School Improvement

Austin ISD: 

In the Austin ISD plan, the committee has clearly met and dug through the data.  This data was then placed in the comprehensive needs assessment to keep them at the center of all future discussions.  When you are looking at making improvements, you must disaggregate the data.  The data is like a road map to Exemplary.

The group then took this data and formulated a plan.  Within this plan, the district has embedded funding sources.  The use of state compensatory funds is clearly defined within the appendix, and the districts PBMAS plan is integrated into the district plan so that duplication of efforts is held to a minimum.  This is key.  If we “waste” money, time and effort we do not maximize our efficiency and in essence double our work.  We must limit how much of this happens.

The lists within the appendix go beyond just SCE and PBMAS.  They also touch on state and local funds, thus, creating the desire to help employees see how certain funds support specific activities while still meeting the intent of the fund source.  Being transparent not only helps the staff but the community can see that their educational dollars are being spent wisely.

Within the Aldine ISD plan, the comprehensive needs assessment is also conducted, and those needs align with not only the goals, but also the objectives.  Within the plan, broad fund terms are listed.  For example, instead of giving details as to which fund source and dollar amount are going to be used, more general terms such as “state funds” is selected or Aldine ISD general fund..  Specific names are listed for programs in need of additional documentation.  For example, state compensatory education funds are broken out to show exactly how much is spent toward meeting the objectives of this program.

In comparing both plans, they both have a process of data review, goal setting, etc.  Each district appears to be striving to improve student achievement, while ensuring proper documentation is present.  As well as looking to improve the efficiency of the documentation and spending.

Group 5’s Response to “District Plan Alignments”  Group 2

Good post and one that echoed with our group. The notion that every district is different and the needs of a district is essential to the District Improvement Plan (DIP) correlates to student achievement. AISD stresses continuous improvement and strategic plan to guide the process, what our districts emphasis is the use of a “Sticky” or “Skinny” plans that people know and implement. Many times one will look at a district plan or campus plan and it will be so fat that no one knows the direction of the document. With a “sticky” plan, everyone always has their hands on it and can truly use it to guide decision making on a campus and district level. Very well done.

Equality, Equity and Adequacy

Equality: Equal opportunity to participate in program. Equality occurs when all students are given a like education. Equality in Education has many examples such as Department Planning Period which makes teaches work together to build lesson together.  For example, ensuring that all grade levels have science curriculum materials is an equality issue. Title IX is another equality issue. Ensuring that girls have just as many opportunities as boys helps prove that all students are expected to learn at their full capacity.  We see this mostly in the Athletic arena.

Equity: Fair or equal distribution of resources for schooling, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics. In reading others’ responses on the discussion board, it is clear that most participants see equity as fair, but not always exactly equal. Compensatory education is a prime example of helping provide equity to students who may have contributing factors explaining why he/she does/does not necessarily receive services. Another factor that limits equity is the inverse funding system. The concept is that all schools will be equally funded; however, target revenue and hold harmless keep some level of disparity in the system.

Adequacy: Need for just enough funding to allow students to achieve. Adequacy does not maximize a program’s benefits to students, but instead proves its existence. There is a great deal of debate has centered around adequacy, even though the Supreme Court ruled the current system is adequate (at least for now). Adequacy deals with issues such as textbooks for all students. Another example could be scheduling (which students are allowed to take certain courses).  Adequacy is just doing the bare minimum.  One such example of this is unfunded mandates like Steroid Testing for athletes.  The State Legislature makes these decisions but does not fund these.  School districts scramble to fulfill state law while not breaking the bank.

Overall, many people lump these three terms together.  As the definitions above show they are nothing alike.  As future Superintendents we must educate our staff on the true meanings of Equality, Equity, and Adequacy.

Group 5’s Response to IMA, Group 3:

Roy, I agree with the flexibility that the new requirements allow, but I’m not sure districts have thought through the long term allocation of resources. In addition to the strategic planning related to IMA, one has to remember that the state combined both technology allotment and textbook allotment, then reduced the fund by half. So, unless a district is very efficient, resources are/will be essential in the future. I have spoken to many publishers looking for aligned materials and they are not out there. The publishing companies are allocating all of their own human capital to develop Common Core Curriculum that 48 states have adopted. Texas and Alaska have their own, and are tasked with creating their own resources…. without an understanding of what the assessment looks like (Sorry to splice in assessment).

School Finance

The History of Texas School Finance:
We cannot consider Texas public education without turning back the clock to our first constitution. The call for free public education for all set the tone for our current system. This tone has been the impetus in serving the needs of all students in Texas.  Setting aside 1/10th of state revenue for this purpose, the statement was made that education was to be a priority in our state. Through the work of Mirabeau B. Lamar, the Father of Texas Education, land was set aside for both county school districts, as well as what is now Texas A&M and the University of Texas.  All of this from a belief that education is an important priority in Texas.

We reached another milestone with the new state constitution in 1869. We mandated school attendance put in place, but a poll tax and an ad valorem tax were created as the foundation for public school funding.  This new requirement of attendance has been the downfall of many schools.  Being Created in 1869, some would probably like to revist this.

Finally, Edgewood vs. Kirby, the court battle that began in 1989, has played an important role in defining school finance in current times. Because of the ongoing battle that ensued, followed by the enactment of Senate Bill 1 in 1995, redistribution of wealth, commonly known as "Robin Hood" was implemented. Over time, this system has been questioned and tweaked, but it remains the foundational concept of our current system.
Current Situation:

The state school finance funding formula is susceptible to many variables. Recent lawsuits, court cases, and rulings have caused the issue to be in the spotlight.
One issue in the current system is the inverse nature of state funding. Which we are in another cycle of funding from the state legislature.  When local wealth is present, state funding is supposedly on a sliding scale downward, whereas when local wealth is absent, state funds kick in and provide more of a balance to the system; however, caveats to the system make this a complicated issue. Target revenue and hold harmless are two such issues. Districts held at a high target revenue are receiving more state funds than they would in a purely inverse system. This causes dissatisfaction and belief that the current system is inadequate and inequitable.  Also, we are seeing a decrease in Educational Funding as we are not using our rainy day funds which is in excess of 8 Billion dollars.
Another issue is the ongoing string of litigation. In West Orange Cove vs. Neely, districts held that the school finance system had, in essence, created a de facto statewide property tax. The Texas Supreme Court agreed.
Finally, the complication of the system creates criticism. The current system is complex and nobody in the legislature is eager to change it.  This has opened the door for dissent.  This dissent comes from everybody, rich or poor, urban or country.  Everybody would like a more equitable system.  Nobody can agree what that system is.

By raising academic standards and cutting school funding at the same time, the question should be asked if this method unconstitutional by Texas lawmakers.  Two-thirds of Texas’ school districts had sued the state, claiming that the Legislature failed to live up to its constitutional obligation to provide an “efficient system of public free schools.” With  state assessments of Academic Readiness, the overall passing rates on the new, tougher end-of-course exams in high school ranged from 72 percent on the writing test to 90 percent on biology test.  We are being asked to educate more with less.

Group 5’s Response to Group 2, Part 1:

The opportunity for Texas to constitutional require fiscal support for its public educational system was essential in the development of several districts across the state. In addition to the financial requirement, the constitution of 1876 ensured that equitable and adequate funding for all stakeholders that attended public school. These selections for the top three events were spot on. In fact, your assessment is the foundation on not only school finance, but also “FAPE” or Free and Public Education. Moreover, your group did an outstanding job at bridging the Gilmer-Aiken act that built weighted funding in order to ensure adequate funding.

Group 5’s Response to Group 3, Part 1: 

Thanks for your group’s comments related back to “A New Constitution”, specifically compulsory attendance laws that stated the need to attend school from age 8 to 14. This is a big step for the state as it went up against the farmers and fair labor laws pre industrial revolution. Why is this important? I solidify the need for a child to attend school and continue their education through the age of 14.

Group 5’s Response to Group 2, Part 2:

When looking at the funding of school districts across the state is the most everyone has an opinion. In fact, as your assignment indicates, there was only an attempt of equitable funding with Chapter 41 or “Robin Hood”. When looking at the levels of recapture that some schools send is compounded when other programs are cut. Based on initial decision, it has been deemed unconstutional and a likely adjustment will occur in late summer, early fall. Great job at acknowledging the complex issue of school funding with a simplistic explanation that does not lose the intent.