Policy & Governance

Program Review supports the ongoing quality and effectiveness of Cal State LA’s academic programs. The process provides an opportunity for programs, colleges, and the University to examine academic quality using both qualitative and quantitative evidence and to identify opportunities for continued development and improvement.

The University’s Program Review policy recognizes that academic program review is a comprehensive and judgment-based process. Quantitative information is important, but program quality cannot be evaluated through numerical measures alone.

Principles of Program Review

The policy identifies two assumptions underlying the review process:

1. Program Review uses both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Review is intended to be comprehensive and intensive and requires professional judgment in the interpretation of evidence.
2. Academic quality cannot be defined or evaluated simplistically. Understanding program quality requires professional discussion about appropriate evaluation criteria, developments within a discipline, relationships among academic programs, and the educational needs of students and society.

How Program Review Supports the University

Program Review may inform decisions and recommendations related to:

• Curriculum and academic program planning
• Student learning and academic success
• Faculty and student needs
• Changes within academic and professional disciplines
• Program resources and priorities
• Long-range planning and program development
• Modification or strengthening of academic programs

The process is therefore intended to encourage thoughtful professional reflection and evidence-informed discussion rather than reliance on any single indicator of program effectiveness.

University Program Review policy establishes a recurring cycle of qualitative and quantitative review for academic programs. Under the archived policy, each academic program is reviewed at least once every five years.

Coordinating Review Cycles

Review cycles are coordinated through the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, or a designated unit of that office, in consultation with college administration. The review schedule is intended to distribute reviews across the cycle while also considering relationships among academic programs.

In establishing review schedules, consideration may be given to:

• Grouping related disciplines when appropriate
• Distributing reviews across the review period
• Reviewing related graduate and undergraduate programs during the same period
• Coordinating University Program Review with specialized accreditation cycles
• Allowing newly established programs sufficient time to develop before a meaningful review of program productivity is conducted

The archived policy indicates that new programs may require a developmental period of up to five years before sufficient information is available for a meaningful evaluation of program productivity.

Additional Reviews

Program Review may also occur outside the regular schedule. Additional reviews may be requested for institutional planning purposes or in response to requests from University or system-level authorities. Colleges and academic units may also conduct reviews independently of the regular University schedule or request a University review on their own initiative.

Periodic Review and the Self-Study

Programs scheduled for University review prepare a comprehensive Program Review document through consultation among faculty and other appropriate participants. The self-study follows the format established for Program Review and provides the principal program-level evidence used throughout the review process.

The Program Review schedule and subsequent modifications are published and communicated to the University community through the appropriate Academic Affairs office.

Specialized accreditation and University Program Review serve related but distinct purposes. For that reason, professional or disciplinary accreditation does not eliminate the requirement for University Program Review.

The Program Review process may, however, make use of work already completed for specialized accreditation in order to reduce unnecessary duplication.

Use of Accreditation Materials

Under the archived policy, programs that recently completed a specialized accreditation review involving external reviewers may submit accreditation materials as part of the University Program Review process.

The program compares the standards and criteria used for specialized accreditation with those required for University Program Review. This comparison helps identify which Program Review expectations have already been addressed and which areas may require additional information.

When accreditation materials do not address all Program Review requirements, the program prepares a modified self-study addressing the remaining areas. Program Review materials are still required for programs or areas that were not included in the accreditation process.

Comparison Matrix

The archived policy calls for an accredited program to prepare a matrix comparing Program Review standards and criteria with those used during specialized accreditation. This process begins prior to the scheduled University Program Review so that the extent of any required supplemental work can be determined.

Review of Accreditation Materials

The archived policy describes an ad hoc review involving representatives of the Program Review Subcommittee, college leadership, and the academic program. This group reviews the comparison matrix and accreditation documentation to determine how fully the accreditation review addresses University Program Review expectations.

Following that review, the University identifies any areas that should be addressed through a modified Program Review self-study.

Programs participating in a modified review provide the relevant specialized accreditation materials to support the University review process.

Program Review continues beyond completion of the program self-study and external review. University governance processes provide for review of the materials, development of findings and recommendations, opportunities for response, and institutional follow-up.

Program Review Subcommittee Review

The Program Review Subcommittee reviews the materials associated with the academic program’s review. These may include the program self-study, supporting evidence, external review materials, planning documents, and other information relevant to the evaluation of the program.

The Subcommittee develops a report based on its review. Under the archived policy, the report of the Program Review Subcommittee is prepared by the voting members of the Subcommittee.

Program and College Response

Following review by the Program Review Subcommittee, its report is transmitted to the academic program and college so that they have an opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations.

Educational Policy Committee

The Program Review Subcommittee report and the responses from the program and college are submitted to the Educational Policy Committee as part of the University’s shared governance process.

Institutional Planning and Follow-Up

Program Review reports and responses are maintained for institutional planning and may be used to support activities such as:

• Long-range academic program planning
• Program modification and development
• Curricular planning
• Resource planning and allocation discussions
• Institutional and system-level analysis
• Follow-up on recommendations for program improvement

Implementation of recommendations resulting from Program Review proceeds through the appropriate academic and University processes.

The Program Review Subcommittee (PRS) supports Cal State LA’s academic Program Review process through the University’s shared governance structure. The Subcommittee reviews Program Review materials and makes reports and recommendations through the Educational Policy Committee.

Charge

The Program Review Subcommittee is charged with:

1. Implementing Trustee policy concerning the review of degree programs.
2. Reporting and recommending to the Educational Policy Committee proposed policies related to Program Review.

Membership Structure

The University policy provides for participation by faculty, students, and University administration. The membership structure includes:

• One tenured faculty member from each college, elected for staggered terms. Faculty in the University Library and Student Affairs are treated as a college for this purpose.
• One tenured faculty member elected annually by the Educational Policy Committee from its membership or the membership of one of its other subcommittees.
• An additional tenured faculty member from the college housing the program under review, excluding faculty from the program being reviewed.
• One eligible student member selected annually by the Associated Students, Inc.
• The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, or designee, serving ex officio as executive secretary and as a non-voting member.

Role in the Review Process

The Program Review Subcommittee considers the program’s self-study, planning materials, external review report, and other relevant evidence. The Subcommittee develops findings and recommendations and provides the program and college an opportunity to respond.

The resulting report and response are submitted through the Educational Policy Committee and may be used to support academic planning, program development, resource discussions, and follow-up activities.

The following roster was published on the previous Program Review website and is retained for historical and institutional reference. It should not be interpreted as the current membership of the Program Review Subcommittee.