There has been some discussion in this blog’s comments lately about the financial aspects of the new open enrollment policy that the El Paso Independent School District has adopted. The policy allows students residing in neighboring Texas school districts to attend EPISD schools if they complete the enrollment process.
Of the $483 million dollars in revenue that the 2013-2014 EPISD budget projected, 2.19% was to come from federal funding. State funding was projected at 63.9% of the total and local funding was expected to account for 34.8%.
Texas law provides for the portion that they would pay the old district to be transferred to the new district along with the student. Federal funds account for only about $10.6 million of the $483 million and are not primarily based upon attendance. It appears that some federal money would be lost to the old district and the new district might gain some depending upon the student’s situation.
Local funds not transferred
I have not been able to find a provision in our laws that requires the local portion (in the case of EPISD 34.8%) of the revenue to be transferred to the new district. In fact Texas law goes so far as to make a provision for the receiving school district to charge tuition if they want to. From the Texas education code:
Sec. 25.038. TUITION FEE FOR TRANSFER STUDENTS. The receiving school district may charge a tuition fee to the extent that the district’s actual expenditure per student in average daily attendance, as determined by its board of trustees, exceeds the sum the district benefits from state aid sources as provided by Section 25.037. However, unless a tuition fee is prescribed and set out in a transfer agreement before its execution by the parties, an increase in tuition charge may not be made for the year of that transfer that exceeds the tuition charge, if any, of the preceding school year.
I hope that one of our readers will let us know if I am wrong here.
Who benefits?
The transfer does not seem to make a financial difference to the parents of the student being transferred. Since EPISD is operating with a budget deficit it would appear that the EPISD taxpayers will have to make up the missing money.
Are the developers and home builders the beneficiaries of this policy?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
The amount of cash the district would get from the state for the transferred student’s ADA (average daily attendance) would far outweigh the local funds spent. So the district would end up with a net cah gain for each transferred student into the district.
This is obviously aimed at the kids on the far west side where the choice for parents moving into the swanky Cimmeron area (A Woody Hunt project) is Canutillo or EPISD. Franklin of Canutillo HS? Where would you want your kid to go?
LikeLike
I just knew there was a Woody-connection here. At least it doesn’t cost us (EPISD) money. Thanks for pointing it out. I mean, who could figure this out, except in El Paso where you have to always ask the question, “Who benefits,” and it is typically one of the Usual Suspects.
It’s the “how” that requires us to dig deeper.
LikeLike
Woody Hunt is a big financial backer of Texans for Education Reform, a political action committee established to promote school choice among other things and contribute to political campaigns of candidates who agree with TER’s positions. Hunt has also consistently contributed significant amounts of money to the political campaigns of the current president of the EPISD Board of Managers. Hunt has also given large sums of money to Rick Perry, who probably had a say in the selection of current board members.
LikeLike
it still comes down to more butts in a chair and overcrowding classrooms and not adding any teachers or new expenses. it will bring in more money and make up some of the deficit, but at what cost to the education of the kids ? it will also help hunt’s subdivisions that are in the canutillo district. maybe thats why they want franklin to have their own stadium. to help pull more kids from canutillo while staying away from building jeff a field. they want to sell jeff anyway and send everyone in that area to la bowie.
LikeLike
I think the open enrollment is a great idea. It will bring money to the district and it gives parents the choice that everyone has been talking about for years. I don’t see the downside.
LikeLike
Does this answer your question ? Posted from another blog.
What RP is saying is its about Real Estate number one and more butts in a chair(someone else said that)is second. More butts does get you more money from the state and feds, but doesn’t pay for the full amount that is required to educate the new kids. If the state and fed money covered it all then there would be no reason for EPISD to charge property tax. I’m assuming their theory is to hire no extra teachers, crowd up classrooms,(for how many years who knows)keep expenses where they are and try to cut a school or 2 down(Jeff,Austin) so they can make up the budget shortfall. The question is how much of a sacrifice this theory has to actually hurting the education of the kid. As far as having a choice ? Well, there is Cathedral and Lorreto and a few other privates or buy a home in the area of the school you like.
Posted by: Ponce de Leon | 06/05/2014 at 14:44
The “Real Estate” above is Woody’s Cimarron subdivisions that are in Canutillo district near Franklin.
LikeLike
Hunt Communities coffers just went, “cha-chink!” (Those foolish preservationist dreamers should fundraise for political donations, not the center itself… the returns would be greater).
LikeLike
which speaking of, isn’t it funny how our old friend, Susie Byrd, always wails against urban sprawl in the East side, but not a peep on her political benefactors’ sprawl-inducing investments in pristine Westside lands?
LikeLike