COD E R E D

Table 9. The Impact of Attendance on State Funding for School Districts in TexasAttendance impact on State fundingSensitivity AnalysisA B C D E FDaily Average Attendance(ADA) for 2003-04Average DailyMembership (ADM) in2003-04Attendance Rate (AR) 2002-03State Expenditure perpupil (2002-03) ($)ADA variation for 1%increase in AttendanceRateState funding gain per1% increase inAttendance Rate ($)4,017,217.323 4,202,110.2 0.956 3,144.9 42,021.1 132,150,650.0State Revenues Share(30%) 2,312.4 97,169,595.6State Revenues Share(50%) 3,854.0 161,949,326.0Legend of calculationsB = ADA/AR; D = Total per Pupil Expenditure*0.408 (State share in total revenues is 40.8%. We assume that state per pupil expenditure follows the same pattern); E = (ADA when AR increases by1%)-(ADA in 2003-04); F = ADA variation for 1% variation in AR * State Expenditure per pupilSource of IndicatorsA. Texas Education Agency, Division of State Funding 2003-2004, State Level Summary of Finances [http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/funding/sofweb3.html]; C. Texas Education Agency,Academic Excellence Indicator System, 2003-2004 State Performance Report [http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2004/state.html]Our methodology was based on information from TEA and Humble Independent School District.Some of our indicators were corroborated by the estimation performed by the Action for Healthy Kidsstudy. We have estimated the gain in state funding by school districts, at the state level for an increase in1% of the student attendance rate. It is a known fact that chronic conditions during childhood decreasethe attendance rate, and the schools lose state funds which are allocated based on Average DailyAttendance. We make the case that if we were able to prevent these chronic conditions, we will see anincrease in the student attendance rate and eventually an increase in state funding for the respectiveschools. One of estimates, the daily cost per pupil, is equal to $17.5, and thus within the range reportedby Action for Healthy Kids Report “The Learning Connection - The value of improving nutrition andphysical activity in our schools” which was $9-$20. Beside the usual uncertainties related to simplicity ofanalysis and crude estimations, we are confident that our estimations do not have a large error margin asthey are based on state level data. This means that we have taken into account all the variability in factorsrelated to state funding, like school categories, sizes, variability in types of programs offered, number ofstudents enrolled, etc. We have assumed that when the 1% change in attendance rate takes place, all therest of the variables important to state funding remain constant (unchanged). As our main assumption isrelated to application of state share percentage to the state expenditure per pupil, we performed a simplesensitivity analysis to see how the results in state funding gains for school would change when alsochanging the state revenue share percentage by 10% (both increase and decrease). The results aredepicted in Table 9.Definitions of termsPer Pupil Expenditures: This value shows actual expenditures for groups of functions divided by the totalnumber of 2002-03 students. Note that the number shown is not the amount actually spent on each andevery student, but rather a per-pupil average of the totalAttendance Rate: Attendance rates reported in AEIS (TEA) are based on student attendance for the entireschool year. Attendance is calculated as follows: total number of days students were present in 2002-03divided by total number of days students were in membership in 2002-03Average Daily Attendance: The quotient of the sum of attendance for each day of the minimum number ofdays of instruction as described under Section 25.081(a) divided by the minimum number of days ofinstruction. (Texas Education Code)Membership: A student is in membership for half day when enrolled for at least two hours of dailyinstruction or in full membership when enrolled for at least four hours of daily instruction.E-50