欧美视频

欧美视频 UCM Logo - Universities in Missouri
Visit UCMVisit   Open CalendarEvents 
Toggle MenuCampus Links
Open Search Box
Submit
Close Search Box

 

Submit
Open Calendar
 

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Offices
  3. Office of General Counsel
  4. University Policy Library
  5. Template
Click to print this page

3.1.010A Faculty Retrenchment Policy and Procedures-Appendix A

欧美视频 Policy

Policy Name:  Faculty Retrenchment Policy and Procedures-Appendix A

Date Approved:  Approved by the Board of Governors on January 21, 2004

Policy Category:   Academic Affairs

Date Effective:  

Policy Number:  3.1.010A

Date Last Revised:  

Approval Authority:  Board of Governors

Review Cycle:

Responsible Department: 

 

APPENDIX A

I. Evaluation of Academic Programs

Under circumstances necessitating retrenchment, quantitative considerations must not become all consuming. It is crucial that such considerations conform to sound academic policy as well as determine it. Hence, in establishing the faculty staffing level appropriate for each department, consideration must be given to the academic quality of the area, its centrality to the mission of the university, and its modes of instruction, as well as its cost-effectiveness and the number of student credit hours it produces.

A. Academic Planning Committee

The Academic Planning Committee shall advise the provost on matters of program creation, program review and performance of the tasks set forth herein. Upon the enactment of retrenchment procedures, this committee will not only fulfill the function described herein, but also continue its function as specified in its official charge in the ongoing strategic planning process. During retrenchment, the task of the committee will be to make recommendations concerning faculty staffing and reallocation of resources in order to achieve the highest academic quality possible within the constraints of the university's resources.

The committee will base its deliberations on three primary sources of information: 1) data collected by the Office of Institutional Research and verified by the department chair in consultation with departmental faculty members; 2) materials prepared by the department chair in consultation with departmental faculty members; and 3) open hearings at which each department is provided the opportunity to present its case orally.

In order to arrive at sound decisions, the committee must be knowledgeable of the context in which the university must function. These include parameters:

  1. Likely levels of enrollment and of demands for the university's instructional, service and scholarly functions over the next three to five years. All pertinent data, especially figures provided by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, shall be examined. The Office of Institutional Research shall also provide pertinent data to the committee.

  2. Likely levels of state and private funding during the coming three years. Here, information provided by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education and appropriate campus offices shall be examined.

  3. The political and social environment. The committee must assess the likely political pressures on the university and infer what the people of Missouri, as represented by the General Assembly, are likely to demand of this institution and how far they are willing to support it in achieving what they demand.

The Academic Planning Committee will review programs within these parameters. For purposes of this document, a program is defined as approved coursework that leads to a major, minor or certification. The committee shall determine which programs are to be reviewed and, in consultation with the provost, will specify the procedures for involving the department鈥檚 faculty in the review.

Programs shall be evaluated according to four criteria: academic quality, which shall be of prime concern; centrality to the mission of the 欧美视频; demand for and student enrollment in the program; and cost and cost-effectiveness. In general, the APC will utilize the assessment measures listed below for each criterion. However, the APC, in consultation with the provost, may choose to expand the measures within the four categories if additional assessments provide more meaningful and accurate information. These criteria shall be established as follows:

1. Academic Quality

  1. Faculty Quality: As defined by the standards for promotion and tenure which include

    1. excellence in teaching and a combination of achievements in
    2. scholarly performance involving discipline-related inquiry and/or creative activity
    3. service to and recognitions within the university community and the professional discipline

  2. Program Quality: What proportion of the faculty in the program have doctorates or other degrees/certification considered terminal for their positions as identified in the degree designation matrix maintained by the provost鈥檚 office.

  3. Accreditation: Has this program been accredited (where appropriate)?

  4. Programmatic Support: Provide evidence of the availability of necessary resources to maintain program integrity and academic quality.

  5. Student Performance and Outcomes: Defined by program assessment criteria.

2. Centrality to Institutional Mission

  1. Is this program essential to the mission of the 欧美视频 as stated by the Board of Governors?

  2. Is the maintenance of this program essential to this institution's status as a university?

  3. Do any state laws, regulations or agency recommendations make it necessary for this institution to maintain this program?

3. Demand and Enrollment as Defined by the Criteria and Standards for the Program Review Process. Questions that may be addressed include but are not limited to the following:

  1. What are the levels and trends of student credit hours generated per FTE faculty member in this program? In determining student/faculty ratios, faculty members shall be counted according to the programs in which they teach.

  2. What are the levels and trends of demand or of enrollment for students majoring, minoring or seeking certification in this program?

  3. What are the levels and trends of demand or of enrollment for this department鈥檚 courses required by degree programs outside the department?

  4. What are the levels and trends of demand or of enrollment in the general education courses offered by this department? 

  5. What are the levels and trends of demand or of enrollment for students taking this department鈥檚 courses as free electives?

  6. What is the optimum student/faculty ratio for this program, given its modes of instruction?

  7. How successful has this program been and how successful is it likely to be in job placement of its majors?

  8. How successful has this program been and how successful is it likely to be in placing its majors in graduate school and professional schools?

4. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness.

  1. What is the total cost of maintaining this program?

  2. How much of this program鈥檚 cost is borne by grants, other outside funding sources and/or special fees?

  3. What is the cost of this program per student credit hours generated?

  4. If the program is by definition high cost, how do the costs of this program at this institution compare with the costs of similar programs on similar campuses?

  5. Once the APC has completed its review, it shall prepare a preliminary proposal for the provost, making one of four recommendations for each program:

    1. Increase faculty staffing in that program, including recommendations for the total staffing level;
    2. Maintain the faculty staffing in that program at its present level; 
    3. Reduce faculty staffing in that program, including recommendations for the total staffing level; 
    4. Phase out that program.

  6. The provost will prepare a response to the APC recommendation and forward his/her response and the committee's report to all academic department chairs, the Faculty Senate, Council of Deans, University Curriculum Committee, and the Student Government Association for comments and recommendations. The provost's office will publish a deadline for responses.

 

B. Academic Review Board

  1. Prior to the release of the recommendations formulated by the Academic Planning Committee, an Academic Review Board will be established for the purpose of hearing any program desiring to submit an appeal, except during a state of financial emergency, at which time the Academic Review Board will act as sole reviewer of programs. The provost will initiate the procedures for activating the Academic Review Board.

  2. The Academic Review Board will be composed of:

    1. Voting Members: 

      1. Provost designee
      2. Two faculty members from each academic college, nominated by the Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
      3. One faculty member each from Library Services and the Department of Academic Enrichment, nominated by the Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee 

    2. Non-Voting Members:

      1. One graduate student chosen by the Graduate Student Association
      2. Two undergraduate students chosen by the Student Government Association

  3. No member of the Academic Planning Committee shall be a member of the Academic Review Board.

  4. The Academic Review Board shall have available all materials on which the proposal of the Academic Planning Committee was based.

  5. Except during a state of financial emergency, each program shall be entitled to appeal the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee on the grounds that 1) it failed to take significant relevant information into account, 2) it failed to apply all of the four criteria, or 3) it used criteria other than those specified above.

  6. The recommendations of the Academic Review Board shall be known to each department, whose members may ask that a final written appeal be attached before the report is submitted.

  7. The provost shall evaluate the recommendations of the Academic Review Board and make recommendations to the president accompanied by outcomes of all previous levels of review.

social-section