Below is my 3 part proposal: Get training for myself, Build a Technology Team, and provide Technology-centered PD for all teachers
Prezi Fiscal Analysis for Propsal
0 Comments
Compare and Contrast of School Board Meetings
There were few similarities between the Coronado Unified School District’s Board Meeting and Grossmont Union High School District’s. Here are some similarities: board members sat at a curved table at the front of the boardroom, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited, there was a meeting agenda, and both meetings were about 3.5 hours long. Atmosphere At the beginning of the GUHSD meeting, there was standing room only. It felt more like a concert than a meeting. The mood was elevated and the students present were excited to participate. If I had left after the first section, the Awards, I would saw that the GUHSD atmosphere was positive. Unfortunately, it took a sharp downward decline after that. Coronado’s meeting was productive. The members were cordial with each other and the audience. The atmosphere was relaxed, friendly, yet it was business-oriented. Board Relations Within Coronado’s board members mutual respect was shown. The Agenda was strictly adhered to. GUHSD’s Board Meeting was remarkably unprofessional. There was bickering between members, including between Member Priscilla Schreiber and the Board President, Robert Shield. The primary point of contention was the Alpine School District’s lawsuit against GUHSD. Member Priscilla Schreiber was questioned and openly stated that she supported the Alpine School District’s position. She was accused of making this public through her Facebook posts and in essence being a “traitor” to her own District. The conversation turned into arguing and the agenda was put on hold while the board members and President argued amongst themselves. Superintendent’s Involvement The Superintendent of Coronado District, Dr. Felix, was heavily-involved in the meeting. He had large sections of speaking, answered questions, and asked questions to clarify. GUHSD’s Superintedent, Ralph Swenson, was minimally involved, except to take pictures when awards were handed out, or chime in occasionally. Significance of board agenda items/relevancy to future issues Coronado’s meeting focused on modifying graduation requirements and discussion of curriculum. The on-line calendar was displayed and the presenter gave a brief lesson on how to use social media to publicize calendar events. An alternative learning program was introduced, but it is in the beginning stages with a goal of 17-18 roll-out. A Principal on Special Assignment was put in charge of this project. At GUHDS’s meeting, the incessant bickering made it difficult to notice the actual business being taken care of. Most future issues revolved around budget, purchase orders, textbook pilots, renewal of pre-existing contracts/leases were some of agenda items related to the upcoming school year. Both meetings covered infrastructure needs - renovating buildings and increasing broadband access. Comments from public GUHSD’s speakers both were making requests. The first speaker, Frans from the Grossmont Education Association asked for an increase in salary because of the 9.73% increase to funding. The second speaker, Nick Morinavich, stated, “Three minutes is unreasonable” to address the board. The interaction was unpleasant. Coronado’s only speaker asked that there be district-wide respect. He worked for the Special Ed. Dept. and felt they were not given an adequate amount of respect. The Board acknowledged him and agreed that their department was due respect for their quality of work. The interaction was pleasant. Level of community interest GUHSD had a high level of community interest. Being it was the last meeting of the school year, the entire first hour was dedicated to Student Awards, Student Recognitions, Special Reports, Presentations – including outstanding parent/community volunteers. Also, there is a lot of negative publicity in relation to the Santee lawsuit. Coronado’s meeting seemed to have a moderate amount of community interest. But, this was hard to gauge because of how they use technology to inform parents and other stake-holders. References: GUHSD, June 11, 2015, Grossmont Union High School District, Regular Governing Board Meeting (Meeting Minutes) June 18, 2015 School Board - Coronado USD, CA. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://coronadousdca.swagit.com/play/06182015-955 What’s the purpose of an independent audit? Budget… it is almost a four letter word. A budget is synonymous with restriction - as in, “We can’t do that because it’s not in the budget.” But every responsible adult knows, if you don’t have and keep a budget you are actually setting yourself up for failure. Either you end up living paycheck to paycheck or end up in serious debt. Even celebrities have found themselves bankrupt for lack of planning. I know very little about a school budget, except for the minimal exposure I’ve had as a Teacher on Special Assignment, double checking figures. Even then, I was only exposed to a portion of the overall budget –Adult Ed. The importance of a school audit is obvious: to keep the business side of education honest and financially on-track. Audits are done by an independent CPA, Certified Public Accountant. School districts select from the list of qualified CPAs who can do district audits. This list is published annually by the State Controller. (Townley & Ramirez, p. 112, 113) The audit should show that the funds available to each school district were spent responsibly. It should show proper accounting for funds – revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities. It should show that accurate and reliable data was given in state reports. It should also show that state/federal funds were spent in keeping with legal requirements. (Townley & Ramirez, p. 113). What is a finding? When the audit is completed, the auditor will give one of the following findings: positive unqualified opinion, qualified opinion, or no opinion. The best result, positive unqualified opinion means there were “no significant deviations” found. A qualified opinion means there were some problems found, which could result in a loss of funds. No opinion means the records were so terrible or non-existent, that nothing could be determined about the finances of the school. (Townley & Ramirez, p. 114). The majority of problems stem from inaccurate accounting of fixed assets (inventory) and misuse of ASB funds. A 2013 Voice of San Diego article explained the outrageous findings of La Jolla High School’s audit. It showed over $20,000 unaccounted for. Two thousand dollars were used for fireworks! In addition, the school had illegally charged kids for locker use and other costs. The Superintend, Cindy Marten, promised to overhaul their accounting practices. (Unanswered Questions from the La Jolla High Audit, 2015) Does an “unqualified” audit mean there is no fraud? No. According to CFA Lisa Myers: typically, successful fraud schemes can be classified into six basic categories: 1. Fraudulent financial reporting 2. Misappropriation of assets 3. Expenditures and liabilities for an improper purpose 4. Revenue and assets obtained by fraud 5. Costs and expenses avoided by fraud 6. Financial misconduct by senior management When the auditor gives their final report, it states that the school itself is responsible for the data/figures provided. If the school is fraudulently reporting, it could appear that everything in in order. Data is being manipulated. This is why an ‘unqualified audit” is not fraud-proof. (School District Fraud, 2015) An audit is like an annual physical, it lets the board members and superintendent, parents, and other stakeholders know the “financial health” of the schools within the district. As uncomfortable as it is, an audit is a necessary tool to “encourage sound fiscal management practices among school districts…” This is an area that California schools have been lacking. In WASC terms it’s an “area of improvement”. (Townley & Ramirez, p. 111, 115 ) Resources: Townley, A., & Ramirez, J. (2012). School finance: A California perspective (9th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Connect, W. (2013, July 29). Unanswered Questions from the La Jolla High Audit. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/ Myers, L. (2015, May 8). "School District Fraud" Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://cpanow.picpa.org/ How do you ensure that the resources for your program are allocated and used appropriately given federal, state and local requirements?
After over a decade of research, new legislation was rolled out in 2013 – 2014. The LCFF, or Local Control Funding Formula eliminated the bulk of categorical funding (alternative credentialing, GATE, school safety, etc.) while retaining 13 categories, including assessments, child nutrition, and special education. (Figure 5, An Overview of The Local Control Funding Formula). The LCFF paid out per student’s Average Daily Attendance, ADA. An additional 20% funding was given to support English Learners and Low Income students. (Figure 1, Supplemental Funding, An Overview of The Local Control Funding Formula) This is why it is so important for parents to fill out those Free Lunch Applications. When an administrator looks at their funding, they must differentiate between restricted and unrestricted funds. Restricted funds can only be spent for specific purposes. (Townley J., Schmeider-Ramirez, H., p, 191) Unrestricted funds are used for support costs necessary to operate a school. (Townley J., Schmeider-Ramirez, H., p. 193) Obviously, the goal is to exhaust the restricted funds before tapping into unrestricted funds, which are more flexible. Additionally, the administrator considers that the budget must be aligned with the LCAP, Local Control and Accountability Plan. According to Dr. Kyriakidis, Principal of Riverview International Language Academy, “Your budget is critical to making your mission and vision statement reality.” This elementary school jumped from 350 students to over 900 students and a waiting list, which is an indication of the interest in its trilingual education – English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Dr. Kyriakidis stated that they single most important factor to consider in regards to budget is: sustainability. It is sometimes necessary for administrators to think outside the box. In the case of Riverview Elementary, Dr. Kyriakidis, thought of a unique way of meeting students’ needs. To deflect costs, students were trained by teachers who then taught other students. This model is tied to ADA and does not require any additional state/private funding. She stated, “Your parents are critical. They are your client.” In her case, Riverview parents are instrumental in participating in/publicizing fundraisers, like their Chinese New Year celebration or their jog-a-thon. Supportive parents even get their employers to donate funds to the school. Also, making partnerships with other organizations and applying for/using grant money helps fill in budgetary gaps. Involving stakeholders – parents, community members and organizations, students, and staff – is critical for the success in today’s economically uncertain times. References: An Overview of The Local Control Funding Formula. (n.d.) Retrieved June 12, 2015, from: http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx Townley, A., & Ramirez, J. (2005). School finance: A California perspective (9th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Ward, C. School Site Budgeting from A Principal's Perspective. Retrieved June 10, 2015. from: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2334556-dt-content-rid-53371318_1/courses/EDL600-K4-Summer2015-ExtEd/EDL600Sch_Site%20Bdgtg_principal_intervw_ch9_Ses5.swf |