Periodic Review Of Graduate Programs – Timelines And Process

WTAMU Periodic Review of Graduate Programs

Purpose: The purpose of periodic review of graduate programs (as defined by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s Table of Programs) is to provide a systematic evaluation of the quality of each academic program and its effectiveness in supporting the University mission. Regular review is required to ensure the continuing appropriateness of the University’s programs and to meet requirements of external accrediting agencies. Such reviews are formative in nature, include peer review, and are conducted by representatives of the academic unit, college, and/or administration. More specifically, a systematic and scheduled graduate program review:

a) Provides reliable information for assessing areas of strength and weakness of the program; b) Assists in the development of strategies to continuously improve the program; c) Includes measurable criteria to assess progress toward established goals; d) allows meaningful comparisons with discipline-specific standards, peer institutions, and related departments within the university; and e) Supplies baseline data for the department and University to make well-informed decisions for program improvement and budget considerations.

Coordinating Board Charge: June 16, 2011

TO: Chief Academic Officers of Universities and Health-Related Institutions and Graduate Deans FROM: MacGregor M. Stephenson, Assistant Commissioner, Academic Affairs and Research Division RE: New Rules on the Periodic Review of Graduate Programs Background Information: At their April 27, 2011 meeting, the Coordinating Board adopted revisions to Section 5.52 of Board rules. This revised section adds new criteria and procedures for the review of existing graduate programs. The rules create a seven-year cycle during which all master’s and doctoral programs must be reviewed. The link to Section 5.52 is: http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/. Implementation Procedures:

1. By December 1, 2011, each institution with graduate programs must submit a schedule of review to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Affairs and Research. This schedule must list the review date for every master’s and doctoral program on the institution’s inventory during the next seven years, 2012 through 2018. 2. The first round of scheduled reviews for the upcoming seven-year cycle should begin by Fall 2012. During any given year of a cycle, an institution may review no more than 20 percent of its graduate programs.

1 3. Alterations to the schedule of review are possible, but they must be formally requested. An institution wishing to make changes to its schedule of review should send a formal request from the provost to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Affairs and Research. This request should include a list of the programs and review dates being altered, accompanied by a justification for the changes being requested. In no case shall an institution be allowed to move the review dates for its programs beyond the limit of the current seven-year cycle. 4. During the seven-year cycle, each program is reviewed using the criteria listed in Section 5.52. The process must include a programmatic self-study and a review by external consultants with discipline expertise. Doctoral programs shall be reviewed by at least two external consultants, and master’s programs by at least one. 5. No later than 90 days after the conclusion of each review, institutions shall submit electronically a report of the outcomes of each review to the Academic Affairs and Research Division. This report must include a summary of the programmatic self-study and the full text of the external reviewers’ evaluation, as well as the institutional response to the external evaluation. 6. Board staff will review and analyze each report, followed by an official response to the institution which may include requirements for program improvement.

Identified Texas Administrative Code/Requirements:

TITLE 19 EDUCATION PART 1 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD CHAPTER 5 RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AND HEALTH-RELATED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TEXAS SUBCHAPTER C APPROVAL OF NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, HEALTH- RELATED INSTITUTIONS, AND REVIEW OF EXISTING DEGREE PROGRAMS RULE §5.52 Review of Existing Degree Programs (a) In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for continuous improvement. (b) The Coordinating Board staff shall develop a process for conducting a periodic audit of the quality, productivity, and effectiveness of existing bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs at public institutions of higher education and health-related institutions. (c) Each public university and health-related institution shall review all doctoral programs at least once every seven years. (1) On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all doctoral programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Affairs and Research. (2) Institutions shall begin each review of a doctoral program with a rigorous self-study. (3) As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least two external reviewers with subject-matter expertise who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas. (4) External reviewers must be provided with the materials and products of the self-study and must be brought to the campus for an on-site

2 review. (5) External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline. (6) External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review. (7) Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution. (8) Institutions shall review master's and doctoral programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study materials and reviewers. Institutions may also, at their discretion, review bachelor's programs in the same discipline as master's and doctoral programs simultaneously. (9) Criteria for the review of doctoral programs must include, but are not limited to: (A) The 18 Characteristics of Texas Doctoral Programs; (B) Student retention rates; (C) Student enrollment; (D) Graduate licensure rates (if applicable); (E) Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes; (F) Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs; (G) Program facilities and equipment; (H) Program finance and resources; (I) Program administration; and (J) Faculty Qualifications. (10) Institutions shall submit a report on the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewers and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Affairs and Research Division no later than 90 days after the reviewers have submitted their findings to the institution. (11) Institutions may submit reviews performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection. (d) Each public university and health-related institution shall review all stand-alone master's programs at least once every seven years. (1) On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all master's programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Affairs and Research. (2) Institutions shall begin each review of a master's program with a rigorous self-study. (3) As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least one external reviewer with subject-matter expertise who is employed by an institution of higher education outside of Texas. (4) External reviewers shall be provided with the materials and products of the self-study. External reviewers may be brought to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct a remote desk review. (5) External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline. (6) External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review. (7) Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a

3 consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution. (8) Master's programs in the same 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code as doctoral programs shall be reviewed simultaneously with their related doctoral programs. (9) Criteria for the review of master's programs must include, but are not limited to: (A) Faculty qualifications; (B) Faculty publications; (C) Faculty external grants; (D) Faculty teaching load; (E) Faculty/student ratio; (F) Student demographics; (G) Student time-to-degree; (H) Student publication and awards; (I) Student retention rates; (J) Student graduation rates; (K) Student enrollment; (L) Graduate licensure rates (if applicable); (M) Graduate placement (i.e. employment or further education/training); (N) Number of degrees conferred annually; (O) Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes; (P) Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs; (Q) Program facilities and equipment; (R) Program finance and resources; and (S) Program administration. (10) Institutions shall submit a report of the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewer(s) and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Affairs and Research Division no later than 90 days after the reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution. (11) Institutions may submit reviews performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection. (e) The Coordinating Board shall review all reports submitted for master's and doctoral programs and shall conduct analysis as necessary to ensure high quality. Institutions may be required to take additional actions to improve their programs as a result of Coordinating Board review. Source Note: The provisions of this §5.52 adopted to be effective August 26, 2009, 34 TexReg 5678; amended to be effective November 29, 2010, 35 TexReg 10496; amended to be effective May 24, 2011, 36 TexReg 3183

Periodic Review of Graduate Programs – Requirements, Timeline, and Process 4 In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs for continuous improvement. A seven-year review cycle has been established for each graduate academic program.

WTAMU Graduate Program Review Schedule (Based on CIP Codes) – Evaluation Cycle

Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution. Institutions may review bachelor’s, master's , and doctoral programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study materials and reviewers. Institutions may submit reviews performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection. Each public university and health-related institution shall review all stand-alone master's and doctoral programs every seven years. Changes to the schedule must be approved by THECB.

2012-2013 Curriculum & Instruction Educational Administration Instructional Design & Technology Counseling (Mental Health) Educational Diagnostician Teaching School Counseling

2013-2014 Psychology School Psychology Criminal Justice Social Work Biology Mathematics

5 2014-2015 Agriculture (Masters and Doctoral) Agriculture – Animal Science Agriculture – Plant, Soil & Environmental Environmental Science Engineering Technology

2015-2016 Sports & Exercise Science (emphases in Exercise Science and Sport Management) Communication Communication Disorders Nursing Nurse Practitioner

2016-2017 Business Administration (includes General Business, Computer information Systems, Management, Marketing, and Healthcare Management) Accounting Finance and Economics Interdisciplinary Studies

2017-2018 English History Music Music Performance Art Studio Art

Process and Timeline:

6 Report Schedule September October November December January February March April May June July August GS notifies GS data Program conducts self-study Review by Program No later than Aug 1, programs collection external written GS will submit to undergo from non- reviewer response to report to THECB review dept. reviewer resources comments and self- study

7  September: Graduate School notifies graduate programs that will conduct a review during the next year as per the Graduate Program Review Schedule (see above).  October: To assist the review process, Graduate School will facilitate and request collection of data from the entities below (see criteria assignment chart) and send the data to the Department Head and Program Directors of the programs under review:  Institutional Research  Career Services  Office of Learning Assessment  Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs  Other appropriate university entities  November-June: The department prepares and conducts a rigorous program self-study. The final report must be submitted by July 15 of the scheduled academic year to the Graduate School. Process:  Upon completion of the self-study, a review committee, consisting of the Department Head, College Dean, Program Director, program faculty (at least 2), Graduate School Dean, and identified external reviewer(s) will review the report and make program recommendations and/or commendations.  The report will be made available to the Graduate Council and the Provost for additional feedback.  Within 2 weeks after the external reviewer’s written response, the department will provide written response to the review so as to identify accepted program improvements, timelines, action plans, and accountability components. Follow up will be documented in the departmental annual review process.

 Summer: By July 15, each discipline shall submit a report of the outcomes of the program review, including the self-study documents, evaluation of the external reviewer(s) and response/actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program. Graduate School shall deliver these reports to the Academic Affairs and Research Division of THCB no later than 90 days after the external reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution. Professional formatting, style, and length of document is at the discrepancy of the department conducting the program review (and the associated review committee).

External Reviewers:

For master’s programs, please identify one reviewer from institutions of higher education outside the state of Texas that the program recommends for participation in the external review. Reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline and must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review. External reviewers must be provided with the materials and products of the self-study. Master’s program review does not require an on-site visit. External reviewers may be brought to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct a remote desk review. Please provide name, title, and contact information (including email, phone, and physical address):

For doctoral programs, please identify two reviewers from institutions of higher education outside the state of Texas that the program 8 9