AISD Budget Analysis

The purpose of an educational institution's budget is to serve as an outline for expenditure distributions throughout the school year and delineates the priorities and determinations of decision-making authorities within the school district (Odden & Picus, 2004). Budgeting is a continuous process and incorporates planning, approving, and implementing an expenditure plan for the educational institution (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2004). Successful budget processes characteristically include input from all involved entities, guidance from administrators, strategic planning processes, management and reporting tasks and rigorous administrative examination throughout the budget process (Combs, 2000). The following treatise is an analysis of the budget process for the Austin Independent School District (AISD). In addition, this treatise will discuss individuals involved in the process, how the process evolved, the strengths and weaknesses, and how the process addresses student performance.

Austin Independent School District Budget Analysis

AISD maintains a three-tier system to guarantee three objectives: the school district has access to revenue collected through the district's taxes, an equilibrium is present between local autonomy and state and local funding responsibility, and that state financial aid is provided to a school district regardless of the school district's resources. The three tiers achieve these objectives in various manners (Cruz, 2006). Tier 1 comprises the base funding. Tier 2 assures revenue that is based upon taxes within the school district. Tier 3 comprises funding that is not guaranteed and is appropriated as funds become available. Therefore, funding from Tier 3 varies dependent upon economic conditions (Cruz, 2006).

The Budget Advisory Council is the center of Austin Independent School District's cooperative and community involved budget process. Senior management offers their opinion concerning the budget and the board sets priorities for the budget (T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007). The council incorporates more than 70 community and school individuals who assess the budget and suggest modifications. The Budget Teams acts as a guide for The Budget Advisory Council that conducts meetings for budget presentation from each area of the budget, reviews the details, and recommends changes. At the conclusion of this review process, the Budget Advisory Council ranks anticipated budget increases to aid the administration when determining which increases the school district can manage to pay for and which the school district cannot pay for (Combs, 2000). The Budget Advisory Council's members originate from the District Advisory Council, which is a group of legislatively mandated community members, other individuals nominated by school officials and approved by administrators supplement this council. The goal of the administration, in assembling the Budget Advisory Council, is to attain satisfactory representation from all possible stakeholders (Combs, 2000; T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007).

The budget for each educational institution is dealt with differently from the general district wide budget. In April of each year, each educational institution obtains a package of information and forms from the school district to complete regarding the educational institution's Basic Table of Organization. Each table is fundamentally the budget plan for the year, including procedures to allocate resources from local, grant and Title I funds (Combs, 2000). In the Basic Table of Organization package, educational institutions receive information pertaining to the adopted board statements regarding staffing and student estimates, staff and non-staff allowance, and limitations for adjusting distributions and organizing the Basic Table of Organization (Combs, 2000). Educational institutions receive staff allowances for all positions and policies for altering the pay of one position to allow for other positions. Educational institution acquire three forms of non-staff allocations that the school can modify dependent on the needs of the educational institution these include a per-pupil allocation, a professional development allocation, and a clerical overtime allocation. Upon completion of the Basic Table of Organization, each educational institution tenders the information to the area superintendent who in turn reviews the information and submits to the director of Special Education. Upon approval of the director of Special Education, each Basic Table of Organization is entered into the school district's computer, then used to track each educational institution's budge during the school year (Combs, 2000; T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007).

Individuals involved in the Budget Process

The budget process of Austin Independent School District is a supportive, team-based process that is dependent upon input from administrators, school officials, and members of the community (Combs, 2000; T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007). The budget director of Austin Independent School District sustains a team of administrators who incite the budget process. The school district contends that education and instruction staff is the principal compulsion behind the budget. Therefore, the budget team includes personnel from special education, curriculum and instruction, area superintendents, operations, human resources and finance staff. This budget team maintains the responsibility of guiding the budget through a rigid initial development, community review, board approval, and school implementation process (Combs, 2000; T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007). The budget team oversees the process of the budget advisory council that reviews budget increases and ranks the increases to help guide administration in determining which increases to grant the school district. More than 70 community and school individuals comprise the budget advisory council (Combs, 2000).

Evolution of the Budget Process

The Austin Independent School District uses a combination zero-based and site-based budget system (T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007). A zero-based budgeting process includes five fundamental measures: identify areas that require the most resources, analyze the function of these areas, rank the areas in order of priority, allocate funds to areas, once the areas are chosen, the final budget is prepared and tendered for approval (Burrup, Brimley & Garfield, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2004). Zero-based budgeting is a centralized system. This manor of budgeting extends from logic with the ranking of priorities within the educational institution (Odden & Picus, 2004). A site-based budgeting process includes stakeholders, parents, and the community. Site-based budgeting is a decentralized system and imparts funds for various necessities with an individual educational institution. This budgeting process offers flexibility to meet the needs of individual educational institutions (Burrup, Brimley & Garfield, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2004).

According to T. Wilde, (personal communication, October 5, 2007) the board sets the priorities for the district budget and senior management tenders their opinions to the priorities of the board. T. Wilde (personal communication, October 5, 2007) contends that the Austin Independent School District maintains zero-based budgeting when deciding funds for the central office including priorities and initiatives. Accordingly, AISD also uses site-based budgeting when allocating funds to individual campuses based on student enrollment (T. Wilde, personal communication, October 5, 2007).

Strengths and Weaknesses

On some aspects, the budget process of the Austin Independent School District is set apart from other districts in the state; however, in many other areas, the district is substandard of practical expectations (Combs, 2000). The budget process of Austin Independent School District is similar to other districts in the state of Texas in timing and common formation. However, AISD's budget varies from other districts due to the concentration on stakeholder input and dependence on a curriculum-and-instruction-driven budget team for a large amount of the budget development. In addition, strength of the AISD budget is the manner in which the district organizes the budget document and the team-based approach to the budget (Combs, 2000).

The concept of the budget director not having direct control over the budget process and instead relies on the budget team is a weakness for the AISD budget process. The community and other stakeholders support the idea of a cooperative and education based approach to the budget process; however, this permits the disintegration of financial monitoring and control functions of the budget (Combs, 2000). As a result, educational administrators and accounting personnel make budgetary changes during the school year; a budget director and staff typically complete these tasks. Numerous central administrators spend an unreasonable amount of time developing and guiding the budget. While this circumstance may produce a more education-focused budget, time is taken away from administrators and the essential responsibilities in their chosen areas (Combs, 2000). A budget process that is overseen by educators and educational administrators may seem an optimal goal for an educational institution. Consequently, this process in AISD results in the budgeting and implementing of programs that are left to function without evaluation of efficiency or success (Combs, 2000).

Addressing Student Performance

The budget for the Austin Independent School District addresses student performance by allocating funds for student support services. The Student Success Initiative is a program for third and fifth grade students who are having difficulties learning. This year, the program will expand to include eighth grade students by means of local, state, and federal funds (Austin Independent School District, 2007).

The school district is extending the Career and Technology Education programs which include Fire Fighter Technology, health sciences, EMT, Criminal Justice, Engineering, Media Technology, Auto Repair, and Teaching Careers. Advanced Placement Strategies will develop and tender incentives for students passing an Advanced Placement science test, in addition to existing incentives for Math and English tests. The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation will continue funding for Project Advance, college preparation facilitators, on every high school campus to develop this task into the skill sets of campus employees (AISD, 2007).

The Austin Independent School District places importance on quality teaching in all classrooms, the three-tiered interventions sustain this initiative and imparts the optimal approach to create high achievement for all students. The budget incorporates recommendations to target arising challenges that students and schools may encounter, in addition to the needs of schools lacking compliance with the state and federal accountability systems (AISD, 2007). The support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with the Texas high school project enabled AISD to transform the high schools to better serve the students. The school district was able to monitor the state high school allotment of $4.9 million giving AISD the ability to identify academic needs of each high school. One high school was able to initiate a Tech High program resulting in a learning community within a large high school. Other high schools were able to work with experts from Fist Things First to redesign schools. AISD also facilitates professional development for teachers who work in core subjects as well as those who teach advance placement. In addition, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation began working with AISD to construct the means to assist teachers in the ongoing analysis of student progress offering the teachers new evaluation techniques to make instructional changes for student success.

Conclusion

The budgeting process in the Austin Independent School District is a combination of zero-based and site-based systems. Therefore, AISD maintains both a centralized and decentralized budget. Ouchi (as cited in Snell, 2006) contends that educational institutions that maintain a decentralized budget have less fraud, less centralized administration and staff, an increase of funds in the classroom, and higher student achievement. Student based funding links closely to site based funding. Individual educational institutions within a district are given funds according to student enrollment and the needs of those students. Many educators contend that this approach to funding is more equitable (Archer, 2005). An era where educational institutions are more accountable for the education of students encourages closer examination of costs to educate students to higher standards (Archer, 2005). The budget system within AISD contains strengths and weaknesses much like other educational institutions; however, the current system suits the needs at this time. The budget also contains the six features commonly included in a good budget: unity, clarity, balance, publicity, and operational adequacy (Odden & Picus, 2004).

References

Archer, J. (2005). Weighty decisions. Education Week, (24). Retrieved October 3, 2007 from
EBSCOhost database.

Austin Independent School District (2007). Budget & School finance. Retrieved September 27,
2007 from http://www.austinisd.org/inside/budget/index.phtml

Burrup, P. E., Brimley, V., & Garfield, R. R. (1999). Financing Education in a Climate of
Change (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Combs, S. (2000). Window on state government. Texas school performance review: Austin
independent school district. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.window.state.tx.us/tspr/austin/chapt7b.htm

Cruz, M.G. (2006). The perspectives of education stakeholders on the barriers to school finance
reform in Texas. Retrieved October 4, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2003). Educational leadership: A problem based
approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3rd Ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Snell, L. (2006). The agony of American education. Reason, (37). Retrieved October 3, 2007
from EBSCOhost database.