Week+3+Assignments

Group 2 Thyrun Hurst-black ink..... Sara Otto-green ink ........ Daniel Mitchell-blue ink Please add information as you see fit.....we will submit final draft from all members of the group.

__**Week 3 ....Part 1 School Finance EDLD 5342**__
Using the lecture/interview from Week Three, the Glossary in the Resource Section, and information from //Week Three Snapshot District 1 Example// and //Week Three Snapshot District 2 Example//, have your Wiki group do the following: __**//Position Statement//**__ Based on the amount of Econ-Disadv. students. Also based on percentage of students in weighted programs as well as attendance rate. The district with larger WADA has the smaller ADA because they are servicing more students with greater needs as indicated by the number of students in special programs and that are receiving free or reduced lunch.
 * Determine the percentage of economically disadvantaged students for each district
 * Determine the Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline for each district
 * Determine the Weighted ADA (WADA) for each district
 * || District1 || District2 ||  ||
 * Econ. DisAdv. || 93.3% || 20.7% ||  ||
 * Refined ADA || $3,893.754 || $4,032.937 ||  ||
 * Weighted WADA || $5,555.815 || $4,794.076 ||  ||

__**Week 3 ....Part 2 School Finance EDLD 5342**__
Using the lecture/interview from Week Three, the Glossary in the Resource Section, and information from //Week Three Snapshot District 1 Example// and //Week Three Snapshot District 2 Example//, have your Wiki group do the following:
 * Determine the revenue per WADA@Compressed Rate
 * Using the WADA figures from Part 1 above, calculate the total target revenue for the M & O – Maintenance & Operations Fund for each district (the figure is not included in the Snapshots),
 * Identify the total number of teachers, librarians, nurses & counselors in each district.


 * || District1 || District2 ||  ||   ||
 * WADA Compressed Rate || $5,044 || $7,206 ||  ||   ||
 * Revenue MO Fund || $28,023,530 || $34,546,111 ||  ||   ||
 * Teacher/Libr.,Nurses, Counselors || 281 || 307 ||  ||   ||

The amount money for the MO Fund is calculated by multiplying the Compressed WADA by Weighted WADA from the above assignment. Please be sure to double check the calculations for the MO Fund. These are the same calculatiions and numbers that I came up with.

__**Week 3 ....Part 3 School Finance EDLD 5342**__
Using the lecture/interview from Week Three, the Glossary in the Resource Section, and information from //Week Three Snapshot District 1 Example// and //Week Three Snapshot District 2 Example//, have your Wiki group do the following: As a group, develop a 2 – 4 page paper addressing the following:
 * The intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) 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;
 * Discuss your group’s thoughts on the differences and the potential positive and negative impact to each program funded under M & O (Maintenance & Operations).

WADA

After comparing both districts it becomes very clear why we studied in previous weeks the definitions of equality, equity, and adequacy. All of these are guarantees set forth by the Texas constitution more than 100 years ago and their definitions are still challenged in the courtroom when it comes to Texas school finance. The goal of WADA (weighted average daily attendance) is to provide more professionals and funding for districts that are property-poor by utilizing a formula that considers all sources of revenue for a district. Not only does this equation take into account the number of students in attendance, but it also looks at the type of students that are being serviced. The more students that are involved in specials programs such as gift and talented, bilingual, vocational, compensatory, and special education the more funding a district will need to provide a free and appropriate education for these students. The establishment of WADA was to provide equity among all students in the state of Texas regardless of what district they are in, but the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth best sum up the system, “fair is foul and foul is fair.” This week we are charged with comparing two districts and reviewing their snapshots and summaries of finance to look for correlations between revenue and demographics. This understanding will help us in determining funding for our future districts and begin to scratch the surface of the mystery of Texas school finance. With the combinations of areas of funding and the impending deeper budget cuts it stands to reason that our current knowledge of Texas school finance will change with the tides.

Differences District 1 is similar to a district that we studied before, Edgewood ISD. They receive very little funding from tax revenue but have a high number of students that are being serviced in special programs. They are 100 % Hispanic and therefore have a large number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students and a large bilingual program. It costs almost double to educate a child in both English and Spanish and without funding a district could not provide these programs. This district is also 93.3 % economically disadvantaged. This number directly correlates to the reason why there is a low amount of property taxes collected in District 1. This community most likely suffers from the effects of poverty. In an article published in //Instructional Leader// (May 2012) Eric Jenson discuses the effects of poverty on the brain. He describes how the brains of students who live in poverty are affected and how schools can address these gaps. This research is part of the driving force behind everyone’s favorite No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and is why the state monitors the data so carefully of children who are economically disadvantaged. Districts that have a higher number of students who are on free or reduced lunch receive more funding from the state for implementing programs to address the needs of this subgroup or in the case of some districts this majority.

In comparison, District 2 is a property-rich district. They receive less revenue from the state because they generate so much total target revenue locally. While both of these of these districts have about the same student-teacher ratio, District 2 has more professional staff. Even though the goal of WADA was to give District 1 this advantage, inadvertently District 2 has come out on top. District 2 does not have near the subgroups that District 1 has nor the amount of students in specials programs while District 1 is expected just to do more with less.

Great points and insights, I agree that District 1 is the short end of the bargain. They will have to do more with less.....this impacts teacher moral, learning, and campus culture.

Positive Impact
 * I do not see any positive effects from this.

Negative Impact
 * Students in District 1 are not being treated with Equity as relates to funding and programs that could be afforded to the district and schools.
 * Learning is not maximized, interventions are limited
 * Teachers over worked
 * Programs and activities are cut
 * Weaker school in the district-district rating impacted

__**Week 3 ....Part 5 School Finance EDLD 5342**__
Using the lecture/interview from Week Three, the Glossary in the Resource Section, and information from //Week Three Snapshot District 1 Example// and //Week Three Snapshot District 2 Example//, have your Wiki group do the following:


 * determine the 2010 Local District Property Value (DPV)
 * determine the I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collections
 * determine the Chapter 46 (EDA) totals
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">determine which district has the most funds available to make payments on existing debt/school facility bonds
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">prepare a group conclusion on the possible condition of facilities in both districts and the potential impact on student learning.*

?????? My conclusion is that District 2 just recently passed a bond because of their I&S rate. District 1 does not have a tax base to support a bond for new facilities and therefore will have to look for state funding if needed. District 2 again can be described as a property-rich district and one can assume that their facilities are a reflection of the community.
 * || District1 || District2 ||  ||   ||
 * 2010 Local DistrictPropertyValue || $148,968,635 || $2,916,187,709 ||  ||   ||
 * Interest and Sinking || $94,871 || $8,836,256 ||  ||   ||
 * Chp 46 EDA || $572,716 || $0 ||  ||   ||
 * Pay Debts Facility Bonds || ?????? || ??????? ||  ||   ||
 * __Groups Conclusions on possible conditions of the districts facilities and its impact on student learning__**

__**Week 3 ....Part 6 School Finance EDLD 5342**__
<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Using the lecture/interview from Week Three, the Glossary in the Resource Section, and information from //Week Three Snapshot District 1 Example// and //Week Three Snapshot District 2 Example//, have your Wiki group do the following:
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Determine the Compensatory Education Allotment for each district
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Develop a group statement on the potential impact on student learning from the Compensatory Education Allotment.

The additional funds in District 1 should have a greater impact on student learning based on the facts
 * || District1 || District2 ||  ||
 * CompensatoryEducationAllottment || $3,535006 || $633,369 ||  ||
 * __Group Statement impact on student learning__**
 * __Group Statement impact on student learning__**
 * __Group Statement impact on student learning__**
 * More student interventions....resources, materials, and teachers
 * After school transportation
 * More activities and events for student learning....field trips and professional development
 * smaller class sizes

Students who are in residential placement and even students who are pregnant are weighted to provide additional compensatory funding. Compensatory funding is to be used to close the educational gap for our at-risk students who have been identified as such by the following guidelines: performing below grade level, economically disadvantaged, second language learner, homeless, etc. Studies have found that districts with a high number of economically disadvantaged student have lower accountability ratings. This funding is intended to compensate for these gaps and afford districts to be able to address these needs with intensive intervention.