LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 22, 1997
TO: Honorable Paul Sadler, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 133, Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Committee on Public Education By: Bivins
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB133 ( Relating
to the placement of a student in an alternative education program.)
this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB133-Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(27,082,000) to General Revenue Related
Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
Fiscal Analysis
The committee substitute substantively reworks Subchapter
A, Chapter 37, Education Code, relating to Alternative Settings
for Behavior Management and Education Achievement.
The bill
provides for all students who are removed from the regular school
classroom or expelled from school to be retained and served
in an educational program which may be provided in an in-school
suspension setting (ISS), a district alternative education setting
(AES) or in a county juvenile justice alternative education
setting (JJAES). Hearings are required prior to student placement
in district or county alternative settings. Transportation is
required for students attending county programs (both current
law and this bill assume students in any public school program
are eligible for Foundation School Program transportation funding).
The
bill requires basic courses (same as current law) and graduation
plans to be established for students in alternative education
settings. All students in alternative settings are included
in the state testing program; student scores are reported as
if the student was enrolled at the student's assigned campus
for accountability purposes (same as current law). The bill
requires data collection on student placements in alternative
settings.
The bill provides for per student funding for attendance
in a JJAES to flow from the school district to the county in
an amount determined by a memorandum of understanding, but which
is not less than the greater amount of either the student's
regular campus program or district's alternative education setting.
Methodolgy
It is assumed that under the provisions of this bill all students
in all counties are to be retained in an education program of
some type. Two major sources (agency survey and federal report)
are used for estimating the total numbers of students who would
be retained, which would include both out-of-school suspensions
and expelled students. Other sources (juvenile probation commission,
criminal justice council) provide data on adjudicated students
enrolled in juvenile justice alternative programs.
Data on
suspensions and expulsions was gathered over a 3-year period
on 1100 district applications in compliance with the Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act. These reports show total expulsions
to increase from 12,000 to 17,000 between the school years ending
in 1994 and 1995. For the 1995-96 school year, reports showed
a drop-off to 6,266 expulsions. Those reports also show that,
over the same 3-year period, districts reported approximately
213,000 student out-of-school suspensions in 1996, an increase
of approximately 70,000 students over 1994 district reports
(142,000). Actual data on the number of students suspended and
the number of days is unknown. The Texas Education Agency's
1995-96 Safe Schools Survey collected district data on student
placements, attendance, and expulsions in district alternative
programs; districts reported 6,210 student expulsions statewide
for 1995-96, and 5,601 actual students expelled.
Estimates
on future JJAEP populations vary from 1,500 (TJPC) to approximately
4,000 (Criminal Justice Policy Council) per year. Based on data
projected by the State Auditor's Office on the number of students
to be served in the current (initial) year, the Texas Education
Agency uses the estimate of 2,400 students served in the county
JJAEPs under current law. Based on agency and federal data,
the agency further assumes that the number of students expelled
during the current year but not accounted for in JJAEP enrollments
would result in approximately 3,200 students (5,600 - 2,400)
added to the Foundation School Program (FSP) under the provisions
of this bill. Based on the agency survey, the average student
expulsion period (55 days), multiplied by $27.22 per day per
3,200 students, would project state FSP enrollment costs increases
by about $4.8 million annually.
Estimates on students retained
out of data on out-of-school suspensions also varies. Agency
estimates assume that, last year, approximately 200,000 students
were suspended for 2 days; however, the federal data is unevenly
reported, including both numbers of "students" suspended in
some districts and the total number of "days" suspended in others.
A middle ground estimate, therefore, would be to estimate 200,000
"students" suspended for 1.5 days. At $27.22 per day, total
costs to the state for retaining suspended students would be
approximately $8.2 million annually.
Agency estimates on
student transportation are based on additional costs for transporting
3,200 students to JJAEPs/AEPs at an average of 570 miles per
student in alternative education programs per year, at an average
state funding rate of $.97 per mile assumed for the purposes
of estimating costs associated with this bill. Assuming 55 days
of additional transportation per student to any alternative
education setting as proposed under this bill, at 3.17 miles
per student per day, total state costs for additional transportation
would be approximately $541,000 annually.
No significant
additional costs are anticipated as a result of this bill for
assessing progress of additional students in the accountability
system, regardless of student placement in regular or alternative
setting. Also, no significant additional costs are anticipated
for data collection on students attending in district alternative
education settings.
Current appropriations adopted for the
1998-99 biennium for all Safe Schools legislation total approximately
$50 million; of this amount, $36 million is allocated to the
Texas Education Agency for district alternative education programs
(where students are retained in the Foundation School Program),
and $14 million to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission for
county juvenile justice alternative education programs.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable
Savings/(Cost)
from Foundation
School Fund
0193
1998 ($13,541,000)
1998 (13,541,000)
2000 (13,541,000)
2001 (13,541,000)
2002 (13,541,000)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($13,541,000)
1999 (13,541,000)
2000 (13,541,000)
2001 (13,541,000)
2002 (13,541,000)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Fiscal implication to units of local government is outlined
as follows:
Some costs could be anticipated for large urban
school districts which would be expected to have large numbers
of expelled or suspended students retained. However, these accumulations
may not be significant at the district level, and the actual
numbers may not be known. For example, figures reported in the
Legislative Budget Board Staff Performance Report to the 75th
Legislature and in the agency's 1996 survey showed the number
of students expelled in Houston ISD reported total 290, 310,
and 729 students for the 1995-96 school year. Other large districts
reported relatively low but widely varying totals across districts
on estimates of expelled students for that school year: San
Antonio ISD, 43; Dallas ISD, 171; Northside ISD, 87; El Paso
ISD, 18; Ysleta ISD, 48 (expelled students only for serious
on-campus offenses); Corpus Christi ISD, 158; Fort Worth ISD,
66; Austin ISD, 55 (expelled students only for serious on-campus
offenses).
Similarly, local costs associated with additional
alternative education setting placements will also vary, and
may not be significant, based on the number of days districts
elect to send students to alternative programs. The education
agency statewide estimates high local costs ($12 million), but
also assumes that the provisions of this bill will increase
student placements in alternative programs from an estimated
22-day placement to 158 days per student. However, data from
the agency's 1996 survey do not support agency estimates. The
agency's survey shows Houston ISD averages only 2.74 days assigned
per student in AEPs, and only 2.2 days actual student attendance.
Across all urban districts, which the agency may anticipate
to have higher increased costs associated with repeat student
assignments to alternative settings, students were assigned
to AEPs for an average of 12 days, but attended 8.5 days.
Also,
other local costs that may be associated with additional parent/teacher/principal
conferences for students prior to placement in an alternative
setting, attendance data gathering for alternative settings,
additional costs to local systems to support PEIMS submissions,
similarly would be shown to be insignificant on an individual
district basis. However, additional state funds are appropriated
for the 1998-99 biennium ($36 million) for costs associated
with the safe schools provisions under Chapter 37, Education
Code, which comprise the whole of this bill.
Additional
costs to county programs may be anticipated based on requirements
for courses necessary to meet graduation requirements (instead
of current provision for basic courses), or extended year 224-day
programs, or student options for staying in the county education
setting instead of returning to the regular district education
setting. However, additional moneys currently appropriated for
the 1998-99 biennium ($14 million) to the Juvenile Probation
Commission for juvenile justice alternative education programs
would be anticipated to cover additional costs required under
the provisions of this bill.
Source: Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK ,DH ,TH