October 3, 1997

MEMORANDUM

TO: Academic Deans

FROM: Kenneth L. Watters
Provost and Vice Chancellor

RE: Program Reports for the Program Array Review

This past May, the Faculty Senate approved the enclosed Program Array Review process as developed and proposed by the faculty Academic Planning and Budget Committee. In so doing, the Faculty Senate has taken a major step in implementing UWM’s strategic plan “. . . to firmly establish UWM as one of the nation’s premier urban research universities within the next decade and thereby increase the value of a UWM degree and increase the university’s value to Milwaukee and Wisconsin.” Both the chancellor’s strategic plan for the campus and the provost’s implementation plan, “Planning for the Year 2000”, identify an institutional review and adjusting of the program array as integral to UWM’s maintenance of high quality and ability to continue to meet the needs of students.

The enclosed Faculty Document #2084 provides the full text of the Program Array Review process. That document specifies that the Provost initiate the review process with UWM’s academic departments. In keeping with the faculty-approved process, I am asking the academic deans to distribute these guidelines along with the relevant program array data prepared by Institutional Research to program directors and department chairs as appropriate, and to collect and transmit to me their unit’s program reports addressing the following points and within the time frame noted below.

A. Unit of analysis: Faculty Document #2084 states: “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.” Attached is a list of programs for which reports are expected. The dean of each school and college will work with department chairs and program coordinators to assign responsibility for the program reports. Schools/colleges and/or departments may choose to prepare reports on areas of concentration/specialization or certificate programs not listed.

B. Quantitative and qualitative program information to support the analysis: The program analysis report will be based on two sets of indicators defined in Faculty Document 2084:

1. “Initial quantitative information provided to departments in aggregate and on an FTE averaged basis.” Institutional Research has prepared reports of these indicators as defined in Section III.A. of Faculty Document 2084. Because institutional data are maintained by UDDS codes, the academic department is the smallest unit of analysis available for these institution-wide reports. Programs should be able to provide some data specific to the program level - the number of degrees awarded and the number of faculty within their program, for example - while other program array data may not be possible to disaggregate from the department to the program level. In their analysis and reports, programs should describe as specifically as possible the program’s contribution to the departmental data. Each dean will receive two sets of reports from Institutional Research. One set will be utilized to provide each department with its data report. The other set will be maintained by the deans’ offices for reference purposes. Two complete data sets will also be on reserve in the Golda Meir Library.
2. “Other information to be included in the departmental analysis of its programs.” Section III.B. of Faculty Document 2084 describes the indicators departments shall include in their program reports and analyses.

C. Content of the program report:

“Departments will do their analysis based on the FTE averaged information for the last three-year period. . .. 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.”

Each program will prepare a report, using the quantitative and other information described above, which addresses the program’s:

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. Contribution to the campus image.”

 

	Document size:	5 pages single spaced and justified
			[The quantitative data sheets provided by 
			Institutional Research and the list of all other 
			specific information requested under III.B. should 
			be attached to each report in the order requested.
			This information will not count toward the 5-page
			limit.]
	Type size:	12 point, preferably in New Times Roman or CG Times
	Margins:	Left 1"; Right 1", Top .75", Bottom .75"
	Page Numbering:	Bottom Center
	Header:		Right Top, all pages, Specify Dept./Program

	Major Headings:	Bold with a space left before each major heading