West Virginia Code of State Rules › Agency 135 - Community And Technical College Education › Title 135 - LEGISLATIVE RULE WEST VIRGINIA COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION › Series 135-10 - Policy Regarding Program Review › Section 135-10-4 - Program Review Levels

Current through Register Vol. XLI, No. 28, July 12, 2024
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.