Week 2 Part 3: Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

While reading TEA Budgeting Guidelines January 2010, I learned many concepts that I did not previously know, as well as gain a better understanding of familiar concepts. I learned that the district budgeting process is comprised of three phases: planning, preparation, and evaluation. Each of these phases are equally important to the process. I learned that there are several types of budgetary approaches that a district may select, though many districts utilize a hybrid of one of the following models: line-item budgeting, performance budgeting, program and planning budgeting, zero-base budgeting, and site-based budgeting. Each of these budgeting approaches has its own advantages and deficiencies. Something helpful that I learned was the idea of outcome-focused budgeting, also known as a mission-driven budget. This type of budgeting is associated with government planning processes. Governments that are mission-driven, as opposed to rule-driven, are more efficient, effective in achieving goals, are more innovative and flexible, and have higher morale. In addition to this I learned about some legal requirements for budgets, such as when and how the budget is to be reported to the public. Another key learning for me was how important projections of enrollment, staffing, and facilities are to the budgeting process.

There is much new information I have learned in regards to school finance and budgeting that will help me contribute to developing a district budget. Through reading the TEA Budgeting Guidelines January 2010 I am confident I can identify the budgetary approach or hybrid models of my district or any district I work for in the future. I feel I could name some advantages or limitations of the different types of budgeting approaches, which would allow me to suggest an appropriate budgetary approach. I can apply the understanding of the three phases of the budgeting process through budget planning, budget preparation, and evaluation. I will work to apply a mission-driven approach to each of these phases in order to move my district towards a more effective goal-oriented budget. Understanding all of the budget guidelines is an enormous task, but reading this document has allowed me to better understand various facets of the budgeting process. 

Week 2 Part 2: State Budget Reflections

Reviewing the TASBO Budget Development PowerPoint, TEA finance website, a sample budget development calendar, and the TEA budgetary guidelines have given me a better understanding of the important dates and events that take place in developing and adopting a district budget. This process has allowed me to see a “year at a glance,” so to speak in regards to the timeline of creating and adopting the district budget. The most helpful resource in understanding the events that take place in developing a district budget was the TEA Budgeting Guidelines document. I found it humorous that in section 2.7.2.2 of this document it states, “The easiest technique [to build a district calendar] is to begin with the previous year’s calendar and modify it for use in the current year.”  That sounds easy enough! 

Week 2 Part 1: Defining a Goal Driven Budget

A goal driven budget is a financial plan that supports the overall objective of the school district. In this week’s lecture I learned that a goal driven budget is more than allocating fiscal resources for a desired goal (an example being spending funds on teachers and materials to teach a certain subject), but should be an all-encompassing process that is developed in conjunction during district strategic planning through the district improvement plan. Based on my interview with my Superintendent and district Chief Financial Officer, I learned that a goal driven budget is one that is focused on a shared vision of key stakeholders in the district, from the campus level to the district and community level.

In my district, at the campus and district level, a Comprehensive Needs Assessment is completed utilizing an exhaustive list of data (including state assessment results, AYP, PBMAS), meetings, and feedback to verify the needs of each campus and district. Goals are then developed based on the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. These goals are SMART, in that they are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Research Driven, and Time bound. These goals are as follows:

• Goal 1: Every student in LISD will pass all state assessments and the district and all campuses will achieve Exemplary status on all state assessments.
• Goal 2: LISD will identify, monitor, and serve all at-risk students.
• Goal 3: LISD will work to maintain a safe and disciplined environment conducive to learning.
• Goal 4: LISD will ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers.
• Goal 5: LISD will strive to ensure that parents and community members are active partners in the education and activities of all students.

The financial resources for reaching these goals are not included in our 2010-2011 DIP, but consist of federal, state, and local funding. During the current school year a concerted effort on the part of district leadership has each campus aligning our goals and referencing how we support those goals with the campus budget. According to my district leadership interview, though specifically aligning the budget to particular goals on the district improvement plan did not occur in the previous school year, a definitive goal driven budget will be a priority during the campus and district improvement process and plans this year. On the district improvement plan this will by shown aligning account codes, account titles, and budget with particular district and campus goals. For example, Goal 5 on my DIP reads: LISD will strive to ensure that parents and community members are active partners in the education and activities of all students. This goal could be shown that it is supported with Title I funds on the DIP.

 Though my district had a disconnect on the implementation of aligning budget to goals on last year’s DIP, this will not be the case in the 2011-2012 school year. The district leadership team understands effective planning practices and has placed an emphasis on developing a goal driven budget while keeping the shared vision in mind. 

Week 1 Part 1: Important Events in School History.

The following are my selections for 3 important events in Texas school finance history.
Mirabeau B. Lamar established a system where land was provided to support education and two universities. 1839-1849 I think this is important because land was something that Texas had an abundance of at the time, was a valuable resource, and set up a system whereby each county could help give to education. This shows the importance that early Texas leaders placed on education and that an early funding system was put in place. 
New state constitution written in which the public will be taxed to help fund education. 1871 This is important because it was the first instance in which a tax was placed upon the public to help fund education, and it caused an undeclared tax revolt. State constituents realized that earlier funding models would not sustain the growth that was occurring in Texas and though a tax was not popular, it was necessary at the time. Constitutional Amendment was passed to provide state funding for textbooks. 1918 I feel this is important because it was an early attempt to designate state funds to a specific end result, which could have paved the way for future regulations on how funds were spent.

Week 1 Part 2: 3 Basic issues impacting the state funding formula

Many issues impact the state funding formula. As complex as the state funding formula for school districts is, here are a few issues that impact funding. Districts receive different amounts of funding per student. Some districts receive about $8,000 per student, while others receive about $4,000. Also, with enrollments increasing across the state, and demographics projections showing Texas schools will grow by leaps and bounds, the current M&O limit of $1.50 is inadequate to sustain and prepare for school growth. Another issue is that of special populations. Special populations generally cost more to educate, whether it be a special education, low socioeconomic students, or English Language Learners. These groups have more costs per student than the general education student. 

Week 1 part 3 Equality, Equity, Adequacy

Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. One example of this is the provision of foundational courses that serve all students and that all students have access to. Another would be the basic allotment for education of students. 

Equity means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Two examples of equity would be special education students receiving extra services with special education funding, and compensatory funds for low socioeconomic students.


Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Adequate funding of textbooks may mean that a full class set of textbooks is adequate to uphold the effectiveness of the educational program. Also, teacher salaries meeting the minimum state requirements, low as they are. 

5342- Week 1 Part 4 Comparing DIPs of 2 Districts

I'm completing the four parts of the assignment in a different order, but that's why a title for the post helps!

Though the two districts in question vary in size drastically, there are some similarities in the DIPs. Each district definitely has a focus on district improvement in regards to instruction. This is evident in AISD's Appendix B (PBMAS) and LISD's list of data types accumulated for a Comprehensive Needs Assessment, as well as inclusion of district goals. Each of these sections lists a goal, performance objective, activity strategy, staff responsible for monitoring, timelines, and evidence of goal success. One difference that stood out in contrast is that LISD did not include any information on related funding of goals. Goal driven budgeting is highly apparent from the AISD DIP in the graphic included on page 2, which shows alignment of the district strategic plan alignment, to the fiscal resources listed near the end of the document in Appendix B. Through comparing these two DIPs, I feel that I have gained a bit of insight into what goal driven budgeting looks like, and how goals and funding are/should be related.