Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the “Progress and Ongoing Improvement Report” and when is this due?

A: As part of new requirements by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance, programs are all required to submit a Progress and Ongoing Improvement Report midway between cyclical reviews.  The Progress and Ongoing Improvement Report will be received by the Senate Subcommittee on Program Review – Graduate/Undergraduate (SUPR-G/SUPR-U). The OAQE will follow up with each program with information, a template and support regarding the report 6 months in advance of the SUPR-G/SUPR-U submission deadline.

Q: When is my program scheduled for cyclical review?

A: A cyclical program review must begin no later than eight years from the academic year in which the program was last scheduled to be cyclically reviewed. For new programs the first cyclical review takes place within eight years of the program’s initial enrolment. Please refer to our “Review Schedule” to determine when your program is scheduled for its next cyclical review.  

Q: When can I advertise a new program?

A: The public announcement of a new undergraduate or graduate program in advance of receiving approval by the Quality Council may take place, subject to Senate approval. When an program announcement is made at this stage it must contain the following statement: “Prospective students are advised that the program is still subject to formal approval.”  

Q: What is the outcome of program review and what do the program evaluations/classifications mean?

A: SUPR-G/SUPR-U will review the External Reviewer’s Report, the responses to the report from the Program and Faculty and the draft Final Assessment Report. SUPR-G/SUPR-U will forward one of the following program recommendations to the Senate Committee on Academic Curriculum and Awards (ACA) for approval and to Senate for information:
These programs have achieved a level of good quality and are expected to retain that level of quality over the next seven-year period. Such programs are approved to continue. Periodic appraisals lead to a classification of Good Quality if the program’s objectives are appropriate and are being met; the core faculty provide intellectual leadership in the disciplinary area(s) of the program through active engagement in research and scholarship; the faculty complement is appropriate for the level and scope of the program and its identifiable fields, and there are appropriate provisions and/or plans for its continuing vitality; the curriculum design is appropriate; the resources, such as laboratories, libraries, computer facilities, and research support, are appropriate; enrolments are commensurate with the resources available; students complete the program in a timely fashion; there is evidence of appropriate financial support for students; and there is demonstration of the quality of the educational experience of students, including intellectual development, the acquisition of relevant skills, and the attainment of the appropriate degree level expectations.
These programs have achieved a level of good quality (see above) at the time of the appraisal; however, factors that could have an impact on the future quality of the program require monitoring in the succeeding seven-year cycle. Retirements of senior faculty or newly introduced developments in curriculum are examples of such factors. Programs in this category are approved to continue with a report called for by a specific date (usually 2 or 3 years).
These programs require improvements to meet the quality standard. They receive conditional approval at the time of the appraisal and full approval when the SUPR-U/SUPR-G is satisfied that the improvements have been made. Normally, a report is required after 2 or 3 years. In some cases, the committee may recommend that the university cease admitting new students to the program until certain specified conditions are met.
These programs fail to meet the quality standard and admissions must be suspended. They require major improvements, such as the addition of a number of new faculty or significant new library or laboratory resources, to achieve the quality standard. A successful standard appraisal is mandatory for the reinstatement of the program.