Jan 18, 2022  
2020-2021 Faculty Handbook 
    
2020-2021 Faculty Handbook [ARCHIVED CATALOG]

10. Appendices


10.1     Appendix 1     By-Laws of the Faculty Senate (Requires Login)

See Faculty Senate Google Site

10.2     Appendix 2     Intellectual Property Policy

See policy on Academic Affairs web page

10.3     Appendix 3     Evaluation Forms (Requires Login)

See the People Center web page, under Performance Management

10.4     Appendix 4     Student Academic Policies

See College Catalogs

10.5     Appendix 5     Academic Honesty Violation Form

See policy on Academic Affairs web page

10.6     Appendix 6     Additional College Policies (Requires Login)

See the People Center web page, under Policies, Procedures & Forms

10.7     Appendx 7     2019-2020 Academic Program Review Pilot Process

Note: This appendix captures the Program Review Process as it was designed and piloted in Academic Year 2019/2020 for reference.

Purpose: Our commitment to the ongoing evaluation and continuous improvement of our academic offerings includes the regular review of degree-granting programs. Each year, one-fourth of degree-granting programs will undergo a comprehensive review.  The annual review cycle of a subset of our programs is intended to help the institution identify opportunities for change, growth and expansion in order to ensure vitality and mission alignment. Program Review is a multi-phased and inclusive process that engages faculty across the institution and is supported by the administration and institutional research.  The goal is to capitalize on the strengths and talents of Champlain faculty to position the institution, its people, and its students for success.The College seeks a position of enrollment strength and fiscal sustainability while maintaining its historic commitment to nimble innovation. 

The specific desired outcomes are threefold:

  1. Maintain a portfolio of programmatic offerings that attracts and excites potential students and faculty and opens doors to new future opportunities.

  2. Identify thriving programs in which additional investments may be needed and struggling programs that need to be either revitalized, reimagined (e.g. as service courses for other programs), merged with another program, or discontinued.

  3. Identify cross-institutional opportunities to build on our interdisciplinary strengths and develop new program recommendations and proposals where appropriate.

Values Shaping This Work:

  • Engage program directors and faculty authentically

  • Maintain legitimate shared governance

  • Resolve in a timely manner

  • Take an institutional perspective

  • Align with College mission 

  • Avoid imposing burdensome reporting requirements on faculty

Process General Design: 

Metrics will be used in an inquiry-based, multi-phased process to determine which programs would benefit from subsequently deeper phases of analysis. For the purposes of this document, the word “metric” refers to both quantitative and qualitative data. Proposed metrics will evaluate at a minimum financial viability, enrollment stability or growth potential, service to other programs, positive student outcomes and contribution to the College mission. Programs which are identified for deeper inquiry are funneled into a Phase II Analysis. Initial suggestions for Phase I and Phase II metrics and how those metrics will be used to categorize programs are offered here. Programs will have the opportunity to review the data to ensure accuracy at each phase of analysis.

Phase I Analysis 

Phase I metrics are an abbreviated, critical set of metrics designed to identify programs that need a deeper analysis. They are constructed as baseline metrics that the Provost will review to determine whether a Phase II analysis is warranted. (An example metric: the number of graduates annually from the program for each of the last five years.) Qualitative input from the program faculty, based on their knowledge of the programs, will be considered. As a result of the Phase I Analysis, programs may be considered healthy, require an action plan, or be funneled into a Phase II Review.

Phase II Analysis 

Phase II Metrics will be a more comprehensive set of data (quantitative and qualitative); Program Directors will provide qualitative information by answering a series of relevant questions.  Each program will be independently reviewed by at least two separate groups of faculty evaluators, whose role will be to make independent recommendations about each Phase II program. Evaluators will be composed of Faculty Senate Leadership, Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee, and faculty representatives from across the institution. In examining the data, particular attention should be paid to the following 5 areas:

  • Strategic Alignment with the College’s Mission, Goals and Values

  • Student Success

  • Enrollment Trends and Market Potential

  • Outside Recognition, Community Partnerships and Accomplishments

  • Resource Efficiency

Recommendations of the evaluator subcommittee groups may either be: (1) Program needs some improvements or (2) Program is of significant concern. Programs rated as needing “some improvements” will go to the corresponding Program Director and Program Faculty to develop an action plan to be submitted to the Provost. Programs of “significant concern” will be referred to an Innovation Team that could include subject matter experts, faculty from multiple disciplines, alumni, community friends, enrollment and marketing. The team will be convened by the Provost for an in-depth consideration of the Program’s future potential. The final decision as to whether a Program needs an Action Plan or will be referred to Phase III will be  made the Provost. The evaluators’ narrative summaries will be combined along with the Provost’s decision and rationale, and shared with relevant faculty to help frame subsequent improvement plan or Innovation Team work.

Phase III Analysis

Phase III will be an individually designed process, carried out by a group of subject matter experts, faculty from multiple disciplines, enrollment, and marketing, convened by the Provost. The group intentionally includes faculty from outside the program in order to provide different perspectives and to help brainstorm innovative opportunities for multi-disciplinary linkages. The larger logic of Phase III calls for assembled teams to provide suggestions for innovation and for the program directors to determine which of these suggestions are worth implementing.  A guiding principle for this work should be to think about these programs beyond the walls of our current academic structure. The results of this work will provide the Provost with the information necessary to make the most informed decision possible regarding the future of the program.  It is expected that Innovation Teams use not only data from Phase I and II, but also any other program review documentation that might be available as a basis for their work; the teams will receive institutional support for coordinating their efforts and have access to the Curriculum Support Team.

At the end of the Phase III process, Innovation Teams will supply the Provost with a comprehensive revitalization plan that answers the following four questions: 1) How could Champlain invest in revitalizing the program and what resources would be necessary to do that? 2) What would it mean for the existing programs to merge with other programs at the College? 3) What would it mean for the program in Phase III to become a series of service courses for other programs? 4) What would it mean for the College if the program were to be discontinued?  While all Phase III teams will be charged with answering these questions, each one will also be provided with a more specific charge to use as a starting point for their work.  Innovation teams should start with the charge outlined in the Phase II decision rationale and expand their work more broadly if necessary. 

Based on the Innovation Team findings, the Provost will make a decision regarding the future of the program which may require: (1) major improvement/revision, (2) combination with another program to create a new joint program, (3) move to service, or  (4) total discontinuance. In any circumstance in which the recommendation is for the program to no longer offer a degree, Faculty Handbook Section 8.3.2 (Program Discontinuance) will be followed. 

Proposed Process Timeline for Review:

  • Early Fall semester: Phase I 

  • Mid Fall Semester: Begin Phase II

  • End of Fall Semester: Complete Phase III

  • Early Spring Semester: Begin Phase III

  • End of March: Complete Phase III. 

  • Provost will make a decision about the future of each Phase III program, allowing a summary to be written and posted for the early April 2020 Board of Trustees meeting.

Campus-based Traditional Undergraduate Program Metrics: A starting point of metrics to be applied to campus-based undergraduate programs is offered here. Note, unless otherwise specified, all quantitative data should cover a five year period.

Preliminary Sample Phase I Metrics (5-year longitudinal data, or as much is available for newer programs):

  • # of first-time, full-time freshmen entering the program

  • Admissions application / acceptance/ enrollment yield

  • Annual fall census date enrollment

  • Freshman-to-sophomore retention 

  • 4/5/6 year Graduation rates

  • Number of degrees or other credentials awarded 

  • Career placement rate within six months of graduation

  • # of new transfers entering the program

Preliminary Sample Phase II Metrics:

  • Phase I metrics and results, along with Provost’s narrative explanation

  • Information provided by Program Directors 

  • Critical to / aligned with the college mission (requires judgmental evaluation)

  • National or professional recognition achievement

  • Percent of enrolled identifying as female

  • Percent of enrolled identifying as diverse

  • Enrollment as “service” (in minors, or in required courses that appear in other program landscapes) 

  • Internal migration into and out of the program

  • Spring and fall external transfers into the program

  • Alignment / integration with other programs 

  • Extent to which program is geographically, socially or culturally “situated” to Vermont 

  • External evidence of market demand and enrollment growth potential. What is the enrollment trend nationally in this program/discipline? (ask Enrollment Management for input; consult National Center for Education Statistics)

  • Admissions yield by gender, diversity

  • Net tuition revenue

  • Non-tuition revenue or sources of funds

  • Equipment, facilities, technology and other financial/nonfinancial resources needed

  • Community and public service involvement 

  • Strength of connection to Centers of Experience (and vice versa)

  • Alumni survey – satisfaction 5 years post-graduation

  • Number placed on Academic Recovery by term and AY

  • Number of FT faculty and ratio of FTE students to FT faculty

  • Class section data

    • # of sections offered

    • Enrollment capacity of sections offered

    • Average class size

    • Student credit hours generated

    • % of sections taught by full-time faculty

    • % of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty

  • Curricular Considerations

    • Alignment with College Competencies

    • Quality and relevance of program learning outcomes

    • How well program and College learning outcomes map to the curriculum (Students develop program and College competencies in a developmentally appropriate, coherent, integrated, and progressively challenging manner)

    • How well the program is able to determine the degree to which students are achieving the PLOs (program learning outcomes assessment)