The Brooklyn Latin School’s Budgeting Management

Cite this

Executive Summary

School funding significantly depends on the economic state of both the state and the whole country. In turn, taking into consideration that COVID-19 has affected the economy of the entire world, budgeting is expected to decrease significantly in the next several years. In order to determine the direct impact of budgeting management on schools, the Brooklyn Latin School is considered in this research study. In fact, the combination of personal interviews, surveys, and questionnaires was used in this case with the purpose of collecting data. Analysis of responses received from both students and educators demonstrates that it is possible to raise attainment on a school budget by reducing reliance on local property taxes and making schools more sustainable.

Cut 15% OFF your first order
We’ll deliver a custom Problems of Education paper tailored to your requirements with a good discount
Use discount
322 specialists online

Introduction

As one of the most crucial parts of any school’s activity planning and control system, budgeting is an effective tool that is used to provide high-quality educational services. In spite of the fact that financial resources do not have a direct impact on the educational process, they significantly affect access to education and teacher performance. For instance, a vast amount of money should be spent on administrators, materials, and facilities on a regular basis to offer children the opportunity to improve their knowledge in different areas. In order to determine the role of budget management, this article takes into consideration the Brooklyn Latin School. Opened in 2006, this educational institution is widely known as one of the best public schools in New York City. It is based on complex budgeting management and planning, which is why it would be useful to analyze this school from the perspective of budgeting practices.

Literature Review

The legal right to an equal education has been discussed since the end of the past century. At the present time, it is believed that all people, regardless of their gender or socioeconomic status, should have the same rights to education (Martorell et al., 2016). Nevertheless, school funding is still considered one of the main issues in the country, thereby resulting in inequity in education. In other words, this problem is a major contributor to low student achievements and poor educational performance (Weisburst, 2019). For example, it is assumed that a 10% decrease in a school’s budget has the same influence on student outcomes as “replacing an educational facility full of average educators with all educators in the bottom 10% of candidates” (Conlin & Thompson, 2017). Accordingly, school funding is linked with school achievements, which is why it is important to invest a large number of financial resources in schools.

Moreover, school funding is strongly associated with the potential earnings of students. In fact, the salaries of adult Americans who were studying in well-funded schools are 7% higher than the salaries of people who were educated in educational institutions with poor funding (Brunner et al., 2021). It can be explained by the fact that schools that experience budget cuts do not have the opportunity to hire an appropriate number of highly qualified specialists and utilize essential educational resources. In turn, well-funded schools meet the educational expectations of students by offering updated educational technology, art supplies, and extracurricular activities (Jackson et al., 2015). Even though teachers from schools with poor funding usually aim to replace the lack of appropriate resources with creative teaching strategies, students still suffer from a low level of educational foundation.

Currently, the process of public school funding in the U.S. is dependent on federal, state, and local governments. Simultaneously, when it comes to the proportion of financial investments, nearly 47% of school funding relies on the state, whereas 45% of financial resources are received from local governments (BenDavid-Hadar, 2018). Finally, the federal government takes responsibility for the rest of the funding. In other words, American educational facilities are mainly sponsored by the state and local government. Taking into account that school funding depends on taxes, educational institutions located in wealthier areas are more likely to be sponsored better than those from poor states (Lafortune et al., 2018). Such a considerable disproportion in school funding across the country is perceived as one of the primary national issues presently.

Poor level of school funding is the main reason why representatives of educational facilities are required to make larger classrooms. For instance, the majority of schools experiencing issues with funding have classrooms including over 40 students (Hong & Zimmer, 2016). At the same time, such a high number of students in the same class cannot be served in an appropriate manner. It is usually recommended to place no more than 18 students in the same classroom to offer educators the opportunity to dedicate attention to each student (Gigliotti & Sorensen, 2018). Consequently, poor school funding is the main contributor to larger classrooms.

On-Time Delivery!
Get your customised and 100% plagiarism-free paper done in as little as 3 hours
Let’s start
322 specialists online

Despite the fact that the economy of the U.S. has already managed to recover after the Great Recession, it is currently impacted by the negative consequences of COVID-19. The outbreak of this pandemic has made local and federal governments cut school funding by at least 8%. However, it is predicted that the amount of financial resources will be minimized even more in the next several years. For example, a total of $50 billion in education budgets are expected to be reduced due to economic losses caused by COVID-19 (Gerrard et al., 2017). As a result, it will cause a significant decrease in student achievement levels. In addition, approximately 750,000 teaching positions are predicted to be eliminated (Lee & Polachek, 2017). Thus, it is essential to note that school funding will become a significant social issue in the near future.

Methodology

In order to determine the role of budget management in educational settings, it is important to use the quantitative approach that is based on an analysis of numerical and statistical processes. In this case, assessment of the impact of school funding issues requires the identification of responses of both students and school employees. Hence, interviews and surveys should be used to achieve this goal in the first place.

In the context of the survey population, a total of 807 students and 31 educators were taken into consideration. Firstly, questionnaires were used with the purpose of collecting different types of data. It consisted of 5 open-ended questions and 18 closed-ended questions regarding the direct impact of budgeting on the quality of educational services (Vargas, 2017). Secondly, educators were also required to give personal interviews in order to share information related to budgeting management. To analyze the data received with the help of interview sessions, it is vital to follow a specific algorithm (Sharma et al., 2019). In fact, this algorithm includes a combination of actions, such as reading the transcripts, conceptualizing the data, segmenting received information, and analyzing those segments.

Results & Discussions

The findings of this research study demonstrate that the Brooklyn Latin School is likely to face considerable educational issues due to the overall decrease in budgeting costs across the whole country. However, there are effective interventions that can be implemented in order to raise attainment on a budget. For instance, it is important to strive for parental engagement, constantly monitor test knowledge, as well as consider collaborative learning as a tool to engage struggling students (Proston, 2017). In case these recommendations are followed, the Brooklyn Latin School would be able to recover from the outbreak of COVID-19 with minimal financial losses. Furthermore, it is predicted that school funding will increase in the next five years. It can be explained by the intention of school representatives to reduce reliance on local property taxes and make schools more sustainable (Noble et al., 2020). The five-year operating budget plan for the Brooklyn Latin School is presented below.

Get a custom-written paper
For only $13.00 $11/page you can get a custom-written academic paper according to your instructions
Let us help you
322 specialists online

Revenues

Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Revenues 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
SBB & Non-SBB Funding $0 $876 436 $1 314 653 $1 752 871 $1 752 871 $1 752 871
Supplemental Special Education $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NCLB-Title 1 $0 $44 254 $65 618 $74 952 $74 952 $74 952
NCLB-Title 2 $0 $8 400 $12 600 $16 800 $16 800 $16 800
ELL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Private Fundraising $250 000 $75 000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Student Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erate $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Investment Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Non-Facility Loan Proceeds / Line of Credit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Special Education Funding $0 $219 650 $331 200 $439 300 $439 300 $439 300
Supplemental Aid $0 $88 320 $88 320 $165 600 $165 600 $165 600
Facilities Supplement $0 $174 930 $262 395 $349 860 $349 860 $349 860
Total $250 000 $1 486 990 $2 074 786 $2 799 383 $2 799 383 $2 799 383

Expenses

Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Direct Student Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Classroom Supplies (consumables) $0 $24 000 $36 000 $48 000 $48 000 $48 000
Educational Materials (non-consumables) $0 $18 000 $22 500 $29 250 $27 000 $27 000
Student Testing & Assessment $0 $5 350 $3 375 $4 500 $4 500 $4 500
Student Recruitment $3 000 $1 500 $1 500 $1 500 $1 500 $1 500
Instructional Equipment (non-computer) $0 $9 750 $4 500 $4 500 $0 $0
Technology Equipment (e.g., computers, LAN, software, etc.) $12 000 $7 950 $11 175 $12 000 $6 200 $6 200
Furniture $13 400 $6 600 $6 600 $0 $0 $0
Technology Contracted Services $0 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800
Technology Leases $0 $10 000 $20 000 $20 000 $20 000 $20 000
Extracurricular Expenses $0 $2 000 $3 000 $4 000 $4 000 $4 000
Misc. Outside Services (i.e., Consultants, non-employee compensation) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Special Education Expenses that will NOT be reimbursed by CPS $0 $36 000 $54 000 $72 000 $72 000 $72 000
Contracted Substitute Teachers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transportation Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Student Supplemental Materials $0 $1 200 $1 800 $2 400 $2 400 $2 400
Student Uniforms $0 $1 000 $1 500 $2 000 $2 000 $2 000
Student Culture $0 $1 800 $2 700 $3 600 $3 600 $3 600
Physical Education Materials $0 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500
Art Supplies $0 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000
Field Trips $0 $1 500 $2 250 $3 000 $3 000 $3 000
Data System $0 $10 000 $10 000 $10 000 $10 000 $10 000
Family Engagement $0 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000
Total Direct Student Costs $28 400 $143 950 $188 200 $224 050 $211 500 $211 500
Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Personnel Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Salaries $82 500 $704 000 $1 037 920 $1 506 001 $1 536 121 $1 566 844
School’s Share of Employer Contribution (normal cost) to the CTPF $0 $55 912 $82 280 $133 111 $135 773 $138 489
Pension-CTPF(Charter School’s Share of 9% of Employee w/h) $0 $7 515 $11 059 $17 891 $18 249 $18 614
403b $2 475 $6 090 $9 019 $9 397 $9 585 $9 777
FICA (employer’s share) $5 115 $12 586 $18 640 $19 421 $19 810 $20 206
Medicare (employer’s share) $1 196 $10 208 $15 050 $21 837 $22 274 $22 719
Health/Dental/Life Insurance $7 178 $61 248 $90 299 $131 022 $133 643 $136 315
Workers Compensation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
State Unemployment Taxes $1 650 $14 080 $20 758 $30 120 $30 722 $31 337
Employee Related Expenses (non-wage and non-benefit) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Staff Recruitment $10 000 $8 000 $9 000 $1 500 $1 500 $1 500
Professional Development $10 000 $22 000 $19 000 $13 000 $13 000 $13 000
Staff Appreciation $0 $1 200 $1 800 $2 600 $2 600 $2 600
Substitute Teachers (Contractual) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Saturday Academy $0 $3 600 $3 600 $3 600 $3 600 $3 600
Summer School $0 $3 500 $5 250 $7 000 $7 000 $7 000
Total Personnel Costs $120 114 $909 939 $1 323 676 $1 896 502 $1 933 878 $1 972 001
Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Office Administration Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Office Supplies $0 $3 000 $4 500 $6 500 $6 500 $6 500
Furniture $6 000 $1 500 $2 500 $0 $0 $0
Telecommunications and Internet $6 000 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800 $4 800
Administrative Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Accounting & Audit (Contractual) $0 $45 000 $45 000 $45 000 $45 000 $45 000
Legal (Contractual) $4 000 $4 000 $4 000 $4 000 $4 000 $4 000
Payroll Services (Contractual) $390 $780 $780 $780 $780 $780
Printing & Copying $0 $1 200 $1 800 $2 400 $2 400 $2 400
Postage & Shipping $0 $600 $900 $1 200 $1 200 $1 200
Other Contractual Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CPS Administrative Fee $0 $26 293 $39 440 $52 586 $52 586 $52 586
Teacher Technology $6 000 $0 $3 000 $4 000 $1 500 $1 500
Total Office Administration $22 390 $87 173 $106 720 $121 266 $118 766 $118 766
Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Occupancy Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rent $0 $108 200 $166 408 $166 408 $166 408 $166 408
Utilities $0 $40 575 $62 403 $62 403 $62 403 $62 403
Repairs & Maintenance $0 $33 813 $52 003 $52 003 $52 003 $52 003
Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contracted Services-Security $3 500 $600 $600 $600 $600 $600
Contracted Services-Custodial $0 $22 088 $33 902 $34 802 $34 802 $34 802
Contracted Services-(Trash Removal, Snow Removal, Grounds, etc.) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contracted Services-Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Insurance $0 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000 $1 000
Facility Loan Debt Service (P & I) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Occupancy $3 500 $206 275 $316 315 $317 215 $317 215 $317 215
Incubation Year FISCAL YEAR (June 30)
Other Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Non-Facility Loan Payments (Principal & Interest) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fundraising Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $29 740 $41 496 $55 988 $55 988 $55 988
Liability Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Directors and Officers’ Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Automobile Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Indemnity Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Liability/Abuse/Crime/Auto/Employee Benefits/Educators E&O Insurance $850 $3 500 $7 000 $10 500 $10 500 $10 500
Excess $10 million Limits Insurance $1 000 $5 000 $10 000 $15 000 $15 000 $15 000
Directors & Officers / Employment Practices / Fiduciary Insurance $900 $3 800 $7 600 $11 400 $11 400 $11 400
Workers Compensation/Employers Liability Insurance $1 900 $5 500 $11 000 $16 500 $16 500 $16 500
Total Other Costs $4 650 $47 540 $77 096 $109 388 $109 388 $109 388
Total Expenses $179 054 $1 394 876 $2 012 006 $2 668 420 $2 690 747 $2 728 870
BUDGETED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $70 946 $92 113 $62 780 $130 963 $108 637 $70 513
Beginning Cash Balance $0 $70 946 $163 059 $225 840 $356 802 $465 439
Net Surplus/(Deficit) for the Fiscal Year $70 946 $92 113 $62 780 $130 963 $108 637 $70 513
Estimated Cash Balance at the End of the Fiscal Year $70 946 $163 059 $225 840 $356 802 $465 439 $535 952

Conclusions & Recommendations

Subsequently, school funding determines the quality of educational services from different perspectives. In case the school lacks appropriate financial resources, it is required to take appropriate measures to develop plans for future syllabus, instructional procedures, and guidance services in a limited way. In addition, cutting budgeting is predicted to result in the lack of highly qualified educators serving their functions in schools, as well as the lack of appropriate educational resources. Taking into consideration that the global pandemic has affected the economy of the U.S., the Brooklyn Latin School and other American schools are expected to face considerable financial losses. Therefore, it is essential to use the combination of several interventions related to the increase of budgeting costs.

For instance, it is recommended to strive for parental engagement, constantly monitor test knowledge, as well as consider collaborative learning as a tool to engage struggling students. Also, reduction in reliance on local property taxes and making schools more sustainable are effective interventions in terms of increasing budgeting costs. As a result, educational facilities would be able to improve the quality of provided services, thereby increasing student outcomes.

References

BenDavid-Hadar, I. (2018). Funding education: Developing a method of allocation for improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 2-26. Web.

Brunner, E., Schwegman, D., & Vincent, J. (2021). How much does public school facility funding depend on property wealth? Education Finance and Policy, 33(1), 1-52. Web.

Conlin, M., & Thompson, P. (2017). Impacts of new school facility construction: An analysis of a state-financed capital subsidy program in Ohio. Economics of Education Review, 59(2), 13-28. Web.

Gerrard, J., Savage, G., & O’Connor, K. (2017). Searching for the public: School funding and shifting meanings of ‘the public’ in Australian education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 503-519. Web.

Gigliotti, P., & Sorensen, L. (2018). Educational resources and student achievement: Evidence from the Save Harmless provision in New York State. Economics of Education Review, 66(3), 167-182. Web.

Hong, K., & Zimmer, R. (2016). Does investing in school capital infrastructure improve student achievement? Economics of Education Review, 53(2), 143-158. Web.

Jackson, C., Johnson, R., & Persico, C. (2015). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157-218. Web.

Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1-26. Web.

Lee, K., & Polachek, S. (2017). Do school budgets matter? The effect of budget referenda on student dropout rates. Education Economics, 26(2), 129-144. Web.

Martorell, P., Stange, K., & McFarlin, I. (2016). Investing in schools: Capital spending, facility conditions, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 14(2), 13-29. Web.

Noble, P., Ten Eyck, P., Roskoski, R., & Jackson, J. (2020). NIH funding trends to US medical schools from 2009 to 2018. Plos One, 15(6), 22-27. Web.

Proston, K. (2017). The funding of school education. OECD Reviews of School Resources, 21(2), 1-15. Web.

Sharma, U., Furlonger, B., & Forlin, C. (2019). The impact of funding models on the education of students with autism spectrum disorder. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 43(1), 1-11. Web.

Vargas, A. (2017). Arts Education Funding. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 32(1), 12-29. Web.

Weisburst, E. (2019). Patrolling public schools: The impact of funding for school police on student discipline and long-term education outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(2), 338-365. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

ChalkyPapers. (2022, July 24). The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management. Retrieved from https://chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/

Reference

ChalkyPapers. (2022, July 24). The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management. https://chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/

Work Cited

"The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management." ChalkyPapers, 24 July 2022, chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/.

References

ChalkyPapers. (2022) 'The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management'. 24 July.

References

ChalkyPapers. 2022. "The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management." July 24, 2022. https://chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/.

1. ChalkyPapers. "The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management." July 24, 2022. https://chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/.


Bibliography


ChalkyPapers. "The Brooklyn Latin School's Budgeting Management." July 24, 2022. https://chalkypapers.com/the-brooklyn-latin-schools-budgeting-management/.