Survey Insights: How Colleges and Universities Manage Curriculum

Curriculum management encompasses the full set of processes institutions use to make changes to the curriculum. It includes oversight of curriculum decision-making structures, management of policy and technology, data-driven recommendations that support or challenge proposed changes, and assurance of learning. Curriculum management can also involve updating approved changes across the SIS, catalog, web platforms, and degree audit systems.

Survey findings from AACRAO, based on responses from 281 undergraduate-serving institutions, provide a clearer view of how this process unfolds. The data reveals patterns in leadership oversight, workflow design, how often curriculum changes occur, and guidelines around updates. As institutions seek stronger alignment across academic operations, curriculum management stands out as an area where structure and technology can drive meaningful impact.

Provosts & Chief Academic Officers Lead Curriculum Management at Most Institutions

At half of the institutions surveyed, the chief academic officer or provost supervises curriculum management. This governance model underscores the institutional weight of curriculum decisions. Updating and introducing new curricular offerings is a vital process to serve student interests and align with workforce demands. Provosts sit at the center of this critical function and often have the final say over proposed changes.

However, concentrated oversight does not automatically produce streamlined processes. Without cohesive systems, oversight can remain strategic in theory but fragmented in practice. Curriculum management requires coordination across academic units, registrars, technology teams, and institutional research. Institutions that pair provost-level oversight with centralized workflows and connected technology platforms create stronger alignment between strategy and execution.

From Systems to Spreadsheets: The Mixed State of Curriculum Management Technology

While provost-level oversight provides strategic direction, technology infrastructure shapes daily execution. The survey highlights significant variation in how institutions support the curriculum management process. 58% of survey respondents report the use of only one technology solution, while the remaining 42% rely on multiple tools to manage different stages of the curriculum lifecycle.

Despite investment in technology solutions, many institutions continue to depend on manual tools. Nearly 40% of institutions use spreadsheets to support curriculum management, and 43% use email as part of the process. While these tools might temporarily support communication across the curriculum process, they also fragment information, reduce transparency, and complicate efforts to maintain accurate data across systems.

A more integrated approach can streamline this work. A unified academic operations platform allows institutions to route proposals through defined workflows, enforce policy controls, and synchronize approved changes across downstream systems. By replacing fragmented tools with a connected ecosystem, institutions can align strategy with execution and reduce unnecessary operational strain.

Curriculum Change Without Academic Ecosystem Alignment

Beyond technology choices, institutions should evaluate how curriculum changes are aligned with the publication of key sources, such as the catalog. The survey findings show that 46% of institutions do not limit how often course changes occur each year, despite the catalog often only being published once a year.

When institutions permit continuous changes without defined timelines, coordination challenges intensify. Academic departments and curriculum committees need clear deadlines for proposal submission and approval to ensure changes appear in the next year’s catalog. At the same time, admissions, advising, and marketing teams need clarity on when they can begin communicating updates and when they will have access to the finalized catalog. Without shared timelines and expectations, institutions risk confusion, misalignment across systems, and added workload for staff responsible for implementation.

Institutions that establish defined change windows, clarify review timelines, and align those timelines with system updates create greater stability without sacrificing responsiveness. Clear structure and shared visibility allow academic leaders to support innovation while maintaining consistency across academic operations.

Modernizing curriculum management is no simple task. It touches governance models, technology systems, and guidelines around change. But when institutions treat curriculum management as a strategic pillar that requires clear guidelines and operational support , they establish a stable foundation for innovation and create a more cohesive academic experience.

‍