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