Alternative PRC Assessment Process

Based on feedback provided from UW-Stout faculty, Program Directors, Faculty Senate representatives, Department Chairs, Deans, and the Provost, the PRC will reinstate the following procedures to help decrease duplication that may exist between various assessment/ accreditation–based practices:

  • The PRC will identify programs which are accredited either by national associations, societies and/ or state agencies and attempt to align such accreditation practices with the program’s original review schedule. As part of this accreditation/assessment alignment process, a program review will not be accelerated or delayed more than one year from the originally-scheduled review.

  • Whenever a national association, society and/or state agency accredited program is due for PRC review, the respective Program Director would have the option to utilize the most recent accreditation report as well as any accrediting body’s response(s)/ recommendations for submission to the PRC.  Activities that the Program Director would need to perform as part of preparing such documents would include:

    • Completing the Accreditation Assessment Rubric which correlates questions found in the standard PRC self-assessment guide with respective areas in the accreditation report as well as the accrediting body’s response(s),

    • Identifying recommendations made by the accrediting body and the means by which the respective college and/or program either has or else intends to comply with such recommendations, and

    • Analyzing all student, key faculty as well as advisory committee survey data to address the strengths and opportunities identified therein, and develop specific actions plans to address areas of opportunity.
  • The PRC would be responsible for evaluating documentation submitted by the Program Director and be permitted to request additional information as deemed necessary.

  • Similar to the current data-gathering process, the PRC would be responsible for surveying the respective program’s students, key faculty and advisory committee members.

  • The respective program director would still be responsible for formally presenting to the PRC.

  • The PRC would develop its written analysis of the program and forward such to the appropriate college for response.