District Budget Comparison - Research Paper Example

?District Budget Comparison Grade: Table of Contents District Budget Comparison Table of Contents 2 District Budget Comparison 3 Introduction 3 Student Population 3 Student Population by Grades 3 Student Population by Ethnicity 5 Student Population by Diversity 6 Teachers’ Salaries 9 Revenue 11 Value 13 Tax Rates 15 Expenditure 16 Expenditure by Object 16 Expenditure by Function 18 Expenditure by Program 20 Summary on Finances 22 References 23 District Budget Comparison Introduction For school districts and schools to be successful, it is vital to check the budget planning keenly. This essential component should be drafted in tangent to the school action plan. Planning provides for the anticipation, projection, and alternatives to funding additions and reductions throughout the year. How the budget is drafted and implemented demonstrates the vision and goals of the school district and schools. When comparing two Texas school districts- Lubbock Independent School District and Laredo Independent School District- research will show a few similarities and differences among the districts in terms of demographics and budget analysis. All data and research conducted will be derived from the Texas Education Agency Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Reports and each district’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the 2010-2011 academic school years. Student Population Student Population by Grades Lubbock Independent School District is located in Lubbock city, Texas in Region 17. According to the AEIS report, Lubbock ISD has 28, 680 students in over fifty schools. The district is composed of 35 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 4 high schools, and 3 disciplinary alternative education programs. Lubbock ISD has 53.1% of its student population at the elementary level. Local high school enrollment accounts for 25.4% of the student population and the middle school for 21.5%. Laredo Independent School District is located in Region 1 in Webb County, Texas. According to the AEIS report, Laredo ISD has fewer students’ enrollment when compared to Lubbock ISD. The district has 24, 680 students in over thirty three campuses. The district is composed of 20 elementary schools, four middle schools, four high schools, and three disciplinary alternative education programs at the elementary and high school level. At the elementary level, the district has 57.4% of the student population enrolled. Local high school enrollment accounts for 23.6% of the student population and the middle school for 19.1%. Table 1.1: Student Enrollment by Grade Level Grade Level Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State Elementary 57.4% 53.1% 50.8% Middle 19.1% 21.5% 21.9% High School 23.6% 24.4% 27.2% Graph 1.1: Student Enrollment by Grade Level Source: TEA, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2010-11. Laredo ISD enrolls more students in the elementary level when compared to Lubbock and State. On the other hand, the proportion of its middle and high school is less than that of Lubbock and state. The proportions of Laredo ISD and those of states are quite similar. Student Population by Ethnicity Laredo ISD has a predominantly set in terms of ethnicity and overall student population, meaning that the student population in general is stable and one sided, compared to other districts with more diversity. Laredo ISD has a dominant Hispanic distribution. Almost 100% percent of the student population is Hispanic. However, Lubbock ISD is a little more diverse in its ethnicity makeup even though Hispanics still dominate. Hispanics enrolled account for 53.9% of the student population, while whites follow with 29.1%. African Americans account for 13.3%, American Indian 0.4%, Asian/Pacific 1.7% and other ethnics 1.6% of the Lubbock ISD student population. Table 1.2: Ethnicity Comparison Ethnicity Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State African American 0.1% 13.3% 12.9% Hispanic 99.5% 53.9% 50.3% White 0.3% 29.1% 31.2% American Indian 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% Asian/Pacific 0.2% 1.7% 3.5% Others 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% Graph1.2: Ethnicity Comparison Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11. In comparison to the state’s percentages, Laredo ISD has a dramatic higher proportion of Hispanics students enrolled. Lubbock ISD seems to have similar proportions to the state when it comes to African American, whites, American Indian enrollment and others, but has a slight decrease of Asian/Pacific enrollment and a small increase of Hispanic enrollment of students in the district. Student Population by Diversity In terms of the student population diversity, Lubbock ISD is characterized as 63.1% of the student population as economically disadvantaged, 3.1% is Limited English Proficient (LEP), 2.1% are students with disciplinary placements, and 32.8% are at-risk students. Laredo ISD, however, has a dramatic increase of percentages compared to Lubbock ISD. Laredo has characterized 97.1% of the student population as economically disadvantaged, 61.8% are Limited English Proficient (LEP), 2.1% are student with disciplinary placements, and 75.1% are at-risk students. Table 1.3: Students’ Diversity Students’ Diversity Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State Economically Disadvantaged 97.1% 63.1% 59.2% LEP 61.8% 3.1% 16.9% Disciplinary Placements 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% At Risk 75.1% 32.8% 46.3% Graph 1.3: Students’ Diversity Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 Lubbock ISD has dramatic lower percentages in all categories than Laredo ISD except in disciplinary placements where they are the same. In comparison to the state, Lubbock has a staggering decrease to the state’s proportions in LEP and at risk. There is no big difference in the economically disadvantaged and disciplinary placements. Laredo ISD has a dramatic increase to the state’s percentages. The state has percentages of: 59.2% economically disadvantaged, 16.9% Limited English Proficient (LEP), 1.9% students with disciplinary placements, and 46.3% at-risk students. Teachers’ Salaries Laredo ISD pays its beginning teachers $42, 838, those with 1-5 years experience $45, 089, those with 6-10 years experience $46, 731, those with 11-20 years of experience $50, 059 while those with 20 years above gets $61, 378. Lubbock ISD pays it teachers at a lower rate than Laredo. Beginning teachers gets $38, 567, those with 1-5 years experience $39, 576, those with 6-10 years experience $42, 646, those with 11-20 years of experience $46, 136 while those with 20 years above gets $57, 980. Table 1.4: Teachers’ Salary by Years of Experience Teachers’ Category Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD States Beginning Teachers $42, 838 $38, 567 $41, 272 1-5 Years Experience $45, 089 $39, 576 $44, 013 6-10 Years Experience $46, 731 $42, 646 $46, 604 11-20 Years Experience $50, 059 $46, 136 $50, 476 Over 20 Years Experience $61, 378 $57, 980 $58, 691 Graph 1.4: Teachers’ Salary by Years of Experience Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 From the graph, Laredo ISD pays its teachers at a higher level than Lubbock ISD in general. It is also clear that the teachers’ salary is higher than that of Lubbock but lower than that of Laredo. States pays beginning teachers gets $41, 272, those with 1-5 years experience $44, 013, those with 6-10 years experience $46, 604, those with 11-20 years of experience $50, 476 while those with 20 years above gets $58, 691. Generally, the amount of salary increases with the number of years in experience. Lubbock ISD pays its teachers $46, 039, professional support $56, 239, campus administration $74, 505 while central administration gets $103, 080. Laredo ISD pays its teachers and central administration at a higher rate than Lubbock but it pays its professional support and campus administration at a lower late as compared to the same district. Laredo ISD pays its teachers $50, 163, professional support $55, 482, campus administration $71, 436 while central administration gets $79, 350. Both districts pay their teachers, professional supports and campus administration almost in the same rate with states. Lubbock ISD pays its central administration at the highest while Laredo pays them least under the comparison of the three districts. Table 1.5: Teachers’ Average Salary Teachers’ Category Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD States Teachers $50, 163 $46, 039 $48, 638 Professional Support $55, 482 $56, 239 $57, 045 Campus Administration $71, 436 $74, 505 $70, 819 Central Administration $79, 350 $103, 080 $89, 481 Graph 1.5: Teachers’ Average Salary Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 Revenue Funding for all school districts come from three general sources: local, state, and federal. However, the distribution and amount of money funded to the districts varies by different revenue characteristics. Each district has a different percentage rate at each level of funding. Laredo ISD gains 9.9% of their funding through the local tax base. The state accounts for 69.7% of the funding, 17.1% derives from the federal level, and 3.3% from other local & intermediate entities. For Lubbock ISD, the revenue distribution from the sources is a bit balanced. Lubbock ISD gains most of their funding from the local tax base and state with 39.0 % and 40.7% respectively. The federal level accounts for 17.3% while other local & intermediate entities account for 3.0%. Table 1.6: Revenue by Source Revenue by Source Local Tax Other Local & Intermediate State Federal % Per Student % Per Student % Per Student % Per Student Laredo ISD 9.9% $1, 122 3.3% $375 69.7% $7, 926 17.1% $1, 941 Lubbock ISD 39.0% $3, 733 3.0% $284 40.7% $3, 895 17.3% $1, 658 State 41.5% $4, 291 4.1% $428 42.3% $4,369 12.0% $1240 Graph 1.6: Revenue by Source Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 When looking at both districts, their tax base sources do vary drastically. Compared to the state, both districts are not in accordance to those percentages. As presented in the graph, Laredo ISD is dramatically lower in the amount per student and percentage of the local tax revenue, however, dramatically higher from state and federal revenue when compared to the state. However, the majority of the revenue collected comes from the state. Lubbock ISD collects almost the same revenue with the state averages from the local tax, other local & intermediate, and state levels. Value In terms of value by category, both districts gain the majority of their funding through local residential and business entities. Lubbock ISD gains more than half of their local tax based funding through residential taxes, 61.3% to be exact. Business provide 36.9% of the local tax percentage while Land accounts for 0.9%, oil & gas for 0.5%, and others accounts for 0.4%. For Laredo ISD, business and residential entities account for more than eighty percent of the district’s local tax base. Land accounts for 2.3%% of the local tax percentage, others account for 0.8%, while oil & gas provides for almost no funding. Table 1.7: Value by Category Value by Category Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State Business 37.9% 36.9% 32.8% Residential 59.0% 61.3% 54.4% Land 2.3% 0.9% 6.4% Oil and Gas 0.0% 0.5% 6.0% Other 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% Graph 1.7: Value by Category Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 Both districts, when compared to the state’s percentages, are somewhat similar in the sense that residential and business categories account for the majority of the tax base; however, there are some differences. Laredo is slightly over in percentage, compared to the state, in the business and residential categories; however, it is slightly lower in the gas and oil and land categories. Lubbock is lower in land, oil and gas, and others categories compared to the state except at the residential and business category where it is higher. Tax Rates The M & O (Maintenance and Operations) tax rate for both districts is $1.040. The Interest and Sinking Fund Number tax rate is $0.234 for Laredo ISD and $0.195 for Lubbock ISD, meaning less money is taxed for properties in the Lubbock ISD region than in Laredo. Table 1.8: Tax Rates Tax Rates Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State M & O $1.040 $1.040 $1.064 Interest and Sinking Fund $0.234 $0.195 $0.171 Graph 1.8: Tax Rates Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 Both districts are relatively lower in the M & O tax than that of the state while the Interest and Sinking Fund Number, for both districts is higher than the state rate. Expenditure School districts tend to spend the funding allotted by object, function, and program. Each district has different expenditures. Expenditure by Object Laredo ISD accounts for expenditure by object as followed: 67.8% payroll costs, 14.5% other operating costs, 9.6% debt service, and 8.1% capital outlay. In analyzing, Laredo ISD is more compatible to the state’s percentages in the categories of other operating costs and debt service. However, it has a higher payroll cost and lower capital outlaw. The state displays an expenditure proportion of 60.9% payroll costs, 16.4% other operating costs, 9.3% debt service, and 13.4% capital outlay. Lubbock ISD, however, is considerably lower in percentages, compared to the state, in the categories of other debt service, and capital outlay. Payroll costs, and other operating costs are considerably higher that those of the state. Table 1.9: Expenditure by Object Expenditure by Object Payroll Costs Other Operating Costs Debt Service Capital Outlay Laredo ISD 67.8% 14.5% 9.6% 8.1% Lubbock ISD 70.0% 23.4% 4.9% 1.7% State 60.9% 16.4% 9.3% 13.4% Graph 1.9: Expenditure by Object Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 Laredo ISD is relatively lower in payroll cost and other operating cost but higher in the debt service and capital outlays in comparison to Lubbock ISD. Expenditure by Function Expenditures by function are grouped into 12 categories: instruction, instructional related services, instructional leadership, support services-student, student transportation, food services, co-curricular activities, central administration, plant maintenance and operations, security and monitoring services, and, finally, data processing services. The majority, if not all, of these expenditures are directly related to educational and student services. These services would provide students with resources such as libraries, transportation, health services, security and safety, etc. To be more specific, instruction relates to all activities dealing with teachers and students while instructional related services are expenses for educational resources such as curriculum and staff development. Instructional leadership is the actual managing and providing of leadership for staff that provide instructional services while school leadership is the actual directing and managing of school such as a school principal. Support services-student provide outside services for students such as counseling, social work services, and health services. Student transportation is simply put the actual transporting of student to and from school, food serves are the actual food service operation, and co-curricular activities deal with school sponsored activities during or after school that are not important to the delivery of instruction. Central Administration is the managing or governing of the school district as a whole, plant maintenance deals with keeping the physical plant and grounds in impeccable order, security and monitoring services are those that provide a safe environment. Finally, data processing services are the services that allow for the processing of data whether it is in-house or contracted. In this analysis, we shall analyze four categories; Instruction, Plant and Maintenance, School Leadership and food services. Laredo ISD spends the majority of their expenditures in instruction: 58.8% of $226 596 229 of annually funds or $ 5 395 per student. The second highest expenditure is for plant maintenance and operations with 9.2%. All other function categories are below 6.6% independently. Lubbock ISD has roughly the same percentages as Laredo ISD with 57.5% spent on instruction and 10.3% of expenditures on plant maintenance and operations. Other categories fall below 6.1% which is lower than that of Laredo ISD. Table 1.10 Category Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State Instruction 58.8% 57.5% 58.4% Plant Maintenance and Operations 9.2% 10.3% 10.4% School Leadership 5.2% 6.0% 5.5% Food Services 6.5% 5.5% 5.2% Graph 1:10 Expenditure by Function Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 When compared to the state, both school districts are relatively similar in percentages and value per student. The state accounts 58.4% of its expenditures on instruction, 10.4% on plant maintenance and operations, and all other categories fall below 5.6% respectively. Expenditure by Program Expenditures by districts are also done by program. Districts allot and spend funds on programs that are intended to provide better instruction and opportunities to the student population. Eight programs are targeted by the school districts. In this analysis, we shall analyze four programs to draw a comparison: bilingual/ESL education, regular education, accelerated instruction and Special Education. Regular education refers to costs to provide regular students with basic services for education and instruction while special education refers to those same services for students with disabilities. For special education, this includes the costs for services for students that have an IEP (Individual Educational Plan). Costs used for instructional strategies beyond or in addition to basic services for students at risk of dropping out are placed under the Accelerated Education program. Bilingual/ESL education is the costs in evaluating, placing, and providing services with students that are lacking English proficiency. Laredo ISD divides its expenditures by program as followed: Accelerated Education 18.5%, Regular Education 57.7%, Special Education 13.8%, and Bilingual/ESL 3.5%. Lubbock ISD divides its expenditures as followed: Accelerated Education 15.4%, Regular Education 58.1%, Special Education 17.1%, and Bilingual/ESL 0.4%. Table 1.11: Expenditure by Program Category Laredo ISD Lubbock ISD State Bilingual/ESL Ed. 3.5% 0.4% 3.8% Regular Ed. 57.7% 58.1% 57.7% Special Ed. 13.8% 17.1% 16.1% Accelerated Ed. 18.5% 15.4% 13.4% Graph 1:11 Expenditure by Program Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 When comparing the two districts, regular education accounts for more than fifty percent of the expenditures, however, they do vary in as Lubbock ISD spends less in that accelerated and bilingual education program and more in special education in comparison to Laredo ISD. When compared to the state, both districts are relatively similar to the state, varying slightly in percentages. The state divides program expenditures as followed: Accelerated Education 13.4%, Regular Education 57.7%, Special Education 16.1%, Athletics 2.4%, and Bilingual/ESL 3.8%. Summary on Finances Both districts being compared use professional accounting firms to compile their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Laredo ISD employs Weaver and Tidwell, LLP, as the district’s auditing and consulting agency (LISD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Lubbock ISD employs Bolinger, Segars, Gilbert & Moss, L.L.P., as their auditing and consulting agency (RRISD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Both companies perform annual audits of the district’s budgets through the government auditing standards required by the Comptroller General of the United States and state auditing laws. Overall, the financial information gathered through the AEIS reports, clearly demonstrates the total allotment of funds whether through local, state, and federal funds, and it provided the total expenditures per district by object, function, program, and per pupil. Laredo ISD is extremely wealthy compared to Lubbock ISD; however, their expenditure per pupil was roughly around the same despite their revenue differences. In comparison, both districts tend to share similar financial reports, of course, varying in some areas, but roughly the same in terms of percentages. Despite their distance, both districts share similarities in their expenditure process and total student population. However, in all other areas, they do differ significantly, such as in demographics, total expenditures per pupil and total student enrollment by program. References Laredo Independent School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2010-2011 Lubbock Independent School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2010-2011 Texas Education Agency. Academic Excellence Indicator System Reports, retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ , accessed on 16 October, 2012 Read More