Moak Casey Study
Moak Casey Study
Moak Casey Study
Moak, Casey & Associates TASA Midwinter Conference Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Introduction
Litigation Budget Context Impact of 82nd Legislature Interim Issues
LITIGATION
January 20124
Status of Litigation
Causes of Action: Adequacy: Rising standards and funding cuts leave insufficient revenue to provide the GDK. Meaningful discretion: Remaining tax rate capacity is insufficient to offset for funding cuts, and provide meaningful discretion to enrich. Efficiency/Equity: Target revenue disparities in combination with unequalized funds produces unconstitutional student / taxpayer inequity. Rationality: The state has failed to provide a rational system based on appropriate cost adjustments and structure
6 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012
Adequacy Challenges
What are the standards? Must the state face disaster before the courts
act? How do the multi year evolving state standards work into the equation? Do the outdated cost adjustments impair the adequacy of the system? Does the potential for rising dropout rates indicate trouble for the Texas economy?
7 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012
Demographic Environment
Public school enrollment demographics The new minorities-Anglo (39%) and the Economically Advantaged (41%) Rising challenges-At risk (46%) and limited English proficient (17%) Family characteristics:
Single parent families (35%) Children in poverty (24%)
January 2012
Educational Environment
Rising standards Curriculum reform 4x4 Criticism 50% administrative costs Investment beyond inflation and growth Growth and staffing resources Efficiency Comptrollers FAST reports District concern over budgetary reductions Limited flexibility
9
Moak, Casey & Associates
January 2012
Educational Results
Cumulative pass rate, Exit-level (2011) Completion rate, 5-yr. (Class of 2009) RHSP/DAP graduates (Class of 2010) TAKS passing rate, All Tests (2011) NAEP Gr. 4 reading, Basic+ (2011) College ready (Class of 2010) NAEP Gr. 4 reading, Proficient+ (2011) SAT/ACT at criterion (Class of 2010) TAKS Commended, All Tests (2011)
10
Equity Challenges
Is the degradation of system equity since
2004 severe enough to warrant renewed judicial intervention? Did the state go too far in creating the target revenue system? What weight does the state commitment to eliminate target revenue by 2017 have? Should the analysis be based on total tax rates or only operational rates?
11 Moak, Casey & Associates January 2012
Rationality Challenge
Does a separate but unequal funding scheme
constitute suitable and efficient provision? Does the use of 1980s weights and adjustments provide the state with a rational basis for funding public education? Are the state long term commitments to adjust standards and financing sufficient?
12
January 2012
opportunity for enrichment? Has the state so controlled the tax that it operates in a manner indistinguishable from a state property tax? What is the impact of the cuts? Do districts at $1.17 have meaningful discretion to enrich? Should the effective combination of limited voter appeal and the potential for recapture be considered in the analysis?
January 2012
13
Litigation Timing
Four groups have filed Texas Taxpayers and Student Fairness Coalition, et al. (Equity Center) Fort Bend ISD, et al. (Thompson) Coalition of Revenue Contributing Schools, et al. (Texas School Coalition) Edgewood ISD et al (MALDEF) Discovery process underway District court ruling sometime in fall Supreme Court could direct brief rehearing
larger debate Proclivity of the court to grant state discretion in all but clear out of bounds situations Need for a clear constitutional priority for public education funding
15
January 2012
BUDGET CONTEXT
16
2011
51% had no fails in review 13% had more than 2 fails Majority of failures in areas of appraisal standards, operating procedures and governance 77% exceeded standards for taxpayer assistance
time funding sources) Competing demands from various areas within state government
Public Education Health and Human Services State Water Plan Higher Education Transportation
Growing balance in Economic Stabilization Fund Improved economy since last revenue estimate
18 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
School district M&O tax relief Reduced by $1.1 B due to increased values/rate increases State revenue offset $1.3 B from margins tax Shortfall to be financed
19
21
22
Revenue Estimate
Biennial Revenue Estimate January 2011 $77.3 billion anticipated revenue May 2011 Comptroller added $1.2 billion to estimate Other changes (speed-ups, etc.) added $1.7 billion Certification Revenue Estimate December
2011
$82.7 billion anticipated revenue Increase of $2.5 billion from May
23
24
$2,000
Collections in Millions
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
25
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Franchise Tax Natural Gas Production Oil Production
26 Moak, Casey & Associates
Cautions
Improving revenue will not necessarily be
27
Legislative Turnover
Governor ----------------------------------------seeking Presidency
(2016?)
Lt. Governor seeking U.S. Senate seat State senate elects replacement for Lt. Gov. Four state senators not seeking reelection,
including chairs of Finance and Education 28 House members not seeking reelection Redistricting could mean additional turnover Significant turnover last session as well as this one will mean less experienced legislature than in past sessions
28 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
SB 1 Impact Overview
Misleading/false claims of increased state
support
$1.5 billion increase in state General Revenue Fund
appropriations to the Foundation School Program cited Fails to account for formula reductions of $4 billion Fails to account for $1.4 billion in lost state grant funds outside the Foundation School Program
30
fail to mention loss of SFSF ($3.3 billion) Title I and IDEA stimulus funding decrease ($2 billion) Education Jobs money ($800 million) available only in 2011-12
31
biennium are $35.5 billion, representing a $1.9 billion decrease from the 201011 biennium spending level.
Appropriations of General Revenue Funds account
for $29.2 billion of this total, a $1.5 billion increase from the prior biennium.
Despite the $1.5 billion increase in General Revenue
Funds from the 2010-11 biennial base, total FSP funding for the 2012-13 biennium is $4.0 billion less than what school district entitlement was projected to be for the 2012-13 biennium prior to the actions of the Eighty-Second Legislature.
32 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
and federally funded educational grant and support programs. The 201213 biennial appropriation for these programs and agency administration is $1.3 billion in General Revenue Funds, a decrease of $1.3 billion (51 percent) from 201011 biennial spending levels.
Biennial comparisons of appropriated funds is not
teachers) 11,833 more staff needed to maintain prior year staffing ratios Extrapolated statewide, 32,000 more staff needed to maintain old staffing ratios (12,000 teachers) Most expect cuts to continue next year
34 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
Impact of SB 1 in 2012-13
Restoration of regular program funding to
ADA compared to 2011-12 school year (WADAs definition changes between years) Over 500 districts expected to gain in total general fund revenue due to growth in students More than $1 billion reduction in ASATR in 2012-13
35 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
$0
-$100
-$200
-$300
-$400
36
fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2018, to continue to reduce the amount of Additional State Aid For Tax Reduction (ASATR) to which a school district is entitled under Section 42.2516, Education Code, and to increase the basic allotment to which a school district is entitled under Section 42.101, Education Code. Section 42.2516 is repealed effective September 1, 2017
37 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
Impact of SB 1 By 2017-18
Nearly 700 districts gain revenue from
elimination of RPAF (repealed effective 09/01/15), elimination of ASATR, basic allotment increase of $83 Over 300 districts expected to lose revenue from those changes About $660M moves from losers to gainers Average losses $350/WADA, average gains $150/WADA
38 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
INTERIM DEVELOPMENTS
39
40
41
Development
42
43
44
leaves out nearly $9.8 billion over the threeyear period $338 million reallocated from fiscal agents to members over the three-year period $676 million remained in fiscal agents due to mismatch of data Cost adjustment adds and subtracts $9.794 billion
46 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
($500)
($1,000)
48
49
51
Administrative Staff
400 West 15th Street, Suite 1410, Austin, Texas 78701-1648 Ph. (512) 485-7878 Fax (512) 485-7888 www.moakcasey.com
52 Moak, Casey & Associates January 31, 2012