| (a) In accordance with the requirements of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, each
public institution of higher education shall have a process to review
the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for
continuous improvement.
(b) The Coordinating Board staff shall develop a process
for conducting a periodic audit of the quality, productivity, and
effectiveness of existing bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs at public institutions of higher education and health-related
institutions.
(c) Each public university and health-related institution
shall review all doctoral programs at least once every ten years.
(1) On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner,
institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all doctoral programs
to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce.
(2) Institutions shall begin each review of a doctoral
program with a rigorous self-study.
(3) As part of the required review process, institutions
shall use at least two external reviewers with subject-matter expertise
who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
(4) External reviewers must be provided with the materials
and products of the self-study and must be brought to the campus for
an on-site review.
(5) External reviewers must be part of a program that
is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
(6) External reviewers must affirm that they have no
conflict of interest related to the program under review.
(7) Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the
same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be
reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
(8) Institutions shall review master's and doctoral
programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study
materials and reviewers. Institutions may also, at their discretion,
review bachelor's programs in the same discipline as master's and
doctoral programs simultaneously.
(9) Criteria for the review of doctoral programs must
include, but are not limited to:
(A) The Characteristics of Texas Public Doctoral Programs;
(B) Student retention rates;
(C) Student enrollment;
(D) Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
(E) Alignment of program with stated program and institutional
goals and purposes;
(F) Program curriculum and duration in comparison to
peer programs;
(G) Program facilities and equipment;
(H) Program finance and resources;
(I) Program administration; and
(J) Faculty Qualifications.
(10) Institutions shall submit a report on the outcomes
of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewers
and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the
program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and
Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewers have
submitted their findings to the institution.
(11) Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs
performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in
satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
(d) Each public university and health-related institution
shall review all stand-alone master's programs at least once every
ten years.
(1) On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner,
institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all master's programs
to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce.
(2) Institutions shall begin each review of a master's
program with a rigorous self-study.
(3) As part of the required review process, institutions
shall use at least one external reviewer with subject-matter expertise
who is employed by an institution of higher education outside of Texas.
(4) External reviewers shall be provided with the materials
and products of the self-study. External reviewers may be brought
to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct a remote
desk review.
(5) External reviewers must be part of a program that
is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
(6) External reviewers must affirm that they have no
conflict of interest related to the program under review.
(7) Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the
same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be
reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
(8) Master's programs in the same 6-digit Classification
of Instructional Programs code as doctoral programs shall be reviewed
simultaneously with their related doctoral programs.
(9) Criteria for the review of master's programs must
include, but are not limited to:
(A) Faculty qualifications;
(B) Faculty publications;
(C) Faculty external grants;
(D) Faculty teaching load;
(E) Faculty/student ratio;
(F) Student demographics;
(G) Student time-to-degree;
(H) Student publication and awards;
(I) Student retention rates;
(J) Student graduation rates;
(K) Student enrollment;
(L) Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
(M) Graduate placement (i.e. employment or further
education/training);
(N) Number of degrees conferred annually;
(O) Alignment of program with stated program and institutional
goals and purposes;
(P) Program curriculum and duration in comparison to
peer programs;
(Q) Program facilities and equipment;
(R) Program finance and resources; and
(S) Program administration.
(10) Institutions shall submit a report of the outcomes
of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewer(s)
and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the
program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and
Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewer(s) have
submitted their findings to the institution.
(11) Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs
performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in
satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
(e) The Coordinating Board shall review all reports
submitted for master's and doctoral programs and shall conduct analysis
as necessary to ensure high quality. Institutions may be required
to take additional actions to improve their programs as a result of
Coordinating Board review.
|
| Source Note: The provisions of this §5.52 adopted to be effective August 26, 2009, 34 TexReg 5678; amended to be effective November 29, 2010, 35 TexReg 10496; amended to be effective May 24, 2011, 36 TexReg 3183; amended to be effective August 15, 2013, 38 TexReg 5063; amended to be effective May 29, 2018, 43 TexReg 3347 |
