You are on page 1of 52

Calm Before the Storm: Interim Developments in School Finance

Moak, Casey & Associates TASA Midwinter Conference Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Introduction
Litigation Budget Context Impact of 82nd Legislature Interim Issues

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

LITIGATION

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Litigation and Public Policy


The role of the courts in Texas public

school finance Mechanism to cure legislative imbalances

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 20124

Quality Counts (2012 State Rankings)


Standards and Accountability Transitions and Alignment Achievement Status Chance for Success Teaching Profession School Finance Spending
Per Pupil Expenditure

A-(13th) A (3rd) C- (17th)


D (23rd)

C (40th) C+(15th) D+(40th)


F (35-49th)
49th of 50

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Status of Litigation
Causes of Action: Adequacy: Rising standards and funding cuts leave insufficient revenue to provide the GDK. Meaningful discretion: Remaining tax rate capacity is insufficient to offset for funding cuts, and provide meaningful discretion to enrich. Efficiency/Equity: Target revenue disparities in combination with unequalized funds produces unconstitutional student / taxpayer inequity. Rationality: The state has failed to provide a rational system based on appropriate cost adjustments and structure
6 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012

Adequacy Challenges
What are the standards? Must the state face disaster before the courts

act? How do the multi year evolving state standards work into the equation? Do the outdated cost adjustments impair the adequacy of the system? Does the potential for rising dropout rates indicate trouble for the Texas economy?
7 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012

Demographic Environment
Public school enrollment demographics The new minorities-Anglo (39%) and the Economically Advantaged (41%) Rising challenges-At risk (46%) and limited English proficient (17%) Family characteristics:
Single parent families (35%) Children in poverty (24%)

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 2012

Educational Environment
Rising standards Curriculum reform 4x4 Criticism 50% administrative costs Investment beyond inflation and growth Growth and staffing resources Efficiency Comptrollers FAST reports District concern over budgetary reductions Limited flexibility
9
Moak, Casey & Associates

January 2012

Educational Results
Cumulative pass rate, Exit-level (2011) Completion rate, 5-yr. (Class of 2009) RHSP/DAP graduates (Class of 2010) TAKS passing rate, All Tests (2011) NAEP Gr. 4 reading, Basic+ (2011) College ready (Class of 2010) NAEP Gr. 4 reading, Proficient+ (2011) SAT/ACT at criterion (Class of 2010) TAKS Commended, All Tests (2011)
10

92% 85% 83% 76% 66% 52% 32% 27% 16%


January 2012

Moak, Casey & Associates

Equity Challenges
Is the degradation of system equity since

2004 severe enough to warrant renewed judicial intervention? Did the state go too far in creating the target revenue system? What weight does the state commitment to eliminate target revenue by 2017 have? Should the analysis be based on total tax rates or only operational rates?
11 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012

Rationality Challenge
Does a separate but unequal funding scheme

constitute suitable and efficient provision? Does the use of 1980s weights and adjustments provide the state with a rational basis for funding public education? Are the state long term commitments to adjust standards and financing sufficient?

12

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 2012

Meaningful Discretion Challenge


Does the system provide both adequacy and the

opportunity for enrichment? Has the state so controlled the tax that it operates in a manner indistinguishable from a state property tax? What is the impact of the cuts? Do districts at $1.17 have meaningful discretion to enrich? Should the effective combination of limited voter appeal and the potential for recapture be considered in the analysis?
January 2012

13

Moak, Casey & Associates

Litigation Timing
Four groups have filed Texas Taxpayers and Student Fairness Coalition, et al. (Equity Center) Fort Bend ISD, et al. (Thompson) Coalition of Revenue Contributing Schools, et al. (Texas School Coalition) Edgewood ISD et al (MALDEF) Discovery process underway District court ruling sometime in fall Supreme Court could direct brief rehearing

after the 2013 legislative session


14 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012

Closing Lawsuit Observations


Potential additional parties Legislative Committee Constitutional challenges as an element in a

larger debate Proclivity of the court to grant state discretion in all but clear out of bounds situations Need for a clear constitutional priority for public education funding

15

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 2012

BUDGET CONTEXT

16

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Property Tax Issues


125 appraisal districts subject to review in

2011
51% had no fails in review 13% had more than 2 fails Majority of failures in areas of appraisal standards, operating procedures and governance 77% exceeded standards for taxpayer assistance

TCEQ has finally ruled against Valero on

pollution control amendment


Issue has been extent to which other state and

federal mandates are covered beyond at-the-site


17 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

State Budget Context


Ongoing structural deficit (continued use of one-

time funding sources) Competing demands from various areas within state government

Public Education Health and Human Services State Water Plan Higher Education Transportation

Growing balance in Economic Stabilization Fund Improved economy since last revenue estimate
18 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

State Structural Deficit


2010-11 School Year Impact of Property Tax

Relief (in billions)


M&O tax revenue at 2006 rates Reduced M&O property tax

School district M&O tax relief Reduced by $1.1 B due to increased values/rate increases State revenue offset $1.3 B from margins tax Shortfall to be financed

$23.9 B - $17.2 B $ 6.7 B - $ 2.2 B $ 4.5 B

19

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

One-time Revenue Sources


2007 State used surplus and phased-in property tax reductions 2009 Federal Stimulus Funds: $6.4 billion GR reductions paid for through stimulus 2011 FSP payment delay: $2.0 billion Tax speed-ups: $700 million Under-funded Medicaid: $4.8 billion ($3.8 billion after certification of surplus funds by comptroller).
20 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

Economic Stabilization Fund


Rainy Day Fund estimates growing $7.3 billion currently estimated by end of 2013 $6.5 billion estimated at the end of the legislative session Rep. Donna Howard was right during floor debate about improvements in Rainy Day Fund revenue
Sought offset against FSP cuts from future rainy day fund

revenue gains above estimate

21

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Improved State Economy


Job growth, sales tax collections both from business and consumer purchases as well as automobile sales, signal that the Texas economy has emerged from the recent recession. --Susan Combs, January 6, 2012

22

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Revenue Estimate
Biennial Revenue Estimate January 2011 $77.3 billion anticipated revenue May 2011 Comptroller added $1.2 billion to estimate Other changes (speed-ups, etc.) added $1.7 billion Certification Revenue Estimate December

2011
$82.7 billion anticipated revenue Increase of $2.5 billion from May

23

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Improved State Economy


1-Year Moving Average Sales Tax Collections
$2,000.0 $1,950.0 $1,900.0 $1,850.0 $1,800.0 $1,750.0 $1,700.0 $1,650.0 $1,600.0 $1,550.0 $1,500.0 January March May July September November 2008 2009 2010 2011

24

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Sales Tax Tracking


$2,200

Projected and Actual Sales Tax Collections

$2,000 $1,500 $1,000 Cumulative Shortfall or Surplus in Millions

$2,000

Collections in Millions

$1,800

$500 $0 ($500) ($1,000)

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

($1,500) ($2,000) Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12


Actual

$1,000 Sep-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Jun-13


Projected Cumulative Shortfall Linear (Cumulative Shortfall)

25

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Other Major Revenue Sources


Revenue Source Current Official 2012 Growth Estimate 8.5% 5.4% ? 16.7% -10.0% Current 4 Month Trend 14.6% 12.3% ? 84.0% 47.2%
January 31, 2012

Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Franchise Tax Natural Gas Production Oil Production
26 Moak, Casey & Associates

Cautions
Improving revenue will not necessarily be

sufficient to cover current services state budget


Underfunded Medicaid in current biennium Higher costs of federal mandates in 2014 a concern Will need to cover the underfunding plus any growth 24 payments in the Foundation School Program Growth in the cost of the FSP Growing demand for other state services

27

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Legislative Turnover
Governor ----------------------------------------seeking Presidency
(2016?)

Lt. Governor seeking U.S. Senate seat State senate elects replacement for Lt. Gov. Four state senators not seeking reelection,

including chairs of Finance and Education 28 House members not seeking reelection Redistricting could mean additional turnover Significant turnover last session as well as this one will mean less experienced legislature than in past sessions
28 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

THE IMPACT OF 82nd LEGISLATURE


29 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

SB 1 Impact Overview
Misleading/false claims of increased state

support
$1.5 billion increase in state General Revenue Fund

appropriations to the Foundation School Program cited Fails to account for formula reductions of $4 billion Fails to account for $1.4 billion in lost state grant funds outside the Foundation School Program

30

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Role of Federal Stimulus Funds


Statements about general revenue increases

fail to mention loss of SFSF ($3.3 billion) Title I and IDEA stimulus funding decrease ($2 billion) Education Jobs money ($800 million) available only in 2011-12

31

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

LBB Fiscal Size-up 2012-13


All Funds appropriations to the FSP for the 201213

biennium are $35.5 billion, representing a $1.9 billion decrease from the 201011 biennium spending level.
Appropriations of General Revenue Funds account

for $29.2 billion of this total, a $1.5 billion increase from the prior biennium.
Despite the $1.5 billion increase in General Revenue

Funds from the 2010-11 biennial base, total FSP funding for the 2012-13 biennium is $4.0 billion less than what school district entitlement was projected to be for the 2012-13 biennium prior to the actions of the Eighty-Second Legislature.
32 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

LBB Fiscal Size-up 2012-13


Outside the FSP, TEA administers several state

and federally funded educational grant and support programs. The 201213 biennial appropriation for these programs and agency administration is $1.3 billion in General Revenue Funds, a decrease of $1.3 billion (51 percent) from 201011 biennial spending levels.
Biennial comparisons of appropriated funds is not

the correct way to look at the states commitment


33 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

MCA Survey on Staffing


Included 60 districts, 39 percent of students Respondent enrollment growth 17,593 students Employing 9,586 fewer total staff (3,219 fewer

teachers) 11,833 more staff needed to maintain prior year staffing ratios Extrapolated statewide, 32,000 more staff needed to maintain old staffing ratios (12,000 teachers) Most expect cuts to continue next year
34 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

Impact of SB 1 in 2012-13
Restoration of regular program funding to

98% (RPAF) Reduction of 7.65% for targets (ASATR impact)


More than 600 districts likely to be on formula Nearly 500 districts expected to gain revenue per

ADA compared to 2011-12 school year (WADAs definition changes between years) Over 500 districts expected to gain in total general fund revenue due to growth in students More than $1 billion reduction in ASATR in 2012-13
35 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

YEARLY CHANGE IN REVENUE PER WADA


$200 $100

$0

-$100

-$200

-$300

-$400

2011-12 Change in Rev/WADA

2012-13 Change in Rev/WADA

36

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Impact of SB 1 After 2012-13


It is the intent of the legislature, between

fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2018, to continue to reduce the amount of Additional State Aid For Tax Reduction (ASATR) to which a school district is entitled under Section 42.2516, Education Code, and to increase the basic allotment to which a school district is entitled under Section 42.101, Education Code. Section 42.2516 is repealed effective September 1, 2017
37 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

Impact of SB 1 By 2017-18
Nearly 700 districts gain revenue from

elimination of RPAF (repealed effective 09/01/15), elimination of ASATR, basic allotment increase of $83 Over 300 districts expected to lose revenue from those changes About $660M moves from losers to gainers Average losses $350/WADA, average gains $150/WADA
38 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

INTERIM DEVELOPMENTS

39

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Interim Studies - House


House Public Education Committee UIL STAAR Implementation Charter Schools DAEPs and JJAEPs Parental and Community Involvement House Ways and Means State Tax Structure Truth in Taxation

40

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Interim Studies - Senate


Senate Interim Charges Open records DAEPs and JJAEPs Most Senate charges not yet revealed

41

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Special Interim Committees


Select Committee on School Finance Joint Legislative Interim Committee Membership uncertain Recommendations by January 15, 2013 Committee dissolved September 1, 2013 Joint Select Committee on Economic

Development

42

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Interim Studies - TEA


Dollars Appropriated for Efficiency Tools Commissioner appropriated $1.5 million for the biennium to develop efficiency and productivity tools

43

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Financial Accountability / Efficiency


FAST System Methodology Number of stars determined by average of separate finance and academic performance ratings Academic rating based on statewide percentile ranking of aggregated individual student growth Finance rating based on cost-adjusted spending per student compared to fiscal peers

44

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

FAST Spending Measure


Cost adjusted spending per student: Operating expenditures (object codes 6100 6499) All funds Functions 11 53, excludes transportation and food service) Adjusts payroll (6100 6199) and contracted pay (6211, 6212, 6213, 6219, 6249, 6299) by the competitive wage index. Adjustments range from reducing spending by 10% to increasing it by 45% Redistributes a portion of SSA funds from fiscal agents to member districts based on actual financial data match to f-33 record
45 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

FAST Spending Measure


Exclusion of transportation and food service

leaves out nearly $9.8 billion over the threeyear period $338 million reallocated from fiscal agents to members over the three-year period $676 million remained in fiscal agents due to mismatch of data Cost adjustment adds and subtracts $9.794 billion
46 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012

FAST Cost Adjustment Impact by District Type


13,000

12,000

Spending per Student, 2010

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

Unadjusted per Student


47 Moak, Casey & Associates

Adjusted per Student


January 31, 2012

Change Caused by Cost Adjustment


$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0

($500)

($1,000)

48

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Interim Studies Sunset


Sunset Commission to study TEA and THECB Will result in must pass education legislation
House Bonnen (Brazoria) Anchia (Dallas) Cook (Navarro) Dutton (Harris) Price (Potter) Public member (not yet appointed) Senate Nichols (Cherokee) Patrick (Harris) Birdwell (Hood) Huffman (Harris) Whitmire (Harris) Public member (not yet appointed)

49

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Calendar for Sunset


Activity Staff Review Staff Report Release Public Testimony Commission Decisions
50

TEA March mid-October Mid-October November 13, 14 December 18, 19

THECB September 2011 February Mid-March April 10 June 5, 6


January 31, 2012

Moak, Casey & Associates

TEA Sunset Process


Issues addressed in TEA Self Report include: Rule-making for school finance Elimination of certain reports, requirements Overlapping school and district improvement plans Unfunded grant programs SBEC revisions Charter school revisions Flexibility in implementation of required sanctions Reduced monitoring of certain school district functions

51

Moak, Casey & Associates

January 31, 2012

Lynn M. Moak Daniel T. Casey


Amanda Brownson, Ph. D. Dee Carney Chris Grammer Bob Popinski Larry Throm Maria Whitsett, Ph. D. Joe Wisnoski
Partners

Administrative Staff

Susan Moak Kari Ruehman

Kathy Mathias Larry Groppel, Ed. D. Thomas V. Alvis, Ph. D.


Consultants

400 West 15th Street, Suite 1410, Austin, Texas 78701-1648 Ph. (512) 485-7878 Fax (512) 485-7888 www.moakcasey.com
52 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012