Ohio Administrative Code|Rule 3359-20-05.2 | Curricular changes.

                                                

(A) University-wide approval required:
The following curriculum changes require university-wide approval:

(1) Addition of
courses.

(2) Deletion of
courses.

(3) Changes in bulletin
descriptions.

(4) Addition of degrees,
majors, minors, tracks, certificates and programs.

(5) Changes in degrees,
majors, minors, tracks, certificates and programs.

(6) Deletions of degrees,
majors, minors, tracks, certificates and programs.

(7) Proposals to change
any university-wide curriculum requirements.

(8) Changes of general
education requirements.

(B) Proposing a curriculum
change.

(1) Each college shall
have its own procedures for proposing curricular changes consistent with the
requirements of this rule. These procedures shall be described on the college
website or in a document that is available from the dean's
office.

(2) Curriculum change
proposals shall originate within the academic unit that is to offer the
course(s). Curriculum change proposals may be initiated only by full-time
faculty as defined by the academic unit.

(a) For purposes of this rule, "academic unit" means
any group having a separate identity that participates in the offering of
curricula. It includes academic departments, schools that do not have
departments, colleges that do not have departments or schools, and institutes
and centers that offer courses of academic study.

(b) When an interdisciplinary curriculum change is proposed that
involves more than one academic unit, one unit shall be designated as the
originating unit, but each unit involved must approve the proposal before it is
reviewed by the college(s).

(3) Proposals may be
submitted to the automated curriculum review system at any time.

(C) College review: After a curriculum
change proposal has been approved by the academic unit(s), the appropriate
college review committee(s) shall review and approve or disapprove the
proposal. The college review committee may request clarification of or changes
to the proposal before it approves or disapproves it. All such requests and
subsequent changes shall be recorded in the automated curriculum review system.
A majority of the members of the college review committee shall be full-time
faculty members of the college who do not also hold administrative
appointments.

(D) Institutional review: A curriculum
change proposal that has been approved by the college(s) shall be released by
the authorized personnel of the college(s) for institutional review.
Institutional review bodies with a role in recommending proposals for approval
include graduate school, general education advisory committee (GEAC), and
curriculum review committee (CRC). Institutional review bodies without a role
in recommending proposals for approval but which need to be notified and may
wish to make comments, include university libraries, registrar, and
institutional research.

(1) If an institutional review body
recommends changes to a proposal, the originator of the proposal may make such
changes, subject to approval by the academic unit and college if required by
college procedures. Any such changes shall be recorded in the automated
curriculum review system.

(2) Any institutional
review body may make comments on proposals, and these comments shall be
recorded in the automated curriculum review system.

(3) Institutional review
bodies with a role in recommending proposals for approval shall do so in the
automated curriculum review system.

(4) GEAC shall be a subcommittee of CRC,
and shall be responsible for reviewing curriculum change proposals that affect
general education requirements.

(E) University-wide review.

(1) Two weeks after the
curriculum change proposal was released for institutional review, it shall be
reviewed by CRC.

(2) CRC shall be
responsible for reviewing curriculum change proposals from a comprehensive,
university-wide perspective. This review shall consider, among other things,
the appropriateness of the academic unit offering the course(s) or program(s)
and the effect the proposal may have on academic units in the
colleges.

(3) The CRC shall
consider any recommendations for changes or comments that may have been made by
institutional review bodies.

(4) If there are any
unresolved recommendations or comments from institutional review bodies, CRC
shall attempt to resolve these issues.

(5) The CRC shall
recommend to the faculty senate either that it approve or that it disapprove
the proposed curriculum change. Each such recommendation shall be reported to
the faculty senate at its next regular meeting.

(F) Faculty senate review: The faculty
senate shall either approve or disapprove each curriculum change proposal
reported by the CRC. Proposals that are approved by the faculty senate shall be
forwarded to the office of academic affairs.

(G) Provost review: The senior vice
president and provost or his or her designee shall, within two weeks, approve
or disapprove any curriculum change proposals forwarded to it by the faculty
senate and shall inform the originator of the proposal and the faculty senate
of his or her decision. If a proposal is disapproved, a statement of the
reason(s) for the disapproval shall be included.

(H) Deadlines: The deadline periods
specified above shall include only days that fall within the fall or spring
semester, excluding university holidays and recesses.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 2 pages

CV-2020-08-2184 CROCE, CHRISTINE 08/05/2020 09:35:00 AM EXTO Page 1 of2 PesiTy ga | NS See Ye ros 7870, Via Hand Delivery or Email and Certified Mail July 17, 2020 David Tokar 454 S Ridgecliff St Tallmadge, OH 44278 Dear David: As you are aware from previou…

County

Summit County, OH

Filed Date

Aug 05, 2020

Category

INJUNCTION

Judge Hon. ALISON BREAUX Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for ALISON BREAUX
preview-icon 29 pages

COPY wt raistros & Loepp, Limited Stratford Place Suite 1400 301 Darrow Road Stow, OH 44224 (330) 688-1806 cet fy selj 2005 JAH TG AM 8: 34 ° IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO . | 2.005-0i- HELEN EAKINS ) CASE NO. 0 i 028 8 3483 PORTER RD. ) ROOTSTOWN, OH 44272 3 JUDGE Plaintiff ) J ASSIGNED TO JUDGE BOND vs ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL ASSURANCE ) COMPLAINT: BREACH OF COMPANY OF BOSTON ) CONTRACT; BAD FAITH P.O. BOX 242484 ) ERISA VIOLATIONS CHARLOTTE, NC 28224 ) ) Defendant ) HIRI…

County

Summit County, OH

Filed Date

Jan 14, 2005

Category

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Judge

JANE BOND

preview-icon 19 pages

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO PAULA MAGGIO CASE NO. CV-2012-0 6- 3528 Claimant / Appeilant JUDGE TOM PARKER v. DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al Interested Parties REPLY BRIEF OF CLAIMANT-APPELLANT NANCY GRIM (0014376) Nancy Grim, LLC 136 N. Water St., Ste. 202 Kent, OH 44240-2450 330-678-6595 / Fax 330-678-6517 nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net Attorney for Appellant Susan M. Sheffield Associate Assistant Attorney General 20 West Federal Street, 3 Fl…

County

Summit County, OH

Filed Date

Nov 27, 2012

Category

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

Judge Hon. JOY M OLDFIELD Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for JOY M OLDFIELD
preview-icon 16 pages

0302 - w72 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO Vince Hines, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 10 CV 004263 ve JUDGE KIMBERLY COCROFT Wassel Bodour, et al., Defendants. da G vi ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT, WASSEL ALBODOUR, TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Now comes Defendant, Wassel AlBodour (incorrectly named Wassel Bodour in Plaintiff's complaint), by and i through counsel, and respectfully moves this Court t to dismiss Wassel AiBodour_ from th…

Case Name 10 CV 004263
Case Filed

Mar 17, 2010

Case Status

CLOSED

County

Franklin County, OH

Filed Date

Aug 19, 2010

Judge Hon. KIMBERLY COCROFT Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for KIMBERLY COCROFT
preview-icon 70 pages

COPY geen “hoe MAD py, PH 3 | IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO CYDNEY SPOHN, | CASENO. 2005-CV-10-5937 ' Plaintiff, | JUDGE HUNTER vs. ' THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON, | DEFENDANT THE UNIVERSITY OF ' “AKRON’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant. 1 Plaintiff Cydney Spohn was hired as an Instructor by Defendant The University of Akron in August of 1998. (Complaint, 13). The crux of her complaint to this Court appears to be her ~ allegation that she was promised by her Supervisor t…

Case Filed

Oct 07, 2005

County

Summit County, OH

Filed Date

Nov 02, 2005

Category

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Judge

JUDY HUNTER

View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope