EDLD 5342 Week One Assignments - School Finance

Part 1 – History of School Finance

Texas, like many other states, has seen its’ share of court cases, legislative decisions and legal changes that have greatly impacted the school finance system.  In 1845, when the Republic of Texas became the state of Texas, the new constitution provided for the establishment of free schools and called for state taxes to support education.  The state constitution mandated that states would establish a free public school system. One-tenth of the state revenue was dedicated for educational purposes and became the basis for what we now call the Permanent School Fund.  This set the stage for Mirabeau Lamar to persuade the Texas Legislature to establish land grants for public schools.  These events created a precedent that the state, not just local entities would be financially involved in the education of students.

The second historic landmark within Texas school financing came in 1915 with the equalization of funding precedent brought on by the appropriation of one million dollars to rural schools.  This was the first time that the legislature put money into the hands of local school districts with the intent of equaling funding between districts.  This appropriation of funds sent a message of commitment to ensuring equity between districts.  In this historic move the state attempted to ensure that all students had an opportunity to an appropriate education.  This action set a strong precedent for the Edgewood cases that would come in the future.  

The third historic landmark within the Texas school financing came after a series of Edgewood v Kirby lawsuits.  These lawsuits citing discrimination against students in poor school districts and sought legislative action to provide an efficient and free public school system and that denying property poor school districts equitable funding amounted to a denial of equal opportunity in an “increasingly complex and technological society”. The final plan (Senate Bill 1) was approved by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 in which wealth would be distributed by having property wealthy districts distribute revenue by selecting one of five methods.  The plan was signed in law by Governor Ann Richards in 1993.  This process call the “Robin Hood Plan” and included the key element of revenue recapture. 

Part 2 – Three basic issues impacting the state formula

Texas distributes funding to school districts through a system of formulas and calculations that collectively, are known as the Foundation School Program (FSP).  Tier 1 and Tier 2 make up the FSP.  Tier 1 formulas are comprised of adjustments, weights, and allotments and Tier 2 provides substantially equal access to funds for an enriched program using a guaranteed yield approach to calculating state aid. The goal of the Texas school finance system is to provide funding at an appropriate level that balances funding between property rich school districts (Chapter 41) and property poor districts (Chapter 42).  The state formula is subject to property values, tax rates, average daily attendance and the weighted average daily attendance (WADA), and the special instructional program allotment.  The weighted average daily attendance is a note of contention within the state of Texas.  The amount of money spent on a per pupil basis varies from one school district to another.  Because of the difference in property values across the state, adjustments are made to the allotment that require some school districts to send back money to the state through one of five recapture methods.  These funds are then distributed to school districts that are considered Chapter 42 districts.  This exchange of funds between school districts is a result of Senate Bill 1.

School districts also receive additional funding based on special instructional programs.  Some of these programs are State compensatory Education, Special Education, Bilingual, Career and Technology and Gifted and Talented Education. The money appropriate for these programs are meant to assist schools in providing an education that is adequate and equitable.  School are able to offer additional programs to meet the needs of their local demographic populations with these funds. 

Part 3 – Equality, Equity, and Adequacy

Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.  One example for this would be that districts must offer and fund core courses to meet requirements for graduation such as math, science, English, and social studies.  Another example for Equality is districts must offer support for special needs students that is equal to that of regular students.

Equity means that the educational system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.  An example of equity would be compensatory funds to address the needs of at-risk students.  Another example would be funds that meet the needs of special education students. 

Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.  Examples are minimum teacher salary scale and the new instructional materials allotment that replaced the technology and textbook allotments.  These are examples of adequacy. 

Part 4 - Comparison of two District Improvement Plans

In comparing the two district improvement plans, Austin ISD and the Galena Park ISD, I was impressed with the information presented in the introduction by Austin ISD.  It listed groups involved in the development of the plan as well as groups who approved the plan.  Austin ISD clearly stated purposes for creating their plan and through this statement the reader becomes aware not only of the goals of this plan but, also of the review process, the involvement of the district in a comprehensive plan for continuous improvement as well as  long-range strategic planning.  While the Galena Park ISD states the strategies and Goals an overall statement of the purpose is missing as well as a long-range strategic plan.  With the Austin ISD plan it provides a list of funding sources and activities listed which is more comprehensive than Galena Park ISD (no funding sources listed).  Austin ISD includes PBMAS Improvement Plan, which are not required but most district have this in place.  I noticed that with the Austin ISD plan there is no mention of the new STAAR and EOC exam.  With Galena Park ISD the STAAR and EOC is a main focus of the district. 

With Galena Park ISD’s plan, I have a better understanding of their goals and reasons for their programs.  I like the fact that GPISD have services that they provide, listed.  GPISD addresses the Gifted & Talented program and this was missing in the AISD plan.  TEA requires districts to have in place School safety programs such as bullying and dating violence.  These were listed with GPISD but not included in the AISD plan.  College Prep (ACT/SAT) programs were listed with GPISD but not included anywhere in the AISD plan.  GPISD included measurable goals for AYP, attendance (student/staff), parental involvement, Highly Qualified Staff, and test scores.  These were not present in the AISD plans.  GPISD had specific training for staff development listed in their plans but not seen in the AISD plan.

Both district mentioned and appeared to place a great focus on Tutorial, their LEP students, Immigrant students, students with disabilities, teen parents, pregnancy related services, advanced placement, homeless support for students, and dropout recovery.

In conclusion, Austin is more comprehensive of with everything that they offer, but the goals and reasons are not clear.  Who gets tutorial?  What options do drop outs have? What support do dropouts have?  What staff development is offered and required?