ED5342+Week+3

__ ** Part 1: ** __ Analyze District Snapshots:  · Determine the percentage of **economically disadvantaged** students for each district  o District 1: **93.3 %** o District 2: **20.7**  · Determine the Total **Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline** for each district  o District 1: 97 %, **TRADA AD 3,893** o District 2: 96%, **TRADA AD 4,032**  · Determine the **Weighted ADA (WADA)** for each district  o (WADA: mentioned in lecture is based on the number of students attending the district and they type of students attending the school district o District 1: 97% of 3,903 **WADA 5, 555**  § SE 9% § CTE 24% § B/ESL 41% § GT 5% <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o District 2: 96% of **3,890 WADA** **4794** <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 99pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 11pt;">§ <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">SE 7% <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 11pt;">§ <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">CTE 14% <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 11pt;">§ <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">B/ESL 14% <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 11pt;">§ <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">GT 4% Calculations as determined by the following publication that can be found at: <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; url(http: //www.wikispaces.com/i/a.gif); background-origin: initial; background-position: 100% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; padding-right: 10px;">[]
 * Wiki Group 2 Week 3, which can also be found on jfey's wiki **
 * __ Why does the district with the smaller ADA has the larger WADA? Position Statement from Wiki Group 2: __**

<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt;">The calculation of WADA is determined by a formula that provides additional funding to students involved in special education programs spanning from special education, ESL/bilingual to Gifted and Talented. There is a difference in monies received in District 1, as that district has a large percentage of their student population funding from state compensatory funds coupled with a higher percentage of student population falling into additionally funded programs such as special education and career and technology. The WADA was created to provide additional funding for students who have more needs and according to the snapshot data we analyzed, District one has a much needier student body, resulting in the larger allocation. District one has a lower ADA allotment than district two, but this is a result of __.

==<span style="font-size: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">****__Part 2-__ **__Analyzing School Finance Issues in Two Texas Distric__**ts**** == <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt;">Analyze District Snapshot: <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · Determine the revenue per WADA@Compressed Rate <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o District 1: 5,558 o District 2: 7,206 <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · ** 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 **** (See School Finance 101) **

· Using the WADA figures from Part 1 above, calculate the total target revenue for the M & O – Maintenance & Operations Fund for each district (the figure is not included in the Snapshots) <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o District 1: 28,023 o District 2: 34,546
 * There is a significant different between the two districts because of: **
 * 1) <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">** local property values of both districts (you must consider Equalized Wealth Levels) **
 * 2) <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">** higher revenue per WADA at a compressed rate, Target Revenue. **

<span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> · Identify the total number of teachers, librarians, nurses & counselors in each district. <span style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o District 1: 281 o District 2: 307
 * It would appear that the district with more needs would have the ability to have more resources. However, in this sense it does not and it could be for various reasons: **
 * <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">** Allocations spent from local monies to alternative programs that are not socio economically defined **
 * <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">** Campus level decisions, etc **
 * <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"> **Not using goal driven budgeting guidelines, not analyzing data to drive decisions**

==<span style="font-size: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">**__**Part 3- Analyzing WADA Contrasts in Two School Districts**__** ==

The state of Texas has worked hard to equalize funding since the 1800’s and to date still is working to ensure all students have access to a great education regardless of where they live, their wealth or lack thereof, and ultimately that they are successful. Numerous funding formulas have been presented and used in Texas to accomplish this and at the present attendance is tied to how much each district receives, as well as the type of students they have and the property values and tax base are all integral parts of the funding puzzle. Weighted average daily attendance (WADA) is one of the primary sources of funding that each district receives from the state. In the two districts snapshots we were presented with this week, we could see that though they were similar in size, they had very distinct demographics, thus very diverse needs. Having a high percentage of at-risk students, where almost half are identified as limited English proficient, has a tremendous impact on student performance. Therefore, the funding this district receives should be a lot higher than the first district we analyzed this week. The amount that each district receives is based on what is reported through PEIMS. The purpose of the WADA was to equalize funding, to level the playing field for the different school districts. The WADA allocated to District 1 is reported as $7,206, while District 2 reportedly receives $5,044 per student. While both districts are small districts with under 4,000 students each, district 1 is 100% Hispanic and 93% at-risk. Forty eight percent or 1,908 students have been identified as limited English proficient (LEP) and 9% are in the special education program. In comparison district 2 is 79% white, with only 20% labeled at-risk. Only 2% are LEP and 7% special ed. Therefore, it makes sense that district 1 receives more funding based on WADA. This extra money should be used to help with more diverse or specific needs, which would hold them back from learning in a regular classroom environment. When you compare what funding is allocated for WADA compared to the refined ADA there seems to be a disconnect. District one has a higher attendance rate, yet they only receive $3,893 per student, compared to District 2 receiving $4,032 per pupil. WADA was created to equalize access to funding,

Programs funded under M&O is listed as funding under Tier 1, both seems similar in funding due to their size. The main difference is the funding given to each for compensatory education. District one receives $3,835,006, while district 2 receives $633,369. The other difference would be that of the allocation for bilingual funding. District one receives $834,084, while district 2 receives $46,192.Both of these allotments are meant to help the district with the higher number of at-risk students hire more teachers, counselors and additional resources to help those students most in need be successful. This formula makes sense as district one does face many obstacles district two could not even begin to imagine.

What then happens when we look at the M&O fund for each district? The Maintenance and Operation (M&O) budget includes the largest percentage of program funds(Week 3 lecture, pg 1). It is considered the base of the local budget and is comprised of local taxes and state revenue. District 1 receives $1,234,863 in M&O at a compressed rate, while District 2 has $33,845,023. There is a huge difference in the amounts each receives. Why? M&O funding is based on property values and target revenue. District one is considered a property poor district, while in comparison District two property values are much better, thus leading to more revenue being generated. They may charge the same tax rate- even at a compressed rate, but when district one’s property values (DPV) is only $145,968,635 and district 2 is at $2,916,187,709, there is no way district one can even compete. The difference in money they have in their local budget is not even comparable. Therefore, our group concludes that as long as property values are the basis for tax collection and the basis for school funding, inequities will always exists and the dream for all children to have equal access will continue to be just that, a dream.

==<span style="font-size: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">**__**Part 4--Reviewing and analyzing the M & O Fund for Galena Park ISD:**__** == In Galena Park ISD, the current M&O fund is $63,055,599 at a compressed rate for 2010-11. We serve 21,409 students on the east side of Houston within Region 4. Of those we serve, 74% are Hispanic. 77% are considered economically disadvantaged and 9% are label special education. Thirty percent of our students are enrolled in our CATE program, which yields an allotment of $7,968,877 that is included in the M&O. The main funding is from our current tax rate of $1.61. Our weighted WADA is $27,876.648, with an allotment per child of $5256 of revenue WADA at a compressed rate. Our local DPV is $5,811,599,885 and our I&S tax collections for 2010 are $15,491,753. We receive $18,402,825 in compensatory education funds, and $ 2,987,227 in bilingual/ESL funds. <span style="font-family: Calibri; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 5pt;">After meeting with our district CFO and looking at our summary of finance, it is apparent that the majority of the M&O funding is used to pay for personnel, approximately 80%. We have a very health fund band of $21,272,266. Our growth has been stable for the last three years, but what is noted is the number of Hispanic families continues to grow in Galena Park. With Hispanic families comes a growth in LEP students and this is something we have been addressing each year. When analyzing our spending compared to our allocations, it can be seen consideration of data and reference to our snapshot is considered when the budget is written. With over a quarter of our students being ESL students, and of that quarter more than half of that group are also labeled Special ed, a great deal of money has been set aside for training in these areas to help teachers meet their needs. After reviewing the summary of finance and the snap shot for this year as well as last year, it is clear that there is a balance between the amount allocated and the source of the funds.

==<span style="font-size: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">****__Part 5--Examining District Funding and Facilities__**** ==
 * || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">District 1 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">District 2 ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">Local District Property Value || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$145,968,635 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$2,916,187,709 ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collections || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$72,640 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$7,391,775 ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">Chapter 46 (EDA) Existing Debt Allotment Totals || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$572,716 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">$0 ||

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">District 2 has more funds available to make payments on existing debts/school facility bonds. Due to the higher property values in District 2, the M&O and I&S collections are higher than District 1. In fact, as the numbers in the table illustrate, District 1 is receiving additional allocations from the state (EDA funds) to assist with maintenance of existing facilities. District 2 does not qualify for the EDA allotment due to the funds that are collected for I & S.

In conclusion, the group is able to recognize that District 2 would likely have facilities that are newer, well maintained, and updated. When you compare approximately $72,000 in I & S collections to District 2’s $7,391,775, it is easy to see that District 2 has more money to work with. As a result, the condition of the facilities will directly impact student learning. When students have access to buildings that are new and well maintained, they are able to build a sense of pride and commitment to their schools. Students who are intrinsically motivated through a strong sense of school pride will be more likely to out-perform students who are forced to endure less than favorable conditions. Additionally, District 2 will likely be able to offer more advanced facilities for science labs, technology labs, and athletic facilities. District 2’s students will obviously have state of the art facilities which will give them an advantage when it comes to learning. District 2 appears to be a property rich district where funds are available to ensure that students have adequate facilities to promote student learning.

==<span style="font-size: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">**__**Part 6- Examining Comp Ed Allotment in Texas Public School districts:**__** == <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">Using the compensatory education allotment formula is the School 101 resource; several numbers must be obtained to determine the compensatory education allotment for each district. The AA (adjusted allotment), student enrollment, and percentage of economically disadvantaged are required for the formula. The compensatory education formula was used, which is AA x 0.2 x SCE (state compensatory enrollment) = Compensatory Education Allotment.

District 1’s compensatory education allotment is approximately $2,735,477 and District 2’s compensatory education allotment is approximately $492,058. Based on this determination, our group believes that there is potential for a significant impact on student learning. Since District 1 has a student population that is 93.3% economically disadvantaged, they obviously will be receiving a substantial amount of money to address the needs of their students. District 2 has only 20.7% of the student population that is economically disadvantaged. The compensatory education allotment is designed to help “level the playing field” between districts who serve a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students. District 1 will have an additional 2.2 million dollars to utilize for their students. As research demonstrates, educating students from economically disadvantaged homes is much more difficult than educating students from middle to high economic backgrounds. Students who are economically disadvantaged usually require intense accelerated instruction and interventions to bridge the gap that is often created by a lack of educational experiences offered within the home. The compensatory education allotment money should be used to provide the district with funds to reduce class sizes, provide tutorials, provides interventions, and purchase instructional resources that will meet the needs of their students.