LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
March 28, 2001
TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair, Senate Committee on
Education
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB854 by Harris (Relating to public school
accountability.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* SB854, As Introduced: negative impact of $(229,925,712) 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 $(115,362,856) *
* 2003 (114,562,856) *
* 2004 (114,362,856) *
* 2005 (114,362,856) *
* 2006 (114,362,856) *
****************************************************
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 Foundation School FY 2001 *
* 0001 Fund *
* 0193 *
* 2002 $(1,262,856) $(114,100,000) 5.0 *
* 2003 (462,856) (114,100,000) 5.0 *
* 2004 (262,856) (114,100,000) 5.0 *
* 2005 (262,856) (114,100,000) 5.0 *
* 2006 (262,856) (114,100,000) 5.0 *
**************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
Section 1 of the bill requires a coordinated student-level database for
student performance information in both public education and higher
education settings.
Section 2 permits but does not require the Commissioner of Education to
participate in interstate test development efforts for end-of-course
examinations.
Section 3 directs the development of a voluntary rating system, although
the existence of the system is mandatory.
Sections 4 and 5 add an alternative to the commissioner's permissible
remedies for low performing campuses that allow the local board to
receive an exemption from the education code at the affected campus,
presumably as a means of improving performance.
Section 6 creates a new entitlement under the Foundation School Program
that provides $3,000 or $1,000 per teacher at campuses that show
improvement.
Methodology
This estimate is based upon information provided by the Texas Education
Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).
Section 1: The database systems modifications that would be needed to
assure consistent, K-16 identification of students is roughly estimated
at $500,000.
Section 2: Based on current efforts of the Southern Region Education
Board, participation in multi-state end-of-course test development would
incur a $500,000 cost.
Section 3: It is estimated that three program administrators (at a salary
of $38,508) and one administrative technician (at a salary of $23,052)
would be needed to development and administer the voluntary rating
system, at an annual cost of $210,890, plus a one-time cost of $200,000
for contracts and other system development.
Section 6 creates a new allotment in the Foundation School Program for
districts showing extraordinary improvement ($3,000 per teacher per
campus) and significant improvement ($1,000 per teacher per campus)
Based on the current measurement for comparable improvement, the agency
estimates that 300 campuses would meet the requirement for extraordinary
improvement and 1200 would met the requirement for significant
improvement. At an average of 38 teachers per campus, the Tier 1 cost of
the award would be $79,800,000 annually. Given that 42.302 of the
Education Code calculates weighted average daily attendance (WADA) as the
sum of a district's total allotments (less any allotment to the district
for transportation) divided by the basic allotment, this new allotment
in Tier 1 would trigger an increase in WADA at affected districts, which
in turn would generate additional Tier 2 costs. The amount of
additional Tier 2 costs is estimated to be $34,300,000.
Should the commissioner base the requirements for "extraordinary
improvement and significant improvement" on thresholds that are lower
than what is currently used for the agency's "comparable improvement"
indicator (campuses are ranked into quartiles against 39 other campuses
w/ similar students), the cost of this program may decrease.
TEA estimates that a program administrator IV would be needed to
determine campus eligibility and administer this program, at a total
support cost of $54,400 annually.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
School districts may need to provide necessary information to administer
the campus bonus program, but these costs are expected to be minimal.
Source Agencies: 781 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 701
Texas Education Agency
LBB Staff: JK, CT, JM