2005 Legislative Priorities (PDF) - 2005 RISD Fast Facts (PDF)
District following finance proposal (PDF) - Educators balk at school-reform bill (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

House Bill 1 provides for a school district Operating Tax rate reduction of approximately 12% or about $0.17 in 2006-07. In 2007-08, the operating tax rate will be reduced by approximately $0.33 more for a total reduction of 33.3% from the current $1.50 operating tax rate.

Districts are guaranteed an amount of revenue at least equal to the 2005-06 state and local revenue that is received under the current school finance system, which means RISD would receive additional state aid to make up for the reduction in operating tax revenue because of the reduction in the tax rate.

Districts are then allowed to increase the operating tax rate by up to $0.04 for local enrichment. This authority can be exercised by the Board of Trustees this year as in succeeding years. They do not have to exercise the $.04 all at once. Districts are not required to gain community approval for the additional $.04 through a local election.

The Board will decide later this year if any of the $.04 is needed for 2006-07. Recapture will likely not apply to this $.04 as long as our property values do not exceed the property values of Austin ISD, the benchmark district in the law.

Recapture will still apply to the balance of the operating tax rate ($1.33 in 2006-2007) but at a higher wealth threshold, meaning significantly less recapture for RISD.

House Bill 1 also provides funds for a $2,000 pay increase for teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians and converts the $500 health insurance supplement to salary. The Board of Trustees will make a final determination on the total salary increases for the district at their June meetings.

In addition, the bill establishes a high school allotment of $275 for each 9th through 12th grade student using an average daily attendance formula. We are waiting for details as to whether these funds must be used for new programs or can fund existing activities.

Two incentive pay programs are established that all districts in the state would be able to apply for award stipends for teachers and campuses.

The bill mandates a uniform school start date on the fourth Monday of August. All Texas districts must start on this date effective the 2007-08 school year.

House Bill 1 makes other changes to the Texas Education Code that include: school district efficiency, state and regional governance, school accountability, high school-college transition, bilingual education review, etc. Full text of the bill can be found at www.capitol.state.tx.us.

RISD will continue to monitor interpretations of the new Texas school finance laws and bring updates to you as necessary. At any time you are welcome to contact the school district with questions or concerns.

The 80th session of the Texas Legislature will begin on January 9, 2007. We look forward to working with our legislators to continue to improve public education in Texas.

Thank you again for your support of RISD and our continued efforts to provide quality education for all children.

A special session of the legislature to fix the school funding problem is expected to be called this spring. RISD's position continues to call for the legislature to:

1. Provide capacity to meet the standards required by the state.

2. Give substantial equity for all districts.

3. Retain local control for communities and their school districts.

(Reproduced with permission - Copyright November 22, 2005 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved.)

School Finance Decision Out, New Deadline is June 1, 2006

JUDGMENT MODIFIED, AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED, opinion by Justice Hecht:

In this case challenging the Texas school finance law, the trial court held that the state system violated the constitutional section prohibiting a state property tax and that it violated constitutional requirements that the Legislature provide for adequate and suitable school financing. The trial court also held that the Legislature's provision for school maintenance and operations did not violate the constitutional "efficiency" requirement, but that school facilities financing did.

The Supreme Court HOLDS that local ad valorem taxes capped at $1.50 pr $100 valuation constitute a state property tax prohibited by constitution article VIII, section 1-e, but that public school financing does not yet violate the "general diffusion of knowledge" mandate under any of the three article VII, section 1 requirements. The Court extends the trial courts injunction against further financing Texas public schools to June 1.

State property tax
In its final constitutional consideration, whether state control of local taxation for education amounts to a state property tax in violation of article VIII, section 1-e, the Court affirms the trial court. The Court notes that local tax rates have increased markedly since 1993-1994, the last figures before Edgewood IV was decided: Then only percent of Texas school districts were taxing at the $1.50 maximum maintenance-and-operations rate, but now 48 percent of the districts, with 59 percent of the students, are taxing at the cap, and 67 percent of the districts, with 81 percent of the students, are taxing at $1.45 or more.

The Court cites its holding in Edgewood III that "[a]n ad valorem tax is a state tax . . . when the State so completely controls the levy, assessment and disbursement of revenue, either directly or indirectly, that the authority employed is without meaningful discretion" and its admonition in Edgewood IV that rising costs to provide a constitutionally adequate education would eventually force some districts to tax at the maximum rate just to meet the standard "in effect a floor as well as a ceiling." In the first appeal in this case, the Court said, it rejected arguments that impermissible state control depended on the number of districts affected and that districts must be forced absolutely to the limit of the cap. Meaningful discretion, an "admittedly imprecise standard," in this case is not a close question.

• "The district court credited evidence that districts statewide are spending over 97% of the revenue that would be available if every district taxed at maximum rates, up from 83% in 1993-1994. Only about a third of the districts with about a fifth of the student population exceed minimum accreditation standards. This is a marked decline from 2001, when over 60% of the districts with well over half of the student population exceeded minimum accreditation standards. The current situation has become virtually indistinguishable from one [found unconstitutional in Edgewood III] in which the State simply set an ad valorem tax rate of $1.50 and redistributed the revenue to the districts." (Majority opinion, at 81)
  
• "The State also controls the expenditure of more than $1 billion in local tax revenues recaptured from 134 districts, which educate 12.3% of the students, requiring that they be effectively redistributed to the other districts. The number of districts and amount of revenue subject to recapture have almost tripled since 1994. The States control of this local revenue is a significant factor in considering whether local taxes have become a state property tax." (Majority opinion, at 81-82)
  
• "The district court also determined that the maximum tax rate for purposes of this analysis should be $1.35 rather than $1.50 because school districts must have $0.15 of tax rate” 10% of the maximum” available for local supplementation. Thus, in the district court's view, almost all school districts are taxing at maximum rates. ... Although the statute does not promise any particular level of supplemental funding, local supplementation is made a core component of the system structure, necessitated by the basic philosophy of the virtue of local control. The State cannot provide for local supplementation, pressure most of the districts by increasing accreditation standards in an environment of increasing costs to tax at maximum rates in order to afford any supplementation at all, and then argue that it is not controlling local tax rates." (Majority opinion, at 83)

The Court notes "[v]arious legislative proposals during the past year" to fix perceived state school-financing problems by reducing the property tax cap and allowing it to be exceeded for certain purposes. "While we express no view on the appropriateness of any of these proposals, we are constrained to caution, as we have before, that a cap to which districts are inexorably forced by educational requirements and economic necessities, as they have been under Senate Bill 7, will in short order violate the prohibition of a state property tax." (Majority opinion, at 83)

Other constitutional challenges
In considering challenges based on article VII, section 1 either under the adequacy, efficiency and suitability clauses the Court rejects the state's argument that school finance should be assessed by a rational-basis test and establishes arbitrariness as the test. In Edgewood I and II, the Court notes, a standard of review was not necessary to articulate because "the public school finance system was simply not efficient by any stretch of the word. Nor did we state a standard of review expressly in Edgewood IV, though it was a much closer case."

• "But the standard in Edgewood IV is apparent from the opinion. ... In essence, we refused to find a constitutional violation when the challenged aspect of the system was not arbitrary. ... In that context [equal protection], the idea is that the government is permitted to give classes disparate treatment, notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee, as long as it has a rational basis for doing so. The same idea does not fit in the context of article VII, section 1. That provision does not allow the Legislature to structure a public school system that is inadequate, inefficient, or unsuitable, regardless of whether it has a rational basis or even a compelling reason for doing so. But the provision does allow the Legislature, of necessity, much latitude in choosing among any number of alternatives that can reasonably be considered adequate, efficient, and suitable. These standards do not require perfection, but neither are they lax. They may be satisfied in many different ways, but they must be satisfied." (Majority opinion, at 59-60)

• "The public education system need not operate perfectly; it is adequate if districts are reasonably able to provide their students the access and opportunity the district court described." (Majority opinion, at 64)
  
• "We agree that the constitutional standard is plainly result-oriented. It creates no duty to fund public education at any level other than what is required to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge. While the end-product of public education is related to the resources available for its use, the relationship is neither simple nor direct; public education can and often does improve with greater resources, just as it struggles when resources are withheld, but more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students." (Majority opinion, at 66)
  
• "But while we think these statutory provisions [Texas Education Code sections 4.001(a), 28.001] properly inform the construction and application of the constitutional standard of a general diffusion of knowledge as understood by the Legislature, they cannot be used to fault a public education system that is working to meet their stated goals merely because it has not yet succeeded in doing so. The district court did not find that the system is so designed that it cannot accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge as defined by the statutory provisions just quoted. Rather, the district court found that the system is not producing a general diffusion of knowledge because the State has not provided sufficient funding.

"In the extensive record before us, there is much evidence, which the district court credited, that many schools and districts are struggling to teach an increasingly demanding curriculum to a population with a growing number of disadvantaged students, yet without additional funding needed to meet these challenges. ... But the undisputed evidence is that standardized test scores have steadily improved over time, even while tests and curriculum have been made more difficult. By all admission, NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement test] scores ... show that public education in Texas has improved relative to the other states. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the district court's findings, we cannot conclude that the Legislature has acted arbitrarily in structuring and funding the public education system so that school districts are not reasonably able to afford all students the access to education and the educational opportunity to accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge.

"We recognize that the standard of arbitrariness we have applied is very deferential to the Legislature, but as we have explained, we believe that standard is what the Constitution requires. Nevertheless, the standard can be violated. There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education... But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the systems predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes." (Majority opinion, at 68-69)

'Efficiency' challenge
The Court cites article VII, section 1 to require "an efficient system of free public schools," considering the system as a whole, not a system with efficient components. The considerations are whether inefficient facilities the district court found makes the entire system inefficient, or whether the system is inefficient for reasons apart from its facilities provision, as the intervenors argue.

• "Given the closeness of the decision in Edgewood IV, the Court might well have reached a different conclusion had the "hold harmless" districts been presented as a permanent part of the system architecture. Now, however, it appears that the provisions favoring those districts reduce recaptured funds only about 4%. Although neither the State defendants nor the plaintiffs has made any effort to justify continuation of these districts, we cannot say that they render the entire system inefficient."
  
• "[The State defendants] contend that facilities needs vary widely depending on the size and location of schools, construction expenses, and other variables. We agree that such evidence is necessary and lacking. The State defendants also argue that to prove constitutional inefficiency the intervenors must offer evidence of an inability to provide for a general diffusion of knowledge without additional facilities, and that they have failed to do so. Again, we agree. Efficiency requires only substantially equal access to revenue for facilities necessary for an adequate system."
  
• "The intervenors argue that constitutional efficiency does not permit substantially unequal access to funds to supplement an adequate education, but we have previously rejected this argument. In the earlier appeal in this case, we explained:

As long as efficiency is maintained, it is not unconstitutional for districts to supplement their programs with local funds, even if such funds are unmatched by state dollars and even if such funds are not subject to statewide recapture. We caution, however, that the amount of "supplementation" in the system cannot become so great that it, in effect, destroys the efficiency of the entire system. The danger is that what the Legislature today considers to be "supplementation" may tomorrow become necessary to satisfy the constitutional mandate for a general diffusion of knowledge.

"Supplementation must be just that: additional revenue not required for an education that is constitutionally adequate. For such supplementation we have never held that districts must have substantially equal access to funds." (Majority opinion, at 72-73)

'Suitability' challenge
The Court notes that neither the trial court nor the parties differentiated suitability from the constitutional standards of adequacy and efficiency, but it reasons that the suitability requirement is not merely redundant of the other two. "Rather," the Court states, "it refers specifically to the means chosen to achieve an adequate education through an efficient system."

• "Neither the structure nor the operation of the funding system prevents it from efficiently accomplishing a general diffusion of knowledge. The State may discharge its duty to make suitable provision for free public schools through school districts by relying on local tax revenues, even as heavily as it now does. Such reliance, especially given the multitude and diversity of school districts, inevitably makes it difficult to achieve efficiency because of the vast disparities in local property wealth, but efficiency is not impossible. We have suggested that these difficulties might be avoided by fundamental changes in the structure of the system, but the possibility of improvement does not render the present system unsuitable for adequately and efficiently providing a public education." (Majority opinion, at 76)

Relief

• "The tax rate cap that makes the public education funding system a state property tax is also intended to keep the system efficient. The two roles of the cap are inseparable. To remove the cap so as to allow districts meaningful discretion in setting tax rates at higher levels would be to increase the revenue disparity among the property-rich and the property-poor districts, creating the financial inefficiency that the cap is intended to prevent. Local ad valorem taxes, which we have determined to be a prohibited state property tax, provide more than half the revenue for the public school system. The constitutional violation cannot be corrected without raising the cap on local tax rates or changing the system." (Majority opinion, at 85)
  
• "The Constitution does not require a particular solution. We leave such matters to the discretion of the Legislature. To end the constitutional violation, we agree with the district court that the use of the current system must be enjoined. The district court delayed the effect of its injunction until October 1, 2005, to allow the Legislature time to respond. Since the injunction issued, the Legislature has undertaken to respond in a regular session and two special sessions. Its inability to do so appears to be due not to any lack of expertise in the issues but to the absence of agreement. At this point in time, it is unlikely that material changes could be made in the public education system that would affect the current school year. School districts will next begin to prepare budgets and set tax rates in the summer of 2006. To allow the State ample time to fully consider structural changes in the public education system, and to allow the system time to adjust to those changes, we postpone the effective date of the district court's injunction to June 1, 2006." (Majority opinion, at 85-86)

Justice Brister DISSENTING:
In the name of "efficiency," several school districts again ask the Texas courts to close the Texas public schools unless the Texas Legislature increases funding. Over the last two decades, the Court has been asked to do this every two or three years, and has generally complied. The Court goes too far by doing so again today. First, the Court finds school districts are forced to tax at the highest possible rate only because some of them do. Second, though only five percent of the State's school districts claim a single statute is unconstitutional, the Court enjoins the State from distributing any money under the current Texas school financing system, an order that applies to every school district in Texas. Thus, because some districts get too little state money, all districts may get none. It is hard to see how this will help Texas school children.

Yet the Court also does not go far enough. By failing to demand an "efficient system" as the Texas Constitution requires, or to demand standing and proof as Texas law requires, this case once again focuses on short-term funding rather than long-term solutions. Of course, the true goal of this litigation is to put pressure on the Texas Legislature. The Court demanded legislative changes by holding the Texas school-finance system unconstitutional in Edgewood I, Edgewood II and Edgewood III and warned that it might do so again soon in Edgewood IV and West Orange-Cove I. The Court fulfills that threat today. But there is no end in sight. If the past is any indication, the new funding will not last long, and public education will not change much.

If the goal is to improve education, the Court should not enjoin the entire school-finance system on collateral grounds to pressure the Legislature to change it. But it should demand efficiency, as that is what the Texas Constitution requires. Recognizing the common meaning of efficient would not require the Court to abandon its previous school-finance cases, or the equity for Texas schools they require. But the Court cannot keep overlooking the one standard the Texas Constitution explicitly demands. Nor does it help Texas school children by insisting "efficient" means nothing beyond equal access to taxes.

Copyright November 22, 2005 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved

Friday, Sept. 9 - Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson said that the court will likely rule on the school finance case within two weeks.  State District Judge John Dietz had set a deadline of October 1, 2005 for the state to overhaul the school finance system, and Chief Justice Jefferson said that the Supreme Court was working to meet that deadline.

The second special session called by Gov. Rick Perry to solve the school finance issue ended unsuccessfully on Aug. 19.  The court’s ruling will lay the groundwork for Gov. Perry to call another special session and provide guidance for lawmakers as they try again to fix the state’s public school funding system.

Decisions confronting the legislature regarding school finance are:

Many legislators also want to give property owners relief from school property taxes, making the issue even more difficult.

In mid-August, the second of two special legislative sessions ended with still no solution to the school finance crisis and the tremendous financial pressures being felt by schools.  Schools are waiting now to see how the Texas Supreme Court will rule on the case regarding the property tax cap imposed on school districts by the state.  There is no timeline for their ruling; however, many believe it will be early this fall. 

The 65% Rule
Shortly after the end of the second special session, Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring school districts to expend at least 65 percent of tax dollars on direct classroom expenses or direct instructional expenses.  The Governor directed the Commissioner of Education, Shirley Neeley, to utilize the National Center for Educational Statistics’ (NCES) definition of direct instruction.  Using that definition, expenses for student transportation, nurses, counselors, school libraries and librarians, building utilities, and campus security cannot be included in the direct instruction percentage. 

The Richardson Independent School District opposes the 65 percent mandate because it fails to recognize the contribution of other types of spending for the overall support and education of students.  Additionally, the 65 percent mandate allows the state to dictate how we spend our local property tax dollars, thereby taking control away from our locally elected school officials.

Meeting the 65 percent standard
The RISD’s operating budget for 2005-06 is $257,547,633.  RISD will send $42,557,086 to the state in recapture (Robin Hood) leaving $214,990,547 available to meet local expenses. Utilizing the NCES definition for direct instruction (highlighted below) RISD expenditures are 64.2% of the total operating budget.   RISD expenses are  categorized as follows:

Dear RISD Community Members:

Thank you for contacting our legislators regarding the 65% rule. It is my understanding that the legislature is considering changing the rule to ALL curriculum, not just TAKS-tested subjects. While that change would still not be ideal, it is better. I urge you, however, to continue to contact your legislators to consider other expenses that are directly attributed to quality education. Examples include fine arts, athletics, library services, etc. As you are well aware, these are quality programs needed for our children.

In addition, it appears that Wednesday evening there will be a vote on House Bill 2. We are concerned about this bill for many reasons, some of which are listed below:

• Although HB 2 and HB 3 remain linked, it is clear that HB 3 (the revenue bill) will not pass in this special session and the governor has promised to call another session immediately. There has been discussion of decoupling the two bills, but that has not yet occurred. One of our primary goals in seeking a new funding formula in Texas was for the system to have the capacity to grow over time to meet changing needs. HB 2 falls far short of that goal and should be opposed.
• Uniform school board election dates are set in November of even-numbered years. This means loss of local control. It also means that local school board elections will he held at the same time as partisan elections.
• The accountability system becomes even more complex, with no additional resources targeted to meet the rising standards.
• A new technology/textbook system that is based on an American with Disabilities Act distribution is established with a technology allotment phase-in beginning in 2005-06 and continuing for three years that will result in the end of the current textbook process. Will this be properly funded?
• All schools must start after Labor Day and end by June 7, beginning in the 2006-07 school year. This again takes away local control, plays havoc with long-standing community vacation days throughout the year, and will negatively impact those desiring to enroll in college summer school.

The financial impact of the Senate's version of HB 2 includes the following:

2005-06
Gross increase in funding $5.4 million

Effect of mandates - $1,500 teacher pay raise ($3.864 million)

- Replace the lost State ins. supplement ($1.515 million)

- provide the $1,500 raise to RISD personnel not included by the State (Speech Therapists) ($120,000)

Net loss to RISD ($100,000)

This assumes that raises must be provided on top of those already authorized for 2005-06. The district is receiving conflicting information about this provision and will need to monitor closely. If the raises authorized by the Board can count toward the mandated increase, then the district will net approximately $2.5 million over expected revenue. This is helpful, but the bill clearly provides little long-term hope of addressing the needs we see in future years. This does not include the financial impact of other mandates from either the recent regular session or special session.

At this time, information is that the Senate will reconvene at 4:00 to consider the appropriations bill, HB 1, and then recess for dinner until early evening. When they return, HB 2 will be considered.

Please take the time to contact your legislators, as listed below, to ask them to NOT pass HB 2, but to take more time to draft a bill that makes positive gains for all the students in Texas.

Thank you once again for your support of public education.

Sincerely,

Jim Nelson
Superintendent



STATE OF TEXAS - RISD Legislators

John Carona
16th District
(512) 463-0116
John.Carona@senate.state.tx.us

Tony Goolsby
102nd District
(512) 463-0454
(512) 463-1121 FAX
Tony.Goolsby@house.state.tx.us

Fred Hill
112th District
(512) 463-0486
(512) 480-0512 FAX
Fred.Hill@house.state.tx.us

Florence Shapiro
8th District
(512) 463-0108
Florence.Shapiro@senate.state.tx.us

Bill Keffer
107th District
(866) 264-0782 (toll free)
(512) 463-0244
Bill.Keffer@house.state.tx.us

Will Hartnett
144th District
(512) 463-0576
(512) 463-7827 FAX

In the current special legislative session, called specifically to deal with the school finance issue because legislators did not come to a resolution at the end of the regular session in May, both the House and the Senate have passed versions of House Bill 2 (HB2) . Currently, many sections of the over 300-page bill are troubling to the education community, but one in particular will specifically impact students and is cause for great concern and action by the RISD community.

65% Rule
The "65% Rule" requires school districts to spend at least 65% of their total revenue to fund direct instructional activities. (Currently, the estimated state average spent on core courses is 50% or less.) The bills defines direct instructional activities as: "expenditures directly related to classroom instruction for courses in the foundation curriculum" (foundation curriculum meaning English language arts,
math, science, and social studies). This means that the remaining 35% of the budget must cover everything else including foreign languages, career and technology courses, band, theater, choir, athletics, etc.

Although likely written with the best of intentions, this proposal has severe consequences that will impact school districts' abilities to offer important extra and co-curricular courses and activities. Several negative aspects of the 65% rule are:

• The 65% rule doesn't consider the state's requirements for graduation which include courses in fine arts, foreign language, P.E., health, technology and other electives required to achieve the Texas Recommended Program Seal. (The Recommended Program is 24 credits; 13.5 credits come from core courses (56%) and 10.5 credits are non-core courses (44%).
• The 65% Rule may eliminate enrichment courses and programs such as foreign languages, art, band, choir, orchestra, theater, and career-based courses and as well as athletics. All of these courses and activities benefit students and keep many in school.
• The 65% Rule puts Texas students at a competitive disadvantage when applying to universities across the United States as most are looking for well-rounded students with involvement in extra/co-curricular activities that develop teamwork and leadership skills. Most top universities want students who have accomplished significantly more than just the completion of the core (or TAKS tested) courses.
• The 65% Rule may impact the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind with respect to the requirements for career and technology instruction.
• Please urge legislators to target only those districts/charter schools who consistently spend very low percentages on instruction. It is shortsighted public policy to punish all districts for the errors of a few.

This proposal was likely intended to be "tough" on school administrations and how they spend money -- but in the end, it will be the students who will bear the brunt of the 65% rule, which is hopefully not the legislative intention. Even though the rule would be phased in on a yearly basis until full implementation
in 2008-09 and future legislative sessions will provide the opportunity to repeal or revise the rule, the conference committee should be proactive and fix it before it comes law. It does not punish or limit administrators, but could instead significantly restrict student opportunities.

RISD representatives voted:
Goolsby - voted against appraisal caps
Hartnett - voted against appraisal caps
Hill - voted against appraisal caps
Keffer - voted for appraisal caps

House Bill 2/Senate substitute
Education groups are holding support for the Senate substitute bill until they receive a constitutional guarantee on two critical points:

1) YEARLY funding increases to meet inflation
2) YEARLY funding for student growth
If these two points can be guaranteed within the Texas constitution as part of a statewide property tax amendment, then education groups will offer their support for the Senate's substitute.

Textbook/Instructional Materials Funding - HB 4
State PTA held a press conference 4-13-05 to discuss state funding of textbooks and instructional materials. Currently, state funding for current textbook contracts and future textbook purchases is in question as to how much will be appropriated and from where. The following arguments are being presented regarding textbooks & HB4:

1) Instructional materials are essential to meeting state accountability standards and must be funded by the state.
2) Textbook selection should be made by the state in conjunction with TEKS/TAKS.
3) Any textbook allotments must be tied to the inflation index on an annual basis, otherwise districts will end up paying the increased costs of textbooks over time. (Another unfunded mandate for the future.)

HB 4 has passed out of committee and they are waiting to get the fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board. It is likely to come before the full House late next week.

Vouchers
Anti-voucher efforts from various groups have been effective thus far in that the voucher bills presented in committee last Tuesday are still "pending". If the current bills fail, watch for vouchers to be added to the bill that will reauthorize TEA.

The committee is scheduled to present the Senate substitute for House Bill 2 next week and quickly move it through the process -- hoping to get it to the floor of the Senate and over to the House by the first of May. More details to come as they become available.

PTA Day at the Capitol
Ten PTA members from RISD spent a very worthwhile day at the Capitol on Wednesday, March 30.  The issues highlighted by PTA were: car/booster seat requirements for children; funding for textbooks, children's health (the importance of P.E. and good nutrition), and vouchers. The Commissioner of Education, Shirley Neeley, spoke to the group about the importance of PTA and stated her top priority of getting raises for teachers. Visits were held with Reps. Fred Hill, Tony Goolsby and Bill Keffer. We ran into Senator John Carona and spoke to him for a few minutes, and signed in with Senator Shapiro's office. We also stopped by other key legislative offices to sign their visitor book and either thanked, or encouraged them to take a certain position (mostly on vouchers). Many thanks to everyone who took the time to go!

Local News
The RISD Council of PTAs will be helping to host a school board candidate forum on Thursday, April 21. Please see the attached flyer for more information.

Back to Austin
Utmost in our minds right now is the voucher issue. The voucher bills are scheduled to be heard in committee on Tuesday, April 5.

The following are partial comments made by Rep. Bob Griggs (R - Tarrant County, former superintendent of Birdville ISD) when he addressed the full House of Representatives before the final vote on House Bill 2. He summarized the bill stating that, after fulfilling the state mandates in the bill, there was $45.24 per student, per year to take care of everything else. (Please read the detail below.)

The bill will hopefully be much different after the Senate has an opportunity to give their input, and then it will go to a conference committee (Senate and House members) for more tweaking before becoming final legislation to be passed by both chambers.

 Regarding the $3 billion dollars in "new money" in HB 2 . . .
" . . . So… totaled over the biennium (the mandated teacher raise, teacher incentive requirements, and $180 million to roll forward the EDA and IFA), we have spent $2.62 billion before we ever consider a single child's need. Ladies and gentlemen, that is 87.33% of the "new money" in mandates. That leaves a total of $190 million, state-wide, per year, to address other mandates in HB 2 and then any local discretionary needs.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is $45.24 per student, per year… $45.24 per student, per year to take care of bilingual education, to take care of our drop out problem, to attack our at-risk students [problem], to fund our gifted and talented children, to implement a new tracking system, to buy technology, and also textbooks. Let's throw in a little inflation for $45.24. I remind you that our own study told us that we needed 3.6 billion dollars per year to attain the student level of excellence that we expect of our children here in this state.

Come election day, you are going to be blamed for cutting art, music, and other life enriching classes. You are going to be blamed for packing science, and math, and English classes with 30 to 35 students. And you are going to be blamed with every other distasteful change forced by the lack of money. That’s going to happen on election day.

But let me talk to you just a moment about EDA and IFA… The Chairman says "trust him," but I was told by Chairman Pitts this very morning that there were no additional dollars for anything that is educationally related after this bill. So I would urge those staff members that are watching this at this moment to try get a hold of your school district… since you don’t trust superintendents, talk to the business manager… and ask them what type of tax rate increase they are going to have when they don’t have the EDA/IFA funding.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are worried about the tax creep… by capping things 2 cents here and enrichment there and appraisal caps… let me tell you what those EDA/IFA dollars means to your schools. As an example: Katy I.S.D., a very large school district; Mansfield I.S.D., a medium-size school; Forney, a small school… all would be forced to raise their tax rate 4 cents per $100 to substitute for that. But we continue to hear, "Trust me, believe in me." But I have asked that you don’t back down.

This is not a Republican issue; this is not a Democratic issue. Good education is not the exclusive domain of partisanship. It’s a Texas issue, and we are about educating Texans. It's what's right for the state of Texas. I would just ask that you be a statesman, not a politician. You need to make that difficult choice, you need to stand tall like Texans do,

and you need to do what is right for the children of our great state. It's about the kids…
and I don’t want you to be recognized as a supporter of "Proposition 13" of Texas.
I urge you to vote "NO" to HB 2.
Thank you Mr. Speaker, and members.

As currently considered, under HB 2, RISD would fall into the 'hold harmless' category, which means that even though the funding under the bill is lower than current funding, RISD would not be penalized. HB 2 also provides a guaranteed increase of 3 percent above the current funding level, which equals about $6.3 million for RISD.

However, there are a number of mandates included in HB 2 that reduce this added funding.  HB 2 would require RISD to pay for the $1,000 previously provided by the State to eligible employees to help defray the cost of medical coverage.  This will cost RISD between $3 and $3.5 million. 

HB 2 also requires a merit-pay plan equal to 1 percent of the budget, or $2.1 million, that must be paid from the added funds received.  The cost of textbooks appear to shift to districts as well, and would cost RISD between $900,000 to as much as $2.4 million per year depending on the number of courses/books adopted.  There are a variety of other mandates currently included that will have added financial impact, but RISD does not have sufficient details to quantify at this point.

The impact of the above is that RISD will have no net increase in funds and may actually lose dollars, possibly as much as $1.5 million, depending on the exact figure of the $1,000, and the textbooks.  There are still a number of questions to resolve, including the impact of continuing to provide a local optional homestead exemption to our taxpayers. 

RISD is continuing to monitor the progress of the legislature, and will continue to assess how the various solutions affect district classrooms. Current updates are posted on our Web site at http://www.risd.org/Community/advocacy.htm.

The Texas Supreme Court set a schedule in the West Orange Cove case. “The briefing schedule has been set: The state has 40 days from today to file our Appellants' Brief (March 30), then the plaintiffs have 40 days to file their Appellees' Brief (May 9), then the state has another 20 days to file the reply (May 31). The Court has not yet set a date for oral argument.”

The House Public Education Committee met every day last week to hear and discuss invited testimony on House Bill 2. They are expected to meet every day again this week. Any amendments to the bill must be submitted early this week.  Public Education Committee Chairman Grusendorf is hoping to be able to send a revised HB 2 to the full House by early next week.  

Notes

The after Labor Day school start date seems to be gaining steam as witnesses (3) testified in favor of it and cited research that shows that having exams after the December break would benefit the student’s ability to retain information. They also stated that benefits of a later start date would matters help including family planning, migrant workers, utility savings, and the economy. A Texas School Board Association board member testified against the proposed late start date stating that communities should be able to decide when they start school, and that a late start date prevents students from taking college courses in the May-mester, and may prevent teachers from continuing their education in the first semester of summer school.  Also, there would be problems for students who graduate in December and plan to start college in January, and the first semester finals would likely fall after winter break which parents and students didn't like.

The Public Education subcommittee on Technical Formula Issues (school finance formulas) also met last week. There is confusion on exactly how much new money is actually in the bill ($1.5 billion or $3 billion). This subcommittee will submit an amendment correcting the current bill’s errors to clarify the confusion.

Comments:  This will be an interesting week in that a final school reform/finance bill by the House may be ready for real scrutiny by districts.  If you are interested, the web site www.texasisd.com is an incredible source of information and commentary about what is happening with education legislation.  

The Senate Education committee will meet on Tuesday, Feb. 22 to discuss education bills referred to the committee.

There is a lot going on in the legislature about school finance and reform these days.  The Public Education committee met almost every day this week on the reform side of the issue, trying to get House Bill 2 (HB2) out of the committee and onto the House floor for a vote by early March.  The House Ways & Means Committee is working on HB3, the legislation that will finance the public school system. 

Public Education Chairman Grusendorf yesterday appointed a special subcommittee to address school funding formula issues.  The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Scott Hochberg (Houston) includes RISD-area representative Bill Keffer.  

There are many interesting points in the 100+ page bill.  Things like establishing a uniform election date for school board elections, setting the school start date after Labor Day, teacher incentive pay, reinstating the $1000 health insurance supplement for teachers, and local enrichment allowances are being considered.  Most in the education community are not in favor of the bill, stating that there is not enough new money in it for schools. 

COMMENTS:

Looking good so far . . .   They are working diligently to fix school finance.  Chairman Grusendorf (R) crossed the political aisle to appoint Scott Hochberg (D) chairman of the subcommittee on funding formulas.  Hochberg is as close to an expert as you will find in the legislature in understanding school finance.  His appointment will likely mean more acceptance from educators and from other Democrats.

What to expect: 

1)  HB2 will be voted out of the Public Education committee, which Grusendorf expects to happen by the end of February.  HB3 is not expected to be far behind HB2 when debated on the floor of the House. 

2) HB2 & HB3 will be approved by the House, sent on to the Senate and then to the Senate Education and Finance Committees (our Senator Florence Shapiro is chair of the Education committee) where they will probably discuss the House Bills and then substitute their own Senate bill.

3) The House and Senate bills will be somewhat similar in theory, but, "the devil is in the details" that will need to be worked out in a conference committee that will include both the House Public Education and Senate Education committee chairs, plus other members appointed by the Lt. Gov. & Speaker of the House.  This could take some additional time.

4) It will likely be April before we see an official school finance bill package (one bill for reform & one bill for funding) that both the House and Senate will have to pass.  If a state property tax is in one bill, it will require a constitutional amendment, so we may not know until next November what our school finance system will look like. 

So far, everyone seems to share the common focus of addressing school finance.  We've not seen too much partisanship; everyone seems to understand what is at stake in this issue.  And, everyone seems open to considering good ideas nothing is set in concrete at this time.

We've heard vouchers mentioned frequently, but we've also heard that the issue won't go far.  We will definitely keep a close watch on this issue. 

We will keep you posted on what is happening in Austin in an end-of-the-week summary unless something urgent comes along.

House Speaker Craddick announces House committees.  Kent Grusendorf will remain as chairman of the Public Education committee; Jim Keffer (RISD's Bill Keffer's brother) will be chair of the Appropriations committee.  This is important because the education bill will come from both committees.  The money issues will be heard in the Appropriations committee, and education reform issues will be heard in the Public Ed. committee. 

QUORUM REPORT:  Craddick’s office confirms the tax bill on school finance – or at least the shell of it – will be filed this week and that a separate education reform bill will be filed next week.


RISD HOUSE LEGISLATORS APPOINTMENTS

Tony Goolsby - Vice Chair - Higher Education committee; Licensing & Administrative Procedures

Will Hartnett - Chair - Judiciary committee; Regulated Industries

Fred Hill  - Chair - Local Government Ways & Means committee; Transportation (important to City of Richardson).  He was also named to the Legislative Budget Board (only 4 house members were appointed.)

Bill Keffer - member - Public Education committee

 Also, Dan Branch (Highland Park ISD) - Vice Chair - Public Education

*  The House has 40 committees; each member serves on two or three committees.

*  Public Education committee consists of 10 House members.

Gov. Rick Perry made it apparent in his State of the State speech yesterday that vouchers would be on the table this session. By separating school finance from education reform, a voucher proposal would only need to carry a clear majority of the House.   It's not too early to let the Governor, House Speaker Craddick, Public Ed. Chair - Kent Grusendorf, Rep. Bill Keffer and Rep. Fred Hill know about  your opposition to vouchers. (See addresses and fax numbers at the bottom of this email. Remember handwritten correspondence is best.  Faxing it is fine.)  Voucher legislation will originate in the Public Education committee --Grusendorf is Chair.

Lt. Governor Dewhurst is expected to announce Senate committees on Friday.

House Speaker Tom Craddick
P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768
Phone: (512) 463-1000
Fax: (512) 463-7722

Address correspondence to:

Chairman Fred Hill, Representative Bill Keffer, Chairman Kent Grusendorf
P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768

Hill - Fax - (512) 480-0512
Keffer - Fax - (512) 463-1121
Grusendorf - Fax (512) 463-1398 Fax

Governor Rick Perry
P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-2000
Fax: (512) 463-1849

Here is an executive summary of Judge John Dietz's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the school finance case.

The judge’s report is more than 120 pages, and provides 655 findings of fact and 24 conclusions of law.

The ruling was a victory for public schools in Texas, especially property poor districts.  "Dietz considered most of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs to be compelling,"  (i.e., the school districts presented a good case, and he concurred with their arguments against the state).

Judge Dietz has ordered the state pay for the plaintiff's legal fees, approximately $4 million.  The coalition includes 46 plaintiffs in addition to RISD.

The judge:

• labeled the much publicized adequacy study that was completed by economists from Texas A&M as "flawed".
  
• wrote that both studies on the cost of providing an education in Texas, "underpredicted the costs of meeting performance targets given the manner in which Texas’ accountability system functions."
  
• highlighted the need for the state to address facilities funding, not just more money for instructional programs.
  
• wrote that well-maintained facilities, qualified teachers, dropout prevention programs, school nurses and guidance counselors are all expected on a school campus (the state had argued that those functions were not part of the constitutional "general diffusion of knowledge" that the state was required to pay for).
  
• ruled the plaintiffs had proven that the school finance system fails to provide districts access to funds sufficient to provide a constitutionally adequate education,
  
• found the school finance system has evolved into an unconstitutional state property tax because districts lacked "meaningful discretion" in setting their local property tax rates.
  
• ruled the current system was inadequately funded, based in large part upon his conclusion that the levels of state funding to help pay for school facilities and to help educate limited-English proficient and economically disadvantaged students is insufficient.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

• The Attorney General's office (the state's lawyers) will decide what parts of the conclusion of law they will appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
• Many members of the legislature feel it is their responsibility to solve the school finance crisis and not the courts.  Some members want to wait to see how the Texas Supreme Court will rule before they make any sweeping changes to the school finance system.
• We need to remain informed so that when specific solutions are developed, RISD and its patrons will be knowledgeable about our support for or opposition to those solutions.

CONCLUSION

Judge Dietz took the time necessary to review the case diligently and thoroughly, and although this report was delivered much later than he had originally stated, the seriousness of the topic warranted the time he took.  According to TexasISD.com, "This is a very big event in Texas Education.  Legislators and educators will be focusing on and referring to this ruling constantly during and beyond the upcoming 79th legislative session and the appeal to follow."

Since PTA is such an avid and vocal opponent of vouchers, this information on President Bush's newly-selected cabinet member for Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, is good to know.

From the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Bulletin

www.ppionline.org

In Paige's (current Secretary of Education Rod Paige) place, Bush has nominated Margaret Spellings, a long-time Bush ally, the architect of his Texas education reform plan that influenced NCLB, and current White House Domestic Policy Advisor. Spellings is a good choice for the position. She's very pragmatic on the tough issues issues, and by all accounts, she's not a voucher advocate, and is in fact is pretty skeptical even about charter schools.

She understands and believes in the logic of reforms like NCLB and can effectively communicate what's at stake in various policy debates. She's also the kind of no-nonsense pragmatist that the Department needs to get its NCLB implementation efforts on track. Still, she's got a lot of work to do. There is still a lot of confusion about NCLB, abetted in no small part by the Department's tardiness on regulations and lack of clarity about key provisions, and there is plenty of work to be done in advance of the next reauthorization.

With the 79th legislative session just around the corner, our task right now is to keep informed about what is happening in Austin. 

There's lots of talk and news reports about school finance and school reform, so things to be aware of include:

• No final ruling yet on the school finance case that ended Sept. 15.  The judge wants to make sure he is thorough and thoughtful before submitting his final papers (which is what will drive the appeal for the State).  Look for the ruling before year end.
  
• Governor Perry's "Good to Great" policy paper was drafted by the Governor's Business Council (GBC). This panel of advisers from the business world wants Gov. Rick Perry to push for a new teacher pay scale, more charter schools and graver consequences for schools with low test scores.  The report, and Perry's early reaction to it, indicates that the governor not only will work with lawmakers to try to reform the state's system of funding public schools in 2005 but could support major shakeups in the way Texas evaluates schools and rewards teachers.
  
  For an executive summary go to www.texasgbc.org/GBC_FromGood to Great.pdf
  
• Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's interest in the school start date.  Strayhorn's special report on school-start dates, Saving Summer: Lessons Learned, identifies $790 million annually in lost income and additional expenses because of early August school-start dates.
  
• Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst promises his holiday gift to the Legislature will be a Senate proposal on school finance, one that both cuts property taxes by boosting taxes on many businesses and raising the levies on alcohol and tobacco.  He's busy lobbying senators to support the plan.  (No published plan exists yet.)

To date 247 bills have been filed for the upcoming 79th legislative session which begins January 11, 2005.  Bills of interest include a voucher pilot bills, teacher health insurance bills, foreign language instruction, etc.  Please view http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/ to see the list of bills filed by day. 

The Election

The elections earlier this month resulted in no new state legislators representing the RISD.  (Senators are Carona & Shapiro (2006), and Representatives are Goolsby, Hartnett, Hill, and Keffer)
 
Nationally

Margaret Spellings, who managed President Bush's school agenda from Texas to Washington was promoted from Bush's current domestic policy adviser, to the Cabinet-level job of Secretary of Education, overseeing the Education Department and enforcing the nation's sweeping school reform law. She will replace retiring secretary Rod Paige if she wins Senate confirmation.

No major legislation about school finance was filed, although there were some bills that took pieces of the education issue:

• a bill was filed that would restore a $1,000 health care reimbursement to teachers. The stipend was cut in half last session.
  
• another bill was filed that would restore cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, which also was downsized last session.
  
• Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, proposed an expansion of dual language programs in public schools that would enable English speaking students to learn other languages as early as elementary school.

There are major pieces of legislation planned regarding school finance that will look much like what was proposed in the special session.  They will likely be filed before the session begins.  There is still talk about requesting emergency status for education legislation, the Governor will make that decision.