Comprehensive Program Review
- Outcomes: It is expected that CPR is a resource neutral process. This analysis should focus
on improving outcomes within existing resource constraints, rather than securing new
resources. Resource requests are managed through the normal budget and planning processes.
- Characteristics: This review focuses on three characteristics of an academic program - quality, viability,
and productivity - which are defined below.
- Quality: measures of excellence. Quality indicators may include, but are not limited to, attainment
of student learning outcomes, a comparison of program elements relative to internal
and external benchmarks, resources, accreditation criteria, relevant external indicators
of program success (e.g., license and certification results, placement in graduate
schools, job placement, and awards and honors received by the program), and other
- Viability: the use of such considerations as available resources, student interest, career opportunities,
and contributions to the goals and mission of the institution, University System,
and state to determine whether a program should be continued as is or modified (expanded,
curtailed, consolidated, or eliminated). Viability considerations are independent
of quality measures; i.e., a high quality program could lack viability, or a program
in need of considerable improvement could have high viability.
- Productivity: the number and contributions of graduates of an academic program and/or the number
of students served through service courses in the context of the resources committed
to its operation. (Additional measures of productivity might include counts of students
who meet their educational goals through the program's offerings, including minors,
certificates, or job enhancement, if such goals are part of the program's mission.)
- Timing: Each academic program is reviewed at least once every seven years. Programs that
do not measure well against the review characteristics (as determined by the Program
Faculty, Department Chair, Dean, Senate, Provost, or President) are subject to review
at least every 3 years.
- Academic Program: All credentialed programs are included in the review cycle including certificates,
minors in areas where there is no major, and coherent, identifiable areas of focus
such as the core curriculum.
- Content: Program reviews will conform to the same form and respond to the same questions.
Reviews should use data from the period since the last review.
- Process: All reviews should be prepared, reviewed, and receive a response within one academic
year. The schedule follows:
- Departments will submit the review to the Dean’s office no later than December 1st of the review year
- Dean’s will submit their review to the Provost’s office no Later than February 1st of the review year
- The Provost’s office will coordinate the review by committees of the faculty senate (GPC and UPC), which will be complete by April 1st of the review year.
- The Response from the Provost's office will be complete and the review posted to the institution’s web site no later than June 30th of the review year.
· Programs will submit the review to their Dean’s office no later than January 28, 2019.
· Dean’s will submit their review to the Provost’s office no later than March 1, 2019.
· The Provost’s office will coordinate with Faculty Senate committees (UPC and GPC), to complete their reviews by May 1, 2019.
· The response from the Provost’s office will be complete and posted to the institution’s website no later than July 1, 2019.
· The Provost’s office will complete the Provost Summary Form and submit to the BOR no later than July 15, 2019.
This sample template is for informational purposes only. Each program will receive their Program-Specific Template in August of the review year from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment.