News

newsobserver.com blogs

WakeEd

The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system as it prepares to undergo historic changes. Will the new school board scrap the diversity policy in favor of neighborhood schools? Will year-round schools be converted back to a traditional calendar? How will the new board respond to  growth and the school construction program?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Questioning the F&R lunch data

Bookmark and Share

Questions are being raised about the validity of the free and reduced-price lunch data that Wake uses for student assignment.

An article in this month's Carolina Journal noted that 64.1 percent of the families reviewed by Wake in a random audit had their meal benefits reduced or revoked. Similar issues were found in the audits conducted by other large North Carolina school districts.

“This really calls into question the school board’s assignment policies,” said County Commissioner Tony Gurley in the article. "If free and reduced-lunch is not a valid indicator of socioeconomic status, then the entire process is damaged."

School board member Ron Margiotta also raised concerns about the reliability of the data.

"We are busing children all over the county based on their socioeconomic status, yet it appears our system for identifying these students is flawed," Margiotta said in the article. "We should immediately review these numbers and our present process."

The article notes that federal law requires school districts to review 3 percent of F&R recipients to see if they're entitled to be in the program. If those reviewed by Wake had so many problems, the article questions how many other people are falsely getting benefits.

The article says that school districts can also try to verify a person's claim if there's evidence of fraud in the application. But the article says Wake only conducted two of those investigations in the 2007-08 school year and 10 the prior school year.

One apparent weakness in the process is that applicants only have to self-report their income. They don't have to provide proof to get the benefit.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Back on topic

#1 - Our federal and state tax dollars should not be funding free lunch for anybody
#2 – Our state tax dollars should not be funding “diversity” busing.
#3 - Now that we have compromised that basic fundamental principal of our near perfect union, it is a complete abomination that the F&R funds have be misused the way they have been in Wake Co (with little to no oversight by anyone).
#4 – Finally, realizing that in Wake Co., we also use this flawed F&R data to support and justify spending public funds on the “diversity” busing program should send everyone over the top (like is does me)!

Summarizing

If WCPSS must continue its highly-questionable practise of busing kids in order to teach through osmosis, then why not use an established, better verified program, namely food stamps? According 2006 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, fewer than 5% of all families in Wake County receive food stamps. Even if all these have school-aged children, and they have on average two kids in school, that would mean that only 10% of Wake kids would get free meals, about 1/3rd of the 29% now receiving them. If I were in charge of these programs at WCPSS and NCDPI, I would sure want to piggy-back on another program to save money and reduce the appearance of being in support of the massive fraud now taking place. If my child had been affected by socioeconomic reassignment as a result of the current F&R number, I would not be a happy camper. Thankfully, my three children made it out of WCPSS before this bussing scheme started. In retrospect, I should have taken on a second job to pay for private school, knowing what I do now, that all the positive P.R. from WCPSS is bogus.

Let's sum up the constitutional interpretation talk

Bigwinnie
Clearly, with no room for interpretation, the Dec of Ind and the Const. place a high value on individual liberties and property rights. No value is placed on providing any citizen with free stuff from the government (with the exception of protection from foreign governments).

Hey, for the record,I am

Hey, for the record,I am totally against using a (flawed) system F&R% to place, reassign, balance, choose for magnets and any other crock that WCPSS can come up with.  It can be fraudulent therefor any students who are placed using fraudulent information are therfor in violation and should be removed.  how's that?

 

the whole thing is a giant crock and I for one was glad when they reformed the welfae system in the NE as well...are we clear now?

Top 10 things that should disqualify you from F&R

10. Owning a home
9. Owning a cell phone
8. Cable or satelite TV service
7. Anything but free internet service
6. Owning more than one vehicle or owning a vehicle valued at more than $5000.
5. Owning more than one TV or a TV valued at more than $100.
4. Owning an I-pod or MP3 player
3. Beer in your refrigerator
2. Not actively seeking employment or additional employment
1. Having children who are overweight

new lunch option for parents

Just to let parents know...the new mylunchmoney.com program is not FREE! It doesn't say this anywhere on the WCPSSS site but I called the company today and they told me that every time you add money to your child's account there is a $1.95 "transaction fee." Just wanted to let people know, so you won't be surprised when this comes up on your bill. Why the school system did not post this information...who knows??!!

I wondered...

...about that.  It *does* say on the mylunchmoney.com site that *some* school districts charge a transaction fee.  Go figure that ours does.  I had signed up, but didn't put any money thru yet.  Now I know I won't.  I'm not paying $2 for something I can do for free at the school.  Just one more way WCPSS is trying to get more $$ from us.

What it is

Yes, F&R is one component of admission to magnet schools. It is also used for transfer requests and for acceptance into the YR program.

Here's another interesting piece from the article.

Hoggard, however, said that school districts should
use a socioeconomic factor other than free and
reduced-lunch percentages to determine student
assignments.
“When we begin to use that figure [F&R #s] for
other purposes, it takes a toll on the program. Families
with children who need the food become reluctant to
divulge their information for fear that it could be used
in a manner they did not agree to originally.”

I agree that F&R should only be used for the lunch program as it was designed. So...if WCPSS was not allowed to use F&R as a basis for student assignment, what would they use? Any speculation?

Isn't F&R status used as one

Isn't F&R status used as one of the criteria for admission to magnet programs? If so - mis-stating your F&R status reaches far beyond getting a free lunch.....

What is - "The Pursuit of Happiness"

Although not explicatively in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence has that phrase and the US Supreme Court ruled on it as follows:

In Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his concurring opinion  to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's opinon, wrote:

Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

BL- The US Supreme Court makes it fairly clear and I can't see an easy life or free lunch in that opinion.

Supreme Court

Read

Read the Declaration of Independence, read the Constitution, read some books on Jefferson, Adams, Madison, GW, Hamilton, etc. and you will clearly see the core values they had in black and white. Core values are learned, not made up on a whim.

ironically I have and have

ironically I have and have family who are lawyers so it is not that.  core values are

2. the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

I never said they are a whim, I said an interpratation

1.

the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer's work demands interpretation.

BUT this is straying too far off topic, any more discussion of the constitution et al, should be continued under Politics.

 

The difference is...

bigwinnie
There is nothing wrong with evolving as a society as long as you understand and stick to the core principals that made the country great. The problem with liberals is that they do not have core principals and therefore do not understand the value in sticking to them.

simply devils' advocate

who decides then what "core principals" are?  isn't that an interpretation by all who read it?  is it really so black or white?

 

 

Yes, it is black and white

First, the U.S. Constitution, one of the most precious documents in mankind's history is not 230 years old, but a collection of ideas that have existed for five millenia. If you read the many recent books published on Gerorge Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry and their contemporaries here and abroard,  you will learn that the U.S. Constitution has deep roots in Christian morality, which is two millenia old, as well as the best ideas of societies that go back 5 millenia to the ancient people of Egypt, Persia, Greece, The Roman Empire, etc.   The human rights protected by the English Magna Carta of 1215 also weighed heavily on thinking of the authors of the Constitution.  It was NEVER intended to be a "living document", or a "framework" for future meddling, and is thus indeed black and white.  For further insight into the debates surrounding the Constitution,  I highly recommend "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers", which also provide substantial explanation for strong divisions in America that eventually resulted in the Civil War and still simmer in the debates among Conservatives and Liberals today. Despite what agnostics would have us believe, our founding fathers did believe in absolute laws, such as the Ten Commandments and the self-evident truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were provided not by politicians or judges, but by God.  

 

Lastly, the federal Constitution is a document that defines the limit of the federal government, not the limits of individual rights.  Nowhere does it guarantee citizens anything like free food, housing,  cell phones, a living wage, or even a free education.  Nor does it give us the right to vote in federal elections, something that only states may grant us if they choose.  Anything not delineated in the federal constitution is reserved for the states, otherwise we are basically free do what we please in America, thank God.  Having lived in socialists countries in the past, I fear the same creeping loss of rights in our own country if we give these up in exchange for free stuff, such as the F&R program.

with all due respect,

First, the U.S. Constitution, one of the most precious documents in mankind's history is not 230 years old, but a collection of ideas that have existed for five millenia.

The concepts of natural rights and governing by consent of the governed most certainly are not five millenia old but arose during the enlightenment.

If you read the many recent books published on Gerorge Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry and their contemporaries here and abroard,  you will learn that the U.S. Constitution has deep roots in Christian morality, which is two millenia old, as well as the best ideas of societies that go back 5 millenia to the ancient people of Egypt, Persia, Greece, The Roman Empire, etc.  

Judeochristian culture of course influenced, and continues to inluence, everything that happened. But this is really a stretch, that by definition the ideas in the Constitution are therefore two thousand, much less five thousand years old.

The human rights protected by the English Magna Carta of 1215 also weighed heavily on thinking of the authors of the Constitution. 

True

It was NEVER intended to be a "living document", or a "framework" for future meddling, and is thus indeed black and white.

False. First, the framers set up a federal judiciary whose job it was to interpret the Constitution, because they knew it would need to be interpreted. Second, just read the Constitution. You can do it in a couple of hours. It's very short and very simple, The framers never thought that it could, or should, be a document that could be applied literally to every conceivable legal and governmental question, but rather it's a framework that the three branches use to craft a government. It anticipates change and unexpected events, it relies on the wisdom and integrity of those entrusted with it, and it is most certainly a living document and was intended to be such.
In, fact, if it were not a living document it would be a dead one. As drafted, it institutionalized chattel slavery, it did not protect any human rights whatsoever against the powers of the state governments (none!), it disenfranchized women. Some of those problems were taken care of through the amendment process, others through judicial interpretation and the governmental processes the constitution set in motion. Since it's adoption, it's been used, imperfectly yet largely effectively, to deal with questions and problems wholly unimaginable in 1789.

  For further insight into the debates surrounding the Constitution,  I highly recommend "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers", which also provide substantial explanation for strong divisions in America that eventually resulted in the Civil War and still simmer in the debates among Conservatives and Liberals today. Despite what agnostics would have us believe, our founding fathers did believe in absolute laws, such as the Ten Commandments and the self-evident truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were provided not by politicians or judges, but by God. 

Some were men of faith and some were not. Regardless, there was broad understanding that the combination of government and religion tended to corrupt both institutions. Therefore they intetnionally built a secular government, in order to protect both.

 

Lastly, the federal Constitution is a document that defines the limit of the federal government, not the limits of individual rights. 

The Constitution does two things. First, it limits the federal government's intrusion into certain defined individual rights. These limitations were on the state governments via the 14th amendment and subsequent judicial interpretations of that. Second, it defines the powers of the federal government, including the power to coin money and regulate the national economy, to enter into international treaties, to wage war, to protect intellectual property, and a bunch of other specific things. These powers have been broadly interpreted, for better or worse, and the federal government does a lot more than just those things through funding clauses and such. Powers not granted to the federal government were reserved for the states. Therefore it is incorrect to imagine that the framers imagined a weak or toothless government at the federal, and particularly at the state level.

Nowhere does it guarantee citizens anything like free food, housing,  cell phones, a living wage, or even a free education. 

Right, though subsequent federal and state legislation does cover some things like wages and education. There are millions of things federal and state governments do that aren't written down in the federal constitution. It is true that cell phones are never mentioned in the Constitution.

Nor does it give us the right to vote in federal elections, something that only states may grant us if they choose. 

Untrue.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The 15th amendment says:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The 19th amendment says:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
The 24th Amendment says:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
The 26th amendment says:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

In, fact, if it were not a

In, fact, if it were not a living document it would be a dead one.

That's an erroneous argument based on a flawed metaphor.  The Constitution is a text and, as such, is neither living nor dead.  (dead implies "was once alive.")  The argument isn't whether the law of the Constitution changes over time -- it clearly does.  The argument is about how it does, and should, change.

I suggest that it should change according to the method specified in itself -- the amendment process.  If there is general agreement that a principle of the Constitution is no longer valid, or that a new principle should be added, then the country can make that change.  And, as a matter of fact, it has done that more than 20 times.

 Does it make sense to allow a judge to say "Well, I know this interpretation was never indended, but I can sort of force it to fit into that language."  This is a betrayal -- there is already a mechanism for changing the meaning which requires general consensus. Why should a judge be empowered to change that meaning without consensus?

Case in point: the recent decision that it is unconstitutional to execute those who rape children.  For centuries, it was legal to do so (omitting the period in which executions were altogether illegal).  But, now the justices decide that it's not OK any more.  Shouldn't that be a decision that the country makes corporately?

 As to your last point, I suggest that the power is still in state hands.  States can, for example, deny the right to vote to felons or grant it to 17-year-olds or non-citizens (as was commonplace until the 1920's.)  

ok, so far off topic, needs to be on a political blog really

argument isn't whether the law of the Constitution changes over time -- it clearly does.  The argument is about how it does, and should, change.

I suggest that it should change according to the method specified in itself -- the amendment process.  If there is general agreement that a principle of the Constitution is no longer valid, or that a new principle should be added, then the country can make that change.  And, as a matter of fact, it has done that more than 20 times.

 Does it make sense to allow a judge to say "Well, I know this interpretation was never intended, but I can sort of force it to fit into that language."  This is a betrayal -- there is already a mechanism for changing the meaning which requires general consensus. Why should a judge be empowered to change that meaning without consensus?

Judges were empowered to decide constitutional questions in the constitution itself. The consensus that allows them to do it is the same consensus that legitimizes the constitution itself. The fact that they have done so imperfectly is hardly surprising, inasmuch as the the constitution and the judiciary are human creations and therefore necessarily flawed. However, what is remarkable is not how far we have strayed from the constitution but how faithfully we have adhered to it.

Case in point: the recent decision that it is unconstitutional to execute those who rape children.  For centuries, it was legal to do so (omitting the period in which executions were altogether illegal).  But, now the justices decide that it's not OK any more.  Shouldn't that be a decision that the country makes corporately?

The constitution tells us that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be imposed, but it does not tell us what is cruel and unusual. It was always intended that such questions would be decided in the courts. In fact, that which we consider cruel and unusual has changed over the centuries, as have many of our values and mores. Yet the basic principle that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be imposed remains. If that most recent judicial interpretation is unacceptable, an amendment could be in order. but whether or not one agrees with it, the process by which that ruling came to be is entirely consistent with the scheme the founding fathers laid out.

 I suggest that the power is still in state hands.  States can, for example, deny the right to vote to felons or grant it to 17-year-olds or non-citizens (as was commonplace until the 1920's.)  

Yes, within the parameters laid out in the constitution, including the federal gaurantee that the states will be subject ot a republican form of government. States can establish many of the requirements for voting but cannot wholesale deny the vote to the citizenry. Bush v. Gore, by the way, was, among other things, about the federal government trumping a state's operation of its own electoral process.

Pfft

Judges were empowered to decide constitutional questions in the constitution itself.

I don't think so.  If I recall correctly, that was basically first decided in Marbury v. Madison.  And, the decision was disputed by many of the surviving members of the Constitutional convention.

But, that's just the threshold question -- As you point out, the Constitution does not unambiguously address every situation.  At some point, you need to decide by what standard those ambiguities should be decided.  And, I assert that the best way to figure those out is to try to discern the intention of those who wrote the document.  

To your point about cruel and unusual punishment -- I dispute the idea that this was intended to be redecided through the ages.  In fact, the 8th amendment's restriction on "Cruel and Unusual" punishment had a very specific meaning, taken from the English Declaration of Rights, where the expression earlier appeared.  It referred to Lord Chief Justice Jeffrey's inventing new punishments that were not authorized by law.  Those words weren't chosen to give future courts the ability to apply contemporary standards; they were there to refer to a body of English law that had arisen around those very words. 

(IIRC, Harmelin v. Michigan, a 1991 opinion, has a great exegesis on the phrase.)

Coffee shop versus court house

Angela, at the coffee shop we can debate existence and its ramifications all day long. When neighbor Smith decides that your tree is a nuisance and takes it down, we go to the books for remedy. That legal code is our core principals. We maintain that code through democracy and republic governance. On the continuum we hope that the legal code is nearly black and white or we have a number of tyrannies that await the vacuum. Do we really want to explore neighbor Smith's understanding of property rights at this moment?

The courts are to clarify when there's confusion in the matter. On the whole, the confusion is remarkably small for a country of nearly 300 million.

Kyle, again we have strayed

Kyle, again we have strayed too far off topic and thus I concede to your elucidation.

Over zealous in my comment

Of course Bob, thanks. I was over zealous in my statement. I could argue, however, the "property" statement is implied in the Consitution in lue of happiness in several instances.
Dadof3, unfortunately, those paying in are now outnumbered by those taking out. Tough row to ho.

How free stuff destroys a society

Bob poses the question

 "How are F&R lunches hurting the educational system in Wake County? "

 1. If  you agree with most Wake Citizens, busing for socioeconomic balance (education through osmosis) has no benefits to those being bussed and only disadvantages for those who are not. And it costs taxpayer a fortune.  There is no evidence that it improves education, and plenty of evidence that it does not.  Read this for details:

http://www.ullisart.com/images/Misegades_Balance_rebuttal.pdf

to which there has been no refutation since I published it in April of this year.

Overenrollment of F&R children only amplifies an already bad policy.

 

2. Normalization of welfare - people of my generation (1957) would work three jobs before they would accept one cent of government assistance, both out of the strong sense of self-sufficiency, and the public shame that living on the dole should rightly bring.  An educational system that encourages families to accept F&R welfare destroys these important traditional values that have made our nation strong.

3. The tolerance of obvious fraud on the part of parents and administrators sends the wrong message to young people.  In my days, if you didn't work, you didn't eat. Hunger is a very strong motivator for hard work in school and business, something about which I have experience in my family.  Alas, our government now promotes a lottery as the means to achieve success.

 

4. Free stuff for young parents, be it food, housing, food stamps, etc. makes it easy to  have children out of wedlock and to avoid the responsibility that comes with parenthood. Statistics show that children from traditional, nuclear, Daddy + Mommy families are the happiest, learn the best, and  cause few discipline issues.   Having children without the means to  support them should make life so miserable for parents that they'd think twice before having children, whether these are planned  or not.  Thus, elimination of the F&R program will force more parents to live up to the basic, and simplest responsibilities that come with having children: clothing, feeding, housing, educating and nurturing.

 

What is democracy

Dadof3, unfortunately, those paying in are now outnumbered by those taking out. Tough row to ho.

Reminds me of a Jonah Goldberg joke: pure democracy is 2 wolves voting to eat the 1 sheep.

The bottom line is...

As both Kent and I have alluded to above, no where in our country’s constitution and certainly not in the vision of our forefathers has a free lunch been a right. “Free and Reduced Lunch” is a misnomer anyway as there is no such thing. It should really be called, “Part of Somebody Else’s Lunch Because We (the government) Thought They Should Share”.
Our founding fathers never would have approved of taking someone’s property (through taxes) to provide free lunch to someone else. In fact, that was one their greatest fears when establishing a democracy. As many of you may know, the “pursuit of happiness” statement was somewhat of a last minute and reluctant change to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Originally it was “property”.
F&R is simply another government program like those that sprung out of The Great Depression era and FDR’s New Deal. Just like social security, Medicaid, and soon to be socialized medicine, these types of programs will bankrupt our economy and destroy or country as we know it. Unfortunately, these programs tend to feed themselves just like the F&R appears to. We can clearly see how the F&R hurts the education system in Wake County and thus generates more F&R kids down the road. All, especially the poor, will suffer from the path we are on.

Maybe....

I suspect that the founding fathers probably would be shocked to see what their country has turned into.  But, they were also wise enough to recognize that they could not govern the country for all time.  So, they set up a government with some foundational principles and left it to future generations to solve their own problems.  [BTW, "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the Constitution.]

Apart from the school district's inane reliance on F&R status for assignment purposes (which doesn't count -- they'd just find some other proxy), how are F&R lunches hurting the educational system in Wake County?

Proud Papas or ...?

So, they set up a government with some foundational principles and left it to future generations to solve their own problems.

Not exactly. They established a then radical tripartite system of government. We have added to that system but the process is wonderously difficult, as it should be. Any overreach must remain contained. While there have been clarifications, we largely use the same legal, executive and judicial code as we did back then. Heaven help us when we lose that mooring.

While fashions change, the eseential nature of mankind hasn't. The founding fathers were hallmark-like grandpappies, what they put into place was profound.

1776 was no picnic, it just seems so 200+ years later.

yeah I'm guessing if we

yeah I'm guessing if we went back to musket balls, bayonets and cannons, we might not be so quick to talk about wars or invasions for one thing.

 

funny how those who oppose certain things being added are usually definately in favor of standing by the broad reaching wording of another thing....funny thing that....

Know what we're up against

I agree with Kent and yourself, but understand what we're up against. Last week, the Supreme Court narrowly defended the Second Amendment, yet Stevens, in dissent, essentially refers to the Constitution as a dusty old rag. Hence, the modern love affair with a "living" constitution, a concept that is tyranny in any other langauge. So, for many on the left, discerning the framers intent is not only moot but merely a bizarre antiquarian fascination, as it would be with horse-and-buggies, telegraphs and ice-boxes.

That doesn't mean we should press on; just understand it's not a rhetorical slam dunk.

Perhaps if......

Maybe if they didn't "shotgun" the opportunity to join the ranks of the "free & reduced" to every family in Wake County, this wouldn't be a problem. Also, sending it out in to folks in non-English form doesn't help either. I have been told by the "powers that be" that the Federal Department of Agriculture actually pays for everyone to have the opportunity to join the ranks of the "Free & Reduced," as this opens many opportunities to live large on the public dole as well. However, IMHO, it is nothing more any an opportunity to waste billions of tax dollars (Federal & State level) and keep the otherwise unemployable gainfully employed (bureaucrats at all levels of government).

Bottom line: If you think you qualify for "F&R" than look/asked for it. The Feds/State/County should stop looking for new "customers."

When I was a kid, being on "welfare" was something to be ashamed of. Nowadays, folks where it like a badge of "honor." (Big Flushing sound).

Why not eliminate program altogether

The short-term way out of the mess the schools have put themselves into through over-enrollment in the F&R program is to sign-up only those families qualifying for food stamps, a program known for better oversight. In 2006, the US Census Bureau reported that fewer than 5% of families living in Wake County received food stamps, quite a bit less than the 29% enrolled in the F&R program. WCPSS and the DPI have reported to me that they have additional means to qualify students other than from the food stamp data they receive from HHS or the - often falsified - income statements from parents: "migrant" workers (probably illegals), homeless children (how many can that be?), children from recently-divorced parents, and "others". Each school has an administrator empowered to enroll children, and that's probably where some of the problems start. An aweful lot of parents are defrauding the government, which means those of us who abide laws. And it appears that county and state public education officials are well aware of this, and have done nothing to prevent it or prosecute cheaters. What's worse, they use these bloated figures as a basis to bus kids all across the county. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from parents across the state that schools aggressively sign up families for this program whether they are entitled or not. There is more than sufficient evidence for county, state and federal investigations and the subsequent prosection of those now cheating.

We're talking about a good chunk of money: based on statistics I have obtained from WCPSS, approximately $10 million is spent annually in Wake County alone on free lunches. If 2/3rds of families now receiving these are not entitled to them, we're talking about some $7m being wasted. We could build two new Thales Academies for that money, housing nearly 900 students K-8. Every year! This does not include the expense of free breakfasts or free meals that are provided to F&R kids during their vacations, as someone recently mentioned on a WPTF call-in.

Each family now defrauding the system costs us annually $315 (180 days X $1.75 lunch cost). For a family with two children in Wake schools, that's $630/year. What would the IRS or the NC Department of Revenue say if a taxpayer refused to pay a tax bill of $630?

But why have this program at all? Parents, what are the two least expensive meals of the day for a child? My siblings and I grew up on Cheerios and PBJ sandwiches. We did the same with our three (government-school educated) kids; it took about 5 minutes to prepare three brown-bag lunches each day at a very low cost. The bottom line is simply: if you can't afford the diapers (and food), don't have kids.

We need Kent for President!

Kent,

You could not have said that any better!  It is to the point and as the old saying goes..."The truth hurts".  I would also like to add, cut off the welfare at one child.  Do not increase the payment for each child.  If they did that, and actually had the gutts to do that...I honestly believe the rates of babies born into that environment would drop.  Once again...people have to be accountable for the things that they do, and in modern day society,  that is something no one is held up to anymore.  It's always someonelse's fault, etc.

 

BUT thanks again Kent for saying what you said!!!

Food stamps != Free Lunches

Kent --

  The eligibilty requirements for food stamps are much more stringent than they are for free lunches.  For food stamps, $2000 spread across an IRA and bank account will disqualify you. (What a horrible disincentive for a poor person to save!)   Food stamps also require you to register for work.  F&R lunches, IIRC, only have an income test. 

  The end result is that people who have a period of unemployment (for any reason) can get free lunches, but not food stamps.  A friend's kids had free lunches when he went back to school after the economy tanked at the beginning of the decade.

   Also recognize that the 2/3rds number includes people whose benefit was reduced, but not eliminated.  In other words, they started makng a little bit more.  I suppose that the district could add a bunch of staff to its lunch program to catch these people.  But, I doubt the benefits would pay for that additional staffing.

Curriculum MANAGEMENT Audit

H20Guy said :
Del Burns with that curriculum audit....that was not needed. We don't need to look at Wake County Public Schools curriculum.....we need to see the whole workings of the folks that work on Wake Forest Rd.
-----

Read the audit. It is not an audit of the curriculum. It is an audit of how WCPSS manages teaching and the efficiencies or lack of in the bureaucracy. It is very critical in many areas, too forgiving in others. But on the whole, it seems objective.

http://www.wcpss.net/curriculum-management/

It's about time!

It does my heart good to hear parents and people in the communities become aware and furious about the whole system. With the budgets, reassignments, schedules, forced year round, now the F&R lunch....just to let everyone know...it is no longer going to be call F&R anymore. They are changing the label to "ED"...Economically Disadvantaged...since F&R has such a "bad" "harmful" stigma to it....LOL I just laugh at that.

Things just can't go on the way they are going. It seems to just get worse and worse and worse. I get frustrated with the ones that NEED to be held accountable are NEVER being accountable! Del Burns with that curriculum audit....that was not needed. We don't need to look at Wake County Public Schools curriculum.....we need to see the whole workings of the folks that work on Wake Forest Rd.
The "poor" isn't missing out on anything. Schools have sponsors for Christmas and let me tell you, they aren't missing out on anything for Christmas. Some parents have schools, churches and community organizations giving gifts for Christmas....they are probably getting more than most children in their classrooms.
I was informed that parents shouldn't buy any of the spring pictures that they take each year. The ones they bring home and view and then you pay for the ones you want and then send back the ones you don't want. They are getting more and more costly! It's getting more expensive because the picture company has padded the fees to balance off the ones that are NEVEr returned and nothing is done about it. Teachers can't keep them....since the parents have the right to look and view them. I told my sister-in-law...never to purchase another, because you are paying for my nephew's pictures along with probably 2 other kids that never bring them back. I have heard that close to 50% of the picture packets are NEVER RETURNED...the whole packet cost around $50 bucks.
Just think of that....$50 per child....in a class of 20 , half will make 10 kids that don't return. You do the math...that's $500.oo in that ONE ONE ONE class....then multiply that by the rest of the school. It's just ridiculous.
The same for lunches....there's not many that are that bad off....they bring snacks or best yet...they bring extra money to buy ice cream and cookies. LOL
Yeah and Wake county has their "Approved Snack List" has anyone ever looked at that list. It's funny how its grouped by Named brands. I think they are getting a kick back $$$$ from the companys like you would "indorse" something on tv. But they call it "healthy snacks". Those snacks are not all that healthy! Then they pin down the poor teachers and other parents that want to be creative and use "snacks" , candies, etc. for instructional purposes to make it creative.
As you can tell....I'm pretty hot over all this.

I'd like to know....WHY???? does the Board of ED. meet at such an odd time ? Why do they meet at 2:00 or 2:30?? I'm not stupid...I know why...I would just like to get their feedback for that reason.

It should meet at 6:00 or close to that, so that more parents can come to be vocal.

I think it's time for all parents to stand up and really raise a fuss and say....we are sick and tired of this shit!!!

Newsweek article

I am looking for the Newsweek article from around 2 weeks ago that reported Nationwide that 50% of school aged children receive Free and Reduced Lunch. The article cites that the food prices are rapidly increasing and school districts around the nation were trying to fit the increases of the Lunch program into their budgets. What appalled me was that the number was 1/2 of the school population. 50% of this country is too poor to feed their children? I find that hard to believe and the benchmarks should change so that it does not fall on the backs of the Taxpayers.

These Poor "Poor" People!

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer

*sniff* Makes my heart break to think about them.

Make it free for everyone!

The only people who don't qualify for F&R its seems are the same people who are paying for the schools and the free lunches anyway so I say just make it free for everyone. Stop singling kids out who's parents do not make much money (however you define "much"). The lunch lines will go faster, less kids will bring unhealthy lunches from home (assumes the school lunches are healthy), eliminate the need to track the lunch balance, etc.
When are we (the majority of people in America) going to realize there are very, very few "real" poor people in this country. Not being able to afford an I-Pod does not mean you are poor. When you have nothing to eat for breakfast, lunch or dinner - then we can talk.

new math?

>> Clearly, WCPSS is overenrolling children by a factor of 300%.

That incorrectly assumes one enrolled child per food stamp family. In reality one family cheating the system could result in multiple children having their benefits reduced. So 300% is inaccurate. At an average of 2 or 3 kids per family, that works to around 100-150% overenrollment. Which is unacceptable, but not as sensational as the 300% claim.

Reply to New Math

It's hard to say how many children there are per family in government schools, but it is probably around 2 in Wake County.  According to US Census Bureau data, in 2006 about 4% of families with children qualify for food stamps,  which is probably the only reliable, verified program that could be used as an indicator for "poverty", whatever that is.   (Walter E. William's article depicts the life of an impoverished family in America today, opulent compared to my household when we started a family in 1983)   Currently, 29% of children in Wake schools are in the F&R program; 80% of these get free lunches, meaning they are in the poorest famililes, which probably roughly translates people who might be food stamp recipients.  80% of 29% is 23%. So, using the factor of 2 children per household would mean that some 12% of families in Wake County are qualified for free meals.  But only about 4% of Wake families receive food stamps.  There's your 300%.  There are many other factors that could be included, but the bottom line is that WCPSS and the DPI need to use a different means to test for poverty; I would advocate for the use of food stamps since this is already being done by HSS and the USDA. No, I would advocate elimination of this program altogether. Where does our constitution guarantee a right for free meals paid by others?  Organizations such as my church will always provide for the truly destitute.

That Explains It!

Early in my blogging "career" I asked HOW could our total FNR numbers be going UP when the numbers of transplants moving here are by-and-large probably NOT qualified to receive the FNR benefit.

But, now I know.

Slightly off-topic, I have a friend with 3 kids in Minneapolis who makes >$60,000, and HIS FAMILY qualifies for FNR in their system. Isn't that INSANE?!? $60,000 and with 3 kids you qualify for a FREE or REDUCED PRICE lunch?!? He kinda laughs it off, but I am APPALLED that a family making $60,000 ANYWHERE in the USA could be considered "too poor" to afford lunch for 3 kids!
This system (both locally and nationally) is broken, broken, broken. When did the Department of Education become the Department-of-Fixing-All-Society's-Problems-and-then-maybe- if-You're-Lucky-Dealing-with-Education?

Been there

Part of the problem here is that the lunch program is paid for from federal money, so the district lacks an incentive to correct errors or to keep its records up-to-date. In fact, it may actually have an incentive (in the form of Title I money) to keep people on the rolls. A friend's kids remained on free lunches for the rest of the school year after he asked the district to remove them when he got a job.

I think Gurley's point is overblown because (1) the district is assigning students by node, not by family and (2) when a student's benefits are reduced, he's still F&R. The end result is that the highest F&R nodes will probably still be the highest F&R nodes, even if there is a drop in the actual number of eligible students in those nodes. But, this certainly won't add any confidence to the district's already questionable numbers.

Can't proove a negative

How do you proove you don't have something? Sure, its easy to proove what your income is when you have a legitimate income. You provide bank statements, tax returns, pay stubs, etc. The IRS spends billions of our tax dollars trying to figure out people's income and fails, how the "heck" is WCPSS going to do this? What a nightmare.
According to our founding fathers, there are three inalienable rights (life, liberty and the persuit of happiness). I can't find free lunch or a bus ride across town anywhere in there. Can someone please show it to me?

Why this is important to the poor in WCPSS- Really

The amount of Title I money given to Wake County is based Census data for poverty, not F&R numbers. The federal Title I money given is fixed, whether we have 10 or 100 Title I schools. If the F&R numbers are truly inflated then we have more Title I schools and less money at individual Title I schools that truly deserve it. It denies services to the truly poor (i.e.180% of poverty level). WCPSS should care because of the achievement gap. The free lunch program is mainly tied to Food Stamp eligibility and is regulated more; if WCPSS HAS to play the F&R game for "healthy" schools, I would at least base it on Free Lunch eligibles only. I still think busing to balance economically elementary schools is useless and unproductive.

Mr. Hui, correct me if I am wrong but I believe the 3% they audit is only in the non-Food Stamp eligible pool, so the fraud rate may seem a bit larger than it is , just to be fair.

Stealing

I have a great idea

One apparent weakness in the process is that applicants only have to self-report their income. They don't have to provide proof to get the benefit.

Here we go -- let's form yet another massive bureaucracy that will better control the F&R application process. Then we can form an audit bureaucracy that periodically reviews the F&R application bureaucracy. Then we can form another bureaucracy that determines corrective actions as discovered by the audit bureaucracy. Then we can form another...

Meanwhile, our education is dying on the vine in the name of a noble but futile and impractical effort to fix societal problems.

Here's a serious idea that will be immediately shot down for (insert demagogic phrase here) Let's get back to education and not fixing every identifiable ill.

Nice going, clowns.

School Lunch Fraud

Thank you, Keung for adding this to the blog.  Please report this in a normal article in the print version of the N&O also, as it has widespread ramifications on school assignments across Wake County.  The Carolina Journal's findings, that about 2/3rds of children now receiving free meals should not be in the system corresponds well with other facts:  29% - percentage of WCPSS children now in the F&R program (80% of these get free meals); 10% - percentage of families  in Wake County with school-aged children living in poverty as defined by the federal government and estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2006; 5% - percentage of families with children in Wake County receiving food stamps. Clearly, WCPSS is overenrolling children by a factor of 300%.  This is massive misuse of taxpayer money and one suspects serious negligence on the part of school administrators at best, collusion at worse.  Along with free lunches come significant additional "Title I" funding from DC used for all sorts of programs, teacher bonuses, etc., etc.   In short, it appears that school administrations have gamed the system once again, and  taxpayers will be fleeced as a result.  I have called on numerous county, state and federal authorities  to  investigate this latest scandal in our government schools.  Shame on parents who are lying, of course.  Why should any law-abiding parent be forced to  pay for his neighbor's childrens' meals?

 

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

About the blogger

T. Keung Hui covers Wake schools.

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. To register or to log in using your existing account, click here.
Advertisements