District Improvement Plans

Matrice Raven

 

District Improvement Plan

 

Austin and NISD Comparison

 

April 13, 2014

 

Looking at both Austin ISD and Northwest ISD, there are many noticeable comparisons. With the profiles of the districts being quite different, yet we are similar in many ways. Northwest is one of the largest district in the state, land wise, not necessarily pupil wise. The land covers many counties. We are now in the process of seeing the rapid growth, where demographers are predicting that in about 20 years, NISD will have grown from 18, 000 students to 80, 000. Realizing Austin ISD does not fit the same profile in that aspect, we are similar In ways of our diversity in student populations.

 

One of the most notable things that stick out immediately when looking at both district’s improvement plan is the huge difference in federal funding. Most of NISD’s funding comes from local, intermediate sources. Federal resources were around 48 million, compared to over 100 million in Austin ISD. There was huge difference in the local. Austin was around 30 million local and NISD main revenue source was local and intermediate coming in around 111 million. Looking at the various programs impacted by this would be the ones that are all familiar to us like Special Education services and the Title programs. They are very extensive in Austin and not so much in our district. Not that one profile or district is better than the other, there is a distinct difference in the student populations, both having it’s own variation of diversity.

 

Why such a discrepancy is worth exploring. There is a definite flip in resources allotted from state and federal funding. Many of the programs listed in Austin’s Improvement plan are federal programs and are sustained by federal funding. Special education resources, various Title programs like Title ! are seemingly how the district’s budget is formed. Various goal outcomes are tied to the federal funding allotted to the programs that are in place and unique to Austin. In NISD, there are local funding sources that increase the bottom line number in local and intermediate funding. Of course there are federal programs in NISD, but it is not solely operating under federal funding. For example, there is only one Title 1 secondary campus in the district. It is obvious that the land square miles covered in the district helps with local funding. NISD is not a property rich district and does not send millions back to the state and many of the funds are kept. However, it is a unique difference in the funding and goals of the two districts.

Equality, Equity, Adequacy

Equality … Every student has access to all programs, whether it’s GT, special education, bilingual education. All programs are accessible. Ex. 1= All districts are required to fulfill/offer CATE programs. Ex. 2- All district offer students opportunities for technology and available to all students, not just a select population.

 

Equity… The system is fair and all districts are given the same amount to work with. Example 1. The funding formula is the same for all districts, whether wealth or poor. Ex. #2- The state allows a per pupil expenditure for all students in the state of Texas.

 

Adequacy  There is sufficient funding to districts to offer programs based on the needs and characteristics of the district. Ex. 1- A district receives funding for special education programs based on the needs of the population. Ex. 2- A district receives funds to run its natatorium based on the need of the district to provide an adequate program.

Financial Challenges

Funding Challenges

 

 

There are three challenges in Texas education funding that impact all children in our state. They are ongoing debates and questions. Chapter 41 and 42, the designation of property wealthy and poor districts, M and O tax rate of 1.50 cap, and allotment funding make significant implication on district’s ability to provide quality programs that they are “mandated” to provide. They have in essences created opportunity, as well as limitations for districts to deliver premier programs and services.

 

The M and O tax rate of 1.50 has created a state property tax and often because of this issues are landing in the courts that are very complex and challenging and has forced the legislature to come up with a solution that is constitutional and upholds the obligation of appropriate funding for schools.  With the current strategy in place the formula that is being used allows for allotments based on per pupil within a district and funds are recapture and redistributed based on a per pupil allotment.

 

With the per pupil allotment comes other challenges for districts who may or may not fit certain profiles for certain allotments, leaving many services and programs to be unfunded because of certain characteristics of the district and it’s designation to receive or not receive funds through tiering of these funds. Adjustments are made within the two different tiers like Special Education, Bilingual education receiving funds for the programs based on the number of students in the program and by the weighted calculation of the state. Then, a second tier including transportation, technololgy, and others.  The challenge comes with running and offering these programs  in school districts with the limited resources that are available.

 

The challenge of Chapter 41 and 42 and adequacy in it’s programs because of funding becomes extremely challenging. Funds are being recaptured and programs are suffering because the formulas to redistribute are not necessarily supportive of the programs needed in the property wealthy or poor districts. The challenge of what is needed for that district is not being delivered because of the lack of funding  for that particular service and /or program.

 

These are three areas that definitely create unique challenges for the answer to the questions of how we fund our schools and the education of the children of Texas.

3 Most Significant Historical Events in School Finance

Matrice Raven

 

Week One

 

EDLD 5342

 

April 13, 2014

 

 

Funding education in Texas has been a debate for long, long time. Three events in history that have made huge impacts on education in Texas are rooted in three philosophies of equity, adequacy, equality. The Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States and providing of the establishment of elementary schools in 1824, the Gilmer-Aiken Laws, and Robin Hood are three of the most impactful events in education funding.

 

The establishment of elementary schools nearly two centuries ago we see in the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States is where we see the attempt to organize a school with mandates. However, this is also when we came to know and realize the concept, even today, “unfunded mandate”. Though we see an attempt to show commitment to education two centuries ago, we also the beginning of the debate and struggle of the mandates not being supported through appropriate funding. This is one of the most impactful events in history because it set the precedence of what we are still debating even today.

 

Though many other events happened in between the first establishment of schools to the Gilmer-Aiken period, it is most notable in its work that brought expansive change in 50^th Legislative session in 1949. The Gilmer-Aiken laws took the state from 4500 school districts to 2900 administrative units, raised teacher salaries, created expectations for school boards, and adopted an organized approach to the state supplementing  local taxes in an attempt to adequately fund public education. After several years,  many of the Gilmer-Aiken ideas and approaches became unpopular which lead to many of the issues becoming issues of the courts.

 

Lastly, the most impactful event in school finance in Texas is the designation of chapter 41 and 42 districts. There has been so much debate throughout the last few years of equity and equality and redistribution of funds to adequately fund programs in school districts. The Neeley vs. West Orange Cove ISD is an example of the continuous debate and issue of school taxes being state taxes. Then with others jumping in to say that state funding is inefficient with it’s current strategy. Both,  basing the arguments on both methods being in violation of the constitution.  

 

These three things have most made an impact on funding education in the state of Texas. All three of these have occurred in significant periods from the establishment of organized education to the present 21^st century where we are charged with providing quality programs and services to children, yet with limit resources. The debate continues, even with Robin Hood and what steps we take now for appropriately funding education for the children and future of our state and nation.