Program evaluation criteria and weighting for the academic programs

In order to ensure all academic programs will be evaluated fairly, the AcTF developed a set of common criteria that will be used to evaluate programs in order to classify them into categories. The AcTF also established the weight each criterion will hold in determining the placement of a program into a category. A rubric exists to clarify use of these criteria. The final list of programs in each category will be public at the end of this prioritization process; the same is true for the Support Task Force process. The weightings (indicated in percentages below) are an indication of how important each criterion is in assigning a program to a category.

Academic program evaluation criteria and weight:

  • Impact and essentiality…20
  • Quality of program outcomes…15
  • External demand…15
  • Internal demand…15
  • Quality of program inputs…10
  • Size, scope and productivity…5
  • Revenue and resources generated…5
  • Costs and other resources required…5
  • Opportunity analysis…5
  • History, development and expectations…5
 

Categories

The Academic Task Force established a categorization system that will place all evaluated programs into one of five categories. Each category will contain at least 15 percent of the programs. The remaining 25 percent can be distributed across the categories in any fashion.

  • Priority for Enhancement: Programs in this category generally demonstrate that they are the most well aligned with established institutional priorities and community needs relative to other UAA academic programs. Programs in this category are making efficient and effective use of their current resources as demonstrated by contributions in teaching, service, and research and creative activity (if appropriate) for the relevant field. Programs in this category appear to the AcTF to be particularly well-positioned to improve their programs' quality, productivity, depth, and/or breadth with increased resources and that UAA is missing the opportunity to excel without such enhancement.
  • Consider for Enhancement: Programs in this category generally demonstrate that they are well aligned with established institutional priorities and community needs relative to other UAA academic programs. Programs in this category are making efficient and effective use of their current resources as demonstrated by contributions in teaching, service, and research and creative activity (if appropriate) for the relevant field. Programs in this category appear to the AcTF ready to improve their programs' quality, productivity, depth, and/or breadth with increased resources and that UAA is missing the opportunity to develop without such enhancement.
  • Maintain: Programs in this category generally demonstrate that they are well aligned with established institutional priorities and community needs relative to other UAA academic programs. Programs in this category are making sufficient use of their current resources as demonstrated by contributions in teaching, service, and research and creative activity (if appropriate) for the relevant field. For programs in this category, it appears to the AcTF that, although these programs are necessary to UAA's mission and making good use of available resources, increased resources beyond annual cost increases would not improve the program's quality, productivity, depth, and/or breadth as much as programs in the Consider for Enhancement and Priority for Enhancement categories.
  • Transform: Programs in this category generally demonstrate that they are less Well-aligned with established institutional priorities and community needs than other UAA academic programs. For programs in this category, it appears to the AcTF that unlike programs in “Further Review,” increased resources would improve the programs’ alignment. Transformation (revision, change, adaptation) of approaches and/or structure is necessary to improve alignment or effective resource use for these academic programs. Transformation may require initial investment of resources to accomplish.
  • Further Review: Programs in this category generally demonstrate that they are less well aligned with established institutional priorities and community needs than other UAA academic programs. Programs in this category demonstrate less efficient and/or effective use of institutional resources than other UAA academic programs. For programs in this category, it is not clear to the AcTF that these programs' alignment and use of resources would improve as much from increased resources as those in other categories. Further review is necessary to determine how best to address these academic programs.

Decision-making protocol

The Academic Task Force set high standards for our decision making protocol. Quorum will require a minimum of 75 percent of the task force to be present (in-person or by audio conference).

To place a program in a particular category, 80 percent of the task force must agree the program belongs in that category. However, if the level of agreement reached is 80 percent minus one, then the "fallback" process is automatically initiated for that program.  It is not discussed further at that meeting, and each team member will carefully review the program in question before the next full meeting of the task force. If 80 percent agreement is reached in the second vote, the program will be placed in the agreed upon rank. If the 80 percent minus one agreement is reached, then that will be accepted for placing the program in a category.  If we do not meet 80 percent minus one agreement, the program will be placed in the next lower rank and agreement will be reassessed. This process will be followed for the categorization of all programs.

Once all programs have been ranked, the task force will review all the ranking categories before finalizing the product. Each category will contain at least 15 percent of the programs. The remaining 25 percent can be distributed across the categories in any fashion.