The core elements are the focal issues of the review
process and should be studied both individually and in
relation to the goals and objectives of the program.
There must be checklists and data forms for every
prescribed core element. There are five recommended
core elements for the formal review in student services.
The five critical core elements are Productivity Level,
Program Need, Quality of Service, Staff Quality, and
Cost Effectiveness. Supporting documentation relative
to these core elements should be presented in a suc-
cinct and graphic manner. Service units are given an
opportunity to include any additional information or
data that are germane to the evaluative process.
However, it is recommended that any additional data
presented include performance measures for the
service unit's goals and objectives, as well as a status
report on its unit plan. It is also recommended that
some effort be made to investigate other variables and
intangibles specific to each unit: no amount of adher-
ence to a formal process can replace an honest effort to
identify and address deficiencies.

There are ten activity stages in the process. (1) A
three-member Service Unit Program Review Commit-
tee is appointed by the unit supervisor. (2) The
Committee begins gathering data to document the
unit’s performance on the five core elements. (3) The
unit supervisor and director negotiate additional
criteria. (4) The Committee requests any additional
data through its supervisor. (5) The Committee
completes the report and submits it to its supervisor.
(6) The supervisor reviews the report, attaches a
summary, and submits it to the director. (7) The
director reviews the report, attaches an evaluation, and
submits it to the vice president. (8) The vice president
reviews the report, attaches an evaluation, and submits
it to the Program Review Council. (9) The Program
Review Council (consisting of representatives of the
student body, professional staff, faculty, and admini-
stration) evaluates the report in consultation with the
unit's supervisor and submits its findings to the
president. (10) The president makes a final determina-
tion of the program’s status (exemplary, satisfactory,
conditional, or probationary) and reviews the findings
and recommendations with the appropriate adminis-
trator.

 

Criticality of Formal Review
Many program planning decisions should be guided
by information obtained: from this kind of formal
review process. The criticality of educational program
review in years to come cannot be overstated. The
reality of excellence in higher education can only be
realized when institutional resources, human and

otherwise, are developed into the proper blend.
Excellence is not achieved solely by hiring competent
faculty and administrators. Excellence in higher
education can only be achieved by developing quality
educational programs, by formally identifying and
addressing program strengths and deficiencies, by
promoting quality within each employee who serves
students, by requiring the best effort of all who seek an
education, and by assisting each student to discover
and value his or her unique worth.

Earl L, Wright, Vice President, Student Services

Reprinted with permission of Commission XI News-
letter, Convention Edition, March 1989.

For further information, contact the author at San
Antonio College, 1300 San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio,
TX 78284.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
ae RS Le A ee ely ee

wee 1989, Vol. XI, No. 16

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1989
Further duplication is permitied by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

om

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD),

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Ausin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545, Subscnptions are available to nonconsor-
tum members for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundation.
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISSN 0199-106X.