Committee Members

David Strawn (chair) – Vice Provost for International Studies; Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences; Professor of Mathematics, John Hawthorne (liaison) – Provost and Chief Academic Officer, David Barrows – Associate Professor of Sociology; Chair, Department of Sociology and Social Work, G. L. Forward – Professor of Communication, Victor Labenske – Professor of Music, and John Wright – Professor of Religion.

Committee Charge

A key focus of the new WASC approach to accreditation is the concept of Quality Assurance. This means, among other things, the ability and determination of an institution to hold itself accountable to procedures, policies, and standards. Quality assurance processes are often tested rigorously during the adoption of new programs. In the context of educational effectiveness, the institution must be able to demonstrate vital quality assurance processes. Since the University is experiencing robust health at the undergraduate level and rapid expansion at the graduate level, it is appropriate that Group Two is asked to analyze current protocols for developing new programs. Specifically it will “determine answers to the following questions: What are the protocols for the development of new programs?, Are quality assurance processes built into the process?, and How are the programs assessed and modified based on that assessment?” (Institutional Proposal, page 8). To conclude its work, Group Two will make recommendations regarding the procedures, policies, and standards to the President.

Work of the Committee

The committee began its work October 18, 2005. In that meeting and subsequent meetings the charge to the committee was carefully considered. Existing materials were examined, protocols from the Academic Policies Committee and the Graduate Studies Committee were reviewed, recently adopted programs were examined, interviews were conducted, and proposals were drafted for possible adoption. This report concludes the work of the committee. The last meeting was held on May 19, 2006.

What are the protocols for the development of new programs?

Findings:
The committee determined that the adoption of new programs was a two step procedure: First the new programs are to satisfy a faculty adopted criteria, and second, the new programs must pass through the university academic procedures. These steps were examined for both the graduate and undergraduate programs.

a. Graduate Programs.

The Graduate Studies Committee has a well established criteria for new graduate programs (Criteria For New Graduate Programs), however there was little to describe the adoption procedure.

b. Undergraduate Programs.

The Academic Policies Committee (undergraduate policies) has a well established adoption procedure (Adoption Procedures for New Undergraduate Programs), however there is no written criteria for new programs at this level.

Are quality assurance processes built into new programs?

Findings:

a. Graduate Programs.

Quality assurance processes are built into the criteria for new graduate programs with each new program required to detail their assessment planning. The planning document also details the quality of the curriculum along with the academic credentials of the faculty members teaching in that program (Criteria for New Graduate Programs).

b. Undergraduate Programs.

At the undergraduate level, there is no written statement requiring quality assurance processes to be built into the adoption of new programs. The reality is that the Academic Policies Committee takes very seriously the quality of any new program that comes before it with departments required to support their request with detailed proposals (See Undergraduate Curricular Proposals: Example 1 - Mathematical, Information and Computer Sciences Department, Example 2 - Art and Design Department, Example 3 - Communication and Theater Department).

How are the programs assessed and modified based on that assessment?

Findings:

a. Graduate Programs.

An assessment process is built into the criteria for every proposed graduate program. The program is assessed against that process by the school/department and by the Graduate Studies Committee (Criteria for New Graduate Programs).

b. Undergraduate Programs.

The assessment of undergraduate programs has been a long-standing procedure at the University through the Program/Department Review Process. It is this review process that departments consider the addition or deletion of majors and minors (For a sample program review see Mathematical, Information and Computer Sciences Program Review).

c. General Findings.

A complete description and analysis of the assessment work done at the University can be found in the WASC CPR Group Six Report: Assessment.

There is no criterion or procedure in place for the deletion of either a graduate or undergraduate program.

Recommendations to the President:

Based on the analysis of the procedures and policies gathered by the committee the following actions are proposed.

That the Graduate Studies Committee establish an adoption procedure similar to that currently in place for undergraduate programs (Adoption Procedures for New Graduate Programs).
That the Academic Policies Committee and the University Faculty adopt the Criteria for New Undergraduate Programs (Criteria for New Undergraduate Programs) which includes a section on quality assurance. The undergraduate process would then parallel the graduate policies.
The implementation of these two recommendations will result in parallel processes for the adoption of both undergraduate and graduate programs.
That a parallel information track for the faculty and the President’s cabinet during a new program proposal process be put in place. While faculty approve the content, delivery, curriculum and location of a new program, the cabinet must provide the funds to implement the program. Both groups should be informed of the original proposal, the changes being made as it moves through the adoption processes and the activities of the other group in the process. Parallel information and timelines should be documented.
Prior to any final faculty vote on a new program, there should be a public forum to discuss and answer questions about that program. This would provide time for complete information and discussion for all interested and involved parties.
That the appropriate committees begin work on drawing up procedures for the deletion of either graduate or undergraduate programs or majors.
That the criteria used to establish new programs include “shut-down” conditions.