• Community Efficiency Committee

    Overview
    In the summer of 2024, district leaders convened the Community Efficiency Committee to help the district plan for the future amidst ongoing budget challenges resulting from lower student enrollment coupled with the legislature’s inaction to adjust public school funding formulas for inflation.

    In the late 90's and early 00's, LISD experienced rapid growth, peaking in 2017 at an enrollment of 53,000 students. The district was expanded to support this capacity, and enrollment is projected to stabilize at around 45,000 students over the next ten years. Lower birth rates plus increasing home prices, which average more than $400,000 in LISD, are just a few factors impacting student enrollment in LISD. As a result, we now have more facility space than students. 

    Over time, the state funding formula has put public school districts at a crossroads. Historically, LISD’s ability to maintain programs that enrich the student experience and operate effectively with smaller class sizes that enhance student learning has been a point of pride for our district. The lack of funding adjustments from our state have put a strain on our budget over the last several years and has slowly diminished our capabilities to continue these offerings on the same scale for the sake of efficiency.

    Community Efficiency Committee
    This committee is a group of more than 50 LISD stakeholders charged with representing the entire LISD community in the review of facility usage and enrollment trends in order to share assessments with the LISD Board of Trustees about how to proceed with boundary adjustments and facility usage.

    During the first couple of meetings, participants worked through the efficiency framework criteria and got acquainted with the demographics of LISD. Their studies included campus enrollment trends, a look into which LISD facilities were being utilized at optimal capacity, and to what extent staffing resources were maximized for cost-effectiveness. 

    At meeting three, committee members worked through the Facilities Assessment Document and operating costs criteria that included age and useful life factors, repair & maintenance data, and the operating costs to run facilities. The committee then chose several facilities to tour across LISD to gain real-life perspective of the criteria and key indicators used in this framework. During the final meetings, members reviewed the efficiency assessment data and collaborated to create a summation of assessments in the form of campus retirements or boundary adjustments to present to the Board.

    Guiding PrincipLEs
    The committee's charge in reviewing facility usage and enrollment trends was centered around a set of guiding principles framed by LISD's four cornerstones:

    Student Learning

      • Consider impact on number and availability of instructional programs and academic opportunities dependent on enrollment
      • Maintain equitable access to instructional programs

    Student Experience

      • Maintain current UIL Classifications
      • Consider impact on number and availability of elementary specials programs and middle school elective courses

    Resource Stewardship

      • Maintain equity of resources across all campuses
      • Consider transportation time for students by observing major roadways for creation of attendance zones
      • Increase building utilization to minimize budget factors
      • Maximize impact of bond funds renovations
      • Consider the use of bond fund proceeds in light of facility age and enrollment
      • Minimize future debt obligations

    Community Engagement

      • Preserve integrity of current feeder patterns

    Efficiency Framework
    Throughout the CEC process, members worked through the Efficiency Framework Criteria and Key Indicators outlined below.

    Criteria

    1. Enrollment: trends and forecasted enrollment over 10 years by feeder pattern.
    2. Building Capacity and Efficiency: optimal capacity of campuses by feeder pattern, and projected optimal capacity percentage over the next five years.
    3. Staffing: how close to ideal staffing efficiency levels the campus is operating based on 2023-24 enrollment.
    4. Facility Assessment Score: total assessment scores for campuses based on average percent of life remaining and visual evaluation scores, and the work order history make up the total assessment score for each system.
    5. Operating Cost:  Operational costs are those that would not be needed if campus was closed and include utilities, property insurance, administrative staff costs, and direct student support costs. Operating costs do not include teachers, instructional aides, and supplies.

    Key Indicators

    1. Close to Optimal Capacity
    2. Five Year Capacity Percentage
    3. Close to Ideal Staffing Efficiency Level
    4. Close to the District Average Operational Cost

    Efficiency Framework Supporting Documents