ED+5342

__**ED5342 Assignment 1 Week 1**__ __**Part 1**__ 1.The Common School Law of 1854 provided for the first state public school system in Texas (Centennial Handbook - Texas Public Schools 1854–1954, p. 1, Texas Education Agency). This was the first step needed to start this dream. Later added to this act was the first compulsory attendance law. Students were required to attend school for 60 days in 1916-1917; 80 days in school year 1917-1918; and 100 days beginning in 1918-1919 (The Story of Texas Schools, p. 406). 2. In 1947, the Gilmer-Aikin Committee was formed by the Texas Legislature and charged with the responsibility of developing major education reforms, particularly in the area of public school finance. By necessity the committee studied the efficiency of the district structure (Journal of Texas Public Education, Vol. 1, Winter 1993, p. 51, TASB). Which led to the Gilmer- Aiken law in 1949, who formed TEA and the SBEC and abolished the elected office of state superintendent of public instruction and created the office of commissioner of education who is appointed to a four- year term by the State Board of Education; abolished the traditional per capita system of distributing education funds and adopted in its place a funding plan based on an economic index and established the state’s first minimum salary schedule for teachers (The New Handbook of Texas, Volume 2, p. 789, The Texas State Historical Association, 1996; Centennial Handbook - Texas Public Schools 1854–1954, p. 58, Texas Education Agency). 3. Edgewood v. Kirby which eventually led to Senate Bill 1. This is in my opinion the most powerful force in school finance that we also refer to as the “Robin Hood Bill”. The poorest school district in the state started a lawsuit in 1968 against a neighboring school district who had more, this them led to many other legal battles, going all the way to the supreme court and ultimately giving all children the access to the funding necessary to have an opportunity for the same type of education! This fight for equality, equity and adequacy for Edgewood impacted me as a student of this district, as well as allow me to teach at the same level as other schools in the state. I was a product of Edgewood ISD and I was teacher there as well. Though so many people fight over taxes, funding, sharing the wealth, etc, many have never lived in this area nor have they taught to these kids. Though the idea was great and it did level the playing field, I feel this is the time to look at this funding mechanism and reevaluate, not do away with, numerous aspects of the bill. || __**Part 2**__ Then we go on to Weighed average daily attendance (WADA) where schools get extra funding for having different labels, at risk, special ed, bilingual, etc. So lets go back to school A- the majority of kids are regular ed, with no labels, a handful of special ed, at-risk, a few retained, school B gets money for those labeled at-risk, special ed, bilingual, so yes they do get a little more money, but the cost to educate a child with any of these labels is definitely higher than the extra given to get the job done. This is an area that really needs to be reevaluated when we restructure the funding formula! The goal with school funding is equality and adequate funding. We want all children, no matter their family situation, to have a good school, where they can learn and be exposed to the same curriculum and experiences regardless of their wealth, family, neighborhood, etc. Yes, I know this is a big order, but I know we can find something better than the current funding formula we have in place in our state. || __**Part 3**__ Equity means the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. If my child is severely impaired, this would ensure special ed funding would be provide to the school where my child attends to give him the care and education needed. This is not limited to special ed students, but also to bilingual, GT, dyslexia, etc. Another example is for other special programs that are open to all students regardless of ability, for instance Career and Technology programs and Vocational programs. Adequacy is where the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. This is an area that is causing so many school districts stress at this point an example being SSI funding. In the past if you had a large number of failures in a certain grade level you were given funds to give more intense instruction, as the years have passed the mandate is still there, but the funding has disappeared. This has made it hard to continue to pay the personnel, the building use, all that entails giving additional instruction, without the additional funding. ||
 * From the moment Texas became a state in 1845, free public education was a goal and desire of those forming our great state as it was outlined in the state constitution. This goal was written, including the funding source to make it a reality. Three milestones in the history of public school finance that have made this a reality are:
 * State funding formulas are definitely confusing. When we interviewed state representatives and senators they admitted to not understanding the state funding system. Sen. Shappiro stated there may be three people in the house who truly understand the formulas, but even they can’t explain it to the regular citizen. One major component of school funding is Average weighted daily attendance (ADA). This is where schools get paid according to attendance. This is a goal at the district level good attendance= good scores. Is this fair? An example: school A is in a very prominent neighborhood where kids have both parents, who work 9-5, they help their kids with homework and tuck them in at night, their basic needs are met daily, school B is one located in a housing complex, shootings at night, Mom is single works from 7pm-7am, kids have to fend for themselves from food, to waking up and getting themselves off to school. Let’s guess which school has better attendance? Who is getting more money from the state in this category?
 * Equality is defined as every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. With equality we want to know that if a student moves from one side of the state to the other, they will have access to the same core content and not be behind in their grade level. We also want to be assured that the curriculum they are taught is also based on the state TEKS.
 * __Part 4__**
 * Upon reading and comparing the AISD DIP and the DIP of Galena Park ISD, I find very few similarities and are two totally different documents. The AISD plan is written like a teaching manual, written to explain the process at each step, in an effort, in my opinion, to explain their reasoning and thinking. They have 238 pages of this explanation of goals for the upcoming year, while GP’s DIP has four pages with only six goals. AISD breaks down the plan into long term and short term goals. In the GP plan, goals are listed for the current year, which are modified and updated from year to year. The goal of a DIP is to plan for the upcoming year, using current data and any other goals outlined by the state and federal guidelines. AISD did this, but added so much more which deflects from the purpose- what are the goals? In reviewing Appendix A, there is a comprehensive list of activities and positions that that have been created district wide using comp ed money, as well as external grants. I feel this information should be listed somewhere else. There is no actual breakdown of funding, just a grand total of the millions used at the end of each list. The desired goals under PBMAS focus on drop out and credit recovery. From what is listed it is evident that the majority of the funding is paying for support personnel to attain the goals outlined in Appendix B, as well as special programs that are listed in their improvement plan. In the GPISD DIP, there are no explanations, just a list of six goals and subgoals. There are no appendices, no charts or lists, and no connection to funding. In closing, the two are very different and distinct from each other, which making it extremely difficult to compare or contrast. ||