AGENDA ACADEMIC PLANNING AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE · 2014-12-10 Academic Planning and Priorities Agenda 2014-12-10 APPC Agenda Package Page 1. MINUTES - Draft . ... Is the program

AGENDA ACADEMIC PLANNING AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

December 10, 2014 2:30 to 4:30 pm, Room A229/225

1. CALL to ORDER

2. ITEMS for ADOPTION

2.1. Agenda – 2014 12 10 2.2. Minutes – 2014 11 12 ..................................................................................................................... pg. 2

3. BUSINESS

2:35 pm 3.1. Provost’s Report

2:50 pm 3.2. Review of Dean’s Academic Program Assessment Form – Eric ................................ pg. 5

3:10 pm 3.3. Revisions to the Expedited Program Approval Process – Sylvie ............................... pg. 8

3:30 pm 3.4. Procedures for the Program Discontinuance Policy – Eric ..................................... pg. 11

3:50 pm 3.5. Concept Paper Revisions – Sylvie ........................................................................... pg. 16

4:10 pm 3.6. Education Plan 2016 – 2020 – Eric

4. ADJOURNMENT and NEXT MEETING

Next Meeting: January 21, 2014, 2:30 – 4:30, A225/229

5. INFORMATION ITEMS

5.1. School of Trades Proposal ............................................................................................................ pg. 21 5.2. APPC website: http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/

2014-12-10 Academic Planning and Priorities Agenda

2014-12-10 APPC Agenda Package Page 1

http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/

MINUTES - Draft ACADEMIC PLANNING AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

November 12, 2014 2:30 pm - Room A225/229

Present: E. Davis (chair), G. Palmer, J. Hogan, R. McLeod, M. Bos-Chan, C. Slavik, Z. Dennison, N. Weinberg, M. Rhodes, C. Gingerich, J. English, J. MacLean, C. Bell, M. Brosinski, F. Kheradmand, S. Brar, A. Chan, M. Wideman, D. McGuire, S. Hardman, V. Dvoracek, K. Isaac, S. Murray, A. Wiseman

Guest: P. Geller; K. Brealey, S. Brigden, L. Lee, J. Nolte, T. Ryder-Glass

Regrets: A. Hodges, D. Griffiths, D. Alary

Recorder: J. Nagtegaal

1. CALL to ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 2:35 pm.

2. ITEMS for ADOPTION

2.1. Agenda – 2014 11 12

MOTION: THAT APPC approve the 2014 11 12 agenda as amended. C. Bell/R. McLeod CARRIED

2.2. Minutes – 2014 10 15

MOTION: THAT APPC approve the 2014 10 15 minutes as presented. M. Rhodes/M. Bos-Chan CARRIED

3. BUSINESS

3.1. Provost’s Report

• International Education Week is from November 12 – 14. The theme for this year is Celebrate Global Indigeneity. Events will take place at the Abbotsford and Chilliwack, CEP, campuses.

• The new 5-year Education Plan will be from 2016 – 2020. Deans’ Council and Deans’ Caucus have been discussing a new process for the upcoming Education Plan. An Education Plan Steering Committee will be created and will be composed of people who have been selected because of their ability to think outside of the box. The committee will look at what the University should look like in 2025 and what things we need to do in 2016-2020 in order to get to the vision of the University in 2025. The committee will consult widely.

• Eric gave a brief report on the conferences recently attended – National Vice-Presidents Academic Council (NATVAC); Vancouver International Conference – In Pursuit of

pg. 1 of 4


Draft Minutes Academic Planning and Priorities Committee November 12, 2014

Institutional Success and Sustainability: Directions for Our Academic Workforce; and the Senior Academic Administrators Forum (SAAF). Eric noted that at both NATVAC and the Sustainability conference there was discussion on the challenges universities are facing. Many universities are dealing with declining student numbers, increased competition, and decreased funding; but there was good discussion on creative solutions. At the SAAF meeting, learning outcomes were discussed. Eric noted he was asked to give a presentation on what UFV has done with ILO’s.

3.2. Change to APPC’s Terms of Reference

Interim changes were suggested by Senate, these will be officially reviewed through the questionnaire/report.

New wording: Following consultation with relevant standing committees, as deemed appropriate by the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee, advise Senate on the establishment or discontinuation of educational programs and other curricular changes requiring Senate approval including program changes that occasion a change to the alignment of programs with institutional priorities.

MOTION THAT APPC approve the revised interim wording for APPC’s Terms of Reference. G. Palmer/Z. Dennison CARRIED

3.3. Report from APPC’s Adhoc Subcommittee on Prioritization

The report from APPC’s Adhoc Subcommittee on Prioritization was reviewed. The report noted that APPC’s role is of effective oversight (ensuring that priorities have been followed) and to advise Senate of priorities. The report also explained that at other universities a Program Prioritization Process was mandated by senior administration and was a separate committee created to look at a Program Prioritization Process exclusively. There was some discussion on whether or not the task of prioritization was noted in the University Act and who had the authority to prioritize (Board or Senate?).

3.4. Programming at UFV: Discussion with the Deans

This discussion tied into the Report from APPC’s Adhoc Subcommittee on Prioritization. The Deans and APPC discussed the roles each play and how they are connected to each other. APPC’s role is to ensure programs meet the University’s priorities as stated in institutional documents like the Education Plans, Strategic Plan, SEM Plan, and others. The Deans’ role is to manage the program mix of their area while ensuring priorities are maintained. The Deans noted that to assist with managing their program mix, they created a checklist document that was based on the grid APPC created for program assessment.

ACTION: The Deans’ checklist document will be reviewed at the next APPC meeting for discussion and feedback.

3.5. Concept Paper Revisions

Changes to the concept paper were presented. The changes are meant to help the Program Working Group, UEC, and APPC see how the proposed program fits into the University’s priorities and is meant to be more rigorous to allow for input earlier in the program development process. It was suggested that it would be beneficial for the concept papers to

pg. 2 of 3


Draft Minutes Academic Planning and Priorities Committee November 12, 2014

come for approval once or twice a year. APPC supported the changes to the Concept Paper. The final approval rests with UEC as noted in Policy 21.

3.6. Revisions to the Expedited Program Approval Process

Procedures for the Expedited Program Approval Process were put in place last June; since then, concerns have been raised about their complexity and the length of time it will take for a program to be approved. S. Murray and J. Nagtegaal have made changes to the procedures with the intent to simplify and expedite the process.

Consultation will take place with other committees and the document will come back for APPC’s approval. Any feedback on the proposed changes should be sent to S. Murray and J. Nagtegaal.

4. ADJOURNMENT and NEXT MEETING

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm pm.

5. INFORMATION ITEMS

5.1. APPC website: http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/

pg. 3 of 3


http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/

Dean’s Academic Program Assessment Form

Page 1 of 3

Program: Date:

Faculty: Department:

1. Demand

a) Student demand for the program Rating: Low, Satisfactory, High

What is the current and forecasted student demand for the program? Comments

What is the ratio of produced FTEs and budgeted FTEs? What is the trend of this ratio?

What is the completion/graduation rate of students?

b) Job market demand Rating: Low, Satisfactory, High

What is the job market for graduates of the program? Comments

What does the trend data suggest about the job market for graduates of this program in three, five, and ten years?

c) Regional demand Rating: Low, Satisfactory, High

Does the program have a particular strategic and/or defining focus within the region?

Comments

Is the program unique and targeted to a niche market?

Does it distinguish us from our “competitors”?

Overall Rating of Demand: Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent

2. Capacity (an assessment of program inputs, faculty staff, curriculum, students)

a) Faculty Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Definitely

Does the program reflect and build on the expertise of faculty? Comments

Can the program attract and retain qualified faculty?

Is there sufficient faculty to deliver the program or is there a reliance on sessional instructors?

b) Facilities/equipment Rating: Not likely, Likely, Definitely

Are the facilities and equipment demands sustainable and/or adequately invested?

Comments

What is the expected institutional investment in program capacity over the next five years?

c) Curriculum Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Definitely

Does the program contribute service courses to other programs? Comments Is the program in partnership with or contribute to other programs

at UFV, other post-secondary institutions, community agencies, businesses, or organizations?

Is the curriculum delivered with the efficient use of available resources?

Overall Rating of Capacity: Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent



Page 2 of 3

3. Quality and Performance (an assessment of program outputs)

a) Program and institutional learning outcomes Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Is the program meeting its articulated learning outcomes? Comments

Is the program meeting UFV’s institutional learning outcomes?

Do program and accreditation reviews provide evidence of the program's strength and quality?

b) Student engagement, retention, success Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Does the program contribute to student engagement? Comments

Does the program contribute to student retention?

Does the program contribute to student success?

c) Currency and relevancy Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Has the “environment” changed since the program was approved?

Comments

Is the program responsive to the changing educational, economic, political, and social climates?

Is another UFV department or school offering a similar program?

Overall Rating of Quality & Performance: Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent

4. University Mandate

a) Provincial Mandate Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Is the program consistent with UFV’s provincial mandate? Comments

Does the program have a particular strategic and/or defining focus within the community that is fulfilled by virtue of UFV being a regional university?

Is there potential for greater alignment with UFV’s provincial mandate?

b) Strategic Plan Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Is the program consistent with, implementing, and fulfilling UFV’s Strategic Plan?

Comments

Does the program support UFV’s Indigenization and Internationalization initiatives?

Is there potential for greater alignment with UFV’s Strategic Plan?

c) Education Plan Rating: Slightly, Moderately, Completely

Is the program consistent with, implementing, and fulfilling UFV’s Education Plan?

Comments

Is there potential for greater alignment with UFV’s Education Plan?

Overall Rating of University Mandate: Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent



Page 3 of 3

5. Financial Impact

d) Cost Rating: Low, Moderate, Strong

What is the financial viability of the program given its revenues and base funding costs?

Comments

What are the opportunities for efficiencies, cost containment, cost reduction, and/or different delivery modes that can make the program financially effective?

What is the likelihood of special opportunities or additional funding from government or other sources?

e) Financial Performance Rating: Low, Moderate, Strong

How do the net cost and FTEs compare to other competing programs at other institutions?

Comments

What is the international demand for this program?

f) Implications Rating: Likely, Not Likely, Definitely

Will decisions concerning the program affect commitments we are bound to honour?

Comments

Will decisions concerning the program affect existing partnerships and commitments to other UFV and community programs?

Will decisions concerning the program affect personnel and/or students?

Overall Rating of Financial Impact: Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent

Criterion Overall Rating Comments Demand Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent Comments

Capacity Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent Comments

Program Quality & Performance Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent Comments

University Mandate Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent Comments

Financial Impact Poor, Fair, Good, Very good, Excellent Comments

Overall Recommendation: Reduce, Maintain, Enhance, Expand, Suspend, Discontinue

Comments


MEMO

To: APPC

From: Sylvie Murray, Program Development Coordinator

Date: December 3, 2014

Re: Revised Procedures for Expedited Process

Background:

Procedures for the Expedited Program Approval Process were put in place last June and, since then, concerns have been raised about their complexity and the length of time that it will take for a program to be approved under these procedures.

It is indeed a very cumbersome process that will entail administrative support not normally required by our regular approval process (e.g., support for the Program Evaluation Committee and Program Screening Subcommittee) and would take 4-6 months to be completed, at best. Current procedures can be viewed at: http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/expedited-program-approval-process/

In response to these concerns we suggest a simplified set of procedures that would have the following advantages:

• parallel the existing process, therefore would be easier to understand and administer; • would not include a Concept Paper, therefore reducing paperwork (Memo explaining

how the proposed program meets the criteria for expedited process in step 1 includes information normally provided in a Concept Paper; Board approval is secured toward the end of the process, rather than at the front end);

• could be completed within four months. We would also like to allow review of proposals to take place over the summer months, if this can be accommodated by UEC and APPC.

Revised procedures are illustrated in the attached Guidelines.

Approval Authority:

As per policy 21, procedures in support of the expedited process are under the authority of APPC, in consultation with the Office of the Vice-Provost. Any procedures developed will consider the roles of other Senate Standing Committees in the course and program approval process. Guidelines and templates will be administered by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Assistant of APPC by unanimous decision.

1


http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/expedited-program-approval-process/

http://www.ufv.ca/senate/standing-committees/appc/expedited-program-approval-process/

Consultation:

The revised procedures have been developed by Janice Nagtegaal, APPC Assistant, and Sylvie Murray, Program Development Coordinator, Office of the Vice-Provost. The following consultation has been completed:

• October 27: UEC Short Programs Subcommittee. It is part of the Subcommittee’s mandate to “review policies 21 (including Expedited Process) in light of short programs and suggest revisions if necessary). The Director of Continuing Education and Dean of Applied and Technical Studies are members of this subcommittee. The subcommittee strongly recommends approval of this revised set of procedures.

• November 6, 2014: APPC Chair Eric Davis, APPC Vice-Chair Christine Slavik and Vice-Provost Peter Geller – for discussion and feedback – feedback incorporated in version circulated to committees of Senate

• November 12, 2014: APPC -- for discussion and feedback • November 18, 2014: Senate Governance Committee -- for information • November 20, 2014: Senate Budget Committee – for discussion and feedback – no change

suggested • November 21, 2014: UEC – for discussion and feedback – no change suggested (except for

removal of “Timeline” column to the left) • December 10, 2014: APPC, for decision, followed by revision and approval of guidelines and

templates by Chair, Vice-Chair and Assistant of APPC.

Page 2


Procedures for Expedited Program Approval

Part I: Determination of whether a program meets the criteria for Expedited Approval Process

1. Dean of the program area appoints a Program Working Group (PWG) to develop the program and new courses or major revisions to existing courses, if needed. The PWG will ensure that affected academic units are consulted. The full program proposal, calendar copy, and Official Course Outlines [hereafter referred to as the proposal package] are submitted to the Program Development Office and the UEC Screening Subcommittee to ensure that they are complete. The proposal package is then submitted to the Faculty/College Council for endorsement.

Simultaneously, the Dean analyzes the budgetary implications of the proposed program with the Budget office. The Dean and Budget office submit a Memo to the Vice-Provost, or delegate, explaining how the proposed program meets the criteria for expedited process.

2. The Vice-Provost will make one of the following recommendations:

a. The proposed program meets the criteria for expedited process and can proceed through the rest of the expedited screening process.

b. The proposed program does not meet the criteria for expedited process, therefore cannot proceed through the rest of the expedited screening process.

The Vice-Provost’s recommendation will be submitted to the APPC chair and vice-chair for confirmation.

The Dean may appeal a negative recommendation (b. above) to the APPC Expedited Review standing subcommittee, whose decision is final.1

Part II: Review of Program Proposal under the Expedited Approval Process

3. The proposal package is submitted to Campus Wide Consultation (CWC) for a period of one week, the PWG responds to CWC comments and makes any necessary change (using track changes).

4. The Board of Governors’ approval of the proposed program is required and can be requested at any point after Campus Wide Consultation is completed.

5. The PWG submits the proposal package along with CWC consultation comments and responses to UEC Screening Subcommittee who will review it prior to submission to UEC (the Screening Subcommittee may recommend that UEC vote on the proposal by e-mail). Analysis of the proposed program’s budgetary implications is submitted to the Senate Budget Committee (Senate Budget Committee may exempt specific Departments from review under the expedited process). APPC Expedited Review standing subcommittee will receive UEC’s and, when applicable, SBC’s recommendation and will make a recommendation to Senate.

If external approval is required, the Program Proposal is sent to the Office of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic for external submission (typically, through posting on the Post-secondary Institution Proposal System for 30 days).

1 APPC Expedited Review standing subcommittee is comprised of the Chair of APPC, the Vice-Chair, and three faculty members, where possible from different Faculty/College.

Guidelines, June 2014 (revised November 2014), Draft 3 Page 1


MEMO

To: Eric Davis, Chair, Academic Planning and Priorities Committee

From: Peter Geller, Vice-Provost & Associate Vice President, Academic


Re: Program Discontinuance Policy

Background In April of 2012 a recommendation to discontinue a program came to APPC for approval. With no policy or procedures in place, this recommendation prompted APPC to recommend the creation of a policy on the discontinuance of programs. The Joint Board-Senate Governance Committee reviewed a discussion paper on Program Discontinuation and agreed that a policy should be created. The Joint Board-Senate Governance Committee agreed that as this was clearly an academic policy it would be appropriate to have APPC develop a policy on program discontinuance. In December 2012 APPC established a subcommittee to investigate the creation of a policy on the discontinuance of programs (consisting of G. Palmer, J. MacLean, C. Marlor, and J. Todrick with P. Geller and C. Dahl as resources). The subcommittee created a concise policy on program discontinuance and developed accompanying detailed guidelines. Both the policy and the guidelines went out for consultation in January 2014. Overall, respondents noted the importance of the policy in creating clarity of and transparency in the event of a program being discontinued. The subcommittee reviewed the feedback and revised the policy. The Program Discontinuance Policy was approved by APPC in June 2014 and was approved by Senate in October 2014. The policy is now pending approval by the Board of Governors. The Program Discontinuance Policy it states that procedures in support of the policy will be developed, maintained, and communicated by APPC. The draft Policy and the procedures are attached for your review. Motion THAT APPC approved the Program Discontinuance procedures pending the approval of the Program Discontinuance Policy. Attachment 1. Program Discontinuance Policy 2. Procedures for Review and Approval of Program Discontinuance 3. Program Discontinuance Policy Flowchart

1


PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE

NUMBER TBD

APPROVAL DATE MM-DD-YYYY

LAST AMENDMENT MM-DD-YYYY

LAST REVIEWED MM-DD-YYYY

NEXT REVIEW DATE MM-DD-YYYY

Approval Authority Board of Governors and Senate

Responsible Executive Provost and Vice-President, Academic Related Policies / Legislation Board policy Direction University Educational Directions and Planning

(BPD-202) Undergraduate Course and Program Approval policy (21) Graduate Course and Program Approval policy (209)

PURPOSE

This policy is to ensure transparency and diligence when discontinuing academic programs at the University of the Fraser Valley. This will include recognition of the role of Senate in advising the Board, and the Board seeking advice from Senate on the discontinuance of programs at the university, with the recognition that the final authority rests with the Board of Governors.

SCOPE

This policy applies to all undergraduate and graduate programs that are being discontinued, excluding all non-credit continuing education programs. This policy does not apply to adjustments in the number or location of course offerings as part of the ongoing management of program delivery.

DEFINITIONS

In this policy, the following definitions apply:

Consultation: Seeking of input and opinions.

Program: A collection of courses and associated requirements offered as a credential or an option within a credential. This includes but is not limited to, a certificate, diploma, minor, extended minor, major, honours, degree, specialization, option, or concentration.

Program Discontinuance: Elimination of the offering of a program.

Program Suspension: Temporary discontinuance of a program

POLICY Decisions regarding the discontinuance of programs at UFV will rely on established procedures; and evidence that appropriate consultation with the relevant department or school and Faculty or College Council takes place. Senate will receive a recommendation from the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee (APPC) and then advise the Board. Whenever possible, this will take place within the academic planning processes of the Educational Plan.

Typically, a program discontinuance will be initiated by the Dean of the relevant area. A request to consider program discontinuance may also come from the Provost of the University; or from APPC based on results from formal university review processes.

Program Discontinuance (##) Page 1 of 2


In cases where a program will be discontinued, the university will honour its commitment to active program students, providing, where possible, pathways for completion.

For the purposes of this policy, discontinuance of specializations, options, and concentrations are treated as program revisions.

REGULATIONS

1. The following principles will guide the program discontinuance process:

Program Rigour: Program discontinuance/suspension ensures academic relevance, currency, and response to student needs and the educational environment.

Transparency: The review and approval process is consultative, based in peer review, and communicated clearly.

Accountability: The decision to discontinue a program will be consistent with appropriate stewardship of resources and the meeting of community expectations.

Compliance with Recognized University Processes: The consultation and approval process complies with Policy XXX Program Discontinuance.

2. The rationale for program discontinuance will typically consider issues arising from the following categories:

• Demand, including student demand, market demand (employment), institutional and community demand.

• Capacity, determined by a broad assessment of program inputs (including faculty/ staff, curriculum, students, capital equipment and facility infrastructure).

• Program Output, including graduation, quality and performance in terms of both key performance indicators and a summative assessment of the program’s contribution to the strategic directions of the university.

• Financial Impact/Viability, including a full accounting of both direct and indirect program revenue contributions and costs.

• Reputational Considerations for the University

3. Once a program discontinuance is approved a communication plan and a transition plan for existing students will be developed.

4. Procedures in support of this policy will be developed, maintained, and communicated by APPC. Guidelines and templates in support of this policy will be administered by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Assistant of APPC.

Program Discontinuance (##) Page 2 of 2


Procedures for Review and Approval of Program Discontinuance

The decision to initiate a program discontinuance will follow appropriate consultation with the relevant department or school, and Faculty or College Council.

Typically, a proposal for program discontinuance will be initiated by the Dean of the relevant area who submits a Proposal for Program Discontinuance to APPC, with a recommendation. The request should include evidence that the principles outlined above have been applied, and that the program has been assessed according to the areas for consideration as outlined in the Program Discontinuance proposal.

A proposal for program discontinuance may also be initiated by the Provost of the University, also with the submission of a Proposal for Program Discontinuance to APPC, with a recommendation. The request should include evidence that the principles outlined above have been applied, and that the program has been assessed according to the areas for consideration as outlined in the Program Discontinuance proposal.

A transition plan must be included in the Program Discontinuance proposal outlining how the existing students will transition through the existing program or transition to a new credential.

Based on results from formal University review processes, APPC may recommend that either or both the Provost or Dean examine the quality and viability of a specific program.

APPC forwards the recommendation along with supporting evidence, including the record of its deliberations to Senate for decision. APPC may recommend discontinuance or suspension. Senate will then advise the Board of Governors of its recommendation. The final authority rests with the Board of Governors.

Once a program discontinuance occurs the program no longer has status as an approved program at the University of the Fraser Valley. Any proposal to reinstate the program will be considered a new program under the Program Review and Approval policies (Policy 21 and Policy 209).


Program Discontinuance Policy Flowchart

NOTE: The decision to initiate a program discontinuance will follow appropriate consultation with the relevant department or school, and Faculty or College Council.

Initiated by the

Dean of the area

APPC (review and recommend)

Senate (review and advise)

Board (final decision)

A request to consider discontinuance can

come from APPC

Initiated by Provost


MEMO To: APPC

From: Sylvie Murray, Program Development Coordinator, Office of the Vice-Provost


Re: Revised Concept Paper Guidelines

Background:

Consultation is now completed on a revised set of Guidelines for the Concept Paper (for undergraduate programs). Feedback received is detailed below, and some modifications have been made to what was presented to APPC in November.

As the committee responsible for recommending a program concept for inclusion in the Education Plan, APPC has special interest in the Concept Paper. The results of the consultation process, and revisions made as a result, are therefore presented here for discussion. Approval authority over these Guidelines (for undergraduate programs) resides with the UEC Chair, Vice-Chair, and Assistant, in consultation with the Office of the Vice-Provost.

The revisions are intended to provide the institution better information to inform planning of new program development.

Summary and results of consultation (changes made are highlighted in italics and red):

• The draft that circulated for consultation in November was created in August with input from faculty members and Deans who have been actively involved in development of new programs, APPC Assistant Janice Nagtegaal and the Provost’s Executive Assistant Nicole Hitchens.

• Deans Caucus (consulted on November 3, 2014): Discussion highlighted that expectations for the concept paper will be more rigorous; more research (e.g. evidence of demand) will be required at the beginning of the development process. It was noted that skills gap mapping may provide useful data to show some evidence of demand. There needs to be good, independent data gathering and it was suggested that program/department review surveys be set up for program development needs –- Does not require changes to the concept paper draft, but will be taken into account as program developers, in consultation with Institutional Research and the Program Development Office, work on providing better evidence of student demand.

• APPC (consulted on November 12): No change was suggested but a suggestion was made that it would be good to review all the concept papers together, in any given year, probably early in the winter semester to allow time for developers to make revision as needed before recommendation

1


for inclusion in the Education Plan. — Since this relates to the review process, rather than to the template itself, no change has been made.

• Director of Teaching and Learning (Maureen Wideman sent feedback on Dec 1): o “Do we need to ask specifically what differentiates this program from others i.e. why should

students take this program at UFV?” – Has been incorporated in 3c. o Also suggested: “do we want to ask about high impact practices, experiential learning,

interdisciplinary opportunities at this stage or would that come next?” – 2b already states: “Also consider and discuss how the program will employ high-impact practices”; “incorporate interdisciplinary opportunities” has been added.

• Senior Advisor Indigenous Affairs (Shirley Hardman sent feedback on November 18): o Can PWG include sessional instructors? — “Normally, PWG members should be permanent

UFV faculty members” has been added to section 4. Only under exceptional circumstances should a PWG include sessional or non-permanent faculty members as it could put them in a conflict of interest; if their expertise is needed, it should be sought on an advisory basis rather than through membership in a PWG.

o Is the consultative process captured (for instance, consultation with the community was integral to the process of developing the Indigenous studies proposal in the formative stage)? – A section has been added at the end capturing this suggestion.

• Executive Director, UFV international (David McGuire sent feedback on November 13): o I like the note about facilitating immigration. o Re: Audience and Demand—It would be great if this section could ask whether the program

lead submitting the proposal has (a) consulted with other BC or Canadian institutions offering similar programs to back up any claims – has been added to new section on consultation

o and (b) consulted with leadership at UFV International to get an assessment of possible demand/audience. [Note: I mention the word “leadership” here because often people will engage in casual conversations with our marketers and use that as a rationale to move forward. Ultimately, the leadership in our area (Dea and I) are the ones responsible.] Has been added to 3.b Student demand: “If anticipating attracting international students, please consult with leadership at UFV International, and provide evidence of consultation.”

o Anticipated start time: As I mentioned in our meeting (Deans’ Council?), I think this part has to be very clear. I do know that this is clear to you but we would need a full recruitment cycle (i.e. October to May) plus whatever time that MarCom needs to ensure that promotional materials and a web presence are prepared. Slight revision made to relevant section; more specific information can be provided on the Program Development Office website, which would allow greater flexibility for revisions.

• Senate Budget Committee (consulted on November 20) – no change suggested; it was noted that SBC is not involved in the review of the concept paper.

• Graduate Studies Committee (consulted on November 13) – GSC has been made aware of this change, but graduate program review and approval (including guidelines and templates) is governed by policy 209 and GSC. The current concept paper template will stand for graduate programs until GSC approves a revised version.

ACTION: The revised Guidelines for the Concept Paper is provided for discussion. It will be submitted to the UEC Chair, Vice-Chair, and Assistant for approval.

Page 2


Concept Paper Guidelines The concept paper serves as a general indication of a Program Working Group’s thinking on key issues related to a proposed program. It should be used for all new programs, including degrees (ex: Bachelor of Media Arts), specializations within an existing degree (ex: Major in Computing Science), diplomas (ex: Automation & Control Systems Technician Diploma) and certificates.1 In accordance with the Procedures for Undergraduate Course and Program Approval (Appendix to Policy 21), the Concept Paper is developed, on the approved template, by a Program Working Group (PWG), in consultation with the Program Development Office, appropriate academic units, and the Dean of the area.

Once developed, the concept paper is presented to the relevant Faculty/College Council for discussion and to the Dean for approval. Upon approval by the Dean, and before its inclusion in the Education Plan, the Concept Paper is presented to the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee (APPC). APPC will verify that the program proposed in the Concept Paper is consistent with institutional priorities before recommending it for inclusion in the Education Plan. Only upon inclusion of the program concept in the Education Plan, as approved by the Board of Governors, should a Program Working Group proceed with developing the Program Proposal.

What is expected of the Concept Paper is explained below. Maximum Length: five to eight pages (plus appendices, if required). 1. Basic Information

a. Credential to be awarded For instance, “Bachelor of Arts, Major in Theatre” or “Bachelor of Agricultural Science, Major in Horticulture” or “Automation and Control Systems Technician Diploma”.

b. Number of credits; if relevant, completion time in years or semesters Note that all programs are expected to be structured to ensure timely completion by students (e.g., 4 years for a 120-credit degree program, or 2 years for a 60-credit diploma program). Completion time needs to be indicated only if it is a defining feature of the proposed program, for instance:

• for a program primarily aimed at international students, a minimum length of time might be advisable to facilitate immigration;

• some programs may be conceived to be delivered exclusively, or primarily, in an accelerated format;

• programs that build on an earlier credential, in a laddering model, would have a shorter completion time than suggested by the number of credits (“two semesters, post-Certificate”).

c. Administrative responsibility

Name the Faculty or College that will have administrative responsibility for the program. In the case that a program draws resources from more than one Faculty/College beyond the provision of service courses, the Deans involved will decide who will assume administrative responsibility for the program and whether administrative responsibility will be shared by more than one Faculty/College. The Faculty/College and Dean that has administrative responsibility will have approval authority at the relevant stages of the program approval process.

1 With the exclusion of programs seeking approval through the expedited program approval process.

Program Development Office, University of the Fraser Valley Concept Paper Guidelines, December 3, 2014


d. Goals Provide a brief statement describing the goals of the new program in terms of preparing students for employment, professional and/or further educational opportunities.

2. Alignment with Institutional Priorities and Existing Programming

a. Program Learning outcomes (and alignment with ILOs) Even though the learning outcomes presented in the concept paper are likely to be refined as the curriculum structure and content take shape, they should inform the design of a program at the outset. Given the employment, professional, educational goals to be met by the program, what skills, knowledge, and attributes will graduates of this program possess upon completion of the program? (Phrase your program outcomes as “Upon completion of this program, graduates will be able to: …”). You are also asked to articulate how the program outcomes align with UFV’s Institutional Learning Outcomes since the ILOs reflect essential skills and knowledge that every graduate should acquire at UFV.

b. Contribution to UFV’s mandate and strategic priorities Consult UFV’s key planning documents (Strategic Directions, current Education Plan Update, Strategic Enrollment Management Plan--all available on the UFV Senate website) and explain which institutional priority/ies your program will support. Also consider and discuss how the program will employ high-impact practices and incorporate interdisciplinary opportunities.

c. Related programs in the institution or other British Columbia post-secondary institutions. Indicate rationale for duplication, if any. Explain what differentiates this program from similar programs. Is this a program that is completely new to UFV, or does it build on, or complement, existing programs? If relevant, explain its relationship to existing programs and provide a justification if it duplicates, significantly overlaps, or is likely to replace an existing program over time. Also provide a list of similar programs at other institutions in British Columbia and, if duplication exists, explain how the proposed program will be competitive in the BC post-secondary environment. Why should students take this program at UFV rather than at another institution?

3. Audience, demand and capacity

a. Audience What type or group of students will your program attract? For instance, high-school graduates; mid-career professionals; students laddering from a previous program; international students; students currently attracted to a cognate program.

b. Student demand Provide evidence of student demand and anticipated annual enrolments for the program. (If anticipating attracting international students, please consult with leadership at UFV International, and provide evidence of consultation.)

c. Employment for graduates and/or opportunities for further study.



http://www.ufv.ca/senate/

What will graduates of this program do? What areas/sectors of employment and/or occupational categories will the skills and learning acquired in this program prepare them for? What are the current and anticipated labour market conditions and career outlooks in the relevant sectors and occupations? What further educational opportunities will the program prepare students for?

d. Existing capacity and/or possible resource needs Will this program draw on existing resources and/or is it likely to need additional resources? Consider faculty and staff, labs, space, technical support, etc. A detailed budget analysis will be produced in the program development stage; but you and your Dean should have a general idea that the proposed program is financially viable and sustainable.

4. Program Working Group membership

List the members of the PWG and the reasons for their selection. Include brief biographies and credentials of PWG members. The PWG should consist of a minimum of three faculty members with teaching or research expertise in the subject area. Normally, PWG members should be permanent UFV faculty members. If a new program is entirely discipline-based, at least one additional member from another discipline with teaching or research expertise in the subject area or related area should be included. Note that only approved PWGs should develop and present Concept Papers for inclusion in the Education Plan. 5. Consultation process

Please indicate what consultation has taken place already about the proposed program and/or what consultation is anticipated later in the program development stage (this may include consultation with the community or prospective employers through an Advisory Committee; on indigenizing; with other academic units at UFV; with other institutions who offer a similar or related program).

6. Anticipated start date and development/review & approval/implementation timetable

By requesting inclusion of a concept paper in the Education Plan, you are notifying the institution of your commitment to develop the proposed program, and to do so in a timely fashion in order to allow for budget and enrolment planning. The Program Development Office will work with the Dean and the Program Working Group to set a realistic date when the program will be launched. This will include a reasonable timetable for development of the full program proposal, internal and external review and approval, and implementation. The latter should take into account, for instance, inclusion in the Academic Calendar after approval, timetabling of courses needed for the program, advertising and marketing, and recruitment cycle for International students (October to May).

Significant delays in meeting key landmarks (for instance, entering the review and approval stage of the process) could lead to being asked to submit a revised timetable or withdraw the program from the planning process. Education Plan updates will include status reports on programs in development.



MEMO

To: Academic Planning & Priorities Committee

From: John English, Dean of Applied & Technical Studies

Date: 03/12/2014

Re: Proposal to create a School of Trades

The Applied & Technical Studies Faculty Council met on September 11, 2014 and approved the following motion:

MOTION R. Smith/T. Baumann THAT the Applied and Technical Studies faculty approve the proposal to create a School of Trades to be headed by an included Director, subject to the conditions outlined in the proposal. CARRIED

Following that, the proposal was circulated to Deans, PEM and Deans Council requesting input. All comments received have been in favour of the proposal. The proposal was reviewed by the UEC Screening Committee on November 21, 2014.


Proposal to create a School of Trades Background: The Faculty of Applied and Technical Studies (formerly Trades and Technology) has as one of its principal strategic goals to be more fully integrated with the greater university academic community. When UCFV became the University of the Fraser Valley, mandated as a regional teaching intensive institution, the Board and Senate committed to remaining comprehensive and accordingly supportive of retaining legacy programming. Such programming included trades and technology programs among others. While faculty and staff of faculties and programs that are more conventionally associated with universities were familiar and comfortable with a transition to university and its governance and organization forms, faculty and staff from trades and technology programs were and are less so. The academic and administrative governance for the Faculty of Trades and Technology remained of a form more usually found in industry and parts of the college system. As part of the transition to becoming more integrated, one key strategy has been to organize along the lines of conventional university with program heads and term appointments for included administrative positions. A key attribute of that form of organization is opportunities for faculty to assume academic leadership positions. A range of reasons underpin it from being more faculty driven to succession planning. The programming of the Faculty of Applied and Technical Studies is topically wide ranging. Most programs are small; there are many one person programs and the largest program area has only four full time faculty. Many—but not all--programs operate on a training day basis and do not follow a semester based annual schedule. The program head approach is practical only for a couple of programs. In those cases, some variation of the program head approach will be pursued. There is one community of interest that presents itself clearly: the skilled trades programs. It is defined as programs being taught by faculty who are Red Seal qualified, learners follow similar program paths, the pedagogy is similar, they are regulated and funded by the Industry Training Authority and generally operate very similarly. Graduates of these programs very often work and function together in their careers settings. There are several possibilities for common curriculum and even inter-trades instruction for this collection of programs. A more appropriate approach for this collection of programs is to organize as a School within the Faculty of Applied and Technical Studies. Rather than program heads, the School will be led by an included Director in much the same manner as the School of Social Work and Business found in the Faculty of Professional Studies. The Director’s position will be occupied on a rotational basis and provide an opportunity for faculty so inclined to assume leadership responsibilities. In addition to that rationale, the following has been taken from the proposal by the Faculty of Professional Studies to create a School of Business:

“Schools differ from Departments in a number of ways e.g. a Department usually encompasses one discipline while a School would have a number of disciplines that are interdependent.”


“The ‘School’ designation is also important in terms of external recognition.” “ The Business Department being designated a "School" is important to ensure credibility and legitimacy in comparison with similar programs at other BC institutions.” “The designation of "School" rather than Department is also more attractive to potential donors, who may be more willing to support the work of a "School" rather than that of a program or Department” “It is hoped that in the near future a donor might be willing to provide a substantial financial contribution so that the School of Business can be named.”

Proposal: Establish a School of Trades within the Faculty of Applied and Technical Studies intended to organize a series of small (often one person) programs into an academic unit. The School will contain:

• Electrical • Plumbing/Piping • Carpentry • Welding • Automotive • Heavy Mechanical • Auto Collision

Those programs that are outside of the School of Trades are:

• Agriculture (certificate and diploma programs) • Aircraft Structures • Culinary Arts* • Drafting • Industry Services/Continuing Education • Hospitality and Event Management (undergraduate and post-degree programs)

*this includes the cafeteria operations at TTC which function as a lab or practical setting for the Culinary Arts but also functions as a business.


Documents

AGENDA ACADEMIC PLANNING AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE · 2014-12-10 Academic Planning and Priorities Agenda 2014-12-10 APPC Agenda Package Page 1. MINUTES - Draft . ... Is the program