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.