School Finance Issues

Our groups calculations on the M&O Fund were all the same.  We did have a discrepancy in the number of teachers/librarians/counselors.  Looking at the two different resources, Shawn and I used the district snapshots for our figures while Trevor used the district summary of finances.  We all agreed that the situation does not seem fair to district 1.  As Shawn stated, the state sends more money to the schools with a higher WADA, but district 1 has more students in special programs but receives less money and has fewer teachers to make the situation work.  I also agree with Trevor who stated that many districts are searching for loopholes to keep money at home.  This is in the best interest of their students but hampers the state's ability to provide equity and equality for all students across the state.

Jay Cantrell

	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

While district 1 has a higher WADA, the revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate is higher for District 2.  This allows district 2 to actually have a higher M&O Fund even though the state had tried to provide district 1 with more money due to the special program percentages.  Looking at the number of staff members, it appears that district 2 is able to provide more staff members for its district due to the higher M&O fund.  Both schools have a similar enrollment figure, but district 2 has a staff that is made up of 26 more teachers/librarians/counselors.  Looking more closely at the staff numbers, district 1 has a less experienced staff as well.  District 2 has 22.6% of its teachers with five years or less experience while that number is significantly higher at district 1 who has 39.2% of its teachers with fiver years or less experience.  The average years of experience for district 1 is 10.7 compared to 13.1 for district 2.  This experience factored into the education of the students could produce a better education.  Also, district 2 has a higher level of staff with an advanced degree at 23.1% while district 1 only has 18.2% with an advanced degree.  Again, this could impact the quality of education provided to the students of the two districts.  Why the discrepancy in the two districts?  An approximate $7,000 difference in the average salary of its teachers with district 1 at $46,755 compared to district 2 at $53,328.  These salaries are a contributing factor to the experience levels and advanced degree figures for both schools.  While I do see adequacy in this situation, which basically means that the school is able to meet the minimal level of needs of its students, I do not see equality or equity either one.  Due to the lower tax values of a community, the students and the school suffer the consequences.

Shawn Clubb

	District 1	District 2
Revenue Per WADA @ Compressed Rate	$5044	$7206
Total Revenue for M&O	$28,023,530.9	$34,546,111.70
Total Number of Teachers, Librarians, Nurses and Counselors	281	307

 Total Revenue for M&O

District 1- $5044 x 5555.815 = 28023530
District 2- $7206 x 4794.076 = 34546111

Although the two districts have about the same number of students, the revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate is much different. Because District 2 has higher property values their revenue is higher.

I’m not sure how this is fair. The state sends more money to schools that have a higher WADA. However District 1 has more students in special programs, receives less money and has fewer teachers.

Trevor Edgemon

District 1                                 District 2

Rev./WADA Compressed Rate    $5044                                     $7206

Total Target Rev. for M&O           $28,023,530.86                      $34,546,111.66

Teachers                                       265                                         265

Other Prof. Staff                            50                                           33

The districts above have the same tax rate, and approximately the same number of students but differs greatly in property values and funding.  It is easy to claim that district 1 should receive more money but one could also claim that when considering the total M&O collections (1:$1,369,340 and 2:$35,879,109) that district 2 is being penalized by the state for its wealth.  But that is an argument of fairness and not of equity.  If we truly value education then we must equally put our money where it is most needed.  Many times school districts are like accountants and they try and play the system to keep as much money in the district as possible.  I understand they try and use any loophole just like we do in our own finances.  Ultimately we see a district with more needs and they only receive slightly more funds.  Working with several districts that have these diverse needs, we know that it is more difficult to raise the standards of education.