Compensatory Education Allotment in Texas School Districts

In order to minimize the difference in student achievement between at-risk students and other students, State Compensatory Education (SCE) funding is designated to supplement the regular education program for students at-risk of dropping out of school. The amount of SCE funds a district receives is based off of the number of educationally disadvantaged students enrolled in that district. The Compensatory Education Allotment for District 1 is roughly six times greater than that of District 2. SCE funds can be utilized for supplemental instructional materials, supplemental instructional supplies, supplemental staff expenses, tutors, tutorial materials, and provide salaries of teachers of at-risk students. SCE funds could also be used to lower the class size. SCE is allocated for supplemental services, staff, and materials in order to positively impact at-risk student achievement. These additional resources also provide the means to address the needs of at-risk students, thereby increasing academic success and decreasing student drop-out rate. In poor school districts the compensatory funds are a vital part of their budget. The SCE provide a means for helping students who are in need without having to tax an already financially burdened community. The rich districts can compensate for their lack of compensatory funding because they generally do not have the percentage of students needing special programs and they have the tax base to support these programs locally.

Maintenance & Operations Fund

During the year, the District had governmental funds revenues, adjusted for capital projects, of $78,040,294, an increase of $856,398 or 1.1% over the previous year’s revenue of $77,183,896. The governmental funds expenditures, adjusted for capital projects, were $77,616,540, a decrease of $1,024,258 or 1.3% under the previous year expenditures of $78,640,798. The decrease in expenditures was due primarily to decrease in teacher and staff positions and budget allocations, decrease of debt payments, and a decrease in the requirement to remit local tax dollars ($7,222,813 Robin Hood payment) back to the state, this having been the fifth year of participation as a paying district under the present funding system. Our districts M&O funds are comprised of both local taxes and some federal funding and they are categorized in different allotments (CTE, Special Ed, ESL, Transportation, etc.) Property tax rates for 2009-10 were the same as the previous year $1.04 for maintenance and operations and $0.29 for debt service. Although the tax rate remained the same property taxes increased $3,055,047 or 5.6% due to an increase in property values. As stated in earlier reflections, my district has done a very good job adjusting to lower budgets. Moral has been maintained high and there have been few cuts in personnel. “Fluff” positions as many might see them as are not being renewed. In my middle school for example, we had two band directors and one retired and was not replaced. The proposed budget this year was presented to all and although there was a lot of chat, the consensus amongst all was that we must do as much as we can to keep on being successful with less money. The Long Range Planning Committee is in the planning stages to recommend a new bond package to remodel, repair roofs, update air conditioning system and technology infrastructure in the near future. This bong will provide funds for an array of school projects including a new elementary, remodeling of a middle school, and many other improvements.

School Finance: Comparison of Two Texas School Districts

While the intent of WADA is to help districts with student populations that traditionally need more resources in order to meet their educational needs, due to local property value differences, it does not always equalize the disparity in the funding available in poor school districts, as compared to wealthier ones. This is evidenced in the data from the Snapshot Detail and the Summary of Finances of the two districts examined in this assignment. For example, each district has the same number of teacher FTE's on their 2009 snapshots, but teachers in District 2 are paid an average salary of $53,328 compared to only $46,755 in District 1. This approximately $6500 difference in pay implies that District 2 is able to recruit and retain better teachers. In addition, District 2 has more experienced teachers and nearly 25% of them have advanced degrees. In District 1, only 18% of the teachers have acquired advanced degrees. District 2 also employs more aides than District 1; therefore, District 2 is able to provide more instructional support for students with special needs and for those who are at-risk. This is significant because the quality of teachers has a greater impact on student performance and improvement than any other variable, according to most studies on the subject.

Educational Programs Funding

District 1 spent more money per student than District 2 in the snapshot year ($4,841 compared to $4,651) but when one evaluates to what areas funding was allocated, it becomes apparent that District 1 found it necessary to distribute funds very differently. The percentages spent on the educational programs in each district suggests that District 2 is better able to address the needs of their student populations in regular education and gifted and talented, as compared to District 1, while District 1 allocated a substantially higher percentage of funding to accelerated education that District 2. (See Table 1 below.)

Table 1

Percentage of Funding for Educational Programs

	District 1	District 2
Regular Education	52%	66%
Special Education	12%	13%
Accelerated Education	22%	6%
Gifted and Talented	0%	6%

Revenue Allocation

In comparing the two districts’ Snapshot Detail and Summary of Finance, data indicated substantial disparities. The student populations differ greatly. These demographics suggest that District 1’s students begin school with a deficit in school readiness as compared to District 2, which explains the reason for a larger allocation to accelerated education in District 1. The taxable value per pupil Though District 1’s ADA to WADA was a higher percentage increase than District 2; however, it is likely that the increase was not enough for a small district with a large percentage of students receiving special programs services. For example, District 1’s compensatory allotment is much larger than District 2’s due to their much larger population of economically disadvantage. However, the most striking disparities are seen in the taxable value per pupil and the revenue per pupil for District 1 compared to District 2. (See Table 2 below.)

Table 2

Revenue and Expenditure Comparison

	District 1	District 2
Tax rate	1.109	1.33
Taxable value per pupil	$35,016	$866,227
Revenue per pupil	$9,811	$13,373
Expenditure per pupil	$9095	$9073
Instructional expenditure per pupil	$4841	$4651

Despite the vast differences between the districts, there are also some similarities. For example, the following data are almost identical for Districts 1 and 2, respectively: student enrollment (3903 and 3890), teacher FTE (265), teacher to student ratio (14.8 and 14.7), turnover rate (11.3% and 11.1%), expenditures per pupil ($9095 and $9073), and instructional expenditures per pupil ($4841 and $4651). In addition, both districts are similar in regard to Special Education Allotment ($1.9 million on 9%, $1.6 million on 7%), as well as in regard to Bilingual Education Allotment ($521.58 and $589.74).

Positive and Negative Impact of WADA

There are both positives and negatives to the WADA system. Some potential positive impacts include a smaller gap between property rich and property poor districts. Another positive is providing proper funding for specialized classes that cost more to maintain, such as career and technology programs. In addition, WADA can positively impact the district’s ability to hire more teachers and obtain more resources to address the needs of students requiring special services and addition support.

However, the WADA system can have a potentially negative impact, as well. Although the intent is to provide adequate funding; at times WADA falls short of equity and equality - WADA alone cannot fix improper funding. To a substantial degree, the district has the ability to decide where to allocate funds. For example, the district may decide to underfund a particular program in order to upgrade another. This may be a positive for some students, but it diminishes the opportunities for others. Additionally, human error involved in PEIMS coding can have a large impact on WADA funds. It is imperative that each student is coded correctly, so that the WADA is accurate. In conclusion, the evaluation of both districts shows that, even after WADA is applied, disparity in the funding of the property poor district and the property rich district still exists. This is a reality of Texas school finances. Though the intent of the WADA is to provide more funding to District 1 in order to serve the needs of their economically disadvantaged students, as well as other special populations, after reviewing the Snapshots and the Summary of Finances for both districts, it seems obvious that this objective was not met. Ultimately, District 2 has more money due to more revenue from local property taxes.

Comparing Two Districts

	District 1	District 2
Economically Disadvantaged Students	93.3%	20.7%
Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline	3,893.75	4,032.93
Weighted ADA (WADA)	5,555.81	4,794.07



Position Statement:

Though District 1 has a smaller ADA, it has a larger Weighted ADA (WADA) because it has a significantly greater percentage of economically disadvantaged students as compared to District 2. District 1 has a greater number of students eligible for “special entitlements” and therefore has a larger WADA than District 2.

Both districts have enrollments which are similar, but District 1 has a higher special group’s population. Special ed, Bilingual, ESL, GT, CTE, LEP, and economically disadvantaged student populations increase the district’s WADA since it is getting more Tier I state funding. The reason for the difference is because the student count is adjusted since the costs of meeting the educational needs of the students in the special programs is higher.

Understanding TEA Budgeting Guidelines

Viewing and reviewing the TEA budgeting guidelines allowed me to learn a bit more about the process of building a school budget. It is important that the state guidelines are understood and implemented. School finance is very new to me and I feel that now more than ever we must learn it thoroughly. I worked with a very hard working Superintendent in a small school and he did his very best to always generate as much money as we could. I clearly recall it being a celebration when a new student enrolled. New student would equal more money! From those experiences I began to learn slowly however I had been exposed minimally to the guidelines.

In the past I have previewed the various guidelines through my masters program at Texas State University while enrolled in school law. The organization of the document is chronological and the summaries are very helpful. It serves as a good guide for someone new who is learning the process of school budgets and the state requirements and mandates. I feel like I will be able to use this as a resource when contributing to a district budget.