1. (1) Purpose Statement: Through the implementation of Act 96-557, the Alabama Commission on Higher Education will work with institutions to examine academic programs which do not produce minimum levels of graduates as established by the Alabama legislature. The goal of this effort will be to evaluate priorities, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and focus existing resources to enhance the overall quality of academic offerings.
2. (2) Policy: The Alabama Commission on Higher Education will review the productivity of programs listed in its academic program inventory using a two-1evel review process. In year one, programs will be identified as viable or non-viable. This identification process will be followed by a three-year monitoring period. Any programs which do not meet the standards or receive a waiver of non-viability at the end of the three-year monitoring period will be phased out over a three-year period. Consistent with the statutory mandate to base productivity standards primarily, but not exclusively, on the annual average number of degrees conferred, the Commission will use three factors in evaluating the productivity of a program: IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) completions data as required by Act 96-557, double majors, and the number of students previously enrolled in vocational/technical programs who meet certain standards and can be counted as graduates for purposes of program viability. Although one outcome of this process may be program terminations, the Commission recognizes that closing programs will not necessarily lead to cost savings because programs often share facilities, faculty, and resources.

3. (3) Review Process: The review process will consist of an Identification Year Review and a Three-Year Monitoring Period.

   1. (a) Identification Year Review:

      1. 1. Level I Review: Programs whose average annual graduation rate meets the viability standard annual graduation rate established by Act 96-557 will be deemed viable. This rate will be calculated using IPEDS completions data only.
      2. 2. Level II Review: The remaining programs will be subjected to a Level II review based on double majors and the certification of students previously enrolled in vocational/technical programs as graduates if the institution can document that the student successfully completed a minimum of 20 quarter hours or 15 semester hours of technical skills courses during the reporting period and left the program for purposes of gainful employment. All data will be subject to audit as directed by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. Programs which meet the viability standard annual graduation rate as a result of the Level II review will be placed on the viable program list, and the remaining programs will be considered non-viable, with the exception of the core liberal arts programs (see b.2. in this section and 300-2-2-.02.).
   2. (b) Three-Year Monitoring Period: During the three-year monitoring period, the graduation rates of non-viable programs will be compiled. At the end of the three-year monitoring period, any non-viable program which does not meet the standard may request a waiver of non-viability due to unique and extraordinary characteristics of that program. The request for a waiver must be based on the seven factors outlined in Act 96-557. The Commission will grant or deny the waiver on a case-by-case basis based on the strength of the justification offered by the institution. If there are any fields in which no programs in the state are viable, the Commission will undertake a statewide review of the disciplines. Any non-viable program which has not been granted a waiver and does not meet the viability standard annual graduation rate at the end of the three-year monitoring period will be terminated by the Commission with a three-year phaseout.

4. (4) Review Procedures: The following procedures apply to all academic programs at public institutions, including programs recognized by the Commission as core liberal arts programs (for an explanation and listing of core liberal arts programs recognized by the Commission, see 300-2-2-.02).

   1. (a) Identification Year (1997)

      1. 1. The Commission will calculate the annual graduation rate for each program listed in its academic program inventory as of January 15, 1997 using the designated reporting periods for implementation from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) annual completions survey. Where more than one program at a degree level is listed at a six-digit CIP code, the staff may request that the institution separate the completions for each program. Note: The asterisk sign in the Commission’s academic program inventory denotes separate programs.
      2. 2. The annual graduation rate for each program will be compared to the viability standard annual graduation rate listed in Act 96-557. All programs whose annual graduation rate equals or exceeds the viability standard annual graduation rate will be deemed viable for the four-year period. The remaining programs will be subjected to a second level of analysis based on double majors, and the certification of students previously enrolled in vocational/technical programs as graduates in combination with the annual graduation rate.
      3. 3. The Commission will issue a Level I review report which lists viable programs by institution based on the IPEDS completions survey data.
      4. 4. Programs which meet the viability standard annual graduation rate as a result of the second level of analysis will be placed on the viable program list, and the remaining programs will be considered non-viable, with the exception of the core liberal arts programs. The Commission will issue a Level II review report which adjusts the viable program list to reflect those programs so designated as a result of the second level review, a list of non-viable programs, and a list of core liberal arts programs on the exemption list.
      5. 5. The Commission will report to the Governor, the State Board of Education and the Council of College and University Presidents on the status of programs determined to be viable, non-viable, and on the exemption list. This report shall include information for each institution.

   2. (b) Three-Year Monitoring Period (1998-2000)

      1. 1. Non-Viable Programs: The viability standard annual graduation rates of non-viable programs will be monitored for three years.

      2. 2. Exempt Core Liberal Arts Programs (For a desciption and list of core liberal arts programs recognized by the Commission, see 300-2-2-.02):

         1. (i) Each institution with exempt core liberal arts programs will conduct an assessment of those programs during the three-year monitoring period. The purpose of this assessment is for institutions to develop innovative, high quality approaches to offering core liberal arts education which also meet viability standards. At a minimum, the assessment should address the following questions for each exempt core liberal arts program.

            1. (I) Should the institution continue to offer all of its existing core liberal arts programs, or is there a better way to provide the necessary educational experience to the student?
            2. (II) In what ways can the institution cooperate or collaborate with other institutions to offer quality core liberal arts programs?
            3. (III) Can the institution more narrowly focus it liberal arts programs and improve quality through consortia, resource sharing among institutions, distance education, joint and cooperative programs, etc.?
            4. (IV) What are the barriers to cooperative efforts?
         2. (ii) The institution will provide an annual report to the Commission each December during the three-year monitoring period which summarizes activity during the year devoted to the assessment and improvement of the exempt core liberal arts programs.
         3. (iii) At the end of the three-year monitoring period, the institution will present a final report to the Commission outlining the efforts and outcomes of the assessment. For any core liberal arts programs which still do not meet the viability standard annual graduation rate at the end of the three-year monitoring period, the Commission will continue monitoring the productivity for a final, additional three-year monitoring period (2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03). At the conclusion of the final three-year monitoring cycle, institutions will phase out any remaining non-viable core liberal arts programs for which a waiver of non-viability is not sought and granted by the Commission.

5. (5) Process for Submitting and Reviewing Requests for Waivers of Non-Viability for Academic Programs:

   1. (a) Any non-viable program that fails to meet the minimum productivity standard at the end of the three-year monitoring period must submit a waiver request, that may or may not be approved by the Commission, or phase-out the program within three years. In the case of core liberal arts programs that remain non-viable at the end of the three-year monitoring period, the institution may request that the Commission continue monitoring the program for three additional years or phase-out the the program within three years. (For a description and list of core liberal arts programs recognized by the Commission, see 300-2-2-.02)
   2. (b) The Commission will grant or deny the waiver on a case-by-case basis based on the strength of the justification offered by the institution. A waiver request must include a description of efforts the institution has taken to increase productivity.
   3. (c) Duration of Granted Waivers: Generally, waivers approved by the Commission will extend from the date of approval until the next statewide viability review is completed. This means that any program granted a waiver is subject to the next statewide viability review. However, the Commission may approve a waiver for a specific time period with conditions and reporting requirements if circumstances so dictate.

   4. (d) Time Lines/Process:

      1. 1. ACHE notification to institutions regarding remaining non-viable programs (to include a copy of the process adopted by the Commission for submission and review of requests for waivers of non-viability for academic programs – June 1, 2001)
      2. 2. 90 days (3 months) - After receipt of notification, submission by institution of waiver request(s) (Due date: August 31, 2001). Request(s) must be signed by the president of the institution.
      3. 3. 120 days (4 months) – Comparative review by ACHE staff of all waiver requests, generation of preliminary staff recommendations. Note: This time line for review is tentative and may be extended depending on the number of waiver requests that are submitted and staff resources available to assign to the review.
      4. 4. Transmittal of preliminary staff recommendations to institutions.
      5. 5. Thirty days (1 month) – Institutional review of preliminary staff recommendations and institutional response to preliminary recommendations.
      6. 6. Ninety days (3 months) – Development of final ACHE staff recommendations. Note: Again, the time line for development of final staff recommendations is tentative and may be extended depending on the number of waiver requests that are submitted and staff resources available to assign to the review.
      7. 7. Commission hearings and final Commission action on waiver requests.
      8. 8. Programs denied a waiver will be closed effective with the date of the waiver denial and removed from the Commission’s academic program inventory. During the subsequent three-year phase-out period, institutions will concentrate their efforts to assist students enrolled in the program to complete their degrees. However, students enrolled in the program will be allowed to complete the program as per individual institutional policies.
   5. (e) Instructions: A separate request must be submitted for each program for which the institution is requesting a waiver. If waiver requests are being submitted for programs in the same field at more than one level (example, a waiver request for master’s and doctoral programs in engineering), two separate waiver requests must be provided. There are three components to each waiver request: Form A: Waiver Request Data Form; Form B: Course Listing for Program Submitting Waiver Request, and Rationale for Waiver Request. Each of these components must be completed in full for the waiver request to be considered by the Commission. However, submission of all information required in the waiver request does not guarantee a recommendation for approval. Note: All data submitted to the Commission as part of a waiver request is subject to audit. Form A and Form B, along with definitions, are available upon request.

   6. (f) Rationale for Waiver Request: There are 10 possible factors upon which to base the rationale for the waiver request, listed below. Note: Each waiver request must address Factor 1. In addition, each waiver request should address one or more of Factors 2-10.

      1. 1. Institutional commitment to elevate the non-viable program to viable status (Note: This factor must be included in all waiver requests.): The institution must provide documentation that a plan to move the program toward viable status has been developed and implemented. The plan must contain strategies and reasonable objectives to improve viability, and the institution must document progress toward those objectives. (Note: See also Market Demand factor. If relevant, the institution must demonstrate that meeting or exceeding the viability standard would exceed market demand.)
      2. 2. Transfer: Students who transfer into a higher degree program prior to completion of a lower degree program may be considered in issues of non-viability if an institution maintains that such transfers contribute to the non-viability of the lower degree program. An institution basing a viability waiver request on this factor must provide a verifiable number of students who transferred to higher degree programs at other institutions for the three-year period 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. (Other years may also be used at the option of the institution.) Students must have completed at least 24 semester hours prior to transfer to be included in that number.
      3. 3. Lack of Duplication of the Program Within the State: The institution must demonstrate that the program does not duplicate others at the same CIP code and level within the State and indeed that it does not perform the same function as similar programs within the State. An institution requesting a waiver based on this factor must also provide evidence of the need for the program. Thus, a waiver request based on this factor must also address the factor of Market Demand.

      4. 4. Market Demand: The institution must demonstrate current and/or projected market demand for program graduates and such demand must be validated with external data, including evidence of demand from employers.

         1. (i) The institution must provide placement data for program graduates for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. Other years may also be used at the option of the institution.
         2. (ii) If the institution maintains that although market demand is small, the program is nevertheless critical, then the criticality of the demand must be validated with external data. If relevant, the institution must also address the premise that meeting or exceeding the viability standard would in turn exceed market demand.

      5. 5. Employment/Placement: Students enrolled in a non-viable baccalaureate or graduate program who in turn accepted in-field employment prior to completion of the degree may be considered in issues of non-viability. The interpretation is that accepting employment prior to degree completion contributed to the non-viable status of the degree program.

         1. (i) An institution basing a waiver request on this factor should provide a verifiable number of individuals leaving the program prior to completion and documentation of in-field employment for the three-year period 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. For undergraduate programs, each individual must have completed at least 50% of the required course hours in the major beyond the basic curriculum as defined in the AGSC program template. For graduate programs, each individual must have completed at least 50% of the hours required for the degree. Data from additional years may be used at the option of the institution.
         2. (ii) Certifications of employment/placement in field prior to completion of the degree have already been included in the viability calculation for vocational/technical programs. Data are included in the information provided by ACHE in the shaded cells of Form A.
      6. 6. Knight v. Alabama: An institution basing a waiver on this factor must clearly demonstrate how the program contributes to the objectives of Knight v. Alabama and/or how the program has been impacted by Knight v. Alabama.

      7. 7. Unique and Extraordinary Aspects/Characteristics of the Program: The institution basing a waiver on this factor must demonstrate unique and extraordinary aspects of the program. Examples of these aspects could include but not be limited to:

         1. (i) Programs offered in association with the legislatively mandated mission of the institution.
         2. (ii) Graduate programs closely related to extramurally funded research programs, the elimination of which would curtail the level of extramural funding.
         3. (iii) Programs that have recently become priorities and based upon that have moved from few or no completions to projected completions that will meet viability standards within a reasonable period.
         4. (iv) Career/technical programs taught in correctional facilities and authorized by the Alabama State Board of Education.
         5. (v) Non-degree creditable programs in career/technical fields that serve persons with disabilities.
         6. (vi) Other unique and extraordinary aspects/characteristics.
      8. 8. Relationship of the non-viable program to other viable programs, including programs in the same discipline at other levels: The institution basing a waiver on this factor must demonstrate that faculty and resources allocated to the non-viable program contribute a significant service function to other viable programs in other disciplines or to viable programs at other levels within the same discipline. For example, an institution with a non-viable baccalaureate program must demonstrate that the majority of courses offered in the program are also required for successful completion of one or more other viable baccalaureate programs. Similarly, if an institution has a non-viable program in a given discipline at one level (baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral) but viable program(s) at another level or levels, the institution must demonstrate that the faculty/resources required by the non-viable program are also required by the viable program(s). The institution is encouraged to provide specific cost data in addressing this factor.

      9. 9. Teacher Certification Requirements:

         1. (i) A teacher certification program and a parallel program in the discipline may be considered together in waiver requests. For instance, the course of study and enrollments/completions in a history baccalaureate program housed in a College of Arts and Sciences may be considered along with the course of study and enrollments/completions in a history education baccalaureate program housed in a College of Education, and vice-versa.
         2. (ii) Add-on certification enrollments and completions may also be considered in determining whether to grant a waiver request in a particular degree program, whether the program is undergraduate or graduate and whether it is housed in a College of Education or elsewhere. For instance, a graduate student who already holds certification in another area but is seeking or has completed a certificate in Library Media will be considered in conjunction with students who are enrolled in or have completed a degree program in Library Media.
      10. 10. Success of Program Graduates: This factor, which is named in the legislation, is not one on which a viability waiver may be solely based. However, success may be included as additional information in waiver requests based on the factor of demonstration of institutional commitment and at least one other factor.
6. (6) Annual Report: The Commission will continue to make an annual report to the Governor, the State Board of Education and the Council of College and University Presidents. This report shall continue to include information for each institution and its respective viable, non-viable, and exempt program offerings. In addition, the annual report will list any programs granted waivers of non-viability by the Commission along with the commission's rationale for granting the waiver.

Author: Kitty C. Collier

Statutory Authority: Code of Ala. 1975, §§6-5-1, et.seq., and in implementation of Act 96-557.

History: Filed April 10, 1989. Amended: Filed October 19, 1989; December 5, 1990. Repealed: Filed March 12, 1996; effective April 16, 1996. New Rule: Filed August 4, 1997; effective September 8, 1997. Amended: Filed March 7, 2001; effective April 11, 2001. Repealed and New Rule: Filed July 6, 2001; effective August 10, 2001.