The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006...
-
Upload
shannon-harvey -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units April 18 & 20, 2006...
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units
April 18 & 20, 2006JoLynn Noe,
Assistant Director Office of Assessment
http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/
UK’s Administrative Regulations (AR II-1.0-6)
• Strategic Planning– UK’s Strategic Plan establishes the
framework for all institutional planning – Unit-level planning sets strategic goals for
instruction, research, and service
• Program Review– Improves quality by reviewing mission,
goals, activities, outcomes every 5 to 7 years
– Suggests possible objectives to be assessed in future Annual Reports
• Annual Report– Assesses annual progress toward selected
goals– Indicates needed changes in a unit’s
priorities and feeds into program reviews
Highlights of SACS Institutional Effectiveness Criteria• Establish mission and goals
• Engage in systematic, broad-based planning and evaluation
• Assess the quality of: – Student learning at all levels
– Research and service functions
– Administrative processes and educational support services
• Describe methods for analyzing results
• Use results to improve
Components of a Program Review
• Review of the unit strategic plan
• Preparation of self-study report: an in-depth analysis of strengths and weaknesses
• Review by an external committee to assess the unit’s effectiveness in meeting its goals
• Prepare a Program Implementation Plan
• Draft an Assessment Plan (recommended); reflected in Annual Progress Reports
• Revise the unit strategic plan
The Strategic Plan• Identify and prioritize actions to help
unit best accomplish goals, fulfill its mission, and realize its vision– Revised periodically to calibrate the course
of the unit towards the achievement of the mission and vision
• Mission statement takes into account the external environment and internal strengths and weaknesses
• Goals/objectives for research, service, and administrative support
• Strategies for achieving goals/objectives
• Measures of progress and evaluation methods
The Self-Study
• Prepared internally by unit committee
• Covers time period since prior review, usually 5-7 years
• Process and report used internally to review current status and trajectory of unit to make internal recommendations for quality enhancements
• Final report used by External Committee for review
The Self-Study
• Program Documents: - strategic plan - organizational chart- annual progress reports
• Resources: - adequacy of budget, facilities, equipment, and
human resources- Staff numbers and demographics
• Adherence to Policies and Procedures:- grievances, promotions, staff personnel actions
- leave policies- budget request preparation
The Self-Study
• Evaluation of Quality and Productivity: - climate for equity and diversity- quality and productivity in research,
public service, or operations, - including, as appropriate, the quality of:
staff employeescustomer/client satisfactionbusiness and operating procedures
• Analysis of Strengths and Recommendations for Quality Enhancement: - synthesis of self-study findings - results in a summary of strengths and
recommendations for quality enhancement
The External Committee Review
• External perspective of the quality and effectiveness of the unit’s programs, services, resources, processes, and operations
• Objective, unbiased assessment of the unit
• Comprised of 6 to 8 members, recommended
by unit head, charged by head administrator
- includes members external to unit
- may also include students, staff, alumni, practicing
professionals - 1 to 2 self study committee
members in ex-officio capacity
The External Committee Review
• Examines the self study report
• Engages in additional information-seeking, as necessary
• Assesses the validity of the conclusions reached in the self-study
• Identifies additional strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement
• Prepares a final report
The External Review Committee
Develops recommendations that focus on the quality of:
• Service provided and unit productivity
• Management practices
• Recruitment and retention of a diverse staff
• Planning, evaluation, and resources – efforts to maximize cost-effectiveness of programs
Program Implementation Plan
• Consider recommendations from all sources in the review
• Develop program objectives related to accepted recommendations
• Formulate action steps and identify resources needed to implement objectives
• Establish a timeline for accomplishing unit objectives
Program Implementation Plan FormDue: June 30
Program Review Implementation Plan
College/Unit: Date:
Recommendation/
Suggestion
Source I/E/H*
Accept/ Reject**
Unit Response (resulting goal or objective)
Actions (including needed resources)
Time Line
* Source of Recommendation (I = Internal recommendation; E = External Review Committee recommendation; H = Unit Head recommendation) ** Accept/Reject Recommendation (A=Accept; R=Reject)
This required form is described as Appendix A in AR II-I.0.6.
Program Review Flowchart & Timeline
Program Review Process Flowchart & Timeline
Date March- Oct. 1 Oct. 1 Oct. 31 October
October - March March 31 March-May April-J une J une 30
Unit Type
DRAFT
Self Study
submitted to
FINAL
Self Study submitted
to
External Review
Committee appointed
and charged by
External Review Report
submitted to
Report
reviewed for factual
content and clarification
by
Implementation
Plan developed by
Implementatio
n Plan to
Academic Dept./ School
Dean
Dean, VP IRPE
Dean
Dean, and VP IRPE
Department Chair & Dean
Department Chair & Dean (with input from unit members)
Provost, VP IRPE
College
Provost
Provost, VP IRPE
Provost
Provost, and VP IRPE
Dean & Provost
Dean & Provost (with input from unit members)
Provost, VP IRPE
Admin/ Academic Support Unit
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Administrative agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE
Unit Head and administrative agent to which unit head reports
Unit Head & administrative agent to which unit head reports (with input from unit members)
Provost, EVP, VP, or VP (as appropriate), VP IRPE
Centers & Institutes (educational units)
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE
Center Director & Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Center Director & Admin. agent to which this unit head reports (with input from unit members)
Provost, VP IRPE
Centers & Institutes (not educational units)
Unit
Members
Conduct
Self
Study
And
Complete
Report
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE
Admin. agent to which this unit head reports
External
Review
Committee
Conducts
Review
And
Writes
Report Administrative agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE
Center Director & administrative agent to which this director reports
Center Director & administrative agent to which this director reports (with input from unit members)
Provost or EVP for Research (as appropriate), VP IRPE
* Full report includes: (1) Self-Study, (2) External Review Team Report, and (3) Implementation Plan.
This figure is described as Appendix C in AR II-I.0.6
Program Review 2006-07 CalendarMarch 1, 2006 Program Review Notification Letters Sent to Provost, Deans,
and Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report
March 1 - September 30, 2006 Self Study Review Process Underway
March 27 - 31, 2006 Accreditation Subsitution Meetings with VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness and Office of Assessment
April 18 - 20, 2006 Program Review Workshops, Room 318 POT
October 1, 2006 Draft Self Study Report DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable
October 1, 2006 External Review Committees Appointed by Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable
October 1 - March 31, 2006 External Review Committee Process Underway
October 31, 2006 Final Self Study Report DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable, and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness
November 13 - 17, 2006 External Review Committee Workshops, Room 318 POT
March 31, 2007 External Review Committee Reports DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness
April 1 - May 15, 2007 Program Review Implementation Planning Process Underway
April 16 - 20, 2007 (tentative) QEP Workshops, Room 318 POT
May 15, 2007 External Review Committee Report and Program Review Implementation Plan Should Have Been Reviewed By Faculty/Department Staff
June 30, 2007 Program Review Implemenation Plans DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable, and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness
July 15, 2007 Program Review Completion Notification Letters Sent to Unit Heads
July 15, 2007 QEP Eligibility Notification Letters Sent To All Eligible Units
September 15, 2007 QEP Proposals Due to Office of Assessment
November 1, 2007 QEP Award Letters Sent
Completion of the Program Review Phase of the Planning Cycle
• Revise and refine unit strategic plan based on recommendations of unit review committee and self-study
• Prepare assessment plan:– Systematic, comprehensive evaluation
featuring:Clear, concise objectivesCriteria for determining successCommitment to continuous improvement
The Annual Review Report
• Records the unit’s progress toward achieving goals and objectives during the year
• Consists of a concise report that summarizes accomplishments, adjustments to plans, and goals and priorities for next year
• Provides data to be used in future self-studies
Annual Review Report Form
Planning & Assessment Activities and Budget Requests
• Program reviews and annual progress reports support Operating Budget decisions
• Responsibility of VP’s, Associate VP’s, or directors to use results in preparing budget requests
• Use of assessment results should be demonstrated to facilitate resource allocation and budgeting decisions in support of strategic plans and to ensure quality enhancement
Where to go for help• Deborah Moore
Director of Assessment
• JoLynn NoeAssistant Director of Assessment
• Connie RayVP for Institutional Research, Planning, & Effectiveness
• Roger SugarmanDirector of Institutional Research
• Assessment Website http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/
The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units
April 18 & 20, 2006JoLynn Noe,
Assistant Director Office of Assessment
http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/