School Finance - Week 1 Assignment

Part 1

Identify the top three events in the historical background of the Texas education system:

I agree with my group members on the first important historical event in the development of the Texas educational system . Mirabeau B. Lamar laid the foundation for our state public education and university systems. Without this action, it is difficult to imagine how and at what point in history Texas would have begun to provide public education. I also agree with Wes Graham and Steve Dubose on the second important event. Without adequate funding to support the school system, the system will fail. Therefore establishing a property tax was a key event in the development of funding for Texas public education. Though even more funding was needed, and other provisions were later added into legislation, I feel this event was most important in setting a precedent and expectation of funding education through property taxes. None of my group members included the Republic of Texas Constitution (1845) provision for the "establishment of free schools" and "state taxes to support education," as stated in the lecture. However, I felt it was one of the most important moments in the creation our state school system and its sustainability by providing funding. Therefore, I inserted this action as a third important event (though I suppose it should be listed first chronologically.)

Part 2

Identify at least three basic issues impacting the state formula for funding:

These are three of the basic issues I feel have the most impact on the state formula for funding:

1.    In an effort to provide an equitable "basic" education for all students, the formula has become very complex and cumbersome.

2.    The issue of what constitutes a "basic" education is debatable and at times a highly contentious topic. Consequently, the fundamental question of how much funding is adequate for educating our citizens is an issue that will continuously affect legal decisions regarding the formula.

3.    Though, on the face of it, the many allotments and adjustments appear to diminish/minimize funding inequities, there are nevertheless substantial disparities between the wealthier communities and poorer ones, which also correlate with minority populations.

Though we expressed the issues in different ways, most of my group basically focused on very similar issues. For me, the overarching concept that grew out of this exercise was that funding drives all possibilities for providing an equitable, equal, and adequate education. And, as Dr. Arterbury expressed, I too believe that a well-educated public is necessary in maintaining a truly democratic society.

 Part 3

Define and provide two examples of each of these concepts in school finance:

Equality - This means all students have access to the same level of instruction for foundational learning (i.e. math, science, language arts, social studies). It also means that provision for educational access and funding are protected under the law.

Examples:

1. Students in every district and campus are, at the very least provided with equal opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills in these basic core content areas.
2. Students are guaranteed under the law to be treated fairly and without discrimination. regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or religion.

Equity - This means students are provided for according to special needs and/or situations (i.e. special education, gifted/talented, SES, etc.).

Examples:

1. Students, who are challenged with special needs, are provided additional and/or different accommodations according to their requirements in order to have opportunity to learn and participate at their unique capacity.
2. Students who are at-risk due to low SES are provided additional support in order to increase success in the school system.

Adequacy  -  This means that schools are sufficiently funded for resources (personnel, materials, training, infrastructure, etc.) to maintain high standards of education.

Examples:

1. For special education students, classrooms have a lower student to teacher ratio. Title I funding can provide for additional personnel to achieve adequate instruction for special education students.
2. Technology infrastructure is created and maintained in order for students to adequately acquire 21^st century skills.

Reflection:

In regard to collaboration with my group on these definitions, I found that we were almost entirely in agreement with one another. Though, as in Part 2 of our assignment, we used somewhat different verbiage to define these concepts, we basically stated the same thing for most of the definitions.

I concur with all my group members’ definitions of equality and adequacy. I also agreed with all but one of my group members on the definition of equity. However, one member stated “Equity=each student in each school district should receive the same amount of funding.” I strongly disagree with that statement. In fact, I think most would agree that providing the same amount of funding to each student actually creates inequities. I have to wonder if he misspoke. I, of course tactfully, stated that I disagreed with his definition of equity. At this point he has not commented. I am interested in whether he will amend his definition.

Part 4

Compare the Austin ISD Improvement Plan and your district’s plan noting similarities and differences. Carefully review the AISD Appendix A and B reviewing State Compensatory Education and External Grant Funding, as well as PBMAS.

Mine is a 4-A district with one high school. Obviously, our district is much smaller than AISD, and our demographics are somewhat different. Therefore, our funding differs greatly from theirs. However, I found many similarities in the apparent process and development of the DIPs. I am happy to say that (as I assume AISD was used as a positive example) that our district's DIP compared favorably. All elements of funding addressed in the AISD plan, pertinent to our district, is addressed in our district’s plan as well. In addition, the LCMCISD plan states measurable goals, how improvement is evidenced, and specific timelines. Our superintendent leads with a continuous reminder that we must be “Purpose Driven.”

Both districts are specific about how the goals are funded – including the source of funding and the specific amount of funding for each improvement goal. Though the two DIPs are formatted differently, they are both organized in such a way that goals and the strategies for attaining those goals – including funding – are clearly stated.

With regard to funding for at-risk students, LCMCISD receives funds from the usual various sources. Sources of funding include provisions from State Compensatory Education, Title I (including provisions for homeless services), IDEA/Special Education funding (including preschool), etc. The primary difference I found in the two DIPs with regard to identifying funding resources for at-risk/special populations was that AISD’s plan was more explicit in naming the different funds from each of these sources than was LCMCISD’s plan. It also appears that AISD qualifies for more external grant funding than does LCMCISD.