PSC FAQ

The aim of the Program Sustainability Check-up (PSC) is to quickly and efficiently identify programs that may need help to improve their long-term viability. This is not an attempt to identify programs for suspension, but a proactive effort to support programs that may have different types of challenges.

The Academic Program Review Creation (APRC) Committee identified several characteristics to measure sustainability: # majors, # graduates, 6-year graduation rate, average annual change in majors and degrees, average student credit hour production, and % Student Credit Hour Production by full-time faculty. One of the strengths of this approach is that it does not simply flag programs that have significant enrollment declines, but it also identifies programs that may be short-staffed. 

No. Programs that meet or exceed the sustainability thresholds will not need to write a report although analyzing the data each year will be a helpful way to monitor the sustainability of the program.

Working with Institutional Research, the APRC Committee developed a suite of data pages with a dashboard that reports five years’ worth of data that program faculty will use to analyze their programs.  The committee, composed of faculty from across the university representing diverse disciplines and program sizes, spent months developing a set of metrics and thresholds that programs should meet to demonstrate their sustainability. 

YES. The APRC Committee is made up of associate deans, department chairs/directors, program coordinators, and faculty at-large. After they drafted the program, six programs representing each college piloted the process and provided feedback to improve it.  Then the program was vetted with all department heads in each college?  In summer 2022, some department chairs, program coordinators, and faculty at-large helped test the mechanics of the software platform. 

In general terms, a program may get flagged for review for two reasons.  Based on the data, 1) the program appears not to have a sufficient number of students or graduates AND the program enrollment is trending negatively; OR 2) when the program does not appear to have sufficient full-time staffing.

The yellow flags are markers for three separate indicators that affect whether the program should develop a sustainability plan. 

1. Student Flag:  When fall majors from the previous academic year OR degrees awarded from the previous year OR six-year graduation rates fall below the thresholds
2. Direction Flag:  When either average annual percentage change of majors OR degrees fall below their thresholds.
3. Staffing Flag:  When either percentage of student credit hour production per full-time faculty (undergraduate or graduate, depending on the program level) falls below the threshold.

The numbers live on the Dashboard page of the Program Sustainability Report in Visual Analytics. Note: undergraduate majors and graduate programs have different numbers.

Yes.  Definitions are available on the last tab of the PSC pages in Visual Analytics.

When we piloted the process with programs from each college in fall 2021, participants spent an average of about 7 hours on the process. 

Programs will use a template to complete a brief self-study to assess their program’s sustainability and potentially make a plan to improve it with support from their colleges.  Program coordinators will work with department chairs to

• answer a series of questions to explain their situation and their plans to improve the sustainability of the program (if applicable);
• set goals and a timeline to meet those goals; and
• describe kinds of support (financial or otherwise) the program would need to improve and to achieve the goals.

The dean will review the initial draft study and provide input and determine the level of support that is available. It is vital that deans, chairs, and program coordinators have a conversation about the proposed plan to share their different perspectives and to develop a feasible final plan.  Programs may need to amend goals based on the types and levels of support that colleges can provide.  Once the program faculty, chair, and dean have come to an agreement, they will share the plan with the WKU Academic Program Review Committee and the Provost. While the APR Committee and Provost will monitor progress, deans have full authority for sustainability decisions in their colleges. Once a plan has been approved by the dean and a timeline agreed upon, the program will not be flagged until the timeline has passed, but the program will need to submit a brief annual progress report (one paragraph) to the dean and APR Committee.

Anthology-Portfolio will provide a relatively easy way to manage the self-studies and to report on progress. The learning curve for using this platform is not very steep.  Programs should focus the substantive parts of the process, though, and seek help if the software platform becomes an obstacle.

1. Sending from a personal account instead of a departmental account.
2. Not using the correct nomenclature for the template/report they submit (Program Name-Department-College Abbreviation PSC Portfolio and the year).
3. Not providing a complete sustainability plan on the template that includes:
1. the specific steps that have been taken already AND any future steps you will take;
2. the measurable goals (AKA objectives, i.e., increase enrolment; complete a curricular review; improve advising) and the targets (numbers) that would indicate success in the short term (one year) AND medium term (2-3 years) (i.e. in one year, we would add a 3 additional majors for a total of 10; in year two we would add 4 additional majors for a total of 14; or in year one 55% of SCHP taught by full-timers and in year two 61% taught by full-timers);
3. the specific resources (financial or otherwise) needed to achieve success (we need $1200 to enact the marketing plan we devised; we need to allocate one course of reassignment time to give X time to visit high schools in the fall). (350 words or fewer)
4. Not meeting the deadline.

Participants made this comments when we evaluated the pilot:

• So many times as Departments, we are so busy working "in" the Department, that we forget to work "on" the Department. This is a helpful tool to help us justify strategies and means for building stronger, more sustainable programs. It gives us the mechanisms needed to potentially justify additional staffing, programs where student numbers are low, etc. It helps us get to the "why" and then we determine the "how" in terms of building a plan, making an ask, or whatever is needed to improve the situation.
• I really like the idea of it framed as program sustainability and an opportunity for growth and improvement. The time frame allows for development and implementation. Program faculty are provided the opportunity and support for program improvement.
• It created good dialogue among the department chair, program coordinator and dean.
• I've seen multiple iterations of "APR" over the years, and this is by far the most efficient and effective. Because it didn't require mounds of paperwork, people had a much more positive view. The program faculty and the chair genuinely approached this from a continuous quality improvement perspective. Consequently, they found it helpful/useful rather than punitive. I think it will initiate real change.
• It's an opportunity for authentic/accountable self-reflection, which is useful.
• This process is not designed just for programs with small or declining enrollments. The sustainability of the program we assessed in the pilot was not sustainable due to a large number of students. This process is about helping and supporting, not punishing.