Format for Presentation of Proposals
to Senate Committee on Educational Policy

University of Illinois

A proposal should follow the outline below and should be restricted to two pages, if possible; additional supporting detail for consideration by the Committee should be attached as appendices.

A proposal should be forwarded to the Office of the Provost, which checks for adherence to the format below. It is then forwarded to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy which, after receiving satisfactory answers from its queries, forwards the proposal for Senate approval. The Office of the Provost advises sponsors of Senate action.

TITLE OF THE PROPOSAL:

(Please include the full title of the proposal, including the college(s) involved)

SPONSOR:

(Please include name and phone number of a faculty member knowledgeable about the proposal)

BRIEF DESCRIPTION:

(Where applicable, note whether stated program requirements include additional requirements in the form of prerequisite courses)

JUSTIFICATION:

BUDGETARY AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS: (See Appendix I)

• a. Additional staff and dollars needed
• b. Internal reallocations (e.g., change in class size, teaching loads, student-faculty ratio, etc.)
• c. Effect on course enrollment in other departments and explanations of discussions with representatives of those departments
• d. Impact on library, computer use, laboratory use, equipment, etc.

GUIDELINES FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: (See Appendix II)

CLEARANCES: (Clearances should include signatures [sponsor, department head, dean] and dates of approval)

STATEMENT FOR PROGRAMS OF STUDY CATALOG:

EFFECTIVE DATE:

In the past, many of the proposals for revised curricula and programs submitted to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy have carried the claim, “Budgetary and Staff Implications: None.” Yet some of these programs have called for increases in required courses or hours of faculty-supervised experience; some have projected that more students would enroll in the program when the proposed change was put into effect; some programs even increased the total number of hours or courses required for a degree. Presumably, the words “Budgetary and Staff Implications: None” meant that the unit proposing the change was not requesting new dollars or faculty lines to implement the change. However, it is difficult to see how there can be increases in the number of required courses or students served without entailing budgeting implications. If new dollars are not allocated to meet these increases, the increases may be covered by offering current classes less frequently, by increasing class size, or by increasing faculty workloads.

The Committee is concerned that in many cases the faculty of a unit may agree to accept increased class size or larger workloads because they perceive that changes requiring additional dollars will be difficult or impossible to achieve. While such a decision may indeed be defensible, a pattern of such decisions represents an erosion in faculty compensation and may, if class size is increased, lead to an erosion in educational quality. Less frequent scheduling of present courses may also have broad educational policy implications.

When courses outside the sponsoring unit are required, the units offering those courses may say routinely that yes, they can accommodate the additional students, when in fact the sections presently offered may already be full or even be overenrolled. If this is the case, the new or revised program obviously has budgetary implications for the campus even if the sponsoring department requests no additional funds.

Finally, new or revised programs may well require additional library acquisitions, allocations of computer time, access to laboratories, or other support services, all of which have budgetary implications.

Providing information about internal reallocations, the effect of the change on enrollments in other departments, and the impact in auxiliary units will help the Educational Policy Committee make better decisions and help the campus incorporate the budgetary implications of new and revised programs in a more timely and deliberative manner.

All proposals for a new undergraduate curriculum must include a statement explaining how, in the view of the proposers, the proposal meets the guidelines for undergraduate education as identified below. In addition, all proposals which involve change(s) to an existing undergraduate curriculum must include a statement explaining how, in the view of the proposers, the proposal for change(s) continues to meet the guidelines for undergraduate education as identified below.

In 1972, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs published for the information of faculty, staff, and students on the Urbana-Champaign campus the report of the then Long-Range Planning Committee under the title, “An Academic Plan for the Urbana-Champaign Campus.” The general goals and guidelines stated in the report probably still represent the best views of faculty and students alike. The plan offers the following guidelines for undergraduate education (page 4):

• “Every undergraduate should develop or have developed the basic ability to read and listen intelligently, write and speak coherently, observe and respond critically to a variety of forms of communication; think clearly, critically, and creatively; think quantitatively and qualitatively; and acquire an attitude which reflects curiosity, a desire to continue to learn, a respect for evidence, a tolerance of disagreement, and a positive acceptance of change.”

• “Every undergraduate student should acquire a deep understanding of our heterogeneous culture, acquire an acquaintance with most of our culture’s basic aspects, and examine in some depth a culture foreign to him (or her).”

• “Professional preparation, to the extent that it goes beyond these basic abilities and attitudes, should be provided for those professions that are of interest to a sizable number of students, and that require the theoretical base provided by an institution of advanced learning. A professional education should train a student to advance with, and, at best, lead the development of her (or his) field. Undergraduate professional training should not be directed simply toward a contemporary job category, but should be sufficiently generalized to encourage this future development.”