Running head: BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 1

Budget Analysis: Part 1

Katie Wissman

Longwood University
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 2

For this budget analysis, the proposed budget for the 2019-2020 school year for Manassas Park

City School District was consulted. The proposed budget was retrieved from the district website as it has

been made public to the community. Most information was also recorded during the Superintendent’s

proposal to the school board during a regular school board meeting attended at the end of January.

Building principals and teachers also helped in the assessment of the proposed budget.

Analysis of Financial Processes and Operations

For this project, it has been difficult to obtain specific budget information for my building.

Information for the district as a whole is readily available, however it isn’t clearly broken down by

building in regard to monetary value or allotment. At the district level the budget is broken into the

following categories of expenditures by function: instruction (72%), maintenance (7%), transportation

(5%), administration (5%), school nutrition (4%), technology (3%), instructional technology (2%),

attendance and health (2%), facilities (0%). The 0% funding for facilities indicates an area of need where

we have no money budgeted. When broken into categories based on expenditures by object, the budget

resulted in the following: salaries (59%), benefits (20%), materials and supplies (7%), contract services

(6%), tuition payments (3%), other charges (3%), other uses of funds (1%), capital purchases (1%). It

seems strange to have a section for other charges as well as one for other uses of funds, as there is no

explanation differentiating the two. Our district is 63% funded by the state, 26% funded by the city, 6%

federal, and 5% local.

When creating a budget at a district level, several considerations should be taken. One would

think that principals and superintendents would communicate with teachers and community members

to see where their priorities lie, however that is not the case for our district. While the public can voice

their concerns at public hearings and through social media, they are not directly asked. Several parents

of students in the district were interviewed and consulted for this project and none of them reported
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 3

having given feedback to the superintendent or other school officials regarding the budget or to what

areas or projects funds are allocated to. When asked if they wished they had more input, most said they

didn’t mind because they felt the school was functioning well, were happy with the education their

students were receiving, and/or had no thoughts or feelings about it one way or another. They had not

attended any school board meetings or Superintendents Listening Tours (a time when the

superintendent is available to meet with the public to address their concerns and answer their

questions).

For teachers, there is no formal discussion or survey given asking opinions or ideas for areas of

need either. Again, teachers are welcome to attend and speak at school board meetings to voice any

concerns, but few do and even fewer speak out about their thoughts, ideas or issues. This makes sitting

in school board meetings frustrating as we are listening to people seemingly removed from our building,

discussing where our money should go. It often ends up being spent in areas where teachers don’t

understand or don’t think is necessary. It would be extremely beneficial for those creating the budget to

gather input beforehand. This could be done using simple district and community wide surveys asking

stakeholders what their priorities are in terms of a district wide budget. Principals would also benefit

from attending grade level and content area meetings to discuss budget needs and wants with each

department to further gather an idea of what needs to be included in the budget. As of right now,

neither of these are done and there appears to be no outside input regarding the creation of the budget.

When looking at the district budget at the school level, the bookkeeper was consulted. She

explained that when it comes to programs within the school, we operate on a “zero-based budget

system”, meaning if we want something, we must ask, and have it approved by our director of finance at

central office, who then takes it through the proper channels and out of the proper budget line. This is

the process throughout the district. Each department asks for what they want in terms of materials and

supplies, then it is approved and allocated accordingly. This leads to departments and programs asking
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 4

for more than they typically will get approved for and uncertainty during the waiting period. To create

the district wide budget, each content area, grade level, and program with a budget line must make a

list of materials and supplies they want in January/February so it can be budgeted for in the coming

school year. When deciding what each program wants, the program leads gather input from the

teachers within the group to determine what they will need. These lists then go to our bookkeeper and

principal to look over and approve before being sent to our financial director for final approval. As we

are a zero-based budgeting system, each item must have an explanation for its need to be purchased.

While our district is small and more often than not, programs do not ask for many materials, it seems

more efficient, especially for our director of finance, to pre-allocate the funds to specific programs, then

let them decide how to make their budgets from there. This system seems more along the lines of a

“wish list” set up than operating within a budget, but it has been working smoothly like this for years.

Strategic and Tactical Challenges

In looking at the strategic and tactical challenges of the district budget at the school level,

specifically Manassas Park Middle School, and after consulting with the assistant principal (as our

principal is on paternity leave), a few areas of need arose. The first is the need for more teachers. The

FY19-20 budget is planning on adding a new science teacher this coming year for 7th/8th grade and a new

history teacher the year after.

Another area of need identified is the addition of reading and math interventionists. This is an

area that is not budgeted for in the coming school year but one that is in great demand. We have had

these positions in previous years, but as staff moved in and out of the building, these positions and

classes were eliminated and not replaced.

A third identified area of need is more licenses for the diagnostic testing program we use called

STAR. The special education department only receives enough licenses to cover those identified as
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 5

special education with IEP plans or 504s. This program is used to determine student reading and math

abilities and provides detailed reports on each standard tested. This data is then used to monitor

student progress over the course of the school year. It is difficult to test any other students who are

undergoing child studies because we only have the exact number of licenses for those already identified

and are not budgeted for any more because it must be planned for a year in advance.

Prioritized Challenges Resulting in Operational Policies & Procedures

Coincidentally, while only one priority is funded, it does not seem to be in the highest area of

need. The addition of interventionists for math and reading would greatly benefit the students of our

district. Reading in particular is the subject our students struggle with the most in regard to SOL scores.

This is due, in part, to our high population of ESOL students, as many are still learning English when they

take the SOL exam. These classes would be offered during electives and target those who are struggling

within their general education or inclusion classes and could improve test scores across the board. A

goal for our building as well as our district is to improve the reading scores of our students. With the

creation of at least the reading interventionist, this would help to target a population that needs a bit

more attention than they are receiving in a general or inclusion setting. It is unclear as to why these

positions haven’t been recreated.

The next priority would be the addition of more STAR licenses. Another part of our school

improvement plan is increasing the SOL scores of the special education population. Having more licenses

for the STAR diagnostic program would allow us to better identify those who need more support and

give us exact areas to help them. Between the interventionists and the data the program provides, these

seem as though they would be far more beneficial to fund than another science and history teacher.

When looking at the three identified areas of need, it is clear that the district has prioritized the

need for another science teacher this year and history teacher next year. These additions would greatly
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 6

benefit our students by reducing class sizes. As of right now, our science and history classes have

anywhere from 28-33 students per class. This includes students that are typically self-contained for

math and language arts as well as all levels of ESOL students, often with just an aide to assist, not an

ESOL teacher or special education teacher. The decision to add these positions at the 7th/8th grade level

is a result of the SOL tests given in 8th grade. Another teacher would allow for smaller class sizes and

better instructional opportunities for students to, in turn, achieve higher state SOL scores. However,

while smaller class sizes would be beneficial, our building typically has a 90% pass rate on the Civics 8

SOL and a similarly high pass rate for the Science 8 SOL. With our pass rates for math and language arts

much lower, it is questionable as to why the addition of another teacher went to science and history.

A challenge either of these presents is that our building is out of classrooms. We have four

traveling teachers right now who do not have their own classrooms and share with others in the

building. It is tricky to juggle schedules as many teachers teach more than one grade level, making it

difficult to fit these four teachers into rooms that are empty. The classroom is an excellent resource for

teaching and without it, it can be difficult to make instruction meaningful and the lessons lasting.

Budget Review Collaboration Strategies

To make the priority a reality, we would need the support of the teachers in the building,

parents of the students we serve, the principal, and central office. When asked, language arts and math

teachers at all grade levels were passionate about the addition of interventionists. They spoke about the

times when we had them in the past and how it felt like those students who needed the support the

most weren’t “falling through the cracks”. Parents were also interviewed on their thoughts of the

addition of these positions and they were surprised that we didn’t already have them in place. They

discussed that if they had a child who needed support in these areas, they would almost expect the

school to have some type of support program for them and would want their child to be a part of it. The

parents were very supportive as reading and math are priorities for many above the electives their
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 7

students would otherwise be taking. When this idea was presented to the assistant principal, she was on

board but wary about how it could be implemented. We discussed the addition of these classes as

another elective that students would be recommended for by their language arts and math teachers.

We also discussed, as it has not been budgeted for in the coming year, the creation of these positions

and classes using teachers we already have in the building. Much like our Gifted and Talented program,

teachers could teach an extra “intervention” class during their planning. One teacher per subject per

grade level would be sufficient. This would require a stipend as it would be teaching an extra class for

teachers, but would be significantly cheaper for the district that hiring two new, full time teachers. The

idea of how it would improve SOL scores was also greatly received and considered.

Budget Review Communication Strategies

To communicate and propose the budget analysis and proposed priority areas of need, a

presentation has been created that could be shown to stakeholders within the district.

Budget Analysis and Priority

Area of Need Presentation
Manassas Park City School District
Manassas Park Middle School
Katie Wissman
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 8
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 9
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 10
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 11

I have neither given nor received help on this work, nor am I aware of any infraction of the Honor Code.
BUDGET ANALYSIS: PART 1 12

References

Harding, A. (2019, March 12). Teacher interview [Personal interview].

Herrmann, L. (2019, March 12). Teacher interview [Personal interview].

Manassas park city schools FY2020 superintendent’s proposed budget. (2019, March 12). Retrieved

from:https://www.mpark.net/uploaded/Announcements/Press_Release/FY20_Superintendent's

_Proposed_Budget.pdf

Manassas park city schools capital improvement plan FY20-24 presentation. (2019, March 12). Retrieved

from:https://www.mpark.net/uploaded/Announcements/Press_Release/School_Board_Present

ation_-_FY20-24_CIP_for_Adoption.pdf

Petak, M. (2019, March 12). Parent interview [Personal interview].

Scheuttler, M. (2019, March 12). Special education coordinator [Personal interview].

Sieloff, M. (2019, February 19). Principal interview [Personal interview].

Superintendent’s proposed budget press release presentation. (2019, March 12). Retrieved from:

https://www.mpark.net/uploaded/Announcements/Press_Release/FY20_Superintendent%E2%

80%99s_Proposed_Budget_-_Web.pdf

Tickle, D. (2019, March 12). Assistant principal interview [Personal interview].

Webb, S. (2019, March 12). Parent interview [Personal interview].

Webb, S. (2019, March 12). Teacher interview [Personal interview].

Wence, K. (2019, March 12). Bookkeeper interview [Personal interview].

Wence, K. (2019, March 12). Parent interview [Personal interview].