Review Process Approval Process for New Graduate Degree Programs

Tools

KU Suggestion Box

Related Info

• Office of the Chancellor
• Diversity Matters
• Privacy Office
• KU Policy Library

1. Following review and receiving comments from deans in other Schools/College, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs will inform the College/School Dean that the proposal is approved, approved with modification(s), or rejected.
   Approximate Time Required:
   4-6 weeks
2. Upon approval of the proposal, the proposal contact person will access the appropriate Regents-required documents for GS and the Board of Regents review processes.
   The proposal contact person will work with GS staff to prepare the Regents-required documents.
   Documents/Forms:
   Regents-required documents for a new graduate degree program:

   • Program Narrative (50 KB)
   • Summary of Proposed Academic Program (23 KB)
   • Curriculum Outline (30 KB)
   • Fiscal Summary (20 KB)

   Approximate Time Required:
   1-2 months
3. Upon completion of the Regents-required documents, the College/School Dean will submit the proposal, which includes the Regents-required documents, with his/her endorsement, to the appropriate College/School Assembly(ies) for review and approval.

   At the same time, the College/School Dean also will send to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs a copy of the Summary of Proposed Academic Program.

   The Board of Regents requires that this form be submitted to the Board staff no less than 45 days prior to the submission of the full proposal to the Board. The Board staff, in turn, will notify all institutions about the proposed program in order for institutions with concerns, comments, or objections relating to the proposal to provide such concerns, comments, or objections in writing to the Board staff.

   The Vice Provost for Academic Affairs will direct OIRP to forward the Summary of Proposed Academic Program to the Board staff.
4. Upon approval by the College/School Assembly(ies), the College/School Dean will send the proposal to the Office of Graduate Studies. From there the proposal will be submitted to the appropriate GS committee for review and approval. A proposal representative will present the case for the proposal and answer related questions.
   Contact:
   Office of Graduate Studies
   Approximate Time Required:
   1 month
5. Upon approval by the committee, the Office of Graduate Studies will submit the proposal to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs for final review and approval.
   Contact:
   Barbara Romzek, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
6. Upon completion of the final review and approval, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs will forward the documents to the Assistant to the Provost, directing that they be sent to the Board office.
   Contact:
   Jenny Mehmedovic, Assistant to the Provost
7. The Provost Office will submit the completed proposal to the Board office via online system and email.
   Contact:
   Jenny Mehmedovic, Assistant to the Provost
   Approximate Time Required:
   Up to 2 weeks
8. The Board Academic Affairs staff will review the proposal and possibly suggest revisions/modifications. If all Regents-required documents have been submitted and are in order, the program proposal is placed on the Council of Chief Academic Officers (COCAO) agenda.
   Contact:
   Barbara Romzek, Interim Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
   Approximate Time Required:
   Up to 1 month

   NOTE: New Doctoral Degree Programs and certain New First Professional Degree Programs will be reviewed by consultants selected by the President / CEO of the Board of Regents: This review will occur during the 30 day period between the first and second COCAO readings. (See details attached)

9. First reading - review and consideration by COCAO at its monthly meeting. A KU representative should be available at that meeting for questions.
   Contact:
   Danny Anderson will serve as liaison between the board office and department representative for all Lawrence Campus proposals
   Approximate Time Required:
   1 month
10. Second reading by COCAO and recommendation from COCAO to the Council of Presidents (COPS)
    Approximate Time Required:
    1 month
11. Review and consideration by COPS at its next monthly meeting. Recommendation from COPS to the Board of Regents
    Approximate Time Required:
    1 month
12. Approval/Disapproval by the Board of Regents at next monthly meeting.

    The Provost Office will send notice of Regents approval/disapproval to the College/School Dean(s), the program contact(s), the Graduate School, the University Registrar, and University Relations.

    If the proposal is approved, the Assistant to the Provost will draft an email notice, attach the necessary program documents for the University Registrar and University Relations, and forward the notice on behalf of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

    If the proposal is disapproved, the Assistant to the Provost will draft an email notice and forward the notice notice on behalf of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

    (Note: Official program approval is communicated via the Board of Regents minutes. The Assistant to the Provost will forward to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the College/School Dean(s) the official approval when the Board minutes are available.)
    Approximate Time Required:
    Up to 1 week
13. New program begins
    Approximate Time Required:
    10-18 months to complete the entire process

New Doctoral Degree Program - Consultant Review
When any institution proposes a new doctoral program the Board of Regents shall employ three external consultants selected by the President and CEO to review the requesting institution's ability to deliver the proposed program and to review all similar programs in the system, if there are any. The criteria referenced in Appendix G, “Policies and Procedures for the Approval of New Academic Programs” shall be followed by the consultants in determining the quality of the proposed program. The Council of Chief Academic Officers, the Council of Presidents and the Board shall review the consultants’ report before a final decision regarding the proposed doctoral program is rendered. All expenses of the special review shall be borne by the proposing institution. Cost of subsequent reviews related to deficiencies shall be borne by institutions found to have deficient areas. (12-19-86; 6-23-88; 5-18-89; 11-16-89; 3-21-91; 5-20-93; 9-16-93; 11-20-03)

New First Professional Degree Program – Consultant Review
When any institution proposes a new first professional degree program, the Board of Regents shall employ three external consultants selected by the President and CEO to review the requesting institution’s ability to deliver the proposed program and to ensure that the proposed program is not unnecessarily duplicative of existing first professional degree programs in the state. The criteria referenced in Appendix G, “Policies and Procedures for the Approval of New Academic Programs,” shall be followed by the consultants in determining the quality of the proposed program. Before a final decision regarding the proposed first professional degree program is rendered, the Council of Chief Academic Officers, the Council of Presidents and the Board shall review the consultants’ report. All expenses of the special review shall be borne by the proposing institution. Cost of subsequent reviews related to deficiencies shall be borne by institutions found to have deficient areas. Institutions do not need to undergo consultant review to establish a first professional degree program in an area of study with a previously Board approved doctor’s degree program. (11-20-03)

Source: KBOR Policy Manual