1 / 25

Impact of the 82 nd Legislature on Accountability

Impact of the 82 nd Legislature on Accountability. As Presented by Maria Whitsett and Lynn M. Moak at the Texas Assessment Conference, December 2011. Implications of the L ast Interim. School Finance Study was unsuccessful Conservative control

quynn-petersen
Download Presentation

Impact of the 82 nd Legislature on Accountability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of the 82nd Legislature on Accountability As Presented by Maria Whitsett and Lynn M. Moak at the Texas Assessment Conference, December 2011

  2. Implications of the Last Interim • School Finance Study was unsuccessful • Conservative control • Assessment/Accountability transition plan released by TEA • Comptroller’s FAST Study • Barrage of panic and worry over staffing, performance, cost increases, and perceived system inefficiency

  3. Historical Context: The Budget Crisis • Use of federal revenues for current operations • State fund balances not replaced • Recession’s impact on sales tax • Structural deficit from 1996 property tax cuts • “No new revenue” policy • Initial $12 billion cut below the existing commitment of the state

  4. The 2012-13 State Budget: HB 1 • According to the LBB, the total ALL FUNDS appropriations for the 2012-13 biennium is $172.3 billion, a $15.2 billion or 8.1% decrease, from the 2010-11 biennium. • The General Revenue Funds appropriations for the entire state budget is $86.9 billion for the 2012-13 biennium, a $1.6 billion or 1.9% decrease over the last biennium.

  5. FSP Funding (General Revenue) • When considering just General Revenue, the Legislature appropriated $29.2 billion for the FSP for the 2012-13 biennium, a $1.6 billion increase compared to 2010-11. • However, during the last legislative session, $3.2 billion of federal assistance (SFSF) was used to fund the FSP. That amount is $0 for the 2012-13 biennium.

  6. FSP and TEA funding (All Funds) • When looking at just the funding level for the FSP, the 2012-13 amount totals $35.4 billion, a $1.8 billion decrease compared to 2010-11. • However, this amount is $4 billion below what is required to fund 2010 formulas. • TEA budget (all funds) was reduced by 8%: • Staffing cap reduced from 1,038 down to 795 • Operations budget axed by over 17%

  7. Program Cuts and Reductions In addition to underfunding the FSP. The Legislature made over $1.3 billion in cuts to programs and grant funding: • -$271 million, Technology Allotment • -$223.3 million, Pre K Grant Program • -$269.7 million, SSI ($23.5 remains for 12-13) • -345.1 million, DATE ($40 remains for 12-13) • -$50 million, New IFA

  8. Programs Eliminated Other programs eliminated: • $35 million, Science Labs Grant • $20 million, Middle School PE Grants • $14.1 million, Optional Extended Year • $10 million, School Bus Seat Belt Program • New Round of IFA • Property Value Decline Protections • ADA Decline Protections

  9. The Truth of the Matter • For the first time in 60 years, the legislature failed to finance current law • The Foundation Programs current services state aid was decreased by $4 billion • Special Program financing was cut by $1.3 billion • The total decrease was $5.3 billion when the cost of enrollment growth, property value decline, and other factors are taken into account

  10. Lessons Learned • In a financial crisis, the legislature can and will cut public education. • Given the choice, budget cuts for education will be less than those for health and human resources. • The preferred method for reduction will be simplistic and unrelated to needs of districts. • Separate financing as a protection is no defense regardless of the program need.

  11. Additional Lessons • In a budget crisis, programs with low levels of public support are the first to take a hit. • Consider the instructional materials allotment, Reforming the Process while Reducing the Funding • SB 6 created the IMA • SBOE is required to set aside an amount equal to 50% of the annual distribution from the PSF and the ASF (40% for FY ’11 and ’12) • Each district is entitled to an annual allotment based on previous year enrollment

  12. IMA, continued • TEA established an IMA account for each district, accessible in early August • Eligible items include instructional materials authorized by the SBOE, items on the Commissioner’s list, open source items, and technology items • Districts must certify they have the instructional materials to cover the TEKS, spring 2012

  13. IMA, continued • TEA providing SBOE with statistics on number of districts placing orders, amount of funds expended, etc. • Two letters issued to districts this year encouraging the timely use of IMA funds • Reminder: Campus intervention teams are to examine access to instructional materials

  14. Accountability Update • Final decisions associated with 2011 ratings: • Increases in standards for “Acceptable” (math to 65% and science to 60%) • Discontinuation of Texas Projection Measure • Additional requirements for Exemplary and Recognized ratings

  15. More Accountability • Dynamic environment • Initial implementation of STAAR program • Increased rigor and volume of testing • Limited baseline data • Greater than normal risk of testing irregularities • Unresolved issues in many districts such as EOC score conversions to fulfill the “15% requirement”, awarding of credit, grade-point calculations, and class rank

  16. More Challenges • Future treatment of substitute scores or retakes • Decisions regarding “double testing” of advanced students • Parent notification and tracking student progress • Compressed timeline for summer school • How to accommodate accelerated instruction into schedules

  17. More Challenges, continued • Increased rigor and quantity of standards for AYP (Standards in Reading and Math 100%) • Continuation of multiple accountability systems such as PBMAS

  18. Future Vision • SB 1557 – High Performance Schools Consortium • Used to inform leadership about transforming education in: • Next generation standards, assessments, and accountability • Plans for effective and efficient accountability system • Balance academic excellence and local values • Attempt to reduce the number of state tests that must be administered to students • Includes 20 representative school districts

  19. SB 1557, continued • Design principles include: • Use of digital learning and virtual courses • High priority standards • Use of multiple, ongoing assessments to gauge learning • Local control that fosters parent/community involvement • Two reports will go the Legislature, 2012 and 2014

  20. Key Dates in Accountability • December 2011 – Final AYP results released • February 2012 – First committee meetings to support development of new systems • March 2012 – First indication of scale scores needed for Satisfactory or Advanced performances on EOC tests • June 8, 2012 – Data files with state assessment results received by districts

  21. Key Dates, continued • June 2012 – Class of 2011 completion rates with exclusions applied for the first time • November 2012 – Standards and update files for STAAR grades 3-8 released; abbreviated AEIS reports • December 2012 – First legislative report on SB 1557 • March 2013 – Final commissioner decisions on 2013 state accountability system released

  22. Key Dates, continued • August 8, 2013 – Inaugural release of ratings • November 2013 – Release of first Performance Reports • By August 8, 2014 – First use of the “College/Career Ready” data to determine ratings • June 2015 – First 4 year cohort of students to graduate with EOC test requirements in place

  23. Interim Outlook for the Future • Revenue Structure – LBB/Comp./Leg. • School Finance – Special Committee • Efficiency and Productivity – Comp./ERG/ERC • TRS and compensation – TEA/LBB/TRS • Grant programs – Special Committee • Instructional Materials – SBOE/TEA • Economic Development – Special Committee • State and Reg. structures – TEA/ Sunset

  24. Legislative Issues and Concerns for 2013 • Funding the state budget • Changes in leadership/membership • Redistricting • Federal Action/Election • Health Care Options

  25. Information for this presentation was taken from Moak, Casey and Associates and TASA presenters at the 2011 Assessment Conference.

More Related