The “W” label
Expedited Initial Certification Process

Rationale for an Expedited Initial Certification Process for currently “W” labeled courses-

Due to the proposed change in the requirements for courses to be labeled with the Writing (“W”) designation, processes will be required for any course that possesses a “W” label under the current General Education curriculum to undergo an expedited review to retain the “W” label. With an anticipated implementation date of Fall 2008, we believe that an expedited review process is necessary and would suggest an expedited phase-in that would require some courses to be “certified” by Fall 2008 with any remaining “current W” courses “certified” by Fall 2009. This would leave a year of adjustment/overlap with the old W requirements.

Description of the expedited initial certification process for existing courses currently possessing a “W” label

1. For each course that wants to retain the “W” label, the course would need to demonstrate how it will meet each of the specific criteria (word/page limit, revised prose, etc.). We propose that this be done through the completion of a brief (one-page?) self-evaluation form, which would be available electronically (as are all other UCPRC forms), accompanied by the course syllabus and any supporting documentation the instructor/department feels is needed to support the self-evaluation.
2. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for the initial certification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of two current voting members of UCPRC, two additional faculty members, and the Associate Provost for Academic Administration or his/her designee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the self-evaluation form, met the expectations of the new “W” label or not.
      1. This process would not require individual presentations to either the sub-committee or to the full UCPRC.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the self-evaluation would be noted and shared with the chair of UCPRC
      3. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
   3. Approval Process- One of three actions result from the review by the sub-committee or UCPRC:
      1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
      2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
      3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete expedited initial certification process.
3. The individual course self-evaluation forms completed by departments would be submitted to the chair of UCPRC who would then distribute proposals to the sub-committee for their review.
4. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved to meet the new “W” requirements.

We are recommending the following phase-in schedule for initial certification of existing “W” courses that want to retain the “W” label:

Departments that underwent five-year review during 2004-05, 2005-06, or 2006-07 should complete the initial certification process during the fall 2007 for implementation in the fall 2008.
Departments that are scheduled to undergo the five-year review during 2007-08 and 2008-09 should complete the initial certification process during the fall 2008 for implementation in the fall 2009.
During the phase-in process the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration would contact each department scheduled to undergo the initial certification process and alert them to the need to complete self-evaluations for each of the “W” labeled courses. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), a list of the courses to be evaluated, and the timeline for the process.
After this two year phase-in process, the process would shift to the recertification process described below. Courses that had previously been labeled with a “W” but had not been taken through the initial certification process would NOT retain the “W” label. Such courses would need to follow the process for adding a General Education label to an existing course should they desire to add the “W” label after the initial certification process.

Recertification process for W courses

On-going recertification process (every 5 years)- We recommend that each course possessing a “W” label be reviewed by UCPRC every five (5) years to recertify that it continues to meet the standards of the “W” label. The five (5) year recertification process would be done at the same time that each department/program goes through the mandated five (5) year review. Our recommendation is that this process be completed during the fall semester of the academic year. (Note: Departments that completed the expedited initial certification described above and underwent five-year reviews in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years will not need to go through the below recertification process at their five-year review in 2009-10 or 2010-11.)

1. We propose that this be done through the completion of a brief (one-page?) self-evaluation form which would be available electronically (as are all other UCPRC forms). This form would be very similar to that used for the “initial certification” process described above.
2. For each “W” course, the self-evaluation would need to demonstrate how the course meets each of the specific criteria (word/page limit, revised prose, etc.) for the “W” label.
3. Each August, the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration would contact each department scheduled to undergo the five (5) year review and alert them to the need to complete self-evaluations for each of the “W” labeled courses. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), a list of the courses to be evaluated, and the timeline for the process.
4. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for the initial certification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of two current voting members of UCPRC, two additional faculty members, and the Associate Provost for Academic Administration, or his/her designee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the self-evaluation form, met the expectations of the new “W” label or not.
      1. This process would not require individual presentations to either the sub-committee or to the full UCPRC.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the self-evaluation would be noted and shared with the chair of UCPRC
      3. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
   3. One of three actions result from the review by the sub-committee or UCPRC:
      1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
      2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
      3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete recertification process.
5. The individual course self-evaluation forms completed by departments would be submitted to the chair of UCPRC and then distributed the sub-committee for their review.
6. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
7. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved to meet the new “W” requirements.

What about existing courses that do not possess a “W” label but wish to add the “W” label? This process would occur as it currently does for any course that wants to add a General Education label where one did not exist before.

The “P” label

Since the “P” labels (description/requirements) are not being changed by the current GERC proposal, these is no need for a expedited initial certification process- all current “P” courses could continue to be “P” courses. Any existing course that wishes to add a “P” label would need to follow the current, prescribed procedure for the addition of a Gen Ed label.

On-going recertification process (every 5 years)- We recommend that each course possessing a “P” label be reviewed by UCPRC every five (5) years to recertify that it continues to meet the standards of the “P” label. The five (5) year recertification process would be done at the same time that each department/program goes through the mandated five (5) year review. Our recommendation is that this process be completed during the fall semester of the academic year.

1. We propose that this be done through the completion of a brief self-evaluation form which would be available electronically (as are all other UCPRC forms). This form would be very similar to that used for the “initial certification” process described above.
2. For each “P” course, the self-evaluation would need to demonstrate how the course meets each of the specific criteria for the “P” label.
3. Each August, the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration would contact each department scheduled to undergo the five (5) year review and alert them to the need to complete self-evaluations for each of the “P” labeled courses. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), a list of the courses to be evaluated, and the timeline for the process.
4. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for recertification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of two current voting members of UCPRC, two additional faculty members, and the Associate Provost for Academic Administration, or his/her designee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the self-evaluation form, met the expectations of the “P” label or not.
      1. This process would not require individual presentations to either the sub-committee or to the full UCPRC.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the self-evaluation would be noted and shared with the chair of UCPRC
      3. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
   3. One of three actions result from the review by the sub-committee or UCPRC:
      1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
      2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
      3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete approval process.
5. The individual course self-evaluation forms completed by departments would be submitted to the chair of UCPRC and then distributed the sub-committee for their review.
6. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
7. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved to meet the “P” requirements.

The “D” label

With the approval of the proposed Diversity requirement, a new process will need to be created to associate courses with this label. To be consistent with the processes for the “W” and “P” labels above, we recommend:

Expedited Initial Certification Process

Rationale for an Expedited Initial Certification Process for adding “D” labels to Existing Courses-

The addition of the “Diversity” requirement to the General Education curriculum, a new process must be created to quickly add the “D” label to existing courses. With an anticipated implementation date of Fall 2008, we believe that an expedited review process is necessary and would suggest an expedited phase-in that would require some courses to be certified by Fall 2008 and others by Fall 2009.

Description of the expedited initial certification process for existing courses adding the “D” label

1. For each course that wants to add the “D” label, the course would need to demonstrate how it will meet the specific criteria for the diversity courses. We propose that this be done through the completion of a brief self-evaluation form, which would be available electronically (as are all other UCPRC forms), accompanied by the course syllabus and any supporting documentation the instructor/department feels is needed to support the self-evaluation.
2. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for the initial certification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of two current voting members of UCPRC, two additional faculty members, and the Associate Provost for Academic Administration or his/her designee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the self-evaluation form, met the expectations of the new “D” label or not.
      1. This process would not require individual presentations to either the sub-committee or to the full UCPRC.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the self-evaluation would be noted and shared with the chair of UCPRC
      3. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision
   3. One of three actions result from the review by the sub-committee or UCPRC:
      1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
      2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
      3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete expedited initial certification process
3. The individual course self-evaluation forms completed by departments would be submitted to the chair of UCPRC who would then distribute proposals to the sub-committee for their review.
4. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved to meet the new “D” requirements.

We are recommending the following phase-in schedule for initial certification of existing courses that want to add the “D” label:

Departments that underwent five-year review during 2004-05, 2005-06, or 2006-07 should complete the initial certification process during the fall 2007 for implementation in the fall 2008.

Departments that are scheduled to undergo the five-year review during 2007-08 and 2008-09 should complete the initial certification process during the fall 2008 for implementation in the fall 2009.

During the phase-in process the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration would contact each department scheduled to undergo the initial certification process and alert them to the need to complete self-evaluations for each of course to which the “D” label would be added. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), and timeline.

After this two year phase-in process, the process would shift to the recertification process described below.

Recertification process for “D” courses

On-going recertification process (every 5 years)- We recommend that each course possessing a “D” label be reviewed by UCPRC every five (5) years to recertify that it continues to meet the standards of the “D” label. The five (5) year recertification process would be done at the same time that each department/program goes through the mandated five (5) year review. Our recommendation is that this process be completed during the fall semester of the academic year.

1. We propose that this be done through the completion of a brief (one-page?) self-evaluation form which would be available electronically (as are all other UCPRC forms). This form would be very similar to that used for the “initial certification” process described above.
2. For each “D” course, the self-evaluation would need to demonstrate how the course meets each of the specific criteria (word/page limit, revised prose, etc.) for the “D” label.
3. Each August, the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration would contact each department scheduled to undergo the five (5) year review and alert them to the need to complete self-evaluations for each of the “D” labeled courses. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), a list of the courses to be evaluated, and the timeline for the process.
4. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for the initial certification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of two current voting members of UCPRC, two additional faculty members, and the Associate Provost for Academic Administration or his/her designee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the self-evaluation form, met the expectations of the new “D” label or not.
      1. This process would not require individual presentations to either the sub-committee or to the full UCPRC.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the self-evaluation would be noted and shared with the chair of UCPRC
      3. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
   3. One of three actions result from the review by the sub-committee or UCPRC:
      1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
      2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
      3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete recertification process.
5. The individual course self-evaluation forms completed by departments would be submitted to the chair of UCPRC and then distributed the sub-committee for their review.
6. The sub-committee would forward recommendations for each self-evaluation to the chair of UCPRC for distribution to the full UCPRC for their review and decision.
7. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved to meet the “D” requirements.

What about existing courses that do not possess a “D” label but wish to add the “D” label after the initial certification process? This would occur as it currently does for any course that wants to add a General Education label where one did not exist before

First-Year Perspectives courses (UNIV 179)

Due to the creation of First-Year Perspectives (FYP) courses that differ from the original proposal for UNIV 179 courses that was approved by Faculty Senate, we propose that all existing UNIV 179 courses that wish to become FYP courses must undergo a certification process to determine if they meet the requirements for courses to be labeled as FYP. Given the relatively small number of existing UNIV 179 courses and the anticipated implementation date of Fall 2008, we believe that it is possible to have all existing UNIV 179 courses converted to meet the requirements of the FYP courses by Fall 2008 and we propose that the certification process follow that of the general course approval process for FYP courses as proposed below.

Description of the certification/approval/re-approval process for FYP courses

1. Each existing UNIV 179 course that intends to convert to an FYP course would need to demonstrate how it will meet each of the specific criteria for FYP courses. We propose that this be done through the completion of a FYP course proposal form (would be available electronically) accompanied by the course syllabus and any supporting documentation the instructor/department feels are needed to support the proposal.
2. New proposals for FYP courses would need to demonstrate how it will meet each of the specific criteria for FYP courses. Proposals must include a completed FYP course proposal form (would be available electronically) including the course syllabus and any supporting documentation the instructor/department feels are needed to support the proposal.
3. FYP courses may be proposed by individual faculty members, departments, or other units (including non-instructional units, pending special approval of Faculty Senate for such courses).
4. Approval Process- Each proposal would require the review and approval of the faculty member’s department and a sub-committee of UCPRC. The proposer presents the proposal first to their department, then, upon notification of the appropriate school dean, to the UCPRC sub-committee. One of three actions results at each stage:
   1. Approval of the proposal as presented.
   2. Approval subject to certain amendments agreed to by the spokesperson & deemed as minor changes. Such amendments shall appear at each stage as attachments to the original proposal unless they are purely editorial.
   3. Disapproval. Reasons for disapproval must be clearly stated in writing to the proposal spokesperson. Revised proposals must undergo the complete approval process.
5. A sub-committee of UCPRC would be created to review any course submitted for the initial certification.
   1. The sub-committee would consist of seven members- two (2) current members of the General Education Review Committee (GERC), two (2) current members of the First-Year Experience (FYE) Committee, two (2) current voting members of UCPRC, and the Coordinator of the First-Year Experience Program. The Coordinator of the First- Year Experience program will serve as the Chair of the sub-committee. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of UCPRC to maintain representation among the Schools on the sub-committee.
   2. The sub-committee would review the proposals and advise UCPRC about whether the course, as judged by the proposal and presentation to the sub-committee, met the expectations of FYP courses.
      1. This process would require individual presentations to the sub-committee.
      2. Any questions, concerns, or other issues based on the information in the proposal and presentation would be noted and shared with the proposer.
      3. Proposers would have the opportunity to address these concerns before the sub-committee voted on the proposal.
      4. The sub-committee would forward their decision for each FYP course proposal to the chair of UCPRC.
6. Each FYP proposal must be submitted to the chair of UCPRC. The chair of UCPRC will then distribute the proposal to the sub-committee chair.
7. The chair of UCPRC would communicate final decisions regarding each course to the proposer. In addition, the chair of UCPRC would advise the Faculty Senate at each full Faculty Senate meeting of courses that have been approved as FYP courses.

Re-approval Process- We recommend that all FYP courses be re-approved by a sub-committee of UCPRC every five (5) years to recertify that each course continues to meet the standards of the FYP course. The five (5) year recertification process would be based on the date of approval of the FYP course. Our recommendation is that this re-approval process be completed during the fall semester of the academic year. Rather than an expedited recertification process, we propose that this re-approval process exactly match the initial approval process for these FYP courses (completion of FYP proposal form, approval at both levels, including a presentation to the sub-committee). In addition, each August, the Coordinator of the First Year Experience program, assisted by the Office of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration, would contact each department in which an FYP course was to undergo the five (5) year review and alert them to the need to complete certification process for those courses. This letter would be sent to the Department Chair and would provide instructions for the process (where to find the forms, etc.), a list of the courses, and the timeline for the process.