Based on the calculations above, district one which is property poor will receive a guaranteed amount of revenue from the state. Actually, district one will receive the majority of their funding from state aide. While district two will fund the majority of its budget through local tax collections. It is obvious that the current funding formula does attempt to equalize funding but property poor districts must work harder with their tax rates to raise considerably less money. Additionally, district one will end up with less money per student to spend through out the school year. State funding formulas are not adequate in equalizing funding. |
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Week Three Part Two
Friday, September 9, 2011
Reflections on Part I, Week II
Texas School finance is nothing if not intriguing. It is extremely interesting to see how the state formula attempts to even the playing field between two extremely different districts. In this instance, the district with a lower regular ADA and a higher WADA received a great deal more funding from the state. It is easy to see that the community that supports district one is less affluent that the community supporting district two. First, the taxable value of property in district two is almost twice that of district one and second, the percentage of students considered economically disadvantaged in district one is more than four times that of district two. Finally, district one was able to collect $1.2 million dollars at the compressed rate while district two was able to collect over $33 million. It is obvious that district one requires a great deal more state aide in order to meet the needs of its students and attempt to offer an education of the same caliber as district 2. One lesson for district leaders is that state aide to the district can be maximized through accurate identification and coding of students in PEIMS, the source of the data used by the state to designate students into the “weighted” categories. This process remains a fundamental part of the funding puzzle.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Stakeholder Input to the District Budget
During my meeting with the assistant superintendent for finance and operations, I asked him about the level of input provided to our district budget process by the following groups of individual stake holders:
Ø Central Office Administrators and Staff – these personnel are the leaders in the budgeting process of the district. They make recommendations and decisions about their departments and about the programs which they administer at each campus. They also help problem solve when difficult decisions need to be made.
Ø Principals – their input is invaluable in determining discretionary budget levels at each campus and in developing plans for expenditures of departmental funds to accomplish campus and district goals at their campus and with their student bodies. Principals garner the input of the campus staff, parents and campus improvement teams (SBDM). Their input reflects that of stakeholders from the grass roots of education, such as parents, teachers, and community and business representatives.
Ø Site Based Decision Making Committees – These team members provide a wide base of experience and varied perspectives that help principals make decisions about expenditures and about how previous expenditures have fared as programs or initiatives are implemented. Most of their input relevant to the district budget development is funneled through the principal during district level budge planning meetings.
Ø District Improvement Committee – in our district, the DIC has a huge impact on the professional development budget of the district. This group of people help develop the goals and direction of the professional development program.
Ø Teacher Organizations- in our district, these organizations really have little impact except as their agendas influence the input from committee members on the DIC. The assistant superintendent expressed that in larger districts, input from these organizations is often felt as their membership is greater there. He also stated that in states where teacher unions exist, the input from those organizations is greater than in Texas.
Ø Key Stakeholders- in Belton ISD key stake holders are consulted as part of large-impact district level committees such as the Long Range Facilities Planning Committee which is responsible for planning when bond elections will be held to address district growth needs and how much the district will ask from the voters.
Ø Board of Trustees – The board is the approving body of the budget and has large input throughout the development process. They carry the responsibility of budget approval. In our district, the board has continued to be a unified voice that has supported the district administration’s direction. We have been fortunate that the district vision has moved in the same direction that the board has desired. This is not by accident as a great working relationship has been nurtured and has existed between our board and the district administration for years – even through transitions from previous to new board members.
The type of input received from stakeholders in Belton ISD did not surprise me. I have been a member of several planning committees in the district including our Student Health Advisory Committee and the District Long Range Facilities Planning Committee over the past ten years. Not only are teachers, students, parents, business people, and community members invited to be members of the committees, but their active participation is solicited and encouraged. I have personally witnessed a string of meetings during which public input has changed direction of district initiatives by revealing the community’s needs, desires, and concerns. I work in a district that is located in and serves an involved and caring community. As a district, we respond to them and have developed a great working relationship that has helped us remain fiscally responsible to our taxpayers while providing improvements that have continued to guarantee our high quality of education.
An Interview with the Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations
On August 31, 2011, I interviewed our Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. This individaul is the direct supervisor of the Executive Director of Finance. He began the description of the administrative staff responsibilities in preparing the budget with an explanation of district policy. District policy states that it is the responsibility of the superintendent to prepare and submit to the Board a proposed budget and to administer the budget. The assistant superintendent briefly described the basic steps used in budget development in Belton ISD which begins in January when campus principals and department heads meet with district level leaders to discuss developing needs and the analogous goals developed to address those needs as well as requests for funds for personnel or materials to meet the goals. The administrative team that meets with each campus and department head begins each meeting by reviewing the district goals and the mission and vision of the district to ensure a commitment to those common goals. The Human Resources department holds meetings to review staffing guidelines based on projected enrollment while the district leadership team looks for ways to balance the requests made from campuses with published staffing guidelines. At the same time, requests for capital outlay projects for each campus in support of identified district and campus goals are considered along with programmed replacement cycles for technology equipment. All of these meetings are led by the superintendent who asks the tough questions and provides guidance and alternate ideas. In our district, the leadership team made up of the Superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, and the assistant superintendent for finance and operations are all involved in the process as a team. Their individual experience and expertise is valued and listened to. But it is the superintendent that is ultimately responsible for preparing the budget so she takes responsibility for the final decision.
I was not surprised that the superintendent is involved so heavily in the process of budget development. The budget is the item that can produce positive or negative public sentiment at the drop of a hat (or at the rise of a tax!) If managed improperly the budget can sink the superintendent. It is the item that takes the most amount of paper in the board packets prepared for each monthly meeting and it is the fuel that keeps district operations flowing. All of our great instructional ideas are in jeopardy if the budget is not planned properly or aligned with our instructional goals. In Belton ISD, we have been fiscally responsible in our expenditures, in our debt service, in our bond issues, and with our investments. At a time when other districts have had to lay-off personnel, Belton ISD has made no lay-offs and was actually able to provide a 1% pay raise this year. All of this reflects well on our superintendent. Although she would be quick to give any due credit to her core team, she is the boss and is held personally responsible for budgetary decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)