Responsibilities and Principles

Continuous program-level YUQAP responsibilities

note: make info graphics and flow charts for these content

  1. Institutional and sectoral alignment
    1. Alignment with governing documents and institutional planning
    2. Alignment with innovations in non-York corollary and competitor programs
    3. Alignment with primary and secondary education trends
    4. Alignment with post-degree life, circumstances, job market, industry, etc.
    5. Alignment with other York programs
  2. Curricular development and mapping
    1. Year-level rationales
    2. Pedagogies
    3. Course renewal, reinvigoration, and innovation
    4. Experiential and technology-enhanced
    5. Access
    6. Sunsetting
  3. Program effectiveness
    1. Student success and satisfaction
    2. Alumni tracking
  4. Research culture and complement planning

Planning principles

Note: include a resource planning guide, staff/resource implications (roles of staff), workload estimation

Note: link to examples from other institutions

Programs should be thinking about each of the above responsibilities every year

Each year, programs should minute/diary the state of work on each of these responsibilities in terms of:

  • Research undertaken;
  • Directives identified;
  • Implementation/operational planning; and
  • Reflection/feedback.

Each year, for each of these responsibilities, programs should account for the recommendations in each area in two ways:

  1. With specific reference to the recommendations of the program’s previous CPR, and
  2. With regard to new program developments beyond the scope of the previous CPR.

For each area, programs should indicate the specific steps taken in each of the bulleted ways above

Program decisions to make no changes should normally be treated nonetheless as a kind of delta or dynamic relative to other factors that such programs need to consider in the planning process.

DRAFT SEQUENCE NARRATIVE

Each CPR self-study exercise will ultimately produce a description of the state of the program with regard to certain key categories:

  • curricular quality, scope, depth, innovation, and coherence;
  • pedagogical approach, variety, innovation, and effectiveness (including measures of learning outcome and student satisfaction);
  • research intensity, innovation, and breadth;
  • complement planning;
  • institutional and sectoral alignment; etc.

While these areas are the foci of programs’ regular ongoing business, the important periodic task of cumulatively reporting on developments in these categories for the CPR may feel burdensome and generate anxiety.  Moreover, though all faculty members will normally have been contributing on a regular year-by-year basis to the ongoing well-being of their program, the CPR report-writing obligation may devolve to a small, over-worked subset of colleagues or even to one program administrator working in concentrated fashion during the year before the CPR is due.  The communal sense of program responsibility deserves to be supported and captured effectively by the CPR.  In turn, the incremental process of generating the CPR report should assist a program effectively to orchestrate the components of its ongoing self-governance so as to ease the production of the report.  The following program-level CPR process norms are recommended a) to connect the program’s regular, continuous efforts more organically with the periodic written account of that work in the CPR report, and b) to make the development of the CPR self-study report less burdensome.