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.

DIP Comparison

The comparison between Austin ISD’s District Improvement Plan (DIP) and that of my home district reveals two very different styles of DIP.  While there were some elements that were similar, the overall structures were not similar.

The Austin ISD DIP was a very detailed and comprehensive report.  It was compiled much in the way a “state of the district” type of document would be compiled.  It included a wide variety of information such as budget updates, meeting minutes and attendance, discipline reports, community outreach program information and notes, subcommittee reports, and updated policies.  As for my home district ISD, none of the above-mentioned report sections or topics was covered.

The DIP for my home district was completely aligned with the district’s stated mission.  It was organized in a method by which each goal was tied to a component of the district’s vision 2020 commitment.  The entire report consisted of prescribed actions, desired results, necessary resources, and timelines.  Each goal was written as a SMART goal.  Specific budgeted resources were not itemized nor were they quantified.  For each goal, only the source of funds was listed, i.e., “district budget”, “SIP budget”, “C & I budget”, “Bond 2011 budget”.  Our DIP took a similar form as was seen in Appendix B of Austin ISD's DIP.

Overall, my home district has a document that is limited to SMART goals for district growth with no detail as to specific spending or sources of funds.  The Austin ISD’s list of actual improvement plan information spans only three pages of 53 total pages.

Equality, Equity, & Adequacy

Equality vs. equity vs. adequacy is a long-standing argument that continues to makes headlines as well as case law.  Here are a few of my thoughts.

Equality is easy.  Equality means all students receive access to the same types of basic educational programs.  While easy to implement, it is not in the best interest of our students.  Each student has different needs.  We cannot assume that a one-size-fits-all approach to education will meet the needs of an ever-changing world.  For that reason, both the courts as well as educators that utilize research-based solutions utilize an equitable approach to education.

Equity in education leads to an environment in which the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.  An example that I like to use is the 4 x 4 approach to high school graduation standards in Texas.  In science, each student is required to successfully complete four science courses.  There is a menu of choices available.  While certain courses are compulsory (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), there are options. Specifically, during the fourth year students may take a science course that meets their individual interests / needs such as Forensics, Principles of Technology, Earth and Space Science, Environmental Systems, and Human Anatomy and Physiology.  The greater number of offerings a school makes available, the more equitable the situation.  Equity is a very important standard to understand and implement.

Adequate refers to the school district’s ability to provide educational programs that create success for all students --- Adequacy leads to Equity. Adequacy creates a moving target.  As society changes, so does their definition of adequate.  Likewise, the immeasurability of adequacy as a standard leads special interest groups to protest, demand, and even sue for greater access to services under the auspice of equity. 

I have learned that while equal is relatively easy to achieve, it is not the most appropriate option for public education today.  Equity is the standard to which we will be held.  It is the standard, too, to which the courts decree.  An adequate education is an equitable education and vice-versa.  

Basic Issues That Affect Texas Public School Finance

My list of 3 basic issues that affect Texas public school funding are:

Structural deficit due to the 2006 reduction in property taxes and failure of the Texas Franchise Tax.

• The Texas Franchise Tax revision that was enacted in 2006 was designed to:
•  Align the tax with a modern economy,
•  Create a simpler business tax,
•  Eliminate tax planning opportunities, and
•  Raise roughly $3 billion in annual new state revenue.
• The reality, 6 years later is that tax collections have been much lower than anticipated.  The lack of projected collections has created a “structural deficit” that fails to meet the needs of Texas public education.
• The shortfall directly contributed to the current education funding crisis in Texas.

Texas’ growing ELL population results in increased cost for schools when meeting requirements for ELL education.

• Recent estimates suggest that 20% of public school students are English-language learners (ELL).
• Texas public schools are mandated under law to provide multilingual classrooms, research-based programs, and sheltered ESL course sections for ELLs (dependent upon additional factors such as age, years in U.S., etc.).
• The cost of educating ELL students is higher than for non-ELL students
• While weighted formulas are used to increase funds based upon the number of ELL students within a district, the weights are inadequate and not based upon actual costs.  The situation creates an increase in school funding, but the increase is typically inadequate to meet the needs of a growing ELL student population.
• Texas public schools add 80,000 students per year.  The rate of ELL student growth is estimated to be twice the growth of non-ELL students (38.4% to 17.4% according to expert testimony on 11/23/2012 by expert witness, Delia Pompa, at the school funding litigation in Travis County).

Murkiness of the term “Adequate” fails to adequately quantify the level to which schools must be funded.  When the Texas Supreme court last ruled on school funding, it referred to the term adequate when determining appropriateness of funding.

• Who can determine the adequateness of funding?  What IS adequate?  Who decides?  Is adequate included in our definition of equitable? 
• Adequate is an ill-defined term that has no set of measurable standards for comparison.  To rely on the term adequate is inadequate.

I certainly can see how so many issues are involved in school finance formulation and estimation.  One thing is very clear to me, though…

With Texas involved in its sixth school funding litigation since 1984, we can no longer look for a “quick-fix” or “Band-Aid” approach as we have done in the past.  I see that it is time for the State of Texas to completely overhaul her system of school finance to reflect the needs of an increasingly diverse population.

My Top Three Events in Texas Public School Funding History

Good morning and Happy Thanksgiving.

My list of the top 3 events in Texas school finance includes:

The Gilmer-Aiken Laws

While much of the school funding provisions in the Act are long gone, I feel that many of  the remaining provisions are still relevant.

o   I view the Gilmer-Aiken era as the “birth of modern Texas education legislation.”

o   It established a framework which included the Commissioner of Education, TEA, and the SBOE.

o   It formalized the concept of a defined school year.

o   It set forth an organized method for collecting and allocating state funds for education.

o   Essentially, its structure and basic tenets still exist in 2012.

Rodriguez v. San Antonio

      While the funding issue was relevant, I view this case as important for a much different reason.

o   The Supreme Court set an important precedent when it ruled against the findings of the Texas courts in terms of the 14^th Amendment.

o   The decision guaranteed that all future litigation related to school funding as an equity issue would be handled by Texas courts as a compelling State interest, rather than a Federal interest.

o   In doing so, the Texas Supreme Court’s relevance, make-up, and decision-making duties became increasingly important.  Also, timeliness for final decisions is improved since U.S. Supreme Court challenges based on the 14^th Amendment will not be heard.

Decisions of the Special Legislative Session of 2006

·        The financial solutions set forth by the Texas Legislature during the 2006 special session (following   Friendswood) have had long-standing effects on Texas education including:

o   THE FUNDING SOLUTIONS WERE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY! – Yet here we are, entering 2013 under the same TEMPORARY financial infrastructure.

o   The existing formula has led to a structural funding deficit while the cost of education has increased steadily and funding has been flat.

o   A business franchise tax was put into place to help recapture more funds to take the place of decreased property tax collections (cut by 1/3 – M&O rate cut from $ 1.50 to $ 1.04) and it did not generate enough replacement revenue.  To make matters worse, certain business were exempted from the tax in 2008 therefore producing even less funds.

o   The 2006 school finance solution has not been adjusted for current instructional requirements and rising performance standards.

o   The 2006 funding solution led to a $ 27 Billion deficit for the 2012 – 2013 biennium.

I am interested in your thoughts.  Please join the conversation.