Week+4

Week 4, Part 1:

I found the TEA FIRST rating worksheet at: []

Do you think we are supposed to pick our 3 most important components of FIRST from that?

When I interviewed my Business Manager, here's what she said about FIRST: You can look at a district’s FIRST rating and see if there are any issues financially because information from a district’s financial audit are used to determine their rating. You can tell if a district is in the average with the state of students to teachers based on the size of the district. It encourages district management to manage their resources better.

Shaun's interview response from finance director (not much help):

1. What do you consider to be the three most important components of FIRST? I don't think FIRST achieves what it is supposed to. The indicators they use really don't determine Financial Integrity as far as I'm concerned.

Group 2....what are your thoughts?


 * Brenda, I don't think my interview was much help. I like your three points, lets roll with them. Shaun **

__//**See how this works to complete assignment #1? Do you have anything to add?**//__

=
After reviewing the Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST) Rating Worksheet components, we felt the three most important components of FIRST were (1) critical indicators, (2) cash management, and (3) fiscal efficiencies and academic performance. =====

The FIRST system provides a unique monitoring approach to school districts across the State of Texas. It could be called the AEIS report of finance. One of the most important aspects of the FIRST system would be the critical indicators. The first six questions are "yes" or "no" in nature. These questions focus on the fund balance and the annual financial report. The probing questions require some knowledge about the district's budget and use of formulas to determine specific outcomes. One question is related to bond indebtedness defaults in relation to disclosure statements found in the annual report. Another question is focused on deadlines for the adoption of the budget depending on the fiscal year determined by the board of trustees. The critical indicators are very important and "no" answers to questions 1 through 4 or 5 and 6 can cause a district to automatically receive a Substandard Achievement.

In addition to the critical indicators mentioned above, the cash management portion of the FIRST system is a very important tool in determining fiscal soundness. Management of a district fund balance and its relation to the General Fund is essential for weathering storms that may arise in school districts across the State. It seems the purpose of FIRST is to establish a manageable amount of Fund Balance at a school district. A large Fund Balance or a small Fund Balance would not be an effective use of taxpayers' dollars. It is important to maintain an equilibrium in this area of fiduciary accountability. It seems that cash management will continue to be an excellent "crystal ball" of sorts to see into the future of the district's finances. Again the FIRST system is an essential mechanism for accountability much like the AEIS system for quality instruction and learning as it pertains to our State's school districts.

=
Our group decided that the "Fiscal Efficiencies and Academic Performance" indicator was the third most important factor in the FIRST rating system. There are six components of the Fiscal Efficiencies and Academic Performance indicator on the FIRST Rating Worksheet which basically evaluates a district's academic rating and whether there were any material noncompliance issues in the audit. Specifically, five of the six components are assigned from zero to five points based upon responses. The sixth component awards five points for any academic rating above Academically Unacceptable while Academically Unacceptable earns zero points. The Fiscal Efficiencies and Academic Performance category also considers total tax collections, data quality measure of PEIMS data, debt related expenditures, material noncompliance, and accreditation status in relation to financial management practices for a maximum possible score of 30 points in the FIRST rating. =====

=
The intent of the state's business and financial accountability system is to promote financial management and maximize resources for instruction. A school district's FIRST rating is determined by the applicable number of points earned from each of the components. The highest rating is "Superior Achievement" followed by "Above Standard" and "Standard". The lowest rating is a "Substandard Rating" which is equivalent to the "Academically Unacceptable" rating in the state's academic accountability system. An effective school superintendent should be concerned with both the instructional and financial ratings of his/her school district . =====


 * Looks good, probably just need to proof, and then we can post. What say you? ** I'll take care of it


 * A lot of this is dependent on my being able to get in with our finance guys. I know they have been in Austin but I think they are back now. I will get in this week to get information from them to contribute to this discussion. Brenda you seem to have us off to a good start. Thank you, Derek**
 * Shaun & Derek, I looked at all the indicators on the FIRST rating sheet, and they all looked rather important to me, so I talked to my business manager about picking 3 and here's her thoughts:﻿ **
 * The __critical indicators__ are probably one of the most important. If you receive a no to 1-4 or 5 & 6 you __automatically receive a rating of Substandard Achievement__ (which is the worst)
 * Another important indicator would be __Cash Management__. The indicators reflect fund balance and cash and investments of the district.
 * And then I guess it could be __Fiscal Efficiencies and Academic Performance__. These indicators look at a district’s academic rating and whether there were any material noncompliance issues in the audit.

So, I will go with her 3 suggestions for my list on this assignment.


 * Brenda, lets roll with your three points. With your introduction each point should be a paragraph for our opinion paper and then add a conclusion. I wrote paragraph two, please let me know what you think. Shaun **


 * This looks good to me especially if your business manager mentioned them as the most important. Derek **

Here are the numbers I found. This will give us a start in making our comparisons. Brenda
 * Week 4, Part 2:**


 * || District 1 ABC ISD || District 2 ISD ISD ||
 * Number of Students || 830 || 32,326 ||
 * Total Revenue Per Pupil || $10,529 || $10,316 ||
 * Total Operating Expense Per Pupil || $8,611 || $8,908 ||
 * Average teacher salaries || $39,771 || $50,307 ||
 * Total Inst't. exp. per student || $4,619 || $5,494 ||
 * Added items in red to help out with analysis. Currently analyzing. Shaun **
 * ** Contrast the two district salaries for professional staff **
 * ** Contrast instructional expenditures per pupil at each district **
 * ** Contrast advanced degreed educators between at each district **
 * ** Constrast state funding versus local funding at each district **

=
If you look at total instructional expenditures per pupil, it seems to follow the economy of scale explanation. District #1 spent $4619 per pupil and District #2 spent $5494 per pupil. MAYBE THAT’S WHERE ECONOMY OF SCALE FITS INTO THIS????? =====

=
The lecture said that districts can use the savings due to economy of scale and improve teacher salaries. This might be true in this case since average teacher salaries in District #1 are $39,771 and in District #2 they are $50,307. However, as Shaun stated, this might not be the only reason District #2 salaries are higher. When you look at advanced degrees, District #2 has twice as many teachers with advanced degrees as District #1 which means they typically receive extra money for those advanced degrees. On the flip side of that coin, teachers in District #1 have, on the average, almost 2 years more experience than those in District #2, which means those teachers would have higher salaries. =====


 * Brenda I would agree, now that you posted the above data there is no need make it harder than necessary. We can just run with those points and create our group paper. **

During our analysis of the sample snapshot data concerning the economy of scale, our group established several contrasts that relate to this principle. Some contrasts were obvious and others were difficult to completely establish as an economy of scale issue. The rationale behind this group paper is to analyze how the economy of scale may have affected the two sample districts. For the purpose of this paper, District #1 is the least populated district in comparison to District #2.

Upon review of the sample snapshot data for each district, a contrast quickly revealed itself: the substantial difference in teacher salaries between District #1 and #2. The District #2 average salary was $50,307 and District #1 was $39,771, roughly a little more than a $10,000 difference between the two districts. This is a relatively significant amount that can have an impact on the instructional program. Also noticed during our observations was the number of advanced degreed instructors. This statistic could factor into the large difference in the pay scales between the districts. This thought is more than likely invalid because of the sizable discrepancy between the two salary averages.

Although District #2 spends more on salaries, it did not translate into improved instruction based on the TAKS scores when comparing the two districts during the snapshot year. A several year longitudinal study of data would be necessary to determine if this is a valid point. When reviewing this data, our wiki team was definitely aware of the demographic data concerning the subgroups in each district. District #2 is much more diverse than District #1 and this could be a factor in the lower test scores. The key to this theory would be how District #2 scored over time. It should also be noted that the SAT scores between the districts are not that substantially different. District #1 average SAT total is 1043 while District #2 is 1058. The SAT score is considered a good test of rigor and school instructional success. We would be remiss if we did not mention that District #1 only tested 60% of their graduating class while District #2 tested 85% of their graduating class. These two districts were interesting to analyze. As mentioned above, larger teacher salaries may translate into instructional success because it could increase teacher retention, improve morale, and enhance the quality instruction and rigor for the school organization. In the case of higher teacher salaries due to economy of scale, the test score data does not necessary translate into a better product based on our observations.

In the area of instructional expenditures per pupil, District #1 has less at their disposal that District #2--almost a $900 difference. As our group analyzed the data in the area of instructional expenditures per pupil, we discovered a few items that could play a factor in the economy of scale. The operating expenditures per pupil were within $300 between each district with District #2 having an advantage in that category. The percent of operating expenses allocated for instruction for District #1 was 54% and District #2 was 61%--a difference of 7%. This is interesting considering the operating expenditures per pupil were within a few hundred dollars. It should also be noted that both plant services and other operating expenses were higher for District #1 in comparison to District #2. As we reviewed the instructional expenditures, our group noticed several similarities, but we also noticed some important differences. District #2 spends 14% of their instructional expenditures on ESL/Bilingual education whereas District #1 has allocated no funds in this category for obvious reasons. Our group discussed this point because District #2 is very diverse in comparison to District #1. Furthermore, we noticed that the athletic expenditures for District #1 were 9% higher than District #2 for the same line item. This is a major concern and seems to indicate a major red flag for District #1 and their superintendent and board of trustees. This definitely is an area of concern for the overall education program for District #1 and their constituents.

In conclusion, the economy of scale can be applied when comparing these two districts as mentioned above. It was necessary to go beyond the surface value of the data and explore a little further to come to a consensus on the topic. Some of the fascinating data included the test score comparisons, teacher salaries, administrative salaries, demographic comparisons, and the differences in instructional expenditures. These items suggest that a larger district with a tremendous amount of employees and other types of overhead can still manage to function if not better than their smaller counterparts as it pertains to the economy of scale.

Please edit, review, and proof for posting. Thanks
 * We need to add a few more paragraphs (instructional expenditures per pupil comparison/contrast) and a conclusion. My thoughts on this data is that more money has not translated to a better product. I am not sure if that is what ya'll are seeing. I am not sure if the professors are trying to push us toward agreeing with the economy of scale or not. I just have a hard time going with it, if the data does not seem to agree. ﻿Upon further review guys I found some areas that could agree with the economy of scale. I noticed that because more money was spent on plant operations and other operating expenses that could play a factor in the economy of scale as it pertains to instructional expenditures. I notice that District#1 spends 9% more on athletics than District #2 as well. It is interesting to review, but I am not sure I am completely sold on the economy of scale, but for our purposes teacher salaries and instructional per pupil expenditures are enough to run with as it pertains to economy of scale. I will complete part 2 on Monday. If Derek can do part 3 then we will be able to finish posting. Thanks **


 * When looking at the teacher salaries compared to TAKS scores there does not seem, on the surface, to be a benefit to the higher salaries. It would seem that significantly higher teacher salaries combined with more instructional expenditure per student for district two would yield better success. It is hard to determine how much other factors contribute to this such as having to educate a much larger population group in district two or the number of subgroups. However, the sample we have here does not seem to put the economy of scale in a very good light. Derek **

Our assignment says to pick a campus of __our choice__ and develop a 1-2 page group paper describing how differentiated staffing might impact and/or improve the goals of that campus. Do either of you want to use your campus? Brenda
 * Week 4, Part 3:**


 * I will use mine at Rice. School is canceled today, but soon as we are back I will get this part done and post it here. Derek**
 * We just need to chose one campus. I need to review the definition of differentiated staffing (DS). **
 * DS is a concept that proposes specialized use of personnel. Example "doctors" use of specialized personnel. In education we would call it specialized educational roles or to streamline our teacher responsibilities and become more specialized. Do yall agree with that definition? Shaun **

I did some research on differentiated staffing and, of course, the more I read the more complex it became. I tried to narrow it down for the paper, so I hope my thoughts are coherent. Make any changes you wish.
 * This week has been very frustrating to me as we have not had school since Wed. and I have yet been able to interview a financial person in our district. I have an appointment with him on Monday. Keeping my fingers crossed. As I said, I don't mind getting this information for part 3 and writing the paper, unless someone has already began the process. It may be cutting it closer than ya'll like since I can't even begin this till Monday. Just let me know. Derek ﻿Derek....I'm good with you doing part 3 and hopefully Monday you will be able to have your interview although I'm sure everyone will be playing catch up. I've had to try to do my part early because I will be leaving for TCEA on Tuesday and might not be too available....I'm brining 25 teachers with me to Austin! The good thing about this assignment is that you can write up some of the preliminary info about differentiated staffing before you go back to work on Monday. **

Thank you, Derek!!!! I am going to make some edits based on it being a group peper, please...hope you don't mind. You did a great job!

Differentiated Staffing Differentiated Staffing refers to classroom teachers at various responsibility levels and pay, subject specialists, special service personnel, and number of subprofessionals and non-professionals. Our group analyzed Rice ISD and how differentiated staffing may impact or improve goals. We found these six characteristics of differentiated staffing.

a. An extended use of assistant teachers to do specific instructional tasks while under the supervision of a certified staff member; b. Teacher specialists have provided for the instruction of teachers and assistants in modern teaching methods and developed curriculum for individualized instruction; c. Decentralization of decision-making to the teacher level or the lowest responsible level consistent with good management, was evident in the areas of curriculum, learning and deployment of their team in the classroom; d. The use of community resource persons on teaching staffs have provided increased manpower for the schools by utilizing their special talents, knowledge and competencies in the instructional program; e. A differentiated work period has been provided. f. Earlier training experience has been provided for future teachers through clinical experience both at elementary and secondary levels.

If these six items are used as defining characteristics of differentiated staffing, then our conclusion would be that currently Rice ISD does not implement differentiated staffing effectively but its proper implementation would be of value to achieving the goals of the district. Rice is a 1A district in a rural area. This works against Rice ISD in regards to differentiated staffing in several ways. First, the district is fairly poor and operates on limited funds. Second, they have very few paraprofessionals and specialists. It seems Rice ISD almost operate s contrary to the concept of differentiated staffing in that many of the staff members are stretched too thin. Our group member, Derek, is the principal on campus and the only administrator. There is no assistant principal, counselor, and even the nurse is only at school two days a week. The result is that many people are asked to do many different jobs from the administration level to the teaching level. This does not allow for the development of specialties differentiated staffing seems to call for. However, allowing teachers and staff to develop in specific areas would be of great value to accomplishing the goals of the district. We know all children learn, but not all learn the same way. Differentiated staffing would allow the schools to look for teachers with different specialties and train teachers to better meet the needs of the students. We feel the difficulties in Rice to really implement differentiated __instruction__ (did you mean staffing) to its fullest is only going to get worse in education as districts are faced with massive budget deficits. It seems today the more specialized your job is, the more likely you are to lose it when jobs begin getting cut. Another problem associated with differentiated instruction (did you mean staffing) is the number of alternatively certified teachers. One study we read asks how the teaching profession can hand out emergency licensing to teachers when you would never find emergency licenses being handed out to architects building bridges. Of course ,there are many great teachers who were alternatively certified, but still the case is made for the fact that the state continues to make the teaching standards harder and the accountability greater limiting teacher supply. This causes many districts to become desperate to get a qualified teacher in the classroom. This is a problem in a small community like Rice where there is not a large pool of teachers to pull from. Once these alternatively certified teachers are in the classroom, there is little support for them. Superintendents are now acknowledging that a system that differentiates the status of the teacher with those with greater expertise and experience would be effective. This system would greater account for teachers who are alternatively certified or have little teaching experience. The long range goal would be to offer differentiated levels of teaching certification. A certification process like this would help a district like Rice be more intentional about who it is hiring and why. This would help the district be more intentional about hiring differentiated staff to better meet the needs of the students. Differentiated staffing is a sound concept that was first seen in the 70’s as schools began moving their staff to a more team driven approach. Today the concept is taken even further in hiring and training staff with specialties to better address the ways children learn. This concept of differentiated staffing is also centered on addressing the problems of supply and demand when hiring good, qualified teachers. Although Rice ISD is small and has limited funds and resources, differentiated staffing would help the district better meet the needs of students such as addressing TAKS, special education, dyslexia, speech, reading recovery, credit recovery, and the many other things school staff are asked to be an expert on in today’s education system.

Source

Hunt, L.M. A Descriptive Study of Differentiated Staffing. Retrieved February 6, 2011 from []

It is interesting, Derek, that there are similiarities even between your 1A district and my 4A district. We have been cutting back and consolidating duties for quite a while now, and we, too, have a similar scenario. For example, when our Asst. Supt. for Curriculum and Instruction became our Superintendent, they did not replace her. Instead, they asked me (technology director) to take her responsibilities of Student Assessment and Staff Development and then asked our Special Ed. Director to take Federal Programs. We are stretched so thin, it is difficult to give 100% to any one of the duties.

I really like what you've written and appreciate your jumping on this assignment. Shaun...do you have any suggestions or comments? Maybe we can get this posted tonight! Brenda
 * Looks good to me, no reason not to post. Notice my remarks ** **about staffing versus instruction, not sure if you used the wrong word or got mixed up. Also we might need to reference the six characteristics of differentiated staffing, thanks Derek, Shaun.**

__** Great idea, Shaun, on citing the reference for the 6 characteristics...very important and I looked right past that. **__


 * Ok, thanks for the corrections. I am so used to differential instruction it was hard to shift to differential staffing. I will make the changes and add the source. I will get it posted to our wiki sometime tomorrow. **
 * Derek, be sure and identify us as Group 2 (Derek, Shaun, & Brenda) on the group wiki post. **