Committee seeks further oversight of academic program changes
University Curriculum Committee Chair Daniel Eveleth suggested to Faculty Senate Tuesday that all academic program changes — regardless of substance or breadth — be moved through the committee, even if the change is initiated at a higher level.
Currently, only traditional proposals, or those originated from faculty, go through UCC. Faculty should review all proposals, Eveleth said, even those mandated by the State Board of Education (SBOE), such as the program prioritization process known as Focus for the Future (FFF) at the University of Idaho.
Daniel Eveleth
The committee revisited the program revision process following a presentation last week by Interim Provost and Executive Vice President Katherine Aiken about FFF.
According to Eveleth, a review of the curriculum approval process was necessary due to confusion over the program amendment process.
Eveleth said even though proposals are mandated by SBOE, faculty should still vet them. However, a faculty vote on SBOE mandated proposals would not prevent the proposal from moving forward, he said.
He said having proposals pass through UCC would allow the committee to anticipate problems and come up with creative solutions to fix them before official changes are made to any program.
Larry Stauffer, Faculty Senate member from the College of Engineering, said it’s important to have diverse input on academic program changes.
“I think the important thing is to make sure there’s adequate faculty review to begin with,” Stauffer said.
Eveleth said the committee’s review of mandated changes would not try to overcome a mandate, but rather find a home for UCC in the process.
He said UCC is not proposing any changes to the existing policy for faculty-originated changes, but instead aims to clarify the process.
“This is what exists and we, UCC, need to do a better job at communicating with our colleagues,” Eveleth said.
To illustrate the current process, the committee developed a flowchart to show the deadlines and channels the proposals must pass through for approval.
Eveleth said the committee distinguished three types of program changes based on which entity has final approval.
“Group A” proposals are for course additions or changes, which end with the General Curriculum Report. “Group B” proposals are for a new minor, option or emphasis and end with an SBOE decision. “Group C” includes adding or dropping degrees or majors, offering online programs or adding or dropping departments or colleges. Eveleth said such proposals end with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
Liz Brandt, Faculty Senate member from the College of Law, said she is concerned the College of Law was not represented on the flowchart because it is excluded from UCC.
“It’s been a constant program development problem for us,” Brandt said. “I simply want the flowchart to suggest that we’re out there … Right now, this is a process where we’re like the child of no one.”
Brandt said when it comes to making program changes, a significant amount of time is spent deciding on what the appropriate process will be.
Eveleth said the Office of the Registrar has a complex list of where programs and proposals fall, and faculty should be made aware of the resources.
Another problem Eveleth expressed is the ability to make deadlines for program changes.
He said it’s best to submit proposals before they are due to prevent backlog. Group A and B proposals are due Dec. 15 and Group C proposals are due Oct. 15.
Stauffer said if Group B has a longer process than Group A, their deadlines shouldn’t be the same.
Dwaine Hubbard, senior associate registrar, said the dual deadline is structured for efficiency.
“We’re trying to keep it as simple as possible, while providing more flexibility,” Hubbard said.
Eveleth said Group B proposals are prioritized because the process is longer.
He said proposals submitted on time could still be too late to list or promote at events, such as Vandal Friday. Proposals must be approved through the completed process before they can be promoted, he said.
There are fines for late proposals, but Eveleth said they would be accepted if there is “good and substantial reason.”
Katelyn Hilsenbeck can be reached at [email protected]