District Funding and Facilities
District 1 District 2
Determine the 2010 Local District Property Value $ 145,968,635.00 $ 2,916,187,709.00
Determine the I&S ( Interest and Sinking Fund) Tax Collections $ 94,871.00 $ 8,836,256.00
Determine the Chapter 46 (EDA) totals $ 572,716.00 $ -
When looking at the above figures you would be fine to say that District 2 has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds. District 2 has an enormously larger Property Value and their I&S Fund is considerably larger. With this in mind it is much easier for District 2 to provide new and updated facilities as well as maintain existing facilities. This is not saying that District 1 does not have new and updated facilities or that they fail to maintain current facilities, it just means that District 2 has more opportunity to do more. Part of the superintendent’s job is to provide a safe and secure environment conducive to learning. Being able to maintain facilities and keep them up to date allows them to provide this environment. With all things in mind I will say that District 2 does probably have the better facilities than District 2 solely on the Property Value and I&S Fund. I cannot say that District 1’s facilities do not provide a safe and secure environment conducive to learning but I can say that District is able to provide more opportunities.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
M&O Funding
M&O Funding
The maintenance and operations (M&O) fund at RISD is funded by three sources. Two of these sources a substantial in the funding and the other do not even provide 1% of the revenue for the M&O fund. The two major revenues are State Funds and the other is Local/Intermediate funds. State funding is $10,017,200.00 which is 72% of RISD’s revenue and Local/Intermediate funding is $4,005,336.00 which is 28% of RISD total revenue. Federal funding for the M&O fund adds in a mere 45,009 which is less than 1%. These figures clearly show that RISD operates primarily on state funds.
After reviewing the revenue for RISD and comparing it with the expenditures, we have a balanced budget each year. RISD expenditures never exceed the actual revenue. RISD has earned the State's Highest Fiscal Accountability Rating for the past three years. The Superior Achievement rating is the state’s highest, demonstrating the quality of Rusk ISD’s financial management and reporting system.
When looking at expenditures I had the opportunity to evaluate the object codes and the function codes. Object Code 6100 is the payroll code. Payroll accounts for 75% of the M&O expenditure at Rusk.7.23 million of the payroll is in Function 11 which is instruction with the remainder of the 10.5 million designated in other functions. With this in mind basically we spend all of our state revenue on payroll and all of the districts Local/ Intermediate funds are responsible for all other areas of the M&O expenditures. This is something that is very appropriate to point out to individuals who have negative comments about where the districts money is being spent. It is easy to tell them that ¾ of our revenue goes towards staffing.
The other object codes that we spend the remaining 25% on are; Professional and Contracted Services (6200), Supplies and Materials (6300), Other Operating Costs (6400), and Capital Outlay, (6600). Professional and Contacted services are 10% of total expenditures. These services consist mainly of utilities, custodial services, and maintenance labor. Supplies and Materials fall in at 8% of expenditures. Over half of this object fund is spent in function 11, which is instruction. The other majority of funding is for custodial supplies with the remainder being minimal in each function. Other Operating Costs is at 5% and Capital Outlay is 2%. The majority of Operating Cost comes from travel, registration, and staff development. Capital Outlay represents funds associated with funding to certain departments.
Overall the evaluation of the RISD budget reflects good use of the revenue funds allocated to expenditures. We continually have a balanced budget and funds are appropriated efficiently. RISD focuses the majority of its funding on instruction with a minimal amount on its funding elsewhere. In my opinion RISD budgeting is very well deserving of the State's Highest Fiscal Accountability Rating for the past three years. I continue to be amazed at the performance of our district pertaining to the budget.
The maintenance and operations (M&O) fund at RISD is funded by three sources. Two of these sources a substantial in the funding and the other do not even provide 1% of the revenue for the M&O fund. The two major revenues are State Funds and the other is Local/Intermediate funds. State funding is $10,017,200.00 which is 72% of RISD’s revenue and Local/Intermediate funding is $4,005,336.00 which is 28% of RISD total revenue. Federal funding for the M&O fund adds in a mere 45,009 which is less than 1%. These figures clearly show that RISD operates primarily on state funds.
After reviewing the revenue for RISD and comparing it with the expenditures, we have a balanced budget each year. RISD expenditures never exceed the actual revenue. RISD has earned the State's Highest Fiscal Accountability Rating for the past three years. The Superior Achievement rating is the state’s highest, demonstrating the quality of Rusk ISD’s financial management and reporting system.
When looking at expenditures I had the opportunity to evaluate the object codes and the function codes. Object Code 6100 is the payroll code. Payroll accounts for 75% of the M&O expenditure at Rusk.7.23 million of the payroll is in Function 11 which is instruction with the remainder of the 10.5 million designated in other functions. With this in mind basically we spend all of our state revenue on payroll and all of the districts Local/ Intermediate funds are responsible for all other areas of the M&O expenditures. This is something that is very appropriate to point out to individuals who have negative comments about where the districts money is being spent. It is easy to tell them that ¾ of our revenue goes towards staffing.
The other object codes that we spend the remaining 25% on are; Professional and Contracted Services (6200), Supplies and Materials (6300), Other Operating Costs (6400), and Capital Outlay, (6600). Professional and Contacted services are 10% of total expenditures. These services consist mainly of utilities, custodial services, and maintenance labor. Supplies and Materials fall in at 8% of expenditures. Over half of this object fund is spent in function 11, which is instruction. The other majority of funding is for custodial supplies with the remainder being minimal in each function. Other Operating Costs is at 5% and Capital Outlay is 2%. The majority of Operating Cost comes from travel, registration, and staff development. Capital Outlay represents funds associated with funding to certain departments.
Overall the evaluation of the RISD budget reflects good use of the revenue funds allocated to expenditures. We continually have a balanced budget and funds are appropriated efficiently. RISD focuses the majority of its funding on instruction with a minimal amount on its funding elsewhere. In my opinion RISD budgeting is very well deserving of the State's Highest Fiscal Accountability Rating for the past three years. I continue to be amazed at the performance of our district pertaining to the budget.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Analyzing School Finance
Analyzing School Finance Issues
The Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate is substantially different between the Districts provided. District 1 stands at 5044.00 and District 2 is at 7206.00. Both districts have approxiametly the same number of students but the WADA@ Compressed Rate is much more for District 2. This is easy to see if you look at the Local District Property Values of each district and keep in mind “hold harmless”. This allowed district 2 to hold on to their local revenue and therefore made their compressed rate much higher.
The Total Target Revenue is slightly higher in District 2 at 34.5 million that in District 1 at 28 million. Once again the main reason for this is the higher Revenue per WADA @ compressed rate. When you multiply WADA times Compressed Rate WADA, District 2 stands about 6.5 million more.
District 2 has more teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than does District 1. District 2 has 307 where as District has 281. This throws up a red flag to me. I would think that these districts are backwards. Due to the large number of students with additional educational needs in District 1, it would appear that District 1 needed to be the district with more personnel. District 2 has less WADA but still maintains 26 more teachers. For such examples as this, I feel that “hold harmless” is not making Texas School Districts equitable and should be done away with.
The Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate is substantially different between the Districts provided. District 1 stands at 5044.00 and District 2 is at 7206.00. Both districts have approxiametly the same number of students but the WADA@ Compressed Rate is much more for District 2. This is easy to see if you look at the Local District Property Values of each district and keep in mind “hold harmless”. This allowed district 2 to hold on to their local revenue and therefore made their compressed rate much higher.
The Total Target Revenue is slightly higher in District 2 at 34.5 million that in District 1 at 28 million. Once again the main reason for this is the higher Revenue per WADA @ compressed rate. When you multiply WADA times Compressed Rate WADA, District 2 stands about 6.5 million more.
District 2 has more teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than does District 1. District 2 has 307 where as District has 281. This throws up a red flag to me. I would think that these districts are backwards. Due to the large number of students with additional educational needs in District 1, it would appear that District 1 needed to be the district with more personnel. District 2 has less WADA but still maintains 26 more teachers. For such examples as this, I feel that “hold harmless” is not making Texas School Districts equitable and should be done away with.
Snapshot Comparison Position Paper
Snapshot Comparison Position Paper
District 1 has 93.3 % off its student population that is categorized as economically disadvantaged. District 2 has only 20.7 % off its student population categorized as economically disadvantaged. These two Districts have substantial differences in economically disadvantaged populations. Total refined ADA Adjusted for Decline in District 1 is 3893.75 and 4032.98 in District 2. District 1 WADA is 5555.82 and District 2 is 4794.08. With these figures in mind it brings up the question, why does a district with a smaller ADA have the larger WADA?
Before attempting to answer this question I want to define WADA. WADA (weighted average daily attendance), in Texas, is defined as 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. A weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding. I would also like to note that district 1 is the district with the lower ADA but the higher WADA.
Now let us evaluate each district’s programs that pertain to WADA. District 1 has 48% LEP students where District 2 has only 2%. This alone significantly affects WADA. District 1 has 9% Special Education population and District 2 has 7%. This is not a significant difference but will virtually affect the WADA. Another major difference in the 2 Districts that affected WADA is the Bilingual population. District 1 has a population 41% and District 2’s population is a mere 2%.
With just this little amount of information the question should be easily answered. The ADA is weighted by the state to provide funds to meet the needs of the students in District 1. WADA helps to provide a lower ADA income district with funds to meet the needs of students with educational needs.
District 1 has 93.3 % off its student population that is categorized as economically disadvantaged. District 2 has only 20.7 % off its student population categorized as economically disadvantaged. These two Districts have substantial differences in economically disadvantaged populations. Total refined ADA Adjusted for Decline in District 1 is 3893.75 and 4032.98 in District 2. District 1 WADA is 5555.82 and District 2 is 4794.08. With these figures in mind it brings up the question, why does a district with a smaller ADA have the larger WADA?
Before attempting to answer this question I want to define WADA. WADA (weighted average daily attendance), in Texas, is defined as 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. A weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding. I would also like to note that district 1 is the district with the lower ADA but the higher WADA.
Now let us evaluate each district’s programs that pertain to WADA. District 1 has 48% LEP students where District 2 has only 2%. This alone significantly affects WADA. District 1 has 9% Special Education population and District 2 has 7%. This is not a significant difference but will virtually affect the WADA. Another major difference in the 2 Districts that affected WADA is the Bilingual population. District 1 has a population 41% and District 2’s population is a mere 2%.
With just this little amount of information the question should be easily answered. The ADA is weighted by the state to provide funds to meet the needs of the students in District 1. WADA helps to provide a lower ADA income district with funds to meet the needs of students with educational needs.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process
Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process
Every stakeholder involved with a school district could and should have an input in the budgeting process. To begin with there are several stakeholders that do not have direct involvement with the budget. Take for example the Board of Trustees. They have no direct hand in preparing the district budget. However they do set superintendent and district goals. The superintendent is responsible for making sure that the budget has funding allotted to meet the goals set forth by the board. You may also look at other key stakeholders such as any tax payer. As stated in the lecture this week, “ communicating with various stakeholders is certainly a two way process”. Many individuals or businesses that pay taxes, feel that they have a right to have input to where their tax money is being. Most of these individuals do not realize that a majority of the budget is fixed. This is where the two way communication should be in place with the superintendent and the individual. The superintendent should be open to these stakeholders and here there input pertaining to the budget.
The District Improvement Committee and the Site Based Decision Making Community are combined and serve as one group at RISD. Acknowledging that we use a Site Based Budgeting approach this group is of the upmost importance for input to the budgeting process. The SBDM is provided with continual updates on funding, mandates, regulations throughout the budgeting process. The group serves as the liaison between each campus or department to transmit the needs for funding to the superintendent and the Executive Director of Finance. This committee represents the entire district and is able to bring forth every need of the district.
After the SBDM committee presents all requests to the central office then starts breaking down the budget and determining what is feasible. The Central Office Staff provides input pertaining to their departments and they help in determining the allocation of budget funds. This is where the principals become involved as well. They know their own campuses better that any other administrator does. They should be able to make decisions on the major necessities within their campus.
In conclusion, all stakeholders of a district have input that can be extremely important and pertinent to the development of a district’s budget. Some stakeholders have a more direct affiliation with the budget process than others. All stakeholders should keep the district, campus, and superintendent goals foremost when developing and providing input for the district budget.
Every stakeholder involved with a school district could and should have an input in the budgeting process. To begin with there are several stakeholders that do not have direct involvement with the budget. Take for example the Board of Trustees. They have no direct hand in preparing the district budget. However they do set superintendent and district goals. The superintendent is responsible for making sure that the budget has funding allotted to meet the goals set forth by the board. You may also look at other key stakeholders such as any tax payer. As stated in the lecture this week, “ communicating with various stakeholders is certainly a two way process”. Many individuals or businesses that pay taxes, feel that they have a right to have input to where their tax money is being. Most of these individuals do not realize that a majority of the budget is fixed. This is where the two way communication should be in place with the superintendent and the individual. The superintendent should be open to these stakeholders and here there input pertaining to the budget.
The District Improvement Committee and the Site Based Decision Making Community are combined and serve as one group at RISD. Acknowledging that we use a Site Based Budgeting approach this group is of the upmost importance for input to the budgeting process. The SBDM is provided with continual updates on funding, mandates, regulations throughout the budgeting process. The group serves as the liaison between each campus or department to transmit the needs for funding to the superintendent and the Executive Director of Finance. This committee represents the entire district and is able to bring forth every need of the district.
After the SBDM committee presents all requests to the central office then starts breaking down the budget and determining what is feasible. The Central Office Staff provides input pertaining to their departments and they help in determining the allocation of budget funds. This is where the principals become involved as well. They know their own campuses better that any other administrator does. They should be able to make decisions on the major necessities within their campus.
In conclusion, all stakeholders of a district have input that can be extremely important and pertinent to the development of a district’s budget. Some stakeholders have a more direct affiliation with the budget process than others. All stakeholders should keep the district, campus, and superintendent goals foremost when developing and providing input for the district budget.
Budget Timeline Reflection
When first looking at a sample budget timeline as well as my district’s timeline, it was very difficult to identify five events that would be the most important. There were a couple of events that did really stick out as very important. First and foremost was the mandatory adoption by the board of trustees no later than August 31st. I believe that this is probably the most important even in the budgeting process. Another event that I as well as my wiki group felt was of great significance is the ongoing monitoring of the budget. There is no actual date on a timeline for this but it is a must to periodically review the budget throughout the school year. The other three top five my wiki group chose was the tax rate adoption following budget adoption, certified property values at the end of July, and development of revenue estimates by school district administrators using the Foundation School Program (FSP) and local property taxes in December. As a group we felt these were the most significant dates on the Budget Process Timeline.
Rick and I posted to each other wiki our top 5 events. We were very close to the same top five. After some discussion and editing of each other’s wiki we decided on these as the top five. We were both in total agreement with the mandatory deadline of Aug 31 and also the tax rate adoption. One thing we both felt very important as well was the ongoing, periodic monitoring of the budget. It was very easy for us to reach a consensus on the top 5.
Rick and I posted to each other wiki our top 5 events. We were very close to the same top five. After some discussion and editing of each other’s wiki we decided on these as the top five. We were both in total agreement with the mandatory deadline of Aug 31 and also the tax rate adoption. One thing we both felt very important as well was the ongoing, periodic monitoring of the budget. It was very easy for us to reach a consensus on the top 5.
Superintendent's Budget Responsibilities
Superintendent’s Budget Responsibilities
I am very lucky to be able to meet with our District Superintendent any time that I need to. It was not hard at all to schedule an interview with Dr. Largent. The interview turned out to be very informative and being that Dr. Largent was able to tell me his roles in the budget process while here at Rusk but as well as his roles while he was superintendent at a small 1A school. Believe me when I say that his roles were extremely different. Dr. Largent was the sole budget preparer at the 1A district and he is more of just a support person at our current 3A district. Dr. Largent made it very clear even though he is not the main person developing the budget here at Rusk he is familiar and knowledgeable with all aspects of the budget.
Dr. Largent began by explaining his role in the budget process while here at Rusk. He explained that we have an Executive Director of Finance, and she is the lead administrator in the budget process. She brings Dr. Largent updates throughout the budgeting process and together, they make decisions on varies things such as, salary increases, adding personnel, and other request from campuses. He mentioned at this point that we use a Site- Based Budgeting process here at Rusk. Dr. Largent emphasized that he is involved in every step of the budget but the Executive Director of Finance does the vast majority of the work regarding budget.
After Dr. Largent discussed his responsibilities here he briefly mentioned his responsibilities while at a 1A district earlier in his tenure. He explained that he had no Executive Director of Finance to help him with the budget and that he was the sole developer of the budget. Dr. Largent used a Site-Based Budgeting approach there as well, he just stated it was a little harder to distribute funds to cover all request due to the smaller amount of funds available. He also explained that in the smaller district he had more grant monies to utilize. He also mentioned that with the inclusion of grant funds there was more specific identification of allocation of these funds within the budget.
In conclusion, Dr. Largent felt that both experiences as superintendent in different districts were educational in different ways. He was glad of the responsibility to be the sole developer of the budget due the fact that he learned a tremendous amount of knowledge pertaining to preparation of a budget. He is also grateful that know he has Executive Director of Finance to take the sole position of developer of the district budget. The interview was very productive to me and gave me a lot of insight on the budgeting process and responsibilities.
Reflection
After the interview I sat down and typed up the comments that Dr. Largent had made and tried to relate them to my ideas of preparing a budget. Just as Dr. Largent had said, I would enjoy the opportunity to be the main preparer of the budget just to learn how it all comes together. I would also like the fact of having a financial person responsible for preparing it as well. It really is scary thinking about all of continual updates and requirements that have to be included in the budget. I know realize the importance of the preparation of the district budget and how, if not done efficiently, it could be detrimental to a district.
I am very lucky to be able to meet with our District Superintendent any time that I need to. It was not hard at all to schedule an interview with Dr. Largent. The interview turned out to be very informative and being that Dr. Largent was able to tell me his roles in the budget process while here at Rusk but as well as his roles while he was superintendent at a small 1A school. Believe me when I say that his roles were extremely different. Dr. Largent was the sole budget preparer at the 1A district and he is more of just a support person at our current 3A district. Dr. Largent made it very clear even though he is not the main person developing the budget here at Rusk he is familiar and knowledgeable with all aspects of the budget.
Dr. Largent began by explaining his role in the budget process while here at Rusk. He explained that we have an Executive Director of Finance, and she is the lead administrator in the budget process. She brings Dr. Largent updates throughout the budgeting process and together, they make decisions on varies things such as, salary increases, adding personnel, and other request from campuses. He mentioned at this point that we use a Site- Based Budgeting process here at Rusk. Dr. Largent emphasized that he is involved in every step of the budget but the Executive Director of Finance does the vast majority of the work regarding budget.
After Dr. Largent discussed his responsibilities here he briefly mentioned his responsibilities while at a 1A district earlier in his tenure. He explained that he had no Executive Director of Finance to help him with the budget and that he was the sole developer of the budget. Dr. Largent used a Site-Based Budgeting approach there as well, he just stated it was a little harder to distribute funds to cover all request due to the smaller amount of funds available. He also explained that in the smaller district he had more grant monies to utilize. He also mentioned that with the inclusion of grant funds there was more specific identification of allocation of these funds within the budget.
In conclusion, Dr. Largent felt that both experiences as superintendent in different districts were educational in different ways. He was glad of the responsibility to be the sole developer of the budget due the fact that he learned a tremendous amount of knowledge pertaining to preparation of a budget. He is also grateful that know he has Executive Director of Finance to take the sole position of developer of the district budget. The interview was very productive to me and gave me a lot of insight on the budgeting process and responsibilities.
Reflection
After the interview I sat down and typed up the comments that Dr. Largent had made and tried to relate them to my ideas of preparing a budget. Just as Dr. Largent had said, I would enjoy the opportunity to be the main preparer of the budget just to learn how it all comes together. I would also like the fact of having a financial person responsible for preparing it as well. It really is scary thinking about all of continual updates and requirements that have to be included in the budget. I know realize the importance of the preparation of the district budget and how, if not done efficiently, it could be detrimental to a district.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)