8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
1/91
Program Prioritization2015-2016 Academic Task Force Report
Submitted by the Academic Task
ForceApril 30, 2016
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
2/91
[Page intentionally left blank]
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
3/91
i | P a g e
NIU PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION 2015-2016
FINAL REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC TASK FORCE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senior leadership at Northern Illinois University (NIU) initiated a systemic Program Prioritizationprocess in the Fall of 2014 in response to a variety of factors: the recent hiring of a new university
President as well as an Executive Vice President and Provost, a report by the Higher Learning
Commission Site Team in 2014 that noted a lack of connection between budgets and the institutional
mission, constriction in budgets as a result of regional and national economic crises, and the lack of
participation and support of units of NIU’s shared governance structure. The Program Prioritization
process was originally undertaken in order to assist senior leadership align expenditures with NIU’s
institutional mission, however the higher education budget crisis in Illinois in 2015/2016 brought
financial issues to the forefront of the campus community’s attention. Despite that, the Program
Prioritization process at NIU differed from those conducted at other institutions in that the NIU task
force charters had no specific charge with regard to the economic impact of the outcomes of its work.NIU’s Program Prioritization Coordinating Committee, made up of 14 members drawn from various
shared governance bodies across campus, initiated a process for selection of members of an Academic
Task Force (AcTF). That task force was charged with the evaluation and categorization of 223 existing
academic programs and 10 newly proposed programs with the ultimate goal of assigning those
programs in relatively equal proportions to one of five (5) categories.
A challenge of the Program Prioritization process has been creating and balancing quantitative and
qualitative metrics for analysis of programs across disciplines. The AcTF recognized the need to respect
both type of metrics when evaluating program narratives.
The AcTF also recognized the financial efficiency with which programs at NIU are operating while
providing quality education and degree programs at a significantly lower cost than other academic
institutions of comparable size and purpose nationally and in Illinois.
The following is a general overview of the AcTF program placements:
Category 1 – Candidate for enhancement : 44 programs (20.6%). Programs in this category are of
high importance to NIU and are high performing making efficient and effective use of their
current resources. Programs in this category were recognized for having unmet demand or
potential for growth and that NIU is missing the opportunity to excel without resource
enhancement.
Category 2 – Candidate for unchanged resources: 45 programs (21.0%). Programs in this
category are important and necessary to NIU and are making good use of their currentresources. Programs in this category are generally meeting demand and doing well with current
resources. However, the potential for growth is not as great as for the enhanced resource
category.
Category 3 – Candidate for reduction in resources: 40 programs (18.7%). Programs in this
category may be underperforming or may have excess capacity or less potential for growth
relative to other programs at NIU.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
4/91
ii | P a g e
Category 4 – Candidate for transformation: 44 programs (20.6%). Programs in this category
need to transform to improve importance, performance, and/or use of resources.
Transformation may involve an increase in resources to a program or a refocus of current
resources. These programs appear to have greater potential than their performance indicates.
Category 5 – Candidate for review : 41 programs (19.2%). Programs in this category, relative to
category 1-4 programs, are lower performing and of lower priority to the NIU mission. Theremay be internal and external demand for some of the programs in this category, but there are
too few student to make the program feasible. Some of these programs were slated for
deletion by their offering department. Prior to elimination, further review is intended for these
programs. Any program elimination will follow NIU policy.
The following are specific task force recommendations in no particular order of importance:
Ensure programs are built with a clear foundation of tenure track faculty.
Bring more attention to academic programs through high quality program marketing.
Examine teacher licensure in an institutional context.
Develop an institutional plan for making Graduate Assistant (GA/TA/RA) stipends morecompetitive.
Ensure student outcome data are available for all programs.
Engage in a campus-wide discussion of what diversity means and address the graduation rates of
underrepresented students.
Address the institutional barriers to the success of interdisciplinary programs.
The evaluation of academic programs and thinking strategically about the future is of importance to
higher education generally, and of importance to NIU specifically. The distribution of revenues in
alignment with future projections will assist the university with the provision of robust and well-
rounded educational programs.
The Academic Prioritization Task Force endeavored to evaluate the performance and future potential
of programs impartially, impersonally, logically and thoughtfully based on qualitative and quantitative
information and discussion amongst task force members. It is the hope of the Academic Task Force
that this work enhances Northern Illinois University’s mission to provide an excellent educational
experience for all students that is affordable, enriching and beneficial for their personal and
professional goals.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
5/91
iii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ....................................................... written by administrative staff ................ pg. 1
Background and Context ............................ ............................................................... pg. 1
Goal, Guiding Principles and Key Elements . ............................................................... pg. 2Phases, Timeline, and Evaluation ................ ............................................................... pg. 4
Task Force Selection, Orientation and Support ........................................................... pg. 5
II. Task Force Methodology ................................... written by the Academic Task Force ....... pg. 8
Early Task Force Processes .......................... ............................................................... pg. 8
Task Force Ground Rules and Norming Process ........................................................... pg. 8
Scoring Rubric and Categories ..................... ............................................................... pg. 9
Program Review and Voting Procedures ..... ............................................................... pg. 11
III.
Results ............................................................... written by the Academic Task Force ....... pg. 14
Recurring Themes ....................................... ............................................................... pg. 14
General Category Characteristics ................ ............................................................... pg. 16
Creation of New Programs and Voluntary Elimination of Existing Programs ............... pg. 22
General Comments and Broad Recommendations ...................................................... pg. 22
IV.
Categorization of Programs ............................... written by the Academic Task Force ....... pg. 25
V.
Appendices ........................................................ ............................................................... pg. 75
Appendix A: Task Force Nomination Forms ....... ............................................................... pg. 75
Appendix B: Task Force Charge and Charter ...... ............................................................... pg. 77
Appendix C: NIU Academic Program Prioritization Criteria Questions ............................... pg. 79
Appendix D: Scoring Rubric and General Guidelines for Program Authors ......................... pg. 82
Appendix E: Categorized Programs Sorted by College and Department ............................ pg. 85
Appendix F: Categorized Programs Sorted Alphabetically by Program Name ......... pg. 152
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
6/91
1 | P a g e
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Background and Context
This report is a product of the Northern Illinois University (NIU) Program Prioritization Academic Task
Force. To preserve the autonomy of this group, only this first introductory chapter has been written byadministrative staff at NIU. The purpose of this opening chapter is to provide background information
related to the Program Prioritization effort undertaken at NIU and to offer context for this report. The
remainder of the report is solely authored by the Academic Task Force.
NIU began work in the fall of 2014 on a comprehensive program prioritization process. The impetus for
the process was multifactorial: (1) strong enthusiasm and support for program prioritization arose
following key changes in senior leadership including the arrival of a new President in 2013 and the
appointment of a new Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) in 2014, both of whom were
dedicated to maximizing the alignment of NIU’s resources with its mission to advance the university
and NIU’s cornerstone goal of student career success; (2) the Higher Learning Commission Site Team
that completed NIU’s 10 year comprehensive accreditation visit in 2014, cited a lack of a demonstrablelink between budget and mission and encouraged NIU to consider a process such as program
prioritization to address this deficit; (3) a commitment by NIU to maintain good stewardship of public
funds was gaining increased importance at a time when the campus was confronting the economic
reality that state funding would continue to decrease in an environment where tuition increases would
be incompatible with NIU’s mission of access and affordability; and (4) these factors resulted in an
exploration of program prioritization undertaken in the fall of 2014 by a group of 11 individuals
representing various shared governance bodies across the university. In November 2014, the individuals
in this group were named by the EVPP to the NIU Program Prioritization Coordinating Team that has
guided this process for the past 18 months. Shortly after this group initiated their work, three
additional members were added to the team, two students and one staff member-at-large. The
Coordinating Team members and their affiliations include:
Table 1.1: NIU’s Program Prioritization Coordinating Team
Team Member Name Home College/Unit Affiliation/Role
Bill Pitney College of Education President of Faculty Senate and Executive
Secretary of University Council
Andy SmallCollege of Liberal Arts and
Sciences
Former President of Operating Staff
Council and Chair of the State University
Civil Service System’s Employee Advisory
Council
Jeff Reynolds Academic Analysis andReporting Data/Reporting Support and SupportiveProfessional Staff
Ibrahim Abdel-
Motaleb
College of Engineering and
Engineering Technology
Chair of the Resources, Space, and
Budget Sub-Committee of the University
Council
Marc FalkoffCollege of Law Vice-chair of the Academic Planning
Council
Denise SchoenbachlerCollege of Business Representative for the Council of Deans
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
7/91
2 | P a g e
* denotes Coordinating Team Facilitator
2. Goal, Guiding Principles and Key Elements
From the start, Program Prioritization at NIU was undertaken as a way to better align resource
allocation with NIU’s mission and priorities. It was not designed as a cost-cutting exercise. Specifically:
The goal of Program Prioritization at NIU is to allocate our resources to maximize the impact of our
institutional program portfolio, across both academic and administrative programs. Further, the program
prioritization process is a data-informed process aligned with NIU's vision, mission and strategic
framework.
While some universities undertake program prioritization as a cost-cutting exercise, this was not the
primary purpose of program prioritization at NIU. That said, the recent budget impasse in the state of
Illinois has led to an absence of state funding for all public higher education institutions for the past 10
months. Therefore, the need to better align our resource allocation with our priorities has gained
increased significance. The campus now looks to program prioritization not only as an endeavor to
align resource allocation with mission, as it was initially intended, but also as a potential means of
addressing the continued lack of state funding support through strategic allocation of limited resources
and responsible stewardship of available funds.
There are three Guiding Principles of Program Prioritization at NIU:
All academic and administrative programs will be reviewed
All contracts with all employees will be honored
All students will be guaranteed to be able to complete their current academic programs
With this goal and its associated guiding principles in mind, the program prioritization process at NIU
was built upon four key elements that are crucial to NIU’s culture and operations:
Brett CoryellDivision of Information
Technology
Representative for the Senior Cabinet
Dillon DomkeCollege of Liberal Arts Representative for undergraduate
students
Brian CunninghamCollege of Law Representative for graduate students
Kelly Wesener
Michael
Division of Student Affairsand Enrollment Management
Member-at-large
Diana RobinsonDivision of Outreach,
Engagement, and Regional
Development
Member-at-large
Lisa FreemanAcademic Affairs Executive Vice President and Provost
Carolinda Douglass*Academic Affairs Vice Provost for Academic Planning and
Development
Susan MiniAcademic Affairs Vice Provost for Resource Planning
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
8/91
3 | P a g e
The first of these is that program prioritization was to be inclusive of all campus stakeholders. This
element was first enacted through the composition of the Coordinating Team which included
representatives from faculty, staff, and students. It was further demonstrated in the development
of Program Prioritization Criteria by gathering input from the university community and
empowering shared governance groups to determine the final criteria and their weighting. Finally,
the selection process and ultimate composition of the Task Forces charged with conducting thereview of academic and administrative programs included representation from multiple campus
constituencies.
Second, program prioritization was to be standardized and data-informed with the best available
data delivered through central sources and in a centralized data platform for program authors
(those writing the narratives for their programs) in support of their data analysis efforts and the
creation of their narratives. Though data provided centrally were primarily quantitative in nature,
program authors were encouraged to include additional data, both quantitative and qualitative, to
elucidate their program narratives.
The third key element of program prioritization at NIU was that it was to be an open and
transparent process. Toward this end, communications about the process were issued through a
number of channels including open Coordinating Team meetings; presentations to multiple
audiences including formal shared governance groups as well as informal student groups, faculty
groups, and staff groups; discussions at Presidential Town Hall meetings; articles in NIU Today
(NIU’s online campus communication) and Northern Star (NIU’s student newspaper); and, most
notably, through a comprehensive and highly active program prioritization website at
http://www.niu.edu/program-prioritization/. Further, communication has been designed as a
reciprocal practice. Feedback has not only been welcomed but expected across all divisions and
from faculty, staff, and students at multiple points in time. Individuals wanting to provide feedback
on this report may do so via the program prioritization website. Feedback (anonymous or
otherwise) will be accepted through May 23, 2016 and distributed to the appropriate individuals
charged with developing action plans during the implementation phase.
The fourth key element of NIU’s program prioritization process was that it should be conducted with
rigor and integrity. At every stage in the process, evaluation has been executed for the dual purpose
of generating formative data for creating process improvements in the current round of program
prioritization and providing summative data for the overall assessment of the process.
Understanding what was accomplished, how it was achieved, and what was positive and negative
about each phase of the process is critical to the rigor and integrity of the process and essential to
NIU’s institutional culture.
http://www.niu.edu/program-prioritization/http://www.niu.edu/program-prioritization/http://www.niu.edu/program-prioritization/
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
9/91
4 | P a g e
3. Phases, Timeline, and Evaluation
To date, the program prioritization process at NIU has included five phases with distinct purposes
although, at times, temporarily overlapping time periods:
Phase 1. Planning and Launch: including the development of the Coordinating Team and its subgroups;
establishment of planning documents to guide the process; and development of a communicationsplan for increasing awareness of program prioritization on campus. As part of this planning and
launching phase, the program prioritization process was designed with NIU’s unique culture in mind
and with attention to all of the key elements. One example of this is the inclusion of all campus
stakeholders as demonstrated by the ways in which NIU has brought in student voices at multiple points
in the process.
Phase 2. Process Development : including the creation of support teams; the establishment of Program
Prioritization Criteria through a campus-wide process that had at its core the key element of inclusion of
all campus stakeholders; the selection of Task Force members; and the execution of an ongoing
evaluation process, all of which were developed through methods conducted with rigor and integrity.
Phase 3. Data Platform Development and Population: including the construction of program definitions
and inventories; the selection and specialized customization of a data platform, Prioritization Plus TM;
the identification and population of data within that platform; and the training of campus constituents
in the use of the platform.
Phase 4. Program Narrative Writing: including providing training, assistance, and communications in
support of completing 223 Academic Program narratives and 236 Administrative Program narratives.
Phase 5. Task Forces’ Scoring and Report Development : including supporting the Task Forces with
resources, meeting space, technical support, and communications assistance during the scoring of
program narratives and report development.
Although the Coordinating Team has overseen each of these phases, multiple individuals and groups
have been drawn into the process at various points based upon their occupational expertise and
campus perspectives. Thus far, nearly 500 distinct individuals have played an important role in program
prioritization at NIU. This number is expected to increase in the upcoming Phase 6, Implementation.
Planning andLaunch
ProcessDevelopment
Data PlatformDevelopment and
Population
ProgramNarrative Writing
Task ForceScoring and
ReportDevelopment
Implementation
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
10/91
5 | P a g e
A full description of each phase of Program prioritization is beyond the scope of this report. In
alignment with the key elements of an open and transparent process, creating standardized and data-
informed practices, and having program prioritization conducted with rigor and integrity, a Program
Prioritization Evaluation Report will be issued by the Evaluation Team, a subgroup of the Coordinating
Team, to the university community in fall 2016. That report will include descriptions of all components
within each phase of the process, associated evaluations of each of those components, andrecommendations for the future. At this juncture, a description is needed of the manner in which the
Academic Task Force was selected, how the members were oriented to their task, the charge they were
given, and the support that was provided to them during their work on program prioritization (aspects
of Phases 2, 3, and 4).
4. Task Force Selection, Orientation and Support
The Task Force Selection process began in March 2015. The Coordinating Team developed a
nomination form (see Appendix 1-A) that was distributed widely and communicated in an open and
transparent process via the program prioritization website, NIU Today (the online communication for
the NIU campus), and through shared governance groups. As can be seen on the nomination form, the
Coordinating Team believed that individuals chosen to serve on the Academic Task Force should:
Understand and embrace NIU’s mission as a student-centered research and teaching institution
with a strong commitment to engagement within our region.
Enjoy the respect of their peers and have achieved a high level of credibility.
Have participated in university-wide initiatives such as service on committees, task forces, shared
governance bodies, etc.
Have a reputation for getting things done and meeting commitments within a specific timeframe
Have the ability to consider the university’s long-term vision and participate as a representative of
the entire university, not just his/her own department or unit (i.e., have a “trustee mentality”).
Be committed to the principle of confidentiality in all task force work. Be willing to take the time needed to fully participate in all task force activities.
Further, potential nominees were informed that the work of the Task Force would be time-intensive,
and estimated to take at least 6-10 hours a week over a five month period. (In actuality, the task was
even more time-intensive than originally believed, taking many Task Force members twice as much,
and in some cases, three times as much time as initially anticipated.) Because of the heavy time
commitment predicted by the Coordinating Team and the possibility of power differentials among Task
Force members, the Academic Task Force membership was limited to tenured faculty and non-tenure
track instructors only. Faculty who were on the tenure track but not yet tenured and students were not
invited to participate in the Task Force. However, In keeping with our key element of being inclusive of
all campus stakeholders, nominations could be made by all campus constituents including faculty of alltypes, staff, and students. Nominations were open for four weeks from March 16 to April 10, 2015. A
total of 63 individuals were nominated for the Academic Task Force.
The Coordinating Team supported the creation of an ad-hoc Task Force Selection Group, with
representation from shared governance groups, to select the members of the Academic Task Force.
This was seen as a way to further underscore NIU’s commitment to being inclusive of all campus
stakeholders. (See Table 1.2).
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
11/91
6 | P a g e
Table 1.2: NIU’s Task Force Selection Group
Member Title Group Represented
Lisa Freeman Executive Vice President and Provost Senior Cabinet
Bill Pitney Executive Secretary, University Council and
President, Faculty Senate
University Council and
Faculty Senate
Melissa Lenczewski Associate Professor, College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences
Faculty Senate
Greg Long Distinguished Teaching Professor, College of
Health and Human Sciences
Faculty Senate
Richard Siegesmund Associate Professor, College of Visual and
Performing Arts
Faculty Senate
Jeanne Meyer Director, Office of Student Conduct Supportive
Professional Staff
David Long Operations Manager, Holmes Student Center Operating Staff
Council
Nathan Lupstein President, Student Association Student Association
The Task Force Selection Group was asked to select 20 members for the Academic Task Force based on
the nomination criteria and to ensure that there was at least one member on the Task Force from each
of NIU’s seven colleges. Keeping in mind that all Task Force members were expected to participate as
representatives of the entire university, not just their own departments or colleges, the Coordinating
Team felt it was also important that the perspective of each college be included in composition of the
Task Force. The Task Force Selection Group identified members, alternates, and a chair for the
Academic Task Force. The chair later had to step down from that role due to personal reasons and theTask Force voted to appoint two co-chairs to lead the group.
Academic Task Force Members
John Bentley (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
James Byrd (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Rod Caughron (College of Education)
David Changnon (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Therese Clarke Arado (College of Law)
Alan Clemens (College of Education) **
Brianno Coller (College of Engineering and Engineering Technology)
Alexander Gelman (College of Visual and Performing Arts) Janice Hamlet (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Anne Hanley (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Bernard Harris (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Jeanne Isabel (College of Health and Human Sciences)
Jeanette Rossetti (College of Health and Human Sciences)
Brad Sagarin (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Rebecca Shortridge (College of Business)
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
12/91
7 | P a g e
George Slotsve (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences) **
Francisco Solares-Larrave (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Molly Swick (College of Education)
Kendall Thu (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)***
Josephine Umoren (College of Health and Human Sciences)
Laura Vazquez (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
**Task Force Co-chairs
***Served on the Task Force until April 23, 2016
The Academic Task Force was first convened as a group on September 4, 2015 and completed an initial
training that day with Larry Goldstein from Campus Strategies, LLC. The Task Force members were
informed that they were to sign a charge and charter agreement form to help ensure that this stage of
program prioritization would be conducted with rigor and integrity (See Appendix 1-B), and they were to
utilize the Program Prioritization Academic Criteria developed through a campus-wide survey and
shared governance group process in early 2015. (See Appendix 1-C.) The Academic Criteria were linked
to specific program questions and centralized data sources, where available, for individuals who
authored program narratives. In subsequent meetings, the Task Force was trained to use the dataplatform, Prioritization PlusTM, and was given assistance in customizing the platform for scoring
purposes by members of the Data Support Team.
During the months that ensued, and particularly during the months in which the Task Force was
reviewing program narratives and categorizing programs, the Task Force Support Team supported the
efforts of the Academic Task Force. This included meeting with Task Force Co-Chairs biweekly to
assess current progress and needs of the Task Force; providing training and customization to the
scoring system as needed; providing meeting rooms and materials for weekly Task Force meetings; and
working with Task Force Co-Chairs to provide relevant communications to the university community.
However, throughout this time period, members of the Task Force Support Team were not privy to the
content of the Task Force deliberations nor to the evaluative work they performed in order to generate
this final report. Now that we have reached the conclusion of the Task Force work, we thank the Task
Force members for their commitment, diligence, and trustee-mentality and we look forward to
reviewing the results in this report.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
13/91
8 | P a g e
II. TASK FORCE METHODOLOGY
1. Early Task Force Processes
Preparation for the work of the AcTF began September 4, 2015 with a full-day workshop facilitated by aconsultant with extensive Program Prioritization experience (see page 7).
Public panel discussions were scheduled for the benefit of program authors seeking advice and
feedback; in addition, closed panel discussions between the AcTF and Program Prioritization alumni
from other institutions were held October 14-15, 2015. The closed discussions highlighted the range of
procedures used across their institutions and emphasized the need for the AcTF to define its own
operational procedures.
Toward that end the AcTF met on October 20, 2015 for purposes of establishing the procedural rules
(voting thresholds, absentee policies, etc.) and operational protocols (voting procedures, conflict of
interest standards, etc.) that would define its operation. (Voting procedures are outlined in detail on
page 11.) In the week subsequent to the meeting of October 20 the AcTF developed a scoring rubric andgeneral guidelines document for program narrative authors. The rubric and general guidelines
documents are discussed further on page 9 and included in Appendix D.
On November 13, 2015, the AcTF received training on interpreting the institutional and other data that
was likely to appear in program narratives, training on the software to be used during the program
prioritization process, and further refined its operational rules and protocols. At this meeting the AcTF
formally made the decision to separate the processes of scoring each program against the rubric and
assigning each program to a formal category.
2.
Task Force Ground Rules and Norming Process
Ground rules for the AcTF were first established at the initial orientation and training. They consisted
of a set of overarching principles encompassing the task force’s operation. There were five in total:
Maintain an institutional perspective
Come prepared and on time to meetings
Civil and respectful interactions
Focus on the task
Have respect for the integrity of the schedule
These directly contributed to the development of a number of the operational protocols for the group:
Advocacy for a program based on personal interest, or based on knowledge outside of the
scope of data provided within the narrative, was prohibited.
Every academic program would be read and evaluated by each member of the AcTF.
Voting would be open (not by secret ballot) for all votes. (Voting should not be confused
with scoring, which is discussed on page 11.)
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
14/91
9 | P a g e
A critical aspect of the AcTF’s work related to confidentiality regarding the process and materials
generated as a part of the process. AcTF members elected to use Blackboard (NIU’s learning
management system, which includes supporting space for non-instructional groups and committees)
for the transmission and storage of messages and documents.
Scoring occurred in two phases:
1. AcTF scored each program within the rubric
2. AcTF placed individual programs into their final category.
Phase One: On December 16, 2015, the AcTF conducted a practice session during which a small sample
of programs (six in total) were scored for the purpose of norming each of the eight criteria and
confirming procedural protocols. At the conclusion of the meeting the AcTF decided that the narratives
scored during the practice session would be rescored as part of the full schedule of scoring.
Additionally, the AcTF decided to review all programs within a department in the same week. A
schedule was laid out for reviewing the 223 programs which distributed the programs from each college
as evenly as possible over the scoring period and ensured that programs from different colleges were
discussed each week.
Phase Two: Phase two began on March 18, 2016 and continued through April 22. After completion of
the scoring of all programs in the inventory, the AcTF held a series of meetings related to the
placement of programs into the Program Prioritization categories. The task force also refined the
operational meaning of each of the five categories during this period with the addition of the phrase
“candidate for” to the title of each category.
3. Scoring Rubric and Categories
Narrative authors for existing programs were provided eight criteria (see Appendix C) that would be
used in the evaluation process; narrative authors for proposed programs were provided a subset of sixof those criteria (omitting Quality of Faculty and Quality of Students, since faculty assignments and
students enrollments were only hypothetical). The AcTF created a scoring rubric (see Appendix D)
based on its interpretation of the criteria and a document titled “General Guidelines for Program
Evaluation” that provided the authors general advice relevant to writing their program narratives.
Access to both documents was provided through the NIU Program Prioritization website. According to
the rubric, the set of possible scores for each criterion was: 1 (below expectations), 5 (meets
expectations), or 9 (exceptional).
The ultimate objective of the program prioritization process was to place every academic program
offered at NIU into one of five categories listed in Table 2.1. The names of some categories were
modified slightly from the form presented at the AcTF orientation to include the words “Candidate for
…” The wording acknowledged that final decisions, including magnitude, type, and scope of action,
would be determined by the administration upon further review in the steps that followed submission
of this task force report. As will be discussed further in the Results section, ultimately 13 programs were
not categorized.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
15/91
10 | P a g e
Table 2.1: Category Descriptions
Category Description
Category 1.
Candidate forEnhancement
High importance and excellent performance relative to other NIU academic
programs
Efficient use of available resources, as demonstrated by scholarship/artistry,
teaching, and/or service
High potential to improve quality of scholarship, artistry, teaching, and/or service,
and NIU would be missing an opportunity to excel without such enhancements.
Enhanced resources recommended may include additional faculty lines, graduateassistantships, professional development, funding for program activities,
enhanced marketing and improvements to equipment and/or laboratories
Category 2.
Candidate for
Unchanged
Resources
Sufficient importance and performance relative to other NIU academic programs
Adequate use of current resources as demonstrated by scholarship/artistry,
teaching, and service Program should continue at current resource levels
Category 3.
Candidate for
Reduction in
Resources
Programs placed in this category may possess strong importance or performance
elements, however they have one or more of the following characteristics:
o Relatively high levels of resources compared to existing demand; may
require adjustment to achieve balance
o Underperformance relative to other programs at NIU
Category 4.
Candidate for
Transformation
Transformation needed to improve importance, performance, and/or use of
resources Recommendations for programs placed in this category suggest one or more of
the following :
o Refocus on areas that are more productive or more viable
o Seek more appropriate balance of scholarship/artistry, teaching, and/or
service
o Resize the program to better serve existing and future constituencies
o Reorganize to leverage complementary components
Transformation may require an increase of resources to a program or refocus of
current resources
Category 5.
Candidate for
Review
Does not demonstrate an effective/efficient use of institutional resources
Unclear whether program’s value and viability would improve with continued
investment
Further review necessary to re-evaluate the program
Possible candidate for phase-out and eventual elimination
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
16/91
11 | P a g e
4. Program Review and Voting Procedures
On Friday, January 8, 2016 the AcTF held the first of a series of meetings for the purpose of assigning
scores to each of the eight criteria for every program. Prior to each weekly meeting task force
members were assigned 21 to 24 program narratives to read, record observations and score. Individual
AcTF member scores were entered anonymously into a data collection system designed and developed
by NIU’s Division of Information Technology (DoIT). Each of the criteria was scored as a 1 (below
expectations), 5 (meets expectations), or 9 (exceptional). On Thursday of each week, the individual
program’s criteria scores were locked and summary statistics of results for each program were posted.
This allowed task force members to review their program notes prior to the Friday meeting.
Meetings during this period were dedicated to reaching consensus on each of the eight criterion scores
for each of the 223 academic programs. Consistent with the advice of the consultant, the AcTF
determined that 17 out of 21 votes were needed to assign a consensus score for each criterion within a
program. If the anonymous preliminary scoring produced consensus on a particular criterion, that score
was locked and relevant notes from AcTF members were recorded. In cases were the preliminary
scoring failed to produce consensus, discussion followed of relevant data drawn from the submitted
program narratives; the AcTF did not allow information that was outside the narrative to enter into the
discussion of a program. AcTF members were additionally not allowed to advocate for their own
programs. Subsequent to those discussions, open votes were taken on scores until consensus was
reached.
Given the intense scrutiny of each criterion score for each program, the Friday meeting time was
lengthened from 4 hours to 4.5 hours, and eventually to 8 hours each week. During the scoring process,
detailed notes were taken for each program as well as general notes on the program prioritization
process and recurring themes present across multiple narratives.
An additional ten proposed programs were scored separately after existing programs were scored.
These proposed programs were scored using a subset of the original eight criteria.
Finally, the AcTF reexamined the criteria scores for programs scored during the first few weeks. The
scores appeared consistent with the scoring done in later weeks, so the scores were left unchanged.
Starting in March, 2016, after all criterion scoring was completed, the AcTF began the process of
categorization. Programs were initially categorized without explicit consideration of the number of
programs in each category. Unlike the initial scoring, programs were categorized individually, and not
by department. Degree granting programs and minors were categorized first. Thereafter, other
programs (e.g., certificates) were categorized using the same procedures.
Programs were ordered for categorization decisions based on the rubric scoring results. The rubric
evaluation criteria were divided into two groups:
Program Performance criteria:
Faculty quality and outcomes (16%)
Student quality and outcomes (16%)
Financial efficiency (11%)
Contribution to diversity (5%)
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
17/91
12 | P a g e
Program Importance criteria:
Internal demand (14%)
External demand (11%)
Importance to NIU mission (16%)
Program potential (11%)
Criteria weights are reported in the parentheses. Using the criteria weights as sub-weights, a
“performance” score and an “importance” score were calculated as well as an “overall” score. The
“overall” score was the sum of the “performance” and “importance” scores. All programs were then
ranked by the “overall” score. In cases where more than one program had the same “overall” score the
programs were then ranked according to their “importance” score and finally according to their
“performance” score.
It is important to recognize that these numerical rankings were employed by individual members or by
the AcTF as a whole only to provide an initial ordering of programs as an aid to structuring discussion.
Particular categorization of any program was both a qualitative and quantitative process; scores
informed the categorization process but scores did not solely determine the outcome. As with initialscoring, a vote of 17 out of 21 was needed for placement of a program into a category. Any member
could request reconsideration of the category for a program. Re-categorization required 17 out of 21
votes; all votes were open.
During this process, the AcTF identified six M.A./M.S. programs that were closely linked to their
associated Ph.D. programs. These programs are identified in the categorization tables in Section IV
and are referred to as “bundled” programs. The factors used to make those decisions involved both a
quantitative and qualitative analysis. The relevant variables considered included:
Whether the master’s degree could be reasonably considered a terminal degree in its own right,
or if it either a) had been functionally combined with the doctoral degree to produce an
accelerated program path, or b) existed as an option for those students who opted not tocomplete the associated doctoral program.
Whether there was any differentiation in faculty between the master’s and doctoral degree
programs.
Whether there was any difference in the sequence of courses between the master’s and
doctoral degree programs.
In the six cases where the task force determined that the two academic programs were sufficiently
inseparable, the programs were combined and treated as a single program for categorization. (The task
force considered this a removal from categorization, and thus this reduced the total number of
programs being categorized from 223 to 217).
Newly proposed program narratives were reviewed in the same fashion as the other existing programs
using six of the eight criteria. After review, the AcTF concluded that the criteria used to evaluate
existing programs were ill suited to the task of evaluating the proposed programs, and decided not to
categorize proposed programs, but to discuss them in the final report. Similarly, the AcTF decided not
to categorize three programs that were unique in that they existed in the official program inventory but
had not yet enrolled students. These three were included with the proposed programs in the final
report, further reducing the number of programs in the inventory from 217 to 214. At the time
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
18/91
13 | P a g e
prioritization narratives were drafted, it was not possible for authors of these new programs to include
critical data necessary to evaluate the programs on the same basis as others.
Once all programs were initially categorized, the AcTF examined the proportion of programs in each of
the five categories to determine the number that would need to be moved to achieve approximately
equal distribution, which was a charge of the task force’s original charter. Programs were reviewed if
the commentaries being prepared for the report seemed inconsistent with the category within which a
program had been placed. Only a modest number of programs were moved as a result of either
process, and the movement of each program required 17 out of 21 votes.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
19/91
14 | P a g e
III. RESULTS
1. Recurring Themes
During the review of the narratives, the AcTF encountered a variety of themes mentioned within
multiple narratives, or made observations across the review of multiple narratives that cannot be
appropriately addressed in comments to any individual program.
Structural realignments in personnel: The recent loss of tenured and tenure-track faculty due to
retirement and migration has had a significant impact on an overwhelming number of programs. The
replacement of full-time faculty with Visiting Assistant Professors, instructors, and in some cases
graduate teaching assistants (TA) has damaged faculty morale and significantly impacted the
educational experience of students enrolled (vis-à-vis the quality of the learning experience, student
advising, and mentoring) in a variety of programs.
Graduate stipends: Graduate stipends that support Graduate Assistants (GA), Teaching Assistants, and
Research Assistants (RA) were consistently highlighted as lower across disciplines than external and
competing graduate programs, making it very difficult for NIU to compete with other institutions fortop-notch graduate students. Attracting graduate students across is important for maintaining NIU’s
research high status. Those graduate students not only contribute to the vitality of the graduate
programs within which they are enrolled, but additionally contribute as GAs and TAs to the strength of
undergraduate programs across campus.
Program financial efficiency: The nature of this process focused attention on program performance over
the past five years, a period during which the country struggled with recovery from a devastating
economic crisis. The AcTF recognized the financial efficiency with which programs at NIU are
operating, frequently providing degree programs at a significantly lower cost than competitors in the
region and peer institutions of similar size and purpose to which we are compared in national
databases. It was often the case that nearly 100% of the operating costs of any particular programwere dedicated to employee salaries, indicating that many programs across campus have stripped
away almost all other operational expenses in an effort to retain employees. The AcTF is concerned
that operating in this manner is not sustainable and, in fact, puts the integrity of many programs at risk
over the long term.
Program marketing: The evidence of the need for an improved institutional marketing strategy for
academic programs was present both explicitly and implicitly across the program narratives. Many
authors raised concerns about the visibility of their programs, particularly in exploration of Program
Potential (Criterion 5) and Internal Demand (Criterion 7). The AcTF noted a number of additional cases
in which an academic program appeared well designed and well aligned to market conditions but still
appeared to be struggling with enrollments, and frequently a key element of that struggle appeared tobe remediable through effective promotion.
Teacher licensure: Revisions to certification/licensure, reduction in budgets, and an increasingly critical
public discourse about education, have all contributed to fluctuating enrollments in a variety of teacher
preparation programs across campus. These are primarily housed in the College of Education (COE),
but the impacts have been felt in programs in Mathematics, Art, History, and others outside of the
COE. Structural issues such as the organization and purpose of departments in the COE, the
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
20/91
15 | P a g e
relationships between academic and administrative offices providing services to education, and
programmatic issues all appear to be contributing to a situation where some programs are
overburdened and others lack sufficient enrollment or support to continue. Some of these issues were
referenced within narratives, and others became apparent in the analysis across teacher licensure
programs.
Reliability/consistency of data: A significant challenge to comprehensive analysis of this type is its
dependence on the accuracy of data being drawn from a variety of systems on campus used to collect
and report that data. It was common for data received from Institutional Research (an office in NIU’s
Division of Academic Affairs) to be inconsistent with data received from the Office of the Provost, and
again inconsistent with data extracted from MyNIU (the institutional portal used by faculty and
students to interface with registration and records systems, financial systems, etc.). Rapidly growing
reporting requirements and particularly the data collection and reporting requirements of a process as
extensive as Program Prioritization only serve to highlight the inconsistencies in those data systems.
An additional challenge to a process of this type relates to the difficulty in creating metrics for analysis
of academic programs across disciplines. Some disciplines are more disposed, by their nature, to
quantitative analysis than others. In some cases this manifests itself in data that appears to be
objective like enrollment or faculty load statistics, but which must be considered within the context of
disciplinary standards or other external mandates. In other cases this manifests itself in the difficulty of
quantifying the qualitative: how does one compare the expertise or productivity of units that develop
and stage artistic performances for the local community with units whose expertise is in the solicitation
of grant funds for the operation of research laboratories? The AcTF recognized the need for processes
like Program Prioritization to retain a respect for the qualitative aspects of our colleagues’ work and of
the broader higher educational enterprise, and recognized repeated references to that complexity
across program narratives.
Interdisciplinary programs, minors and certificates: While many programs were commendable, the AcTF
observed that interdisciplinary efforts were the most difficult to assess due to inconsistent reporting.
Often there was little data on faculty identity or productivity, student enrollments and learning
outcomes. Some of these programs faced inadequate oversight, lack of commitment to a program’s
teaching requirements and/or problems with regular course offerings.
Graduation Rates for Underrepresented Students: For a considerable number of undergraduate
programs, there is a wide gap between the number of underrepresented students that enroll and the
number that successfully graduate. An inconsistency existed in the degree to which that gap was
addressed in the narratives, suggesting that some programs were more cognizant of this gap than
others, or that programs were not addressing the problem.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
21/91
16 | P a g e
2.
General Category Characteristics
The AcTF was charged with reviewing all academic programs and placing them in relatively equal
proportions into the five categories. The AcTF was originally given 223 programs, and as discussed
previously, six programs were combined with other programs and three new programs were placedwith the group of proposed programs, resulting in a total of 214 categorized programs. The 214
programs were placed in five categories for an average of 43 per category. The assignment of programs
into categories was based on an initial scoring of individual programs across the eight criteria, followed
by a review of every program’s scores and Task Force comments for category placement. A summary of
all program categorizations is listed below, providing a glimpse of the distribution of programs via three
lenses: by category (see Table 3.1), by college or unit (see Tables 3.2-3.7), and by type of program (see
Table 3.8-3.11).
Minors and certificates tended to be placed more frequently in Categories 3 to 5. Category 5 includes
eleven programs that requested elimination. Individual program categorizations with commentary
sorted by category and college or unit are provided in Tables 4.1-4.5 in Section IV.
Table 3.1: Distribution by Category of all Programs
Category Number of Programs Percent of Programs
Category 1 44 20.6%
Category 2 45 21.0%
Category 3 40 18.7%
Category 4 44 20.6%
Category 5 41 19.2%
Total categorized 214
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
22/91
17 | P a g e
Program categorization by College is listed below. The results indicate variation across colleges. The
Colleges of Business, Health and Human Sciences, and Liberal Arts and Sciences have a higher
percentage of programs in Categories 1 and 2. The Colleges of Education and Engineering and
Engineering Technology have higher percentages of programs in Categories 4 and 5. The College of
Visual and Performing Arts has a relatively large number of programs in Categories 3 and 4.
Table 3.2: Distribution of Programs within the College of Business
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 4 17%
Category 2 6 25%
Category 3 6 25%
Category 4 3 13%
Category 5 5 21%
Table 3.3: Distribution of Programs within the College of Education
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 3 9%
Category 2 9 26%
Category 3 5 15%
Category 4 10 29%
Category 5 7 21%
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
23/91
18 | P a g e
Table 3.4: Distribution of Programs within the College of Engineering and Engineering Technologies
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 4 18%
Category 2 1 5%
Category 3 4 18%
Category 4 4 18%
Category 5 9 41%
Table 3.5: Distribution of Programs within the College of Health and Human Sciences
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 8 32%
Category 2 5 20%
Category 3 3 12%
Category 4 4 16%
Category 5 5 20%
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
24/91
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
25/91
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
26/91
21 | P a g e
Table 3.10: Distribution by Category of Certificates of Study
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 3 7%
Category 3 11 25%
Category 4 6 14%
Category 5 24 55%
Table 3.11: Distribution by Category of Other Academic Programs
Category Number of Programs Percentage
Category 1 4 22%
Category 2 2 11%
Category 3 3 17%
Category 4 6 33%
Category 5 3 17%
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
27/91
22 | P a g e
3.
Creation of New Programs and Voluntary Elimination of Existing Programs
NIU’s implementation of the program prioritization process made the option available for academic
units to propose new programs. Commentaries for each of the 10 programs that chose to submit
proposals, as well as the three programs in the existing inventory that had not admitted students areincluded in Tables 4.6-4.7. As a result, these programs were not categorized.
In addition, academic units were offered the opportunity to voluntarily request the elimination of
programs within their inventory. Requests were received for the elimination of 11 programs. Those
programs were all placed in Category 5 and appear in Table 4.5 without commentaries.
4. General Comments and Broad Recommendations
The AcTF recognizes that NIU has a significant number of nationally and internationally acclaimed
programs in addition to a number of high performing programs with aspirations of growth that are
candidates for support. The overall results highlight the strong academic foundations essential foroperation of a research-high institution. However, the results also reveal problematic issues within
program development and suggest the need for institutional leadership. The AcTF recognizes that NIU
needs to focus human and capital resources to maintain quality and meet the needs of our students and
the greater society that we serve.
Program Prioritization was introduced to Northern Illinois University in response to a number of
internal and external factors highlighted below. These factors lend contextualization to the process
and afford a richer understanding of the AcTF’s findings. A national economic crisis, the ongoing
budget crisis in the State of Illinois, decreases in state funding support for higher education, continuing
increases in the cost of operations, demographic changes in the state and the resulting decrease in the
number of high school graduates, have all contributed to an operational climate within which
maintenance of the status quo is no longer possible.
Rapid changes to the State Universities Retirement System have precipitated the departure of faculty
and staff in a premature and non-strategic manner, including the loss of high-impact personnel in a
variety of offices and disciplines. Some of the consequences of this loss of personnel include decreases
in enrollment, retention and graduation rates. The remaining personnel have been tasked with
responding to this challenge while academic salaries remain static, even as some administrative salaries
continue to rise, and conditions create a general state of instability, leading to a general decline in
morale across campus.
The current administration at NIU has attempted to respond to a variety of these issues with anextensive catalogue of aggressive remedies, including modifications to the admissions process and
institutional financial management practices. Despite some inconsistency in their success, the AcTF
recognizes that these initiatives represent real attempts to address the myriad challenges our
institution faces. NIU needs to continue to change and the AcTF recognizes that Program Prioritization
was selected as a process through which the NIU community could clarify its priorities and lend
cohesive direction to our continuing change and growth.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
28/91
23 | P a g e
The challenges notwithstanding, the AcTF believes that realizing the goals of Program Prioritization are
essential while remaining cognizant of the fragile state of the university. To use the nomenclature of
Program Prioritization, the recent history of budget constriction has effectively placed every program
in Category 3, a continued reduction of resources. Prioritization, if implemented with fidelity, provides
an opportunity to identify priorities and purposefully direct the future of Northern Illinois University.
The following are specific task force recommendations in no particular order of importance:
Ensure programs are built with a clear foundation of tenure track faculty. While recognizing the valuable
and often high-quality contributions of instructors, teaching assistants, adjunct faculty and other
members of the instructional faculty, the long term success of academic programs is dependent on the
presence of tenure track faculty with active research agendas and a commitment to the health of their
program and the institution. The AcTF recommends the institution ensure the long term health of
academic programs by committing to fill vacant tenure-track faculty positions for the variety of
academic programs that can demonstrate the crises being created by these critical shortages.
Bring more attention to academic programs through high quality program marketing. One recurrent
problem among many programs (particularly stand-alone minors and certificates, but including a
variety of degree programs) was the low number of participants and the lack of awareness of their
existence. This purportedly led to low enrollments and participation. While reading program
descriptions, the AcTF encountered several admirable programs that have been poorly promoted and,
as a result, are not sufficiently populated. In order to effectively communicate the existence of these
programs, the AcTF suggests a renewed focus on the promotion of our outstanding catalogue of
academic programs, including high-level efforts by the offices tasked with institutional marketing and
departmental or local/internal efforts that could include the following:
Program coordinators communicate with academic advisors: Minors and certificates frequently
suffer from neglect because they are not well known outside their home departments. This
problem may be solved if the coordinators of these programs consulted with or at least
contacted academic advisors from other academic units to promote these programs among
new pools of students.
Students visit classrooms and promote these programs among their peers: Students
participating in minors or certificates can visit sections of courses with potential students, and
speak to them about these programs. Students are often better at answering questions or
addressing concerns of other students than advisors or coordinators.
Promote these programs through electronic and print means: NIU must aggressively and
creatively promote all programs through websites, social media and print, emphasizing the
interconnectedness and strength of its academic programs. Courses taken for minors and certificates: Minor and certificate participation could be
improved by sharing courses and allowing students to count them for more than one program.
This strategy would strengthen programs giving students enhanced educational opportunities.
Examine teacher licensure in an institutional context. Issues with enrollment in and the performance of a
variety of teacher licensure programs on campus were explored on page 14-15. The artifacts of NIU’s
history as a normal school include the distribution of academic and administrative offices across
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
29/91
24 | P a g e
campus. The AcTF recommends that the review and analysis of programs in teacher licensure should be
inclusive of the variety of programs and offices across campus connected to this programmatic
offerings and reflect the sort of institutional leadership previously mentioned in these comments.
Develop an institutional plan for making Graduate Assistant (GA/TA/RA) stipends more competitive.
Already addressed under Recurring Themes, the AcTF believes an essential element to the success of
NIU’s graduate programs is its ability to attract and retain the highest caliber of graduate student. The
quality of our graduate programs is reflected in the steady flow of applicants for admission, but authors
consistently highlighted stipends as an underlying reason why their programs struggled to convert
those applications into enrollments. The AcTF strongly recommends the university demonstrate its
commitment to graduate education by improving the competitiveness of graduate student stipends
across campus.
Ensure student outcome data is available for all programs. A variety of authors struggled to provide
student outcome data for their programs, highlighting the need for improvement in both the systems
used to collect that data, and the collective commitment of academic programs to monitor the
progress of their students, particularly in non-degree granting programs. The AcTF strongly believes
that an institutional commitment to collection and provision of data is an essential component of
effective program review and decision-making in the future.
Engage in a campus-wide discussion of what diversity means. The range of responses to Criterion 8
(Diversity) reflected a lack of focus or understanding of an institutional definition of diversity. Given
NIU’s reputation as a leader in respect for and support of diversity issues related to sexual orientation
and gender identity, for example, narratives reflected broad inconsistency in what academic programs
appeared to be trying to accomplish vis-à-vis diversity. The AcTF encourages NIU’s administration to
bring strong leadership and focus to an exploration of what diversity means in a fashion that permeates
our campus community. This includes addressing and improving a disturbingly low graduation rate
among underrepresented groups.
Address the institutional barriers to the success of interdisciplinary programs: A variety of institutional
barriers exist that inhibit the success of interdisciplinary programs. NIU has encouraged the
development of these programs as a response to market conditions. However programs suffer from
inadequate resources, outdated operational rules, and/or a culture which does not sufficiently
incentivize cooperation among academic units. The institution must respond with comprehensive
action plan if these programs are to have any chance of long-term success.
The quality of narratives, data, and approver reviews varied significantly. The quality of the
institutionally provided data varied significantly across types of data and programs. The AcTF believesthat evaluating programs and thinking strategically is important to the future of higher education and
NIU. Distributing revenues based on a forward-looking view of programs is the only way for universities
to thrive and provide a strong, well-rounded education for students. We have endeavored to evaluate
programs based both on performance and future potential. Members of the AcTF have dedicated time
and attention to this project as evidence of the collective commitment to the institution and its
continued excellence. We hope our efforts help the university thoughtfully consider its strategy moving
forward.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
30/91
25 | P a g e
IV. CATEGORIZATION OF PROGRAMS
Table 4.1: Candidate for Enhancement
Candidate for Enhancement
College Department Program Name AcTF Comments
CBUS Accountancy B.S. in Accountancy This nationally ranked program has a high
student CPA exam pass rate. It has
demonstrated commendable support for
student diversity. The AcTF suggests the
program open up more seats in classes in
high demand areas.
CBUS Accountancy Master of Accounting
Science
A nationally ranked program that is very
successful. AcTF applauds its plans for
diversity and interdisciplinary
actions. Program has been authorized by
IBHE for off campus delivery, but funding to
do so is unavailable.
CBUS Oper Mgmt &
Info Sys
B.S. in Operations
and Information
Management
A nationally ranked program with good
interdisciplinary efforts, international
partnerships, study abroad opportunities,
and service to other programs. Strong jobdemand has supported steady enrollments
and consistent degree conferral in time of
overall declining enrollments. Narrative
reflected thoughtful diversity actions
including good scholarship opportunities for
underrepresented groups. Positive
graduation rates for minority students.
AcTF encourages NIU to enhance support
for faculty research.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
31/91
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
32/91
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
33/91
28 | P a g e
CHHS Allied Health
& Comm
Disorders
Doctor of Physical
Therapy
Program is in high demand and has
excellent student outcomes in graduation
rate, licensure rate, and employment
success. Its faculty and students have a
very good level of engagement in the
university and regional community. It has
made impressive efforts to foster a diverse
faculty and student body. New resources
should go to more competitive faculty
salaries.
CHHS Allied Health
& Comm
Disorders
M.A. in
Communicative
Disorders
A strong program with good engagement
and 100% placement of graduates. It has
the potential to offer continuing education
credits but cannot due to resource
constraints. This is an area of potentialgrowth. New resources should be
committed to faculty hires.
CHHS Allied Health
&
Communicati
ve Disorders
B.S. in Health
Sciences
Laudable curricular changes to improve
graduation rates. This program needs
faculty in order to be successful with only
2.1 FTE for 700 students. Enhancements
could include resources to provide career
counseling that will benefit students. AcTF
strongly recommends additional faculty
hires to enhance scholarly productivity and
reduce student/faculty ratio.
CHHS Family,
Consumer &
Nutrition
B.S. in Nutrition,
Dietetics, and
Hospitality
Management,
Comprehensive
Major
Impressive hands-on program that heeded
recommendations of their external review.
Admirable awarding of degrees and minors.
Program needs to focus on increasing
degrees conferred to minority students.
AcTF agrees that hospitality should be a
separate program. AcTF also strongly
recommends additional faculty hires toenhance scholarly productivity and reduce
student/faculty ratio.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
34/91
29 | P a g e
CHHS Nursing &
Health
Studies
B.S. in Nursing An important programs at NIU that is very
short-staffed. Number of students exceeds
capacity, which will hurt the potential of
program. Size has had a negative effect on
scholarly productivity; scholarship infuses
their teaching. There is a need for
restructuring the program, advising and
right-sizing the program to better align
numbers of faculty and students.
CHHS Nursing &
Health
Studies
M.S. in Nursing A strong program with high graduation
rates and excellent performance on
licensure exams. It appears to be cost
efficient, but this may be at the expense of
attracting high caliber faculty. Effective
response to faculty shortage, particularlythe online offerings as a way to manage
student numbers. AcTF recommends that
resources be committed to additional
faculty hires to lighten teaching loads and
enhance scholarly productivity.
CLAS Anthropology B.A./B.S. in
Anthropology
Narrative showcases impressive scholarship
by the faculty. Future addition of faculty
will enhance the demand for the program.
Important to address how the faculty will
deal with increasing the enrollment of the
program. Loss of faculty in archeology a
serious concern and must be addressed.
AcTF recommends faculty hires to replace
recent losses.
CLAS Biological
Sciences
B.S. in Biological
Sciences
A strong program that is doing well in spite
of reduced funding. Faculty productivity
may be enhanced through future hires.
Strong demand from students from CHHS.
Impressive plans for the program’s future,which could include collaboration with HHS.
AcTF acknowledges the important service
provided by the cadaver lab.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
35/91
30 | P a g e
CLAS Center for SE
Asian Studies
Center for Southeast
Asian Studies
Impressive level of interdisciplinary efforts.
Global experience fulfills an important NIU
goal. Excellent tracking of student
outcomes, although enrollment drop is a
point of concern. Excellent fundraising
efforts. Program needs to fill open faculty
lines to maintain strengths.
CLAS Chemistry &
Biochemistry
Ph.D. in Chemistry A good program that is closely aligned with
NIU’s mission, with strong regional ties and
good student engagement components. It
is proactive in plans for improvement,
especially ideas to move it beyond the
traditional educational model. It needs
more money to support doctoral students
and faculty research. This program maybenefit from faculty hires and facility
improvement.
CLAS Center for
Latino & Latin
American
Studies
Center for
Latino/Latin
American Studies
Center is very important to mission of the
university engaging in new planning and
programming to connect to the campus
community. Program has doubled number
of minors; demographic changes will
increase demand. AcTF recognizes the
need to hire a Mexicanist and encourages
continued application for external grants to
support program development.
CLAS English B.A. in English Narrative supports a program with
outstanding scholarly production and high
teaching evaluations. Faculty engaged in
outreach to other departments and
community via teaching and cultural
events. Important engagement via
Freshman English, CHANCE composition,
teacher licensure. Detailed and well-conceived plans for the future. AcTF
recommends enhanced resources to
encourage and support faculty research and
publication.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
36/91
31 | P a g e
CLAS English Ph.D. in English Noteworthy faculty publication record.
AcTF appreciates efforts on student
placement. Impressive course offerings
that expose students to diverse topics.
Concern noted about the lack of student
diversity. Resources may be needed for
research and publication support.
CLAS Environmenta
l Studies
B.A./B.S. in
Environmental
Studies
Substantial scholarly production by faculty
associates in program. Largest program in
Environmental Studies in Illinois, attracting
students who would not otherwise come to
NIU. Demonstrated need for additional
faculty and for dedicated academic space.
CLAS ForeignLanguage &
Literature 1
B.A. in Spanish A strong program with great contribution tostudent career success, including significant
work with Spanish minors. AcTF
encourages program to continue
investigating work with external partners.
Resources required for hiring translation,
business, health and/or education faculty.
CLAS Foreign
Language &
Literature 1
Minor in Japanese
Studies
A strong minor that aligns well with
university mission. AcTF noted strong
outreach with business and applauds efforts
to bring foreign students to the university.
Minor is well suited to become a major due
to healthy student enrollment, external
demand, excellence in teaching and
scholarship. AcTF endorses this promotion
to major with appropriate resources.
CLAS Geography Ph.D. in Geography This relatively new program has good
potential and demand for its students, but
its resources are stretched thin. The AcTF
has real concerns about program capacity.It strongly advises that new faculty lines are
necessary for it to address the demands of
all the department’s programs in order for
this PhD program to be viable.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
37/91
32 | P a g e
CLAS Mathematical
Sciences
B.S. in Mathematical
Sciences
Program attracts high quality students and
is delivered by productive faculty. Proactive
reforms include laudable redesign for non-
majors and impressive EMPORIUM concept.
Strong tutoring and retention efforts,
including all-women sections of courses to
increase women majors. Resources will
benefit continued expansion into
contemporary fields of math as well as
much-needed facility expansion.
CLAS Mathematical
Sciences
M.S. in Mathematics Strong job growth with many students
enrolled in combined M.S./Ph.D. More math
education faculty are needed. M.S. students
have high pass rate to Ph.D.
CLAS Mathematical
Sciences
Ph.D. in
Mathematical
Sciences
Program exhibits good faculty productivity
and financial efficiency, with strong
demand for graduate assistantships.
Program’s internship requirement held up
by external reviewer as a model for other
programs. AcTF applauds the actions to
encourage women to pursue the degree,
and was impressed at the growing number
of women students in the program.
Separating MATH and STAT into two
departments would enhance both
programs. Resources will benefit continued
expansion into contemporary fields of math
as well as much-needed facility expansion.
CLAS NGO
Leadership &
Development
(NGOLD)
B.A./B.S. in
Community
Leadership and Civic
Engagement
The program has exhibited strong growth in
numbers of students and student diversity.
Program reaches large number of non-
majors through course offerings, which
should only increase the enrollment in the
program. Resources will benefit programfacilities and allow for additional hires.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
38/91
33 | P a g e
CLAS Physics M.S. in Physics
Bundled with Ph.D.
A strong program with exceptional faculty
and financial productivity. Excellent student
outcomes in terms of graduation and
publication. AcTF was concerned that
attention paid to the graduate program had
potentially negative impact on
undergraduate program, as large undergrad
sections are taught by GTAs. Committee
also noted the low attention to minorities
and women in the diversity plan. Valuable
program that needs enhanced material and
equipment, improved undergraduate
teaching, and improved diversity actions.
CLAS Physics Ph.D. in Physics
Bundled with M.S.
Strong program with exceptional faculty
and financial productivity, and excellentstudent outcomes in terms of graduation
and publication. The AcTF was concerned
that the attention paid to the graduate
program had potentially negative impact on
undergraduate program, as large undergrad
sections are taught by GTAs. Committee
also noted the low attention to minorities
and women in the diversity plan. Valuable
program that needs enhanced material and
equipment, improved undergraduateteaching, and improved diversity actions.
CLAS Political
Science
B.A./B.S. in Political
Science
The narrative presents a solid program with
compelling evidence of student
engagement. Loss of faculty has weakened
the program somewhat. The AcTF
recognizes the need for faculty hires to
balance offerings in US and international
fields.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
39/91
34 | P a g e
CLAS Political
Science
Ph.D. in Political
Science
Bundled with M.A.
Narrative presents a solid program with
strong existing and potential interactions
with other CLAS programs. Loss of faculty,
especially in International Relations,
constrains program and its future. The MA
is bundled with the PhD as a “pass through”
program that serves to prepare students for
continuation to the Ph.D. at NIU. Based on
the program’s historical strength, AcTF
feels that providing additional TTE faculty
will likely enhance it.
CLAS Political
Science
M.A. in Political
Science
Bundled with Ph.D.
M.A. in Political Science appears to support
the Ph.D. as its mission. The narrative was
unclear what graduates do with the M.A.
degree other than go on to a Ph.D. AcTFrecommends creation and implementation
of a plan to increase diversity within the
program.
CLAS Psychology M.A. in Psychology
Bundled with Ph.D.
High admissions requirements in this
quality program. It has good faculty
quality, admirable grantsmanship, and
significant outreach into the community.
Applications are high. Future potential
appears sound. The program is doing
satisfactorily in terms of demand and
diversity actions. Resources are needed to
hire a faculty member with background in
quantitative analysis.
CLAS Psychology Ph.D. in Psychology
Bundled with M.A.
Faculty has won many awards of excellence
and is strong in obtaining grants, while
students, admitted through a highly
selective process, are engaged in
scholarship and publication. The program
has excellent engagement in thecommunity. Resources are needed to hire a
faculty member with background in
quantitative analysis.
8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Academic Task Force Report
40/91
35 | P a g e
CLAS Psychology Psychology Services
Center
Excellent program offering psychological
counseling to the community. Integral part
of graduate student training for licensure;
strong student outcomes as measured by
percent of licenses attained. Excellent
service, impressive pro bono work, but
demand for services far outstrips ability to
deliver. Program is strongly related to PhD
and MA programs and should have been
included in the narratives for those
programs. Excellent and under-resourced.
Program requires additional resources to
meet demand for services as well as for
electronic records system, which Center
might explore in conjunction with Speech
Clinic.
CLAS Public Admin Master of Public
Administration
Narrative highlights program’s alignment
with NIU mission, but gave cause for
concern over the out-migration of faculty
and its effect on program’s ability to grow.
AcTF appreciates that the program has a
developed strategic diversity plan. It needs
to hire additional faculty.
CLAS Statistics M.S. in Applied