Part+3

District 1 and District 2 are prime examples of inequality in the state’s method of funding public schools. Both districts are similar in student enrollment and size. District 1 has a population of 3,903 students, ninety-three percent of which are economically disadvantaged. Almost half of that population is LEP. District 1 is a property poor district with a local DPV of $145,968,635. The total refined ADA is $3,893 and weighted ADA at compressed rate is 5,044. District 2 has a population of 3,890 students, twenty percent are economically disadvantaged. Two percent of the population is LEP. District 2 is a wealthy district with high property values. The local DPV for District 2 is $2,916,187,709. The total refined ADA is $4,032 and weighted ADA at compressed rate is $7,206. District 1 receives more funding for WADA than District 2, but it is quite obvious that District 1 cannot provide the same services and meet all student needs like District 2. The Weighted Average Dailey Attendance is supposed to aid districts that have students with educational needs. The programs include Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Compensatory Education, and C.A.T.E. The Maintenance and Operations tax rate for both districts is $1.00, but there is a huge gap between the total target revenue. $6,522,606 separates the two districts. There are numerous programs funded by the Maintenance and Operations fund. Each program can be affected by this fund. Some of the programs under M&O are: Health Services, Media Services, Athletics, and CATE. District 1 has a high number of economically disadvantaged students. Most of these students depend on health services provided by the district. For example, there are families in District 1 that cannot afford to take their children to the doctor. These families rely on the assistance of the school nurse. With limited funds, it is possible that District 1 would have to either reduce this position or use nurses that are not RN certified. It is important that health services are fully funded in District 1. District 2 has the funding to maintain health services. Media services is another program that is funded by M&O. Under the current funding, District 2 can provide media services. This district would have a Department of Communications that would provide the community with timely and open communication in order to build community relations with the district. This department would provide the community with district news using technological services. District 1 could not provide the school community with technology services. A negative impact would be communication barriers between the district and community. Athletics is also funded by the M&O fund. The athletic program in District 1 makes up three percent of the district’s expenditures. The program is limited on spending for equipment and resources to meet the needs of the athletes. Equipment would have to be used for longer periods before being replaced. The athletic department for District 2 accounts for four percent of the district’s expenditures. This program is well funded and can provide for the needs of all athletes. Career and Technical Education is very important for District 1. The allotment for this program is $1,666,064 and is $753,000 more than District 2. This program is very important for both districts, especially District 1. District 1 has a lower graduation rate than District 2 and fewer students that meet college admissions criterion. The C.A.T.E. program is a necessity for District 1. There are 936 students enrolled in the program, which is one-fourth of the student population. This program will help students with career paths. District 1 has students who are not college ready.