May 21, 2007

Concern was expressed that the Council was criticizing the proposal for using existing courses at the University and the Council considered these courses inadequate.

It was noted that the course director had chosen courses with other schools assuming they had the needed expertise.

Program proposals should avoid offering “core” courses provided by other colleges.

They need to be careful who has control of the program and admissions criteria.

The Council is in the beginning phases of learning and will continue to do better each time another proposal is reviewed.

There wasn't a clear understanding of who will be on the dental hygiene faculty.

Right now many AHC programs are taught by preceptorial faculty in the community. Each school has its own criteria for who can be faculty. Who is considered a faculty member will eventually be determined by finances.

Where is the oversight for the program? Who is in charge?

We need to give them the right feedback to assist them in developing a successful proposal.

Members need to develop guidelines for what the Council would like to hear in a proposal presentation. The presentation should be short and factual.

Members agreed that it is advantageous to have someone present the proposal that is passionate about program.

When a program has an accrediting body, this process will be much easier.

When would someone think about coming - where would they come for assistance? So much work had gone into this. Is there going to be an office that they could come to for help?

We need to identify the process, set the criteria, and communicate this information.

Someone thinking about a new degree should meet with a Council subcommittee, consisting of 3 members, as a first step.

Currently, the initial process is:

Dr. Cerra's end point is: practice model and health care system. What impact will the program have on the health care system (nationally and globally).

The proposal must include a 5-year proforma - Dr. Cerra wants to know what the resources are. We currently have a system in place to assist in this process. Financials are negotiated with the school finance area and the AHC Chief Financial Officer, Beth Nunnally.

Most programs have periodic reviews done through accrediting bodies. If there isn't an external accrediting body tracking the newly-developed program, what body will review a program once it has begun? Will the Council be responsible for making certain the program is following what it proposed? The Council will need to make this decision.

Do we serve like an accrediting body which can sometimes say that the proposal is a good one but it will not be approved.

All proposals related to health will be reviewed by this Council. This will end the ad hoc activity, e.g. going around the dean directly to the Graduate School for approval.

How do we know when a proposal has gone forward without review at the collegiate or AHC level? The Provost's office has gotten very good at recognizing when a proposal should be reviewed by the AHC.

The current information on the Provost's website could be misleading for AHC programs.

We should think about developing outcomes and evaluations for the Council. This information would assist the Council in determining what does and doesn't help.

Page 2, last response - the number of faculty available for this program is unclear. Further clarification should be made that the baccalaureate program was reduced from 36 to 24 students; the program will use the faculty made available through the student reduction, plus an additional faculty member has been added.

Page 3, first question - More detail is needed regarding the interview process and admission criteria.

Page 5, seventh paragraph should read: There should be an element of advanced practice built into the admissions requirements, particularly this program is intended to advance the practice of dental hygiene. Judith Buchanan stated that advanced practice is controversial within the dental profession. The American Dental Association has suggested other alternatives to address access to care issues, and at this time, the Dean of the School of Dentistry would not encourage an expanded role in the clinical care role for dental hygienists.

Additional comments:

Barbara Brandt will draft a feedback letter to Christine Blue.

The program will take this summer to make the suggested changes to the proposal.

A subcommittee composed of Linda Perkowski and Mary Rowan will provide the program feedback and will review the initial revised proposal.

The program will bring the proposal back to the Council in early Fall with possible BOR review in October. The program could possibly start students some time in January.

This process will be followed for any degree or certificate programs. For example, certificate programs coming from the College of Continuing Education will come to the Council for review.

Would the change in course designators need to come to the Council? Yes.

Are we in the process of developing policies that are parallel with the Graduate School? Yes.

The criteria and check list will come from this document.

International schools - implications on giving degrees - students trained in one of our international programs can come here to practice. This has major implications for clinically-oriented degrees.

Refer to the attached Proposal Process for New Academic Programs for suggested changes.

Is there a plan for staff support to get a common body to work with the Council's subcommittees? Barbara Brandt has asked Dr. Cerra for staff support to develop standardized infrastructure and administration.

Barbara Brandt will :

Continue review of the Proposal Process for New Academic Programs, beginning with #7 at the next meeting.

Set standard monthly meetings for Mondays at 2:00 p.m.