South Dakota State University
College of Education and Human Sciences

EDAD 730: School Finance 2.0 Sem Hours

Summer 2011

(all activities and the exact schedule are subject to modification)

Online at

P. Allen Whitlatch, Ed.D., Associate Professor
Teaching Learning & Leadership Department
Box 507, Wenona 212
Office Phone: 688-4377
E-mail: and (within D2L only
Summer Office Hours –by appointment only

Course Syllabus

COURSE DESCRIPTION

From the catalog: “Develop an understanding and working knowledge of school finance theory and practice. Emphasis will be placed on the school finance reform movement in recent years” This course will cover the background, structure, and operation of public school finance, including roles of federal, state, and local government. The Constructivist Educational Philosophy will provide structure as we examine the emerging educational issues related to students and taxpayer equity, program adequacy, local control, cases before the courts, charter schools, home schooling, open enrollment, and union contract negotiation and administration will be major points considered. In addition, special emphasis will be given to South Dakota Codified Law and the current funding mechanism used in South Dakota.

Prerequisites: No course prerequisites, but must have access to online service and computer that can access D2L.

RATIONALE

The purpose of this course is to stimulate the thinking of teachers and practicing administrators on how to finance education adequately and equitably. The development of school finance theory and practice will be traced from the early period of complete local school funding through various other plans, to present-day alternatives that involve greater equality of educational opportunity for students and greater equity for taxpayers.

PHILOSOPHY

Reflective leaders are skilled educators whose practices and decisions draw upon the best available theory, research, experimental wisdom, experiential learnings and previously constructed knowledge. Reflective decision making engages administrators in cycles of thought and action based on theoretical and professional knowledge.

TEXTBOOK

Brimley, V., & Garfield, R. R. (2008). Financing Education: in a climate of change Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 10th Edition ISBN -13 978-0-205-51179-2

Important Web Sites

South Dakota Codified Law:

School Administrators of South Dakota:

SD Department of Education:

NW Regional Educational Library on School Finance:

Allyn and Bacon:

COURSE OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of this course, students will:

Understand the various components of the South Dakota state aid distribution formula and Compare and Contrast the SD state aid distribution formula with other state formulas Support the concept that education is regarded as an investment in human capital. Identify factors that impact adequate funding for education. Construct a funding model that reveals appropriate distribution and expending of available revenues. Define local, state, and federal roles in funding education and compare and contrast the roles of local, state and federal institutions in funding education. Compare and contrast through discussion the impact of various court decisions on long term finance reform in education.

  • Be familiar with the options that choice is having in many states.
  • Be aware of the need for increasing the amount the state contributes toward financing school construction and remodeling.
  • Understand the importance of personnel administration as a vital aspect of public school finance.
  • Comprehend the need for progress in the reformation of school finance in the future.

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND ACTIVITIES

In keeping with a constructivist view of education, teaching strategies used will include:

  • PowerPoint Presentations
  • Online Discussion postings
  • Individual presentations
  • Readings/Journals
  • individual investigation and other methods which build on the students' prior knowledge.
  • This course is not a do it at your own pace, but rather a structured course with a weekly schedule for activities and you must log in at least weekly over the 8 week period.

EVALUATION

Item / %
Participation in discussion postings as required / 20%
Questions about chapter readings / 20%
Collateral readings (4 individual) / 20%
Individual Project PowerPoint Presentation / 20%
Final Exam / 20%

Completion of the above tasks does not guarantee meeting the grade requirements for the course. All work completed for the course requirements must reflect thorough and qualitative work. The instructor will share the responsibility of informing the student when his/her work is not qualitatively acceptable.

Assignments will be given with specific due dates. These dates are given for various reasons and should be followed. Late work will be accepted but marked as late and the grade will be affected.

AcademicHonestyPolicy
South DakotaStateUniversity has taken a strong and clear stand regarding academic dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism. The consequences of academic dishonesty range from disciplinary probation to expulsion. The full policies are found in Chapter 1 of the Student Code (01:10:25:01 - 01:10:25:04) within the Student Policy Manual. A student charged with academic dishonesty who wishes to appeal that charge may follow the Appeals Procedure outlined in Chapter 2 of the Student Policy Manual (Academic Appeals and Classroom Standards) or contact the Vice President for Academic Affairs, SAD 230, (650)688-4173).
There are links to explanations and examples of plagiarism at

ADA Statement:
This course acknowledges the importance of ADA requirements. Any student who feels s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact the Coordinator of Disability Services privately to discuss your specific needs. Please contact the Office of Disability Services at 605/688-4504 (Voice) or 605/688-4394 (TTD), or at the office in Wintrode, Room 123 to coordinate reasonable accommodations for students with documented disabilities. For more information please see SDSU's Office of Disability Services

Freedom in Learning
Under Board of Regents and University policy student academic performance may be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards. Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled. Student who believe that an academic evaluation reflects prejudiced or capricious consideration of student opinions or conduct unrelated to academic standards should first contact the instructor of the course to initiate a review of the evaluation. If the student remains unsatisfied, the student may contact the department head and/ or dean of the college which offers the class to initiate a review of the evaluation.

Course Requirements

  1. Each student is expected to actively contribute to class online discussions and group
  2. Each student is expected to read all assigned readings from the textbook and supplemental materials posted.
  3. Each student is expected to complete four reports/ abstracts on periodical readings dealing directly with some aspect of public school finance. The collateral readings model format is later in this syllabus. These reports are due on the posted schedule.
  4. Each student will be expected to do a project/presentation. This project will include a written synopsis of the project as well as a 20 minute presentation/activity. A.The presentation should include research material (at least three sources),
  5. All written work containing citations/references will utilize APA Format
  6. Each student will complete a final exam (take home) which will be due as listed on the posted schedule.

REQUIREDFORMAT FOR COLLATERAL READINGS

Topic: Board Role Jane Doe June 16, 2006

Citation: Campbell, D. W., & Greene, D. (1994). Defining the leadership role of school boards in the 21 st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 391-395.

Summary/Abstract: (approximately 250 words)

Despite a 200-year history of using local boards of education to govern schools, a board’s governing role is hazy and lacking specificity. Campbell and Greene describe the role of the boards as establishing a vision, maintaining organizational structure, ensuring accountability, and advocating for children. These are the four roles endorsed by the National School Boards Association in their vision statement adopted in 1992.

Campbell, executive director of the California School Boards Association and chairperson of the task force, developed the vision statement, includes in the article a lengthy and revealing quote from Maureen diMarco, secretary of child development and education for the state of California.

The California School Boards Association is now engaged in a two-year project to define each of the four roles further. The definition will serve as the basis of a curriculum for training board members and will represent the consensus of representatives from all over the country.

The role of boards is only part of the picture, according to Campbell. In crisis intervention, the California School Boards Association has discovered that how boards conduct their business is as critical as the actions they take. Phase two of the project will address guidelines for how boards should act.

The NSBA project being undertaken by the California School Boards Association further defines the four roles of board members into seven behaviors. These include creating a vision and climate for excellence, superintendent appointment and evaluation, budget adoption and accountability, curriculum development and program accountability, governance and policy, collective bargaining, and advocacy.

Reaction:

This article gives role definition to board members and would be an effective tool to use with a new board member or for orientation of the whole board. NSBA is using a representative approach that will have tremendous influence and will influence education far into the future.

PARTIAL LIST OF QUALITY JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS ON SCHOOL FINANCE

  • American Educational Research Journal
  • American School Board Journal
  • Education Digest
  • Education Week
  • Educational Administration Quarterly
  • Educational Research Service
  • Executive Educator
  • Journal of Education Administration
  • Journal of Education Finance
  • Nation’s Schools
  • Phi Delta Kappan
  • School Administrator
  • School Business Affairs

WEB SITES FOR COURT CASES MENTIONED IN CLASS

  • Agostini v. Felton:
  • Brown v. Board of Education:
  • Burruss v. Wilkerson:
  • Nordlinger v. Hahn:
  • Serrano v. Priest:
  • Coalition for Equitable School Funding v. State of Oregon:
  • EdgewoodIndependentSchool District v. Kirby:
  • Everson v. Board of Education:
  • McInnis v. Ogilvie:
  • Joel Village School Distict et al. v. Louis Grumet and Albert W. Hawk:
  • Jones v. ClearCreekIndependentSchool District:
  • Rose v. Council for Better Education:
  • Lee v. Wiseman:
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman:
  • Meek v. Pittenger:
  • Mitchell v Helms:
  • Abbott v Burke:
  • Robinson v. Cahill:
  • Oregon v. Hass:
  • San AntonioIndependentSchool District v. Rodriquez:
  • Sloan v. Lemon:
  • Tilton v. Richardson:
  • Vincent v. Voight:
  • Wolman v. Walter: