Pretty sure I am. These things work differently in different districts. So I wouldn't assume too much about the different funding structures and flexibility of using funds in your school or your district and extrapolating them to other districts.
The remedial help my children receive or don't receive is based on assessments by their teachers and fairly objective tests. My kids can get straight 4's on their assessments (like an A or A+ for those not familiar) and receive zero remedial help. But if I check the box for free/reduced lunch, the school gets money. You may say it has to be spent in certain areas. Sure, maybe in some cases, and I am familiar with a few cases. But it isn't generally true. We definitely get the option for certain programs if we are Economically Disadvantaged (free after school tutoring being one program).
It's like this: the school has to hire X number of literacy and math coaches and remedial teachers and ESL teachers. The administration might decide they need a couple extra to get the job done. They lose the music teacher and art teacher to provide the extra remedial teachers (the administration wants to hit their growth targets after all). In steps the root of good family, and checks a few boxes and the school gets a few thousand bucks. Boom! A little closer to rehiring that music or art teacher. [/quote]
I see that you're convinced, but your facts are just plain wrong. No, the extra money doesn't result in extra art teachers, etc., and, no, the
National Lunch Program is not administered differently in different districts. What it really means is that the money must be spent on specific types of programs, and the federal government oversees them. It results in less autonomy for the school, fewer choices for the administration. I teach in a Title 1 school, so I do know of what I speak.
[/quote]
I guess the teachers, principals, and staff at my kids school, as well as the district superintendent, chief business officer, chief financial officer, and elected school board members have all made a concerted effort to mislead me in how school funding works, and what additional funds they receive for each kid that checks the box on the free/reduced lunch form. I'm an appointed official at a policy level, and frequently talk with administrators, elected officials, and district executive leadership. Granted, it's "only" a volunteer position, but one that interests me to a great degree, and one in which I have been effective at bringing about positive change for my kids' school and the district over all.
I could be totally wrong on this point. I'm not referring to the funding that pays for the actual free/reduced lunches - I think virtually all of that goes to offset the provision of the meals themselves, and covers some administrative costs of Child Nutrition Services at the local and state level (but we are talking pennies per lunch really).
I'll throw out an example of general education funding being tied to free/reduced lunch pupil counts:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/education/how-free-lunches-pay-schoolsFrom the article:
“We get approximately $5,000 per child in state aid for every free and reduced student that we can identify as of October 31 each year,” says Walker. This year that adds up to more than $323 million.
I'm not saying my kids' school gets $5,000 extra per pupil that is free/reduced lunch, because I think the number is closer to $1,000-2,000. But this phenomena certainly exists in my district, and other places all across the country. It's just a fact.
Now we can argue policy - is it the right way to fund schools? Or fairness - should my kids who come from a millionaire household qualify their school for thousands in extra funding, even though they get top scores at school and don't need any extra assistance (other than enrichment/academically gifted support)?