CALS Academic Program Review

• Per UW-Madison policy, 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 doctoral minors must be reviewed at least once every ten years. The first review for new academic programs is required five years after implementation. 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 report three years after implementation of graduate-level programs (i.e., degree/majors, named options, certificates, and minors).
• Refer to UW-1058 Policy on Academic Program Review for full details. 

All academic programs must be reviewed at least once every ten years. The first review for new academic programs is required five years after implementation. The date for the five-year review is set at the time of initial program approval and implementation. After the initial five-year review, continuing academic programs must complete a program review at least once every ten years. Below is an example of the program review life cycle for a new program:

• Program Implementation: Fall 2018
• Initial Five-year Program Review: 2023
• Ten-year Program Review: 2028
• Next Ten-year Program Review: 2038

The typical program review process looks like this: 

• CALS initiates the process by sending a charge letter to the department informing the department of the upcoming review and requesting the department conduct a self study of the program(s) that are due for review.
• The department prepares the self-study report and submits the self-study to the CALS Dean. 
• CALS determines the program review committee and charges them with review of the academic program.
• The program review committee reviews the program which includes consideration of the self study, a visit to the program including meetings with faculty, staff, and students, review of the curriculum, program outcomes, student experience etc. 
• The program review committee produces a report of their findings which is shared with the CALS Dean. 
• The CALS Dean reviews the report and shares the report with the department to allow them to consider the findings, offer perspective in response, and address any major issues identified. 
• The CALS Dean discusses the program review documents (i.e., self-study report, review committee report, and any program response) with program faculty and leads a discussion of the program review at the CALS Academic Planning Council.
• The CALS Dean prepares a final summary of the review and sends the summary along with the self study, the review committee’s report, and the department response to the Office of the Provost and to the Graduate School.  
• Data, Academic Planning & Institutional Research (DAPIR), acting for the Office of the Provost, reviews the dean’s final summary and accompanying documents. If questions or concerns arise, or if additional information is needed, DAPIR and/or the Provost will contact the CALS Dean. Once the Office of the Provost is satisfied with the review, a formal memorandum will be sent to the dean stating that the review has been completed from the perspective of the university. 

• For graduate programs, the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee (GFEC) conducts a discussion of the program review, and the dean of the Graduate School provides written memo back to the program faculty and the school/college dean. This may include the request for a response from the program to address issues raised by GFEC.
  • Note: While academic program review formally concludes with the memorandum from the Office of the Provost, to satisfy the full process, graduate programs must respond to the formal memo from the Graduate School and any request therein for a response and/or action 
• Action and follow-up
  • The department uses the results of the self-study, program review committee report, CALS APC discussion, Provost memo, and GFEC discussion to consider how the programs can build on successes and where there are opportunities for improvement.
  • In most cases, the department will be directed to provide a follow-up report to the dean to analyze and address any issues found in the course of the program review, consider the opportunities and strengths indicated by the team, and offer additional perspective on continuous improvement.
  • The subsequent program review will ask the department to report on what changes were made to address issues raised in the program review.

Example Ten-Year Program Review Timeline for Review Year 2028 (complete by May 2028)

• April 2027: CALS Dean’s Office sends charge letter to department chair with request to complete self-study. For external reviews, departments are asked to provide a short list of potential review team members from peer departments at other institutions.
• September 2027: Self-study due to CALS Dean’s Office
• October 2027: Review committee evaluates the self-study, makes a site visit to the department where they engage in conversations about programs, and finally prepare a report for the CALS Academic Planning Council, University Academic Planning Council, and the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee
• November 2027: Review committee report due to CALS Dean’s Office
• December 2027 through Spring 2028 :
  • CALS Dean reviews self-study and review committee report and shares report with department
  • Department reviews report and confirms if it represents the overall strengths and opportunities for improvement for the program
  • CALS APC discusses review committee report
  • CALS Dean submits summary of review to Office of the Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
  • Office of the Provost reviews final summary and if there are issues, Provost contacts the CALS Dean
  • If review is satisfactory, Provost notifies the CALS Dean that the review is completed
  • For graduate programs, GFEC will also discuss the program review
    • After GFEC discussion, Dean of Graduate School sends memo to department and CALS
    • Dean and may ask for a response from department to address issues raised by GFEC
    • Graduate programs respond to memo from Graduate School

When a program receives the charge letter from the CALS Dean requesting the self-study, they will also be provided with access to a Box folder with the following resources:

• Self-study and data resources
  • Self-study template
    • The template provides a structure for the study, direct links to data resources when program data is requested, and tips for writing the self study
    • Multiple examples of other self-studies and program reviews
  • Several data resources are available that can be used to inform the self-study and can be found here: https://academicplanning.wisc.edu/data-resources-for-self-study-reports/
    • However, for your convenience, we have incorporated many of these resources directly into the self-study template above, but they are valuable troves of information to explore.
  • Programs can also contact Thomas Mastri, CALS Student Success & Program Analyst, thomas.mastri@wisc.edu with specific data requests or complete this intake form
• Communication resources and review visit support
  • An example program review visit schedule
  • Email templates or examples which include:
    • Requests to advisors and instructors to promote opportunity for students to meet with program review committee.
    • Emails to faculty and staff preparing them for meetings with program review committee.
    • Program communication with program review committee.
    • Example responses to the CALS Dean and Graduate Faculty Executive Committee memos about results of a program review.
• Program Review Status Tracker
  • The university’s Program Review Status Tracker helps schools/colleges stay current on the status of program review within their programs and departments. By accessing the Status tab of the Google Sheet, it is possible to search by school/college, department, program, and/or review status and see the status of any/all program reviews taking place. This includes not only the university’s mandated five- and ten-year reviews, but also the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee (GFEC) Three-Year Check-In and accreditation reviews (as applicable).

• Specialized accreditation reviews are conducted by professional organizations and typically require a self-study and an outside evaluation team. For programs with specialized accreditation (e.g., the Biological Systems Engineering, BS, Forest Science, BS or the Nutritional Sciences, BS Nutrition and Dietetics ), the accreditation review meets the university’s requirement for academic program review. The CALS Dean may request programs with specialized accreditation to also go through the standard academic program review process in addition to the accreditation review.
• 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.

Submitting Other Accreditation Documents and Correspondence

• Beyond requirements for academic program reviews, programs/departments/schools/colleges should share key correspondence regarding specialized accreditation reviews with the Office of the Provost via DAPIR. This is because the university’s institutional accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission requires the institution to track and disclose the accreditation status of programs eligible for specialized accreditation. Accreditation information including status, visit information, self-study reports, review committee reports/findings, responses from programs, etc., should be submitted to info@data.wisc.edu