School+Finance+Week+3


 * __Part 1 __**

District 1 District 2

% Eco. Dis. 93.3 20.7

Tot. Refined ADA 3893.754 4032.937

WADA 5555.815 4794.076

The district with the smaller ADA has the larger WADA resulting from formula considerations such as the percentage of students represented in the areas of economically disadvantaged, LEP, special education, career/technology, and gifted and talented. This district has a larger percentage of students represented in each of these areas.

__**Part 2 **__

District 1 District 2

Rev./WADA Compressed Rate $5044 $7206

Total Target Rev. for M&O $28,023,530.86 $34,546,111.66

Teachers 265 265

Other Prof. Staff 49.44 33.6

This is a great example of how complicated public school funding can be. I work at a property poor district that is 80% Eco. Dis. and is joining the funding lawsuit against the state. The districts above have the same tax rate, and approximately the same number of students but differ greatly in property values and funding. It is easy to argue that district 1 should receive more money but one could also argue that when considering the total M&O collections (1:$1,369,340 and 2:$35,879,109) that district 2 is being penalized by the state for its wealth. But that is an argument of fairness and not of equity. If we truly value education and wish to reduce poverty then we must equally put our money where our mouths are, to include those which hunger most!


 * __Part 3 __**

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 <span style="background-color: #ffff00; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Part 4 **__ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">CISD receives revenue from three sources: local and intermediate, state program, and federal program. Each source of revenue contributes monies to one of three fund types: general, special services, and debt services (from which federal program sources are excluded). <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Local sources account for 28.21% of the total revenue for CISD at $9,489,265. Of that amount $7,446,747 is allotted to the general fund, $413,410 to special services, and $1,629,108 for debt services. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">State sources account for 59.06% of the total revenue for CISD at $19,865,660. Of that amount $18,184,470 is allotted to the general fund, $386,068 to special services, and $1,295,122 for debt services. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Federal sources account for 12.73% of the total revenue for CISD at $4,283,581. Of that amount $286,240 is allotted to the general fund, $3,997,341 to special services, and $0.0 for debt services. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The amount of revenue from local sources is reflective of CISD being a poorer property wealth district and thus not generating enough local tax revenue to adequately fund the educational needs of CISD’s students. As with state program sources, the majority of money from the local sources are allotted to the general fund and a much smaller amount to special services. Each contributes to the debt service for facilities. Much of the facility improvement in CISD comes from the fund balance as passing bonds is very difficult in our community. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Federal sources require almost all monies be allotted to special services and, although only 12% of our revenue sources, are very important in these tough economic times. CISD lost $3.5 million in state funding and $0.5 million in federal funding from 2010 to 2011. In addition, due to an unexpected decrease in enrollment as of snapshot, we stand to lose an additional $680,000. To further complicate financial matters, the state informed us that they made a $400,000 mistake in 2009 and will be holding that from CISD in 2011. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Nearly 80% of our student population is economically disadvantaged and thus the funding formula appears to work in our favor by sending more money from the state to compensate for our lack of local sources. Where I feel that there is a lack of equity is how some districts, through CEI and other components of the funding formula, are assigned substantially larger WADA/student amounts.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Part 5 **__ It is obvious that district 1 is a much poorer district as evidenced by the DPV and one would assume that, when considering the relatively small amount of money available through the I&S that they would also struggle to provide adequate facilities for their students. District 2 with nearly $9 million from I&S would be expected to have newer/updated facilities. It is true that the most valuable educational resources are our teachers and provide the greatest impact and inspiration, but the physical environment also plays an important role as well. I have experienced this while working in a 3A district north of Houston in 1993. Our HS was old and antiquated, the district was assigned a TEA monitor, and most of our population was economically disadvantaged. In April our HS moved into a new building. Immediately we saw a reduction in discipline issues and an increase in academic performance. Students often associate their school as an extension of their home and we encourage them to take pride in being an Indian, Wildcat, Eagle… I believe that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds greatly benefit from an education in a physical environment that promotes a higher feeling of self-worth and inspires higher expectations.
 * || District 1 || District 2 ||
 * 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV) || 145,968,635 || 2,916,187,709 ||
 * I & S Tax Collections || 94,871 || 8,836,256 ||
 * Ch.46 (EDA) totals || 572,716 || 0 ||

__**<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Part 6 **__ District 1 District 2

Compensatory Education Allotment 3,835,006 633,369

Calculations from TEA School Finance Material District 1 $5,427 (AA) x .2 x 3,641 (SCE) = $3,951,941

District 2 $5,321 (AA) x .2 x 805 (SCE) = $856,681

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 15px;">District 1 receives a much larger amount than district 2 as a result of their larger population of economically disadvantaged students in the free and reduced lunch programs. While not compensating for the facility shortfall previously discussed, the extra allotment should allow the district to provide programs to those students.