CSHB 3459 Sample Letter
I have reviewed CSHB 3459 analysis and actual text.
The section, which guarantees a return to the present finance system if a
comparable system is not implemented prior to 2004 does make this aspect of
the bill acceptable. I am very appreciative of the inclusion of the small
and mid-size school formulas, as well as the sections limiting the
compliance procedures to programs mandated by state and federal law. The
following issues are critical to many schools and must remain a viable part
of the finance system.
There are several components of the engrossed version
which have created some concern and confusion:
Section 38 – Service Centers
This bill repeals funding for core services and
services to improve performance. SB 929 was passed out of the Senate
unanimously with the amendment by Senator Duncan to continue funding under
the same mechanism as is established by current law. Please do not allow
our service centers to be eliminated by this bill.
Section 42.2516 – Additional Aid
Increasing funding through a grant that delivers money
on ADA rather than WADA underlies the current school finance system.
- It undoes the 85% equity standard.
- It ignores the fact that all Chapter 41 and some
“Gap” districts will receive additional funds next biennium from changes
in the Available School Fund Per Capita Distribution. Tier 2 districts
will not benefit from this.
- It gives as much new money to the lowest taxing
districts as it does to those with their “backs to the wall” at the $1.50
maximum rate.
- Most high-cost and low-and mid-wealth districts
receive less money under a per student grant approach.
Section 21.413 – Classroom Supply Reimbursement
This could prove to be a tremendous challenge and a
mandated cost to districts. Hudson ISD presently reimburses teachers for
classroom costs; however, it must remain within the budget established by
the campus. The principals have the final authority on approving purchases
to insure the purchases are addressing needs of the class/campus. Does this
mean that 50% of the reimbursement will be made by the state and 50% by the
district, or does the district have to establish a separate line item for
reimbursements in addition to the supply moneys approved for each campus?
Section 42.2516 (d) – Insurance Supplement
I am disappointed the educators and school employees of
the state were the employees that lost their health insurance benefits after
1 year of the state-wide system. In addition, this bill has shifted the
original responsibility from the state to the district. We have many
employees that are not on the salary schedule that will be forced to drop
the insurance. The districts are presently required to expend $1800 per
employee for insurance. This section has increased that requirement while
reducing the state contribution. No other state employee lost his or her
benefits.
I applaud the Senate in their efforts to create a
finance plan that appeared to reflect positive solutions to so many of our
original concerns. Although there are a few components of that bill
reflected in CSHB 3459, I ask that you continue to honor your prior
commitments by making the necessary changes to reflect your intent.
Respectfully yours,
Mary Ann Whiteker
Superintendent |
