Week Three Assignment, Part 1 – Texas School Finance: Developing a Position Paper after Comparing and Analyzing District Snapshots
Marie Adams, Brenda Avance, Lorissa Bailey, Jody Kotys (purple and red)
Hi Group 5! I have numbered the data each of us needs to contribute below. My suggestion is that we all submit data for each numbered item, then we each take a part. We can all contribute a section of the 2-4 page paper (Part 3). Since Brenda has begun posting on Part 1, would you like to be responsible for that one? I would like to take on Part 5. As far as the paper in Part 3, if we post out thoughts concerning it, I think we can organize it and put it together from there. What do you think?
All, I will work on Part 1 and add to other parts as you all add more per Jody's email. Done and working on others.
FYI: AT 8:30 AM today (Saturday, April 28) I was kicked out of Lorissa's wiki and access was denied. I was copying Marie's additions below into LORISSA'S PAGES and copying Lorissa additions from her wiki to here. I sent a request to Wiki spaces through their help!
Week 3 Assignment
(Part 1-Wiki Group 5)
1) percentage of economically disadvantaged students
District 1--93.3-----------------District 2 --20.7
District 1--93.3% of the total population of 3903 which equates to 3641 total economically disadvantaged
District 2--20.7% of the total population of 3890 which equates to 805.23 total economically disadvantaged
District 1- 93.3%, District 2- 20.7
see chart below #3
2) the Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline
District1—3,893.754----------------------District 2—4,032.937
District 1--3893.754 and District 2--4032.937
District 1- 3,893.754, District 2- 4032.937
see chart below #3
3) the Weighted ADA (WADA) for each district
District 1—5,555.815---------------------District 2—4,794.076
District 1--5555.815 and District 2--4794.076
District 1- 5,555.815, District 2- 4794.076
| Week Three Assignment Part 1 Data | ||
| District 1 | District 2 | |
| Economically Disadvantaged | 93.30% | 20.70% |
| Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline | 3,893.754 | 4,032.937 |
| Weighted Average Daily Attendance | 5,555.815 | 4,794.076 |
District 1 has a smaller ADA but a larger WADA because "WADA is based on the number of students attending the school district and the type of students attending the school district. For example, a district receives additional program allocations if students attending the schools are economically disadvantaged. " Excerpt from EDLD 5342 School Finance Week three lecture"
District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students and other special needs students than District 2, so greater funds are needed. Because the cost of educating these students is higher, they receive a higher WADA than District 2.
Because WADA is reflective of the student population and the needs of that population, the district with the higher number of economically disadvantaged students has a higher WADA even though the ADA would not indicated the case.
(Part 2-Wiki Group 5)
4) determine the Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate and using the WADA figures from #1 above
District 1—$5,044----------------------District 2—$7,206
District 1- $5044, District 2- $7206
see chart below for #4-6
District 1--$5,044 and District 2--$7,206
5) calculate the total target revenue (the figure is not included in your information) for the Maintenance and Operations Fund for each district
District 1—5,555.815 X 5,044 = $28,023,530.86----------------------District 2—4,794.076 X 7,206 = $34,546,111.656
District 1- $5044 x 5555.815 = 28023530
District 2- $7206 x 4794.076 = 34546111
see chart below for #4-6
District 1-- and District 2-- (anybody have any ideas--still a little confused)
6) identify the total number of Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, & Counselors in each district
District 1---281----------------------District 2—307
District 1- 281, District 2- 307
| Week Three Assignment Part 2 Data | ||
| District 1 | District 2 | |
| Revenue Per WADA@Compressed Rate | $5,044 | $7,206 |
| Total M&O | $1,369,340 | $35,879,109 |
| Total # of teachers, librarians,nurses & Counselor | 281 | 307 |
District 1--281 and District 2--307
District 1 even though they are getting more WADA funds they have fewer teachers, librarians, nurses and counselors. District 1 has less money for M&O but both districts have 7 campus.
District 1 has fewer professional staff (e.g. teachers, librarians, counselors, nurses) but receives more WADA because of more economically disadvantaged students in District 1 than District 2. District 1 having more WADA can still not match the M&O available in District 2. In looking at the submissions of Wiki Group 1 and 3 we came to the same conclusions.
Post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog and compare your figures with at least two other cohort group submissions.
(Part 3- Wiki Group 5)
Using the Wiki group process and your data from # 2 above for two Texas school districts, develop a 2 – 4 page paper concerning the fact that the intent of the Weighted Average Daily Attendance was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students to District 2 than to District 1 because of the percentage of economically disadvantaged students but failed to accomplish that goal in this case, site your group thoughts on these differences and the potential positive and negative impact to each program funded under Maintenance and Operations, post to your Wiki and the professor’s cohort blog and comment on at least two other cohort group submissions.
Added by Marieon Sunday 4/29 At 10:49 am
In this assignment it is stated “The intent of the Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students in District 2 Example than in the District 1 Example because the percentage of economically disadvantaged students but the action failed to accomplish that goal in this case;” but when looking at the Data given the data for each district the statement does not hold true. Listed below is a compilation of Data given, when looking at the charts it is clear that District 1 is in far more need of funding then District 2.
| District 1 | District 2 | |
| Economically Disadvantaged | 93.30% | 20.70% |
| Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline | 3893.754 | 4032.937 |
| Weighted Average Daily Attendance | 5555.815 | 4794.076 |
| Total # of teachers, librarians,nurses & Counselor | 281 | 307 |
| Revenue Per WADA@Compressed Rate | $7,206 | $5,044 |
| Total M&O | $1,369,340 | $35,879,109 |
| 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 |
| Compensatory Education Allotment | $3,835,006 | $633,369 |
| $151,840,568 | $2,961,536,443 |
Maintenance and Operation (M&O) fund by definition from the glossary of the resource section of the class notes “is a local school district property tax rate that raises revenue to operate and maintain the district’s schools. M&O taxes are subject to a statutory maximum of $1.50 per $100 of taxable value.” M&O funds can be used for salaries, utilities and day to day operation of the district. Interest & Sinking (I&S) can be used for debt and to pay back interest from a bond. District1 total of funds for M&O,I&S, DPV,EDA and Compensatory Education Allotment is $151,840,568. District 2 total of funds for M&O,I&S, DPV,EDA and compensatory education allotment is $2,961,536,443. A difference of $2,809,695,875 in funding to provide a safe, clean and academically successful environment for a district with 93.3% economically disadvantaged. With this type of funding difference there are some areas that District1 will fall short (e.g.the amount that staff can be paid will be less, the availability of basic supplies will be smaller, any debt there is only minimal can be paid with the hope of ever paying it off). With the M&O that District 2 has they will be able to hire extra staff, have money for interventions, more technology, update and build newer facilities which does provide for a positive impact because of local revenue.
WADA is intended to equal the playing field among districts and allow for additional funds and professionals directly impacting the students. In our examples this week district 1 has a disproportionately high percentage of economically disadvantaged students while district 2 had only 20.7% economically disadvantaged. As was evidenced in the district summaries the first district with the higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students had a higher WADA, 5,555.815, however this district had a significantly lower number of teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors. There are many factors that could have contributed to this phenomena. First, the district itself has a much smaller tax base and therefore requires that a higher percentage of their funding go into operations. Also, the average teachers salary is significantly lower in district 1, approximately $6,400 less than district 2, which could make it more difficult to recruite and retain experienced teachers. According to the data the property values are lower in district 1 which is expected considering the number of economically disadvantaged students and would prove difficult to effectively raise the tax rate to offset the expenses of the district.
EDLD 5342
Jody’s contribution to Part 3
What I think is incredible is that even though the state attempts to provide extra funds for District 1, the ADA difference is less than 200, yet, District 1 still does not receive that much more than District 2. District 1 still have almost 25 professionals less than District 2, yet with the percentages of economically disadvantaged students, District 1 would most likely need more personnel than District 2 to deliver the same quality of services from student achievement and success. District 1 is still at a disadvantage and has to do more with less.
With the huge difference in M&O, District 2 is able to fund specialized programs serving smaller numbers of students, hire specialized personnel, and has more available to build new facilities with more modern technology. It appears than District 2 will have smaller class sizes as well. In order to serve special needs of students in District 1, there may be some small groups; however, regular education class would necessarily have bigger numbers to balance the need for those small groups since statistically District 1 has a lower number of professional staff.
As suggested by another student in our cohort, District 1 will have to be more creative in utilizing community resources and partnering with different stakeholders to deliver the same quality services that District 2 can afford since they are not property-poor or have a high number f economically disadvantaged students.
(Part 4 is individual)
(Part 5- Wiki Group 5)
7) determine the 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV
District 1---$145,968,635.00----------------------District 2—$2,916,187,709.00
District 1- $145,968,635
District 2- $2,916,187,709
see chart below for #7-9
District 1--$145,968,635 and District 2 -- $2,915,187,709
8) the I & S Tax Collections
District 1---$94,871.00----------------------District 2—$8,836,256.00
District 1- $94,871
District 2- $8,836,256
see chart below for #7-9
District 1--$94,871 and District 2--$8,836,256
9) the Chapter 46 (EDA) totals
District 1---$572,716.00----------------------District 2—$0.00
District 1- $572,716
District 2- $0
see chart below for #7-9
District 1--$572,716 and District 2--$0
10)determine which district has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds
District 2 would have the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds
District 2 has the most funds to pay down debt with the I&S Tax Collection of $8,836.256 even with District 1having both Chapter 46 (EDA) of $572,716 and I&S of 94,871.
Because Property Values and Tax Collections are much higher, District 2 has more funds. Even though District 1 needs are higher due to economically disadvantaged and special needs/bilingual students, more money is available to District 2.
Because Property Values and Tax Collections are much higher, District 2 has more funds to pay down debt with the I&S Tax Collection of $8,836,256. Even though District 1 needs are higher due to economically disadvantaged and special needs/bilingual students, more money is available to District 2 for existing debt/school facilities.
| Week Three Assignment Part 5 Data | ||
| 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 |
| Week Three Assignment Part 5 Data | ||
| 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 |
District 1 will have issues improving and maintaining their facilities compared to District 2. Due to the lack of funds District 1 will have a hard time insuring their student s safety in their facilities; unforeseen problems could cause other need improvements to be put off. Like if the air conditioning breaks and need to be replaced in August and there were scheduled upgrades for the school cafeteria. One of these will have to be put off a little longer.
District 1 has a much lower tax base and would appear to be in a lower income area. One would assume that the facilities in district 1 are minimal and possibly in need of repair, however due to the high number of economically disadvantaged students in the district it is likely that it would prove difficult to pass any bond to significantly improve the standards of the facilities. District 2 seems to have a much higher tax base, possibly from some industry in the area. This district would appear to be financially stable and would most likely be able to support a bond issue for updates to facilities if necessary. Comparing the two districts, it would be assumed that the students in district 2 would have more opportunities within the classroom because the district is able to fund more in the way of unique curriculum and technology.
I agree with you Lorissa that District 2 students would have more opportunities for learning due to more M&O available to fund those learning advantages with curriculum and technology and professional staff available.
Wiki Group 5 Part 5 Consensus below in red:
District 1 has a much lower tax base and would appear to be in a lower income area. District 1 will have issues improving and maintaining their facilities compared to District 2. The facilities in District 1 are most likely minimal and possibly in need of repair. Due to the lack of funds, District 1 will have a hard time ensuring student safety in their facilities if unforeseen problems occur or other improvements are needed in an emergency. For example, if the air conditioning breaks and needs to be replaced in August and there were scheduled upgrades for the school cafeteria, a superintendent would need to make a decision about which project would be the priority. With the high number of economically disadvantaged students in District 1, it is likely it would prove difficult to pass any bond to significantly improve the standards of the facilities. District 2 seems to have a much higher tax base, possibly from some industry in the area. District 2 at this time is financially stable, has extra funds if an emergency situation arises, and would most likely be able to support a bond issue for updates to facilities, if necessary. Comparing the two districts, the students in District 2 would have more opportunities within the classroom because the district is able to fund more cutting edge curriculum and technology program learning due to more M&O available to fund those learning advantages and professional staff to implement them.
(Part 6- Wiki Group 5)
11)determine the Compensatory Education Allotment for each district
District 1---$3,835,006.00---------------------District 2—$633,369.00
District 1- $3,835,006
District 2- $633,
District 1--$3,835,006 and District 2--$633,369
| Week Three Assignment Part 6 Data | ||
| District 1 | District 2 | |
| Compensatory Education Allotment | $3,835,006 | $633,369 |
The state compensatory education allotment provides additional financial support to school districts to teach educationally disadvantaged pupils and underachieving student and is based on the number of students participating in the free and reduced lunch program (School Funding 101 Glossary).The allotment should provide for additional services and instructional support like tutoring beyond the regular school day to help at risk and disadvantaged students compensate for academic deficiencies
(School Funding 101 Glossary). Comparing District 1 and 2 figures, District 1 should have more personnel and special programs available for students in need. The use of the funds from compensatory education allotment could help students that are at- risk with additional programs to help them achieve in the academic setting, It could also help with funds for staff
Graine de Moutarde propose des articles de collecte de fonds pour aider votre association à réaliser ses missions.
ReplyDeleteDécouvrez tous nos produits en cliquant sur ce lien !
action pour financer projet scolaire