NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 31, NUMBER 3, 2014

RESPONDING TO SCHOOL FINANCE

CHALLENGES: A SURVEY OF SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENTS IN TEXAS
Don Jones
Marie-Anne Mundy
Texas A&M University - Kingsville
Carolina Carol G. Perez
Kingsville Independent School District
ABSTRACT
Within the last decade, school districts in the United States and specifically in
Texas have encountered major reductions in state school funding. In an effort
to meet the demands of the No Child Left Behind regulations, state high stakes
testing and maintenance and operations of school districts, superintendents
have had to make ends meet with less funding. This non-experimental
descriptive-survey research study examined how school superintendents in the
state of Texas have grappled with the school finance budget cuts. The results of
the study indicated that school district superintendents in Texas employed a
variety of cost cutting measures to meet the financial demands of their school
districts. The larger schools appeared more apt to eliminate administrative
positions while the smaller schools were more prone to eliminate teaching
positions. All superintendents increased the Student/Teacher Ratios. The cost
cutting strategies that superintendents believed were most effective in meeting
the financial demands of operating their districts and would thereby sustain
the school district in subsequent years were Professional Positions (6100) and
Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100) with Student/Teacher Ratio
(6100) as the third most effective cost cutting strategy.

Introduction

he Education Commission of the States (1999) states that

Over the years, state policymakers have struggled with the
question of how much should be spent per student for
4

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

education, or "what does an adequate education cost?" However, a

clear definition on what constitutes an adequate or "core" education
has been elusive. Furthermore, current education reforms and court
decisions have increased the need for a more realistic procedure for
determining the actual cost of a core education.
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has called for higher
academic standards and a focus on student achievement which has
shifted the idea of adequacy from providing basic instructional
resources such as teacher/student ratio and instructional materials and
resources to identifying what resources are essential for students to
reach their optimal academic potential. In response to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act, the state of Texas has also called for mandates
to ensure that students reach the academic mandates set forth by the
NCLB. However, this has presented school districts in Texas with
mandates that have imposed significant implementation costs which
include additional staff, instructional resources and often new
professional learning opportunities for staff and teachers.
In 2002, the Texas Association for School Administrators
(TASA) and The Associations for School Boards (TASB) compiled a
joint report known as the Report on District Mandates. Again in 2007
they updated their report and titled it Report on School District
Mandates: Cost drivers in public education. It reported that the
factors that have contributed to the rising cost of education in Texas
are State mandates and the impact of inflation. Furthermore, the
single largest cost factor was found to be staff salaries. Other cost
demands include the growth in student enrollment, higher costs of
utilities, fuel, and insurance. Still other increased costs are the result
of the new State curriculum expectations such as the college
readiness standards, end-of-course exams, the fourth year of
mathematics and science and the Recommended High School
Program (TASA & TASB, 2010).
The Education Trust (2006) concluded that states must take a
greater share of education funding and provide additional funding to

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 6

districts with the biggest challenges. It presented several admonitions

to states to close the school districts funding gaps. (1) Reduce the
reliance on local property tax since wealth and property values are so
unequally distributed. Utilizing local taxes as the primary source for
schools essentially provides wealthier communities the advantage in
proving greater educational opportunities. (2) It is counterproductive
for states to profess a commitment to close the achievement gaps and
to rely on local school district communities to fund education. This
ideology supports privilege, intensifies inequality, and is archaic in
the world where all students are expected to meet State academic
standards consistently. (3) Additional State funds should be provided
to school districts with the most need; thus, targeting the education of
low income children. Childrens educational opportunities should not
be limited by their neighborhoods demographics. Aligning state
education funding policies with goals would mark necessary, but not
sufficient, progress toward equality of educational opportunity (The
Education Trust, 2006, p. 9).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to survey school district
superintendents in the state of Texas to gather information about how
they have dealt with the current school finance issue to balance their
district budgets for the current school year. The study will inform
stakeholders how the current State funding cuts have impacted the
educational budgets of their school districts. In addition, the results
and recommendations of this study may be of interest to policy
makers and legislators.
Background, Context and Theoretical Framework
School finance is generally described in relation to three
values which include: (1) adequacy, (2) equity and (3) capacity.
Policy makers share a constitutional responsibility to ensure that

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

sufficient resources are available to meet the educational expectations

of the state, that local school districts with varying levels of property
wealth have a similar ability to access this revenue, and that school
districts have enough remaining capacity to meet increasing cost
pressures and to provide for meaningful levels of local
supplementation (Moak & Associates, 2008, p. 4). Furthermore,
Texas lags behind other states in pupil spending (The Education
Trust, 2006). Even though the state of Texas has increased academic
and curriculum requirements for public school students, its allocated
funding has not kept pace with the inflation of the current and past
several years. Texas developed formula modifications to improve the
equity of the school finance formulas. However, the school finance
system has not used those formulas in its actual operation, which has
left some school districts with significantly less dollars to spend per
pupil enrolled. Moreover, school districts have limited leverage to
increase revenue by raising allowable tax rates (Moak & Associates,
2008).
The portion of education funding that states and local
governments provide has changed considerably over time.
Traditionally, the elementary and secondary education levels had
been funded primarily by local governments and states only played a
supporting contribution. Currently, states are required to take a
greater role in education funding which is a trend that began in the
1970s when state funding first overtook education spending by local
governments (New America Foundation, 2011). The three levels of
government in the United States which include federal, state, and
local contribute to the education funding. States usually provide
approximately less than half of all of the elementary and secondary
educational funding. The local governments commonly contribute to
about 44% of the total, and the federal government funds about10%
of all direct educational expenditures (New America Foundation,
2011).
State Funding
States mainly use income and sales taxes to fund elementary

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 8

and secondary education. The State legislatures have developed the

level or tiers of distribution of funding by following certain
guidelines contingent on the state expenditures (New America
Foundation, 2011). States must design school funding formulas to
determine its education funding requirements. States strive to give all
students a good education; however, funding formulas often come
under debate (Center for Public Education, 2008). The two terms that
are generally utilized to delineate school funding are adequacy and
equity. Adequacy is not about providing a set amount of money rather
it is about the number of dollars that are needed to fund students
needs in order for them to be successful in their academic
achievement (Center for Public Education, 2008). On the other hand,
equity means that school districts should have equal access to
comparable revenue per student at similar levels of tax effort (CITS,
2004). Furthermore, the Center for Public Education (2008) defines
equity as the process of distributing a set amount of dollars evenly
among students (Center for Public Education, 2008, p. 3).
State funding for elementary and secondary education is
typically distributed by formula. Many states utilize funding formulas
that allocate funding per pupils in a school district. Some formulas
are weighted based on student demographics which may include the
number of students with disabilities, the number of students with low
socio-economic background, or the number of students classified as
English Language Learners. The allocation of funding for these
students may differ considerably depending on the funding formula
(New America Foundation, 2011).
In Texas, the school finance system is known as the
Foundation School Program (FSP) which requires for property rich
school districts to render some of their local property taxes to the
state to be redistributed to lower socio-economic school districts
(Benson & Marks, 2005). The rendering of local school districts
funds and redistribution is also known as the Robin Hood law (Cook,
2004). The term to describe property rich districts is Chapter 41.
School Districts identified as Chapter 31, as per their Weighted
Average Daily Attendance (WADA), must redirect some of their

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

property tax dollars to the state to support Chapter 42 school districts

which are considered property poor districts as per their WADA
(TEC, 2007). However, Walter and Sweetland (2003) state that the
redistribution of funds at the state level between property rich and
poor districts raised a concern of equity in how these funds are
accessed by the school districts.
Litigations in School Funding
It is important to note that in the majority of the 50 states
litigations have arisen, alleging educational funding disparities. The
school funding litigations were mainly concentrated on education
equity. These cases questioned the level of per-pupil funding in the
states. However, the 1980s litigations deferred and were
characterized as focusing on education adequacy. Still these court
cases sought funding allocations required to ensure that every student
received an adequate education (Ujifusa, 2013).
From 1989 to 2010, plaintiffs have won 26 education
adequacy litigations cases. There are still numerous cases pending in
courts across the nation (New America Foundation, 2011).
In the landmark case, Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent
School District, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the United States Supreme Court
ruled that education is not a fundamental right under the federal
constitution. It also held that wealth is not a questionable
classification. This 5-4 ruling held that the state of Texas did not have
to justify the higher quality of education for wealthier districts that
might derive from their collected local property taxes (Ujifusa, 2013).
A combined case, Edgewood Independent School District v.
Williams, was originally filed in December 2011. Approximately 600
school districts representing three-quarters of the state's school
districts and responsible for educating 5 million-plus public school
students joined the lawsuit. The school districts claimed that financial
support provided by the Texas Legislature was inadequate and
unfairly distributed. This case was filed after lawmakers voted in
2011 to cut public school funding by $5.4 billion.

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 10

In addition, the Court declared the school finance system in

Texas to be unconstitutional by not providing low-wealth school
districts the option in setting their tax rates. The Court noted that
school districts such as those represented by the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) have been forced to
tax at the maximum rate because of the increased unfunded mandates.
Moreover, the Court ruled in favor of the other school district
plaintiffs' claims as well, on the grounds of equity, adequacy and
meaningful discretion (MALDEF, 2013).
On April 16, 2012, The Equity Center reported that more than
400 school districts in Texas are being represented by The Fairness
Coalition to file a school finance lawsuit against the state. The lawsuit
against the State of Texas focuses on a school funding system that is
unfair, inefficient and unconstitutional (The Equity Center, 2012).
It is noted that disparities in education funding in Texas have
reached levels that have not been evident for the last 20 years. Low
socioeconomic students and English Language Learners have been
affected the most. The lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Funding is the third in recent months
to challenge the constitutionality of Texas' school finance system
(Alexander, 2011). This case is being led by Edgewood schools that
have an established history of winning lawsuits against the states
public school funding formulas (MALDEF, 2013). The Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund won the pivotal court
case against the State of Texas regarding inadequate school funding
for low socioeconomic and English Language Learner (ELL)
children. The ruling stated that the Texas public school finance
system is arbitrary, inequitable and inadequate under the Texas
Constitution and [...] low-wealth school districts lack local control
over their tax rates, reported MALDEF in a media statement. Judge
John K. Dietz of Travis County District Court made this ruling after
more than three months of testimony. The State has left many Texas
children behind by blatantly defying its constitutional duty to fully
support their education, said David Hinojosa, Southwest Regional

11

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Counsel for MALDEF, who delivered the closing arguments on

behalf of its clientsschools and plaintiffs. Every Texas child
should have the opportunity to go to college and this lawsuit will
ensure that opportunity. MALDEF filed the claim against the State
of Texas because the budget cuts for schools around the state were
considered to be uneven. Low wealth districts had as much as a
$1,000 difference per pupil as compared to high wealth school
districts. This occurred in spite of the fact that Texas residents were
still paying high rates in school taxes across the state (MALDEF,
2013).
Methodology
This non-experimental descriptive-survey research study
explored the strategies superintendents used to balance their school
district budgets during the 2011-2012 school year through the use of a
survey/questionnaire. Gall, Gall, and Borg state that this type of
research (sometimes called survey research) has yielded much
valuable knowledge about opinions, attitudes, and practices. This
knowledge has helped shape educational policy and initiatives to
improve existing conditions (2003, p. 290). The study attempted to
answer the following research questions:
1. What cost cutting strategies have school district
superintendents employed to deal with the current school
finance crisis?
2. Which strategies yielded most of the savings?
3. What are the superintendents perceptions and concerns
regarding the future of school finance?
Research Design
A non-experimental descriptive-survey research study design
was chosen in order to answer the research questions. The
characteristics of descriptive research communicate the following

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 12

characteristics: (a) an instrument such as a survey/questionnaire is

developed by the researcher, (b) most responses to the
survey/questionnaire are quantitative or may be summarized in a
quantitative manner, (c) the population sample selected for the study
is usually large to ensure that generalizations are tied back to the
population being studied (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2006).
In order to protect participants rights, each participant was
sent a URL to the survey monkey and completed the survey
anonymously. The limitations in this study consisted of a very low
response rate as only nine responses were able to be utilized.
This study took place within the state of Texas. There are
1040 school districts in the state of Texas. For the purpose of this
study, a purposive sample of all superintendents in the state was
selected. Surveys were administered using the online tool
SurveyMonkey. Thirteen superintendents responded to the survey,
but of these four had to be removed due to lack of responses, leaving
a total of nine. All the school districts statuses based on information
from the nine superintendents were Chapter 42. The School districts
total student membership ranged from less than 1000 to 10,000. One
school fell in the 6,001-10,000 range, one school fell in the 2,501 6,000 range, three schools were in the 1,001-2,500 range, and four
schools were in the 1,000 or less range (Table 1).
Table 1
School District Student Membership
School District student
Frequency
membership
1000 or less
4
1001 2500
3
2501 6000
1
6001 - 10,000
1
Total
9

Percent
44.5
33.3
11.1
11.1
100.0

13

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Data Analysis
All of the nine respondents who had to eliminate professional
positions were Chapter 42. Of these, four eliminated administrative
positions, seven eliminated Teaching: Electives, six eliminated
Teaching: Core Areas, one eliminated athletic coaches and
instructional aides, and one reduced an Elementary Position and
increased class size. The larger schools appeared more apt to
eliminate administrative positions as three of the four eliminated were
from school districts with more than 1000 students while the smaller
schools were more prone to eliminate teaching positions (Table 2).

Seven out of nine respondents stated that they had eliminated

Auxiliary/non-instructional positions. Of these seven respondents,
four school districts eliminated Facilities & Maintenance: New
Construction & custodial, electrical, one eliminated Human
Resources, Accounting and Payroll, four eliminated Curriculum and
Instruction, three eliminated Athletics and Fine Arts, none eliminated
Counseling and Guidance, and one eliminated Transportation
Director, Bus Monitors, Tax Office Clerk position(s).

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 14

Eight of the nine superintendents responded that they repurposed and/or re-assigned personnel. Six of these eight repurposed
Administrative: Central/District Based personnel, three repurposed
Administrative: Campus Based personnel, six repurposed Teaching:
Electives personnel, four repurposed Teaching: Core Areas personnel,
and one repurposed Counselors or Librarian personnel.
Superintendents made the following changes respectively to
Student/Teacher Ratios: 13:1 to 16:1; 15:1 to 19:1; Elementary: 14:1
to 18:1, Middle: 14:1 to 23:1, High School 16:1 to 20:1; 15:1 to 16:1;
16:1 to 18:1; Elementary 19:1 to 21:1, Secondary 15:1 to 18:1; 12.9:1
to 14.2:1; and 15:1 to 22:1.
Three of the nine superintendents who responded had to
submit a request to the state for a waiver on its predetermined
student/Teacher Ratio. Four of the nine districts had to resort to
utilizing the districts fund balance to make payroll and necessary
expenditures. Three of the nine stated that based on the current
funding, the district would not need to use the districts fund balance
in subsequent years.
The following programs or initiatives received less funding in
order to meet the financial demands of operating their districts (Table
3):
Professional Positions (6100) by five school districts
Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100) by six school
districts
Student/Teacher Ratio (6100) by six school districts
Curriculum Development: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100) by
three school districts
Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100) by four
school districts
Extended Day Student Tutorials (6100) by six school districts
Enrichment Programs (6100) by six school districts
Consultant Contracted Services for Professional Learning
(6200) by six school districts

15

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Technology Purchases/leases (6200) by four school districts

Supplies and Materials (6300) by six school districts
Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds
(6300) by five school districts
Travel for Educational Conferences (6400) by six school
districts
Land, Building and Equipment (6600) by four school districts

The strategies were prioritized in order of the amount of

savings and are listed below in order of most to least savings:
1. Professional Positions (6100)
2. Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100)
3. Student/Teacher Ratio (6100)
4. Curriculum Development: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100)
5. Extended Day Student Tutorials (6100)
6. Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100)

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 16

7. Supplies and Materials (6300)

8. Enrichment Programs (6100)
9. Travel for Educational Conferences (6400)
10.Consultant Contracted Services for Professional Learning
(6200)
11.Technology Purchases/leases (6200)
12. Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds
(6300) tied with Land, Building and Equipment (6600)
The cost cutting strategies that superintendents believed were
most effective in meeting the financial demands of operating their
districts and would thereby sustain the school district in subsequent
years were Professional Positions (6100) and Auxiliary/noninstructional Positions (6100) with five choices each. Student/Teacher
Ratio (6100) was deemed the third most effective cost cutting
strategy with three choices.
The least effective cost cutting strategies in meeting the
financial demands of operating their district were Supplies and
Materials (6300), Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100),
and Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds (6300)
respectively.
Student/Teacher Ratio (6100) was the cost cutting strategy
that was thought to be not effective in meeting the academic demands
of operating the district followed by Professional Positions (6100)
and Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100)
Superintendents were asked about their perceptions of the
future of school finance. Three were optimistic, three were actively
involved with the school finance law suits and believed that the courts
would rule in their favor, and three believed that the struggle with
school finance would continue and the courts would not provide any
relief.

17

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Conclusions
Many cost cutting strategies were employed to deal with the
current school finance crisis. All nine respondents had to eliminate
professional positions. The larger schools appeared more apt to
eliminate administrative positions while the smaller schools were
more prone to eliminate teaching positions. The majority of the
superintendents re-purposed and/or re-assigned personnel and all the
superintendents increased the Student/Teacher Ratios.
Many programs or initiatives received less funding in order to
meet the financial demands of operating their districts. The strategies
were prioritized in order of the amount of savings, and the top three
were Professional Positions (6100), Auxiliary/non-instructional
Positions (6100), and Student/Teacher Ratio (6100). The least
effective cost cutting strategies were Supplies and Materials (6300),
Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100), and Beautification
& Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds (6300) respectively.
The perceptions superintendents held about the future of
school finance was very varied. Three of the superintendents were
optimistic for the future, three were actively involved with school
finance law suits and believed that the courts would rule in their
favor, and three believed that the struggle with school finance would
continue and the courts would not provide any relief.
Finally, it is clear from the findings of this study that the
funding reductions experienced by Texas school districts in recent
years have forced superintendents to initiate significant cuts in
programs and personnel that have direct relationships to instructional
programs, staffing and student/teacher ratios as well as in a variety of
other areas. The question that must arise is what impact will these
cost cutting strategies have on the educational experience and
performance of children enrolled in Texas school districts? Further
research is needed to examine this issue as it relates to the impact of
these funding policies and strategies on student performanc

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 18

References
Alexander, K. (2011, December 13, 2011). MALDEF sues Texas
over school finance. American Statesman Staff. Retrieved
from http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/maldefsues-texas-over-school-finance-2030532.html
Benson, E., & Marks, B. (2005). Robin Hood and Texas school
district borrowing costs. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2),
84-105.
Center for Public Education. (2008). A primer on K12 school
funding. Austin, TX. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/
Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools (CITS). (2004). School funding
101. Retrieved from
http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/glossary.p
hp
Cook, G. (2004). Robin Hood and the state's new role in education.
American School Board Journal, 191(11), 8-12.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Finance
Adequacy/Core Cost: Determining the cost of a basic or core
education. Retrieved from
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/PropertyTaxSession/OPI/core_
cost.pdf
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An
introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2006). Methods in
educational research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).
(2013). Mission statement. Retrieved from
http://www.maldef.org/about/mission/index.html
Moak C., & Associates (2008). A cost analysis for Texas public
schools. Retrieved from
http://www.moakcasey.com/articles/viewarticledoc.aspx/cost
analysis09.pdf?AID=734&DID=781

19

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

New America Foundation. (2013, June 30). School finance: Federal,

state, and local K-12 school finance overview. Retrieved on
December 2011 from http://febp.newamerica.net/backgroundanalysis/school-finance
No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Public law 107-110. Section 1301.
Texas Association of School Administrators & Texas Association of
School Boards. (2008). Report on school district mandates:
Cost drivers in public education. Austin, TX: Author.
The Education Trust. (2006). Funding gaps. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/press-release/educationtrust-releases-funding-gaps-2006
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1,
93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973).Texas Education Code (TEC). (2007).
Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) Research
Foundation. (2010). An introduction to school finance in
Texas. Retrieved from
http://www.ttara.org/files/document/IntroToSchoolFinance.
pdf
The Equity Center. (2012). Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness
Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.equitycenter.org/texastaxpayer-a-student-fairness-coalition
Walter, F., & Sweetland, S. (2003). School finance reform: An
unresolved issue across the nation. Education, 124(1), 143150.
Ujifusa, A. (2013). State finance lawsuits still roiling landscape.
Education Week, 32(18), 17-19.