Finance Week 3 Part 4

Huffman ISD is the only 3A school in Harris County. However, we are similar to schools in our particular area in the sense that the vast majority of our tax revenue is residential. In fact, our residential tax value constitutes 74% of our base. Simply put, the majority of the local tax burden that runs our district rides on the shoulders of the homeowner (the majority of which are our parents).  It is the secondary funding source for our M & O. Our revenue sources are $8,490,000 locally, $12,778,000 from the state. Our WADA is $3789 under Senate Bill 1. Our revenue per WADA is $5150. So understandably, the majority of salaries and operating costs (which fall under M & O) are funded primarily by state revenues, and residential tax sources.

Our district enrollment is approximately 3200. Interestingly, we are similar sized to the schools we have been sampling this week so all this hits close to home for me. Our economically disadvantaged is 31%, the majority of which is at the elementary level. In fact, our elementary receives Title funds. We have a healthy fund balance in excess of $6,000,000. In fact, this Tuesday, following a board meeting, it was announced that each full time employee would receive a $600 Christmas bonus (of course they didn’t call it that). This is testament to the fact that our district is in great shape financially.

We are not a Chapter school. However, we have an overabundance as compared to our WADA. Percent spent on instruction is 57.4% and is allocated and spent properly. Our district is in great shape due to good planning, and sound accounting practices.

Stakeholder Input in Budget Development

Below is a listing of different stakeholder inputs in the budget process. It is obviously important that, when there are multiple parties requesting funding, much consideration is made as to where money will be spent in order to achieve the greatest results and meet the greatest needs. With input from the DEIC, and strict adherence to fashioning the budget so that it meets its goals, budgets can be an incredibly powerful tool in the educational process.

What types of input could you receive for budget development from each of the following individuals or groups:

Ø  Central Office Administrators and Staff- Examples would be curriculum needs from curriculum coordinators, and special service needs from special service directors. Have specific needs for their individual programs and departments. 

Ø  Principals- any and all needs that are specific to individual campuses

Ø  Site Based Decision Making Committees- on campus, bring campus needs to principal for consideration. At district level, set goals that drive budget.

Ø  District Improvement Committee- see above

Ø  Teacher Organizations- don't play a major role in our district other than providing opportunities for insurance. In other districts provide an opportuntity for teacher representation associated with needs.

Ø  Key Stakeholders- all have individuals needs and wants. Play a key role in bringing budget considerations to individual principals and program directors who in turn carry to district-level budget meetings.

Ø  Board of Trustees- The local education association controls programming within the district. Their goals, coupled with those of the SBDM, drive the budget.

Superintendent Involvement in Budget Development

Summary:

Our superintendent, in coordination with our CFO, campus principals, and program directors, guides the development of each year’s budget.

Some of the considerations are as follows:

1. analysis of previous budgets
2. review of needed adjustments made throughout the course of the year
3. short range needs
4. capital outlay expenditures

Our budget is driven by the goals identified by our DEIC (our site based decision making committee). Information is derived from campus principals as to the needs of each campus. Additionally, directors from support services are involved for needs serving multiple campuses. Common examples of this would be a transportation director with a need for multiple new buses for the district, or a maintenance director needing new roofs for structures.

The superintendent is ultimately responsible for being able to explain the budget to the board of trustees. To say they must be able to “defend” it sounds somewhat divisive. It is not the intention (in most cases) but is accurate in description none the less. They must be knowledgeable enough to be able to answer any questions and provide explanation when the budget is put before the board for approval. Hopefully, there is conversation prior to approval if there are any questionable components of it. Nobody likes surprises and most especially at board meetings. J

True involvement of stakeholders is critical in developing a working budget. Although our superintendent has an excellent working knowledge of the needs of our district on a macro level, no one has more intricate knowledge of the needs of individual campuses than our principals. Working together with counselors, team leaders, assistant principals, and coordinators, they work to bring a comprehensive campus budget for consideration in the district budget. It is in this way that budgets are most successful in our district. I’m not sure everyone gets everything they want, but they definitely get what they need.

Reflection:

None of this is much of a surprise to me as I have been around the budget process for more than a dozen years in various capacities. Although organized, it is a fairly detailed process. Additionally, movement of monies beyond their original functions requires board approval. Therefore, it is extremely important to get it right the first time in order to avoid snags. I believe our district does it right. The budget isn’t micromanaged, and the right stakeholders are allowed input.

TEA budget guideline reflection

One of the first thing that stands out in my mind after reading through the TEA guideline is the fact that the budgeting process is comprised of three separate phases: 1) planning, 2) preparation, and 3) evaluation. The critical components of these three phases are listed respectively:

1. -defining both district and campus goals and the development of programming that helps attain those goals.
2. The allocation of budgetary resources to these programs is the actual preparation phase.
3. In the evaluation phase we typically determine whether the resources used were successful in creating the effect we sought.

I was unfamiliar with the different types of budgets in use throughout Texas school districts. I guess I assumed because it was so heavily tied into state regulations that the state of Texas has a very specific “fill in the blank” format to use. I had no idea there were that many budgeting approaches in use. Our district predominantly uses the site-based budgeting concept. A great deal of control is given to campus administrators as far as budget development and resource allocation is concerned.

In reference to my aforementioned assumption, I also learned specifically what state guidelines are outlined concerning the school budget. The following concepts are outlined in TEC concerning school budgets:

1. The superintendent is the budget officer for the district.
2. There are specific dates that the budget must be both prepared and adopted by.
3. The budget must be adopted in a public board meeting.
4. A summary of the budget must be posted on the district website (or central office if no website is available).
5. No funds may be expended other than provided for in the budget. Amendments are possible by the board.
6. The budget must be prepared under state guidelines and generally accepted accounting principles.
7. The budget generally must be adopted prior to adopting the tax rate.
8. If a tax rate is adopted prior to budget adoption, there must be a published open meeting to discuss the rate.
9. The adopted budget must be posted on the school website where it must remain linked until the third anniversary of its adoption date.

There are additional requirements but the above form the basis for state regulation of the budget process.

I could pretty much utilize ANY information that would guide me in budget development as I have never had control over anything other than function 36. Some of the things I learned were that although there definitely is state regulation and guideline, there still remains a large amount of local control over the process.

Secondly, exposure to the different budgeting approaches will better enable me to ultimately come up with an approach I feel comfortable with. With that being said, I love empowering people. I believe the site-based approach is the style for me.

Goal Driven Budget- Week 2 Finance

Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Arterbury have a great discussion on the true definition of a collaborative, goal driven budget. Of particular interest to me was the fact that they recognized that there are numerous district improvement plans that fail to reflect the goals of the board of trustees. In referring to the “team of eight” they include the superintendent as well.

A goal driven budget is just that. Working together with stakeholders, need areas are identified (whether district wide, campus level, or support services or programs), goals are developed, and funding is directed towards achieving those goals. It is perplexing to me that some districts do not ultimately follow this approach in the development of their improvement plans.

Huffman ISD does a great job of using its district improvement plan as the driving force for budgeting. We have an ideal situation right now within our district where the board and administration are, and having been, working together as a cohesive group. It is amazing how fluid things can happen when this is the case. Together, along with stakeholder, we have developed the ASPIRE initiative. It addresses six individualized areas in which we hope to improve. They are active student body; safe, secure, student-centered finance and facilities; personalized staff/student relationships built; cutting edge technology; responsible and character-strong kids; career connections and excellence; and improvement of instruction through C-Scope.

Upon review of our ASPIRE initiative, it is clear to see that our budget is reflective of attainment of these goals. Our district improvement plan included an itemized chart of forms of 6 goals, incorporating ASPIRE elements in each. Each goal is outlined with various strategies, activities designed to achieve each goal, and both funding amounts and sources listed for the attainment of each.

Without question, Huffman ISD’s individualized campus plans are a “version of the vision” reflecting the goals and expectations of both the district improvement plan and the desires of the board of trustees.

School Finance-

(wiki group work as seen on Jeff Nation's wiki)
I felt that one of the first major impacts actually occurred prior to the organization of the state of Texas. I believe it is of significance because it effected the same population of people, regardless ot temporary nationality. It occurred when Mexico officially (if in writing only) recognized a need for education in the territory and initially set forth measures to create a school system. Prior to the recognition of this need, the area sat stangnant and largely uneducated. Due to the fact that the mandate was never acted upon, Texans were able to use the measure as ammunition in their efforts to legitimize secession.

Second was when Lamar established the school land grant which allowed land for schools to not only built on, but also to sell, lease, or use for whatever means necessary in order to raise revenue for operations.

Lastly, I believe that another landmark event occurred when the Texas Constitution called for free schools and a source of revenue to run them. It was only then that our system was legitimized and initial framework was set to move forward with educating all children.