|
1
|
- Conroe Independent School District’s FIRST Rating
- Dan Cox, CFO
- Darrin Rice, Director of Finance
|
|
2
|
- The primary goal of School First is to achieve quality performance in
the the management of school district’s financial resources, a goal made
more significant due to the complexity of accounting associated with
Texas’ school finance system.
- School First was developed in consultation with the Comptroller of
Public Accounts, and its development also benefited from the many
comments that were received from school district and regional education
service center personnel.
|
|
3
|
- S.B. 218 of the 77th Legislature (2001) authorized the
implementation of the financial accountability rating system.
- The School FIRST rating is based upon an analysis of staff and student
data reported for the 2005-2006 school year, and budgetary and actual
financial data for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2006.
|
|
4
|
- The School First accountability rating system assigns one of four
financial accountability ratings to Texas school districts.
- Superior Achievement
- Above-Standard Achievement
- Standard Achievement
- Substandard Achievement
|
|
5
|
- Conroe Independent School District received a rating of “Superior
Achievement”. The Superior Achievement rating is the state’s highest,
demonstrating the quality of Conroe ISD’s financial management and
reporting system. Conroe Independent School District obtained the
Superior Achievement rating by receiving a perfect score in all areas
tested.
|
|
6
|
- The School FIRST rating system rated Texas districts based on their
answers to 21 separate questions.
- Each question was designed to assess the quality of the financial
management of the district’s resources.
|
|
7
|
- 1. Was total Fund Balance less
Reserved Fund Balance greater than zero in the General Fund.
- School districts must legally have a fund balance to ensure adequate
funding for operations. This indicator is designed to ensure that your
district has a positive amount of fund balance cash (savings) that is
not designated or reserved for a specific purpose. In other words, “Does
your district have funds set aside for a rainy day?”
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
$53,020,014
- 2005-06 Yes $59,668,142
|
|
8
|
- 2. Were there No disclosures in the Annual Financial Report and/or other
sources of information concerning default on bonded indebtedness
obligations.
- This indicator seeks to make
certain that your district has paid your bills/obligations on bonds
issued to pay for school construction, etc.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
9
|
- 3. Was the Annual Financial Report filed within one month after the
January 28th deadline for the district’s Fiscal Year end date
August 31?
- A simple indicator. Was your Annual Financial Report filed by the
deadline?
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, January 26
- 2005-06 Yes, January 26
|
|
10
|
- 4. Was there an Unqualified Opinion in the Annual Financial Report?
- A “qualification” on your financial report means that you need to
correct some of your reporting or financial controls. A district’s goal,
therefore, is to receive an “unqualified opinion” on its Annual
Financial Report.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
11
|
- 5. Did the Annual Financial Report NOT disclose any instance(s) of
material weakness in internal controls?
- A clean audit of your Annual Financial Report would state that your
district has no material weaknesses in internal controls.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
12
|
- 6. Was the percent of total tax collections (including delinquent) greater
than 96 percent?
- This indicator measures your district’s success in collecting the taxes
owed to you by your community’s businesses and homeowners, placing a 96
percent minimum collections standard.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, Conroe collected 100.17% of the current
tax levy.
- 2005-06 Yes, Conroe collected 100.12%
|
|
13
|
- 7. Did the comparison of PEIMS data to like information in the Annual
Financial Report result in an aggregate variance of less than 4 percent
of expenditures per fund type?
- This indicator measures the quality of data reported to PEIMS and in
your Annual Financial Report to make certain that the data reported in
each case “matches up.”
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, Conroe’s variance was zero. 2005-06 Yes,
zero variance.
|
|
14
|
- 8. Were Debt-Related Expenditures less than $770 per student? (If the
district’s five-year percent change in students was a 2 percent increase
or more, or if property taxes collected per penny of tax effort were
more than $100,000, then answer this indicator YES)
- This indicator shows the legislature’s intent for school districts to
spend money on education, rather than fancy buildings.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes.
- 2005-06 Yes one penny of tax effort generates $1,296,898.
|
|
15
|
- 9. Was there NO disclosure in the Annual Audit Report of Material
Noncompliance?
- No disclosure means the Annual Audit report includes no disclosure
indicating that the school district failed to comply with laws, rules,
and regulations for a government entity.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
2005-06 Yes
|
|
16
|
- 10. Did the district have full accreditation status in relation to
financial management practices?
- Did TEA take control of your district due to financial issues such as
fraud or having a negative fund balance? If not, you pass this
indicator.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
17
|
- 11. Was the percentage of Operating Expenditures expended for
instruction more than 54 percent?
- This indicator shows your district’s ability to focus the majority of
its funding so that it directly pays for student instruction. Only items
such as salaries of classroom teachers and classroom supplies qualify as
“Instruction” expenditures.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, 56.59%.
- 2005-06 Yes 57.12%
|
|
18
|
- 12. Was the aggregate of Budgeted Expenditures and Other Uses LESS THAN
the aggregate of Total Revenue, Other resources and Fund Balance in
General Fund?
- Your district will receive a negative rating on this measure if your
total expenditures and other uses for the fiscal year exceeded your
total funds available.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
19
|
- 13. If the district’s Aggregate Fund Balance in the General Fund and
Capital Projects Fund was LESS THAN zero, were construction projects
adequately financed?
- This indicator measures your district’s ability to construct facilities
without damaging your Fund Balance.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, Conroe’s aggregate fund balance was
$98,583,764.
- 2005-06 aggregate fund balance was $185,262,259
|
|
20
|
- 14. Was the ratio of Cash and Investments to Deferred Revenues (
excluding amount equal to net delinquent taxes receivable) in the
General Fund greater than or equal to 1:1?
- This indicator measures whether or not your district has sufficient
cash and investments to balance fund balance monies such as TEA
overpayments (deferred revenues).
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
21
|
- 15. Was the Administrative Cost Ratio less than the standard in State
Law?
- TEA and state law sets a cap on the percentage of their budget that
Texas school districts can spend on administration. Did you stay within
the cap for districts of your size?
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, the standard administrative cost ratio
is .1105 and Conroe’s ratio .0583.
- 2005-06 yes Administrative Cost ratio .0575
|
|
22
|
- 16. Was the Ratio of Students to Teachers within the ranges shown below
according to district size?
- Range for ratio for districts with student population =>10,000 Low
13.5 High 22
- This indicator measures your pupil teacher ratio to ensure that it is
within TEA’s recommended range.
- Conroe’s answer – Yes, 16.12 (8/31/2005)
- Yes, 16.22 (8/31/2006)
|
|
23
|
- 17. Was the Ratio of Students to Total Staff within the ranges shown
below according to district size?
- Range for ratio for districts with student population =>10,000 Low
6.6 High 14.
- This indicator measures your pupil-staff ratio to ensure that it is
within TEA’s recommended range.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, 8.15
- 2005-06 Yes, 8.32
|
|
24
|
- 18. Was the Total Fund Balance in the General Fund more than 50 percent
and less than 150 percent of Optimum according to the Fund Balance and
Cash Flow Calculation Worksheet in the Annual Financial Report?
- Exhibit A in the district’s audit provides an optimum General Fund
“Fund Balance” for Conroe ISD.
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
|
|
25
|
- 19. Was the decrease in Undesignated Fund Balance less than 20 percent
over two Fiscal Years?
- Are you “feeding off of your Fund Balance” to pay for salaries or other
district operating expenses?
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes
- 2005-06 Yes
- Conroe had no decrease in undesignated fund balance.
|
|
26
|
- 20. Was the Aggregate Total Cash and Investments in the General Fund
more than $0?
- Does Conroe ISD have cash in the bank, and/or investments?
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes, $70,398,716.
- 2005-06 Yes, $76,921,386
|
|
27
|
- 21. Were Investment Earnings in all funds more than $15 per student?
- Are you using your cash or reserved fund (fund balance) monies wisely?
- Conroe’s answer – 2004-05 Yes,
$114.13.
- 2005-06 Yes, $269.53.
|
|
28
|
- Indicator :Total Unrestricted Net Asset Balance in the statement of Net
Assets to be greater than Zero. $71,085,021.
- Indicator:Did the District’s Academic Rating Exceed Academically
Unacceptable? Yes
- Indicator:Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for
instruction more or equal to 65%?
Functions (11,36,93,95) Phased
in over 3 years: 55%,60%,65%
- 60.32%
|
|
29
|
- Indicator:Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for
instruction more than or equal to 65%? (Functions 11,12,31,33,36,93,95).
67.20%
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
|
Notes
