CHAPTER 8
ACADEMIC
REGULATIONS
PART III - Procedure
for Approval and
Review of Courses, Programs and other
Academic
Ventures
PROGRAMS
8.85.10 New Programs. In
this section the term "program" shall be understood
to include any
curriculum or University sponsored activity requiring
the assignment
of one or more faculty to serve in a teaching,
research, or service
capacity and intended to result in the conferral
of a certificate or
other credential or of an undergraduate or
graduate degree. It also
covers centers, including partnerships,
bureaus, institutes, and
similar entities.
8.85.11 A
coordinating and
review committee (see 8.85.17) shall be responsible
for receiving a
proposal for a new program, for notifying the
appropriate units of
the University of the proposal, for requesting
Budget Office
financial review of the proposal, for calling for
comment on the
proposal, for setting deadlines for receipt of
comment, for
evaluating the proposed program, for insuring that all
required
information is included or appended to the proposal, and
for
forwarding the proposal, or a revised version of the proposal,
with
its report and recommendations, to the Faculty Senate for
subsequent
action. In its report to the Senate, the coordinating and
review
committee shall indicate whether it recommends approval
or
disapproval of the proposal and shall recommend a ranking of
the
proposal according to categories described in
8.85.30.
8.85.12
Proposals shall be
prepared using formats specified by the Board of
Governors and kept
on file in the office of the Provost and Vice
President for Academic
Affairs.
8.85.13 A
proposal
submitted by a college shall have been approved in
accordance with
the college's established procedures before
submission to the
coordinating and review committee.
8.85.14 The
coordinating
and review committee shall insure that all departments,
colleges, or
other units directly involved or affected by a proposal
for a new
program, including the Joint Educational Policy Committee
and the
Council of Deans, are informed of the proposal and are given
time to
comment or otherwise respond. Unless otherwise sanctioned by
a
special act of the Faculty Senate, the coordinating and
review
committee shall allow at least thirty (30) and no more
than
forty-five (45) calendar days for responses after
public
notification.
8.85.15
Unless an
extension of up to thirty (30) calendar days has been
authorized by
the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the
coordinating and review
committee shall submit its report on the
proposal to the Faculty
Senate for action no later than thirty (30)
calendar days after the
deadline set for receipt of responses on a
proposal. If a report has
not been submitted within the specified
time, the proposal may be
submitted directly to the Faculty Senate
for
action.
8.85.16 The
coordinating and review committee may require
changes in the format
of and may recommend substantive changes in a
proposal before
forwarding it to the Senate for action. Thecoordinating
and review
committee shall make comments submitted in response to a
proposal
available for inspection, indicating in its forwarding
report to the
Senate the persons and/or groups who have submitted
comments and
where the comments are on file and available for
review.
8.85.17
Normally, the Curricular Affairs Committee, the
Graduate Council, and
the Council for Research shall serve as the
coordinating and review
committee respectively for proposals for new
undergraduate degree
programs, for new graduate degree programs, and
for new centers,
including partnerships, bureaus and institutes. If
questions arise as
to the appropriate committee to serve as the
coordinating and review
committee for a proposal for a new program,
the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee shall determine which
committee has
responsibility. The Executive Committee may establish
or recommend
establishing a special committee to serve as the
coordinating and
review committee for a
proposal.
8.85.20
Evaluation
Criteria. In conducting
their review,
the coordinating and review committee shall evaluate
the proposed
program primarily according to the following criteria,
listed in
order of importance and explained in more detail in the
Manual
sections indicated: centrality of the program to the mission
of the
University of Rhode Island (8.85.21); extent to which the
program
would contribute to the University's fulfillment of its
teaching,
research and service responsibilities, (8.85.22);
relationship of the
program to the developmental plans of the
University (8.85.23);
projected cost effectiveness considerations
(8.85.24).
8.85.21 The
first
criterion--centrality to the mission of the University of
Rhode
Island--is of major importance. The mission of the University
of
Rhode Island is embodied in its name and consists of two
components
-- one being those responsibilities that distinguish it as
a
University (not a state or community college or technical
institute)
and the other being those local and regional concerns that
derive
from its being "of Rhode Island." A program is considered as
being
central to the mission of this University as an institution of
higher
learning to the extent it fulfills both aspects of the
University's
mission. A program shall be considered appropriate to
the mission of
U.R.I. as a University to the extent
to which it fits one of the
following
descriptions:
a. the program constitutes a
theoretical
pursuit;
b. the program contains
many aspects of
practical application, but these aspects require a
strong theoretical
foundation (e.g. certain professional programs,
applied fine arts,
etc.);
c. the
program provides some general skills
needed for students to be able
to engage in theoretical pursuits or
to understand the theoretical
foundations of practical aspects of
other programs. Taking into
consideration the present situation
within higher education, a
university must, in this context, also
provide skills which are
judged by some to be remedial
in
nature.
A program
may be considered appropriate to the
mission of U.R.I. as an
institution of higher learning
of Rhode
Island to the extent it fits one of
the following
descriptions.
a. the program is of general or
universal interest or
applicability -- one that typically exists at
all quality
universities;
b. the program is
in keeping with the mission
of a land-grant institution (e.g.
agricultural experiment station,
cooperative extension
program);
c. the program has
special regional or local
relevance because of its relationship to
social/demographic
characteristics of the geographical area, unique
collaborative
opportunities with institutions or organizations in the
area, or
present and projected employment opportunities or needs of
the
area.
8.85.22 A
second criterion
of major importance is the extent to which the
program contributes to
the University's fulfillment of its three main
responsibilities: to
provide the opportunity for education at the
undergraduate, graduate,
and postgraduate levels; to conduct research
and other scholarly and
creative activities; and to serve the people
of the state by making
knowledge, information, and expertise
available to individuals, to
other educational organizations, and to
business, industry, and
government. It is envisioned that review of a
program with respect to
this criterion will be the most
time-consuming and thorough-going
component of the review process. In
carrying out this aspect of its
task, the subcommittee reviewing an
identified program shall
interview faculty, students and staff
involved in the program,
program directors, department chairpersons,
and the appropriate dean.
The committee shall examine the record of
opportunities and
accomplishments that derive from the program
including examination of
the following:
a.
What opportunities does the
program make available which are not
otherwise available to the
people of the state?
b. How does program effectiveness measure
up
based on national reputation, peer evaluation, accreditation
reviews,
and test scores of program graduates on licensing exams,
graduate
record exams, etc.?
c.
How much research support is obtained by
faculty associated with the
program? What is the quality and quantity
of scholarly activity, both
sponsored and unsponsored, in terms of
national reputation and other
measures?
d. What special
University, community, state
services are provided by faculty or
students associated with
the
program?
8.85.23 A
third criterion
of major importance is the relationship of the
program to
developmental plans of the University. Is the program
inside or
outside the areas where greater emphasis
is
envisioned?
8.85.24 A
fourth set of
criteria related to cost/effectiveness considerations,
of less
importance than the three defined in paragraphs 8.85.21-23,
shall
include the following:
a. How does the program compare
with others based on
cost/revenue relationships (overall cost and
income and per
student)?
b. How does the
program compare with others
based on numbers of students served
(majors, etc.)?
c. How does the
program compare with others
considering student-faculty
ratio?
d. How does the program
compare with others in
terms of employment opportunities and actual
placement of
graduates?
e. Are
there special facilities or equipment
needed or uniquely available
for the program?
This set of criteria shall be applied
uniformly to all
programs as far as such criteria are
relevant.
8.85.30 Classification of Programs for which funding
is
required. When new programs are
approved
by the Faculty Senate,
approval may be classified as
follows: approval Class A will mean
that the program is deemed to be
of such merit as to justify the
recommendation of the immediate
allocation of funds for its
implementation; approval Class B would
recommend that proposed new
programs compete for resources on an
equal basis with all other
University activities; approval Class C
would recommend funding of
the proposed new program should additional
funds be made available to
the University. #05-06--21
8.85.31 Programs
for which no new
funding is required. When the proponents of a
new program,
including a certificate program, assert that the new
venture can be
administered entirely with existing funds, the
proposal shall include a
five-year plan demonstrating that existing
funds are sufficient for
carrying the program. Prior to that plan
being presented to the Faculty
Senate Curricular Affairs Committee or
the Graduate Council, it shall
be reviewed and approved by the
appropriate department(s) and
college(s) whose participation is
necessary for the program to be
offered successfully. The plan shall
also include a Budget Office
review. No classification under 8.85.30
is required. #05-06--21
8.86.10 Academic
Program Review.
In this section the term "program" shall be
understood to include
academic departments, as well as any curriculum
or University sponsored
activity requiring the assignment of one or
more faculty to serve in a
teaching, research, or service capacity
and intended to result in the
conferral of an undergraduate or
graduate degree or of a certificate or
other credential. #05-06--22
8.86.11 The
primary purpose
of the academic program review shall be to assess
both the academic
quality and the financial aspects of a program. The
academic program
review shall be used to inform decision-makers with
regard to resources
in academic departments and programs and to
provide the University with
information that will lead to improved
program focus and quality. In
addition, it is intended to help the
University gain greater degrees of
efficiency and effectiveness in
the delivery of the academic
curriculum. #05-06--22
8.86.12
During the course
of the academic program review and during the
formulation of the review
instrument, an Academic Program Review
Committee shall help coordinate
the steps of the review, shall lead
in the formulation of the
evaluation instrument, and shall continue
to modify previous instrument
versions or develop new instruments to
accommodate the changing needs
of the faculty and administration.
(See sections 5.86.10-11 on the
Academic Program Review
Committee.) #05-06--22
8.86.13 The
report,
prepared as a result of an academic program review, shall be
available
to the University Community; however, responses to the
evaluation
instrument submitted by individual participants shall
remain
confidential. #05-06--22
8.86.14 The
program
director or chair and the Dean or academic administrator to
whom the
program director or chair reports shall meet with the
Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs to examine and
discuss the results of
the review as soon as feasible, but no longer than one hundred
and
eighty calendar days following the dissemination of the results.
The
Academic Program Review Committee shall serve in an advisory
capacity
during this process. #05-06--22
8.87.10 Abolition
of
Programs. When a recommendation for abolition of
an
existing program is initiated by an appropriate college or
university
committee or administrative official, the recommendation
shall be
reviewed by the appropriate college dean, college curricular
committee,
and college faculty if the program is housed in a college;
and in any
case by the appropriate Faculty Senate Committee(s)
(Curricular Affairs
Committee and/or Council for Research) or
Graduate Council, the Faculty
Senate and the President. Review
of the proposal for abolition by
college or Senate committees below
the level of the Faculty Senate
shall result in a Statement of
Opinion that shall be attached to the
proposal as it proceeds through
subsequent review steps, but shall not
result in denial or approval
of the recommendation, nor stop the
proposal from proceeding to the
Faculty Senate. The originator of
the recommendation may,
however, withdraw the proposal if convinced by
review at any level
that the recommendation should be withdrawn.
Curricular
committees and college faculties shall address budgetary
issues as
well as academic issues in their review. The Graduate
Council
shall be included for review of graduate programs according to
its
established procedures. The originator shall present
the
recommendations to the Faculty Senate for its
deliberation.
Committees that have reviewed the proposal and
have attached Statements
of Opinion shall present the findings of
their review to the Faculty
Senate. Approval of the
recommendation for abolition shall
require the approval of the
Faculty Senate and the President in the
same manner as other
legislative actions, as provided for in sections
10.2 to 10.6 of the
Faculty Senate By-Laws.
8.87.11 Any
program
recommended for elimination shall be maintained until
currently
enrolled students (including University College students
who have
indicated preference for the program in writing prior to
the
President's signature of the recommendation for elimination)
have
completed the program, except that in no case shall this period
of
maintenance exceed the normal period of transit through the
program by
more than one year. Notification to students
contemplating
enrollment in the program shall be made at the time the
President
authorizes elimination of the program, but not
sooner. For the
purpose of providing adequate notice to
prospective first-year
students, elimination must be authorized prior
to June 1 of the year
previous to the final entering class.
8.87.12 Suspension of Programs.
The President has
the prerogative of suspending admissions of students
into degree
granting programs. The President shall notify the
University
Community, including Admissions Officers, and the Board of
Governors
for Higher Education as to the reasons for and the effective
date of
program suspension, taking into account students already
admitted for
study. In concert with policies of the Board of Governors
for Higher
Education, programs may be maintained in a state of
suspension for a
maximum of 6 years. Programs may be removed from
suspension by the
President at any time prior to the expiration of the
time limit. The
President may appeal to the Board of Governors for
Higher Education
for a three (3) year extension beyond the prescribed
time limit.
After the time limit for program suspension has been
reached,
procedures for program abolition set forth in Section 8.87.10
shall
be followed. #06-07--40
8.88.10
Degree Programs on the Providence
Campus. Departments
planning to offer existing
degree programs
at the Providence Campus must develop and approve a
plan for offering
and staffing courses and advising
students. Once approved
by the academic department, this
plan should be forwarded
simultaneously to the appropriate college
curriculum committee
and to the Vice Provost for Urban Programs
for review and
approval and then undergraduate programs shall be
forwarded to
the Curricular Affairs Committee and graduate
programs to the
Graduate Council for approval. Actions taken by
the Curricular
Affairs Committee and Graduate Council shall be
reported to the
Faculty Senate for information.
#04-05--9