• ?

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S

MEMORANDUM

•To .SENATE

?

.

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GUIDELINES FOR

Subject. ?

.

R9GRA1"REVIE

W

: SENAT..

Q

T. •9N

ACADEMIC PLANNING

J. MUNRO, CHAIRMAN

From

.....................................................

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING

Date.PY ?

•17,• 1981

.

.

Actions taken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, at its meetings of

October 7 and November 4, 1981 give rise to the following motion:

MOTION: ?

That Senate approve, as set forth in S.81-157, the

revised Guidelines for Program Review, as follows:

REVISIONS TO GUIDELINES FOR PROGRAM REVIEW

As revised in Paper s.80-166, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning has

three major terms of reference. The first of these, the implementation of a

system of academic planning, is presently being addressed by

,

a

series

of planning

task. forces.. The second and third involve reviewing and recommending to Senate

concerning proposals for new programs or major modifications to existing programs

and the review of existing programs for the purposes of assessment, expansion,

curtailment or discontinuance. In paper S.81-81, Senate approved guidelines for

the review of programs by SCAP. Subsequent expressions of concern by members of

the Committee and other members of Senate over the impact of increasing fiscal

constraints on the operation of existing academic programs have led to the follow-

ing proposal to revise the Guidelines for Program Review. It is also intended

that SCAP will revert to the practice of closing its meetings during the final

consideration and voting on program proposals.

1.

Accoiding to the definition of Universities Council, "A program is a sequence

of credit courses leading to'a University credential. A credential is a

diploma, certificate, degree or other type of official recognition awarded

to a student by a University."

2.

Decisions concerning whether proposed changes to existing programs are "major,"

and therefore fall within the terms of reference of SCAP, will be made jointly

by the Secretary of Senate and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Academic

Planning.

3.

New Programs are to be brought forward for approval in principle well in

advance of detailed program preparation. The purpose of seeking in-principle

approval is to guide departments and individual faculty members away from pro-

gram planning that is inconsistent with long-term University goals and resources.

In-principle approval does not bind SCAP to recommending full approval under 6.

below.

Programs brought forward for approval in-principle shall:

a).

Have received endorsement by the Faculty and, in the case of graduate

programs by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee;

b).

Be accompanied by information establishing the need for the program and

describing its impact on, and, relationship to, existing programs;

c).

Be accompanied by an outline of anticipated development of the department

over the next few years;

dl Be accompanied by information concerning the objectives of the program,

an outline of its structure, enrolment estimates, and resources required.

---

4. When a program is given ii-principle approval, SCAP shall assign one of the

following priority classifications to the program, based on 3a) - a), above:

"essential," "important," "desirable."

5. Once approval in-principle has been given, detailed program planning can com-

mence. Liaison Should be maintained with the Offices of the Vice-President,

Academic and Analytical Studies during the program planning phase. The

information than is required for consideration of new programs at the UGBC

level is

contained in the Program Coordinating Committee Guidelines. Program

proposals should be prepared following the topical outline used in the PCC

Guidelines.

It should be noted that outside consultation and review are

expected in the case of significant new programs.

6. When a program that has received in-principle approval is presented for full

approval by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, the following informa-

tion will be included:

81 A statement on the academic merit and importance of the program and its

impact on other programs in the University.

b)

Enrolment projections.

c)

Staffing and other operating budget requirements. The Dean of the

Faculty may be rquested to indicate the source of required new expen-

ditures.

d)

Space requirements.

e)

Equipment requirementS.

In considering its recommendations, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

will follow the "Criteria for Program AsSessment" contained in paper s.80-98

(see Appendix A to this memorandum). The responsibility of the Senate Committee

on Academic Planning is to assess the academic merit of programs but not to

make a decision as to whether funds should actually be spent on the program.

However, SCAP does have 4 role in assessing the reasonableness of estimated

resource needs ofnew prdgtams. Also, this information does interact with

considerations of academie merit.

7. The Senate Committee on Academic Planning will recommend to the President on

the priorities to be attached to new programs as required (usually by March 31)

by the UCBC Program Coordinating Committee.

8. The Committee will, by January 31 each year, recommend priorities for the

implementation Of all new programs approved by Senate, Board

1

and Universities

Council and scheduled for implemntation in the next fiscal year;

9. In recognition of the deadlines of the UCBC Program Coordinating Committee,

the annual deadline for receipt of new program submissions fOr final approval

by the Senate Committee

bri

Academic Planning will be October

.

204

10. The Senate Committee on Academic Planning may initiate the review of an existing

program:

?

a) on its own motion;

b)

at the request of the Vice-President, Academic or the appropriate

Dean;

c)

as requested by Senate.

The Committee shall, when it initiates a review, approve the composition and

terms of reference of the review committee, including the distribution of the

committee's report. The review committee may include persons from outside the

University. The criteria attached in Appendix A will guide the review of exist-

ing programs. ?

0

ii.

The Program Guidelines of the UCBC Program Co-ordinating Committee are attached

for information, Appendix B

---

The reason for the suggested revision in item 10 is to make the

S

procedure for initiating, carrying out, and reporting the review of

existing programs more workable. The provision of the UCBC Program

Co-ordinating Committee Program Guidelines is intended to make this

information more generally available to the University.

!CAA&MY

J.M. Munro

.

0

---

•

?

.

?

APPENDIX A

As approved by Senate

CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

It is expected that the identification of-the-purposes to which Simon

Fraser will direct its efforts and energies will encourage and facilitate

the development of a number of new and innovative programs. Assigning

priorities to various proposals will be a difficult task. Ranking should

be,based partly on how a proposal is measured against the following charac-

teristics.

1.

The program has intrinsic academic excellence and is

something this University can expect to do well.

2.

The program substantially enriches the existing

teaching programs of the University.

3.

The program builds upon existing programs and

resources in the University.

4.

The program anticipates provincial or national

needs.

5.

The program does not unnecessarily duplicate

existing programs at other universities in the

Province.

6.

The excellence of the program attracts students

to the University.

Existing programs should also be subject to periodic review. Such

reviews provide an opportunity to assess individual programs and to provide

a basis for recommending their expansion, curtailment or discontinuance.

U-J

---

UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

PROGRAM GUIDELINES

PROCEDURES FOR

THE

EVALUATION OF

NEW

PROGRAM PROPOSALS

September 1981 revision

---

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The role of the Program Coordinating Committee is to:

1. Evaluate new program proposals presented by:

(a)

the public universities (namely the University of British Columbia,

the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University) in accordance

with 69(e) and (o)(ii) of the University Act (1979), and

(b)

the Open Learning Institute, in accordance with Part II, section

2(1)(f) of the College and Institute Act (1979)9

and make recommendations to the Universities Council on these proposals.

2. Review existing university programs with the view to:

(a)

identifying the special areas of interest and expertise in each

of the universities;

(b)

developing plans to reduce unnecessary duplication.

• 3. Identify areas in which inter-universit

y

cooperation appears desirable.

4.

Consult with the Academic Council and other relevant agencies, in order

to rationalize the delivery of university level programs in the Province..

5.

Assist the institutions in their coordination of the delivery of distance

education programs to the non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia,

including all unive'rsity programs offered at the David Thompson Univer-

sity Centre (in accordance with Part [I, section 2(l)(f) of the College

and Institute Act).

6.

Examine the role of the universities in the development of in-service

training and re-training for the professions.

7.

Study and make recommendations to the Universities Council on such

matters as may be referred to the Committee from time to time by the

universities or by the Council.

0

---

PROGRAM GUIDELINES

This document defines the Program Coordinating Committee's role In

fulfilling one Of its fuActions, that of advising the Universities Council

On new program proposals. The procedures for program approval detailed

below are intended to pro1de a mechanism for avoiding unnecessary dupli-.

cation and for ensuring that new programs are implemented at institutions

which can offer them efficiently and effectively.

The President or the Academic Vice-President of the university will

submit proposals to the Chairman of the Universities Council for new

programs which have already received senate approval. When these proposals

are accompanied by a budget requet, they should be submitted by January 31

or within twenty-one days of thO institution's Señaté meeting in January,

and the budget should be endorsed by the institution's chief business

officer. Each universityhas the responsibility for preparing the necessary

program letters of intent and proposals, and for ensuring that all

appropriate reference groups have been consulted inclUding each of the

other universities. The Program Coordinating Committee will ask each

university to sort its own proposed new programs according to the

Categories set out in Appendix A.

The Program Coordinatina Committee's responsibility is to evaluate

the programs and advise the Universities Council. The decision to accept

or reject each proposal is made by the Council, and the final adoption

of an appropriate category for each program rests with the Council.

The Committee Chairman will tell the Committee the reasons for Council's

rejection of recommendations made by the Program Coordinating Committee.

A. ?

LETTERS_OF_INTENT

• ? 1.

A

letter of intent serves to advise the Council of an institution's

plans to develop a formal program proposal.

2.

The letter of intent is optional rather than obligatory.

However, forwarding a letter of intent will spéêd up the prograni

evaluation process in two ways. First, in cases where approval

is doubtful, théinstitution can be told before time is spent

preparing a formal proposal. Second, Council's rêseàrch into

the program area can begih at an earlier date.

3.

A letter of intent may be submitted to the Chairman of the

Universities Council by the President or the Academic Vice-

President of the university after the program has been passed

by a faculty.

4.

The Chairman of the Universities Council will acknowledge letters

of intent promptly, and request further information or

clarification, if necessary. Upon receiving the letter of intent

the Chairman of the Universities Council may advise the institution

that the Council is unlikely to approve the proposed prOgram at

this time, giving reasons why approval is unlikely. The Chairman

shall seek the counsel of the Program Coordinating Committee before

giving this adice.

.

---

B. FORMAL PROGRAM PROPOSALS

1.

Programs will not be approved if the information provided is considered

. ?

incomplete, non-specific or not clearly substantiated and will be

returned to the institution for completion.

2.

Guidelines for the proposal of new programs (see Appendix B).

3.

Formal program proposals may be submitted to the Chairman of the

Universities Council at any time. However, the proposal must be

received by the Chairman by January 31st or within 21 days of the

institution's Senate meeting in January if the university intends

to include the program in the budget submission for the following

academic year. Thus, a formal proposal for a program to be initiated

in September 1981 must reach the Chairman within three weeks

of

the

institution's Senate meeting in January 1982.

e.g. 21 days after January

?

- formal program proposal deadline

Senate, 1982

February - June

?

- program evaluated

July 1, 1982

?

- institution informed of UCBC decision

August 15, 1982

?

program (if approved) included

in

the budget submitted to UCBC

September, 1983

?

- program may be initiated

4.

The institution will be informed of Council's decision approximately.

four months after receipt of those completed proposals which are

submitted at other times during the year.

5.

Where, in the opinion of Council, the proposal involves a major,

.

?

high cost, and limited enrolment or employment opportunity program,

the formal proposal may be forwarded to the other western provinces

for their comment in light of the agreement among the western provinces

(Western Provinces Post-Secondary Coordinating Committee).

6.

When a program is recommended for approval by Council, the Committee -

may also recommend that the program be evaluated at a later date.

C. PROGRAM COORDINATING COMMITTEE

1.

The Program Coordinating Committee of the Universities Council will

consist of the following members:

(a) four members of the Universities Council, one of whom will be

the Chairman of the Committee;

(b) one representative of each university, the academic vice president

or alternate. The alternate may vote.

(c) one representative of the Open Learning Institute, the dean

of ?

academic ?

affairs ?

or alternate. The alternate may vote.

2.

Only one representative of each institution will be entitled to

vote on any one issue.

3.

Five members

of

the Committee, at least two of whom shall be members

of Council, ?

shall constitute a quorum.

4.

A representative of the institution whose proposal

?

is under consider-

ation shall

?

not vote on that proposal.

5.

No vote shall be taken at a meeting of the Committee on any proposal

by an institution without a representative of that institution present.

---

•

?

6. The Chairman will vOte as a member of the Committee.

7.

A tie vote will be regarded as a negative vote.

8.

One function of the Program Coordinating Committee shall be to approve

the establishment of new program proposals in accordance with the

criteria set forth in

,

Appendix B and to make recommendations about

those proposals to the Universities Council. Council may accept,

modify or reject all such recommendations made by the Committee.

(Other functions of the Program Coordinating Committee can be seen

in the Terms of Reference).

9.

The Chairman of the Council may engage the services of professional

consultants to assist in program evaluation, subject to approval

of a budget fOr such expenditures.

10.

Meetings of the

.

Committee will be held at the call of the Chair.

C

C

---

APPENDIX A

PROGRAMS CATEGORIES

The responsibilities of the Universities Council as specified In

the Universities Act, 1974 are detailed on the front page

of this

docum

iT new programs must therefore be authorized by the

Universities Council, where:

A program is a. sequence of credit courses leading to a

university credential.

A credential is a diploma, certificate, degree, or other

type of official recognition awarded to a student by a

university. Completion of a minor program is viewed as

receiving official recognition by the university.

It is not intended that non-credit programs be subject to the

procedures in theseyelj_n

?

at present. However, they may be placed

under this or another

poflcy

in the future.

The Universities Council is concerned with:

(a) 'the establishment of a new faculty or school;

1

b)

?

the establishment of a new department or similar unit;

c) ?

the establishment of a new program as defined above;

(d) ?

the reorganization of existing units or sequence of courses In

order to provide a new credential.

Programs Requiring UCBC Evaluation:

1.

all new doctoral degree programs;

2.

all new master's degree programs (see exceptions in the followina sroup)

3.

all new bachelor's degree programs (type and major) Involving

a funding request for additional faculty, library resources,

support costs, etc;

4.

all new bachelor's degree programs which purport to provide

training for employment, and/or need to be accredited, and/or

whose graduates require certification, even when these program

proposals are not accompanied by a budget request;

5.

. all new programs which would otherwise figure in Category II when

not accompanied by a funding request.

A Letter of Intent is desirable for these programs. It may be

submitted as soon as the program has been passed by a faculty,

and should: (i)

?

presenta short description of the program

(ii)

*identify the presumed need for the program

(iii)

estimate the cost of the program

This letter of intent will be circulated

.

to the other institutions.

---

A Formal Prposal hould be submitted by the accepted deadline

(January 31 orT

days

after the January meeting of the Senate)

for inclusion in the institution's budget estimates for the

following year. The proposal should include the items listed

in Appendix B.

Proarams Not

Programs falling into this category are those for which no addi-

tion8l funding is requested. They include: new master's degree programs

deriving from existing rnater's programs in the same department, new

bachelor's de

g

ree program (with the exception of #4 in the preceding

aroup), new "minors" "options", "streams" within existing programs;

pdst-baccalaureate diploma programs; certificate proarams.

n.b. new doctoral degree programs and new master's degree programs

not deriving from existing programs will be evaluated even if no addi-

tional funding is requested for them.

A formal notification by the institution to UCBC of its intention

to implement the program will normally suffice.

This notificatiOn, including program objectives and curriculum,

indication of need and enrolment projections, will be circulated at a

meeting of the Program Coordinating Committee. The other

institutions will have two months in Which to raise objections to the

implementation of the program. In case of conflict, the Program

Coordinating Committee will apply the usual program evaluation procedures.

Otherwise, the program will be recommended

1

to Council for approval within

two months of its circulation at the Program Coordinating Committee

meeting.

Budqet Submission:

The proposal should include the university's own classification

of its program into onebf the following categories:

1)

Cate

g

ory I program,

Programs which shoUld be implemented and fully funded regardless

of the level of total operating grants, i.e. the program is of such

priority that its fundino should take precedence over the funding of

established programs.

2)

cicgpry. Jlproorams:

Programs which should be implemented if UCBC is satisfied that

the level of total operating

g

rants contains amounts intended for these

pro

g

rams. The level of funding requested for them may be such as to

require a specific mention in the budget (e.a. engineering programs,

nursing programs).

---

7

3) Category III programs:

Programs which should be implemented only after UCBC has sought

the advice of the University prior to allocating the Provincial operating

grant.

4) Category IV programs:

Programs for which no additional funding is requested.

When making its recommendations to UCBC on appropriate levels of

funding for new programs, the. PCC will also review the university's

categorization and make its recommendation to UCBC on this matter as

well.

.

0

---

APPENDIX B

PROPOSAL FOR NEW PROGRAMS

(Guidelines for the Universities)

I - GENERAL INFORMATION

1.

title of the program

2.

credential to be awarded to graduates

3.

faculty or school, department or unit to offer the program

4.

date of Senate approval

5.

schedule for implementation

II - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RELATED MATTERS

1. ?

objectives of the proposed program

2. ?

relationship of the proposed degree to the role and mission of

the university

3. ?

list and brief description Of existing programs at the other

institutions related in

.

content and similar in objectives to the

proposed program

4. ?

indication of how- the proposed program will:

(a)

either complement existing similar programs within the

institution or at the other institutions

(b)

or be distinct from other programs in the field at the other

institutions,

5. ?

curriculum: courses directly identified with the program:

(a) existing courses

(ti) new courses

6. ?

for professional degrees: evidence of formal consultation with the

professional organizations or licensing agencies which accredit

programs of the type proposed

7. for professional degrees: if the university already offers a

program at another level in the same field, evidence that the

existing program is accredited by the professional organization

8.

?

details of consultation with non-university agencies such as

likely employers, trade groups, etc.

III - NEED FOR PROGRAM

1.

indication of cultural, societal or professional needs the program

is designed to meet in addition to the objectives, already

mentioned

2.

enrolment:

(a)

evidence of student interest in the program (written enquiries,

etc.)

(b)

enrolment predictions, indicating the proportion of new and

transfer students (program's impact on the total university

enrolment)

(c)

evidence (other than (a)) to support enrolment estimates

(d)

proposed growth limits and minimum enrolment

---

9

• ?

3. ?

types of jobs for which the graduates will be suitable

4. ?

for Ph.D's and professional degrees: estimate of (annual) employer

demand for graduates, provincially and nationally

5. for Ph.D's and professional degrees: estimate of number of

current candidates for appropriate (annual) openings in the

employment market, provincially and nationally,

(a)

from the institution itself

(b)

from the other two B.C. universities

(c)

from Canadian universities

6. ?

(as a further indicator of demand) if the department already offers

graduate or professional programs: indication of student placement

patterns in these programs over the last three years (teaching,

industry, professional, government, other)

IV - PRESENT AND PROJECTED RESOURCES

1.

administrative personnel (to be hired or reassigned)

2.

faculty, including T.A.'s and R.A.'s (to be hired or reassigned)

3.

library resources (existing and proposed)

4.

capital costs attributable to the new program (classrooms, labs,

office, etc.)

5.

indication of anticipated external funds

6.

Budget requests will be calculated accord

.

ing to the methodology

gu

outlined in New and Emergent Programs:

?

4gt Submission

. ? Guideline.

7.

for graduate programs: indication of faculty research awards in the

department (amount and sources)

V -.EVALUATION

1. evaluation of the proposal by the other B.C. institutions referring

to:

(a)

need for the proposed program, particularly

in

the context of

the relationship to existing programs which have a similar

or complementary purpose

(b)

academic quality of the proposed program

(c)

feasibility of the proposed program

(d)

probable impact of the proposed program on existing and anticipated

programs at the other institutions

2. any external evaluation of the proposal obtained from, experts in

the field of the program

3. procedures for institutional evaluation of the program during and

subsequent to implementation

4. plans for future external evaluation

0

---

APPENDIX C

?

I

PROGRAM. BUDGETS

The Progi'am Coordinating Committee and the universities have

the following responsibilities in the area of program budgets.

1.

When the Program Coordiñäting Committee recommends a program to

Council, the Committee will advise Council on an appropriate

budget for that program. Furthermore, if that program is to be

an emergent

projeafti

in the succeeding year, the Cômitteë will

provide

an

estirratedbudgét appropriate for each of those years,

at the time of recomméndátiOn.

2.

In a program's emerging year(s) enrolment figures will be provided

by the relevant institution by the deadline for program proposals,

and Council will review funding for the following year(s)

accordingly.

3.

If a new prograth proposal state that the program does not require

funds for its implementation and continuation, no funds may later

be requested for. that program under new or emergent pogram

catêgoriès from the Uñivérsities COuncil.

4.

Budgets will be cáiculätéd according to the methOdblôy outlined

in

New.

and Eméréht Programs: BudetSubmisiOn..GuidiifleS.