2

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:

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.

1 The preliminary report can be found at CHILDREN AT RISK’s website.

3

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.

4

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

5

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.

6

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

7

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%20Size-up%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.

8

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.

9 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

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 ‘ripple effect’ 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.

10

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 Sampling Variable

Total N % of Total Sample [n=900]

Number of Surveys

Received

% of Survey Respondents

[n=338]

Economically Disadvantaged

Above 58% 455 51% 172 51%

Below 58% 445 49% 166 49%

Common Core Data District Locale

City 54 6% 30 9%

Suburb 67 7% 23 7%

Town 182 20% 64 19%

Rural 597 67% 221 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

11

Map 2 shows the distribution of survey respondents by school district geographic designation.

Map 2: Survey Respondents by Geographic Designation

12

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.

13

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 l ine 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.

14

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 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.

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

City Suburb Town Rural

Do

llars

in

Mill

ions

Figure 1: Survey Data- Average School District Loss by Geographic Location

Average Loss 2011-2012

Average Loss 2012-2013

15

$345

$408

$628 $610

$226

$365

$520

$627

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

City Suburb Town Rural

Do

llars

Lost p

er

Stu

de

nt E

nro

lled

Figure 2- Survey Data: Average Loss in Per Pupil Spending

Average Per Pupil Loss2011-2012

Average Per Pupil Loss2012-2013

16

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

*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.

1,803

6,423

1,621

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

All

Sta

ff P

ositio

ns E

limin

ate

d

Figure 3- Survey Data: All Staffing Positions Lost from 2010-2013*

All Positions

Reduction by Attrition

Reduction by Layoff

17

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.

*Data points in the figure refer to the number of all positions lost from 2010-2013

*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.

976

3,955

918

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Te

ach

ing

Po

sitio

ns E

limin

ate

d

Figure 4- Survey Data: Majority of Districts Reduced Teaching Positions through Attrition*

Total Reductions

Reduction by Attrition

Reduction by Layoff

827

2,468

703

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

No

nte

ach

ing

Po

sitio

ns E

limin

ate

d

Figure 5- Survey Data: Majority of Districts Reduced Nonteaching Positions through Attrition*

Total Reductions

Reduction by Attrition

Reduction by Layoff

18

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.

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.

88%

64% 60% 58%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Did NotRehire Staff

DeferredMaintenance

FrozeAdministrative

Salaries

DeferredTechnologyUpgrades

FrozeTeacherSalaries

Pe

rce

nt o

f S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

Re

po

rtin

g

Figure 6- Survey Data: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2011-2012

19

Overall, survey respondents used more cost containment strategies in 2011-2012 than in 2012-

2013 to balance their budgets.

61%

51%

34% 30%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Did Not RehireStaff

DeferredMaintenance

RestructuredTransporation

Services

ReducedWater Usage

ConductedEnergy AuditP

erc

en

t o

f S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

Re

po

rtin

g

Figure 7- Survey Data: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2012-2013

20

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.

21

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.

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

Texas’ 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.

66% 66%

59% 56%

53% 58%

54% 50%

46% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Athletics AdministrativeProfessionalDevelopment

TeacherProfessionalDevelopment

StudentSupport &

Interventions

Libraries

Pe

rce

nt o

f S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

Re

po

rtin

g

Figure 8- Survey Data: Top Budgetary Reductions from 2011-2013

2011-2012

2012-2013

22

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.

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 2011-

2012 and 2012-2013. Districts report average class size data in aggregate, which can mask

variation between and within campuses.

1,375

932 1,061

3,032

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Nu

mb

er

of C

lass S

ize

Wa

ive

rs

Figure 9- Statewide Data: Number of Approved K-4 Class Size Waivers

23

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

“Eligibility for Pre-Kindergarten,” Texas Education Agency, September 2012, <http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147495387&menu_id=2147483718>. 16

Eligibility for Pre-Kindergarten, ibid.

24

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.

25

IMPACT FINDING: A teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction has been compromised.

High-quality instruction is a cornerstone for excellent learning environments. When

instruction suffers so does student learning. The budget cut’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.

26

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.

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.

15%

55%

12%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

College Access Summer School

Pe

rce

nt o

f S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

R

ep

ort

ing

Figure 10- Survey Data: Districts Reporting Decrease to Student Support Services

2011-2012

2012-2013

27

Fifteen percent of school districts in 2011-2012 and twelve percent of school districts in 2012-

2013 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 2012-

2013 reported either reducing or eliminating summer school offerings due to the budget cuts.

28

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.

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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