home

This is the wiki page for our Lamar Superintendent Certification Wiki Group. Group members are James Arnett, Kristine Brown, and Mark Parkerson. Here, we will discuss various topics related to school finance. I am including the discussions from our discussion board postings.

Week 1, Part 1 (James Arnett)

Top three reasons and reasons: 1)1873, Reconstructionists voted out of office leading to establishment of Permanent and Available School Fund stipulating 25% of general revenues be dedicated to education, 2)1949, Gilmer-Aiken Laws passed and impacted how state funded schools operated by establishing the state supplementing local taxes to adequately fund public education, 3)1995, the approval of the final plan Senate Bill 1, commonly known as the "Robin Hood Plan", that included the element of revenue recapture and utimately leading to a tax rate cap of $1.50 for M & O.

Week 1 Part 1 (Kristine Brown)

I saw several events that were important to the history of Texas school finance:

In 1845, theTexas Constitution called for state taxes to support education in what became the basis for the Permanent School Fund.

In 1918, a Constitutional Amendment to provide state funding for textbooks was one of the earliest attempts to mandate that money be spent for specific purposes.

The Passage of Gilmer-Aiken Laws in 1949 began a process for the state to supplement local taxes to support adequate funding.

In the case Rodriguez vs. San Antonio ISD, the US Supreme Court ruled that education funding is not a federal issue (1972).

The case Edgewood vs. Kirby resulted in the school finance law known as the ”Robin Hood Plan” established in 1993.

I think all of these events set important precedents or laws and have made an impact on public school funding today. My top three would be the establishment of the basis for the Permanent School Fund in the Constitution of 1845, the passage of the Gilmer-Aiken Laws in 1849, and the "Robin Hood Plan" of 1993.

__**Wiki Group Top Three Events**__  After listening to the lecture and reviewing the History of Texas School Finance several events have impacted the way our state funds public education. Our group came to the concensus that the top three events occurred in 1873, 1949, and 1995. Major funding events seem to occur about every seventy years. It seems the next major change in school finance will happen within the next couple of years. The top events are: 1) 1873, the Reconstructionists were voted out of office and a new Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876, 2) 1949, passage of the Gilmer-Aiken Laws during the 51st Legislative Session, and 3) 1995, Senate Bill 1 approved by the Texas Supreme Court.  The first event in 1873 ultimately lead to the adoption of a new Texas Constitution that changed almost all laws related to education. The Permanent and Available School Funds was established and the stipulation that 25% of general revenues would be dedicated to education greatly impacted school funding. This event gave the Legislature the duty to establish suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. This provision though not intended became the foundation for litigation involving public school dealing with adequacy, equity, and efficiency.  The second event in 1949 was prompted by the need of new school facilities and additional school funding. The passage of the Gilmer-Aiken Laws affected how Texas funded school and operated schools. The school districts were reduced from 4500 to 2900, teacher salaries were increased, and the structure of the State Board of Education and selection of the Commissioner of Education were impacted. The major impact of Gilmer-Aiken was the establishment of local taxes supplementing school funding.  The third event in 1995 was the approval of the final plan Senate Bill 1 by the Texas Supreme Court. This was a major attempt to implement an equitable system for funding school districts and the process became known as the “Robin Hood Plan” which established revenue recapture. School districts were identified as Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 school districts based on property wealth. In 1995 wealth would be distributed by having property rich districts distribute revenue to property poor districts. This legislation lead to a majority of districts by 2005 setting the tax rate cap of $1.50 for Maintenance and Operations which ultimately resulted in the courts decision that a de facto statewide property tax was established, which is unconstitutional.

Future court involvement is inevitable and the Texas Legislature will have the ultimate voice in the decisions regarding school funding. With all districts having difficulties in establishing adequate funding for programs, along with unfunded mandates, the issues involving school funding will continue to be scrutinized by educators and the general public.

Week 1, Part 2

Several issues impact the state funding formula and it is difficult to identify the main ones. Some of the things I believe have an impact are a district's student population, school district property values, nonfunded government mandates, staff salaries and the state short fall in this years budget. If I were to narrow the list down to just three they would be student population, property values and staff salaries. Which ones do you think or do you have other suggestions?

Week 1, Part 2

I agree that several issues impact the state funding formulas, such as student population, district property values, government mandates, staff salaries, and the state budget shortfall. I also think the types of students that make up the population is very important. WADA depends on various allotments for particular student groups such as economically disadvantaged, special education, and career and technical education, and several other Special Instructional Programs. I think this makes a huge difference when you might have two districts that are similar in size, but one receives a much higher Weighted Average Daily Attendance.

Week 1, Part 3

The definitions of equality, equity, and adequacy are found on page 7 of the lecture with examples on page 8. I can define each with example and post to the Professor's Blog if the group would like. Let me know.

I'll go ahead and define them here, too.

Equality: every student has the same access to the same basic educational program. Examples would be basic programs such as core courses and textbook allotments.

Equity: the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Special programs allocations and compensatory funds are examples of equity. Our superintendent always points out that equity is not the same as equality. Everyone doesn't get the same thing, but everyone gets what he or she needs.

Adequacy: the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Examples include state minimum salary schedules and legislative attempts to address rising textbook costs.