EDLD+5342+Week+4+Part+2


 * Using 2009 District Snapshot data, our group has determined that the two districts are quite different.

Student population: 830 2% AA 22% H 76% White 0% Other 43% Eco Dis 4% LEP 10% SPED Total Revenue per pupil: $10,529 Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,611 Fund Balance: 2,552,074, 39% of 2008-09 budget Average teacher salary: $39,771 Teacher average years of experience 13.3 Teacher turnover rate: 16.4 Student Progress Measures: % Passing All tests taken 80 Average SAT 1043 % taking SAT 60.5 Attendance rate: 96.7 Longitudinal Dropout rate 1.9
 * District 1:**
 * District 1 highlights:**

Student population: 32,326 7% AA 56% H 31% White 7% Other 54% Eco Dis 33% LEP 9% SPED
 * District 2:**

Total Revenue per pupil: $10,316 Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,908 Fund Balance: 42,780,035, 16% of 2008-09 budget Average teacher salary: $50,307 Teacher turnover rate: 15.7 Teacher average years of experience 11.6 Student Progress Measures: % Passing All tests taken 78 Average SAT 1058 % taking SAT 86 Attendance rate: 95.9 Longitudinal Dropout rate 10.2
 * District 2 highlights:**

When examining the two districts, district 2 is much larger than district 1. While the total revenue per pupil is only about $213 more in district 1, this represents a great deal less funding for district 2 because of the number of students the district serves. Additionally, district 2 must have to pay their teachers a greater salary to retain quality teachers as indicated by the higher teacher turnover rate and lower years of teacher experience in district 2, compared to district 1. This results in more revenue that must be allocated to operations and taken away from instruction. Teacher salaries are likely to be the most impacted when funding is decreased for district 2 especially considering that their current fund balance is only 16% of their 2008-09 budget, compared to 39% of district 1’s budget.

Both districts have similar percents of economically disadvantaged students; however, district 1 has a significantly less longitudinal dropout rate. While the two districts have fairly similar percent of students meeting standard on all TAKS tests taken, district 2 has a much larger percent taking the SAT test as well as a higher average total score. This would indicate that district 2 has a much more success with preparing students for college.

Dr. Lu Stephens mentioned in the week 4 EDLD 5342 lecture, “economy of scale” certainly plays a factor in student learning. “Economy of scale” is when increased size results in lower per unit cost. The state considers the "economy of scale" when calculating the WADA of each school district in an effort to provide additional funding to smaller school districts. Due to this concept of "economy of scale" students in a much larger school district are less expensive to educate than those in a rural environment. Larger districts are thought to have an advantage of creating greater efficiency due to a decreased cost per student. Dr. Stephens discussed that the larger district would be attract and retain excellent teachers. This is likely why the district is able to offer much higher salaries which likely has led to higher quality teachers. This is the best reason to support why district 2 has much fared much better on their college admissions indicators with a very similar percent of economically disadvantaged students. ||