ࡱ> CEB@ !bjbjצצ "! 2222222FF02y0{0{0{0{0{0{0$,2R~4020220 22y0y0n-220 @ $d . y0000). 5 5@0FF2222 520\L6D,p00FFJD FFJSenate Testimony - SB 49 MHEC, Review of Duplicative Academic Programs bill Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Remarks of Regent Florestano Thank you madam Chair. While I offer my comments today as a Regent of the ĢƵ, I feel that my tenure as a former Secretary of Higher Education gives me additional insight into this issue. The ĢƵ (USM) fully supports steps to avoid unnecessary program duplication and has a firm commitment to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) agreement. From our perspective, the current, longstanding, rigorous program approval process in place works well in addressing both of those vital concerns while at the same time serving the State of Maryland and our students well. As you know, new degree-granting programs, new certificate programs, and substantial modifications to existing programs each require the approval of the Board of Regents and the approval of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). Under the current process, a college or university's request to offer a new program is subject to review based upon four major criteria. New academic programs must: Meet Marylands workforce demands; Conform to the institutions mission for research, public service or teaching; Align to the state plan for the higher education; and Avoid, to the extent possible, any unwarranted duplication as provided in law. I will note that of the 12 instances in which a Historically Black Institution (HBI) raised objections about program duplication at a Traditionally White Institution (TWI), only one received approval from MHEC, which cited educational justification for approval. The current process is very effective at balancing these competing interests. Clearly, avoiding unnecessary duplication of academic programs is something the USM not only encourages, but also advocates through our Effectiveness and Efficiency Initiative. However, we feel that the current process is capable of achieving that goal and that the proposed approach has significant potential pit falls, which Chancellor Kirwan will speak to momentarily. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments on SB 49. We are eager to work with the sponsors of the bill and our colleagues in higher education to seek a mutually acceptable compromise. Nj_ ` a   A I w   5 9 D E S V ` g m 0 D J   * + 0 1 `  (-c}¾¾ºƺh;+h*h>h~/ hsh/ eh/ eh/ e5hLhD&rh/ ehhyhuh1#5 hKh1#h1#HNj_ ` 1 QR  7$8$H$gdCogd8bgd;+ & Fgd/ egd/ egdgdygd1#!i"4a !h;+ hKhD&rhCoh`X !gdCo 1h/ =!"#$%@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List! Nj_`1QR # 000000000000 0 0 0 0000x00000Nj`1# 00X000000000000 0 0 0 0?00?00?000X!  ! ! Lyf@!Myf@l!Nyf@\Oyf@4Pyf@D"N# i# 8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState 1200830DayMonthYear# # l# #  <>NN1ZL HR}'VD/b1 Jt\; 2NjT%fZ{9xNjOxU o#_J?P8CcusN'y0ZL 0fZ{98Ccb1  N\         N\         N\                  N\  N\                N\         N\                  N\         N\                  N\        n';+1#9!1!N/ eCoD&r`X*LK>~/8by@8 ! `@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"hvv\\!r4  3QH)?8bUSM Position on Senate Bill 49Patrick J. Hogancrg@         Oh+'0 , H T `lt|USM Position on Senate Bill 49SM Patrick J. Hoganenaatratr Normal.dotHcrg2gMicrosoft Word 10.0@V@d@d\՜.+,D՜.+,h$ hp  ĢƵn O USM Position on Senate Bill 49 TitleH@ <_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnce8}.Brit Testimony for SB 49 npjhogan@umsa.ums.edu 49Patrick J. Hoganeduatr  !"#$%&'()*+,-./013456789;<=>?@ADRoot Entry F $dFData 1TableJ5WordDocument"SummaryInformation(2DocumentSummaryInformation8:CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q