the academic program prioritization process september 2012-may 2013

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 missionMSU-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 VisionMontana 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 master’s degrees], 15 currently have ten majors or less. This ratio is not sustainable in the long term . . “

Chancellor LimbaughCharge 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

1. Centrality (advancement of MSUN mission, vision, core themes)

2. Productivity (SCH, degrees granted, time-to-degree)

3. Demand-external (market demand, economic/social trends, stakeholder partnerships)

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 CouncilSeptember 10, 2012

2. 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. Provost’s Recommendations

9. Chancellor’s Decisions: May 2013

10. 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