Finance+Week+3,+Part+1


 * **District Information** || **District 1**  ||  **District 2**  ||
 * Economically Disadvantaged || 93.3%  ||  20.7%  ||
 * Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline || $3,893.75  ||  $4,032.94  ||
 * WADA || $5,555.81  ||  $4,794.07  ||
 * WADA || $5,555.81  ||  $4,794.07  ||
 * WADA || $5,555.81  ||  $4,794.07  ||

District 1 receives more funding due to the greater Hispanic population than in District 2. District 1 has 100% Hispanic students, while District 2 has only 16% Hispanic population. This is significant in terms of funding, as District 1 receives much more funding for Bilingual Education and LEP needs. Additionally, the significant difference in the Economically Disadvantaged population is going to result in a significant difference in WADA.

From Jeff:


 * **Districts ** || **District #1 ** || **District #2 ** ||
 * Economically Disadvantaged || 93.3% || 20.7% ||
 * Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline || $3,893.75 || $4,032.94 ||
 * LEP || 48% || 2% ||
 * Bilingual/ESL || 41% || 2% ||
 * Special Education || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">9% || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">7% ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Career and Technology || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">24% || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">14% ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Vocational Education || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">24% || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">14% ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Gifted and Talented || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">5% || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">4% ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">WADA || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">$5,555.81 || <span style="font-family: 'Adobe Garamond Pro Bold',serif; font-size: 14pt;">$4,794.07 ||

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The WADA is based on the amount of money needed to service special needs programs. In comparing the two districts it is easy to see why District 1 has a larger WADA. It services a larger number of Economically Disadvantaged students, and students who take advantage of higher funded programs. This great discrepancy of more than 70% between the Economically Disadvantage students explains the difference in WADA between the two districts. Also District 1 has a greater number of students in all of their higher funded programs, as compared to District 2.

District 1 ED 93.3%
 * From Marilyn **

District 2: ED 20.7%

Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline:

District 1 = $3893.75

District 2 = $4032.93

Weighted ADA(WADA) for each district

District 1 = $5555.81

District 2 = $4794.07

Position Statement

There is a $139.19 difference in the ADA Adjusted for Decline for District 1: $3893.75 (smaller amount) compared to District 2; $4032.93 (larger amount).

In preview of the snapshot 2009 the special programs student population groups are slightly higher in District 1 than in District 2.

Additionally, District 1 is a perfect example of WADA: The weighted programs include special education, bilingual/ESL, vocational and gifted and talented have higher student population percentages than District 2. District ones student population size fits the Texas formula for students with additional education needs are weighed for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs to educate these students. The weighed student count determines the distrubtion to guarantee yield funding...that's WADA. Therefore, District 1 will receive more funding to support their special programs.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">From Robert **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">District 1 **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Economically Disadvantaged: 93.3%

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Refined ADA for Decline: 3893.754

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">WADA: 5555.815


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">District 2: **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Economically Disadvantaged: 20.7%

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Refined ADA for Decline: 4032.937

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">WADA: 4794.076

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">WADA for district 1 is higher due to its substantially higher number of students who qualify for additional funding. District 1 shows to be 100% Hispanic versus District 2 which is 79% white. It is logical then, that it would likely have a higher level of Bilingual students. This area alone makes up the majority of the additional funding between the two districts. Additionally, it also houses a much larger percentage of students in both CATE and GT (both additional qualifiers for weighted funding). Also, District 1 shows to be 93.3% economically disadvantaged. Chances are that all 7 of its schools qualify for Title 1 monies.