Connecting with Parents of Students with Disabilities Before School Begins

                                        

Connecting with Parents of Students with Disabilities Before School Begins

It is important to establish a positive home-school connection with parents of students with disabilities before school begins.  Parents will be able to provide valuable information  about how the student's disability manifests itself in the child's behavior and daily activities.  Parents can also provide suggestions for effective strategies and practical accommodations that have worked for their child at home or in other school settings.

Before the school year begins general and special education teachers should:

• Plan a meeting for the parents to visit the classroom.  This can help proactively pin point any environmental concerns and allow time to brainstorm solutions before the student arrives for classes.
• Have honest and open conversations related to establishing realistic expectations for the school year.
• Work through apprehensions and defensiveness by being consistent and open to suggestions.  Some families may have had negative experiences with other schools or teachers in the past.
• Conversations should focus on individual characteristics of the student highlighting and identifying areas of strengths and uniqueness along with areas of challenge.
• Align and embed a home-school communication system to use throughout the school year.  Communication needs to be frequent, efficient, and easy to use for both the teacher and the parent.  
• Obtain input from siblings and other family members.  They may give age-appropriate suggestions or may be able to give specific social information from a peer's perspective.
• Invite parents to participate in different ways such as volunteering or doing an awareness presentation to classmates and school personnel.

Adapted from Region 13 Autism for General Education Teacher's Worksho

Part 6 – Examining Compensatory Education Allotment in Texas School Districts

DISTRICT 1: $3,835,006

DISTRICT 2: $633,369

 

According to Region XI, State Compensatory Education are programs and services designed to supplement the regular education program for students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school. Program goals are to (1) increase the academic achievement on state assessments and (2) reduce the dropout rate of students who have been identified using state and/or local criteria. State compensatory education funds must be used to provide support programs and/or services that supplement the regular education program so that students at risk of dropping out of school can succeed in school. Since District 1 has 93.3% ED students as compared to 20.7% in District 2, District 1 receives significantly more funding in from this source.  We have come to see that District 2 is the wealthier district; therefore, they receive less funding in the category of Compensatory Education Allotment.  This is another way the state funding attempts to provide additional resources for special needs students.  This allocation is in addition to the base target revenue but it comes with a number of restrictions on how it can be used.  This ensures that the money is not used for facility upgrades or other non-instructional purposes.  This funding must be used for the direct support of at-risk students either through personnel, materials, or programs.  District 1 should be able to supplement their current district’s curriculum by purchasing specialized reading and math programs or materials and providing computer assisted instruction.  If facility space is available, the district should be able to hire additional staff to reduce class sizes.  Funds should also be allocated for intensive specialized instruction such as TAKS remediation, extended day programs, and accelerated instruction.

Part 5 – Examining District Funding and Facilities

	District Example 1	District Example 2
2010 Local District Property Value	$145,968,635	$2,916,187,709
I & S Tax Collections	$94,871	$8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) totals	$572,716	$0
Which has the most funds available?		X

 

In comparing the available funds of District 1 and District 2, District 2 has more funds available for Maintenance and Operations.  The money in I&S is used for this purpose and is generated based on specialized local taxes.  District 1 has very little money in the I&S collections and; therefore, needs help from the state through Chapter 46.  District 2 with nearly $9 million from I&S would be expected to have newer/updated facilities. It is true that the most valuable educational resources are our teachers and provide the greatest impact and inspiration, but the physical environment also plays an important role as well.  The Superintendents of both districts should strive to ensure safety for all students and provide curriculum and instruction opportunities that afford their students 21^st century learning.  

Part 3 – Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas School Districts

Funding for public schools in Texas comes from property taxes, state funds, and federal funds. The majority of funding comes from local property taxes and state funding. The purpose of weighting the funding (WADA) is to ensure that all school districts, regardless of property wealth, receive equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort.   Although the districts are similar in size, District 1 has more bilingual (D1=41%, D2=2%) and special education (D1=9%, D2=7%) students. District 1 also has more economically disadvantaged students than District 2 (D1=93.3%, D2=20.7%).   

These two districts are perfect examples of why the current funding system does not accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.  These two districts have very similar numbers of students, however the students in District 1 have a higher percentage of special needs that require additional instructional support.  The WADA is designed to provide this district additional funding to address those needs, and it does.  Even though District 2 has a higher ADA, meaning more of their students actually come to school, District 1 has a higher WADA because the students who are coming to school have greater needs.  When looking just at the WADA, the system seems to work.  However, it is when these two district are compared in total revenue that the problem becomes evident.  

To determine the base amount of money a district receives, the state uses a “revenue per WADA” rate.  This rate is set for each district but is not consistent across districts.  Between these two districts, there is a $2,162 difference in the per WADA rate. Across the state, these revenue amounts range in average from $2,500 to over $12,000 per WADA.   Even though the total number of students in these two districts only differs by 13 students, the lower revenue per WADA rate for District 1 significantly reduces the total base revenue.  Even with an additional 761 WADA, District 1 generates $6,522,581 less than District 2.  As a result, these two districts have exactly the same number of total teacher FTEs (265).   So the intention of the WADA to provide more money and staff to address the higher needs of the students in District 1 does not bring about additional services to those students when compared to District 2.

There are other obvious differences between districts 1 and 2 with each significantly impacting the distribution of funds.  District 2 could be considered property wealthy and district 1 property poor.  The CEI or cost of education index is slightly higher in district 1 than in 2.  The local fund assignment for district 1 has little impact on tier funding when subtracted. The local fund assignment for district 2 basically eliminates tier funding and is considerably less than what was locally collected.  Finally, district 1 has more students receiving special services than District 2.  These are significant marks when considering the formulas for all sources of funding.

It appears that district 2 has a large amount of industry and/or greater personal property wealth when considering their $2,995,592,970 state adjusted property value as opposed to district 1’s $141,705,076 valuation.  This is the argument used by past legislators in an attempt to create the “Robin Hood” act for state funding issues.  The factors discussed next help to explain how this occurs but may continue to be argued as unfair.  How do we provide equity in education for all children without an unfair system that takes from wealthier tax bases?  The idea of additional revenue generated by an income tax, state gambling revenues, etc…has been mentioned as possibilities.

    The CEI is a number set to adjust for the cost of delivering an adequate education in a particular area.  From our discussion it seems that political influence may be the main contributor to the number established.  It would seem, though, that district 2 would have a higher CEI if this were the case.

    There is a tremendous complexity in the application of formulas used for creating the final allotment but the local fund assignment seems to create a large gap and penalize district 2.  District 2 collected a total of $44,715,365 and was assigned $29,955,930 while district 1 collected $1,464,211 and was assigned $1,417,051.  The effect of tier I, II, and III monies greatly benefited district 1.  The higher number of students receiving special services certainly enhanced district 1’s allotment while providing little to benefit district 2.

All of the above factors contribute to the differences in WADA allocations but do little to satisfy either side in the debate over school finance. This is a difficult and complicated process that requires much time and energy to adequately address the issue of school finance.

Funding for Texas's public schools comes from property taxes, state funds, and federal funds. The majority of funding comes from local property taxes, which are collected by school districts, and state funding. M&O and WADA funds are meant to ensure that all school districts, regardless of property wealth, receive equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort.   Although the districts are similar in size, District 1 has more bilingual (D1=41%, D2=2%) and special education (D1=9%, D2=7%) students. District 1 also has more economically disadvantaged students than District 2 (D1=93.3%, D2=20.7%).   When keeping in mind the definition of WADA and the purpose of the M&O funds, one would assume that District 1 would receive more funding however a weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding.   Funding is based on property value instead of the number of students requiring more support to be educated so District 2 is receiving more funds.

When comparing the two districts, District 1 meets the criteria for more Title 1 funds because it has more students requiring special services.  On the other hand, District 2 meets the criteria for more funding when taking into the consideration of the compressed tax rate and M&O allotments including salary allotments for teaching staff.

 Because District 1 receives less funding, it has a higher teacher-student ratio.  I would assume that because of the high bilingual and economic disadvantaged population, high teacher-student ratio, and limited funds for resources, District 1’s school ratings would be lower than District 2.  Lower school ratings do not attract home buyers in the area so District 1 will also have a difficult time raising the necessary amount of revenue based on property tax.

Week Three Assignment, Part 2 – Analyzing School Finance Issues in Two Texas Districts

	District 1 Example	District 2 Example
Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate	$5,044	$7,206
Total target revenue for M&O	3903 x $5555.82 = $21,684,365.46 See note below $5,044 x 5555,815 = $28,023,530	3890 x $4794.08 = $18,648,971.20 See note below $7,206 x 4,794.76 = $34,546,111
Total teachers, librarians, nurses and counselors	281	307

A district’s revenue at the compressed rate is the sum of the state’s share of a district’s Tier I entitlement and the revenue from the district’s (compressed) M&O tax rate, adjusted for minimum or maximum hold harmless provisions.  Adjustments are made each year to reflect the current year’s allotment.  Once a base allotment is determined, adjustments for current year teacher, librarian, counselors, and nurses salary allotments are made.  Once Tier I entitlements and the district’s M&O rates are calculated, they are compared to the minimum and maximum revenue hold harmless levels.  Depending on the dollar amount, the district will receive a difference in funding, get to keep all of its revenue, or have its funding reduced.  District 2 receives more funding because they have more staff receiving the minimum salaries and receive additional allotments for each.  Current formulas for funding do not allow for equal access to academic success. The districts above have the same tax rate, and approximately the same numbers of students but differ greatly in property values and funding.  

This is a great example of how complicated public school funding can be.  It is interesting to see how two districts with almost equal numbers of students differ so greatly. The relevant argument is that district 1 should receive more money but one could also argue that when considering the total M&O collections (1:$1,369,340 and 2:$35,879,109) district 2 is being penalized by the state for its wealth.  That is an argument of fairness and not of equity.  There is sufficient evidence to support the reorganization of state funding allotments where public education is concerned.

Week Three Assignment, Part 1 – Texas School Finance: Developing a Position Paper after Comparing and Analyzing District Snapshots

	District 1 Example	District 2 Example
% Eco Dis	93.3	20.7
Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline	3893.75	4032.94
Weighted ADA (WADA)	5555.82	4794.08

 

 

 

 

 

Group: According to the School Funding 101 Glossary, students in Texas with additional educational needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students.  Weighted programs include special education (D1=9%, D2=7%), vocational (D1=24%, D2=14%), bilingual (D1=41%, D2=2%) gifted and talented (D1=5%, D2=4%), and compensatory education. District 1 has a higher percentage of the specialized groups that generate weighted funding - special education, bilingual/ESL, and Career & Technical Education - than District 2. Each student in those programs provide additional funding for WADA. When those weighted students are included in the calculations, they result in an increased total WADA. These factors create a stronger representation of “need-based” financing considerations as opposed to those represented in district #2.

I enjoyed this portion of the assignment because it helped me to better understand the vocabulary that we are currently learning.  It also helped me to look at and compare data between two districts and determine why a discrepancy exists.  This is not a task that could have just been lectured on.  As a Superintendent, I am going to be responsible for comparing my district’s snapshot data to neighboring districts and districts in the area that are comparable of size.  This assignment helped me to understand what areas to look at and compare.

Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

As I studied this resource guide, I once again realized that understanding finance and budgeting is a key to the success of a superintendent.  Although there are several guides available to assist with understanding the process, the TEA Budgeting Guidelines January 2010 continues to be used as a reference by many superintendents. 

The TEA Budgeting Guidelines January states that a budget is the product of the planning process and explains the importance of the budget in the evaluation of allocation and use of resources.  As I reviewed the information on line-item budgeting, performance budgeting, program and planning budgeting, zero-base budgeting and site-based budgeting I realized that I had minimal knowledge of the types of budgeting programs.   The document states that Line-Item budgeting is the most widely utilized approach to budgeting.  Chief executives base their expenditure requests upon historical expenditure and revenue data.  Budget requests are submitted and broken down into three categories (salaries and wages, supplies, utilities, and equipment).   The chief executive officer compiles all the requests and submits a summary request to the school board and the board reviews and approves the request or suggests revisions to the request.  In performance budgeting, expenditures are based upon standard cost inputs multiplied by the number of units of an activity to be provided in that period. This strict approach to budgeting is useful to some of the district’s operations but not all because many operations require a more liberal performance approach.  Zero-Base Budgeting is one of the newest form of budgeting approaches.  The budget is prepared by dividing all of the operations into decision units. Then funds are allocated as a package. The purpose of Zero-Base Budgeting is to eliminate outdated efforts and expenditures and concentration of resources where they are most effective.  Site-Based budgeting is the form of budgeting that I am most familiar with. This process grants budgeting authority to principals at each campus to control a share of the budgeting process. This type budgeting is used along with one or more of previously mentioned types so that district-wide needs are also considered.

The remainder of the manual includes information on legal requirements that focus on local, state and TEA requirements, annual budgetary responsibilities and guidelines that provide roles, responsibilities and help in preparation of a budgeting calendar. The most important information I take from these sections is that to remain legal and consult the manual whenever necessary.  This will assist me in ensuring that I fully understand the processes of planning, implementing, and evaluating a budget.  Although I do not feel as though I can successfully implement a goal driven budget at this point, I am more aware of the steps needed to ensure that the budgeting process is aligned with campus and district goals.