4.1. The
program review process will provide for a review and evaluation of all programs
leading to a certificate or degree at the institution. The institutional
governing board will constitute a committee or committees to review appropriate
programs during a given year. The institution will draft, in accord with the
appropriate governing boards' guidelines, a self-study. The governing board
will report to the Chancellor, by May 31, the results of the program reviews
conducted each academic year. The Council for Community and Technical College
Education, through its staff or other appropriate entities, shall review
annually the program review actions reported by each institution. The Council
may modify any institutional action consistent with its authority for review of
academic programs.
4.1.1. Program Review by
the Institutional Board of Governors - The purpose of the appropriate Board
review, conducted on a regular five-year cycle, will be to conduct an in-depth
evaluation of the viability of, adequacy of, necessity for each academic
program, consistent with the mission of the institution. Comprehensive
institutional self-studies conducted in compliance with accreditation or
institutional processes and completed within the previous 60 months may be used
to provide the base line data for the review, with any necessary updating of
factual information or interim reports to the accrediting body.
Programs that are accredited by specialized accrediting or
approving agencies (for disciplines for which such agencies exist) recognized
by the Federal Government and/or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation
shall be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the review process
with respect to adequacy. For programs so accredited or approved, institutions
shall submit: the comprehensive institutional self-study conducted in
compliance with the accreditation or approval process, a copy of the letter
containing the conferral of accreditation or approval and a documented
statement from the chief academic officer regarding program consistency with
mission, viability and necessity. In preparing the institutional self-study,
each institution will utilize a collaborative process which includes faculty,
students and administrators.
4.1.2. Program Review by the Council - The
Council has the responsibility for review of academic programs including the
use of institutional missions as a template to assess the appropriateness of
existing programs and the authority to implement needed changes. The reports on
actions resulting from program review at each institution shall be reviewed by
the staff of the Council. The review will focus on the appropriateness of the
institutional action, particularly as the actions relate to adequacy,
viability, necessity and consistency with institutional mission for each
program. The Council staff may request a copy of the self-study or other
supporting materials, if deemed essential. If the Council staff concludes that
the institutional program review action should be modified, the staff shall
consult with the president or designee to reach consensus on the appropriate
steps. Should a consensus and agreement not be reached, the matter would be
referred to the Council for resolution.
4.1.3. Institutional personnel, external
consultants, and the staff of the appropriate Board of Governors will be
involved in establishing the criteria, standards, and process of evaluation,
and in interpreting the information resulting from the review. It is the
responsibility of the institution to assure that the program review process is
carried out objectively and that persons external to the academic unit in which
the program is housed and/or external to the institution participate in the
review. To ensure that each program is reviewed at least once every five years,
consistent with statutory requirements, the appropriate Board of Governors will
select approximately 20 percent of all programs for review each year. For each
program identified for review, the institution will develop a self-study
statement addressing the following items.
4.1.3.1. Viability - Viability is tested by
an analysis of unit cost factors, sustaining a critical mass, and relative
productivity. Based upon past trends in enrollment, patterns of graduates, and
the best predictive data available, the institution shall assess the program's
past ability and future prospects to attract students and sustain a viable,
cost-effective program.
4.1.3.2.
Adequacy - The institution shall assess the quality of the program. A valuable
(but not the sole) criterion for determining the program's adequacy is
accreditation by a specialized accrediting or approving agency recognized by
the Federal Government or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The
institution shall evaluate the preparation and performance of faculty and
students, and the adequacy of facilities.
4.1.3.3. Necessity - The dimensions of
necessity include whether the program is necessary for the institution's
service region, and whether the program is needed by society (as indicated by
current employment opportunities, evidence of future need, rate of placement of
the programs' graduates). Whether the needs of West Virginia justify the
duplication of programs in several geographic service regions shall also be
addressed.
4.1.3.4. Consistency
With Mission - The program shall be a component of, and appropriately
contribute to, the fulfillment of the institutional and system missions. The
review should indicate the centrality of the program to the institution,
explain how the program complements other programs offered, and state how the
program draws upon or supports other programs. Both institutional aspects of
the program should be addressed. The effects (positive or negative) that
discontinuance of the program might have upon the institution's ability to
accomplish its mission should be stated.
4.1.4. Special Program Review - Either the
Council or the appropriate Board of Governors may request at any time that
special program reviews be conducted for a given purpose. Formal strategies for
conducting such reviews will be developed, consistent with the purpose of the
review.