APPC Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee Sy Adler - PDF document

�� ����������������������������������������������� APPC Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee Sy Adler Talya Bauer Samuel Henry Sy Adler Talya Bauer Samuel Henry Mark Jones Karin Magaldi John Rueter Lynn Santelmann Mark Jones Karin Magaldi John Rueter Lynn Santelmann Michael Bowman Steve Harmon Kathi Ketcheson Michael Bowman Steve Harmon Kathi Ketcheson Why are we here? • Committee appointed in June based on nominations from faculty ! ! • Members nominated for their (long) experience at PSU and their ability to What is Program represent the university as a whole ! ! Prioritization? • Not necessarily experts in academic program prioritization (APP) ! ! • Looking to the Senate (and the broader PSU community, including staff and students) for guidance, feedback, and help. programs programs programs prioritization programs scoring categories programs programs programs programs metrics questions criteria (quantitative) (qualitative) academic 
 priorities

������������������������������ Why do we need a process like this? Why do we need a process like this? programs programs programs programs understanding understanding programs programs programs programs decisions This is about taking stock , developing a This is about guiding strategic investments in university-wide understanding of who we programs that best support institutional goals are and what we do Why do we need a process like this? Why do we need a process like this? programs programs programs programs understanding? understanding? programs programs programs programs decisions decisions? Without it, we risk: 
 Without it, we risk: 
 Decision making in a vacuum Stagnation, inability to respond & reallocate resources Why now? APP in the Context of Shared Governance programs programs programs programs understanding recommendations programs programs programs programs ? decisions decisions Senate proposals Allow the thoughtful, careful development of a The Senate has a key role to play in 
 regularized process. 
 defining a process to fill this gap Don’t wait for an emergency.

������������������������������ Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Prioritization Review Prioritization Review Weighing all Determining All programs A subset of programs against a whether a program considered at the programs common set of meets the bar for its same time considered each criteria field year Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Prioritization Review Prioritization Review Conducted at the Conducted at the Broad look at Deep look at program level 
 unit/department information information (with multiple level programs per unit) Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Academic Program Prioritization Review Prioritization Review Internal review, with Internal and external End result: programs End result: action criteria including review, with criteria assigned to categories; plans for carrying performance and based on discipline recommendations for departments relationship to standards and investment/reorganization forward academic priorities metrics

������������������������������ Initial Conversations in Senate in Fall 2013 PORTLAND STATE PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE FACULTY SENATE TO : Senators and Ex-officio Members to the Senate FR : Martha Hickey, Secretary to the Faculty The Faculty Senate will hold its regular meeting on November 4, 2013 , at 3:00 p.m. in room 53 CH. AGENDA A. Roll B. *Approval of the Minutes of the October 7, 2013 Meeting Origins and Process C. Announcements and Communications from the Floor AAUP Bargaining Update D. Unfinished Business *1. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines Revision Committee Interim Report See Faculty Senate Schedules web page for full draft text of the proposed revisions D.1b addendum: http://www.pdx.edu/faculty-senate/senate-schedules-materials E. New Business *1c. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) Curricular Proposals Consent Agenda *2. Scholastic Standards Committee (SSC) Proposal to approve Online Grade-to-Grade Changes F. Question Period 1. Questions for Administrators 2. Questions from the Floor for the Chair G. Reports from Officers of the Administration and Committees President’s Report (16:00) Provost’s Report Report of the Vice-President of Research and Strategic Partnerships Report of the Internationalization Council H. Adjournment *The following documents are included in this mailing: B � Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting of October 7, 2013 and attachments D-1a � ��������� eport o ������������������������������������ P&T ������������ E-1c � Curricular Consent Agenda E-2 � Proposal to approve online grade-to-grade changes Process Key components Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee PSU Community Feb - May 2014 Shelly Chabon Mark Jones Communication Jon Fink DeLys Ostlund Phase 1: initial Phase 2: data Phase 3: parameter setting gathering, reflection/ Kris Henning Barbara Sestak measurement, and recommendation analysis Steve Harmon Assessment Charge: Develop the initial groundwork for how PSU will conduct its academic program future iterations of the process prioritization process Charge to APPC, June 2014 Organization An Academic Program Prioritization D#1! adopted!June!2,!2015 ! ! ! Committee (APPC) oversees the process 
 MOTION: Faculty Senate approves the creation of the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee as described in item “D-1.” Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee (May 12, 2014) As per recommendations from the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee, as adopted, with some changes, by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee and the Provost, PSU Faculty Senate proposes the establishment of the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Program Scoring Teams (PSTs) focus on data Committee (referenced below as the APPC). The President and Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, have given assurance that!the!total!number!of!tenure!line! positions!will!not!decrease! as a direct result of the Academic Program Prioritization Process, although tenured faculty may be assigned to another department or program depending on needs gathering, measurement, and analysis, with broad and expertise. COMMITTEE CHARGE: faculty representation The APPC is charged with conducting work in the initial, parameter-setting phase of the review process; assigning programs to prioritization categories in the second phase; and overseeing assessment and communication components of the review. In doing so the APPC will: • Develop additional specifications for the composition and function of the Prioritization Scoring Team; • Develop additional specifications for identifying and appointing those responsible for assessment and communication activities; • Determine, in consultation with the Provost’s office and the Faculty Senate, the parameters and benchmarks against which programs will be assessed; • Determine the type of information that needs to be gathered; • Compile initial academic program reports submitted by scoring teams; • Solicit feedback on initial reports from each academic program and develop revised assignment of programs to prioritization categories; • Participate with existing Faculty Senate standing committees, e.g., Budget Committee, in determining final recommendations. COMMITTEE COMPOSITION: The APPC will consist of 7 faculty members with strong prior leadership experience and an understanding of PSU drawn from multiple roles across campus. The APPC may call on other persons and offices as needed for information. Support for the APPC will be provided by the Provost’s Office and the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. TIMELINE: The APPC will be appointed Spring 2014 by the President based on recommendations from the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, the Faculty Advisory Committee, and the Provost through a nomination process. Assessment parameters and benchmarks, as well as type of information that needs to be collected will be determined early so that OIRP and units can begin preparing information mid-Fall for submission to APPC in January 2015. APPC will receive, compile, and classify scoring reports, and will work with selected programs to collect additional information beginning mid-Winter 2015. APPC will make revised recommendations early to mid-Spring