The Policies Of A School District 's Budget

As the newly promoted director of student achievement for Washington, D.C Public Schools, I am fully committed to the expansion of current program offerings as well as the creation of additional programs. To achieve this, I will make use of the principles learned in my graduate budgeting course to assess the current financial situation, plan the department’s future direction, create and implement the new annual budget, and lastly, evaluate the success of the programs and the budget in preparation of repeating these steps.

Title 1 funds are intended to provide instruction and instructional support for these disadvantaged children so that they can master challenging curricula and meet state standards in core academic subjects. Title 1 is designed to support local school reform efforts tied to increasing student achievement. In order for a local school to qualify for Title 1 funds, at least 40% of students must come from low-income families. But this is where it gets tricky for White Pine County.

Title 1 and non-Title I schools in the present Districts and States have their pros and cons, the states today will foster Non-Title I schools first compared to Title 1 schools as these schools most often are in a better neighborhood and are also backed by perennial Property Tax Dollars and hence have experienced teachers. Department of Education proposal would mean that the funds to be distributed based on weighted formula, staffing, and supplies. The Republicans and Senate are concerned that these options would result in first transfer of teachers in order to equalize personal expenditure. Appending State and Local education funding and collective bargaining agreements in many states can bring about plethora of Law

When local property taxes were the primary source of school funding, districts were financially stable and were able to allocate funds for appropriate spendings. With the limitations set on property taxes, school budgets became dependent on the state’s fluctuating economy and tax collections. Fortunately, in 1988, Proposition 98 was passed, which set a minimum base funding for public schools. This proposition guaranteed funding that would grow each year with the changing economy along with student enrollment. This funding, though managed by the state was a combination of state General Fund and local property tax revenues.

For the example in this memo, I will be focusing on the funding of educational programs. As you are aware, 38% of the property taxes fund school programs such as athletics, arts, and all day kindergarten. Due to the great recession, property values here in the Knoxtown area were greatly affected and a majority of properties lost nearly 50% of their assessed value. A significant portion of our constituents also lost their homes. Due in some part to these two factors, our projected revenue was not met. The overall revenue for the city was down 42% resulting in a serious budget shortfall. The loss of these property taxes resulted in the cutting of many school programs. The children of our constituents not have fewer athletic and arts programs to choose from as well as eliminating full day kindergarten for the next term. If corrections to the budget are not made, some bus services and reduced lunch programs will also be eliminated.

Since last spring, Philadelphia school district leaders have been sounding the alarm about this year’s fiscal budget. Even after months of discussions and headlines, schools have opened with fewer resources than last year. On March 28th the School Reform Commission approved a lump sum budget which showed a need for an additional $220 million in revenue in order to provide schools with same resources as the “wholly insufficient” 2013-14 school year (McCorry). There will be many inadequate funding impacts on the quality of the education. Classroom resources would be stripped to untenable levels. The district would reduce as much as $2.2 million funding to the districts’ multiple pathways to graduation program which affects estimated 300 students. Another $1.5 million could be reduced from the elimination of preparation and professional development time for teachers at the district’s high needs promise academies. The district’s building maintenance budget could have reduction in amount of $9.6 million. Schools will be cleaned less frequently as a result. Building maintenance will also be curtailed as a result. District’s school police budget could also have reduction in amount of $2.4 million. School police officer vacancies will be unfilled, leaving an additional 27 elementary schools to share an officer.

There is an abundance of importance in the public school system. Most successful careers start with elementary, middle and high school education. So it is safe to say it is vital to maintain a major funding for all public school’s systems across the country. Of course funding isn’t the only broken piece of a perfect school system because not every school is in an appropriate environment. There are many factors that follow what type of funding each school gets and also how much. Many schools are placed in low income or areas in poverty, this causes students to have harder learning environments. The question is what would be a strategy to fix the gap in public school funding and where and how do you spend it? This could be solved by smart public school allocation, better pay structure for

“Shrinking state and local education budgets matched with the added pressure of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which sets rigid standards in reading and math that schools must achieve in order to receive federal funding, have created a new challenge for districts” (Van Harken).

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the Title I funding program is depicted as a policy that “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (“Title I, Part A Program”). The program was intended to close the gap between low income students and others with sufficient income. The policy was introduced January 12, 1965 and passed on April 9, 1965. Throughout time, Title I funding has been thought to be efficient ad successful, however, there is new evidence and data contradicting this statement. Title I funding negatively affected students because it

Due to financial issues, any districts hardest hit had no choice but to move around resources to make up the difference in their actual spending and funds provided by the state due to the Class Size Reduction (CSRe) experiment in California. While accountability was not intended to so strongly influence what

Starratt’s work resonates with any educational change initiative, but this book has added dimension and depth to my work. Every day I attempt to orchestrate organizational change in dysfunctional special education departments that serve special needs individuals. First, Starratt (2004) makes it clear that an overarching goal of an effective and ethical educational leader is not only to identify the critical areas of concern, but to initiate the change needed to uphold and enhance the “common good.” In my current career, that applies to special education systems requiring reform where unwilling administrators do not reorganize priorities for that to happen. While the definition of the phrase, “the common good” may be unclear, when it comes to initiating change in special education practices, the indisputable outcome should be the ownership of all special needs students by every staff member.

If a school receiving federal Title I funding failed to meet the target two years in a row, it would be provided technical assistance and its students would be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. Students in schools that failed to make adequate progress three years in a row also were offered supplemental educational services, including private tutoring. For continued failures, a school would be subject to outside corrective measures, including possible governance changes.

Budget cuts in schools cause turmoil and stress among the students and faculty. Drastic changes in the budgets have caused schools to negatively impact the people around them. With the lack of funding, schools are facing difficult decisions on what to do to stay within their budget. Supervision is facing much scrutiny on how to handle the lack of funding in their school districts. A solution needs to be made to improve the distribution of funding to our schools in order to keep them operating and thriving for our children to obtain their education. Budget cuts in schools have shown negative effects on employee positions, supplies, extracurricular activities.

Iowa is very unique when it comes to school finance. We use the single count date for the purpose of funding the state’s school districts. This is a count of the number of students in attendance on October 1st. This is when the federal government requires a count of the number of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program for purposes of Title I funding. An advantage to using the single count date is that it is reasonably easy and it also helps to cut down on administrative costs. There are many disadvantages to using this system. The single count date does not give districts any type of financial incentives for holding onto

Growing up as a Kansas City, MO resident, I attended schools in the Kansas City school district. I attended J.S Chick African Centered school in elementary and I could always remember having two teachers to even out the student teacher ratio, so therefore we all were able to get individualized attention. Nowadays elementary school students aren't able to have this benefit. With all of the school shutdowns in the Kansas City, MO school district our children are being effected tremendously.