Program Review - Instructional Programs - Procedure 4.0200
|Based on Board Policy number and Florida Statute:||Effective Date:
|240.147;001.03 (13) F.S. 6a-10.039 FAC 6a-14.020
||April 17, 2001; Revised 5/02; Rev. 12/09
The program review process provides for the collection and review of relevant historical, current and prospective information describing the viability and quality of existing programs. Responsibility and accountability for the quality of all degrees, certificates, and courses at the College are assigned to an appropriate academic organizational entity. For purposes of this procedure, program is defined as the discipline-specific degrees, certificates, and courses for which a single academic organizational department is responsible. An analysis of program data and reviews will provide information that may be used to:
- update and revalidate courses and programs,
- examine the extent to which courses and programs have been successful in meeting the needs of students and the community,
- inform strategic and operational planning
- identify strategies for program improvement and growth,
- meet local, state and national accountability and accreditation requirements, and
- allocate available funds.
All college instructional programs that award bachelor’s degrees, associate degrees, technical certificates, vocational certificates, or diplomas will be reviewed. General education discipline clusters and English Language Studies also will be reviewed.
Reviews will determine effectiveness in two goal areas: viability and quality. Data related to these goal areas will be provided by the Institutional Research Office and the department chairs. As appropriate to the particular area being reviewed, data may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- Program Viability (enrollments, average class size, re-enrollments, course completion rates, program completions, state and regional workforce demand and employment opportunities, placements, transfers into upper division programs in the SUS or the Florida College System, cost effectiveness, state and regional targeted occupations list, etc.)
- Program Quality (program-specific student learning outcomes, student evaluations of instruction, program currency as indicated by curriculum and syllabi updates, student performance in sequential courses, articulation agreements, specialized accreditations, licensure and certification rates, advisory committee involvement, etc.)
- Quantitative program reviews will be conducted annually to provide high-level indications of program viability and quality and inform the annual planning process. Any unmet indicators or adverse trends shown by the annual program review will warrant a strategy for improvement and a written action plan. Reviews conducted by external accrediting agencies may supplement the program review.
- If warranted by the annual review or as deemed necessary by the appropriate dean and the Vice President for Educational Programs, an in-depth review will be conducted to enable a thorough historical, current and prospective assessment of program viability and quality.
Annual Indicators Review Process (July through November)
- The Institutional Research office and the department chairs will provide to the Office of Planning, Assessment and Quality Improvement the data required to complete Program Reviews.
- The Office of Planning, Assessment and Quality Improvement, together with the appropriate Dean, will review and compare the program’s or discipline cluster’s standards/targets to actual results and document the level of compliance with goals and standards.
- Program review forms will be returned by the appropriate Dean to department chairs and program managers for review and action.
- If a review of the data suggests that some indicators did not meet the set standards/targets, or that multi-year trends are not positive, then department chairs and program managers will be required to incorporate written improvement plans for those indicators into the department’s annual plan.
- The Office of Planning, Assessment and Quality Improvement, together with the appropriate Dean, will review the department plans, determine if an in-depth review is required, and notify the department.
As-Needed In-depth Review Process (November – March)
- If an in-depth review is required, the appropriate Dean will appoint an In-Depth Review Committee. Committee members will be primarily from program areas of the College other than the area being reviewed. The Committee shall consist of five or more persons and will include at least one teaching faculty member, one administrator and the Director of Educational Services. No more than one member may be from the program or discipline. The Committee may also include external expert(s). The Chair of the Committee will be appointed by the Dean.
- The Dean will request that the department or designee provide the following information to the Committee:
- Annual Review reports and department improvement plans and assessments
- Other information appropriate to program viability and quality such as state and regional information on workforce demand and employment opportunities; current and future technology changes in the field; and anticipated pedagogical changes that could impact the program or discipline.
- The Committee will review all information provided, complete its deliberations, and submit its findings and recommendations to the department chair or director, the appropriate dean, and the Office of Planning, Assessment and Quality Improvement for administrative review.
- In conjunction with the department chair and/or program manager, the Dean will review the Committee’s report and present it, with analysis and recommendations, to the Vice President of Educational Programs.
- The Vice-President and the Dean will complete the administrative review by submitting written decisions and recommendations to the department chair, the program manager, and the Office of Planning, Assessment and Quality Improvement.
- Results of the In-Depth review will be incorporated into the Dean’s and department’s annual plans.
||Joseph A. Sarnovsky, Interim President