EDLD+5343+-+Week+3,+Part+3

The intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) was to provide more money and professional working directly with the students in District 1 (the district with the higher percentage of students who are Economically Disadvantaged, in Special Education, in Bilingual/ESL Education, in Career & Technical Education, and in Gifted & Talented Education). As noted in the calculations for part 2, this is not the case. District 2 received more money than District 1. This is primarily because District 2 is a property-wealthy district and District 1is a property-poor district, comparatively. District 2 has a higher target revenue per WADA ($7,206) than District 1 ($5,044). This was set based on 2005-2006 property tax values and has not changed. So while District 1 has a higher percentage of needy children, District 2 receives more money, and they both have the same number of teachers. This was the opposite of the intended effect of WADA.

While District 1 receives more money for the Special Education Adjusted Allotment, Career and Technical Education Allotment, Gifted & Talented Allotment, Compensatory Education Allotment, and Bilingual Education Allotment, District 2 receives more money over all. Since District 2 has more money, they can employ more staff members. This results in District 2 to have a lower WADA to teacher ratio (18.1 versus 21.0). So a positive aspect of the allocations is that in theory, there is more money available for those students who have special needs. The negative aspect of the reality of the funding formulas is that districts with higher property wealth still have more money available in the general fund and can provide a better education for all of their students. We are doing a huge disservice to the students of Texas because where one lives still determines the quality of one’s education. The theory of WADA does not pan out in reality.