Finance+Week+3,+Part+3,+Group+Paper

**__ Analyzing Conrasts in Two Texas School Districts __** **__ Group Paper __**
 * __ Week 3 5342, Part 3 __**

(Contributed by Scott Nedrow for Group 4) The Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline is 3,893.75 for District 1 and 4,032.94 in District 2. Therefore when WADA is calculated District 1 has a WADA of 5,555.81 and District 2 has a WADA of 4,794.07. Clearly the number of students in special programs in District one has had an impact on WADA. Our government has had to provide more funds to District 1 to enable them to meet the special needs of their students; so their WADA is larger than District 2. This is exactly what WADA was meant to do.

While the enrollments in Districts 1 and 2 are very similar (3903 and 3890), their funding is actually very different. This is largely due to the sources of M&O or Maintenance and Operations funding source. M&O comes directly from the local property tax rate. District 1 has a local tax rate of 1.109 yielding revenue of $36,909,639, while District 2 has a local tax rate of 1.330. In contrast, the total revenue is $49,495,121, which is a difference of approximately $3500 per student.

The snapshots from the two districts are from 2009. There were many changes coming out of legislation in that year. Researching the To The Administrator Addressed letters on the Texas Education Agency’s website, we found that in 2009 changes were made to the following methods: basic allotments, revenue targets, teacher salary allotments, and many other factors. Maintenance and Operations funds many items, namely personnel costs, and the difference in numbers of staff members is significantly different in District 1 to District 2. District 1 has 250 teachers, nurses, librarians, and counselors, but District 2 has 291 of the same types of positions. With this difference, students’ needs can be served at a much smaller teacher to student ratio, for example. This factor alone will contribute greatly to the student achievement.

We learned from the readings that the cap given from the state is 1.50 per $100 of value. It is evident that although District 1 has a much higher WADA since their percentage of economically disadvantaged students is nearly their whole population (93.3%), the funding of WADA failed to make up for the difference since the property value is so much different in District 2. With regard to total revenue per pupil District 1 receives most of their funding from the state, 76% with only 6% of its funding sources being local. District 2, though, has 68% of its revenue from local sources. This also points to the fact that the property in their district is so much more than in District 1. In very general terms, District 1 could be considered a “property poor” district. These were terms we heard quite a bit when referring to the Robin Hood Plan of financing school districts in Texas. The attempt of the school finance system in Texas to equalize resources across all school districts developed out of the lawsuit of Edgewood ISD vs. Kirby.

As defined by TEA, economically disadvantaged students are those who are reported as eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Program, or other public assistance. Students reported with any one of these status codes may or may not be enrolled in a special program such as compensatory or special education. (Source: PEIMS, 110) Comparing the two districts, District 1 has 93.3% of Economically Disadvantaged students and District Two has 20.7% of Economically Disadvantaged students. Reviewing the data for both districts one can conclude that District One has a higher number of students that are economically struggling and it will have a bigger impact on the money received by the district.

There are students with additional needs across our continent; however in Texas, students with additional education needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students known as WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance.) Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. A weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding. (School Funding 101) These weightings determine the relative importance of each quantity on the average. An example of that is when special education students are serviced for a certain amount of time; the district will receive money based on the instructional setting.