1. SATISFACTION STATISTICS SURVEY: The district website has recently posted information pertaining to their recent Annual Parent Communications and Customer Service Survey. (See Here). In reference to their newly added survey question of “Do you feel you have received sufficient information about the bond construction projects (new schools) that were approved by voters this past November?” they share that 77% answered “often,” 19% answered “sometimes,” and 4% answered “rarely.”
In breaking down the statistics they provide, it appears that they sent out 1000 surveys with only about 600 of those surveys amongst all 8 elementary schools (those currently most affected by the 2009 PBCs). There is no mention as to how many of those 600 reached those who were affected and those who were not, as it is obvious that those who are not affected are more likely to feel they received adequate information over those who were “caught by surprise,” as phrased by the Kalamazoo Gazette in recent articles.
Of these 1000 surveys, the district received an 18% return rate. This means they received only 180 completed surveys out of ALL of the schools, not just the elementary schools. They do not further breakdown how many responses were received from elementary school participants at all, if any. Of these 180 completed surveys, 138 respondents answered “often,” approximately 34 respondents answered “sometimes,” and approximately “7 respondents answered “rarely” as to whether they felt they had received sufficient information pertaining to the bond construction projects.
| TARGET SCHOOLS | Number of Surverys Sent |
Number of Responses Received |
Number of "Often" Responses |
Number of "Sometimes" Responses |
Number of 'Rarely" Responses |
| PPS Elementary Schools | 600 |
? |
? |
? |
? |
| PPS Middle and High Schools | 400 |
? |
? |
? |
? |
| Total | 1000 |
180 |
138 |
34 |
7 |
Certainly, being able to say that 77% of those surveyed answered positively with an "often" offers some reassurance to someone. However, are 180 responses, and technically only 138 positive responses, within the entire school district an adequate reflection of opinion of ALL of the parents? Considering this PPS survey was conducted months prior to people discovering the issue was even relevant to them directly and prior to any parents being "caught by surprise," those very same responses received in April may differ today. There are approximately upwards of 3,800 elementary school students alone with almost a third of that number recently being impacted by the PBCs. (as counted using the chart provided to the Kalamazoo Gazette for a redistricting article. (Link)
Surely, if elementary school parents were "caught by surprise" because they were unable to foresee any potential changes affecting them due to inexperience with this sort of issue, then middle school parents and high school parents may not have had any idea as to how ANY potential changes may impact them "this fall" regarding potential boundary changes at the time of this PPS.com survey. It has been said that there does not appear to be any MATHEMATICAL reason to make changes to the middle school or high school boundaries, but these boundaries will be reviewed in the fall. There are many people who skim or glance over articles pertaining to issues affecting their community but don't give it much thought past that if they don't perceive the change to be of any concern to them or as a change that doesn't directly impact them.
2. CHOSEN NOTIFICATION METHODS: There are also parents who received the first notification letter via their child's backpack of the 2009 Proposed Elementary Attendance Boundary Changes, which they read IF they in fact received it. The parents of children who were directly affected received a second notification letter via mail.
Some people assumed the mailed letter was the same as the first letter that accompanied their children home. They assumed this because it appeared the same upon first glance of the first paragraph. Perhaps a better subject line such as "Your neighborhood is directly affected." would have served them better, rather than placing that lower down in the second letter? Perhaps relying on 5- to 12-year-old children to deliver the information should be readdressed?
There are also parents who missed the one-sentence statement indicating that a special session was being held PRIOR to the Community Open House on May 15 from 6:30-8 p.m. from 5-6:30 so that school officials could respond to specific questions and concerns of parents, and they were therefore unable to attend as a result. Perhaps the special session notification needed to be just as obvious, centered and bolded, as the Community Open House notation?
Many people were unable to take time off of work to make this special session gathering and Community Open House meeting, and many parents were unable to work it in at the cost of childcare during homework-, dinner-, bath-, and bed-time hours on a week-day evening.
Some people feel the special session gathering information was purposely not given as much weight as the Community Open House information, that it was deliberately and conveniently buried within a paragraph, and was deliberately and conveniently held at the time it was so that more people missed it. These people essentially feel somewhat deceived or misled.
Despite those missing the meetings being able to e-mail in and place telephone calls regarding this issue since, it would seem that many people are receiving various differing responses. They were unable to hear responses to similar concerns expressed at the meetings, and they are now unable to "compare notes" as to what is occurring since.
UPDATE: As of June 7, some people have also received a third letter dated June 9 indicating an alternate proposal has been selected by the AASC committee. It indicates that the alternate proposal impacts some neighborhoods that were not impacted by the first proposal. It also may alter a proposed assignment contained in the original proposal. They will continue to receive feedback on both the original and alternate proposals throughout the summer months. Pay careful attention to this letter, for there are scheduled open houses for people to attend to speak to a school official directly about the proposals. These dates, times, and locations are listed on the Message Board Calendar. If you are unable to attend any of the sessions, impacted families are encouraged to contact the district directly via pivsupport@portageps.org or 323-5000. The final recommendation will be made this fall to the Board of Education.
-
The four main criteria used as factors to be given the most weight cited in the school communications shared with Portage Parents were 1. maintaining neighborhood school groups, 2. minimizing student time on buses, 3. minimizing the numbers of students moved, and 4. preventing overcrowding at any school.
There is, however, a perceived developing theme as to the more pressing issue the district is taking into consideration. There is a "secondarily" cited reason for the changes that seems to bear the most weight, which is only cited in newspaper articles and on the district website as, "sociodemographic" or "socioeconomic" balancing amongst schools. In most articles, you will see the goal is to more equally distribute the levels of low-income students amongst all eight schools, which brings about further questions as to the importance or gains obtained by doing so. This topic is discussed further below under the heading “Socioeconomic or Sociodemographic balancing.”
These 4 criteria evoke further questions among many, while in others none.
1. MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL GROUPS: Isolating neighborhood groups, both in the decision-making process as well as in how communities were split up for the Community Meeting and Special Session Meeting prior, while it may have very well been done to keep group sizes more manageable, made those people whose children have no peers the same age of their child/children in their same neighborhood who would be making the same move feel isolated. This criteria offers no consolation to them and therefore makes no sense to them. They have been left feeling alone in the changes they face.
Little Leagues assign players to teams and sports district based upon the location of a player’s home. Some of the affected people live in a neighborhood assigned to one sports little league zone and are facing having their children attend school in another little league zone. Again, for those children with no peers of the same age/grade located within their neighborhood and for those who are facing school attendance in another zone completely, they are looking at being assigned to a league and team in which they do not know anyone, and in some cases few, whether they are friends or not, i.e. the “odd man out.” Those children attending matching school zones and little league zones get to play amongst their peers, friends, and acquaintances through school. (West Portage Little League Map), (South Portage Little League Map).
Some people purchased their homes located amongst those of a similar status purposely located to the school nearest their home, as they wanted to live close to school or needed to live close to school. They fear changing to a school located further away will affect their home's resale value. Some people prefer to keep their children attending a school in which the majority of students are of equal status.
Some people will be required to travel approximately twice the distance to the newly zoned school than their current school.
2. MINIMIZING TIME SPENT ON BUSES:
For those who are facing assignment to a school located further away, there is no conceivable way their child(ren) will be spending less time on a bus. After all, the goal of the transportation department is to utilize their buses in the most efficient way they can, and this includes filling the buses. If it currently takes a child 45 minutes to get to a school located 2 miles away, then there is no way it will take less time for that same child to get to a school located twice as far.
3. MINIMIZING THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS MOVED:
This goal evokes mixed feelings. While some feel it is a good goal, others who are aware of past boundary changes are left questioning how many children have been affected in the past to-date, i.e. well over the current 1,400 students by how many? Why is it that residents aren’t just assigned to the closest nonfull school to their homes until capacity is reached and make changes from there, thereby affecting the least amount of students in the future, period, rather than affecting countless numbers of children/families over and over every time a change is made within the district? (Like this school district does or this one.)
The fact that an administrator has been recorded as saying “The proposed boundary changes also would almost double Woodland’s subsidized-lunch population from 13 percent to 25 percent, meaning that school would qualify for Title I Funding.” (Link Here) raises more questions as to just who it is being required to move. (It also raises many other questions pertaining to motive discussed under the Title I Funding section below.) How many low-income families are now required to travel further to and from school or even past or through one school zone to get to another versus middle- and upper-class families under the new 2009 PBCs?
4. PREVENTION OF OVERCROWDING AT ANY ONE SCHOOL:
Obviously, it is not possible for all Waylee students to be moved to one school, and this is the reason they are being distributed amongst three different schools, Woodland, Lake Center, and Central Elementary, to the tune of what appears to be approximately 413 students. What is the capacity for each school compared to the current enrollments and proposed enrollments? This information has not been supplied to the community, other than the enrollment numbers via newspaper article tables of current and proposed levels.
* Figures derived from current enrollment figure of each school and based on the Original Proposal percentages. Obviously, the remaining 413 students currently at Waylee will be required to change, and they are NOT a part of these calculations. Also, the large number at Moorsbridge is due to the new 12th Street School. Adding together the 987 total students required to change with the 413 students currently at Waylee brings the total of those affected up to the 1400 figure quoted as the number affected.
** Figures derived from the current enrollment figure of each school and based on the Alternate proposal percentages. Again, the remaining 413 students currently at Waylee will be required to change, and they are NOT a part of these calculations. Also, again, the larger number at Moorsbridge is due to the new 12th Street School. Adding together the 1008 total students required to change with the 413 students currently at Waylee increases the number of those affected to 1421.
Some people want a count as to how many of the displaced Waylee students are being sent to each school. Some people also want to see how many children are being moved from each school to another and which schools they are. How many of those required to move are low-income students, middle-class students, and upper-class students? If equal funding is provided to each school regardless of the low-income levels within each, then why is socioeconomic balancing playing such a huge role?
-
It is reported that 30 parents from all schools within the district, 2 from each school, were assigned to serve on the AASC. Which demographics do these parents represent? Is it safe to assume that these parents come from all walks of life so that they may adequately provide input on behalf of the community as a whole? There are those who would like a breakdown due to economic status and personal circumstances possibly limiting one’s insight as to the best decisions on behalf of others. How many are stay-at-home parents, full-time working parents, part-time working parents, work-at-home parents, unemployed parents, self-employed parents, low-income parents, middle-class parents, upper-class parents, etc.
-
The fact that some parents feel deceived in reference to the chosen notification routes regarding the special session meeting and the Community Open House have been touched upon in the Informational Sharing topic heading.
To further expand on this topic alone, there are some parents who did attend the meetings who feel as if these meetings were “staged” simply in an attempt to allow people to believe their concerns and issues were heard. Based upon some of the responses received in those meetings via school officials, it appeared as though the changes are what they are and that they will remain as-is regardless because their individual specific issue with the proposal was deemed as inconsequential and because they have received no personalized response, but rather a general, sweeping explanation.
JUNE 7 UPDATE: Some people have already received a third letter dated June 9 indicating an alternate proposal has been selected by the AASC committee. It indicates that the alternate proposal impacts some neighborhoods that were not impacted by the first proposal. It also may alter a proposed assignment contained in the original proposal. They will continue to receive feedback on both the original and alternate proposals throughout the summer months. Pay careful attention to this letter, for there are scheduled open houses for people to attend to speak to a school official directly about the proposals. These dates, times, and locations are listed on the Message Board Calendar. If you are unable to attend any of the sessions, impacted families are encouraged to contact the district directly via pivsupport@portageps.org or 323-5000. The final recommendation will be made this fall to the Board of Education
-
In most of the articles discussing the proposed boundary changes prior to the May 15 Community Open House and Special Session Meetings, there were tables included indicating how balancing of low-income students specifically were to be accomplished, and yet this information has been omitted from every parental communication sent home as one of the criteria to be addressed.
There has yet to be any record located of how the middle-class or upper-class students are distributed amongst the schools. This leads people to question whether or not TRUE socioeconomic balancing is the goal or whether or not balancing of the low-income students alone is the driving force for purposes of funding.
Not everyone agrees with being manipulated to achieve funding for a school that may otherwise not be eligible. Some people question whether or not it is ethical to manipulate a population in order to send funds to any school other than those who truly need it geographically. (Further discussed in the Title I section below).
The impression given in newspaper articles is that the goal of SES balancing is to allow each school to qualify for Title I funding, while it has been said outright that the goal is to prevent any one school from being perceived as a low-income school and another as the prestigious school. Is there one school viewed as either specifically here in Portage? Is there really a risk of this perceived perception becoming a reality when the difference between the school currently possessing the highest level of low-income students and the school possessing the lowest is a difference of approximately 94 students and the proposals change this number from 94 to 58 or 60?
Based on the current statistics, each and every school currently has a low-income population, be it the 13% at Woodland or the 26% at Lake Center (the schools at opposite ends of the spectrum -- lowest and the highest levels). Woodland will gain approximately 59 MORE low-income students, while Lake Center will lose approximately 37 low-income students under the Original Proposal changes. Woodland would gain approximately 46 MORE low-income students, while Lake Center would lose approximately 37 low-income students under the Alternate Proposal Changes. The proposed difference under the Original PBCs would bring the difference down from 94 students to 58 students (36 students less than currently), and the proposed difference under the Alternate PBCs would bring the difference down to 60 students (34 students less than currently). Do these numbers, a 58-student change or a 60-student change, reflect an alarming difference in that it deems one school as undesirable and another as a prestigious school? Do these differences warrant placing weight on SES balancing enough to warrant affecting over 1000 families? How many families would be affected if SES balancing was eliminated?
* CURRENT: The difference between the school having the highest number of low-income students and the school having the
lowest number of low-income students is 94 students.** ORIGINAL PROPOSAL: The proposed difference between the school having the highest number of low-income students and the school having the lowest number of low-income students is 58 students (a before-after difference of 36 low-income students).
*** ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: The proposed difference between the school having the highest number of low-income students and the school having the lowest number of low-income students is 60 students (a before-after from current to alternate proposal difference of 34 students and a before-after from original proposal to alternate proposal difference of 2 students).
* There is currently no information available as to how many low-income students would naturally be attending the new 12th Street School prior to any changes being made.NOTE: The most significant changes under the Original proposal appears to be in the Woodland School wherein they will have 59 MORE low-income students than prior and Lake Center would have 37 FEWER low-income students than prior. Under the Alternate Proposal the most significant changes are within the same two schools with Woodland having 46 MORE low-income students than currently and Lake Center School having still 37 FEWER low-income students than currently.
-
Not only have the average home-owner’s taxes risen around $166 dollars per year as a result of the passage of the most recent proposals (a figure pulled from an old article discussing the 2 most recent proposals), but now some families are expected to put out more time and more money in gas and mileage, and possibly in automobile insurance premiums, in today’s economy as a result of being moved to a school located further away.
Some parents put in much time traveling to and from school for various reasons. Some parents, due to their schedules and the sleep needs of their children, prefer to drive their children to school to afford both parents and children more quality sleep rather than riding a bus for 45 minutes. Parents must go to school to sign in and out children for appointments, to pick up sick or injured children, deliver forgotten items, administer medications, go to school to view assemblies and concerts, for holiday parties, volunteering, birthday treats, and for school-hour and after-school activities. Some parents are also facing the prospect of having to make a 40 minute trip to pick up and sign out multiple children for appointments. In cases such as these, one child faces losing more quality school time than the last child to be picked up.
In some cases, as in the case of the more scattered structuring of neighborhoods assigned to a couple of schools, there will be more demands on family time and expenses. For example, if you live in the upper portion of the northern-most area designated to attend Moorsbridge under the 2009 PBCs, and your child(ren) now has/have friends with whom they wish to visit on occasion in the lowest portion of the southern-most area designated to attend Moorsbridge in 2009, you are facing a play date that can run upwards of a 44-mile trip that brings about approximately 45 minutes of travel time alone – taking child to friend’s home, returning home yourself, picking up child from friend’s home, and returning home again.
Automobile insurance companies also require drivers to indicate the regular daily trips they take, including to and from school. It is yet to be determined whether or not daily trips to and from a school located further away will affect one’s insurance premiums. As soon as it can be determined, this information will be shared here.
-
There has been great concern expressed regarding the fact that the boundaries for middle schools and high schools were not addressed along with the proposed elementary school changes.
Some parents are concerned about trying to be in two different areas of the city trying to coordinate after-school activities and trying to be in 2 locations at once should they have one child attending an elementary on the upper northwest side of the city and another attending a middle school located in the center of the city (and what if the high school boundaries complicate the issue further should a family have 3 children with 1 in elementary, another in middle, and another in high school!?) They feel that the changes needed to be considered together. Nobody wants their children waiting for up to 20 minutes alone at school for pickup should a district-wide emergency occur and, certainly, nobody wants it to take 20 minutes to get from School A to School B to pick up multiple children between elementary and middle schools in the event of a family emergency. Some people prefer that middle school and elementary school assignments remain relative for their children so that the middle-school or high-school student can walk across the street or right next door after school to meet parents and younger siblings when necessary. Having the children in close-proximity to one another also makes for an easier and faster signing in and out process.
While it has been said that there is no MATHEMATICAL reason middle school or high school boundaries would have to change, brace yourselves. It MAY just be a strategic answer in an already stressful time for the school district. Because of the very topic touched upon in the above paragraph, most people will refuse to stand for having an elementary-aged child in one elementary school located right next door to or across the street from one middle school while having their middle-school-aged children across town in an another middle school entirely. Could there be any liability issues as a result in an emergency-type scenario? There may be no MATHEMATICAL reason as to why this should occur, but bets are on as to whether or not they will. It appears that people believe changes WILL be made to at least the middle school assignments resulting in even MORE Portage parents being "caught by surprise." It is yet to be seen whether or not POTENTIAL middle school or high school boundary changes will affect only those already affected by the elementary school boundary changes or beyond.
Some people also feel that more effort, and possibly some proposal money, should be geared toward attempting to ensure that the children face the least separation/splits from schoolmates as possible throughout their school career when transitioning from elementary to middle school and from middle to high school.
-
While it is more likely that Waylee Elementary parents already know the answer to the following issue, some people are wondering why it was decided that the students at Waylee Elementary would be impacted negatively due to the construction at Central High. Children at Lake Center will be expected to continue their schooling throughout the construction process of the new Lake Center. People have been told there was more room to construct Lake Center on its existing property compared to the room needed for construction at Central High behind Waylee. Initial viewing of the scheduled construction at Central High via this draft site plan, (Central High Draft) appears to show what appears to be a parking lot and drive being placed behind Waylee, and yet it was determined the students at Lake Center can continue to learn throughout construction of their new school being built behind the current school “because there is room to do so.” The property on which Lake Center currently appears to be taking up half of the space can be viewed here after entering the address and street name for Lake Center, which is 10011 Portage (Link). There is currently no pictures available on the district's website regarding the draft plan for Lake Center.
Some people are wondering why Waylee has been closed effectively displacing 415 students and the new school may only hold 430 students in an area determined to be the area of future expansion. There are currently in excess of 700 elementary students living west of 131 in this area as it stands today. Some people are also wondering what will happen AS this area of Kalamazoo expands to where capacity is pushed at the 12th Street and Moorsbridge schools -- will another boundary change be necessary pushing those being moved currently BACK to their original school to make room until a new school can be built or renovations can be done to accommodate the growth? Is there any circumstance where yet another school might be required in this area?
Some people also wonder why it is deemed more appropriate to keep the Kalamazoo area deemed as rapidly expanding within the Portage Public School System rather than transferring the area to the Kalamazoo Public School District.
-
Based on quotations made via newspaper articles, it would appear that Title I Funding has at least "something" to do with the decisions pertaining to SES balancing of low-income students amongst schools; in fact, it appears to have the most to do with it.
Some people believe that Title I Funding is tied to whether or not children receive free-meal/reduced-meal benefits and some believe it is simply tied to programs such as the Reading Recovery Program, both things nobody would like to see taken from those at-risk or in need.
Title I Funding is a very complex issue. In fact, one needs a degree and special training in this area to adequately convey all of the nuances involved with it. However, as of right now, based on information found online regarding Title I Funding, the information below has been learned. It will be up to those experienced in Title I Funding to dismiss any misconceptions and to provide a better understanding of how this works and why it would be beneficial for all schools to achieve a more balanced distribution of low-income students in order to provide more equal funding to each school located within the district.
As of right now an administrator has been quoted in the Kalamazoo Gazette as saying "The proposed boundary changes also would almost double Woodland's subsidized-lunch population from 13 percent to 25 percent, meaning that school would qualify for Title I Funding."(Link). However, it has also been shared that the proposed boundaries will not impact the amount of Title I funds received by the school district, but that the distribution of funds across the elementary schools will be reevaluated once a boundary plan is finalized, and they are looking at balancing SES for diversity reasons.
It has also been said that the Portage Public School district low-income average is 20% and that the school district currently chooses to fund 4 of the elementary schools possessing the highest low-income percentage with Title I Funds. The district uses "other" funding at the other 4 schools to keep the services supplied at each school equal. According to the above charts, this would appear to mean that those 4 schools would currently be Central, Haverhill, Lake Center, and Waylee. However, due to the current proposal, this would also appear to mean that Haverhill, Lake Center, and Woodland Elementaries would all possess over 100 low-income students and that 3 schools would then also share an equal amount of low-income students coming in at 91 and 92, those being Amberly, Angling, and Central. How will this affect decisions being made now that there are more than 4 schools possessing a count of 91 or more low-income students, 6 schools to be exact? How would it also affect the distributions of the "other" funding that keeps services equal to what used to be 4 schools and would then become 2? Or does it mean that only the 3 highest would be awarded Title I funds? Does this mean that Title I funds will now be distributed evenly amongst all schools since there will only be 2 schools perceived to have a significantly lesser low-income percentage level than the others?
Title I Funding plays a huge role in educational funding. It is a program that was created in 1965 to allow all students an equal opportunity to receive the highest quality education possible -- to help "at-risk" students. One must ask what constitutes an "at-risk" student at this point because Title I funds are awarded to school districts based on the percentage of level of low-income children district wide, which offers the idea that low-income students are those at greatest risk. It is supposed to remove factors such as low income and poverty. Title 1 schools can hire teachers to lower student-teacher ratio, provide tutoring for kids who may be struggling, school computer labs and computer-aided learning materials, and to fund parent involvement activities. Title 1 schools can purchase instructional materials, host professional development for teachers, create pre-kindergarten classes, and hire teacher assistants. So, yes, Title I funds do provide materials for programs such as the Reading Recovery Program, which ALL students may use, not just the low-income students.
What about federal funding under the "Reading First State Grant Program" that makes 6-year grants if children can all read by the 3rd grade? What about the other countless and nameless-to-parents grants awarded schools? Where can parents read a comprehensive breakdown on how funding/grant money is utilized within the school district?
Kalamazoo Public Schools recently decided to run an all-day kindergarten program to the tune of $1.9 million using their Title I funds, thereby reducing funds available for other uses/programs for at-risk children. They did so implying that children with no preschool, or those with preschool lacking in quality, who ALSO only attend half-day kindergarten are automatically at-risk. However, they should probably be bringing more attention to the fact that they apparently have a low-income average percentage rate of 65%. (Link)
Title I Funding is awarded to a state. A school district as a whole is awarded Title I funds by the state based upon their low-income population level, not each school within a district. It is up to a District Title I Administrator to administer the funds "appropriately"; amongst the schools within that district. It has been said that each district is awarded a lump sum of money based on the overall district's low-income population to divide amongst the schools and that districts themselves rank these schools in order. The amounts awarded each district vary from year to year based upon the budget. The districts begin with the school that has the highest low-income percentage and ranks them down to the school with the lowest low-income percentage. The school(s) with the highest low-income percentage will receive funding priority, and on down the line until it is all used -- divided amongst the schools as deemed appropriate by an administrator.
Free-meal and reduced-meal programs are not reliant upon whether or not a school qualifies for Title I Funding. In fact, according to the NSLP (National School Lunch Program) information, the main criteria as to whether or not a student qualifies for assistance is where their family's income level falls compared to the poverty rate. It has nothing to do with whether or not a school receives Title I Funding. However, whether or not the school receives Title I Funding IS dependent upon the number of students receiving free- and reduced-price meal benefits because THAT is the number used to indicate the number of low-income students. In fact, the NSLP and the breakfast program indicate that schools are reimbursed for each free- or reduced-meal they serve, based upon the quality of their program.
While there have been incidences where Title I funds have been used to support reduced-meal and free-meal programs in areas where the low-income level was extremely high, one has to wonder why a district has decided to do so when they can apparently receive adequate and full reimbursement for a good-quality program. According to information obtained from the USDA's website for the National School Lunch Program, each fully-paid-for meal served is reimbursable currently at $0.23/meal, each reduced-rate meal served is reimbursable at $2.07/meal, and each free meal served is reimbursable at $2.47 in schools operating the program with less than a 60% participation in reduced-meal/free-meal programs. For the School Breakfast Program, which appears to be optional for schools containing a low-income level of less than 20%, each full-paid-for breakfast served is reimbursable at $0.24/breakfast for non-severe need and at $0.24/breakfast for severe need, each reduced-price breakfast served is reimbursable at $1.05/breakfast for non-severe need and $1.31/breakfast for severe need, and each free breakfast served is reimbursable at $1.35/breakfast for non-severe need and at $1.61/breakfast for severe need. There is also a category for Special Milk Programs that can be viewed here . The state may also be providing $10 a year for each student eligible for free meals or milk from "at risk" funding, but this information still needs a verifiable source.
To sum up the NSLP reimbursements, our elementary school lunch prices are currently $1.80 full price and the school is reimbursed at or up to $0.23 cents for each full-price meal served to cover administrative costs. The reduced-rate lunches are currently priced at $0.40, and the school is reimbursed at or up to $2.07 for each reduced-rate lunch served. Likewise, a free meal is currently free, and the school is reimbursed at or up to $2.47 for each free lunch served. A little more investigating is required to determine whether or not it is "at" or "up to" the prices listed here. (NSLP Fact Sheet)
JUNE 7, 2008 UPDATE: As of June 7, some people have also now received a third letter dated June 9 indicating an alternate proposal has been selected by the AASC committee. It indicates that the alternate proposal impacts some neighborhoods that were not impacted by the first proposal. It also may alter a proposed assignment contained in the original proposal. The district will continue to receive feedback on both the original and alternate proposals throughout the summer months. Details regarding this proposal will be available on the district's website no later than Tuesday, June 10.
Pay careful attention to this letter, for there are scheduled open houses for people to attend to speak to a school official directly about the proposals. These dates, times, and locations are listed on the Message Board Calendar. If you are unable to attend any of the sessions, impacted families are encouraged to contact the district directly via pivsupport@portageps.org or 323-5000. The final recommendation will be made this fall to the Board of Education.
-
“The proposed new school is twice the distance for our family, so if my kids are on the bus currently for 40 minutes for a trip to school located just over 2 miles away, how on earth will they be on a bus less time for a trip that is twice as far away? How does sending a school bus twice as far out to pick up children save any money?”
“Why does it appear that the goal is to only equally balance low-income families amongst the eight elementaries? Why not other classes? What benefits does THAT offer? Is there a reason to accomplish this goal?”
“How was it justified that closing Waylee due to construction posing a disruption over there, but Lake Center is going to actually experience construction on the same lot? Why is it not deemed disruptive to their learning?”
“What good does moving an entire neighborhood together do when there aren’t any children in the same grades and of the same ages in my neighborhood?”
“I would be interested in finding out from which demographic the 30 parents chosen from all schools to provide input on our behalf belong to, as their individual circumstances will greatly affect their perception as to what is a good idea for the rest of us. I feel that in order to get an accurate representation of the community as a whole, a sampling from each demographic would be more suitable.”
“Why would the Portage Public School District spend so much time and money on expanding a portion of the district that is actually Kalamazoo rather than suggesting redistricting between Portage and Kalamazoo?
“Why would Portage displace over 400 students in the center of the city where the school is obviously needed forcing others out to travel further with today’s gas prices, while replacing it with a school that I heard will only hold 450 in the western portion of the city where there are so many schools located with 2 miles of each other already?
“Socioeconomic status balancing is important so kids can qualify for free lunch programs.”
“Title I funding has something to do with reading programs.
“The district wants to balance levels of low-income families within each school to qualify for Title 1 Funding.”
“Title I funds are somehow tied into the free meal programs.”
“If a school has a low level of low-income families in it, and we’ve been manipulated in order to provide that school a higher number, and because ALL children benefit from Title I funding meant for the low-income families, aren’t we essentially stealing that funding from those who truly need it or need it more?”
“If socioeconomic balancing is to prevent one school from being perceived as a low-income school and another from being the desirable school, why would that be an issue if the decision to fund the schools and treat the schools with the attention they require or need was handled correctly at an administrative level?”
“I don’t just go to school here or there or a few times a year….I’m there all of the time, picking up kids and dropping them off for appointments, volunteering, when they get hurt or get sick, assemblies, concerts, talent shows, birthdays, holiday parties, etc. – driving further impacts my family budget and my time.”
“The Portage Little League boundary maps conflict with where they are trying to send my child to school in 2009. It isn’t fair that they should be forced to play amongst strangers.”
“I’m worried that in 2009 these boundary changes will mean I’ll have one child in Moorsbridge Elementary and another in Central Junior High, and who knows where we’ll be going for the other in High School at this point. How will I, as a sole caregiver on the weeknight evenings, adequately handle children spaced so far apart in after-school activities?”
“I’ve heard that Portage Public Schools has had boundary changes in the past. How many children/families were affected each time? Wouldn’t it make more sense to assign a school to a family based on the closest school to their home? If there aren’t enough schools in the areas to accommodate such a thing, then why not? It would prevent affecting countless numbers of children/families again and again in the future.”
Return to Main Page