POL - 10.07.1 Academic Program Review Policy

1. Purpose        

In alignment with the University of North Carolina (UNC) System Office’s efforts to ensure ongoing improvement and effectiveness of all academic programs North Carolina Central University requires undergraduate,  graduate and professional degree programs to conduct systematic program reviews every five years. This comprehensive process supports the mission of North Carolina Central University to provide an educational experience that is inclusive of high-impact practices, experiential learning and quality instruction.  

2. Scope  

This policy shall apply to all undergraduate, graduate and professional degree programs. For programs that  undergo regularly scheduled reviews by professional accrediting bodies within their discipline, a modified program review shall be conducted if those areas described under the “Policy” section below are not covered in the review conducted by the unit in consultation with the Provost.  

3. Policy  

3.1  Academic program reviews will be conducted to assess current and projected student demand, current and projected workforce demand, student outcomes, program costs and productivity (including SCH production), the contribution of the program to professions that are critical to the health, educational attainment, and quality of life of North Carolinians, and any other considerations identified by the Chancellor or by the President of the UNC System. These areas are evaluated through the self-study report, to include program curriculum and student learning outcomes, faculty overview, student data overview, along with a site visit with external reviewers, and a post-review meeting and report.

4. Definitions

4.1  Self-Study Report – The self-study report includes a 1–2-page executive summary and an introduction to the degree program which includes a mission statement, a description of how the program aligns with the mission and strategic priorities of NCCU, a list of competing programs within the UNC System, and overall strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, the self-study report assesses student and program learning outcomes, program costs and productivity, and faculty, student, and alumni data.

4.2  Program Curriculum and Student Learning Outcomes – The curriculum and student learning outcomes are to include a description of the degree program from the University Catalog, admissions criteria, program handbooks, program plan of study, a listing of all professional courses with course descriptions, selected course syllabi of upper major courses, percentage of courses taught face-to-face and online, average time to degree completion, and number of degrees awarded per year over the last five years.

4.3  Faculty Overview – The faculty overview should include the number of core faculty (full-time, tenured and tenure track), core faculty/student ratio, publications in the last five years, external grants received, list of noteworthy faculty achievements, faculty demographics by race and gender, faculty workload policy, faculty evaluation policy, school/college promotion and tenure policy, current full-time faculty curriculum vitae.

4.4  Student Data Overview – The student data overview should include the five-year enrollment trend data, enrollment trend data by ethnicity and gender, four-year and five-year graduation rates, list of noteworthy student achievements (from the last five years), program retention rates and degrees awarded (from the last five years), employment profile (within one year of graduation and from the last five years), and contribution of the program to professions that are critical to the health, educational attainment, and quality of life of North Carolinians.

4.5  External Reviewers – Candidates to serve as external reviewers are identified by the academic department and submitted to the Office of the Provost for final approval (three reviewers per program review). The faculty on the team should be senior faculty members who are experts in their respective fields at the University’s aspirant institutions. Furthermore, they should have significant administrative, curriculum and relevant program review experience.    

5. Review Process & Timeline

All academic departments should adhere to the following timeline when planning and completing academic program reviews.

5.1  The Office of the Provost/Academic Programs and Undergraduate Research will notify academic degree programs a minimum of six months prior to the required site visit and include a copy of the NCCU Academic Program Review Handbook. 

5.2   Academic departments will communicate with the Office of the Provost to select site visit dates.  

5.3   At least five months prior to the site visit, academic departments will submit a list of 5-7 potential external reviewers with complete contact information, and a brief 1-2 sentence justification of the nominee.

5.4   The academic department will complete the “Charge to the External Review Team” once the  reviewers have been confirmed by the Office of the Provost.  It should cover the degree program  overview and degrees offered.

5.5   Three to four months prior to the site visit the academic department will complete the self-study and submit it to the Office of the Provost at least 2 months prior to the site visit.

5.6   Two months prior to the site visit the department chair will reserve meeting spaces, arrange transportation, and develop an itinerary.

5.7   One month prior to the site visit the academic department will send the self-study along with guidelines and expectations to the external reviewers

5.8   Not more than thirty (30) days following the site visit, the degree program should receive the final report from the external team.  

5.9   Not more than thirty (30) days after receipt of the final report the department or school shall prepare a response to the external reviewers’ report for the dean’s review and submission to the external review team. 

6.  Site Visit

The external review teams will meet with the department, chair, dean and Provost during the site visit to gain insight on the self-study and to assess the following:

6.1   The mission and learning outcomes of the academic department and how they align with the strategic   priorities of the university

6.2   The strengths and weaknesses of the academic program

6.3   Improvements made (including student learning outcomes and faculty development) since the  previous program review

6.4   The strength of the student learning outcomes

6.5   How this program compares with its peers

6.6   Ways the department can enhance performance improvements, given current resources or a modest  infusion of new ones

7. Results of the Program Review

7.1  Not more than sixty (60) days after the site visit the Dean, Provost, Associate Provost for Academic Programs, and the unit head will meet to discuss the findings and department response.

7.2  Based on the outcome of the review, the Provost will make a recommendation to the Chancellor regarding the future of the program, including maintaining the current program, expanding the program, consolidating programs or eliminating the program.  

7.3  A summary report of all academic program reviews will be submitted annually to the President after review by the Board of Trustees.