Report of the Planning Committee
to University Council
April 19, 2001
Item for Information
Systematic Program Review 1999-2000 recommendations.
The Planning Committee’s report on its review of the 1999-2000 recommendations
from Systematic Program Review is attached as Appendix One.
Items for Action
1. College of Arts and Science – new program in Classical, Mediaeval and
Renaissance Studies.
The Planning Committee recommends that Council approve the following motion:
That the program in Classical, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, as described in
Appendix Two, be approved.
2. College of Arts and Science – Double Honours in Physics and Another Subject.
The Planning Committee recommends that Council approve the following motion:
That the program in Double Honours in Physics and Another Subject, as described
in Appendix Three, be approved.
3. Program Termination Procedure
The development of a procedure for Program Termination was approved by
Council in A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan (March, 1998)
and in the Systematic Program Review policy and procedures (February, 1999).
Attached as Appendix Four is a report recommending a Program Termination
Procedure for the University of Saskatchewan. This procedure was developed by a
subcommittee and discussed with the Dean’s Council, the Academic Programs Committee,
the Budget Committee and the Research Committee, whose comments were incorporated.
The suggested procedure requires that proposals for program termination originate
only through recognized university authorities, and provides for an orderly examination of
these proposals.
The Planning Committee recommends approval of the following motion:
That Council approve the Program Termination Procedure as described in
Appendix Four. This procedure requires:
1. Programs are to be considered for termination based only on recommendations
from Colleges, from the President, or from outcomes of the Systematic Program
Review process (Category C programs whose action plans are not approved, and
Category D programs), and
2. The Planning Committee is to receive advice from the Program Termination
Subcommittee, as described in this policy, before it makes recommendations about
terminations to Council.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Committee,
_______________________________________
Jene Porter, Chair
Committee members:
R.P. MacKinnon, President
M. Atkinson, Vice-President (Academic)
A.J. Whitworth, Vice-President (Finance and Administration)
M. Corcoran, Vice-President (Research)
J. Wallace (USSU academic vice-president)
N. Hipkin (GSA president)
R. Thompson (Sessional Lecturer)
R.E. Bilson
L. Ferguson
S. Fowler-Kerry
D. Harris
G. Khachatourians
F. Leighton
P. Li
W.W.E. Slights
E.B. Waygood
B.L. Dubray, University Studies Group
P.M. Melis, Office of the Vice-President (Academic)
C. Fornssler, Committee Coordinator, Office of the University Secretary
Planning Committee
April 19, 2001
Appendix One:
Planning Committee Report to Council
on 1999-2000 Systematic Program Review Recommendations
April 19, 2001
Background on Systematic Program Review
One of the purposes of Systematic Program Review is to identify those academic programs
at the University of Saskatchewan which require improvement, and to determine what
improvements should be made. SPR demonstrates accountability for programs, provides
information to assist in decision-making and resource allocations, and identifies outstanding
programs.
The SPR policy and procedures, which were approved by Council in 1999, require that
each program be given a letter grade of A, B, C or D by the reviewers. The Vice-President
Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research then evaluate the reviewers’ findings
and either agree or disagree with the evaluations. Finally, the Planning Committee determines
whether it agrees or disagrees with the evaluations
SPR envisaged the following outcomes for program review (section XIII):
Category A: Commitment to at least sustain the program at the existing levels and provide
additional resources where justified. Examples of justified additional resources might
include resources to serve more students; to develop interdisciplinary initiatives; to
enhance significantly student experience in the program; to enhance a national and
international reputation in the discipline.
Category B: Commitment to sustain the program at approximately the current level and to
consider additional resource needs in the context of regular university resource allocation
processes.
Category C: Requirement for development of a concrete and realistic action plan by the
unit/College to address deficiencies within an identifiable time frame.
Possible outcomes include:
Commitment of College/university to provide essential additional resources to remedy
deficiencies.
Consideration of potential for reallocation of resources.
Consideration of phasing out or consolidating subspecialties within a unit or between
units.
Consideration of an early date for subsequent review.
Category D: Requirement to consider initiation of approved Council procedures for
program termination.
SPR also indicates that other specific outcomes can include, for Council, the identification
of programs as areas of potential institutional priority; identification of programs for possible
discontinuation; preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on
the next year’s operating budget; and preparation of recommendations to the President and the
Board of Governors on the next year’s capital budget.
1999-2000 reviews
In 1999-2000, the Systematic Program Review process reviewed 29 programs from five
different colleges, including all of the degree programs in the College of Agriculture, all of the
degree programs in the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, the graduate program in Toxicology,
the graduate programs in Educational Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, and the
Master of Business Administration program.
These programs underwent an extensive and detailed review by the external reviewers,
who included faculty from other universities as well as from other colleges at the University of
Saskatchewan. These reviews, and the responses from the departments and/or from the deans,
were submitted to the office of the Vice-President Academic in June and July, 2000.
The Planning Committee received the review material and the evaluations of the VicePresident Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research on February 7, 2001 (see
Attachment I). The Committee discussed these evaluations at its meetings over the next eight
weeks.
The Committee agreed that it would not re-evaluate the programs themselves. Rather, the
Committee determined that its role was to consider the overall planning implications for the
university arising from the reviews and to consider any areas where viewpoints conflicted.
All of the category recommendations from the external reviewers were confirmed by the
Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. During its review, the
Planning Committee found no reason to disagree with these evaluations. For each of the programs,
the Committee concurred with the evaluation of the Vice President Academic and the Dean of
Graduate Studies and Research.
The Committee concluded that three types of problems were established by these reviews –
faculty shortages, requirements for structural changes in programs, and need for other resources.
First, the reviewers noted a significant need for more faculty resources. This need was
noted in 21 of the 29 reviews, including two of the four A-rated programs, eight of the 11 B-rated
programs, and 11 of the 14 C-rated programs.
Second, several programs had unresolved structural curriculum problems, such as areas of
content or focus in courses. In some cases, reviewers felt these structural problems could be
resolved by existing faculty; in other cases, reviewers felt additional faculty would be needed
before curricula could be revised.
Third, the reviewers occasionally indicated areas where other resources were needed, such
as more technical staff.
Conclusion
Council should be aware that the external reviewers, with only a few exceptions,
praised the commitment in time and effort of the faculty and praised the quality of faculty in
even the "C" programs. We share the opinion of the external reviewers that the faculty
members in these programs are outstanding in their dedication to students and to program
quality.
ATTACHMENT I:
Systematic Program Review
Vice-President Academic and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research Recommendations on
Outcome Categories for Systematic Program Review 1999-2000
Agriculture
A
BSA in Ag Economics
A
Grad in Ag Economics
B
BSA in Agricultural Biology
C
BSA in Agricultural Chemistry
B
BSA in Agronomy
B
BSA in Animal Science
B
Grad in Animal Science
C
BSA in Applied Microbiology
C
Grad in Applied Microbiology
B
BSA in Crop Science
B
Grad in Crop Science
C
BSA in Environmental Science
C
BSA in Food Science
C
BSc in Food Science
C
Grad in Food Science
C
BSA in Horticulture Science
C
Grad in Horticulture Science
B
BSA in Plant Ecology/Rangeland Resources
C
Grad in Plant Ecology
A
BSA in Soil Science
A
Grad in Soil Science
Graduate Studies and Research
B*
Grad in Toxicology
*if the Northern Ecosystems Toxicology Initiative programs are approved. NETI has been funded
as a Priority Determination area but the design of undergraduate and graduate programs is not yet
completed.
Education
C
Grad in Education of Exceptional Children
C
Grad in Educational Psychology
Pharmacy and Nutrition
B
BSc (Nutr) in Nutrition
B
Grad in Nutrition
B
BSP in Pharmacy
C
Grad in Pharmacy
Commerce
C
Master of Business Administration
Planning Committee
April 19, 2001
Appendix Four:
Program Termination Procedure
at the University of Saskatchewan
April 19, 2001
The Planning Committee of Council recommends approval of the following motion:
That Council approve the Program Termination Procedure as described below. This
procedure requires:
1. Programs are to be considered for termination based only on recommendations from
Colleges, from the President, or from outcomes of the Systematic Program Review process
(Category C programs whose action plans are not approved, and Category D programs),
and
2. The Planning Committee is to receive advice from the Program Termination
Subcommittee, as described in this policy, before it makes recommendations about
terminations to Council.
I. Introduction
The University of Saskatchewan has adopted a process for reviewing programs
(Systematic Program Review) and has undergone a process for identifying some of the
new programs which are deserving of resources (Priority Determination Process). A
systematic approach to decisions on the elimination of programs (Program Termination
Procedure) can now be developed.
II. Background
The University of Saskatchewan Act (1995) gives Council the following authority:
61 (1) (e) where it considers it appropriate on academic grounds, authorize the board to
provide for . . .
(ii) the disestablishment of any college, school, department, chair, endowed chair or
institute . . . [and]
(f) prescribe curricula, programs of instruction, and courses of study in colleges, schools or
departments.
The Board of Governors has the authority to:
49 (1) (l) provide for the disestablishment of any college, school, department, chair,
endowed chair or institute
(i) if authorized by the council on academic grounds; or
(ii) subject to subsections (2) and (3), if the board considers it necessary because of
financial exigency. [Subsections 2 and 3 require consultation with council on such a
decision.]
The need to develop a procedure which is perceived as fair and objective for
program termination at the University of Saskatchewan has been apparent for some time.
Occasionally, discussion has taken place about the kind of procedure that would be both
academically justifiable and effective, and would reflect the natural evolution of university
programs.
A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan (approved by
Council in 1998) identified a program termination procedure as one of three high priority
strategies to support the University's goals.
At the University of Saskatchewan there is a strong feeling that Deans, Department
Heads, and faculty members require guidelines that will assist them in
discontinuing programs for which demand is consistently low and in which the
quality of teaching, service or research has declined. Safeguards will be
necessary, and the interests of students and faculty must be given high priority, but
for the sake of its own commitment to academic quality, it is now necessary to
establish open and transparent means by which the University can systematically
withdraw resources from programs that can no longer contribute satisfactorily to
the mission of the institution.
By including a program termination procedure as one of the three major strategies,
the Planning Committee and Council acknowledged that the process of setting priorities
and re-allocating resources must begin.
III. Principles of the Program Termination Procedure
University Council has approved two documents which provide the basis for
establishing principles for program termination.
The Framework for Planning identifies three principles to guide decisions. These
are that the University of Saskatchewan:
must be autonomous
must be driven by considerations of quality
must be accountable.
A number of criteria are listed for program evaluation in A Framework for the
Evaluation of Academic Programs (1996). These criteria require that academic programs
should:
be of high quality
be in demand by students and the public
use resources efficiently
and the criteria state it is important to consider:
the unique features of a program
the relevance of the program to Saskatchewan
Also to be kept in mind are our commitment to fair and equitable access to our
programs, to equity, to environmental responsibility, and to an international perspective.
Based on these documents, the Planning Committee has developed the following
set of guidelines for the Program Termination procedure:
1. Fair and objective procedures will be used. The decision to delete a program should
be fair and objective. The procedure should be fair to faculty whose careers may be
affected; fair to students who may want to study in this area; fair to other programs which
may require courses in this area; fair in terms of the university’s obligations to the
province and the nation; objective in its evaluation of all aspects of the program; and
objective in its assessment of the academic value of the program to the institution. With
Systematic Program Review, the University now has an objective, arm’s-length process to
review programs.
2. Recommendations for deletions can be considered only if they originate from
recognized university authorities. Programs will be considered for termination only
when based on recommendations from colleges, from the President, and from outcomes of
the Systematic Program Review procedure (see the description of SPR assessment
categories in Attachment III.) We expect most termination proposals will come from
colleges or from Systematic Program Review, but we recognize that the President may
initiate a request for termination. All terminations, however originated, will follow the
same program termination procedure described below.
3. Programs are covered under the procedure. A program is a generally defined set of
courses to be taken by a student to obtain a specific academic outcome, such as a degree,
certificate, diploma, or other recognized qualification. A program generally covers a Field
of Specialization (for example, History, Agricultural Economics, Rural and Urban
Development, Nursing, etc) and may be offered at various Levels of Concentration
(minor, major, honours in undergraduate programs; thesis and non-thesis in graduate
programs).
The programs covered by the Program Termination procedure are those listed in
Systematic Program Review (see Attachment II). Termination of a Field of Specialization
requires review through the Program Termination procedure.
Termination of a Level of Concentration within a graduate or undergraduate program does
NOT require review through the Program Termination procedure. It would be handled
through the usual submission to the Academic Programs Committee.
Department and program mergers, and program replacements, are more problematic.
Some mergers are administrative only; other times a merger does result in the deletion of a
Field of Specialization. Some program replacements will delete a Field of Specialization,
and others will not.
The determination about whether a department merger or program replacement should be
reviewed by the Program Termination procedure will be made by the Planning Committee
when it reviews the proposal for such a change.
4. The procedure requires submission of the Report Form for Program Termination,
review by Program Termination Subcommittee, and approval by Council. The Report
Form (see Attachment I) will be completed for terminations. The Program Termination
Subcommittee will review the deletion request as described below, and will formulate a
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Committee. Issues concerning the
possible termination of a program would be discussed at Council on the basis of
recommendations forwarded by the Planning Committee.
IV. Program Termination Subcommittee
Membership
- two representatives from the Planning Committee, one of whom will chair the
Subcommittee
- representative from the Academic Programs Committee
- representative from the Budget Committee
- representative from the Research Committee
- exofficio representatives from the University Studies Group and the Office of the VicePresident Academic (non-voting).
Terms of reference
1. To review Notices of Intent and proposals from colleges for program terminations and
recommend to the Planning Committee whether the program should be deleted.
2. On referral from the Vice-President Academic of a Category D program from the
Systematic Program Review process, to review the referral and recommend to the Planning
Committee whether the program should be deleted.
3. On referral from the Vice-President Academic of a Category C program from the
Systematic Program Review process whose action plan was not approved by the VicePresident Academic, to review the referral and recommend to the Planning Committee
whether the program should be deleted.
4. On referral from the President of a program deletion, to review the referral and
recommend to the Planning Committee whether the program should be deleted.
Subcommittee process
1. The “Report Form for Program Termination” will form the basis of the documentation
forwarded to Council.
2. Keeping in mind the guidelines listed, the Subcommittee will consider the following
issues:
a) The academic value of this program to a major university.
b) The quality assessment achieved by this program in the Systematic Program
Review process.
c) The impact of termination on students and how they will be advised to complete
their programs, especially the impact on graduate students.
d) The impact of termination on faculty and staff, including the implications of
provisions of collective agreements.
e) The impact of termination on any ongoing research projects or the overall
research capacity and reputation of the university.
f) Any financial and/or resource impacts, including faculty, staff, physical facilities
and equipment, library resources, disposition and archiving of materials,
termination of trust funds, impact on development or alumni projects.
g) The impact of termination on other programs, departments or colleges, and in
particular whether related programs will be affected by this termination. Areas of
consideration would include: quality, demand, efficiency, unique features,
relevance to the province, whether this program is already available from another
college or department, whether course terminations will affect any other programs,
if there is any impact on internal or external partners in interdisciplinary programs,
and whether it is likely, or appropriate, that another department or college will
develop a program or courses to replace the ones deleted.
h) Any external impact from the termination (university reputation, accreditation,
other institutions, high schools, community organizations, professional
associations, etc.), including whether it is likely or appropriate that another
educational institution will offer this program if it is deleted at the University of
Saskatchewan.
i) And it may also be appropriate to consider the impact of the program
termination on areas such as extension and public service, education equity,
interdisciplinarity, the university mission and goals.
3. The Subcommittee will ensure that all relevant factors are considered, and that all
interested parties have had the opportunity to make written submissions to the
Subcommittee.
4. The Subcommittee will forward its recommendation to the Planning Committee. The
recommendation would include a synopsis of the subcommittee’s discussions and
conclusions.
ATTACHMENT I: Report Form for Program Termination
Report Form for Program Termination
Department:
College:
Program(s) to be deleted:
1. List reasons for program termination and describe the background leading to this
decision.
2. Technical information.
2.1
Courses offered in the program and faculty resources required for these courses.
2.2
Other resources (staff, technology, physical resources, etc) used for this program.
2.3
Courses to be deleted, if any.
2.4
Number of students presently enrolled.
2.5
Number of students enrolled and graduated over the last five years.
3. Impact of the termination.
Internal
3.1
What if any impact will this termination will have on students? How will they will
be advised to complete their program?
3.2
What impact will this termination have on faculty and teaching assignments?
3.3
Will this termination affect other programs, departments or colleges?
3.4
If courses are also to be deleted, will these deletions affect any other programs?
3.5
Is it likely, or appropriate, that another department or college will develop a
program to replace this one?
3.6
Is it likely, or appropriate, that another department or college will develop courses
to replace the ones deleted?
3.7
Describe any impact on research projects.
3.8
Will this deletion affect resource areas such as library resources, physical facilities,
and information technology?
External
3.9
Describe any external impact (e.g. university reputation, accreditation, other
institutions, high schools, community organizations, professional bodies).
3.10
Is it likely or appropriate that another educational institution will offer this program
if it is deleted at the University of Saskatchewan?
Other
3.11 Are there any other relevant impacts or considerations?
3.12
Please provide any statements or opinions received about this termination.
(Optional)
4. Additional information.
Programs which have not undergone Systematic Program Review should check the SelfStudy Guide for additional relevant information which could be provided about program
quality, demand, efficiency, unique features, and relevance to the province.
ATTACHMENT II: List of Programs in Systematic Program Review.
The following chart shows the schedule of programs to be reviewed under
Systematic Program Review. These are Fields of Specialization. Termination would
require review by the Program Termination Subcommittee, as described in the policy
document.
ATTACHMENT III: Categories of Assessment in Systematic Program Review (as
approved by Council 1999)
The following chart shows the categories of assessment that are awarded in the
Systematic Program Review process. Category D programs are to be considered for
termination. Category C programs are considered for termination if the Action Plan
developed by their college is not acceptable to the Vice-President Academic.
In their final report, the SPR Review Team is asked to identify the assessment
category which best describes the program(s) under review. Based on this guidance, the
Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research determine
which of the four categories best describes the program. The Planning Committee of
Council is then asked whether it concurs with the assessment of the Vice-President
Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. The Planning Committee
reports this information to Council and explains its reasons for any differences from the
initial assessment. Any actions resulting from these reviews (e.g. major revisions,
deletions) are subject to the normal approval processes of Council and its committees.
Category:
Category A:
The program is supported by evidence of
academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public
service sustained over a significant period of
time. It has achieved at least a national
reputation, and might be expected to develop
as a centre of excellence. Few, if any,
fundamental changes are required.
Such programs are typically characterized by
most of the following:
- distinguished faculty with a
national/international reputation for scholarly
work;
- an up-to-date curriculum;
- sound teaching practices;
- strong student demand;
- evidence of high student satisfaction with
their educational experience;
- routine use of evaluation procedures for all
aspects of the program’s objectives;
- justifiable program costs.
Category B:
The program is supported by evidence of
academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public
Result:
Commitment to at least sustain the program at
the existing levels and provide additional
resources where justified. Examples of
justified additional resources might include
resources to serve more students; to develop
interdisciplinary initiatives; to enhance
significantly student experience in the
program; to enhance a national and
international reputation in the discipline.
Commitment to sustain the program at
approximately the current level and to
consider additional resource needs in the
service sustained over a period of time but has
some weaknesses. Some fundamental changes
should be made. Modifications may include
program changes (e.g. curriculum revisions),
internal redirection of faculty resources,
additional resource allocations, (both faculty
and non-faculty), and, measures to improve
student satisfaction/quality of experience in the
program.
Such programs are typically characterized by
most of the following:
- many faculty actively engaged in scholarly
work;
- a generally up-to-date curriculum;
- generally sound teaching practices;
- high to moderate student demand;
- evidence that students are generally satisfied
with the program and the quality of their
experience in it;
- evaluation procedures which may not be as
effective as they could be;
- high to moderate program quality to cost
ratio.
Category C:
The program is supported by some evidence of
academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public
service but has identifiable deficiencies which
should be rectified in a given timeframe. It is
characterized by sufficient demand, and/or
may be essential to the service requirements of
other units. Several fundamental changes must
be made to achieve adequacy and provide a
credible program. Deficiencies may be
identified as program (e.g., curricular),
faculty/scholarly activity (e.g. quality and
quantity of scholarship or breadth of expertise
of faculty), and non-faculty resources.
Such programs are typically characterized by
most of the following:
- some distinguished faculty, but more who are
not actively engaged in scholarly work;
- a curriculum in need of revision;
- a need for attention to be directed to some
context of regular university resource
allocation processes.
Requirement for development of a concrete
and realistic action plan by the unit/College to
address deficiencies within an identifiable time
frame. Possible outcomes include:
- Commitment of College/university to provide
essential additional resources to remedy
deficiencies.
- Consideration of potential for reallocation of
resources.
- Consideration of phasing out or consolidating
subspecialties within a unit or between units.
- Consideration of an early date for subsequent
review.
aspects of the teaching enterprise;
- moderate student demand;
- some dissatisfaction of students with their
educational experience;
- lack, or minimal use, of evaluation
procedures;
- moderate to low program quality to cost ratio.
Category D:
The program, over a period of years, has
shown little evidence of academic vitality in
teaching or scholarly/artistic work or
extension/public service. Such a program may
suffer from additional liabilities including low
quality to cost ratio, low student demand, and
lack of provision of an important service
component to other programs. The academic
quality of the program area is unlikely to
improve without significant additional
resources. Many fundamental changes are
required.
Such programs are typically characterized by
most of the following:
- few faculty who are actively engaged in
scholarly work;
- several significant weaknesses in the
curriculum;
- uneven and often poor teaching practices and
results;
- low student demand;
- significant dissatisfaction expressed by
students with their educational experience;
- lack of or ineffective evaluation procedures.
Requirement to consider initiation of approved
Council procedures for program termination.