Part 1: Goal Driven Budget

The success story of students, teachers, programs, and schools are attributed the community’s demand for quality education and sound decision making and planning.  The sound decision making and planning begins with the Superintendent and the Board of Trustees.  Dr. Arterbury described this partnership as a “team of eight”.  Based on the district’s mission and goal statements the “team of eight” work cohesively with the District’s Improvement Plan and the financial resources to ensure that a variety of educational opportunities and special programs are available towards meeting the districts needs.

A goal driven budget is created based on communicating and building a strong school community relations plan that involves all stakeholders’s to align a shared vision that addresses the school district and campuses needs.  The stakeholder’s involved in this process view a comprehensive needs assessment obtained from the goals and objectives established to determine revenue for the next school year.

ALL campus levels are involved with the development of their campus improvement plans to reflect support of the overall district’s goals and objectives.   In the CIP’s key areas such as academics, responsible persons, extra-curricular, facilities, utilities, transportation, technology, and personnel are addressed.  Accountability with student performance is heavy weight in our system of education, so the accountability of the budgeting process is vital to the successes of the district and campus goals. 

Our district improvement plan creates a chronological plan for the year that includes training and staff development that targets appropriate personnel, technology needs, parent and community involvement activities, vertical teaming, and an ongoing preview of the budget process that reflects the allocation of resources needed for the school district.   Even though over the years a wide number of special programs and instructional programs were developed in our district the regular education program represents the largest representing a vast number of student population groups.

As stated in the lecture video with Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Arterbury, The Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) and the Certified Taxable Values are figures that determine the allocation of program funds. The implementation of Gifted and Talented, Programs for Special Needs students, Limited English Proficiency, including those qualifying for English-as-a- Second Language, and Special Education are prime explanations why stakeholders must know the next year’s revenue projections.   As Superintendent, I certainly would utilize the TEA Summary of Finance Template as a tool for budget planning.

Our district and campus improvement plans are outlined in numerical order, state four strategic long range goals, list measurable objectives for each long range goal, provides a brief description of the activity or activities that support the goal, and list the measurable objective for the long range goal.  As stated earlier in my reflection, responsible personnel, costs, funding sources, proficiency level, specific measurements and formative evaluation dates are included on both plans.  In this week’s lecture, Dr. Arterbury stated the plans should be “a version of the vision”.  I strongly feel that BISD district and campus improvement plans meet this criterion.

Overall to have an effective goal driven budget, communication and collaboration with the “team of eight”, all key personnel of the district, individual campuses, and other stakeholders such as community members and parents should be including in the budget planning process. 

Part 2: State Budget Top 5 List of Events and Dates

Top Five State Budget Development Insights
January - The superintendent as the budget officer approves the budget process for the district. The superintendent cohesively teams with the board of trustees to ascertain the budget process based on district goals and identify the roles and responsibilities of both parties.

February - The budget preparation process is shared with key stakeholders at the campus level. Meetings
with key stakeholders will include principals, SBDM committee, central office personnel, and special or support service teams begin to collaborate and develop plans for the campus budget funding and expenditures based on campus needs.

April – May; Complete review of campuses and district budgets by Special Programs, Support Services, Supervisors, and SBDM teams. Review of projected revenue estimates is the responsibility of the Superintendent and the Chief Financial Officer.

June - Complete first draft of district budget, schedule administrative budget meeting / workshops, and complete final draft.

August – A directive of TEA budget must be prepared and adopted by August 20th. (For publication requirements in the newspaper; June 19th for districts with July 1st fiscal year start date) And or August 31 (June 30th for districts that have July 1st fiscal year start date)

Part 1: History of School Finance

History of School Finance

 Event 1

 The attempt to fund public education in Texas under the leadership of Mirabeau B. Lamar was significant to the establishment of   land grants in counties for public schools and university land set-aside to build the foundation for a Texas –wide public school system. 

Reason

Mirabeau B. Lamar was a multi-talented youth that took advantage of every opportunity afforded him.  He was viewed by his critics as a visionary leader.  Even though the timeframe of the events were not on his side he understood the benefits to lay the foundation to establish funding county land grants to distribute and share the revenue among school districts.   His vision of greatness demonstrated the preparation needed for College and Career Readiness during a challenging time in history.

   Event 2

The Gilmer-Aiken Law impacted how Texas would fund schools and how schools operated. Other controversial issues of the law proposal dealt with reduction of school districts, teacher salary increases and the structure of the State Board of Education and how the Commissioner of Education was selected.

Reason

Distinctively things have changed in public schools over the years, instead of the Department of Education we have The Texas Education Agency and the state superintendent is now the Commissioner of Education appointed by the governor.

The Gilmer-Aiken Laws can be considered landmark laws passed by the Texas legislature that brought the state's educational system into the twentieth century.  I view these laws as an example of educational reform at its best, including the consolidation of the state’s 4500 schools to 2900 districts, state support to supplement funds through valorem taxes, and of course the state-wide minimum salary for all teachers, which provided individual districts the flexibility to offer more if local revenues were available.  

Event 3

The concept of revenue equalization aid which began in 1929 demonstrated the adjustment to include district wealth and tax effort.  Over the years changes to education funding formulas resulted in increased funding for education, guidelines for teacher allocations, and the state minimum salary schedule for teachers. It is clearly understood that funding issues have been prevalent for some time.

Reason

The distinction of Chapter 41 Wealth Equalization and Chapter 42 Property Poor school districts in the school finance system in Texas has always intrigued my interest due the distinctiveness of how WADA was included in the funding formula with number of property value in a school district.  “Sharing the Wealth” or “Robin Hood” plan has caused tremendous controversy with districts that are property wealthy.  Education is a “Civil Right” and all students no matter what school district they attend have the right to be able to access programs and services deemed necessary to meet their educational needs.   

Part 4: Comparing District Improvement Plans

Part 4 Comparing District Improvements and Importance of Funding

In careful review of the comparison of Austin ISD District Improvement Plan to Beaumont ISD there are considerable differences, yet there were a few similarities notes in the plans.  Both plans reflect introductions and A Comprehensive Plan System for Continuous Improvement.  It is evident that both plans are developed to implement continuous student improvement. Both plans include models that identify goals and strategies to meet the needs of student improvement which must stated in the plans.

The layouts of both plans are uniquely different.  In viewing the documents AISD included an Alignment flow chart that identified three major long range goals attached to strategic activities.   Our long range goals are created in a template with sub heading to identify the responsible personnel, costs, funding sources, proficiency level, specific measurements, and formative evaluation dates of the strategic activities.   Another noted difference is the layout of the calendar in both plans. AISD models membership and attendance records.  Our calendar describes by months district professional development activities for the school community, as well as testing information.   

In appendix A and B of AISD the SCE’s a few of programs are similar; AVID, Curriculum Specialists, Tutorials, Guidance and Counseling.   External Grant/ Federal Funds that were similar are Title I Part A, Title II A, IDEA B.  Austin models the funds lumped in one total, but list the special programs that will receive funds.  Our plans format shows an at a glance view of the funding sources, costs, and strategic activities with the specific goals for each measureable objective for the Strategic Long Range Goals.   I found Austin’s plan to include more budget update information and specifics about ACCESS.   The goals for site visits include narrative dialogue and questions and concerns with decision statements.

Based on the needs assessment of the districts both plans are specific and detailed in addressing the areas of concern to ensure that student improvement is achieved.

Part 3: Equity, Equality, Adequacy

Part 3: Equality, Equity, and Adequacy

 Equality provides equal funds to support educational programs to benefit all students and enables school districts to meet state accreditation standards.

Examples: Support the 21^st century learner by funding afterschool programs and instructional facilities allotments that meet the need of students in their academic core subjects. 

Equity simply means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. The term clearly defines fairness to all students and provides equal distribution of resources for schooling, and emphasizes the relationship between student differences and characteristics of school districts in the basic allotment adjustment.

For example, Gifted/Talented Educational goal in Texas is to provide equitable representation of students group in G/T programs.   Districts in the state with available G/T programs are to provide G/T assessments to identify diverse populations of students for learning opportunities in Gifted/Talented Education. Special Education programs would be another example.

Adequacy refers to funding allowances that support the needs of student achievement.

In our school district the majority of campuses receive Title I funds.  Programs like “No Child Left Behind,” and the previous standardized test like TAKS have provided a framework for implementing a system that monitors the data for student population groups such as at-risk, economically disadvantaged, African American, Hispanic, Special Education, and G/T.

Part 2 State Formula Insights

Part 2:

State Formula Insights and Reflections

Without a doubt one of the basic issues impacting the state formula would be property tax.  As stated in the reading assignment School Funding 101, school districts depend on the property tax as their local funding.  Deviations in property tax values across the state affect local property tax funds for each school district as they fluctuate or vary due to conditions of property rich districts compared to property poor districts.

Second and thirdly, the Average Daily Attendance and the Weighted Average Daily Attendance profoundly impact the state formula.  I work in a school district where the majority of the schools are Title I campuses. The students receiving educational services are in sub populations such as special education, bilingual, gifted and talented, vocational career, and compensatory education.

As identified in Foundation School Program, the Tier 1 guidelines basic allotments are taken into consideration based on a district’s characteristic make up to include cost of education, district size ranging  from small and mid-size,  and considerations for  basic allotment of dollars per stud Once district allotments are finalized basic allotment adjustment.   Based on allotment characteristics the ADA or Average Daily Attendance method is vital to districts because student attendance determines the rationale of providing state aid to school districts.   I understand why enrollment of students into other school districts during Hurricane displacement became a discrepancy.  No district wanted to lose funding based on student attendance during this unforeseen ordeal.  Student attendance is a valuable source of the funding process.  Additionally, once district allotments are finalized the WADE or Weighted Average Daily Attendance supports school districts that provide special programs to serve students with additional educational needs.

Additionally, the article Tracking the Education Dollar in Texas Public Schools based on costs from 2008-09 PEIMS report provided an authentic example a Texas public school student’s typical day.

The activity chart spotlighted at a glance district operations that were offered to the student.  Examples included, the student rides the bus to school because of distance or unsafe conditions, building conditions heat, air, and lights provided a safe and conducive environment for learning, student receives instructional support from teachers, counselors, instructional aide, and instructional materials for learning.  

School Community Relations Week 2 Discussion

The area of change that I will approach focuses on campuses that lack a Business Partner. Even though in BISD there is significant participation from Business Education Partnerships, School Volunteers, and Parent Involvement there are some schools in the districts' community that don't have established relationships with a Business Partner or lack commitment from Parent Participation due to various reasons (late work hours, lack of transportation, or going back to school). Every campus as volunteers that donate their time to mentor or assist students academically. Most campuses have a Parent Facilitator that is responsible for scheduling and planning parent meetings, monthly parent visits, and resources to assist parents at home with their child. With budget cuts, it appears some schools budgets are embedded with personnel staff issues, so the funding that would be available to support additional supplemental programs or materials are not available. Campuses in this situation tend to have fund raisers or they seek their own campaign to solicit support from a Community Business Partener to assist in meeting the needs of the students' and the staff.

This is true of my campus. At this time, we are seeking a Business Partner to assist with supplemental resources that will support students and staff members during the year. The support of a Business Partner for a diverse campus with a student enrollment of 1048 students PK-5th grade would benefit from the use of supplemental items during remediation or intervention, as well as provide incentives. We are in the process of re-kindling relationships with businesses that reside in the heart of the school community area. The PTA, Parent Involvement Facilitator and the district's Parent Involvement Coordinator are part of the PLC team. Our Education Partnership Coordinator is also seeking a business partner for the campus. This approach looks promising, we have a few businesses and parents that have shown support to the cause. I think BISD will support the change needed based on a comprehensive needs assessment, analyzed surveys, and identified causes for low student performance supports the need for the goal that states," By the year 2013 we will.... Close the GAP between the Minority and Majority learner to no more than 2%..