Additional Stakeholder Input in Budgeting Process

    The types of input I could receive for budget development from each of the groups could vary, depending on the group.  From central office administrators and staff, I would depend upon them to use their areas of expertise to help develop the implement the budget.  I would use their knowledge and contacts to help design, implement and adjust as necessary to meet the district goals and appropriate use the resources.  From principals, I would expect them to provide a budget for their campus that aligns with their campus plan and district plan.  Just as the superintendent is the budget officer for the district, I would expect them to be the budget officer for their campus.  I would need their input for what parts of the budget are working towards the goals of the campus and district, and what parts of the budget need adjustment to help achieve the goals.  I would expect them to be “good stewards” of the district funds in aligning goals and budget.  The SBDM committees and DIP committee would provide me with input from the stakeholders on the vision and goals of the district.  They would review the goals and budget to make sure that they agree with the alignment of expectations and expenses.  Their input would provide information about the success of the communication and planning.  Teacher organizations would be stakeholders to help with allocation of personnel budget, but they would serve more as a source of support for the vision and goals than anything.  The input from key stakeholders could be the most quiet input but also most important of all.  These key stakeholders help provide information about the best investment opportunities for the fund balance, most effective legislators, key alignment issues of the TEA template for projected and actual funds, and potential areas of concern for laws and other issues.  This is probably the area where I am least familiar and most uncomfortable.  Lastly, the input from the Board of Trustees is crucial.  As the lecture notes state on page 2, “the Superintendent and Board of Trustees are often described as the team of eight”.  They need to provide clear and direct input about their goals for me as superintendent as well as their vision and goals for the district.  I need to provide for them open lines of communication about revenues, expenses and alignment of those budget issues to the goals of the district.  Without this team work, the goals of the district cannot be met and the failure to communicate about pending, future and actual budget issues can be devastating. 

In summarizing my reaction to the information gained about the input of the stakeholder groups, I realize I have great opportunity for growth.  As a member of this community for over 20 years, I feel I have strong ties to many stakeholders and groups in the community.  I need to think about what I would do to develop those ties in a district where I have not had that history.  I believe I could quickly develop strong communication ties to principals, since I have walked in their shoes.  Central office administrators and staff also seem to be a natural fit for me.  I would need to be very strategic and intentional in developing positive communication ties and procedures to gather input from the district improvement plan committee and other SBDM teams.  Working with the teacher organizations does not present a challenge to me, again, due to my experience and communication skills.  I truly believe my greatest challenge is developing the relationships of key business stakeholders.  I will seek input from Dr. Ryan and others on how to do a better job of developing these relationships.

Superintendent Roles and Responsibilites in Budget Process

    After talking with Dr. Ryan, I realize that the role of the Superintendent involves more political knowledge and business management than education and instruction knowledge.  We discussed how some districts have actually tried to use business executives to run school districts.  Overall, these business professionals have not been successful because the nature of a school district is vastly different than most business models.  It is not unusual for Dr. Ryan to be in Austin often, discussing legislative decisions with Senators and Representatives, especially during this legislative session.  These discussions are important because he can report to the School board and help guide them in their decisions about utilization of resources and possible changes to revenue sources. 

    The responsibility of the Superintendent is the budget officer of the district.  In large districts, there are other resources and other people that the Superintendent can depend upon to help.  In smaller districts, the Superintendent needs to be knowledgeable about not only the allocation of resources, but also the pending legislative decisions that could impact the district.  Since TEA is constantly amending their processes, Dr. Ryan strongly recommends that a superintendent should keep their own summary of finance that changes as predictions and actual patterns change.  The TEA template is a great guide, but a savy CFO with a veteran guide is invaluable!  Dr. Ryan also commented that the budget is never “done.”  The conversations about budget do not ever stop and are a topic on every agenda from central office, principal meeting, SBDM team meetings, and certainly Board meeting.  The budget process begins in March and does not stop until the budget is approved the end of June.  Even then, the discussions continue as the CAFR (comprehensive annual financial review) is released and audits commence in June and July.  Dr. Ryan strongly recommended that any new superintendent needed to review the CAFR as one of the first assignments on the job. 

     All stakeholders need to feel a part of the budget process.  In smaller districts, that input looks vastly different than it does in larger districts.  Regardless of the size, communication and transparency is key.  A superintendent is rarely fired for academic issues; most times the issues revolve around budget concerns.  The communication with the Board and strong confidence in the CFO are critical to success.  Since the budget process typically involves revenue sources and expenditures, teacher organizations do not really get involved in the budget process.  A wise Superintendent would keep communication lines open with the teacher groups, but they do not have direct input to the budget issues.  Most of the time, their issues are about staffing and personnel.  Just as the Superintendent needs to communicate with the Board and make sure the spending and resources align with Board goals, the campus principals and district office administrators need to make sure their goals and campus plans align with the district plan.  This includes allocations of resources.  This is another reason why the Superintendent needs to make sure the Board has the opportunity to review those campus plans with transparency and openness. 

     My reactions to the interview regarding the Superintendent's role and responsibilities in the budget process are mixed.  I have great respect for Dr. Ryan and his leadership.  After listening to his suggestions and comments about the budget process, I realize, once again, how important it is to develop strong ties to key stakeholders.  This truly is the people business.  I do not have enough experience in developing these types of relationships.  I am also sad that the business of education has so little to do with education and so much to do with business.  It seems that the higher you go up the ladder of education administration, the further away you get from the instructional leadership.  I also realize how important an understanding of budget, finance, and business becomes.  Again, I need more experience in this area and hope to develop that by continuing conversations with our CFO.

Goal Driven Budget

     A goal driven budget is one in which there is an alignment of the Board of Trustee goals with the district improvement plan goals with campus improvement plan goals so that the budget supports successful implementation of all.  This type of alignment requires strong communication with all stakeholders to ensure that the goals of the Board match the goals of the community and the financial allocations of the budget. 

     In Grapevine-Colleyville ISD, we are beginning to implement our newly developed District plan, called LEAD 2021.The utilization of goal driven budget process is evident in the alignment of the vision.  The vision of the board and the community is the basis for this plan.  It involved many community members and represents alignment of the vision of the Board, the district and the campuses.  As the budget situation changes based on the funding from the state, the strategic utilization of budget and resources becomes more critical.  This plan helps guide the intentional use of budget resources to achieve the goals of the district. 

     After talking with GCISD Superintendent, Dr. Robin Ryan, the most important parts of the budget process in implementing LEAD 2021 goals are flexibility, tenacity and constant monitoring.  He meets weekly with the district’s CFO to touch base with her on the recent legislative updates and district state of affairs.  The key to the process is starting early in the discussions with the Board and constantly monitoring the process to match predictions with actual spending patterns.  Close monitoring of these patterns and constant communication with the Board helps keep everyone informed as to the allocations and necessary adjustments.  As Dr. Ryan says, “you can delegate authority, but not responsibility.”  As the Superintendent, communication with the Board helps maintain the responsibility piece while also supporting the stakeholder input. 

Comparison of Austin ISD Plan and GCISD plan

Comparison of AISD District Improvement Plan and GCISD District Improvement Plan

EDLD 5342 Week One

At first, I was using the information directly accessed from the link provided in my class notes.  That information did not appear to have cohesion to the process of developing a plan for a major school district.  I did more research and found that I needed to link into the actual plan to understand what AISD wanted to do.  Once I did that, I had access to the Framework, the Implementation Guide and the Scorecard.  These made sense and allowed me to do a better job of comparing the two district plans.

Before I get too much further into this comparison, it should be noted that GCISD is currently transitioning from an older plan that was developed approximately five years ago under the leadership of a previous Superintendent.  The district has completed the development of a new plan, called LEAD 2021.  This plan is still in the development stages, but most of the planning is completed.  The only part that is not completed is the financial resource part, which is developing concurrent with the financial reporting coming from the legislature.  I will be referencing LEAD 2021 in this comparison.

Let me address the similarities in the two plans.  Both district plans include hiring highly qualified staff to meet the needs of the students.  The AISD plan addresses the alignment of resources to help the district meet their goals while the GCISD plan is developing their financial goal.  I would venture to conclude that these will address using resources to meet the goals of the district.  AISD strategic plan includes the development of a well-rounded educational plan to help student compete in a today’s economy.  GCISD provides different language in their goal, using “good citizenship”, but I believe these two plans address the developing students who are able to contribute and compete in the global society in which we live.  Both plans used a large stakeholder base to develop the plan.  These stakeholders included parents, community members, and staff members.  Neither of these plans included financial resources specifically tied to the plan.  In the material that I originally accessed from our lecture, Appendix A from AISD did include specific mention of the funding resources.  While this did not reference how much from each source contributed to the budget of the district, at least there was a point of reference for the funding.  Lastly, neither plan provides goals that are using the SMART format (specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented, and timely).  They both include portions of that format, but the one area that is probably most notable is the lack of measurability.  Both plans include statements such as “increase” or “more”, etc.  While these do indicate direction, they do not provide measurable indicators.

There are differences to the two plans as well.  The AISD plan is older and uses language that is not included in the GCISD plan.  This language addresses accountability measures such as TAKS and other references that are moving out of the education language.  The Austin plan uses much more data than the GCISD plan.  This could be due to the ages of the plans and that GCISD is just beginning their planning.  The Austin plan addresses more of the accountability issues while the GCISD plan seems to be more global and less about accountability and ratings for the different campuses.   The GCISD plan also incorporates more references to technology, communication, facilities, and instructional strategies. The Appendix A of AISD does provide a resource list connected to funding of different parts of the plan.  In talking with the GCISD financial officer, Elaine Cogburn, GCISD does not have any such reference.  In fact, Ms. Cogburn indicated that this is part of the plan for LEAD 2021 that is in the development stages.

In conclusion, both of the plans have specific strategies they are pursuing to help them meet the needs of the districts.  Both plans have used a strong cross section of their stakeholders to develop the plans.  Because both of these plans were developed at different times, the differences are evident in the language used, the financial resources utilized and the items that are being measured in the plans.  I believe it will be interesting to compare the two once LEAD 2021 is fully implemented in GCISD.

Education Finance Thoughts

These are my thoughts for Week One submission after reviewing the comments of some of my colleagues:

Part one:  The three most important events in the historical background of financing education in Texas:While we haven't been able to reach a consensus yet on the three most important events in the history of Texas education, I see patterns of similarity. First of all, we have all stated that the establishment of the Texas constitution was first most important event. Sheri and I mentioned the importance of the 1845 constitution which "provided for the establishment of free schools and called for state taxes to support education" (EDLD 5342 Lecture Template, page 1) while Shelley mentioned the 1876 Constitution "established by name the Permanent and Available School Funds"(EDLD 55342 Lecture Template, page 2). The essence of all these decisions leads to the fact that the founding fathers of Texas placed an emphasis on education and state support of the education system. The second historical event that we all agree upon has to do with the court decisions centering around the Edgewood case. We all commented on how the interpretation of the court decisions from Edgewood, Rodriguez and West Orange Cove have greatly impacted how Texas funds education with respect to equity, adequate and equality. At first I suggested that HB 1 was the third most important event, but upon reflection of what Shelley and Sheri shared, I would agree that the third most important event would be the passing of the Gilmer Aiken Laws. Since this law" established an organized approach to the state supplementing local taxes in an attempt to adequately fund public education" (EDLD 5342 Lecture Template, page 3), it surpasses the HB 1 because it truly created the opportunity for HB 1 to even exist! Since the implementation of the Gilmer Aiken Law, it seems it became the catalyst for changes in school funding to be battled in the court room instead of the legislature. This is where we are today even, so I would agree that the Gilmer Aiken Laws were the third most important event.

Part Two:  Identify three or four basic issues impacting a state formula:Once again, I see a pattern in the thinking of our group when we consider the issues that are important to state funding. We have consensus on two of the three items. The first item we all agree upon includes the taxes that fund education. While those taxes are dependent upon many issues, public education in Texas could not survive without the taxes generated statewide. The taxes are also probably the most contested part of school funding since the distribution of these taxes differs from district to district. As both Sheri and Shelley mentioned, the property taxes collected can vary depending upon whether you are from a property wealthy area or not. The second issue we agree upon that impacts the state formula is the weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Since WADA tries to balance the playing field for districts by taking into account "additional education needs" (EDLD 5342 Glossary, Week 1) of students, this WADA can be critical to a district. Anyone who has ever tried to fund an automobile technology class or provide a one-on-one teacher for a special needs student can appreciate the WADA provided to make the education of these students happen. I believe our group would be wise to include the next two items as the third and fourth consideration for state funding. Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is critical because we can't teach the students if they are not in attendance. The emphasis the state puts on schools by provided funding based on ADA is important, but Sheri brings up a valid point. Some cultures and parents do not understand or value the importance of education. As a result, a choice of the family or culture becomes a financial burden to the district without any impact on the family. Many schools are providing creative solutions to entice attendance, but the bottom line is that the district suffers for the decisions of the family. Shelley brings up that the compensatory education funding is important because it provides "financial support to school district to teach educationally disadvantaged pupils and underachieving students." (EDLD 5342 Glossary, Week 1). Perhaps this is the funding that compensates for the ADA deficiencies of those families who are disadvantaged or at risk that do not support education by getting their students to school. I concur with my colleagues that these are four important issues in school funding.

Part Three:  Define the concepts of equality, adequacy and equity and identify two examples of each.  If we consider equity to be defined as "fair or equal distribution of resources for schooling, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics" (EDLD 5342 Glossary, Week 1), there are many examples I could provide for equity. These examples might include transportation issues for districts whose children live far apart, career courses that have expensive equipment requirements, and special programs to address gifted students or special education students. To me, these are the funds that are used to help level the field for districts. I agree with Sheri that many people confuse these words by using them interchangeably. I believe equity and equality are probably the most misused. Equality means "every student has the same type of basic educational program." (EDLD 5342 Lecture notes, Week 1, page 7). To me, this means everyone gets the same basic education. Examples of this would include basic educational allotments for every student and Tier I funding sources for extraordinary situations such as new instructional facility allotments, technology, and military child allotments. Dr. Arterbury and Dr. Nicks define adequacy to include that "the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards." (EDLD 5342 Lecture notes, week 1, page 7). Examples of this include textbook sand minimum teacher salaries.