U of S Announces Outcome of Program Reviews
Posted April 20, 2001
Tweet
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ? April 19th, 2001 2001-04-12-OTHER
U of S Announces Outcome of Program Reviews
Today the University of Saskatchewan announced the first outcomes of a major
review of the university?s academic programs, which is set to improve the
quality of education it delivers to students.
The Systematic Program Review (SPR) looked at all undergraduate and graduate
programs in agriculture, pharmacy and nutrition, as well as some graduate
programs in toxicology, education and commerce.* Programs were evaluated
according to the quality of curriculum, faculty, learning environment,
infrastructure and outcomes, demand for courses and efficiency in the use of
resources.
This new review process is designed to encourage program improvement,
demonstrate accountability and provide information to guide decisions about
programs and resources. Each review includes a self-study by the program, a
site visit and report by external reviewers, responses from Deans and
program heads, decision on outcome categories, and action-plans to implement
the recommendations.
There are four possible outcome categories: A (few, if any, changes
required; program will be sustained); B (some changes required; program will
be sustained at approximately current level); C (fundamental changes
required; concrete action plan must be developed to address deficiencies);
and D (requirement to consider termination). **
Of the programs reviewed in 1999/2000, four were rated A, 11 were rated B
and 14 were rated C. There were no Ds.
University Vice-President Academic and Provost, Michael Atkinson, said:
"These sorts of reviews are standard practice in most universities and aim
to maintain academic quality. The review standards the U of S sets for
itself are quite remarkable and very ambitious. If all of our programs were
to receive an A rating, we would certainly be in league with the most elite
post-secondary institutions in North America.
"While we can take pride in our world-class A programs and the good, solid
Bs, we?re already working together to address the issues raised by the Cs.
Some program mergers are in the pipeline, and other revisions and
restructuring are on the way.
"Some of the problems identified are the result of resource shortfalls, so
we?re hoping governments will pay attention to the very real impact that
their budgetary decisions have on program quality."
External reviewers were recruited from some of the best universities in
North America. Ernie Barber, Dean of Agriculture, said he "was impressed
with the reviewers. Their guidance will be a tremendous help as we continue
our academic renewal. In Agriculture, we will build on our strengths and
improve in areas of strategic importance. We learned a lot from the SPR
process that will help us to be a preferred place in Canada for agricultural
education."
Further reviews are currently underway for law, nursing, graduate education,
and some undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. Outcomes for these
programs will be available later this year. Preparation has also begun for
next year?s reviews of engineering and the natural sciences.
For further information, contact:
General information:
Michael Atkinson
Vice-President Academic and Provost
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-8484
Gary Kachanoski [after April 22]
Dean College of Graduate Studies and Research
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-5759
Information from Deans and Program Heads:
Ernie Barber
Dean College of Agriculture
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-4050
Ken Jacknicke
Dean College of Education
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-7647
Dennis Gorecki
Dean College of Pharmacy & Nutrition
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-6328
Lou Hammond Ketilson
Associate Dean of Commerce
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-4786
Karsten Liber
Director, Toxicology Centre
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-7441
Information on Council decision:
Jene Porter
Chair, Planning Committee of Council
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-5218
**Outcomes of programs reviewed in 1999/2000
AGRICULTURE
B - BSA Agronomy
A - BSA in Ag Economics
A - Grad in Ag Economics
C - BSA in Agriclt?l Chemistry
C - BSA in Envnm?ntl Science
A - BSA in Soil Science
A - Grad in Soil Science
B - BSA in Agricultural Biology
B - BSA Crop Science
C - BSA Horticulture Science
B - BSA Plant Ecology/Rangeland Resources
B - Grad in Crop Science
C - Grad in Horticulture Science
C - Grad in Plant Ecology
B - BSA in Animal Science
B - Grad in Animal Science
C - BSA in Appl?d Microbiology
C - BSA in Food Science
C - BSc in Food Science
C - Grad in Appl?d Microbiology
C - Grad in Food Science
GRAD. STUDIES & RESEARCH
B - Grad in Toxicology
EDUCATION
C - Grad in Ed?l Psychology
C - Grad in Education of Exceptional Children
PHARMACY & NUTRITION
B - BSP in Pharmacy
C - Grad in Pharmacy
B - BSc (Nutr) in Nutrition
B - Grad in Nutrition
COMMERCE
C - MBA
*Systematic Program Review
The Systematic Program Review (SPR) process was approved by Council in
principle in 1994 and in detail in February 1999. It maps out an ongoing,
seven-year cyclical schedule for the review of all U of S undergraduate and
graduate programs.
Colleges and departments under review complete self-study reports on their
programs, and teams of internal and external reviewers visit the campus,
taking an in-depth look at program offerings and facilities, and
interviewing students, professors, deans, department heads, administrators
and others involved.
All stages of the SPR process ? college and department self studies, site
visits and reports by reviewers, responses by the colleges and departments
involved, final assessment by the Vice-President (Academic), Dean of
Graduate Studies and Research, and their committees, and action-plans for
the programs ? are aimed at improving instructional programs, encouraging
program innovation, demonstrating university accountability, and helping the
U of S plan program revisions, program deletions and resource allocation.
Recommendations from the reviewers have already begun to be implemented.
Action plans will specify detailed strategies, timelines and
responsibilities to address the issues raised by reviewers.
Description of Categories
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. There will be a commitment to at
least sustain the program at existing levels and provide additional
resources where justified.
Category B: The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in
teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public 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. There will be a
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: 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. There will be a requirement for development of a
concrete and realistic action plan by the unit/College to address
deficiencies within an identifiable time frame.
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.
There will be a requirement to consider initiation of approved Council
procedures for program termination.
