Citizen Portal

Plano ISD presents peer staffing review showing per‑student spending and FTE comparisons

Plano Independent School District Board of Trustees

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

CFO Courtney Reeves presented the district's annual peer staffing report using Forecast5 data, noting data lags, per‑student spending comparisons with DFW and statewide peers, and FTE differences across teacher, counselor, nurse and central admin categories.

Plano Independent School District staff presented an annual peer staffing and spending review on Feb. 18, showing multi‑year enrollment and staffing snapshots and noting where local comparisons differ because of coding and data timing.

CFO Courtney Reeves said the Forecast5 comparative analytics draw on 2024 FTE and 2022–23 financial snapshots, creating a data lag but still offering useful trend information. Reeves reported 2024 enrollment figures for key cohorts (kindergarten ~3,034; 12th grade ~3,824) and noted changes in student composition: low‑socioeconomic enrollment rose to 38.3% in 2024 (up 1.5 points), English‑language learners rose to 26.2% (up 2.6 points) and special education rose to 14.24% (up 0.83 points).

Reeves compared per‑student spending for the district to DFW peers and statewide peers. For fiscal 2023 the DFW peer average was $12,340 per student while Plano ISD's comparable figure was $11,529. Forecast5 also showed payroll as the largest share of expenditures and itemized other categories (professional/contracted services, supplies and materials, other operations).

On staffing, Reeves reported Plano's student‑to‑teacher FTE ratio at about 14.4 students per teacher FTE (on par with DFW peers), counselor ratios near peer averages, nursing FTEs slightly below some peers, and professional support FTEs above the DFW average. Reeves noted coding differences across districts can make direct position‑to‑position comparisons misleading; board members asked staff to follow up with Forecast5 to clarify classifications of central administration versus professional services.

District staff and trustees also discussed the district’s assigned fund balance and cash‑flow timing tied to property‑tax collections, with staff noting 94% of property tax collections occur in December–February and citing about $170 million held for cash flow. Trustees pressed for clarity on indicator 13 (administrative cost ratio) and how coding choices change appearances of administrators per student; staff reiterated indicator 13 is expenditure‑based while some Forecast5 views are position‑based and may skew comparisons.

Reeves closed the presentation by noting the peer review is informational and not a set of staffing recommendations; staff said they will pursue additional clarity from the vendor and bring back refined comparisons as they are available.