Arizona Universities Program Changes Nine Year Summary: 1981-1989.

Autor/in	Caldwell, Roger L.
Institution	Arizona Board of Regents, Phoenix.
Titel	Arizona Universities Program Changes Nine Year Summary: 1981-1989.
Quelle	(1988), (35 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Change Strategies; College Programs; Competition; Educational Change; Educational Planning; Educational Quality; Efficiency; Excellence in Education; Higher Education; Longitudinal Studies; Program Development; Public Colleges; State Universities; Statewide Planning; Arizona + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Lösungsstrategie; Studienprogramm; Wettkampf; Bildungsreform; Bildungsplanung; Quality of education; Bildungsqualität; Effectiveness; Effektivität; Wirkungsgrad; Lernerfolg; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Longitudinal study; Longitudinal method; Longitudinal methods; Längsschnittuntersuchung; Programmplanung; Staatliche Universität; Planwirtschaft
Abstract	As one in a series of working papers in the final report of the Arizona Board of Regents' (ABOR) Task Force on Excellence, Efficiency and Competitiveness, this document presents data on an anlaysis undertaken to determine how Arizona's universities emphasize new or expanded programs. Areas of institutional focus are identified to help develop institutional mission statements. University requests for program changes for fiscal years 1981 to 1989 were obtained from ABOR's office and university files. The following data were obtained for each program request: university priority ranking, full time equivalent personnel, funding, and title. Additional data were added for total number of submissions by universities to ABOR, and total ABOR approved submissions by the universities to the legislature. Each program request was assigned 1 of 17 keywords (e.g., education, business, medical, public service, and general undergraduate). During this 9-year period, there were 716 requests by the universities to ABOR for $282.5 million, and 222 were approved for $83 million. Results are summarized in 11 tables (e.g., program changes by subject, program changes by year, and program changes by university). Ten conclusions include: the actual range of approved to submitted requests varies by year and by university; the program change mechanism is an effective way to build existing or new programs within the universities; and university guidance to administrative units for program change submissions varies widely. Four recommendations include: universities should be more efficient in processing program change requests, and the board should consider revising slightly the program change portion of the budget process. An appendix offers a discussion of the analytical method and related funding methods. (SM)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC