Throughout this course I have gained an extreme amount of knowledge and even made some better working relations with other school personnel and with members of our cohort. Every portion of the course helped me obtain knowledge and skills to better understand school finance. This was by far the most in-depth class I have taken in my graduate studies. I would like to share some of the knowledge and skills I have obtained throughout this course.
The post self-assessment gives me a very good idea of where my strengths and weaknesses are pertaining to district budgeting, personnel, resource utilization, financial management, and technology application. I entered the course with a couple of strengths, but throughout the course I feel competent to say that could lead in six of the identifiers in Competency 8. I have been a member of my home town school board for 8 years and feel that this experience gives me a great strength when knowing how to work collaboratively with the board of trustees to develop a district budget. I have been involved in numerous procedure developments and feel that the knowledge I gained from the coursework will make me a leader in the area of developing and establishing procedures for accurate, effective, ethical purchasing and financial record keeping and reporting.
I have experience with two different districts with way different demographics. I believe that this experience as well as the knowledge obtained throughout this course makes me strong when acquiring, allocating, and managing resources according to district vision and priorities, including obtaining and using funding from various sources. Another area of strength is being able to use district and staff evaluation data for personnel policy development and decision making. I work in a district that is high on data from all stake holders when making policy and decisions. My knowledge in this area will provide me with insight and guidance when becoming a superintendent.
An area that I would once consider to be one of my worst aspects is managing my own time and even that of my employees. However, the longer I am in education and in a leadership role it has become one of my strengths. I believe that I will effectively manage my own time and the time of others to enhance district operations. Once again I feel I work in a district that is very extensive when pertaining to personnel management, including requirements related to certifying, recruiting, screening, selecting, evaluating, disciplining, reassigning, and dismissing personnel. I have had experience with almost all of the areas listed above and feel very confident in having the knowledge and skill to perform all of them effectively.
The only area that I would consider myself competent in is when developing and implementing plans for using technology and information systems to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of school district operations. The biggest reason I don’t consider this strength is due to the continual advancement of technology. I need to work more with the districts technology staff in order to become more efficient when referring to technology.
There are still a few areas that I consider to be areas of need for me. One of the first is being able to apply procedures for effective budget planning and management. Basically, I feel that experience will be the key to developing strength in this area. The second is being able to facilitate and evaluate effective account auditing and monitoring that complies with legal requirements and local district policies. Again experience and learning the legal requirements associated with this will help me to improve my knowledge and ability. Third is being able to apply legal concepts, regulations, and codes that are required. There are so many of these there is no way that they can be easily learned. Just as with the other areas I need improvement on, time and experience will be the key to become knowledgeable and efficient in this area. Finally, is being able to use revenue forecasting and enrollment forecasting to address personnel and budget needs accurately. I did actual discuss this with my Executive Director of Finance during one of the interviews and got quite a lot of information pertaining to it from her. However, with basing an entire budget on forecasting I don’t yet feel comfortable in this area.
With all of these in mind I will have to say that the interviews I had with the Executive Director of Finance were the most beneficial of all the requirements of the course. I see as a future superintendent that it is extremely important to have someone in the business office that is knowledgeable as well as myself when pertaining to school budgeting. She made very confusing things more understandable and I actually feel that I can share this information among others. I enjoyed the work within my wiki group as well. Even though it was just two of us we shared numerous commonalities and several different insights on a few things. I feel it would have been better if we had had a larger group to submit input. The lectures and readings are always beneficial to me. They share pertinent information that helps me to understand the material as well as outcome expectations. Again, this has been the most in-depth graduate course I have taken and has been the most educating class to me. There is still much to be learned about school finance and I am encouraging myself to continue improving my knowledge and skill in this area.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Competency 8 Self Assessment
The post self-assessment gives me a very good idea of where my strengths and weaknesses are pertaining to district budgeting, personnel, resource utilization, financial management, and technology application. I entered the course with a couple of strengths, but throughout the course I feel competent to say that could lead in six of the identifiers in Competency 8. I have been a member of my home town school board for 8 years and feel that this experience gives me a great strength when knowing how to work collaboratively with the board of trustees to develop a district budget. I have been involved in numerous procedure developments and feel that the knowledge I gained from the coursework will make me a leader in the area of developing and establishing procedures for accurate, effective, ethical purchasing and financial record keeping and reporting.
I have experience with two different districts with way different demographics. I believe that this experience as well as the knowledge obtained throughout this course makes me strong when acquiring, allocating, and managing resources according to district vision and priorities, including obtaining and using funding from various sources. Another area of strength is being able to use district and staff evaluation data for personnel policy development and decision making. I work in a district that is high on data from all stake holders when making policy and decisions. My knowledge in this area will provide me with insight and guidance when becoming a superintendent.
An area that I would once consider to be one of my worst aspects is managing my own time and even that of my employees. However, the longer I am in education and in a leadership role it has become one of my strengths. I believe that I will effectively manage my own time and the time of others to enhance district operations. Once again I feel I work in a district that is very extensive when pertaining to personnel management, including requirements related to certifying, recruiting, screening, selecting, evaluating, disciplining, reassigning, and dismissing personnel. I have had experience with almost all of the areas listed above and feel very confident in having the knowledge and skill to perform all of them effectively.
The only area that I would consider myself competent in is when developing and implementing plans for using technology and information systems to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of school district operations. The biggest reason I don’t consider this strength is due to the continual advancement of technology. I need to work more with the districts technology staff in order to become more efficient when referring to technology.
There are still a few areas that I consider to be areas of need for me. One of the first is being able to apply procedures for effective budget planning and management. Basically, I feel that experience will be the key to developing strength in this area. The second is being able to facilitate and evaluate effective account auditing and monitoring that complies with legal requirements and local district policies. Again experience and learning the legal requirements associated with this will help me to improve my knowledge and ability. Third is being able to apply legal concepts, regulations, and codes that are required. There are so many of these there is no way that they can be easily learned. Just as with the other areas I need improvement on, time and experience will be the key to become knowledgeable and efficient in this area. Finally, is being able to use revenue forecasting and enrollment forecasting to address personnel and budget needs accurately. I did actual discuss this with my Executive Director of Finance during one of the interviews and got quite a lot of information pertaining to it from her. However, with basing an entire budget on forecasting I don’t yet feel comfortable in this area.
I have experience with two different districts with way different demographics. I believe that this experience as well as the knowledge obtained throughout this course makes me strong when acquiring, allocating, and managing resources according to district vision and priorities, including obtaining and using funding from various sources. Another area of strength is being able to use district and staff evaluation data for personnel policy development and decision making. I work in a district that is high on data from all stake holders when making policy and decisions. My knowledge in this area will provide me with insight and guidance when becoming a superintendent.
An area that I would once consider to be one of my worst aspects is managing my own time and even that of my employees. However, the longer I am in education and in a leadership role it has become one of my strengths. I believe that I will effectively manage my own time and the time of others to enhance district operations. Once again I feel I work in a district that is very extensive when pertaining to personnel management, including requirements related to certifying, recruiting, screening, selecting, evaluating, disciplining, reassigning, and dismissing personnel. I have had experience with almost all of the areas listed above and feel very confident in having the knowledge and skill to perform all of them effectively.
The only area that I would consider myself competent in is when developing and implementing plans for using technology and information systems to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of school district operations. The biggest reason I don’t consider this strength is due to the continual advancement of technology. I need to work more with the districts technology staff in order to become more efficient when referring to technology.
There are still a few areas that I consider to be areas of need for me. One of the first is being able to apply procedures for effective budget planning and management. Basically, I feel that experience will be the key to developing strength in this area. The second is being able to facilitate and evaluate effective account auditing and monitoring that complies with legal requirements and local district policies. Again experience and learning the legal requirements associated with this will help me to improve my knowledge and ability. Third is being able to apply legal concepts, regulations, and codes that are required. There are so many of these there is no way that they can be easily learned. Just as with the other areas I need improvement on, time and experience will be the key to become knowledgeable and efficient in this area. Finally, is being able to use revenue forecasting and enrollment forecasting to address personnel and budget needs accurately. I did actual discuss this with my Executive Director of Finance during one of the interviews and got quite a lot of information pertaining to it from her. However, with basing an entire budget on forecasting I don’t yet feel comfortable in this area.
Code of Ethics for School Leaders
The first example of an ethical violation pertains to standard 1.2, the educator shall not knowingly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, and personnel, property, or equipment committed to his/her charge for personal gain or advantage. The Director of Maintenance at a school district was guilty of all of the above offenses. This individual was using equipment, personnel, and supplies at his personal home for a number of consecutive years. He was ordering extra of building supplies and having it delivered to his personal home and then utilize the districts employees and equipment to improve his facilities at home. The short term consequences for this situation were the termination of employment and the launch of a thorough investigation. The long term consequences were the addition of personnel to oversee the expenditures of the maintenance department as well as two signatures for each purchase. There were also numerous policies and procedures for purchasing and the use of district resources placed into effect. As a district, we also held a district wide meeting addressing the importance of modeling and promoting positive ethical behavior
Standard 1.3, the educator shall not submit fraudulent request for reimbursement, expenses, or pay, is another area that I have seen ethical violations. Just until a couple of years ago employees who stayed overnight at conferences, field trips, or any other overnight trip were reimbursed a lump per diem. I observed numerous personnel eat at banquets that were free or even not eat, but still requested meal reimbursement. For short term these individuals were written up in their personnel folders and required to provide receipts for any trip after that date. As many other violations, this prompted a long term investigation which derived new policies and procedures for all personnel. No personnel were reimbursed for any meal without a receipt. The business office sent out an update to all personnel as part of a preventative plan to inform personnel of the importance of promoting and modeling positive ethical behavior.
One other standard violation of ethics that I have witnessed is standard 1.13; the educator shall not consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. What I observed is not consumption of alcohol but a coach who was under the influence of alcohol at a track meet. This was at another district’s facilities and the coach had had some specific reason for needing to drive his personal vehicle to the meet. Upon his arrival to the event he was under the influence of alcohol. The students and other coaches made the administration aware and we quickly had the coach leave. There were many short term consequences that were derived from this act of poor conduct. The Coach was terminated the very next day and was reported to SBEC. This was also a very big bad eye for the district and we were frowned upon by students, parents, and community members for poor representation of school personnel and their behavior. Long term effects were the individuals teaching certificate being revoked, respect from stakeholders, and additional policies and procedures for coaching staff and personnel driving personal vehicles to events. The district not only added new policies and procedures for a preventive plan for the future but worked countless hours to gain the respect back of all stakeholders.
After reviewing the standards for “Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues a couple of standards involve situations which I have witnessed. The first is standard 2.3; the educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, firing, and dismissal of personnel. Local policy mandates that any educator dismissed or non-renewed but be given proper documentation of the reason for the dismissal and could just not be told they were not being offered a contract. This occurred with a coach when the AD informed her that she would not be offered a contract the next year. She questioned why and stated that the board policy specifically stated that the AD had to give her a reason. The AD insisted that he didn’t and refused to give the coach a reason. The coach then went to the superintendent and the superintendent did inform the AD that he must give her a reason. He then informed the coach that she just did not fit his program in the district. The coach let it end at that but the procedure set forth by the board was not adhered to by the AD. In short and long term influences this will have is lack of trust from coaches that are currently staffed and when recruiting new coaches to the district. This also gives a bad reputation that administrators in the district do not follow all guidelines and procedures set forth by the school board.
The other standard that I have witnessed is standard 2.6, the educator shall not coercive means or promise of specific treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. The high school principal encouraged a Jr. High staff member to move over to the high school for a teaching position. He promised her certain classes and even arranged her schedule to have a conference at the beginning of the day. The principal promised her all of these things if she would make the transfer. The teacher did make the transfer and the other staff members caught on very quickly. The new teacher was given a wonderful and easy schedule, which loaded up the existing staff. This made for a very hostile working environment among staff. It also affected the support and trust of the principal.
Standard 1.3, the educator shall not submit fraudulent request for reimbursement, expenses, or pay, is another area that I have seen ethical violations. Just until a couple of years ago employees who stayed overnight at conferences, field trips, or any other overnight trip were reimbursed a lump per diem. I observed numerous personnel eat at banquets that were free or even not eat, but still requested meal reimbursement. For short term these individuals were written up in their personnel folders and required to provide receipts for any trip after that date. As many other violations, this prompted a long term investigation which derived new policies and procedures for all personnel. No personnel were reimbursed for any meal without a receipt. The business office sent out an update to all personnel as part of a preventative plan to inform personnel of the importance of promoting and modeling positive ethical behavior.
One other standard violation of ethics that I have witnessed is standard 1.13; the educator shall not consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. What I observed is not consumption of alcohol but a coach who was under the influence of alcohol at a track meet. This was at another district’s facilities and the coach had had some specific reason for needing to drive his personal vehicle to the meet. Upon his arrival to the event he was under the influence of alcohol. The students and other coaches made the administration aware and we quickly had the coach leave. There were many short term consequences that were derived from this act of poor conduct. The Coach was terminated the very next day and was reported to SBEC. This was also a very big bad eye for the district and we were frowned upon by students, parents, and community members for poor representation of school personnel and their behavior. Long term effects were the individuals teaching certificate being revoked, respect from stakeholders, and additional policies and procedures for coaching staff and personnel driving personal vehicles to events. The district not only added new policies and procedures for a preventive plan for the future but worked countless hours to gain the respect back of all stakeholders.
After reviewing the standards for “Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues a couple of standards involve situations which I have witnessed. The first is standard 2.3; the educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, firing, and dismissal of personnel. Local policy mandates that any educator dismissed or non-renewed but be given proper documentation of the reason for the dismissal and could just not be told they were not being offered a contract. This occurred with a coach when the AD informed her that she would not be offered a contract the next year. She questioned why and stated that the board policy specifically stated that the AD had to give her a reason. The AD insisted that he didn’t and refused to give the coach a reason. The coach then went to the superintendent and the superintendent did inform the AD that he must give her a reason. He then informed the coach that she just did not fit his program in the district. The coach let it end at that but the procedure set forth by the board was not adhered to by the AD. In short and long term influences this will have is lack of trust from coaches that are currently staffed and when recruiting new coaches to the district. This also gives a bad reputation that administrators in the district do not follow all guidelines and procedures set forth by the school board.
The other standard that I have witnessed is standard 2.6, the educator shall not coercive means or promise of specific treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. The high school principal encouraged a Jr. High staff member to move over to the high school for a teaching position. He promised her certain classes and even arranged her schedule to have a conference at the beginning of the day. The principal promised her all of these things if she would make the transfer. The teacher did make the transfer and the other staff members caught on very quickly. The new teacher was given a wonderful and easy schedule, which loaded up the existing staff. This made for a very hostile working environment among staff. It also affected the support and trust of the principal.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
M&O Program Funding
M&O Program Funding
Just as presented in the assignment, the intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students in District 1 Example than in the District 2 Example because the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, but the action failed to accomplish that goal in this case. It is unknown what all could have influenced this to occur. After reviewing the snapshots and summary of finances from both districts it is very evident that the goal was not met.
District 1 is very close to being 100% economically disadvantaged. They are in much need of additional funding to provide more professional working directly with the ED students. When looking at number of staff for each district, District 1 has 26 fewer teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than District 2 that is near equal in size. This is totally backwards.
When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O you find many differences between the 2 districts and many similarities. Regular program allotment in both districts are right around 20 million. Knowing that both districts have nearly the exact same enrollment this is a positive relationship between the districts. There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.
The Career and Technology Allotment is at 24 % population in District 1 and it appears that their allotment coincides with their population District 2’s population is a mere 14% and funding is only at 633,000. With the amount of funding that District 2 has available the funding for CATE should be higher. CATE instruction is a very important part of education today and I feel that district 2 should be funding it at a higher rate.
When comparing districts, District 1 has 3.8 million in Compensatory Education Allotment and District 2 has a mere 630,000.00. It is very evident that District 1 has a large number of free and reduced meals, and therefore has a substantial amount of funds available for at-risk students. This allows District one to provide their students with more opportunities with these additional funds. This allotment also helps to make up the very small local revenue funding. It is apparent that District 2 has fewer free and reduced meal students, therefore having much less Compensatory Education Allotment.
The Bilingual Education Allotment is much different between the two districts. In District 2 there is only 46,000 allotted for the 2% bilingual population. With such a small percentage of students that are bilingual, the funding appears to be in line with the population. District 1 is much different than District 2. District 1 is 41% Bilingual, with a LEP population of 48%. The funding for District 1 is 834,000. With nearly half of their population bilingual, this funding seems absurd. Even with compensatory education assisting with the learning of the bilingual students, the lack of funding in bilingual allotment is still very low and is very negative to the success of their students.
The Transportation Allotment varies somewhat between the two districts. District 1 has allocated 215,000 in transportation and District 2 allotted 392,000. This would draw my attention being that each district has same number of students but District 2 has almost double the money allocated. There could be very good reasons for the substantial difference. The routes could be longer meaning district is bigger and could require more fuel or even more bus routes. More routes would require more buses. District 2 could have older buses that require more maintenance. Or it could just be that District 2 buys new buses frequently and have a better fleet than District 1. If this were the case I would have a problem with them not adjusting some of the funds in transportation to another fund that needed more funding.
The High School Allotment funds were very close in their figures respectively. They are determined by grades 9-12 ADA. They are spent on under achieving students and/or college readiness programs. It is designed to encourage students to work toward college attendance. The allotment is set in stone with the students ADA.
There are three programs that had no funding allotted and are as follows; The Public Education Grant, New Instructional Facilities Allotment, and the Virtual School Allotment. Neither district had a student that was participating in the Public Education Grant program therefore, there are no funds allocated for this program. With no funding allotted in the New Instructional Facilities, we assume that neither district have funds set aside for New Facilities. The Virtual School Allotment is funding that would provide students to participate in Virtual School Learning. Apparently neither district offers Virtual School and/or they do not fund for it.
In conclusion, the overall evaluation of the programs funded under M&O there are some differences and some similarities between them. We have tried to hit the top spots and bring out what we feel are the biggest aspects of the 2 districts programs. Both districts could use some minor adjustments in their allotments for M&O programs.
Just as presented in the assignment, the intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students in District 1 Example than in the District 2 Example because the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, but the action failed to accomplish that goal in this case. It is unknown what all could have influenced this to occur. After reviewing the snapshots and summary of finances from both districts it is very evident that the goal was not met.
District 1 is very close to being 100% economically disadvantaged. They are in much need of additional funding to provide more professional working directly with the ED students. When looking at number of staff for each district, District 1 has 26 fewer teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than District 2 that is near equal in size. This is totally backwards.
When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O you find many differences between the 2 districts and many similarities. Regular program allotment in both districts are right around 20 million. Knowing that both districts have nearly the exact same enrollment this is a positive relationship between the districts. There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.
The Career and Technology Allotment is at 24 % population in District 1 and it appears that their allotment coincides with their population District 2’s population is a mere 14% and funding is only at 633,000. With the amount of funding that District 2 has available the funding for CATE should be higher. CATE instruction is a very important part of education today and I feel that district 2 should be funding it at a higher rate.
When comparing districts, District 1 has 3.8 million in Compensatory Education Allotment and District 2 has a mere 630,000.00. It is very evident that District 1 has a large number of free and reduced meals, and therefore has a substantial amount of funds available for at-risk students. This allows District one to provide their students with more opportunities with these additional funds. This allotment also helps to make up the very small local revenue funding. It is apparent that District 2 has fewer free and reduced meal students, therefore having much less Compensatory Education Allotment.
The Bilingual Education Allotment is much different between the two districts. In District 2 there is only 46,000 allotted for the 2% bilingual population. With such a small percentage of students that are bilingual, the funding appears to be in line with the population. District 1 is much different than District 2. District 1 is 41% Bilingual, with a LEP population of 48%. The funding for District 1 is 834,000. With nearly half of their population bilingual, this funding seems absurd. Even with compensatory education assisting with the learning of the bilingual students, the lack of funding in bilingual allotment is still very low and is very negative to the success of their students.
The Transportation Allotment varies somewhat between the two districts. District 1 has allocated 215,000 in transportation and District 2 allotted 392,000. This would draw my attention being that each district has same number of students but District 2 has almost double the money allocated. There could be very good reasons for the substantial difference. The routes could be longer meaning district is bigger and could require more fuel or even more bus routes. More routes would require more buses. District 2 could have older buses that require more maintenance. Or it could just be that District 2 buys new buses frequently and have a better fleet than District 1. If this were the case I would have a problem with them not adjusting some of the funds in transportation to another fund that needed more funding.
The High School Allotment funds were very close in their figures respectively. They are determined by grades 9-12 ADA. They are spent on under achieving students and/or college readiness programs. It is designed to encourage students to work toward college attendance. The allotment is set in stone with the students ADA.
There are three programs that had no funding allotted and are as follows; The Public Education Grant, New Instructional Facilities Allotment, and the Virtual School Allotment. Neither district had a student that was participating in the Public Education Grant program therefore, there are no funds allocated for this program. With no funding allotted in the New Instructional Facilities, we assume that neither district have funds set aside for New Facilities. The Virtual School Allotment is funding that would provide students to participate in Virtual School Learning. Apparently neither district offers Virtual School and/or they do not fund for it.
In conclusion, the overall evaluation of the programs funded under M&O there are some differences and some similarities between them. We have tried to hit the top spots and bring out what we feel are the biggest aspects of the 2 districts programs. Both districts could use some minor adjustments in their allotments for M&O programs.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Compensatory Education Allotment
Compensatory Education Allotment
Compensatory Education funding is somewhat confusing. Funding is determined based on a district’s student population that receive free or reduced meals. However, allocation of these funds is mandated to be spent on at-risk students. Not all students whom are on free or reduced meals are considered at-risk. It is weird to me that we are drawing funds on certain students but allocating the funds to other students.
In our District comparisons District 1 has 3.8 million in Compensatory Education Allotment and District 2 has a mere 630,000.00. It is very evident that District 1 has a large number of free and reduced meals, and therefore has a substantial amount of funds available for at-risk students. This allows District one to provide their students with more opportunities with these additional funds. This allotment also helps to make up the very small local revenue funding. It is apparent that District 2 has fewer free and reduced meal students, therefore having much less Compensatory Education Allotment.
Compensatory Education funding is somewhat confusing. Funding is determined based on a district’s student population that receive free or reduced meals. However, allocation of these funds is mandated to be spent on at-risk students. Not all students whom are on free or reduced meals are considered at-risk. It is weird to me that we are drawing funds on certain students but allocating the funds to other students.
In our District comparisons District 1 has 3.8 million in Compensatory Education Allotment and District 2 has a mere 630,000.00. It is very evident that District 1 has a large number of free and reduced meals, and therefore has a substantial amount of funds available for at-risk students. This allows District one to provide their students with more opportunities with these additional funds. This allotment also helps to make up the very small local revenue funding. It is apparent that District 2 has fewer free and reduced meal students, therefore having much less Compensatory Education Allotment.
District Funding and Facilities
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)