• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

LEGISLATIVELEGISLATIVE BBUDGETUDGET BBOARDOARD Big Spring Independent School District Management and Performance Review LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF PRISMATIC SERVICES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2015 Big Spring Independent School District Management and Performance Review Legislative Budget Board Staff Prismatic Services, Inc. September 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. District Leadership, 0rganization, and Governance ....................................................11 Chapter 2. Educational Service Delivery ......................................................................................35 Chapter 3. Business Services ........................................................................................................55 Chapter 4. Facilities Management ................................................................................................79 Chapter 5. Human Resources Management .................................................................................95 Chapter 6. Technology Management ..........................................................................................109 Chapter 7. Food Service ..............................................................................................................121 Chapter 8. Transportation ...........................................................................................................141 Chapter 9. Safety and Security ...................................................................................................157 Chapter 10. Community Involvement .........................................................................................169 LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF – ID: 2558 TEXAS MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW – SEPTEMBER 2015 i ii TEXAS MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW – SEPTEMBER 2015 LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF – ID: 2558 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Th e Texas Legislature established the Texas School percent); 2.1 percent were identifi ed as English Language Performance Review (SPR) in 1990 to periodically review Learners (ELL) (less than the state average of 17.5 percent); the eff ectiveness and effi ciency of the budgets and operations and 50 percent of students were identifi ed as at risk (slightly of school districts, as stated in the Texas Government Code, more than the state average of 49.9 percent). Section 322.016. Th e Legislative Budget Board’s (LBB) School Performance Review team conducts comprehensive EDUCATIONAL OVERVIEW and targeted reviews of school districts’ and charter schools’ Big Spring ISD has a history of variable academic educational, fi nancial, and operational services and programs. achievement. Under the state accountability system, the Th e review team produces reports that identify district was rated Improvement Required for school years accomplishments, fi ndings, and recommendations based on 2012–13 and 2013–14. While there were no state the analysis of data and onsite study of each district’s accountability ratings in school year 2011–12, Big Spring operations. A comprehensive review examines 12 functional ISD was rated Academically Unacceptable in school year areas and recommends ways to cut costs, increase revenues, 2010–11 and Academically Acceptable in school year 2009– reduce overhead, streamline operations, and improve the 10. All campuses have a history of variable accountability delivery of educational, fi nancial, and operational services. ratings as well. Figure 1 shows state ratings for the past fi ve School districts are typically selected for management and years for the district and the individual campuses under the performance reviews based on a risk analysis of multiple previous accountability system (Exemplary, Recognized, educational and fi nancial indicators. Acceptable, or Academically Unacceptable) and the revised To gain an understanding of the school district’s operations system implemented in school year 2012–13 (Met Standard, prior to conducting the onsite review, the LBB review team Improvement Required, or Not Rated). requests data from both the district and multiple state Figure 2 shows a comparison of various academic measures agencies, including the Texas Education Agency, the Texas for Big Spring ISD to the average of other school districts in Department of Agriculture, and the Texas School Safety Region 18 and the state. Big Spring ISD’s academic Center. In addition, LBB staff may implement other methods performance is lower than regional and state averages in for obtaining feedback on district operations, including every area listed, with the exception of the average ACT surveys of parents, community members, and district and scores of students who graduated in 2013. campus staff . While onsite in the district, information is gathered through multiple interviews and focus groups with At the time of the onsite review, Big Spring ISD had an district and campus administrators, staff , and board accreditation rating of Accredited–Warned. Th e Texas members. Education Agency (TEA) issued this rating to the district based on two consecutive years of poor academic performance. Big Spring Independent School District (ISD) is located in In school years 2010–11 and 2012–13, Big Spring ISD Howard County in Big Spring, which is midway between earned Academically Unacceptable and Improvement Dallas and El Paso. Th e district is served by Regional Required accountability ratings. Th ese years are counted as Education Service Center XVIII (Region 18), located in consecutive years for state accountability, as no state Midland. Th e state legislators for the district are Senator Kel accountability ratings were given to districts in school year Seliger and Representative Drew Darby. 2011–12. Since the onsite review, TEA issued Big Spring Th e district has eight instructional campuses, including Big ISD an Improvement Required accountability rating for Spring High School, Big Spring Junior High School, Big school year 2013–14 with an accreditation rating of Spring Intermediate School, four elementary schools (Goliad, Accredited–Probation. A status of Accredited–Probation Marcy, Moss, and Washington), and the Kentwood Early means that the district exhibits defi ciencies in performance Childhood Center. In school year 2013–14, approximately that, if not addressed, will lead to Big Spring ISD being 65.2 percent of students were identifi ed as economically assigned an accreditation status of Not Accredited–Revoked. disadvantaged (slightly more than the state average of 60.2 A Not Accredited–Revoked status means that the TEA no longer recognizes the district as a Texas public school. LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF – ID: 2558 TEXAS MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW – SEPTEMBER 2015 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BIG SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FIGURE 1 BIG SPRING ISD STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS SCHOOL YEARS 2009–10 TO 2013–14 CAMPUS 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 Districtwide Academically Academically Improvement Improvement None Acceptable Unacceptable Required Required High School Academically Academically None Met Standard Met Standard Acceptable Unacceptable Junior High School Academically Academically Improvement None Met Standard Acceptable Unacceptable Required Goliad Academically Academically None N/A N/A Acceptable Unacceptable Intermediate (1) Goliad Elementary (2) Improvement Improvement N/A N/A None Required Required Marcy Elementary Academically Academically Improvement Improvement None Acceptable Unacceptable Required Required Moss Elementary Academically Improvement Recognized None Met Standard Acceptable Required Washington Elementary (3) Academically Academically Improvement Improvement None Acceptable Unacceptable Required Required Bauer Elementary (4) Academically Academically None N/A N/A Acceptable Unacceptable NOTES: (1) Goliad Intermediate School was not open in school years 2012–13 or 2013–14. This campus reopened in school year 2014–15 with the name Big Spring Intermediate School. (2) Goliad Elementary School’s fi rst year of existence was school year 2012–13. (3) Kentwood Early Childhood Center does not receive individual ratings and is included in the ratings for Washington Elementary School. (4) Bauer Elementary School no longer existed after school year 2011–12. SOURCE: Texas Education Agency, Academic Accountability Ratings, school years 2009–10 to 2013–14. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW using the district’s total actual operating expenditures that In school year 2013–14, Big Spring ISD’s certifi ed property funded direct instructional activities, including Function 11 wealth per student was $387,215. Th is district property (Instruction), Function 12 (Instructional Resources and wealth is less than and thus not subject to the state’s primary Media Sources), Function 13 (Curriculum Development equalized wealth level (EWL) of $476,500. When a district’s and Instructional Staff Development), and Function 31 property wealth level is more than the EWL, the state (Guidance, Counseling, and Evaluation Services). “recaptures” a portion of wealthy school districts’ local tax revenue to assist in fi nancing public education in other ACCOMPLISHMENTS districts. Th is primary EWL applies to a district’s tax rates up Th e LBB’s school performance review team identifi ed to $1.00 per $100 of valuation. Th e state’s school fi nance noteworthy accomplishments during its onsite review, based system has a secondary EWL that applies to certain on

Load more

  185

Copy Link