Undergraduate Education in Texas

______

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN TEXAS

January 2007

______

Prepared by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 1200 East Anderson Lane PO Box 12788 Austin, Texas 78711 http://www.thecb.state.tx.us

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Board Member Term Hometown

Mr. Robert W. Shepard, Chairman 1997-2009 Harlingen Mr. Neal W. Adams, Vice Chairman 2001-2007 Bedford Ms. Lorraine Perryman, Secretary of the Board 2001-2007 Odessa Ms. Laurie Bricker 2004-2009 Houston Mr. Paul Foster 2004-2009 El Paso Mr. Fred W. Heldenfels IV 2006-2007 Austin Mr. Joe B. Hinton 2005-2011 Crawford Mr. George Louis McWilliams 2004-2007 Texarkana Ms. Elaine Mendoza 2005-2011 San Antonio Ms. Nancy R. Neal 2004-2007 Lubbock Dr. Lyn Bracewell Phillips 2005-2011 Bastrop Mr. Curtis E. Ransom 2001-2007 Dallas Mr. A. W. “Whit” Riter 2004-2011 Tyler

Mission of the Coordinating Board

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s mission is to work with the Legislature, Governor, governing boards, higher education institutions and other entities to help Texas meet the goals of the state’s higher education plan, Closing the Gaps by 2015, and thereby provide the people of Texas the widest access to higher education of the highest quality in the most efficient manner.

Philosophy of the Coordinating Board

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that quality without access is unacceptable. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies. The Coordinating Board will engage in actions that add value to Texas and to higher education. The agency will avoid efforts that do not add value or that are duplicated by other entities.

______

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... i

PART I: Demographics of Undergraduate Education in Texas ...... 1

Section 1: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates (10 Most Populous States vs. Texas) Section 2: Undergraduate Degrees by Discipline (U.S. & Texas) Section 3: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates by Gender (U.S. & Texas) Section 4: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates by Ethnicity (U.S. & Texas) Section 5: Participation and Retention Rates by Region and by Institution Section 6: Time-to-Degree by Region and by Institution Section 7: Completion Rates by Region and by Institution Section 8: General Placement Rates by Region and by Institution Section 9: Costs of Undergraduate Education in Texas

PART II: Undergraduate Initiatives ...... 39

Section 1: Background Section 2: Initiatives and Critical Issues Section 3 Types of Undergraduate Institutions in Texas Section 4: Pre-College Credit Section 5: Developmental Education Section 6: Transfer of Credit Section 7: Workforce Education in Texas

Appendices

A1. Total high school graduates vs. total Hispanic graduates in 2001-2002 for the 10 most populous states

A2. Total fall enrollment in 1999 and 2004 for the 10 most populous states

A3. Total first time freshmen fall enrollment in 2000 and 2003 for the 10 most populous states with percentage increase

A4. Total enrollment vs. total Hispanic enrollment in fall 2003 for the 10 most populous states

A5. Ratio of undergraduate degrees to high school graduates in 2001-2002 for the 10 most populous states Executive Summary

Undergraduate education affects most of the students in higher education as roughly 90 percent of the total enrollment in Texas public post-secondary institutions is at the undergraduate level.

Demographically, Texas is below other large states in the percentage of its population that is enrolled in undergraduate institutions and in the number of graduates. However, the percentage of certificates awarded in Texas is higher than most large states in the United States. Most bachelor’s degrees are awarded in Business; most associate’s degrees are awarded in liberal and fine arts. More women than men receive undergraduate degrees or certificates in Texas. African American and Hispanic students receive proportionately fewer degrees (than their population percentages in Texas) than Whites or Asian Americans.

Undergraduate enrollments are growing fastest in three Texas regions: Gulf Coast, Metroplex, and South Texas. One year retention rates have been relatively stable over the past four years, increasing slightly from 86.5 percent to 86.7 percent across the state. The average number of semesters required to earn a baccalaureate degree was 10 (ranging from 9 to 12 across all institutions).

The cost to the student (tuition and fees) for a baccalaureate degree at public general academic institutions has increased from $1,931 (1996) to $4,962 (2005), a 257 percent increase. During that same time period, costs to the state rose from $5,607 to $7,003, a 24.9 percent increase.

Undergraduate education received much attention in Texas in 2006, and it will receive more in coming years. Several initiatives, such as efforts to achieve the goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015 and a focus on the transferability of courses from one institution to another (Field of Study curricula, core curricula, and the common course numbering system) have been underway for some time. Another continuing challenge is the growth in the need for developmental education courses as students come to college under prepared. However, workforce education at all community and technical colleges continues to place graduates in high-demand, high-wage jobs.

More recent developments include House Bill 1 initiatives on course redesign, dual credit courses, and college-readiness curricula among others. Current statewide efforts at strengthening undergraduate education include P-16 Councils, an accountability system, and the formation of an Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee at the Coordinating Board. Texas has invested substantial resources in the enhancement of the undergraduate education experience.

i Introduction

This report, which is the first portion of a three-part study, examines the state of undergraduate education delivered at public colleges and universities in Texas. It covers issues and initiatives affecting certificate programs, associate’s degrees, and bachelor’s degrees.

Part One of the report provides pertinent demographic information about undergraduate education in Texas. Utilizing the Coordinating Board’s extensive data resources on undergraduate students in Texas, as well as other vital sources of statistical information, Sections 1-9 present both state and national comparative data on topics such as participation and attrition rates, time-to-degree and completion rates, selected placement rates, and costs of undergraduate education.1

Part Two has seven sections: (1) a brief descriptive overview of undergraduate education in Texas to provide the historical context of current and future initiatives, (2) an introduction of several new initiatives and critical issues affecting undergraduate education, (3) types of undergraduate institutions in Texas, (4) an overview of pre-college credit, (5) a review of the state of developmental education and its role in the success of undergraduate education, (6) a discussion of the mechanisms established to support the transfer of credit, and (7) a review of the impact of workforce development on the effectiveness of undergraduate education.

Part Three, which will be completed subsequent to this report, will contain analysis of the information from Parts One and Two, as well as the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee’s recommendations for enhancing undergraduate education to better meet the goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015, the state’s higher education plan.

Part I: Demographics of Undergraduate Education in Texas

This part of the report provides comparative data between Texas and the other nine most populous states on undergraduate enrollment, degrees and certificates awarded, and gender and ethnic representation in higher education. It also includes Texas data by region and by institution on participation, retention rates, time-to-degree, completion rates, and selected placement rates. The last part includes information about changes in the cost of undergraduate education both to the student and to the state.

1 Kokyung Soon, a University of Texas doctoral student intern, provided the data analysis and charts for these sections.

1 Section 1: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates (Ten Most Populous State vs. Texas)

The population of Texas is approximately 7.7 percent of the total U.S. population. However, in 2004, Texas enrolled 7.3 percent of the undergraduate students in the country.

PercenPercentagetage of undergraduaattee enrollmentenrollment in Texas is behind its percentaggee of population

15% +2.1% in the U.S.

12% Est. 2004 Pop.

10% Enrollment -0.4% 7% -0.4% -0.7% 5% +0.2% -0.3% +0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.8% 2%

0% CA MI IL OH PA NY GA TX FL NJ Pop. 12.22%% 3.4% 4.4.33%% 3.9% 4.2% 6.6% 3.0% 7.7% 5.9% 3.0% Enr 14.33%% 3.6% 4.4.55%% 3.6% 3.9% 6.2% 2.6% 7.3% 5.2% 2.2%

Source: Census Bureau and WebCASPAR THECB 12/2006

2 In 2004, Texas awarded 6.3 percent of the total undergraduate degrees and certificates in the U.S.

Percentage of undergraduate degrees and certicertificatesficates awarded in TeTexasxas is lower than the

14%state’s percentapercentagege ofof populapopulationtion in the U.S. -1.2% 12% Est. 2004 Pop.

10% Underg. Degrees & certificates -1.4% 8% +1.0% -0.1% 6% +0.5% 0% 0% -0.2% 4% -0.4% -0.9%

0% NY PA MI IL FL OH GA NJ CA TX PPPop.Pop.op. 6.66.6%% 4.24.2%% 3.43.4%%% 4.34.3%%% 5.95.9%%% 3.93.9%%% 3.03.0%% 3.03.0%% 12.212.2%% 7.77.7%% DegDegDeg.. 7.57.5%%% 4.74.7%%% 3.53.5%% 4.34.3%% 5.85.8%%% 3.73.7%% 2.62.6%% 2.12.1%% 11.011.0%%% 6.36.3%%

Source: Census Bureau and WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

In 2004, Texas awarded 6.1 percent of the baccalaureate degrees in the U.S.

PercentaPercentagege ofof bacbaccalaureacalaureatete degrees awardawardeded in Texas is lower than ththee state’s percentage of

14% population in the U.S. -2.3% 12% Est. 2004 Pop. Bac. Degree 10% +1.2% -1.5% 8% -1.4% 6% +1.2% -0.1% +0.2% +0.1% 4% -0.5% -0.8%

0% NY PA MI OH IL GA NJ FL TX CA Pop.Pop.Pop. 6.66.6%%% 4.24.2%% 3.43.4%% 3.93.9%% 4.34.3%% 3.3.3.03.000%%%% 3.03.0%%% 5.95.9%%% 7.7.7.77.777%%%% 12.212.2%% Deg.Deg. 7.77.7%%% 5.45.4%% 3.63.6%% 4.04.0%% 4.34.3%%% 2.2.2.62.666%%%% 2.22.2%%% 4.64.6%% 6.6.6.16.111%%%% 9.99.9%% Source: Census Bureau and WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

3 In 2004, Texas awarded 5.9 percent of the associate degrees in the U.S.

PercePercentagentage of associate degrees awarded in Texas is lower than the state’s percentage of populationpopulation in the U.S. 14% +1.2%

12% Est. 2004 Pop. Assoc. Degree 10% +2.7% +1.8% -1.7% 8%

6% 0% -0.2% -0.5% -0.5% 4% -0.8% -1.1%

0% FL NY CA IL MI OH PA NJ GA TX PPPop.Pop.op.op. 5.5.99%%% 6.6.66%% 121212.12..2.222%% 4.4.33%%% 3.3.44%%% 3.3.99%%% 4.4.22%% 3.3.00%%% 3.03.03.3.00%% 7.7.77%% DeDeDeg.Deg.gg.. 8.8.66%%% 8.8.44%% 131313.13..5.555%% 4.4.33%%% 3.3.33%%% 3.3.44%%% 3.3.77%%% 2.2.11%%% 1.91.91.1.99%% 5.5.99%% Source: Census Bureau and WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

In 2004, Texas awarded a higher percentage of certificates than the majority of the other populous states. Texas awarded 9.5 percent of the certificates, higher than the state’s percentage of population.

Percentage of certificates awarded in Texas surpasses the state’s perceentagntagee of population

14% in the U.S. -1.7% 12% Est. 2004 Pop. Certificates 10% +1.8%

8% -4.3% +3.0% -0.9% 6% +0.4% -1.0% -0.3% -1.4% 4% -2.4% 2%

0% GA TX IL MI FL PA OH CA NJ NY Pop.Pop. 3.3.00%% 7.7.77%% 4.4.33%% 3.3.44%%% 5.5.99%%% 4.4.22%%% 3.3.99%% 12.12.1212..222%%% 3.3.00%% 6.6.66%% Deg.Deg. 6.6.11%%% 9.9.55%% 4.4.77%% 3.3.22%%% 2.2.33%% 3.3.22%%% 2.2.55%% 10.10.1010..555%%% 0.0.55%% 2.2.33%% Source: Census Bureau and WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

4 The number of undergraduate degrees and certificates awarded in the U.S. has steadily increased from 1994 to 2004.

UndergrUndergraduateaduate degrees and certificates awarded in U.S. from 1994-2004 +19.7% +10.5% 1,399,541 1,400,000 +1.3% +5.9% 1,291,910 -0.4% 1,237,875 1,169,269 1,164,789 1,184,389 1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 +22.6% +2.4% +3.0% +4.1% +9.7% 665,301 595,133 600,000 542,449 555,216 558,555 564,933

400,000 -10.8% -11.6% +7.1% -3.6% +14.2% 200,000 138,042 123,075 121,987 128,259 133,078 157,589

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Bac. Degree Assoc. Degree Certificate THECB 10/2006 Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available.

The number of undergraduate degrees and certificates awarded in Texas has also increased during this period.

Undergraduate degrees and certificates awarded in Texas from 1994-2004 +23.4% 90,000 +14.9% 85,539 9.4% 79,595 80,000 +2.0% +3.6% 75,834 71,771 69,298 70,704 70,000

60,000

50,000 +52.4% +23.4% 39,302 40,000 +9.2% 19.5% 30,816 31,831 +0.5% 28,163 30,000 25,787 25,912 +37.7% 20,000 -1.8% +2.3% +9.9% 14,896 10,818 -5.9% 10,624 11,070 10,176 11,889 10,000

0 * 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Bac. Degree Assoc. Degree Certificate Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

5 Section 2: Undergraduates Degrees by Discipline (U.S. vs. Texas)

The distribution of baccalaureate degrees awarded by discipline in the U.S. and Texas is similar, with the exception of degrees in education. Since Texas does not offer an undergraduate degree solely in the field of education, the percentage of education degrees conferred in Texas is significantly lower than in the U.S. (8 % vs. 3 %). Business, social sciences, liberal arts/fine arts/architecture, information science, and natural sciences and math make up more than 70 percent of the baccalaureate degrees awarded in Texas and nationally.

Total U.S. baccalaureate degrees awarded by discipline groups in 2004

4% 5% 6% 22% Business Soc Sciences & Serv 6% Lib, Fine Arts, Arch Info Sciences Nat Sciences & Math 8% Education Engineering 16% 8% Psychology Health Other 9% 16%

Source: WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

Total Texas baccalaureate degrees awarded by discipline groups in 2004

11% 3% 25% Business 5% Soc Sciences & Serv Lib, Fine Arts, Arch 5% Nat Sciences & Math Info Sciences 6% Engineering Psychology 14% Health 8% Education Other 10% 13%

Source: WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

6 The distribution of associate degrees awarded by discipline in the U.S. and Texas is very similar. Liberal arts/fine arts/architecture make us a large portion of the associate degrees awarded (38 percent nationally and 34 percent in Texas). The second highest discipline at the associate level is health (16 percent nationally and 15 percent in Texas), followed by business (14 percent nationally and 11 percent in Texas).

Total U.S. associate degrees awarded by discipline groups in 2004

0% 2% 4% 2% 7% Lib, Fine Arts, Arch Health 8% 38% Business Engineering Soc Sciences & Serv Info Sciences 9% Eduction Nat Sciences & Math Psychology Other 14% 16%

Source: WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

ToTotaltal Texas associate degrees awarded by discipline groups in 2004

1% 3% 6%

4% Lib, Fine Arts, Arch Health 34% 7% Business Engineering Soc Sciences & Serv 8% Info Sciences Education Nat Sciences & Math 11% Psychology Other 15% 11%

Source: WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

7 Section 3: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates by Gender (U.S. vs. Texas)

The percentage of total undergraduate degrees and certificates awarded to females in Texas has gradually increased and surpasses that of males. In 2004, females earned approximately 16.8 percent more of the undergraduate awards than males. The distributional difference between females and males in Texas is similar to that of the entire country.

Number and percentage of undergraduate degreedegreess and certificates awarded by gender in Texas

Female Male 41.6% 140000 42.2% 43.5% 42.1% 120000 42.9% 44.4% 43.7% 43.5% 43.6% 100000

80000 58.4% 57.9% 57.8% 60000 57.1% 55.5% 55.6% 56.3% 56.5% 56.4% 40000

20000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

Number and percentage of undergraduate degrees and certificates awarded by gender in the U.S.

Female Male 2500000 41.2% 41.6% 42.0% 41.7% 2000000 43.4% 42.7% 42.3% 42.0% 41.9%

1500000 58.8% 58.3% 58.4% 1000000 58.1% 58.0% 56.6% 57.3% 57.7% 58.0%

500000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

8 The percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded to females in Texas has gradually increased and surpasses that of males. In 2004, females earned approximately 16.6 percent more of the baccalaureate degrees than males. The distributional difference in females and males Texas between is similar to that of entire country.

Number and percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded by gender in Texas

Female Male 90000 41.7% 41.9% 42.1% 80000 42.7% 42.7% 44.9% 44.4% 44.2% 43.9% 70000 60000 50000 57.9% 58.3% 40000 57.3% 58.1% 55.1% 55.6% 55.8% 56.1% 57.3% 30000 20000 10000 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

Number and percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded by gender in the U.S.

Female Male 42.4% 1400000 42.4% 42.7% 42.6% 42.4% 43.8% 1200000 45.2% 44.7% 44.3%

1000000

800000 57.6% 57.6% 57.4% 57.6% 600000 54.8% 55.3% 55.7% 56.2% 57.3% 400000

200000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

9 The percentage of associate degrees awarded to females in Texas has gradually increased and surpasses that of males. In 2004, females earned approximately 17.6 percent more of the associate degrees than males. The distributional difference between females and males is more pronounced nationally, where females earned 21.8 percent more associate degrees than males.

Number and percentage of associate degrees awarded by gender in Texas

Female Male 40000 41.2% 35000 43.0% 44.2% 45.6% 43.1% 30000 43.7% 42.9% 42.5% 42.3% 25000 20000 58.8% 57.0% 56.9% 15000 55.8% 54.4% 57.1% 57.5% 57.7% 56.3% 10000 5000 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

Number and percentage of associate degrees awarded by gender in the U.S.

Female Male 700000 39.1% 39.9% 40.0% 600000 39.1% 39.9% 40.0% 40.4% 39.5% 38.9% 500000

400000 60.9% 60.1% 60.9% 60.0% 60.0% 300000 59.6% 60.5% 61.1% 60.1% 200000

100000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

10 The percentage of certificates awarded to females in Texas has gradually increased and surpasses that of males. In 2004, females earned approximately 16.4 percent more of the certificates than males. The distributional difference between females and males is more pronounced nationally, where females earned 20.4 percent more certificates than males.

Number and percentage of certificates awarded by gender in Texas

Female Male 41.8% 40.5% 14000 40.4% 12000 44.0% 41.6% 41.8% 42.1% 42.6% 40.0% 10000

8000 58.2% 59.5% 59.6% 6000 56.0% 58.4% 58.2% 57.9% 60.0% 57.4% 4000

2000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

Number and percentage of certificates awarded by gender in the U.S.

Female Male 39.8% 160000 41.3% 40.1% 41.6% 140000 38.1% 42.8% 44.1% 37.8% 39.3% 120000 100000 60.2% 80000 59.9% 58.7% 61.9% 62.2% 60.7% 57.2% 55.9% 58.4% 60000 40000 20000 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: WebCASPAR *Note: 1999 data not available. THECB 10/2006

11 Section 4: Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates by Ethnicity (U.S. vs. Texas)

Ethnic disparities continue to exist in the distribution of undergraduate degrees and certificates. Between 2000 and 2004, the gap narrowed nationally, but African American students still receive a disproportionately lower percentage of total undergraduate degrees and certificates than their percentage in the total population. The gap for Hispanics has widened. In 2004, Hispanic students received a smaller percentage of undergraduate awards in relation to their percent of total population than in 2000.

Total undergraduundergraduateate degrees and certificates in U.S. by ethnicity 80% +6.2% +5.7% Population 70%

60% Degrees and certificates awarded 50%

40%

30%

20% -2.4% -1.8% -3.7% -4.3% +2.3% +1.7% 10%

0% 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004

African Am Asian Am/Pacific Hispanic White Islander

Source: Census Bureau, WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

12 The gap is even greater for Hispanics in Texas. While the national data show a 3.7 percent gap and a 4.3 percent gap for 2000 and 2004, respectively, in terms of total undergraduate awards received by Hispanics in relation to their percent of the population, in Texas the gap was 11.6 percent in 2000 and 10.9 percent in 2004. For African Americans, the gap is narrower in Texas than nationally.

Total undergraduate degrees and certificates in Texas by ethnicity 70% +12% +10.3% Population 60%

50% Degrees and certificates awarded 40% -11.6% -10.9%

30%

20% -1.2% -0.5% +2.1% +1.8% 10%

0% 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004

African Am Asian Am/Pacific Hispanic White Islander

Source: Census Bureau, WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

13 The difference between the percent of total population and the percent of awards received is most alarming at the baccalaureate level in Texas for both African Americans and Hispanics. For African Americans, there was a 3.2 percent gap in 2000 and a 2.4 percent gap in 2004. For Hispanics, there was a 14 percent gap in 2000 and a 14.8 percent gap in 2004.

Baccalaureate degrees awarded in Texas by ethnicity 70% +15.5% +14.9%

60% Population Bac. degrees awarded 50%

40% -14.0% -14.8%

30%

20% -3.2% -2.4% +3.0% +2.9% 10%

0% 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004

African Am Asian Am/Pacific Hispanic White Islander

Source: Census Bureau, WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

14 At the associate’s degree level and the certificate level, the gap continues to be wide for Hispanic students, though not as wide as at the baccalaureate level. Conversely, African Americans received higher percentages of associate’s degrees and certificates than their percent of population in Texas in both 2000 and 2004.

Associate’s degrees awarded in Texas by ethnicity 70% Population +6.1% +2.9% 60%

50% Assoc. degrees awarded 40% -7.5% -4.1%

30%

20% +2.0% +1.7% +0.7% +0.1% 10%

0% 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004

African Am Asian Am/Pacific Hispanic White Islander

Source: Census Bureau, WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

Certificates awarded in Texas by ethnicity

70% +4.2% +3.2% 60% Population Certificates awarded 50%

40% -6.0% -6.3%

30%

20% +3.5% +4.1%

10% -0.4% -0.4%

0% 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004

African Am Asian Am/Pacific Hispanic White Islander

Source: Census Bureau, WebCASPAR THECB 10/2006

15 Section 5: Participation and Retention Rates by Region and by Institution

Participation in undergraduate (UG) enrollment varies across the state of Texas. The following table shows the percentage of undergraduate enrollment by region compared to each region’s percentage of population in the state. The percentages within each region on the map indicate the difference. For example, undergraduate enrollment in the Metroplex makes up 22.58 percent of the total undergraduate enrollment statewide, but the population of the Metroplex makes up 26.65 percent of the population. Thus, undergraduate enrollment is underrepresented in this region by 4.07 percent.

Percentage of undergraduate full-time enrollment* compared to the percentage of population in Texas by region in Fall 2005 Region UG 2005 EnrollmEnrollm’t ’’ t Pop +1.95% High Plain 5.58% 3.63% Northwest 1.56% 2.49% MetroploplexexMet ex 22.58% 26.65% -0.93% -4.07% -0.92% Upper East 3.75% 4.67% -0.28% Southeast 3.18% 3.40% +7.04% -0.22% 0.86% Gulf Coast 21.16% 23.35% -2.19% Central 18.26% 11.22% South 17.54% 18.78% -1.24% West 2.13% 2.41% Upper RG 4.26% 3.40%

* Public universities, community colleges, & health -related institutions. Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

16 Even though some regions enroll a smaller percentage of undergraduate students than the region’s percentage of the population, all regions have experienced growth in undergraduate enrollment over time. The chart below shows the numeric change in undergraduate enrollment between 2000 and 2005 for each region of the state. The regions that have experienced the highest increases in numbers are the Metroplex, Gulf Coast, and South regions.

% of change in undergraduateundergradua te fullfu ll-time enrolenrolllmment*ent* by region, Fall 2000 to Fall 2005

Region Fall 0000 Fall 05 Change High Plain 50460 5955955500 9090 +18.0% Northwest 14132 1661663344 2502 Metroplex 185608 240789 55181 +17.7% +29.7% +25.9% UpUpppeerr East 31740 3993997733 8233 Southeast 31193 3393391133 2720 +11.3% +9.7% +8.7% Gulf Coast 184906 225658 40752 +29.8% Central 177523 194811 17288 +22.0% South 144245 187108 42863 +29.7% West 20443 2272275566 2313 Upper RG 34981 4544541144 10433 Texas 87875252331 1066606 191375

* Public universities, community colleges, & health- related institutions. Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

17 Retention rates vary across the state. In 2004-2005, the one-year retention rate for first-time, full-time students enrolled in universities was highest in the Central Texas region, where the two largest institutions are located, and lowest in the Upper Rio Grande region.

One-year retention rate* of first-time full-time undergraduates at public universities by region in 2004-2005

91.1%

79.2% 86.9% 84.3%

80.0% 95.4% 81.5% 80.1%

81.1%

81.8%

* Retained at the same or other Texas public institution. Source: THECB THECB 10/2006

18 The two-year retention rate for 2003-2005 shows a similar pattern. The Central Texas region retained the highest percentage of first-time, full-time students (91.8 percent), whereas the Upper Rio Grande region retained the lowest percentage (62.8 percent). Two year retention rates show a further decline as more students drop out.

Two-year retention rate* of first-time full-time undergraduates at public universities by region in 2003-2005

85.4%

71.6% 79.1% 70.6%

69.6% 91.8% 74.2% 62.8%

72.1%

75.3%

* Retained/reenrolled at the same or other Texas public institution. Source: THECB THECB 10/2006

19 The following tables show the percent of change in one-year retention rates of undergraduates by institution, as well as the statewide average, between two time periods (2000-2001 and 2004-2005). Rates increased at most institutions, and were up slightly statewide.

TAMU System 2000-2001 2004-2005 Point change Prairie View A&M University 79.2% 76.0% -3.2% Tarleton State University 79.2% 82.4% +3.2% Texas A&M International U 83.3% 84.5% +1.2% Texas A&M University 96.0% 96.3% +0.3% Texas A&M Galveston 85.1% 86.7% +1.6%

Texas A&M University- 83.0% 80.4% -2.6% Commerce Texas A&M University-Corpus 87.3% 81.1% -6.2% Christi Texas A&M University- 74.6% 77.1% +2.5% Kingsville Texas A&M University- n.a. n.a. - Texarkana West Texas A&M University 80.3% 79.2% -0.9%

Statewide 86.5% 86.7% +0.02%

Texas State System 2000-2001 2004-2005 Point change

Angelo State University 75.9% 80.6% +4.7%

Lamar University 79.1% 72.8% -6.3%

Sam Houston State University 84.8% 86.6% +1.8%

Texas State University-San 89.8% 90.7% +0.9% Marcos Sul Ross State University 66.3% 72.0% +5.7%

Sul Ross – Rio Grande n.a. n.a. -

Statewide 86.5% 86.7% +0.02%

UT System 2000-2001 2004-2005 Point change

UT–Arlington 84.6% 85.1% +0.5% UT–Austin 94.5% 96.4% +1.9% UT–Brownsville n.a. n.a. - UT–Dallas 88.8% 92.2% +3.4% UT–El Paso 74.3% 80.8% +6.5% UT–Pan American 78.8% 76.6% -2.2% UT–Permian Basin 78.5% 78.1% -0.4% UT–San Antonio 80.9% 85.4% +4.5% UT–Tyler 84.6% 84.3% -0.3% Statewide 86.5% 86.7% +0.02%

UH System 2000-2001 2004-2005 Point change

University of Houston 88.4% 89.1% +0.6%

UH–Clear Lake n.a. n.a. -

UH–Downtown 76.1% 69.9% -6.2%

UH–Victoria n.a. n.a. -

Statewide 86.5% 86.7% +0.02%

Other Universities 2000-2001 2004-2005 Point change

Midwestern State University 81.2% 79.2% -2.0%

Stephen F. Austin State 83.3% 86.0% +2.7% University Texas Southern University 67.0% 64.3% -2.7%

Texas Tech University 90.1% 93.3% +3.2%

Texas Woman's University 84.9% 87.4% +2.5%

University of North Texas 86.5% 88.1% +1.6%

Statewide 86.5% 86.7% +0.02%

21 Section 6: Time-to-degree by Region and by Institution

The average time-to-degree at the baccalaureate level in most discipline areas is 10 semesters, not including summer semesters. The average number of semester credit hours attempted for most disciplines is 148. (See table below.)

Time-to-degree for undergraduates* in Texas public universities by discipline in 2005

General Program 2-digit # of Mean Credits Mean # of Areas1 CIP Codes Graduates Attempted2 Semesters3

Science & Math 03,11,26,27,40 5,031 149 10 Agriculture 1 1,478 151 10 Business 52 10,825 147 10 Engineering 14 2,638 152 10 Health 51 1,730 154 10 Liberal & Fine Arts and 04,05,09,10,16,22- Arch. 25, 29,30,38,50 13,212 149 10 12,19,31,42- Soc. Sciences & Serv. 44,45,54 11,188 147 10 Technology 15,41,46,47,48,49 712 165 11

Statewide 46,814 148 10

* First-time students in the past 10 years (FY1996-FY2005). 1 Represents 68.6 percent of the total number of graduates in 2005. 2 Weighted average of semester credit hours attempted during fall, spring and summer semesters. 3 Fall and spring semesters only. Semesters are calculated based on average 15 credit hours.

22 The following table shows the mean semester credit hours attempted for students graduating with a baccalaureate degree in 2005. The map indicates the year-to-degree by region. The state average for 2005 was 4.9 years.

Year-to-degredegreee** for undergraduates in Texas public universities by region in 20005 5

Region Mean Credits Attempted1,2

4.87 High Plain 146 Northwest 146 Metroplex 151 4.87 5.03 5.00 Upper East 150 Southeast 154 5.06 4.63 5.13 Gulf Coast 157 5.33 Central 139 5.23 South 160 5.33 West 152 Upper RG 161600 Texas 148

1 Credit hours attempted during fall, spring and * Calculated based on 30 credit summer semesters. hours per academic years. 2 Only include general program areas covered Source: THECB in the previous slide. THECB 12/2006

The following tables show time-to-degree in semesters by institution for students who graduated in 2005 compared to the statewide averages.

TAMU System # Graduates Credits Mean Attempted semesters Prairie View A&M University 176 162 10 Tarleton State University 819 155 10 Texas A&M International U 300 158 11 Texas A&M University 6,906 143 9 Texas A&M Galveston 192 154 10 Texas A&M University- 658 149 10 Commerce Texas A&M University-Corpus 742 154 11 Christi Texas A&M University- 632 167 11 Kingsville Texas A&M University- 145 139 11 Texarkana West Texas A&M University 618 151 10 Statewide 46,814 148 10

Texas State System # Graduates Credits Mean Attempted semesters

Angelo State University 612 152 10

Lamar University 734 150 11

Sam Houston State University 1,695 155 10

Texas State University-San 3231 151 10 Marcos Sul Ross State University 134 163 11

Sul Ross – Rio Grande 105 153 12

Statewide 46,814 148 10

UT System # Graduates Credits Mean Attempted semesters UT–Arlington 1,821 152 10 UT–Austin 7,083 130 9 UT–Brownsville 349 162 12 UT–Dallas 1,261 143 10 UT–El Paso 1,035 160 12 UT–Pan American 1,272 167 11 UT–Permian Basin 221 152 11 UT–San Antonio 1,823 155 11 UT–Tyler 418 154 11 Statewide 46,814 148 10

UH System # Graduates Credits Mean Attempted semesters University of Houston 2,858 154 11

UH–Clear Lake 488 162 12

UH–Downtown 762 162 12

UH–Victoria 178 155 11

Statewide 46,814 148 10

Other Universities # Graduates Credits Mean Attempted semesters

Midwestern State University 437 146 10

Stephen F. Austin State 1,397 156 10 University Texas Southern University 275 177 12

Texas Tech University 3,559 145 9

Texas Woman's University 626 150 10

University of North Texas 2,852 154 10

Statewide 46,814 148 10

Section 7: Completion Rates by Region and by Institution

Six-year graduation rates have increased for most regions over recent years. The following table shows six-year graduation rates by region for 1994-2000 and 1999-2005. The percentages within each region on the map indicate the difference. For example, only in the Southeast region has the six-year graduation rate decreased for this time period (by -0.6 percent). The High Plains, Upper Rio Grande, and Metroplex regions show the greatest gains. Statewide, the increase during this period was 7.1 percentage points.

% of change in 6-year graduation rate* in 1994-2000 and 1999-2005 by region

Region 1994--- 1999- 2000 2005 +7.3% High Plain 53.9% 61.2% Northwest 37.8% 35.8% Metroplex 45.7% 52.2% +2.0% +6.5% n.a. Upper East n.a. 72.3% +4.1% Southeast 46.8% 46.2% +0.5% -0.6% +6.6% Gulf Coast 39.2% 44.4%

+5.2% Central 71.7% 78.2% South 32.8% 39.0% +6.2% West 40.8% 44.9% Upper RG 24.6% 31.2% Texas 49.6% 56.7%

* Graduated at the same or other Texas public institution. Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

25 The following tables show six-year graduation rates by institution for 1994-2000 and 1999-2005 compared to the statewide averages. The rates increased for most institutions, as well as statewide.

TAMU System 1994-2000 1999-2005 Point change Prairie View A&M University 29.3% 33.6% +4.3% Tarleton State University 42.6% 51.1% +8.5% Texas A&M International U n.a. 43.5% - Texas A&M University 77% 82.2% +5.2% Texas A&M Galveston 59.8% 54.9% -4.9% Texas A&M University- 46.4% 42.9% -3.5% Commerce Texas A&M University-Corpus 49.9% 51.3% +1.4% Christi Texas A&M University- 26.8% 33.5% +6.7% Kingsville Texas A&M University- n.a. n.a. - Texarkana West Texas A&M University 34.6% 42% +7.4% Statewide 49.6% 56.7% +7.1%

Texas State System 1994-2000 1999-2005 Point change

Angelo State University 40.6% 44.7% +4.1%

Lamar University 28.6% 37.7% +9.1%

Sam Houston State University 43.9% 48.3% +4.4%

Texas State University-San 52.9% 61.4% +8.5% Marcos Sul Ross State University 24.1% 28.2% +4.1%

Sul Ross – Rio Grande n.a. n.a. -

Statewide 49.6% 56.7% +7.1%

UT System 1994-2000 1999-2005 Point change

UT–Arlington 37.5% 48.5% +11% UT–Austin 72.2% 78.7% +6.5% UT–Brownsville n.a. n.a. - UT–Dallas 59.9% 64.1% +4.2% UT–El Paso 24.7% 31.6% +6.9% UT–Pan American 26.5% 33.5% +7.0% UT–Permian Basin 42.4% 47.5% +5.1% UT–San Antonio 34.6% 37.9% +3.3% UT–Tyler n.a. 72.3% -

Statewide 49.6% 56.7% +7.1%

UH System 1994-2000 1999-2005 Point change University of Houston 44.6% 48.1% +3.5%

UH–Clear Lake n.a. n.a. -

UH–Downtown 17.8% 17% -0.8%

UH–Victoria n.a. n.a. -

Statewide 49.6% 56.7% +7.1%

Other Universities 1994-2000 1999-2005 Point change

Midwestern State University 37.8% 35.8% -2.0%

Stephen F. Austin State 51.8% 49.1% -2.7% University

Texas Southern University 14.4% 17.1% +2.7%

Texas Tech University 57.2% 64.8% +7.6%

Texas Woman's University 48.5% 47.6% -0.9%

University of North Texas 46.7% 52.9% +6.2%

Statewide 49.6% 56.7% +7.1%

27 Section 8: Selected Placement Rates by Region and by Institution

The following tables show changes in undergraduate job and/or graduate school placement rates in Texas within one year of graduation from a university for two time periods, 2000-2001 and 2003-2004, compared to the statewide averages. Placement rates decreased for most institutions and statewide from 2000 to 2004.

TAMU System 2000-2001 2003-2004 Point change Prairie View A&M University 84.7% 88.0% +3.3% Tarleton State University 86.1% 85.0% -1.1% Texas A&M International U 91.9% 91.5% -0.4% Texas A&M University 84.1% 83.4% -0.7% Texas A&M Galveston 70.8% 73.4% +2.6% Texas A&M University- 91.2% 90.8% -0.4% Commerce Texas A&M University-Corpus 89.6% 86.6% -3.0% Christi Texas A&M University- 90.0% 87.9% -2.1% Kingsville Texas A&M University- 71.2% 77.8% +6.6% Texarkana West Texas A&M University 85.1% 85.9% +0.8%

Statewide 86.0% 84.9% -1.1%

Texas State System 2000-2001 2003-2004 Point change

Angelo State University 88.7% 87.2% -1.5%

Lamar University 88.8% 90.5% +1.7%

Sam Houston State University 89.1% 88.6% -0.5%

Texas State University-San 89.5% 87.4% -2.1% Marcos Sul Ross State University 91.0% 89.9% -1.1%

Sul Ross – Rio Grande 93.8% 93.9% +0.1%

Statewide 86.0% 84.9% -1.1%

28 UT System 2000-2001 2003-2004 Point change UT–Arlington 88.7% 85.0% -3.7% UT–Austin 77.5% 76.6% -0.9% UT–Brownsville 90.7% 92.5% +1.8% UT–Dallas 87.9% 84.2% -3.7% UT–El Paso 82.4% 81.4% -1.0% UT–Pan American 91.6% 92.7% +1.1% UT–Permian Basin 92.2% 92.4% +0.2% UT–San Antonio 86.2% 85.4% -0.8% UT–Tyler 92.2% 89.5% -2.7%

Statewide 86.0% 84.9% -1.1%

UH System 2000-2001 2003-2004 Point change

University of Houston 85.7% 85.5% -0.2%

UH–Clear Lake 91.0% 87.5% -3.5%

UH–Downtown 91.2% 87.5% -3.7%

UH–Victoria 94.1% 88.6% -5.5%

Statewide 86.0% 84.9% -1.1%

Other Universities 2000-2001 2003-2004 Point change

Midwestern State University 85.5% 82.7% -2.8%

Stephen F. Austin State 89.4% 87.4% -2.0% University

Texas Southern University 86.5% 83.0% -3.5%

Texas Tech University 86.3% 85.1% -1.2%

Texas Woman's University 88.4% 91.7% +3.3%

University of North Texas 87.8% 85.7% -2.1%

Statewide 86.0% 84.9% -1.1%

29 Section 9: Costs of Undergraduate Education in Texas

The cost of undergraduate education has increased over the last 10 years at public universities, community colleges, and technical colleges. While tuition and fees at community colleges increased 57.9 percent and at technical colleges increased 129.1 percent since 1996, tuition and fees at universities have increased by 257 percent.

RaRatete of changchangee in tuition and fees per undergraduate student in Texas 257.0% 242.4% 4962 4681 4500 105.4% 3966

3500 63.2% 3152 43.2% 36.0% 2765 llar Do llar 29.2% 2627 18.1% 2495 54.6% 57.9% 2500 7.1% 2281 44.0% 2301 2349 2069 30.4% 2143 1931 20.7% 27.4% 129.1% 1896 1941 3.7% 1796 11.6% 11.6% 103.5% 1773 1660 1661 83.7% 1575 1488 1543 1500 1422 26.2% 15.6% -1.9% 3.5% 5.0% 8.7% 977 841 895 774 759 801 813 500 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

Public Uni. Public C.C. Public T.C.

Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

30 change incosttothestate (whichincludestota The following threegraphscomparetherateofchange incost tothestudent totherate of student has increased by 257percent. the costto statehasincreasedby 24.9percentwhereastherateofchange inthe cost tothe colleges, and technical collegesbetween 1996and 2006.Foruniversities, the rateofchangein Source: THECB * Tuition and fees. fees. and Tuition * The rate of changein The rateofchangein Dollar 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 the state the state 96-97 96-97 1931 1931 5607 5607 97-98 2069 6092 6092 7.1% 7.1% 8.6% Costs to student student to Costs per FTSE forpublicuniversities per FTSE per FTSE for publicuniversities 98-99 98-99 18.1% 18.1% 2281 6165 6165 10.0% 99-00 2495 20.8% 20.5% 20.5% 20.8% 29.2% 29.2% 6774 6774 costs tostudent*vs. costs tostudent*vs. 00-01 00-01 36.0% 2627 6754 6754 31 l stateappro 01-02 43.2% 43.2% 2765 Costs to state state to Costs 24.2% 6962 63.2% 63.2% 02-03 02-03 3152 6569 72 19.0% 17.2% priation) for universities, community

105.4% 03-04 3966 3966 6673 6673 242.4% 242.4% 4681 4681 04-05 19.2% 6681 THECB 12/2006 257.0% 24.9% 05-06 05-06 4962 4962 7003

For community colleges, the rate of change peaked at 17.8 percent in 2001-2002 before falling. The overall rate of change between 1996 and 2006 increased by 1.6 percent, whereas the overall rate of change in the cost to the student has increased by 129.1 percent. The rate of change in costs to student* vs. costs to the state per FTSE for public community colleges 3000 16.6% 15.3% 17.8% 9.6% 11.0% 2601 2627 2475 2572 5.6% 2445 4.1% 2500 2355 1.6% 2230 2321 -4.3% 2265 2133 2000 129.1% 103.5% 1773

arDoll 83.7% 1575 1500 1422 26.2% 8.7% 15.6% -1.9% 3.5% 5.0% 895 977 1000 841 774 759 801 813

500

0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

* Tuition and fees. Costs to student Costs to state Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

32 For technical colleges, the rate of change in the cost to the state has also varied widely over the 10-year period. The rate of change peaked at 71.9 percent in 2001-2002. The overall rate of change in costs to the state between 1996 and 2006 increased by 49.6 percent, whereas the overall rate of change in the cost to the student has increased by 57.9 percent. The rate of change in costs to student* vs. costs to the state per FTSE for public technical colleges 71.9% 8000 7734 59.2% 56.0% 51.0% 7162 7018 48.0% 49.2% 7000 6795 6712 6658 35.9% 6116 23.5% 6000 23.3% 5557 5449 5000 4500 lDolar lDolar

4000

3000 54.6% 57.9% 44.0% 27.4% 30.4% 2301 2349 20.7% 11.6% 2143 3.7% 11.6% 1941 2000 1796 1896 1661 1488 1543 1660

1000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

* Tuition and fees. Costs to student Costs to state Source: THECB THECB 12/2006

33 In 2000-2001, Texas public institutions ranked third among the10 most populous states in total state and local appropriations at $4.2 billion. Texas was behind California by more than $3.65 billion.

TotTotaal state and local approprappropriations * for public HE instituuttionion in tht he U.S. in 2000- 01 8 7

6 State Local 5 4 3

2 1 0 CA NY TX FL MI OH GA IL PA NJ StStateate 7892 44446262 4237 2656 1991 1923 1827 1760 1332 1247 LoLocalcal 1765 431 439 ~ 0 282888 101022 22 520 94 121233

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006

34 During that year, the state and local taxes that went to public institutions of higher education cost each Texas resident $224 on average. SStatatete & local taxes per resiresidentdent across all post- secondary educaeducationtion institinstitutionsutions in the U.S. in

400 2000-01 350 300 Taxes per resident r 250

Dolla 200 150

100 50 0 NY CA OH MI GA TX IL FL NJ PA TPTPRR 398398 282855 242411 229229 222266 222244 181833 166166161666 121211 7575

Source: Digest of Education Statistics THECB 12/2006

35 The average amount of state and local taxes per student during 2000-2001 was $4,523.

State & local taxtaxeses per student* acacrossross all post-secondary education ininstitutistitutionsons in ththee

6000 U.S. in 2000-01

5000 Taxes per student

4000

Dollar 3000

2000

1000

0 GA NY TX CA NJ MI FL OH IL PA TPSTPS 53535340534040 469046469090 452452452345233 4442742727999 40764076 4440154015015 375375375437544 368336368383 30303065306565 2332332339233999

* Include undergrad & grad students. Source: Digest of Education Statistics THECB 12/2006

The average amount of state and local taxes per degree during 2000-2001 was $31,300.

State & local taxes per degree1 across all post- secondary education institinstitutionsutions in the U.S. in

40000 2000-01 35000 Taxes per degree 30000

ar 25000 20000 Doll 15000

10000 5000 0 CA GA TX NJ MI NY FL OH IL PA TPDTPDTPD*TPD*** 35.235.2 33.033.0 31.331.33131..33 26.626.6 24.824.82424..88 23.423.4 212121.521.5.5.5 212121.321.3.3.3 18.618.61818..66 1111...6.666

1 Include undergrad & grad degrees. 2 In thousand. Source: Digest of Education Statistics THECB 12/2006

36 During the same year, Texas public institutions ranked third in total expenditures at $10 billion. Texas followed California by more than $8 billion and New York by $7 million.

TotTotaall expenditures* of public vs. privatprivatee HE institutions in the U.S. in 200020 00-01 20 18 16 Public Private 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CA NY TX MI IL FL OH PA GA NJ Pub. 18.3 10.7 10.0 5.7 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.6 3.6 3.2 Pri. 8.7 13.1 2.7 1.1 5.9 2.2 2.4 7.8 2.8 1.5

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In billion. THECB 12/2006

37 With public and private institutions combined, Texas ranked seventh in total expenditures per student—at $12,340 per student—among the 10 most populous states. New York ranked the highest, with $22,800 per student.

Total expendiexpenditurestures1 per student2 across all post-secondary education institutio ns in ththee

25 U.S. in 2000-01

20 Expenditure per student 15

0 NY PA GA IL NJ OH TX MI CA FL EPEPSS 2222.8.800 2020..5588 1818.5.522 1144..7722 13.13.9191 13.13.3030 1212.3.344 1122..0000 11.11.9696 110.0.2323

1 In thousand. 2 include undergrad & grad students. Source: Digest of Education Statistics THECB 12/2006

38 Texas ranked sixth in total expenditures per degree at $91,600. New York ranked the highest, with $199,100 per degree. Total expenditures1 per degree2 across all post- secondary education institinstitutionsutions in the U.S. in

200 2000-01 180 160 Expenditure per 140 degree 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 NY OH GA CA IL TX MI PA FL NJ EPEPSS 199.1199.1 143.6143.6 126.7126.7 10106.66.6 94.494.4 91.6 7777..22 61.261.2 61.161.1 50.6

1 In thousand. 2 include undergrad & grad degrees. Source: Digest of Education Statistics THECB 12/2006

PART II: Undergraduate Initiatives

Section 1: Background

In September 1965, Governor John Connally expressed his vision for undergraduate education. To ensure its quality, the Coordinating Board was charged with the responsibility for ensuring the quality of undergraduate education across the state. Specifically, he implored the Coordinating Board that, “…while the creation of this Board represents fulfillment of one of my greatest aspirations…Always keep in mind that yours is the opportunity to implement an educational policy that will give Texas young men and women a quality of education superior to any in the nation – and we must never be satisfied with less…You have been given the power to add planning, imagination, and coordination to supplement the taxpayers' dollars in higher education. I trust you will use them wisely.”2

2 Charge to the Coordinating Board Texas College and University System by Governor John Connally, September 20, 1965, at the first meeting of the Board. Available in its entirety at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/0002.PDF.

39 Governor Connally’s observation was that academic distinction can be achieved by emphasizing excellence in undergraduate education is as timely today as it was 40 years ago. Undergraduate education is the foundation for all higher education. In the context of Closing the Gaps by 2015 and its explicit goal of improved student success, it is sobering to note that university graduation rates statewide are not significantly better than they were in 1965.

So what has changed most dramatically since 1965? The most obvious answer is the very face – or faces – of Texas. Texas is a much more diverse state now, with substantially larger communities of Hispanics and Asian Americans, immigrants from Mexico, Latin America and beyond, and migrants from other states. Diversity adds strength to the state through multiple cultures, traditions and languages.

Although the first Coordinating Board noted the connection between a strong pre- kindergarten-to-12th grade (P12) system and a strong system of higher education, the Coordinating Board today recognizes this necessary linkage with a greater sense of urgency. The Board recognizes that a weakness at any point along the education “pipeline” affects all of education. Further, it recognizes that the complexities and challenges of providing strong education for all Texans today requires mobilization not only of the educational community, but of business, religious groups, and other community-based organizations.

Closing the Gaps by 2015

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is dedicated to helping Texas meet the goals of the state’s higher education plan, Closing the Gaps by 2015.3 The plan has four goals: to close the gaps in participation, success, excellence, and research. Meeting those goals means a bright future of economic vitality, social independence, and civic engagement for the people of Texas. Not meeting those goals means a future of lower household incomes, more stress on social services, and fewer people capable of contributing to the state’s success.

Closing the Gaps: Participation and Success

To achieve a brighter future, Closing the Gaps calls for enrolling 1.6 million students in higher education by 2015 – up from approximately 1.2 million students today. But enrolling more people is not enough – students must complete their programs and graduate as well. Texas will not achieve the results it needs if students do not succeed in their higher education endeavors. Closing the Gaps by 2015 also calls for 210,000 degrees, certificates, and other identifiable student successes from high-quality programs, up from approximately 145,000 today, by 2015.

Closing the Gaps: Academic Excellence and Research

Enrolling and graduating hundreds of thousands more students is a step in the right direction. But a degree from a poor quality program will not give anyone the competitive edge they need in today’s world economy. Academic intensity and excellence are essential at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Texas institutions of higher education also need to attract and support more research funding for the academic and economic benefits it provides.

3 The higher education plan and related information are available at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/ClosingtheGaps/.

40 Creating a College-Going Culture

A significant long-term goal for higher education is to foster a college-going culture in every public school in Texas. A central part this effort is the College for Texans initiative, a legislatively mandated awareness and outreach campaign to provide college-going information, motivation, and assistance to students and their families across Texas. Collaborating with the Coordinating Board in this effort is the College for All Texans Foundation,4 founded in 2001 with the mission “to generate the resources necessary to ensure the success of the College for Texans Campaign, led by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.” A cornerstone strategy of the Coordinating Board’s efforts is the network of Go Centers, facilities located in both middle and high schools throughout Texas that focus on creating a school-wide, college- going culture and promoting college awareness in the surrounding community. Over 200 Go Centers serving prospective college students have been created statewide since 2003.

Quality of Undergraduate Programs

The foundation of academic excellence at any level is strong undergraduate education. The Coordinating Board must make sure that institutions do not pursue graduate academic excellence at the expense of undergraduate education. Graduate education, whether at the master’s or doctoral level, can significantly enhance the quality of an institution. But public institutions in Texas should guarantee sufficient attention to the excellence of their undergraduate offerings before expanding graduate program offerings.

Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee

Improving the quality of undergraduate education across Texas is a high priority for the Coordinating Board. As part of current initiatives to improve undergraduate experiences for students in Texas, the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee (UEAC) has been established to concentrate on this goal.

The UEAC will serve as a forum for problem solving and the generation of good ideas to improve undergraduate education that reflect the goals of Texas’ higher education plan, Closing the Gaps by 2015. Convened for the first time in November 2006, the committee’s initial work will include the development of recommendations for actions to maintain or strengthen Texas’ undergraduate programs through the subsequent, final part of this report. The committee will serve as an official mechanism for constituent input on matters regarding undergraduate education. Responsibilities of the committee might also include participation in the development of college-readiness standards for entering students, and making recommendations regarding a procedure for the regular evaluation of undergraduate instructional program quality. The committee may work in concert with other advisory committees, work groups, or “PK-16 vertical teams.”

Review of Existing Undergraduate Programs

Coordinating Board staff currently evaluate all proposals for new degree programs from colleges and universities and conduct performance reviews for those workforce education programs offered by community and technical colleges. Coordinating Board staff are also engaged in a limited review process for existing academic degree programs at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels. Since nearly 90 percent of all students in Texas public higher education are undergraduates, the vitality and effectiveness of the degree programs

4 More information is available at http://www.collegeforalltexansfoundation.com/.

41 available to these students must be assured. Calls for increased accountability from government and public sectors, as well as the institutions’ and the agency’s interest in program performance, have prompted the Coordinating Board to propose the development of a process for the regular review of existing undergraduate degree programs.

The development of a framework for the review of existing programs would be designed to: (a) promote continuous program improvement; (b) allow the Coordinating Board staff to consult with institutions on questions of design and implementation related to quality improvement; (c) make the review process easy for institutions to complete through its structure and use of data already collected for other required state reports; (d) place greater responsibility for review on those institutions; and (e) take advantage of the unique perspective of the Board given its state-wide data resources.

Section 2: Initiatives and Critical Issues

The purpose of this section is to briefly identify and describe a number of critical issues and new initiatives designed to strengthen higher education in Texas.

House Bill 1

House Bill 1 (HB 1), 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, contained a number of initiatives regarding college readiness and success. Sections of the bill involving higher education and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, sometimes in collaboration with the Texas Education Agency, call for actions to include creating education research centers, advancing a college-readiness curriculum, ensuring that each public school district implements a program through which students may earn college credit while they are still in high school, establishing Texas Governor's Schools, adopting a P-16 college readiness and success strategic action plan, developing support programs to enhance student success, and implementing course redesign initiatives.

HB 1: Education Research Centers

HB 1 authorizes the creation of up to three Education Research Centers to conduct research for the benefit of education in the state, including research related to the impact of state and federal education programs; the performance of educator preparation programs; public school finance; and the best practices of school districts with regard to classroom instruction, bilingual education programs, special language programs, and business practices. A Center may be established as part of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (CB), or a public college or university.

HB 1: College Readiness Curriculum and Vertical Teams

HB 1 requires that the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Higher Education establish vertical teams of faculty from public education and higher education. The teams will (a) recommend standards and expectations of college readiness for approval by the CB and for inclusion by the State Board of Education (SBOE) in the high school curriculum; (b) evaluate current high school curriculum requirements to determine whether they adequately prepare students to meet college-readiness standards; (c) develop instructional strategies for teaching the curriculum so that students are prepared to successfully perform

42 college-level work; and (d) develop standards for curricula and educational materials in English, mathematics, science, and social studies for students who need additional assistance in preparing to perform college-level course work successfully.

HB 1: College Credit Program

HB 1 requires each school district to implement a program by which a student may earn the equivalent of at least 12 semester credit hours of college credit in high school and requires institutions of higher education to assist school districts in developing and implementing the program upon request. The statute allows any college-level academic or technical course – literally thousands of courses – to be used for dual credit. CB and TEA staffs are collaborating on a policy to ensure that all of the required high school Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are covered in dual credit courses as well as the college-level material.

HB 1: Texas Governor’s Schools

HB 1 establishes a summer residential program called Texas Governor’s Schools for high-achieving students. A Texas Governor’s School may be administered by a public college or university upon application to and approval by the Commissioner of Education. Preference will be given to those who apply in cooperation with a nonprofit association. The Commissioner may make a grant not to exceed $750,000 to an institution whose application is approved. In mid- September 2006 the administration of the Texas Governor’s Schools was transferred to the Coordinating Board. CB and TEA staff are negotiating an interagency contract to facilitate this transfer and CB staff will recommend changes to statute during the legislative session to reflect the transfer.

HB 1: Course Redesign

HB 1 requires the CB to implement a project by which institutions of higher education, selected by the Board, will review and revise entry-level lower-division academic courses for the purpose of improving student learning outcomes, and to ensure the use of technology in innovative ways. The first phase of the project was initiated in September 1, 2006. Each participating Phase One institution of higher education will begin offering courses that have been redesigned through the project by September 1, 2007. Each institution will report results to the Coordinating Board by September 1, 2009, and the Board will issue a summary report by January 1, 2011 to the appropriate legislative committees.

CB staff convened a course redesign ad hoc advisory group of 10 members, which met for the first time in August 2006. The advisory group is providing staff with recommendations on the criteria for selecting entry-level academic college courses for redesign and selecting institutions to be involved in the ongoing statewide effort. College and university members of the ad hoc group represent public two- and four-year institutions from various regions and systems in Texas. A proposed implementation plan for future phases of the project will identify courses to be redesigned and institutions that will participate and provide supporting activities to enhance the success of the projects.

HB 1: P16 College-Readiness and Success Strategic Action Plan

HB 1 requires the P-16 Council to recommend to the Commissioner of Education and the Coordinating Board a college-readiness and success strategic action plan designed to increase student success and to decrease the number of students enrolling in developmental

43 coursework in college. The goal of the plan is to ensure that every Texas student is college- ready when exiting high school and is competitive in a global economy upon timely completion of a post-secondary degree.

The strategic plan addresses the need for "definitions, as determined by the P-16 Council in coordination with the State Board of Education, of the standards and expectations for college-readiness that address the knowledge and skills expected of students to perform successfully in entry-level [college] courses." The plan also requires that strategies be recommended to TEA, the State Board of Education, and the Coordinating Board for decreasing the number of students enrolling in developmental education in higher education. Under the direction of the P-16 Council, the CB and TEA staffs are working together on developing recommendations – which would have policy implications for the Legislature, the CB, and institutions of higher education – for consideration by the P-16 Council.

HB 1: Programs to Enhance Student Success

To implement the college-readiness and success strategic action plan and to enhance the success of students, HB 1 requires the Coordinating Board, by rule, to develop:

• Summer higher education bridge programs in math, science, and English; • Incentive programs for institutions of higher education that implement research-based, innovative developmental education initiatives; • Financial assistance programs for educationally disadvantaged students to take college entrance and college-readiness assessment instruments; • Professional development programs for faculty of institutions of higher education on college-readiness standards; and • Other programs that support the participation and success goals in Closing the Gaps.

CB staff recently received confirmation of the funds that are earmarked for implementation of these programs. Mechanisms are being developed for determining how to get funding to high schools and higher education institutions quickly while ensuring that appropriate evaluation of these programs will be addressed.

P-16 Council Subcommittee on Educator Quality

Over the past decade, a number of education stakeholders have come to agree that educator quality is the most important determinant of student achievement, outside of home and family influences. A growing body of research continually emphasizes educators as the most crucial factor in student learning and success. Factors that influence the quality of the educator workforce include, but are not limited to, the quality of educator recruitment and preparation programs, the existence and quality of induction/mentoring programs, the relevance and quality of professional development opportunities, and working conditions.

The subcommittee’s recommendations for achieving system-wide change to increase the number of high-quality, highly qualified teachers in the state are embedded in five interrelated objectives. The recommendations include the following:

• Multiple Career Pathways: Recommend that Texas enact a comprehensive, systemic statewide strategy to retain high-quality teachers by designing multiple career pathways, which provide career advancement opportunities for classroom teachers, innovative use

44 of time to allow collaboration among teachers, and improved working conditions in schools.

• Educator Recruitment and Selection: Recommend that Texas provide incentives or other tools to recruit more high-quality teachers to the field, particularly in shortage areas such as math and science.

• Educator Preparation: Recommend that Texas reform its educator preparation programs to provide more experience in schools earlier, more emphasis on content knowledge, and pedagogy that is tied to rigorous scientific research.

• Induction/Mentoring: Recommend that Texas implement a comprehensive, research- based induction and mentoring program that is vertically aligned with higher education/alternative certification programs so that all new educators in Texas have high-quality standardized skills and knowledge when entering public education.

• Professional Growth: Recommend that Texas enact a comprehensive, systemic statewide strategy that focuses on professional growth that is job-embedded, results-driven, and differentiated based on research-based professional development standards and indicators.

Accountability System

On January 22, 2004, Governor Perry issued Executive Order RP 31 requiring the Coordinating Board and each institution and system to work together to provide “the information necessary to determine the effectiveness and quality of the education students receive at individual institutions” also to provide “… the basis to evaluate the institutions’ use of state resources.” The Texas Accountability System for public higher education provides data for 35 public universities, nine health-related institutions, the four Texas State Technical Colleges and three two-year Lamar State Colleges. The state’s two-year colleges were added to the System in early 2005. The System currently has three essential components:

• Key Accountability Measures. A small number of key accountability measures were identified for each goal. There are five categories of accountability measures (Participation, Success, Excellence, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiencies) for the general academic and two-year institutions. Health-related institutions include an additional area for patient care.

• Contextual/explanatory Measures. Additional measures are included to help place the key accountability measures in context and/or to better describe the efforts of each institution.

• Institutional explanation and description. Each institution was given the opportunity to provide further information or explanation. Each institution was also given the opportunity to add one or two additional measures.

Each institution’s progress will be calculated annually and targets will be reviewed by the groups in the spring prior to each Legislative session. Community colleges measures were revised in 2006, and group targets will be set during the next round of group meetings.

45 Section 3: Types of Undergraduate Institutions in Texas

Depending on the institutional type and the degree programs offered, undergraduate students in Texas may earn two-year associate-level degrees, including the academic Associate of Arts (AA) and Associate of Science (AS) degrees, or the technical Applied Associate of Science (AAS) and Applied Associate of Arts (AAA) degrees. They may also earn a four-year baccalaureate (bachelor’s) degree. (Some bachelor’s degrees, notably in architecture and in some engineering programs, may require five years to complete.)

The designation for the bachelor’s degree may be the Bachelor of Arts (BA), Bachelor of Science (BS), Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA), or another bachelor’s degree such as a Bachelor of Music (BM), Bachelor of Social Work (BSW), Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (BEE), etc. Some degree designations may vary by institution, with one institution offering a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering (BSEE), another offering a similar degree program as a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (BEE), and still another offering a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Electrical Engineering (although the degree program contents are similar).

Students may also earn undergraduate awards that require less course work than an associate’s degree. These awards, which are intended to help students acquire or improve workplace skills and are not intended to lead to a college degree on their own merit, are called certificates. There are several kinds of certificates awarded in Texas, depending on the number of courses and semester credit hours are required to receive the award.

Students who want to become public school teachers complete a bachelor’s degree but take additional courses to complete their training in educator preparation. They are then eligible to take the examination that can lead to teacher certification in a broad number of different areas by the State Board for Educator Certification. Teacher certification is different than the workforce education certificates described above, and is not the equivalent of any other “certificate” program.

Each college or university catalogue, available on-line at the institution’s web site, will contain a listing of the specific degrees and programs of study that are available at the institution. Within the public higher education system in Texas, undergraduate education is delivered by community colleges; universities, including upper-level institutions that offer only advanced (junior and senior) coursework and graduate courses; health science centers and other health-related institutions; and technical colleges and institutes.

Community colleges offer two-year associate degrees and shorter (one year or less) certificate programs. A pilot project is currently underway in which three community colleges are offering a Bachelor of Applied Technology degree designed to allow application of some technical associate degrees into a four-year baccalaureate degree program.

Technical schools and institutes, including the Texas State Technical College System, offer Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees and shorter certificate programs. They focus on workforce education and technology-rich fields. Some of the programs offered at Texas technical schools and colleges may lead to transfer to a four-year baccalaureate degree program at a university.

Universities offer primarily bachelor’s degrees and generally also include graduate degrees (master’s and sometimes doctoral degrees). Many students who complete an AA or AS degree at a community college transfer to a university to complete a four-year bachelor’s

46 degree. A few of the Texas public universities also offer one or two associate degrees, particularly if the university is located in a geographically isolated region of the state without a nearby community college partner. Texas currently has three “upper-level” universities that offer the final two years of undergraduate study but do not offer freshman or sophomore (“lower- division”) courses. One of those upper-level institutions is preparing to offer all four years of undergraduate education.

Health science centers and other health-related institutions offer a variety of baccalaureate degrees in health-related fields such as nursing and other allied health disciplines. These institutions, which focus on professional medical education at the post- baccalaureate and graduate levels, function like upper-level institutions in that their entire bachelor’s degree student population is made up of students who transfer with an associate’s degree or course work equivalent to an associate’s degree.

In addition to the public higher education system are the independent colleges and universities such as Rice University in Houston, Trinity University in San Antonio, Baylor University in Waco, and Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. There are also two independent junior colleges in Texas that offer two-year associate degrees. Independent institutions are accredited through the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) or another Coordinating Board-approved accrediting organization.

A comprehensive list of public and independent higher education institutions offering undergraduate educational opportunities in Texas is available at: http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Institutions.cfm.

Universities or colleges that are established in other states may decide to open a branch campus in Texas. These branch campuses fall under the authority of the Coordinating Board, although they are not part of the Texas public system of higher education. Branch campuses must meet a series of quality standards determined by the Coordinating Board. The Board then authorizes the branch campus to award degrees, once the standards have been met, until the branch campus can demonstrate compliance with a Coordinating Board-recognized accrediting organization’s standards for a branch campus. A list of branch campuses operating in Texas is available at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/outofstate.cfm.

Additional resources for certain kinds of undergraduate education are to be found among the “for-profit” or proprietary colleges and schools in Texas. Each type of institution must meet the standards of the Board to be approved to grant degrees. Accreditation does not exempt the institution from meeting Board standards.

For-profit, undergraduate degree-granting institutions operating in Texas fall into two categories. The first group of “for-profit” undergraduate education providers consists of regionally accredited out-of-state institutions that open branch campuses in Texas. The Coordinating Board approves their operations in the state, but the Board asserts limited oversight over them, treating them more like the traditional independent college sector previously discussed. The branch campuses are not limited to any certain degree levels since their regional accreditation makes their coursework more easily transferable – they may offer associate’s or bachelor’s degrees depending on their preference. Branch campus operations currently approved in Texas can be found at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/outofstate.cfm.

47 The second group of “for-profit” institutions consists of career schools licensed by the Texas Workforce Commission which have been approved by the Coordinating Board to offer applied associate degrees. These institutions offer career training, not transferable academic work, and are approved by the Workforce Commission without regard to any accreditation status. Because the purpose of these institutions is limited to career training and their institutional accreditation, if they hold one, may be from an accreditor that is not acceptable to public or independent colleges and universities, the Coordinating Board limits their degree- granting to applied associate degrees, which are not designed to transfer. Information about these undergraduate workforce education programs can be found at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/career_schools.cfm.

There are a few colleges and universities in Texas that offer degrees exclusively in religion. These are often called “Bible colleges.” More information about them can be found at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/biblecolleges.cfm.

Section 4: Pre-College Credit

As noted in Section 2, several initiatives are underway to provide college-level credit for courses before students matriculate to a college or university. Several are discussed in this section.

Dual Credit

Dual Credit is defined in Coordinating Board Rule 4.83 as a “process by which a high school student enrolls in a college course and receives simultaneous academic credit for the course from both the college and the high school.”

Every dual credit program is a partnership between an independent school district (ISD) and a public institution of higher education (IHE). These two entities formalize the partnership by spelling out the terms in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU must address the following elements:

• Eligible Courses; • Student Eligibility; • Location of Class; • Student Composition of Class; • Faculty Selection, Supervision, and Evaluation; • Course Curriculum, Instruction, and Grading; • Academic Policies and Student Support Services; • Transcripting of Credit; and • Funding.

Eligible courses for community and technical colleges are those found in either the Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM) or the Workforce Education Course Manual (WECM). Universities may offer any course on their approved inventory for dual credit, with the exception that neither colleges nor universities may offer any developmental courses for dual credit.

Student eligibility has two factors: first, a student must be either a high school junior or senior, and second, the student must demonstrate that he or she is “college-ready” for Texas Success Initiative (TSI) purposes by achieving an appropriate score on the 10th or 11th grade TAKS test or on any TSI-approved instrument, such as the Accuplacer. The ISD or the IHE may

48 place additional requirements for eligibility, if they wish. Students are normally limited to two dual credit courses per term unless they receive special permission from the ISD and the IHE.

The location of the class may be the high school or the IHE campus, and distance learning is an acceptable strategy for delivering coursework.

The student composition of dual credit courses is normally either dual credit students only, or dual credit students mixed with college students. (See full text of dual credit rules for exceptions on the CB website.)

Faculty are selected at the discretion of the IHE. All faculty must meet SACS standards for faculty credentials. In some cases, faculty are drawn from the ranks of the IHE, and in others from the ranks of SACS-qualified high school teachers. Faculty supervision and evaluation procedures must be the same as, or comparable to, those used for faculty at the main campus of the IHE.

Course curriculum, instruction, and grading for dual credit courses must be substantially the same as those for courses at the main campus of the IHE. These standards must be upheld regardless of the student composition of the class. Academic policies and student support services for dual credit courses must be the same or substantially similar to those found on the main campus of the IHE.

For dual credit courses, high school as well as college credit should be noted on the student’s transcript immediately upon a student's completion of the performance required in the course. The funding of dual credit courses has two important provisions. First, both the ISD and the IHE may claim state funding and second, the IHE may waive all, part, or none of the tuition and fees.

Early College High Schools

According to the Texas Education Code (Section 29.908), an early college high school (ECHS) is “an early college education program for students who are at risk of dropping out of school or who wish to accelerate completion of the high school program.” Such a program must include these four elements:

• provide for a course of study that enables a participating student to combine high school courses and college-level courses during grade levels 9 through 12; • allow a participating student to complete high school and, on or before the fifth anniversary of the date of the student's first day of high school, receive a high school diploma and either an associate’s degree or at least 60 semester credit hours toward a baccalaureate degree; • include articulation agreements with colleges, universities, and technical schools in this state to provide a participating student access to postsecondary educational and training opportunities at a college, university, or technical school; and • provide a participating student flexibility in class scheduling and academic mentoring.

Like a dual credit program, every ECHS is a collaborative partnership between one (or more) ISD(s) and an IHE. The partners negotiate the details of the partnership and sign a contract or MOU, thereby creating the ECHS. The contract specifies the location of the ECHS, conditions for student eligibility and selection, faculty selection, supervision, and evaluation, the curriculum of the ECHS, evaluation of the performance of the ECHS, and funding sources.

Currently, most ECHS in Texas are the result of a public/private partnership known as the Texas High School Project (THSP). This is a $261 million public-private initiative committed to increasing graduation and college enrollment rates in every Texas community. The project is dedicated to ensuring that all Texas students leave high school prepared for college and career success in the 21st century economy. THSP partners include the Office of the Governor, the Texas Education Agency, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, Wallace Foundation, and others. The project’s private philanthropic investments are managed by the Communities Foundation of Texas. State and federal investments are managed by the Texas Education Agency (information courtesy of TEA website). The Texas High School Project provides start-up funds through a competitive grant application process, technical assistance, and administrative oversight to ECHS across the state. There are approximately 13 ECHS in Texas that are part of the THSP.

ECHS who receive funds from the THSP follow the “Gates Model” for early colleges, which means a learning community orientation, including small class and institutional sizes (100 students per grade, and 400 students per ECHS), a learning environment that fosters close relationships between ECHS staff and students, and an academically rigorous curriculum.

In addition to the state funds administered by TEA, and the private foundation money administered by the Communities Foundation of Texas, an ECHS may also collect average daily attendance for each high school student from TEA, and contact hour reimbursement from the Coordinating Board for each college course.

International Baccalaureate Diploma Program

The International Baccalaureate Diploma (IBD) is a secondary school program that is designed to offer a high school diploma to students in a large number of countries across the world, including the U.S. It offers a holistic approach to learning, and is intended to prepare students for their university careers.

Students in the IBD program take courses in a variety of subject areas, and at the end of their two-year program, they take six subject-specific exams. Each exam is scored on a 1 to 7 scale, and if the students make a total of 24 out of a possible 45 points, they receive the Diploma.

Senate Bill 111, passed during the regular session of the 79th Texas Legislature, requires all public institutions of higher education to award at least 24 hours of course specific college credit in subject-appropriate areas on all IBD exam scores of 4 or above as long as the incoming freshman has earned an IBD. College credit does not have to be awarded on any IBD exams where the score received is a 3 or less. This may mean that the student will not receive 24 hours of college credit, even if he/she has an IBD. Each IHE has developed its own specific IBD policy, which provides guidelines for which courses will be credited for the appropriate score on each subject exam. These institutional policies must be published in the catalog and on the IHE website.

See the website www.ibo.org for more details on the IBD.

Advanced Placement

The Advanced Placement (AP) program allows students to take courses in a variety of subjects in a high school setting, and then sit for an exam that may earn them college credit if they score well. Unlike IBD, there is no state-mandated score that a student must earn on an AP exam to earn college credit. Each IHE sets its own standards for offering credit-by-exam for AP test scores.

The AP program is owned and operated by a private company, the College Board, which sets up committees of secondary and post-secondary faculty to develop curricula, exams, and training materials for each of the 35 exams in the 20 subject areas offered. This is a popular credit-by-exam program and is available at more than half (“nearly 60 percent,” according to the AP website) of the high schools in the country. Schools may choose to enter the AP program by contacting the College Board and obtaining the curricula and training for their teachers. Qualified teachers teach the AP courses on the high school campus, and students sit for their AP exams in May. Unlike IBD, the AP courses and AP exams are not automatically linked together—students may take the courses and choose not to sit for the exams or may undertake the exam without having taken the course.

See the website http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/program/index.html for more information on the Advanced Placement program.

College Level Examination Program

The College Level Examination Program (CLEP) is a credit-by-exam program owned and operated by the College Board. Unlike IBD and AP, there are no courses associated with this program, only tests. Unlike the other programs described in sections I – IV, CLEP is not “pre-college” credit, since the students taking CLEP exams are normally already enrolled in college. Such students go to a CLEP testing center, pay the $60 exam fee, and then take the exam. Like AP, not all IHEs automatically accept CLEP credit, and they differ as to the scores necessary in order to earn college credit for the exam.

See the website http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html for more information about this program.

Section 5: Developmental Education

A large gap continues to exist between the post-secondary success of undergraduate students who enter college academically prepared and those who enter under-prepared. In Texas, too few undergraduate students enter college prepared to begin college-level work, too few gain college-level skills, too few earn certificates and degrees, and too few developmental programs are noted for excellence.

Even as Texas takes bold steps to close the gaps in academic success for all, demographics predict that a new wave of under-prepared students will enter higher education by 2015. Even now nearly one-half of all undergraduates in Texas matriculate into higher education under-prepared for the academic intensity of entry-level freshman coursework. This large population of under-prepared students increases the need for continued commitment to open access to higher educational opportunities. However, the commitment to access must also be met with an equally strong commitment to quality undergraduate programs – a

51 challenging goal. As masses of new under-prepared students access higher education, they must be met with the appropriate support needed to prepare them for the rigors of quality undergraduate programs. It is imperative that effective developmental education become the fulcrum that balances Texas’ commitment to both undergraduate access and academic excellence.

Developmental Education in Texas: Basic Facts

• Almost one-half of all Texas high school graduates who go to college will be required to take developmental coursework.

• Only 10 percent of developmental education students gain college-readiness in their first college year.

• Twenty percent of all under-prepared students earn certificates or degrees in six years, compared to nearly half of all prepared students.

Texas Success Initiative (TSI)

The Texas Success Initiative (TSI), which became state law in 2003, is a program of assessment, advising, developmental education, and student support services that is designed to ensure that students have the skills they need to succeed in college. Texas public institutions of higher education must use the flexibility and responsibility granted under this statute to improve individualized programs to ensure the success of students in higher education.

This new legislation changed the State's role in regulating the developmental education practices at public institutions of higher education. Both the preceding legislation on college success, the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP), and the TSI prescribed assessments and minimum passing standards for determining college readiness. However, the TSI contains fewer directives in the types and timing of remedial interventions.

The TSI begins with an assessment of all undergraduate students’ college readiness. Students may achieve exemption from the TSI by receiving a high score on the SAT, ACT, or 11th grade TAKS. Students who are not exempt based on one of those scores may take one of four tests (ASSET, COMPASS, ACCUPLACER, or THEA) to assess their skills in reading, writing, and mathematics.

The advising process begins after the student has completed the assessment. If the student has not achieved a passing standard on one or more area of a test, faculty and advisors design a strategy and individual plan that is appropriate for that student. The student may need developmental education course work, but other available options include individual tutoring, computer-assisted lab work, or other non-course based interventions. The decision about when a student is ready for college-level work is left to the institution.

Developmental Education Reporting

The TSI requires the Coordinating Board to evaluate the effectiveness of the TSI on a statewide basis with respect to each institution. In response to this mandate, Board staff have compiled several reports concerning the characteristics and successes of under-prepared students as well as the effectiveness of developmental education programs. Three of these reports provide a broad view of the data: (1) Developmental Education Data Profile, (2) Annual

52 TSI Test Report of Student Performance, and (3) Developmental Mathematics in Texas Higher Education Institutions: Performance Assessment. The following summarizes the major findings of each.

Developmental Education Data Profile:

The data profile was compiled as a quick reference for institutions to Board data on developmental student demographics, program effectiveness, adoption of best practices and funding trends. Major findings:

• Hispanic and African American students are overrepresented in under-prepared populations.

• Students who completed a more rigorous high school curriculum were half as likely to be under-prepared for college.

• Ten percent of all new under-prepared students who took developmental courses gained college-readiness in their first year.

• One-fifth of all new under-prepared students earn a certificate or degree within six years compared to almost one-half of prepared students.

• Ninety percent of institutions reported that developmental education is a part of their strategic plan.

• Almost 90% of institutions stated that academic advising is mandatory for all under-prepared students.

• Almost 70% of institutions stated that they evaluate the effectiveness of their developmental efforts and make improvements.

Annual TSI Test Report of Student Performance:

This report, referred to as the high school report, compiles college readiness data for a cohort of high school graduates. The report is primarily used by superintendents to fulfill yearly reporting mandates. The statewide summary reports TSI college readiness data disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, diploma type and economic disadvantage status. Data are also provided for each county’s independent school district. Major Findings:

• Statewide, 57 percent of all 2003 high school graduates who entered higher education were TSI satisfied and therefore college ready.

• Rates of preparedness were similar between males and females (57.5 percent and 56.7 percent respectively).

• Eighty-nine percent of all students who completed the Distinguished High School Program curriculum were college-ready in all subject areas. Sixty-one percent of those completing the Recommended High School Program curriculum and 29 percent of those completing the minimum high school curriculum were college ready in all subject areas.

53 Developmental Mathematics in Texas Higher Education Institutions: Performance Assessment:

This report begins by updating a 2002 study of mathematics preparation and progress of undergraduates entitled Mathematics Developmental Education in Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education: Performance Assessment, which tracked a 1999 cohort of nearly 160,000 first-time-in college students enrolled in Texas public colleges and universities over a two-year period. It updates and extends the longitudinal study to four years and includes additional elements about under-prepared math students and their performance in and beyond developmental education. Major findings:

• Almost one-third of all new undergraduates were not prepared for college-level math.

• Almost one-half of all new under-prepared math students were White; minorities were overrepresented in developmental math relative to their overall enrollments.

• The percentages of males and females who were college-ready in math were similar.

• Almost three-fourths of students who completed the Recommended High School Program (RHSP) curriculum were prepared for college-level math, while about one-half of the students enrolled in the Minimum High School Program curriculum were prepared for college-level math.

• Compared to those who delayed entry, high school students who moved directly into college without delay were the least likely to need developmental math.

• More than one-third of all under-prepared students completed their developmental math requirements within four years.

• Only 8 percent of all new under-prepared math students earned a certificate or degree within four years, while 21 percent of prepared students did so.

Accountability - New Higher Education Developmental Education Measures

All universities were required to participate and the community and technical college elected the same. This past year all public higher education institutions adopted three new developmental education measures.

• The percent of under-prepared students who successfully complete a related college-level course by subject areas compared to prepared students who successful complete a college course within one year.

• The percent of under-prepared students who satisfied TSI obligation by subject areas.

• The percent of under-prepared and prepared students who return the following fall.

Developmental Education Funding

Passage of HB 1 by the 79th Texas Legislature in a 2006 Special Session and the Texas Success Initiative established by the 78th Legislature in 2003, have placed considerable emphasis on the need for effective developmental education in Texas. Despite the significant changes addressed in these initiatives and legislative appropriations totaling over $228 million

54 ($206 million for TSI developmental instruction appropriations in FY 2006-2007 and $22 million for College Readiness under HB 1 for FY 2007-2008), limited focus has been placed on the actual state funding policies that drive the achievement of these goals. Proper alignment of state resources with these initiatives is critical for mitigating potential barriers to undergraduate students’ success and ensuring that state resources are allocated effectively. However, limited statewide data exists to provide an accurate picture of the total costs incurred by institutions to remediate under-prepared undergraduates.

In April 2006, the Coordinating Board adopted the Commissioner’s recommendations of the Community College Formula Funding Advisory Committee, which included a developmental education cost study. The Legislative Budget Board and the Coordinating Board are working together with researchers from the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin to conduct a study of the costs of developmental education at public institutions of higher education. The purpose of this joint study is to gain a better understanding of resource allocation (state, federal, local direct/indirect) in Texas higher education institutions to developmental education. This study will explore the current funding architecture for developmental education, conduct comparative studies of resources allocation, and examine the relationship of spending to academic performance. Initial surveys were sent to the institutions in November 2006 with the anticipation that the first round of analysis will be ready for the Legislative session that begins in January 2007.

P-16 Subcommittee on Developmental Education - New Recommendations Adopted by the P-16 Council, November 1, 2006

The P-16 Subcommittee’s members represent both public education and higher education from public two-and four-year institutions and private colleges as well as Adult Education and Literacy, the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, the Texas Workforce Commission, the Legislative Budget Board, the Texas Association of Community Colleges, the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Office of the Governor, Texas Association of Community College Teachers, Texas Education Services Centers, the College Board, and ACT. The Subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations to effectively address developmental education in Texas. Issues addressed by the Subcommittee included developmental education concerns such as curriculum and issues relation to instruction, definitions, faculty, institutions, and students. The Subcommittee members identified three main recommendations for adoption to effectively address developmental education issues in Texas.

• Recommend that Texas increase the preparedness of developmental educators. Developmental education certification and advanced degree programs must prepare educators to respond to the unique learning needs of under-prepared students in higher education.

• Recommend that developmental education content standards be developed and include appropriate learning strategies. Content standards must be employed to align learning objectives in developmental education courses with credit-bearing courses and to facilitate transfer of developmental courses among institutions of higher education.

• Recommend that the P-16 Council charge the Education Research Centers created in HB 1,

79th Texas Legislature, 3rd Called Session, with creating a developmental education research agenda to collect and disseminate relevant data through appropriate and rigorous research methodology. Although the goal of Texas’ education reforms in HB 1 aim to reduce

55 the need for developmental education, the need for it will continue until a generation of change has occurred. Focusing rigorous academic inquiry on the under-prepared student will strengthen the relatively weak body of scholarship in the field of developmental education and will provide the research underpinnings needed to support effective developmental education practice, discover innovative developmental pedagogy, and provide quality developmental educator preparation.

Recommendations on the Consent Agreement agenda include: (1) the adoption of a statewide developmental education mission statement, (2) the adoption of a statewide definition of developmental education, (3) the appointment of the Subcommittee as the Texas Success Initiative Advisory Committee, (4) the completion of a study on the costs associated with developmental education, and (5) the inclusion of a developmental education accountability measure of under-prepared students completion of baccalaureate degrees for all institutions of higher education.

Section 6: Transfer of Credit

In considering the ways that undergraduate education is distinct from secondary education or from graduate education, the transfer of credit, especially lower-division (freshman and sophomore) credit, among colleges and universities, is one significant factor. Because of the variety of institutional types that offer undergraduate education and especially with the growth of the community college system with its two-year associate’s degree emphasis – undergraduate students have a much broader choice about how they earn college credit and how they may assemble credit earned in different ways through different institutional means to fulfill the requirements for a degree.

But what is “transfer” in the collegiate sense? Transfer addresses a distinct aspect of college-level credit accumulation that is relatively unique to undergraduate education. It is a practice that makes undergraduate credit portable and allows certain work a student has done at one institution to count toward fulfillment of degree requirements at another institution. Transfer of credit involves college-level courses and is usually, although not always, concentrated in academic course work instead of technical courses.

Institutional Cooperation

Undergraduate students follow more than one path to the completion of the bachelor’s degree. In Texas, as in the rest of the United States, a majority of students begin their undergraduate careers at community colleges. These institutions have a broad mission, one aspect of which is to prepare students to complete baccalaureate degrees at a four-year college or university. While students may complete an associate’s degree prior to transferring their enrollment (and previously earned credit) to the baccalaureate degree-granting institution, completion of an associate’s degree is generally not a requirement for successful transfer. Many students, especially in urban areas where a variety of educational opportunities exist, co-enroll at more than one institution at the same time, “swirling” their enrollment and their credit to be able to complete courses more conveniently, making efficient use of their time, or finding ways to maintain college enrollments while holding down part-time or full-time jobs, meeting family obligations, and so on. These students may have three, four, or more transcripts, each showing different courses completed, that will need to be assembled when the student eventually transfers to the college or university that will award the bachelor’s degree.

56 Because of the role community colleges play in undergraduate education, most transfer of credit takes place at the lower-division level, with freshman and sophomore courses most frequently presented in transfer. A successful transfer system requires that the institution receiving the credit in transfer be able to determine the level of mastery the student has achieved in each course transferred, what the student has learned so far, what skills the student has acquired, and how the student can most successfully and appropriately move into subsequent academic work at the new institution. Institutions need to agree ahead of time about course equivalencies and other factors that will allow students to move easily and smoothly between institutions.

The process of determining course equivalencies between one college or university and another for the purpose of facilitating student transfer is called “articulation.” Articulation agreements completed between institutions usually detail a specific degree plan or curricular pathway within a specific academic discipline, or field of study. Representatives from both institutions work together to ensure that the student’s previously completed academic credit will be appropriately applied to degree requirements. Many institutions employ articulation specialists whose primary responsibility is to oversee and maintain successful transfer articulation agreements, policies, and institutional practices.

Statewide Transfer Facilitation

While institution-to-institution articulation offers an effective, customized approach to transfer, it relies on the cooperation and initiative of each college or university to achieve a unique agreement. Students cannot depend on an articulation agreement to work for one institution in the same way it does for another. In states with a large number of higher education institutions, statewide facilitation of transfer practices can provide basic guarantees for both students and institutions.

Texas recognized the value of effective transfer practices as essential to a successful higher education system very early. The enabling statutes that created the Coordinating Board in 1965 included as one of the “Powers and Duties of the Board” the responsibility to “…develop and promote a basic core of general academic courses which, when offered at a junior college during the first two years of collegiate study, shall be freely transferable among all public institutions of higher education in Texas which are members of recognized accrediting agencies on the same basis as if the work had been taken at the receiving institution” (Texas Education Code § 61.051(g)).

During the last 40 years the Coordinating Board has worked with institutions across the state to develop and improve a robust, flexible set of transfer practices. A number of statewide policies and tools have been developed that have placed Texas in a national leadership role regarding undergraduate transfer.

Lower-Division Academic Course Guide Manual

The most direct reflection of the original charge to the Coordinating Board is the Lower- Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM), the official publication that encompasses a pre-approved set of fully-transferable lower-division academic courses available to all community colleges. Community colleges select from the courses listed in the ACGM to plan their semester-by-semester course offerings. Thus the ACGM serves as a collective course inventory of academic transfer courses for all community colleges. The Academic Course Guide Manual Advisory Committee is a standing committee established by the Commissioner of

57 Higher Education to update and maintain the ACGM so that it will continue to be a useful tool for academic transfer. The most recent edition of the ACGM may be found at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/UndergraduateEd/WorkforceEd/acgm.htm.

A companion document, the Workforce Education Course Manual (WECM), provides a similar listing and descriptions of technical courses aimed more directly at workforce education. Some courses in the WECM may also be transferred into bachelor’s degree programs if they are completed successfully at a community college or technical institution. The most recent edition of the WECM may be found at: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/UndergraduateEd/WorkforceEd/.

Texas Common Course Numbering System

Courses in the ACGM are identified by course rubrics, the letters that identify the general subject matter of a course, and numbers that have been assigned by the Texas Common Course Numbering System (TCCNS) (http://www.tccns.org)/. The TCCNS is recognized in statute and in Coordinating Board rules as the official common course numbering system for use by Texas public colleges and universities to facilitate the determination of specific course equivalencies across the state.

The TCCNS is an independent organization that has its own board of directors, bylaws, and funding sources. A consortium of institutions that each pays a modest annual membership fee, the TCCNS now includes every public and almost every independent higher education institution in Texas. The TCCNS operates in close collaboration with, and under the aegis of, the Texas Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which provides assistance with membership maintenance, billing and membership fee collections. Other states have contacted the TCCNS to request consulting assistance in setting up their own common course numbering systems.

Each institution identifies courses that it considers equivalent to ones included in the TCCNS, with TCCNS-assigned course numbers. The TCCNS currently includes identified course equivalencies for almost 1,200 lower-division academic courses. All the public community colleges have converted their local course numbers to TCCNS numbers. Because university course inventories, which include upper-division and graduate courses, are too extensive to accommodate a wholesale conversion to TCCNS numbers, Coordinating Board rules require each university to identify each one of their lower-division course offerings that is equivalent to a course with a TCCNS number. (The ACGM provides a valuable resource for universities in determining course equivalency.) Universities must list the TCCNS number in parentheses directly following the institutional course identifying number in their printed catalogues and web-based course information materials, and must also provide a chart or “conversion table” so that students can easily identify equivalent courses regardless of the local course numbering system used at an institution. Legislation Related To Transfer: Core Curriculum

Regardless of the student’s academic discipline or “major,” all students intending to earn an undergraduate degree from a Texas public institution of higher education hold in common their completion of the Texas Core Curriculum. Texas law provides this definition for “core curriculum” (TEC §61.821): “ … the curriculum in liberal arts, humanities, and sciences and political, social, and cultural history that all undergraduate students of an institution of higher education are required to complete before receiving an academic undergraduate degree.”

58 The current statutes (TEC §61.821-61.832) maintain a state-level focus on excellence in undergraduate education while facilitating the transfer of lower-division course credit among public colleges, universities, and health science centers throughout the state. One of the most important provisions allows a transfer student to use the successfully completed group of lower- division core curriculum courses to substitute for the similar group of requirements at the college, university, or health science center to which they transfer.

The Coordinating Board was required by law to adopt rules that include "a statement of the content, component areas, and objectives of the core curriculum" – a template or model for a consistent statewide curriculum. Details of the statewide core curriculum are included in Coordinating Board Rules, Chapter 4, Subchapter B. Within the statewide model, each institution selects the specific courses it will offer to fulfill that model in a way that takes into account the individual role and mission of the college, university, or health science center. Those course selections and other aspects of core curriculum implementation must receive final approval from the Coordinating Board before they can be implemented, and institutions must evaluate the effectiveness of their core curricula at regular intervals (usually once every five years) and report the results of those evaluations to the Board.

Across the state, core curricula adopted by an institution of higher education and approved by the Coordinating Board must require courses totaling 42 semester credit hours (SCH), unless an individual institution has requested and received approval from the Coordinating Board to have a core curriculum that exceeds 42 SCH (institutions may decide to request an expansion in the number of SCH they want to require for their core curriculum, up to 48 SCH). A completed core curriculum must be transcripted as such, and will transfer and substitute for the approved core curriculum at any public institution of higher education in Texas. Students who transfer prior to completion of all core curriculum requirements receive credit in the appropriate component area for each successfully completed core course transferred from the sending institution.

The Coordinating Board requires institutions to provide reports regarding the effectiveness of their core curricula every five years. These reports are used by the Coordinating Board to ensure compliance with statutes and Board rules regarding the composition of the core curriculum and the continuing transfer practices mandated for the core curriculum across all public colleges and universities in the state. If no further legislative changes to existing core curriculum laws take place, the next set of institutional reports will be due to the Coordinating Board in fall 2009.

Legislation Related To Transfer: Field Of Study Curricula

At the same time (1997) that the Texas legislature mandated a fully transferable general education core curriculum for all public colleges and universities in the state, it imposed a similar practice regarding the lower-division courses that are required for a particular field of study, or “major.” Texas law provides this definition for “field of study curriculum” (TEC §61.821): “ … a set of courses that will satisfy the lower-division requirements for a baccalaureate degree in a specific academic area at a general academic teaching institution.”

A field of study curriculum affects academic degree programs at public colleges or universities as designated within the particular field of study curriculum. Like the core curriculum, field of study curricula are developed with the assistance and recommendations of advisory committees whose membership reflects a mix of teaching faculty and administrators, and which is evenly divided between representatives of two-year and four-year institutions.

59 Once the Coordinating Board has approved a field of study curriculum, that set of courses remains the same at every public institution of higher education around the state. In this respect field of study curricula are very different from the core curriculum. Every college and university selects the specific courses that will be used to fulfill the core curriculum requirements in the various component/content areas approved in the statewide model, but no two core curriculum at any Texas institutions are exactly alike.

However, a field of study curriculum, in the same manner as the core curriculum, is guaranteed by the state to transfer and apply to the appropriate degree requirements at any public college or university in Texas. But unlike the core curriculum, which is required of every student, regardless of academic degree plan or “major,” a field of study curriculum is something a student must make a choice to undertake. A field of study curriculum provides a statewide guarantee for the transferability of courses that fulfill degree requirements, but at the same time, field of study curricula are not intended to replace localized institution-to-institution articulation agreements, which may actually allow for the transfer of substantially more credit through the local agreement.

Legislation Related To Transfer: Transfer Dispute Resolution

Despite everyone’s best efforts, sometimes a student runs into a problem with transfer. While each institution has a dispute resolution process, sometimes a neutral third party is needed to investigate and resolve a problem. The Texas Legislature has provided for a process through which the Coordinating Board can fulfill that function. A transfer dispute may be initiated by a student whose application to transfer credit has been denied, a sending institution whose credit has been denied, or a receiving institution that does not accept the credit in transfer.

Transfer disputes are extraordinarily rare, averaging about one per year, which is remarkable in a state whose undergraduate population is approaching one million students. The Coordinating Board’s rules implementing the transfer dispute resolution process can be found here: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Rules/tac3.cfm?Chapter_ID=4&Subchapter=B.

Transfer Success Advisory Committee

The Transfer Success Advisory Committee (formerly the Transfer Issues Advisory Committee) is a standing committee charged by the Commissioner of Higher Education to provide recommendations to the Commissioner and the Board concerning the development and effective functioning of transfer of credit policies and practices in Texas. In 2001, the advisory committee completed a landmark study of transfer in Texas that guided the work of the committee for the next five years. The study found that transfer in Texas works very well, but that there was some room for improvement. Many of the recommendations included in the study have been achieved, with a few still in progress. The report can be found here: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/0427.PDF.

The work of the Transfer Success Advisory Committee continues, with an expanded membership that includes community and technical colleges, universities, health science centers, and upper-level institutions. Because laws regarding transfer of credit apply only to the public institutions, independent institutions are not included in the membership of the committee, but representatives of independent institutions are consulted routinely by the committee when appropriate.

60 Regional Transfer And Articulation Initiatives

Several regional initiatives have developed to facilitate student and credit transfer within a particular region of the state. Examples of regional collaboration on transfer initiatives include: (1) the “Gulf Coast Consortium,” composed of nine two-year, post-secondary institutions, including College of the Mainland, San Jacinto College, Galveston College, and Houston Community College, works to ensure that its students are able to transfer their credits to area universities; (2) the University of North Texas Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (http://www.unt.edu/transferinstitute/), which provides a framework for meetings, discussions, and an annual conference, as well as extensive reference resources concerning transfer; and (3) the Alamo Area Transfer and Articulation Council, which hosts periodic roundtables for academic advising, admissions, and registrar’s personnel from both public and independent colleges and universities throughout the greater San Antonio area.

The University of North Texas, collaborating with Collin County Community College District, Dallas County Community College District, Tarrant County College District, and North Central Texas College, is piloting a server-based student course information product called the Course Applicability System (CAS), developed and marketed by Miami University of Ohio. A number of states have adopted a statewide course information system, and students at institutions that have CAS installed have access to information about how their courses would transfer and apply at any CAS user institution, even across state lines.

2006 Feasibility Study

Senate Bill 1227, Section 58, passed by the 79th Texas Legislature (2005) called for the Coordinating Board to conduct a study examining the feasibility of implementing an automatic admission program for students who earn an associate’s degree or certificate from a two-year institution and who apply to transfer to a university. Certain patterns emerged from the study:

• Students who apply for transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution within the public higher education system are generally accepted. • Enrollment rates for students who apply and are accepted are high. • Only a small fraction of the students who are eligible for transfer are taking advantage of that educational option. • Students who transfer with more than 30 semester credit hours (SCH) from a community college or public technical college make up the largest group of transfer students in number. • Students who have earned an academic associate’s degree apply and enroll at the highest rates.

The study included these recommendations:

Recommendation 1. Any automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions which is proposed for statewide implementation should not include an automatic admission guarantee based solely on certificate program completion.

Recommendation 2. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should include academic requirements in addition to completion of an associate’s degree from a Texas public community or technical college. These requirements should include:

61 (a) completion of the 42-SCH core curriculum unless completion is precluded through provision in an existing field of study curriculum (e.g. music and engineering); and

(b) achievement of a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale.

Recommendation 3. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should exempt upper-level universities and health-related institutions.

Recommendation 4. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should exempt any university that, with respect to the academic year for which an undergraduate transfer student has applied for admission, has filled through automatic admission as required by the other provisions of the law at least 50 percent of the spaces available for entering undergraduate students at the institution.

Recommendation 5. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should complement existing articulation or specific admission agreements between institutions such as joint admission or other transfer articulation agreements.

Recommendation 6. To qualify for admission under a statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions, an applicant should be required to submit an application before the expiration of any application filing deadline established by the institution.

Recommendation 7. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should not guarantee admission to a specific academic program within the institution. Admission to a particular program or school within a general academic teaching institution should be based solely on the requirements of the institution.

Recommendation 8. Any statewide automatic admission program for undergraduates continuing from two-year to four-year institutions should apply to admission of students from Texas public institutions of higher education only.

The feasibility study was sent to the appropriate legislative committees on schedule on October 1, 2006. If legislation is enacted in Texas during the upcoming session based on the study and its recommendations, Texas would become the first state in the nation to mandate automatic admission (based on meeting certain academic conditions) for both AA and AS degree holders. The complete text of the study can be found here: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1255.PDF.

62 Section 7: Workforce Education in Texas

The Applied Associate’s Degree

Postsecondary-level workforce education programs are intended to lead directly to employment in a specific occupation. In Texas, two associate’s degree-level workforce education awards are approved by the Coordinating Board: the Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degree and the Associate in Applied Arts (AAA) degree. The AAS and AAA degrees consist of 60 to 72 semester credit hours of course work. The Coordinating Board also approves various sub-associate degree-level workforce education certificates requiring between 15 and 59 semester credit hours of instruction to complete.

A third award, the Associate of Occupational Studies (AOS) degree, is strictly limited to five private career schools under the terms of a grandfathering agreement.5 The AOS degree does not meet Coordinating Board standards for applied associate degrees and is not the equivalent of the AAS or AAA degree. No new AOS degree programs will be permitted.

The term “applied,” as it pertains to the associate’s degree, indicates that at least one third of the curriculum consists of general education course work in humanities/fine arts, social/behavioral science, and natural science/mathematics. The remainder of the curriculum includes basic and advanced course work in the major discipline.

Postsecondary workforce education programs in Texas are offered by public community and technical colleges and private career colleges with Coordinating Board-approved degree programs. However, five public four-year universities offer certificates and applied associate degrees: Angelo State University, Lamar University, Midwestern State University, Sul Ross State University, and Tarleton State University.

Generally, technical courses in most postsecondary workforce education programs are not intended to transfer to senior institutions. Two-year colleges are, however, urged to design applied associate degree programs to maximize the possibility of credit transfer and encourage students to recognize the long-term career possiblities that continued study will create. To that end, the University of Texas at Arlington and nine community and technical colleges participate in the Texas Two Step Project which provides seamless transfer of the applied associate degree to a baccalaureate degree program.

Enrollment

More than 285,000 students were enrolled in workforce education programs offered by Texas public community and technical colleges as of the fall semester 2005. Approximately 25,000 additional students were enrolled in two-year applied associate degree programs offered by private career colleges. As of the fall semester 2005, the 10 most heavily enrolled workforce education programs in Texas were:

5 The Texas Legislature transferred oversight of two-year degree programs offered by private career colleges (proprietary schools) from the Texas Education Agency to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 1989 (Senate Bill 417, 71st Legislature). AOS programs do not include the 15 semester credit hour or 23 quarter credit hour general education curriculum required of applied associate degree programs.

Program Enrollment Nursing (registered nurse training) 28,320 Business Administration and Management 11,041 Emergency Medical Technology (EMT Paramedic) 9,047 Criminal Justice/Police Science 8,694 Communication Studies/Speech Communication 8,521 Licensed Practical/Vocational Nurse Training 7,287 Computer and Information Sciences 6,077 Criminal Justice/Safety Studies 5,319 Automotive Mechanics Technology 4,830 Radiologic Technology 4,466 ______Total 45,194 6

Workforce Education Programs

Parents, students, and traditional four-year colleges and universities often stereotype workforce education. Some erroneously believe that workforce education lacks rigor and is an academic dumping ground for the less capable. That simply isn’t true. Degree-seeking workforce education students take the same general education courses as students who intend to transfer to four-year colleges and universities. The primary difference between a workforce student and a traditional student is intent, not ability. It is becoming increasingly common for individuals who hold baccalaureate and advanced degrees to pursue a change in career direction through workforce education.

Unfortunately, the lack of an accurate understanding of what workforce education really is often perpetuates the notion that only a four-year college degree will ensure employment success. The reality is that technical employment is the fastest-growing segment of the labor market and many technical occupations require the knowledge and skill-level provided by an associate's degree rather than a baccalaureate degree. People who work in technical occupations can expect to earn respectable entry-level salaries, many of which have increased up to 24 percent in recent years. Automotive technicians, for example, can earn $40,000- $50,000 per year in some markets. Furthermore, according to data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), two occupations requiring only an associate's degree – physical therapist assistant and dental hygienist – are projected to be among the top 10 fastest- growing jobs in the next decade. The demand for both jobs is expected to rise more than 40 percent by 2014, and both are rated well in terms of annual compensation. Dental hygienists typically make at least $43,600 per year, according to the BLS, while physical therapist assistants make between $28,580 and $43,590 annually depending on where they are employed.

6 Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

64 Workforce education plays an exceptionally important role in creating pathways to employment and driving the economy by providing business and industry with individuals who are skilled and knowledgeable in their chosen disciplines and have an appreciation for the benefits of life-long learning.

65 Appendices (percentage above column represents proportion between totals beneath column)

A1. Total high school graduates vs. total Hispanic graduates in 2001-2002 for the 10 most populous states (Hispanic graduates are percentages above bars)

TotalTotal HS graduates and HispanicHispanic graduates* in the U.S. in 2001-2002 350 33.6% 300 Total Hispanic 250 33.1%

200 11.1% 150 16.8% 10.5% 2.7% 1.3% 2.4% 12.4% 100 2.4% 50

0 CA TX NY FL IL PA OH MI NJ GA Total 324 225 140 120 117 114 110 95 78 66 Hisp. 109 74 16 20 12 3 1 2 10 2

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006

A2. Total fall enrollment in 1999 and 2004 for the 10 most populous states with percentage increase

Total fall enrollm ent* in the U.S. in 1999 and 2004 2500 +17.7%

Fall 1999 2000 Fall 2004 1500 +24.1% +11.8% +26.6% +9.3% 1000 +13.8% +11.1% +12.0% +39.3% 500 +15.1%

0 CA TX NY FL IL PA MI OH GA NJ 1999 2017 991 1021 685 733 605 559 549 312 331 2004 2374 1229 1141 867 801 689 621 614 434 380

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006

66 A3. Total first time freshman enrollment in fall 2000 and 2003 for the 10 most populous states with percentage increase

TotTotaall 1 st time freshmen fall enrollm ent* in tthhee

+0.5% U.S. in 2000 and 2003 250

+13.4% Fall 2000 200 +6.0% Fall 2003 150 +4.8% +19.1% +7.3% +5.4% 100 +4.2%+22.2% +7.4% 50

0 CA TX NY PA FL IL OH MI GA NJ 2000 246 182 168 85 108 110 99 126 68 52 2003 247 206 178 89 115 131 104 132 83 56

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006

A4. Total enrollment vs. total Hispanic enrollment in fall 2003 for the 10 most populous states (Hispanic enrollment percentage above bars)

Total and HispanicHispanic studentstudent enrollment* in the U.S. in Fall 2003 2500 24.9%

24.9% 2000 Total Hispanic

1500 10.9% 1000 17.3% 11.5% 2.6% 2.6% 1.9% 500 2.2% 12.8%

0 CA TX NY FL IL PA MI OH GA NJ Total 2339 1889 1126 840 797 676 603 616 373 411 Hisp. 583 295 123 145 92 18 11 16 48 9

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006

67 A5. Ratio of undergraduate degrees to high school graduates in 2001-2002 for the 10 most populous states

UG degrees/degrees/HSHS graduates ratioratio in the U.S. in 2001-2002 350 0.67 300 HS graduates UG degrees 250 0.53

200 1.09 150 0.89 0.76 0.81 0.73 0.66 100 0.65 0.51

0 NY FL PA IL MI CA OH GA TX NJ UGD* 153 107 93 88 69 217 73 43 119 39 HSG* 140 120 115 117 95 324 110 66 225 78

Source: Digest of Education Statistics * In thousand. THECB 12/2006