SP 9-47
EFFECTIVE: June 1, 1989
REVISED: July 1, 1997
RETITLED: September 14, 2000
RETITLED: August 25, 2001
REFERENCE: C.R.S. 23-1-107 (3); BP 9-47
APPROVED:
/ Dorothy A. Horrell /
S/ Dorothy A. Horrell
System President
This procedure applies to the state system community colleges.
By statute, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) has responsibility for reviewing all existing programs within institutions of higher education. The statute, as revised in 1985, requires:
23-1-107(3) Each governing board of the state ¬sponsored institutions of higher education shall submit to the commission a plan describing the procedures and schedule for periodic program reviews and evaluation of each academic program at each institution. The information to be provided to the Commission shall include, but not be limited to, the procedures for using internal and external evaluators, the sequence of such reviews and the anticipated use of the evaluations.
The corresponding Commission Existing Program Review Policy 1-7 elaborates on the statutory requirements, naming materials to be submitted, and deadlines for submission to CCHE. This plan is intended to meet the requirements of those parts of the statute and CCHE policy that call for development of a program review plan.
Program reviews in state system community colleges are viewed as an investment that can pay significant dividends. Instructional program review self-studies, conducted in accordance with established procedures, will assist colleges in achieving improvements in their programs. To assure that result, the reports and the responses to the reports will be used to develop plans that address opportunities and problems identified through the review.
To assure the integrity of the evaluation process, the prime focus will be on assisting the colleges to improve their programs within the context of the broader college and System missions and roles. The program review must not be viewed as punitive nor as a means to expand program budgets. The overriding objective is a valid, straightforward assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in programs. The results are to be used to continue to develop a coordinated plan for enhancing program strengths and developing those program areas that warrant improvement.
State system community colleges and their advisory councils and governing board recognize the importance and utility of program review in educational planning and management. Program review is assuming added importance given increasing public demand for improved quality and accountability, changes in student demand, and ever-present financial constraints.
The overall purpose of program review is the improvement of community and junior colleges. Program review should provide the information needed to make informed decisions regarding program maintenance, enhancement, or restructuring, as well as the allocation of resources.
Institutional program review is an essential component of institutional management and governance. The review and evaluation of instructional programs should address the following objectives:
Schedule: The CCHE Existing Program Review Policy calls for review of each instructional program at least once every seven years. The evaluation requirements of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 mandate program review and evaluation on a five-year cycle. Since many of the programs at state system colleges are vocational and are thus partially funded from Perkins monies, they must be reviewed on a five-year cycle. To avoid unnecessary duplicative review, all instructional programs at state system community colleges will be reviewed and evaluated on a five-year cycle. Some specifics of the program review schedule are presented below in Section C.
The process that is outlined below is consistent with the Board’s responsibility as described in statute (23-1-107(3), C.R.S. 1985) and the objectives of program review as presented in the four System-level objectives stated above. Although the perspective of the process is System-level, based upon state statute and CCHE policy, it is intended to encourage cooperation between central system staff and the state system colleges. In the approach taken, each state system community college reviews its own programs and reports the results to central system staff who, in turn, compile and synthesize the results for subsequent Board review and action and later submission to CCHE. Central system staff will be available for consultation when requested by state system colleges. It is the central system staff’s responsibility, in cooperation and conjunction with institutional staff, to ensure that program review is a regular institutional management activity and that review results are considered in decisions for program expansion, maintenance, contraction, or termination; or for the allocation or reallocation of resources.
Program review activities must involve the consistent application of high standards and valid methodology. Program review standards and procedures must be acceptable to professional evaluators: the State Board, CCHE, and the general public, especially members of lay boards and the Colorado General Assembly. The major elements of the process are:
Activities to be included in the review process are listed below. Colleges may wish to supplement this basic set of required program review activities with additional activities to enhance their local processes.
The report will succinctly focus on:
To ensure that the responsibilities described in statute (23-1-107(3), C.R.S. 1995) are fulfilled and that state-level program review objectives are met, each program review summary report submitted to the System will include the following:
This section of the report also should include, where appropriate, a discussion of such items as anticipated changes in program objectives, organizational realignments, faculty turnover and renewal, changes in curriculum, changes in clientele, changes in support, and possible requests for changes of role and mission statements.
Central System staff, in their annual summary of reviews, will rely heavily on what is reported in this section.
ATTACHMENTS:
Data elements and Questions for the Review for Existing Instructional Programs
Instructional Program Review Checklist
APPENDIX A, PAGE 1
System President’s Procedure
Program Review and Evaluation
DATA ELEMENTS AND QUESTIONS
FOR THE REVIEW OF EXISTING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS
Each of the elements listed below must be considered in each of the program review reports submitted to the System or reason must be given for the omission. It is recognized that not all elements are relevant to each program, some elements may not be part of the institution’s data gathering system and some elements may be too costly to collect. It is also recognized that some of the elements do not have standard statewide definitions in such cases the definition used should be reported.
Elements should be reported and will be interpreted in the context of the program under review and its institution and are not intended for the development of comparisons between institutions when differences in institutional missions, program objectives, and data definitions might render such comparisons misleading.
A description and assessment of the intrinsic value of this program (or discipline that supports the program).
Centrality to mission
Student interest and program potential
Other program potential
APPENDIX A, PAGE 2
Program Review and Evaluation
History of the program (brief)
Library holdings (comment on adequacy)
Facilities and equipment (comment on adequacy)
Accreditation status
Faculty quality (measures appropriate to institution)
Program outcomes
Efficiency (for each of the following, report for the most recent three years)
APPENDIX B. Page I
System President’s Procedure
Program Review and Evaluation
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST
College:
Date:
Program:
Self study
Outside review (internal and external reviewers)
Official position of the college or program
Description of review process
Program objectives
Findings and interpretations (see Data Elements)
Analysis and assessment
Program plans
intrinsic value of program
centrality to mission
student demand
opportunities for graduates
demand for other program outcomes
(i.e., public service)
history of the program
library holdings
accreditation status
faculty quality
instructional outcomes
graduates
analysis of placement data
special feature
faculty FTE
support staff FTE
credit hours produced
average faculty
average faculty ratio
average faculty loan
average class size
program cost
number of courses offered
number of degrees granted
number of salary majors