Systematic Program Review at the University of Saskatchewan

---

A Report Prepared by the Planning Committee for University Council, January 1999

Background

In 1994, the Academic Affairs Committee presented to University Council A Background Paper and Proposal for a Systematic Program Review Process at the University of Saskatchewanwhich outlined a new review process for programs at the University of Saskatchewan. It also described review processes at other universities as well as current and previous review processes at the University of Saskatchewan. For a more complete discussion of the recent history of program reviews at this university, the program review processes at other Canadian universities, and the concept of a unit-based program focussed review process, Council members should refer to the Background Paper which can be viewed at the Planning Committee website: http://www.usask.ca/university_council/planning.

The Background Paper stated that the primary purpose for systematic program review was to be evaluation of the quality of the academic programs offered by the University of Saskatchewan. Other purposes were identified and included; informing decision makers about the strengths and weaknesses of programs with a view to program improvement; determining the status of programs in relation either to specified standards or to the performance of other programs; providing information for planning purposes; assisting in the decision-making process about programs (their installation, continuation, modification, expansion, or termination); assisting in the determination of reductions in expenditures and increases in efficiency; and demonstrating accountability.

The Background Paper also identified several principles upon which program review should be based. These principles included:

• all programs must undergo a periodic review;
• the array of programs offered within a unit or non-departmentalized college should be reviewed at the same time wherever practical [i.e., all programs offered within a unit (undergraduate, graduate, certificate, diploma) should be reviewed at the same time];
• information collected should, wherever possible, build on the current information required of units which are accredited or which have approved academic review processes;
• the existing informal schedule of reviews (i.e. accreditation review schedule) should be taken into account when the University schedule of reviews was developed; and,
• program reviews should be coordinated and funded from central sources.

In April 1994, Council approved the following recommendation: that the University of Saskatchewan initiate a systematic review of programs on a regular cycle. Accompanying this recommendation was a description of the general structure of the proposed program review process, with an emphasis on external reviews. It was the expectation of Council that the structure would be more completely developed and presented to Council for approval.

Also at its April 1994 meeting, University Council adopted the University of Saskatchewan Objectives. Under Part A, Academic Activities, the Objectives indicated that "To maintain quality, the University, as well as its Colleges and Departments, must make choices to change, combine, or delete existing programs and specializations, and to introduce new initiatives." Under Objective A 12, the University committed itself to develop a program audit which would "provide profiles on all programs based on specific criteria" and a cyclical review process which would "evaluate the quality of the academic programs at the University." The description included with Objective A 12 indicated that the review process would be comprised of several components: "a self-study, external review, final report and follow-up". The description further indicated that the review process "will be coordinated with existing review cycles of accredited programs and other regularly review programs, and will build, wherever possible, on information already required by units." The Program Audit was completed in December 1995.

In June 1996, University Council approved A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs. This Framework was intended to be used in conducting reviews of all programs as well as in the regular assessment of program revisions brought forward by Colleges.

In March 1998, University Council approved A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan. This document reinforced Council's earlier commitment by identifying systematic program review as one of three key institutional strategies to support the four goals and three principles described therein. Two purposes for systematic program review were described: "to improve and incorporate innovations " and "to assess quality in a national and international context and to determine how programs are contributing to the University's broader goals." A Framework for Planning envisioned a process that was internally driven but which provided opportunities for external assessment of programs offered.

 

Committee Discussion and Rationale

The Planning Committee is of the view that program review is one of the most effective ways by which the University can demonstrate the quality of the instructional programs that it offers. In so doing, the University demonstrates accountability to its students, to the general public, and to its funding sources.

In presenting the enclosed documentation to Council for approval, the Planning Committee wishes to bring the following to Council's attention:

1. A seven-year cycle for the university-wide program review process is now being proposed. It was the view of the Committee that a five-year review cycle would be difficult to achieve given the number of programs to be reviewed and the current informal review cycle.
2. A list of programs has been developed and is attached, as Appendix A, for the information of Council. At this time, certificate programs have been exempted from the review process.
3. Although a recent survey has not been completed, the Planning Committee is aware that most Canadian universities conduct a form of unit assessment or program review. Except for the focus of the review (on the instructional programs delivered to students), what is proposed does not radically differ from reviews conducted at other universities.
4. The focus of the reviews proposed is on instructional programs offered by the University to its students. It is not per se a review of the research or service conducted by a College or Department, although information on such activities will form part of the self-study documentation.
5. The purposes for conducting program review have not changed since the 1994 Background Paper was presented to Council. The basic purpose continues to be evaluation of program quality, in relation to other similar programs in a national and international context.
6. Council will approve all changes to programs resulting from program review, including program revisions and program terminations.
7. Resources have been committed through the last operating budget to support the external reviewers' visit to campus. In addition, there will be a reallocation of 2.5 staff from University Studies Group and the College of Graduate Studies and Research to systematic program review. The Office of the Vice-President Academic will take administrative responsibility for conducting the reviews without the allocation of additional resources.
8. Given that Colleges are no longer required to organize reviews or to fund the review team, it may be possible for colleges to reallocate current resources used in reviews to assist in preparing the self-study document.
9. A tentative sequence for the first review cycle has been proposed and is enclosed for the information of Council (Appendix B). This proposed cycle is based on the principle that programs that have not been recently reviewed should participate early in the review sequence. It recognizes existing accreditation reviews to schedule university reviews as close as possible to accreditation reviews. It also takes into account the schedule identified by the College of Graduate Studies and Research for graduate program review. The sequence will, however, require the approval of the Vice-President Academic and the support of the Deans of the Colleges responsible for the programs identified.

 

Consultation Process

The Planning Committee created a Working Group consisting of the following persons:

Ron Steer, co-chair, Chair, Planning Committee

Linda Suveges, Chair, Academic Programs Committee

Franco Berruti, Dean of Engineering

Gary Kachanoski, Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

Sylvia Wallace, co-chair, Associate Vice-President Academic

Representatives of the Budget Committee (Ron Sutherland, replaced by Dennis Gorecki)

Barrie Dubray, Director, University Studies Group

Pauline Melis, Assistant to the Vice-President Academic

The Working Group prepared its report in consultation with the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research and presented it to the Planning Committee in late October 1998. The Planning Committee gave its approval to distribute the documents to Council Committees for their comment. Members of the Task Force met with the Academic Programs, Budget, Research, and Capital Planning Committees of Council as well as with the Deans' Council. Two discussions were also held at the Planning Committee and members were also invited to submit written comments. The Public Service and Extension and Instructional Development Committees also received a copy of the documents for information.

The enclosed documents reflect the comments received by the Planning Committee to the original proposals prepared by the Working Group. To the extent possible, comments received have been incorporated into the final document.

The consultation process indicated general support for the concept of a coordinated review process, but clarification of its relationship to existing review processes as well as budgetary requirements for the reviews was requested. None of the consultations revealed any disagreement with the proposal that the Office of the Vice-President Academic coordinate the review process.

a) Relationship to Existing Review Processes:

It was and remains the view of the Planning Committee that the University must provide a method to review its programs on a regular basis and to provide a reasonable measure of accountability for program quality to Government and to the people of the Province. Given the current informal cycle of reviews and the variety of review processes, it was felt that a coordinated university-wide review process was required to demonstrate program accountability at the university level and to ensure that all programs are reviewed in an orderly and consistent manner.

b) Budgetary requirements:

The Working Group developed a budget to accompany the policy and procedures. This budget included funds to support the visit of the external reviewers to the campus and some funds to offset the costs of the review. The budget proposal also envisioned the creation of a new position in the Office of the Vice-President Academic to coordinate the review process and reallocation of existing resources within University Studies Group and the College of Graduate Studies and Research to support the review process. Consultation with the Council committees revealed a division of opinion on whether sufficient additional resources had been identified to support the review process. Some committee members expressed the opinion that additional personnel should not be provided, while others argued strongly for the addition of new resources, e.g., to develop the self-study document and to conduct follow-up actions, to support this important process were required.

A budget for systematic program review (for the external reviewers) has been allocated from the operating grant and will be available in 1999 for the review process. The Vice-President Academic was convincing in his articulation of the point that no new administrative staff resources should be provided to support the review process; rather, activities of current staff should be reassigned to support the review process. This will mean that 1.5 persons in University Studies Group and one person in the College of Graduate Studies and Research will be assigned primarily to program reviews. The Office of the Vice-President Academic will reorganize its current activities so that program review may be coordinated from that office without additional resources. Appendix C provides information on the overall cost of the review process, including the in-kind contributions described above.

The Planning Committee believes it would be difficult to justify any additional resources for coordination of program review at this time, particularly when colleges have lost faculty positions. Nevertheless, the Planning Committee is concerned that, over time, it will not be possible for the University Studies Group, the College of Graduate Studies and Research or the Office of the Vice-President Academic to sustain their support of the program review process without additional resources. However, at this time, the Planning Committee agrees that the review process should begin and budgetary support issues be re-visited at a later date.

 

Conclusion

The Planning Committee remains unanimous in its view that it is now essential that systematic program review be implemented at the University of Saskatchewan. It recognizes that the enclosed Policy and Procedures will not satisfy everyone; however, it believes that the Policy and Procedures enunciated assist Council in implementing its three core values of autonomy, quality, and accountability as expressed in A Framework for Planning.

 

Enclosures:

Appendix A: Approved Instructional Programs, 1998-99

Appendix B: Proposed Cycle for Systematic Program Reviews

Appendix C: Estimated Initial Budget for Systematic Program Review

Systematic Program Review Policies and Procedures

Attachment A: Guide for the Self-Study

Attachment B: Guide for the Review Team

 

SPR Home