Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
El Paso ISD outlines needs-based allocations; trustees press for equity audit recommendations and per-pupil model options
Loading...
Summary
District staff presented a needs-based allocation plan for state compensatory and Title I funds and described campus-level supports; trustees asked for clearer ties to the pending equity audit and for comparisons of this year’s allocations versus next year’s proposals.
El Paso ISD staff presented an initial needs-based allocation plan at the April 1 budget workshop that would direct supplemental state compensatory and Title I funds to campuses according to indicators such as reading and math performance, percent of economically disadvantaged students and counts of emergent bilingual and at-risk students.
Why it matters: The presentation lays out how federal and state supplemental funds would be distributed among campuses, and trustees said they want the allocations explicitly tied to final recommendations from the district’s pending equity audit before the model is finalized.
Christine Ferrett, who led the needs-based-allocation segment, described the data and the types of differentiated supports the district plans to allocate: class-size reduction teachers and supplemental teachers for campuses above specified poverty thresholds, academic interventionists and certified instructional coaches, expanded Algebra-for-All at middle schools, additional family specialists/social workers at high-need campuses, and a fine-arts expansion that would add band and theater teachers at roughly 20 campuses. Ferrett said the district is also adding parent-engagement liaisons at campuses with more than 75% economically disadvantaged students and expanding after-school and AVID programs at targeted campuses.
Staff provided an example breakdown by campus group: at the high-school level Bowie was shown as the highest per-student allocation and Franklin as the lowest; at middle schools Guillén appeared highest and Nato lowest; at PreK–8, Murphy and Tina Herro were highest, Haskins lowest; and in elementary schools Travis projected highest while Lundy was lowest. Ferrett said the comparisons combine state compensatory allocations with Title I dollars and include personnel and program supports.
Trustees pressed staff for more transparency about sources and trade-offs. Trustee Hanani and Trustee Call (transcript spelling varies) asked how much of the supplemental funding reflects federal entitlements versus state compensatory formula dollars and whether the model could move toward a per-pupil allotment like models used by other districts. Trustee Call asked for a clearer comparison between what campuses received this year and what the district proposes for next year so trustees and the public can see which campuses would gain or lose funding under the model.
Staff response and next steps: Ferrett and other staff said the equity audit has not yet delivered final recommendations and that raw data and early findings have been shared with the district; staff said they expect the equity audit’s recommendations to guide further refinement of the funding model. Staff said the shift to a more decentral, per-pupil funding approach would likely be gradual and that larger structural changes would take more than a single budget cycle to implement.
Ending: Trustees asked staff to return with a clearer mapping of funding sources (Title I, state compensatory, local allocations), a year-over-year comparison of campus allocations and an implementation timeline tied to the equity audit findings. There were no votes or formal approval of the funding model at the workshop.
