Senate Finance – February 25, 2019

The Senate Committee on Finance met and took up SB 3 (Nelson) relating to additional funding to school districts for classroom teacher salaries.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

SB 3 Committee Substitute laid out

• Clarifies that districts may not use the dollars to supplant current salaries
• State must cover cost of TRS increases as a result of the pay raise

 

Sen. Nelson  

• It has been 20 years since teachers have received a significant pay raise in order to retain and attract new teachers in the classroom
• Offers amendment – charter schools are defined in a different section of the education so amendment will clarify that charter school teachers get the raise as well
  • Amendment adopted
• West – what will avg. starting salary be for teachers when the bill passes?
  • Defers to Education Commissioner
• West – we have money this session but what happens when funding is no longer available
  • when there is an economic downturn, its all about priorities and hopes future legislation will do the same thing
  • cannot promise for future legislation but it will have to be undone if they want it change
• West – is this bill dependent on the property tax bill passing? There is a $5k raise and then discussions on merit pay funding
  • No, they are separate issues
  • This needs to be addressed no matter what is done
  • Yes
• Watson – discussion on bill being permanent but language in bill talks about floor expiring and is concerned on clarity of language
• Watson – on page 5 section 4 subpart b, would it be multiplied by CEI as you see in section 1 & 2 and concerned it could create a cost for district and want to make sure not tying pay increase to CEI if it is done away with
  • Thinks they could address in school finance or on floor
• Huffman – understand CS is also addressing salary as part of the pension process and asked more questions about pensions
  • Will make sure they uphold part of bargain on $230 million or so
  • Huffman spoke on SB 393 working on making it affordable, there were be a substitute but intent is to uphold pensions, make it actuarily sound and make sure there is a clear pathway to get there
• Nelson– moved amendment into committee substitute and then moved to adopt the new committee substitute
  • Adopted

 

Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education

• Provided general facts on teacher compensation
• Distribution of teachers pay – overwhelming majority paid between $50-60k and .1% paid over $100k – this includes all stipends, etc
• Next slide shows base pay, very few districts pay teachers on state minimum salary schedule
• Bill should not be impacted by CEI if it is not continued in a broader school finance bill
• Watson -this amount is being excluded from having CEI apply to it in any way
  • Yes, the language is talking about state/district share and the cost of TRS is borne by the state
• Watson – even though new subsection, it will not create any new cost to the district
  • Can’t say that specifically, active care and maybe workers comp that are a function of salary
  • Believes avg. will be about 4.2% but that varies, for those districts that pay social security taxes it will be a bit higher
• Watson – if we don’t have a CEI by definition would not have an increase cost to the district
  • Yes, section 3 doesn’t have anything to do with it so it will remain unaffected
• Kolkhorst- retirement is borne by the state, is total cost of bill…
  • It will increase the fiscal note about $130 million annually
  • Kolkhorst – So fiscal note would be just under $ 4 billion
• Kolkhorst – as written do you think this goes beyond the next school year
  • It is very clear the funding goes on forever, funding mechanism is permanent
  • But notes there is a concern that the salary scale could be adjusted resulting in the supplanting of funds
  • Variety of ways to attach would think b2 expiration could be easiest cure, set in stone a minimum pay guarantee vs minimum salary schedule are two very different things
• Kolkhorst – this does not include librarians?
  • Correct it does not include librarians and others in the pay schedule, there are other employees covered under minimum statutory language
  • There is some rulemaking authority for commissioner so if there is a lack of clarity it may be something they need to address by rule
  • Nelson – wanted to make sure classroom teachers got the funding first, does not include some very important educators and even though first priority is classroom teacher and district can decide to increase pay on the other educators if they want
  • Nelson – most important right now is the classroom teacher
• Kolkhorst – funding mechanism is there in perpetuity and to change this there would need to be a bill to make the change
  • Yes
• Kolkhorst – uses TEA annual report a lot and notes when she ask children if they want to grow up to be a teacher not many raise their hand
• Nelson – wants to keep teachers in the classroom and need to keep good teachers in the classroom
• Campbell – curious on $100k plus of salaries in the annual report, does that include superintendents?
  • Teachers, no superintendents
• Perry – would request an independent audit to prohibit from 21 hour teachers not instructing, need to verify people getting $5k and a remedy if not
  • If that is desired then that may warrant being addressed in the bill, absent that they may not have additional capacity to address
• Perry – if they are not compliant you would have no remedy?
  • You would want to stand up an automated report to run risk and a couple auditors to make calls and a one to send out on site but it is fairly small and not in fiscal note
  • Perry – add a separate schedule for auditors out in the field, don’t need new bureaucracy to check just do it by rule
• Kolkhorst – what guarantee do we have they won’t drop minimum salary?
  • Nelson – wrote language in the bill to prevent from happening what she is saying
  • Nelson – every year Commissioner will look to see how many classroom teachers there are they will multiply that by $5k, it’s a whole separate fund check to go to the district
• Kolkhorst – intent is that funds are not supplanted?
  • Two different considerations could be made in the bill: could reinstate language in chapter 21 that said districts cannot reduce salary schedule or could dissolve expiration of b2 – just depends on what to accomplish with the bill
• Huffman – wants to know if state will pay district portion of pension, confused on comments and wants clarification
  • TRS and other benefits, only talking about TRS up to 6.8% is paid by state and increase over certain amounts is paid by the district
  • Effectively whatever the districts are paying today and will pay same amount under this bill
  • Huffman – asked about TRS care
  • That would be other optional payments, benefits and those are not addressed
  • Districts will be responsible for the delta
• Nelson – thanked Commissioner for visual handouts, wants to make it really clear and wants Commissioner to back her up that this bill does not preclude other school finance initiatives and it is not either or, anything in passing this bill would prevent us from taking up Taylor’s school finance bill
  • Not to his knowledge

 

Invited Testimony

Tonja Gray, Vice President of ATPE

• Supports bill
• Teacher quality is most important factor in student achievement
• Pay is one factor in recruiting quality teachers
• Appreciated language noting this amount would be in addition if districts do differentiated pay

 

Lonnie Hollingsworth, Texas Classroom Teachers Association

• Supports bill
• Passed out written testimony, points out chart on last page that tracks relationship on operating expenditures increases with teacher salaries
• Need to add language on what district can do in addition to merit pay
• Request language to lock in language that this will go on above salary amounts

 

Senator Watson Amendment

• Committee decided to take up Watson proposed amendment
• Amendment number 2 would add language from page 2 – expiration date needs to be in the bill in order to meet chairs intent so there would not be a rolling increase but would now add b3 which adds language as long as teacher as employed with district, would be entitled to received salary equal to 2019-20 school year and would have intent have make $5k permanent
• Amendment adopted and rolled into CS
• Bettencourt – for clarity amendment says the $5k can’t expire as long as the teacher is employed in the same district
  • That’s right
• CS as amended is adopted

 

Nelson and members discuss on limiting time for testimony, Nelson said they will allow 3 mins and suggest they limit remarks to 2 mins, Whitmire said try not to be redundant

 

Public Testimony

Gina Disteldorf, self

• Finding she is doing more work, taking work home and getting paid less
• Taylor – are you in TRS care in Spring Branch ISD?
  • In TRS care
• Bettencourt – thank you for making the drive, hope the $5k helps
• Nelson – has two daughters who were teachers, insurance cost was the “killer” at some point it would helpful to know the average percent of salary teachers are paying in health care cost
  • Thinks insurance was $17 per month and now almost $200 per paycheck
• Whitmire – also need to factor in retirement deduction, so take home is a lot less than gross also doesn’t include supplies they are providing

 

Virginia Caldwell, Texas State Teachers Association

• In support of SB 3.
• My annual salary falls below the average of $50,000-60,000.
• I make $43,700 and am paid on a 7-step plan.
• I make above $4,000 a month and take home $2,400.
• Nelson- Our Lieutenant Governor has a goal of $10,000 a month; this is a beginning point, thank you for sharing.
• Whitmire- Teachers today have to choose which bills they have to pay each month.

 

Cristina Ramirez, Teacher

• We urge you to think of a strategy for teachers to stay on title 1 campuses.
• We have lots of turnover and this causes so many new teachers to enter.
• Teachers move to affluent campuses because it is like a promotion to them; we need to reduce this.
• We need the teachers to stay and help with behavior gaps and needs.
• Perry- Rural communities give teachers $30,000 a year. The rural communities face the same challenges in terms of turnover. The 10 to 15-mile gap between a rural school to city school make the differences in salaries.
• Taylor- This bill is complementary to the bill we are working on in the School Finance Commission. Our largest demographic is low income and is also our fastest growing. SFC address this problem and makes sure that teachers stay on Title 1 campuses.

 

Mary Crisp, Teacher

• I support this bill; It will change my life significantly.
• For me to be able to afford the basics of life, I work 2 to 5 side jobs.

 

Kally Evans, Teacher

• I am in favor of SB 3.
• Auxiliary staff needs a livable salary and benefit also.

 

Traci Dunlap, Texas American Federation of Teachers

• The small raises over the years have not been able to help me afford health care, mortgage, etc.
• Other school workers need raises and benefits as well.
• Request that you remove the permissive language of the bill allowing for additional merit pay on top of the raise.
• The STAR test should not be an indicator of pay and success.

 

 

Judy Rich, Texas Speech-Language-Hearing Association

• I support SB 3.
• We request to name Speech Language Pathologists in the bill.
• In 2017-2018, there were 4,785 Speech Language Pathologists employed in Texas and that was not enough.
• Including SLPs in the bills, would allow for the district to hire more.
• Perry- Do y’all take an active role on a local level in your districts?
  • Yes, I am on many committees and very involved on a local level.
• Whitmire- Senator Perry, I am sure you are not shocked to learn that in some districts it is frowned upon for teachers to confront the administrators in public. There are different political climates.
• Perry- I think that highlights the reason this money is being directed straight to the classroom. We want our teachers to get paid and want to empower the teachers to come to the state.
• Whitmire- I will be shocked if the school boards do not support this raise. I heard the school boards were going to oppose the bill. I would advise the witnesses to know who their state representatives and senators are.

 

Christy Rome, Texas School Coalition

• Our teachers deserve and need a raise, but we believe this is not the best way to go about it.
• Our preference is that districts receive both the resources and flexibility to apply money to what they need.
• Whitmire- Who is the Texas School Coalition?
  • We represent districts that pay “Robin Hood” recaptures in chapter 41 districts.
• Whitmire- You are made up of school districts?
• Whitmire- So, you are a professional group of administrators and trustees?
• Whitmire- Have you not heard the testimony from the teachers that are driving ubers and working second jobs? Do you know it and still want to testify on the bill?
  • We know it and want to pay our teachers more.
• Whitmire- You won’t do it if you do not support this bill. We need your support.
  • We support the increase funding.
  • We do not agree with the across the board nature of the bill.
• Whitmire- I am disappointed. There is a lack of morale and it has got to be impacting the classroom.
• Bettencourt- You are testifying on, so you are not for or against the bill. The evidence we saw over the whole year showed that putting the best teachers in the worst classrooms gets the best results. Am I missing something?
  • Yes, that is important.
• Bettencourt- So if you get that, why are you not supporting the bill?
  • We want to give the districts flexibility.
• Bettencourt- So, are you advocating for performance-based pay?
  • No, we are advocating for a district to be able to meet the needs of their school.
  • It is a matter of local flexibility that is needed
• Bettencourt- You know Taylor and Huberty have a bill coming and there has been a discussion about a variety of reforms. I do not understand why we are not supporting the #1 issue identified after 1 year of testimony. Having a teacher in the classroom compensated effectively is not the 1 issue you see?
  • Nelson mentioned there is a limited amount of dollars.
  • There is only $4 billion left and we want to make sure that we can meet the needs of every community.
• Bettencourt- I do not understand the on. Am I missing something?
  • If you will reduce recapture in the districts, we want to put that money towards our teachers.
  • We just might not do it across the boards
• Bettencourt- Again, why the on? Why not just say yes?
  • If the money comes to the district, the first priority is to give funding to teachers.
• Bettencourt- Then why don’t you say yes now, if that is your first priority?
  • That is why we are not against this bill.
  • We want to see an increase in pay raises for teachers.
• Taylor- One concern we have is to get the teachers in the classroom the money. From 2009-2019, teacher pay went up 11 percent and superintendent pay went up 30 percent.

 

Jennifer LaBoon, Texas Library Association

• I support SB 3.
• We would like school librarians to be included into the bill and receive any raises given to teachers.

 

 Nancy Lambert, Texas Library Association

• I teach children all day and help them achieve many goals.
• There were 60 studies in 22 states that concluded that certified librarians contribute to gains in student learning.
• We request that all school librarians be included in any pay raises.
• Nelson- We have been looking for a definition of who will receive the $5,000. We are at $4.7 billion. We are running numbers and there is nothing that prohibits a local district from increasing a librarian’s pay raise. I understand and appreciate what librarians do for our children.

 

Kara Belew, Texas Public Policy Foundation

• I am testifying on the bill.
• Texas taxpayers are spending more on public education and that will not necessarily lead to student results.
• We want money to be used on research and effective programs.
• All tax payer funds should be appropriated to pay teachers based on their effectiveness, improved student results, and reduce recapture.
• SB 3 deserves praise for putting emphasis on our teachers.
• School boards should adopt math and reading goals for each campus and use evidence-based tools to teach the curriculum.
• A merit-based pay approach benefits teachers.

 

Lesa Pritchard, Texas School Counseling Association

• Testifying on behalf of Texas school counselors.
• Asks adding certified school counselors to the bill. Concerned that excluding school counselors from the bill can have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to hire school counselors as they may decide to return to the classroom.

Lori Colleti, Texas Speech, Language and Hearing Association

• Asking that speech-language pathologist and audiologists are included in SB3. If these groups are omitted from the bill, starting salaries for teachers with a bachelor’s degree would be higher than clinical doctor audiologist and master pathologist.

Chandra Villanueva, Center for Public Policy Priorities

• Concerned that the bill does not include the flexibility to increase salary for new hire teachers; and, that $5,000 will lose value over time without an inflationary adjustment.
• Believes that a better approach would be to put the money into the basic allotment to increase base level funding and adjust that for inflation each year.
• Bettencourt – Stunned by the witness’s testimony regarding the future of the $5,000. It is $5,000 dollars a year for x amount of years, which is a lot better than it looks know.
  • Inflation is real and will eat away at that value over time.
• Bettencourt – I am shocked that we are up here with someone complaining about getting a raise. We should be worried about what happens if it does not show up.
• Hancock – Did you hear Senator Taylor’s comment regarding pay differential?
  • I don’t think I caught all of it.
• Hancock – Did you hear the percentage increase we have seen in administration?
  • Not off the top of my head but I do know that teacher salaries are about 47% of school budgets.
• Hancock – The number was 30%, do you remember what the number for teachers was during that same period of time? It was 11%.
  • When you look at staffing levels overall, we are still really behind on teachers and we have not seen an exponential growth in administrative staff. That is not a huge concern of mine because I believe school districts need the flexibility for all the kinds of professionals they are trying to hire.
• Hancock – Do you see where the priorities of this board may be different than those given a 30% increase in one area of administration than those given 11%?
  • I can see where you would have concerns, but I also think that local control is very important in a state like Texas where local communities have different needs.
• Hancock – Would you agree that local control is what got the disparity of 30% for administration and 11% for teachers?
  • That is an issue for school boards and for local communities. I don’t think that the legislature needs to tie the hands of school districts.
• Hancock – The chair is trying to point out that the priority needs to be in the classroom. Local priorities have shifted and SB3 is a direct impact to the classroom that bypasses their decisions.
• West – Assuming that this body can get House participation with this bill, would you want us to pass it, or would you want it to fail?
  • Yes, I would want to see it passed.
• West – If this is the best that we can do for teachers, should we do this?
  • I think we can do better.
• West – So the answer is no?
  • I already said that if this is the only thing moving, we would like to see it pass. However, we believe that there is more that the legislature can do.
• Huffman – We have heard from the last two years that the state has been cheating the locals. This is a direct way for the state to impact teachers. So, what you’re asking for us to do is give you $4 billion additional funds and trust that the locals will not raise administration salaries.
  • Flabbergasted that base level funding has been kept stagnant for four years straight. Believes that there needs to be a lot done to improve school finance and improving base level funding is the place to start.
• Whitmire – Who is your group?
  • The center for public policy priorities.
• Whitmire – Who is your group comprised of?
  • We are an independent public policy organization that uses data and analysis to help Texans reach their full potential.
• Whitmire – Who funds this group?
  • We are funded by a combination of individual donors, foundations, all kinds of streams of support.
• Whitmire – Do you take position on other issues outside of education?
  • We do.
• Whitmire – What is the size of this group?
  • We are not a membership organization.
• Whitmire – How do you arrive at your position on an issue?
  • We use data and analysis to analyze policy and its impacts.
• Whitmire – Are you influenced by your members?
  • No, since we are not a membership organization.
• Whitmire – Do you have a director?
• Whitmire – What is the simplest explanation of who you represent?
  • We are a staff of around twenty full time analysts. We were funded by Benedictine nuns who provided hospital services and education to low income Texans.
• Whitmire – Do the nuns know that you are opposed to a teacher pay raise?
  • I am not opposed to a teacher pay raise.

Al Rodriguez, Texas Association of School Boards

• Opposed to the bill. Concerned that administration and other employees are not taken into consideration in SB3, i.e., librarians, custodians, bus drivers, etc.
• Concerned that the addition of $5,000 to pay rates would compress the career ladder.
• Nelson – Wants to clarify that it does not touch the career ladder because of the way the bill is set up.
• Whitmire – Are you opposed to the bill or are you for the bill and would like us to hear your concerns?
  • The latter (changed position in favor of the bill).
• Whitmire – Emphasized that SB3 is probably going to be the best vehicle to impact teachers. The chair is still working on using the budget to see what she can do for other employees.

Sarah Stevenson, former English teacher and school librarian

• Representing librarians. Asking to include librarians to SB3.

Amy Hedtke, representing self

• Opposed to the bill. Believes SB3 will be a roadblock to lowering taxes.
• Taylor – We have a number of bills aimed to address property tax issues. SB3 is addressing one need and we are still attempting to address others.
• Whitmire – Where are you from?
  • Waxahachie
• Whitmire – How did you know about this hearing?
  • I went to the Texas Legislature Online and looked at the upcoming hearings.
• West – Do you believe that the teachers in Waxahachie are making enough money right now?
  • Nobody is making enough money.
• West – So if the legislature is trying to make certain that those teachers make a little bit more money, you are against that?
  • Yes, because it hurts other Texans.

Tim Lee, Texas Retired Teachers Association

• Thanked the legislature for their effort to fund long-term solutions for teacher retirement.

Jose Delgado, representing self

• Emphasizes that there are not enough males in the school system because the pay is low. In support of SB3s impact to male teachers.
• Flores – Would you agree that $5,000 makes real impact on teachers?

Charlotte Roe, representing self

• Supports SB3 and emphasizes that the $5,000 makes an impact on the lives of teachers and students.

Marianne Eckley, representing self

• Thanked the legislature for the support to teachers.
• Taylor – You said you teach kindergarten, and a student harmed you? What was the outcome of that?
  • It was last year, and I was out for about a year.
• Taylor – We don’t typically think of kindergarteners as aggressors, was it accidental?
  • No, but I do not blame the child. They are where they can get help now.
• Taylor – What kind of environment is he in now?
  • It is a BIC unit, and he is doing very well.
• Taylor – Is the child special needs?
  • We could not get that slated, at the end we came up with a compromise for the child.

Public Testimony Closed

• Nelson – Emphasizes that the committee values teachers and education.
• Nelson – Moved that SB3 does not pass, but that the committee substitute that was adopted in lieu thereof do pass and be printed.
• SB3 reported with no objection.

 

Nelson – SB1 is $5.5 billion under the constitution pay-as-you go limit. $7.9 billion in unaddressed exceptional items from state agencies.

• School finance proposals could exceed $9 billion if they all passed
• Harvey, infrastructure needs, and pensions all add up as well
• Task is to decide emphasis on where to put funds
• Nelson assigned workgroups:
  • Huffman to chair the workgroups on Articles I, IV, & V. Team will include: Flores; Hancock; Whitmire.
  • Kolkhorst to chair the workgroup on Article II. Team will include: Campbell; Flores; Watson.
  • Taylor to chair the workgroup on Article III (public education). Team will include: Bettencourt; Perry; West.
  • Bettencourt to chair the workgroup on Article III (higher education). Team will include: Campbell; Handcock; Watson.
  • Nichols to chair the workgroups on Articles VI, VII, & VIII. Team will include: Birdwell; Hinojosa; Perry.
• Nelson addressed workgroups:
  • First goal is to ensure that all essential needs are met.
  • Second goal is to establish priorities.
  • Third goal is to be mindful of ways to achieve savings.
  • Keep in mind the issues on education and property tax relief.