Program Review Rubric Institution:
Degree Designation as on Diploma:
Program Name:
CIP Code:
Program Type:
Program Implementation Date: Submission Date:
Institutional Recommendation: Level 1: Unacceptable
Level 2: Acceptable
Level 3: Excellent
Centrality to the Institution's Mission and Consistency with State's Goals Consistency with Institutional Mission/Strategic Agenda/Strategic Implementation Plan Contribution to institutional mission
Program demonstrates little or no relation/contribution to institutional mission.
Program somewhat demonstrates relation/contribution to institutional mission.
Program demonstrates strong, committed relation/contribution to institutional mission.
A.2.
Contribution to economic and social welfare goals of HB1 as delineated in the statewide postsecondary education strategic agenda *
Program demonstrates little or no contribution to the state's economic and social welfare goals.
Program somewhat demonstrates contribution to the state's economic and social welfare goals.
Program demonstrates strong, committed contribution to state's economic and social welfare goals.
Choose Rating for Criterion A.2.
A.3.
Alignment with statewide postsecondary education strategic implementation plan **
Program is not aligned with statewide implementation plan.
Program is somewhat aligned with statewide implementation plan.
Program proactively advances the statewide implementation plan.
Choose Rating for Criterion A.3.
B. B.1.
Program Quality and Student Success Program Quality and Student Success Use of assessment results
Description of assessment results indicates that no assessment plan is in place or that a plan was in place, but assessment results have not been used to improve the program.
Description of assessment results indicate an assessment plan is in place, and results have been used to improve the program, but important elements (e.g., use of both direct and indirect measures, all SLOs covered by some form of assessment, use of benchmarks or targets) are missing.
Description of assessment results is comprehensive, including explanations of how each SLO was measured and how often, what benchmarks or targets were set, and how results were used to make improvements to the program.
A. A.1.
B.2.
External awards or other recognition of the students, faculty and/or program
Choose Rating for Criterion A.1.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.1.
Program has many examples of awards/recognition, including exemplary accreditation results.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.2.
B.3.a. Number of hours to complete program
Program does not have reasonable Program has reasonable number of hours Program has exemplary number of hours number of hours to complete program for to complete program for its type and level. to complete program for its type and its type and level. level.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.3.a.
B.3.b. Average actual time to degree***
Program does not achieve reasonable time- Program achieves reasonable time-toto-degree for its type and level. degree for its type and level, and/or is trending positively.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.3.b.
B.3.c. Average actual credit to degree****
Program's average is below the institution's target and trending downward.
B.4.a. Employer satisfaction with graduates as measured by surveys
Program does not measure employer Employer satisfaction results are generally Program has exemplary employer satisfaction with its graduates, or has poor positive. satisfaction results. results.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.4.a.
B.4.b. Graduating students' and alumni satisfaction with program
Program does not measure graduating students' and/or alumni satisfaction, or has poor results in this area.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.4.b.
B.5.a. Job placement
Program does not measure job placement, Program has good results in job placement Program has exemplary job placement for or has poor results in this area. for its graduates. its graduates.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.5.a.
B.5.b. (AA/AS Programs Only) Transfer of Graduates
Program does not measure number of graduating students who transfer, has poor results in this area, or is trending negatively. Program does not measure graduate admission, has poor results in this area, or is trending negatively.
Program transfers students or is student transfer is trending positively.
Program transfers large number of students.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.5.b.
Some program graduates are admitted to graduate school or is trending positively.
Large number of program graduates are admitted to graduate school.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.5.c.
Pass rates are below the state average.
Pass rates are at the state average.
Pass rates are above the state average.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.6.
B.5.c. Graduate school admission
B.6.
Pass rates on licensure/certification exams (if applicable)
Program has no or too few awards or Program has examples of awards or recognition; is not accredited (if accreditor recognition, including accreditation (if exists). applicable).
Program Review Committee Rating
Program achieves exemplary time-todegree for its type and level.
Program's average is below the institution's Program's average meets or exceeds the target, but trending upward institutional target.
Graduating student and/or alumni satisfaction results are generally positive.
Program has exemplary graduating student and/or alumni satisfaction results.
Choose Rating for Criterion B.3.c.
Numerical Rating
Comments
Level 1: Unacceptable Program Demand and Unnecessary Duplication C. C.1.a Number of students enrolled and credit hour production
Level 2: Acceptable
Level 3: Excellent
Program Review Committee Rating
Program has low enrollment and credit Program has average enrollment and credit Program has strong enrollment and credit hour production, or is trending negatively hour production, and is trending positively hour production. in both. in one or both.
Choose Rating for Criterion C.1.
Program is not producing a sufficient number of degrees to sustain itself longterm, or is trending negatively.
Program is producing a sufficient number Program is producing a large number of of degrees to sustain itself, and/or trending degrees. positively.
Choose Rating for Criterion C.1.*
C.2.a. Differentiated curriculum or access to existing programs is limited Program is closely similar to existing programs at other KY institutions, nor does it provide access for students beyond the reach of other KY institutions.
Program shows some distinction from existing programs at other KY institutions, or can demonstrate that it provides access for students beyond the reach of other KY institutions.
Program is very distinctive, or clearly demonstrates that it provides access for students beyond the reach of other KY institutions.
Choose Rating for CriterionC.2.a.
C.2.b. Explanation of pursuit of collaborative opportunities with similar Program does not seek any collaborative programs at other institutions and how collaboration will increase opportunities with similar programs at effectiveness and efficiency other KY institutions.
Program is planning to seek collaborative opportunities with similar programs at other KY institutions.
Program proactively seeks or engages in collaborative opportunities with similar programs at other KY institutions.
Choose Rating for Criterion C.2.b.
C.1.b Number of degrees conferred
D. D.1.
Cost and Funding Student credit hours per instructional faculty FTE
D.2.
Extramural funding
Program has little to no outside funding, Program has some outside funding, and is and is not pursuing funding opportunities. active in pursuing funding opportunities.
E.
Additional Information
Comments:
Program has low SCH/FTE productivity, and/or is trending negatively.
Program has average SCH/FTE productivity, Program has strong SCH/FTE productivity. and/or is trending positively.
Program has significant outside funding, and is very active in pursuing funding opportunities.
Comments
Choose Rating for Criterion D.1.
Choose Rating for Criterion D.2.
EVALUATION CRITERIA: CPE's recommendation will be based on the above ratings. All areas of the review will be considered. However, special consideration will be given to the following areas: Use of Assessment Results, AVG actual time to degree, Number of Students Enrolled and Credit Hour Production, and Number of Degrees Conferred.
* Programs should contribute to one or more of these areas: College Readiness - Will your program increase the number of college-ready Kentuckians entering postsecondary education? What does your program do to recruit new students? Will it increase Kentucky's K-12 teacher/school leader effectiveness? Student Success - Does the program increase high-quality degree production and completion rates and close achievement gaps, particularly for low-income, underprepared, and URM students? Research Economic and Community Development - Does your program increase educational attainment and quality of life in Kentucky communities through regional stewardship, public service, and community outreach? Efficiency and Innovation Does this program increase academic productivity through program innovations such as online learning or extended campuses? Does this program maximize the use of postsecondary and adult education resources? ** College Readiness - What has the program done to increase educational attainment/motivation at the P-12 level or new teacher excellence (Teacher Ed programs)? Student Success - How many degrees have been conferred? How many KCTCS transfer students have been recruited? What are your persistence and graduation rates? Research, Economic and Community Development - How many externally funded R&D grants have been awarded? What are the amounts of these grants? How many degrees and credentials in STEM+H fields have been awarded? Efficiency & Innovation - How has your program worked to minimize credits earned by degree graduates for on-time graduation? What are your programs's online offerings? ***Institutions may wish to compare program's average actual time to degree to the institution's overall 3- or 6-year graduation rate **** 2015 Institution Targets for Avg Credit-to-Degree: EKU = 136; KSU = 130; MoSU = 130; MuSU = 138; NKU = 135; UK = 132; UofL = 136; WKU = 137; KCTCS = 81.
Numerical Rating
Last Revised: 11/04/13
