The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new §§4.285 - 4.293, concerning Review of Low-Producing Degree Programs. Sections 4.287 - 4.291 and §4.293 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 8, 2010, issue of the Texas Register (35 TexReg 175). Sections 4.285, 4.286 and 4.292 are being adopted without changes and will not be republished.

Specifically, these new sections establish procedures for annual review of the number of graduates produced by degree programs at institutions of higher education to determine which are low-producing degree programs, and provides remedies for those programs that meet the definition of low-producing.

The following comments were received concerning the new sections:

Comment: Texas Association of College Technical Educators (TACTE), Grayson Community College, Brazosport College, San Jacinto Community College District, and Lamar Institute of Technology commented that the content regarding associate degree programs is ambiguous in regards to the inclusion and notification of associate of applied science degree and career technical programs.

Response: Staff agree and have clarified language in §4.287(4)(A) and by adding §4.288(c).

Comment: TACTE commented that degree programs should allow for exceptions from §4.291 for workforce needs in specific industries.

Response: Staff agree and have added clarifying language to §4.291(a)(1)(A).

Comment: TACTE, Palo Alto College, Brazosport College, Collin County Community College, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, and the University of Texas System state that the 10-year closure cycle is too long to respond to changes in the economy and be responsive to labor market, industry, and student needs.

Response: Staff agree and have added clarifying language in §4.293(c) and (d)(1) and (2).

Comment: TACTE commented that the process for program reinstatement for associate degrees is not addressed in §4.293.

Response: Staff agree and have made the clarification by adding §4.293(d)(1).

Comment: Palo Alto College commented that the proposed rules do not allow for a deactivation period for programs that are being closed due to low-productivity.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff notes that current procedure for phasing out any program allows for a teach-out period.

Comment: Stephen F. Austin University and a member of the general public commented that programs, especially math and science graduate programs, at smaller regional comprehensive institutions will be jeopardized and should be exempt from the proposed rules.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the minimum degree completion requirements are not excessive and are similar to standards adopted in many other states. Additionally, staff noted that the rules allow for a request for temporary exemption of a program that can justify need by explaining recruitment and retention strategies, applicable Closing the Gap initiatives, student success, and cost efficiency.

Comment: The University of Texas at Tyler commented that allowances should be given to new programs and programs that are a service to other programs and do not incur additional cost.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that these concerns are addressed in §4.289(a) for new programs and in §4.291(a)(2) for service programs.

Comment: The University of Texas at Tyler commented that reviewing low-performing programs annually causes additional burden on the institution and recommends a biennial review.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the number of degrees completed are reported every year to the Coordinating Board. No action is required of the institution until the fifth year of a low-producing degree program.

Comment: A member of the general public commented that it is unreasonable to expect small and medium sized universities to produce the same number of graduates per years as similar programs at larger institutions.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the minimum degree completion requirements are not excessive and are similar to standards adopted in many other states.

Comment: A member of the general public commented that each institution should determine its own degree-production requirements dependent on the intensity of the program.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the rules allow for a request for temporary exemption of a program that can justify need by explaining recruitment and retention strategies, applicable Closing the Gap initiatives, student success, and cost efficiency.

Comment: Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi recommended that related variations on the same degree program (BA, BS, BBA, etc.) be treated as a single degree.

Response: No change is recommended. Institutions currently report degree completion by CIP code, combining all programs classified under the same CIP code, and level, not by degree type.

Comment: Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi commented that clarification is needed in regards to §4.290 and the required action timeline.

Response: Staff agree and clarifying language has been added to §4.290 and the redundancy eliminated in §4.289(a).

Comment: San Jacinto Community College District commented that the minimum program requirements reported for the Perkins Act for career technical programs is 15 graduates in three years. San Jacinto Community College District commented that institutions would have two sets of figures to report.

Response: No change is recommended. The degree completion requirement outlined in the rules is the same number required for the Perkins institutional effectiveness.

Comment: Lamar Institute of Technology commented that language regarding the reinstatement of closed programs neglects to include the procedure for reinstatement of associate degree programs.

Response: Staff agree and have included the procedure by clarifying §4.293(c) and adding §4.293(d)(1).

Comment: Texas Woman's University commented that §4.289 does not describe how permanent exemptions are designated for bachelor's degrees that are similar to other programs and do not incur additional cost.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the request for §4.291(a)(2) outlines the requirements for any level degree requesting a temporary exemption. Permanent exemptions outlined in §4.289 apply to Master's programs that are terminal degree options for students not continuing on to the doctoral level of the same program.

Comment: Collin County Community College commented that §4.87(4)(A) should include language referring to program completers rather than degree completers to incorporate the certificate program completers as well as the degree program completers.

Response: Staff agree and have clarified the definition in §4.287(4)(A) and the notification policy in §4.288(c).

Comment: Collin County Community College commented that low-performing programs cannot be determined on an annual basis and that the definition of low-performing programs in §4.287(4)(A) - (C) reference an average over five years.

Response: Staff agree and have added clarifying language to §4.290. The alerts referenced in §4.287(4)(A) - (C) do not require action on the part of the institution; therefore, no change is recommended for §4.287(4)(A) - (C).

Comment: South Texas College commented that students' transferring to a four-year institution before earning an award should be considered as a success measure.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the proposed rule applies to career technical certificates, associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees awarded.

Comment: South Texas College commented that future occupational needs expectancy should be considered in the exempt section.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff noted that the rules allow for a request for temporary exemption of a program that can justify need by explaining recruitment and retention strategies, applicable Closing the Gap initiatives, student success, and cost efficiency.

The new rules are adopted under the Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter C, §61.051(j), which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to approve courses for credit, distance education, and existing programs.