Week+One

Has anyone else responded to your invitation to join the wiki?

Let's go with your first paragraph on Part one and merge our 2nd and 3rd events.
 * Let's use this as our workspace**

Many historical events contributed to the current Texas School Finance policies. In my opinion the following three events have made the most important impact. The new Texas Constitution of1845 provided for the establishment of free schools and called for one-tenth of the state revenue (Permanent School Fund) to support education. This critical action illustrated the dedication of the Texas legislature to quality education. The equalization of funding provided under the Robin Hood Plan designated districts as Chapter 41 (wealthy) or Chapter 42 (poor) to provide a way to equally distribute funds to districts despite the property value inequalities from district to district. Districts with lower property values received a distribution from affluent areas to provide equity in educational services and technology. The 1945 Legislative Session produced the Gilmer-Aikens Laws of Texas Education which began to set standards of operation with the state’s supplement to local taxes to provide funding for public education in addition to the reduction of the number of districts, teacher salary increase, formalization of the school year calendar, and new guidelines for the State Board of Education and employment of the Commissioner of Education. All of the above changes occurred in the past 200 years in Texas Public Education have served to scaffold the financial foundation of Texas Education for the 21st century.
 * PART 1: History of Finance**

Moses:

** Three Most Historical Moments in Texas Public Education ** It took great foresight of our fore fathers to see value in education. The landscape in the 1800’s looked much different in sight as well as in mind. To provide an education to all who wanted it and to know that it was the government’s responsibility lets us know how important education has been to the people in Texas. When you plant pecan trees, you will not reap the benefits of the harvest for many years. That simple metaphor holds true for Texas Public Education. An early investment my not pay off overnight but will pay large dividends in the future. With that, the first historical moment came in 1836 when the Texas Declaration of Independence sited the failure of the Mexican Government, “to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources…” among the reasons for severing political ties with Mexico. This simple act is where it all started and why we do what we do today. The second major historical event was the passing of the Gilmer-Aikin Act of 1949. This act prescribed the reorganization of state education administration while also established the “Minimum Foundation Program,” which created a funding system that provided revenue for education from both state and local sources. Those sources were broken down into eighty percent of the funding would come from the state and the local funds would furnish the remaining twenty percent. This act also created an elected State Board of Education that appointed a commissioner of education, and reorganized the administration of state public school policy through the Texas Education Agency. Lastly, the third major historical event is Senate Bill 7, better known as Robin Hood, passed in 1993. This bill allowed for the state to recapture property tax. The bill has come under much scrutiny, but its heart is in the right place. The purpose for recapturing revenue from high-wealth districts in using it to fund lower-wealth districts was to improve equity in the funding system. Although Robin Hood seems too many of those wealthy districts wrong, there is nothing lurking around the corner to take its place. Once the state opened that box, it will be hard to call back. That money that has been taken from the wealthier districts and given to the districts having less is counted upon. If the lawmakers were to do away with Senate Bill 7, the state would have to make up for that lost income for those lesser districts.

Rainey: Current Texas School Finance policies have been shaped by many historical events. I believe that the three most important events discussed in this weeks' lecture are: the establishment of the state of Texas and the Texas Constitution in 1845, the Gilmer-Aiken Laws of 1949, and the passing of Senate Bill 7 in 1993. The establishment of the state of Texas and the Texas Constitution are important because the constitution provided for the establishment of free schools and the basis for funding the school through state taxes to support education. One-tenth of the state revenue was used for educational purposes. This is now called the Permanent School Fund. This showed that the legislators believed that education was important because it would be provided to all students whether wealthy or poor. The Gilmer-Aiken Laws of 1949 created an organized method for the state to supplement local taxes. The legislators were attempting to fund public education more adequately. The third most important historical event is Senate Bill 7, or the Robin Hood plan. This provides for equitable funding between property poor districts (Chapter 42) and property wealthy school districts (Chapter 41). The property wealthy districts distribute revenue to the property poor districts using one of five methods. I believe that these are the three most important historical events concerning Texas School Finance.

** PART 2 State Funding Issues ** **Three major issues impacting Texas State Funding Formula** Due to the economic downturn districts have been hit with elements that effect state funding. 1) Property Tax Values decreasing and the large number of foreclosures have reduced the amount of revenue the state has for public education. Public education has found that it too is subject to the strains of the economy. 2) Keeping up with inflation for teacher and staff salaries and benefits including rising health care costs, has also put a strain on state funding. Mandates for district and state contributions for health care have also impacted state funding. 3) The shift in demographics within the state requires additional professional development for teachers including bilingual programs, Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), multiple languages within districts. Some districts have students whose home languages cover more than 20 languages. Students of poverty also move from one area to another increasing services needed to close the achievement gap and increasing the number of students served by Title I.

Moses:

** Three Basic Issues Impacting the State Formula ** There is nothing basic about the state funding formula for public schools in Texas. Woody Brewton, long time superintendent in Lorena, and I were talking and when he was informing the state legislature on school finance and when he was asked the question, “how many people in Texas totally understand the state funding formula?” Woody replied with, “Six people totally understand the formula.” I understand our formula must meet the needs of many districts, but when it is so complicated that only a few people truly understand it, that is the most important issue. The second issue facing our funding formula is Senate Bill 7 or Robin Hood. I know it has its merit and its heart is in the right place but is this method best for funding Chapter 42 school districts? Taking money from taxpayers in one district and giving it to another the proper practice? If someone moves into a district and pays taxes, should that money not go to the children in that district? Federal funding is the third issue that faces school districts and not just in Texas. Since 2002, the federal educational plan or No Child Left Behind, allow for federal monitoring of students and that job their schools were doing. Average Yearly Progress is the monitoring system that the federal government uses yet their contribution is very small to the overall cost of running a district. Now this monitoring is needed and we want to keep the states’ rights to educate its children, but the federal government should be contributing more than it does. If the federal government wants to monitor and govern what the schools are doing, then there should be more of a contribution to the betterment of its countries children.

Rainey: One basic issue impacting the state formula is the complexity of the formula itself. How can it be a simplified formula if 20 adjustments are taken into account when determining allotments? The second issue impacting the state formula is the inequity per student compensation. Two districts within the same region have a difference in compensation of almost $3,000 per student. The third issue impacting the state formula is the amounts of time that has elapsed since some of the allotments have been reviewed and adjusted based on current operating costs. For example, the last time that the transportation allotment for school districts was reviewed occurred in 1988. I believe diesel prices and the cost of vehicles have greatly increased in the past 23 years.

**PART 3 Defiitions** //Equality-// Each student in each school should receive the same amount of money to fund their education. Examples include “Robin Hood” and Per Pupil expenditures for each district. //Equity- //Each student in each school should receive the same access to the same educational resources. Providing the same opportunities for a Free Appropriate Education may require special education or 504 services for students. //Adequacy- //Providing the needed funding for students to achieve on comparable levels with students across the state//.// No Child Left Behind provides some adequacy funds through AYP initiatives. Other students may need Title I support to bridge the educational achievement gap in Math and Science.

Moses:

** Equality, Equity and Adequacy ** Equality refers to the root word of everything being equal and that holds true for our classrooms. You want all of the children being given an equal share of their education. Senate Bill 7 tries to support equality by giving money to districts that they would not normally generate themselves so that they may in turn provide a more equal education. Another example is the funds that are designated for certain areas of the educational process. Equity refers to the needs of the individual student and what these needs may be. This allows for funding to be greater or lesser depending on what needs each individual student has. Two examples of equity are students on career and technology paths generate more money for a school district and students who require special education will do the same. Adequacy is the term that refers to what level your children are achieving and is it good enough. An adequate education is what every district strives for and should be striving for a more than adequate education. Meeting the needs of your students and making sure they pass the standardized testing gives the school district a good picture of their provision of an adequate education.

Rainey: Equality means that all students have the opportunity to the same education (student focused). Two examples of equality are the establishment of free public schools in the Texas Constitution and the establishment of Senate Bill 7.

Equity focuses on how the system provides all children with educational opportunities (system focused). Two examples of equity are the inclusion of Special Education students in the mainstream classrooms and free and reduced lunches for economically disadvantaged students.

Adequacy means that school districts are provided with the financial means to meet state standards (funding focused). Two examples of adequacy are the Foundation School Program which determines the basic allotment each district receives per student and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which reduced the budget deficit and put money into education.

Part 4 Disrict Improvement Plan Review Moses:

**District Improvement Plan Review** Funding is a hot topic in the state of Texas when it refers to education and this year it will be hotter than most. Much of that is brought on by the lack of attention funding has received in the previous sessions in the state government. In Salado ISD, a chapter 41 district, we receive 59% of our funds from local revenue, 36% from state and 5% from federal. Our operating cost for a year is roughly 11.5 million dollars and we have a K-12 enrollment of 1357. Broken down our cost per student is around $8500. With that said, some of our students do not receive their share of those resources. In a perfect world, we could consider giving that money to each student and telling them they are responsible for getting educated and you are free to get educated in any way you would prefer and in any discipline of your choice. Now that is farfetched and poses a whole other set of problems but is that the only way you can have equality in education? As you would guess, Austin ISD has a much larger budget and I have not done the breakdown on the amount of money per student but I am sure it is somewhere in the ballpark. Their district improvement plan is vast and covers many different goals of their district. They have many more programs to support a large amount of students and these programs support students with many different needs. Living close to Austin, I have been familiar with their district and the community. The challenging part about Austin ISD is what also makes it great. Being the state capitol has many perks and many opportunities to drive revenue into the district. The downside is there is land in your district that is not taxable. The University of Texas, Texas School for the Deaf and all of the land owned by the people of Texas is not available to be taxed which leaves the bulk of the responsibility on the home owners. Both improvement plans have many differences but if you look closely they are very much alike. Salado and Austin ISD have their children in mind when they set out to make their district better. A budget for a district is much like the budget for your home. You have bills that you must every month and year but what are your goals for your home and your family. Is it a new car every four years or maybe paying off your home? At the school district level, you have goals for your district and how to make it better. Change is the only constant and if you are not improving your district then your district is stagnant. Just paying the bills and the employees every year is not enough. You must have goals, those goals must have a beginning and an ending and they must be measurable. These goals cannot be nameless and faceless and must be accompanied by who is responsible for them and they must be data driven and open to the public. The district site based committee should develop the district improvement plan so that there is buy in from the community and ownership of the district and its direction. The improvement plan should include budget amounts and be considered transparent, as all things should be when dealing with community monies. The improvement plan has a purpose and in my opinion is looked at as a burden more than a path.

Rainey: Orangefield ISD receives 30% of our funds from local revenue, 67% from state and .1% from federal revenue. Our district enrollment is about 1700 students in grades PK-12 and the basic allotment per student that OISD receives is the minimum amount of $4,765. We are a poor but proud district which does the best that we can with the funds we receive. In reviewing and comparing the District Improvement Plans of Orangefield ISD and Austin ISD, few similarities and many differences were noticed. The District Improvement Plans were formatted very differently. AISD's plan included minutes from meetings held to address their goals. OISD's plan is spreadsheet-style and, I felt, much easier to read.Austin ISD included a table in Appendix A that showed funding sources for State Compensatory Education. Orangefield's district improvement plan does not specify the source of funding for the goals listed, but instead lists a specific dollar amount. I believe that OISD should list the funding source, also. Both plans are data-driven and provide specific people who are responsible for overseeing the individual goals. Both show timelines for the implementation of the goals and provide a method of evaluating the success of the goals. It is obvious that AISD and OISD have very different demographics but both districts have the same overall goal in mind of providing an excellent educational experience for their students.

 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Morales-Kelsey – Port Arthur ISD <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> There were many differences in the format of the plans; however the content such as the strategic plan were similar. Both plans did have the district’s goals and funding source. However, Port Arthur did not have specific budgeted amounts. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> Port Arthur ISD’s plan was well organized and succinct. PAISD’s plan included 1) Board of Education and Superintendent Priorities and Goals, 2) Strategic Plan, 3) Campus Plans, 4) Technology plan and a 5) District Plan. The goals and objectives were identified and the activities that the district plans on implanting and continuing are listed. Port Arthur’s plan included a review of the district and schools’ performance data. It identified the strengths and concerns and areas in need of improvement. It listed strategies and activities for improvement and the implementation and monitoring of those strategies and activities. It appeared to me that the main area of focus of the plan was on curriculum and instruction. PAISD’s plan addressed the specific goals; however, it gave a general fund statement source such as Title I, Stimulus funds, etc. It did not have any specific budget amounts on how to address the plan.     <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> I found Austin’s plan a little less formal in the format included. A lot of the information included in the AISD such as the ACCESS information and memos were not part of PAISD’s plan. I wondered if that information was necessary. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> Another noted difference in the plans was that AISD included their PBMAS continuous improvement plan. Port Arthur does have a continuous improvement plan for PBMAS but it is not included in the district plan. I thought it was good idea to include the PBMAS CIP in their district improvement plan. <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Overall, I felt like Port Arthur ISD’s was better organized and easier to read.