EDLD+5342

EDLD 5342 week 1 Part 1 The history of the Texas School Finance is a very interesting read. Based on the information presented in the lecture the top three events:

The first of the top three events would be the legislature establishing the three leagues of land in each county and 50 leagues each for what would become the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. Even in the republic’s/state’s infancy education was valued and seen as a necessity. This event laid the groundwork for the establishment of the state’s educational system.

The second event would be the Gilmer-Aiken Laws. The laws helped to “standardize” the educational landscape to some degree. The passage of these laws helped to streamline the state’s education system by restructuring the number of school districts, increasing teacher salary, creating a school calendar, and establishing the State Board of Education.

The third major event in the state’s education evolution would be the Edgewood ISD lawsuit. While the lawsuit may have initially failed it brought attention to the inequitable funding to school districts. Many lawsuits have since followed ultimately creating the current “Robin Hood” system of school funding.

This next legislative session will be very interesting. Many hurdles face the school districts across the state.

Part 2

The first issue when discussing funding must be equity. There definitely is a problem between wealthier school districts versus the poorer districts. For example some students have access to state of the art science labs while others barely have enough workable equipment to even have a lab. The state expectation for student performance is consistent for both districts yet one clearly has an advantage in terms of opportunity for the students. Locally one district blatantly flaunts money building huge athletic stadiums while another less than ten miles away is forced to release over 50 employees.

Another issue is unfunded/underfunded state and federal mandates. It is extremely easy for legislators to place high expectations on school districts and provide little in terms of the needed “tools” to reach the goals. The No Child Left Behind agenda is a great example. Not all students are equal in the terms of socioeconomics, family support, or location yet we are left to believe in a “one shoe fits all” type system. It is the school district’s responsibility to “shoehorn” each student into the same mold as every other student across the state/country with no real funding.

Finally, one of the three main issues facing state funding must be the current financial crisis/shortfall. Inequities have been a major argument for school finance for over 50 years. Poorer districts have been maxed out on taxation and barely surviving. These smaller poor districts will be forced to consider closing/consolidating.

Part 3

Equality is focused on the individual student. It means every student has access to receive the same basic educational programs. For example students across the state are allowed to take the same basic core classes. These students regardless of the district wealth will receive the same identified credit towards their graduation. Another example may be a handicap student having the same access to certain programs as a regular student.

Equity is program/system based and means the overall system is fair and responds to the needs of the individuals. The easiest identifiable program would be special services such as special education or ESL. Monies are utilized to ensure the success of the different identified students.

Adequacy means a district is sufficiently funded to meet the state’s accreditation standards. A few examples of would be a minimum teacher salary scale and textbook funds. While many districts may pay above scale no district is allowed to be below.

Part 4

When comparing the Silsbee ISD district improvement plan versus the Austin ISD plan many similarities and differences were identified. Obviously with Austin being a larger district there were more programs. Oddly enough Silsbee ISD’s plan was nearly three times the length of Austin ISD’s.

When analyzing both plans several similarities were prevalent. Goals and objectives are clearly provided. Both plans list those people responsible for each identified area. The different groups such as campus advisory and district advisory teams play an integral role in the needs assessment process. The main state identified areas such as test performance, graduation rates, and student subpopulations are identified. Each plan has measureable performance goals.

In regards to differences, as stated earlier Silsbee ISD’s plan is more thorough in some areas. Each plan is created in a different format. Austin ISD’s plan appeared broader whereas Silsbee’s plan was more detailed in several areas. Key individuals were named and responsible for smaller allotments of monies for the identified programs. The size of the districts and numbers of individual campuses has to play a role.

In conclusion Austin ISD obviously is bigger, has a more diverse student population, and more monies available, but the two districts are very similar in terms of the funding process. Each district has recognized programs with dedicated allotments. The districts have identified measurable goals. Reaching those goals is squarely based on providing the resources needed with the available funds