National Education Association- New Mexico  

Daily Legislative Hotline

                                                        Links to:

NEA-New Mexico Positions on Current Legislation

Contact Policy Makers

2007 Legislative Session

Find and Contact Your Legislator  Legislative Site Bill Finder
Contact Governor Richardson Committee and Floor Agendas
New Mexico Legislature Public School-Related Legislation Introduced in 2007 Session
Legislative Website

Forms to Report Legislative Contacts to NEA-NM

Session Dates Legislator Contact Form
Committee Membership Legislative Meeting Report Form

Final 2007 Legislative Summary

Altogether, there were over 600 bills addressing education issues in this year's legislative session. Despite the voluminous number of measures introduced on all topics, many important education bills were successful in the 2007 session. Most education legislation seemed motivated by good intentions. The notable exceptions to this general rule were bills attempting to create voucher-like tuition tax credits and bills attempting to bring an early end to educator return-to-work provisions in the Educational Retirement Act. Both ideas ultimately failed, but not before some hard work and close calls.

School Funding Measures

Two appropriation acts affected public school funding, although the General Appropriation Act of 2007 (CS/HB 2, et al., as amended) contained most of the funding for public school support. The so-called House Bill 2, Jr. Bill CS/SB 611, included a number of public education related appropriations. Both of these acts were signed, with partial vetoes, by the Governor.

For school year 07-08, the Legislature appropriated approximately $2.5 billion in public school support and related recurring appropriations, an increase of approximately $197.8 million, or 8.6 percent, over 06-07. The 07-08 statewide program cost of approximately $2.3 billion represents an increase of about $153.5 million, or 7.1 percent, over the current school year. The Public Education Department has established an initial unit value for school year 2007-2008 of $3,645.77, an increase of $199.33, or 5.8 percent, above the 2006-2007 final unit value of $3,446.44.

The Legislature appropriated over $795 million for higher education, an increase of approximately $36 million over last year's appropriation. This also includes a 5% average salary increase for all higher education employees, and a 0.75% increase in the employer's contribution to the Educational Retirement Fund for FY 08.

However, even though both public education and higher education appropriations increased in FY 08, overall their share of total recurring General Fund appropriations has declined: for public education, from 45% to 44.8%, and for higher education, from 14.9% to 14.3%, continuing a multi-year trend.

Compensation

The Legislature’s employee compensation package, while not all we wanted, provided adequate dollars for significant employee salary increases, as well as the final phase of the three-tiered licensure minimum salaries for teachers and the FY 08 increase in the employer’s contribution to the Educational Retirement Fund.

The budget bill still requires an average 5% salary for all groups of school employees. The salary increase language did not require that employees work any additional work days in order to receive the raise. The measure contains the averaging language that we requested last year to add flexibility for collective bargaining. The measure contains language similar to last year requiring all school districts to demonstrate that they have provided an average 5% salary increase to "all teachers and other licensed employees" and an average 5% salary increase to "all non-licensed school employees" prior to the approval of a school district's budget. The language once again requires that the Secretary of Education "verify that school districts and charter schools have implemented an average five percent salary increase for teachers prior to implementing the minimum salaries for level three-A teachers." This means that extra money, above and beyond the 5% increase has been appropriated for this purpose and that amount should be added only after the average 5% increase has been applied. Teacher salary schedules should reflect a 5% average increase and then those level three-A teachers who are not at the $50,000 minimum should be brought up that minimum.

An "additional two percent average salary increase for those instructional support providers who practice licensed professions that require a bachelor’s or higher degree and whose annual salaries on a full-time basis are below sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) is also required." This was added to address those instructional support providers, such as Counselors, Special Education Ancillary Staff, etc. who have not received the benefit of the teacher three tiered minimum salaries. This should be sufficient to bring most of these employees back to teacher salary schedules at the same minimum salary levels as teachers. The Public Education Department has provided the following guidance to School Districts regarding salary considerations in 2007-08 budgets:


1. Salary increase requirements:

A. An average five percent salary increase must be given to each of the following groups:
all teachers, other instructional staff, other licensed and unlicensed staff effective July 1, 2007.

B. An additional two percent average salary increase for instructional support
providers who practice licensed professions that require a bachelor’s or higher degree and whose annual salary on a full-time basis are below $60,000. ($60,000 is not a minimum salary requirement.)

The following groups are defined in state statute Section 22-1-2(F.) NMSA 1978 as instructional support providers and are included unless otherwise noted:

- Educational assistant (not included) - School counselor
- Social worker - School nurse (LPN not included)
- Physical therapist (assistants not included) - Speech language pathologist
- Recreational therapist - Psychologist
- Interpreter for the deaf (not included) - Diagnostician
- Occupational therapist (assistants not included)

C. An additional two percent average salary increase (above the average five percent) for principals and assistant principals with priority given to the level of responsibility each principal or assistant principal is charged with as defined in HB35 or existing .

D. An average five percent must be given to each group first. The additional 2% average salary increase should be given after the average 5% to the instructional support providers, principals and assistant principals.

E. The resulting salaries for Level three-A teachers, principals and assistant principals should then be compared with the minimums as stated below. If the minimums are not met, the salary must be increased to the minimum amount. (If HB35 is not signed, the current minimums in Section 22-10A-11 NMSA 1978 will remain in effect. Current statute does not provide a minimum salary for assistant principals.)

2. Minimum salary requirements-

2007-2008 Level three-A teachers minimum salary - $50,000
HB35 which passed this session modified the minimum salaries that were in Section 22-10A-11 NMSA 1978 adds a responsibility factor and assigns multipliers to determine the . . . salary minimums for school principals . . .



Other Funding Initiatives

Among the initiatives included in the program cost are sufficient dollars to fund enrollment growth and insurance premium increases, as well as:

• funding of fixed costs, such as utility charges;
• a mandatory average 5.0 percent salary increase for all school employees;
• an additional mandatory average 2.0 percent salary increase for professional instructional support providers with salaries below $60,000 a year, as well as for principals and assistant principals;
• the 0.75 percent increase in the employer’s contribution to the Educational Retirement Fund for 07-08 (A controversy has arisen over the Governor’s attempt to veto an addition 0.75% increase in retirement funding to pre-pay the 2008-09 employer’s share of retirement contributions. The Governor vetoed some language in HB2 that directed how the funds are to be spent, but left in place a line-item detailing the appropriation; legal wrangling over whether or not the funds are actually vetoed continues.);
• the $50,000 minimum salary for Level 3-A teachers to implement the fifth and final year of the phase-in of the three-tiered licensure system; and
• $8.0 million for elementary physical education programs for students in kindergarten through sixth grade in eligible schools, included for the first time within the Public School Funding Formula.


“HB 2, Junior” appropriations to public education total approximately $9.3 million: $3.3 million for various public school programs and an additional $6.0 million for use by PED statewide, including $2.0 million for pre-kindergarten, $2.0 million for breakfast for elementary students, and $2.0 million for after school enrichment programs. An additional $4.9 million is appropriated to other agencies for a variety of programs, including $2.0 million to the Children, Youth and Families Department for pre-kindergarten.

School-Plus, a Major Initiative to Close Achievement Gaps Passes

The education partners recommended funding for a new “school plus” program to help close achievement gaps. In response to this idea, Representative Mimi Stewart sponsored HB 198, enacting a new section of the Public School Code to create K-3 Plus as a six-year pilot project, administered by the Public Education Department. As enacted the bill provides some $7.5 million to provide extended time in kindergarten through grade 3 for students in high-poverty public schools; priority is granted schools with Kindergarten Plus programs that have received one or more satisfactory annual evaluations. The act requires that teachers and educational assistants shall be paid at the same rate and under the same terms for K-3 plus as teachers and educational assistants are paid for regular educational programs and allows the department to use up to 4.0 percent of the appropriation for professional development and for administrative costs. This program would provide thousands of low-income students with 25 more instructional days in the summers before and after the regular school year, helping prepare them for future success. School Plus will target resources, provide extra time for those students who need it most, and will help to close the opportunity gap by providing the extra time some students need to be successfully reading by third grade.

High School Redesign

One of the Legislature's most comprehensive pieces of legislation this session -particularly in terms of preparing students better to succeed in college - was high school redesign.

• This bill provides the Diploma of Excellence for all students who enter grade 9 in school year 2009-2010 or later. This diploma requires a total of 24 units for graduation, one of which must be Algebra II or a higher-level math and at least one of which must be taken as an AP, distance learning, or dual credit course. The bill contains a parent opt-out provision for math at the Algebra II level, but not for the fourth year of math required to graduate.
• Students will also be required to take two, rather than one, of their three required science units as laboratory sciences.
• The communications skills unit will be replaced with a choice of one unit in a career cluster, workplace readiness, or a language other than English.
• Beginning in school year 2008-2009, middle schools must offer Algebra I in grade 8 and high schools must offer dual credit and distance learning courses. Beginning in school year 2009-2010, high schools must offer at least two years of a language other than English.
• By school year 2008-2009, the existing 9th grade assessment will be replaced with college and workplace readiness assessments in grades 9, 10, and 11.
• By January 2008, PED must announce in rule its proposal for a new standards-based assessment or portfolio of standards-based indicators for high school graduation, which must take the place of the existing High School Competency Exam for students graduating in school year 2010-2011.
• Minimum instructional requirements for grades 1 to 3 are increased to include science and social studies.
• The high school dropout age is raised to 18, and employment certificates currently available that allow students aged 14or older to attend high school part time are eliminated.
 

The establishment of college and work-ready graduation requirements dovetails with the commitment that New Mexico made when the state joined the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network on September 28, 2006. New Mexico is one of 29 states participating in this formal alignment process to ensure that state high school standards align with postsecondary and workplace expectations, and high school students graduate ready for college or the workplace.
 

A related high school reform bill addresses the following issues:

• a requirement that the Public Education Department collaborate with public teacher preparation programs to create a uniform statewide teacher education accountability reporting system so that we can keep better track of our new teachers as they complete their program of studies;
• a requirement that teacher preparation programs work with colleges of arts and sciences and high schools to develop a model teacher mentorship program .
• a change on how teacher mentorship funding is distributed to school districts to reflect the current number of beginning teachers; and more than double the amount of funding for new teacher mentoring. (The legislative appropriation for the beginning teacher mentorship program has more than doubled, from approximately $900,000 to$2.0 million, bringing the amount per teacher from approximately $368 to$1,300, still short of the national average of $2,000 per new teacher, but a good deal better for New Mexico.); and
• a provision requiring PED to provide by rule for training and other requirements to support the use of unlicensed content-area experts, such as retired employees from the national labs, as resources in classrooms, team-teaching, online instruction, curriculum development or other purposes.

The 2007 Legislature passed legislation creating a statewide Cyber Academy to provide a system for distance education through a collaborative among public education, higher education, telecommunications networks, and other state agencies that provide distance education to school districts, specifically for grades 6 through 12.

The Cyber Academy will also provide convenient professional development for educators, a particularly welcome opportunity for those who live great distances from postsecondary educational institutions.

The Cyber Academy will serve as a way to deliver courses taken for dual credit, the subject of another bill. The dual credit bill brings a workable uniformity and the prospect of a secure funding mechanism to dual credit arrangements. School districts will pay for textbooks and course supplies, institutions of higher education will waive all general fees, and the Higher Education Department, with input from the educational institutions, will revise procedures in the higher education funding formula to encourage those institutions to waive tuition.

The Mathematics and Science Education Act creates a bureau in the Public Education Department, an advisory council, and a fund. The General Appropriation Act included $2.5 million for summer reading, math, and science institutes, up from $1.7 million last year.

Capital Outlay

The Legislature appropriated over $110 million in direct capital outlay appropriations for public education-related projects. Appropriations from severance tax bond receipts total approximately $38.3 million and include $4.5 million to the Charter School Capital Outlay Fund for charter school facilities. General Fund appropriations total approximately $71.7 million and include $4.3 million to the Educational Technology Deficiency Correction Fund to address educational technology infrastructure deficiencies in public schools statewide and $250,000 to the Charter Schools Stimulus Fund to provide for the initial costs of renovating and remodeling existing buildings and structures statewide.

Signed, but partially vetoed, by the Governor, CS/SB 395, Public School Capital Outlay Omnibus Bill, amends several sections of current law to:

• increase the state guarantee in the Public School Capital Improvements Act (2.0 mill levy) from $60 to $70 per unit per mill;
• extend the lease-payment assistance program from FY 10 to FY 20; increase the lease payment allocation to school districts and charter schools from $600 to $700 per MEM; and allow lease payment assistance funds to be used to finance lease-purchase agreements; and
• extend the Deficiencies Correction Program from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2008 and extend the period of time available to expend awards made to correct “outstanding deficiencies” in public school building roofs from September 30, 2007 to September 30, 2008.

Charter Schools

Among provisions relating to charter schools, the 2007 Legislature amended statute to:

• allow a state-chartered charter school to participate in the standards-based application process and to be eligible for grant assistance;
• allow a school district to lease available space to a charter school as long as the lease payments do not exceed the amount the charter school receives from the lease-payment assistance program;
• require future resolutions for an “HB 33” tax imposition (Public School Buildings Act) submitted to qualified voters by a district to contain the capital needs of local- and state chartered charter schools located within the district; require that a proportionate share of the tax revenue, based on membership, be distributed directly to the charter school(s); and extend from five to six years the maximum allowable time for imposition of the tax; and
• create the Charter School Capital Outlay Fund (with a repeal date of July 1, 2012) and establish two priorities for grants from the fund: (1) to assist state-chartered charter schools with the local match for an approved public school capital outlay project; and (2) if dollars are not needed for the first priority, to provide assistance to charters schools in securing public buildings by 2010.

Elementary Physical Education

A measure to include elementary physical education program units in the public school funding formula and to establish priorities for inclusion of schools in the program, along with an appropriation of $8 million to begin implementing elementary physical education in high priority schools. The four phase in will be first implemented in public schools that have the highest proportion of students most in need based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-fee lunch or grade-level schools that serve an entire school district and in public schools with available space. The bill provides for a four year phase-in of the physical education program in grades K-6 and allows twenty-five percent of the student population served each year. The PED enrollment figures for SY 2005-2006 indicate there were approximately 172,000 children in grades K-6. Therefore, roughly 43,000 K-6 students could be added to the program each year for the four-year implementation in the state’s 449 elementary schools

Curricula Alignment

A bill passed to require school districts to require each school district to align its curricula in each grade level for mathematics by school year 2008-2009 and for language arts and science by school year 2009-2010, and to require school districts to align professional development related to curricula for classroom teachers and educational assistants with state standards.

Retirement Legislation

All attempts to alter the return to work provisions of the Educational Retirement Act failed. Several legislators introduced legislation to eliminate the Return-to-Work (RTW) provisions of the Educational Retirement Act. Essentially the proposals would have grand-parented retired members who are already employed by an affiliated employer on or before June 30, 2007 under existing law. However, the proposals would have effectively ended the current programs for Educational Retirees on June 30, 2007 and would have substituted a more restrictive version that would run from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009. This two-year RTW program would have provided a means of placing qualified RTW employees in hard-to-fill positions that have been designated by resolution of school boards as “critical need" positions. The primary excuse given for proposing an end to Educators’ RTW programs was a potential fiscal impact on fund solvency and whether the RTW programs encourage people to retire sooner than they would have otherwise. If that were true, it would mean that the pension is being paid out longer than actuarially anticipated. However the Educational Retirement Board related that its actuary indicated that the RTW program has no fiscal impact on the funding of the retirement plan and concluded such changes would probably not have a fiscal impact its fund solvency. This rationale led to Educational RTW being removed from the final version of the bill that passed, thus only affecting the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). Even this bill was finally vetoed by Governor Richardson.

The Retiree Health Care Authority (RHCA) faces the challenge of a narrow (9 to 11 years) solvency period that must be addressed either by increased distributions, increased premiums charged to the retirees, or decreased benefits. For the past several years, NMRHCA has operated at a deficit. The deficit has been fueled by membership growth of 8% per year and double-digit claims cost increases. Representative Lucky Varela’s HB 728 assists NMRHCA to continue to operate and provide much needed health care benefits to eligible retirees and their dependents of participating public institutions. The bill provides a supplemental monthly distribution of $250 thousand for FY08, FY09 and FY10. The bill also requires a study relating to the Retiree Health Care Fund conducted by a joint staff working group from the Legislative Finance Committee, the Legislative Council, the governor’s office and the Retiree Health Care Authority. This working group will look at long-term actuarial trends, contribution rate equity between retirees and current employees, comparisons of the state and the local entities and the feasibility of creating two separate programs and whether or not the fund should be placed in an irrevocable trust. The working group will report its findings no later than December 15, 2007.

Speaker Ben Lujan proposed HB 1086,which would have placed the RHCA’s funds in an an irrevocable trust to hold in trust all funds, assets, proceeds, income, contributions and payments from any source whatsoever paid to or otherwise accruing to the Fund. In addition to protecting the assets of the fund for the provision of retiree health care benefits, HB 1086, if passed, would have reduced the valuation of the agency’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) from $5,000,000.0 to $3,730,000.0. This valuation is the result of a new General Accounting Standard Board requirement 43. Although bond rating agencies have said they will not revise state bond ratings in the first year of GASB 43 implementation, this bill sought to lower the unfunded liability prior to any revision of the State Bond Rating by placing the assets (and all future assets) in an irrevocable trust. This legislation passed the House but died in the Senate Finance Committee.


Voucher-like Tuition Tax Credits Came too Close for Comfort

A combination of leaders and members in the House kept tuition tax credits from reaching the floor of the House. Several Representatives were ready to filibuster the idea to death if need be. Those to whom much credit belongs for killing this bad idea are Representative Sheryl Williams-Stapleton, Representative Rick Miera, Representative Al Park, Representative Mimi Steward, Representative Gail Chasey, Representative Mary Helen Garcia, and Representative Joni Gutierrez. Negotiations between the Senate and House over a tax package led to the creation of the education tax credit package with this item included. It would have provided a tax credit for donors to scholarship organizations that give scholarships to high poverty children to attend private and religious schools.

House Bill 1012, was originally sponsored by Representative Bobby Gonzales to provide a refund of taxes on school bus fuel. Unfortunately members of the Senate Finance Committee amended the measure on the Senate Floor to add Home School Tax Credits and Tuition Tax Credits! The idea was sold as part of the "the deal" for an entire tax package. Had the measure reached the House Floor for concurrence with the Senate Amendments, Representative Gonzales would have been stuck with either recommending concurrence (and supporting tuition tax credits) or recommending the killing of his own bill. Fortunately the strategy pursued by the potential filibusters, the leadership, and Representative Gonzales prevented this from happening by keeping the vote from ever being necessary!

Unfortunately "the deal" stuck in the Senate as 12 Democrats joined 14 Republicans to vote in favor of the measure, with $2.1 million in tax credits for scholarships for high poverty students to attend private schools. Some Senators took a walk rather that vote on this bad idea, and we appreciate their support. But the true brave defenders of public schools were those who voted no: Senator Michael Sanchez, Senator Mary Jane Garcia, Senator Lidio Rainaldi, Senator Cisco McSorely, Senator Richard Martinez, Senator John Grubesic, and Senator Lynda Lovejoy. These Senators deserve our appreciation. The actual vote in the Senate on this very bad idea follows.

Senator

Vote

Excused

Sen. Adair, Rod (R-NM-33rd)

YES

 

Sen. Altamirano, Ben (D-NM-28th)

YES

 

Sen. Asbill, Vernon (R-NM-34th)

YES

 

Sen. Beffort, Sue (R-NM-19th)

YES

 

Sen. Boitano, Mark (R-NM-18th)

YES

 

Sen. Campos, Pete (D-NM-8th)

YES

 

Sen. Carraro, Joseph (R-NM-23rd)

YES

 

Sen. Cisneros, Carlos (D-NM-6th)

YES

 

Sen. Cravens, Kent (R-NM-21st)

YES

 

Sen. Duran, Dianna (R-NM-40th)

YES

 

Sen. Feldman, Dede (D-NM-13th)

YES

 

Sen. Garcia, Mary Jane (D-NM-36th)

NO

 

Sen. Griego, Phil (D-NM-39th)

YES

 

Sen. Grubesic, John (D-NM-25th)

NO

 

Sen. Harden, Clinton (R-NM-7th)

YES

 

Sen. Ingle, Stuart (R-NM-27th)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Jennings, Timothy (D-NM-32nd)

YES

 

Sen. Kernan, Gay (R-NM-42nd)

YES

 

Sen. Komadina, Steve (R-NM-9th)

YES

 

Sen. Leavell, Carroll (R-NM-41st)

YES

 

Sen. Lopez, Linda (D-NM-11th)

YES

 

Sen. Lovejoy, Lynda (D-NM-22nd)

NO

 

Sen. Martinez, Richard (D-NM-5th)

NO

 

Sen. McSorley, Cisco (D-NM-16th)

NO

 

Sen. Nava, Cynthia (D-NM-31st)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Neville, Steven (R-NM-2nd)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Ortiz y Pino, Gerald (D-NM-12th)

YES

 

Sen. Papen, Mary (D-NM-38th)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Payne, William (R-NM-20th)

YES

 

Sen. Pinto, John (D-NM-3rd)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Rainaldi, Lidio (D-NM-4th)

NO

 

Sen. Rawson, Leonard (R-NM-37th)

YES

 

Sen. Robinson, Shannon (D-NM-17th)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Rodriguez, Nancy (D-NM-24th)

YES

 

Sen. Ryan, John (R-NM-10th)

YES

 

Sen. Sanchez, Bernadette (D-NM-26th)

 

EXCUSED

Sen. Sanchez, Michael (D-NM-29th)

NO

 

Sen. Sharer, William (R-NM-1st)

YES

 

Sen. Smith, John (D-NM-35th)

YES

 

Sen. Snyder, H. Diane (R-NM-15th)

YES

 

Sen. Taylor, James (D-NM-14th)

YES

 

Sen. Ulibarri, David (D-NM-30th)

YES

 

Legislative Education Study Committee Final Summary of Legislation and Funding

 

Find and Contact Your Legislator

Back to Legislative Advocacy

Hotline Achieve