Topic: How is academic program performance improvement monitored by WSU?
Challenge/Opportunity: Improving academic programs’ performance (quality, cost, efficiency) must be responsive to budget realities and the Drive to 25.
- Recent revision of Executive Policy 29 assigns responsibility for academic program review to the academic dean; for the conduct of departmental assessments to the chair; for the conduct of specialized accreditation reviewsto the colleges.
- New metrics that align with Drive to 25 form part of deans’ review of departments and provost’s review of deans.
- Since 2009, the graduate program review process has involved a three-year cycle in which masters-only programs are reviewed by the Graduate School separately from programs offering doctorates and masters/doctoral degrees combined.
- The Graduate School has revised its review process for graduate programs and is implementing a more sustainable cycle of 3-7 years. The next round of doctoral program reviews is planned for Spring 2018.
Current/Future emphasis or next steps:
- The Office of the Provost is developing a decision-support tool to assist colleges and departments with optimizing instructional budgets. It is scheduled to go live in 2018.
- Graduate program review will now incorporate the use of a self-study, giving programs structured space for reflection and feedback to enhance data-driven decision making for improvement.
- The purposes of the Graduate Mentor Academy are being reconsidered, refined and enhanced, such that graduate programs may be able to request Graduate Mentor Academy members to serve as external reviewers in future review processes.
For more information:
NWCCU standards reference: 3.B.2, 4.A.2