1R3 Academic Program Design Results

Summary Results of Assessments

Southeast Tech programs are developed in response to business and industry needs, which is verified as part of the New Program Approval process (1P 3 ).  Once implemented, the Institute continues to verify the vitality of the program, including assuring the program is up-to-date and meets the needs of its stakeholders, by analyzing the following:

• Program Vitality
• Aggregated Program Vitality
• Annual State Program Review
• Annual Institutional Program Review
• Key Student Group Retention

Program Vitality

As part of the Annual Planning process, Southeast Tech programs receive program KPI data sheets each fall.  By the spring semester, programs create action plans and budgets directly related to their program data.  Analysis of the program’s data, action plans, and budget occurs at the Administrative Team, Southeast Tech Council and Sioux Falls School Board levels to determine if the program is maintaining its vitality (4P 2 ).  A similar process with measures appropriate to the specific area is used for department vitality (Admissions, Financial Aid, Student Success, etc.)  The following measures are used to determine program vitality:

• Enrollments (Total)
• Retention Rates (Fall to Fall)
• Placement (Employed in Related Field)
• Employer Survey (% of Categories Above a 4 Rating)
• Student Satisfaction (% of Categories Above National Mean)

Southeast Tech is developing vitality measures to help the Institute determine, according to program results vs. established targets for each of the measures above, the overall strength of the program. Where there is an Institutional level KPI (4R1) target, that target is used as the program level target.  Where no such target level exists, a specific level is determined for that particular measure. 

While it is not possible to provide information within the portfolio for all programs, Table 1R3.1 provides an example of a program vitality table.  Once fully developed, the vitality tables will be included as part of the full program KPI data sheets, and provide a quick program check to determine program vitality. Programs can then compare their vitality scores to the target and review program KPI data sheets to determine areas where the program met or did not meet the measures associated with the program vitality measure. 

Aggregated Program Vitality

In order to get a clearer picture of the Institute in relation to program vitality, the percentage of programs meeting the program vitality target of 23 provides an Institutional-level measure (Table 1R3.2). This allows the Institute the opportunity to determine the percentage of programs, over time, that are moving toward the target, and if not, why not.   

Associated with the percentage of programs meeting the program vitality target, Southeast Tech can also capture by year the percentage of each specific vitality measure compared to target. The Institute can then determine Institutional-focus areas that will provide the greatest opportunity for improvement.  The Aggregated Program Vitality measures are still under development.  Therefore, no direct analysis of the results has been made at this time.  A full pilot of the vitality measure is scheduled for the 2017-2018 year.

Annual State Program Review

Over the past five years, Southeast Tech has had four programs requiring state reports. Three of the four were related to enrollments, while the fourth was due to retention rates just below the required level. In all four cases, the program was able to move off the state reporting list the following year. Southeast Tech uses the reporting process as another method for improving programs and building sustainability.  In all four cases, the Institute developed and implemented actions that not only removed the program from immediate state concerns, but improved the program and its viability.

Key Student Group Retention

Assuring that the Institute is retaining its key student groups is a clear indictor that the Institute’s processes are working at assuring students are ready to learn and receiving the support they need. These results have been positive and improving over the past five years as indicated in 2R1 of the Portfolio.

Comparison of Results with Internal Targets and External Benchmarks AND Interpretation of Results and Insights Gained

Annual Institutional Program Review

Once fully implemented, program faculty, along with their Academic Administrator, will review program vitality scores, along with the rest of the program data sheets, against the internal targets to determine areas for improvement. For example, the program associated with Table 1R3.1 was at target in 2011 but has since fallen below target for the subsequent years. Faculty within this program review their KPI sheets to determine which vitality measures are below target and work with their Academic Administrator to create a plan of action for improvement, which will then become part of the Annual Planning process.

Over the past five years, as Table 1R3.2 indicates, the percentage of programs at or above target rose slightly in 2012 and 2013, and then fell slightly below 2011 levels in 2014.  Similarly, the percentage of programs below target in 2011 fell in 2012 and 2013 and then rose again to the 2011 level in 2014.