Program Review/Reduction Process Frequently Asked Questions

Program Review / Reduction Process

The Program Review/Reduction Process (PRRP) is an ongoing initiative for Portland State to consider possible reorganization, reduction, or elimination of academic programs due to declining enrollments. This collaborative process includes research and input from individuals in Academic Affairs and the Faculty Senate. This data-informed process also includes feedback from deans, faculty, and community members. Learn more about the Program Review/Reduction Process (PRRP) by visiting the webpage. Below you will find frequently asked questions from faculty and staff regarding the PRRP, and the responding answers from Academic Affairs.

FAQ's

Q: THE FACULTY SENATE APPROVED A MOTION ON JUNE 13, 2022 AS LISTED BELOW. WHAT WAS THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM ACADEMIC AFFAIRS?

Motion as amended and approved by Faculty Senate, 13 June 2022
The Senate moves 1) to endorse the APRCA committee’s Guiding Principles and Priorities; 2) to request a written response from OAA with a detailed plan for how the Guiding Principles and Priorities will be upheld during Phase III of the PRRP, due to APRCA and Faculty Senate Steering Committee by September 16, 2022; and 3) to pause PRRP until AHC-APRCA and Steering Committee review and the Faculty Senate approves the plan provided by OAA for phase III.

06-21-2022 - OAA concurs with the resolution in the ways stated below.

The resolution as amended endorses the Guiding Principles and Priorities put forward by the Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustment committee. I concur with and second this endorsement. The Guiding Principles and Priorities have provided important guidance throughout the PRRP process, and I remain grateful to the APRCA committee for their wisdom and commitment.

The resolution asks that OAA provide a written response for how those Principles and Priorities will be upheld during Phase III of the PRRP. I am pleased to concur with this and to share broadly the ways in which the PRRP has been guided by the APRCA Guiding Principles and Priorities.

The resolution asks that I pause the PRRP until APRCA-AHA and the Faculty Senate Steering Committee have reviewed, and then the Faculty Senate approves the plan for upholding the Principles and Guidelines.

I do not concur with the section of the resolution that refers to pausing the PRRP process.

Faculty feedback from some of these units indicates that the request to “pause” the PRRP has led to some confusion. I received a number of questions from faculty including:

Does the pause mean that work should be halted by units that have begun to move forward with outcomes of their Phase II reports?
Will ReImagine funding provided for this work be withdrawn during the pause?
Does the pause mean that no work relating to Phase II or Phase III can be done until after the Faculty Senate review?

Several of the units that were asked to develop plans for Phase III planned to begin that work in the summer, funded through ReImagine grants that were committed to them by OAA. In at least one case, summer is the only time during which that work could be done. In addition, units had already reached out to OAA and their respective deans to gather information relevant to the development of their plans.

In addressing these questions, I am guided by Presiding Officer Reitenauer’s clarification during the Faculty Senate meeting that it is not the intention of the resolution to prevent colleagues from undertaking planning work in a timeline chosen by the unit.

Let me state clearly that no decisions have been made about the outcomes of Phase III, and no decisions will be made until the unit reports have been received and reviewed and discussions with the units have taken place.

Consequently, I will take the following steps:

In an effort to support my continued commitment to transparency (APRCA Guiding Principle #7), OAA will update the PRRP website, including a list of FAQs that address questions that arose during the Faculty Senate meeting.
In response to the concerns about the timeline expressed during the Faculty Senate meeting, I have extended the deadline for submission of the Phase III plans to January 15. This change reflects my continued practice of giving full consideration to feedback from APRCA and the Faculty Senate (APRCA Guiding Principle #5).
In support of ongoing unit efforts and to respect the considerable work undertaken by faculty, activities that resulted from Phase II reports should continue.
As a result of the extended deadline and per the request of some of the units, work to develop Phase III plans can take place during summer or fall.
ReImagine funds that were committed to units remain available to them for utilization during summer or fall (APRCA Guiding Principle #6).
Because Phase III plans will be reviewed individually with no set target or predetermined outcome, plans may be submitted to the deans and provost at any time prior to January 15.

I value the ongoing engagement with the Faculty Senate as we move forward through the PRRP, particularly with the APRCA committee. These are difficult conversations to have, but they are critical to our ongoing ability to achieve our goal of Closing the Gap in OAA. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Faculty Senate as we work to achieve these goals.

- Susan Jeffords, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Q: HOW IS THE UNIVERSITY UPHOLDING ITS COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY AND DUE PROCESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PRRP?

At the beginning of the PRRP process, the Provost created the Program Reduction Working Group in partnership with the Faculty Senate’s creation of the Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustments (APRCA) Committee, whose purpose was to create a working environment that upheld the shared commitment to transparency and due process throughout the PRRP process. Both committees worked in tandem and were made up of representatives from faculty, staff, and administration. The APRCA committee continues to assist the Provost with PRRP planning and processes. During Phase I and Phase II of the PRRP process, the Provost and university administration followed Guiding Principle 7: Transparent Process and Open Communication with All stakeholders through attending faculty senate and various faculty senate committee meetings, Provost emails, Provost Newsletters, meetings with the deans, and presentations including Q&A at several campus-wide meetings including the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the PSU Board, a PRRP forum, a budget town hall meeting, and individual school/college meetings. For a list of these communications including links to videos and communications, please visit the Program Review/Reduction Process website and scroll down to Phase II Communications. The Faculty Senate APRCA Committee will continue to meet in FY 2023 for Phase III of the process, and the Provost will continue to communicate and plan with the Faculty Senate and campus community for the remainder of the PRRP.

Q: EIGHTEEN DEPARTMENTS SUBMITTED REPORTS DURING PHASE II. HOW WERE THOSE REPORTS EVALUATED? WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS EVALUATION METHOD? WHERE CAN WE SEE THOSE REPORTS?

During Phase I of the Program Review/Reduction Process, the Provost appointed the Program Reduction Working Group with the charge of providing a mechanism to support data-informed decision-making and to ensure transparency. These metrics would be represented in dashboards accessible to all of campus. The committee developed two sets of metrics to be represented in the dashboards: value and driver metrics. The dashboards were first shared with the campus community on March 11, 2021, during the Program Review / Reduction Process Forum and throughout Phase II in various formats as outlined in the Phase II Communications section of the PRRP website. Multiple changes were made to the dashboards based on campus feedback.

In Phase II, we looked at how units across the institution were performing in relationship to the shared metrics. Based on those metrics we asked a group of 18 units to help us understand how their performance on those metrics differed from other units across the institution because it is clear that the dashboards cannot fully explain what is happening at the unit level. The narratives were not intended as a set of evaluative questions but as a set of informative questions, and that is why we asked for the narratives. We wanted to be respectful of each unit and the way it talked about its culture, its history, and its ongoing work; this could not be done using a rubric model. It was also important for the deans to be engaged in these conversations so that the responses made to those reports reflected the larger strategic goals of the school/college that the unit resides in, helping the school/college to achieve their own strategic goals.

While a commitment to transparency might have led to publishing the full Phase II reports, the Provost had several discussions with the APRCA committee as well as several of the units that wrote Phase II Unit Narrative reports, and most indicated that it was not advisable to publish the full reports because it could be perceived as placing yet additional stress on those units and because some contained initiative ideas that had not yet been developed. A compromise was to create summaries of the reports, along with the response from Academic Affairs and the deans (listed as “Provost Response” on the website) so that there can be some visibility for the community into the Phase II Unit Narrative Report process. These summaries can be viewed on the Phase II Unit Narrative Report Summaries Including Provost Responses webpage.

Q: THE APRCA REPORT SAYS THAT FOR PHASE III THE FIVE UNITS WERE ASKED TO INDICATE WHETHER THEY COULD FULFILL THEIR GOALS WITHIN THEIR CURRENT BUDGETS. IF THESE UNITS CAN MAKE DO WITHIN THEIR CURRENT BUDGETS, IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THE RETRENCHMENT PROCESS PER ARTICLE 22 IS OFF THE TABLE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PRRP PROCESS?

It is too early to make this decision. This is a conversation that needs to engage the deans and the budget officers in the colleges.

Q: REGARDING THE DATA IN THE DASHBOARD, SPECIFICALLY STUDENT CREDIT HOUR (SCH) VALUES, THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT HOW SCH IS COUNTED WITHIN THE SCHOOLS/COLLEGES. WHAT WILL YOU DO TO MAKE SURE THE DATA IS REFLECTED CORRECTLY?

Student Credit Hours (SCH) are used as a measurement in four of the six driver metrics. The attribution of SCH to the department is different in each of these measurements, as the purpose of each metric is different.

Student Credit Hours (SCH)/Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): This is calculated based on SCH generated by the primary instructor of record and their funding department, regardless of the subject area. For example, if a faculty member is teaching a course for another unit, this would be captured in this metric.
Change in SCH over time: This is calculated by the total number of credit hours generated by courses with the department’s subject prefixes regardless of faculty departmental affiliation. This measurement aligns with the SCH reported information provided to the HECC and is used in the state funding model calculations, and captures information about the subject being taught.
Percentage of service SCH by department/unit: This is calculated by the department’s total SCH that is delivered to students outside of the department’s primary and secondary major/minors.
Cost/SCH by department/unit: Base Net Revenue is used for this metric and is calculated in the Revenue Costs Attribution Tool (RCAT), which uses SCARF SCH data. Revenue adjustments are made when an instructor is teaching in Honors and UNST. When the RCAT was designed, adjustments for interdisciplinary scenarios were outlined.

There were several units during Phase II that came forward to explain that they had faculty teaching in another unit and that were not credited for that SCH. As outlined above, this is being captured in some of the metrics and may not be as relevant in the other metrics. This is also why we chose a unit narrative rather than a rubric model for the PRRP. One of the outcomes of PRRP is highlighting this concern regarding SCH attribution and giving us an opportunity to revisit the designed processes.

Q: WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN PHASE III, AND WHAT ROLE WILL THE DEANS PLAY IN THIS NEXT PHASE OF THE PROCESS?

In response to feedback from the APRCA committee and Faculty Senate, the Provost decided to extend the deadline for Phase III Unit Narrative Reports to January 15, 2023. The five units listed below have been asked to provide Phase III reports; you can find the summaries of their Phase II reports along with the response from the Provost/Dean by clicking on their department name below.

A timeline, including how the deans will be involved in the process, as well as information regarding what information was requested of the five units in their reports, can be found in the Phase III section of the PRRP website. Because of the specific histories and cultures of each unit, the deans are playing a significant role in Phase III of PRRP. Deans have already met with each of the units, and conversations will be ongoing throughout Phase III.

Q: WHAT WAS THE MAKEUP OF THE PROGRAM WORKING GROUP? DID IT CONSIST OF ANY FACULTY, AND HOW DID THE WORKING GROUP RECEIVE CAMPUS INPUT REGARDING THE VALUE AND DRIVER METRICS THAT THEY DEVELOPED FOR THE GROUP?

The Program Working Group was co-chaired by the Dean of the Graduate School, Rossitza Wooster, and the Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Matt Carlson. Membership of the group, including their titles during the period of the meetings, are listed below:

Tina Anctil, Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (COE)
Linda George, Professor, Environmental Science and Management (CLAS) and Interim Director of UNST
Laura Hickman, Professor, Criminology and Criminal Justice (CUPA)
James Hook, Associate Dean, Engineering & Computer Science (MCECS)
David Maddox, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Budget and Planning (OAA)
Gil Miller, Associate Dean, Senior Fiscal Officer (CUPA)
Keva Miller, Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (SSW)
Erica Wagner, Professor and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs (SB)
Diane Xiong, Fiscal and Planning Officer (OAA)
Amy Mulkerin, Vice Provost for Academic Budget and Planning
Jeff Schnabel, Director of the School of Architecture (CLAS)
Kathi A. Ketcheson, Director and Research Professor (OIRP)
Lynne Messer, Professor, Community Health (CUPA)

The working group sought feedback in several ways, including meetings with department chairs and associate deans, close collaboration with the APRCA committee, a town hall, and the OAA Program Reduction forum on March 11, 2021. The Provost, APRCA, and Program Working Group also held Reimagine PSU meetings with schools and colleges on the following dates:

COE: May 18, 2021
CUPA: May 21, 2021
CLAS (one): May 25, 2021
MCECS: May 26, 2021
COTA: May 28, 2021
SSW: May 28, 2021
CLAS (two): May 28, 2021
SB: June 3, 2021

The Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) collected feedback on the dashboards at all of the meetings and events above and answered questions from faculty and staff regarding the data the committee used. These questions and answers can be found on the School and College Meeting Frequently Asked Questions website.