5342-WK3-Part 1, Comparing & Analyzing District Snapshots
Information:
1. Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Student
District 1 – 93.3%
District 2 – 20.7%
2. Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline
District 1 – 3,893.754
District 2 – 4,032.937
3. Weighted ADA (WADA)
District 1 - 5,555.815
District 2 – 4,794.076
This information was easily accessed from the District 1 and 2 Summary of Finances and the Snapshot.
Why did District 1, with the smaller ADA have the larger WADA?
The difference in the number of Economically Disadvantaged students is the answer to the question. After reviewing both districts’ information, it was easy to see the significant difference in percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students. The difference that District 1 had 93.3% versus 20.7% for District 2 changes the formula for calculating the WADA. According to the TEA Financial Accountability System Resource Guide, a school district’s WADA can be greater than its ADA depending on the number of students eligible for special entitlements, and equalization of the funding formula to achieve the equalized wealth level. A property-poor school district whose PTAD value is one third the guaranteed level would receive two dollars from the state for each dollar generated in local taxes in Tier II. This continues until the effective tax rate reaches the $1.17 tax limit. Any school district, such as District 2, whose wealth per WADA produces more than the guaranteed yield receives no Tier II revenue from the state. If you remember from the week 1 lecture, Senate Bill 1 was approved by the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 in which wealth would be distributed by having property wealthy districts distribute revenue to property poor districts. Thus the “Robin Hood Plan” was implemented. The greater the number of students eligible for special entitlements, the greater a school district’s WADA will be.
