Expedited Institutional Review

The academic Deans and the Provost regularly receive data on enrollment trends, student retention, graduation rates, average class size, student evaluations, and faculty activities. As these data are shared with Department Chairs and Division Directors on a regular basis, trends will become common knowledge. Deans are encouraged to discuss these data with the appropriate people in their respective schools/colleges. In between regular program reviews, particular attention is paid to programs with declining enrollments trends, low graduation rates, or evidence of unsatisfactory teaching. Unsatisfactory teaching may be evidenced by some combination of 1) below average teaching evaluations over a number of semesters, 2) students not meeting learning objectives, 3) insufficient depth in the curriculum, 4) absence of faculty with expertise in necessary areas, 5) out of date equipment, instrumentation or facilities, and 6) insufficient number of faculty.

If evidence becomes available that suggests that a program is not living up to the University’s expectations of providing a quality educational experience for students, the Provost, in conjunction with the Dean and the Department chair or Division Head, will initiate a conversation that may lead to an expedited review of the program. The primary goal of such a review would be to determine if there are ways in which the University can strengthen the program to a level of excellence; or, if strengthening is not possible, develop a thoughtful plan for phasing out the program. An expedited review should take place over a period of not more than six (6) months to allow for a timely, but thorough analysis.

Expedited Institutional Review Process

Step One (Pre-Review Meeting)

The Provost and Dean shall meet with the Department Chair or Division Director (DC/DL), an academic advisor, and the program faculty for a full discussion of the information that is leading to the need for an expedited review. Differences of interpretation of the data will be considered and the need for other information will be identified.

Step Two

A small internal review team (here after referred to as “the review team”), comprised of the Dean, the Department Chair or Division Director, an appropriate number of faculty from the program, and one faculty member from outside of the unit, will come together to conduct a study of the factors that have created the concerns about the program (e.g. declining enrollment trends, changing market, lack of adequate faculty, poor student advising practices, ineffective marketing strategies, lack of institutional resources, etc.) In the first meeting, the review team will set a six-month meeting timeline and discuss the kind of information and resources that will be needed from the Provost or other parties in order to adequately review the program.

Step Three

Academic Advisory Committee (AAC) will be notified that an expedited review has been initiated, along with the information that gave rise to the review and a tentative timeline for completion of the review. Thereafter, the review team will provide status reports on the expedited review at the monthly meetings of AAC until the review is concluded and a final decision is made. The role of AAC throughout the process will be to monitor the process and provide advice to the Provost and the review team as it conducts its review.

Step Four

An “expedited institutional review report” will be written by the review team, with a detailed set of recommendations for strengthening the program or a clear recommendation for phasing out the program and its potential impact on other programs. That report will be presented to AAC by the Dean of the school, accompanied by other members of the review team, and discussed at one of its regular monthly meetings, as final input to the Provost.

Step Five

The Provost will review the Report and input from AAC, gather any additional information deemed necessary, and meet with the program faculty to discuss the report before making a decision.

Step Six

If the decision is to strengthen the program, the Provost will work with the Dean and the faculty of the program to develop a detailed Program Improvement Plan. This Plan may require the services of an external consultant, equipment upgrades, funding for faculty development, funding for curriculum development, or other resources.

In the event that a phase out is deemed necessary, the following steps will be followed:

Step Seven

The Provost will meet with the Dean, the program faculty, and the advising staff to notify them of the decision to phase out the program and a tentative time table for doing so.

Step Eight

The Dean will notify the faculty of the school of the decision to phase out the program and the tentative time table for doing so.