# Phase B: Descriptive Analysis Results

**Date:** 2026-02-26
**Data:** TIA Funding Map 2024-25 (9,187 campuses) merged with TEA ARC factors 2023-24 (8,897 matched)

## Campus Selectivity Tier Classification

3-tier proxy: Charter → Tier 1; ISD campus >15pp below district %EcoDis → Tier 1; within 15pp → Tier 2; campus %EcoDis above district by >15pp → Tier 3.

| Tier | Campuses | % | Charter | ISD |
|------|----------|---|---------|-----|
| Tier 1: Selective | 1,782 | 19.4% | 1,056 (59.3%) | 726 (40.7%) |
| Tier 2: Mixed | 5,595 | 60.9% | 0 | 5,595 |
| Tier 3: High-Need | 1,153 | 12.6% | 0 | 1,153 |
| Unclassified | 657 | 7.2% | 0 | 657 |

## TIA Participation by Tier

| Tier | Participating | Total | Rate |
|------|--------------|-------|------|
| Tier 1: Selective | 1,093 | 1,782 | **61.3%** |
| Tier 2: Mixed | 2,860 | 5,595 | 51.1% |
| Tier 3: High-Need | 556 | 1,153 | **48.2%** |

**Finding:** Selective campuses participate at 13.1pp higher rate than high-need campuses.

## Per-Teacher Allotment by Tier (Formula-Derived)

| Tier | Recognized | Exemplary | Master |
|------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| Tier 1: Selective | $4,970 | $9,940 | $18,567 |
| Tier 2: Mixed | $5,658 | $11,315 | $20,859 |
| Tier 3: High-Need | $5,978 | $11,957 | $21,928 |

**Finding:** TIA's socioeconomic tier system works as designed — high-need campuses get ~$1,000 more per Recognized teacher and ~$3,400 more per Master teacher than selective campuses.

## Demographic Profiles by Tier

| Tier | Campuses | Students | %EcoDis | %ELL | %At-Risk | %Homeless |
|------|----------|----------|---------|------|----------|-----------|
| Tier 1: Selective | 1,703 | 1,119,887 | **48.7%** | 21.6% | 44.5% | 0.6% |
| Tier 2: Mixed | 5,595 | 3,648,119 | 62.9% | 22.7% | 53.4% | 1.0% |
| Tier 3: High-Need | 1,153 | 673,110 | **81.2%** | 37.4% | 65.7% | 2.0% |

## CRITICAL FINDING: Tier 1 Sub-Groups Are Very Different

| Tier 1 Sub-Group | Campuses | %EcoDis | %ELL |
|-----------------|----------|---------|------|
| Charter | 977 | **72.4%** | 33.1% |
| ISD-Selective (>15pp below district) | 726 | **31.6%** | 13.3% |

**Most charter schools serve high-need populations** (72.4% EcoDis) despite being classified as "selective" by enrollment mechanism. The ISD-selective sub-group (magnets, etc.) serves dramatically lower-need populations (31.6% EcoDis). This means the Tier 1 classification conflates two very different types of campuses.

**Implication for study design:** The 3-tier proxy needs refinement. Options:
1. Split Tier 1 into "Charter" and "ISD-Selective" sub-tiers
2. Use raw %EcoDis quartiles instead of relative delta
3. Keep tiers but control for charter status in all analyses

## Quartile Analysis (DeRocha Replication)

Sorted all 8,429 campuses with demographics by %EcoDis:
- Q1 (lowest need): 2,107 campuses, %EcoDis 0.0%-49.2%
- Q4 (highest need): 2,108 campuses, %EcoDis 87.6%-100.0%

| Metric | Q1 (Low Need) | Q4 (High Need) | Gap |
|--------|--------------|----------------|-----|
| TIA participation | 38.0% | **70.5%** | Q4 +32.5pp |
| Charter campuses | 6.8% | 18.0% | Q4 +11.2pp |
| Recognized allotment | $3,938 | **$7,034** | +$3,096 |
| Master allotment | $15,126 | **$25,447** | +$10,321 |

**SURPRISE:** Q4 (highest-need) campuses have HIGHER TIA participation than Q1. This reverses the tier-based finding because:
- Many charter schools serving high-need populations land in Q4
- Large urban ISDs (Dallas, Houston, SA) with district-wide high poverty have most campuses in Q4 and participate in TIA
- Q1 contains many small/suburban ISDs that haven't adopted TIA

**This doesn't mean the system is equitable** — the key question remains whether high-need campuses have comparable *designation rates* (what PIR #A will answer).

## Dallas ISD Campus Breakdown

- District %EcoDis: **87.2%** (extremely high-poverty district)
- 30 campuses classified Tier 1 (selective), 206 Tier 2, **0 Tier 3**
- No Tier 3 campuses because even the highest-need Dallas campuses are only ~13pp above the district average (below the 15pp threshold)

**Most selective Dallas ISD campuses:**
| Campus | %EcoDis | Delta |
|--------|---------|-------|
| Lakewood EL | 8.0% | +79.2pp |
| Sudie L Williams TAG Academy | 15.2% | +72.0pp |
| Travis Vanguard Academy | 16.6% | +70.6pp |
| Mockingbird EL | 23.7% | +63.5pp |
| Dealey Montessori Academy | 25.8% | +61.4pp |
| Booker T Washington SPVA Magnet | 33.9% | +53.3pp |
| School for the Talented and Gifted | 41.0% | +46.2pp |

These are the campuses where TEI's pre-fix design advantaged teachers. Dallas's selectivity range (8% to 100% EcoDis within a single district) demonstrates why campus-type adjustments matter.

## What We Still Need (PIR-Dependent)

1. **PIR #A (TEA):** Campus-level designation counts → Can we compute total TIA $ per campus and test whether selective campuses accumulate more total funding despite lower per-teacher rates?
2. **PIR #C (Dallas ISD):** Post-fix TEI rates → Did the equity fix actually close the choice/comprehensive gap? Does TIA reopen it?

## Methodological Notes

1. The "all charters = selective" classification is too crude. Texas charters serve highly heterogeneous populations (72.4% avg EcoDis). Consider splitting charter analysis by charter %EcoDis quartile.
2. Dallas ISD's extreme district-wide poverty (87.2%) means the delta-based tier system puts ALL campuses in Tier 1 or 2 — it can't distinguish intra-district selectivity for high-poverty districts. The absolute %EcoDis approach (quartile analysis) may work better for district-level case studies.
3. The Q1/Q4 participation reversal is important context: TIA participation skews TOWARD high-need campuses, not away from them. The equity concern is about designation rates within participating districts, not about which districts part