Report-Low Conferral Work Group
Background
The Low Conferral Program Work Group was comprised of the following members:
- Alyssa Bernstein, Associate Professor, Philosophy, College of Arts & Sciences
- Candace Boeninger, Vice President for Enrollment Management
- Fred Drogula, Professor, Classics, College of Arts & Sciences
- Jennie Klein, Professor, Art + Design, Chaddock and Morrow College of Fine Arts
- Alex Meyers, Legal Affairs
- Jen Newton, Associate Professor, Teacher Education, Patton College of Education
- Sarah Poggione, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
- Jason Smith, Professor, Music, Chaddock and Morrow College of Fine Arts
- Loralyn Taylor, Associate Provost, Institutional Effectiveness & Analytics
The group met beginning May 13 and worked through July 11 on the work group鈥檚 charge, including drafting this report. The original charge included:
- Thoroughly review related details/requirements of AOHEA to ensure common understanding.
- Assist in developing and implementing an annual process for reviewing program degree conferrals and identifying programs that confer fewer than five degrees annually over three years, in compliance with the AOHEA and guidance from the chancellor.
- Assist in developing recommendations for an internal process for requesting a waiver for identified programs in compliance with guidance from the chancellor.
The group successfully reviewed the requirements of the Advance 帝王会所 Higher Education Act, the internal process for calculating average annual degree conferrals for undergraduate programs, and the subsequent guidance developed by the 帝王会所 Department of Higher Education as of July 9, 2025, fulfilling the first two elements of the charge. Subsequent guidance from ODHE resolved the third aspect of the group鈥檚 charge. The questions and concerns raised by group members resulted in the submission of clarifying questions to the state and were instrumental in clarifying the expectations of 帝王会所 Department of Higher Education regarding implementation of this process.
Low conferral undergraduate programs, defined by the Advance 帝王会所 Higher Education Act as those conferring an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period, are subject to program closure under the law. Borderline programs, programs above this threshold but with less than 8 average annual conferrals over a three-year period, also face sustainability challenges and may be at risk of falling below the state鈥檚 low conferral threshold. A systematic, data-informed review will enable academic units to make evidence-based decisions regarding the future of borderline undergraduate programs.
Recommendations
The Work Group offers the following recommendations related to borderline low conferral undergraduate programs:
- Establish an Annual Review Process for Borderline Low Conferral Undergraduate Programs
- Each academic college should engage in an annual review of all borderline undergraduate degree programs with 3-year average conferrals in the 5-8 range. For efficiency and effectiveness, this process could be embedded into existing annual academic planning or program assessment processes.
- Provide Consistent, Actionable Institutional Data on Borderline Programs
- The Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics should prepare a standard dashboard for college, school, and/or departments of actionable and curated data to facilitate this annual review. The data should include program level:
- Degree conferral data (3-year average).
- Enrollment headcount trends.
- Student success metrics including retention and graduation rates to the program.
- Provide Expertise and Resource Consultations for Borderline Programs
- For borderline programs, experts across relevant units should be available for consultations with college, school and department leadership and assist in developing coordinated actions for borderline programs. Given that some of the challenges for borderline programs are related to broader institutional structures and decisions and that some of the actions to strengthen these programs will require broader institutional collaboration and resources, we recommend that expertise and increased support in the following areas be considered:
- Sources for program data and data analysis.
- Program outcomes and assessment.
- Curricular modernization and curricular streamlining to reduce complexity.
- Curricular reform for student success including examining pre-requisites, course sequences, courses that stall degree progression, and high DFW rate courses in curriculum.
- Enrollment and recruitment including faculty collaboration.
- Communications and marketing.
- Career pathways and identification of transferable and career skill development in the program.
- Collaborating with Regional Higher Education, OHIO Online, and/or College Credit Plus and transfer pathways.
- Collaborative advising/mentoring partnership between professional advisors and faculty.
- Required in-depth training for academic advising professionals about program on the borderline list to make sure that the benefits and career pathways of the programs are clear.
- Collaborative and shared curricula across colleges.
- For borderline programs, experts across relevant units should be available for consultations with college, school and department leadership and assist in developing coordinated actions for borderline programs. Given that some of the challenges for borderline programs are related to broader institutional structures and decisions and that some of the actions to strengthen these programs will require broader institutional collaboration and resources, we recommend that expertise and increased support in the following areas be considered:
Conclusion
A structured, evidence-based, annual process will provide colleges and their faculty with tools to address borderline low-conferral academic programs. This process can foster innovation and strengthen institutional planning.