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.

Week 2, Part 3 -- Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

          As I begin the process of understanding goal driven budgets and the budgeting process, I now understand that the budgeting process consists of three components:  planning, preparation, and evaluation.  The descriptions of the five budget philosophies were interesting, and I was able to determine that our district uses a combination of the “Line-Item Budgeting” approach and the “Site-Based Budgeting” approach.

            I found Exhibit 1, “Recommended SEA Indicators for Elementary and Secondary Education” in the TEA Budgeting Guidelines, January 2010” very informative. The explanation of inputs, outputs, outcomes, efficiency, and explanatory information along with indicators and its corresponding rationale will help me with future budget discussions.

            I knew that the district’s budget had to be adopted by August 31 each year, but I was not aware of the other budgetary legal requirements established in the Texas Education Code.  The Budget Calendar Sample found in Exhibit 4 was very informative and will be extremely useful if I ever become a Superintendent.

            I had no knowledge of the annual district revenue estimates and expenditure projections. While I often hear the terms ADA, Tier 1, FTE, WADA, etc., it was helpful to learn what they mean and how they figure into the overall formula.   

            The “TEA Budgeting Guidelines January 2010” is one of the most useful documents I have found regarding school finance.  I have printed it and will continue to read it because it contains so much information that I do not know.  I realize it will take several readings along with practice in future assignments to better understand Texas school finance.

REFLECTION:

After this assignment, I continue to be amazed at the complexity of the budgeting process.   I am anxious to complete this course and go back and review the questions from the practice test we completed back in the Internship course to see if I have gained any insight into school finance.  I am overwhelmed at this point, but am cautiously optimistic.

Week 2, Part 5 -- Stakeholder Input

Site-based decision making committees, the district improvement committee, and the Board of Trustees all operate under a set of goals. If student achievement is the focus and the various groups’ goals are aligned, then this should be a driving force in providing input in the development of a district’s budget.  Obviously, these groups can provide valuable information regarding program development/needs to aid in budget development.   Principals can provide input regarding staffing needs, professional development needs, and individual campus needs encompassing everything from teacher supplies to major maintenance issues. Central office administrators and staff are critical in providing input for a district’s budget.  Generally, district administrators and directors are charged with the responsibility of seeing the “big” picture and seeing things from a larger perspective.   In addition, central administration and directors analyze data to identify needs of students and evaluate the effectiveness of practices and programs currently in place. Teachers and teacher organizations can often provide input to budget by expressing their needs and concerns.  After all, they are the ones “in the trenches”. All the key stakeholders listed above can provide input into a district’s budget.  However, in addition to the key stakeholders, it is also important to consider current research as we determine the best and most appropriate use of our resources.

REFLECTION:

After interviewing my superintendent and business manager on the importance of involving key stakeholders in the budgeting process, I have a better understanding how all the pieces work together to create a goal-driven budget.  If I am ever in a position to be responsible for a district’s budget, I will involve all stakeholders in the budget development process.

Week 2, Part 4 -- Superintendent Interview

          Sections 44.002 through 44.006 of the Texas Education Code established the legal basis for budget development in school districts and specified that the superintendent is the budget officer for the district and prepares or causes the budget to be prepared. When interviewed, my district superintendent reiterated this responsibility by saying that he is responsible for the budget, for seeing that it is planned and prepared, and that it is passed by the Board of Trustees by August 31 each year.  He added that it is important keep in mind your vision and goals when preparing a budget. 

          More specifically, my superintendent said that the superintendent’s job regarding budget is to try to involve everyone in the budgeting process; and he stressed everyone.  He gave the following example:  involve your janitorial staff, teachers, principals, directors, etc. He added that a fiscally sound budget is even more of a responsibility on the superintendent in today’s economic times with the pending doom and gloom we have ahead of us.  With our current state of the economy and the proposed state budget shortfall, he stressed that it is more important than ever to involve the various stakeholders and try to find ways to save money.  Those conversations have started in our district.  We are reducing the work force through attrition, asking for input on ways to save money, and brainstorming ways to work smarter with less.

REFLECTION: 

The interview with my superintendent regarding his role in the budgeting process did not unveil any surprises. Bottom line is that the superintendent is responsible for the district’s budget.  I did, however, realize the importance of involving all stakeholders in the budgeting process.  More importantly, I understand the importance of having an ethical, skillful Business Manager on my team!

Goal Driven Budget Assignment -- Week 2

             A goal-driven budget should be a balance between the educational needs of students and the ability of the school district and state to provide the necessary financial support to serve them.  A goal-driven budget should be developed from a district’s mission statement, vision, and strategic goals. In the Week 2 lecture, Dr. Elvis Arterbury sates that a goal-driven budget should reflect the Board’s district goals, the district’s District Improvement Plan, and each Campus Improvement Plan; and that the budgeting process should reflect a commitment to expending funds to achieve these goals. My district’s business manager explained that the goal-driven budget process can be achieved from beginning to end through a series of seven steps:  budget planning, budget preparation, school board review, budget adoption, tax rate adoption, budget amendments, and audited financial statements. Dr. Arterbury, also states that the purpose of a goal-driven budget is to assist in the attainment of a shared vision for the school district as well as each campus.

            The PN-GISD Education Improvement Plan focuses on seven goals: Improvement of Academic Performance; Governance and Management; Parental and Community Involvement; Attendance; Safety; Technology; and Recruitment and Retention. Each goal is supported by objectives and the objectives are supported by initiatives, strategies, or activities.  In addition, each initiative, strategy, or activity outlines person(s) responsible, a timeline, resources, and evaluation. When considering a goal-driven budget in relation to our District Improvement Plan, one can see that the plan clearly identifies the district goals and identifies resources (funds) for funding the goals. 

            For example, Goal 1 (Improvement of Academic Performance), Objective 1 (90% of students in each student group, as indicated in AEIS and AYP, will meet the TAKS passing standard for Reading/ELA), lists the following strategy:  “Provide remedial instruction for identified elementary and secondary students utilizing Title I teachers at eligible campuses, continue Title I reading program, integrate instructional technology in classrooms, explore and implement research-based instructional programs and interventions, and explore availability of reading improvement software to enhance reading skills for at-risk students.  Not only are the specific activities identified, but funding resources are listed. The funding sources identified for this goal/objective/activity include Title Funds, ARRA Funds, and Local Funds.  Other funding sources identified in the plan include Title III funds, Title II Part D, Title II Part A, state funds, and grants. All goals in the PN-GISD District Improvement Plan are identified in this manner.

            Dr. Arterbury noted that the budgeting process should reflect a commitment to expending funds to achieve the Board goals, district goals, and campus goals. In my opinion, Port Neches-Groves ISD exemplifies Dr. Arterbury’s definition of a goal-driven budget.

EDLD 5342 Week 1 Assignments

Week 1 Part 1

Event #1: One of the most significant events in Texas education finance history was when Mirabeau B. Lamar, the second President of the Republic of Texas, persuaded the legislature to establish land grants. This is particularly significant since it was the initial funding for higher education and school districts within the county in the early days of public education.

Event #2: Another event which significantly affected Texas school finance was in 1869 when a new state constitution was written which called for mandatory school attendance for students beginning at age eight through fourteen. With this new state constitution, a poll tax and ad valorem tax for education was created. The tax levied in 1871 resulted in an undeclared tax revolt and was the first finance debate in our state’s history and here we are in continued debate over school finance.

Event #3: Senate Bill 1, commonly known as the Robin Hood Plan, has significantly impacted Texas school finance. The idea behind Robin Hood was for property rich school districts (known as Chapter 41 districts) to help level the playing field by redistributing the recapture money to property poor districts (known as Chapter 42 districts). My district is a Chapter 41 district and our recapture payments have ranged from $4.1 billion in 2001-2002 to $8.9 billion in 2007-2008, $10.3 billion in 2008-2009, and $5.4 billion in 2009-2010. Robin Hood is supposed to create a system of financial equity, yet our district struggles financially because we do not have these funds. In light of the proposed budget shortfall in Texas, our district deals with budget deficits and is looking at ways to survive financially. I, along with other taxpayers in my school district, am a homeowner and a school district taxpayer. I choose to live in a community surrounded by refineries, and, as a result, am at a larger risk for cancer because of the refinery emissions. We put ourselves at risk by living in this community and as a result, we have a higher property values which qualifies us as a Chapter 41 district. I live with the risk and pay the high taxes, but my children and my school district cannot benefit from it. Those without that risk are the ones receiving the benefit from my risk.

Week 1 Part 2

1) School districts do NOT get any new money if they don’t have an increase in the number of students. Likewise, you get less money if you lose students. It doesn’t matter if you have 20 students in the classroom or 25 students in the classroom, the district still has to deal with increases in electricity, etc. Not only that, districts have to deal with insurance increases each year and try to give raises to faculty/staff. Without new funds, you end up having to eliminate expenditures in other ways, like the elimination of programs or reduction of personnel.
2) Property values fluctuate and as demographics change so can property values. This falls into my previous discussion of Chapter 41 giving to Chapter 42 districts. As a Chapter 41 taxpayer, I do not think there is equity in giving my tax money to other districts.
3) State of the economy. Never has this issue been so relevant as it will be with this state’s bleak current financial picture. The state’s proposed budget dilemma will be our budget dilemma.

Week 1 Part 3

Equality means that every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. Examples: all students have equal access to the core curriculum and to elective choices.

Equity means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Examples include Title I and Special Education funding.

Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Examples include the state-mandated raise for teachers 2 years ago and recapture payments made by Chapter 42 districts to Chapter 41 districts.