History
Since I am not
from Texas and do not currently work in Texas, all of the background
information that the lecture presented was new for me. I thought it was interesting to hear,
“Everyone taking this course is familiar with the current distinction of
Chapter 41 school districts and Chapter 42 school districts”, considering I did
not have the faintest idea. I am sure I
will soon have a greater understanding and appreciation for the differences
between the two States.
As I read over
the resources provided and listened to the lecture, I selected the following
events as my top three:
1) Texas
Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836
2) The New
Texas Constitution of 1876
3) The
Gulmer-Aiken Committee and Laws
When Texas
declared its independence from Mexico in 1836, it was based upon the fact that
no system of public education had been established. I think this is a significant foundational
piece. This structure was important
enough to those living there at the time to actually pull away from their
current affiliations. I am sure this was
risky business. You would not think the
Mexican government would want to lose Texas.
Another reason this resonated with me was the fact that residents living
there at the time were not thinking only of themselves. They recognized that education impacted all
citizens. A government looking out for
the good of all is a significant first step.
The second
event on my list of important historical events was the adoption of a new Texas
constitution in 1876. This document
established the Permanent and Available School Fund. The document also contained important
language that solidified the government’s belief the a public education was
crucial to a democracy. This assertion
was backed up by a statement that supported the idea that provisions should be
made to maintain a public school
system. To me, understanding, on a
wide-spread basis, that it is the exchange of information, the development of
an informed public that keeps the rights and liberties of our people intact.
This is why I find this event significant.
The last event
of note is the establishment of the Gilmer-Aiken Committee. Because of this committee’s work, laws
followed. These laws had impact on how
schools were funded and how they operated.
For example, teacher salaries were increased, the school year was formalized,
and structure was provided as to how the State Board of Education and Commissioner
of Education operated. The result,
although short lived, was an attempt to adequately fund public education.
State Formula
The three
issues impacting the state formula I will discuss are:
1)
The number of adjustments
2)
Tier
1 Allotments
3)
Allotments
for Special Purposes
The first issue
I would bring forward, as a newcomer to Texas finance, is the number of
adjustments, special adjustments, and adjustments for specific purposes. Comments from the lecture support this
observation. Dr. Nicks had covered the
basic allotments and special allotments and made the comment, “I bet you are
thinking that we have now covered all variables in determining our state
funding. You’d be wrong.” It is really mind boggling to think of the
layer, upon layer of considerations that are needed to determine a
school/district’s funding.
The next issue
would be Tier 1 adjustments, weights, and allotments. It looks to me like adjustments are made
based on the size of your district. It
was interesting to me to see there was an adjustment for small districts and
mid-size districts. I wonder why there
is no provision for a large district. As
I listened and read through the materials many of the terms and references were
unfamiliar to me. I had to look up what
a scarcity adjustment would entail. From reading state statutes, it has to do
with districts having fewer than 130 students in average daily attendance for
K-12. There were also rules in this
particular section about distances from the next nearest high school district. This is really an intricate system of funding
determination. On the positive side, it
looks like there are provisions made to keep a district from losing funding too
rapidly. It looks like the loss is
limited if property values decline or a district experiences a rapid decrease
in enrollment. In Indiana, this has
happened due to the sudden closing of major industrial employers. One day they are there, the next day
closed. This means families must look
for employment and schools in other areas resulting in a dramatic decrease in
enrollment for some districts. I am not
sure that such safeguards are in place here.
I will have to investigate to learn more.
The last issue
is allotments for special purposes. I
looked up all of the allotments for specific purposes in the statutes to learn
more about each one and found the following individual item of particular
interest. Districts are entitled to an
annual allotment for each student in average daily attendance in grades 9-12. It is called the High School Allotment. It
looks to me like these students would be accounted for in the basic
allotment. I tried to understand why another
allotment might be needed. In Indiana,
we have a per pupil allotment. We take
average daily attendance counts to determine this twice per year so this
practice is very unfamiliar. Reading
further about this High School Allotment, I learned that a district’s rating as
a Chapter 41 or Chapter 42 may limit access to some funding sources. Even if this is the case, is would appear
that districts otherwise ineligible for state aid may be entitled to receive
allotments in this section. While this
does not fully explain this high school allotment, it helps.
Equity, Equality, and Adequacy
Define and provide two examples of each of these
concepts in school finance:
Equality: Every student has the same access to the same
type of educational programs. Equality provides equal funds for educational
programs that benefit all students and enables a district to meet state
accreditation standards.
Examples: Math, Science, Language Arts
Equity: The system is fair and responds to each
individual’s needs. Equity funds are provided to meet the individual needs of
students.
Examples: Special Education, High Ability, English
Language Learner Services, Compensatory funds for students who are economically
disadvantaged
Adequacy: The school district receives financial
support sufficient enough to provide educational programs that create success
for all students.
Examples: Teacher
Salaries, Textbook costs
District Plan Comparison
It seems I always start my comments
making note that I am not from Texas, well, this entry is no different.
In looking over the Austin Independent
School District Improvement Plan (AISD), I found very few similarities to the
plans submitted in Indiana. The first and greatest difference is the
District Plan itself. Each of our schools individually develops and
submits school improvement plans. These plans are focused strictly on
academic targets. I am not sure how directly any type of goal driven
budgeting ties to our school improvement plans. Our improvement plans
focus on goals, benchmarks, strategies, data collection and the analysis of
each. There is not a budget feature, so to speak, that comes directly into
play.
For our district plan, our school
system participates in North Central Accreditation or AdvancEd. All of
the individual school plans feed into the district's accreditation. Our
systems are rated through the use of a rubric against a specific set of
standards and criteria.
The AISD Improvement
Plan identified a District Advisory Council. In Indiana, we have
school improvement teams that would be comparable. I tried visiting some
of the links listed in the plan to view the various plans but did not have much
luck finding an active site. The next pages appear to be minutes from
meetings held throughout the school year. A similarity between the Texas
Council and Indiana Teams can be found in some of the documentation methods to
verify input from stakeholders. The attendance sheets and the minutes
would be vital pieces of evidence to prove compliance.
Many of AISD minutes reference budgets
or budget updates. This is not a component that is prevalent in the
school improvement work I am accustomed to in Indiana. I think it would
be extremely helpful and would appear to a glaring omission in our process.
These two structures should not be dealt with in isolation.
I believe I located a goal in Appendix
B related to improving graduation rates for cohorts on Title 1 Campuses.
As I studied Appendix A, I tried to make the connection from the funding
sources listed to the goal. I could identify, under Compensatory
Education, the following items directly related to meeting the goal:
1) drop out recovery programs,
2) alternative high schools,
3) summer services,
4) secondary transition programs,
5) child care programs,
6) various reading initiatives.
The external grant/federal funds
listings would all play a role in supporting an increase in student graduation
rates.
