EDLD+5342+Wk+3

Week 3, Assignment 1 Economically Disadvantage: District 1: 93.3% District 2: 20.7%

Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline District 1: 3,893.754 District 2: 4,032.937

Weighted ADA (WADA) District 1: 5,555.815 District 2: 4,794.076

Because District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged, along with high percentages of other special populations, their cost for educating these students is higher than District 2 which has lower percentages of special populations. To help offset the added expense of educating these students, they receive a higher WADA than District 2.

Week 3, Assignment 2

Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate District 1: $5,044 District 2: $7,206

Calculate the Total Target Revenue (I did this by calculating the above amounts with the WADA from Assignment 1 – not sure that is correct – Early & Richard, do you know?) District 1: $28,023,530.86 District 2: $34,546,111.66

Number of Teachers, Librarians, Nurses & Counselors District 1: 281 District 2: 307

Week 3, Assignment 3
The Financial Tale of Two Districts The state of Texas has been faced with an enormous challenge of trying to provide financial equity among all districts in the state. They have faced several lawsuits in which poor school districts claimed they were not given a fair amount of funding as compared to richer districts. The more wealthy districts countered this, as in the case of West Orange-Cove v. Neeley, that the state had in effect created a state property tax through the “Robin Hood Plan.” In their efforts to address the court decisions, as well as to meet the needs of all of the districts in the state, the legislators have created a very complex school finance system. It is through this complex district that “The Financial Tale of Two Districts” has developed. Through these changes, the state has developed the Foundation School Program which consists of formulas and calculations in an attempt to provide equity to the school districts of Texas. Through this funding system, the state attempts to adjust the school’s basic allotment based on the specifics of the district. The characteristics include the district’s size, sparsity, property value decline, ADA decline, and the number of students who fall into special populations. These special adjustments components include compensatory education, special education, bilingual education, career and technical education, gifted and talented education, and public grants. There are additional allotments that are also added to adjust the Tier 1 funding. The purpose of these adjustments is to balance the funding between districts as well as to provide additional funding to districts with high-needs students. These students typically require greater assistance, materials and equipment. They also require a smaller teacher-student ratio. The cost of educating these students is significantly larger that for the general population. Far too often, however, many of these special populations attend poorer districts, and these districts have a double burden in meeting the needs of these students. Through the special provisions of recent legislation, districts are given greater assistance for these special needs students. Referred to as WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance), calculations are made through a special template that accounts for these special populations. It is through the WADA that the special programs allocations to the districts are determined. It is through this system that districts with high numbers of special needs students are able to provide an equitable education for their special needs students – or are they? While this system sounds great and wonderful on the surface, the examination of our two districts in this week’s assignment shows that the system is not all it is cracked up to be. District 1 in our assignment is a district of high poverty – 93% Economically Disadvantaged. In addition, they have a large population of Limited English Proficient students – 48%. They also have a large dropout rate, and low passing rates on their state assessments. This school has some major issues that require increased funding to meet the needs of all students. In contrast to this, however, District 2 in our assignment has a low percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students – 20.7%. They have very few Limited English Proficient students (2%) and a relatively low special education population (7%). The passing rate on state assessments is excellent in all subject areas, and rates are even fairly high in all subpopulations. Their cost in educating students is considerably lower than District 1 because the needs of their students are not as severe. Through the use of the state’s tiered financial system, funds from the state are adjusted for these two districts in accordance to their populations. With adjustments, District 1 does actually have a higher WADA than District 2. Consequently, the system works – right? Well, not exactly. Because District 2 apparently is in a much wealthier area, property values are much higher. The small amount gained through WADA pales greatly against the much larger amount in property taxes which District 2 receives. While the Total M & O Tax Collections for District 1 is $1,369,340, District 2 has Total M & O Tax levy of $35,879,109. This is a difference of $34,509,769. With such a large difference in property taxes, the adjustments made through WADA can do little to equate these two districts. As a result, District 2 has much more money for M&O expenses than does District 1. To put this in perspective, the M & O funds per student in Dsitrict 1 is $8,898. The M & O funds per student in District 2 is $ 351. The difference per student based on M & O funds is $8,574, WOW! The targeted revenue for M & O that we calculated for part two of this week's assignment does actually close the gap between the two districts, but not completely. Closing the gap and meeting the need are the topic of this discussion. District 1's new ratio of M & O funds per student is $7,198. District 2's new ratio of M & O funds per student is $8,353. There new difference is $1,155 per student between the two districts. The issue facing District 2 is how to meet greater student need with less than equitable funding. As a result, District 1 has to cut and scrape to meet minimal requirements while District 2 is able to enhance and provide enriched learning opportunities to their students. The current funding algorithm does attempt to approach equality. However, is equality the solution? One would think that based on the two ISD examples provided a more appropriate solution would have the funding amounts reversed. All Texas ISD's are charged with providing equal opportuinites to all students. So how then are all districts supposed to accomplish this when per student funding amounts are all different? How would equal per student funding amounts allow districts with different needs to provide adequate educational learning opportunities to all students? A positive of the current system is that the attempt to adequatley fund all ISD's is noble. The negative is that the attempt is still far short of meeting the need.

Week 3, Assignment 5 Determine the 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV), the I & S Tax Collections, and the Chapter 46 (EDA) totals, determine which district has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds, prepare a group conclusion on the possible condition of facilities in both districts and the potential impact on student learning,


 * || 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  ||
 * Chapter 46 (EDA) totals || $572,716  ||  $0  ||

District 2 definitely has a greater amount of revenue through local property taxes. This would seems to imply that they probably have better facilities since they have greater funds available. Its I & S Tax Collections are considerably higher ($,836,256 versus $94,871). Since these funds can be used to pay for facilities, this larger amount of revenue could certainly indicate newer facilities. The Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) for District 1 is higher ($572,716 versus $0). These finds are provided to assist school districts in making debt service payments on qualifying debt. I am assuming this debt could include the building of new facilities which could indicate they have completed construction in the not-too-distant past. With my limited understanding of these funds, I would be inclined to predict District 2 had nicer facilities since they have more revenue overall. Regarding the quality of education for students in new versus older facilities, I’m not as fast to make an assumption. Initially, you want to say that new facilities motivate the students to want to perform better. You certainly could argue that the newer facilities probably have better equipped classrooms, especially science and computer labs. Also, technology in the classrooms is probably of better quality. These factors certainly would contribute to student learning. However, I have seen districts with nice facilities, but low scores on state assessments. Conversely, I have seen districts with old facilities that perform better on state assessments. The bottom line is that it is the quality of the instruction (which relates to the quality of the teachers) that makes the difference – not the facilities. The quality of the facilities, however, can attract better teachers and also motivate students toward higher performance.

Week 3, Assignment 6
 * __Compensatory Education Allotment__**

District 1: $3,835,006 District 2: $633,369

District 1 receives a larger allotment for Compensatory Education due to the high percentage of Economically Disadvantaged since funds are based on the number of students the federal free or reduced lunch program. These funds will assist District 1 is the higher expense of educating these high-needs students. It will allow the district to hire more staff to assist these students. It could also allow the district to purchase instructional materials and/or computer programs to assist struggling students. With such program/materials and increased staffing, at-risk students can make greater gains toward closing the achievement gaps.