Final Reflection

            After completing this intense course of school finance, I feel that I have grown to have a stronger and more solid understanding the school finance system. As I proceeded throughout the weekly lessons, and learning from each individual colleague, as well as my group partnership, the wealth of knowledge that has been obtained has been well worth the experience. In addition to the coursework that has accompanied this class; I have had the opportunity to participate in a webinar series, which will also continue throughout the next few months focusing on budgetary projections for our district. There were times in the coursework that I was unsure how all this information merged together. With the knowledge that I have obtained through the webinar series, my knowledge has become more concrete. I remember speaking with Dr. Creel, and he explained this course would be intense; now at the end, I agree with his comment. Overall, I do not feel the entire amount of information required for school finance can be learned in a five week course, as students, we have to seek the remaining information and put it all together.

            In analyzing the areas of strength regarding Competency 8, I feel confident enough to apply procedures for effective budget planning and management. I understand more in depth the budgeting calendar, as well as all personnel involved with the budget process. Personally I feel that I have a strong rapport with the school board, and that effective budgeting would come through effective communication. In the areas of personnel management, I feel that I have always had strength in documentation of personnel and can effectively hire, fire, or reassign an employee; as well as, utilizing evaluation data to create personnel policies.

            After completing this course, several of the indicators from the beginning of the course to now, I have been able to grow from lack of knowledge to competent. Understanding audits and securing those that could assist in auditing the district, establishing district procedures, applying legal concepts. I have had the opportunity to formulate funding forecasts for the district and assist the Superintendent in the fiscal projections for next school year.

            The area that I continue needing to obtain knowledge on is the section on acquiring, allocating, and managing resources according to district vision and priorities, including obtaining and using funds from different resources. Further information regarding federal funding allotments would be an area that I feel that I could use more knowledge.

            Utilizing the video lectures, in the first week, it was interesting learning about the history of school finance and the parallels that are symbolized in current times; especially in the equity of funding. A major area of week one focused on goal oriented budgeting. It is important that school finance is supported by a district’s improvement plan and relates to the school boards goals for the district. Week two expanded on the concept of goal driven budgets and we had the opportunity to learn everyone’s role in the budgetary process.

            Learning about the sources of revenue and expenditures for the district gave a firm insight of the funding formulas, and a strong understanding of the M&O and I&S taxing entities. Having the opportunity to complete the task of budgetary projections, this opportunity offered adequate knowledge of the importance of budget allocations. Now in the final week, the concentration of the ethics involved with school leadership, and the many times people get into trouble violating the ethics of the district.

            Overall, out of the knowledge that I have obtained from this course and the webinar series that I have participated in is this – budget what you expect to earn, and don’t budget what is paid by the state.

Code of Ethics for School Leaders

Examples of Ethics Violations:

Standard 1.2 relates to the misappropriations, diversions or use of monies for personal gain or advantage. In Montgomery, Alabama a school district’s chief financial officer was found guilty of two felony counts of using her position for unlawful gain of money.  A district audit reviewed the district’s funds and discovered the misappropriations of funds. The chief financial officer was sentenced to ten years for each count had to pay $102,170 in restitution to the school district.

Standard 1.5 relates to accepting gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or to obtain special advantage. A former associate superintendent with the El Paso, TX school district pleaded guilty to bribery charges. The former associate superintendent admitted to accepting money and property for handing out vendor contracts.

Standard 1.6 relates to falsification of records, or directing or coercing others to do so. A principal at Youth Middle School in Georgia falsified student enrollment numbers in elective classes in order to meet the funding size. Students were recorded as taking classes such as music or physical education as the students were serving as office aides. The principal was suspended for six weeks.

Standard 2.3 relates to adhering to written local school board policies and all state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. In Texarkana, Arkansas a former teacher was fired allegedly giving special needs student’s answers to a state mandated test. It was proven that other teachers gave out answers as well, but were not fired for the infraction. The lawsuit sided with the former employee based upon the verdict that she was fired on a “flimsy basis.”

Standard 2.5 relates to discriminating against or coercing a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. In San Diego, California, a teacher claims she was denied promotions due to her sexual orientation. She sued the school district, and was awarded $ 140,000 for damages.

Short and Long-Range Consequences

            In the case of the school districts chief financial officer being found guilty of unlawful gain of money, a short range consequence for the district would be the lack of trust the community would have with the school district. The school district would need to prove to the community that it is taking its stance in protecting the taxpayer’s funds and duly auditing the funds on a regular basis. Once the public broadcast of the ethical violation has diminished, for the long-range time, the school district will need to be consistent in their approaches to school finance and the continuous monitoring of the district funds.

            In the issue of the falsification of records, I was interested in seeing the final outcome of the investigation. The principal was placed on administrative suspension for six weeks, all of which fell during the summer months. In the eyes of the community, this would be a detrimental issue concerning honesty and trust of the administration. This short-term “punishment” the principal received, was not appreciated by the community since the principal committed fraud among the school finance system. For the long-term approach, the school district should remove the principal from the position and offer training to the administrative staff regarding funding projections.

            In the issues regarding sexual orientation, the district would need to have updated policies in place regarding Title IX for the short term, and for the long-term offer training to understand the policies. Also, in the event of the case in San Diego, the school district could use training on the association with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Actions to Prevent Ethical Violations

            I believe the school district handled the situation appropriately in the case of the chief financial officer. The school district was given the misappropriations information from the auditor, and action was taken immediately. The Superintendent acted in a manner that utilized applicable laws, policies, and procedures in a fair and reasonable manner relating the taxpayer’s investment in the school district and to protect the district’s funds.

            For the case regarding the principal that received a suspension for six weeks, I personally feel that was “swept under the rug.” However, in the state of Georgia, the laws and policies regarding falsification of records may be different. The issue that I see regarding this infraction is a moral issue. As an employee of the school district, the administrator must model and promote the highest standard of conduct, ethical principles, and integrity in decision making, actions, and behaviors.

            In reference to the issues regarding sexual orientation, it is important for an administrator to interact with district staff, students, school board, and community in a professional and ethical manner and not hinder an employee from gaining the promotions they rightfully deserve.

Understanding Personnel Salaries

            I had the opportunity to speak with our District Payroll clerk and Business Manager regarding the amount budgeted for payroll within our school district. The payroll budget accounts for 74% of the district budget totaling $ 22,241,175. There are always hard decisions to make whenever budgetary decisions have to be made regarding payroll. With the current issues of trimming budgets to balance spending with projected revenue, the small 26% remaining is hard to justify the large amounts of budgetary cuts and still retain an operations budget without cutting salaries. These hard decisions led to teacher layoffs, hiring freezes, and creative job descriptions for the district and employees.

            The remaining 26% ($ 8,313,465) is budgeted for the district operations such as maintenance, transportation, general supplies and equipment, and travel expenses to name a few.

            There could be both positive and negative issues with issuing a 5% salary increase for every employee. In the positive sense, stronger morale would be generated among the employees for a short duration. Eventually other opportunities would have to lend it to retaining high morale. It is my opinion that money is not the answer to high morale; however, it is a stronger supporter of morale. In the light of the current financial issues in the United States today, an overall 5% increase would be very much appreciated, and would certainly reflect a positive cost of living increase. This past year whenever our school district was faced with cuts in budgets, our district was able to cut positions and offer raises that were reflected in our salary audit that was conducted.

            On the negative side, with the current student population within our district growing at a slower pace than it was in the five years, a 5% increase would cost the district an additional $ 1,112,058. This in turn would reduce the remaining budget to $ 7,201,407. This salary increase would take opportunities away from students and possible maintenance items within the district. This also reduces the school district money that may be needed to react with in an emergency event.

            Taking a strong look at the budgetary process, and focusing strongly on the projections for the upcoming year will help lead the school district in making sound financial decisions for the good of the district. Whenever there are firm numbers to work with, and the focus of a goal driven budget, the cost projections will easily be calculated.

Interview on Financial Audits

            According to Policy CFC, the school board shall have the district’s fiscal accounts audited annually at the district’s expense by a Texas certified or public accountant holding a permit from the State Board of Public Accountancy. In order to satisfy the policy requirements for an annual audit, the school district must select an auditor. The school district submits a call for proposals from auditors, and the auditor is selected based on a qualifications process. The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is completed by the various auditors detailing their individual organizations experiences with school finance. The RFQ and bid packets are received and reviewed, and interviews are conducted. The final end result, the external auditor is selected for the district.

            The audit takes place in our Central Office, where the firm (usually about four individuals) reviews the districts finances. The team reviews many documents, everything from transactions, to debt payments, and payroll, among many other items to determine if the district is financially solvent. As the auditor reviews the documents, they are seeking to determine whether procedures and policies were followed.

            The results of the audit are presented to the school board during a general session in the month of December. This past week, the auditor gave his presentation to the school board, and revealed some interesting facts for the district. The audit report explains the relationships of funds, and gives recommendations for any discrepancies that are revealed.

            Prior to the interview with the Business Manager and listening to the auditor this past week, I had a limited experience to the scope of school finance. Now, my view of school finance has widened even further.

Examining Compensatory Education Allotment in Texas School Districts

Personal Input for Part 6:

Compensatory Education Allotment:
District 1: $ 3,835,006
District 2: $ 633,369

In reference to the Summary of Finance there is a large difference between district 1 and 2 in the areas of Compensatory Education. District 1 receives over 3.8 million dollars funding for Compensatory Education, while District 2 receives only 633 thousand dollars. This shows a significant difference of approximately 3.1 million dollars of revenue. This defines a large need of funds to enhance education specific to related needs of the students.

Group Response to Part 6:

In reference to the Summary of Finance there is a large difference between district 1 and 2 in the areas of Compensatory Education. The Compensatory Education Allotment for District 1 is $3,201,637 more than that of District 2. This shows a significant difference of approximately 3.1 million dollars of revenue. If you take into account the likely needs of a campus with a high number of ELL students and a low socio-economic status, funds such as these could have a huge impact on the education of those students. The resources that they need would be able to be purchased and used to benefit the students in the district.

Examining District Funding and Facilities

Personal Input for Part 5:

The 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV):
District 1: $ 145,968,635
District 2: $ 2,916,187,709

I&S Tax Collections:
District 1: $ 94,871
District 2: $ 8,836,256

Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals:
District 1: $ 572,716
District 2: $ 0

The district that has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds would definitely be District 2 with a collection of more than 8.8 million dollars. There is a reflection of a three year tax collection rate of 98% for the district as well. Thus, a minimum of 8.6 million dollars are collected annually to pay towards annual bond payments.

District 1 has less funds available, and has applied for Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) funds due to low property values; therefore, reflecting not enough I&S funds being available to pay for existing debt on bonds.

I remember back in my graduate studies for principal certification, we conducted a curriculum audit, and part of the audit focused on the physical plant of the school. Just as you mentioned earlier Jason, facilities affect how students can learn. Looking at the textbook and the understanding that District 1 is limited in its funding, and has a large population of economically disadvantaged students is a reflection upon the community. We could add in our discussion the information that Dr. Nicks shared in his article about seeking out opportunities for shared partnerships.

Group Response to Part 5:

Based upon the given information, there is probably a vast difference in the quality of the facilities between the two districts. The property value for District 2 is much higher than District 1; therefore, the facilities in District 2 would most likely be in better condition than District 1. We all know that facilities can affect learning in many ways. With this being said, District 1 should consider developing partnerships for shared programs and facilities. These partnerships have been known to bring in extra funding and collaboration with the community.

Analyzing LISD Maintenance & Operations Funds

Maintenance and Operations Funds are generated to fulfill the operations and maintenance of the local school district. The Superintendent had given me the opportunity to participate in a web conference with him, and the business manager to learn about projected funding, and the revenue the school district had received from the state. Since we have a new Superintendent as well as a new and inexperienced Business Manager, the district has contracted with an outside professional to assist in projecting revenue and understanding the Summary of Finance. In the discussion, it was learned that our school district has been overpaid through the Foundation School Fund, and the district will have to “pay back” funds to the state. I examined the information that was provided by our budgeting expert and compared the information to the Near Final (NF) information from the 2010-11 Summary of Finance and the Comptroller of Public Accounts information from the Property Tax Division.             The main source of revenue for the district is through Foundations School Program (FSP). Last school year, we were paid $ 16,220,516 with the FSP, however, through projections; we will have only earned $ 15,268,821. This reflects a revenue shortfall of $ 951,695 that will be returned to the state. However, in the discussion we determined that the new I&S tax rate was not included in the figures, so we are expecting a smaller return to the state. It was further explained, even though the I&S tax rate has changed, the M&O tax will receive a fractional part of the funding. Additionally our local M&O tax rate of 1.04 generates approximately $ 8,936,439.             The total M & O revenue for our district is approximately, 25.1 million dollars. The main areas of revenue generated come from the regular program allotment of approximately 17 million dollars, the special education adjusted allotment of approximately 2 million dollars, the career and technology allotment of approximately 1.6 million dollars, and the compensatory education allotment of approximately 1.3 million dollars.             Overall, the district is not a wealthy school district from the standpoint of tax collections from business and industry. The district is considered one of the smaller geographical districts within the state, and the sole source of tax income originates from homeowner property taxes. The values of homes in our school district are slightly higher than average, which does assist the school district with tax funds. The school district has to work hard in managing and ensuring funds are budgeted in a manner that reflects responsible spending. After speaking with our hired expert, we have learned to budget what we expect to earn, not what is paid by the state.

Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas Schools

        According to Texas Education Code §42.001(b) all schools districts will be provided funds for public education regardless of the wealth of the district’s property and will receive “substantially equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort, considering all state and local tax revenues of districts after acknowledging all legitimate student and district cost differences.” However, not all school districts are funded equally according to the average daily attendance (ADA). According to the glossary provided by the Texas Association of School Boards, “students with additional education needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education.” The funds are now considered weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Furthermore as mentioned in the weekly lecture, WADA depends on the number of students attending the district and the type of students attending.
     Comparing the two districts (District 1 and District 2) it is clear there are flaws in the school finance system. The total refined ADA adjusted for decline in District 1 was $3,893.75 and $4,032.94 in District 2, with the total WADA being 5,555.815 and 4,794.076 respectfully. District 1 has fewer students, thus resulting in a lower ADA. However, the district has a 93% population of economically disadvantaged students as opposed to the second district with a 21% economically disadvantaged population; this in turn increases their WADA. The district with the higher number of economically disadvantaged students, will receive more appropriations from the state.
     The intent of WADA was to provide more money and professionals working directly with the students. Whether being economically disadvantaged, involved in special education, career and technology courses, bilingual, gifted and talented, or in need of specific assistance with compensatory funding, the funds needed to be successful with these programs had to be larger than traditional ADA funds. Students differ greatly in their educational needs. The costs associated with meeting these needs vary widely. The state finance system assigns an extra weight for each student with certain special needs and uses this to deliver extra money to school districts to help pay those extra costs. Under the Texas finance formula, students who are from low-income families, those who are learning English, children who are gifted, and those who have certain disabilities earn extra money for their school district. These different groups are given a “weight,” meaning that they count like one whole student plus a bit more. To determine a school district’s WADA, the state adds all of these and treats them like extra students who enroll in that school district. For example, a school district may have 100 total students but all the extra credit it receives for students with special needs may add up to a total of 120, so the state gives that school district enough money to educate 120 students. The extra weight is provided because schools often need to provide additional, specialized services for students with special needs.
Examining the districts, the funds generated through WADA was greater with District 1 than District 2. However, in further comparing these districts, the revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate for each district are $5,044 and $7,206. The overall intent was to give assistance to District 1, but District 2 resulted in receiving more funds. This would be due to property values in the area having a significant impact on the funding contributions. Therefore, District 2 was able to hire extra teachers to implement the specific needs of the students as opposed to District 1 having to survive with fewer funds, and provide an education to a needier student population.
     While examining the Summary of Finance and specifically the Tier 1 Funding by Program Intent Code, there is a considerable difference between both districts in many areas. In District 1 and District 2 the Regular Program Allotment had a difference of approximately 1 million dollars in favor of District 2. The Special Education Allotment had a difference of approximately $ 300,000 in favor of District 1. The Career and Technology Allotment had a difference of approximately $ 700,000 in favor of District 1. The Gifted and Talented Allotment was fairly similar, considering the school district can only claim five percent of the ADA for gifted and talented education. The largest difference that was seen was in Compensatory Education Allotment of approximately 3.2 million dollars in favor of District 1. This funding source significantly gives assistance in helping the district support students with specific educational needs, such as reading support. With District 1 being a largely economically disadvantaged district, with a 100% Hispanic population, there would be a greater need to offer assistance for specific needs and prevent at risk students from dropping out of school. These funds are based upon the economically disadvantaged population. There was approximately an $ 800,000 difference in the Bilingual Allotment in support of District 1.
     Using the WADA figures and the figures in part 1, the total target revenue for the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) each district are approximately 28 million for District 1 and 35 million for District 2. Even though both school districts are fairly comparable in size, the main reason for the difference is due to the property values in each district. District 1 has a lower property value than district 2. The Maintenance and Operations Budget is the basic budget for school districts across the state. This is where much of the state revenue and the local tax end up. With this money, many programs are funded within a school district. With school finance in trying times right now, it is evident that the M and O budget will be affected negatively and positively.
The staffing for each school district is significantly different. While there is the same number of teachers, the number of professional is different by about 40. Given the average salary for this type of position is 50,000, you can see how there would be a difference in budget with this area alone. The number of professionals on a campus could negatively affect a school by having fewer resources to go to for help and needs. This, in turn, could negatively affect the academic achievement of the students. Having finance system that more equally distributes funds could help with this.
     Property tax is one of the main areas the M and O budget is funded. Given the difference in the value of the property in both districts, the resulting factor caused different funding amounts to be allocated. The number of Economically Disadvantaged students in District 1 helps to offset this some. With WADA, it is so important to have students input into the PEIMS system with the correct eligibilities. Special Education receives “X” amount, Economically Disadvantaged receives a different amount. Not including the other specially funded programs that will all receive different funds. Students all across the country need an education and should have equal access to that education. It is up to the people in Austin to help get this accomplished.

Analyzing School Finance Issues in Two Texas Districts

Personal Input for Part 2:

The revenue for WADA @ Compressed Rate was
District 1: 5044, District 2: 7206

Total Target Revenue for the M&O Fund
District 1: 28,023,530.86 District 2: 34,546,111.66

I was unsure on the number of employees - since I looked on the summary of finance and the line that stated "Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors" stated the following numbers:
District 1: 281 District 2: 307

In contrast I noticed on the Snapshot Data: the number of teachers and professional support staff, I did come up with the same as you both had. With this information - the number of teachers and professional support staff that would have reflected would be:

District 1: 265 teachers + 49 professional support staff = 314
District 2: 265 teachers + 34 professional support staff = 299

There is a discrepancy between the two documents:
District 1: 33 positions
District 2: 8 positions

I did figure the Total Target Revenue even further, to the adjusted target revenue, however, I am unsure whether we were supposed to do this or not. I used the funding formula's that were found in the School Finance 101: Funding of Texas Public Schools information released by Texas Education Agency in April, 2010. If anyone thinks we should figure this information, just let me know, and I will post the entire breakdown.

Group Response to Part 2:

The revenue for WADA @ Compressed Rate was

District 1: 5044, District 2: 7206

Total Target Revenue for the M&O Fund

District 1: 28,023,530.86 District 2: 34,546,111.66

In the summary of finance on the line that stated "Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors" offered the following numbers:

District 1: 281 District 2: 307

In contrast it was noted on the District Snapshot Data:

District 1: 265 teachers + 49 professional support staff = 314

District 2: 265 teachers + 34 professional support staff = 299

There is a discrepancy between the two documents:

District 1: 33 positions

District 2: 8 positions

 The total numbers of teachers are the same at 265, counselors, nurses, and librarians fall under professional support staff and make up 8% and 6% of the total staff FTE’s. This comes out to approximately 49.5 FTE’s for district 1 and 33.5 FTE’s for district 2.

Comparing and Analyzing District Snapshots

Personal Input for Part 1:

The numbers above are the same that I had found as well. Another possible reason for the differences in the WADA is the larger popoulation of students involved in CTE courses and labeled special education. District 1 had a 9% special education rate resulting in 351.27 students receive special education services, as opposed to District 2 with a 7% special education population resulting in 272.30 students receiving special education services. In addition, there is a higher population of students involved in CTE courses in District 1 - 24% of students are involved in some sort of CTE program resulting in 936.72 students participating. District 2 has 14% of the student population involved in CTE courses resulting in only 544.6 students involved. More students receiving weighted funding in these courses allows for more revenue for the district.

In reference to the Summary of Finance there is a large difference between district 1 and 2 in the areas of Compensatory Education. District 1 receives over 3.8 million dollars funding for Compensatory Education, while District 2 receives only 633 thousand dollars. This shows a significant difference of approximately 3.1 million dollars of revenue. This defines a large need of funds to enhance education specific to related needs of the students.

Group Response to Part 1:

Economically Disadvantaged:

District 1: 93.3%District 2: 20.7 %
Total Refined ADA (WADA) for Decline:

District 1: 3,893.754District 2: 4,032.937

WADA:
District 1: 5,555.815District 2: 4,794.076

WADA for the first district is higher because of the number of students who are eligible for additional funding. Districts 1 and 2 have very different demographics. District 1 has 100% Hispanic. District 2 is more complex with 4% African American, 16% Hispanic, 79% White, and 1% other. District 1 probably has more bilingual students, thus more funding for this district. In addition, there are more special education students and economically disadvantaged students which provide more funding.
According to the lecture, WADA depends on the number of students attending the district and the TYPE of students attending. The first district has fewer students, thus has a lower ADA. However, they have more economically disadvantaged students which increases their WADA. The district with the higher number of economically disadvantaged students, receive more allocations from the state.

Another possible reason for the differences in the WADA is the larger population of students involved in CTE courses and labeled special education. District 1 had a 9% special education rate resulting in 351.27 students receive special education services, as opposed to District 2 with a 7% special education population resulting in 272.30 students receiving special education services. In addition, there is a higher population of students involved in CTE courses in District 1 - 24% of students are involved in some sort of CTE program resulting in 936.72 students participating. District 2 has 14% of the student population involved in CTE courses resulting in only 544.6 students involved. More students receiving weighted funding in these courses allows for more revenue for the district.

In reference to the Summary of Finance there is a large difference between district 1 and 2 in the areas of Compensatory Education. District 1 receives over 3.8 million dollars funding for Compensatory Education, while District 2 receives only 633 thousand dollars. This shows a significant difference of approximately 3.1 million dollars of revenue. This defines a large need of funds to enhance education specific to related needs of the students.