1. Texas Public Education – Looking to the Future

2. 48th ANNUAL PDK POLL OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES
What grade would you give US public schools generally? A – 4% B – 20% C – 41% D – 20% F – 7%

3. 48th ANNUAL PDK POLL OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES
What grade would you give US public schools in your local community? A – 13% B – 35% C – 28% D – 10% F – 7%

4. 48th ANNUAL PDK POLL OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES
What grade would you give the public school your oldest child attends? A – 26% B – 41% C – 23% D – 5% F – 5%

5. 48th ANNUAL PDK POLL OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES
What is the biggest problem facing public schools in your local community? Financial support (lack) - 19% Discipline - 9% Quality - 9% Fighting/violence/gangs - 8% Quality of teachers - 7% Drugs - 6% Government interference - 5% Parental support - 5% Poor curriculum - 5%

6. Next Generation Assessments and Accountability
Commission Composition:
15 members
4 appointed by the Governor and 3 each by the Lt. Governor and Speaker, which included:
2 School District Superintendents
2 Charter School Administrators
1 Chief Instructional Officer
1 Board Member
4 Chairs of House and Senate Public and Higher Education committees,
1 member of SBOE
2 school district
Commission Purpose
To develop and make recommendations for new systems of student assessment and public school accountability

7. Next Generation Assessments and Accountability
Recommendations:
Implement an individualized, integrated system of multiple assessments using computerized- adaptive testing and instruction
Allow the commissioner of education to approve locally developed writing assessments
Streamline the TEKS

8. Next Generation Assessments and Accountability
Recommendations (cont’d):
Limit state testing to readiness standards
Add college-readiness assessments to Domain IV indicators and fund broader administration of college-readiness tests
Align state accountability with ESSA requirements

9. Next Generation Assessments and Accountability
Recommendations (cont’d):
Eliminate Domain IV from state accountability calculations for elementary schools
Place greater emphasis on Domains I-III in state accountability
Retain individual graduation committees (remove the Sept. 1, 2017 expiration date now on TEC, § )

10. Next Generation Assessments and Accountability
Considerations for further study:
Align new assessments to TSIA, nationally recognized college- readiness tests and other non-traditional measures like ASVAB
Explore implications of replacing state assessments with nationally recognized tests that are aligned to the TEKS
Study alternative, district-based assessment and accountability systems
Test relationship between results of stratified random sampling and whole-population testing, using existing data
Study impact of weighting Domain I (achievement) by length of continuous student enrollment

11. TEXAS SBOE SURVEY JULY 2016
Surveyed multiple groups – parents, students, educators, business leaders, etc.
78% - 91% of each group favored reducing number of state tests
77% of educators and 68% of students favored streamlining state standards to reduce amount of content covered each year
60% of parents and 53% of educators favor moving to computer-based test to show student progress

12. Texas Constitutional Provisions
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 1 A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1-e No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State

13. Guiding Principles for Texas and Public Educations
All children can learn
We reject the “soft bigotry of low expectations”
Resources well used make a difference in the lives of children
The future of Texas depends on educating our growing population of poor and ELL children
Public schools are charged by the Texas Constitution with this great mission for Texas

14. Bookends of an Era Edgewood ISD v. Kirby, Oct. 2, 1989
Morath v. TTSFC, et. al., May 13, 2016

15. Standard of Review “. . . . we presume the system is constitutional.”
“ very deferential standard ”
“If the Legislature’s choices are informed by guiding rules and principles properly related to public education – that is, if the choices are not arbitrary – then the system does not violate the constitutional provision.”
Opinion does not mention requirement that “the State’s provision for a general diffusion of knowledge must reflect changing times, needs, and public expectations.”

16. Adequacy
Edgewood I – “The amount of money spent on a student’s education has a real and meaningful impact on the educational opportunity offered that student.”
Morath – “Even the general, qualitative question of the existence of a cost-quality relationship remains a highly contested issue in the social sciences.”

17. Adequacy cont. Low Income and ELL Students
System is not constitutional because of performance of subgroups
Coleman Report – non-school factors much more determinative of performance than school resources
“The Plaintiffs presented much data on achievement gaps of ELL and economically disadvantaged students, but did not prove that those gaps could be eliminated or significantly reduced by allocating a greater share of funding to those groups.”
“More money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students.”

18. Adequacy cont. Low Income and ELL Students
Coleman Report was not even in the record before the Supreme Court.
State never even argued that performance of low income and ELL students can’t be improved with resources and appropriate programs.
Supreme Court ignored the evidence in the record and went outside the record to conclude that resources for low income and ELL students do not make significant difference.

21. State Property Tax Districts have not lost meaningful discretion.
Only 24% of districts with 13% of students are at $1.17 cap.
69% of districts with 76% of students are at or below $1.04.
Supreme Court rejected any distinction between $1.04 and $1.17 analysis.
There still is $2.3B of capacity in system.

22. State Property Tax

23. Where to From Here?
An era is over – Texas Supreme Court has withdrawn from holding the State to a high standard.
State can impose requirements without resources, because the Supreme Court does not believe there is a strong relationship between requirements and resources.
Will districts work together going forward? Or, will groups of districts, and groups of students, compete against each other for scarce resources?

24. 85th Texas Legislature January 10, 2017 - convenes
May 29, adjourns

25. 85th Texas Legislature PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE Base - $41B
Student growth – 2%
Property value growth to cover student growth – 3%
Repeal of ASATR - $300M State savings
Austin ISD yield on golden pennies - $1B for biennium
Inflation - $800M year / $2.4B biennium
Moak Casey & Associates

26. 85th Texas Legislature PROPERTY VALUE GROWTH
Each 1% of growth saves State $221.7M in 2016 tax year
5% growth saves State $1.108B in 2016 tax year
8% growth saves State $1.739B in 2016 tax year
Moak Casey & Associates

27. Declining State Share of FSP
Year
Local M&O Taxes
State Funding
% State
$22.2 B
$16.8 B
43.1%
$23.2 B
$15.8 B
40.4%
$24.4 B
$14.4 B
37.1%
$25.7 B
$13.7 B
34.8%
, , and from current MC&A statewide model; projected without a model

28. 85th Texas Legislature REVENUE PICTURE
July 2016 Sales Tax Report year-to-date collections down 2.26% compared to same period in 2015
Sales Tax is 56% of all State tax collections
July Oil and Gas Production Tax year-to-date collections down 40.80%compared to June 2015
Alcoholic Beverages Tax year-to-date collections up 3.84%

29. 85th Texas Legislature REVENUE PICTURE cont.
Highway Funding – up to $2.5B of sales tax above $28B, beginning in FY 2018
End of 84th Session - $6B unspent GR
Beginning of 85th Session - $2B unspent GR economic slowdown

30. 85th Texas Legislature TEA Legislative Appropriations Request
$2.1B less State aid for schools
$3.1B less State General Revenue
Reliance on property value growth to cover reduction plus all increase in students
Recapture – biennium $3.7B biennium $5.1B

31. 85th Texas Legislature FUNDING PRIORITIES Health Care - $1.3B-1.6B
DPS Border - $300M
TRS-Care - $1.35B deficit
Higher Education $345M
Highways – diversion of up to $2.5B of sales tax revenue
CPS - ?
Public Education - ?
Property Tax Reduction - ?

32. 85th Texas Legislature PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES Choice Transparency
Accountability
ASATR phase-out
Needs of low income and ELL students
Performance-based funding
Targeted program funding
Differences in House and Senate approaches

33. J. David Thompson, Partner
(713)