|
| Policy
#: |
5901 |
| Subject: |
Process
for Adding and Deleting Academic Programs |
| Group: |
Institutional
|
| Approved
by: |
Senate |
| Approval
date: |
25 September
2007 |
| Effective
date: |
25 September
2007 |
| Revised: |
|
| Administered
by: |
Vice-President,
Academic & Research |
|
|
| 1 - SCOPE
AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS |
| The development
and approval of new programs is a complex undertaking. It requires the cooperation
and coordination of many individuals, committees, and processes inside the
University: the academic unit developing the program; the Dean; the Registrar;
the University Planning Committee; the Academic Matters Committee; and the
Mount Allison Senate. New programs also require the approval of the Maritime
Provinces Higher Education Commission (MPHEC). Accordingly, new programs
typically may take 12-24 months to be fully approved. The purpose of this
document is to set out a process to guide the development and approval of
new programs. It also sets out a process for deleting academic programs. |
|
| 2.
ADDING NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAMS |
| New programs
generally require new resources (faculty, capital, etc.) to support and
maintain. They may also encompass a new disciplinary or interdisciplinary
area or degree not previously offered at Mount Allison University. As such,
any decision to implement a new program must involve careful deliberation
in a variety of venues across the University. |
| 2.1 |
Phase
I: Letter of Intent |
| |
The
process for developing new programs is lengthy and detailed. Before
considerable amounts of time and energy are invested by academic units,
two key questions must be addressed: |
| |
| 1. |
How
will the proposed program fit into the academic unit’s
plans and priorities and contribute to Mount Allison’s
vision, mission, and goals as outlined in the Strategic Statement? |
| 2. |
How
might the resources required by the new program be made available? |
| |
The
Letter of Intent gives an overview of the program and its origin,
and allows for consideration of the above two questions. At
this stage, it should be succinct (3-4 pages at most) and address
the following issues: |
| |
- Program
fit with University and academic unit planning priorities;
- Student
demand and anticipated program growth;
- Context
for the proposed program, with evidence of provincial and/or
regional need;
- Current
and proposed faculty and other teaching and research resources
required to support the program;
- Other
resources required (infrastructure, operating budget, library,
capital, space, etc.) and how they will be provided;
- Confirmed
and potential external financial support;
- Possible
and confirmed partnerships with other units and institutions.
|
| |
Following
the submission of the Letter of Intent to the Vice-President,
Academic and Research, the unit head and the Dean shall meet
with the Planning Committee. This stage should not be regarded
as a pre-approval process, but rather as a chance to explore
issues and identify both opportunities and areas of concern
that will need to be addressed. The Planning Committee will
provide written comments and advice about the proposed program. |
|
| |
|
| 2.2 |
Phase
II: Presentation of Proposal for Approval |
| |
Phase
II involves the preparation of the formal proposal package and guiding
it through the appropriate internal and external committees. The
formal proposal must conform to the guidelines set out in the MPHEC
Policy on Quality Assurance (2005). (The policy is available on
the MPHEC web site.) Proposals that do not address all of the areas
required by this policy will not be considered by Planning or Academic
Matters. Academic units are strongly urged to seek the advice and
assistance of their Dean when preparing proposals.
The
role of the Planning Committee in this phase is to consider the
detailed proposal in light of the two key questions identified in
Phase I. Following a meeting with the head of the academic unit
and the Dean, the Planning Committee will indicate in writing to
the Chair of the Academic Matters Committee whether or not they
are satisfied that the two key questions have been addressed. It
will also convey any further advice that it has to offer. If concerns
are raised, the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Chair of
Academic Matters will jointly determine whether or not to take the
proposal forward.
The
Planning Committee is concerned primarily with resource and planning
information and normally shall not comment on academic program details
that are the purview of the Academic Matters Committee (program
structure and objectives, course content, anticipated student outcomes,
etc.). Its assessment will focus on the following matters: |
| |
- How
the proposed program fits within the University and academic unit
planning priorities;
- The
proposed program’s impact on other academic units;
- Information
on resource implications of the proposed program, including:
- An
assessment of the long-term costs of the proposed program,
including those related to infrastructure changes necessitated
by the program; and
- An
assessment of immediate costs and how they will be addressed.
- Confirmation
that the proposed time line for phase in the proposed program
is feasible from a resource standpoint;
- Confirmation
that there is a provincial and/or regional need for the program.
|
|
|
| 3.
DELETING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS |
| The process
for deleting academic programs is similar to the process followed to add
them: proposals are developed by the academic unit, considered by the Planning
and Academic Matters Committees, and forwarded to Senate for a decision.
They must also be approved by the MPHEC (the Policy on Quality Assurance
(2005) sets out guidelines for the preparation of proposals to terminate
programs). Accordingly, all proposals to delete academic programs shall
follow the above process, with the following exceptions: |
- Proposals
to delete academic programs may start at Phase II of the process;
- The formal
proposal, prepared in accordance with the MPHEC guidelines, shall articulate
the rationale for deleting the program and describe the phase-out plan
for existing students;
- The role
of the Planning Committee is limited to the following matters:
- Consideration
of the implications of deleting the program from a resource standpoint.
- Confirmation
that the proposed time line for phasing out the program is feasible
from a resource standpoint.
- Upon receipt
of the formal proposal, the Chair of the Planning Committee, in consultation
with the Committee, shall decide if a meeting with the unit head and
the Dean is required.
|
|
| 4.
SEQUENCING |
| The formal
proposal may be considered simultaneously by the Planning Committee and
the Academic Matters Committee but shall not be formally approved by the
Academic Matters Committee until it has received the determination of the
Planning Committee, as outlined above. The Chair of the Academic Matters
Committee is responsible for guiding the proposal through Senate. The Chair
of Academic Matters will also work with the academic unit to prepare the
formal submission for the MPHEC and to address any concerns raised by the
MPHEC. The Vice-President, Academic and Research, is the primary contact
with the MPHEC |
|
| Back |
|
|
