Week+3+Part+3

The goal of the state funding system is to provide equity, equality and accessibility for students. In simple terms, the system is to provide funding at a level that allows students from various backgrounds to experiences success. The current system is developed in theory to take into consideration the type of students that attend a school district and provide an adequate amount of funding to meet their needs. A number of funding formulas have been used in the past and challenged which is why we are now using the current system. As one can see from the example, the current system is still flawed. The weighted Average Daily Attendance is one of the primary sources of funding that a school district receives from the State of Texas. Because of the unique needs of each district that were presents in this scenario one sees a difference in the WADA. The WADA in District 1 was $5,044 and the WADA in district 2 is over $2,000 higher than district 1. This does not equate to an equitable education.

Both districts have a similar number of enrolled students. However, that is where the similarities end. District 1 has a student population with a greater need based in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students coupled with the fact that the percentage of English Language Learners in district 1 is almost six times higher. One would assume that the state would funnel more funds to District 1 in order to meet the needs of these students. However, under current funding formulas that is not what is happening. District 1 is 100% Hispanic and has a higher percentage of students in Special Education, Career and Technology and in Gifted and Talented Education. District 2 has only 20.7% of its students considered as economically disadvantaged. District 1 is a Title 1 district, while District 2 may have targeted Title 1 programs on its campuses without having a school wide program. These are very different student populations.

Since these two student populations are so vastly different the state has attempted to bridge this gap through Tier 1 funding. When one looks at these program intent code allotments differences in funding can be seen. See the chart below for a side by side comparison:


 * ** Program ** || ** District 1 Allotment ** || ** District 2 Allotment ** ||
 * Special Education || $1,905,486 || $1,620,234 ||
 * CTE || $1,666,064 || $913,212 ||
 * Gifted and Talented Education || $126,272 || $128,756 ||
 * Compensatory Education || $3,835,006 || $633,369 ||
 * Bilingual Education || $834,084 || $46,192 ||

The allotments above are meant to assist the school district in providing resources to meet the needs of its student population. The higher amount of funding received by district 1 should allow district 1 to hire more teachers, aides and acquire supplemental materials for their programs. This additional funding given to district 1 is in line with the goal of providing equitability in education. One would think that this would balance the funding problem but it does not. In conclusion, the state’s current system of funding public education does attempt to balance the playing field. It provides additional resources to students in need based on programs. It also provides avenues for wealth transfer from one district to another district so that property rich district can assist property poor districts in the raising of revenues. However, there are still flaws in the current system. The current system of using property values to finance education is not working. The state may still choose to use property values in the financing equation but they will need to go back to the drawing board if they are to provide all of the state’s students with a stellar education. The most at-risk students are in need of an education that provides them with experiences that other students may already have. With this said it is not certain whether the state can address this issue in a single legislative session.

The M&O fund for each district is still vastly different. District 1 collected $1,369,340 in total M&O tax collections while District 2 collected $35,879,109. This is a significant difference in any sense of the word and is because M&O funding is based on property value. District 1 is a property poor district while district 2 may very well be a Chapter 41 district. Even if District 1raised their tax rate it would not matter. The property value in District 1 is not substantial enough to raise the revenue to a point needed to provide the students within the boundaries a quality education. If both districts raised their tax rate by one cent District 2 would receive much more revenue than District 1.