LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
May 11, 2001
TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair, Senate Committee on
Education
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB1144 by Grusendorf (Relating to public school
accountability and to measures to improve proficiency in
certain subjects.), As Engrossed
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB1144, As Engrossed: negative impact of $(34,384,827) 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 $(17,433,445) *
* 2003 (16,951,382) *
* 2004 (7,900,849) *
* 2005 (7,956,547) *
* 2006 (10,411,542) *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
**************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Probable Change in Number of *
* Year Savings/(Cost) from Savings/(Cost) from State Employees from *
* General Revenue Fund Certification and FY 2001 *
* 0001 Assessment Fees *
* (General Revenue *
* Fund) *
* 0751 *
* 2002 $(17,433,445) $0 8.5 *
* 2003 (16,951,382) 0 8.5 *
* 2004 (7,978,744) 77,895 4.5 *
* 2005 (8,044,549) 88,002 6.5 *
* 2006 (10,499,544) 88,002 6.5 *
**************************************************************************
Technology Impact
Section 1 of the bill would require coordination of databases between the
Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Higher Education Coordinating Board
(THECB), which would likely necessitate contract efforts to match
student-level data.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill has a number of requirements with fiscal implications:
Section 1 would require the development of a coordinated student-level
database for student performance information across primary, secondary
and post-secondary school.
Section 2: The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) would be
required to establish a master mathematics teacher certificate and
develop a related course of study.
Section 3: The Texas Education Agency (TEA) would be required to
establish the master mathematics teacher grant program, providing $5,000
stipends to qualified teachers, starting in the 2003-04 school year.
Section 4: TEA would be required to develop professional development
institutes for mathematics teachers and to develop training materials.
Section 5: TEA would be required to award grants for the conduction of
research on mathematics skills acquisition and program effectiveness.
Section 6: TEA would be required to develop and make available to school
districts assessment instruments that can be used to diagnose student
mathematics skills.
Section 7 would authorize districts to provide optional intensive after
school or summer programs to provide mathematics instruction to students
who are not performing at grade level or successfully.
Section 8: TEA would be required to adopt or develop appropriate
criterion-referenced assessment instruments designed to assess the
ability of and be administered to students who are determined to have
dyslexia or a related disorder. Section 8 would also permit but not
require the commissioner of education to participate in multi-state
end-of-course test development, and requires the development of an
end-of-course test for Algebra I.
Section 9 would direct the development of a voluntary rating system,
although the existence of the system is mandatory.
Methodology
This estimate is based upon information provided by TEA and SBEC.
Section 2: The master mathematics teacher certification exam is estimated
to have a contracted cost $363,000 and require one additional employee
with salary costs of $115,589 over a two-year period to oversee the
development of the exam and the course of instruction. The number of
teachers earning certificates for the 2004 grant cycle is assumed to be
435, which is based on the actual number of teachers earning master
reading teacher certificates in 2001. The number of new teachers earning
certificates for each year thereafter is assumed to increase by 491 for
each year thereafter, until 2008 when the cumulative number of teachers
eligible for a master mathematics teacher grant stabilizes at the TEA's
estimate of 2,400.
Section 3: The estimated cost of the master mathematics teacher grant
program is based on $5,000 stipends for 435 teachers (actual master
reading teacher total) for a total of $2,175,000 in fiscal year 2004. It
is assumed that grant-receiving teachers will remain eligible for the
stipend in future years. It is assumed that an additional 491 teachers
will be certified to receive the stipend in fiscal year 2005 and each
fiscal year thereafter, increasing the grant cost by $2,455,000 per year.
It is assumed that the total number of certified teachers will
stabilize at 2,400 in fiscal year 2008.
Section 4: The professional development institutes are estimated to serve
about 28,741 teachers of mathematics. It is assumed that half the
teachers (14,370) would be trained in each of 2002 and 2003 at a cost of
$600 each for stipends, and that each of the 360 training sessions would
cost $10,000 to provide. Initial course material and development costs
are estimated at $1,500,000, for a total cost of $13,735,275 for each of
the first two years. These costs would decrease to $5,000,000 in 2004,
and $3,000,000 in 2005 and 2006.
Section 5: It is estimated that activities already budgeted in the
provision of professional development institutes would satisfy the
requirement to award grants to institutions for the development and
identification of research on mathematics skill acquisition; thus there
would be no cost. The grant awards for monitoring the effectiveness of
the institutes are estimated to cost $500,000 in 2003 and 2004. The
grant awards for identifying best practices in math instruction are
estimated to cost $175,000 in 2002 and 2003. The grant awards for
developing research on cognitive development concerning math skills are
estimated to cost $300,000 in 2002 and $100,000 in 2003.
Section 6: The cost of diagnostic instruments is an estimated contracted
cost of $150,000 per grade per year, for an annual total of $1,800,000,
and three additional FTE's for a two-year development period. These
costs and the additional personnel would not be needed after fiscal year
2003.
Section 9: It is estimated that one program administrator and one
administrative technician, with annual support costs of $94,094, as well
as a one-time $200,000 contract in 2003, would be needed to assist the
advisory committee in developing the voluntary gold performance rating
system from 2002 to 2004. Section 3(d) of the bill requires
implementation of the system "beginning with 2006-2007 school year or an
earlier school year." The agency estimates that a three-year development
period (from 2002 to 2004) would be adequate, thus making the 2004-05
school year the appropriate year for implementation of the system.
Upon implementation of the system in 2005, it is estimated that an
additional two program administrators would be needed to administer the
voluntary rating system, at an additional annual cost of $110,796.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
School districts must pay stipends to qualified master mathematics
teachers beginning in 2002-03, as well as report to TEA information on
these teachers. These requirements should have minimal fiscal impact to
school districts. Also, to the extent that test development draws funds
from the compensatory education allotment of the Foundation School
Program, there would be a small reduction of state aid to districts.
Source Agencies: 701 Texas Education Agency
LBB Staff: JK, CT, JM