LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 7, 1997
TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 1480, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Committee on Education By: Bivins
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1480 ( Relating
to the diagnosis of reading development and comprehension at
certain grade levels in public school.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1480-Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Under the language as drafted, implementing the provisions of
the bill would result in a net negative impact of ($6,500,000)
to General Revenue Related Funds through the biennium ending
August 31, 1999.
Assuming correction of the technical error
in the language as drafted, implementing the provisions of the
bill would result in a net positive impact of $2,600,000 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.
Fiscal Analysis
This bill would amend Subchapter A, Chapter 28 of the Education
Code by adding Section 28.006.
The commissioner of education,
under this section, would develop a list of reading diagnosis
recommendations for school districts. These recommendations
would address:
1) administering reading instruments to diagnose
student reading development and comprehension;
2) training
educators in administering the reading instruments ; and
3)
applying the results of the reading instruments to the instructional
program.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed
that the commissioner will compile a list of existing reading
diagnostic instruments, and that no additional costs will be
incurred for test item development for a new state reading test.
A
school district may use the commissioner s list to diagnose
student reading development and comprehension. Subsequent to
Subchapter F, Chapter 11, an additional list may be adopted
by the district- and campus-level committees. Each reading
instrument adopted by either the commissioner or the district-
and campus-level committee must be based on scientific research
concerning reading skills development and reading comprehension.
The list must include instruments appropriate for diagnosing
reading development and comprehension of students with limited
English proficiency.
Each school district is required to
administer the reading instrument at the kindergarten, first,
and second grade levels in accordance with the commissioner s
recommendations under Subsection (a)(1), if an appropriation
is made to pay for the assessments.
The new reading tests
are not to be used for purposes of holding schools accountable
for student progress under Chapter 39, nor for purposes of teacher
appraisals or principal appraisals and incentives under Chapter
21 appraisals. The result of the reading instruments shall
be reported by the superintendent to the board of trustees.
The reading assessment instruments are required only if
state funds are appropriated, and only if the instrument administered
is on the list adopted by the commissioner.
The committee
substitute for SB 1480 would add a new section to Chapter 42,
Education Code which authorizes funds to be set aside to pay
for the instruments. It is assumed that the language is intended
to set aside funds from the compensatory education allotment.
However, as drafted, the language does not reference the compensatory
education allotment or any other allotment and thereby has no
actual effect.
The adoption of the list containing the reading
instruments and recommendations must be adopted by the commissioner
not later than August 1, 1998. Each school district shall implement
a reading diagnosis program in accordance with this section
beginning with the 1998-1999 school year.
This Act takes
effect September 1, 1997.
Methodolgy
This bill requires the commissioner to adopt a list of reading
instruments and recommendations for reading diagnosis not later
than August 1, 1998. Also, it gives the local district- and
campus-level committees the opportunity to adopt a different
list than the commissioner s list. The state will provide the
funds to offset the cost of the reading instruments that are
on the commissioner s list, but the bill does not permit funding
for reading instruments if not on the commissioner s list.
For
the purpose of this bill, the Texas Education Agency projects
a total student enrollment for grades K through 2 for the 1998-1999
school year at 925,000 students. It is assumed that future
enrollment will be at a comparable level.
The cost of implementing
a reading diagnostic instrument is dependent upon the type of
instrument chosen. While an informal assessment could cost
between $1 and $3 per student, this fiscal note assumes only
standardized diagnostic instruments will be included on the
commissioner s approved list, at a cost of about $7 per student.
The statewide costs would be approximately $6.5 million.
The
committee substitute for SB 1480 would add a new section to
Chapter 42, Education Code which authorizes funds to be set
aside to pay for the instruments. It is assumed that the language
is intended to set aside funds from the compensatory education
allotment. However, as drafted, the language does not reference
the compensatory education allotment or any other allotment
and thereby has no actual effect.
If the language was intended
to set aside funds from the compensatory education allotment,
the result would be an estimated annual $2.6 million savings
to the state.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated in two separate tables. Table 1 estimates the
effect of the current bill language as passed in the committee
substitute, which, as drafted, requires funds appropriated under
the new section to be established by the bill, which continues
the costs as estimated for the original bill. This amount includes
personnel costs for one additional FTE for evaluating the instruments
and reimbursing school districts for costs associated with the
program. As drafted, committee substitute SB 1480 would result
in an estimated cost of $6.5 million annually beginning in fiscal
year 1999.
Table 2 estimates the effect of the language
of committee substitute 1480 assuming technical error and legislative
intent to withhold funds from the compensatory education allotment.
Because the reduction in Tier I ($6,500,000) would decrease
weighted average daily attendance, state aid to school districts
under Tier II (Guaranteed Yield) would be reduced by approximately
$2,600,000 or about 40% of the amount that would be set aside.
As a result, the overall savings to the state's Foundation
School Fund (#193) would be approximately $2.6 million annually
beginning in Fiscal Year 1999.
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) of State
from General Employees from
Revenue Fund FY 1997
0001
1998
1998 (6,500,000) 1.0
2000 (6,500,000) 1.0
2001 (6,500,000) 1.0
2002 (6,500,000) 1.0
TABLE 1 (ABOVE). Effect of CSSB 1480 as drafted.
TABLE 2
(BELOW). Effect of CSSB 1480 assuming technical error.
Fiscal Year Probable Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) of State
from Foundation Employees from
School Fund FY 1997
0193
1998
1999 2,600,000 1.0
2000 2,600,000 1.0
2001 2,600,000 1.0
2002 2,600,000 1.0
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
School districts will be reimbursed for the costs for administering
the reading instruments only if they adopt a reading instrument
that is included on the commissioner s list. Otherwise, local
school districts could incur additional costs if they decide
to use a reading instrument that is adopted by their local district-
and campus-level committees. If districts chose to use alternative
assessment instruments, the expected maximum local cost would
be estimated at $6.5 million, in which case the state cost would
be reduced.
As noted above, based on the assumption that
legislative intent is to withhold funds from the compensatory
education allotment, state aid to districts both from Tier I
and Tier II would be reduced due to the increased amount set
aside from the Compensatory Education allotment. The total
estimated reduction in state aid to districts would be $9,100,000.
Of this amount $6,500,000 would be the reduction in Tier I
payments and $2,600,000 would be the reduction in Tier II payments.
Additionally,
this bill proposes recommendations to be developed by the commissioner
for teacher training for administering the reading instruments
as well as applying the results to the instructional programs.
It appears that the training and implementation expenses would
be a local cost. It can be argued that a school district could
meet these requirements by displacing/eliminating other staff
development topics.
Daily training costs are estimated at
$40 per day per teacher for professionally developed outside
training. If a school district adds training sessions, an average
of $40 per teacher per day could occur at the local level.
The number of teachers that teach K through 2 grades is estimated
to be 60,000 teachers. Therefore, the cost for staff development
would be about $2,400,000 per day under this scenario.
Source: Agencies: 701 Texas Education Agency - Administration
LBB Staff: JK ,LP ,TH