CHAPTER 7 ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM

SECTION 10: DELETING MAJORS, MINORS, AND CERTIFICATES (PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE)

Discontinuing an academic program directly affects curriculum, students, faculty, staff, budget and planning processes. Decisions of program discontinuance should be made based on careful planning rather than a reaction to an immediate or temporary economic crisis or situation. Any decision to discontinue a program should be data informed, and should reflect a long-range judgment that the educational mission of the institution as a whole will be enhanced by program discontinuance. This includes the reallocation of resources to other programs with higher priority based on educational considerations. Such long-range judgments generally will involve the analysis of financial resources and the needs, value and quality of the program and any related college or school. Budget considerations should not be the primary reason for program discontinuance.

If an academic program is being considered for discontinuance, decision makers should ensure that students are not unfairly impacted by program discontinuance or restructuring.

Academic programs may be deleted in three ways:

1. A proposal to discontinue a major program due to educational considerations that will result in faculty layoff pursuant to Regent Policy Document 20-24 must follow the procedure laid out in Chapter UWSP 5 (found in Chapter 4A.2 of the UWSP handbook).

2. A proposal that will not result in faculty layoff will use the following process: may be initiated by the academic department that oversees the program, using the process described below.

3. A proposal may also be initiated by the Dean of a college involved in the program, the Provost, or the Chancellor, using the process described below.

PROGRAM DELETION INITIATED BY AN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT

The department shall follow the instructions on the form REQUEST TO DELETE, RENUMBER, OR RENAME. Contact the Common Council Secretary for a copy of the form or go to myCommonCouncil.

The department shall include a justification for eliminating the program. Considerations such as the following may be addressed as appropriate:

• The quality of the program in the areas of teaching and learning, and the contributions of its faculty in research, creative activity, and service;

• The contribution of the program to the mission and strategic plan of the institution, the overall quality of academic offerings, and the strategic plan of the institution;

• Student demand for the program as measured by student enrollment, retention, graduation trends, and applicable variables;

• The resource implications of retaining or eliminating the program;

o The uniqueness/redundancy of the program within the institution and across the UW System;

• Opportunities for collaboration with other programs within the institution or at other UW institutions; and

• The impact of program elimination on systemwide array and student access to programs.

PROGRAM DELETION INITIATED BY THE DEAN, PROVOST, OR CHANCELLOR

A. Initiation of a proposal

1. The Dean, Provost, or Chancellor will compile a proposal based on the criteria described below. If a Dean or the Chancellor initiates the proposal, they shall submit it to the Provost for review.

2. The proposal must contain the following supporting information, as applicable:

• Initiating party

• Name of proposed program

• Program description

• Rationale for discontinuance

• Proposed budget, detailing projected costs and savings associated with discontinuance

• Impact on students currently enrolled

• Impact on faculty currently teaching in the program

• Impact on staff currently needed for program implementation

• Impact on other campus programs

• Impact on facilities currently used in the program

• Impact on collaborating institutions or articulated programs

• Impact on course transfer opportunities

• Impact on regional stakeholders, external funders, or donors

• Impact on diversity at UWSP

• Impact of discontinuance on mission of the department, college, and institution

• Impact on accreditation or other external requirements

• A detailed plan and timeline for phasing out the program with the minimum possible impact on students, faculty, staff and the community. The plan must describe how currently enrolled students shall continue their programs of study or meet their educational objectives through alternative means.

3. If the Provost approves the proposal, it will then be reviewed by a Discontinuance Committee.

B. Review of a proposal

1. Proposals will first be reviewed by a committee of individuals not affiliated with the program under consideration. This committee may include:

• One dean representing a college not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of Common Council;

• Two students not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the SGA Vice President and Speaker of the Senate, with consent of the Senate;

• Two faculty representatives from colleges not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of Faculty Council;

• An academic staff representative not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of the Academic Staff Council;

• A university staff representative not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of the University Staff Council.

2. Based on their report and recommendation, a second committee of individuals directly affiliated with the program under consideration may be appointed. The second committee may include:

• The dean of the college in the program or a representative nominated by the dean;

• The chair/head of department or area coordinator of the program under consideration

• Two students in the program, nominated by the SGA Vice President and Speaker of the Senate, with consent of the Senate

• Faculty representatives in the program under consideration nominated by tenured and tenure-track faculty involved in the program

• An academic staff representative in the program under consideration, nominated by the chair/head of department or the coordinator of the areas in the program

• A university staff representative in the program under consideration, nominated by the chair/head of department or the coordinator of the areas in the program

• If possible, at least one graduate of the program under consideration nominated by the faculty in the program.

3. Both committees will be appointed by the Provost in agreement with the Executive Committee of Common Council. The chair for each committee will be established by the committee members.

4. In addition to the proposal elements described above, the committee’s review and evaluation may be based on the following considerations, where relevant:

• The centrality of the program to the institution’s mission;

• The academic strength and quality of the program, and of its faculty in terms of national ratings if applicable;

• Whether the work done in the program complements that done in another essential program;

• Whether the work done in the program duplicates academic instruction and course content delivered in other programs at the institution;

• Student and market demand and projected enrollment in the subject matter taught in the program;

• Current and predicted comparative cost analysis/effectiveness of the program;

• Current and past Program Review and Assessment reports; and

• Other relevant factors that the committee deems appropriate.

• The Committee shall provide adequate opportunity for evidence and viewpoints to be presented, and consult the affected program faculty and students. Within three months, the committee will prepare a preliminary report and recommendation. Additional time may be requested if the committee must review more than one program discontinuance proposal. Faculty members within the program under consideration for discontinuance shall have full access to all documents related to the review.

C. Committee recommendation

1. Based on careful consideration of the data, the Committee will evaluate the program under consideration using the Program Discontinuance Rubric and vote on one of the following:

• Recommendation to Continue: A program will be recommended to continue when - after full consideration - it is decided that it is in the best interest of the department, school, college, university, its students, and the larger community to do so.

• Recommendation to Continue with Qualification: A program may be recommended to continue with qualifications. These qualifications may include a remediation plan designed to improve the viability and responsiveness of the program. A specific timeline should be provided during which the remediation plan will occur and expected outcomes should be outlined in advance. After the specific qualification period is completed, the program will be reviewed again.

• Recommendation to Discontinue: A recommendation to discontinue a program will occur when, after a full evaluation study, it is concluded that maintaining the program is no longer in the best interest of the university, its students, and the larger community.

2. The Committee chair will complete a report that includes the committee membership, the initial proposal, the rubric used to evaluate the recommendation, the committee’s recommendation, and the rationale for the recommendation.

D. Dissemination and review of report

1. The Committee chair will send the report to all faculty, staff, and students affiliated with the program under consideration, as well as the Provost, Deans, SGA President, and the Common Council chair.

2. Any of these reviewers may request that the Provost appoint a second Committee within 2 weeks of receiving the preliminary report. Should the Provost appoint a second Committee, that Committee will follow the procedure described above and submit their own report.

3. The Common Council chair will submit the Committee report, and second Committee report (if requested), through proper governance channels for feedback in a timely manner. The Common Council chair will gather that feedback, summarize, and include with Committee(s) report(s).

E. Final Report

F. The Committee final report(s) are then sent to the Provost, Deans, SGA President, and Common Council chair, with a recommendation for the Chancellor.