Planning and preparing for curriculum submissions

Good planning and preparation ensure that curriculum proposals are clear, complete, well-supported, and aligned with academic and institutional requirements, increasing the likelihood of a smooth and timely approval process. Depending on the value-add and impacts, in some cases, it might even be best to abandon the idea.

The governance approval process may feel long, but the earliest effective date possible is due to many operational factors beyond the approval process.

Submitting a curriculum change is not just “filling out the form”. It means translating a local idea into a university-ready proposal that others can evaluate, approve, and implement.

Avoid unnecessary delays by:

• Understanding impacts on other areas (see below).
• Ensuring complete submissions.
• Ensuring reviewers (at all levels of governance) have clarity (what is changing and why) and confidence (implications have been thought through).

Some common process problems:

• A significant change is treated as "small” and comes in underprepared.
• A proposal focuses on its own academic unit but not the possible impacts on students, requisites and requirements, or other faculties.
• Not updating Kuali prior to academic unit approval may cause a disconnect between what is approved and how it is presented to students in the academic calendar.

Back to top

Question: When was the last time the course or academic plan was modified? 

Considerations:

• Back-to-back yearly changes to academic plans can be problematic as they add advising complexity regarding different requirements for different student cohorts, and may lead to an increase use of exceptions/substitutions.
• Is there new data available to justify an additional change?
• Constant tweaking of requirements may cause course scheduling issues for the academic unit (tracking which cohort needs which course and when to make changes to courses).
• Increases the administrative burden across campus, including updating the academic calendar, integrating changes into business processes and advising processes.

Back to top

Questions:

• How do the changes to courses align with the associated program's learning outcomes (PLOs)?
• How do the changes to academic plans align with institutional learning outcomes (ILOs)?

Considerations:

• Do the curriculum changes strengthen, weaken, or shift outcome coverage?
  • Map changes to existing PLOs and ILOs
    • Ensure every outcome is still intentionally taught and assessed.
    • Check for:
      • gaps (outcomes no longer addressed)
      • redundancies (overlapping coverage)
      • misalignment (courses teaching content but not targeting outcomes)
  • Avoid outcome drift
    • Frequent changes can unintentionally alter what graduates are expected to know or do.
• Are learning outcomes still developed progressively across the program?
  • Ensure proper scaffolding:
    • Introductory > Reinforcement > Mastery stages remain intact.
  • Removing or moving courses may:
    • Break sequencing of skill development.
    • Cause students to encounter advanced outcomes too early (or too late).
• Can we still measure student achievement of outcomes effectively?
  • Review:
    • Where and how PLOs/ILOs are assessed.
    • Whether key assessment points (capstones, major projects) are preserved.
  • Risks:
    • Loss of signature assignments tied to outcomes.
    • Weakening of evidence for accreditation or quality assurance.
• Do changes maintain compliance with external standards?
  • Many programs must demonstrate:
    • Alignment with accreditation bodies.
    • Evidence of outcome achievement.
  • Changes may:
    • Require re-mapping outcomes.
    • Trigger re-approval processes.
    • Risk non-compliance if outcomes are no longer adequately covered.

Back to top