EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 3 Part 3

The Foundation School Program (FSP) is comprised of a system of formulas for determining the state and local funding and consists of two tiers.  Tier 1 provides the process for funding for the basic allotment.  Tier 2 outlines the process by which the guaranteed yield system provides equal access to revenue to support and accredited school program.  The FSP exists to support the basic instructional program for the 1,032 school districts in Texas.

Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) is used to measure the student participation in special programs. The intent of the WADA is to provide more money and professionals to work with student in district that have students with specific needs. In the EDLD 5342 Week 2 Lecture, page 1, Dr. Stephens explained that WADA is based on the number of students attending the school district and the type of students attending the school district.  Dr. Stephens described this when she explained the weighted funding associated with economically disadvantaged students.  Other examples of WADA weighted programs include:   special education, Career and Technology Education, bilingual, gifted and talented and compensatory education.  Recognizing that students with special needs require additional funding in order provide services, WADA provides funding to insure that the additional costs needed to educate students with special needs is met.  However, when looking at the data samples from two districts given in the Week 3 assignment, it is clear that the intent of WADA has not been met.  A comparison of the two districts with regard to these weighted programs is as follows:

PROGRAMS AFFECTING WADA
	District #1	District #2
Economically Disadvantaged	93.3%	20.7%
LEP	48%	2%
Special Ed	9%	7%
Bilingual	41%	2%
Vocational Education	24%	14%
G/T	5%	4%
TOTAL REFINED ADA ADJUSTED FOR DECLINE	$3,893.75	$4,032.98
WADA	$5,555.82	$4,704.08

WADA calculation is a component of FSP Tier 1 and is a complicated calculation. (Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools, 2010).  A schools district’s WADA will be greater than its Average Daily Attendance (ADA) because WADA converts all of a school district’s students with their different weights due to their specific needs to a calculated number of regular students required to raise the same amount of Tier 1 revenue.   WADA exists to provide a process to convert  all of a school district’s students with their different weights to a calculated number of regular students required to raise the same amount of Tier I revenue.  The greater the number of students eligible for special entitlements, the greater a school district’s WADA.   An equalization feature of the funding formula was created in Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code (TEC) Chapter 41 put a cap on wealth per WADA, established an equalized wealth level for the school year, and gave districts above this level several methods to either reduce wealth or increase ADA in order to achieve the equalized wealth level. Methods for achieving equalization include: consolidating school districts; consolidating school tax bases; de-annexing and annexing property between school districts; and contracting to educate children in another school district and paying the state for student attendance credits

The largest difference in the WADA weighted programs is in their Economically Disadvantaged populations. The information provided for this assignment shows that District #1 has 93.3% economically disadvantaged while District #2 has only 20.7% economically disadvantaged. This should  have a significant impact on WADA; however, it failed to accomplish that goal in this case.  After reviewing the snapshots and summary of finances and comparing the percentage of economically disadvantaged students to the number of professional working with economically disadvantaged students, District 1 has 26 fewer professional staff than District 2.  This is the inverse of what one would expect to find.  District #1 also has significantly larger populations in LEP, Bilingual, and Vocational Education. Although they also have larger Special Education and Gifted and Talented populations, these percentages are only slightly higher. Even though District #1 has a smaller Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline as compared to District #2, their WADA is higher than District #2.

In regards to funding, District 1 has a smaller ADA but a larger WADA. receives more funding from the state, District 1 has a larger number of economically disadvantaged students, minority students, LEP students, Special Education students, Bilingual students, CTE students, and GT students. District 1 receives more funding due to the WADA.  Examples include: Compensatory Education Allotment:  District 1 $3, 835, 006 compared to District 2 $633,369.  In addition, District 1 receives Chapter 46 funds and District 2 do not.  

In regards to property values, District 2 has more available funding.  The target revenues compare as follows:  District 1 $28, 023, 530 compared to District 2 $34, 546, 111.  District 2 uses its additional $6. 5 million to provide additional teachers and professional staff.  District 1 has 281 while District 2 has 307.  This discrepancy is further showcased in the assessment data from the snapshot data.  TAKS All Tests Taken:  District 1 61% passing and District 2 89% passing.  This difference exists in all subject areas and grade levels tested and when analyzing the SAT and ACT test statistics.
When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O you find many differences between the 2 districts and many similarities. Regular program allotment in both districts are right around 20 million. Knowing that both districts have nearly the exact same enrollment this is a positive relationship between the districts. There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.

When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O, there exist similarities and differences. 

Similarities	Differences
Regular allotments in both districts approximate $20 million (based on ADA)	Career and Technology Education higher in District 1
Similar enrollment numbers	Compensatory Education Allotment higher in District 1
Similar Special Education Adjusted Allotment due to similar SPED percentages	Transportation funding higher in District 2
Similar High School Allotment funds (associated with ADA)	Larger Bilingual population in District 1

Lastly, neither school district shows funding allocated to the following:  Instructional Facilities Allotment, Virtual School Allotment, and Public Education Grant. 

Upon review of each of the districts' basic statistics, there exists the potential for both are positive and negative impacts on their programs.  The table below outlines these.

Positive Impact		Negative Impact
District 1	District 2	District 1	District 2
an increase in property values	money to provide adequate supplies, materials, and staff	low property values	a budget based on significant increases that were not realized
increase in student enrollment			decreased property values

District 1 would realize a positive impact if there would be an increase in property values or an increase in student enrollment.  This could result in additional revenue that would provide increased M & O funding.   However, if property values diminished in District 1 the result could result in a dependence on the WADA , state and federal allotments to finance the school operations.   District 2 seems to be the stronger of the two with regard to finances.  They have a surplus of money provided through their compressed WADA funding to provide adequate supplies, material and staff.  However, if a budget was adopted that was based on increases that were not realized this would have a negative impact on the district.  Examples include:  1) Forecasting a growth in student attendance when in actuality a decline occurs or a decrease in property values.  Both scenarios could result in the district needing to use its fund balance for the day to day operation of the district.   

REFERENCES

Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools (2010). School funding 101 – glossary

Lamar University Course EDLD 5342 School Finance. Week 2 Lecture Notes. April, 2011.

Texas Education Agency (January, 2011). School Finance 101:  Funding of Texas Public Schools.

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 2, Part 4 & 5 - Superintendent’s Roles and Responsibilities in the Budgeting Process

In my interview with Dr. Steve Johnson, HISD Superintendent, he reiterated that the most important part of the entire goal driven budget process is communication (Interview, Dr. Steve Johnson, HISD Superintendent, April 19, 2011, 1:30 P.M.).  His thoughts and examples aligned with the statement Dr. Jenkins made in the Week 2 lecture that just as location was the primary focus of real estate, communication is the identifying characteristic when communicating the budget to district stakeholders (EDLD 5342, Week 2 Lecture video, 7:40 – 7:47).  Dr. Johnson has only been superintendent in HISD since the beginning of January.  First as the interim and then as the superintendent.  In this time he has worked diligently to develop the budget goals for the 2011 – 2012 school year as mandated by the current budget shortfall.

 

Dr. Johnson also discussed the role of the superintendent in working with the Board of Trustees.  He talked about the importance of the Board of Trustees in the communication process.  The Board has its finger on the pulse of the community and is often aware of current information that is valuable to the development of a valid budget.  They must function as a team of eight and this is best accomplished when the team knows their goals and knows their roles.

In my interview and the budget meetings that I have attended, I have been very impressed with Dr. Johnson’s communication style.  He is calm, relaxed and confident.  He works very hard to prepare power point explanations that insure that he communicates a consistent message to the groups he works with.  He also worked with the HISD principals to prepare one consistent message and power point to use when principals communicated the shortfall plan to their individual campuses. When he speaks to a group there is no doubt that he is informed and in charge.

Dr. Johnson has sought input from all of the individual groups as he has worked to plan for the 2011-2012 budget. 

Central Office Administrators and Staff – provide the “big picture” overview and alignment of district processes, goals and initiatives.  They provide valuable information in the allocation of district funds from transporation to food services to maintenance to curriculum and instruction.

Principals – provide the input for the reason schools exist – students.  It is where the most people and programs are affected by the budget process.  They provide input for the curriculum, staff development, supplies and personnel.

Site-based Decision Making Committees – responsible for providing input at the campus level regarding needs assessment and allocation of resources for those needs.

District Improvement Committee – responsible for providing input and asking questions during the planning phase and must approve the final District Improvement Plan which is the framework for the district expenditures.

Teacher Organizations – are not involved in the budget planning process in Huntsville except as their members are members of the various planning groups.

Key Stakeholders – in addition to the members of HISD mentioned previously, key stakeholders include students (we have a student advisory council), parents and family members, business members, community leaders, representatives of the local institute of higher education (Sam Houston State University and Lonestar College), representatives from Texas Department of Criminal Justice (the only state agency housed outside of Austin is headquartered in Huntsville), local private school representatives and community religious leaders are all invited to public meetings to provide input and support communication throughout the district. Representatives also serve on district and campus planning committees.

Board of Trustees – vital to the establishment of the goals and vision that the budget is built to support.

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 2 - Part 3 Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 2 Part 3 Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

In reviewing the Texas Education Agency Financial Accountability System Resource Guide, 2. Budgeting Update 14. January 2010, (EDLD 5342, Week 2, Resources) I took into account the TASBO Budget Preparation power point (EDLD 5342, Week 2, Resources) and used it as a guide to look at the larger document.  In the TASBO power point, slide  4 states, “The budgeting process is comprised of three major phases: planning, preparation, and evaluation.”   This helped me focus my thoughts regarding this lengthy, detailed document.

The TEA Budgeting Guidelines provides guidance and information for the planning of a district budget.  Specifically Section 2.11, pages 61 – 76, explains Financial Forecasting and Planning.  Planning is not just limited to the Financial Forecasting and Planning portion of the information.  The document is filled with important guidelines and rules for the planning of a district budget.  It is through the planning process that identification of the goals and needs of the district can be prioritized so that the allocation of resources and funds can be assigned based on need and importance. Including all stakeholders in the planning phase and communicating that information regarding the budget planning is a very important piece of this phase of budget development.  On pages 23 – 33, Section 2.7, this document outlines such roles and responsibilities and provides a budget calendar.

Preparation of a district budget is a very detailed process and this document thoroughly guides in that preparation.  I was interested to learn that there are eight budgetary approaches listed in the budgeting guidelines ( Section 2.4, pages 5 – 10).  I have only experienced working with line-item budgets.  Once the planning phase has been completed, districts can begin to prepare the budget using one of these eight budgetary approaches with emphasis on the alignment of funds with the goals and needs outlined in the budget planning phase.  The TEA Budget Guidelines document included information on the preparation of budgetary expenditures for programs, grants, maintenance, and construction projects. (TEA Budget Guidelines, page 34 – 88).

Lastly, the evaluation of the district budget is essential to accountability and implementation.  The use of the Summary of Finance templates provides an invaluable resource in the budget evaluation process.

I will be able to utilize this information in several ways.  Currently, I will utilize this information as Huntsville ISD continues to work on preparing the district budget as it relates to budget shortfall.  Keeping communication clear, open and immediate is essential in our current situation.  Letting staff know now that their position will not exist in the 2012-2013 school year gives them time to plan and prepare.  I will also use this information in the budget preparation process for Huntsville STEM Academy.  I wrote a start-up grant for the Academy and with funding sources in danger of being cut.  I will need to utilize this information for the revision of the budget for that Academy.  Lastly, as I transition to a new school district in 2011, I will have valuable information that will help me be a contributing member of the team there.

 

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 2 - Part 2 CONSENSUS Top 5

EDLD 5342 School Finance

Week 2 Assignment, Part 2

State Budget Development Insights and Reflections

CONSENSUS

In coming to consensus in Group 4 (Becky Prentice, Daniel Taylor, Shelley Rex, and Sheri Hawthorne), our group found it necessary to condense the six points outlined in the TASBO Budget Development powerpoint (slides 6 – 10, 2.6.1 Statement of Texas Law, Sections 44.002 through 44.006 of the Texas Education Code) into a list of five events and dates for the development of a district budget.  Each member of the group listed similar events on the group wiki (http://edld5342group4.blogspot.com/2011/04/group-4.html) , so it was relatively easy to agree on the top five events and dates listed as follows:

Date	Budget Development Process
January	Review/development of Board goals.
February	Development of DIP to align with Board of Trustee goals.
March	Establishment of district budget process with input from district stakeholders.
July	Board and district reviewing coming year's revenue from certified taxable values of the district based on WADA and PEIMS.
August	Proposed budget posting on August 20 and board adopted budget on/by August 31. (or June 30 if the district uses a July 1 fiscal year start date).

While we all agreed to the basic components needed in our five events, it was somewhat difficult to pick five individual events as several events happen simultaneously in the process.  As a group we decided that these explained those components. 

Our group communicated on Part 2 through varied technology.  We utilized the group wiki, the Epic discussion board, email and text messaging to identify discuss the information needed for this portion of the assignment. 

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 2 - Part 1 Goal Driven Budget

According to the EDLD 5342, Week 2 Lecture notes, page 1, a goal driven budget is the tool that assists in the “attainment of a shared vision for the school district and each campus.”  The goal driven budget process is one where the Board of Trustees develops district goals, the District Improvement plan articulates those goals, the Campus Improvement Plans reflect those Board of Trustee goals in order to become a “version of the vision.”(EDLD 5342, Week 2 Lecture notes, page 1)   The goal driven budget process is effective when the goals developed by the Board of Trustees, outlined in the District Improvement Plan and differentiated in the Campus Improvement Plans are displayed in the assignment of expenditures of time, money and resources.

In the Huntsville District Improvement Plan development process four goals have been developed by the Board of Trustees from the district mission statement.  Both the mission statement and goals are listed on the first page of the District Improvement Plan (Huntsville ISD 2010 – 2011 District Improvement Plan, page 1).  From these goals the District Improvement Plan is developed through meetings  with the Central Office team  (consisting of the superintendent, assistant superintendents, all directors, and district coordinators), the District Advisory Council (representative district stakeholders), the campus principals,  the Professional Advisory Committee (consisting of representative teachers, campus administrators and central office staff), and the Student Advisory Committee (representative students from the secondary campuses) to implement goals for the District Improvement Plan.  The central office team works to identify persons responsible, resources, timeline, and the monitoring process, and to develop the final document that is approved by all the representative committees and finalized by the Board of Trustees.  Examples of the financial resources listed in the Huntsville District Improvement Plan that ensure the implementation of the goals are funding sources such as Title I, Title II, Title III, Local budget funds, IDEA , State Compensatory Education,  and ARRA Stimulus.  This plan guides the use of all district resources including personnel units, materials, and technology.   Because the District Improvement Plan is a “living” document, it is adjusted and amended based on the availability of the district resources.

In my interview with Dr. Steve Johnson,  HISD Superintendent, he reiterated that the most important part of the entire goal driven budget process is communication (Interview, Dr. Steve Johnson, HISD Superintendent, April 19, 2011, 1:30 P.M.).  His thoughts and examples aligned with the statement Dr. Jenkins made in the Week 2 lecture that just as location was the primary focus of real estate, communication is the identifying characteristic  when communicating the budget to district stakeholders (EDLD 5342, Week 2 Lecture video, 7:40 – 7:47).  Dr. Johnson has only been superintendent in HISD since the beginning of January.  First, as the interim superintendent and then, as the superintendent.  In this time he has worked diligently to develop the budget goals for the 2011 – 2012 school year as mandated by the current budget shortfall. In that time he has met with all district stakeholders according to the following timeline:

Establishing the Understanding	17 presentations and meetings with stakeholders	February 7 – March 10
Defining the Problem	Meetings to describe the legislative information and projection target ($4.2M)	March 10 – March 21
Seeking Solutions	Input from the HISD Directors, Professional Advisory Council, and Assistant Principals	March 21 – 25
	Principals Meetings to determine final goals	April 12 – April 15
Communication of the Plan	Principal Meetings to review the final plan and communications	April 18
	Directors Meeting to review the final plan and communications	April 19
	Campus Staff Meetings	April 19
	Board of Trustees Workshop	April 19
	Board of Trustees Meeting	April 21

From his actions it is obvious that he is doing a thorough job of communicating in order to develop a goal driven budget for 2011-2012.

EDLD 5342 School Finance Week 1, Pt. 4

Part 4 – Comparing District Improvement Plans and the importance of funding focus

Austin I.S.D and Huntsville I.S.D.

When examining the Austin ISD Improvement Plan and the Huntsville ISD Improvement Plan with emphasis on the districts goals and desired results, I observed that the Austin ISD plan did not include goals that were SMART  (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-bound).  The Huntsville ISD plan is written to include goals that are SMART.  In particular I observed that the Austin plan did not have goals that could be measured or evaluated in a specific time.  For example, “increase number of students graduating within four years of enrolling in the 9^th grade for the first time ” is listed on page 29  as a measurable evidence of change, but there is no identification of the percentage of increase needed for success with this goal.  A similar goal in the Huntsville ISD plan reads, “Utilize the Personal Graduation Plans (PGPs) to identify students not on track for graduation and plan interventions so that all students graduate within four years of enrolling as a 9^th grader.” (Huntsville ISD District Improvement Plan 2010-2011, 4H, page 16)

Both plans included the funding sources associated with the goals and objectives identified. In the Austin ISD Improvement Plan, page 29, the source and resources were listed as Title 1 ARRA funds, School Improvement ARRA funds, teachers to teach after regular school hours, on-line courses for those classes not taught by HQ teachers.  The Huntsville ISD DIP, page 16, lists Title II, Title III and local funds as the funding sources and DMAC as a resource necessary to monitor the PGPs.

The major similarity between the Austin ISD District Improvement Plan and the Huntsville ISD District Improvement Plan was the utilization of a chart-based report that had similar headings.  The Austin plan included Desired Result, Measureable Evidence of Change, Activities, Resources, Timelines and the Huntsville ISD DIP headings were Improvement Strategy, Person(s) Responsible, Resources, Timeline, Monitoring.  The primary difference that I observed between the two plans was the lack of specific budget monies assigned to the goals of the Austin DIP and the specific monies assigned to the Huntsville DIP.