CSHB 5 Example Letter

May 5, 2003

Senator Todd Staples
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

The Honorable Todd Staples:

Thank you so much for scheduling time to conference with the superintendents from your senatorial district.  This initiative demonstrated a sincere desire to listen to your constituents.  Per your request, I have reviewed the available information concerning CSHB5 and do have a few concerns that could have a negative impact on a majority of the schools in your district.

• Section 41.404 provides for a hold harmless minimum per-student aid based on the amount of state and local funds for maintenance and operations per student in weighted average daily attendance received for the 2003-2004 school year. Section (b) requires the commissioner to provide additional state aid in an amount equal to the difference, if any.  There is no verbiage stipulating the length of time this hold harmless aid will be funded.  In order to comply with the 90% equity standard guaranteed by this bill, the hold harmless section should have a temporary timeline. There are several districts that are presently held harmless for per-student aid that was established prior to “Robin Hood”!
   
• Section 41.053 requires the LBB to conduct a study each biennium and to recompute the cost of education index and adopt adjustments as the LBB determines are necessary to ensure that the cost of education index reflects current variations in known resource costs and costs of education due to factors beyond the control of a school district.  This is final and cannot be appealed.  Although the cost of education index will be the average of the two most recent recompilations, the financial impact of this “unknown” can be devastating to districts throughout West Texas, South Texas and East Texas.  These studies include salary comparisons for the private sector of the urban areas, the rich urban areas of Texas.  The scope of the study that was previously done by the Dana Center was too narrow in scope to adequately reflect the demographics and economies of the state.  There have been no components weighting the impact of the high urban salaries on the job market of the rural, non-industrial/commercial areas of the state.  These districts must either compete with the urban salary range or address the negative impact of high teacher mobility due to salary differences.   Supporting this component will further inhibit rural districts from competing for quality teachers because of the loss of funds due to the changes in the formula.  The change in index could result in a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars per district.  A “rolling average” CEI as reflected by the most recent Dana Center Study would have a negative financial impact on the rural schools of Texas.  The poor would become poorer! (One must note that the future impact of this component is uncertain because the process has not been developed.  The fears are based on the most recent Dana Center Study.)
   
• Section 41.054 provides a guaranteed amount for certain small and mid-sized districts.  The original SB 1 did not recognize the original TIER II formulas; therefore, this would result in a loss of funds for a majority of the schools throughout the state.  This section must be amended to include the TIER II formulas for small and mid-size schools.
   
• The Texas Education Excellence program will require a state ad valorem tax rate to be set at 75 cents.  This will require a constitutional amendment. This bill will then authorize the board of trustees of a school district to impose an annual ad valorem tax for enrichment not to exceed 10 cents.  Section 42.004 states that the enrichment tax will require approval of a majority of the qualified voters of the district voting at an election held for that purpose.  I request that the legislature allow the constitutional amendment and the proposition for local enrichment elections be held on the same day.   The local board of trustees would be held accountable for justifying the need to utilize that enrichment option.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to provide comments concerning this major legislation.   

Respectfully yours,
Mary Ann Whiteker
Superintendent
Hudson ISD