Goal driven budget

A goal driven budget is a budget which meets the district’s needs. It helps allow school districts to obtain goals set forth in shared visions statements of the school district and individual campuses. This includes   areas such as academics, facilities, personnel, extra-curricular, technology, transportation, utilities, etc.

 After a comprehensive needs assessment the District Campus Improvement plan would be set followed by individual campuses improvement plans supporting the overall district plan. Although individual campus plans may differ based on grade level configuration, student groups, campus needs assessment, etc. they should all be similar in working towards meeting district goals and vision. It is also important that the district and campus goals reflect the goals and directions set forth by the school board. As stated by Dr. Arterbury in this week’s lecture, these plans (as well as the budget) should be “a version of the vision”.  All of these goals need to be used and addressed during the budget planning process.

Our district improvement plan lists the goal, list the activity or activities which will be used or needed to carry out the goal, list individual responsible for overseeing goal and then list the funding source and total amount. The funding sources referenced in our district (other than regular education money) include compensatory education funds, special education funds, title funds, high school allotment, career and technology funds and local grant funds.

The same procedures set forth in developing the improvement plans need to be followed throughout the school year as well.  All budget items and expenditures should have a direct correlation to a goal or vision already in place for the district. This process shows the districts commitment to spending money on items they have deemed important in district and campus goals and visions.

In conclusion and referring back to week’s lecture it is important goal driven budgets include all aspects of the districts goals and visions. The budgeting process should be part of the total planning process for the district. I agree with the reference in the lecture that too often one sees districts saying they never really address goals or budgetary items other than stating hiring teacher(s) or generic statement using term staff development. Communication is very important. The communication includes district personnel as well as other stake-holders such as community members, parents and the board. For the budget planning process to be successful and beneficial to the district EVERYONE must be involved and “on-board”.

equality, equity, adequacy

Description of how equality, equity and adequacy relate to public school finance:

Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational programs. Examples of this include state adopted curriculum in core subject areas.

Equity means the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Examples of this include additional funds or allotments such as: special education, compensatory, high school allotment, Title funds, Career and Technology. 

Adequacy means the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Examples would include teacher salaries and textbooks.

In looking at the above terms I think it is important to note that many would argue that our current finance system in not equitable or adequate. Even though legislators state the above criteria is being met.

Important Issues impacting state funding

Issues impacting state funding formula:

There are many issues impacting the state funding formula. I feel the following four items significantly impact the funding formula.

1.        Property tax – Property taxes are a vital part of current funding formula.  Whether they are perceived as a positive or negative, they fluctuate across the state from district to district. This creates the need for assistance from the state.

2.        Weighted funding – This funding source covers a wide range and variety. It consists of numerous funding formulas and/or requirements that can be confusing at time but also beneficial to districts that benefit if they have a large number of students in required areas. This includes funding formulas such as, FSP program (Tier 1 and 2 funding) and weighted average daily attendance (WADA)

3.       Maintenance & Operation (M&O) tax rate- In my opinion this source of funding is important because it is actually set by the local school district. The state has capped the amount it can be but has left some control to the local district.

4.       My last thought does not necessarily come directly from week 1 lecture but it is something I observed from the lecture and was recently reminded by our superintendent as we were discussing school finance. Looking back over the history of school finance, for the most part school districts have benefitted better in terms of funding from court cases then they have from legislative sessions.

Key issues in TX history school finance

The creation of a poll tax and an ad valorem tax used to support education in 1869 which lead to property valuation tax system. I found this to be significant because it is similar to the Maintenance & Operation (M&O) tax rate currently used in school districts.

The Gilmer-Aiken Laws from 51^st legislative section in 1949. This was an organized approach by the state to supplement local taxes in an attempt to adequately fund public education. I found this event to be important because it is still the bases for issues and discussion in school finance, the amount of money the state will provide local districts.

Edgewood v Kirby lawsuits/ Senate Bill 1 / “Robin Hood Plan” – Defined methods for property wealthy districts to distribute revenue.  I found this event as significance because it still impacts local districts all across the state according to identification (per states guidelines) of a Chapter 41 or Chapter 42 district.