Dr. Casey Presswood, who oversees academic affairs for the Institutions of Higher Learning, briefed trustees on the system-level process for approving new academic programs and for conducting annual academic program productivity reviews.

"Policy 501 requires that all programs of study be submitted to the board and must be approved before a university can initiate the program on their campus," Presswood said, adding that Policy 502 requires the commissioner or board staff to develop guidelines and procedures used in the review process.

Presswood summarized what universities must submit for new program requests: anticipated annual cost, five‑year implementation cost and anticipated revenue; projected enrollments and graduates for five years; faculty names/ranks and whether new hires are needed; library holdings; accreditation plans if applicable; and evidence of labor-market need (typically using Bureau of Labor Statistics data). She said requests must bear appropriate institutional approvals, including signatures from the provost and the president or chancellor, and must be submitted to IHL at least two months before the board agenda date.

On productivity reviews, Presswood described numeric triggers that place programs on review: fewer than 18 graduates over three years for baccalaureate programs, fewer than 12 for master’s programs, and fewer than five for specialist and doctoral programs. She said new programs are given grace periods (seven years for bachelor’s, five years for master’s/specialist, six years for doctorates) before those thresholds apply.

Presswood outlined the review timeline: in January she receives enrollment and completer files from the Office of Strategic Research; in March she notifies chief academic officers about programs placed on productivity review; universities then conduct reviews and submit proposals by September; board recommendations follow at the November meeting. Possible board recommendations include continuing a program without stipulation, continuing with stipulations requiring annual progress reports, suspending admission to a program while current students are taught out, or deleting a program after follow-up steps fail to restore productivity.

Presswood said a 10‑year average across the system shows roughly 18 programs added annually, 13 modified, 12 deleted, six suspended, 53 placed on productivity review and 15 placed on continuous stipulation. She noted the 2020 productivity review was not conducted due to COVID‑19 and that the process has been refined since then.

Why it matters: Program approvals and productivity reviews affect curriculum offerings, state-level workforce alignment, faculty hiring and resource allocations across the public university system.

What’s next: Trustees and campus leaders will use the described timelines and templates when proposing new degrees or responding to productivity reviews.