Support for the Proposed Revision of New-Degree Program
Review and Approval Process
AS-2364-97/AA - May 8-9, 1997
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the "Proposed Revision of New-Degree Program Review and Approval Process" from the Committee on Educational Policy of the Board of Trustees (March 18-19, 1997); and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the statement, "If approved, the revised new-degree and approval process will be reviewed and evaluated five years from implementation," as contained in the presentation statement by the Interim Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and request that the statement be included in the Board of Trustee's policy, "Proposed Revision of New-Degree Program Review and Approval Process."
RATIONALE: The proposed Revision of Process For Approving New-Degree Programs was developed with the advice of a working group of campus representatives, with the intent of streamlining the approval process. Almost all campuses (17 out of the 22) responded to a call for comments on the original draft. They either supported the original draft or raised minor concerns, and the draft was modified in accordance with most of their suggestions. The revised process maintains the requirement that all proposals are subject to a thorough campus review process before approval. The revised new-degree and approval process will be reviewed and evaluated five years after implementation.
The revision is designed to meet the following objectives: to create a true partnership between campus and Academic Planning, to promote greater cooperation and collaboration among campuses and across segments, to promote more campus responsibility for new-program proposal quality, to speed up and simplify the new-program review process, to promote greater attention to workforce and societal needs in program development, and to improve the working relationship with CPEC.
The current two-step review process remains appropriate for new programs that would involve major capital outlay and other significant additional new resources. Programs that involve degrees in areas new to the CSU as well as most programs that involve separate specialized accreditation also benefit from the longer, two-step review process. However, programs that involve no major capital outlay and which can be accommodated within the existing resource base of the campus could be handled in one step.
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY -- May 8-9, 1997