Annual Financial Audit

The Deputy Superintendent for Finance was not physically able to meet me for an interview.  I submitted the questions via email.  The responses below are as received.

How is the external auditor selected?

The District employs a full time Internal Auditor, whose reporting responsibility is directly to the Board of Trustees.

The District maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual appropriated (official) budget as adopted by the Board of Trustees. Activities in the General Fund, Child Nutrition Special Revenue Fund, and Debt Service Fund are included in the official budget. The level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) is at the fund-function level as required by the Texas Education Agency. In addition, lower level organizational units' expenditures are controlled through the District's automated financial computer systems at varying combinations of the account code structure. The system also provides controls limiting accessibility to budgetary account codes. Oversight control of all District expenditures is maintained by the Financial Services staff.

Understanding Teachers' Salaries

We monitor other districts’ salary schedules regularly and make necessary modifications to our salary schedules to remain competitive.  Based on the State budget deficit and funding reductions for public education over the 2011 biennium, an early recommendation in our budget review process last year involved freezing salaries in an effort to preserve as many jobs as possible.

The 2011-12 budget froze salaries and the original plan for 2012-13 was to do the same.  Freezing salaries meant that we had to lower our beginning teacher starting salary and reduce our hire in schedule to avoid a situation where a new teacher would have a salary greater than an existing teacher with the same or greater years of experience (assuming appropriate performance evaluations).  The thought was that this strategy best supported the district’s mission, values, focus, and goals given the difficult financial circumstances. 

Reflections on Differentiated Staffing

Our group came up with a model in which certified (highly-qualified) personnel would lead a group of lesser qualified "educators" in scaffolded vertical teams.  It would allow for a career ladder for those that wished to serve at higher levels as well as financial flexibility at the lower levels of each team. 

I, personally, dissent in this conversation.  To implement differentiated staffing in this model de-values certified teachers as educators and farms out tasks to uncertified "educators" such as aids, student teachers, and interns.  I feel that to do so robs students of quality in the classroom.

It is a solution that only serves to decrease instructional costs and that is unacceptable. In the spirit of the guiding question listed in the instructions above, I cannot write a single line, let alone 1-2 pages on “How differentiated staffing might impact and/or improve the goals of that campus.”

Economies of Scale Comparison

The analysis of the economies of scale for the two Sample ISDs is shown below:

Indicator	Small District	Large District
Total Revenues	$ 8,823,250	$ 329,638,930
Revenues per Student	$ 10,529	$ 10,316
Total Operational Expenditures	$ 7,216,335	$ 284,664,004
Expenditures per Student	$ 8,611	$ 8,908
Average Teacher Salary	$ 39,771	$ 50,307
Total Students	830	32,326

What strikes me immediately are the specific similarities between the two districts with regard to their revenues as well as revenues per student.  Specifically, the smaller district actually receives more revenue per student than the larger district.  In addition, the operational expenditures per student are also similar, with minimal difference between the two districts.

FIRST Accountability System - Top Three Indicators

FIRST is a financial accountability system for Texas school districts developed by the Texas Education Agency in response to Senate Bill 875 of the 76th Legislature in 1999.  The primary goal of FIRST is to achieve quality performance in the management of school districts’ financial resources, a goal made more significant due to the complexity of accounting associated with Texas’ school finance system.

The FIRST rating shows that schools are accountable not only for student learning, but also for achieving these results cost-effectively and efficiently.

The FIRST rating system assigns one of four financial accountability ratings to Texas school districts based on 22 indicators –

•  the highest being “Superior Achievement”, followed by
•  “Above-Standard Achievement”, 
• “Standard Achievement”, and 
• “Substandard Achievement”.

Analysis of the Effects of Target Revenue on Two Texas ISDs

When taking an initial look at the two districts, I immediately noticed that there was a similarity in size.  Unfortunately, that is where the similarities end.  Looking at the chart below, one is able to determine that there is a distinct difference between the two student populations.

	District 1	District 2
Total Students	3,903	3,890
% Econ Disadvantaged	93.3	20.7
% LEP	48	2
% SPED	9	2
% CATE	24	14

                                                                                                                                           

Upon further review, it was noticed that District 1, by all appearances, has a student population that will be much more resource consumptive to educate. 

Additional Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process

I had the opportunity to visit with the Assistant Superintendent for Finance of my district.  He spoke very strongly as to the need for a strong support structure within the district for successful budget development.  The idea of clear communications became central to our discussion, just as it did during my conversations with the Superintendent.

I asked him about the contributions each of the following individuals or groups could provide toward the budget process.  I have summarized his responses below.

Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

In our previous exercise we discussed and determined and five important dates that districts observe during the budgeting process.  I spend a significant amount of time outlining the specific, state-mandated events, while some stressed their own internal, district-mandated events.  The assignment did not specify, thus allowing for both approaches.  During the activity, I utilized the TEA Budgeting Guidelines as well as the Texas Education Code (TEC) to formulate my answers.

• The activity will help me in my future as a District Administrator in that I became aware of the legal requirements for public school budgets in Texas.  Specific requirements and definitions include:

• The superintendent is the budget officer for the district and is responsible for Preparing and submitting to the Board a proposed budget as well as administering the budget;

• The district budget must be approved by a date set by the state board of education, currently August 31 (June 30 if the district uses a July 1 FY start date). Likewise, the district budget must be prepared by August 20 (June 19 if the district uses a July 1 fiscal year start date);

• The Board of trustees must call a public meeting of the board of trustees, no fewer than 10 days and no more than 30 days prior to its approval. Any taxpayer in the district may be present and participate in the meeting; and

• Each district must file its budget with by the date prescribed in the annual system guidelines and set by the State Board of Education (SBOE).

My previous knowledge level was limited by my understanding of the legal requirements of the budgeting process.  I knew that, on the local level, deadlines were set and steps were taken to ensure the budget was prepared prior to the beginning of a new school year.  After working through this activity, I now better understand that all district activities are in response to state-mandated steps and deadlines.

Budget Development Deadlines

When making an attempt to determine the “list of events and important dates” that are utilized to develop a district budget seem to be split along two different lines.  Those two lines are:

1.      State-mandated dates; and

2.      Locally determined (soft) dates.

To address the state-mandated dates there are three that most groups identify.  They include:

1.      The budget must be prepared by 8/20 (6/19 for districts that observe a 7/1 FY start);

2.      The budget must be approved by 8/30 (6/30 for districts that observe a 7/1 FY start); and

3.      The annual budget adoption (public budget meeting) must be announced no more than 30 days, but no less than 10 days prior to the meeting.

The above mentioned dates are set within the Texas Education Code (TEC).  Two additional dates that are state-mandated, but receive much less attention are:

1.      The district budget must be filed with the State of Texas by a date set by the State Board of Education (SBOE).  That date may change and is not written within the TEC as the previously mentioned events; and

2.      The chief Appraiser shall prepare and certify an estimate of the taxable value of district property by April 30^th of each year if requested by the District (see note below):

• The purpose is to determine values of property in that taxing unit for the taxing unit's budgetary purposes.  This provision does not apply if the District notifies the chief appraiser that District elects not to receive the estimate or assistance as described by statute.

In addition to state-mandated deadlines, each district also sets internal deadlines.  Deadlines for actions such as:

1.      Projection of anticipated enrollment / revenue projections which often occurs in January;

2.      Budget workshops / campus-based budget requests that occur during the Feb – March time period; and

3.      Board of Trustees budget retreats / preparation sessions to discuss budget allocations and preparations prior to finalizing the budget.  Sessions often occur between April and June.

Of course, internal dates are relative to the Fiscal Year under which a district operates.  The dates above are for districts with a September 1 Fiscal Year.  If a district were to operate on a July 1 Fiscal Year, I would anticipate those district deadlines would shift by 2-3 months.

Superintendent’s Roles and Responsibilities in the Budgeting Process

As I spoke to my Superintendent, a recurring theme resounded with me.  At each turn, she mentioned communication.  The role of the Superintendent in the budget process is officially defined as, “Preparing and submitting to the Board a proposed budget and administering the budget,” per our District Board Policy.  The steps that must be taken in order to complete the task are many, and communication is at the center or the process.

The Goal-driven Budget

A goal-driven budget is a budget in which the allocation of resources within the district is made in an equitable manner that serves as a reflection of the districts Vision.  The allocation and distribution of funds is made in an effort to improve programs, services, and results.  Each district in Texas creates a district improvement plan (DIP) that outlines the plans and goals for the district.  Each school within the district will also create a campus improvement plan (CIP) that states the goals, actions, and resources necessary to meet the goals of the campus.  In each case, the goals, actions, and resource allocation within the district should mirror the Vision of the Board of Trustees.  When all resource allocation is made with the Vision of the Board in mind, then a goal-driven budget has been made.

In my district, a failure to meet AYP led our Board of Trustees to refocus our district’s Vision.  In doing so, the decision was made to allocate additional Federal funds toward the creation of a PLC model within our district.  Additionally, within the PLC model, the decision was made to focus on project-based learning (PBL) and differentiated instruction (DI) models of learning.  The determination to address the needs of our students through DI and PBL reflected the Board’s Vision which includes, “Where all students learn, grow and succeed.”

In order to implement the new programs, significant resources had to be allocated.  To improve our attendance (for WADA), new programs were purchased to improve accountability for schools and parents to enhance our daily attendance-taking procedures.  The new programs required a significant investment in training, materials, and time.  Expenses for training included travel, books, speakers’ fees, substitute staff, and staff development services fees (for outside PD).  All of those expenses were allocated based upon a very detailed plan that was created by a district leadership committee and submitted through the Superintendent to the board of Trustees. 

All of our purpose-driven budgeting was made with a communication and feedback loop through our Board of Trustees and DIP committee (which includes community stakeholders) so that all district stakeholders had the opportunity to know that these systems and allocations were made with the district Vision in mind.