Week+3+Part+2

//I have reorganized the information so it corresponds to the numbered assignments. Also, I have combined the answers that more than one person commented on.// Many districts are able to receive additional funds from the state due to their high concentrations of students with special needs, economically disadvantaged, bilingual, career education students and gifted and talented students. These groups make up the students considered in Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). Upon analysis of the data provided by our professors, the school finance provided by state and local governments varies depending on student populations and sub-groups within the district. From the samples the Economically Disadvantaged enrollment for District 1 is 93.3% and for District 2 is 20.7% and the Bilingual population for District 1 is 41% and District 2 is 2%. WADA is therefore affected by the special populations which require additional state funds to provide equitable instructional programs for students at District 1 schools based on the data below. Due to the special populations, District 1 has the lower ADA, but a higher WADA as reflected below: * The ADA adjusted for decline: 3893.754 D1 and 4032.937 D2, * WADA 5555.815 D1 and 4794.076 D2.
 * __Part 1__**

Revenue WADA @ Compressed Rate: District 1 – 5044 District 2 – 7206 Target Revenue M&O Fund: District 1 – 28,023,530.86 (5,044 x 5,555.815) District 2 – 34,546,111.66 (7,206 x 4,794.076) Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, Counselors: District 1 – 281 District 2 – 307
 * __Part 2__**

District 1, it is believed, has a large number of economically disadvantage students in comparison to District 2. Their revenue is significantly less because of District 2's high taxable value and this drives their WADA Revenue up. Now, District 1's state generated funds is larger per student and that is where the state finds equity in their funding system. In this case, District 2's taxable revenue drives up the WADA revenue. Target Revenue for the M&O Fund is found by multiplying ADA times the Revenue WADA @ the compressed rate. This number is driven up for the same reason as the Revenue WADA. District 2 is a district with higher property values based on the amount of M&O funds allotted for salaries, professional travel, facility operations and basic expenditures. M&O are the largest percentage of program funds. Facilities must be extensive in District 2 since the difference is staff is only 26 people, yet there is a difference in M&O of $6,522,584.40. If the 26 salaries average $55,000 then we could subtract $1,430,000 and that leaves $5,092,584 for facilities and operations. These numbers are contradictory because according to WADA, District 1 should have more staff to meet the needs of their student population.

The Texas School Finance System is a complex formula that averages students’ daily attendance. Weights are given to students in different programs, such as special education, bilingual, and career and technical to calculate a district’s Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). School districts receive funds based on the Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). The WADA determines the amount of revenue per student a school district is allowed. That revenue includes both state funds and local property taxes up to $1.00 of property tax effort and commonly referred to as “target” revenue.
 * __Part 3__**

According to the review of District #1 and District #2, we found that District 2 is a district with higher property values based on the amount of Maintenance and Operations (M & O) funds allotted for salaries professional travel, facility operations and basic expenditures. M & O are the largest percentage of program funds in District #2. Facilities must be extensive in District 2 since the difference in staff is only 26 people, yet there is a difference in M & O of $6,522,584.40. If the 26 salaries average $55,000 then we could subtract $1,430,000 and that leaves $5,092,584 for facilities and operations.

District #1 has a higher percentage (48%) of Limited English Proficient students compared to District# 2 (2%) which greatly impacts WADA. Another factor affecting District #1 WADA would be the high number of 93% of economically disadvantaged students versus District #2 20%. These percentages greatly affect WADA because of the higher weights placed on those sub-groups. In addition, District # 1 also has a higher Special Education population with 9% listed as Special Ed and District 2 has only a 7% Special Ed population.

In both cases, student population brings positive effects but as we see in District #1, this drift may be reversed as the number of LEP student continues to increase. District administrators need to develop plans to balance expenditures based upon all factors in relation to the WADA and maintenance and operations. We are all under the assumption that more revenue translates to better school and greater student achievement, however the cost of transportation, administrative costs increase as the number of students increase.

An assumption made is that reduced per pupil expenditures translate into greater student achievement because the money saved can be invested in improving schools; however this may not necessarily be the case. Increased cost efficiency does not automatically translate into a better education for students.

Finally larger budgets do not necessarily mean an improved quality of the curriculum. Districts need a clear balance of costs for curriculum as well as for maintenance and operations.


 * __Part 5__**

2010 Property Value: District 1 $145,968, 635 District 2 $2,916,187,709 I&S: District 1 $94,871 District 2 $8,836,256 (these are funds used to pay debt from bonds and such, this lets me know that the facilities at D2 are awesome) Chapter 46: District 1 $572,716 District 2 $0 District 2 has the most funds for debt


 * __Part 6__**

Comp Ed: District 1 $3,835,006 District 2 $633,369 (not a lot of ED students in district 2)

Our conclusion from all of this is that District 2 is very wealthy with low enrollment of ED students. Their property value drives their budget and pays for a lot. They look like they are chapter 41 and subjct to recapture. Also, if you take a look at the payment class at the top of the report, District two gets paid at the first of the year and then at the end of the year and that tells us they have a lot of "house money". The other district receives state funds every month which resembles a family living paycheck to paycheck.

Part 2 Revenue WADA @ Compressed Rate: District 1 – 5044 District 2 – 7206 Target Revenue M&O Fund: District 1 – 19,640,075 District 2 – 29,061,290 Teachers, Librarians, Nurses, Counselors District 1 – 281 District 2 – 307 District 1, it is believed, has a large number of economically disadvantage students in comparison to District 2. Their revenue is significantly less because of Districts 2 high taxable value and this drives their WADA Revenue up. Now, Districts 1 state generated funds is larger per student and that is where the state finds equity in their funding system. In this case, District 2 taxable revenue drives up the WADA revenue. Target Revenue for the M&O Fund is found by multiplying ADA times the Revenue WADA @ the compressed rate. This number is driven up for the same reason as the Revenue WADA.

I got the same answers on each part, except Part 2 M&O Fund Revenue. I thought that to get this amount, you multiplied Revenue per WADA @ Compressed Rate times WADA. When I did this, I got: District#1= $28,023,530.86 and District#2= $34,546,111.66. I know the difference is not much, but I want to make sure I understand how to compute the answer correctly.

Week 3 Part 1 Many districts are able to receive additional funds from the state due to their high concentrations of students with special needs, economically disadvantaged, bilingual, career education students and gifted and talented students. These groups make up the students considered in Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). Upon analysis of the data provided by our professors, the school finance provided by state and local governments varies depending on student populations and sub-groups within the district. From the samples the Economically Disadvantaged enrollment for District 1 is 93.3 and for District 2 is 20.7 and the Bilingual population for District 1 is 41% and District 2 is 2%. WADA is therefore affected by the special populations which require additional state funds to provide equitable instructional programs for students at District 1 schools based on the data below. Due to the special populations District 1 has the lower ADA, but a higher WADA as reflected below: * The ADA adjusted for decline: 3893.754 D1 and 4032.93 D2, * WADA 5555.81 D1 and 4794.07 D2.

Group 1: Week 3 Part 2 Lee and I have discussed the fact that the data sets do not match. The initial data is for 2009 and the second set is for 2010-2011. We did go ahead and proceed with the activity as if the data was for the same year and the same districts. We realize that the data is not as accurate as it could be due to the variations in actual numbers of students, sub groups, ADA and other variables. Utilizing the data provided the calculations are as follows:
 * Revenue WADA @ Compressed Rate 5044 District 1 and 7206 District 2.
 * Maintenance & Operations Fund Revenue $28,023,556.08 for District 1 and $34,546,140.48 for District 2.
 * Teachers + Librarians + Nurses + Counselors for District 1: 281 and District 2: 307

District 2 is a district with higher property values based on the amount of M & O funds allotted for salaries professional travel, facility operations and basic expenditures. M & O are the largest percentage of program funds. Facilities must be extensive in District 2 since the difference in staff is only 26 people, yet there is a difference in M & O of $6,522,584.40. If the 26 salaries average $55,000 then we could subtract $1,430,000 and that leaves $5,092,584 for facilities and operations.

Group 1: Week 3 Part 3 As stated on Part 2, the data sets are not from the same years. However as we complete the assignment with the assumption that they are the same, the Compensatory Allotment for District 2, is a district with low Economically Disadvantaged and therefore the action of providing WADA failed because it was not needed as badly in District 2 as it was for District 1. District 1 has 93.3% ED while District 2 has 20.7%. Yet the M & O of district 2 is higher and therefore there is no correlation in ED and WADA or M & O in this case.

Part 5 2010 Property Value 145,968, 635 D1 and 2,916,187,709 D2 I&S 94,871 D1 and 8,836,256 D2 (these are funds used to pay debt from bonds and such, this lets me know that the facilities at D2 are awesome) Chapter 46 572,716 D1 and 0 D2 District 2 has the most funds for debt

It is apparent from the calculations that District #2 is by far a wealthier district. Based on the numbers we can conclude that the facilities in district #2 are modern and up to date. We also suspect that District #2 has the latest in technology and state of the art equipment. We can guess that there are constant renovations and modernizations conducted in District #2. Furthermore, District #2 has the most funds available to make payments on the existing debt and still enjoy top of the line school buildings and facilities. Although we are not negating that District #1 does not provide students with an optimal learning environment, however, we can assume that District #2 takes advantage of its revenues to use constantly improve and modernize its facilities.

Part 6 Comp Ed 3,835,006 D1 and 633,369 D2 ( not a lot of ED students in district 2)

My conclusion from all of this is that District 2 is very wealthy with low enrollment of ED students. There property value drives their budget and pays for a lot. They look like they are chapter 41 and subjct to recapture. Also, if you take a look at the payment class at the top of the report, District two gets paid at the first of the year and then at the end of the year and that tells us they have a lot of "house money". The other district receives state funds every month which resembles a family living paycheck to paycheck.

Cheree (see above) With the answers for each assignment having specific data, our responses will cite data and stretch explanations to include all possible conclusions for data sets. Having more than a page for each part will still be difficult.

I will work on writing as much as I can to develop the 2-4 page paper. (Tatiana)

**<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Week Three Assignment, Part 3 – Group 1 ** <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; text-align: center;">The Texas School Finance System is a complex formula that averages students’ daily attendance. Weights are given to students in different programs, such as special education, bilingual, and career and technical to calculate a district’s Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). School districts receive funds based on the Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA). The WADA determines the amount of revenue per student a school district is allowed. That revenue includes both state funds and local property taxes up to $1.00 of property tax effort and commonly referred to as “target” revenue. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">According to the review of District #1 and District #2, we found that District 2 is a district with higher property values based on the amount of Maintenance and Operations (M & O) funds allotted for salaries professional travel, facility operations and basic expenditures. M & O are the largest percentage of program funds in District #2. Facilities must be extensive in District 2 since the difference in staff is only 26 people, yet there is a difference in M & O of $6,522,584.40. If the 26 salaries average $55,000 then we could subtract $1,430,000 and that leaves $5,092,584 for facilities and operations. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">District #1 has a higher percentage (48%) of Limited English Proficient students compared to District# 2 (2%) which greatly impacts WADA. Another factor affecting District #1 WADA would be the high number of 93% of economically disadvantaged students versus District #2 20%. These percentages greatly affect WADA because of the higher weights placed on those sub-groups. In addition, District # 1 also has a higher Special Education population with 9% listed as Special Ed and District 2 has only a 7% Special Ed population. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">In both cases, student population brings positive effects but as we see in District #1, this drift may be reversed as the number of LEP student continues to increase. District administrators need to develop plans to balance expenditures based upon all factors in relation to the WADA and maintenance and operations. We are all under the assumption that more revenue translates to better school and greater student achievement, however the cost of transportation, administrative costs increase as the number of students increase. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">An assumption made is that reduced per pupil expenditures translate into greater student achievement because the money saved can be invested in improving schools; however this may not necessarily be the case. Increased cost efficiency does not automatically translate into a better education for students. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Finally larger budgets do not necessarily mean an improved quality of the curriculum. Districts need a clear balance of costs for curriculum as well as for maintenance and operations.