Texas Tech University is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.4.12.

“The Board of Regents assigns a major role in the governance of this institution to the faculty of Texas Tech University in the areas of general academic policies and welfare, student life and activities, requirements for admission and graduation, honors and scholastic performance generally, approval of candidates for degrees and the faculty rules of procedure.” [Texas Tech University Faculty Handbook, (http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/) , click on Faculty Handbook icon, pdf file, p. 32]. This quotation summarizes the responsibility of Texas Tech University faculty for curriculum-related matters.  

Texas Tech University requires that every course and academic program pass through an approval process that involves faculty and administrative participation at all administrative levels (Texas Tech University Operating Policy and Procedure Manual, OP 36.01 and 36.04 http://www.depts.ttu.edu/opmanual/New.contents.links/36academic_programs.htm). These policies note that responsibility for initiating new course or program requests lies primarily with the faculty. Approval at the department level also lies with the faculty, and each college has a faculty committee that reviews course and program proposals before they are submitted to the Office of the Provost for final action.

With respect to quality and effectiveness, the lines of authority are well defined by the board of regents in the quotation above, but the practice is less clearly laid out in university policies. The university’s new strategic planning process is intended to foster the sort of faculty oversight of program and course quality and effectiveness that is suggested in this standard. However, it is up to individual colleges and departments to implement these procedures and to report them in their assessment reports. Faculty, in the process of working on a daily basis in programs with colleagues and observing student performance in their courses have ample opportunity to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of courses and programs. Presumably, they take proper action when they note lapses in course quality or needs for change in programs. The various college responses to this standard support the contention that faculty do take their responsibility for insuring the quality and effectiveness of programs and  courses seriously.

SACS Off-Site Committee Finding: 

3.4.12   The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty.    

___       Compliance
_X_      Non-compliance
___       Did not review

Comments: 

The institution assigns appropriate authority to faculty; however, some comments in the Report warrant further investigation since they suggest that official policy and day-to-day practice might not be completely consistent.  In particular, consider the following comments: “With respect to quality and effectiveness, the lines of authority are well defined by the board of regents in the quotation above, but the practice is less clearly laid out in university policies. The university’s new strategic planning process is intended to foster the sort of faculty oversight of program and course quality and effectiveness that is suggested in this standard. However, it is up to individual colleges and departments to implement these procedures and to report them in their assessment reports. Faculty, in the process of working on a daily basis in programs with colleagues and observing student performance in their courses, have ample opportunity to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of courses and programs. Presumably, they take proper action when they note lapses in course quality or needs for change in programs.”

TTU Response: 

Texas Tech faculty have and will continue to have primary responsibility for course and curriculum oversight and effectiveness. The statement cited by the off-site committee was not intended to suggest that faculty do not have oversight responsibility for quality and effectiveness of programs and courses. On the contrary, it was intended to note that the new strategic planning and assessment process provides a vehicle whereby such oversight has become formalized and occurs on an annual basis. The oversight required by the strategic planning and assessment process can only come from faculty involvement. As stated in our initial response, Tech faculty have the primary responsibility for maintaining the quality and effectiveness of their programs and courses.