The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter C, §§4.51 - 4.62, concerning college readiness standards and the Texas Success Initiative (TSI), with changes to the subchapter title, §4.54 proposed text, and Figure: 19 TAC §4.54(b) as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 330). The rules will be republished. Sections 4.51 - 4.53 and 4.55 - 4.62 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The TSI is a system established in statute for assessing whether students have met requirements to be deemed college-ready, requiring advising and academic assistance supporting students' successful course completions and momentum towards meeting academic and career goals. Specifically, this new section will modernize existing rules related to the TSI to reflect best practices in the delivery of developmental education.

The new adopted subchapter C title is College Readiness Standards.

Rule 4.51 provides the purpose and authority for this subchapter. Rules establishing the TSI derive from Texas Education Code (TEC), chapter 51, subchapter F-1, and the Coordinating Board's authority to promulgate TSI-related rules is established in TEC, §51.344.

Rule 4.52 sets out categories of students to whom TSI and college readiness requirements do not apply. This rule implements statutory language in TEC, §51.332, which carves out certain student categories (like students in military service, or students who have already earned an associate or baccalaureate degree) from TSI requirements. This rule clarifies that college readiness standards do not apply to a high school student who is a non-degree seeking student and an institution shall not require a non-degree seeking high school student to be assessed for college readiness. This revision aligns the rule to TEC, §51.333, which applies to an entering undergraduate student.

Rule 4.53 contains definitions for the subchapter. The Coordinating Board refines the definitions to match current practices and developmental education and other support models more closely - for example, by changing the Advising definition to reflect that students receive college guidance from a wide variety of sources. The rule adds definitions for degree seeking and non-degree seeking students to clarify which students are required to meet college readiness standards. These definitions implement TEC, §51.9685, and will be applicable across the definitions in Board rules.

Rule 4.54 lists the standards set by the Coordinating Board for institutions to determine whether a student has met requirements for exemption from the TSI. Statute provides for students to qualify for TSI exemption upon achieving certain scores on assessments or upon completion of certain college-level coursework (TEC, §51.338). Rule 4.54 complies by establishing benchmarks for commonly administered assessments like the SAT and the ACT, as well as stating how students can qualify for TSI exemptions through demonstrations of success on prior college-level coursework. Revisions to this section align the exemptions to the Education Code, chapter 51, subchapter F-1, and eliminate obsolete assessment instruments and standards. The section additionally clarifies that students who have successfully earned college credit in math or English via dual credit are deemed exempt from TSI assessment because the student has demonstrated that they are ready to perform college level course work through course completion. Additionally, a student who has earned the Texas First Diploma is exempt from TSI assessment because a student must meet standards that demonstrate early readiness from college pursuant to TEC, §28.0253, in order to earn the diploma. This section is adopted with the Algebra II STAAR End-of-Course test with a minimum score of 4000 added to Section 4.54(E) and Figure: 19 TAC 4.54(b).

Rule 4.55 outlines steps for institutions to assess and place students on an individualized basis, including delivering pre-assessment information to students and describing relevant factors to place students in appropriate coursework or interventions. This rule carries out statutory provisions, including TEC, §51.333(b).

Rule 4.56 establishes the Texas Success Initiative Assessment Instrument (TSIA and TSIA2) in rule, which is the Coordinating Board-approved assessment instrument required by TEC, §51.334. Test results are valid for a five-year period, and institutions must follow Coordinating Board and vendor requirements to administer the assessment.

Rule 4.57 sets out the benchmarks required on the TSIA for a student to demonstrate college readiness as required by TEC, §51.334(c). The Coordinating Board designates benchmarks with the objective of ensuring appropriate placement of students to achieve success in coursework.

Rule 4.58 requires institutions to develop advising and academic success plans for non-exempt students who do not meet college readiness assessment benchmarks. These plans must be individualized to the student and created in partnership with the student, a best practice required by law (TEC, §51.335). The Coordinating Board encourages institutions to adopt Non-Course-Based models where possible, to address needs in a targeted manner intended to keep students engaged and enrolled in their programs.

Rule 4.59 states how institutions may determine whether to enroll students in college-level coursework.

Rule 4.60 complies with a statutory requirement that the Coordinating Board periodically evaluate effectiveness of the TSI program by setting out required reporting necessary to conduct the evaluation (TEC, §51.343).

Rule 4.61 describes the required components of a developmental education program, in keeping with statutory requirements in TEC, §51.336(e). The revised rule gives institutions greater flexibility to design and offer different models of developmental education to students.

Rule 4.62 pertains to the privacy of student information. This provision ensures compliance with federal law and state law on data privacy (TEC, §51.344(c)).

The following comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.

Comment 1: The following comment was received from South Texas College:

Starr EOC Math Exemption is not included in the proposed changes under TSI exemptions, pg. 333 Section 4.54 - Exemption. Clarification is needed if STARR EOC Math exemption is to be included or will be excluded under the new recommended proposal. They are only referencing reading and writing.

Response 1: The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.

The omission of Algebra II EOC with a score of 4000 as a demonstration of college readiness for mathematics was not intentional. The Algebra II STAAR End-of-Course test with a minimum score of 4000 should be added to §4.54(E).

Comment 2: The following comments were received from San Jacinto College:

Regarding 19 TAC §§4.51 - 4.62

There is a massive body of national research that supports the efficacy of having students on focused pathways with defined goals and exit points along the pathway. Research clearly shows that students are retained, complete, and pursue further education (transfer) at a significantly higher rate if students have well-defined pathways and clear objectives relative to completion, both in technical pathways and transfer pathways. To promote dual credit through a non-degree seeking entrance into dual credit is diametrically opposed to ensuring that students have goals and clear paths to credentials that lead to jobs, transfer, and enhanced quality of life.

To promote dual credit through the non-degree seeking status also circumvents the requirement that students are "college ready," meaning that no TSIA or other qualifying test or course is required to be placed into dual credit college courses. This will limit what courses can be offered to students, and courses will likely not meet requirements for associate degrees and will not transfer if the student wishes to transfer to a four-year institution. Even if the courses are accepted in transfer, it is extremely unlikely that they will count for anything other than electives.

Regarding §4.52 Applicability(b)(4) and 4.53 Definitions(19)

If nearly all of dual credit students are now non-degree seeking, can the funded 15 credit hours be courses that are not included in degree requirements? Currently, we are not funded for courses that fall outside of degree requirements. Thus, we have eliminated EDUC 1300, BCIS 1305, and physical education from dual credit offerings because these are not degree requirements for San Jacinto College and not funded for contact hours. With the change to funding for 15 non-specific hours, can that be courses that are not in our degree requirements?

Regarding §4.52 Applicability(b)(4) and §4.54 Exemption(d).

In addition, once the dual credit student has completed the 15 hours that do not require college readiness and now chooses a degree pathway and is "degree seeking," does the TSIA or other qualifying test come into play? If so, then community colleges' developmental education programs will grow substantially because none of these students will be college ready and cannot take courses that have reading, writing, and mathematics competency requirements. This again is diametrically opposed to what has been the community college goal, and that is the reduction of developmental education in the pursuit to ensure that students graduating high school are college ready and can enroll in gateway courses. Or is it expected that the high school program and faculty deliver the college readiness portions of a College Connect or similar course which would also facilitate the separation of the college credit from the high school credit described in the College Connect rules?

Regarding §4.52 Applicability(b)(4)

How does the non-degree seeking status align with the high school endorsements that students must choose at eighth grade? What is the point of that if the student is not going to enter a pathway that is based on the chosen endorsement? Since it is unlikely that the courses that can be taken by non-college ready non-degree seeking students will align with any transfer pathway, these 15 hours will be wasted in terms of applying toward an associate degree or a transfer degree. If a student is on a technical pathway at the certificate level, it may be that courses count. But even technical pathways that are degrees (not certificates) require students to be college ready for gateway math and English. So are we unintentionally steering all students into technical certificates, even if that is not the student's intent?

Response 2:

The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.

1) The term "degree seeking student" is defined in §4.83(9) as a student who has filed a degree plan with an institution of higher education or is required to do so pursuant to Education Code, §51.9685. A non-degree seeking student is one who has not filed a degree plan or is not required to do so. This designation has no impact on advising students and providing information about well-defined pathways and clear objectives relative to completion, both in technical and transfer pathways, as noted in the comment.

2) Institutions may still require students to meet the institution's regular prerequisite requirements designated for that course (§4.85(b)(3)) or may impose additional requirements that do not conflict with this subchapter (§4.85(b)(4)). A dual credit course must be in the approved undergraduate course inventory of the institution and must meet the definition as outlined in §4.83(10). Courses are fundable, must count towards a degree plan, and must be transferable.

3) See previous response.

4) Successful completion of a college-level course that is reading/writing or mathematics-intensive is demonstration of college readiness by applicable subject area. Students who successfully complete such courses are TSI-met/complete (§4.54(2)(b)).

Comment 3: The following comment was received from CHILDREN AT RISK:

Recommendations Summary:

We recommend that the committee reconsiders maintaining the exemption criteria for

Algebra II End of Course (EOC) exams as is in the present Texas Administration

Code. (Subchapter C, 4.54)

SUBCHAPTER C TEXAS SUCCESS INITIATIVE

4.54 Exemptions, Exceptions, and Waivers

Rule 4.54 lists the standards set by the Coordinating Board for institutions to determine whether a student has met requirements for exemption from the TSI. Part (b) states that a student who achieves the passing standard on an assessment as set out in this subsection shall be deemed exempt from the requirements of the Texas Success Initiative.

(E) STAAR End of Course Test. A student who achieves a minimum score of 4000 on STAAR English III EOC shall be exempt for both reading and writing.

We recommend that the committee reconsiders maintaining the exemption criteria for Algebra II End of Course (EOC) exams as is in the present Texas Administration Code.

Per current the Texas Administration Code, the exemption related to STAAR testing included a minimum Level 2 score of 4000 on the Algebra II EOC for exemption from the mathematics section.

Data from the 2022-23 Texas Education Agency Performance Report reveals that only 19.9% of the 2021-22 graduates in the state completed advanced/dual-credit courses in mathematics. Comparing this to the 2017-18 school year, where 32% of students mastered the Algebra I EOC, it's evident that there has been a decline in students accessing advanced math coursework over time.

The proposal mentions that the proposed rule seeks to "eliminate obsolete assessment instruments and standards" though it's essential to recognize that districts retain the autonomy to request the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to administer an Algebra II End-of-Course (EOC) exam. This autonomy is crucial because it ensures that districts can tailor their educational offerings to meet the diverse needs of their students. By preserving this flexibility, we uphold the principle of providing equitable access to opportunities for all students, irrespective of their geographical location or educational background. Stripping away the language and opportunity for districts to make such requests could inadvertently limit students' access to vital educational resources and pathways for academic advancement. It is imperative to maintain language in the proposal that safeguards districts' ability to facilitate students' access to these opportunities.

This decline in access to advanced math coursework directly impacts students' pathways to postsecondary success. Research consistently demonstrates the importance of advanced math education for college and career readiness. Mastery of Algebra II and beyond is crucial for developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and analytical reasoning--all of which are essential for success in higher education and the workforce.

(1) "Students who study math through Algebra II are more than twice as likely to earn a four-year degree than those who do not" Achieve.

(2) "The highest level of mathematics reached in high school continues to be a key marker in precollegiate momentum, with the tipping point of momentum toward a bachelor's degree now firmly above Algebra II" Anneberg Institute for School Reform.

(3) "After controlling for demographic factors, 73% of students who took calculus during high school later earned a bachelor's degree, while just 3% of those who took "vocational" math (e.g. courses labeled vocational, general, basic, or consumer math) did" Public Policy Institute of California.

The primary focus is on the potential consequences of removing the exemption and the need to carefully consider the broader impact on student access to higher education opportunities include:

(1) Concerns regarding the impact on students who struggle to meet TSI math passing standards, especially considering that only 18.7% of students in the state currently meet these standards.

(2) Some students may experience TSI burnout after multiple failed attempts, affecting their psychological well-being and readiness for college-level math.

(3) The removal of exemptions could limit access to dual credit classes requiring math readiness and potentially hinder college access and success for affected students.

(4) The importance of ensuring equitable access to college readiness programs and support for students of all backgrounds.

Eliminating the exemption related to the mathematics section of the TSI not only restricts students' access to higher education but also narrows their pathways to associate degrees and workforce opportunities. With the TSI serving as a prerequisite for enrollment in Dual Credit courses, removing this exemption directly impedes students' access to classes that require college readiness in mathematics.

Maintaining an exemption pathway for students who demonstrate proficiency in Algebra II coursework is essential for promoting equitable access to post-secondary education and fostering students' long-term success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Response 3:

The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following response.

The omission of Algebra II EOC with a score of 4000 as a demonstration of college readiness for mathematics was not intentional. The Algebra II STAAR End-of-Course test with a minimum score of 4000 should be added to §4.54(E).

The new sections are adopted under Texas Education Code, §51.344, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules to implement Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1, relating to the Texas Success Initiative.

The adopted new sections affect Texas Education Code, §§51.331-51.344, 61.07611, and 61.0762; and Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, §§2.3, 4.85, 4.86, 4.155, and 21.52.