6. Budget Preparation

Question 1

Law & Glover 2000

Four main phases of the budgetary cycle

Answer 1

1. Goals (set in the year before the budget, whole school with departmental interpretation , strategic framework)
2. Decisions (made before budget is finalised, rational or political, interpretation of need)
3. Implementation (notification and authorisation of budget, employing/ordering; receiving and checking, monitoring use. Use according to objectives framework)
4. Evaluation (undertaken in the year after the budget, budgetary control, assessment of use, assessment of effect. Outcomes related to existing framework)

Question 2

Preparing the budget

Answer 2

Stage 1.
Establishing the costs of basic organisation
- basic costs to be met year on year
- teaching space
- teachers (additional cost each year - age, experience)
- admin staff

Stage 2
Calculating the forward figures
- school development plan headings added to budget
-

Question 3

Weindling (1997)

Answer 3

Where we are and where we want to be
Gap Analysis

He considers the importance of stakeholders in contributing to the long term planning process to enhance their ownership of policy and practice.

Question 4

Leaders need to be adept at drawing on all resources of the community to meet expectations

Answer 4

Intellectual capital
Social capital
Spiritual capital
Financial capital

Caldwell 2008

Leads to increased Understanding of curriculum development and budgetary planning

Question 5

‘resource decisions are of three kinds:

Answer 5

how budgets are allocated,
how resources and services are procured from those allocated budgets,
and how the resources, once procured are actually deployed.’ (Wilkins, 2002, p316).

Question 6

Cost-analysis then becomes of ‘great relevance to managers at all levels in the system’ (ibid.).

At the same time, one can think of potential difficulties related to such an approach.

Answer 6

1. Direct costs include both equipment and staffing (FRM Course Guide, 2018, p. 54). In the example above, staffing is allocated by the Director of Studies, which may deprive department heads of the opportunity to address other needs in their departments.
2. As Kevin has pointed out, such practices promote collegiality. However, collegiality has certain limitations: Hargreaves (1997) talks about coerced teamwork describing it as ‘contrived collegiality’; Bush states that ‘consensual decision-making is flawed and it is more likely that participants will represent sectional interests’; and one needs to keep in mind that ‘collegiality may fail because of the apathy or hostility of staff’ (Bush, 2000, p. 103). One needs more information about the micro-context of the school in order to evaluate the true implications of the costed statement for department heads and class teachers.
3. While the need to justify additional expenditures encourages department heads to think in both forward-looking and retrospective ways (FRM Course Guide, 2018, p. 50), there is a danger that one will evaluate and possibly fund individual departments based on the measurable outcomes the investments will bring, failing to recognise ‘the essential purposes or the complexity of the programme in question’ (Simkins, 2000, p. 179).