FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions)

Q:  What are the different types of proposals that can be made?
A.  Curriculum changes are broadly grouped into four categories that facilitate their passage through the review process. Each category has a specific associated form to be completed. Currently, proposals (and the specific forms associated) are any of these types: 1) Course Proposal (New or Existing); 2) New General Education Course; 3) Distance Education Course Proposal Form for Existing Courses; 4) Major Program Revision; 5) Program Revisions Requiring Board of Governors or Chancellor’s Approval; and 6) Academic Policies, Procedures and Standards.

Q: How long does it typically take for a proposal to be fully approved and ready for implementation?
A:  Proposals are treated in a chronological fashion, reflecting the control number assigned and the particular review process for a given type of proposal. For simple revisions (for example, cosmetic changes in class descriptions) and distance education courses the review process may be “expedited.” New course proposals or substantive course revisions which are in order, comply with the broad parameters of the review process, and do not encounter any difficulty may take less than two months, depending on review process and meeting dates.

It is recommended that major program revision proposals and related sets of proposals be submitted no later than January for consideration in that same year.

Q:  What can I do to facilitate a smooth and timely review process?
A: To facilitate your proposal through the review process, it is first strongly recommended that you:
•   understand exactly what type of proposal you have and use the appropriate form
•   anticipate impacts of your proposal beyond your department prior to its being formally submitted. Meet with those potentially impacted and work to address their concerns.
•   provide clear, accurate and complete information submitted with your proposal, especially in terms of resource demands (how does your department plan to work teaching of the new course and sections of the course into faculty teaching loads? Are demands placed on other departments? Are there special equipment needs?)
•   gain departmental review, approval, endorsement, and sponsorship of your proposal
•  appear at the meeting of the University Curriculum Committee when your proposal is placed on the agenda and at any other meetings where your proposal may be part of the agenda.
•  appear at other meetings where questions concerning your proposal may arise, such as the appropriate college council.

Q:  What are some pitfalls and common errors in putting together a curriculum proposal?
A: There are a number of pitfalls in the curriculum review process, however, most of these result from incomplete or inarticulate proposals that slip past careful departmental review. In the past, the major problems in seeing a proposal successfully through the review process have been:
•   curriculum conflicts with other classes, departments, and colleges, especially where content potentially overlaps.
•   failure to comply with the “verification grid” (discussed as another FAQ) where, generally, one course must be withdrawn for every new course proposed.
•  failure to address or comply with the “40% rule,” where 40% of a department’s course offerings should be upper level courses.
•   Improper assessment or presentation of resource demands. For example, if a new course is being added, is there staff available to teach the number of sections scheduled? What are the implications for enrollment into other courses?
•   a misunderstanding of what type of proposal is actually being made - sometimes proposals entail more wholesale curriculum changes than the form reflects
•   a proposal that is related to a series of previous and forthcoming proposals. Oftentimes it may be logistically simpler and conceptually easier to consider several related proposals together.

Q:  What types of proposals may be expedited and why? How are they expedited?
A: Several types of proposals are appropriate for expedited reviews. The justification relates to timeliness and substantive matters. Here are the proposals that may be expedited:
•   Distance education courses that are already existing courses (expedited to comply with Article 42 in the Collective Bargaining Agreement).
•   Revisions to existing courses that are substantively minor or cosmetic. For example, changes in course title, program title, most changes in catalog descriptions and course renumbering that better meshes with departmental or program clarity. Expedited proposals vary in their treatment, depending on whether they are distance education proposals, minor substantive changes, relevance to graduate programs, relevance to education programs, and the college from which they emerge.

Q:  How are distance education proposals expedited?
A: Distance education proposals, after review by the appropriate college council, are sent to the UCC Academic Standards and Policies Subcommittee. The Subcommittee then recommends the proposal for either disapproval or disapproval by the UCC at large. This expedited process is developed to comply with Article 42 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The UCC, however, cannot make a final recommendation on these courses until they have been facilitated through the Office of Extended Studies.

Q:  Why do I have to submit my proposal electronically?
A: In recent years the increased number of proposals and widening variety of considerations needed in the review process, along with efforts to make the process more transparent and accessible, overwhelmed the traditional process. Thus far electronic submission has resulted in fewer flawed proposals, a more timely and ordered review process, and opportunity for fuller consideration by the appropriate bodies and the university community at large. Cost savings also occur as the photocopying demands borne by the proposal sponsors drop dramatically.

Q:  What is the “one-for-one” rule and why should I be aware of it?
A: As per the President’s Memo of February 18, 1997, a “one-for-one” rule was instituted. This rule states that, generally, for every new course, program, or expansion of existing programs proposed, an equivalent number of such units must be discontinued. Further, this discontinuation must be documented in the proposal. The rule is intended to “curriculum creep” that may “injure institutional integrity.” This requirement may be waived. For example, new courses related to certain grants, or, approved new programs. For further consideration, the President’s Memo of February 18, 1997 is included as Appendix 7 in the UCC Manual for the 2003-2004 AY.

Q:  What is the verification grid that replaces the “one for one” rule?

In 2006, the President approved the following language:  I am also approving the proposed clarification of the curriculum management and expansion of courses (one-for-one) policy as proposed by the University Curriculum Committee and endorsed by the University Forum:   “In order to ensure that fiscal responsibility and student needs are balanced with legitimate reasons for curricular change, the University Curriculum Committee recommends that each department proposing curricular change provide a three year departmental verification matrix of course offerings annotated with the number of people within the department who could teach this class; as well as the faculty position and/or specialization area (rather than the individual faculty names.)  The UCC also proposes that yearly, the registrar notify department chairs and deans with a list of courses that have not been taught in the previous three years.  Courses not taught for the previous five years will be dropped from the official university catalog by the registrar.  Exceptions to this policy will be made on a per case basis after consultation with the appropriate dean and department chairperson.”   I believe the recommendation is consistent with the policy, while giving the departments and the University Curriculum Committee more information and documentation for decision-making.

The verification grid will be attached to any new course proposal in which an existing course is not dropped.

Q:  What is “curriculum duplication” and why should I be aware of it?
A: Curriculum duplication exists when a program, course, or other curriculum component addresses the same subject matter and learning outcomes as in another program or course. Curriculum duplication results in unnecessary courses and programs and is a waste of campus resources. On occasion, courses are proposed which substantially or appear to substantially overlap in both style, content, and learning outcomes with courses. If substantial overlap exists, the new proposal is appropriately jeopardized. If in actuality there is very little duplication, then the sponsor of the proposal needs to provide clarity as to how the proposal is distinctive from existing courses or programs.

Q:  Under what conditions would Graduate Council Review and approval be needed?
A: Graduate Council review is required of any courses that graduate students could take for graduate credit, including 400 level courses.

Q:  Under what conditions would Board of Governor’s or Chancellor’s review and approval be needed?
A: Generally, action by either Board of Governor’s or Chancellor’s is required for a) new major programs; b) new minor programs where no major exists; new certificate programs where no major or minor exists; and c) new degree designations. Office of the Chancellor notification (but not action) is required for most program revisions. For details, see “Board of Governor’s Policy 1985-01-A: Requirements for Initiation or Change of Credit-Based Academic Programs” and “Administrative Procedure for Board of Governor’s Policy 1985 - 01: Requirements for Initiation or Change of Credit-Based Academic Programs.” These are available on the University Curriculum Committee website as well as from the State System of Higher Education (SSHE) website.

Q:  What resource issues seem most pressing?
A: Resource issues that are most pressing relate to faculty FTEF. Other resource issues relate to instructional equipment demands.

Q:  Who can attend a UCC meeting? When are they scheduled?
A: The meetings, which are typically held the first Tuesday of every month at 3:30 p.m. in Old Main room 203A are open to the entire campus community. If you are sponsoring a proposal or impacted by a proposal you are certainly encouraged to attend.

Q:  What if I wanted to find out what happened at a particular UCC meeting?
A: For the current Academic Year, all UCC meeting minutes will be posted online at the UCC website (www.ship.edu/~ucc). The posting usually occurs within 10 days of the meeting. The minutes are also distributed to all members of the UCC distribution list (see below) and presented to University Forum. Draft minutes are typically approved at the next meeting of the UCC. All subcommittee meeting minutes are included with that respective month’s committee wide meeting minutes. Meeting minutes dating back to the 1999 – 2000 academic year are also available at the web site. For previous years, contact the UCC Secretary.

Q:  What is the UCC distribution list? Who is on the list and why?
A: The UCC distribution list, also known as the mailing list, consists of academic deans, department chairs, program directors, members of University Forum, members of the UCC and administrative personnel including the Provost, Associate Provost, and Registrar. This is broadly representative of all stakeholder groups in the curriculum process and includes APSCUF and student representation. The purpose of the distribution list is to make the campus community aware of all developments of substance and process relating to curriculum change.

Q:  Who is on the UCC? How is the committee’s composition determined?
A: The committee’s specific composition was arrived at in a re-organization of university governance in the 1980s and is compliant with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The composition is provided for in Subsection 1A of the UCC Manual. Twelve faculty members, each of the three college deans, and three student representatives together comprise the 18 regular members of UCC. Of the faculty membership, eleven are elected across the academic divisions and non-teaching faculty; one is appointed by APSCUF. Ex officio members include the Registrar and Associate Provost.

These are a few of the most commonly asked questions.  If you have others, please contact the UCC chair.