Curriculum Council

Voting members present: John Bailey, Prem Mathew, Carol McKiel, Tom Miller, Jeff Reimer, John Schuna, Allen Thompson, Ann Zweber
Voting members absent: Jake Hamblin, Michael Harte, Richard Nafshun, Mina Ossiander, John Schlipf, Michele Swift
Ex-Officio members present: Academic Affairs – Gary Beach, Extended Campus – Alfonso Bradoch, Registrar’s Office – Rebecca Mathern, University Libraries – Anne-Marie Deitering
Liaison members present: Academic Advising Council – Heather Arbuckle
Guests: Joan Gross

 

UAPR History Revised Action Plan – Joan Gross, Rebecca Mathern 

• Review materials are in the Curriculum Council secure site.
• Joan stated that the unit was asked to address specific issues, which they did:
  • The unit was surveying students after a specific point, and they were agreeable to conduct the survey at a different time.
  • Instructor positions at .25FTE were proliferating at the expense of full-time positions, and they satisfactorily explained the rationale.
  • The unit satisfactorily addressed Ecampus instructor autonomy.

Action: The revised action plan was accepted with no opposition; Allen Thompson will advise the unit of the decision.

New Degree Program Proposal – Bachelor of Science in Nursing (RN to BSN)  

• Volunteers needed to review the proposal and make recommendations to the Council – the proposal is currently being reviewed by the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee, so this won’t come to the Council for several weeks.

Actions:

• John Schuna will review and make recommendations to the Council.
• Allen will ask Jake Hamblin to also review with John. (Note: Following the meeting, Jake Hamblin agreed to be a co-reviewer.)

Curricular Policies and Procedures – Reviewing and Updating

The Office of Academic Programs and Assessment (APA) has been charged with reviewing and updating the Curricular Policies and Procedures listed on the APA website in preparation for the upcoming university accreditation review.

• Admissions and Retention Standards Set by Academic Units
• Several revisions were suggested.

Action: The Curriculum Council agreed to have John Bailey forward revisions to Gary Beach (see final version below):

Admissions and Retention Standards Set by Academic Units

The university has admission and retention standards that apply to all undergraduates. The following policy pertains to any additional admission and retention standards proposed by academic units.

Proposals for the addition of admission or retention standards to existing major or college requirements require a “Change Major” or “Change College Requirements” proposal via the Curriculum Proposal System. Standards that are part of a proposal for a new instructional program are included in the proposal for the new program.

Curricular need should drive admission and retention standards. Ideally, lack of resources for a program should be addressed through regular budgetary procedures; however, if standards must be used to control the size of a program, then only changes to admission standards will be considered for approval. Any retention standards beyond those for the entire university must be justified based solely upon demonstrated academic and curricular necessity.

Proposals to change admissions or retention standards should be clearly justified through specific reference to one or more of the following criteria for evaluating curricular or academic necessity: 

• A professional program that leads directly to employment, which often must have specialized criteria.
• A program accredited by an external professional accrediting organization with accreditation standards that bear upon the proposed admission/retention requirements.
• Practicums or internships that involve responsibilities requiring exceptional competence or level of performance.
• Demonstrated surplus of graduates relative to the demand for graduates.
• Demonstrated need for a high level of performance required to successfully complete a certain program or certain courses.
• Faculty Senate Curriculum Council policy, which dictates that students complete a course in the major with a passing grade of C or better.

Any new proposed admission or retention standards must discuss mechanisms designed to alert and assist students who are not on track to meet the new standards, and who may need to change to another major.

All new admission and retention standards will be implemented with a new catalog, allowing students to select their catalog year based on their pre-program status. Courses deemed equivalent to OSU courses that were taken at a community college or other four-year institution must be treated the same as OSU-equivalent courses. The university does not discriminate against students who transfer equivalent courses to OSU.

The opportunities for students to petition for exceptions must be clearly stated.

Retention standards must allow for a period of probation during which a student who does not meet criteria for retention but who come close may attempt to improve their academic performance to that level necessary for them to remain in the program.

• Advertising – Timing of Advertisement for New Programs (Pending Approval)  
• Is the Provost a review step (as now indicated), or is the Provost an approval step?
• The current approval process verbiage is that the Curriculum Council approves a proposal and then the proposal moves to the Provost, and the unit can begin advertising for the new program.
• Several revisions were suggested.

Action: The Curriculum Council agreed to have John Bailey forward revisions to Gary Beach (see final version below):

Advertising – Timing of Advertisement for New Programs

This policy guides advertising of new academic programs that are still undergoing the review and approval process but are at a point when any content in the media would be literally accurate and not capable of being misinterpreted.  This policy does not replace the curriculum approval process.

Proposed academic programs in the approval process may be advertised as "pending final approval" once the proposal has been approved by the OSU Faculty Senate Curriculum Council.

• Course Designators

Action: Since the Registrar has not had an opportunity to review the Course Designators policy, it will be postponed to an upcoming meeting.

UAPR Reviewers Needed

• English  BA (HBA) April 1-3  – Joint academic program review (MA, MAIS, MFA in Creative Writing at OSU Cascades) – last JAPR AY 2006-07
  • Volunteers: Carol McKiel, Allen Thompson
• Food Science and Technology BS (HBS) April 25-27 – Joint academic program review (MAgr, MS, PhD) – last JAPR AY 2007-08
  • Volunteers: John Bailey, Mina Ossiander
• Music April 29-May 1 – last UAPR AY 1999-00
  • Volunteers: Michael Harte, Michele Swift

Category II Proposals

• The proposals in the attached file will be approved following the February 2, 2018 meeting.  

Action: All proposals will be cleared.

• Approval update: OC 449/549 – Ecological Theories in Biological and Fisheries Oceanography  
  • Syllabus now indicates C- for Math courses and response indicates a draft was shown to faculty in Fisheries & Wildlife and positive comments received. Additionally, liaison requested/received from Statistics – response
• The proposals in the attached file will be approved following the February 9, 2018 meeting.

Report from the Co-chairs – John Bailey, Allen Thompson

• No report

Report from the Office of Academic Programs and Assessment – Gary Beach

• Category I Proposals making their way to the Curriculum Council are listed below; volunteers needed to review the proposals.
  • Ag & Food – Reviewers: Jeff Reimer, Michael Harte
  • BS in Architectural Engineering (New) – Reviewer: Tom Miller
  • Arts, Media & Technology
  • MS in Business (New)
  • BS in Elementary Education (New: OSU-Cascades)
  • MA, MS, PhD in Mathematics Education (Suspend)
  • MA, MS, PhD in Science Education (Suspend)
  • BS in Software Engineering
  • Speech Communication
• Pending approval on courses associated with new degree programs, APA is working with the Registrar’s Office to clean up courses. The new CPS will not allow for ‘pending’ – cannot have programs with pending courses. Will be more critical to ensure that all courses are online and approved before the degree program is approved.
  • Rebecca explained that the workflow for the new CPS will not allow a degree program to move forward until all the pieces (courses) are approved.

 

 

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff