EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Texas’ 82nd Legislature reduced state spending on public education in the 2010-2011 session by $5.4 billion, including cutting $4 billion from the Foundation School Program. Although the extent of the cuts has been widely discussed, comprehensive information is lacking on how the cuts were implemented by school districts and how Texas’ schools and students were impacted. In 2012, CHILDREN AT RISK conducted a mixed methods research study to provide an objective assessment of the impact of state budget cuts on Texas’ schools and students. Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment utilized a mix of quantitative and qualitative research methods to capture the variation and scope of the cuts through uniform evaluation and measurement across districts. Research priority areas included the impact of state budget cuts on average class size, pre-k, expenditures, and staffing. After releasing preliminary findings in September 2012,1 CHILDREN AT RISK surveyed an additional 900 school districts to complete the statewide assessment. The second phase of research offered every school district in the state the opportunity to report on the impact of the budget cuts. School districts that participated in our research account for 65% of student enrollment in Texas. While there is some continuity between the preliminary and statewide findings, the statewide findings allow for a broader trend analysis of the budget cut’s impact by school district geographic location and school district poverty level. After analysis of the data and supplementary qualitative interviews our research yielded the following major findings:
1
There was great diversity as to how school districts were affected by and responded to the cuts.
In absolute terms urban/suburban schools lost more state aid; however, in per pupil terms rural/town districts lost more per student.
Districts wanted to avoid teacher layoffs at all costs. However, payroll expenses make up the bulk of school district spending. Consequently, many districts were unable to avoid a reduction in teaching staff, which was largely achieved through attrition.
Instituting or increasing cost containment measures was popular among school districts as a means to reduce overhead.
The budget cuts prompted many districts to examine their operations to find efficiencies.
Reducing expenditures was a necessity for districts; however, district size and geographic location impacted how they trimmed their budgets.
Average class sizes have increased at the elementary and secondary level.
The preliminary report can be found at CHILDREN AT RISK’s website.
2
Despite extensive research demonstrating the importance of early education, districts have reported changes to their pre-k programs.
A teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction has been compromised.
Student support and intervention programs have been reduced.
Texas school districts have met the challenge of lost funding with perseverance and a dedication to protecting student learning. However, the cuts have exacted a loss on resources, thereby challenging the capacity of many districts to fully meet their educational mandates while providing robust learning opportunities.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHILDREN AT RISK would like to thank the consortium of funders who have supported this study. The coalition of funders represents a diverse array of the Texas philanthropic community who has prioritized public education as part of their giving portfolio and long term strategic plans. Their vision and generous financial support have been the driving force behind this work. Genevieve and Ward Orsinger Foundation (San Antonio, Texas) Kathryn and Beau Ross Foundation (Austin, Texas) KDK-Harman Foundation (Austin, Texas) Meadows Foundation (Dallas, Texas) M.R. and Evelyn Hudson Foundation (Dallas, Texas) Powell Foundation (Houston, Texas) RGK Foundation (Austin, Texas) San Antonio Area Foundation (San Antonio, Texas) The Simmons Foundation (Houston, Texas) The Trull Foundation (Palacios, Texas) Wright Family Foundation (Austin, Texas)
CHILDREN AT RISK formed a Superintendent Advisory Committee to help guide survey development and research design. Membership is strictly voluntary, by invitation and is a diverse representation of school district types and geographic distribution. Members have provided vital input and guidance concerning areas of impact, and the development of the school district survey instruments. Dr. Heath Burns Abilene ISD
Dr. Curtis Culwell Garland ISD
Dr. Karen Garza Lubbock ISD
Dr. Wanda Bamberg Aldine ISD
Dr. Terry Grier Houston ISD
Dr. Kirk Lewis Pasadena ISD
Dr. Robert McLain Channing ISD
Dr. Guy Sconzo Humble ISD
Dr. Daniel King Pharr-San Juan-Alamos ISD
Dr. Mark Henry Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
Dr. Thomas Randle Lamar CISD
Dr. Duncan Klussmann, Chair Spring Branch ISD
Dr. Nola Wellman Eanes ISD
Dr. Bret Champion Leander ISD 4
CHILDREN AT RISK would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this study:
Dr. W. Robert Houston (University of Houston) and Dr. Lori Taylor (Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) for their guidance on research and sampling design, survey development and the methodology used to compile findings in this report.
AUTHOR Sarah Goff is the Research Coordinator at CHILDREN AT RISK’s Center for Social Measurement and Evaluation. She is the author of CHILDREN AT RISK’s latest research briefs Doing More With Less? Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality- Preliminary Findings and Doing More With Less? Looking Beyond Public Schools which assess the impact of reduced state funding on school districts and nonprofits after Texas’ 82nd Legislative session. Sarah is an experienced policy analyst and the author of multiple research papers primarily focusing on education and social policy. Sarah holds a Masters in Urban Policy Analysis and Management from The New School, was a Public Service Fellow at NYU Wagner School of Public Service and holds a B.A. in History from Rutgers University.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
7
Methodology
9
Snapshot of Survey Respondents
10
Limitations & Key Assumptions to the Analysis
12
Impact Finding: School District Impact
13
Impact Finding: Loss in State Funding
14
Impact Finding: Staffing
16
Impact Finding: Cost Containment Measures
18
Impact Finding: Operational Efficiencies
20
Impact Finding: Expenditure Reduction
21
Impact Finding: Average Class Size
22
Impact Finding: Pre-Kindergarten Programs
23
Impact Finding: Instruction
25
Impact Finding: Student Support and Interventions
26
Conclusion
28
Appendix A: Participating School Districts
29
6
INTRODUCTION Texas is growing rapidly. Over the last decade the U.S. Census Bureau marked a 20% increase in the state population, doubling the national growth rate of approximately 10%. In a state of 25.1 million people, there are 4.9 million school-aged children. Texas has seen an annual average of 83,000 new students enrolling during the last four years. Texas has one of the largest decentralized education systems in the country, comprised of 1,031 hyper local school districts and 482 charter schools. The next largest public school systems, as measured by number of school districts, are California (955 districts serving 6.1 million students) and Illinois (868 districts serving 2 million students).2 The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) ranks Texas 37th in per pupil education expenditures for the fifty states.3 When examining total operating expenditures per pupil (this includes payroll, administrative costs, supplies, and materials, but excludes capital outlays, debt service and community services), Texas spent $8,572 per pupil in 2008-2009.4 This is $1,794 below the national average of $10,591 in per pupil expenditures.5 Public schools are primarily funded through a mix of local, state and federal funds. Federal funds account for the smallest share, hovering around 10% of all funds, but fluctuate from year to year. In an operating environment with lower than average educational expenditures, a large and growing student population, a highly decentralized service delivery system and 60% of the population classified as economically disadvantaged,6 Texas’ public schools are presented with unique challenges. Texas’ 82nd Legislature faced a gaping $7.8 billion hole in the public education budget when called into session in January 2011. The budget gap was caused by a loss of $3.3 billion in one time federal funds, an added $2.2 billion in expenditures due to student enrollment growth, $1.4 billion in school district settle up costs, and a loss close to $1 billion due to declining local property values.7 The Legislature opted for a three pronged approach to balance the budget: a $1.5 billion infusion of funds from the General Revenue Fund, $2.3 billion in deferred payments to school districts, and a $4 billion cut from school district entitlement funding formulas.
2
Keaton, Patrick, “Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Local Education Agencies From the Common Core of Data: School year 2010-2011,” National Center for Education Statistics, April 2012, p. 7. 3 “Legislative Budget Board Fiscal Size Up 2012-2013 Biennium,” Legislative Budget Board Eighty Second Texas Legislature, September 2012 http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Fiscal_Size-up/Fiscal%20Sizeup%202012-13.pdf. 4 “Snapshot 2011: Summary Tables State Totals,” Texas Education Agency, September 2012,< http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2010/state.html>. 5 “Total Current Expenditures per Pupil for Texas 2008-2009,” National Center for Education Statistics, September 2012, < http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/quickFacts.aspx>. 6 “Snapshot 2011: Summary Tables State Totals,” Texas Education Agency, January 2013,< http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2010/state.html>. 7 “Legislative Budget Board Fiscal Size Up 2012-2013 Biennium,” ibid.
7
The $4 billion cut in school district entitlement funding formulas was achieved over the course of the biennium. The changes in funding formulas affected both independent school districts and charter schools. The Legislature achieved the cuts in the following manner:8
In 2011-2012, $2 billion was cut by reducing the Regular Program Adjustment Factor (RPAF)9 from 100% to 92%, for an 8% reduction in formula funding. In 2012-2013, an additional cost savings of $2 billion was achieved through a 2% reduction in RPAF (funded at 98%, accounting for $500 million in savings) and an 8% reduction in Additional State Aid in Tax Reductions (ASATR) payments.
The actual dollar amount each school district lost due to the $4 billion reduction in formula funding varied. Because RPAF is tied to per pupil funding allotments, the total loss for each district was directly tied to student enrollment. Districts that relied heavily on ASATR payments because of higher revenue targets were impacted the most in 2012-2013. The following report is structured around the major findings from Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment.
8
“Legislative Budget Board Fiscal Size Up 2012-2013 Biennium,” ibid. The Regular Program Adjustment Factor (RPAF) is a multiplier used to adjust a school district’s regular program allotment. The regular program allotment is the base number used to calculate the weighted cost of educating a student (for example English Language Learners or those with special needs require more services than a general education student). 9
8
METHODOLOGY CHILDREN AT RISK developed the research framework for Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment in January 2012 in conjunction with a Superintendent Advisory Committee (SAC) that helped identify research priorities and refine the school district survey instrument. Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment is comprised of four components: two school district surveys, a nonprofit survey, and qualitative interviews at the district and campus level. Research priority areas included, but were not limited to, pre-k; revenue generation and cost containment strategies; changes in average class size; and expenditures on library services, athletics and counseling services. Snapshot findings from the preliminary school district survey were released in September 2012 and the findings from the nonprofit survey were released in October 2012. The following section provides a brief overview of each research component: (A) SCHOOL DISTRICT SURVEY: CHILDREN AT RISK administered a school district survey in two phases. The survey itself was designed to collect in-depth information on the impact of state budget cuts on school districts across the state. The school district survey development was guided by the Superintendent Advisory Committee, academics and a statistician to ensure the validity and comprehensiveness of the survey questions. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago was subcontracted for survey delivery and data cleaning. a. Phase I Survey: This 22 item questionnaire was sent to a representative stratified random sample of 120 school districts culled from 1,031 school districts in Texas. In addition to but separate from the stratified random sample, a nonrandom sample of 17 large urban school districts was surveyed. The data collection period was from April-September 2012. b. Phase II Survey: This 11 item questionnaire was sent to the balance of school (900) districts not surveyed in Phase I. The data collection period was from September-December 2012. This survey was administered online and is similar in content to the Phase I survey. (B) NONPROFIT SURVEY: The state cuts to public education not only affected school districts themselves, but also the community-based organizations that work in and alongside districts to improve academic, social, and emotional outcomes for Texas students. To better understand the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ripple effectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the state budget cuts, researchers conducted an online survey and follow-up interviews of a nonrandom sample of local and state education nonprofits that serve students and schools across the state. The survey evaluated if and how programs and services have changed as a result of the budget cuts. (C) SCHOOL SITE VISITS AND INTERVIEWS: To form a richer narrative, site visits were conducted and confidential interviews were held with school teachers, principals, and guidance counselors to learn how the cuts have affected their daily routines and campuses. These interviews filled the narrative gaps from the school district surveys and publicly available data. 9
SNAPSHOT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT SURVEY RESPONDENTS CHILDREN AT RISK surveyed 900 school districts for the statewide findings presented in this report. Approximately 338 districts responded yielding a response rate of 38%. Survey respondents account for 38% of student enrollment in the state. Table 1: Snapshot of Survey Respondents by Key Demographics Final Status by % of Total Sampling Total N Sample Variable [n=900] Economically Disadvantaged Above 58% 455 51% Below 58% 445 49% Common Core Data District Locale City 54 6% Suburb 67 7% Town 182 20% Rural 597 67%
Number of Surveys Received
% of Survey Respondents [n=338]
172 166
51% 49%
30 23 64 221
9% 7% 19% 65%
School district survey respondents by and large match the demographics of the broader sample with a slight overrepresentation of city districts and slight underrepresentation of rural districts. Map 1 shows the geographic location of survey respondents. CHILDREN AT RISK utilized the Department of Education Common Core Data district locale designations for geographic categorization. Map 1: School District Survey Respondents
10
Map 2 shows the distribution of survey respondents by school district geographic designation. Map 2: Survey Respondents by Geographic Designation
11
LIMITATIONS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS TO THE ANALYSIS As with all self-reported survey data there remains an inherent risk of inconsistent data reporting. Researchers attempted to control for variation among survey responses by removing numerical outliers; however, as is the case with all self-reported survey data the validity of all responses cannot be guaranteed. The use of ‘urban’ and ‘city’ when referring to school districts is used interchangeably here. Researchers conflate rural and town, and city and suburban district level outcomes unless otherwise noted.
12
IMPACT FINDING: There was great diversity as to how school districts were affected by and responded to the cuts. Texas school districts were not uniformly affected by the budget cuts. The 2011-2012 cut was tied to per pupil funding allotments, and the majority of the 2012-2013 cut was tied to a specific type of state aid. Since student enrollment and state aid payments vary from district to district, the actual dollar amount a district lost differed from year to year and in comparison to other districts. Basic trends in response to the budget cuts emerged quickly. Strategies like containing costs, reducing expenditures and diversifying revenue streams were employed in some combination by all districts. Districts quickly began to review line item and staffing budgets to determine where cuts could be made, or simply instituted across the board reductions. School districts also began to evaluate the prospect of increasing the proportion of local revenue to fund daily operations. Some dipped into financial reserves called fund balances to cover the costs of doing business. A few districts have opted to pursue a Tax Ratification Election (TRE) which would increase the Maintenance & Operations (M&O) tax rate within a local school district. Raising the M&O tax rate is subject to voter approval. In years prior the pass rate for a TRE has been 75%.10 However, this is not a popular recourse for school districts as TRE’s can be politically divisive and many are already taxing at the maximum M&O rate allowed by state law. For many districts, pursuing foundation, corporate or federal funds to supplement local and state aid became a lifeline of additional funds. Others looked to create alternate revenue streams from district and campus operations, essentially looking to monetize services when possible. This included instituting or increasing user fees for various services or activities such as campus facility rentals or data sharing fees. An increase in the cost sharing of student activities, including athletics and extracurriculars, has been reported as well. A district’s response to the budget cuts was largely predicated on the amount they lost and the resources that were available to them. As such there was immense variation in the district and campus level effects and the ensuing response.
10
Kuhn, Nancy, “History of Tax Rates,” Texas Education Agency.
13
IMPACT FINDING: In absolute terms, urban school districts lost more state aid; in per pupil terms, rural school districts lost more per student. School districts lost the majority of state funds in year one of the biennium. While urban school districts lost the most funding in absolute terms, rural school districts lost the most in per pupil funding. Survey respondents reported a total of $618.6 million in lost state revenue during the 2011-2012 school year. The average loss per school district was $2.3 million. In 2012-2013 districts reported losing $497.3 million, with an average loss of $1.9 million per district. Urban school districts lost the most funding in absolute terms in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Correspondingly the largest average school district losses were skewed toward city and suburban school districts.
Figure 1: Survey Data- Average School District Loss by Geographic Location
Dollars in Millions
$12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000
Average Loss 2011-2012
$6,000,000
Average Loss 2012-2013
$4,000,000 $2,000,000 $-
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
Figure 2 highlights the difference in per pupil losses between urban and rural school districts. On average rural school districts lost more per pupil funding than their urban counterparts. This is due to larger enrollment numbers in urban districts which allows the loss to be distributed across a broader student population.
14
Dollars Lost per Student Enrolled
Figure 2- Survey Data: Average Loss in Per Pupil Spending $700
$628
$600
$610 $627
$520
$500 $408 $400 $300
$345
$365
Average Per Pupil Loss 2011-2012 Average Per Pupil Loss 2012-2013
$226
$200 $100
$City
Suburb
Town
Rural
15
IMPACT FINDING: Districts wanted to avoid teacher layoffs at all costs. However, payroll expenses make up the bulk of school district spending. Consequently many districts were unable to avoid a reduction in teaching staff, which was largely achieved through attrition. In the face of decreased state revenues, districts had considerable latitude as to how and where budgets would be trimmed. Superintendents routinely reported that their guiding principle was to keep the cuts “as far away from the classroom as possible.” Texas school districts spend 80-85% of their general funds on payroll, including salaries and benefits for staff.11 Unsurprisingly districts emphasized staffing reductions as a means to reduce costs. While the Texas Education Agency (TEA) makes staffing data publicly available in aggregate by district (only accounting for changes in full time employee staffing), the reason for change in staffing is unaccounted for. The school district survey was therefore interested in gauging how school districts achieved their target staff reductions. Districts were asked to provide the number of full time teaching and nonteaching positions that were eliminated through attrition or reduction in force.12
All Staff Positions Eliminated
Figure 3- Survey Data: All Staffing Positions Lost from 20102013* 7,000 6,423
6,000 5,000 4,000
All Positions
3,000
Reduction by Attrition
2,000
1,803
Reduction by Layoff 1,621
1,000 0 2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
*Data points in the figure refer to the number of all positions lost from 2010-2013
11
“Statewide 2010-2011 Actual Financial Data,” Texas Education Agency, September 2012, < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147495078>. 12 Reduction in force is official TEA terminology used to describe layoffs.
16
Full time employee (FTE) counts were collected in this manner over the three year period. Responses showed that the majority of staffing loss was achieved through attrition13 in all three years. The data presented in Figures 3-5 solely correspond to districts who participated in the school district survey and do not reflect statewide losses.
Teaching Positions Eliminated
Figure 4- Survey Data: Majority of Districts Reduced Teaching Positions through Attrition* 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
3,955
Total Reductions Reduction by Attrition Reduction by Layoff
976
2010-2011
918
2011-2012
2012-2013
*Data points in the figure refer to the number of all positions lost from 2010-2013
Nonteaching Positions Eliminated
Figure 5- Survey Data: Majority of Districts Reduced Nonteaching Positions through Attrition* 3,000 2,468 2,500 2,000
Total Reductions 1,500
Reduction by Attrition
827 1,000
Reduction by Layoff 703
500 0 2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
*Data points in the figure refer to the number of all positions lost from 2010-2013
13
Attrition for the purposes of this analysis refers to staffing positions lost due to an employee leaving a school district of their own volition for any reason.
17
IMPACT FINDING: Instituting or increasing cost containment measures was popular among school districts as a means to reduce overhead. The use of cost containment measures was essential in tempering the growth of line item budgets. In the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, the two most popular cost containment strategies were refraining from rehiring staff and deferring maintenance. Deferred maintenance refers to a range of stalled capital improvement projects, including repairs or upgrades to school facilities and classrooms. Dollars that might have been earmarked for fresh paint in a classroom, replacing old furniture and school desks, or repairing the roof of a building were reallocated to other parts of the budget. In 2011-2012, not rehiring staff, deferred maintenance and freezing administrative staff salaries were the most popular cost containment strategies. Almost 90% of districts reported staff attrition as the most frequently used approach to containing costs during this time period.
Percent of School Districts Reporting
Figure 6- Survey Data: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2011-2012 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
88%
64%
60%
58% 45%
Did Not Deferred Froze Deferred Rehire Staff Maintenance Administrative Technology Salaries Upgrades
Froze Teacher Salaries
In the 2012-2013 school year, refraining from rehiring staff, deferring maintenance and restructuring transportation services were the most popular strategies used by school districts. In addition, districts frequently conducted energy audits and reduced water usage to save money.
18
Percent of School Districts Reporting
Figure 7- Survey Data: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2012-2013 70% 60%
61% 51%
50% 40% 30%
34%
30%
27%
20% 10% 0%
Did Not Rehire Deferred Restructured Reduced Conducted Staff Maintenance Transporation Water Usage Energy Audit Services
Overall, survey respondents used more cost containment strategies in 2011-2012 than in 20122013 to balance their budgets.
19
IMPACT FINDING: The budget cuts prompted many districts to examine their operations to find efficiencies. The budget cuts provided districts an opportunity to review campus and district level operations. In addition to combing through operational expenditures, districts reviewed operations to eliminate redundancies and find room for increased efficiencies. Districts conducted energy, water and trash audits to reduce usage and conserve funds. On average school districts spend 3% on central administrative costs and therefore achieve low overhead as a general rule. Where possible districts achieved economies of scale and increased collaboration by joining purchasing cooperatives or entering shared service agreements with other districts. Districts frequently looked to third party vendors as a means to bring down costs, or restructured existing contracts in an effort to save funds. Transportation services and bus routes were streamlined. The associated costs of running and maintaining a school bus fleet were frequently reexamined to find cost savings. Districts reported decreasing bus service catchment areas, expanding the mileage from 1.5 miles to 2 miles for high school students. A handful of districts reported charging fees for bus service to offset the cost of providing transportation. Many districts decreased the frequency of afterschool bus service; instead of providing two drop-off times, districts consolidated to one. Smaller rural districts implemented distance learning as a cost-effective way to boost enrichment course offerings. On-campus enrichment courses with low enrollment across multiple campuses were consolidated to a single campus to continue the course offering. When school districts could they maximized existing partnerships or established new ones. Early college high schools increased the number of students enrolled at the local community colleges. Both districts and campuses turned to their nonprofit partners to provide academic support services when they could no longer afford to do so directly.
20
IMPACT FINDING: Reducing expenditures was a necessity for districts; however, their geographic location impacted how they trimmed their budgets. By and large, school districts had considerable latitude as to how they reached their budgetary reduction goals. The top five self-reported areas for budgetary reductions were the same in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. The two most popular line item reductions were athletics and administrative professional development.
Percent of School Districts Reporting
Figure 8- Survey Data: Top Budgetary Reductions from 20112013 70% 60%
66% 58%
50%
66% 59% 54%
50%
56% 46%
53% 42%
40%
2011-2012
30%
2012-2013
20% 10% 0% Athletics
Administrative Teacher Student Professional Professional Support & Development Development Interventions
Libraries
In 2011-2012, urban and suburban school districts were more likely to cut guidance counseling services, social work services, health services, and libraries. In comparison to their rural counterparts, urban school districts typically offer more ancillary services. In phase one of our research, the majority of rural school districts reported no change to these services as no funds had been allocated to these services previously. In 2012-2013, lower poverty districts14 were more likely to cut student support and interventions than higher poverty districts. Student support and interventions broadly encompasses academic remediation activities which include tutoring, one-on-one pull out time and any instructional support designed to bolster academic performance or bring students up to grade level.
14
Texasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; average district wide student poverty level in 2011 was 58%. In this report a lower or low poverty school district is defined as a school district that falls below the statewide average.
21
IMPACT FINDING: Average class sizes have increased at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Historically, Texas has made smaller class sizes an education policy priority. The use of class size caps for grades K-4 has been a backbone of this policy. The Texas Education Code is clear: a student-to-teacher ratio of 22:1 is to be maintained in K-4 classrooms. If classes exceed the 22:1 ratio, districts must apply for a class size waiver. The waiver allows a classroom to increase the class size instead of hiring a new teacher to accommodate more students.
Number of Class Size Waivers
Figure 9- Statewide Data: Number of Approved K-4 Class Size Waivers 3,500
3,032
3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500
1,375
1,000
932
1,061
2009-2010
2010-2011
500 0 2008-2009
2011-2012
During the 2011-2012 school year, the number of class size waivers doubled from years prior. The dramatic increase in the number of approved class size waivers in 2011-2012 illustrates the popularity of waivers as a means to circumvent the additional cost of hiring a teacher in a climate of diminished staffing and financial resources. Class size waiver data for 2012-2013 was not available at the time this analysis was conducted. Grades 5-12 are not subject to state mandated class size ratios. This allows districts to set class size ratios as needed. When looking at average class size data collected from the school district survey, there were no statistically significant differences between average class sizes in 20112012 and 2012-2013. Districts report average class size data in aggregate, which can mask variation between and within campuses.
22
IMPACT FINDING: Despite extensive research demonstrating the importance of early education, districts have reported changes to their pre-k programs. The positive impact of a high quality prekindergarten program on students living in poverty is well-documented. Children who enroll in these programs have higher test scores, achieve more years of education, and sustain academic gains in math and reading well into early adulthood. Texas does not require pre-k to be offered in every school district. Current TEA guidelines stipulate that school districts are required to offer free, half day pre-k if there are 15 or more three or four year olds meeting at least one of the following criteria15: 1. The student cannot speak or comprehend the English language 2. Is educationally disadvantaged (as defined by free or reduced lunch eligibility) 3. Is homeless 4. Is or has been in foster care 5. Child of an active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces 6. Child of a deceased member of the U.S. Armed Forces who was injured or killed while serving on active duty As of the 2011-2012 school year, there were 225,037 children enrolled in pre-kindergarten statewide. Pre-k enrollment has seen a twelve percent increase (or roughly 24,000 new students enrolled) in the last four years.16 State funding for full day pre-k programs had been allocated through a discretionary grant program, from which over $200 million in funds were eliminated. Districts were forced to either eliminate full day programs or reallocate funds to continue providing the same level of care. Twelve percent of survey respondents reported changes to their pre-k programs and nine percent reported a decrease in pre-k program offerings. Over 79,500 students were impacted by
15
â&#x20AC;&#x153;Eligibility for Pre-Kindergarten,â&#x20AC;? Texas Education Agency, September 2012, <http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147495387&menu_id=2147483718>. 16 Eligibility for Pre-Kindergarten, ibid.
23
a decrease in pre-k programs. Thirteen high-poverty districts reduced their programmatic offerings. Local response to the loss in pre-k funds has varied. Some districts curtailed full day programs while other districts reallocated funds to keep the full day program. Notably, the city of San Antonio levied a 1/8 cent sales tax increase to continue funding pre-k programs in the area.
24
IMPACT FINDING: A teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to deliver highquality instruction has been compromised. High-quality instruction is a cornerstone for excellent learning environments. When instruction suffers so does student learning. The budget cutâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact on instruction cannot be evaluated by a single data point, but rather is indicated by a confluence of disparate factors. Campuses around the state shed teachers through attrition and did not rehire. School districts increased class sizes to accommodate the loss in teachers and fewer grade (at the elementary level) or course sections (in middle and high schools). Larger class size impacts the quality of teacher instruction. With fewer teachers, those remaining have picked up more classes with more students and lost critical planning periods. Teachers have less time to prepare for each class and have less time to provide detailed feedback to their students. As classrooms swell, teachers have less time for individualized, one-on-one instruction and frequently spend more time on behavior management. Small group activities, an ideal model for implementing differentiated instruction in the classroom, are less effective as the once small groups have become larger and encompass a wider range of educational functioning levels. Similarly, the impact of the budget cuts on human capital and staff development is difficult to isolate. However, decreased morale, reduced professional development opportunities, wage reductions, stagnant salary schedules, and increased workloads all indicate deteriorating conditions. Districts have reported an inability to hire and retain good teachers as wages have stagnated in an improving economy. Some districts have stated they are losing their competitive edge, as they cannot entice teachers to their district with lower starting salaries. With fewer resources and professional support coupled with increased workloads, principals and superintendents have noted higher levels of educator fatigue earlier in the school year.
25
IMPACT FINDING: Student support and intervention programs have been reduced. Sustained academic success is not solely attributable to classroom instruction. External non-school based factors can greatly impact whether or not a student performs to their academic potential. This can include family socio-economic status, a parent’s level of educational attainment, housing stability, and food insecurity. As educational success is placed in a more complex psychosocial framework, educators acknowledge performance in the classroom is tied to these factors and additional supports are frequently necessary for high-needs populations. School districts have provided social work and guidance counseling services for their students in an attempt to support students both inside and outside of the classroom. On-site health services were prioritized to ensure basic wellness of a student population in a state where 1.2 million children remain uninsured.17 Expenditures for these services, if they were provided at all, have been reduced as a cost saving measure in response to decreased state aid. In 2011-2012, 56% of survey respondents reduced student support and intervention expenditures. In the following year, 46% of reporting districts reduced spending for student support and intervention services. College access and summer school programs also experienced programmatic reductions. Figure 10- Survey Data: Districts Reporting Decrease to Student Support Services Percent of School Districts Reporting
60%
55%
50% 41%
40% 2011-2012
30% 20%
2012-2013 15%
12%
10% 0% College Access
Summer School
17
“Texas KIDS COUNT Indicators,” The Annie E. Casey Foundation, January 2013, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?state=TX&group=Grantee&loc=45&dt=1%2 c3%2c2%2c4.
26
Fifteen percent of school districts in 2011-2012 and twelve percent of school districts in 20122013 that offered college access programming reduced their programs. Summer school, frequently used by districts for remediation and intervention purposes, was adversely affected as well. Fifty-five percent of districts in 2011-2012 and forty-one percent of districts in 20122013 reported either reducing or eliminating summer school offerings due to the budget cuts.
27
CONCLUSION Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment evaluated a mix of financial and academic indicators to monitor the district and campus level effects of state budget cuts. Texas’ school districts have adapted to the changes in state funding in a variety of ways. Districts prioritized minimizing the impact on student learning and achievement. Small class size, a longstanding statewide education policy priority, has suffered as a result. Local response to the budget cuts was as diverse as Texas. However, strategies such as reducing expenditures, containing costs and searching for additional revenue were employed in some combination by most districts. Districts have dipped into reserves to provide the same levels of service. Additionally, many districts are maxed out at the local level, unable to raise sufficient local tax dollars to make up for the loss in state funds. The impact of the budget cuts on student achievement is not immediately identifiable through the use of current assessments. Even in the long run the effect will be difficult to isolate among the myriad of factors that contribute to poor academic performance and increased dropout rates. However many educators have voiced concerns about the long term effects of the budget cuts, particularly if the funding losses are institutionalized and become the new normal in future biennia. Based on our research findings CHILDREN AT RISK urges the Texas State Legislature to: Fully fund student enrollment growth. The state needs to adequately provide funds for current enrollment and the 60,000-80,000 new students Texas gains every year. Asking districts to educate a growing student body on last year’s budget will only strain the public education system further. Restore funding for full day pre-k programs. Cuts of more than $200 million for full day pre-k programs should be reinstated. The investment in high quality, full day pre-k programs are perhaps the state’s best way to reduce immediate and future education spending. Fund evidence-based programs with a proven track record of academic success. Student support and intervention programs are critical catch-up components for many students, yet districts reported cuts to these types of programs. Strategic use of tax dollars is both politically expedient and sound education policy. The state should fund intervention programs with a proven track record of improving educational outcomes. The findings highlight the fluid and sensitive nature of the relationship between responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, smart financial management and a quality public education system. There have been very real ramifications of decreased funds for public education that will, more than likely, have a lasting effect on all students in Texas.
28
APPENDIX A: Participating School Districts District Name
Primary Research Interaction
Abilene ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Alamo Heights ISD
Interview
Aldine ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Aledo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Alice ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Alief ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Alvarado ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Amarillo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Anahuac ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Anderson-Shiro CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Angleton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Anson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Anthony ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Apple Springs ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Archer City ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Austin ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Avalon ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Axtell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Azle ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Baird ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bandera ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bangs ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Banquete ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Beeville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bellevue ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Belton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Blanket ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Boles ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Boling ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bonham ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Booker ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bosqueville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bovina ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Brady ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Brazos ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Bridgeport ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
29
Bronte ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Brooks County ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bryson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bullard ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Burkburnett ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Burleson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Burnet CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Burton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bushland ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Bynum ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Caddo Mills ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cameron ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Canton ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Canyon ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Carlisle ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Centerville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Centerville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Channing ISD
Superintendent Advisory Committee
Chapel Hill ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Chapel Hill ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Chester ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Childress ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Chillicothe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cisco ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Clarendon ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Clarksville CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cleburne ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cleveland ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Clint ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Clyde CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Coleman ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Columbus ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Comstock ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Conroe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Coolidge ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cooper ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Coppell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Corpus Christi ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
30
Cotton Center ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Covington ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cross Plains ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Crowell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Crystal City ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Culberson County-Allamoore ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Dallas ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Darrouzett ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dayton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Deer Park ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dekalb ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Denison ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Denton ISD
Interview
Desoto ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Devers ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Devine ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dew ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Deweyville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
D'Hanis ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Diboll ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dickinson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dime Box ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dripping Springs ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dublin ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Dumas ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Eanes ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
East Bernard ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
East Central ISD
Interview
Eastland ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Eden CISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Edgewood ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Edinburg CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Edna ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
El Campo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
El Paso ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Elgin ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Era ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Eula ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Evadale ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
31
Evant ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Ezzell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Farwell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Floresville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Flour Bluff ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Forestburg ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Forney ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Forsan ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Fort Bend ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Fort Worth ISD
Interview
Frankston ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Frenship ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Friona ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Frisco ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Frost ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Gainesville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Galena Park ISD
Campus Site Visit
Garland ISD
Superintendent Advisory Committee
Gatesville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Georgetown ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Gonzales ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Goose Creek CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Graford ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Granbury ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Grand Prairie ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Grand Saline ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Grandfalls-Royalty ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Grandview ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Groveton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Guthrie CSD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hallsburg ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hallsville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hardin ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Harlandale ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Harleton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Harlingen CISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Harmony ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Harper ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hart ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hays CISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Hedley ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
32
Hempstead ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hereford ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Holliday ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Houston ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Howe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hudson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Huffman ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hughes Springs ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hull-Daisetta ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Humble ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Huntsville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD
Interview
Hutto ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ingleside ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Ira ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Iredell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Irving ISD
Interview
Irving ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Itasca ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Jacksboro ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Jasper ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Jayton-Girard ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Jonesboro ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Jourdanton ISD
Campus Site Visit
Katy ISD
Campus Site Visit
Kaufman ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Keller ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Kennard ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Kilgore ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Klein ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Klondike ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Knippa ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
La Feria ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
La Grange ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
La Porte ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
La Vega ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lago Vista ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lake Travis ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lamar CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lampasas ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Laneville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
33
Lasara ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Latexo ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Leakey ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Leander ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Leggett ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lewisville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Liberty-Eylau ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lindsay ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lipan ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Little Elm ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Livingston ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Llano ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lockney ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lohn ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
London ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Louise ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Lubbock ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lyford CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Lytle ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Malakoff ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Malone ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mansfield ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Marble Falls ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Marfa ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Marlin ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Martins Mill ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mason ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Matagorda ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
May ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Maypearl ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
McDade ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
McGregor ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
McKinney ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
McLean ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Medina ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Meridian ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Merkel ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mesquite ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Meyersville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Midway ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mildred ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
34
Miles ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mission CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Monte Alto ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Montgomery ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Moody ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Moran ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Mount Enterprise ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Muleshoe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Munday CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Natalia ISD
Campus Site Visit
Navarro ISD
Interview
Navarro ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Navasota ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Nazareth ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Nederland ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Needville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
New Braunfels ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
New Home ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
New Waverly ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Newcastle ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Nixon-Smiley CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Normangee ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
North East ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
North Lamar ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Northside ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Northside ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Odem-Edroy ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
O'Donnell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Oglesby ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Olton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ore City ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Overton ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Paducah ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Paint Rock ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Palacios ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Palestine ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Palmer ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Palo Pinto ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Paradise ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Paris ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pasadena ISD
Superintendent Advisory Committee
35
Patton Springs ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pawnee ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Peaster ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Penelope ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Perrin-Whitt CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Petersburg ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pflugerville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Pilot Point ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Plains ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Plainview ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Plano ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Pleasant Grove ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Prairie Lea ISD
Campus Site Visit
Prairie Valley ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Presidio ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Priddy ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Pringle-Morse CISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Quanah ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Rains ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ralls ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Randolph Field ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Reagan County ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Red Lick ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Redwater ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ricardo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Rice CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Robinson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Roby CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Rochelle ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Rockdale ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Rogers ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Roscoe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Round Rock ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Round Top-Carmine ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Royal ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Rule ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sabinal ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Salado ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Saltillo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
36
San Angelo ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
San Antonio ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
San Elizario ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sands CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Santa Fe ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Santa Maria ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Savoy ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Schulenburg ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Seagraves ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Seminole ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Seymour ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Shallowater ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Shamrock ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sheldon ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Shepherd ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Simms ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sivells Bend ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Slocum ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Smyer ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Snyder ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Somerset ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Somerville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
South San Antonio ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Southland ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Splendora ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Superintendent Advisory Committee
Spring Hill ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Spring ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Springlake-Earth ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Stanton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Star ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Stockdale ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sundown ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sweeny ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Sweetwater ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Tatum ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Temple ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Terrell ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Texas City ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Texline ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Thorndale ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
37
Throckmorton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Tolar ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Trenton ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Trinity ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Troup ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Troy ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Tulia ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Tuloso-Midway ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Tyler ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Valentine ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Valley Mills ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Van Alstyne ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Van Vleck ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Venus ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Veribest ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Vernon ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Waco ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Walcott ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Wall ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Warren ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Waskom ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Water Valley ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Wellman-Union CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
West Hardin County CISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Westbrook ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
White Settlement ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Whitehouse ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Whitewright ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Whitney ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Wichita Falls ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Willis ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Wills Point ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Winters ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Woodsboro ISD
Phase 1: School District Survey
Woodson ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Woodville ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Ysleta ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Zavalla ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
Zephyr ISD
Phase 2: School District Survey
38