A proposal pitched to Wimberley ISD could have had a profound impact on public education across the state of Texas, but the district moved away from the idea with a 4-2 vote in August after months of investigation.
According to a report released last week by Texas Monthly titled “Inside the Secret Plan to Bring Private School Vouchers to Texas,” the program, if it had come to fruition, could have allowed public education funds to funnel to private schools, though the word voucher was never mentioned in the discussion of the proposed program. The plan would have allowed any student in the state of Texas to enroll in Wimberley ISD while being educated by a nonprofit, charter or private school that partnered with the district. Wimberley would receive state funding for the students and potentially reduce the amount of local funding paid back to the state through Chapter 41, more commonly known as Robin Hood. The district would then keep a portion of the state funding and pass the remaining state funds to the educational organization it had partnered with and could have potentially resulted in those funds making their way from public coffers into private schools. WISD would still have been responsible for the student’s attendance and test scores. However, the program never made it far enough to iron out the details.
“The proposal under consideration was for Wimberley ISD to establish a partnership with a non-profit organization under the structure established by Senate Bill 1882 that would have served students from outside our school district area through the non-profit organization’s partnerships with potential charter and private schools,” WISD Superintendent Greg Bonewald said. “The enrolled students would have been classified as Wimberley ISD students in the eyes of the Texas Education Agency and the district would have been accountable for the performance of the students being educated by the charter or private schools, but the students would not have attended classes at our physical campuses in WISD.”
While other schools have used the SB 1882 structure for many uses, none have done what was being discussed at WISD. Traditionally, the program has helped larger districts with struggling schools partner with nonprofit agencies that can help operate or enhance a given school. In contrast, this program was pitched as a way to help WISD deal with funding issues stemming from nearly $8.4 million that the district will be required to pay this year back to the state of Texas. That increased from $5.2 million last year and $3 million the year before, causing then Superintendent Dwain York to state he was “shocked” and “overwhelmed” at the amount WISD would be required to pay the state. The program was also sold as a way for WISD to help individual students who may not have been receiving the education they wanted from their local school district.
“You are getting funding for students who would be enrolled at other school districts across the state,” York said when first introducing the concept to the board on May 23, which was also his last meeting as Superintendent before his retirement came into effect. “You are not adding staff. You are not adding any overhead for the education of those students but you are getting the funding. Our critical role would be to hold them accountable to the same standards the WISD students are held to.”
He continued, “...The most critical thing is it is advantageous to us financially, and then I think, well I know, that it provides a mechanism for kids who are in a poorer performing school district or campus to get out of that situation because the state is paying for that charter school or that private school or wherever they are going, but we are getting funds for those students.”
York also said that at this point the district was in a “fact finding” period of time.
Trustee Joe Malone, along with much of the rest of the school board that spoke positively of the potential program, was initially impressed with the possibilities, although he would eventually be one of the four trustees who voted against continuing with the program.
“Hearing about this program, it is really interesting,” Malone said in May. “It is an innovative thing that I understand is not really happening within any other school district, so there is a challenge but there is also a tremendous opportunity not just from a budget standpoint or a financial standpoint but also to really help out some kids that aren’t fortunate enough to be in this community or are in situations that are far less fortunate. That part is really exciting to me, but there are a lot of questions.”
Over the next few months, WISD would talk on the subject at four meetings and questions began to emerge. Bonewald, who had just taken over as superintendent days prior in the midst of this program already under development, explained totheboardatone meeting that they already missed the deadlines required to put this plan into action for the current school year. Board President Rob Campbell asked him to talk with the Texas Education Agency about a potential waiver if the district elected to move forward.
Meetings with the TEA showed that the agency was receptive to the idea. They helped WISD come up with estimates on how much the district would benefit in funding per student as well as discussing grants that could help the district navigate the process of starting the program.
This is also when questions began to mount about the differences between this program and other districts that have used the SB 1882 structure.
“So there are a number, a lot of districts I would say, that have some form of 1882 partnership,” Bonewald said in the July 11 board meeting. “What’s different about what we’re discussing right now is the serving of students external to the district. There is one district that is in the early phases of something, I won’t necessarily call it the same, but a similar approach in serving external students.”
The board discussed beginning the formal process of requesting proposals for which nonprofits, charters or private schools would be interested in partnering with the district and how those partnerships would operate. Even though the discussions had been held in public meetings, some on the board and Bonewald began questioning if the local public had been engaged enough to take the next step in the process.
“I think that (engaging the public) would be an important process for us to go through,” Trustee Will Conley said. “We’re going to be stepping out on a new program in the interest of helping public education. I think it’s important that we do so thoroughly, and to make sure that our actions are very specific and intentional to be well thought out.”
In a subsequent meeting, trustees also brought up questions about the legal liabilities and responsibilities WISD would be taking on in such a partnership or even for the Request For Proposal process. There was also concern about how much time and effort this program would take for staff. Allowing students to enroll in WISD from across the state would mean that WISD’s benefit from additional state funding would be a decrease in state funding for the district the student is leaving. Conley offered a warning of what might come.
“Think of it the opposite way,” Conley said. “If another ISD came into our ISD and started taking revenues from Wimberley ISD, how would this district respond? How would those districts respond? And in this circumstance, a lot of these districts perhaps are going to be much larger and more well equipped to deal with and to fight on this subject matter than our little $29 million district. That said, it becomes a huge burden to your administrative staff, and to the people that work for you, because they are constantly being bombarded with open records requests. They’re constantly being bombarded by the press, by associations, by lobbying firms, by political interest, by PACs, by the entire political establishment and environment. And that may be something that this district wants to fight on. I’m just telling you, that’s a very real possible reality of something like this, and it becomes a huge burden.”
In July, the school board voted unanimously to move forward with a RFP to see what organizations might be interested in partnering with the district. The motion also allowed for Bonewald to seek out legal counsel before moving forward with the option to bring the discussion back to the board if he deemed necessary.
Bonewald eventually returned to the school board on August 3.
“A lot of work has gone into looking at this and evaluating it, and we heard tonight about all the budget challenges we have and certainly there is a lot,” Malone said. “At first glance, when I heard about this, I was pretty excited about it, because here you have an opportunity to bring in some significant revenue into the district and also spread our brand out there and (it was) just kind of a win-win. That really resonated with me. I was excited about it. As we progressed, we have kind of learned more. We have had some experts provide some feedback at our last meeting. People that are really in the loop. We’ve had a lot of community members that have been really helpful in terms of educating us on this. Just helping us to really understand what this is all about. With that said, there is still so much that is unknown. There are so many aspects of this that are a concern. Particularly for somebody in my profession. I am a lawyer. I evaluate risk and liability. The attorneys, without going into detail because that is attorney client privilege, did emphasize a myriad of potential liability that could result with even moving forward with a call for (a RFP.) That is a concern. I am a trustee for this district. I serve the people in this community and the kids. We do our best to advance what we do right here. This proposal from one perspective, yes, the revenue (would be) significant to this district and advance us. But exposing us to a bunch of risks. Burdening our administrative staff with a lot of work. They are willing to work. We know that. They have already worked on this, and I trust that they would do whatever we directed them to do but I in good conscience cannot proceed.”
Trustee Andrea Justus spoke to the need for courage from the board to continue with the program and do something that she described as morally correct.
“We could continue the noncommittal process of evaluating the TEA supported and 100% legal option to open a new campus using the 1882 partnership model,” Justus said. “This in my opinion is an innovative way for our district to lead in public education and support children in struggling districts who have no other choice, while at the same time solving some of our budget challenges due to rapidly increasing property values and decreasing enrollment, which we’ve just been reminded are the biggest factors in determining our budget each year.”
Trustees Rob Campbell, Ken Strange, Lexi Jones and Malone voted to cease activity on the program. Trustees Justus and Nathan Cross voted against that motion arguing to continue down the path. Conley was in attendance at the meeting previously but had to leave before the vote due to wildfires that were active at the time near his home.
Following the publication of the article in Texas Monthly outlining the political connections of those who had brought the proposal forward and the potential consequences of it, Bonewald shared his thoughts with the Wimberley View.
“It is important to understand that this was a complex proposal and unlike any that has previously been undertaken by a public school district in Texas. While we seek to be innovative in situations that are likely to be beneficial to our WISD students, staff and community, we also must be thorough in our understanding of the potential positive and negative implications when making significant systemic decisions. Our District leaders and Trustees spent significant time vetting many aspects of instituting this type of partnership model, including an expected increased workload to our staff to implement and monitor a partnership, the potential resources it would take to ensure we met all of the TEA’s required steps to launch the partnership, the legal implications for the district when responsible for monitoring and ensuring students physically served outside the district are receiving all the curriculum and services legally required to be provided by public schools in Texas, the potential financial impact to the district’s operating budget, and the academic accountability for student growth and achievement that would be assumed by WISD for students physically served outside the district by other educational entities.”
“Ultimately, the district’s governance structure worked just as it should,” Bonewald said, responding to a question about any lessons the district could learn from this process. “It is important to acknowledge that School Boards are charged with operating in the world of complex decision-making. The simple scenarios in life rarely find their way to the Board table. At the end of the day, School Boards answer to their communities. In this case, our Board thoughtfully considered a proposal brought forward by members of our community. In the end, after thorough consideration that included multiple public meeting conversations about the proposal, the Board decided pursuing the proposal was not in the best interest of the district.”
