DATE OF ADOPTION: September 17, 1998




I.  Background

The OSRHE Policy Statement on Program Review states, “At the two-year institutions, programs culminating in Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees are to be reviewed collectively instead of individually when there is no substantive major field of study.”  Occupational/Technical degree programs are to be reviewed individually.


II. Purposes


   According the OSRHE “Policy Statement on Program Review”, program review is the method by which the State Regents and institutions evaluate proposed and existing programs.  The primary purposes of program review are:


  1. To maintain and enhance the quality of instruction, research, and public service conducted at state colleges and universities. 
  2. To respond to existing and emerging social, cultural, scientific, and economic needs (including addressing the needs of business/industry).
  3. To provide to citizens a variety of high-quality opportunities for intellectual growth.
  4. To make programs commonly accessible to academically qualified citizens of the state.
  5. To utilize the state’s and the institution’s resources effectively and efficiently.

              For SSC, the goal of program review is to provide a valid tool for realistic long- and short-range planning which will lead to an appropriate and efficient use of state and institutional resources to meet the mission and goals of the College in ways which best serve the needs of existing and potential students.


              Specific objectives of program review at SSC are:


  1. To improve the quality of instructional programs at SSC.
  2. To involve faculty, staff, and administrators in an open and valid assessment of academic programs.
  3. To collect both quantitative and qualitative data on each program which will permit a valid program assessment.
  4. To provide data for informed decisions with regard to program initiation, expansion, contraction, consolidation, termination, and reallocation of resources.
  5. To assist in the development of comprehensive institutional short and long-range plans.


III. Program Review Schedule and Responsibility


SSC will review all programs of study which lead to the awarding of a degree on an annual basis.  The Vice President for Academic Affairs will examine each program’s review packet in March of each year along with the appropriate Division Chair.  Each of these individuals will make a recommendation on the future of the program under review and will provide the President with a final recommendation and supportive materials.  The President of the College will monitor the program review process and modify internal procedures to improve the effectiveness of the process.  Additionally, the President will prepare a Program Review Report on all programs every five years for submission to the OSRHE.



IV. State Regents’ Review Process


According to the “Policy Statement on Program Review”, VI, E.,   The State Regents’ staff will review the respective institutions’ program reviews.  The staff may request additional information or evidence at this time from the home institution.  Following the completion of the State Regents’ staff review, an appropriate response will be made in writing to the institution’s president.


In section VI, F., the “Policy Statement on Program Review” says    Each institution will monitor the program review process and modify internal procedures to improve its effectiveness.  The State Regents’ staff will monitor the overall process and suggest improvements as appropriate.



V. Criteria for Evaluation


A. Centrality of the Program to the Institution’s Mission


The mission, along with the planning principles and goal statements, reveals the philosophical stance of SSC with respect to education and learning.  The narrative on each program reviewed should address how the program is related to the mission of the College.


B.  Vitality of the Program


Vitality refers to the activities and arrangements of a program for insuring its continuing effectiveness and efficiency.  Vitality is measured by a program’s plan of evaluation concerning its goals, clientele served, educational experiences offered, educational methods employed, and the use of its resources.  Specific measurements of program vitality which should be addressed in the review include the following:


1.  Quality Indicator

An assessment of program quality should include data on faculty quality, ability of students, achievements of graduate, the curriculum, library materials, special services provided to students and/or community, community input concerning quality (i.e. from employers, graduates, and/or advisory committees) and, if applicable, specialized accreditation and student success on license examinations.


2.  Demand for the Program

Demand reflects the desire of people for what the program has to offer and the needs of individuals and society served by the program.  Assessment of demand concerns the aspirations and expectations of students, faculty, administrations, and the various publics served by the program.


3.  Effective Use of Program Resources

The resources used for a program determine, in part, the quality of the educational experiences offered and program outcomes.  Resources include financial support (State funds, grants and contracts, private funds, student financial aid, etc.), library collections, facilities (including laboratory and computer equipment) support services, and the human resources of the faculty and staff.  The efficiency of resources may be measured by cost per student credit hour, faculty/student ratio, and other measures as appropriate.  The effective use of resources will be concerned in evaluating programs.



C.  Uniqueness of the Program


Programs may be unique because of the subject matter treated, the students served, the educational methods employed, and the effect of the achievements of the program on other institutions or agencies.  Such programs may be maintained at SSC even though high costs and/or low enrollments are experienced if acceptable justifications are made.



VI. Academic Program Review Committee - Responsibility and Membership


A. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible to the president for conducting the academic program review process.


B. The APRC consists of the Division Chair of the Program being reviewed and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.



VII. Program Review Process


A.  Call for Review


The Vice President for Academic Affairs will initiate the program review process by providing the necessary materials and instruction to commence data collection and the review of all instructional programs by the Division Chair.


B.   Program Review Packet


The Division Chair, in collaboration with the program faculty, will complete all materials in the Program Review Packet on a semester basis.  The materials contained in the Program Review Packet are listed in Part VIII of this document.


C.   Program Review Timelines


The completed Program Review Packet, containing data on the previous summer, fall, and spring semesters, will be forwarded to the VPAA by the Division Chair no later than May 1.


The VPAA will present recommendations concerning the programs and supportive materials to the President by June 1.


The President will provide notice to the VPAA concerning agreement with, modification to, or disagreement with any program recommendation by June 15.  Following such notification, and any appropriate conference with APRC, the Division Chairs will be notified of the final recommendations and may begin preparing their divisional goals and objectives for the upcoming year.


The Division Chairs, working with their faculty, will prepare program and (taken collectively) division goals, and objectives for the upcoming academic year based on the results of the program review.  The goals and objectives are to be completed no later than May 10 or the end of the spring semester. 


The Division Chairman, utilizing their division goals and objectives and the results of the program reviews, will present their budget requests for the upcoming year to the Administrative Council.  The divisional goals and objectives, together with each division’s budget request, will be used as a basis for revision of the Institutional Three-Year Development Plan.


D.   Action of the President


The President will furnish the SSC Board of Regents with a report on the findings of the annual Program Review .Every five years, the President will forward a copy of all supportive materials and a narrative summary concerning the program review to the State Regents by June 30.


In years when program reviews are sent to the State Regents, the President will provide a report to the SSC Regents concerning any written comments by the State Regents.  Should the State Regents specify recommendations and courses of action regarding any instruction program which have not been identified and acted upon by SSC, the President will prepare an institutional response for consideration by SSC Regents.


VIII. Content of the Program Review Report


Each program review shall contain the following information


A.  Program Data


  1. Program name
  2. Division Responsible
  3. Degree Awarded
  4. Certificates (if any) Awarded
  5. Curriculum (Prefix, Title, Credit Hours)
  6. Credit hours required for degree and, if applicable, certificate(s)
  7. Required discipline specific hours
  8. Required supporting discipline hours
  9. Required degree related hours
  10. Required general education hours
  11. Student Headcount (Broken down by gender, classification, marital status, and full or part time status)
  12. Ethnic breakdown of students
  13. Student Ages and average age
  14. Student Income Levels
  15. Veterans in program
  16. Degrees held by students
  17. Number of FTE faculty
  18. Number of FTE students


          Centrality of the Program to SSC’s Mission


  1. List the program goals and objectives and the College functions to which each is related.  Program goals and objectives will be written so that the needs they address are cle01r, program outcomes and be assessed, and program clientele are specified.
  2. Specific Educational Goals (Student outcome objectives stated in behavioral and measurable terms.)
  3. Annual Program Goals and Objectives



B.  Vitality of the Program - (1) Quality Indicators


1. Program faculty by name, experience, degrees, current course assignments, and course enrollments.

2.   Program Student-Faculty Ratio

3.   Student Advisement Services Unique to the Program

4.   Special Program Accreditation or Status

5.   Placement Procedure for Graduates

6.   Advisory Committee Members and Dates of Meeting this year

7.   Program FTE History (Last three years)

8.   Semester Attrition Rate

9.   Number and Percentage of Students by ACT

10.  Number and Percentage of Student by GPA

11.  Number of program sophomores

12.  Number of program freshmen

13.  Freshman to sophomore year retention percentage

14.  Number of graduates last semester; last academic year

15.  Average GPA of graduate

16.Success rate of graduate on Licensing Examinations

17. Data on Graduates (Number continuing college studies, number employed in field related to education, number working in unrelated field, number unemployed, number no data is available.)

18-19. Statements on Graduate follow-up procedures

20.  Transfer GPA Comparison

21.  Library Resources available to support program

22.  Instructional Equipment on hand

23.  Instructional Facilities utilized.


C. Vitality of the Program - (2) Demand for the Program


       1.  Student Enrollment History by Discipline Specific Courses


a. number enrolled

b. number withdrawing

c. percentage completing course

d. program student credit hours by semester

e. discipline specific student credit hours

f. program headcount

g. program FTE



D.  Vitality of the Program - (3) Effective Use of Program Resources


          1. Program Budget

  a. supplies, travel, etc. expenditures for previous year and budget  for current year

  b. instructional salaries (full-time faculty and adjunct faculty, previous year and current year)

  c. Program cost (total by student FTE)



2. Program Outcomes (Refer to items 14, 16, and 17 of Quality Indicators)



E.  Uniqueness of the Program


Comment on any factors, supported by evidence listed above, that make the program unique, thereby allowing the college to continue to offer the program even though high costs and/or low enrollments are experienced.


F.  Summary


1.  The Division Chair and program faculty will provide a written summary of their program review in the format provided on the Program Summary forms provided.  These forms allow for comments in three columns entitled:


  Column 1:  Strengths

  Column 2:  Weaknesses

  Column 3:  Suggested Solutions (Plans of Action)


  A form must be completed for summary views on:  Administrative Organization; Curriculum and Courses of Study; Facilities, Equipment,

  and Resources Utilized;

  Faculty and Staff; Guidance and Student Services; Instructional Program; and Public and Employer Relations.


2.  Recommendations concerning continuation/termination of program by the division chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.


3.  President’s Comments and Final Recommendations


4.  Board of Regents and, if applicable, State Regents Recommendations.