Part+3+Week+3-5342


 * __ Week 3 5342 Part 3 __**

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.

From Rob:

The assignment calls for differences within the districts, and positive and negative impacts on programs. Before discussing the differences, I would like to comment on impacts. If one is asking, I am of the opinion that there is no INTENTIONAL negative impact by the current system (no harm intended). My biggest concern and complaint is that it simply does not do enough. One might not compare it to a glass being half full or half empty, but simply to being “too big a glass.” The intent and impact is all positive. It’s just simply not enough. The current system does not have the capability to close the educational gap. In many cases it simply still matters where you live as to the quality of education you will receive.

I think some of the resource headings got switched around. I believe District 1 is actually the snapshot district that should have the highest WADA at $5555.82 due to the high number of LEP, SPED, and Bilingual students. Even so, District 2 ultimately ended up with more staff members (especially teachers). Interestingly, although through weighted funding the target revenue per WADA was more than indicated was needed, District 1 still chose less teachers in the long run. Other costs such as transportation may have offset their ability. The number of students is near identical in both districts. Although more students are at-risk in District 1, their CATE numbers are almost double indicating recognition of a need to go to work directly after high school (my interpretation).

Local tax revenue is the main issue. The state attempts to offset disparities with WADA. The intent is well-placed but not enough. The tax base in District 2 is close to 3 Billion dollars versus 146 million in District 1. The margin is far too great in this particular case for WADA to even touch. Thus, although all indications are that it only costs about $4800 per year to teach a student in District 2, they actually receive close to $8000. The difference between districts leaves the students in District 1 behind more than $3000 per student. HUGE. The system doesn’t work. Although money is never the “end-all-beat-all”, it likely does play an important factor in providing for better opportunities for students in District 2. These sums of money play important roles in the ancillary things that may make a difference in a student’s educational experience. Just a few examples include **lower teacher/student ratios**, increased technology, newer and better-maintained facilities, state-of-the-art equipment, etc., etc. Again, money can never be assumed to be the defining factor in a student’s education. But without having any further information on these two districts, I believe it is safe to assume that a student from District 2 will have the advantage.

It seems as though District 1 will ultimately have to use compensatory funding to help meet even basic educational programming needs considering its lack of tax base. In other words, the funding aid from the state (nearly 30 Million) will go primarily to meet everyday expenses. In this respect, it does not “compensate” or supplement as was intended. One of the things it does ultimately have going for it is the likelihood of title monies for all campuses due to the high percentage of economically disadvantaged students.

On our 2009 snapshot there was indication that each of the two schools had 265 teachers each. District 1 ultimately had a significantly higher staffing number. In fact, it had 10% more employees. This is indicative of high numbers of paraprofessionals who were likely hired as instructional aides. Ultimately, the WADA money didn’t seem to be used to bring teacher/student ratios down from a professional standpoint (as it was intended). The 2010-11 summary shows an even wider disparity between the districts as far as professional numbers are concerned. District 1 showed 285, while District 2 showed 307. This was inclusive of librarians, counselors, and nurses as well. The reality is that classroom numbers did not lower. As a result, the likelihood of increased academic success was probably minimized.

Again, at a cursory glance, the districts will look similar as far as size is concerned. In reality, they are very different academically as well. Despite minimal compensatory funding, District 2 leads the way in overall TAKS scoring, a higher graduation rate, and higher ACT/SAT scores. Interestingly, District 1 has a much higher percentage of students taking college entrance exams. This could be for a number of different reasons. The reality is that I doubt District 1 actually puts more emphasis on college readiness that District 2. So, I am going to venture a guess that a portion of Title money or some other fund is being used to pay for the exams in order to encourage students to look at further education. This could actually play a factor in their average scores being a full 200 points below District 2’s on the SAT. The percent tested in District 1 is SUBSTANTIALLY higher at 73% versus 53% for the other.

Sadly, there is another major M & O program that is difficult to counterbalance. The lion’s share of district budgets are generally dedicated to salary. When comparing the two, although teacher turnover is similar and average years of experience are not far apart between the two, salaries are. If fact, there is a $6500/year gap between the two with District 2 prevailing. Had these two districts sat side by side, it would be difficult for District 1 to compete. Again, we don’t have much indication of specifically where each is, but if compares apples to apples, District 2 would have clear advantage.

In summation, all this points to a system that makes efforts at equity, but comes up short. And unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should be aware of lawsuit after lawsuit that is being filed by districts across the state. It is my sincere hope that through all this, we can finally find a way to provide every child in Texas with the same opportunity (school-wise anyway) to achieve success in life. I believe it is one of the fundamental principles on which both our nation and our state are based upon.