EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 4

Sheldon I.S.D. receives approximately seventy-five million dollars in total revenues. This revenue is received from local property taxes (67%), state funds (24%) and federal funds (9%). The revenue is allocated into different categories with the majority of funding allocated to personnel. Approximately $31,000,000 of this $75,000,000 is allocated to Function 11 instruction. The district has made a concerted effort to ensure that a large share of funds goes to directly impact instruction. In fact, this is a question that the school board asks every year when the budget is presented.  District Operation (Function 51) also receives a large share of the pie with an allocation of approximately 7.8 million or a little over ten percent of the budget. 12.1 million dollars is allocated to debt service out of the overall district budget.  Instructional Support (function 21) is an area that our district has seen an increase in funding over the past few years. Sheldon wanted to ensure that support systems were in place for staff and allocated funds to meet this need.  A curriculum department was added to ensure alignment and to assist campuses with the implementation of the district curriculum and its monitoring.

The summary of finances shows Special Education funding in the amount of a little over 2 million dollars and Career and Technology funding at 1.28 million dollars. The summary of finances demonstrates the level of at risk students in the district by the amount of funding provided for State Compensatory Education. This amount is over 6 million dollars, slightly below ten percent of the overall M&O budget but a significant amount none the less.  A preliminary recapture amount of 1.69 million dollars is also listed. This is the district’s Chapter 41 payment to the state. This school year Sheldon I.S.D. witnessed a decrease in property values. It has not yet been determined if this decrease is significant enough to move the district out of Chapter 41 but preliminary calculations show it will be close.

  Operating costs within the district are at a level twice that of the amount of funding actually allocated for instruction.  This is because nearly 57 million dollars is allocated for operating costs.  Although this seems high to an outsider, it is consistent with the previously discussed course materials that indicate the lion’s share of costs go to personnel to cover salaries and benefits.  The district’s voters just passed a TRE to deal with the current reduction in state funding. This new money will allow the district to better handle the current fiscal situation.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 2

Revenue per WADA@Compressed Rate:

District 1: $5,044

District 2 : $7,206

Total target revenue for the M & O: This is calculated by multiplying the WADA by the WADA@Compressed Rate:

District 1: 28,023,530

District 2: 34,546,111

Total number of teachers, librarians, nurses & counselors in each district.

District 1:    618 x (8%+43%)=315

District 2:   560 x (6%+47%)=297

Both districts have the same number of Total Teacher FTEs when looking at the chart. However, it is important to look closer at the information. The chart lists the total percentage of each category which can be added and together and then multiplied to the Total Staff FTE to calculate the number of teachers librarians, nurses & counselors in each district. In this scenario, District 1 has more staff members in order to meet the needs of their students.  District 1 has a much higher property value than District 2. Both districts have the same compressed tax rate.  However, the amount of money that each district receives from their M&O collections is vastly different with District 2 collecting much more. In this case WADA failed.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 1

Analysis of district snapshots:


District 1 Economically Disadvantaged: 93.3%

District 2 Economically Disadvantaged: 20.7%

Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline District 1: 3,893

Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline District 2: 4,032

District 1 WADA: $ 5,555.815

District 2 WADA: $4,794.076
The district with the lower ADA receives a higher WADA in order to provide equity, equality and accessibility. The WADA formula is based on a formula that provides additional funding to districts based on the number of students involved in special programs such as Special Education, Career and Technology, and Gifted and Talented Education. District 1 has a higher WADA due to the fact that they have a higher number of students that fall into the State Compensatory Education category and have a higher number of students that fall into the additional funded programs listed above. Since District 1 has a higher need based on this information they receive a higher WADA than District 2. The WADA is higher for the district with the lower ADA so it can mme t the needs of its students who (based on the information) have more educational needs than the district with the higher ADA.

EDLD 5342 Week 2- Part 4

During the interview with the superintendent, we had time to discuss the relationship between the size of a district and the amount of staff responsible for the budget. In a small district the superintendent could be solely responsible for the development of the budget that is presented to the school board. Texas Education Code states that “the superintendent is the budget officer for the district and prepares or causes the budget to be prepared.” In our school district the superintendent oversees the budgeting process while the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) handles the development of the budget. Throughout the year, he discusses the budget with her.  They meet on numerous occasions to discuss the preparation of the budget as well as current collections and expenditures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/5929474535/

Dr. Giles stated that the budgeting process should ensure that all stakeholders are involved. Superintendents must work collaboratively to establish goals for the district. The superintendent must develop a knowledge base that is proficient in terms of the TEA Financial Accountability System.  In our school district the superintendent may delegate some responsibility to the CFO; however, the superintendent is the person that is legally responsible. Therefore, she works closely with the CFO and communicates with him weekly.  She stated that having a strong CFO is very important to her success and the success of the school district.  This school year we moved to zero-based budgeting this year. She stated that the process was different from past school years. Campuses submitted requests to the Superintendent’s cabinet for review. I found it interesting to hear the superintendent say that the principals actually made deeper cuts that the superintendent would have made. 

Over the past year we have developed a new strategic plan that is currently guiding the development of upcoming budgets. Throughout the development of the strategic plan, campuses and departments have started to align their goals to the goals listed in the strategic plan so the district has a common vision. School board members, teachers, administrators, students, parents and community representatives were all involved in strategic planning to ensure continuity between the strategic plan and other action plans within the district. This process assisted the superintendent in developing a budget that is reflective of the goals.

The development of the budget is an integral part of a superintendent’s responsibilities.  When looking at all the aspects of the budget it can quickly become overwhelming.  It is important that a superintendent surrounds themselves with competent individuals who have the knowledge necessary to carry out their delegated responsibilities. A strong superintendent realizes that they do not have to be an expert in everything but they need to be able to recognize the importance of hiring experts.

EDLD Week 2 - Part 5

During my interview with the Superintendent, we had the opportunity to discuss how various stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input into the development of the district budget. Following is the information I received:

Ø  Central Office Administrators and Staff-   Central Office personnel have the opportunity to provide input into the district budget by submitting their department budget to the Chief Financial Officer. Departmental budgets are developed in March and April and must include the cost, rationale and the budget code that will be used for the expenditures. Special projects are also submitted at this time for review.  The finance office provided departments with past budgets to use as a guide but amounts vary from year to year as costs and contracts change.

Ø  Principals- Principals work with campus staff to review expenditures and request budget allocations for the upcoming school year based on needs and goals.  These requests along with staffing requests are submitted to the CFO for the Superintendent’s Cabinet to review.

Ø  Site Based Decision Making Committees-  Site based teams meet and formulate campus goals that lead to budget development. In addition, sites based teams review allocations and assist the principal in allocating funds such as Title 1, State Compensatory funds and other revenue.  These teams help to drive the control of the budget down to the classroom level.

Ø  District Improvement Committee- The district committee develops goals for the district and makes recommendations to the Asst. Supt of Instructional Services that are submitted to the Superintendent’s Cabinet for review and implementation.

Ø  Teacher Organizations- Our district does not have active teacher organizations that provide input. Opinions from these groups would be welcomed but have not been heard at this time.

Ø  Key Stakeholders- Stakeholders give input through strategic planning committees and in town hall meetings. Input from these individuals may also be given throughout the school year in open forum at the board meetings.



Sheldon I.S.D. Board of Trustees

Ø  Board of Trustees- The superintendent listens to the goals of the Board of Trustees. She then gives them options that they can consider. Last year she took a variety of options to them for budget reduction that would allow the district to work within the parameters of the budget reduction. The school board decided not to cut programs or staff. Instead travel and other costs were reduced.

When one looks at the intricacies associated with the development of the budget, it is easy to see that this is a group project. It is important to listen to the opinions of others and align the budget to the goals of the district.  The superintendent depends on the knowledge base and perspective of numerous people when developing the school district’s budget. These perspectives allow her to see the whole picture while keeping a keen eye on special needs.  Strong community relations and communications skills are an asset to any superintendent when developing budgets in the financial times we are currently experiencing.

EDLD Week 2 Part 3

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8706285@N06/3509948060/

The TEA Budgeting Guidelines is a comprehensive overview of the Texas school system. It discusses the fiduciary responsibility a school district has to its constituents and how the budget is a commitment to this responsibility. One of the sections within the guidelines discusses different types of budgeting such as line item, zero based, and performance based. Sheldon I.S.D. recently left program and planning-programming budgeting and moved to zero based budgeting in response to the current financial situation in the state.

The guidelines also discuss roles and responsibilities, legal requirements and revenue estimates. As a principal, I utilized the TEA Budgeting Guidelines to learn about budget codes and what function codes applies to different programs. However, this document has much more depth than simply budget coding.  In reviewing the document, I learned that the Texas finance system is anything but easy to understand. The finance system necessitates a Superintendent to have a strong understanding of requirements, finances as well as sensitive timelines that impact school districts. Section 2.12 of the guidelines was very interesting. This section deals with grants. It provides information on competitive and noncompetitive grants. It reminds the reader that timelines for grants often do not coincide with the fiscal year. Therefore it is important as a superintendent to be aware of all budgeting timelines whether the funds are local, state or federal funds.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alancleaver/4122172006/

The TEA Budgeting Guidelines will be a useful document in the future. For instance the section on bond issuance could be a great tool for a superintendent.  I can see myself returning to this document many times to further investigate finance requirements. This is not a document that one could read and fully comprehend in one sitting. Instead, it is to be referred to and utilized often. It will be beneficial to a superintendent in developing a budget by providing a plethora of information on a variety of topics. I found it to be a bit overwhelming yet very interesting.

EDLD 5342 Week 2- Part 1

By Vinni123 Creative Commons

A goal driven budget is simply a school district budget that is focused on the achievement of the district’s goals. It places financial priority on the goals that the district needs to accomplish.  As seen in the Austin I.S.D. District Improvement Plan that was reviewed in week 1 of this course, a school district should align its goals from the Strategic Plan at the top all the way down to department goals. If a school district is intent on achieving specific goals then monies will be allocated to this purpose. In the lecture, Dr. Arterbury reviewed the development of a goal driven budget. He stated that although the Board of Trustees of a school district does not develop the budget they do develop annual goals that they expect to be carried out. The Superintendent of a school district needs to take these goals into account when formulating the annual budget. Campuses that use zero based budgeting would use goal driven budgeting to ensure that the majority of their budget requests is are directly impacting programs that correlate to the campus’ goals.

As a school district develops a budget the need for proper strategic planning becomes more important. If a school district has conducted a comprehensive needs assessment it can better pair that needs assessment with the strategic plan and prioritize goals for the upcoming school year. If they fail in either category they may develop a budget that is unresponsive to the needs of the district or develop budgets that are disjointed from one year to the next and quickly change when new board members are elected.

One of the goals in our current district improvement plan that comes from the strategic plan is to expand the fine arts department and replace band instruments. The district has undertaken a needs assessment and reviewed the current instrument inventories at all campuses. In December, the band teacher will present the information to the school board. In January, a request to increase the band’s budget by $100,000 for the next four school years will be submitted to allow the purchase of new instruments. This is an example of goal driven budgeting. The school board and community would like to see the program expanded so the budget is being developed to reach this goal.

Another example of goal driven budgeting in the district improvement plan is the hiring of instructional coaches on each campus. This goal that was originally paid for out of stimulus funds. However, the district made a commitment to continuing these positions with local funds at a cost of almost one million dollars. The campuses and the district site based team were committed to continuing this and their voices were heard. As Dr. Arterbury discussed during the lecture it is important for a superintendent to listen to a variety of stakeholders when developing the annual budget and to be responsive to the needs of the district.

In conclusion, a goals driven budget ensures that the district has provided an adequate amount of funding for proposed goals. It allows, and at times forces, a school district to prioritize the implementation of goals based on the financial outlook of the school district during the upcoming year.  “A version of the vision,” was the statement used by Dr. Arterbury that best summarizes goal driven budgeting.

Finance Week 1

Part 1- History of School Finance
Texas, like many other states across the country, has seen its' share of court cases, legislative decisions and legal changes that have greatly impacted the school finance system. In 1845, when Texas joined the United States, the state constitution mandated that state would establish a free public school system.This set the stage for Mirabeau Lamar to persuade the Texas Legislature to establish land grants for public schools. These events created a precedent that the state, not just local entities, would be financially involved in the education of students.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ejmc/5854752687/

The second historic landmark within Texas school financing came in 1869 when Texas passed a new constitution making schooling mandatory. The new constitution also resulted in the establishment of taxes to support public schools. Although school taxes seem commonplace in today’s society they were far from the norm in 1871 when first levied. The lecture emphasized that the public was not initially supportive of this. In fact during the first year of the tax, a majority of taxpayers demonstrated their disdain by refusing to pay.
The equalization of funding precedent brought on by the appropriation of one million dollars to rural school in 1915 could be considered the third historic landmark. Although this appropriation was a result of the Constitution of 1876, it was the first time that the legislature put money into the hands of local school districts with the express intent of equaling funding between districts. This appropriation of funds sent the State of Texas down a path that committed it to ensuring that there was equity between districts. In this historic move the state attempted to ensure that all students had an opportunity to an appropriate education no matter where they were located geographically within the state. This transaction of funds to rural school set a strong precedent for the Edgewood cases that would come in the future. As the state continues to struggle with ways to adequately and equitably fund public education we will continue to see the courts involved as individuals fight for the education of their children.

Part 2- Three or four basic issues impacting a state formula.

The lecture this week focused on equality, equity and adequacy. The goal of the Texas school finance system is to provide funding at an appropriate level that balances funding between property rich school districts (Chapter 41) and property poor districts (Chapter 42). Although this is the theory of the system, as with many other things it sometimes is more difficult when placed into the constraints of reality. First and foremost, the state formula is subject to property values, tax rates, average daily attendance (ADA) and the weighted average daily attendance (WADA), and the special instructional program allotment.

The weighted average daily attendance is a note of contention within the state of Texas. The amount of money spent on a per pupil basis varies greatly from one school district to another. Often one can read a statement from a Superintendent stating that if their school district was to receive funding at the same WADA as another school district a significant increase in funding would be netted. This is true for many districts under the current funding formula.

Because of the difference in property values across the state, adjustments are made to the allotment that require some school districts to send back money to the state through one of five recapture methods. These funds are then distributed to school districts that are considered Chapter 42 districts. This exchange of funds between school districts is a result of Senate Bill 1 that was signed into law by governor Ann Richards.

School districts also receive additional funding based on special instructional programs. Some of these programs are State Compensatory Education, Special Education, Bilingual, Career and Technology and Gifted and Talented Education. The money appropriated for these programs are meant to assist schools in providing an education that is adequate and equitable. With these funds schools are able to offer additional programs to meet the needs of their local demographic populations.


Part 3 Equality, Equity and Adequacy

Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of educational program. One example for this would be that districts must offer and fund courses to meet the curriculum requirements of the TEKS in the areas of math, reading, language arts, science and social studies. Another example is that all school districts are required to offer a minimum number of instructional days per year.

Equity means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Article 7 of the Texas Constitution states that it is the duty of the Legislature of the State to provide for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. It is this portion of the Texas Constitution that requires an equitable education system for all students in the state. An example of equity would be demonstrated through the special instruction allotments given by the state. School districts are given state compensatory funds to address the needs of at- risk students. Additionally, funds are also distributed for Special Education including additional funding that can be given for extreme needs cases.

The Texas Constitution indicates that a general diffusion of knowledge is essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of people. This type of support of Texas free public schools is deemed as adequate funding. Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support which is sufficient enough to meet the state accreditation standards. The new instructional materials allotment that replaced the technology and textbook allotments would be an example of adequacy. The state gives this money to the districts so they can meet the standards of the state. Another example would be the minimum teacher salary scale. 

EDLD 5342 District Improvement Plan Comparison

Creative Commons-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcjohn/

When analyzing the similarities and differences between the District Improvement Plans of Austin I.S. D. and Sheldon I.S.D. I found the differences to be in the details. Both plans covered much of the same information yet differ in how they are arranged.   Both plans include goal sheets that delineate a specific goal and include action plans that guide the districts in meeting the goals. These action plans include: desired results, measurable evidence of change, activities, resources and timelines.  That is where the similarities in format of the plan end.

The plans both have aspects of a goal driven budget. The Sheldon I.S.D. plan lists the TAKS scores or other indicator information directly at the beginning of each individual goal with very specific budget information for that goal.  For instance, if the district is planning on decreasing discretionary special education placements the historical data is listed immediately prior to the goal. The plan then goes into detail, much like Austin I.S.D.’s plan does. Both districts list the goal and plan a budget accordingly. Both districts show an integration of funds throughout their plan. Sheldon I.S.D.’s plan is slightly more detailed when outlining the budget for each individual goal accounting for the projected budget coming from each program code. However, Austin I.S.D. does a much better job of documenting meetings and the progression of a goal throughout their plan.  Additionally, Austin I.S.D.’s plan is much more informative when it comes to describing in what function and project code money is being spent on specific projects throughout the year. It is easy to see whether money is being spent on consultants, personnel or supplies. This information can be seen in their agenda meeting documentation.

Austin I.S.D.’s plan shows continuity in planning throughout the school year. By including data from a variety of meeting and attendance records Austin I.S.D. is able to demonstrate a continuous commitment to planning and monitoring. Sheldon I.S. D. does not include the meeting minutes within their plan. However, Sheldon I.S.D. includes a variety of information regarding district programs one does not see within the Austin I.S.D. plan. Both Sheldon and Austin list grants that they receive and utilize for various programs. Sheldon I.S.D. includes the budget for all Title funds. This includes allocations to specific functions and program codes. However, this information is included at the end of the plan in a separate section which can make the information a little disconnected from the body of the plan.

One of the most interesting items contained within the Austin I.S.D. District Improvement Plan was their plan alignment outline. In the plan everything starts with their school district’s Strategic Plan then to the District Improvement Plan. After this it filters down to the campus improvement plans and on to the department and employees. This is a well-organized model of alignment and change that increases mutual commitment and expectations. It demonstrates how everyone is responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Plan. I really like this form and plan on utilizing it with our District Improvement Team.