LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
February 9, 1999
TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair, Senate Committee on
Education
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB1 by Bivins (Relating to the promotion of public
school students based on satisfactory performance on
certain assessment instruments and to programs to assist
students in achieving satisfactory performance.), As
Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB1, As *
* Introduced: positive impact of $180,000 through the biennium *
* ending August 31, 2001. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2000 $0 *
* 2001 180,000 *
* 2002 180,000 *
* 2003 518,000 *
* 2004 518,000 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
*****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Savings to Foundation *
* School Fund *
* 0193 *
* 2000 $0 *
* 2001 180,000 *
* 2002 180,000 *
* 2003 518,000 *
* 2004 518,000 *
*****************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill reinforces early reading instruction and ends automatic
promotion for students who do not pass repeated TAAS administrations.
Districts must provide parental notification if children fall below grade
level in reading. The bill would add a new category to the Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) to reflect students promoted by grade
placement committees.
Students who fail TAAS tests a second time would require the attention of
a local grade placement committee that would determine appropriate
accelerated reading instruction, the promotion status of a student, and
hear parental appeals. Retentions, and the necessity for grade
placement committees, would be phased in, beginning with assessments in
third grade in fiscal year 2003, fifth grade in fiscal year 2005, and
eighth grade in fiscal year 2008.
Methodology
Due to additional testing requirements, the state would incur costs
through the design and administration of new TAAS tests. Costs
associated with the design and administration of assessment instruments
are set aside from the compensatory education allotment, a calculation
that creates lower weighted student counts and thus lowers state aid
through Tier II. Consequently, the state would experience a net savings
because of reduction in the compensatory education allotment. The state
would save $180,000 beginning in fiscal year 2001, rising to $518,000 in
fiscal year 2003.
The Texas Education Agency estimates that the costs of assessment design
and administration would be $365,094 in fiscal year 2001, $360,094 in
fiscal year 2002, ultimately rising to $1,068,513 in fiscal year 2003.
Costs increase as retentions are gradually phased in. The costs are
primarily for additional staff and professional services to design and
administer new assessment instruments.
Test design and administration contract costs would be $250,000 in fiscal
year 2001, rising to $850,000 by fiscal year 2003.
Local Government Impact
Local districts would incur costs from additional reading instruction,
new performance reporting, and principal and teacher workload associated
with the grade placement committees. The bill would require school
districts to provide new accelerated research-based instruction in grades
K-2. Since the bill leaves the dynamics and timing of this instruction
to districts, precise increases in local costs are uncertain.
Another local cost would arise from the establishment of the grade
placement committees. At full implementation in fiscal year 2008, grade
placement committees would cost local districts $8.4 million. Estimates
of second-time failures are unavailable, but the assumption that one-half
of students who fail primary assessments would also fail a second test
yields 75,000 pupils who require committee attention. At full
implementation, the local committee workload would be equal to 100
full-time equivalent principals and 100 full-time equivalent teachers.
The $8.4 million figure is an estimate of the principal and teacher
salary costs necessary to maintain tasks put aside because of placement
committees. Due to the gradual introduction of retention over the next
five years, the first year to show local costs associated with placement
committees would be fiscal year 2003, with a statewide local cost of $2.1
million.
Retentions would also create costs for school districts, although the
volume of retentions and costs would be determined by the eventual work
of the grade placement committees.
Source Agencies: 701 Texas Education Agency, TCE Texas Center for
Educational Research
LBB Staff: JK, CT, CW, RN