SB 5909
In CommitteeSenate
Undergraduate programs
Reviewing and discontinuing low-enrollment undergraduate programs at public baccalaureate institutions.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a process for public four-year Washington colleges and universities to review and potentially discontinue undergraduate degree programs that produce fewer than 10 graduates per year on average over five years. It requires institutions to report annually to the legislature on these programs and their decisions, with safeguards to protect current students through teach-out plans.
- Defines a 'low-enrollment program' as an undergraduate degree program producing fewer than 10 graduates per year on average over the past five years at a public baccalaureate institution.
- Requires each public baccalaureate institution to identify low-enrollment programs annually and place them on a list.
- Programs on the low-enrollment list for three consecutive years must undergo a formal discontinuance review by the institution’s governing board.
- During the review, the board must consider extenuating circumstances, such as whether the program is new, supports equity, meets workforce or regional needs, or is required for accreditation.
- If no extenuating circumstances are found, the board must recommend discontinuing the program, and must include a teach-out plan to help current students finish their degrees.
- Institutions must submit an annual report to the legislature (by end of each calendar year) detailing all low-enrollment programs, actions taken, data, financial and student-outcome analysis, and the strategy for closure or continuation.
Who is affected
- Students in low-enrollment undergraduate programs — Students currently enrolled in low-enrollment undergraduate programs that have produced fewer than 10 graduates per year on average over the past five years may be affected if their program is discontinued; the bill requires institutions to create a teach-out plan to help them complete their degrees.
- Public baccalaureate institutions (e.g., UW, WSU, EWU, etc.) — Public four-year colleges and universities (state and regional universities) must annually review low-enrollment programs, conduct formal reviews after three years of low enrollment, and report findings to the legislature.
- State Legislature and its committees — The Washington State Legislature (especially the relevant policy and fiscal committees) will receive annual reports on low-enrollment programs and may use the data to inform future funding or policy decisions.
- Workforce and regional employers — Job seekers and employers may be affected if programs tied to specific workforce needs (e.g., rural healthcare or technical fields) are discontinued—unless extenuating workforce or regional needs are considered during review.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandatory teach-out plans for affected students provide a safety net, reducing the risk of students being stranded mid-degree—especially valuable for low-income and first-generation students who cannot afford to restart or transfer.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5), Sec. 1 (teach-out plan definition)Annual public reporting increases transparency and accountability, allowing legislators, taxpayers, and families to see how public funds are allocated to low-enrollment programs—potentially preventing misallocation of resources and improving institutional efficiency.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(e)-(f)Explicit inclusion of equity and access as review factors gives institutions discretion to protect programs serving underrepresented groups (e.g., tribal colleges, disability studies), helping preserve educational opportunity in marginalized communities.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)Accreditation and licensure exceptions may preserve programs required for professional certification (e.g., nursing, teaching), supporting long-term workforce readiness—though this benefit is limited to programs that already meet high regulatory bars.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)Data-driven annual identification of low-enrollment programs may help institutions reallocate resources toward higher-graduation-rate programs, potentially improving graduation rates and time-to-degree across the system—though this is speculative without enforcement mechanisms.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Students currently enrolled in low-enrollment programs face disruption if their program is discontinued after three years on the list, even if they have already invested significant time and money—teach-out plans may not fully mitigate transfer, credit-loss, or relocation costs, especially for students in rural areas or with limited academic flexibility.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)The extenuating-circumstances criteria (e.g., newness, equity, workforce demand) are subjective and inconsistently applied across institutions, risking arbitrary or politically influenced decisions that may disproportionately eliminate programs serving marginalized students (e.g., Indigenous studies, ethnic studies, rural health tracks) despite their broader societal value.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)-(d)Smaller regional universities (e.g., EWU, WSU’s Yakima campus, WU’s Vancouver branch) may lack dedicated staff or data infrastructure to conduct rigorous annual reviews and produce detailed reports, increasing administrative burden and potentially leading to premature program cuts due to resource constraints—not academic merit.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1)(a)-(f)While workforce demand is listed as a permissible exception, the bill does not require institutions to consult regional workforce boards or employers during reviews—meaning programs with strong regional labor-market relevance (e.g., agricultural engineering at EWU, maritime logistics at WU) could be cut despite local need, weakening regional economic resilience.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)Financial analysis in reports is required but not standardized—some institutions may use narrow cost-per-graduate metrics while ignoring spillover benefits (e.g., faculty research, community engagement), leading to decisions that optimize short-term budget savings over long-term institutional mission and public good.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Students in low-enrollment programs face high risk of disruption if their program is discontinued; while teach-out plans are required, they may not fully cover credit transfers, housing, or lost time—especially for non-traditional, rural, or financially constrained students.
Public baccalaureate institutions gain a standardized process for program review but face new administrative and legal risks—especially smaller institutions lacking data staff or legal counsel to navigate compliance, potentially diverting resources from instruction.
The legislature gains new data and oversight tools to evaluate institutional efficiency, but may face political pressure to intervene in academic decisions—especially if cuts affect politically sensitive programs (e.g., ethnic studies, environmental programs in rural districts).
Regional employers may lose access to specialized talent pipelines if programs tied to local industries (e.g., forestry at EWU, viticulture at WSU) are cut—even if extenuating circumstances are considered, the consultation requirement is non-binding.
Faculty in low-enrollment programs face job insecurity and program termination, but the bill does not require faculty input in reviews—potentially weakening shared governance and academic freedom, especially at smaller departments.