Second Baccalaureate Degree

(Senate: 12/2/69, 4/23/74, 8/11/87, 10/27/98; President: 12/31/69, 4/24/74, 7/25/88, 2/1/99; Editorial Amendment: 8/01)
 
Students seeking a second baccalaureate degree from Cal State L.A. may qualify for graduation with the approval and recommendation of the faculty upon completion of the following:
 
1. Residence and scholarship requirements then in effect;
 
2. A major program as specified by the major department/division/school;
 
3. Completion of a minimum of 45 quarter units in residence beyond the requirements of the first degree.  The 45 units in residence must include at least 36 units in upper division courses.  At least 18 units in the second academic major and 12 units in General Education if applicable.
 
4. General Education requirements as appropriate:
a.  A student completing a baccalaureate program at Cal State L.A. who remains in continuous attendance will not be required to complete additional requirements for the second baccalaureate degree.
b.  A student who has completed a baccalaureate program at Cal State L.A., who returns to complete 12 units of upper division GE units if this requirement was not satisfied with the first degree.  A student must complete two GE courses designated as "diversity" courses, that can be counted as part of the 12 units of upper division GE.
c.  A student who completes a baccalaureate degree from another accredited institution will be required to complete the following requirements if they were not completed as part of the first degree:
     i.  Breadth  requirements for Executive Order 595, i.e., 16 units in each of three areas (including 4 upper division units in each) of:   natural sciences and math, humanities, and social sciences.  Course by course articulation or comparability will not be required.  Sub-blocks (B1, B2, B3) will not be considered, i.e., the GE block, as a whole will be evaluated.  
   ii.  Statutory requirements, i.e., U.S. history and California state and local government.
  iii.  Diversity requirement, i.e., completing two GE courses designated as "diversity" courses.

Minors

(Senate: 2/19/80; President: 3/4/80; Editorial Amendment:  8/01)
 
Although not required for a baccalaureate, minors are available in many fields that will help strengthen the student's preparation in areas related to their major field or to career choices. A minor may not be taken in the same subject as the major. A minor consists of a formal aggregate of courses totaling 18 or more units. At least 12 units must be upper division and taken in residence at Cal State L.A. A minimum C (2.0) average is required on all courses taken to complete the minor program.  The minor field will be noted on the student's transcript if the individual program has been approved by the offering department/division/school and is completed at the same time as the work for the degree itself. Interested students should consult an adviser in the department/division/school offering the minor of their choice.

Modes of Delivery

 (Senate:  1/23/07; President:  2/22/07)

 I.    Purpose         

This policy addresses issues related to the use of computers to mediate and enhance instruction at California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA).  It reflects the University’s commitment to informing students of the time and technological requirements necessary for courses that use significant computer-mediated and/or computer-enhanced instruction.  This policy will ensure that appropriate pedagogy be considered in the curricular review process.

 

In recognition of the rapid pace of technological development the Academic Senate shall review this policy regularly at three year intervals as long as such review is needed. 

II.   Definition of Terms                   

a.   A course refers to an approved unit of curriculum that appears in the Catalog.  A class or course offering is an instance of a course that appears in the Schedule of Classes.

b.   The mode of instruction of a course refers to the teaching format used.  The six instructional modes are lecture, seminar, laboratory, activity, recitation, and supervision.

c.  Face-to-face instruction refers to instruction that occurs when the instructor and students are in the same location.

d.   Computer-mediated instruction refers to instruction that occurs when the instructor and students are not in the same location and is delivered utilizing computer-based technology (e.g., World Wide Web, Internet, video-based instruction, interactive CD-ROM).  Computer-based instruction may be synchronous or asynchronous.

e.   The mode of delivery refers to the amount of face-to-face versus computer-mediated instruction.  The three modes of delivery are direct contact, distance education, and hybrid. 

1.   A direct contact class is a course offering in which face-to-face instruction is utilized for at least 80% of the scheduled class meeting times.

2.   A distance education class is a course offering in which computer-mediated instruction is utilized in lieu of 100% of the scheduled class meeting times.  A distance education class may require off-site meetings.  These meetings may be used for activities such as orientation, special in-class presentations, exams, or other proofs of competency.

3.   A hybrid class is a course offering that depends on both face-to-face and computer-mediated instruction as significant components of the class.  A course offering is considered a hybrid class if computer-mediated instruction is utilized in lieu of more than 20%, but less than 100%, of the scheduled class meeting times.  

III. Curriculum Development and Approval                   

a.  The mode of delivery has a significant impact on the learning experience in the class.  Thus, the mode or modes of delivery for a new or modified course shall become part of each new curriculum proposal.  The mode of delivery shall be approved through the curricular approval process.

b.   A course may be approved for more than one mode of delivery.  If a course is offered in multiple sections, then different sections may have different modes of delivery.

c.   For both new and modified courses proposing distance education and/or hybrid modes of delivery, the course proposal must include a justification of the appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery.

d.   For both new and modified courses proposing distance education and/or hybrid modes of delivery, the course proposal must include a description of how the student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction appropriate for the mode of instruction will be accomplished.

e.   For both new and modified courses, the course proposal must include the need for specialized technical skills, computer hardware, and/or computer software for each mode of delivery. 

IV. Operational Procedures                   

a.  The University shall publish the following information in the Schedule of Classes:

1.   The mode of delivery of each course offering that is distance education or hybrid.

2.   The need for specialized technical skills, computer hardware, and/or computer software for all modes of delivery, if applicable.

3.   Regularly scheduled on-line times for distance education classes, if applicable.

4.   The days, times, and locations of off-site meetings for distance education classes, if applicable.

b.   For distance education and hybrid classes, the instructor will be available during regularly scheduled times for synchronous interaction with students.

c.   Instructors may choose any mode of delivery that has been approved for a course provided the mode to be used is identified in the Schedule of Classes.

Deletion of Infrequently Offered Courses from the Curriculum

(Senate: 10/3/79; President: 10/25/79; Editorial Amendment: 8/01, 8/11)

In order to avoid advertising the availability of courses that are not actually being offered, it is imperative that departments/divisions/schools and colleges act promptly to remove unused courses from the Catalog.  As a general principle, courses not offered successfully for a period of two years should be dropped from the curriculum.  In practice, departments/divisions/schools may choose to request of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee, through their college dean, that a particular course be retained for an additional year to demonstrate its viability.  Courses not offered successfully for a period of three years that normally would be offered annually will be dropped.  Courses not offered successfully for a period of four years that are normally offered every other year will be dropped.  The authority to initiate the dropping of courses resides with the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee, who will notify colleges and departments/divisions/schools of the proposed action in sufficient time for adjustments to be made.

The Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs produces quarterly a report showing total enrollments in all University courses over the previous three years.  This report flags courses not offered during the previous two years ("two-year rule warning") and three years ("three-year rule warning"), as well as new courses and those offered recently at enrollment levels requiring special justification.  Courses thus flagged should be acted upon appropriately and promptly by departments/divisions/schools concerned.

Recognition of Students at the University Honors Convocation

(Senate: 3/2/93,10/14/08; President: 5/14/93, 1/20/09; Editorial Amendment: 9/00, 8/01)

Students Named to the Dean's List. Undergraduates who earn a grade point average of 3.4 or higher in 12 or more units of graded course work in one quarter and who rank in the upper five percent of students in academic achievement in their college are named to the Dean's List.  Students who receive NC for any coursework in the quarter under consideration are not eligible to be named to the Dean's List for that quarter.
 
Scholarship and Award Recipients. Scholarship awards are generally based on high academic achievements. University committees select the recipients.
 
Freshman Honors at Entrance. Students who received Honors at Entrance are first time freshmen who entered Cal State L.A. with a minimum 3.5 grade point average on their high school record.
 
General Education Honors Program. Freshmen who are invited to become members of the General Education Honors Program have strong academic records and have demonstrated a special motivation for learning.
 
Honor Society Initiates. Chapters of more than twenty national and international honor societies have been chartered at the University to accord recognition to students who demonstrated superior scholarship and leadership in specific academic areas.
 
Alumni Certificate of Honor. The primary purpose of this award is to recognize students for academic excellence. Students who receive the Certificate of Honor are selected by their respective academic departments/divisions/schools for outstanding and distinguished achievement within their major area of study. Each department/division /school is limited to two undergraduate and two graduate awards.
 
Graduate Students. Graduate students who have a 3.80 or better GPA on their graduate programs and who have completed 80% or more of their graduate programs may be recognized at the University Honors Convocation upon the recommendation of their departments/divisions/schools. Colleges and/or departments/divisions/schools may at their discretion, recognize other students in their ceremonies.

Graduation with Honors in General Education

(Senate: 10/25/83; President: 11/8/83)

For members of the General Education Honors Program who entered the program during the fall, winter or spring quarter of the 1982-83 academic year, the number of honors courses required for graduation with Honors in General Education is reduced. Students would be required to take four classes instead of six and students who were freshmen when they entered during that period of time would be required to take five honors courses in order to graduate with Honors in General Education. All students entering the honors program during or later than fall quarter, 1983, will be responsible for completing the original requirement of six courses in order to graduate with Honors in General Education.

Honors at Graduation

(Senate:  7/15/75; 10/25/83, 8/9/88, 11/28/95, 2/11/97; President:  7/21/75, 11/8/83, 9/21/88, 4/30/96, 4/22/97; Editorial Amendment:  9/99, 9/00)

California State University, Los Angeles uses three designations of honors at graduation: cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude. To be eligible for honors a graduate must have completed a minimum of 60 units in residence at Cal State L.A. and have attained the appropriate standing (in terms of cumulative grade point average earned at Cal State L.A. as described below. Ten percent of the graduates in each college will receive honors:  the top 1% will receive summa cum laude, the next 4% will receive magna cum laude, and the next 5% will receive cum laude.  These percentages will be calculated only once for each academic year. The academic year is defined as summer, fall, winter, and spring quarters. At the beginning of each summer quarter, grade point average requirements for graduation with honors will be set by the Registrar's office.  These averages will be determined for each college by applying existing policy to students who have graduated during the past three years.*  During the following four quarters (summer, fall, winter, spring) all students attaining these minimum grade point averages will be awarded the corresponding honors at graduation independent of how many students received such honors.  Special majors will be included in the competition pool for honors at graduation computation in the college in which they have earned the most units toward their special major.  Rehabilitation services majors in the Charter College of Education will be included in the College of Health and Human Services for competition for honors at graduation.

____________

*Detailed method:  The Registrar will look at grade point averages for every student who graduated in a particular college during the past three years.  The percentage cutoffs in the current policy (i.e., 1% for summa cum laude, 4% for magna cum laude and 5% for cum laude) will be applied to this combined group to determine grade point average cutoffs for each school.

Honors for Candidates for Second Baccalaureate Degrees

(Senate: 11/25/75; President: 12/8/75)

Students who have earned a baccalaureate degree and are candidates for another baccalaureate degree (as distinct from an advanced degree or a teaching credential or other type of certificate) shall be eligible for the Dean's List or other quarterly academic honors according to the same criteria as candidates for first degrees. Candidates for second baccalaureate degrees shall be eligible for graduation with honors according to the same criteria as candidates for first degrees, with residence counted to include all residence at this institution that is applicable toward any baccalaureate degree (including the first). This excludes residence or grade points earned in graduate courses or professional education courses.

Review of Degree Programs

(Senate: 7/3/73, 2/7/79, 8/19/81, 4/26/83, 1/19/93, 7/29/97, 11/23/99; President: 7/5/73, 2/27/79, 10/6/81, 5/5/83, 2/16/93, 12/4/97, 12/28/99; Editorial Amendment: 9/00, 8/01; 9/03)

Trustee Policy. Program Review on this campus has its origins in Chancellor's Office memorandum AP 71-32, "Performance Review of Existing Degree Major Programs," which requested that each campus "establish a formal performance review procedure for all existing degree programs on campus in order to assess periodically both the quantitative and qualitative viability of each undergraduate and graduate program in the total context of offerings." AP 71-32 was endorsed by the Educational Policies Committee of the Board of Trustees, and later by the Board of Trustees on July 14, 1971. Although initiated in the context of limited resources and impelled by externally defined quantitative criteria, the review process has matured into an intensive, quality oriented program of benefit to departments/divisions/schools, colleges, and the University alike.

Purpose of Program Review. The purpose of  program review is to enable the University, its colleges and its departments/divisions/schools to effectively achieve their stated objectives, and to examine on a continuing basis the worthiness of these programs; in short, the purpose is to maintain and strengthen the quality of the University's curriculum. The priorities in program review center around the desire to provide a quality university-level program balanced with respect to the needs of society in general, needs of the urban community, professional preparation requirements, and student interest. Program review leads to informed recommendations related to program, faculty, and student needs; curricular planning, resource allocation, and management; and such matters as recognition of unique situations, the need for additional study or planning, augmentation, maintenance, consolidation or discontinuation of programs, and responses to the problem of diminution of available resources, while attempting to maintain and enhance program quality.

Inherent in program review are two assumptions:
1. Program review is a judgmental process which uses both qualitative and quantitative data; it is comprehensive and intensive.
2. Quality cannot be easily defined or simplistically evaluated. It emerges from honest professional discourse about the evaluation criteria that should be applied, changes in knowledge, the relationship of programs to each other, and the educational needs of students and the society at large.
 
Review Cycles.  In accordance with the Trustees' resolution, each academic program must be reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively at least once every five years. The Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated subunit of that office will determine the specific review cycles for each department/division/school and interdisciplinary program by consultation with the administration of the colleges. In the selection of programs to be reviewed each year, related disciplines will be grouped to the extent possible and in such a manner that approximately one-fifth of the programs are reviewed each year over the review period. Care will be taken to schedule review of graduate programs at the same time as the review of the undergraduate program(s) within the same discipline, and to coordinate with accreditation cycles for the discipline. In the case of new programs, it should be expected that a developmental period of up to five years will be required to establish a valid measure of their productivity. The President, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the Educational Policy Committee may request additional reviews of programs in any given academic year for purposes of planning or to satisfy a request from the Chancellor's Office or the Board of Trustees. Reviews other than the university reviews may of course be conducted by colleges or departments/divisions/schools at times other than those scheduled by the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and they may request a university review on their own initiative. The schedule for program review and all subsequent modifications will be published by the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and distributed to the faculty.
 
Periodic Review.  Departments/divisions/schools or interdisciplinary groups scheduled for university review prepare a complete program review document for the program under consideration, as a result of department/division/school wide consultation, and according to the format prescribed by the Program Review Subcommittee. However, a department/division/school that has programs which have undergone within the past three years specialized accreditation which included external reviewers will prepare a matrix comparing the standards and criteria of accreditation and those of program review, and, if necessary, a modified report consisting of those sections which are not addressed in the accreditation documents. The full program review reports will be submitted for department/division/school programs which were not addressed in the accreditation process. Copies of all accreditation documents shall be provided to the subcommittee.
 
Periodic Review of Accredited Programs.  Because the goal and intent of program review and accreditation are distinct, programs that have undergone accreditation review must also undergo program review, albeit modified, so as to utilize the work done for accreditation.  Therefore, one year prior to the scheduled program review the program will develop a matrix comparing the program review standards and criteria with the standards and criteria required for accreditation, and submit it to the college dean.  The matrix along with the accreditation documents will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee in order to determine the extent to which accreditation documents meet the program review criteria.  This ad hoc committee will be composed of the executive secretary of the Program Review Subcommittee, the chair of the Program Review Subcommittee, the college dean, and the chair of the program.  At the conclusion of the review of documents, the ad hoc committee will report to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs the extent to which the program's accreditation documents meet the requirements for program review self-study, and identify any areas that should be addressed in a modified program review self-study.
The Program Review Subcommittee is selected according to established campus procedures.*
 
Following review by the Program Review Subcommittee, its report will be transmitted to the department/division/school and college for their responses. The report of the Program Review Subcommittee shall be prepared by the voting members of the subcommittee. The Program Review Subcommittee report and response will be submitted to the Educational Policy Committee. The Program Review Subcommittee report and response will be filed in both college and university academic planning and resources offices, where they can be used for planning purposes (which might include processes such as long-range program planning, program modification, and reallocation of resources), data extraction for systemwide analyses, and other positive aspects of program development. Implementation of recommended changes shall be handled through appropriate academic channels.
 
External Review. All programs to be reviewed by the Program Review Subcommittee are subject to an independent evaluation by external reviewers. Unless otherwise determined by the Program Review Subcommittee, departments/divisions/schools in which an external review or national accreditation has been conducted within the previous three years will be exempt from this requirement. The external reviewers will be individuals of significant professional reputation in the field, who will report their findings to the Program Review Subcommittee and to the appropriate department/division/school or college. The evaluation report will become part of the permanent Program Review file. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee will be responsible for the overall coordination of the external review.

Nominations for evaluators of each program will be solicited from the chair of the department/division or director of the school, the dean of the college, and from other institutions, higher education associations and professional organizations. Nominees should have no prior or present academic appointment at Cal State, Los Angeles. These nominees will be reviewed by the departmental/divisional/school faculty, who may reject any of the nominees for cause. The external review evaluators will be selected from the remaining nominees by the Program Review Subcommittee. When possible one evaluator should be from the CSU system and one from outside the CSU system. The evaluators will spend at least two days on campus meeting with students, staff, department/division/school faculty, and administrators, and then prepare a written evaluation. Sufficient funds to cover the expense of the external reviews will be included in the budget of the University.
 
Additional Reviews. Student academic support programs (University Writing Center, Tutorial Center, Academic Advisement Center, Testing Center, GE Honors Program, PALS Program and the Library) must be reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively on a periodic basis.  The determination of review cycles and review criteria will be approved by the Office of  the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated sub-unit of that office after consultation with the Educational Policy Committee.  Ad hoc review committees will be convened for the purposes of reviewing each of these programs which shall include a member of the corresponding Senate committee when such a committee exists, i.e.,  Academic Advisement Center - Academic Advisement Subcommittee.  In the case of new programs, it should be expected that a developmental period of up to five years will be required to establish a valid measure of their achievement.  The President, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the Educational Policy Committee may request additional reviews of  the aforementioned programs in any given academic year for purposes of planning or to satisfy a request from the Chancellor's Office or the Board of  Trustees.
___________
*See "The Program Review Subcommittee," Chapter II.
 

Policies and Procedures for Temporary Suspension of Academic Programs

(Senate:  4/27/2010; President:  5/25/2010)

Program suspension is a formal process to temporarily halt new student admission in an academic program.  Program suspension is not applicable when the goal is program discontinuance.  Temporary suspension of an academic program is intended to allow time for program faculty to review curricular structure, resources, enrollment issues, accreditation demands, etc., in order to reinstate the program by enrolling new students once again within three years.  It must be clear in the request for suspension that significant problems exist that prevent effective implementation of a program and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these problems can be rectified within the proposed period of suspension.

Academic programs covered in this policy include:  a) undergraduate and graduate degrees; b) concentrations and options; c) minors; d) credit certificate programs; and e) credential programs.

Program faculty refers to the tenured and tenure-track faculty in the department/division/school in which the program is housed.

 I.    Procedures for Requesting Program Suspension

 A.  Consultation

1.   Initial consultation between the dean and the program faculty entails meaningful interaction in which all parties may freely exchange information and counsel.

2.   Prior to a formal request for program suspension, a meeting between program faculty and the dean of the college in which the program is housed must occur and minutes shall be taken.  This consultation may be initiated by program faculty or the college dean. 

3.   Upon completion of the consultation process, if the program faculty and dean are in agreement that program suspension should be requested, the formal request for program suspension will be made by program faculty, regardless of who initiated consultation.  If consultation was initiated by the dean, and program faculty still object to program suspension after consultation, the formal request for program suspension will be presented by the college dean. 

B.  Formal request for program suspension 

The formal request for program suspension shall include all of the following, whether the request is made by program faculty or the college dean: 

1.   A full explanation of why the temporary program suspension is being proposed.  

2.   Reasons why temporary program suspension is being proposed instead of discontinuance. 

3.   The quarter and date when the proposed suspension will take effect.  No temporary suspension may exceed nine consecutive quarters excluding summer quarters.  

4.   A complete list of courses where offerings will be suspended or substantially reduced.  Evidence of consultation with affected units, including written responses, if any. 

5.   Student enrollment and application patterns for the program during the previous five years.  

6.   Likely effects of the temporary suspension on students currently enrolled in the program.   

7.   Potential consequences regarding faculty assignments.  

8.   Any changes that would be necessary in order to resume offering the program. 

C.  Review of formal request for program suspension presented by the college dean  

1.   Formal requests for program suspension presented by the college dean are forwarded to the program faculty for review.  Program faculty are given 10 academic work days to prepare a written response to the request for suspension, which should include a justification for not suspending the program (which may include the need for the program, the importance of the program to the University, the quality of the program, and program benefits and costs), alternatives to suspension, identification of community stakeholders, and identification of other programs in the University that would be affected by the suspension.

2.   The dean submits the formal request for program suspension and the program faculty’s written response and any written dissent by program faculty to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Educational Policy Committee, the College Curriculum Committee, all other college deans, and affected programs that were identified in the program’s response.  The Educational Policy Committee, the College Curriculum Committee, college deans, and affected programs will have 20 academic work days to submit opposition to the proposed suspension, if any, to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  

3.   The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs makes the final decision regarding program suspension. 

II.  Procedures for Implementing Program Suspension

 A.  Notification to program 

Following a decision to suspend a program by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the college dean, the Educational Policy Committee, the faculty of the suspended program, and others affected by the suspension will be notified as soon as possible regarding the decision to suspend, date of implementation, and length of suspension.

B.  Catalog 

A notice of program suspension will be included in the CSULA online catalog.  The notice will include that the program is under temporary suspension, is not currently accepting new students, the date of plans to resume the program, contingent on campus approval procedures, and an appropriate University contact for further information about the suspended program.

      C.  Accommodating students  

If a program is to be suspended, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee shall:

1.      Require program faculty to develop a teach-out plan with a list of courses that would need to be offered during the suspension period or other mechanisms such as course substitutions that would allow those students to graduate in a timely manner. 

2.   Prepare an official list of students enrolled in the program.

 3.   Notify all students enrolled in the program of the following:

      a.   the date by which requirements must be completed to receive the specified degree/credential/certificate;

b.   a provisional teach-out plan, a part of which will apply to each individual student;

c.   other closely related programs offered by CSULA to which the student may wish to transfer;

d.   similar programs available at other institutions in the geographical area or in the CSU system;

e.   the extent to which courses from other institutions can be substituted;

f.    a designated office that can assist the students to transfer to another institution or complete program requirements at CSULA;

                  g.   that readmission to the program will not be allowed during the suspension period if the student loses                         continuing student status;

                  h.   any other relevant aspects of the teach-out plan mentioned above.

 D.  faculty assignments

If a program is to be suspended, the college dean must communicate to faculty who currently teach in the program their assignments during the period of suspension.

 III. Early Reinstatement

Program faculty can request reinstatement of a suspended program for sooner than the date originally specified.  A written justification must be submitted to the college dean, which is then forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The college dean may append a letter of support or non-support for the request for early reinstatement if desired.  The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will make the final decision regarding early reinstatement.

 IV. Extended Suspension and Discontinuance

A program will automatically be reinstated and new students will be enrolled at the end of the stated suspension period unless a request for a one-time extension of no more than one academic year has been approved by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  Such a request may be initiated by program faculty or the dean of the college where a program is housed, and must explain why the program could not be reinstated during the proposed period of suspension, the continuing importance of the program to the University, and assurances that appropriate measures will be taken to assure that new students will be enrolled in the program by the end of the extension period.

Program faculty or the college dean may initiate discontinuance procedures if program reinstatement at the end of the approved suspension period, including extensions, if applicable is not desired.

 

Policies and Procedures for Academic Program Discontinuance

(Senate: 10/30/79, 8/25/81, 11/10/92, 7/29/00, 11/3/09; President: 5/30/80, 9/3/81, 11/25/92, 9/29/00, 11/23/09; Editorial Amendment: 9/00, 8/01; 9/03)

 
I.  Preamble.  This policy provides criteria and a set of processes and procedures to be used in considering the discontinuance of academic programs. Academic programs covered in this policy include the following: a) undergraduate and graduate degrees; b) concentrations and options; c) minors; d) certificate programs (including those administered by Extended Education); and e) credential programs.
 
This policy, which describes two procedures for discontinuing programs, allows the University to maintain flexibility and respond to changing demands.  Programs shall be discontinued when they no longer serve the needs of the students, the University or society, or no longer possess academic validity or when the University cannot provide the resources to offer them.  The decision to discontinue a program shall be made only after all appropriate evidence has been gathered and examined, and thorough consultation with faculty and other affected parties has occurred.
In the event that imposed budget restrictions lead to a request for program discontinuance, the University shall seek alternatives to discontinuance, and the University shall terminate programs only as the last resort.
 
II.  Criteria.  Should it be necessary to consider the discontinuance of an academic program, a determination will be based upon a review of the program under the following criteria, which are listed in rank order:
 
A. The need for the program and importance of the program to the University.
 
1. The extent to which the University and society need the program should be assessed qualitatively by using the three criteria listed below:
a.  The extent to which the program is central to Cal State L.A. using the following priorities: (1) programs essential to a comprehensive public university; (2) programs that contribute to the mission of Cal State L.A. with its commitment to understanding and respecting diversity and to serving the changing needs of a global society; (3) programs that contribute to a well-rounded University but are not essential; and (4) programs that fill special needs for society, but without which the University could still fulfill its primary mission.
b.  Present and projected student demand for the program as well as present and projected demand for graduates of the program.
c.  The importance of the program to the Southern California community and the extent to which the program is unique to the Southern California community.
B. The quality of the program.
 
1. The quality of the program should be assessed by the results of the program reviews, accreditation reviews, or other comparable evidence. Among the variables for assessing the program quality are:
a. Offering and maintaining a current rigorous curriculum.
b. The quality of the faculty in terms of their degrees, currency in the field, quality of teaching, and level and quality of scholarly, creative and professional activity including the extent to which the faculty have received external funding and support. A demonstrated ability to attract and retain well-qualified and diverse faculty is an important part of this criterion.
c. The quality of the positions received, or graduate or professional programs entered into, by graduates of the program.
C. Program benefits and costs.
 
1. The efficiency of the programs should be assessed using the following criteria and information from the departments/divisions/schools, colleges and university.
a. The full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF), full-time equivalent students (FTES), and student-faculty ratio for the program or department/division/school; the trends in these numbers; and the reasons for these trends. Where data are available total cost per FTEF and per FTES may be used in comparison to comparable programs at other institutions. Other discipline specific information may be provided.
b. The number of students completing the program per year.
c. The graduation rate, the continuation rate, and the tracking rate (a combination of the continuation rate and the graduation rate).
d. Other benefits and costs, including the extent to which programs support or duplicate other programs on campus.
III. Procedures for Program Discontinuance as a Result of Changes in Student, University, or Societal Needs, or a Loss of Academic Validity
 
A. Program Discontinuance Process
 
1. Requests for discontinuance of a program may be made by:

a. the offering department/division/school,
b. the Program Review Subcommittee,
c. the dean of the college in which the program is housed,
d. the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

2.  All requests to discontinue a degree program must proceed through all levels of curricular review with an accompanying record of its action and rationale for that action from each review forwarded to the next level.
 
3. Requests for discontinuance made by and agreed to by the offering department/division/school will follow the regular levels of curricular review.
 
B. Process When There Are Objections by the Offering Department/Division/School
 
1. In cases where the Program Review Subcommittee, the dean of the college housing the program, or the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs makes requests for discontinuance, and where there are objections by the offering department/division/school; the following procedures shall be followed:

a. The request for discontinuance shall be submitted to, or made by, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The request shall include the following information:

1. the specific recommendations and justification for the recommendation to discontinue the program;
2. an assessment of the impact on students, program faculty, other programs and the mission of the University if the program be discontinued;
3. copies of the most recent program review documents including, but not limited to, the self-study, external evaluator reports, Program Review Subcommittee's reports and the department's/division's/school's responses to those reports.

b. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall appoint an individual whose charge it will be to present the case supporting the recommendation for discontinuance at each curricular level.

C.  Levels of Review

1. All recommendations made at each curricular level shall be forwarded to the next level and finally to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

2. The levels of curricular review shall include the following:

a. the department/division/school curriculum committee
b. the department/division chair or school director
c. the college curriculum committee
d. the college dean
e. the appropriate University level subcommittee of  EPC
f. the Educational Policy Committee

3. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall establish timelines for the review of the recommendation for discontinuance in consultation with the department/division/school and college in which the program is housed and the Dean of  Graduate and/or Undergraduate Studies, whichever is appropriate.  In no case shall the review extend beyond twelve months.

4. In the case of a non-degree program the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall make the final decision on the discontinuance in this process.  In the case of a degree program the recommendation will be forwarded to the President or his or her designee in accordance with Trustee policy.

IV. Procedures for Program Discontinuance as a Result of Imposed Budget Restrictions

A.  The  Program Discontinuance Committee (PDC).

1.  Membership. The PDC shall be made up of the following members:

1.1  One tenured faculty member elected by the faculty in each college and three members-at-large from different colleges elected by the faculty for a one-year term in an all-university election from nominees provided by the colleges.

1.2  Two student members from different colleges selected annually by the Board of Directors of the Associated Students. During committee service each student must be in good standing and must be either an upper division student enrolled in a minimum of six units or be an enrolled classified graduate or post-baccalaureate credential student.

1.3  One liaison tenured faculty member from and appointed by the Executive Committee.

1.4  The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee as non-voting Executive Secretary.

2.  Nomination and Election of Members.

2.1  The timelines for the nomination and election process shall be set by the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate.

2.2  Each college shall nominate and elect one committee member by procedures decided by the college. Simultaneously, the Nominations Committee shall nominate at least two full-time tenured faculty members for each at-large position on the committee.

2.3  There shall be a petition process by which additional names of tenured faculty may be added to the ballot; the signatures of ten probationary or tenured faculty members are required to add the name of a faculty member to the ballot. Additional nominations may be made by petition of ten members of the full-time faculty provided such petition is submitted to the chair of the Academic Senate within five academic workdays following the presentation to the faculty of the slate nominated by the Nominations Committee.

2.4  A preferential ballot with a single transferable vote shall be submitted to all probationary and tenured faculty members. The balloting period will be 10 full working days or major portions thereof.

2.5  In the event an individual is elected to both a college position and an at-large position, the individual shall vacate the college position.

B.  Initiation of the Program Discontinuance Process. 

1. A recommendation to review a program for discontinuance may be made by any of the following:

a. The faculty of the department/division/school in which the program is housed acting through its normal processes;
b. The dean of the college in which the program is housed;
c. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs;
d. The Educational Policy Committee of the Academic Senate;
e. The Chairs of the Program Review Subcommittee for the previous six years meeting as a group;
f. The Program Discontinuance Committee (PDC) which shall, in its initial meetings, compile through the process described in IV, Section C.1 a list of programs that should be considered for discontinuance.

2. Any recommendation to discontinue a program must be accompanied by a rationale in terms of the stated criteria.

C.  Procedures for Review by PDC

1.  The PDC shall divide all University programs into five ranked groupings of approximately equal size using the criteria in II. Those programs falling in the bottom grouping shall constitute the PDC's recommendation for the list of programs to be reviewed for discontinuance.

2.  The pool of programs to be reviewed shall be the combination of lists provided for in IV, Section B1.

3.  If a program is recommended for discontinuance by more than one originating source, then the PDC shall consider that program for discontinuance. If a program is recommended for review by only one originating source, then the PDC may consider that program for discontinuance.

4.  When the PDC has assembled the list of programs to be considered for discontinuance, it shall inform the college dean, the department/division chair or school director, and the department/division/school faculty in writing regarding any programs in the unit that are being considered for discontinuance and will provide a written rationale for this decision. The department/division/school and the College Dean will have a two-week period to submit a response in writing to the PDC after being so informed.

5.  The PDC shall consider the responses it receives, examine all relevant information concerning the programs being reviewed and then compile a rank-ordered list of programs that it has decided should be further considered for discontinuance. This list will be transmitted, together with its rationale for each program so listed, to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall share the rationale with the department/division and the college dean and allow the submission of written appeals.

6.  After review of all pertinent documents and with the approval of the President, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall then issue a list of programs, if any, to be discontinued, with target dates.

D.  Information Sources. 

The PDC may make use of any sources of information it wishes such as:

1. Need and Demand for the program:

a. Total enrollment, available by gender, ethnicity, and admission status.
b. How the program relates to others on campus; overlap with other programs on campus.
c. Availability of the program on other campuses in the region; unique characteristics of the program; commitments to other institutions, including 2+2 and similar agreements.
d. Availability and effectiveness of educational equity programs.

2.  Program quality:

a. Program Review Subcommittee reports and department/division/school self-study reports.
b. External evaluations and accreditation reports.
c. Results of survey of students, alumni, and employers.
d. Summaries of Student Opinion Surveys.
e. WPE pass rate.
f. Grade distribution and average GPA by student level.

3.  Program:  Benefits and costs:

a. FTEF, FTES, SFR.
b. Number of students completing the program.
c. Student continuation rates; graduation rates; and tracking rates (a combination of continuation rate and graduation rate).

V. If it be Determined that a Program Leading to a Degree Shall be Discontinued by Either of the Two Procedures, the Following Plans to Accommodate Students and Faculty Will be Followed

A. Students:  If a program is to be discontinued the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall:

1.  Determine and announce the cut-off date beyond which no new students will be permitted to enter the program.

2. Prepare an official list (as of the cut-off date) of majors in the program.

3. Notify all students in the major of the following:

a. the date by which the degree requirements must be completed to receive the specified degree or certificate;
b. other closely related programs offered by Cal State, LA  to which the student may wish to transfer;
c. similar programs available at other institutions in the geographical area or in the CSU system;
d. the extent to which courses from other institutions can be substituted;
e. direct affected students to go to a designated office that can assist the students to transfer to another institution or complete the requirements of the degree at Cal State LA.

B. Faculty

If the discontinuance of a program is likely to result in the elimination of a position filled by a tenure-track faculty (probationary or tenured), the procedures are described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the California State University and the California Faculty Association (currently Article 38) will be followed.

Policy and Procedures for External Degree Program

(Senate: 1/27/75; President: 2/6/75; Editorial Amendment:  9/99, 9/00, 9/03)

1.  The development of appropriate external degree programs is encouraged.   "Appropriate external degree program" shall be defined to include only such programs as can be demonstrated:

a.  to reach and serve a population not now served by Cal State L.A., either in geographic area (in which case it may not compete with equivalent programs offered by any other CSU campus serving that area) or in the content or goals of the program (such that it does not significantly compete with residence programs offered or project to be offered by Cal State L.A.); and

b.  to be of academic quality appropriate for a baccalaureate or master's degree and to meet the standards required for accreditation where relevant.

2.  Persons or groups that seek to develop an external degree program shall notify both the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee and the Dean of Extended Education of their interest and provide sufficient information on the goals, expected audience, and proposed structure of the program to permit both to make preliminary evaluations of the appropriateness of the proposal.

If either the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or the Dean of Extended Education finds the proposed program inappropriate in terms of criteria set forth in section 1a above, the Deans shall at once notify all concerned parties of  their finding and the reasons therefore.  Such a negative finding may be appealed to the Educational Policy Committee.

If either the Dean and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs find the proposal appropriate as defined above, the development shall proceed under the general guidance of the Dean of Extended Education in concert with appropriate college and department/division/school officers and in consultation with the Dean of  Undergraduate Studies or the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, in accordance with the level of the proposed degree.

3.  The developed proposal shall contain all information and approvals for a proposal for a proposal for a residence degree as well as that additional information required by CSU guidelines for approval of external degrees.

4.  If the curricular content of  the proposed external degree has been approved previously for residence credit, the proposal may be submitted to the University Commission on External Degrees (i.e. the Curriculum Subcommittee, with the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee serving as an ex officio, non-voting member).   The Commission shall determine fiscal and logistic feasibility (and confirm that the proposal is not in unresolved geographic conflict with the service areas of other CSU institutions) in addition to considering the proposal's educational merits as part of  the external offerings of  the University.  Upon approval by the Commission, the proposal will be considered by the Educational Policy Committee at its next scheduled meeting.  If approved, the proposal is sent tot he Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President.

5.  If the proposed degree is not a previously approved program proposed additionally for external offering, the proposal shall be submitted according to normal curriculum procedures for approval at department/division/school and college levels, including consultation among departments/divisions/schools and colleges as may be required.  Following approval at the college level, the proposal shall next be presented concurrently to the University Commission on External Degrees and to the Curriculum Subcommittee. Approval  by both the Commission and the appropriate subcommittee is required. 

Because the special need to offer an external degree program is often related to timeliness, when a proposed program is specifically designated as "urgent" the appropriate subcommittee shall be required to take action within 15 working days following its receipt of the proposal.  The minutes of  both the Commission and the subcommittee shall be forwarded to the Educational Policy Committee, which shall be deemed to have approved the proposal if there is no objection to the minutes as submitted.  In this regard:

a.  The Curriculum Subcommittee shall concern itself primarily with the educational merits and implications of the proposal, including consideration of possible conflicts with residence programs, and will consider fiscal matters only if they are perceived to bear heavily on educational considerations.

b.  The Commission on External Degrees shall be responsible specifically for those matters identified in section 4 above. 

c.  Chairs and Executive Secretaries of  both subcommittees shall consult jointly prior to final subcommittee approvals to assure that all significant issues have been resolved before their approvals are transmitted to the Educational Policy Committee.

d. The Educational Policy Committee shall receive the reports of  both subcommittees and consider the proposal under terms of both local and system policies, consulting as needed.  Upon approval by the Committee, the proposal is submitted to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President.

6.  Upon endorsement by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President, the proposal shall be transmitted by the President to the Chancellor for final consideration.