DIP Comparison

The comparison between Austin ISD’s District Improvement Plan (DIP) and that of my home district reveals two very different styles of DIP.  While there were some elements that were similar, the overall structures were not similar.

The Austin ISD DIP was a very detailed and comprehensive report.  It was compiled much in the way a “state of the district” type of document would be compiled.  It included a wide variety of information such as budget updates, meeting minutes and attendance, discipline reports, community outreach program information and notes, subcommittee reports, and updated policies.  As for my home district ISD, none of the above-mentioned report sections or topics was covered.

The DIP for my home district was completely aligned with the district’s stated mission.  It was organized in a method by which each goal was tied to a component of the district’s vision 2020 commitment.  The entire report consisted of prescribed actions, desired results, necessary resources, and timelines.  Each goal was written as a SMART goal.  Specific budgeted resources were not itemized nor were they quantified.  For each goal, only the source of funds was listed, i.e., “district budget”, “SIP budget”, “C & I budget”, “Bond 2011 budget”.  Our DIP took a similar form as was seen in Appendix B of Austin ISD's DIP.

Overall, my home district has a document that is limited to SMART goals for district growth with no detail as to specific spending or sources of funds.  The Austin ISD’s list of actual improvement plan information spans only three pages of 53 total pages.

Equality, Equity, & Adequacy

Equality vs. equity vs. adequacy is a long-standing argument that continues to makes headlines as well as case law.  Here are a few of my thoughts.

Equality is easy.  Equality means all students receive access to the same types of basic educational programs.  While easy to implement, it is not in the best interest of our students.  Each student has different needs.  We cannot assume that a one-size-fits-all approach to education will meet the needs of an ever-changing world.  For that reason, both the courts as well as educators that utilize research-based solutions utilize an equitable approach to education.

Equity in education leads to an environment in which the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.  An example that I like to use is the 4 x 4 approach to high school graduation standards in Texas.  In science, each student is required to successfully complete four science courses.  There is a menu of choices available.  While certain courses are compulsory (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), there are options. Specifically, during the fourth year students may take a science course that meets their individual interests / needs such as Forensics, Principles of Technology, Earth and Space Science, Environmental Systems, and Human Anatomy and Physiology.  The greater number of offerings a school makes available, the more equitable the situation.  Equity is a very important standard to understand and implement.

Adequate refers to the school district’s ability to provide educational programs that create success for all students --- Adequacy leads to Equity. Adequacy creates a moving target.  As society changes, so does their definition of adequate.  Likewise, the immeasurability of adequacy as a standard leads special interest groups to protest, demand, and even sue for greater access to services under the auspice of equity. 

I have learned that while equal is relatively easy to achieve, it is not the most appropriate option for public education today.  Equity is the standard to which we will be held.  It is the standard, too, to which the courts decree.  An adequate education is an equitable education and vice-versa.  

Basic Issues That Affect Texas Public School Finance

My list of 3 basic issues that affect Texas public school funding are:

Structural deficit due to the 2006 reduction in property taxes and failure of the Texas Franchise Tax.

• The Texas Franchise Tax revision that was enacted in 2006 was designed to:
•  Align the tax with a modern economy,
•  Create a simpler business tax,
•  Eliminate tax planning opportunities, and
•  Raise roughly $3 billion in annual new state revenue.
• The reality, 6 years later is that tax collections have been much lower than anticipated.  The lack of projected collections has created a “structural deficit” that fails to meet the needs of Texas public education.
• The shortfall directly contributed to the current education funding crisis in Texas.

Texas’ growing ELL population results in increased cost for schools when meeting requirements for ELL education.

• Recent estimates suggest that 20% of public school students are English-language learners (ELL).
• Texas public schools are mandated under law to provide multilingual classrooms, research-based programs, and sheltered ESL course sections for ELLs (dependent upon additional factors such as age, years in U.S., etc.).
• The cost of educating ELL students is higher than for non-ELL students
• While weighted formulas are used to increase funds based upon the number of ELL students within a district, the weights are inadequate and not based upon actual costs.  The situation creates an increase in school funding, but the increase is typically inadequate to meet the needs of a growing ELL student population.
• Texas public schools add 80,000 students per year.  The rate of ELL student growth is estimated to be twice the growth of non-ELL students (38.4% to 17.4% according to expert testimony on 11/23/2012 by expert witness, Delia Pompa, at the school funding litigation in Travis County).

Murkiness of the term “Adequate” fails to adequately quantify the level to which schools must be funded.  When the Texas Supreme court last ruled on school funding, it referred to the term adequate when determining appropriateness of funding.

• Who can determine the adequateness of funding?  What IS adequate?  Who decides?  Is adequate included in our definition of equitable? 
• Adequate is an ill-defined term that has no set of measurable standards for comparison.  To rely on the term adequate is inadequate.

I certainly can see how so many issues are involved in school finance formulation and estimation.  One thing is very clear to me, though…

With Texas involved in its sixth school funding litigation since 1984, we can no longer look for a “quick-fix” or “Band-Aid” approach as we have done in the past.  I see that it is time for the State of Texas to completely overhaul her system of school finance to reflect the needs of an increasingly diverse population.

My Top Three Events in Texas Public School Funding History

Good morning and Happy Thanksgiving.

My list of the top 3 events in Texas school finance includes:

The Gilmer-Aiken Laws

While much of the school funding provisions in the Act are long gone, I feel that many of  the remaining provisions are still relevant.

o   I view the Gilmer-Aiken era as the “birth of modern Texas education legislation.”

o   It established a framework which included the Commissioner of Education, TEA, and the SBOE.

o   It formalized the concept of a defined school year.

o   It set forth an organized method for collecting and allocating state funds for education.

o   Essentially, its structure and basic tenets still exist in 2012.

Rodriguez v. San Antonio

      While the funding issue was relevant, I view this case as important for a much different reason.

o   The Supreme Court set an important precedent when it ruled against the findings of the Texas courts in terms of the 14^th Amendment.

o   The decision guaranteed that all future litigation related to school funding as an equity issue would be handled by Texas courts as a compelling State interest, rather than a Federal interest.

o   In doing so, the Texas Supreme Court’s relevance, make-up, and decision-making duties became increasingly important.  Also, timeliness for final decisions is improved since U.S. Supreme Court challenges based on the 14^th Amendment will not be heard.

Decisions of the Special Legislative Session of 2006

·        The financial solutions set forth by the Texas Legislature during the 2006 special session (following   Friendswood) have had long-standing effects on Texas education including:

o   THE FUNDING SOLUTIONS WERE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY! – Yet here we are, entering 2013 under the same TEMPORARY financial infrastructure.

o   The existing formula has led to a structural funding deficit while the cost of education has increased steadily and funding has been flat.

o   A business franchise tax was put into place to help recapture more funds to take the place of decreased property tax collections (cut by 1/3 – M&O rate cut from $ 1.50 to $ 1.04) and it did not generate enough replacement revenue.  To make matters worse, certain business were exempted from the tax in 2008 therefore producing even less funds.

o   The 2006 school finance solution has not been adjusted for current instructional requirements and rising performance standards.

o   The 2006 funding solution led to a $ 27 Billion deficit for the 2012 – 2013 biennium.

I am interested in your thoughts.  Please join the conversation.