Kristin Lilley

January 20, 2021

EAD 510- Education Finance

Clinical Field Experience B

 Schoolwide Budgetary Needs

Vassiliadis Elementary School is situated in an affluent community on the outer edges of

Las Vegas, Nevada. The school is one of the newest public elementary school to open in Las

Vegas, accepting their first group of students in fall of 2017. Currently, it has 965 students

enrolled in grades Pre-K through 5th. The racial demographics of the school consists of 57%

Caucasian, 14% Asian or Pacific Islander, 13% Multiracial, 13% Hispanic, 3% Black. The

population of English language learners is low, at only 6%. The school has a variety of special

education programs, including Early Childhood Inclusion, Early Childhood Special Education,

Primary Autism, Primary Self-Contained SLD, and Intermediate Self-Contained SLD. Along

with 3 resource teachers, these special educators provide services to the 120 students with

Individualized Education Plans (IEP) attending the elementary school. Enrollment at Vassiliadis

has gradually increased since opening in 2017 due to the new housing development in the school

zone. Opening with 710 students and increasing to 1,165 in only 3 years has resulted in the need

to hire additional staff each year. Due to the pandemic and distance learning, the current

enrollment dropped to 985 students with private schools offering face to face education.

Currently, Vassiliadis has 3 administrators, 68 licensed staff members, 24 support staff, and 10

certified temporary tutors.

Year to Year Budget Comparison

The main fund sources for Vassiliadis include the General Fund, CSR, Special Education,

and Service Level Agreement. The revenue for Vassiliadis for the 2020-2021 school year totals

$6.8 million. A little over $200,000 of this fund is allocated from a Service Level Agreement.

These funds are used for additional testing, a GATE specialist, landscape maintenance, general

education transportation, and school advocates. The General Supplies account is allocated
around $108,000 and can be used for educational programs, learning supplies, textbooks, and

materials. Expenditures for licensed staffing totaled nearly $5.5 million, which is almost 80% of

the total budget. Support staffing expenditures totaled $950,000, facilities spending is budgeted

at $105,000, and the cost of purchasing district wide testing materials for WIDA, MAP, and

SBAC are expected to total $6,200.

The revenue for the 2019-2020 school budget was $5.3 million, a difference of nearly

$1.5 million. Some key differences in this revenue are the allocation of an additional assistant

principal to the school and additional funds toward staff due to the increase of student enrollment

by 150 students from the 2019-2020 school year to the current school year. The allocated funds

for utilities and trash disposal decreased from 2019 to 2020 by almost 40%. This could be a

result of school closures, distance learning, and knowing there would be less trash on campus

with students learning from home. Less funds were placed in the General Supplies fund in the

2020-2021 budget than compared to the 2019-2020 budget. Again, knowing students are

engaged in school from their homes could be a reason to decrease the supplies fund. Also, the

school district purchased a variety of online programs using CARES Act funding, which would

allow them to allocate less money to general supplies knowing schools would not need to

purchase programs, materials, and textbooks while distance learning is in effect.

School Needs Assessment

I administered my needs assessment to fifteen of my peers, across all grade levels and

specialized positions. The needs assessments asked teachers to rate how often they see key

elements that pertain to our School Performance Plan (SPP) around campus. When it comes to

increasing growth and proficiency for all students in reading and math, all teachers that took the

needs assessment expressed satisfaction in lesson planning, rigorous instruction and receiving
help from administration. Some areas of improvement were suggested in increasing parent

support at home and additional resources to students with disabilities to close the learning gap.

The second goal of the SPP is to develop professional learning communities (PLC). Alkrdem

(2020) describes PLC as a place, where the school administration and the teachers are in a

continuous endeavor to participate in learning. “The school improvement can be defined as the

ability of a school to reformulate its criteria, values, policies, and structures, apart from drafting

its plans and formulating strategies” (Alkrdem, p. 147). Many staff expressed concern over time

to meet with their teammates to discuss student successes and weaknesses, while others

mentioned they do not feel they can communicate with their teammates. Without time to meet

and develop these policies, structures, and plans, the staff at my school are struggling to share

strategies that may support student learning. The third goal of our SPP is to differentiate

instruction for all students, above and below grade level. Teachers expressed high satisfaction

with resources available to differentiate but expressed a need for training on these resources. One

teacher said, “Our teacher resources room is full of amazing tools to teach all my students, but I

don’t know how to use half of them.” Finally, our last goal relates to community involvement

and social emotional support for students. Overall, the survey yielded positive results regarding

the building of relationships. Some areas of growth for this goal are to increase professional

development on mental health support for students, increase goal setting with students and

parents, and to develop a Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).

Based on the needs assessment, I would suggest to allocate funds to professional

development for teachers, starting with training on PLC. Developing a model of PLC at our

school can help to support multiple goals at once. Sutarsih & Saud (2019) suggests that “when

experienced teachers have an opportunity for joint discovery and are linked to learning, it will
result in a wider teaching learning framework to other teachers; and it will impact on school

quality improvement” (pg 158). When teachers come together to discuss achievement, strategies,

and protocols, they can develop increased support for low and high achieving students to

differentiate their learning. Differentiating the learning for all students through PLC will increase

student achievement, as a result. Developing a PLC will also encourage goal setting with

students and parents to ensure students are meeting their potential and teachers are tracking their

student’s growth for continued conversations. Another suggestion I would make is for our

administration team to be more present in grade level meetings to model data conversations.

Cormier, Olivier & Lafayette (2009) define the PLC as a group of individuals, who formulate a

team and instill cooperation among them for their continuous improvement, which can be meet

through a shared vision focusing on curriculum. If the team has not built the relationship to

cooperate during these discussions, the administration team can facilitate these tough

conversations.

Facilitating the needs assessment and analyzing the data has helped me to grow in PSEL

Standard 7: Professional Community for Teachers and Staff. This standard states that “effective

educational leaders foster a professional community of teachers and other professional staff to

promote each student’s academic success and well-being” (2015). It is helpful for my future as

an educational administrator to listen to the teachers and staff and take into consideration their

needs and wants as it pertains to the community of the school, the education of our students, and

their well-being.
 References

Alkrdem, M. (2020). Contemporary educational leadership and its role in converting

traditional schools into professional learning communities. International Journal of

Educational Leadership and Management. 8 (2), 144- 171. doi:

10.17583/ijelm.2020.4298

Cormier, R, Olivier, DF, & Lafayette L. (2009). Professional learning committees:

Characteristics, principals, and teachers. In Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Education

Research Association, Lafayette, Louisiana.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional standards for

educational leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.

Sutarsih, C., & Saud, U. (2019). The implementation of professional learning community for

elementary teachers. EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 11(2),

157-168.