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.
Get All Our Stories in One Daily Email
It’s free. It’s daily. And it’s full of great reads, y’all.
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Email a link to this page