Part 1.
TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD
Chapter 5.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
19 TAC §5.9
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments
to §5.9 concerning General Provisions (Uniform Admission Policy) without
changes to the proposed text as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of
the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10690).
The proposed amendments are being adopted to reflect recent legislation
(House Bill 1804, 76th Legislative Session), extending automatic admission
for the top 10% of students attending high schools operated by the United
States Department of Defense, provided they are also Texas residents or entitled
to pay tuition and fees at the rate provided for Texas residents for the term
to which admitted.
No comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rules.
The amendments to the rule are adopted under Texas Education
Code, §51.803 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning General Provisions (Uniform
Admission Policy).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000752
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §5.12
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §5.12
concerning General Provisions (Expert Witnesses) with changes to the proposed
text as published in the December 3, 1999 issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10691).
The proposed new rule is specifically being adopted to implement the provisions
of Texas Education Code, §61.0815, requiring reporting by higher education
institutions to the Coordinating Board on certain employees who serve as consulting
or testifying expert witness under the conditions specified in the statute
and in this rule.
Comments were received from the University of North Texas and the Texas
Faculty Association regarding the proposed new rule as follows:
Comment: The University of North Texas commented that the definition of
fiscal year in §5.12(b)(4) should read "September 1 through August 31"
and that §5.12(c)(1)(B) should read "the names of the parties, cause
number and county where the cause is filed, for each case in which qualifying
expert witness services was rendered."
Response: Staff agrees with those comments and those sections were changed
to clarify the requirements of §5.12.
Comment: Scott Polikov, an attorney with George and Donaldson, L.L.P.,
commented on behalf of the Texas Faculty Association, objecting to the reporting
requirements of the statute.
Response: These comments were directly related to the requirements of the
statute and no changes were made as a result of these comments.
The new rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §61.027
which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board with the authority
to adopt rules concerning General Provisions (Expert Witnesses).
§5.12.Expert Witnesses.
(a)
Purpose. Pursuant to Texas Education Code, §61.0815,
this subchapter sets out guidelines for reporting by higher education institutions
to the Coordinating Board on certain employees who serve as consulting or
testifying expert witness under the conditions specified in the law and in
this subchapter.
(b)
Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in
this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
(1)
Consulting or testifying expert witness--any non-fact witness
whose name must be disclosed during litigation as required by the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
(2)
Institution of higher education--any public technical
institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical
or dental unit, or other agency of higher education as defined in Texas Education
Code, §61.003.
(3)
Faculty or professional staff of an institution of
higher education--a non-classified, full-time employee who is a member of
the faculty or staff and whose duties include teaching, research, administration
or performing professional services, including professional library services.
(4)
Fiscal year-- the State of Texas' fiscal year, September
1 through August 31.
(5)
Non-classified--an employee whose position is not
controlled by the institution's classified personnel system or a person employed
in a similar position if the institution does not have a classified personnel
system.
(c)
Reporting. No later than September 30 of each year, the
president of an institution of higher education shall file a written report
with the Coordinating Board regarding members of the faculty or professional
staff who received compensation for serving as consulting or testifying expert
witnesses during the prior fiscal year in lawsuits in which the state is a
party.
(1)
Each report shall contain:
(A)
the number of hours spent by faculty or professional staff
members serving as consulting or testifying expert witnesses during the prior
fiscal year;
(B)
the names of the parties, cause number and county where
the cause is filed, for each case in which qualifying expert witness services
was rendered; and
(C)
the outcome of the case, including the amount of:
(i)
any judgment entered against the state;
(ii)
any prejudgment or postjudgment interest awarded against
the state; and
(iii)
any attorney's fees of another party ordered to be paid
by the state.
(2)
The information regarding the number of
hours spent by faculty or staff serving as consulting or testifying expert
witnesses shall be reported to the Coordinating Board in the aggregate without
identifying specific individuals.
(3)
In the event an institution cannot provide the information
specified in subsection (c)(1)(C) of this section, the Texas Attorney General's
Office shall provide the information to the Coordinating Board.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000753
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §5.420
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §5.420
concerning Tobacco Lawsuit Settlement Funds (Nursing, Allied Health and Other
Health-related Education Grant Program) with changes to the proposed text
as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10691).
Specifically, the Fund was one of four funds created by the 76th Legislature
(House Bill 1945) to support higher education for certain public health purposes.
Eligible grant recipients are public institutions of higher education that
offer upper-level academic instruction and training in the fields of nursing,
allied health or other health-related education. The new section creates a
grant program to be administered by the Coordinating Board and describes eligibility
requirements, application, peer review, and funding processes, awards criteria,
and other administrative matters associated with the distribution of these
funds.
No comments were received regarding the proposed new rule.
The new rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §63.202
which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board with the authority
to adopt rules concerning Tobacco Lawsuit Settlement Funds (Nursing, Allied
Health and Other Health-related Education Grant Program).
§5.420.Nursing, Allied Health and Other Health-related Education Grant Program.
(a)
Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in
this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
(1)
Board--The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(2)
Commissioner--The Commissioner of Higher Education.
(b)
General Information. The program, as it applies to this
section:
(1)
Name. Nursing, Allied Health and Other Health-related Education
Grant Program.
(2)
Purpose. To provide funding to eligible institutions
of higher education to establish or support academic instruction and training
programs on public health issues specific to nursing, allied health and other
health-related education.
(3)
Authority. Texas Education Code, §§63.201-63.203.
(4)
Eligible institutions. Public institutions of higher
education that offer upper-level academic instruction and training in the
fields of nursing, allied health, or other health-related education. Institutions
or components identified under Texas Education Code, §63.002(c), and §§63.101-63.102
are not eligible to receive funding through the grant program.
(5)
Eligible programs. Nursing, allied health or other
health-related educational initiatives, including those that expand existing
academic programs, and develop other new or existing activities and projects,
that are not funded by state appropriation during the funding period.
(6)
Application requirements. Applications shall be submitted
to the Board in the format and at the time specified by the Board.
(7)
General Selection Criteria Competitive. Designed to
award grants that provide the best overall value to the state. Selection criteria
shall be based on:
(A)
Program quality as determined by peer reviewers;
(B)
Impact the grant award shall have on academic instruction
and training in public health-related education in the state;
(C)
Cost of the proposed program; and
(D)
Other factors to be considered by the Board, including
financial ability to perform program, state and regional needs and priorities,
ability to continue program after grant period, and past performance.
(8)
Minimum award $75,000 per award in any fiscal
year.
(9)
Maximum award 15% of the estimated available funding
per award in any fiscal year.
(10)
Maximum award length. A program is eligible to receive
funding for two years within a fiscal biennium. Previously funded programs
may reapply for one additional funding biennium.
(c)
Peer Review.
(1)
The Board shall use peer reviewers to evaluate the quality
of applications.
(2)
The Commissioner shall select qualified individuals
to serve as reviewers. Peer reviewers shall demonstrate appropriate credentials
to evaluate grant applications in health education. Reviewers shall not evaluate
any applications for which they have a conflict of interest.
(3)
The Board staff shall provide written instructions
and training for peer reviewers.
(4)
The peer reviewers shall score each application according
to these award criteria and weights:
(A)
Significance of instruction or training program. The reviewers
shall consider issues such as: How relevant and timely is this topic to public
health issues for the particular discipline? Is the program unique and important
or unique and important for a geographic area? Will the program be useful
to or later replicated at other institutions in the state? Will the program
provide an advancement of knowledge that may result in positive changes in
patient care, education or health care policy? How many people will benefit
directly from the program? Maximum points: 30
(B)
Resources to perform program. The reviewers shall consider
issues such as: What new personnel, equipment and facility resources are needed
for the program? What existing resources can be used? What are the professional
credentials and experience of the program's key personnel? Maximum points:
15
(C)
Program design. The reviewers shall consider issues such
as: Is the program well defined? Is it a discrete program which can be completed
in the grant period? Are the goals and objectives realistic? How well has
the proposal described the program development process and the nature of analysis
to be carried out? Maximum points: 25
(D)
Cost sharing. The reviewers shall consider issues such
as: What level of local funding, if any, is available to share in the cost
of the program? Maximum points: 5
(E)
Cost effectiveness. The reviewers shall consider issues
such as: How appropriate are the chosen equipment, staffing and service providers
for the program given the cost of the program? Is the budget realistic? Does
the proposal make effective use of the grant funds? Maximum points: 25
(F)
Evaluation and expected outcomes. The reviewers shall consider
issues such as: How well has the proposal described the methodology to evaluate
and estimate the outcomes from the program? Is the evaluation methodology
appropriate and effective? Are the outcomes realistic? Maximum points: 30
(d)
Application and Review Process.
(1)
The Commissioner may solicit recommendations from an advisory
committee or other group of qualified individuals on funding priorities for
each biennial grant period, and the administration of the application and
review process.
(2)
The Board staff shall review applications to determine
if they adhere to the grant program requirements and the funding priorities
contained in the Request for Proposal. An application must meet the requirements
of the Request for Proposal and be submitted with proper authorization before
or on the day specified by the Board to qualify for further consideration.
Qualified applications shall be forwarded to the peer reviewers for evaluation.
Board staff shall notify applicants eliminated through the screening process
within 30 days of the submission deadline.
(3)
Peer reviewers shall evaluate applications and assign
scores based on award criteria. All evaluations and scores of the review committee
are final.
(4)
Board staff shall rank each application based on points
assigned by peer reviewers, and recommend a priority ranked list of applications
to the Commissioner for approval.
(e)
Funding Decisions.
(1)
Applications for grant funding shall be evaluated only
upon the information provided in the written application.
(2)
The Board delegates to the Commissioner the authority
to approve grants upon the recommendation of the panel of peer reviewers and
Board staff.
(3)
Funding recommendations to the Commissioner shall
consist of the most highly ranked and recommended applications up to the limit
of available funds. If available funds are insufficient to fully fund a proposal
after the higher-ranking and recommended applications have been fully funded,
staff shall negotiate with the applicant to determine if a lesser amount would
be acceptable. If the applicant does not agree to the lesser amount, the staff
shall negotiate with the next applicant on the ranked list. The process shall
be continued until all grant funds are awarded.
(f)
Contract. Following approval of grant awards by the Board,
the successful applicants must sign a contract issued by Board staff and based
on the information contained in the application.
(g)
Cancellation or Suspension of Grants. The Board has the
right to reject all applications and cancel a grant solicitation at any point
before a contract is signed.
(h)
Request for Proposal. The full text of the administrative
regulations and budget guidelines for this program are contained in the official
Request for Proposal (RFP) available upon request from the Board.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000754
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §5.421
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §5.421
concerning Tobacco Lawsuit Settlement Funds (Minority Health Research and
Education Grant Program) with changes to the proposed text as published in
the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10693).
Specifically, the Fund was one of four funds created by the 76th Legislature
(House Bill 1945) to support higher education for certain public health purposes.
Eligible grant recipients are institutions of higher education, including
Centers for Teacher Education, that conduct research or education programs
that address minority health issues or form partnerships with minority organizations,
colleges of universities to conduct research and educational programs that
address minority health issues. The new section creates a grant program to
be administered by the Coordinating Board and describes eligibility requirements,
application, peer review, and funding processes, awards criteria, and other
administrative matters associated with the distribution of these funds.
No comments were received regarding the proposed new rule.
The new rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §63.302
which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board with the authority
to adopt rules concerning Tobacco Lawsuit Settlement Funds (Minority Health
Research and Education Grant Program).
§5.421.Minority Health Research and Education Grant Program.
(a)
Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in
this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
(1)
Board--The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(2)
Commissioner--The Commissioner of Higher Education.
(3)
Minority--a particular ethnic or racial group that
is under-represented in one or more areas of health research or health education.
(b)
General Information. The program, as it applies to this
section:
(1)
Name--Minority Health Research and Education Grant Program.
(2)
Purpose--To provide funding to eligible institutions
of higher education to conduct research and educational programs on public
health issues affecting one or more minority groups in Texas.
(3)
Authority--Texas Government Code, §§63.301-63.302.
(4)
Eligible institutions--Public and private accredited
general academic and health related institutions, and Centers for Teacher
Education, that conduct research or educational programs that address minority
health issues or form partnerships with minority organizations, colleges,
or universities to conduct research and educational programs that address
minority health issues. Two-year institutions, including junior and community
colleges, state colleges or technical colleges, and other agencies of higher
education as defined by Texas Education Code, §61.003(6) are not eligible
to submit an application for program funding but may receive program funding
indirectly as a partner to an eligible institution.
(5)
Eligible programs--Research and educational initiatives,
including those that expand existing research and degree programs, and develop
other new or existing activities and projects, that are not funded by state
appropriation during the funding period. Proposed programs shall not conflict
with current judicial decisions and state interpretation on administering
minority programs in higher education.
(6)
Application requirements--Applications shall be submitted
to the Board in the format and at the time specified by the Board.
(7)
General Selection Criteria Competitive. Designed to
award grants that provide the best overall value to the state. Selection criteria
shall be based on:
(A)
Program quality as determined by peer reviewers;
(B)
Impact the grant award shall have on public health issues
affecting one or more minority groups in the state;
(C)
Cost of the proposed program; and
(D)
Other factors to be considered by the Board, including
financial ability to perform program, state and regional needs and priorities,
ability to continue program after grant period, and past performance.
(8)
Minimum award--$50,000 per award in any fiscal
year.
(9)
Maximum award--15% of the estimated available funding
per award in any fiscal year.
(10)
Maximum award length--A program is eligible to receive
funding for two years within a fiscal biennium. Previously funded programs
may reapply for one additional funding biennium.
(c)
Peer Review.
(1)
The Board shall use peer reviewers to evaluate the quality
of applications.
(2)
The Commissioner shall select qualified individuals
to serve as reviewers. Peer reviewers shall demonstrate appropriate credentials
to evaluate grant applications in health research and education. Reviewers
shall not evaluate any applications for which they have a conflict of interest.
(3)
The Board staff shall provide written instructions
and training for peer reviewers.
(4)
The peer reviewers shall score each application according
to these award criteria and weights:
(A)
Significance of research or educational program for minority
health issues. The reviewers shall consider issues such as: How relevant and
timely is this topic to minority public health issues? Is the program unique
and important or unique and important for a geographic area? Will the program
be useful to or later replicated at other institutions in the state? Will
the program provide an advancement of knowledge that may result in positive
changes in patient care, education or health care policy for minorities? How
many people will benefit directly from the program? Maximum points: 30
(B)
Resources to perform program. The reviewers shall consider
issues such as: What new personnel, equipment and facility resources are needed
for the program? What existing resources can be used? Will the program draw
on resources from other institutions and organizations? Do the institution's
partners, if any, demonstrate financial stability and effectiveness in conducting
similar research or education programs? What are the professional credentials
and experience of the program's key personnel? Maximum points: 15
(C)
Program design. The reviewers shall consider issues such
as: Is the program well defined? Is it a discrete program which can be completed
in the grant period? Are the goals and objectives realistic? How well has
the proposal described the data collection or program development process
and the nature of analysis to be carried out? Maximum points: 25
(D)
Cost sharing. The reviewers shall consider issues such
as: What level of local funding, if any, is available to share in the cost
of the program? Maximum points: 5
(E)
Cost effectiveness. The reviewers shall consider issues
such as: How appropriate are the chosen equipment, staffing and service providers
for the program given the cost of the program? Is the budget realistic? Does
the proposal make effective use of the grant funds? Maximum points: 25
(F)
Evaluation and expected outcomes. The reviewers shall consider
issues such as: How well has the proposal described the methodology to evaluate
and estimate the outcomes from the program? Is the evaluation methodology
appropriate and effective? Are the outcomes realistic? Maximum points: 30
(d)
Application and Review Process.
(1)
The Commissioner may solicit recommendations from an advisory
committee or other group of qualified individuals on funding priorities for
each biennial grant period, and the administration of the application and
review process.
(2)
The Board staff shall review applications to determine
if they adhere to the grant program requirements and the funding priorities
contained in the Request for Proposal. An application must meet the requirements
of the Request for Proposal and be submitted with proper authorization before
or on the day specified by the Board to qualify for further consideration.
Qualified applications shall be forwarded to the peer reviewers for evaluation.
Board staff shall notify applicants eliminated through the screening process
within 30 days of the submission deadline.
(3)
Peer reviewers shall evaluate applications and assign
scores based on award criteria. All evaluations and scores of the review committee
are final.
(4)
Board staff shall rank each application based on points
assigned by peer reviewers, and recommend a priority ranked list of applications
to the Commissioner for approval.
(e)
Funding Decisions.
(1)
Applications for grant funding shall be evaluated only
upon the information provided in the written application.
(2)
The Board delegates to the Commissioner the authority
to approve grants upon the recommendation of the panel of peer reviewers and
Board staff.
(3)
Funding recommendations to the Commissioner shall
consist of the most highly ranked and recommended applications up to the limit
of available funds. If available funds are insufficient to fully fund a proposal
after the higher-ranking and recommended applications have been fully funded,
staff shall negotiate with the applicant to determine if a lesser amount would
be acceptable. If the applicant does not agree to the lesser amount, the staff
shall negotiate with the next applicant on the ranked list. The process shall
be continued until all grant funds are awarded.
(f)
Contract. Following approval of grant awards by the Board,
the successful applicants shall sign a contract issued by Board staff and
based on the information contained in the application.
(g)
Cancellation or Suspension of Grants. The Board has the
right to reject all applications and cancel a grant solicitation at any point
before a contract is signed.
(h)
Request for Proposal. The full text of the administrative
regulations and budget guidelines for this program are contained in the official
Request for Proposal (RFP) available upon request from the Board.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000755
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter F. CONSERVATORSHIP OF A PUBLIC COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT
19 TAC §8.123
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments
to §8.123 concerning Conservatorship of a Public Community/Junior College
(Mismanagement Finding; Conservatorship Order) without changes to the proposed
text as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10694).
The proposed amendments would revise provisions concerning conservatorship
of public community/junior colleges found to have a condition of gross fiscal
mismanagement. The state conservatorship board has been replaced by a Governor-appointed
conservator who is to receive a salary and reimbursement for related expenses
from the institution in conservatorship.
No comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rules.
The amendments to the rule are adopted under Texas Education
Code, §§61.051, 61.061, 61.062(c), 130.001(b)(3), and Government
Code, §2104.031 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning Conservatorship of a Public
Community/Junior College (Mismanagement Finding; Conservatorship Order).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000756
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §8.124
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §8.124
concerning Conservatorship of a Public Community/Junior College (Compensation
of a Conservator) without changes to the proposed text as published in the
December 3, 1999 issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10694).
The proposed new rule would revise provisions concerning conservatorship
of public community/junior colleges found to have a condition of gross fiscal
mismanagement. The state conservatorship board has been replaced by a Governor-appointed
conservator who is to receive a salary and reimbursement for related expenses
from the institution in conservatorship.
No comments were received regarding the proposed new rule.
The new rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §§61.051,
61.061, 61.062(c), 130.001(b)(3), and Government Code, §2104.031 which
provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board with the authority
to adopt rules concerning Conservatorship of a Public Community/Junior College
(Compensation of a Conservator).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000757
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter A. DEFINITIONS
19 TAC §9.1
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments
to §9.1 concerning Program Development in Public Community/Junior College
Districts and Technical Colleges with changes to the proposed text as published
in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10696).
The proposed amendments would change the definition of distance education
to be consistent with the definition of distance education as proposed in
July 1999, in Chapter 5, Subchapter H. New definitions would be added to clarify
terms found in proposed rules for Tech-Prep Education. As a result of these
revisions and additions, renumbering of existing definitions would be necessary.
Comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rules as
follows:
Comment: The Coastal Bend Business Roundtable, Ingelside Independent School
District, and various representatives from the Coastal Bend, Concho Valley,
Gulf Coast, North Central Texas, North Texas, and South Plains Tech-Prep consortia
commented that the inclusion in the consortium governing board definition
of one representative from each educational entity participating in the consortium
would create significant problems in the management, size, or equitable and
consistent representation within a consortium. Clarification was requested
on the definition of governing board and did not suggest changes to the rules.
Response: The staff agrees and has made modifications to definition §9.1(13)
to reflect a broadening of the definition in allowing members to represent
multiple entities if agreed upon by the consortium.
Comment: A representative from East Central Independent High School in
San Antonio suggested that a definition of articulation agreement be included
in the Chapter 1, Definitions.
Response: The staff agrees to the extent that some clarification may be
important concerning articulated credit. More specific guidelines on appropriate
activities, use of funds, requirements, and other terms or definitions (including
articulation issues) for administration of Tech-Prep programs will be provided
in the Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Workforce Education.
Comment: A representative of the Governor's Office provided a comment on
definition §9.1(13), Governing Board, Tech-Prep Consortium, recommending
additional language be included concerning the composition of a consortium
governing board.
Response: The suggested language has been included in the definition except
the proposal that the governing board include one representative of each optional
entity. A broadening of the definition has been made as a result of other
comments allowing members to represent multiple entities if agreed upon by
the consortium. Each consortium may decide the composition of the governing
board except the requirement that membership include educational entity representation.
Comment: A representative of the Governor's Office provided a comment on
definition 9.1(21), Tech-Prep consortium, to include additional language on
the local option to consolidate a Tech-Prep consortium with a School-to-Career
partnership.
Response: The suggested language has not been included in the definition
but will be provided in the Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Workforce
Education. The revision will also include the Perkins Act requirement prohibiting
the use of Perkins funds for School-to-Careers activities.
Comment: A representative of the Texas Workforce Commission suggested that
definition 9.1(21), Tech-Prep consortium, include a broadening of educational
entities to include examples such as school districts, institutions of higher
education, businesses, labor organizations, school-to-careers partnerships,
local workforce development boards, etc.
Response: The suggested language has not been included in the definition
because the staff believes the reference to the applicable section of the
Carl D. Perkins Act given in the definition adequately addresses the composition
of a consortium. Appropriate references will be included in revisions to the
Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Workforce Education.
Comment: The President of Amarillo College, a representative from Roscoe
High School and representatives from the Brazos Valley and Southeast Texas
Tech-Prep consortia commented that the Tech-Prep rules were acceptable as
proposed.
Response: The staff appreciates the input of these respondents.
The amendments to the rule are adopted under Texas Education
Code, §§29.182, 29.184, 61.076(a), 61.851 - 61.855, 130.001(b)(3)-(4),
130.008, 130.090, and 135.06(d), which provides the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning Program Development
in Public Community/Junior College Districts and Technical Colleges (Definitions).
§9.1.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall
have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1)
Academic courses -- Semester or quarter hour credit courses
as included or allowed under the provisions of the Community College Academic
Course Guide Manual designed for college transfer to institutions of higher
education in completion of associate and baccalaureate degree programs.
(2)
Associate degree program -- A grouping of courses
designed to lead the individual directly to employment in a specific career,
or to transfer to an upper-level baccalaureate program. This specifically
refers to the associate of arts, associate of science, associate of applied
arts, associate of applied science, and the associate of occupational studies
degrees. The term "applied" in an associate degree name indicates a program
in which the content is primarily technical.
(3)
Board or coordinating board -- The Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board.
(4)
Certificate program -- Workforce programs designed
for entry-level employment or for upgrading skills and knowledge within an
occupation. Certificate programs serve as building blocks and exit points
for AAS degree programs.
(5)
Commissioner of higher education or commissioner --
The chief executive officer of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
(6)
Concurrent course credit -- The award of credit to
a student upon successful course completion for both high school credit (graduate
requirements) and college credit (associate degree requirements.)
(7)
Continuing education unit or CEU -- Ten (10) contact
hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under
responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction, as
outlined in the Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Workforce Education.
(8)
Contractual agreements -- Agreements or contracts
between public community/junior or technical colleges and one of the following:
(A)
a non-SACS/COC-accredited organization, for postsecondary
instructional services that could not be offered otherwise;
(B)
a public secondary school, for instructional services that
could not be offered otherwise; or
(C)
another SACS/COC-accredited institution of higher education,
whether public or independent.
(9)
Contract instruction -- Postsecondary workforce
education and training in which specific instruction is provided by a public
community/junior or technical college or a non-SACS/COC-accredited organization
to a contracting entity. This arrangement is utilized when conventional methodology
or instructional systems are difficult or impossible to obtain.
(10)
Developmental courses -- Courses designed to correct
academic deficiencies and bring students' skills to an appropriate level for
entry into college.
(11)
Distance education -- Instruction in which the majority
of the instruction occurs when the student and instructor are not in the same
physical setting. A class is considered a distance education class if students
receive more than one-half of the instruction at a distance. Distance education
can be delivered synchronously or asynchronously to any single or multiple
location(s):
(A)
other than the "main campus of a senior institution (or
"on campus"), where the primary office of the chief executive officer of the
campus is located;
(B)
outside the boundaries of the taxing authority of a community/junior
college district; or
(C)
via instructional telecommunications to any other distance
location, including electronic delivery of all types.
(12)
Governing board -- The body charged with policy
direction of any public community/junior college district, the technical college
system, public senior college or university, or other educational agency including
but not limited to boards of directors, boards of regents, boards of trustees,
and independent school district boards.
(13)
Governing board, tech-prep consortium -- Consists
at a minimum of representatives of each educational entity that participates
in a Tech-Prep consortium which determines the policies and operations of
the Tech-Prep consortium in accordance with its written by-laws and fiscal
agency and personnel agreements. A representative may represent multiple entities
as agreed upon by the participating consortium members.
(14)
Independent institution of higher education -- A
private or independent college or university that is:
(A)
organized under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act;
(B)
exempt from taxation under Article V, Section 2, of the
Texas Constitution and §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and
(C)
accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools Commission on Colleges.
(15)
Postsecondary institutions -- Any public community/junior
college; public technical college; public senior college or university offering
applied associate degree programs; and proprietary institutions offering applied
associate degree programs.
(16)
Related-instruction -- Relates to Section 9.27, organized
off-the-job classroom instruction in theoretical or technical subjects required
for the completion of an apprenticeship program.
(17)
Remedial and compensatory -- All courses designated
as developmental or remedial in the Community College Academic Course Guide
Manual. These courses are designed to address academic deficiencies and may
not be offered for college degree credit.
(18)
Remedial courses -- Courses for high school students
designed to correct academic deficiencies and bring students' skills to an
appropriate level for graduation from high school.
(19)
SACS/COC -- The Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools Commission on Colleges.
(20)
Technical courses or programs -- Workforce education
courses or programs for which semester/quarter credit hours are awarded.
(21)
Tech-Prep consortium -- A collaboration of educational
entities and, at local option, employer and labor organizations, and universities
defined under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,
as amended, and the Texas Education Code, Chapter 61, Subchapter T, Tech-Prep
Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), which work together to
implement a Tech-Prep program.
(22)
Unique need academic course -- An academic course
created by a college to satisfy a unique need and designed to transfer into
a baccalaureate program.
(23)
Vocational courses or programs -- Workforce education
courses or programs for which continuing education units (CEUs) are awarded.
(24)
Workforce continuing education course -- A course
offered for continuing education units (CEUs) with an occupationally specific
objective and supported by state funding. A workforce continuing education
course differs from a community service course offered for recreational or
avocational purposes and is not supported by state funding.
(25)
Workforce education -- Technical courses and programs
for which semester/quarter credit hours are awarded, and vocational courses
and programs for which continuing education units are awarded. Workforce education
courses and programs prepare students for immediate employment or job upgrade
within specific occupational categories.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000758
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §9.142
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments
to §9.142 Partnerships Between Secondary Schools and Public Two-year
Associate Degree-granting Institutions (Authority) without changes to the
proposed text as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10697).
The proposed amendments would revise the existing rules on partnerships
between secondary and public two-year associate degree-granting institutions
to incorporate Tech-Prep Education as a type of secondary-postsecondary partnership.
No comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rule.
The amendments to the rule are adopted under Texas Education
Code, §§29.182, 29.184, 61.076(a), 61.851 through 61.855, 130.001(b)(3)-(4),
130.008, 130.090, and 135.06(d) which provides the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning Partnerships
Between Secondary Schools and Public Two-year Associate Degree-granting Institutions
(Authority).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000759
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
19 TAC §9.147
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §9.147
concerning Partnerships Between Secondary Schools and Public Two-year Associate
Degree-granting Institutions (Tech-Prep Education) with changes to the proposed
text as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10697).
The new rule would revise the existing rules on partnerships between secondary
and public two-year associate degree-granting institutions to incorporate
Tech-Prep Education as a type of secondary-postsecondary partnership.
Comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rule as
follows:
Comment: The Texas Education Agency, Central Texas Tech-Prep Consortium,
and North Central Texas Tech-Prep Consortium commented that some students
are not able to participate in a Tech-Prep program because not all public
school districts participate in Tech-Prep.
Response: The staff is in agreement and has made modifications to §9.147(c)(5)
to replace language concerning the participation of every student with language
that every public school district in a consortium will have opportunity to
develop Tech-Prep programs.
Comment: One comment was received from a member of the Capital Area Tech-Prep
Consortium concerning alignment of institutions and ISDs within consortia.
Response: This comment does not directly relate to the proposed rules,
but the staff understands the concern and has an informal mechanism in place
to allow ISDs to join another consortium if appropriate.
Comment: A representative from the Texas Workforce Commission recommended
adding a new paragraph to §9.147 to address how the Board will gather
input from the public and other interested parties regarding the needs of
urban, rural, and special populations to ensure an adequate number of programs
are offered to adequately serve each local area.
Response: The suggested language has not been included but the staff will
address the concern in revisions to the Guidelines for Instructional Programs
in Workforce Education.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office suggested that reference
to the Texas Education Code be included in seven places in order to recognize
explicitly that the Legislature has established a state policy for Tech-Prep.
Response: All seven references to the Education Code have been added.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested to
require the Board, not the staff, to conduct the public hearing on the formula
on Tech-Prep funding and require the Board to consult with all interested
state and local entities at least 90 days prior to the beginning of the grant
year.
Response: This language has not been included because of the Board's desire
to concentrate its resources on policy issues and because the Board does not
conduct such hearings for any of the several other funding formulas it establishes.
The modified proposed rules provide for the staff to conduct the required
public hearing and solicit input from identifiable interested parties and
report the results to the Board.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested that
the Board, not just the staff, determine the time frame for the submission
of the annual application for Tech-Prep funding.
Response: This suggestion has not been included because of the Board's
desire to focus on policy issues.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested language
that would require state goals, objectives, and performance criteria be added
to the documentation in the annual application for Tech-Prep funding.
Response: The suggested language has been included.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested language
be added permitting each consortium to request technical assistance from the
Board staff.
Response: The suggested language has been included.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested that
the Board, not just the staff, provide oversight of all Tech-Prep activities.
Response: This suggestion has not been included because of the Board's
desire to focus on policy issues.
Comment: A representative from the Governor's Office also suggested language
that would require each consortium ensure that colleges and universities in
the service area of the consortium have an opportunity to participate.
Response: The suggested language has been included.
The new rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §§29.182,
29.184, 61.076(a), 61.851 through 61.855, 130.001(b)(3)-(4), 130.008, 130.090,
and 135.06(d) which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
with the authority to adopt rules concerning Partnerships Between Secondary
Schools and Public Two-year Associate Degree-granting Institutions (Tech-Prep
Education).
§9.147.Tech-Prep Education.
(a)
General Provisions.
(1)
The State Board of Education, in its capacity as the Board
for Career and Technology Education, is the eligible agency responsible for
implementation and evaluation of all programs funded in Texas under the Act,
as amended, until such time as the Act amends the provision defining the eligible
agency.
(2)
The State Board of Education, in its capacity as the
eligible agency, has designated the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
as the administering agency responsible for the operation and supervision
of that section, part, or title of the Act referring to Tech-Prep Education.
(b)
State Administration of Tech-Prep.
(1)
The Board shall annually award Tech-Prep funds to eligible
consortia in accordance with the Act, as amended, and the Code.
(2)
Notwithstanding provisions of the Act and the Code,
annual awards to eligible consortia shall be based upon a formula which shall
be adopted by the Board after a public hearing.
(3)
To be eligible for an award, a consortium shall submit
an application and all supporting documentation on an annual basis and in
a manner and time frame determined by Board staff that documents and ensures
the progress of local consortium activities addressing the requirements of
the Act and the Code and enables the state to meet state goals, objectives,
and performance criteria, and to meet federal evaluation criteria as designated
in the Consolidated State Plan.
(4)
Board staff shall assist local consortia with the
evaluation of local activities and provide technical assistance to consortia
that do not meet evaluation criteria standards or upon request by the consortia.
(5)
Board staff shall provide oversight of all Tech-Prep
activities to ensure that funds provided by the Act for Tech-Prep education
are expended according to provisions of the Act, and the Code.
(c)
Consortium Responsibilities.
(1)
Each consortium shall create, evaluate, and maintain a
long-term strategic plan that addresses goals, objectives, activities, and
evaluation criteria supporting local, state, and federal goals and evaluation
criteria.
(2)
Each consortium shall develop and implement local
activities and coordinate the expenditure of funds in accordance with guidelines
determined by the Act and the Code, as well as state and local goals and objectives.
(3)
Each consortium shall maintain the records on local
activities and budgetary expenditures to support evaluation criteria and participate
in a scheduled, systematic, evaluation program.
(4)
Each consortium shall provide reports on activities,
activity outcomes, and budgetary expenditures in a manner and time as established
by Board staff.
(5)
Each consortium shall ensure that every local school
district and public college and university in the consortium service area
will have the opportunity to develop Tech-Prep programs of study as defined
by the Act and the Code.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000760
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter B. GENERAL PROVISIONS
19 TAC §11.26
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts the
repeal of §11.26, concerning General Provisions (TSTC-Marshall Prohibitions)
without changes to the proposal as published in the December 3, 1999, issue
of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10698).
The repeal of the rule would eliminate references to Texas State Technical
College at Marshall as an "extension center" now that it is a TSTC System
"campus". The specific provision regarding duplication of courses and programs
with Panola College, Northeast Texas Community College, and Kilgore College
included in Section 11.26 is also repealed. Provisions concerning duplication
by TSTC-Marshall are addressed in already existing sections of the statute
and Board rules on the operation of TSTC System campuses.
No comments were received regarding the repeal of the rule.
The repeal of the rule is adopted under Texas Education Code, §61.051
and §135.04 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
with the authority to adopt rules concerning General Provisions (TSTC-Marshall
Prohibitions).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000761
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter G. FORMULA FUNDING AND TUITION CHARGED FOR EXCESS CREDIT HOURS OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
19 TAC §§13.110 - 13.116
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts new §§13.110
- 13.116, concerning Formula Funding and Tuition Charged for Excess Credit
Hours of Undergraduate Students without changes to the proposed text as published
in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 10699).
The proposed new rules clarify how the length of the student's degree program
is to be determined, describe the reporting and record-keeping requirements
of institutions related to the limit, and require that institutions provide
affected students with timely and useful information about the limit so that
they can take the limit into account as they plan and complete their undergraduate
degrees.
No comments were received regarding the proposed new rules.
The new rules are adopted under Texas Education Code, §54.068
and §61.0595 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
with the authority to adopt rules concerning Formula Funding and Tuition Charged
for Excess Credit Hours of Undergraduate Students.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000762
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter B. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MAJOR REPAIR AND REHABILITATION
19 TAC §17.46
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board adopts amendments
to §17.46, concerning Application for Approval of New Construction and
Major Repair and Rehabilitation (Special Approval Procedure) with changes
to the proposed text as published in the December 3, 1999, issue of the
The proposed amendments to the rule would make the decisions of the Campus
Planning Committee final, eliminating a provision in the current rules that
allow individual members to refer decisions to the full Board.
No comments were received regarding the proposed amendments to the rule.
The amendments to the rule are adopted under Texas Education
Code, §61.0572 which provides the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board with the authority to adopt rules concerning Application for Approval
of New Construction and Major Repair and Rehabilitation (Special Approval
Procedure).
§17.46.Special Approval Procedure.
(a)
The Coordinating Board authorizes the Campus Planning Committee
to review and approve the following types of projects:
(1)
gifts, purchase or acquisition of real property having
a value of $300,000 to $5 million;
(2)
construction of new educational and general space
having a value of $1 million to $5 million;
(3)
Major repair and rehabilitation of existing education
and general buildings that will not add educational and general space with
a total projected project cost of $5 million or more; and
(4)
auxiliary enterprise projects costing between $10
million and $20 million.
(b)
The Campus Planning Committee shall be guided in its decision
in part by its judgment as to whether or not the full Board would approve
the project, were the request being brought to the Board at this time. The
committee may approve a request or refer the request to the next meeting of
the Board. Approval by the committee is final. The committee shall report
all actions to the Board at its next meeting.
(c)
The Coordinating Board authorizes the Commissioner to review
and approve the following types of projects on certification by the proposing
institution's governing board that Coordinating Board-approved criteria are
met:
(1)
auxiliary enterprise projects being acquired, constructed
or renovated without the use of state general revenue funds and with a total
projected cost of less than $10 million;
(2)
major repair and rehabilitation of existing education
and general buildings that will not add educational and general space with
a total projected project cost of less than $5 million; and
(3)
gifts, purchase or acquisition of real property having
a value of less than $300,000; and
(4)
construction of new educational and general space
having a value of less than $1 million; and
(5)
projects funded more than 50 percent with tuition
revenue bond proceeds.
(d)
The Commissioner shall be guided in making a decision in
part by his or her judgment as to whether or not the full Board would approve
the project, were the request being brought to the Board. The Commissioner
may approve or disapprove a request or refer the request to a subsequent meeting
of the Campus Planning Committee or the Board. Institutions may appeal the
Commissioner's decision to the Board. Each quarter, the Commissioner shall
send a list of all actions to the Board. The list of all actions shall be
attached as an addendum to the minutes of the Board's next quarterly meeting.
(e)
The Commissioner shall consider projects for approval after
certification by the Governing Board that the following criteria are met,
where applicable. (If the governing board cannot make the appropriate certification,
projects shall be referred to the Campus Planning Committee for its consideration.):
(1)
Board standards regarding space need are met.
(2)
Board standards regarding construction cost and efficiency
are met.
(3)
Board standards regarding deferred maintenance are
met, or the project will reduce campus deferred maintenance by an amount equal
to no less than 50 percent of project costs.
(4)
If the project financing involves private gift and
grant funds, these funds are either in-hand or the governing board has committed
an alternative source of funds, should the primary source of funds not be
forthcoming, or has agreed to forego the project.
(5)
If the project will cause an increase in student fees,
such increases have been executed in accordance with the applicable laws concerning
approval by the student body.
(6)
If the project involves construction of a dormitory,
bookstore, food service facility, or other facility for which privatization
may be a viable alternative, the governing board has considered the feasibility
of privatization of both construction and operation of the facility.
(7)
The project will comply with the minimum flood plain
management standards established by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).
(8)
If the project includes the acquisition of real property,
appropriate consideration has been given to the effect of the acquisition
on residential neighborhoods.
(9)
If the project includes the acquisition of real property,
the acquisition is included in the institution's long-range campus master
plan.
(10)
The project is included in the institution's most
recently submitted Campus Master Plan(MP1) or is an opportunity or emergency
that could not have been foreseen at the time the MP1 was submitted.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 3, 2000.
TRD-200000763
James McWhorter
Assistant Commissioner for Administration
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Effective date: February 23, 2000
Proposal publication date: December 3, 1999
For further information, please call: (512) 483-6162
Subchapter A. OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM
Subchapter T. TOBACCO LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT FUNDS
Chapter 8.
CREATION, EXPANSION, DISSOLUTION, OR CONSERVATORSHIP OF PUBLIC COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS
Chapter 9.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLIC COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES DISTRICTS AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Subchapter H. PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC TWO-YEAR ASSOCIATE DEGREE-GRANTING INSTITUTIONS
Chapter 11.
TEXAS STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
Chapter 13.
FINANCIAL PLANNING
Chapter 17.
CAMPUS PLANNING
Chapter 25.
OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM