LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
February 20, 2001
TO: Honorable Paul Sadler, Chair, House Committee on Public
Education
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB500 by Grusendorf (Relating to public education.), As
Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB500, As Introduced: negative impact of $(245,421,410) through *
* the biennium ending August 31, 2003. *
* *
* The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal *
* basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of *
* the bill. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2002 $(122,818,055) *
* 2003 (122,603,355) *
* 2004 (114,841,063) *
* 2005 (114,189,629) *
* 2006 (115,754,629) *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Probable Probable Change in *
* Year Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Revenue Number of State *
* from Foundation from General Gain/(Loss) Employees from *
* School Fund Revenue Fund from FY 2001 *
* 0193 0001 Certification *
* and Assessment *
* Fees (General *
* Revenue Fund) *
* 0751 *
* 2002 $(79,800,000) $(43,233,875) $215,820 12.0 *
* 2003 (79,800,000) (43,198,175) 394,820 12.0 *
* 2004 (79,800,000) (35,593,600) 552,537 12.0 *
* 2005 (79,800,000) (35,098,600) 708,971 12.0 *
* 2006 (79,800,000) (36,663,600) 708,971 12.0 *
***************************************************************************
Technology Impact
Several aspects of this bill would have technology implications. Section
1 requires coordination of databases with the Coordinating Board, which
could necessitate efforts to match student-level data. The voluntary
rating system mandated by Section 9 could affect data requirements at
the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Depending on implementation, the
award program for campuses showing improvement as described in Section
13 might require additional data.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill modifies the public school accountability system and creates
incentive programs targeted at addressing quality of teaching and
academic achievement in public schools. The bill requires a
coordinated student-level database for student performance information
in both public education and higher education settings; authorizes TEA
to make grants to school districts for mentor or induction programs, or
other teacher-related purposes; authorizes the State Board for Educator
Certification (SBEC) to certify teachers in a subject area with only
passage of the examination and a bachelor's degree in the relevant
field; provides for a $3,000 bonus for experienced teachers that agree
to serve at low-performing campuses for three years, which would be
funded from the compensatory education allotment; requires TEA to
develop professional development institutes for mathematics teachers;
permits the TEA commissioner to participate in interstate test
development efforts for end-of-course examinations; requires the
development of a voluntary rating system; and creates a new entitlement
under the Foundation School Program such that TEA would provide $3,000
per teacher for extraordinary campus improvement or $1,000 per teacher
for significant campuses improvement.
Methodology
Section 2 of the bill authorizes a new grant program related to
newly-hired teachers. This grant program would provide $3,000 to
districts for each new teacher hired from an alternative certification
program or that is teaching on a district permit, and
traditionally-prepared educators would be eligible for the $1,000 grant.
In 1999-2000, an estimated 2,900 new teachers were employed from
alternative certification programs or with district teaching permits. An
additional 17,300 teachers entered the profession from traditional
programs or other sources. Based on a five percent increase in the
number of new teachers each year (in each category), the estimated cost
of the grants would range from $27,335,000 in fiscal year 2002 to
$33,200,000 in fiscal year 2006.
Section 3 of the bill allows individuals having college degrees to become
certified teachers without participating in an educator preparation
program. SBEC estimates the additional number of individuals certified
as a result of Section 3 as 3,000 in fiscal year 2002, 4,000 in fiscal
year 2003, 5,000 in fiscal year 2004, and 6,000 in each year of fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. These additional candidates for certification
increase the number of exams given and certificates issued, providing
additional fee revenue. Because the bill requires the degree to be in an
academic major or discipline related to at least one area of the public
school curriculum, SBEC must review college transcripts and other
documentation to determine eligibility. This review will require an
increase in agency staff and expenditures, which would be paid from
certification and exam fee revenue. There would be net increase in
revenue of $215,820 in fiscal year 2002 and $394,820 in fiscal year 2003,
as reflected in the third column of the fiscal impact table above.
Section 6 provides for a $3,000 one-time bonus for experienced teachers
that teach for three years at low-performing campuses. TEA estimates
that if 20% of the positions at 200 low-performing campuses were filled
by experienced teachers receiving the award; an estimated 1,520 teachers
would receive awards totaling $4,560,000. After a high initial cost, the
actual annual cash outlays should decline somewhat, because many of
these teachers would remain at those schools. Section 12 of the bill
directs that the bonus money be taken from the compensatory education
allotment, which would mean a reduction of state aid to certain school
districts, but no net increase in state aid. This program requires
monitoring of employment over a three year time period and TEA estimates
the need for one professional employee and one administrative support
employee at a combined annual cost of $88,969.
Section 7 requires the Commissioner of Education to develop professional
development institutes for mathematics teachers. TEA estimates that half
of the 28,741 math teachers in the effected grades would be trained in
the first year at a cost of $600 each for stipends, and that each of 360
training sessions would cost about $10,000 to provide. Initial course
and materials development costs would total about $1.5 million. Annual
costs are estimated to be $13,735,275 for the direct service component.
After the first two-year period, costs would likely be scaled down
somewhat to $5 million per year in fiscal year 2004, and then to $3
million in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. One professional and one
administrative support position, along with some additional contracting
expenses and operating costs would be necessary. The estimated expense
for administration would be $807,850 in the first year and $209,650 in
each year thereafter.
Section 8 allows the commissioner to participate in multi-state
end-of-course test development. This expense would be approximately
$500,000, based on current efforts of the Southern Region Education
Board.
Section 9 directs the development of a voluntary rating system, although
the existence of the system is mandatory. Three professional positions
would be needed for system development and administration upon
implementation, along with one support position, at an expense of
$210,890, along with other funds for contracts and system development.
Section 13 creates a new entitlement under the Foundation School Program
that provides $3,000 or $1,000 per teacher at campuses that show
extraordinary or significant improvement. Based on the current
measurement for comparable improvement, TEA estimates that 300 campuses
would meet the requirement for extraordinary improvement and 1,200 would
meet the requirement for significant improvement. At an average of 38
teachers per campus, the costs of the award would be $79,800,000. While
this new allotment would be part of the Chapter 42 allotment structure,
the determination of campus eligibility would require a staff
determination by TEA staff. The expense for this support would be about
$54,400 per year.
Local Government Impact
School districts would receive state grant and Foundation School Program
allotment funding associated with teacher mentor programs and campus
improvement. These two new programs could allocate as much as $100
million per year to qualifying school districts.
Districts would be required to provide teacher certification information
to all parents. TEA estimates parent notification requirements to cost
school districts statewide approximately $360,000 annually.
Source Agencies: 781 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 705
State Board for Educator Certification, 701 Texas
Education Agency
LBB Staff: JK, CT, PF, RN