The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Chapter 4, Subchapter C, §§4.53 - 4.59, 4.62, and new 4.63 with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 20, 2017, issue of the Texas Register (42 TexReg 5800). Specifically, this new section and amendments support developmental education reform efforts as related to Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1, Texas Success Initiative.

Ten comments were received regarding these proposed rules. After review of the comments, additional changes are recommended to the proposed rules:

Section 4.53(13) - replace "COSC 1401" with "COSC 1301"

Section 4.58(a)(2) - add "at minimum" to the statement requiring institutions to follow the criteria set forth in the ACGM

Section 4.59(c)(2) - add "CLEP" in addition to "AP and IB" as another example of scores that can be used as successfully completed college-level coursework in a related field, as determined by the receiving institution

A summary of each comment and the related response from Coordinating Board staff are listed below.

COMMENT 1

Peter Blaskiewicz, McLennan Community College

This commenter is concerned that the rules may constrain or "make illegal" the college’s ability to offer its intensive developmental education models and require it to provide corequisite models during summer and "mini-mester" sessions (typically three-week sessions just before, after, or between long sessions).

STAFF RESPONSE

HB 2223 and the proposed amendments to the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) do not curtail or make "illegal" options for underprepared students, including those for "mini-mester" sessions, which may or may not be implemented as corequisite models. While the bill outlines minimum percentages of students who must be enrolled in corequisite models, institutions may continue to serve those outside the percentages with non-corequisite options. With regard to summer sessions, since the requirements of HB 2223 related to corequisite models do not become effective until fall 2018, these sessions do not need to be addressed by institutions until summer 2019. Coordinating Board staff will continue to seek feedback in the upcoming months with regard to various options to meeting HB 2223 and serving underprepared students during shortened sessions such as summer. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 2

Don A. Perry, Dallas County Community College District

Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) is concerned about changing the responsibility from the institution to a test administrator to provide the pre-assessment (PAA), in that the language seems to imply that the PAA is now that staff person’s responsibility instead of the institution’s. The commenter proposes changes to rule language to make clear the institution, not the test administrator, is responsible for the PAA.

The commenter also requested the inclusion of CLEP into the list of examples, which include AP and IB scores that institutions may use for determining readiness for underprepared students.

STAFF RESPONSE

As more school districts seek to administer independently the Texas Success Initiative Assessment (TSIA) rather than relying on public institutions of higher education, it is important that the rules related to the TSI recognize test administrations by both institutions and school districts. The proposed change from "institution" to "test administrator" does not shift the burden of responsibility and is made simply to ensure all test administrators, regardless of testing entity, understand the requirement for administering the Pre-Assessment Activity. Institutions and school districts approved by the College Board to administer the TSIA may continue to determine which local policies governing practice and personnel are in place in meeting this requirement. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

The proposed amendment to TAC, §4.59 adds AP and IB scores as examples for institutions in determining readiness for underprepared students through successfully completed non-developmental coursework, as determined by the receiving institution. It was not intentional to omit CLEP; therefore, the proposed amendment has been changed to include CLEP in the examples.

COMMENT 3

Thomas Awtry, Ph.D., Tarrant County College

Not commenting on behalf of his college, this individual made a comment related to developmental and college credit coursework the college uses for particular math pathways. He recommends adding specific readiness benchmarks on the TSIA for non-algebraic pathways.

STAFF RESPONSE

The comment covers material outside the scope of the rules currently under consideration, which are proposed specifically to implement HB 2223. However, it should be noted that the current TSIA cannot accommodate multiple college readiness benchmarks for the purposes of placing students in particular pathways, nor can it do so without development of an entirely new test. Diagnostic results, along with other factors, can be helpful to institutions and students for considering placement into appropriate pathways. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 4

Jeremy Martin, The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin and Bruce Vandal, Complete College America

Comment 4(a). These commenters are requesting a change to the definition of "corequisite" to be more specific and require that Intermediate Algebra not be used as a corequisite for non-algebra intensive entry-level courses, such as Math 1332 Contemporary Mathematics and Math 1342 Statistics.

STAFF RESPONSE

Not allowing institutions to use certain developmental education courses outlined in the Lower Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM) conflicts with TSI statute (Texas Education Code, §51.331 et seq.), which requires that "the institution of higher education work with the student to develop an individualized plan to assist the student in becoming college ready." Institutions have the authority to determine which courses/interventions, including Intermediate Algebra, are appropriate for individual students. Best practice recommendations will be addressed in FAQ documents and upcoming professional development and technical assistance trainings. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 4(b). The commenters are requesting that the definition of "entry-level course" include an exclusive list of courses, rather than the currently permissive language regarding which courses should be so considered. The commenters are concerned that institutions determine what are considered "entry-level courses" and that the amendment permits institutions to define Math 1314/1414 College Algebra as the only "entry-level" course and use it as a pre-requisite for Math 1342 Statistics.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Texas Administrative Code, §4.53 includes in the definition for "entry-level course" as one requiring no prerequisites and provides as part of the definition examples of such courses reported most commonly to THECB by institutions of higher education. The ACGM and each university’s approved undergraduate course inventory outline which courses at the institution are defined as entry-level. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 4(c). The commenters are requesting that the definition of "mathematics pathways models" be changed and are proposing new rule language. They maintain that pathways models should cohere to particular design principles.

STAFF RESPONSE

The comment covers material outside the scope of the rules currently under consideration, which are proposed specifically to implement HB 2223. However, it should be noted that the current definition is purposefully broad in order to encompass multiple pathway models that may be implemented by an institution of higher education. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 4(d). The commenters are concerned that the proposed amendment to TAC, §4.58 in requiring adherence to the learning outcomes outlined in the ACGM might artificially limit institutions’ ability to design co-requisite models. The second concern is raised with regard to students who fail the college-level course that the proposed amendment would require students to continue with developmental education even in cases in which the student had demonstrated readiness to enroll in a college-level course.

STAFF RESPONSE

Current student learning outcomes outlined in the ACGM were determined by faculty from Texas public institutions of higher education and are considered minimum criteria. In order to address the commenter’s concern, the proposed amendment will be modified to add the phrase "at minimum" to clarify that institutions may add learning outcomes to reflect underprepared students’ needs but should address, at minimum, those criteria set forth in the ACGM.

Proposed language in TAC, §4.58(f)(2) mirrors statute and is applicable only to students enrolled in corequisite models who have not successfully completed the freshman-level course and are not ready to perform freshman-level coursework. TSI statute (Texas Education Code, §51.331 et seq.) explicitly forbids institutions to require that college-ready students enroll in development education. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 4(e). The commenters expressed concern that the proposed amendments do not support institutions in developing their own placement policies to meet students’ goals and strongly encourage revision to §4.59(b) to allow institutions to use additional measures to help determine college readiness. Reasons for their recommendations include misalignment with College Board recommendations for appropriate use of their tests; weakening of student success efforts, especially for underserved students; contradiction to other parts of TSI code; and limitations for institutions to place students into courses. Commenters also cited multiple research studies.

STAFF RESPONSE

The comment covers material outside the scope of the rules currently under consideration, which are proposed specifically to implement HB 2223. However, it should be noted that current rules require that institutions use multiple factors to help determine the best placement for underprepared students, as well as allow minimal required interventions through non-course competency-based options (NCBOs). No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 5

Dr. Cesar Maldonado, Houston Community College (HCC)

The commenter notes findings from the Community College Research Center (CCRC), which reports that about 60% of entering students require remediation, but they are less likely to graduate with a postsecondary degree than those not needing remediation. HCC contends that §4.58(f) would trigger a positive reconnection between institutions of higher education and affected students and equip the latter with the necessary tools for academic success.

The commenter is concerned that the timeline for implementation of HB 2223, in regard to scaling both corequisite and competency-based models, may be too ambitious for some institutions to meet. HCC generally supports the legislative intent of HB 2223, relating to developmental course work offered by public institutions of higher education. HCC supports especially the inclusion of the proposed amendment TAC, §4.58(f), which requires the review existing student advisement plans, if necessary; and, offer a range of competency-based programs to assist students in becoming ready to perform freshman-level academic coursework.

STAFF RESPONSE

The timeline for institutions to implement the requirements of HB 2223 is clearly outlined in the statute, which does not grant THECB the authority to modify. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 6

Jonda Halcomb, Ph.D., Del Mar College

Comment 6(a) Introduction. "There are no anticipated economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the sections as proposed."

The commenter is concerned about the "inaccurate" and "unrealistic" generalization made and notes a number of costs that will need to be addressed to implement HB 2223. Questions are raised with regard to funding challenges.

STAFF RESPONSE

This comment does not reference a specific proposed amendment to TAC rules. However, the commenter should be aware that non-course competency-based options (NCBOs), if reported, draw funding for institutions. Students also save money because they can be assessed reduced fees rather than full tuition for developmental education coursework/interventions. NCBOs enable institutions to require fewer hours for higher-skilled underprepared students and incur fewer faculty and institutional costs. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 6(b) 4.58. The commenter raises questions with regard to course failures, competency-based program options, and timing of interventions.

STAFF RESPONSE

Issues of clarification related to instructional methodologies and program implementation will be addressed in an FAQ document and upcoming professional development and technical assistance trainings. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

6(c). §4.59: The commenter raises concerns about §4.59, which implies there is no accountability in the developmental education course and removes incentives for students to attend or pass the developmental education course, suggesting some incentive be included to encourage success in both developmental and college-level courses.

STAFF RESPONSE

TAC §4.59(b) states the following: "Successful completion of the entry-level freshman course is demonstration of the student's college readiness, independent of his/her performance in co-enrolled developmental education." The rule clarifies that a student who successfully completes the college-level course but not the developmental component must be considered college ready and cannot be forced to re-enroll in the developmental component. The comment that there is no accountability in the developmental education course is not reflective of the language found in current or proposed rule. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 7

Wendy Wilson, Ph.D., Lone Star College

The commenter notes that rules proposed in conjunction with the implementation of HB 2223 were shared with faculty and administration at Lone Star College.

Comment 7(a). The commenter suggests that a definition for "academic year" be added to clarify whether or not summer enrollment is counted in the requirements for HB 2223.

STAFF RESPONSE

Summer is included in the academic year, per TAC, Chapter 4, Subchapter A, §4.5(d). As described in the Glossary of Terms for the Coordinating Board Manual (CBM), the academic year is "The 12-month period of time generally extending from September to August." The requirements of HB 2223 related to corequisite models do not become effective until fall 2018, so summer sessions do not need to be addressed by institutions until summer 2019. THECB staff will continue to seek feedback in the upcoming months with regard to various options to meeting HB 2223 and serving underprepared students during shortened timeframes inherent in summer. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 7(b). The commenter requests that guidelines be added to rules to help support institutions as they implement appropriate corequisite models.

STAFF RESPONSE

Issues of guidance related to instructional methodologies and program implementation will be addressed in an FAQ document and upcoming professional development and technical assistance trainings. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 8

Brady Franks, The University of Texas at Austin

Comment 8(a). The commenter is concerned that language in §4.59 may be misinterpreted, resulting in students underprepared in math being required to enroll in developmental reading/writing coursework. A request is made to clarify that corequisite requirements are subject-specific.

STAFF RESPONSE

HB 2223 requires implementation of a "corequisite model under which a student concurrently enrolls in a developmental education course and a freshman-level course in the same subject area for each subject area for which the student is referred to developmental coursework." Furthermore, TAC, §4.53(7) clearly defines corequisite models as the "concurrent enrollment of a developmental education course or NCBO as defined in paragraph (18) of this section and the entry-level freshman course of the same subject matter within the same semester." THECB believes both references provide adequate guidance and clarity for students and institutions. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 8(b). The commenter is concerned that the use of the word "readiness" is ambiguous in §4.59 and should be clarified.

STAFF RESPONSE

Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1, Texas Success Initiative, §51.333(a), mandates that "An institution of higher education shall … assess the academic skills of each entering undergraduate student to determine the student's readiness to enroll in freshman-level academic coursework." Furthermore, the title of TAC, §4.59 reads "Determination of Readiness to Perform Entry-Level Freshman Coursework." It is clear readiness explicitly refers to the ability to perform entry-level freshman coursework. THECB believes both references provide adequate guidance and clarity for students and institutions. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

Comment 8(c). The commenter is concerned that there have been no discussions to use IB scores to exempt students from TSI and suggests providing clarification or removing it from this section.

STAFF RESPONSE

Including reference to IB scores as an example of successful completion of college-level coursework in a related field, as determined by the receiving institution, is not referring to a TSI exemption. TAC, §4.59 allows institutions to use both developmental and non-developmental education coursework to help determine the college readiness of entering undergraduate students. An institution’s decision to award college-level course credit based on certain test scores is allowable and meets TSI statute. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

COMMENT 9

Oscar Hernandez, Texas Southmost College

The commenter suggests a possible correction to §4.53(13) since COSC 1401 is no longer funded and is scheduled for deletion and suggests replacing it with COSC 1301.

STAFF RESPONSE

Staff agrees. The proposed amendment to TAC, §4.53(13) has been changed to remove COSC 1401 and replace it with COSC 1301.

COMMENT 10

Terra Alvarado, Texas State Technical College

The commenter notes an exemption from HB 2223 corequisite models for students who are enrolled in a program not requiring a freshman-level math course and asks if a similar exemption is under consideration for students enrolled in a program not requiring a freshman-level English course.

STAFF RESPONSE

Because there are courses required by institutions of higher education in addition to freshman-level English that are TSI-liable in writing and/or reading, there is currently no proposal to exempt from the requirements of HB 2223 students who are enrolled in a program that does not require a freshman-level English course. No change is made to the proposed amendments based on this comment.

The new section and amendments are adopted under the Texas Education Code, §51.344, which gives the Coordinating Board the authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1 concerning the Texas Success Initiative.