Introduction

Public Education

The 1980s brought a myriad of changes to the Texas public education system. Beginning with the curriculum reforms initiated by House Bill 246 in 1981, the pendulum has swung from a system of local control to one of increased state standards and accountability. With the passage of House Bill 246 in 1981, the state developed a mandatory core curriculum for students. The Legislature was firm in its belief that student achievement must be improved. The curriculum was upgraded, and the essential elements of instruction were delineated for 13 subjects. The State Board of Education designated the grade levels at which the essential elements were to be taught and for each local school district to be accredited, it must provide instruction in the mandated elements. Over a three-year period, the State Board of Education held public hearings and work sessions to discuss the proposed elements and recommendations. In March 1984, the State Board adopted the essential elements contained in Title 19, Chapter 75 of the Texas Administrative Code.

The Select Committee on Public Education was created by the 68th Legislature in June 1983. This committee was required to study and make recommendations "to carry the Texas educational system into the 21st Century as a quality, effective system." House Concurrent Resolution 275 directed the committee:

to study the issues and continuing concerns relating to public education in Texas, particularly school finance and each of its components--personnel support, operating costs, transportation, equalization, minimum aid, and the categorical-aid program--as well as the source of funding and structure of the system.

From the work of the committee chaired by businessman H. Ross Perot, many of the reforms contained in House Bill 72 were enacted in 1984. This far-reaching bill changed the administration and oversight of the public education system, school finance system and operations of school districts. In addition, numerous personnel changes, the development of a teacher career ladder and issues relating to student programs and extracurricular programs (no-pass no-play) were contained in the bill. A reauthorized appointed State Board of Education was charged with the responsibility of adopting rules to implement state statutes.

In May 1984, a group of property poor school districts and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit against the state charging that the state system of funding public education was unconstitutional, because it discriminates against students living in property poor school districts.

Public education continued to occupy the thoughts of legislative leaders when in April 1987, state district judge Harley Clark declared the state system of funding education unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to restructure it. The suit was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, who ordered the state to devise a new system by May 1, 1990.

Following four special legislative sessions, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1 in June 1990. That plan funnelled approximately $528 million new dollars into public education in 1991 and was funded by a new tax bill. The bill provided for a new equity standard using a two-tiered guaranteed yield system with a five-year phase in. The bill contained five major areas of reforms. The areas of reform were: accountability, school-based management, deregulation, research and innovation, and finance. The Texas Supreme Court struck down the new law in January 1991 and set an April 1, 1991, deadline for an acceptable plan.

Following a lengthy debate, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Senate Bill 351 in April 1991. The bill provided for a redistribution of property taxes through tax base consolidation. County education districts were established--mostly along county lines--for the purpose of equalizing local property wealth. The bill is presumed to be constitutional.

During the years of litigation on school funding, the debate about quality programs and standards for student achievement and learning has continued. Members of the Legislature and the public have demanded quality for the tax dollars that are being spent, while at the same time wanting local autonomy. Following a period of intense oversight and monitoring by the state, the pendulum appears to be moving back toward a balance of state, district and local school campus decision-making.

The main institutional entities in the public education system (pre-kindergarten through 12th grade) at the state level include: the Texas Legislature, the Governor, the Legislative Education Board (LEB), the State Board of Education (SBOE), the Commissioner of Education, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the 20 Regional Education Service Centers (ESCs). The SBOE, the Commissioner and the TEA collectively are referred to as the Central Education Agency (CEA).

The Central Education Agency guides and monitors public education in the state. The SBOE provides leadership and state-level administration for public education. The TEA, located in Austin, Texas, is the administrative entity of the Central Education Agency. The chief executive officer, the Commissioner, directs a staff of approximately 1,175 employees. The agency provides technical assistance, accredits school districts, monitors federal and state programs and distributes state and federal funds.

Local independent school districts are delegated authority to raise funds, own property, hire staff and designate instructional methods for local students. Local school trustees develop and design local rules and policies based on federal and state laws. Texas currently has 1,047 school districts. These districts serve in excess of 3.3 million students at more than 6,000 campuses in grades kindergarten through 12th grade. The six largest school districts--those with more than 50,000 students--serve 15 percent of all students, while over 400 districts, those smaller than 500 students, serve only 3% of total students. Figure 1 shows the general organization of the public school system.

Figure 1

The taxpayers of Texas support public education. For the 1990-91 biennium, $13.5 billion (including federal funds) has been appropriated for pre-kindergarten through grade 12. This represents approximately a 100-percent increase over the past decade, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Student achievement is improving but still major strides must be taken. Despite the increased attention paid by policymakers to education, change has been slow to filter through the system. Clearly, governance in public education is fragmented. A streamlined approach is needed. There are opportunities for cost-savings and efficiency improvements at the state, regional and local levels. Services must be offered at the lowest possible site. Services must be targeted toward the ultimate users: the teacher and the student.

Issues Identified by the Review Team

Taxpayers continue to demand the most efficient use of public funds. The objective of this review was to ensure that taxpayers receive the highest quality services available. Recognizing that the Legislature and the courts have made significant impacts on school finance equity, the Texas Performance Review stepped back to focus on the broad issues and policies affecting public education, including governance, funding, and programs.

Governance. The Texas Performance Review focused on the goals, objectives and strategies of the education delivery system, including the roles and responsibilities among state and local participants. Guiding principles involved the delegation of decision-making to local school districts and campuses, maintenance of state standards and accountability, redefinition and streamlining of the Texas Education Agency, and a redesigned mid-level service delivery system using the regional education service centers.

Governance-related topics and recommendations are as follows:

I. Revise the Governance Structure of Public Education to Coordinate Public Education and Higher Education

II. Sunset and Re-Create the Texas Education Agency

III. Restructure the Texas Education Agency

IV. Increase the Role of Regional Education Service Centers

V. Consolidate the Governance and Administration of Vocational and Adult Education

Funding/Finance. Recognizing that programs and formulas had undergone intense scrutiny during the past months, the review focused primarily on mechanisms for increasing efficiency and maintaining education services.

Funding-related topics and recommendations are:

VI. Increase Consolidation Incentives for School Districts

VII. Use a Portion of Capital Gains from the Permanent School Fund to Fund the Available School Fund

VIII. Reduce State Costs of Public Education Through Use of Existing Fund Balances

IX. Limit State Funding of Excessive School District Administrative Costs

X. Increase Efforts to Reward Improved Student Performance amd Encourage Innovative Programs

Programs. Finally, the review encountered a number of education programs which merit re-examination.

Program-related topics and recommendations are:

XI. Eliminate Several Small Special Programs

XII. Redesign the State Testing Program

XIII. Encourage the Use of Year-Round Schools