Print 🖨

The Texas Public School Finance Commission Expenditures Working Group met to hear invited testimony regarding expenditures related to public school finance.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. This report is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing; it 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.

Opening Remarks

  • Brister-The role of the commission is to make recommendations
  • Brister-This working group is focused on what expenditures are required and what to focus on
  • Brister-Major question is if the commission should recommend tweaking or changing the existing system or to revamp it entirely
  • Huberty- discussed potentially raising the copper penny or creating a silver penny to help with recapture issues, as well as previous legislation intended to deal with some of the issues brought to the commission

 

Invited Testimony

Aaron Hendrickson, LBB

  • Presented written testimony
  • Discussed variables to state cost and for the Foundation School Program (FSP)
    • Number of students- a direct correlation to cost
    • Property values- inverse correlation to state cost
    • Tax rates- a direct correlation to cost
  • Taylor- how long has the system been in place relating to tax rates go up the state costs go up?
    • The current system has been in place for multiple decades
  • Taylor- just wanted to note that this system has been in place long before this legislature
  • Brister- as far as tax rates, property poor districts raise their rates, but they don’t get enough return for it, so the state is making that up?
    • Tier 2 is a good example, there is a guaranteed yield where the state will make up the difference
  • Three major categories of funding within the FSP
    • Tier 1- formula funding/entitlement funding
    • Tier 2- enrichment funding
    • Facilities funding
  • West- in relation to compensatory education allotment, some districts were using supplemental funding?
    • Leo Lopez, TEA- not familiar specifically with that but there is a list of specific types of expenditures for at-risk students
  • West-as opposed to using comp ed funding to supplement additional funding that they had in place, they were supplanting programs using these funds
    • Lopez- will confer with program specialist at TEA and provide that answer
  • West- need to be sure that districts are using this type of funding correctly
  • Tier 1 funding
    • Allotments can be broken into two general categories: those which are and are not a function of the adjusted allotment
    • Those that are a function of the adjusted allotment: begin with the basic allotment in the General Appropriations Act
  • Huberty- when was the last time the basic allotment was adjusted before the 85th Legislative Session?
    • Lopez- the last statutory change was in 2009
  • Ellis- the charter school average includes the small and midsize adjustment, correct?
    • That is correct
  • The allotments which are functions of the adjusted allotment are multiplied by a weight and multiplied by several students
  • Total tier one funding is the sum of all these allotments
  • Tier 2 funding is broken into two categories: golden pennies and copper pennies
  • Guaranteed yield of golden pennies is tied to the Austin ISD while the copper penny yield is set in statute at $31.95 per weighted student
  • Taylor- how long has Texas used Austin ISD?
    • Since 2006-2007
  • Taylor- any particular reason Austin was chosen?
    • AISD was the 80th percentile at the time
  • Taylor- what do you think it is now?
    • North of 95%
  • Taylor- so the whole state is based on one of the highest outliers
  • State facilities funding: instructional facilities allotment and the existing debt allotment- provide guaranteed yield per penny of tax effort per student
  • 2019 charter schools will begin receiving funding through the instructional facilities allotment
  • Huberty- NIFA, understand that the language provides opportunity for repurposing  a facility for a purpose other than to create a new campus, is that accurate?
    • That’s correct
  • Discussed recapture-
    • required to only fund the foundation school program
  • Taylor- recapture funds are used only to fund the foundation school program and nowhere else in the government?
    • Correct, only to fund the foundation school program
  • Taylor- we heard at the last commission hearing from witnesses that that wasn’t the case
    • It is only used for education
  • West- in terms of the five available options, one includes discounts for districts that pay money into the state as opposed to choosing the other options?
    • There are other options
    • Historically the main option chosen is option 3- sending money to the state or option 4- sending money directly to another district
    • There is an early agreement credit of roughly 4% for turning in their contract early
  • West- that was done in statute, so you don’t know the rationale behind that?
    • Correct
  • Ellis- is there any way to see if recapture dollars are being used to supplement programs or supplant funds already there?
    • There is a sum certain all funds amount in the general appropriations amount with certain dedicated revenue streams with recapture being one of those
    • Recapture is one of the methods of finance for the overall school finance system
  • Ellis- so recapture dollar could be supplanting other dollars, correct?
    • It’s not supplementing, it is a method of finance
  • Brister- recapture is part of state revenues or just state funds available?
    • LBB presents the revenue as local revenue
    • Often presented as local tax revenue
  • Huberty- but if a local community did nothing the state would detach property?
    • The commissioner of education would
  • Discussed hold harmless provisions
    • State aid for homestead provisions
    • Chapter 41 hold harmless, providing for a higher equalized wealth level
  • Huberty- that was related to changes in formulas causing very wealthy districts that send in recapture money only to get money back out from the state, correct?
    • It reduces the recapture payments they would otherwise have to make
  • West- requested a list of those districts
  • Taylor- discussed sales tax and that it may be considered a similar type of tax as recapture
  • West- who determined to consider recapture a local instead of state?
    • Not sure how long, but it has been presented this way for a long time
  • Ellis- if we did label this state revenue it would lead us further down the path of a statewide property tax and another lawsuit
    • Would not want to answer a hypothetical question like that
  • Brister- the property tax issue is a very complex issue and the lump sum feels very heavy compared to an 8% sales tax for a meal, etc.
  • Written testimony shows overview of the ‘16-’17 FSP budget
  • Huberty- looking at the written testimony, ‘16- ‘17 expended compared to ’18- ’19 we spent $745 million less in ‘18- ‘19?
    • That was in general revenue-related expenditures
  • Huberty- this shows franchise tax; how much was the Franchise Tax originally generate how much?
    • Approximately $4 billion per year
  • Huberty- so its half of what was supposed to be generating right?
    • A decrease in the franchise tax in the previous session in addition to it underperforming
  • Huberty- the appropriated revenue receipts is the recapture revenue, ’16- ’17 recapture revenue was $3.3 billion and ’18- ’19 was budgeted for $4.5 billion correct?
    • Correct
  • Huberty- so in theory the state is spending more money than we would in ’16- ’19 in general appropriation but make it up in recapture
    • If you were to sum up all the recapture related revenue streams, there would be a decrease
  • Ellis- one bright spot is the Available School Fund from the SBOE

 

Andy McLauren, LBB

  • Presented a memo clarifying two tables that the LBB publishes in the Fiscal Size Up document produced each biennium
  • Two figures are
    • the FSP state and local share table
    • pre-K through 12 public education funding table
  • The primary difference is that the state and local share table only looks at formula funding
    • consists of the FSP state funds and local property tax revenue
    • public education table consists of all funding to TEA including federal funds and general revenue funds not used for FSP
  • both charts show recapture as local revenue
  • TEA PIEMS expenditure reports are different in that it shows what school districts are spending
  • Huberty- looking at page 2, after 2008 the new tax rate compression is reflected?
    • That is correct
  • Huberty- state shares are 48% in ’18 and 38% in ’19 is that correct?
    • That is correct
  • Huberty- how much is the state funding? Is it 38%?
    • If looking at formula it is 38%
  • Brister- the second spreadsheet is in billions?
    • Correct
  • Brister- in the charts local matched local but state does not match state, why is that?
    • Because the first chart is limited to FSP
    • The first chart is also on an entitlement basis
    • The second is linked to appropriations
  • Brister- what big items are included in the second chart?
    • TEA, IM, and additional non-FSP programs
  • Brister- requested a list of all of those things
    • Will provide that
  • Taylor- if you are looking at state v. local why would you not include all of the things the state is paying for, why are some of those things not captured as part of the state’s share? You show percentages on one chart and not the other? It should be shown as split between state, local and federal funds. And having the percentages shown on both graphs would be beneficial
    • There are some methods of funding that are included in the second graph under state funds
  • Brister it would be beneficial to compare and make the numbers match. I would imagine that state and local shares go down as a percentage when federal funds are added back in
  • Huberty- actually, it’s the opposite: for 2019 55% for local, 35% for state and 9.5% on the federal side. 2018 was 52.4% for local, 38.1% for state and 9.5% for federal.
  • West- what is captured in the state aid number in chart #2?
    • Includes FSP entitlement, all of TEA non-FSP programs, and TEA administrative budget
  • West- it would be good in the footnote to be more expansive as to what state aid means
  • West- in general as tax rates go up state aid goes down?
    • In general, as tax rates goes up state aid goes up as well
    • There is a difference between tax value and tax rate
  • Brister- do retired teachers pensions show up in the budget?
    • They do not include the retirements system
  • Huberty- TRS has been added to over the last three sessions but is a separate obligation from this
  • Huberty- would like to know exactly what the percentages and numbers and splits are
    • Will provide that information

 

Leo Lopez, TEA

  • Presented listing of factors in the school finance system
  • A precursor for the CEI was created in 1984 and updated to the CEI in 1991
    • Index numbers have been unchanged since then
  • Small district size adjustments updated in 85th legislative special session
    • Over 6-year period the two adjustments will be phased up to match each other creating one adjustment
  • Mid-size adjustments updated in 1997 and has been unchanged since then
  • Sparsity adjustments updated in 2015 to add another adjustment for districts near the border
  • West- what is the range of the small and mid-size adjustments?
    • The range uses a formula to arrive at the dollar amount (roughly $700 per ADA)
    • Will provide percentage
  • Special education weights last updated in 1993
  • Compensatory education last updated in 1999
  • Current technology weights updated in 1993
  • Gifted and talented last updated in 1991
  • PEG weights last updated in 1997
  • NIFA updated last session but is subject to appropriations
  • High School Allotment updated in 2009 moving into Tier 1
  • Huberty- high school allotment could very easily be moved into the basic allotment
  • Huberty- of the 13 weights 10 were created in 1984 and 11 of the 13 have been adjusted
  • Huberty- CEI is supposed to be studied by LBB and a report provided to the legislature every biennium, when was the last time that happened?
    • February 2017, have not compiled a report of how much it would cost to update that
  • Huberty- when was the last time before that?
    • Not aware
  • Huberty- between 1993 and 2017 LBB was statutorily supposed to create the report regarding CEI and has not done that?
    • Correct
  • West- what is the reason why?
    • An attempt was made several biennia ago, but had difficulty replicating the index
    • Will follow up with detail
  • West- if we were to ask today what it would take to update the CEI?
    • LBB would not have an answer
  • West- and the reason is the technical difficulty?
    • That is correct
  • West- asked LBB for update on the technical issues regarding updating the CEI

 

John McGeady, LBB

  • The short answer is that the CEI methodology is decades old and updating the methodology is difficult because some of the data and assumptions do not apply anymore. There are numerous methodological assumptions that will have to be made and will have to be made by the legislature
  • West- are there proxies for those variables that were used back then, that would be methodologically reliable?
    • you could make some assumptions and probably find data that would be reliable but many policy decisions on how to use that information would have to be made
  • West- those policy decisions would have to be made by who?
    • Traditionally the legislature has decided to commission analyses to updating the CEI including large research projects attempting to update the CEI
  • West- when was the last project done?
    • Believe the last one done was in the mid-2000s
  • West- is there an executive summary of the findings?
    • Yes, there have been efforts to create a CEI since then as well and can provide information regarding those
  • West- so the legislature has traditionally outsourced research for updating the CEI?
    • That is correct
  • Huberty- even though there are reports from the projects, the legislature has not received those reports to update the CEI, is that accurate?
    • The legislature has had access to those in the past
  • Huberty- when was the last time the legislature was delivered a report that included an updated CEI?
    • The LBB has not done an update to the CEI since the mid-1990s
  • Ellis- is the biggest issue in coming up with a new CEI the contiguous teacher salaries?
    • That may be one, but will confer with the modeler and get a response to you
  • West- in terms of recommendations back to the commission, should be recommending that we get an updated study to the CEI
  • Huberty- or it goes away, and the resources get dropped into the basic allotment
  • Ellis- first we need to figure out what a new CEI would look like
  • Taylor- in speaking toward different approaches, workgroup should recommend using one of the approaches outlined by LBB to fixing it
  • West- who should we bring in to speak about the different options?
    • Taylor- listed potential speakers who could speak toward different models
  • Huberty- lets run down the recommendations: high school allotment could very easily go into the basic allotment
  • West- what would happen if it just went into the basic allotment?
  • Huberty-it would streamline the formula
    • Lopez- the only implication would be that k-6 or k-8 districts would get a little more money because right now they don’t have high school students
  • West- and that’s the problem, because high school is defined as 9-12, so districts that have more of those students get more funding, and simplifying the formula means that they would not get as much
  • Ellis- understood high school allotment was designed to reduce dropout rates and less funding could be an issue regarding that
  • Huberty- that is true, but one difference is giving ISDs the resources in how they spend the money as opposed to mandating how they spend those funds
  • West- flexibility is good as long as they are spending it on high school students
  • Huberty- will get an update from TEA on that
  • Huberty- NIFA funding needs to have some adjustments made as discussed previously. The Transportation allotment hasn’t been adjusted since 1984
  • West- regarding the transportation allotment, chapter 41 do not get transportation dollars?
    • Lopez- they are self-funded in that sense because it is included in the calculation of WADA
    • Once a district starts paying for recapture under chapter 41 they do not get the benefit of the transportation allotment, but they get the benefit of the available school fund as an offset
  • Taylor- discussion on clarifying when a district loses transportation funding in relation to recapture
  • West- essentially when a district is subject to recapture the state does not provide transportation funding
  • Huberty- based on past numbers districts are getting hit twice with recapture and losing transportation funding
  • West- should add transportation allotment and how it impacts chapter 41 districts to recommendations from the workgroup
  • Taylor- would like to simplify the transportations allotment so that legislators and the public understand it
  • West- would like the agency to set the amount
  • Ellis- cautioned against making it a flat rate in the basic allotment because it is so cost driven
  • Huberty- unless somebody has a recommendation on the rest of the weights, example of SPED weights and the different weights within, how to determine if the amount of money is being spent correctly? Is it the right amount? Do you have a recommendation on that?
    • Lopez- we need to hear from more people in the field about what is involved in each setting and decide on funding based on time or setting, etc.
  • Taylor- that would be valuable but beyond that comp ed and bilingual, we need to find out what they cost, we know that we do not have a reasonable number
  • Ellis- really need to dig into this because many districts are using grants and alternative methods of financing these issues
  • West- in terms of compensatory education, those dollars are based on free and reduced lunch as an indicator of at risk?
    • Lopez- yes, it is based on free and reduced lunch based on the prior year
  • West- those funds are prescribed in education code?
    • There is a statutory framework and rules at TEA
  • West- how much money is allotted for comp ed?
    • Lopez- this year it is $4 billion, roughly $1200 per student
  • West- discussion of efficacy of funding for allotments, need to bring in people who know how the money is being spent
  • Huberty- will plan on doing another in person hearing to bring in these experts
  • Taylor- would like to add a definition of compensatory education to that to get the most accurate way of counting these at-risk students
  • Huberty- would like to have an idea about this in 2-3 weeks
  • West- would like TSU and Prairie View to be invited to discuss this topic

 

Tracy Ginsburg, TASBO

  • TASBO is comprised of non-teacher staff
  • Creates training to implement laws and recommendations from TEA and the legislature
  • Concur that the weights need to be reviewed
  • The funds allocated are very clearly to supplement as opposed to supplanting
  • The rules and regulations associated with the allocations have changed the spending patterns
  • Up to 17 coded allocation and due to the associated regulations may not be coding things correctly
  • Recommends a workgroup of CFOs and curriculum specialists to review the programs and coding
  • Schools spend 400% more on transportation than was funded
  • Getting drivers is a huge challenge to transportation
  • The bill last session regarding seat belt on buses has added a huge challenge due to the age of the majority of busses
  • Taylor- the state has never paid for all of the transportation, and are closer to 20% now, would changing that to paying for mileage help? With the ability to increase that later?
    • That would certainly be helpful
  • Taylor- the seatbelt law only required a discussion
  • Ellis- it’s a bad discussion for school boards to have if they are voting against safety measures, and even then, it is not the cost of the seatbelts it is the reduced ridership going from 3 kids to a seat to 2 kids
  • Brister- discussing written testimony, excess expenditure is what you use local property tax revenues for right?
    • That is correct
  • Brister- do not need to lose all of the excess expenditures otherwise the state would be paying for 100% of education
    • This is to show how the districts are using those dollars
  • West- can you speak to comp ed expenditures?
    • That is listed under accelerated instruction
  • West- so the minimum spent is 52, and $ s.7 has been spent?
    • Correct
  • Since 2016, 216 districts realize a fund balance deficit and expecting that number to increase
  • West- do you have the numbers of chapter 41s versus chapter 42s?
    • Do not have that, but is important to note
  • West- how many districts in Texas?
    • 1,062
  • Recommend minimum strings on use of funds when allocating funds

 

Doug Williams, TASA

  • Becoming more difficult for school to engage in enrichment activities
  • Noted disparity between basic allotment increase and the state certified values per student
  • Encourage creating a way to connect those two values
  • Class size does matter
  • Need to more adequately fund special programs including comp ed and remediation programs
  • Need to expand opportunities for college and career readiness
  • Spending a lot of time prepping for the test as opposed to spending more resources working in the student holistically, may consider using ACT or SAT in addition state test
  • Recommends using creative solutions for remolding the school finance system
  • Taylor- paying for seat time as opposed to self-paced model should be able to reward faster attainment, thinking outside the box with ideas like that will be very useful moving forward. Do you think it is feasible for the state to pay based on credits as opposed to seat time?
    • Will defer to others on that matter, but it will be solutions like that which will solve the problem
    • Ginsburg- that would be hugely beneficial
  • West- discussed previous legislation allowing graduation in 11th grade and the intended 12th grade funds would go into pre-K
  • Brister- regarding ACT SAT use, understand that SAT is intelligence test and the ACT is an accomplishment test and that colleges are going toward the ACT, would that actually lower the cost significantly?
    • ACT SAT administration is cheaper, but would like to add SAT ACT into the mix as a holistic assessment
  • Taylor- both ACT and SAT groups have said not o use that as the state-wide assessment, discussed ways of improving the STAAR test with the availability of new technologies including a 2-part test to assess progress
    • Doing that currently through MWE MAP test which helps identify remediation needs as well as all students in prepping for ACT test
  • Taylor- what grade levels are you testing?
    • All grades
    • Schools like assessment but it needs to make sense and really assess the students

 

Guy Sconzo, Fast Growth School Coalition

  • The concept of capacity is a serious issue for fast growth districts
  • Many fast-growth districts are at the I&S Rate cap with no capacity
  • Thanked legislators for work on NIFA legislation, recognized the impact of opening a new campus and broadening the eligibility of options for repurposing facilities
    • Proposed rules are not in line with the intent of the legislation
  • Taylor- can you specifically define that?
    • Needs a narrower definition of repurpose that speaks to a “new” campus
  • Huberty- is that something we can recommend to TEA for rulemaking regarding legislative intent or is that something that needs a legislative fix?
    • In a second round of public comment and your voices on the matter would be appreciated
  • Huberty- will do that as it is not the intent of the bill
  • Brister- are most fast growth districts in suburbs?
    • Correct
  • Brister- most of the big cities are going into chapter 41 because they are decreasing in population, with portions of schools not being utilized. Can another district bring students in to use that vacant portion of the facility?
    • Would be possible and many districts have partnered with each other for the purpose of facility use
  • Huberty- one issue is population growth causes the need for a school to be built but no capacity to raise taxes to pay for it. Are most of those districts small or mid-size districts?
    • That is correct and is a formula funding issue to give districts the flexibility
  • Ellis- how has the hurricane recovery been affected by this issue?
    • NIFA has been defined as funds for facilities that were campuses the previous year
    • Not sure how that is treated for building that has been flattened and needs to be rebuilt
  • Huberty- there are campuses in Humble ISD that required $90 million to rebuild after the hurricane.

 

Ray Freeman, Equity Center

  • The current system doesn’t work like it needs to and cannot get it to work without massive changes
  • Will take substantial changes just to get to the point to understand it
  • Ellis- do you feel there is a scenario where some students would be harmed from oversimplification of the system through the equity center plan?
    • The simplicity should work to the advantage of the students by getting rid of the inefficiencies in the current system and putting that back into the system for everybody
    • Until we take the inefficiencies out of the system we will never be able to accomplish the things we want to accomplish
  • Ellis- that is pone this I like about your proposal is the simplicity and if the nuances are needed let them earn their way back into the system
  • Ellis- this went through the last session which had changes to the current system, are there any changes in your system to reflect those changes?
    • The changes made in the last session were already made in our plan including the small district adjustment, etc.
  • Ellis- your plan accounts for ASATR as, well right?
    • That is correct, each district gets the same based on their tax effort and this plan starts with efficiency
  • Huberty- your plan says to remove all of the non-cost-based inefficiencies, what does that mean?
    • The written testimony includes a list of non-cost-based inefficiencies
    • The money going towards these programs and items should be folded back into the system
  • Brister- you eliminate all of those to add back into the basic allotment?
    • Or anywhere you need it
  • Brister- so it could go to gifted and talented or something like that?
    • It could go to anything that needs to be funded but recognized as a weight
  • Brister- that may open an opportunity for people to game the system as they are with free and reduced lunches right now, the more basic question is what the best use of the education dollars is, should we spend that on the brightest kids or the slow learners. Is that a policy decision from the legislature or an application decision the locals should make? A pure economist with no heart would say why are we spending all this money on special education, these are the kids you are going to get the least return for your dollars on, and part of the answer is that, of course, the law says we have to, and partly because its not just about GDP its about what kind of society we are going to be. Is that the kind of decision that should be made at the legislative level or the local level?
    • I think constitutionally and by current state law we have made the decision that says we need to provide each child with the educational opportunities they need to be successful citizens of the state of Texas, and if that is our policy then it should fall back on the districts to decide how we get those children there.
    • It doesn’t release us from recognizing the costs that we know there are additional costs associated with those kids
    • There are answers to some of those problems but leaving it to the local level does not mean we don’t recognize the costs
  • Brister- it does seem to me that we need to leave those decisions to the local level to have local control. Also seems that that is an argument is that it should be a basic allotment issue
    • When money is put into the basic allotment to the level it needs to be, then it will impact all students in Texas. When you move to a system where ever
  • Brister – At what point does the Legislature have to raise the basic allotment before schools choose to spend less on gifted and talented and blame us as a result?
  • Huberty – How many school districts would lose according to this plan? You’re not adding new money into the system. Someone will win, and someone will lose, who loses?
  • On page 5, that’s the current system. The current system is winners and losers. Everyone with a high tax rate is the losers because they’re not getting a fair share of the education funding. If you’re going to move to an efficient system you need to move to one like this, on page 33.
  • Huberty – We all want to reduce property taxes, but there is no way to do that with our education system today. Does your plan fix the ASTR problem for outlier districts?
  • Ellis – Proposal year 1 is a zero-sum game. But I believe you spoke about a plan to soften the blow during transitions. Is that in your plan or are you leaving it to the Legislature?
  • We have an idea that is very similar to the hardship grant. If you’re going to soften the blow during transitions, then the basis of the plan should be one that phases out over time. It needs to be its own funding mechanism.
  • Huberty – How much do you think that is?
  • About 2-3 billion dollars as a one-time expense to fund the transition.
  • Brister – I love the simplicity of this. From a legal standpoint, it makes the equity lawsuits go away. How much money that goes to districts is basic school allotment and how much is add-on?
  • The line share is basic allotment. The addons would depend on the district and whether they require more services.
  • Brister – they would not get as many advantages as they get now?
  • They would get a little more assistance because of the raise in the basic allotment. When you raise the allotment, those weights will draw more money.
  • Huberty – The question comes back to the weights. Is .1 the right weight for ELL or dyslexia, etc.?

 

Christine Rome TX School Coalition

  • I understand the desire to have a simple system. But I would also say that flying airplanes is complicated work. I want to make sure we have a system that fully addresses all the needs of students in the state. I hope that as we look to simplify things that we do not do so in a way that causes harm.
  • I don’t know that we’ve talked enough today about local people. Local communities should have a key role in what expenditures take place in a district.
  • Brister – If you’re in a property poor district, even small changes in your tax might have an exaggerated bite.
    • I would hope that foremost the state provides an adequate education. The cap that was put in place was also a means of equity at one point in time. Now the largest burden falls on property owners who must pay for school financing.
    • Our system today of using prior year values is better than using current year values. If you base it on current collections, then settle up becomes a nightmare.
  • Huberty – What do you mean settle up becomes a nightmare?
    • At the end of the year, once we know the final values, either TEA must pay a larger sum, or the district does.

 

Caroline Nun, Meridian World School

  • I am the founder and COO of Meridian World School. As a charter school, we receive allotments for SPED, compensatory ed, and a small amount for bilingual ed. We have been able to spend all of these funds on services for our students. There are no funds remaining for indirect costs. In addition to FSP allotments, we received the instructional materials allotments. Local monies make up our funding which is not covered by allotments. We ask that you consider the school’s need to hire adequate and qualified personnel.
  • Ellis – How much do you anticipate with the $60 million that was added for charter facilities this session?
    • Next year we anticipate about $300,000, which impacts our payments by about 25%.
  • Brister – What specifically are you asking for?
    • We don’t have the funds to shift from other things to put more money into teacher salaries.
  • Brister – Are your salaries the same with Round Rock ISD?
    • They are the same level and may vary according to tenure.
  • Brister – Part of the advantage of charter schools is that they’re better at closing the low-income gap better than anyone else.
  • Huberty – The talking point that charter schools receive less funding than public schools is just not true. I hope that when you come back to us your talking points change a bit.
    • I am concerned about what the future will do; it could either leave us flat or let us fall behind.