| TO: | Honorable Tom Craddick, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives |
| FROM: | John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board |
| IN RE: | HB2237 by Eissler (Relating to grants and programs for dropout prevention, high school success, and college and workforce readiness in public schools.), As Passed 2nd House |
| Fiscal Year | Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds |
|---|---|
| 2008 | ($66,798,619) |
| 2009 | ($71,535,239) |
| 2010 | ($59,711,900) |
| 2011 | ($60,455,700) |
| 2012 | ($61,493,880) |
| Fiscal Year | Probable Revenue Gain/(Loss) from GENERAL REVENUE FUND 1 |
Probable Savings/(Cost) from GENERAL REVENUE FUND 1 |
Probable Savings/(Cost) from FOUNDATION SCHOOL FUND 193 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | $225,000 | ($48,708,619) | ($18,315,000) |
| 2009 | $150,000 | ($52,590,239) | ($19,095,000) |
| 2010 | $150,000 | ($39,908,900) | ($19,953,000) |
| 2011 | $150,000 | ($39,708,900) | ($20,896,800) |
| 2012 | $150,000 | ($39,708,900) | ($21,934,980) |
| Fiscal Year | Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2007 |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 33.0 |
| 2009 | 35.0 |
| 2010 | 35.0 |
| 2011 | 35.0 |
| 2012 | 35.0 |
The bill would require the commissioner of education to contract with one or more education research centers to study best practices for dropout prevention in this state and others, with a report due to the Legislature by December 1, 2008.
The bill would establish grants of up to $2.5 million per year to provide technical assistance and professional development activities for teachers and administrators. In addition, the bill would require the commissioner, from appropriated funds, to establish a mathematics instructional coaches’ pilot program for middle schools, junior high schools, and high schools. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) would be required to establish and fund mathematics, science, and technology teacher preparation academies at institutions of higher education.
New Section 29.095, Education Code would create a pilot program to provide grants to school districts to fund student club activities for students at risk of dropping out of school. The funding would be limited to $4 million per state fiscal biennium. New Section 29.096 would establish a pilot program to implement a local collaborative dropout reduction grant program, to be funded from appropriated funds of up to $4.0 million each year. New Section 29.097 would establish an intensive technology-based academic intervention pilot program from funds appropriated for this purpose. Grants could not exceed $50 per participating student, would have to be matched by other funds, and would be limited to a statewide total of $3.0 million per year. New Section 29.098 would establish a pilot program to award grants to participating campuses to provide intensive academic instruction during the summer semester to promote college and workforce readiness to students at risk of dropping out of school, with state grant awards limited to $750 per student.
The bill would require the commissioner to award grants to organizations that provide volunteers for programs to enhance college readiness, workforce readiness, dropout prevention, and personal financial literacy. The bill would also require the commissioner of education to review and approve dropout prevention strategies in districts meeting certain criteria. New Section 29.919, Education Code would require the commissioner of education to establish a pilot program to provide grants to rural campuses for technology-based supplemental instruction. State funds for the program would be limited to $4 million a year, or greater amount as provided by appropriations.
The bill would establish and grant authority to the High School Completion and Success Initiative Council concerning grants and technical assistance in support of innovative research-based high school improvement programs and to enhance education practices. The High School Completion and Success Initiative Council (HSCSIC) would be composed of the commissioner of education, the commissioner of higher education, and seven members appointed by the commissioner of education. The HSCSIC would be staffed by the TEA and the THECB. The bill would require the commissioner of education to set aside, from funds appropriated for high school completion and success, not more than 5 percent to contract for an evaluation of the programs supported by grants approved by the HSCSIC.
The bill would allocate an additional $1 million annually to supplement the new instructional facilities allotment (NIFA) to minimize the impact of proration.
The bill as amended would dissolve existing open-enrollment charters if the charter holder fails to meet certain financial and student performance standards as established in the bill. The bill also would revise financial and performance standards that serve as the basis for charter revisions, placement on probation, and revocation.
The bill as amended would create new section 11A.202, Education Code to establish an instructional facilities allotment for charter district campuses that have (1) received an exemplary or recognized rating in the two prior years, and (2) satisfied financial auditing standards. The allotment would provide $1,000, or a different amount by appropriation, for each student in average daily attendance during the preceding school year, to be used to purchase or lease real property, for debt service, or to maintain and operate instructional facilities. New subchapter I would establish a blue ribbon charter campus pilot program. New subchapter J would establish receivership procedures for charter schools.
The bill as amended would direct the Commissioner of Education to establish teacher academies for teachers providing reading instruction for students in grades 6 through 8 by June 1, 2008. Attendance in a reading academy would be required for teachers of reading, mathematics, science, or social studies in grades 6, 7, or 8 on campuses rated academically unacceptable based on student performance on reading assessments. The commissioner would develop criteria for selection of other teachers to attend reading academies. Teacher attending the reading academies would be entitled to a stipend in an amount to be determined by the commissioner. The bill would require the commissioner to conduct or contract for a performance evaluation of the reading academies and deliver a report to the legislature by December 1, 2010.
The bill as amended would direct school districts to administer a reading instrument adopted by the commissioner under the provisions of the bill to each 7th grade student whose performance on the 6th grade reading assessment indicates a lack of reading proficiency. The bill would direct school districts to provide additional reading instruction and intervention to 7th grade students to address areas of need identified by the reading instrument.
The bill as amended would authorize the commissioner to adopt rules requiring school districts receiving federal funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 to use those funds to provide supplemental educational services in conjunction with accelerated instruction.
The bill as amended would create a science laboratory grant program. From funds appropriated for this purpose, the commissioner would establish a competitive grant program that would provide funds to school districts for the purpose of constructing or renovating high school science laboratories. The amount of assistance per project would be limited to no more than $200 per square foot for new construction of science laboratories or $100 per square foot for renovation of existing science laboratories. School districts that apply for the grant would be ranked according to their wealth per student in average daily attendance (
The bill also would require districts that receive state aid under the Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA) or Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) to refinance their bonded indebtedness if the refinancing would reduce the total debt by at least three percent. The Legislative Budget Board would be directed to determine the amount by which appropriations could be reduced due to the provision.
The bill as amended would require the commissioner of education to provide professional development institutes for teachers and paraprofessionals relating to research-based instructional services for students with disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder. The bill would require the commissioner of education to adopt criteria for the selection of teachers and paraprofessionals authorized to attend the professional development institute. The criteria would be designed to give priority to teachers and paraprofessionals who have a significant level of professional contact with students with autism spectrum disorders. The commissioner would be required to pay a stipend to each teacher or paraprofessional who completes a professional development institute. The amount of the stipend would be determined by the commissioner. Costs to the state under the bill would be anticipated in association with the development and provision of professional development institutes, selection of participants, and stipends for participants.
As amended the bill would amend the Occupations Code to provide the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) the authority to license and regulate basic dyslexia practitioners and advanced dyslexia therapists. With respect to the professions of basic dyslexia practitioners and advanced dyslexia therapists, the bill would authorize DSHS to form an advisory committee; would establish eligibility for the Basic Dyslexia Practitioner License and the Advanced Dyslexia Therapist License; would provide requirements for training programs; would require examinations and authorize the collection of fees; would authorize DSHS to issue provisional and temporary licenses; would require DSHS to determine continuing education requirements; would entitle an individual to a hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) if their license has been suspended, revoked, or if DSHS refused to renew the license; would require DSHS to develop a system for monitoring a license holder; and would provide for administrative penalties.
The provisions of the bill relating to license denial, complaint and disciplinary procedures, administrative penalties, and other penalties and enforcement procedures would take effect February 1, 2008.
This bill would take effect immediately upon passage of the necessary voting margins or September 1, 2007 and except where otherwise noted would apply to the 2007-2008 school year.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) estimates the contracted cost to study and report on best practices for dropout prevention would be $500,000 in FY2008. The bill would provide grants for technical assistance and professional development activities for teachers and administrators from appropriated funds in an amount not to exceed $2.5 million annually. It is estimated that the cost to establish a mathematics instructional coaches pilot program would be approximately $1 million annually. The bill would direct that an amount of $8.75 million annually be transferred from TEA to the THECB to implement both the mathematics, science, and technology teacher preparation academies and the summer instruction programs established under section 29.098. The THECB estimates that the teacher preparation academies would need approximately $1.25 million annually, representing 5 academies funded at $250,000 each.
Proposed new section 29.095, Education Code: It is assumed that the pilot program to provide grants to school districts to fund student club activities for at-risk students would be funded at the limit established in the bill: $2.0 million a year, or $4 million per state fiscal biennium. Proposed Section 29.096: It is assumed that the pilot program to implement a local collaborative dropout reduction grant program would be funded at the limit established in the bill of $4 million annually. Proposed section 29.097: It is estimated that 10% of the high school at-risk population, or approximately 67,500 students, would be served by an intensive technology-based academic intervention pilot program. At the per student amount of $50 and the statewide limit established by the bill, the total state cost would be $3.0 million annually. Proposed section 29.098: Assuming the teacher preparation academies would cost $1.25 million annually, the remaining $7.5 million would be available for the summer program for intensive academic instruction, under the bill's designation of $8.75 million for both programs. At the per student amount of $750 established by the bill, this would serve approximately 10,000 at-risk students annually.
TEA assumes that the higher education and workforce readiness programs would serve 80,000 students at 24 sites, each funded with a $100,000 grant, for total annual statewide grant award of $2.4 million. It is estimated that the evaluation authorized by the bill would cost $150,000 in FY2009.
Proposed new Section 29.919: The bill would limit funding for technology-based supplemental instruction in rural campuses to $4 million annually. The cost of the required evaluation would be paid from this appropriation.
The authority granted to the HSCSIC appears to codify current practice at the Texas Education Agency and as a result is anticipated to have no fiscal impact. The agency currently expends $28.7 million in each year on the High School Initiative, which in the 2006-07 biennium is authorized under Rider 59 of the General Appropriations Act. The appropriations process for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 anticipates continuation of that expenditure, contingent on passage of legislation providing a statutory basis to do so. The bill would require funds for technical assistance to districts receiving initiative funding, and funds for program evaluation, to be allocated from appropriations for this program. Because technical assistance and evaluation are components of the initiative as it is currently implemented, it is assumed that these functions would not represent an additional cost to TEA.
The sections referenced above would create 9 new grant programs, individually or jointly implemented by TEA, the THECB, and the High School Completion and Success Initiative Council (HSCSIC). For the administrative duties related to the programs and for the review of district dropout prevention strategies, it is estimated that, between TEA and the THECB, 13 additional positions would be required to implement the programs with a FY 2008 cost of $798,273, decreasing slightly in the out years. It is also estimated that travel expenses for board members would cost approximately $33,000 annually.
Due to changes made by House Bill 1, 79th Legislative Session, Third Called, increases to a district's NIFA allotment simply reduce that district's hold harmless state aid for tax relief, resulting in no net state fiscal impact. Should a change in law restore the ability of NIFA allotment increases to impact a district's total revenue entitlement under Texas Education Code 42.2516, this provision would incur a state cost of $1,000,000 annually.
TEA estimates that 7 new full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) would be needed to implement provisions concerning charter schools. Five would be auditor positions to conduct reviews of the operations of charter schools, review quarterly reports, and to assist with closing charter districts not meeting standards. One FTE would be responsible for updating and maintaining the charter accountability system and another would be added to the Charter School Division to assist with application reviews and technical assistance. These 7 FTEs would require approximately $449,907 annually in salary, benefits, travel and other operating expenses. Also, the Agency estimates the need for additional temporary staff to assist during the transition period as charters are being closed, at an estimated cost of $200,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.
Based on current data and the criteria set forth in the bill, the Agency estimates that as many as 20 schools could be scheduled for closure on January 1, 2008. The Agency anticipates that teams of 2 contractors, working an average of 44 days per closure, would handle approximately 16 closures in FY2009. At an estimated cost of $480 per person per day, plus travel costs, this would entail a cost of $800,000 in FY2009. The agency estimates that another 4 closures would occur in FY2010, at a cost of $200,000. After the initial rounds of closures, the agency assumes that approximately 2 schools would be subject to closure each year, incurring a $100,000 annual cost.
It is estimated that 16 charter holders qualifying for the instructional facilities allotment as provided by the bill would have eligible campuses that represent approximately 7,800 in average daily attendance (
One-time costs estimated to be $500,000 would be incurred to complete a comprehensive analysis and produce detailed recommendations to the legislature concerning implementation of a dropout recovery charter schools pilot program in high risk areas of the state by December 1, 2008.
The one-time cost of developing teacher training academy content related to all subject matters is estimated at $3.8 million in FY2008. The teacher academies are assumed to consist of a 3-day training program, followed by a 1-day online follow-up and are assumed to be supported by a "train the trainer" model. The estimated cost of training trainers would be about $1 million per year in FY2008 and FY2009, including costs for stipends for trainers, materials, travel, and other expenses.
Assuming $500 stipends for reading teachers for a 4-day teacher academy and $250 stipends for teachers of other subject areas for a 2-day teacher academy and assuming that 7,000 reading teachers and 6,000 other teachers would be trained in FY2008 and 14,000 reading teachers and 12,000 other teachers would be trained in FY2009, stipend costs are estimated at $5 million in FY2008 and $10 million in FY2009. Assuming that a number of teachers equivalent to 20 percent of those trained in the first two years would require training in subsequent years due to turnover and new teachers entering the system, stipend costs in FY2010 and beyond are estimated at $3 million annually. Assuming a cost of $6,000 per training session for materials, equipment, meeting space, and other costs, and 40 participants per session, other training costs are estimated at $2.0 million in FY2008, $3.0 million in FY2009 and $1.2 million in each subsequent year.
It is assumed that a Regional Education Service Center (RESC) acts as fiscal agent for the program at an annual cost of $400,000. It is assumed that each RESC coordinates registration for teacher academies and payment of stipends authorized by the bill and assists with the delivery of training and the evaluation at an annual cost of $100,000 per RESC, or $2 million annually statewide.
TEA estimates evaluation costs at $1 million, incurred in FY2009. It is estimated that three additional FTEs would be required at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to manage contracts and processes associated with the reading academies at an annual estimated cost of $170,000.
According to TEA, the typical science lab comprises on average 1,400 square feet of classroom lab space and 240 square feet of prep room space, for a total of 1,640 square feet. At the maximum grant awards allowed by the bill, each new construction project would be awarded $328,000 and a renovation project would receive $164,000.
There is no current base of data from which to estimate the number of eligible science lab projects that potentially could receive funding in a competitive grant process. For the purposes of this fiscal note, it is assumed the number of districts receiving awards under this program would resemble that under the Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA), a current competitive facilities grant that ranks districts based on property wealth per student. In FY2007, out of the 356 applicants for the IFA, 42 districts received a grant award.
Based on available data from TEA, in the 42 districts in the state with the lowest wealth per student and that have a high school campus, there are 51 high school campuses. For the purposes of this fiscal note, it is assumed that there would be one grant per high school campus, or 51 grants. Given the limited number of new high school construction from year to year, it is assumed that approximately 75 percent of the grants, or 38 grants, would be for renovation of existing facilities, and 25 percent, or 13 grants, would be for new construction. Assuming grants would be awarded at the maximum allowable cost of $164,000 per renovation grant and $328,000 per new construction grants, the total estimated state cost would be approximately $10.46 million for FY2008.
Fifty-one campuses represent approximately 3 percent of the statewide number of high school campuses. It is assumed for the purposes of this fiscal note that the Commissioner would adopt rules such that additional high school campuses that did not receive funding in FY2008 but that can demonstrate a need for grant funding would be funded in each year after FY2009, and that funds are appropriated for this purpose.
It is assumed that TEA would need one full-time equivalent position, with approximately $60,000 in supporting administrative funding annually, to implement the program. Duties would include drafting rules regarding eligibility, application procedures, and accountability, reviewing applications, assessing documentation on demonstrated need and square footage, and ongoing monitoring responsibilities.
Regarding the refinancing provision, under an assumption that 1/4 of the 2,734 debt issuances currently outstanding would be reviewed for refinancing, TEA estimates that the agency would need an additional 5 FTEs, and approximately $325,000 annually in supporting administrative resources, to track and analyze the refundings. The agency also would require an estimated $750,000 in fiscal year 2008 to make technology upgrades to its IFA and EDA computer modules. Potential net savings to districts and the state, after refinancing costs are factored in, cannot be determined with data currently available. Costs for activities required of the Legislative Budget Board would require one additional staff FTE and related expenses estimated to total approximately $100,000 annually.
TEA indicates that there are a wide variety of applicable professional development opportunities provided by regional Education Service Centers (ESCs) with costs ranging from free to $150 and averaging $45 to $50. For example, ESC IV provides a professional development seminar, the Foundations in Autism Series, for 6 days at a cost of $20 per teacher or paraprofessional. School districts are required to cover the cost of travel, hotel and food for this program. This training is currently funded partially by state or federal grants. ESC IV also offers a six-module online course available free of charge to districts within ESC Region IV and $250 per district for an annual site license. Other ESCs offer similar training ranging in cost from $45 - $150 per person. Training is research-based and includes training on teaching the required curriculum and managing behaviors. For the purpose of this estimate, it is assumed that costs associated with developing institutes would be minimized by the using available resources, such as those described to the greatest extent possible to create a coherent professional development institute for teachers and paraprofessionals of students with disabilities, including autism spectrum disorders. One-time costs of about $250,000 in FY2008 are anticipated to complete the development process.
TEA assumes that the cost per participant to be approximately $250. The Agency indicates that this cost would mainly be for stipends provided to institute participants. Assuming that on average approximately 3.0-3.5% of teachers and paraprofessionals or about 13,200 individuals were to attend these professional development institutes each year beginning in FY2008, costs associated with stipends would be anticipated to be about $3.3 million per year.
The Agency estimates that a total of 2.0 FTEs will be required to implement and administer the professional development institutes program. Specifically, one FTE would be required to administer this program during FY 2008 and an additional FTE would be needed beginning in FY 2009. These resources would be required to coordinate the development of the professional development institute and verify completion of the program to award stipends to participating teachers and paraprofessionals. Staff-related costs would be estimated to total $61,000 in FY2008, increasing to about $122,000 in FY2009 and subsequent years.
Based on the most current information provided by DSHS, this analysis assumes a licensing population of 2,500 basic dyslexia practitioners and 500 advanced dyslexia therapists.
It is assumed that DSHS would have a cost associated with the licensing and regulation of the basic dyslexia practitioners and advanced dyslexia therapists. Based on the analysis of DSHS, it is assumed that licensing these practitioners and therapists would require additional resources at a cost of $273,020 through 2009.
Based on the information provided by DSHS, it is also assumed that costs would be realized for staff in the amounts of $50,570 for 2.0 FTEs in fiscal year 2008 and $87,871 for 2.5 FTEs in each fiscal year from 2009 through fiscal year 2012. Other operating expenses, travel, rent, and utilities are estimated at $56,470 in fiscal year 2008, $38,944 in fiscal year 2009, and $32,605 in each fiscal year from 2010 to fiscal year 2012. Estimated costs also include $14,306 in fiscal year 2008 and $24,859 in each fiscal year from 2009 through fiscal year 2012 for associated benefits.
This analysis assumes revenue collections in fiscal year 2008 and would be $225,000 which includes 1,500 licenses issued at $50 for a one-year license and 1,500 licenses issued at $100 for a two-year license. This analysis also assumes that revenue collections in each fiscal year from 2009 to fiscal year 2012 would be $150,000 which includes 1,500 licenses issued for a two-year term at $100 per license.
Eligible districts and campuses would receive additional state funds through a variety of new grant programs. A portion of these funds would be used to cover potential administrative costs related to the development of college readiness curricula, individualized graduation plans, provision of counseling for students, and the collection and reporting of the data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of high school programs.
Public charter districts would be subject to several new requirements related to financial accountability and governance. Some of the new requirements may involve additional administrative costs to public charter districts, including compliance with financial accountability requirements. Charter districts that fail to meet the financial and performance requirements established by the bill would be subject to closure and receivership procedures.
Eligible charter districts would receive new funding through the instructional facilities allotment.
School districts would be required to administer reading instruments to certain students. Certain teachers would be required to attend reading academies.
Eligible school districts would receive additional state funding to renovate existing science labs or construct new ones.
It is assumed that school districts would have local discretion in choosing whether to nominate staff for selection to participate in professional development institutes and that travel and lodging costs would be a local responsibility.
Regarding the refinancing of bonded indebtedness, TEA estimates that there could be an adverse impact to debt covered by the state's Bond Guarantee Program: to the extent the bill would require multiple refundings of school districts bonds, the tax-exempt status of those bonds may be in jeopardy or it may trigger a penalty under the Internal Revenue laws.
| Source Agencies: |
| LBB Staff: | JOB, JSp, JGM
|