LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 74th Regular Session April 4, 1995 TO: Honorable Irma Rangel, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 31 Committee on Higher Education By: Kubiak House of Representatives Austin, Texas FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on House Bill No. 31 (Relating to the calculation of the grade point average of a student who repeats a course at an institution of higher education) this office has determined the following: The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill. The bill would specify procedures regarding repeated courses and the calculation of grade point averages (GPA). The bill would allow undergraduate students who receive a letter grade of C, D, or F in an undergraduate course to repeat the same course at the same institution once. The second grade, if superior, would be used to calculate the student's GPA. The bill would limit the number of semester credit hours which could be changed in this manner to 15 hours in one semester. The bill would allow a resident student in a work-study program, or who is a recipient of a competitive scholarship or educational grant, to pay the same tuition for a repeated course as the rate that was in effect when the course was first taken. Resident students who do not qualify for this tuition policy would pay nonresident tuition for repeated courses. Nonresident students not enrolled in a work-study program or recipients of a competitive scholarship or educational grant would pay 120 percent of nonresident tuition for repeated courses. It is anticipated that implementation would require extensive computer programming at institutions of higher education. However, since the GPA policies specified would not be implemented until Fall 1996, it is expected that computer programming changes could be made during the normal course of software maintenance and upgrade with no additional costs to the institutions. The estimates of general revenue-related costs below assume 10 percent of undergraduate students would choose to repeat a course. Repeated courses would represent an increase in general revenue formula funding two years after the original course was failed, projected to be FY1998 for purposes of this fiscal note. Some of the anticipated increase in formula funding would be offset by increased tuition revenue. The cost estimates below include projected increased tuition revenues. The probable fiscal implication of implementing the provisions of the bill during each of the first five years following passage is estimated as follows: Fiscal Probable Cost Out Year of General Revenue Fund 001 1996 $0 1997 0 1998 2,629,540 1999 2,629,145 2000 2,628,750 Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. Source: Higher Education Coordinating Board LBB Staff: JK, MK, WRR