SAC Legislative Bulletin
February 17, 2006
|
SAC Legislative Bulletin
The official legislative newsletter for the School
Administrators Coalition (SAC) which includes
MASA, MAESP, MASSP, MO-CASE, MUSIC, MO K-8, MARE, MSHSAA,
& MAPT
|
|
February 17, 2006 - No. 5 - Copyright
2006
For a complete listing of bill summaries that impact education
go to
http://www.mcsa.org/reference If you can not access this link, simply copy and paste the
above address in your browser.
|
|
TUITION TAX CREDITS
SB 962 sponsored by Sen. Ridgeway would
create the Missouri "Student Success Scholarship" Tax Credit
program and provide a one hundred percent tax credit for
contributions to educational assistance organizations which would
fund scholarships for eligible students in Kansas City, St. Louis,
and Wellston Public Schools. The bill would allow eligible
students to attend qualified public schools outside those three
districts and qualified private schools of their parents
choosing. Students with a family income of no greater
than 185% of the eligibility level for free or reduced lunch could
participate in the program. If a student chose to attend
another public school, the school district would receive the
scholarship amount in lieu of the per pupil state revenue that
would otherwise be due. The program would create a $40 million
per year tax credit
program, and the tax credits would be eligible for carryover for
three years. The School Administrators Coalition strongly opposes
tuition tax credits and all other forms of vouchers which reduce
general revenue and divert resources from the public
schools.
SB 962 will be heard in the Senate
Education Committee in SCR 1 on Tuesday afternoon, February 21, at
2:00 p.m. The School Administrators Coalition (SAC) and
all statewide associations that serve the public schools strongly
oppose SB
962 for
the following reasons:
1. These
scholarships may ultimately reduce the ability of the state to
properly fund the public schools.
2. These
scholarships violate the Missouri Constitution by apportioning
public funds to private individuals or corporations.
3. These
scholarships will not be sufficient for most recipient families to
utilize in a manner that will provide an effective alternative
learning opportunity.
4. Private
schools accepting the scholarship money will not be subject to the
strict accreditation standards of Missouris public
schools.
School administrators are urged to
contact their state senator as soon as possible and make him/her
aware of their opposition to SB 962.
THE SIXTY-SIX AND TWO-THIRDS PERCENT
SOLUTION OR DILEMMA
On Tuesday morning, February 21, at 8
a.m. in HR 1, the House Special Committee on Student Achievement
and Finance will hear HB 1582 sponsored by Rep. Muschany. HB 1582 includes the following
items:
1.
Starting in fiscal year 2008, each school district is directed to
adopt as a goal the expenditure of at least two-thirds of its
current operational expenditures on classroom
instruction.
2.
Classroom instruction is defined, as previously, by the U. S.
Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences but has
been amended to add "library and media services" and "guidance service".
3. DESE
shall ensure that school districts actual classroom instruction
expenditure is reported in both the districts annual accountability
report card and in the departments "Report of the Public Schools"
publication.
4. The
State Board of Education shall report each January to the General
Assembly and to the governor a list of the school districts that
have met the goal of spending two-thirds of their operational
budget on classroom instruction.
5. The
State Board of Education shall, also, offer analysis regarding the
effectiveness of the goal as well as statistical correlations
regarding each districts educational outcomes and percent of
current operational expenditures used for classroom
instruction.
6. The
governor shall annually publicly recognize those districts meeting
the two-thirds goal for classroom expenditures as "Governors
Students First District".
7. Upon
approval of either SB 983 or HB 1582, the approved bill shall be placed on the
statewide ballot in November, 2006 or at a special election to be
called by the governor for that purpose.
The School Administrators Coalition
(SAC) is opposed to HB 1582 for a number of reasons as outlined below:
1.
Validity
Where did the so-called 66 2/3%
solution come from? Did it originate from an in-depth study
of comparative resource needs for classroom instruction and
non-classroom items or is it a design created by a few folks who
think that K-12 education is over-funded and want to put the
squeeze on certain school expenditures? What documentation is
there for spending 66 2/3% on classroom instruction as defined by
the National Center for Education Statistics? Why not 68% or
62%? Who ordained 66 2/3% and what validity does that number
have?
According to Standard and Poors
through their School Matters Research, there is no significant
correlation between any percentage spent on instruction and student
proficiency rates.
2.
Local Control
Whatever happened to local
control? SB287, the new foundation formula law, already mandates
that each school district place a minimum of 75% of their state aid
into the Teachers Fund. The 66 2/3% solution goes much
further in that it would dictate to school districts how they spend
their local tax dollars including school districts that receive a
relative small percentage of their revenue from the state.
School boards have been complaining for years about state and
federal policy mandates that leave little decision making to the
elected local board of education. This proposal flies
directly in the face of local control and seems to overlook the
differences from one school district to the next with regard to
necessary school costs. Such items as transportation and fuel
costs, heating costs, and professional development among others
will vary widely from school district to school district with good
reasons for the variance. Should one size fit all or should
local boards of education determine what is best for their patrons
and their students?
3.
What's Important? What Isn't?
The definition of what constitutes
instruction items in the 66 2/3% expenditure benchmark includes
some very important items such as classroom teacher salaries,
instructional supplies, teacher aides, field trips for athletics,
music, fine arts, and now, library and media services and guidance
services. But it excludes costs that are just as vital regarding a
childs education including the salary for the school principal
(remember what Ron Edmonds and Effective Schools had to say about
the role of the school principal in student learning),
transportation costs (how can students learn if they cant get
to school), instructional support for teachers including teacher
training and professional development (crucial for keeping teachers
up to date on instructional efficacies), curriculum alignment and
coordination (how can we meet AYP standards without quality
curriculum development), tuition payments (used directly for costs
of educating non-resident pupils), and food services (indirectly, I
think Maslow said that its harder for a hungry child to
learn).
4.
Saving Money
The 66 2/3% solution or dilemma creates no
new monies for the public schools. It simply shifts money
from one group of services to another. In order for school
districts to save money, some services not included in the
definition of classroom instruction would have to be significantly
reduced or eliminated. Cutting back on services would be very
difficult in a state where salaries across the board and average
per pupil expenditures are far below the national average for these
categories. It can be argued that shifting spending
priorities as required by the 66 2/3% proposal could lead to
additional efforts to increase local property taxes to protect
needed school services.
5.
Timing
School districts are, currently, faced
with strong budgetary pressures with regard to increased fuel
costs, increasing heating costs, increased retirement costs, and
increased health insurance premiums among other items. School
districts could face greatly expanded transportation costs if a
current proposal to mandate shoulder-lap seat belts is enacted by
the legislature. Most of the above items would fall directly
in the non-instructional category and make it very difficult to
lower the percentage of expenditures spent on the non-instructional
portion of the budget. This is not a good time to place
increased pressure on school districts to reduce expenditures on
necessary items classified by definition as
non-instructional.
6.
Rural Schools
Administrative costs as a percentage
of school budgets are almost always greater in small schools.
The basic infrastructure, personnel, and basic services necessary
to operate a school district exist for a school of 350 students as
well as a school of 3500 students and some of those basic services
such as administration may not have to be duplicated.
Certainly, instructional supplies, books, and busses are cheaper by
the dozen. And, transportation costs per pupil are
considerably more expensive in small, rural schools where the
population is sparse than in more densely populated regions of the
state. There is little doubt that it will be more difficult
for small, rural schools to comply with a 66 2/3%
mandate.
Proponents of this bill have made it a
point to say that, as filed, HB 1582 does not include a mandate but merely a
requirement that school districts adopt a goal to expend two-thirds of its
current operational budget on classroom instruction. But that
raises the question, "What is a mandate?" If a school board
adopts a goal, how many superintendents or other school
administrators would not feel compelled to work towards
implementing that goal.
School administrators are urged to
contact their state representative and to ask him/her to oppose HB
1582.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND
FINANCES
VOTES "DO PASS" ON VIRTUAL SCHOOLS BILL
The Special Committee on Student
Achievement and Finance, chaired by Rep. Brian Baker, met on
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 and considered two bills.
HB 1180,
sponsored by Rep. Corcoran, would allow certain school districts to
be reimbursed for transporting students who live less than one mile
from school when certain dangerous circumstances exist.
Committee members discussed the possibility of increasing the
percentage of students that could be transported from the current
12 percent to perhaps 24 percent before a district would be
penalized. The committee took no action on the
bill.
The second bill considered by the
committee was HB 1275, sponsored by Rep. Baker, which would authorize the
creation of a public virtual school with oversight provided by the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The bill
provides a basic structure for a virtual school program while
leaving the details and specific operations of the program to be
determined by DESE through rulemaking. All school age
children would be eligible to attend the virtual school but would
go through a selection process established by DESE in order to
participate. Participation would be limited by
appropriation to 500, 750 and 1000 students during the first three years
of implementation. The bill does not include a specific
limitation on student participation.
Essentially, the bill would establish
a public school operated by DESE. This virtual school would
be required to comply with all statutes, rules and regulations
applicable to public schools, including participation in MSIP and
MAP, fulfilling the requirements of NCLB, and complying with
teacher certification and curriculum standards. The initial
bill would require all students to enroll in their local school
district and advise that district of their intent to participate in
the virtual school program. The virtual school would then
receive 85 percent of the state adequacy target for each child
enrolled, and the school district would receive 15 percent of the
current state aid per eligible pupil and would retain all local
monies attributable to that student. Rep. Carl Bearden
offered an amendment which would eliminate the requirement that all
students enroll with the local school district and, instead,
provide the students and their families with the option to
enroll. If the student and his/her family should opt to
enroll, the school district would receive 15 percent of the state
funds allocated for the student and retain all local funds.
However, if the student and his/her family should opt not to
enroll, the school district would receive no funds for that
student, and the virtual school would receive 100 percent of the
state adequacy target. Funds supporting the virtual school
portion of state aid would be subject to a separate annual
appropriation.
The Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, MSBA, MSTA, MNEA, Missouri Distance Learning
Association, Missouri Rural Development Partners, MFT, and several
individuals testified in favor of the bill. No opposition
testimony was presented. The School Administrators Coalition
did not testify for or against HB 1275 but testified for informational purposes
only and identified some concerns regarding the administration of
the bill. The Missouri Distance Learning Association also
testified for informational purposes.
HCS HB 1275 was adopted by the Committee by
a vote of 8-0. The bill will now be placed on the House
calendar for perfection.
SENATE PERFECTION CALENDAR
This week the full Senate
perfected SB 584 sponsored by Sen. Norma Champion. The bill would prohibit
issuance or renewal of a school bus endorsement to applicants
convicted of an intoxication-related traffic offense and require
drivers receiving such a citation to report to the superintendent
prior to resuming operation of a school bus. The bill has
been placed on the Senate calendar for third reading and final
passage. Upon final approval by the Senate, the bill will be
reported to the House for action.
The Senate spent a great deal of time
this week debating SB 849 sponsored by Sen. Mayer, but no final vote was
taken. The original bill targeted public labor agreements and
provided that governmental entities could not require a contractor
bidding on a public works project to use only union labor nor could
they forbid a contractor from using union labor. Proponents
of public labor agreements oppose the bill and forced lengthy
debate that extended into the wee morning hours. A tentative
agreement was reached, but when debate resumed on Wednesday,
objections were raised and the bill was placed on the Senate
informal calendar.
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The Senate Education Committee met on
Tuesday and conducted a hearing on the proposed sale of loan assets
of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, the Lewis and
Clark Discovery Initiative. Last month, the MOHELA board
voted to sell some of its loans to generate revenue for this
state. The MOHELA boards plan proposes the seeking of
competitive bids to take over $2.4 billion in consolidated loans
and the sale of similar loans at some time in the future. No
bills were heard by the committee.
HEARINGS OF INTEREST
SB 639,
sponsored by Sen. Coleman, would establish a $25 surcharge on
certain felony court proceedings to fund Gang Assistance Education
and Training Programs. The bill was heard by the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Monday.
HB 1060,
sponsored by Rep. Cunningham, would require a roll call vote on all
school policy matters. The bill was voted do pass by the
House Higher Education Committee on Tuesday.
HB 1036,
sponsored by Rep. Sanders, would require closed captioning on
electronic video instructional materials for K-12. The bill
was voted do pass by the House Higher Education Committee on
Tuesday.
HCR 13,
sponsored by Rep. Sater, was heard by the House Rules Committee on
Wednesday. This concurrent resolution would acknowledge that
voluntary prayer in public school and religious displays on public
property constitute an acknowledgement of the positive role
Christianity has played in our society, not an endorsement of
religion.
HOUSE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The House Education Committee did not
meet for the third consecutive week.
|
|
SB287 Budgeting Workshops
|
|
MASA, MoASBO and
MSBA working in cooperation with DESE are sponsoring regional
workshops to assist school administrators in calculating state
revenues using the new state foundation formula. We believe
you will find these workshops to be extremely valuable as you
prepare district budgets for the 2006-2007 school year. For
more information click on the link below.
|
|
According to our records, the following individuals
represent
at least a portion of your school district.
|
|
Senator(s)
Chris Koster (R) Phone: (573) 751-1430
|
Representative(s)
Shannon Cooper (R) Phone: (573) 751-1484
David Pearce (R) Phone: (573) 751-2272
Michael McGhee (R) Phone: (573) 751-1462
|
|
You have received this message as benefit of your
membership
in one of the organizations above. To discontinue this
correspondence contact: bulletin@mcsa.org
|
