[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:03] Let's come to order. Thanks, everybody, for coming. Thank you for those of you that are participating on the web. As always, if you have questions, comments, please send those to us at School of Finance Commission at TEA.Texas.gov.
[0:33] your participation. As always, if you've got solutions, those are more welcome than problems.
[0:40] We know about the problems, but it's the solutions we're having trouble getting public
[0:46] ideas. Somebody out there's got some ideas how to fix everything, so please look for receiving
[0:52] those.
[0:52] Members, we've got, I guess, first thing we need to do is call a roll.
[0:56] We have a stand-in for our clerk.
[1:02] As you know, Hunter Thompson sent around seven months of minutes, and then went on vacation.
[1:09] This seems kind of like an unbearable deal.
[1:14] So, but where could we all roll?
[1:18] Here.
[1:19] We're not that hard.
[1:21] Where is it?
[1:22] Ellen.
[1:23] Here.
[1:23] Here.
[1:25] Conley Johnson.
[1:26] Here.
[1:27] Killian.
[1:28] Here.
[1:28] King.
[1:29] Martin.
[1:31] Prima.
[1:32] Here.
[1:32] Taylor.
[1:33] Here.
[1:34] Here.
[1:35] Williams.
[1:36] Here.
[1:37] All right.
[1:39] A couple of matters to take up before we get to the main program of the day.
[1:43] Okay, first is 100, seven months of minutes, I'm in form, I noticed on one of them I asked
[1:51] some, I'm sure all of you read them in detail, and notice the April 19th meeting, there was
[1:57] a fill in the blank which I'm told, has been said this morning, do I ever got it yet?
[2:03] It was an issue about what time we quit, always very important, I assume, what's that?
[2:14] Oh, and the binders. Okay, we used circular that because I don't carry this binder around so entertain a motion to approve the minutes they are bare bones.
[2:27] We've not tried to summarize everybody's testimony since we have that record.
[2:32] Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? And minutes are adopted.
[2:39] The second thing we have before we get to our main event is not that he's not a main
[2:45] event himself.
[2:47] Yes.
[2:47] Oh, thank you.
[2:49] He's right there.
[2:52] Well, that's fine.
[2:53] Okay.
[2:54] If you run across anything, obviously we can correct him later.
[2:58] There's nothing but it's not like the law of the needs and the perjions that once written
[3:03] nobody can take it back.
[3:05] I'm sure about that.
[3:06] I'm sure about that.
[3:08] I'll reconsider my motion.
[3:18] Yes, it's easy to do.
[3:22] Well, at least you guys have passage you can get in the building without going, you
[3:26] know, around the world, down the elevator, but the second thing we have is the Commissioner
[3:37] Governor of Education, Mike Murath, TA's issues there and your report just a few days
[3:43] or weeks ago and so he wanted to give us a little update of or warning or encouragement
[3:51] or whatever that's involved in so Commissioner, good to have you, thank you for being here.
[3:56] Thank you members,
[3:59] Mike Murath, Commissioner, Texas Education Agency.
[4:02] You all should have the report.
[4:03] So you should have a binder, fairly glossy for those in the audience, there's some on the back table in case you want to try to do my best, vandal white.
[4:15] What we've done is tried to publish a state of public education annual reports.
[4:20] First time that the agency has published an annual report of this nature, statutorily required to publish a biennial report on performance.
[4:27] I'm not sure if any of you have ever reviewed that, it's about this thick, very detailed.
[4:33] But the purpose here was to truly try to highlight where we are at from a current performance
[4:39] perspective, what are the major strategic initiatives that are underway, and what got us to
[4:45] this point.
[4:46] So I thought I would highlight just a couple of pages in here.
[4:50] If you look at page four of the annual report, you'll notice a bar chart that shows current
[4:57] performance indicators on a whole bunch of metrics you all have
[5:00] I've seen this in prior hearings, so I'm not going to belabor the point of the specifics. I just want to try to highlight that this is as a resource tries to synthesize the entire picture of public education, which, as you know, is a very big picture. So the page four just gives an indication of where we are from, you know, early primary kindergarten readiness, third grade reading, eighth grade reading and math. College readiness coming out of high school. College
[5:29] enrollment and post-secondary completion, which would include trade credentials as well
[5:33] as associate's and bachelor's degrees.
[5:36] And then if I could turn your attention, we'll skip all of the body and me to this.
[5:40] It is great reading.
[5:41] I would encourage you to read every word.
[5:43] I've asked my wife to do that, so I know at least one person does.
[5:49] If you turn to page 19, this sort of creates a book end for the annual report as a picture.
[5:56] So the first thing that we looked at is what are the current outcomes of the system?
[6:00] And the second thing that we're going to look at is what are the major inputs in the
[6:04] system?
[6:04] And so this is really just total spending.
[6:07] Y'all took multiple hours of testimony actually trying to delve into what is total spending
[6:11] in public education.
[6:12] So we've tried to create a synthesized picture of all in spending both on a pupil basis and
[6:19] on an overall basis.
[6:21] this, you can see there's 60 billion in total spend that occurred during the 1617 academic
[6:27] year for the five and a half million souls in Texas public schools, and then you can
[6:32] see the per capita picture, broken down by major pie slices, so there's the federal piece
[6:38] that sits atop of it, and that's driven by federal formulas and federal appropriations.
[6:43] And then the blue and the gray bars are really a function of state policy making for all
[6:50] the revenue sources that the state authorizes for local school districts, as well as central
[6:55] supports, think riders for the reading academies, for example, our budget, regular infusions
[7:02] that need to be made in order to shore up teacher compensation for the retirees.
[7:08] And so, Gray is local funding, that's primarily your property tax, blue is state funding, that's
[7:15] It's going to be, you know, predominantly sales tax, obviously, but all forms of state
[7:18] general revenue.
[7:19] And then given the interest in recapture specifically, which is treated from a state budget
[7:26] perspective as state funding, but of course comes from the locals, that's been isolated
[7:31] out individually.
[7:32] What you'll see there is that since 2013, since fiscal year 2013, there's been a steady
[7:39] per rise in per pupil funding in state and local spending in Texas.
[7:45] When we think about the biennium that we are in, and you multiply out the per pupil spending
[7:50] increases that have been authorized by the legislature with the size of the Texas student
[7:56] population, you're talking about essentially a $1 billion increase in public ed spending
[8:01] between state and local sources each year of the current biennium, which is essentially
[8:06] one billion, and then the first extra billion, plus an extra billion over top of that.
[8:11] So the current biennium, the one that we're sitting in, will have $3 billion of extra spending
[8:16] for public education as authorized by the legislature versus the biennium before it.
[8:22] So, you know, you've heard me—
[8:24] I assume those are in place and adjusted, or something like that.
[8:26] There's, well, as the, as you all know, there's, in the way the General Appropriations Act
[8:31] and the State Law works, there is a built-in, inflationary factor, and it's the tier two
[8:36] yield that's tied to Austin ISD's property values. I think that's actually a source of
[8:40] conversation today. So there's a built-in inflation factor. But these are not necessarily
[8:47] benchmarking instant inflation. If you wanted an inflation-adjusted aligned number, we
[8:53] can provide that to you. I think that's been provided before. We just didn't include
[8:56] it in the annual report because, as you all well know, information in public education
[9:00] can be overwhelming so but you know I think you all have heard me say on on many occasions
[9:09] that you know I would never say that money doesn't matter because the only people that
[9:14] I know in public education who work for free are school board members and now y'all have
[9:18] been added to that list but you know I think the question that y'all are considering as
[9:26] as a commission and in fact the recommendations that are up on the docket today, you know talk speak to is there a different way of passing out the money that is more efficient and by that for the same apples, apples total dollar spend, would it result in outcomes improvements for kids.
[9:45] That's a different conversation than whether or not there should be significant additional infusions of money for public education.
[9:51] And, of course, the legislature, the last couple of bienniums, has authorized significant
[9:56] additional infusions of resources for public education.
[10:00] The question is, is how is that money passed out? And I just really want to commend the Expenditures Group Chairman Huberty for a very thoughtful review of are there different ways to consider allocating the resources that we have that would result in outcomes improvements in public education. So excited to see the presentation today. And just very thankful for y'all's thoughtful approach.
[10:29] at, you know, regardless of what the resource pile looks like, is there a more efficient
[10:35] way of passing it out that would result in, you know, back to page 4, result in higher
[10:44] numbers on this bar chart over time.
[10:46] So I just want to thank you for your work there and appreciate the very thoughtful approach
[10:52] at putting together a very comprehensive plan that is not just another band-aid on top of
[10:57] of the system but a very comprehensive change in the way
[11:02] the school finance system could work.
[11:04] Questions?
[11:06] Senator Battencourt.
[11:08] Thank you, Chair and Mr. Chairman Morath.
[11:11] You may have come at just kind of triggered me at the very
[11:15] end of your comment.
[11:15] You said you wanted to see obviously higher numbers
[11:17] on this bar chart at the end of the day.
[11:20] As the revenue guy, I've been watching kind of a public policy
[11:25] disagreements, start to fester into a possible situation where my phone won't turn off.
[11:35] There we go.
[11:35] Kind of.
[11:37] That's right.
[11:38] Very calming ringtone.
[11:39] All right.
[11:40] You're not disturbed on that one.
[11:42] I was trying to do that before we call on it where there is a dispute between the land
[11:50] office and the SPWE and I just want to kind of run over some of the facts that I see
[11:55] at this point. We've got the school land board sending this year for the first time $600
[12:02] million to the ASF fund. And the last year it sent approximately $300 million to ASF
[12:11] fund, but additional on going from memory, $450 million. This year, a $490 million. This
[12:17] year they decided not to send money to the SPOE at all. In fact, I'm looking at a letter
[12:24] from Commissioner Bush who that I just saw this very evening or evening
[12:34] this morning and basically he is saying that he's not going to reconsider his
[12:41] vote as a member of that landlord so the practical effect as I can tell from
[12:47] this is that even though they apparently by at the sunset hearing by mother
[12:53] another question by my other colleague, Senator Watson,
[12:56] they had at least $55 more million.
[12:58] They could, a $655 million, they could ascend in total.
[13:02] They're not sending the $55 and they're bypassing SBOE.
[13:06] Now, I think the practical effect of that is,
[13:08] is less money for maybe $190 million,
[13:12] $200 million, less for instructional materials,
[13:16] for all the districts, but do you want to comment from that?
[13:20] Yeah, so in the prior biennium, I don't have my notes in front of you, but I want to say
[13:26] that the total send from GLO over to SBOE was ballpark $750 million. I might have those
[13:34] numbers slightly off, but and then this biennium, the send is 600 million. So it's a decline
[13:40] in the net amount of money sent over. And then the way the money is sent over, it can go
[13:45] either to the available school fund, which immediately goes into the ASF and all the funding
[13:49] formulas that y'all are familiar with, or it can go over into the SBOE.
[13:53] As a practical matter, what has happened when they have sent money over to the SBOE is
[13:57] the SBOE is almost universally just sent almost all of that back to the ASF with one exception.
[14:05] The SBOE can put it into the ASF or put it into the instructional materials allotment.
[14:10] And so putting all of it in the ASF means none of that money will go into the instructional
[14:14] materials allotment.
[14:15] Now, districts can only use their instructional materials allotment on instructional materials.
[14:20] They can use their M&O spending also on instructional materials.
[14:24] So, to some extent, I think we can get a little hung up on the distribution method.
[14:29] I think the big issue is the total dollars that is being distributed and it's down.
[14:32] It's down ballpark $150 million for the upcoming biennium.
[14:36] right in for the members. I've got 190. I'm just looking at a chart that
[14:44] basically was 790 million. It's going to be down to 600. It's 24% reduction or
[14:50] 190 million dollars. Now, so, you know, as the revenue guy, I, you know, do have to
[14:56] question this, and I concerned about it.
[15:00] Because, because regardless of there's obviously some type of public policy are meant, you know, underlaying it, I hope. But the net result is we're going to have less money. So I questioned this decision, you know, just right off, right at the get go of this. And I don't understand why the positions are so hard and that they're exchanging, you know, letters that one side is not going to reconsider their decision.
[15:28] And because I think everybody needs to reconsider what's best for all Texas school children.
[15:35] And because if we're going to actually take a net reduction, yet we still have billions
[15:41] of dollars of cash in one fund, we need to have a real public policy discussion and explanation
[15:46] for it.
[15:47] I don't know if there's other members want to comment on it, Mr. Chairman.
[15:50] Dr. Goh.
[15:51] Yeah, there's a couple of points I want to bring up.
[15:53] I don't want to litigate this whole thing right now.
[15:55] It's probably not the purpose of our discussion today.
[15:57] but it is definitely a multi-faceted problem that we have.
[16:01] The other point that's important to bring up is when the money goes directly to the ASF,
[16:05] that money is distributed to 41s and 42s in a different manner.
[16:10] Chapter 41s receive that money differently than Chapter 42s, and about 80% of students by
[16:17] my calculations receive money as the method of Chapter 42s will not receive an increase
[16:23] in their funding on that like Chapter 41s do.
[16:25] So there's some issues there that need to be discussed with that.
[16:29] The other issue is, there's $4 billion in cash, and I think all the legislature have talked about the economic stabilization fund and how much cash is sitting in there.
[16:38] So I think there's some different ways to look at that.
[16:41] But I'll give the Lane Commissioner credit in the fact that he is not doing anything that's not within his authority.
[16:47] I think this might be a discussion for the next legislature to discuss.
[16:50] And to that point, I would point out that Chairman Behoort's and myself are meeting with Chairman Bush this week to maybe talk through some of these issues and get to a better understanding.
[17:03] You know, I've seen both sides of the argument talk to both your chairperson and talk to the commissioner about it.
[17:09] One of the things that he recommended or that we discuss is that statutorily, they're limited to the 650 bot, right? That's what was put 600 actually.
[17:17] It's 600 right so they got the other 50 they could throw over there
[17:19] But so let's say 600 which was in early 2000s
[17:23] They're in their chief investment officers that based on the returns that they're at that, you know
[17:27] They they could comfortably, you know, it could be increased so that certainly is a statutory change
[17:34] It's it's it's it's my it's a
[17:35] Torio there's a statutory limit on the amount of money they can be sent from geolotes into the ASF
[17:40] There is no statutory limit on the amount of money they can be sent out of that
[17:43] Yes, we have.
[17:43] Right.
[17:44] So they wanted to send.
[17:45] It's 300 a year.
[17:46] They wanted to send another 190 million to ask me, we could.
[17:49] I'm sorry.
[17:49] But the question becomes, you know, we've got two different endowments, which is, I mean,
[17:53] it's philosophically.
[17:55] It's a huge debate.
[17:56] You've got about 30 billion year count.
[17:58] They've got about six.
[17:59] And, you know, it's, you know, based on the information I saw on watching the sunset hearing,
[18:05] you know, it's obviously philosophical differences on who's doing a better job on their investment policy, right?
[18:10] And I think that's what we're seeing right now, but the ultimate goal is I think for us that certainly for Senator Vettancourt, you know, we're 190 less.
[18:21] And you know, we're trying to, you know, based on this presentation, we're actually talking about putting more money into the system.
[18:26] That doesn't work when we have that kind of problem.
[18:29] So, one, I'm sorry, one minor clarification, my general counsel, the 300 million is actually a constitutional issue, not strictly statutory.
[18:38] The, the additional, the 300 million map to the ASF is in the Constitution.
[18:43] So we just constitutionally change it.
[18:44] Yeah.
[18:48] Commissioner, I think the commissioner has actually already identified some additional money.
[18:52] So you testified, was it last week, that there's going to be about 3.5 billion less in state aid, or I'm sorry,
[18:59] requirement for state aid because of the increasing property value so we do
[19:03] actually have some additional revenue. I testified last week into the way the current
[19:09] formulas were so and I think that that's definitely under discussion today as
[19:16] a and then and ensure the revenue group is a matter of tax policy as to whether you
[19:21] want this gray bar to get bigger relative to the blue bar or vice-versa. Craig
[19:25] I just wanted to call that to everyone's attention.
[19:29] And so that's Dr. Killian did call it to everybody's attention.
[19:32] I'll be happy to tell you that at least one member of the revenue group is looking
[19:37] actively at freezing Robinhood because I think we've had enough evidence of that policy
[19:46] at this point in time.
[19:48] So whether I'll cut this right with reading off Robinhood, freezing Robinhood, etc., but
[19:53] I believe that's something that we have to look at.
[19:55] If I go back to my short-term 190 million dollar problem for one more question.
[20:00] With it, I guess, you know, if you're, if you're meeting with Commissioner Bush, I think it would just be a boohoo of everybody to understand that if we've got a constitutional limit of $300 million a year, and we have the ability to send more money to the SBOE, we should, because it would take, as Chairman Newbury and Taylor know, a two-thirds vote, okay, to change that. And that may or may not have
[20:29] been in any legislative session. And importantly, at least on the revenue side, if I'm, you know,
[20:36] willing to recognize the obvious about a, you know, about a Robinhood, you know,
[20:41] weaned or freeze, I think that's important for the land office to realize and the land board
[20:47] itself, the three members that Commissioner Bush makes up, that every one of those dollars makes
[20:52] a difference. And if we get 55, that means where my Aggie Matt tells me I'm only 145 million
[20:59] in the whole, as opposed to 190 in the all, okay, well actually 135 million in all.
[21:06] So, I just hope that you would carry that message.
[21:10] That's okay.
[21:11] I would point out to the state board has set their rate of distribution already, but that
[21:16] can be changed all the way up until the legislature meets in the first week in January.
[21:21] So if the school and board does change their decision, we still have the ability to change
[21:27] the distribution rate.
[21:31] Any other questions for the commissioner?
[21:34] Yes, Mr. Williams.
[21:35] Commissioner, I just wanted to real quick,
[21:37] they just complement you for the transparency of what you've had there is.
[21:42] Senator Bettencourt and others have said, including myself that you can't know what you want to fix unless you measure it.
[21:47] And so I think the talking about outcomes in the early part in terms of where we stand,
[21:52] how much more we have to go to meet certain goals I think is a lot of Torian, so thank you for doing it.
[21:57] Thank you, sir.
[21:57] Chair.
[21:58] Thank you, Commissioner.
[22:02] So now we'll come to the main meeting of today's meeting, which is consider recommendation
[22:06] report from the expenditures working group.
[22:11] Let me make two comments before I turn it over to Chairman Huberty to present the working
[22:17] groups report.
[22:19] One is, as before, with the outcomes group, our plan is not to vote on this today.
[22:24] To me the most frustrating thing about this process coming into it as an outsider with not much experience is the difficulty in getting those who have proposals and many of them good programs of how to spend money have no idea where it should come from
[22:44] If you recall at the public hearing, I asked everybody where we want to hear your good ideas of what you think the school is going to do better, where we think we, school finance could be better, but please give us ideas on where the money is going to, who do we take it from to fight it?
[23:05] And we got none of those.
[23:06] And the same thing on our other main target for the commission, our other main task is to look at property taxes and property tax relief, the Robin Hood issues that Senator Betencourt's mentioned, and we had some very persuasive testimony about the difficulty that's causing for businesses, for low income folks who can't afford to live in Austin anymore because of property taxes, et cetera.
[23:35] And again, we ask them, so if we lower property tax, where do we make it up from and got no ideas?
[23:42] So the difficult deal is where, what we do with the funding.
[23:50] Now, in the bottom line of adding funds overall to the budget is not our call.
[23:56] Because we don't have the expertise and we don't have the people, we don't have in our hearings.
[24:02] We haven't had anybody come in who's lost their house or the neighborhood in Hurricane Harvey.
[24:07] We don't have any low-income folks come in whose children will suffer severe health problems
[24:13] if they don't, if Medicaid funding is cut, or they lose access to public housing or other things
[24:20] in the universities.
[24:21] Everybody else, all the other charges on the state budget, we haven't heard from one people
[24:27] And of course, one group, and of course, if you heard just advocates on public education,
[24:31] they're going to say increase that, but the question is, what does everybody else say about that,
[24:36] who has claims on the state budget treasury? So, to me, that's an issue, some to the commission,
[24:42] but to me, that's an issue where we can't make the final decision for that, because we just don't
[24:48] have the facts. We haven't heard from everybody that could potentially affect. But so the, just as a
[24:56] a general broad overview before I turn over to Chairman Hubert E.
[25:02] My personal goal, what I wanted to see, and I think we accomplished that in the expense years
[25:07] working group, is number one, to come up with a list of a menu of options. These are ways
[25:15] in actually very close parallel to the outcomes groups, working groups, suggestions. These are
[25:24] particular programs that have proven ability to move the bottom line. If you step back from the
[25:32] program, one can find every program in the state, every dollar expanded, that might be done better,
[25:38] that might, if we had a little more, do better outcomes for this or that, location or group of students.
[25:44] But the big picture problem is we have a huge number of economically disadvantaged and
[25:52] and English is a second language students who we are failing.
[25:56] They are, as we've heard, testimonies from lots of people,
[25:59] they're not getting out of schools able to read at grade level,
[26:03] or do the kind of work that are the kind of jobs
[26:07] that are the future of the Texas economy.
[26:10] And that's the big picture.
[26:11] And that's hundreds of thousands, if not millions of students.
[26:15] And we have to keep in mind that big picture.
[26:18] What can we do to close on the biggest,
[26:20] You've got a bunch of holes in the diet, they're all important, but some are more life threatening than others.
[26:27] And so, number one, we've tried to prioritize that, say, these are the things we think that it work,
[26:33] and do the most for the most students, the greatest benefit overall.
[26:37] And then second, to also suggest some ways where we can match up current funds that we're currently coming in
[26:44] and being allocated according to one system of parameters could more closely fit to achieving
[26:50] the goals we want to fit.
[26:52] And we'll go into some detail of those, but obviously we've had a lot of discussion
[26:57] that some of our funding formulas are based on figures that are 20, 30 years old or are
[27:04] being used as a substitute for what we really think the money should be spent on.
[27:11] And sometimes, if there's ways we could shift funds from one to the other, not saying against not our call to decide whether there's going to be no more money, the idea is if there were no more money, could we do what we're doing properly and better?
[27:28] And we've heard a lot of wonderful ideas from people who are making those things happen currently.
[27:34] Again, that's not just, say, make a decision on the bigger picture for the legislature,
[27:39] but to see where there are some ways to shift rent.
[27:42] As with all of those things, all of those programs, shifting money from one group to another.
[27:49] Whether it's in the expenditures program, from this program of allocation to that,
[27:56] there are going to be some that don't get as much money as they used to get.
[28:00] whether it's shifting money by raising sales taxes or lowering property taxes.
[28:06] All of those you've taken, somebody's not going to be happy because their tax bill,
[28:12] their school budget, whatever goes up or down.
[28:16] But the question I want us to keep in mind and I know all the members of the commission understand this.
[28:22] The big problem, that's the thing we could do the most on.
[28:26] But if we could look at the big problem of the students who are not getting out of the system with any kind of hope of being successful in the future economy of the state, anything we can do on that is something we ought to prioritize.
[28:41] Any other comments before I turn it over to?
[28:44] Yes, Dr. Ellis.
[28:46] I would like to point out, really ask a question, and I agree that it's not our final call to decide what the revenue piece is going to be when the state legislature meets.
[28:55] We've discussed a lot of things, but we have three tasks to do.
[28:58] And one of those tasks is to set an appropriate level of local maintenance and
[29:02] INS for a public school finance system.
[29:04] So even though we don't have the final call, or the final say of what the appropriate level
[29:08] of funding should be, it is our task, it's one of our three tasks to set a vision of what
[29:13] we feel it should be.
[29:14] So my question is, we have literally about three months left before reporters do a key
[29:19] piece of that's going to be what the revenue group comes back with.
[29:22] Do we have a timeline from when we're going to hear from that group?
[29:26] Yes, it will be done by December 31st.
[29:29] And we all try to ask when the coach turns into a pumpkin again.
[29:34] And I understand that.
[29:36] The obvious problem is my personal perspective.
[29:40] It's easy to hear from what we've heard from the ad because of different problems.
[29:43] It's easy to see which ones as Todd Williams groups have done.
[29:47] Which ones would move the name of the month?
[29:49] That's pretty straightforward.
[29:50] If kids can't read by the third grade, they're going to fall farther and farther behind.
[29:56] There are lots of people, you know, the kids that...
[30:00] It goes up from Central America or wherever in seventh grade and can't read and can't do math and doesn't know English. Don't they need resources? Should they be left behind? No, I shouldn't be left behind. But that's not the biggest problem we have, and we're not going to be able to fix every — this is a public, free system.
[30:21] But we're not going to be able to fix everything in a free system just because they're catching
[30:30] every child up and making sending every child to Princeton is going to cost more than we
[30:38] have money in the state.
[30:39] So I think the plan is, I know Senator Benton-Courts is working on this, but the plan is to have
[30:44] a report from them, but I would just warn the commission of members, we're going to have
[30:48] to have probably a half dozen meetings in November and December to put it all together.
[30:53] Sorry about that.
[30:55] My personal preference is maybe some of you all can explain this to me.
[31:00] All of the Christmas stuff around holidays and parties and it's all in the first 10 days
[31:06] of December.
[31:08] And then it's like Christmas is over from the 10th to the 25th, nothing happens because people
[31:13] going to vacation or whatever but you know we're probably going to have some not
[31:17] Christmas Eve hopefully Christmas on the Tuesday this year but we're going to
[31:21] be having some December meetings and that's where the real rubber is going to
[31:26] meet the road where we're going to have to make some adjustments between what we've
[31:31] got and what we want to do so that's best I can tell you and of course it's
[31:36] also true between now and the first week of November some of our people are
[31:41] trying to preserve their careers, their own ballot, some of the staff people, I mean there's
[31:47] an election ongoing. And you know, we've got to take that into account. But we are going
[31:54] to end up more back in meetings than I thought we were going to have originally. But it's just
[32:00] a matter of also the fact that the revenues picture changes all the time. And so whether
[32:10] that it's going to be extra money in the economy,
[32:14] whether taxes are going to go up,
[32:16] whether we're going to get internet sales taxes
[32:19] because of the wayfare decision,
[32:21] all of that's kind of up in here.
[32:23] I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer.
[32:25] No, I just hope that we can get the revenue piece back
[32:28] and I don't know Senator Benton Court
[32:30] what our time frame is,
[32:31] but there's a lot of work to do after that point.
[32:34] And I understand we have elections,
[32:35] but we also have a pretty big task in hand
[32:37] that we've got to do also.
[32:39] Mr. Chairman.
[32:41] Let's do Senator Weston and Ms. Conley Johnson.
[32:43] In terms of the December schedule, it would be great to kind of start thinking about what that's going to look like.
[32:48] So we can plan for what those dates are.
[32:52] Yeah, I will pressure Hunter Wally's own vacations since he has nothing to do to start eating those dates.
[33:02] I'm sure he's listening.
[33:03] Right.
[33:04] Okay.
[33:07] I just want to echo what Dr. Killian brought up the fact that we were sort of looking at
[33:13] this as sort of endeavor to sort of establish sort of the right split between state and local
[33:18] share, smooth out some of the overburdened that local property taxpayers were experiencing.
[33:23] But at the same time, addressing some of the adequacy issues that school districts with
[33:28] sort of outdatedness of the current school funding formulas, while we've made progress on
[33:33] On the equity side, we continue to get Ds and Fs in terms of rating in terms of state
[33:37] funding for public education.
[33:39] And so that goes is point squarely on how much revenue is in the pot to distribute.
[33:46] And while we've made, we've got some good recommendations on the table to sort of determine how we want
[33:51] to allocate those monies, we do need to have a strong conversation on the revenue side.
[33:57] I have advanced some potential options to
[34:02] sit in court about where we could possibly start
[34:05] as options for us to start looking at.
[34:09] And I'm glad to hear you say that there's a possibility
[34:11] of looking at diversification across the board
[34:14] in terms of potential revenue sources.
[34:17] But to the extent that we can have the transparent
[34:19] and open discussions about options,
[34:23] I'm confident that the public and their groups
[34:26] that could present opportunities and options that this commission could consider in terms of creating availability to explore potential revenue sources for us to build on and to encourage and strengthen what's here from outcomes and expenditure working group to deepen our goal towards establishing adequacy in the funding formula.
[34:51] So, to the extent that we can get some meetings on the deck and some opportunities to present
[34:57] to the public, both the-
[35:00] The options that I've presented to Senator Benton-Court, I'm pretty confident that there are other groups that have potential revenue options that we can consider as well. So I strongly encourage us to be transparent about those next meetings. Anything else for I turn it over, Chairman. It's all yours. Thank you.
[35:20] In front of you is the package that we've prepared, talks about the expenditure work of
[35:26] recommendation.
[35:26] First of all, let me just kind of go through what we're going to talk about a little
[35:30] bit.
[35:30] I'll tell you about obviously the members are, but we're going to talk about recommendations,
[35:33] reallocations and savings, recommendations that would change the existing allotments and
[35:38] recommendations would be new allotments and programs and then we have some additional recommendations.
[35:42] Just want to thank the work group that consisted of Justice Prister, Dr. Ellis, Senator Taylor
[35:48] and Senator West, and of course myself, it was a good thorough discussion.
[35:55] We'd met for more than more than 50 hours, you know, talking about these different things
[36:02] through a variety of public meetings in our work group sessions.
[36:05] We had 24 witnesses over nine meetings that we've had since this started, and we're prepared
[36:12] to present 22 recommendations to the full commission.
[36:16] our goals really were strategically to reallocate funding from outdated
[36:20] allotments to new priorities, streamline the existing formulas and drive more
[36:24] funding to high-need students. So those were ultimately our goals. So if you'll
[36:31] go to page six of your presentation, we'll start with our first recommendation.
[36:37] And be happy to pause and answer questions about the thought processes we went
[36:41] forward and then hopefully any work group members could insert their their
[36:44] views of this as well.
[36:45] And again, we did take a vote on this, so we had many different ideas, but we did go
[36:51] through this process and go through this.
[36:53] So let me talk about the first one, reallocating the CEI funds.
[36:58] And let me give you the background, the rationale, and what we believe the savings would be.
[37:02] And again, it's not savings to the state, it's just reallocating these resources.
[37:06] The CEI was created in 1984, last updated in 1991, provides an adjustment for the cost
[37:12] of educating students in the district's particular region, the state ranging from 1.02 to 1.20.
[37:19] The rationale for eliminating and reallocating these funds is that the adjustments are no
[37:24] longer based on just regional costs that were adopted almost 30 years ago.
[37:28] I think everybody would be safe to say that when it was adopted 30 years ago, the costs
[37:32] of living in Austin, Texas was much different than it is today.
[37:35] Same goes with, you know, humble Texas or any of these other places that are having these
[37:42] So what we're talking about is now existing statutory process that was intended to update the adjustments have not been utilized.
[37:49] It's required by LVB to do this and do these updates that have not been updated.
[37:54] And our view of this is that this would be money that could be reallocated into the high needs students that we're talking about.
[37:59] We've estimated the amount of money to be $2.9 billion.
[38:03] dollars. What I want to be very clear about is that we looked at this as a work group and
[38:09] we created a stream of revenue on this side and then we looked at some of the recommendations
[38:14] that would then repurpose those resources. Some additional money that would go into
[38:19] it but ultimately the goal is that the additional funds would then flow into the basic
[38:24] lot is what we were talking about trying to solve some of those problems. And I think we
[38:28] I don't know that if we fix the basic allotment, all ships rise.
[38:32] It helps recapture districts, it helps 42s, it helps your cheer to funding, it helps
[38:36] everything as we continue to move forward.
[38:39] So that is our first recommendation.
[38:41] Questions?
[38:43] Dr. Ellis?
[38:43] Yeah, this is not specific to just this one recommendation, but I think it's very important
[38:48] to note that all of these fit together as an entirety.
[38:53] You could take anyone by itself and discuss it on its marriage, but for the whole package to work these all fit together.
[39:01] And when you do these as a whole and you bring up the basic allotment, I think that's a key point for a member.
[39:06] We're not looking at these individually, but it's a whole package script.
[39:10] So I just wanted to say, Chairman, thank you for recognizing that basic allotment being the best way to lift us all up.
[39:15] because that was my biggest question over all these, if we were going to go ahead and put stuff into the basic allotment, I think that takes care of our inflationary needs.
[39:22] Thank you.
[39:24] The thing that impressed me, I think it's actually a home commission, not just the working group.
[39:29] If you look just to put two things about looking, we're going to find you on what it calls to have education to educate in this community.
[39:37] And one of our witnesses pointed out, it's expensive to attract teachers and to live.
[39:45] in Vale, Colorado, or Aspen, Colorado, I mean it's just expensive, it's expensive place to live, but that's not the place we really need to be spending the money on.
[39:55] So the idea is not, it's also expensive to live in Austin, in our big cities, Austin, downtown.
[40:00] The idea is not to switch money, because those are places where the highest need kids are. But the question is, is the best way to target money that way on how much it calls to educate people there versus where the needs are? And it's our opinion that was where the needs are. The second thing is, it's, this is, I won't spend that much time on my pet peeve about too many districts, but there are too many districts in Texas.
[40:29] is nobody would ever do it this way.
[40:31] And the problem is, if one of the factors is,
[40:34] what are salaries of other teachers in the range?
[40:36] What you basically do is you tend to equalize salaries
[40:39] in all the school districts.
[40:41] And what has happened, not this is not a Texas-specific thing
[40:44] complaint, this is a national problem.
[40:46] If the salaries are all basically the same
[40:49] and your choices between teaching at the suburban school
[40:52] where it's nice facilities and the kids are well prepared
[40:56] and are easy to teach person and so you have a drain of some of your best teachers to the best schools.
[41:04] It's just natural and part of the Dallas model is what we need to do is be giving teachers a different salary
[41:14] to come into the tiny school because the teachers are what's going to make the difference.
[41:18] So we need to have it be enough of a difference to where we attract them and to some degree then the CEI operates against that.
[41:26] Any other questions or miscarriage items?
[41:31] So thank you.
[41:32] I certainly understand all the rationale for eliminating the CI and rolling it into
[41:36] the basic allotment.
[41:38] I can certainly, you know, I definitely recognize the fact that why the decision was made.
[41:45] I do want to offer that at some point down the road, if we do take up on a deep cost study
[41:52] about the sort of the regional differences in the cost of providing education to account
[41:59] for variability because obviously if there is a differential in cost, I certainly wouldn't
[42:05] want districts like Austin or Dallas to not be able to hire teachers or not or to operate
[42:12] with the assumption that teachers can't live in the communities they serve.
[42:16] And so I worry about sort of down the road, the effects that this could possibly have and so to the extent that we have some sufficient cost studies over time, we might want to consider accounting for variability later.
[42:34] But I certainly understand why the expenditure committee is making this recommendation at this time.
[42:41] Questions, comments? Senator Webb.
[42:45] My,
[42:48] I won't say reticent, because I was reticent at all.
[42:50] I wanted to make certain that we took this and reallocated these funds.
[42:55] If we're not going to use the CEI, if we're not going to fund the CEI,
[42:58] if every session we come back and sit and complain about the CEI,
[43:01] and we're not doing anything with it, we might as well get rid of it
[43:04] and put it into the base of the lot.
[43:06] Which I think pretty much all of us can agree to.
[43:09] And again, that's going to be, as you see, recurring theme for the recommendations that we have.
[43:15] There are variations in costs, but it's not the political will to acknowledge those and fund those that state taxes.
[43:26] Right.
[43:26] We were thinking very much alike there, Senator.
[43:29] Thank you for that.
[43:31] So let's move on to the second recommendation and reallocate chapter 41, Hold Harmless Funds.
[43:36] It's created in 1993, provide Holton Hardenless funding for three years after recapture winter
[43:41] to effect.
[43:42] It was extended twice and then was made permanent in 1999, currently impacts only 40 districts.
[43:48] The rationale was because this was created as a temporary provision 25 years ago and was
[43:53] intended to help districts avoid drastic budget cuts and years immediately following the
[43:57] establishment of the recapture system.
[43:59] I know that not only myself, but when Chairman Hockberg was in the legislature, he's tried
[44:06] to eliminate it. I tried to eliminate it. Again, it pets 40 districts. It's $30 million.
[44:11] We believe that those funds could be redistributed appropriately and used for additional programs.
[44:18] Questions, comments?
[44:24] Recommendation number three. Reallocate to chapter 41, early agreement credit funds.
[44:29] This was created in 1995. It provides a credit against recapture amounts for districts that
[44:34] submit an agreement to purchase a tenant credit by September 1st. The rationale is this
[44:39] This is not a discount for early payments of recapture amounts, so there is no benefit
[44:43] to the state.
[44:44] I want to be clear on this.
[44:46] The school districts do not send us their money as a discount so that we get the cash
[44:50] flow.
[44:50] They're just telling us that they're going to send us the money.
[44:55] Currently 100% of the districts choose to purchase the tenant credits in order to reduce
[44:59] industry.
[45:00] It was well-level, and almost all these districts submit their agreements by September 1st, the annual savings is $50 million.
[45:08] You know, if you think about it from a business perspective, we give net 10 days, meaning you pay your bill and 10 days, not, you know, 180 days later. And that's ultimately what this do.
[45:19] Questions?
[45:21] Well, yeah, I said, you know, if you give people the discount that doesn't cost them anything, everybody will take it. That's what's happened.
[45:34] Well, again, these are monies that are going to be reappropriated into other programs.
[45:39] So certain districts are getting certain benefits and we're looking at all these.
[45:45] Recommendation number four, reallocate the gifted and talented allotment funds.
[45:49] Background on this was created in 1984 and last updated in 1991.
[45:55] Funding is limited to 5% of a district's ADA.
[45:58] And the rationale was, because virtually all districts currently received the maximum
[46:03] funding allowed under this allotment, so the 5% of the ADA.
[46:06] So the same result could be accomplished by distributing these funds through the basic
[46:11] allotment.
[46:12] Statutory requirements regarding educational programs for gifted and talented students will remain
[46:17] an effect.
[46:18] So we're not telling people that they still have to have the gifted and talented programs.
[46:23] What we're saying is that we're going to take these dollars and put them into the program
[46:26] and eliminate the strings so that school districts have the ability to properly allocate their funding.
[46:33] We're not, you know, we'll be able to pay attention to where this is.
[46:36] But again, this is just a long time thing that's been happening.
[46:40] I know we've seen some questions that have come in.
[46:43] I know Mr. Williams, you sent me one, and I've read them.
[46:46] Annual savings is $165 million.
[46:49] Mr. Chairman.
[46:50] Yes, I know that.
[46:51] So let's just make certain that the media gets this right.
[46:54] okay? We're not doing away with get to intelligent programs in the state of
[47:01] Texas. We're recommending that the funding for those particular programs go
[47:06] into the basic allotment and allow school districts do the same thing. We're
[47:11] not changing the statutory requirements or anything associated with the program.
[47:15] So let's make certain we get that right. So I just have one comment I
[47:21] I understand what you're trying to do there, but so here's what I see, 10 years
[47:25] from now I'm going to come to you and testify and say that you have a bunch of
[47:29] GT unfunded mandates because it's thrown into the basic a lot and then which is
[47:33] supposed to be for the basic educational program. So someone's going to in the
[47:38] future say that you're asking us to do all these things for GT yet there's not a
[47:42] set aside for GT. And my argument to you would be is that it's amazing when you look
[47:49] Look at the number of students that are identified as gifted and talented.
[47:52] That's just about five percent.
[47:55] So what that says to me is the students that really should qualify because then maybe the
[48:01] number is 9 percent or it's 8 percent or it's 7 percent or 10 percent.
[48:04] It's 7.7.7.7.8.
[48:07] Thank you.
[48:07] But we're only identifying at 5 percent which says that we're under identifying by 2.5 percent
[48:14] to 2.8 percent.
[48:15] which that says to me that the school, even though we have statutorily required the
[48:20] school districts to provide these programs they're not. So I guess Larry Senator Taylor,
[48:26] I think you say it best, right, we've equally spread already.
[48:30] So what I would say about that is if you put into the basic allotment again, that fund is supposed
[48:35] to be for providing a basic education in the state of Texas. So GT's over and above that,
[48:42] We're supposed to do something extra so if you don't include more money in there
[48:46] Then we can't address the extra two percent. Well, I would I would argue that I would argue that as we get later in the
[48:52] Presentation we start talking about tier two funding and specifically related to that was one of the recommendations as we look at
[48:58] What that that current funding is and you know right now it's you know tied to
[49:03] Austin ISD
[49:04] We need to holistically look at all those things
[49:08] And I think that if you put it into my view, if you put it into the basic
[49:11] lot, then again, it's going to rise all the ships. It's going to help
[49:14] recapture. It helps everybody along the way. And candidly, it's, you know, just
[49:20] data that we're putting into the team system. We're collecting data and, you know,
[49:23] just for the purposes of collecting it. And, you know, let school districts be
[49:27] independent. That's really what the goal is here. I believe. But I understand Dr.
[49:31] Kelly and I just want to start that. Yeah, and also point out as a former school board member
[49:36] We're also that, you know, just because districts are receiving funding for 5% doesn't mean
[49:40] that's all that they're serving.
[49:41] My district on the serve a bigger number than 5%.
[49:44] So I don't want to get the idea that the districts are only doing the bare minimum when
[49:47] they're doing more.
[49:48] But my question is, maybe some agency staff can answer, what are the exact statutory requirements
[49:53] for serving, gifted and talented students, is that very well outlined, delineated, is that
[49:59] I don't know, I don't know.
[50:00] A gray area?
[50:06] Who wants to stand in front of that train?
[50:15] Von Byer, General Counsel, Text Education Agency.
[50:19] We will look at the chief school finance officer. Text Education Agency. So the, yeah, so in chapter 29 of the education code, you have a sub-chapter that goes through the requirements for gifted and talented, I believe, I'm just trying to find the reference.
[50:42] Is that however nice Mr. Chairman that somebody actually still reads a book in the 21st century?
[50:49] Yeah so in 40 you have the allotment in chapter 42 and then you have the program requirements.
[50:58] I believe in chapter 29.
[51:10] There you go, sub chapter D.
[51:11] education programs for gifted and talented. So the way that reads is I believe the
[51:18] state board establishes criteria and in each school district required to
[51:25] identify process for identifying the kids.
[51:30] And the TA also puts out administrative
[51:33] code and TAC so we have rules that further expand on that. But recollection was
[51:41] because you don't audit to find out if school districts actually spend X dollars on gifted
[51:48] talent.
[51:51] So I do have staff that are, that as part of their compliance work, they do look at
[51:57] the, what's called special, special allowment monitoring.
[52:00] So for each of the special programs in chapter 42, they are looking at a, on the three-year
[52:06] average, what districts are currently spending each, in each of those programs to make sure
[52:10] that they're hitting the minimum percentages.
[52:12] So the percentages that are established either in statute
[52:15] or by rule, I do have standard rules.
[52:18] What does that consist of?
[52:20] You just ask them how much are you spending on gift
[52:21] and talent in?
[52:22] So we pull the financial as reported
[52:25] through our financial assessment teams.
[52:27] So it's whatever they report to us.
[52:29] So whatever they tell you on gift and talent in,
[52:32] yes, that's what we assume they're doing.
[52:34] And is it true that most districts do or do not?
[52:37] There was some testimony that a lot
[52:39] districts spend substantially more than the allotment on gift and talent at AP
[52:44] courses that kind of thing. Is that the case or not? That's my recollection when I
[52:49] looked at this back back in May that that spending was a little tired. I know it's
[52:52] also reflected to somebody said you can give salaries and stipends to teachers but
[52:57] only if they teach only gift and talent students. I would need to go back I don't have all the rules
[53:03] I may be wrong, but somebody says I wrote it down, but I understand the concern parents that want to see their kids served, whether economically disadvantaged or not, want to seem challenged, and there's a lot of, we did her, here's some testimony from folks that if, if there's, if it, if it's a generic class, some of the students that are not being challenged,
[53:32] will not perform, because they not being required to perform.
[53:38] Is there, and I understand the concern about unfunded mandates, you know, if we say, look, you've got to do, isn't that the other?
[53:45] So the question is, is there a way, if it's put in the basic allotment, we can make those students aren't cheated for a lack of a better word, where we take money from them and spend money on somebody else through requirements or, but again,
[54:01] And I'm personally not convinced that school districts would have or schools or principals
[54:11] would have any incentive to shortchange their best students since one of the big metrics
[54:18] they're tested on and they get an A through an F is how many students are at or above
[54:25] of grade level, and they have no reason to drive off students who will help drag those
[54:31] courses up.
[54:32] None at all to have those parents beat dissatisfied, but I guess my question is, is there a way
[54:40] to assure, and we've all gotten a bunch of emails in the last few days, don't take away gifted
[54:46] and tempted a lot, but I understand not wanting to see the programs that benefit their students
[54:51] cut back, is there a way that can be assured?
[54:54] if the monies are basically shifted from one pocket to another that the pocket
[54:58] won't for some
[55:00] In some region, exclude gifted entitlement. Chairman, you could wait it, you could wait it in the funding system. So, um, instead of having outside allotment, you just have them just like every other, uh, kid, you'd have an extra wait because there's additional costs. That's what the fear is. If you throw it into the allotment, then, then it's just in the allotment. If the allotment doesn't move for a couple years, then in essence, we've cut out the GT allotment. And we don't have funding to actually do the courses.
[55:28] And it's not just AP, it's also the GT courses and the certification and all the additional requirements that we have at the elementary levels.
[55:36] So that's the question for COVID, is there any specific benefit costs on this issue that we can look at to see.
[55:56] If we look at, is there going to be an expense reduction, because we're not having the lit?
[56:04] There's some positive angle of taking out the dedicated 5% or are we getting a net additional
[56:12] administrative cost reduction, because obviously if you look at a cost benefit program in this
[56:17] area, this is the high-talented crew regardless of what school you're in.
[56:23] So I'm trying to see what we're getting for eliminating the class because I
[56:29] do agree with Dr. Killian eventually over time you will end up with having a
[56:35] effectively the perception of an unfunded mandate if the statute stay on the
[56:39] books and there's no dedicated funding stream. So are we gaining administrative or
[56:44] we gaining more flexibility? You know I'd like to hear from Melissa maybe on whether
[56:49] They're not that, if there's a teacher view of this,
[56:53] because if they were getting salaries and stipends,
[56:55] are they not now going to get them?
[56:58] I'm just curious about the cost benefit program, Chairman.
[57:02] Well, I'll be happy to give the philosophy again.
[57:06] And I think Senator West said it best
[57:08] is that the testimony that we've heard when we're talking
[57:12] about these, and again, we're going to get your recommendations
[57:14] about where we're moving money, too.
[57:17] So, I want us to be very clear on that, outcomes, things of that nature that we're focused on.
[57:23] You know, over my career and I know many of you, I've taken some pretty tough political positions that I believe are important
[57:32] and I believe this is something if we're going to change the system.
[57:35] We can't just change, well we have this group of people that want this dedicated for this, so we can't touch that.
[57:42] But the goal is to take it and put it in the basic allotment to rise the ships.
[57:46] Now if we want to talk about a wait, we could do it.
[57:49] It's probably a point one, two wait or somewhere in that range of it.
[57:52] But again, we've capped it at 5%.
[57:57] So everybody's getting the same amount of money.
[58:00] That's what we're talking about.
[58:01] And then it becomes up to the legislature to make sure that it's adjusting the basic allotment
[58:06] as we continue to go forward and look at those things and study those programs as we go forward.
[58:11] I think that, you know, as we continue, we can get some more research for the next meeting.
[58:16] As we can talk about it, we decide we want to make this vote.
[58:19] But ultimately, I think, you know, the men and women that are going to have to vote on this
[58:24] are going to adhere from all of the people within these programs and we'll have to make some decisions
[58:29] if they think this is the right thing to do.
[58:31] But I want to be clear is that if you pull that out, it's $165 million less than, you know,
[58:37] of them would be going into the system,
[58:39] into the basic alignment, which helps everybody.
[58:42] But again, we're going to get into the other things
[58:44] that we're talking about, recommendations,
[58:46] like compend weights and things of that nature
[58:48] and breathing program.
[58:49] Mr. Williams has a question on his way.
[58:51] Let's go ahead.
[58:53] I think the only thing I guess I would like to look at
[58:56] before next meeting is just gift it in talented identification
[59:01] by income, by race, by district, trying to understand,
[59:05] And because I think what I'm hearing from the emails I'm getting is the risk that
[59:10] they're we're going to start under identifying kids because it's going to cost money and
[59:13] we're going to try to look for savings.
[59:15] And I just tend to believe in the mantra that the talent is distributed equally and opportunity
[59:21] is not.
[59:22] And I think we've got to make sure that if we're going to do this and I understand all the
[59:25] reasons for why we want to do it, that this is really tracked over time.
[59:29] Because if we start seeing this 7.8% go down over time, particularly for certain populations,
[59:34] I think what you're fearful of is going to actually happen.
[59:38] That's right.
[59:39] I think also one final thing, I think if we actually do the incentives, I think that helps counterbalance that because you're trying to hit goals and that's going to create some additional revenue for the district.
[59:49] I concur with Mr. Williams.
[59:51] There's got to be a way to bring work with the agency to make certain that the identification, we can't observe for anything somehow, I guess the PM system or whatever.
[1:00:00] We should still be able to do the same thing and make certain that we don't have those unfunded mandates.
[1:00:10] You're right, okay.
[1:00:11] But we don't use the standard mandate in the future, as we're listening to what it is.
[1:00:19] Any other comments or questions?
[1:00:22] Chairman, if I could finish the question, that was really originally asked.
[1:00:29] Member Ellis, the State Board of Education actually adopts a state plan for the education
[1:00:35] gifted and talented students.
[1:00:37] I don't have that off my memory, but that's something we could get him provide to the committee.
[1:00:43] Thank you.
[1:00:44] Thank you.
[1:00:47] Liam, I'm going to have you stay there for one minute.
[1:00:49] I'm going to cover the first one then once we will talk about property values in a second.
[1:00:53] So recommendation number five, reallocate the high school allotment funds.
[1:00:57] The background in this was created in 2006 and amended in 2009.
[1:01:01] It provides $275 for every student in ADA in grades 9 through 12.
[1:01:07] rationale was these funds were originally intended for programs to decrease dropouts and increase
[1:01:12] college readiness.
[1:01:13] However, because this a lot and is distributed on ADA, these funds are not necessarily flowing to the students that need them the most.
[1:01:21] We believe this goal is better accomplished through other lovments such as compensatory education or career in technology.
[1:01:28] The annual savings from this is $400 million a year.
[1:01:33] Again, this would be monies that would go through weights or basic allotment, again helping everybody.
[1:01:38] helping everybody, and I know that I had conversations with members like Chairman Otto when he was here, when they voted in that, and I know Senator Taylor, you were there as well.
[1:01:50] When it was done, it was when the changes were done relative to the school finance system in the formulas, and in 2009 it was when the additional funding came in, the federal dollars that came in, and that was some of the allocation that was done at that particular time.
[1:02:05] Just a quick question.
[1:02:07] Does this have the allotments that get reinvested back into the B.A. or some other way?
[1:02:14] Are the spending requirements still going to remain for tracking purposes, especially
[1:02:21] for the high school allotment because this one has sort of specialized sort of spending
[1:02:27] requirements and depending upon who you ask, you get different answers in terms of what
[1:02:32] that the requirements are?
[1:02:33] The goal really is in order to accomplish our 60 by 30 plan is to create the career and
[1:02:40] college readiness program, which this has nothing to do with.
[1:02:44] It was just a check the box in what we determined.
[1:02:48] And so as we get into the additional right, the new recommendations,
[1:02:52] I think you'll see, especially when we deal with defense story education,
[1:02:56] putting money where it's needed most.
[1:02:58] The overall outcomes.
[1:02:59] Absolutely, yes.
[1:03:01] If I can, Mr. Chairman.
[1:03:03] You know, Wisconsin makes a good point, though, because when we're doing this, we need to
[1:03:07] keep track of administrative reduction, okay, fair and muted, especially, because that's
[1:03:14] really the other comment about the GT scenario, becoming about the high school alignment.
[1:03:18] There's got to be some inherent costs there that were picking up on by getting rid of that,
[1:03:23] which is good to know, but because they are, you know, the one thing that I've seen from
[1:03:29] all these hearings is the tremendous regulation burden that public schools operate under and that's
[1:03:35] got to have a corresponding cost.
[1:03:43] I don't want to belabor the GT thing but it's just another thought
[1:03:46] to you know we were under this 8.5% cap basically on sped that was out there. I just don't want to see
[1:03:53] us get into a position two where now we've got we're under identifying GT kids so just saying that
[1:03:58] But I understand about high school law of it.
[1:04:04] Okay.
[1:04:06] Another question?
[1:04:07] Okay. Recommendation number six.
[1:04:10] Move from prior year property values to current year property values.
[1:04:13] Background in this is prior year property values are currently used in
[1:04:16] wealth per student calculations within the school finance system.
[1:04:20] This creates a lag within the system so it does not properly reflect local text revenues.
[1:04:26] The rationale was the current near values would be more indicative of the rising property value growth across the state and provide a more accurate picture of the needs of Texas schools.
[1:04:35] District cash flows would not be affected, fiscal 20 savings is $1.8 billion and I have Leo here in front of us.
[1:04:42] Talk a little bit about because we did hear testimony on this.
[1:04:47] This impacts recapture districts and impacts everybody as we look at this if you could just talk about it.
[1:04:55] It's kind of a one-time pickup for us as we think about it that way, right?
[1:04:58] Yes, sir.
[1:04:58] So right now when
[1:05:00] And the school finance system recaptured to one, two, or two, all uses prior to your property values. So the implications of that is if you're a district where you have declining property values, or if your value growth has slowed when compared to the year before, then there's a cap and funding is created to where the state thinks you have a certain level of local tax collections and the district doesn't. And then, conversely, if you're in a district where the property values are growing at a rapid pace, the amount of your growth,
[1:05:29] that extra tax collections the state system does not recognize and so essentially you have
[1:05:34] districts being funded under or over with the formula would otherwise dictate. So moving
[1:05:41] to current your values we put everyone tree all school districts in the same manner and so
[1:05:46] you would mitigate the year-to-year reductions if you had a certain tax payer protest or mineral
[1:05:54] and gas, you know, so it would smooth that up and down and the districts that are in situations of declining values would not have to wait a year for the state system to catch up.
[1:06:05] And then in addition, it does provide about $1.8 billion in immediate savings to the state that can then be distributed for other purposes.
[1:06:12] And on average, you're using a growth of what, I believe it was 6% is what you were forecast.
[1:06:20] And so we're not growing at 6%, you know, there's a there's a miss in our in our analogy or formulas.
[1:06:27] That's right.
[1:06:30] Back to Alice.
[1:06:31] Leo, this question's come up when we discussed it.
[1:06:33] But can you touch for so whenever, once you're listening to this, the fact of whether this is a more of an increase for one year or moving forward as years progress and how that's looked at?
[1:06:43] So it depends on how you were to look at it.
[1:06:47] So if you look at, if you have a proposed bill that proposes, you know, move to current values, and you're looking at all the out years.
[1:06:56] Well, each of the out years, you could compare each of those out years to what they year would have looked like during the current law.
[1:07:01] So in that respect, you would see from a district perspective, let's say that that was in a fast growth situation, they would see a recurring cut.
[1:07:12] However, if you look at it from year over year, it's the one year changeover and then when the state reinvests that money to the basic allotment
[1:07:19] And then each year after that, you know, everyone's on the same cycle. So you wouldn't have this sort of year over year cut as I've heard some people discuss.
[1:07:31] What would it do for the districts that are high in recapture?
[1:07:34] Would this kind of fast forward maybe two years under one when you're looking at that when so if you have
[1:07:39] What essentially this does is for simplicity using the state average, so we're using 6.7% value growth across the state, excuse me.
[1:07:49] And then so what would happen is in the first year you'd have double the value growth in that first year.
[1:07:54] And so your wealth per student would increase.
[1:07:57] And then, conversely, the local share requirement for tier one would also increase.
[1:08:01] And that's what generates the immediate savings.
[1:08:03] However, when you take that and put that back into other programs, including the base
[1:08:07] golem and you mitigate those, you mitigate the increases in recapture as well as the loss of state aid.
[1:08:17] Sorry, I'm going to be talking a lot.
[1:08:21] So in terms of this for a fast growth district, this is pretty heavy hit for us.
[1:08:27] It's about a $22.7 million loss in a year, judging just on today's template.
[1:08:33] So I think there's going to have to be something in the formula or something in there to mitigate that loss because we kind of live on that one year lag in fast growth.
[1:08:45] So it's going to be an issue, especially if there's not if the basic allotment doesn't get bumped up significant life for those fast growth risk.
[1:08:51] Right. And that of course is why we're waiting for the vote on all of this until we have all pictures.
[1:08:55] Yeah. This is a persuasive argument if you're in the fast growth, fast growth district
[1:09:02] because there's growing number of students, growing, you know, the city's growing, you've
[1:09:07] got more property taxes, and you need to build more schools. But that's, of course, you
[1:09:14] might live in Vale where it's a fast growth property value, but there's not more students.
[1:09:19] And so, using this as a surrogate for you're having to build more schools, gives the
[1:09:27] lag sends money to some schools that actually aren't building schools.
[1:09:31] And so, the idea of the whole picture is, if what we're concerned about is getting money
[1:09:37] to people that need to build more schools, we ought to look at getting money to people that
[1:09:41] need to build more schools, and not a surrogate that spreads it around to other places.
[1:09:45] I get that, but it also, for instance, about half of our district was built before the
[1:09:50] year 2000.
[1:09:51] I hadn't seen that long ago.
[1:09:52] That was 20 years ago.
[1:09:53] Those kids have graduated.
[1:09:55] We were born in 2000, so we also have those kinds of costs for our facility.
[1:10:00] It does pay for those, because it does. All of a sudden, a lot of other places. If the idea is to, we need to help districts that have aging facilities or need new facilities, we ought to target money to people that have aging facilities and new facilities, not just let the figures lag for a while, because that's a surrogate that's... I just feel compelled to just share some of this stuff because there are going to be consequences and there are going to be winners and losers in this.
[1:10:29] And that's why people should stay to them, because we're getting to them with those
[1:10:33] later.
[1:10:34] Mr. Williams.
[1:10:35] I guess the thing that jumps out of me at this is that one, it's more accurate, because
[1:10:39] we're not dealing with lagging numbers.
[1:10:41] And secondly, it feels like it's probably, it has an equity component to it, because if
[1:10:47] you've got areas that have fast-growing values, those tend to be more school districts,
[1:10:52] I would think, versus areas that have declining values, probably are not as affluent.
[1:10:57] And so it seems to me this is probably also moving money again.
[1:11:01] 100% here what you're saying because we need to look at the whole picture versus just this one component.
[1:11:06] But it just strikes me for those two reasons that's something that we should think about supporting.
[1:11:10] Well, here's the other piece too is we have to do state aid calculations, estimates and all that.
[1:11:16] So right now our picture is pretty fuzzy in terms of property values.
[1:11:20] We don't know those things. We get estimates.
[1:11:23] And if you're on July 1st, fiscal year start, that's going to be a pretty big issue for
[1:11:28] us if we're dealing with this kind of stuff.
[1:11:31] So it makes the picture of trying to project your state aid a little bit more fuzzy because
[1:11:38] now the state numbers a little fuzzier local property taxes are already fuzzy.
[1:11:42] So if I may respond to that, one approach that you can do is typically there's a ratio between
[1:11:47] state certified values and your local property values, which you get by July 25th.
[1:11:51] You could use this sort of ratios to when you get the certified values in July to project what the state certified values
[1:11:59] We're going to be in the system so that could help
[1:12:01] Yeah, I'm going to get that concern if I could Mr. Chairman
[1:12:05] It's just on this on this discussion right here. I think it's important for everybody to understand that the way the tax calendar works
[1:12:13] Okay, is that
[1:12:15] That effectively the preliminary values that people are getting are in the June, July
[1:12:21] time frame, and those can be very preliminary, okay, especially given the complexity of the
[1:12:27] tax roles and how long it's taking to certify values.
[1:12:30] So I think by moving it into the current year, you've mitigated a lot of the problems
[1:12:35] you've had with the prior year, but you do have some problems that stay with you.
[1:12:39] And one of the problems you've got is that I'm not sure how a July 1st, you know, year's
[1:12:45] going to work with this.
[1:12:47] In fact, I would strongly recommend that part of the public policy discussion is to get people
[1:12:53] off of that July 1st because there's just simply not going to have accurate data to move
[1:12:58] into the school year, because even though we moved up the role setting, the initial notice
[1:13:08] values of property, there's a pretty big estimate that's going out on these preliminary
[1:13:14] and it's really only until, you know, some cases August or later that there's a final role that actually makes sense.
[1:13:23] And I hope you agree, Dr. Killian on this.
[1:13:27] So while moving this up is a good idea, but it's not a complete panacea because there are some problems with the way that the school districts do their fiscal year that really probably need to be standardized with the tax calendar year at this point.
[1:13:42] That would just be a follow-on recommendation to them.
[1:13:45] If you could fix the federal issues, too,
[1:13:47] that we have since the first of July 1st.
[1:13:49] Well, I've got two colleagues that probably
[1:13:51] are going to be up there as battlefield promotion.
[1:13:54] I'll pass it along because they're on both sides of the aisle.
[1:13:58] But of course, this is always the problem.
[1:14:02] You're setting a budget for the next two years.
[1:14:04] Who knows what could happen in the next two years.
[1:14:06] I don't know how you guys, ladies and gentlemen,
[1:14:10] and the legislature predict what the future's
[1:14:12] going to be, I mean, you know, this is what we do in setting budgets, just the same as
[1:14:17] what we do individually setting budgets and sometimes we have to adjust those things.
[1:14:21] Don't turn out, like we thought they were going to be turned out two or three years ago.
[1:14:25] But I hear you, and that's something we need to keep in mind, Ms. Comrade Johnson.
[1:14:32] Yeah, so I just want to echo what Dr. Kellyan has offered, I mean, and all the recommendations
[1:14:37] This is the one that is probably the most concerning to me in terms of the practicality
[1:14:44] of it.
[1:14:44] Obviously, technically you can make the adjustment, but just in terms of what we, it adds the
[1:14:49] other biggest element of uncertainty in terms of planning both at the state and local level.
[1:14:55] We don't necessarily know where we're going to rest in terms of student enrollment, and
[1:14:59] and then have our...
[1:15:00] We're adding the uncertain element of the property tax values. I know they're in Travis County with all the processes around the appeals and property tax. As property tax grow increases over time, we have much more increases in property tax appeals that have to be resolved and rectified throughout the year. So there's at least five to six percent of the property tax base that hasn't been fully resolved.
[1:15:26] And the guessing around over my fears under appropriation in terms of needs and programming that isn't implemented during the school year as a result of moving to the current year values.
[1:15:42] I understand the perception around the perceived benefit in the lag, but I think that that is time that school districts needs to prepare for the pay in the subsequent year.
[1:15:56] In Austin, we would have to pay out another $50 million and basically recapture.
[1:16:01] So the previous year, whether you have the perceived benefit, the next year, you're actually
[1:16:05] paying out more.
[1:16:07] And so you're preparing and pooling your monies and cutting program in order to make that
[1:16:12] subsequent recapture liability payment.
[1:16:16] So it's not necessarily a benefit that anyone is sort of banking on or expending.
[1:16:20] It's really giving you time to move out your payment liability in the subsequent year.
[1:16:27] So this one is, I think, something substantial for districts that have to sort of pay who are
[1:16:34] experiencing property tax increases above the state average.
[1:16:39] And I mean, I would express that we should reconsider this option just because it has two elements
[1:16:46] of uncertainty that I think it's going to be difficult to plan around at both the state and
[1:16:51] local level. But if we did something to help you on recapture, would it be as big a problem?
[1:16:58] Well, I mean, I know all of these different components add up to sort of a total story,
[1:17:04] but without understanding the story, it's hard to guess. But definitely, with this one, it's very
[1:17:11] very difficult time because it's such a big number.
[1:17:15] But we've all heard of the Austin problem, declining student
[1:17:21] enrollment, increasing property taxes.
[1:17:24] We've heard from the people, the Habitat Humanity,
[1:17:28] was to make one of the most persuasive testimony we've heard.
[1:17:32] People that we're trying to build houses for in Austin can't afford to live in.
[1:17:36] I got that.
[1:17:38] That's why we have to look at all of this as a picture at once.
[1:17:43] I do tend to agree with the recommendation.
[1:17:47] If the deal is, you know, how much money does the school district have available,
[1:17:53] we all don't look at how much the school district has available, not perfect,
[1:17:56] but it's better than how much did the school district have available,
[1:17:59] if they were only where they were a year and a half ago.
[1:18:03] But, that does create other administrative problems, can create other problems for recapture,
[1:18:08] and we have to look at those two, and we can't decide this, just why we're not voting
[1:18:12] on it today without knowing what's going to happen with that.
[1:18:15] I agree with that.
[1:18:18] Senator Taylor?
[1:18:19] The kind of you say, it's worth reminding the commission.
[1:18:22] You know, we're trying to come up with a new system that's fair in concept.
[1:18:27] We can come up with that.
[1:18:28] So, it's difficult if you go through and criticize each individual part of it, if you
[1:18:32] not look at the whole picture, because we're trying to go over it.
[1:18:35] And there may be a transition to get us to that, and I think we're all aware of that,
[1:18:39] because it's going to be changes.
[1:18:40] There's some district of the advocacy effect by some parts of it.
[1:18:44] So, if we can look at, we're trying to create a new system, everyone agrees there's a fair
[1:18:47] way to, and I think, Mr. Wade, you did a good job explaining why this is a fair way to
[1:18:52] do it.
[1:18:52] It's more equitable.
[1:18:54] and there are going to be some temporary hardships, but you know that's part of our transition.
[1:18:59] But let's keep in mind, we're trying to redo this system, make it simpler, more fair,
[1:19:05] and then realize we're going to do some kind of transition to get us there.
[1:19:09] But let's not, because there is someone going to be adversely affected by every one of these individuals.
[1:19:16] But if you look at the whole total and an hour putting the money back into the system
[1:19:20] and where the need is the highest.
[1:19:22] I think it's good to find it's gonna be a much better way
[1:19:25] of doing it.
[1:19:25] I just wanted to counterline the commission.
[1:19:26] That's what we're trying to do is redo the whole thing.
[1:19:30] So let's don't go out and create to individual item of this
[1:19:33] because it doesn't work.
[1:19:34] And that's why you can't pass it overall
[1:19:37] unless you come up with a fair plan
[1:19:39] and then you agree we're gonna do a transition to that.
[1:19:43] That segues into the good, oh, I'm sorry.
[1:19:46] Senator Williams, put that additional money back
[1:19:49] back into the system, that's an additional money.
[1:19:54] Let's move into the more fun part of what's going to, where the money's going to go.
[1:20:00] As Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story, right? And I want to remind everybody, and this is important, as we go forward, because I hear what you're saying.
[1:20:12] But as a commissioner of this finance commission, you're here representing every child in the state of Texas, not just your school district. And the recommendations that we've made are impacting the districts I represent, positively and negatively.
[1:20:28] And so, you know, Dr. Killian, I understand that, you know, 22 million are representable
[1:20:33] ISD.
[1:20:34] You know, I mean, these are tough decisions, but when we talk about these programs that
[1:20:40] we're talking about, you're going to sit there and say, ah, you know, and I know people
[1:20:43] try to figure out runs and everybody's out there trying to figure out wherever it's going
[1:20:47] to land.
[1:20:48] But, you know, we're talking about putting new money into the system and fixing some of these
[1:20:52] outdated formulas.
[1:20:53] And again, I think this was a recommendation specifically related to just, it's old, let's fix the whole thing and we're going to do it.
[1:21:02] But we're representing 5.4 million children, not 100,000 in one particular district here.
[1:21:08] So please keep that in mind.
[1:21:10] Okay, so let's talk about the positive thing.
[1:21:13] So we've found 5.4 billion dollars roughly in those programs, and now we're going to start spending it.
[1:21:19] So recommendation number seven, the base compensatory education funding on a campus
[1:21:24] and a specific spectrum, increasing to 0.225 to 0.275.
[1:21:31] The background of this was created in 1984, provides a 0.2 way for economically disadvantaged
[1:21:36] students determined by eligibility for federal free and reduced lunch programs.
[1:21:41] The purpose of the fund is to eliminate disparities between these and other students in assessment
[1:21:45] performance and graduation rates.
[1:21:46] Our rationale was this, research has shown that the higher the concentration of
[1:21:51] poverty is within a district, the greater its impact is on student performance.
[1:21:55] A spectrum approach would direct more funds directly to districts that have
[1:21:59] campuses with high concentrations of poverty. The commission should also consider the
[1:22:04] use of alternative measures of poverty for this alignment, not just free and
[1:22:08] reduced lunch. The annual cost by using the weights of 0.225 to 0.275 is estimated
[1:22:15] between $1.1 and $1.2 billion.
[1:22:19] Senator Wess.
[1:22:20] And the expectation is, is that the districts will make certain that the monies are directed
[1:22:27] to the campuses with the highest concentration using, I think, zip codes as the basis.
[1:22:33] That is correct.
[1:22:34] So it's not, this isn't on a district-by-district basis.
[1:22:38] This is a campus-by-campus basis so that we send the money where it's needed.
[1:22:43] I think it goes to different districts based on poverty levels, but we expect the districts that when they make the termination of allocations that they utilize these additional monies, they don't supplant, but they supplement the funding for these particular campuses to in order to achieve goals that we're talking about that being this decrease, decrease the disparities in the assessment performance and graduation rates.
[1:23:10] I just want to, first of all, I appreciate how thoughtful it is and something that we've
[1:23:16] talked about quite a bit.
[1:23:19] Just to be clear, we're saying that compared to right now, the baseline would be the
[1:23:26] same.
[1:23:27] So, for the CompEdWate, it would remain the same for everyone and then for the campuses
[1:23:34] not the districts. I'm sure there's a district considered for the campuses that, let's say,
[1:23:39] have a higher concentration of generational poverty, that baseline rises because they would get more.
[1:23:45] So it's not as if if we're ranking the severity of poverty that a school now would actually lose
[1:23:54] funding, they would get what they're getting, but then schools that have significantly more
[1:23:59] challenges because of what's happening around them would get an increase, right?
[1:24:05] I just want to spell that out.
[1:24:06] All right.
[1:24:07] Now, I appreciate them.
[1:24:08] I represent one district in particular where, as a district, as a district, it's certainly a poor district.
[1:24:16] But if you go campus to campus, some campuses are, I would say, blue collar working poor and those kids need a tremendous amount of help.
[1:24:25] And then there's another campus that is across the street from one of the oldest housing projects in the country and those
[1:24:32] Challenges are different enough to warrant more investments. I appreciate that.
[1:24:37] Okay, can I ask a clarifying question on that? The highest 12th district with no poverty, would they still be a 0.2 or a 0.225?
[1:24:45] Depending on their, depending on their allocation of students, well they have no poverty.
[1:24:49] They get nothing.
[1:24:50] They get nothing, right?
[1:24:52] So they have one, once two.
[1:24:53] Well, they get 0.2 way down that one step.
[1:24:55] Okay, so it's not, the minimum's not 0.225.
[1:24:59] The way we...
[1:25:00] We model that the minimum is 0.25, but it was the way we did it. The way we did it is the way we understood it. The way no one loses is it goes up. And everyone gains. Every student has. Every student has. Right. And that was my point. The base number, you know, recognize the needs. I think also the work point on we discussed this. This is our largest demographic in the state of Texas, our students. Exactly. And it's also the best economic or educational attainment indicator that we have.
[1:25:29] low income kids don't just talk and do as well but that's also our largest
[1:25:34] in our fastest growing demographic so we've got to do better with this
[1:25:38] demographic and this is a shows a focus on that part.
[1:25:41] And it's really important we will be black graining so this might
[1:25:46] add to the districts. We've got to make certain that these dollars go to those
[1:25:50] campuses that frankly generates this additional resource for the district to use
[1:25:56] for the purposes that we've seen.
[1:25:58] And I didn't mean to mislead, representional,
[1:26:02] but when I said the .28 states, what I was saying is that no,
[1:26:06] the additional 1.1 is on top of what's already being funded.
[1:26:09] That's the, I guess I didn't explain it the right way,
[1:26:12] but it basically goes the .28 states,
[1:26:15] so there's no money being lost at all.
[1:26:17] And then it's going up to the .25, .275,
[1:26:20] based on the need of that procurement cameras.
[1:26:24] I was just wondering, have you discussed, like, have you looked at the numbers of all the
[1:26:32] districts that are at the property level, how much total cost would be in statewide?
[1:26:40] I'm sorry, can you, can you be stable in that?
[1:26:42] The total of the, it seems to me that there's more and more school districts throughout the
[1:26:47] the state of Texas, even in principal ISD, which is considered not property poor, they
[1:26:53] have campuses, several campuses that are at the poverty level, so you've already put
[1:27:00] those numbers.
[1:27:01] There's about 4 billion being spent on compet on an annualized basis today, so that's
[1:27:07] not about right.
[1:27:08] So I'm looking at 1890, 18's numbers, 4 billion and 9 actually went down just a little bit
[1:27:13] and in 19 was the forecast and then so we're talking based on the model that we're talking
[1:27:20] about if the spending would go from in 19 3.95 billion to 5.127 billion dollars on
[1:27:28] top of what we're already spending.
[1:27:30] Yes, so we did do this on the campus basis, so it's more target and more target there.
[1:27:36] And have you found that there are more property poor districts
[1:27:42] throughout the state, I mean throughout the Texas, then maybe in the past.
[1:27:48] We didn't conduct that particular analysis, so we could certainly do that if.
[1:27:52] I was just curious.
[1:27:55] Dr. Ellis in the end of Senator Benaport, I'm your name.
[1:27:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:28:00] I want to follow up with representatives, comments.
[1:28:02] I think she's touching on something that I was wanted to make sure
[1:28:05] chairman of the liberty that we thought through on this. When we go and use a zip code model
[1:28:12] and then go down to a campus model, there's going to be changes over time. I mean, just
[1:28:17] the astonishing changes I see when I drive through the east end of Austin between the last
[1:28:24] years, 95 years, about five months, because the state bird is no longer just the mocking
[1:28:31] murdered is the construction crane. I think that whatever we do is we have to, we have
[1:28:38] to make sure that we have flexibility to move this money, maybe on a yearly basis because
[1:28:46] no, because it's very important that we don't do what we, I believe, what we did with the
[1:28:53] weights and measures, even though I was a kid back in the 90s when this, when they were
[1:28:57] said, of course, Senator West was almost voting here.
[1:29:03] But I don't want to fix them.
[1:29:06] Right. You're coming right about. Yeah, that's right. Okay. I just don't want to fix
[1:29:11] them and then be arguing about them 20 years from now because this needs to be a flexible
[1:29:18] response because the tremendous changes we're seeing right now are going to continue for
[1:29:26] release several years, and should continue, you know, because Texas being the job destination
[1:29:33] for the country, let's hope that continues from the next couple decades.
[1:29:37] If I could, Chairman, you've written that.
[1:29:39] Yes, I think that the ultimate goal, when we talk with TA about this, is that we would
[1:29:45] sexually fix it, but by rule, and legislate intent as to how we would go back and do that.
[1:29:53] And I know that the Commissioner and I've had some discussions.
[1:29:55] I don't know if you want to apply on that at all, but that's kind of what we were in.
[1:30:00] So for clarification for what we did just for the purposes of getting the cost, we did use the number of students classified as economically disadvantaged at each campus from teams. That's not to say that you couldn't use a different measure, but for what we did for the term that we used the existing data that was available to us. And if I could just follow up with that because that data is going to change. I think maybe some flexibility and not a fixed
[1:30:29] number in a statute may be the right option. There may need to be a bandwidth here because
[1:30:34] you don't want to have a system that ends up where functionally we've ended up now 20
[1:30:42] years later after these weights and measures have been identified. So I would just strongly
[1:30:48] suggest that there be as much flexibility bandwidth and some discretion by the commissioner on this
[1:30:54] because things are going to change and change rapidly.
[1:30:57] Mr. Trump's going to burn all of them.
[1:31:00] So I think the answer to that, and just to sort of have
[1:31:04] people calm a little bit, is in large part,
[1:31:07] this resembles a lot of what SCISD is doing in leaving zip
[1:31:13] codes behind.
[1:31:14] I live in one of the poorest neighborhoods of San Antonio.
[1:31:17] I share a zip code with one of the richest neighborhoods
[1:31:21] of San Antonio.
[1:31:21] and so were you to judge me by zip code who knows
[1:31:25] where my daughter would end up.
[1:31:27] But what SCSD does is they do it by census block,
[1:31:30] and they do that so they can focus on campuses
[1:31:33] and not wash or average out the real need.
[1:31:37] And so I think as we continue on this,
[1:31:39] and again, I'm really excited about this element of it,
[1:31:45] is that we decide a part.
[1:31:47] And I think part of it does have to be statutory
[1:31:49] and not just rulemaking.
[1:31:50] we've seen where that's gotten us for a better end or worse sometimes, that the measure
[1:31:55] is important.
[1:31:56] How we measure those campuses and identify those campuses, that's important.
[1:32:01] So, as much as the spirit of it is something that we focus on, I think that figuring out
[1:32:08] how we get there is also equally important, otherwise it doesn't work.
[1:32:12] And I think that's partially what the last bullet point is around, right?
[1:32:15] That's exactly what it's going to happen again.
[1:32:16] last bullet point. And I think that that last bullet point is very important because it gives us
[1:32:25] an opportunity from a legislative standpoint to come up with some additional definitions other
[1:32:30] than free and reduced lunch. Because I haven't been to his district lately. To me and the rest,
[1:32:35] I would guarantee there's a construction crane between the two sides of his district. Just right now,
[1:32:39] I'll buy lunch. Okay, but I'm saying that there's that. No, I'm saying exactly what you're saying. We have to look at gentrification and all that other stuff in the impact of that. And that's it's that's a zip code and maybe it may
[1:32:52] will be since block that we would be the measurement.
[1:32:56] Yes.
[1:32:57] We're open.
[1:32:59] Anything else?
[1:33:01] This part.
[1:33:02] I just want to add, I'm pleased to see that the weights are better, but from a teacher's perspective,
[1:33:10] I'm glad that we're looking at it campus by campus, but I also want to make sure that this makes it into the classrooms and not just more administrators.
[1:33:18] So, I just still need to kind of input that and how do we ensure that this actually goes
[1:33:25] toward teachers and not just higher administrative income?
[1:33:30] We're coming to some of that. I've got some ideas.
[1:33:34] Very good point, sir. Anything else?
[1:33:38] Sorry. Recommendation number eight, base transportation funding on a mileage basis.
[1:33:42] And right now the current cost is about 80 cents a mile.
[1:33:45] The last, the background on this, but last time it was updated was in 1984, at which point
[1:33:50] the allotment covered roughly 70, 80% of a district's transportation costs.
[1:33:56] The current allotment is based on a linear density formula, which you have to have all kinds
[1:34:01] of abacuses and everything else to figure out, I'm guessing so.
[1:34:06] The rationale is current.
[1:34:08] The current system uses rates that have not been updated in over 30 years.
[1:34:12] The allotment now only covers 25% of a district's transportation costs.
[1:34:17] The current system also allows routes that are not to be at advantageous to the district's
[1:34:22] linear density calculation to be excluded.
[1:34:26] So we're not picking up kids because it's not advantageous to them.
[1:34:30] We believe a mileage approach is much more straightforward.
[1:34:33] However, the mileage rate should be set and established in the appropriations bill.
[1:34:37] And once again, what our suggestion to our recommendation of the legislature is to get rid of the linear density formula,
[1:34:44] to go to a mileage formula and identify what the cost is now.
[1:34:48] One of the concerns obviously is that if Doug does a good job of managing his transportation business
[1:34:56] and somebody does not, we don't want to reward inefficiencies,
[1:34:59] is what
[1:35:00] We would like to do is figure out, you know, a percentage of those costs and do it by appropriations. And so I know that the transportation industry or the transportation association that here that does all this, that they have one, will certainly be somebody we should visit with, but we believe it should be an appropriations request. And we're not suggesting 80 cents as a, you know, we're saying that's the floor, but we believe there's an additional number that should be incentivized with that.
[1:35:28] I know we discussed it in a recommendation. I don't see it written here.
[1:35:31] maybe I'm missing it. Would this also be, or Chapter 4144?
[1:35:35] I'm working on it.
[1:35:35] That's a nice combination.
[1:35:36] I'm sorry.
[1:35:37] You might want to go ahead and put that.
[1:35:38] Well, let me, let me put these back-to-back.
[1:35:40] So the recommendation number nine is to provide transportation funding to Chapter 41 districts.
[1:35:44] Currently chapter, background, and this is currently Chapter 41 districts do not receive direct
[1:35:48] state support for transportation costs.
[1:35:51] Our rationale on this is the state should not create a distance center for Chapter 41 districts
[1:35:55] to provide transportation services for their students, and this will result in annual costs
[1:35:59] of $60 million.
[1:36:00] So if you're a 41 district right now and you're not getting transportation funding, we believe that it's a cost and you shouldn't be sending
[1:36:06] recapture dollars back to us for your transportation costs associated with that and we believe that that would be helpful.
[1:36:13] So those are the recommendations.
[1:36:14] Again, the 80 set mileage is the floor.
[1:36:17] Again, we believe it should be an appropriation discussion.
[1:36:21] And the reason we're suggesting it's an appropriation discussion because I know many of us have heard that
[1:36:28] You know, transportation funding hasn't changed since 1984.
[1:36:31] We want to stop having that discussion and we'd like to actually.
[1:36:34] Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right.
[1:36:38] Senator Bettson, you know, I wanted to go back to the excellent comment that I'm
[1:36:44] smart and just made, okay, because it kind of relates to this term of humority,
[1:36:48] because you said you didn't want to provide, you know, a situation where we're
[1:36:54] de-incentivized them to manage their transportation business.
[1:36:58] And in the last discussion on recommendation seven,
[1:37:02] about her comment, about bringing money into the classroom,
[1:37:05] and then also about yours, about not wanting
[1:37:07] to have a distance set up for it,
[1:37:09] that we have not used the word incentive yet
[1:37:13] in our discussions today.
[1:37:14] We're about to.
[1:37:15] OK, good.
[1:37:16] Well, I'm glad Brad, Brad, to lead you to the promised land
[1:37:19] you've already gone to.
[1:37:20] But I think maybe in both recommendation 7 and 8, we need to be looking at incentivizing
[1:37:27] good behavior, as opposed to just relying on everyone to be at their best behavior.
[1:37:38] I don't think you've got Crosby ISD, but you've seen the articles.
[1:37:44] I have a portion on it.
[1:37:45] You know, and it's sad to see that the school board has absolutely no idea where they are on their annual report, the past annual board, the current budget or, you know, where the money is at all.
[1:37:56] So I just think that Miss Martin's comment about making sure the money gets to the classroom is an important part of the incentive that we should look at it here on transportation.
[1:38:07] And I agree, absolutely, with chapter 41, I've never understood why we're giving them a clearly a disincentive, okay, to do a basic function.
[1:38:17] Well, if you think about it, the incentive is on the 41's to do that.
[1:38:20] And the other incentive piece on the transportation funding is that we're moving from the linear density pattern,
[1:38:26] which we had some experience in dealing with this last session, specifically related to funding and transportation.
[1:38:33] and it's just wacky the way that it's calculated.
[1:38:37] And it takes a lot, it's administrative costs.
[1:38:39] This is a very simplistic deal.
[1:38:41] This is, you know, we know what it costs per mile.
[1:38:42] It's very simple to be able to do that.
[1:38:45] But we'll have to pick, you know, we'll have to pick the number.
[1:38:47] And again, I don't want people to say,
[1:38:48] well, we're not going to put any more money in there.
[1:38:51] We need to pick the number we think is the right number,
[1:38:53] but do that through appropriations.
[1:38:56] Okay.
[1:38:57] I had a question, though.
[1:38:58] So we need to make sure, too, that there's some kind of inflationary number there, too.
[1:39:03] Gas goes up and down, or diesel.
[1:39:07] We talked about that actually during our recommendations, whether you put it in and
[1:39:10] put a CPI on it, or where does it stand?
[1:39:14] You can see, you know, of course, it's their consumer price index.
[1:39:17] Is there anything more unpredictable in the last ten years of the price of it?
[1:39:21] Yeah.
[1:39:21] That's right.
[1:39:22] That's right.
[1:39:23] It's just, but if I could, this makes it much clearer and easier for Leicester to understand
[1:39:28] what they're funding and the other way of doing it, you could put more money if you had
[1:39:32] no idea how it was really working.
[1:39:33] This is very clear.
[1:39:34] If we know gas is up per gallon and we're currently paying whether it's 25% or 50%, we can
[1:39:41] say if we want to help all set that, here's how much it is.
[1:39:43] It's a very clear number.
[1:39:44] Leicester can knowingly vote on, which is unlike a lot of education votes we've taken over
[1:39:50] years of education.
[1:39:51] You don't really understand this, why hang out these runs, try to break it all down, but this is some of the
[1:39:56] Let's say you could step up and say, here's some of them want to help fun and they can very clearly
[1:40:02] So actually, if you do fund the transportation a lot better, you are putting money back in the classroom. Because right now considering the fact that we are funding this since I was in high school, we're reallocating money from other places. And if you give us more money for transportation, that brings up more money locally to take care of the classroom.
[1:40:23] Okay,
[1:40:27] recommendations number ten, recreate small in the mid-sized district adjustments as a stand-alone allotment.
[1:40:33] The background of this is a small district adjustment was created in 1974 and amended in 2017 to face full adjustments for districts under 300 square miles in size.
[1:40:44] The mid-sized district adjustment was created in 1997 and amended in 2009 to allow chapter 41 districts to receive it.
[1:40:51] The rationale on the loan on this is that the standalone loan will have an increased transparency and helps the streamline the formulas.
[1:40:59] The annual cost is estimated between, we've got it pegged down pretty close here, between 0 and 400 million.
[1:41:04] That looks like an LVB estimate.
[1:41:07] Yeah, we're pretty close.
[1:41:09] We're pretty close.
[1:41:11] Again, I think that our view of this is that, you know, and I know Justice Bristler's view on small districts,
[1:41:19] that we've decided to remain small for a reason.
[1:41:22] We want to create a little bit more transparency
[1:41:24] through that process.
[1:41:25] The mid-sized districts are, again, not being penalized.
[1:41:29] In fact, try to create incentives
[1:41:32] for more efficiencies within the system.
[1:41:34] That's our guide.
[1:41:36] And I'm for this, because there's small districts
[1:41:40] that can't help it, and then there's small districts
[1:41:41] that could help it.
[1:41:43] They're right next door to another district,
[1:41:45] and they could, without closing any schools,
[1:41:48] eliminate administrative calls, but it's the Commissioner shares me it's not a
[1:41:54] huge number but at least transparency. People ought to know how much we're
[1:42:00] spending to keep a thousand over a thousand school districts in business. If
[1:42:04] that's the way the people of Texas want it, nobody else in the country, probably
[1:42:10] the world does it that way. That's fine. We like small things, we like a lot of
[1:42:15] counties. We've got more counties than any other state has. That's the way you
[1:42:18] If you want to do it, that's fine, but we ought to at least know what it calls to you to do it, thank you very much.
[1:42:25] Just as an estimate, we calculated this with TEA, but we call it SDA, and
[1:42:31] the SDA is at a billion dollars, so if we went up and spent the 400, we're already spent about six today.
[1:42:39] But it'll clearly depend on the final, what the basic Latin comes, whatever the legislature decides to do with the PA, because it's all, it's all changes based upon a word that's that.
[1:42:48] Yeah, I just want to point out the intention, at least when we discussed it before, this is not an intention to punish or to hurt the small schools or the mid-size.
[1:42:57] The idea, there's a quirk in the calculations where there becomes a double multiplier and we heard from multiple witnesses,
[1:43:04] available for one that came in and talked about how that process gets convoluted and this is more to simplify not to harm those districts.
[1:43:11] But again, if there's incentives that are created, we're prepared to spend an additional $400 million here, if we think it's the right, if it works out that way.
[1:43:21] If I could.
[1:43:23] Mr. Chairman, there was an interesting case of, because we're in the property tax committee, we've been tracking the TREs and where the TREs passed and failed.
[1:43:35] And I'm 99% sure this was in Medina County, which is in the Senate District 19 now.
[1:43:43] And there was a system that was ranked below average, sent out a TRE and it failed.
[1:43:53] And so I guess I was wondering if this, in this area, because would we be trying to incentivize,
[1:44:00] I know it's a sacrilegious word, but for an aggregation school districts, emerging
[1:44:06] school districts.
[1:44:08] I mean, especially when you look at Medina as a small county, I believe they had nine,
[1:44:12] and it was interesting to see that the TRE failed in one, but there was a B-rank school system
[1:44:18] right next to it, but they had a blow-passing grade, so I'm just curious if you're open to
[1:44:24] that concept.
[1:44:24] Well, I'm open to that concept.
[1:44:28] Well, everybody else is.
[1:44:29] Well, I'm waiting for certain year already, say something on this.
[1:44:32] I think that it'd be helpful to know, you know, this isn't a lot, but then in some cases
[1:44:38] it's subsidizing districts that don't need to be that small, in other cases it's not.
[1:44:43] So it's hard to write a rule that divides the two of those, but to start the conversation
[1:44:48] It should be worthwhile to know, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we're subsidizing,
[1:44:53] is that what you want to do because, remember, the big picture of the game.
[1:45:00] Step back, the big picture is the huge number of students that are graduating that can barely read and write. That's the focus. And if you want to shift, but understand there's not, if you want to shift money from that to keep districts small, you ought to know that that's what you're doing. And we ought to be frank about that. And ask ourselves, and all of the voters, is that what we really want to do. And so that's a conversation I'm willing to have down the road, but it helped to know what we're doing.
[1:45:29] Mr. Chairman in terms of having that conversation too, and we've been down this road before too
[1:45:35] in terms of kind of consolidating school districts, and we know where we ended up there.
[1:45:38] Right.
[1:45:39] Yeah.
[1:45:39] But towards that end, the big picture is, is making certain that we close the gap and make certain
[1:45:46] that these free and reduced lines, as we define it now, those kids get the benefit of everything
[1:45:53] we end.
[1:45:54] And so when we look at those smaller districts, we need to look at them.
[1:45:57] We pretty much get T-8 gives the analysis of how many of those smaller districts have
[1:46:02] those types of problems that we're talking about, or whether or not they're serving
[1:46:05] their students in the manner in which we think they should be serving.
[1:46:09] If I could just add one quick comment.
[1:46:13] I guess the public policy point here is that we have over a thousand school districts.
[1:46:19] And what caught my eye in this particular zone was that there was a school district that
[1:46:24] received a district wide grade that was not not passing. Went out with a big bond issue.
[1:46:30] Well, a TRE, excuse me in this case, and it failed. So the district voters, the taxpayers said no.
[1:46:39] But when you looked at geography, they were surrounded by districts that were B's, C's, and A's.
[1:46:45] And so the logic of the conclusion is that the district voters do not agree with the
[1:46:56] result of, I mean, the agree with the intent of having a large tax increase.
[1:47:01] And so I just bring this up because I used every adjective I could Senator West except
[1:47:08] at the word of consolidation to come up with.
[1:47:11] There are diverse models.
[1:47:12] Yeah, right, right, versus you got it, Councilor.
[1:47:16] But it's important if we're gonna look at
[1:47:19] these type of adjustments that I think
[1:47:22] over the long term that we offer,
[1:47:26] you know, offer something to incentivize
[1:47:29] a district like that to go ahead and merge with one close by.
[1:47:33] I look at my own area, North Forest, ISD,
[1:47:37] being absorbed by HIST. And Representative Heuberty knows because that's just
[1:47:43] literally right south of his state rev district. That was the district that
[1:47:49] was a failed school district. It should have actually been rated in double F on
[1:47:53] a scale. It was one of the most underperforming school districts. We, you know, you
[1:47:57] can imagine. And as a tax collector, when the TA assigned them to me we raised
[1:48:04] they're yielded by 20 points in one year because their yields were so poor on getting money
[1:48:10] into the district. Too late that however too much water in the bridge and so they were
[1:48:15] absorbed but that was done by because it had to be done as opposed to what we should be
[1:48:22] looking as a ways to helping people that want to do it. The school district you know system
[1:48:28] that we have now especially with the letter grades or district you're going to make it
[1:48:31] obvious, but I hope that we consider that as part of instead of Dr.
[1:48:39] Kelly.
[1:48:40] I would just caution as when we start creating these outside allotments, you know, it becomes
[1:48:46] the same kind of thing with GT.
[1:48:48] We were just talking about that earlier.
[1:48:51] So, and then my other concern is, could we not put this just in the basic allotment?
[1:48:56] So, I'm back on the basic allotment then.
[1:49:00] Well, I think that the answer to that question is that you can, you can create it as a separate,
[1:49:06] it would just increase their alignment, specifically related to that.
[1:49:11] You know, I think the question really we have to answer ourselves or ask ourselves is,
[1:49:15] what incentives are we created for school districts to be more efficient to consolidate?
[1:49:21] You know, those are the kind of things.
[1:49:22] You know, the one thing that always infuriates me is that not infuriates.
[1:49:26] But, you know, school districts, you know, should not be collecting their own taxes.
[1:49:30] How many school districts across the state of Texas have their tax, you know, a little tax office?
[1:49:34] Because they said, well, we've been doing it that way for 30 years and people just know we're paid their taxes.
[1:49:38] I'm pretty sure you could get the taxes paid through Paris County or whatever their accounting that's out there.
[1:49:43] The taxes are collector sends a bill anyways.
[1:49:46] So, so, you know, those are the things that, that, you know, we've got to create incentives in the program
[1:49:51] because there is, there is inefficiencies within the system today.
[1:49:54] And unless we challenge that and create some mechanism to do that, you know, I'm before that but I think
[1:50:00] We have to know, you know, how these districts are set. And again, we changed, remember, we changed the 300 mile rule last year. That was a big deal for those districts that have no choice, that we're getting penalized for some reason. So we're actually not taking any, we're not, we want to make sure I'm delivering this message to my friends at Huffman River Pleasant. I'm not taking any money away. In fact, we're trying to create incentive to reward you to be more efficient. That's what we're trying to accomplish here.
[1:50:26] Well I would just say to you know the West Texas argument always comes up with
[1:50:31] this with the 300 square miles but you might look at just the sparse the
[1:50:35] adjustment being a sliding scale. The larger you are maybe the larger
[1:50:40] thing. I'm sure that every every small and mid-sized person that's out there
[1:50:45] that has you know government affairs people will be in our office telling us what
[1:50:48] we're doing here shortly. Well if I could ask because you're absolutely right
[1:50:53] because we had a presentation from Travis County from the
[1:51:00] Prasal District here that had been working in conjunction with almost 120 out
[1:51:07] of the 133 taxing units here in Travis County and what they were doing was
[1:51:12] creating a portal so that taxpayers and folks could see what was
[1:51:17] happening for their monies that were being spent as well as for public
[1:51:21] hearings. And I think there's no factor submission. The fact that we should let the school districts,
[1:51:26] you know, at this point of time, continue to have separate tax offices because that money is a
[1:51:32] direct savings that can go in the 21st century. And I'm using a Travis County model, which I know
[1:51:38] is could be shocking to the audience that a conservative Republican would use a Travis County model,
[1:51:43] model, but it's one that works. And so I think, you know, we've got at least one person
[1:51:50] in each legislative body, well, in the file that bill. But, but Rifton here is actually
[1:51:56] right on on this. Okay.
[1:51:58] I've got one. All right. So one more about efficiency. So with a small and min-size school
[1:52:05] adjustment, one of the places where that benefits is the charge schools, because it raises that
[1:52:11] average for all the districts in the state. And then you get situations like
[1:52:15] going on right now, we just have a new charter school on our district. Our kids
[1:52:19] walk across the street to that new charter school and all of a sudden they're
[1:52:22] worth $1,000 five dollars more. That needs to be rectified. That's
[1:52:26] inefficient. So have nothing against charters, but they should be on a level
[1:52:30] plank. Well, I can just agree with you there because I've heard that argument
[1:52:33] time and time again. You have, I don't know how big your school, how big your school
[1:52:37] You have 25,000 students. They have one school with maybe 500 kids in it. And the incentive that was created many years ago, specifically for that. I'm not, I'm just giving the facts.
[1:52:49] They have overhead that you get to absorb through 25,000 children versus the 500 students. So I know we'll have this discussion in debate, and I know Representative Brinnell, thank you for not jumping out of your seat.
[1:53:04] But I understand, I understand that point, but again, we want our schools to do well.
[1:53:11] I like what Senator West has to say, which is that, you know, why are they building a school directly across
[1:53:15] street from your school? Who's making that decision? Why are they doing that? Put them where they belong versus building them directly across
[1:53:21] the street. Those are the kind of, those are the decisions that we should be focused on.
[1:53:25] from my response to that is the school they have down the street in the same district or in the same county is an F so we don't have any F's.
[1:53:36] Well then you know the TEA will deal with that so as we go forward.
[1:53:41] Okay. Yes sir recommendation number 11 increased the new instructional facility alignment NIFA appropriation to $100 million per year.
[1:53:50] The background on this was created in 1999, it was $250 per ADA.
[1:53:56] We updated this in 2017 to be $1,000 per ADA, but we put no additional funding provided.
[1:54:04] And as a result of the amount of appropriation requests that were out there, the average
[1:54:09] awarded was $235 per ADA for fiscal 18.
[1:54:13] So while we tried to correct it to put $1,000 in, we actually gave less money to districts
[1:54:18] because they all were applying for it.
[1:54:20] So this provides funding for operational expenses associated
[1:54:23] with the opening of a new instructional campus.
[1:54:26] Our rationale is the legislature
[1:54:27] increased the award amounts
[1:54:28] but did not appropriate sufficient funds
[1:54:31] to satisfy this intent.
[1:54:33] And the annual cost is $76.3 million.
[1:54:36] Incidentally, this recommendation based upon
[1:54:39] where we see the student growth going
[1:54:41] would might even be a little bit short.
[1:54:43] We believe that it should be identified and studied
[1:54:46] and the appropriation request should be to fully fund the NIFO accounts.
[1:54:52] So to go back to some earlier comments on some of the things
[1:54:55] in the first section of items that we took away where we're hurting families.
[1:55:00] Asgro school district, this is a, this is a direct benefit to a fast growth school district. Questions?
[1:55:09] Very quickly. Chairman, we worked on a, on a niff of bill. Last session in the, yes, one of the elements we added to it aside from helping fast growth districts like yours, was that for older urban districts that were repurposing buildings, were repurposing campuses, turning what used to be.
[1:55:29] the cafeteria into a computer lab that NIFA would also be available for those kinds of
[1:55:33] endeavors. And what I've heard from different districts is that there's been a wrinkle
[1:55:38] in the way that that rules been interpreted and I would just ask that as we, as we, if
[1:55:44] we are to expand NIFA that we iron that out, yes, because we want to make sure that yes
[1:55:49] we help fast growth districts, but also the innovation that we're expecting to see in
[1:55:55] the efficiency we're expecting to see from older urban districts. We want to make sure
[1:55:58] that we give the tools to turn the corner as well.
[1:56:03] Mr. Chairman.
[1:56:06] Yes, I'm sorry.
[1:56:06] Just in the side.
[1:56:07] What weren't going on?
[1:56:08] I hadn't heard about this.
[1:56:10] I think there are some districts in the audience
[1:56:14] that will talk to you when we get a break about that
[1:56:16] wrinkle, particularly.
[1:56:18] I have a lot of agency.
[1:56:20] So, just to kind of give the broad strokes,
[1:56:23] we purposely adjusted NIFA so that not only did it help create
[1:56:29] new campuses.
[1:56:30] The new campuses are turning old buildings and old rooms into something very, very new,
[1:56:35] using it for instructions.
[1:56:37] But you said there's a work of law to understand that, but what's the work?
[1:56:39] So in the administration of NIFA, there seems to be some disagreement as to what constitutes
[1:56:45] even though we try to define it, what constitutes a new instructional facility, in which case
[1:56:51] they thought there would be an eligible for that money, and some of the remains told that
[1:56:54] they're not.
[1:56:54] I understand that, who has the problem, is that an agency problem or what?
[1:56:59] Well, I think that's what we need to sort out, that's my point.
[1:57:01] I think it's specifically a rule interpretation of the NIFA bill.
[1:57:06] And so it's a distant center of into primarily, I would say, urban campuses that are repurposing districts.
[1:57:13] Whereas the funding was meant to provide resources and opportunities for them.
[1:57:18] And I think there was some probable interpretation of that, it doesn't.
[1:57:22] Okay, well, let's see. Okay. Alright, hold on.
[1:57:25] TEA. Who was misinterpreting it?
[1:57:28] TEA? It's a rule by TEA.
[1:57:30] Okay, so why can't we get that taken care of?
[1:57:32] As opposed to having to wait until the legislature's session?
[1:57:35] Uh-huh.
[1:57:37] Both. Yes. I'm saying now and in the future. That's what I'm saying.
[1:57:40] Well, I'd be more than happy to help you with that.
[1:57:42] I like that. Okay. Thank you.
[1:57:43] And I mean, TEA is here. Bond.
[1:57:47] Okay. We're going to break for launch.
[1:57:54] And this is much appreciated because we were supposed to get $1.1 million in NIFA money
[1:57:58] and we ended up with $400,000 because it changed the way.
[1:58:02] And if I could, once again looking at this in the context of the whole picture, this
[1:58:08] is a much clearer way to help our fast growth schools than using the property values.
[1:58:13] So this is just, once again, take the whole picture into account and this is a much clearer
[1:58:18] a way where people understand what we're doing.
[1:58:22] Okay, and the last recommendation of a 12 in this particular section is to expand
[1:58:28] career and technology allotment to include courses in sixth through eighth grade.
[1:58:33] The background on this was created in 1984 and updated in 2003,
[1:58:37] currently only applies to courses in ninth through 12th grades.
[1:58:41] Our reviewer, rationale is since the state is investing in PTEC and other career and
[1:58:45] technical programs, it makes sense to incentivize courses that can prepare students
[1:58:49] to enter those programs.
[1:58:51] We estimated $20 million, it could be more, it could be less depending on how many students
[1:58:56] and how many districts participate.
[1:58:57] There are some school districts that actually have programs right now.
[1:59:01] There are some that do not.
[1:59:02] We believe that there would be other districts that would start participating if they were able
[1:59:06] to get funding specifically for that.
[1:59:08] And we believe that based upon all of the changes that we've made, again relative to PTAQ,
[1:59:13] what was done with HB5, career paths, things of that nature and career, and again, the focus
[1:59:19] some of the career and college readiness standards. This was important investment in our children.
[1:59:25] Senator Beckett.
[1:59:26] Senator here we can you translate this into Aggie speak I'm trying to see this as a way
[1:59:31] that we're I guess we're just bringing shop back to eighth grade. Is that what you're doing?
[1:59:36] Not necessarily. Now we're we're talking about.
[1:59:38] That's teasing.
[1:59:41] Well you said you were you started with you started with you're an Aggie so I think I had to explain it to you.
[1:59:47] Now remember,
[1:59:51] when you start out joking, you're supposed to lower the audience's expectations
[1:59:54] and then bring back to a higher level.
[1:59:59] I was taking a little...
[2:00:00] Tough, tough crowd today, boy. Can we see these people, Chairman Grister, at this point? Yeah, I think it's about time for a break. We're making good progress. But we've got, we've got enough left that I don't want to do short shrift on them. So let's take a, we don't have lunch brought in. So you're going to need to go up to the ground. So let's do a 30 minute break. Let's reconvene at 1240.
[2:00:32] We've got to, I don't want to, I don't want to rush through to, I would, I would prefer to take a 30 minute break unless I'm out, but I'm willing to do whatever the committee wants to do.
[2:00:43] You might want to give me a 50, if you're good.
[2:00:45] No.
[2:00:46] I have to leave until it's 1-4.
[2:00:49] OK.
[2:00:49] Let's do a 30 minute break.
[2:00:51] Sorry.
[2:00:52] Senator Will.
[2:00:54] Maybe I'll be good.
[2:00:55] Will get it done before 2-7.
[2:41:32] Okay, so while we talked about the reallocations in the first section, and then changes to existing programs that we have in place, these are now what we consider new programs of additional resources that we're going to put in. So recommendation number 13 is to create new, new dual language allotment. The background, this is currently, we have a single bilingual education weight of
[2:41:59] point one that includes students in dual language programs.
[2:42:04] The total annual cost of bilingual education weight is $570 million.
[2:42:08] Our rationale is that dual language programs have been shown to have better academic outcomes
[2:42:13] and other bilingual education programs, but districts need additional support to implement
[2:42:18] them.
[2:42:18] This is a recommendation that was also suggested by the outcomes working group.
[2:42:22] Annual cost is anywhere from 15 to 50 million dollars and we're suggesting using a weight
[2:42:27] of .15.
[2:42:29] I don't know if Mr. Williams wants to visit on this a little bit because this was a recommendation from his outcomes group.
[2:42:36] No, highly supportive of it, just to be clear, is the 0.15, the reason you have a range is that you don't know how many will move from bilingual to dual language.
[2:42:43] That's correct.
[2:42:44] Okay. I recommend it.
[2:42:49] I'm sorry, Ms. Mark.
[2:42:50] I have a question.
[2:42:51] So the dual language program doesn't always just serve e-lil students, it can serve all students.
[2:42:56] So if any student gets into that program then they're going to get that weighted funding as well.
[2:43:00] That's correct. Okay.
[2:43:05] So I have a couple of questions. The first is, is it, is it, is it a dollar amount we're talking about large enough?
[2:43:22] In other words, it strikes me as being small, but I guess that's because we're trying to predict an adoption rate.
[2:43:31] And then the other thing is the chairman at the beginning of our conversation today
[2:43:37] said, you know, there are at least three big things we have to deal with, right?
[2:43:42] Some things are more life threatening than others, and so while I recognize, and one
[2:43:47] of the components of dual language, does that mean then that for schools are doing things
[2:43:52] that are, let's say, effective but not as effective as dual language, that this is the only
[2:43:58] the option that they have in terms of an improvement from the previous system.
[2:44:03] Well, I think the goal is, and I'm doing some math right now, so just give me a quick second here.
[2:44:08] But if I look at it in 2018, by lingua, we spent about $506 million, $195.30, switching the model over.
[2:44:20] If we just let the base alone, we would forecast an increase to $563 million.
[2:44:25] But what we're talking about now is ultimately, I think we land somewhere around $586 million of money.
[2:44:36] That's inclusive of bilingual and the dual language.
[2:44:38] It's just going to be based on adoption rate and it's going to be based on how much do they implement it.
[2:44:43] We just don't know. It's going to be weighted so that ultimately go there.
[2:44:46] But maybe Mr. Williams has a different opinion.
[2:44:48] And guess what I'm saying is that bilingual is 0.1 and you're suggesting a way to 0.15.
[2:44:55] If every single kid who was bilingual moved to do a language, that 570...
[2:45:00] It would go up by, I think, roughly $285. That's an extra 0.05 in the way. So this is assuming, I guess, one in five kids who are bilingual go to do it. Right. The question
[2:45:17] mask in has to do with what, with how realistic that is. In other words, dual languages is not an easy thing to pull off because of the availability of
[2:45:28] teachers who can do it, the certification rates, and so forth.
[2:45:32] And so you've got to, you've got to, relatively, right now,
[2:45:34] or you have a relatively small universe of teachers
[2:45:39] that can do it, campuses that have the, not the students
[2:45:46] to do it, because you need both, right?
[2:45:48] You need both groups of students.
[2:45:50] And so if my question is not in criticism of this
[2:45:55] because I think that all the data has shown
[2:45:58] that this works. The question is for all the other ELL students who we've already said
[2:46:04] are one of the populations that's growing the most and need the most that aren't going
[2:46:07] to be able to leap to dual language this year or in the next five years, is this the
[2:46:13] only thing that relates to that student group in the new system? That's my question.
[2:46:18] And there's a mean, there's a, in the meantime part that I'm asking.
[2:46:22] I think when we did the analysis, the percentage of ELL children who were also considered low
[2:46:29] income was like 95 percent, heavy, heavy overlap between those two populations.
[2:46:36] So they're given what we're doing with combat, obviously they're benefiting from that as well.
[2:46:42] I understand, but you could make the same argument for any student that has an additional
[2:46:48] identity, right? I don't know that we'd make that argument for, let's say, I don't
[2:46:53] there's a dyslexia weight that's being cracked. Well, a lot of dyslexia kids are also poor,
[2:46:58] so they're getting that money. I think that there's an additional challenge. And so my
[2:47:02] question is, I understand the dual language piece, and I support it. 100%. I'm just saying
[2:47:08] there's a whole lot of other kids who are yellow, whose schools and communities aren't going
[2:47:13] to be able to make the leap to do a language as quickly for a variety of reasons that are
[2:47:17] outside of their control and for that reason to have anything else for them. That is my
[2:47:22] question.
[2:47:23] Well, and I would say once again look at the whole picture, we had these incentives. They're
[2:47:28] getting extra money for getting particular of those students. We'll give way to those
[2:47:33] students even more of the incentive programs. If they succeed in doing that, they actually
[2:47:38] get more 100 and incentivize it to put more resources in those areas.
[2:47:43] Yeah, I don't, so let me try and answer the question.
[2:47:47] Oh, that's good.
[2:47:48] Yeah, no.
[2:47:48] I get it.
[2:47:49] So here's what I would say is that the think about it from the perspective that the current
[2:47:53] weights point one, we're going to point one five for dual language.
[2:47:57] In two more recommendations now, we're going to talk about the K, what we call K, pre K
[2:48:04] through 3rd grade. Every child is written 3rd grade, including incentivizing the English
[2:48:10] language learners. So, yes, there is additional funding associated with that. Here's my
[2:48:16] response to, I think, what you're asking, which is, I get that you're saying, well, it's
[2:48:20] going to take while for maybe a certain school district to get up to their program to get
[2:48:25] that additional funding and get started. We'll then start today.
[2:48:31] What does that mean?
[2:48:32] And what it means is that we're just not going to, again, we want outcomes.
[2:48:37] We want specific, you know, I believe we should have specific recommendations for spending money.
[2:48:43] They're specifically tied to outcomes.
[2:48:46] And so if this goes into effect, if we were to do this, then that school district should take advantage of that by implementing that program.
[2:48:54] I understand. I'm not criticizing the recommendation.
[2:48:57] I like the recommendation.
[2:48:58] Okay. It might be rare for us to agree so much.
[2:49:00] I like it. The point I'm actually is, the point I'm trying to make is on the ground
[2:49:09] because of the availability of teachers, which has nothing to do with the desire or the
[2:49:14] aggressiveness of a district because of the, because of what is required in statute to
[2:49:21] create and implement a dual-related program, even the most willing districts are going
[2:49:25] have a hard time doing that. And so I'm saying for those, for the students who are in those
[2:49:32] districts, in the meantime, while they ramp up, is this all we have for them? And what you're
[2:49:38] saying is there's also a 3k to 3 piece that there's other pieces. You know, there's, you know,
[2:49:45] again, we talked about, you know, there's niff of funding that they're new schools, they're getting
[2:49:49] money for that, they're getting money for CTE, they're getting, I mean, there's all kinds of
[2:49:52] different yet all the the piles together the answers yes. Right and so what I'm
[2:49:56] going to say is that while I appreciate that I don't want
[2:50:00] This to be the student group that says what you're getting all this other money, that should be good for your particular challenge. I don't know if we'd go to another zero. You're getting all this other stuff. And so because what we're trying to do is as ELO kids who for reasons outing for a long time, for the pure fact get teachers to go and access the program is to get enough kids in the right ratios to do dual language. And so what do we do?
[2:50:20] This bond, this is the stuff, flip a switch and do a language error.
[2:50:24] Part of that.
[2:50:25] We can't just pass it trying to get to that point.
[2:50:28] It's going to be a point.
[2:50:30] Any change like this that has an incentive market associated with it,
[2:50:34] and there's going to be a pipeline to fill that market.
[2:50:36] And I don't think that Chairman Huberty, Chairman Taylor,
[2:50:39] you know, have any, your comment is incorrect.
[2:50:42] It's going to take a while to fill the pipeline.
[2:50:44] You know, there's certainly the, this is mirroring with the demographics
[2:50:48] and the state are changing anyway.
[2:50:49] So, you know, I'm optimistic that the market can handle it.
[2:50:56] Sorry.
[2:50:57] So, thank you very much for doing this.
[2:51:00] This is great.
[2:51:01] We do do a dual language in our district.
[2:51:03] The only concern I have is,
[2:51:05] I think, Representative Bernal's right, dual language,
[2:51:08] compared to other bilingual purpose, twice,
[2:51:11] the amount of money because what you're effectively doing
[2:51:13] is filling a class with half-kids that are learning English,
[2:51:15] half-kids that are learning Spanish,
[2:51:17] and that means that you have to have more teachers.
[2:51:25] I just want to make sure that Ms. Martin's clarification doesn't go on her Leo T.E.A.
[2:51:31] But the non-ales would be eligible to get this category of funding.
[2:51:35] I just want to make sure that we're understanding that correctly, the non-ales.
[2:51:40] Ms. Martin.
[2:51:41] She passed.
[2:51:43] I did.
[2:51:44] Thank you.
[2:51:44] I also have a question about what grade level the dual language will stop at.
[2:51:48] But is it only for primary or can extend into secondary?
[2:51:54] You know, I think it'd be to be determined.
[2:51:56] But I think it should be expansive, you know, any child that we think we can help, we should be able to help.
[2:52:03] But this is, again, I think our recommendation is kind of that what's called at 20,000 foot right now.
[2:52:10] The details will be out there and bring experts in to help us, you know, legislatively craft it and work with TEA.
[2:52:16] I think ultimately we'll be able to do that.
[2:52:18] I do think, I guess I would say that trying to find out what would be the most cost-effective
[2:52:23] way to get more teachers to go into this field would be helpful.
[2:52:28] Whether it's grow your own strategies at districts, et cetera, but it doesn't matter if we provide
[2:52:33] the funding, if we can't provide the teachers and you're not going to offer it, right?
[2:52:36] So, yeah.
[2:52:38] We'll say for purposes of our estimating, we just looked at existing ELL students and them
[2:52:46] moving programs, so certainly we could estimate, you know, what it would cost for a given non-EOL
[2:52:52] students access to the program, but that's not the case. And for those of you that may be
[2:52:57] watching there and that part of the problem, no, this is the law is we have a problem of large numbers.
[2:53:04] So you've got five million kids in public schools in Texas. Take a billion dollars
[2:53:09] If you added a billion dollars, but we won the lottery and we got a billion dollars extra for a one year.
[2:53:16] Billion divided by five million is what?
[2:53:20] Drop all the zeros and it's a thousand divided by five which is two hundred dollars.
[2:53:24] So that would take the average allotment in the state from eleven four, eleven thousand four hundred to eleven thousand six hundred.
[2:53:31] The problem is nobody really thinks that would make much difference.
[2:53:35] $200 per student for a year and you just spent $2 billion on a biennium.
[2:53:40] So the whole thing behind this is the thing that we've been operating that we need to
[2:53:47] change, at least I needed to in my mindset, is spreading all the money equally.
[2:53:54] It's not going to change anything much at all.
[2:53:56] And the thing we're trying to do again is focus that.
[2:54:00] And it is going to, I mean, you know, I don't want to go against former President Bush,
[2:54:05] but you know, we're not intending to leave any children behind, but some children are
[2:54:11] going to get extra funding under this kind of approach because there's a million of them
[2:54:19] and they're being left behind right...
[2:55:00] 7600. The problem is nobody really thinks that would make much difference, $200 per student for a year, and you just spent $2 billion on a biennium. So the whole thing behind this is the thing that we've been operating that we need to change, at least I needed to in my mindset, is spreading all the money equally. It's not going to change anything much at all. And we want the thing we're trying to do, again,
[2:55:29] is focused at. And it is going to, I mean, you know, I don't want to go against the former
[2:55:35] President Bush, but you know, who are not intending to leave any children behind. But some
[2:55:41] children are going to get extra funding under this kind of approach because there's a million
[2:55:49] of them and they're being left behind right now. And so that's, that's just everybody keeping
[2:55:54] in mind of the problem, the more you spread that money out, the smaller the spread gets.
[2:56:02] And things like dual language are not cheap.
[2:56:06] So I don't remember that we have any testimony, maybe you do, as to how long it would take,
[2:56:11] if you had to got a bilingual teacher, how long it would take to train them up on dual
[2:56:16] language.
[2:56:17] I don't recall, seems like it is something you could do without, you know, two extra years
[2:56:23] of college or something, but I'm not an expert on that.
[2:56:29] Clearly, but what we'll do is work through it, you know,
[2:56:31] legislator be able to figure out the best way to move it forward.
[2:56:34] I think the goal is always to try to move that direction.
[2:56:38] Other questions?
[2:56:41] Okay, recommendation number 14, create a new dyslexia allotment.
[2:56:45] Background on this is currently districts do not receive direct funding or any funding
[2:56:49] to support students with dyslexia and related orders that receive services under Section 504
[2:56:57] rather than IDEA. In the 17-18 school year, less than 2.5% of students or approximately
[2:57:03] 165,000 received services for dyslexia and related services, but yet the state did not pay for those
[2:57:09] services. Rational districts are already providing the additional support needed by these students,
[2:57:14] but are not receiving any additional funds to do so. The prevalence of dyslexia in students
[2:57:19] is between five and 17 percent.
[2:57:21] So while we're only identifying a two and a half percent,
[2:57:24] national average is somewhere right around 10 percent
[2:57:26] of the student population.
[2:57:28] Additional funding will help provide the early identification
[2:57:30] intervention that can improve these students'
[2:57:32] academic success.
[2:57:34] Annual cost is estimated $100 million.
[2:57:36] We're suggesting using a weight of 0.1.
[2:57:39] I would point out specifically that when we think
[2:57:42] about dyslexic students, they're not qualified or they don't
[2:57:47] Qualify, just if they are dyslexic student alone under the special education as you think about that as we think about that
[2:57:54] They qualify under five or four and some have arts and IPA's or IP's rather and so I think that that was one of the
[2:58:04] Recommendations we've tried to do that now we did as as the legislators know with Senator Taylor we created a
[2:58:10] A dyslexia and an autism grant programs that we funded last legislative session that seem to be working.
[2:58:18] And so we're going to suggest revisiting those programs as we go into the next session as well.
[2:58:24] Questions?
[2:58:25] Dr. Hill?
[2:58:26] Just clarification that there is no cap as this has been proposed, correct?
[2:58:31] Thank you.
[2:58:33] I'm just going to say, yeah.
[2:58:39] I assume the variability between 5 and 17 is just district measurement data.
[2:58:44] Is that?
[2:58:45] Actually, national average.
[2:58:46] We are stats show the collection of data because we changed the law in 2013 to actually
[2:58:51] collect data on how many dyslexic students were in this data, Texas.
[2:58:55] We're only, on average, we're saying it's 2.5%, but if you talk to the national dyslexic
[2:59:00] society and the other groups are out there on average, it's over 10% across the country.
[2:59:04] There's a pretty big range between the numbers, so that's something to point out to the members as well as the folks listening.
[2:59:14] And I think that the grant programs that were passed, I think it was the old joint bill if I remember correctly.
[2:59:19] Okay, I think it would be a good model for this to get started.
[2:59:25] But there is a wide, as a data guy, there is a wide guarantee on this.
[2:59:32] I mean, the data that I see, you know, it's not a tight spectrum of how the measurement
[2:59:41] works, whether or not somebody's testing correctly.
[2:59:45] So you're going to have a large range in that category.
[2:59:49] I just want to ask, Lou, real quick, when you did the calculation, $100 million, did that
[2:59:53] represent the $165 million?
[2:59:55] We assumed it increased, didn't we?
[2:59:57] Okay, we use the 169.
[2:59:58] Okay.
[3:00:00] So, if we average, if we're really at 5%, then theoretically, it could cost you everybody.
[3:00:08] That's right. And what's been a big picture, if we're trying to get kids reading a grade level by grade three, how many of these are dislikes? They're not meeting these goals. So we get a better identify those kids. Again, the types of help that they need to get them reading, we're going to bump those numbers significantly on the third grade reading, which we all understand is such an important indicator of future academic success.
[3:00:30] and that. So I think this, you know, it is an estimate that's going to cost a hundred
[3:00:35] million. But as far as if there's more, we, if we identify more kids with dyslexia,
[3:00:40] it's built in and it's going to get more and will help more kids with it. So I just,
[3:00:43] this is a good bank for your buck kind of money right here.
[3:00:46] Thank, thank you for proposing to fund an unfunded mandate. You're welcome.
[3:00:51] All right.
[3:00:54] Okay. Recommendation number 15. Create a new early childhood support
[3:00:59] The background of this is that in 2018, only 41% of third graders achieve the meet standard level in star reading assessment.
[3:01:08] That number falls to only 30% for economically disadvantaged students, 26% for ESL students, with both groups representing the fastest growing populations in K-12.
[3:01:20] Students that meet the standard in third grade are more significantly more likely to meet
[3:01:26] the standard again in later grades in both reading and math.
[3:01:30] And our rationale was that because this provided additional funding to districts for economically
[3:01:34] disadvantaged and ESL students in kindergarten through third grade to improve third grade
[3:01:40] reading outcomes and thus improve later outcomes as well.
[3:01:44] Well, funding should be sufficient to allow a district by full day pre-K to all those
[3:01:48] of students, if it's so desires, among its various literacy strategies.
[3:01:52] And this is a recommendation from the outcomes working group as well.
[3:01:56] Annual cost is expected to be $780 million using a weight of 0.1.
[3:02:03] I don't know if Mr. Williams wants to litigate this anymore.
[3:02:06] I think that, you know, we asked TA to provide us data that showed what the, if you passed the
[3:02:14] third grade reading exam, what was the likelihood that you passed eighth grade reading in math
[3:02:18] and it was two to three times more likely. So it was compelling to us from that standpoint.
[3:02:24] The one amendment I might ask us to consider as part of this is that now that we're providing
[3:02:29] this kind of funding, potentially it would be a poop, a poop all of us that if you're offering
[3:02:35] Pre-K at whatever level you're offering into all your kids who are eligible or maybe
[3:02:40] half your kids because you're constrained, etc., that'll be done with kind of HB4 quality
[3:02:45] measures.
[3:02:46] The right standard of teacher ratios, etc., I think there's no reason that a district
[3:02:51] shouldn't do that if we're providing this kind of fun,
[3:02:55] but otherwise I'm highly, highly
[3:02:57] supportive.
[3:02:59] Question?
[3:03:01] Could we also say that the money comes at first to Pre-K?
[3:03:09] I just, yeah, I think fun pre-K first, and then if you're already doing that go elsewhere.
[3:03:16] You know, I'm supportive of the recommendation that came from the outcomes group.
[3:03:23] I think that clearly the goal is to get them reading as early as possible.
[3:03:29] But remember something, you know, let's say that, you know, only about half the...
[3:03:33] But now it's not even half, it's less than half the population goes through pre-K, and there are students in that group who are dyslexic and have other reading problems and things of that nature that maybe don't end her until, you know, certainly kindergarten or first grade, so I don't want to restrict it just I think we should take that in consideration as we go there, let the school districts create the programs as we go for we can be very, I think we can be very creative in this.
[3:03:57] But the goal is to make sure that by third grade, you know, every kid has the ability to read and understand comprehend.
[3:04:04] I mean to me, this looks like this is the perfect example of what a black grant should be, okay.
[3:04:09] But just to get the, is to say here is the result that we want by third grade.
[3:04:14] And here's the incentive to do it. And so then you tailor your program accordingly.
[3:04:22] one question based on the T8 report we were just given today on page four
[3:04:29] refers to third grade reading level of course this says 2017 and here
[3:04:35] and here recording 2018 I don't know where that number came from but we went
[3:04:41] from 45 to 41 that's a significant drop in third grade reading yes even as
[3:04:46] we're speaking. So we really need to turn this around. It's scary.
[3:04:54] 10% drop, not good.
[3:05:02] Okay. All right. Recommendation number 16. We also suggest creating a new grade three reading incentive program. A lot of the background is the same, but I will go through it just because I think it's important to reiterate this again. But in 2018, again, only 41% of third graders achieved the meat standard level in the start reading assessment. That number falls to only 30% for economically disadvantaged students and 26% for ESL students with both groups
[3:05:30] representing the fastest growing population K-12.
[3:05:34] Students that meet the standard in third grade
[3:05:36] are more significantly more likely to meet the state standard
[3:05:38] again in later grades in both reading and math.
[3:05:40] Our rationale is that this provides additional funding
[3:05:43] for each third grader achieving reading proficiency
[3:05:46] at the meet standard level.
[3:05:48] It's a recommendation from the outcomes working group.
[3:05:51] The outcome working group recommendation
[3:05:52] also advises using a spectrum of incentive amounts
[3:05:55] in order to equitably reflect achievement disparities
[3:05:58] between different student populations.
[3:06:01] This has an annual cost of $400 million
[3:06:03] in using a weight of .4.
[3:06:06] Mr. Williams, would you like to...
[3:06:08] I think that just in terms of math,
[3:06:11] I want to say that non-economically disadvantaged students
[3:06:14] achieve probably enough 60 to 65% proficiency ratio.
[3:06:18] We already said that economic disadvantaged students are at 30.
[3:06:22] So at a minimum, we would probably argue that the equity weight
[3:06:26] should be for a economic and disadvantaged student should be twice what it is for a non-economic
[3:06:31] disadvantaged student because otherwise you're going to have a fluent schools with 60-70-80%
[3:06:36] proficiency is getting significantly more dollars per child in their school versus more challenge
[3:06:42] schools but obviously highly supportive and I think this will provide some real incentives for
[3:06:47] districts to resource their schools appropriately and put in their better teachers in K-3 versus in
[3:06:53] and later tested grades, et cetera.
[3:06:56] So when we think about English language learners
[3:06:59] in as an example, that might be in the San Antonio School District
[3:07:02] versus not similar, but a population of students
[3:07:05] in an humble or someplace else in Kingwood as an example.
[3:07:10] The thought process was, is that they're
[3:07:11] not getting the same funding source.
[3:07:14] You're giving them the ability to, you know,
[3:07:17] that's pretty money that we get that.
[3:07:19] But we're trying to reward and create incentives
[3:07:20] as we go forward.
[3:07:21] We want to put the money where it's where it's most populous and where we'll do the most good that was the thought
[3:07:35] Recommendation number 7 to create a new college career in military readiness readiness incentive program
[3:07:42] Background in this is although 90% of Texas high school students graduate in four years
[3:07:47] Less than 40% demonstrate post-secondary readiness on SAT, ACT and the TSI assessment
[3:07:53] Students that do not demonstrate college readiness must then pay to take developmental education
[3:07:59] courses in their post-secondary education for no credit wasting student loans and
[3:08:04] Pell grant funds on remediation that should have happened before high school graduation.
[3:08:08] Student FA, FSA, and college applications inadequately supported requiring additional resources, Texas
[3:08:15] foregoes over $500 million of Pell grants annually because of this.
[3:08:20] So, our rationale is that this provides additional funding for each graduating senior that does
[3:08:25] not require remediation upon graduation and successfully enrolls in college, achieves
[3:08:30] an industry except its certificate or in lists in the military.
[3:08:34] Offers a more targeted college readiness approach than the existing high school allotment.
[3:08:39] And again, if you recall the high school allotment that we were taking off is about the same
[3:08:43] amount of money.
[3:08:45] It's a recommendation from the outcomes working group, and the recommendation also advises using a spectrum of incentive amounts in order to equitably reflect achievement disparities between different student populations.
[3:08:56] This is an annual cost of $400 million, and we'll have to figure out what the weight will be.
[3:09:01] We don't exactly know what that weight would be at this particular time.
[3:09:06] But, you know, there's some different views on this, and I'll let Mr. Williams chime in on this.
[3:09:10] But I think that clearly the the bonus programs for career and
[3:09:15] college readiness are important and I think across all our population,
[3:09:19] I understand that there could be some additional funding sources that go in.
[3:09:24] But if we're talking about the 275 that we're taking around,
[3:09:27] whether it goes in the VA or go some other place, creating those incentive programs
[3:09:33] for low socioeconomic disadvantaged populations of students,
[3:09:37] maybe the numbers more than $400 million, I guess is my point.
[3:09:40] Maybe we need to spend, you know, some additional resources there, but Mr. Williams, on the IPF, something bad.
[3:09:45] I think that, again, I appreciate the support of the expenditures working group on this.
[3:09:51] I think this, I point out on that third bullet point where it says Texas Board goes 500 million of Pell grants annually.
[3:09:56] That's per each graduating class, so obviously if you go to school for four years, that's...
[3:10:00] That's 2 billion for that whole life. Every kid in that class went to the long-come kid and went for four years of college. That would be a 2 billion. So there's a significant amount of leverage of federal dollars that can be accessed by providing the supports to counselors to make sure that kids who are eligible fill out the FAFSA form and their TAFSA form. We're about 55% in FAFSA completion rate as a state. High performing states are 85% Louisiana and Tennessee. So they've really prioritized filling out FAFSA forms to make sure that 13th and
[3:10:29] 14th grade is affordable and accessible for kids.
[3:10:32] So again, highly supportive of this.
[3:10:36] And I think that let me just have one quick thing.
[3:10:38] I think that's a really good point
[3:10:39] when you said something about counselors.
[3:10:41] And while from an expenditure standpoint,
[3:10:44] we thought about that,
[3:10:45] we're gonna talk about compensation programs here in a second.
[3:10:48] My other hat, when we think about the Public Education Committee,
[3:10:52] we had our school safety meetings,
[3:10:53] and I know Chairman Taylor,
[3:10:55] you probably had the discussion as well,
[3:10:56] that we saw that we're basically, you know, about, we have about half the counselors that we actually need in the state of Texas right now, and I know that was a recommendation that we made as a school safety from our public education committees that we need to increase, we need to, we need a double the amount of counselors that we have in the state of Texas to help our student populations, whether it's for mental health or for career and college readiness and things of that nature. I think that's a serious, we are seriously, seriously under utilizing our staff.
[3:11:25] Let me add one other thing, so I think many of you know we launched this Dallas County Promise effort about a year ago, and we sat down with 43 principals and their counseling staff this summer and went through their data showed how many of their kids enrolled in college or some type of post secondary how many of their mediation with their average GPA was and how many of their kids ultimately met one of the 25 highest paying jobs that are part of mid skills jobs in the region and to their credit I think they were one very surprised because that data has never been shown to them.
[3:11:55] but it's all publicly available, we aggregate it for them.
[3:11:58] But equally important, a lot of counselors said,
[3:12:00] I've never been trained to understand
[3:12:02] what all these mid-skills jobs pay
[3:12:04] and the pathway to get there
[3:12:06] and that they make 50, 60, 70,000 dollars.
[3:12:08] I've been trained primarily to do one thing,
[3:12:10] just to get kids in college.
[3:12:12] And so I think trying to make sure
[3:12:13] that we train are these additional counselors
[3:12:15] and understanding all these mid-skills jobs
[3:12:17] that are out there that don't require B.A.,
[3:12:19] I think we're significantly improve living
[3:12:21] which credential accomplishes within our state.
[3:12:25] Yeah, it was more.
[3:12:26] Well, I think that's one of the benefits in explaining the CTE program as well because
[3:12:30] you know, CTE teachers have the ability to help students understand that skills can be
[3:12:36] very livable.
[3:12:37] But also I have a question about the when students are listed in the military and that goes
[3:12:44] toward the more or less the grade of the school.
[3:12:47] Do they have to enlist before they graduate?
[3:12:49] or I mean at what point because sometimes students don't turn 18 until on the summertime or they might not even list until they're 19.
[3:12:56] So how long does it last for that will work in favor of the school?
[3:13:01] We can get into the specifics but I think obviously there might be, we won't know how many kids enroll in college until, you know,
[3:13:07] the September date, the 12th day of the school, which will not be until September.
[3:13:11] So I think there have to be one year kind of catchment area to understand what happened with those graduates in the following 12 months and then use that as the calculation.
[3:13:21] So the devil's in the detail. I love this, by the way, I think it's exactly what the
[3:13:24] outcomes committee wanted to do. But I understand that some region 13 folks were in a meeting
[3:13:30] with TEA and on the CCMR, there were some proposals to not include enlistment in the reserves
[3:13:38] as part of CCMR. I don't think that's fair. And then there was also some move to not
[3:13:43] Not count on ramps on list, the kids actually accepted the credit even though they passed a college course.
[3:13:49] And I don't think that's very good.
[3:13:51] So, I think, you know, many of these are 20 to 30,000 foot recommendations of what we should do.
[3:13:58] It'll be legislative, how does it work when we get there?
[3:14:03] I just want to, I agree because to get into the reserves is the same.
[3:14:08] You still have to pass the ads of Abby, you still have to have the physical requirement.
[3:14:11] All of their expectations are the same, so that should measure the same.
[3:14:16] Thank you very much.
[3:14:18] Just a sense, Dr. Williams brought this up.
[3:14:22] I would love to see the data that you sent on the promise in PTEC and Dallas, okay?
[3:14:29] And I guess, you know, in term unity on this point, I still don't see any reference to PTEC or promise that we're doing incentive on.
[3:14:37] if I missed it, but I know that when we looked at outcomes that just seems to be a program
[3:14:44] that has been having a fantastic result in Dallas and every time I get on the so-box
[3:14:52] center west is not here, but I have to say that big deal is continuing to be.
[3:14:56] age downs, you know, but on this, on this issue.
[3:15:00] And so I would love to see an item on PTEC and promise because it's clearly best practices and state. Absolutely. I think we did, I think we did relative to the, you know, pushing down when we think about CTE and the additional funding that we're talking about in sixth or eighth grade, you know, that does take a lot of, you know, overlap with PTEC. And I know there's chairman Taylor's bill last session specifically on PTEC that was passed.
[3:15:29] that was creating those additional incentives.
[3:15:31] And I certainly would be supportive of that as well.
[3:15:33] I don't think there's any doubt about that.
[3:15:35] Let me just, I'd like to call your staff
[3:15:37] and talk to you after about what they might look like.
[3:15:40] Sure, okay, thanks.
[3:15:41] Let's go with Judge.
[3:15:42] Yes, thank you.
[3:15:43] I was wondering do you, are you incorporating
[3:15:46] any other measures or performance like SAT or ACT
[3:15:51] in addition to whether or not they enroll in military
[3:15:54] area or the remediation considerations for the incentive or do you have like a sort
[3:16:00] of focus?
[3:16:00] Well I think what we had recommended is that there need to be some that you need to be
[3:16:03] ready on either SAT, ACT or TSI, that you did not need remediation and then you did something
[3:16:10] with your degree of some form of passion and that you were supported in that journey, whether
[3:16:15] it's enrolling in the military or the reserves, whether it's enrolling in post-secondary filling
[3:16:20] at your FAFSA, those kind of things, that there was supportive provided by the high school
[3:16:23] they help you in that high school to post secondary or career transition because we just
[3:16:28] lose a ton of kids in that window. High schools are incentivized to graduate kids per
[3:16:33] the accountability system, but not necessary for them to be historically, historically
[3:16:37] not ready, incentivized for them to be ready or to access to the next level and try to figure
[3:16:42] that out.
[3:16:45] A combination of venture plans.
[3:16:48] Okay, anything for you?
[3:16:50] All right.
[3:16:52] Recommendation number 18, create a new teacher compensation center program.
[3:16:56] The background of this is that teachers are consistently cited as the most important
[3:17:00] in-school factor in student outcomes.
[3:17:02] Compensation is often cited as the primary reason the top graduates do not pursue a teaching
[3:17:07] career.
[3:17:08] High needs campuses often have more inexperienced teachers as well as higher teacher turnover.
[3:17:15] Our rationale behind this was it provides additional funding for districts to implement
[3:17:19] locally developed multi-measure evaluation systems to strategically increase teacher compensation and the placement of effective teachers at high need campuses.
[3:17:29] This is one of the recommendations also that came from the outcomes working group.
[3:17:33] We estimate the annual cost of $100 million to be determined and that's only first year.
[3:17:38] We understand that it could grow to over a billion dollars during the first five to ten years depending upon the adoption of it.
[3:17:46] We are not recommending any one specific program.
[3:17:49] I know that Dallas has their program,
[3:17:53] but in our discussions at the expenditures work group discussions,
[3:17:59] creating multiple programs, or
[3:18:02] cafeteria plans to pick from, or they could create the loans,
[3:18:06] as long as it's approved by TEA, to be able to excel and get to that level.
[3:18:12] Goes into a lot of the discussion the governors had about increasing teacher
[3:18:15] pay and a lot of the things that he's been talking about is late. So it mirrors
[3:18:20] many of the recommendations from the outcome working group from the discussions
[3:18:23] that we had and that you know really the policy should be is that we
[3:18:27] reward and have teachers that are that we could pay them a hundred thousand dollars
[3:18:30] a year. They don't have to go, they don't have to leave the teaching profession
[3:18:34] to become an administrator to make a hundred thousand dollars a year.
[3:18:38] And I would just say if it did go over
[3:18:40] Over five years or something of a billion dollars. If we were getting the kind of returns that Dallas is getting
[3:18:46] If we're taking schools from 50% faster than 80% passing. I think people willing to pay that
[3:18:52] That's what I'll see if you get in that kind of bang you want to put one more in that program
[3:18:57] So I don't I'm not afraid of that cost going up because if they're doing in their implementing and it's working on what we've seen in Dallas
[3:19:04] I SD it is worth it
[3:19:06] Compared to what we're doing right now in some of these places
[3:19:10] I just say that I really appreciate and locally developed.
[3:19:12] I think that's important.
[3:19:13] You know, I've talked with some of these in my district.
[3:19:16] You know, we talk about moving teachers or quality teachers
[3:19:18] through your most neediest campuses.
[3:19:21] All of my districts only have one campus.
[3:19:23] So there's ways that they can still do this same concept
[3:19:26] and this same idea inside of their system.
[3:19:29] Well, and I want to point out that the private sector
[3:19:31] has a big role here with both P tech and, you know,
[3:19:36] and the promise and the support that they've got.
[3:19:38] So, I think part of any outline, really, and I think Dr.
[3:19:43] Elsa's would be like an outline of what you can do and make sure that you've got any barriers in law removed from doing it.
[3:19:52] Because you're right, there's going to be local solutions that are different in a small community, large community, etc.
[3:19:57] But we've seen just
[3:20:00] It's astonishing improvements when you've got community college working with an ISD, working with employers and producing graduates that are in the real world. That's an awesome combination because if you talk about a rising tide, the list all votes, that's the type of graduate growing economy needs. And if you have more sales tax revenue as a result or more property tax revenue or wherever you're getting either locally at the state,
[3:20:28] then that you may just see that you know the chair and tailor that that extra
[3:20:33] money is just the blink of the eye it already comes in. So yeah this also works
[3:20:38] hand in hand with some incentives we're doing. We're allowing the different
[3:20:41] sake getting better teachers for third grade reading and CCMR readiness. No
[3:20:47] side they're very actually more money. We're allowing them flexible to spend it in a
[3:20:50] way they have to obtain those incentives because it's once again benefits
[3:20:54] right because the the whole assumption of this is growth is you can on the whole
[3:20:59] assumption of this is growth so you know that's that's really it's and it's
[3:21:04] the that's why that program hours to try I think it's attracted most of our the
[3:21:09] membership's attention because the the the the results especially in that one
[3:21:14] high school that was 98 percent low social economic as was astonishing
[3:21:18] astonishing improvement let me just add a couple of things you know one I think
[3:21:23] I think it's important that, again, I agree that local development is critically important
[3:21:28] that teachers need to be at the table in helping design that system.
[3:21:31] I think it's also important that we try and advocate that other assessments besides star
[3:21:36] be able to be used, whether it's map or whether it's ITBS, there's a lot of great nationally
[3:21:41] normed assessments out there that could be used.
[3:21:44] But I think there's other values to an evaluation system other than just pay.
[3:21:49] It's trying to figure out, have you equably distributed your best teachers?
[3:21:52] Are you giving great feedback to your prep programs in terms of what they're producing with the graduates that they send you?
[3:21:59] Are we making sure that our best teachers are identified to mentor brand new teachers?
[3:22:03] There's so many other benefits to understanding your people that I think would be really helpful to make sure,
[3:22:08] and this is a great incentive for districts to want to do that.
[3:22:16] I'm sorry, Mr. Coliseous.
[3:22:18] Thank you.
[3:22:19] I think this is sort of a, this is a systemic sort of game changer for many school districts that are struggling with the right solution
[3:22:25] and how to treat schools that are underperforming.
[3:22:29] I do, there's sort of a, you have to sort of find
[3:22:32] that right balance in terms of locally derived versus not
[3:22:37] trying to undermine results that we know that work.
[3:22:41] And so I'm just wondering, do you have any sort of parameters
[3:22:44] that you want to sort of bracket around the program
[3:22:46] to protect the quality of what we know it works
[3:22:49] and what that might be in terms of how you would sort
[3:22:53] of structure of the program and then how many teachers is sort of a cost analysis based
[3:22:59] on in terms of how might this be scaled across the state and who could take advantage
[3:23:05] of it.
[3:23:06] So just sort of parameters around sort of how much compensation are we talking about and
[3:23:10] how many teachers could possibly benefit.
[3:23:13] So in just rough math, if you've got roughly 325,000 teachers across the state, a billion
[3:23:20] dollars if everybody got it which you wouldn't do it if everybody got it that
[3:23:23] be $3,000 if you said well my best 50% of my teachers will get a raise and so
[3:23:28] that's now $6,000 per teacher which would be about a 10% increase. It gets
[3:23:34] back to how an H District should decide what's best for them is how they want to
[3:23:37] differentiate my top 10, my top 20, my top 50 etc but just the math that's what a
[3:23:42] billion translates to. 3,000 for every teacher, 6,000 for your top 50%
[3:23:48] $12,000 for your top 25% but each district needs to decide how they want to allocate that pool if they want to do that.
[3:23:54] Leo, the $100 million that we allocated, what assumption did you guys have in that?
[3:24:00] We put $100 million in first year, $200 million in second year.
[3:24:04] Great, that's one extra point.
[3:24:05] So we got it nailed down.
[3:24:08] We got it nailed down.
[3:24:10] The linear progression.
[3:24:16] I think the assumption was is that it's going to take at least a year for districts to
[3:24:21] actually figure out what system they want to put forth.
[3:24:23] There are some districts like Dallas and others that already have some type of evaluation
[3:24:27] system that they can submit.
[3:24:29] And back to your earlier question, I think it's obviously incumbent upon the commissioner
[3:24:32] to decide where kind of the minimum parameters that has to include at least three measures
[3:24:36] or four measures.
[3:24:37] It has to include some measure student growth, but it can't count for less than this or count
[3:24:42] for more than that.
[3:24:42] But you, anywhere within that band, he'll have to decide what he and his staff have to
[3:24:46] decide what they want to do to make so that it doesn't become so watered down, that it doesn't
[3:24:51] really create the systemic change that we all want it to do.
[3:24:55] And I think what's important, at least in our mind, is maybe our resident team.
[3:25:00] The future might might want a way in your put. You know, the thought process is that, you know, when when I was on school board, and we we struggle with stipend's and how do we incentivize, and it teaches the teacher to one camps and all of these other programs.
[3:25:30] if we improve the quality of the people that want to teach and they say oh I could actually
[3:25:35] do well and make decent money doing this then I'm going to go do this instead and then we're
[3:25:40] getting the results then maybe it turns from a billion to two but who knows I mean who knows
[3:25:45] where that goes I think that you know if the results are there you're going to pay for it because
[3:25:50] ultimately what we're producing at the end when they come out of high school and they go to college
[3:25:55] is a better product, right? So, with this part.
[3:25:59] Well, I know I've had a lot of feedback from my colleagues around the state and some
[3:26:03] of the concerns that they have are if they're elective teachers like, and we don't consider
[3:26:07] ourselves as CTE teachers to be that. I mean, more because of the endorsements, you know,
[3:26:12] it's a requirement. But also, fine arts, some of those teachers, I know that they're going
[3:26:16] to want to know are they eligible, you know, for this as well, even though we're not in
[3:26:20] tested areas. So, I want to be able to give them clear answer all now.
[3:26:23] Yeah, I think the two things, both the ramping up and what you're going to make the most difference.
[3:26:30] Obviously, it's what we've already looked at.
[3:26:33] The biggest difference we've made in the primary grades.
[3:26:37] I don't think heard that much testimony about what we need to incentivize, really incentivize
[3:26:44] our best teachers to teach American history.
[3:26:47] American history is important.
[3:26:48] It's a critical part of public school education.
[3:26:50] But, you know, we're trying to get, again, the big step-in-back, what's the big problem?
[3:26:54] The big problem is a million kids that difficulty reading and writing, and that's where we need
[3:27:00] to get those best teachers there.
[3:27:01] And it seems to me, I do think this is something you want to ramp up slowly because, for
[3:27:06] that reason, you just said, if you make it, just spread it all out, it's not going to make
[3:27:12] any difference.
[3:27:12] And then there's not going to be public support for increasing it because it didn't make
[3:27:15] any difference.
[3:27:16] If you really do start off as Dallas did, just start off with your ten best teachers.
[3:27:23] Put them in the most difficult school, see some remarkable results, and then it will
[3:27:29] grow itself because you'll have the public support to do it.
[3:27:32] But I'd really do think if you've started this off too big.
[3:27:35] And I think also just from my family members, they're in teaching profession, most schools
[3:27:42] I know why every school I ever went to, college law school, I could tell you the top two
[3:27:48] percent of teachers, the ones who were all stars, they were great, and everybody knew
[3:27:54] it.
[3:27:54] But the further you go down, you can get in a big argument about, you know, well, am I
[3:27:58] in the top 25 or the top 35 percent?
[3:28:01] And the problem is I understand it and that can be created by bonus incentive programs is
[3:28:08] is that you get competition between teachers,
[3:28:10] it's not fair, how did you get it?
[3:28:12] If we start off small with the people
[3:28:15] that are indisputably all-stars,
[3:28:18] then I think you minimize that at least
[3:28:20] until you get the program off the ground
[3:28:22] and see how it works.
[3:28:24] If I could, I'm sure there's a concept,
[3:28:26] and I think it's really important
[3:28:28] from what we've heard, this whole sleigh ride
[3:28:31] that started in January, okay?
[3:28:34] It's that you can't legislate leadership.
[3:28:37] Now, what we saw at Dallas ISD, you know, community, Dallas, you know, and a colleague over there.
[3:28:46] San Antonio, etc. are people that have leadership skills. And quite frankly, the promised PTAG,
[3:28:54] Dallas situation, the leadership of the chancellor and of the superintendent is a light year ahead of what I have in Houston right now.
[3:29:04] I'm just it is, and because that leadership is so important that we just have to make
[3:29:13] sure that they have the management tools to be able to take advantage of that good leadership
[3:29:18] when you see it, and as a result when you look at some type of performance based or incentive
[3:29:26] based program for teachers, we're going to have to get the best practices of the leaders
[3:29:33] that we have and replicate them and open those as programs to others. But the truth, you know,
[3:29:45] about promising PTEC and what happened in Dallas was that if the superintendent, the chancellor,
[3:29:52] were good leaders and they didn't have the corresponding support from CEOs in the private sector, never occurred.
[3:30:00] And so we just have to be able to open the door way up for a good leadership to take best practices around the state. And that clearly has got to be a new compensation program for teachers.
[3:30:15] Okay. Thank you. Recommendation number 19, create an extended year incentive program. Background. And this is that students achievement levels typically drop during the summer months. Usually this is referred to as what we call the summer slide.
[3:30:30] Studies of the Effective Summer Instruction Program show that this decline can be eliminated
[3:30:35] with programs that offer three to four hours of instructions a day for between five to
[3:30:40] six weeks.
[3:30:41] So not right after, we break for summer school, but giving them an opportunity to go back
[3:30:47] and have that remediation that they're going to need.
[3:30:51] The rationale, this provides half-day funding for districts that offer additional instructional
[3:30:55] days from 181 to 210 days for students in pre-K through 5th grade.
[3:31:01] In addition to improving student outcomes, this program would also provide additional
[3:31:05] compensation to teachers and assist families that needed the most with child care in the
[3:31:10] summer months, annual costs is expected to be $50 million.
[3:31:14] Only thing I would say to this is that this would be a program I believe that we're focusing
[3:31:20] on reading, we're focusing on this advanced population, we're focusing on the elementary
[3:31:26] schools. We do all that work during the year and then we let them out of school and
[3:31:30] they go backwards significantly by the time they come back to us at the end of Augusta.
[3:31:36] And our thought process was that why not find those school districts and the teachers that
[3:31:42] actually want to go teach in those programs for they can make some extra money, but at
[3:31:48] same time, there will be these student populations, especially in our urban areas and settings,
[3:31:54] we think this would be a great incentive for those programs to be taken care of.
[3:31:58] And it also shows that in many of these settings that the children that are getting their
[3:32:08] meals when they're going to school with us aren't hardly eating or being fed properly during
[3:32:14] in the summer months as well.
[3:32:15] And so this would take care of some of those problems as well.
[3:32:19] Questions, comments?
[3:32:21] Yeah, I really just have a comment.
[3:32:22] I see the value of this.
[3:32:24] I think this is very worthwhile, particularly with some populations.
[3:32:26] But also, I don't think necessarily that needs a law
[3:32:29] or in our school of finance, the idea of using technology
[3:32:32] to help with that summer decrease or these younger kids,
[3:32:37] particularly their computer games,
[3:32:38] other than have reading and math and that the kids actually
[3:32:42] to enjoy playing that would help immensely
[3:32:44] with that reducing the summer drop off.
[3:32:46] Not take away from this program at all,
[3:32:48] but just encouraging districts to look into those things
[3:32:51] as we're providing more and more resources
[3:32:53] and technology at the students individually
[3:32:56] that they'd be allowed to take that home
[3:32:57] over the summer and have a contest over the summer
[3:33:00] or you get to the highest level in this game
[3:33:02] and they can measure the amount of time spent in the kids.
[3:33:06] We get out there to compete.
[3:33:07] We won't lose a lot of that loss of educational quality
[3:33:16] So now we're through the new programs and now we have some additional new proposal recommendations that we want to talk about.
[3:33:28] So recommendation number 20, utilize remaining funds from reallocations to increase the basic allotment.
[3:33:34] Background on this is that the basic allotment set at $5,140 for the Fiscal 18 19 school year in the General Appropriations Act following an increase of $1,547 in Fiscal 10 from $3,218 to $4,765, the basic allotment has only increased by $375 over the last decade.
[3:33:56] The rationale is, this allows school districts flexibility to spend additional funds where
[3:34:00] they most need them, increases the equity in the system while also decreasing the amount
[3:34:04] of recapture owed to the state.
[3:34:06] This is going to be subject and left to obviously the legislators, the legislators as we go
[3:34:12] into the next session of what we think that will be left, but we've seen different numbers
[3:34:18] in what they do and what the impact associated with that is, but I think for everybody thinks
[3:34:23] about it, when we think about basic lot in tier one, we think about tier two funding.
[3:34:26] This obviously impacts everything, helps recaptures, helps 42s, it helps everybody.
[3:34:31] So you know, there's, you can, you can look at the map that we've done and, and, and the
[3:34:35] programs that we put out and, you know, what we're suggesting for new money, actually new
[3:34:38] money going into this, into the system here.
[3:34:41] And you know, I think we allocate what a billion, you know, roughly a year of new, new resources
[3:34:46] and new money that's going in and so you can extrapolate out what that could, that could
[3:34:51] relate to.
[3:34:51] But again, we as legislators that vote on basic allotment, I think that that becomes budgetary and how do we get there, you know what?
[3:35:00] I have to see recommendations on what the revenues come out as well.
[3:35:10] Recommendation number 21. Link, tier two, copper penny yield to a percentage of the basic allotment. Background on this is that in 2006, HB1 and the 79th Third Call Station established multiple equalized wealth levels in the school finance system. Copper pennies, which are the pennies, says, reminder from $1.7 to $1.17, were equalized up to $31.95, which in 2006 was the 88th
[3:35:32] percentile in terms of wealth per student, so just as an example, 88% of the water and
[3:35:38] the system was equalized and that was tied to Dallas ISD at the time.
[3:35:42] This yield has not been adjusted since 2006 and now 3195 now represents the 47th percentile.
[3:35:50] Our rationale is this would increase the yield by initial amount and then it index the yield
[3:35:54] to a percentage of the basic allotment so that the yield would increase with any increase
[3:35:58] in the basic allotment.
[3:35:59] This would also increase Tier 2A for Chapter 42 districts and reduce recapture for 41 districts taxing above the $6 rate.
[3:36:07] The minor is the golden pennies between $1 or $6 or $6 are the golden pennies.
[3:36:15] Tier 1 is subject to recapture and then the copper pennies in the Tier 2 are then also subject to recapture.
[3:36:23] one of the arguments that we've heard from school districts along the ways is that, you know,
[3:36:28] you've got school districts that are at the maximum cap of $1.17. We have over 400 school districts
[3:36:32] that are attaching at the maximum rate of $1.17. And if you were to change, and whether we,
[3:36:39] you know, at the time when this was done in 2006, if we had linked it together as a percentage
[3:36:43] of the wealth of 88 percent, that would have continued to rise and pumped additional resources,
[3:36:48] which means that school districts could lower their tax burden as they go forward.
[3:36:53] In addition, it would lower recapture for school districts by doing that.
[3:36:57] However, in the case, obviously if they're not taxing above the dollar six,
[3:37:02] then there's no benefit to them associated with that.
[3:37:05] But if they do, then this is also the incentive we hear from recapture districts all the time.
[3:37:10] Well, why would I go and ask for a tax increase if I've got to give 80% or 70% back to the state of Texas?
[3:37:16] And so that's what we're trying to do is equalize that, bring it up to a level that makes sense.
[3:37:23] Yes, that's tied with the next one.
[3:37:25] No, the next one is a little bit different.
[3:37:28] If I can, do you have an estimate on this one?
[3:37:31] That's really the dollars on the last one.
[3:37:33] And yes, the middle one.
[3:37:34] No, we don't at this time.
[3:37:36] I think we had some different ideas and played with some different things.
[3:37:40] And really, you just have to pick a number.
[3:37:42] Right now, I mean, here's the way I would look at it.
[3:37:44] Back in 2006, when the tiers were put into place,
[3:37:48] And we talked about getting rid of tiers altogether, but that's very, very, very, very expensive
[3:37:52] if you're talking about doing that.
[3:37:54] But the point is, is that it's really on the recapture side, and really it's the capturing
[3:38:00] of the property wealth that you're not giving back.
[3:38:03] So it's basically you're taking the resources that are coming in through property wealth
[3:38:07] and you're pushing it down.
[3:38:09] This is something that really, if we really want to get property tax relief, if you think
[3:38:13] about it, you know, to get up to that level of 88% again, I don't remember what the number was,
[3:38:18] but I think it was like 47 bucks or 47 something. Is that's on right? Somewhere in that range,
[3:38:27] you have the number. So for the copper yield? Yeah. So at 75% of the PA would be $43. But to get
[3:38:38] to 88% I mean that's good. What are the discussions we had Senator was that, you know, in a minimum,
[3:38:45] And if you target it to a percentile of what the BA is,
[3:38:49] and if we pick, you know, you pick the number, you know,
[3:38:50] right now, even if you went to 50 percent,
[3:38:52] it's more than what it is.
[3:38:53] But if you went up to 75 percent, you'd think
[3:38:55] about the economic benefit to the local districts.
[3:38:59] And basically what you're doing is you're giving back
[3:39:01] to them what the property growth is, right?
[3:39:03] So your LAR request was $3.5 billion less in GR, right?
[3:39:07] And specifically related to property growth.
[3:39:09] Yes, right?
[3:39:10] So, you know, again, we're taking the difference
[3:39:13] It's on the property growth and using it to offset or spend another place is where the majority of that money is a result of this.
[3:39:22] But again, keep in mind, we're taking current year values, or one of our suggestions is current year values here.
[3:39:27] So there is money.
[3:39:27] There is money to be moved around and reallocated, but this is where we think we should move it to.
[3:39:33] So while you talked about Mr. Killian, or Dr. Killian, when you talked about lower property values, how about Doug?
[3:39:40] Lower property values or using current your property values.
[3:39:45] This is one of the things that you could actually do to actually put fix the system to make it actually work as I'm going to go for a basis.
[3:39:53] Senator?
[3:39:54] It's okay.
[3:39:56] So,
[3:39:59] I'm still-
[3:40:00] I still need to see how this works out with the revenue group as we all do. Obviously, based on my previous comments, there is a trade-off in a world of finite resources. There's trade-off between spreading money around and concentrating it. And it seems to me that the main thing that seems to me at this point, the main thing I think we could accomplish that would be different is concentrating it. And this is the kind of
[3:40:29] thing that might be able to be adjusted year to year, it would very year to year, I'm a little
[3:40:34] uncomfortable with a set percentage figure just cause things change. You know, you have hurricanes
[3:40:41] and you have recessions and you have stuff like that that affects the state budget and the state
[3:40:49] has to do something about it. But I can you know, we've heard compelling arguments from virtually
[3:40:58] everybody in education community about they would like more money and how they would spend
[3:41:02] it.
[3:41:02] Many of those are great ideas so I'm not just reacting to no one I'm going to do that
[3:41:10] but I am nervous.
[3:41:12] I do think there's a trade-off between the more you spread the money around, the thinner,
[3:41:17] the benefit gets and it just seems to me that the biggest thing, my biggest impression
[3:41:22] of all the witnesses we've heard is this big block of students so again if we won't go
[3:41:27] if we had again, this is where we've got to move the ball
[3:41:30] while we've got the chance.
[3:41:32] If I could turn just to follow on the running total that I had
[3:41:37] was after recommendation in the 19 until we hit
[3:41:42] the additional recommendations, we were about 1.6
[3:41:45] bayed up.
[3:41:45] So as the revenue guy was really happy.
[3:41:48] I started spending it right up until the Uber.
[3:41:51] He started spending the money in the next recommendation.
[3:41:54] We were already, we were one six up, but it was a great program.
[3:41:58] Yeah, well, it's off the park, right, and then now we're on the downhill slide, but
[3:42:03] anyway.
[3:42:04] So not necessarily, and I want to be very, very clear on this, and I know that this
[3:42:10] was, you know, we had a very robust conversation about this, you know, in our, in our kind
[3:42:15] of work group, and then also when we were there on the dias and talked about this, and
[3:42:19] I know that this is one of those things that's not popular, but here is my question, and I
[3:42:23] I think this is the one that we have to answer.
[3:42:24] We really want to fix school finance.
[3:42:26] What do you say to the 400 school districts
[3:42:28] that are at the maximum cap that can't even help themselves,
[3:42:30] even if they wanted to right now?
[3:42:31] They're $1,17.
[3:42:33] And most of those are fast growth school districts.
[3:42:35] Many of them are fast growth school districts today.
[3:42:37] And I know that it would be very unpopular to say,
[3:42:40] well, let's just go ahead and increase the cap
[3:42:41] so they can tax their people more.
[3:42:45] That's not the solution.
[3:42:46] The solution is that we have to check.
[3:42:48] We have to fix these tier two yields.
[3:42:50] And if we're unwilling to do that,
[3:42:51] Then ultimately, you know, you were a Supreme Court justice, you start getting into that balance of, wait a minute, do you got a statewide property tax again?
[3:43:02] And so this is something that I think that we really need to take a serious look at, and I know politically it's a big lift, but I think the history here is that it was created in 2006, 2007 and tied as a percentage for a very specific reason, but we just never stayed up for it.
[3:43:20] Yep, that's, it is the, it is the quantity, the balance we want people to exceed, we want
[3:43:27] people to be invested locally, we want them to see the school districts be excellent,
[3:43:32] but we don't want them to spend too much to be too excellent because then it becomes
[3:43:35] a statewide property tax and it's, you know, there's big-ish ways you can fix that which
[3:43:41] is take away the rule that you can't have statewide property tax, but assuming no, that's, that's
[3:43:48] going to happen. I mean, it is just a bit of a corner to figure out, but Dr. Alex.
[3:43:52] Yeah. And to the concentration spread to thin, I would kind of relate that maybe to another
[3:43:56] point when we're talking about teacher pay. And we're trying to direct money to the quality
[3:44:01] teachers. You know, that's concentrating there. But that's all based on a premise that you
[3:44:05] have an adequate base of adequate teacher pay. And I think that's where this balance is out.
[3:44:09] We're going to do some concentration. We're going to move it there, but we're going to have some
[3:44:12] across the board. I think this is a recommendation that moves us there.
[3:44:16] To that point, I would say that, and I appreciate the cover paintings because, quite frankly,
[3:44:22] we haven't been able to give up with inflationary costs. And so what you're seeing is
[3:44:26] a teacher wages being eroded. So while I love the fact that we're going to incentivize
[3:44:32] some outstanding performance, we also have to take care of our basic needs as well.
[3:44:37] And I know, I don't know about Nicole, but we had our time finding teachers this year.
[3:44:41] The economy is doing well and we ran short for a number of months going into the area, so that's unusual.
[3:44:50] And teacher pay is just not there.
[3:44:56] I know it's a tough one, but I think it's...
[3:45:00] If we don't, if we don't do this, this will be, this will be one of the ultimate deals. Well, and that's the, you know, the other analysis you all have that we as a commission don't necessarily have is what do you have to do to get this thing passed? There's a lot of people that, there's a lot of people that once you get it down, they do the runs, all we're losing, you know, a million dollars. And they go, what that million dollars back for, they go vote for it. And so, I mean, that's why I'm to some degree.
[3:45:29] They'll be, they'll be, they'll be parts of this that I guess would get broken up in Senator Taylor's agreed to carry this part of it.
[3:45:35] So, well,
[3:45:40] that's good to know that that assignment has already been made.
[3:45:43] I just passed in the city to go with him.
[3:45:45] Yeah, I'll get a pass. Don't worry about it.
[3:45:47] I can, we can pass anything in the house. It's fine, you know.
[3:45:50] That's right.
[3:45:51] I think there's something like a tax bill.
[3:45:53] I think those have to stun the house.
[3:45:55] Okay, wait a minute, yeah, you're starting to ask me.
[3:45:58] All right, you're ready.
[3:46:01] Okay, just following the Constitution, yeah, I understand.
[3:46:04] That's why you're a senator, that's right.
[3:46:08] And don't forget it.
[3:46:10] Yes sir, yes sir.
[3:46:13] Okay, the last one, recommendation number 22, link tier two, golden penny yield to a set
[3:46:18] percentile of wealth per student.
[3:46:20] Background on this HB1 and the 79, third called session established multiple equalized wealth levels in the school finance system.
[3:46:27] The golden pennies, which is $1 to $1 to $6, were equalized up to the Austin ISD wealth level, which in 2006 was the 95th percentile in terms of wealth per student at $41.22.
[3:46:38] So again, the golden pennies, we think about that the highest yield that's out there, so those are pennies that are going into the system.
[3:46:45] This yield has not been changed since 2006, and Austin ISD now represents the 99th percentile, so about 106.28.
[3:46:54] A rationale is decoupled this yield from Austin ISD and set it at a certain percentile.
[3:46:58] It provides more predictability in the system and removes a variable that is not tied to a district or a student's need.
[3:47:04] We looked at a variety of different options, whether it be 95th or 98th or 99th or whatever that number would be.
[3:47:12] Again, this will be a discussion.
[3:47:14] This will be one of those items that, you know, certainly what will happen is if it does
[3:47:19] go down there, it's the first thing that Mocha and Casey will do is do the runs and tell
[3:47:22] every school district how bad this is or how good this is for them.
[3:47:26] So that's one of the things that we would take into consideration.
[3:47:28] But look, if we're going to change the system, we're going to change the way that we do things.
[3:47:33] You know, you have a school district that is obviously by no fault of their own at the, you
[3:47:38] know, just huge property tax gross and things of that nature.
[3:47:41] Which basically for school districts, it's not equate to what the original ten of what that was.
[3:47:49] We've had discussions about rolling two, one, two, two together.
[3:47:52] That would be very interesting.
[3:47:54] Those are all discussions that we should have.
[3:47:57] We don't have a specific percentage or anything like that.
[3:48:00] So if somebody's got some runs that are out there, they're not right.
[3:48:04] We just did some different ideas just to figure out what we thought it would cost.
[3:48:09] but we think it's we think it's something that should be done. When we talk about
[3:48:12] tier one, tier two, and the pennies and everything else that's out there, this
[3:48:15] should be something that should be addressed and all-encompassing. Holistic change.
[3:48:21] That's it.
[3:48:22] I was just going to volunteer to sign up for your next trip here.
[3:48:26] Yeah, exactly.
[3:48:28] That's what Ms. College does.
[3:48:30] So just a question. So are the golden pennies still golden or are they subject to
[3:48:35] recapture?
[3:48:35] No, they would stay, they would not be subject to refill.
[3:48:39] Well, I mean, think about this way.
[3:48:41] You're at the highest percent time.
[3:48:42] I mean, Leo, I guess that's a better question for you.
[3:48:46] I guess there would still be recapture for those six things.
[3:48:50] Right, yes.
[3:48:53] So I guess my other question, and let's just say, hypothetically,
[3:48:57] that the revenue working group sort of, you know,
[3:49:00] follows in a similar fashion of the outcomes
[3:49:03] in the expenditure of working groups and does an impressive job of finding some revenue
[3:49:07] opportunity.
[3:49:08] I think there's at least three and a half billion as a starting point, and we find some
[3:49:13] opportunities to not only reinvest some of these reallocations, but additional capacity.
[3:49:18] With there be some opportunities to consider some inflationary components and sort of the
[3:49:25] basic allotment or any of these other yield levels to consider the fact that, because
[3:49:32] Because I guess the sort of fear, some of the core issues that we've seen in the formulas
[3:49:38] is that they become outdated after a certain time-prime.
[3:49:42] You know, we're living with sort of 30-year-old formulas and you've done sort of this perkyling
[3:49:47] in effort to sort of look at them and retool them and get them to sort of a better sort
[3:49:51] of set point.
[3:49:52] And so we don't necessarily lose ground and we definitely can't sort of work with the assumption
[3:50:00] School districts can absorb costs and inflation over time. And so, if we can find capacity with their being of willingness to kind of build in a structure to consider some indexing or some possibilities to absorb inflation over time at some point. If we are, if we're so inclined to sort of find capacity on the revenue side.
[3:50:19] I mean, I just say just from a legal standpoint, that's a, these guys better answer that question,
[3:50:25] but just from a legal standpoint, no legislature can find a future legislature's hands.
[3:50:30] So you can put, call the end or anything like that, but you can't put it in such a way
[3:50:35] that a future legislature, if a hurricane comes along, can't undo it.
[3:50:39] So it's harder to undo one than it is to, you know, it's probably easier to let it fall behind
[3:50:46] and it is to have one in place and then change it.
[3:50:50] It's certainly easier to not pass legislation
[3:50:53] than it is to pass legislation, right?
[3:50:56] It's harder to pass it.
[3:50:58] But there's some limitations there.
[3:51:01] And one of the questions I've thought about
[3:51:04] in this whole process is that as I've said before,
[3:51:08] I doubt as I read the current Supreme Court T-Leaves,
[3:51:13] they're not gonna get involved unless there's a statewide
[3:51:15] property tax deal. But is that really true? If we started seeing the gap close in reading
[3:51:24] rates for economically disadvantaged kids and started seeing all the other metrics go
[3:51:30] up, would they as concerned that Austin raises more money than Lampassas does by an extra
[3:51:36] And it's become, you know, in there, you know, is there some flexibility in there that
[3:51:44] looks worse because a lot of students are being left behind, that if they weren't being
[3:51:49] left behind, might not be as good.
[3:51:52] All of that's a guesswork.
[3:51:54] But I just, I have a sense there may be some sense.
[3:51:57] If we, there's some benefit in flexibility and not to mention public support.
[3:52:04] I think the thing that falls on deaf ears is we just need more money, and it may or may
[3:52:12] not make a difference.
[3:52:15] Like or not, Americans want better services at lower taxes.
[3:52:20] And they won't vote for you if you say you can't have it.
[3:52:22] You got to have one or the other.
[3:52:24] But if our system was producing better results, I think there's going to be stronger support
[3:52:32] better funding. But it's a tough part is getting that first step to you know the chicken
[3:52:39] or the egg which one's going to go first. Do we have to see the results are improving
[3:52:44] or can we just give with that will they support increased funding without knowing whether
[3:52:49] it's going to matter or not.
[3:52:54] I'm sorry. Yes, please.
[3:52:58] First of all I guess I'd like to say
[3:53:00] two things if I could. One, I really want to applaud the expenditures committee and chairman
[3:53:05] and you ready for what you've done here.
[3:53:07] I think that the focus on the kids who need it the most
[3:53:10] and the focus on trying to make sure that before we ask
[3:53:14] for any new revenue, we try to spend what we have
[3:53:16] better and more effectively is really worthwhile.
[3:53:20] I think it will help us with taxpayers.
[3:53:21] I think it will help us with the legislature.
[3:53:23] So thank you for doing that.
[3:53:26] Secondarily, we're gonna need new money in the system,
[3:53:29] and I also welcome and very appreciative
[3:53:32] that you guys endorsed a lot of the recommendations that came out of the outcomes working group.
[3:53:37] Because I do think that there is, as Chairman Taylor said, there will be, I think, significant
[3:53:42] taxpayers' support for strategies that work, and that are producing the goals that we want
[3:53:47] as a state.
[3:53:48] So I know that you guys put a lot of time and effort on this, and I just want to say thanks.
[3:53:55] Questions, comments?
[3:53:57] All right.
[3:53:58] Can I just add one thing or do we have not discussed?
[3:54:01] You know, we talked about getting rid of the cost of education index, it was an
[3:54:07] out-up data dollar, various reasons, but there's also a differential out there
[3:54:10] that we haven't talked about and that's insurance costs, particular property insurance.
[3:54:16] You know, we have districts that are along the coast who, in many cases, may pay
[3:54:20] a million dollars more in insurance than someone who may be located somewhere else in the state
[3:54:25] and nowhere in any form does that take you to Canada.
[3:54:27] That's taking a million dollars out of the classroom in one area and so on the other side of the variance
[3:54:32] So I'm not saying we do some specific in this commission
[3:54:35] But I would like to see one of the recommendations of the commission that we at least considered those types of factors
[3:54:41] Into our school finance that we we look at in some of those lines because it's literally is it could be a very large amount
[3:54:47] And not only they spend a million dollars more in the interest pretty with their deductibles are either so at the time of loss
[3:54:53] or facing big loss. So just if we could make a general recordage as part of the
[3:54:58] commission and release.
[3:54:59] Consider the
[3:55:00] Those types of costs that are beyond their control, just because of jobs. Thank you. So, you know, Nicole, I hear what you're saying. And, you know, obviously we'll have to, you know, I've been through the goods and the bags. And so tying those things and tying legislative stands is a difficult thing to. So I think that part of our focus should be is making sure we're spending the money, you know, correctly, taking a bad formulas and then we start going there. It's ultimately the discussion becomes the basic law. It helps everything as we go forward.
[3:55:29] And our we did make the recommendation that we think we should increase the basic law.
[3:55:34] We absolutely did, and we absolutely talked about spending new money.
[3:55:38] So I think that that's important, but we want the outcomes.
[3:55:41] And if we don't spend the new money, part of the deal is you'll see the slide from 38% of the cost education down to 33% of the cost of education,
[3:55:50] meaning what the state's share would be.
[3:55:52] So we don't get property tax relief unless we start looking at what is that state share going to be.
[3:55:59] And that's going to be a fight that we're going to, you know, have to have, but I'm prepared to do it.
[3:56:04] And then the second thing I would say is I'd just like to thank all the members of the working group and Chairman and Senator Taylor and you, Dr. Ellis, and certainly Senator West, our staff, Amy and Casey, and everybody else has helped us, and the Speaker's Office for supporting us, and certainly TEA and Leo Leo did a phenomenal job of helping us get prepared.
[3:56:27] and then certainly the witnesses, you're right.
[3:56:30] The witnesses came to talk to us and give us their perspectives.
[3:56:35] And I want to reiterate this, which is very important,
[3:56:37] is that when we did this as an expenditures group,
[3:56:41] we did it primarily with the thought process
[3:56:43] of the 5.4 million children in hand,
[3:56:45] not about one particular school.
[3:56:47] We did it because we thought this was important
[3:56:49] for all the children and the impact across there
[3:56:52] and getting the money and the resources in the hands
[3:56:54] of the kids, and that's really the thought process.
[3:56:57] So we want to make these changes and it's hard to pass a school finance bill.
[3:57:02] We have to keep that in the consideration as we go forward.
[3:57:05] But if we're willing to put additional resources into the classroom and additional money into the classroom,
[3:57:11] but I think that that helps sell the program as we move forward.
[3:57:14] So I just wanted to thank everybody for the hard work.
[3:57:17] Thank you.
[3:57:18] If I could go quick, Chairman, you did a great job in chairing this working group.
[3:57:26] And that's where you did a great job on the outcomes, the two groups out there involved
[3:57:30] with so far.
[3:57:31] And I have high hopes coming out of the School of Finance, Commissioner, I think a lot
[3:57:35] of people didn't think this was going to do anything, we're just wasting our time.
[3:57:38] We have found a lot of good consensus from a diverse group of people.
[3:57:42] And I think we have a real high opportunity to get the real things done in graduation in
[3:57:47] Texas.
[3:57:48] And frankly, make large steps forward in the 21st century, so I'm excited about the
[3:57:52] after I appreciate all of you being far this commission
[3:57:55] after this point, I know we have more work to do,
[3:57:57] but this has been very encouraging.
[3:57:59] I think we've found a lot of good consensus,
[3:58:01] which looks both well for the coming session.
[3:58:05] Thank you, oops, that's a very quick one.
[3:58:07] Yes.
[3:58:08] I would echo the same comments, but also reiterate
[3:58:10] the urgency, you know, we've done great work so far,
[3:58:13] but we're not to a project or a product that's complete yet,
[3:58:16] and we are running against the clock here.
[3:58:19] I think if we wait until after the Tuesday,
[3:58:21] Usually after the first Monday and November to take our next step, we're going to run out of time.
[3:58:25] So hopefully we continue to work through this next time frame and continue on.
[3:58:33] You know, Dr. Ellis, I would disagree on that point because there's a lot of things that happen in the next month that are important to that question.
[3:58:41] I'm just telling it to you like it is. Now, I want to say that it's great for a revenue guy to come to a meeting
[3:58:48] and end up 1.6 billion ahead before the last three recommendations. Okay, that's a good thing.
[3:58:55] And as somebody who has said, Ms. Connolly especially, and I did, enjoyed the last time we had that discussion,
[3:59:03] because there was no revenue option known to mankind that you had not come up with on your list.
[3:59:09] Because she was rather exhaustive in her listing.
[3:59:14] Right.
[3:59:15] In fact, even Representative Bernal said, don't worry, he walked away from the discussion.
[3:59:20] She's got it handled at the point.
[3:59:25] And one thing that I've said all year, and I'm going to continue to say it, because I think
[3:59:29] it's very important, we did start some of the earlier meetings when I asked a question
[3:59:34] of how much more revenue we had than the answer came out was zero.
[3:59:38] Now, the difference is that I am convinced that there's a significant discussion about
[3:59:46] weaning off a Robinhood.
[3:59:48] I think it's an important concept.
[3:59:51] I think that's something that I've been repeating over and over again.
[3:59:55] For some reason, nobody in the news media will actually quote that, I guess it's, you know,
[3:59:59] It's made it
[4:00:00] May be it's too scary for the conservative revenue guy to be saying, but I think it's a very important concept that we look at that. This property growth cycle, we've got, it's not going to stop. It's going to continue for some time. Texas is going to stay the job mecca that it is. I think there's some fundamental forces at work. I think we put another pipeline in from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast. It's another million barrels a day. You know, you can, you can look at, you know, five barrels a day on the
[4:00:29] existing oil capacities, 200 million in revenues. You put another, you know, you put another
[4:00:35] pipeline and you're looking at, you know, what is effectively built, you know, as well over
[4:00:39] billions in revenue. But the point that at least I've come to the conclusion and have been talking
[4:00:46] about since the first of the year is it's time for us to recognize the obvious that we do need to
[4:00:53] be weeding off of that, but also realize that putting our money where we want to spend it is the
[4:00:58] critical thing. And we've got the whole the whole discussion of tax relief that Chair
[4:01:03] McEuberty talked about because part of recapture freezing could compress the tax rate and be
[4:01:09] a part of a tax rate, a part of a tax rate package for taxpayers. It could also be part
[4:01:18] of additional funding. So, but I think it's important for at least one vote out of 181
[4:01:27] and the legislature is solidly into the point of weaning off the Robin Hood.
[4:01:34] Thank you.
[4:01:35] Thank you.
[4:01:36] Thank you.
[4:01:37] Thanks everybody.
[4:01:37] We'll be up and leaning on 100.
[4:01:40] It's an opportunity to have a last week.
[4:01:42] It's all calling.
[4:01:43] That's all calling.
[4:01:44] That's all calling.
[4:01:45] That's all calling.