Cerro Coso Community College

Closeup of Fountain

CurricUNET Approval Process

Level 1.0 Course Submission

Status:
Person Responsible: Originator
Action to take: Click "Submit" button on the COR

The course proposer(s) create or revise a course outline by choosing "Create Course" or "Edit Course." At this early stage, proposer(s) are expected to consult with other department faculty in order to determine the need, viability, and content of the course to be created or revised. CIC requires that all courses have at least two co-contributors in the same or closely related department that act as witnesses and signatures to the viability of the proposal. If the course has any conditions of enrollment (prerequisite, co-requisite, or advisory), then a content review must be done. If the course is to be offered through distance education, the appropriate screens are to be completed.

When a screen is finished, it turns green in the navigation bar to the right. All dark grey screens must be completed (ghosted screens may be enabled depending on choices made in prior screens). When all screens are green, a "Submit" button appears in the navigation bar to the left. At that point, the course proposal is ready to be pre-launched.

Level 2.0 Department/Division Review

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: Faculty Chair, Dean
Action to take under My Approvals: make comments as appropriate and choose "Reviewed"

At this point, an opportunity for more thorough review is provided to the faculty chair and area dean (if appropriate). These reviews are of a "notice and comment" variety—meaning that the chair and dean have a period of time to provide feedback on the proposal, but that the feedback, even if negative, cannot stop a course proposal from going forward. It is CIC's belief that the purpose of all feedback is to guarantee a quality curriculum consistent with external and internal requirements. So it is assumed proposers will make an earnest attempt to resolve all substantive issues raised by reviewers. But as with all educational endeavors, there may be the occasional honest difference of opinion, in which case it is CIC's role to hear the differences and determine what is consistent with legal and regulatory requirements, Board Policy, and its own practice.

This stage is over when all concerned parties have "noticed" or seven days has expired, whichever comes first. Note: in instances when the course proposer and the faculty chair are the same person, he or she still has to go into Curricunet, and under the role of "Department Chair" clear this step.

Level 2.5 Originator Makes Changes

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: Originator
Action to take under My Approvals: make comments as appropriate and choose "Reviewed"

The originator resolves issues raised at the department/division review. Note: there is no time-out at this stage. In order to move the course forward, the originator must access the comments and take action.

As in the prior stage, when the course proposer and the faculty chair are the same, this step also needs to be carried out by that person. They can be done instantly back to back in a matter of a few seconds—by noticing in the role of Department Chair and then turning around and noticing in the role of Course Author—but they must be done or the course will be held up.

Level 3.0 Technical Review

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: Articulation Officer, CIC Chair, Curriculum Tech, SLO Coordinator

At this stage, the course goes through technical review to resolve any possible coding, consistency, completeness, articulation, and student learning outcome issues before it appears at CIC for a first review. This stage is over after the technical reviewers have noticed or the set period of time has expired. Again, issues identified at technical review cannot stop a course from going forward if the proposer thinks otherwise, but CIC will be sure to ask questions.

Level 3.1 Technical Review CIC Chair 1st Agenda

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: CIC Chair

The CIC chair summarizes the recommended changes made by the technical review committee. The course is either placed on the first agenda or changes are requested and the submission must begin again.

Level 3.5 Originator Makes Changes

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: Originator
Action to take under My Approvals: make comments as appropriate and choose "Reviewed"

The originator resolves issues raised at the technical review stage.

Level 4.0 CIC Member Review/Hold for Comments

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: CIC Committee Members/CIC Chair

The CIC member review allows members to provide feedback to the course proposer after the technical review committee but prior to the first review. The hold feature allows the chair to prevent courses from defaulting through the system. If the course is not moved through this step by the chair it will not move through the proceeding steps.

Level 4.1 CIC First Review

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: CIC Chair

CIC review takes place in two readings, both of which require the presence of the course proposer. Note: courses will be tabled at either the first or second reading if the course proposer fails to attend. At the first reading, the committee either requests changes or moves the proposal directly on to a second reading.

Level 4.3 Originator Makes Changes

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: Originator
Action to take under My Approvals: make comments as appropriate and choose "Reviewed"

The originator resolves issues raised at the CIC first review stage. In preparing for the second review at CIC please bear in mind that there is no longer a provisional approval at CIC pending changes. Either a course is ready to be approved as is at the second review or it has to come back again . . . which means at least a two week delay. So it is important that proposers work with everyone they can in order to get the course in ready-to-go-shape for the second review. This is especially important if time is of the essence.

Level 4.4 - CIC Member Review/Hold for Comments

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: CIC Committee Members/CIC Chair

The CIC member review allows members to provide feedback to the course proposer after the technical review committee but prior to the first review. The hold feature allows the chair to prevent courses from defaulting through the system. If the course is not moved through this step by the chair it will not move through the proceeding steps.

Level 4.5 CIC Second Review

Status: Pre-launched
Person Responsible: CIC Chair

Once all corrections have been made, the course is scheduled for a second reading. If at the second review corrections and revisions are still required, the proposal will continued to be sent back to the proposer to be resolved until such revisions are complete. This is one of only two steps in the process where a proposal can be stopped in its tracks and kept from going forward, because CIC has approval rights for recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Once corrections and revisions have been satisfactorily made, the course is approved and recommended for adoption by the Board. This stage culminates in an action of approval by the CIC Chair reflecting the decision of the committee. At that point, the proposal is said to be launched and no more changes can be made.

Levels 5-8 Final Administrative Review, Board of Trustees' Approval, Implementation

Status: Launched
Person Responsible: Vice President Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor Education Services, Board of Trustees, District MIS

After the course is approved at CIC and launched, it makes its way to a final round of "notice and comment" by the college Vice President of Academic Affairs and the district Vice Chancellor of Educational Services. It is then placed on a Board Action Report for Board approval. Once it has been approved, it is implemented, which means the pending proposal is rolled over to become the new active course, all necessary changes are made in Banner, and any required communication with the state chancellor's office is carried out. All of this is done by highly trained professionals and does not involve faculty participation.

Kern Community College District