Funding and Facilities

Our group agrees that due to the numbers we have seen in the snapshot and also in the summary of finances for the two districts, district 2 is more likely to have the better facilities.  These facilities would be paid for with the higher total that district 2 possesses for paying down bonds/debts.  While district 1 may receive more money from the state, overall district 2 has more money available for facilities due to the local tax base and their I&S collections.  We also all agreed on the fact that the newer building could have a positive impact on the learning environment which in turn would provide a better education for students that would positively impact standardized testing scores.


Jay Cantrell

	District 1	District 2
2010 Local DPV	145,968,635	2,916,187,709
I&S Tax Collections	94,871	8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals	572,716	0
Total	146,636,222	2,925,023,965

The numbers tell the story.  District 2, who receives less money from the state, still has more money available to pay down indebtedness.  The assumption is that district 1 is a lower income community which is backed up by the tax base numbers. 

While looking at the special populations, economically disadvantaged is the one that jumps out at this point.  With 93.7% of the students identified as economically disadvantaged, that also identifies the families.  With such a large portion of the community economically disadvantaged, school facilities are probably not high on the priority list of the community.  I can speak from experience here.  There could be a feeling of, “that was good enough when I was in school” that prevents the community from seeing the true need for improvements to old buildings or building new facilities.  I would venture a guess that district 1 has adequate facilities while district 2 may not have brand new buildings, but they have been better maintained and are most likely newer than those in district 1. 

These new buildings have a way of producing the pride effect – students are proud to be at a school where things are still bright and shiny.  Most likely the technology in district 2 is better than that in district 1 which gives the students in district 2 an advantage in 21^st century learning and the skills needed to compete in the global market.  This will only continue the cycle that I see every day here.  Students tend to have less ambition to get out of town after graduation and often times do not believe that they are capable of making a living outside of this county.  Dress for success can be used for schools as well.  When you consider the facilities are the “dress” of the district, old and run down is not going to give off the same feeling of success that newer, maintained buildings do.

Shawn Clubb

	District 1	District 2
2010 Local District Property Value *DPV)	$145,968,635	$2,916,187,709
I&S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collections	$94,871	$8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) totals	$572,716	$0
Total	$146,636,222	$2,925,023,965

Schools with a lack of adequate funding tend to be made up of students from low-income communities. By looking at the lower tax base, it would appear that District 1 is in a lower income area than District 2.  Although District 1 receives more money from the state they must use this for their daily operations. District 2’s taxes give them more money available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds.

Communities with low-income students usually have more English-language learners, more students with disabilities, and more students on free and reduced-price lunch programs. Because of special programs needed to help these students succeed, they require more money to educate their students. Because of this, the school facilities are most likely put on a back burner and are likely in need of repair. Because of being in lower income communities it would be unlikely that a bond issue would pass to improve the facilities.

Therefore, because of more available funds, students in District 2 would have more learning opportunities. There are more teachers which means lower student teacher ratio and better and newer technology. Because of attending a poor school, students who start out poor tend to stay poor. 

Trevor Edgemon

Examining District Funding and Facilities

                                                                           District 1                                  District 2

 Local District Property Value                          $145,968,635                     $2,916,187,709

 Interest & Sinking Fund Tax Collections                   $94,871                           $8,836,256             

 Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals                                         $572,716                                      $0

 When looking at the above figures you would be fine to say that District 2 has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds. District 2 has a much larger Property Value and their I&S Fund is considerably larger. With this in mind it is much easier for District 2 to provide new and updated facilities as well as maintain existing facilities.  District 1 may have new and updated facilities but this would be more difficult. They will also have difficulty with upkeep and maintenance.  With what has happened in our country it has become more important to provide safe and secure facilities. This is not cheap.  This is due to violence and weather related issues.  Being able to maintain facilities and keep them up to date allows them to provide this environment. With all things in mind I will say that District 2 does probably have the better facilities than District 1 solely on the Property Value and I&S Fund.  I cannot say that District 1’s facilities do not provide a safe and secure environment conducive to learning but I can say that District is able to provide more opportunities. I can say that districts in my area that have this type of funding does have more up to date facilities and able to make changes immediately while other districts need time to plan and come up with the funds.