School+Finance-Week+1


 * Week 1 –Introduction to School Finance-Thanks to Annette Adkins for getting this template established for our group. I put my thoughts down and then compared them to Annette's. I highlighted the differences between the two. **
 * 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.
 * Part 2 – Three basic issues impacting the state formula**


 * 1) Basic Allotment-This is the initial starting number used to calculate foundational program costs and state aid to school districts.
 * 2) Special Instructional Programs and Allotments for Specific Purposes-This allots money to districts based on special populations of students and the weight assigned to the program such as: Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Bilingual Education, etc. fall into this category. Examplse of allotments for specific purposes would be Transportation, Technology, etc.
 * 3) Tier 2 Funding-This program guarantees a yield for each students for each penny of tax from a combination of sources. This is also known as the “Robin Hood” provision.

Examples would include fudns for materials to meet the needs of educating a student in the core content curriculum and facilities suitable to the student’s academic needs. (Texas Eduation Code Chapter 42) Examples would include special educaiton funding and fundinig for economically disadvantaged students. Examples would include teacher salaries and textbook costs.
 * Part 3 - Define and provide two examples of each. (My definitions are copied from the lecture notes and Invest in Texas Schools website) **
 * 1) Equality –Every student has the same access to the same tupe of basic educational program
 * 1) Equity-The system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals
 * 1) Adequacy-The school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.

**11/18-Edit to annette's wiki as my final recommendation:**

**Part 2 – Three basic issues impacting the state formula**finla recommendation
 * 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?

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 Annette:
 * Part 4** **Post a reflection on your comparison to our Wiki group.**

Melissa:

Reese:

__**Melissa's Comparison of Austin ISD Improvement Plan and Crowley ISD Improvement Plan:**__

With the exception of Appendix B PBMAS, the Austin ISD does not link direct funding to specific activities in an easy to read format. The Austin ISD Improvement Plan gives a great deal of detail to meeting minutes, and specific notes, and also gives a overall general budget by category, but for Compensatory Funds it lists basic programs and positions funded with no explanation of detail and expected outcomes. External Grants/Federal Funds are given a direct source, but once again does not give specific expectations and desired outcomes. The PBMAS Appendix B does give specifics regarding goals, measurable evidence, specific activities, funding and resources, and timelines. I would expect this format to be utilized for other Goals and Objectives as well. Crowley ISD has taken a more activity based approach to the improvement plan process. CISD lists specific goals, objectives, performance indicators, evaluation tools, and funding sources for each activity. CISD also includes a list of Federal Funding Sources at the end and the general expenditure group to utilize the funds. Action Plans are developed for each objective and goal that lists the activity/strategy, Title I Component, Timeline, Responsible Staff, and Resources/Funding. Crowley ISD does not address PBMAS as a separate section, but rather embeds the expectations within the specific activities for each of the goals and objectives.

I believe the PBMAS portion of the AISD Improvement Plan is comparable to the CISD Improvement Plan. I believe this format would make the rest of the AISD plan much easier to understand, and would show direct correlation between funding and goals. The AISD format is cumbersome to get through. CISD utilizes a narrative format that bullets items and also includes a table that correlates goal activities with specific source of funding, which I believe is the intent of Improvement Plans.