EDLD+5342+Wk+4

__Week 4, Assignment Part 1 __ The FIRST (Financial Integrity Rating System) is the accountability system designed to produce a report and evaluate school district's business and financial operations (Week 4 Lecture). The report includes twenty-two indicators that can be grouped into four categories. Those categories are fund balance and cash reserve status, accuracy of data and audit results, prudent spending and operations, and other items unrelated to financial management. One of the unrelated items includes indicator seven which is tied to whether a district was above unacceptable academically. In order for a district to get a superior achievement rating the district has to be academically acceptable or higher. Each indicator is awarded a specific point value and the sum of all the points determines the rating that the district is awarded for the year. Three of the ratings are acceptable or better with substandard achievement rating (<56 of 80,< 70%) being assigned to districts in need of financial reform. The FIRST rating is a system designed to evaluate the use of a district's financial resources which should support and return positive student achievement. There are several important aspects of the FIRST report but three that stand out include 1) the external summative nature of the report itself, 2) the transparency of the district's business, operation, and fiscal management, and 3) the annual review of the existing business practices that compares districts to the state. According to one business manager, the three indicators which are of most importance include 1) the condition of the fund balance, 2) the total unrestricted net asset balance, and 3) information related to any defaults on bonded indebtedness. Through these three indicators, all stakeholders remain informed on the district’s financial condition. This transparency provides a level of trust and confidence to all involved.

What is valued is measured. The FIRST report is an evaluation by the state based on set criteria. The reports and the evaluative criteria are applied to all school districts. By evaluating all school districts to the same standard all bias is removed when evaluating school districts. If the state did not conduct this financial review then all school districts would rate themselves as 'fine' when in reality several districts are floundering financially even though they are required to have an external audit conducted on a regular basis. The report itself provides a certain degree of transparency and a look into school district business and operations. Each of the indicators looks at a specific accountability area. While school finance is anything but simple the FIRST report provides understandable data. For example it measures whether or not the school district has enough money in the fund balance; if the district has enough, or too many, teachers and staff; and other critical information regarding the financial condition of the district. These indicators are understandable to the regular citizen. They provide information that help to tell the story about a school district. As with student achievement, school districts want the highest rating possible, Superior Achievement (90% of points possible). The FIRST provides a rating to all school districts based on the cumulative total of points from the twenty-two indicators. The rating and points earned can be used as a comparison between school districts. It is also a benchmark for school districts that they can revisit annually to monitor progress, both positive and negative.

The FIRST report is a valuable report conducted by the state that measures school district financial efficiency, provides for transparency of school district financial business and operations, and assigns a rating based on a scale to all school districts in Texas. The FIRST report is one of two school district accountability reports, the other being AEIS (student achievement). The findings of both should be and are made available to the public for review.

Week 4, Assignment 2


 * || Small District || Large District ||
 * Total Revenue Per Pupil || $10,529 || $10,316 ||
 * Total Instructional Expenditures Per Pupil || $4,619 || $5,494 ||
 * Total Operational Expenditures Per Pupil || $8,611 || $8,908 ||
 * Average Teacher Salary || $39,771 || $50,307 ||

The differences for Total Revenue per Pupil, Total Instructional Expenditures per Pupil, and Total Operational Expenditures per Pupil between the large and small school districts that we have been given to analyze is minimal. The small district generates $213 more per pupil than the large district. Conversely, the large district expends $297 more per pupil overall and $875 more per student on instruction. At a quick, first glance the differences seemed to be neutral but after a more thorough review the differences actually ‍speak very loudly. At the surface it appears that the small district receives appropriate funding because it generates more revenue per pupil. The expenditures per pupil are inversely related. The larger district spends more money per pupil. The economy of scale is evident in this example. The larger district, while generating less per pupil, is actually able to provide additional resources because of the fact that there is economy in bulk. This is especially true on instruction, although much of this cost may be due to the higher average teacher salary at the larger district. The larger district can get more and do more with less per pupil because of the bulk discount (economy of scale). The overhead cost for required positions, materials and other resources cost the same in either district but are available to more students in the larger district. Larger districts are able to reduce these infrastructure costs and allocate these funds elsewhere (Lecture Week 4).

‍Teachers in the larger district receive quite a bit more than their small school district peers. The difference between the large and small school district teacher salary is $10,536. It seems that the larger school district has decided to enrich the instructional program by improving teacher salaries. The intent is that the higher salary will recruit and retain higher quality teachers. It is assumed that higher quality teachers will help to produce higher achieving students. Based on the data we have been given for this comparison this idea or thought process could be debated. Additionally, it may cost the larger district more to attract teachers since working conditions are often more favorable in a smaller district due to student behavior. This could contribute greatly to the instructional costs of the larger district.

‍There have been several studies that show that there is a positive relationship between the amount of money spent on a student and student achievement. Exemplary districts typically spend more funds per student, or based on this exercise they are able to spend more per student. While economy of scale is clearly evident between these two school districts, the student achievement results are not. The smaller school district, with a greater Economically Disadvantaged student population, actually performed better in all TAKS subjects and indicators. So the larger school district has the financial flexibility to do more for students than the smaller school district but the results of their economy of scale benefit are not consistent with their student achievement in comparison to the smaller school district in this example. The smaller school district has a smaller student to teacher ratio at 11.9:1 and a student to staff ratio of 6.3:1 compared to the larger district at 14.1:1 and 7.1:1 respectively. These ratios could be another contributing factor to the success of the smaller district.

__Week 4, Assignment Part 3 __ Staffing patterns can have a significant impact on student achievement. In a perfect world, school districts would have the resources necessary to meet the needs of all students to include ample funding for staffing. In reality, school districts have to identify a staffing pattern that will meet the needs of their students with limited fiscal resources. Staffing patterns vary from school district to school district based on funds, educational philosophy and student needs. Some staffing patterns impact support personnel while others directly impact classroom services and instruction. These decisions should be driven by student need and program requirements. Unfortunately these decisions are driven by funding first and student/program requirement second. School districts have to make difficult decisions. They must decide how to staff programs at reduced levels and also get the greatest return on the smallest investment possible. Part of the staffing pattern school districts must abide by is mandated by law. The student to teacher ratio in grades K-4 is 22:1. No one will argue that a small student to teacher ratio is best for students. However, funding small student to teacher ratios is expensive. So when school districts are reviewing their staffing patterns, grades k-4 are typically removed from the table of options (although more districts are obtaining waivers for class size in grades K-4). Staffing areas that school districts can differentiate include grades 5-12 student to teacher ratios, support personnel and administration. In a perfect world, staffing patterns would be a non-issue because funds would be abundant.

In our districts, staffing patterns have been a topic of discussion because of the reduced funding from the state. Unfortunately, the decisions that had to be made could not be made with the best interest of students in mind; rather, the revised staffing pattern decisions were driven by funding. The districts have made every effort possible to impact classroom instruction the least while also addressing the reduction of state funds. Last year at Earl’s district, the reduced funding was absorbed at the district level. Staffing patterns were not reduced, but vacated positions were not filled. This year, however, the district could not absorb the reduced funding issue without impacting and reducing the existing staffing pattern. Areas considered included reducing Pre-Kindergarten aides and the number of Pre-Kindergarten sections, eliminating the instructional technology position at every campus, reducing the number of district librarians, reducing the number of campus instructional coordinators, reducing the number of nurses and replacing them with nursing aides, and the remaining deficit had to be assumed by the reduction in teaching positions in grades 6-12. Scheduling at the secondary campuses was reviewed but it was determined that the negative impact it would have on student achievement would be greater than reducing teaching positions and salvaging the block schedules.

The decisions made do not help district personnel achieve district goals, but how can reducing already insufficient funding amounts have a positive impact on student achievement? The final decisions made in Earl’s district impacted support staff and secondary teaching positions. Pre-Kindergarten teachers and aides were left alone but all the other areas considered were reduced or done away with completely. The district cut as much as possible from the support areas in an effort to maintain the student to teacher ratios at the secondary levels. There is not a good solution to reducing staffing patterns. The positions cut were not luxury positions; they were integral to meeting the needs of the students when and where they needed additional support. These reductions in personnel will go into effect next year district-wide. The reductions in campus personnel will add additional stress on the existing staff and systems. Having to differentiate staffing by reduction does not make achieving campus and district goals any easier.

In Hardin (Richard's district) similar reductions have been made. At the end of the 2010 -2011 school year the assistant superintendent and the middle school counselor retired and neither position was replaced. Other changes included moving from a principal at the Intermediate school and at the Junior High school to just one principal for both campuses. The Intermediate principal (Richard) was "reassigned" to the high school campus and the high school principal was moved into to newly created position of curriculum coordinator for the district. Overall the district reduced two positions. The current school year has been another story, eighteen positions have been eliminated for the upcoming school year. Positions included reducing from five teachers per grade the elementary to four per grade, the district librarian is retiring and will not be replaced. The high school will reduce by one teacher and the coaching staff was reduced by two. Additional reductions included instructional aides, maintenance, and custodial staff. Most of the eighteen positions were eliminated through incentive packages offered by the district to employees for either retiring or resigning. Two rounds of incentives included a $5,000 incentive for teachers the first round and a lower incentive the second round based on pay for any staff member.

Due to financial cuts by the state, more and more districts are examining ways to differentiate and adjust staffing. One such example is the reduction of curriculum directors and/or specialists and having department team leads take over these responsibilities. Another example is having all teachers obtain ESL certification so that English Language Learners can receive instruction in the mainstream classroom, reducing the number of ESL teachers required by the district. Another option has been to have secondary teachers serve as student advisors, assisting with the development of a student’s four-year plan and course selections. By doing this, the number of secondary counselors can be reduced – although counselors are still needed to oversee the process and ensure four-year plans are completed correctly. As a whole, staff members are being required to take on more and more responsibilities as other positions are eliminated. School districts are becoming more and more creative in staffing requirements. However, this is often done at the expense of meeting student needs.

Week 4, Assignment 4

At Grand Saline ISD, our total budget for 2011-2012 is $8,313,664, with the salary and benefits expenditures at $6,288,367. Thus, our salary/benefits expenditures are approximately 76% of our total budget. As with any district, salary expense is the largest portion of the entire budget.

At first thought, an increase of 5% in salary expense seems to have only negative impacts on a district’s budget. An increase of 5% to our current budget would raise the expense for salaries and benefits by $314,418. This would raise our total salary/benefits expense to $6,602,785, or 79% of this year’s total budget. At a time when districts are trying to lower costs, this puts an additional challenge into balancing a budget. It could require a raise in property taxes or force a district to reduce the fund balance. It could also take away revenue from other instructional resources.

Additional consideration, however, gives several positive impacts on raising the salary expenditure for a school district. For example, it will make the district competitive in attracting or retaining top quality teachers, providing a higher quality of instruction for the students in the district. In addition, it enforces the goals of the district toward raising the quality of education for the students of the school system. Overall, such a salary increase would heighten the morale of the staff. With all of these benefits in mind, you would expect the quality of education to be higher and the turnover rate of staff to be lower. This, in itself, saves a district funds in the long run.

In considering a salary increase for all employees, it is important for district leaders to look at the whole picture. Although it initially appears to have a negative impact on a district’s budget, such an increase would actually provide many benefits to both the budget as well as the academic performance rating of the school.