LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 74th Regular Session April 5, 1995 TO: Honorable Irma Rangel, Chair IN RE: Committee Substitute Committee on Higher Education for House of Representatives House Bill Austin, Texas No. 2309 By: Rangel FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on House Bill No. 2309 (Relating to the basic skills assessment of students at institutions of higher education and to programs for students in need of enrichment in those basic skills) this office has determined the following: The bill would change the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) from a testing instrument for remedial needs to an assessment and enrichment program. It would require the Higher Education Coordinating Board to develop an assessment procedure that would be administered to all incoming students in higher education. It would provide certain exemptions, including students pursuing certificates. It would specify that the costs of administering the assessment procedures be borne by the students taking it. Based on the results of the assessment, institutions could require students to take enrichment courses, but no retesting could be required and assessment results could not be used to impede progress toward a degree. Finally, the bill would also require the Coordinating Board to develop formulae which provide augmented funding for courses with higher than average student failure rates. The bill would be effective September 1, 1995 but for purposes of this fiscal note it is presumed that the major provisions could not be implemented until FY 1997. Local community/junior college taxing districts would have savings due to decreased enrollment in remedial (enrichment) courses. Most certificate programs are currently TASP exempt and only about 1,500 students enrolled in certificate programs are required to participate in TASP. It is estimated that the bill would result in a decreased enrollment of 85 full-time equivalent students (FTE). Abolishment of retesting would decrease the number of semester credit hours of remedial instruction by 10 percent, or 2,400 FTE. A substantial amount of enrichment courses would replace remedial courses based on local diagnostic assessments. The cost per FTE to the community/junior colleges is about $1,300. For purposes of this fiscal note it is assumed that existing assessment instruments could be used to implement the provisions of the bill. The bill would result in general revenue savings due to decreased enrollments in remedial (enrichment) courses in both community/junior colleges and universities. As indicated above, enrollments at community/junior colleges would decline by 2,485 FTE at an average cost to the state of approximately $1,300. As a result of not allowing retesting, there would be an estimated 10 percent decrease in enrollment of remedial (enrichment) courses at the university level totaling some 500 FTE. The cost to the state for each university FTE is approximately $4,700. 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 Savings Probable Savings Year to the to General Revenue Community College Fund Districts (FTE Decrease) 1996 $0 $0 1997 5,500,000 3,200,000 1998 5,500,000 3,200,000 1999 5,500,000 3,200,000 2000 5,500,000 3,200,000 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