The on-again, off-again meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees regarding the 2005-06 annual financial report and audit is on again. The agenda is posted for April 9th. No time for the meeting has been released on-line, but hardcopy of the agenda available at 422 Centre Street indicates the meeting will be at 7:00 p.m.
Unlike the recent meeting regarding Superintendent Larry Lewis's annual performance review and evaluation, the financial workshop is, at present, scheduled for an open session at which the public may be in audience.
The annual report was due to the state January 31st. Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, has released to the press reports that Lancaster was not the only district late with their filing. For the 2004-05 school year, 5 out of 1079 Texas ISDs filed late. Region Ten financial officials report that the only district in the last decade other than Lancaster to file late was Wilmer Hutchins. Superintendent Lewis has assured the community that problems were minor. "The checkbook and general ledger were not in balance." If so, this is the second year district financial records showed discrepancies. The FIRST (Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas) indicator seven for the 2004-05 school year showed the district's various PEIMS categories failed to reconcile within the TEA's tolerance of 45, being in fact out of agreement by 121.02% .
In August of 2006 Superintendent Lewis set as a performance goal for himself and the district that:
Lancaster ISD will be a financially responsible school district.
Measurements:
1) The district will show an increase in fund balance ... meet the 15% fund balance requirement.
2) ... will pay off the existing M&0 debt of $1.6 million
3) ... maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
4) ... improve its management reporting process...
The Trustees' evaluation of the Superintendent's performance on these financial goals and measurements were all conducted in "executive session" -- unheard by the public in attendance -- on March 26th. The April 9th meeting, in open session, will provide the first public hearing of what steps the district administration was taking between August and January to achieve these goals, and what led up to the actual outcomes:
1) a negative fund balance, unless
2) additional Tax Anticipation notes (new debt and loans ) for current year M&O are taken out against next year's state ADA payments -- current estimates of TAN requirements exceed $3 million.
3) the FIRST rating will be "unacceptable" and
4) the management reporting process is, if nothing else, slower than in previous years.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
LANCASTER ISD SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION
Monday night March 26th, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing to consider the annual evaluation instrument for LISD Superintendent Dr. Larry D Lewis. Topics of interest may include the sudden departure of Eugene P Smith in January and the failure of LISD to file required annual financial reports of audit with the Texas Education Agency. Both personnel retention matters and financial reporting improvements were among specific goals the Board expected Dr Lewis to accomplish.
Last December 18th the Board has extended Dr Lewis's contract and approved a 4% salary increase bringing his total annual compensation to $197,600, exclusive of benefits and his expense account. The vote was 5-0-2 with Carolyn Morris abstaining and Rick Glover absent. Chief Financial Officer Eugene Smith was in attendance.
It seems unlikely the Board will issue a poor evaluation to a Superintendent just awarded a raise In the interests of completeness the following is provided, nevertheless.
This year's annual evaluation process actually began February 20th 2006 as the Trustees completed Dr Lewis's evaluation for the 2005-06 school year. That evaluation was approved 5-1-1 with Russ Johnson voting "no" and Rick Glover absent.
On March 9th 2006 the Trustees in cooperation with Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) representative Bill Nemir established the outlines of Dr Lewis's performance goals and evaluation measurements.
Also in March the LISD Board approved a referendum on a $93 Million bond package. ( In May voters refused the bond 54% to 46% )
Dr Lewis and the administration formalized the goals and measurements during April and May. On June 5th the Board considered the draft evaluation instrument and proffered one amendment:
"The Superintendent will keep the Board fully informed, on an equal basis, on any and all matters pertaining to District events, District personnel, the expenditure of District funds, or the use of District facilities." The amendment passed 3-2-2 Glover and Kirkland voting no. The amended goals were approved 4-2-1, Glover and Kirkland again voting no.
The district published Superintendent Lewis's goals part of annual budget at public hearing August 28 2006. (See image files attached.)
At that same meeting the Trustees approved a referendum on a $215 Million bond package. (In November voters refused the bond 52% to 48% )
An interesting wrinkle to the LISD 2006-07 budget was a plan to pay certain salaried employees from 2004 Bond reserve (borrowed) funds rather than from the current income. As recorded in the minutes:
Dr. Lewis explained how some salaries were moved into different programs and departments and how it reflects on the budget.
Various finance and reporting goals were established for Dr Lewis's annual evaluation. In particular, Dr Lewis hoped to accomplish the following
Following the audit of the 2005-06 school year, the district will show an increase in its fund balance.
The district will maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
The district will improve its management reporting process
and
Creating an award winning Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) comprehensive annual report.
In practice it appears those goals will remain unmet.
LISD's fiscal year for the 2005-06 school year closed August 31st 2006. Final bills and payments for the 2005-06 operation were to be booked by December. The fiscal year's annual financial report was due to the Texas Education Agency by January 31st 2007. An informal grace period allowed by TEA ended 28 February. According to TEA and as of Friday 23 March the district had still failed to provide the required reports. There is no valid report on the fund balance. The FIRST rating will necessarily be, according to TEA auditor Rita Chase, "substandard". The only member of the LISD administration belonging to the GFOA is no longer employed. And there are no Awards in the offing for an annual report that has not been completed.
Last March the LISD board agreed to use one of the following "grades" for the Superintendent's annual report card:
E = Progress is Exceptional and exceeds expectations
P = Progress is Profound and is on target
M = Progress is Moderate and needs improvement
In the LISD, "Failure" is not an option.
Monday night March 26th, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing to consider the annual evaluation instrument for LISD Superintendent Dr. Larry D Lewis. Topics of interest may include the sudden departure of Eugene P Smith in January and the failure of LISD to file required annual financial reports of audit with the Texas Education Agency. Both personnel retention matters and financial reporting improvements were among specific goals the Board expected Dr Lewis to accomplish.
Last December 18th the Board has extended Dr Lewis's contract and approved a 4% salary increase bringing his total annual compensation to $197,600, exclusive of benefits and his expense account. The vote was 5-0-2 with Carolyn Morris abstaining and Rick Glover absent. Chief Financial Officer Eugene Smith was in attendance.
It seems unlikely the Board will issue a poor evaluation to a Superintendent just awarded a raise In the interests of completeness the following is provided, nevertheless.
This year's annual evaluation process actually began February 20th 2006 as the Trustees completed Dr Lewis's evaluation for the 2005-06 school year. That evaluation was approved 5-1-1 with Russ Johnson voting "no" and Rick Glover absent.
On March 9th 2006 the Trustees in cooperation with Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) representative Bill Nemir established the outlines of Dr Lewis's performance goals and evaluation measurements.
Also in March the LISD Board approved a referendum on a $93 Million bond package. ( In May voters refused the bond 54% to 46% )
Dr Lewis and the administration formalized the goals and measurements during April and May. On June 5th the Board considered the draft evaluation instrument and proffered one amendment:
"The Superintendent will keep the Board fully informed, on an equal basis, on any and all matters pertaining to District events, District personnel, the expenditure of District funds, or the use of District facilities." The amendment passed 3-2-2 Glover and Kirkland voting no. The amended goals were approved 4-2-1, Glover and Kirkland again voting no.
The district published Superintendent Lewis's goals part of annual budget at public hearing August 28 2006. (See image files attached.)
At that same meeting the Trustees approved a referendum on a $215 Million bond package. (In November voters refused the bond 52% to 48% )
An interesting wrinkle to the LISD 2006-07 budget was a plan to pay certain salaried employees from 2004 Bond reserve (borrowed) funds rather than from the current income. As recorded in the minutes:
Dr. Lewis explained how some salaries were moved into different programs and departments and how it reflects on the budget.
Various finance and reporting goals were established for Dr Lewis's annual evaluation. In particular, Dr Lewis hoped to accomplish the following
Following the audit of the 2005-06 school year, the district will show an increase in its fund balance.
The district will maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
The district will improve its management reporting process
and
Creating an award winning Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) comprehensive annual report.
In practice it appears those goals will remain unmet.
LISD's fiscal year for the 2005-06 school year closed August 31st 2006. Final bills and payments for the 2005-06 operation were to be booked by December. The fiscal year's annual financial report was due to the Texas Education Agency by January 31st 2007. An informal grace period allowed by TEA ended 28 February. According to TEA and as of Friday 23 March the district had still failed to provide the required reports. There is no valid report on the fund balance. The FIRST rating will necessarily be, according to TEA auditor Rita Chase, "substandard". The only member of the LISD administration belonging to the GFOA is no longer employed. And there are no Awards in the offing for an annual report that has not been completed.
Last March the LISD board agreed to use one of the following "grades" for the Superintendent's annual report card:
E = Progress is Exceptional and exceeds expectations
P = Progress is Profound and is on target
M = Progress is Moderate and needs improvement
In the LISD, "Failure" is not an option.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Team of Eight, or, Honesty is one of two competing policies.
Board President Nannette Vick and Lancaster ISD Superintendent Larry Lewis had what diplomats call "a frank exchange of views" (and the rest of us call 'an argument') about the first part of the first proposition on the new May 2007 bond.
The slide describing the proposal reads:
3 Replacement Elementary Schools
(West Main, Pleasant Run, Lancaster Elementary -- (LES will become 2nd middle school)
Ms Vick Can I interject? I read that 4 or 5 times before I cleared that in my own mind ... When I looked down, I was immediately confused. That's not really hard... But can you make that a little plainer, that we are NOT tearing down the middle school? That could be some confusion out there. So, we need to make sure .. this is not a replacement of a structure.... It's just the use of words.
Russ Johnson: It will have the name of the school in Boardwalk .. Lancaster Elementary.
Vicks: I don't care about the name Lancaster ... That three replacement elementary schools' infers that there's going to be a new West Main, which we want; a news Pleasant Run, which we want, -- a new Middle School -- we're TEARING DOWN a Middle School ? Surely we're tearing down a Middle School? No we're not. We have no intentions of tearing down the middle school. But see how the mind would carry that thought forward? So, let's remove that. And say, ' replacement of two and building of one new elementary ...'
Lewis interrupting : But it's not new. Those kids are going to be ... "
Vicks interrupting back: The structure's not there so it WILL be new. Don't argue. Say, 'Yes Miss Vick'.
Lewis: No. But, I have to explain to you Ms Vick, I think you may be... I don't want you to give out correct --uh -- incorrect information.
Ms Vick: Well, I won't.
Lewis: But the students are already here that are going to go into that new building ...
Vick: Exactly ...
Lewis: ... so it's not a new elementary.
Vick: But ...
Lewis: It's a new building.
Vick: What does replacement say to you?
Lewis: That we're going to replace that school.
Vick: What does replacement say to you when I say we're going to tear down Pleasant Run?
Lewis: It's just a different form of replacement
Vick: It's the use of words, okay? That's all it is. We need to make sure people understand we're not tearing down the middle school.
----
Kudos, for once, to Board President Vick for attempting to clarify to voters that the proposition is to treat current elementary schools in Lancaaster as "tear downs". The sites are great, and the buildings are fine for the students who occupy them now. But when the new kids from all the new construction of new homes start showing up, then those same buildings will not be new and big and modern enough. So, Dr Lewis proposes tearing them down.
And when this "different form of replacement" is challenged by the nominal leader of Dr Lewis's Board, he tells her "No."
Okay, just so we know who's driving this sled. Even for the lead dog, it seems the view never changes.
Board President Nannette Vick and Lancaster ISD Superintendent Larry Lewis had what diplomats call "a frank exchange of views" (and the rest of us call 'an argument') about the first part of the first proposition on the new May 2007 bond.
The slide describing the proposal reads:
3 Replacement Elementary Schools
(West Main, Pleasant Run, Lancaster Elementary -- (LES will become 2nd middle school)
Ms Vick Can I interject? I read that 4 or 5 times before I cleared that in my own mind ... When I looked down, I was immediately confused. That's not really hard... But can you make that a little plainer, that we are NOT tearing down the middle school? That could be some confusion out there. So, we need to make sure .. this is not a replacement of a structure.... It's just the use of words.
Russ Johnson: It will have the name of the school in Boardwalk .. Lancaster Elementary.
Vicks: I don't care about the name Lancaster ... That three replacement elementary schools' infers that there's going to be a new West Main, which we want; a news Pleasant Run, which we want, -- a new Middle School -- we're TEARING DOWN a Middle School ? Surely we're tearing down a Middle School? No we're not. We have no intentions of tearing down the middle school. But see how the mind would carry that thought forward? So, let's remove that. And say, ' replacement of two and building of one new elementary ...'
Lewis interrupting : But it's not new. Those kids are going to be ... "
Vicks interrupting back: The structure's not there so it WILL be new. Don't argue. Say, 'Yes Miss Vick'.
Lewis: No. But, I have to explain to you Ms Vick, I think you may be... I don't want you to give out correct --uh -- incorrect information.
Ms Vick: Well, I won't.
Lewis: But the students are already here that are going to go into that new building ...
Vick: Exactly ...
Lewis: ... so it's not a new elementary.
Vick: But ...
Lewis: It's a new building.
Vick: What does replacement say to you?
Lewis: That we're going to replace that school.
Vick: What does replacement say to you when I say we're going to tear down Pleasant Run?
Lewis: It's just a different form of replacement
Vick: It's the use of words, okay? That's all it is. We need to make sure people understand we're not tearing down the middle school.
----
Kudos, for once, to Board President Vick for attempting to clarify to voters that the proposition is to treat current elementary schools in Lancaaster as "tear downs". The sites are great, and the buildings are fine for the students who occupy them now. But when the new kids from all the new construction of new homes start showing up, then those same buildings will not be new and big and modern enough. So, Dr Lewis proposes tearing them down.
And when this "different form of replacement" is challenged by the nominal leader of Dr Lewis's Board, he tells her "No."
Okay, just so we know who's driving this sled. Even for the lead dog, it seems the view never changes.
Not quite ordinary, yet.
Friday, TEA released preliminary data on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores. The Lancaster ISD reported their own gains for 5th graders at LISD at about 20% over last year. The crowd in attendance jumped to their feet and cheered (Except for those on crutches, of course. Even Larry Lewis's miraculous powers only extend so far.)
Now, last year for 5th grade the calculated “gains” in Lancaster were actually DOWN from 04 by about 10% So we might have expected / predicted a pretty good bounce this by the purely statistical pattern of "regression to the mean". And this 5th grade "bounce" is different from the 3rd grade numbers, which seem to be too high to be ordinary for two years in a row.
But a 30% bounce is the 2nd highest gain in my sample over some 111 data pairs.
Crandall, the small district, had a 58% gain one year (the sample max) and a 26% gain another year (the next biggest gain in the data set). Crandall also, predicitably, had big losses offsetting these gains in other years, and represented the minimum FALLS (21% and 19%) among the data. Wilmer-Hutchins ISD also had near max gains of 14% and 15% gains in their “good” (fraudulent) years and crashed back to minimum (falling) gains in their off years. (a 65% fall in the 2004-05 tests.)
Part of the current gain for Lancaster 5th grade results from starting at a low baseline. On percent passing, we fell one percent last year, from 52% passing to 51% passing, at the same time the rest of the state was gaining from 75% to 81% passing. So our relative score fell from 69% (of the state value) to 62% of that value, for a minus ten percent result. Negative gains are reported as a "fall".
Even now, the district is gloating about a passing rate of roughly 66% … which is up 30% over 2005's 51% passing rate. But 66% is still well below the state passing rate of 80% passing. Comparing to the state, 66/80 is, for 2006, about 82%, up from 2005's 62%. This is a 20% gain. It's a great gain but it is not exorbitant; it shows better passing rates, but rates that still are about 20% below "ordinary" for Texas 5th Graders.
TEA reports a significant number of students in all grades who fall short of standards during the first administration of TAKS tests nevertheless prove their ability to pass on the second or third attempt. It's possible the Lancaster 5th graders will continue to gain against state averages as later results are accumulated.
Friday, TEA released preliminary data on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores. The Lancaster ISD reported their own gains for 5th graders at LISD at about 20% over last year. The crowd in attendance jumped to their feet and cheered (Except for those on crutches, of course. Even Larry Lewis's miraculous powers only extend so far.)
Now, last year for 5th grade the calculated “gains” in Lancaster were actually DOWN from 04 by about 10% So we might have expected / predicted a pretty good bounce this by the purely statistical pattern of "regression to the mean". And this 5th grade "bounce" is different from the 3rd grade numbers, which seem to be too high to be ordinary for two years in a row.
But a 30% bounce is the 2nd highest gain in my sample over some 111 data pairs.
Crandall, the small district, had a 58% gain one year (the sample max) and a 26% gain another year (the next biggest gain in the data set). Crandall also, predicitably, had big losses offsetting these gains in other years, and represented the minimum FALLS (21% and 19%) among the data. Wilmer-Hutchins ISD also had near max gains of 14% and 15% gains in their “good” (fraudulent) years and crashed back to minimum (falling) gains in their off years. (a 65% fall in the 2004-05 tests.)
Part of the current gain for Lancaster 5th grade results from starting at a low baseline. On percent passing, we fell one percent last year, from 52% passing to 51% passing, at the same time the rest of the state was gaining from 75% to 81% passing. So our relative score fell from 69% (of the state value) to 62% of that value, for a minus ten percent result. Negative gains are reported as a "fall".
Even now, the district is gloating about a passing rate of roughly 66% … which is up 30% over 2005's 51% passing rate. But 66% is still well below the state passing rate of 80% passing. Comparing to the state, 66/80 is, for 2006, about 82%, up from 2005's 62%. This is a 20% gain. It's a great gain but it is not exorbitant; it shows better passing rates, but rates that still are about 20% below "ordinary" for Texas 5th Graders.
TEA reports a significant number of students in all grades who fall short of standards during the first administration of TAKS tests nevertheless prove their ability to pass on the second or third attempt. It's possible the Lancaster 5th graders will continue to gain against state averages as later results are accumulated.
Extraordinary!
March 5th, Superintendent Lewis presented preliminary results on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores on the Texas mandated TAKS tests.
The preliminary results reported that Monday on 3rd grade reading scores indicate an overall increase of roughly 10% over last years’ scores.
This is the second year in a row of extraordinary gains on 3rd grade reading scores for the Lancaster ISD.
In a sample of 11 districts around Dallas in the Texas Educational Region 10 over the past 12 years, the ordinary (both median and mean) change of scores on this TAKS (formerly TASS) indicator has fallen year to year by about 2%. For only those year-to-year comparisons where districts have shown a gain against all other Texas districts tested, the median gain is 2% and the mean is 4%. No other district sampled since 1996 has posted more than a 10% year-to-year gain in 3rd grade reading, and only one district in this sample, going back to 1994, showed a greater gain than Lancaster '06. That district was Crandall ISD in school year ending 1996.
Well, except for Wilmer-Hutchins.
In 2001, the Wilmer-Hutchins district posted 17% year-to-year-gains for 3rd grade reading. 2001 was a year when state scores for reading in that grade were down by 2%.
The Wilmer Hutchins results were later proven to be fraudulent. Too Good to Be True.
(WH 2001 stories, for the newcomers, can be found here: initial elation --- http://www.clipfile.org/2002/04/28/566/
followed by the sade aftermath WH 2004 http://www.clipfile.org/2004/08/22/701/
Good stuff from DMN's education reporter, Josh Benton.)
The district with dramatic gains that have never been challenged was Crandall. This comparatively small district, due East of Lancaster, ranged from 21.9% gains to 16.3% losses in the 12 years sampled. Small absolute changes in the numbers of 3rd graders passing the tests had outsized impact on their statistics. In 1997, following their extraordinary gains, the gain has scaled back to 3.3% and by 1998 Crandall actually saw comparative scores fall by 10.7% . See more about little Cradndall ISD at http://www.crandall-isd.net/
Anyhow, moving on from the historically fraudulent to the currently statistically extraordinary:
Lancaster ISD’s 2006 3rd grade reading passing percentage scores gained by an (extraordinary!) 12.7% over 2005. This, in a year where the state scores overall were down by 7.7%, indicating the 2006 TAKS test for 3rd graders was more difficult -- even unusually more difficult -- than in 2005.
Every district sampled between 1994 and 2006 saw 3rd Grade reading gains fall off sharply after any double-digit gain. 2001 gains of 17.9% in Wilmer-Hutchins were followed by losses of 36.4%. This fall is a common statistical pattern known, technically, as “regression to the mean.”. Random chance may produce dramatic changes in any measure; but when those changes are purely due to chance they are typically offset in subsequent measures. Lancaster will, if the results hold up, be the first district in the area to show back-to-back, double-digit, gains on the 3rd grade reading measure. The extraordinary statistics, in turn, indicate extraordinary changes in instructional, or testing, procedures.
Friday, the Texas Education Agency released overall 3rd and 5th AEIS reading 2007 scores for all districts. Statewide, reading scores among 3rd graders were unchanged. So it’s reasonable to infer the TAKS test this year is no harder or easier than last year. LISD's preliminary reports of gains on this test indicate an advance not only year to year, but in comparison to neighboring districts.
I calulate “Gains”, for the purposes of analysis, by comparing the local district’s passing percentage on an AEIS measure to the state’s passing percentage on that same measure. The difference of the ratio of current year’s comparison to the prior year, from the expected value of 1, is reported as a gain if greater than 1 or a fall if less than 1. Readers are invited to replicate this analysis by obtaining copies of the AEIS reports for area school districts at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/.
Or e-mail me for copies of the sampled data in MS-Excel format.
March 5th, Superintendent Lewis presented preliminary results on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores on the Texas mandated TAKS tests.
The preliminary results reported that Monday on 3rd grade reading scores indicate an overall increase of roughly 10% over last years’ scores.
This is the second year in a row of extraordinary gains on 3rd grade reading scores for the Lancaster ISD.
In a sample of 11 districts around Dallas in the Texas Educational Region 10 over the past 12 years, the ordinary (both median and mean) change of scores on this TAKS (formerly TASS) indicator has fallen year to year by about 2%. For only those year-to-year comparisons where districts have shown a gain against all other Texas districts tested, the median gain is 2% and the mean is 4%. No other district sampled since 1996 has posted more than a 10% year-to-year gain in 3rd grade reading, and only one district in this sample, going back to 1994, showed a greater gain than Lancaster '06. That district was Crandall ISD in school year ending 1996.
Well, except for Wilmer-Hutchins.
In 2001, the Wilmer-Hutchins district posted 17% year-to-year-gains for 3rd grade reading. 2001 was a year when state scores for reading in that grade were down by 2%.
The Wilmer Hutchins results were later proven to be fraudulent. Too Good to Be True.
(WH 2001 stories, for the newcomers, can be found here: initial elation --- http://www.clipfile.org/2002/04/28/566/
followed by the sade aftermath WH 2004 http://www.clipfile.org/2004/08/22/701/
Good stuff from DMN's education reporter, Josh Benton.)
The district with dramatic gains that have never been challenged was Crandall. This comparatively small district, due East of Lancaster, ranged from 21.9% gains to 16.3% losses in the 12 years sampled. Small absolute changes in the numbers of 3rd graders passing the tests had outsized impact on their statistics. In 1997, following their extraordinary gains, the gain has scaled back to 3.3% and by 1998 Crandall actually saw comparative scores fall by 10.7% . See more about little Cradndall ISD at http://www.crandall-isd.net/
Anyhow, moving on from the historically fraudulent to the currently statistically extraordinary:
Lancaster ISD’s 2006 3rd grade reading passing percentage scores gained by an (extraordinary!) 12.7% over 2005. This, in a year where the state scores overall were down by 7.7%, indicating the 2006 TAKS test for 3rd graders was more difficult -- even unusually more difficult -- than in 2005.
Every district sampled between 1994 and 2006 saw 3rd Grade reading gains fall off sharply after any double-digit gain. 2001 gains of 17.9% in Wilmer-Hutchins were followed by losses of 36.4%. This fall is a common statistical pattern known, technically, as “regression to the mean.”. Random chance may produce dramatic changes in any measure; but when those changes are purely due to chance they are typically offset in subsequent measures. Lancaster will, if the results hold up, be the first district in the area to show back-to-back, double-digit, gains on the 3rd grade reading measure. The extraordinary statistics, in turn, indicate extraordinary changes in instructional, or testing, procedures.
Friday, the Texas Education Agency released overall 3rd and 5th AEIS reading 2007 scores for all districts. Statewide, reading scores among 3rd graders were unchanged. So it’s reasonable to infer the TAKS test this year is no harder or easier than last year. LISD's preliminary reports of gains on this test indicate an advance not only year to year, but in comparison to neighboring districts.
I calulate “Gains”, for the purposes of analysis, by comparing the local district’s passing percentage on an AEIS measure to the state’s passing percentage on that same measure. The difference of the ratio of current year’s comparison to the prior year, from the expected value of 1, is reported as a gain if greater than 1 or a fall if less than 1. Readers are invited to replicate this analysis by obtaining copies of the AEIS reports for area school districts at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/.
Or e-mail me for copies of the sampled data in MS-Excel format.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Amazing Karnak!
Remember how Johnny Carson used to come to his desk wearing a giant turban, place an envelope to his head, and announce the answer to questions that had not yet been read out? Let's play. I'll predict the answer. I'll even predict the question. And come late Monday night and the end of the LISD Board of Trustees hearing on the "proposed" May bond election, we'll see how good my magic turban is.
Answer: Fifty Cents.
Question: How high with the district propose to raise I&S tax rates?
(The secret -- Larry Lewis ALWAYS proposes to raise I&S to the ultimate limits. After than, he decides how much funding the maximum generates. And finally, he attempts to justify the borrowing with projects that seem to match the available funds.)
Answer: A tax cut.
Question: Will the increase in taxes be presented to the public as an increase or as a reduction -- a tax cut?
(The secret -- the Texas Legislature has forced districts to cut M&O tax rates. Maintenance and Operating funds are now increasingly coming to localities from the state -- with strings attached. But since the M&O will be down MORE than the I&S rates the local district controls will be UP, the TOTAL tax projected for next year, even with a big bond, will be presented as a tax cut. BONUS, the "spin" from the district will be such that a "yes" vote on the bonds will be NEEDED to get the tax cut.)
Answer: A school bus, "technology", and maintenance at the old stadium.
Question: What assets will the district propose to finance with new bonds that have a useful life much less than the length of the bonds.
(No secret -- just more shenanigans from our District.)
Answer: Another bus, even more technology, and a police car.
Question: What projected purchases will STILL be in the bond proposals for 2007 that have been purchased -- TWICE -- in 2006 with 2004 bond funds and windfall tax recoveries from sale of foreclosed real estate?
Answer: More than 20.
Question: How many years will the district propose to draw out payments for assets that fully depreciate in less than one decade?
Remember how Johnny Carson used to come to his desk wearing a giant turban, place an envelope to his head, and announce the answer to questions that had not yet been read out? Let's play. I'll predict the answer. I'll even predict the question. And come late Monday night and the end of the LISD Board of Trustees hearing on the "proposed" May bond election, we'll see how good my magic turban is.
Answer: Fifty Cents.
Question: How high with the district propose to raise I&S tax rates?
(The secret -- Larry Lewis ALWAYS proposes to raise I&S to the ultimate limits. After than, he decides how much funding the maximum generates. And finally, he attempts to justify the borrowing with projects that seem to match the available funds.)
Answer: A tax cut.
Question: Will the increase in taxes be presented to the public as an increase or as a reduction -- a tax cut?
(The secret -- the Texas Legislature has forced districts to cut M&O tax rates. Maintenance and Operating funds are now increasingly coming to localities from the state -- with strings attached. But since the M&O will be down MORE than the I&S rates the local district controls will be UP, the TOTAL tax projected for next year, even with a big bond, will be presented as a tax cut. BONUS, the "spin" from the district will be such that a "yes" vote on the bonds will be NEEDED to get the tax cut.)
Answer: A school bus, "technology", and maintenance at the old stadium.
Question: What assets will the district propose to finance with new bonds that have a useful life much less than the length of the bonds.
(No secret -- just more shenanigans from our District.)
Answer: Another bus, even more technology, and a police car.
Question: What projected purchases will STILL be in the bond proposals for 2007 that have been purchased -- TWICE -- in 2006 with 2004 bond funds and windfall tax recoveries from sale of foreclosed real estate?
Answer: More than 20.
Question: How many years will the district propose to draw out payments for assets that fully depreciate in less than one decade?
Friday, March 02, 2007
New Lancaster School project faces challenges.
The Monday night before the 7 November 2006 school bond referendum, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees approved a proposal to purchase land for a new elementary school. At the time, Superintendent Larry Lewis spoke of the reduction in price of the site -- from $568,000 to $222,000 -- and of his hopes that the passage of that upcoming bond would allow the new elementary school to be opened within two years -- by 2008.
The following Tuesday, voters dashed those hopes. The 215 Million dollar proposal was defeated (52% / 48% ). This was the second such defeat for LISD proposals last year. The previous May, voters similarly rejected a $93 Million referendum.
Nevertheless, district officials continued with the purchase of ten acres for a new school site. Remaining funds from the recent 2004 bond projects were used, as authorized by the Board, to secure a 10+ acre block of land in the North Lancaster "Boardwalk" development. Final agreements to transfer the property were filed in Dallas County Court records on 22 January 2007. Board President Nanette Vick signed for the district, and Steve Topletz represented the original Boardwalk developers.
A detailed review of those agreements indicates that delays, expenses, and risks will continue to thwart the district's hopes for a quick infusion of new seats for their growing population of new students.
First, neither the developer nor the district can develop the site as platted until the City of Lancaster completes three major and long delayed tasks. First, a "Stormwater Master Plan" must be approved. After that, the city must secure the necessary easements and land acquisitions of its own to channel the stormwater as planned. Finally, the city's contractors must complete construction of the culverts, aqueducts, and canals specified. The 2004 plat for Boardwalk Phase Three shows two distinct 27-inch diameter "Reinforced Concrete Pipe" (RCP) systems leading from Boardwalk. One starts from collection points in the residential neighborhood, and the other from the proposed school site. The two RCP systems then cross two different pieces of property owned by individuals completely unaffiliated with the Topletz and Andante groups. The city has been attempting to buy these residential lots an incorporate the stormwater system into a "Hike and Bike" system of nature trails. But, a pretty trail would be simply one more of the city's amenities. A system to control the floods running off newly paved School Site parking lots, to prevent another "Ten Mile Creek" disaster, that's vital. Superintendent Lewis apparently believed the city had, in fact, purchased the lots in question during his November 7th discussions with the Board of Trustees. At the time stated that an additional three acres, adjacent to the purchased site, would be donated to the LISD. But the city does not own such property to support the Dr Lewis’s expected donation. As of now the two families living in residences west of Boardwalk have NOT sold either the lots, or easements across their lots, to the city, the developer, or the district. Stormwater runoff from Boardwalk Phase 3 can not be controlled. And no construction of any sort in Phase 3 is, as of yet, permitted.
A second indication of the doubts of both the developer and the district is the inclusion of this "buy back" provision in the Use Restrictions of the agreement:
"Developer shall have the right to re-purchase the School Site for the net Purchase Price as stated in the Contract if construction of the elementary school building has not commenced on the School Site within five (5) years from the date the Contract closes and title to the School Site is conveyed to LISD."
Buy back agreements between government agencies and developers are hardly uncommon. But for the Boardwalk school agreeement, the buy back locks in the developer’s price of land at 2006 (pre-stormwater master plan) values . Should the Lancaster district fail to develop the site, they can't in turn sell it to any other buyer for any other purpose or for any other price. Or, if such a deal is proposed, Mr Topletz can simply exercise his option to repurchase the site at the 2006 price and "flip" the acreage to the new buyer, pocketing any potential gains for himself. This would be particularly advantages to a developer if the city drags out the RCP construction projects for approximately 4 years. When and if stormwater projects, or similar UNT South Dallas Campus projects, enhance the value of the Boardwalk development, the developer can enjoy the interest he's earned on the sale price, refund that price to LISD, and have his land and projects right back, unchanged.
Should the district pressure the city to provide stormwater control, and begin school construction before the Phase 3 residential construction gets underway, then a third challenging feature of this agreement comes into play. From page 3:
"In the event that LISD elects to build the school on the School Site prior to the Developer developing the adjoining property, then LISD shall be responsible for constructing the Infrastructure Work. "
Estimates attached to the agreement by the Engineering Firm Jones and Boyd indicate that the Infrastructure costs would exceed half a million dollars, over and above the purchase price.
It would also leave the school building sitting isolated by several city blocks from the nearest homes in Boardwalk (phase 2) or Meadowview. But after the power, water, sewer and storm control structures were installed by the school district, the developer would be able to pave his streets in the new development fairly quickly.
An indication of the timeline can be determined by the rate of homesales in Boardwalk phase 2. This section of the development, which contains some 180 lots, just opened this fall. At present, slower, turnover rates this provides an inventory of lots sufficient for another year and a half. Meanwhile comparable developments with stormwater and infrastructure already in place surround the Boardwalk sites along Wintergreen Road and Houston School. One of the existing homebuilders in Boardwalk, Horizon Homes, has already announced they are pulling out from the Boardwalk project. The other, K Hovnanian, is reportedly considering it. The immediate prospect of Phase 3 meeting the school district's projected timeline of 2008 seem bleak.
Meanwhile, the district has announced during Martin Luther King day celebrations, and elsewhere, that they are planning to hold a third bond referendum in May, 2007. Estimated to exceed 140 million dollars, the new referendum breaks up district proposals into three or more separate propositions, the largest portions of each will include funding for the -- politically popular -- elementary school expansions, new site acquisitions, and new construction. If the bond passes and several million becomes available to buy other land at other sites, those hoping for a new school in the Boardwalk, Meadowview, and Ames Meadow environs are likely to be extremely disappointed.
[cross-posted to Pegasus News -- www.pegnews.com/Lancaster]
The Monday night before the 7 November 2006 school bond referendum, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees approved a proposal to purchase land for a new elementary school. At the time, Superintendent Larry Lewis spoke of the reduction in price of the site -- from $568,000 to $222,000 -- and of his hopes that the passage of that upcoming bond would allow the new elementary school to be opened within two years -- by 2008.
The following Tuesday, voters dashed those hopes. The 215 Million dollar proposal was defeated (52% / 48% ). This was the second such defeat for LISD proposals last year. The previous May, voters similarly rejected a $93 Million referendum.
Nevertheless, district officials continued with the purchase of ten acres for a new school site. Remaining funds from the recent 2004 bond projects were used, as authorized by the Board, to secure a 10+ acre block of land in the North Lancaster "Boardwalk" development. Final agreements to transfer the property were filed in Dallas County Court records on 22 January 2007. Board President Nanette Vick signed for the district, and Steve Topletz represented the original Boardwalk developers.
A detailed review of those agreements indicates that delays, expenses, and risks will continue to thwart the district's hopes for a quick infusion of new seats for their growing population of new students.
First, neither the developer nor the district can develop the site as platted until the City of Lancaster completes three major and long delayed tasks. First, a "Stormwater Master Plan" must be approved. After that, the city must secure the necessary easements and land acquisitions of its own to channel the stormwater as planned. Finally, the city's contractors must complete construction of the culverts, aqueducts, and canals specified. The 2004 plat for Boardwalk Phase Three shows two distinct 27-inch diameter "Reinforced Concrete Pipe" (RCP) systems leading from Boardwalk. One starts from collection points in the residential neighborhood, and the other from the proposed school site. The two RCP systems then cross two different pieces of property owned by individuals completely unaffiliated with the Topletz and Andante groups. The city has been attempting to buy these residential lots an incorporate the stormwater system into a "Hike and Bike" system of nature trails. But, a pretty trail would be simply one more of the city's amenities. A system to control the floods running off newly paved School Site parking lots, to prevent another "Ten Mile Creek" disaster, that's vital. Superintendent Lewis apparently believed the city had, in fact, purchased the lots in question during his November 7th discussions with the Board of Trustees. At the time stated that an additional three acres, adjacent to the purchased site, would be donated to the LISD. But the city does not own such property to support the Dr Lewis’s expected donation. As of now the two families living in residences west of Boardwalk have NOT sold either the lots, or easements across their lots, to the city, the developer, or the district. Stormwater runoff from Boardwalk Phase 3 can not be controlled. And no construction of any sort in Phase 3 is, as of yet, permitted.
A second indication of the doubts of both the developer and the district is the inclusion of this "buy back" provision in the Use Restrictions of the agreement:
"Developer shall have the right to re-purchase the School Site for the net Purchase Price as stated in the Contract if construction of the elementary school building has not commenced on the School Site within five (5) years from the date the Contract closes and title to the School Site is conveyed to LISD."
Buy back agreements between government agencies and developers are hardly uncommon. But for the Boardwalk school agreeement, the buy back locks in the developer’s price of land at 2006 (pre-stormwater master plan) values . Should the Lancaster district fail to develop the site, they can't in turn sell it to any other buyer for any other purpose or for any other price. Or, if such a deal is proposed, Mr Topletz can simply exercise his option to repurchase the site at the 2006 price and "flip" the acreage to the new buyer, pocketing any potential gains for himself. This would be particularly advantages to a developer if the city drags out the RCP construction projects for approximately 4 years. When and if stormwater projects, or similar UNT South Dallas Campus projects, enhance the value of the Boardwalk development, the developer can enjoy the interest he's earned on the sale price, refund that price to LISD, and have his land and projects right back, unchanged.
Should the district pressure the city to provide stormwater control, and begin school construction before the Phase 3 residential construction gets underway, then a third challenging feature of this agreement comes into play. From page 3:
"In the event that LISD elects to build the school on the School Site prior to the Developer developing the adjoining property, then LISD shall be responsible for constructing the Infrastructure Work. "
Estimates attached to the agreement by the Engineering Firm Jones and Boyd indicate that the Infrastructure costs would exceed half a million dollars, over and above the purchase price.
It would also leave the school building sitting isolated by several city blocks from the nearest homes in Boardwalk (phase 2) or Meadowview. But after the power, water, sewer and storm control structures were installed by the school district, the developer would be able to pave his streets in the new development fairly quickly.
An indication of the timeline can be determined by the rate of homesales in Boardwalk phase 2. This section of the development, which contains some 180 lots, just opened this fall. At present, slower, turnover rates this provides an inventory of lots sufficient for another year and a half. Meanwhile comparable developments with stormwater and infrastructure already in place surround the Boardwalk sites along Wintergreen Road and Houston School. One of the existing homebuilders in Boardwalk, Horizon Homes, has already announced they are pulling out from the Boardwalk project. The other, K Hovnanian, is reportedly considering it. The immediate prospect of Phase 3 meeting the school district's projected timeline of 2008 seem bleak.
Meanwhile, the district has announced during Martin Luther King day celebrations, and elsewhere, that they are planning to hold a third bond referendum in May, 2007. Estimated to exceed 140 million dollars, the new referendum breaks up district proposals into three or more separate propositions, the largest portions of each will include funding for the -- politically popular -- elementary school expansions, new site acquisitions, and new construction. If the bond passes and several million becomes available to buy other land at other sites, those hoping for a new school in the Boardwalk, Meadowview, and Ames Meadow environs are likely to be extremely disappointed.
[cross-posted to Pegasus News -- www.pegnews.com/Lancaster]
OVERDUE!
Lancaster ISD accountants and auditors have failed to file required annual financial reports with the Texas Education Agency on time, or within the 30-day “grace period” after the January deadline. A senior official with TEA confirms that the state agency has not received filings. However, the district has, according to that source, last week filed a request for an extension. However, the TEA school finance office advised that their agency has no authority to issue either extentions or waivers regarding this legislative requirement. Another source in the Region Ten schools support offices confirms that failure to file these reports is a “serious problem” for the Lancaster District.
LISD’s most recent CFO, Eugene Smith, was on record as present for public meetings with the Board of Trustees as late as December 18th 2006. But early this year, trustees quietly confided to constituents that the CFO had been terminated. The confusion following the departure of the CFO contributes to the lateness of the required reports.
The annual financial reports form the basis for the TEA’s “FIRST” rankings, (the “Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas”). The state agency assigns a “Substandard” rating for any districts failing to file within a month after the January deadline.
In mid-February TEA began posting reports online from other districts that had filed on time. On Februay 16th, an Open Records Request for the Fiscal-Year 2006 was filed with LISD. It was the week following that the district requested the extension from TEA.
But November,2006, the Trustees were still voting, unanimously, to approve financial reports as submitted by CFO Smith.
And on December 18, 2006, with Eugene Smith present, the Trustees voted to approve a 4% increase in salary for the officer ultimately responsible, Superintendent Larry D. Lewis.
Lancaster ISD accountants and auditors have failed to file required annual financial reports with the Texas Education Agency on time, or within the 30-day “grace period” after the January deadline. A senior official with TEA confirms that the state agency has not received filings. However, the district has, according to that source, last week filed a request for an extension. However, the TEA school finance office advised that their agency has no authority to issue either extentions or waivers regarding this legislative requirement. Another source in the Region Ten schools support offices confirms that failure to file these reports is a “serious problem” for the Lancaster District.
LISD’s most recent CFO, Eugene Smith, was on record as present for public meetings with the Board of Trustees as late as December 18th 2006. But early this year, trustees quietly confided to constituents that the CFO had been terminated. The confusion following the departure of the CFO contributes to the lateness of the required reports.
The annual financial reports form the basis for the TEA’s “FIRST” rankings, (the “Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas”). The state agency assigns a “Substandard” rating for any districts failing to file within a month after the January deadline.
In mid-February TEA began posting reports online from other districts that had filed on time. On Februay 16th, an Open Records Request for the Fiscal-Year 2006 was filed with LISD. It was the week following that the district requested the extension from TEA.
But November,2006, the Trustees were still voting, unanimously, to approve financial reports as submitted by CFO Smith.
And on December 18, 2006, with Eugene Smith present, the Trustees voted to approve a 4% increase in salary for the officer ultimately responsible, Superintendent Larry D. Lewis.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Only one indicator.
The FIRST rating the Lancaster ISD failed for fiscal year ending 2005 asked the question:
Did The Comparisons Of PEIMS Data To Like Information In Annual Financial Report Result In An Aggregate Variance Of Less Than 4 Percent Of Expenditures Per Fund Type ?
This is also termed the "Data Quality Measure". The PEIMS data is stuff like daily average attendance, teacher-student ratios, -- general nuts-and-bolts data about how many whos are where doing which whats. If the sum of all the numbers in all the columns equals the sum of all the numbers in every row, then the "variance" would be zero. Generally, in an imperfect world, the numbers do NOT add up, exactly. But within 4% or so, they should.
Only 14 districts out of over one thousand failed this test in fiscal year 2005. One district that failed was our neighbor Irving. The Irving ISD, which like Lancaster also earned a "Superior Achievement" rating by failing only this one indicator, posted an aggregate variance of 13.2%.
The North Forest ISD earned an "Above Standard" financial rating .. which is down one notch from "Superior". (This lower ranking was because they failed two additional indicators.) They failed the PEIMS data quality question with a variance of 10.9%
Quinlan ISD faced a "Substandard" Rating, with 6 negative indicators, one of which was PEIMS data quality variance of 8.7%.
Valentine ISD eked out a marginal "Standard" Rating with 5 negative indicators, and PEIMS data quality variance of just under 5%.
Thirteen, eleven, almost nine, not quite five ... anybody care to guess what the Wilmer Hutchins district reported as a variance in fiscal 2005? How about 100% ? That's amazing. Every data element they reported was in variance. 100% variance. Can it get any worse?
Well, the LANCASTER ISD with its "Superior Achievement" ranking managed to fail the PEIMS data quality indicator with a 121% variance.
The Lancaster ISD had more variance than they had data.
And this is the second FIRST ranking year, the second fiscal year, in a row where the PEIMS data quality has been at unaccepable variance. In fiscal year 2004 the variance was 107%.
Now, in 2003 -- the last fiscal year before Dr Larry Lewis arrived, the variance was only 0.49%. That's like about one-tenth the variance allowed by FIRST standards.
The same staffer, Mr Greg Long, has held the post of PEIMS expert since before 2003 and now since Financial Officer Eugene Smith has come and gone. One might think that Greg Long would know, by now, how to keep his data quality within tolerance. If, that is, he were allowed to.
But for the last two years, while Greg Long has fallen lower and lower on the Lancaster Fianance Office pecking order, the PEIMS data quality has gotten worse and worse.
Hey, Mr Long, if you're reading, would you care to comment?
The FIRST rating the Lancaster ISD failed for fiscal year ending 2005 asked the question:
Did The Comparisons Of PEIMS Data To Like Information In Annual Financial Report Result In An Aggregate Variance Of Less Than 4 Percent Of Expenditures Per Fund Type ?
This is also termed the "Data Quality Measure". The PEIMS data is stuff like daily average attendance, teacher-student ratios, -- general nuts-and-bolts data about how many whos are where doing which whats. If the sum of all the numbers in all the columns equals the sum of all the numbers in every row, then the "variance" would be zero. Generally, in an imperfect world, the numbers do NOT add up, exactly. But within 4% or so, they should.
Only 14 districts out of over one thousand failed this test in fiscal year 2005. One district that failed was our neighbor Irving. The Irving ISD, which like Lancaster also earned a "Superior Achievement" rating by failing only this one indicator, posted an aggregate variance of 13.2%.
The North Forest ISD earned an "Above Standard" financial rating .. which is down one notch from "Superior". (This lower ranking was because they failed two additional indicators.) They failed the PEIMS data quality question with a variance of 10.9%
Quinlan ISD faced a "Substandard" Rating, with 6 negative indicators, one of which was PEIMS data quality variance of 8.7%.
Valentine ISD eked out a marginal "Standard" Rating with 5 negative indicators, and PEIMS data quality variance of just under 5%.
Thirteen, eleven, almost nine, not quite five ... anybody care to guess what the Wilmer Hutchins district reported as a variance in fiscal 2005? How about 100% ? That's amazing. Every data element they reported was in variance. 100% variance. Can it get any worse?
Well, the LANCASTER ISD with its "Superior Achievement" ranking managed to fail the PEIMS data quality indicator with a 121% variance.
The Lancaster ISD had more variance than they had data.
And this is the second FIRST ranking year, the second fiscal year, in a row where the PEIMS data quality has been at unaccepable variance. In fiscal year 2004 the variance was 107%.
Now, in 2003 -- the last fiscal year before Dr Larry Lewis arrived, the variance was only 0.49%. That's like about one-tenth the variance allowed by FIRST standards.
The same staffer, Mr Greg Long, has held the post of PEIMS expert since before 2003 and now since Financial Officer Eugene Smith has come and gone. One might think that Greg Long would know, by now, how to keep his data quality within tolerance. If, that is, he were allowed to.
But for the last two years, while Greg Long has fallen lower and lower on the Lancaster Fianance Office pecking order, the PEIMS data quality has gotten worse and worse.
Hey, Mr Long, if you're reading, would you care to comment?
FIRST Rating
Lancaster ISD earned a "Superior Achievement" rating in the "Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST)" scores for fiscal year ending 2005.
We only failed one, of twenty-one, "indicators" or tests.
Now, one test failed can be enough to fail the entire district and earn a "Substandard" rating. It depends on the indicator.
For instance, the Progresso ISD failed with only one "no". So did Port Arthur ISD.
The single indicator failed asked the question:
Was The Annual Financial Report Filed Within One Month After November 27th or January 28th Deadline Depending Upon The District's Fiscal Year End Date?
A district that files its Annual reports more than thirty days after the deadline is in what Region Ten analysts carefully refer to as "serious trouble".
The deadline for fiscal year ending 2006 is coming up fast. Might be a good question for citizens to ask at the next school board meeting. Did we file on time?
Lancaster ISD earned a "Superior Achievement" rating in the "Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST)" scores for fiscal year ending 2005.
We only failed one, of twenty-one, "indicators" or tests.
Now, one test failed can be enough to fail the entire district and earn a "Substandard" rating. It depends on the indicator.
For instance, the Progresso ISD failed with only one "no". So did Port Arthur ISD.
The single indicator failed asked the question:
Was The Annual Financial Report Filed Within One Month After November 27th or January 28th Deadline Depending Upon The District's Fiscal Year End Date?
A district that files its Annual reports more than thirty days after the deadline is in what Region Ten analysts carefully refer to as "serious trouble".
The deadline for fiscal year ending 2006 is coming up fast. Might be a good question for citizens to ask at the next school board meeting. Did we file on time?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Voting.
Now, this probably is NOT enough to get a person fired from his job.
Just because Dallas County Voter ID #03502304 belongs to a person falsely claiming to live at:
500 Rolling Hills Place,
Lancaster, TX 75146
in October of 2006, and who voted in the November 2006 School Bond Referendum, even though he has ACTUALLY resided, since November 2005, at:
2640 Waterfront Drive
Grand Prairie TX 75054
in TARRANT COUNTY...
It doesn't mean the Lancaster School district will fire him.
After all, the district needed every vote it could get, last bond election. Even the illegal ones. Even though it lost. It won't fire any employee, even the CFO, for this sort of minor fraud.
Now, in the MAY 2006 election, which also was a squeaker where every vote was absolutely crucial -- and where Dallas voter # 03502304 might have voted,
and didn't...
THAT might have caused a bit of heartburn in the Superintendent's office.
Probably not enough to get a person fired, though.
Can't help wondering what the actual disagreement might have been.
Now, this probably is NOT enough to get a person fired from his job.
Just because Dallas County Voter ID #03502304 belongs to a person falsely claiming to live at:
500 Rolling Hills Place,
Lancaster, TX 75146
in October of 2006, and who voted in the November 2006 School Bond Referendum, even though he has ACTUALLY resided, since November 2005, at:
2640 Waterfront Drive
Grand Prairie TX 75054
in TARRANT COUNTY...
It doesn't mean the Lancaster School district will fire him.
After all, the district needed every vote it could get, last bond election. Even the illegal ones. Even though it lost. It won't fire any employee, even the CFO, for this sort of minor fraud.
Now, in the MAY 2006 election, which also was a squeaker where every vote was absolutely crucial -- and where Dallas voter # 03502304 might have voted,
and didn't...
THAT might have caused a bit of heartburn in the Superintendent's office.
Probably not enough to get a person fired, though.
Can't help wondering what the actual disagreement might have been.
The Changing LISD Pecking Order
Just for fun let's assume that the page position of the name in an directory listing denotes the importance of that person.
If so, it's interesting to see the rise and fall of various players in the LISD Financial Office. The history of this empire is
perserved on the "Wayback Machine" -- an archive of internet webpages.
In April of 2003, Superintendent Bill Ward has gone, Dr Larry Lewis has not yet arrived.A man named Thomas Poore is serving as "Acting Superintendent". And the Finance Office is, in that long ago time, called the Business Operations Department. The CFO was Ted Warren. The contact list, and our assumed ranking of next-most-important vice-officers, deputies, assistants and flunkies, runs
Scott Northcutt Coordinator for Business Services
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Tina Hansen Business Manager
Sue Hayes Payroll Manager
Now, let's set the Wayback Machine to June of 2003, Dr Lewis arrives on the Wayback radar. Thomas Poore is now "deputy" superintendent. The names and rankings in the Business Operations Department are unchanged.
In October 2003, Eugene Young replaced Thomas Poore as deputy superintendent and Scott Northcutt has disappeared from the Business Operations Department. The ranking remains Warren, Long, Hansen and Hayes.
In December 2003 Eugene Young picked up a assistant deputy vice-superintendent named Dr. Sylvia Hornback. And in the Business Office Ted Warren added a most- junior aide named Pat Wade. Ms Wade was responsible for "Benefits and Insurance". The hierarchy then ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This pecking order persisted in February 2004, April of 2004 and June of 2004
By August Dr Hornback had disappeared. Ted Warren was still hanging on, though his page position was suddenly elevated to co-equal Eugene Young's. Mr Warren also got his original, now second, mention of the page under the Business Operations listing. And the Business Operations hierarchy still ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This 5-person office ranking continued inMarch 2005.
By April 2005 Ted Warren had fallen in grace and was no longer co-equal Eugene Young. He did still appear as head of the Business Office and the Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade pecking order continued.
In May 2005 Ted Warren had fallen completely off the website. The new Chief Financial Officer, Eugene Smith, appeared at the top of th Business Office listing. The 5-person ranking now ran Smith, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade. This pecking order lasted thru June.
In October 2005 the Business Office was reorganized as the "Office of the Chief Financial Officer" . CFO Eugene P Smith acquired a "financial manager" , Cheryl Peoples, and a "co-ordinator of purchasing" , Phil Brasher. Pat Wade dropped off the page. The new six-person pecking order ran Smith, Peoples, Hansen, Hayes, Brasher, and Long. (I can't help wondering how Long wound up so low in the rankings.)
The O-CFO team of six persisted in May of 2006 the Office of the CFO had ballooned to a full 'team of eight". Greg Long gained back some ranking points and 4 new birds on the pecking order followed:
Eugene P. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Cheryl Peoples Financial Manager
Phil Brasher Coordinator of Purchasing
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Mandy Johnson Administrative Assistant
Jessie Armstead Accounts Payable
Randall Hoadley Financial Analyst
Wendy Ware Payroll Manager
With all the new staff on the payroll, no WONDER the O-CFO needed a payroll manager!
It ddn't last. As of winter 2006, and still today, newcomers Johnson and Hoadley have overtaken Long. Mandy Johnson has been promoted from clerk (admin assistant) to "payroll" And former payrol manager Wendy Ware has disappeared. ) Only Armstead remains for Long to peck upon. Accounts payble being, apparently, even a less-esteemed position than PEIMS attendance taking.
The current listing / ranking showing on the LISD website is:
Smith - Cheryl Peoples - Mandy Johnson -Randall Hoadley -Greg Long - PEIMS Facilitator and -Jessie Armstead - Accounts Payable
Of course, the website is behind the times. Eugene Smith is actually gone, Richard Gonzales is holding the CFO slot, and Cheryl Peoples appears be managing the actual work. The district is hiring but not finance types --only teachers, counselors and librarians.
A new "highly qualified" CFO is not, it appears, being sought.
It would not appear to be an attractive position. From May 2005 to December 2006 -- 19 months or so?
It may be interesting to look into how Eugene Smith wound up moving to Lancaster from previous postings -- which appear to have been in Detroit.But we'll save that for another day.
Just for fun let's assume that the page position of the name in an directory listing denotes the importance of that person.
If so, it's interesting to see the rise and fall of various players in the LISD Financial Office. The history of this empire is
perserved on the "Wayback Machine" -- an archive of internet webpages.
In April of 2003, Superintendent Bill Ward has gone, Dr Larry Lewis has not yet arrived.A man named Thomas Poore is serving as "Acting Superintendent". And the Finance Office is, in that long ago time, called the Business Operations Department. The CFO was Ted Warren. The contact list, and our assumed ranking of next-most-important vice-officers, deputies, assistants and flunkies, runs
Scott Northcutt Coordinator for Business Services
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Tina Hansen Business Manager
Sue Hayes Payroll Manager
Now, let's set the Wayback Machine to June of 2003, Dr Lewis arrives on the Wayback radar. Thomas Poore is now "deputy" superintendent. The names and rankings in the Business Operations Department are unchanged.
In October 2003, Eugene Young replaced Thomas Poore as deputy superintendent and Scott Northcutt has disappeared from the Business Operations Department. The ranking remains Warren, Long, Hansen and Hayes.
In December 2003 Eugene Young picked up a assistant deputy vice-superintendent named Dr. Sylvia Hornback. And in the Business Office Ted Warren added a most- junior aide named Pat Wade. Ms Wade was responsible for "Benefits and Insurance". The hierarchy then ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This pecking order persisted in February 2004, April of 2004 and June of 2004
By August Dr Hornback had disappeared. Ted Warren was still hanging on, though his page position was suddenly elevated to co-equal Eugene Young's. Mr Warren also got his original, now second, mention of the page under the Business Operations listing. And the Business Operations hierarchy still ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This 5-person office ranking continued inMarch 2005.
By April 2005 Ted Warren had fallen in grace and was no longer co-equal Eugene Young. He did still appear as head of the Business Office and the Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade pecking order continued.
In May 2005 Ted Warren had fallen completely off the website. The new Chief Financial Officer, Eugene Smith, appeared at the top of th Business Office listing. The 5-person ranking now ran Smith, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade. This pecking order lasted thru June.
In October 2005 the Business Office was reorganized as the "Office of the Chief Financial Officer" . CFO Eugene P Smith acquired a "financial manager" , Cheryl Peoples, and a "co-ordinator of purchasing" , Phil Brasher. Pat Wade dropped off the page. The new six-person pecking order ran Smith, Peoples, Hansen, Hayes, Brasher, and Long. (I can't help wondering how Long wound up so low in the rankings.)
The O-CFO team of six persisted in May of 2006 the Office of the CFO had ballooned to a full 'team of eight". Greg Long gained back some ranking points and 4 new birds on the pecking order followed:
Eugene P. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Cheryl Peoples Financial Manager
Phil Brasher Coordinator of Purchasing
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Mandy Johnson Administrative Assistant
Jessie Armstead Accounts Payable
Randall Hoadley Financial Analyst
Wendy Ware Payroll Manager
With all the new staff on the payroll, no WONDER the O-CFO needed a payroll manager!
It ddn't last. As of winter 2006, and still today, newcomers Johnson and Hoadley have overtaken Long. Mandy Johnson has been promoted from clerk (admin assistant) to "payroll" And former payrol manager Wendy Ware has disappeared. ) Only Armstead remains for Long to peck upon. Accounts payble being, apparently, even a less-esteemed position than PEIMS attendance taking.
The current listing / ranking showing on the LISD website is:
Smith - Cheryl Peoples - Mandy Johnson -Randall Hoadley -Greg Long - PEIMS Facilitator and -Jessie Armstead - Accounts Payable
Of course, the website is behind the times. Eugene Smith is actually gone, Richard Gonzales is holding the CFO slot, and Cheryl Peoples appears be managing the actual work. The district is hiring but not finance types --only teachers, counselors and librarians.
A new "highly qualified" CFO is not, it appears, being sought.
It would not appear to be an attractive position. From May 2005 to December 2006 -- 19 months or so?
It may be interesting to look into how Eugene Smith wound up moving to Lancaster from previous postings -- which appear to have been in Detroit.But we'll save that for another day.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Outside expert reassures Lancaster.
An "outsider" who has no particular ax to grind in Lancaster assures me via e-mail hat:
{Lancaster ISD has} " ... an Interim CFO who has been with the District and has good experience. "
and that the annually required (and overdue since 31 January)
" audit will be completed shortly"
and concludes
" at this point I do not see any issues with the rating agencies or future bond
programs. "
So any of us that worried that losing our top accountant, missing our statutory deadlines, and attempting to pretend that nothing was ever wrong might somehow lower our school systems credit rating were mistaken.
An "outsider" who has no particular ax to grind in Lancaster assures me via e-mail hat:
{Lancaster ISD has} " ... an Interim CFO who has been with the District and has good experience. "
and that the annually required (and overdue since 31 January)
" audit will be completed shortly"
and concludes
" at this point I do not see any issues with the rating agencies or future bond
programs. "
So any of us that worried that losing our top accountant, missing our statutory deadlines, and attempting to pretend that nothing was ever wrong might somehow lower our school systems credit rating were mistaken.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Missing audit reports from LISD.
Every year, (contrary to reports elsewhere) school districts have a financial audit.
LISD does it every year. It last year. happend the year before.
Happens every year. Nothing to be excited about.
What to get excited about is if it DOESN'T happen.
It didn't happen this year.
This is something districts do for themselves, either in-house or by hiring a team of outside accountants. It's not a symptom of criminal activity. It's just like Exxon or the Sierra Club or the Department of Agriculture -- all large organizations are supposed to tell the public where the money is coming from, going, and what internal controls are being used to track it all.
Lancaster ISD is no exception. The fiscal year closed on 31 August 2006. By December the audit is supposed to be complete. And public hearings on the audit hapen in January. And the report of audit itself is usually posted by the 31st of January.
As happened last year. Outside accountants from Judd, Thomas, Smith and Co. did the audit. It was published to the LancasterISD.ORG website and the Texas Education Agency's website at http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/audit/PDFviewer.asp Last year's report was dated in December and was posted in January.
It didn't happen this year.
John Roberts at Region Ten is a little surprised to learn that. He says it could be, and I quote from our conversation, a "serious problem". He referred me to TEA itself.
Rita Chase, of the TEA audit division, says that by statute the reports are due 150 days after the close of the fiscal year. That would have been, this year, 31 January. But by tradition there is a 30 day "grace period" before the district is "in trouble." She tells me, by phone, the Lancaster ISD has not, so far, approached her with news of the CFO's sudden departure or any other problem that would require a waiver, an extention of deadlines, or other indulgence.
So, the district is two weeks away from "serious problems" and "trouble" in their audit and reporting processes.
As long at the report is produced for a public hearing, and is submitted to the approriate publishers by the end of the month, everything at LISD will continue to be just fine.
Co-incidentally, the filing deadline for LISD board of Trustee elections is only five days AFTER the deadline for filing financial reports.
Every year, (contrary to reports elsewhere) school districts have a financial audit.
LISD does it every year. It last year. happend the year before.
Happens every year. Nothing to be excited about.
What to get excited about is if it DOESN'T happen.
It didn't happen this year.
This is something districts do for themselves, either in-house or by hiring a team of outside accountants. It's not a symptom of criminal activity. It's just like Exxon or the Sierra Club or the Department of Agriculture -- all large organizations are supposed to tell the public where the money is coming from, going, and what internal controls are being used to track it all.
Lancaster ISD is no exception. The fiscal year closed on 31 August 2006. By December the audit is supposed to be complete. And public hearings on the audit hapen in January. And the report of audit itself is usually posted by the 31st of January.
As happened last year. Outside accountants from Judd, Thomas, Smith and Co. did the audit. It was published to the LancasterISD.ORG website and the Texas Education Agency's website at http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/audit/PDFviewer.asp Last year's report was dated in December and was posted in January.
It didn't happen this year.
John Roberts at Region Ten is a little surprised to learn that. He says it could be, and I quote from our conversation, a "serious problem". He referred me to TEA itself.
Rita Chase, of the TEA audit division, says that by statute the reports are due 150 days after the close of the fiscal year. That would have been, this year, 31 January. But by tradition there is a 30 day "grace period" before the district is "in trouble." She tells me, by phone, the Lancaster ISD has not, so far, approached her with news of the CFO's sudden departure or any other problem that would require a waiver, an extention of deadlines, or other indulgence.
So, the district is two weeks away from "serious problems" and "trouble" in their audit and reporting processes.
As long at the report is produced for a public hearing, and is submitted to the approriate publishers by the end of the month, everything at LISD will continue to be just fine.
Co-incidentally, the filing deadline for LISD board of Trustee elections is only five days AFTER the deadline for filing financial reports.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Omissions
Monday night the LISD held an "open hearing" on Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System data for school year 2005-06.
I call your attention to the curious implications of the comparison data presented, regarding teacher experience -- comparing recent LISD's current data to statewide averages, and to LISD prior years', data.
But, I hear you say, Pat Sadberry didn't present any teacher experience data for the whole state, or for prior years.
True. She presented student test score comparisons to the prior year (2004-05) and to state and regional results. The student data was actually presented twice. Once as a bar chart showing raw passing percentages, compared to prior years and the statewise prior-year and current data. And the second time as a percent change in percent passing rates over the 2005 results. Such comparisons, it is implied, are so useful as to require double emphasis -- for student data.
But for TEACHER data, the Team of Eight reviewed the current year data in isolation from any comparison to any other AEIS measures, near or far, past or present.
And that has curious implications.
It happens that the data is available whether the local media, or the Team of Eight, chooses to publish or not. See here.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html
Unlike the changes to data being collected between TASS years and TAKS years, the data measures on teacher experience have been consistent for over a decade. The AEIS tables report the number, and percentage, of teachers by ethnicity and sex, by highest degree held, by years of teaching experience, and by length of term of employment with their current district.
Since 2004, when Dr Lewis arrived as superintendent, the statistic of "average years teachers experience" has declined from 8.1 years to 7.1 years. Compared to the statewide average, LISD has gone from 31% below average (for the state, average experience was 11.8 years in 2004) to 38% below current average (11.5 years) While the statewide average has held steady since 1994, year after year the average experience of Texas teachers is measured at 11-point-something; the LISD level has trended downwards -- 10.2 in '94; 9.6 in '95; 8.9; 8.7; 8.3; 7.2 ... Our
teachers routinely had have about one-third less experience than the state's average; and the trend appears to be getting worse.
Again, since 2004 ,the measure of length of service, "years in this district" statistic has declined from 4.5 years to 3.0 years. Statewide, the typical teacher has been employed by the same district for 7+ years. Our "years in district" number has declined from 42% below average in 2004 to 60% below average in 2006.
In the 2005-06 school year over 11% of LISD teachers were in their first year of the profession. Statewide, the average is 7%. LISD teachers with only 1 to 5 years of experience comprised 46% of our staffing, compared to 29% statewise. The GOOD news is, and such as it is, the trend is improving. In school year ending 2003 the percent of new teachers (0, or 1 to 5 yrs exp) was 62% in LISD compared to 36%
statewide. The statewide figure is pretty constant but the district has gotten closer to typical by 5 percentage points.
At the other end of the experience spectrum LISD is hurting. We had about 12% of our teachers reporting 20 or more years of experience in 2003 and now we have only 7% with that level of experience. Statewide, typically, about 20% of teachers have 20 or more years. The decline in the fraction of most experienced teachers in LISD is a long term trend with this measure falling steadily from 15% (only 4 or 5 percentage points below average) in the early 1990's to half that fraction last
year.
The LISD measures on "highest degree held" are roughly the same as the measures statewide. We have a slightly higher percentage of doctorates, a slightly lower percentage of masters-degree teachers, and about 2 percent points higher, (year after year after year) of those with bachelors and "no degree". Ms Sadberry points out to the Team of Eight that having no degree MEASURED isn't the same as having no degree -- she says the district wouldn't hire a teacher without proper certification.
What "no degree" means is that LISD can't figure out what the degree for a particular teacher should be. (That's ANOTHER bit of data with curious implications.) Statewide there are always about 1% of all teachers who fall into the "no degree (known)" category. For LISD the past three years, that statistic has been 4%, 3.7% and 2.4%. Again, such as it is, this is an improvement. The LISD HR shop is now only half as ignorant about our teachers' certifications as they were 3 years ago.
Teacher pay is up, since 3 years ago. We were paying starting teacher $32K, roughly the state average pay rate, in 2003 but now we pay about $40K (about $5K more (or about 13% more) than the state average. Among our most-experienced teachers pay rates have slipped. The absolute rate has increased from $52K three years ago to $55K now. But comparatively, pay rates have decreased from about 1% _more_ than state average for teachers of comparable experience to only about 0.6% -- down 0.4% -- above average. Still, it's good news that the LISD is making at least some effort to keep experienced staff.
During and after Pat Sadberry's presentation, Trustee Russ Johnson forcefully asserted his opinion that teacher experience matters. It appeared he was frustrated that the amount of detailed information being presented about the district's teachers was inadequate by his standards. Kudos, Mr Johnson.
Why is easily available data NOT being presented to the board?
Dr Lewis mentioned, last night, that when he arrived the Trustees had no real idea of the financial condition of the district. Dr Lewis reported that instead of the $800K in debt the Board mistakenly believed it was carrying, the district was, in fact, over $5 Million in the red.
Obviously Dr Lewis knows that no problem can be resolved unless the whole Team of Eight is aware of the problem, and actively seeking a solution.
The data available on teacher retention indicates the Board needs to be looking for a solution on keeping good teachers.
It's a pity the "public hearing" didn't make the issue more explicit.
Monday night the LISD held an "open hearing" on Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System data for school year 2005-06.
I call your attention to the curious implications of the comparison data presented, regarding teacher experience -- comparing recent LISD's current data to statewide averages, and to LISD prior years', data.
But, I hear you say, Pat Sadberry didn't present any teacher experience data for the whole state, or for prior years.
True. She presented student test score comparisons to the prior year (2004-05) and to state and regional results. The student data was actually presented twice. Once as a bar chart showing raw passing percentages, compared to prior years and the statewise prior-year and current data. And the second time as a percent change in percent passing rates over the 2005 results. Such comparisons, it is implied, are so useful as to require double emphasis -- for student data.
But for TEACHER data, the Team of Eight reviewed the current year data in isolation from any comparison to any other AEIS measures, near or far, past or present.
And that has curious implications.
It happens that the data is available whether the local media, or the Team of Eight, chooses to publish or not. See here.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html
Unlike the changes to data being collected between TASS years and TAKS years, the data measures on teacher experience have been consistent for over a decade. The AEIS tables report the number, and percentage, of teachers by ethnicity and sex, by highest degree held, by years of teaching experience, and by length of term of employment with their current district.
Since 2004, when Dr Lewis arrived as superintendent, the statistic of "average years teachers experience" has declined from 8.1 years to 7.1 years. Compared to the statewide average, LISD has gone from 31% below average (for the state, average experience was 11.8 years in 2004) to 38% below current average (11.5 years) While the statewide average has held steady since 1994, year after year the average experience of Texas teachers is measured at 11-point-something; the LISD level has trended downwards -- 10.2 in '94; 9.6 in '95; 8.9; 8.7; 8.3; 7.2 ... Our
teachers routinely had have about one-third less experience than the state's average; and the trend appears to be getting worse.
Again, since 2004 ,the measure of length of service, "years in this district" statistic has declined from 4.5 years to 3.0 years. Statewide, the typical teacher has been employed by the same district for 7+ years. Our "years in district" number has declined from 42% below average in 2004 to 60% below average in 2006.
In the 2005-06 school year over 11% of LISD teachers were in their first year of the profession. Statewide, the average is 7%. LISD teachers with only 1 to 5 years of experience comprised 46% of our staffing, compared to 29% statewise. The GOOD news is, and such as it is, the trend is improving. In school year ending 2003 the percent of new teachers (0, or 1 to 5 yrs exp) was 62% in LISD compared to 36%
statewide. The statewide figure is pretty constant but the district has gotten closer to typical by 5 percentage points.
At the other end of the experience spectrum LISD is hurting. We had about 12% of our teachers reporting 20 or more years of experience in 2003 and now we have only 7% with that level of experience. Statewide, typically, about 20% of teachers have 20 or more years. The decline in the fraction of most experienced teachers in LISD is a long term trend with this measure falling steadily from 15% (only 4 or 5 percentage points below average) in the early 1990's to half that fraction last
year.
The LISD measures on "highest degree held" are roughly the same as the measures statewide. We have a slightly higher percentage of doctorates, a slightly lower percentage of masters-degree teachers, and about 2 percent points higher, (year after year after year) of those with bachelors and "no degree". Ms Sadberry points out to the Team of Eight that having no degree MEASURED isn't the same as having no degree -- she says the district wouldn't hire a teacher without proper certification.
What "no degree" means is that LISD can't figure out what the degree for a particular teacher should be. (That's ANOTHER bit of data with curious implications.) Statewide there are always about 1% of all teachers who fall into the "no degree (known)" category. For LISD the past three years, that statistic has been 4%, 3.7% and 2.4%. Again, such as it is, this is an improvement. The LISD HR shop is now only half as ignorant about our teachers' certifications as they were 3 years ago.
Teacher pay is up, since 3 years ago. We were paying starting teacher $32K, roughly the state average pay rate, in 2003 but now we pay about $40K (about $5K more (or about 13% more) than the state average. Among our most-experienced teachers pay rates have slipped. The absolute rate has increased from $52K three years ago to $55K now. But comparatively, pay rates have decreased from about 1% _more_ than state average for teachers of comparable experience to only about 0.6% -- down 0.4% -- above average. Still, it's good news that the LISD is making at least some effort to keep experienced staff.
During and after Pat Sadberry's presentation, Trustee Russ Johnson forcefully asserted his opinion that teacher experience matters. It appeared he was frustrated that the amount of detailed information being presented about the district's teachers was inadequate by his standards. Kudos, Mr Johnson.
Why is easily available data NOT being presented to the board?
Dr Lewis mentioned, last night, that when he arrived the Trustees had no real idea of the financial condition of the district. Dr Lewis reported that instead of the $800K in debt the Board mistakenly believed it was carrying, the district was, in fact, over $5 Million in the red.
Obviously Dr Lewis knows that no problem can be resolved unless the whole Team of Eight is aware of the problem, and actively seeking a solution.
The data available on teacher retention indicates the Board needs to be looking for a solution on keeping good teachers.
It's a pity the "public hearing" didn't make the issue more explicit.
Average Years Teaching Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 6.1 11.5
1994-95 10 11.5
1995-96 10.2 11.7
1996-97 9.6 11.7
1997-98 8.9 11.8
1998-99 8.7 11.8
1999-00 8.3 11.9
2000-01 7.2 11.9
2001-02 7.6 11.9
2002-03 7.3 11.8
2003-04 8.1 11.8
2004-05 6.3 11.5
2005-06 7.1 11.5
Average Years in Same District
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 4.1 7.8
1994-95 5.8 7.8
1995-96 6 8
1996-97 5.3 8
1997-98 4.7 8
1998-99 4.7 8
1999-00 4.6 8
2000-01 4.3 7.9
2001-02 3.8 7.9
2002-03 4.4 7.7
2003-04 4.5 7.8
2004-05 2.8 7.5
2005-06 3 7.6
Percent of Teachers
with Zero Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 47.10% 6.40%
1994-95 11.30% 6.70%
1995-96 11.30% 6.30%
1996-97 19.80% 6.60%
1997-98 15.30% 7.00%
1998-99 21.40% 7.70%
1999-00 15.00% 7.60%
2000-01 28.20% 7.80%
2001-02 23.40% 7.80%
2002-03 21.50% 7.80%
2003-04 15.90% 6.50%
2004-05 29.90% 7.70%
2005-06 11.20% 7.50%
Percent of Teachers
with 1- 5 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 15.40% 25.60%
1994-95 29.90% 26.20%
1995-96 31.50% 27.00%
1996-97 26.40% 26.80%
1997-98 33.50% 26.60%
1998-99 31.10% 26.70%
1999-00 41.30% 27.00%
2000-01 33.50% 27.40%
2001-02 35.30% 27.40%
2002-03 40.50% 28.20%
2003-04 42.10% 29.00%
2004-05 33.00% 28.70%
2005-06 46.10% 29.00%
Percent of Teachers
with 6-10 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 11.40% 19.20%
1994-95 21.00% 18.80%
1995-96 16.70% 18.00%
1996-97 13.90% 17.40%
1997-98 14.80% 17.50%
1998-99 11.70% 17.70%
1999-00 10.90% 17.90%
2000-01 8.40% 18.10%
2001-02 11.30% 18.10%
2002-03 11.40% 18.30%
2003-04 12.90% 18.90%
2004-05 13.90% 19.40%
2005-06 19.70% 19.40%
Percent of Teachers
with 11-20 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 16.20% 31.80%
1994-95 23.70% 30.50%
1995-96 25.50% 30.00%
1996-97 24.60% 29.60%
1997-98 21.90% 28.70%
1998-99 20.50% 27.50%
1999-00 19.90% 26.20%
2000-01 20.00% 25.30%
2001-02 17.90% 25.30%
2002-03 16.00% 24.40%
2003-04 16.70% 24.80%
2004-05 16.90% 24.50%
2005-06 15.90% 24.20%
Percent of Teachers with
20 or more Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 9.90% 17.00%
1994-95 14.00% 17.80%
1995-96 15.00% 18.80%
1996-97 15.30% 19.50%
1997-98 14.50% 20.10%
1998-99 15.20% 20.50%
1999-00 12.90% 21.20%
2000-01 9.80% 21.40%
2001-02 12.00% 21.40%
2002-03 10.50% 21.30%
2003-04 12.30% 20.90%
2004-05 6.30% 19.70%
2005-06 7.00% 19.90%
Percent of Teachers with
No Degree (specified)
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 3.30% 0.70%
1994-95 6.40% 1.00%
1995-96 3.80% 1.00%
1996-97 5.40% 0.90%
1997-98 0.00% 1.00%
1998-99 4.90% 1.30%
1999-00 1.80% 1.20%
2000-01 1.40% 1.30%
2001-02 3.50% 1.40%
2002-03 3.30% 1.30%
2003-04 4.00% 1.10%
2004-05 3.70% 1.10%
2005-06 2.40% 1.00%
Percent of Teachers
with Bachelors Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 65.10% 70.50%
1994-95 64.50% 71.10%
1995-96 68.90% 71.60%
1996-97 71.00% 72.10%
1997-98 81.10% 73.00%
1998-99 76.70% 73.60%
1999-00 80.40% 74.10%
2000-01 80.00% 74.70%
2001-02 79.20% 75.30%
2002-03 80.60% 76.00%
2003-04 78.00% 76.40%
2004-05 81.60% 77.10%
2005-06 79.70% 77.30%
Percent of Teachers
with Masters Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 31.20% 28.40%
1994-95 28.70% 27.50%
1995-96 26.90% 26.90%
1996-97 23.20% 26.60%
1997-98 18.20% 25.60%
1998-99 17.70% 24.70%
1999-00 17.50% 24.30%
2000-01 18.20% 23.40%
2001-02 16.30% 22.80%
2002-03 15.10% 22.20%
2003-04 16.60% 22.00%
2004-05 13.80% 21.30%
2005-06 17.40% 21.20%
Percent of Teachers
with Doctorate Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 0.40% 0.40%
1994-95 0.40% 0.40%
1995-96 0.40% 0.40%
1996-97 0.40% 0.40%
1997-98 0.70% 0.40%
1998-99 0.70% 0.40%
1999-00 0.40% 0.50%
2000-01 0.40% 0.50%
2001-02 1.00% 0.50%
2002-03 1.00% 0.50%
2003-04 1.30% 0.50%
2004-05 0.90% 0.50%
2005-06 0.50% 0.50%
Friday, December 22, 2006
How effective are pre-Kindergarten programs at improving student accomplishments?
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10452
---- Abstract -----
Prekindergarten programs are expanding rapidly, but to date, evidence on their effects is quite limited. Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten increases reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also increases behavioral problems and reduces self-control. Furthermore, the effects of prekindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the behavioral effects do not. Finally, effects differ depending on children's family background and subsequent schooling, with the largest and most lasting academic gains for disadvantaged children and those attending schools with low levels of academic instruction.
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/w10452.html
The behavior of disadvantaged children who attended pre-kindergarten was similar to that of the general population of children at school entry. But by spring of the first year, it got somewhat worse. They were in the 69th percentile in terms of problem behaviors. Attending pre-kindergarten, however, does not appear to increase the probability that a disadvantaged child will repeat kindergarten or be held back in first grade. Also, the behavioral effects may differ depending on whether or not the child continues on in kindergarten in the same school as the pre-kindergarten program.
From these findings, the authors conclude that for maximum effectiveness, further expansions of pre-kindergarten should be mainly focused on children who are disadvantaged or who will go on to attend low instruction schools. In 1990, governmental leaders endorsed as the first of eight national educational goals that: "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn." Nonetheless, the enrollment of disadvantaged children in early education programs remains relatively low - despite an increase in overall state spending on pre-kindergarten of 250 percent to $1.9 billion by the turn of the century.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/05_5563_barnett-belfield.pdf
Across these studies, the average initial effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 points on an IQ test with a 100-point scale and a standard deviation of 15. Average effects on self-esteem,
motivation, and social behavior are also positive, though somewhat smaller. In what follows, we review the best evidence to summarize what is known about how various programs—family support, child care, Head Start, public preschool, and several very intensive educational interventions (which have yet to be implemented on a large scale)—affect children’s skills.
Studies find that typical center-based child care (as opposed to home or other types of care) improves cognitive abilities by about 0.10–0.33 standard deviations. Most estimates are in the 0.10–0.15 range for cognitive and language development. Evidence is mixed on whether effects are larger when care begins before age three. Some nonexperimental studies have found that child care can increase antisocial behavior at school entry, with effect sizes of about 0.08–0.20.
The evidence is mixed with respect to whether effects are larger for disadvantaged
children than for those from more advantaged homes. Some studies have found that
higher program quality, measured in various ways, may lead to small improvements
(0.04–0.08) in cognitive and language ability and in behavior.
Though early child care and education have positive initial effects on cognitive abilities, those effects tend to decline over time and in many studies are negligible several years after children leave the programs. The fade-out is most salient for general cognitive abilities, or aptitude, as measured by IQ and
similar measures.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3.pdf
Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations
1. What are the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs?
The evidence for long-term benefits in the evaluation literature is not
uniformly positive, so questions are often raised about what outcomes can
reliably be produced by different program types.
2. What can be learned from the experience of the past three decades to help design more effective programs?
If different programs do yield different long-term results, then perhaps those varying results can provide lessons to guide program design and to
help policymakers prioritize investments among competing program types.
3. Can early childhood programs provided in a routine manner on a large scale
yield the expected benefits?
If the level of funding and quality of services provided by the large-scale public programs do not measure up to the quality of the carefully designed, model programs that yielded long-term outcomes, perhaps the public programs will not be able to produce the same positive outcomes.
Generally, the research indicates that participation in early childhood programs
can result in IQ gains of about eight points immediately after completion of the program. The IQ advantage that the children who attended the early childhood program
have over those in the control group usually persists until the children enter school, but it diminishes as they progress through the early grades. In most studies, the IQ scores of the two groups converge: the IQ scores of participating children tend to drop a little, while the scores of the control children rise in response to the stimulation they encounter in the school environment.
----
It looks to me as if any advantage offered by pre-K programs are likely to be
(a) small (b) short term, (c) expensive, and (d) unreliable.
So, with this and more professional literature in hand, what has the Lancaster ISD "Team of Eight" decided about pre-K?
More to come.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10452
---- Abstract -----
Prekindergarten programs are expanding rapidly, but to date, evidence on their effects is quite limited. Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten increases reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also increases behavioral problems and reduces self-control. Furthermore, the effects of prekindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the behavioral effects do not. Finally, effects differ depending on children's family background and subsequent schooling, with the largest and most lasting academic gains for disadvantaged children and those attending schools with low levels of academic instruction.
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/w10452.html
The behavior of disadvantaged children who attended pre-kindergarten was similar to that of the general population of children at school entry. But by spring of the first year, it got somewhat worse. They were in the 69th percentile in terms of problem behaviors. Attending pre-kindergarten, however, does not appear to increase the probability that a disadvantaged child will repeat kindergarten or be held back in first grade. Also, the behavioral effects may differ depending on whether or not the child continues on in kindergarten in the same school as the pre-kindergarten program.
From these findings, the authors conclude that for maximum effectiveness, further expansions of pre-kindergarten should be mainly focused on children who are disadvantaged or who will go on to attend low instruction schools. In 1990, governmental leaders endorsed as the first of eight national educational goals that: "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn." Nonetheless, the enrollment of disadvantaged children in early education programs remains relatively low - despite an increase in overall state spending on pre-kindergarten of 250 percent to $1.9 billion by the turn of the century.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/05_5563_barnett-belfield.pdf
Across these studies, the average initial effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 points on an IQ test with a 100-point scale and a standard deviation of 15. Average effects on self-esteem,
motivation, and social behavior are also positive, though somewhat smaller. In what follows, we review the best evidence to summarize what is known about how various programs—family support, child care, Head Start, public preschool, and several very intensive educational interventions (which have yet to be implemented on a large scale)—affect children’s skills.
Studies find that typical center-based child care (as opposed to home or other types of care) improves cognitive abilities by about 0.10–0.33 standard deviations. Most estimates are in the 0.10–0.15 range for cognitive and language development. Evidence is mixed on whether effects are larger when care begins before age three. Some nonexperimental studies have found that child care can increase antisocial behavior at school entry, with effect sizes of about 0.08–0.20.
The evidence is mixed with respect to whether effects are larger for disadvantaged
children than for those from more advantaged homes. Some studies have found that
higher program quality, measured in various ways, may lead to small improvements
(0.04–0.08) in cognitive and language ability and in behavior.
Though early child care and education have positive initial effects on cognitive abilities, those effects tend to decline over time and in many studies are negligible several years after children leave the programs. The fade-out is most salient for general cognitive abilities, or aptitude, as measured by IQ and
similar measures.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3.pdf
Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations
1. What are the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs?
The evidence for long-term benefits in the evaluation literature is not
uniformly positive, so questions are often raised about what outcomes can
reliably be produced by different program types.
2. What can be learned from the experience of the past three decades to help design more effective programs?
If different programs do yield different long-term results, then perhaps those varying results can provide lessons to guide program design and to
help policymakers prioritize investments among competing program types.
3. Can early childhood programs provided in a routine manner on a large scale
yield the expected benefits?
If the level of funding and quality of services provided by the large-scale public programs do not measure up to the quality of the carefully designed, model programs that yielded long-term outcomes, perhaps the public programs will not be able to produce the same positive outcomes.
Generally, the research indicates that participation in early childhood programs
can result in IQ gains of about eight points immediately after completion of the program. The IQ advantage that the children who attended the early childhood program
have over those in the control group usually persists until the children enter school, but it diminishes as they progress through the early grades. In most studies, the IQ scores of the two groups converge: the IQ scores of participating children tend to drop a little, while the scores of the control children rise in response to the stimulation they encounter in the school environment.
----
It looks to me as if any advantage offered by pre-K programs are likely to be
(a) small (b) short term, (c) expensive, and (d) unreliable.
So, with this and more professional literature in hand, what has the Lancaster ISD "Team of Eight" decided about pre-K?
More to come.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ten Mile Crook
T.I.G.E.R.s, others of Lancaster, and wanna-be developers ought to check out the new blog on the block: The Ten Mile Crook. Lots of back-story about the Uniform Development Code, city politics, and why Landon and Lewis were so important (or not) in recent history.
Check it out.
T.I.G.E.R.s, others of Lancaster, and wanna-be developers ought to check out the new blog on the block: The Ten Mile Crook. Lots of back-story about the Uniform Development Code, city politics, and why Landon and Lewis were so important (or not) in recent history.
Check it out.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Security in LISD
The AEIS data on all districts includes a budget line for "security". It's up to each district what sorts of things are charged off to this budget line. The payroll for district police, for instance, almost certainly is in all districts. But the ID badges that may (or in some districts, may not) be used to control access to campus may be charged off to "security" or to an attendance or overhead budget. So it's not always an exact apples-to-apples comparison to compare security budgets from one district to another or even within the district from one year to another.
Let's do so anyway. Having data is always better than not having the data. (And it's certainly better than not bothering to even look for the data.)
Since 1996, in Texas overall, spending for school security is up from 0.4% of the budget to 0.7% in 2006. But it's actually been holding fairly steady between 0.6% and 0.7% for the past 4 years.
DeSoto, by contrast, somehow manages to devote about 0.3% of their budget to security. Red Oak spent about 0.8% last year, down from a high of 0.9% in 2002-03. Duncanville has budgeed increasing shares since 2000, going from a Texas-typical share of 0.6% in 2000 to a local record-high percentage of 1.0% in 2005-06.
In Lancaster the district began the AEIS reporting era, in 1996, with 1.1% of the budget devoted to security. That compared to a state average of 0.4% the same year. The share climbed slowly thru 2002. Then for the year ending 2003 the security budget in LISD jumped to 1.7% of all expenses.
Looking at it another way, state wide averages showed most Texas districts spending just over $20 per enrolled student on security in 1996 and doubling that to nearly $50 dollars in 2006. DeSoto went from $9/student to $16/s. Duncanville from $17 to $69/student.
Lancaster was spending $45/student in 1996. By the peak in 2003, the LISD was spending $103/student on "security" - consistantly over twice the state average for the same years.
But after Dr Lewis arrived, the budget turned around. In the 2004-05 year, budgeted spending for security dropped, back down to 1.5% and down to $99 per student in 05 and $87 /student in '06.
This might mean more money in the classroom for teaching, books and that stuff.
This might actually be an accomplishment for Dr Lewis.
Or.
It could be that by turning a blind eye to known security needs and issues, and cutting vital funds to critical programs, LISD relaxed attitude and loss of focus on proper security has resulted in the recent spate of thefts reported in local media.
You might spin this either way.
I'm actually inclined to think this might be one of Dr Lewis's accomplishments. I'm not a fan of any school systems having a distinct police force. (1) Or, if they DO, why not a separate fire department and water treatment plant, too? There's something so wrong with the regular city cops that we can't allow them into the schools? When the district has a ten-year history of OVERspending (in comparison to the state and other local districts) on a budget line, and it's slowly turning around, I am somewhat predisposed to hope it's an indication of progress.
On the other hand, that assumes that fights, vandalism and truancy are held to at least a no-worse level of misery.
This would be easier to determine if the district followed state laws regarding record keeping, and public disclosure of such records, on fights, truancy, etc.
But anyway, as a start, the focus on reducing unnecessary expenses is encouraging.
Is security unnecessary?
You tell me.
(1) Ditto DART. You tell me we must employ a gun-toting uniformed officer of the law to keep people from riding the light rail between the VA and Reunion Arena without paying full fare, okay fine. But he is MORE necessary in that capacity than in having the same cop on the city payroll to enforce laws against, oh I dunno, rape or sumthin'? I'm missing some subtle part of the economic reasoning, there.
The AEIS data on all districts includes a budget line for "security". It's up to each district what sorts of things are charged off to this budget line. The payroll for district police, for instance, almost certainly is in all districts. But the ID badges that may (or in some districts, may not) be used to control access to campus may be charged off to "security" or to an attendance or overhead budget. So it's not always an exact apples-to-apples comparison to compare security budgets from one district to another or even within the district from one year to another.
Let's do so anyway. Having data is always better than not having the data. (And it's certainly better than not bothering to even look for the data.)
Since 1996, in Texas overall, spending for school security is up from 0.4% of the budget to 0.7% in 2006. But it's actually been holding fairly steady between 0.6% and 0.7% for the past 4 years.
DeSoto, by contrast, somehow manages to devote about 0.3% of their budget to security. Red Oak spent about 0.8% last year, down from a high of 0.9% in 2002-03. Duncanville has budgeed increasing shares since 2000, going from a Texas-typical share of 0.6% in 2000 to a local record-high percentage of 1.0% in 2005-06.
In Lancaster the district began the AEIS reporting era, in 1996, with 1.1% of the budget devoted to security. That compared to a state average of 0.4% the same year. The share climbed slowly thru 2002. Then for the year ending 2003 the security budget in LISD jumped to 1.7% of all expenses.
Looking at it another way, state wide averages showed most Texas districts spending just over $20 per enrolled student on security in 1996 and doubling that to nearly $50 dollars in 2006. DeSoto went from $9/student to $16/s. Duncanville from $17 to $69/student.
Lancaster was spending $45/student in 1996. By the peak in 2003, the LISD was spending $103/student on "security" - consistantly over twice the state average for the same years.
But after Dr Lewis arrived, the budget turned around. In the 2004-05 year, budgeted spending for security dropped, back down to 1.5% and down to $99 per student in 05 and $87 /student in '06.
This might mean more money in the classroom for teaching, books and that stuff.
This might actually be an accomplishment for Dr Lewis.
Or.
It could be that by turning a blind eye to known security needs and issues, and cutting vital funds to critical programs, LISD relaxed attitude and loss of focus on proper security has resulted in the recent spate of thefts reported in local media.
You might spin this either way.
I'm actually inclined to think this might be one of Dr Lewis's accomplishments. I'm not a fan of any school systems having a distinct police force. (1) Or, if they DO, why not a separate fire department and water treatment plant, too? There's something so wrong with the regular city cops that we can't allow them into the schools? When the district has a ten-year history of OVERspending (in comparison to the state and other local districts) on a budget line, and it's slowly turning around, I am somewhat predisposed to hope it's an indication of progress.
On the other hand, that assumes that fights, vandalism and truancy are held to at least a no-worse level of misery.
This would be easier to determine if the district followed state laws regarding record keeping, and public disclosure of such records, on fights, truancy, etc.
But anyway, as a start, the focus on reducing unnecessary expenses is encouraging.
Is security unnecessary?
You tell me.
(1) Ditto DART. You tell me we must employ a gun-toting uniformed officer of the law to keep people from riding the light rail between the VA and Reunion Arena without paying full fare, okay fine. But he is MORE necessary in that capacity than in having the same cop on the city payroll to enforce laws against, oh I dunno, rape or sumthin'? I'm missing some subtle part of the economic reasoning, there.
TRS updates.
Well, I promised to keep you posted on the TRS situation.
I haven't posted anything recently.
Maybe I've had some e-mail from Austin about the superintendent of LISD, but I'm keeping it all secret for reasons of my own, which are ALSO secret.
Or maybe the guy in Austin in charge of TRS hasn't responded.
Maybe I'm a lazy incompetent hack who boasts about what I know but am just too bored with my hometown to share my information with others.
Or maybe something else is going on.
I guess you'll have to guess.
Well, I promised to keep you posted on the TRS situation.
I haven't posted anything recently.
Maybe I've had some e-mail from Austin about the superintendent of LISD, but I'm keeping it all secret for reasons of my own, which are ALSO secret.
Or maybe the guy in Austin in charge of TRS hasn't responded.
Maybe I'm a lazy incompetent hack who boasts about what I know but am just too bored with my hometown to share my information with others.
Or maybe something else is going on.
I guess you'll have to guess.