Certificate Program

1. The first criterion for approval is that a proposed certificate program (credit or non-credit bearing) demonstrate academic value consistent with existing UW-L programs.

Rationale: The existence of a paying audience is not sufficient reason to approve a certificate program. With respect to non-credit-bearing certificates we draw a distinction between individual courses offered through extension for the general interest of the community and collections of courses whose completion confers a certificate in an identified area of study.

2. Certificate programs (credit or non-credit bearing) will be housed in academic departments.

Rationale: Again, we distinguish general interest courses from certificates that require a higher level of oversight. Academic departments are the appropriate units to provide this oversight.

3. Proposed certificate programs that include credit-bearing coursework should have an admission requirement equal to the appropriate admissions requirements of the university for degree-seeking individuals.

Rationale: It is assumed that there will be some overlap between courses required for a certificate and the coursework offered by departments as a part of degree programs. It is important that students in certificate programs be of comparable academic preparation and ability to students in degree programs.

In addition, the Senate Executive Committee, through a memorandum from Chair Steven Senger, dated October 17, 2002 (copy attached), recommends that proposed certificate programs, such as Dosimetry, should describe the admissions requirements in terms of the anticipated background of potential students. If potential students have a background similar to that described in the Chair's memorandum, then the certificate program proposal should describe this background in detail and present an argument that it should be considered the equivalent of an existing admissions category as a way to address the concerns of item 3. At the end of the two-year pilot period, the various situations encountered can be reviewed and appropriate policies constructed.

4. Credit-bearing certificates that have received approval from appropriate department and college level committees, APC and either UCC or GCC, will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for approval.

5. At the end of the two-year pilot phase, the APC in consultation with the Provost and Deans will review the approval guidelines for credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs and will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding permanent procedures for approving credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs.

6. Any certificate program must be compatible and consistent with university enrollment management plans.

7. The Provost will annually report to the Faculty Senate on the status of all certificate programs and the results of the Post-Approval Oversight process.

I. INTRODUCTION

As the needs of the workforce and society in general continue to change, universities are being asked to provide opportunities for an increasing number of non-traditional students to obtain additional knowledge or skills for professional and/or personal development. Credit-bearing certificate programs offer individuals the opportunity to earn college credit toward the fulfillment of a professional credential while supporting the process of continuous learning in an ever-changing workplace. The development of certificate programs is one way by which universities are responding to these needs in an effort to serve the region and the state. In some cases, certificate programs might be "one-time" offerings designed for some immediate, short-term needs. In other cases, certificate programs might be "ongoing" in order to meet longer-term needs. The curriculum approval processes currently in place at UW-La Crosse will ensure quality control of credit-bearing certificate programs, and the university transcript will verify completion of each program.

Because this represents the beginning of credit-bearing certificate programs at UW-L, the following is to be used as the guide for standards, procedures, approval, and post-approval oversight for a two-year pilot period. After the pilot period, the guidelines will be reviewed by the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Academic Planning Committee for possible revision.

II. STANDARDS

1. Approval of certificate programs must not impinge on the quality and availability of regular programs and opportunities for degree-seeking students. Opportunities for certificate programs will be based on student needs and interests.

3. The purpose of a program must be clearly outlined in any proposal and must demonstrate the benefit(s) of the certificate to its potential students.

4. Certificates may be earned by a specified audience of "non-traditional"/non-degree seeking students from the regional community or by degree seeking students at UW-L. Guidelines and standards will be identical for both groups.

5. Where appropriate, certificate programs should meet industry/professional society/accreditation standards.

6. Certificate programs should be no less than 12 credits for undergraduate certificates (9 credits for graduate certificate programs) and usually not more than 18 credits.

7. At least 75% of the credits applied to the certificate program requirements must be taken through LTW-LA Crosse.

8. Departments, schools or colleges proposing certificate programs shall specify the following:

a. admission requirements for entry into a certificate program, and (b) minimum GPA requirements for course and certificate completion-note item l.c.v. in PROCEDURES below.

Certificate programs articulate with existing related degree programs where appropriate.

1. Certificate program proposals should originate at the department, school, or college level; all affected departments must endorse proposals. Each proposal will include the following:

a. Statement of benefits to the department(s), school/college, university, and student.

b. Identification of target audience(s) and evidence of long term or short term need as appropriate.

iii. Number and array of courses including specification of any required courses. If electives are allowed within the certificate program, an explanation of the proposed electives in light of the need for program cohesion should be included.

v. GPA requirements for certificate completion (2.5 minimum for undergraduate and 3.0 for graduate certificate programs).

vi. A statement outlining the certificate program's relationship to and articulation with existing degree programs and the select mission of UW-La Crosse.

d. Description of the administration, staffing, and budgeting for the program including the following:

i. Evidence that the faculty/staff in the department(s) and other qualified personnel are willing to teach the courses in the certificate program at the times/locations necessary for completion of the certificate.

ii. Proposed frequency of course offerings for courses included in the certificate program.

iii. Proposed arrangements for ongoing advising for students in the certificate program.

iv. Anticipated need for other student support services for students enrolled in the certificate program.

v. For certificate programs involving more than one academic department, identification of an administrative unit for the program.

IV. APPROVAL PROCESSES
(The following approval processes for certificate programs are the same as those for minors, concentrations, and emphases).

1. New credit-bearing courses follow the usual path and receive UCC or GCC approval, whichever is appropriate.

2. Certificate programs that are totally credit-bearing or are the combination of credit-bearing and non-credit bearing follow the usual path of approval, i.e., by the appropriate department committee, college dean (with college committee recommendations or approval as appropriate for that college), Academic Planning Committee, Undergraduate or Graduate Curriculum Committee, Faculty Senate, and Chancellor/Provost.

V. POST-APPROVAL OVERSIGHT
(This part of the certificate program guidelines has been established because credit-bearing certificates are new and therefore warrant the greater oversight, at least through the two-year pilot period.)

During July of every year, the department/unit responsible for the program will submit a report about the certificate program to the APC (copied to the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs). The report will detail, among, other things, how many certificates were awarded in the previous year; planned changes in the following year; the results of course program assessments completed by participants in the preceding year; the program staffing pattern (Are regular UW-L faculty teaching extra? How many and who? Is this adversely or positively affecting the regular curriculum? Are ad hoc teachers being hired specifically to teach the courses in the certificate program? How many and who? Are non-academic practitioners being hired? How many and who?).

The APC may invite representatives of any certificate programs that have submitted reports to sit with the committee and discuss the programs, especially resource issues (including staffing), academic quality, and possible effects (positive or negative) on the regular curriculum. The APC may address the Faculty Senate with any recommendations it may wish to make regarding any certificate program it has reviewed.

As the needs of the workforce and society in general continue to change, universities are being asked to provide opportunities for an increasing number of non-traditional students to obtain additional knowledge or skills for professional and/or personal development. Non-credit-bearing certificate programs offer individuals the opportunity to work towards the fulfillment of a professional credential while supporting the process of continuous learning in an ever-changing workplace. The development of certificate programs is one way by which universities are responding to these needs in an effort to serve the region and the state. In some cases, certificate programs might be "one-time" offerings designed for some immediate, short-term needs. In other cases, certificate programs might be "ongoing" in order to meet longer-term needs.

Previously, there has not been an approval or post-approval oversight process for non-credit-bearing certificate programs. These guidelines are to be used for a two-year pilot period for approval and post-approval oversight of non-credit-bearing certificate programs. Then, the processes are to be reviewed by the provost and the deans of the four colleges for possible revision.

A non-credit-bearing certificate program may originate from a department, school, college, or the Office of Continuing Education & Extension. The certificate program must be endorsed bv all affected departments and approved by the dean(s) and provost.

During July of every year, the department/unit responsible for the program will submit a report about the certificate program to the Provost. The report will detail, among other things, how many certificates were awarded in the previous year, planned changes 'in the following year; the results of course program assessments completed by participants in the preceding year; the program staffing pattern (Are regular LTW-L faculty teaching extra? How many and who? Is this adversely or positively affecting the regular curriculum? Are ad hoc teachers being hired specifically to teach the courses in the certificate program? How many and who? Are nonacademic practitioners being hired? How many and who?).

The PVC will review the reports, with special attention to resources (monetary, space, staffing, etc.), academic quality, and effect on the regular curriculum at the University. The PVC may make decisions regarding continuation of the program.

TO: Karen Palmer-McLean, Interim Associate Dean
College of Science & Allied Health

At its 9/26/02 meeting the Faculty Senate approved the Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs subject to several clarifications and modifications. Item 3 of these clarifications addressed the need that credit-bearing certificate programs have minimum admissions requirements sufficient to ensure that the academic preparation and ability of students in certificate programs is comparable to students in degree programs. The language used in item 3 acknowledges that there are different entrance categories, and requirements, for degree-seeking students depending on their academic background.

A concern was subsequently raised by the College of Science and Allied Health that the potential population for the Dosimetry certificate program might include individuals whose background did not formally match any of UW-L degree-seeking admissions categories. Specifically, there may be individuals interested in the Dosimetry certificate who received their training in radiology technology through a hospital-based program and have established careers in the field. While such individuals would have been trained at a hospital, qualified to take a certification exam and be currently registered with a governing body, they might not posses an academic degree such as a bachelors or associates degree. Consequently, they would not formally match our admissions categories.

The intent of item 3 in providing comparable levels of ability is clear. The problem is with the current set of admissions categories. We would face a similar problem if individuals with the background described above wished to take another course of study at UW-L. The SEC recommends the following course of action for the two year pilot period that the guidelines will be in effect. Proposed certificate programs, such as Dosimetry, should describe the admissions requirements in terms of the anticipated background of potential students. If potential students have an existing degree then the appropriate admissions category would apply. If students instead have a background similar to that described above, then the certificate program proposal should describe this background in detail and present an argument that it should be considered the equivalent of an existing admissions category and will address the concerns of item 3. At the end of the two-year pilot period we can review the various situations we have encountered and construct appropriate policies.

cc:        Elizabeth J. Hitch, Provost/Vice Chancellor
            Greg Wegner, Assistant to the Provost/Vice Chancellor
            Ron Rada, Former Interim Provost/Vice Chancellor
            Diane Schumacher, Registrar
            Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Academic Planning Committee
            Steve Simpson, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee
            Andy Matchett, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

TO: Steven Senger

Chair, Faculty Senate

FROM: Douglas N. Hastad

Chancellor

DATE: October 25, 2002

RE: Recommended Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs � a pilot for two years

On October 4, 2002, I received the Faculty Senate approval of the Recommended Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs � a pilot for two years. With the addition of intent clarification language in item 3, I approve the Recommended Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs � a pilot for two years as it appears below:

Modifications and Clarifications of

�Recommended Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs � a pilot for two years�

1. The first criterion for approval is that a proposed certificate program (credit or non-credit bearing) demonstrate academic value consistent with existing UW-L programs.

2. Certificate programs (credit or non-credit bearing) will be housed in academic departments.

Rationale: Again, we distinguish general interest courses from certificates that require a higher level of oversight. Academic departments are the appropriate units to provide this oversight.

3. Proposed certificate programs that include credit-bearing coursework should have a minimum admission requirement equal to the appropriate admissions requirements of the university for degree-seeking individuals.

In addition, the Senate Executive Committee, through a memorandum from Chair Steven Senger, dated October 17, 2002 (copy attached), recommends that proposed certificate programs, such as Dosimetry, should describe the admissions requirements in terms of the anticipated background of potential students. If potential students have a background similar to that described in the Chair�s memorandum, then the certificate program proposal should describe this background in detail and present an argument that it should be considered the equivalent of an existing admissions category as a way to address the concerns of item 3. At the end of the two-year pilot period, the various situations encountered can be reviewed and appropriate policies constructed.

4. Credit-bearing certificates that have received approval from appropriate department and college level committees, APC and either UCC or GCC, will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for approval.

5. At the end of the two year pilot phase, the APC in consultation with the Provost and Deans will review the approval guidelines for credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs and will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding permanent procedures for approving credit and non-credit bearing certificate programs.

6. Any certificate program must be compatible and consistent with university enrollment management plans.

7. The Provost will annually report to the Faculty Senate on the status of all certificate programs and the results of the Post-Approval Oversight process.

I approve the Recommended Draft Guidelines for Certificate Programs � a pilot for two years, with the addition specified above.

cc:       Chancellor's Staff
            Greg Wegner, Assistant to the Provost/Vice Chancellor
            Ron Rada, Former Interim Provost/Vice Chancellor
            Ray Schoen, Chair 2001-02 Academic Planning Committee
            Diane Schumacher, Registrar