Using American Community Survey Data to Expand Access to the School Meals Programs (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix E: Data Collected from School Districts
Appendix E: Data Collected from School Districts
Pages 286-315
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 286... ...
In collaboration with the school food authority directors of our five case study districts, we collected school level data concerning enrollment, certification and meals served by year for those districts. The case study data collection plan is described in Chapter 4 of the panel's interim report (National Research Council, 2010)
|
From page 287... ...
Finally, this part of the appendix presents comparisons of data on enrollment, number of students certified for free meals, and number of students certified for reduced-price meals for each public school listed by the district and by the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES') CCD, a public source of information about public schools and public school districts in the United States.
|
From page 288... ...
Charter/Magnet/Open Enrollment Boundary Issues Austin has no charter schools and no magnet schools. The school district provided the panel with digitized boundaries for 106 schools, but the Census Bureau did not provide ACS data for 2 of these schools (Brooke Elementary and Ridgetop Elementary)
|
From page 289... ...
The district has no charter schools, but it has alternative schools and magnet schools that participate in the school meals programs. None of the 8 alternative schools has boundaries (1.6 percent of enrollment)
|
From page 290... ...
For all five case study districts, the ACS school district enrollment estimates are somewhat larger than the sum of school catchment area estimates and estimates for enrollment in schools without boundaries. Census Bureau and School Attendance Boundary Information System (SABINS)
|
From page 291... ...
The CCD conducts five surveys annually to collect fiscal and non fiscal data on all public schools, public school districts, and state education agencies in the United States. For purposes of this study, the most relevant information from the CCD is school characteristics and school-level counts of enrolled students, students certified for free meals, and students certified for reduced-price meals.
|
From page 292... ...
In the notes below, we describe the matching of the schools identified by the district and participating in the school meals programs with the schools listed in the district in the CCD. In most districts, there are schools (generally charter schools or nontraditional schools of some kind)
|
From page 293... ...
Both the district and the CCD have enrollment and certification data for five nontraditional schools that do not participate in the school meals programs: the Austin State Hospital, a residential facility for students with mental health issues; the Gardner-Betts Juvenile Justice Center's Leadership Academy, a halfway house for students who have been adjudicated and incarcerated (the program is not housed in one of Austin Independent School District's [ISD's] schools)
|
From page 294... ...
Norfolk Norfolk has 56 schools that participate in the school meals programs. The district provided enrollment and certification data for all of these schools.
|
From page 295... ...
7 as participating in the school meals programs. Three of the alternative programs (Integrated Learning Program, Lord, and Parrish)
|
From page 296... ...
The CCD lists five of the alternative schools participating in the school meals programs -- Blackburn Senior High Program, ESL Teen Literacy (Career Center) , Parrish, Transition Program at PVA, and Wilson-but includes no enrollment or certification data.
|
From page 297... ...
The greatest differences in school counts are due to the inclusion or exclusion of alternative or nontraditional schools that may or may not TABLE E-3 Counts of Schools in Case Study Districts District Schools CCD Schools Participating in with Enrollment Number of Schools School District NSLP Data on FNS-742* Austin, Texas 114 120 114 Chatham, Georgia 46 51 55 Norfolk, Virginia 56 51 60 Omaha, Nebraska 86 80 88 Pajaro Valley, California 32 33 32 NOTE: CCD = Common Core of Data; NSLP = National School Lunch Program.
|
From page 298... ...
At least in the five case study districts, however, all traditional schools participate in the school meals programs. Table E-4 shows the weighted average percentage difference9 between the data on enrollment and numbers of students certified for free and reduced-price meals reported by the CCD and the districts.
|
From page 299... ...
4.87 1.65 0.24 14.56 18.90 Norfolk 0.84 1.89 0.31 1.95 Omaha 2.21 0.09 0.08 7.29 3.60 Pajaro Valley 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 Number Free-Eligible Austin 0.71 1.51 0.26 6.46 0.12 Chatham 7.17 3.64 9.91 15.05 8.03 Norfolk 0.86 0.42 0.00 2.43 Omaha 7.48 2.71 2.91 19.57 8.14 Pajaro Valley 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.14 0.36 Number Reduced-Price-Eligible Austin 7.56 4.88 1.04 1.44 0.21 Chatham 8.99 9.26 12.79 4.69 5.96 Norfolk 1.02 0.23 3.79 0.64 Omaha 0.66 1.94 0.41 2.21 2.19 Pajaro Valley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTES: For each school, the percentage difference is CCD data minus district data divided by district data, expressed as a percent. To compute the weighted average percentage difference, the school-level percent is multiplied by school enrollment, and the sum over schools is divided by district enrollment.
|
From page 300... ...
Norfolk 1.9 0.3 1.9 5.2 Omaha 2.2 0.1 0.1 7.3 3.6 Pajaro Valley 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Number Free-Eligible Austin 0.4 1.6 0.3 5.7 17.7 Chatham 0.1 3.0 9.6 14.6 6.8 Norfolk 0.9 0.7 0.0 2.4 Omaha 4.9 2.4 3.1 11.7 8.9 Pajaro Valley 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.7 Number Reduced-Price-Eligible Austin 7.2 8.0 5.8 7.0 0.0 Chatham 5.8 6.3 7.6 4.0 2.7 Norfolk 1.5 0.0 6.4 0.7 Omaha 0.2 1.6 0.5 2.3 0.8 Pajaro Valley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NOTE: The percentage difference is the districtwide CCD total minus the districtwide total of data provided by the district, divided by the districtwide total of data provided by the district. CCD = Common Core of Data.
|
From page 301... ...
, the panel asked the school food authority directors of the case study districts the open-ended questions repeated below. The questions were sent to the directors by email, to facilitate preparation for a telephone interview.
|
From page 302... ...
What is the annual cost of verification? The districts reported the following information about the application and verification processes: · Austin reported that in 2009-2010 during a 30-day grace period, nine full-time equivalents (FTEs)
|
From page 303... ...
During the 2009-2010 school year, Chatham began instituting universal free breakfast for 15 sites that had 80 percent or more free and reduced-price-eligible students. · Before the current school food authority director was hired, Norfolk had several schools operating under Provision 2 or 3.
|
From page 304... ...
. Participation is 80-97 percent in elementary schools and 87-97 percent in middle schools; among high schools (excluding alternative schools)
|
From page 305... ...
files. Pajaro Valley said the last major change to its boundaries was in 2003.
|
From page 306... ...
The Pajaro Valley school food authority director stated that she gives the data to the testing department and the advanced placement counselors. Those who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals incur no or reduced-price fees for tests.
|
From page 307... ...
Pajaro Valley reported that it had charter schools, some of which participate in the school meals programs. The school food authority director was not sure whether there were other charters (outside her school district)
|
From page 308... ...
, Leo Lesh (Denver) , Nicole Meschi (Pajaro Valley)
|
From page 309... ...
, Mary Jo Tuckwell (inTEAM Associates) · How would offering universal free meals affect the total number of meals served?
|
From page 310... ...
. Charter schools, magnet schools, and open enrollment draw students from neighborhood schools.
|
From page 311... ...
, Tim Cipriano (New Haven) , Nicole Meschi (Pajaro Valley)
|
From page 312... ...
10:30-10:45Break 10:45 AM12:30 PM The Process and Calculus of Decision Making: Evaluating the Attractiveness of a New Special Provision Panelists: Lynn Harvey (North Carolina) , Leo Lesh (Denver)
|
From page 313... ...
Invited Panelists Onetha Bonaparte, school meals program coordinator, Savannah Chatham County Public School System, Georgia Tim Cipriano, executive director of food services, New Haven Public Schools, Connecticut Lyman Graham, foodservice director, Roswell Independent Public School District, New Mexico Mary Kate Harrison, general manager, Student Nutrition Services, Hillsborough County Public School District, Florida Lynn Harvey, section chief, child nutrition services, Division of School Support, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Leo Lesh, executive director, Enterprise Management, Denver Public Schools, Colorado Terry Mendez, administrator for food and nutrition services, Brownsville Independent School District, Texas Nicole Meschi, director of food and nutrition services, Pajaro Valley Unified School District, California Mary Jo Tuckwell, senior consultant, Food Services Group, inTEAM Associates, Wisconsin Tammy Yarmon, director, Nutrition Services, Omaha Public Schools, Nebraska PART 3: SURVEY OF DISTRICTS OPERATING UNDER PROVISION 2 OR 3 The panel conducted a survey of school food authority directors in school districts that have participated in Provision 2 or 3. The purpose was to identify advantages and disadvantages of these provisions from their point of view and to determine whether the respondents had data they were willing to share that would help the panel identify changes in participation due to providing universal free meals.
|
From page 314... ...
E-mail addresses for the selected school districts were found via an Internet search, and an e-mail invitation to participate in the telephone survey was sent. If the school food authority director responded positively, the telephone interview was scheduled, and the interview was conducted by a panel member.
|
From page 315... ...
One district reported operating under Provision 2 in the past, but could no longer afford to participate because of district finances. One school reported operating under Provision 2 for breakfast only.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.