Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, in some cases, the proponent can be invited to the CCPS meeting in order to speak about their proposals and answer any questions the committee might have.

A minor modification to the program/degree proposal still needs to be submitted through the MachForm. The CMS submission will soon be implemented.

Yes, course numbers for two different versions of the same course should be different.

Yes. The course proposals need to show how each course learning outcomes contribute to the program learning outcomes. It is not necessary that the course learning outcomes of the proposed course meet all the existing program learning outcomes.

Yes, it will be considered a minor change to the course. The proponent needs to submit a CEC in which they answer three questions related to academic rationale: whether the change affects the course learning outcomes; how the academic honesty issue will be adjusted in the alternate mode; and how technology and course design will be used. The CCPS committee also wants to see how the evaluation strategies will be adjusted in each alternate mode. Please refer to the LA&PS Guidance on Mode of Delivery Proposals (DOCX).

Yes, in that case, a change to the existing course (CEC) proposal along with a consultation form is needed from the respective unit.

No; however, for curriculum review, proof of consultation with the appropriate unit is required, along with a rationale explaining the importance and necessity of the proposed change or course—even in cases where a particular unit has raised objections.

Please contact your unit’s Subject Librarian to collect a library statement. For a new course proposal, it is obligatory to collect a library statement.

Governance approval is required for this action. Please use the Reactive Retired Course (RRC) form or CMS to submit the request by proposing a change to the existing course.

This is also a change to an existing course. In CMS, the proponent must submit a “Change to Existing Course” proposal and clearly explain in the rationale why the change is necessary. The rationale should detail how the new version will be adjusted in terms of learning outcomes, evaluation strategies, course description and title (if applicable), and the reading list. Other elements such as course numbers and credit values must also be updated accordingly within the CMS. Once approved, the new version will replace the previous credit version, which will automatically be retired.

For MachForm submissions, the process requires two components:

• A New Course Proposal (NCP) to create the new 6.00-credit version.
• A Change to Existing Course (CEC) to retire the 3.00-credit version.

The proposal must clearly outline how the 6.00-credit version differs from the previous one, particularly in terms of course learning outcomes, evaluation methods, course description (if applicable), and the reading list.

Please refer to How to Change Credit Value (PDF) for detailed guidance.

Any changes to the academic calendar requires governance approval. Any changes to a degree option that will be submitted through either a minor or major modification requires consultation with the CMS team in RO office  to prepare the proposed academic calendar and that needs to be submitted with the curriculum proposal. After senate approval, the academic calendar will update accordingly and the changes will be reflected in the new academic calendar.

The Curriculum Team encourages faculty members to submit their proposals by the June deadline to ensure that the proposed curriculum changes can be reviewed and approved in time for implementation in the upcoming academic year.

Academic calendar publication is a once-a-year event. The changes that are approved throughout the year until March Senate (undergraduate) and April Senate (for graduate) will be implemented in the next academic calendar, published on May 1 every year. So, any requested and approved changes can not be reflected in the calendar right away.

It is recommended that a course should have 4-5 learning outcomes.

It is highly recommended to contact the relevant unit well in advance, providing complete proposals with sufficient detail. This ensures the unit has adequate time to review the submission and fully understand the proposed changes.

For LA&PS, a designated form must be completed and shared along with the proposal with the appropriate units.

This is considered a change to an existing course. This proposal involves modifying an existing course. In CMS, the proponent should use the “Duplicate” function on the current 6.00-credit version to create a new 3.00-credit version. This process copies all existing course information into the new version, which can then be updated as needed—such as adjusting the course number and credit value.

The proponent must also provide a clear rationale explaining the need for the new version. This should include details on how the proposed version will differ in terms of course learning outcomes, evaluation methods, course description (if applicable), and the reading list. The proposal must clearly distinguish between the two versions of the course.

 Please refer to How to Change Credit Value (PDF) for detailed guidance.

For March form submission, please submit a CEC addressing the above-mentioned criteria.

Please submit a new course proposal through CMS specifying that this is a Gen Ed course. Alternatively, the proponent can use the Gen Ed NCP and submit it through MachForm. Please refer to the Gen Ed Criteria and Reference Companion (PDF) for developing Gen Ed proposals.

It is strongly recommended that course proposals be submitted through CMS, as all academic units have now been onboarded onto the system. While units may still use MachForm for course proposal submissions, if necessary, please note that MachForm submissions for course proposals will no longer be accepted after December 31, 2025.

Submissions for minor and major modification proposals will continue to be accepted through MachForm.

The Curriculum Team typically prioritizes proposals submitted by the June deadline each year, as well as those submitted by new faculty members who have joined within the past three years. Proposals received after the deadline will remain in the queue and will be reviewed only after all on-time submissions have been considered by the CCPS.

During the rollout of the Curriculum Management System (CMS), departments that had not yet been onboarded continued to submit course proposals via MachForm. The Curriculum Team entered these proposals into CMS on their behalf.

Now that all LAPS departments have been onboarded and have access to CMS, they will submit course proposals directly through the system. As a result, the MachForm for course proposals will be retired in December 2025.

In the meantime, while the Registrar's Office completes the setup of CMS for program proposals, departments will continue to use the MachForm for submitting major and minor program modifications.

If the course is based on a specific geographical location, then the proposal should specify the location in the proposal, as well as the learning outcomes should reflect the geographical connection. Therefore, if the proponent ever wants to change the geographical location of the course, it will require governance approval since the course content and learning outcomes require updates.

If the course is thematically connected to one or multiple geographical locations, then specifying a location in the proposal is not required. In that case, the learning outcomes will remain generic and will not change if the geographic context changes from year to year. Given that, changing the geographic context does not require any governance approval. In the second scenario, it is recommended that the proponent should not specify any geographical locations in the course proposal.

1. Course contents
2. Learning outcomes should reflect that
3. Evaluation strategies should reflect that as well.

Approval of course proposals at FC indicates that the proposal has successfully completed the governance process. Once approved, the course will be activated in the academic course repository and can be offered starting from the designated effective term.

If an error appears in the current academic calendar that was not present in previous versions, it is considered an editorial change and does not require governance approval. Each year, typically in January or February, the Curriculum Team sends out a call for editorial updates to the academic calendar. However, units may submit editorial change requests at any time throughout the year.

These requests only need to clearly identify the error and the correct information—no formal approval process is required. Please note that any editorial changes will be reflected in the upcoming academic calendar published annually on May 1.

After a proposal is submitted, it is vetted by a curriculum developer. If the proposal is complete and requires no further information, then it is placed in the queue for CCPS review. If it requires more information and clarification, the curriculum developer communicates feedback with the unit and waits for the revised version. Once the revised version is received, the proposal is placed in the queue.

Yes and/or no. Some information is mandatory for the proposal form to be submitted to CMS and reviewed by CCPS. This includes items like departmental approval, current mode of delivery, course description, prerequisites, learning outcomes, and cross-listing details. Without these, the proposal cannot move forward.

Also no. Other feedback—such as suggestions on refining learning outcomes—is based on the York Quality Assurance Framework and is recommended, not required. Faculty are free to accept or disregard these suggestions. However, please note that if these points are not addressed, they may be raised again by the CCPS committee, potentially delaying the approval process.

The current Quality Assurance Framework recommends that a program should not include more than 8 to 10 Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). If a program wishes to consolidate 30 PLOs into 8 without altering the content or scope of the program (i.e., without changing the PLOs themselves), a detailed minor modification proposal must be submitted.

However, if the program intends to revise its PLOs—thereby changing the content, scope, or objectives of the program—a major modification proposal will be required.

For clarification or guidance, please consult with the Curriculum Team.

Technical errors or editorial corrections can be made by the curriculum team. Governance approval is not required for such issues. Please reach out to the curriculum team regarding any technical errors or editorial corrections.

No, please do not attach the MS Word course form to the CMS course proposal, as it may cause confusion. The Word-based course proposal form is not required for CMS submission.

If COS has this information and the unit confirms that the information is correct, adding this information to the brief description is editorial and does not require governance approval.

• Cross-listing 
• Course Credit Exclusion 
• General feedback on content 
• Sometimes it’s a provision of notice 
• It’s not a license to veto 
• It’s not an ideal forum for mediating relationship breakdowns. 

To submit a complete proposal, it is always encouraged to navigate the curriculum toolkit website for further clarification on the proposal writing or to contact the curriculum team ahead of time. If a proposal is received in good shape, it is highly likely that the proposal will go through the review process smoothly. Also, please consider the time of year the proposal is submitted. If we receive any proposal in the Winter term, it is highly unlikely that it will be approved in time for the following Fall term.

The following types of updates are considered editorial changes and do not require governance approval:

1. Missing Information from the 2022–2023 Academic Calendar
   If content that was included in the 2022–2023 calendar is missing from the current version, it may be reinstated in the next academic calendar without requiring governance approval.
2. Errors in the Current Academic Calendar
   If there are errors in the current calendar—such as incorrect credit counts or other discrepancies not present in previous versions—please submit a correction request using the academic calendar template.
3. Clarification Notes
   If your unit would like to add clarification notes that do not require governance approval, these can also be submitted using the template.

Lapsed-In the Course Offering System (COS), if the course has not been offered for the past (7) years or if a program has been closed, the course will be considered “lapsed.”

Retired-When the version of the course has been discontinued in the curriculum, it is considered “retired.

Expired-The courses that are no longer offered in a Faculty’s curriculum and has an expiry date are considered “expired.”

In CMS, “inactive” is used and is equivalent to ‘retire’ in COS.

Retired courses in CMS were marked as such due to data quality issues in COS. For example, some courses were labeled as "Lapsed" without an associated expiry date, while others had overlapping term data—conditions that are not supported by the CMS system. However, all newer versions of these courses were successfully imported into CMS as either Active or Inactive, based on their current status in COS.

When a unit submits a course proposal, the curriculum team vets it to ensure it is complete and aligns with CCPS requirements and the York University Quality Assurance Framework. If the proposal is missing information or needs clarification, the curriculum team will return it with feedback.

This step happens before the proposal is reviewed by the CCPS committee. The goal is to help strengthen the proposal and increase its chances of being approved without delay.

The curriculum team will communicate the outcome of the CCPS review via email. Proposals may receive one of the following statuses:

• Approved (with or without recommendations or friendly suggestions)
• Conditionally approved (approved on the condition of minor edits or corrections)
• Returned (requiring revisions)
• Tabled (with recommendations for further consideration)

Each outcome will include relevant comments or suggestions to guide your next steps.

The academic calendar serves as an official contract between students and the university. It outlines key information about program admissions, degree options, credit requirements, and other essential criteria for program completion.

Kuali is the vendor that provides the Curriculum Management System (CMS) used at York University. This system serves as the official course repository and is used for submitting, reviewing, and approving course proposals.

Anyone with a York Work Passport account can access the CMS to view information about courses available in the system.

Learning objectives are written from the instructor’s perspective and describe what the instructor intends to teach during a course. They focus on teaching goals and instructional strategies. Learning outcomes are written from the student’s perspective and describe what students are expected to know, do, or demonstrate by the end of the course or program. They focus on measurable achievements and skills gained through learning.

Mode of delivery refers to the mode/s in which a course is offered. The course can be fully online or in-person, or blended. There are multiple forms of delivery that York University offers. Please refer to the CMS list (DOCX).

Faculty members are welcome to provide a rationale for not accepting certain suggestions. This explanation will be shared with the CCPS committee when the proposal is scheduled for review.

It’s always recommended to respond to the curriculum team’s feedback—even if the proponent chooses not to implement some of it—so the curriculum developers understand the decision and reasoning behind that. This helps prevent delays and ensures the proposal continues to move forward smoothly.

When a new course proposal includes some Experiential Education (EE) components (see the guidelines), consultation with the EE coordinator will determine whether it requires a support letter. It is recommended that the proponent contact the EE coordinator at eelaps@yorku.ca before they submit a proposal to save curriculum development time.

If a course includes substantial content that are connected or based on Indigenous Peoples, it requires consultation with the York Indigenous Council. Please refer to York University’s Indigenous Framework. For a consultation letter, please email lapsindigenous@yorku.ca.

If the newly proposed course brings any change to the degree requirement or the existing course list (adding the course to the list), then an MCP (standard minor modification) along with an NCP would be required. The new course proposal can be submitted through CMS, and the MCP can be attached as a Historical Attachment in CMS.

Course credit exclusions help maintain academic integrity and prevent students from earning credit twice for courses with overlapping content. The proponent should consider credit exclusions in the following situations:

• To prevent students from receiving credit for similar or duplicate content.
• To uphold the integrity of your course and the overall degree program.

When to consider them:

• A consultee requests a credit exclusion.
• You’re proposing a new version of an existing or retired course (e.g., changing from 3.00 to 6.00 credits).
• You’re creating a course that duplicates content from another, even if it’s under a different rubric, as part of your academic freedom.
• You answer yes to: Could a student potentially earn credit twice for repeated exposure to overlapping content?

Questions to guide your decision:

• Who is the course open to?
• What level of skills or knowledge should a student have to succeed?
  • e.g., “Students must have completed X number of credits prior to enrolling.”
• Does the course rely on foundational content not covered in the proposed course?
• e.g., “Prerequisites: Course 1000, Course 2000.”
• Is the course introducing disciplinary knowledge that should already be known at the 3000- or 4000-level?
• In most cases, upper-year core/major courses should build on prior knowledge, not introduce it for the first time.

The unit should consider cross-listing when:

• a course may be used to fulfill credit in another program or is relevant to students outside your program
•  When another program wants to reserve seats for its students. In large departments or faculties, a course supports multiple programs.
• when a new, program-specific rubric is created to help students find relevant courses.

Cross-listing helps increase visibility, accessibility, and enrollment across programs.

Please see Program Learning Outcomes page in curriculum toolkit site.

You can contact the Curriculum Team.

When a new course proposal affects any other programs such as cross-listed programs or has content overlap with an existing course in another program or department or Faculties (keyword search), consultation with the respective unit is required. In some cases, consultation is also required for minor changes to courses as well. For example, adding or removing a cross-listing requires consultation with all respective units, per Senate Policy on Course Cross-listings, Exclusions and Substitutions (Guidelines and Procedures).

• To demonstrate your awareness of the wider context in which you are proposing curriculum
• To ensure your curriculum proposal responds to gaps or duplication in existing programming
• To communicate with and inform your colleagues
• To ensure consistency in Curriculum Management System, the Student Information System and the Academic Calendar
• To provide additional context to CCPS