Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > California Schools

California Schools Topics And Information Relating To California Schools

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2013, 11:00 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default LA Schools Want Exemption From Fraud-Fighting Verification Rule

Ah yes; The schools have been raking in extra money by claiming a whole lot more students qualify as low income than actually exist, so now the investigators want verification of incomes, and the school hierarchy wants a waiver so they'll go away. They should look back, but unfortunately they'll only look at the present....unless the state buckles under political pressure and grants them a pass so the cheating and graft can continue

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/10/598...funds-for.html

Quote:
Districts already verify students' family income every four years for a federally subsidized meal program. Officials say the notifications about the new rules went out late and some parents balk at divulging personal information.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-10-2013, 11:49 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

This is what I call the Robin Hood spread the wealth program that Gov. Brown implemented. The better schools in areas where most often are those that are paying the highest taxes are getting the least amount of funding. It's that 3 tiered funding I wrote about. My school district, which qualifies for the highest funding in Ventura County, is so happy; they're all salivating over each other at the thought of all your tax dollars speeding their way.

What no one does mention is 'What is the incentive to improve the area when poverty pays so well?' With good schools come people with deep pockets to live in the area, but that doesn't bode well with this sort of social engineering. Being poor pays so well in a liberal environment so why would anyone try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?



I posted about this awhile back. School districts that meet a high percentage of low income give the whole school including EVERY STUDENT free lunch and breakfast no matter what their income. How they justify it is by saying that when a small percentage doesn't qualify, that it cost more to verify those students than it does to just give them the food. We are talking millions to each district.

Most of these students' families already receive food stamps that are suppose to be used to buy 21 meals per person per week. But the schools are providing almost half of the students meals (10) per week for free and it is not deducted from their food stamps.

To see how big of a deal that is, lets say a family of 5, one parent and 4 kids in school. That's 105 meals per week, breakfast, lunch and dinner. Of that 105 meals 50 are being eaten at school, just about half, yet the parent is receiving food stamps to cover 105. This does not include those that also get WIC. And your tax dollars are paying for both programs. There are plenty of ways to double dip.

Last edited by Jeanfromfillmore; 12-10-2013 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-10-2013, 06:54 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore View Post
This is what I call the Robin Hood spread the wealth program that Gov. Brown implemented. The better schools in areas where most often are those that are paying the highest taxes are getting the least amount of funding. It's that 3 tiered funding I wrote about. My school district, which qualifies for the highest funding in Ventura County, is so happy; they're all salivating over each other at the thought of all your tax dollars speeding their way.

What no one does mention is 'What is the incentive to improve the area when poverty pays so well?' With good schools come people with deep pockets to live in the area, but that doesn't bode well with this sort of social engineering. Being poor pays so well in a liberal environment so why would anyone try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?



I posted about this awhile back. School districts that meet a high percentage of low income give the whole school including EVERY STUDENT free lunch and breakfast no matter what their income. How they justify it is by saying that when a small percentage doesn't qualify, that it cost more to verify those students than it does to just give them the food. We are talking millions to each district.

Most of these students' families already receive food stamps that are suppose to be used to buy 21 meals per person per week. But the schools are providing almost half of the students meals (10) per week for free and it is not deducted from their food stamps.

To see how big of a deal that is, lets say a family of 5, one parent and 4 kids in school. That's 105 meals per week, breakfast, lunch and dinner. Of that 105 meals 50 are being eaten at school, just about half, yet the parent is receiving food stamps to cover 105. This does not include those that also get WIC. And your tax dollars are paying for both programs. There are plenty of ways to double dip.
And time to say thanks for keeping us informed on the schools issue Jean. Schools look at these programs as cash flow. It's founded on corruption though. They see it as job creation too. School lunches require more employees. I don't know the mechanics of how the school food programs work, but there's plenty of room for suspicions that there are some friends, political buddies, and brothers-in-law profiting from the supply side of this program.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-11-2013, 12:28 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

The Robin Hood formula consists primarily of a three tiered structure based on student demographics, starting with base funding, which all students receive, next is supplemental funding for specific demographics and then concentration funding.

Each district receives a per pupil base grant that vary between grades k-3, 4-6, 7-8 and 9-12. A supplemental grant of 35% of the base grant is provided for each student of these three special groups; English learner, economically disadvantaged or foster youth student.

Those students that fall into more than one of the three categories can only be counted once for supplemental funding. Districts with an excess of 50% enrollment of the special group category are then given a concentration grant equal to 35% of the base grant for all student that exceed the 50% threshold.

What this comes out to is $2,800+$980+$980= $4,840 for most students where the poverty level is high (over 50%) and for those areas/districts where the poverty level is low ( in other words the areas with the people paying the taxes) those students get $2,800. You see the big difference!!! It pays to be poor so what incentive is there for the school districts to improve?

Last edited by Jeanfromfillmore; 12-11-2013 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-11-2013, 07:34 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore View Post
The Robin Hood formula consists primarily of a three tiered structure based on student demographics, starting with base funding, which all students receive, next is supplemental funding for specific demographics and then concentration funding.

Each district receives a per pupil base grant that vary between grades k-3, 4-6, 7-8 and 9-12. A supplemental grant of 35% of the base grant is provided for each student of these three special groups; English learner, economically disadvantaged or foster youth student.

Those students that fall into more than one of the three categories can only be counted once for supplemental funding. Districts with an excess of 50% enrollment of the special group category are then given a concentration grant equal to 35% of the base grant for all student that exceed the 50% threshold.

What this comes out to is $2,800+$980+$980= $4,840 for most students where the poverty level is high (over 50%) and for those areas/districts where the poverty level is low ( in other words the areas with the people paying the taxes) those students get $2,800. You see the big difference!!! It pays to be poor so what incentive is there for the school districts to improve?
I know a number of people from several school districts and this is the picture I put together from them:

English Language learner is a big cash winner for the district - there is a huge amount of money to be raked in by keeping those ready to move on classified as English learner.

I'm not sure about the idea of the Cafeteria being used for featherbedding more employees than necessary. Anymore the cafeteria is a microwave operation to heat food actually prepared and packaged elsewhere - probably by minimum wage people not represented by any union. There's not a large employee surplus at the school in that area.

The schools have been barred from asking the the true need of a family concerning taxpayer provided meals. So, there is a mix of the genuinely low income kids and kids who are dropped off by someone who lied about necessity, sometimes from expensive cars driven by people wearing expensive clothes. On the other hand there is a good proportion of the kids from all income levels who would have nothing to eat at all besides a bag of chips brought from home if it weren't for the school meals.

And there are all sorts of reasons for the low income kids, from druggie parents to broken families and single parent families to illegal foreigners who work for nothing to those who willfully exploit the system, and also the recession which knocked the legs out from under many families.

There are a lot of fingers pointed in all directions as to who is responsible for the low educational achievement. There is "teach to the test", parents who don't care, bad teachers, district policies which don't make sense to anyone, educator bias and social engineering, kids who don't speak English, over crowded classes, the list goes on and on.

It's a mixed bag, but this is my understanding.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 12-11-2013 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-12-2013, 07:04 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbegone View Post
I know a number of people from several school districts and this is the picture I put together from them:

English Language learner is a big cash winner for the district - there is a huge amount of money to be raked in by keeping those ready to move on classified as English learner.

I'm not sure about the idea of the Cafeteria being used for featherbedding more employees than necessary. Anymore the cafeteria is a microwave operation to heat food actually prepared and packaged elsewhere - probably by minimum wage people not represented by any union. There's not a large employee surplus at the school in that area.

The schools have been barred from asking the the true need of a family concerning taxpayer provided meals. So, there is a mix of the genuinely low income kids and kids who are dropped off by someone who lied about necessity, sometimes from expensive cars driven by people wearing expensive clothes. On the other hand there is a good proportion of the kids from all income levels who would have nothing to eat at all besides a bag of chips brought from home if it weren't for the school meals.

And there are all sorts of reasons for the low income kids, from druggie parents to broken families and single parent families to illegal foreigners who work for nothing to those who willfully exploit the system, and also the recession which knocked the legs out from under many families.

There are a lot of fingers pointed in all directions as to who is responsible for the low educational achievement. There is "teach to the test", parents who don't care, bad teachers, district policies which don't make sense to anyone, educator bias and social engineering, kids who don't speak English, over crowded classes, the list goes on and on.

It's a mixed bag, but this is my understanding.
You're correct that most, if not all, of the food is packaged. Most of it gets thrown away by the kids anyway. But, it is the parents responsibility to provide those kids a breakfast and lunch. No one gave me a free breakfast or lunch and I managed to do ok. If the kid is old enough they can make their own lunch and breakfast. It doesn't take much to put cereal and milk in a bowl. If the parents don't buy the food with those food stamps and there isn't food available and the kids are malnourished, there's child services; that's what they're paid to do.
We need to stop enabling parents to not be parents. The schools are not their parents. It's time the responsibility be where it belongs. Like I said, I had to make my own lunch and breakfast. If I forgot, then I was the one who paid the price by being hungry. I made sure I made that tuna sandwich the next day for lunch and got up early to eat breakfast. That was how I learned to be responsible for myself. There are a lot of life lessons that are learned when you have to be responsible for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-13-2013, 07:43 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore View Post
You're correct that most, if not all, of the food is packaged. Most of it gets thrown away by the kids anyway. But, it is the parents responsibility to provide those kids a breakfast and lunch. No one gave me a free breakfast or lunch and I managed to do ok. If the kid is old enough they can make their own lunch and breakfast. It doesn't take much to put cereal and milk in a bowl. If the parents don't buy the food with those food stamps and there isn't food available and the kids are malnourished, there's child services; that's what they're paid to do.
We need to stop enabling parents to not be parents. The schools are not their parents. It's time the responsibility be where it belongs. Like I said, I had to make my own lunch and breakfast. If I forgot, then I was the one who paid the price by being hungry. I made sure I made that tuna sandwich the next day for lunch and got up early to eat breakfast. That was how I learned to be responsible for myself. There are a lot of life lessons that are learned when you have to be responsible for yourself.
You're right, that the responsibility to feed the kids lies with the parents.

However, you can't fix the problem to what should be without addressing what is, the cultural shift which has occurred since we ourselves were children.

We have a majority of a generation and a half who were largely ignored as children and therefore ignore their own children, at least until the kids get to about 13 and then the parents try to be buddy - buddy, but then it's too late.

This is in a nutshell of why those culturally American, in addition to the English learners whose parents don't want anything to do with Americanization, fail, and why those culturally American kids go hungry.

You and I can talk all day long about how the kids should eat breakfast at home and make a brown bag lunch for school, but the reality is all many of the kids know (regardless of parental income) is that bag of chips. To fail to acknowledge that fact is to fail to arrive at a cultural solution of parental responsibility.

And I will acknowledge that the schools are part of the problem, from at least the early 1980's the schools have pushed a narcissistic self view on the kids, "you're so special" - everyone gets a trophy regardless of achievement, pushed them to call 911 if parents compel obedience, and have sought to insert "educator" dogma between the myriad beliefs of individual parents and their children. I do believe that at some level there is an idea to hook kids into being dependent on a socialist ideal and to further a socialist cause. there is the idea of "give me a child of six years old and he will be mine for life".

Let's get beyond the school lunch and think about why there are now so many school shootings - which never happened in yesteryear when kids had knives, played "cowboys and Indians" or "cops and robbers", had BB guns and 22 rifles, many hunted with shot guns and rifles, went everywhere with little fear of abduction and random child molestation and so on.

We have to address the cultural shift, otherwise the talk is meaningless.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 12-13-2013 at 08:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-13-2013, 08:04 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbegone View Post
Let's get beyond the school lunch and think about why there are now so many school shootings - which never happened in yesteryear when kids had knives, played "cowboys and Indians" or "cops and robbers", had BB guns and 22 rifles, many hunted with shot guns and rifles, went everywhere with little fear of abduction and random child molestation and so on.

We have to address the cultural shift, otherwise the talk is meaningless.
I can remember back when I was 5 or 6 years old (the late 50's), and at least two separate incidents of teens pulling knives on other students at what used to be Sac High school. Those teens probably didn't have guns is all. It's not new, but what is new is the grander population. There were bad kids back when I was in junior high, including one kid who robbed the doughnut shop next to the school, and got in a running gunfight with a cop. Both were shot. I don't think school shootings are not new per se, but rather a ratio that is becoming more publicized. We are getting more jammed together, so more restricted by our own expansion, and eventually a pipe bursts.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-13-2013, 08:44 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola View Post
I can remember back when I was 5 or 6 years old (the late 50's), and at least two separate incidents of teens pulling knives on other students at what used to be Sac High school. Those teens probably didn't have guns is all. It's not new, but what is new is the grander population. There were bad kids back when I was in junior high, including one kid who robbed the doughnut shop next to the school, and got in a running gunfight with a cop. Both were shot. I don't think school shootings are not new per se, but rather a ratio that is becoming more publicized. We are getting more jammed together, so more restricted by our own expansion, and eventually a pipe bursts.
I will concede that there were bad apples in the 50's. However, the 50's were not anything like what's going on now.

We have broken homes, single parent families, parents who might take the kids to soccer practice but otherwise ignore them (go play with your toys!), and in spite of all the modern politically correct vilification of the old Warner brothers cartoons with Foghorn Leghorn and the Dog whacking each other on the ass with two by fours, there is much more gratuitous graphic glorification of violence available through the media for consumption by children than there ever was before 1980.

It's a different world now.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved