|
Proposals for new graduate degree
programs are initiated within a department and follow the format of the
following two Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) documents:
(1) Notification of Intent to Submit a Proposal (NISP) for a New Program
of Instruction and (2) Proposal for a New Graduate Degree Program. Both
of the documents are available at http://www.ache.state.al.us
The proposing department initiates the process through discussions with
the dean of the college. If the dean of the college is in favor of
developing the new program, the dean discusses it with the Provost and
the Dean of the Graduate School. If the Provost and Graduate Dean are in
support, the department works with the college dean to draft a NISP.
When the college dean and appropriate committee(s) in the college
approve the NISP, the college dean submits the NISP to the Graduate
Dean. The Graduate Dean works with the Provost to submit the NISP to the
UA Board of Trustees (BOT). After BOT approval, the Graduate Dean works
with the Provost to submit it simultaneously to ACHE and the Alabama
Council of Graduate Deans (ACGD) for review and revision.
When ACHE approves the NISP, the department prepares a proposal. (Note.
To save time, most departments actually draft the NISP and full proposal
at the same time.) After the proposal is approved by the college
committee(s) and college dean, it is sent to the Dean of the Graduate
School. The Dean of the Graduate School forwards the proposal to the
Research and New Programs Committee of the Graduate Council, when that
committee approves the proposal, it is recommended to the Graduate
Council.
The Graduate Council is responsible for ensuring that all graduate
programs meet acceptable academic standards for quality graduate
education; that the content, structure, and evaluation of student
performance in graduate courses are significantly different from those
of undergraduate courses; that all graduate courses are taught by
members of the graduate faculty; and that appropriate program reviews
will take place.
If the Graduate Council votes to approve the new-program proposal, the
Graduate Dean forwards it as a recommendation to the Provost. If the
Provost and President approve, the proposal must be approved by the BOT
prior to transmission to the ACHE and the ACGD. The ACGD communicates
its final vote to ACHE, which has the authority for final approval.
For
assistance:
·
Graduate Council approval and ACHE approval: John Schmitt
jschmitt@ua.edu
·
SACS approval: Bob Smallwood
Bob.Smallwood@ua.edu
Summary of Steps
in Approval of New Graduate Programs
-
Discuss desired new program with
college dean
-
When college dean approves, he or
she discusses it with Provost and Graduate Dean
-
When college dean, Provost and
Graduate Dean approve, department develops NISP
-
College-approved NISP is sent to
Graduate Dean
-
Graduate Dean and Provost submit
NISP to BOT
-
BOT-approved NISP sent to ACHE
and ACGD
-
After BOT and ACHE approve NISP,
department prepares proposal
-
Proposal approved by college
committee(s) and college dean
-
College dean sends proposal to
Graduate Dean
-
Graduate Dean assigns proposal to
Research and New Programs Committee of Graduate Council
-
Committee meets with proposing
department; when committee recommends approval, it is placed on
agenda of next Graduate Council meeting
-
If Graduate Council votes to
approve proposal, Graduate Dean informs Provost
-
Provost transmits to ACHE and
ACGD
-
ACGD communicates its final vote
and comments to ACHE
-
Proposal placed on agenda for
ACHE meeting
-
ACHE approval with
post-implementation conditions
Alabama
Commission on Higher Education
PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION AND REVIEW OF NEW PROGRAMS OF INSTRUCTION
|
|
PROCEDURE |
TIME LINE |
|
1. |
Submission of Notification of
Intent to Submit a Proposal (NISP). |
At least two months prior to proposal
submission. |
|
2. |
Institutional Comments on
NISP. |
Within three weeks of receipt
of NISP |
|
3. |
Preliminary meeting with ACHE
staff to discuss institutional comments on the NISP and the
program objectives in relation to the needs of the state; to
consider any program duplication and explore possible means of
collaboration; and to evaluate the centrality of the program to
the institution's mission and role. |
Within four weeks of receipt
of NISP |
|
4. |
Submission of Program
Proposal. |
Any time beyond two months of
NISP
submission. |
|
5. |
Review of Proposal by Council
of Graduate Deans. |
Eight weeks |
|
5a. |
Proposal sent to campuses;
Graduate Deans evaluate it and seek campus input on criteria for
new programs and to provide questions and recommendations to
strengthen the proposal if it is approved. |
Three weeks |
|
5b. |
Chair summarizes questions
and lists recommendations; sends to Executive Committee for
feedback; when Committee approves questions and recommendations,
chair sends to proposing institution for response. |
One week |
|
5c. |
Chair receives response from
proposers. |
Two weeks |
|
5d. |
Chair sends Council Members
the institutional responses to questions and recommendations;
each Graduate Dean votes to approve each recommendation and the
overall proposal; each member indicates if institutional
presentation before the Council is needed to require an
institutional presentation. |
One week |
|
5e. |
Chair sends final version of
questions and recommendations to Council members; prior to
ACHE's second meeting with proposers, chair informs ACHE of the
vote (considered as a "preliminary vote" if there will be an
institutional presentation), and states whether or not the
Council requires an institutional presentation. There will be a
presentation at a regular Council meeting if the proposers
request it and/or the Council requires it; there will not be an
institutional presentation if the proposers do not request it
and the Council indicates it is not needed.
If there is an institutional
presentation, there will be a second vote that will super cede
the preliminary vote. |
One week
|
|
6. |
Second meeting with ACHE
staff to review questions and recommendations derived from the
peer review and to reach agreement on any necessary proposal
changes. |
Within two weeks of peer
review |
|
7. |
Completion of ACHE staff
recommendation and ACHE action on the program. Staff
recommendation will encompass expected program outcomes that
will be assessed in subsequent program review. ACHE approval of
a program requires agreement by the institution to discontinue
the program if expected outcomes are not reached within the
established time frame. The evaluation of program outcomes will
entail one or more brief progress reports to the Commission. |
Within two months of peer
review |
|