Report of the Special Committee on Higher Education in Southern Dallas County Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board October 1998
Table of Contents Page Executive Summary............................................. 2 1. Background.............................................. 4 2. Methodology for Determining Need........................... 5 3. Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway...................... 6 4. Findings.................................................. 9 5. Recommendations......................................... 11 Appendix A - Special Committee on Higher Education in Southern Dallas County Appendix B - Map of the Study Area Appendix C - Demographics of Study Area Appendix D - Enrollment in Institutions Serving Southern Dallas County Appendix E - Coordinating Board Rules on Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway Appendix F - Calculation of Headcount Enrollment Projections for a Hypothetical New Four-Year University in the Study Area Appendix G - Coordinating Board Calculation of Headcount Enrollment Projections for a Hypothetical New Upper-Level University in the Study Area Appendix H - Using the Supply/Demand Pathway to Match State Higher Education Resources to Various Levels of Demand 1
Executive Summary At the request of Texas State Senator Royce West, and with the concurrence of the Governor s Office, the Coordinating Board initiated a study of higher education needs in southern Dallas County. This report presents the findings and recommendations of that study, which was conducted by the Board s Special Committee on Higher Education in Southern Dallas County with the assistance of the Board s staff. The need for additional higher education resources was determined by analyzing a number of factors: enrollment trends and capacity at area institutions of higher education, college-going rates, distances to existing public institutions of higher education, the number of high school graduates being produced by area high schools, and the type and level of courses being taken by students in area community colleges. At its July 1998 meeting, the Coordinating Board proposed rules to establish a Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway for responding to requests for additional higher education resources from any area of the state. The pathway model is based on the principles that: 1) Texas should provide the resources necessary to successfully meet higher education demand, and 2) state resources should increase or decrease with the demand for services. An analysis of the study area resulted in the following findings: there is considerable unused capacity in existing universities and community colleges that serve the study area; a wide range of academic programs is available at public universities and community colleges; residents of the study generally live within five to 10 miles of a public community college and within 15 to 20 miles of a public university or university center; and high school graduates go to college at about the same rate as high school graduates statewide. Projected enrollment at a new upper-level or four-year university is less than the minimum called for by the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway to justify state expenditure on new educational facilities or to establish a free-standing university. The Coordinating Board s high estimate for a fouryear institution projects headcount enrollments of 3,331 students by 2002 and headcount enrollments of 4,908 students by 2006. The Southern Dallas County Task Force projects an enrollment of 6,171 headcount students for 2006 using the same study area as the Coordinating Board and 7,199 students using a somewhat larger study area. A new institution would be projected to draw 70 percent or more of its enrollment from students who would otherwise attend existing community colleges and universities. While the study does not conclude that a free-standing university should be established at this time, enrollment projections indicate a significant demand for higher education in the area. The delivery of courses and programs in accordance with the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway could increase college participation and success in southern Dallas County and demonstrate the extent of need for additional higher education resources in the area. The report makes three recommendations:! In view of demographic projections for the state, Texas must increase the participation 2
and success in higher education of all of its people, and especially of Hispanics and African Americans.! The Coordinating Board should support the commitment of state higher education resources to southern Dallas County in accordance with the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway. As part of this second recommendation, the Board should invite a proposal from the University of North Texas, working with the southern Dallas County leadership, to offer upper-level courses and programs that would meet the higher education needs of the area and demonstrate the level of demand for higher education services.! A free-standing upper-level or four-year university in southern Dallas or northern Ellis County should not be established at this time, but the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway should be followed. 3
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE 1. Background At the request of Texas State Senator Royce West, and with the concurrence of the Governor s Office, the Coordinating Board initiated a study of higher education needs in southern Dallas County. Coordinating Board Chairman Leonard Rauch established a Special Committee on Higher Education in Southern Dallas County (Appendix A) and charged it to: Assess the need or demand for additional higher education services in southern Dallas County; identify a range of alternatives by which to meet that need, including the establishment of an upper-level public university; evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative; and identify the alternative or alternatives that would be most efficient and effective. Because a University System Center or upper-level public university in southern Dallas County would serve both southern Dallas County and northern Ellis County, the committee chose a study area consisting of southern Dallas County south and west of US 175 and east of Grand Prairie, stretching south to Waxahachie and Ennis. The study area (Appendix B) has an estimated 1998 population of 783,000 people. The population is ethnically diverse, estimated at 48 percent White, 38 percent Black, and 20 percent Hispanic (any race 1 ). There are sharp contrasts between the lower-income, innercity areas of South Dallas and the wealthier suburbs to the south and west. Fifty-eight percent of adults in economically disadvantaged school districts 2 are high school graduates, compared to 82 percent of adults in non-economically disadvantaged districts 3 (Appendix C). To get a sense of the college attendance patterns for residents of the study area, Coordinating Board staff used Texas Education Agency data and its own records to track college attendance patterns of 1994 high school graduates through fall 1997. In the economically disadvantaged areas, 37 percent of high school graduates entered Texas colleges or universities the semester after graduation. In the non-disadvantaged areas, 58 percent of graduates entered public colleges or universities the semester after graduation. 1 Ethnic distribution based on 1990 Census data. The Census treated Hispanic as an ethnic category, rather than racial category, so people could report themselves as being Hispanic as well as being a member of any racial category. Because the categories are not mutually exclusive, the percentages of White, Black, and Hispanic can add up to over 100 percent. 2 School districts are considered economically disadvantaged if over 40 percent of students come from families that are characterized by the Texas Education Agency as low income. The map in Appendix B shows which parts of the study area are served by economically disadvantaged school districts. 3 1990 U.S. Census data. 4
From 1996 to 2010, the population of the Metroplex is projected to increase by 1.1 million people. 1 However, the peak 18-34 college-age population is projected to increase by 141,000, an increase of 1 percent per year. 2. Methodology for Determining Need The need for additional higher education resources was determined by analyzing a number of factors: enrollment trends and capacity at area institutions of higher education, college-going rates, distances to existing public institutions of higher education, the number of high school graduates being produced by area high schools, and the type and level of courses being taken by students in area community colleges. This information was used to make high and low enrollment estimates for a hypothetical new upper-level or four-year university in the study area. The public universities providing the most higher education services to the study area are the University of North Texas, Texas Woman s University, The University of Texas at Arlington, and Texas A&M University-Commerce, which has a center in Mesquite just east of the study area. From 1992 to 1997, enrollment in these universities declined 9 percent from 70,920 to 64,680 (Appendix D). The greatest decline was at UT-Arlington, which had over 5,000 fewer students in 1997 than 1992. In explaining its enrollment declines, UT-Arlington cited competition with the large number of area universities, colleges, junior colleges and community colleges and the increased relative cost of university attendance over community college attendance. Tuition and fees between 1993 and 1997 doubled, including mandatory fees for undergraduate Texas resident students. The result is that in fall 1997 it was four times more expensive to attend UT-Arlington than Tarrant County Junior College. 2 The public community colleges providing the most higher education services to the study area are Cedar Valley College, in the middle of the study area; Mountain View College, in the western part of the study area; and El Centro College, just north of the study area in downtown Dallas. From 1992 to 1997, enrollments in these three community colleges declined by 26 percent, from 16,897 to 12,529 (Appendix D). The Dallas County Community College District cites two main reasons for the enrollment decline of the last five years: the improving economy and the changing demographics of the metropolitan Dallas area -- 1 Responding to Projected Increases in Student Enrollment, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Study Paper 31, July 1997. 2 The University of Texas at Arlington Enrollment Management Plan, December 31, 1997. 5
specifically the decline of the 15-29 population 1. Appendix B is a map showing distances in the study area. The study area population is concentrated in the northern part of the shaded area on the map. Most residents live within five to 10 miles of a public community college and within 15 to 20 miles of a public university or university center. The nearest opportunities are provided by The University of Texas at Arlington (west), the recently renamed University Center of Dallas (shown as the Dallas Education Center on the map), The University of Texas at Dallas (central), and the Texas A&M University-Commerce Metroplex Center (east). High school students in the study area who graduated from high school in 1994 attended public colleges or universities in the fall following graduation at about the same rate as the state average (43 percent compared to the state average of 44 percent). In the overall population, 65 percent of adults are high school graduates, compared to a state average of 72 percent. Based on the number of seniors currently enrolled in public high schools and historical graduation rates for seniors, 6,361 students are expected to graduate from high school in the study area in 1998. 3. Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway At its July 1998 meeting, the Coordinating Board proposed rules to establish a Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway for responding to requests for additional higher education resources from any area of the state (Appendix E). The pathway model is based on the principles that: 1) Texas should provide the resources necessary to successfully meet higher education demand, and 2) state resources should increase or decrease with the demand for services. This approach would provide access with levels of resources that are appropriate to meet potential student demand. It also allows for an increase of resources as demand grows, and for a decrease of resources as demand drops, operating under the principle of avoiding an over-commitment or an under-commitment of state resources. The pathway model was applied to the study area after analyzing the supply of and demand for higher education resources. The number of students projected to graduate from public high schools in the area and information about the college-going patterns of recent graduates were used to estimate how many new high school graduates would be likely to attend a new local university or University System Center (Appendix F and Appendix G). State participation rates were used to estimate how many other adults might enroll if more higher education resources were locally accessible. Capacity at existing public institutions was 1 Dallas County Community College District, Enrollment Management Plan 1997-2002. This age group [15-29 year old Anglos] has traditionally been the most representative group in the DCCCD, but it is in marked decline.... In 1990, Dallas County had 260,639 Anglo individuals in the 15-29 age group. In 1995, the group is only 198,405 which represents a 23.9 percent decline for the group. In 1990, the DCCCD had 24,577 Anglo 15-29 year old students enrolled in credit courses. In 1995, the enrollment for the same group is 18,823, or a 23.4 percent decline; almost a mirror image of the decline in Dallas County. 6
estimated by comparing reduced current enrollments to peak enrollments from several years ago. Also taken into account were the variety and array of courses and programs currently being offered in the study area. High and low estimates were made for enrollments at a hypothetical new institution. The high estimate assumed that a new institution would attract one-half of the new students who would otherwise go to other Metroplex universities and that it would also attract students who would otherwise attend private universities and community colleges in the area. The estimates also took into account the likelihood that a new institution would attract students from outside the area and the possibility that the proximity of a new institution would increase the area s college-going rate. The low estimate assumed that a new institution s impact on existing institutions would be smaller and that the presence of a new institution would have a smaller, but still positive, impact on the area s college-going rate. The Special Committee was directed to consider a range of alternatives for meeting higher education needs in southern Dallas County, including the establishment of an upper-level public university. Appendix H shows how the Supply/Demand Pathway recommends matching state resources to demonstrated levels of demand. A diagram of the Supply/Demand Pathway follows on the next page. 7
8
4. Findings A. There is considerable unused capacity in existing universities and community colleges that serve the study area. Past enrollments indicate that The University of Texas at Arlington has the physical infrastructure to support up to an additional 5,000 headcount students. Texas Woman s University and Texas A&M University-Commerce also have significant unused capacity. Enrollment patterns similarly indicate that Cedar Valley College, Mountain View College, and El Centro College could collectively accommodate up to 4,000 additional students. B. A wide range of academic programs is available at public universities and community colleges serving the area. Area community colleges offer a broad range of technical and academic programs and the Dallas County Community College District is a world leader in distance education. Reviews of institutional program offerings indicate that a comprehensive array of undergraduate and graduate programs is offered at nearby public universities. Many courses and some programs are being offered at the University Center of Dallas and the Texas A&M University-Commerce Metroplex site. Many college-level courses are offered to area high school students in the high schools. C. Residents in the study area have as good geographic access as other urban areas and better access than most rural areas to higher education. Most residents live within five to 10 miles of a public community college and within 15 to 20 miles of a public university or university center. The metropolitan Dallas area is served by five public universities, as is Houston. The other major metropolitan areas in the state Fort Worth, San Antonio, and El Paso are primarily served by one public university each. D. High school graduates in the study area are going to college at about the same rate as high school graduates statewide. The choice of whether to attend a community college or a university seems to be driven largely by economics. Analysis of Texas Education Agency data on students who graduated from high school in 1994 and Coordinating Board records shows that graduates from more affluent high schools in the southern part of the study area live further from existing public colleges and universities, but attend college at a higher rate than the state average and are as likely to begin college at a university as a community college. In contrast, high school graduates from economically disadvantaged high schools in the northern part of the study area are the closest geographically to existing public universities, but attend college at a lower rate than the state average and are twice as likely to begin college at a community college than at a university, where tuition and fees would be four times as high. E. The peak college age population (18-34) of the Metroplex is projected to increase at one percent per year through the year 2010. Assuming that the 18-34 year population of the study area increases at the same 1 percent annual rate, the study area will have an additional 1,800 public community college students and an additional 1,350 public university 9
students by the year 2010. F. Projected enrollment at a new upper-level institution or a new four-year university is less than the minimum called for by the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway to establish a free-standing university and to justify state construction or ownership of facilities. High and low projections were made for enrollments in a new upper-level or fouryear university. The high estimate projects headcount enrollments for 2002 of 720 students for a new upper-level institution and 3,331 students for a new four-year university in 2002. Extending projections to 2006 produces a high estimate of 4,908 headcount students for a four-year institution (Appendices F and G). The Southern Dallas County Task Force projects an enrollment of 6,171 headcount students for 2006 using the same study area as the Coordinating Board and 7,199 students using a somewhat larger study area. A new institution would be projected to draw 70 percent or more of its enrollment from students who would otherwise attend existing community colleges and universities. While the study does not conclude that a free-standing university should be established at this time, enrollment projections indicate a significant demand for higher education in the area. The delivery of courses and programs in accordance with the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway could increase college participation and success in southern Dallas County and demonstrate the extent of need for additional higher education resources in the area. 10
5. Recommendations A. In view of demographic projections for the state, Texas must increase the participation and success in higher education of all of its people, and especially of Hispanics and African Americans. The people of southern Dallas County are representative of the future diversity of the state and should be given every opportunity to participate and succeed in higher education.! Efforts should be made to begin or enhance programs to increase the number and percentage of young people who graduate from high school and attend and succeed in college. Such efforts should include cooperation between higher education and public education, including increased offerings of college level (dual credit) classes in the high schools in the study area and increased use of student interns in the area s economically disadvantaged school districts. Consideration should be given to increase partnerships between business and public education in the area following proven models, such as the partnership between Tenneco and Jefferson Davis High School in Houston.! Changes should be made in the state s financial aid system to make college more affordable to the citizens of Texas and thereby increase college participation and degree completion. B. The Coordinating Board should support the commitment of state higher education resources to southern Dallas County in accordance with the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway.! The Board should invite a proposal from the University of North Texas, working with the southern Dallas County leadership, to offer upper-level courses and programs in accordance with the higher education pathway, including the possible establishment of a University System Center to serve higher educational needs of southern Dallas County.! Such a proposal should provide for cooperation with other higher education institutions to provide an array of courses and degree programs necessary to meet the educational needs of southern Dallas County and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of resources.! Where possible, courses and programs should be offered in existing educational facilities.! A proposal should be based on a comprehensive needs analysis so that approved courses and programs would offer the highest likelihood for increasing the participation of students in higher education and for enhancing student success. 12
! A proposal should be based on a close articulation with community colleges in the study area. C. A free-standing upper-level or four-year university in southern Dallas or northern Ellis County should not be established at this time, but the Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway should be followed.
Appendices
Appendix A Special Committee on Higher Education in Southern Dallas County Ms. Pamela P. Willeford, Committee Chair Dr. Dolores Hutto Carruth Mr. Robert I. Fernandez Mr. Jodie L. Jiles Mr. Joseph R. Krier Mr. Leonard Rauch A-1
Insert Colored Map of Area here for Appendix B
Appendix C Demographics of Study Area Southern Dallas County DISD school districts Economically disadvantaged suburban school districts Noneconomically disadvantaged school districts Whole study area Texas Estimated 1998 population 491,000 76,000 216,000 783,000 20,000,000 Ethnicity: -White 32% 78% 80% 48% 75% -Black 50% 12% 15% 38% 12% -Hispanic 25% 15% 7% 20% 25% (any race) -other 18% 10% 5% 14% 11% Median Household Income (1990) $20,600 $26,300 $35,500 $26,600 $27,016 Educational Attainment 1 -not hs grad* -hs grad only -college grad 42% 44% 14% 35% 51% 14% 18% 53% 29% 35% 47% 17% 28% 47% 25% *high school graduate 1998. 1 Of adults aged twenty-five and older. Source: 1990 Census data with population projections for C-1
Appendix D Enrollment in Institutions Serving Southern Dallas County Fall Headcount Enrollment* Institution 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Change from 1992-1997 Community Colleges El Centro College 7,151 6,242 5,388 5,119 4,721 4,683 Mountain View College 6,554 6,301 6,106 6,024 5,507 5,242 Cedar Valley College 3,192 3,112 2,835 2,744 2,817 2,604 Total 16,897 15,655 14,329 13,887 13,045 12,529-26% Private Universities Paul Quinn College 789 732 683 798 850 636 Dallas Baptist University 2,712 2,803 2,989 3,102 3,283 3,493 Northwood University n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,138 Total 3,501 3,535 3,672 3,900 4,133 5,267 18% Public Universities Texas Woman s University 9,591 9,658 10,059 9,810 9,747 9,338 University of North Texas 26,433 25,759 25,605 25,114 24,957 25,013 The University of Texas at Arlington Texas A&M University- Commerce Metroplex Center (Mesquite) The University of Texas at Dallas 24,727 23,749 23,202 22,121 20,544 19,286 1,176 1,176 1,176 1,150 1,478 1,727 8,993 8,640 8,487 9,008 9,378 9,316 Total 70,920 68,928 68,529 67,203 66,104 64,680-9% *Texas A&M University-Commerce Metroplex Center enrollments in Mesquite are estimated for 1992 and 1993. Private university enrollment growth rate does not include Northwood University. D-1
Appendix E Coordinating Board Rules on Higher Education Supply/Demand Pathway CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUBCHAPTER L. OPERATION OF OFF-CAMPUS EDUCATIONAL UNITS SENIOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Section 5.241. Purpose. 5.242. Definitions. 5.243. Supply/Demand Pathway 5.244. Other Off-Campus Educational Subdivisions of Colleges and Universities. 5.245. Multi-institution Teaching Center. 5.246. University System Centers. 5.241. Purpose The provisions of this subchapter define off-campus educational units, establish criteria and procedures applicable to the classification, authorization, operation, and reclassification of these units and establish the supply/demand pathway as a developmental approach to providing access which allows for the gradual increase of resources as demand grows. The provisions of this subchapter are applicable to all units which offer courses of instruction for resident credit at a public senior college or university, but are geographically separate from that college or university 5.242. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (1) Off-campus educational unit A subdivision under the management and control of an existing public university or central administration (hereinafter referred to as the parent institution) in a geographic setting separate from the parent institution. It exists for a specific purpose which is directly related to the teaching of courses for resident credit at the parent institution, or for providing administrative support which facilitates the teaching of such courses. An off-campus unit, as used herein, is not a separate general academic institution and therefore does not have completely independent life within itself as regards academic, administrative, and fiscal matters, but has dependence upon the parent institution in such matters. (2) General academic teaching institution A degree-granting public university established by the Texas Legislature as an independent educational unit under the direct authority of a statutory governing board (see Chapter 61, Section 61.003 of the Texas Education Code). Within the limits of the policies and regulations established by appropriate state authority and its governing board, an operationally separate institution is autonomous in academic, administrative, and fiscal matters. It is located on its own individual campus; is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; and has degree-granting authority. The minimum enrollment level which must be met before the E-1
Coordinating Board will consider recommending that the legislature establish an existing off-campus educational unit as a separate general academic institution as 3,500 full-time student equivalents (FTSE) enrolled on the campus. General academic institutions in existence prior to January 1, 1998 are excluded from this provision. Offcampus enrollments may not be counted in reaching these enrollment levels. (3) Multi-Institution Teaching Center An off-campus educational unit or an auxiliary location administered under a formal agreement between two or more public higher education institutions. It may also involve one or more private institutions. It exists for the purpose of providing credit instruction from several parent institutions in a common geographic setting. It is not a separate general academic institution and does not have independence regarding academic, administrative, or fiscal matters. Each signatory to the agreement may offer credit courses and, with prior Coordinating Board approval, may also offer degree programs by and in the name of the parent institution. (4) University System Center An off-campus educational unit of an existing general academic institution designated and supported by a university system with Coordinating Board approval. It is not a separate general academic institution and does not have independence regarding academic, administrative, or fiscal matters. (5) Upper-Level General Academic Institution An upper-level general academic institution is established for the primary purpose of expanding baccalaureate and masters degree opportunities to Texas citizens in certain geographic areas in relation to one or more local public community junior colleges. An upper-level general academic institution offers junior, senior, and certain graduate level courses in programs approved by the Coordinating Board. It is restricted to accepting students eligible for upper division classification and may not offer freshman and sophomore level courses. (6) Supply/Demand Pathway The Supply/Demand Pathway is a developmental approach to providing access which allows for the gradual increase of resources as demand grows, operating under the principle of avoiding over-commitment as well as undercommitment of state resources. 5.243. Supply/Demand Pathway (a) (b) The Supply/Demand Pathway shall be used as the model to address higher education needs in areas without ready geographic access to existing public higher education institutions. The supply/demand pathway incorporates three categories: (1) Category A. Test the market both in terms of demand and lasting power by providing off-campus courses and/or programs by one or more institutions. Should demand decrease or not materialize, courses and programs can be discontinued and resources moved to areas of greater demand. (2) Category B. As demand increases, offerings may be organized through a multiinstitution teaching center or as a university system center. The MITC can be E-2
housed in a shopping center, a high school, a community college, or other space on loan or for a nominal cost. Alternatively, a university system may request that the Coordinating Board authorize the establishment of a university system center. The system would designate a parent institution to provide leadership for the center and would facilitate the provision of programs and resources from other institutions in the system. In either case, the system and parent institution must commit to providing a program long enough for a student to have a reasonable opportunity to graduate before the resource is withdrawn. (3) Category C. After a university system center is established and the center has attained a full-time equivalent enrollment of 3,500 for four fall semesters (approximating the headcount enrollment included in the current university funding formula as the minimum size needed to achieve economies of scale), the parent institution and its Board of Regents may request that the Coordinating Board review the status of the center and recommend that the Legislature reclassify the university center as an upper-level general academic institution -- a university. Reclassification may be considered sooner if the center attains a fall semester full-time equivalent enrollment of 3,500 followed the next fall semester by a full-time equivalent enrollment of 4,000. 5.244. Other Off-Campus Educational Subdivisions of Colleges and Universities. Other off-campus educational subdivisions are those organized units, exclusive of upper level centers and the University of Houston Downtown College, established for the purpose of coordinating or providing off-campus credit or non-credit courses authorized to be offered by the parent institution in a remote geographic location. They do not have independent role and scope statements; therefore, their activity must be within the role and scope of the parent institution. They exist only under a set of conditions which justify central coordination and administrative support in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of courses being offered by the parent institution. The conditions under which off-campus educational subdivisions will operate are: (1) Authority. Such subdivisions may be established by a public university within its existing authority after intention to do so, with justification, has been communicated to, and concurrence has been given by, the Coordinating Board. Rejustification for continuation of the unit must be submitted to the Coordinating Board annually, except for those units whose legislative authority exempts them from this provision. (2) Enrollment criteria. Enrollment criteria of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Approval of Off-Campus and Out-of-District Instruction for Public Colleges and Universities) must be met. E-3
(3) Course and program approval. Except as noted in paragraph (7) of this section, courses and programs to be offered are limited to: (A) off-campus credit courses which are in compliance with Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Approval of Off-Campus and Out-of-District Instruction for Public Colleges and Universities); and (B) field courses, laboratory experiences, or research related courses as in Section 5.151(b) of this title (relating to General Provisions), which are in the approved course inventory of and offered by a particular department at the parent university and are associated with a primary field activity where the subdivision is located. (4) Administration and staffing. Administrative structure will be limited to a coordinating office under the direct management and control of an appropriate official or department of the parent institution. Except for routine clerical activities, all administrative and logistical support and student services are delivered by the parent institution. Exceptions can be made in those cases where the legislature has authorized the acquisition of physical facilities. (5) Funding. The off-campus subdivision is financially dependent upon its parent institution and supported within the budget of the departments or activities which it serves. It is not eligible to request separate legislative funding. Semester credit hours completed at the unit must be reported by the parent institution as off-campus courses and will be funded as determined by the legislature. Formula generated funds earned at the subdivision are expected to be applied to financing its operation. (6) Facilities. Except where authorized by statute, nothing in these sections is to be interpreted as permitting the acquisition by gift or purchase of real property for the purpose of establishing or operating an off-campus subdivision. (7) The following units are excepted from the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (5) of this section in accordance with previous legislative or Coordinating Board action: (A) (B) Lamar University Orange Center; and Lamar University Port Arthur Center. 5.245. Multi-institution Teaching Center. (a) Role and Mission. Multi-institution Teaching Center -- An "off-campus educational unit" or "auxiliary location" administered under a formal agreement between two or more public higher education institutions. It may also involve one or more private institution partners. It exists for the purpose of providing credit instruction from several "parent institutions" in a common geographic setting. With prior approval, degree programs may also be offered by and in the name of the parent institution. A teaching center is not a separate general academic institution and does not have independence regarding academic, administrative, or fiscal matters. (b) Implementation. The Coordinating Board must give formal approval of a Multiinstitution Teaching Center before it may be initiated. Board approval is required whether the center operates as an "off-campus educational unit" or as an "auxiliary location." The Commissioner of E-4
Higher Education does not have authority to designate a Multi-institution Teaching Center as an auxiliary location. Board approval will be considered only after it receives a proposal and contract of agreement submitted jointly by the governing boards of the parent institutions seeking authority to offer instruction at the common location. (c) Authority. If the teaching center is approved as an "off-campus educational unit," courses and programs must be offered by more than one institution at the site under Board rules for off-campus sites. Such a jointly administered off-campus site will generally be required to operate successfully for two years before the Board will consider designating it as an auxiliary location. (1) Institutions may petition the Board to designate a teaching center as an auxiliary location. Designation as an auxiliary location must be made by action of the Coordinating Board based on submission of a proposal and contract of agreement submitted jointly by the governing boards of the parent institutions seeking authority to offer instruction at the common location. The Board may designate the site as an auxiliary location if there is clear evidence that the course offerings will be of high quality, enrollment projections demonstrate a sufficient on-going student demand, and there is assurance of adequate financing and facilities. If such designation is authorized, the Board will conduct regular evaluation and oversight of all activities at the site. In the event that the Board determines at any time that any of the above provisions are not satisfied, the teaching center will be subject to the rules and regulations for off-campus sites for a minimum of two years before the site could again be considered as an auxiliary location. (2) Each parent institution may offer associate, baccalaureate and/or master's degree programs at the teaching center provided that it first receives approval by the Coordinating Board and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools for the delivery of each degree program at the site. No program may be offered at a teaching center that does not have prior approval to be offered at the parent institution. (d) Center Name. The name to be used for a multi-institution teaching center must be approved by the Coordinating Board, and may not be changed without prior Coordinating Board approval. (e) Course Approval. Courses previously approved for a parent institution may be offered at the teaching center without prior Coordinating Board approval, with the following restrictions. (1) Courses offered at the teaching center must be reported separately. Most courses are expected to lead to the fulfillment of requirements for degrees, but a limited number of special need courses may be offered. (2) Courses must meet the same standards as comparable courses offered at the parent institution. (3) Courses proposed to be offered at the teaching center but not at the parent institution must have prior approval by the Coordinating Board. E-5
(4) All students seeking to enroll in courses offered at a teaching center must be admitted by the same procedures and under the same standards applicable to students enrolled at the parent institution. (5) Student records must distinguish between courses taken at the center and at the parent institution. (f) Degree Program Approval. Requests to offer degree programs at a teaching center must be based upon careful surveys of need and the availability of qualified faculty and other resources. They may be approved subject to the following restrictions. (1) All students seeking to enroll in programs offered at a teaching center must be admitted by the same procedures and under the same standards applicable to students enrolled at the parent institution. (2) Programs must be administered and evaluated by the same office or person administering the same program at the parent institution. (3) Doctoral degree programs will not be authorized to be offered at a multiinstitution teaching center. (4) Facilities, including lecture halls and laboratories, at teaching centers must be equivalent to or better than the facilities available on the corresponding parent institutions. A proposed program may be offered at a teaching center only after the responsible administrator certifies to the adequacy of laboratory and computer resources and classroom facilities. (5) Students must have parent institution library privileges and have library resources adequate for the courses or programs offered and convenient for use at the teaching center. A course or program may be offered at the teaching center only after the responsible administrator certifies that adequate library resources are available. (6) The majority of faculty members at a teaching center must, by some means, have prior or continuing significant annual involvement at the parent institution in order to qualify to teach one or more courses at the teaching center. A part-time faculty member employed to teach a course at the teaching center could meet the requirement for continuing involvement by teaching a course annually at the parent institution prior to or concurrently with the assigned teaching center course. A limited number of instructors who do not satisfy the continuing involvement standard may teach credit courses at the teaching center with prior Coordinating Board approval. Whether full-time or part-time, an instructor at the teaching center must hold membership on the faculty of the parent institution. Faculty members teaching graduate courses at the teaching center must also hold membership on the graduate faculty of the parent institution, if applicable. (7) The teaching format (including syllabus, student-teacher ratio, student-tostudent and student-to-professor interaction) must be comparable to the format used for parent institution instruction, as certified by the responsible administrator. Faculty contact hours with the classes must be equivalent to those of the same course when taught at the parent institution. Teaching of a class at the teaching center must be done by the faculty member of record for the course. E-6
(g) Administration and Staffing. A multi-institution teaching center must be under the direct, joint management and control of the parent institutions. The parent institutions must provide sufficient personnel to insure effective instructional administration and to provide appropriate student services, and with prior approval by the Coordinating Board may contract for joint services and/or third party management of the teaching center. (h) by the Board. Discontinuance. Recognition of a multi-institution teaching center may be withdrawn 5.246. University System Centers. (a) (b) (c) Role and Mission. University system centers are off-campus educational units of a designated existing public university and created by a university system with Coordinating Board approval. The centers are intended to respond to the academic needs of local regions and provide greater access to students who are location bound. The strength of a university system center is the quality of its teaching and its focus on student-learning outcomes. Funding. State funding for university centers shall be provided through the normal formula appropriation to the parent institution and other participating institutions. Course and program approval. University system centers shall focus on teaching and emphasize a limited range of baccalaureate programs. Additional programs may be offered, by other institutions within the university system. (1) Upon review and approval of the Coordinating Board, the parent university shall be authorized to offer high-demand degrees at the university system center. (2) A limited range of master s programs in such areas will also be allowed (3) Additional criteria for courses and programs shall include the following: (A) (B) (C) (D) Programs offered by the university system center s own faculty should have average enrollments of at least 75 students. Programs no longer meeting adequate enrollment levels shall be continued long enough for a student to have a reasonable opportunity to graduate. Degrees shall be awarded by the parent institution or the institution offering the degree. Additional baccalaureate and master s degree programs may be delivered by telecommunications or on-site by the parent institution and by other universities as arranged by the university system, which will provide support in the delivery of programs to meet local needs. Programs offered by this method must be recommended by the system E-7
and reviewed and approved by the Coordinating Board in compliance with its rules. (d) (e) (f) Technology. University centers shall take full advantage of technological advances that promise to improve quality of learning, access to programs, and efficient use of existing resources. Libraries shall be models of the effective use of technology in libraries and depend heavily on the TexShare electronic resource sharing efforts. Administrative and Academic Support. The university system center shall be headed by a dean or executive director as determined by the parent university and system. The number of local administrators and faculty shall be less than that at a free standing general academic institution of comparable size. Additional administrative and academic program support shall be provided by both the parent institution and the system. University system centers: (1) Shall use locally provided facilities, located on or near community or technical college campuses whenever possible. (2) Shall develop articulation agreements and partnerships with local community and technical colleges and other universities. (3) Shall generate formula appropriations for semester credit hours taught. Appropriations shall be made to the parent university and to other universities that provide courses at the center. (4) Shall develop flexible scheduling and course options, credit and noncredit course and program offerings, distance education opportunities, and support services for traditional and nontraditional students from diverse backgrounds. (5) Shall meet the Coordinating Board s Technology Standards. E-8
Appendix F Calculation of Headcount Enrollment Projections for a Hypothetical New Four-Year University in the Study Area Sources of Students THECB Low (1998) THECB High (1998) THECB High (2002) SDCTF* (2002) SDCTF* Expanded (2002) 1. Area public universities 1 113 282 315 312 385 2. Area private universities 2 62 155 174 172 212 3. Area community colleges 3 66 164 183 294 336 4. New students 4 152 303 338 336 414 4b. Transfer students from area community colleges 322 1,149 1,149 SUBTOTAL 393 904 1,332 2,263 2,469 5. Projected enrollment after four years 5 1,086 2,498 3,681 3,055 3,723 6. Students from outside of area after four years 6 362 833 1,227 1,645 2,005 6b. Transfers from area community colleges after four years 1,471 1,471 TOTAL 1,448 (in 2002) 3,331 (in 2002) 4,908 (in 2006) 6,171 (in 2006) 7,199 (in 2006) *SDCTF = Southern Dallas County Task Force Enrollment projections of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Southern Dallas County Task Force for a hypothetical new four-year university. The first two columns assume a start date of Fall 1998. The last three columns assume a start date of Fall 2002. The SDCTF expanded area included four schools immediately north of IH30 because of their close proximity to the study area, and a percentage of students from four other schools in Dallas which have ready access to public transportation to the study area. Appendix G Coordinating Board Calculation of Headcount Enrollment Projections 1 THECB estimates based on Texas Education Agency data (actual numbers of 1998 high school seniors and historical graduation rates), 6,361 public high school students are projected to graduate in 1998. Forty-four percent or 2,799 will begin college at a public college or university the following semester. Two-thirds of these students will start at a public community college. About half of the rest will attend a public university inside the study area. Within three years of graduating from high school, 564 of these students will have attended an area public university. 2 THECB estimates based on enrollment patterns at Paul Quinn College, Dallas Baptist University, and Northwood University. 3 THECB estimates based on historical patterns of community college enrollments and course work. SDCTF used projections from the Dallas County Community College District based on the annual percentage rate of students in the three colleges in the study area who historically transfer to a public university and the number of students historically enrolled in transfer programs. 4 THECB estimates based on the assumptions that (1) the college-going rate for new high school graduates increases from 43 to 46 percent, state average is 44 percent, and (2) that an equal number of other new students (students not currently attending college) emerge from the adult population. 5 THECB estimates assume attrition for first-time freshmen at the state average rate: 30 percent between freshman and sophomore years, 20 percent between sophomore and junior, 10 percent between junior and senior. 6 THECB estimates assume that 25 percent of students come from outside the study area. SDCTF estimates assume that 35 percent of students come from outside the study area. F-1