Effect of selected variables on funding state compensatory and regular education in Texas

Funding public schools has been an ongoing struggle since the inception of the United States. Beginning with Jefferson's A General Diffusion of Knowledge that charged the states with properly funding public schools, to the current day legal battles that continue in states across the Union, America struggles with finding a solution to adequate and equitable school financing of public education. Texas currently uses a weighted funding approach in that a basic allotment is used for average daily attendance that is then adjusted or increased based upon specific identification of special population subgroups such as gifted and talented, vocational, bilingual, compensatory or special education students.;After Judge Dietz's 2004 ruling on West Orange-Cove v. Neely, districts are further constrained on their school funding by the cap placed on per capita funding based on the 2005-06 maximum entitlement. This has frozen the total amount of funding received by districts on a per student basis in subsequent years based upon the 2005-06 summary of finance without regard to the changes in the students in state programs and the resulting effect on the funding of the regular education student.;To further complicate the funding formula, all of the state program subgroups are being funded on a per capita basis, based upon the number of students in each particular program, except for the state compensatory program. Students in the state compensatory program are identified based upon 13 risk indicators. The state compensatory program is funded based upon the number of students receiving free and reduced-price meals, which is not one of the 13 indicators used to identify at-risk students.;This study examined the amount of funding on a per capita basis between districts in the state of Texas for at-risk students. In addition, it examined the effect on the regular education student and student achievement. Findings indicated a significant correlation between socially economically disadvantaged students and the per capita funding for at-risk students in addition to a significant correlation between funding for socially economically disadvantaged students and funding for regular education students. In addition, pairwise differences were significant between accountability ratings for 2006 and 2008 for academically acceptable and recognized districts for per capita funding of regular education students.