A new duty for many curriculum committees. It would imply that these recommendations are based on an ongoing review of existing curricula (coordinated by who?)Reference

Missing any mention of stipend compensation for service by part-time faculty.Reference

“Modification and abolition” is the duty I’m referring to.Reference

At the School of Information we use the term “deactivate” instead of “abolition”Reference

Suggest “deactivate” instead of “abolish”Reference

What does “initially reviewed in the same way” mean in this context? Is it meant to be similar to how a “PIC course template” was approved through committee review in 2016, paving the way for speedier review of subsequent PIC course proposals?Reference

what about non-interdepartmental program proposal changes?Reference

Good that PIC course review will have a supporting structure. I do question the “ICC review [of the PIC framework] on a three-year rotation”. Would this be independent of a proposal from the PIC committee? (I would suggest that a refreshed proposal is submitted every three years, as it gives the PIC Committee much more leverage in maintaining the curriculum.)Reference

What is an example of a “less significant” change that does not go to the ICC yet must still go to a school committee as a program proposal?Reference

(“re-wording details of an assignment” presumably at the level of the department committee.) Suggest adding the phrase “– appropriate to the committee’s purview” somewhere in this paragraph.Reference

The language of “review” and “approve” is still kind of confusing in this document. Here the word “approve” is used, but in a different manner than elsewhere. Sometime approval means “you must get approval to move the proposal forward”, but here it seems like approval is not needed to move forward. It seems like the language of “endorse” or “not endorse” makes the most sense for curriculum committees, because they have not been given the power to block a proposal through non-approval (although see the “Defer Consideration” option below, which could function as a block).Reference

The “quality of review” is not the same as “quality of curriculum”. While this ICC duty is present in the Senate’s bylaws, as well, we have not yet felt adequately resourced to take this on in a rigorous way. Perhaps the papertrail of comments under this new policy will make this duty slightly more realizable for future ICCs.Reference

Re: a curriculum that is “ideally developed with reference to the strategic plan”: Syllabi rarely (if ever) make explicit reference to the SP, let alone the goals of a program in unambiguous terms. Alignment with program goals is typically found in the “Course Form” that accompanies a syllabus in a course proposal. SP alignment may have to be reflected in the same way.

I would feel much more comfortable with this policy document if it were accompanied by a simultaneous revision to the Course Form.Reference

With all of the paperwork expected to be generated in the review process, as well as explicit definition of the purview of each reviewing body, I would suggest that a major revision to the Course Form is done in parallel.

The “Course Form”– along with the “Tracking Sheet”– is one of two Provost-provided forms that must accompany each proposal for a new or revised course. This Form is the only home for some of the detail that is absolutely critical to discussions of resourcing and support and program alignment; syllabi don’t typically list course caps, for example, nor are they always explicit regarding their connection to specific program-level goals. This detail is only on the Form.

Right now, “recommendations for approval” are only carried by the Tracking Sheet in the form of a signature page. No other communication is currently carried forward regarding suggested changes considered and acted upon (or dismissed) during the process.

A revision to the Course Form/Tracking Page— and a digital format appropriate to paperless update and submission— would seem to offer the benefit of better organizing and facilitating review.

And while the current Course Form gives no direction in how and by whom it is filled out, a new Form could offer this AS WELL AS guidance that helps to distinguish the purviews of each reviewing body.

Forms facilitate policy adherence. They may also (inadvertently) lead to a confusion in how policies are to be carried out. I would like the APC to insist on movement toward a revised Form before this proposed policy is endorsed.

What is “Set internally” in a Dean->ICC context?Reference

Damon’s comment above for PIC might be valuable here as well. He suggest that a refreshed proposal, in this case for Customized Minors Interdisiplinary study, be submitted every three years. Not only their guidelines for such.Reference

What does this “consultation” with the program/dept./School curriculum committees look like? Is it an oral conversation? What should happen as a result of this consultation? Can the curriculum committees approve or disapprove at this point?Reference

Will departments be prompted by the Provost’s office to submit these documents each year? This would be helpful. The review of the guidelines by the ICC is not totally clear. Does this mean each department submits its guidelines to the Provost’s office at the start of each academic year, and the ICC will review them every three years? Will the ICC then give comments to the departments?Reference

This is a crucial point. Curriculum development and review is extremely time consuming. It involves many hours of labor, not just reviewing documents but communicating with other involved parties. If PT faculty are willing to serve, there should be an established stipend that they receive.Reference

I agree. It would be helpful, for example, if there could be Institute-wide workshops on expectations for syllabi (e.g. bibliographies), on policies that must be included on the syllabus, on such topics as “what is a learning outcome”? “what is a goal as opposed to an outcome?” It would be great if faculty who want to submit course proposals should be required to attend a syllabus-writing workshop.Reference

I agree with Damon. “Proposers” is a vague term that needs to be defined more specifically. In SLAS, the SCC chair usually communicates with the chair of the department curriculum committee, not the faculty member who proposed the course.Reference

The nitty gritty content of electives is changing all the time. For example, in a 19th century lit class, one semester you might teach Flaubert, and in another one Zola. What kinds of changes to electives have to go through the review process, and what kinds don’t?Reference

I just want to note this is a significant change from how it functions now in SLAS, where proposals go from the DCC to the SCC, and then to the Dean.Reference

I just want to add that this review process within the department is difficult when, for example, the DCC chair is untenured and the faculty proposer is tenured. There are issues of power, faculty autonomy, and academic freedom at play here. It would be great to have some discussions/workshops where we have a chance to bring these complex issues to light and work them through. Usually, things work well, but faculty proposers may question the right of DCC members to have oversight of their syllabi. The DCC has to offer feedback at the right level of specificity, and perhaps not infringe on the disciplinary purview/expertise of the faculty member.Reference

“These school documents shall be reviewed by the Institute Curriculum Committee on a three-year rotation.” Reviewed following what criteria? This is a *structural* review that is not the same as “reviewing the quality of curriculum review” as listed among the the ICC’s duties in the Senate’s bylaws.Reference

I am concerned that the faculty who teach in the IMB program (1 credit electives) are not represented here. In the department level committees they are also not represented, as I understand the process. I would like for all the SCPS faculty to have an opportunity to have a voice in this process.Reference

What about minors that are contained within a department? Why is it necessary to involve a director of interdisciplinary study?Reference

If “All special topic courses must run as elective courses” why are there two different designations? This is confusing.Reference

This is critical for small programs and departments, which often have few (or share) full time faculty. There is no built in capacity for curriculum review in these programs.Reference

Agreed with Suzie that this is typically done by the chair who may be in the best position to do a comprehensive overview. My question is who has decision-making power ? as worded it sounds like right now the committee makes recommendations but the chair has the decision-making power, if I am understanding this correctly? but I wonder if instead, consistent with “central role of faculty in developing and reviewing curriculum”, perhaps the chair makes program and course recommendations to the dept curriculum committee? and, perhaps if it is a substantial new program or policy, for example a new program (Minor/BA) then perhaps the whole faculty is involved?Reference

Agreed with Damon and Suzie. and I have the same question that I raised above with regards to the Dept Curriculum Committee – who has decision-making power in this review/recommendation process?Reference

again, I see this issue is addressed below! I am finding this document unwieldy to review ..Reference

Agreed with AngReference

Please take out the word ‘etc’. What does that mean? How can one consider what the author was going to continue to think, say or write. End the sentence or add more words. Thank youReference

Obviously, new forms are needed… and a digital process to handle the “append and affix” paperwork. I would like to see these new forms and a diagram of the communication process as PART OF this proposed policy, not a latter add-on.Reference

I agree, with Damon– it doesn’t sound on target to say curricula are “ideally developed with reference to the strategic plan”– even if in some very large sense that might be true.Reference

It’s great to have some guidance for dept. committees. But another question: “a simple majority vote of all faculty” won’t be simple to obtain (on anything.) (for example: My department just had a major meeting about curriculum/scheduling: I thought it was unusually well attended, and that meant we had not quite half the faculty present.) For now, I think our dept. is operating on the general idea that everyone is invited to meetings: but if something comes down to a vote, then reps on the curriculum committee vote.Reference

As it is written in this draft, the Dept and the School CRCs have the exact same charge in the first bullet. That doesn’t reflect our past practices which purposely avoids unnecessary redundancy in the review process. The School looks at things from a School-wide level, and does not make mandatory substantive revisions that are the proper preserve of the Dept CRCs. (This is something that is reflected in the newest SLAS CRC bylaws). School CRCs should just review for inter-Dept conflicts, academic rigor across School syllabi, School-wide curricular coherence, etc.Reference

I’m concerned about the sentence “has been convened by the Director of Interdisciplinary study”–so if the proposal comes directly from a faculty working group, would they be required to interest someone in “academic leadership” to sponsor their effort?Reference

At the course level, are these reviews of proposals, or of full-blown syllabi with course forms.Reference

To be honest, I was hoping that these proposed guidelines would expedite the course approval process, and make it less burdensome at the point of inception, that is, proposing faculty and departmental CCs. I understood the arguments at the meeting on 13th for why this overall flow of review will work better, but I don’t think the degree of labor at the level of course proposals and initial CC work has been sufficiently considered. It strikes me as ironic that the proposed review process starts out with a recognition of the central role of the faculty, and faculty expertise, but that the level of detail and amount of administrative work demanded in the course proposal process actually suggests the opposite. I totally support the need rigor, for careful thinking about assessment and learning outcomes as part of the course planning, but I wonder if the review process discourages rather than incentivizes the kind of creativity, excitement and active engagement with emerging ideas and work required for faculty to continually update and innovate in content, practice and ideas that keep courses and curriculum fresh. If the goal is, as President Bronet said, to keep Pratt relevant, I think the review process has to encourage participation by being both appealing and useful for faculty who are committed to invention and originality in curricular offerings.Reference

How does the timeline for new courses integrate visiting faculty that may have shorter-term appointments?Reference

To comment on the proposed document paragraph about the SCPS Curriculum Committee: there have typically been two faculty members from the School of Design (not one), totaling 5 faculty members. Thank you!Reference

the School of Architecture Faculty or administrators are not mentioned as part of the PIC review committee; do they not partake in this process?

Definitely need a curriculum review workflow chart, as well as milestone dates of the review process (can be approximate). We should know how long the standard curriculum development and review process takes in order to be able to plan for the development and roll-out of new curricula.Reference

Agree with Damon Chaky.
There should be milestones established by the ICC that all schools and programs need to adhere to otherwise it will be pandemonium.Reference

– It would be great for upper-level students to make part of the department committee; students are ultimately the ones with the most insight into courses having merit in their professional beginnings. Their perspective would be valuable considerations.

– The two most wanted parties when thinking about the delivery of curriculum are part-time faculty and students. Part-time faculty often cannot join committees due to work schedule conflicts, and most importantly, the students, who will practice in real life the curriculum learned, nether are taken into consideration in the policy. 

– I advise having an open period including community departmental review to reach part-time faculty and including students’ points of view. Transparency could make alliances among part-time professors teaching the same subjects. Reference

I would like to see more detail on who can submit changes to existing courses, timelines for proposals, and submission details for each category.
Some of these categories have a longer timeline to reach the end of the academic approval cycle than some industries’ pace. Moving towards a more flexible time and tryout period to stay relevant and continue bringing the world’s changes into the classroom could be considered.Reference

I agree with Suzanne on the matter of the term “teaching faculty.” In some cases, curriculum decisions are specifically the purview of Adjunct, CCE, and FTT faculty. This is not meant to downplay the contributions of visitors, who are certainly part of bigger discussions. Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that Adjunct, CCE, and FTTT faculty have gained a long-term understanding of student needs and interests.Reference

There are programs that have only part-time faculty, and I assume this carve out is intended in part for them. Is there any guidance for what a “proposal for deviation” looks like for these programs?Reference

The School Curriculum Committee may not have the level of knowledge of departmental curriculum required to participate in accreditation review–can this suggest be limited to department curriculum committee?Reference

The level of review required for special topics courses seems onerous, given that they are designed to nimbly respond to dynamic shifts in the professions.

Also, considering that even NYSED itself does not require review of electives to approve programs, an internal process that requires this even just for changes to elective courses seems like quite a bit of work. Also, what scale of change would invoke review for an elective?Reference

agreed with what is stated above. clarification is needed, and as a person who teaches special topics courses, the more dynamism/ ability to respond to emerging issues and challenges, the better!Reference