63° F
News / Schools / Top Stories
EISD voters reject all 3 bond propositions
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
|
|
39
Eanes school district voters had a chance to speak their minds about bond propositions at the polls Tuesday. All three bond propositions, a package totaling $149.5 million, failed by significant margins.
“The staff in Eanes ISD will continue to work hard to provide a high-quality education and the best possible learning opportunities for our students,” district Superintendent Nola Wellman said. “However, these facility, technology and equipment issues are not going away, so we will begin to prepare for a future bond program.”
Proposition 1, the $72 million package of projects deemed critical needs by the district failed by a 14 percent margin, 6,111 for and 7,966 against. Proposition 2, the hotly-debated $56.8 million elementary school package failed by a 24 percent margin, 5,406 for and 8,643 against. Proposition 3, the $20.5 million package of extracurricular facilities, failed by a 32 percent margin, 4,825 for and 9,220 against.
“The voters have delivered a message that they want the district to go back to the drawing board and develop a proposal that funds only the most critical of needs,” Eanes school board president Paul Stone said. “The district will work with the community to identify those needs and will develop a new bond proposal for future consideration.”
School board member Clint Sayers agreed.
“The community has spoken loud and clear,” he said. “Our challenge now is to go back and say, ‘What is it we really need? What do we want to take to voters?’ We need to come together as a community and as a school board and throw politics aside.”
Former Eanes school board member Al Cowan helped found a political action committee opposed to the district’s bond package. The PAC was vocal in its opposition to the bond, sending out fliers and posting signs throughout the community.
“We felt this proposition was ill timed and ill formed in terms of the accuracy of the numbers and the needs of the district,” Cowan said. “It should never be interpreted that we were opposed to the school district, but opposed to this specific set of options. We would hope that the district would come back with a proposition that reflects the true needs of the district. We believe the community would support that.”
Prop. 1 included $17 million in technology improvements and purchases; 15.3 million in energy and HVAC repair and replacement district wide; $9.7 million in Americans with Disabilities Act modifications; $7.6 million in roofing, flooring, painting and plumbing projects; $3.4 million in safety modifications and $2.7 million in curriculum and instruction projects. Prop. 1 included new school buses, special-education facilities renovations and $3.5 million in new construction for existing programs.
Prop. 2 included a $22.7 million renovation to Eanes Elementary School and the construction of a $24.2 million replacement elementary school on the River Hills property in the western half of the district. Prop. 3 included a $6.6 million dance/cheer/wrestling facility, a $6.5 million student fitness and activity center a $6.3 million swim facility and the $.9 million development of the Shriner tract for parking.
“I always believed this would be a tough time for a large bond to pass,” said school board member Colleen Jones. “I hope the board can come together and give the voters what they are asking for. I believe what they really want is transparency in the process and a bond that covers critical needs.”
Sayers said voters wanted more information before giving the bonds their approval.
“We never got good cost detail,” he said. “Before you go to the voters and ask them to give you money, you need to be very specific about what you need and what they money will be used for. The voters in this district are very astute. They figured out we didn’t have a lot of those things answered at this point.”
While the bond issue was a contentious one for residents, school board members say now is the time to set aside differences and look toward putting together a new bond proposal that all sides can live with.
“We need to figure out the best we can do for students in the district with what we have,” Sayers said. “We need to figure out our basic needs.”
We welcome your comments on our stories but will publish only those that do not violate our commenting guidelines
The election is over, and the message to the Board should be clear.
Please be good fiscal stewards of taxpayer money, be transparent in what you do ( Eanes voters have a strong uranium powered perspective on this ), listen to what you are told and asked about in public forums, and the superintendent , hopefully, will listen other voices in the community and not just give the illusion of input.
Hats off and big “Thank You’s” to Colleen Jones, Clint Sayers, Al Cowan and each and everyone who worked so hard and donated so much time and funds to educate the voting public about these very flawed and reckless bond issues.
Unfortunately, a hideously ugly seam in the fabric of our community was exposed by the contentious debate between the PRO bonds segment and those who opposed them. I heard some nasty name-calling and witnessed vandalism by some presumably PRO bond folks of ANTI bond-signage and bumper stickers.
I guess some people don’t like being told “NO”! Nevertheless, it bears repeating:
To Nola Wellman, Paul Stone, Ellen Balthazar, Kal Kallison, Robert Durkee, Jim Strickland, Ed Ramsey, John Rowley, Richard L. Gilliam, Andrea and Peter Ramos, Jane Walsh, and Don Martin, NOW HEAR THIS:
Last night, your reckless and irresponsible bond package was overwhelmingly poured out by a vast majority of voting taxpayers who are also your neighbors.
Please don’t try this again. Listen to the community that elected you or hired you to manage our public schools. Show respect for those who disagree with you. Pay attention to the volunteer Bond Oversight Committee that recommended a much smaller and more accountable bond issue. Don’t take such matters into your own hands because what happened on 2 NOV 2010 will happen AGAIN if you do.
So all the bonds were defeated, mostly due to a privately funded, fallacious Swift-boat campaign. clap, clap, clap, take your bow.
So now what? Even Prop 1 failed. Prop 1 would’ve cost the average tax payer in the district (home value equally $650,000) around $200 in 2010/2011 and less since in the future since we are retiring old debts in 2012. Your tax rates have declined every year since 2002, just FYI.
So you kept your 200 bucks and now we aren’t ADA compliant, we’re behind in technology infrastructure, and we won’t be able to fix plumbing, roofing, and unsafe conditions and schools. Good job, everyone.
Once again Eanes residents but their politics and egos in front of the welfare of their children.
When you buy them that $200 iPod this Christmas, you remember what else you could have bought them…
Eanes has several million left over from the 2006 bond, a $30+ million general fund balance and plenty of time to get its house in order and get a new and better bond proposal to the voters.
Congrats to the voters for sending the Board and Superintendent a message that demands accountability, fiscal prudence and looking to the success of our past in planning for our future.
Enough fear mongering and brow beating from both sides.
As a District that spends in the top 10% of all Districts in the State on education per pupil, we proudly deliver excellence. We always will. Perhaps some of you can send your $200 to the truly needy children of this State. Believe me, it would mean a lot more to them.
To the lovely couple I met yesterday out house hunting. You might want to try Georgetown. Their residents who don’t have kids in the schools actually support the schools, and are willing to take a modest increase in taxes for the good of the community.
Thanks, “now what?” You are exactly right. All of the people who complained that they need ADA repairs, HVAC’s, tracks that are safe, plumbing the doesn’t back up, etc., etc, etc., and then voted against prop 1 are going to get exactly what they deserve. Nothing.
I’m utterly embarrased to live in a district who’s residents show so little support for education.
Now, run out and buy those ipods and ipads.
Petty politics aside, the Board should move forward in planning a critical needs bond that the entire community can support.
The Board needs to take a look at our neighbors in Georgetown and ask how they were able to pass 137m in bonds? They did not ram it down anyone’s throats. They have transparency in their District- you can see what their 2005 bond money was spent on. They have as many residents without children in the District as we do.
It isn’t about pro or anti people- it is simply a different fiscal ideology. However, it also has something to do with leadership. A strong leader of a Board would never put forth a Bond package with a divided board. When this happens the bonds usually fail and a Superintendent is usually on the way out. A good leader would have recognized this would cause harm to the community and the Board and urged them to put forth something that would pass..
Maybe it is time for new leadership…… It is obvious many voters have lost faith. An anti bond campaign did not defeat this bond, the Superintendent did….
And we won’t be able to make those essential Jumbotron improvements! Darn those pathetic, idiotic voters who can’t think for themselves.
Can you hear us Mr. Stone? Can you hear us now Dr. Wellman?
Now that the taxpayers have made it clear that deficit spending, blank check bonds, dependence on charity and reckless financial “strategies” won’t fly in EISD, perhaps it is time for Mr. Stone to stop fighting with Clint and Colleen and instead focus on listening to what they have to say.
After all, for the last several months the Board President and Dr. Wellman have sought to squash these two public servants everytime they opened their mouths. Isn’t it ironic that the taxpayers listened to them?
We need a bond proposal that is rational, accountable, and moves the district ahead academically. We do not need swim centers, new campuses to serve what is truly flat growth in student population, and bonds that generally suggest how the money might be spent unless Nola changes her mind.
So post #4, who asked Now What? my answer is this: it is time for the trustees to stop following Dr. Wellman as if she is the Pied Piper and resume their role as stewards of the district. If they don’t want that mantle, then the voters made it very clear: they won’t have that opportunity after the board elections next May. Paul and Ellen will be left high and dry, and just as marginalized as they have attempted to make Clint and Colleen.
Wake up Board. It is time to stop dithering and start leading. You can start by taking responsibility for defining the board package away from your spend-happy, glad handing, and economically clueless superintendent.
Westlake has better film equipment than THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. Think about that! And they need 3 more huge bond packages?
Another elementary school? Sorry Bella Lago, not happening.
Posts #4 & #7:
Wouldn’t it have been nice if the M & O of the district hadn’t been so sorely neglected that they became critical!
I guess saving money for a rainy day (instead of spending it on regular maintenance and updates) was a good thing?
Here’s something interesting – our PTO (privately funded by our families) was asked by our teachers to fund ipods for our students to use in their education. ipods are useful for reading and language development, just like the listening stations we had when I was a kid! (ipads can be used in education, too!)
Neat, huh?
Prior to this election, Trustee Colleen Jones proposed a single-proposition bond that included a list of true essentials on the table. Trustee Clint Sayers seconded. The other Trustees, in a majority vote, turned it down flat. Now the voters have sent Trustees Paul Stone, Robert Durkee, Jim Strickland, Ellen Balthazar, Kal Kallison and Superintendent Nola Wellman a very clear message. Put Dr. Jones’ proposition back on the table, and put the emphasis on teaching and learning. Be transparent and honest with the people who fund this school system. Ditch the publicist and the legions of lawyers and take care of the needs of our teachers, our campus staff, and our building principals. We’re not interested in a vision of showy rental facilities and, for the second time, we are not interested in a covered football field. We are interested in the education of our children.
Characterizing the defeat of these bond proposals as a lack of support for education is just more of the same distortion that this election was so full of. The voters of this district voted against these three bond issues for a variety of different reasons. Lack of support for education was not one of those reasons.
If there is a conclusion to be drawn from this election it is that the majority of the school board has lost the confidence of the voters. Fortunately this can be remedied by electing more trustworthy representatives. Of course this does require that such individuals offer themselves up to the vicious personal attacks that we saw so much of in this election. Hopefully there will be some courageous individuals willing to do so.
I think that 19+ and TLC should move into the Central Administration Building (freshly renovated with 06 bond money). Nola and her many highly-paid administrators can move into the substandard buildings (faulty A/C, dirty carpet) that they deemed appropriate for those students. Either way, it’s time for the Eanes ISD “leadership” to figure out how to fund the necessities since they sure figured out how to fund the wish list.
The District spent 18 months planning these bonds. They had several community meetings and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the efforts.
If a small band of people could get together in a short period of time and defeat those efforts so handily, it makes one wonder about the reasonableness of the Districts efforts leading up to the bonds.
Did the District truly engage the community, or did it simply listen to the echo chamber of people with kids in school? Was it smart to reject the advice of the Citizens Bond Committee that said have a single bond issue? Was Dr. Wellman’s decision to not worry about the cost, but instead focus on the vision a serious miscalculation given the current economic times? Why were the warning signs from the previous contentious board elections ignored?
The resounding defeat exemplifies bigger issues than can be blamed on some vocal opposition.
Posts #4 & #7:
Voters rejected the argument that residents are somehow unsupportive of the schools if they vote against District greed. You may continue to try to guilt people into getting the top-of-the-line bond proposal, but those who wish to get things done are moving past that.
Many residents want to pay for HVAC upgrades, roofing repairs, and ADA upgrades. They just don’t want to pay for all of the other unnecessary items as well. Many of the items requested would lead to further unnecessary costs down the road. All of that was on top of perceived fiscal mismanagement of previous bonds and the general operating budget. Hopefully, the District will come back with another bond in which the community has more confidence. Then the necessary items will get funded without taking advantage of taxpayer generosity.
But look, if the majority of residents in Eanes embarrass you, then by all means, continue the personal attacks. I’m sure that kind of bullying will be just as effective as it was on Tuesday. Voters showed they aren’t embarrassed to ask for responsibly funded education.
I don’t want to defend the bond wholesale. I think better education about what was included in each package and why the district thought each was necessary would have gone long way. Now, remember, the board is forbidden by law to advocate for the bond. So they couldn’t do any of the above. But the district could have released more detailed info (which Nola tried to do, but the PAC brought down an attempted ethics violation).
But for the record, 1/3 of $800,000 of a $70M bond would have gone to improving the scoreboard. Maybe it shouldn’t be in there, I’ll give you that. But not everyone is going to like everything in the bond. We have to compromise.
But now Special Ed has no building, the visitor bleachers are not up to engineer’s safety recommendations, the band will go without instruments, no showers for kids in wheelchairs and no washers or dryers for Special Ed students. We aren’t ADA compliant.
The new space and equipment for Special Ed students would require M/O as well as two new safety measures. In Prop 1, that’s it, that’s all the “additional cost in the future.”
But nope. Save that $200. And that bond that Sharman Ree…I mean Colleen Jones proposed? $60 mil? Not ADA compliant. Didn’t cover Special Ed.
EISD provides a valuable and an expensive educational experience to its students. The educational experience is so desirable that EISD has had an 1000+% increase in out-of-district transfers over the past 8 years. In this school year, out-of-district transfers account for more than 5% of the total student population.
Out-of-district transfers consume valuable and expensive resources provided by EISD taxpayers. EISD recovers a fraction of the true cost of each out-of-district transfer’s education. This is a classic example of the “free rider” problem, and the EISD Board should address it immediately.
As soon as possible, the Board should impose a “transfer fee” on out-of-district transfer students. I suggest the following formula: total annual expenditures (I&S + M&O) diveded by total student population equals per capita annual cost of education; deduct the state’s contribution paid for each out-of-district transfer; and the yield is the annual “transfer fee.”
EISD gets some additional revenue to throw at I&S andO&M. Out-of-district transfers pay a fair value for an EISD education. And EISD taxpayers no longer subsidize the education of students whose parents don’t share in our property tax burden. Win, win, win.
If the out-of-district transfer population declines, more resources will be available for students who actually reside in EISD and whose parents actually pay the property taxes to support EISD schools.
EISD’s policy regarding employee transfers should not change. That is an important employment benefit/incentive provided by EISD. But we’ll know the annual value of that employee benefit/incentive.
Sounds like a good and fair place to start.
Leonard Smith
#17 – You need to talk to Nola Wellman about that. She says the district is ADA compliant. Are her assertions false?
About the necessities … Nola can now figure out how to fund those since she ate dessert first.
Enjoy the HD Jumbotron, the batting cages, the central administration renovation, the miles of artificial turf. The party stops here.
Have any of you ever seen another district, looked at other facilities, have actually been involved, or you all listening to Clint and Colleen??? Did I want everything in the bonds, probably not, but what I didn’t want, someone else really did…… It is easy to throw out the pat phrases, and spent an excessive amount in slick advertsing to scare voters. The people in charge of the anti- PAC have not even darkened the doors in years. An example…. yes you spend money on turf, but you save money on M&O for mowing, watering, and fertilizing and it can be used as a rental!!! It is not as simple as it may appear……
It’s great to see the awakening of those who voted for the bonds. They’re finally doing their homework and learning about how this bond package was assembled. As they continue to ask questions, they’ll learn that there’s a lot more than just 1/3 of $800,000 in pork. Keep asking. I can help generate the list if you need help. The first step in your journey is to follow the money that was spent from the 2006 bond. Look at what the money was supposed to be spent on and where it really went. You can ask Dr. Wellman for the information.
Now, in reality it’s not fair to blame the school administration for all this. As voters, we allowed them to make the 2006 bond language and budgets so loose that they could wiggle around and change the list without having to ask the voters for approval. Fool us once, shame on the school administration. Fool us twice, shame on us as taxpayers. Fortunately, we didn’t get fooled this time.
By the way, it’s insulting to say that $266,000 is chump change. That’s an Ipad for every single teacher, or a new playground or a new bus. Since when did we stop caring about fiscal responsibility? Reckless spending is never a good idea and I, for one, will not compromise on that issue.
Bond 2006 – http://www.eanesisd.net/bond/2006/updates/Progress%20Report%20Final%20Corrected%20Post%209.13.10.pdf
Again, don’t want to defend the district wholesale, but these things are way more complicated than shouting “less government spending!!” Were there mistakes 4 years ago? Yes, but most of the bond money has been spent on what they originally proposed it would be. And the Bond Oversight Committee, approved by the entire board, will help facilitate that.
And you’re right, $266K is not chump change, although spread out over the entire district, it’s a manageable amount of money. That’s how government works. Everyone pitches in a bit (increase of less than $200 a year for the avg. family) to provide services for the greater good.
I think fiscal responsibility, I do, and I hear you on that, but it wasn’t fiscally responsible to spend tens of thousands of dollars defeat a bond (prop 1) that would’ve helped the community keep it’s schools safe and top-quality. And when Colleen puts forth a $60M bond for May and interest rates have gone up and we pay the same amount on that bond as we would have for prop 1? Well that’s not responsible either. This was about politics.
This isn’t about Colleen Jones. This is about the system within EISD that is broken. In 2006 Clint Sayers asked that the District hire an architect to be on staff to manage the Bond Projects. At the time both AISD and Lake Travis had gone to this model- why you might ask? To avoid spending lots of Bond money on fees and mismanagement. The management firm EISD used in the past was fired by Lake Travis and AISD for failing to properly manage the bond funds. Dr. Wellman was opposed to this so it failed.
Colleen Jones and Clint Sayers brought forth a bond proposal for critical needs. Maybe they read more than the other members of the Board or maybe they heard more from the last bond election when people asked point blank if they were for or against the huge bonds. They are trying to make sure we can afford what we have in the district. get everything in shape first, then go to the extras. Just because something is cheap to build does not mean it is cheap to own.
However, the bigger issue is our Leadership. Board members should not have to make open records requests to access materials that impact their decision making process. This is not Dr. Wellman’s personal company. This is a school district operated with public funds. We need to right the ship and we cannot do that with Dr. Wellman at the helm. She needs to graciously step down, accept her defeat and move on so that EISD can move forward.
Studies have shown that large bond failures are due to a lack of trust in the leadership. This was not a close election, this was a resounding vote of no confidence.
Re: the bond math in Post #22, interest rates would have to go up 3 fold for a $60 Million bond to cost as much as an $150 Million bond. That’s over 12% for a tax-exempt rate. The average 20-year tax-exempt bond rate over the last 10 years has been 4.65%. If tax-exempt rates are 12% in a few months, then that means that taxable rates will be well higher and the economy would collapse and we wouldn’t have been able to pay for the bond anyway.
Now what #3-
If you think that the district website will give you all of the information you need to know, I suggest you dig deeper. Your 2006 bond dollars bought a lot of luxury items that were supposed to pay for things like safety and security and I suspect you have no idea how much they cost. You won’t find the list nor the costs on the EISD website. That’ll require some more homework on your part.
When you are finished digging, you’ll see why the trust was the missing part of this bond package and that had nothing to do with politics. Look at the numbers. Do you really think that all of the NO votes were from people who know all of the details?
People voted NO because they see money being wasted and they don’t trust the district to spend any more, regardless of how low interest rates go.
When the trust returns, so will our willingness to support the district.
Yes–I have been with my children to countless facilities around central Texas, and I can state that I have never seen a turf field at the middle school level. Yes, at several high schools, but not one middle school I know of has a turf field. New school built for declining demographic area–again have not seen that. Natatoriums–again seldom have seen that in many schools–and are usually well thought out community spaces as well that are trying to offset the annual operating costs.
Agreed you save money on a turf field. Please show the voters the savings over the useful life as compared to grass field and the potential rental income. A turf field has a useful life of only so long before it needs to be replaced. Those numbers should have been readily available for the voting public. You also have to presume that those who were going to rent it would not rent it unless it was ONLY a turf field with lights, sound system, and bleacher.
I think you are missing the point blaming the PAC. The takeaway for me in this election was how little confidence the voting public has in the current board and superintendent. Now what are we going to do, continue minimalizing Clint and Colleen for their analysis of the inforamtion they are being given or actually listen with an open mind to see it another way. Somewhere in the middle is the compromise.
It actually was incredibly fiscally responsible, @nowwhat#3. The money used to defeat the bond saved EISD from itself. The mistakes of 4 years ago have cost you millions. The mistakes in a $150MM bond could have easily cost $10 million or more. Bond oversight committee? Excuse me, but isn’t that what the trustees are for?
Pro bonders were so focused on the pittance of the tax increase that they ignored the elephant in the room: we don’t need to spend $150MM right now to have excellent schools.
But before you dismiss this $200 remember this. $200 here, $200 there; after a while it’s real money. And if you’re not getting value for money, then it’s just a waste.
Pro-bond people should be thanking their lucky stars. Yes, there are a couple of unhappy investment banks that won’t get quite as much bonus as they had hoped, but EISD is better off if it creates a fiscally responsible, controllable, bond.
And regarding your interest rate hopes: you’ll get higher interest rates, but not by May. But that will be the fault of the larger electorate, who are perfectly happy to restore to national power the people who brought you the economic meltdown in the first place.
Bond rates won’t fluctuate that much, and could just as easily be lower.
Even then, you save $10 – $15 million in principle, that would easily eclipse any interest rate fluctuation.
We gain some control on the spending and it will save even more.
We have a $30+ million fund balance and a few million left over from the last bond. The schools are plenty safe and top quality.
Mr. Smith –
In post #17 you suggest that the first thing that should be done, is to charge out of district transfers above what the state provides for the luxury of attending EISD. You are effectively saying let’s get rid of those who can’t afford to be here in Eanes. Keep it for those rich kids. That attitude is what gives EISD a bad reputation throughout the rest of our Central Texas Community.
Either we allow transfers, and take the $3.5 million they bring in, or we don’t allow them and find a way to cut the budget accordingly.
The no voters all along wanted to remove transfers in order to decrease class size and possibly eliminate an elementray school, or so they said. Why the change now that the election is over?
#29 — The district is already overtly discriminating in its transfer policy. Do they want rich kids? Yes. I’ve heard (from those who have witnessed this) that house parties are held in Pemberton (rich Austin neighborhood) where the parents write hefty donation checks to EEF and then their student is approved for transfer shortly after. Do they want non-disabled kids? Yes. The OOD policy effectively screens out students with special needs too. The district is getting around that legal complication with “sorry, no room in the program.” The leaders of this district are not afraid of the reputation of white, rich, high-performing district. Just ask Nola Wellman. The mission of this school is simple: Prestige at any cost.
Mr or Ms. #29 –
Thanks for sharing your name.
EISD’s current transfer policy is as disadvantageous to EISD taxpayers as Robin Hood. EISD’s transfer policy needs to be re-evaluated now, not to keep EISD resources for the rich kids, but to keep EISD resources for resident children whose parents pay the taxes pay to provide EISD resources.
The cost of providing an EISD education to out-of-district transfers exceeds the $3.5 million provided by the state. The difference between the $3.5 million provided by the state and the value of an EISD education is the subsidy paid by EISD taxpayers.
This election showed that voters are concerned about higher taxes and waste/mismanagement of EISD resources. Those resources are intended to educate EISD resident students, not out-of-district transfers who don’t pay the taxes to provide the resources.
If there are empty desks to be filled, the out-of-district students who occupy them should pay full fare, not receive a generous subsidy from you, me, and other ESID taxpayers. I am, of course, assuming that you are an EISD taxpayer, but how would I know since you didn’t provide your name.
There were many, many more “no” votes than “yes” votes in the election last week. I can’t speak for all of the “no” votes, but I sure expect the EISD Board of Trustees and administration to address the transfer policy asap.
Leonard Smith
#29-
I know first hand some transfer students who were hand picked by Dr. Wellman. To suggest that this is some sort of democratic process is to be naive. Of the 450 transfers, I only know 2 of them. I wonder how the remaining 448 made it in? Is there an overlap of those who got transfers and those who donate to EEF?
Dear Mr. Smith:
Can you provide some hard data to support your claim that the $3.5 million the district takes in for the transfer students is less than the actual cost for us to have them as students?
Thanks.
To #33 – Here’s the equation:
Take total I&S for 2010/11 add total M&O for 2010/22 and divide by the total student population for 2010 = Per capita cost of an EISD education in 2010/11
Plug the I&S and M&O numbers in from the 2010/11 budget. Use the student population numbers reported in Dr. Wellman’s Message or the chart that accompanied Dane’s recent article in the Picayune, and you’ll have the answer. Share the # with us when you’ve done the math.
Leonard Smith
I think…and I vote:
The District publishes M&O numbers for the students. They can be found for the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 school years here:
http://www.eanesisd.net/departments/business/financialreports/pdf/Web%20posting%20re%2010-11%20budget.pdf
I’m not a budget expert, but I believe they can be broken down like this for the 2010/2011 projections:
- $9006/student for operations
- $2024/student for debt service
- $7096/student for contracted instructional services between public schools
The first value is general operations for teaching students and keeping the facilities running day-to-day. That number is slightly low. The EEF funds 22 teachers, which don’t come out of the District’s budget.
The second value, I believe, is our bond repayments and the like. This isn’t really a per-student cost. This money gets paid back regardless of how many students we have. Eanes can’t just stop paying its debts if its student enrollment drops.
The last value, I believe, is Robin Hood.
Anyone, please feel free to correct me. I’m not an accountant. That’s my high-level read of it.
So, in reality, the $9006/student value is the cost per student to run the district. In the Picayune, I’ve seen the transfer student number at 428 students. I’m not sure if that includes district employee children or not, but I don’t think it does. 428 students at $9006/student is $3.85M, which is more than the $3.5M return number quoted. That’s where the statement that transfer students cost us more than they bring comes from.
428 students is a lot of students. That’s a good-sized elementary school. You can argue about whether or not we actually save $9006 for each transfer student rejected, but I think at best, we break even. I find it hard to believe that the State would let a rich district avoid its Robin Hood claws by using other districts’ students.
I personally think the transfer students issue is a shell game used to keep District enrollment numbers up and prevent Administration and operations cutbacks that might come with a decreased student enrollment. It’s hard to justify bigger facilities, increased staff, and other District largesse when you’re not filling all your seats.
I’m not Mr. Smith, but I believe part of his question centered around whether the district should build new facilities for the transfers. So, the way I understood his comments he was saying that there aught to be a formula for every student and that it should be adjusted periodically. As for getting any hard data, I would think that it would be hard for a citizen to get all of the data and that it aught to be a part of an overall audit by an outside entity. I might be wrong with my assessment of Mr. Smith’s statement, but that’s how I read it.
Getting a third party audit of the cost/value of an EISD education would suit me fine. EISD taxpayers deserve to know.
My point is this: Over the past 8 years, growth of the EISD resident student population has been flat, while the growth of out-of-district transfers has exceeded 1000%. Out-of-district transfers now account for more than 5% of EISD total student population.
The Legislature is not likely to improve EISD’s financial position in 2011 or beyond. Scarcity of educational resources will follow. EISD taxpayers have the right to demand that EISD resources paid for with EISD tax dollars go to resident students, not to out-of-district transfers.
The education provided by EISD is both a valuable and an expensive commodity. Out-of-district transfers shouldn’t get the value without paying for it, especially when those out-of-district transfers consume scarce resources that ought to go to resident students.
Leonard Smith
As a publicly funded entity, EISD has an obligation to ensure that its programs are made available in a way that does not discriminate. If accepting non-employee out-of -district transfers is something the district deems important, it should do so through a lottery system that provides for a fair and ethical means of doing so. EISD is not a private school system. Transfer acceptance should not be based on financial donations, nor on the abilities of the applicants. In fact, if OOD transfers are to be accepted, we should begin by offering those spots to the children of non-teacher employees, such as transportation, maintenance and food service personnel. Only after those employees’ children have been offered spots should seats be opened for non-employee children. But prior to this, the board should analyze the district’s compliance with the child find provisions of the IDEA in order to ensure that EISD is doing due diligence to its obligations to in-district students. Statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
The cost analysis should evaluate the marginal cost of the extra transfer students, instead of a prorated amount. It might turn out that the district is actually ahead by accepting them, because there are many fixed costs already that would not be saved by rejecting the transfers. That said, as a parent of a transfer student, I would be happy to pay any marginal cost associated with the transfer. AISD has a fabulous magnet high school, but it is extremely inconvenient and we live very close to Westlake High.