The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to §5.46 concerning Criteria for New Doctoral Programs without changes to the proposed text as published in the October 2, 2015, issue of the Texas Register (40 TexReg 6818). The intent of the amendments is to clearly delineate the criteria for approval of new doctoral programs; and clarify the information and documentation that public universities and health-related institutions must submit when requesting a new doctoral program.

The following comment was received from The University of Texas System (UT System):

Comment: The UT System expressed concern with the amendment of Criterion 10, Carefully Programmed Course of Study, which adds the following sentence: "Consideration must also be given to alternative methods of determining mastery of program content, such as competency-based education, prior learning assessment, and other options of reducing student time to degree." UT System does not support this change, and believes that any decision to include competency-based education depends upon the discipline of the degree program and should be made exclusively by the faculty. UT System notes that time-to-degree could be improved among existing doctoral programs, but feels that goal is best accomplished by periodic assessments of program requirements by faculty, early mentoring of doctoral students, and competitive financial support. UT System asks for reconsideration of this change to the Criteria for New Doctoral Programs.

Response: The amendment to Criterion 10 does not require institutions to use competency-based education or other methods of reducing student time to degree. The amendment only requires institutions to give consideration to the use of such methods. Coordinating Board staff agree that faculty should decide if competency-based education is appropriate for a program in their discipline. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

The following comments were received from Texas Tech University (TTU):

Comment: TTU supported changes to criteria one through three, but opposed the amendment to criterion four, saying "at its core, this addition appears predicated on the assumption that only current workforce demands are the target for doctoral graduates and that existing programs are positioned better than new programs to meet current or future workforce needs. This addition does not recognize that viable employment opportunities do/will exist outside of Texas or that research universities such as TTU serve as economic engines that create NEW jobs that add to our workforce demands and economic expansion. Moreover, the examples given may be difficult or impossible to obtain (admission data) or of questionable relevance."

Response: The amendment to criterion four does not alter the workforce demand data requested by the Coordinating Board. The amendment adds a request for evidence of student demand for the proposed program. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

Comment: TTU opposed the changes to criterion 10, which adds a requirement that the institution give consideration to competency-based education and other methods of reducing student time to degree, saying "There are no data connecting alternative methods of demonstrating mastery of content to time to degree for doctoral students, and so this addition may be based on an invalid premise. Moreover, adaptability and/or validity of such methods to specific fields of study may be unproven and/or impractical to implement. Lastly, the addition may be addressing a non-problem as time to degree varies among fields and may not be at variance with national standards."

Response: Reducing student time to degree can help lower educational costs for students and the state, therefore this provision encourages institutions to consider a variety of methods for achieving this important objective, but does not mandate that institutions use any particular method. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

Comment: TTU supported the portion of the addition to criterion 11 that requires a plan for providing external learning experiences. However, TTU opposed the portion of the addition that requires increasing the number of such opportunities: "First, it may be impractical or impossible to determine the number of opportunities in the state given the dynamic nature of the workforce and economic factors that govern such opportunities at any point in time. Secondly, there is an assumption that existing degree programs are of fixed size and/or are suitably addressing workforce needs that may or may not be correct. Lastly, external learning experiences outside of Texas may be undersubscribed and offer viable alternatives for meeting program demands."

Response: In recent years Texas institutions have had difficulties placing students in some disciplines into internships and other types of external learning experiences. In order to alleviate this shortage, Coordinating Board staff have added this provision to encourage institutions to increase the number of external learning experiences in those disciplines where shortages exist. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

Comment: TTU supported the amendment to criterion 15, Costs and Funding, to provide a budgetary plan for the new program that clearly delineates the anticipated costs and the sources of funding. TTU opposed "the portion of this new provision that prohibits reallocation of resources from existing programs. There is an underlying assumption of this aspect of the provision that existing programs are meeting student demand and workforce needs, which may or may not be correct. Moreover, this aspect of the provision unnecessarily intrudes on the strategic management of institutional resources and hinders the ability of the institution to respond and adapt to changes in internal or external forces."

Response: The amendment does not prohibit the use of reallocated funds for newly proposed doctoral programs. The amendment specifies that "existing programs should not be negatively affected by the reallocation of funds." New doctoral programs should build on the strengths of existing programs, rather than debilitating them. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

The rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter C, §61.0512, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to approve new degree programs.