EDLD 5342 Week 4

Week 4 Part 1 - FIRST

The purpose of the financial accountability rating system of Texas or FIRST is to ensure that school districts are held accountable for the quality of their financial management practices. According to Chapter 109, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Financial Accountability, “The system is designed to encourage Texas public schools to manage their financial resources better in order to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes”. The system consists of five ratings ranging from Superior Achievement to Suspended- Data Quality. Overall, there are six “Critical” indicators on FIRST. However, in our opinion the three most important components are: Was there an unqualified opinion in the annual financial report, did the annual financial report not disclose any instances of material weaknesses in internal controls and finally, the examination of the general fund account. The first important component of FIRST that a Superintendent should be concerned with is whether or not there is an unqualified opinion in the annual financial report. While examining this area it tells a Superintendent if the district had any problem areas in the district’s financial statements. This would be a red flag that should be reviewed.The next critical area of FIRST is whether the annual financial report disclosed any instances of material weaknesses in internal controls? This lets the reader know if there are possible problems with the financial system that is in place at the district.  If there are weaknesses in internal controls there may be problems in the future. The last final important component in our opinion is examining the general fund account. The total fund balance minus the reserved fund balance in the general fund must be greater than zero.  This is extremely important because if the fund balance is zero then a district will have no cash to meet its liabilities or payroll obligations. The FIRST should be an important rating to a Superintendent. All districts should be managing their financial resources to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes and this rating system is used to help districts achieve improved performance in the management of their financial resources.

Reflection: I am pleased to work for a district with excellent FIRST ratings and a healthy fund balance. In talking with my superintendent, it is apparent that he takes the fiscal health of the district to be of the utmost importance….now and in the future.


Part 2

While comparing the two district snapshots this week the concept of economy of scale becomes evident. Economy of scale is  explained by thinking about bulk purchasing, as you buy more the cost per unit may go down. As a district becomes larger it can actually reduce infrastructure costs per student and in turn results in more instructional program revenue per student. It also allows for these efficiency savings to improve teacher salaries. Both districts had similar Total Revenue per pupil (a bit over $10,000) and Total Operational Expenditures per pupil. However, the average teacher salary in District 2 is much higher than District 1. One explanation to the differences in teacher salaries is economy of scale.

     Total Revenue per pupil in each district the totals are very similar. District 1 total revenue is slightly higher than District 2 at $10,529, while District 2 is at $10,316. Also, the Total Operational Expenditures per pupil are similar. District 2’s Total Operational Expenditures per pupil is only $297 more than District 1. Average teacher salary is much different in the two districts. District 2’s average teacher salary is $50,307 while District 1’s average salary is only $39,771. One explanation to the differences in the average teacher salary is economy of scale. District 2 is much more populous with over 32,000 students and 45 campuses. District 1, however, has less than 900 students over 3 campuses. Being a larger district gives District 1 an economy of scale advantage over the smaller district. Being a larger district allows cost of other expenditures to decreases making more funds available to provide a higher base salary and salary increases.


Part 3 Differentiated Staffing

         As stated in the lecture, differentiated staffing is a concept that proposes specialized use of personnel. It is similar to how the medical profession separates duties. Meeks (2011) noted that there was a rise in the interest of differentiated staffing in the 1960s to increase the cost-effectiveness of faculty dollars. The idea was a tiered-labor model ranging from educational aides to expert teachers. I have used this at both campuses I have led. I was able to hire aides to help with intervention time, save funds, and help teachers. The division of labor is accomplished with teacher’s aides,  Teacher’s aides at my school help with instruction and in smaller ways with classroom management, logistics. Each grade level/subject area has intervention time and gets 5 people who come to their level/subject area for an hour each day, then rotate. The teaching team is the expert in the curriculum, coordinates lesson planning, and assigns teaching roles. Overall, the number of staff members required for a certain number of students would is less. In addition, the number of regular certified teachers would be less. However, the number  aides increases. This  results in a smaller budget for staff salaries and benefits. The division of labor  improves job satisfaction of all staff members. They feel they are getting more done and we are seeing the results.

Part 4

Mansfield ISD appears to be in good shape, in spite of the recent legislative session. The district’s total expenditures are listed at $226,376,155. Payroll for all personnel totals $194,826.314. This is broken down in the following ways: Instruction $124 million, Instructional Administration $2,095,021, School Administration $13,840,169.  Other departments and salaries make up the remainder of the $194 million in expenditures. The average teacher salary in the district is $53,100. 

Providing an across the board pay raise of 5% in the district would result in an increase of $9,700,000 being added to the budget. In this current economic climate, an across the board raise of that magnitude would result in having to make choices to cut programs and positions. Currently our district is working on ways to deal with the loss of 13 million in revenue from the state this year and an additional 13 million next year. MISD was able to keep from laying off staff by moving people around in the district to fill openings and handle the cuts through attrition. In addition, we are moving to an 8 period day from intermediate school through high school. This allows the district to save teacher jobs and programs for kids. If we did not do this and kept the current 90 minute block schedule the district would have to pull ten million a year from the fund balance to cover the costs. Of course, pay raises are good for employees and provide a morale boost, as well as much needed support as the cost of living rises. However, a 5 percent raise would not be prudent at this time.

This assignment gave me some perspective. Who wouldn’t like a raise? We all would, but looking at the enormous impact of a raise for staff helped me to see the big picture of how that action would effect the entire budget.

Part 5

The Audit Financial Report is prepared to give the district and trustees an accurate picture of the financial condition of the district. The district has a schedule for rebidding specific types of professional services. Auditing services are not bid like products but are rather selected based on their qualifications. The district will issue a document called an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for auditing services. The auditors will answer questions the district provides which include an estimate for external audit services. External auditors are not allowed to bid their fees.It can only be an estimate. These agreements typically span for more than one year or are obligated each year with an engagement letter. Our audit was conducted by Deloitte and Touche. In the report they describe the importance of the district’s integrity of procedures and that the audit is only as accurate as the district is honest. They conducted the audit “in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America”. The audit examined financial statements and found them to be free of material misstatement. They examined the internal and external controls over reporting. It also examined evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in financial statements, examining all major funds, sources of funding, and expenditures. The audit report contains all the financial statements , a summary of the district’s assets and liabilities, a description of the district. I was able to read a bit about the recent years In Mansfield ISD and the increasing tax base associated with its growth. The audit opinion letters showed the district to be compliant with the law and regulations and in good shape financially, with a fund balance of 87 million dollars at the time of the report. Results are communicated to the board of trustees and district in the audit report and two audit opinion letters. I enjoyed working with Ms. Bowman on this assignment. She is a CFO in our district and was able to spend time discussing this with me. I found the report she gave me to be daunting and a little difficult to understand, but I did at least understand the gist of the report, that the district is compliant with the law and has appropriate procedures in place as well as healthy growth and a healthy fund balance.

 

EDLD5342 Week3 Part4

Mansfield ISD has a current M and O tax rate of $1.04 and total collections of $95,654,811.  This comes from the local property tax rate and is based on a tax base of over $9 billion.  The I and S tax rate collections total $41 million. Our revenue at the compressed rate is $5078 per WADA. The total cost of Tier 1 is $175, 339,987.

Allotments include: $15 million for special education, $10 million for CATE, $912K for GT, $12 million in Comp Ed., $1.5 million for Bilingual Ed., $2.2 million for transportation, $2.5 million for the high school allotment.

The local fund assignment is over $85 million and the state’s share of Tier 1 is over $90 million. Mansfield is not a recapture district. It appears that federal funds contribute over $3 million.

$139 million is allocated to directly to instruction. Funds seem to be adequately allocated to instruction and related services. It appears there is a direct correlation between the funds allocated from local, state, and federal sources into instructional programs that benefit children.

Mansfield ISD lost 13 million this legislative session, but was able to do so without laying off any employees in good standing on their campuses. Instead they moved staff from campus to campus as necessary. In an effort to save more money, the district is moving to an eight period day at the secondary level, moving away from the block schedule. 


MISD is in great financial shape and has a healthy $85 million fund balance.

Voters recently approved a bond election whose focus was “Equality”. 4 new campuses will be built to replace aging campuses and equip them with the latest….things that have become standard on buildings constructed in the last several years. The bond election will also make upgrades to facilities, technology, and security available across the district.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 part 6

Compensatory Education funding for the poorer district runs $3.8 million while the wealthier district is receiving  $633K. The intent of this funding is to serve the needs of the children with the most needs. This does enable the poorer district to provide additional services to those children. However, when you look at the revenue per WADA of each, you discover that the wealthy district is at $7206 vs. the poor district’s $5044.  The difference allows the rich district to come out on top and hire more personnel or provide additional programs and services.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 5

DPV-

Property poor district- $145,968,635

Property wealthy district- $2,916,187,709

I and S

Poor- $94, 871

Rich-  $8,836,256

Chapter 46 (EDA)

Poor- $572,716

Rich- 0

Total Available for Facilities-

Poor- $667, 587

Rich- $8,836,256

The poorer district has a much lower tax base than the wealthy district. They have less in the I and S, and less available for facilties. They may receive 500K in assistance for debt reduction, but one can conclude that the wealthier district probably has new, up to date facilities while the poorer one struggles to just maintain their current buildings. Once again, no equity.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 3

The intent of the legislature to provide more funding to district’s with greater needs was not met. Again, I am left wondering if our legislature even understands public education and has a true desire to adequately fund it,  habitually plays politics, or are victims of unintended consequences of their formulas. The poorer district has a WADA of 5555.815 because it has more disadvantaged and at risk students. This district also has a total tax base of only 141 million dollars. The rich district has a lower WADA at 4794, but because it has a nearly 3 billion dollar tax base every penny of their tax rate provides way more revenue for them. The total revenue per WADA for the property poor district is $5044, whereas the richer district has a revenue per WADA of $7206.  When the formulas were changed in 2006, the richer district was still able to raise more money per WADA because of their higher tax base.

                                                         

While the poorer district receives more funds for  the Special Education Allotment, as well as Career and Tech ed, GT, Comp. Ed., and Bilingual Education allotments, the richer district receives more money overall. This means they can employ more staff members and offer more programs to their students. The poor district has to use these allotments simply to play catch up with basic services and programs. There is even a difference in the student/teacher ratio, with the poor district having a higher overall ratio. The richer district has a ratio of students to total staff and students to teacher that is lower. One can even take a look at the average salaries in each district and see that teacher pay and administrator salaries are higher in the richer district. Even though the state made some efforts in the funding formulas to provide additional assistance for students and the poor district benefits from having a higher WADA, it is clear that they may receive more for the weight of their students, but that the richer district is able to raise more money for their general fund and therefore be able to make more choices to provide enhancements to salaries, education programs, etc.

The legislature’s failure to provide an adequate and equitable funding system is further seen in the EDA numbers. The rich district may not receive any assistance with debt reduction, but the poorer district only receives a bit over $500,000. This minimal amount of assistance does not make a true difference in an age where the infrastructure in our nation is already crumbling and needs to be updated. One can imagine a situation where the property poor district could be struggling to maintain its buildings, let alone update or build newer up to date facilities.

In the end, it is the state’s responsibility to provide an equitable public education experience to all students in Texas. It is a responsibility mandated in our state constitution and it is one that is continually shirked. We live in a time where our politicians are more concerned with being reelected that doing what is right for kids. If you take a look at the demographic and economic trends it is situation that is only going to get worse. The baby boomers are retiring in droves and are concerned about their taxes, benefits, retirement, social security, and medicare. The legislature is not committed to scrapping the entire current system and starting over to create the right system. They seem to be more interested in cutting budgets. A recent article ran that showed the disparity in wealth between the older generations and the younger generations is at its highest gap/point in history. Even with that new data, we are cutting funds to education, childrens’ and family/health programs, and allowing college tuition to become unaffordable while not touching the entitlements for those already holding the wealth.  The only solution is to scrap it and start over with the aim of building the most innovative schools in the nation and doing what it takes to get there…whatever it takes. I wonder if we have the courage.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 2

Summary:

This assignment at first overwhelmed me, so I interviewed my district’s CFO to get a better understanding of the snapshots, how to find the target revenue, etc.

To find the total target revenue I multiplied the WADA at the compressed rate for each district by the WADA. 

The rich district’s formula would be $7,206 X 4794.076= $34,546,111.656

They have 307 teachers, nurses, counselors, and librarians, with 265 FTEs.

The poor district’s formula is $5044 X 5,555.815= $28,023,530.86

They have 281 teachers, nurses, counselors, and librarians, with 265 FTEs.

Reflection: It appears that the rich district benefits from the target revenue and hold harmless provisions. They have roughly $2000 more per student and a 3 billion dollar tax base. The poor district is locked in and can’t raise enough money. When property tax rates were compressed beginning in 2006, it capped each district’s rate but this does not negatively effect the richer district. My reflection is that there is no such thing as equity in Texas. Apparently all men are not created equal.

EDLD 5342 Week 3 Part 1

Summary: One district is obviously a wealthy district, with only 20.7% meeting the criteria to be economically disadvantaged. Their refined ADA is 4032.937.  Their WADA is 4794.07, and their ADA is 4032.  The other district has a population that is 93% economically disadvantaged. Their refined ADA is 3893.754.  Their WADA is 5,555.81 however because they have a higher number of at-risk, disadvantage, or special needs students. The district with less wealth has an ADA of 3898.  The district with the smaller ADA is indeed the one with less wealth in this scenario, therefore their WADA is higher.

Reflection: Upon completing the first assignment, the only thoughts that came to my mind were that I was developing more of an understanding of how to read the reports. I understand and support the philosophy that districts with higher needs should have adjustments made in their funding to meet the needs of their students. It was not until completing the rest of this week’s assignments that I fully understood how good intentions are not met.