Advisory committee backs residency‑logic fixes and high‑school data changes to reduce misclassification

The ApplyTexas Residency Logic Subcommittee presented a prioritized set of recommendations April 9 to reduce misclassification and improve the data institutions receive for residency determinations.

Maria, who reported on the subcommittee's January and February meetings, described eight recommendations intended to align ApplyTexas logic with recent lawful‑presence rule changes and to reduce incorrect residency outcomes. "The number one recommendation was to align logic with updated lawful presence requirements," Maria said, adding the proposal calls for adding a lawful‑presence question, updating triggers for the residency questionnaire and affidavit, and expanding the home‑ownership check to include rental and lease agreements.

Other recommendations include clarifying affidavit logic so applicants not claiming residency through a parent or guardian are not incorrectly prompted; correcting the 36‑month question path used for dual‑credit students; restoring residency determination visibility in the admin portal (mapping responses to produce an automatic determination as in the legacy system); restoring EDI transmission of visa information; performing a full logic and mapping review to avoid misclassification; fixing 12‑month residency paths that fail to deliver required follow‑up questions; and adding logic to redirect out‑of‑state high‑school or GED applicants to full residency questions.

"These recommendations are designed to improve the accuracy in residency determination, to reduce the burden on institutions, to enhance clarity for applicants and to ensure compliance with the current policies," Maria said. The subcommittee prioritized these items and recommended sending them to the agency's general counsel for review before development.

Committee members raised specific operational questions. Admissions staff sought clarity on GED‑in‑progress cases and said an "in progress" indicator plus an expected completion date would be helpful. Maria and other members recommended accepting future expected completion dates and an explicit in‑progress flag to make the student status immediately visible to institutions.

Members representing border institutions pressed for better support for Mexican high schools in the applicant portal to reduce manual cleanup. "We get so many applicants from Mexico," said Christine Velasquez. "It would be helpful to have those Mexican high schools be part of that drop‑down list." Staff acknowledged the value and noted implementation and data‑mapping tradeoffs, including potential country/state abbreviation collisions that must be addressed in downstream systems.

Amy Zeigler presented two design approaches for the high‑school section of the applicant portal: (A) an initial school‑type question (U.S. high school, international, home school, GED) that shows only relevant follow‑up fields, or (B) an enhanced searchable drop‑down retaining non‑traditional entries with added help text (and an "I can't find my school" manual entry). The committee weighed pros and cons: option A reduces irrelevant prompts but might complicate selection for virtual/home‑school programs listed in the database; option B preserves findability for nontraditional schools but requires clearer help text.

Staff described next steps: the recommendations will go to general counsel for review; the ApplyTexas team will assess development and EDI mapping implications, prioritize changes against sprint work, and conduct internal and external testing before release. No formal policy changes were adopted at the meeting; the committee asked staff to return with timing and implementation plans.

The committee approved the meeting minutes, set follow‑up training and a likely June meeting to coordinate Free College Application Week, and adjourned at 11:34 a.m.