LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session February 28, 2001 TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair, Senate Committee on Education FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE: SB385 by Bivins (Relating to the curriculum requirements for graduation from public high school.), As Introduced ************************************************************************** * Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for * * SB385, As Introduced: positive impact of $0 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 $0 * * 2003 0 * * 2004 (2,000,000) * * 2005 (5,525,815) * * 2006 (1,561,267) * **************************************************** All Funds, Five-Year Impact: *************************************************************************** *Fiscal Probable Probable Probable Probable * * Year Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) * * from State from General from General from Foundation * * Textbook Fund Revenue Fund Revenue Fund School Fund * * 0003 0001 0001 0193 * * 2002 $0 $0 $0 $0 * * 2003 0 0 0 0 * * 2004 0 (2,000,000) 0 0 * * 2005 (8,425,815) (4,100,000) 4,700,000 2,300,000 * * 2006 (10,261,267) (5,700,000) 9,600,000 4,800,000 * *************************************************************************** Fiscal Analysis Because of the bill, school districts would be required to ensure that each student enrolls in courses necessary to complete the curriculum requirements identified by the State Board of Education for the recommended or advanced high school program. A student would be allowed to take courses under the minimum high school program only if the student, the student's parent, a school counselor, and a school administrator agree that the student should be permitted to do so. Students receiving special education would continue to have the option of graduating through the completion of an individualized education program. This bill applies to students entering the ninth grade in the 2004-2005 school year and thereafter. While the bill has no fiscal implications for the state in the next biennium, the state would incur three types of costs during the implementation period. The first would be additional funding to be distributed to Regional Educational Service Centers for teacher retraining, estimated at $2,000,000 per year for 2004 and 2005, with the cost diminishing to zero in the out years. The second cost would be for instructional materials associated with required courses. Providing a textbook for the additional students in each new required course would cost approximately $31,000,000, which would be spread out over the implementation period beginning in 2005. The third cost would be for Teacher Retirement System contributions related to the expected increase in teachers needed under this bill. It is estimated that the bill would entail two types of General Revenue and General Revenue-Related savings as well. First, the Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) estimates that requiring the recommended high school program would decrease the amount of state-funded developmental education courses needed at universities, community and technical colleges. THECB estimates a savings of $28,200,000 million, distributed across three years and beginning in 2005. Second, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) estimates a savings to the Foundation School Program due to an assumed enrollment decrease in career and technology education courses. During the implementation period, the required courses of the recommended high school program will pull an increasing number of students from elective classes, including career and technology education. Because career and technology education courses draw 37% more state funding than the required courses, their declining enrollment in these courses results in a savings to the Foundation School Program. Because the recommended high school program would require at least one credit in technology applications, which could fall within the career and technology funding area, this would minimize the reduction in career and technology courses. Methodology TEA and the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) jointly prepared a report, entitled "Implementing the Recommended High School Program as the Minimum Graduation Requirement: A Study of the Need for Teachers" (January 2001). This report makes the following assumptions: 1. The number of students in a class cohort: 300,000 2. The total number of additional enrollments in the required courses identified as having teacher shortages at full implementation: 519,000 3. The number of teachers needed to serve these additional enrollments, (assuming 100% reallocation of teachers that are currently teaching a related, non-required course but are certified to teach a required course): 3,359 Retraining Costs: TEA would be called upon to assist school district efforts to establish the capacity to provide at least the recommended high school program for all students. It is assumed that TEA would need additional funding to be distributed to Regional Education Service Centers to support capacity development activities aimed at retraining teachers. It is assumed that TEA would need to fund approximately $100,000 per service center, or $2,000,000 total per year beginning in 2004, the year prior to the first year that students are subject to the requirements of the bill. This cost is expected to diminish during the implementation period as districts attain the capacity to provide the recommended high school program to all students. Textbook Costs: It is assumed that each additional enrollment in the required courses will need a textbook for that course. Assuming an average cost of $60 per textbook, the cost approaches $31,000,000. This cost would be distributed across the implementation period based on an analysis of the grade levels at which students are currently taking these courses. This cost likely would not persist past the implementation period, because there would be some offsetting reductions in the cost of textbook purchases for elective subjects as student demand shifts away from them to the required courses. However, these potential savings will not begin to be realized for several years beyond the initial implementation because of the current textbook adoption and purchase cycles. For example, by 2008, there may be sufficient decrease in demand to allow the state to purchase fewer fine arts textbooks, but no textbook savings from decreased enrollments in fine arts courses would be attainable until that year since books have already been purchased and will remain in circulation until then. Teacher Retirement Contribution Costs: The increase in state contributions related to the increase in teachers would be phased in over three years. Because the requirement to take specific courses will reduce current student course selection flexibility, it is possible that there may be impacts on other courses and programs. However, the is no consensus on which courses students would choose to exclude from their schedules. It has been speculated that some of the courses students would choose not to take would be career and technology courses, which are funded at a 37% higher rate in the Foundation School Program than the new course requirements. Because of this, a change in course enrollment patterns away from career and technology courses could lead to noticeable savings in the cost of the Foundation School Program. However, the full impact of these savings would not materialize until the initial class of students covered by the new requirement reaches its senior year. The 519,000 additional enrollments used in this analysis is based on an assumption that 100% of a class cohort of 300,000 students would be taking the recommended high school program. The bill contains two provisions that permit students to "opt out" of this requirement. It is assumed that neither provision would be utilized to an extent that would significantly alter the 300,000 student assumption. This assumption is made in part based on current behavior. For example, currently only 2-3% of students with individualized education programs do not pursue the requirements of the minimum high school program; it is assumed a similarly small number would not pursue the requirements of the recommended high school program. Also, it is assumed that few exemptions from the requirement would be granted by an agreement between the student, his or her parent, and school officials, and those exemptions that are granted would be done far enough into the students' high school careers that the cost reductions would be minimal. To the extent that more students are exempted from the recommended high school program than is assumed, the state may realize lower textbook costs. Additionally, THECB estimates a General Revenue savings due to a decrease in the amount of developmental education courses funded by the state. It is assumed that universities would see a 10% decrease in developmental education in 2005, a 20% decrease in 2006, and a 25% decrease in 2007. A smaller decrease is assumed for community and technical colleges (5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively), because they are not "open admissions" institutions and will continue to enroll larger numbers of returning adults who would not have been under the recommended high school program requirement. Local Government Impact School districts would incur significant costs in providing the recommended high school program to all students. Districts would likely experience a serious shortage of teacher in subject areas key to the recommended high school program: sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages. Even if it is assumed that all instructors currently teaching related, non-required courses were certified/capable of teaching the required courses and were reallocated to teach them, districts would still need to hire approximately 3,359 full-time teachers statewide (if none were reallocated, the number of needed teachers would be 4,929). The local cost of providing salaries and benefits for 3,359 teachers would amount to at least $140,000,000 annually. Districts would also incur increased local costs associated with supervision and staff development of the additional personnel. It is also likely that most districts would incur significant costs to construct or expand facilities to accommodate the additional staff/courses. Assuming that 100% reallocation of teachers occurs, about 3,359 additional classrooms would be needed to attain full implementation. The average cost per classroom is assumed to range from $120,000 to $150,000 (based on averages of $100 per square feet and 1,200 square feet). With these assumptions, new classroom costs are estimated to range from $400,000,000 to $500,000,000. Construction costs would likely be funded through long-term bonded indebtedness in most districts. Districts would incur increased one-time costs associated with debt issuance and increased annual costs for debt service. It should be noted that if districts exempt students from the recommended high school program at a greater rate than is assumed, that may result in a smaller number of teachers needed, thus reducing the salary and facilities costs to districts. Additionally, as demand for elective courses declines over the implementation period (due to successive classes being subject to the recommended high school program) and these courses are phased out, it is likely that the classroom space devoted to these elective courses will become available, thus reducing the need for new facilities space and lowering district costs. However, because there are no data with which to predict the classroom capacity that might be realized as some electives are eventually phased out, and because it is not likely that all districts will be able to reallocate 100% of classroom space currently being used to teach related non-required courses (as is assumed), this estimate does not take the potential cost reduction of elective phase-outs into account. Source Agencies: 781 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 701 Texas Education Agency LBB Staff: JK, CT, PF, JM