The Role of the Superintendent in the Budget Process

Summary:

     After reading the material regarding the role of the superintendent in the budgeting process, and interviewing my superintendent about this topic, I have come to the conclusion that the budgeting process is the most important (and probably most stressful) role he/she has.  As the preparer of the budget, the superintendent must be knowledgeable in many areas of education: legislation, budgeting guidelines, economic trends (local, county, regional, state, and national), and most importantly, education/instruction.  The superintendent must take all of the information and data gathered from each of these sources and apply it to the development of the budget. 

   The good news is that although the superintendent is responsible for the preparation of the budget, he/she is not alone in the process.  According to the text, Learning from the Best: Lessons from Award-Winning Superintendents, effective superintendents begin the budget process by gaining unanimous support from the board.  When the superintendent and school board begin the process on the same page, there is less chance of disagreement when it comes time to adopt the budget.  Board members must trust their superintendent to make effective and efficient budgetary decisions.

     The superintendent must also work hand in hand with the school district business manager.  I have always heard that “the most effective leaders are those who surround themselves with effective people.”  This is extremely important when it comes to hiring a business manager.  Hiring someone with integrity, values and work ethic is imperative.  According to my superintendent, hiring an effective business manager is just as important as hiring effective principals.  In the same way principals have an immediate impact on student performance, the business manager has an immediate impact on the district’s financial state. 

    Finally, in the role of budgetary preparer, the superintendent must be an effective communicator and have excellent collaboration skills.   This was emphasized in the text and also in my interview with the superintendent.  According to Mr. Hartgraves, involving stakeholders, including those taxpayers who no longer have children in school, in the budgeting process will help build support for the budget.  Communication can make or break the school district budget.  Being open to input and suggestions will give stakeholders ownership and encourage their support.  This can be accomplished by communicating budget information and regularly monitoring the budget throughout the school year.

Reflection:

    When I reflect on the role of the superintendent in the budgetary process, one thought comes to mind, “OMG!”  J In all seriousness, I believe this part of the superintendency must be the most stressful part of the job.  Knowing that you are responsible for every penny that passes through the school district seems like such a daunting task.  However, as I interviewed Mr. Hartgraves, it became clear to me that the superintendents who effectively manage the finances of their school districts, do so by relying on the resources around them:  Networking between superintendents, region service center professionals, auditors, lawyers, business managers, etc.  In order to survive the stress of this position, you have to realize that you are not alone…and that you do not know everything.  Your willingness to call and ask questions, research best practices of other districts and use the resources available will be the key to your success.  

TEA Budgeting Guidelines

     The TEA Budgeting Guidelines are extremely helpful to those of us who are new to school finance.  Although it is an overwhelming amount of information, I find that the more I read, the better I begin to wrap my mind around the process.  It provides many tables, charts and other exhibits that are excellent resources for new superintendents. 

     One of the things I found most interesting in the resource guides was the list of budgetary approaches.  It never occurred to me that there are multiple ways to approach budgetary planning.  I found it interesting to read about the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.  It seems that the best approach would be a hybrid:   finding the most effective combination of methods to meet your specific district’s needs. 

     Another thing that stood out to me was the emphasis of timelines and deadlines for complying with state and federal law.  Superintendents must familiarize themselves with these guidelines and create budget calendars to ensure that each person involved in the budgeting process is aware of their responsibilities and deadlines.  Exhibit 3 on page 32 was very helpful in learning the budgetary roles and responsibilities.

     Section 2.11 on Financial Forecasting was also very interesting.  It provides multiple methods for estimating expenditure projections. Learning about these methods will help a superintendent choose the best method, or combination of methods, to suit his/her district.  This section also emphasizes the importance of knowing where your district has been, where your district is, and where your district is going.  Using past and present data to make projections about revenue and expenditures proves very effective.  Another critical component to projecting expenditures is to be familiar with state mandates and legislation for the coming year.  Many times new mandates come with new expenditures.  Failure to stay up to date in this area could result in a budget crisis.  

     Overall, I found this guide to be extremely helpful.  I have no doubt it is a commonly used resource for both new and veteran superintendents.

The Goal Driven Budget

A goal driven budget is critical to the financial success of any district.  As Dr. Arterbury stated in the lecture this week, “the purpose of a goal driven budget is to assist in the attainment of a shared vision for the school district and every campus.”  Setting specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely goals (SMART goals) will foster change and improvement in every area of the school district.  Unfortunately, many leaders focus district and campus planning on the areas of instruction, curriculum, programs, etc, but forget about its importance when it comes to finance.  Using the same goal driven process we use to improve student performance, we can insure that the financial state of the district will also improve.

This process begins by involving stakeholders in decision making.  The district and campus improvement committees should spend time discussing budget issues and making recommendations for the coming year budget.  When input is gathered from all stakeholders, the budget will more likely reflect the goals of the district and funds will be more effectively utilized.

The district improvement plan of my school includes a column entitled “resources.”  This column lists the specific dollar amount that is allocated for that particular area.  This provides an excellent guideline for developing the new budget.  The superintendent can use the plan to see which programs are being used and how much each will cost.  With input from the campus improvement committees, decisions can be made about cutting and/or adding programs.  The format of our plan also allows stakeholders to see an estimate of how much money is being spent to reach each specific goal.  I believe that our district and campus plans are what Dr. Arterbury calls a “version of the vision.”  We are working very hard to insure that our campus, district and board goals are aligned and that our budget process and expenditures reflect those goals. 

Although the superintendent of the district is responsible for the preparation of the budget, it is absolutely necessary that he/she involve stakeholders in the process.  Developing a goal driven budget will insure that teachers, students, parents, community members and other stakeholders have an opportunity to submit input.  This does not mean that the superintendent must take every single recommendation or “wish list” a person submits.  However, it does mean that stakeholders will be given an opportunity to share their insights and suggestions and that the superintendent will listen, consider, and take action as he/she deems appropriate.  When stakeholders feel as though their ideas have been considered, they are much more likely to support the final decision (budget).

Dr. Arterbury also emphasizes the importance of communication.  I could not agree more.  In fact, I will go a step further and say that it is the superintendent’s communication that is most important.  I have seen some superintendents in school board meetings who defer all budget questions to the business manager.  Although the business manager probably has the most insight into the details of the budget, the superintendent MUST be prepared enough to answer questions from the board.  When they continuously turn the questions over to someone else, it causes the board to lose trust in the superintendent’s ability to manage the finances of the school.  Knowing the details of the budget and being able to answer a majority of the questions about the budget will help insure the success of the superintendent. 

Communicating the progress of the budget to all stakeholders, not just board members, will create a relationship of trust and confidence.  Trust is critical to the success of the superintendent and the school district.  In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that our teachers, parents, and community members are informed.  The further we fall into this school finance crisis, the more we will have to rely on our outside stakeholders to help.  If they see the school superintendent as someone they can trust to make the most effective and efficient decisions for the students, they will be more likely to support difficult decisions such as personnel cuts, program cuts, or higher taxes.  Being open and honest with your stakeholders will lead to a positive, supportive relationship in which everyone benefits.

District Improvement Plans

For quite some time, I have questioned the format of our school’s district improvement plan.  Although our meets the goal-setting and planning requirements, it seems to be more of a “list” of programs and activities, rather than a plan for the future.  The budget resources are included in the plan, but not in a way that reflects goal driven budgeting. It has been my understanding that the template we use is what is required by the state.  However, the AISD plan is nowhere near the same as our template.  This shows me that the format of our plan can be changed to better meet our planning needs.  I would like to find a middle ground between our formal plan and the AISD less structured plan.

                                              

One of the things I really like about the AISD plan was the links to various types of data.  Rather than list every little detail in the plan, they offered a link that went straight to the source.  This is a great idea and is beneficial to anyone looking through the plan.  I also like the way they listed their campus teams, meetings and attendance in a clear and concise format. 

Providing the list of comp ed expenditures in Appendix A provided valuable budgeting information in a useful format.  The one thing I might change is to include exactly how much of the comp ed money is spent on each activitiy list. Our plan identifies specific comp ed expenditures throughout the plan, but the information is sporadic and not in one easy to read location. 

The list of external resources and the programs they fund was also valuable information.  I found Appendix A to be of great benefit and would like to add that type of information to our plan.  Again, I would include the specific dollar amount applied to each activity.

As far as my overall impression of the plan, I found it to be a bit generic.  Although there are links to specific initiatives and committees, I would like to see a list of specific goals for the district.  Of course, I am from a small district, which makes easier to set specific district goals, and this may not be possible in larger districts.  The goals listed in our district improvement plan are general for the district, but provide guidance to set specific goals for each campus.  I believe the district plan must be one that guides your campus administrators in building their plan.  AISD’s plan does this fairly well.  My district improvement plan is almost too detailed and is a little overwhelming.  As I said before, I’d like to find a balance between the two. Rather than a list of “what we are doing”, it should be a list of “where do we want to be in five years” and “how are we going to get there?”

Appendix B is an excellent tool.  It is similar to the format of our district plan, and is more goal-oriented and specific.  I believe this is the most beneficial piece of AISD’s plan.  It lists SMART goals and includes the desired outcomes, measurable goals, activities and resources required to meet those goals and a timeline for evaluation.  The activities listed are specific, yet concise.  There is not a lot of education lingo, which makes them easy for parents and community members to understand. 

Reviewing the AISD plan and comparing it to our district plan has been a very beneficial activity. I believe I have a better understanding of goal-driven budgeting and the different ways to report and plan in this area.  It also prompted me to research the improvement plans of other districts and evaluate their effectiveness.  My goal through my internship is to develop a more effective planning program in our district.  Comparing plans has provided a step in the right direction.

Events in School Finance History

It is very difficult to narrow the events of history down to three major events.  I have no doubt that we will all have differing opinions as to the “most important” events.  I look forward to reading the opinions of my cohort group and learning from the collaboration.

1)      I believe that you cannot identify the top three events in the History of Texas School finance without listing the acts of Maribiau B. Lamar.  He is known as the Father of Education and his land grants were one of the first plans to provide funding for education.  It is evident throughout Texas history that education was an important part of society (although it was not readily available to all ages, genders and economic levels.)  Mr. Lamar was the first to develop a way to help FUND education.  Many valued educations, but few had any ideas of how to offer education to all.   Evidence of his impact is seen in the fact that his grants founded two of Texas’ leading universities: A & M and UT.  I believe Maribiau B. Lamar lit the educational fire in Texas and although it has become an extremely complex fire, it still burns brightly today.

2)      The second event was the Gilmer-Aiken Committee/Gilmer Aiken Laws in 1947. Their purpose was to make public schools more efficient and better funded and they had an impact on multiple areas of school finance.  Their actions resulted in reduced number of school districts, increases in Teacher salaries increases, a formalize school, the SBOE was founded and  an organized approach to the state  supplementing local taxes to adequately fund education was established.  The actions of this committee were ground breaking and had an immediate effect on public education.

3)      The third historical event in school finance history I believe had a tremendous impact was the events from 1984-1995 which included the school finance court case of Edgewood vs Kirby and led to the legislative development of a new funding program that became known as the Robin Hood Plan.  This plan recaptured funds from wealthy school districts and provided them to the poor.  Although it did seem to balance the equity of public school funding, it was not a popular plan with the wealthy school districts.  The wealthy school districts ultimately filed a lawsuit which resulted in the current funding system.  The reason I include the Edgewood vs Kirby court case is that I believe it opened the door for the school finance litigation.  Suddenly districts realized that the courts were willing to be involved in this issue and court cases could have a huge impact on legislation.  This remains true today with the current litigation.

Reflection:
I found it quite interesting to compare the thoughts of my cohort group in this area.  Although few stated the exact same three top events, we all had similar thoughts as to the general theme.  This activity was very beneficial to me because I had never really considered the history of school finance and the fact that education has faced the same challenges throughout history.  Lawmakers and legislators have continued to make education a priority.  The problem is finding a system that benefits every type of school.  Trying to find a “cookie cutter” formula for education is difficult and the challenge remains to this day.   In my opinion, lawmakers today have lost sight of the true meaning of education for all.  They seem to be more interested in accountability and politics than student needs.  I have no doubt that many of the challenges we face in school finance today are due to leaders and educators who failed to put children first.  As in every other area of education, it only takes a few “bad apples” to ruin the system for everyone.  One sure thing that educators and lawmakers today can learn from the history of school finance is that it began with leaders who had a heart for children and education.

State Funding System

1)      Tier 1:  According to the School Finance 101 Manual on the TEA website, Tier 1 is made up of several allotments: “ basic education, special education, career and technical education, bilingual/English as a Second Language education, compensatory education, gifted and talented education, Public Education Grants, transportation, and new instructional facilities. Tier I also includes an allotment for specialized programs at the high school level, the high school allotment. “ The Tier 1 amount is calculated based on the basic allotment, the district’s compressed tax rate and the average daily attendance.  In a nutshell, the district starts with a basic amount, then that amount is adjusted based on the average daily attendance of students in all of the programs listed above.  The more students in the “weighted” categories, such as special education and CT, the more money the district receives.

2)      Tier 2: This tier provides a guaranteed level of funding.  The property wealth of districts will vary and the state guarantees to supplement the income to a guaranteed level.  In other words, if a small district is not earning enough money from their tax effort, the state will subsidize their income up to a certain amount.  This is in place to assist the districts with lower property wealth.  There are three levels in this Tier.

3)      Revenue at the compressed tax rate: This guarantees districts a set amount of funds per students based on weighted average daily attendance.  This is a little more confusing and I am not sure I completely understand how it is calculated.

Reflection:
There is no question that there is a problem with our current funding system.  The number of court cases is evidence that the equity is not there.  I believe that the biggest problem is the fact that the state cannot decide on an acceptable standard for accountability, which results in a roller coaster system full of unfunded mandates and expenditures.   The pressure and accountability goes up, and the amount of money necessary to meet those standards goes up, but the funding offered to districts goes down.  How in the world does that make sense to anyone?  Although it is a frustrating predicament for all educators, I admire the fact that our superintendents and other leaders in education continue to fight to meet the standards.  Although we must continue to make cuts in personnel and programs, we will refuse to sacrifice our hearts for kids.  It feels like we are fighting a losing battle, but we will press on for the benefit of the students in our districts.  Fight the good fight!

Adequacy, Equity and Equality

1)      According to “School Funding 101” in the resource section of this course, adequacy is the need for just enough funding to allow students to achieve.  There are many examples of adequacy issues in education.  Generally, these issues are the hot topics that are the center of school finance litigation.  For example, many in education believe that teacher salaries are inadequate and should be increased.   With the rising pressure of standardized testing and accountability, are teachers being adequately paid for their efforts?  Adequacy is also an issue when it comes to the amount of money necessary for the General Diffusion of Knowledge.  This is currently a hot topic in the financial litigation is whether or not the state is providing adequate resources to educate our students and again, standardized testing is listed as a reason for needing more resources.

2)      Equity is defined “equal distribution of resources for schooling, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics.”  An example is in the Tier 1 funding formula.  Districts are given more funding for programs that are above and beyond the core curriculum.  These programs include, special education, gifted and talented, career tech, etc.  Special programs are for “special” students with “special” needs that required “special” attention and funding beyond those of “regular” students.  Another example is in Tier 2.  The state has a guaranteed level of funding and will “fill in the gap” for property poor districts.

3)      Equality, according to Dr. Arterbury, means “every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.”  An excellent example of equality can be found in special education.  Districts are required to offer each student the same “free and appropriate public education (FAPE)” in the “least restricted environment.”  This concept insures that schools meet the needs of every student in the best possible way.  Students are not discriminated against based on their learning disabilities, handicaps, etc.  Although instructional strategies may differ, students are receiving the same type of education.  In regards to school finance, an example of equality would be in the funding formulas.  The state provides equal funds for educational programs that benefit all students.  This includes your core academic areas that are required for all students to graduate, regardless of ability.

Reflection:
Until we realize there is no “cookie cutter” method to school finance, we will never meet the criteria of equality, equity, and adequacy in school finance.  Just like classroom instruction, school finance must be adapted to meet the needs of your specific students.  For example, offering more funding for special education is an excellent way to meet the needs of students with disabilities.  However, telling a district that they can only have a certain percentage of special education students takes away from that effort.  The funding formula does not know the specific students in each of our districts…WE DO!  Therefore, we should receive the funding necessary to education every single one of them.  Just like in the classroom, each group of students comes with a different set of challenges and needs.  Providing more local control of finances will allow districts to better meet the challenges of equality, equity, and adequacy.  I am a firm believer that if we make decisions on what is best for the individual students, we cannot go wrong.  Even a “wrong” decision can work out well if it is made for the “right” reasons.