Mansfield ISD — TX

1. Snapshot

Suburb-Large district straddling Tarrant/Johnson counties, 35,354 students across 47 schools — Arlington/Grand Prairie/Mansfield/Burlington area. SAIPE poverty 11.3%, demographics 34% Black / 27% Hispanic / 24% White / 9% Asian (one of the most racially diverse large TX suburbs). Per-pupil expenditure $12,467 (FY2020) — below peer Spring ISD ($13,792), Adams 12 ($14,707), and same-state Alvin ($15,171). MISD is a high-revenue, low-per-pupil-spend district relative to its peer group.

2. Why this was a hard sell — community context (ACS)

A wealthy, racially diverse, high-equity suburb — exactly the kind that discerns between asks rather than rejecting wholesale. The 9-point Yes margin on classroom (Prop A) vs the 13-point No margin on Phase-3 athletics (Prop E) is the entire story: a ~22-point swing between “fund instruction” and “fund the third multi-purpose athletic complex.” This isn’t an anti-school community — it’s a community that voted three times in one election and split the ticket cleanly.

3. Peer comparison

Top peers identified via MCP (default weights + plantOps emphasis):

3+ redacted “Peer District” entries (TX Spring ISD, LA, TX) — likely FMX customers; the Spring ISD match is particularly notable since Spring is also on the November 2024 failed-VATRE list in this same cohort.

4. The gap story (what the data would have shown voters)

MISD’s data narrative is asymmetric: the classroom case is strong, the athletics case is weak. That maps directly to the split vote.

• Per-pupil instruction: $5,862.98 — lowest of every peer in this set (Spring ISD $6,726, Alvin $6,495, Stafford $7,551, Adams 12 $7,101). MISD spends 22% less per student on instruction than Stafford County, VA — a similarly-sized suburb. Props A & B were data-defensible asks for a district under-investing in classrooms relative to peers. Voters got that.
• Plant operations: $1,106.70 / pupil vs national median $1,324 — 16% below national, on par with peer median ($1,108). Not a screaming gap, but no headroom either.
• Capital construction outlay (FY2020): $52.6M across 47 schools = ~$1.12M/school/year. Mid-pack — enough to maintain a portfolio, not enough to build new.
• Chronic absenteeism 13.8%, suspension 13.1% (district average; school-level outliers: Mansfield Summit HS 32% absenteeism, T A Howard Middle 29% absenteeism / 44% suspension — these are the schools voters could be shown as proof of building-condition concerns). Multiple high schools above 3,000 enrollment running counselor ratios at 638–688 students/counselor — these are crowding numbers, not athletic-facility numbers.
• 47 schools, 46 with a nurse — operationally healthy. Not a “we can’t even staff a nurse” pitch.
• Stadium / athletics case (Props C/D/E): MISD already has 5 high schools each with their own programs (Mansfield, Mansfield Lake Ridge, Mansfield Legacy, Mansfield Timberview, Mansfield Summit). Asking voters to fund a third multi-purpose athletic complex on top of that — when classroom instruction spending is the lowest in the peer set — is the kind of ask wealthy diverse electorates can and do refuse.

5. Bond history (Ballotpedia + news)

• May 2024: $777M, 5 props. Props A ($588.5M) and B passed; Props C, D, E (~$188.5M total) failed. This isn’t a “failed bond” in the conventional sense — voters approved the bulk of the package (the classroom-and-tech ask) and rejected the athletics-and-extras tail.
• This is the most informative result in the entire 56-district cohort for a data-driven pitch: voters performed exactly the kind of line-item discrimination that good bond messaging is supposed to enable.

6. What voters / opposition actually said

Strong public posture from the district post-vote, framing A/B as the community endorsement:

• District leadership treated the May 4 result as a partial win (“MISD Community Approves Propositions A and B” — the official newsroom headline).
• Pre-vote framing: “$777M bond promises not to increase tax rates” (Fort Worth Report) — leaned on tax neutrality, not on need. That framing held up for A & B; voters didn’t punish the package for its size, they punished specific line items.
• No organized opposition reporting around C/D/E specifically — the No vote on athletics was diffuse, not campaign-driven. Wealthy diverse suburbs vote “no” on third stadiums without needing to be told to.

7. What we could have told them (and what to tell them next)

The TX-specific framing memo: Mansfield voters did what the prop-split system is designed for. Props A/B passed because the classroom case was real; Props C/D/E failed because the athletics case wasn’t. That’s not a campaign failure — that’s a successful democratic signal. The post-vote conversation should be:

1. “Voters told you exactly what they want to fund. Stop trying to bring back C/D/E and start showing per-school facility-condition data for the buildings A funded.” The next bond ask should be more A, not retreaded C/D/E.
2. “Per-pupil instruction at $5,863 is the lowest in your peer group. That’s the headline going forward — the gap that A started to close.” Lead with classroom underspend, not athletics.
3. “Mansfield Summit HS chronic absenteeism: 32%. T A Howard Middle: 29% absenteeism, 44% suspension. These are building-condition correlates, not athletics-complex correlates.” Specific schools, specific numbers, specific buildings.
4. The redacted “Peer District” hits (Spring ISD, LA parish) are likely current FMX customers. The Spring ISD match is especially actionable — Spring is in the same November 2024 failed-VATRE cohort but at much higher poverty (26.4%). A side-by-side “two TX districts of the same size, one passed core props, one failed a VATRE, here’s how facilities data played in both” framing is real.
5. The athletics-fail is a credibility deposit for the next bond. A board that proposed and then accepted no on C/D/E has earned the right to come back with a focused A+ ask — if it’s documented with per-building data. FMX is the documentation system.

8. FMX outreach hook

Mansfield is the highest-quality outreach target in this brief set because the May 2024 result is evidence the community trusts the district on facilities and instruction — they passed A & B at 54%/53%. Lead with Jeff Brogden, Associate Superintendent of Facilities & Bond Programs: he’s already running a Bond Programs office (the title is explicit), already has $588.5M of approved capital work to deploy, and needs per-building condition data to defend the next ask. Opener: “Your community just approved $588.5M for facilities work with a 9-point margin. The next ballot question — and the one after that — will be ‘show us what we got for it.’ Peer districts at this scale [reference the redacted TX peer, likely Spring ISD or a same-band suburban customer] track every dollar of bond capital against per-building condition scores in FMX. Want the same instrument before the work starts?” This is the strongest direct-pitch shape of any TX district on this list: an active bond program ($588.5M of work funded, $52.6M baseline annual capital), a sophisticated electorate that responds to data, and a board that already has a Bond Programs office structurally separate from facilities operations. The athletics-fail (Props C/D/E) is actually the inflection — it proves voters watch line items, which is the entire FMX value proposition.