Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
Post on 04-Apr-2018
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
1/48
No Financial Accountability
Why Texas K-12 public education lacks any real fnancial accountability and the implications
or both the ongoing public school fnancing litigation and the uture o our State.
Mark P. Hurley
Yvonne N. Kanner
Jonathan Yu
Texas Education Accountability Project
March 2012
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
2/48
Texas Education Accountability Project
The authors would like to thank Tom Luce, Jerry Farrington, Lori Fey, Dr. Lori Taylor and Stuar tLea or their help with this study. While each provided invaluable insights and perspectives,
any shortcomings o this report are solely our own.
Mark P. Hurley
Yvonne N. Kanner
Jonathan Yu
Mark P. Hurley, Yvonne N. Kanner and Jonathan Yu are co-ounders o the Texas EducationAccountability Project.
Copyright Texas Education Accountability Project, 2012This material is or your private inormation, and we are not soliciting any action based
upon it. Opinions expressed are our current views only, at the time o writing. The materialenclosed is based upon inormation that we consider reliable, but we do not represent that
it is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
3/48
Texas Education Accountability Project i
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................ 1
I. Introduction .............................................................5
II. A system o fnancial reporting that produceslittle useul inormation ............................................ 9
III. Potential solutions .................................................18
IV. Conclusion .............................................................20
Appendix A ................................................................. 22Recommended Changes to the Format and Structure oSchool District Annual Financial Reports
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
4/48
ii Texas Education Accountability Project
Index o Exhibits and Schedules
Exhibit 1 to Appendix A Major Spending Categories ..................24
Schedule A Compensation Expenses .......................................... 25
Schedule B Teacher, Administrator and Sta ProessionalDevelopment Expenditures ...............................................................27
Schedule C Expenditures or Equipment and FacilitiesUsed Directly in Teaching and Associated Maintenance Costs ............30
Schedule D Expenditures or Equipment and Facilities Not UsedDirectly in Teaching Students and Associated Maintenance Costs .......31
Schedule E Athletic Facility Acquisition and Maintenance Costs ....32
Schedule F Student Transportation Costs ................................... 33
Schedule G Expenditures on School-Provided Meals ....................34
Schedule H Purchases o Supplies and Materials DirectlyUsed or Teaching Students .............................................................35
Schedule I Purchases o Supplies and Materials NotDirectly Used or Teaching Students .................................................. 36
Schedule J Costs Associated with Oversight o theSchool District ................................................................................37
Schedule K Services Provided by Outside Contractors .................38
Schedule L Expenditures on Athletics and ExtracurricularActivities.........................................................................................39
Schedule M Long-Term Funding Costs ........................................40
Schedule N Expenditures rom Shared Services withOther School Districts and Governmental Agencies ............................ 41
Schedule O Costs Resulting rom Other GovernmentalAgencies ........................................................................................42
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
5/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 1
Although Texas spends $55B per school year on K-12 public education,
there is no transparency or fnancial accountability or how this money
is actually used.
Executive Summary
Texas has been embroiled in a multi-decade legal and political battle overthe unding o public education. The Texas Supreme Court has concluded
that to be constitutional, the system o unding K-12 public education mustbe ecient, suitable and adequate. However, the Court dened theseterms very broadly. It also declined to provide any quantiable metrics by
which to evaluate whether the system meets these criteria.
As outside but interested observers, we at the Texas Education AccountabilityProject (TEAP)1 ound the ongoing legal battle intriguing because the
plaintis to date have ailed to propose any quantiable metrics to addressthe eciency and suitability o the current system and have oered onlyvery limited ones or evaluating its adequacy. Nor has anyone provided any
useable inormation which would allow either the Legislature or the cour tsto measure how changes in unding might directly translate into changes in
the quality o education provided to students.
Certainly, various parties have pointed to disparities in spending perstudent as well as the relative perormance o students in dierent school
districts on standardized tests.2 However, the Court has already ruledthat per student spending and test scores alone are not dispositive. Moreimportantly, none o the plaintis has even attempted to show that they
use their current unding eciently and thus, only i they receive additionalresources will they be able to provide a suitable and adequate education
or their students.
Consequently, we thought it might be useul i an outside group independentlyconducted a detailed review o how Texas schools spend the billions odollars o unding that they receive. O course we recognize that there is
not a perect correlation between the amount o money spent or evento some degree how the money is spent on educating students and the
resulting outcomes. But at the same time, a precondition to improving anysystem o public education (much less making it conorm to the States
constitution) is to rst understand how current resources are being usedand compare that with the results that they produce.
Our goal was to identiy a set o quantiable metrics that could be used inevaluating the eciency, suitability and/or adequacy o the current system
as well as any new system the Legislature might devise. To do this, wespent two years gathering and analyzing nancial data rom school districts
across our State.
1 By way o background, TEAP is a nonprot, nonpar tisan organization. Our goal is to utilize the private sector experience o our members in order tomake some small contribution to improving public education in our State. Our members do not directly or indirectly provide any services, supplies orequipment to schools or in any other way nancially benet rom K-12 Texas public education. Rather, we earn our livings investing capital into privatecompanies unrelated to education.
2 In order to support these arguments, some plaintis have relied on academic studies that employ macro-econometric models based on aggregatestatistical data across many school districts.
We wanted to
understand how
Texas K-12 public
education dollarsare currently used.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
6/48
2 Texas Education Accountability Project
No real fnancial accountability in Texas public education
What we ound was startling namely, there is no real nancial accountabilityor K-12 public education in Texas. In a system o public education that inaggregate spent nearly $55B3 in the 2008-2009 school year and which
increased spending per student by nearly 63% over preceding decade
(almost twice the rate o infation), it is almost impossible or any averagecitizen who does not work or a school district to have any idea o howtaxpayer unds are used.
To be sure, the current system o reporting generates tremendous amountso data and each school district is required to publish an annual nancial
report that has been independently audited. However, or several reasonsthe system produces little useul inormation, precluding both transparency
and accountability.
First and oremost, the primary nancial disclosure document producedby school districts their annual nancial report does not provide anaverage citizen with any real insight into how a particular school district
uses its unding. These documents uselessly aggregate the overwhelmingpreponderance o the school districts expenditures into a small number
o individual line items, each with comorting-sounding names such asInstruction and School Leadership. In other words, the documents do
not tell the reader what the district purchased. Rather, all that is disclosedis the generic purpose o the expenditures.
For example, according to the Comptrollers oce on average 56% oTexas school districts expenditures are incorporated into their annual
reports in the single line item o Instruction. Under current TexasEducation Agency rules, school districts are required to include in this
line item 29 dierent categories o expenditures. In addition, they areallowed to add into Instruction any expenditure which ts the very broad
denition o providing direct interaction between sta and students toachieve learning. Our review o a group o school districts supportingdocuments (general ledgers and check registers) used in preparing their
annual reports ound that expenditures included in Instruction rangedrom hotel and travel costs to general supplies to Xmas Sta Gits and
even a Magic Show.4
The paucity o the inormation provided to citizens by school districts onhow taxpayer unds are actually used is particularly surprising given thatthey regularly collect immense amounts o nancial data. Their general
ledgers track every expenditure made and accompanying these entries area series o object codes that are either very specic (i.e., cell phone
allowances, print shop expenditures, water, sick leave, etc.) or extremelybroad (general supplies, contracted services, other operating expenses,
etc.). In the general ledgers that we reviewed, every expenditure hadboth a unction code (i.e., Instruction, Curriculum Development,School Administration, etc.) and an underlying object code. Much o this
inormation, in turn, is captured in databases maintained by the TEA.
3 Financial Allocation Study o Texas
4 The authors would like to emphasize that in no way are we suggesting that the school districts that we reviewed are misreporting their nancial data.Rather, it is the repor ting rules that they must ollow are what preclude any nancial transparency and/or accountability.
We discovered that
only those who work
or a school district
have any idea how
it actually uses its
unding.
More than hal
o a typical
school districts
expenditures are
disclosed in a single
line item o its annual
report.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
7/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 3
Transparency a precondition to fnancial accountability
Unortunately, no average person has the time or resources necessary toanalyze even a raction o this data. But without such a orensic accountingexercise, it is impossible to determine relatively simple things such as
how much o the districts unding is used to pay teachers solely to teach
vs. what it costs to insure drivers education vehicles (both o which areclassied as Instruction expenditures), much less what is the districtspending money on that is essential vs. optional. 5
For many good reasons, our States system o public education is basedon local control that is, local school districts and not some centralized
authority determine, given their individual demographics, location,economics and other actors, the best way to educate students. Ideally,
local control allows parents input into how their children are educatedand how their school districts should best use taxpayer unds. However,
a precondition to nancial accountability under such a structure is that anaverage citizen be able to understand exactly how his or her school districtspends money, something precluded by the current system o nancial
reporting.
The uninormed being evaluated by the equally uninormed
Also consider or a moment the larger implications o what we ound: TheLegislature somehow must design an ecient, suitable and adequate
system o unding Texas public education while at the same time possessingno real idea o how school districts currently spend taxpayer money. Equallyproblematic, the courts somehow must evaluate the constitutionality o
whatever the Legislature produces but they have no better inormationthan that on which the Legislature must rely. The resulting process can
be best characterized as the uninormed being evaluated by the equallyuninormed.
Most importantly, the economic uture o our State is dependent on havinga well-educated populace. But without any useul inormation o how we
currently spend our education dollars, whatever system the Legislaturedevises will be at best arbitrary and will likely do little to improve education
in Texas.
A simple solution
There is, however, a simple solution to this dilemma: x the current system
o nancial reporting. These changes should be guided by one simple,overarching principle: the primary purpose is to produce inormation that
allows an average citizen to easily understand exactly how his or her schooldistrict spends taxpayer money.
Only i and when the system meets this standard will there ever be realnancial accountability in K-12 public education. Additionally, only with
these changes will the system generate the necessary inormation that will
5 In act, we concluded ater nearly two years o research that the only way TEAP even though we invest in companies or a living would ever be ableto gure out exactly how a school district was spending taxpayer money would be to recreate a new general ledger (and rom that an annual nancialreport) by beginning with the thousands o underlying receipts rom all o a districts individual purchases and expenditures.
Although there is a
great amount o data,
there is almost no
useul inormation.
It is impossible to
improve education
in Texas unless we
improve fnancial
accountability.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
8/48
4 Texas Education Accountability Project
allow the Legislature to design a system o unding public education thatis constitutional.
We would recommend that at a minimum:
(i) School district annual nancial reports must be redesigned in six
ways:
a. The line items included in the summary pages o the reports
should be tied to specic types o expenditures and not simplytheir general purposes;
b. Each o these line items should be accompanied by a schedulewith numerous sub-line items which detail precisely how the
unds were used;
c. The annual report should include key output metrics includingthe numbers o students taught in dierent types o classes;
d. It should also include a detailed organizational chart or thedistrict;
e. It should list any and all agreements with non-district employees
and entities as well as the amounts paid and services and/orproducts received;
. For those districts which share services with other schooldistricts and government agencies, their annual report should
have a separate set o detailed disclosures describing whatwas purchased and how the unds provided were used.
(ii) The coding in school districts supporting documents (i.e., general
ledgers and check registers) should likewise be changed so to createan easy audit trail that ties individual expenditures into the sub-lineitems o the supporting schedules in the districts annual nancial
report. Only by doing this can an outsider easily determine not only towhom or to what money was paid but also or what exact purpose; and
(iii) School districts should be required to make their nancial reports,
major contracts and supporting documents easily accessible onlinethrough the individual districts website.
We have included in this report a series o proposals to address theseissues.
School district annual
fnancial reports mustbe changed in six
ways.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
9/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 5
I. Introduction
Texas has been engaged in a our decade political and legal battle overhow much it must spend on public education, how those monies shouldbe allocated and rom where all o this unding is going to come. Poor-
er districts have argued that the states historical system o unding
K-12 public education is unconstitutional because o its reliance on localproperty taxes which, in turn, creates a vast disparity in the amounts spenton educating students in public schools in dierent parts o the state.
Their litigation culminated in the landmark Edgewoodcases which orcedthe Legislature to materially alter how public education is unded.
The resulting system was and remains to put it mildly extremelyunpopular and controversial. Relying on a series o ormulas that are
altered in every Legislative session and that are almost indecipherable, theprogram nicknamed Robin Hood takes unding that would have otherwise
been used to educate students in wealthier districts and transers it to lessafuent ones.
Robin Hood spawned a series o additional lawsuits claiming that thissystem o unding public education violated the States constitution
because it de acto imposed a state property tax. The Court agreed that,as then structured, Robin Hood violated the States constitution. It also
indicated that the K-12 public education system in general required bothstructural changes and new sources o unding because it was on the cusp
o being inadequate.
At the same time, however, the Courts guidance to Legislature was
airly non-specic. It determined that there is a constitutional obligationthat Texas system or providing ree public education meets three key
standards: (i) eciency; (ii) suitability; and (iii) adequacy.
The Court dened eciency as the meaning o eective or productive oresults and connotes the use o resources so as to produce results withlittle waste. It explained that in order to be suitable the public school
system be structured, operated and unded so that it can accomplish itspurpose or all Texas children and that an adequate education system is
one that achieves a general diusion o knowledge. Exactly how the thencurrent system o unding public education must be changed to meet these
criteria was let up to the Legislature as the Court claimed that it lacked thebasis or declaring what education or nance systems will alonesatisy[the Constitutions] standards.
Court has let it to others to propose quantifable metrics
However, these rulings made it clear that the Court decided that it was not
its job to redesign the Texas system o public education and that the Courtwas unwilling to propose any quantiable metrics by which to measurewhether any system would be constitutional. More specically, the Court
provided no guidance as to the types o skills that students must acquire much less how one should measure whether these skills have been
achieved to meet the constitutional requirement o achieving a generaldiusion o knowledge. It likewise provided no metrics on how to measure
eciency. Instead, it let it to others to propose their own ideas.
System o unding
public education
must be efcient,
suitable andadequate.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
10/48
6 Texas Education Accountability Project
Perhaps because the ruling was so broad, the Legislature subsequentlyelected to only marginally change the structure o unding or public
education. The resulting legislation required school districts to graduallylower their maximum property tax rates or school maintenance andoperation and (at least theoretically) replaced that revenue through a
combination o new state taxes.
Lack o clarity + less unding + higher standards = more lawsuits
The non-specicity o the Courts ruling also made it inevitable that,regardless o whatever the Legislature did, there would be additional legalchallenges. The potential or more litigation was urther enhanced because
the Legislature had to cut more than $5B in public education unding overthe next biennium in order to balance the States budget. In addition, at
the same time it substantially raised the education standards or Texashigh schools through a program called College and Career Readiness
Standards (CCRS).
Consequently, late last year and early this year a furr y o new litigation was
led. Although each o these lawsuits rely on dierent bases or challengingthe public system o education, they all claim that it either ails to meet
the three criteria outlined by the Court, or that in attempting to meet thesecriteria, it violates some other aspect o the States constitution.
Texas Education Accountability Project (TEAP)
We at the Texas Education Accountability Project (TEAP) have dared to wadeinto the middle o this debate. By way o background, TEAP is a nonprot,
nonpartisan organization. Our goal is to utilize the private sector experienceo our members in order to make some small contribution to improving
public education in our State. Our members do not directly or indirectlyprovide any services, supplies or equipment to schools or in any other way
nancially benet rom K-12 Texas public education. Rather, we earn ourlivings investing capital into private companies unrelated to education.
Our members (like anyone else who has studied the current system opublic education) see that it is rie with problems that must be solved
and the current quality o education provided to many students in someschool districts is abysmal at best. And certainly, the level o resources
that school districts have at their disposal to educate students variesimmensely across our State, with some school districts clearly having todo a great deal with very little.
As interested observers o the battle being waged in the Legislature and
the courts over public education, we were surprised that the participantsin this debate have provided to date only very limited quantiable metrics
to support their arguments. No one has proposed any methodology ormeasuring eciency and/or suitability. Those who have tried to quantiyadequacy have relied on very broad econometric models that purport
to correlate education outcomes and dierent spending levels. Moreimportantly, no plainti has even attempted to demonstrate that it uses its
current unding eciently and, thereore, only with additional unding can itprovide a suitable and adequate education or their students.
Multiple new lawsuits
have been fled,
challenging the
constitutionality ocurrent system.
None o the plaintis
have proposed
metrics to determine
efciency or
suitability.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
11/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 7
O course, plaintis have also pointed to spending per student and therelative perormance o students in dierent school districts on standardized
tests. However, the Court has already ruled that per student spending andtest scores alone are not dispositive.
Independent review o the data
Consequently, we at TEAP thought it might be constructive to have anoutside group independently examine how Texas school districts currently
spend taxpayer dollars. We spent almost two years collecting and analyzingnancial data across multiple school districts throughout Texas. Our goalwas to identiy a series o potential metrics or benchmarks that could be
used to better measure the eciency, suitability and adequacy o the currentsystem and, thereby, assist both policymakers and jurists in ashioning a
unding mechanism or public education that would meet its constitutionalrequirements. Ideally, these same metrics could also be used to improve
how we educate children in our State.
Our analysis quickly evolved into an exercise in orensic accounting. We
looked at the audited nancial reports or individual districts as well asthe Texas Education Agencys rules or reporting. We also delved much
more deeply into the numbers by comparing the nancial reports o severalindividual school districts with their supporting documents including
their general ledgers, check registers, the superintendents employmentagreement, the structure o the districts employee benet programs and
how they accounted or shared services and supplies, etc.
No real fnancial accountability or public education in Texas
What we ound was quite dierent rom what we had expected. More
specically, we discovered that there is currently no real nancialaccountability or K-12 public education in Texas.
Certainly, school districts currently generate oceans o nancial dataand each school district must prepare an annual nancial report which
is independently audited. Unortunately, however, the current system onancial reporting produces no useul inormation, making it impossible
or anyone who does not work in the district to have any real idea o how itspends taxpayer unds.
As we will explain later in greater detail, three ndings led us to thisconclusion:
(i) The primary disclosure document produced by school districts
their annual report tells the average citizen very little on exactlyhow a particular school district uses its unding;
(ii) Although school districts regularly track thousands o pieces onancial data in their general ledgers and check registers and
much o that data is captured in databases maintained by theTexas Education Agency (TEA), it is just that, raw data. No average
person has the time and resources to analyze a raction o it. Butwithout a detailed orensic accounting analysis this mass o data
provides no useul inormation; and
TEAP spent two years
reviewing school
district fnancial data.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
12/48
8 Texas Education Accountability Project
(iii) Some but not all school districts make it extremely dicult oroutsiders to obtain their nancial data.
The uninormed being evaluated by the equally uninormed
Consider or a moment some o the consequences o our ndings. The Texas
system o public education is based on the concept o local control thatis, instead o relying on a centralized authority, each district determinesthe best way to educate its students given its geography, demographics,
economics and other actors. Ideally, local control allows parents input intohow their children are educated and how their school districts should bestuse taxpayer unds.
Clearly, a precondition to nancial accountability in a system based on local
control is that average citizens must be able to understand exactly howtheir school district spends money. Unortunately, the current system o
nancial reporting precludes any such understanding.
Further, the Legislature likewise has no better inormation with which to (re)
design the system o unding public education. However, whatever it devisesmust produce results with little waste, although it lacks any ability to
measure or evaluate exactly how the money it appropriates is employed. Italso must create a system that accomplishes its purpose and produces
a general diusion o knowledge without the ability to measure preciselywhat is being done to educate students with the dollars provided.
Equally problematic, the courts must evaluate the constitutionality owhatever the Legislature designs but has no better inormation than
that on which the Legislature must rely. The resulting process can bebest characterized as the uninormed being evaluated by the equally
uninormed.
More importantly, whatever the Legislature and the courts arrive at willbe at best arbitrary and will likely do little to improve education in Texas.It also will invariably lead to more lawsuits challenging the new systems
constitutionality.
A simple solution
However, there is a simple solution to this dilemma: x the current systemo nancial reporting in public education in Texas. It should be redesignedso that the inormation that it provides allows the average citizen to easily
understand how his or her school district spends taxpayer money. Later inthis report we will outline a series o proposals to address these issues.
Both the Legislature
and the courts lack
the inormation
required to design a
constitutional system.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
13/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 9
II. A system o fnancial reporting fnancial thatproduces little useul inormation
School districts in Texas report their fnancial data using the PublicEducation Inormation Management System (PEIMS). Designed by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA), the systems purpose is to track a wide
variety o inormation rom school districts across the state includingstudent demographics and academic perormance, personnel,fnancial and organizational inormation.
School districts track all o their expenditures in their general ledgersand check registers. The data is used in preparing the districts primary
fnancial disclosure document, an independently audited annualfnancial report. The manner and ormat used by school districts to
prepare this repor t is prescribed by the TEAs Financial AccountabilityResource Guide (FARG).
As described in the FARG, the goal o all this work and expense is tocommunicate adequate inormation to user groups to enable them to
assess the perormance o those par ties that have been empoweredto act in the place o the citizenry. Further, the reporting is not an
end in itsel but, rather helps ulfll governments duty to be publiclyaccountable. It also is designed to help satisy the needs o users
who have limited authority, ability, or resources to obtain inormationand who thereore rely on the reports as an important source o
inormation.
Finally, the FARG also identifes the three primary target audiences or
the districts annual fnancial reports:
(i) Citizens o the school district (taxpayers, voters, servicerecipients, media, advocate groups, and public fnance
researchers)
(ii) Direct representatives o the citizens such as legislatures
and oversight bodies (state legislatures, school boards)
(iii) Creditors (individual and institutional investors, bond ratingagencies, intergovernmental grantors)
Simply put, the consumers o tax dollars namely, the school districts are accountable to their constituents, elected ofcials and creditors.
In order to be accountable, the districts are obligated to providefnancial disclosure in such a manner so that someone who does not
work in the district on a day to day basis can understand how thesetax dollars are being used.
Three reasons why the current system fails to meet its own
stated objectives
Unortunately, or three reasons the current system o public
education fnancial reporting alls ar short o meeting theseobjectives. First, the rules on how school districts are required
to prepare their annual fnancial reports eectively preclude
Only i citizens can
understand how tax
dollars are used canschool districts be
accountable.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
14/48
10 Texas Education Accountability Project
any transparency on how school districts actually spend theirmoney. Second, although school districts amass large amounts o
fnancial data in their check registers and general ledgers (much owhich is captured by databases maintained by the TEA), it is justthat, raw data. Absent a detailed orensic accounting analysis
something impractical or most people the data provides no useul
inormation. Finally, Texas school districts are not required to maketheir fnancial data easily accessible to outsiders.
Issue I Disclosing only the general purpose of spending and
not what exactly was purchased
I you pick up a copy o a school districts annual report, you will fndmany similarities to that o the fnancial report o any public company.
The report includes basic fnancial statements as well as notesexplaining in greater detail some o the data that was incorporated in
the summary pages.
But, unlike a public company, school districts do not have income
statements because they are not intended to make money. Instead,the basic fnancials include a Statement o Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes which both describes the sources o the districtsrevenues and its expenditures in that school year.
This page o its annual fnancial report is the primary way in which
school districts disclose how they spent taxpayer money. It is alsoa key reason why there is no real fnancial accountability or publiceducation in Texas.
Vast number of different types of expenditures crammed into
individual line items of disclosure
More specifcally, as currently designed, the expenditures listed in thispage o the report are crammed into a small number o individual lineitems with comorting sounding names such as Instruction, School
Leadership, Curriculum and Sta Development, etc. But these lineitems do not tell the reader how the money was spent; rather, they
only disclose the general purpose o the spending.
More problematic, they provide only very limited additional inormationon exactly how the district used its unding, although there are notesand additional schedules to the annual repor t. Consequently, the reader
has no idea o ver y basic items such as how much is being spent to payteachers to teach or what are the overhead costs o the district.
In addition, no outsider reading this report has any idea o how to
determine which activities that are being unded by the district arenecessary and essential to educating students versus those that arenice and useul but, in reality, are optional to getting a good education.
Further, the disclosure provided makes it impossible or anyone tomeasure how efciently the school district is using its unding.
For example, according to the Comptrollers ofce, on average about
56% o school districts expenditures were included in a single line
Annual fnancial
reports disclose only
the general purpose
o spending and not
what was purchased.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
15/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 11
item o their annual fnancial report. With the ubiquitous title oInstruction, this line item aggregates, at a minimum, 29 dierent
types o expenditures including:
1. Paying regular and/or substitute classroom teachers;
2. Paying teacher aides;
3. Paying classroom assistants;4. Paying graders;5. Paying sta working in the classroom on a dedicated
basis;6. Paying adult basic education teachers;7. Paying teachers that deliver instruction by television or
satellite;8. TI-IN services provided by education service centers;
9. Classes taught to students by education service centers;10. Special education instructional services, including speech
occupational and physical therapy;11. Upkeep and repairs to instructional materials and
equipment in the classroom;
12. Instruction in health;13. Field trips;
14. Band instruments purchased by the school district ordonated by band boosters or other groups;
15. Instructional computer networks;16. Sotware;
17. Licensing ees;18. Maintenance and supplies or instructional computer
networks;
19. Paying sta and instructional computer lab teachers;20. Paying network managers or instructional networks;
21. Paying technology coordinators or instructional networks;22. Testing materials or tests developed and administered by
teachers;23. Salaries or instruction including that portion o the salary
or the regular school day that is or teaching physical
education courses or credit when athletic activities aretaking place;
24. Instructional supplies including but not limited toclassroom supplies, grade books, grade book sotware,
report cards, student handbooks and related costs;25. Insurance or drivers education vehicles;26. Graduation expenditures/expenses;
27. Pre/post-employment physicals or personnel classifed inthis unction;
28. Drug testing or personnel classifed in this unction; and29. Purchase o vehicles or instructional purposes, including
driver education.
Wide variety of other types of expenditures included in
Instruction
Instruction, however, is not limited to only these kinds oexpenditures. So long as any expenditure alls into the category o
providing direct interaction between sta and students to achieve
29 categories o
spending are included
in the Instruction
line item o the
report.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
16/48
12 Texas Education Accountability Project
learning, it qualifes to be lumped into this single line item o a schooldistricts annual report.
Our analysis o general ledgers o a cross section o school districtsound that they included all kinds o expenditures in Instruction in
their annual fnancial reports. A small sample o the examples that we
uncovered included:
1. Magic show ($2,700.00)
2. Pictures ($250.00)3. General Supplies ($280,000 in aggregate across multiple
entries)
4. Hyatt Regency ($273.20)5. Primetime Entertainment Center ($143.20)
6. Agape Tours ($3,300)7. Radisson Hotel and Suites ($502.44)
8. Hilton Anatole ($627.84)9. Postage ($1,750.00)10. Puppets-LIBR-MS ($313.17)
11. Xmas Sta Gits ($138.53)
All o these expenditures may in reality provide direct interaction betweensta and students to achieve learning and thus, these school districts
reporting is consistent with their rules or nancial disclosure. However,what is also clear is that no outsider would have any idea i this was the
case.
Further, how could anyone who does not work in the district be able to
separate out essential unctions such as teachers salaries versus non-essential items such as cars or drivers education or even magic shows
or Xmas Sta Gits? This kind o nancial repor ting is the antithesis otransparency.
Most o the remaining expenditures are likewise crammed into
only a ew line items
TEAs reporting rules require that school districts aggregate most o their
remaining expenditures into a relatively small number o other line itemsin their nancial disclosures. For example, the second largest category o
expenditures was Instructional and Media Resources. Under the TEAsrules, there are (at a minimum) sixteen dierent kinds o expendituresincorporated, including the salaries and costs associated with:
1. Librarians;
2. Library aides and assistants;3. Media or resource center personnel who work in an audio visual
center, television studio or related work study areas;4. Substitute pay or library sta;5. Selecting, preparing, cataloging and circulating books and other
printed materials;6. Planning the use o the library by students, teachers and other
instructional sta;7. Building individuals ability in their use o library books and
materials;
Travel, postage,
puppets and
magic shows are
also included in
Instruction.
Most o the remaining
expenditures are
crammed into a
handul o line items.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
17/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 13
8. Selecting, preparing, maintaining and making available tomembers o the instructional sta equipment, lms, lmstrips,
transparencies, tapes, TV programs, sotware, CD/DVDs andsimilar materials;
9. Planning, programming, writing, and presenting educational
programs or segments o programs by closed circuit or broadcast
television;10. Studio crews that record educational programs or segments
o programs by closed circuit or broadcast television including
those or TI-IN;11. Library books, lms, video cassettes, CD/DVD disks and, other
media that are maintained by a resource center or library;
12. Supplies or binding and repairing books or other media containedin resource centers;
13. Upkeep and repairs to media, library and resource centermaterials and equipment;
14. Media and Living Science services provided by an educationcenter;
15. Pre-post-employment physicals or drug testing or personnel in
this unction;16. Purchase o vehicles or instructional resources and media
purposes.
However, this list is not all-inclusive. Also included in this line item areany and all expenses that are directly and exclusively used or resource
centers, establishing and maintaining libraries and other major acilitiesdealing with educational resources and media.
How do you determine i an automobile is solely or sta
development?
Consider also how school districts report what they spend on developing
their curriculums and improving the quality o the sta which provideinstruction. Included (but not limited to) in the Curriculum Developmentand Instructional Sta Development line item are: the costs o outside
consultants, curriculum coordinators who are not responsible orsupervising instructional sta, Assistant/Deputy Superintendents or
Curriculum, tuition and ees paid by instructional sta to attend college,upkeep and repairs o equipment used or curriculum development or in-
service training, paid sabbatical leaves or instructional sta and evenpurchases o vehicles or sta development or curriculum developmentpurposes.
Lets put aside or the moment the question o how a school district
might determine that the purchase o a vehicle was solely or stadevelopment purposes. But when an annual report mixes into a single
line item o disclosure everything rom the cost o paid sabbaticals orteachers to the maintenance costs o certain types o equipment to thecosts drug testing, how can any outsider have any idea as to what exactly
are a districts spending priorities?
Also consider the line item (School Leadership) o the annual nancialreport that any outsider would likely assume as most associated with
overhead namely the administrators who are not involved in teaching
Sixteen categories
o spending
are included inInstructional and
Media Resources.
With so many types
o expendituresmixed together, it
is impossible to
determine what
is necessary vs.
optional.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
18/48
14 Texas Education Accountability Project
students. While it is extremely broad, it is not all inclusive. For example,encapsulated in it are the costs o principals, assistant principals and
related sta as well as those sta who track student attendance.
However, not included in this line item is that part o the superintendents
salary or perorming administrative duties directly related to the
superintendency as well as other salaries and expenditures related tothe oce o the superintendent and salaries related to the budgeting,accounting and scal aairs and related to human resources. This
category also excludes the cost o those sta members who prepare thesuperintendents annual repor t.
Loosely translated, this means that someone must divine how mucho a superintendents time is spent on school leadership (and any
associated costs) separately rom any costs associated with the time thata superintendent spends on administration. We nd all o this remarkable
given that superintendents are almost by denition administrators wholead their districts and that the necessary time and eort required toparse through these denitions probably could be put to much better use
in educating our children.
Line item with the least transparency
As bad as all o these examples o how school districts are requiredto disclose their non Instruction expenditures, they are downright
transparent when compared with Payments to Fiscal Agent/MemberDistricts o Shared Ser vices Arrangements. This line item is used whena school district outsources any unctions to another school district. All
o the costs associated with doing so are aggregated into a single lineitem.
To reiterate the school districts annual report does not disclose what
services it is buying, the other school districts involved and how and orwhat purpose the money was used. Rather, so long as it shares serviceswith another school district, its annual repor t simply discloses the total
dollars involved.
As innocuous as this may sound, we ound that several school districtshad about 20% o their aggregate expenditures included in this line item.
In other words, the districts nancial repor t simply discloses that it paidanother district(s) one out o every ve dollars that it spent that year toperorm some unknown services or the district. It is unclear how a set o
accounting rules could make a school districts nancial disclosures lesstransparent but it would denitely take much imagination and creativity.
Illegal or publicly traded companies
What all o these examples mean is that a school districts annual nancialreport again, its primary nancial disclosure document provides no
useul inormation as to how it actually spends taxpayer dollars. It is alsoa bit bizarre that the State relies on such an opaque system o nancial
disclosure or public education when one considers what would happeni the management o a public company tried to likewise aggregate so
much o its expenditures into so ew line items o its primary nancial
There is almost no
disclosure about
more than one fth
o some districts
expenditures.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
19/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 15
6 To better understand just how much more publicly-traded companies disclose in their nancial statements as compared to Texas school districts,consider the reports provided by a great Texas-based company, Whole Foods. Although it is in a erociously competitive business and (understandably)
wants to provide its competitors with as little inormation as possible, a small por tion o its annual disclosures includes: direct store expenses, G&Aexpenses, pre-opening expenses, relocation, store closure and lease termination costs, costs o goods and store occupancy costs, average pre-openingexpense per store, its average pre-opening rent per store, stores opened, acquired, divested, relocated and closed, remodeled stores with majorexpansions, total gross square ootage in stores, the sales mix between stores, number o stores in development, their average size and the total grosssquare ootage in development, percentage sales by product category (non-perishables, prepared oods and baker y and other perishables), store salesgrowth by year over the last ten years, adver tising as a % o revenues and compared with peers, contributions to not-or-prot organizations as a % oprots, number o stores by state, return to shareholders compared with peer benchmarks, sales growth, identical store sales growth, sales increasesrom stores acquired over the previous 52 weeks, direct sales expenses as a percentage o sales, wage expenses as a percentage o sales, workerscompensation expense as a percentage o sales, inventory valuation and methodology employed, impairment o long-lived assets, long-lived assetsand sales domestically and in oreign countries, construction accruals, intangible asset depreciation, accretion o interest on existing reserves and newclosures, rental expenses, deerred tax assets, stock options granted, exercised, expired and oreited and weighted average exercise price or eachand aggregate intrinsic value, restricted stock grants, stock purchase plan shares, 401(k) plan contributions, equity compensation plans and exhibitsdetailing each o the material contracts that company has entered into. Additionally, it publishes an annual proxy statement that provides detailedinormation on executive compensation, directors and corporate governance.
disclosure documents (i.e., annual report, 10K, 10Q, etc.) with noadditional detailed disclosure.
It is quite probable that the management o the company would acecivil sanctions rom the SEC and even potential criminal ones rom the
Department o Justice. Fur ther, it is also highly likely that the company would
quickly nd itsel in a class action lawsuit or inadequate and misleadingnancial disclosure. But in the Texas system o public education, makingsuch grossly insucient nancial disclosure is not only acceptable under
the current rules or nancial reporting, it is required.6
Issue II Immense amounts o data but no useul inormation
It is particularly surprising to us that Texas school districts provide no
useul inormation in their annual reports on how they spend taxpayerdollars given that they regularly track and record immense amounts o
data. All o their individual expenditures are captured in their generalledgers and check registers. It is rom these supporting documents thatthe data incorporated into annual reports is drawn.
For example, one smaller school district that we reviewed had about $6.3M
o aggregate expenditures in the 2009 2010 school year. But a reviewo its general ledger only reveals who or what got paid but not what or. A
handul o example entries in the ledger included:
1. HITEQ Computer Systems $870.952. Masterscapes $596.02
3. Roberts Truck Center $1932.504. Roberts Truck Center $4,550.00
5. Roberts Truck Center $512.446. Webb Electronics $7,579.00
7. Webb Electronics $1,670.008. John Deere Govmt and Ntl Sales $3611.949. Altons Sewing Machine $300.00
10. JRnR Electronics $68.0011. Interstate Battery $84.69
12. School Specialty Supply $1768.1813. CDW Government $3,330.00
14. Future Pro $3,285.0015. Academic Superstore $542.00
What is illegal or
public companies ismandatory or Texas
school districts.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
20/48
16 Texas Education Accountability Project
16. Curriculum Support $3,581.4217. Group Logic $2,695.50
18. Loews Home Center $515.9919. Loews Home Center $887.0720. Wireless Generation $2,562.50
21. CDW Government $1,400.00
22. CDW Government $2,818.6023. HP Direct $2,267.00
However, as with all o the general ledgers and check registers that wereviewed, each o these expenditures recorded in these documentswere accompanied by two types o codes. The rst, a Functional code,
indicated the general purpose o the spending, tying it to the correspondingline item o the districts annual nancial report. The expenditure also had
an Object code, that is either very specic (i.e., cell phone allowances,print shop expenditures, water, sick leave, etc.) or extremely broad (general
supplies, contracted services, other operating expense, etc.). Much o thisinormation, in turn, is captured in databases maintained by the TEA.
As noted earlier, the school districts and TEA combined gather an immenseamount o nancial data but it provides non-experts with little useul
inormation or two reasons. First, the average citizen lacks the time orresources necessary to analyze even a raction o it. But absent such a
orensic accounting exercise, it is impossible to determine relatively simplethings such as how much o the districts unding is used to pay teachers
solely to teach vs. what it costs to insure drivers education vehicles (botho which are classied as Instruction expenditures), much less what isthe district spending money on that is essential vs. optional.
Second, even i someone had the time and resources to wade through
all o this data, the codes currently used in tracking expenditures are onone hand too specic and in other instances are too broad to allow a
non-expert to ormulate a coherent understanding o the school districtsspending. In other words, one may be able to tell that this school districtpaid Group Logic $2,695.50 or something that is classied in the districts
annual nancial report as Instruction and has an object code o otherexpense. However, knowing this tells you ver y little as to what the district
purchased and why.
In act, we concluded ater nearly two years o research that the only wayTEAP even though we invest in companies or a living would ever be ableto gure out exactly how a school district was spending taxpayer money
would be to recreate a new general ledger (and rom that an annual nancialreport) by beginning with the thousands o underlying receipts rom all o a
districts individual purchases and expenditures. But i someone is goingto have to do all o this in order to understand how a district spends money,
why even bother to produce the current reports?
It is impossible or
an average citizen
to determine what a
school district pays
its teachers solely to
teach.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
21/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 17
Issue III It can be very difcult or outsiders to access school
district fnancial data
In researching this report we requested nancial inormation rom manyschool districts across the State. As part o this, we led numerous Texas
Open Records requests.
Our experience in collecting this inormation was that the response thatwe received rom the school districts was somewhat binary. Several school
districts were extremely responsive and helpul. At the same time, gettingnancial data rom about hal o the school districts that we contacted wasquite dicult.
The latter group o school districts typically employed one o two tactics: (i)
simply ignore the Open Records request or (ii) make a determination thatproviding this data (which it likely already has on a hard drive on one o its
computers) will take many, many hours to produce. Thus, i the requestingparty wants the inormation it must pay as much as $10,000 to get it.
In either case, the only way to get them to comply with our inormationrequests would have been or TEAP to hire an attorney and ormally le
a complaint. Fortunately, we never had to resort to doing so because werequested inormation rom so many di erent school districts that eventually
we were able to get a large enough sample o data to write this report.
However, it is somewhat outrageous that some school districts are allowedto make it dicult or outsiders to access their nancial inormation.Imagine i you are an average citizen trying to gure out how your local
school district is spending your money and or what purpose. It is unlikelythat you would ully understand how the Texas Open Records requests work
and even less likely that you could aord to hire an attorney to orce theschool district to comply with the request.
School districts are spending someone elses (i.e. the taxpayers) money.It is their duty to make their nancial data as easily accessible as possible
to their constituents.
Some school districts
either ignore requests
or fnancial data or
make getting it very
expensive.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
22/48
18 Texas Education Accountability Project
III. Potential solutions
Although the current system o nancial reporting or Texas K-12 publiceducation is problematic, xing it is not a Herculean task. As noted earlier,school districts already regularly collect immense amounts o data. The
key challenge is synthesizing this data in a manner so that it is useul
inormation that would allow an average citizen to understand in detail howhis or her school district uses taxpayer dollars.
We would recommend that three steps be taken to x the current systemo nancial reporting:
A. The ormat and data included in the annual fnancial reports
published by each school district must be changed. School
districts should be required to disclose substantially more detailedinormation on how they spend taxpayer unds. As part o this,
(i) The line items in the summary pages o their annual nancialreports should be altered to refect the specic type o expenditure
involved instead o just a general purpose such as Instruction;
(ii) Accompanying each o these line items should be a schedule withnumerous sub-line items that provide much greater detail as to
how and why the money was spent;
(iii) Annual nancial reports should also include key school districtoutput metrics in terms o the numbers o students educated bytypes o classes by grade;
(iv) An organization chart should also accompany the annual report that
would provide an overview o the structure o the school district, alist o teachers by school and the non-teaching proessionals (by
position) who work in the school district;
(v) A list o all contracts with school district vendors and non-employees,
the amounts paid to each and the specic services and/or productsreceived should be included in a separate schedule o the annual
nancial report; and
(vi) For those districts which share services with other schooldistricts and government agencies, their annual report shouldbe accompanied by disclosures which provide similar inormation
as described in (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above detailing what waspurchased and how the unds provided were used.
We have included in Appendix A detailed recommendations o what should
be incorporated into school district annual reports.
B. The coding currently used by Texas school districts with their
general ledgers and check registers should be modifed. In lieuo the current unction and object codes should be coding which
ties individual expenditures into both the major line items o theschools annual report but also into its sub line items. Doing so
will create a clearer audit trail that, in turn, would allow a parent
The structure o
school district annualfnancial reports must
be revamped.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
23/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 19
to more easily understand the specic purpose o an individualexpenditure i he or she wants to research the school districts
spending in greater detail. It will also make it easier to comparehow individual districts use their unding.
C. Texas school districts should be required to post their key
fnancial data (annual reports, general ledgers, check registers,fnancial source data, contracts with outside vendors and with
senior district and school sta, etc.) or the trailing three years
on their websites. Virtually every school district already has awebsite. It should not be controversial that they be required toprovide their nancial data so that outsiders can easily access it.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
24/48
20 Texas Education Accountability Project
IV. Conclusion
We began this study assuming that the nancial data currently generatedby school districts could be used to help improve education in our State.As we have described, what we ound was both surprising and alarming.
Texas currently has a K-12 education system which consumes (accordingto the Comptrollers oce) in excess 43% o Texas general revenues andin aggregate spent nearly $55B in the 2008-2009 school year. But no one
who does not work or any individual school district has any real idea oexactly how that district spent its part o this money. Consequently, wehave no way to determine whether that money was used intelligently, much
less eciently. It is likewise impossible or someone to determine whetherwhat we currently spend money on are things that are essential to the
diusion o knowledge rather than optional or unnecessary.
Fixing the current system o nancial reporting so as to create true nancialaccountability should not be controversial or either the property-rich orproperty-poor school districts. For the latter, they need to be able to clearly
demonstrate and quantiy that they are using the unds they currently receivein an ecient manner and that absent additional unding they will never be
able to properly educate their students. Otherwise, the only nancial metricthat they can point to is aggregate dollars spent per student, something
that is very limited in describing the quality o education being provided.
More importantly, the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that theStates constitution does not include a requirement o equality o unding.Instead, the constitutional standard o eciency requires substantially
equivalent access to revenue only up to a pointand that individual schooldistricts can and must be able to take steps to enrich the education
o their students. Thus, although disparities between school districts inthe money spent per student on education is a actor that the Court will
consider when determining the constitutionality o a system or undingpublic education, it is by ar not the only actor.
On the other hand, the primary outcome to date or the proper ty-rich schooldistricts rom this decades-long legal battle has been that large amounts o
money that they would have received otherwise have been transerred toproperty-poor districts through Robin Hood and its successors. And there is
a real possibility that the in some uture ruling the Court could acceleratethis trend.
Consequently, the wealthier districts likewise have a compelling interest tond a way to address the constitutionality o the system that goes beyond
just dollars spent per student. They need to be able to rame the argumentrom the context o what precisely is needed to be done to educate students
in a constitutional manner and what specic unding is required to providethese services. However, the current system o nancial accountability orTexas public education does not produce the necessary inormation to
make this case.
Fixing the current
system o fnancial
reporting is in the
best interests o both
property-poor and
wealthy districts.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
25/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 21
More lawsuits ahead
Regardless o whether either the property-rich or property-poor districts arewilling to embrace real nancial accountability, anyone worried about ourStates system o public education has a compelling interest that these
changes be made. Without any useul inormation o how taxpayer unds
are used to educate students, the Legislature will be unable to devise asystem that is ecient, suitable and adequate and the courts likewisewill be unable to determine i it is constitutional. Thus, i and until the
current system o nancial reporting is xed, any uture mechanisms orunding public education in our State will remain in constant limbo, subjectto repeated legal challenges.
More importantly, our State has nite resources and it must allocate them
across a wide set o priorities. Consequently, it will be quite dicult or anyelected ocial to build a consensus that we need to spend more money on
public education i there is no way o accurately and clearly demonstratingthat we are using the current dollars allocated to K-12 public education inan intelligent manner.
Finally, beyond just the legal and political questions, the uture economic
vibrancy o our state in no small way depends on having a well-educatedpopulace. In order to do this we have to nd a way to get the maximum
benet rom the dollars spent on public education. But until we knowexactly how the money is being used, we will never be able to determine
what needs to be done to improve the system.
Creating a
consensus to
spend more money
on education is
predicated on
demonstrating that
current unding
is being used
intelligently and
efciently
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
26/48
22 Texas Education Accountability Project
Appendix A. Recommended Changes to the Formatand Structure o School District Annual FinancialReports
In thinking about how to best redesign the current reporting and disclosure
rules which Texas school districts must ollow, we at TEAP began with what
the Texas Education Agency (TEA) claims should be the standards that anysystem o nancial reporting should meet. More specically, TEAs ownmanual points to accountability as the paramount objective o nancial
reporting by state and local governments. But to be accountable nancialreporting should communicate adequate inormation to user groups toenable them to assess the perormance o the governmental entity such
as a school district. Moreover, the TEA argues that nancial reportingis not an end in itsel but is intended to provide inormation useul or
many purposes that helps to satisy the needs o users who have limitedauthority, ability, or resources to obtain inormation and who thereore rely
on the reports as an important source o inormation.
In other words, any rational system o nancial reporting or Texas school
districts should be designed so that it provides sucient inormation toallow its three primary constituencies namely, the citizens o our State,
direct representatives o our citizens such as members o the Legislatureand oversight bodies and creditors o the school districts to ully evaluate
the nancial perormance o these governmental entities.
However, we would propose an even simpler standard: An average citizenshould, ater reading his or her school districts annual nancial report,have a clear understanding o exactly how it is spending taxpayer dollars.
Six structural changes to school district annual reports
With this in mind, we propose six changes to the school district annual
report ormat. First, the report should include a list o major spendingcategories with titles tied to the specic type o expenditure (as opposedto its general purpose) such as Compensation Expenses, Teacher,
Administrator and Sta Proessional Development, Costs Associatedwith Oversight o the School District, etc. In Exhibit 1 to this Appendix A,
we have provided our recommendations as what should be included in themajor spending categories.
Second, each these major spending categories should be accompaniedby a separate schedule that has numerous sub-line items, each refecting
a specic type o nancial expenditure. For example the CompensationExpenses line item should be broken into multiple sub-line items ranging
rom salaries paid to teachers solely or teaching to benets or schooldistrict support sta. Our recommended sub-line items or each major
spending category are also shown in Exhibit 1 to this Appendix A.
Third, every annual report should include an organizational chart and
narrative that allows outsiders to understand the operating structure othe school district. The narrative should provide an overview o the number
o students per school by district, teachers by school, non-teachingproessionals by school, non-teaching support sta by school, the number
o proessional sta at the district level and the number o support sta at
The goal: Can an
average citizen
understand exactly
how a school district
uses taxpayer
dollars?
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
27/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 23
the district level. The organization chart should include a list o teachersand administrators by position by school as well as a list o all o the
proessional sta by position at the school district level.
Fourth, every school district should have separate disclosure pages in its
annual report listing every agreement with non-district employee contractors,
the expenditures involved, the specic services and/or products providedto the district, when the contract was most recently awarded or renewed,whether at the time o the most recent award or renewal it was competitively
bid and any and all political contributions made by the contractor to theelection campaigns o any school board members o the district.
Fith, the annual nancial report should include detailed lists o the coreoutputs o the district namely, the courses taught that year by grade;
the number o each taught; and the number o students who successullycompleted each. These classes should be divided by type, grade, and
category (i.e., core curriculum, college preparatory, advanced placementcourses, vocational, etc.). Additionally, this set o disclosures shouldinclude how many students were tutored either individually or in small
groups outside o the normal school curriculum. Finally, the narrative shouldprovide detailed inormation on the per ormance o students in the school
district on standardized tests.
Lastly, the annual nancial reports o those school districts which employshared services agreements with other school districts or governmental
agencies should include an additional set o disclosures. As part o this,the entity providing these services should be required to provide the sameinormation (i.e., general categories o spending, accompanying schedules,
organizational chart, detailed description o outputs and all contracts withoutsiders, their cost and the services provided) that is included or the
districts other expenditures.
Annual fnancial
reports should include
an organizational
chart, lists o classes
taught and disclose
both agreements with
outside contractors
and other school
districts.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
28/48
24 Texas Education Accountability Project
Exhibit 1 to Appendix A
Major Spending Categories
1. Compensation Expenses
2. Teacher, Administrator and Sta Proessional Development Expenditures
3. Expenditures or Equipment and Facilities Used Directly in Teaching Students and Associated
Maintenance Costs
4. Expenditures or Equipment and Acquisition Not Used Directly in Teaching Students and Associated
Maintenance Costs
5. Athletic Facility Acquisition and Maintenance Costs
6. Student Transportation and Healthcare Costs
7. Expenditures on School-Provided Meals
8. Purchases o Supplies and Materials Directly Used or Teaching Students
9. Purchases o Supplies and Materials Not Directly Used or Teaching Students
10. Costs Associated with Oversight o the School District
11. Services Provided By Outside Contractors
12. Expenditures on Athletics and Extracurricular Activities
13. Long-Term Funding Costs
14. Expenditures rom Shared Services with Other School Districts and Governmental Agencies
15. Costs Resulting From Other Governmental Agencies
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
29/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 25
Schedule A Compensation Expenses
Specifc disclosure line items:
1. Salaries paid to teachers or teaching classes. (This line item should exclude any compensation paid
to teachers or non-teaching activities e.g., coaching sports, supervising extracurricular activities,
etc. any compensation or tutoring or examination preparatory classes, as well as any perormancebonuses.)
2. Benets paid to teachers. (This line item should likewise exclude that portion o any benetspaid to teachers or non-teaching activities including as well as any expenditure or proessionaldevelopment.)
3. Salaries paid to teachers or tutoring students.
4. Salaries paid to teachers or examination preparatory classes.
5. Salaries paid to teaching assistants and teachers aides.
6. Benets paid to teaching assistants and teachers aides.
7. Salaries paid to guidance counselors.
8. Benets paid to guidance counselors.
9. Salaries paid to coaches o athletic teams.
10. Benets paid to coaches o athletic teams.
11. Salaries paid to librarians.
12. Benets paid to librarians.
13. Salaries paid to school nurses and health sta.
14. Benets paid to school nurses and health sta.
15. Compensation paid to individuals or their work in student extra-curricular activities, not includingcoaching athletic teams.
16. Salary paid to the District Superintendent.
17. Benets paid to the District Superintendent.
18. Salaries paid to District Assistant Superintendents.
19. Benets paid to District Assistant Superintendents.
20. Salaries paid to School Principals by individual.
21. Benets paid to School Principals by individual.
22. Salaries paid to School Assistant Principals.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
30/48
26 Texas Education Accountability Project
Schedule A Compensation Expenses
(Continued)
23. Benets paid to School Assistant Principals.
24. Salaries paid to District-level administrative sta.
25. Benets paid to District-level administrative sta.
26. Salaries paid to School-level administrative sta.
27. Benets paid to School-level administrative sta.
28. Salaries paid to District-level support (e.g., janitorial, security, etc.) sta.
29. Benets paid to District-level support sta.
30. Salaries paid to School level support sta, not including any compensation to individuals or theirwork in the preparation and delivery o school-provided meals to students.
31. Benets paid to School-level support sta, not including any benets provided to individuals or their
work in the preparation and delivery o school-provided meals to students.
32. Perormance bonuses paid to teachers by individual.
33. Perormance bonuses paid to teaching assistants and teachers aides by individual.
34. Perormance bonuses paid to guidance counselors by individual.
35. Perormance bonuses paid to coaches o athletic teams by individual.
36. Perormance bonuses paid to librarians by individual.
37. Perormance bonuses paid to school nurses and health sta by individual.
38. Perormance bonuses paid to individuals or their work in non-athletic extra-curricular activities byindividual.
39. Perormance bonuses paid to District Superintendent.
40. Perormance bonuses paid to District Assistant Superintendents by individual.
41. Perormance bonuses paid to School Principals by individual.
42. Perormance bonuses paid to School Assistant Principals by individual.
43. Perormance bonuses paid to District-level administrative sta by individual.
44. Perormance bonuses paid to District-level support sta by individual.
45. Perormance bonuses paid to School-level administrative sta by individual.
46. Perormance bonuses paid to School-level support sta by individual.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
31/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 27
Schedule B Teacher, Administrator and Sta Proessional Development Expenditures
Specifc disclosure line items:
1. Tuition and ees paid or teacher continuing education.
2. Travel costs associated with teacher continuing education.
3. Tuition and ees paid or teacher undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
4. Travel costs associated with teacher undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
5. Tuition and ees paid or teacher aide and teaching assistant continuing education.
6. Travel costs associated with teacher aide and teaching assistant continuing education.
7. Tuition and ees paid or teacher aide and teaching assistant undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
8. Travel costs associated with teacher aide and teaching assistant undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
9. Tuition and ees paid or guidance counselor continuing education.
10. Travel costs associated with guidance counselor continuing education.
11. Tuition and ees paid or guidance counselor undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
12. Travel costs associated with guidance counselor undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
13. Tuition and ees paid or athletic team coach proessional development.
14. Travel costs associated with athletic team coach proessional development.
15. Tuition and ees paid or librarian continuing education.
16. Travel costs associated with librarian continuing education.
17. Tuition and ees paid or librarian undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
18. Travel costs associated with librarian undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
19. Tuition and ees paid or nurse and health sta continuing education.
20. Travel costs associated with nurse and health sta continuing education.
21. Tuition and ees paid or nurse and health sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
22. Travel costs associated with nurse and health sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
23. Tuition and ees paid or sta or proessional development related to extracurricular activities.
24. Travel costs associated or proessional development related to extracurricular activities.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
32/48
28 Texas Education Accountability Project
Schedule B Teacher, Administrator and Sta Proessional Development Expenditures
(Continued)
25. Tuition and ees paid or District Superintendent continuing education.
26. Travel costs associated with District Superintendent continuing education.
27. Tuition and ees paid or District Superintendent undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
28. Travel costs associated with District Superintendent undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
29. Tuition and ees paid or Assistant Superintendent continuing education.
30. Travel costs associated with Assistant Superintendent continuing education.
31. Tuition and ees paid or District Assistant Superintendent undergraduate and/or post-graduate
education.
32. Travel costs associated with District Assistant Superintendent undergraduate and/or post-graduate
education.
33. Tuition and ees paid or School Principal continuing education.
34. Travel costs associated with School Principal continuing education.
35. Tuition and ees paid or School Principal undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
36. Travel costs associated with School Principal undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
37. Tuition and ees paid or School Assistant Principal continuing education.
38. Travel costs associated with School Assistant Principal continuing education.
39. Tuition and ees paid or School Assistant Principal undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
40. Travel costs associated with School Assistant Principal undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
41. Tuition and ees paid or District-level administrative sta continuing education.
42. Travel costs associated with District-level administrative sta continuing education.
43. Tuition and ees paid or District-level administrative sta undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
44. Travel costs associated with District-level administrative sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate
education.
45. Tuition and ees paid or School-level administrative sta continuing education.
46. Travel costs associated with School-level administrative sta continuing education.
47. Tuition and ees paid or School-level administrative sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate
education.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
33/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 29
Schedule B Teacher, Administrator and Sta Proessional Development Expenditures
(Continued)
48. Travel costs associated with School-level administrative sta undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
49. Tuition and ees paid or District-level support sta continuing education.
50. Travel costs associated with District-level support sta continuing education.
51. Tuition and ees paid or District-level support sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
52. Travel costs associated with District-level support sta undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
53. Tuition and ees paid or School-level support sta continuing education.
54. Travel costs associated with School-level support sta continuing education.
55. Tuition and ees paid or School-level support sta undergraduate and/or post-graduate education.
56. Travel costs associated with School-level support sta undergraduate and/or post-graduateeducation.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
34/48
30 Texas Education Accountability Project
Schedule C Expenditures or Equipment and Facilities Used Directly in Teaching and Associated
Maintenance Costs
Specifc disclosure line items:
1. Purchases, leases, and/or licenses or computers and sotware used directly in teaching students.
2. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with computer hardware andsotware maintenance and support used directly in teaching students.
3. Purchases and/or leases o audio visual equipment and sotware used directly in teaching students.
4. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with audio visual equipmentand sotware maintenance and support used directly in teaching students.
5. Purchases and/or leases o other electronic equipment and sotware used directly in teaching
students.
6. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance and
support o other electronic equipment and sotware used directly in teaching students.
7. Purchases and/or leases o non-electronic classroom equipment.
8. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance andsupport o non-electronic classroom equipment.
9. Purchases and/or leases o vehicles used in drivers education.
10. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance andsupport o vehicles used in drivers education.
11. Fuel costs associated with vehicles used in drivers education.
12. Purchases o band and orchestra instruments.
13. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance andsupport o band and orchestra instruments.
14. Purchases o other band and orchestra equipment including uniorms.
15. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance andsupport o band and orchestra equipment including uniorms.
16. Capital expenditures on classroom acilities.
17. Non-compensation expenditures associated with classroom maintenance and upkeep provided by
district employees.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
35/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 31
Schedule D Expenditures or Equipment and Facilities Not Used Directly in Teaching Students and
Associated Maintenance Costs
Specifc disclosure line items:
1. Purchases, leases, and/or licenses or computers and sotware not used directly in teaching
students.
2. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with computer hardware and
sotware maintenance and support not used directly in teaching students.
3. Purchases and/or leases o audio visual equipment and sotware not used directly in teaching
students.
4. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with audio visual equipmentand sotware maintenance and support not used directly in teaching students.
5. Purchases and/or leases o other electronic equipment and sotware not used directly in teachingstudents.
6. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance and
support o other electronic equipment and sotware not used directly in teaching students.
7. Purchases and/or leases o non-electronic equipment not directly used in teaching students.
8. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance andsupport o non-electronic equipment not used directly in teaching students.
9. Purchases and/or leases o vehicles other than those used in drivers education or those used intransporting students to and rom school.
10. Expenditures (other than compensation or district employees) associated with the maintenance and
support o vehicles other than those used in drivers education and in transporting students to androm schools.
11. Fuel costs associated with the use o vehicles other than those used in drivers education andtransporting students to and rom schools.
12. Capital expenditures on administrative acilities.
13. Capital expenditures on all other non-athletic acilities.
14. Non-compensation expenditures associated with administrative and all other non-athletic acilitymaintenance and upkeep provided by district employees.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
36/48
32 Texas Education Accountability Project
Schedule E Athletic Facility Acquisition and Maintenance Costs
Specifc disclosure line items:
1. Capital expenditures on athletic acilities by sport.
2. Non-compensation expenditures by sport associated with athletic acility maintenance and upkeepprovided by district employees.
7/31/2019 Hurley Report Texas Education Accountability Project Paper
37/48
Texas Education Accountability Project 33
Schedule F Stud
top related