Summary
The
current method of determining the adjusted allotment for charter schools
results in charter schools receiving at least $600 more per pupil than is
received by regular school districts, on average. It would likely require a
change in the relevant statute to remedy this deficiency. However, WADA counts for charter schools are
also inflated. This argues that revenues per pupil based on the use of WADA
should not be used for any policy-related purpose pertaining to charter
schools.
One
very practical implication of the foregoing conclusion is that whenever LBB (or
TEA) produces forecasts of ISD and charter school M&O revenues per pupil
those forecasts should also include per pupil amounts on a per-ADA basis, as
well as on a per-WADA basis. Revenue
comparisons based on the use of WADA are still relevant when comparing one ISD
with another ISD, or with one group of ISDs with a different group of ISDs, or
even when comparing charter schools with one another. But WADA-based comparisons of revenues between a charter school
and an ISD, or between a group of charter schools and a group of ISDs, are
meaningless, which means they are likely to be misleading, if used.
Texas’
school finance system, as presently structured, results in an increase in cost
to the state each time a student chooses to attend a charter school instead of
a regular school district. This fact,
only observable when costs per student are calculated using ADA, rather than
WADA, should be a consideration when formulating state policy relative to the
potential further expansion of charter school enrollments. If the additional
funds are deemed to be beneficial to students in charter schools, they would be
equally beneficial to students remaining in regular school districts.
The
following chart shows the degree to which the presentation of M&O revenues
per WADA hides the actual amounts by which such revenues to charter schools
exceed the amounts going to regular school districts. The graph is the same as Figure 1 in the following paper. The
lengths of the bars in the graph represent the differences of M&O revenues
per pupil going to each of six charter schools as opposed to the amounts going
to the six nearby regular school districts.
When
the revenues per pupil are expressed in terms of WADA, three charters receive
slightly more than the nearby regular districts, about $50 less on average,
while the other three charters receive about $200 more per student. But when expressed in terms of ADA or non-weighted
students, all six of the charter schools receive at least $985 more per student
than the regular school districts, with the difference as high as $1,628 per
pupil in the comparison of KIPP Inc to Houston ISD.
The
majority of the amounts by which M&O revenues to charter schools exceed the
amounts to regular school districts is explained by the method used to
determine the adjusted allotment for charter schools, as explained in the paper
below and in other documents on this web page.
Comparisons
of maintenance and operations revenues between charter schools and independent
school districts: use WADA, ADA, both, or neither?
Larry Toenjes
One
of the long-standing criteria used in assessing the equity of Texas’ school
finance system is that of “equal revenue for equal effort.” Equal effort refers to tax rates; equal
revenue refers to revenue per weighted pupil, where the number of weighted
pupils in a district was intended to reflect cost variations among districts.
But when charter schools are included, the criterion that includes “equal (tax)
effort” is not applicable, as charter schools have no taxing authority. In
addition, the concept of “revenue per weighed pupil” has a different meaning
for charter schools than for regular school districts.
It
is difficult enough to make meaningful comparisons even between school
districts, let alone between districts and charter schools. Districts vary widely in size, proportions
of economically disadvantaged students, tax rates, and regional costs of education. Most of these differences between districts
are normalized with the use of the weighted student concept, or WADA.
Differences
in costs associated with differences in size are assumed to be reflected in
adjustments made under the small district and mid-sized district scale
adjustments. An additional adjustment
is made that reflects differences in districts’ Cost of Education Indexes. The
scale and CEI adjustments are used to convert districts’ Basic Allotments into
Adjusted Allotments, or AAs. The AA for
each district, reflecting differences in costs associated with district size
and local variations in costs of education, is perhaps the most important
determinant of the level of state allotments to which districts’ are entitled,
given the numbers of students enrolled in each district. The AA multiplies the number of regular
students in the district, as well as the number of extra-cost students such as
those in special education, in determining total allotments to which districts
are entitled.
The
adjustments related to size and estimated regional differences in education
costs that are embodied in the AA not only affect program allotments or
entitlements, they also directly affect the calculated WADA number as well. The
greater the adjustments due to size (smaller districts get larger adjustments),
cost of education, and greater proportions of extra-cost students, the greater
are total allotments, and the greater are the weighted student counts, or
WADAs. Although WADA is calculated for the purpose of determining state funding
in the enrichment tiers, it is also used to divide into total M&O revenues
going to districts, in an attempt to establish
a revenue measure that takes into account the differences in costs
incurred by different districts. When total maintenance and operations revenues
to districts are divided by their respective WADA counts, the resulting
measures—M&O revenue per WADA—are fairly indicative of how well off the
various districts are, relative to one another. The ideal is that two districts with the same tax rate will have
almost exactly the same level of M&O revenue per WADA. While not perfect, adjusting M&O
revenues to districts by dividing by WADA makes it possible to make more
meaningful comparisons between districts.
With
respect to charter schools, the method of adjusting charters’ basic allotments
into adjusted allotments is quite different than it is for regular independent
school districts (ISDs). In particular, the adjusted allotment (AA) that is
used to calculate the entitlements for the regular student and the extra-cost
student programs for charter schools is not related to individual cost factors
such as size (of enrollments) or regional cost of education variations. Rather, the AA that is applied to all charter
schools is the simple arithmetic average of all of the AA values that are
determined individually for each school district.
One
consequence of this method of determining the AA that is applied to all charter
schools is that the charter school AA is biased upwards. It is too great. The reason for this is the
fact that 450 or so very small school districts receive very generous
adjustments from the small district scale adjustment formula. However, those small districts contain only
about 4 percent of total district enrollments. In calculating the average AA, therefore, a
district with 30 students with a very high AA counts equally to Houston ISD
with nearly 200,000 students and a relatively low AA. It is estimated that this
phenomenon results in the average AA being at least $500 greater that it would
be if size of districts were taken into account when calculating the average
AA.
This upwards bias in the AA for charter schools results in those schools
receiving at least $600 more per student than ISDs, when total ADA (average
daily attendance) is divided into total M&O revenues going to each
sector—charter schools and ISDs.
It
has been argued by some that charter schools, on average, have greater
proportions of extra-cost students and are therefore entitled to more M&O
revenues per pupil than are ISDs.
However, a close look at the actual entitlements in the six first tier
programs, based on data in TEA’s Summary of Finances reports, reveals that this
claim is false. If anything, regular
school districts have greater proportions of students in the five extra cost
programs, while charter schools, in the aggregate, have a greater proportion of
students in the regular program line item.
The
inflated charter school AA not only results in greater amounts of M&O
revenues per pupil going to charter schools, but their calculated WADA numbers
are also inflated, and in almost exactly the same proportion. Consequently, when M&O revenues are
divided by WADA the additional revenues going to charters are deflated by the
higher WADA numbers. The result is that charter schools M&O revenues per
WADA are reduced to values that are even lower than the M&O revenues per
WADA that go to ISDs with similar characteristics in terms of proportions of
extra-cost students and other cost-related factors.
The
end result of the inflation of the AA applied to charter schools is
twofold. First, it gives additional
M&O revenues to charters. Second,
the resulting WADA increases essentially hide the increases in M&O revenues
going to charters when those revenues are presented on a per-WADA basis.
This latter effect is clearly visible in comparisons of M&O revenues per
pupil represented in Figure 1 in the Appendix below. In all six of the
comparisons depicted in Figure 1, the ISD-charter comparisons based on WADA
were either slightly in favor of ISDs or modestly in favor of charters, but in
terms of M&O per ADA the charter schools’ advantages ranged from $985 per
pupil to $1,628 per pupil. Even when
comparing the averages for all charter schools and all ISDs in each of the six
counties, (see Figure 2, Appendix) in five of the counties the charter
advantages ranged from $657 to $1,318 per pupil. These six counties,
incidentally, contained approximately 75 percent of all charter school students
that were included in LBB’s projections for SY 2017-2018.
This
distortion of M&O revenues going to charter schools, both in fact and in
perception, has policy consequences.
For example, charter proponents have been trying to convince the Legislature
to provide them money for facilities.
Any additional state funds for this purpose, however, should only be
considered within the context of levels of M&O funding already being
received by charter schools, in comparison with ISDs. In particular, this comparison should not be based upon M&O
revenues per WADA.
Another
policy consideration that requires an accurate assessment of the amounts of
funds that are actually received by charter schools vis-à-vis ISDs is an
assessment of how much it costs the state whenever a child transfers from an
ISD to a charter school. If the marginal decrease in cost to the state when a
child leaves an ISD is less than the marginal increase to the state when that
same child enrolls in a charter school, the resulting increase in state burden
should be one of the factors taken into consideration when evaluating the
extent to which the growth in charter enrollments will be permitted or
facilitated. The use of WADA in
assessing these differences is very misleading. Changes in revenue per pupil
when such a transfer occurs is almost imperceptible when measured in terms of
WADA, but when expressed in terms of revenue per ADA the additional cost to the
state due to the transfer of a single child can exceed $1,000 in many cases.
Conclusions
The
current method of determining the adjusted allotment for charter schools
results in charter schools receiving at least $600 more per pupil than is
received by regular school districts, on average. It would likely require a
change in the relevant statute to remedy this deficiency. However, WADA counts for charter schools are
also inflated. This argues that revenues per pupil based on the use of WADA
should not be used for any policy-related purpose pertaining to charter
schools.
One
very practical implication of the foregoing conclusion is that whenever LBB (or
TEA) produces forecasts of ISD and charter school M&O revenues per pupil
those forecasts should also include per pupil amounts on a per-ADA basis, as
well as on a per-WADA basis. Revenue
comparisons based on the use of WADA are still relevant when comparing one ISD
with another ISD, or with one group of ISDs with a different group of ISDs, or
even when comparing charter schools with one another. But WADA-based comparisons of revenues between a charter school
and an ISD, or between a group of charter schools and a group of ISDs, are
meaningless, which means they are likely to be misleading, if used.
Texas’
school finance system, as presently structured, results in an increase in cost
to the state each time a student chooses to attend a charter school instead of
a regular school district. This fact,
only observable when costs per student are calculated using ADA, rather than
WADA, should be a consideration when formulating state policy relative to the
potential further expansion of charter school enrollments. If the additional
funds are deemed to be beneficial to students in charter schools, they would be
equally beneficial to students remaining in regular school districts.
Attached
to this document is an appendix that includes seven tables of data and two
graphs that support these conclusions.
Appendix
Tables
and graphs comparing M&O revenues between charter schools and independent
school districts
Recently
the Texas Legislative Budget Board I(LBB) projected total maintenance and
operations (M&O) revenue going to Texas independent school districts (ISDs)
and charter schools for the next biennium (a) under current law and (b) under
House Bill 21.
The following heading and leading paragraph were
taken from the LBB-prepared printout document. Model 060 refers to projections
based on current law; Model 26690 refers to projections using changes to
current law embodied in HB 21, authored by Rep. Huberty, chairman of the House
Education Committee.
“Total Maintenance &
Operations (M&O) Revenue Comparison for School Districts between Current
Law (Model 060) and Model 26690
FISCAL YEAR 2018
Note: All
figures below are estimates and are subject to change based on actual and final
student counts, property values, and tax effort. Current law amounts reflect LBB Model 060, which is based on
available statewide estimates and may differ from local projections. Updates to
key source data including student counts, property values, and tax rates may
change results significantly. The
amounts below do not include distribution of the $100,000,000 provided under
this scenario for the Hardship Aid Grant Program because grant amounts and
recipients are not known at this time.”
The
LBB document contained projections for 1,023 school districts and 176 charter
school systems. Five of the 1,023 ISDs are omitted from the following
analysis: Boys Ranch ISD, Ft Sam
Houston ISD, Lackland ISD, Randolph Field ISD, and South Texas ISD.
The
following are the column headings that LBB provided on each page of their
printout.
1.
District Name 6.
Change in Total M&O Revenue
2.
County District Number 7.
Current Law (M&O revenues per WADA)
3.
Current Law (CL) WADA 8.
Model 26690 (M&O revenues per WADA
4.
Current Law Total M&O Revenue 9.
Change in Total M&O Revenue per CL WADA
5.
Model 26690 Total M&O Revenue
Several
additional variables used below were added to these data. They were taken from files obtained from the
Texas Education Agency and which pertained to their Summary of Finances reports
for the current school year (2016-2017). They include the following:
Refined
ADA (usually referred to simply as ADA for average daily attendance)
WADA
(weighted average daily attendance)
Percentage
of economically disadvantaged students
Adjusted
allotment (AA)
While
LBB did provide projections of total M&O revenues, projected ADA numbers
for the next biennium were not included.
LBB also provided projections of WADA and of revenues per WADA. These
could be converted to revenue per ADA by (a) multiplying by WADA and then (b)
dividing that product by ADA. This
would be the same as multiplying the projected revenues per WADA by the ratio
WADA/ADA. The printout by LBB, however,
did not include the projected values of ADA.
But as both WADA and ADA are available for the current school year,
their ratios for SY 2016-2017 were used to multiply LBB’s projections of
revenues per WADA to convert them to revenues per ADA. While not exact, the
factors that create WADA as a multiple of ADA are considered to be sufficiently
stable from year to year so as to make this technique accurate and
meaningful. Consequently the following
tables use these estimates of M&O revenues per ADA for SY 2017-2018.
In
the following tables the values beneath the heading “LBB CURRENT LAW M&O
PER WADA” were taken directly from the LBB document. The values beneath the headings “ADA”, “PCT ECON. DISADV.”, “ADJ
ALLOT”, and the calculated amounts for “WADA/ADA RATIO” are from data obtained
from TEA which that agency had used in producing its Summary of Finances
reports for school year 2016-2017.
Most
importantly, the values beneath the heading “ESTIMATED CURRENT LAW M&O PER
ADA” were calculated from LBB’s current law projections of M&O revenues per
WADA for school year 2017-2018 but multiplied by the WADA/ADA ratios that were
calculated from WADA and ADA data for school year 2016-2017. In the case of results for groups of ISDs or
charter schools, the figures for ADA are merely totals, while the others shown
are averages of the values for the individual ISDs or charter schools in each
group, where the averages were weighted either by ADA or WADA, as appropriate.
For
individual districts or charter schools, the LBB projection per WADA found in
tables 2 through 7 can be multiplied by the WADA/ADA ratio on the same line to
obtain the estimated projections per ADA under current law. These results
should be exact. When the same
operation is performed for groups of districts, the results will not be exact
because of the fact that averages of both the revenues per WADA, revenues per
ADA, and the WADA/ADA ratios are themselves weighted averages calculated from
the data for the individual districts.
However, the results are close, even for the groups of districts or
charter schools. For example, referring to Table 1, if the average of LBB’s
projections of Current Law M&O per WADA ($6,211) is multiplied by the
WADA/ADA ratio of 1.35, the result is an estimate of current law M&O per
ADA of $8385. However, if the same is
done for East Central ISD in Table 2, multiplying $6,053 times 1.3175, the result is exactly $7,975, the same as shown
in that line of the table.
From
Table 1, where the data used involved virtually all ISDs and charters, the
difference in M&O per WADA between charters and ISDs was $204, in favor of
ISDs. However, the comparison based on the estimates of M&O per ADA
resulted in charters receiving $834 more per ADA than ISDs received. This is a swing of $1,038 in per pupil
M&O funds when going from a WADA comparison to one based on ADA. It should
be noted that the average percent of economically disadvantaged students is 67
percent for ISDs, 66 percent for charter schools. These figures are quite close, and one could conclude that, in
the aggregate, they had little or no impact on any differences in revenues per
pupil.
Table 1. Texas statewide totals or averages for charter
schools and independent school districts
|
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
1,018
|
Districts
|
4,779,074
|
67
|
$6,211
|
$8,320
|
$5,679
|
1.35
|
|
176
|
Charters
|
251,565
|
66
|
$6,007
|
$9,154
|
$6,466
|
1.54
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$204
|
+$834
|
+$787
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
There
is, however, a significant difference in the average adjusted allotments for
the two groups. It is true that the AA for charter schools--$6,466 is in fact
the average of the AAs of all ISDs. As
discussed previously, this average does not take into account the differences
in enrollment size of the various ISDs. The average AA shown in Table 1 for
ISDs, however, does take enrollment differences into account. More precisely, the average ISD AA of $5,679
is a weighted average where ADA was used as the weighting variable. As can be observed, the difference in AAs of
$787 between charters and ISDs is fairly close to the difference in estimated
current law M&O per ADA of $834 in favor of charters. This similarity is not accidental.
In
fact, it is precisely the inflated value of the AA that is used for charter
schools that inflates their program allotments. This, in turn, causes their WADA values to be inflated, which,
when used as the divisors in calculating M&O revenues per pupil, results in
those amounts being reduced relative to those for ISDs. This effect is
manifested in the higher WADA/ADA ratio for charters (1.54) than for ISDs
(1.35).
In
the remainder of the tables, Table 2 through Table 7, each contains six lines
of data. The first two lines comprise
the aggregated numbers for all ISDs and charters, respectively, in each of the
six counties presented. The third line
shows the ISD-charter differences for three of the columns. The remaining three lines present
corresponding data comparing an ISD and a charter school in the same county.
In
five out of six cases the county average of M&O per ADA for the charter
schools is substantially greater than that for the ISDs, with the county
differences lying between $657 in the case of El Paso County to $1,318 for
Travis County. Hidalgo County is the
exception in this regard, with the ISD average M&O per ADA just $73 greater
than that for the charters in that county.
It is noted, for Hidalgo County, (a) that the percentage of economically
disadvantaged students is 15 percent greater in the ISDs, (b) that the
difference in the average adjusted allotment at $651 is the lowest for these
six counties, and (c) that this is the only county out of these six where the
average WADA/ADA ratio for the ISDs is as high as 1.41. And while not reported in these tables, the
average M&O tax rate for the ISDs in Hidalgo County was 1.15, considerably
higher than the next highest average tax rate of 1.08 in Harris County.
Higher tax rates do result in higher per pupil revenues. All of these factors
just noted work to increase revenues to ISDs in Hidalgo County, thereby
reducing the relative charter advantage observed there.
The largest differences in average county M&O
revenues per ADA are in Harris County (Table 5) and Travis County (Table 7). In the case of Harris County, charter
schools receive, on average, $1,250 more per ADA than do ISDs, and in Travis
county charters receive, on average, $1,318 more per ADA. The comparisons of
the individual ISDs and charter schools shown in the tables for these two
counties are even more striking. In
Harris County, KIPP Inc is estimated to receive $1,628 more per ADA than is
estimated for Houston ISD, and in Travis County KIPP Austin is estimated to
receive $1,365 more than is estimated for Del Valle ISD. These differences are
either much less or of the opposite sign when assessed on the basis of M&O
revenue per WADA. These large differences are striking.
Table 2. Bexar county totals or averages for charter schools
and independent school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
12
|
All Districts
|
303,747
|
73
|
$6,247
|
$8,264
|
$5,569
|
1.32
|
|
22
|
All Charters
|
25,643
|
67
|
$5,994
|
$9,124
|
$6.466
|
1.54
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$253
|
+$860
|
+$897
|
|
|
15911
|
East Central ISD
|
9,253
|
71
|
$6,053
|
$7,975
|
$5,505
|
1.3175
|
|
15826
|
KIPP Aspire
|
2,814
|
81
|
$6,022
|
$9,397
|
$6,466
|
1.5605
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$31
|
+$1,422
|
+$961
|
|
Note: Per pupil M&O estimates are for school year
2017-2018
The
differences in M&O revenues per pupil, expressed both in terms of WADA and
ADA, are summarized in Figures 1 and 2 below.
Figure 1 contains the six ISD-charter school comparisons that are
included in Tables 2-7, and Figure 2 contains the six corresponding countywide
average comparisons. In both figures, positive bars indicate an M&O revenue
per pupil advantage to charter schools.
The
interested reader should read the report by Moak Casey and Associates for a
comprehensive understanding of the issues presented here. In addition, materials by this author can
be found at www.polinetworks.com/nogap
, where more detail is presented that explains why the adjusted allotment for
charter schools is biased upwards.
Table 3. Dallas county totals or averages for charter
schools and independent school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
14
|
All Districts
|
420,035
|
81
|
$6,155
|
$8,361
|
$5,639
|
1.36
|
|
34
|
All Charters
|
59,461
|
70
|
$6,014
|
$9,231
|
$6,477
|
1.55
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$141
|
+$870
|
+$827
|
|
|
57905
|
Dallas ISD
|
149,127
|
100
|
$5,936
|
$8,383
|
$5,724
|
1.4123
|
|
57804
|
Dallas Can
|
4,426
|
91
|
$6,227
|
$9,915
|
$6,466
|
1.5922
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
+$291
|
+$1,532
|
+$742
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
Table 4. El Paso county totals or averages for charter
schools and independent school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
9
|
All Districts
|
162,696
|
85
|
$6,126
|
$8,387
|
$5,548
|
1.37
|
|
7
|
All Charters
|
5,533
|
63
|
$5,990
|
$9,044
|
$6,466
|
1.51
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$136
|
+$657
|
+$918
|
|
|
71909
|
Socorro ISD
|
42,878
|
77
|
$5,776
|
$7,750
|
$5,210
|
1.3418
|
|
71806
|
Harmony Sc.
|
3,212
|
57
|
$5,983
|
$9,047
|
$6,466
|
1.5121
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
+$207
|
+$1,297
|
+$1,256
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
Table 5. Harris county totals or averages for charter
schools and independent school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
19
|
All Districts
|
799,648
|
71
|
$6,121
|
$8,104
|
$5,678
|
1.33
|
|
35
|
All Charters
|
50,711
|
83
|
$6,008
|
$9,354
|
$6,466
|
1.56
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$113
|
+$1,250
|
+$788
|
|
|
101912
|
Houston ISD
|
194,935
|
93
|
$5,786
|
$7,900
|
$5,569
|
1.3653
|
|
101813
|
KIPP Inc
|
12,114
|
96
|
$5,999
|
$9,528
|
$6,466
|
1.5883
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
+$213
|
+$1,628
|
+$897
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
Table 6. Hidalgo county totals or averages for charter
schools and independents school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
15
|
All Districts
|
190,428
|
95
|
$6,585
|
$9,255
|
$5,815
|
1.41
|
|
5
|
All Charters
|
32,679
|
80
|
$6,009
|
$9,182
|
$6,466
|
1.53
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$576
|
-$73
|
+$651
|
|
|
108907
|
Mercedes ISD
|
5,429
|
95
|
$6,027
|
$8,305
|
$5,763
|
1.3779
|
|
108802
|
Technology Ed
|
1,122
|
90
|
$5,972
|
$9,290
|
$6,466
|
1.5556
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$55
|
+$985
|
+$703
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
Table 7. Travis county totals or averages for charter
schools and independent school districts
|
ID
or
NBR
|
NAME
|
ADA
|
PCT
ECON.
DISADV.
|
LBB
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER WADA
|
ESTIMATED
CURRENT
LAW M&O
PER ADA
|
ADJ
ALLOT
|
WADA/
ADA
RATIO
|
|
7
|
All Districts
|
140,960
|
64
|
$6,267
|
$8,168
|
$5,498
|
1.30
|
|
15
|
All Charters
|
15,244
|
69
|
$5,997
|
$9,486
|
$6,466
|
1.59
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$270
|
+$1,318
|
+$968
|
|
|
227910
|
Del Valle ISD
|
11,732
|
99
|
$6,085
|
$8,436
|
$5,541
|
1.3864
|
|
227820
|
KIPP Austin
|
4,463
|
96
|
$6,009
|
$9,801
|
$6,466
|
1.6310
|
|
|
--Diffs--
|
|
|
-$76
|
+$1,365
|
+$925
|
|
Note: Per pupil estimates are for school year 2017-2018
Figure 1
Data
source: Tables 2 – 7 above.
Data
source: Tables 2 – 7 above.