Analyzing Contrasts in Two Texas Schools

        According to Texas Education Code §42.001(b) all schools districts will be provided funds for public education regardless of the wealth of the district’s property and will receive “substantially equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort, considering all state and local tax revenues of districts after acknowledging all legitimate student and district cost differences.” However, not all school districts are funded equally according to the average daily attendance (ADA). According to the glossary provided by the Texas Association of School Boards, “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.” The funds are now considered weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Furthermore as mentioned in the weekly lecture, WADA depends on the number of students attending the district and the type of students attending.
     Comparing the two districts (District 1 and District 2) it is clear there are flaws in the school finance system. The total refined ADA adjusted for decline in District 1 was $3,893.75 and $4,032.94 in District 2, with the total WADA being 5,555.815 and 4,794.076 respectfully. District 1 has fewer students, thus resulting in a lower ADA. However, the district has a 93% population of economically disadvantaged students as opposed to the second district with a 21% economically disadvantaged population; this in turn increases their WADA. The district with the higher number of economically disadvantaged students, will receive more appropriations from the state.
     The intent of WADA was to provide more money and professionals working directly with the students. Whether being economically disadvantaged, involved in special education, career and technology courses, bilingual, gifted and talented, or in need of specific assistance with compensatory funding, the funds needed to be successful with these programs had to be larger than traditional ADA funds. Students differ greatly in their educational needs. The costs associated with meeting these needs vary widely. The state finance system assigns an extra weight for each student with certain special needs and uses this to deliver extra money to school districts to help pay those extra costs. Under the Texas finance formula, students who are from low-income families, those who are learning English, children who are gifted, and those who have certain disabilities earn extra money for their school district. These different groups are given a “weight,” meaning that they count like one whole student plus a bit more. To determine a school district’s WADA, the state adds all of these and treats them like extra students who enroll in that school district. For example, a school district may have 100 total students but all the extra credit it receives for students with special needs may add up to a total of 120, so the state gives that school district enough money to educate 120 students. The extra weight is provided because schools often need to provide additional, specialized services for students with special needs.
Examining the districts, the funds generated through WADA was greater with District 1 than District 2. However, in further comparing these districts, the revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate for each district are $5,044 and $7,206. The overall intent was to give assistance to District 1, but District 2 resulted in receiving more funds. This would be due to property values in the area having a significant impact on the funding contributions. Therefore, District 2 was able to hire extra teachers to implement the specific needs of the students as opposed to District 1 having to survive with fewer funds, and provide an education to a needier student population.
     While examining the Summary of Finance and specifically the Tier 1 Funding by Program Intent Code, there is a considerable difference between both districts in many areas. In District 1 and District 2 the Regular Program Allotment had a difference of approximately 1 million dollars in favor of District 2. The Special Education Allotment had a difference of approximately $ 300,000 in favor of District 1. The Career and Technology Allotment had a difference of approximately $ 700,000 in favor of District 1. The Gifted and Talented Allotment was fairly similar, considering the school district can only claim five percent of the ADA for gifted and talented education. The largest difference that was seen was in Compensatory Education Allotment of approximately 3.2 million dollars in favor of District 1. This funding source significantly gives assistance in helping the district support students with specific educational needs, such as reading support. With District 1 being a largely economically disadvantaged district, with a 100% Hispanic population, there would be a greater need to offer assistance for specific needs and prevent at risk students from dropping out of school. These funds are based upon the economically disadvantaged population. There was approximately an $ 800,000 difference in the Bilingual Allotment in support of District 1.
     Using the WADA figures and the figures in part 1, the total target revenue for the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) each district are approximately 28 million for District 1 and 35 million for District 2. Even though both school districts are fairly comparable in size, the main reason for the difference is due to the property values in each district. District 1 has a lower property value than district 2. The Maintenance and Operations Budget is the basic budget for school districts across the state. This is where much of the state revenue and the local tax end up. With this money, many programs are funded within a school district. With school finance in trying times right now, it is evident that the M and O budget will be affected negatively and positively.
The staffing for each school district is significantly different. While there is the same number of teachers, the number of professional is different by about 40. Given the average salary for this type of position is 50,000, you can see how there would be a difference in budget with this area alone. The number of professionals on a campus could negatively affect a school by having fewer resources to go to for help and needs. This, in turn, could negatively affect the academic achievement of the students. Having finance system that more equally distributes funds could help with this.
     Property tax is one of the main areas the M and O budget is funded. Given the difference in the value of the property in both districts, the resulting factor caused different funding amounts to be allocated. The number of Economically Disadvantaged students in District 1 helps to offset this some. With WADA, it is so important to have students input into the PEIMS system with the correct eligibilities. Special Education receives “X” amount, Economically Disadvantaged receives a different amount. Not including the other specially funded programs that will all receive different funds. Students all across the country need an education and should have equal access to that education. It is up to the people in Austin to help get this accomplished.