M&O Program Funding

M&O Program Funding

Just as presented in the assignment, the intent of the WADA (Weighted Average Daily Attendance) was to provide more money and professionals working directly with students in District 1 Example than in the District 2 Example because the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, but the action failed to accomplish that goal in this case. It is unknown what all could have influenced this to occur. After reviewing the snapshots and summary of finances from both districts it is very evident that the goal was not met.
District 1 is very close to being 100% economically disadvantaged. They are in much need of additional funding to provide more professional working directly with the ED students. When looking at number of staff for each district, District 1 has 26 fewer teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors than District 2 that is near equal in size. This is totally backwards.
When reviewing the different programs funded under M&O you find many differences between the 2 districts and many similarities. Regular program allotment in both districts are right around 20 million. Knowing that both districts have nearly the exact same enrollment this is a positive relationship between the districts. There is also a similarity between the districts concerning the Special Education Adjusted Allotment. District 1 has 9% Special Ed. population and allocated 1.9 million in funding where district 2 has 7% Special Ed. Population and allocated 1.6 million in funding. Both districts are in alignment with each other on percentage of students in Special Education related to funding allotment.
The Career and Technology Allotment is at 24 % population in District 1 and it appears that their allotment coincides with their population District 2’s population is a mere 14% and funding is only at 633,000. With the amount of funding that District 2 has available the funding for CATE should be higher. CATE instruction is a very important part of education today and I feel that district 2 should be funding it at a higher rate.
When comparing districts, District 1 has 3.8 million in Compensatory Education Allotment and District 2 has a mere 630,000.00. It is very evident that District 1 has a large number of free and reduced meals, and therefore has a substantial amount of funds available for at-risk students. This allows District one to provide their students with more opportunities with these additional funds. This allotment also helps to make up the very small local revenue funding. It is apparent that District 2 has fewer free and reduced meal students, therefore having much less Compensatory Education Allotment.
The Bilingual Education Allotment is much different between the two districts. In District 2 there is only 46,000 allotted for the 2% bilingual population. With such a small percentage of students that are bilingual, the funding appears to be in line with the population. District 1 is much different than District 2. District 1 is 41% Bilingual, with a LEP population of 48%. The funding for District 1 is 834,000. With nearly half of their population bilingual, this funding seems absurd. Even with compensatory education assisting with the learning of the bilingual students, the lack of funding in bilingual allotment is still very low and is very negative to the success of their students.
The Transportation Allotment varies somewhat between the two districts. District 1 has allocated 215,000 in transportation and District 2 allotted 392,000. This would draw my attention being that each district has same number of students but District 2 has almost double the money allocated. There could be very good reasons for the substantial difference. The routes could be longer meaning district is bigger and could require more fuel or even more bus routes. More routes would require more buses. District 2 could have older buses that require more maintenance. Or it could just be that District 2 buys new buses frequently and have a better fleet than District 1. If this were the case I would have a problem with them not adjusting some of the funds in transportation to another fund that needed more funding.
The High School Allotment funds were very close in their figures respectively. They are determined by grades 9-12 ADA. They are spent on under achieving students and/or college readiness programs. It is designed to encourage students to work toward college attendance. The allotment is set in stone with the students ADA.
There are three programs that had no funding allotted and are as follows; The Public Education Grant, New Instructional Facilities Allotment, and the Virtual School Allotment. Neither district had a student that was participating in the Public Education Grant program therefore, there are no funds allocated for this program. With no funding allotted in the New Instructional Facilities, we assume that neither district have funds set aside for New Facilities. The Virtual School Allotment is funding that would provide students to participate in Virtual School Learning. Apparently neither district offers Virtual School and/or they do not fund for it.
In conclusion, the overall evaluation of the programs funded under M&O there are some differences and some similarities between them. We have tried to hit the top spots and bring out what we feel are the biggest aspects of the 2 districts programs. Both districts could use some minor adjustments in their allotments for M&O programs.