Academic Master Plan 2016-2021

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW IS an important tool at most institutions of higher education, used for internal self-evaluation and assessment, to address academic quality, and to document continuous improvements to our external accreditors and stakeholders. Further, this process informs decision-making by setting academic priorities and aligning resources to institutional mission and goals. Academic Program Review at Montgomery College builds upon our current College Area Review (CAR) process for academic areas.

Montgomery College’s CAR process has been used since 2003 to review academic areas and, since 2007, to assess administrative and student affairs units. Academic areas, including all disciplines, credit programs, special programs (credit and non-credit), and learning centers have participated in past reviews. Provosts, deans, chairs, and faculty workgroups have actively engaged in this systematic, comprehensive, and cyclical process to ensure that our programs are meeting students’ educational goals. In addition, CAR recommendations are used to inform Perkins grant funding for our CTE programs.

Building upon the current review process, the new Academic Program Review model will examine a program or discipline within the context of the college’s current goals, priorities, and resources. More importantly, the revised process will contain components used to guide the development of new programs and recommendations for continuance or discontinuance of existing programs.

Successful Academic Program Review often begins with collaborative, institutional decisions about criteria for evaluation and ranking of those criteria. Based on the Dickeson (2010) model, the following criteria are often considered for inclusion:

• History, development, and expectations of the program
• Alignment with college mission, goals, or institutional values
• Impact, justification, and overall relevance of the program
• Quality of program inputs and processes
• Quality of program outcomes
• Size, scope, and productivity of the program
• External and internal demand for the program
• Revenue and other resources generated by the program
• Costs and other expenses associated with the program

Once criteria are established and described or quantified, a revised process will be developed that builds upon the existing Academic Program Review process, including the following:

• An Academic Program Review committee with representational membership to prepare reports, review results, and make recommendations to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs;
• Management of the program review through the Office of Assessment using materials based on existing Academic Program Review forms;
• A timeline for periodic review that is based on the current 5-year review cycle for academic programs and that includes a mechanism for early review in response to changes in the academic environment;
• A rubric that identifies whether a program is viable, needs revision or improvement, or should be considered for elimination; and
• Training in the process for all involved.

While objective assessment of programs can be difficult, the Academic Affairs division’s goals and objectives demand that we prioritize resources and focus on results.

Strategy 1: Establish a task group to collect feedback and propose an Academic Program Review Process by December 2016 for implementation the following academic year, 2017.
Strategy 2: Immediately implement an “early alert” system for programs that will likely face scrutiny as a result of Academic Program Review.
Strategy 3: Implement a training program for faculty and academic leaders—chairs, deans, and VP/Ps—to create a common understanding of the purpose and goals of Academic Program Review.