Week+3-Comparing+and+Analyzing+District+Data

**Week Three Assignment, Part 1 – Texas School Finance: Developing a Position Paper after Comparing and Analyzing District Data** Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) is a figure that weights educational funding based on the number of students in school districts with additional educational needs. The figure is included as part of the finance system in recognition of the additional funding needed to educate students who have certain needs or are involved in certain educational programs. Funding is weighted based on the number of students in the following classifications: compensatory education, special education, career and technology education, bilingual/ESL education, and gifted and talented.
 * ||< **District 1** ||< **District 2** ||
 * Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline ||< 3,893.754 ||< 4,032.937 ||
 * Economically Disadvantaged || 93.3% || 20.7% ||
 * Special Education ||< 9% ||< 7% ||
 * Career and Technology ||< 24% ||< 14% ||
 * Bilingual/ESL ||< 41% ||< 2% ||
 * Gifted and Talented ||< 5% ||< 4% ||
 * Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) || 5,555.815 || 4,794.076 ||
 * Position Statement: **

In comparing the data from the two Texas districts, District One has a higher total refined average daily attendance than District Two, but District two has a higher percentage of students who are classified as economically disavantaged, special education, career and technology, bilingual/ESL, and gifted and talented (see the table above). The higher percentage of students in each of these categories has resulted in the greater WADA for District One as compared to District Two. The greater WADA for District Two is a result of the greater number of students who have more needs. [|Week_3_District_1_Summary_of_Finance_10-11.pdf] [|Week_3_District_2_Summary_of_Finance_10-11.pdf]

Visuals and the SOFs were certainly nice. We did not do this on ours, but it appears as if everyone else might have. JFey

**Part 2 – Analyzing School Finance Issues in Two Texas Districts **

 * || **District 1** || **District 2** ||
 * WADA@Compressed Rate || $5,044 || $7,206 ||
 * Total Target Revenue for the M&O Fund || $28,023,530.86 || $34,546,111.65 ||
 * Total Number of Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors || 281 || 307 ||

The Texas Legislature revised the school finance system in 2006 in an effort to reduce the burden on tax payers and restructure the school finance system. Target Revenue was created in order to make sure that Texas school districts did not lose funding as a result of the change in the system. The purpose of target revenue was to ensure that districts did not receive less funding than during the 2005-2006 school year. This measure became known as the hold harmless provision of the law (Funding Texas Public Schools The Target Revenue Approach, Texas Association of School Boards, 2010, Page 2).

In order to calculate the target revenue for the Maintenance and Operations Fund of the two districts you must multiply the WADA by the WADA@Compressed Rate: WADA x WADA@Compressed Rate = Total Target Revenue

A district's WADA is calculated by first subtracting from a district's Tier I entitlement any transportation funding the district is due, any funding the district is due for new instructional facilities, the district's TxVSN allotment, the district's high school allotment, and 50 percent of the CEI adjustment. The resulting amount is then divided by the district's basic allotment amount to arrive at a district's WADA.

When I first started this assignment I was trying to engage my mind in this process for part 1 of this assignment. I kept getting rerouted! Nice work. Jey

Part 3 – Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas School Districts and Developing a Paper addressing these contrasts
The public education system in Texas is made up of 1,047 independent school districts that are extremely diverse. Districts differ in the amount of funding provided, geographic size, property wealth, number of students served, quality of facilities, as well as the characteristics of the students. School finance in the state is a complex system that has implemented measures that attempt to balance all of the variables that occur between districts. Weighted Average Daily Attendance and Targeted Revenue are two measures that were created as part of the system to provide appropriate funding, but analysis of the data from the two districts under review during this week's assignment shows that WADA falls short of providing equity after target revenue is factored into the system.

First examination of the two districts under review reveals that the districts are similar in size, but the diversity is apparent when you look at the data more closely. District One consists of a student population that is 100% Hispanic and 93.3% economically disadvantaged while District Two consists of students that are 79% white, 16% Hispanic, and 1% other. There are also less economically disadvantaged students in District Two at 20.7% compared to 93.3% in District One. The data reveals that District One has a higher percentage of students who are special education, bilingual/ESL, career and technical education, as well as gifted and talented. Although District One has a higher total refined average daily attendance adjusted for decline, the higher percentage of students classified in these groups resulted in District One have a higher weighted average daily attendance (WADA).

 The finance system in Texas has implemented the WADA measure in order to provide additional funding for students who have additional educational needs. Therefore, you would expect District One to have greater overall funding for maintenance and operations within the district, more teachers, nurses, counselors, and librarians, and better facilities. Further examination of the data provided for the two districts reveals that this is not the case. The system falls short in its attempts to provide equity in funding.

The main reason for the inequity in funding is the formulas that are used for determining funding are based on property value and not on the percentage of economically disadvantaged or population of special programs. Although these districts are similar in size, they are no where close to one another in local district property value (DPV). District One has a total DPV of $145,968,635.00, where District Two has a DPV of $2,916,187,709.00. District 2 is generating more than $2000 dollars different per child solely on tax base. In addition, both schools are taking advantage of the "golden penny" rule; however, the two cents that district 2 is worth more than the four cents of District One based on the value of the tax base. (This money is not subject to recapture by the state.) The additional weight that the state provides for economically disadvantaged children is not enough to outweigh the disparity caused in the differences in the tax base. This is why target revenue is inequitable.

When looking at the programs that are funded under M & O, the comparisons of the districts are pretty equal in all areas except for the Compensatory Education Alottment. District Two receives $3,835,006.00. District Two receives $633,369.00. Even with the differences in this category, the formulas used to determining a district's funding are not equitable when they are based on the property value in a district. The impact on programs funded under maintenance and operations is obvious. District One would have less funds for teacher salaries, instructional supplies and programs, professional development, and maintenance of grounds and facilities. Students in District One would not have equal access to instructional programs, field trips, extracurricular and cocurricular activities, and access to technology. The impact would make it difficult to provide the same quality of education in District One as compared to District Two.

Very similar to our post. JF

Part 5 – Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas School Districts ability to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds

 * =  || District 1 ||= District 2 ||
 * = DPV ||> $145,968,635 ||> $2,916,187,709 ||
 * = I & S ||> <span style="font-family: 'Arial Rounded MT Bold','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">$94,871 ||> <span style="font-family: 'Arial Rounded MT Bold','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">$8,836,256 ||
 * = <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Ch. 46 (EDA) ||> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">$572,716 ||= <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">$0 ||

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 140%;">In comparing the amount of funding available through the DPV, the I & S Tax Collections, and the Chapter 46 totals, District 2 has a much more healthy balance to administer debt and school facility bonds. With this disparity in the ability to pay on debt and create school bond funding, one could assume that District 1’s facilities are not of the same caliber as District 2. The difference alone in the amount District 2 ($29,161,877.09) could make with a one cent bond, as compared to District 1 ($1,459,686.35), is staggering.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 140%;">One could also assume that there could be an equitable difference in the technology available per student, as well as issues with the ancillary facilities that go along with a school building (i.e. playgrounds, gyms, sports fields, tennis courts, transportation, etc.). A newer school does not always correlate to better scores and more learning occurring in the classroom. Curriculum and instruction should be the driving force in a school district’s classrooms; however, if a school is dealing with inadequate or antiquated buildings while trying to keep up with the current trends in education and technology, there will be a lag in some of the students’ educational processes. It also takes more funds to maintain older facilities. A district with older facilities must make decisions about whether to channel needed money from the instructional budget to maintain their facilities.

Part 6 - ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">﻿ Examining Compensatory Education Allotment in Texas School Districts **

Using the formula provided in the School 101 resource the Compensatory Education Allotment is determined by taking the adjusted allotment and multiplying by 0.2 and then multiplying that product by the state compensatory enrollment.

District #1 reports 93.3% of its 3,903 students are economically disadvantaged for a total of 3,641 students. Compensatory funds received by District #1 are approximately 2.7 million. District #2 reports 20.7% of its 3,890 students are economically disadvantaged for a total of 805 students. Compensatory funds received by District #2 are approximately half a million.

The goal of state compensatory education (SCE) is to reduce any disparity in performance on assessment instruments administered under Subchapter B, Chapter 39 TEC or disparity in the rates of high school completion between students at risk of dropping out of school and all other LEA students (TEC Section 29.081.)

SCE is defined in law as programs and/or services designed to supplement the regular education program for students identified as at risk of dropping out of school. The purpose is to increase the academic achievement and reduce the drop-out rate of these students. As a goal, the SCE program seeks to provide a challenging and meaningful instructional program to close the achievement gap between children at risk of dropping out of school and their peers.

When faced with the question of whether certain positions, programs, strategies or activities may possibly be funded with SCE dollars, the district must keep in mind that purpose of the SCE program is to improve student performance through direct instructional services to students at risk of dropping out of school. The farther removed services are from the students, the more the resources are diluted and the more difficult it becomes for the school or school district to defend and evaluate the use of the SCE funds and justify the effectiveness of the program in improving student performance. All expenditures using SCE funds must be reasonable and necessary.

While District #1 will receive substantially more money than District #2 they are also faced with considerably more challenges in educating their student population. Students of lower socio-economic status usually require specific, targeted interventions to overcome a number of gaps in both their education and life experiences. The SCE funds can be used to reduce class sizes and thereby increase teacher to student interactions, purchase additional resources and enable districts to provide students educational experiences through real life experiences and tutorial programs.

I'm not sure if I am supposed to comment here on on the discussion, but I picked here :) Awesome job at analyzing and bring things together. Sheri H.

Everything sounds right and looks good. Good concluding paragraph in part 6. Nice charts throughout. Julissa

Great job by all of Group 2 that contributed!!! I appreciate all of the collaboration. Laurie and Debbie, Nice work! -Lee

Outstanding Group 2! I can see all of the hours of work put into this effort just by your responses! Norma

Hey, Group 2!! Your group obviously shared a great deal of information. Loved your explanations for each piece. They were thorough, detailed and provided helpful explanation. Well done! Becky

Group 2 the three of you did a great job.- Carlos

Group 2 great work and nice to have in one location where we can see it all!