Saturday, November 19, 2011

School Finance Week 1 Reflections-Parts 1-4

Part 1 Historical Events:

Although many lawsuits and changes to the school finance system have occurred over the years, it is evident that the foundation of the Texas Education Finance System has not made the needed progress to keep up with the changing times.  Our group agreed that the establishment of free and appropriate education in 1845 was certainly the number one event in school finance history.  Although many key factors led up to this establishment, the establishment of free schools through the Texas Constitution serves as the foundation for our system.  Post war era led to the need for additional school funding.  In 1947 the Gilmer-Aiken committee was established to address this funding concern.  The laws that were passed during the 51st Legislative Session in 1949 would significantly impact school funding and how schools operated. This organized approach to supplementing local taxes was an attempt to adequately fund public education.  Although many lawsuits were filed, our group decided that the Edgewood v Kirby lawsuit leading to the 1993 “Robin Hood Plan” was significant, and affected schools in many different ways.  All of us in administration now probably have recollection of this plan.  I am sure a person’s opinion of the effectiveness of this plan would depend on which end of the plan you were on.  Property wealthy districts probably felt that their “hard earned money” was being taken unfairly, and I am sure property poor districts felt the money was owed to them.  I think it would be interesting to require property wealthy districts to operate under the budget of a property poor district and then get their opinion. 

Part 2 State Formula:
The state finance system is mind boggling.  Once you think you are gaining understanding something changes.  I remember our Chief Finance Officer discussing how many different funding templates were used last year before the final template was selected.  The Foundation School Program is just as it title implies, the foundation of the finance system.  Tier 1 formulas are comprised of adjustments, weights, and allotments as is the basic system for each district.  Tier 2 is comprised of a variety of allotments depending on various subgroup populations.  Many districts focus on the attendance of students to ensure the maximum amount of money is brought to the funding table.  Although it appears that if a child comes to school you get equal dollars for each child that is not in fact the bottom line.  The Weighted Average Daily Attendance brings different amounts of money based on the needs of the student in attendance.  This poses a challenge in some areas considering students that bring in extra dollars are often the populations that experience low attendance.  Special Education students experience health concerns in some instances that hinder their attendance, and economically disadvantaged students have a difficult time with transportation in some issues.  This has been a topic in my district many times.  For my particular campus we have Section 8 housing just within the two mile radius of the school, so bus transportation is not provided; however when we have inclement weather these students historically do not attend school because they would have to walk.  I also have a class that has medically fragile children that do not miss enough consecutive days to require Homebound Services, but miss more than the average student.
The local property tax serves as one of the two basic sources of funds.  The state formula is intended to reduce the tax base difference in order to provide an equal, equitable, and adequate level of funding for all districts, as mentioned by Dr. Arterbury in the lecture.  The Robin Hood Plan was developed to help address this issue, and depending on which end of the plan one was on would probably weigh on one’s opinion of the plan.  The attempt to equalize district allocations took money from property wealthy and gave it to property poor.  Whether or not this was the best way to address the equality issue it was at least an attempt to level the education playing field.
Our group decided on inflation as another key factor in the state formula.  Although we have more money in the system than in the past, it is barely meeting the needs of students.  If changes are not made to the funding soon I believe that we will be looking at cuts to extra programs that are as necessary to education in today’s times as the core content areas.

Part 3 Equality, Equity and Adequacy

This goes back to the age old question of “Is equal fair and is fair equal?”  Equality in the state funding formula is intended to bring about an equal base of education that benefits all students.  Funding for the core content areas and money for required facilities.  Individual needs are met by the equity funds allotted for special populations of students; special education and economically disadvantaged students would also fall in this category.  In my opinion equity is intended to level the field for students that need more educational assistance than an average student.  Adequacy issues arise in the areas of teacher pay and costs of textbooks.  What quality of support is provided to students; this is the behind the scenes money in my opinion.

Part 4 Improvement Plan Comparison
With the exception of Appendix B PBMAS, the Austin ISD does not link direct funding to specific activities in an easy to read format.  The Austin ISD Improvement Plan gives a great deal of detail to meeting minutes, and specific notes, and also gives a overall general budget by category, but for Compensatory Funds it lists basic programs and positions funded with no explanation of detail and expected outcomes.  External Grants/Federal Funds are given a direct source, but once again does not give specific expectations and desired outcomes.  The PBMAS Appendix B does give specifics regarding goals, measurable evidence, specific activities, funding and resources, and timelines.  I would expect this format to be utilized for other Goals and Objectives as well.  Crowley ISD has taken a more activity based approach to the improvement plan process.  CISD lists specific goals, objectives, performance indicators, evaluation tools, and funding sources for each activity.  CISD also includes a list of Federal Funding Sources at the end and the general expenditure group to utilize the funds.  Action Plans are developed for each objective and goal that lists the activity/strategy, Title I Component, Timeline, Responsible Staff, and Resources/Funding.  Crowley ISD does not address PBMAS as a separate section, but rather embeds the expectations within the specific activities for each of the goals and objectives.

I believe the PBMAS portion of the AISD Improvement Plan is comparable to the CISD Improvement Plan.  I believe this format would make the rest of the AISD plan much easier to understand, and would show direct correlation between funding and goals.  The AISD format is cumbersome to get through.  CISD utilizes a narrative format that bullets items and also includes a table that correlates goal activities with specific source of funding, which I believe is the intent of Improvement Plans.
 

No comments: