Transcript Impact of the 82nd Legislature on Accountability

Impact of the 82nd Legislature on
Accountability
As Presented by Maria Whitsett and
Lynn M. Moak at the Texas Assessment
Conference, December 2011
Implications of the Last Interim
• School Finance Study was unsuccessful
• Conservative control
• Assessment/Accountability transition plan
released by TEA
• Comptroller’s FAST Study
• Barrage of panic and worry over staffing,
performance, cost increases, and perceived
system inefficiency
Historical Context: The Budget Crisis
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use of federal revenues for current operations
State fund balances not replaced
Recession’s impact on sales tax
Structural deficit from 1996 property tax cuts
“No new revenue” policy
Initial $12 billion cut below the existing
commitment of the state
The 2012-13 State Budget: HB 1
• According to the LBB, the total ALL FUNDS
appropriations for the 2012-13 biennium is
$172.3 billion, a $15.2 billion or 8.1%
decrease, from the 2010-11 biennium.
• The General Revenue Funds appropriations for
the entire state budget is $86.9 billion for the
2012-13 biennium, a $1.6 billion or 1.9%
decrease over the last biennium.
FSP Funding (General Revenue)
• When considering just General Revenue, the
Legislature appropriated $29.2 billion for the
FSP for the 2012-13 biennium, a $1.6 billion
increase compared to 2010-11.
• However, during the last legislative session,
$3.2 billion of federal assistance (SFSF) was
used to fund the FSP. That amount is $0 for
the 2012-13 biennium.
FSP and TEA funding (All Funds)
• When looking at just the funding level for the
FSP, the 2012-13 amount totals $35.4 billion, a
$1.8 billion decrease compared to 2010-11.
• However, this amount is $4 billion below what
is required to fund 2010 formulas.
• TEA budget (all funds) was reduced by 8%:
– Staffing cap reduced from 1,038 down to 795
– Operations budget axed by over 17%
Program Cuts and Reductions
In addition to underfunding the FSP. The
Legislature made over $1.3 billion in cuts to
programs and grant funding:
1. -$271 million, Technology Allotment
2. -$223.3 million, Pre K Grant Program
3. -$269.7 million, SSI ($23.5 remains for 12-13)
4. -345.1 million, DATE ($40 remains for 12-13)
5. -$50 million, New IFA
Programs Eliminated
Other programs eliminated:
1. $35 million, Science Labs Grant
2. $20 million, Middle School PE Grants
3. $14.1 million, Optional Extended Year
4. $10 million, School Bus Seat Belt Program
5. New Round of IFA
6. Property Value Decline Protections
7. ADA Decline Protections
The Truth of the Matter
• For the first time in 60 years, the legislature failed
to finance current law
• The Foundation Programs current services state
aid was decreased by $4 billion
• Special Program financing was cut by $1.3 billion
• The total decrease was $5.3 billion when the cost
of enrollment growth, property value decline,
and other factors are taken into account
Lessons Learned
• In a financial crisis, the legislature can and will
cut public education.
• Given the choice, budget cuts for education
will be less than those for health and human
resources.
• The preferred method for reduction will be
simplistic and unrelated to needs of districts.
• Separate financing as a protection is no
defense regardless of the program need.
Additional Lessons
• In a budget crisis, programs with low levels of
public support are the first to take a hit.
– Consider the instructional materials allotment,
Reforming the Process while Reducing the Funding
– SB 6 created the IMA
– SBOE is required to set aside an amount equal to
50% of the annual distribution from the PSF and
the ASF (40% for FY ’11 and ’12)
– Each district is entitled to an annual allotment
based on previous year enrollment
IMA, continued
• TEA established an IMA account for each
district, accessible in early August
• Eligible items include instructional materials
authorized by the SBOE, items on the
Commissioner’s list, open source items, and
technology items
• Districts must certify they have the
instructional materials to cover the TEKS,
spring 2012
IMA, continued
• TEA providing SBOE with statistics on number
of districts placing orders, amount of funds
expended, etc.
– Two letters issued to districts this year
encouraging the timely use of IMA funds
– Reminder: Campus intervention teams are to
examine access to instructional materials
Accountability Update
• Final decisions associated with 2011 ratings:
– Increases in standards for “Acceptable” (math to
65% and science to 60%)
– Discontinuation of Texas Projection Measure
– Additional requirements for Exemplary and
Recognized ratings
More Accountability
• Dynamic environment
– Initial implementation of STAAR program
•
•
•
•
Increased rigor and volume of testing
Limited baseline data
Greater than normal risk of testing irregularities
Unresolved issues in many districts such as EOC score
conversions to fulfill the “15% requirement”, awarding
of credit, grade-point calculations, and class rank
More Challenges
• Future treatment of substitute scores or
retakes
• Decisions regarding “double testing” of
advanced students
• Parent notification and tracking student
progress
• Compressed timeline for summer school
• How to accommodate accelerated instruction
into schedules
More Challenges, continued
• Increased rigor and quantity of standards for
AYP (Standards in Reading and Math 100%)
• Continuation of multiple accountability
systems such as PBMAS
Future Vision
• SB 1557 – High Performance Schools Consortium
• Used to inform leadership about transforming
education in:
– Next generation standards, assessments, and
accountability
– Plans for effective and efficient accountability system
– Balance academic excellence and local values
– Attempt to reduce the number of state tests that must
be administered to students
– Includes 20 representative school districts
SB 1557, continued
• Design principles include:
– Use of digital learning and virtual courses
– High priority standards
– Use of multiple, ongoing assessments to gauge
learning
– Local control that fosters parent/community
involvement
– Two reports will go the Legislature, 2012 and 2014
Key Dates in Accountability
• December 2011 – Final AYP results released
• February 2012 – First committee meetings to
support development of new systems
• March 2012 – First indication of scale scores
needed for Satisfactory or Advanced
performances on EOC tests
• June 8, 2012 – Data files with state
assessment results received by districts
Key Dates, continued
• June 2012 – Class of 2011 completion rates
with exclusions applied for the first time
• November 2012 – Standards and update files
for STAAR grades 3-8 released; abbreviated
AEIS reports
• December 2012 – First legislative report on SB
1557
• March 2013 – Final commissioner decisions on
2013 state accountability system released
Key Dates, continued
• August 8, 2013 – Inaugural release of ratings
• November 2013 – Release of first Performance
Reports
• By August 8, 2014 – First use of the
“College/Career Ready” data to determine
ratings
• June 2015 – First 4 year cohort of students to
graduate with EOC test requirements in place
Interim Outlook for the Future
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Revenue Structure – LBB/Comp./Leg.
School Finance – Special Committee
Efficiency and Productivity – Comp./ERG/ERC
TRS and compensation – TEA/LBB/TRS
Grant programs – Special Committee
Instructional Materials – SBOE/TEA
Economic Development – Special Committee
State and Reg. structures – TEA/ Sunset
Legislative Issues and Concerns for
2013
•
•
•
•
•
Funding the state budget
Changes in leadership/membership
Redistricting
Federal Action/Election
Health Care Options
Information for this presentation was taken from
Moak, Casey and Associates and TASA
presenters at the 2011 Assessment Conference.