THE EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY INDEX:

Grading Public Education Governments in Texas

April 15, 2015

DR. DOMONIC BEARFIELD’S 2015 CAPSTONE

Jonathan Bates Michael Hart

Molly Beck Hugo Hernandez

Alan Blanch Catherine Jones

Page Whalen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA well informed citizenry encourages public

administrators to make responsible decisions that reflect their values and facilitates social

participation.We examined the extent to which public school districts exercise transparency of

administrative practices in Texas. Analysis of 285 school districts’ websites suggest there is

room for improvement of current transparency practices by district

administrators.

PRESENTATION ROAD MAP• Examining Transparency• Methodology• Overview of Findings• Analysis and Discussion• Future Research• Questions and Answers

EXAMINING TRANSPARENCY

WHAT IS TRANSPARENCY?“The disclosure of information by an organization that enables external actors to monitor and assess its internal workings and performance.”

(Grimmelikhuijsen & Welch 2012)• Inward Observability• Active Disclosure• External Accessibility

WHY TRANSPARENCY?

Texas Property Tax Mean Total

Mean SD Tax Rate$1.2122 /

$100

Mean Municipal Tax Rate$0.49 / $100

Mean County Tax

Rate$0.48 / $100

Mean SD Expenditures

$42.8 M

Total SD Expenditures

$53.36 B

Source: Texas State Comptroller, 2013

2013

WHY TRANSPARENCY?

Managerial Benefits

Administrative cost savings

Social, political,

and strategic benefits

MEASURING MANAGERIAL TRANSPARENCY

• PEW Research Center• Government Performance Project: A State

Management Report Card (2008)

Money Information

Infrastructure People

WHAT WE LOOKED FOR• Evidence of best practices on

school district website• School districts may be

implementing these best management practices

METHODOLOGY

THE CODEBOOK

Standardized website evaluation procedures by creating a data codebook• Limited bias and increased data reliability • Indicators = “best practices” from literature

*Split into Digital Democracy & Digital Governance.

SUBVARIABLES ANALYZEDMoneyLong-Term Outlook

Contracts &

Purchasing

Budget Process

Structural Balance

Financial Controls/Rep

orting

Information

Strategic Direction

Performance-Based

BudgetingPerforman

ce Manageme

ntProgram

Evaluation

E-Governanc

e*

Infrastructure

Maintenance

Capital Planning

Project Monitoring

Internal Coordinati

onIntergovernm

ental Coordinati

on

PeopleRetaining Employees

Hiring

Training & Developm

entStrategic Workforce PlanningManaging Employee Performan

ce

STUDY SAMPLEAnalyzed all school districts within the 217 Texas municipalities examined in the MPI (2013)• 285 school districts, excluding charter

schools• Pilots included municipalities and out-of-

state districts

WEBSITE UTILITYApproached from the perspective of our clients: average interested citizens• The “3-Click Rule” (Glassey 2004)• Websites: Search bar functionality• PDF Documents: Control + F for PDF

MoneyLong-Term Outlook

Contracts &

Purchasing

Budget Process

Structural Balance

Financial Controls/Rep

orting

Information

Strategic Direction

Performance-Based

BudgetingPerforman

ce Manageme

ntProgram

Evaluation

E-Governanc

e*

Infrastructure

Maintenance

Capital Planning

Project Monitoring

Internal Coordinati

onIntergovernm

ental Coordinati

on

PeopleRetaining Employees

Hiring

Training & Developm

entStrategic Workforce PlanningManaging Employee Performan

ce*Split into Digital Democracy & Digital Governance

SUBVARIABLES ANALYZED

RICHARDSON ISD – FINDING THE BUDGET

• Start at the homepage.

RICHARDSON ISD – FINDING THE BUDGET

• 1st click.

RICHARDSON ISD – FINDING THE BUDGET

• 2nd click.

RICHARDSON ISD – FINDING THE BUDGET

• 3rd click.

RICHARDSON ISD – FINDING THE BUDGET

• Open document.

VARIABLES AND SUBVARIABLES

THE MONEY VARIABLE

•A 3-5 year financial outlook supported with multi-year projections and anticipated future costs.

Long-Term Outlook

•Policies for purchasing materials and managing contracts that reflect citizens’ values.

Contracts & Purchasing

•A narrative outlining the budget development process and active methods to engage citizens.

Budget Process

•A reserve fund balance that shows the district spends within its means.Structural

Balance

•Financial performance reporting mechanisms and a systematic financial accountability schedule.Financial

Controls/Reporting

THE INFORMATION VARIABLE

•A comprehensive plan for the district’s future that guides decision-making and goal-setting.

Strategic Direction

•Performance measures exist and are used in budgetary decision-making.Performance

-Based Budgeting

•Evidence of a performance management systems in place for district programs and initiatives

Performance Management

•Audits are performed by district administrators and the reports made available online.

Program Evaluation

•An online system for requesting school services where citizens can obtain information and participate in decision-making processes.E-

Governance (Digital Democracy &

Digital Governance)

THE INFRASTRUCTURE VARIABLE

•The budget has line items in their capital budget for preventative and proactive maintenance.

Maintenance

•A long-range capital improvement plan is available and current within the past 3 years.

Capital Planning

•Project management and monitoring system for current capital projects.Project Monitoring

•District has a meeting agenda discussing capital projects with essential district staff present.

Internal Coordination

•District has a link to school board and/or planning meeting information which involve various stakeholders.Intergovernm

ental Coordination

THE PEOPLE VARIABLE

•The presence of employee retention plan that seeks to maintain a highly qualified and skilled staff.

Retaining Employees

•An online employment application system is available to the public and for faculty and staff.

Hiring•Districts offer training and professional

development services to enhance their employees.Training &

Development

•A comprehensive plan outlining a district’s current and future human capital needs.Strategic Workforce Planning

•An employee handbook/policies managing and evaluating employees performance.Managing Employee

Performance

MoneyLong-Term Outlook

Contracts &

Purchasing

Budget Process

Structural Balance

Financial Controls/Rep

orting

Information

Strategic Direction

Performance-Based

BudgetingPerforman

ce Manageme

ntProgram

Evaluation

E-Governanc

e*

Infrastructure

Maintenance

Capital Planning

Project Monitoring

Internal Coordinati

onIntergovernm

ental Coordinati

on

PeopleRetaining Employees

Hiring

Training & Developm

entStrategic Workforce PlanningManaging Employee Performan

ce*Split into Digital Democracy & Digital Governance

SUBVARIABLES ANALYZED

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

TOP OVERALL TRANSPARENCY SCORES

Rank District Transpare

ncy Total Enrollment City Covered

SD Mean 18.31 Austin ISD 40 85,661 Austin2 Coppell ISD 33 10,781 Dallas – Fort Worth

San Angelo ISD 33 14,292 San Angelo4 Comal ISD 32 18,235 New Braunfels

Conroe ISD 32 52,912 HoustonNorthwest ISD 32 17,124 Fort WorthStafford MSD 32 3,301 HoustonWylie ISD 32 3,550 Dallas

9 Alief ISD 31 45,738 HoustonRichardson ISD 31 37,262 Dallas

11 Dallas ISD 30 158,009 DallasHouston ISD 30 204,548 HoustonHumble ISD 30 36,606 Houston

TOP OVERALL TRANSPARENCY SCORES

District Transparency Total

Information Money Infrastructure People

SD Mean 18.3 6.3 3.6 3.5 4.9Austin ISD 40 12 10 8 10Coppell ISD 33 7 8 10 8San Angelo ISD 33 7 8 8 10

Comal ISD 32 7 8 8 9Conroe ISD 32 10 8 6 8Northwest ISD 32 10 10 6 6

Stafford MSD 32 8 10 8 6

Wylie ISD 32 8 8 8 8Alief ISD 31 7 10 8 6Richardson ISD 31 7 10 8 6

Dallas ISD 30 8 10 4 8Houston ISD 30 8 6 8 8

Humble ISD 30 8 6 6 10

TOP INFORMATION SCORESRank District Information

Total Enrollment

SD Mean 6.3

1 Austin ISD 12 85,661

2 Conroe ISD 10 52,912

Northwest ISD 10 17,124

4 Arlington ISD 9 64,629

Garland ISD 9 57,747

Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD 9 21,611

Klein ISD 9 46,431

8 China Spring ISD + 36 others 8 2,392

TOP MONEY SCORESRank District Money Total Enrollment

SD Mean 3.61 Alief ISD 10 45,738

Austin ISD 10 85,661

Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 10 26,257

Dallas ISD 10 158,009Greenville ISD 10 4,744Keller ISD 10 33,142Northwest ISD 10 17,124Richardson ISD 10 37,262Stafford MSD 10 3,301

10 Allen ISD +26 others 8 19,530

TOP INFRASTRUCTURE SCORES

Rank District Infrastructure Total Enrollment

SD Mean 3.5

1 Coppell ISD 10 10,781

North East ISD 10 67,315

Plano ISD 10 55,038

Spring Branch ISD 10 34,119

5 Abilene ISD + 20 others 8 17,039

TOP PEOPLE SCORESRank District People Total Enrollment

SD Mean 4.91 Austin ISD 10 85,661

College Station ISD 10 10,901

Grapevine-Colleyville ISD 10 13,465

Humble ISD 10 36,606Mansfield ISD 10 32,571San Angelo ISD 10 14,292

7 Comal ISD 9 18,235Harlingen CISD 9 18,422Manor ISD 9 7,879Taylor ISD 9 3,148

11 Birdville ISD + 24 others 8 23,860

TOP 5 PERFORMING SUBVARIABLES

• Hiring [97%]• Digital Democracy [94.4%]• Strategic Direction [94%]• Digital Governance [84.5%]• Maintenance [78%]

% indicates that the noted percent of school districts satisfied codebook requirements for this sub-variable

TOP 5 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

• Intergovernmental Coordination [13%]• Long-term Outlook [8%]• Strategic Workforce Plan [6.7%]• Performance Management [2.5%]• Performance-Based Budgeting [2.1%]

% indicates that the noted percent of school districts satisfied codebook requirements for this sub-variable

ANALYSIS

RANGE OF ENROLLMENTSSD Population Range Number of Districts in

Observation0-1000 35

1,001-5,000 90

5,001-10,000 58

10,001-25,000 48

25,000-50,000 31

50,001-Houston (ISD) 18

ENROLLMENTS OF DISTRICTS OBSERVED

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 1001091181271361451541631721811901992082172262352442532622712800

25000

50000

75000

100000

125000

150000

175000

200000

225000

District Enrollments - 4 Year Average

School Districts

Aver

age

Enro

llmen

t Si

ze

SD Me-dian 5,812

Enrollment data taken from TEA Snapshots 2010 - 2014

TRANSPARENCY SCORES BY ENROLLMENT SIZE

DistrictEnrollment

RankTransparency

RankTransparency

Total

Austin ISD 5 1 40Conroe ISD 17 4 32Alief ISD 21 9 31Houston ISD 1 11 30Dallas ISD 2 12 30

San Angelo ISD 78 2 33Coppell ISD 94 3 33Comal ISD 65 5 32Northwest ISD 67 6 32Richardson ISD 31 10 31

Wylie ISD 189 7 32Stafford MSD 202 8 32Kilgore ISD 178 36 26Pine Tree ISD 167 47 25Lockhart ISD 161 57 24

Thrall ISD 257 60 24West Orange-Cove CISD 222 69 23Lorena ISD 234 80 22McGregor ISD 238 94 21La Vega ISD 213 110 20

90th Percentile (above 39,061)

75th Percentile (between 5,813 and 39,060)

50th Percentile (between 2,977 and 5,812)

25th Percentile (below 2,977 )

AVERAGE OPERATING EXPENDITURES OF DISTRICTS OBSERVED

Springtown Santa Fe Humble Cleburne Spring isd Killeen Tyler Alief Grape Creek West South Texas0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Operating Expenditures Per Pupil3 Year Average

School Districts

Expe

ndit

ures

per

Pup

il

SD Me-dian

$8,460.83

Enrollment data taken from TEA Snapshots 2010 - 2013

TRANSPARENCY SCORES BY OPERATING EXPENDITURES

DistrictOperating Exp.

RankTransparency

RankTransparency

Total

South Texas ISD 10 58 24West Orange-Cove CISD 26 69 23La Marque ISD 19 105 20Lackland ISD 8 122 19Robert Lee ISD 9 141 18

Austin ISD 55 1 40Northwest ISD 97 6 32Alief ISD 91 9 31Dallas ISD 60 11 30Houston ISD 85 12 30

San Angelo ISD 183 3 33Coppell ISD 200 2 33Stafford MSD 161 7 32Comal ISD 189 4 32Richardson ISD 171 10 31

Conroe ISD 270 5 32Wylie ISD 280 8 32Mansfield ISD 265 19 29Thrall ISD 259 59 24Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 272 49 24

90% Percentile

50-75% Percentile

25% Percentile

10% Percentile

REGRESSIONVARIABLES General

PopulationAverage

EnrollmentAverage

Operating Expenditures

Big District Full Model

General Population (thousands) 0.0199*** 0.0213

(0.0049) (0.0139)Avg Enrollment

(thousands) 0.127*** -0.0615(0.0244) (0.0875)

Avg Operating Expenditures per pupil (thousands)

-1.167*** -1.081***

(0.3040) (0.2610)Big District (>25,000) 7.238*** 4.444***

(0.8160) (1.3730)Constant 13.36*** 13.33*** 26.47*** 14*** 26.13***

(0.3470) (0.3230) (4.5010) (0.6370) (3.0340)

Region Fixed Effects Y Y Y Y Y

Observations 275 280 280 280 275R-squared 0.367 0.368 0.233 0.352 0.444

Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

STATEWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSPARENCY SCORES

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

DISCUSSION• Austin ISD is close to a model

school district• Information and People variables

were high performing• Low cost solutions to improving

transparency

DISCUSSION• Big districts seem to behave

differently than small districts• Negative relationship between

operating expenditures per pupil and transparency

FUTURE RESEARCHEducation Transparency Index:• Finalizing the districts

Further Analysis:• Analyzing the determinants of

transparency• Analyzing equity aspects of transparency• Evaluating the importance of transparency

Transparency and signalingTransparency and performance

CONCLUSIONA well informed citizenry encourages public

administrators to make responsible decisions that reflect their values and facilitate social

participation.We examined the extent to which public school districts exercise transparency of

administrative practices in Texas. Analysis of 285 school districts’ websites suggest there is

room for improvement of current transparency practices by district

administrators.

QUESTIONS?

PRESENTATION ROADMAPExecutive Summary AnalysisPresentation Road Map -Enrollment SizeExamining Transparency -

Average Operating Expenditures Variables and Subvariables -Regression

-The Money Variable -Statewide Distribution -The Information Variable Discussion and Future Researc

h -The Infrastructure Variable -Discussion -The People Variable -Future Research -Subvariables Analyzed -ConclusionFindings and Analysis Presentation Road Map -Top Overall Transparency Scores

The Takeaway

-Top 5 Performing Subvariables

Acknowledgements

-Top 5 Areas for Improvement

Appendix

THE TAKEAWAYA well informed citizenry encourages public

administrators to make responsible decisions that reflect their values and facilitate social

participation.We examined the extent to which public school districts exercise transparency of

administrative practices in Texas. Analysis of 285 school districts’ websites suggest there is

room for improvement of current transparency practices by district

administrators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThank you to the following people for their contributions

to the Education Transparency Index 2015

report: Payton Baldridge Dr. Bob GrahamDr. Domonic

BearfieldDr. Dan Goldberg

Dr. Ann Bowman Michael HardyWarren Chalklen Dr. Joanna Lahey

Dr. Lori Taylor

APPENDIX

REGRESSION: NO REGION FIXED EFFECTS

VARIABLES General Population

Average Enrollment

Average Operating

ExpendituresBig District Full Model

General Population

(thousands)0.0230*** 0.0217

(0.0051) (0.0149)Avg Enrollment

(thousands) 0.141*** -0.0462

(0.0244) (0.0902)Avg Operating Expenditures (thousands)

-1.477*** -1.333***

(0.2640) (0.2280)Big District (>25,000) 7.753*** 4.059***

(0.7810) (1.4320)Constant 16.73*** 16.29*** 31.21*** 16.96*** 28.40***

(0.4540) (0.4430) (2.3560) (0.3730) (2.0920)

Region Fixed Effects N N N N N

Observations 275 280 280 280 275R-squared 0.249 0.263 0.091 0.222 0.357

Robust standard errors in parentheses ***p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

REGRESSION: FULL MODEL COMPARISONS

VARIABLES Full Model Full ModelGeneral Population (thousands) 0.0217 0.0213

(0.0149) (0.0139)

Avg Enrollment (thousands) -0.0462 -0.0615

(0.0902) (0.0875)Avg Operating Expenditures

(thousands) -1.333*** -1.081***

(0.2280) (0.2610)

Big District (>25,000) 4.059*** 4.444***

(1.4320) (1.3730)

Constant 28.40*** 26.13***

(2.0920) (3.0340)

Region Fixed Effects N Y

Observations 275 275

R-squared 0.357 0.444