PROGRAM REVIEW AT WESTMONT COLLEGE: MISSION-DRIVEN, MEANINGFUL, & MANAGEABLE
Westmont Foundations
Community Covenants, Mission Statement, Educational Vision (What We Want for Our Graduates, Philosophy of Education at
Westmont). Statement of Faith and Community Life Statements are covenantal documents that guide who we are as a community of
faithful learners.
Our Mission Statement says what we are about as a college. Our statement about what we want for our graduates is about qualities of
personhood and intellectual abilities that transcend particular programs of study. All of our goals, outcomes, and assessment efforts
should be consistent with our foundational documents. We recognize, however, that not all of these things are readily or ideally
measurable.
Guiding Principles & Accreditation Standards
Legally required assessment and program review components (WASC) as well as best practices as exemplified by colleges with whom
we desire to be compared, including both Christian liberal arts colleges and top tier liberal arts colleges. May also be informed by
demonstrated best practices put forth by foundations based upon empirical evidence of practices in use at like colleges. These best
practices and templates will be thoroughly vetted by the Program Review Committee and approved by the Academic Senate. Thorough
vetting may require some time of testing in-house at Westmont.
Institutional Assessment Priorities will be identified in a seven-year cycle, beginning in the Program Review Committee
(PRC). The PRC will work collaboratively with the Dean for Curriculum and Educational Effectiveness to recommend priorities based
upon the foundations and standards as identified above. Members of Academic Senate and Strategic Planning may identify priorities
that are unique to Westmont or a particular period or issue in a particular season. The identified priorities will be presented to the full
faculty. Based upon the Priorities approved by the Academic Senate and PRC, Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) will be identified.
No more than four ILOs will be selected for any 7-year cycle.
The General Education Committee will recommend General Education Outcomes (GEOs) for the next 7-year cycle to the
Program Review Committee. The General Education Committee, with the help of the Dean of Curriculum & Educational
Effectiveness, will submit the proposed outcomes to the PRC. The PRC will undertake to match up GEOs to ILOs to make the work most
manageable in any 7-year cycle. Some GEOs may be assessed at the institutional level, but many more will be assessed at the
committee level. Not all GEOs will be assessed in every 7-year cycle, though all must be addressed at least once every other cycle.
Academic and other program areas of the college will determine their Departmental Outcomes (DOs), and identify which
three outcomes to assess in the next 7-year cycle. Not all outcomes must be assessed in any one cycle, but all outcomes must be
assessed at least every other cycle. If DOs will not be assessed in two cycles, the department will be advised to revise the DOs. The
Program Review Committee will provide help and advice to departments in determining their 7-year cycle plans, and will undertake to
match up GEOs and ILOs where possible with DOs to make the work most manageable.
The PRC will submit a total strategy for the next 7-year assessment cycle to the Academic Senate for review, making note where
work may be streamlined due to an alignment of ILOs, GEOs, and DOs (i.e. writing effectively may be addressed in the same year by
multiple departments and committees). The Academic Senate will recommend the completed plan to the full faculty or will
recommend that the PRC revise the plan.
When the strategy has been approved, the next cycle may begin. The PRC will work with committees and departments to ensure
that accurate and up-to-date data are provided, that faculty are aware of assessment helps and creative practices, and keep the big
picture in mind. The PRC will also work with the Executive Team and other academic bodies to ensure that assessment is taking place
at all levels in the institution and that accurate data are available for informing decision-making and resource allocation.
Program Review. Every seven years, each academic unit or program must conduct a Program Review. The Program Review will
incorporate all aspects of assessment of student learning as well as a review of structures, procedures, processes, curriculum, and
satisfaction of all involved departmental members. Once the Program Review is completed, a copy will be filed with the PRC, the Dean
for Curriculum and Educational Effectiveness, and the Provost. The department shall then undergo at least one external review (more
may be requested by the PRC, the Provost, or the Dean) by an educational expert in the field, preferably from a like department in a like
institution but not maintaining overly close ties with any one departmental member. The external reviewer shall be provided a copy of
the complete Program Review at least 30 days prior to the visit, and will file his/her own report within 30 days after visiting the
campus/program. The Dean, the Provost, and the Department shall then have a conversation about the state of the Department.
Use of Program Review Reports. Program Review is valuable insofar as faculty and administrators will have an honest and wellrounded view of their efforts every 7 years; more fundamentally, each department will have a sense of how well they are helping
students become the graduates they envision. When programs make requests in future years for hiring or other resources, the reports
are helpful in showing both a documented need and a history of creative solutions attempting to fill the need in spite of a lack of ideal
resources.
Shift in Focus of the Program Review Committee:
Although the PRC in the past has gone over each report with a fine-tooth comb, it is time to enable the committee to tend to the larger
work and purpose of Program Review, beyond making sure that assessment takes place. Outside reviewers are best placed to weigh in
on how well the department’s syllabi, course offerings, personnel, and teaching methods accomplish the stated objectives and how well
the department compares with other departments on like campuses. The PRC should be free to move into a more visionary role,
discovering patterns and needs throughout the academic program, suggesting helpful resources, faculty exchanges on these topics, and
making sure the institution is providing the data that departments need to make the assessment and Program Review useful. If
multiple departments are having trouble with the same kinds of data gathering, the PRC may intervene on a larger level to make sure
the data is available, current, useful, and helpful. Ultimately, the PRC is the arm of the faculty in this process – they are elected by and
answerable to the faculty to be sure that faculty needs and concerns are being fully and fairly represented in processes that can
become overly bureaucratic and punitive without a creative and compelling vision for program review and assessment.
Simultaneously, they must persuade faculty that a robust program of assessment and review will strengthen our faculty and help us
accomplish our fundamental mission.
Role of Academic Senate:
The Academic Senate should be able to trust that the PRC members are well informed and well guided in their decisions and
recommendations. It is not for Academic Senate to do the visionary work of the PRC if the PRC gets bogged down in minutae. But the
Senate may step in to remind the PRC that it needs to have a larger vision of Program Review and the College. The Senate should also
ask various programs and departments to submit past Program Review reports and external reviews when deliberating on proposals
or providing advice to the Provost on issues pertaining to resources, strategic planning, and new programs/ventures.