and the Vice-President Academic.
   • Academic actions resulting from the review process (e.g. program revisions and program termination) will be approved using regular Council committee procedures.
   • A report to Council on the reviews conducted in any given academic year.

   Timing/Schedule of Reviews:
   The schedule of reviews will be announced annually by the Vice-President Academic after consultation with the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research and the Planning and Academic Programs Committees of Council. A Dean may ask the Vice-President to initiate a review of a specific program. The schedule will be presented to University Council and its committees and to the Graduate Council for information.

   Focus:
   Reviews will be conducted with a program-focussed unit-based approach (i.e. the primary focus will be on the programs offered to the student, not the organizational unit through which the program is offered). Graduate Program Review will be part of the university-wide program review process. Normally, graduate and undergraduate programs within an academic unit will be reviewed concurrently, but with separate reports and assessments prepared. Major and honours programs for a given discipline will be considered in one review with separate information or comment where necessary. If possible, programs in related disciplinary areas (e.g. all Engineering or Agriculture disciplines, the Social Sciences in Arts and Science) will be reviewed concurrently.

   Special Considerations:
   

   1. While formal accreditation reviews of professional programs might satisfy some or all of the requirements of University reviews, programs reviewed by accreditation bodies will not be exempt from university-wide program review. The Vice-President Academic will try to ensure that accreditation and university-wide program review occur in close proximity. Ideally, the self-study for the accreditation process will be completed and used in whole or in part for the university-wide systematic program review process.
   2. Given the complexity of programs offered by some Colleges, the Vice-President Academic will meet with the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research and the Dean of the College responsible for the program(s) under review to discuss the structure of the review for specific programs.

   Other Related Documents:
   These procedures are to be read in conjunction with the policy document outlining graduate program review approved by the College of Graduate Studies and Research (February 1998).

    

10. The Review Team, Selection and Roles

    The total number of reviewers is flexible depending on the complexity of the College and will be determined in collaboration with the Dean responsible for the program(s) under review. At a minimum, the Review Team will consist of at least three members, at least two of whom will be external to the University.

    External members of the Review Team will normally be individuals in the same discipline as the program under review. They will be selected from a list of at least five individuals, submitted by the program head and the Dean responsible for the program(s) under review, and approved by the Vice-President Academic. External reviewers should be well-respected national and international scholars capable of rendering a sound judgement on the academic merit of the programs and who are not themselves in conflict of interest with the program, for example, by prior association. For each proposed external reviewer, the following information should normally be provided:

    1. Name;
    2. Rank and position;
    3. Institution or company and current address, telephone and fax numbers, and electronic mail address;
    4. Degree(s) held, including the granting institution(s);
    5. Area(s) of specialization;
    6. Professional (including administrative) experience or expertise relevant to the unit 's activities;
    7. Examples of recent, relevant scholarly activity (e.g., bibliographic references to recent publications);
    8. Information on any previous affiliation with the University, and any association with individual members of the Department/College (e.g. co-author, previous student, friend). [Meant to acknowledge their affiliation, not to disqualify the person from being nominated].

    This information is not to be solicited from the nominees, nor are nominees to be contacted regarding their nomination as reviewers.

    At least one member of the Review Team will be internal to the University but external to the unit responsible for the programs under review. The member(s) from within the University will normally be from a cognate discipline and/or from a College other than that of the program(s) under review. The Vice-President Academic will select the internal member(s) of the Review Team after consultation with the Dean of the College responsible for the program(s) under review. They will normally be distinguished faculty, at the full professor level, who are scholars with at least a national reputation in their discipline.

    The Review Team will examine the self-study documents and meet initially with the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. The Review Team will also interview the Dean of the College responsible for the program(s) under review, the program head(s) responsible for the program(s) under review, faculty members in Department(s) providing teaching for the program(s) under review, support staff, graduate and undergraduate students, past students from the undergraduate and graduate programs, and such other individuals as may be deemed appropriate by the Review Team.

    The Review Team will be asked to prepare a single report and to determine the assessment category which best describes the program(s) under review.

    The chair of the Review Team (normally one of the internal members of the Review Team) will be responsible for coordinating the final report.

    The Review Team will submit its final report to the Vice-President Academic.

     

11. The Self-Study Document (Attachment A)

    Modelled on A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes, the Self-Study Document should include sections on quality, cost effectiveness, demand, uniqueness and relevance to the Province, and a set of comprehensive appendices, which provide information on the program(s) under review. Information on the relationship of undergraduate and graduate programs should be included in the Self-Study Document.

    Separate documents for graduate and undergraduate programs will be required, but honours and majors can be combined as long as differences in the programs are adequately described. The structure recommended for the undergraduate program self-study documents is described in the attached guide; the structure for graduate self-study documents is described in the College of Graduate Studies and Research policy document (approved February 1998).

    In departmentalized colleges, it is expected that the Dean should have reviewed the Self-Study Document(s) prior to submitting them to the Vice-President Academic.

    The University Studies Group and the College of Graduate Studies and Research will provide a set of data for all programs under review.

     

12. The Review Team Guide (Attachment B)

    The Review Team Guide is also modelled on A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes and includes a list of specific questions, which should be addressed in the review report. Assessments by external reviewers will form an appendix to the report. A separate assessment from each of the external reviewers must be provided.

    The report of the Review Team should address all of the issues identified in the Guide for the Review Team or explain why commentary on omitted issues is unnecessary.

    If the reviewers are in disagreement on many points, the areas of difference should be clearly identified.

     

13. Outcomes of Program Review

    The Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes states that the characteristics of primary importance to the University of Saskatchewan in its academic programs are that they:
    

    • Be of high quality
    • Be in demand by students and the public
    • Use resources efficiently.

    In addition to the three primary characteristics related to quality, demand and resources, the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes indicates that it is also important to consider the following for some programs:
    

    • The unique features of a program
    • The relevance of the program to Saskatchewan

    Finally, the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes indicates that other objectives in the University of Saskatchewan Objectives must be kept in mind, including the University 's commitment to fair and equitable access to its programs, to equity, to environmental responsibility, and to an international perspective in its endeavours.

    As described in Section IV above, systematic program review process will serve the following purposes:
    

    • Evaluation of the University 's instructional programs, by providing an assessment of their quality and by comparing them with similar programs at other universities.
    • Encouragement of periodic opportunities to improve and incorporate innovations into programs.
    • Provision of information for decisions on program revisions, program deletions and resource allocations by Council and its committees, and by university administrators.
    • Provision of a mechanism to satisfy the need for university accountability with respect to its instructional programs.

    The primary purpose of the review process is evaluative. Following from this purpose and taking into account A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes, four categories of assessment have been established:

    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.

    Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
    

    • distinguished faculty with a national/international reputation for scholarly work;
    • an up-to-date curriculum;
    • sound teaching practices;
    • strong student demand;
    • evidence of high student satisfaction with their educational experience;
    • routine use of evaluation procedures for all aspects of the program 's objectives; and,
    • justifiable program costs.

    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.

    Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
    

    • many faculty actively engaged in scholarly work;
    • a generally up-to-date curriculum;
    • generally sound teaching practices;
    • high to moderate student demand;
    • evidence that students are generally satisfied with the program and the quality of their experience in it;
    • evaluation procedures which may not be as effective as they could be; and,
    • high to moderate program quality to cost ratio.

    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.

    Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
    

    • some distinguished faculty, but more who are not actively engaged in scholarly work;
    • a curriculum in need of revision;
    • a need for attention to be directed to some aspects of the teaching enterprise;
    • moderate student demand;
    • some dissatisfaction of students with their educational experience;
    • lack, or minimal use, of evaluation procedures; and,
    • moderate to low program quality to cost ratio.

    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.

    Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
    

    • few faculty who are actively engaged in scholarly work;
    • several significant weaknesses in the curriculum;
    • uneven and often poor teaching practices and results;
    • low student demand;
    • significant dissatisfaction expressed by students with their educational experience; and,
    • lack of or ineffective evaluation procedures.

    In their final report, the Review Team will be asked to identify the assessment category which best describes the program(s) under review. Based on this guidance, the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research will determine which of the four categories best describe the program. The Planning Committee of Council and the Ph.D. Committee of the College of Graduate Studies and Research will then be asked whether they concur with the assessment of the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. The Planning Committee will report this information to Council and explain its reasons for any differences from the initial assessment.

    Outcomes will be dependent on the category of assessment for the program. Outcomes for programs in each category include:

    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.

    Other specific outcomes include:

    For Council:
    

    • 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;
    • preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on the next year 's capital budget.

    For the College of Graduate Studies and Research:
    

    • allocation of scholarship funds and the devolution of authority over graduate programs.

    For the Vice-President Academic, in consultation with the appropriate Dean:
    

    • authorization to recruit to faculty positions; allocation and reallocation of faculty.

     

14. Budget/Support Personnel

    Support:
    The Office of the Vice-President Academic will administer the university-wide systematic program review process using existing resources.

    The University Studies Group and the College of Graduate Studies and Research will provide an initial set of statistical data to program heads regarding specific programs. A set of key indicators will be developed for each program. In addition, the University Studies Group will coordinate university-wide program reviews. In order to support these functions, duties within the University Studies Group and the College of Graduate Studies and Research will be reassigned.

    Deans may provide support for the preparation of the Self-Study document to program head(s) in the form of relief from assigned duties and/or budgetary assistance for clerical support of the review process.

    The Offices of the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research will be jointly responsible for answering questions from Deans and program head(s) and for coordination of the Review Team 's visit to campus.

    Budget:
    An operating budget will be established for conducting the university-wide program review process. The budget will cover expenses associated with the visit of the Review Team and printing of review reports and self-study documents.

     

15. Monitoring/Implementation of Program Review Process/Follow-up

    Vice-President Academic and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research:
    It is the responsibility of the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research to ensure that this policy is implemented once approved by Council.

    Deans:
    It is the responsibility of the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research in collaboration with the Dean of the College responsible for the program(s) to ensure that the action plan developed from the review is implemented. Actions taken following the review process will be evaluated when the program is next reviewed.

    Planning Committee:
    It is the responsibility of the Planning Committee to provide advice and oversight for the process and its outcomes. Through regular reports, the Planning Committee should ensure that Council is informed about the process and the quality of the instructional programs provided at the University of Saskatchewan. Through a standing subcommittee, the Program Review Overview Committee, the Planning Committee will provide advice on the review process to the Vice-President Academic, the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, and to University Council.

    Program Review Overview Committee:
    The Program Review Overview Committee will be a standing subcommittee of the Planning Committee. Its membership will be comprised of the chair or designate of the Academic Programs, Budget, and Planning Committees; the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research; the Vice-President Academic or designate; and the support staff associated with university-wide program review. It is the responsibility of the Program Review Overview Committee to provide advice on the review process to the Vice-President Academic, the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, and to University Council.

     

16. The Review Sequence (Structure of university-wide Program Reviews)¹

ACTION	TIMELINE
Establish Review Cycle:VPA establishes initial 7 year review cycle. VPA identifies the programs for review in each academic year in collaboration with the Planning and Academic Programs Committees and the Dean, CGSR. The cycle may be altered after publication if requested by a Dean.	Initial cycle schedule announced when policy approved by Council. Annual cycle announced 6 months in advance of academic year.
Inform Dean: VPA informs Dean of the College of the review(s) scheduled during the next academic year.
Establish structure of the Review: VPA meets with Dean of the College(s) and Dean, CGSR, to establish structure of the review(s).
Prepare Self-study: "Unit" forms a committee or identifies individual(s) to develop the self-study document.	3 months are allocated to preparation of Self-Study document.
Appoint Review Team: VPA, after consultation with Dean, CGSR, program head, and Dean of the College, appoints the Review Team (including internal and external reviewers).	1 month
Submit Self-Study: "Unit" submits Self-Study documents to VPA.
Review Team Site Visit: External and internal reviewers make a "site visit".	1 week
Prepare Review Team Report: The Review Team prepares a report. The completed report with attachments containing the external reviewers ' assessments is submitted to the VPA.	1 month
Request Response from Program Head: VPA sends Review Team Report to program head for correction of factual errors and comment/response.	1 month
Request Response from Dean: In cases where more than one program in a College is reviewed in a given year, VPA sends all Review Team reports, and the response from the program head, to the Dean for correction of factual errors and comment/response. Comments are to be made on each program and the program array and should refer to College plans.
Consult (Planning/CGSR Committees): VPA and Dean, CGSR, consider all reports and comments and consult with committees on results of the review and possible outcomes. Committees are provided with all reports and comments relating to the review.	1 month
Meeting with Dean and Program Head(s): VPA and Dean, CGSR, meet with Dean of the College and the Program Head(s) to discuss possible outcomes.
Recommend Assessment: VPA and Dean, CGSR, recommend the category of assessment to the Planning Committee and the Ph.D. Committee, CGSR.	2 weeks
Decide on Assessment: Planning and Ph.D. Committees endorse or reject the assessment of VPA and Dean, CGSR, and provide reasons for their decisions.	1 month
Prepare Action Plan: VPA and Dean, CGSR, meet with the Dean of the College to develop an "action plan" to implement results of the review.	1 month
Report Results of Review: Planning Committee reports to Council, and Ph.D. Committee reports to Graduate Council, on results of reviews, including the category of assessment and reasons for agreement, or disagreement, with VPA and Dean, CGSR.	By 31/06 of each year.
Annual Report to Council: Planning Committee prepares an annual report to Council on the reviews conducted during the preceding year. The report includes comments on trends across program reviews, and recommendations, as appropriate.	annually
Availability of Reports: Reports, including recommendations by VPA and Dean, CGSR, response of the Planning and Ph.D. Committees, unit response, Review Team report (including external reviewers ' comments) and Self-Study Document, are made available to Council/CGSR Committees when decisions on programs and resource allocation are required.
Review Follow-up: VPA and Dean, CGSR, monitor progress of Dean of College in implementing the action plan.	Initial follow-up by 31/06 of the year following the year in which review was completed.
Total Time Required	One year

¹NOTE: The timeline includes activities that will occur concurrently.

 

SPR Home