Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Action Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso ISD received roughly $4 million in School Action Fund awards for Montessori, ACE restarts and planning grants
Summary
Trustees heard details of recent School Action Fund (SAF) awards covering Montessori implementation, ACE restarts and other planning grants, and were told TEA’s grant timelines and sustainability risks influence district budgeting and program continuation.
El Paso — At the Aug. 27 special board workshop, El Paso ISD staff and consultants reviewed the district’s recent School Action Fund (SAF) awards, telling trustees that the district has received about $4 million in SAF planning and implementation awards across several campuses.
The grants fund a mix of activities: Montessori planning and implementation at select campuses, ACE restarts at low-performing sites and planning awards for STEM and extended-day (ADSY) pilots. The consultants noted that TEA requires separate planning and implementation applications and that many SAF awards are structured as multi-year grants with a planning year followed by up to two years of implementation funding.
“Receiving a School Action Fund award does not constitute an accountability pause unless the school action is to partner with an SB 1882 partner,” consultant Dana Ray said, explaining how some interventions interact with state accountability. Consultants added that partnering with an SB 1882 operator is the only SAF pathway that creates a formal accountability pause.
Key program details - Aggregate awards: The presenters said the district’s recent SAF awards total approximately $4,000,000 across award types and campuses. - Awarded models: Montessori expansions (planning and two-year implementation cycles), ACE (Accelerated Campus Excellence) restarts for campuses requiring intensive action, and planning grants for STEM and extended-day (ADSY) pilots at several elementary campuses. - Implementation risks: Presenters warned that grant-funded efforts can lose fidelity after grant funding ends. One district example was cited where an “innovation fund” was created locally to extend a runway past the SAF award timeframe.
Where the money is meant to go Consultants and district staff described SAF funds as covering program startup costs (for example, Montessori materials and initial staffing), implementation supports (instructional coaching, additional staffing and extended learning time) and district-level technical assistance. Staff said some models (for example, Montessori) have significant up-front material costs; others (ACE restarts) often include staffing changes, extended school days and additional compensation to attract experienced teachers.
Trustee questions and next steps Trustees asked which campuses were on the award list and whether implementation awards were received this year for previously planned schools. Staff provided a list of recent awards and said some implementation awards for ACE restarts have moved from planning to the first implementation year; the district expects a second implementation-year award for some campuses.
Administration noted that the district must plan for sustainability beyond the grant period and discussed options such as an internal innovation fund to help maintain promising practices after SAF funding ends.
Ending Board members were briefed on SAF award amounts and uses and asked for follow-up accounting and monitoring plans that show how SAF-funded models will be sustained or transitioned into regular district budgets.
