The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board or THECB) adopts amendments to §§4.53 - 4.57, 4.59, and 4.62, concerning the Texas Success Initiative. Section 4.57 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the May 17, 2013, issue of the Texas Register (38 TexReg 2938). Sections 4.53 - 4.56, 4.59, and 4.62 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

Specifically, these amendments provide revisions that address clarifying applicable definitions and exemptions; implementing a single, statewide assessment instrument and college readiness standard; recommending holistic assessment and placement; clarifying required program components; and ensuring consistent terminology throughout.

The following comments were received regarding the amendments.

Comment 1: Comment from Navarro College. I have reviewed the proposed rules for the use of the STAAR exam for testing exemptions and I have a concern about the fact that there is no testing waiver for dual credit students who have not yet taken English III or Algebra II. Is there any discussion about allowing students who earn a level III on English II to be waived from reading and writing placement testing for one year so that they do not have to pay for the TSI assessment? Also, for those students who take career and technical dual credit is there any passing level set for students to participate in career and technical dual credit in the 10th grade. Those classes do not typically require students to pass TSI.

Response: THECB's statutory authority applies only to STAAR Algebra II and English III EOCs. Comments for 10th grade will be taken under advisement. The proposed TSI exemptions for STAAR EOC are defined in the §4.54(a)(3)(B):

(B) STAAR end-of-course (EOC) with a minimum score of Level 2 on the English III shall be exempt from the TSI Assessment required under this title for both reading and writing, and a minimum score of Level 2 on the Algebra II EOC shall be exempt from the TSI Assessment required under this title for the mathematics section.

Additional exemptions from TSI are discussed in the rules for Dual Credit (e.g., see §4.85(b)(2) and (3)).

Comment 2: Comment from Texas Tech University. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Board for its recommendations on streamlining developmental education assessment and placement in Texas developmental education. Texas Tech University has implemented its Pre-Assessment Activity, and we have already begun using multiple measures for developmental education placement including high school GPA, ACT, SAT, and personal interviews based upon a LASSI evaluation. Our one concern as an institution is that with the phase-in of the more rigorous assessment and testing standards, we do believe that the need for developmental education faculty will increase at our institution along with additional support staff, especially in the areas of advising. In order for my staff and I to examine each student's high school transcript, we have already had to hire additional temporary workers to seamlessly implement this one new requirement. We ask that THECB be aware of the increased time and staff that will be involved with this increase of academic rigor.

Response: THECB acknowledges the additional time and resources needed by faculty, staff, and administrators to successfully implement redesign efforts, as evidenced by the following recommendation to legislators in the 2012 - 2017 Statewide Developmental Education Plan: Recommendation 3: Provide the necessary time and opportunity for institutions to develop, scale, and implement the numerous research-based recommendations and best practices to allow for meaningful and purposeful change that is lasting, sustainable, and impactful.

Comment 3: Comment from Dallas County Community College District. We recommend adding Cut Scores to §4.53, Definitions, to ensure explicit understanding of what is meant by the use of that term. Written and webcast communications by THECB staff to Texas public higher education institutions have used the term "Cut Scores" as being synonymous with "minimum passing standards." If that is the case, then the proposed rule for §4.57(b) as currently stated is inaccurate since the cited scores would represent the bottom of the Developmental score range. Thus, the statement should read as follows: (b) The following standards on the TSI Assessment may be used by an institution for consideration of courses and/or interventions addressing the educational and training needs of students at the Adult Basic Education levels (at or below the following cut scores, with no phase-in period):

(1) Reading 342;

(2) Writing 350;

(3) Mathematics 336.

Response: Staff has included the term "cut scores" in §4.57(a), College Ready and Adult Basic Education (ABE) Standards. Staff has also removed "at or" in subsection (b) as suggested.

Comment 4: Comment from Central Texas College. The administration of this exam within the TDCJ educational system will be more challenging than the current THEA Exam. We will still likely only be able to provide 5 hours for the exam because of realistic time limitations arising from conditions on the units. My primary concern involves the use of multiple tests for placement, diagnosis of student weaknesses, and ABE assessment which will be hand scored on site. We do not currently have the personnel available to test the large number of students we have been required to test in the past since there will be several rounds of testing and each round would have to be hand scored before the students continued, if necessary, to the next series of exams. We will likely experience significant delays in test administration, which will add to both frustration and test anxiety on the part of the students as well as increase stress upon the test proctor. I am not sure there is any easy fix or even a realistic resolution. I am simply raising the issue for your consideration. Thank you for your time.

Response: THECB staff takes these concerns seriously and is working with The College Board and stakeholder groups, including The Texas Correctional Education Consortium, towards a realistic solution for the TDCJ educational system.

Comment 5: Comment from Houston Community College System. I am writing to express serious concern about two provisions related to ESOL instruction in the proposed new TSI rules which the Coordinating Board has issued. The language is the following:

§4.54. Exemptions, Exceptions, and Waivers [Exemptions/Exceptions].

(c) ESOL Waiver--An institution may grant a temporary waiver from the assessment required under this title for students with demonstrated limited English proficiency in order to provide appropriate ESOL/ESL coursework and interventions. The waiver must be removed prior to the student attempting 15 credit hours of developmental ESOL coursework or attempting entry-level freshman coursework, whichever comes first, at which time the student would be administered the TSI Assessment. Funding limits as defined in Texas Education Code, §51.3062(l)(1) and (2) for developmental education still apply.

§4.56. Assessment Instrument.

Beginning with the institution's first class day of Academic Year (fall) 2013, an institution of higher education shall use the TSI Assessment offered by the College Board as the only Board-approved assessment instrument under this title. Any previously-employed assessments (ACCUPLACER, Compass, THEA, Asset, Compass ESL, ACCUPLACER ESL) can no longer be used under this title for entering students who initially enroll in any course on or after the institution's first class day in fall 2013.

(1) Regarding §4.54, I am concerned that allowing only 15 credit hours of ESOL instruction before a student is required to take the TSI may require non-native-speaking students to establish college readiness before they are prepared to do so. Most of our students place into an intermediate or advanced-intermediate level of ESOL and thus require more than two semesters of ESOL instruction before they are deemed to be ready to take the TSI test (in our case, the Compass, of which more below). Requiring students to take the TSI test before they are ready will likely lead to needless frustration.

Response: The proposed ESOL Waiver (Rule §4.54) is not a requirement and simply provides a new option for institutions as they address limited-English proficient students not otherwise exempt from the TSI Statute. The current rules provide no waiver for this student population, resulting in some of these students taking the TSI Assessment before they may be ready. Application of this waiver allows a student to enroll in ESOL coursework for up to 15 credit hours (up to 5 courses) of ESOL instruction prior to taking the TSI Assessment, thus increasing the likelihood that the student is ready and able to demonstrate college readiness or still has an opportunity to enroll in additional hours of ESOL instruction, as needed, before reaching the maximum funded developmental education hours allowed by TSI statute.

(2) Regarding §4.56, our placement test of assigning new ESL students to an appropriate level of ESL instruction (in our case, COMPASS-ESL) is explicitly mentioned as one of the tests which is superseded by the new TSI Assessment. My grave concern is that I have seen no evidence that the TSI Assessment is intended to distinguish between native-speaking developmental students and non-native-speaking students needing ESL, much less to distinguish among several levels of instruction needed by these ESL students. I am unaware that ESL instructors were invited to participate in the design of this test or the establishment of the benchmark scores for this test. My fear is that we will be saddled with a one-size-fits-all test that will do a poor job of placing ESL students in the appropriate level of instruction.

Response: COMPASS-ESL is not currently, nor has ever been, a Board-approved assessment for TSI purposes. However, an institution may use any assessment instrument (including COMPASS-ESL) for non-TSI purposes. For example, the institution can apply the proposed ESOL waiver set forth in these rules for a student with limited English proficiency. The institution may then administer any assessment instrument for diagnostic purposes and use those results to determine the best course/intervention to address the student's individual needs.

(3) I would like to point out, furthermore, that at Houston Community College, the COMPASS-ESL is only used for ESL placement - it is not used for establishing college-readiness or for placing students in developmental reading and/or math. For that purpose, we refer high-scoring ESL students to the TSI test (i.e., Compass, or soon the TSI Assessment). Therefore, replacing the ESL placement test with the omnibus TSI Assessment seems to me a gratuitous measure whose sole impact will be to damage our ability to accurately place our students at the right level of ESL instruction.

Response: Current or proposed TSI rules do not preclude institutions from using whatever testing instruments they feel appropriate for placement purposes, either during the ESOL waiver period or based on TSI Assessment results, if administered. While TSI statute prohibits the use of the TSI Assessment results for admissions purposes, institutions certainly have the option of requiring any non-TSI Assessment test results (e.g., TOEFL, COMPASS-ESL) for purposes of admission and advising of students with limited English proficiency.

(4) On a broader level, I would like to say that we at Houston Community College have been working hard to re-engineer our ESL program to cope with the application of the 27-hour rule to ESL. In the meantime, in the run-up to the TSI assessment change and the broader campaign to reform developmental education, I have heard very little reference to ESL in these proposed measures. Indeed, I participated last summer in a statewide task force, capably led by Dr. Linda Munoz, to update the Program Student Learning Outcomes for the ESL portion of the ACGM. During all this time, I never heard any word that ESL would be impacted in the short run by these proposed testing measures. I hope that the THECB will take a step back before implementing the above two paragraphs, consult the ESL teaching community in Texas, and draft some better-calibrated language that will not cause undo damage to our ability to carry out our mission.

Response: Staff believes the proposed ESOL waiver will provide another tool for institutions to better serve students entering with limited English proficiency and does not limit the use of any testing instrument(s) deemed appropriate by institutions, including COMPASS-ESL, for non-TSI purposes. Staff will continue to consult with faculty, staff, and administrators serving students with limited English proficiency to determine the best recommendations and policies to meet their needs.

Comment 6: Comment from The University of Texas at Austin. We have reviewed the proposed changes through the lens of scaling the statewide work of the New Mathways Project and aligning the work already underway at the 50 community college districts with the state policy changes for TSI.

(1) We strongly support the proposed change to the definition of entry level courses, which clarifies that these courses "shall not have prerequisites and is open to any student meeting TSI standards as defined in §4.57...". We have found the variability in prerequisites for gateway math courses, especially introductory statistics, to be very problematic across institutions and majors across the state.

(2) We support the use of multiple measures, in particular high school grade point average, to improve advising and placement of students.

(3) We request your help in clarifying how the accelerated, yearlong New Mathways Project pathways fit into the developmental education models laid out in the rules. As you are familiar, the NMP course structure pairs a learning frameworks course and a foundations of mathematics course (developmental) in the first semester, followed by a college level statistics, quantitative reasoning (contemporary mathematics), and (eventually) STEM prep course in the second semester. We believe the NMP model is both an example of course pairing and contextualized/intensive coursework. Understanding how NMP fits into the rules is particularly important as colleges seek to comply with §4.62, Required Components of Developmental Education Programs. The NMP represents a significant change in practice to accelerate student progress through developmental mathematics; aligns mathematics course content to a students' major/program of study; relies on research-based pedagogy and curricular content; and intentionally incorporates student success strategies that build the skills, behaviors, and mindsets students need to succeed in college. The NMP approach very much embodies the spirit of the TSI policy changes. It has also been widely supported by the 50 community college districts in the state, through both a unanimous vote of the 50 CEOs and financial support through TACC to fund development. Colleges across the state are working hard to implement the NMP model and we ask the state to make room for the NMP work in the required developmental education program components. At a minimum, we do not want the NMP to fall outside of the required components. At best, it would be clear to colleges that the NMP model explicitly satisfies some of the required components.

Response: The NMP model, along with other acceleration mathematics models such as FOCUS from Texas State University, satisfies the following required components:

(1) assessment;

(2) differentiated placement and instruction;

(3) faculty development;

(4) support services;

(5) program evaluation;

(6) integration of technology with an emphasis on instructional support programs;

(7) non-course-based developmental education interventions (if offered in this mode); and

(8) course pairing of developmental education courses with credit-bearing courses (if the two courses have the same subject matter within the same semester)

Comment 7: Comments from Midland College. I agree with [previous] comments on the ESOL rules with TSI placement. As many of Midland College's students transition through our Adult Education program, we find that COMPASS ESL is a much better indicator of student ability. Correct placement into developmental or college course work is critical.

Regarding §4.56, our placement test of assigning new ESL students to an appropriate level of ESL instruction (in our case, COMPASS-ESL) is explicitly mentioned as one of the tests which is superseded by the new TSI Assessment. My grave concern is that I have seen no evidence that the TSI Assessment is intended to distinguish between native-speaking developmental students and non-native-speaking students needing ESL, much less to distinguish among several levels of instruction needed by these ESL students. I am unaware that ESL instructors were invited to participate in the design of this test or the establishment of the benchmark scores for this test. My fear is that we will be saddled with a one-size-fits-all test that will do a poor job of placing ESL students in the appropriate level of instruction. There must be a way to identify student abilities to place them successfully for language instruction.

Response: Staff believe the proposed ESOL waiver will provide another tool for institutions to better serve students entering with limited English proficiency and does not limit the use of any testing instrument(s) deemed appropriate by institutions, including COMPASS-ESL, for non-TSI purposes. Staff will continue to consult with faculty, staff, and administrators serving students with limited English proficiency to determine the best recommendations and policies to meet their needs.

Comment 8: Comments from Amarillo College. New TSI Assessment - The timeline for implementation is rushed and puts Amarillo College in a position to make uninformed decisions before the College Board releases information that will help us to implement the requirements. The latest communication from Dr. Suzanne Morales-Vale, Director of Developmental Education, is that the test will be released by the College Board on August 1, 2013 about 3 weeks before the start of the fall 2013 semester. Institutions have been told that the College Board will make a computer-based app and other resources available. The late release of this material makes it difficult for AC faculty to review the resources and meaningfully integrate them into our overall implementation plan for all TSI changes including pre-assessment advising. While institutions have the college ready and ABE cut scores, we must have access to the assessment to make thoughtful decisions about how students will be placed into our course-based and non-course based interventions. Our DE faculty and administrators are being pressed by our Student Affairs Division (registrar, academic advising, and testing services) for final processes and procedures before most of our key developmental education faculty go off-contract for 6 weeks beginning in July. Advisors need to be trained on "what the cut scores actually mean" and the faculty recommendations based upon our interventions. We fear that a rushed implementation plan will lead to inconsistent implementation at our institution and likely inconsistent results. Cont'd...