LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
74th Regular Session
March 27, 1995
TO: Honorable Irma Rangel, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 2309
Committee on Higher Education By: Rangel
House of Representatives
Austin, Texas
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 letter of estimate 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
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, DF