WINNEMUCCA - The Great Basin College agriculture program is under review because of a mandate from the Nevada System of Higher Education that requires programs with a low number of graduates to be evaluated for viability.
According to Tom Klein, who is on the advisory board for the ag program, all colleges in the state have to follow a mandate that requires them to review programs with low graduation numbers. GBC is doing a review of the agriculture program, along with another program.
"When there are low numbers in programs they have to be reviewed by the college for viability," he said.
A committee has been formed by Vice President of Academic Affairs Mike McFarlane to determine whether the ag program will be retained or suspended. One option the committee can consider is to determine the program is exempt from the "low-yield" policy.
According to the NSHE, the policy - which took effect in fall 2012 - requires college presidents (in consultation with faculty) to develop procedures for reviewing academic productivity at least every three years.
GBC President Mark Curtis said any program that has yielded less than 20 graduates in three years is considered "low-yield" and must be submitted in an annual report to NSHE. That report is what triggers the review process. A low-yield designation does not equate to automatic closure, Curtis said.
"It doesn't mean it will be closed, but we have to justify its existence and make plans," he said.
Questions to be addressed include: why is the program not graduating students? What can be done to increase the number of graduates for the program? Is there a plan for the future?
Curtis said McFarlane and the committee will make a determination about the program and McFarlane will take the final step of submitting a report to NSHE.
The NSHE policy lists six potential reasons for exemption from low-yield designation and the committee in charge of the review could find the ag program meets one of the criteria. A program can be exempted if it:
• Is central to the educational or research mission of the institution or partnering institutions vested in the program;
• Meets a demonstrated workforce or service need of the state or geographical region served by the institution, including any projected needs of the state or region;
• Demonstrates an increase in student demand through a pattern of increasing enrollment of majors;
• Demonstrates productivity in the receipt of external grants and contracts related to the program;
• Supports underrepresented community groups;
• Meets other criteria as defined by the institution.
The review that McFarlane tailored to GBS has a similar set of exceptions, with the addition of:
• Is funded by non-state resources to an extent that offsets the lack of graduates
• Is provided a set of conditions including a time limit of not more than three years which the program must meet to fulfill the production criteria for continuation
At the end of the review process, McFarlane and his committee will make a recommendation to NSHE that there are sufficient factors to support the program's continuation, that the program should be eliminated or that the program should be given time to meet specified conditions and then be re-evaluated.
McFarlane said he can't make any predictions about the future of the ag program, but did say, "it really does need a serious review."
The recommendation must be completed by the end of the semester, but McFarlane said he hopes to have the process completed sooner.[[In-content Ad]]
