EDLD 5399

Week 1 Reflection:

When looking at individual components of the ten competencies, I increased knowledge in 63% of the components over the course of this program.

Based upon this self-assessment, my most identifiable strengths are in the areas of ethics, district culture, communication and collaboration, and most components dealing with instruction, staff development, decision-making, and problem-solving.

I showed the most growth in Competency 4 which included responding to and influencing larger political, social economic, legal, and cultural context, including working with the board of trustees to achieve the district’s educational vision. 

Competencies 8 and 9 are my areas of most concern.  The areas involving physical plant and support systems are not as strong as I would like them to be.  Even though some progress was made, my biggest weaknesses are in the areas of budgeting, personnel, resource utilization, and financial management.  I think the reason that they are my weaknesses is that I do not have practical experience in these competencies.  I have never been responsible for any of these areas.

Overall, I am pleased with the amount of growth I’ve achieved in the ten competencies.  It wasn’t until I completed this exercise that I realized the growth that I had attained.

Week 5, Part 3

Even though I learned much about Texas school finance in this course, I did not learn enough to rate myself as either “competent’ or “superior” in many of the Domain III – Competency 8 indicators.  While I do have a better knowledge base in these areas, I didn’t feel like I could rate myself higher than “needs improvement” since I have not actually experienced these elements during my administrative experience.

The lectures were interesting, but only touched the surface of each topic and did not go into any depth.  This made it difficult, in my opinion, to complete many of the assignments that required us to analyze a district’s data.  I found myself digging deep into the resources to understand concepts and having to depend upon my district’s business manager and cohort member’s posts to give me direction into understanding the data.   I would have appreciated a couple of district samples where analyses and conclusions drawn from the data were fully explained and rationale provided.  Besides unclear directions and disorganization of wiki group assignments in the first week, this was one of the most frustrating aspects of this course.

My interviews and discussions with my business manager were extremely helpful in understanding many of the assignments in this course.  I felt guilty having to ask her so many questions but am extremely grateful she took time from her daily routine to assist me.

I appreciate the wiki group process and found it a beneficial collaborative tool. However, I found the directions and the required multiple postings not efficient use of time or resources.  I found myself posting the same information on the group wiki, the faculty blog, and then on my own blog.  I think it should be streamlined so that we are not duplicating our posts.  This may have been my own paranoia of being sure I posted it in the right place in order to get all my points (I’m obsessive/compulsive about that), but I did find the process redundant.

Next week, I am going to go back to the very first practice exam we took, and see how I can answer the finance questions to see if I have made any improvement.

Week 5, Part 1

Standard 1.3:  An educator receives meal money for a meeting or conference, but takes advantage of meals provided at the meeting/conference and doesn’t return the unused meal money to the district.

Standard 1.8:  Administrators are hired based on the “good old boy” system rather than on merit, experience, and qualifications.  For example, hiring someone because they attend the right “church” in the community. Short-term effect:  Campuses and districts that hire based on the “good old boy” system may not have effective instructional leaders who can guide them to academic excellence.  Long-term effect:  Low employee morale and a decrease in student performance results in lower accountability ratings.  Preventive Action Plan:  The superintendent should require that all laws, policies, and procedures are applied in a fair and reasonable manner, especially with regard to employment.  The superintendent should require an interviewing process that allows the credentials of applicants be foremost in the decision-making process.

Standard 1.13:  A principal frequently goes out to his car during the day to sneak a “sip” of an alcoholic beverage.  Short-term effect:  Principal is not an effective instructional leader and loses his job.  Long-term effect:  If this type of behavior continues and nothing is done about it by administration, teachers become frustrated and a general lack of confidence in the administration builds among constituents. Preventive Action Plan:  Perhaps a more thorough reference check may have indicated that there was an abuse issue before hiring this principal.  Whether that would have helped or not, the superintendent should model and promote the highest standard of conduct, ethical principles, and integrity in decision making, actions, and behaviors and follow through with the allegations to find out if this is really happening, and if it is, take a stand and remove the principal from this position and now allow him to be in a position of leadership. 

Standard 2.2:  An educator who is very unhappy with the current administration and the school board members who support the administration spreads rumors and half-truths about the administration and board members trying to influence other’s opinions in an attempt to oust them out of office.

Standard 2.3:  When a current administrator retires and is replaced, the recommended hire is very good friends with several of the board members. When a salary amount is recommended by the superintendent and assistant superintendent for the position which is aligned with the position and the experience of the new administrator, the school board increased the salary so that the new administrator made more than all existing administrators and was totally out of the acceptable salary range for that position and experience.  Short term effect:  Current administrators are resentful and morale is low.  Long term effect: General distrust and low morale. Preventative Action Plan: The superintendent and school board should ensure that salary schedules are in place, are fair and reasonable, and are applicable to all administrators.

Week 4, Part 5

PN-GISD solicits proposals for an external auditor every three years. Most of the time, the external auditor is selected based upon the projected price of the audit. The district’s Business Manager said that the auditor comes in after the year end and examines the district’s records and tests our data by sampling.  Our district has always received an “Unqualified Opinion” which is the best rating/conclusion that a district can receive.  An “Unqualified Opinion” means that we are following proper procedures and our records are properly handled.  Results are communicated at a board meeting and are presented by the external auditor. 

Week 4, Part 4

Proposed personnel salaries in my district for 2010-2011 total $28,766,764 which represents 81.6% of the total budget. Since personnel salaries are such a large percentage of the total budget, the only way to significantly reduce the budget would have to be in the area of personnel.

Even though a 5% salary increase for all personnel would definitely make everyone happy and perhaps make teacher salaries competitive, it would have a negative impact on a district’s budget.  In order to give a 5% raise, most school districts in Texas would have to reduce their budgeted expenditures in anticipation of the decrease in state aid that they will receive in the future.   Our district’s Business Manager said that giving a 5% raise would negatively impact the district causing more individual positions to be cut sooner than later.  In addition, she said that in today’s tough financial times, it would be nice to give a 5% raise because of rising costs in personal budgets, but if we stop and really think about it, it might be better to just have a job these days rather than receive a raise!

Week 3, Parts 1 - 6 Data Comparison Chart

GROUP 2 – Assignments 1-6
	District #1	District #2
% Economically Disadvantaged	93.3%	20.7%
Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline	$ 3,893.75	$ 4,032.94
Weighted ADA (WADA)	$ 5,555.82	$ 4,794.08
Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate	$ 5,044.00	$ 7,206.00
Total target revenue for the M&O	$ 28,023,556.08	$ 34,546,140.48
Number of teachers, librarians, nurses, & counselors	281.00	307.00
2010 Local District Property Value	$ 145,968,635.00	$ 2,916,187,709.00
I&S Tax Collections	$ 94,871.00	$ 8,836,256.00
Chapter 46 (EDA) totals	$ 572,716.00	$ -
Compensatory Education Allotment	$ 3,835,006.00	$ 633,369.00

Week 3, Part 4

The Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools glossary (2010) defines the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) tax rate as a local school district property tax rate that raises revenue to operate and maintain the district’s schools.  In addition, the M&O tax rate is subject to a statutory maximum of $1.50 per $100 of taxable value.  M & O funds include property tax collections, state funding and some federal. According to our district’s business manager, we also have other local funds such as interest income, tuition, rent, miscellaneous, athletic revenues.

The Port Neches-Groves M&O amount was $1.50 from 2001 through 2006 but has remained at $1.04 since the 2007-2008 school year.  According to our district Business Manager, this reduction in the district’s M&O rate was the result of an attempt by the legislature to lower property taxes through a compressed tax rate.  For the 2010-2011 school year, proposed local revenue is $30,547,229 and proposed state revenue is $3,825,762 for a total proposed revenue totaling $34,372,991. Ninety-one percent of the proposed local revenue comes from property taxes while the other nine percent of proposed local revenue comes from a variety of sources including summer school tuition/fees, interest temporary investments, foreign trade zone, H.B. 1200, and revenue from athletic activities. Payroll costs at PN-GISD for 2010-2011 represent 81.6% of the total budget.  The remaining 18.4% goes to contracted services, supplies and materials, other operating expenses, and capital outlay. The PN-GISD 2010-2011 budget listed proposed total expenditures at $37,534,266 which exceeds projected revenues by $3,161,275, requiring the district to dip into its fund balance for 2010-2011. In light of our state’s budget shortfall and a bleak future for Texas school finance, this type of spending from the fund balance cannot continue.  For the 2010-2011 school year, PN-GISD designated $21,116,299 or 52% of its total budget for instructional purposes. 

  

REFERENCES

Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools (2010). School funding 101 - glossary. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/glossary.php.