La Marque Independent School DistrictBudget & Spending

Galveston County, Texas NCES 4826160

Total revenue · FY2016
$28.3M $28,267,000
Students enrolled
2,287
Revenue per pupil
$12,360
Local share per pupil
$8,443

Transparency grade C, provisional

Under review

Provisional grade

Every district starts at a provisional C until its records have been reviewed. This is a starting point, not a finding.

If you work for this district, you can shorten the wait by sending us links to the records you already publish.

Submit records How scoring works

NCES F-33 · FY2016

Where the money goes

Operating and capital spending from the federal expenditure survey, rolled up by function.

Aggregate categories only: no individual payees or contracts are shown.

Instruction
$11.0M 47.7% of spending
Administration
$1.8M 7.6% of spending
Per pupil
$10,087 All functions
Instruction — 47.7%Student Transportation — 12.4%Food Services — 7.5%Capital Outlay — 6.7%Operations & Maintenance — 5.2%Business & Central Services — 4.8%Instructional Staff Support — 4.5%School Administration — 3.8%General Administration — 3.8%Student Support Services — 2.8%Other Support Services — 0.7%Total$23.1MK12 Transparency
Dollars by function
K12 TransparencyInstructionInstruction — $11,005,000$11.0MStudent TransportationStudent Transportation — $2,868,000$2.9MFood ServicesFood Services — $1,738,000$1.7MCapital OutlayCapital Outlay — $1,554,000$1.6MOperations & MaintenanceOperations & Maintenance — $1,200,000$1.2MBusiness & Central Servic…Business & Central Services — $1,104,000$1.1MInstructional Staff Suppo…Instructional Staff Support — $1,035,000$1.0MSchool AdministrationSchool Administration — $877,000$877KGeneral AdministrationGeneral Administration — $873,000$873KStudent Support ServicesStudent Support Services — $644,000$644KOther Support ServicesOther Support Services — $171,000$171KOther ProgramsOther Programs — $1,000$1.0K
  • Instruction 47.7%
  • Student Transportation 12.4%
  • Food Services 7.5%
  • Capital Outlay 6.7%
  • Operations & Maintenance 5.2%
  • Business & Central Services 4.8%
  • Instructional Staff Support 4.5%
  • School Administration 3.8%
  • General Administration 3.8%
  • Student Support Services 2.8%
  • Other Support Services 0.7%
  • Other Programs 0.0%
Embed this on your site

Free to use anywhere, no attribution required beyond the link the card carries itself. Figures update when the federal data does.

Preview
View the numbers as a table
La Marque Independent School District expenditures by function
FunctionAmountPer pupilShare
Instruction $11,005,000 $4,812 47.7%
Student Transportation $2,868,000 $1,254 12.4%
Food Services $1,738,000 $760 7.5%
Capital Outlay $1,554,000 $679 6.7%
Operations & Maintenance $1,200,000 $525 5.2%
Business & Central Services $1,104,000 $483 4.8%
Instructional Staff Support $1,035,000 $453 4.5%
School Administration $877,000 $383 3.8%
General Administration $873,000 $382 3.8%
Student Support Services $644,000 $282 2.8%
Other Support Services $171,000 $75 0.7%
Other Programs $1,000 $0 0.0%
Total $23,070,000 $10,087 100%

NCES F-33 · FY2005–FY2016

How this has changed

Summary Four points on FY2012 to FY2016
  • Operating balance and scale In FY2016 the district reported $28.3M in revenue against $21.5M in current operating spending. It took in $6.8M more than it spent on operations, a margin of 23.9% of revenue. A further $1.6M went to capital outlay, 6.1% of total spending, which is typically financed by borrowing rather than out of revenue. This compares revenue with operating cost only; it is not a fund balance and not an audited result.
  • Inflation and real growth Consumer prices rose +4.5% between FY2012 and FY2016. Revenue rose -8.6% and operating spending -23.6% in nominal terms. Revenue trailed inflation, losing +12.6% in purchasing power. Operating spending trailed inflation, losing +26.9% in purchasing power.
  • Enrollment and per-pupil cost Enrollment fell by 702 students, -23.5%. Operating spending per student went from $9,420 to $9,408, -0.1% nominal and -4.5% after inflation.
  • Structural takeaway Revenue grew faster than operating spending, by 15.0 percentage points over the period, and real cost per student fell over the same window. These figures describe cost, not performance: the F-33 does not say what a district was funded to do, and this site scores what a district publishes rather than how it spends.

Generated from the figures in the table below, not written by hand and not written by a model. Change the years and it recalculates.

Measure FY2012 FY2016 Change Nominal % Real %
Total revenue $30,930,000 $28,267,000 $-2,663,000 -8.6% -12.6%
Total expenditure $29,276,000 $25,561,000 $-3,715,000 -12.7% -16.5%
Revenue per pupil $10,348 $12,360 +$2,012 +19.4% +14.3%
Students enrolled 2,989 2,287 -702 -23.5% —
Change since FY2012, every measure on one scale
-40%-20%0%+20%K12 TransparencyTotal revenue, FY2012: $30,930,000 (+0.0%)Total revenue, FY2013: $28,533,000 (-7.7%)Total revenue, FY2014: $28,695,000 (-7.2%)Total revenue, FY2015: $28,260,000 (-8.6%)Total revenue, FY2016: $28,267,000 (-8.6%)Total expenditure, FY2012: $29,276,000 (+0.0%)Total expenditure, FY2013: $29,409,000 (+0.5%)Total expenditure, FY2014: $24,273,000 (-17.1%)Total expenditure, FY2015: $25,399,000 (-13.2%)Total expenditure, FY2016: $25,561,000 (-12.7%)Revenue per pupil, FY2012: $10,348 (+0.0%)Revenue per pupil, FY2013: $9,963 (-3.7%)Revenue per pupil, FY2014: $11,351 (+9.7%)Revenue per pupil, FY2015: $12,255 (+18.4%)Revenue per pupil, FY2016: $12,360 (+19.4%)Students enrolled, FY2012: 2,989 (+0.0%)Students enrolled, FY2013: 2,864 (-4.2%)Students enrolled, FY2014: 2,528 (-15.4%)Students enrolled, FY2015: 2,306 (-22.9%)Students enrolled, FY2016: 2,287 (-23.5%)+19.4%+4.5%-8.6%-12.7%-23.5%'12'15'16Inflation baseline (+4.5% cumulative)Total revenueTotal expenditureRevenue per pupilStudents enrolled

Percent change from each measure's FY2012 level. Dollar figures are nominal as filed; the real column removes inflation using CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items, annual average (BLS). The dashed line is that same inflation curve, so a dollar line above it gained purchasing power and one below it lost. It does not apply to enrollment. Hover any point for the underlying number.

Students meeting the state proficiency mark
0%25%50%75%100%FY2014: state test changed, results step by -15 points across 989 districtsMath, grade 8, FY2012: 52%Math, grade 8, FY2013: 62%Math, grade 8, FY2014: 32%Math, grade 8, FY2015: 42%Reading, grade 8, FY2012: 72%Reading, grade 8, FY2013: 62%Reading, grade 8, FY2014: 67%Reading, grade 8, FY2015: 72%Math, grade 4, FY2012: 42%Math, grade 4, FY2013: 27%Math, grade 4, FY2014: 47%Math, grade 4, FY2015: 22%Reading, grade 4, FY2012: 57%Reading, grade 4, FY2013: 47%Reading, grade 4, FY2014: 47%Reading, grade 4, FY2015: 32%72%42%32%22%'12'14'15Math, grade 8Reading, grade 8Math, grade 4Reading, grade 4

Each line is the share of students in that grade who sat their state test and scored at or above the mark Texas calls proficient. A reading of 48% means 48 of every 100 tested reached that bar, and the other 52 did not. It is not an average score and not a share of everyone enrolled. Federal EDFacts collection, grades 4 and 8. Proficiency is defined by Texas's own test and its own cut score, so these figures are not comparable with a district in another state. The dashed vertical lines mark years when Texas changed its test and reset the passing mark (FY2012, -21 points across 1,000 districts; FY2014, -15 points across 989 districts). Scores either side of one of those lines measure different things, and the step is a change in the test rather than in what students learned. There is no usable FY2019 in the federal collection and nothing published after FY2020, so the line stops there.

Embed this comparison

The embedded card names the district, so it stands on its own wherever it is posted.

Preview

100-point rubric

What La Marque Independent School District needs for an A

  • Public check register

    14 pts

    Every disbursement published with payee category, date, amount, and fund, updated at least quarterly.

    A check register records where money actually went, rather than where it was budgeted to go.

  • Annual financial audit

    6 pts

    A current Annual Comprehensive Financial Report with the independent auditor opinion attached.

    A financial audit confirms the statements are accurately presented. Most states require one, so it is a floor rather than a distinction.

  • Performance or efficiency audit

    5 pts

    An independent review of whether spending achieved its stated purpose, published within the last three years.

    A financial audit asks whether the numbers are right. A performance audit asks whether the money did what it was meant to do, which is the question a taxpayer is usually asking.

  • Line-item adopted budget

    11 pts

    The adopted budget broken out by function and object code, not a summary presentation.

    Function and object detail is what allows classroom and central office spending to be compared.

  • Purchasing card transactions

    9 pts

    Purchasing and credit card transaction detail with merchant category, date, and amount.

    Card purchases sit outside the standard purchase-order process, so separate disclosure is what makes them reviewable.

  • Payment history by category

    9 pts

    Cumulative payments grouped by spending category, covering at least one full fiscal year.

    Category totals show concentration and recurring commitments that individual payments do not.

  • Machine-readable data

    9 pts

    Financial data offered as CSV, XLSX, JSON, or an open API rather than scanned images.

    A scanned PDF is technically public and practically difficult to analyse. Open formats make review possible.

  • Compensation schedule

    7 pts

    Current salary schedules and aggregate administrator compensation bands, including stipends.

    Payroll is the largest line in most district budgets, so schedule-level disclosure covers the bulk of spending.

  • Bond and capital disclosure

    7 pts

    Bond program spending reported against the specific projects voters approved, with remaining balances.

    Bond funds are borrowed against future taxes and authorised for a named project list, so reporting against that list closes the loop.

  • Board minutes and agendas

    7 pts

    Minutes and agenda packets posted together with the financial exhibits that were voted on.

    The vote and its attachment are what connect a decision to the money it moved.

  • Contracts posted

    6 pts

    Executed contracts and amendments above the district bid threshold, posted in full.

    A payment shows the amount. The contract shows what was promised in return.

  • Direct download, no request

    6 pts

    Core financial records download directly, with no records request, login, or fee.

    Publishing a record and releasing it on request are different levels of disclosure.

  • Published records process

    4 pts

    A public records page naming the responsible officer, the statutory timeline, and any fees.

    A documented process tells a requester what to expect before they file.

No items have been checked yet. These fill in as each record is located and verified.