Effective curriculum governance requires a balance between academic input and institutional agility. By streamlining decision making and integrating cross-functional collaboration, colleges can respond faster to workforce needs while centering the student experience in every step of program development. In this interview, Amy Smith discusses how curriculum governance should drive responsiveness over bureaucracy and supporting it with technology that fosters collaboration and agility in academic planning.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): Can you describe what effective curriculum governance looks like at a modern institution today?
Amy Smith (AS): Historically, curriculum governance has been a faculty-driven, consensus-based process—experts shaping the disciplines they know best. While this model ensures robust academic input, it often slows down innovation and program development. It can also lead to misalignment, like nonexperts weighing in on specialized curricular areas.
At our institution, we’ve reimagined governance to balance collaboration with agility. Faculty committees offer input and vote on proposals, but the final decision rests with the provost’s office. This structure allows us to honor academic voices while moving quickly—sometimes launching new programs in just six months. It’s a responsive model that reflects the pace of change in today’s world and meets modern learners’ needs without compromising academic integrity.
Evo: Is this structure something you’ve always had or is it a newer model you’ve introduced?
AS: The structure has always existed, but over the past eight to ten years it evolved into a bit of a complex amoeba, spreading influence in ways that didn’t always make sense. When I stepped in as provost, I questioned that sprawl. We didn’t dismantle anything, but we did streamline it. We focused on where faculty input truly matters—where it impacts students, their learning and ultimately their career paths. The purpose of curriculum governance is to support student success, not bureaucracy. Anything beyond that starts to feel unnecessarily complicated.
Evo: What are the most common bottlenecks that academic teams face in these curriculum approvals or catalog updates, and what impact do those delays have on the student experience?
AS: A big challenge in higher ed is the overly complex governance structure, especially when it’s overly collaborative. At one R1 land-grant institution I worked with it took 36 approvals to get a single course approved. That kind of red tape stifles agility. When industry needs to shift—say a new manufacturer needs skilled grads—we often can’t respond quickly enough to build relevant programs or credentials.
These structures rarely allow for exceptions or speed, and they often crowd out decision makers like deans and department chairs. Worse, we don’t create space for industry input. If faculty designing curricula haven’t worked in the field recently, how relevant is the end result?
The consequence for students is serious. They may graduate with a well-structured degree that doesn’t align with real-world skills or employer needs. We focus so much on course content that we forget to prioritize how a student experiences a curriculum and how it prepares them for a career. Without built-in career alignment, students finish degrees less prepared—and businesses notice. Governance should serve the student journey, not obstruct it.
Evo: What strategies can academic leaders use to ensure transparency, consistency and accountability across these cross-functional curricular teams?
AS: The most effective strategy is to define and document who makes which decisions. Put it in the bylaws. Streamline the process. Train everyone on the decision-making framework: when input is advisory, when it’s a vote and when final authority lies with someone else like the provost or president.
That clarity removes ambiguity and reduces unnecessary friction between departments or committees. Too often, schools get bogged down in debate, not because of disagreement but because no one knows whose call it is. Clear roles and training around decision making can drastically improve how curricular teams function.
Evo: How can technology help institutions move from being reactive, proactive and market-aligned in their curriculum changes?
AS: Technology plays a critical role, but it’s not there yet. Current curricular systems track approvals and catalog updates, but they’re linear and transactional. They lack true collaboration spaces like those we see in LMS platforms, where wikis, forums and shared content drive engagement and discussion. Curricular decisions still require people in the same room or Zoom.
To become proactive, we need systems that support asynchronous collaboration and integrate industry data. AI has huge potential here. It can analyze curricular changes at scale, align learning outcomes with workforce trends and flag gaps, but we don’t yet have the infrastructure—or training—for faculty to fully use those insights.
Another issue is that most systems don’t allow for exceptions or agile pivots. When the tech rigidly defines the process, people stop questioning whether the process serves the goal. For institutions to move forward, technology must evolve to support both collaboration and flexibility, so we can respond to the market with intent, not inertia.
Evo: How can academic affair teams balance academic rigor with the operational need for speed to launch new programs?
AS: The key is recognizing that academic rigor means different things to different stakeholders. Students define it by how much they struggle. Faculty see it as workload. Student support staff view it through the level of help required. Each perspective matters, and together they shape student success.
Too often, program design happens in silos. Faculty design curriculum based on expertise, but rarely assess incoming student readiness or involve advising teams in the process. That leaves a gap between design and execution—between what’s taught and how students actually experience it.
To balance rigor and speed, academic affairs must bring all voices into the room early—students, faculty and student services. That collaborative approach leads to better, faster decisions and more responsive programming. It’s not about compromising rigor but designing with the full student journey in mind. When you start where the student starts and build outward, you get stronger outcomes and you move faster with purpose.
Evo: Anything you’d like to add?
AS: One thing we do well at my college but can’t always fully explain is starting where the student is. As an open-enrollment art and design institution, our students arrive from all backgrounds, with varying levels of preparation and a shared desire to become something more—an artist, a designer, a creator.
Curriculum governance, at its best, honors that. It’s not just about designing for one ideal student. It’s about building programs that support multiple pathways and levels of readiness without lowering academic rigor. That’s not easy, but it’s essential.
My challenge to academic leaders and faculty is this: How do you keep the student at the center of your decision making? When you’re creating, modifying or improving academic offerings, are you designing for who’s already thriving, or are you designing for who’s arriving with a dream? That mindset shift is where real transformation begins. It’s hard work, but it’s the work that matters most.
You Might Also Like
