COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 3588-03
Bill No.: Perfected SB 1080
Subject: Education, Elementary and Secondary; Elementary and Secondary Education Dept; Teachers
Type: Original
Date: February 17, 2004
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Local Government | $0 | $0 | $0 |
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Secretary of State's Office (SOS) assumed the rules, regulations and forms issued by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education could require as many as18 pages in the Code of State Regulations. For any given rule, roughly half again as many pages are published in the Missouri Register as in the Code because cost statements, fiscal notes and the like are not repeated in the Code. These costs are estimated. The estimated cost of a page in the Missouri Register is $23. The estimated cost of a page in the Code of State Regulations is $27.
The actual costs could be more or less the SOS's estimated cost of $1,107 for FY 2005. The impact of this legislation in future years is unknown and depends upon the frequency and length of rules, filed, amended, rescinded or withdrawn.
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriation process. Any decisions to raise fees to defray costs would likely be made in subsequent fiscal years.
SECTION 160.518
Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education stated this portion of ASSUMPTION (continued)
the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agency.
SECTION 160.720
Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education assume this section of the proposal would free-up funds as appropriated under Section 160.530.2 RSMo, totaling $150,000 per year in travel, meals, and lodging relating to the work of management teams (which are not required under the terms of this proposal). This freeing up of funds would allow the commissioner of education to address other areas of critical need for learning and development.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
SECTION 160.518
This section amends certain policies with regard to MAP testing by stating that, no later than June 30, 2006, the State Board of Education shall:
(1) Align the performance standards of the MAP so that such indicators meet, but do not exceed, the performance standards of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam.
(2) Administer any other adjustments necessary in order to aid the state in conforming to existing federal standards, including the institution of yearly examination of students in the required subject areas where compelled by federal regulations.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
SECTION 160.720
This portion of the proposal deletes the provisions of the "academically deficient schools" statute and alters the "priority schools" statute in an attempt to consolidate the two school accountability measures.
The new school accountability language directs DESE to identify as a priority school any school that fails to meet acceptable standards of student achievement established by the state board of education and based upon certain factors specified within the proposal. The board of education of any district that contains a priority school shall submit a comprehensive school improvement plan that provides for:
1) Identification of the areas of academic deficiency in student performance on the MAP by disaggregating scores based upon certain criteria, as specified in the act;
2) Implementation of research-based strategies to assist the priority school in addressing the areas of deficiency;
3) Alignment of the priority school's curriculum to address deficiencies in student achievement;
4) Reallocation of district resources to address the areas of academic deficiency; and
5) Listing of all school buildings and attendance centers declared to be priority schools in the district's annual school accountability report.
The state board of education may appoint a team to conduct an educational audit of any priority school to determine the factors that have contributed to the lack of student achievement.
The proposal sets up procedures and time lines for districts that are mandated to complete comprehensive school improvement plans.
The proposal also allows DESE to withhold formula funds from any school district that fails to submit a comprehensive school improvement plan based upon the standards and time lines established by the act until such district submits their improvement plan.
This legislation would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
This legislation is federally mandated.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Secretary of State
Administrative Rules Division
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
February 17, 2004