president april 10, 2019

PRESIDENT

Alief ISD

Mr. HD Chambers

PRESIDENT‐ELECT

Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford ISD

Mr. Steve Chapman

VICE PRESIDENT

Northside ISD

Dr. Brian Woods

SECRETARY

Corpus Christi ISD

Dr. Roland Hernandez

TREASURER

Katy ISD

Mr. Ken Gregorski

PAST PRESIDENT

Aldine ISD

Dr. LaTonya Goffney

MEMBER DISTRICTS Abilene

Aldine*

Alief*

Amarillo*

Arlington

Austin

Corpus Christi*

Cypress‐Fairbanks*

Dallas

Ector County

El Paso

Fort Bend

Fort Worth

Garland

Harlingen

Houston

Humble*

Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford*

Irving*

Katy*

Killeen*

Lubbock

McAllen

Mesquite*

Midland

North East

Northside*

Pharr‐San Juan‐Alamo

Richardson

Round Rock

San Angelo*

San Antonio

Socorro

Spring Branch*

Tyler*

United

Waco

*TSA Board Members

April 10, 2019

Superintendent & LEAD Staff Agenda Doubletree Guest Suites

303 W. 15th Street Austin, Texas 78701

10:30 – 10:40 am

Welcome/Opening Comments H.D. Chambers, President

10:45 – 11:45 am

Finance, Budget, STAAR Commissioner Morath

11:45 – 12:15 pm

Lunch

12:15 – 1:15 pm

Consultant Reports Moak, Casey & Associates, HillCo, Thompson & Horton, and Curtis Culwell

1:15 – 2:30 pm Capitol Visit

1

Research Question: How Many Of Our Students Actually Return to Our Districts Each Year?Year-to-Year Reporting of Students, Grades 7-12, by District, Texas Public Schools, 2016-17 - TSA Districts

DistrictNumber District

SY 2016-17 Grades 7-

12Reporting

Total*

ReturningStudents - Fall 2017

Graduates PreviousGraduates

OtherLeavers Movers

TxCHSERecipients

(GED)Dropouts

% Expected to Return

(Total - Grads - Prev Grads -

GED - Dropout)

% Returning Students - Fall 2017

% Other Leavers

% Movers

221901 ABILENE ISD 7,562 5,483 1,003 - 292 682 - 87 85.6% 72.5% 3.9% 9.0%101902 ALDINE ISD 30,196 21,913 3,661 - 450 3,076 - 1,050 84.4% 72.6% 1.5% 10.2%101903 ALIEF ISD 20,689 15,042 2,698 - 874 1,665 - 294 85.5% 72.7% 4.2% 8.0%188901 AMARILLO ISD 14,337 10,889 1,912 - 369 848 - 283 84.7% 76.0% 2.6% 5.9%220901 ARLINGTON ISD 29,075 21,271 4,049 - 773 2,296 - 601 84.0% 73.2% 2.7% 7.9%227901 AUSTIN ISD 34,805 25,565 4,350 - 1,282 3,194 - 372 86.4% 73.5% 3.7% 9.2%178904 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 17,718 13,354 2,468 6 297 1,202 6 375 83.9% 75.4% 1.7% 6.8%101907 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 54,928 42,199 8,068 - 1,494 2,644 - 482 84.4% 76.8% 2.7% 4.8%057905 DALLAS ISD 65,124 47,929 7,670 - 1,571 6,446 - 1,412 86.1% 73.6% 2.4% 9.9%068901 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 13,756 10,490 1,579 - 458 845 - 338 86.1% 76.3% 3.3% 6.1%071902 EL PASO ISD 28,802 20,921 3,855 50 1,540 1,728 50 608 84.2% 72.6% 5.3% 6.0%079907 FORT BEND ISD 36,993 28,441 5,483 - 853 1,920 - 254 84.5% 76.9% 2.3% 5.2%220905 FORT WORTH ISD 37,310 27,332 4,301 - 983 3,707 - 950 85.9% 73.3% 2.6% 9.9%057909 GARLAND ISD 27,457 20,754 3,970 - 544 1,787 - 335 84.3% 75.6% 2.0% 6.5%031903 HARLINGEN CISD 9,174 6,586 1,289 - 188 573 - 505 80.4% 71.8% 2.0% 6.2%101912 HOUSTON ISD 89,443 62,154 10,591 20 3,614 9,791 54 3,197 84.5% 69.5% 4.0% 10.9%101913 HUMBLE ISD 19,975 15,339 2,896 - 491 1,082 - 118 84.9% 76.8% 2.5% 5.4%220916 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD 10,715 7,941 1,548 - 353 847 - 17 85.4% 74.1% 3.3% 7.9%057912 IRVING ISD 16,127 11,958 2,278 - 452 1,265 - 118 85.1% 74.1% 2.8% 7.8%101914 KATY ISD 35,421 27,699 5,002 - 1,159 1,374 - 154 85.4% 78.2% 3.3% 3.9%014906 KILLEEN ISD 18,019 12,769 2,133 - 1,370 1,437 - 222 86.9% 70.9% 7.6% 8.0%152901 LUBBOCK ISD 12,364 9,084 1,523 - 261 1,190 - 262 85.6% 73.5% 2.1% 9.6%108906 MCALLEN ISD 11,612 8,706 1,591 - 341 848 - 70 85.7% 75.0% 2.9% 7.3%057914 MESQUITE ISD 19,451 14,536 2,565 - 413 1,689 - 244 85.6% 74.7% 2.1% 8.7%165901 MIDLAND ISD 10,855 8,106 1,379 - 381 827 - 147 85.9% 74.7% 3.5% 7.6%015910 NORTH EAST ISD 33,848 24,960 4,980 - 1,273 2,267 - 352 84.2% 73.7% 3.8% 6.7%015915 NORTHSIDE ISD (Bexar Co 49,324 37,028 6,779 158 2,015 2,893 9 383 85.1% 75.1% 4.1% 5.9%108909 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO 14,435 10,861 2,043 - 403 876 - 136 84.9% 75.2% 2.8% 6.1%057916 RICHARDSON ISD 16,954 12,637 2,118 - 394 1,539 - 252 86.0% 74.5% 2.3% 9.1%246909 ROUND ROCK ISD 22,874 17,570 3,287 - 627 1,265 - 95 85.2% 76.8% 2.7% 5.5%226903 SAN ANGELO ISD 6,645 4,989 917 - 235 416 - 79 85.0% 75.1% 3.5% 6.3%015907 SAN ANTONIO ISD 22,706 15,669 2,669 34 652 2,880 17 772 84.6% 69.0% 2.9% 12.7%071909 SOCORRO ISD 22,771 17,487 3,278 40 714 1,019 14 202 84.5% 76.8% 3.1% 4.5%101920 SPRING BRANCH ISD 16,259 12,261 2,195 - 476 1,018 - 286 84.7% 75.4% 2.9% 6.3%212905 TYLER ISD 7,938 5,903 1,024 - 376 587 - 48 86.5% 74.4% 4.7% 7.4%240903 UNITED ISD 20,907 16,399 2,990 - 357 940 - 175 84.9% 78.4% 1.7% 4.5%161914 WACO ISD 6,398 4,777 696 - 105 518 - 292 84.6% 74.7% 1.6% 8.1%

State** 2,494,286 1,835,604 333,622 475 79,308 204,239 543 32,386 99.7% 73.6% 3.2% 8.2%^

*Reporting Total contains students were either enrolled or in attendance during SY 2016-17; this is NOT PEIMS Submission 1 data.

**State numbers are estimates due to data masking in disaggregated data.

^Percent Movers for the State are the numbers of movers between school districts.

Source: TEA Completion, Graduation, Dropout, and Data Searchhttps://tea.texas.gov/acctres/dropcomp/years.html April 20192

Data Dictionary

Variable Name DescriptionDistrict Number District numberDistrict District nameReporting Total Total number of students in Grades 7-12 who were reported in enrollment or attendance in one

school year.Returning Students Number of students reported in enrollment or attendance in one school year and were reported to

have re-enrolled in the same district by the beginning of the next school year.Graduates Number of students awarded a high school diploma by a Texas public school by August 31, 2017.Previous Graduates

year.

Other Leavers Number of students reported as having left school for reasons other than graduating, receiving a TxCHSE, or dropping out. In most cases, other leavers exit Texas public school to enter other educational settings, such as private schools in Texas, schools out of state, or home schooling.

Movers Number of students who move from one Texas public school district and enroll in another as accounted for by Texas Education Agency processing.

TxCHSE Recipients Number of students awarded a Texas Certificate of High School Equivalency (TxCHSE) by August 31, 2017.

Dropouts Number of enrolled students in Grades 7-12, who do not return to public school the following fall, are not expelled, and do not: graduate, receive a TxCHSE, continue school outside the public school system, begin college, or die.

Underreported Number Number of students reported in enrollment or attendance in one school year who were not accounted for through district records or Texas Education Agency processing the next year.

Underreported Rate (%) Percentage of students from the reporting total who were underreported.

Notes:A dash (-) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity.

For more information on the variables included in the workbook, including how students' statuses are determined, please see the graduation and dropout reports.

Contact Information:For questions or comments, please e-mail the Division of Research and Analysis, or contact the division by phone at 512-475-3523.

File created October 2018

Data Dictionary for Year-to-Year Reporting of Students Data Download, 2016-17Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data about students, including enrollment and leaver data, are submitted by districts through the Texas Student Data System. The PEIMS data are used to calculate students' statuses as of fall 2017. For more information, refer to the Texas Education Data Standards. Texas Certificate of High School Equivalency (TxCHSE) data are provided by TxCHSE testing centers.

Source: TEA Completion, Graduation, Dropout, and Data Searchhttps://tea.texas.gov/acctres/dropcomp/years.html Page 2 April 2019

3

https://www.texasstudentdatasystem.org/TSDS/TEDS/TEDS_Latest_Release/







Annual Individual Graduation Committee Data, 2017-18Workbook OverviewBackground:This workbook includes data on Individual Graduation Committees (IGCs) for the 2017-18 school year as required by Texas Education Code Section (TEC) §28.0259(c). In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature signed into law Senate Bill 149, which revised the state's assessment graduation requirements for students enrolled in Grades 11 or 12 during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years. In 2017, the 85th Texas Legislature signed into law Senate Bill 463, which extended the IGC requirements through the 2018-19 school year. Under the requirements, a student who failed the end-of-course (EOC) assessment for no more than two of five required courses may receive a Texas high school diploma if the student was determined to be qualified to graduate by an IGC (Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code Section [TAC] §101.3022). A student receiving special education services is not subject to IGC requirements (19 TAC, §74.1025(n)). A student's admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee determines whether a student is required to achieve satisfactory performance on an EOC assessment to graduate (19 TAC, §101.3022(f)). In April 2016, the commissioner of education adopted rules related to IGC implementation, including timelines and related reporting requirements (19 TAC §74.1025; TEC §28.0258(k)).

Contents:The datasets provided in this workbook include the number of students who were assigned an IGC (IGC Assigned ); the number of IGC graduates (IGC Graduates ); the number of all graduates (All Graduates ); the percentage that IGC graduates represent of total graduates (% of All Graduates ); and the percentage that IGC graduates represent of total students assigned to IGCs (% of IGC Assigned ). Data are provided at the state, region, district, and campus levels by race/ethnicity, gender, economic status, and English learner (EL) status. Additional data are provided at the state level by diploma program (only available for graduates). The four datasets can be accessed using the tabs at the bottom of the workbook.

Notes and Limitations:Note that the data in the IGC Graduate, IGC Assigned, and All Graduate columns were reported by districts at the individual student level and represent students who were in attendance and/or who graduated during the 2017-18 school year (between September 1, 2017 and August 31, 2018); they do not show longitudinal graduation data.

The IGC Graduate numerator only includes students who were reported to have graduated by IGC determination. Students who had an IGC assignment but were reported as traditional graduates are not included in this count. These non-IGC graduates could have graduated by meeting traditional graduation requirements even though an IGC was convened; or these students could be data reporting errors. The IGC Assigned denominator represents the number of students reported by districts in June 2018 as having an IGC formed during the school year as well as those who graduated by means of an IGC but for whom an IGC assignment was not reported. Some of the students who were not reported as having an IGC assignment could be students who had an IGC formed over the summer, for which there is no data reporting, and others may be data reporting errors. The counts of IGC Assigned students only include students for whom an IGC was established and who were eligible to graduate in 2017-18. Students who had an IGC formed in Grade 11 and were not eligible to graduate are not included in the denominator. In 2017-18, there were 362 students who were assigned an IGC in Grade 11 and were not eligible to graduate.

The All Graduates denominator is the sum of traditional graduates and IGC graduates.

Students who are included in the Foundation High School Program without Endorsement diploma program group includes those who did not earn an endorsement as well as those who were not eligible for an endorsement under 19 TAC §89.1070(c).

Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis, 3/15/194

Annual Individual Graduation Committee (IGC) Data, Texas Public Schools, 2017-18IGC Graduates IGC Assigned % of IGC Assigned All Graduates % of All Graduates

All students 14,373 17,831 80.6% 347,883 4.1%

By race/ethnicityAfrican American 2,459 3,114 79.0% 43,498 5.7%American Indian 74 89 83.1% 1,221 6.1%

Asian 384 490 78.4% 15,596 2.5%Hispanic 9,844 12,122 81.2% 173,261 5.7%

Pacific Islander 28 35 80.0% 524 5.3%White 1,465 1,831 80.0% 107,062 1.4%

Multiracial 119 150 79.3% 6,721 1.8%

By genderFemale 6,123 7,558 81.0% 174,382 3.5%

Male 8,250 10,273 80.3% 173,501 4.8%

Economically Disadvantaged 11,190 13,827 80.9% 181,743 6.2%English Learner (EL) 5,830 6,895 84.6% 21,478 27.1%

By graduation programMinimum 498 n/a n/a 5,853 8.5%

Recommended 583 n/a n/a 2,876 20.3%Advanced 26 n/a n/a 661 3.9%

Foundation without Endorsement 3,980 n/a n/a 49,429 8.1%Foundation with Endorsement 995 n/a n/a 16,542 6.0%

Foundation with Endorsement and Distinguished Level of Achievement 8,291 n/a n/a 272,522 3.0%

Note. n/a indicates data are not available. See Overview tab for more information.

Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis3/15/2019

5

Annual Individual Graduation Committee (IGC) Data, by Region, Texas Public Schools, 2015-18

Region Region Name

14-15 IGCs % of All

Graduates

15-16 IGCs % of All

Graduates

16-17 IGCs % of All

GraduatesIGC

AssignedIGC

GraduatesAll

Graduates

17-18 IGCs % of All

Graduates01 Edinburg 4.3% 4.0% 6.5% 2,026 1,936 28,319 6.8%02 Corpus Christi 3.2% 4.6% 3.0% 377 212 6,822 3.1%03 Victoria 1.0% 1.6% 1.7% 135 106 3,689 2.9%04 Houston 1.7% 2.9% 3.7% 4,366 3,546 76,543 4.6%05 Beaumont 1.8% 2.2% 2.7% 265 127 5,365 2.4%06 Huntsville 1.7% 3.3% 3.0% 784 565 12,948 4.4%07 Kilgore 2.8% 1.4% 2.5% 444 400 10,891 3.7%08 Mt Pleasant 1.8% 2.3% 3.6% 187 177 3,623 4.9%09 Wichita Falls 2.4% 1.9% 2.6% 105 89 2,436 3.7%10 Richardson 1.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2,569 2,127 55,377 3.8%11 Fort Worth 1.7% 2.1% 2.4% 1,636 1,212 40,395 3.0%12 Waco 0.7% 2.9% 2.8% 502 399 10,765 3.7%13 Austin 1.1% 1.9% 3.2% 1,100 979 28,134 3.5%14 Abilene 1.1% 0.8% 3.2% 101 92 3,101 3.0%15 San Angelo 0.6% 3.6% 3.0% 176 88 3,112 2.8%16 Amarillo 2.6% 2.8% 4.0% 295 249 5,266 4.7%17 Lubbock 1.6% 2.4% 3.8% 279 271 5,321 5.1%18 Midland 2.9% 4.3% 4.2% 282 178 4,669 3.8%19 El Paso 3.1% 3.8% 4.9% 905 637 12,539 5.1%20 San Antonio 2.2% 3.2% 3.5% 1,297 983 28,572 3.4%

STATE 2.0% 2.8% 3.4% 17,831 14,373 347,883 4.1%

Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis, March 15, 2019

School Year 2017-2018

6

Annual Individual Graduation Committee (IGC) Data, Texas Public Schools, 2015-18 (TSA Districts)

2017-18 Enrollment

IGC Assigned

IGC Graduates

All Graduates

17-18 IGCs % of All

Graduates221901 Abilene ISD 14 Abilene 1.8 0.0 6.0 16,760 55 55 1,003 5.5101902 Aldine ISD 04 Houston 0.0 5.3 0.0 67,234 364 364 3,622 10.0101903 Alief ISD 04 Houston 3.5 1.7 8.6 46,223 238 228 2,727 8.4188901 Amarillo ISD 16 Amarillo 2.0 4.7 6.9 32,771 153 123 1,848 6.7220901 Arlington ISD 11 Fort Worth 2.4 5.1 7.4 61,020 364 288 4,137 7.0227901 Austin ISD 13 Austin 2.6 3.4 3.7 81,346 255 220 4,551 4.8178904 Corpus Christ 02 Corpus Chr 4.5 6.1 0.2 37,910 148 22 2,611 0.8101907 Cypress-Fairb 04 Houston 1.5 1.7 2.0 116,138 186 163 8,259 2.0057905 Dallas ISD 10 Richardson 2.4 6.8 6.9 156,726 682 666 8,085 8.2068901 Ector County 18 Midland 4.4 5.0 3.5 32,179 94 27 1,457 1.9071902 El Paso ISD 19 El Paso 4.2 6.4 6.2 58,178 426 272 4,008 6.8079907 Fort Bend ISD 04 Houston 1.0 0.9 1.2 74,957 179 101 5,862 1.7220905 Fort Worth IS 11 Fort Worth 3.8 5.8 1.4 86,039 178 90 4,519 2.0057909 Garland ISD 10 Richardson 2.4 0.6 1.1 56,471 233 39 4,058 1.0031903 Harlingen CIS 01 Edinburg 3.5 0.0 1.2 18,371 26 26 1,197 2.2101912 Houston ISD 04 Houston 2.6 6.8 8.1 213,528 1,104 1,061 11,064 9.6101913 Humble ISD 04 Houston 1.3 2.8 4.0 42,301 132 132 3,018 4.4220916 Hurst-Euless-B 11 Fort Worth 1.0 2.4 3.2 23,364 52 48 1,565 3.1057912 Irving ISD 10 Richardson 2.5 4.1 4.0 33,901 146 138 2,161 6.4101914 Katy ISD 04 Houston 0.8 1.4 0.9 77,331 46 46 5,418 0.8014906 Killeen ISD 12 Waco 0.0 3.1 2.8 44,233 105 56 2,241 2.5152901 Lubbock ISD 17 Lubbock 1.7 1.7 3.0 27,813 101 99 1,694 5.8108906 McAllen ISD 01 Edinburg 3.5 4.6 1.6 23,640 88 85 1,622 5.2057914 Mesquite ISD 10 Richardson 1.1 1.5 2.1 40,932 163 91 2,740 3.3165901 Midland ISD 18 Midland 2.7 5.1 5.2 25,663 108 86 1,379 6.2015910 North East ISD 20 San Antoni 0.9 1.8 1.8 65,805 141 138 5,067 2.7015915 Northside ISD 20 San Antoni 0.9 1.6 1.5 106,086 51 51 6,988 0.7108909 Pharr-San Jua 01 Edinburg 10.9 0.0 0.0 32,667 105 103 2,169 4.7057916 Richardson IS 10 Richardson 1.6 2.7 3.9 39,204 99 99 2,268 4.4246909 Round Rock IS 13 Austin 0.7 0.0 1.2 48,919 28 28 3,430 0.8226903 San Angelo IS 15 San Angelo 0.2 7.2 5.0 14,567 40 22 919 2.4015907 San Antonio I 20 San Antoni 5.9 10.9 9.2 50,641 362 206 2,656 7.8071909 Socorro ISD 19 El Paso 2.4 0.6 5.5 46,398 177 144 3,386 4.3101920 Spring Branch 04 Houston 1.8 3.1 2.4 34,975 137 127 2,331 5.4212905 Tyler ISD 07 Kilgore 0.0 0.0 4.0 17,979 62 62 1,049 5.9240903 United ISD 01 Edinburg 3.8 3.9 5.9 43,212 176 161 3,107 5.2161914 Waco ISD 12 Waco 0.0 13.9 5.0 14,775 79 51 839 6.1

TSA - - 2.3 3.6 3.8 2,010,257 7,083 5,718 125,055 4.6State - - 2.0 2.8 3.4 5,385,012 17,831 14,373 347,883 4.1

Note. A dash (-) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of IGC graduates is not reported, the corresponding numbers of all graduates and IGC assigned may be presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the numbers while maintaining student anonymity. A dot (.) indicates that the rate cannot be calculated.

Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis3/15/2019

Higher than State

SY 2017-18

DistrictDistrict Name

RegionRegion Name

14-15 IGCs % of All

Graduates

15-16 IGCs % of All

Graduates

16-17 IGCs % of All

Graduates

Source: TEA IGC Preliminary Data posted March 2019 Moak, Casey and Associates7

HB 3 As Passed by the House 86th Legislature – Regular Session

April 9, 2019

This document and the material contained within this document are the property of Moak, Casey & Associates and may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or through any media, without the prior written permission of Moak, Casey & Associates. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission of this document or the material contained within this document is strictly prohibited. Notwithstanding the above prohibitions, material received by a member or employee of a subscribing organization or client from Moak, Casey & Associates may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, in whole or in part, to other members or employees of the subscribing organization or client.

4/9/19 www.moakcasey.com Page1

On April 3rd, the House passed House Bill 3 by a record vote—148‐1. Chairman Huberty’s bill is now on the way to the Senate. As those of you that have been following this legislation since the beginning of the session know, this bill has been on a journey—and it is not over yet. The bill is now in the Senate’s hands, with hopes of it reaching the Governor’s desk before Sine Die.

Before the bill progresses through the Senate chamber, it may be helpful to review some of the features of the bill that are either outside the Foundation School Program or that have other implications for districts that are not part of our school finance model.

We have provided a separate document covering the detailed formula changes in the Foundation School Program, along with impact model analyses for client groups. Most FSP formula issues are not covered in this document.

Unintended Consequences of the School Finance Bill

The commissioner has discretion for two years to correct for the unintended

consequences of HB 3 with respect to funding formulas. Any changes made by the

commissioner must be approved by LBB.

New Grant Programs or Other Funding

The bill creates a Summer Career and Technical Education Program and a Blended

Learning Program Grant. Neither grant program has a specified amount of funding

associated with them in statute.

Extended Year Incentive: Districts can extend the school year by 30 half days for students

in prekindergarten through 5th grade and receive half‐day ADA funding for these

additional days.

The bill as passed no longer contains language for an “enhanced” or “academic” services

grant for students receiving special education services, although districts may use up to

20% of funds allocated in the new Tier 1 Dyslexia Allotment to acquire supplemental

services from private providers.

8



The bill repeals the current staff allotment of $500 for full‐time and $250 for part‐time

staff.

Teacher / School Employee Pay

The bill does not contain any direct changes to the state minimum salary schedule.

However, the increased basic allotment will trigger an increase in state minimums of

about 17%. This will reduce district costs for TRS contributions on salaries “above

statutory minimum”.

The bill also contains a requirement that 25% of any increase in the “basic allotment” be

used for salary increases to full‐time employees other than administrators.

o Of the identified amount, 75% must be give as increases of “an equal amount” for

eligible employees

o The other 25% may be used to give pay raises at the discretion of the school

board.

o The exact computation of the funds made available from the basic allotment

increase is not described in the bill, and it must be recalled that some part of the

basic allotment increase is made possible by the elimination of the cost of

education index, the gifted/talented allotment, and the high school allotment

An educator effectiveness allotment targeted at high‐needs and rural campuses is

included in HB 3.

Districts may offer incentive pay to teachers who undergo autism training.

Prekindergarten

The bill requires that prekindergarten classes for eligible students who are at least four

years of age be operated on a full‐day basis, but only funds half‐day attendance through

the FSP. No direct funding allotment is provided for in HB 3, but there is extra weighting

for grades K‐3 students that are educationally disadvantaged or limited English proficient.

Early Childhood Literacy and Mathematics Proficiency

Requires school boards to adopt plans for early childhood literacy and mathematics

proficiency that set annual goals for the next five years.

Plans are to be reviewed annually, and posted on the district’s web site.

9



College, Career, and Military Readiness

Requires school boards to adopt plans for college, career, and military readiness that set

annual goals for the next five years.

Plans are to be reviewed annually, and posted on the district’s web site

Gifted and Talented Program

Requires districts to adopt a policy for the use of funds to support the gifted and talented

program in the district, and requires an annual certification that the district has

established a program consistent with the state plan

Financial penalty for districts that the commissioner finds are not in compliance

Tier Construction

The general tier structure of current law is maintained, but the formulas are changed as described in our

separate description of modelling assumptions.

Tier I:

Allotments Structured as in Current Law; Local share of 96 cents applied to prior year

comptroller value; if district adopts a rate less than 96 cents, the district will receive a

proportionate reduction in the basic allotment.

Tier II Level 1

Eight Golden Pennies

The yield on these pennies is now set to the basic allotment multiplied by 0.016, which for

2019‐20 will be $96.48

Tier II Level 2

Copper Pennies beyond the 8 golden pennies can be added up to a maximum adopted rate of $1.17, although there are restrictions on rate increases in 2019‐20

The yield on these pennies is now set to the basic allotment multiplied by 0.008, which will be $48.24 in 2019‐20

Recapture

Recapture payments can now be paid in a lump sum on August 15 (at the end of the

school district’s fiscal year). More detailed information on the changes in recapture

structure can be found in separate description of modelling assumptions.

10



Tax Compression and Rollback Changes

All future rollback elections are to be held on the next uniform date following the tax rate election that

allows sufficient time to comply with the requirements of other law. For most districts, this is going

to be the November uniform date following the tax rate setting. However, the Election Code

requires the election to be ordered at least 78 days prior to the uniform date, so it appears that

tax rates must be set by as early as August 15 in some years in order to meet that requirement.

Districts that cannot meet the 78 day order requirement would seem to have to wait until the

subsequent uniform date in May.

The bill removes the calculation of the TRE trigger based on the tax rate that maintains state

and local M&O revenue per student, and also removes the $1.04 cap that has been part of the

calculation for the last several years.

2019‐20 School Year

The first $1.00 of the tax year 2018 adopted M&O tax rate is compressed to $0.96

A district taxing below $1.00 for tax year 2018 will have its compressed rate set to the adopted

rate multiplied by 0.96

The first 6 pennies of the adopted tax year 2018 tax rate in excess of $1.00 are not subject to

compression

Districts that adopted tax year 2018 M&O rates above $1.06 will have the pennies above $1.06

compressed by multiplying by 0.6623 (the ratio of the $31.95 yield to the new Tier 2 Level 2

yield of $48.24)

After compression of the adopted tax year 2018 M&O pennies in excess of $1.06, up to 2 of

those compressed pennies are re‐categorized to be Tier 2 Level 1 pennies that receive the

higher guaranteed yield of $96.48 in 2019‐20.

The rollback rate for 2019‐20 is expressed as $0.96 plus the greater of $0.04 or the “enrichment

rate” after compression of Tier 2 Level 2, where enrichment rate is equal to the pennies adopted

in tax year 2018 above $1.00

Districts that adopted tax year 2018 M&O rates less than $1.04 can tax up to a $1.00 starting

next year without an election

Districts with a rollback rate calculated to be higher than $1.04 are prohibited from adopting a

rate in excess of the rollback rate in 2019‐20 (no TREs allowed); districts with 2018 tax year

adopted M&O rates greater than $1.09019 would apparently not be allowed to have a TRE in

2019‐20.

11



The maximum rate allowed for a year in which Tier 2 Level 2 pennies are subject to compression

due to a change in the yield is $1.17 less the reduction in the Tier 2 Level 2 pennies (TREs

allowed, but only up to $1.17 minus the pennies reduced by compression)

The result of the various limitations seems to be that only districts with adopted M&O rates in

2018‐19 less than $1.09019 would be allowed to have a TRE in 2019‐20, but the maximum rate

they could adopt and seek approval at a TRE might be less than $1.17

The bill includes a requirement that a district conduct an efficiency audit before a TRE is called,

but it is unclear that this can actually be accomplished for the 2019‐20 school year

2020‐21 School Year

There is no additional tax compression for 2020‐21 under the bill as passed by the House

The rollback rate for 2020‐21 is expressed as $0.96 plus the greater of $0.05 or the “enrichment

rate” of the previous year

For a district that had an enrichment rate of 4 or fewer pennies in 2019‐20, the rate of 5 cents is

available without an election only if adopted by unanimous board vote; without a unanimous

vote, the available rate without an election is 4 cents

Any TREs called to exceed the rollback rate will require an efficiency audit.

2021‐22 and Subsequent School Years

The rollback rate for 2021‐22 and subsequent years is expressed as $0.96 plus the greater of

$0.05 or the “enrichment rate” of the previous year after the enrichment rate has been reduced

by any required compression that year.

For a district that had an enrichment rate of 4 or fewer pennies in 2020‐21, the rate of 5 cents is

available without an election with only an appropriate majority board vote (some tax rates may

require more than a simple majority under other provisions of the tax code)

Any TREs called to exceed the rollback rate will require an efficiency audit.

Efficiency Audit Requirements

Before TREs are conducted, districts must conduct an efficiency audit prior to the election,

according to guidelines set out by the LBB. They have the authority to choose the auditor.

The audit can be a part of a district’s annual audit. An auditor must be selected at least

four months prior to a TRE, and the results of the efficiency audit must be reviewed in an

open meeting of the board, and the audit must be posted on the district web site at least

30 days prior to the election.

12



When charter schools revise their charter or open a new campus, they have to conduct an

efficiency audit as well.

Following a disaster, districts could conduct a TRE for the next two years without having

to conduct an efficiency audit.

Examples of Tax Compression

For purposes of determining the result of tax compression under HB 3, the existing compression scheme of current law is largely irrelevant. The HB 3 structure begins with the 2018 tax year adopted rate, and applies different compression strategies to components of that rate.

For districts with the full $1.17 of maximum M&O rate under current law, the new Tier 1 compressed rate would be $0.96. For the pennies of rate above $1.00 in 2018‐19, the first step is to compress pennies that in 2018‐19 qualified for the Tier 2 Level 2 yield (those in excess of $1.06). The district had 11 pennies in 2018‐19 at the $31.95 guarantee level. The 11 pennies would be compressed to 7.2853 (11 × .6623). There is no compression of the 6 pennies in Tier 2 Level 1 in 2018‐19. The combination of the 6 pennies in Tier 2 Level 1 and the 7.2853 pennies in Tier 2 Level 2 results in an “enrichment” component that totals 13.2853 pennies after compression. Of those 13.2853 pennies, the new law would treat 8 as Tier 2 Level 2, leaving the district with only 5.2853 pennies in Tier 2 Level 2. This rate also corresponds with the rollback rate for 2019‐20, which is being renamed the “voter‐approved” rate.

The table (see the next page) is intended to reflect how tax compression affects the M&O rate in one penny decrements, rounded to 6 decimal places.

13



A 2018 Tax Year

Adopted M&O Rate

B Enrichment Pennies

Exempt from Compression

C Enrichment Pennies Subject to

Compression

D Compressed

"First $1.00"

E Compressed Enrichment Pennies

F Resulting 2019‐20

Compressed Rate

(D + B + E)

G FSP Tier 1 M&O Rate

H FSP

Golden Pennies (Up to next $0.08)

I FSP Copper Pennies After

Compression and Shifting

$1.170000 $0.060000 $0.110000 $0.960000 $0.072853 $1.092853 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.052853

$1.160000 $0.060000 $0.100000 $0.960000 $0.066230 $1.086230 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.046230

$1.150000 $0.060000 $0.090000 $0.960000 $0.059607 $1.079607 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.039607

$1.140000 $0.060000 $0.080000 $0.960000 $0.052984 $1.072984 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.032984

$1.130000 $0.060000 $0.070000 $0.960000 $0.046361 $1.066361 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.026361

$1.120000 $0.060000 $0.060000 $0.960000 $0.039738 $1.059738 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.019738

$1.110000 $0.060000 $0.050000 $0.960000 $0.033115 $1.053115 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.013115

$1.100000 $0.060000 $0.040000 $0.960000 $0.026492 $1.046492 $0.960000 $0.080000 $0.006492

$1.090000 $0.060000 $0.030000 $0.960000 $0.019869 $1.039869 $0.960000 $0.079869 $0.000000

$1.080000 $0.060000 $0.020000 $0.960000 $0.013246 $1.033246 $0.960000 $0.073246 $0.000000

$1.070000 $0.060000 $0.010000 $0.960000 $0.006623 $1.026623 $0.960000 $0.066623 $0.000000

$1.060000 $0.060000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $1.020000 $0.960000 $0.060000 $0.000000

$1.050000 $0.050000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $1.010000 $0.960000 $0.050000 $0.000000

$1.040000 $0.040000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $1.000000 $0.960000 $0.040000 $0.000000

$1.030000 $0.030000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $0.990000 $0.960000 $0.030000 $0.000000

$1.020000 $0.020000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $0.980000 $0.960000 $0.020000 $0.000000

$1.010000 $0.010000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $0.970000 $0.960000 $0.010000 $0.000000

$1.000000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $0.960000 $0.960000 $0.000000 $0.000000

$0.990000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.950400 $0.000000 $0.950400 $0.950400 $0.000000 $0.000000

$0.980000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.940800 $0.000000 $0.940800 $0.940800 $0.000000 $0.000000

$0.970000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.931200 $0.000000 $0.931200 $0.931200 $0.000000 $0.000000

$0.960000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.921600 $0.000000 $0.921600 $0.921600 $0.000000 $0.000000

$0.950000 $0.000000 $0.000000 $0.912000 $0.000000 $0.912000 $0.912000 $0.000000 $0.000000

14

Model Assumptions House Bill 3 as Passed by the House

House Bill 3 was voted out of the House on April 3 with more changes from the committee substitute. About 35 amendments were adopted during floor debate, and several of those amendments were amended in the process.

While there remain some areas of the bill about which we have issues of interpretation or for which high quality data are still not available, we have attempted to incorporate the changes from Wednesday’s floor action into an updated model. Significant changes from the committee substitute are highlighted in the descriptions below. Additional discussion of the bill’s provisions that are not directly an issue for revenue projections (i.e., new grants, changes to TRE/rollback process, program spending requirements, salary issues, other new mandates, etc.) will be contained in a separate email.

Data for this model were updated to reflect district inputs to our online system as of about 3 pm on April 6.

Tier 1 Structure

Tier 1 has the following structure, with changes as noted:

Regular Program - $6,030 basic allotment, CEI repealed, and no district size adjustment

Small and Mid-Sized District Allotment – New allotment to take the place of small and mid-size adjustments; the extra allotment component for districts with less than 450 regular ADA was removed in the committee substitute in favor of increasing the special education allotment

Special Education – The allotment will use the current weights applied to the sum of the small or mid-size allotment amount and the basic allotment; a floor amendment raised the weight for Mainstream to 1.15

Dyslexia Allotment – New allotment, weight of 0.10 multiplied by number of students served

Compensatory Education Allotment – spectrum of weights from 0.225 to 0.275; bill identifies criteria for commissioner to use to assign weights to each census block, but not how those criteria are to be scored; committee substitute clarifies that the weights will be used only for “educationally disadvantaged” students, but repeals the current statutory definition related to eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches; minimum weight of 0.225 applies when census block data not available; TEA apparently is modeling based on the census block in which a campus is located, not what the bill says; TEA has forwarded a public information request for the weight assignment for each

15

campus to the Attorney General for review; Moak Casey modeled by stratifying campuses based on PEIMS % economically disadvantaged and assigning weights based on a rank order of campuses by percentage economically disadvantaged, then constructing an average for the district to be applied to projected free and reduced lunch counts; spending requirements in current §42.152 are repealed; it is important to remember that the major changes to the compensatory education allotment cannot be fully assessed until TEA releases more information on census block scoring, and the structure used by Moak Casey is at best only an approximation with a likely significant degree of error.

Bilingual Education Allotment – maintains current 0.1 weight for limited English proficient students in traditional bilingual and ESL programs; creates a new weight of 0.15 for limited English proficient students in programs using dual language immersion, and a new weight of 0.05 for a student that is not limited English proficient in a dual language immersion program; Moak Casey assumed a percentage of existing ADA would convert to dual language in each district

Career and Technology Allotment – extends current weighting to grades 6-8

Early Education Allotment (formerly “Early Reading Allotment”) – weight of 0.1 for each educationally disadvantaged student in ADA in grades K-3, and weight of 0.1 for each student in a bilingual program; students can get both weights

Transportation Allotment – bill directs that regular transportation be funded with a single mileage reimbursement rate instead of the multiple weights for linear density groupings; reimbursement rate to be set in the appropriations bill; Moak Casey assumed a rate of $1.04; bill authorizes funding for transportation for dual credit purposes, but we made no assumptions regarding this service

New Instructional Facilities Allotment – raises cap on appropriation to $100 million

Educator Effectiveness Allotment – new allotment based on a weight of 0.012 for each student at a campus that is located in a census block that is assigned the highest compensatory education weight, or each student in a rural school district; Moak Casey modelled based on the students at campuses assigned the highest weight as described under the Compensatory Education Allotment, or the total ADA in districts categorized as “rural” in TEA’s ANALYZE categories

School Safety Allotment – new allotment to assist districts with the cost of improving safety and security; to be allocated in an amount per ADA from funds appropriated (unspecified amount); this feature was not modelled by Moak Casey

College Preparation Assessment Reimbursement – a new allocation to reimburse the cost of an assessment under §39.0261(a)(3) ; this feature was not modelled by Moak Casey

16

Certification Examination Reimbursement – reimburse exam fees under §29.190(a) ; this feature was not modelled by Moak Casey

The bill repeals the cost of education index, the gifted and talented allotment, and the high school allotment.

The local share of Tier 1 is calculated as a tax rate of $0.96 multiplied by the prior year Comptroller value. If a district adopts a rate less than $0.96, the local share is calculated using that adopted rate, but the basic allotment is proportionately reduced when the adopted rate is less than $0.96.

Tier 2 Structure

Tier 2 retains two levels of guaranteed yield. The first level is no longer linked to the Austin ISD yield per penny per WADA. The yield is calculated as the greater of the basic allotment multiplied by 0.016, or the yield per penny of the district at the 96th percentile of property value per WADA. The second level yield is stated as the basic allotment multiplied by 0.008. For our modelling purposes, we are using $96.48 as the Tier 2 Level 1 yield, and $48.24 as the Tier 2 Level 2 yield.

WADA is defined to be the result of dividing a subset of the Tier 1 allotments by the basic allotment. For this purpose, the Tier 1 allotments excludes the Transportation Allotment, the New Instructional Facilities Allotment, the Educator Effectiveness Allotment, the College Preparation Assessment Reimbursement, and the Certification Examination Reimbursement.

The section of the Education Code in which Tier 2 is placed, new §48.202, states that the Level 1 yield is available for the first 8 cents above the compressed rate, and that the Level 2 yield applies to any rates adopted above that. The 8 pennies of Tier 2 Level 1 are available in the 2019-20 school year in the bill as passed by the House.

Recapture

Recapture would still apply to taxes at the compressed rate and for taxes in Tier 2 Level 2. The Tier2 Level 1 zone of taxes would still be free of recapture. However, the computation of the amount owed is changed significantly by the bill.

The computation of recapture is moved into the same chapter of the code as the state aid calculations for the Foundation School Program, Chapter 48. For Tier 1, recapture is calculated as the excess of the sum of the ASF distribution and the calculated local share of Tier 1, less the total cost of Tier 1 allotments.

17

The bill contains language that seems intended to reduce recapture in certain circumstances. As stated in the bill, if

“the sum of a district’s maintenance and operations tax collections for the current tax year minus the district’s tier one revenue level under Subsection (a) is less than the amount of the district’s entitlement under Section 48.266(a)(1), the agency shall adjust the district’s tier one revenue level under Subsection (a) to ensure that the district retains the amount of local funds necessary for the district’s entitlement under Section 48.266(a)(1).”

Subsection (a) defines “district’s tier one revenue level” to be the Tier 1 local share. Section 48.266(a)(1) refers to the allotments in Subchapters B, C, and D, which comprise the Tier 1 allotments. This would seem to mean that if tax collections at the compressed rate minus the calculated local share of Tier 1 is less than the sum of the Tier 1 allotments, the agency acts to adjust the local share so that the district retains sufficient tax revenue to equal the total of Tier 1 allotments. The calculation described may not have been what was intended as the test for adjustment. Moak Casey has implemented this provision by substituting tax collections at the compressed rate in the recapture calculation when the amount collected is less than the calculated local share.

For Tier 2 Level 2, if the local share of the guaranteed yield formula exceeds the calculated entitlement, the excess revenue is recaptured.

The Chapter 41 hold harmless for the 1992-93 revenue level per WADA is phased out over five years. The committee substitute created the “Equalized Wealth Transition Grant”, which measures the benefit from the hold harmless in 2018-19, and establishes that as a grant amount beginning in 2019-20, then reduces the grant amount by 20% each year until no grant is made in 2024-25.

The statutory mechanisms that a district can use to reduce its revenue level (pay recapture) are codified in a new Chapter 49. While the most common mechanisms to pay the state or pay a neighboring district are still described in the new statute as attendance credit purchases and make references to amounts per weighted student, there essentially is no “cost per WADA,” or a number of “WADA to buy” in this structure.

Tax Compression

As we understand the tax compression scheme, the first $1.00 of the tax year 2018 adopted M&O rate is compressed to $0.96, and described as the district’s Tier 1 M&O tax rate. If the district had an adopted M&O rate less than $1.00, the entire rate was compressed by multiplying the 2018 adopted M&O rate by 0.96.

Any 2018 tax year adopted rate in excess of $1.00 is subject to tax compression, with the stipulation that the first 6 cents above $1.00 are not compressed. Any pennies of adopted rate

18

for 2018 tax year in excess of $1.06 are compressed based on the ratio of the current Tier 2 Level 2 yield ($31.95) divided by the new yield for Tier 2 Level 2 expressed in the bill ($48.24), or by a factor of about 0.6623.

Of the resulting compressed total M&O rate, the first 96 cents are assigned to Tier 1. The adopted rate up to 96 cents is used to compute the local share of Tier 1. The next 8 cents are assigned to Tier 2 Level 1 ($96.48 yield, no recapture), and any remaining pennies are assigned to Tier 2 Level 2 ($48.34 yield).

Formula Transition Grant

The bill provides limited transition assistance to assure either a minimum gain amount, or at least no reduction in revenue in most cases. The grant structure establishes three possible targets for revenue:

1. The first target is expressed as 103% of the M&O revenue per ADA the district would have had in 2019-20 using the laws as they existed on January 1, 2019, with exclusion of revenue resulting from ADA decline or various disaster adjustments.

2. The second target is expressed as 128% of the statewide average M&O revenue per ADA that would have existed in 2019-20 using the laws as they existed on January 1, 2019, with exclusion of revenue resulting from ADA decline or various disaster adjustments.

3. The revenue the district would have had in the relevant year using the laws as they existed on January 1, 2019, but excluding the Chapter 41 1992-93 revenue level hold harmless

A the lesser of a district’s target 1 or target 2 revenue is greater than the revenue under the formulas set by HB 3, the transition grant is the difference between the target and the formula revenue.

Transition assistance using target 3 is phrased by the bill as “in addition to” the formula transition grant calculated above. In some cases, district may fare better with this calculation. However, target 3 is only available in 2019-20 and 2020-21.

The formula transition grant using target 1 and target 2 continues only through the 2024-25 school year.

Modelling Limitations

As noted above, there are still several areas that may eventually be reinterpreted, as well as data that are not readily available for some calculations and decisions on compensatory education weighting that have yet to be made public. We have attempted to use reasonable proxies for these unknowns, but the actual results for any district may vary from what is

19

presented here, and may differ in the analyses prepared by TEA or the LBB. Data differences may significantly impact analyses from other sources as well. We advise judicious discretion in the use of this information, as this bill has only been voted out of committee in one chamber, and the Senate approach appears to be quite different at this time. In other words, be careful not to get too far ahead in developing your budgets for next year, as this is far from finished.

Special Note for Districts with Chapter 313 Value Limitations

In the process of developing this model run, we identified several instances in which value limitations under Tax Code Chapter 313 were not appropriately deducted from the local taxable value for tax year 2019 used to project M&O tax revenue in 2019-20 school year. In this model, we have now deducted value from the taxable value for M&O purposes based on the tax year 2018 tax year self-report provided to the Comptroller. If you have questions or concerns about this adjustment, please contact us for further information.

20

Texas School Alliance2019-20 Impact of HB 3 as passed by the House - 4-6-19

4/6/2019

County NameDistrict

# District Name WADA M&O Taxes Recapture

State Formula Aid (including

Homestead HH) FSP Revenue WADA M&O Taxes Recapture

State Formula Aid (incl Formula Transition Grant) FSP Revenue

BELL 014906 KILLEEN ISD 54,014 $80,267,267 $0 $250,442,389 $330,709,657 54,479 $77,303,145 $0 $275,152,628 $352,455,773BEXAR 015910 NORTH EAST ISD 78,217 $427,272,002 $0 $53,457,653 $480,729,655 77,635 $411,984,042 $0 $102,785,378 $514,769,420BEXAR 015915 NORTHSIDE ISD 131,752 $604,719,754 $0 $221,308,466 $826,028,220 131,302 $582,648,879 $0 $305,277,397 $887,926,276BEXAR 015907 SAN ANTONIO ISD 61,135 $206,483,716 $0 $187,466,209 $393,949,924 63,463 $193,353,029 $0 $249,785,908 $443,138,937CAMERON 031903 HARLINGEN CONS ISD 25,191 $42,690,251 $0 $126,382,390 $169,072,641 25,291 $40,111,393 $0 $140,936,076 $181,047,469DALLAS 057905 DALLAS ISD 202,020 $1,414,006,755 $189,272,507 $126,945,009 $1,351,679,257 208,430 $1,324,982,279 $9,970,760 $185,638,473 $1,500,649,992DALLAS 057909 GARLAND ISD 70,438 $204,299,703 $0 $240,409,957 $444,709,660 70,426 $196,900,143 $0 $263,111,550 $460,011,693DALLAS 057912 IRVING ISD 44,653 $153,674,198 $0 $155,965,662 $309,639,860 45,480 $143,136,512 $0 $192,795,054 $335,931,566DALLAS 057914 MESQUITE ISD 52,161 $92,491,498 $0 $239,446,383 $331,937,880 52,731 $88,953,695 $0 $259,340,357 $348,294,052DALLAS 057916 RICHARDSON ISD 49,515 $286,558,515 $7,905,036 $60,747,790 $339,401,269 49,456 $268,836,559 $0 $94,302,054 $363,138,613ECTOR 068901 ECTOR COUNTY ISD 39,278 $160,090,004 $775,756 $101,306,876 $260,621,124 38,867 $149,978,906 $0 $126,956,230 $276,935,136EL PASO 071902 EL PASO ISD 70,952 $188,601,465 $0 $279,875,803 $468,477,268 71,711 $177,197,602 $0 $331,984,042 $509,181,644EL PASO 071909 SOCORRO ISD 60,059 $103,786,065 $0 $252,055,762 $355,841,827 60,024 $99,822,325 $0 $266,694,757 $366,517,082FORT BEND 079907 FORT BEND ISD 94,784 $432,556,051 $0 $190,724,123 $623,280,173 92,238 $417,692,786 $0 $224,285,793 $641,978,579HARRIS 101902 ALDINE ISD 84,733 $227,790,706 $0 $313,455,444 $541,246,150 87,981 $219,186,424 $0 $414,294,427 $633,480,851HARRIS 101903 ALIEF ISD 58,939 $177,123,233 $0 $211,297,957 $388,421,190 60,259 $167,837,445 $0 $255,267,833 $423,105,278HARRIS 101907 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 145,002 $528,822,477 $0 $302,731,882 $831,554,360 142,221 $508,787,424 $0 $367,796,566 $876,583,990HARRIS 101912 HOUSTON ISD 266,353 $1,706,753,650 $294,654,566 $152,164,613 $1,564,263,697 271,935 $1,642,913,384 $0 $75,115,646 $1,718,029,030HARRIS 101913 HUMBLE ISD 52,081 $169,792,301 $0 $172,012,979 $341,805,280 50,399 $158,759,581 $0 $193,780,837 $352,540,418HARRIS 101914 KATY ISD 101,369 $465,887,399 $0 $233,711,063 $699,598,462 98,547 $448,981,223 $0 $283,385,879 $732,367,102HARRIS 101920 SPRING BRANCH ISD 42,906 $335,415,029 $96,123,711 $17,562,571 $256,853,889 42,946 $323,455,583 $38,204,951 $12,100,070 $297,350,703HIDALGO 108906 MCALLEN ISD 30,023 $84,742,676 $0 $115,684,434 $200,427,110 30,127 $79,869,705 $0 $134,625,618 $214,495,323

HIDALGO 108909 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO IS 44,937 $53,991,740 $0 $249,012,858 $303,004,598 45,791 $50,666,629 $0 $278,388,709 $329,055,338LUBBOCK 152901 LUBBOCK ISD 35,078 $120,122,772 $0 $102,384,050 $222,506,822 35,582 $115,932,014 $0 $125,840,356 $241,772,370MCLENNAN 161914 WACO ISD 18,570 $68,668,059 $0 $58,211,869 $126,879,929 19,290 $63,919,254 $0 $77,962,119 $141,881,373MIDLAND 165901 MIDLAND ISD 31,009 $285,775,688 $93,396,782 $13,675,785 $206,054,691 30,600 $275,063,607 $54,589,935 $7,128,113 $227,601,785NUECES 178904 CORPUS CHRISTI ISD 46,342 $181,042,832 $1,371 $117,342,591 $298,384,052 47,759 $174,454,563 $0 $153,800,449 $328,255,012POTTER 188901 AMARILLO ISD 40,048 $96,907,843 $0 $156,011,545 $252,919,388 40,907 $93,167,723 $0 $186,752,904 $279,920,627SMITH 212905 TYLER ISD 22,274 $97,595,944 $0 $45,536,515 $143,132,459 23,011 $94,142,311 $0 $61,959,206 $156,101,517TARRANT 220901 ARLINGTON ISD 74,085 $316,321,738 $0 $156,160,929 $472,482,668 74,691 $304,665,369 $0 $199,862,451 $504,527,820

TARRANT 220905 FORT WORTH ISD 113,745 $401,507,474 $0 $337,720,044 $739,227,518 116,668 $386,880,375 $0 $415,643,720 $802,524,095TARRANT 220916 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD IS 28,876 $154,229,169 $0 $36,857,021 $191,086,190 28,518 $148,588,284 $0 $48,230,492 $196,818,776TAYLOR 221901 ABILENE ISD 20,158 $50,508,902 $0 $70,641,923 $121,150,824 20,482 $48,702,070 $0 $84,761,981 $133,464,051TOM GREEN 226903 SAN ANGELO ISD 17,416 $54,000,719 $0 $50,027,569 $104,028,288 17,582 $52,087,921 $0 $62,431,341 $114,519,262TRAVIS 227901 AUSTIN ISD 94,460 $1,411,334,364 $788,720,439 $23,403,144 $646,017,069 96,879 $1,353,351,393 $586,548,399 $15,072,183 $781,875,177

2019-20 CURRENT LAW 2019-20 HB3 as Passed by the House

See detailed explanation for assumptions and parameters 121


4/6/2019

County NameDistrict

# District Name

BELL 014906 KILLEEN ISDBEXAR 015910 NORTH EAST ISDBEXAR 015915 NORTHSIDE ISDBEXAR 015907 SAN ANTONIO ISDCAMERON 031903 HARLINGEN CONS ISDDALLAS 057905 DALLAS ISDDALLAS 057909 GARLAND ISDDALLAS 057912 IRVING ISDDALLAS 057914 MESQUITE ISDDALLAS 057916 RICHARDSON ISDECTOR 068901 ECTOR COUNTY ISDEL PASO 071902 EL PASO ISDEL PASO 071909 SOCORRO ISDFORT BEND 079907 FORT BEND ISDHARRIS 101902 ALDINE ISDHARRIS 101903 ALIEF ISDHARRIS 101907 CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISDHARRIS 101912 HOUSTON ISDHARRIS 101913 HUMBLE ISDHARRIS 101914 KATY ISDHARRIS 101920 SPRING BRANCH ISDHIDALGO 108906 MCALLEN ISD

HIDALGO 108909 PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO ISLUBBOCK 152901 LUBBOCK ISDMCLENNAN 161914 WACO ISDMIDLAND 165901 MIDLAND ISDNUECES 178904 CORPUS CHRISTI ISDPOTTER 188901 AMARILLO ISDSMITH 212905 TYLER ISDTARRANT 220901 ARLINGTON ISD

TARRANT 220905 FORT WORTH ISDTARRANT 220916 HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD ISTAYLOR 221901 ABILENE ISDTOM GREEN 226903 SAN ANGELO ISDTRAVIS 227901 AUSTIN ISD

2019-20 IMPACT OF HB3 as Passed by the House

M&O Taxes RecaptureState Formula

Aid FSP Revenue % Chg

M&O Rate After

Compression

-$2,964,123 $0 $24,710,239 $21,746,116 6.6% $1.000000-$15,287,960 $0 $49,327,725 $34,039,765 7.1% $1.000000-$22,070,875 $0 $83,968,932 $61,898,057 7.5% $1.000000-$13,130,687 $0 $62,319,699 $49,189,012 12.5% $1.092854

-$2,578,858 $0 $14,553,686 $11,974,828 7.1% $1.092854-$89,024,476 -$179,301,747 $58,693,464 $148,970,735 11.0% $1.092854

-$7,399,559 $0 $22,701,593 $15,302,034 3.4% $1.000000-$10,537,686 $0 $36,829,393 $26,291,706 8.5% $1.092854

-$3,537,803 $0 $19,893,974 $16,356,172 4.9% $1.000000-$17,721,956 -$7,905,036 $33,554,264 $23,737,344 7.0% $1.092854-$10,111,098 -$775,756 $25,649,354 $16,314,012 6.3% $1.092854-$11,403,864 $0 $52,108,239 $40,704,375 8.7% $1.092854

-$3,963,741 $0 $14,638,995 $10,675,255 3.0% $0.942374-$14,863,265 $0 $33,561,670 $18,698,405 3.0% $1.020000

-$8,604,282 $0 $100,838,984 $92,234,702 17.0% $1.089658-$9,285,788 $0 $43,969,876 $34,684,088 8.9% $1.063050

-$20,035,054 $0 $65,064,684 $45,029,630 5.4% $1.000000-$63,840,266 -$294,654,566 -$77,048,967 $153,765,333 9.8% $1.000000-$11,032,720 $0 $21,767,858 $10,735,138 3.1% $1.092854-$16,906,176 $0 $49,674,816 $32,768,640 4.7% $1.103132-$11,959,446 -$57,918,761 -$5,462,501 $40,496,814 15.8% $1.048000

-$4,872,972 $0 $18,941,184 $14,068,212 7.0% $1.082920

-$3,325,111 $0 $29,375,851 $26,050,740 8.6% $1.092854-$4,190,758 $0 $23,456,306 $19,265,548 8.7% $1.020000-$4,748,805 $0 $19,750,250 $15,001,445 11.8% $1.092854

-$10,712,081 -$38,806,847 -$6,547,672 $21,547,093 10.5% $1.000050-$6,588,269 -$1,371 $36,457,858 $29,870,960 10.0% $1.020033-$3,740,120 $0 $30,741,359 $27,001,239 10.7% $1.033246-$3,453,633 $0 $16,422,691 $12,969,058 9.1% $1.000000

-$11,656,370 $0 $43,701,522 $32,045,152 6.8% $1.000000

-$14,627,099 $0 $77,923,676 $63,296,577 8.6% $1.020000-$5,640,885 $0 $11,373,472 $5,732,586 3.0% $1.000000-$1,806,831 $0 $14,120,058 $12,313,227 10.2% $1.000000-$1,912,798 $0 $12,403,772 $10,490,974 10.1% $1.000000

-$57,982,971 -$202,172,039 -$8,330,961 $135,858,108 21.0% $1.032584



4/6/2019

County NameDistrict

# District Name WADA M&O Taxes Recapture

State Formula Aid (including

Homestead HH) FSP Revenue WADA M&O Taxes Recapture

State Formula Aid (incl Formula Transition Grant) FSP Revenue

2019-20 CURRENT LAW 2019-20 HB3 as Passed by the House

WEBB 240903 UNITED ISD 56,013 $184,817,150 $0 $164,136,151 $348,953,301 57,411 $177,945,561 $0 $197,553,680 $375,499,241WILLIAMSON 246909 ROUND ROCK ISD 60,064 $389,952,310 $49,976,489 $32,871,806 $372,847,626 58,645 $375,691,617 $0 $21,188,001 $396,879,618

STATE TOTALS 6,521,940 $29,217,417,489 $3,607,157,076 $16,902,385,515 $42,512,645,928 6,534,757 $27,882,020,110 $2,008,568,440 $20,084,306,139 $45,957,757,810

TSA TOTALS 2,518,649 $11,960,601,420 $1,520,826,657 $5,619,149,212 $16,058,923,976 2,539,765 $11,437,950,754 $689,314,045 $6,691,988,278 $17,440,624,987



4/6/2019

County NameDistrict

# District Name

WEBB 240903 UNITED ISDWILLIAMSON 246909 ROUND ROCK ISD

STATE TOTALS

TSA TOTALS

2019-20 IMPACT OF HB3 as Passed by the House

M&O Taxes RecaptureState Formula

Aid FSP Revenue % Chg

M&O Rate After

Compression

-$6,871,589 $0 $33,417,529 $26,545,940 7.6% $1.000000-$14,260,692 -$49,976,489 -$11,683,805 $24,031,992 6.4% $1.000000

-$1,335,397,378 -$1,598,588,637 $3,181,920,624 $3,445,111,882 8.1%

-$522,650,666 -$831,512,612 $1,072,839,066 $1,381,701,011 8.6%


president april 10, 2019

Documents