Analyzing contrasts in Two Texas School Districts

Week 3, Assignment 3
Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas School Districts

The goal of the state funding system is to provide equity, equality and accessibility for students. In simple terms, the system is to provide funding at a level that allows students from various backgrounds to experiences success. The current system is developed in theory to take into consideration the type of students that attend a school district and provide an adequate amount of funding to meet their needs. A number of funding formulas have been used in the past and challenged which is why we are now using the current system. As one can see from the example, the current system is still flawed. The weighted Average Daily Attendance is one of the primary sources of funding that a school district receives from the State of Texas. Because of the unique needs of each district that were presents in this scenario one sees a difference in the WADA. The WADA in District 1 was $5,044 and the WADA in district 2 is over $2,000 higher than district 1. This does not equate to an equitable education.

Both districts have a similar number of enrolled students. However, that is where the similarities end. District 1 has a student population with a greater need based in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students coupled with the fact that the percentage of English Language Learners in district 1 is almost six times higher. One would assume that the state would funnel more funds to District 1 in order to meet the needs of these students. However, under current funding formulas that is not what is happening. District 1 is 100% Hispanic and has a higher percentage of students in Special Education, Career and Technology and in Gifted and Talented Education. District 2 has only 20.7% of its students considered as economically disadvantaged. District 1 is a Title 1 district, while District 2 may have targeted Title 1 programs on its campuses without having a school wide program. These are very different student populations.

Since these two student populations are so vastly different the state has attempted to bridge this gap through Tier 1 funding. When one looks at these program intent code allotments differences in funding can be seen. See the chart below for a side by side comparison:

Program	District 1 Allotment	District 2 Allotment
Special Education	$1,905,486	$1,620,234
CTE	$1,666,064	$913,212
Gifted and Talented Education	$126,272	$128,756
Compensatory Education	$3,835,006	$633,369
Bilingual Education	$834,084	$46,192

Analysis Paper Analyzing District's M & O Fund

Week 3, Assignment 4
Reviewing and analyzing your district's M & O Fund

In reviewing the October 31st Statement of Finances released by TEA, 2011, Galena Park ISD has a maintenance and operations budget equaling $69,523,894, based on the compressed rate used to determine funding of this function. Of the total revenues, 59% are from the state, 40% are local, and 1% are federal. The monies received are allocated to fund several functions. The largest of these functions is the regular program allotment which is used to fund regular education. The second largest function for allocation of funds is used to support the education of economically disadvantaged students.  The third largest function for allocation of funds is to the special education students.

Funds allocated through Tier I (as indicated on the Summary of Finances) generally match the allowed expenditures listed on the AEIS report or district snapshot. A few of the programs actually spend less, such as the regular allotment. One item that shocks me is the lack of expenditures tied to fund the education of students in a bilingual or ESL program in our district. In 2009-10 GPISD spent $1.8 million dollars to fund these programs. By comparison, GPISD spent $17,277,899 to fund special education programs in the district. What makes the funding between these two programs interesting is the number of students. GPISD served approximately 6,000 students in bilingual/ESL programs while only about 9% of GPISD students are served through our special education program.

Texas School Finance - Comparing and Analyzing

Week 3, Assignment 1

Comparing and Analyzing District Snapshots

                                                            District 1                     District 2        

% of Economic Disadvantage             93.3%                          20.7%

Total Refined ADA                              3,893.754                    4,032.937

ADA (WADA)                                       5,555.815                    4,794.076

Because District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged their cost for educating these students is higher that District 2, which has lower percentages of special populations.  To help offset the added expense of educating these students, they receive a higher WADA than District 2. 

Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process

Week 2, Assignment 5

Additional Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process-

Ø  Central Office Administrators and Staff

o   Central Office Administrators and Staff provide input regarding the budget specific to their department(s). They will submit their budget, along with budget codes, to the CFO for review.

Ø  Principals

o   Principals are the key figure in setting the budget process on their campuses.  Principals lead their SBDM team in the development of their Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) which guides the budget.  The budget and CIP must be turned in to the Senior Director of Academic Support who will send the documents to the Superintendent and CFO for approval.

Ø  Site Based Decision Making (SBDM) Committees

o   These committees exist at every campus.  According to Education Code 11.253(e),” the campus-level committee shall be involved in decisions in the areas of planning, budgeting, curriculum, staffing patterns, staff development, and school organization. “ 

Ø  District Improvement Committee

o   This body reviews the BOT (Board of Trustees) goals and works to make goals for the district.  These goals are reviewed by the Superintendent and the Cabinet) to fashion the District Improvement Plan (DIP).  The District Improvement Committee will also review each campuses CIP to make sure that it is aligned to the goals of the Board of Trustees. 

Ø  Teacher Organizations

o   District Improvement Committees and Campus Improvement Committees include teachers who are members of teacher organizations.  They represent their organizations through these committees. 

Ø  Key Stakeholders

o   These individuals are involved in the goal setting and budgeting process through site based decision making as well as the district improvement committees.  Superintendent newsletters, web sites, and Town Hall meeting are mediums used to keep Stakeholders informed.   

Ø  Board of Trustees

o   The BOT develops the goals for the district.  When the goals are developed, the Superintendent leads the budget process based on these goals.  The Superintendent works with the Board in finalizing the budget for the district, giving several budgeting options.  The BOT and the Superintendent work together to finalize the district budget and include additional district professionals when input is needed.

When talking with the one of our Business Managers  about the budgeting process and the importance of input from Stakeholders, he could not stress enough how valuable this process was.  In his words, “we need the support and involvement of our stakeholders, they must be included in this process”.  “Inclusion equals by-In”. 

Superintendent's Roles and Responsibilities in the Budgeting Process

Week 2, Assignment 4

The Responsibility of the Superintendent in the Budget Process

The Superintendent in my district is held accountability by all stakeholders for overseeing the budget and the budget process.  In our district the  superintendent, like in most medium to large districts, rely on competent business managers that ensures the integrity of the financial affairs for the entire district.  While the detailed of the district budgeting process is not part of our superintendent’s daily tasks, monitoring the overall process and communicating with all stakeholder is the superintendent’s responsibility.   Our superintendent meets weekly with the business managers to analyze the budget process and spot-check areas of concerns. 

My superintendent indicated that the success of the budget adoption process depends largely on the superintendent’s ability to communicate all variables affecting the budget. When clear and concise goals explains all expenditures this helps to get the support for a balanced and supported budget.

Summary of TEA Budget Guidelines

Week 2, Assignment 3, Understanding TEA’s Budget Guidelines

Reflection

The TEA Budgeting Guidelines take you through all phases of the budgeting process.  Its appear to be a step by step process from the beginning to its completion.   I consider it a Roadmap.  The TEA budgeting Guidelines provides multiple sources of processes and templates for school district to follow when planning, preparing, and evaluating the district budget.  Important points from TEA Guidelines that I think are very critical for budget preparation are:

Knowing what the Objectives are for Budgeting

We budget so that we can get information to determine whether current-year revenues were sufficient to pay current year services.  Must make sure resources are obtained and used in a legal way.  A balance budget must be prepared that will meet all state, federal and local mandates. 

Budget process

The budget process has three major phases: planning, preparation and evaluation.  Planning defines the goals and objectives of campuses and the district.  When the plans and programs have been established, budgetary resource allocations are made to support them.  The resources allocations are the preparation phase of budgeting.  Allocations cannot be made until plans and programs have been established.  The budget is evaluated for its effectiveness in attaining goals and objectives.  Evaluation involves how funds were expended, what outcomes resulted from the expenditure of funds, and to what degree these outcomes achieved the objectives stated during the planning phase. 

Budget Approaches

TEA budget guidelines describe many processes a district can use to prepare its budget.  One of those is the Line-item approach which is the most simplistic approach. One advantage is that this allows a great deal of district-level control of expenditures.  Disadvantages of the Line-item approach is that it provides little useful information for decision makers and many districts have found this process burdensome because it requires the Board to approve budget amendments.  Another approach is the zero –based budget approach.  This budgeting process is ideal especially during times when budgets are decreasing.  This process ranks goals based on a ranking process where district expenditures are directly linked to district goals.  This provides space for alignment and allow citizens and taxpayers the opportunity to hold district officials accountable for the use of district funds. 

Staff Responsible for Preparing the Budget

The Superintendent and board of Trustees decide on the delegation of budget-preparation responsibilities.  The TEA Budgeting Guidelines gives a detailed template describing stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities.  These guidelines list procedural guidelines, a calendar of budgeting processes, and another template describing individual responsibilities and action items to guide the budget process. 

Adopting the District Budget

There must be a public hearing before the Board adopts the budget.  This hearing occurs after the Superintendent reviews the budget as well as the Board of Trustees review.  After the budget is approved it must be monitored.  The TEA Budgeting Guidelines provides detailed information on monitoring process.

Revising the Budget

Sometimes budgets must be revised in light of any new or updated information that can change the original forecast.  There is a procedure described in the TEA Budgeting Guidelines to assist in this area. 

In conclusion, the TEA Budgeting Guidelines are there to guide districts in the planning, preparation and evaluation process of the budgets.  The templates contained in the 147 page document helps prevent oversights of critical budgeting mandates.  It's a great Road Map for successful District Budgets.

Top 5 Event & Dates for District Budget Process

Top 5 List of Events and Dates in the development of the district budget

Week 2 Assignment 2

January

Develop a revenue forecast 

Look at the economy, projected enrollment, and property growth to see if there is an increase or decrease.  Reason for this is that you do not want to look at expenditures before you know what you will be able to afford.  Also in January you need to development a critical time-line for the budget process.

January

Communication 

It’s important to gain insights from all stakeholders during the budget process.  Stakeholders provide updated information about district/campus needs.

February/March

Solidify Revenue Projection

This will give you a good foundation for the expenditure budgets to be formulated.  There are five areas of expenditure forecast (1) staffing (85% of budget); (2) campus budgets which are based on per student allotments; (3) department budgets, utilities, insurance, and supplies; (4) special programs, Special Education,  Migrant, ESL, Comp Education, and Gifted and Talented; (5) Capital replacement needs.

July

Receive certified taxable property value and PEIM’s, ADA/WADA data from previous year.  Revising the budget data in light of any updated information that can change the original forecast if needed.

August

Board approval of the budget

These dates and events are important because they impact the creation, implementation, and management of the district funded process from start to completion. 

EDLD 5342 District Goal Driven Budgets

Week 2 assignment Part 1

Goal Driven Budget

A goal driven school district budget is a shared vision of the school district and each campus. The budget should be aligned to the school board goals as well as district and campus improvement plans.  Each of the plans should be developed with maximum stakeholder input to ensure communication of the budget components to allow multiple entities to contribute.  Additionally, school district budgets should include a process to measure goal attainment. District budgets should include funding to support a continual needs assessment to support this process.

As demonstrated in the TASBO Budget Development Power Point, the school district budgeting process should culminate before the beginning of the current fiscal year with a board-approved budget; however, the process should extend the entire year leading up to the state-articulated deadline.  The school district budget should reflect needs uncovered through a continual needs assessment of the prior year’s budget along with consideration for any budgeting adjustments required due to an increase/decrease in the school district funds.  GPISD’s district improvement plan begins with a statement of most recent student performance data, state and federal accountability indicators, and required compliance measures.  These indicators are followed by an evaluation of needs.  Upon reading the district goals, it is easy to see the goals reflect district improvement needs as well as the maintenance of successful programs.  School district funding comes from multiple sources.  The district estimates revenue from the state foundation school program and local property taxes.  Federal and funding from private sources should not be forgotten.  Delinquent tax collections, fees money collected from extracurricular services, and grant funding are often much smaller sources of revenue that must be accounted for in the budgeting process.  Estimating the amounts received from these sources is critical to budget planning.  During an interview with the GPISD Assistant Superintendent for Finance, we talked about the impact of recent decreases in state funding of public schools in Texas.  Since majority of any district’s budget funds employee salaries, staffing formulas are dependent on an accurate revenue projection.  Districts must often reduce staffing when a large budget shortfall is projected.  If a budget shortfall is projected, the district must reduce staffing while still work to achieve district and campus goals.  Communication about these challenges must be communicated to school district community members as well as school district employees. 

The school district budget must include input from all key stakeholders. This is important when there is a possibility that the budget is forecast may vary greatly.  In this type of event, district goals and budgets will need to be realigned to adjust for an increase/decrease in revenue.  The budgeting process should start well in advance of final approval right before the beginning of the fiscal year, with the first glimpses of district revenues described through a district budget forecast.  The district and each campus should involve their site-based decision making committee in the goal and budget-setting processes.  Since site-based decision making committees are required to include educators as well as parents and business leaders, a district can ensure that stakeholders from key parts of the school community are involved in the budget process.  Additionally, these individuals will understand the goals of the district as well as the challenges, should the district budget decrease.

EDLD 5342 Week One Assignments - School Finance

Part 1 – History of School Finance

Texas, like many other states, has seen its’ share of court cases, legislative decisions and legal changes that have greatly impacted the school finance system.  In 1845, when the Republic of Texas became the state of Texas, the new constitution provided for the establishment of free schools and called for state taxes to support education.  The state constitution mandated that states would establish a free public school system. One-tenth of the state revenue was dedicated for educational purposes and became the basis for what we now call the Permanent School Fund.  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.

The second historic landmark within Texas school financing came in 1915 with the equalization of funding precedent brought on by the appropriation of one million dollars to rural schools.  This was the first time that the legislature put money into the hands of local school districts with the intent of equaling funding between districts.  This appropriation of funds sent a message of commitment to ensuring equity between districts.  In this historic move the state attempted to ensure that all students had an opportunity to an appropriate education.  This action set a strong precedent for the Edgewood cases that would come in the future.  

The third historic landmark within the Texas school financing came after a series of Edgewood v Kirby lawsuits.  These lawsuits citing discrimination against students in poor school districts and sought legislative action to provide an efficient and free public school system and that denying property poor school districts equitable funding amounted to a denial of equal opportunity in an “increasingly complex and technological society”. The final plan (Senate Bill 1) was approved by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 in which wealth would be distributed by having property wealthy districts distribute revenue by selecting one of five methods.  The plan was signed in law by Governor Ann Richards in 1993.  This process call the “Robin Hood Plan” and included the key element of revenue recapture. 

Part 2 – Three basic issues impacting the state formula

Texas distributes funding to school districts through a system of formulas and calculations that collectively, are known as the Foundation School Program (FSP).  Tier 1 and Tier 2 make up the FSP.  Tier 1 formulas are comprised of adjustments, weights, and allotments and Tier 2 provides substantially equal access to funds for an enriched program using a guaranteed yield approach to calculating state aid. 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).  The state formula is subject to property values, tax rates, average daily attendance 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 from one school district to another.  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.

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 appropriate for these programs are meant to assist schools in providing an education that is adequate and equitable.  School are able to offer additional programs to meet the needs of their local demographic populations with these funds. 

Part 3 – Equality, Equity, and Adequacy

Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.  One example for this would be that districts must offer and fund core courses to meet requirements for graduation such as math, science, English, and social studies.  Another example for Equality is districts must offer support for special needs students that is equal to that of regular students.

Equity means that the educational system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.  An example of equity would be compensatory funds to address the needs of at-risk students.  Another example would be funds that meet the needs of special education students. 

Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.  Examples are minimum teacher salary scale and the new instructional materials allotment that replaced the technology and textbook allotments.  These are examples of adequacy. 

Part 4 - Comparison of two District Improvement Plans

In comparing the two district improvement plans, Austin ISD and the Galena Park ISD, I was impressed with the information presented in the introduction by Austin ISD.  It listed groups involved in the development of the plan as well as groups who approved the plan.  Austin ISD clearly stated purposes for creating their plan and through this statement the reader becomes aware not only of the goals of this plan but, also of the review process, the involvement of the district in a comprehensive plan for continuous improvement as well as  long-range strategic planning.  While the Galena Park ISD states the strategies and Goals an overall statement of the purpose is missing as well as a long-range strategic plan.  With the Austin ISD plan it provides a list of funding sources and activities listed which is more comprehensive than Galena Park ISD (no funding sources listed).  Austin ISD includes PBMAS Improvement Plan, which are not required but most district have this in place.  I noticed that with the Austin ISD plan there is no mention of the new STAAR and EOC exam.  With Galena Park ISD the STAAR and EOC is a main focus of the district. 

With Galena Park ISD’s plan, I have a better understanding of their goals and reasons for their programs.  I like the fact that GPISD have services that they provide, listed.  GPISD addresses the Gifted & Talented program and this was missing in the AISD plan.  TEA requires districts to have in place School safety programs such as bullying and dating violence.  These were listed with GPISD but not included in the AISD plan.  College Prep (ACT/SAT) programs were listed with GPISD but not included anywhere in the AISD plan.  GPISD included measurable goals for AYP, attendance (student/staff), parental involvement, Highly Qualified Staff, and test scores.  These were not present in the AISD plans.  GPISD had specific training for staff development listed in their plans but not seen in the AISD plan.

Both district mentioned and appeared to place a great focus on Tutorial, their LEP students, Immigrant students, students with disabilities, teen parents, pregnancy related services, advanced placement, homeless support for students, and dropout recovery.

In conclusion, Austin is more comprehensive of with everything that they offer, but the goals and reasons are not clear.  Who gets tutorial?  What options do drop outs have? What support do dropouts have?  What staff development is offered and required?