Week Three Assignment

Week 3 – Part 1

	District1	District2
Econ. DisAdv.	93.3%	20.7%
Refined ADA	$3,893.754	$4,032.937
Weighted WADA	$5,555.815	$4,794.076

The district with larger WADA has the smaller ADA because they are servicing more students with greater needs as indicated by the number of students in special programs and that are receiving free or reduced lunch.  While both districts have about the same number of students the needs of the students in District 1 are far greater based on at-risk criteria and other demographic numbers.

Week 3- Part 2

	District1	District2
WADA Compressed Rate	$5,044	$7,206
Revenue M&O Fund	$28,023,530	$34,546,111
Teacher/Libr.,Nurses, Counselors	281	307

The amount money for the M&O Fund is calculated by multiplying the Compressed WADA by Weighted WADA.  As noted previously District 1 should have more revenue than District 2, but because of local revenue they have more M&O funding.

Week 3 – Part 3

WADA

After comparing both districts it becomes very clear why we studied in previous weeks the definitions of equality, equity, and adequacy. All of these are guarantees set forth by the Texas constitution more than 100 years ago and their definitions are still challenged in the courtroom when it comes to Texas school finance. The goal of WADA (weighted average daily attendance) is to provide more professionals and funding for districts that are property-poor by utilizing a formula that considers all sources of revenue for a district. Not only does this equation take into account the number of students in attendance, but it also looks at the type of students that are being serviced. The more students that are involved in specials programs such as gift and talented, bilingual, vocational, compensatory, and special education the more funding a district will need to provide a free and appropriate education for these students. The establishment of WADA was to provide equity among all students in the state of Texas regardless of what district they are in, but the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth best sum up the system, “fair is foul and foul is fair.” This week we are charged with comparing two districts and reviewing their snapshots and summaries of finance to look for correlations between revenue and demographics. This understanding will help us in determining funding for our future districts and begin to scratch the surface of the mystery of Texas school finance. With the combinations of areas of funding and the impending deeper budget cuts it stands to reason that our current knowledge of Texas school finance will change with the tides.

Differences

District 1 is similar to a district that we studied before, Edgewood ISD. They receive very little funding from tax revenue but have a high number of students that are being serviced in special programs. They are 100 % Hispanic and therefore have a large number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students and a large bilingual program. It costs almost double to educate a child in both English and Spanish and without funding a district could not provide these programs. This district is also 93.3 % economically disadvantaged. This number directly correlates to the reason why there is a low amount of property taxes collected in District 1. This community most likely suffers from the effects of poverty. In an article published in Instructional Leader (May 2012) Eric Jenson discuses the effects of poverty on the brain. He describes how the brains of students who live in poverty are affected and how schools can address these gaps. This research is part of the driving force behind everyone’s favorite No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and is why the state monitors the data so carefully of children who are economically disadvantaged. Districts that have a higher number of students who are on free or reduced lunch receive more funding from the state for implementing programs to address the needs of this subgroup or in the case of some districts this majority.

In comparison, District 2 is a property-rich district. They receive less revenue from the state because they generate so much total target revenue locally. While both of these of these districts have about the same student-teacher ratio, District 2 has more professional staff. Even though the goal of WADA was to give District 1 this advantage, inadvertently District 2 has come out on top. District 2 does not have near the subgroups that District 1 has nor the amount of students in specials programs while District 1 is expected just to do more with less.

Positive Impact

The positive impact for District 1 is that without WADA they would not be receiving very much funding beyond local funds and ADA.  Clearly District 2 has many positive financial impacts from local revenue to WADA and ADA. 

Negative Impact

District 1 has many more student needs for funding than District 2.  I would wager that District 2 will have better accountability ratings than District 1 and can afford more educational opportunities for their students.  The inequity between the two districts is fierce and this battle is commonplace in districts across Texas.

Week 3 – Part 4

We are a property-poor district and therefore receive more state and federal funding than local monies.  We scrape every penny we can from every allotment and our expenditures prove that.  This year our goal has been to make sure that we are receiving all funding possible from ADA, compensatory, and the transportation allotments.  We have developed a better system for making sure that we are identifying both at-risk and economically disadvantaged students.  We have devoted personnel to Medicaid billing to maximize our return.  We calculated that we are losing about $50,000 annually by not billing for this.  We are also looking into better investments and making sure that our money is working for us.