April 18, 2005
Action Request Memo

To:	Neghin Modavi, Chair
	Faculty Senate

From:	Sheryl Fuchino-Nishida, Chair
	Curriculum Committee

Subject:	Review And Recommendation Of Proposal For Curriculum Process Redesign

SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Changes to Curriculum Review Process

RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE: Spring 2006

BACKGROUND:

The curricular review process has been challenging for both proposers and reviewers.  An ad hoc committee comprised of interested faculty, current and former curriculum committee chairs, support staff and one administrator has been working for over a year to re-examine the review process.  

Ad Hoc Committee Members:

Nathan Dwyer, Chair of Foundations Board
Sheryl Fuchino-Nishida, Chair of Curriculum Committee 
Susan Inouye, Vice-Chair of Faculty Senate
Neghin Modavi, Chair of Faculty Senate
Louse Pagotto, Assistant Dean of Curriculum Management
Carol Paul-Watanabe, former Chair of Curriculum Committee
Susan Pope, Curriculum Specialist
Barbara Ross, Chair of Social Sciences
Tanya Renner, coordinator of Learning Outcomes Assessment group and former member of the Curriculum Committee
Steve Singer, former member of the Curriculum Committee

The committee researched the curricular review process at other institutions, most notable the process in place at San Diego Community College District, and consulted with George Tamas and Steve Thyberg of Governet, the company responsible for developing CurricUNET.  The task force wholeheartedly supports the College’s purchase of CurricUNET and understands that a systemwide purchase is being considered.

One change recommended in the proposal impacts the current constitution of the Faculty Senate: The scope of authority of the Faculty Senate.  The current constitution characterizes the Faculty Senate as the “policy recommending advisory body.”  The current proposal for changes to the curriculum review process makes the Faculty Senate the final approval body for certain curriculum review processes.  Should the proposal be endorsed and recommended to the Chancellor with that scope of authority in place, and should the Faculty Senate begin the process of changing its Constitution, the Curriculum Committee may, at that time, want to propose changes to the membership of the Curriculum Committee as defined by the constitution.

The attached document reflects the results of the committee’s discussions, deliberations and research over these months.  We present this proposal to Faculty Senate for broader faculty discussion and for Faculty Senate recommendation. 

Kapi‘olani Community College 
Curriculum Process Redesign
(4/17/05)

The process being proposed differs significantly from our current process.  The major differences are

1.	The order of review and the roles of some reviewing bodies have been modified.
•	The Faculty Senate is the final approving body for Certificates of Competence and all actions to courses that are not tied to Program Action Requests.

2.	The ways in which the Curriculum Committee work have been changed.
•	There are multiple review processes, depending on the nature of the proposal.
•	Certificates of Competence, which may include both credit and non-credit courses, are subject to faculty review.

3.	The author is responsible for making sure the proposal has cleared major hurdles before the department chair submits it, including consultation with entities external to the department 

4.	The department chair is responsible for submitting the proposal to the other reviewing bodies.
•	Communication between reviewing bodies and department chair during the review process will be via email to DC with cc to the author.

We are hoping to acquire software that will allow us to support the whole process online.  In the meantime, we are proposing the following changes to the process.  

The Curriculum Review Process

The process includes two major phases: pre-submission and official submission.  In the pre-submission phase, the author consults with relevant constituents to establish the need for the course, the currency of the content/outcomes, the impact on learning resources, and the impact on other departments.  The author also meets with the curriculum specialist to make sure the information is technically correct and the form is accurate and complete prior to submitting it for formal approvals.  

In the second phase, the proposal is reviewed and approved.  The department chair takes responsibility for submitting the proposal to the reviewing bodies.  Because the pre-submission stage requires authors to consult with relevant bodies and to work with the curriculum specialist to get the information right, the proposals are expected to be accurate and complete before submission.  The reviewers can thus concentrate on the content of the proposal, not on its form.  

Proposals can be submitted at any time during the academic year.  Proposals are compiled once per month, according to an established schedule, and reviewed by the next level of review, typically the Curriculum Committee and the appropriate program dean.  The Curriculum Committee establishes a minimum number of proposals that it will review and communicates this quota to the faculty at the start of the academic year.  The Curriculum Committee guarantees to complete the review of the established minimum number of proposals and make its recommendation within one month.  Proposals are forwarded to subsequent levels of review with all comments from the previous reviewing body. Depending on the nature of the proposal and the need for the modifications to be included in the College’s public documents (catalog, schedule of classes), certain review deadlines may be established for particular kinds of actions.

If a proposal is not recommended for approval by any of the reviewing bodies prior to reaching the Faculty Senate, the reviewers will include a justification for the non-recommendation.  The proposing department chair will, at that time, be notified of the non-recommendation.  The proposing department chair has three options when notified of the non-recommendation: (1) withdraw the proposal; (2) withdraw the proposal, address the area noted by the reviewer and resubmit the proposal for approval in the next review cycle; (3) allow the proposal to proceed to Faculty Senate.  When a proposal reaches Faculty Senate with a non-recommendation, Faculty Senate may return the proposal to the department chair, requesting justification for the department’s decision not to address the area of concern expressed by the reviewers.  Upon reviewing the proposal and justification, the Faculty Senate may decide not to recommend or approve the proposal.  At this point, the department chair may invoke a broader discussion of the proposal through the convening of a Review Committee, an ad hoc committee comprised of both faculty and administrators, with faculty in the majority.  At the request of the proposing department chair, Faculty Senate will convene a Review Committee, consisting of:
•	one faculty member nominated by the department chair
•	one faculty member nominated by the Faculty Senate
•	the previous chair of the Curriculum Committee (or if the immediate previous chair is unavailable, any previous Curriculum Committee chair may serve)
•	a dean from an unrelated program area
•	the Chief Academic Officer

The Committee will select a chair from among the members.  Having reviewed the comments from previous reviewing bodies, the Review Committee will render its recommendation and submit all relevant documents along with the course proposal to the next level of review, as appropriate.

Suggested Roles for Curriculum Proposal Authors, Proposers and Reviewers

Action	
PRE-SUBMISSION	
1. Author 	
1.1	Review guidelines and/or attend training for authors.  	
1.2	Obtain copy of previous proposal (if update).  	
1.3	Consult with advisory committee about current/projected needs of employers, industry trends and projected numbers of jobs available, recommended content updates, and/or recommended student learning outcomes (both course and program SLOs and revise proposal as necessary) [for Vocational courses/programs]	
1.4	Consult with head librarian or director of CELTT if staffing/expertise/physical space/ equipment in these support services areas will be impacted	
1.5	Consult with discipline faculty on content and assessment and revise proposal as necessary	
1.6	Consult with department chair and counseling faculty and revise proposal as necessary	
1.7	Discuss resource needs (physical, fiscal, equipment, human) with Program Dean	
1.8	Consult with other departments as necessary	
1.9	Gather relevant articulation information; Consult with relevant General Education groups, Foundations Board or Diversification Board (the latter does not yet exist) [for Liberal Arts courses]	
1.10	Consult curriculum specialist and revise proposal as necessary	
	
2. Discipline Faculty	
2.1 Review for appropriateness of content	
2.2 Review for alignment of the course learning outcomes, content, and assessment with relevant program outcomes	
2.3 Review for pedagogical appropriateness and innovativeness	
2.4 Review for integration and sequencing, if appropriate, with other discipline courses	
2.5 Review corequisites and prerequisites for relevance to course, and in terms of alignment with other courses	
	
3. Curriculum Specialist  	
3.1 Review proposal for accuracy, completeness, and compliance	
3.2 Review corequisites and prerequisites for programmability	
	
4. Department 	
4.1 Review relationship with other courses in department and department strategic plan	
4.2 Review relationship with the department’s established goals	
4.3 Review relationship to department program(s) include consultation with counseling/advising faculty	
4.4 Review relationship with other programs outside the department	
4.5 Review prerequisites/corequisites for impact on this department/program and other departments/programs	
4.6 Review request for resources (physical, fiscal, equipment, human).  	
4.7.Review documentation and justification, including authentic consultation with other departments	
4.8 Review articulation request, as appropriate	
4.9 Review fit of course Student Learning Outcomes(SLOs) with Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) 	
	
SUBMISSION	
1.	Department Chair	
1.1 Submit the course and/or program proposal for review and approval	
	
2. Curriculum Committee 	
2.1 Review how course and/or program fits into college mission and strategic plan	
FOR COURSES	
2.2 Review cross-disciplinary corequisites and prerequisites in relation to course content	
2.3 Check for course duplication across departments	
2.4 Review course content in relation to SLOs and assessment.	
2.5 Review adequacy of assessment 	
2.6 Review how well SLOs fit into PLOs 	
2.7 Review impact on college resources	
FOR PROGRAMS (degrees and certificates)	
2.8 Review justification for proposal [does not apply to Certificate of Competence]	
2.9 Review impact on other departments	
2.10 Verify internal consistency of course outcomes to program outcomes	
2.11 Review impact on college resources [does not apply to Certificate of Competence]	
ACTION: Recommend or not recommend and forward the proposal and an "executive summary" of discussion to Faculty Senate	
	
3. General Education [for Liberal Arts Courses]	
3.1 Review courses seeking approval for meeting the Foundations Requirements or the Diversification Requirements to assess whether the course meets the relevant hallmarks	
ACTION: Recommend or not recommend and forward the proposal and an "executive summary" of discussion to Faculty Senate	
	
4. Program Dean	
4.1 Review resource requests and confirm availability of resources 	
4.2 Review fit of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) with Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)	
4.3 Review system, college, program impact and fit	
ACTION: Recommend or not recommend	
	
5. Faculty Senate	
5.1 Review recommendations.  	
5.2 Consider divergent recommendations.  	
5.3 Review first level of appeals on courses/programs that have not been recommended.	
ACTION: Approve or not approve; recommend or not recommend (as appropriate)	
	
6. Chief Academic Officer	
6.1 Review program modifications and new programs for impact on the system and for compatibility with institutional goals and directions	
ACTION: Approve or not approve	
	
7. Chancellor	
7.1 Review new programs for impact on the system and for impact on College resources 	
7.2 Approve new programs, stop-out of programs, deletion of programs (actions that need BOR approval)	
ACTION: Approve or not approve	
	
8. Curriculum Specialist  	

8.1 Input relevant information into registration system
new courses
revised prerequisites/corequisites
changes to course alpha/number/title/credits
course equivalencies
	
8.2 Inform the registrar of new programs, modifications to existing programs, new required course, and new courses	
8.3 Inform Banner central of new degrees and/or certificates	
8.4 Submit new or revised programs and courses to the marketing unit for preparation of the Catalog (printed and online)	
8.5 Provide notification of approvals to department chair, counselors, website	

SAMPLE Flow Chart for NEW Vocational program

PRE-SUBMISSION					
Dept Chair,				Other 	
Counselors				programs	

	Author

					
Dean	Discipline	Advisory
Committee		Learning 
Support	Curriculum
Specialist	
					
SUBMISSION		Department Chair

	Curriculum
Committee		Program Dean

		Faculty Senate			
					
		Chief Academic Officer			
					
		Chancellor			
					
			Curriculum
Specialist		
					
		Board of Regents			

SAMPLE Flow Chart for Liberal Arts Course Modification 

PRE-SUBMISSION					
Department Chair,				Other programs	
Counselors					

	

	Author

		
					
Dean	Discipline	Gen Ed
		Learning 
Support	Curriculum
Specialist	
					
SUBMISSION		
Department Chair

	Curriculum
Committee
		
Program Dean
		
Gen Ed
Review					
		
Faculty Senate

			Curriculum
Specialist		

SAMPLE Flow Chart for Vocational program modification

PRE-SUBMISSION					
Department Chair,				Other programs	
Counselors					

	

	Author

		
					
Dean	Discipline	Advisory
Committee		Learning 
Support	Curriculum
Specialist	
					
SUBMISSION		Department Chair

	Curriculum
Committee		Program Dean

					
		
Faculty Senate

		Chief Academic Officer
			
			Curriculum
Specialist		

SAMPLE Flow Chart for new Certificate of Competence

PRE-SUBMISSION					
Department Chair,					
Counselors					

	

	Author

		
					
Dean		Discipline			Curriculum
Specialist	
					
SUBMISSION		
Department Chair

		Curriculum
Committee 			

		Faculty Senate
			
			Curriculum
Specialist