Program Improvement

What is Program Improvement?

Program improvement is a structured process for making changes that can lead to measurable and equitable improvements in student outcomes. Led by a small faculty “core team” and facilitated by two co-leads (deans, program coordinators, department chair or other appropriate individuals), the process centers racial equity as an organizing principle, incorporates tools of improvement science and takes an emergent strategy approach to move through four phases of work: (1) understanding the problem, (2) developing a theory of improvement, (3) conducting a small test of change and (4) reflecting and spreading what works.

Starting in the 2022-23 academic year (AY), program improvement will take the place of the program/discipline review process in which departments previously participated from 2020-2021. Historically, the program review process in professional-technical programs was initiated by the Dean for Instruction for Professional-technical Education. Under the new program improvement process, Program/Discipline Review is now initiated by a department’s respective dean(s), directly supported by the Assessment Committee (AC) Program Review Sub-committee, and follows the transparent and predictable rotation of when programs and disciplines will begin the process.

From program “review” to program “improvement”

The shift from program review to program improvement is subtle, but important. “Review” implies post-hoc activity and can carry implications of accountability, judgment or getting something wrong. “Improvement” is meant to be forward looking. While program improvement teams analyze historical data, much of the process is focused on identifying future actions that the department wants to take and then taking them in a methodical way that enables teams to answer key questions: What worked? What didn’t work? For which students? And, critically, why?

Three core practices of program improvement

Center racial equity
- At Highline College, “a commitment to diversity, inclusion, and social justice is at the heart of everything we do daily” The college has many efforts designed to advance racial diversity and belonging including the Equity Task Force; the Inter-Cultural Center; the Center for Cultural & Inclusive Excellence; MESA and TRiO programs; English for Speakers of Other Languages courses; and the Welcome Back Center. In keeping with the college’s work around racial diversity and social justice, the college’s approach to program review should be anchored in an explicit commitment to work in an antiracist way.
Utilize improvement science tools
- The program improvement process draws heavily on tools and frameworks of improvement science. The origins of continuous improvement methodologies (sometimes referred to as improvement science) are often linked to the work of W. Edwards Deming whose work in the middle of the 20th century helped lead to the improvement and expansion of the Japanese automobile industry. Deming’s ideas have been adopted widely in many settings including the healthcare industry. In the early 1990s, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement was founded as a hub for supporting the spread of continuous improvement methodologies to improve patient health outcomes. These ideas soon found their way into education and have been adopted by education practitioners in a wide range of settings. While many groups now embrace continuous improvement principles, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has become the most visible field leader working to advance continuous improvement practices in educational settings. This toolkit draws heavily on tools from IHI and the Carnegie Foundation as well as the New York City Department of Education’s Improvement Science Handbook.
Take an emergent strategy approach
- A third framework that informs Highline College’s approach to program improvement is emergent strategy. Activist and author adrienne maree brown writes that emergent strategy is, “how we intentionally change in ways that grow our capacity to embody the just and liberated worlds we long for.” While classical change paradigms assume linearity and often function on transactional terms, emergence asks that we embrace the often messy, iterative and emotional realities of change while prioritizing the cultivation of deep relationships with one another as partners working toward a shared goal. Importantly, emergent strategy also asks that we confront the negative connotations embedded in the concept of “failure” and reframe it as an opportunity to reflect, learn, grow and change.

Who Is Involved?

Students and faculty/staff – student outcomes are shaped by interactions with faculty and staff at the college and improvement science is founded on the idea that improvement requires deep and nuanced understanding of these interactions. As departments work to understand the problem and test change ideas, interactions between faculty/staff and students are critical. Using a racial equity lens, departments should place particular emphasis on understanding the experience of students of color within the institution and working to remove all barriers to their progress that might be artifacts of institutional racism and/or harmful “race neutral” policies and practices.

Program Improvement core team – The “core team” is the team of people with day to day responsibility over the improvement process. The recommended core team size is 3-5 people, but departments can determine how big or small their core team should be.

All departments are different and will need to assemble a core team that makes sense based on their dynamics and needs. To the extent possible, all core teams should include at minimum:

Two process co-leads. This can be a dean, a program coordinator, a department chair or someone else who has capacity to facilitate the program improvement process. Key responsibilities include:
- Meeting scheduling – getting meetings on the calendars of all core team members
- Meeting preparation – adapting agendas and other meeting materials (if needed)
- Meeting facilitation – managing the flow of the meeting
- Note taking – capturing key concepts and outcomes of meetings and other discussions
- Meeting follow-up – sharing action items and ensuring that “action period” assignments are completed
- Drafting, revising and submitting deliverables that are a part of this process
At least one faculty member with advising duties. Faculty member responsibilities include:
- Participate in meetings to contribute knowledge and perspective to the process
- Engage in “action period” assignments, which can include speaking with students and testing new interventions (“change ideas”)

When constructing a core team, departments should be careful not to build a team that shares one identity or lens. Teams are encouraged to consider explicit and implicit power dynamics related to race/ethnicity, gender, job title, seniority, etc. and seek to form a team that represents diverse perspectives.

Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) – The VPAA will review and approve all program improvement deliverables as they are completed. The core team will meet with the VPAA after the first deliverable (problem definition) and final deliverable (finding, insights and next steps) are complete to debrief and discuss next steps.

Important Resources

Program Improvement Process Toolkit

This toolkit/guide was originally developed in 2021 and has since been revised in 2022 following feedback from important Highline stakeholders, including Faculty Senate.

Timeline for Program Improvement

Program Review FAQ

This document provides answers to commonly asked program review questions.

Terms Glossary

If you are new to any of the terms used above or in the guides, please refer to this glossary.

Sample Program Improvement Phase 1 Deliverables: