California State University, Long Beach                                    

Policy Statement

80-11

September 20, 1980




FILE: Duplication of Courses


SUBJECT: PROCEDURES TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF COURSES AND/OR PROGRAMS


The following Policy Statement, recommended by the Academic Senate at its meeting of May 22, 1980, and approved by the President on September 20, 1980, is as follows:


Introduction


All units of the University should work toward avoiding unnecessary duplicator of courses or programs by taking advantage of courses already offered in other academic areas whenever possible. There may be areas of legitimate duplication, or times when one academic area might offer a course that would usually be taught by another academic area; these might include, but not be limited solely to, the following:


1. Courses which, though similar, are sufficiently different in content and specialized focus to constitute different courses.


2. Service courses that cannot be offered by the academic area that would ordinarily offer such courses because of limitations of space or staffing. A decision about such courses requires consultation, as described below.


I. General Policy on Curricular Consultation


Academic areas that anticipate, or at any time become aware, that their curricular proposals have the potential for duplicating, in all or in part, existing curriculum in another academic area shall initiate consultation with the other area prior to advancing proposals to the next level in the curricular approval process. This provision includes any courses that would normally be offered within the other academic area, not only duplication of existing courses.


II. Informal Consultation Procedures


Academic areas whose curricular proposals would require service courses from another academic area or who, prior to the University circulation of curricular proposals, anticipate that a question of curricular duplication might arise, should initiate consultation with the affected academic area as early as possible.


A. Through its school dean, an academic area needing service or anticipating duplication should present its curricular proposal to the school dean of the academic area that would be affected. In the case of service needs, a statement of the projected impact on the service discipline should be included; i.e., anticipated number of majors in the proposed program, enrollment/major projections for the next five years, etc. In the case of potential duplication, a statement of explanation and/or justification should be included.


B. If an academic area can accommodate a requested service or has no objection to the curricular proposal of another area, a statement to that effect should be sent within five working days* from the academic area via its school dean, to the Office of Academic Planning. Notice of accommodation of service course requests should indicate the basis upon which the service can be provided.


* Working Days: Monday-Friday excluding academic holidays.


C. If an academic area cannot accommodate the request for service or if there is objection to the proposed change, a statement in writing indicating the reasons provision(s) of service or the proposal is not desired, should be sent within five working days via its school dean to the Office of Academic Planning. Formal consultation should be initiated at this time. (See III. Formal Consultation Procedures.)


III. Formal Consultation Procedures


Formal consultation engages the participation of other university agencies in matters of curricular disagreement to resolve conflict issues as promptly as possible and to establish record of both the process and its conclusion.


A. Instances requiring formal consultation.


1. Unresolved informal consultation. (See II.)

2. Response to the University Circulation of Curricular Proposals.

a. An academic area, via the dean of its school, may direct to the Office of Academic Planning within 15 calendar days* after the University circulation, a written request for clarification or justification of what it perceives to be a potential for duplication in the latter's curricular proposals.

b. The Office of Academic Planning will see that a response is directed to the requesting academic area, via its school dean, within 10 calendar days.

c. Within 10 calendar days after receipt of written clarification or justification, the requesting academic area will direct to the Office of Academic Planning, via its school dean, a statement that:


1) There is no objection to the curricular proposals. OR

2) There is an objection to the curricular proposals and the basis for the objection.


B. Procedures for Conflict Situations


1. The Office of Academic Planning may assist the dean of the schools, together with the academic areas involved, to arrive at a resolution of the conflict(s) which is mutually agreeable to the deans within 30 calendar days.


2. If a conflict is resolved within 30 calendar days, statement indicating the particulars of the resolution, signed by the school deans involved, shall be filed in the Office of Academic Planning. The statement should record whether or not the academic areas agree with the resolution.


3. If a resolution cannot be reached within 30 calendar days, the Office of Academic Planning shall refer the matter to the Curriculum and Educational Policies (CEP) Council for recommendation. (See IV.)


* Calendar days: Interpret literally. If the deadline falls on a non-working day, it is extended to the first working day following the deadline.


C. Once a year the Office of Academic Planning shall report in writing to the CEP Council all challenges, the subsequent resolution of the challenges, and the rationale for the decisions reached.


IV. Procedures for Curricular Conflicts Referred to CEP Council


When consultation has failed to realize satisfactory solution in curricular controversies within the deadlines identified above, the Office of Academic Planning shall refer the matter to the CEP Council for recommendation.


A. Within 15 calendar days of the notification of referral by the Office of Academic Planning, academic areas involved in the curricular controversy shall present written arguments and substantiating data to the CEP Council. The CEP Council may refer this to a sub-committee for consideration. The burden of proof will rest with the challenger. The CEP Council/subcommittee has the further option to solicit whatever additional data it deems necessary to make a recommendation.*


B. If it is referred to a sub-committee, the sub-committee has 15 working days to consider the material and to make a recommendation(s). The sub-committee recommendation(s) will be sent to all listed in V., Distribution.


C. In those cases where course conflicts arise from program conflicts, the CEP Council recommendations will include a statement, developed in consultation with the academic areas and schools involved, delineating the aspect of the program appropriate to each academic area.


D. The written arguments and substantiating data of the academic areas involved, along with any sub-committee recommendation(s), shall be a First Reading Item on the next agenda of the CEP Council for consideration. Oral arguments may be entertained as well. The recommendation(s) of the CEP Council shall be forwarded to the Academic Senate for approval. Decisions of the Academic Senate shall be recorded in the minutes and shall be forwarded to the Office of Academic Planning.** (See V., Distribution.)


V. Distribution


All correspondence related to the referral of controversies to CEP Council shall be copied to the following:


A. Office of Academic Planning.


B. Deans of involved schools.


C. Chairpersons of involved academic areas.


* (See IV A.) No Member of the faculty from the department or program involved in the appeal shall vote as a member of the CEP Council during such an appeal.
** (See IV D.) Section IV, Item D, it is noted, shall be interpreted to mean that the decisions of the Senate forwarded to the Office of Academic Planning shall be recommendations which shall be approved by the President or the Vice President for Academic Affairs as appropriate. Recommendations concerning the curricular jurisdiction of an academic department or program will be approved by the President, and recommendations concerning the approval of proposed courses will be approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. This procedure is consistent with current University policy.


Effective: Fall 1980