Presentation on theme: "The Academic Program Prioritization Process September 2012-May 2013."— Presentation transcript:
The Academic Program Prioritization Process September 2012-May 2013
Program Prioritization Defined A process of clarifying institutional purposes and setting academic priorities Dickeson, Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance (2010; p. xiii)
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN? Adherence to mission MSU-Northern, a teaching institution, serves a diverse student population by providing liberal arts, professional and technical education programs ranging from certificates through master's degrees. The university promotes a student centered and culturally enriched environment endorsing lifelong learning, personal growth and responsible citizenship. The university partners with a variety of community and external entities to enhance collaborative learning, provide applied research opportunities, stimulate economic development and expand student learning experiences.
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN? Fulfillment of Vision Montana State University-Northern will be known for its supportive, student-centered environment in which a unique mix of academic programs are responsive to local, regional, and state workforce needs, offered in an atmosphere that promotes student success.
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN? Realities of competition Niche market strategy Location Preponderance of programs for a small campus
Why Program Prioritization at MSUN? Preparation for shifts in funding scenarios (e.g., performance-based funding) Maximization of resources An overall goal to increase quality and strengthen reputation
…and an MSUN Reality Of 35 academic programs [those granting associate, baccalaureate, or masters degrees], 15 currently have ten majors or less. This ratio is not sustainable in the long term.. Chancellor Limbaugh Charge to the Academic Council September 10, 2012
Four Options for each Program Grow Maintain Integrate/Revise Phase Out (e.g., moratorium or termination)
Seven Evaluation Criteria 4.Demand-internal (support for other programs; e.g., general education) 5.Quality (State, national reputation; faculty achievements) 6.Size (critical mass) 7.Cost-Effectiveness (program efficiency, potential economies of scale)
1. Chancellor's charge to Academic Council September 10, Academic Council built a knowledge base on program review process by reading Robert C. Dickeson's work 3. Academic Council identified criteria to rate programs and developed a scoring rubric 4. Internal site was developed for faculty to enter program data 5. Deans and Chairs collaborated with faculty to complete the review process 6. Academic Senate reviewed and made recommendations 7. Academic Council reviewed and made recommendations 8. Provosts Recommendations 9. Chancellors Decisions: May Process continuation (OCHE, BOR, new program development)
Outcome of the Process Of 74 programs* reviewed… – 19 identified to grow – 26 identified to be maintained at current levels – 4 identified to be reduced in scope or integrated – 25 identified to be placed into moratorium or terminated * Including certificates and minors
81% (60 out of 74) of the decisions made by the Chancellor were in agreement with recommendations from faculty and academic leadership.
Next Steps Necessary paperwork submitted for moratorium/termination Students notified Teach-out has begun Initial strategy sessions based on decisions made (how to grow, etc.) Initial dialogues on new programs unique to MSUN
Resources Re-Allocated As of this writing, one (1) faculty position has been shifted from a program slated for moratorium (HPE Secondary Education) into Health Promotion. Re-allocation of resources will be a multi-year initiative
Lessons Learned Collaboration an absolute necessity Erratic data in some areas was problematic in certain situations While the process was intensive (and created isolated concerns), expanding the timeline would have prompted other issues