Divisions systematically evaluate their program's performance against national benchmarks using area-specific standards developed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) as part of the Annual Program Review (APR) process at the University of Idaho. The workspace for this process is housed in the Anthology Compliance Assist product. The division review provides an annual opportunity to engage with programs in discussion and offers opportunity for feedback by appropriate constituencies to inform program and institutional effectiveness, evaluate resources and improve student success.
Planning for the Division Review
Divisions will review each program’s responses to the CAS standards along with supporting evidence. They will provide a rating for each item and 3-5 recommendations where the program can improve. The division review can be completed as a team or workgroup(s). The division has the flexibility to determine who will be involved in this review process, to accommodate variable size and resources while making this a meaningful process. Please note the following guidelines:
- The division review team for a program, should not be led by the program’s own director. However, a program director may lead a review team for another program.
- The recommendations provided by the division review team, should be reviewed and approved by the division’s leadership.
Conducting the Division Review
The Division Review is entered into Anthology Compliance Assist, under the Division Review tab for each program. To request access for team members, please complete this form and provide the division name when asked about the program/department name, unless requesting specific program access.
The division review engages team members in reviewing the available documentation from the program to determine whether the program complies with each CAS standard. Individual team members may review each one independently and then compare ratings, discuss and resolve discrepancies and finalize a rating for the item. Or the team may review each item collectively, whichever works for the division.
Possible ratings are:
- Does not apply
- Insufficient Evidence/Unable to rate
- Does not meet
- Partly meets
Additionally, the division review includes a general comment or summary discussion of the program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, as well as 3-5 priority recommendations for how the program can meet or exceed one or more CAS standards. In addition to this, the division review team will answer 5-6 multiple choice questions and list the members of the team to complete the review process.
The division review process includes the following for each self-study:
- Rating for each item (whether the standard is met based on the response/evidence provided)
- General comments on the program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
- 3-5 recommendations that support meeting or exceeding the standards
- 5-6 multiple choice questions
- A list of names of division reviewers
Following the division review, the program’s responses and the division feedback will be reviewed by the Provost’s Office. The Provost’s Office may provide additional feedback to the program from its institutional review and will consider the comments/recommendations made by the division in support of institutional effectiveness and mission fulfillment efforts.
Following the institutional review, programs will create an Action Plan to remedy discrepancies or unmet standards and implement priority recommendations.