2016-2021 AMP Implementation Updates (February 2018)
- Charge to the Committee
- Overview
- Committee Membership
- Program Viability Review Process
- Program Viability Review Metrics
- Process Implementation Strategies and Outcomes
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
The College Area Review Committee has been charged to provide an objective, cross-sectional review of the academic programs and to design and implement the program viability review process. The committee members include the vice presidents/provosts, 3 deans, 6 faculty members, a staff council representative, a student council representative, a research office representative, an Office of Information Technology representative, an Administrative and Fiscal Services representative, the College Area Review coordinator, and the director of assessment. This committee will examine issues and data metrics within the College objectively, with consideration for how best to use College resources to support student success. The specific charge of the committee is to:
- review academic areas (including degree programs, disciplines, and special programs), student affairs, and administrative unit reports
- make substantive comments on the recommendations reports
- define program viability process and identify key indicators
- recommend programs for program viability review based on selected key indicators
- participate in the viability review process and make recommendations to the senior vice president for academic affairs
OVERVIEW
Rising costs and decreased financial resources mean that higher education institutions face increased scrutiny from federal, state, and local governments as well as accreditation boards, employers, parents, and students about the “return on investment” (Eckel, 2009). In addition, declining student enrollments require colleges to evaluate their funding formulas and academic program offerings. Traditionally, community colleges, with their open access mission, have provided extensive course and program offerings to support a variety of students’ educational goals. Montgomery College offers 96 programs (including AA, AAS, AFA) and 63 certificates; however, current research indicates that offering too many program choices can impede student completion and increase cost and time to degree (Jenkins & Woo Cho, 2014).
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
- Dr. Clevette Ridguard (Chair)
- Leah Allen
- Jamin Bartolomeo
- Maria Helen Dias
- Michael Harding
- Kim Kelley
- Margaret Latimer
- Debbie Morris
- George Payne
- Ellen Terry
- Tracie Witte
- Tanner Wray
- Angie Pickwick
- Sonia Pruneda-Hernandez
- Ed Riggs
- Auksuole Rubavichute
- Donna Schena
- Brad Stewart
- Alla Webb
- Carl Whitman
- Donna Wilson
Student Member:
- Christian Gbewordo or
- Cabrel Nkamdjeu
While the community college has provided more students access to higher education, students are more successful when given clear pathways to completion of credentials, transfer to baccalaureate institutions, or placement in the labor market (Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015). Academic program review defines the academic tracks that will save student time and cost to completion. Since 2003, Montgomery College has been engaged in academic program review with the following objectives:
- to provide critical Collegewide information for strategic and academic planning,
- to establish priorities for resource allocation,
- to measure overall institutional effectiveness as each unit evaluates its academic offerings and their alignment to the broader College mission of student success, retention, and completion.
The process involves all College stakeholders: administrators, vice presidents and
provosts, deans, chairs, faculty (full-time and part-time), staff, and students. In
the review process, units are asked to examine program vision and overview, complete
curriculum mapping that informs student learning outcomes, teaching delivery strategies,
benchmarking of best practices with peer institutions, review current composition
of advisory board, transferability, articulation agreements,
student input, data analysis, SWOT analysis, and external peer reviewer recommendations. From
this extensive review, recommendations for instructional and institutional improvements
are to be approved and implemented within a given five-year review cycle.
PROGRAM VIABILITY REVIEW PROCESS:
A goal of academic program review as outlined in the Montgomery College Academic Master Plan is to identify metrics for program continuance, program discontinuance, and new program creation. The program viability review process will ensure that all programs effectively use the College’s instructional resources, support the College’s mission, and serve the needs of students and the College community. As part of the academic program review process, programs will be identified for a viability review at the request of the dean, vice president/ provost, the College Area Review Committee (CARC), or the senior vice president for academic affairs. The review can occur at the end of regular academic program review cycle or during other designated times. Triggers for program viability review include both quantitative and qualitative data metrics.
The impact on student success, faculty, and resources will vary from program to program. Streamlined program options will provide students with clearer pathways to completion and transfer. Program viability decisions will ensure a better use of resources so that the College offers programs that meet students’ educational goals and local workforce needs. Students who are currently enrolled in a program marked for deletion will work closely with academic program advisors to develop a plan for completing the program. Specialized non-credit courses and programs will continue through the Workforce Development and Continuing Education unit.
A challenge will be the timely, thoughtful, and comprehensive review of all key data metrics, including the uniqueness of each program engaged in program viability review. Individuals also have long-held attachments to programs in which students no longer enroll or complete, and the discontinuation of these programs will need to be managed by the leadership in each unit. Communication about this process will need to be consistent; an effective communication plan to inform the College community about the review process is scheduled for the coming academic year.
PROGRAM VIABILITY REVIEW METRICS
The committee has identified three key metrics: 1) quantitative metrics, 2) qualitative metrics, and 3) key questions that address the unique characteristics of a given program to determine viability. Dickeson (2010), Eckel (2003), and Makel (2017) all identify these metrics as the essential factors of consideration for academic programming.
1. Key Quantitative Metrics:
- enrollment trends
- graduation and transfer numbers
- fall-to-fall retention numbers
- economic and employment projections
- program costs
- program articulations to four-year institutions
2. Key Qualitative Metrics:
- connectivity to Montgomery College mission
- program-specific accreditation
- signature programs and program uniqueness
- community needs and contribution to the local industry
- impact on student financial aid
3. Key Questions:
- What is the program design for transferability?
- How have program assessment results been used to improve the performance of this program?
- What retention strategies have been employed to help students succeed in this program?
- What marketing efforts have been effective?
What are the critical connections of this program to other programs and / or courses offered? - What are the unique features of this program? Are there any legislative implications to this program? Is this program the only one in the state?
- How does this program align with Montgomery College’s mission?
- What are the implication for existing students, faculty, and resources in this program related to the viability review?
- What would be the impact of co-listing this program with non-credit offerings?
Other questions may be added depending on the individual program bring reviewed. Questions may be added by the College Area Review Committee, the program’s leadership (dean and chair), faculty, or the senior vice president for academic affairs. One-on-one meetings with faculty, chairs, and deans for each affected program will occur for additional clarification of process and expectations.
Additionally, the committee has defined mission centrality and signature programs at Montgomery College:
Mission Centrality: A program that is central to the mission of Montgomery College is one that responds to state, county, community, social, economic, and strategic needs. A mission-central program demonstrates the following characteristics:
- designs its curriculum for degree completion, direct transfer, job advancement and/ or job preparedness
- meets state, national, and industry requirements
- reflects high standards of academic rigor
- possesses a relevant curriculum using innovative teaching and learning practices
- connects to or reinforces the core competencies as defined in the General Education program.
Signature Program: A signature program demonstrates the characteristics that define Montgomery College’s value and role in Montgomery County and Maryland:
- recognition of excellence through external awards and commendations
- significant direct transfer of students into four-year programs in local or state colleges and universities
- significant employment of graduates to meet local or statewide workforce demands
- Spring Review by CARC:
- College Area Review Committee recommends to the Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs that a program needs to complete a program viability review.
- Summer after review by CARC:
- Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs reviews the recommendations for viability review. The Office of the Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs informs the program of the need for viability review and provides instructions on how to proceed.
- Fall Semester After Review:
- Programs are given a report template and instructions to complete the program viability review and how to address the key metrics.
- Office of Academic Affairs will meet with the program to address questions and discuss the particulars of each program.
- Spring Semester Next Academic Year:
- Programs turn in their completed viability review to the CARC.
- CARC meets to review and give recommendations to SVPAA.
- SVPAA makes final decision before the end of spring semester.
PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES
For Fall 2017, the College has identified seven programs or certificates to participate in a program viability review process:
- Landscape Technology (AAS)
- Landscape Technology (certificate)
- American Sign Language (certificate)
- Advanced Interior Design (certificate)
- Design Industry Partnership (certificate)
- Introductory Interior Design (certificate)
- Women’s Studies Certificate (certificate)
After careful consideration of the key metrics, the College Area Review committee will recommend whether the program should continue, make modifications, or be discontinued. Options include maintaining the program, merging the program with another program, eliminating the program but maintaining the courses, co-listing courses as credit and non-credit course offerings, or eliminating the program as well as associated courses. The senior vice president of academic affairs will make the final decision.
Based upon institutional research data, all low-producing (low enrollments and awards) programs will participate in this program viability review process within the next three years on a schedule agreed upon by the senior vice president of academic affairs and with the input from the College Area Review Committee. This program prioritization will allow MC to determine which programs will best use College resources and create clearly defined pathways for student success and completion.
REFERENCES
Bailey, T.A.; Jaggars, S.S.; Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges, a Clearer Path to Student Success. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance. Jossey Boss, San Fransico.
Eckel, P. D. (2009). Changing Course: Making the Hard Decision to Eliminate Academic Programs. ACE Series on Higher Education. Roman & Littlefield Education. New York, New York.
Jenkins, D. & Woo Cho, S. (2014). Get with the Program...and Finish It: Building Guided Pathways to Accelerate Student Completion. CCRC Working Paper No. 66. CCRC Teacher College, Columbia University. New York.
Maki, P. L. (2017) Real-time Student Assessment: meeting the imperative for improved time to degree, closing the opportunity gap and assuring student competencies for 21st-century Needs. STYLUS, Sterling VA.