Comparing+and+Analyzing+District+Snapshot

__**Week 3. Part 1**__ The data indicates for District 1: 93.3% Economically Disadvantaged $3893.754 Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline $5555.815 WADA

The data indicates for District 2: 20.7% Economically Disadvantaged $4032.937 Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline $4794.076 WADA

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is a method of counting students for the purpose of providing state aide to school districts. Texas counts students in attendance each day and averages the attendance count over the year. A district's refined ADA is further adjusted to account for certain significant declines in enrollment and to change any prekindergarten attendance that was reported as full-day attendance to be half-day attendance. This further-adjusted ADA figure is known as "adjusted refined ADA." Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) is a figure used in state funding formulas to calculate the amount of state and local funds a district is entitled to. Students with additional needs are weighted to help recognize the additional costs of their education. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. 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 Cost of Education Index (CEI) adjustment. The resulting amount is then divided by the district's basic allotment amount to arrive at a district's WADA.

Interpreting the information provided, District 1 with the small ADA and larger WADA is a result of special populations. Specifically the high percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students attending the district. District 1 is receiving additional allocations for the economically disadvantaged population.

What do both of you think? Please add information you may have or think of for the development of our position statement.

Thanks, James

Great job, James. I think you're right about District 1 receiving a higher WADA due to a larger number of students in special populations. An economically disadvantaged percentage of 93.3% for District 1 compared to 20.7% for District 2 would account for a higher WADA. In addition, District 1's 48% LEP compared to District 2's 2% and District 1's 41% bilingual and 24% CTE compared to 2% and 14% in District 2 would certainly account for the differences in WADA.

Kristy

Nice James. There is a huge difference between the two schools as far as being economically disadvantaged. There is a also a difference between local funding between the two. The poorer district gets 6% of their funds from local taxes and the richer one gets 68% from local taxes which would indicate that district 2 is a chapter 41 school.

I will post the statement below for our group: James Group 5 Week 3, Part 1, Position Statement The Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is a method of counting students for the purpose of providing state aide to school districts. Texas counts students in attendance each day and averages the attendance count over the year. A district's refined ADA is further adjusted to account for certain significant declines in enrollment and to change any prekindergarten attendance that was reported as full-day attendance to be half-day attendance. This further-adjusted ADA figure is known as "adjusted refined ADA." The Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) is a figure used in state funding formulas to calculate the amount of state and local funds a district is entitled to. Students with additional needs are weighted to help recognize the additional costs of their education. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. Interpreting the information provided, District 1 with the smaller ADA has the larger WADA as a result of special populations. An economically disadvantaged percentage of 93.3% for District 1 compared to 20.7% for District 2 would account for a higher WADA. In addition, District 1's 48% LEP compared to District 2's 2% and District 1's 41% bilingual and 24% CTE compared to 2% and 14% in District 2 would certainly account for the differences in WADA.

__** Week 3, Part 2 **__ The data indicates for District 1: $5044.00 Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate 5555.815 X $5044.00 = $28,023,530.86 Total Target Revenue for M & O 281 Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors

The data indicates for District 2: $7206.00 Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate 4794.076 X $7206.00 = 34,546,111.66 Total Target Revenue for M & O 307 Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors

HB 3646 created a new funding component, based on the revenue target, known as revenue at the compressed (tax) rate, or RACR. The RACR amount is the sum of the state share of a district's Tier I entitlement and the revenue from the district's compressed tax rate, both as calculated under HB 3646, adjusted as necessary based on certain minimum and maximum hold harmless provisions of HB 3646. Revenue at the compressed tax rate, provided for in the property-tax-relief law that was passed in 2006 and modified in 2009, guarantees school districts a set amount of funds per student in weighted average daily attendance to compensate for a mandatory reduction in, or compression of, their local maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates from rates that were adopted in 2005. A district's revenue at the compressed (tax) rate is based on the state and local M&O revenue a district would have earned had it not lowered its tax rate. It is the sum of the state share of a district's Tier I entitlement and the revenue from the district's (compressed) M&O tax rate, adjusted for statutory minimum or maximum hold harmless provisions. The M &O tax rate is a local school district property rate that raises revenue to operate and maintain the district's schools and are subject to a state maximum of $1.50 per $100 of taxable value. It is interesting to see that even with a higher WADA, District 1 has a much lower target revenue than District 2.

District 2 has a higher Total Target Revenue for M & O and a larger staff even though District 1 is a higher needs district. However, if District 1 did not have the adjustments allowed by WADA, the discrepancy would be much greater. This is an interesting look at they way WADA attempts to provide equity in funding to higher needs districts.

Target revenue was based on 2006 rates. Some schools were selling WADA at the time and had artificially inflated Target revenue rates when they were frozen. Target revenue has never been an equitable way of funding schools across Texas.-Mark I will post this comment for Part 2: James Group 5, Week 3, Part 2 After examining the data and making calculations for Districts 1 and 2, is appears that Texas does not have an established equitable way to fund public education. District 1 has a larger student population, larger WADA (from special populations), and fewer staff but receives approximately $6.5 million less in revenue for M&O. This discrepancy in funding is resulting in financial hardships for all districts in Texas.

The Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) calculation is intended to provide additional funds to districts with students in special programs in order to account for the additional costs incurred when educating these students. In the examples provided, District 1 had a much higher percentage of students in special populations than did District 2. For example, District 1 had 93.3% Economically Disadvantaged, 48% Limited English Proficient, 41% Bilingual/ESL, and 24% Career and Technical Education. In contrast, District 2 only had 20.7% Economically Disadvantaged, 2% LEP, 2% Bilingual/ESL, and 14% CTE. These figures account for the higher WADA of $5555.815 in District 1 compared to $4794.076 for District 2.
 * __ Week 3, Part 3 __**

This weighted funding is designed to allow District 1 to be more closely matched to District 2 in their funding and in personnel and educational services they can provide. This is not the case, however, in these two districts. Because District 2 has such higher property values and total target revenue for maintenance and operations, District 2 is able to provide more staff and has more money to spend per student than District 1.

Although the WADA calculations are designed to help equalize funding across districts and account for the increased costs associated with educating students in special programs, in this case, it was unsuccessful. District 1 still sufferers from lower revenue and a reduced staff when compared to District 2.

**Please edit and add your thoughts to my VERY rough draft.**
 * Thanks, **
 * Kristy **

According to the Texas Association of School Boards the definition of Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA): In Texas, students with additional education needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. A weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding.
 * You are right Kristy. This type of funding will never be fair as it is based on Target revenue captured in 2006. Though WADA is supposed to take care of the inequities, it can never balance out the difference between very poor districts and rich districts. A wise man once said " If the education I can give a child in a poor district is good enough for my child, then it is good enough for yours. Equitable funding is a should be a state mission, not the domain of individual districts. District 2 gets only 30% of their funds for the state, which indicates a very healthy tax base. District 1 must rely on the state and federal government for 94% of their funds. Can you imagine what the WADA for district 2 would be if they matched district 1 in their compensatory areas?-Mark **

In a comparison between District1 and District 2, the are of comparable size. District 1 has a student population of 3903, primary staff of 281, WADA of 5555.815, revenue per WADA @ compressed rate of $5044, and M&O revenue of $28,023,530.86. District 2 has a student population of 3890, primary staff of 307, WADA of 4794.076, revenue per WADA @ compressed rate of $7206, and M&O revenue of $34,546,111.66. District 1 has 13 more students, 26 less staff, and about $6.5 million less in revenue for M&O than District 2. The higher WADA value for district 1 indicates they have more students in special populations yet still receive less funding for their district. Having greater special populations should result in more funding and be a more positive impact for funding equity but that does not seem to be the case.

I am going to try to piece our sections into one paper...

The Affect of WADA on School Funding for Texas Schools

In the Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools, according to the Texas Association of School Boards, the definition of Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA): "In Texas, students with additional education needs are weighted for funding purposes to help recognize the additional costs of educating those students. Weighted programs include special education, vocational, bilingual, gifted and talented, and compensatory education. A weighted student count is used to distribute guaranteed yield funding." After examining and analyzing the school finance data from District 1 and District 2 for two Texas school districts we found the following information:

The data indicates for District 1:  $5044.00 Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate  5555.815 X $5044.00 = $28,023,530.86 Total Target Revenue for M & O  281 Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors The data indicates for District 2:  $7206.00 Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate  4794.076 X $7206.00 = 34,546,111.66 Total Target Revenue for M & O  307 Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors

 In a comparison between District 1 and District 2, they are of comparable size. District 1 has a student population of 3903, primary staff of 281, WADA of 5555.815, revenue per WADA @ compressed rate of $5044, and M&O revenue of $28,023,530.86. District 2 has a student population of 3890, primary staff of 307, WADA of 4794.076, revenue per WADA @ compressed rate of $7206, and M&O revenue of $34,546,111.66. District 1 has 13 more students, 26 less staff, and about $6.5 million less in revenue for M&O than District 2. District 1 has a much higher percentage of students in special populations than District 2. For example, District 1 has 93.3% Economically Disadvantaged, 48% Limited English Proficient, 41% Bilingual/ESL, and 24% Career and Technical Education. In contrast, District 2 has only 20.7% Economically Disadvantaged, 2% LEP, 2% Bilingual/ESL, and 14% CTE. These figures account for the higher WADA of $5555.815 in District 1 compared to $4794.076 for District 2.

After comparing the data, our group's position is that WADA, although it intends to provide an equitable education for all students, falls short of that goal. This weighted funding is designed to allow District 1 to be more closely matched to District 2 in their funding and in the personnel and educational services they can provide. This is not the case, however, in these two districts. Because District 2 has such higher property values and total target revenue for maintenance and operations, District 2 is able to provide more staff and has more money to spend per student than District 1. Though WADA is supposed to take care of the inequities, it can never balance out the difference between very poor districts and rich districts. District 2 gets only 30% of their funds from the state, which indicates a very healthy tax base. District 1 must rely on the state and federal government for 94% of their funds. The higher WADA value for district 1 indicates they have more students in special populations yet still receive less funding for their district. Having greater special populations should result in more funding and be a more positive impact for funding equity, but that does not seem to be the case.

REFERENCES Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools (2010). School funding 101 - glossary. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/glossary.php.

We may need to add a little to this to make it flow and flesh it out a little. James, can you provide a reference for your quote? Jump in and add where you think we need it. Kristy

District 1: $145,968,635 Local District Property Value (DPV) $94,871 Interest & Sinking Fund Tax Collection (I & S) $572,716 Chapter 46 Existing Debt Allocation (EDA)
 * __Week 3, Part 5__**

District 2: $2,916,187,709 Local District Property Value (DPV) $8,836,256 Interest & Sinking Fund Tax Collection (I & S) $0 Chapter 46 Existing Debt Allocation (EDA)


 * District 2 has a much higher DPV and I & S than District 1. District 1 has an EDA of $572,716, but District 2, being the richer district has $0 EDA, most likely because it does not qualify. Based on the huge differences in revenue and available funds for making payments on existing debt and facility bonds, I think District 2 has nicer facilities and is able to provide a better learning environment for its students. **


 * When you don't have to rely on the state for the majority of your funds and can be funded locally, then you will have nicer facilities and learning environments.-Mark **


 * I will post the following statement for our group: **

Group 5, Week 3, Part 5

I﻿n examining the differences between the two districts, it is evident that District 2 is a wealthier district than District 1. District 2 has a much higher Local District Property Value and Interest and Sinking Fund Tax Collection and receives no Chapter 46 Existing Debt Allocation. Conversely, District 1 does not bring in nearly as much local revenue, and being a less wealthy district, does qualify for EDA. Based on these observations, we believe District 2 has newer, modern facilities and is better able to provide for the learning needs of its students.

__**Week 3, Part 6**__ District 1: $3,835,006 Compensatory Education Allotment

District 2: $633,369 Compensatory Education Allotment

District 1 receives a much larger Compensatory Education Allotment due to the larger number of economically disadvantaged and at-risk students in District 1. These funds are meant to assist districts with a means to provide the necessary e ducational services to compensate for any educational deficiencies these student have.

This is true, but we realize that inequity still exists between the two districts.-Mark

The Compensatory Education Allotment does help District 1 more, but it is not enough to compensate all of the $6.5 million more in revenue District 2 receives for their M&O fund. Totaling the numbers, District 1 is still receiving $3.3 million less in revenue than District 2.

I agree. Although the intent to compensate districts is there, the funding is simply not enough to make up for the shortfall. District 1 has larger numbers of students in special populations, but much less revenue to educate them.

Group 5 Part 6 District 1 receives a larger Compensatory Education Allotment due to their larger number of economically disadvantaged and at-risk students. Although these funds are meant to assist districts with a means to provide the necessary educational services to compensate for any educational deficiencies these students have, the allotment is not enough to compensate for all of the $6.5 million more in revenue District 2 receives. District 1 has more at-risk students, but the inequity still exists. Totaling the numbers, District 1 is still receiving $3.3 million less in revenue than District 2.