EDAD 744 Public Education Finance
Tuesdays, 5:00 – 7:30 p.m. Equivalent Online Sessions, Via Collaborate
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONS
FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY
Spring 2014
John L. Stoothoff, Ph.D.
Coordinator of the Masters in A and S Program
Department of the Educational Professions
60 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740
Office Phone (240) 527-2736 Cell Phone (518) 369-7135
jlstoothoff@frostburg.edu
The Frostburg State University website: www.frostburg.edu
Administrative Assistant: Ms. Cameron Dennison
Office: (240) 527-2738
E-Mail: cddennison@frostburg.edu
Course Description
The nature and scope of educational systems’ funding, support, and organization, primarily from
the perspective of the central office leadership functions. Included are the associated activities of
management, and position personnel. The supervisory functions of the financial aspects of the
public school system enterprise. Knowledge of professional organizations, literature, legal
supports, and ethics
Course Goals or Purposes  The identification, inspection, and review of – as well as interaction with extensive doctoral-level materials, as associated with educational systems’
funding, support, and organization.
 The inspection and analysis of the critically important auditing functions as they
unite governmental standards with the large educational organization.
 The development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to apply
leadership principles in the fiscal operations of the school system.
 The continued development of a thorough literature review for subsequent
applications.
Course Policies:
1. Attendance – in the form of Collaborate interaction and class period attendance - is expected
for all such scheduled sessions.
2. Participation in class and online discussion is required.
3. Assignments are due on Blackboard/ online as posted. Late work may be subject to a grade
reduction.
4. University Policies on Academic Dishonesty, Harassment, and Disruptive Student Behavior
are fully applicable for this course.
1
5. Students with any type of recognized and confirmed disability that would require
accommodations in assignments or assessment practices should provide written notification
to the instructor by no later than the second class meeting. Students may request that this
notification be provided to the instructor by the Office of Student Special Services.
6. A Course Policy of Special Note: Particular and specific expectations for upper graduate
level work is in force. Required absolutely is the respectful consideration of the demands
for the written communications of the school organization’s workplace in addition to those
expectations of our University. Therefore, a high value is placed on what written work
should look like for us. The gauging of “mechanics”, “presentation”, citation parlance, and
“style” is taken seriously. Observe below the scoring mechanics, particularly for written
assessments which are assigned.
Office Hours: Office Hours: A wide variety of daily morning and afternoon office hours is offered per
University regulation. However, an important reality is recognized: Unique to this program
concentration, nearly all students are employed among leadership and/or teaching ranks in a three state
region and will likely benefit from late afternoon and evening appointments. An even wider array of that
order of appointment days and times is possible, including via phone, Skype, IVN, or email and
Blackboard communication. Students are encouraged to utilize any of the contact points in order to
arrange a time for meeting. Also, Ms. Dennison is fully prepared to assist us in getting together.
Text: See enclosed bibliography
Grading Scale
A = 93% - 100%
B = 84% - 92%
C = 75% - 83%
F = Below 75%
(Percentages are
rounded up from .5)
Scoring Rubrics (percentages below multiplied by the
assignment’s point value)
Written Papers
Content
75%
Mechanics, style
20%
References, citation
5%
Presentations
Content
75%
Presentation
20%
References, citation
5%
Please note: The standard for our writing, unless otherwise specified, calls for a 12-point Times New Roman
font, double spaced, with a 1½” left margin and 1” margin elsewhere. It is further expected that students will
use American Psychology Association (APA) citation parlance for within-text citations and bibliographies.
This particular segment on this page conforms to that model.
2
Assessments
Assessment #1: (10 points) The ‘Bridge to Excellence’ Document
Submit a two page written piece, which identifies twenty (20) potential questions or statements
related to the document:
MGT of America, Inc. An Evaluation of the Effect of Increased State Aid to Local School Systems Through
the Bridge to Excellence Act Final Report (Volume I). Submitted to: The Maryland State Department
of Education. December 19, 2008
Rule of Thumb? If these questions are answered or if the statements were to stimulate discussion
either would increase our understanding of the meaning behind that report on a large infusion of
money from the statehouse of Maryland to the public county school districts and to the City of
Baltimore.
Due: February 11, 2014
Assessment #2
(30 points) CFO Interaction
A second key assessment requires the candidate to engage a regional chief finance professional
in an interview centering on the findings of our two (2) independent audits. The outcome which
is desired, is a central office-oriented one: our K-12 specialist Ed D candidate is now one who –
at a minimum – demonstrates an appreciation of the skills of the supervisor of the chief finance
officer (CFO) and the CFO himself or herself.
If access to the CFO is unrealistic for this assessment, candidates are called upon to interview
the role player or position holder who’s position resides on the organization chart as close to the
CFO as possible. Implicit in this assessment is the need to use experiences with the audits to
construct an interview format. Therefore, in addition to delivering that interview, you are to
report on that interview using our Course tools: Journal function in Blackboard. Include the
interview device you have constructed in your submittal.
Due: March 18, 2014
Assessment #3: (100 points)
This is a three part assessment.
Assessment #3, Part 1: (50 points) Each student is responsible for leading a presentation on the
ways in which their dissertation topic may unite with any manner among the business functions.
Most notably these functions could include resource identification and procurement,
management in an era of resource or funding scarcity, local public policy, regional, statewide, or
national public policy, accounting, budgeting, or the many non-instructional ancillary services,
for which school districts are noted. This “uniting” may be viewed as having demonstrable links
to the large education organization’s business functions and the large organization’s
3
environmental realities. The presentation is to be the full class meeting, online. Each presenter
will be provided their own Collaborate moderator’s link for the purpose of heir session.
Students are at liberty to take as much time as will be needed. However, sixty (60) minutes will
be the recommended length. In no way will the requirement be for a two and one half hour
Collaborate. Presentation : Due per schedule.
Assessment #3, Part 2: (25 points) The presentation will be particularly viewed regarding the
student’s inclusion of references which will likely inform the review of the literature of their
dissertation’s chapter 2.
A reference listing of the cited works will be due no later than May 6.
Assessment #3, Part 3: (25 points) Each student will be required to construct a response in
Blackboard: Course tools- Journal, regarding each fellow K-12 cohort student’s presentation.
This response will be for the purpose of constructively reacting to each fellow student. Since the
course Tools: Journal function is simply a one-on-one/student-to- instructor feature, the
instructor will have first opportunities for assessing such posts for levels of constructive criticism
before distributing them to presenters.
Four Journals due; May 13
Assessment # 4: (30 points) Two Page Synopsis Writing
Students continue in their demonstration of progress in the area of synopses-writing, the likes of
which will be needed for ‘Chapter 2’ purposes. Each of the specified focus articles are to be the
subject of student reaction, except one (1). Two-page synopses of the focus pieces are due
beginning February 11, at a two (2) week lag. For example, this means a two-page synopsis of
the ‘MGT’ /’Thornton’ report is not due until February 11. For the semester, six (6) synopses
are expected. Each synopsis will be graded on a 30-point scale. Those six grades will be
converted to reflect the 30 course points to be awarded. This provides the instructor with an
opportunity to not be held to mathematical averaging, necessarily.
Due: Per Schedule. Last one due: May 13
Assessment #5: (30 points) General Class Participation
Uses problem-solving skills and knowledge of strategic, long-range, and operational planning
Grades in this category for an online Blackboard-and Collaborate-based course delivery of
minimal face-to-face opportunities are enhanced when students respond accurately to
Collaborate “spot requests”, when they interact accurately in Blackboard functions, when they
articulate requests for clarification and when they are timely with assigned submittal
requirements. Similarly, ‘Participation’ assessments are enhanced when it is evident during the
limited f2f class settings that the student demonstrates seriousness about their approach to the
topics at hand, including an ease at referencing back to assigned or supplemental reading
material.
4
The professor’s ‘Participation’ identifications are due immediately following the final class
meeting of May 13
Class Mtg
Date
TOPIC
Welcome to EDAD 744 , Public School Finance




Week 1
T. Jan. 28
Welcomes, Introductions, and Answers to Questions
A Review of the Syllabus
Additional Background and Reflection
Focus Article for This Week:
MGT of America, Inc. An Evaluation of the Effect of
Increased State Aid to Local School Systems
Through the Bridge to Excellence Act Final
Report (Volume I). Submitted to: The Maryland
State Department of Education. December 19,
2008
You receive your Pennsylvania and Maryland Audits
Focus Article for the Week
Week 2
T. Feb 4
Maryland State Department of Education (2009)
Financial reporting manual for Maryland public
schools, Maryland State Department of Education,
Baltimore,
MD
21201,
www.marylandpublicschools.org
 The Collaborate: Additional Background
‘Focus Article for the Week’.
Week 3
T. Feb. 11
Mensah, Yaw M., Schoderbek, Michael P.and Werner,
Robert H.(2009)

The Collaborate Additional Background:
the way I might conduct it - of an audit.
A review –
Focus Articles for the Week: Please read each. However, you
have a choice as to which to submit for synopsis:

Week 4
T. Feb. 18


Lina ,Tin-Chun and Quayesb, Shakil.
(2006)
Moon, Sangho, Stanley, Rodney E., and
Shin, Jaeun (2005)
MacIver, Martha Abele and MacIver,
Douglas J. (2006)
5

The Collaborate Additional Background: A view of
Stoothoff (1985) where school choice, vouchers, and
“public vs. ‘non-public’ and ‘private’ ” battles dotted
the landscape.
Focus Article for the Week

Week 5
T. Feb.25
Bireda, Saba. (2011)
Stoothoff and Budgeting: Pt. 1
Prepare with your own overview of the popular budget your
county, or your organization, Christine, is advancing this
season.
Stoothoff provides you with a little textbook
exercise, just for central officers
“Stupid”
T. Mar. 4
Week 6
W. F
F
Audit Night
O
n
Mike Manspeaker, CPA,
Smith Elliott Kearns,
l
Hagertown, MD andiStoothoff , with you – in the real to review those audits.
n
e
We’ll work from your questions and we’ll expect it to
help the conducting of your CFO interaction.

Week 7
T. Mar. 11
Eger, Robert J. III and McDonald, Bruce D. III
(2012)
Stoothoff and Budgeting: Pt. 2
We look in to see how you did.
Week 8
T. Mar. 18
Week 9
T. Mar. 25
No Class Activity: FSU’s Spring Break. You catch your
breath and I’ll catch mine!
Assessment #3, Part 1: Michelle
6
T
Week 10
April 1
Assessment #3, Part 1: Christine
Week 11
T. Apr. 8
Assessment #3, Part 1: Jane
Week 12
T Apr. 15
Online
Week 13
Assessment #3, Part 1: Eric
No Class Meeting:
Local School District Spring Recesses (And, yes,
T. Apr 22
I know all about the snowy weather of early 2014!)
Week 14
T. Apr. 29
Week 15
T. May 6
Assessment #3, Part 1: Molly
Stoothoff’s Wrap Up Visit
Focus Article for the Week

Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. (2005)
References
Bireda, Saba. (2011) Funding education equitably: The “Comparability Provision” and the move
to fair and transparent school budgeting systems. The Center for American Progress
March
Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. (2005) Below the bubble: "Educational Triage" and the Texas
accountability system. American Educational Research Journal; 42:2; ProQuest Education
Journals, pg. 231
Council of Great Cities Schools. (2012) Managing for results in America’s great city schools, 2
A report of the performance measurement and benchmarking project, October.
Chatterji, Madhabi (2004) Evidence on "What Works": An argument for extended-term mixedmethod (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher; 33:9; ProQuest Education
Journals, pg. 3
7
Eger, Robert J. III and McDonald, Bruce D. III (2012) Moving toward comparability:
Assessing per student costs in K-12. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and
Financial Management 24 (4), pp. 609-638 Winter.
Floden, Robert E. and Weimer, Stephen S. (1978) Rationality to ritual:
The multiple roles of evaluation in governmental processes. Policy Sciences 9
pp. 9-18.
Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C. G. (2005) Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice. (7th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lina ,Tin-Chun and Quayesb, Shakil. (2006) The impact of local taxes on public school
performance: the case of Pennsylvania. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 423–426
ISSN 1350–4851 print/ISSN 1466–4291 online http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI:
10.1080/13504850500397635
MacIver, Martha Abele and MacIver, Douglas J. (2006) Which bets paid off ? Early findings
on the impact of private management and K-8 conversion reforms on the achievement of
Philadelphia students. Review of Policy Research, 23: 5 (2006)
Marino, Jay.(2011) A study of school boards and their implementation of
continuous improvement practices, The Journal for Quality and Participation,
pp.27-32 www. asq. org/pub/jqp. July
Maryland County, A: Independent Audit for 2013, TBA
Maryland State Department of Education (2009) Financial reporting manual for Maryland
public schools, Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, Maryland 21201
www.marylandpublicschools.org
Mensah, Yaw M., Schoderbek, Michael P.and Werner, Robert H.(2009) A methodology for
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternative management tools in public-sector
institutions: An application to public education. Journal of Management Accounting
Research, 21, pp. 203-239
MGT of America, Inc. An Evaluation of the Effect of Increased State Aid to Local School
Systems Through the Bridge to Excellence Act Final Report (Volume I). Submitted to:
The Maryland State Department of Education. December 19, 2008
Moon, Sangho, Stanley, Rodney E., and Shin, Jaeun (2005) Measuring the impact of lotteries on
state per pupil expenditures for education: Assessing the national evidence. Review of Policy
Research, 22: 2.
8
Patton, M.Q.(2003) Qualitative evaluation checklist. Evaluation Checklists Project
www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Utilization-focused evaluation checklist. Retrieved September 9, 2002,
from The Evaluation Center, Evaluation Checklists Web site:
www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/
Pennsylvania School District, A: Independent Audit for 2013, TBA
School Turnaround Group, Mass Insight Education (September 2010). Evaluating School
Turnaround: Establishing Benchmarks and Metrics to Assess School Turnaround.
Scriven, Michael. (1994) Duties of the teacher. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 8
(2) pp.151-184).
Scriven, M. (2004) Key evaluation checklist.http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/.
Shakrani, Sharif M. (2010) School District Consolidation Study in 10 Michigan Counties: Is
district consolidation cost effective? What is the alternative to consolidation? Education
Policy Center at Michigan State University, Working Paper # 15 Michigan State University,
September 3, 2010.
Sommerfield, Meg. (2011) Partnering for Compensation Reform: Collaborations between Union
and District Leadership in Four School Systems. The Center for American Progress, June.
March
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. and Shinkfield, Anthony J. (2007) Evaluation, theory, models, and
applications, 1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Travers, Jonathan and Ferris, Kristen (2011) Realigning resources for district success:
Duval County Public Schools: Final report, Education Resource Strategies, September.
U.SD.o.E. (2013) Race to the top: Maryland report: Year 2: School year 2011– 2012
U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC 20202, February1.
Webb, L.D. and Norton, M.S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel issues and
needs in education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Zantal-Wiener, K., & Horwood, T. J. (2010). Logic modeling as a tool to prepare to evaluate
disaster and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery in schools. In L. A.
Ritchie & W. MacDonald (Eds.), Enhancing disaster and emergency preparedness, response,
and recovery through evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 126, 51–64.
9
10