Analyzing School Finance Issues
The Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate is substantially different between the Districts provided. District 1 stands at 5044.00 and District 2 is at 7206.00. Both districts have approxiametly the same number of students but the WADA@ Compressed Rate is much more for District 2. This is easy to see if you look at the Local District Property Values of each district and keep in mind “hold harmless”. This allowed district 2 to hold on to their local revenue and therefore made their compressed rate much higher.
The Total Target Revenue is slightly higher in District 2 at 34.5 million that in District 1 at 28 million. Once again the main reason for this is the higher Revenue per WADA @ compressed rate. When you multiply WADA times Compressed Rate WADA, District 2 stands about 6.5 million more.
District 2 has more teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than does District 1. District 2 has 307 where as District has 281. This throws up a red flag to me. I would think that these districts are backwards. Due to the large number of students with additional educational needs in District 1, it would appear that District 1 needed to be the district with more personnel. District 2 has less WADA but still maintains 26 more teachers. For such examples as this, I feel that “hold harmless” is not making Texas School Districts equitable and should be done away with.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Snapshot Comparison Position Paper
Snapshot Comparison Position Paper
District 1 has 93.3 % off its student population that is categorized as economically disadvantaged. District 2 has only 20.7 % off its student population categorized as economically disadvantaged. These two Districts have substantial differences in economically disadvantaged populations. Total refined ADA Adjusted for Decline in District 1 is 3893.75 and 4032.98 in District 2. District 1 WADA is 5555.82 and District 2 is 4794.08. With these figures in mind it brings up the question, why does a district with a smaller ADA have the larger WADA?
Before attempting to answer this question I want to define WADA. WADA (weighted average daily attendance), in Texas, is defined as students with additional education 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. I would also like to note that district 1 is the district with the lower ADA but the higher WADA.
Now let us evaluate each district’s programs that pertain to WADA. District 1 has 48% LEP students where District 2 has only 2%. This alone significantly affects WADA. District 1 has 9% Special Education population and District 2 has 7%. This is not a significant difference but will virtually affect the WADA. Another major difference in the 2 Districts that affected WADA is the Bilingual population. District 1 has a population 41% and District 2’s population is a mere 2%.
With just this little amount of information the question should be easily answered. The ADA is weighted by the state to provide funds to meet the needs of the students in District 1. WADA helps to provide a lower ADA income district with funds to meet the needs of students with educational needs.
District 1 has 93.3 % off its student population that is categorized as economically disadvantaged. District 2 has only 20.7 % off its student population categorized as economically disadvantaged. These two Districts have substantial differences in economically disadvantaged populations. Total refined ADA Adjusted for Decline in District 1 is 3893.75 and 4032.98 in District 2. District 1 WADA is 5555.82 and District 2 is 4794.08. With these figures in mind it brings up the question, why does a district with a smaller ADA have the larger WADA?
Before attempting to answer this question I want to define WADA. WADA (weighted average daily attendance), in Texas, is defined as students with additional education 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. I would also like to note that district 1 is the district with the lower ADA but the higher WADA.
Now let us evaluate each district’s programs that pertain to WADA. District 1 has 48% LEP students where District 2 has only 2%. This alone significantly affects WADA. District 1 has 9% Special Education population and District 2 has 7%. This is not a significant difference but will virtually affect the WADA. Another major difference in the 2 Districts that affected WADA is the Bilingual population. District 1 has a population 41% and District 2’s population is a mere 2%.
With just this little amount of information the question should be easily answered. The ADA is weighted by the state to provide funds to meet the needs of the students in District 1. WADA helps to provide a lower ADA income district with funds to meet the needs of students with educational needs.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process
Stakeholder Input in the Budgeting Process
Every stakeholder involved with a school district could and should have an input in the budgeting process. To begin with there are several stakeholders that do not have direct involvement with the budget. Take for example the Board of Trustees. They have no direct hand in preparing the district budget. However they do set superintendent and district goals. The superintendent is responsible for making sure that the budget has funding allotted to meet the goals set forth by the board. You may also look at other key stakeholders such as any tax payer. As stated in the lecture this week, “ communicating with various stakeholders is certainly a two way process”. Many individuals or businesses that pay taxes, feel that they have a right to have input to where their tax money is being. Most of these individuals do not realize that a majority of the budget is fixed. This is where the two way communication should be in place with the superintendent and the individual. The superintendent should be open to these stakeholders and here there input pertaining to the budget.
The District Improvement Committee and the Site Based Decision Making Community are combined and serve as one group at RISD. Acknowledging that we use a Site Based Budgeting approach this group is of the upmost importance for input to the budgeting process. The SBDM is provided with continual updates on funding, mandates, regulations throughout the budgeting process. The group serves as the liaison between each campus or department to transmit the needs for funding to the superintendent and the Executive Director of Finance. This committee represents the entire district and is able to bring forth every need of the district.
After the SBDM committee presents all requests to the central office then starts breaking down the budget and determining what is feasible. The Central Office Staff provides input pertaining to their departments and they help in determining the allocation of budget funds. This is where the principals become involved as well. They know their own campuses better that any other administrator does. They should be able to make decisions on the major necessities within their campus.
In conclusion, all stakeholders of a district have input that can be extremely important and pertinent to the development of a district’s budget. Some stakeholders have a more direct affiliation with the budget process than others. All stakeholders should keep the district, campus, and superintendent goals foremost when developing and providing input for the district budget.
Every stakeholder involved with a school district could and should have an input in the budgeting process. To begin with there are several stakeholders that do not have direct involvement with the budget. Take for example the Board of Trustees. They have no direct hand in preparing the district budget. However they do set superintendent and district goals. The superintendent is responsible for making sure that the budget has funding allotted to meet the goals set forth by the board. You may also look at other key stakeholders such as any tax payer. As stated in the lecture this week, “ communicating with various stakeholders is certainly a two way process”. Many individuals or businesses that pay taxes, feel that they have a right to have input to where their tax money is being. Most of these individuals do not realize that a majority of the budget is fixed. This is where the two way communication should be in place with the superintendent and the individual. The superintendent should be open to these stakeholders and here there input pertaining to the budget.
The District Improvement Committee and the Site Based Decision Making Community are combined and serve as one group at RISD. Acknowledging that we use a Site Based Budgeting approach this group is of the upmost importance for input to the budgeting process. The SBDM is provided with continual updates on funding, mandates, regulations throughout the budgeting process. The group serves as the liaison between each campus or department to transmit the needs for funding to the superintendent and the Executive Director of Finance. This committee represents the entire district and is able to bring forth every need of the district.
After the SBDM committee presents all requests to the central office then starts breaking down the budget and determining what is feasible. The Central Office Staff provides input pertaining to their departments and they help in determining the allocation of budget funds. This is where the principals become involved as well. They know their own campuses better that any other administrator does. They should be able to make decisions on the major necessities within their campus.
In conclusion, all stakeholders of a district have input that can be extremely important and pertinent to the development of a district’s budget. Some stakeholders have a more direct affiliation with the budget process than others. All stakeholders should keep the district, campus, and superintendent goals foremost when developing and providing input for the district budget.
Budget Timeline Reflection
When first looking at a sample budget timeline as well as my district’s timeline, it was very difficult to identify five events that would be the most important. There were a couple of events that did really stick out as very important. First and foremost was the mandatory adoption by the board of trustees no later than August 31st. I believe that this is probably the most important even in the budgeting process. Another event that I as well as my wiki group felt was of great significance is the ongoing monitoring of the budget. There is no actual date on a timeline for this but it is a must to periodically review the budget throughout the school year. The other three top five my wiki group chose was the tax rate adoption following budget adoption, certified property values at the end of July, and development of revenue estimates by school district administrators using the Foundation School Program (FSP) and local property taxes in December. As a group we felt these were the most significant dates on the Budget Process Timeline.
Rick and I posted to each other wiki our top 5 events. We were very close to the same top five. After some discussion and editing of each other’s wiki we decided on these as the top five. We were both in total agreement with the mandatory deadline of Aug 31 and also the tax rate adoption. One thing we both felt very important as well was the ongoing, periodic monitoring of the budget. It was very easy for us to reach a consensus on the top 5.
Rick and I posted to each other wiki our top 5 events. We were very close to the same top five. After some discussion and editing of each other’s wiki we decided on these as the top five. We were both in total agreement with the mandatory deadline of Aug 31 and also the tax rate adoption. One thing we both felt very important as well was the ongoing, periodic monitoring of the budget. It was very easy for us to reach a consensus on the top 5.
Superintendent's Budget Responsibilities
Superintendent’s Budget Responsibilities
I am very lucky to be able to meet with our District Superintendent any time that I need to. It was not hard at all to schedule an interview with Dr. Largent. The interview turned out to be very informative and being that Dr. Largent was able to tell me his roles in the budget process while here at Rusk but as well as his roles while he was superintendent at a small 1A school. Believe me when I say that his roles were extremely different. Dr. Largent was the sole budget preparer at the 1A district and he is more of just a support person at our current 3A district. Dr. Largent made it very clear even though he is not the main person developing the budget here at Rusk he is familiar and knowledgeable with all aspects of the budget.
Dr. Largent began by explaining his role in the budget process while here at Rusk. He explained that we have an Executive Director of Finance, and she is the lead administrator in the budget process. She brings Dr. Largent updates throughout the budgeting process and together, they make decisions on varies things such as, salary increases, adding personnel, and other request from campuses. He mentioned at this point that we use a Site- Based Budgeting process here at Rusk. Dr. Largent emphasized that he is involved in every step of the budget but the Executive Director of Finance does the vast majority of the work regarding budget.
After Dr. Largent discussed his responsibilities here he briefly mentioned his responsibilities while at a 1A district earlier in his tenure. He explained that he had no Executive Director of Finance to help him with the budget and that he was the sole developer of the budget. Dr. Largent used a Site-Based Budgeting approach there as well, he just stated it was a little harder to distribute funds to cover all request due to the smaller amount of funds available. He also explained that in the smaller district he had more grant monies to utilize. He also mentioned that with the inclusion of grant funds there was more specific identification of allocation of these funds within the budget.
In conclusion, Dr. Largent felt that both experiences as superintendent in different districts were educational in different ways. He was glad of the responsibility to be the sole developer of the budget due the fact that he learned a tremendous amount of knowledge pertaining to preparation of a budget. He is also grateful that know he has Executive Director of Finance to take the sole position of developer of the district budget. The interview was very productive to me and gave me a lot of insight on the budgeting process and responsibilities.
Reflection
After the interview I sat down and typed up the comments that Dr. Largent had made and tried to relate them to my ideas of preparing a budget. Just as Dr. Largent had said, I would enjoy the opportunity to be the main preparer of the budget just to learn how it all comes together. I would also like the fact of having a financial person responsible for preparing it as well. It really is scary thinking about all of continual updates and requirements that have to be included in the budget. I know realize the importance of the preparation of the district budget and how, if not done efficiently, it could be detrimental to a district.
I am very lucky to be able to meet with our District Superintendent any time that I need to. It was not hard at all to schedule an interview with Dr. Largent. The interview turned out to be very informative and being that Dr. Largent was able to tell me his roles in the budget process while here at Rusk but as well as his roles while he was superintendent at a small 1A school. Believe me when I say that his roles were extremely different. Dr. Largent was the sole budget preparer at the 1A district and he is more of just a support person at our current 3A district. Dr. Largent made it very clear even though he is not the main person developing the budget here at Rusk he is familiar and knowledgeable with all aspects of the budget.
Dr. Largent began by explaining his role in the budget process while here at Rusk. He explained that we have an Executive Director of Finance, and she is the lead administrator in the budget process. She brings Dr. Largent updates throughout the budgeting process and together, they make decisions on varies things such as, salary increases, adding personnel, and other request from campuses. He mentioned at this point that we use a Site- Based Budgeting process here at Rusk. Dr. Largent emphasized that he is involved in every step of the budget but the Executive Director of Finance does the vast majority of the work regarding budget.
After Dr. Largent discussed his responsibilities here he briefly mentioned his responsibilities while at a 1A district earlier in his tenure. He explained that he had no Executive Director of Finance to help him with the budget and that he was the sole developer of the budget. Dr. Largent used a Site-Based Budgeting approach there as well, he just stated it was a little harder to distribute funds to cover all request due to the smaller amount of funds available. He also explained that in the smaller district he had more grant monies to utilize. He also mentioned that with the inclusion of grant funds there was more specific identification of allocation of these funds within the budget.
In conclusion, Dr. Largent felt that both experiences as superintendent in different districts were educational in different ways. He was glad of the responsibility to be the sole developer of the budget due the fact that he learned a tremendous amount of knowledge pertaining to preparation of a budget. He is also grateful that know he has Executive Director of Finance to take the sole position of developer of the district budget. The interview was very productive to me and gave me a lot of insight on the budgeting process and responsibilities.
Reflection
After the interview I sat down and typed up the comments that Dr. Largent had made and tried to relate them to my ideas of preparing a budget. Just as Dr. Largent had said, I would enjoy the opportunity to be the main preparer of the budget just to learn how it all comes together. I would also like the fact of having a financial person responsible for preparing it as well. It really is scary thinking about all of continual updates and requirements that have to be included in the budget. I know realize the importance of the preparation of the district budget and how, if not done efficiently, it could be detrimental to a district.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Budgeting Guidelines Summary
Having had the opportunity to review the TEA Budgeting Guidelines I am much more informed of the huge requirements involved in preparing a budget. The budgeting process is very complex with so many different requirements and mandates. Many individual s do not realize the impact that the budget has on the citizens or stakeholders of a district. The budget is a clear reflection on district administrators and their accountability in preparing a budget that meets the needs of the district.
Most people, including myself at one time, thought that once a budget was set and approved it was set in stone. However, after reviewing the budget guidelines the budget process is still continual even after the board approval. There can be instances throughout the year where it is required to make budget amendments. However, the board still must approve the amendments to the budget before they can go into effect.
Before the review of the guidelines I was unaware of all of the different budgetary approaches. I always thought that the state just mandated a way in which districts were to allocate their monies in their budgets. However, after the review and questioning of our business manager, I learned a lot. We use a Site-Based Budgeting approach at our school district. The BM explained why she used this approach and the positives and negatives of this approach. She also discussed some positives and negatives concerning the other budgeting approaches. This discussion turned out to be very informative and will give me great insight when I begin to prepare a district budget.
There were several other areas that I learned a great deal of insight while reviewing the TEA Budgeting Guidelines. There were several laws and regulations I was unfamiliar with and will need to keep them close under arm when working with developing a budget. There were several things pertaining to calculating student funding that I was not aware of. Overall there is so many requirements and regulations that I will need to continually review throughout preparation of a budget.
Most people, including myself at one time, thought that once a budget was set and approved it was set in stone. However, after reviewing the budget guidelines the budget process is still continual even after the board approval. There can be instances throughout the year where it is required to make budget amendments. However, the board still must approve the amendments to the budget before they can go into effect.
Before the review of the guidelines I was unaware of all of the different budgetary approaches. I always thought that the state just mandated a way in which districts were to allocate their monies in their budgets. However, after the review and questioning of our business manager, I learned a lot. We use a Site-Based Budgeting approach at our school district. The BM explained why she used this approach and the positives and negatives of this approach. She also discussed some positives and negatives concerning the other budgeting approaches. This discussion turned out to be very informative and will give me great insight when I begin to prepare a district budget.
There were several other areas that I learned a great deal of insight while reviewing the TEA Budgeting Guidelines. There were several laws and regulations I was unfamiliar with and will need to keep them close under arm when working with developing a budget. There were several things pertaining to calculating student funding that I was not aware of. Overall there is so many requirements and regulations that I will need to continually review throughout preparation of a budget.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Budget Timeline
• Red identifies 5 most important.
Overview of Budget Timeline
Spring-end of process Budget worksheets, staffing analysis, hiring of personnel
April 30 Estimated property values from Appraisal District
Early June Prior year student count information
May-early July Development of preliminary budget information for presentation and discussion at July board meeting. Compile budget requests.
July 25 Certified property values from Appraisal District
July-early August Preliminary budget is adjusted for certified property values and other changes as needed and discussed at regular August board meeting. A proposed tax rate for publishing and a public meeting date are set at this board meeting.
August Final adjustments are made to the budget. Required publications are made.
Late August A “Public Meeting to Discuss Budget and Proposed Tax Rate” is held at the special August board meeting. After the public meeting, the budget is adopted. Once the budget is adopted, the board will then adopt the tax rate.
Overview of Budget Timeline
Spring-end of process Budget worksheets, staffing analysis, hiring of personnel
April 30 Estimated property values from Appraisal District
Early June Prior year student count information
May-early July Development of preliminary budget information for presentation and discussion at July board meeting. Compile budget requests.
July 25 Certified property values from Appraisal District
July-early August Preliminary budget is adjusted for certified property values and other changes as needed and discussed at regular August board meeting. A proposed tax rate for publishing and a public meeting date are set at this board meeting.
August Final adjustments are made to the budget. Required publications are made.
Late August A “Public Meeting to Discuss Budget and Proposed Tax Rate” is held at the special August board meeting. After the public meeting, the budget is adopted. Once the budget is adopted, the board will then adopt the tax rate.
Goal Driven Budgeting II
Goal Driven Budgeting II
Goal driven budgeting should exist in every district in the state. A large portion of each district’s budget is confined to fixed costs such as salaries, fuel, electricity, maintenance, etc. with this in mind it makes it more difficult to apportion a large amount of funding to meet the goals of the district. A goal driven budget is simply having a budget that reflects and funds the vision and goals of the school district. As Dr. Nicks stated in the lecture this week, “ the purpose of a goal driven budget is to assist in the attainment of a shared vision for the district and each campus. A goal driven budget should be designed to take care of all the fixed costs and then disperse the remainder of money to fund the goals and vision outlined in the District Improvement Plan.
Rusk ISD District Improvement Plan identifies goals for the district. Along with the identification of these goals, each goal has objectives, responsible party, a timeline, resources for funding, and an evaluation procedure. It is very easy to identify if a district’s budget is goal driven if you compare it to the district plan. A very good example of this in our budget and district improvement plan is looking at our 3nd goal. Our 3rd goal states that Rusk ISD will foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports academic achievement. Rusk ISD budget clearly reflects a goal driven budget when allotting funding to meet this goal. A few examples are, 1) Law enforcement officer on campuses 20 hours per week, 2) K-9 units visiting numerous times per year, and 3) additional training and education for administrators pertaining to this goal. Most of this goal was funded by the general budget and a small amount was funded through grant monies.
During my interview with Dr. Largent he made it certain that it was understood that the entire district personnel had an input to how the budget was allocated. He stated, after the fixed cost were allocated, such groups as the DEIC and other staff groups determined the needs and goals of the district. Once these goals and vision are in place the administrative office allots the left over balance of funds to meet the goals set in place by district personnel.
In conclusion, there are several other goals that are in the district plan and they as well have adequate funding in the budget. The funds are specifically outlined to where they are coming from and are proportioned to meet the needs of the goal. Some goals change from year to year and some are continued for several consecutive years. Our district budget is always aligned with the District Improvement Plan and is designed to be goal driven and provide all funding necessary to meet these goals.
Goal driven budgeting should exist in every district in the state. A large portion of each district’s budget is confined to fixed costs such as salaries, fuel, electricity, maintenance, etc. with this in mind it makes it more difficult to apportion a large amount of funding to meet the goals of the district. A goal driven budget is simply having a budget that reflects and funds the vision and goals of the school district. As Dr. Nicks stated in the lecture this week, “ the purpose of a goal driven budget is to assist in the attainment of a shared vision for the district and each campus. A goal driven budget should be designed to take care of all the fixed costs and then disperse the remainder of money to fund the goals and vision outlined in the District Improvement Plan.
Rusk ISD District Improvement Plan identifies goals for the district. Along with the identification of these goals, each goal has objectives, responsible party, a timeline, resources for funding, and an evaluation procedure. It is very easy to identify if a district’s budget is goal driven if you compare it to the district plan. A very good example of this in our budget and district improvement plan is looking at our 3nd goal. Our 3rd goal states that Rusk ISD will foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports academic achievement. Rusk ISD budget clearly reflects a goal driven budget when allotting funding to meet this goal. A few examples are, 1) Law enforcement officer on campuses 20 hours per week, 2) K-9 units visiting numerous times per year, and 3) additional training and education for administrators pertaining to this goal. Most of this goal was funded by the general budget and a small amount was funded through grant monies.
During my interview with Dr. Largent he made it certain that it was understood that the entire district personnel had an input to how the budget was allocated. He stated, after the fixed cost were allocated, such groups as the DEIC and other staff groups determined the needs and goals of the district. Once these goals and vision are in place the administrative office allots the left over balance of funds to meet the goals set in place by district personnel.
In conclusion, there are several other goals that are in the district plan and they as well have adequate funding in the budget. The funds are specifically outlined to where they are coming from and are proportioned to meet the needs of the goal. Some goals change from year to year and some are continued for several consecutive years. Our district budget is always aligned with the District Improvement Plan and is designed to be goal driven and provide all funding necessary to meet these goals.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Comparing District Improvement Plans
Goal Driven Budgeting
In assignment four of week one, we are asked to compare the District Improvement Plans of Austin ISD and our district. We are asked to note similarities and differences among the two plans and play close attention to goal driven budgeting. In reviewing the two plans I have found that they have similarities and differences. Some similarities are exact where some are not exact. However, I have found that both plans are very goal driven when pertaining to the budget.
Both improvement plans identify goals, how these goals will be addressed, and what portion of the budget or where the funding will come from to meet these goals. Some of the goals are exactly the same in both plans. When evaluating where the funding comes from for these goals they vary a bit. Even with the funding varying the budgets clearly reflect goal driven budgeting. There were several different goals between the two plans but they still identified areas of funding that were goal driven. Another similarity of the goals is the fact that each goal listed outcomes and responsible parties. I was intrigues to see that each plan had ways to evaluate the goals and who was responsible for ensuring these goals were met.
The actual designs of the plans were totally different. Both plans contained almost all of the same data as the other with each containing its own specific details. Each plan provided their vision, mission, and goals. Austin ISD’s plan actually listed more specific details especially dealing with actual money amounts for individualized goals whereas Rusk simply gives a total dollar amount for categories.
Overall I see many more similarities between the two plans than I do differences. Each plan extensively list goals, strategies, and initiatives for their areas of concern. Both plans specifically identify where the funding will come from whether it is local, state, federal, grants, or etc. The only way to meet all that is spelled out in these district plans is to have the district’s budget oriented to the plans. Our district plans are designed so that they are goal oriented therefore our district budgets must be goal driven in order to make the plans successful.
In assignment four of week one, we are asked to compare the District Improvement Plans of Austin ISD and our district. We are asked to note similarities and differences among the two plans and play close attention to goal driven budgeting. In reviewing the two plans I have found that they have similarities and differences. Some similarities are exact where some are not exact. However, I have found that both plans are very goal driven when pertaining to the budget.
Both improvement plans identify goals, how these goals will be addressed, and what portion of the budget or where the funding will come from to meet these goals. Some of the goals are exactly the same in both plans. When evaluating where the funding comes from for these goals they vary a bit. Even with the funding varying the budgets clearly reflect goal driven budgeting. There were several different goals between the two plans but they still identified areas of funding that were goal driven. Another similarity of the goals is the fact that each goal listed outcomes and responsible parties. I was intrigues to see that each plan had ways to evaluate the goals and who was responsible for ensuring these goals were met.
The actual designs of the plans were totally different. Both plans contained almost all of the same data as the other with each containing its own specific details. Each plan provided their vision, mission, and goals. Austin ISD’s plan actually listed more specific details especially dealing with actual money amounts for individualized goals whereas Rusk simply gives a total dollar amount for categories.
Overall I see many more similarities between the two plans than I do differences. Each plan extensively list goals, strategies, and initiatives for their areas of concern. Both plans specifically identify where the funding will come from whether it is local, state, federal, grants, or etc. The only way to meet all that is spelled out in these district plans is to have the district’s budget oriented to the plans. Our district plans are designed so that they are goal oriented therefore our district budgets must be goal driven in order to make the plans successful.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Equality, Equity, Adequacy
Relating to school finance equality simply means that students in a certain school district do not have an advantage over students in another school district. In my opinion, this is not in place in Texas currently. We have many (especially) suburban school districts and Chapter 41 school districts that have an extreme financial advantage over rural and Chapter 42 school districts. If you look within the budget there is at least an equity pertaining to class offerings. There is funding set aside for Texas Virtual Schools which will allow some smaller districts to offer courses that are normally only offered at larger school districts. These are two examples that stick out to me pertaining to equality among school districts.
When looking at school finance and equity this to me is fairly simple. Equity is basically adhering that all students are to receive an equal opportunity and equal funding for an education. Using a weighted formula that accounts for our different populations, Special Education, Career and Technology, ESL, home bound, and etc) we should all be funded equally on a weighted ADA system. In my mind this is the fairest system out there, and would ensure that all students had the same opportunities across our state. Unfortunately, in Texas the politicians will not allow this to happen, and the power in Texas right now is in the suburban schools. Hence, they have the financial advantages.
Adequacy when talking about school finance means that schools should funded at a level that satisfies the expectations of the Legislature. It is a whole lot less expensive to educate a student if all you want us to do is teach Reading, Writing, and Math and let local schools decide how best to do that. But, when you start adding in volumes of mandates, required programs, testing programs, expectations for results, technology requirements, audit after audit, form after form, submission after submission, it takes a lot of money to operate to meet these expectations. Then when you fund some districts at a much higher level than others, you are asking rural or Chapter 42 schools to perform with one hand behind their back. A couple of examples pertaining to school finance is the base teacher scale for Texas teachers and the adequacy of textbook funding for school districts no matter what size or classification.
When looking at school finance and equity this to me is fairly simple. Equity is basically adhering that all students are to receive an equal opportunity and equal funding for an education. Using a weighted formula that accounts for our different populations, Special Education, Career and Technology, ESL, home bound, and etc) we should all be funded equally on a weighted ADA system. In my mind this is the fairest system out there, and would ensure that all students had the same opportunities across our state. Unfortunately, in Texas the politicians will not allow this to happen, and the power in Texas right now is in the suburban schools. Hence, they have the financial advantages.
Adequacy when talking about school finance means that schools should funded at a level that satisfies the expectations of the Legislature. It is a whole lot less expensive to educate a student if all you want us to do is teach Reading, Writing, and Math and let local schools decide how best to do that. But, when you start adding in volumes of mandates, required programs, testing programs, expectations for results, technology requirements, audit after audit, form after form, submission after submission, it takes a lot of money to operate to meet these expectations. Then when you fund some districts at a much higher level than others, you are asking rural or Chapter 42 schools to perform with one hand behind their back. A couple of examples pertaining to school finance is the base teacher scale for Texas teachers and the adequacy of textbook funding for school districts no matter what size or classification.
State Formula Insights
In my opinion the main issue impacting the state formula is the simple fact of not using the formula. Legislators continue to pass laws that allow wealthier schools to hold onto their money by using “hold harmless” clauses and providing grants and other programs “outside of the formula”. So, if a school is going to potentially lose money due to legislation, these "hold harmless" policies protect them.
The second issue if find very impacting to the state formula is the “Maintenance of Effort”, primarily in Special Education. Basically this forces a district to spend at least the same amount of money in Special Education as we did the previous year. With this in place there is no gain for a district to look for ways to consolidate learning, because we have to spend this money or we are penalized if we fail to do so.
Thirdly, is the large number of Chapter 41 loopholes. Many Chapter 41 school districts use these loopholes to keep their money within their district. Most Chapter 41 districts have lower taxes, better facilities, and are able to pay off multi-million dollar bond issues in a year or two. However, most Chapter 42 districts are required to have higher tax rates, mediocre facilities, and it would take them much longer to pay off bond issues. This seems to be a very unfair system when the legislator continually is pushing for equality.
The second issue if find very impacting to the state formula is the “Maintenance of Effort”, primarily in Special Education. Basically this forces a district to spend at least the same amount of money in Special Education as we did the previous year. With this in place there is no gain for a district to look for ways to consolidate learning, because we have to spend this money or we are penalized if we fail to do so.
Thirdly, is the large number of Chapter 41 loopholes. Many Chapter 41 school districts use these loopholes to keep their money within their district. Most Chapter 41 districts have lower taxes, better facilities, and are able to pay off multi-million dollar bond issues in a year or two. However, most Chapter 42 districts are required to have higher tax rates, mediocre facilities, and it would take them much longer to pay off bond issues. This seems to be a very unfair system when the legislator continually is pushing for equality.
Texas School Finance
There are several significant historical events dealing with Texas School Finance. I want to focus on three that I think are very important issues/events and all derive from historical events that occurred in Texas School Finance. The first is the move away from a formula funded system, to a formula/plus grant/plus hold harmless system. This has severely crippled funding for schools, particularly in smaller rural districts. If you look back to history the “Robin Hood Plan” was introduced as a formula funded system and we have moved away from it. It basically spread funding out from richer school district’s to poorer. This made funding more equitable to all students, even those from extremely poor districts.
The second School Finance issue that I feel of great importance is the Target Revenue System. This system puts a value on students in different schools. For example, a student at RISD is “worth” $4958, while a student at a neighboring district would be worth as low as $4500 or even as high as $12,000. This is an asinine way to fund schools, all the while telling us that we should all perform the same on standardized test. If this be the case, then why are all students not “worth” the same at all districts? The state continually states that all students are to perform at the same achievement level on standardized text, yet they can determine how much different districts are allotted for student education.
The last important issue that I have chosen as significant is the continual added unfunded mandates. Even as far back as the early 1800’s there was talk and evidence of unfunded mandates. We are still seeing them today. More and more, we are expected to cure all of the ills of society ( obesity, teen dating violence, etc) and we are continuously inundated with new mandates from our legislature. Yet,the money to fund these programs is not provided, and so we are forced to use local money to do this work. Many of these initiatives are things that should be taught at home, but more and more are expected to be taught at school.
The second School Finance issue that I feel of great importance is the Target Revenue System. This system puts a value on students in different schools. For example, a student at RISD is “worth” $4958, while a student at a neighboring district would be worth as low as $4500 or even as high as $12,000. This is an asinine way to fund schools, all the while telling us that we should all perform the same on standardized test. If this be the case, then why are all students not “worth” the same at all districts? The state continually states that all students are to perform at the same achievement level on standardized text, yet they can determine how much different districts are allotted for student education.
The last important issue that I have chosen as significant is the continual added unfunded mandates. Even as far back as the early 1800’s there was talk and evidence of unfunded mandates. We are still seeing them today. More and more, we are expected to cure all of the ills of society ( obesity, teen dating violence, etc) and we are continuously inundated with new mandates from our legislature. Yet,the money to fund these programs is not provided, and so we are forced to use local money to do this work. Many of these initiatives are things that should be taught at home, but more and more are expected to be taught at school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)