LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session March 21, 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.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted ************************************************************************** * Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for * * SB385, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted: 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 (1,710,759) * * 2006 (483,368) * **************************************************** 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 (development ed * * savings) * * 0193 * * 2002 $0 $0 $0 $0 * * 2003 0 0 0 0 * * 2004 0 (2,000,000) 0 0 * * 2005 (1,390,259) (3,050,000) 2,350,000 379,500 * * 2006 (3,083,368) (3,350,000) 4,800,000 1,150,000 * *************************************************************************** Fiscal Analysis The bill, as substituted, requires school districts 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 (IEP). This bill applies to students entering the ninth grade in the 2004-2005 school year and thereafter. However, the commissioner of education would be granted the authority to exempt a school district from the implementation date for up to three years if the requirement places an undue hardship on the district. Methodology 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. 1. 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. 2. Instructional materials associated with required courses. Providing a textbook for the additional students in each new required course would cost approximately $15,500,000, which would be spread out over the implementation period beginning in 2005. 3. Teacher Retirement System (TRS) contributions related to the expected increase in teachers needed under this bill. At full implementation, state TRS costs would be approximately $3,900,000 annually, but would begin lower and be phased-in over the implementation period. It is estimated that the bill would entail two types of General Revenue and General Revenue-Related savings as well. 1. 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 $14,100,000 million, distributed across three years and beginning in 2005. 2. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) estimates a savings to the Foundation School Program due to an assumed enrollment decrease in elective career and technology education courses. These savings are estimated at $379,500 in 2005, $1,150,000 in 2006, and increasing significantly in each successive year until full implementation has been reached. This fiscal note makes the following assumptions: 1. Of a student class cohort of 300,000, 30% would opt-out of the recommended high school program using the provisions of the bill regarding students with IEP's and agreements between parents, students and school officials. This would leave 70%, or 210,000, participating in the program at full implementation. 2. Based on analysis by TEA and the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), the total number of additional enrollments in the required courses identified as having teacher shortages at full implementation would be 259,500. The number of teachers needed to serve these additional enrollments at full implementation, (assuming 100% reallocation of teachers that are currently teaching a related, non-required course but are certified to teach a required course) would be 1,680. 4. 700 districts (67%) would request, and receive, hardship exemptions for the 2004-05 school year, and 350 of those would continue to use the exemption for 2005-06. Nearly all districts would be participating in the 2006-07 school year. 5. State costs for textbooks and TRS contributions (as well as local teacher salary costs) would be phased-in over a six year implementation period. The costs are phased-in based on an analysis of the grade levels at which students are currently taking the recommended courses and assumptions concerning district hardship exemptions; in other words, school districts would hire staff on an as-needed basis, rather than hiring teachers in 2005 for recommended courses that would not be taken by students until 2007 or 2008. 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 $15,500,000, distributed over the six-year implementation period. 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 2010, 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 System (TRS) Contribution Costs: The state contributes 6% of every teacher's salary, up to the minimum salary, for TRS costs, along with 0.5% of all salary for TRS-Care. Foundation School Program Savings: 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. Developmental Education Savings: 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 enrollment in the recommended high school program would increase upon enactment of the bill into law. Thus, universities would see a 5% decrease in developmental education as early as 2005, a 10% decrease in 2006, and a 12.5% decrease in 2007. A smaller decrease is assumed for community and technical colleges (2.5%, 5%, and 7.5%, 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 costs in providing the recommended high school program to all students. Districts would likely experience a shortage of teachers 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 1,680 full-time teachers statewide for full implementation (if none were reallocated, the number of needed teachers would be 2,465). Based on phase-in assumptions and assumed variations due to hardship exemptions, it is expected that about 164 additional teachers would be needed in 2005, another 349 in 2006, 506 in 2007, 395 in 2008, 210 in 2009, and 56 in 2010. The respective annual salary costs would be $7,000,000 in 2005, $21,500,000 in 2006, $42,500,000 in 2007, $59,000,000 in 2008, $68,000,000 in 2009, and $70,000,000 in 2010. It is also likely that most districts would incur costs to construct or expand facilities to accommodate the additional staff/courses. These facilities would be need starting in fiscal year 2004. 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 $200,000,000 to $250,000,000. Construction costs would likely be funded through long-term bonded indebtedness in most districts. It should be noted that annual payments on $200,000,000 in new debt issued as thirty-year bonds would probably be about $13,000,000 under current market conditions. The state has existing mechanisms to equalize the tax burdens to school districts that issue debt that may further defray the costs to the school districts. The current state share in the Instructional Facilities Allotment is approximately 50%, so school districts might experience annual costs of about $6,500,000 if the state appropriates sufficient funding to offset local costs for new debt. Source Agencies: LBB Staff: JK, CT, PF, JM