Chapter 7 - Academic Programs and Curriculum

CHAPTER 7 ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM

SECTION 1:  ACADEMIC PROGRAM PROPOSALS

(New and Revised, including delete, renumber, rename, and re-prefix)

Departments and others wishing to submit undergraduate proposals for consideration by the Curriculum Committee or graduate proposals for consideration by the Graduate Council shall prepare the proposals in detail according to the process outlined on the Common Council website under “Committees” (Curriculum Committee, Graduate Council).  Carefully prepared proposals will enable the Curriculum Committee, Graduate Council, Common Council and the administration to review and reach a sound decision on the relative merits of the proposal.

Email undergraduate proposals to the Chair of the Curriculum Committee at curriculum.committee@uwsp.edu, the Dean(s) of any College(s) concerned, and the Chair(s) of any department(s) that could be affected by the proposal.  Submit graduate proposals to the Graduate Council chair and the Dean(s) of the College(s) concerned.

In order to assure sufficient time for consideration by the appropriate committee or council, proposals should be submitted as far in advance as possible.

NEW AND REVISED UNDERGRADUATE AND/OR GRADUATE COURSES

Proposals for new or revised (including delete, renumber, rename, and re-prefix) undergraduate or graduate courses shall be prepared according to the Course Revision Form on the Common Council website.

NOTES:

1. No unapproved courses shall be listed in the University Timetable unless the proposed course has been submitted to the proper committees before April 1 for the following spring semester and November 1 for the following fall semester.
2. In the case of a slash course, the curriculum committee must have acted on the undergraduate course prior to the submission of the course proposal to the Graduate Council.
   PLEASE NOTE: Slash course proposals will automatically be forwarded to the Graduate Council by the Curriculum Committee Secretary once approved by the Curriculum Committee.

UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS AND MINORS

NEW MAJORS

Proposed new majors should be prepared using the UW System Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and Approval, found later in this Section.

REVISED MAJORS AND MINORS

Proposals to revise undergraduate majors and minors shall be prepared according to the Program Revision Form. 

NEW MINORS

Proposals to create new minors shall be prepared according to the Program Revision Form. 

GRADUATE PROGRAMS

NEW PROGRAMS

Proposed new graduate programs should be prepared using the UW System Guidelines for Academic Program Planning and Approval, found later in this Section.

REVISED PROGRAMS

Proposals to revise graduate programs shall show the existing program, then the new program, and clearly point out the proposed revisions and rationale and justification for such revisions. 

NEW COURSES INCLUDED IN NEW OR REVISED PROGRAMS

New courses being proposed in conjunction with a new or revised program should be fully explained as though the course was being introduced independently.  In such cases, the Graduate Council will consider the course additions and/or changes first and then consider the proposed and/or revised program.

PROCEDURE IN GRADUATE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

The Graduate Council will rely basically upon the written documents submitted for its determination of the rationale and justification for the proposed change; however, the requesting department shall be expected to have a representative at the meeting to answer any questions which might arise.

REFERRAL BACK TO DEPARTMENT                     

Any proposals submitted in a format different from that described above will be rejected and will be returned to the department or individual proposing the change until submitted in proper form.

GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM COURSE PROPOSALS

The General Education Committee oversees all components of the university-wide General Education Program.  A major function of the committee is screening courses for inclusion among those that may be used to fulfill general education requirements.  No existing or new course will be accepted automatically as fulfilling a general education requirement.

Proposals to add or revise a General Education Program designation to a course shall be prepared according to the General Education Program (GEP) Course Application Form.

UW SYSTEM GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM PLANNING AND APPROVAL

Departments considering the development of a new academic program should discuss the proposed program with the dean and the provost and vice chancellor for Academic Affairs. UW System policies related to program planning, delivery, review, and reporting are detailed in UW System Administrative Policy 102. Specifically, UW System Administrative Policy 102, Section 2 outlines the approval process for developing and implementing new academic degree programs. Additional information including the UW Board of Regents Program Authorization Guide and program budget templates are available at: https://www.wisconsin.edu/program-planning/.

Once UW System approval is obtained, proposals for new undergraduate majors should be prepared according to the instructions on the Program Revision Form.
 

SECTION 2:  ASSESSMENT

UWSP will assess student learning within both the General Education Program and the various department-level academic programs.  The purpose of assessment is to ensure the continuous improvement of student learning by informing all choices related to the curricular and instructional changes, programs, and policies that contribute to student success.  In this way, assessment is intended to provide the foundation for academic planning and decision making.

THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

The evaluation of student learning will move beyond the purely anecdotal and personal experiences of individual faculty or departments to study the undergraduate experience as a whole.  In this way, assessment will provide information to use in decision making related to the continuous improvement of teaching and learning, department review, and other key institutional outcomes.  Intentional coordination of efforts is the key to the assessment plan, with each effort centered on a model of continuous improvement with student learning as the focus.  Program-level assessment will be carried out by academic departments that submit reports to the Assessment Subcommittee; the assessment of general education will be the responsibility of the General Education Committee; and institutional-level assessment (which will inform the work of both the Assessment Subcommittee and the General Education Committee) will be administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.

The assessment of undergraduate programs at UWSP will have four components:

1. an analysis of new student attributes and prior experiences;
2. an evaluation of learning within the general education curriculum
3. an evaluation of learning within department-level academic programs; and
4. institutional-level measures, including surveys of student perceptions and a value-added measurement of student learning from the freshman to senior years.

ANALYSIS OF NEW STUDENT ABILITIES

The knowledge, skills and perspectives outlined previously need to be analyzed first among our new students, primarily the incoming freshmen.  The regent-mandated placement tests of verbal and quantitative skills already help place students in the most appropriate English, math and foreign language courses as well as identify students in need of remedial work.  The placement test results are integrated as a second component of a freshman profile in the larger assessment program.  Finally, an inventory administered to new freshmen helps identify our new students’ values and perspectives.  These components help us understand freshman knowledge, skills and perspectives.

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

Assessment of the General Education curriculum is described in Section 6 of this chapter.

DEPARTMENT-LEVEL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Each department* has the responsibility to assess student learning within its undergraduate and graduate programs** and to analyze and use the results to modify the program outcomes or curriculum where necessary to ensure the continuous improvement of student learning.

*Here, “department” is defined to include departments, divisions, and schools depending on the college involved, or in some cases, interdisciplinary programs.  In the case of the College of Natural Resources, “department” refers to the entire college excluding the Department of Paper Science and Chemical Engineering.

**And “programs” refers to curricula of study, e.g., majors, minors, certificates.

Departments shall determine the methods of assessment and the instruments to be used that best meet assessment needs.  These must provide information that can be used to identify both curricular and instructional strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Oversight of department-level program assessment will be the responsibility of the Assessment Subcommittee, a permanent subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC).  The role of the subcommittee will be to:

1. develop the policies and procedures for academic program assessment, addressing deficiencies in, and making improvements to, the assessment process.
2. provide feedback on program reports and identify areas of success and potential improvement;
3. develop, administer, and approve institutional level student learning assessment procedures and instruments consonant with UWSP’s Mission;
4. oversee compilation of program assessment data by the Assessment Coordinator for production of a dashboard for public access to assessment results and an annual assessment report;
5. in conjunction with the Assessment Coordinator, provide guidance and resources for programs as they update and review their assessment efforts;
6. in conjunction with the Assessment Coordinator, promote assessment of student learning through professional development.

The subcommittee will NOT

1. conduct department reviews;
2. evaluate departments or courses;
3. assess the worth of departments or programs on the basis of assessment data submitted.

The Department-Level Program Assessment Process

At this time, the majors in each department are the only programs to be reviewed by the Assessment Subcommittee (i.e., not minors and certificates).

Each department will keep on file with the Assessment Subcommittee a current five-year Assessment Plan for each major within the department denoting year-by-year how the department will gather and use assessment information.  The plan should include the learning outcomes for the major; a curriculum map illustrating the progression of courses and experiences that allow students to achieve each program learning outcome, and how each of these courses contributes to student achievement of the aligned program learning outcome; and an explanation of the assessment techniques or strategies that will be used to evaluate student learning within the program as demonstrated by their level of achievement of program learning outcomes.

In addition, each department will be required to report to the Assessment Subcommittee on its evaluation of student learning and process improvement for (at least) one learning outcome (hereafter, focal learning outcome) for each program in each academic year. Each program learning outcome should be evaluated in turn before any learning outcomes are evaluated again, as part of a program-specific cycle. This reporting of assessment results is intended to be a collegial and formative process and will have the following steps:

1. The department will evaluate student learning in a written assessment report for each program using the format described below. (During years in which the entire department is under review, annual assessment reports will be summarized in the larger Program Self-Study Report. See UWSP Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 3.) The department must enter report components into the Program Assessment interface.
2. The Assessment Subcommittee will evaluate submissions using a detailed rubric, and provide the department with written feedback of its assessment report outlining the subcommittee’s conclusions and recommendations. This feedback will include the rubric used by the subcommittee in forming its opinions. This feedback will be delivered to the department for use in improving assessment, instruction, and curriculum.

An aggregated summary of assessment results across programs will be made publicly available through an online assessment dashboard. Assessment reports from individual programs are intended to be campus resources and will be available to anyone who requests them.  The Assessment Coordinator is the curator of all department assessment reports, and the reports, along with the program assessment plans, will be maintained in the Common Council files.

Responses To Delinquent Assessment Reports

Because each department assessment report is intended to provide the foundation for decision making within the unit, it is important that the reports be completed in a timely fashion.  When a department fails to complete its annual assessment report according to the program-specific cycle of the department’s five-year assessment plan, the provost may hold all staffing and budgeting decisions for the delinquent department in abeyance.  Extenuating circumstances can relax this policy, at the discretion of the provost, if they are communicated by the dean to the provost and Assessment Coordinator.

Content of the Assessment Report

Each annual report should be entered into the Assessment Subcommittee interface by the first Friday in February of each year and have the following parts:

1. Program Learning Outcomes: List all program learning outcomes, specifically indicating the knowledge, skills, and dispositions students will develop. The focal program learning outcome being assessed should be indicated.
2. Current Curriculum Map: Include the program curriculum map illustrating the progression of courses or experiences that allow students to achieve each program learning outcomes, and how each of those courses or experiences contributes to student achievement of the aligned program learning outcomes.
3. Summary of Previous Results: If the focal learning outcome has been assessed previously, provide a brief (<250 words) abstract of those results.
4. Brief Description of Departmental Improvements and Changes as related to assessment: If the focal learning outcome has been assessed previously, describe specific action taken and changes that have been made (to curriculum, assessment methods, etc.), based on that previous assessment.
5. Current Assessment Strategies/Measures/Techniques/Methods: Include brief descriptions of assessment methods used in the program to assess student learning. Examples of assessment methods include exams, portfolios, pre- and post-­ tests, direct observation of performance, surveys (current students, alumni, employers), focus groups, and national exams. A description of how the assessment aligns with the focal PLO should be present. A summary of how student achievement of learning outcomes was evaluated as exceeding, meeting, partially meeting, or not meeting program expectations for student performance should be included, as should supplementary materials like assessment instructions and rubrics.
6. The program’s benchmark for the proportion of students meeting or exceeding the criteria for focal PLO achievement should be provided, along with the program’s rationale for choosing this benchmark. This benchmark should reflect the program’s performance level upon which the program is attempting to improve. If the focal PLO has not been assessed previously, no benchmark is required. If a PLO has been previously assessed, the results from the most recent assessment should serve as the benchmark for the current assessment results.
7.  Current Assessment Results/Findings/Interpretation: The report should summarize what was measured; describe specifically what the assessment results reveal about student learning in the context of the stated focal program learning outcome; and compare the current results to the benchmark. Useful details to include are whether there are any patterns in student performance relative to specific course sequences. The results should include only those students enrolled in the program under consideration.
8.  Reflection on Assessment Process and Data: Reflect upon what your program can learn from the data collected about the platform for student achievement provided by the program, or about the chosen assessment instrument or method of data analysis. Describe how results will be used by the department to enhance student learning, including proposed changes to the curriculum, assessment techniques, and/or learning outcomes. If the benchmark was not met, analyze possible causes and solutions. If the benchmark was met or exceeded, analyze additional ways that your program could enhance and improve student learning.
9. Dissemination of Findings: Describe when the findings of the departmental assessment work were discussed and approved by the faculty, along with any other plans for dissemination.
10. An updated five-year assessment plan will accompany the annual assessment report. The plan should include details on when, where, and how in the upcoming five years each PLO will be assessed, and the year in which assessment data will be reported to the Assessment Subcommittee.

SECTION 3:  PROGRAM REVIEW

The effective evaluation of student learning within academic programs should provide the foundation for decision making within a sponsoring unit, serving to identify strengths and challenges, inform requests for additional resources (such as FTE positions; classroom, lab space, and other facilities; library material, or computing equipment), and guide planning efforts.  Consequently, the process of program review builds upon the on-going assessment of student learning through the program assessment process described in Section 2 of this Handbook chapter.

Program* review will be an integral part of faculty governance through the Program Review Subcommittee (PRS), a permanent subcommittee of the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) responsible for conducting all local program* reviews.  The purposes of program reviews are 1) to provide each sponsoring unit a formal mechanism to evaluate and communicate to appropriate decision makers the academic program’s strengths, challenges and needs; 2) to garner collegial support and perspective for meeting the unit’s needs; and 3) to evoke a commitment from administration concerning continuation of the unit’s program(s) and/or intent to address the identified needs.  The goal will be to review the programs within each sponsoring unit every five years according to the Program Review Cycle drafted by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning, and Strategic Planning, approved broadly by the AAC, maintained by the Program Review Subcommittee, and available on the Academic Affairs Committee webpage.

* Program is defined here as an academic degree program for which a specific Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code and major code is recorded in the UW System program array inventory (See here: https://www.wisconsin.edu/opar-frontier/uws-academic-majors/)

THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS

Program review is intended to be a collegial and formative process that will take place in the following steps:

1. The faculty and staff of the unit sponsoring the program under review engage in critical analysis of the program’s performance.  This “self-study” is an evaluation of the program’s curriculum, student success, facilities, faculty, and revenue from sources other than General Purpose Revenue (GPR) (e.g., non-GPR program revenue, grants, advancement, etc.) The sponsoring unit communicates its findings in a written Self-Study Report, using the template linked below.  The sponsoring unit will send copies of the Self-Study Report as an electronic file to its dean, the provost, the chair of the PRS, and the chair of the Assessment Subcommittee.
2. An External Review is optional and may be requested by the sponsoring unit, dean, or provost.  Units sponsoring a program for which an external review is being requested are directed to work with the Office of Academic Affairs to coordinate reviewer selection, visit schedule, and the reimbursement of associated reviewer costs.
3. The PRS will review the Self-Study Report, and the report of the External Reviewer, if applicable, and write an evaluation that includes its recommendations to the sponsoring unit and the administration.  The evaluation should also address the quality of the curriculum, student success, facilities, and faculty. The committee will compile this material together into a single Summary Report to be submitted to the sponsoring unit for clarifications and corrections. Once the sponsoring unit has reviewed the Summary Report and provided clarification, the Summary Report is forwarded to the dean for the dean’s comment. The Summary Report is also shared with Academic Affairs Committee.
4. A meeting of the provost, the dean, unit leader(s), and chair of the PRS will be the final formal discussion of the PRS Summary Report.  The provost then provides a written comment on the program review, to be appended to the PRS Summary Report.  The dean will have the option of appending a second response to the Summary Report as well.
5. The PRS will then forward the provost’s comments, dean’s comments, and final Summary Report to the Academic Affairs Committee (AAC). Following acceptance by the Common Council of the AAC minutes, the provost will write a second response to the departmental review, which will include a final decision regarding the continued support of the program.  This will conclude the review of the program.

USES OF PROGRAM REVIEW

Program review is intended to provide a primary source of information for administrative decisions regarding the sponsoring unit.  A program review is current if the review was completed within the preceding five years.  The reports are intended to be campus resources and will be available to anyone who requests them.  The PRS is the custodian of the reports and the reports will be maintained in the Common Council files.

RESPONSES TO DELINQUENT REVIEWS

The program review reports are important planning documents that inform decisions throughout the institution. It is therefore important that the reviews and reporting be completed in a timely fashion.  When a sponsoring unit fails to complete its self-study according to the “Reporting Cycle for Program Review,” it makes such decision making difficult.  Therefore, the provost may hold all staffing and budgeting decisions for the delinquent sponsoring unit in abeyance.  Extenuating circumstances can relax this policy, at the discretion of the provost, if they are communicated by the dean to the provost and PRS.

THE UWSP DEPARTMENT REVIEW SELF-STUDY REPORT TEMPLATE (See “Program Review Self-Study Template”)

SECTION 4:  ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND SHARED GOVERNANCE

The submission of a cooperative agreement with another institution, either domestic or foreign, indicates not only commitment of the project coordinator, but of the university.  These agreements, if successful, can result in a significant impact on the university.  Therefore, UWSP has a vested interest in the agreement since the university is ultimately accountable to insure that the conditions as outlined are fulfilled.  Each inter-institutional agreement must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrative personnel and shared governance bodies before it is formally submitted to another institution.

The official UWSP Permission to Develop an Articulation/Inter-institutional Agreement form (available from the Office of Academic Affairs) is designed to facilitate this process.  Please attach a draft copy of the proposed agreement plus any other appropriate supporting materials to this permission form.  Agreements which involve more than one department, school, college or UW System unit must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate officials of each unit, appropriate shared governance bodies, and ultimately the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  The purpose of this approval process is not to question the professional skill or approaches of the project coordinator, but rather to give assurance that the university supports the plans for the project, and that these plans are consistent with the activities, priorities, and mission of the university.  The opportunity that this formal approval process presents to inform the campus of the proposed activities is important to the faculty member as well as the shared governance bodies and administrators.  The responsibilities of the administrative staff in this approval process are as follows:

• The Department Chair or Director will: 

1. review the agreement to assure that faculty and support staff time commitments are reasonable and compatible with departmental workloads, present and planned,
2. determine that the percentage of time and salaries are accurate, and
3. agree that the space, facility, and service requirements are within the department’s present or planned resource capability if not specifically provided for in the proposal.

• The Dean or Line Officer will review the proposal for completeness and confirm that: 

1. space, service and support requirements are adequately provided for
2. responsibility is accepted for assuring the availability of local in-kind funds promised in the proposal, and
3. that the agreement’s budget, salary rates, job titles and classifications are reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with UWSP policy. 
4. In addition, the Dean/Director should ascertain to what degree the agreement will commit the college/school or unit to long-term support of project personnel or a program which may evolve from the agreement.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor will review the proposal to ensure that it conforms to UWSP and Board of Regents’ policies and state laws; that it is in proper form for submission to the potential collaborators; that it is conducive to the university’s mission by promoting the best academic interests of the university and that implied or definite university commitment of funds, space, and personnel can be met; and that the commitments for matching funds can be met by the university.

Faculty and staff should allow sufficient time for on-campus processing of the proposals to develop a cooperative agreement.  The review responsibilities assigned to administrative personnel and shared governance bodies are of such a nature and extent that “walking a proposal through channels” in a brief period of time is difficult.

Articulation agreements are specific credit transfer agreements between our institution and one or more Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) institutions. Prior to seeking shared governance action on an articulation agreement with a WTCS partner, the agreement should be forwarded to the Transfer Counselor in the Admissions Office for review.

After permission is gained from the appropriate administrative and shared governance bodies, the agreement coordinator is then responsible for drafting the formal articulation agreement for signatures. The formal agreement needs to be formatted in compliance with UW System Administrative Policy 140 (formerly UWS ACIS 6.2). The formal agreement is routed by the agreement coordinator for signatures of those authorized to enter into these agreements on behalf of UWSP and other non-UWSP partners.  Once the formal articulation agreement is signed by all required signatories, the agreement is then forwarded to UW System to be added to the listing of UW System articulation agreements.

SECTION 5:  GRADE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP

1. The subcommittee shall consist of the following voting members:

1. Three faculty members representing three distinct academic departments, with the Chairperson appointed by the Academic Affairs Committee, one member elected by the Student Government Association, and one temporary member for each case, appointed by the chairperson of the department of the instructor whose grade is under review.
2. An alternate faculty member shall be appointed by the Executive Committee of the Common Council to serve whenever it is necessary to maintain the condition of three faculty members representing three distinct academic departments, but in no case shall there be more than one member from the department of the instructor whose grade is under appeal.
3. Two student members shall be selected by the Student Government Association.  (Two graduate students will be selected by the Student Government Association for appeals brought by graduate students.)

2. The term of office, except for the temporary member, shall be one year.  Members shall take office at the beginning of the fall semester.  The Chairperson of the Grade Review Subcommittee shall expedite the formulation of the committee, which shall be complete no later than the third week of the fall semester.
3. The Office of the Provost/Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs shall designate a Coordinator to review grade appeals and assure continuity and consistency in the screening of grade appeals.  The Coordinator will work with the Chairperson of the Grade Review subcommittee throughout the appeal process.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

Grounds for a grade appeal shall ordinarily be as follows:

1. The alleged failure of the instructor to provide to the students, not later than the end of the second week of classes, a written statement of how grades will be determined.
2. The alleged failure of the instructor to assign grades according to the manner described.

PROCEDURES

1. Before a student may initiate an appeal of a grade, the student is required to consult with the instructor concerned.  However, if the Coordinator for Grade Review determines that such consultation would place undue burden or stress on the student or the instructor or both, the Coordinator shall have the authority to waive this consultation requirement.  If the Coordinator waives this consultation requirement, the Coordinator shall inform both the student and the instructor of this action.

After the student and the instructor have consulted, or after a waiver of the consultation requirement has been authorized, if the student wishes to initiate an appeal, he/she must present, in writing, a request to the Coordinator for Grade Review in the Academic and Career Advising Center no later than the end of the fourth week of classes of the subsequent regular academic year semester.

2. The Coordinator for Grade Review shall, upon receipt of a written request for grade review, take the following steps:

1. Meet with the student and discuss the grounds for appeal, the appeal process, and the options available to the Grade Review Subcommittee if the appeal is sustained.
2. Provide a copy of the student’s allegations or grievances to the instructor concerned and solicit a written statement of explanation from the instructor.
3. The instructor shall have twenty working days to respond.  Once the Coordinator has received the written response from the professor, he/she has up to five working days to send a copy of this response to the student.
4. After receiving the response, or at the end of the twenty working days, if no response is received, the Coordinator shall evaluate the allegations and make a determination as to the validity of the appeal.
5. If the Coordinator, on the basis of preliminary evaluation and investigation, concludes that any kind of grade change may possibly be warranted, or if the instructor has failed to respond in writing, s/he shall forward all relevant data to the Subcommittee for Grade Review, with a directive that the allegations be investigated and a determination as to its validity made.
6. If the student wishes to appeal the decision of the Coordinator, a second appeal may be made to the Chairperson of the Grade Review Subcommittee.  The Coordinator shall notify the professor of this action.  If further investigation is warranted, the Chairperson will act accordingly.  A rejection of an appeal by the Chairperson is final and may not be further appealed within the Faculty governance system.  If the Chairperson has a personal conflict with a case the Chairperson of the Academic Affairs Committee will appoint an acting Chairperson.

3. Under ordinary circumstances (i.e., with all parties on campus), the Grade Review Subcommittee shall adhere to a deadline of the end of the semester in which the appeal was initiated to complete its deliberations and decide on the appeal.
4. If the Subcommittee for Grade Review determines that a valid evaluation of grievance requires special academic expertise, or at the request of the instructor concerned, the Subcommittee shall solicit an independent evaluation in writing from a body of three impartial experts appointed by the Chairperson of the instructor’s department, in consultation with the instructor and the Subcommittee Chairperson.  The Subcommittee for Grade Review shall accept the evaluation and recommendations of the impartial body of experts on matters of academic content when such evaluation and recommendation are solicited.

After its investigation, the Subcommittee for Grade Review shall inform both the student and the instructor of its decision in writing.  In the event that the Subcommittee finds that a change of grade is warranted, it shall in addition recommend to the instructor the appropriate grade change.  If the instructor refuses to make the recommended grade change within ten school days of the Subcommittee notification, the Subcommittee shall take one or more of the following steps to protect the student’s interest:

1. attach to the student’s transcript a statement of the recommended change of grade and the reasons for not changing the grade;
2. exempt the challenged grade from any calculation in the student’s grade point average, unless the student wishes the grade to be included;
3. authorize the student’s graduation minus the credit hours represented by the challenged grade in the event that the original grade was an F.

5. Decisions made by the Grade Review Subcommittee may not be appealed further in the faculty governance system.

SECTION 6:  UWSP GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Mission Statement

The General Education Program (GEP) provides the framework of a liberal education, equipping students with the knowledge and skills to facilitate intellectual and personal growth, pursue their advanced studies, and improve the world in which they live.

At UW-Stevens Point (UWSP), we believe that a liberal education is essential to living in today’s global society. We also believe that global citizenship must begin at home with individuals learning to see the world from perspectives other than their own. Some of these perspectives are cultural and develop from the study of other languages, ethnicities, and beliefs. Some perspectives come from honing new intellectual skills, by learning math and science, for example, or cultivating an understanding of the past and an appreciation of the arts and literature. And some perspectives are the products of unique experiences such as getting involved in a community or studying abroad.

Ultimately, the more students are encouraged to step outside their familiar habits and beliefs, the more they gain the wisdom to see connections between themselves and the world around them, the generosity to empathize with the differences they encounter, and the willingness to place their newfound abilities in the service of a larger community. In this way, a liberal education at UWSP prepares students to be responsible global citizens.

GEP Learning Outcomes

The GEP seeks to develop these qualities of global citizenship in four distinct ways. After completing the general education curriculum, students will:

• Demonstrate critical thinking, quantitative, and communication skills necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing global society.
• Demonstrate broad knowledge of the physical, social, and cultural worlds as well as the methods by which this knowledge is produced.
• Recognize that responsible global citizenship involves personal accountability, social equity, and environmental sustainability.

Model & Relationship to Degree Types

The GEP applies to all Baccalaureate degree types. See the Degree Types section of the Catalog.

Procedure for Waivers and Substitutions for GEP Requirements

A request for a waiver of substitution for a GEP requirement should begin during a meeting of the student with his/her advisor. Such a request should not be regarded as routine but made in response to a specific situation faced by the individual student-typically, as a remedy when fulfilling the requirement through ordinary means would delay the student’s imminent graduation. A statement explaining why the student and advisor believe the waiver/substitution is justified must be part of the request.

The Authorization to Adjust GEP Requirements form must be signed by the advisor, the Chair/Head of the department (or equivalent unit) of the student’s major, the Dean of the student’s college or his/her designee, and finally the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors.

In a doubtful case, the Associate Dean will contact the Dean, Chair, advisor, and/or instructor of the course before deciding to approve or deny the request.

The completed form, with all required signatures, is submitted to Office of the Registrar.

Notes:

• Waivers or substitutions under the 2014 to 2020 GEP requirements that are embedded in the major (Capstone and Communication in the Major requirements) are handled like any other exception for major requirements (typically, authorized by the department chair).
• Students under the pre-2014 general degree requirements (GDRs) should use the “Authorization to Adjust General Degree Requirements” form, which does not require Director of General Education approval.
• Transfer courses that have not been identified as equivalent to a specific UWSP course will be evaluated for GEP credit by the transfer credit admissions advisor in consultation with the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors.

Course Criteria

GENERAL CRITERIA

1. These criteria apply to the Foundational Skills and Dispositions, Human Cultures and the Sciences, Social and Environmental Responsibility levels of the GEP.
2. All courses to be considered for the GEP must be proposed by an academic department or functional equivalent.
3. All courses to be considered for the GEP must be approved by the General Education Committee through the submission of a course proposal. The proposal will typically include:

1. Basic course information, including course number, title, credits, and catalog description.
2. A representative course syllabus, including learning outcomes aligned with those of the GEP.
3. A narrative describing how student learning will be assessed.

4. All courses must address the approved learning outcomes in the category in which they are taught.
5. All courses will be taught by an instructor with teaching, research, or professional expertise in an appropriate area of study in order to satisfy the relevant learning outcomes in each category.

Criteria for instructor qualifications for teaching courses in the Quantitative Literacy category: A master’s degree, or 18 graduate credits, in one or more disciplines that feature mathematical applications or statistical analysis. Such disciplines include, but are not limited to, Mathematics, Statistics, Social Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences.

Criteria for instructor qualifications for teaching courses in the Environmental Responsibility, United States Diversity, Global Awareness, and Wellness categories:

• Instructor holds a terminal degree or a master’s degree in a discipline or field appropriate to the GEP category of the course

or

• Instructor has completed some combination of 18 hours of graduate coursework, comprehensive examination work, and/or graduate thesis work on topic(s) relevant to the GEP category of the course
• Faculty seeking to teach in a General Education category for which they have not been previously approved must have their graduate school transcripts reviewed by the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors in order to determine if they are qualified as per the requirements of the Higher Learning Commission. The process is as follows:

• If the faculty member is determined to be qualified to teach in the requested category, the faculty member will submit the completed GEP Course Application to the General Education Committee chair.
• If the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors determines that the faculty member is not qualified to teach in the requested category, that faculty member can request a second review by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning, and Strategic Planning, who will make a final determination as to whether the faculty member is qualified to teach in the General Education category in question.

6. No course in the Foundational Skills and Dispositions may satisfy more than one general education requirement. Courses in the Human Cultures and the Sciences category may be paired with one of the following categories: Global Awareness, U.S. Diversity, or Environmental Responsibility.
7. Courses that exceed the GEP credit requirements satisfy the requirement.

FOUNDATIONAL SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

Written Communication

1. The Written Communication outcomes will be satisfied by English 101: Freshman English and English 202: Sophomore English.
2. English 150: Advanced Freshman English may be substituted for English 101/202, with the appropriate placement.
3. English 101 should be taken during the student’s freshman year.
4. English 202 should be taken during the student’s sophomore year and will have a prerequisite of English 101.
5. Written Communication courses should have sufficiently small enrollments so that students will receive appropriate individual feedback.

Critical Thinking

1. Courses designated with the Critical Thinking GEP designation serve all students regardless of major; such courses should not presume academic or disciplinary preparation. Ordinarily, Critical Thinking courses, as with any General Education course, should not require prerequisites. Departments must provide a rationale when proposing General Education courses with prerequisites
2. All faculty and staff teaching Critical Thinking General Education courses must complete the Critical Thinking training overseen by the Director of UWSP’s Critical Thinking Center.

Quantitative Literacy

1. All Quantitative Literacy courses will have a prerequisite of Math 90 or higher.

Wellness

1. Wellness is a one-credit requirement that may be satisfied by a one-, two-, or three-credit course.

HUMAN CULTURES AND THE SCIENCES

1. All courses in Human Cultures and the Sciences should be designed to serve all students regardless of major; such courses do not presume academic or disciplinary preparation. Ordinarily, courses in Human Cultures and the Sciences will not have prerequisites beyond Foundational Skills and Dispositions. Departments must provide a rationale when proposing General Education courses with prerequisites.
2. A single course may not be designated for more than one Human Cultures and the Sciences category.

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Courses offered in this area can fulfill one other requirement in the General Education curriculum at the same time, but only in Human Cultures and the Sciences.
2. A single course may not be designated for more than one Social and Environmental Responsibility category.

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

The GEP Assessment Cycle

Assessment of student learning within the General Education Program (GEP) curriculum takes place on a six-year cycle. The first five years of the cycle are focused on courses in the three categories of the GEP. Based on these results, the sixth year of the Assessment Cycle is devoted to a comprehensive review of the General Education Program and Assessment Plan.

Year 1:

• Foundational Skills and Dispositions (Written Communication, Quantitative Literacy, Critical Thinking, and Wellness)

Year 2:

• Human Cultures and the Sciences I (Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences)

Year 3:

• Human Cultures and the Sciences II (Arts, Humanities, Historical Perspectives)

Year 4:

• Social and Environmental Responsibility (Environmental Responsibility, U.S. Diversity, Global Awareness)

Year 5:

• Double-Category courses

Year 6:

• Comprehensive Review of General Education Program and Assessment Plan

In addition, during each of the first five years of the GEP Assessment Cycle, information is gathered related to the three overarching General Education Program Outcomes:

1. Demonstrate critical thinking, quantitative and communication skill necessary to succeed in a rapidly changing global society.
2. Demonstrate broad knowledge of the physical, social, and cultural worlds as well as the methods by which this knowledge is produced.
3. Recognize that responsible global citizenship involves personal accountability, social equity, and environmental sustainability.

Role of the GEC in General Education Assessment

Oversight of assessment of the General Education Program is the responsibility of the General Education Committee (GEC) which will: 

1. recommend policies and procedures for the General Education assessment to the Common Council;
2. facilitate the process by which General Education assessment data is gathered, evaluated, and communicated;
3. make recommendations to Common Council regarding improvements to the General Educational Program;
4. support instructional development and curricular improvements;
5. review and update the General Education assessment process regularly.

Role of Departments and Faculty in General Education Assessment

Departments are responsible for developing a plan to assess all courses bearing the GEP designation at least once during the cycle year corresponding to the GEP Level. The GEC and the Assessment Subcommittee (AS) are available to provide input on such a plan specifying in which semester and which section(s) will be assessed. The departments are granted latitude to determine a sufficient representative sample of sections in multi-section courses to adequately capture student achievement of the GEP learning outcomes. 

Faculty members teaching designated General Education courses will be required to prepare a course portfolio containing the following components:

1. Course syllabus with a schedule of course assignments.
2. Explanation of alignment of the course learning outcomes (LOs) to each GEP Category LO.
3. Brief description of course learning activities targeting each GEP Category LO.
4. Description of assignment(s) used to assess each GEP Category LO.
5. Numeric assessment results, capturing student performance as exceeding, meeting, partially meeting, or not meeting expectations, and the number of students assessed for each GEP Category LO.
6. Interpretations of assessment results (analysis, summary, and the use of results) for each GEP Category LO. The explanation of the use of assessment results is vital for the closing of the assessment loop.
7. Samples of student work for featured LO(s) representing at least two distinct levels of performance such as exceeding, meeting, partially meeting, or not meeting expectations. For single-category GEP courses, one featured LO is required. For double-category GEP courses, two featured LOs are required (one for each category).

The General Education Assessment Process

The annual process of evaluating student learning within the General Education curriculum will have the following steps:

1. The General Education Committee will establish General Education Program peer assessment workgroups (GEP PAW) for each area of the curriculum being assessed during that year to review course portfolios. Each GEP PAW will include faculty selected by Colleges/Schools, members of the GEC, and the Assessment Coordinator.

2. Each academic year, the Assessment Coordinator with the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors will identify the number of PAW members needed based on the quantity of anticipated portfolios.

3. In the Spring semester, the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors will generate a report of each College/School’s combined student credit hours in all General Education courses. Those data will be used to determine the amount of representation from each College/School on the PAWS.

4. Prior to the Fall semester, College Deans will be required to submit the names of faculty who will take part in the GEP assessment process for that year.

5. Instructional academic staff are not required to participate in portfolio assessment.

6. Selected faculty will serve two consecutive semesters unless there are mitigating circumstances.

7. Instructors teaching courses in areas under review in the fall semester will prepare and submit course portfolios to the Assessment Coordinator by February 1. Instructors teaching courses in areas under review in the spring semester will prepare and submit course portfolios to the Assessment Coordinator by June 1, or the termination of the Spring contract period.
8. Each peer assessment workgroup will review course portfolios provided by the Assessment Coordinator and provide anonymous feedback to instructors using an established rubric.
9. The Assessment Coordinator will collaborate with the PAWs to aggregate findings from the course portfolios and prepare a report for the GEC by May 1. No information identifying instructors, students or specific courses shall be included in the report.
10. At the beginning of the next academic year, the GEC will report to the Common Council on its assessment of student learning, including any recommendations to improve the curriculum. The report must be submitted to the Common Council by November 1. This report will be shared with the Provost, the Deans, and the department/unit chairs. In addition, it will be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.

The Use of Assessment Results

Assessment results are intended for two purposes: 1) to provide feedback to individual instructors to assist in their efforts to improve student learning within their courses; and 2) to make judgments about the effectiveness of the GEP and to inform recommendations for its improvement.  To achieve these aims, assessment results will be shared in the following manner:

1. Each instructor submitting a course portfolio will receive individual feedback from the assessment group, including an evaluation of the assessment method utilized in the course and recommendations for the improvement of student learning. This evaluation will include the rubric used by the Peer Assessment Workgroup (PAW) in forming its opinions.
2. Working in concert with the assessment group, the Assessment Coordinator will compile reports on student learning for the GEC, removing references to specific courses and instructors.  The GEC’s final report will contain:

1. A summary of student attainment of the learning outcomes in the relevant General Education areas.
2. Recommendations based on these assessment results for the improvement of the General Education curriculum. These recommendations may include proposals for further action research projects related to particular courses, GEP categories, GE Program Outcomes, or specific groups of students.

3. The GEC will report annually to the Common Council sharing its evaluation and recommendations with the Provost, the Deans, and the department chairs or equivalent. The report will also be posted online to be available to the campus community and others.
4. In conjunction with the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors and the Assessment Coordinator, the GEC will work with various units on campus in order to provide professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. In this manner, the GEC will help to “close the loop” by allowing assessment of student learning lead to curricular and pedagogical improvements. Such professional development opportunities might include:

1. Workshops on effective assessment of student learning in the General Education curriculum.
2. Instructional development necessitated by Common Council-approved changes to the curriculum or learning outcomes.
3. Action research projects intended to provide further information on student learning within the curriculum.

Procedure in the event that, as a result of reviewing course portfolios, a course fails to meet the GEP category learning outcomes:

Step 1:

Instructor(s) and their department chair(s) or equivalent will be notified by the Assessment Coordinator that the course and/or the portfolio must be revised.

Step 2:

The instructor and/or department will revise the course/portfolio in consultation with CITL.

Step 3:

The course will be reevaluated by the Assessment Coordinator in the following academic year.

In the absence of satisfactory revisions after Step 3:

• The Associate Dean of General Education and Honors, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning, and Strategic Planning, in consultation with the Chair of the GEC, will notify the department/unit that the GEP designation will be removed from the course prior to the next catalog publication.
• The department/unit has the option to re-apply for the GEP designation.

Removal of a Course from the General Education Program

Voluntary removal of a GEP designation

A GEP designation may be removed voluntarily by a department/academic unit due to curricular changes, personnel changes, or other priorities. The department/academic unit will submit a memorandum to the GEC Chair requesting that the GEP designation be removed from the course. This will be brought as an action item to the General Education Committee.

Removal of a GEP designation by the GEC

Under Article 12 of the Constitution, the General Education Committee has the authority to remove GEP designations from courses. A designation may be removed if:

1. A course fails to meet the GEP category learning outcomes during portfolio assessment. See previous section (In the absence of satisfactory revisions after Step 3).
2. The course has not been taught in 5 years. Prior to requesting that the GEC vote on the removal of the course, the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors will confirm with the department there are no plans to offer the course in the next academic year.
3. The instructor(s) teaching the course does (do) not have the relevant HLC-required credits to teach in that GEP category and another HLC qualified instructor cannot be identified.
   
   The General Education Committee gives authority to the Associate Dean of General Education and Honors to apply the Governance-Approved Faculty Qualification documents and remove a course’s General Education designation if the instructor(s) teaching the course does (do) not have the relevant required credentials to teach in that GEP category. The Associate Dean of General Education will notify the Chair of the General Education Committee, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning and Strategic Planning, as well as the relevant faculty member and the department chair of this decision. Appeals may be brought to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Teaching, Learning and Strategic Planning.

SECTION 7

(Section 7 was deleted from the Handbook)

SECTION 8: REORGANIZING ACADEMIC UNITS

PROCEDURES FOR REORGANIZING ACADEMIC UNITS

1. Any academic unit listed in the current College and School Hierarchy list of the university catalog, or a line administrator may initiate a proposal/plan for reorganization at UW-Stevens Point.
2. The members of the school, or absent a school, college, of the proposing unit needs to vote on the reorganization proposal. In the event of a proposal that moves a unit from one school/college to another, both schools/colleges need to vote on the proposal.
3. A final proposal/plan for reorganization that changes reporting lines from academic units to dean and beyond must be submitted to the Executive Committee of the Common Council for its consideration. Votes from B above shall be included in the proposal.
4. The Executive Committee of the Common Council shall submit proposals and plans for re-organization to the Common Council with sufficient time for the Senate to deliberate and make a recommendation to the Chancellor prior to the proposed date of implementation.
5. The written proposal/plan for reorganization is expected to address the following items:

1. A description of the proposed/planned reorganization, including appropriate organizational charts.
2. A list of job responsibilities for new or modified administrative positions.
3. A rationale which explains and supports the recommended organizational changes.
4. Votes from the administrative home (school or college) of the proposing unit, or in the event of a reorganization proposal that moves a unit from one school/college to another, votes from both schools/colleges.
5. A statement of support or opposition from any and/or all university employees affected by the proposed/planned reorganization.

PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN DEVELOPING THE PROPOSAL/PLAN

1. All meetings should be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. In particular,

1. all meetings should be publicly announced in advance, and
2. minutes that include the action items approved in those meetings should be kept.

2. All staff members whose units are directly affected by the proposed/planned reorganization should be consulted and their input sought throughout the planning process.

PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL AFTER RECEIVING THE PROPOSAL/PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION

1. The proposal/plan will be distributed to the campus community and the Common Council will invite written input regarding the plan from any individual or unit on campus.
2. The above input will be collated and appended to the proposal/plan.
3. The plan/proposal will be placed on the agenda for a meeting of the Common Council.

SECTION 9

(Section 9 was deleted from the Handbook)

SECTION 10: DELETING MAJORS, MINORS, AND CERTIFICATES (PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE)

Discontinuing an academic program directly affects curriculum, students, faculty, staff, budget and planning processes. Decisions of program discontinuance should be made based on careful planning rather than a reaction to an immediate or temporary economic crisis or situation. Any decision to discontinue a program should be data informed, and should reflect a long-range judgment that the educational mission of the institution as a whole will be enhanced by program discontinuance. This includes the reallocation of resources to other programs with higher priority based on educational considerations. Such long-range judgments generally will involve the analysis of financial resources and the needs, value and quality of the program and any related college or school. Budget considerations should not be the primary reason for program discontinuance.

If an academic program is being considered for discontinuance, decision makers should ensure that students are not unfairly impacted by program discontinuance or restructuring.

Academic programs may be deleted in three ways:

1. A proposal to discontinue a major program due to educational considerations that will result in faculty layoff pursuant to Regent Policy Document 20-24 must follow the procedure laid out in Chapter UWSP 5 (found in Chapter 4A, Section 2 of the UWSP handbook).
2. A proposal that will not result in faculty layoff will use the following process: may be initiated by the academic department that oversees the program, using the process described below.
3. A proposal may also be initiated by the Dean of a college involved in the program, the Provost, or the Chancellor, using the process described below.

PROGRAM DELETION INITIATED BY AN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT

The department shall follow the instructions on the form REQUEST TO DELETE, RENUMBER, OR RENAME. Contact the Common Council Secretary for a copy of the form or go to myCommonCouncil.

The department shall include a justification for eliminating the program. Considerations such as the following may be addressed as appropriate:

• The quality of the program in the areas of teaching and learning, and the contributions of its faculty in research, creative activity, and service;
• The contribution of the program to the mission and strategic plan of the institution, the overall quality of academic offerings, and the strategic plan of the institution;
• Student demand for the program as measured by student enrollment, retention, graduation trends, and applicable variables;
• The resource implications of retaining or eliminating the program;
  • The uniqueness/redundancy of the program within the institution and across the UW System;
• Opportunities for collaboration with other programs within the institution or at other UW institutions; and
• The impact of program elimination on systemwide array and student access to programs.

PROGRAM DELETION INITIATED BY THE DEAN, PROVOST, OR CHANCELLOR

1. Initiation of a proposal

1. The Dean, Provost, or Chancellor will compile a proposal based on the criteria described below. If a Dean or the Chancellor initiates the proposal, they shall submit it to the Provost for review.
2. The proposal must contain the following supporting information, as applicable:

• Initiating party
• Name of proposed program
• Program description
• Rationale for discontinuance
• Proposed budget, detailing projected costs and savings associated with discontinuance
• Impact on students currently enrolled
• Impact on faculty currently teaching in the program
• Impact on staff currently needed for program implementation
• Impact on other campus programs
• Impact on facilities currently used in the program
• Impact on collaborating institutions or articulated programs
• Impact on course transfer opportunities
• Impact on regional stakeholders, external funders, or donors
• Impact on diversity at UWSP
• Impact of discontinuance on mission of the department, college, and institution
• Impact on accreditation or other external requirements
• A detailed plan and timeline for phasing out the program with the minimum possible impact on students, faculty, staff and the community. The plan must describe how currently enrolled students shall continue their programs of study or meet their educational objectives through alternative means.

3. If the Provost approves the proposal, it will then be reviewed by a Discontinuance Committee.

2. Review of a proposal

1. Proposals will first be reviewed by a committee of individuals not affiliated with the program under consideration. This committee may include:

• One dean representing a college not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of Common Council;
• Two students not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the SGA Vice President and Speaker of the Senate, with consent of the Senate;
• Two faculty representatives from colleges not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of Faculty Council;
• An academic staff representative not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of the Academic Staff Council;
• A university staff representative not affiliated with the program under consideration, nominated by the Chair of the University Staff Council.

2. Based on their report and recommendation, a second committee of individuals directly affiliated with the program under consideration may be appointed. The second committee may include:

• The dean of the college in the program or a representative nominated by the dean;
• The chair/head of department or area coordinator of the program under consideration
• Two students in the program, nominated by the SGA Vice President and Speaker of the Senate, with consent of the Senate
• Faculty representatives in the program under consideration nominated by tenured and tenure-track faculty involved in the program
• An academic staff representative in the program under consideration, nominated by the chair/head of department or the coordinator of the areas in the program
• A university staff representative in the program under consideration, nominated by the chair/head of department or the coordinator of the areas in the program
• If possible, at least one graduate of the program under consideration nominated by the faculty in the program.

3. Both committees will be appointed by the Provost in agreement with the Executive Committee of Common Council. The chair for each committee will be established by the committee members.
4. In addition to the proposal elements described above, the committee’s review and evaluation may be based on the following considerations, where relevant:

• The centrality of the program to the institution’s mission;
• The academic strength and quality of the program, and of its faculty in terms of national ratings if applicable;
• Whether the work done in the program complements that done in another essential program;
• Whether the work done in the program duplicates academic instruction and course content delivered in other programs at the institution;
• Student and market demand and projected enrollment in the subject matter taught in the program;
• Current and predicted comparative cost analysis/effectiveness of the program;
• Current and past Program Review and Assessment reports; and
• Other relevant factors that the committee deems appropriate.

5. The Committee shall provide adequate opportunity for evidence and viewpoints to be presented, and consult the affected program faculty and students. Within three months, the committee will prepare a preliminary report and recommendation. Additional time may be requested if the committee must review more than one program discontinuance proposal. Faculty members within the program under consideration for discontinuance shall have full access to all documents related to the review.

3. Committee recommendation

1. Based on careful consideration of the data, the Committee will evaluate the program under consideration using the Program Discontinuance Rubric and vote on one of the following:

• Recommendation to Continue: A program will be recommended to continue when - after full consideration - it is decided that it is in the best interest of the department, school, college, university, its students, and the larger community to do so.
• Recommendation to Continue with Qualification: A program may be recommended to continue with qualifications. These qualifications may include a remediation plan designed to improve the viability and responsiveness of the program. A specific timeline should be provided during which the remediation plan will occur and expected outcomes should be outlined in advance. After the specific qualification period is completed, the program will be reviewed again.
• Recommendation to Discontinue: A recommendation to discontinue a program will occur when, after a full evaluation study, it is concluded that maintaining the program is no longer in the best interest of the university, its students, and the larger community.

2. The Committee chair will complete a report that includes the committee membership, the initial proposal, the rubric used to evaluate the recommendation, the committee’s recommendation, and the rationale for the recommendation.

4. Dissemination and review of report

1. The Committee chair will send the report to all faculty, staff, and students affiliated with the program under consideration, as well as the Provost, Deans, SGA President, and the Common Council chair.
2. Any of these reviewers may request that the Provost appoint a second Committee within 2 weeks of receiving the preliminary report. Should the Provost appoint a second Committee, that Committee will follow the procedure described above and submit their own report.
3. The Common Council chair will submit the Committee report, and second Committee report (if requested), through proper governance channels for feedback in a timely manner. The Common Council chair will gather that feedback, summarize, and include with Committee(s) report(s).

5. Final Report

6. The Committee final report(s) are then sent to the Provost, Deans, SGA President, and Common Council chair, with a recommendation for the Chancellor.