School finance is a buzz word in the state and nation at this time. It is a disliked work by some and a feared word by others. As I said in my self assessment, it requires on the job training. You can type data into templates, read articles and work on the WADA, but until you do a projected budget, be the final line of yes or no, and then put the plan into place for the upcoming year, I just do not feel like I will ever feel competent. Guess what, and then it happens again the following year. This class has helped me broaden my knowledge but I do know that there is a long way to go.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Code of Ethics for School Leaders
Standard 1.2 – Using the school tractor to mow your personal acreage.
This happens very often when school equipment is used for someone’s personal gain. This is very prevalent in the Career and Technology areas because of availability of different equipment and funds. My example is the Ag teacher that allows for people in the community to use the welder on the weekends at their homes. Over time the welder has many hours placed on it not by the community’s children, but by adults. Then the welder breaks and its cost money to get it fixed or worse yet, you have to buy another welder. The short term consequences are money out of the budget and the school’s reputation. Ruling out termination of the accused teacher, the teacher must learn that they are setting themselves up to fail. Equipment will break and it will break faster when there are multiple users. When you allow some then many will come and you must be fair. It is best to not allow and to get a hold of the situation very quickly.
Standard 1.6 – Changing the final count of the gate money from last night’s basketball game to match the number of tickets sold.
Many times, someone is put in charge of counting the ticket sales from the money box from sporting events. The best way of accounting for the amount of money made is to account for the amount of tickets sold and attach a value to each ticket. There are occasions where someone does not add or subtract correctly and the money can be a few dollars off or the wind blows through the doorway and tickets are lost, causing the money and tickets to not add up correctly. The administrator must sign off on the money collected and account for the missing money or missing tickets. It is very easy to avoid questions asked to make the tickets and money collected match by throwing away some tickets or taking out some of the money. You could lose your job and cost the position of the person counting the money. The trust that you have built will be lost. The best thing to do is put counters in place at the business office. Make sure that two people are with the money at all times and they double check the counting procedures.
Standard 1.5 – An assistant principal that does not impose the same discipline to a student because they are their baby sitter.
You as a superintendent have many complaints that one of your assistant principals is allowing his baby sitters to not attend detentions that they are assign and taking them off the list. This is causing problems in the student body and the parents are calling you about this and want it stopped. You must call in that principal and make sure that their credibility will forever be altered and that their ability to serve discipline to students will be ruined. In the short term, this will affect the climate of the students.
Standard 2.5 – Not including teachers in the Christmas Party based on their religious beliefs.
Standard 2.7 – Threatening someone who is brought into an investigation that concerns you and your students.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Interview with the Business Manager on Financial Audits
My interview with Lyndal Cabaniss, Director of Finance at Salado ISD, lasted this entire class. We have had great dialog thru this course and I have increased my knowledge greatly. More importantly, I have learned that once you find a great financial director, you hold on to them.
The external auditor is selected by requesting qualifications, experience, cost and accessibility. It is up to the district who they select, but these four qualifications are the most important. The audit is conducted based on the Financial Accounting System Resource Guide, which is a checklist for auditors. Just as large businesses have many transactions, so does a school district. Remember, your school district is probably the largest employer in your area and there are many opportunities for theft and fraud to occur. All transactions could not be checked but the auditor operates on a sampling and confirmation system. This system asks for a certain amount or area of data and checks for errors and security. The audit will conclude with the general checks and balances of the system, accountability, possible fraud and budgets and how they are followed. The audit is presented to the chief financial officer and the superintendent before it is presented to the board of trustees in a meeting. After those two points have been communicated to, the audit is available to the public through the TEA.
Understanding Personnel Salaries in District Budgets
Salaries often control the climate of a learning culture, but they are not the driving factor behind learning. There are good teachers in our profession that work hard and would work for less is if meant their students performed at a higher rate. There are teachers who work just enough not to get fired and think that they are underpaid. You will find this paradigm in all professions.
Salaries are a delicate topic in a district because it is right to increase salaries alongside the cost of living and growth. The delicate part about increasing salaries is that is a decision that cannot be undone. Once you increase salaries 2.5%, then that increase must be accounted for the upcoming year when your revenue could all decrease. This increase should be known and communicated to all employees along with the knowledge that there may be no increase in salaries.
Analysis of Differentiated Staffing on a Campus of Your Choice
There are many reasons why differentiated staffing impacts and/or improves the goals of the campus. The obvious answer would be that each individual brings new perspectives, experiences and skills to the classroom. Given the multi-lingual nature of many schools, the presence of bilingual staff may improve student outcomes. Furthermore, a diverse staff creates a positive and dynamic environment that models valuing diversity. Students who may be language learners may feel more comfortable and are more likely to approach a teacher for help and support and may feel more motivated to succeed. In almost every profession that strongly impacts society; the concept of a “generalist” is considered archaic. Frederick Hess (2009) describes in his article “The Human Capital Challenge: Toward a 21st Century Teaching Profession,” “Even in the most innovative and dynamic charter schools, teaching bundles together the roles of content deliverer, curriculum designer, diagnostician, disciplinarian, discussion leader, empathizer, clerk, secretary, and attendant - and asks teachers to fulfill these roles for a variety of students in a variety of content areas.” (p. 13) Because of this, teachers are worked harder than is needed and less time is devoted to honing their actual teaching skills. A system of differentiated staffing will ensure that each teacher can specialize in one aspect of a child’s education and together with their colleagues make sure that each area of holistic learning is provided for so that all students achieve mastery levels in their educational experience.
Orangefield ISD is a rural, small 3A district located about 20 miles from Beaumont, Texas. In Orangefield ISD, a Curriculum Director serves as a curriculum and research specialist. His job is to keep abreast of all research into new methods and content and transfer it to the local campuses. He also meets with Team Leaders to discuss his findings and implications for beginning new programs in their content areas. He trains and provides support to new teachers during their probationary period of teaching. Teachers are given the opportunity to serve as Team Leaders on all campuses. At the elementary level (PK-4), there is one team leader per grade level. At the junior high (5-8) and high school (9-12) level, there is one team leader per subject area. Team Leaders meet with teachers on their team and with campus and district administrators. They relay information between the two groups, analyze data related to the students assigned to them and their team members, and schedule events for their team. Classroom teachers comprise most of the faculty. Paraprofessionals support teachers in RtI labs and mainly are assigned to life skills classrooms.
This hierarchy could be modified to even further follow the differentiated staffing model. Team Leaders could take on more of a supervisory role on their campuses and possibly spend a large percentage (75%) of their day in the classroom teaching and the other time (25%) in leadership roles and helping mentor probationary teachers in their field of experience. Paraprofessionals could serve as support persons in all areas and provide teachers with more time to hone their skills rather than monitoring recess time and copying worksheets.
An area of concern in Orangefield ISD is the lack of a culturally diverse staff. The student population of this district is growing and changing and the staff should reflect those changes. Currently, OISD employs 0 African American teachers, 1 Hispanic teacher, 118.1 White teachers, 0 Native American teachers and 0 Asian/Pacific Island teachers. The student population is made up of 14 African American students, 125 Hispanic students, 1,573 White students, 15 Native American students, and 27 Asian/Pacific Island students. As stated above, diversity and the presence of bilingual staff should improve student outcomes, especially with the students who are language learners. This also will support the district goal that states, "Orangefield ISD will implement strategies to promote positive climate and a nurturing culture for all members of the learning community."
Making these changes to the current staffing patterns would increase the budget for staff salaries. Removing the Team Leaders from the classroom for a portion of the day would involve hiring someone to teach the students for the 25% of time that team leaders are out of the classroom. Also, this would involve hiring more paraprofessionals, which would increase the budget. Student achievement should increase based on the increased amount of time teachers would have to actually teach their subject area and research innovative ways to deliver content. Implementing a differentiated staffing program at OISD could be a positive change agent in the district with the positive aspects outweighing the negative concerns.
Orangefield ISD is a rural, small 3A district located about 20 miles from Beaumont, Texas. In Orangefield ISD, a Curriculum Director serves as a curriculum and research specialist. His job is to keep abreast of all research into new methods and content and transfer it to the local campuses. He also meets with Team Leaders to discuss his findings and implications for beginning new programs in their content areas. He trains and provides support to new teachers during their probationary period of teaching. Teachers are given the opportunity to serve as Team Leaders on all campuses. At the elementary level (PK-4), there is one team leader per grade level. At the junior high (5-8) and high school (9-12) level, there is one team leader per subject area. Team Leaders meet with teachers on their team and with campus and district administrators. They relay information between the two groups, analyze data related to the students assigned to them and their team members, and schedule events for their team. Classroom teachers comprise most of the faculty. Paraprofessionals support teachers in RtI labs and mainly are assigned to life skills classrooms.
This hierarchy could be modified to even further follow the differentiated staffing model. Team Leaders could take on more of a supervisory role on their campuses and possibly spend a large percentage (75%) of their day in the classroom teaching and the other time (25%) in leadership roles and helping mentor probationary teachers in their field of experience. Paraprofessionals could serve as support persons in all areas and provide teachers with more time to hone their skills rather than monitoring recess time and copying worksheets.
An area of concern in Orangefield ISD is the lack of a culturally diverse staff. The student population of this district is growing and changing and the staff should reflect those changes. Currently, OISD employs 0 African American teachers, 1 Hispanic teacher, 118.1 White teachers, 0 Native American teachers and 0 Asian/Pacific Island teachers. The student population is made up of 14 African American students, 125 Hispanic students, 1,573 White students, 15 Native American students, and 27 Asian/Pacific Island students. As stated above, diversity and the presence of bilingual staff should improve student outcomes, especially with the students who are language learners. This also will support the district goal that states, "Orangefield ISD will implement strategies to promote positive climate and a nurturing culture for all members of the learning community."
Making these changes to the current staffing patterns would increase the budget for staff salaries. Removing the Team Leaders from the classroom for a portion of the day would involve hiring someone to teach the students for the 25% of time that team leaders are out of the classroom. Also, this would involve hiring more paraprofessionals, which would increase the budget. Student achievement should increase based on the increased amount of time teachers would have to actually teach their subject area and research innovative ways to deliver content. Implementing a differentiated staffing program at OISD could be a positive change agent in the district with the positive aspects outweighing the negative concerns.
Comparing Economy of Scale in Large and Small Districts
Week 4: Part 2 | District 1 | District 2 |
Total Students | 830 | 32,326 |
Number of Schools | 3 | 45 |
Total Revenue Per Pupil | $10,529 | $10,316 |
Total Operating Expenditure Per Pupil | $8,611 | $8,908 |
Average Teacher Salary (Advanced degrees D1: 12.7% & D2: 24.6%) | $39,771 | $50,307 |
Number of students per teacher | 11.9 | 14.1 |
Total Teacher FTE | 70 | 2,299 |
District 2 is considered a large district with over 32000 students. District 1 has an enrollment of a little over 800. Both of these districts do a good job of distributing the wealth to ensure equity for all of its students and both do a good job of generating revenue per pupil. The large district, 2, is most likely in a metropolitan area or an area of great population. Thus, this area will have budding business growth along with many opportunities for work and living. A larger salary, many times, will accompany a large districts employment. This salary is driven by cost of living being more expensive in a high population area and greater competition for good teachers. Also, a large salary will sometimes go hand in hand will larger problems or duties.
Also, if you subtract Total Operational Expenditures per Pupil from Total Revenue per Pupil and then multiply this number by the number of students for each district, you find that District 1 has a surplus of $1,591,940 and District 2 has a surplus of $45,515,008.
Economy of Scale is also a factor as we examine the data above. We notice the lower per unit cost as a result of increasing size. Infrastructure cost per pupil decreases as size of the district increases. (Jenkins, 2011) District 2 has lower revenue and operating expenditures per pupil based on Economy of Scale.
Economy of Scale is also a factor as we examine the data above. We notice the lower per unit cost as a result of increasing size. Infrastructure cost per pupil decreases as size of the district increases. (Jenkins, 2011) District 2 has lower revenue and operating expenditures per pupil based on Economy of Scale.
Also, note the greater the competition the more advanced degrees among teachers. That factor also increases the average salary.
Understanding FIRST
1. Fund Balance: 50% more than optimum and not more than 150%
2. Audit Report: Filed on time, No auditor opinions or disclosures on weaknesses
usually conducted in September
3. Student-Teacher Ratio
2. Audit Report: Filed on time, No auditor opinions or disclosures on weaknesses
usually conducted in September
3. Student-Teacher Ratio
There are two accountability systems for school districts in the state of Texas. The Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) is the accountability system for districts' curriculum and instruction programs. The Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST) hold districts responsible for the business and financial operations.
The Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, § 109.1001, states that the purpose of the financial accountability rating system is to ensure that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools will be held accountable for the quality of their financial management practices and achieve improved performance in the management of their financial resources. The system is designed to encourage Texas public schools to manage their financial resources better in order to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes. The system will also disclose the quality of local management and decision-making processes that impact the allocation of financial resources in Texas public schools.
According to Dr. Stephens’s Interview, the Superintendent has to be equally concerned about “district ratings” by both the AEIS and the FIRST systems. “It is incumbent on the Superintendent to monitor both rating systems, analyze areas of needed improvement, and implement needed adjustments.”
The FIRST system requires the Texas Education Agency to review audited financial reports from all districts and assign financial management ratings based on how the data conform to 22 established indicators. Every school district in Texas is required to prepare an annual financial management report that includes the district's financial management performance rating from TEA, the district's previous performance on the rating indicators, and information that the Board of Trustees deems useful. In addition, state law requires that school districts hold a public discussion/hearing on the report and publish notice of the hearing at least two times prior to the meeting.
The School FIRST accountability rating system assigns one of four financial ratings, with the highest being "Superior Achievement." For the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the financial accountability rating of a school district was based on its overall performance on certain financial measurements, ratios, and other indicators. The same will apply for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
Our group agreed that the three most important components of FIRST is the Fund Balance, which should be 50% more than optimum and not more than 150%. The second most important component is the audit report. The report should be filed on time and there should not be any opinions or disclosures on weaknesses. It is usually conducted in September. Finally, the last component we felt was the most important was student-teacher ratio. This is crucial since school districts tend to maximize classrooms to minimize their spending on salaries. This is a concern due to cuts in funding. This is an area to monitor as teachers are cut or positions are eliminated through retirement and resignations.
Overall, all of the components of FIRST are critical to school districts. Superintendents should have the knowledge of the measurements used to rate the district and should strive to receive Superior ratings just as they strive to be Exemplary.
The Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, § 109.1001, states that the purpose of the financial accountability rating system is to ensure that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools will be held accountable for the quality of their financial management practices and achieve improved performance in the management of their financial resources. The system is designed to encourage Texas public schools to manage their financial resources better in order to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes. The system will also disclose the quality of local management and decision-making processes that impact the allocation of financial resources in Texas public schools.
According to Dr. Stephens’s Interview, the Superintendent has to be equally concerned about “district ratings” by both the AEIS and the FIRST systems. “It is incumbent on the Superintendent to monitor both rating systems, analyze areas of needed improvement, and implement needed adjustments.”
The FIRST system requires the Texas Education Agency to review audited financial reports from all districts and assign financial management ratings based on how the data conform to 22 established indicators. Every school district in Texas is required to prepare an annual financial management report that includes the district's financial management performance rating from TEA, the district's previous performance on the rating indicators, and information that the Board of Trustees deems useful. In addition, state law requires that school districts hold a public discussion/hearing on the report and publish notice of the hearing at least two times prior to the meeting.
The School FIRST accountability rating system assigns one of four financial ratings, with the highest being "Superior Achievement." For the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the financial accountability rating of a school district was based on its overall performance on certain financial measurements, ratios, and other indicators. The same will apply for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
Our group agreed that the three most important components of FIRST is the Fund Balance, which should be 50% more than optimum and not more than 150%. The second most important component is the audit report. The report should be filed on time and there should not be any opinions or disclosures on weaknesses. It is usually conducted in September. Finally, the last component we felt was the most important was student-teacher ratio. This is crucial since school districts tend to maximize classrooms to minimize their spending on salaries. This is a concern due to cuts in funding. This is an area to monitor as teachers are cut or positions are eliminated through retirement and resignations.
Overall, all of the components of FIRST are critical to school districts. Superintendents should have the knowledge of the measurements used to rate the district and should strive to receive Superior ratings just as they strive to be Exemplary.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Examine Compensatory Education Allotment in Districts 1 and 2(Group 1)
Compensatory Education Fund: District 1 - 3,835,006
District 2 - 633,369
(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. Their property value drives their budget and pays for a lot. They look like they are chapter 41 and subject 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.
My 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 subject 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.
Examine District 1 and 2 Funding and Facilities(Group 1)
2010 Property Value: District 1 - 145,968, 635
District 2 - 2,916,187,709
I&S Fund: 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)
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.
(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.
Review and Analyze Salado ISD M&O Fund
2010-2011 Summary of Finances for Salado ISD
Refined ADA – 1267.017
Revenue Per WADA @ Compressed Rate – 5459
Local District Property Value – 592,757,633
2010 Adopted M&O Rate – 1.04
I&S Tax Collections – 1,586,632
Total M&O Tax Collections – 6,133,850
Above you will find the Summary of Finances for Salado ISD and the answers to some of the questions from this week for our district. What you can derive from this breakdown is that the ADA represents a small school. Our revenue based on WADA is not too much over the average of $5000. Our property value is very high and the tax rate is maxed out. Our I&S collections drive a new high school that was built 3 years ago. The Maintenance and Operating funds are primarily driven by the collection of local taxes. Below you will find the adopted budget for Salado ISD. The first 3 lines under revenue show the total M&O Revenue for the District and it is broken down into Federal, State and Local Sources.
2010-11
Adopted Budget for SALADO ISD
Date Adopted by Board: August 23, 2010
Revenue:
5700 Local and Intermediate Sources $6,839,784
5800 State Program Revenues $4,113,443
5900 Federal Program Revenues $655,028
Total Revenues $11,608,255
Expenditures:
11 Instruction $6,322,285
12 Instructional Resources, Media $354,311
13 Curriculum Development & Staff $73,780
21 Instructional Leadership $0
23 School Leadership $683,437
31 Guidance & Counseling, Evaluation $207,017
32 Social Work Services $35,697
33 Health Services $82,101
34 Student Transportation $421,600
35 Food Services $541,787
36 Co-curricular/ Extra-curricular $634,764
41 General Administration $450,304
51 Plant Maintenance & Operations $965,753
52 Security and Monitoring $9,773
53 Data Processing $0
61 Community Service $0
71 Debt Service $21,670
81 Facilities Acquisition and $0
91 Contracted Instructional Services $0
92 Incremental Cost Associated with $0
93 Payments to Fiscal Agents for Shared $700,000
94 Payments to Other Schools $0
95 Payments to Juvenile Justice AEP $5,000
96 Payments to Charter Schools $0
97 Payments to TIF $0
99 Inter-government charges not defined $98,000
Total Adopted Expenditure Budget $11,607,279.00
Difference in Revenue/Expenditures $976.00
Analyzing Contrasts in Districts 1 and 2(Group 1)
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.
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.
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.
Analyzing School Finance Issues in District 1 and 2(Group 1)
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.
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.
Texas School Finance Position Paper after District 1 and 2 Comparison(Group 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 is higher for District 1 than it is for District 2 based on compensatory education allotment. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)