Burnt Orange Report

Mandate, Schmandate

By Vince Leibowitz

Texas Governor Rick Perry today issued an executive order directing the Texas Education agency to institute a mandate requiring that Texas' more than 200 independent school districts spend at least 65 percent of their budgets on classroom spending.

Naturally, Perry claims this mandate will mean local school districts will be more accountable to taxpayers and more efficient in school spending and directing funds to the classroom which, of course, is supposed to lead to increased student achievement.

Unfortunatly for Perry, he evidently didn't realize such a system is in place and being utilized by TEA. Of course, since the average person doesn't know this either, Perry can make himself look like the Savior of Texas Public Education.

In reality, TEA already has a program in place called The Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas, which came about as a result of action by the 77th Texas Legislature.

That system grades school districts on a number of factors including the percentage of the school's budget that goes toward instruction. According to current FIRST standards, instruction spending must exceed 54 percent. In addition to instruction spending, FIRST also grades districts based on a number of other important accounting-related factors to ensure the district's solvency and measure the district's financial management and financial wealth in general.

However, based on a read of some media coverage of the order, people might think the state has no financial accounting system for districts whatsoever:

Under Perry's executive order, TEA Commissioner Shirley Neeley will design and implement a new financial accountability and reporting system for Texas schools. The state will work with school districts throughout the state until the 65 percent goal is reached.

Given that the new mandate means a 10-plus percent jump in required "instrution spending," which can include things such as technology and teacher salaries, it's difficult to understand how some school districts will be able to cope with this in short order, especially given some onerous state regulations which districts are already under.

Of course, Perry claims:

"How schools guide this funding into the classroom will still be decided at the local level, but could include items like classroom computers and technology, science lab equipment, instructional materials and supplies, or even higher teacher salaries," Perry says.

How, however, is it local control if you have to make a ten percent swing in your budget? I'm not disputing that more needs to be spend on public instruction and less on "public relations," and similar frivolities, but shouldn't the local school board know what's best for the students? If that's 64 percent, or 59 percent, or whatever.

And, what about considerations for districts that have significant built-in non-instructional expenses, like transportation? What about rural districts that serve entire counties and end up being forced to run expensive transportation fleets? What about school districts in areas where bonds can't or won't pass that have to spend a lot on facilities because they are in disrepair? Will there be any flexability to this system?

Also, I found this pretty funny:

The governor also wants school districts to report how they spend "non-classroom" expenses such as counseling, nursing and social services; construction, maintenance and repair of district facilities; and funds spent on legal fees or public relations.

Hello, Governor! They already do: It's called a budget.

For those of you unfamilar with school budgeting, a school budget is a multi-faceted document. The independent school district board adopts a budget at the "fund and function" level. Funds are things like "debt service fund" "general revenue fund," etc. If you look at an actual school district budget (the detailed version), you'll see lots of numbers which refer to "functions," and are more detailed things like child nutrition programs and what not. Beneath that are "object codes" which are even more detailed.

Basically, you can pretty easily track the dollars and cents your school district is spending. Of course, since Perry says his mandate will make school districts more accountable to the local folk, I can only assume this means that kids will get to carry home (or have mailed to their homes) another school "report card" like the PEIMS or Academic Excellence Indicator data sheets sent home with kids during the year. Of course, most parents don't read these things, and fewer can understand exactly what they are reading because—let's face it—they aren't exactly drafted in lay terms.

So, really, what's the point of all of this: to look good next March (and maybe next November). Why revise something just initiated a couple of sessions ago? I've heard a number of school leaders complain that the the FIRST requirements already somewhat onerous in areas aside from instruction spending, and that compiling the appropriate data for the reporting is yet another time consuming administrative task (though the spreadsheet at TEA's site looks pretty simple to me).

Now Perry can look good and say he "increased instruction spending," in Texas schools (without the approval of the legislature) and make the tax phobic believe their tax dollars are being spent a little better.