![]() |
|||||||||||||||
|
LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2005 Legislative Priorities (PDF) - 2005 RISD Fast Facts (PDF) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HB 1 IMPACT FOR RICHARDSON ISD May 25, 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As you are aware, the Texas Legislature was mandated to “fix school finance” before June 1. Five bills were passed that will provide the framework for how the state pays for public education. House Bill 1 makes significant changes to the Texas Education Code, and the other four bills (House Bills 2, 3, 4, and 5) raise the revenue needed to put House Bill 1 into action. The following is a summary of the main points of HBl and how it affects Richardson ISD taxpayers.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| School Finance Ruling Issued by Texas Supreme Court November 29, 2005 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The long-awaited ruling by the Texas Supreme Court on the school finance case was announced on November 22. The Court ruled that the current $1.50 cap for maintenance and operations (M&O) on ad valorem school taxes was, in effect, a statewide property tax and therefore unconstitutional, concurring with trial Judge John Deitz's ruling last December. The Supreme Court was unwilling however, to uphold the trial court on findings and declare the system inadequate at this time. The Court found that “the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change,” and that, “public school financing does not yet violate the 'general diffusion of knowledge' mandate in the constitution.” So although the Court concluded that the system is "adequate" right now, it indicated that the state is on the verge of a constitutional violation. A deadline of June 1, 2006 was set for the Texas legislature to address the school funding problem. RISD joined with many other districts in the school finance case because the district reached the tax cap of $1.50 for Maintenance & Operations (M&O) in 2001. Since that time, RISD has been forced to cut more than $55 million in order to balance its annual budget while still sending millions of dollars back to the state in the form of recapture or "Robin Hood. " The Court's ruling did not call for repeal of the "Robin Hood" aspect of the school finance system. 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:
(Reproduced with permission - Copyright November 22, 2005 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved.) 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 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 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 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
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
Relief
Justice Brister DISSENTING: 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| School Finance Update - September 13, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. The issue
Last December, Judge Dietz ruled the state’s school funding system unconstitutional declaring that “the state’s school finance system fails to provide an adequate, suitable, and efficient education system as required by Article VII, section 1 of the Texas Constitution as to these districts.” In his 120-page decision, the judge also affirmed that the state had eliminated the “meaningful discretion” over property tax rates that the constitution affords local districts. 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. The court’s decision will have direct impact on how the legislature makes those decisions. RISD will continue to work with lawmakers and state officials to create a finance system that will best serve all Texas students while allowing our community officials discretion in developing policies and programs to best educate our students. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| September2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RISD Superintendent Jim Nelson and his staff will continue to closely monitor the changes caused by the Governor’s recent executive order. If you have any questions or need further information, feel welcome to contact Mr. Nelson’s office at 469-593-0401 or Assistant Superintendent of Business and Facility Services Tony Harkleroad at 469-593-0331. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July 20, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear RISD Community Members:
The financial impact of the Senate's version of HB 2 includes the following: Effect of mandates - $1,500 teacher pay raise ($3.864 million)
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July 6, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 5, 2005 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proposed Amendment Harms Extracurricular Activities in Public Schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following letter was sent out to the district's ListServ subscribers on Tuesday, July 5: On Thursday, June 30, Texas House of Representatives Education Chair Kent Grusendorf proposed an amendment to the Texas Legislature’s House Bill 2 (HB2) which requires that 65% of school districts' total revenue be restricted and limited to funding assessed (TAKS tested) instructional activities. The amendment, authored by Senator Jeff Wentworth and proposed by Rep. Grusendorf during this second week of the special session on school finance, has passed at both the House and Senate levels. As superintendent of RISD schools, I am extremely concerned about this 65% rule. Our Board president, Luke Davis, joins me in believing that if this is enacted and fully implemented over time, it will have a devastating effect on RISD and all The Richardson ISD community will find this unacceptable as it has always valued programs that give our students opportunities. Our course offerings and programs will be compromised by this amendment. RISD will always wish to offer a full complement of extracurricular programs. Our parents expect this for their children. We, along with members of the RISD Board of Trustees, urge you, our district’s patrons, to contact Representative Grusendorf and local state legislators to voice your concerns about this proposed amendment to the education plan. Legislative contact information may be found on the RISD website at: www.risd.org/Community/advocacy.htm. or you can fax the following:
Public Ed. Committee Chair:
Rep. Kent Grusendorf 512-463-0624; FAX (512) 463-1398 Senate Ed. Committee Chair:
Sen. Florence Shapiro 512-463-0108; FAX (512) 463-7579 Senator Jeff Wentworth (original author):
512-463-0125; FAX (512) 463-7794 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS (from last conference committee)
Representative Dan Branch 512-463-0367; FAX (512) 322-9935
Representative Bill Keffer 512-463-0244; FAX (512) 463-5896
Representative Dianne Delisi 512-463-0630; FAX 512-463-0937
Representative Rob Eissler 512-463-0797; FAX 512-463-0898
Best Regards, Jim Nelson, Superintendent of Schools Luke Davis, President, RISD Board of Trustees |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| April 13, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appraisal Cap Vote The first amendment to HJR 35 (the bill to cap appraisals at 5%) would not allow the bill to be enacted -- effectively killing the bill. The amendment passed, and then the attempt to resurrect the bill was killed on a point of order by Rep. Fred Hill. RISD representatives voted: 1) YEARLY funding increases to meet inflation Textbook/Instructional Materials Funding - HB 4 1) Instructional materials are essential to meeting state accountability standards and must be funded by the state. 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| April 1, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It's serious business in Austin as educators work hard to help legislators understand the impact of the legislation they're considering. By now everyone knows that the Senate Education committee is considering the legislation, and all fingers are crossed in hopes that Senator Shapiro will come forward with quality legislation to truly help schools meet state standards.
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 Local News Back to Austin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| March 16, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Although HB 2 has now been sent to the Senate, the following comments helps explain why this proposed legislation, as currently written, is not favorable for school districts.
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 . . . 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… |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| March 3, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As the Texas Legislature continues to consider ways to address the school finance crisis, RISD is monitoring developments that would impact the district and community. House Bill 2 is the primary comprehensive piece of legislation currently under consideration to address this issue.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| February 20, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| February 11, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| January 24, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. 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
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. Addresses:House Speaker Tom Craddick Address correspondence to: Chairman Fred Hill, Representative Bill Keffer, Chairman Kent Grusendorf Governor Rick Perry |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 1, 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here is an executive summary of Judge John Dietz's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the school finance case.
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." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November 30, 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November 21, 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With the 79th legislative session just around the corner, our task right now is to keep informed about what is happening in Austin.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November 9, 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No major legislation about school finance was filed, although there were some bills that took pieces of the education issue:
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Click here to visit the RISD Legislative Information Links page. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [ top ] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|