Emails, Dustin Meador, director of government relations, Texas Association of Community Colleges, July 13 and Aug. 13, 2018
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 16:51
Dustin:
Hello again. I write you afresh mindful that Rey Garcia offered the guidance below in 2015 as we tried to analyze progress on a few Greg Abbott campaign vows. As you well know, we’ve since had another regular session. So I am inquiring now to see if there’s been additional action on legislation per these topics.
I’d be grateful to hear back by phone or email. As ever, we rely on attributable on-the-record information for our stories.
Thanks,
g.
512-445-3644
On Jul 27, 2015, at 12:34 PM, I wrote Rey:
Rey:
I write today because we’re trying to update the Abbott-O-Meter, which is how we track campaign promises by Gov. Abbott.
Along those lines, I am curious if the 2015 Legislature or, perhaps, the governor on his own, considered moves fulfilling these hyperlinked promises. If so, what happened?
W. Gardner Selby
Reporter / News
Austin American-Statesman
PolitiFact Texas
Rey replied in July 2015:
I'm out of the office at a series of meetings. Our legislative summary is on the TACC.org website under the Advocacy Tab, under Legislative resources.
Briefly, on the items from your list related to community colleges
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: This was implemented for community colleges in 2013 prior to Gov. Abbott's tenure. The system allocated a percentage of community college funding based on what we call student success points. 43 colleges improved their performance from 2013 to 2015. The Appropriations Act reduced funding for student success by 6.5% from $185 per point to $173 per point.
BLOCK SCHEDULING: HB 1583 addressed this issue. Final version requires colleges to offer 5 block schedule programs by Fall 2016.
TRANSFER: No bill passed that required universities to accept community college work. SB 1189 by Seliger required community colleges to offer a transfer degree, but it does not require universities to accept it.
Hope that helps.
Rey Garcia, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Texas Association of Community Colleges
…
(Meador)
5:59 p.m.
July 13, 2018
From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 14:34
Hello again. The association’s March paper on outcomes-based funding says the 2017 Legislature eliminated the 10 percent cap on aid to community colleges based on student successes. It’s not clear to me yet how the new figure, 10.6 percent, was established by law. Also, what are the key indicators determining how much each college gets? Feel free to point out specific statutes.
Thanks,
g.
Want our fact checks first? Follow us on Twitter.
W. Gardner Selby
Reporter / News
Austin American-Statesman
PolitiFact Texas
5:16 p.m.
This I can answer. First, establishing the outcomes based portion of our appropriation at 10.6% is not set in statute, but rather exists as a budget rider (Rider 19 of the community college bill pattern, attached). But even in the rider, the 10.6% is not spelled out, rather it’s arrived at by the formula which set the rate for Student Success Points at $172 per point. I’ve attached a breakdown of our appropriation for reference.
When outcomes-based funding for our colleges was implemented in 2013, the maximum amount of funding on outcomes – rather than traditional contact hours – was set at 10%. This cap was not in statute, but was just agreed upon by appropriators (a third funding piece called Core Operations was also added in 2013, that’s a flat rate each college receives for basic operations; first set at $1M per college per biennium, it was raised to $1.36M in 2017. So when we talk about 10% or 90%, we’re really talking about the amount of the instructional formula left after Core Operations).
The 90/10 split between outcomes and contact hours was supported by the colleges as outcomes funding was seen as new and potentially disrupting. In 2013, the first rate for success points was $185. In 2015, the rate for points was “backed into” by simply taking 10% of the available funds for the community college instructional formula, which left us with $173 per point. In 2017, the introduced budget (SB1) again backed into the rate – this time with even less funds and more success points to pay for – bringing the rate per point down to $166. TACC and the colleges advocated for $185 per point, even if that meant going beyond the traditional 90/10 split. We believe that if outcomes funding is important, it should be funded accordingly with a meaningful price per point, not backed into. The THECB also pushed for a higher rate ($215 per point I think but it might have even been higher). The message got through and appropriators de-coupled success funding from contact hour funding. Thanks to some additional funds being added, points were funded at $172 – virtually flat from the previous budget. This brought the percentage for outcomes up to the 10.6% level. Next session, we’ll be advocating for $215 per point and we are comfortable going beyond 11% or more outcomes funding to get there because it is a model that’s worked well.
As for the key indicators, the success points themselves are laid out in Rider 19. While the success points are not in statute, HB 9 passed in 2011 created the first guidelines for the THECB to follow when making funding recommendation. That bill, now Texas Education Code Section 61.0593, includes a reference to metrics very similar to what were adopted:
Sec. 61.0593. STUDENT SUCCESS-BASED FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS.
[…]
(f) This subsection applies only to public junior colleges, public state colleges, and public technical institutes. In devising its funding formulas and making its recommendations to the legislature relating to institutional appropriations of incentive funds for institutions to which this subsection applies, the board, in the manner and to the extent the board considers appropriate and in consultation with those institutions, shall incorporate the consideration of the undergraduate student success measures achieved during the preceding state fiscal biennium by each of the institutions. The success measures considered by the board under this subsection may include:
(1) the following academic progress measures achieved by students
at the institution:
(A) successful completion of:
(i) developmental education in mathematics;
(ii) developmental education in English;
(iii) the first college-level mathematics course with a grade of
"C" or higher;
(iv) the first college-level English course with a grade of
"C" or higher; and
(v) the first 30 semester credit hours at the institution; and
(B) transfer to a four-year college or university after successful
completion of at least 15 semester credit hours at the institution; and
(2) the total number of the following awarded by the institution:
(A) associate's degrees;
(B) bachelor's degrees under Section 130.0012; and
(C) certificates identified by the board for purposes of this
section as effective measures of student success.
I’ve attached our write-up on the points and how they’ve performed since the implementation of the program. This summer, TACC convened a Metrics Taskforce with the help of THECB staff to review the points and make recommendations for updates. A similar task force was established before the 2013 session and that group’s work was influential in what was ultimately adopted. I don’t believe we’ll be advancing any changes this session, but we will instead look to offer suggestions to the THECB’s formula advisory committee in advance of the 2021 session.
That’s a lot, hopefully all helpful. If I can explain any of this deeper, feel free to give me a call tomorrow when I’m back in the office.
Thanks,
Dustin Meador |
Director of Government Relations |