The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to §§4.23, 4.25, 4.28 - 4.31, and 4.35, concerning Transfer of Credit, Core Curriculum and Field of Study Curricula. Sections 4.28 and 4.35 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the August 26, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36 TexReg 5297). Sections 4.23, 4.25 and 4.29 - 4.31 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The intent of the amendments is to update and change the requirements for the statewide, fully transferable, undergraduate general education core curriculum.

Section 4.23 modifies definitions to accord with the proposed core curriculum and deletes a definition of "compliant with the Texas Common Course Numbering System" as part of this update.

Section 4.25 modifies several general provisions to update errors or inconsistent language, but no substantive changes are made.

Section 4.28, the section that lays out the fully transferable Texas Core Curriculum, is amended to reflect the recommendations of the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee (UEAC). The UEAC was asked to study and make recommendations to improve the existing statewide core curriculum. The current statewide core curriculum has not been modified since 1997. The proposed core curriculum puts in place a Purpose Statement, Core Objectives, and Foundational Component Areas with descriptions and semester credit hour requirements, as required in Texas Education Code §61.822. The amendments will bring the Texas Core Curriculum into better alignment with current best practices across the United States. These changes are intended to improve consistency in transfer practices and to improve opportunities for students to increase their learning through the acquisition of knowledge and skills they will need for work and life. Related provisions in this section are amended to reflect additional recommendations pertaining to implementation of the proposed Texas Core Curriculum.

Section 4.29 deletes the option of institutions requesting a core curriculum of more than 42 semester credit hours (SCH).

Section 4.30 revises the provisions pertaining to the assessment and reporting of core curriculum objectives, as required in Texas Education Code §61.824. The revisions reflect changes in terminology and organization of the Texas Core Curriculum reflected in the amendments to §4.28 and implements recommendations from the UEAC.

Section 4.31 adds the proposed core curriculum implementation process and revises existing rules relating to institutional revisions of previously approved core curricula. Institutions would be limited to submitting changes to the institutional core curriculum once per academic year. This policy would allow for better efficiency in implementing requirements, including the timely publication of all the courses approved for use in the core curriculum in any academic year. A subsection on procedure in handling institutional requests is updated to reflect current electronic submission practices.

Section 4.35 amends the language relating to the use of the Texas Common Course Numbering System to identify the system by name rather than by acronym the first time it is cited.

One hundred thirteen comments were received, including 21 comments from system or district offices, universities, and colleges, 79 comments from faculty members, and 13 comments from persons in the general public. Many comments had more than one observation or suggestion regarding different areas within the proposed changes; many of these have been addressed separately, so that one commenter might submit from one to a dozen or more separate comments. Comments summarized here represent suggestions offered and have sometimes been excerpted or paraphrased from longer expository comments. All comments are on file and may be viewed in their entirety upon request.

Comment: Faculty member at Collin College: Reduce core curriculum requirement from 42 SCH to 36 SCH.

Response: No change is recommended. The Coordinating Board does not have authority to make this change. The statutory requirement of 42 semester credit hours (SCH) in the core curriculum stands in effect unless the Legislature chooses to change it.

Comment: The University of Texas at Pan American: Dealing with the SACS accreditation process and an institutional process to propose a new/revised core curriculum to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be quite cumbersome.

Response: No change is recommended. The newly revised core curriculum is scheduled to be implemented for the fall 2014 term. Each college and university could undertake the revision process for its institutional core curriculum in the late fall 2011 and will have almost two years (November 2011 through November 2013) to develop and propose their revisions to CB staff for approval. Staff stands ready to assist all institutions as they undertake the process of revising their core curriculum to meet the new requirements.

Comments: Angelo State University, Texas Tech University, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler Junior College, West Texas A&M University, The University of Texas at Dallas, faculty members from University of North Texas, Collin College, Texas A&M University, and two private citizens made the following comments:

In order to make room for lab sciences and to encourage more innovation and freedom in creating different sorts of classes (a 2 hour core capstone for instance), schools should be allowed to have 44 or even 45 hours as opposed to 42.

Allow a 44-45 SCH core to allow for science labs without losing other IDO courses.

We would recommend that the rule read as follows, "...of no fewer and no more than 42 lower division semester credit hours" or just "42 lower division semester credit hours."

A core curriculum of about 42 hours is about the right size for a core curriculum spread over four years' worth of course work. It is too much for a two-year core curriculum. Something closer to 30 hours would be more appropriate. My longer-term advice would be: work with the legislature to create a leaner 30-hour common core curriculum shared among two-year and four-year institutions, expand on your "field of study" approach to make better use of specialization at the two-year institutions and better prepare students for smooth transfer into their program of choice, and then encourage/require four-year institutions to have about another 12 hours of core curriculum with a considerable amount of institutional flexibility added onto the 30-hour common core.

Our institution prefers not to reduce core curriculum from 46 SCH to 42 SCH.

Response: No change is recommended. The rules follow the statute in addressing the minimum and maximums separately. Texas Education Code §61.822(a) stipulates "at least 42 semester credit hours" and Texas Education Code §61.822(b) specifies "no less than 42 semester credit hours." Texas Education Code §61.822(b) further states that an institution may offer a core curriculum of other than 42 SCH "only if approved by the board." Because of more recent legislation limiting the number of semester credit hours that an institution may require for completion of a bachelor's degree, and the reduction in the number of excess semester credit hours a student may accumulate without penalty, staff recommend that the board approve no requests for core curricula that exceed the statutory mandate of 42 SCH.

Two similar comments: The Communication requirement should not be reduced from 9 SCH to 6 SCH.

Response: Neither the statewide core curriculum adopted by the board in 1999 nor the proposed revision to the core curriculum provides for more than 6 SCH in the Communication Component Area (010) or the proposed Communication (010) Foundational Component Area. Some institutions elected to require an additional communications-related course when selecting among the options allowed in the current core curriculum. Students who desire to complete an additional course in Communication would be able to do so if their Component Area Option allows for it.

Four similar comments: The Mathematics requirement should not be reduced from 6 SCH to 3 SCH.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff agrees with the recommendation from the UEAC regarding the Mathematics requirement. A three SCH requirement in Mathematics is standard across the U.S. Neither the statewide core curriculum adopted by the board in 1999 or the proposed revision to the core curriculum provide for more than 3 SCH in the Mathematics Component Area (020) or the proposed Mathematics (020) Foundational Component Area. Some institutions elected to require an additional course when selecting among the options allowed in the 1999 Core Curriculum. Students who desire to complete an additional course in Mathematics would be able to do so if their Component Area Option allows for it.

Three similar comments: Science labs should be accommodated within the core curriculum.

Allow a 44-45 SCH core to allow for science labs without losing other IDO courses.

Make this Component Area 8 SCH instead of 6 SCH.

Response to comments: No change is recommended. Texas Education Code §61.822(b) preserves the responsibility of designating individual courses that make up the core curriculum to each institution. Not all institutions choose to require labs for all science courses, and there may be some valid cost-related reasons for continuing this policy. An institution desiring to include science labs may do so if the course meets the criteria for inclusion in a specific Foundational Component Area; additional Science lab credit may be used within the Component Area Option.

Comment: Too many History and Government SCH are required.

Response: No change is recommended. A minimum of six SCH of American or Texas History is required to comply with Texas Education Code §51.302. An institution may select semester credit hours from the Component Area Option for additional history requirements.

Comment: Six SCH for History is too few. Make History 4 SCH instead of 3 SCH per course.

Response: No change is recommended. A minimum of six SCH of American or Texas History is required to comply with Texas Education Code §51.302.

Comments were received from The University of Texas Pan American and The University of Texas at Tyler as follows:

The proposed rules on selection of courses for the core are too restrictive. "What if we wanted to design something innovative, inter- or trans-disciplinary, and exciting that could address several of the required content areas simultaneously while tapping the required objectives?"

Comment: "...the proposed rules are very prescriptive and takes a good deal of discretion away from the Institutions to distinguish themselves and best serve their students."

Response: No change is recommended. Staff generally agree with the recommendations from the UEAC.

Comments were received from West Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University-Kingsville as follows:

Comment: Clarification is needed on transfer of hours completed in component areas. If a student has satisfied a component area at one institution but not the complete 42-hour core, is the receiving institution obligated to accept the hours for that component area?

Response: No change is recommended. No change was requested, only clarification. The statute governing students who transfer without completing the entire core curriculum is clear: "A student who transfers from one institution of higher education to another without completing the core curriculum of the sending institution shall receive academic credit from the receiving institution for each of the courses that the student has successfully completed in the core curriculum of the sending institution. Following receipt of credit for these courses, the student may be required to satisfy further course requirements in the core curriculum of the receiving institution." Texas Education Code §61.822(d). The proposed rules regarding this provision are in accord with the statute and are not the subject of any proposed changes.

Comment: "Transfer students who have studied at private institutions or out of state institutions will have studied math in their math classes, but probably will not have been expected to demonstrate critical thinking skills, communication skills, etc. The problem exists across the board with this new concept. We won't be able to assess whether or not a student has mastered the soft skills by looking at their transcripts."

Response: No change is recommended. The core curriculum applies to students within the public system of higher education. Students who transfer from institutions outside the Texas public colleges and universities should be able to present information about courses they have completed elsewhere that would allow a receiving Texas public institution to apply appropriate course credit to core curriculum requirements. Because each Core Objective is addressed in a minimum of three separate Foundational Component Areas, most transfer students will have opportunities to address their proficiency in each of the Core Objectives as they complete the core curriculum.

Comment was received from a faculty member at the University of North Texas: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board should revise its thinking about core curriculum purpose. The core curriculum should be viewed as a scaffolding for the major, instead of a "Super High School" foundation upon which the student would later build a major, especially in STEM fields.... The Board should keep its eye on the end goals and not get so involved in micro-details that may not really contribute toward those goals.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff sought input from the UEAC through a lengthy and intensive process that spanned more than two years. Many of the proposed revisions to the current core curriculum follow recommendations from that group, which is composed of faculty and administrators from the community and technical colleges, universities, and health-related institutions of Texas. Many members of the UEAC, as well as THECB staff, do view the core as scaffolding for the major, where certain major requirements or prerequisites to major requirements can be met while meeting core curriculum requirements. THECB staff believe that the framework of the proposed core curriculum provides sufficient flexibility to the student to maximize course selections to meet both core and major requirements, to the extent possible.

Comments were received from Angelo State University, Dallas County Community College District, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Texas State University-San Marcos, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas Tech University, Texas A&M University, The University of Texas at Austin, The University of Texas at Dallas, The University of Texas at El Paso, University of Houston, Collin College, a faculty member from The University of Texas at Tyler, and the Senate of College Councils (representing student government) from The University of Texas at Austin and listed as follows:

Comment: ...Our faculty and students support the six core objectives specified by the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee (UEAC) in §4.28. ...We differ with the UEAC recommendation, then, not with respect to the goals we have for a college education or for transfer student success, but with respect to the most effective means for achieving those goals especially regarding the mapping of core objectives to the core component categories. The approach recommended by UEAC would require every course in the core curriculum to meet between three and five core objectives, depending on the component area. Such an approach would result in superficial efforts to address these core objectives in each course (as well as a large assessment burden). We believe a more successful approach to developing these critical academic skills involves depth, focus, valid assessment structures, repeated practice, and scaffolding. Our main recommendation is that each institution be allowed to implement the new core objectives in the manner that is the most efficient and effective for that institution. We are concerned with developing these core skills and learning objectives not only in the core curriculum but through our majors and degree plans as well. To do this effectively requires considerable effort and engagement with the faculty, through processes that encourage locally developed and supported commitments to educational excellence. If the Coordinating Board chooses not to follow this recommendation, then we suggest reducing the number of core objective requirements for each core component to no more than two or three.

Comment: Leave the implementation of the six Core Objectives to each institutional system.

Response: No change is recommended. The statutory requirement for a fully transferable core curriculum provides for state-level coordination to ensure coherence and consistency in the application of core objectives across all institutions. Because students will have several opportunities through the core curriculum to gain proficiency with each of the core objectives in different discipline contexts, the transition to further developing them in a degree plan or major courses is in accord with the more specific, core-curriculum focus of recommendations from the UEAC. The distribution of six core objectives across the foundational component areas, which would replace the far more numerous component-area-level Exemplary Educational Objectives (EEOs) of the current core curriculum, allows the attainment of the core objectives to be measured upon completion of the core curriculum. Assessment professionals from both a community college and a university were included in the UEAC discussions, and provided regular input on matters of assessment. Although not voting members of the UEAC, they have expressed accord with the recommendations of the UEAC regarding the distribution of core objectives across the foundational component areas.

Comment: The alteration of focus from critical analysis to the scientific method will hinder students' ability to learn to think critically and ethically, especially in the Natural Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, as well as the ideological shift of focus to a shallower exploration of culture and beliefs that would weaken the opportunity for critical analysis in the shift from "Humanities" to "Language, Philosophy, and Culture."

Response: No change is recommended. The core objective of Critical Thinking is required for each course throughout the core curriculum, and has not been diluted in the three categories identified in the comment.

Comment: We support the UEAC recommendation that accountability for the assessment of the core objectives should be at the institutional level.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff agree with the UEAC's recommendation regarding institutional assessment of the core objectives at the institutional level.

Two comments: Combine Personal and Social Responsibility into one outcome.

Response: No change is recommended. Staff agrees with the UEAC regarding having two separate Core Objectives.

Two comments received as follows: