NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Coll |
DATE TYPED: |
2/04/03 |
HB |
10 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Program Cost Calculation, T & E Index |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
L. Baca |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to HB 212
and SB 230
Relates to the Public School Support Appropriation in the
General Appropriation Act
Responses Received From
State Department of Education (SDE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 10 amends
the Public School Finance Act to change the method of calculation of program
cost by changing the instructional staff training and experience (T&E) from
a multiplier to an add-on factor.
Significant Issues
Historically, any
funding formula change proposed has suggested a redistribution of funding
and\or necessitated an increase in funding and\or hold-harmless provisions in
the statutes authorizing the change.
According to information provided by SDE, using the add-on factor in HB
10 as the T&E factor would reduce the number of units generated to 127.829
from 46,043.504.
Using this scenario,
the add-on factor would generate $132,972.1 less than the traditional method.
Presumably, this amount would be redistribute to school districts through the
other factors in the funding formula.
Assuming the unit
value is kept at its current $2,896.01, about 45 school districts would receive
more than under the current statutory approach. The remaining 44 school districts would receive less.
Three potentially
significant but tentative observations can be made regarding the impact of the
provisions of HB 10:
school
district category.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
While not stated in
the bill, it is assumed that funding for public schools would not be reduced or
increased as a result of this bill.
Consequently, there is no fiscal impact on the general fund.
RELATIONSHIP
HB 10
relates to two bills identical to each other: HB 212, Public School
Reforms, and
SB 230,
Public School Reforms. Both bills
propose a “three-tiered” approach for compensating instructors.
The SDE analysis
recommends that various methodologies be examined if the T&E factor is to
be changed. One alternative method is
suggested as a reference point for further discussion, and potential
implementation.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES
The State Board of
Education’s legislative package includes a request for $300.0 to contract for a
study of the funding formula, and the LESC is requesting $120.0 for a study of
the relationship between the “tiered” approach for teacher compensation
proposed in the public school reforms bill and the T&E Index.
Given the 45 to 50
modifications made to the funding formula since its inception in 1975, it is time to revisit the entire formula and
reassesses the efficacy of each factor individually and as part of the whole
formula.
1.
Have the State Board of Education or the LESC
taken a position on this subject?
2.
How do school administrators react to this
proposal?
3.
How likely is it that we will have a study of
the entire funding formula?