NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs
and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
|
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Science and Math Training for Middle
School Teachers |
SB |
196 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
L. Baca |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$260.0 |
|
|
Recurring |
GF |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates
to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
LFC files
Responses
Received From
State
Department of Education (SDE)
Commission on
Higher Education (CHE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 196
appropriates $260.0 from the general fund to the Commission on Higher Education
(CHE) for expenditure in fiscal year 2004 to provide a professional development
program for middle school teachers to improve their skills, knowledge and
teaching techniques in mathematics, science and technology
Significant
Issues
Statistics reported by
SDE and the National Assessment for Education Project (NAEP) show
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$260.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall revert to the general fund.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The CHE reports this
bill will have an unknown impact of the CHE.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The SDE suggests the bill’s sponsor consider including language that encourages alignment between this effort and those currently administered by SDE. SDE also recommends that the bill include language that requires close collaboration between SDE and CHE.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
This proposal was not
presented to the CHE for review, consequently, it is
not in the funding
recommendations
submitted by CHE to the legislature.
The CHE suggests the following language for all
new recurring higher education programs and expansion of current programs
(assuming that funding will continue beyond 2002-2003):
“The institution receiving the appropriation in this bill submit
a program evaluation to the Legislative Finance Committee and the Commission on
higher Education by August 2005 detailing the benefits to the State of
1.
Should this proposal have been submitted
to the CHE for review?
2.
Which groups are the primary supporters
of this proposal?