School+Finance-Week+3

__**Part 1-**__I agree with all of Sharon's Based on the definition of WADA, which is an adjustment to the ADA based on the number of students with additional educational needs, District 1's WADA is larger becaue of the larger number of students in need.
 * Topic || Dist 1 || Dist 2 ||
 * Eco Dis || 93.3% || 20.7% ||
 * Refined ADA || 3893.754 || 4032.937 ||
 * WADA || 5555.815 || 4794.076 ||

__**Part 2-**__1)Based on Sharon'sI think Dist 1 is 5, 044 but Dist. 2 should be 7, 206 (not 7,026, which I am sure is what you meant but wanted to check) 2)When I referenced the Budget 101 information on the TEA website it appears to me tht the Target Revenue for M& O is only (WADA) X (WADA @ Compressed Rate)the addition of the Transp. Allotment is for the "Adjusted Target Revenue". I am willing to go with the consensus, but wanted to throw that out there. Dist 1=$28,023,530.86 Dist 2=$34,546,111.656 3)Teachers, librarians, counselors, and nurses: Dist 1=281 Dist 2=307

Our group agreed that the Target Revenue was WADA X WADA @ Comp Rate as described above.

Even though District 1 is obviously the school with the most need out of the two, District 2 is actually the school with the most revenue.

__**Part 3**__

As described int he School Finance Glossary presented at the beginning of this course WADA is intended to weight students based on educational need and bring in additional funding to help offset the additional costs for the programs to provide the education needed by these students. In the examples given, the two districts are comparable in student counts and faculty sizes. It is obvious that District 1 is certainly the "neediest" of the two districts based on the high Economic Disadvantage numbers. However, when all is said and done the districts do not receive comparable funding at all with District 2 bringing in over $6.5million dollars more in revenue.

There are obvious differences between districts 1 and 2 with each significantly impacting the distribution of funds. District 2 could be considered property wealthy and district 1 property poor. The CEI or cost of education index is slightly higher in district 1 than in 2. The local fund assignment for district 1 has little impact on tier funding when subtracted and is about the same as was locally collected. The local fund assignment for district 2 basically eliminates tier funding and is considerably less than what was locally collected. Finally, district 1 has more students receiving special services than District 2. It appears that district 2 has a large amount of industry and/or greater personal property wealth when considering their $2,995,592,970 state adjusted property value as opposed to district 1’s $141,705,076. Of course this makes for a great argument for the unfairness of the system “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”. The factors discussed next help to explain how this occurs but may continue to be argued as unfair. How do we provide equity in education for all children without an unfair system In addition, the difference between the districts is seen in the number of teachers and support staff is available. District 1 has fewer support staff for the 100% Hispanic population that is 93% economically disadvantaged. District 2 does not face the same challenges as District. 1. Another noticeable factor is the difference in the average salaries for teacher, professional support and administrative salaries. More competitive salaries are needed for students with the most needs.

The CEI, as I understand it from my discussion with my superintendent, is a number set to adjust for the cost of delivering an adequate education in a particular area. From our discussion it seems that political influence may be the main contributor to the number established. It would seem, though, that district 2 would have a higher CEI if this were the case. I confess that I do not understand the complexity nor the application of formulas used for creating the final allotment but the local fund assignment seems to create a large gap and penalize district 2. District two collected a total of $44,715,365 and was assigned $29,955,930 while district 1collected $1,464,211 and was assigned $1,417,051. The effect of tier I, II, and III monies greatly benefited district 1. The higher number of students receiving special services certainly enhanced district 1’s allotment while providing little to benefit district 2. All of the above factors contribute to the differences in WADA allocations but do little to satisfy either side in the debate over school finance.

__**Part 4**__-On our own blog.

__**Part 5**__-I agree with Sharon on 1-3 4) I added 2&3 together to get Dist 1 $667,587 Dist 2 $8,836,256 These calculations would conclude that District 2 has more money for facilities. 5)District 1 would have poorer and more outdated facilities than District 2 based on the funding for facilities. For one it is an establishment of pride in a new facility that fosters team spirit. Along with new facilities also comes new materials. Having updated technology puts students at a clear advantage over students with less technological avenues. Our district recently opened a Career and Technology Center that both of our high schools utilize. Data already shows an increase of course completion, attendance, and higher academic scores. .
 * Topic || Dist1 || Dist 2 ||
 * DPV || $145,968,635 || $2, 916,187,709 ||
 * I&S || $94,871 || $8,836,256 ||
 * Chap 46 EDA || $572,716 || $0 ||
 * $ for facility bonds || $667,587 || $8,836,256 ||

__**Part 6**__-1)Based on the formula I found in the attached document on page 13 highlighted in yellowDist 1-$5427 (AA)X.2X3,641(SCE)=$3,951,941 Dist 2-5321X.2X805=$856, 6812)If my calculation is even the right amount I would conclude that District 1 would definitely benefit from the Comp. Ed. funding. This would not help the facilities situation, but would help increase the money spent for students in District 1 since they have such a large number of Eco. Dis. students. As stated in the attached material, the "SCE is defined in law as programs and services designed to supplement the regular education program for students identified as at risk of dropping out of school. The goal of SCE programs is to reduce any disparity in performance on assessments or in rates of high school completion between students at risk of dropping out of school and all other district students." []