Not exact matches
CEO allows schools to serve
free breakfast and
free lunch to all students when 40 percent or more of students are certified for
free meals without a paper application, which includes students who are directly certified (through data matching) for
free meals because they live in households that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR),
as well
as children who are automatically eligible for
free school meals because of their
status in foster care or Head Start, homeless, or migrant.
Regardless of whether Title I remains in its traditional form or is converted in some part to vouchers, districts will face major challenges allocating resources based on individual student economic
status as community eligibility for
free lunch eliminates the incentive for individual students to report their poverty
status.
And since only 1 % of children at Hunter Elementary qualify for
free lunch status, it can be seen
as a case of the rich getting richer and hoarding resources that might be better spent on underprivileged students.
The student data include test scores, race and ethnicity, eligibility for the federal
free and reduced - price
lunch program, and
status as an ESL or special - education student.
The
Free and Reduced Price
lunch definition has become fairly sketchy, so in the below comparisons I will make use of parental education
as a proxy for socio - economic
status.
We used percentage of students eligible for
free or reduced
lunch as a proxy for socioeconomic
status (SES).
However, the percent of test - takers who are eligible for
free and reduced
lunch has fluctuated from year to year, and NAEP results have increased not just across race, but across all subgroups such
as gender, disability
status, and ELL
status.
Academic data was collected on approximately 900 participants of the program in 2007
as well
as a comparison group comprised of approximately 700 DPS students who did not attend the program and were of similar academic proficiency, grade level, gender, race / ethnicity and
free and reduced
lunch status.
The DOE also issued a regulation permitting schools to use to information about children's eligibility for the
Free and Reduced
Lunch Program
as a means of determining students» socioeconomic
status for school assignment purposes.
(Note on calculations: I used the appendix information on how test scores varied with
free and reduced price
lunch status, pre-K participation, and pre-K participation interacted with
free and reduced price
lunch status,
as well
as published information on the standard deviation of test scores at kindergarten entrance.
Results are provided for groups of students defined by shared characteristics — race or ethnicity, gender, eligibility for
free / reduced - price school
lunch, highest level of parental education, type of school, charter school, type of school location, region of the country,
status as students with disabilities, and
status as students identified
as English language learners.
They examined a variety of factors, such
as student gender, age, health, socioeconomic
status, education of parents, whether the school was urban or suburban, the number of years of experience among teachers, the school's average test performance and the rate of
free - or reduced - price
lunch program participation.
Cross-referencing those schools with the
Free and Reduced
Lunch data (which is often used
as an indicator of low income
status), we can see that the schools that qualify have significantly fewer socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
A recent analysis examined 2013 NAEP scores among states after adjusting for various demographic characteristics of each states» student population, such
as eligibility for
free and reduced price
lunch,
status as ELLs, and other factors.
We use panel data in Washington State to study the extent to which teacher assignments between fourth and eighth grade explain gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students —
as defined by underrepresented minority
status (URM) and eligibility for
free or reduced price
lunch (FRL)-- in their eighth grade math test scores and high school course taking.
But perhaps this problem has never been stated
as starkly
as in a recent paper examining the distribution of teacher quality in Washington state: «We demonstrate that in elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms (both math and reading), every measure of teacher quality — experience, licensure exam score, and value - added estimates of effectiveness — is inequitably distributed across every indicator of student disadvantage —
free / reduced
lunch status, underrepresented minority, and low prior academic performance.»
School
lunch eligibility
status (
free, reduced price, and full price) also served
as a proxy for socioeconomic
status.