Port Arthur I. S. D. has proposed total expenditures will be $172,649,667. The expenditures will be taken from Local M & O collections of $45,115,917. Of that total, $43,380,689 is M & O Collections @ Compressed Rate (compressed rate x 100 x yield per penny) and $1,735,228 is M & O Collections for Level 1 (Level 1 rate x 100 x yield per penny). The district also has I & S tax collections of $19,495,622. Because the district has 9% of its population that is designated as special education, it receives a special education allotment of $4,212,523. It also receives $413,277 for its bilingual students and $8,344,712 in compensatory funds.
For 2011-12, the district has total general fund revenue of $69,665,575. 61.71% or $47,650,002 is from local sources, 37.53% or $21,504,435 is from state sources and 0.75% or $596,238.
The budgeted calculations indicate that $38,227,070 will be used for instruction and $1,924,599 is allocated to instructional leadership. $11,614,028 is proposed to be used for plant M & O. This results in per pupil expenditures of $4,166.
I found this assignment quite enlightening. I have a better understanding of how the funds that are used to operate a district are generated and expended each year.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Local Property Values
2010 Local District Property Value (DPV)
District 1 $ 145,968,635
District 2 $2,916,187,709
I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collection
District 1 $94,871 District 1 $8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals
District 1 $572,716
District 2 $0
Funds Available to Make Payments
District 1 $667,587
District 2 $8,836,256
By examining the figures above, it is apparent that District 2 is a much wealthier district than District 1. District 1only has a local district property value approximately 145 million dollars and District 2 has a local district property value of approximately 2 billion dollars. I would ascertain that the buildings and the infrastructure in District 2 are probably newer and better maintained than those of District 1. With property values as low as they low as they are in District 1 would probably indicate that the buildings in District 1 are somewhat dilapidated and the infrastructure antiquated. I would also envision District 2 to have more intervention and remedial programs than District 1 although they are needed much more in District 1. Even if District 1 had newer buildings, it doesn’t have enough funds available to make payments on them according to calculations above. Since District 2 has the funds available to implement new programs for its struggling students, it is probably rated by the state as a Recognized or Exemplary district. District 1, on the other hand, appears to be experiencing financial hard times and is probably rated by the state as an Acceptable or Unacceptable district.
District 1 $ 145,968,635
District 2 $2,916,187,709
I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collection
District 1 $94,871 District 1 $8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals
District 1 $572,716
District 2 $0
Funds Available to Make Payments
District 1 $667,587
District 2 $8,836,256
By examining the figures above, it is apparent that District 2 is a much wealthier district than District 1. District 1only has a local district property value approximately 145 million dollars and District 2 has a local district property value of approximately 2 billion dollars. I would ascertain that the buildings and the infrastructure in District 2 are probably newer and better maintained than those of District 1. With property values as low as they low as they are in District 1 would probably indicate that the buildings in District 1 are somewhat dilapidated and the infrastructure antiquated. I would also envision District 2 to have more intervention and remedial programs than District 1 although they are needed much more in District 1. Even if District 1 had newer buildings, it doesn’t have enough funds available to make payments on them according to calculations above. Since District 2 has the funds available to implement new programs for its struggling students, it is probably rated by the state as a Recognized or Exemplary district. District 1, on the other hand, appears to be experiencing financial hard times and is probably rated by the state as an Acceptable or Unacceptable district.
Analyzing District Snapshots
Economically Disadvantaged
District 1 93.3%
District 2 20.7%
Total Refined ADA Adjusted for Decline
District 1 $3,893.754
District 2 $4 032.037
Weighted ADA (WADA)
District 1 $5,555.815
District 2 $4,794.076
Although District 1 has a smaller ADA than District 2, it has a larger Weighted Average Daily Attendance Rate. One reason for this is because District 1 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students (93.3%) than District 2 (20.7%). District one also has a large percentage of its student population represented in Special Education, Bilingual/ESL Education, and Career & Technical Education. While District 2 has no LEP (Limited English Proficient) students, District 1 has 48% of its students represented in this sub-group. Since the districts receive additional funds according to the number of students in special populations, District 1 has a higher WADA than District 2.
Effects of Local Property Values
Effects of Local Property Values
2010 Local District Property Value (DPV)
District 1 $ 145,968,635
District 2 $2,916,187,709
I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collection
District 1 $94,871 District 1 $8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals
District 1 $572,716
District 2 $0
Funds Available to Make Payments
District 1 $667,587
District 2 $8,836,256
By examining the figures above, it is apparent that District 2 is a much wealthier district than District 1. District 1only has a local district property value approximately 145 million dollars and District 2 has a local district property value of approximately 2 billion dollars. I would ascertain that the buildings and the infrastructure in District 2 are probably newer and better maintained than those of District 1. With property values as low as they low as they are in District 1 would probably indicate that the buildings in District 1 are somewhat dilapidated and the infrastructure antiquated. I would also envision District 2 to have more intervention and remedial programs than District 1 although they are needed much more in District 1. Even if District 1 had newer buildings, it doesn’t have enough funds available to make payments on them according to calculations above. Since District 2 has the funds available to implement new programs for its struggling students, it is probably rated by the state as a Recognized or Exemplary district. District 1, on the other hand, appears to be experiencing financial hard times and is probably rated by the state as an Acceptable or Unacceptable district.
2010 Local District Property Value (DPV)
District 1 $ 145,968,635
District 2 $2,916,187,709
I & S (Interest & Sinking Fund) Tax Collection
District 1 $94,871 District 1 $8,836,256
Chapter 46 (EDA) Totals
District 1 $572,716
District 2 $0
Funds Available to Make Payments
District 1 $667,587
District 2 $8,836,256
By examining the figures above, it is apparent that District 2 is a much wealthier district than District 1. District 1only has a local district property value approximately 145 million dollars and District 2 has a local district property value of approximately 2 billion dollars. I would ascertain that the buildings and the infrastructure in District 2 are probably newer and better maintained than those of District 1. With property values as low as they low as they are in District 1 would probably indicate that the buildings in District 1 are somewhat dilapidated and the infrastructure antiquated. I would also envision District 2 to have more intervention and remedial programs than District 1 although they are needed much more in District 1. Even if District 1 had newer buildings, it doesn’t have enough funds available to make payments on them according to calculations above. Since District 2 has the funds available to implement new programs for its struggling students, it is probably rated by the state as a Recognized or Exemplary district. District 1, on the other hand, appears to be experiencing financial hard times and is probably rated by the state as an Acceptable or Unacceptable district.
Compensatory Education Allotment Funds
Compensatory Education Allotment
District 1 - $3,835,000
District 2 - $633,369
Although District 1 and District 2 have similarities in the number of teachers, the student/teacher ratio and the approximate number of students they serve, they differ in the types of students they serve. District 1 has large number of economically disadvantaged students (93.3%) and District 2 only has 20.7% of economically disadvantaged students. Compensatory education funds are provided to districts so that they are able to provide programs and services to the at-risk population. These funds are intended to make up for experiences lacked by those students who are economically disadvantaged. Compensatory education may also be defined as a program of supplementary instruction designed to meet the individual needs of students that may be performing significantly below their expected achievement level in language arts, math and or reading. If used as intended and implemented to address specific student needs, District 1 could see tremendous growth in student achievement. District 2 on the other hand with its low percentage of economically disadvantaged students, does not require the same amount of remediation and/or intensive instruction. That results in District 2 receiving a smaller amount of compensatory education allotment funds.
District 1 - $3,835,000
District 2 - $633,369
Although District 1 and District 2 have similarities in the number of teachers, the student/teacher ratio and the approximate number of students they serve, they differ in the types of students they serve. District 1 has large number of economically disadvantaged students (93.3%) and District 2 only has 20.7% of economically disadvantaged students. Compensatory education funds are provided to districts so that they are able to provide programs and services to the at-risk population. These funds are intended to make up for experiences lacked by those students who are economically disadvantaged. Compensatory education may also be defined as a program of supplementary instruction designed to meet the individual needs of students that may be performing significantly below their expected achievement level in language arts, math and or reading. If used as intended and implemented to address specific student needs, District 1 could see tremendous growth in student achievement. District 2 on the other hand with its low percentage of economically disadvantaged students, does not require the same amount of remediation and/or intensive instruction. That results in District 2 receiving a smaller amount of compensatory education allotment funds.
Analyzing Contrasts
Although the intent of WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) is to provide more money and professionals working directly with students in District 1 than in District 2 due to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, this was not the case. District 1 has 93.3% of its student population that is economically disadvantaged while District 2 only has 20.7%. District 1 should have received more money because not only does it have a significantly larger percentage of economically disadvantaged students, it also has higher percentages of LEP, Bilingual/ESL Education students. These special populations require intensive instruction and would benefit from a lower teacher to student ratio.
District 1 has a WADA of $5,555.815 and District 2 has a WADA of $4,794.076. It would appear that District 1 would have more money to hire more professionals to work with students and have a lower teacher to student ration; however, this is not indicated in the actual reported figures. As indicated in Part 2, District 1 had a budget that was $6,522,508.80 smaller than District 2. While they had the same number of teachers, District 2 actually had more funds to provide better instruction, and remediation if necessary, than District 1. The way that the state allocates funds to the districts does not provide the assistance to the poorer districts as it should. Even though the state provides a larger WADA for the special populations, in the end the funding comes up extremely short.
District 1 has a WADA of $5,555.815 and District 2 has a WADA of $4,794.076. It would appear that District 1 would have more money to hire more professionals to work with students and have a lower teacher to student ration; however, this is not indicated in the actual reported figures. As indicated in Part 2, District 1 had a budget that was $6,522,508.80 smaller than District 2. While they had the same number of teachers, District 2 actually had more funds to provide better instruction, and remediation if necessary, than District 1. The way that the state allocates funds to the districts does not provide the assistance to the poorer districts as it should. Even though the state provides a larger WADA for the special populations, in the end the funding comes up extremely short.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)