|
(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 seven 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 Workforce, Academic Affairs and Research. (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 18 Characteristics of Texas 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 Workforce, Academic Affairs and Research Division no later than 180 days after the reviewers have submitted their findings to the institution. (11)Institutions may submit reviews 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 seven 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 Workforce, Academic Affairs and Research. (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 Workforce, Academic Affairs and Research Division no later than 180 days after the reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution. (11)Institutions may submit reviews 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.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has
been reviewed by legal
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of
the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office
of the Secretary of State on July 26, 2013
TRD-201303062 Bill Franz
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: August 15, 2013
Proposal publication date: April 5, 2013
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6114
|
