Goal driven budget

Each district has a mission statement.  In Liberty ISD, the mission statement is “to ensure that every student reaches his or her potential.”  With that goal in mind, each year, Liberty ISD creates a goal-driven budget.  A goal-driven budget is, as it sounds, a budget driven by the goals that the board and school administrators have set for the district.  The goals are determined by the needs of the students in the district.  The goal driven budget analyzes each goal and bases its spending on these goals.  The budget is not created then the goals are set. The budget is created using district goals as the foundation not vice versa.    I agree with Dr. Arterbury’s statement “the district and the campus goals should reflect the Board goals.”  In speaking with my Superintendent, Dr. Abshier stated that LISD budget goals focus spending on the district goals which include all subject areas, grade levels, and each special program. Dr. Abshier also indicated that the district needs were identified in the areas of decision-making (planning, curriculum/instruction, staffing, staff development, school organization, and budgeting) and through the Effective Schools Correlates-instructional focus, high expectations, school climate, and parental involvement.  Dr. Abshier also shared that the budget creators take on a huge responsibility.  Those who construct the budget must know how much money is available, where the money will be allocated, and be held accountable that the spending is done accurately.  Each decision maker must know his/her role and responsibilities.  It must be determined that the board, the superintendent, and the school principals are on the same page and realize that there a system of checks and balances before a final decision can be made.  Educators must make daily budget decisions based on how it will affect the children of the district.  Any variation from this goal negatively affects the success of the children and no administrator would want to take the blame for that.  Often the administrators must re-evaluate budget making decisions and review the goals to ensure that they correspond with one another.  Each year monies must be spent with one goal in mind to reflect the vision, goals, and mission of the district.

Comparison of district plans

Austin ISD vs. Liberty ISD

Overview

Austin ISD’s District Improvement plan focuses on key guidance plans, implementation plans, and resource plans. 

Liberty ISD’s District Improvement plan focuses on three main goals: student performance, parent/community involvement, and a safe, orderly environment that promotes successful student learning.

Budget information

Austin ISD’s budget focuses on personnel, fringes, travel, supplies, contracts, construction, training, external, and internal costs.  This budget lists the dollar amount that each area would receive.  All school program costs come from various funds and grants.  The Austin ISD plan lists each area that requires external grants and federal funds and the source of the funding.  Liberty ISD does list specific areas where money is used, but does not specifically break down how each dollar in the school budget will be spent.  Money spent in Liberty ISD focuses on curriculum, staff development, at-risk students, bilingual students, dyslexic students, gifted and talented, staffing, library, technology, and attendance.

Differences

Information Format

The differences occur in the format of the district improvement plan.  Austin ISD’s District Improvement plan is written in such a way that shows approved plans, actions and members of the district advisory council, updates including staffing and budgets, milestones, recommendations, and meeting results. The appendices seem to be the heart of the plan.  In the appendices ,the reader can look at data that includes use of state compensatory education (CSE) and external grant funding, Performance Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS), highly qualified (HQ) teacher criteria, district policy on sexual harassment and dating violence, and pregnancy related services.  Liberty ISD’s plan opens with the district mission statement and begins by stating goals and performance indicators.  The plan continues by listing objectives, goals, and needs assessments.  In addition to this the written format differs. The majority of Liberty ISD’s plan is written in table form whereas Austin ISD’s is written in the format of paragraphs, listing, tables, and charts.  Finally, the lengths of the plans differ.  Austin ISD’s plan is 53 pages long whereas Liberty ISD’s plan is only 27 pages long. 

Similarities

The similarities between the two plans occurs in Appendix B, the performance based monitoring analysis system.  The Austin ISD plan lists specific goals, measurable evidence of change, activities, resources, and timelines.  Liberty ISD plans lists goals and strategies, persons responsible, resources, formative evaluations, and timelines listed in table form. The sources of school program funding in both districts come from Title I, Title II, Title III, SCE, grants, special ed funds, bilingual student funds, general, and local funds.

Conclusion

When comparing district improvement plans, both similarities and differences can be noted.  Each district builds its plan based on the needs of its students.  

Equality, equity, and adequacy

Equality - all public school children must have equal access to a high quality education

Ex. 1- students will have equal access to opportunities so that they can fully participate in the learning process- all students have access to the same classes, textbooks, and technology

Ex. 2- enabling all staff and students to develop to their full potential-funds are spent on curriculum development, programs that could increase student learning, and staff training and professional development

Equity- individuals or groups of individuals are treated fairly and equally

Ex.1- districts direct special funds to selected student populations

Ex. 2- students with similar characteristics receive equal resources

Ex. 3-money is distributed to lowest-income districts

Adequacy - districts exceed minimum amount of funding for schools to meet the needs of its students

Ex. 1-districts provide equal funding per pupil        

Ex. 2- money is available in each school to meet the state’s educational goals for all students

Three issues impacting the state formula

Texas school funding formula is based on the state’s ability to equalize funds for all districts to meet the needs of their students.  There are more than three issues explaining the state formula, but the three I will focus on include: property values i.e. taxes, average daily attendance (ADA), and program weights to compensate districts.  

Property taxes

The first of the three issues that impact the state funding formula are the local property taxes.   The local property taxes are the primary source of revenue for most school districts which accounts for a majority of a district’s local tax revenue.  Texas property taxes help to distribute state aid for all students receiving public education including the neediest school districts, schools, and students. 

ADA

The second of the three issues that impact the state funding formula is ADA.  Texas Administration Code states that all public schools in Texas must maintain records to reflect the average daily attendance (ADA) for the allocation of Foundation School Program (FSP) funds and other funds allocated by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Superintendents, principals, and teachers are responsible to their school boards and to the state to maintain accurate, current attendance records.

Program weights

The third of the three issues that impact the state funding formula are program weights.  After adjusting the basic allotment for district size and disparities in the cost of education, the formulas apply program weights to compensate districts for students.  These weights can include the compensatory education weight, small district adjustment, special education weight, transportation allotment, and Cost of Education Index.  The focus on such weights helps to equalize differences among students and districts.

Top three events

There are three top events that stand out while exploring the history of Texas school finance.  The three events are the Constitution of 1845, the passage of the Gilmer-Aiken Law in 1947, and the implementation of Senate Bill 1.

The Constitution of 1845

The first event that directly impacted the funding for Texas public education was the Constitution of 1845.  The new Texas Constitution provided for the establishment of free schools and called for state taxes to support education.  I feel that this constitution was extremely important because it allocated a portion of revenue to schools which lay the foundation for permanent school funding in the future.  From 1845 on, this constitution made provisions and suitable support for the maintenance of public schools.  

The Gilmer-Aiken Law of 1947

The second event that directly impacted the funding for Texas public education was the passage of the Gilmer-Aiken Law of 1947.  This new law helped to restructure the public school system.  It is because of this law that districts were consolidated, funding was equalized, teacher salaries were raised, school staffs supplemented by education specialists, an elected State Board of Education and TEA was created, and the new law guaranteed all Texas children the opportunity to attend public school for twelve school years of nine months, with a minimum of 175 days of instruction. I chose the Gilmer-Aiken law because it laid the foundation for the Texas public school system that operates today. 

Senate Bill 1 of 1995

The second event that directly impacted the funding for Texas public education was passage pf Senate Bill 1.  Senate Bill 1 made significant changes to Texas education.   The bill created a system of redistribution of wealth.  Wealthier districts were required to surrender tax money to less fortunate districts.  I feel that the importance of equalization of funds allows students in poorer districts to have the same opportunities as children in wealthy districts.