Emails, Roger Falk, volunteer, Travis County Taxpayers Union, Nov. 7 and 14, 2017

5:20 p.m.

Nov. 7, 2017

To answer your query; I used two methods to look at large district funding.  

The first, was to use Texas Education Agency's most recent, complete year financial compilation report (2016/2017).  I include the table showing district and post recapture total revenue per student.  Based on the data, AISD is second highest of the 12 districts and Dallas is first.  The source is here: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/school.finance/forecasting/financial_reports/1617_FinBudRep.html 

The second, was to pull numbers from each district's 2018 budget and current enrollment data (two standards exist PEIMS vs FSR to make things more confusing).  I used a "proposed" budget number for AISD, as it wasn't adopted at the time I did the work up.  To my knowledge, a final still hasn't been released, as it has been for 2017 https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/FY2017_Austin_ISD_Official.pdf .   My rationale for moving Dallas from the top spot was, it had less proportional student loss than AISD and a budget decline, while AISD's budget increased and lost students.    

School funding's a complex beast and there are many ways to interpret the data.  I'm certainly not infallible and in hindsight, should have stuck with TEA's revenue reporting and said "AISD is one of the two highest funded large districts in Texas after recapture" or "has the second highest per student funding".  First or second, my central point remains true:  AISD uses recapture to give the impression they have unfair and inadequate funding.  Based on their peers, many of whom don't pay recapture, they have superior funding along with a low tax rate.  

RSFalk

(From W. Gardner Selby, Austin American-Statesman)

9:40 a.m.

Nov. 14, 2017

Roger:

To my inquiry, the education agency replied with the email below and attachment I am sharing with you here. This might best be read from the bottom up.

Separately, Joe Wisnoski, a school funding expert who lobbies for school districts, offered his analysis when we asked for his thoughts; I will share his reply in a follow-up email.

Any further thoughts about your claim?

Also, would you have a photo of yourself that we could include with our story?

Thanks,

g.

Want our fact checks first? Follow us on Twitter.

W. Gardner Selby

Reporter / News

Austin American-Statesman

PolitiFact Texas

From: Culbertson, DeEtta

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:33 PM

To: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) Subject: Re: Seeking information for a PolitiFact Texas fact-check

Hi Gardner:

Here you go.

Please let me know if you need anything else or have followup questions.

From the School Finance staff:

 TEA confirmed the rankings are correct for the districts in the table provided using the 2016-17 budgeted data submitted to PEIMS

·         This data however does not include federal funds as districts don’t submit budgets for federal funds to the TEA

·         When we used the most recent actual audited revenue data available for the  2015-2016 school year (which includes federal funds) Austin slipped to 8th place out of 12

·         Actual 2016-2017 data will be available in March of 2018

DeEtta

(From W. Gardner Selby)

9:42 a.m.

Nov. 14, 2017

I share below the reply we fielded from Joe Wisnoski about the claim you made.

Joe Wisnoski wrote:

By now, I’m sure you realize that measures of school district finances and comparisons between districts are complex, numerous, and often can be used in misleading ways, both intentionally and unintentionally.  It is for those reasons that the Legislature charged TEA with attempting to create more “transparency” in school funding, as spelled out in Rider #73 in the current general appropriations act:

“73.  Public Education State Funding Transparency. Out of funds appropriated above to the Texas Education Agency, the agency shall evaluate, for the existing and prior four biennia, state aid provided through the Foundation School Program for school districts per student in average daily attendance and per student in weighted average daily attendance. In its evaluation, the agency shall compare state aid with the rate of inflation and other factors impacting school district costs. The agency shall report its findings to the Governor, the Legislative Budget Board, and the appropriate legislative education standing committees by January 1, 2018.

No later than January 1, 2019, the Texas Education Agency shall report on its external website the following information related to the Foundation School Program for fiscal years 2008 through 2018:

1.          the average daily attendance for charter holders;

2.          the average daily attendance for school districts;

3.          local revenue for public education;

4.          state aid for public education;

5.          the amount of state aid provided per student in average daily attendance for school districts, represented in constant dollars;

6.          the amount of state aid provided per student in average daily attendance for charter holders, represented in constant dollars;

7.          the amount of recapture revenue, represented in constant dollars;

8.          the total funding provided to school districts, represented in constant dollars.

Constant dollars should consider the rate of inflation and other factors impacting school district costs.”

With respect to what you have presented, I can make several observations:

1. The data at the link to the source material do not reflect the final 2016-17 data, but rather reflect the budgets adopted by the school districts prior to the beginning of the school year.  Those budgets as reported to the state generally exclude a lot of federal funds.  The most recent year for which TEA has final data is 2015-16 school year, which you can find at the following link:  https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/school.finance/forecasting/financial_reports/1516_FinActRep.html  .  TEA will not have all final 2016-17 data reported until sometime next spring, likely in March 2018.
2. The data presented reflect revenues, not expenditures.  Spending can vary from revenues in a given year and result in a different ranking.
3. The revenue amounts would include money for both operations and debt service.  Depending on the point the data are supposed to support, this may be an appropriate combination, or it may not.
4. The amounts per student are without regard to any variance in the educational needs of, or program participation of, the students in the listed districts.  To the extent that the totals include debt service funds, and those debt service amounts vary considerably among districts, and may lead to different conclusions due to their inclusion.
5. When looking at actual final revenues, the role of federal funds in the totals can be a significant factor to consider.  Federal funds are generally restricted in their purposes, and generally cannot be used to maintain of construct facilities.  Whether that is relevant to an argument about the ranking of a particular district depends on the characterization.  I constructed the table below from the final 2015-16 revenue per student amounts shown in the link above:

In this look at total revenue for 2015-16 (the measure chosen from the 2016-17 budget data), Austin ranks #8, but it ranks #6 after excluding federal funds.

Lastly, I don’t follow the adjustment in the placement of Dallas, or the statement that 2018 budget numbers were used.  The numbers in the table in your email all appear to come from 2016-17 PEIMS budget information, as mentioned above.  I don’t see any stated methodology for adjusting Dallas’ ranking, or any statement that other districts were subject to the same adjustment.  What is “less proportional student loss”?  Over what time period?  What does that have to do with the facts?

As for whether Austin budgeted more total revenue per unadjusted/unweighted student than most large districts for 2016-17, I think the data you provided in your email would support such a claim, but that doesn’t seem to be the claim that was made.  Whether Austin actually had more total revenue per unadjusted/unweighted student in 2016-17 is a fact that is not currently displayed in TEA’s PEIMS reports.

___________________________________

Joe Wisnoski, Associate

Moak, Casey & Associates

12:09 p.m.

Nov. 14, 2017

It's curious you single out this supporting claim and ignore primary issues more meaningful to the taxpayer like:  The pending stealth tax increases based on AISD's/Statesman's documentation, AISD's massive maintenance spending as they complain everything is broken, AISD's failure to provide property owners the true cost to service (payment) their borrowing, AISD having the highest taxable property resulting in the highest recapture (as they enjoy a low tax rate), expansion in the face of shrinking enrollment, or trustee claims recapture funds aren't being used for education.  

I used the information from TEA's "Budgeted Financial Data" report showing AISD ranking second and a review of district's 2017/18 budget expenditure/enrollment.  Funding can be viewed in a number of ways and is complicated by reporting periods, report type, budget process, variability in how/when data is collected and the number of contributing entities involved.   Revenue ranking was actually a footnote in the central point: Recapture isn't depriving AISD of funding and driving the bond, their funding is similar to other large districts after recapture.    

In my goal to provide accurate, thoughtful counterpoint, I defer to those I use for reference, like TEA, who collects the data and performs analysis.  If they differ with the assessment, I accept their numbers and gladly stand corrected.

RSFalk