I. Goals of Academic Program Array Review

The overall guiding objective of Academic Program Array Review is the same as that offered in Senate Document 2028, Long Range Strategic Planning for UWM from the Faculty Perspective.

UWM is at its core a community of faculty, staff and students engaged in learning, discovery, and creative expression. For the sake of generations of our students to come, for our immediate neighbors in metropolitan Milwaukee, for the state of Wisconsin, and for our world as it ventures into the twenty-first century, we, the faculty, aspire to excellence and eminence as teacher-scholars. Our goal is to join the ranks of the best universities in the United States by the year 2010.

In this context, it is necessary that we as faculty examine our program array because it is the fundamental academic structure of the university which must support our efforts to achieve our basic goal of academic excellence.

The FAPBC has met extensively since September, 1996 to address a component of the Campus Strategic Plan falling under the heading of Strategic Priorities, 3, Stabilization of Enrollments and Resources, and its tactic, to adjust the academic program array to maintain high quality and to meet the needs of students. To address this tactic, the Provost's Preliminary Strategic Implementation Plan describes the following action step to help achieve this goal (FAPBC parentheses added):

Based on the review and advice of the Academic Planning and Budget Committee, the campus will review and modify its program array to ensure (high quality) and effective utilization of resources (to meet the needs of students).

II. Definition of academic programs

For the purposes of this review, programs refer to degrees, certificates, and identifiable areas of concentration offered by departments or groups of departments or which such units want to offer in the future.

III. Description of information to be gathered from departments about existing and proposed programs

The Provost will initiate the review process by calling on departments to examine their programs in the context of the criteria described below in this document. The review will be based on information about the status of existing programs as well as input on the need for other new programs. Initially, departments will be provided with quantitative information (section A below) on the preformance of their programs that is available through Institutional Research. This information will also be given to deans for review of its accuracy.

Departments will then be asked to analyze such information in relationship to their present and proposed program array. In so doing departments will include other information in their program analyses as described below (Section B below). Particular issues that need to be addressed include (i) academic quality and activity, (ii) relationship to the academic core of the university, (iii) importance to school/college goals (iv) relationship to and support of

other programs at the university, (v) centrality to the campus mission and strategic plan. (vi) fiscal viability, and (vii) campus image. Naturally, discussion related to these and perhaps other areas will have qualitative as well as quantitative facets. Departments may refer to past program reviews that have been carried out by the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee and the Graduate Faculty Council's Committee on Reviews.

1. Initial quantitative information provided to departments in aggregate and on an FTE averaged basis
Measures of Instructional Activity
1. Number of majors
1. Undergraduate


2. Masters


3. Doctoral
2. Number of undergraduate minors
3. Number of students in certificate programs
4. Number of degrees granted
1. Undergraduate
2. Masters


3. Doctoral


5. Number of student credit hours conveyed


1. Undergraduate
2. Masters
3. Doctoral



Measures of Scholarly Funding Activity: Total, and in relation to academic programs by considering how this funding contribute to the programs defined above, including description of the proportion of grants, contracts, and fellowships that support students in various ways?

1. Grants and Contracts Proposals (dollar amount and number of them in three categories: 0-$10,000, $10,000-$50,000, $50,000-and larger)


1. Grants


2. Contracts


2. Grants and Contracts Awarded (dollar amount and number of them in three categories: 0-$10,000, $10,000-$50,000, $50,000-and larger)


1. Grants


2. Contracts


3. Fellowships Proposals (dollar amount and number of them in three categories: 0-$10,000, $10,000-$50,000, $50,000-and larger)


4. Fellowships Awarded (dollar amount and number of them in three categories: 0-$10,000, $10,000-$50,000, $50,000-and larger)



Summary of Department Revenues:

1. Departmental Revenues
1. Tuition revenues from student credit hours delivered by the department (defined by curricular code). Other credits from interdisciplinary courses will go the the home department of the instructor. Total instructional staff (101-2 coding) will be used in the calculation of average tuition revenue per FTE instructor.


2. Revenues from grants, contracts, fellowships, gifts, and other programs. Total ranked faculty and research academic staff will be included in the calculation of revenues per FTE researcher. Funds received by non-departmental units such as centers will be credited to the home department of the principal investigator or responsible staff member. Total indirect costs will be included in revenues.


2. Departmental Expenditures based on University Budget
1. Personnel costs (academic and support staff)


2. Departmental budget S&E
3. Capital costs (equipment/instrumentation)


2. Other information to be included in the departmental analysis of its programs

Other indicators of instructional activity

1. Measures of selectivity of admissions: applicants/acceptances in programs.
2. Methods of admission for programs: are there premajor requirements, admission's tests, auditions, etc?
3. Professional accreditation
4. National ranking, if available, of program
5. Student outcome assessment, including placement, particularly placement of graduate students (number)
6. Significant scholarly contributions by students within the department (such as research awards)



Measures of Faculty Activity:

1. Monographs Published
1. Author


2. Editor


3. Compiler


2. Chapters, Articles, Essays within a Published Monograph
3. Journal Articles Published
1. Refereed
2. Non-refereed


4. Creative Expression: Portfolios, juried presentations, recordings and performances (for Fine Arts faculty)
5. Presentations of Scholarly Work


1. National/international conference


2. Local/regional conference


3. Invited lecture/address


4. Conference/session organizer


6. Professional Service
1. Journal editor
2. Journal editorial board member
3. Journal/conference referee
4. Book reviewer
5. Grant/contract referee
6. Offices/committee assignments
7. Consultant


7. Community Service
1. Workshop


2. National/local committees/task force


3. Consultant


4. Community boards/media/etc.


8. University Service
1. College committees (Chair, member)


2. University committees (Chair, member)


9. Distinguished appointments (such as to boards of directors of businesses or non-profit organizations, government advisory boards, academic association officers, etc.)
10. Research, Teaching, and Service awards, recognition and honors
11. Innovations, patents, etc.


3. Details of program array survey

Initial quantitative data for each program in aggregate and averaged per FTE will be provided to departments for the last seven year period. Departments will do their analysis based on the FTE averaged information for the last three-year period using a prescribed format. For this initial program array review analysis, departments should provide a 7 year historical perspective on key changes that have occurred in their programs which have affected performance indicators. The detailed source documents for the information provided in the

analyses must be kept within the department for three years. A 5 page limit will be set for all information submitted by each department for each of its programs. This information will be requested by the Provost and will be given to a joint committee of faculty comprised of FAPBC, APCC, and GFC members for Analysis and recommendations. The Chair of FAPBC will organize and chair the ad hoc committee. Deans including the Graduate School Dean will also be asked for comment at this time about programs under their purview. Their responses will be forwarded to the joint committee as part of the input to be considered in program array review.

It is anticipated that program array reviews will take place every 5 years.

IV. Analysis of review information

Review information will be gathered from each department by the Provost and turned over to the joint ad hoc faculty committee for analysis and recommendations. The committee will be guided by the main objective of the UWM Strategic Plan "to firmly establish UWM as one of the nation's premier urban research universities within the next decade."

The committee will examine all of the documents provided and group programs into 2 categories (i) continue as is and (ii) needs further attention.

The following general review procedures and criteria will be used to examine the existing and proposed programs of the university in terms of their contribution to the overall program array:

1. An array overview based on existing and proposed programs will be done to determine the array that best fits UWM's goal to become a premier urban research university.


2. The program array will be reviewed separately at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels.


3. Programs will be grouped for review by general area: sciences and engineering, humanities and fine arts, social sciences. The professions may be examined as a group or dispersed among the other groups where common content or other program features exist.


4. Evaluations will include the contributions of individual programs to the program array such as:


1. Academic quality and activity


2. Relationship to the academic core of the university


3. Importance to school/college goals


4. Relationship to and support of other programs at the university


5. Centrality to the campus mission and strategic plan


6. Fiscal viability


7. Campus image.


5. The following principles/tactic found in Senate Document 2028 will provide guidance in the analysis (numbers in parentheses indicate priority on a 1 (highest) to 5 basis (only the ones from the document that are applicable are listed):
1. Resources
Principles:
• To deal creatively with budgetary constriction
• (2)Identify and maintain the appropriate size of the undergraduate and graduate student body required to support a comprehensive program array.


• (2) Support activities and hiring which markedly increase extramural funding.


• (2) Investigate sharing resources, merging programs, departments, schools, and colleges in order to more effectively utilize resources.


6. Discovery and creative expression by faculty, undergraduates, and graduate students
Principles:
• To elevate UWM's standing to the upper half of Research II universities in the U.S. as determined by the Carnegie Commission


• To strengthen the expectation and value of campus scholarship and creative expression


• Strategies:
  • (1) Introduce undergraduates to and organize undergraduate instruction around a paradigm of discovery, including undergraduate research and creative activity.
  
  
  • (2) Sustain and increase the number of doctoral programs and degrees and the number of faculty involved in doctoral education. Critically assess doctoral programs for viability.
  
  
  • (2) Provide expanded support for masters degree programs and students. Link resources to critical assessment of programs.
  
  
  • (2) Expect all faculty to be active scholars and where possible to seek extramural support.
  
  
  • (3) Focus resources on areas of excellence (a) (3) Hire scholars and gather them into areas of excellence with an initial emphasis on areas which have the demonstrated potential to generate extramural funding. (b) (3) Review departmental structures to strengthen and focus core disciplines and stimulate inter-disciplinary coordination and cooperation within and across campus units.


7. The learning experience for undergraduate and graduate students
Principles:
• To enhance the quality of the undergraduate student body


• To improve the quality of instruction


• To promote diversity in the undergraduate and graduate experience

Strategies:
• (1) Expect all faculty to be active in improving the quality of their instruction and, where possible, seek extramural support for instruction


• (1) Enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience. (b) (2) Expand undergraduate research and scholarly opportunities. (c) (3) Support innovative teaching. (d) (1) Integrate all freshman and other new students into UWM through a variety of activities which focus on increased contact with faculty and produce a greater sense of student community.


• (1)Enhance the quality of the graduate experience. (c) (3) Support innovative teaching.


• (2)Hire faculty committed to integrated teaching and research.


• (2)Require all units to regularly review their curricula in terms of (i) emerging trends in their disciplines, (ii) opportunities for cross unit adjustments to match available resources.


• (3)Hire enough faculty to maintain the undergraduate and graduate instructional programs of each unit.


8. Not applicable
9. UWM and the larger community
Principles:
• To bring UWM's public image into synchrony with with its position as a major, Research II University


• To enhance the recognition of UWM within the state and across the nation as a major university particularly concerned with the prinicipal frontiers related to knowledge of industrialized, urban society

Strategies:
• (2) Provide intellectual leadership to address metropolitan issues by fostering interdisciplinary research on urban problems.


• (4)Encourage scholarship with a direct benefit to the citizens, economy, and quality of life of southeastern Wisconsin.

The Committee will create its own procedures to accomplish the details of the analysis of submitted documents.

Once a program is marked for further attention, the administering department(s) will be contacted and asked to respond to the categorization that a given program needs further attention either because it is promising in the eyes of the Committee or because it has a weak record of performance. These responses will be reviewed by the Committee prior to sending the Provost a final list of programs in need of further attention.

V. Consequences of the review process

The Provost will report all programs designated in need of further attention either to the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee (undergraduate programs) or the Committee on Reviews (graduate programs) for advice on actions to be taken. As part of this process, Deans overseeing the designated programs will be asked for their recommendations. These committees will examine each program in depth comparable to individual program reviews and will then provide the Provost with recommendations to "strengthen, maintain, consolidate, reorganize, or phase out" an individual program (language of the current APCC Guidelines for Audit and Review of Undergraduate Programs)." After the program array review and analysis are complete as descibed above, the review committee, APCC, and COR will transmit their findings and recommendations to the Provost.

Once the review and recommendations on programs are complete, The Provost and Deans, seeking input from appropriate unit planning and curriculum committees, will respond to the program array review results in their resource and long- range plans. It is anticipated that the FAPBC will be involved at every step of the process and can return to the Senate at any point for further input as needed. FAPBC will issue its own report on the quality and results of these program reviews.

The momentum of strategic planning should revitalize existing programs and encourage new program development. Therefore, to invigorate the program array review, the campus will allocate a fund of not less than $1,000,000 in 1998-99 for the programs identified by the program array review for strengthening, and for new programs identified for development.

UWM has an ongoing process of review of individual programs conducted by APCC and the COR. The program array review is not designed to substitute for the individual program reviews. Rather it provides an opportunity to evaluate the overall program array and make strategic decisions about development. These individual program reviews will continue as they have in the past. Once the program array review is completed, the APCC and COR will have comparable data available on all the programs on campus, which they may use as appropriate in the individual reviews. The FAPBC will evaluate the review process in 1998-99. If it is deemed successful, it will determine whether to recommend repetition in 5 to 10 years.

The final document on the methodology of the program array review will have been accepted by the Provost, the Deans Council, and the Faculty Senate.

VI. Letter from the Vice Chancellor on Program Array Review from the Administration's perspective