This is an exact quote from the working paper of a senior adviser to Straus:

Option 1

Year 1--50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Year 2--50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Provisions sunset 8/31/2-13

Interim Committee to study school finance

Option 2:

Year 1 -- proportionate reduction under current funding structure (Eissler)

Year 2--implementation of 1st year of SB 22 (Shapiro 25%/75%)

Estimate $4 billion owing FYs 2014 and 2015

Provisions sunset 8/31/2013

Interim Committee to study public school finance

There is an "understanding" that House Appropriations and Senate Finance can set the rates.

Everything that I have written here comes from two documents that I have seen, one from Sylvester Turner, the other from the senior Straus adviser.

* * * *

These were the two options that were on the table. The conferees chose to go with Option 2.

Eissler (pro-ration) is a 6% cut for all districts, including low target-revenue districts. In other words, the poorest districts get hurt the most.

SB 22, which I believe was the best of all options, is much better for poor districts.

The House insisted on a Sunset provision in two years.