STATEWIDE PROGRAM APPROVAL MECHANISMS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES: A NATIONAL SURVEY AND A CASE ANALYSIS

Abstract

This study examines the national status of community college programs approval procedures and presents an analysis of attitudes of chief academic officers in a state where the question of program approval and regionalization is being examined in some detail. Nationally, state community college coordinators or their equivalent at 42 of the SO states responded to a survey concerning program approval procedures. In addition, 16 of 17 chief academic officers of the community colleges in New Jersey provided information and opinions concerning the present program approval methodology, preferences about highest academic/political authority required for various program decisions and about program approval application information. They also gave opinions about possible regionalization of high‐cost specialized programs. The nationwide survey of mechanisms for public community college program approval showed that 36 states have agencies that review and approve new programs, 5 states only review new programs, and 8 states have no review or approval authority. Four states require institutions to prepare long‐range program plans as part of the program approval mechanism. State mechanisms for program approval are dynamic and rapidly evolving. Of the 36 states having program approval mechanisms for public community colleges, 24 have revised the mechanisms within the last 4 years. Twenty‐eight of 31 states new program applications require information concerning possible program duplication. In addition, 10 states have developed mechanisms for the regionalization of high‐cost specialized programs. Some of the New Jersey academic deans indicated the desire for greater authority to make final decisions about offering and terminating credit and noncredit courses and the development of teaching methodology as well as for changing the names of program majors. Some confusion was indicated concerning the steps required for approving and terminating certificate offerings and for options within a major. Most significant was the finding that there is almost total agreement among the deans that should a mechanism for the regionalization of program approval be developed, the academic deans as well as the college presidents should not be the final authority to decide regional questions. Inconsistent with this was the general feeling that the state board of higher education should not approve a program master plan, indicating a preference by the deans for a more political, case‐by‐case, program approval mechanism rather than the more bureaucratic master‐plan context The deans also wanted fewer steps in the program approval process while still willing to live with extra‐college new program approval decisions. This study was completed as part of a doctoral program at Rutgers University. The author acknowledges the advice and assistance of Dr. H. R. Kells who also encouraged its completion and preparation as a research report. the general feeling that the state board of higher education should not approve a program master plan, indicating a preference by the deans for a more political, case-by-case, program approval mechanism rather than the more bureaucratic master-plan context The deans also wanted fewer steps in the program approval process while still willing to live with extra-college new program approval decisions.