Category Archives: School Finance

School finance commission discusses list of recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance met Tuesday at the Texas Capitol to hear recommendations from the working group on expenditures, which is led by House Public Education Committee chairman and state Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Houston).

School finance commission meeting September 25, 2018.

Texas Education Agency (TEA) Commissioner Mike Morath began the hearing by presenting the agency’s annual report, which purported to show an increase in education funding since 2007. Responding to questions from commission members, Morath conceded that the numbers were not adjusted for inflation.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) asked Morath to explain the dispute between the General Land Office (GLO) and the State Board of Education (SBOE) over public education funding. Morath stated that through the School Land Board (SLB), the GLO sent $750 million to public education for the last biennium. The GLO only sent $600 million for this biennium, bypassing the SBOE, and representing a roughly $150-190 million decrease in funding.

Sen. Bettencourt appeared to come down on the side of the SBOE in the dispute. SBOE Member Keven Ellis (R-Lufkin) suggested that the dispute will require a legislative fix. The entire SBOE sent a letter asking GLO Commissioner George P. Bush to reconsider the action and increase funding, but Bush refused to do so.

Commission Chair Scott Brister suggested that on the big question, whether to increase public school funding is not up to the commission. Member Ellis rightly pointed out that while it’s true the legislature is the only body that can appropriate funds, it is certainly the commission’s duty to discern what appropriate funding levels are and to make recommendations accordingly. This point was backed up by Austin ISD CFO Nicole Conley Johnson.

Brister added that the commission will require a half dozen meetings in November and December in order to finalize its report.

Rep. Huberty then walked the commission through a list of 22 recommendations from the working group on expenditures, beginning with reallocating cost of education index (CEI) funds. The recommendations are as follows:

Reallocations of existing funding:

  1. Reallocate cost of education funds. The CEI was last updated in 1991 and provides adjustment for cost of educating children in different parts of the state. Huberty argued that this formula is outdated and that funding could be rerouted to add $2.9 billion to the basic allotment.
  2. Reallocate Chapter 41 hold harmless funds worth $30 million annually.
  3. Reallocate Chapter 41 early agreement credit funds for an annual savings of $50 million.
  4. Reallocate gifted and talented allotment funds worth $165 million annually. Rep. Huberty and state Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) emphasized that gifted and talented (GT) programs will not go away. Pflugerville ISD Superintendent Doug Killian cautioned that districts could come to view GT programs as an unfunded mandate, and suggested weighting GT funding instead. Todd Williams also voiced concern that eliminating dedicated GT funding could lead districts to underidentify GT students as a way to cut costs.
  5. Reallocate high school allotment funds worth $400 million annually.
  6. Move from prior year to current year property values worth $1.8 billion. Huberty suggested that this would more accurately reflect the current needs of school districts. Killian cautioned that this change will cost Pflugerville, which is a fast-growth district, $22.7 million in the first year. Conley Johnson added that this could add uncertainty to the budgeting process for districts.

Increased spending on existing programs:

  1. Increase compensatory education allotment from 0.2 to a spectrum of between 0.225 and 0.275, based on the concentration of severely challenged students. This would be worth $1.1-1.2 billion. Commissioner members engaged in a lengthy discussion on identifying metrics with which to identify need other than qualification for federal free and reduced lunches.
  2. Change the transportation allotment to a mileage-based approach based on at least $0.80 cents per mile appropriated by the legislature.
  3. Provide transportation funding to Chapter 41 districts, at an annual cost of $60 million.
  4. Recreate the small- and mid-size district adjustments as a standalone allotment, at an estimated cost of $0-400 million. Rep. Huberty argued that this would create more transparency.
  5. Increase the new instructional facilities allotment (NIFA) to $100 million per year, which would be a direct benefit to fast-growth school districts.
  6. Expand career and technical education (CTE) funding to 6th through 8th grades, at an annual cost of $20 million.

New programs:

  1. Create a new dual language allotment at 0.15, at an annual cost of $15-50 million. This is aimed to incentivize schools to transition from bilingual to more effective dual language programs.
  2. Create a new dyslexia allotment of 0.1, at an annual cost of $100 million. Currently districts do not receive direct funding for students with dyslexia, despite the fact the number of dyslexic students in Texas is estimated to be anywhere from 2.5 to more than ten percent.
  3. Create a new early childhood support allotment of 0.1, at an annual cost of $786 million. This would benefit students from kindergarten through 3rd grade, and could be used to fund any program that seeks to improve 3rd grade math and reading, including full-day pre-K.
  4. Create a 3rd grade reading bonus of 0.4, at an annual cost of $400 million. This is a simple incentive for students to meet grade level in 3rd grade reading. Williams suggested granting students facing social or economic challenges a greater reward.
  5. Create a college, career, and military readiness bonus at an annual cost of $400 million. This would provide additional funding for each graduating senior who does not require remediation after graduation or who is able to directly enter the workforce or military. This is intended to support the state’s “60×30” goals.
  6. Create a new teacher compensation program, at an annual cost of $100 million. This is a merit-based pay program that would allow certain educators to earn more by performing well on certain evaluation systems. Teachers would also be rewarded for teaching at campuses with higher levels of disadvantaged students. This program could grow significantly in size depending upon district participation. Williams acknowledged that local development involving teachers is incredibly important, and measures other than student STAAR results should be considered. Williams suggested it would be incumbent on the commissioner to develop a set of minimum standards.
  7. Create an extended year incentive program at an annual cost of $50 million. This would be aimed to reduce summer learning losses.

Additional changes:

  1. Utilize remaining funds from reallocations to increase the basic allotment.
  2. Change the guaranteed yield on tier II copper pennies from a set dollar amount to a percentage of the basic allotment.
  3. Link the tier II golden penny yield to a set percentile of wealth per student.

Many of these recommendations were also supported by recommendations from the working group on outcomes, led by Todd Williams. Williams congratulated Huberty on his working group’s efforts to find more efficient ways to provide the support students need, and added that the system will nonetheless need more money. In a final conversation around spending, Brister continued to suggest that more funding is not necessarily the solution. Member Ellis emphasized that the commission must address the adequacy of public education funding.

The working group on revenues, led by Sen. Bettencourt, is now the only working group yet to produce recommendations. Bettencourt pushed back on warnings that time is running short for the commission to complete its work, but did not provide a timeline for his work product.

 

 

School finance commission subcommittee approves expenditures plan

The Expenditures Subcommittee of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance met this week to lay out and vote on their recommendations back to the full commission. Based on both the recommendation and what the committee members had to say, it became clear that their primary goal is to drive dollars into increasing the basic allotment. They also have secondary goals of shifting funds out of programs not tied to educational programming and into programs designed to increase educational attainment for harder-to-teach students, particularly economically disadvantaged populations and English language learners.

The committee has not publicly released its report yet, but a summary breakdown of the recommendations can be found below. A video archive of the full subcommittee meeting, which lasted a little under an hour, is also available.

Group 1 – Reallocations of existing programs. This group represents approximately $5.3 billion to be spent on increasing existing initiatives and creating new initiatives.

  • Reallocate the Cost of Education Index (CEI) – $2.9 billion
  • Reallocate the 92-93 Hold Harmless – $30 million. This program only impacts 12 -20 school districts.
  • Reallocate the Ch. 41 Early Agreement Credit – $50 million. Eliminates a program that currently pays property wealthy districts to sign an annual contract by Sept. 1 agreeing to pay the state what they owe in recapture. The discount did not require districts to prepay or early pay.
  • Reallocate the Gifted and Talented (GT) allotment – $165 million. This recommendation eliminates the stand-alone allotment but does not eliminate other requirements to provide GT education from the Texas Education Code (TEC). Currently 99.9% of districts are at the 5% GT cap, meaning the same dollars can be more efficiently flowed out to schools through the basic allotment.
  • Reallocate the High School Allotment – $400 million.
  • Move from prior year to current year property values – $1.8 billion.

Group 2 – Increased spending on existing programs

  • Increase state compensatory education allotment from 0.2 to a spectrum that ranges from 0.225 and 0.275 as part of a tiered system that pays out higher amounts to campuses with more severely challenging populations. Currently, the recommendation is still based on free and reduced lunch but could use a more sensitive metric.
  • Change the transportation allotment to a millage-based approach at 0.83 cents per mile, to be set by appropriations.
  • Allow Ch. 41 districts to get compensated by the transportation allotment at a $60 million cost.
  • Fund the stand-alone small-size and mid-size district adjustment between $0 and $400 million outside the basic allotment, depending on where the basic allotment is set.
  • Increase the New Instructional Facilities Allotment (NIFA) to $100 million. This represents a $76 million increase over last session.
  • Expand Career and Technical Education (CTE) funding to include sixth through eighth grades – $20 million.

Group 3 – New programs

  • Create a dual language allotment of 0.15 at a cost of between $15 and $50 million. This new allotment would be in lieu of (not in addition to) the bilingual allotment; you can either get the bilingual allotment or the dual language allotment, but not both.
  • Create a dyslexia allotment of 0.1 – $100 million.
  • Create a Kindergarten through third grade ELL/economically disadvantaged allotment of 0.1 – $786 million. This money is not tied to outcomes and can be used to fund any program that seeks to improve reading and math on grade level by grade three, including paying for full day Pre-Kindergarten programs.
  • Create a grade three reading bonus of 0.4 – $400 million. This provides incentive money for students meeting grade level in reading on the 3rd grade standardized test.
  • Create a College, Career, and Military Readiness Bonus – no specific weight – $400 million. This is envisioned as a reallocation of the High School Allotment and is aimed to drive the state’s “60/30” goals.
  • Create a teacher compensation program – $100 million. This is the governor’s performance pay program. It is formula-based, not grant-based, and is not subject to appropriation. There will likely be no fiscal note for the program until year three, and it is envisioned to grow over time.
  • Fund an extended year summer pilot program – $50 million. This program is intended to reduce summer learning losses for disadvantaged students.

Additional changes recommended:

  • Change the guaranteed yield on the copper pennies from a set dollar amount to a percentage of the Basic Allotment. When the yield was set, the dollar amount used represented approximately 88% of the basic allotment. Now it is much less. Increasing the guaranteed yield increases state entitlement, which helps property poor districts and recapture districts.
  • Decouple the golden pennies from Austin ISD.

Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for reporting on future actions of the commission.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Aug. 31, 2018

Here’s your weekly wrap-up of education news from ATPE Governmental Relations:


State leaders have been busy talking about the issue of school safety this week. On Thursday, Gov. Greg Abbott’s office released a “School Safety Action Plan Summary” as a follow up to its previously released “School and Firearm Safety Action Plan.” It outlines measures being implemented by school districts to address violence in schools. Highlights include offering educators training in Mental Health First Aid to help them identify the signs and symptoms of mental health and substance abuse issues through a course eligible for eight hours of Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credit. Another program featured in the report is the School Marshal program that trains school employees authorized to carry arms on how to respond to violent incidents in schools.

State Board of Education Chair Donna Bahorich was a part of a separate school safety discussion earlier this week in Montgomery, Alabama. Bahorich participated in a federal panel facilitated by the Federal Commission on School Safety in which she spoke on the need to remove the stigma surrounding mental health and seeking mental health treatment. You can read more on these school safety discussions in our blog post from ATPE Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell here.


Gov. Greg Abbott has been making the rounds in recent weeks to visit with school leaders and others to discuss school finance and teacher compensation, in particular. Based on some of his comments, including those written in a new op-ed piece, the governor has seemingly become a proponent of increased school funding and property tax relief. ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins explains why the governor’s recent comments deserve a closer look in the context of recent legislative actions. Check out Mark’s blog post here.


ELECTION UPDATE: Important races will decided in the general election slated for November. What can you do now to prepare? First, make sure you are registered to vote before the deadline. Ask friends, family members, and colleagues if they are registered.

Take the educator’s oath pledging to vote and visit the website of our Texas Educators Vote coalition to find additional nonpartisan election resources.

Research the candidates to find out where they stand on public education issues. ATPE’s Teach the Vote website features profiles of every candidate running for the Texas Legislature, State Board of Education, Governor, and Lieutenant Governor. Profiles include incumbents’ voting records, responses to ATPE’s candidate surveys, contact information for the campaigns, information about noteworthy endorsements by other organizations, and a calendar of events submitted by the candidates themselves or third parties. Have the candidates running in your area responded to our candidate survey? If not, ask them why not! Invite them to contact ATPE at government@atpe.org for additional information.

Dates to put on your calendar now:

  • Last day to register to vote in the general election: Oct. 9, 2018
  • Early voting: Oct. 22 – Nov. 2, 2018
  • Election Day: Nov. 6, 2018

This week two national union-affiliated educator groups in Texas filed a lawsuit against Commissioner of Education Mike Morath over his interpretation of a new law regarding school district-charter school partnerships. Passed by the legislature in 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1882 identifies a path for school districts to partner with an open-enrollment charter school or other entity to operate one or more of its campuses. While originally intended as a lifeline for campuses facing harsh progressive sanctions under Texas’s accountability system, the new law has been eyed by some districts as a potential strategy for accessing additional funding outside of the typical school finance structure, and in some instances at the expense of school employees’ rights and protections.

The unions’ lawsuit claims that commissioner’s rules adopted after SB 1882 was passed last year violate state law. While ATPE shares concerns about how the district-charter partnership law is being interpreted and used, we do not believe it is likely that the courts will intervene in this matter. For that reason, instead of pursuing costly litigation that is unlikely to produce a remedy, we’ve chosen to support the local advocacy efforts of our members while continuing to lobby for state-level legislative improvements to our school finance and accountability systems.

ATPE supports innovation but believes it need not come at the expense of educators. While maybe not as splashy as well-publicized legal filings, our success in defeating local efforts that could strip away educators’ rights proves the effectiveness of our strategy at the local level. ATPE is also working hard to shape the debate around school finance and bills that are expected to be filed in the 2019 legislative session, urging lawmakers and those vying to become lawmakers this election cycle to prioritize funding for such critical needs as educator compensation, protecting the TRS pension fund, and providing affordable healthcare for active and retired school employees.

Stay tuned to our blog here at Teach the Vote for the latest news about our advocacy efforts around this and other issues.

 


 

Does Gov. Abbott want to spend more on schools?

Election season is truly magical.

There’s just something about the seething mercury, the colorful proliferation of yard signs, and the specter of an existential showdown that awakens a – dare we call it – miraculous clarity in political combatants seeking votes.

When else can one witness folks who’ve spent the past 20 months fighting in bitter opposition to a particular set of constituents suddenly discover a deep love for the values they hold? The Lord works in mysterious ways.

It’s no surprise that we’re now hearing support for improving the school finance system from unexpected corners. To a certain degree, it’s positive evidence that educators are being heard, and that the powers-that-be realize that there is more to gain by working with the education community than working to dismantle it.

That doesn’t mean that efforts to dismantle it behind the scenes will stop. In politics as in statistics, things tend to revert toward the mean. The governing happens long after the polls close. Nonetheless, election season opens a brief window of opportunity to use our seat at the table to advance the conversation.

Let’s apply this lens to the latest Dallas Morning News opinion column by Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas), with the promising headline, “Texas must boost school funding.” The key passage summarizing Gov. Abbott’s message is as follows:

“We need to pay our best teachers more, reward teachers and districts for student growth, prioritize spending in the classroom and reduce the burden of skyrocketing property taxes. I’ll add up front that I believe the state will have to provide more funding.”

That last line seems to offer an acknowledgment of what we in the education committee have known for some time, but which many in the Capitol have resisted mightily.

The problem, of course, is that many of the people who have opposed investing more state dollars in public education have falsely argued that the state is already increasing education spending year over year. They point to raw dollars going back to a low-water point in 2006 in order to obscure the reality of the deliberate and steady erosion of state support for local schools. Troublingly, Gov. Abbott takes this very tack in writing that “overall education spending in Texas has increased by more than 50 percent since 2006, and the state is contributing 29 percent more education funding per student in that time period.”

Let’s look at that claim.

The numbers in the latter half of that statement come from a Texas Education Agency (TEA) presentation before the Texas Commission on Public School Finance. The headline of the slide below seems to confirm the governor’s assertion, but look at the orange line indicating funding adjusted for inflation. It clearly shows that in terms of purchasing power, total per-student funding has risen only slightly since 2006, and is roughly equal to per-student funding in 2008. (Click the image to view a larger version.)

Source: Texas Education Agency

What’s perhaps more telling is the blue bar indicating how much funding the state has contributed. I’ve added the red brackets and red horizontal line to make the minute changes easier to see. You can tell that the raw dollar amount the state has contributed has actually decreased slightly since 2008 – and that’s not even adjusted for inflation.

To get to the inflation-adjusted number, we look at the Legislative Budget Board’s (LBB) Fiscal Size-up for the 2016-2017 biennium. In the chart below, we can see how spending from local property tax revenue (circled in green) has increased, while state aid (circled in blue) has changed little from 2008 levels. In total constant dollars adjusted for inflation (near the red arrow), we see that total funding has in fact decreased.

Source: Legislative Budget Board

The governor also wrongly suggests that funding is not making it into classrooms. According to the TEA’s 2016-17 Pocket Edition statistics, districts only spend an average of 3.1 percent on administrative costs.

To his credit, the governor advocates that increases in funding should go to teachers. No disagreement there. His idea is to implement a system in which top-performing teachers can earn significantly higher pay by teaching in areas facing the most need – similar to the “ACE” system tested in Dallas ISD. It’s a conversation that’s worth having, provided that educators are involved in the process and that the system doesn’t rely primarily on student test results to identify those “top-performing” teachers.

Governor Abbott also suggests moving away from a per-pupil funding model and, implicitly, toward a more outcomes-based approach. This is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is identifying which metrics with which to measure student performance and the threat of schools faced with the most significant socioeconomic challenges receiving even less support.

Finally, the governor writes that school finance reform must be accompanied by reforms in property taxes. It’s true the two are inextricably intertwined.

Increasing the state’s share of public education funding is the surest way to provide relief in property taxes. The governor proposes forcing taxing entities to lower their rates as appraisals go up, with the state presumably stepping in to make school districts whole. That’s a lot to presume, especially to do so in perpetuity.

Districts could hardly be blamed for wanting to see the legislature commit money up front before committing to voluntarily lower their tax rates – and it will take a sizable appropriation to shift the burden back toward the state in a way that will be meaningful to local property owners. School board members are politicians too, and they don’t want to be blamed for high taxes any more than their counterparts in Austin.

So what does it all mean? Does the governor’s column signify a dramatic reversal of his stance on public education, and school finance in particular? Does it mean he’s ready to stop attacking educators through anti-teacher payroll deduction bills and focus on improving teacher pay instead?

At a minimum, the governor is now talking about public education as an important priority, and that’s a good thing. The onus is on us to engage respectfully yet forcefully, and to shape the conversation, to the extent we can, by correcting inaccuracies and providing meaningful input. At best, we hope the governor will listen to educators and incorporate our feedback, even after the elections are over.

Of course, just as election season begins in the frantic furnace of summer, it ends in darkness on a winter night. When the legislature returns in January, we’ll all be faced with cold reality.

Expenditures group considers potential recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance working group on expenditures met Thursday morning to discuss the group’s recommendations. Group leader state Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Houston), who chairs the House Public Education Committee, indicated no vote would be taken Thursday.

The school finance commission expenditures working group meeting August 9, 2018.

The first potential recommendations related to repeals that could free up “pots of money” to be reallocated. Commission Chair Scott Brister expressed confusion over how specific programs are funded, and suggested eliminating most programmatic funding and directing it toward the basic allotment instead. This included a discussion of repealing the high school allotment, the 1992-93 hold harmless provision, the staff allotment, the gifted and talented allotment, the public education grant (PEG) allotment, the transportation allotment, the local option homestead exemption for certain districts, the recapture discount, and the early agreement credit.

The staff allotment provides $250 for each part-time employee and $500 for each full-time not subject to the minimum salary schedule, which includes counselors and librarians – basically anyone who is not a teacher. State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) indicated he would be hesitant to repeal this allotment because he believes it serves its intended purpose. State Board of Education (SBOE) Member Keven Ellis contended that districts would be unlikely to reduce staff if that allotment were to go away.

State Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Galveston), who chairs the Senate Education Committee), proposed repealing the gifted and talented allotment. Sen. Taylor argued that most schools are already receiving five percent of their funding through this allotment, and including it into the basic allotment could allow districts more spending freedom. Sen. West clarified that members are not proposing that this money go away, only that it be delivered through a different mechanism, such as the basic allotment.

The discussion regarding the transportation allotment followed much the same logic. However, Member Ellis noted that rural districts face disproportionate transportation costs due to physical size and population density. Sen. Taylor suggested tying the funding to mileage. Sen. West offered the idea of weighted funding based on mileage. Chair Brister then questioned the value of schools having buses in general, suggesting that some districts would do better to simply encourage parents to carpool.

Rep. Huberty suggested PEG grants should be left alone because they offer a real incentive for districts to accept transfer students. It’s important to note that this is often cited as a key component of the public school choice system.

The group discussed using current year values for Foundation School Program (FSP) calculations, which would affect districts experiencing positive growth and negative growth differently. Rep. Huberty also noted that districts in which a significant portion of the local property wealth is tied to mineral wealth could experience more volatility.

Sen. Taylor suggested that pre-K is one of the areas in which districts could invest general dollars that have been untethered from specific programs, as discussed. The group discussed whether to incentivize half-day or full-day pre-K in order to achieve the goal of getting students reading by the third grade.

The group also discussed changing the equalized wealth level and simplifying the funding tiers, the recapture system in general, and the basic allotment. Brister contended that discussing recapture should be the purview of the working group on revenue, which is led by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston). With regard to the basic allotment, members expressed concern over tying the hands of future legislatures by tying funding to a rising cost such as inflation.

Members discussed the adjusted allotment, and Sen. Taylor proposed additional funding for charters. Sen. West quickly voiced opposition to charter expansion and the group quickly moved onto the next topic.

A larger discussion focused on the cost of education index, which was passed in 1984 and last updated in 1991. Member Ellis discussed moving to a more relevant index that includes teacher salaries. Sen. Taylor suggested districts also experience large variations in the cost of transportation, which could play a part in a CEI replacement. Rep. Huberty pointed out that even if the CEI were updated today, it would be out of date again within a few years.

The group took a look at the district size adjustments for small- and mid-sized districts, and Brister expressed the feeling that many smaller districts should be consolidated. Member Ellis noted that many rural districts have already consolidated services such as transportation and food services. Sen. Taylor suggested looking for ways to encourage districts to consolidate.

Regarding special education, Rep. Huberty indicated he did not feel comfortable tweaking weights and arrangements, and special education funding should be based on need. Huberty confirmed there will be more money pumped into special education, and members should wait and see how that funding affects the system before making modifications. Texas Education Agency (TEA) Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez said the increased cost of complying with order to serve all qualifying special education students is projected to be $682 million in fiscal year (FY) 2019, $1 billion in FY 2020, and $1.55 billion in FY 2021. Rep. Huberty also asked to explore fulfilling more private placement services within districts; for example, districts could offer incentives to improve retention of high-performing special education teachers.

On the issue of attendance, Sen. Larry Taylor suggested moving away from attendance-based funding requirements. Again, the argument for doing so was to give districts more flexibility, particularly at the high school level.

Members continued to focus on flexibility with regard to career and technical education (CTE), while expressing support for encouraging CTE and expanding middle school programs from eighth to as early as sixth grade. Regarding compensatory education, members discussed moving the identifying mechanism away from using free and reduced-price lunch. Members also looked at expanding the definitions to serve more low-income students who may not technically qualify under the current system. Regarding weights, the group discussed a hypothetical increase to the compensatory education weight to between .225 and .275.

Moving onto English Language Learners (ELLs), Sen. Taylor suggested the state incentive dual language over bilingual education where possible by offering a separate weight, rather than just increasing the bilingual weight.

On the issue of facilities funding, Rep. Huberty pointed out that legislators already voted to increase the new instructional facilities allotment (NIFA), but the system was stretched so thin that the anticipated benefit was not fully delivered. The next step would be to increase the cap from $25 million to $100 million. Sen. West again voiced concern about the saturation of charter schools.

The group then discussed staffing, beginning with a proposal to allow staff members’ children to take advantage of free pre-K. Rep. Huberty then talked about teacher compensation, including programs intended to incentivize top teachers to work at campuses facing the toughest challenges. Lopez suggested a tiered pay program that rewards high-performing teachers would have a low initial startup cost, but would ramp up over time. Member Ellis emphasized the need for local control in setting salaries and implementing locally-developed programs, such as the Dallas ISD program that is often cited as an example of a working performance pay system. Sen. Taylor suggested providing funding for this on the back end for districts that have already put these programs into practice.

Members were unanimous in its support for mental health and wellness programs, but indicated the subject may be beyond the purview of the commission.

The group noted changes to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas ranging from adjusting the anticipated rate of return to rising drug costs and benefit reductions. Chair Huberty also indicated this subject may best be tackled by the relevant legislative committees. Notwithstanding this, the group entertained a discussion of requiring charter schools to pay into TRS at the same rate districts are required to pay. Lopez noted the interaction between district TRS contributions and the CEI, should the CEI go away.

Rep. Huberty asked TEA to pull a report together within the next 30 days, so the working group can schedule another public meeting to formally adopt its recommendations. Brister suggested getting recommendations to the full commission by mid- to late October so that the commission could consider them in November.

School finance commission considers first round of recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance met Tuesday morning to discuss recommendations from the working group on outcomes, lead by Todd Williams. Commission Chair Scott Brister opened the meeting by requesting suggestions for how to pay for the various recommendations the commission has received.

Texas Commission on Public School Finance meeting July 10, 2018.

Texas Education Agency (TEA) Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez was the first invited witness, and provided an overview of how public education in Texas is funded. Currently, the state pays 36 percent of the total cost of funding schools. Excluding local recapture, the bulk of funding – 51 percent – is carried by local property taxes. Recapture, which is also local funding but was counted separately for the purposes of Lopez’s presentation on Tuesday, amounts for three percent of funding. The remainder comes from federal funding.

According to TEA’s numbers, state funding on a per-student basis has remained flat since 2008. When adjusted for inflation, this represents a decline in actual dollars. In the same time period, the biggest increase in funding has come from local property taxes. Legislative Budget Board (LBB) Assistant Director John McGeady explained that while the LBB and TEA use different calculations to determine state spending, both sets of data show the state’s share of funding has steadily declined over the past decade.

Williams introduced the same recommendations the working group approved last week, which include outcome-based incentives at the 3rd, 8th, and 12th grade levels. The 3rd grade reading gateway would be supplemented by increased funding for schools with high populations of economically disadvantaged and English learner students that could be used to provide full-day prekindergarten. The 8th grade incentives would target reading and Algebra I, and 12th grade would focus on indicators of post-secondary readiness.

The recommendations from the outcomes working group also include a performance pay system that would reward teachers who complete more rigorous educator preparation programs, provide higher pay for educators according to locally-developed, multi-metric performance evaluation programs, and incent administrators to direct the highest performing educators into campuses and grade levels with the greatest need.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), who has argued against increasing school funding, argued fiercely against objective data presented by Williams that indicate Texas will miss its “60×30” goal by two decades years. The goal is to ensure that 60 percent of Texas 25- to 34-year olds obtain a postsecondary degree or certificate by 2030. According to current rates of postsecondary attainment, the state will not reach this goal until 2051. Bettencourt argued businesses rely on net migration into the state, despite the fact that this necessarily reduces the number of high paying jobs available to students educated in Texas.

Williams told the members he would welcome feedback on the recommendations, and suggested more testimony could be taken, specifically from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) regarding 60×30 progress. State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) suggested the working group could collect comments and produce a revised draft.

Williams estimated the cost of implementing the recommendations at $1 billion annually, or $2 billion per biennium. This would gradually increase to $2.5 billion annually over a ten-year period, as districts meet stretch goals and additional districts phase in the recommendations. This could ultimately save the state money by higher-paid workers contributing more state taxes, and fewer state resources would be needed for uninsured medical costs and incarceration. The expenditures working group is expected to meet August 9 to work on recommendations. House Public Education Committee Chair Dan Huberty (R-Houston), who leads the expenditures working group, said more than 200 recommendations have been received. The full commission does not plan to meet until September.

Brister said the commission will not hold a vote until the total cost of recommendations can be calculated and until the commission can determine from where the money to pay for them will come.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: July 6, 2018

Here’s your weekly wrap-up of education news from ATPE Governmental Relations:


Josette Saxton

This week Josette Saxon, Director of Mental Health Policy at the statewide, non-profit, non-partisan, multi-issue children’s policy organization, Texans Care for Children shared why it”s critical that the Legislature and local school districts act to promote the mental well being of Texas school children.

Noting alarming data on youth suicides, Sexton writes:

“The pain and despair behind these numbers is heartbreaking, but it should also be a call to action. We all need to work harder to understand and address the causes of this crisis. We also need our policymakers to strength our children’s mental health policies, including policies to support students through our schools.”

Read more here.


On Tuesday, the Texas Commission on Public School Finance’s working group on outcomes met to deliberate and discuss recommendations based on previous testimony.

The group structured incentives around three core principles: “Ready to learn, ready to teach, and ready to earn.” Goals for the working group include ensuring graduates don’t require remediation and go on to obtain a post secondary credential. In order to achieve these goals, the working group recommends new weighted funding for certain student groups and suggests the state encourage school districts to implement performance pay programs to attract and retain educators. You can read more about the group’s recommendations in this post by ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins. 


 

Next week, Teach the Vote will be taking a hiatus from our regular weekly wrap-up while the ATPE Governmental Relations staff is atrending the ATPE Summit in Dallas. The wrap-up will be back the following week. A big THANK YOU to all our regular readers who look forward to getting this digest each week, as we look forward to bringing you more of what’s going on with public education in Texas directly to your email. Until our next digest on Friday, July 20, please visit the Teach the Vote blog directly and follow @TeachtheVote on Twitter for updates and breaking news.

Working group releases first set of school finance recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance working group on outcomes met Tuesday in Austin to consider recommendations based on more than 60 hours of testimony heard by the commission since its first meeting in January.

School finance commission working group on outcomes meeting July 3, 2018.

Group leader Todd Williams began the meeting reading from a detailed report that suggested the state should invest more dollars in specific strategies to accelerate reaching the “60×30” goal of ensuring 60 percent of students go onto post-secondary success by the year 2030.

Common themes from testimony included the importance of early intervention, since only 60 percent of students arrive at school kindergarten-ready. The report indicated teachers are the most important in-school factor in student outcomes, and funding should ensure that every teacher candidate has access to high quality educator preparation programs, ensure they stay in the profession and classroom, and ensure they address student challenges as early as possible.

In order to achieve post-secondary achievement, the report suggested funding should ensure graduates do not require remediation in higher education and that achievement of a post-secondary credential is not only expected, but achievable, affordable and supported. In addition, the report suggested systemic incentives, including ensuring that financial incentives are tied to the achievement of our most critical outcomes.

The working group’s formal recommendations encompass three core principles: Ready to learn, ready to teach, and ready to earn. According to the report, funding should include some specific incentives within the formula funding tied to specific goals at critical gates.

The first of these incentive gates is 3rd grade reading, and the working group is recommending providing an additional weight for low income and/or English language learners for pre-K through grade 3. At each district’s discretion, dollars from this 3rd grade reading investment would be sufficient to be used to fund full day pre-K, tutoring interventions, expanded dual language programs, specialized multi-year early childhood professional development, and a longer school year.

The second incentive is funding for every 8th grader who meets the state’s standard in reading and Algebra I. This is expected to help increase college readiness. The third incentive is funding for every high school graduate assessed as college or career ready, who successfully achieves industry certification or enrolls in college or the military. Incentives for rewarding low-income student achievement should be higher in recognition of the greater associated challenges. State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) was emphatic that incentives should not further increase inequity in the school funding system.

The fourth incentive is to provide the optional ability for districts to implement multi-measure evaluation systems and fund higher teacher distinction levels to attract and retain high-quality teachers. The working group noted the issues with current salary levels in recruiting and retaining teachers, and expressed the goal that districts be able to pay top-quality teachers more. Melissa Martin, the only teacher on the commission, said she’s torn over performance pay. Martin voiced concern that evaluations are property constructed and not totally subjective, which could introduce campus politics into the process.

The working group included the following additional recommendations:

  • Adjust compensatory education funding (currently $3.9 billion annually) in recognition that “free and reduced lunch” percentages are a very simplistic measure and do not adequately reflect the varying levels of poverty that exist throughout the state.
  • Strongly consider eliminating the five end-of-course (“EOC”) STAAR assessments and replacing with either SAT or ACT assessments that can measure growth based on a pre-SAT/ACT assessment given in 9th grade vs. a SAT/ACT assessment given in the 11th grade.
  • For districts choosing to implement a full day Pre-K program, consider crediting the appropriate full-day attendance for purposes of funding within the Foundation School Program.
  • TEA financially incent dual language strategies and disallow ELL pullout strategies as an accepted approach toward ELL instruction for larger districts exceeding 5,000 students (this subset of districts educates roughly 80% of all Texas students).
  • Align the current CTE weight of 1.35 (equivalent to $2.2 billion annually) toward CTE programs of study that are vigorously tied to the attainment of living wage credentials aligned with current workforce need and/or which provide students with critical financial literacy skills.
  • Amend legislation to require that failing ISD elementary and middle school campuses may be reconstituted after three years with an ACE-like school reconstitution plan (where better educators have been purposely placed at the struggling campus) with the state providing matching funds to reduce district costs.
  • To reduce prison recidivism and its associated costs to the state, TEA should amend the accountability system to incent school districts to help formerly incarcerated individuals receive their high school diploma or GED.
  • State funding should target professional development training towards schools/districts willing to launch blended learning and personalized learning pilots that help students matriculate faster than their peers if necessary, providing net savings in the long run to the state due to paying for less seat time.
  • Schools should be incentivized by the academic accountability system by creating a separate post-secondary readiness academic distinction. In addition, additional state funding should be awarded if the high school achieves the post-secondary readiness academic distinction.

The working group also expressed support for researching the costs associated with providing all-day pre-K for teachers’ children. The report concludes, “For us to succeed requires very substantive, immediate action on the part of the state (emphasis in original document) – we simply cannot “tweak” our K-12 system to meet this critical objective. Only by making strategic, impactful investments above current levels in the key areas noted, and implementing the innovative structural formula changes that are necessary, can we ensure Texas remains a thriving economy that all of its citizens can participate in.”

The recommendations carry an estimated $1 billion annual price tag, which would average out to about $200 per student and a 4 percent increase in the current basic allotment – still below 2008 inflation adjusted funding levels. This would gradually increase to $2.5 billion annually by 2030, which would average out to $450 per student, which would only be achieved if all districts implement performance pay programs. According to the report, this would still place Texas in the lowest quartile of per-student spending compared to other states.

The report argues these measures could pay for themselves by creating up to $4 billion in incremental potential yearly earnings and up to $250 million in additional state sales taxes for each yearly graduating cohort. Better-prepared graduates will earn more money and pay more in taxes. The report suggests success could also reduce growth in the approximate $12 billion the state spends each year in uninsured medical costs and incarceration.

The report, as amended, was approved with a unanimous vote of the five working group members. You can read all of the recommendations in the full draft report from the outcomes working group here, however some of the recommendations were altered or struck in Tuesday’s meeting. This article contains the most up-to-date versions of the recommendations. The full commission meets July 10.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: June 8, 2018

Here’s your weekly wrap-up of education news from ATPE Governmental Relations:


School finance commission working group on expenditures meeting June 6, 2018.

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance met this week both as a whole and in smaller working groups. ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins followed the conversation and provided updates for TeachTheVote.org. His first post details Tuesday’s meeting of the full commission, in which members heard from a number of invited witness who talked about teacher supports, such as merit pay programs.

The working group on revenues, led by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), held a last-minute meeting afterward that resulted in most of the public not being able to attend, but reports from those inside provided an idea of what the group has planned. State Rep. Dan Huberty’s (R-Houston) working group on expenditures met Wednesday morning, and engaged in a lively discussion about textbooks and classroom technology.

The commission is scheduled to meet again on July 10, followed by an expenditures meeting on July 11 in which the working group will vote on recommendations to submit to the full body.


The Senate Select Committee on Violence in Schools and School Security is set to hold two hearings next week in response to the tragic school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick assigned Senate Education Committee Chair Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) to chair the select committee, which is composed of six Republicans and three Democrats.

Monday’s agenda includes invited and public testimony on the following: “Improve the infrastructure and design of Texas schools to reduce security threats, and discuss various proposals to harden school facilities, including limiting access points, improving screening and detecting of weapons, retrofitting school facilities with improved locks, emergency alarm systems, and monitoring cameras.”

Tuesday’s agenda includes invited and public testimony on the following: “Study school security options and resources, including, but not limited to, the school marshal program, school police officers, armed school personnel, the Texas School Safety Center, and other training programs to determine what improvements can be made to provide school districts and charter schools with more robust security options.”

Texas Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) asked the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to study a “red flag” law that would provide a legal process for temporarily removing guns from someone considered potentially dangerous by family members or law enforcement. Straus also announced nine new interim charges for House committees:

Committee on Appropriations

“Examine the availability of federal funding and Governor’s Criminal Justice grants that may directly or indirectly improve school safety. Evaluate the potential costs of proposals identified by the Governor and House Committees related to improving access to mental health services for children, improved school safety, and enhanced firearm safety.”

Committee on Public Education

“Review the effectiveness of schools’ current multi-hazard emergency operation plans. Determine any areas of deficiency and make recommendations to ensure student safety. Research violence prevention strategies, such as threat assessment, that are available for school personnel to identify students who might pose a threat to themselves or others. Identify resources and training available to schools to help them develop intervention plans that address the underlying problems that caused the threatening behavior.”

“Examine current school facilities and grounds. Consider any research-based ‘best practices’ when designing a school to provide a more secure environment. Review the effectiveness of installing metal detectors, cameras, safety locks, streaming video of school security cameras, and other measures designed to improve school safety.”

Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence

“Examine current statutes designed to protect minors from accessing firearms without proper supervision and make recommendations to ensure responsible and safe firearm storage, including enhancing the penalty to a felony when unauthorized access results in death or bodily injury.”

Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety

“Evaluate options to increase the number of school marshals available, and identify current statutory requirements that limit utilization of the program.”

“Examine best practices and measures adopted in other states regarding reporting lost or stolen firearms. Gather information on reporting strategies, fines, and/or penalties for noncompliance, and receive testimony from law enforcement related to mishandling of firearms.”

Committees on Public Education and Committee on Public Health (Joint Charge)

“Consider testimony provided at the May 17 House Public Health Committee hearing regarding improving mental health services for children. Identify specific strategies that would enhance overall school safety. Study ways to help parents, youth and primary care providers support school personnel in their efforts to identify and intervene early when mental health problems arise. In addition to school-based trauma-informed programs and those that treat early psychosis, consider the benefits of universal screening tools and expanding the Child Psychiatry Access Program (CPAP). Make recommendations to enhance collaboration among the Health and Human Services Commission, the Texas Education Agency, local mental health authorities, and education service centers.”

Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety and Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence (Joint Charge)

“Examine current judicial procedures and practices and make recommendations to assist all courts and jurisdictions in reporting judgments and verdicts which make up the information sent to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). Review and make recommendations regarding the list of convictions, judgments, and judicial orders which disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.”

Committee on Defense & Veterans Affairs and Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety (Joint Charge)

“Examine the experience of other states in prioritizing retired peace officers and military veterans for school security. Determine the minimum standards necessary to implement such a program.”

ATPE will be attending these hearings will post updates at TeachTheVote.org. The House and Senate actions come after Gov. Greg Abbott released his outline of ideas to prevent further school shootings last week. Many of those ideas would require legislative action, which is among the things the committees will consider.

 


State Rep. Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock) announced his resignation this week, saying it’s time to move on. The Texas Tribune reported on his announcement, which we’ve been expecting since he announced last year he wouldn’t be running for reelection. Rep. Gonzales chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles VI, VII and VIII of the state budget, which includes funding for big state agencies such as the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). As a member of the Texas Legislature, he was well known for being a friendly guy and a straight shooter who worked with both parties to get things done. Gonzales was a good friend of public education, and his presence in the legislature will be dearly missed.

The race to follow Rep. Gonzales in representing House District (HD) 52 is between Republican Cynthia Flores and Democrat James Talarico. You can click on each of their names to view their candidate information and survey responses they provided to TeachTheVote.org. This is expected to be a close race, which underscores the importance of every vote.

The November 6 General Election will be the last opportunity for education supporters to make sure pro-public education candidates are elected into office. Whomever voters choose will decide what direction to take the Texas Legislature when it meets in January. Will we see a resurrection of vouchers and bills attacking teachers? Or will we see a comprehensive school finance reform bill that puts more resources into classrooms and gives local taxpayers a break? It all depends on who you elect!

 


 

Education Commissioner Mike Morath announced Wednesday the criteria for schools affected by Hurricane Harvey to receive waivers from the state accountability ratings. Campuses, districts, and open enrollment charter schools are eligible to be evaluated under the Hurricane Harvey Provision if 10% or more of students or teachers were reported as homeless after the storm, if the campus was closed for ten or more instructional days, or if the campus was reported as being displaced due to the geographic relocation of students or the sharing of instructional facilities. Campuses or districts that meet at least one of these criteria AND are labeled Improvement Required or receive a B, C, D, or F rating will have their accountability rating changed to Not Rated. You can read the full announcement here.

 


ATPE educator and Round Rock ISD fourth grade teacher Stephanie Stoebe testifying at the Texas Capitol June 7, 2018.

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Public Education Subcommittee on Educator Quality and the House Committee on Higher Education combined forces on Thursday to discuss educator preparation programs (EPPs). The differences between alternative certification or “alt-cert” programs and traditional EPPs was examined during the hearing. The combined committees also heard from ATPE member Stephanie Stoebe, who spoke about her efforts to identify what marks a quality EPP. Stoebe’s recommendations for the committees included creating a dashboard to share EPP information and setting high standards relevant to student achievement. Teacher pay and attrition were also among the topics discussed at the hearing. The combined committees also heard from Stephen F. Austin University, College of Education Dean, Dr. Judy Abbott about partnerships between colleges, universities, and local districts. A detailed breakdown of the hearing can be found in this post by ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

 


On Wednesday, June 6, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released guidelines to all administrators relating to services for students with dyslexia and other disorders. The provisions come after a final monitoring report from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) disclosed that TEA failed to comply requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The provision of services outlines the appropriate responses educators should have if a student is showing early signs of dyslexia, the need for special education, or other services. Read the full correspondence here.

Expenditures group takes hard look at textbooks

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance working group on expenditures met Wednesday morning to listen to a final round of witnesses invited to discuss issues related to school spending.

At the beginning of the meeting, group leader state Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Houston) announced plans to solicit formal recommendations from all witnesses who’ve testified before the working group. The group’s five members will meet again July 11, the day after a scheduled July 10 meeting of the full commission, and vote on which recommendations to endorse.

School finance commission working group on expenditures meeting June 6, 2018.

Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff opened Wednesday’s testimony with a review of the instructional materials allotment (IMA), and members of the group expressed interest in increasing the flexibility of IMA funds. State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) suggested consulting teachers as to how much physical textbooks are currently used in the classroom, and hypothesized that use is declining. Members seemed to unanimously support the idea of encouraging more reliance on technology and cheaper or free online resources, while freeing up IMA funds for other purposes.

Members also expressed frustration with textbook makers over the ongoing costs of keeping physical textbooks, while many educators are supplementing their instruction with materials found online at no charge. State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) suggested instructing TEA and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to develop a working relationship and establish a timetable wherein the legislature mandates universities to develop open-source materials aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), which school districts would be required to use for classroom instruction. Sen. West contended this would address both textbook costs and complaints by higher education institutions that Texas high school graduates are not college-ready.

The discussion then turned to bilingual education and dual language. Witnesses testified that dual language programs are more effective than traditional English as a second language programs, but carry higher start-up costs. This includes textbooks in both English and Spanish, for example. Rep. Huberty noted that costs would necessarily be compounded with each additional language, such as programs for students who speak Vietnamese. West and Bernal expressed interest in legislation ordering a study of the costs of implementing more dual language programs.

Members also heard about funding for gifted and talented (GT) and career and technical education (CTE) programs. Each carries additional costs, but achieves important outcomes. The working group also heard from TEA staff regarding the high school allotment, and discussed the idea of folding the high school allotment into the basic allotment. This was a component of House Bill 21, the school finance reform bill authored by House leadership during the regular session of the 85th Texas Legislature.

Additionally, members discussed the adjustments for sparsity, and for small and medium-sized districts. Commission Chair Scott Brister has repeatedly advocated consolidating school districts as a way to reduce costs, and TEA indicated that these adjustments total roughly $600 million annually. Staff explained the Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) and New Instructional Facilities Allotment (NIFA), and representatives from fast-growth school districts testified to the importance of funding for new facilities.

Finally, a representative with out-of-state education reform think tank EdBuild suggested improving equity by decoupling school funding from average daily attendance (ADA) and instead using the number of students for whom a school is responsible. Rep. Huberty noted that ADA provides an incentive for districts to ensure that students are actually in the classroom. The EdBuild representative also suggested that by allocating some adjustments at the district level instead of per student, Texas’s school finance system creates unnecessary conflict and confusion between how charter schools and traditional ISDs are funded.