Education Transparency index (ETI) Presentation
-
Upload
jonathan-d-bates-mpa -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
123 -
download
0
Transcript of Education Transparency index (ETI) Presentation
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