eo wa
a

HOUSE

STUDY HB 72

GROUP __—sconference committee report analysis 6/30/84 Haley

SUBJECT: Education administration, programs, and finance

DIGEST: Organization and Management
HB 72 as passed by the House would abolish the current
27-member State Board of Education. A transitional
board would be appointed by the Governor from 15
districts. A Legislative Education Board would oversee
education policy, nominate three persons from each of
15 districts for appointment, and name the chair of
the board. All school districts would elect local
board trustees on the first Saturday in April. In the

April 1986 election, eight of the 15 appointed members
would be replaced by elected members; the remaining
seven would be replaced in the 1988 election.
Election would be by majority vote; if necessary, any
runoff would be held two weeks after the initial
balloting.
The state board would have enhanced rulemaking
authority and could hire and fire the commissioner
of education at its discretion. The state board would
no longer hear appeals from decisions of the commissioner.
The commissioner would no longer review or reject
textbooks, which would be adopted for a maximum six-
year cycle.
The state board would follow statutory standards in
reviewing school-district accreditation. A master
could be appointed to oversee operations in a district
that lost accreditation. ,
Students would not be required to begin classes before
Sept. 1. Local school boards would publish comprehen-
sive annual reports. The state board would establish
standards for training of trustees. Plaintiffs who
filed frivolous lawsuits against school districts
or trustees could be ordered to pay defendants' costs.
_ Teachers
HB 72 would require testing of teachers and administrators
on subject-area knowledge and basic skills. Teachers
would have to pass the test by June 30, 1986, asa
condition of further employment.
|
1

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Two

DIGEST: The bill would replace the pay-grade index in current

(continued) law with an li-step state minimum-salary schedule.
New teachers starting in September 1984 would be
guaranteed an annual salary of $15,200. Already-
employed teachers would be placed on the lowest step
on the new schedule providing at least a $1,700 increase
over their 1983-84 state minimum annual salaries.
Teachers would receive a raise of $1,140 annually
thereafter until they reached the eleventh step.
HB 72 would give extra raises to teachers who advance
on a new four-step career ladder. New teachers and
most already-employed teachers would begin at ladder-
level one in 1984. To advance, teachers would have
to achieve specified appraisal ratings for specified
numbers of years and obtain extra academic training.
The bill would mandate twice-yearly appraisals of the
classroom performance of every teacher, to be conducted
by specially trained teams--one administrator and one
classroom teacher per appraisal. Teachers who could
not meet statewide appraisal standards would be demoted
or not rehired.
Teachers who excelled and met other requirements could
move up the career ladder and earn supplements (above
their state-supported minimum salaries) of $2,000
at level two, $4,000 at level three, and $6,000 at
level four. If a district's allotted career-ladder
funding from the state did not cover full supplements
for all eligible teachers, the district could reduce

’ each supplement paid proportionally.
A teacher could not appeal a district's career~ladder-
level assignment. Teachers transferring to a job in
another district could not automatically keep their
career-ladder levels.
HB 72 would permit state-board teacher certification
of college graduates who had not completed a teacher-
training program. Candidates would have to pass a
competency test, serve a one-year internship, and
take a number of teaching-methods courses. HB 72
would also allow local districts to hire noncertified
mathematics and science professionals as part-time
teachers, but only if no certified teachers were
available.
2
;

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Analysis of bills in conference committee
Page Three
DIGEST: HB 72 would authorize increased payments after
(continued) August 1984 to retired teachers and survivors of
deceased teachers. The increases would be tied to
length of service and would apply only below a
$25,000 retirement-account limit.
The bill would mandate rules for sanctions against
substandard college teacher-education programs. It
would require all college teacher-education programs
to make annual performance reports to the state
board.
The bill would direct the state board to solicit and
dispense private donations and federal funds for
education research and would authorize a matching
state appropriation of up to $5 million.
The bill would authorize loans from two funds to
high-ranking college students enrolled in teacher
education. It would allow fund administrators to |
cancel repayment if the borrowers teach in public |
schools for four years after obtaining certification. |
Finance |
|
The bill would eliminate the current school-finance |
mechanism, which distributes state money to districts
primarily through a "personnel-unit" salary scheme, |
and replace it with a "basic-entitlement" mechanism. |
The state would give each school district a basic
allotment of $1,290 per school year for each student
in average daily attendance. This basic allotment
would be adjusted by a price-differential formula,
to accommodate geographic variations in the cost of
providing basic education. For those school districts
with fewer than 3,000 students, the basic allotment
would be further adjusted by a small-district formula.
In addition to its adjusted basic allotment, each
school district would receive special allotments for
students enrolled in programs of special, bilingual,
compensatory, and vocational education. School
districts would also receive special allotments for
experienced teachers, educational improvement
and support for the career ladder, transportation,
and enrichment equalization. The local share of the
Foundation School Program would be based on the ratio
of a district's property wealth to statewide property
wealth. This ratio would be multiplied by a factor
of 30 percent of total Foundation School Program
3

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72 ;
Analysis of bills in conference committee
Page Four

DIGEST: costs. "Hold-harmless" provisions that reduce

(continued) local funding obligations under current law would
be eliminated. Equalization-transition aid would be
granted to school districts that would receive less
state aid in the 1984-85 school year under this new
mechanism than they received in the 1983-84 school
year.
Educational Quality
Students would have to maintain an average grade of at
least 70 to advance to the next grade or receive credit
for a course. Advanced-placement exams would allow
students to skip a primary-school grade or a secondary-
school course. Every district would be required to offei
after-school tutorials, but no student would be required
to attend. A student with more than five days of
unexcused absences during a semester could not receive
credit for a course.
Students would be tested for basic skills in the first,
third, and seventh grades in addition to the current
tests given in the third and ninth grades. A student
could not receive a high-school diploma without scoring
satisfactorily on all sections of a basic-skills test,
although students could retake sections until they
pass and remedial help would be offered.
Starting in the 1985-86 school year, every district
with 15 or more disadvantaged or limited-English-
proficiency four-year-olds would be required to offer
half-day prekindergarten. Districts with bilingual~
education and special-language programs would be
required to offer optional, half-day intensive summer
programs.
The average pupil-teacher ratio could not be more
than 20 to one. A district could not enroll more than
23 students in any kindergarten or first- or second-
grade class, starting in 1985-86. The same limit would
apply to third- and fourth-grade classes starting in
1988-89.
The state board could limit extracurricular activities
during the school day and school week. Students
would have to maintain grades of 70 or better in
every class in order to participate. The University
Interscholastic League would be under the control
of the state board.

4

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Five
DIGEST: Each district would be required to have a discipline-
(continued) management program, including a student code of conduct
and measures to promote parental involvement. Every
district would be required to have an alternative
education program for incorrigible students. Drop-
out reduction programs would be encouraged, and the
Texas Department of Community Affairs could contract
with nonprofit organizations to develop such programs.
The state board would develop rules for vocational-
education programs and would review each program every
four years. Except in smaller districts, no vocational
program could be offered if initial enrollment was
below 30.
HSG ANALYSIS: The analysis of this bill appeared in the June 21
Daily Floor Report.
HOUSE On June 21, the House considered a complete substitute
FLOOR for HB 72 offered by the author of the bill, Rep. Bill
ACTION: Haley, in lieu of the Public Education Committee
substitute that had been reported on June 17. The
House adopted several amendments to the Haley floor
substitute, including: electing the State Board of
Education by majority vote rather than by plurality;
eliminating an alternative "certification of completion"
in place of a diploma for twelfth-grade students who
fail the basic~skills assessment test; adding a drop-
out reduction program; deleting compensation for local
school~-board trustees; and expanding the areas of
school property where possession of alcoholic beverages
is illegal.
The Haley floor substitute included a career ladder
requiring less academic course work for teacher
advancement. The floor substitute contained no salary
schedule allowing yearly longevity raises; it permitted
raises for teachers only via advancement on the career
ladder. The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Peveto
that reinstated the ll-step salary schedule, with
career-~ladder supplements, from earlier versions of
the bill, and allowed districts to decrease career-
ladder supplements if state funding should prove
insufficient to cover all eligible teachers.
5

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Six
SENATE The Senate considered the education package as a
ACTION: committee of the whole, having previously divided
itself into four subcommittees to consider the main
subject areas--management and organization, teachers,
finance, and educational quality. As a committee
of the whole, the Senate voted to delete a subcommittee
recommendation that a smaller State Board of Education ,
be appointed, then elected. The Senate committee
of the whole also rejected, among other proposals,
an amendment to add teacher-competency testing and
a substitute school-finance plan, which would have
based state aid on attendance rather than enrollment
and would have decreased the aggregate local share of
minimum school funding from 40 percent to 30 percent.
On June 22, the committee of the whole reported the
bill to the Senate, which passed it the same day by
a vote of 22 to nine. During floor consideration,
the Senate considered a number of amendments. By
a 16-to-15 vote, the Senate adopted an amendment
abolishing the current State Board of Education and
creating in its stead a 15-member, appointed board,
with election of members to resume in 1988. By another
16-to-15 vote, the Senate chose to make the offering
of prekindergarten classes by local districts optional
rather than mandatory.
CONCURRENCE: On June 22, the House did not concur with the Senate
substitute for HB 72, and a conference committee
was appointed.
COMPARISON Organization and Management
HOUSE/SENATE
VERSIONS: Both the House and Senate would have the Governor appoint
a 15-member transitional State Board of Education.
But the House would put eight board seats on the
ballot in 1986 and seven in 1988; the Senate would
have all 15 positions filled by election in 1988.
The House would have a nonpartisan state-board
election in April, coinciding with local-board elections
to be held in all school districts. The Senate
would not change local-board election dates and would
retain partisan election of the state board during the
general election in November of even-numbered years.
Both versions would create a Legislative Education
Board, but the Senate specifies no duties for this LEB
other than nomination of appointees to the transitional
board, and the LEB would be abolished by Jan. 1, 1989. | pf
6

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Seven

COMPARISON House would give the proposed LEB general oversight
HOUSE/SENATE duties and a separate staff, as well as the power
VERSIONS: to name the chair of the State Board of Education.
(continued) The Senate would require the LEB to use Legislative

Council staff and would have the Governor name the

chair.

For the proposed changes in the state board, the

House version includes a separate effective-date

provision, dependent on U.S. Department of Justice .

preclearance of the changes under the federal Voting

Rights Act. The Senate has no such provision.

The Senate would delete both the commissioner of

education and the State Board of Education from the

appeals process; the House would delete only the

state board. Where the House would allow appeal to

local district courts and would permit only substantial-

evidence review, the Senate would require trial de novo

in a district court in Travis County. The Senate

would require that the commissioner of education be

paid a salary commensurate with that paid the commissioner

of higher education. The House version has no such

provision.

The Senate would include school-trustee training and |

efforts to improve attendance in its standards for |

district accreditation; the House would not. The House |

would require school-board trustees to attend training

sessions but includes no accreditation sanction.

The House would require that every district start

its school year no earlier than Sept. 1; the Senate

would not.

For frivolous lawsuits filed against a school district

or employee, the House says that the defendant would

be entitled to court costs and attorneys' fees. The ,

Senate would make such an award discretionary and

would exempt several types of suits.

The House version expands the types of school property

where alcoholic beverages would be barred, allows

lease-purchase of property and equipment by school

districts, and prohibits Texas Education Agency offices

outside of Austin. The Senate version includes none

of these provisions but does provide for promulgation

of administrative models that would encourage local

districts to consolidate.

, 7

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analvsis
Page Eight
COMPARISON Teachers
HOUSE/SENATE
VERSIONS: Both the House and Senate would replace the current
(continued) state minimum teacher-salary index with an ll-step
pay scale, raising teacher pay this year and allowing
annual longevity raises for up to ten more years.
Both would create a new four-level career ladder and
authorize paying qualified teachers special $2,000,
$4,000, and $6,000 career-ladder Supplements. The
Senate would require districts to pay the supplements
specified, even if state career-ladder funding did
not suffice for supplementsto eligible teachers.
The House would allow districts in such cases to reduce
supplements proportionally for all teachers.
The Senate would create a new certification system for
career-ladder levels and allow teachers with graduate
degrees to move up faster than would the House. The
Senate would add a requirement to the career ladder--
new teachers would serve a year's probation before
moving to career-ladder level one.
The Senate would treat librarians as teachers for
career-ladder purposes.
The House would require that teachers pass an examina-
tion on subject-area knowledge and basic skills by
June 30, 1986, as a condition of continued employment.
The Senate would require a similar examination,
but only as part of an overall evaluation process.
Both versions mandate twice-yearly appraisals for all
teachers. The House would require that an administrator
and a classroom teacher be on every appraisal team.
The Senate would require an administrator and another
person authorized by the local school board.
The House would make district career-ladder assignments
final and prohibit appeals. The Senate would permit
appeals if the assignment was arbitrary and capricious
or had been made in bad faith. The Senate version
also specifies that the new provisions do not interfere
with the current law governing teacher-contract renewal.
The House version says teachers could not automatically
keep their place on the career ladder when changing
to a job in a new district. The Senate Says teachers
are entitled to transfer their ladder assignments
but allows teachers to waive their entitlement as
part of the job-negotiation process.
8

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Nine
COMPARISON The Senate would not prescribe qualifications and
HOUSE/SENATE duties for superintendents and principals. |
VERSIONS:
(continued) Both versions authorize creation of a new fund for
educational research. The Senate would name it the
Educational Excellence Fund.
Both the House and Senate would authorize aid covering
tuition and fees for high-ranking college teacher-
education students who teach for four years after
obtaining certification. The House authorizes the aid
in the form of loans from two funds. The Senate
would grant the aid in loans from one fund and in
scholarships from another fund. Like the loans, the
scholarships would have to be repaid if students
left teaching before four years elapsed.
Finance
The Senate version would base funding on average
daily enrollment instead of average daily attendance.
It would also increase the number of required days
of instruction for students to 179 and reduce the number
of required training days for teachers to four. The
House requires 175 days of instruction for students
and eight days of training for teachers.
The Senate would increase the basic allotment for
each student from $1,290 to $1,715. The Senate would
use a different price-differential index and states
that the price-differential formula in the bill would
be used for the 1984-85 school year. The House version
states that the specified formula would be used until
a different formula is adopted.

: In the Senate version, the temporary smali-district
adjustment formula would expire on Sept. 1, 1987. The
formula expires one year earlier under the House
version.

In the Senate version, it would be the Legislature's
stated intent that a district use at least 70 percent
of its adjusted basic allotment plus the teacher-
experience allotment on salaries for instructional
personnel. The Senate would also state that under
hardship conditions a school district could ask the
commissioner of education to reduce that requirement
to 60 percent of the adjusted basic allotment.

9

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Ten
COMPARISON The Senate version would reduce the assigned weights
HOUSE/SENATE for the special-education allotment and would add a
VERSIONS: special-education allotment for residential instruction. ©
(continued) The House version would require the State Board of
Education to adopt rules and procedures for residential
placement. The House version would also require the
board to conduct a study of the funding of special-
education programs, making recommendations to the 69th
Legislature regarding appropriate classifications and
weights to be assigned to those classifications.

The Senate version would assign higher weights to
compensatory and bilingual education. The Senate would
also specify that up to 35 percent of the funds allotted
for these programs could be used for general operating
expenses and that no school district could receive
funds under both allotments for the same student.

The Senate would change the experienced-teacher allot-
ment formula by adding a -25 multiplier, in effect

. reducing the allotment by three-fourths. It would also
create an additional special allotment for regional
instructional support of $l per student.

The Senate would also use a different procedure to
calculate a school district's allotment for vocational
education.
The Senate would require the state board of education
to recommend a price-differential index to the
Legislature. The House states that the board itself
will adopt the index and the formula. The Senate does
not specify whether the board or Legislature will adopt
the formula for years following the 1984-85 school
year.
Under the Senate enrichment-equalization allotment,
districts are eligible if their property wealth per
student is less than the statewide average; under the
House version, districts with property wealth up to
1L0 percent of the statewide average are eligible.
The maximum entitlement under the Senate version would
be 15 percent of the district's other Foundation School
; Program allotments. The House version's maximum
entitlement would be 35 percent of the district's
other Foundation School Program allotments. The
Senate version would reduce a district's aid pro-
portionately if its tax effort were below the statewide,
average; in the House version, tax effort is measured
against a different standard.
10

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Eleven
COMPARISON The Senate version. would provide special aid for districts
HOUSE/SENATE that have been declared a major disaster area by the |
VERSIONS Governor. The House version would not. |
(continued)
In the Senate version, the local share of the
Foundation School Program would be figured by
multiplying the ratio of a district's property wealth
to statewide property wealth by a factor of 40 percent
of total Foundation School Program costs, instead of
30 percent as in the House version. The Senate version
would adjust a district's local share if its taxable
property wealth declined by 8 percent from the prior
year. The House version would not.
The Senate version would require a district to raise
its effective tax rate by at least 8 percent above the
1983 level before it could receive equalization-
transition aid. The House version.does not impose
this requirement.
Average daily attendance under the Senate version
would be gauged by the best five six-week reporting
periods. Under the House version, average daily
attendance would be determined by the best four weeks
of a specified eight-week attendance period.
Senate provisions with no counterpart in the House
version include: transferring to the Foundation School
Fund certain taxes now dedicated to the Available
* §chool Fund; earmarking for the Foundation School
Fund certain escheated real property; altering and
adding appropriations to the Texas Education Agency
for fiscal year 1985; and making appropriations to
other state agencies for fiscal year 1985 for implemen-
tation of the bill.
Educational Quality
The Senate would require a basic-skills test in the
third grade in addition to the test now taken by
fifth- and ninth-graders. The House would require
such tests in the first and seventh grades as well,
and it would require satisfactory performance on all
sections of a final basic-skills test before a
student could receive a. high-school diploma. The
Senate would require all grades to take "nationally
norm-referenced achievement tests"; the House would
not.
1l

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee revort analvsis
Page Twelve
COMPARISON The House would require a district with 15 or more
HOUSE/SENATE eligible four-year-olds to offer prekindergarten
VERSIONS: classes; the Senate would make those classes optional.
(continued) The Senate would require every school district as
of the 1988-89 school year to provide kindergarten
classes; the House would not.
In the Senate version, a student with a grade below
70 would be required to attend an after-school
tutorial at least twice a week; the House version
says that the tutorial would have to be offered but
the student would not be required to attend.
The Senate would phase in a class-size limit through
grade four of 20 students per teacher; the House would
phase in over the same period a class-size limit of
23 students for these grades. While the House would
lower the permissible average pupil-teacher ratio for
all grades to 20 to one, the Senate would retain the
current allowable average of 25 to one.
The Senate would allow a waiver of the maximum of five
absences per semester for students with grade averages
of 90 to 100; the House would make no exceptions.
The Senate would change the compulsory-attendance
law to require a minimum of 85 days rather than 82
for kindergarteners and prekindergarteners and a
minimum of 170 days rather than 165 for all other
pupils. The House version does not include such a
provision.
The Senate would prohibit any extracurricular activities
during the first seven hours of the school day. The
House would allow such limits to be set by the state
board.
The Senate discipline-management program gives more
details than the House version concerning continuing
education for a suspended student and specifically
requires a due-process hearing prior to suspension
or expulsion. Although both versions have a drop-
out reduction program, the Senate bill would
appropriate $4.5 million to the Governor's office to
fund new programs and $1.5 million for research. The
Senate also includes a detailed program for community-
guidance centers; the House does not. The House
would appropriate $1.5 million in fiscal 1985 and 1986
for community-education programs; the Senate would not.
, 12

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Thirteen
COMPARISON The House would not allow a vocational program to have
HOUSE/SENATE fewer than 20 students enrolled. The Senate would
VERSIONS: require the state board to set such standards.
(continued)
HOUSE Haley, Colbert, C. Evans, Messer, Peveto
CONFEREES:
SENATE Parker, Caperton, Farabee, Jones, Santiesteban
CONFEREES:
CONFERENCE Organization and Management
COMMITTEE :
REPORT: The conference report would abolish the current
27-member State Board of Education and replace it
with a transitional, appointed board with 15 members.
The House and Senate versions had included 15 new
state-board districts comprised of groupings of 10
state House of Representatives districts. The district
groupings were the same in both bills except for two
state House districts. The conference report includes
a new plan, not found in either the House or Senate
version, for the boundaries of the 15 districts.
The conference report includes the Senate provision
for partisan election by district of all 15 state-
board members at the general election in 1988.
Retained is the House provision for a separate effective
date for this section dependent on U.S. Justice Depart-
ment preclearance under the federal Voting Rights Act.
Local school-board election dates would not be changed.
The House version of the duties of the Legislative
Education Board is included, except that the Legislative
Council would provide staff for the LEB. The Governor,
not the LEB, would name the chair of the State Board of
Education, as in the Senate version.
The report adds new language empowering the state board
to review the education commissioner's application of
board rules.
For the TBA appeals process, the conference report
would retain review by the commissioner and use of
. the substantial-~evidence rule, as in the House version,
but would require that appeals from the commissioner's
decisions be taken to a district court in Travis County,
as the Senate had provided.
13°

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Fourteen
CONFERENCE The conference report includes the Senate school-
COMMITTEE district accreditation standards requiring school-
REPORT: trustee training and efforts to improve attendance.
(continued) It also retains the House requirement that trustees
attend training sessions using standards developed
by a State Board of Education advisory committee.
The House language on starting the school year no
earlier than Sept. 1 is retained, with new language
delaying implementation until the 1985-1986 school
year.
The conference includes the Senate version of the
frivolous-lawsuit provision.
The House provisions concerning alcoholic beverages
on school property, lease-purchase, and a ban on
Texas Education Agency offices outside of Austin
are deleted, as is the Senate provision for
administrative models. New language would authorize
a $l-million study by the LEB of the use of tele-
communications in the public schools.
Teachers
The conference report adopts House language replacing
the state minimum-salary index with an li-step
salary scale, raising teacher pay at least $1,700
per year the first year and allowing annual longevity
raises for up to ten more years. The conference
report also retains the House version of the four-step
career ladder, which would authorize paying qualified
teachers special supplements of $2,000 at level two,
$4,000 at level three, and $6,000 at level four.
The conference report adds language requiring that if
state career-ladder funding is insufficient, districts
could set up stricter performance criteria for earning
the career-ladder supplements; districts could not
reduce salary supplements to eligible teachers by
more than 25 percent. |
14

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Fifteen
CONFERENCE The conference report exempts state-licensed speech-
COMMITTEE language pathologists and audiologists from state-
REPORT: board certification requirements for educational
(continued) aides and non-degree teachers.
The conference report strikes language in the
House version allowing districts to terminate
teachers or place them on probationary employment
for inefficiency in performance of their duties.
The conference report retains a House provision |
requiring that teachers and administrators pass an |
examination on subject-area knowledge and basic
skills by June 30, 1986, as a condition of continued
employment. The conference report adds language
authorizing the state board to exempt people who
have already passed a similar or more difficult local
examination.
The conference report also retains Senate language
requiring that the state board create or adopt a
second test for teachers--an "assessment instrument"
to be used as part of the ongoing appraisal process
for career-ladder assignments.
The conference report retains Senate criteria for the
. four-step career ladder for teachers, specifying
requirements for career-ladder level entry and level
Maintenance, requiring twice-yearly teacher appraisals
according to statewide criteria for career-ladder
level assignments, and instituting five categories
for judging teacher performance. The conference
report retains House language permitting single
annual appraisals in unusual circumstances and adds
a provision that evaluations must be performed in
the same manner and under the same criteria regardless
of level. The conference report also retains the
Senate's certification system for career-ladder levels
and keeps the Senate's requirement that new teachers
serve a year's probation before moving to career-
ladder level one. Out-of-state teachers could enter
the career-ladder level at locally determined career-
ladder levels with a one-year probationary contract.
The conference report retains the Senate requirement
that appraisal teams include an administrator and
another person authorized by the local district, but
it adds languate specifying that whenever possible
appraisers who are teachers should not come from the
Same campus as the teachers being evaluated.
15

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Sixteen
CONFERENCE The conference report adds language permitting
COMMITTEE already-employed teachers to be assigned to level
REPORT: one or level two of the career ladder in the
(continued) 1984-85 school year. The new language also authorizes
creation of five-member local eligibility committees
(three administrators, two level-two teachers) to
make the assignments.
- The conference report retains Senate language
permitting appeals if career-ladder assignments
are arbitrary and capricious or have been made in
bad faith. It also keeps Senate language specifying
that the new provisions do not interfere with current
law governing teacher-contract renewal. The conference
report retains Senate language that entitles teachers
to transfer their career-ladder assignments when
changing to jobs in new districts but that also
allows teachers to waive their entitlement as part |
of the job-negotiation process.
The conference report retains House language prescribing
the qualifications and duties of principals and
superintendents and requiring that teachers teach
a minimum of four hours-in each school day.
The conference report adopts House language creating
a new Private Donor Research Fund, authorizing
certification of professionals who have not graduated
from teacher-training programs, and permitting local
districts to hire noncertified professionals as
part-time teachers for mathematics and science courses
if certified teachers are not available.
The conference report retains language in both bills
authorizing cancelable loans to eligible teacher-
education students, but it addS a $5-million annual
appropriations limit for the new loan fund.
Finance ,
The conference report would base funding on average
daily attendance and adopts the House version's
method of calculating it. The House version's
requirement of 175 days of instruction for students
and at least eight days of training for teachers is
also included..
16

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Seventeen
CONFERENCE The basic allotment would remain at $1,290 for the
COMMITTEE 1984-85 school year, as in the House version, but
REPORT: would increase to $1,350 per school year thereafter.
(continued) The conference report adopts the House version's
price-differential allotment formula, but it would
add a provision allowing more money for districts
in counties with a high concentration of state
employees. The committee report would also keep
the House version's provisons for adopting the price-
differential index and formula.
The conference report includes a.new small-district
adjustment, under which only those districts that
contain at least 300 square miles and have no more
than 1,600 students would have their basic allotment
adjusted. The degree of adjustment would depend on
each district's land area. The temporary small-
district adjustment found in both House and Senate
versions would be deleted.
The conference report also adds a sparsity adjustment
that was not included in either the House or Senate
bill. Districts with fewer than 130 students would
receive an.adjustment under this provision.
The Senate version's statement of intent that a
district use at least 70 percent of its adjusted
basic allotment plus experienced-teacher allotment on
salaries for instructional personnel was not adopted.
The conference report includes the House version's
special allotment for special education but increases
the weight of the "self-contained, pregnant" category
from 1.0 to 2.0. The conference bill also adds
language requiring the State Board of Education to
conduct a study of the funding of vocational, compensatory,
and bilingual programs, in addition to special-education
programs.
The conference report adopts the House version of
the experienced-teacher, compensatory, bilingual,
and vocational-education allotments. It would
change the size of the education-improvement and
career-ladder allotment, reducing the amount multiplied
by a district's average daily attendance to $100 for
the 1984-85 school year, $120 for the 1985-86 school
year, and $140 for the 1986-87 school year and thereafter.
The conference report would also reduce initially the
percentage of the allotment that must be spent on
17

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Eighteen
CONFERENCE career-ladder salary supplements; the full required
COMMITTEE percentage would be reached by Sept. 1, 1987, under
REPORT: the phase-in schedule specified in the bill.
(continued)
The conference report would delete the Senate version's
allotment for regional instructional support.
The conference report adopts the House version of the
enrichment-equalization allotment but reduces the
maximum entitlement to 30 percent of a district's
other Foundation School Program allocations per
student, starting with the 1985-86 school year.
The conference report also adopts the Senate version's
provision that would give special aid to districts
declared a major disaster area by the Governor.
The conference bill includes the House version's
provision for figuring the local share of the
Foundation School Program costs, except that the
ratio of a district's property wealth to statewide
property wealth would be multiplied by a factor of
33.3 percent, starting with the 1985-86 school year.
The conference report adopts the Senate provision
that would adjust a district's local share if its
. taxable property wealth declined by 8 percent from
the prior year.
The conference report adopts the House equalization-
transition provision, except that eligibility would be
based on the aid received by a school district in the
previous year as compared to the current year, instead
of the 1983-84 school year as compared to the 1984-85
school year. In addition, the amount appropriated
for each school year would be increased to $70 million
for the 1984-85 school year, $35 million for the
1985-86 school year, and $17.5 million for the 1986-87
school year.
The conference report also adopts a Senate provision
that requires the State Property Tax Board to conduct
a study of taxable values in each school district for
1984.
The conference report adopts the Senate version's
provisions transferring certain taxes to the Foundation
School Fund and earmarking certain escheated real
property for the Foundation School Fund. The conference
report also adopts provisions altering and adding @
appropriations to certain state agencies for fiscal ~
year 1985, but by different amounts.
18

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Nineteen
CONFERENCE Educational Quality
COMMITTEE
REPORT: The conference report retains the House requirement
(continued) that students must pass all sections of a final basic-
skills test in English and mathematics before they
may receive a high-school diploma. School districts
would be required to provide remedial instruction to
students who fail the test. The conference report
also retains the House requirement that students be
tested for minimum basic-skills competencies in
reading, writing, and mathematics in the first,
third, fifth, seventh, and ninth grades, while
deleting the Senate requirement that students take
annual nationally-normed achievement tests.
|
The conference report retains the House requirement
that districts with 15 or more eligible four-year-olds
_ Must offer prekindergarten classes. The state's
share of the cost would be paid from the Foundation
School Fund and could not exceed $50 million per year.
The bill would delete the Senate requirement that
every school district must provide kindergarten classes.

’ In the conference version of the bill, school districts
would be required to provide tutorial services, and
could require any student with a failing grade to
attend as often as determined by the district. (The
Senate would have made attendance mandatory while
the House would have made attendance voluntary.)

_ The conference report retains the House requirement
lowering the permissible average pupil-teacher ratio
for all grades to 20 to one, from the current average
of 25 to one. The bill would phase in a class-size
limit through grade four of 22 students per teacher,

a compromise between the House and. Senate versions.
The conference report retains the stricter House
requirement with regard to limiting the allowable
number of student absences. It retains the Senate
requirement that students attend school for a minimum
of 170 days per year (85 for kindergartners and pre-
kindergartners), up from the. current 165. As in
the Senate version, students would be required to
attend school until the end of the school year in
which they reach the age of 16, replacing the current
requirement that students attend until they turn 17.
19 |

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Conference committee report analysis
Page Twenty
CONFERENCE The State Board of Education would be required to
COMMITTEE limit, by rule, participation in and practices for
. REPORT: extracurricular activities during the school day
(continued) and the school week, as specified in the House version.
The conference report adds new language strengthening
the board's mandate to limit interruption of academic
- activities during the school day. The conference
report also would have the new requirement that
students failing a class be suspended from extra-
curricular activities take effect in the spring
semester of 1985.
. The bill includes the Senate version of howinterscholastic
league rules must conform to State Board of Education
policies.
The conference report contains elements of both
the House and Senate versions regarding discipline-
Management programs. It retains the more detailed
Senate language concerning continuing education for
a suspended student, as well as the Senate requirement
of a due-process hearing prior to suspension or
explusion. The conference report includes new
; _ * language authorizing summary expulsion of a student
a “ain certain cases. The bill would also include the
Senate's detailed program for community-guidance
centers.
The conference would delete the Senate's $6-million
appropriation for drop-out reduction programs and
research, and it deletes the House's $1.5-million
appropriation for community-education programs.
The conference report retains the Senate requirement
that the State Board of Education set enrollment
standards for vocational programs, as opposed to the
House version's specification of an enrollment limit.
NOTES: The Senate adopted the conference report on HB 72
by a vot