The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), UW-Madison’s accrediting body, and the UW System Board of Regents both require a regular practice of program review and reporting. This policy establishes the structure and procedures for academic program review within an established timetable and states the requirement for annual reports to the UW System Board of Regents and the University Academic Planning Council. The procedures presented on the university’s academic program review website define the process by which program review is completed at UW-Madison.
All academic programs at UW-Madison.
Academic program review provides a valuable and periodic opportunity to assess each academic program’s quality and effectiveness, stimulate planning and continuous improvement, and encourage strategic development. It also provides the opportunity to examine program strengths, deficiencies, relevance, and goals. Academic program review fulfills accreditation and state requirements and assures institutional quality to students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders. It is essential that the university, academic divisions, academic units, and academic programs make appropriate use of the results.
The responsibility for academic program review rests primarily with the deans, as the academic division (school/college) chief executive and chief academic officer (per Faculty Policies and Procedures, 3.01, 3.08). Data, Academic Planning & Institutional Research (DAPIR) coordinates academic program review on behalf of the Office of the Provost.
All academic programs, including degree/majors (i.e., academic plans), named options (i.e., academic subplans), certificate programs (i.e., undergraduate, graduate/professional, and capstone), and minors must be reviewed at least once every ten years.
The first review for new academic programs (i.e., degrees/majors, named options, certificates, and minors) is required five years after implementation. The date for the five-year review is set at the time of initial program approval and implementation. (Note: After the initial five-year review, named options are reviewed with their corresponding degree/major on the ten-year cycle.)
After the initial five-year review, continuing academic programs must complete a program review at least once every ten years.
The Graduate Faculty Executive Committee (GFEC) also requires a Three-Year Check-In for new programs three years after implementation of graduate-level programs (i.e., degree/majors, named options, certificates, and minors).
Interim/additional reviews can be required by academic division deans and/or the Office of the Provost as necessary to ensure the university is achieving and maintaining high quality academic programs.
Programs with Specialized Accreditation For programs with specialized accreditation (e.g., business, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine), the accreditation review meets the university’s requirement for academic program review. The dean must still prepare a final summary of the review and submit that summary with the self-study report as submitted to the accrediting body, the accrediting body’s review committee report/findings, and any response submitted by the school/college/program. These documents must be sent to the Office of the Provost (copy to the director of Data, Academic Planning & Institutional Research) and, for graduate program reviews, the dean of the Graduate School.
Because accreditation review does not address all the issues of interest to the Graduate School, graduate-level programs with specialized accreditation must also complete the Graduate School’s Supplementary Graduate Program Review Process in conjunction with the accreditation review.
Components of Review The core components of a typical academic program review include a self-study report prepared by the program’s faculty, an external review and written report prepared by the review committee, a discussion of the review involving faculty in the program’s academic unit and academic division, and a final summary of the review from the dean (or dean’s designee) submitted to the Office of the Provost and Graduate School (as applicable, for graduate-level programs).
Annual Reporting On an annual basis, the Office of the Provost will submit an Academic Program Review Annual Report to the University Academic Planning Council. The report will include a list of the prior year’s reviews and upcoming reviews, as well as a status report on the review of any programs that were identified as low-award producing in the prior year. A similar annual report will be provided to the UW System Office of Academic Programs and Faculty Advancement (APFA) to satisfy the UW System Board of Regents mandate and to meet the requirement for institutional accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission. Content for these reports is compiled from Data, Academic Planning & Institutional Research (DAPIR) records, as well as annual (May) and mid-year (January) program review update requests submitted to dean’s offices from DAPIR.
Requirement for Compliance For academic units to advance proposals for new academic programs and/or academic program changes, all programs within the academic unit must be up to date on academic program review. Compliance with the academic program review requirement is an indication of the academic unit’s capacity to evaluate and maintain program quality and effectiveness.
07-31-2023: General review and revision.
05/19/2022: Policy revision with separate procedures established by UAPC.
06/16/2016: Updated guidelines adopted by UAPC.
02/21/2013: Administrative revision to merge UAPC and Graduate School guidelines.
06/01/2010: New guidelines adopted by UAPC.
