PART 3, Week 3 – Group Analysis of Contrasts of 2 Districts (by Tom Wales, Anthony Watson, Bart Walter, & Jesus Uranga)
Intention
Although the intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) formula was to create a “more equal” learning field for district’s who may have a much larger diverse group of students that require more funds to teach, such as economically disadvantaged students, the outcome of these allocated funds can, and many times does, still can fall short of that intention of being able to properly educate all students. The reason is simple. Poorer districts will receive more funds per students from the state but they will fall way short in funds received for Maintenance & Operations (M&O) because of the lack of funds from low property taxes. In return, this can leave many districts having to make cuts into programs and staffing. Specifically, programs that fall directly under the Maintenance M&O. Some examples of these areas dramatically affected are in academic programs, support services, teacher and support staff, instructional resources, and facility operations just to name a few. Now let’s explore more specifically how these areas are positively and negatively impacted in District #1 compared to District #2.
The Impact of Facility Operations, Security, & Field Trips
As previously mentioned, allocations for Facility Operations is budgeted through the M&O. Although District 1 receives more funds for their 93.3% Economically Disadvantaged students than does District 2 with their 20.7%, the students in both districts still have to rely on funds received through local ad valorem (property) tax. Since District 2 has much higher property values, they receive much more money for M&O and are able to have larger budget for things that relate to Facilities. This would include the Physical Plant that maintains vehicles and equipment. In fact, District 1 has only 12 employees in their Physical Plant while District 2 has 16. The lack of M&O funds would also affect the number of custodians or the number of times they can service campuses each week. With student safety being the number 1 priority that parents leave educators with, District 1 may also find that their security staff and resources are limited as compared to their counterpart. Even the taking of student field trips could be reduced because of the lack of M&O funds. Since students who are economically disadvantaged have a much harder time financially to go visit places recreationally or educationally on their own, school field trips may have been their only time to gain that hands-on learning experience.
The Impact of Salaries on Both Districts
When I take into consideration the compensatory funding, I can see how the poorer district utilized the funding for additional staff; however, the compensatory funding combined with the local funding was not enough to create more teaching positions. Both school districts have employed the same number of teachers. However, when I look at the actual staff that has been hired by the district, I can see the impact of the compensatory education dollars. If it was a matter of hiring teachers with the additional state dollars from compensatory education, the poorer district had the funds to hire more teachers. Evidently, the decision was made to hire more support. As referenced by my example:
The poorer district has decided to hire more professional staff (49.46) as compared to the more affluent district (33.6); this is an obvious attempt to provide more direct support for teachers who may need assistance with the TEKS interpretation, assessment, planning, and monitoring or strategy preparation. Professional salaries are more than teacher salaries and if the poorer district limited itself to the same number of professionals that the more affluent district had hired, then the number of teachers would have increased by 17. It is evident that the poorer district made a choice between more classroom teachers without the assistance of adequate professionals or the quality of instruction that could be provided and a lower teacher to professional ratio.
When considering the number of Educational Assistants, the poorer district hired 37 Educational Assistants as opposed to the more affluent district hiring 56 Educational Assistants. In using the earlier example with regard to hiring professional staff, the poorer district could have increased the number of Educational Aides by at least two for each professional staff hired. However, if the quality of Educational Aides available is in question, then the simple fact of more bodies will not equate to success of students.
Each district has to have School Administrative Staff in order for their schools to function properly. It should be noted that the poorer District has more School Administrative Staff than does the more affluent school district. The needs of the campuses are greater at the poorer school district. It is a fact, “that what gets monitored… gets done”; the poorer district needs more administrative support to monitor teachers. This monitoring can include, but not limited to: proper usage of the TEKS, proper use of best practice strategies and proper assessment of student success or lack thereof.
When I take into consideration the compensatory funding, I can see how the poorer district utilized the funding for additional staff; however, the compensatory funding combined with the local funding was not enough to create more teaching positions. Both school districts have employed the same number of teachers. However, when I look at the actual staff that has been hired by the district, I can see the impact of the compensatory education dollars. If it was a matter of hiring teachers with the additional state dollars from compensatory education, the poorer district had the funds to hire more teachers. Evidently, the decision was made to hire more support. As referenced by my example:
The poorer district has decided to hire more professional staff (49.46) as compared to the more affluent district (33.6); this is an obvious attempt to provide more direct support for teachers who may need assistance with the TEKS interpretation, assessment, planning, and monitoring or strategy preparation. Professional salaries are more than teacher salaries and if the poorer district limited itself to the same number of professionals that the more affluent district had hired, then the number of teachers would have increased by 17. It is evident that the poorer district made a choice between more classroom teachers without the assistance of adequate professionals or the quality of instruction that could be provided and a lower teacher to professional ratio.
When considering the number of Educational Assistants, the poorer district hired 37 Educational Assistants as opposed to the more affluent district hiring 56 Educational Assistants. In using the earlier example with regard to hiring professional staff, the poorer district could have increased the number of Educational Aides by at least two for each professional staff hired. However, if the quality of Educational Aides available is in question, then the simple fact of more bodies will not equate to success of students.
Each district has to have School Administrative Staff in order for their schools to function properly. It should be noted that the poorer District has more School Administrative Staff than does the more affluent school district. The needs of the campuses are greater at the poorer school district. It is a fact, “that what gets monitored… gets done”; the poorer district needs more administrative support to monitor teachers. This monitoring can include, but not limited to: proper usage of the TEKS, proper use of best practice strategies and proper assessment of student success or lack thereof.
Impact on Instructional Programs and Services
District 1 and District 2 are prime examples of inequality in the state’s method of funding public schools. Both districts are similar in student enrollment and size. District 1 has a population of 3,903 students, ninety-three percent of which are economically disadvantaged. Almost half of that population is LEP. District 1 is a property poor district with a local DPV of $145,968,635. The total refined ADA is $3,893 and weighted ADA at compressed rate is 5,044.District 2 has a population of 3,890 students, twenty percent are economically disadvantaged. Two percent of the population is LEP. District 2 is a wealthy district with high property values. The local DPV for District 2 is $2,916,187,709. The total refined ADA is $4,032 and weighted ADA at compressed rate is $7,206. District 1 receives more funding for WADA than District 2, but it is quite obvious that District 1 cannot provide the same services and meet all student needs like District 2. The Weighted Average Dailey Attendance is supposed to aid districts that have students with educational needs. The programs include Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Compensatory Education, and C.A.T.E.
The Maintenance and Operations tax rate for both districts is $1.00, but there is a huge gap between the total target revenue. $6,522,606 separates the two districts. There are numerous programs funded by the Maintenance and Operations fund. Each program can be affected by this fund. Some of the programs under M&O are: Health Services, Media Services, Athletics, and CATE. District 1 has 24 percent of the students enrolled in Career and Technical Education, compared to 14 percent of District 2 students. District 1 cannot provide the enough services for the students. District 1 has a budget shortfall compared to District 2.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the fact does hold true that more money is given to districts that have students who cost more to educate them. In fact, poorer District 1 receives more money per student for “Instructional Expenditures” ($4,841) than does richer District 2 ($4,651). However, because a very large portion of a district’s funds are received through local ad valorem (property) taxes, District 1, and all districts similar to District 1, will lag behind in staffing and programs that fall under the M&O which, in turn, has a direct negative impact on each student, teacher, support staff, program, resource, and ultimately education.
No comments:
Post a Comment