LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 17, 1997
TO: Honorable Paul Sadler, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 139, As Engrossed
Committee on Public Education By: Bivins
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB139 ( Relating
to curriculum requirements for alternative education programs
and juvenile justice alternative education programs.) this office
has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB139-As Engrossed
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of ($523,638) to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31,1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
The bill provides for substantive change to
the public school accountability system.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill amends Sections 37.008(a) and 37.011(d), Education
Code which relate to the curriculum requirements for alternative
education (AEP) and juvenile justice alternative education (JJAEP)
programs. The bill requires both types of programs to provide
a curriculum that will enable a student to meet the requirements
for high school graduation.
The bill would also change accountability
for district AEPs and county JJAEPs.
Specifically, the proposed
subsections would require that each alternative education program
be treated as a campus subject to Subchapters C, D, F, and G
of Chapter 39, Education Code. These subchapters address the
academic excellence indicators, campus accreditation ratings,
on-site investigations, special investigations, conduct of investigations,
excellence exemptions, and accreditation sanctions. The proposed
subsections would also require the commissioner of education
to annually define exemplary, recognized, and unacceptable performance
for AEPs and JJAEPs based primarily on comparable and required
improvement standards that measure academic progress of students
toward grade level while attending an AEP or JJAEP. The commissioner
would be granted appropriate rule making authority.
This
legislation would take effect beginning with the 1997-98 school
year.
The commissioner of education established separate
alternative accountability standards approximately three years
ago for determining the campus ratings of alternative campuses
that were identified as serving students for at-risk characteristics,
disciplinary purposes, expulsion, dropout recovery, and/or pregnancy
or parenting responsibilities.
The agency has already defined
alternative education campus more broadly than the term in Chapter
37 of the Education Code which refers only to campuses established
to serve disciplinary placements. Currently the agency has sixteen
different categories of alternative campuses registered, not
including the Texas Youth Commission and Windham Schools. Additionally,
the commissioner of education has already implemented an alternative
accountability system with two ratings based on performance
on indicators applicable to the campus. Each alternative campus
is given a choice of two indicators, one to measure some kind
of academic outcome (i.e. choice of one TAAS test score, GED
completion, course/credit completion) and one that may measure
other outcomes (e.g. attendance, dropout rates, graduation rates,
dropout recoveries) or additional academic outcomes. Standards
are set on the previous year's baseline performance, and the
campus performance objectives must meet at least a minimum level.
The ratings of alternative campuses are based on the performance
data for students in attendance long-term (i.e. 90 cumulative
days or longer during the school year).
An exception to
this procedure is made to allow credit for short-term students
who complete the GED or graduate, if all short-term data is
counted in the determination of the indicators. TAAS and dropout
data for short-term students is attributed to the regular, sending
campus under current law. The alternative accountability system
is designed to determine the effectiveness of the alternative
campuses based on the progress of the current year's long-term
students in accomplishing some kind of academic and other related
objectives during the time of placement.
For the 1996-97
school year, 329 alternative campuses (using the broader definition)
are registered to participate in the alternative accountability
system. During the previous school year, only 48 of the 309
campuses registered had 30 or more students in grades 3-8 and
10 who were eligible to take the TAAS. A total of 90 of the
309 campuses had fewer than 10 students taking TAAS.
The
agency states that there are a number of reasons why so few
students served in alternative campuses are eligible for TAAS
testing:
(1) many students are maintained in the 9th grade
and the TAAS is not administered to 9th grade students;
(2)
some students are taking the TAAS exit examination on a repeat
basis, while only the 10th grade March and May administrations
are used in determining regular campus ratings);
(3) some
students have completed the TAAS and are working toward course
completion to finish diploma requirements;
(4) some students
are recovered dropouts who are enrolled in GED programs and
do not take the TAAS because they are not pursuing a diploma.
Further, due to the mobility of students served in alternative
programs (most of whom are placed from multiple regular campuses
and many from multiple districts), it is not feasible to track
the individual progress of a cohort of students from one year
to the next to calculate comparable improvement or required
improvement.
For JJAEPs, Section 37.011(h) of the Education
Code currently provides for a student to be reported for accountability
purposes as if the student were enrolled at the student's regularly
assigned campus. This means that the TAAS performance and dropout
attributions return to whichever regular campus and district
the student was in at the time of placement in the JJAEP. Of
the 22 mandatory JJAEPs and 17 non-mandatory JJAEPs currently
operating, only 5 are registered in the alternative accountability
system. Therefore, there is currently no means of rating the
other 34 JJAEPs. The constraints described above pertaining
to the problems associated with using TAAS as a measure of effectiveness
and using comparable and required improvement also apply to
JJAEPs.
Methodolgy
This bill would not affect state aid. However, there are fiscal
implications for the operations of the Texas Education Agency.
Although there is a database to collect information needed
to rate the effectiveness of disciplinary alternative campuses
registered under the current system, the database is not sufficient
to calculate the types of ratings proposed in the bill. In
addition, there is no current database pertaining to the accountability
of JJAEPs.
The bill would require expansion of the existing
database. It is estimated that one (1) additional FTE would
be sufficient to implement the database expansion and perform
the necessary data analyses and extraction. There are also
implications for additional staff needed to conduct on-site
investigations of alternative campuses that fail to meet the
criteria for the acceptable rating. It is estimated that
three (3) additional FTEs would be required. Currently, only
three professional staff members are available to visit the
alternative campuses (of the 329 registered) that fail to meet
acceptable standards. This estimate is based on the volume
of the current system, under which 48 alternative campuses require
on-site evaluation during the 1996-97 school year and an even
larger number are expected to require on-site evaluations during
the 1997-98 school year.
The estimated implications for additional
staff to conduct on-site investigations are based on the following
assumed process. Since alternative campuses are uniquely structured
and require a complex analysis on-site, at least two staff members
need to participate in each on-site review, as feasible. There
are approximately 17 weeks available for visits between September
and May, excluding holidays and TAAS test dates. This schedule
allows alternate weeks at the Agency for staff to complete reports
from previous visits and to prepare for upcoming visits (e.g.
communications, logistics, review of performance data, and scheduling
of peer reviewers).
Costs for four (4) additional FTEs, including
salaries, benefits (estimated at 25.21% of base salary), travel
and operating expenses are estimated to be $241,819 annually.
A one time expenditure of $40,000 for computer equipment would
occur in the first year of implementation.
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 Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) of State
from General Employees from
Revenue Fund FY 1997
0001
1998 ($281,819) 4.0
1998 (241,819) 4.0
2000 (241,819) 4.0
2001 (241,819) 4.0
2002 (241,819) 4.0
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 ($281,819)
1999 (241,819)
2000 (241,819)
2001 (241,819)
2002 (241,819)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
To the extent that it is not already current practice, AEP and
JJAEP educational programs would have to comply with the curriculum
requirements contained in the bill. In addition, the programs
would have to adhere to the accountability system as proposed.
It
is assumed that the curriculum requirements are already met
by a majority of both types of programs. Those that do not
currently comply would have to improve their educational programs,
probably through the development of electives. On a statewide
basis, costs for such development are not anticipated to be
significant. Implementation of the proposed accountability
system would not be expected to result in significant new costs
for districts or JJAEPs.
Source: Agencies: 701 Texas Education Agency - Administration
LBB Staff: JK ,DH ,TH