1. Public Senior University Funding Model 1

8. Funding Formulas The two funding formulas are: Instruction and Operations (I&O) Formula and Infrastructure Formula. 1.Instruction and Operations Formula (I/O) Faculty Costs Departmental Operating Expenses Academic Support Student Services Institutional Support 2.Infrastructure Formula Infrastructure Formula Maintenance and Operations Utilities Would the presentation of the formula request provide a clearer picture of the costs included in these formulas if the components were identified in the presentation?

9. Weighting matrix: Formula Lower Division Upper Division MastersDoctoralProfessional Liberal Arts1.001.774.019.94 Developmental Ed1.00 Science1.672.937.2920.05 Fine Arts1.502.515.659.78 Teacher Ed1.331.792.687.70 Agriculture2.022.667.1311.97 Engineering2.463.517.3917.05 Home Economics1.171.833.217.10 Law 3.55 Social Sciences1.892.093.7612.21 Library Science1.141.213.037.68 Vocational Training1.902.37 Physical Training1.291.49 Health Services1.702.444.159.92 Pharmacy1.763.8514.9025.275.13 Business Admin1.181.683.7019.08 Optometry 5.4619.127.00 Teacher Ed Practice1.311.99 Technology1.852.425.08 Nursing2.733.245.3611.79 Veterinary Medicine 14.24

10. Higher Education Appropriation Summary 2008-2009 Institution Special Item Appropriations New – Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund Research Development Fund Total per Institution Angelo State University1,300,000 126,0881,426,088 Lamar University 466,478 Midwestern State University 33,692 Prairie View A&M University4,100,000 Sam Houston State University 998,800 Stephen F. Austin State University 988,296 Sul Ross State University 608,076 Sul Ross State University Rio Grande College 0 Tarleton State University 2,584,742 Texas A&M International University5,000,000 43,6405,043,640 Texas A&M University23,000,00040,527,466 63,527,466 Texas A&M University-Commerce 236,302 Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 2,351,850 Texas A&M University-Galveston 1,158,284 Texas A&M University-Kingsville62,080 2,653,7662,715,846 Texas A&M University-Texarkana 0

11. Higher Education Appropriation Summary 2008-2009 Institution Special Item Appropriations New - Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund Research Development Fund Total per Institution From previous slide33,462,08040,527,46612,250,01486,239,560 Texas Southern University 1,310,588 Texas State University-San Marcos4,733,504 1,897,5446,631,048 Texas Tech University14,186,4075,091,75610,958,74630,236,909 Texas Woman's University 435,592 The University of Texas at Arlington 6,364,184 The University of Texas at Austin35,000,00039,388,772 74,388,772 The University of Texas at Brownsville 1,382,278 The University of Texas at Dallas2,000,000 9,865,36011,865,360 The University of Texas at El Paso 8,414,430 The University of Texas at Pan American 1,309,438 The University of Texas at Permian Basin 407,754 The University of Texas at San Antonio6,000,000 5,962,73811,962,738 The University of Texas at Tyler1,500,000 239,2601,739,260

12. Higher Education Appropriation Summary 2008-2009 Institution Special Item Appropriations New - Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund Research Development Fund Total per Institution From previous slide96,881,99185,007,99460,797,926242,687,911 University of Houston5,473,7878,199,62114,989,85828,663,266 University of Houston-Clear Lake 212,528 University of Houston-Downtown 173,850 University of Houston-Victoria1,100,000 1,6741,101,674 University of North Texas1,632,060 3,714,4605,346,520 West Texas A&M University5,000,000 972,5325,972,532 Misc. THECB; Community Colleges12,950,000 Total123,037,83893,207,61580,862,828297,108,281 Higher Education Performance Incentive of $100,000,000 will be submitted by THECB to the LBB and the Governor's Office by January 1, 2008 100,000,000 Total formula funding 50,000,000 Total Appropriations for the 2008-2009 biennium 447,108,281

13. Commissioner’s Charge Formula Study Group 2010-2011 1.Make recommendations on the appropriate amounts for formula funding. 2.Explore the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a mission- specific differential for distributing formula funds to universities. 3.Continue to refine the cost-based matrix for the Instruction and Operations Formula (I&O). 4.Continue to refine the balance of the utilities and the maintenance and operations (M&O) components of the Infrastructure Formula. 5.Continue to refine the expenses that are appropriately addressed by the Infrastructure Formula. 6.Consider whether funding for the current Teaching Supplement might be more effectively employed by removing it from the Instructions and Operations formula. 7.Recommend a new graduated award methodology for the current Small Institution Supplement based on a combination of fixed and variable costs. 8.Pre-existing formulas are intended to provide additional incentive funding for selected variables. Consider the optimal relationship between the two “pots” of funding.