Texas House Bill HB708

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/28/09
• Voted on by House: 5/18/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/25/09

Caption

Relating to higher education transfer practices, articulation agreements, policies for dropping courses, and special-purpose centers and to the formula funding for certain credit hours.

Impact

The legislation mandates that two-year institutions provide transparency regarding which courses are accepted for credit at general academic teaching institutions. This requirement is intended to empower students and assist them in making more informed academic decisions. By establishing clear guidelines and standards, the bill promotes academic success and helps create a unified educational framework that benefits students at both levels of higher education.

Summary

House Bill 708 aims to enhance the coordination of academic curricula between two-year institutions of higher education and four-year universities in Texas. The bill requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to collaborate with educational institutions to ensure that the courses offered at two-year schools meet the prerequisites necessary for enrollment in four-year degree programs. This initiative is designed to facilitate a smoother transition for students moving from two-year to four-year institutions, ensuring that students receive credit for the courses they complete during their initial university education.

Enactment

Should HB 708 be enacted, it has implications for educational policy and institutional autonomy in Texas. It directly affects the coordination efforts between various educational entities, influencing how institutions design and implement their curricula. The bill is expected to take effect following a legislative vote, highlighting the urgency and importance of enhancing the state's postsecondary education system.

Contention

While supporters argue that HB 708 will greatly benefit students by clarifying credit transfer processes, there are concerns from certain educational stakeholders who fear that it may impose standardization that does not account for the diverse educational needs of different student populations. Critics caution that such measures could undermine the uniqueness of local curriculums, potentially hindering institutions from tailoring programs to address specific community needs or job market demands. The debate centers around finding a balance between standardization and the flexibility needed to cater to distinct educational missions.