As part of the reading for this week, I reviewed the TEA publication, School Finance 101. It was a very helpful look into how we receive the monies our districts use to fund our schools. For years, I have listened to my school board president talk about how unfair, inequitable, and unequal funding of schools continues to be – even after law suits and legislation designed to address the inherent problems in the current laws. I have also listened to the complicated briefings from our Executive Director of finance explaining the newest formulas the state is using to decide on our level of state funding. I have watched a school board make decisions to call for bond elections in a tough economical time when our district is growing and needs more facilities. And I have watched the board make very sound and educated decisions to manage our available funds in a responsible and frugal manner. Our district has had very effective leadership who have listened to the advice of skilled financial advisors and we have been fortunate to thrive even in difficult times. I am not sure I completely understood the crisis. This week’s learning has revealed to me how complex and difficult the position of our district leadership has become in managing our finances.
Our experience with the state revenue shortfall this year and the resulting wrangling in the state legislature over just how much to cut education for the next two years has left me craving information on school finance so this class and this discussion is so appropriate to the times. After reading the reflections of other members of the cohort, reading articles about the funding crisis and reviewing the history, I feel like I have a better understanding of the truly unfair nature of the way we fund schools. I also have a better understanding of the complex nature of creating a fair system to fund schools. It seems like even the most fair system imaginable will also have shortfalls that effect some districts. Even if districts across the state receive an equal amount of money to spend on each student’s education each year, will that result in an equitable education for every student in Texas? Will schools in the inner cities or schools in rural West Texas, where the cost of providing an education is so different, be able to accomplish the same educational goals and affect the same level of achievement from their diverse student populations? It is easy – and correct – to say that schools are not funded fairly across the state. And it is easy – and correct – to say that the system needs to be fixed. It is more difficult to actually fix the system. The political system that is charged with establishing a system to adequately, equitably, and equally fund education is also charged with the angst of advocating for each individual legislator’s constituents. This week’s learning has caused me to realize that each school district leader has to operate within the limits set by the legislature, that each school district leader has to advocate for the cause of fair funding of education across the state, and that each school district leader has to understand how to get the most out of the changing formulas for funding in order to advocate for the students in his/her own district.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Reflections on Equity, Equality, and Adequacy
Understanding the issues of equity, equality, and adequacy has helped me understand the complexity of funding public school in Texas. If every leader understood these terms to the same level and had a common, shared definition, it might be easier to formulate an equitable manner by which to fund schools. This past year, I served on the attendance boundary committee in our district as we drew lines to populate a new middle school. In a community that I understood to be very cohesive, I heard the sentiment from parents on the affluent side of town that they did not want to have their children at a school with “those kids.” This revealed to me, in just one more way, that the issue of education is extremely politically charged; that in many respects, voters, taxpayers, parents, and even leaders care about the issues only to the extent that their personal interests are concerned. In school funding, this means that taxpayers only want their taxes spent on issues that directly concern them. As long as the local schools are funded to an appropriate level, the leaders and the taxpayers from that area are satisfied and will hold on to the status quo. There are districts in Texas whose voters do not care about the students from the rest of the state. I am not suggesting that they mean the students in other districts any harm, rather that the funding of another district is not viewed as their problem. The politicians whose job it is to fund schools also feel the responsibility to advocate for their constituents and to protect their assets, to keep their tax revenue at work at home. It is our job as educational leaders to advocate for our district’s students and for the cause of education in general – to fix the problem so that it is fair to all. But as employees of a district our first responsibility is to the students of our district. We are pulled by our commitment to children in general and our commitment to the community we serve. The resultant conflict of different concerns has historically pushed the issue of funding into court where these terms (equity, equality, and adequacy) are then defined in a way that provides a universal, final interpretation. I do not think this will change under the current Texas constitution.
Reflection on the History of Texas School Finance
I have been employed in my current school district for 10 years and as an administrator, I have been required to attend school board meetings regularly. Much of the discussion in a high percentage of the meetings has touched on the status of school finance in Texas so I have been familiar with a lot of the terms covered in this week’s lecture and readings. But having the historical perspective laid out in such linear way has really helped me understand the issue better. Knowing where we started, where we have been, where we might be headed, and how leaders have effected change in the system of school finance in Texas helps us learn how we must proceed on a path toward a fair system of finance that provides equality, equity, and adequacy for students across the state. Not wanting to be influenced by the opinions and reflections of others, I was sure to complete the readings and review the lectures completely before I composed my responses. I was struck with the similarity of my responses to those of others in the cohort. Dufour tells us that providing groups of people with the same base of information will increase the likelihood that those people will come to consensus. If only our legislators were reading what we are reading...
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The State Funding Formula
The main source of funds for Texas pubic schools are local property taxes, state funding, and federal funding. The main issue that impacts this funding is the local M&O tax rate. This, of course, varies from district to district. In a rich district, one penny of tax effort might raise a million dollars where as the same penny in a poorer district might raise only $100,000. One can easily see that this difference will result in a vastly different quality of the educational program. Finding a way to fund education so that each student, regardless of the district in which s/he lives, has access to the same quality of educational opportunity is only fair to those students and to all taxpayers. Taxpayers in a poor community are subject to high property tax rates and then send their children to schools that are funded at a low dollar amount while taxpayers in wealthier districts pay a lower property tax rate and send their children to schools that are funded at a higher dollar amount. This system of funding is inherently inequitable to students in poorer communities. Many efforts to equalize funding have been attempted but have not resulted in providing all students and districts access to equitable levels of funding.
The second important issue impacting the funding of education in Texas is the weighted average daily attendance (WADA) that is used in the funding formulas. The number of students enrolled in a district who are served through special programs such as Gifted and Talented, Special Education, or bi-lingual programs yield additional funds from the state above what is allocated for the education of regular education students. This makes perfect sense as educating students with special needs is more expensive than educating students without those educational needs. In reading the TEA publication, School Finance 101, the importance of accurate coding of students enrolled in these programs as well as the actual attendance percentage of these students became clearly evident. Not only do we want students with special educational needs to regularly attend school in order to benefit from quality instruction, but we want the district to benefit from the additional funding opportunities provided by the state. We have to pay for the program that is designed to address those students’ needs whether they are present or absent but we do not receive the funding when they are absent.
Another important issue impacting the funding formulas in Texas is Federal Funding. Federal funds are allocated to local districts to address special programs and student needs. The current economic situation in our nation and the resultant wrangling between competing interests may well result in reduced federal support of education programs. Even if funding is reduced, the requirement to provide these programs will not go away. Our quandary is to find ways to fund programs that have lost federal monetary backing.
Equity, Equality, and Adequacy in School Finance
Equality:
The test question for equality in Texas School Funding is, “Do all students have access to the same kind of educational program?” Two examples of funding designed to address equality are the basic allotment for education and tier II enrichment funding.
Equity:
The test question for equity in funding is, “Does the funding allow the district to provide educational opportunities that meet all differing individual student needs?" Two examples of funding that attempt to provide equity are the weighted funding for students enrolled in a special education program, and the weighted funding for students in bilingual education programs.
Adequacy:
The test question for adequacy is, “Does the funded program meet minimum standards required by the state to become and stay accredited?” While the totality of the state funding package attempts to address adequacy, two specific examples of funding designed to address adequacy are included in the Tier I portion of the funding formula’s basic allotment: the cost of education adjustment, and the small district adjustment.
Do you agree with my definitions and examples?
The test question for equality in Texas School Funding is, “Do all students have access to the same kind of educational program?” Two examples of funding designed to address equality are the basic allotment for education and tier II enrichment funding.
Equity:
The test question for equity in funding is, “Does the funding allow the district to provide educational opportunities that meet all differing individual student needs?" Two examples of funding that attempt to provide equity are the weighted funding for students enrolled in a special education program, and the weighted funding for students in bilingual education programs.
Adequacy:
The test question for adequacy is, “Does the funded program meet minimum standards required by the state to become and stay accredited?” While the totality of the state funding package attempts to address adequacy, two specific examples of funding designed to address adequacy are included in the Tier I portion of the funding formula’s basic allotment: the cost of education adjustment, and the small district adjustment.
Do you agree with my definitions and examples?
Three Key Events in the History of Texas School Finance
The history of Texas School Finance is complicated and twisted. There are many competing interests and needs and implementation of the system, by the rule of law, has to fit within the limits established in the Texas Constitution. That said, here are my thoughts on the three most significant events:
The Texas Constitution of 1876: There are many historical events that have shaped current Texas School Finance practice beginning with the Texas Constitution adopted in 1876. This constitution established that “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and made suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” The most current constitution trumps all previous versions thus is it the most significant for our purposes. This language has been used in legal challenges to established school funding laws in Texas and it is the law of the land. Thus I believe it has to be considered one of the most significant events.
Gilmer-Aiken Laws: The next significant event in Texas Public School finance was the period of time spanning from the depression era, through post-World War II, to the formulation of the Gilmer-Aiken laws in 1947. This series of laws established many rules for education and impacted the way in which funding was achieved in order to address adequacy issues. This series of laws established the regimented fashion by which the state supplemented local school tax effort. After implementation of these laws, many believed that the legislature had not gone far enough to address the needs of all students in the state.
Legal Challenges: The Gilmer Aiken Laws lead to the next significant event in Texas School Finance, the series of legal challenges to Texas funding laws, referred to as Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD and the following Edgewood cases. In Rodriguez v. SAISD, the US Supreme court essentially ruled that a violation of the federal constitution did not exist as the case was argued, but the decision indicated that it was a state issue. The resulting court cases of Edgewood v. Kirby were argued in the State Supreme Court. As a result of the Edgewood cases, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to fix the problem of equity in education funding. This resulted in what is known as the “Robin Hood Plan” and established the practice of “recapture” whereby property wealthy districts had local tax revenue recaptured by the state and essentially distributed to property poor school districts. This attempt to equalize funding spawned another case called, West Orange Cove CISD v. Neely where the plaintiffs, 46 school districts, argued that the “Robin Hood Plan” established a de facto and unconstitutional State Property Tax. Two other parties that joined the plaintiffs in the suit also argued that the current funding plan was unconstitutional because it was inefficient, language directly from the Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme court decision in 2005 called the current system adequate, recommended consolidation of smaller districts in the name of efficiency, declared that the disparity between property rich and property poor districts was not yet unconstitutional but warned that the disparity would soon reach unconstitutional heights. The resulting action by the legislature during the 81st legislative session reduced the M&O Tax rate, created “target revenue” funding, created the hold harmless provision, created new state taxes to fund “hold harmless” and provided districts with additional taxing authority for enrichment. While each of these legal challenges and the resulting mandates the courts have placed on the legislature to fix the problems could be viewed as individual events, it is obvious that legal challenges and the resulting legal mandates will rule the implementation and reform of the way in which schools are funded in Texas into the future. Our legislators are not fixing the problem adequately and so court intervention becomes necessary. I believe that legal challenges will be the main avenue to force the legislature to take action. That is why I lumped them together as one event.
What do you think?
The Texas Constitution of 1876: There are many historical events that have shaped current Texas School Finance practice beginning with the Texas Constitution adopted in 1876. This constitution established that “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and made suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” The most current constitution trumps all previous versions thus is it the most significant for our purposes. This language has been used in legal challenges to established school funding laws in Texas and it is the law of the land. Thus I believe it has to be considered one of the most significant events.
Gilmer-Aiken Laws: The next significant event in Texas Public School finance was the period of time spanning from the depression era, through post-World War II, to the formulation of the Gilmer-Aiken laws in 1947. This series of laws established many rules for education and impacted the way in which funding was achieved in order to address adequacy issues. This series of laws established the regimented fashion by which the state supplemented local school tax effort. After implementation of these laws, many believed that the legislature had not gone far enough to address the needs of all students in the state.
Legal Challenges: The Gilmer Aiken Laws lead to the next significant event in Texas School Finance, the series of legal challenges to Texas funding laws, referred to as Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD and the following Edgewood cases. In Rodriguez v. SAISD, the US Supreme court essentially ruled that a violation of the federal constitution did not exist as the case was argued, but the decision indicated that it was a state issue. The resulting court cases of Edgewood v. Kirby were argued in the State Supreme Court. As a result of the Edgewood cases, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to fix the problem of equity in education funding. This resulted in what is known as the “Robin Hood Plan” and established the practice of “recapture” whereby property wealthy districts had local tax revenue recaptured by the state and essentially distributed to property poor school districts. This attempt to equalize funding spawned another case called, West Orange Cove CISD v. Neely where the plaintiffs, 46 school districts, argued that the “Robin Hood Plan” established a de facto and unconstitutional State Property Tax. Two other parties that joined the plaintiffs in the suit also argued that the current funding plan was unconstitutional because it was inefficient, language directly from the Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme court decision in 2005 called the current system adequate, recommended consolidation of smaller districts in the name of efficiency, declared that the disparity between property rich and property poor districts was not yet unconstitutional but warned that the disparity would soon reach unconstitutional heights. The resulting action by the legislature during the 81st legislative session reduced the M&O Tax rate, created “target revenue” funding, created the hold harmless provision, created new state taxes to fund “hold harmless” and provided districts with additional taxing authority for enrichment. While each of these legal challenges and the resulting mandates the courts have placed on the legislature to fix the problems could be viewed as individual events, it is obvious that legal challenges and the resulting legal mandates will rule the implementation and reform of the way in which schools are funded in Texas into the future. Our legislators are not fixing the problem adequately and so court intervention becomes necessary. I believe that legal challenges will be the main avenue to force the legislature to take action. That is why I lumped them together as one event.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)