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.