PART 1. TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD
CHAPTER 1. AGENCY ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER G. APPLY TEXAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter G, §1.128, concerning the Authority and Specific Purposes of the Apply Texas Advisory Committee, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 327). The rule will not be republished.
This adopted amendment changes the reference to §4.11 to §4.10.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under Chapter 1, Subchapter A, General Provisions, §1.15, which provides the authority for the Commissioner of Higher Education to approve proposed Board rules for publication in the Texas Register.
The adopted amendment affects Title 19, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 1.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401821
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6585
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter A, §4.10, Common Admission Application Forms, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 327). The rule will not be republished.
This adopted amendment aligns the rule with the General Appropriations Act, House Bill 1, Article III, Section 9 (88th Legislature, Regular Session), Cost Recovery for the Common Application Form, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to recover costs related to the common application form for each general academic institution, each participating public two-year institution, and each participating independent institution.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the General Appropriations Act, House Bill 1, Article III, Section 9 (88th Legislature, Regular Session), which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to recover costs related to the common application form for each general academic institution, each participating public two-year institution, and each participating independent institution.
The adopted amendment affects rules in Title 19, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 4.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401822
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6585
19 TAC §§4.22, 4.23, 4.27, 4.29, 4.32, 4.34, 4.39
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, §§4.27, 4.32, and 4.34, with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 16, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 830) and will be republished. Sections 4.22, 4.23, 4.29, and 4.39, are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
This amendment encourages the transferability of lower division course credit among institutions of higher education, and especially provide for the smooth transfer of lower division credit through core curricula, field of study curricula, and a procedure for the resolution of transfer disputes. The Board is authorized to adopt rules and establish policies and procedures for the development, adoption, implementation, funding, and evaluation of core curricula, field of study curricula, and a transfer dispute resolution process under Texas Education Code, §§61.059, 61.0512, 61.0593, 61.821 - 61.828, and 61.834.
Rule 4.22, Authority, lists the sections of Texas Education Code that grant the Board authority over transfer of credit, core curriculum, and field of study curricula, and updates statutory references as appropriate.
Rule 4.23, Definitions, lists definitions broadly applicable to chapter 4. This rule provides the addition of definitions for Academic Associate Degrees and Applied Associate Degrees. This rule uses Texas Education Code, §61.003, to define categories of institutions.
Rule 4.27, Resolution of Transfer Disputes for Lower-Division Courses, details the procedures in the resolution of credit transfer disputes involving lower-division courses. This rule revision includes the Commissioner's role in the process placing emphasis on the fact the Commissioner or his designee's decision is final and there is no process for appeal. This revision also removes problematic language no longer supported by statutory authority.
Rule 4.29, Core Curricula Larger than 42 Semester Credit Hours, revision allows for an institution, contingent upon Board approval, to have a core curriculum of fewer than 42 semester credit hours for an associate degree program if it would facilitate the award of a degree or transfer of credit.
Rule 4.32, Field of Study Curriculum, revised to correct an error in the timeline of the process.
Rule 4.34, Revision of Approved Field of Study Curricula, revises the language of subsection (c) for clarity.
Rule 4.39, Texas Direct Associate Degree, an addition to subchapter B for the purpose of awarding a Texas Direct Associate Degree. The rule allows for the award of a "Texas Direct" associate degree with the directive to include a notation on the student's transcript who completes a field of study curriculum, the college's core curriculum; or an abbreviated core curriculum related to a specific approved field of study curriculum transferable to one or more general academic institutions.
The following comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendments.
Comment: South Texas College submitted a comment regarding proposed rule 4.39 which states "A junior college, public state college, or public technical institute shall award a student a "Texas Direct" associate degree and include a notation on the transcript of a student who completes any Board-approved field of study curriculum developed by the Board," there are some challenges when it comes to being able to accomplish this at the community college level. This is stemming from discussions that were held with other community college peers during the recent TACRAO quarterly meeting that also share the same concern. The group is seeking further clarification on the notation for a "Texas Direct" associate degree since it's intended to streamline the transfer process from college to university; however, the challenge for the community colleges is not knowing what university the student intends to transfer to as there could be multiple options with varying directed electives. The same can be said about the board-approved field of studies (FOS), especially since some courses are also shared with the core curriculum and community colleges cannot double count credits the way universities can. The FOS structure is not the same as the one we have for Core Curriculum in terms of scheme whereby we can code the courses based on the foundation area they fall under. Below is a snapshot of how core courses are identified on transcripts with a common code, so this would make it easier for the receiving institution to apply the course correctly on the declared program. If something similar can be developed for the FOS, the receiving institution would be able to identify the courses easily.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for its comment, and recognizes the concerns raised about transcripting the Texas Direct associate degree. The community college will need to include on the student transcript the notation for the Texas Direct if the student has completed the components of the field of study including: the discipline-specific core curriculum, discipline foundation courses, as well as the directed electives from any general academic teaching Institution. The Coordinating Board will provide additional guidance for institutions in an FAQ and other mechanisms for communicating with institutions.
Comment: San Jacinto College submitted the following comments: §4.27. Resolution of Transfer Disputes for Lower-Division Courses. In §4.27(a)(1) we believe "accept" should be clarified as "accept and apply." That ensures clarity and consistency with subsequent language in §4.27(1)(c), "the receiving institution shall apply the credit toward the core curriculum or the field of study..." Further, we believe it will be beneficial to define all instances of "transfer of credit" throughout Texas Administrative Code Title 19 Part 1 as "the acceptance of credit and the application of that credit to a student's degree plan at the receiving institution." The instances in this statute are examples of the need for that broader change.
Response: Regarding the clarification proposed in §4.27(a)(1) and §4.27(c), the Coordinating Board agrees with the changes proposed and has aligned language in both sections to be "accept and apply." Regarding the request for a definition of "transfer of credit," while the Coordinating Board agrees that having a standardized definition would be helpful, Coordinating Board staff need to gather more information on what sections of Texas Administrative Code would be affected by a broad definition prior to proposing amendments to implement this suggestion.
Comment: §4.34. Revision of Approved Fields of Study Curricula. Regarding §4.34(c), we believe it is important to consider revisions to the "two academic years" limit. The rule should align with and honor a student's catalog year, e.g., "[a] student is entitled to apply an institution's approved directed electives specified in the catalog for the year the student began the field of study at the community college." First, if it is a truly contiguous pathway, this suggested change may be essential. The "two academic years after" effectively disregards catalog years for transfer students. Second, the "two academic years after" may likely have a disproportionately negative effect on part-time students at universities and community colleges. By definition, it often will take those students longer than two years to complete the FOS/AA. If the FOS revisions - including directed electives - are not tied to catalog years, part-time students may inevitably be caught in a bind when revisions have been made to the FOS in the time since they started the program 2.5 to 3 or more years ago.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for its comment. Rule 4.32(b)(3)(G) includes a provision requiring a receiving institution to accept a directed elective upon transfer if it was listed as an active directed elective in the Coordinating Boards field of study directed electives inventory at the time the student completed the course. The Coordinating Board has provided additional clarification in §4.34(c) and §4.34(d) permitting an institution to add directed electives, but requiring a two-year phased period for directed electives. The Coordinating Board will notate deletion and phase out dates on its inventory to ensure there is a historical record.
Comment: §4.32. Field of Study Curriculum. Regarding §4.32(b), may the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee (TTAC) consider whether: (1) Selected Texas Core Curriculum Courses and (2) Discipline Foundation Courses should also include a minimum number of semester credit hours (SCH), similar to the Directed Electives? Without such a minimum, select fields of study do not seem to present a viable lower division transfer pathway. For example, the Political Science Field of Study currently includes no selected core curriculum courses, yet nine of the 12 SCH in the discipline foundation are commonly core courses, and with 40 of the 52 SCH directed electives also commonly being core courses, the Political Science FOS is effectively the core curriculum and three SCH, GOVT 2304. Similarly/alternatively, may the Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM) Advisory Committee consider the breadth of political science courses available in the ACGM? It may be in the discipline's and students' best interest for there to be more political science courses available in the ACGM such that a more substantive transfer pathway may be defined by the field of study.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for its comment. While the field of study curriculum (FOSC) does not list a minimum for Discipline Foundation Courses the total field of study courses must be 18 semester credit hours. Having a maximum but not a minimum requirement ensures that faculty subcommittees can customize the field of study curriculum as much as possible within the framework. The core curriculum courses do not count toward the 18 SCH and are additional core courses the student must take to be FOSC complete. The ACGM Advisory Committee can recommend the development of new courses in the ACGM, at which point THECB staff would convene faculty committees for course development.
The amendments are adopted under Texas Education Code, Sections 61.059, 61.0512, 61.0593, 61.821 - 61.828, and 61.834, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to develop and implement policies affecting the transfer of lower division course credit among institutions of higher education.
The adopted amendments affect transfer of credit, core curriculum, and fields of study.
§4.27.Resolution of Transfer Disputes for Lower-Division Courses.
(a) Each institution of higher education shall apply the following procedures in the resolution of credit transfer disputes involving lower-division courses:
(1) If an institution of higher education does not accept and apply a course included in the field of study curriculum for the program in which a student is enrolled or a course in the core curriculum earned by a student at another institution of higher education, the receiving institution shall give written notice to the student and to the sending institution that it intends to deny the transfer of the course credit and shall include in that notice the reasons for the proposed denial. The receiving institution must attach the procedures for resolution of transfer disputes as outlined in this section to the notice. The notice and procedure must include:
(A) clear instructions for appealing the decision to the Commissioner; and
(B) the name and contact information for the designated official at the receiving institution who is authorized to resolve the credit transfer dispute.
(2) A student who receives notice as specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection may dispute the denial of credit by contacting a designated official at either the sending or the receiving institution.
(3) The two institutions and the student shall attempt to resolve the transfer of the course credit in accordance with this section. An institution that proposes to deny the credit shall resolve the dispute not later than the 45th day after the date that the student enrolls at the institution.
(4) If the student or the sending institution is not satisfied with the resolution of the credit transfer dispute, the student or the sending institution may notify the Commissioner in writing of the denial of the course credit and the reasons for denial.
(b) Not later than the 20th business day after the date that the Commissioner receives the notice of dispute concerning the application of credit for the core curriculum or field of study curriculum, the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee shall make the final determination about a credit transfer dispute and give written notice of the determination to the student and each institution.
(c) If the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee determines that an institution may not deny the transfer of credit for the core curriculum or the field of study curriculum, the receiving institution shall accept and apply the credit toward the core curriculum or the field of study as determined by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee.
(d) A decision under this section is not a contested case. The Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee's decision is final and may not be appealed. Each transfer credit dispute resolved by the Commissioner shall be posted on the Board website, including the final determination.
(e) Each institution of higher education shall publish in its course catalogs the procedures specified in this section.
(f) The Board shall collect data on the types of transfer disputes that are reported and the disposition of each case that is considered by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee.
§4.32.Field of Study Curriculum.
(a) In accordance with Texas Education Code, §61.823, the Board is authorized to approve Field of Study Curricula for certain fields of study/academic disciplines. The Board delegates to the Commissioner development of Field of Study Curricula with the assistance of the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee, as defined by Title 19, Subchapter V, Chapter 1. The Texas Transfer Advisory Committee is responsible for convening Discipline-Specific Subcommittees. Discipline-Specific Subcommittees shall provide subject-matter expertise to the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee in developing Field of Study Curricula in specific disciplines.
(b) A complete Field of Study Curriculum will consist of the following components:
(1) Selected Texas Core Curriculum courses.
(A) Selected Texas Core Curriculum courses relevant to the discipline may be included in the Field of Study Curriculum for that discipline.
(B) Discipline-Specific Subcommittees are responsible for identifying discipline-relevant courses from a list of all Texas Core Curriculum courses provided by the Board that may be used to satisfy core curriculum requirements. Each Discipline-Specific Subcommittee shall recommend identified Texas Core Curriculum courses to the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee.
(C) The Texas Transfer Advisory Committee shall recommend the Texas Core Curriculum courses selected for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum to the Commissioner who may approve or deny the inclusion of the recommended Texas Core Curriculum courses in the Field of Study Curriculum.
(D) Each institution of higher education must publish on its public website in manner easily accessed by students the Texas Core Curriculum courses selected for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum with the cross-listed TCCNS course number.
(2) Discipline Foundation Courses (DFC).
(A) Discipline Foundation Courses are a set of courses within a major course of study, consisting of up to twelve (12) semester credit hours, selected for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum for that discipline. These courses will apply toward undergraduate degrees within the Field of Study Curriculum at all Texas public institutions that offer a corresponding major or track, except for those institutions approved to require alternative Discipline Foundation Courses under Title 19, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, §4.35 (relating to Petition for Alternative Discipline Foundation Courses).
(B) Each receiving institution must apply the semester credit hours a student has completed in a Discipline Foundation Course upon the student's transfer into a corresponding major or track. The sending institution must indicate Discipline Foundation Courses on the transfer student's transcript.
(C) Discipline-Specific Subcommittees are responsible for identifying discipline-relevant courses for inclusion on the Discipline Foundation Courses list. The Discipline-Specific Subcommittees must select from courses listed in the Lower-Division Academic Course Guide Manual. Each Discipline-Specific Subcommittee shall report this course list to the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee.
(D) The Texas Transfer Advisory Committee shall recommend the Discipline Foundation Courses selected by the Discipline Specific Subcommittees for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum to the Commissioner. The Commissioner may approve or deny the Discipline Foundation Courses recommended by the Texas Transfer Advisory Committee for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum.
(E) General academic teaching institutions may submit a request for an alternative set of Discipline Foundation Courses for a specific program of study according to the process in Title 19, Chapter 4, Subchapter B, §4.35.
(F) Each institution of higher education must report to the Coordinating Board and publish on its public website in manner easily accessed by students the Discipline Foundation Courses with the cross-listed TCCNS course numbers for each course.
(G) The Commissioner must publish the list of Discipline Foundation Courses for each approved Field of Study Curriculum on the agency website with the cross-listed TCCNS course number for each course.
(3) Directed Electives.
(A) Directed Electives are a set of courses that apply toward a major course of study within a Field of Study Curriculum at a specific general academic teaching institution.
(B) The Directed Electives for each Field of Study Curriculum must consist of at least six (6) semester credit hours. The Directed Electives and Discipline Foundation Courses components combined may not exceed twenty (20) semester credit hours in total.
(C) Faculty from each general academic teaching institution may select a list of Directed Electives for the major course of study corresponding to each Field of Study curriculum. Faculty must select the Directed Electives only from courses listed in the Lower-Division Academic Course Guide Manual.
(D) The Chief Academic Officer of the institution shall submit the list of Directed Electives for inclusion in a Field of Study Curriculum with the cross-listed TCCNS course number to the Commissioner not later than 45 days after being sent the request from the Coordinating Board. The Coordinating Board shall publish the list of each institution's Directed Electives for each approved Field of Study Curriculum on the agency website with the cross-listed TCCNS course numbers for each course.
(E) An institution that does not submit its Directed Electives in accordance with subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be required to accept any Directed Elective courses that appear on the Board's list for the Texas Direct Associate Degree for any institution's Field of Study Curriculum.
(F) Each institution of higher education must publish on its public website in a manner easily accessed by students Directed Electives with the cross-listed TCCNS course number.
(G) An institution shall accept and apply directed electives for fields of study upon transfer as long as the directed elective was active on the Coordinating Board's inventory of directed electives at the time the student completed the course at the community college.
(c) A receiving general academic teaching institution shall determine whether a transfer student is Field of Study Curriculum complete upon the transfer student's enrollment. If a student successfully completes an approved Field of Study Curriculum, a general academic teaching institution must substitute that block of courses for the receiving institution's lower-division requirements for the degree program for the corresponding Field of Study Curriculum into which the student transfers. Upon enrollment, the general academic teaching institution must grant the student full academic credit toward the degree program for the block of courses transferred.
(d) If a student transfers from one institution of higher education to another without completing the Field of Study Curriculum, the receiving institution must grant academic credit in the Field of Study Curriculum for each of the courses that the student has successfully completed in the Field of Study Curriculum of the sending institution. After granting the student credit for these courses, the institution may require the student to satisfy remaining course requirements in the current Field of Study Curriculum of the receiving general academic teaching institution, or to complete additional requirements in the receiving institution's program, as long as those requirements do not duplicate course content the student previously completed through the Field of Study Curriculum.
(e) Each institution must note the selected Texas Core Curriculum component and Discipline Foundation Courses components of the Field of Study Curriculum courses on student transcripts as recommended by the Texas Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (TACRAO).
(f) The Board shall publish on its website the components of each Field of Study Curriculum, including the selected Texas Core Curriculum courses, the Discipline Foundation Courses, and the Directed Electives of each general academic teaching institution.
(g) Effective Dates.
(1) Unless repealed or replaced, Field of Study Curricula in effect as of March 1, 2021, will remain in effect until August 31, 2025, upon which date those Field of Study Curricula expire by operation of law. For Field of Study Curricula that are repealed, replaced, or expire by operation of law, the following transition or "teach out" provisions apply:
(A) A student who has earned credit on or before August 31, 2022, in one or more courses included in a Field of Study Curriculum that exists on March 1, 2021, is entitled to complete that Field of Study Curriculum on or before August 31, 2025.
(B) A student who has not, on or before August 31, 2022, earned any course credit toward a Field of Study Curriculum in effect on March 1, 2021, is not entitled to transfer credit for that Field of Study Curriculum.
(2) After an institution's Spring 2026 enrollment deadline, a receiving institution is not required to transfer a complete Field of Study Curricula that expired prior to that date. A receiving institution may, at its discretion, choose to accept a complete or partial Field of Study Curricula that has expired.
§4.34.Revision of Approved Field of Study Curricula.
(a) The Commissioner may modify or revise a Field of Study Curriculum when a need for such a revision is identified.
(b) Any Chief Academic Officer of an institution that offers a corresponding major or track may request a modification or revision to an approved Field of Study Curriculum. The Texas Transfer Advisory Committee shall evaluate institutions' proposed modifications or revisions to Field of Study Curricula and may refer the proposed revisions to Discipline-Specific Subcommittees prior to making a final recommendation to the Commissioner.
(c) Institutions may request deletion of directed electives not more than once a year in a manner prescribed by the Board. Each directed elective requested for deletion is subject to a two-year phase out period to be noted on the Coordinating Board and institutional websites.
(d) Institutions may add directed electives once every year in a manner and timeline prescribed by the Board. The institution must demonstrate a compelling academic reason for the change in directed electives.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401823
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: February 16, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6182
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts the repeal of Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter C, §§4.51 - 4.63, concerning the Texas Success Initiative, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 329). The rules will not be republished.
Specifically, this repeal will allow the Coordinating Board to adopt new rules relating to college readiness standards.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the repeal.
The repeal is adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 51.344, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules relating to Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1, relating to the Texas Success Initiative.
The adopted repeal affects Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter F-1, Section 51.344, relating to the Texas Success Initiative.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401825
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6537
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.
§4.54.Exemption.
(a) For the purpose of demonstrating exemption under subsection (b) of this section, the Board shall ensure that the passing standard on each approved assessment meets the college readiness standard under §4.57(a) of this subchapter (relating to Texas Success Initiative Assessment College Readiness Standards).
(b) 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. An institution shall not require an exempt student to provide any additional demonstration of college readiness and shall allow an exempt student to enroll in an entry-level academic course as defined in §4.53(13) of this title (relating to Definitions). The following figure contains the full list of assessments, minimum required scores, and eligible exemptions.
Figure: 19 TAC §4.54(b) (.pdf)
(1) For a period of five (5) years from the date of testing, a student who is tested and performs at or above the following standards that cannot be raised by institutions:
(A) ACT. A student who has achieved the applicable standard under this subsection shall be deemed exempt under this subchapter.
(i) ACT administered prior to February 15, 2023: composite score of 23 with a minimum of 19 on the English test shall be exempt for both the reading and writing sections of the TSI Assessment, and/or 19 on the mathematics test shall be exempt for the mathematics section of the TSI Assessment.
(ii) ACT administered on or after February 15, 2023: a combined score of 40 on the English and Reading (E+R) tests shall be exempt for both reading and writing or ELAR sections of the TSI Assessment. A score of 22 on the mathematics test shall be exempt for the mathematics section of the TSI Assessment. There is no composite score.
(iii) The use of scores from both the ACT administered prior to February 15, 2023, and the ACT administered after February 15, 2023, is allowable, as long as the benchmarks set forth in clause (ii) of this subparagraph are met.
(B) SAT. A student who has achieved the applicable standard under this subsection shall be deemed exempt under this subchapter.
(i) SAT administered on or after March 5, 2016: a minimum score of 480 on the Evidenced-Based Reading and Writing (EBRW) test shall be exempt for both reading and writing sections of the TSI Assessment. A minimum score of 530 on the mathematics test shall be exempt for the mathematics section of the TSI Assessment. There is no minimum combined EBRW and mathematics score.
(ii) Mixing or combining scores from the SAT administered prior to March 5, 2016, and the SAT administered on or after March 5, 2016, is not allowable.
(C) GED: minimum score of 165 on the Mathematical Reasoning subject test shall be exempt for the mathematics section of the TSI Assessment. A minimum score of 165 on the Reasoning Through Language Arts (RLA) subject test shall be exempt for the English Language Arts Reading (ELAR) section of the TSI Assessment.
(D) HiSET: minimum score of 15 on the Mathematics subtest shall be used to determine exemption on the mathematics section of the TSI Assessment. A minimum score of 15 on the Reading subtest and a minimum score of 15 on the Writing subtest, including a minimum score of 4 on the essay, shall be exempt for the English Language Arts Reading (ELAR) section of the TSI Assessment.
(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. A student who achieves a minimum score of 4000 on STAAR Algebra II EOC shall be exempt from mathematics.
(c) A student who has met one of the following criteria shall be exempt from the requirements of the Texas Success Initiative for the respective content area in which they have demonstrated college readiness. The following chart contains the full list of course and program completions and eligible exemptions.
Figure: 19 TAC §4.54(c) (.pdf)
(1) A student who successfully completes a college preparatory course under Texas Education Code, §28.014, is exempt for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of high school graduation with respect to the content area of the course, under the following conditions:
(A) The student enrolls in the student's first college-level course in the exempted content area in the student's first year of enrollment in an institution of higher education; and
(B) The student enrolls at the institution of higher education:
(i) that partnered with the school district in which the student is enrolled to provide the course, or
(ii) with an institution that deems the student TSI-met based on the completion of a course that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this section.
(2) A student who has previously enrolled in any public, private, or independent institution of higher education or an accredited out-of-state institution of higher education and:
(A) has met college readiness standards in mathematics, reading, or writing as determined by the receiving institution, or
(B) who has satisfactorily completed college-level coursework in mathematics, reading, or writing with a grade of 'C' or better, including a high school student who has earned college credit for a dual credit course or a course offered under §4.86 of this chapter (relating to Optional Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Program: College Connect Courses), with a grade of 'C' or better.
(3) A student who has earned the Texas First Diploma under chapter 21, subchapter D of this title (relating to Texas First Early High School Completion Program).
(d) An institution may exempt a non-degree-seeking or non-certificate-seeking student not otherwise exempt under this section.
(e) In accordance with the requirements of this subchapter, an institution shall not require a student who is exempt in mathematics, reading, and/or writing or to whom this subchapter is inapplicable under §4.52 of this subchapter (relating to Applicability) to be assessed under this subchapter or to enroll in developmental coursework or interventions in the corresponding area of exemption. This limitation does not restrict an institution from advising a student to complete additional coursework or interventions to increase the likelihood of the student's success in completing the courses and program in which the student enrolls.
(f) 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 after the student attempts 15 credit hours of developmental ESOL coursework at a public junior college, public technical institute, or public state college; nine (9) credit hours of developmental ESOL coursework at a general academic teaching institution; or prior to enrolling in entry-level academic coursework, whichever comes first, at which time the student would be assessed by the institution with a Board-approved instrument as defined by §4.56 of this subchapter (relating to Texas Success Initiative Assessment Instrument). Funding limits as defined in Texas Education Code, §51.340, for developmental education still apply.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401824
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6537
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts the repeal of Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter D, Dual Credit Partnerships Between Secondary Schools and Texas Public Colleges, §§4.81 - 4.86, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 336). The rules will not be republished.
The Coordinating Board replaced these regulations with new chapter 4, subchapter D, §§4.81 - 4.87. The new rule language aligns with new dual credit requirements and provides opportunity to streamline reporting for institutions.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the repeal.
The repeal is adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 28.009(b), 28.0095, 61.059(p), 130.001(b)(3) - (4) and 130.008, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to regulate dual credit partnerships between public institutions of higher education and secondary schools with regard to lower division courses, and provide funding for dual credit courses, including courses offered under the FAST program.
The adopted repeal affects chapter 4, subchapter D, §§4.81 - 4.86.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401827
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6182
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter D, §§4.81 - 4.87, concerning dual credit partnerships between secondary schools and Texas public colleges. Sections 4.85 - 4.87 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 337) and will be republished. Sections 4.81 - 4.84 are adopted without changes and will not be republished. These new rules replace existing rules §§4.81 - 4.86, which the Coordinating Board will repeal. Negotiated rulemaking was used in the development of these adopted rules. Reports of negotiated rulemaking committees are public information and are available upon request from the Coordinating Board.
Prior to the 88th Legislative Session, Education Code, §§ 28.009, 29.908, 61.059(p), and 130.008, defined how the state can fund dual credit courses. With the Legislature's addition of the Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST) Program in Education Code, §28.0095, the Coordinating Board is updating its dual credit rules to ensure alignment of the Coordinating Board's rules with current statutes and to clarify which dual credit courses the agency can fund in the base and performance tiers under Education Code, chapter 130A. The adopted new rules clarify reporting and funding requirements for institutions and make the definitions uniform across the Coordinating Board's rules. The Coordinating Board will use the definitions for dual credit of its rules and will streamline the institutions' compliance and reporting obligations.
Rule 4.81, Purpose, establishes the purpose of the subchapter, to provide rules and regulations for public institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with secondary schools to provide dual credit instruction.
Rule 4.82, Authority, contains the legal authority for chapter 4, subchapter D, which is contained in Education Code, §§28.009(b), 28.009, 28.0095, 29.908, 61.059(p), 130.001(b)(3)-(4), and 130.008.
Rule 4.83, Definitions, lists definitions pertinent for dual credit education.
Paragraph (10) ("Dual Credit Course or Dual Enrollment Course") defines a dual credit or dual enrollment course. This definition includes several definitions in statute: Education Code, §28.009(a-4), providing a general definition in Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to Public Education; Education Code, §28.0095(3), establishing a definition of dual credit for purposes of the FAST program; Education Code, §61.059(p), defining dual credit hours eligible for funding through appropriations; and Education Code, §130.008(a-1), defining dual credit specifically for public junior colleges. These statutory definitions structure the permissible subject matter areas in subparagraph (10)(B), including courses in the core curriculum under Education Code, §61.821; courses identified as part of a field of study curriculum under Education Code, §61.823; courses satisfying a foreign language requirement; and career and technical education courses counting toward an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or associate degree. This definition stipulates that institutions must offer dual credit courses, including courses that are eligible for FAST funding, pursuant to an agreement between the secondary-level education provider and the institution of higher education.
Subparagraphs (10)(C)-(E) concern dual enrollment courses, a model for providing joint high school and college credit that, under some definitions, allows students to earn two separate grades in the high school and college levels. The Texas Education Code uses the term "dual enrollment," including providing specific funding for dual enrollment courses delivered through community colleges under H.B. 8 (Education Code, §130A.101(c)(3)), but authorizes the Board to define the term. Proposed Coordinating Board rules thus provide a needed definition for the dual enrollment model of joint credit delivery, aligned with widespread industry usage of the term. The new definition of "dual credit" includes what was previously described as "dual enrollment" since the two course structures are fundable in the same manner pursuant to Education Code, §28.0095.
Paragraphs (1) ("Avocational Course") and (3) ("Career and Technical Education Course") concern related concepts within the career and technical education category. Statute allows for students to take dual credit courses in career and technical subjects (as opposed to academic subjects) when that course counts toward an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or associate degree (Education Code, §28.0095(3)(D)); see also Education Code §61.059(p)(3). The proposed "career and technical education course" definition excludes certain categories unlikely to count later toward a student's credential, including avocational courses as defined in Education Code, §130.351(2).
Paragraphs (8) ("Credit"), (11) ("Equivalent of a Semester Credit Hour"), (15) ("Locally Articulated College Credit"), and (19) ("Semester Credit Hour") relate to the units of measurement for each course that count toward a larger credential. Dual credit courses must confer credit toward a larger credential or degree, as required by statute and reflected in the "credit" definition in the proposed rules (Education Code, §28.009(a-1)). Institutions denominate credit differently for different types of courses: for academic courses, credit is denominated in semester credit hours (SCH), as reflected in paragraph (19); for career and technical courses, credit is denominated in contact hours, and so paragraph (11) accordingly contains a conversion of contact hours to SCH. Additionally, institutions may choose to use students' fulfillment of certain pre-identified requirements as career and technical education credits, as recognized in paragraph (15).
Paragraph (4) ("Certificate") establishes a single, clear definition for a term with multiple potential meanings in the higher education sector, connecting the dual credit rule to the definition established in statute (Education Code, §61.003(12)).
Paragraphs (12) ("Field of Study Curriculum (FOSC)") and (16) ("Program of Study Curriculum (POSC)") recognize two statutorily established curricula designed by the Legislature to improve the portability of the credits students earn across Texas public institutions. FOSC establishes a set of courses for students to take in certain disciplines with guaranteed transfer and applicability to a major across Texas public institutions (Education Code, §61.823); POSC establishes a similar set of courses for students enrolled in career and technical education programs (Education Code, §61.8235).
Paragraphs (5) ("College Board Advanced Placement") and (14) ("International Baccalaureate Diploma Program") define two common advanced academic programs intended to prepare students for college.
Paragraphs (2) ("Board"), (6) ("Commissioner"), and (7) ("Coordinating Board") establish specific roles related to the Coordinating Board, including specifying that "Board" means the governing board of the agency, "Coordinating Board" refers to the agency including agency staff, and "Commissioner" meaning the Commissioner of Higher Education. These definitions clearly distinguish between different but related entities, specifically identifying responsible parties within the rule text.
Similarly, paragraphs (13) ("Institution of Higher Education or Institution"), (17) ("Public Two-Year College"), and (18) ("School District") define commonly used categories of educational providers, in each case connecting definitions in rule with commonly understood terms defined in statute (Education Code, chapter 12 and §61.003).
Paragraph (9) ("Degree-Seeking Student") defines a student seeking a degree as one who has filed, or is required to file, a degree plan pursuant to Education Code, §51.9685. This provision of statute requires dual credit students to file degree plans by the end of the regular semester immediately following the semester in which they earn at least 15 SCH, or by the end of the first semester if the student already enters with at least 15 SCH (Education Code, §51.9685(c-2)). While it was commonly understood that a high-school student with at least 15 SCHs was a degree-seeking student, there was no definition in statute or rule previously.
Rule 4.84, Institutional Agreements, establishes parameters for the institutional agreements between school districts or private schools and institutions of higher education, required for institutions to offer dual credit coursework. Subsection (b) lists required elements of these agreements, which includes the minimum content necessary to establish a successful dual credit framework in alignment with Education Code, §28.009(b-2). These elements provide for transparent exchange of necessary data and information and establish important safeguards for students, including adequate and appropriate academic support. The Coordinating Board is updating this section of the rules to clarify that such agreements must address the joint participation of the school district and an institution of higher education in the FAST program.
Rule 4.85, Dual Credit Requirements, stipulates course eligibility, student eligibility, requirements for the location and composition of the class, standards for faculty, and baseline academic policies. The Coordinating Board amends this rule to provide greater clarity around which students are eligible to enroll in dual credit courses based on whether the student is TSI-exempt or has met college readiness standards. Pursuant to this rule a student may enroll in dual if the student is: (a) non-degree seeking, (b) exempt from the requirements of TSI, or (c) has met the college readiness standards. The unamended provisions of this section ensure that each institution retains latitude to apply its general academic policies to dual credit students and that the quality of instruction for high school students is the same as that of the institution's regular college students.
Subsection (a) stipulates course eligibility for dual credit, including those defined in proposed rule 4.83 that are included in the institution's undergraduate course inventory. Institutions may not offer remedial or developmental education as dual credit, although this limitation does not prohibit institutions from enrolling students not yet deemed college-ready in dual credit, including in College Connect Courses as established by this subchapter.
Subsection (b) relates to students eligible to enroll in dual credit courses. State law requires students entering college classes demonstrate college readiness, show that those standards to not apply, or qualify for an exemption from those standards under the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) (Education Code, chapter 51, subchapter F-1). Institutions may exempt students who are non-degree seeking or non-certificate seeking from TSI requirements under Education Code, §51.338; as defined in the proposed rule's definitions, non-degree-seeking students may include students not yet required to file degree plans under Education Code, §51.9685. Institutions have latitude to determine whether a student may enroll in dual credit coursework, in keeping with typical accreditation requirements that institutions exercise oversight over student admissions and enrollment.
Subsection (c) and (d) relate to the physical location and student composition of the dual credit class. The Coordinating Board authorizes the offering of distance education courses under Education Code, §61.0512; the proposed rule notes that any dual credit offered through distance education should comply with existing Coordinating Board rules under Texas Administrative Code chapter 2, subchapter J. Dual credit classes may consist of dual credit students only or a mixture of dual credit and college students. Institutions may also offer dual credit classes composed of a mixture of dual credit and non-dual credit high school students if that is the only financially viable way to offer dual credit, for example in rural districts with very small total enrollments of dual credit students. The rule sets out parameters for these mixed classes to ensure appropriate standards for the dual credit students.
Subsections (e), (f), and (g) relate to general academic policies for dual credit courses, which should match the standards used for non-dual credit college courses. In selecting and managing faculty to teach dual credit courses, public junior colleges must abide by Education Code, §130.008(g); in addition, under the proposed rule, faculty would need to meet accreditation requirements and qualify as instructors of record with the institution of higher education. Similarly, dual credit course curriculum, instruction, grading, support services, transcripting and other academic policies should match what institutions offer their non-dual credit students. This requirement in the proposed rule ensures dual credit students experience a full college-level education and reinforces standards typically required by federally recognized institutional accreditors.
Rule 4.86, Optional Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Program: College Connect Courses, sets parameters for a new dual credit model institutions may optionally provide, called College Connect Courses. These courses allow students not yet deemed college ready to experience college-level coursework in a supportive environment, in which institutions provide supplemental content to help prepare students. Students must meet the eligibility requirements stipulated in proposed rule 4.85. Amendment to 4.86(c) authorizes a student who has earned more than 14 SCHs, and is not otherwise college ready, to take a College Connect course in math or communications offered by an institution. This amendment will allow a high-school student who may be classified as degree seeking but is not yet college ready to gain exposure to college-level content and have the opportunity to demonstrate college readiness in math or ELA by earning a grade of C or better in the course.
Rule 4.87, Funding, connects the dual credit rules with Coordinating Board funding provisions. Under statute, all public institutions of higher education may receive appropriations for eligible dual credit courses under Education Code, §61.059(p). In addition, any participating public institution of higher education may receive dual credit funding for eligible courses through the FAST program, as established in Education Code, §28.0095, Texas Administrative Code, chapter 13, subchapter Q, and subsection (c) and (e) of the proposed rule. Public junior colleges may receive funding through the newly established Community College Finance Program for eligible dual credit courses that meet the proposed rule's requirements, in accordance with Education Code, §130A.101(c)(3), Texas Administrative Code, chapter 13, subchapter P or S, and subsection (a) of the proposed rule.
The Coordinating Board received comments from two Texas institutions of higher education and one nonprofit organization during the public comment period for the proposed new dual credit rules, including comments regarding the proposed rules for College Connect Courses. The following comments and the Coordinating Board response to comments cover a variety of topics relating to the new dual credit rules.
Comments Received by McLennan Community College:
Comment: Regarding the definition of Career and Technical Education Course in 4.83(3) - What about courses that are not workforce on the IHE side but are CTE on the K12 side? These include rubrics such as ENGR, BUSI, AGRI. Would like those included in this definition.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. These courses are not fundable courses for an institution of higher education as Career and Technical Education Courses so therefore they are not included as part of the definition. Approved Career and Technical Education Courses for institutions of higher education are listed in the Workforce Education Course Manual (WECM).
Comment: Regarding "Dual Credit Course or Dual Enrollment Course" in 4.83(10) - The current rule 4.85(b)(3) includes in the workforce section "a program leading to a credential of less than a Level 1 certificate." This version does not include that, which could exclude OSAs. Would like that language included in this version of 4.85.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. The definition for a Dual Credit Course includes a Career and Technical Education Course as defined in 4.83(3) that leads to a credential, which includes an Occupational Skills Award certificate.
Comment: Regarding "Dual Credit Course or Dual Enrollment Course in 4.83(10) - If the course is not Career or Technical Education and is not in the core curriculum of the institution, it must be a requirement in an approved Field of Study Curriculum (FOSC). There is no option for a Dual Credit course outside of the core that is needed for an Associate of Arts(AA)/Associate of Science(AS) if the AA/AS unless it is in an approved FOSC. Currently there are only eight approved FOSC. Would like the FOSC restriction changed to an AA/AS degree plan, FOS preferred, until additional ones are approved.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. Texas Education Code §§ 130.008, 28.009, and 29.908 limit the dual credit courses that the Coordinating Board may fund to those in the Texas Core Curriculum, foreign language, or a Field of Study. The proposed definition of a dual credit course includes these types of courses in 4.83(11)(ii).
Comment: Regarding 4.85 "Dual Credit Requirements" under (a) Eligible Courses - Request clarification. This appears to read that Early College High School (ECHS) students can only take the same academic courses as any other Dual Credit student, which would restrict academic choices outside of the core to an approved FOSC. Is this correct? If yes, the earlier comment about the limited options for a FOSC apply to this area as well. Further, the restriction appears to apply only to an ECHS but not a PTECH since PTECHS aren't specifically mentioned when they are mentioned separately in other areas of Texas Administrative Code and Texas Education Code.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. The proposed rule 4.85(a)(3) exempts ECHS students from the more limited definition of dual credit by referencing 130.008 (a-2). An ECHS student may be enrolled in a program that meets the requirements in 29.908.
Comments received from Children at Risk:
Comment: Strongly advise the committee to maintain separate definitions for Dual Credit and Dual Enrollment. It is imperative to recognize the distinct differences between these two educational pathways and carefully deliberate the potential consequences for both
the high schools and the colleges and universities. (Subchapter D, 4.83)
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the entity for the comment. The term dual enrollment does not appear in the Texas Education Code therefore will not be utilized in the rules as a separate category. The definition of dual credit includes courses for which a student only earns college credit, including dual enrollment courses.
Comment: We recommend considering expanding access to College Connect Courses as early as 10th grade.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the entity for this comment. The rules do not limit a student's ability to access dual credit courses, including College Connect Courses, at any grade level.
Comments received from Tyler Junior College:
Comment: Does the success course need to be offered in the same semester as the core course?
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. It is unclear to which course, "the success course" is referring. To clarify, the dual credit College Connect Course option is a college-level, dual credit course. In order to impact the student's performance in the college-level course, college readiness content must be delivered within the same semester and in the same subject matter as the college-level course. College readiness content should be integrated into the college-level course, to increase student success in the course. In response to comment, the Board will revise proposed rule 4.86(d)(2) to specify that: The supplemental college readiness content shall be related to and integrated with the subject matter of the course.
This amendment should clarify that the intent of the College Connect Courses is to provide additional to support to a student who has not yet demonstrated college readiness by integrating subject matter related content into the College Connect Course experience.
Comment: Is a co-requisite model an option for College Connect students? If so, could the co-requisite be offered in a different semester than the core course? Would that detrimentally impact co-requisite funding?
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the comment. The institution has full discretion over the mode of delivery for supplemental college readiness content that is provided for a student enrolled in a College Connect Course who has not yet met the TSIA/TSIA2 college readiness benchmark(s), provided that the college readiness content is integrated with and related to the course content. Because the College Connect Course is a college-level dual credit course, it is eligible for formula and FAST funding. The supplemental/embedded college readiness content, if delivered as a separate, supplemental corequisite course, is not itself eligible for FAST funding. The Education Code limits funding for courses provided to high school students to those that meet the definition of dual credit in new Rule 2.83(10).
Comment: Does the success course need to be in the subject matter of the core course? In other words, could we pair an EDUC 1300 Learning Framework with another core course, or does the success course need to be directly related to the core class being offered? As previously noted, for the student who is not exempt or has not yet met the college readiness benchmark(s) on the TSIA/TSIA2.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for this comment. In response to the comment, the Board will revise proposed Rule 4.86(d)(2) to specify that: The supplemental college readiness content shall be related to and integrated with the subject matter of the course.
An institution must provide an integrated curriculum in the subject matter of the college-level course to ensure underprepared students achieve successful mastery of the college-level content. The college-level course content should adhere, at minimum, to the learning outcomes and contact hours outlined in the Lower-Division Academic Course Guide Manual. The college readiness content must be related to the specific content areas where a student needs additional support to be successful in the college-level course, rather than a paired EDUC 1300 course, as specified in the revised rule text.
Comment: Do you have examples of what other colleges are currently doing?
Response: The Coordinating Board's Division of Digital Learning is currently developing openly licensed course material that includes integrated college readiness skills, in partnership with Texas institutions of higher education. That course material may be of assistance to institutions seeking to offer College Connect Courses and will be available on OERTX.
Rule amendments made at adoption:
Section 4.86(d)(2) is revised to clarify college readiness content must be related to the subject matter of the course:
(2) An institution must also incorporate supplemental college readiness content to support students who have not yet demonstrated college readiness, as defined in §4.57, within these courses. The supplemental college readiness content shall be related to and integrated with the subject matter of the course. An institution may deliver this supplemental instruction through a method at their discretion, including through embedded course content, supplemental coursework, or other methods.
Section §4.85(g)(2) is revised to provide more flexibility in student support services without limiting them only to what is outlined in the institutional agreement. The revision aligns with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges guidance:
(2) Each student in a dual credit course must be eligible to utilize the [same or comparable] support services that are [afforded college students on the main campus] appropriate for dual credit students. The institution is responsible for ensuring timely and efficient access to such services (e.g., academic advising and counseling), to learning materials (e.g., library resources), and to other benefits for which the student may be eligible.
Section 4.87 is revised to delete subsection (d) to eliminate confusion about the eligibility for funding for a dual credit course delivered by an institution of higher education to a student enrolled in an Early College High School Program. Nothing in these rules modifies or eliminates the funding available for an institution that delivers a dual credit course to a high school student as authorized under Texas Education Code, §§29.908 and 130.008. The subsequent subsections are renumbered accordingly.
The new sections are adopted under Education Code, §§28.009(b) and (b-3), 28.0095(j), 130.001(b)(3) -(4) and 130.008(a-3), which provide the Coordinating Board with the authority to regulate dual credit partnerships between public institutions of higher education and secondary schools with regard to lower division courses.
The adopted new sections affect Texas Administrative Code, chapter 4, subchapter D.
§4.85.Dual Credit Requirements.
(a) Eligible Courses.
(1) An institution may offer any dual credit course as defined in §4.83(11) of this subchapter (relating to Definitions).
(2) A dual credit course offered by an institution must be in the approved undergraduate course inventory of the institution.
(3) An Early College High School may offer any dual credit course as defined in §4.83(11) or Texas Education Code, §28.009 and §130.008, subject to the provisions of subchapter G of this chapter (relating to Early College High Schools).
(4) An institution may not offer a remedial or developmental education course for dual credit. This limitation does not prohibit an institution from offering a dual credit course that incorporates Non-Course-Based College Readiness content or other academic support designed to increase the likelihood of student success in the college course, including any course offered under §4.86 of this subchapter (relating to Optional Dual Credit Program: College Connect Courses).
(b) Student Eligibility.
(1) A high school student is eligible to enroll in dual credit courses if the student:
(A) is not a degree-seeking student as defined in §4.83(10) of this subchapter (relating to Definitions);
(B) demonstrates that he or she is exempt under the provisions of the Texas Success Initiative as set forth in §4.54 of this chapter (relating to Exemption);
(C) demonstrates college readiness by achieving the minimum passing standards under the provisions of the Texas Success Initiative as set forth in §4.57 of this chapter (relating to Texas Success Initiative Assessment College Readiness Standards) on relevant section(s) of an assessment instrument approved by the Board as set forth in §4.56 of this chapter (relating to Assessment Instrument); or
(D) Meets the eligibility requirements for a Texas First Diploma under §21.52 of this title (relating to Eligibility for Texas First Diploma).
(2) A student who is enrolled in private or non-accredited secondary schools or who is home-schooled must satisfy paragraph (b)(1) of this subsection.
(3) An institution may require a student who seeks to enroll in a dual credit course to meet all the institution's regular prerequisite requirements designated for that course (e.g., a minimum score on a specified placement test, minimum grade in a specified previous course, etc.).
(4) An institution may impose additional requirements for enrollment in specific dual credit courses that do not conflict with this subchapter.
(5) An institution is not required, under the provisions of this section, to offer dual credit courses for high school students.
(c) Location of Class. An institution may teach dual credit courses on the college campus or on the high school campus. For dual credit courses taught exclusively to high school students on the high school campus and for dual credit courses taught via distance education, the institution shall comply with chapter 2, subchapter J of this title (relating to Approval of Distance Education for Public Institutions).
(d) Composition of Class. A dual credit course may be composed of dual credit students only or of a mixture of dual credit and college students. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (e) of this section, exceptions for a mixed class that combines dual credit students and high school credit-only students may be allowed when the creation of a high school credit-only class is not financially viable for the high school and only under one of the following conditions:
(1) If the course involved is required for completion under the State Board of Education High School Program graduation requirements;
(2) If the high school credit-only students are College Board Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate students; or
(3) If the course is a career and technical education course and the high school credit-only students are eligible to earn articulated college credit.
(e) Faculty Selection, Supervision, and Evaluation. Each institution shall apply the standards for selection, supervision, and evaluation for instructors of dual credit courses as required by the institution's accreditor. A high school teacher may only teach a high school course offered through a dual credit agreement if the teacher is approved by the institution offering the dual credit course.
(f) Course Curriculum, Instruction, and Grading. The institution shall ensure that a dual credit course offered at a high school is at least equivalent in quality to the corresponding course offered at the main campus of the institution with respect to academic rigor, curriculum, materials, instruction, and methods of student evaluation. These standards must be upheld regardless of the student composition of the class, location, and mode of delivery.
(g) Academic Policies and Student Support Services.
(1) Regular academic policies applicable to courses taught at an institution's main campus must also apply to dual credit courses. These policies may include the appeal process for disputed grades, drop policy, the communication of grading policy to students, when the syllabus must be distributed, etc. Additionally, each institution is strongly encouraged to provide maximum flexibility to high school students in dual credit courses, consistent with the institution's academic policies, especially with regard to drop policies, to encourage students to attempt rigorous courses without potential long-term adverse impacts on students' academic records.
(2) Each student in a dual credit course must be eligible to utilize support services that are appropriate for dual credit students. The institution is responsible for ensuring timely and efficient access to such services (e.g., academic advising and counseling), to learning materials (e.g., library resources), and to other benefits for which the student may be eligible.
(3) A student enrolled in a dual credit course at an institution shall file a degree plan with the institution as prescribed by Texas Education Code, §51.9685.
(h) Transcripting of Credit. Each institution or high school shall immediately transcript the credit earned by a student upon a student's completion of the performance required in the course.
§4.86.Optional Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Program: College Connect Courses.
(a) Authority. These rules are authorized by Texas Education Code, §§28.009(b), 28.0095, 130.001(b)(3) - (4), and 130.008.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to encourage and authorize public institutions of higher education to deliver innovatively designed dual credit courses that integrate both college-level content in the core curriculum of the institution alongside college-readiness content and skills instruction. These innovatively designed courses will allow students the maximum flexibility to obtain college credit and provide integrated college readiness skills to students who are on the continuum of college readiness and will benefit from exposure to college-level content.
(c) Student eligibility. An eligible student must be enrolled in a public school district or open-enrollment charter as defined in Texas Education Code, §5.001(6), and meet the requirements of §4.85(b) of this subchapter (relating to Dual Credit Requirements). Notwithstanding §4.85(b), an institution may enroll a high school student who is not exempt or college ready under the requirements of §4.54 or §4.57 of this chapter (relating to Exemptions, Exceptions, and Waivers and College Ready Standards, respectively) in a math or communications College Connect Course offered by the institution.
(d) Course content. The following standards apply to delivery of College Connect Courses offered under this rule:
(1) An institution may only offer College Connect Courses within the institution's core curriculum in accordance with §4.28 of this chapter (relating to Core Curriculum).
(2) An institution shall also incorporate supplemental college readiness content to support students who have not yet demonstrated college readiness, as defined in §4.57, within these courses. The supplemental college readiness content shall be related to and integrated with the subject matter of the course. An institution may deliver this supplemental instruction through a method at their discretion, including through embedded course content, supplemental coursework, or other methods.
(e) The Coordinating Board may provide technical assistance to an institution of higher education or school district in developing and providing these courses.
(f) Additional Academic Policies.
(1) College Connect Courses offered through dual credit must confer both a college-level grade and a secondary-level grade upon a student's successful completion of the course. A grade conferred for the college-level course may be different from the secondary-level grade, to reflect whether a student has appropriately demonstrated college-level knowledge and skills as well as secondary-level knowledge and skills. An institution may determine how a student enrolled in this course may earn college credit, whether through college-level course completion or successful completion of a recognized college-level assessment that the institution would otherwise use to award college credit.
(2) An institution must enter into an institutional agreement with the secondary school according to §4.84 of this subchapter (relating to Institutional Agreements) to offer College Connect Courses.
(3) An institution is strongly encouraged to provide the maximum latitude possible for a student to withdraw from the college-level course component beyond the census date, while still giving the student an opportunity to earn credit toward high school graduation requirements, in accordance with §4.85(g) of this subchapter (relating to Dual Credit Requirements).
(4) Hours earned through this program before the student graduates from high school that are used to satisfy high school graduation requirements do not count against the limitation on formula funding for excess semester credit hours under §13.104 of this title (relating to Exemptions for Excess Hours).
(g) Funding and Tuition. The Coordinating Board shall fund College Connect Courses in accordance with §4.87 of this subchapter (relating to Funding).
§4.87.Funding.
(a) A public junior college may submit for funding any course that meets the requirements of this subchapter as provided in chapter 13, subchapter S of this title (relating to Community College Finance Program), or chapter 13, subchapter P of this title (relating to Community College Finance Program for Fiscal Year 2024).
(b) A public junior college may report a course for funding for which a high school student may earn college credit that does not otherwise meet the requirements of this subchapter for the purpose of calculating base tier funding according to the provisions of chapter 13, subchapter S or subchapter P of this title. Such a course is not considered a dual credit or dual enrollment course under Title 19, Part 1.
(c) An institution may submit a dual credit course for funding under the FAST program of chapter 13, subchapter Q of this title (relating to Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST) Program) only if the course meets all requirements of that subchapter.
(d) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit an Early College High School under Texas Education Code, §28.908, from participating in or receiving funding under the FAST program of chapter 13, subchapter Q of this title.
(e) An institution may waive all or part of tuition and fees for a Texas high school student enrolled in a course for which the student may receive dual course credit.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401826
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6182
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter V, §§4.350 - 4.353, compliance with non-discrimination in intercollegiate athletic competition, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 343). The rules will not be republished.
The adopted rules require collegiate athletes to compete on the team according to their biological sex as correctly stated on their birth certificate.
Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, Section 51.980, also requires the Coordinating Board to develop rules to ensure compliance with state and federal law regarding the confidentiality of student medical information, including Chapter 181, Health and Safety Code, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Rule 4.350, Authority, indicates the specific section of the Texas Education Code that provides the agency with authority to adopt rules.
Rule 4.351, Definitions, provides definitions aligned to the Save Women's Sports Act.
Rule 4.352, Participation in Athletic Competition Based on Biological Sex, requires institutions to comply with the provisions in the Save Women's Sports Act.
Rule 4.353, Confidentiality and Privacy, provides that in implementing the provisions of statute, each institution shall comply with all state and federal laws, as required in Texas Education Code, §51.980(g).
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rules.
The new sections are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 51.980, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules as necessary to implement non-discrimination in the intercollegiate athletic competition legislation.
The adopted new sections affect Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter V.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401828
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6247
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter X, §§4.370 - 4.376, Parenting and Pregnant Students, with changes to §§4.374 - 4.376 proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 344). The rules will be republished. Sections 4.370 - 4.373 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 51, Subchapter Z, §51.9357 and §§51.982 - 51.983, requires the Coordinating Board to adopt rules relating to the protection of pregnant and parenting students, resources for such students, and reporting requirements. The new rules provide clarity and guidance to students, institutions of higher education, and Coordinating Board staff for the implementation of the program.
Specifically, these new sections outline the authority and purpose, definitions, parenting student early registration, the liaison officer, protections for pregnant and parenting students, and reporting requirements.
Rule 4.370 and §4.371, Purpose and Authority, respectively, indicate the specific sections of the TEC that provide the Coordinating Board with authority to issue these rules, as well as the purpose of the Parenting and Pregnant Student rules.
Rule 4.372, Definitions, provides definitions for words and terms within the Parenting and Pregnant Student rules. The definitions provide clarity for words and terms that are integral to the understanding and administration of the Parenting and Pregnant Student rules.
Rule 4.373, Parenting Student Early Registration, outlines the requirements for early course/program registration or pre-registration for parenting students at institutions. These requirements ensure parenting students have access to early registration or pre-registration and aims to provide them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their academic schedules, including their eligibility for early registration access. This section is adopted based on TEC, §51.983, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement early registration for parenting students.
Rule 4.374, Liaison Officer, outlines the requirements that institutions must appoint a liaison officer for students who are parents or guardians of children under 18. The requirements establish a robust support system through liaison officers, offering a range of resources to meet the unique needs of parenting students, while promoting accessibility, privacy, and a comprehensive approach to support the academic and personal success of parenting students. Considering the comments received, the revised section includes clarifying language to better align with TEC, 51.9357(b), by outlining that an institution shall designate a parenting student liaison and provide resources for said students. This section is adopted based on TEC, §51.9357, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the designation of a liaison officer for parenting students. Rule 4.374(b)(7) is also revised at adoption to specify that additional resources may be provided by the Coordinating Board to align with statute.
Rule 4.375, Protections for Pregnant and Parenting Students, contains revised language at adoption to provide institutions clarity related to absences, academic accommodations, access to course materials, and the option for a leave of absence to supplement existing protections outlined in Title IX. The additional protections ensure a supportive educational environment for pregnant and parenting students. The requirements provide a comprehensive approach to support pregnant and parenting students. Considering the comments received, the rule is restructured to incorporate §4.375(b), which addresses excused absences, and §4.375(c) which delineates leave of absence, to offer clearer guidelines for institutions. These revisions are made in response to comments by institutions to better address specific program requirements including short courses and clinical rotations for which a student may not be able to miss more than three class days. The revisions require an institution to afford a student no fewer than three class days or the number of days the institution's policy would provide for a student with a non-pregnancy temporary medical condition. The section has updated language that considers a student's academic program, clarifies the time period for make-up work, explains that accommodations shall align with those provided to students with a temporary medical condition, and revised language that clarifies provisions related to a student's return after a leave of absence so long as the program still exists at the institution and would meet accreditation standards. This section is adopted based on TEC, §51.982, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement protections for pregnant and parenting students. The revisions at adoption also ensure that an institution's excused absence policy will not come into conflict with federal law or accreditation requirements. In response to comment, the Coordinating Board also makes revisions at adoption to §4.375(c) to better specify the requirements for a student who takes a leave of absence. These requirements ensure that a student can complete the program in which the student was enrolled and requires an institution to counsel a student taking a leave of absence of the possible impact of the leave on their financial aid.
Rule 4.376, Reporting, outlines the reporting requirements for institutions must be fulfilled by May 1 of every year, which allows for a thorough assessment of the experiences faced by this student demographic. This reporting requirement is adopted to foster a comprehensive understanding of the educational landscape for parenting students, including collecting the contact details of the liaison officer to facilitate communication and support of parenting students. The revised language simply aligns the rule to TEC, §51.9357(c), which contains the list of data required to be reported annually. This section is adopted based on TEC, §51.9357, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the designation of a liaison officer and the reporting required by institutions for parenting students.
The following comment(s) were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.
Comment 1: The following comments were received from Austin Community College:
What is the date by which colleges will need to have early registration implemented for parenting students?
Will THECB provide a data template for the reporting requirements? When can we expect guidance about the specifications of the required report in advance of the May 2024 due date?
Under §4.375. Protections for Pregnant and Parenting Students, will individual instructors have to detail each of these protections in their syllabi or will it be enough to post these protections on the college's website?? Specifically - excusing absences related to a student's pregnancy or childbirth without a doctor's certification and giving a pregnant or parenting student reasonable time to make up or complete any assignments or assessments missed due to such an absence.
Will 'reasonable time' be determined by college policy or by individual instructors or their departments?? Is 'reasonable time' flexible or consistent across all instructional departments of the institution??
Response 1:
The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.
Pursuant to TEC, §51.983, Early Registration for Parenting Students was effective September 1, 2023.
Yes, THECB will provide a template with the required data for reporting purposes. THECB anticipates guidance to be shared simultaneously with institutions by the end of March 2024.
Pursuant to TEC, §51.982(f), institutions are required to adopt a policy that must be posted on the institution's website. Additionally, the institution is encouraged to explore effective methods of sharing and communicating this information to students, faculty, staff, and employees.
The determination of reasonable time and its flexibility should align with the college's policy.
Comment 2: The following comments were received from The University of Texas System, University of Houston System, Texas Tech University System, University of North Texas System, Texas State University System, and Texas A&M University System:
Thank you for your hard work drafting the proposed rules relating to parenting and pregnant students. The undersigned public systems of higher education make this joint comment seeking additional clarification before the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board implements a final rule.
1. 4.375(b)
Language in Proposed Rule:
(b) An institution shall excuse absences related to a student's pregnancy or childbirth without a doctor's certification that such absence is necessary for no more than five consecutive school days or ten days in any thirty-day period.
(1) An institution shall allow a student a reasonable time to make up or complete any assignments or assessments missed due to such an absence.
(2) An institution shall provide a student with access to all course materials that are made available to any other student with an excused absence. This may include instructional materials, laboratory access, and recordings of class lectures.
Comment:
Our institutions look forward to continuing to work with pregnant students and those with related medical conditions to achieve academic success. There is some concern that students in certain academic programs, such as short courses that last only five or ten days or medical residences--with multiple brief rotations--may not be able to miss "five consecutive school days or ten days in a thirty-day period" and "make up or complete any assignments" without fundamentally altering the academic program. Further, accreditation issues may arise in certain academic programs if a student misses this much class, especially if the student misses ten days multiple times during the course. Moreover, the term "reasonable time" in subsection (b)(1) could be clarified to ensure that "reasonable time" is not a period that would fundamentally alter an academic program. Accordingly, we ask that the Coordinating Board clarify this language and allow for the flexibility needed based on the circumstances of the student's academic program while also providing important support for pregnant students and those with related conditions.
2. 4.375(c)
Language in the Proposed Rule:
(c) An institution shall permit but not require a parenting or pregnant student to take a leave of absence related to a student's pregnancy or parenting status for a minimum of one semester without a showing of medical need.
(1) An institution shall make every reasonable effort to accommodate pregnant and parenting students within their degree program's curriculum and accreditation requirements. A student taking a leave of absence under this section may be taken with the advanced approval of the student's department.
(2) The institution shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that a student meets with the institution's scholarships and financial aid office prior to beginning a leave of absence to receive information on financial impacts due to the leave of absence under this section.
Comment:
Our institutions will continue to attempt to meet with students before they take a leave of absence so that students understand the impact a leave of absence decision may have on their finances and future educational pursuits. Sometimes students take a leave of absence because of an emergency and cannot meet with financial aid officials before they make the decision to take leave. Ensuring that the institution approves any leave of absence may help to ensure the student speaks with institutional representatives before taking leave. To that end, we would suggest stating that "a leave of absence under this section ‘must' be taken with the advanced approval" of institutional officials. Further, the institution can attempt to meet with students, but cannot ensure that students meet with financial aid because institutions cannot control whether students choose to do so. The Coordinating Board may wish to clarify the language to account for this.
3. 4.375(d)
Language in the Proposed Rule:
(d) An institution shall ensure that a student in good academic standing at the time a leave of absence commences may return to their degree or certificate program in good academic standing, not be required to reapply for admission, and may complete their degree or certificate program by fulfilling the requirements in effect at the time the leave of absence commenced.
Comment:
The majority of students who take a brief leave of absence for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions should be able to return and complete the same degree program in which they were enrolled when the absence commenced. Some students, however, may take a longer leave of absence. We request additional clarification to account for the fact that certain academic programs at the institution may no longer exist when a student returns (perhaps many years later), or the program that existed at the time may no longer be sufficient to meet accreditation standards. Degree programs generally have an established matriculation-to-graduation time limit. For example, many undergraduate degree programs generally have a six-year time limit from matriculation to graduation for a student to complete their degree program before that academic program curriculum expires. Graduate and doctoral programs have varying time limits as well. Degree programs with accelerated technological advancements may have shorter time limits due to rapidly evolving technological changes that require the program's curriculum to be revised more often; otherwise, these types of degree programs become obsolete. For example, a degree in Biomedical Informatics has a five-year curriculum expiration at some institutions. If a program is no longer accredited, the institution cannot provide that obsolete education, nor would doing so benefit the student. Accordingly, the Coordinating Board may wish to clarify 4.375(d) to account for these issues.
4. Conclusion
As the largest public systems of higher education in this great state, we are committed to providing equitable and important support for pregnant students and those with pregnancy-related conditions. We thank you for your hard work in drafting these rules and for your consideration of this joint comment. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Coordinating Board going forward to advance educational opportunities for Texans.
Response 2:
The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.
Comments one through three in relation to §4.375 have been updated to consider the flexibility needed based on the circumstances of the student's academic program, leave of absence, and return to the program, as long as the program still exists and meets accreditation standards.
Comment 3: The following comments were from Texas Woman's University:
I. 4.375. Protections for Pregnant and Parenting Students - Section (c)(2)
Rule 4.375, Section (c)(2) requires universities to "implement policies and procedures to ensure that a student meets with the institution's scholarships and financial aid office prior to beginning a leave of absence to receive information on financial impacts due to the leave of absence under this section."
TWU agrees that it is important for students considering a leave of absence to be fully informed of the potential financial impact of this important decision. However, TWU is concerned that the requirement for staff to meet with students prior to beginning their leave of absence will strain the limited staff resources the university has to support this obligation. As such, TWU respectfully urge the Board to modify Rule. 4375, Section 3, to allow for universities to provide information on financial impacts prior to a student going on a leave of absence, but allow for the meetings to be at the student's request.
II. 4.375. Protections for Pregnant and Parenting Students - Section (d)
Rule 4.375, Section (d) states that "a student in good academic standing at the time a leave of absence commences may return to their degree or certificate program in good academic standing, not be required to reapply for admission, and may complete their degree or certificate program by fulfilling the requirements in effect at the time the leave of absence commenced." (Emphasis added.)
One of TWU's primary educational goals is to prepare our students with the knowledge and skills needed to achieve successful careers in their chosen fields. As such, TWU offers several 75 programs with over 91 undergraduate or graduate degrees. A significant percentage of those programs are certification, professional, or graduate degree programs whose requirements are based on state or nationally-recognized professional certification or licensure standards. The proposed Rule 4.375, Section (d) as written would restrict the ability of universities to ensure that their graduates are sufficiently prepared for their chosen careers; it would allow for scenarios where students returning from a leave of absence could complete their degree based on outdated certification or licensure requirements. Such outcomes would diminish the integrity and value of TWU's programs, and also be a grave disservice to the students taking leave. To address this concern, TWU respectfully recommends that Rule 4.375, Section (d) be modified to state that a pregnant and parenting student who takes a leave of absence "may complete their degree or certificate program by fulfilling the requirements in effect at the time of the student's return."
Response 3:
The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.
Rule 4.375(c)(2), now §4.375(c)(3), has been updated in consideration of the following: An institution shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the student is informed of possible impacts to their financial aid or scholarships. These institutional policies and procedures should encourage students to meet with the financial aid office before the student takes a leave of absence, where possible.
Rule 4.375(d), now 4.375(4), has been updated in consideration of the following: An institution shall ensure that a student in good academic standing at the time a leave of absence commences may return to their degree or certificate program in good academic standing, not be required to reapply for admission so long as the program still exists at the institution and the program would still meet accreditation standards. The institution may require that the student fulfills revised requirements of the program if the program is in effect when the student returns has changed.
The new section is adopted under Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter Z, §51.9357 and §§51.982 - 51.983, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Parenting and Pregnant Student program.
The adopted new section affects Texas Education Code, §51.9357 and §§51.982 - 51.983.
§4.374.Liaison Officer.
(a) An institution is required to designate a minimum of one employee to serve as a liaison officer for current or incoming students at the institution who are the parent or guardian of a child younger than 18 years of age.
(b) The liaison officer or officers shall provide a parenting student information on and access to resources designed to assist in their successful and timely degree or certificate completion. Such resources include:
(1) Medical and behavioral health coverage and services;
(2) Public health benefit programs, including programs related to food security, affordable housing, and housing subsidies;
(3) Parenting and child-care resources;
(4) Employment assistance;
(5) Transportation assistance;
(6) Academic success services; and
(7) Other resources provided by the institution.
(c) An institution shall not condition student access to the liaison officer or officers or any resources on the student being required to consent to the release of their personally identifiable information. Any such consent must be voluntary.
(d) The institution shall post contact information for the liaison officer or officers and maintain that information on the institution's website in a manner that is readily available to current or incoming students at the institution who are the parent or guardian of a child younger than 18 years of age.
§4.375.Protections for Pregnant and Parenting Students.
(a) In addition to the discrimination protections provided to pregnant or parenting students pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., institutions shall provide pregnant or parenting students the additional protections as set forth in this section. To the extent a student is afforded protections by both federal law and these rules, a student shall be entitled to the most liberal benefit available by these rules and federal law.
(b) Absences related to a student's pregnancy, childbirth, or resulting medical status or condition.
(1) An institution shall excuse absences related to a student's pregnancy or childbirth without a doctor's certification that such absence is necessary for the greater of three school days in a term or semester or the maximum number of excused absences that the institution would grant to another student enrolled in the same course for any reason.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, an institution may ensure that the total number of excused absences does not result in a fundamental alteration to an essential program requirement or conflict with federal law or accreditation standards.
(3) An institution shall allow a student a reasonable time to make up or complete any assignments or assessments missed due to such an excused absence consistent with the institution's policy regarding excused absences and make up work.
(4) An institution shall provide a student with access to all course materials that are made available to a student with a temporary medical condition. This may include instructional materials, laboratory access, and recordings of class lectures, depending on the circumstances.
(5) An institution shall provide any other reasonable accommodations to a pregnant student, including accommodations that:
(A) would be provided to a student with a temporary medical condition; or
(B) are related to the health and safety of the student and the student's unborn child.
(c) Leave of Absence for Pregnant or Parenting Students.
(1) An institution shall permit but not require a parenting or pregnant student to take a leave of absence related to a student's pregnancy or parenting status for a minimum of one semester without a showing of medical need.
(2) An institution shall make every reasonable effort to facilitate leave for pregnant and parenting students within their degree program's curriculum and accreditation requirements. A student taking a leave of absence under this section may be taken with the advanced approval of the student's department or the designated office(s) by the institution.
(3) An institution shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the student is informed of possible impacts to their financial aid or scholarships. These institutional policies and procedures should encourage that students meet with the financial aid office before the student takes a leave of absence, where possible.
(4) An institution shall ensure that a student in good academic standing at the time a leave of absence commences may return to their degree or certificate program in good academic standing, not be required to reapply for admission so long as the program still exists at the institution and the program would still meet accreditation standards. The institution may require that the student fulfills revised requirements of the program if the program in effect when the student returns has changed.
§4.376.Reporting.
An institution must report the information required by Texas Education, §51.9357(c), no later than May 1 of each year in the manner required by the Coordinating Board.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401829
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6537
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter A, §7.8, Institutions Not Accredited by a Board-Recognized Accreditor, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 346). The rule will not be republished.
During the most recent years, 2022 and 2023, consultant fees, which are paid out of the $5,000 fee, were $3,500 for each Certificate of Authority application and travel fees averaged $3,550. Therefore, applicants paid an average total of $8,550.
Instead of charging travel expenses after the site visit, the average travel expenses have been included in the increased flat fee amount for each of the categories. The proposed fees are as follows:
1. Certificate of Authority application fee: $8,000
2. Certificate of Authority renewal fee: $8,000
3. Certificate of Authority amendment fee: $800
The adopted amendments incorporate the specific fees into the rule and result in an overall cost reduction for the state of Texas.
The Coordinating Board is authorized to set and collect fees regarding Certificates of Authority. Texas Education Code, §61.305(c), requires the Coordinating Board to set an initial fee for a Certificate of Authority in an amount not to exceed the average cost of reviewing the application, including the cost of necessary consultants.
Texas Education Code, §61.307(b), requires the Coordinating Board to set a fee to cover the cost of program evaluation for an amendment to a Certificate of Authority.
Texas Education Code, §61.308(b), requires the Coordinating Board to set a renewal fee in an amount not to exceed the average cost of reviewing the application, including the cost of necessary consultants.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendments.
The amendment is adopted under Texas Education Code, Sections 61.305(c), which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to set an initial fee for a Certificate of Authority in an amount not to exceed the average cost of reviewing the application, including the cost of necessary consultants; 61.307(b), which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to set a fee to cover the cost of program evaluation for an amendment to a Certificate of Authority; and 61.308(b) which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to set a renewal fee in an amount not to exceed the average cost of reviewing the application, including the cost of necessary consultants.
The adopted amendment affects Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter A, §7.8.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401830
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6527
SUBCHAPTER RR. TEXAS INNOVATIVE ADULT CAREER EDUCATION (ACE) GRANT PROGRAM
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 10, Subchapter RR, §§10.870 - 10.878, Texas Innovative Adult Career Education (ACE) Grant, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 348). The rules will not be republished.
The adopted new subchapter provides information necessary for the implementation and administration of the Program to develop, support, or expand program of eligible nonprofit workforce intermediary and job training organizations and of eligible nonprofit organizations providing job training to veterans and low-income students prepare to enter high demand and higher earning occupations. Negotiated rulemaking was used in the development of these adopted rules. Reports of negotiated rulemaking committees are public information and are available upon request from the Coordinating Board.
Texas Education Code (TEC), chapter 136, §136.001 and §§136.005 -136.007 requires the Coordinating Board to adopt rules for the administration of the program, including rules providing for application and evaluation process.
Specifically, these new sections outline the authority, purpose, definitions, eligibility, application process, evaluation, grant awards, reporting requirements, and additional requirements which are necessary to administer the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program.
Rule 10.870 indicates the purpose of the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program.
Rule 10.871 indicates the specific sections of the TEC that provide the agency with authority to issue these rules.
Rule 10.872 provides definitions for words and terms within the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant rules. The definitions are adopted to provide clarity for words and terms that are integral to the understanding and administration of the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant rules.
Rule 10.873 outlines the requirements that the organizations must fulfill to participate in the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program. The requirements are adopted to: (a) clarify the type of organization eligible to participate, (b) provide rules specific to requirements the Coordinating Board is proposing to ensure effective administration of the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program, such as the requirement that each organization enter into an agreement with one or more public junior colleges, public state colleges, or public technical institutes, (c) provides rules specific to the type of students the job training and student services assist. This section is adopted based on TEC, §136.007, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program.
Rule 10.874 outlines the application process that eligible organizations will undergo to qualify for funding consideration.
Rule 10.875 outlines the evaluation process and award criteria factors organizations must meet, such as (a) student completion of developmental education at partnering institutions, (b) student persistence rates at partnering institutions, (c) certificate or degree completion rates at partnering institutions at comparable institutions within a three-year period, (d) student entry into careers requiring credentials that result in higher earnings. This section outlines the evaluation process and the services the Coordinating Board includes to evaluate applicants for their evidence-based programs for low income and veteran students.
Rule 10.876 outlines the process for grant award amounts and how the Coordinating Board will advance awards to a grantee. The adopted rule provides what the grant award may be used to cover in the grantee application, and that the determination of the allowability of administrative costs will be set forth in the Request for Application.
Rule 10.877 outlines the reporting requirements for the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program. The adopted rule provides the type of activities and information grantees must submit during the grant period.
Rule 10.878 outlines the additional requirements related to the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program, such as the Coordinating Board's right to reject applications and cancel grant solicitation, and that grantees must sign a notice of grant award to receive funds.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.
The new section is adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 136.007, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Innovative Adult Career Education Grant Program.
The adopted new section affects Texas Education Code, Sections 136.001 and 136.005 -136.007.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401831
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6537
SUBCHAPTER A. OPPORTUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA PROGRAM
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 12, Subchapter A, §§12.1 - 12.9, Opportunity High School Diploma Program, with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 350). Section 12.6 of the rules will be republished to correct a non-substantive grammatical error. Sections 12.1 - 12.5 and §§12.7 - 12.9 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The Coordinating Board adopted the establishment of the Opportunity High School Diploma Program rule framework to provide an alternative means by which an adult student who has dropped or stopped out of high school is able to enroll in a career and technical education program at a public junior college and may earn a high school diploma through concurrent enrollment in a competency-based education program. The adopted new rules provide clarity and guidance to students, participating institutions, and the Coordinating Board staff for the program's implementation.
Specifically, these new sections outline the authority and purpose, definitions, program design and administration, program requirements, institutional and student eligibility, program approval process, required reporting, and funding necessary to administer the Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
Rule 12.1, Purpose, states the purpose of this new rule, which is to implement the Opportunity High School Diploma Program to provide an adult student who has dropped or stopped out of high school the opportunity to earn a high school diploma equivalent to one awarded under Texas Education Code, §28.025, via concurrent enrollment in a career and technical education program and a competency-based education program at a public junior college.
Rule 12.2, Authority, authorizes the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement Texas Education Code, chapter 130, subchapter O: Opportunity High School Diploma Program, as promulgated under Texas Education Code, §130.458.
Rule 12.3, Definitions, provides definitions for words and terms within Opportunity High School Diploma rules. The definitions provide clarity for words and terms that are key to the understanding and administration of the program.
Rule 12.4, Program Design and Administration, states that the Commissioner must consult with the Texas Education Agency and Texas Workforce Commission to determine program elements and competencies. Additionally, it provides that a public junior college must submit an application to the Coordinating Board to receive approval to offer this program. This section is adopted based on Texas Education Code, §130.458, which directs the Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
Rule 12.5, Program Requirements, outlines the general and curricular requirements necessary to ensure that the Opportunity High School Diploma Program offered by a public junior college adequately prepares students for postsecondary education or additional career and technical education. This section establishes the five core program competencies a public junior college must include, and measure with Board-approved assessments, in a program and allows latitude in the addition of curricular elements designed to meet regional employers' or specific workforce needs. This section also establishes the criteria for competency assessment and transcription, location of program delivery, and awarding of a high school diploma for successful completion of the program. This section implements Texas Education Code, §130.458, which directs the Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
Rule 12.6, Eligible Institutions and Students, specifies eligibility for public junior colleges and/or consortiums applying to offer, and students seeking to participate in, the Opportunity High School Program. This section lists the permissible types of entities that a public junior college can enter into a consortium with to expand access for students. The section also details student eligibility requirements that make the program available to a wide range of adult students.
Rule 12.7, Program Approval Process, lists the required elements in an eligible public college's application including compliance with §12.5 of this subchapter, consultation with local workforce and employer, and any pertinent consortia agreements. The section also outlines the process for approval that the Coordinating Board and the Commissioner of Higher Education will follow after applications are submitted as well as the notification of approved programs to the public. This section is adopted based on Texas Education Code, §130.458, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
Rule 12.8, Required Reporting, details the required reporting a public junior college with an approved program will have to submit to the Coordinating Board in order to measure program effectiveness. The rules require each public junior college to submit data through the Education Data System and to comply with its reporting standards. The Coordinating Board will utilize this data to prepare and submit a progress report to the Legislature no later than December 1, 2026.
Rule 12.9, Funding, establishes that the Coordinating Board shall consult with the Texas Workforce Commission on the identification of available funding for the program. This section is adopted based on Texas Education Code, §130.458, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rules.
The new subchapter is adopted under Texas Education Code, §130.458, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules as necessary to implement Texas Education Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter O: Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
The adopted new subchapter affects Texas Education Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter O, and Texas Education Code, §28.025.
§12.6.Eligible Institutions and Students.
(a) Eligible Institutions.
(1) A public junior college may submit an application to the Coordinating Board for approval to offer an Opportunity High School Diploma Program.
(2) Subject to approval under this subchapter, an eligible public junior college may enter into agreement to offer the program in consortium with one or more public junior colleges, general academic teaching institutions, public school districts, or nonprofit organizations. A public junior college's application shall describe the role of each member of the consortium in delivering the program elements.
(b) Eligible Students. An institution may admit an adult student without a high school diploma to the Opportunity High School Diploma Program. Adult student means a student aged 18 or older on the date of first enrollment in the program. An institution shall concurrently enroll each eligible student in a career and technical education program.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401832
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6344
SUBCHAPTER N. TEXAS RESKILLING AND UPSKILLING THROUGH EDUCATION (TRUE) GRANT PROGRAM
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts an amendment to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter N, §13.406, Texas Reskilling and Upskilling through Education (TRUE) Grant Program, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 354). The rule will not be republished.
The adopted amendment adds employers to the list of workforce stakeholders that can partner with eligible institutions to analyze job posting and identify employers hiring roles with skills developed by education and training programs funded by TRUE.
The adopted amendment is identical to an amendment made to the TRUE Grant Program during the 88th Legislative Session (R). The Coordinating Board is authorized by Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter T-2, §§61.882(b)1-866, which provides the authority to administer the TRUE Grant Program in accordance with the subchapter and rules adopted under the subchapter.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter T-2, §§61.882(b)1-866, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to administer the TRUE Grant Program.
The adopted amendment affects Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter N, 13.406(b)(4).
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401835
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6209
19 TAC §§13.550 - 13.558, 13.560 - 13.564
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter S, §§13.550 - 13.558 and 13.560 - 13.564, Community College Finance Program. Section 13.553 and §§13.556 - 13.558 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 354) and will be republished. Sections 13.550 - 13.552, 13.554, 13.555, and 13.560 - 13.564 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The adopted subchapter replaces Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter P, as the primary community college finance subchapter starting in fiscal year 2025.
The Coordinating Board initially adopted rules relating to the new community college finance system on an emergency basis in August 2023, including chapter 13, subchapter P, allowing for the implementation of H.B. 8 by the start of the 2024 fiscal year. Subchapter S, which becomes effective on September 1, 2024, contains the following substantive changes to the rules previously adopted by the Coordinating Board in subchapter P, which are no longer in effect after August 31, 2024:
1. Guidance on permissible expenditures of state-appropriated funds, aligned with restrictions contained in the 2024-2025 General Appropriations Act and Texas Education Code Section 130.003(c) (see rule 13.562)
2. Requirements for schools receiving a scale adjustment under the Base Tier Allocation to submit a report on participation in shared services, implementing Texas Education Code §130A.054(e) (see rule 13.563)
3. Clarification of the Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome definition, including that these outcomes do not also include courses fundable under the Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Fundable Outcome (see rule 13.553(30))
4. Modification of the methodology used to calculate the tuition and fees used in the Base Tier Allotment, designed by the Coordinating Board to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and transparency of this value (see rule 13.554(d))
5. Clarification of the Transfer Fundable Outcome to ensure that neither hours reported by an institution nor individual student transfers count towards more than one fundable outcome (see rules 13.553(32) and 13.556(e))
6. Refinement of the methodology for calculating Adult Learners, intended to reinforce institutions' incentives to encourage timely completion and to apply the added weight for Adult Learners to a broader range of outcomes (see rule 13.557)
7. Addition of Third-Party Credentials as a new Fundable Outcome, in recognition of institutions enabling students to earn credentials of value conferred by third-party providers (see rule 13.556)
8. Clarification and addition of greater detail of the Credential of Value Baseline filter, the minimum benchmark credentials must meet for fundability, which is met by producing a positive return on investment relative to a high school diploma within ten years (see rule 13.556)
9. Addition of a new Credential of Value Premium as a Fundable Outcome that rewards an institution when a student earns a credential of value quickly enough that they are projected to achieve a positive return on investment on or before the year in which the majority of graduates are projected to reach that threshold (see rule 13.556)
10. Recognition of completion of an Opportunity High School Diploma - a new program established by H.B. 8 (88R) - as a Fundable Outcome under the Performance Tier (see rule 13.556)
11. Revision of the Dual Credit and Dual Enrollment Fundable Outcome to ensure that the hours reported by institutions do not count towards multiple fundable outcomes and to include completion of the Texas First program, established by S.B. 1888 (87R) (see rule 13.556)
12. Revisions to certain workforce credential definitions, including Occupational Skills Awards (OSAs), Continuing Education Certificates, and Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLCs), to align more closely with industry practices; this includes redefining ICLCs to fund only the conferring of a credential (see rule 13.553 and 13.556)
13. Specification that the Coordinating Board will apply the rules in effect for the fiscal year in which the funding was delivered, clarifying for institutions which rules will apply as the Coordinating Board continues to refine the community college finance system (see rule 13.552)
14. Exclusion of credentials awarded to non-resident students, located outside of Texas, and enrolled in 100% online programs from eligibility for funding in alignment with restrictions on contact hour funding beginning with awards in fiscal year 2025 (see rule 13.556).
The adoption of subchapter S maintains continuity with existing rules in subchapter P while adopting the changes listed above and ensuring the applicability of the rules beyond the 2024 fiscal year.
Rule 13.550, Purpose, establishes the purpose of subchapter S to implement the new community college finance system established by H.B. 8 (88R).
Rule 13.551, Authority, establishes the portions of the Texas Education Code (TEC) that authorize the Coordinating Board to adopt rules pertaining to community college finance.
Rule 13.552, Applicability, states that the Coordinating Board will apply the rules in effect for the fiscal year in which the funding was delivered, unless otherwise provided. This provision provides guidance to institutions on which rules will apply as the Coordinating Board iterates and refines the community college finance framework.
Rule 13.553, Definitions, lists definitions pertinent to the community college finance system. Whereas the current subchapter P uses this section to elaborate on policy details, this section provides only general meanings of terms and reserves substantive policy detail for the sections described below.
Rule 13.554, Base Tier Allotment, establishes the calculations used to determine Base Tier funding that the legislature entitled community colleges to receive under TEC §§130A.051-056. To summarize, Base Tier funding is calculated as Instruction and Operations (I&O) minus Local Share. If Local Share is greater than Instructions and Operations, then Base Tier funding is zero.
Specifically, Rule 13.554(b) establishes the I&O funding amount, corresponding to TEC §130A.052, as Contact Hour Funding plus the product of the Weighted Full-Time Student Equivalents (Weighted FTSE) multiplied by Basic Allotment. The rule explicitly defines the calculations used to derive Full-Time Student Equivalents based on contact hours and semester credit hours reported to the Coordinating Board by community college districts. Hours reported are weighted by student characteristics as instructed by TEC §130A.054 at levels based on the higher cost of educating students with certain characteristics (e.g., adult learners are weighted the highest due to the higher cost of educating the student). In accordance with TEC §130A.055, the rule defines Contact Hour Funding as the institution's reported base-year contact hours, weighted by the average cost to provide each contact hour in each discipline as defined in the Report of Fundable Operating Expenses. The Basic Allotment rate and contact hour funding rate are set by the commissioner from funding amounts derived from the General Appropriations Act, in accordance with TEC §§130A.053 and 130.055.
Rule 13.554(d) establishes Local Share as the amount of maintenance and operations ad valorem tax revenue generated by $0.05 per $100 of taxable property value in a college's taxing district plus the amount of tuition and fee revenue that would be generated by charging the average amount of tuition and fees charged by community college districts in the state of Texas to each in-district FTSE, in accordance with TEC §130A.056. Specifically, the Coordinating Board will calculate estimated tax revenue for each district as the actual amount of current tax revenue collected in Fiscal Year 2022 multiplied by the ratio of the maintenance and operations tax rate to the total tax rate, divided by the product of the maintenance and operations tax rate and 100 and multiplied by five. This estimation takes into account that not all property taxes owed are able to be collected by institutions due to delinquent or late collections over which the institutions have no control.
The Coordinating Board will estimate tuition and fee revenue for Local Share by summing 1) the average of tuition and fees charged by community colleges to in-district students two fiscal years prior multiplied by non-dual credit or dual enrollment FTSEs during the fiscal year two years prior and 2) the amount of tuition set per SCH for the Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST) program, multiplied by dual credit or dual enrollment SCHs for the fiscal year two years prior. THECB will source tuition and fee data from the Integrated Fiscal Reporting System, which captures the most recent actual tuition and fees charged by Texas community colleges. Using the average tuition and fee rate specific to in-district students avoids unduly penalizing colleges that have above-average percentages of in-district students and/or that provide substantial discounts to their in-district students. Using the two different tuition rates, depending on the type of student, provides further equity in the method of estimating tuition and fee revenue across the community college districts by avoiding an undue penalty on colleges participating in the FAST program and those with higher percentages of dual credit or dual enrollment students, regardless of their participation in FAST.
Rule 13.555, Performance Tier Funding, establishes the basic components of the Performance Tier portion of community college funding, codified under TEC, chapter 130A, subchapter C. Performance Tier funding consists of the number of Fundable Outcomes each community college produces, weighted according to certain Fundable Outcome Weights. The subsequent sections describe each of these components in greater detail.
Rule 13.556, Performance Tier: Fundable Outcomes, describes the outcomes that are eligible to receive performance tier funding. Outcomes consist of the categories of 1) fundable credentials; 2) credential of value premium; 3) dual credit fundable outcomes; 4) transfer fundable outcomes; 5) structured co-enrollment fundable outcomes; and 6) Opportunity High School Diploma fundable outcomes.
Specifically, Rule 13.556(b) defines the credentials eligible for funding under the Community College Finance System, which include associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, Level 1 and 2 certificates, Advanced Technical Certificates, Continuing Education Certificates, Occupational Skills Awards (OSAs), Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLCs), and Third-Party Credentials. Restrictions are applied on OSAs and ICLCs that share the same contact hours. Pursuant to H.B. 8 and Texas Education Code §130A.101(c)(1), this section also establishes the manner by which THECB will determine whether a credential qualifies as a credential of value and is thereby fundable. Most otherwise fundable credentials are credentials of value when the majority of graduates are projected to achieve a positive return on investment relative to a high school graduate with no additional credentials within ten years, whereas OSAs, ICLCs, and Third-Party Credentials are credentials of value through fiscal year 2025 when they require a minimum amount of instruction and meet other programmatic requirements.
Rule 13.556(c) establishes the credential of value premium as a fundable outcome that rewards an institution when a student earns certain credentials of value quickly enough that they are projected to achieve a positive return on investment on or before the year in which the majority of graduates are projected to reach that threshold. It also requires that THECB annually publish the "target year" by which a student in a given program must graduate for the institution to earn the credential of value premium. This provides an added incentive for colleges to invest in improving the speed and efficiency with which their students are able to complete programs of study.
Rule 13.556(d) describes the dual credit fundable outcome, as required by Texas Education Code §130A.101(c)(3). An institution earns a dual credit fundable outcome for students who complete 15 SCH or the equivalent and transfer to a general academic teaching institution in the state. The Coordinating Board will consider for adoption revised chapter 4, subchapter D, at its April Board meeting. These rules will govern the requirements of fundable dual credit courses and agreements.
Rule 13.556(e) describes the transfer fundable outcome, as required by Texas Education Code §130A.101(2)(A). The methodology refines how this outcome is calculated to clarify that hours earned by a student will count toward a single fundable outcome for a single institution. As such, the section establishes rules that exclude hours counting toward the dual credit fundable outcome and require both that a single transfer funds only one institution and that one institution can receive funding for a given student's transfer only once, except under very specific circumstances laid out in the rule. These provisions will direct funding to the institution that plays a more substantial role in achieving the transfer outcome and prevent an institution from receiving funding if a transfer student repeatedly re-enrolls at the institution and transfers elsewhere.
Rule 13.556(f) describes the structured co-enrollment fundable outcome, as required by Texas Education Code §130A.101(2)(B).
Rule 13.556(g) describes the Opportunity High school Diploma fundable outcome, which is another category of fundable credentials authorized by Texas Education Code §130A.101(c)(1). House Bill 8 established the Opportunity High School Diploma program under Texas Education Code, chapter 130, subchapter O. The Coordinating Board will consider for adoption rules implementing this new program at its April 2024 Board meeting.
Rule 13.557, Performance Tier: Fundable Outcome Weights, establishes the weights that are applied to the fundable outcomes achieved by students in the categories of economically disadvantaged, academically disadvantaged, and adult learners, for the purposes of performance tier funding. An institution earns an additional weight of 25 percent of the funding amount for a fundable outcome when that outcome is achieved by an economically disadvantaged or academically disadvantaged student and an additional weight of 50 percent when the outcome is achieved by an adult learner, as defined in the rule.
Rule 13.558, Performance Tier: High-Demand Fields, establishes that an institution will receive additional weight for awarding a credential delivered in a discipline listed as a High-Demand Field. The rules governing establishment of High Demand Fields are set out subchapter T of this chapter to be adopted at the April 2024 Board meeting.
Rule 13.560, Formula Transition Funding, establishes that after calculating the base tier and performance tier funding for each community college, the Coordinating Board shall ensure that a community college district does not receive less in formula funding for the year in question than it received in 2023 appropriations for formula funding (contact hours, success points, core operations, and bachelor's of applied technology funding) and need-based supplements. The Coordinating Board implements this provision to smooth the transition from the prior system of formula funding predominantly based on contact hour generation to the new system of performance-based funding. Including this provision ensures that no institution will experience a significant detrimental impact on its operations as the new system adjusts funding and moves to outcome-driven performance. Because this provision was only intended to facilitate the transition to a new finance system, it will expire at the end of FY 2025.
Rule 13.561, Payment Schedule, sets out both the payment schedule for non-formula support items and the payment schedule (three times per year) at which the Coordinating Board will make formula funding payments to each institution as authorized by TEC §130.0031. The Coordinating Board shall pay all non-formula support item amounts to the institution by September 25th of a fiscal year, in accordance with the requirements in the 2024-25 General Appropriations Act. The first payment is 50% of the total formula funding entitlement and 25% for the second and final payment. Institutional stakeholders suggested that the Coordinating Board should make the first payment 50% in recognition that a college district's expenses are weighted towards the start of the fiscal year and to smooth the transition from the prior payment schedule, which had historically provided 48% of funding to a community college district by October 25.
Rule 13.562, Limitations on Spending, describes the restrictions on how community college districts may expend state-appropriated funds, in alignment with state statute (TEC §130.003(c); General Appropriations Act, 88th Leg. R.S., H.B. 1, art. III-231, ch. 1170, Rider 14). This provision is in response to requests from stakeholders for greater clarification of permissible expenditures.
Rule 13.563, Shared Services Report, stipulates that smaller community college districts receiving a Base Tier scale adjustment must submit a report on their participation in shared services, and describes the content of this shared report. This provision carries out a statutory requirement for small schools to submit this report, codified in TEC §130A.054(e).
Rule 13.564, Effective Date of Rules, states that the proposed rules will take effect on September 1, 2024, which is the start of the 2025 fiscal year. Subchapter P of this chapter phases out by the end of FY 2024 and subchapter S becomes effective at the start of FY 2025.
Subsequent to the posting of the rules in the Texas Register, the following changes are incorporated into the adopted rule:
Section 13.553(13) amends the credentialing examination definition for clarity and to include the definition of an authorized professional organization. This provides clarity regarding qualified sources of eligible credentialing examinations.
Section 13.553(14) amends the definition of Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Fundable Outcome to ensure that dual credit/enrollment hours reported for fundable outcomes beginning in FY25 and later are applicable to an academic or technical education program or are completed by a student who graduates with a Texas First Diploma. It also notes that dual credit or dual enrollment courses must be fundable to apply toward the fundable outcome.
Sections 13.556(b)(1)(C) and 13.556(b)(1)(D) are amended to remove the contact hour thresholds for Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLC) and Third-Party Credentials, respectively. Minimum program lengths of 144 contact hours (9 semester credit hours) for standard ICLCs and third-party credentials and 80 contact hours (5 semester credit hours) for high-demand field ICLCs and third-party credentials will no longer be required for funding eligibility beginning in FY26.
Section 13.556(b)(2) clarifies that the Credential of Value Baseline refers to the majority of students statewide within a program area, as opposed to an institutional majority, and that the Credential of Value Baseline criteria for fundability will apply to all potentially fundable credentials beginning in FY 2026.
Section 13.556(b)(3) includes clarifying language to ensure that when a community college awards multiple OSAs or ICLCs that share contact hours to the same student in the same fiscal year, the college reports only one such credential for funding. If an OSA shares contact hours with an ICLC, the college shall report only the OSA credential for funding. Section 13.556(b)(1) is amended with a conforming removal.
Section 13.556(b)(3) also includes clarifying language to ensure that a credential awarded by an institution to a non-resident student located out-of-state and enrolled in a 100% online program is not eligible for funding, in alignment with contact hour funding restrictions, beginning in fiscal year 2025. Original language would have inadvertently excluded hybrid programs from funding. Section 13.556(b)(1) is amended with a conforming removal.
Section 13.556(c) clarifies the Credential of Value premium only applies to the credentials listed in section 13.556(b)(1)(A): associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees, Level 1 or Level 2 certificates, advanced technical certificates, and continuing education certificates.
Section 13.556(e) includes additional language to update the methodology for assigning a transfer fundable outcome when more than one community college meets all requirements for a transfer fundable outcome. The methodology now includes an option to grant the transfer fundable outcome to multiple institutions only when a tie remains unbroken after applying three tiebreaker conditions.
Section 13.557(d) includes clarifying language for the calculation of age for Adult Learners. The data collection methodology will now allow for the capture of those students who were not enrolled in a community college in the two fiscal years prior to transfer and will allow for the Coordinating Board to calculate age in the earliest fiscal year of enrollment during the prior four fiscal years.
The Coordinating Board has also made non-substantive amendments throughout chapter 13, subchapter S, to correct for typographical and grammatical errors.
The following comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.
Comment: South Texas College submitted a comment seeking clarification on whether transfer degrees such as Associate of Arts, Associate of Science, and Associate of Arts in Teaching degrees will qualify as a credential of value. South Texas College is concerned that since these degrees are not designed as terminal degrees they won't fare well on their own if the return on investment in 10 years is the sole criterion for being a recognized credential of value.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board appreciates the clarifying comment. The associate degrees listed above currently qualify under the same credential of value methodology. For some students, this will be a terminal degree. If the student earned a higher-level credential, the Coordinating Board will apply the Credential of Value methodology to the highest-level degree earned.
Comment: South Texas College submitted a comment seeking clarification on whether semester credit hours or contact hours is the defining metric for Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLCs) and Third-Party Credentials to be counted as a fundable outcome.
Response: The Coordinating Board thanks the institution for the submitted comment. The definitions for Occupational Skills Awards, Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLC), and Third-Party Credentials each contain criteria for consideration as a fundable credential. Each definition includes requirements expressed as either semester credit hours (SCH) or contact hours for continuing education units (CEU) for funding in the performance tiers. In the definition for each of these three credentials, these two criteria are listed as either SCH or CEU.
Comment: San Jacinto College and Texas2036 submitted a comment inquiring whether the Coordinating Board will consider lowering the contact hour threshold for non-credit programs, so as to include some that are less than 80 and 144 hours. Both comments acknowledged that while certain credentials are very critical trainings and fields, they will not likely rise to the level of high demand based on volume, and would remain subject to the 144 hour threshold.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks both San Jacinto College and Texas2036 for the question and agrees with the change in methodology. The Board has revised Section 13.557(b)(1)(C) and (D) removing the contact hour threshold for ICLCs and third party credentials beginning in FY26 and making corresponding revisions in Section 13.557(b)(2) to provide that these credentials will be subject to the credential of value baseline methodology at that time.
Comment: Texas Business Leadership Council (TBLC) submitted a comment supporting the creation of a Credential of Value Premium, acknowledging that it will incentivize colleges' focus on guided pathways strategies to support students in timely completion of credentials. Timely completion will allow students to enjoy a faster return on their investment and will in turn bolster the talent pipeline to help address hiring challenges that many employers are currently facing.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks TBLC for the comment and agrees with the sentiment expressed.
Comment: Texas Business Leadership Council (TBLC) submitted a comment supporting the addition of Third-Party Credentials as fundable outcomes, acknowledging this will further support reskilling and upskilling needs within the workforce that are becoming increasingly important due to emerging technologies. TBLC also encourages the agency to transition to utilizing job and wage data to determine fundability in lieu of contact hour requirements for Third-Party Credentials.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks TBLC for the comment and agrees with the sentiment expressed. The Board has revised Section 13.557(b)(1)(D) to address this comment.
Comment: Texas Business Leadership Council (TBLC) submitted a comment requesting that the weights and rates used in the funding formula be relatively consistent from year to year, utilizing a stepped-down approach if significant adjustments need to be made. This will allow the colleges to more confidently conduct long-term planning and investments in program offerings.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks TBLC for the comment. This will be addressed in rules to be considered by the Board for adoption at its July 2024 meeting. The Coordinating Board will publish as proposed for public comment these rules at the end of April.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment recommending adjusting funding levels to ensure dual credit is not disproportionately disincentivized relative to transfer outcomes, or vice-versa. Texas2036 is asking that funding levels account for the relative values of dual credit and transfer milestones in relation to the ultimate goal of credential of value attainment.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment. This will be addressed in rules to be considered by the Board for adoption at its July 2024 meeting. The Coordinating Board will publish as proposed for public comment these rules at the end of April.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment requesting that the Credential of Value Premium is significant enough to incentivize college support of timely credential completion. This premium will incentivize colleges to focus on student pathways that lead to timely credential attainment to ensure a positive return on investment for students.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment. This will be addressed in rules to be considered by the Board for adoption at its July 2024 meeting. The Coordinating Board will publish as proposed for public comment these rules at the end of April.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment requesting that when the determination for a self-sufficient wage becomes available, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board should ensure that the credential of value baseline leads to a self-sufficient wage.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment and will continue to consider the latest data and frameworks available--including self-sufficient wage data-- any future changes to our methodology.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment requesting the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adjust its definition of credential of value to rely on data for each credential program so that the value of each individual credential is determined. As higher education institutions increasingly adopt stackable credentials, multiple credentials can be embedded within a single program which may lead to program-level analyses that conflate workforce value among different credentials.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment and respectfully disagrees with adjusting the definition. The current methodology is by credential, and not by program. The Coordinating Board recognizes that stackability is a complex issue and will continue to explore opportunities to refine our methodology.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment requesting the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to evaluate Third-Party Credentials utilizing a methodology aligned to how Credentials of Value are determined once adequate data is available to ensure that these fundable outcomes are equipping Texas students in the labor market.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment and agrees that the Credentials of Value methodology should apply to third-party credentials in the future, contingent on the agency having sufficient data to do so. The Board proposed revisions at adoption to Section 13.557(b)(2) requiring this in fiscal year 2026 to address this issue.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment asking the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to consider additional criteria beyond Pell-recipient in determining funding weights based on student type for performance and base tiers to ensure the full economically disadvantaged student population is captured as intended. This adjustment would ensure each college receives the appropriate funding needed to support all of their economically disadvantaged students.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks Texas2036 for the comment, and respectfully disagrees with changing the criteria for determining the economically disadvantaged student type funding weight. As currently drafted, the look-back window checks for Pell receipt in the year in which an outcome was achieved and the four fiscal years prior for all outcomes except structured co-enrollment. The student must have received Pell within that window at the institution where the outcome was earned. For structured co-enrollment, the student must have received Pell in their initial semester of enrollment in the co-enrollment program (13.557(b)).
As stated, Pell receipt is the best available measure of economic disadvantage at this time. Pell eligibility is calculated using a standardized, rigorous needs assessment methodology that is applied uniformly across institutions. Award determinations are made formulaically, avoiding a possible incentive to alter financial aid practices in ways that could be detrimental to students (e.g., by awarding smaller amounts to a larger number of students who would then qualify). However, we will continue to explore other options.
The new sections are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 130A.005, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules and take other actions consistent with Texas Education Code, chapter 61, chapter 130, and chapter 130A to implement Tex. H.B. 8, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023). In addition, Texas Education Code, Section 130.355, permits the Coordinating Board to establish rules for funding workforce continuing education.
The adopted new sections affect Texas Education Code, Sections 28.0295, 61.003, 61.059, 130.003, 130.0031, 130.0034, 130.008, 130.085, 130.310, 130.352 and chapter 130A.
§13.553.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings:
(1) Academically Disadvantaged--A designation that applies to postsecondary students who have not met the college-readiness standard in one or more Texas Success Initiative (TSI) assessments as provided by §4.57 of this title (relating to Texas Success Initiative Assessment College Readiness Standards), and who were not classified as either waived or exempt pursuant to §4.54 of this title (relating to Exemption).
(2) Adult Learner--A student aged 25 or older on September 1 of the fiscal year for which the applicable data are reported, in accordance with Coordinating Board data reporting requirements.
(3) Advanced Technical Certificate (ATC)--A certificate that has a specific associate or baccalaureate degree or junior level standing in a baccalaureate degree program as a prerequisite for admission. An ATC consists of at least 16 semester credit hours (SCH) and no more than 45 SCH and must be focused, clearly related to the prerequisite degree, and justifiable to meet industry or external agency requirements.
(4) Associate Degree--An academic associate degree as defined under Texas Education Code, §61.003(11), or an applied associate degree as defined under Texas Education Code, §61.003(12)(B).
(5) Baccalaureate Degree--A degree program that includes any grouping of subject matter courses consisting of at least 120 SCH which, when satisfactorily completed by a student, will entitle that student to an undergraduate degree from a public junior college.
(6) Base Tier Funding--The amount of state and local funding determined by the Board for each public junior college that ensures the college has access to a defined level of funding for instruction and operations.
(7) Base Year--The time period comprising the year of contact hours used for calculating the contact hour funding to public junior colleges. The Base Year for a funded fiscal year consists of the reported Summer I and II academic term from the fiscal year two years prior to the funded fiscal year; the Fall academic term one fiscal year prior to the funded fiscal year; and the Spring academic term one fiscal year prior to the funded fiscal year.
(8) Basic Allotment--A calculation of the dollar value per Weighted FTSE, based on appropriations made in that biennium's General Appropriations Act.
(9) Census Date--The date upon which a college may report a student in attendance for the purposes of formula funding, as specified in the Coordinating Board Management (CBM) manual for the year in which the funding is reported.
(10) Continuing Education Certificate--A credential awarded for completion of a program of instruction that meets or exceeds 360 contact hours and earns continuing education units. The certificate program is intended to prepare the student to qualify for employment; to qualify for employment advancement; or to bring the student's knowledge or skills up to date in a particular field or profession; and is listed in an institution's approved program inventory.
(11) Credential of Value Baseline--A credential earned by a student that would be expected to provide a positive return on investment. Credential of Value Baseline methodology is described in §13.556 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier: Fundable Outcomes).
(12) Credential of Value Premium Fundable Outcome--A fundable outcome earned by an institution for a credential earned by a student that would be expected to provide a wage premium. Credential of Value Premium methodology is described in §13.556 of this subchapter.
(13) Credentialing Examination--A licensure or registration exam required by a state or national regulatory entity or a certification exam required by an authorized professional organization. An authorized professional organization is a national, industry-recognized organization that sets occupational proficiency standards, conducts examinations to determine candidate proficiency, and confers an industry-based certification.
(14) Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Fundable Outcome--An outcome achieved when a student earns at least 15 SCH or the equivalent of fundable dual credit or dual enrollment courses, defined as follows:
(A) Courses that qualify as dual credit courses as defined in §4.83(10) of this title (relating to Definitions); and:
(i) In fiscal year 2025 or later, apply toward an academic or career and technical education program requirement at the postsecondary level; or
(ii) In fiscal Year 2025 or later are completed by a student who graduates with a Texas First Diploma, as codified in chapter 21, subchapter D of this title (relating to Texas First early high school completion program).
(B) All dual credit courses taken by a student enrolled in an approved Early College High School program, as provided by Texas Education Code, §28.009, except a physical education course taken by a high school student for high school physical education credit.
(15) Economically Disadvantaged--A designation that applies to postsecondary students who received the federal Pell Grant under 20 U.S.C. §1070a.
(16) Equivalent of a Semester Credit Hour--A unit of measurement for a continuing education course, determined as a ratio of one continuing education unit to 10 contact hours of instruction, which may be expressed as a decimal. One semester credit hour of instruction equals 1.6 continuing education units of instruction. In a continuing education course, not fewer than 16 contact hours are equivalent to one semester credit hour.
(17) Formula Funding--The funding allocated by the Coordinating Board among all public junior colleges by applying provisions of the Texas Education Code, agency rule, and the General Appropriations Act to a sector-wide appropriation from the General Appropriations Act.
(18) Full-Time Student Equivalent (FTSE)--A synthetic measure of enrollment based on the number of instructional hours delivered by an institution of higher education divided by the number of hours associated with full-time enrollment for the time period in question.
(19) Fundable Credential--As defined in §13.556(b) of this subchapter.
(20) Fundable Outcome Weights--A multiplier applied to eligible fundable outcomes to generate a Weighted Outcome Completion for use in determining the Performance Tier allocation. The methodology for each Fundable Outcome Weight is defined in §13.557 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier: Fundable Outcome Weights).
(21) High-Demand Fields--A field in which an institution awards a credential that provides a graduate with specific skills and knowledge required for the graduate to be successful in a high-demand occupation, based on the list of high-demand fields as defined in subchapter T of this chapter (relating to Community College Finance Program: High-Demand Fields).
(22) Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLC)--A credential awarded by an institution upon a student's completion of a course or series of courses that represent the achievement of identifiable skill proficiency and leading to licensure or certification. This definition includes a credential that meets the definition of an Occupational Skills Award in all respects except that the program may provide training for an occupation that is not included in the Local Workforce Development Board's Target Occupations list.
(23) Level 1 Certificate--A certificate designed to provide the necessary academic skills and the workforce skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to attain entry-level employment or progression toward a Level 2 Certificate or an Applied Associate Degree, with at least 50% of course credits drawn from a single technical specialty. A Level 1 Certificate must be designed for a student to complete in one calendar year or less time and consists of at least 15 semester credit hours and no more than 42 semester credit hours.
(24) Level 2 Certificate--A certificate consisting of at least 30 semester credit hours and no more than 51 semester credit hours. Students enrolled in Level 2 Certificates must demonstrate meeting college readiness standards set forth in §4.57 of this title and other eligibility requirements determined by the institution.
(25) Local Share--The amount determined to be the institution's contribution of local funds to the Instruction and Operations (I&O) amount for each public junior college. The amount consists of estimated ad valorem maintenance and operations tax revenue and tuition and fees revenue, as determined by the Board.
(26) Non-Formula Support Item--An amount appropriated by line item in the General Appropriations Act to a single public junior college or limited group of colleges for a specific, named purpose.
(27) Occupational Skills Award (OSA)--A sequence of courses that meet the minimum standard for program length specified by the Texas Workforce Commission for the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) program (9-14 SCH for credit courses or 144-359 contact hours for workforce continuing education courses). An OSA must possess the following characteristics:
(A) The content of the credential must be recommended by an external workforce advisory committee, or the program must provide training for an occupation that is included on the Local Workforce Development Board's Target Occupations list;
(B) In most cases, the credential should be composed of Workforce Education Course Manual (WECM) courses only. However, non-stratified academic courses may be used if recommended by the external committee and if appropriate for the content of the credential;
(C) The credential complies with the Single Course Delivery guidelines for WECM courses; and
(D) The credential prepares students for employment in accordance with guidelines established for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
(28) Opportunity High School Diploma Fundable Outcome--An alternative means by which adult students enrolled in a workforce program at a public junior college may earn a high school diploma at a college through concurrent enrollment in a competency-based program, as codified in Texas Education Code, chapter 130, subchapter O, and Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 12.
(29) Semester Credit Hour (SCH)--A unit of measure of instruction, represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement, that reasonably approximates one hour of classroom instruction or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours out of class student work for each week over a 15-week period in a semester system or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time. An institution is responsible for determining the appropriate number of semester credit hours awarded for its programs in accordance with Federal definitions, requirements of the institution's accreditor, and commonly accepted practices in higher education.
(30) Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome--A student who earns at least 15 semester credit hours at the junior college district in a program structured through a binding written agreement between a general academic teaching institution and a community college. Under such a program, students will be admitted to both institutions and recognized as having matriculated to both institutions concurrently. The Structured Co-enrollment Fundable Outcome does not include courses fundable under the Dual Credit or Dual Enrollment Fundable Outcome.
(31) Third-Party Credential--A certificate as defined in Texas Education Code, §61.003(12)(C), that is conferred by a third-party provider. The third-party provider of the certificate develops the instructional program content, develops assessments to evaluate student mastery of the instructional content, and confers the third-party credential. A third-party credential that meets the requirements of §13.556 of this subchapter is fundable in accordance with that section.
(32) Transfer Fundable Outcome--An institution earns a fundable outcome in the Performance Tier under §13.555 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier Funding) when a student enrolls in a general academic teaching institution, as defined in Texas Education Code, §61.003, after earning at least 15 semester credit hours from a single public junior college district as established under §13.556(e) of this subchapter. For the purpose of this definition, semester credit hours (SCH) shall refer to semester credit hours or the equivalent of semester credit hours.
(33) Weighted Full-Time Student Equivalent (Weighted FTSE or WFTSE)--A synthetic measure of enrollment equal to the number of instructional hours delivered by an institution of higher education divided by the number of hours associated with full-time enrollment for the fiscal year two years prior to the one for which formula funding is being calculated, where the hours delivered to students with certain characteristics carry a value other than one.
(34) Weighted Outcomes Completion--A synthetic count of completions of designated student success outcomes where outcomes achieved by students with certain characteristics carry a value other than one. The synthetic count may also represent a calculation, such as an average or maximizing function, other than a simple sum.
§13.556.Performance Tier: Fundable Outcomes.
(a) This section contains definitions of Fundable Outcomes eligible for receiving funding through the Performance Tier. An institution's Performance Tier funding will consist of the count of Fundable Outcomes, multiplied by weights identified in §13.557 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier: Fundable Outcome Weights) as applicable, multiplied by the monetary rates identified in this subchapter. Fundable Outcomes consist of the following categories:
(1) Fundable Credentials;
(2) Credential of Value Premium;
(3) Dual Credit Fundable Outcomes;
(4) Transfer Fundable Outcomes;
(5) Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcomes; and
(6) Opportunity High School Diploma Fundable Outcomes.
(b) Fundable Credentials.
(1) A fundable credential is defined as any of the following:
(A) Any of the following credentials awarded by an institution that meets the criteria of a credential of value as defined in paragraph (2) of this subsection using the data for the year in which the credential is reported that is otherwise eligible for funding, and the institution reported and certified to the Coordinating Board:
(i) An associate degree;
(ii) A baccalaureate degree;
(iii) A Level 1 or Level 2 Certificate;
(iv) An Advanced Technical Certificate; and
(v) A Continuing Education Certificate.
(B) An Occupational Skills Award awarded by an institution that the institution reported and certified to the Coordinating Board;
(C) An Institutional Credential Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLC) not reported pursuant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and that the institution reported and certified to the Coordinating Board. For fiscal year 2025 or prior only, the credential shall meet one of the following criteria:
(i) The credential includes no fewer than 144 contact hours or nine (9) semester credit hours; or
(ii) The credential is awarded in a high demand field, as defined in Coordinating Board rule, and includes no fewer than 80 contact hours or five (5) semester credit hours; or
(D) A Third-Party Credential that meets the following requirements:
(i) The third-party credential is listed in the American Council on Education's ACE National Guide with recommended semester credit hours;
(ii) The third-party credential program content is either embedded in a course, embedded in a program, or is a stand-alone program;
(iii) The third-party credential is conferred for successful completion of the third-party instructional program in which a student is enrolled;
(iv) The third-party credential is included on the workforce education, continuing education, or academic transcript from the college; and
(I) For fiscal year 2025 only, the third-party credential includes no fewer than the equivalent of nine (9) semester credit hours or 144 contact hours; or
(II) For fiscal year 2025 only, the third-party credential is awarded in a high-demand field as defined in Coordinating Board rule, and includes no fewer than the equivalent of five (5) semester credit hours or 80 contact hours; and
(v) The student earned the third-party credential on or after September 1, 2024.
(2) Credential of Value Baseline. For fiscal year 2025 or prior only, a credential identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection must meet the Credential of Value Baseline criteria for eligibility as a Fundable Outcome. Beginning in fiscal year 2026, any credential identified in paragraph (1) of this subsection must meet the Credential of Value Baseline criteria for eligibility as a Fundable Outcome. This baseline is met when a credential earned by a student would be expected to provide a positive return on investment within a period of ten years.
(A) A program demonstrates a positive return on investment when the majority of students statewide completing the credential, within a program area, are expected to accrue earnings greater than the cumulative median earnings of Texas high school graduates who do not hold additional credentials, plus recouping the net cost of attendance within ten years after earning the credential.
(B) This calculation of return on investment shall include students' opportunity cost, calculated as the difference between median earnings for Texas high school graduates and estimated median earnings for students while enrolled:
(i) Four years for baccalaureate degree holders;
(ii) Two years for associate degree holders; or
(iii) One year for holders of a Level 1 certificate, Level 2 certificate, Advanced Technical Certificate, or Continuing Education Certificate.
(C) The Coordinating Board shall calculate the expected return on investment for each program based on the most current data available to the agency for the funding year for each program or a comparable program.
(D) In applying the methodology under this section to a program offering a credential in an emerging or essential high-demand field pursuant to §13.595(a) and (b) of this chapter (relating to Emerging and Essential Fields), the Commissioner of Higher Education shall utilize recent, relevant data, including:
(i) employer certifications provided under §13.595(b);
(ii) information on program design, including at minimum the cost and length of the program; and
(iii) any other information necessary for the Coordinating Board to apply the methodology under this section to the program proposed in an emerging or essential high-demand field.
(3) The following limitations apply to a fundable credential:
(A) For a credential under paragraph (1)(B) or (C) of this subsection, if more than one credential that the institution awarded to a student includes the same contact hours, the institution may only submit one credential for funding;
(B) If an institution awarded to a student a credential eligible for funding under paragraph (1)(B) and (C) of this subsection and those credentials share the same contact hours, the institution shall submit for funding only the credential awarded under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection; and
(C) For a degree or certificate awarded on or after September 1, 2024, a fundable credential excludes a degree or certificate awarded to a non-resident student enrolled in a 100-percent online degree or certificate program as defined in §2.202(4)(A) of this title (relating to Definitions) for a student who resides out-of-state.
(c) Credential of Value Premium. An institution earns a Credential of Value Premium for each student who completes a Fundable Credential under subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section as follows:
(1) The student completes the credential of value on or before the target year for completion that, for the majority of students who complete comparable programs, would enable the student to achieve a positive return on investment within the timeframe specified for the program as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) For each program, the Coordinating Board shall calculate the year in which the majority of comparable programs would be projected to have the majority of their students achieve a positive return on investment.
(3) Each year, the Coordinating Board shall publish a list of the target years for completion for each program.
(d) Dual Credit Fundable Outcome. An institution achieves a Dual Credit Fundable Outcome when a student has earned a minimum number of eligible dual credit semester credit hours, as defined in §13.553(14) of this subchapter (relating to Definitions).
(e) Transfer Fundable Outcome.
(1) An institution earns a transfer fundable outcome when a student enrolls in a general academic teaching institution (GAI), as defined in Texas Education Code, §61.003(3), after earning at least 15 semester credit hours (SCH) from a single public junior college district, subject to the following:
(A) The student is enrolled at the GAI for the first time in the fiscal year for which the public junior college is eligible for a performance tier allocation, as established in this subchapter;
(B) The student earned a minimum of 15 SCHs from the public junior community college district seeking the transfer fundable outcome during the period including the fiscal year in which they enroll at the GAI and the four fiscal years prior; and
(C) The attainment of the 15 SCHs satisfies the following restrictions:
(i) The transfer fundable outcome shall exclude the 15 SCHs that previously counted toward attainment of a dual credit fundable outcome for the student under subsection (d) of this section.
(ii) The transfer fundable outcome may include any SCHs earned by the student not previously counted toward a dual credit fundable outcome under subsection (d) of this section.
(2) Only one institution may earn a transfer fundable outcome for any individual student, except as provided by subparagraph (C) of this paragraph. An institution may earn the transfer fundable outcome only once per student. The Coordinating Board shall award the transfer fundable outcome in accordance with this subsection.
(A) If a student has earned 15 SCH at more than one institution prior to transfer to any GAI, the Coordinating Board shall award the transfer fundable outcome to the last public junior college at which the student earned the 15 SCH eligible for funding under this section.
(B) If the student earned the 15 SCH at more than one institution during the same academic term, the Coordinating Board shall award the transfer fundable outcome to the public junior college:
(i) from which the student earned the greater number of the SCH that count toward the transfer fundable outcome during the academic term in which they earned the 15 SCH; or
(ii) if the student earned an equal number of SCH that count toward the transfer fundable outcome in the academic term in which the student earned the 15 SCH, to the institution from which the student earned a greater number of SCH that count toward the transfer fundable outcome in total.
(C) If a student has met the SCH requirements of subparagraph (B)(i) and (ii) of this paragraph at more than one public junior college, each public junior college may receive a transfer fundable outcome.
(f) Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome. An institution achieves a Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome when a student has earned a minimum number of eligible semester credit hours in a structured co-enrollment program, as defined in §13.553(30) of this subchapter.
(g) Opportunity High School Diploma Fundable Outcome. An institution achieves an Opportunity High School Diploma Fundable Outcome when a student has completed the program and attained the credential, as defined in §13.553(28) of this subchapter. A student must earn the Opportunity High School Diploma on or after September 1, 2024 to qualify as a Fundable Outcome.
§13.557.Performance Tier: Fundable Outcome Weights.
(a) This section contains definitions of Fundable Outcome Weights that are applied to the Fundable Outcomes specified in §13.556 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier: Fundable Outcomes) to generate a Weighted Outcome Completion. A Fundable Outcome that does not qualify for one of the following Fundable Outcome Weight categories receives a weight of 1. The Coordinating Board will apply the following weights to Fundable Outcomes to the extent permitted by data availability. Fundable Outcome Weights consist of the following categories:
(1) Outcomes achieved by economically disadvantaged students;
(2) Outcomes achieved by academically disadvantaged students; and
(3) Outcomes achieved by adult learners.
(b) Economically Disadvantaged Students.
(1) An institution will receive an additional weight of 25% for fundable credentials, transfer fundable outcomes, and structured co-enrollment fundable outcomes as referenced in §13.556 of this subchapter achieved by an economically disadvantaged student, as defined in §13.553(15) of this subchapter (relating to Definitions).
(2) For purposes of calculating economically disadvantaged for the Transfer Fundable Outcome and Fundable Credentials, the student must be classified as economically disadvantaged at any point during the fiscal year in which the outcome was achieved or the four fiscal years prior at the institution in which the outcome was achieved.
(3) For purposes of calculating economically disadvantaged for Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome, the student must be classified as economically disadvantaged in the initial semester of enrollment in the Structured Co-Enrollment Program at either the community college or general academic institution.
(c) Academically Disadvantaged Students.
(1) An institution will receive an additional weight of 25% for any fundable credentials, transfer fundable outcomes, and structured co-enrollment fundable outcomes in §13.556 of this subchapter achieved by an academically disadvantaged student, as defined in §13.553(1) of this subchapter.
(2) For purposes of calculating academically disadvantaged for Transfer Fundable Outcome and Fundable Credentials, the student must be classified as academically disadvantaged at any point during the fiscal year in which the outcome was achieved or the four fiscal years prior at the institution in which the outcome was achieved.
(3) For purposes of calculating academically disadvantaged for Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome, the student must be classified as academically disadvantaged in the initial semester of enrollment in the Structured Co-Enrollment Program at the institution in which the outcome was achieved.
(d) Adult Learners.
(1) An institution will receive an additional weight of 50% for a fundable credential, transfer fundable outcomes, and structured co-enrollment fundable outcomes in §13.556 of this subchapter achieved by an adult learner, as defined in §13.553(2) of this subchapter.
(2) For purposes of calculating an Adult Learner for a transfer fundable outcome, the Coordinating Board shall calculate age in accordance with this subsection.
(A) The student shall be 25 years of age or older in the earliest fiscal year in which they were enrolled at the public junior college during the current fiscal year or the two fiscal years prior to first enrollment in a general academic institution; or
(B) If the student was not enrolled at the public junior college during the current fiscal year or the two fiscal years prior to the first enrollment in a general academic institution, the student must be 25 years of age of older in the earliest fiscal year of enrollment at the public junior college during the prior four fiscal years.
(3) For purposes of calculating an Adult Learner for a fundable credential, the student's eligibility will be determined as follows:
(A) For a student who completes an Occupational Skills Award, Institutional Credential leading to Licensure or Certification, Third Party Credential, Level I Certificate, Level II Certificate, Continuing Education Certificate, or Advanced Technical Certificate, as defined in §13.556(b) of this subchapter, 25 years of age or older on September 1 of the fiscal year in which the student earned the credential;
(B) For a student who completes an associate degree as defined in §13.556(b) of this subchapter, 25 years of age or older on September 1 of the earliest fiscal year in which the student was enrolled during the period including the year in which the student earned the credential and the prior fiscal year; and
(C) For a student who completes a bachelor's degree as defined in §13.556(b) of this subchapter, 25 years of age or older on September 1 of the earliest fiscal year in which the student was enrolled during the period including the year in which the student earned the credential and the three fiscal years prior.
(4) For purposes of calculating an Adult Learner for Structured Co-Enrollment Fundable Outcome, the student must be classified as an Adult Learner in the initial semester of enrollment in the Structured Co-Enrollment Program at the institution in which the outcome was achieved.
(e) Applicability of Weights. For purposes of transitioning to the new formula model, an institution will receive fundable outcome weights for Occupational Skills Awards, Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification, and Third-Party Credentials achieved by economically disadvantaged students, academically disadvantaged students, or adult learners beginning with these awards reported in Fiscal Year 2025. This subsection expires on August 31, 2026.
§13.558.Performance Tier: High-Demand Fields.
An institution will receive an additional weight, as calculated by an increased funding rate for awarding a Fundable Credential described in §13.556 of this subchapter (relating to Performance Tier: Fundable Outcomes) for credentials delivered in disciplines designated as a High-Demand Field for that institution, as described in subchapter T of this chapter (relating to Community College Finance Program: High-Demand Fields).
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401833
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6548
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter T, §§13.590 - 13.597, Community College Finance Program: High Demand Fields, with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 364). The rules will be republished.
This subchapter concerns the designation of academic fields as High-Demand Fields in which credentials awarded by public junior colleges are eligible for additional funding under the community college finance system established by H.B. 8 (88R). Specifically, this new section will establish a transparent methodology and process for creating and updating the list of academic fields in which credentials are eligible for additional funding.
An institution will receive additional funding for a credential corresponding to a high-demand field included in its region's list of high-demand fields. Each region's high-demand fields list includes all academic fields corresponding to high-demand occupations and is designed to incentivize institutions to produce credentials that meet critical statewide and local workforce needs. This list consists of the following four categories:
1. Ten statewide high-demand occupations, developed using federal jobs data and employment projections to serve the economic needs of the state;
2. Five regional high-demand occupations, including regional workforce needs as demonstrated by data and projections for occupations not otherwise included on the statewide high-demand list;
3. Up to five region-specific Essential Occupations, added by petition of the colleges in the region, to address any critical local workforce needs not captured by existing data; and
4. Any number of statewide Emerging Occupations, designed to allow colleges to serve newly emergent industries that may not yet exist in historical data, in alignment with state leadership priorities.
The following sections describe the methodology and process used to identify high-demand fields.
Rule 13.590, Authority and Purpose, establishes the statutory authority for the subchapter as Texas Education Code §130.101(c)(1) and describes its purpose.
Rule 13.591, Definitions, defines key terms used in the subchapter.
Rule 13.592, Regions, assigns community colleges to regions. Regional assignments allow the list of High-Demand Fields for each college to reflect economic conditions specific to its region. The assignments align with the regional configuration developed by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, which creates regions based on Workforce Development Areas established by the Texas Workforce Commission. Institutions may also request reassignment to a different region overlapping with the college's service area for a minimum of four years.
Rule 13.593, Regional High-Demand Fields Lists, establishes that the Coordinating Board will create separate lists of High-Demand Fields for each region consisting of statewide, region-specific, Emerging Fields, and Essential Fields. This combination reflects the need for education and training to align with the broad economic trends of the state while also taking regional variation into account.
Rule 13.594, High-Demand Fields Methodology, describes the methodology that the Coordinating Board will apply to calculate the statewide and region-specific high-demand fields in order to create each region's high-demand fields list. It relies on ten-year employment projections derived from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and published by the Texas Workforce Commission, ensuring that the process uses thoroughly vetted, publicly available data based on enduring trends. The methodology excludes from analysis occupations that do not typically require the types of credentials that community colleges confer, while allowing such occupations to be added again given appropriate evidence, ensuring that the occupations under consideration match the purpose of incentivizing market-aligned programs at community colleges. It groups both occupations and academic fields into sub-divisions to capture a broader variety of occupations and avoid the possibility that substantively equivalent occupations or academic fields may be inappropriately excluded by slight differences at the most specific level of coding.
Each regional high-demand field list will consist of the academic fields associated with ten statewide occupations and five regional occupations generated by this methodology, as well as up to five regional Essential Occupations and statewide Emerging Occupations. The rule also identifies a crosswalk jointly developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Center for Education Statistics as the means of linking occupations to academic fields.
Rule 13.595, Essential Occupations, describes the process for institutions to petition for the addition of an Essential Occupation to their region's high-demand fields list, ensuring that the list captures regionally important industries not captured by the methodology in rule 13.594. A college or consortium of colleges in the same region may request the addition of up to five additional Essential Occupations. An eligible Essential Occupation must appear on the local Workforce Development Area's list of Target Occupations. If institutions in a single region request more than five unique Essential Occupations, the rule describes a standard and transparent rubric to score each submission, including factors like workforce demand, compensation, and regional economic importance.
Rule 13.596, Emerging Occupations, establishes a process for state leadership to add high-demand fields across the state to incentivize community colleges to develop programs serving the workforce needs of newly emergent industries. In consultation with the Governor's Office, the Commissioner of Higher Education may add an Emerging Occupation that is aligned to a legislative priority (as shown through passage of legislation or dedicated appropriations to develop or encourage the sector) to the high-demand fields list. This mechanism allows the Coordinating Board to include industries of state importance that may not have sufficient historical employment data to be captured in the methodology established in rule 13.594.
Rule 13.597, Effective Dates: High Demand Fields, establishes the schedule for each category of high-demand fields to take effect. This schedule is aligned to the statewide fiscal calendar, including the legislative appropriations cycle, and allows for each field to remain in effect for a sufficient period of time to allow colleges to conduct academic planning to develop or phase out programs. Paragraph (1) describes how the Board will adopt the standard regional high-demand field list, including the ten statewide and five regional occupations determined by the methodology in rule 13.594, by July of each odd-numbered year, with effectiveness beginning on September 1 of the next fiscal year; a high-demand field that is no longer identified by the methodology in rule 13.594 will have a grace period of one additional biennium. Paragraph (2) concerns how the Board adopts high-demand fields for credentials conferred during fiscal years 2023 - 2025, allowing for a transition period. Paragraph (3) describes the effective dates for Essential Occupations, which will take effect for the following biennium and may be renewed subject to a new petition, and Emerging Occupations, which take effect for the following two fiscal years and may be renewed as well.
Subsequent to the posting of the rules in the Texas Register, the following changes are incorporated into the adopted rule.
Section 13.591 amends definitions by adding terms for "Assistant Commissioner," "Emerging Occupation," and "Essential Occupations," and renumbering throughout the rule.
Section 13.592 amends the rule by adding subsection (b), allowing institutions to request reassignment to a neighboring region. The Coordinating Board has amended this language in response to feedback from the field.
Section 13.593 is updated to reflect that the Emerging and Essential Fields list is now composed of separate lists for Emerging Occupations and Essential Occupations.
Section 13.594(2)(A) amends the rule relating to including fields that the BLS has indicated typically do not require credentials usually conferred by community colleges. The new rule allows for inclusion of occupations that typically require successfully completed apprenticeship according to the BLS, or a licensure or certification granted by this state according to the Texas Workforce Commission. Section 13.594(4) amends the rule to reflect the Coordinating Board's decision to separate out Essential Occupations and Emerging Occupations.
Sections 13.595, Essential Occupations, and 13.596, Emerging Occupations, replace the prior rules 13.595 and 13.596 initially published by the Coordinating Board, which had treated Essential and Emerging Occupations uniformly. The proposed rule initially published by the Coordinating Board envisioned a uniform process for approving both Essential and Emerging Occupations, with uniform criteria for both. Based on feedback received by the Coordinating Board, staff has determined that these constitute separate categories, serving different purposes and requiring different approval processes. Essential Occupations relate to regionally critical, potentially longstanding industries that may not emerge under the standard methodology; Emerging Occupations concern new industries, potentially emerging out of technological developments, with likely statewide impact. The revised approval processes for Essential and Emerging Occupations establish different timelines and criteria for both, designed to improve administrability, allow colleges to give input, and permit state leadership to identify and add key statewide priorities.
Section 13.597 contains amendments primarily in paragraph (2), relating to transitional effective dates for the high-demand fields corresponding to credentials conferred during fiscal years 2023 - 2025, and paragraph (3), relating to the redesigned Essential and Emerging Occupations categories.
The following comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.
Comment: San Jacinto College submitted a comment regarding the emerging and essential fields list. Since the new emerging and essential category is limited to five per region, San Jacinto College is inquiring if there can be any consideration given to having more than five essential and emerging categories added for these larger regions, particularly those with multiple large community colleges.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board appreciates this comment, and the point that some regional economies may include a higher number of occupations that merit consideration is well taken. The Coordinating Board will continue to review how to best structure the process by which schools can petition to add occupations but believes that there should be only five essential occupations per region at this point in time to ensure the occupations are limited and cross a high threshold of showing value to the region or state. However, in response to this, the Coordinating Board has revised the process to limit the five occupations to only essential occupations as any identified emerging occupations shall apply statewide to all community colleges. The Coordinating Board will continue to consider this issue in the future as we implement this new process.
Comment: Two comments were submitted regarding the restriction on five regional high demand fields. Texas Business Leadership Council and Texas2036 are inquiring if there can be any consideration given to having more than five fields added based on regional size and economic diversity or providing for an application process for additional regional high demand fields.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board appreciates this comment, and the point that some regional economies may include a higher number of occupations that merit consideration is well taken. However, the Coordinating Board believes the current process to add emerging and essential occupations help address this issue, while maintaining consistency across the region by limiting each region to five regional occupations after assessing the statewide list. The Coordinating Board will continue to consider this issue in the future as we implement this new process.
Comment: Texas2036 submitted a comment that questions remain for institutions that may not fit neatly into just one Comptroller region.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board appreciates this comment and has revised the rule in response to feedback on this issue. The rule now allows institutions an annual opportunity to request reassignment to a different region overlapping with the college's service area for a minimum of four years. This allows an institution to consider which region most reflects the workforce needs of their local community.
Comment: San Jacinto College submitted a comment inquiring about the rationale for requiring that both the Governor's Office and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) must give final approval of the additional programs/credentials in emerging and essential occupations. San Jacinto College notes that this level of review is not required for other elements of HB8 items.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks San Jacinto College for the comment. The Coordinating Board has revised the rule to no longer require the Governor's Office and LBB to approve the addition of essential fields. The revised method of approval of essential occupations ensures a broad perspective on the needs and priorities of the state through the requirement that the requested occupation be identified as a target occupation in the institution's region and also, in the case of multiple requests, requires the scoring of an application using a rubric developed in consultation with the Texas Workforce Commission. Additionally, the Coordinating Board has revised the process for adding emerging occupations to require consultation with the Governor's Office after identifying an occupation that is clearly aligned with legislative priorities, as evidenced by legislative action via statute change or specific funding authorized in the state's budget. This ensures that the Coordinating Board's understanding of the state's emerging workforce needs aligns with executive and legislative leadership.
Comment: The Texas Business Leadership Council (TBLC) submitted a comment supporting the development of a petition process to add emerging and essential fields to the high-demand fields list.
Response: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board thanks TBLC for the comment and agrees with the sentiment expressed in regard to capturing workforce needs not apparent in standard data sources.
The new sections are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 130A.005, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules to implement the community college finance system established under Texas Education Code, Chapter 130A.
The adopted new sections affect Texas Education Code, Section 130A.101.
§13.590.Authority and Purpose.
(a) Texas Education Code, §130A.101(c)(1), provides for public junior colleges to earn an additional funding weight for a credential conferred in a high-demand occupation as part of performance tier funding.
(b) The purpose of this subchapter is to identify a credential eligible for an additional funding weight. To be eligible for an additional weight a credential must be eligible for performance tier funding under §13.555 of this chapter (relating to Performance Tier Funding), and a public junior college must confer the credential in a field specified in this subchapter, as defined by the discipline's federal Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code.
§13.591.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings:
(1) Assistant Commissioner--In this subchapter means the Assistant, Associate, or Deputy Commissioner designated by the Commissioner of Higher Education.
(2) Emerging Occupation--As defined in §13.596 of this subchapter (relating to Emerging Occupations).
(3) Essential Occupation--As defined in §13.595 of this subchapter (relating to Essential Occupations).
(4) High-Demand Field--Academic discipline in which an institution awards a credential that provides a graduate with specific skills and knowledge required for the graduate to be successful in a high-demand occupation, based on the list of high-demand occupations as defined in this subchapter. Fields shall be derived from the CIP SOC Crosswalk most recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics, or, at the Commissioner of Higher Education's discretion, the crosswalk most recently published with a reasonable allowance of time for analysis and review.
(5) High-Demand Occupation--An occupation identified as such by the Commissioner of Higher Education in consultation with the Texas Workforce Commission based on exceptionally high projected growth or status as an Emerging or Essential Occupation and other eligibility criteria under this subchapter. A credential awarded in a high-demand field included in the list approved for an additional funding weight under this subchapter correspond to one or more high-demand occupations.
(6) Region--An economic region of this state as defined by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
§13.592.Regions.
(a) Except as set out under subsection (b) of this section, the Coordinating Board shall use the following regional list for the purpose of generating the list of high-demand fields for each institution under this subchapter.
(1) Alamo Region:
(A) Alamo Colleges District
(B) Victoria College
(2) Capital Region: Austin Community College
(3) Central Texas Region:
(A) Blinn College District
(B) Central Texas College
(C) Hill College
(D) McLennan Community College
(E) Temple College
(4) Gulf Coast Region:
(A) Alvin Community College
(B) Brazosport College
(C) College of the Mainland
(D) Galveston College
(E) Houston Community College
(F) Lee College
(G) Lone Star College System
(H) San Jacinto College District
(I) Wharton County Junior College
(5) High Plains Region:
(A) Amarillo College
(B) Clarendon College
(C) Frank Phillips College
(D) South Plains College
(6) Metroplex Region:
(A) Collin County Community College District
(B) Dallas College
(C) Grayson College
(D) Navarro College
(E) North Central Texas College
(F) Tarrant County College District
(G) Weatherford College
(7) Northwest Region:
(A) Cisco College
(B) Ranger College
(C) Vernon College
(D) Western Texas College
(8) Southeast Region: Angelina College
(9) South Texas Region:
(A) Coastal Bend College
(B) Del Mar College
(C) Laredo College
(D) South Texas College
(E) Southwest Texas Junior College
(F) Texas Southmost College
(10) Upper East Region:
(A) Kilgore College
(B) Northeast Texas Community College
(C) Panola College
(D) Paris Junior College
(E) Texarkana College
(F) Trinity Valley Community College
(G) Tyler Junior College
(11) Upper Rio Grande Region: El Paso Community College
(12) West Texas Region:
(A) Howard College District
(B) Midland College
(C) Odessa College
(b) Not later than March 1 annually, a public junior college that is assigned to a region established under this subchapter may request, via electronic communication to CCFinance@highered.texas.gov signed by the chief executive officer, reassignment to a different region overlapping with the college's service area, as established in Texas Education Code, chapter 130, subchapter J, for the purpose of this subchapter.
(1) An election to a different region under this section shall begin on September 1 and continue for no fewer than the following four (4) fiscal years.
(2) The Coordinating Board shall maintain an updated list that includes each institution and its assigned region pursuant to this section.
§13.593.Regional High-Demand Fields Lists.
(a) For each region, the Commissioner of Higher Education shall approve a list of high-demand fields eligible for an additional funding weight in the performance tier.
(b) Each Regional High-Demand Fields List shall include a list of statewide high-demand fields and a list of region-specific high-demand fields approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education and may include a further list of Emerging and Essential Fields added pursuant to §13.595 of this subchapter (relating to Essential Occupations) and §13.596 (relating to Emerging Occupations).
(c) Each regional high-demand fields list shall be limited to the fields associated with the high-demand occupations identified pursuant to §13.594 of this subchapter (relating to High-Demand Fields Methodology), up to five (5) occupations added pursuant to §13.595 and any occupations added pursuant to §13.596.
(d) Each public junior college shall earn the additional funding weight when it confers a fundable credential in a field that appears on the list of high-demand fields for its assigned region.
§13.594.High-Demand Fields Methodology.
The Coordinating Board shall apply the following methodology to generate region-specific lists of Regional High-Demand Fields to be approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education:
(1) In consultation with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), the Coordinating Board shall examine projections of the number of persons expected to be employed in the state of Texas and in each region for each occupation.
(A) These projections shall consider the ten-year employment projections most recently published by the TWC; data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); and other relevant data regarding projected regional and state workforce needs.
(B) In its examination of workforce projections, the Coordinating Board shall exclude from the analysis all occupations identified by the BLS as typically requiring, at the entry level, no high school diploma or equivalent, a high school diploma or equivalent, a bachelor's degree, or any level of graduate education, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this section.
(2) The Coordinating Board may include an occupation identified by the BLS as typically requiring a high school diploma or equivalent or a bachelor's degree if it meets the following criteria:
(A) The BLS identifies the occupation as typically requiring a high school diploma or equivalent and either the BLS identifies the occupation as typically requiring a successfully completed apprenticeship or the TWC identifies the occupation as requiring a licensure or certification granted by an agency of this state, or other credential, or successful completion of an apprenticeship, to perform the occupation; or
(B) The Coordinating Board identifies relevant data demonstrating that the occupation typically requires a license, certification, credential other than a bachelor's degree, or a completed apprenticeship, and more than one (1) public junior college operates a program intended to prepare individuals to obtain such a credential or completed apprenticeship.
(3) The Coordinating Board shall calculate each region's list of high-demand occupations as follows:
(A) Within each region, group each occupation according to the first four (4) digits of its code under the most recent Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system as promulgated by the BLS.
(B) Sum the projected change in employment for each grouping of occupations according to the first four (4) digits of SOC codes across all regions to generate a set of projections for each group of occupations across the state and rank this set from highest projected change to lowest.
(4) Each region's list of high-demand occupations shall consist of the ten (10) four-digit SOC groupings with the highest projected change across the state and the five (5) four-digit SOC groupings with the highest projected change within that region that do not appear among the ten (10) with the highest projected change statewide, as well as up to five (5) Essential Occupations identified by six-digit SOC codes as determined pursuant to §13.595(b) of this subchapter (relating to Essential Occupations) and any Emerging Occupations identified by six-digit SOC codes as determined pursuant to §13.596 of this subchapter (relating to Emerging Occupations).
(5) Each region's list of high-demand fields shall consist of all academic fields, defined as its four-digit CIP Code, that correspond to its list of high-demand occupations according to the SOC-to-CIP crosswalk most recently published by the BLS and National Center for Education Statistics, or, at the Commissioner of Higher Education's discretion, the crosswalk most recently published with a reasonable allowance of time for analysis and review.
§13.595.Essential Occupations.
(a) To respond to the rapidly evolving economic needs of the state and any regional labor shortages in critical occupations, this section provides an alternative pathway for the Coordinating Board to include fields linked to occupations not otherwise generated by the methodology described in §13.594 of this subchapter (relating to High-Demand Fields Methodology) to the list of High-Demand Fields for which a college receives additional funding under §13.558 of this chapter (relating to Performance Tier: High-Demand Fields).
(b) Petition Process for Essential Occupations. For including Essential Occupations on a region's high-demand occupations list under §13.594(4), the Coordinating Board shall utilize the following process:
(1) A public junior college or consortium of public junior colleges assigned to the same region under §13.592 of this subchapter (relating to Regions) may petition the Coordinating Board to add no more than five Essential Occupations using a form approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education.
(2) Whether individually or as a member of a consortium, a public junior college may submit only one petition to the Coordinating Board during each time period when petitions are accepted pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(3) A petition under this section may request that specific occupations identified by six-digit SOC codes be added to the list of high-demand occupations on the regional high-demand fields list for the requestor(s) pursuant to §13.594(4).
(4) A petition under this section shall name the Workforce Development Area (WDA) in the institution's service area whose board has designated as a Targeted Occupation pursuant to Texas Government Code, chapter 2308, each occupation that the petition seeks to add to a regional high-demand occupations list. The petition shall also include, for the occupation(s) and region in question:
(A) evidence of current job vacancies or growth, whether recent or projected, in the number of job openings;
(B) evidence of prevailing compensation or growth, whether recent or projected, in prevailing compensation;
(C) evidence of the importance of the occupation(s) to the regional economy; and
(D) evidence that the occupation typically requires for entry completion of an academic or workforce credential that the requestor(s) currently offers or will begin offering by the start of the fiscal year for which the occupation would take effect as a high-demand occupation if approved.
(5) Beginning in fiscal year 2025, in each odd-numbered year the Coordinating Board shall accept petitions under this section for a time period beginning on the earlier of May 1 or the day after the TWC publishes a new list of Target Occupations and ending May 31.
(c) Review Process and Criteria for Essential Occupations. The Coordinating Board shall utilize the following method for reviewing all petitions properly submitted pursuant to subsection (b) of this section:
(1) In consultation with the Texas Workforce Commission, the Coordinating Board shall discard as ineligible any occupation(s) not included on the Targeted Occupations list of a Workforce Development Area within the region to which the petitioner(s) is assigned under §13.592, as well as any occupations already included among the region's high-demand occupations.
(2) If, considering all eligible occupations on all petitions for a region, all public junior colleges in the region request five or fewer unduplicated eligible Essential Occupations for addition to the region's high-demand occupations, the Assistant Commissioner shall recommend that the Commissioner of Higher Education approve the occupations for inclusion on the region's high-demand occupations list.
(3) If multiple public junior colleges in a region request more than five unduplicated eligible Essential Occupations in total for addition to a region's high-demand occupations, the Coordinating Board shall score each occupation according to a rubric developed in consultation with the Texas Workforce Commission and approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education. The rubric shall specify scoring standards that may include the following:
(A) Workforce demand;
(B) Prevailing compensation;
(C) Regional economic importance;
(D) Typical education and training requirements;
(E) Demand among institutions, such as the percentage of the public junior colleges assigned to the region that petitioned for its inclusion as an Essential Occupation, and
(F) Other criteria or evidence relevant to the determination of need for the occupation in the scoring rubric approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education.
(4) Not later than July 15 of each odd-numbered year, the Assistant Commissioner shall review and approve the scores assigned to each occupation and recommend the five (5) highest scoring occupations for each region to the Commissioner of Higher Education for approval. The Commissioner of Higher Education shall review the occupations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner for each region for addition as an Essential Occupation to the region's list of high-demand occupations. The Commissioner of Higher Education in his or her sole discretion based on the petitions and demonstration of need may approve or deny approval of any occupation recommended by the Assistant Commissioner.
(5) An Essential Occupation shall remain on a region's list of high-demand occupations under §13.594 (relating to High-Demand Fields Methodology) as an Emerging Occupation for not fewer than two (2) fiscal years.
§13.596.Emerging Occupations.
(a) In consultation with the Office of the Governor, the Commissioner of Higher Education may add an occupation to the list of statewide high-demand occupations under §13.594 (relating to High-Demand Fields Methodology) as an Emerging Occupation.
(b) An Emerging Occupation shall meet the following criteria:
(1) The occupation does not already appear among the high-demand occupations for the state; and
(2) The occupation is aligned with a state legislative priority, as evidenced by the passage of legislation or provision of funding to encourage or develop the sector for which the occupation may be necessary.
(c) The Commissioner of Higher Education may designate an Emerging Occupation at any time. An institution may earn the rate for a high demand field designated as an Emerging Occupation beginning September 1 of the fiscal year after the occupation is added to the list.
(d) An Emerging Occupation shall remain on the list of statewide high-demand occupations under §13.594 for not less than two (2) years.
(e) The Commissioner of Higher Education may, in consultation with the Office of the Governor, extend the designation of an Emerging Occupation on the list of statewide high-demand occupations for two (2) years.
§13.597.Effective Dates: High-Demand Fields.
This section establishes the schedule upon which the Coordinating Board will create updated lists of high-demand fields, essential occupations, and emerging occupations, and the amount of time that a field identified as high-demand will remain on a high-demand fields list.
(1) Standard Regional High-Demand Fields.
(A) The Board shall adopt the Regional High-Demand Fields lists for each biennium not later than its July board meeting of each odd-numbered year.
(B) The new Regional High-Demand Fields lists shall be effective for each biennium beginning September 1 of each odd-numbered year.
(C) Applying first to the High-Demand Fields list adopted under §(2)(B) of this section in FY 2024, a field that the Board removes from a Regional High-Demand Fields list shall continue to be funded as a high-demand field for the following biennium.
(2) Standard Regional High-Demand Fields Conferred in FY 2023 - 2025. For calculating FY 2025 funding amounts based on the greater of FY 2025 credentials awarded or the three-year average of FY 2023 - 2025, the Coordinating Board shall apply High-Demand Fields lists as follows:
(A) For credentials awarded in FY 2023, notwithstanding §13.594 (relating to High-Demand Fields Methodology), the Coordinating Board shall use the list of High-Demand Fields for FY 2023 adopted by the Board at its July 2024 board meeting, which it shall also publish publicly.
(B) For credentials awarded in FY 2024 and FY 2025 the Coordinating Board shall identify credentials conferred in High-Demand Fields based on the list developed in accordance with §13.594 and adopted by the Board at its July 2024 board meeting, which it shall also publish publicly.
(3) Emerging and Essential Occupations.
(A) Academic fields linked to Essential Occupations designated pursuant to §13.595(c) (relating to Essential Occupations) shall be effective for the following biennium beginning September 1 of each odd-numbered year but may be renewed subject to approval of a new petition under §13.595(b) and (c).
(B) Academic fields linked to Emerging Occupations designated pursuant to §13.595(d) shall be effective for two (2) fiscal years but may be renewed pursuant to §13.595(d).
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401834
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6548
SUBCHAPTER D. TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL GRANT AND EMERGENCY TUITION, FEES, AND TEXTBOOK LOAN PROGRAMS
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 22, Subchapter D, §22.64, Texas Public Educational Grant and Emergency Tuition, Fees, and Textbook Loan Programs, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 370). The rule will not be republished.
This amendment removes the requirement for the Coordinating Board to collect and maintain copies of guidelines submitted by public institutions for the administration of the TPEG program on their campuses.
Section 22.64 is amended to remove the reporting requirement for respective governing boards to file adopted copies of rules and regulations to the Coordinating Board and Comptroller prior to disbursement of any funds. This update is a result of Article III, Special Provisions, Section 11(2) being removed from the General Appropriations Act under HB 1 during the 88th legislative session. Removing this requirement in the Administrative Code aligns the program requirements and responsibilities of both the institutions and the Coordinating Board with the changes made to the Special Provisions rider.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendments.
The amendment is adopted for the sole purpose of conforming to changes made in the General Appropriations Act under HB1 which removed Article III, Special Provisions, Section 11(2) during the 88th legislative session.
The adopted amendment affects Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 22.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401836
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6365
19 TAC §§22.165 - 22.168, 22.170 - 22.173
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 22, Subchapter I, §§22.165 - 22.168 and 22.170 - 22.173, Texas Armed Services Scholarship Program, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 371). The rules will not be republished.
These adopted amendments redefine Coordinating Board terminology used throughout the subchapter, updates promissory note obligations based on legislative changes, and provides greater clarity of operational procedures.
Rule 22.165 is amended to update scholarship time limitations in which a recipient can receive an award to remove unnecessary language. The Coordinating Board is given authority to establish rules necessary to administer the Texas Armed Services Scholarship Program under Texas Education Code, §61.9771 and §61.9774.
Rules 22.166, 22.167 and 22.170 - 22.173 are amended to update the definition of "Coordinating Board" to clarify references throughout the subchapter are for the agency and its staff members and not the governing body of the agency. This update aligns terminology throughout subchapter I with the overarching definitions found in General Provisions under subchapter A, §22.1. The Coordinating Board is given authority to establish rules necessary to administer the Texas Armed Services Scholarship Program under Texas Education Code, §61.9771 and §61.9774.
Rule 22.168 is amended to update the promissory note requirements a recipient must agree to when applying for a scholarship and removes duplicative language in the section. This rule change aligns with Senate Bill 371, 88th Legislative Session, that amended Texas Education Code, chapter 61, subchapter FF, which updated the requirement for a recipient to complete 1 year of ROTC training for each year that the student receives a scholarship instead of 4 years. The Coordinating Board is given authority to establish rules necessary to administer the Texas Armed Services Scholarship Program under Texas Education Code, §61.9771 and §61.9774.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendments.
The amendments are adopted under Texas Education Code, Sections 61.9771 and 61.9774, which provide the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to administer the program under Texas Education Code, chapter 61, subchapter FF.
The adopted amendments affect Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 22.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401837
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6365
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts new rules in Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 22, Subchapter O, §§22.300 - 22.313, Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 373). The rules will not be republished.
Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 61, subchapter T-3, requires the Coordinating Board to adopt rules for the administration of the program, including rules providing for the amount and permissible uses of a scholarship awarded under the program. The legislation only specified student eligibility, conditions for continued participation, and authorization for institutional agreements. The new rules provide clarity and guidance to students, participating institutions, and Coordinating Board staff for the program's implementation.
Specifically, these new sections will outline the authority and purpose, definitions, institutional eligibility requirements, student eligibility requirements, satisfactory academic progress, scholarship selection criteria, academic achievement support, leadership development opportunities, hardship provisions, scholarship amounts, and allocation and disbursement of funds, which are necessary to administer the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.300 indicates the specific sections of the Texas Education Code (TEC) that provide the Coordinating Board with authority to issue these rules, as well as the purpose of the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.301 provides definitions for words and terms within Texas Leadership Research Scholars rules. The definitions are adopted to provide clarity for words and terms that are integral to the understanding and administration of the Texas Leadership Research Scholars rules.
Rule 22.302 outlines the requirements that institutions must fulfill to participate in the Texas Leadership Research Scholars program. The requirements are adopted to: (a) clarify the type of institution eligible to participate, and (b) provide rules specific to requirements the Coordinating Board is proposing to ensure effective administration of the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program, such as the requirement that each participating institution enter into an agreement with the Coordinating Board. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.303 outlines the eligibility requirements that students must meet to allow an institution to select a student as a scholar under the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program. The requirements are adopted to gather in one place the statutory requirements for the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program, including requirements: (a) related to a student's financial need; (b) that a student has graduated either from a Texas public high school or Texas public, private, independent institution of higher education; and (c) related to a student's eligibility as economically disadvantaged, such as being a Pell Grant recipient as an undergraduate. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.304 outlines the satisfactory academic progress requirements related to a student's eligibility to continue in the program. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.305 outlines the process and the criteria in which institutions will select students to receive the Texas Leadership Scholars scholarship. The requirements are adopted to clarify that the Coordinating Board or Administrator will receive nominations from institutions. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rules 22.306 and 22.307 outline the requirements that institutions must fulfill to provide evidence-based programmatic experiences and support for scholars in the program. The requirements are adopted to: (a) clarify the types of academic achievement and leadership development programmatic elements institutions must provide for scholars; and (b) clarify that the Coordinating Board may enter into agreements with participating institutions to best support scholars in the statutorily required programmatic elements.
Rule 22.308 outlines the requirements that institutions must follow to determine when scholars are no longer eligible to participate in the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program. The requirements are adopted to gather in one place the statutory requirements for the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program, including the requirements related to a student's enrollment, the transfer policy, and the number of years a scholar may receive the scholarship.
Rule 22.309 outlines the criteria for an institution to allow an eligible scholar a hardship provision under the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program. This section provides institutions with the provisions for hardship consideration and defines the conditions the hardship may include such as severe illness. This section outlines the process in which the institution must document the circumstances of the hardship.
Rule 22.310 outlines the scholarship amounts and how the Coordinating Board will allocate the funds to institutions. The adopted rule provides clarification of the statutory requirements related to the minimum amount of the award and how the amount will be calculated to provide clarity for the annual allocation formula for each institution. The allocation of initial awards will be split between research institutions and emerging research institutions. Within those two categories, the share of initial awards available will be reviewed and determined annually based on the number of research doctorates awarded the previous academic year. This calculation ensures that initial scholarship awards are being allocated to institutions successfully graduating research doctorates.
Rule 22.311 establishes the funding for the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program. Funding under this subchapter is subject to legislative appropriation.
Rule 22.312 establishes the mechanisms by which the Coordinating Board will disburse the funds to each participating institutions to support their participation in the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program, as well as the institutions' participation in the process. The adopted rule provides the frequency of disbursements to each institution and the way the institutions will have the opportunity to review the calculation for accuracy. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
Rule 22.313 outlines the expectations for participating institutions related to reporting, audits, and return of funds. The adopted rule provides clarity related to the institution's compliance and fiduciary responsibilities. This section is adopted based on TEC, §61.897, which directs the Coordinating Board to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
The following comments were received regarding the adoption of the new rule.
Comment: The following comments were received from the University of North Texas:
We would like to recommend changing the following rules:
(1) 22.303(a)(2)
Language in the proposed rule:
(2) Demonstrate that the student has either:
(A) Graduated from a Texas public high school, including an open-enrollment charter school, during the ten years preceding the date of the student's application to the program; or
(B) Graduated from a Texas public, private or independent institution of higher education as defined by sections 61.003(8) or (15) of the Texas Education Code.
Comment: Since (A) has a timeframe attached to it, 10 years, should (B) have a timeframe attached to it?
Within 5 years of graduation from an institution of higher education?
(1) 22.303(a)(5)(C)
Language in the proposed rule:
(5) Be economically disadvantaged by either:
(A) having received a Pell Grant while enrolled as an undergraduate student; or
(B) having received a TEXAS grant or Tuition Equalization Grant (TEG) as an undergraduate student; or
(C) having received a Leadership Scholarship as an undergraduate student.
Comment: Is this any Leadership Scholarship or specific to the Texas Leadership Scholars Program?
(1) 22.306(a) and 22.307(a)
Language in the proposed rule:
22.306
(a) Each participating Eligible Institution shall ensure that each Research Scholar's experience includes, at a minimum, the following academic programmatic elements:
(1) Program cohort learning communities;
(2) Mentoring, research, and internship opportunities;
(3) Networking with state government, business, and civic leaders; and
(4) Statewide cohort learning institutes or seminars.
22.307
(a) Each participating Eligible Institution must ensure that a Research Scholar's experience includes, at a minimum, the following leadership development elements:
(1) Leadership development programming; and
(2) Scholar summer programming which may be met through participating in a leadership conference, study abroad, or internship opportunities.
Comment: We would recommend omitting programmatic elements or leadership development because:
doctoral students do not typically operate in a cohort
(1) all work with a committee chair to help move through their program in accordance with their institution's guidelines.
(2) Once a doctoral student begins dissertation, they are no longer part of the community
(3) Full-time doctoral students are typically serving in TA or RA roles, and adding additional components could add undue stress for the student.
(1) 22.308(b)(1)
Language in the proposed rule:
(b) Unless granted a hardship postponement in accordance with §22.309 of this subchapter (relating to Hardship Provisions), a student's eligibility for a grant ends:
(1) Four years from the start of the semester in which the student enrolls in the research doctoral degree program at the eligible institution
Comment: (1) [Four] Seven years from the start of the semester in which the student enrolls in the research doctoral degree program at the eligible institution
It is unlikely a Ph.D. student, particularly in a STEM field will complete their degree in 4 years and we worry we could impact completion if an award as sizeable as the TLS award is removed from the student's account. According to the NCSE, below are the averages based on 2020 data.
(1) Physical and Earth Sciences: 6.3
(2) Engineering: 6.8 years
(3) Life sciences: 6.9 years
(4) Mathematics and computer science: 7 years
(5) Psychology and Social Sciences: 7.9 years
(6) Humanities and arts: 9.6 years
(7) Education: 12 years
Response: The Coordinating Board appreciates these comments and provides the following responses.
(1) 22.303(B): No, a timeframe should not be attached for a research scholar who graduated from a Texas public, private or independent institution. This Rule considers any in-state and out-of-state research scholars that attended a postsecondary education in the state at any given time.
(2) Rule 22.303(C) uses the term "Leadership Scholarship" which is defined in 22.301(3) as the scholarship awarded to an undergraduate student in the program under subchapter N of this chapter (relating to Texas Leadership Scholars Grant Program).
(3) Rules 22.306 and 22.307, outline the appropriate application of the Academic Achievement Support and Leadership Development programming, authorized by TEC, Sec 61.985. Upon entering the doctoral program, each student joins a specific cohort. The institution should actively facilitate opportunities for scholars within their cohort to engage with each other and to receive support, for example, by participating in university-sponsored programs to develop and enhance their skills as teachers or researchers. In addition, collaborating with committee chairs and faculty scholars in roles such as Teaching Assistants or Research Assistants could be used to provide academic support. These kinds of supportive programmatic elements can be integrated throughout the scholar's journey until program completion.
(4) Rule 22.308: Although many students take longer to complete their doctoral studies, state funding is limited and only allows up to four years for each research scholar, according to TEC, Sec. 61.897(a)(2).
The new sections are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 61.897, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Texas Leadership Research Scholars Program.
The adopted new sections affect Texas Education Code, Sections 61.891 - 61.897.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401838
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6537
SUBCHAPTER J. MATH AND SCIENCE SCHOLARS LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (Coordinating Board) adopts amendments to Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 23, Subchapter J, §§23.286 - 23.293, Math and Science Scholars Loan Repayment Program, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 26, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 377). The rules will not be republished.
This amendment redefines Coordinating Board terminology used throughout the subchapter, expands program eligibility to math and science teachers working in any Texas public school, removes award amount limitations based on service location, and clarifies which loans can be considered when determining repayment eligibility.
Rule 23.286, Authority and Purpose, is amended to remove language from the Program's purpose statement that requires a teacher to work at a Title I school during the first four years of participation in the Program. Senate Bill 532, 88th Legislative Session amended Texas Education Code (TEC), chapter 61, subchapter KK, to remove the requirement for a teacher to work at a Title I school during the first four years of service beginning with applicants on or after September 1, 2023. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
Rule 23.287, Definitions, is amended to update the definition of "Coordinating Board" to clarify references throughout the subchapter are for the agency and its staff members and not the governing body of the agency. It also revises the term "Commissioner" from Chief Executive Officer of the board to the Commissioner of Higher Education. These amendments also impact §§23.288 - 23.290 and 23.292. These non-substantive changes are implemented to align terminology across all subchapters in chapter 23. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
Rule 23.288, Eligibility for Enrollment in the Program, is amended to delineate program eligibility requirements between applicants who first establish eligibility for the program before September 1, 2023, and applicants who first establish eligibility for the program on or after September 1, 2023, as required by Section 6 of House Bill 532, 88th Legislative Session. Revisions to TEC, chapter 61, subchapter KK, no longer require applicants to work at a Title I school to be eligible for participation on or after September 1, 2023. An update to the rule also clarifies which loans can be considered when determining repayment eligibility. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
Rule 23.289, Application Ranking Priorities, is amended to make a non-substantive change that aligns with a similar change in §23.287 (relating to Definitions).
Rule 23.290, Exceptions to Consecutive Years of Employment Requirement, is amended to delineate exceptions for the consecutive years of employment requirement between applicants who first establish eligibility for the program before September 1, 2023, and applicants who first establish eligibility for the program on or after September 1, 2023, as required by Section 6 of House Bill 532, 88th Legislative Session. Revisions to TEC, chapter 61, subchapter KK, no longer require applicants to work at a Title I school on or after September 1, 2023. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
Rule 23.291, Eligibility for Disbursement of Award, is amended to delineate disbursement criteria to an eligible teacher between applicants who first establish eligibility for the program before September 1, 2023, and applicants who first establish eligibility for the program on or after September 1, 2023, as required by Section 6 of House Bill 532, 88th Legislative Session. Revisions to TEC, chapter 61, subchapter KK, no longer require applicants to work at a Title I school on or after September 1, 2023. The rules for applicants on or after September 1, 2023, no longer require a teacher to provide verification of working at a Title I school during the first four years to align with statutory updates. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
Rule 23.292, Eligible Lender and Eligible Education Loan, is amended to make a non-substantive change that aligns with a similar change in §23.287 (relating to Definitions).
Rule 22.293, Disbursement of Repayment Assistance and Award Amount, is amended to clarify that a math or science teacher that applies for the Program on or after September 1, 2023, may continue to receive the same amount of loan repayment assistance received during the first four consecutive years of teaching service required. Teachers participating in the Program prior to September 1, 2023, are subject to the law and rules in effect at the time. The Coordinating Board is given authority under TEC, §61.9831, to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendments.
The amendments are adopted under Texas Education Code, Section 61.9831, which provides the Coordinating Board with the authority to provide rules to assist with the repayment of eligible student loans for eligible persons.
The adopted amendments affect Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 23.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 26, 2024.
TRD-202401839
Nichole Bunker-Henderson
General Counsel
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: May 16, 2024
Proposal publication date: January 26, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 427-6365
CHAPTER 97. PLANNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SUBCHAPTER AA. ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING
(Editor's note: In accordance with Texas Government Code, §2002.014, which permits the omission of material which is "cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedient," the figure in 19 TAC §97.1001 is not included in the print version of the Texas Register. The figure is available in the on-line version of the May 10, 2024, issue of the Texas Register.)
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts an amendment to §97.1001, concerning the accountability rating system. The amendment is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 23, 2024 issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 951) and will be republished. The amendment adopts in rule applicable excerpts of the 2024 Accountability Manual.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION: TEA has adopted its academic accountability manual in rule since 2000 under §97.1001. The accountability system evolves from year to year, so the criteria and standards for rating and acknowledging schools in the most current year differ to some degree from those applied in the prior year.
The adopted amendment to §97.1001 adopts excerpts of the 2024 Accountability Manual into rule as a figure. The excerpts, Chapters 1-12 of the 2024 Accountability Manual, specify the indicators, standards, and procedures used by the commissioner to determine accountability ratings for districts, campuses, and charter schools. These chapters also specify indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine distinction designations on additional indicators for Texas public school campuses and districts. Chapter 12 describes the specific criteria and calculations that will be used to assign 2024 Results Driven Accountability (RDA) performance levels. Ratings may be revised as a result of investigative activities by the commissioner as authorized under Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.056 and §39.003.
Following is a chapter-by-chapter summary of the changes for this year's manual. In every chapter, dates and years for which data are considered were updated to align with 2024 accountability and RDA. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology throughout each chapter are embedded within the proposed 2024 Accountability Manual.
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the entire accountability system. Dates and years for which data are considered are updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. Language is adjusted to clarify the existing processes and implications of data compliance reviews and special investigations related to data concerns. Detailed language has been added to clarify compliance reviews, results, and special investigations.
Chapter 2 describes the "Student Achievement" domain. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. Detailed language on the phase-in timeline for approved industry-based certifications (IBCs) and their aligned programs of study have been added. The updated IBC list revision cycle timeline has been added. Detailed language clarifying the expectations and future process for approving college prep courses has been added. Detailed language regarding the purpose and requirements of individual graduation committees has been added. Language describing the Military Enlistment Data Collection process was added. Language describing the alignment of college, career, and military readiness to the Texas Success Initiative Assessment exemption criteria benchmarks for ACT has been added. In response to public comment, Chapter 2 was modified at adoption to add clarity regarding how student demographic data is used in Test Information Distribution Engine (TIDE) to identify emergent bilingual (EB) students/English learners (ELs). Also in response to public comment, Chapter 2 was modified at adoption to include the definition of EL Performance Measures and to clarify when EL Performance Measures are used.
Chapter 3 describes the "School Progress" domain. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. In response to public comment, Chapter 3 was modified at adoption to add clarity regarding how the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) Spanish to STAAR® would be used for growth. Also in response to public comment, Chapter 3 was modified at adoption to add clarity regarding how student demographic data is used in TIDE to identify EB students/Els and to clarify when EL Performance Measures are used.
Chapter 4 describes the "Closing the Gaps" domain. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. The language for methodology for English language proficiency has been updated. In response to public comment, Chapter 4 was modified at adoption to add clarity regarding how student demographic data is used in TIDE to identify EB students/Els and to clarify when EL Performance Measures are used.
Chapter 5 describes how the overall ratings are calculated. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 6 describes distinction designations. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 7 describes the pairing process and the alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 8 describes the process for appealing ratings. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 9 describes the responsibilities of TEA, the responsibilities of school districts and open-enrollment charter schools, and the consequences to school districts and open-enrollment charter schools related to accountability and interventions. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. In response to public comment, Chapter 9 was modified at adoption to reflect that the PEG list becomes final when final ratings are released.
Chapter 10 provides information on the federally required identification of schools for improvement. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 11 describes the local accountability system. The changes to this chapter are restricted to updating date and year references. At adoption, dates and years for which data are considered have been updated and edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added.
Chapter 12 describes the RDA system. Dates and years for which data are considered have been updated. Edits for clarity regarding consistent language and terminology have been added. Detailed language regarding the change of report only to performance level assignment indicators for Bilingual Education/ English as a Second Language/ Emergent Bilingual was added.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES: The public comment period on the proposal began February 23, 2024, and ended March 25, 2024, and included a public hearing on March 5, 2024. Following is a summary of public comments received and agency responses.
Accelerated Testers
Comment: Alief Independent School District (ISD) and two school administrators suggested that the accelerated testers' masters level standards are too high and that the ACT/SAT proficiency scores are not equivalent to high school coursework.
Response: The agency disagrees that the accelerated testers' masters level standards are too high, as they were first introduced in 2021 accountability using actual Texas statewide SAT results. TEA will continue to monitor accelerated testers' data for any necessary adjustments for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
Comment: A school administrator requested that the SAT cross-test for science be considered as an option for accelerated testers.
Response: The agency disagrees as policy changes are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to consider changes to accelerated testers' policy for future accountability refresh cycles.
Advanced Math Pathways
Comment: COMMIT, TX2036, and a parent commented that there is a lack of recognition of Algebra I in middle school, particularly considering Senate Bill (SB) 2124, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, and urged the agency to consider strategies to ensure legislative requirements are met and expand public reporting on relevant data points to support local decision-making.
Response: The agency agrees that research has shown the importance of access to advanced math pathways; however, the agency disagrees with making changes that are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. TEA will continue to research and analyze alternatives, such as bonus points, for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
Industry Based Certifications/ Programs of Study
Comment: A school administrator suggested a need to review the completer methodology for special student populations, including students with special needs or non-English language backgrounds.
Response: The agency disagrees. Statute requires that program of study completion is included in college, career, and military readiness (CCMR). In addition, there continue to be multiple ways for students to demonstrate CCMR.
Comment: Two school administrators suggested that the agency amend the phase-in for how IBCs count for CCMR credit to align with the intent of House Bill 773, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021, which indicated that completion of a program of study would meet criteria for CCMR in and of itself as noted in TEC, §39.053(c)(1)(B).
Response: The agency disagrees that program of study completion and IBC attainment are as strong independently as indicators of a student's college or career readiness as they are when they are combined.
CCMR Indicators
Comment: Two school administrators, the College Board, and a teacher suggested adding College Level Examination Program (CLEP) tests as a stand-alone measure for CCMR, which would offer students another viable option to demonstrate readiness, potentially saving costs.
Response: The agency disagrees as policy changes are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to consider the CCMR indicators for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
Comment: COMMIT and TX2036 supported efforts to improve the rigor of CCMR criteria and requested tiering CCMR indicators within the system to prioritize metrics linked to greater postsecondary success.
Response: The agency agrees that some CCMR indicators are better aligned with postsecondary success or are more in demand than others. The agency studied this suggestion as part of the 2023 A-F Refresh stakeholder feedback process and has previously communicated that additional validity requirements based on supply and demand and wage data will continue to be researched for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
Comment: Two school administrators suggested that any future changes to CCMR guidelines should apply to future cohorts only and not apply to current or past cohorts, with accompanying financial assistance to help districts meet requirements.
Response: The agency agrees that future changes to CCMR guidelines should be provided with as much advance notice as possible. However, for CCMR to be an accurate and responsive measure of readiness for postsecondary success, some changes may not be able to be delayed four years for a new student cohort. TEA will continue to provide advance notice of changes related to the accountability system and work with stakeholders to model and monitor CCMR data for future accountability refresh cycles.
Comment: Two Texas parents commented that CCMR should offer options to take college preparatory classes in Grade 10 or 11.
Response: The agency disagrees. Chapter 2 of the 2024 Accountability Manual includes language clarifying the statutory requirements for college preparatory courses.
Alternative Education Accountability (AEA)/Dropout Recovery System (DRS)
Comment: The Texas Public Charter Schools Association (TPCSA) commented in support of some of the changes in the 2024 proposed manual and requested that TEA model data from the class of 2024 to determine changes for 2025 regarding IBC and programs of study for dropout recovery schools.
Response: The agency agrees and will continue to convene stakeholders with expertise in dropout recovery schools and model and monitor data for future years of accountability.
Comment: TPCSA commented that AEA/DRS should be recognized with their own system for distinction designations and badges.
Response: The agency disagrees as such changes are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. The agency will continue to convene stakeholders with expertise in DRS, and TEA will explore adding AEA/DRS distinctions for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
Comment: A school administrator suggested that an attrition rate methodology be considered for DRS/AEAs.
Response: The agency disagrees as such changes are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. TEA will explore such a change for the next A-F accountability refresh.
Academic Growth
Comment: A school administrator commented that the transition table for academic growth needs to be different for students testing in different languages (English and Spanish) each year.
Response: The agency disagrees. One of the benefits of moving to a transition table model is the inclusion of more students in the growth calculation. This includes students moving from English to Spanish in the case that they take these assessments for the first time in the same year.
Domain III Scoring Methodology
Comment: Waskom ISD and a school administrator suggested a revision to the calculation methodology for Domain 3's 2-point value to utilize only the 3-point target (current interim) rather than the next interim.
Response: The agency disagrees as changes to the methodology are beyond the scope of the current proposal. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to model and monitor Domain 3 methodology changes for future implementation into the next refresh of the A-F system.
TELPAS Methodology
Comment: A Texas school administrator, TPCSA, and an individual agreed with the proposed manual keeping the 2023 Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) growth methodology, which uses domain scores and not composite scores.
Response: The agency agrees with maintaining the 2023 TELPAS growth methodology.
Comment: Alief ISD commented that the TELPAS standards do not account for students from different backgrounds.
Response: The agency disagrees with setting different cut points for students from different backgrounds. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders and monitor any disproportionate impact of TELPAS standards.
Comment: A school administrator commented that if TELPAS composite methodology is used for 2025 accountability, scores should not be rounded.
Response: The agency agrees to model the TELPAS composite methodology data for the 2025 accountability cycle.
Identification of Schools in Improvement
Comment: A Texas school administrator suggested that new campuses either be excluded from being identified as a comprehensive support campus for the first year upon opening or be paired with an existing campus, or that a new methodology be developed that would allow for more opportunities to earn a score of 1 or 2 for approaching the 3-point target in year one.
Response: The agency disagrees. Identifications must include the schools in the bottom 5% of Title I campuses for comprehensive support and improvement (CSI). TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to model and monitor CSI identification data for future accountability refresh cycles.
Comment: A Texas school administrator and Lead4ward recommended not publishing the Public Education Grant (PEG) list until the final accountability ratings are released.
Response: The agency agrees that clarification is needed regarding publishing the final PEG list. At adoption, language has been adjusted to add clarity in Chapter 9 of the manual.
3 D's and 3 F's Requirement
Comment: Two Texas school administrators suggested that the three Fs and three Ds requirement should be removed from the 2024 Accountability Manual, specifically from Chapter 5 regarding calculating ratings.
Response: The agency disagrees. The D and F requirement is aligned with the redefinition of acceptable and unacceptable performance in SB 1365, 87th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2021. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to consider policy implementation for future accountability refresh cycles.
District/Campus Ratings
Comment: A Texas school administrator suggested that the requirement capping the overall district rating or domain rating at 89 if a single campus receives a score below 70 should be removed.
Response: The agency disagrees. A district may not receive an overall or domain performance rating of A if the district includes any campus with a corresponding overall or domain performance rating of D or F per TEC, §39.054. TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to consider policy implementation for future accountability refresh cycles.
Comment: A Texas school administrator proposed that district ratings should acknowledge each campus's strengths, whether it's in Domain I, Domain II-A, or Domain II-B, rather than adhering strictly to the methodology outlined in the 2023 Accountability Manual.
Response: The agency disagrees as the district proportional weight methodology is intentionally aligned with campus results.
Comment: A school administrator suggested that a new formula is needed to identify campus types throughout the A-F accountability system.
Response: The agency disagrees with setting new cut points for different campus types as such changes are beyond the scope of the current rule proposal. TEA will continue to monitor any disproportionate impact to different campus types.
Accountability Manual Release
Comment: TPCSA commented in support of TEA's efforts to release the 2024 Accountability Manual for public comment earlier in the year but suggested that a preliminary or near-final accountability manual be released by October of the school year to allow schools to better monitor progress against established requirements.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. However, for future updates to the system, TEA will continue to work with stakeholders to explore the communication timelines.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested publishing the appendices with the proposed accountability manual.
Response: The agency disagrees as the proposed accountability manual has already been published. The appendices will be published as soon as it is feasible after the adoption of the new manual.
Various Edits for Clarification
Comment: A Texas school administrator suggested clarification on page 26 of the manual that State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) Spanish to STAAR® would be used for growth, potentially within the third bullet point for clarity.
Response: The agency agrees and has made a change at adoption to add clarity on page 26 of the manual that STAAR® Spanish to STAAR® would be used for growth.
Comment: A Texas school administrator suggested that clarity should be added on page 32 regarding who qualifies as a retester and specify which end-of-course exams are used for AEA Retest Growth.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest descriptions. In addition, maintaining language as proposed will ensure that the agency does not signal a change to methodology where there is not a change.
Comment: A Texas school administrator suggested that definitions of how dropout rates are calculated, particularly in the sections addressing dropouts and previous dropouts, should be clearly defined to prevent misconceptions.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest descriptions. TEA will consider the language for future accountability refresh cycles.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested simplifying EB students/ELs to a simpler term.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest terms used that align to additional content in the manual. TEA will consider the language for future accountability refresh cycles.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested clarifying how student demographic data is used in TIDE to identify EB students.
Response: The agency agrees and has made a change at adoption to clarify how student demographic data is used in TIDE to identify EB students.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested including the definition of EL Performance Measures.
Response: The agency agrees and has made a change at adoption to clarify the definition of EL Performance Measures in Chapter 2.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested clarifying when EL Performance Measures are used.
Response: The agency agrees and has made a change at adoption to clarify when EL Performance Measures are used in Chapters 2, 3, and 4.
Comment: Lead4ward and a school administrator suggested including the inclusion/exclusion of EB students in various indicators and domains.
Response: The agency disagrees as the definitions are summarized in Appendix H where the criteria is listed.
Comment: A Texas school administrator requested additional percentages be added to a chart used for the identification of targeted support campuses in Chapter 10.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest descriptions. In addition, maintaining language as proposed will ensure that the agency does not signal a change to methodology where there is not a change.
Comment: A Texas school administrator highlighted a need for clarity regarding the use of scaled scores, particularly concerning whether the goal for improvement consequences involves achieving a full letter grade increase or a specific increase in the scale score, such as from 40 to 50.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest descriptions. In addition, maintaining language as proposed will ensure that the agency does not signal a change to methodology where there is not a change.
Comment: A Texas school administrator requested clarification of the exit criteria for comprehensive campuses in Chapter 10.
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the proposed language presents the clearest descriptions. In addition, maintaining language as proposed will ensure that the agency does not signal a change to methodology where there is not a change.
Comment: Several administrators and Lead4ward commented on various typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manual and suggested changes that would provide clarity to the content.
Response: The agency agrees and has made various typographical and grammatical updates to the manual based on stakeholder feedback to provide clarity throughout the manual.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendment is adopted under Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.021(b)(1), which authorizes the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to administer and monitor compliance with education programs required by federal or state law, including federal funding and state funding for those programs; TEC, §7.028, which authorizes TEA to monitor as necessary to ensure school district and charter school compliance with federal law and regulations, financial integrity, and data integrity and authorizes the agency to monitor school district and charter schools through its investigative process. TEC, §7.028(a), authorizes TEA to monitor special education programs for compliance with state and federal laws; TEC, §12.056, which requires that a campus or program for which a charter is granted under TEC, Chapter 12, Subchapter C, is subject to any prohibition relating to the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) to the extent necessary to monitor compliance with TEC, Chapter 12, Subchapter C, as determined by the commissioner; high school graduation under TEC, §28.025; special education programs under TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter A; bilingual education under TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter B; and public school accountability under TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapters B, C, D, F, and J, and Chapter 39A; TEC, §12.104, which states that a charter granted under TEC, Chapter 12, Subchapter D, is subject to a prohibition, restriction, or requirement, as applicable, imposed by TEC, Title 2, or a rule adopted under TEC, Title 2, relating to PEIMS to the extent necessary to monitor compliance with TEC, Chapter 12, Subchapter D, as determined by the commissioner; high school graduation requirements under TEC, §28.025; special education programs under TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter A; bilingual education under TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter B; discipline management practices or behavior management techniques under TEC, §37.0021; public school accountability under TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapters B, C, D, F, G, and J, and Chapter 39A; and intensive programs of instruction under TEC, §28.0213; TEC, §29.001, which authorizes TEA to effectively monitor all local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure that rules relating to the delivery of services to children with disabilities are applied in a consistent and uniform manner, to ensure that LEAs are complying with those rules, and to ensure that specific reports filed by LEAs are accurate and complete; TEC, §29.0011(b), which authorizes TEA to meet the requirements under (1) 20 U.S.C. Section 1418(d) and its implementing regulations to collect and examine data to determine whether significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring in the state and in the school districts and open-enrollment charter schools in the state with respect to the (a) identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with particular impairments; (b) placement of children with disabilities in particular educational settings; and (c) incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions taken against children with disabilities including suspensions or expulsions; or (2) 20 U.S.C. Section 1416(a)(3)(C) and its implementing regulations to address in the statewide plan the percentage of schools with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services and in specific disability categories that results from inappropriate identification; TEC, §29.010(a), which authorizes TEA to adopt and implement a comprehensive system for monitoring LEA compliance with federal and state laws relating to special education, including ongoing analysis of LEA special education data; TEC, §29.062, which authorizes TEA to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of LEA programs and apply sanctions concerning emergent bilingual students; TEC, §29.066, which authorizes PEIMS reporting requirements for school districts that are required to offer bilingual education or special language programs to include the following information in the district's PEIMS report: (1) demographic information, as determined by the commissioner, on students enrolled in district bilingual education or special language programs; (2) the number and percentage of students enrolled in each instructional model of a bilingual education or special language program offered by the district; and (3) the number and percentage of emergent bilingual students who do not receive specialized instruction; TEC, §29.081(e), (e-1), and (e-2), which define criteria for alternative education programs for students at risk of dropping out of school and subjects those campuses to the performance indicators and accountability standards adopted for alternative education programs; TEC, §29.201 and §29.202, which describe the Public Education Grant program and eligibility requirements; TEC, §39.003 and §39.004, which authorize the commissioner to adopt procedures relating to special investigations. TEC, §39.003(d), allows the commissioner to take appropriate action under Chapter 39A, to lower the district's accreditation status or the district's or campus's accountability rating based on the results of the special investigation; TEC, §39.051 and §39.052, which authorize the commissioner to determine criteria for accreditation statuses and to determine the accreditation status of each school district and open-enrollment charter school; TEC, §39.053, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt a set of indicators of the quality of learning and achievement and requires the commissioner to periodically review the indicators for consideration of appropriate revisions; TEC, §39.054, which requires the commissioner to adopt rules to evaluate school district and campus performance and to assign a performance rating; TEC, §39.0541, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt indicators and standards under TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapter C, at any time during a school year before the evaluation of a school district or campus; TEC, §39.0543, which describes acceptable and unacceptable performance as referenced in law; TEC, §39.0546, which requires the commissioner to assign a school district or campus a rating of "Not Rated" for the 2021-2022 school year, unless, after reviewing the district or campus under the methods and standards adopted under Section 39.054, the commissioner determines the district or campus should be assigned an overall performance rating of C or higher; TEC, §39.0548, which requires the commissioner to designate campuses that meet specific criteria as dropout recovery schools and to use specific indicators to evaluate them; TEC, §39.055, which prohibits the use of assessment results and other performance indicators of students in a residential facility in state accountability; TEC, §39.056,which authorizes the commissioner to adopt procedures relating to monitoring reviews and special investigations; TEC, §39.151, which provides a process for a school district or an open-enrollment charter school to challenge an academic or financial accountability rating; TEC, §39.201, which requires the commissioner to award distinction designations to a campus or district for outstanding performance; TEC, §39.2011,which makes open-enrollment charter schools and campuses that earn an acceptable rating eligible for distinction designations; TEC, §39.202 and §39.203, which authorize the commissioner to establish criteria for distinction designations for campuses and districts; TEC, §39A.001, which authorizes the commissioner to take any of the actions authorized by TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapter A, to the extent the commissioner determines necessary if a school does not satisfy the academic performance standards under TEC, §39.053 or §39.054, or based upon a special investigation; TEC, §39A.002, which authorizes the commissioner to take certain actions if a school district becomes subject to commissioner action under TEC, §39A.001; TEC, §39A.004, which authorizes the commissioner to appoint a board of managers to exercise the powers and duties of a school district's board of trustees if the district is subject to commissioner action under TEC, §39A.001, and has a current accreditation status of accredited-warned or accredited-probation; or fails to satisfy any standard under TEC, §39.054(e); or fails to satisfy any financial accountability standard; TEC, §39A.005, which authorizes the commissioner to revoke school accreditation if the district is subject to TEC, §39A.001, and for two consecutive school years has received an accreditation status of accredited-warned or accredited-probation, failed to satisfy any standard under TEC, §39.054(e), or failed to satisfy a financial performance standard; TEC, §39A.007, which authorizes the commissioner to impose a sanction designed to improve high school completion rates if the district has failed to satisfy any standard under TEC, §39.054(e), due to high school completion rates; and TEC, §39A.051, which authorizes the commissioner to take action based on campus performance that is below any standard under TEC, §39.054(e).
CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The amendment implements Texas Education Code, §§7.021(b)(1); 7.028; 12.056; 12.104; 29.001; 29.0011(b); 29.010(a); 29.062; 29.066; 29.081(e), (e-1), and (e-2); 29.201; 29.202; 39.003; 39.004; 39.051; 39.052; 39.053; 39.054; 39.0541; 39.0543; 39.0546; 39.0548; 39.055; 39.056; 39.151; 39.201; 39.2011; 39.202; 39.203; 39A.001; 39A.002; 39A.004; 39A.005; 39A.007; 39A.051; and 39A.063.
§97.1001.Accountability Rating System.
(a) The rating standards established by the commissioner of education under Texas Education Code (TEC), §§39.052(a) and (b)(1)(A); 39.053, 39.054, 39.0541, 39.0548, 39.055, 39.151, 39.201, 39.2011, 39.202, 39.203, 29.081(e), (e-1), and (e-2), and 12.104(b)(2)(L), shall be used to evaluate the performance of districts, campuses, and charter schools. The indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine ratings will be annually published in official Texas Education Agency publications. These publications will be widely disseminated and cover the following:
(1) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine district ratings;
(2) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine campus ratings;
(3) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine distinction designations; and
(4) procedures for submitting a rating appeal.
(b) The procedures by which districts, campuses, and charter schools are rated and acknowledged for 2024 are based upon specific criteria and calculations, which are described in excerpted sections of the 2024 Accountability Manual provided in this subsection.
Figure: 19 TAC §97.1001(b) (.pdf)
(c) Ratings may be revised as a result of investigative activities by the commissioner as authorized under TEC, §39.057.
(d) The specific criteria and calculations used in the accountability manual are established annually by the commissioner and communicated to all school districts and charter schools.
(e) The specific criteria and calculations used in the annual accountability manual adopted for prior school years remain in effect for all purposes, including accountability, data standards, and audits, with respect to those school years.
(f)In accordance with TEC, §7.028(a), the purpose of the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) framework is to evaluate and report annually on the performance of school districts and charter schools for certain populations of students included in selected program areas. The performance of a school district or charter school is included in the RDA report through indicators of student performance and program effectiveness and corresponding performance levels established by the commissioner.
(g) The assignment of performance levels for school districts and charter schools in the 2024 RDA report is based on specific criteria and calculations, which are described in the 2024 Accountability Manual provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(h) The specific criteria and calculations used in the RDA framework are established annually by the commissioner and communicated to all school districts and charter schools.
(i) The specific criteria and calculations used in the annual RDA manual adopted for prior school years remain in effect for all purposes, including accountability and performance monitoring, data standards, and audits, with respect to those school years.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 24, 2024.
TRD-202401726
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Rulemaking
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: May 14, 2024
Proposal publication date: February 23, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497