EDLD5342+School+FInance

__Week1, Assignment 1 __My top three events in the history of Texas School Finance are as follows:

1) The top of the list has to be the establishment of the Texas Constitution in 1845. In the Constitution, the state provided for the establishment of free schools; it also incorporated the use of state taxes to support education. It was at this time that the basic foundation of the Permanent School Fund was created. In addition, it is the establishment of a free and appropriate education that has been the center of several court cases that occurred in the state of Texas.

2) A second historical event of great significance was the new Texas Constitution of 1876 in which nearly all laws related to education were changed. At this time, it was determined that 25% of the general revenue was to be dedicated to education. It also consisted of language that has gone on to become the foundation for school finance lawsuits in regards to adequacy, equity, and efficiency: “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”

3) Finally, I feel the historical event that has had the greatest significance to school finance in recent years was the case of Edgewood v Kirby which cited discrimination against students in poor school districts. It also sought legislative action to assist property poor districts in having a more equitable funding system. The Texas Supreme Court then ordered the Texas Legislature to implement an equitable system for the 1990-1991 school year. This eventually led to Senate Bill 1 in 1995 which required wealthy districts to distribute revenue by selecting one of five methods. This has been referred to as the “Robin Hood Plan” and has led to various lawsuits and changes in the state’s school finance system. This, I believe, has had the greatest impact to school finance recently and also has led to the precedence of using lawsuits as a means to change the existing school finance system.

__Week 1, Assignment 2 __ Three issues affecting school finance in Texas are as follows: 1) In 2006, HB 1 was passed as a result of the West Orange-Cove case. Some of the major components of this bill include:
 * 1) A reduction of the M&O tax rate
 * 2) Implementation of target revenue funding for districts
 * 3) A hold harmless provision that would prevent school district revenue losses
 * 4) Additional taxing authority for enrichment funding for operations (public ballot); and
 * 5) New state taxes to fund the hold harmless provisions.

2) Texas distributes funding to school districts through a system of formulas and calculations that collectively are known as the Foundation School Program (FSP). This system consists of two tiers. Tier 1 formulas are comprised of adjustments, weights, and allotments. Tier 2 provides substantially equal access to funds for an enriched program using a guaranteed yield approach to calculating state aid. This makes for a complicated system of finance that includes a numerous variables. This system is compounded by the addition of adjustments for Special Instructional Programs as well as specific allotments. While much of this seems to add equity to the specific needs of students, I really don’t have a clear enough understanding at this point to know how well this formula system meets the needs of specific students. A system that provides inadequate funding, whether equitable or not, is still inadequate at meeting the needs of the students.

3) Schools receive state and local funds based on property values and state calculations determined inversely to these funds. Thus, districts with higher property values receive less state funding per student than districts with less wealth. This design was instituted in an attempt to provide equity across all districts. However, if funds are inadequate to begin with, where is the equity in providing all districts with inadequate funds? While I am not saying that pumping more and more money into schools will necessarily create a higher quality of education, districts need enough funding to meet the needs of all students. Far too often, districts are given additional mandates without the necessary funds to accomplish these mandates. Also, districts are required to provide increased services for special populations, but are not necessarily given the funds needed to provide these services. It is imperative that the state provides adequate funds to meet the educational needs of all children in Texas.

Week 1, Assignment 3

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Definitions and funding examples of Equality, Equity & Adequacy

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">1) According to the interview with Dr. Robert Nicks, equality means “every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.” Perhaps the main example of this would be core curriculum – all students have an equal education in the core subject areas. Equality must also be maintained in athletics offered by school districts – there should be no discrimination in athletic offerings based on a student’s gender.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">2) According to our course glossary, equity, in regards to school finance, refers to “fair or equal distribution of resources for schooling, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics.” Dr. Nicks refers to it as a system that is “fair and responds to the needs of individuals.” Common examples of this in today’s schools are special education students and English Language Learners. These students require special assistance in order to provide them with an equitable education. This extra assistance also requires extra funds, and these funds would be provided in order to offer an equitable education for all students.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">3) Adequacy, according to Dr. Nicks, “means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.” Thus, districts must receive enough funds to support the state requirements. This would be true in the case of having enough funds to provide courses to meet the 4X4 requirements for graduation and teachers to teach these courses. Adequate funding would also be required to meet the state requirements regarding enrichment and CTE classes. Schools would need to receive adequate funding to purchase textbooks for all subjects/courses.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Wk 1, Assignment 4

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">For the purpose of comparing district plans of Austin ISD and Grand Saline ISD, I reviewed the 2011-2012 district plans of each district. The Austin ISD District Improvement Plan (DIP) is very cumbersome and full of information that is beneficial, but does not make the plan itself very user-friendly. Part One of the DIP is the Comprehensive System for Continuous Improvement. Part Two is the Strategic Action Plan. These sections include the district’s policy, strategic plan, and various resource documents. By examining these materials, much information can be learned about the district. While this is informative, it is quite cumbersome in one’s attempt to determine the district’s actual plan of action. While Grand Saline ISD is a much smaller district, which in itself requires a much smaller and less cumbersome document, our plan is much easier to maneuver through and comprehend.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">While the appearance and ease of use may differ greatly between the Austin ISD and the Grand Saline ISD district plans, the overall goals of the plans are quite similar. Goals for each concentrate on student achievement and closing the gaps between student populations. In addition, each district plan includes strategies to prepare students for college and careers in the 21st century. Each addresses goals leading toward student success on state assessments and high school graduation.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Funding by both districts come from a variety of sources. However, each district utilizes federal funding for many of the goals and strategies leading toward student success. Each district uses a large amount of Title I funds since these are designed to help districts with school improvement. Other funds used by each district include Title III funds for ESL and Bilingual Education, Title II-D funding for staff development, CTE fund for Career and Technical Education, Student Compensatory Education funding, High School Allotment funds, Special Education funding and local funds. A major difference, however, is that Austin ISD has more grants and funding availability through corporations and special agencies.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Overall, the Austin ISD DIP is much more comprehensive and contains resources for greater information. However, this makes the plan burdensome, lacking maneuverability through the document. The Grand Saline ISD plan, on the other hand, is simple and user-friendly. Each, however, contains goals and strategies that work toward greater success for all students. They each use federal funds for many of their expenditures, but use other sources as well. Austin ISD has obtained additional grant funding while Grand Saline ISD has had to rely more on local funding. Regardless of the source of the funding and the appearance of the documents, the ultimate goal is the same for both districts – success for all students.