Analyzing Contrasts

In trying to put this assignment together, we saw several similarities in the method each of us chose.  That is not a surprise since we are using the same data.  To start with we each have the data tables showing the district WADA and the special populations that have an impact on the WADA formula.  Those special populations include Economically Disadvantaged, Special Education, LEP, Bi-Lingual/ESL, CATE and GT.  The two districts may be similar in size, but their special programs make-up is very different in most of the areas.  Where they are similar is the Special Education and GT numbers.  Trevor pointed out the following in his observations:  
There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.
After reading this portion, I also saw a correlation between the two GT Allotments with district 1 spending $126,272 and district 2 allotted $128,756.  This is correlation between the two exists due to the fact that those two percentages were similar.

Moving on, we each also added the formula for calculating the M&O fund and figured the totals for each district.  This is a significant portion of the question regarding the analyzation of the two districts.  This is where the biggest gap exists in the school finances.  With fewer students and a lower WADA, district 2 still has 6.5 million more in the M&O fund than district 1.  Each of us pointed out the fact that the differences in the tax base accounted for this disparity between the two districts.  Shawn pointed out, "The difference in these two amounts are due to the tax base in each district. Property values in District 2 are much higher and bring in more tax money for District 2. Therefore, while the state does send more money to District 1, District 2 gets more money from taxes."

In discussing the impact this 6.5 million could have on the districts, it lead us to look at the standardized test scores which is the basis for school accountability.  District 2 outperformed district 1 in every category.  How and why does this happen?  In my opinion, "In district 1, the larger of the two districts, there are 26 fewer teachers than in district 2 – 281 to 307.  Those extra professional staff members help alleviate overcrowding in the classrooms and allow for more one on one attention.  They could account for more individualized graduation plans with different tracks being available to students with varied interests."  


Jay Cantrell

The Weighted Average Daily Attendance was intended to provide more money and professionals working directly with students.  In working with the figures of district 1 and district 2, we have found that intent does not always result in reality.  On paper it would appear that two very similar districts exist going strictly by the enrollment.  Both schools have 7 campuses that house 3,903 students in district 1 and 3,890 students in district 2.  Those unfamiliar with school finance would probably assume that each district was financially the same as well.  They could not be further from the truth.

In the first look at the numbers, we find the first differences in the two district.  The refined ADA for district 1 sits at 3,893.754 and district 2 comes in at 4,032.937.  At this point a newcomer to the school finance system would probably say that district 2 will get more money based off of this figure.  They would then have to take into account the WEIGHTED ADA, or WADA, for each district.  In the WADA the special populations are weighted more heavily to help in providing extra resources and professional staff.  The following weights would have to be applied to both school’s finance formula.

	District 1	Students Served	District 2	Students Served
District Student Population	3,903		3, 890
Total Refined ADA	3,893.754		4,032.937
Weighted ADA (WADA)	5,555.815		4,794.076
Economically Disadvantaged	93.7%	3657	20.7%	805
Special Education	9%	351	7%	272
LEP	48%	1873	2%	78
BiLingual/ESL	41%	1600	2%	78
CATE	24%	937	14%	545
GT	5%	195	4%	156

With the different category weight applied in WADA, anyone looking at the numbers would see that district 1 actually receives a little under $800 more per student.  This is what the state intended when the weighted formula was applied.  This extra funding would help school districts in trying to educate the special populations.  Unfortunately, that is not the end of the budget analysis.

When the WADA for both districts is used to determine the M&O budget, most people would assume that the larger WADA would result in a larger M&O fund.  That is not always the case and is not the case with district 1 and 2.  In order to calculate the M&O fund, the following formula is used:

 WADA X Revenue Per WADA @ Compressed Rate

When we plug in the figures for both schools, the difference in the two districts becomes very apparent.

	District 1	District 2
A.  Revenue Per WADA @Compressed Rate	5,044	7,206
B.  WADA	5,555.815	4,794.076
M&O Fund – A*B	28,023,530.86	34,546,111.66
Teachers/Librarians/Counselors	281	307

The revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate results in 6.5 million more dollars for district 2 to use in providing for the education of its students.  My initial reaction is that the state formula is not working, it is not providing what was intended.  But, that is not due to the WADA formula, but rather the formula used to calculate the M&O fund.  How is it that a district with 13 fewer students AND lower percentages within the special populations is able to realize a 6.5 million dollar higher M&O fund?

To answer that question we must look into another set of numbers.  These numbers include the M&O rate.  For district 1, the M&O rate for 2010 is 1.1089.  For district 2 in 2010, the M&O rate is 1.0601.  Another slap in the face to district 1 as they have a higher rate for taxation and realize less money in the long run.  Looking at the snapshot data, district 1 has an Adjusted State Certified Property Value of  $141,705,076.  On the other hand, district 2 has an Adjusted State Certified Property Value of  $2,995,592,970.  That difference accounts for the disparity in the total revenue of $36,909, 639 which equals out to $9,811 per pupil total revenue for district 1.  When you compare that to district 2, it is a staggering difference.  District 2 has a total revenue of $49,495,121 which results in a total revenue per pupil of $13,373.  Finally, the taxable value per pupil shows another huge difference.  District 1 has a taxable value per pupil of $35,016 compared to the district 2 value of $866,227.   How could anyone look at this information and feel that district 1’s students were receiving the same education as district 2?

The answer to that question is that they are not receiving the same education when the information used for school accountability is examined.  Look at the following results of the standardized testing.

Percentage of Students Passing – ALL Grades

	District 1	District 2
All Tests Taken	61	89
Reading/ELA	81	97
Writing	91	97
Mathematics	76	94
Science	68	91
Social Studies	87	96
Economically Disadvantaged	61	81
SAT Average Total Score	800	1007
ACT Average Composite Score	16.3	22.1

Are students in district 2 genetically that much smarter than district 1?  I would assume the answer to that question would be no.  I would assume that both student populations have a very similar achievement score when it comes to intelligence.  So what accounts for the difference?  Could it be the money that allows for more teachers to be hired?  In district 1, the larger of the two districts, there are 26 fewer teachers than in district 2 – 281 to 307.  Those extra professional staff members help alleviate overcrowding in the classrooms and allow for more one on one attention.  They could account for more individualized graduation plans with different tracks being available to students with varied interests. 

Shawn Clubb

WADA is used in Texas to weigh the education needs of students and provide additional funds to districts with students that have certain special needs. According to the glossary these weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education.

In looking at District 1 and District 2 and their percentages of economically disadvantaged students, I feel that WADA failed to accomplish its goal.

District 1

2. Total Number of Schools 7

------------- STUDENTS -------------

3. Total Students 3,903

8. % Economically Disadvantaged 93.3

9. % LEP 48

10. % Special Education 9

11. % Bilingual/ESL Education 41

12. % Career & Technical Education 24

13. % Gifted & Talented Education 5

14. Attendance Rate (2007-08) 97.0

District 2

2. Total Number of Schools 7

------------- STUDENTS -------------

3. Total Students 3,890

8. % Economically Disadvantaged 20.7

9. % LEP 2

10. % Special Education 7

11. % Bilingual/ESL Education 2

12. % Career & Technical Education 14

13. % Gifted & Talented Education 4

14. Attendance Rate (2007-08) 96.0

Because of more students in special programs it would stand to reason that District 1 would have more teachers and receive more money. However they have more than 20 teachers less than District 2 along with less money.

The difference in these two amounts are due to the tax base in each district. Property values in District 2 are much higher and bring in more tax money for District 2. Therefore, while the state does send more money to District 1, District 2 gets more money from taxes.

According to the state all children should have an equal chance at learning. However because of the difference of money District 1 doesn’t have the same chance at educating their students as District 2 has. With less money District 1 has more students that need extra programs with fewer teachers to teach these programs. Since teacher salary is lower than that of District 2 they may have a harder time hiring and retaining experienced teachers.

 I’m not sure there is a way to make sure all students have an equal chance at learning. Although I don’t feel it is fair for some districts to have an advantage over others because of money I also don’t feel that tax money should be taken away from these districts. Because of less money, District 1 must find creative ways of spending the money they do get and providing the best education possible for their students. 

Trevor Edgemon

The Foundation School Program (FSP) is comprised of a system of formulas for determining the state and local funding and consists of two tiers.  Tier 1 provides the process for funding for the basic allotment.  Tier 2 outlines the process by which the guaranteed yield system provides equal access to revenue to support and accredited school program.  

Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) is used to measure the student participation in special programs. The intent of the WADA is to provide more money and professionals to work with student in district that have students with specific needs.  Dr. Stephens explained that WADA is based on the number of students attending the school district and the type of students attending the school district.  Dr. Stephens described this when she explained the weighted funding associated with economically disadvantaged students.  Other examples of WADA weighted programs include:   special education, Career and Technology Education, bilingual, gifted and talented and compensatory education.  Recognizing that students with special needs require additional funding in order provide services, WADA provides funding to insure that the additional costs needed to educate students with special needs is met.  However, when looking at the data samples from two districts given in the Week 3 assignment, it is clear that the intent of WADA has not been met.  A comparison of the two districts with regard to these weighted programs is as follows:

Programs Affecting WADA

District #1  District #2

Economically Disadvantaged  93.3%  20.7%

LEP  48%              2%

Special Ed  9%  7%

Bilingual  41%  2%

Vocational Education                         24%         14%

G/T 5%            4%

TOTAL REFINED ADA ADJUSTED FOR

DECLINE  $3,893.75  $4,032.98

WADA  $5,555.82  $4,704.08

WADA calculation is a component of FSP Tier 1.  WADA exists to provide a process to convert all of a school district’s students with their different weights to a calculated number of regular students required to raise the same amount of Tier I revenue.  The greater the number of students eligible for special entitlements, the greater a school district’s WADA.   An equalization feature of the funding formula was created in Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code (TEC) Chapter 41 put a cap on wealth per WADA, established an equalized wealth level for the school year, and gave districts above this level several methods to either reduce wealth or increase ADA in order to achieve the equalized wealth level

The largest difference in the WADA weighted programs is in their Economically Disadvantaged populations. The information provided for this assignment shows that District #1 has 93.3% economically disadvantaged while District #2 has only 20.7% economically disadvantaged. This should have a significant impact on WADA; however, this is not the case.  After reviewing the snapshots and summary of finances and comparing the percentage of economically disadvantaged students to the number of professional working with economically disadvantaged students, District 1 has 26 fewer professional staff than District 2.  This is the inverse of what one would expect to find.  District #1 also has significantly larger populations in LEP, Bilingual, and Vocational Education. Although they also have larger Special Education and Gifted and Talented populations, these percentages are only slightly higher. Even though District #1 has a smaller Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline as compared to District #2, their WADA is higher than District #2.

In regards to funding, District 1 has a smaller ADA but a larger WADA. receives more funding from the state, District 1 has a larger number of economically disadvantaged students, minority students, LEP students, Special Education students, Bilingual students, CTE students, and GT students. District 1 receives more funding due to the WADA.  Examples include: Compensatory Education Allotment:  District 1 $3, 835, 006 compared to District 2 $633,369.  In addition, District 1 receives Chapter 46 funds and District 2 do not.  

In regards to property values, District 2 has more available funding.  The target revenues compare as follows:  District 1 $28, 023, 530 compared to District 2 $34, 546, 111.  District 2 uses its additional $6. 5 million to provide additional teachers and professional staff.  District 1 has 281 while District 2 has 307.  This discrepancy is further showcased in the assessment data from the snapshot data.  TAKS All Tests Taken:  District 1 61% passing and District 2 89% passing.  This difference exists in all subject areas and grade levels tested and when analyzing the SAT and ACT test statistics.

When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O you find many differences between the 2 districts and many similarities. Regular program allotment in both districts are right around 20 million. Knowing that both districts have nearly the exact same enrollment this is a positive relationship between the districts. There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.

Lastly, neither school district shows funding allocated to the following:  Instructional Facilities Allotment, Virtual School Allotment, and Public Education Grant.  

Upon review of each of the districts' basic statistics, there exists the potential for both are positive and negative impacts on their programs.  The table below outlines these.

District 1 would realize a positive impact if there would be an increase in property values or an increase in student enrollment.  This could result in additional revenue that would provide increased M & O funding.   However, if property values diminished in District 1 the result could result in a dependence on the WADA , state and federal allotments to finance the school operations.   District 2 seems to be the stronger of the two with regard to finances.  They have a surplus of money provided through their compressed WADA funding to provide adequate supplies, material and staff.  However, if a budget was adopted that was based on increases that were not realized this would have a negative impact on the district.  Examples include:  1) Forecasting a growth in student attendance when in actuality a decline occurs or a decrease in property values.  Both scenarios could result in the district needing to use its fund balance for the day to day operation of the district.