| "The budgeting process in the Plano Independent School District lacks clear linkages with the organizational goals and priorities of the district." |
Components of a Curriculum-Driven Budget and Rating 1994-1995 | |||
| Curriculum-Driven Budget Criteria | Adequate | Partially Adequate | Inadequate |
| Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessments of operational curriculum effectiveness and allocation of resources. | X | ||
| Rank ordering of program components is provided to permit flexibility in budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on changing needs or priorities. | X | ||
| Cost benefits of components in curriculum programming are delineated in budget decision-making. | X | ||
| Budget requests compete with each other for funding based upon evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. | X | ||
| Priorities in budget process are set by participation of key educational staff in the decision-making process. Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are incorporated into the decision-making process. | X | ||
USP editors' comment: Evidence of this inability to prioritize was evident during development of the 1996 bond propositions. Asked by the Task Force to prioritize technology needs, Asst. Superintendents Marilyn Brooks and Gil Noble responded that they could not - they needed everything, all at once.
"There were no indications that any special allocations or weighting have been given to buildings serving a higher percentage of students with limited-English-speaking abilities, special learning needs, or who are economically disadvantaged."
"The auditors found that most building principals and teachers had little understanding of how the district's budget functioned or how budget priorities were developed."
"The Plano Board of Trustees also has had limited involvement in establishing budgetary goals for the district. Interviews with board members indicate they do not have a clear understanding of how the district's budget is developed or how the district's budget supports its educational programs. There appears to be no systematic process used by the board to guide decisions concerning adding or deleting programs from the budget."
USP editors' comment: On the contrary, the process is this - when administration presents a budget, board members glance at it, pretend to understand it, and then vote to approve it. A recent draft of the 1996-97 budget was presented with a $9 million miscalculation (too high) on our Robin Hood obligation. Although this should have been obvious, only one board member (Don Mills) noticed it. This may not be entirely the board's fault - read on.
"Budget documents of the district were found to be inconsistent in format and presentation. When comparing the district's revenue projections with budget development documents, the documents are dissimilar enough to make it difficult to understand and connect annual revenue projections with projected expenditures. A few board members indicated that they found the district's budget documents difficult to understand and viewed them with some suspicion."
USP editors' comment: In fact, the entire format for budget documents sometimes changes from one draft to the next. Various accounts are identified by different names on different documents. Numbers are often misplaced. Mathematical errors are not uncommon.
"No evidence was found that would suggest that the district's strategic goals or priorities are linked to the budget in any manner. The auditors were unable to determine any rationality for decision-making in the budget development process."