SUMMARY OF DRAFT FINDINGS ON PROGRAM CONTINUATION DECISIONS
Presidential Green Ribbon Commission on Academic Prioritization and Budget Alignment
The 39-member Green Ribbon Commission on Academic Prioritization and Budget Alignment was formed by Dr. M. Christopher Brown II with input from Dr. Patricia Higgins in mid-November 2017. The purpose of the Commission was to determine the effectiveness of each program in carrying out the University's mission, goal, objectives and strategic plan and to promote continuous improvement. The review process is to generate diagnostic information that is needed for program and personnel improvement and resource allocation. The results of the program review will determine, in part, the programs that are to be continued without modification, continued with modification, consolidated, suspended or eliminated.
The Commission, which met in four whole-group and numerous small-groups sessions to perform its assigned task, reviewed a total of 37 degree-conferring programs. After reviewing data from OIRE, the Commission selected 19 (51.35%) bachelor- and master-level programs that failed to meet the Council on Postsecondary Education's threshold for program productivity. It was decided that the 19 "low-performing programs" would undergo an intensive review process.
The Council’s Guidelines for Review of Academic Program Productivity [November, 1999] established the following thresholds to be used to identify programs for review:
Associate programs—average of fewer than 12 degrees awarded during a five-year period
Baccalaureate programs—average of fewer than 12 degrees awarded during a five-year period
Master's programs—average of fewer than seven degrees awarded during a five-year period
- Doctoral programs—average of fewer than five degrees awarded during a five-year period
Doctoral programs—average of fewer than five degrees awarded during a five-year period
(CPE, Review of Existing Academic Programs, p. 3)
Commission members expressed concerns over making program continuation recommendations from a one-dimensional (degrees awarded) look at selected programs; therefore, in addition to completing reviews for programs showing low productivity, Commission members were asked to make program continuation recommendations for KSU based on a 16-factor rubric:
Enrollment trends
Graduation rates
Faculty qualification
Instructional practices
Program demand
Financial contributions
Sufficiency of courses
Accreditation status
Impact on students
Curriculum
Equipment/facilities
Student performance
Persistence rates
Attempts to revitalize
Nonmonetary impact
Alignment to mission, vision, goal, core principles
This document is a summary of overall findings for each factor considered for the 19 programs that underwent intensive review.
18