Week+1+-+Introduction+to+School+Finance


 * Week 1 –Introduction to School Finance **

**Part 1 – Three events in school finance history.**
 * 1) 1845 – Texas became a state and the new constitution began the complexity of funding a free and appropriate education. The difficulty of having adequate funds for all schools in Texas has been the center of debate in school finance and considered “unconstitutional” in several court cases.

2. 1949 – Gilmer-Aiken Laws changed the funding and operation of state schools. The State Board of Education was founded, teacher salaries were increased, and formal school year were established from these laws. Also, the organization of state supplementing local taxes to adequately find public school.

3. Edgewood v Kirby lawsuit that ended up with the Texas Supreme Court decision leading to the 1993 – “Robin Hood Plan” where property wealthy districts distribute their revenue based on one of five methods. This plan came from after a series of lawsuits beginning in 1984.

**Part 2 – Three basic issues impacting the state formula**
 * 1) Local property tax base varies greatly across the state. Thus, having a fair formula is impossible without the development of the “Robin Hood” plan.

2. Foundation School Program (FSP-This is how Texas distributes its funding to school dirtrict. The formulas and calculations in Tier 1 and Tier 2 along with the system of using the Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) impacts the funding of a district and the allotment amount of the different special programs. District must continuously work on student attendance and most important, the students must be coded correctly to receive all allotment funds.

3. Inflation: The current system of funding uses formulas created many years ago and has not adjusted to keep pace with increasing costs and needed salary increases.

**Part 3 - Define and provide two examples of each.** Equality - Every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program, all students benefit. Example: basic core subjects and facilities? Examples: Permanent school funding and hiring/retention of highly qualified teachers Equity – fair and responds to the needs of the individual. Example: special education funding and bilingual education.

Adequacy – sufficient amount of funds for students to achieve. Example: minimum teacher salaries and transportation funding **Part 4** **Post a reflection on your comparison to our Wiki group.** Annette: Sharon: In comparing the Austin I. S. D. plan to my district, there were several components that were similar, but there were also many differences. Both plans address long and short term goals. The plan for the district that I work in only stated the goals and listed some of the short term goals to accomplish the long term goals. The Austin I. S. D. plan, in my opinion was better organized. In addressing the comprehensive system for continuous improvement, Austin not only stated the policy, but it also illustrated the alignment of the district's planning efforts (Figure 2).However, my district completed a comprehensive needs assessment, and included the data documentation for the assessment.Austin I. S. D. did not include a needs assessment, but made reference to one being conducted. In the plan for the district that I work, each area to be addressed is outlined in a table format that indicates the following:1) the goal that is to be addressed; 2) the person(s) responsible; 3) resources; 4) the timelines for implementation; 5) timelines for monitoring; and 6) evidence of completion.The Austin I. S. D. does not include any of the fore mentioned.The AISD plan uses a balanced scorecard to monitor performance.A template of the scorecard should have been included. The Austin I. S. D. Plan presented a very detailed strategic plan along with three principal components. Although both plans refer to and list the Vision, Mission Statement, Values, Goals, Measurable Outcomes and Strategies, the Austin I. S. D. plan discusses it as a part of its strategic plan.The Austin plan goes on to discuss Departmental and Employee Plans.These components are not a part of my district’s plan.I also like the fact that AISD has established stakeholder groups that are a part of the decision-making process.My district has individuals from the community listed. The AISD plan did not include enough data on student performance data. Since student performance is the basis for any school district’s improvement plan, more emphasis should have been placed on student performance data. In fact, there is no real data, only reference made to addressing the data.It also referred to Figure 3 that was to list annual actions for 2010-2011.I could not locate Figure 3. Although there are major similarities and differences between the two plans, the most important components are included in both.The major differences are the presentation and the format in the two plans.

Melissa: I combined all of our thoughts onto one wiki. Annette since you were the inital post I edited yours, but highlighted my changes in pink so the professor's could see your original work. We were all in agreement on Parts 1 and 3 best I could tell. For Part 2 you both had #1 so I left it. I combined all of mine and Annette's #2 together to form the new #2 and added Reese's for #3. Everyone give their final opinion and I will certainly go with the group.

Annette: I am good with Parts 1 - 3. I say 'let's post'.

Reese: I agree. Post it!

Sharon: I did have two of the three for number 1. My third reason was the Constitution of 1873. I know you all did not know I was a part of the group because Dr. Eason forgot to include my name. Please don't get made at me for adding to the page. I hate things are happening this way. I really want to be a part of this group and do my part. Someone please contact me. Feel free to remove anything that I have done.