| It has been interesting comparing AISD's DIP to CISD's DIP. The organization of the information is structured very differently yet the goals and objectives are similar for many things. The AISD DIP put many charts and graphs in place to explain and identify exactly what, who, when, where and how goals were to be achieved. I appreciated the form used at each meeting to provide guidance and outcomes. This tool is something I will share with my district as well. Both districts' goals focus on such things as interventions, technology, assessments, staff development, data disaggregation tools and training, communication, and safe environments. Projected results and outcomes are put into place for tracking and proofing that these goals and programs are being successful. In comparing the use of state compensatory education and external grant funding each district utilized programs, staff, support and services in a variety of ways using the best "bang for their buck". We both focused on performance based monitoring systems to help identify and focus on student need and performance. All of our schools in my district are Title One schools. We have invested in a program too that helps us disaggregate the data for students' performance and target areas of need. Like AISD much of our funding goes to staff and personnel. Having just gone through a reduction in programs and loss of all 1-3 year probationary teachers, our financial situation, like many this year has been effected. However, now that the state has set the budget, our budget has been approved and we are being able to rehire and add back programs that were removed at the end of last year. This has also influenced our District Improvement Plan's financial structure. I am looking forward to learning more about how funds are utilized and restricted. Knowing that the local, state and federal budgets have all been effected our District and Campus Improvement Plans will need to focus even more creatively on how to use the moneys given to each district. Reflection 4- This activity helped me to compare how my district and Austin ISD work. Many of our goals focused on the same thing and both focused on what can be done to make each student successful, each campus successful and each district successful. I look forward to attending my District Site Base Committee meetings this year to what how the DIP/CIPs are carried out. |
Sunday, August 28, 2011
DIP/CIP comparisons
Saturday, August 27, 2011
School Funding Formulas
In looking at the formulas for funding of our schools one article I read from our readings list was from the TASBO site entitled, "Tracking the Educational Dollar". On page 3 of the article it references a chart that tracks the breakdown of an educational dollar from the perspective of a Texas public school student. Even though this chart is a few years old, I found the breakdown to be very interesting and informative. Since every penny counts in dealing with funding of any kind, if you haven't had a chance to read this you might want to give it a look.
The school district funding falls into three categories: local, state and federal.
Property tax is one source of funding that continues to influence each district individually. This is a very important part of school funding and can influence what districts can or cannot do. This funding source continues to make a difference in districts because of the variations of property values throughout the state.
Weighted funding is also a way districts obtain financial support. In Weighted Average Daily Attendance students with additional educational needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. a weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding. Many districts can benefit from the WADA if their district has large enough numbers in the areas of funding. The area I am most familiar with is that of gifted and talented. In teaching that for many years, my district supported the program and WADA helped us implement it to address the student population need.
Federal Funding is an area of much concern at the moment. All levels of funding are being affected with the financial situation of our country. I am becoming more familiar with the area of Title One Funds. I am a Title One school and am waiting on the budget to see exactly what my finances will be in this area. Without funding from Federal moneys local districts may have to reduce or remove opportunities that we have had in the past. School finance today is suffering in all areas.
The school district funding falls into three categories: local, state and federal.
Property tax is one source of funding that continues to influence each district individually. This is a very important part of school funding and can influence what districts can or cannot do. This funding source continues to make a difference in districts because of the variations of property values throughout the state.
Weighted funding is also a way districts obtain financial support. In Weighted Average Daily Attendance students with additional educational needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. a weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding. Many districts can benefit from the WADA if their district has large enough numbers in the areas of funding. The area I am most familiar with is that of gifted and talented. In teaching that for many years, my district supported the program and WADA helped us implement it to address the student population need.
Federal Funding is an area of much concern at the moment. All levels of funding are being affected with the financial situation of our country. I am becoming more familiar with the area of Title One Funds. I am a Title One school and am waiting on the budget to see exactly what my finances will be in this area. Without funding from Federal moneys local districts may have to reduce or remove opportunities that we have had in the past. School finance today is suffering in all areas.
History of School Finance
Three events that stood out to me in having a significant effect in public school finance are as follows:
Looking back into the roots of Texas, one of the reasons for Texas declaring it's independence from Mexico in 1836 was over the issue of the importance of public education. Later in 1839-1849, under the leadership of Mirabeau B. Lamar, the second President of the Republic of Texas, it was noted the he helped persuade the Texas legislature to grant land to support public education. These land grants provided the initial funding for Texas A&M University and the University of Texas. It is impressive to see how our founding fathers of Texas knew the importance of education for all and helped to make that possible. Being a graduate of TAMU, this piece of history was very important to me. Knowing that the campus was first established in this way and seeing it today deepens my appreciation for the "Father of Texas Education" and all that helped to establish our great state.
The second event that stood out to me was following yet another war, WW II, and the returning of our young men. Texas again saw the need to improve public schools. Funding and facilities became the focal point. In 1947, Representative Claude Gilmer and Senator A.M. Aiken,Jr. established a committee to make public schools more efficient and better funded. The Gilmer-Aiken laws were passed in the 51st Legislative Session in 1949. School districts were condensed. Teacher salaries were increased. The School Year was formalized. The structure of the State Board of Education was formed and how the Commissioner of Education was selected were some of the issues that were impacted by these laws. Also, The Glimer-Aiken Laws established an organized approach to the state supplementing local taxes to help adequately fund public education. The importance of the state being responsible in providing public education was also accentuated in these laws.
The third event that stood out to me from our lecture and readings were dealing with the lawsuits that have impacted funding for our education system. Rodriquez v San Antonio ISD focused on the inequitable system of financing schools. Edgewood v Kirby cited discrimination against students in poor school districts. Through this Senate Bill 1 was approved by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 and the Robin Hood Plan established which included the key element of revenue recapture. As a result of this, the lawsuit of West Orange-Cove CISD v Neely occurred. This case stated that current funding was inefficient and therefore in violation of the Texas Constitution. In November 2005, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiffs favor declaring that the state finance system was unconstitutional. When I was meeting with my superintendent supervisor for Lamar, Dr. Jimmy Creel, he mention that he was involved with this lawsuit. Today I had the opportunity to discuss with him more in depth about his involvement. He played a major role in the development and execution of this lawsuit. He shared his involvement throughout the 2 -2 1/2 year litigation process and enlightened me about the funding for Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 schools. The legislature had to change the law and now it is based on target revenues. However, even with the court victory and the changes of the laws, he says there are still huge gaps between districts.
As stated in our week one lecture, Court decisions often prompt the legislature into action, but it is still the authority and responsibility of the legislature to bring about the solution. Sometimes those solutions are only a "'bandaide'" approach to fixing the real funding problem. In the reading, http://texasisd.com, "Joe Smith: School Funding Lawsuit Is the Right Thing To Do" the author believes that districts will again address the M&O tax rates. Also, in the article "Texas school districts inch closer to funding lawsuit" from the http://trailblazersblog reading, reporter Terrence Stulz reveals that a number of school districts are ready to sue the state over its current school finance system and look to challenge the system in the fall.
I believe in public education. I believe that each and every student in our great state deserves the best education we can provide. But dealing with our current financial situation I am fearful that our state is currently missing the mark. Have we misplaced our value on public education? Maybe it does take lawsuits to help our legislators refocus our state's direction on public education. There are always ways to improve...I believe in my state and I believe in what I do...and I believe that each one of these events helped to mold our Texas Education System. Public Education is the backbone of our great state.
Looking back into the roots of Texas, one of the reasons for Texas declaring it's independence from Mexico in 1836 was over the issue of the importance of public education. Later in 1839-1849, under the leadership of Mirabeau B. Lamar, the second President of the Republic of Texas, it was noted the he helped persuade the Texas legislature to grant land to support public education. These land grants provided the initial funding for Texas A&M University and the University of Texas. It is impressive to see how our founding fathers of Texas knew the importance of education for all and helped to make that possible. Being a graduate of TAMU, this piece of history was very important to me. Knowing that the campus was first established in this way and seeing it today deepens my appreciation for the "Father of Texas Education" and all that helped to establish our great state.
The second event that stood out to me was following yet another war, WW II, and the returning of our young men. Texas again saw the need to improve public schools. Funding and facilities became the focal point. In 1947, Representative Claude Gilmer and Senator A.M. Aiken,Jr. established a committee to make public schools more efficient and better funded. The Gilmer-Aiken laws were passed in the 51st Legislative Session in 1949. School districts were condensed. Teacher salaries were increased. The School Year was formalized. The structure of the State Board of Education was formed and how the Commissioner of Education was selected were some of the issues that were impacted by these laws. Also, The Glimer-Aiken Laws established an organized approach to the state supplementing local taxes to help adequately fund public education. The importance of the state being responsible in providing public education was also accentuated in these laws.
The third event that stood out to me from our lecture and readings were dealing with the lawsuits that have impacted funding for our education system. Rodriquez v San Antonio ISD focused on the inequitable system of financing schools. Edgewood v Kirby cited discrimination against students in poor school districts. Through this Senate Bill 1 was approved by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 and the Robin Hood Plan established which included the key element of revenue recapture. As a result of this, the lawsuit of West Orange-Cove CISD v Neely occurred. This case stated that current funding was inefficient and therefore in violation of the Texas Constitution. In November 2005, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiffs favor declaring that the state finance system was unconstitutional. When I was meeting with my superintendent supervisor for Lamar, Dr. Jimmy Creel, he mention that he was involved with this lawsuit. Today I had the opportunity to discuss with him more in depth about his involvement. He played a major role in the development and execution of this lawsuit. He shared his involvement throughout the 2 -2 1/2 year litigation process and enlightened me about the funding for Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 schools. The legislature had to change the law and now it is based on target revenues. However, even with the court victory and the changes of the laws, he says there are still huge gaps between districts.
As stated in our week one lecture, Court decisions often prompt the legislature into action, but it is still the authority and responsibility of the legislature to bring about the solution. Sometimes those solutions are only a "'bandaide'" approach to fixing the real funding problem. In the reading, http://texasisd.com, "Joe Smith: School Funding Lawsuit Is the Right Thing To Do" the author believes that districts will again address the M&O tax rates. Also, in the article "Texas school districts inch closer to funding lawsuit" from the http://trailblazersblog reading, reporter Terrence Stulz reveals that a number of school districts are ready to sue the state over its current school finance system and look to challenge the system in the fall.
I believe in public education. I believe that each and every student in our great state deserves the best education we can provide. But dealing with our current financial situation I am fearful that our state is currently missing the mark. Have we misplaced our value on public education? Maybe it does take lawsuits to help our legislators refocus our state's direction on public education. There are always ways to improve...I believe in my state and I believe in what I do...and I believe that each one of these events helped to mold our Texas Education System. Public Education is the backbone of our great state.
E,E,A-School Finance
Terms of necessity for school finance are equality, equity and adequacy. Equality means every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. Equality in the state funding formula provides equal funds for educational programs that benefit all students and enables a school district to meet state accreditation standards. Some examples of this would include reading and math programs. Equity means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of the individuals.Two examples of equity funding are special program allocations that meet the individual needs of students and state compensatory funds that assist students who are economically disadvantaged. Adequacy means that the school district receive financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Adequacy funding issues can center around such topics as teacher salaries and textbook costs. In reviewing these concepts as presented in the interview with Dr. Arterbury on week one, the concept of efficiency and choice would definitely be the major factors in how these three financial concepts are used. In his discussion of the state formula, he addressed how Texas funding formula for public school involved two basic fund sources: the local district ad valorem (property) taxes and the state general revenue funds. The goal of the formula is to ensure fair and equitable funding for school district programs. The state formula is designed to reduce the tax base differences in order to provide and equal, equitable and adequate level of funding to all districts. It appears to me that especially at this time these are areas of deep concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)