Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Nava

DATE TYPED 3/14/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Common Lower-Division College Course Numbers SB 161/aSEC/aSFL#1

ANALYST Williams

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

Indeterminate; see

fiscal implications Recurring General Fund/Other

State Funds

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

REVENUE

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

Indeterminate; see fiscal

implications

Recurring General Fund/Other

State Funds

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Commission on Higher Education (CHE)

New Mexico Association of Community Colleges (NMACC)

Education Commission of the States, Teacher Preparation Policy Toolkit

Board of Governors of California Community Colleges

National Conference of State Legislatures

Council of University Presidents response not received

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SFl #1

Senate Floor Amendment #1 adds a new section of statute directing the CHE to establish a proc-

ess to identify substantially equivalent courses. The process must:

•

Include a procedure for each course in which faculty members representing each segment

teaching the academic discipline reach mutual agreement on material to be taught and

competencies to be gained;

•

Ensure course content is comparable across institutions offering the course;

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 2

•

Ensure agreed upon course content is in fact delivered to students in a given course and

that “students successfully completing the course will achieve like competencies”; and

•

Ensure content requirements are sufficient to prepare students for upper division course-

work in the field.

Synopsis of Senate Education Committee Amendment

The Senate Education Committee amendment makes numerous clarifying changes to achieve the

intent of the bill. Further, the amendment proposes changes to align with work that has already

been completed on modules, to reflect that there might be minor differences between them.

The legislature should be aware of nuances surrounding Amendment #17, which eliminates the

specific requirement to report associated funding reductions at institutions. The amendment adds

much more general language. The financial implications of this bill would be important to track.

Note existing statutory language on page 8, lines 4 to 11 directs the CHE to “calculate the num-

ber of credits refused at the receiving institution and recommend a corresponding reduction of

legislative funding to the next session of the legislature.” CHE does not currently follow this

practice.

Synopsis of Original Bill

Endorsed by the Legislative Education Study Committee.

Senate Bill 161 amends the Post-Secondary Education Articulation Act. The bill requires public,

post-secondary institutions to use a common course numbering and naming system for lower di-

vision courses. The general education core as well as the discipline module are defined. The

bill directs the general education core, discipline modules for business and early childhood edu-

cation and the common course numbering and naming system for all courses in those modules to

be effective by spring semester 2006. Three additional discipline modules will be effective not

later than fall semester 2007, followed by an additional three discipline modules in place by fall

semester 2008. The bill authorizes an interim mechanism of a statewide equivalency table until

the common system is in place.

Further, the bill requires public institutions to accept general education core and transfer modules

as a block. This policy would not apply to limited access programs. The bill provides a new

section of statute to authorize an articulation complaint process and requires the receiving institu-

tion to reimburse students for tuition, fees and books for those common courses not accepted for

transfer. The bill requires oversight and complaint investigation by the Commission on Higher

Education.

Finally, an annual report to the legislative finance committee, legislative education study com-

mittee and the office of the governor regarding the status of articulation programs and the trans-

fer of students between institutions will be made. The report will include outcomes measures

relating to transfer, persistence and graduation rates.

Significant Issues

NMACC notes “the Legislature attempted to solve the problem (course transferability) with the

passage of the Post-Secondary Education Articulation Act in 1995…required the establishment

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 3

of a 35 hour common general education core curriculum and 64 hour transfer modules. While

the law did help improve the transfer of credits for transfer students, problems still persisted due

to how colleges interpreted the law and paid attention to its provision.”

The recent work of a CHE Task Force on Articulation is significantly represented in the bill; the

NMACC notes “SB 161 addresses most of the articulation task force recommendations.”

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

According to the NMACC, the CHE Task Force on Articulation is proposing four new perform-

ance measures for this initiative. Section 21-1B-6 of the bill includes language to address data

on outcomes of transfer rates, persistence rates after transfer and graduation rates.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill does not include an appropriation. The bill requires institutions to reimburse students

for tuition, fees and books for those common courses not accepted for transfer; the receiving in-

stitutions would bear the burden of the reimbursement cost. The magnitude of this cost to other

state funds is unknown at the present time.

The bill would have indirect fiscal effects. To the extent replication of courses is reduced for

transfer students and to the extent that time to degree is reduced for transfer students as a result

of this initiative, then higher education instruction and general formula costs would be reduced.

As well, institutional revenues from tuition and fees could be somewhat reduced if the initiative

is successful. On the other hand, if transfer is a significant problem contributing to drop-out sta-

tistics, this initiative could contribute to student retention and persistence, effectively pushing

costs upward and institutional revenues upward.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Administrative costs of implementation are not addressed in the bill. CHE does not note the

need for additional administrative resources.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

This initiative is an attempt to address transfer and articulation concerns, but may not represent a

complete resolution of the concerns. Transfer is the procedure by which credit hours a student

earns at one institution are applied toward a degree at another institution. Articulation refers to

the statewide policies and/or agreements among institutions to accept the transfer of credits.

An Education Commission of the States (ECS) Teacher Preparation Policy Toolkit Briefing Pa-

per on Articulation and Transfer notes:

•

23 states have developed statewide general education common core curricula

•

At least 17 states have adopted statewide common course numbering systems

•

Colleges and universities may enter into bilateral articulation agreements regarding the

transfer of an agreed-upon set of courses between specific academic departments and

programs.

•

Concurrent enrollment programs can improve transfer opportunities

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 4

•

Development of new targeted associate degree programs with a single set of standards

and courses that are articulated among participating two- and four-year institutions.

A recent National Conference of State Legislatures summary of common source numbering sys-

tems in selected states is attached.

Significant issues for the New Mexico initiative remain to be addressed and/or implemented.

Faculty participation will be key for the initiative’s success. NMACC notes significant time and

effort by faculty groups to develop and sustain the proposed changes in each academic disci-

pline. Faculty discipline groups need to develop consensus on competencies for each course or

sequence of courses. Consensus may be more difficult to achieve in certain disciplines, such as

computer science or criminal justice. Certain types of courses may pose difficulty in reaching

common ground, such as credit for life experience. Further, the appropriate grade point average

for course acceptance may need be developed. Some institutions may have difficulty in modify-

ing software to adjust to the new course numbering system; in these cases, crosswalk tables may

be developed.

In Common Course Numbering and Articulation prepared for the Board of Governors of Califor-

nia Community Colleges, July 9-10, 2001, “common course numbering is not, in and of itself, a

system of articulation. In articulation, course content is reviewed, not the course number or title.

Common numbering can be the result of articulation. After articulation is achieved (comparable

content has been determined), numbering systems can be used to display the results” (page 6).

Further the report notes “Common numbering alone cannot achieve this educational planning.

Students must decide upon an educational plan based upon content. All students should be en-

couraged to use transfer and counseling services to develop and amend educational plans” (page

6). The report discusses the responsibility of students “to read all materials and information

provided regarding transfer requirements, seek advice in complicated decisions and immediately

seek information each time they change their targeted goal of segment, institution or major”

(page 2).

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What is the timeline to complete the system envisioned in this legislation.

2.

Will any institutions have difficulty with compliance.

3.

Will courses be considered comparable or identical. What are the resultant implications

for the success of the initiative.

4.

How will commonality be achieved. Will academic committees approve course sylla-

buses, faculty credentials and/or assigned texts. Will specified competencies be re-

quired.

5.

How will membership on academic discipline committees be determined.

6.

Would transfer of individualized common courses be permitted or would an entire trans-

fer module need to be completed for eligibility.

7.

What are the exceptions in the limited access programs.

8.

How will student information and advising needs under the new system be addressed.

9. Will the CHE prepare the calculation required under existing language on page 8, lines 4

to 11.

AW/sb:yr

Attachment

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 5

ATTACHMENT

National Conference of State Legislatures

Summary of Common Course Numbering Systems in

Selected States

State Program Origin

Cost

Summary

Florida Statewide

Course

Numbering

System

State Statute Unknown

•

Program in which Associate in Arts degree graduates of a state-approved Flor-

ida community college is guaranteed admission as a junior to any state univer-

sity as long as the institution has space, money and the curriculum to meet the

student's needs.

•

The common course numbering system maintains course information and iden-

tifying numbers and prefixes for more than 120,000 courses offered by 38 state

supported vocational schools, 28 public community colleges, 10 state universi-

ties, and at least 2 private two-year colleges. This system is maintained by ap-

proximately 170 faculty discipline committees, 78 institutional coordinators,

and 2 Department of Education employees.

Illinois Transfer or

the Illinois

Articulation

Initiative

(IAI)

Voluntary

Agreement

Between the

Community

Colleges and

the Four-Year

Institutions -

Administered

by the Illinois

Board of

Higher Educa-

tion

Approximately

$500,000 per

year plus admin-

istrative costs

and salaries

•

The purpose of the program is to identify common curriculum requirements

across associate and baccalaureate degrees and across institutions in order to

facilitate student transfer. The Illinois Transferable General Education Core Cur-

riculum is a package of freshman and sophomore level courses that will transfer

from one to another of more than 100 participating schools and fulfill the lower-

division general education requirements at the new (transfer) school.

•

The program requires 3 website administrators, 2 co-coordinators, and 2.5

program management positions.

•

The Illinois Transferable General Education Core Curriculum identifies the

common general education coursework. The Baccalaureate Majors' Recommen-

dations build on the transferable General Education Core Curriculum by identi-

fying major and prerequisite courses that students need to complete to transfer

as a junior into the specific major.

•

Panels meet twice a year to review all courses in the program. This includes 5

general education panels (each with about 20 members) and 25 major panels.

•

All community colleges in the state have voluntarily adopted this program.

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 6

•

Because this is a voluntary program, there is not a required number or per-

centage of courses that the institutions must submit to the common course

numbering system.

Minnesota MNTransfer

(Minnesota

General

Education

Transfer

Curriculum)

An agreement

signed by all

Minnesota

public higher

education

institutions.

Unknown

•

Students who complete the Minnesota General Education Transfer Curriculum

at one of the participating schools and then transfer to any other Minnesota

public baccalaureate degree-granting university will have fulfilled all lower-

division general education requirements.

•

Within the 40 credits required, there are ten goals. One course may fulfill a

maximum of two goals; however, credits will only be counted once in total. If

students fulfill the ten goal areas in fewer than 40 credits, they select courses

within any of the goals to achieve the 40-credit total. In addition to the 40

credit core, the AA requires 22 additional credits which may be MnTC goal-

fulfilling courses, pre-major requirements, or electives and 2 credits in

Health/Phys ical Education. The AS and the AAS degrees and the diplomas and

certificates at Century College also use MnTC courses to fulfill their general

education requirements.

•

The Minnesota Transfer Curriculum commits all public colleges and universities

in the state of Minnesota to a broad educational foundation that integrates a

body of knowledge and skills with a study of contemporary concerns all essen-

tial to meeting the social, personal, and career challenges individuals will face

now and in the 21st Century.

Wyoming Common

Course

Numbering

System

Special Law

(never codi-

fied). How-

ever, it is still

binding and

has not been

amended

since the law

was adopted

in 1991.

The cost is not

split out from

either the Uni-

versity or Cas-

per College

Budget. Respon-

sibilities are

assigned to

existing person-

nel and are not

accounted for

•

Common course numbering system in which over 3000 courses are transferable

between the community colleges and the University of Wyoming, and over 400

general education courses share common titles, numbers, and expected learn-

ing outcomes.

•

The University of Wyoming and the community colleges have developed a

unique partnership, the products of which are a state-wide Higher Education

Transfer Guide, which lists over 3000 courses that are transferable between the

community colleges and the University of Wyoming, and among the community

colleges.

Senate Bill 161/aSEC/aSFL#1 -- Page 7

separately by

either institu-

tion.

•

Faculty at the University of Wyoming review and approve all Wyoming commu-

nity college courses for transfer and all "commonly named and numbered

courses."

•

These agreements are reached through annual "articulation meetings" of Uni-

versity and community college faculty in all of the core general education ar-

eas. More than 20 articulation meetings are held each year where University

and community college faculty come together to discuss curriculum and make

joint decisions concerning course content and expected learning outcomes.

•

The Higher Education Transfer Guide is maintained and published annually by

the University of Wyoming.