Texas advisory panel fails to approve revised biology field-of-study after community college objections

The Texas Transfer Advisory Committee, a Higher Education Coordinating Board advisory panel, failed to approve a proposed revised biology field of study after community college representatives withheld a majority approval on a roll-call vote.

The proposal, developed by a TTEC subgroup and adopted earlier through rulemaking at the agency level, would allow students to complete 30 semester hours of core curriculum (rather than the full 42) and expand discipline foundation course allowances from up to 12 semester credit hours to up to 24, with directed electives up to 12 hours. Proponents said the change gives students more discipline-specific preparation before transfer to a four-year institution.

The committee heard presentations from co-chairs and subcommittee members. Chantae Gullet, Lone Star College, and Catherine ("Cathy") Ryan, Texas A&M University, described the field-of-study curriculum and said the subcommittee unanimously approved the discipline proposal at the subgroup level. "We brought this committee back together. And you have your two co-chairs here, who are going to present," Elizabeth Mayer, assistant commissioner for academic and health affairs at THECB, said during the presentation.

Several four-year university representatives said the expanded discipline foundation would better prepare students for upper-division science coursework. Katherine ("Kathy") Ryan, Texas A&M University, recommended adding organic chemistry and calculus as directed electives for students aiming for programs that require them. "With this new field of study curriculum, we really think that this will benefit the students going forward," Ryan said.

But community college members raised concerns about total credit hours and "hidden" prerequisites. Anne Gilliard, Sam Houston State University (new to the committee), cautioned that the revised pathway could increase an associate-level transfer pathway to 66 credit hours, and when prerequisite math and other preparatory courses are counted, some students could face as many as 74 credit hours. "That's not a 2 year degree," Gilliard said. "It's a little bit more than that if you really think about it. You need to commit to 66 hours and, oh, by the way, you may possibly need to take 8 more hours as hidden prerequisites, and that is one of my concerns."

Community college representatives said they worried heavier math prerequisites (college algebra, pre-calculus or calculus) and science sequences would reduce completion and deter students. One community college representative summarized the tension: the proposal aims to prepare transfer students for success at four-year institutions, but it could raise barriers to completion at the two-year level.

The committee took a roll-call vote required of both university and community college representatives. University representatives cast a majority of yes votes (several named university members recorded "yes" and one recorded "no"), but community college representatives split evenly, leaving the community-college side without a majority in favor. Because the committee requires approval from both representative groups, the motion failed.

After the vote, co-chairs and presenters said the biology subcommittee will reconvene in early spring to examine alternative math-pathway options (including a possible move toward pre-calculus as a compromise) and to re-examine the balance between transfer readiness and two-year completion. "I think it's worth us going back into having a conversation," one co-chair said. "...I would ask that you know, there is a we keep an open mind when we understand the actual reason that we have this one particular field of study for biology."

The committee recorded the formal action as failed and agreed to reconvene the subcommittee to try to identify options for addressing hidden prerequisites and the math pathway before the fields-of-study expiration deadline later in the cycle.

Votes at a glance: the committee proceeded with a roll-call vote on the biology recommendation; the university representatives voted largely yes while the community college representatives were split evenly (no community-college majority), so the motion failed.

The committee scheduled reconvening of the biology subcommittee in early spring and set the item for reconsideration at a future TTEC meeting; any revised recommendation will follow THECB rulemaking and public-notice procedures.

Ending: The failure to secure approval preserves the status quo for the biology field of study pending further work; co-chairs said they will consult stakeholders and THECB data teams before returning to the full committee.