Week+3+-+School+Finance


 * Part 1 – Texas School Finance: Comparing Two Districts **
 * || ** District 1 ** || ** District 2 ** ||
 * ** Economically Disadvantage ** || 93.3% || 20.7% ||
 * ** Total Refined ADA ** || $ 3,893.754 || $ 4,032.937 ||
 * ** WADA ** || $ 5,555.815 || $ 4,794.076 ||

The obvious higher WADA for District 1 is because of the economically disadvantage student population of 93%. Also, District 1 has a higher percentage of LEP, Special Education, ESL, Career and Technical, and Gifted and Talented. This is an example of the state funding formula’s trying to provide equity based on the needs to the individual students.
 * Position: **

Group 1 agrees with figures.

(5555.815)(5044) (WADA)(WADA @Compressed Rate) || ** $ 34,546,112 ** (4794.076)(7206) (WADA)(WADA@ Compressed Rate) ||
 * Part 2 - **
 * || ** District 1 ** || ** District 2 ** ||
 * ** Revenue per WADA @ **
 * Compressed Rate ** || ** $ 5,044 ** || ** $ 7,206 ** ||
 * ** Total Target Revenue for M&O ** || ** $ 28,023,531 **
 * ** Total Teachers, librarians, nurses & counselors ** || ** 281 ** || ** 307 ** ||

Comment: The calculation for the target revenue is stated in the chart. Additional adjustments are made to the district based on eligible allotments listed in the Summary of Finance. The total teachers, librarians, nurses and counselors are listed in the Summary of Finance. However, when comparing the FTE from the snapshot both districts have the same total teacher FTE, but district 1 has more total staff FTE’s. The percentage difference for educational aides was interested, since educational aides work directly with the students. District 1 has 6% for 37 FTE’s for educational aides and District 2 has 10% for 56 FTE’s for educational aides. District 1 has greater challenges, more total staff, and few educational aides.

Group 1 agrees with figures.

-


 * Part 3 **

As described in the School Finance Glossary presented at the beginning of this course WADA is intended to weight students based on educational need and bring in additional funding to help offset the additional costs for the programs to provide the education needed by these students. In the examples given, the two districts are comparable in student counts and faculty sizes. It is obvious that District 1 is certainly the "neediest" of the two districts based on the high Economic Disadvantage numbers. However, when all is said and done the districts do not receive comparable funding at all with District 2 bringing in over $6.5million dollars more in revenue.

There are 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 and is about the same as was locally collected. 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.

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. Of course this makes for a great argument for the unfairness of the system “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”. 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?

In addition, the difference between the districts is seen in the number of teachers and support staff is available. District 1 has fewer support staff for the 100% Hispanic population that is 93% economically disadvantaged. District 2 does not face the same challenges as District. 1. Another noticeable factor is the difference in the average salaries for teacher, professional support and administrative salaries. More competitive salaries are needed for students with the most needs.

The CEI, as I understand it from my discussion with my superintendent, 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.

I confess that I do not understand the complexity nor 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 two collected a total of $44,715,365 and was assigned $29,955,930 while district 1collected $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.


 * Part 5 **


 * || District 1 || District 2 ||
 * 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV) || 145,968,635 || 2,916,187,709 ||
 * I & S Tax Collections || 94,871 || 8,836,256 ||
 * Ch.46 (EDA) totals || 572,716 || 0 ||

District 1 has a considerable lower I&S than District 2. Also District is receiving the existing debt allotment. This would indicate the facilities for District 1 would be considerable less favorable than District 2. The local district property is another indicates that District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantage population.

Group 1 agrees with figures.

---
 * Part 6 **

** Compensatory Education Allotment from Summary of Finance **

District 1 District 2

Compensatory Education Allotment 3,835,006 633,369

Calculations from TEA School Finance Material

District 1 $5,427 (AA) x .2 x 3,641 (SCE) = $3,951,941

District 2 $5,321 (AA) x .2 x 805 (SCE) = $856,681

The Compensatory Education Allotment definition from School Funding 101 is “provides additional financial support to school districts to teach educationally disadvantage pupils and underachieving student…” This allotment is based on students in the federal free or reduced price lunch program. District 1 has 93% economically disadvantage, whereas, District 1 has 21%. However, the state assessments show a discrepancy in student performance regardless of this allotment.

Group 1 agrees with figures.