PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

Open ForumOctober 10, 2012

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• Committee Introduction• Overview of process

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

Institutional Comparisons within UNC:• NCSU• UNC-G• ECU

Regional Comprehensive comparison:• Sacramento State University

Timeframe

• Mid November– complete background research– develop criteria and finalize process– submit information requests to departments,

Institutional Planning and Effectiveness

• Late November/early December– Forum (Criteria)

Timeframe• Mid February– Departmental profiles assembled from IPE data

and departmental reports

• Mid to late February– Forum (mid-point forum / departmental data)

• Late February– Programs complete examination of profiles– submit corrections or additional data to be

considered in review

Timeframe• Early April– Task Force completes review and publishes report

• Early to mid April– two Forums (feedback / questions)

• Mid to late April– Programs submit responses, requests for revisions

• Early May– Final report with recommendations submitted to the

Chancellor

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• Criteria – a preliminary discussion

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• Success• Concerns• Hurdles

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• What will we define as success of this task force?

• Faculty buy-in / support – the sense that this was a fair and organized

process, based on objective, quantitative data

• University to be healthier, more effective at meeting our mission, distinguish from other institutions

• Programs take this time to be reflective formative and summative

What will we define as success of this task force?

• Programs of excellence be identified that make WCU more distinctive

• Change WCU’s image in the state

• Align our resources with the strategic plan

• Be proactive with a set of priorities

What will we define as success of this task force?

• Clear communication: – Articulate reasons and justifications– Forums, website, visual / weekly email flash with links– Faculty / Staff Senate meetings / newsletter – Communication via Department Heads– Redundancy is good.

• Clearly articulate the role of finance / budget in the process. – martial our resources to maximize student success (One of

the reasons the QEP has been successful is because individuals agree this makes our students successful).

– This can set us up for the comprehensive campaign coming in the future

What will we define as success of this task force?

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• What concerns do we have about this process?

What concerns do we have about this process?

• WCU community - We are a small community and our decisions will impact our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues.

• Timing - what are the intersections of general education review and program prioritization?

• Tension between strategic priorities and quality of program

• Credibility and fairness– The process must be credible. Must avoid any

perception that something was a done deal.– It must be clear we are not replicating the previous

process. Some previous data can feed into it, but it is a new process.

– Perception that central data is not reliable undermines the credibility of the process… We have to sort out artifacts we can control.

– This process is a way to make this a better institution for our students (current and future), not just about the bottom line.

What concerns do we have about this process?

PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

• What hurdles do we need to overcome?

What hurdles do we need to overcome?• Faculty culture

– A faculty culture that protects itself and colleagues, preservation of the status quo

– Generalizations about faculty culture. We have a lot of positive aspects to our faculty; we must not buy into ideas that we are a certain kind of culture that is unilateral.

• The last program prioritization process

• A perception or push toward democracy or equality in resources

• Data issues – we need a more objective comprehensive data base.

• Timeframe

http://www.wcu.edu/31453.asp

Feedback / question submission coming soon.