NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATION NEWS
January 2007
Copyright © 2007 Queue, Inc.
FREE STUDENT WORKBOOKS AVAILABLE FOR
PREVIEW (Advertisement)
Queue, Inc.'s latest Test Preparation Catalogue features many new
titles. We would be delighted to send catalogues and/or free review copies of
any of the student versions of these books at no cost to you. Call, fax, or
email your request.
In addition, weÕre
offering a wide array of curriculum-based materials in our New Curriculum Catalogue. We welcome you to
request free review copies of these books as well as a copy of the curriculum
catalogue.
We think you will
find QueueÕs test preparation materials to be great tools to prepare your
students for state assessment tests. In addition, we encourage you to sample
our curriculum workbooks to help engage and challenge your students.
For further
information on Queue, Inc. and our product line, visit
To order free
previews, please visit: http://www.qworkbooks.com/samplerequest.html
or call: 800-232-2224
or fax: 800-775-2729
or e-mail: jdk@queueinc.com
or write: Queue,
Inc., 1 Controls Dr., Shelton, CT 06484
For
back issues of this newsletter, as well as current and back issues of our other
newsletters, U.S. Education News and Education Research Report, please go to: http://www.queuenews.com/
For
the latest education research news on a daily basis, please visit our NEW
Education Research Report Weblog: http://educationresearchreport.blogspot.com/
Please don't forget to change your bookmarks!
Standard & Poor's
School Evaluation Services has announced it has identified 14 North Carolina
schools that have significantly narrowed the achievement gap (http://www.schoolmatters.com/pdf/achievement-gap/nc-achievement-gap-schools-schoolmatters.pdf)
between higher- and lower-performing student groups during the 2003-04 and
2004-05 school years.
The 14 schools are
located in 12 school districts throughout the state. Two districts--Burke
County School and Richmond County Schools--each have two schools that have
significantly narrowed at least one achievement gap between student groups.
This report
represents Standard & Poor's second analysis of achievement gaps in North
Carolina, updating the initial study to analyze performance trends through the
2004-05 school year. Additionally, this study takes a closer look at
achievement gaps by focusing on schools, rather than school districts, that
have made significant progress in narrowing the achievement gap between student
groups.
To be recognized for
significantly narrowing these achievement gaps, schools had to meet all of the
following criteria:
á
test at least 30
students in each student group being analyzed;
á
reduce at least one
achievement gap between student groups in Reading and Math Proficiency
(RaMPý) rates by more than five percentage points from one year to the
next; and simultaneously raise the RaMP rates for each student group being
compared; and
á
reduce at least one
achievement gap between student groups in a grade-level reading test by more
than five percentage points from one year to the next; and simultaneously raise
that grade-level reading proficiency rate for each student group being
compared. Schools must demonstrate similar progress in math, though not
necessarily at the same grade level. For example, an elementary school might
reduce the achievement gap between black students and white students in third
grade reading by at least five percentage points while raising reading
proficiency rates for both black students and white students, while doing the
same in fifth grade math.
Of the 14 schools in
North Carolina that have been able to narrow the achievement gap, six are
recognized for reducing their black-white gap, and nine schools are recognized
for narrowing their ýeconomically-disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged
students testedý gap. No schools in North Carolina are recognized for
narrowing their Hispanic-white gap.
Particularly
noteworthy is that one school--Williamston Middle School located in the Martin
County School District--is recognized for simultaneously narrowing both the
black-white gap and the economically disadvantaged and non-economically
disadvantaged gap among its students.
The eight North
Carolina schools that closed the gap between economically disadvantaged
students and non-disadvantaged students tested are:
Peachland-Polkton
Elementary School, Anson County Schools;
Liberty Middle School, Burke
County Schools;
Southeast Middle School, Forsyth County
Schools;
John Chavis Middle School, Gaston County Schools;
Boone
Trail Elementary School, Harnett County Schools;
Ebenezer Elementary
School, Iredell-Statesville Schools;
West Mcdowell Junior High School,
McDowell County Schools; and
A.G. Cox Middle School, Pitt County Schools.
The five schools
recognized for narrowing the gap between black students and white students are:
South Brunswick Middle School, Brunswick County Schools; Table Rock Middle
School, Burke County Schools; L.J. Bell Elementary School and Richmond Primary
School, Richmond County Schools; and Carroll Middle School, Wake County Schools.
To see how many
percentage points and in which grades each school narrowed these gaps,
reporters should consult the analytical report (http://www.schoolmatters.com/pdf/achievement-gap/nc-achievement-gap-schools-schoolmatters.pdf)
on North Carolina's achievement gaps, located on the North Carolina homepage at
http://www.schoolmatters.com/
The
State Board of Education has approved a proposed core course of study framework
that will guide high school course requirements beginning in 2008-09. Current
seventh graders would be the first students potentially affected by this
change.
This
change would replace the current courses of study (college prep, college tech
prep, career) from which students select their high school coursework.
Graduates in the Class of 2011 could be the last group to graduate under the
old courses of study framework, depending on the BoardÕs final action on this
plan later this winter. The occupational course of study will continue to be
available for students with disabilities if their individualized education
program specifies it.
The
proposed core framework requires that all freshmen entering high school in the
fall 2008 participate in a 21 unit core course of study that will include a
four-unit endorsement in a specialty area of their choice.
The
new core course of study will require:
á
4
units of English
á
4
units of mathematics
á
3
units of science
á
3
units of social studies
á
2
units of a second language
á
1
unit of health/physical education
á
an
endorsement of at least four units in one of the following areas:
Career-Technical Education, Arts Education, JROTC, Advanced Placement/IB,
Second Language or other.
(The
endorsement is in addition to the 17 specified core courses.)
State
Board of EducationÕs approval of the proposed framework is a product of work
done by its Ad Hoc Academic Rigor, Relevance and Relationships committee over
the past several months. This committee also has indicated strong support for a
course substitution opportunity, which would enable students to take a
substitute course if that course would better serve their academic needs. A
professional review team consisting of a teacher, counselor and administrator
would decide these requests. Parents would be required to sign off on the
substitute courses recommended for their children.
This winter, the Board will hold town hall meetings across
the state to receive input and ideas from local educators, parents and
community members about implementing the core course of study. In approving the
proposed framework, Board members noted that a number of implementation details
need to be finalized and that community input will be invaluable in that
process. Possible areas for input include course substitution, the sequence of
mathematics courses in light of 21st century skills and objectives of a foreign
language study. The schedule of meetings is being finalized and will be
distributed widely soon.
Other
graduation requirements will continue to be in place. These include passing the
five common end-of-course tests (Algebra I, English I, US History, Civics and
Economics and Biology) and successfully completing a graduation project in
addition to local graduation requirements.
The Education Watch
State Summary Reports provide state-specific data on:
Achievement Gaps:
á
How many students are
proficient in reading and mathematics on state assessments? How do proficiency
rates on state assessments compare to proficiency rates on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)?
á
How do achievement gaps
between groups compare across states? Where are gaps the smallest? Where are
they the biggest?
á
What are the trends in
student achievement over time? Which states are making the biggest gains?
High School and
College Attainment Gaps:
á
What is the on-time
high school graduation rate for different groups of students?
á
How many high school
graduates enroll in college?
á
What is the college
graduation rate for different groups of students?
á
What are the
participation and success rates for different groups of students in high-level
courses such as Advanced Placement (AP)?
á
Which students are most
likely to have teachers who have even a college minor in the subject theyÕre
teaching?
á
How much state and
local per-pupil funding is provided to schools in low- versus high-poverty
districts? Which states provide the most funding to low-income districts? Which
states provide the least?
á
How affordable is
college for each stateÕs lowest income students?
A Deeper Look at
Achievement across States: NAEP Data Tables
While no state is yet
where it needs to be in terms of educating poor and minority students, some are
doing a much better job than others. To help state leaders, researchers, and
advocates explore these differences and identify states from which they might learn,
the accompanying NAEP Data Tables allow for easy state-to-state comparisons of
scale scores for different groups of students. They include tables that look at
student achievement and gap trends over time. For example:
á
Low-income
eighth-graders in Massachusetts score 21 points higher in math than low-income
eighth-graders in neighboring Rhode Island (273 vs. 252).
á
In 2003, reading scores
for African-American fourth-graders were 14 points higher in Connecticut than
in Delaware. Over the last five years, however, African-American reading scores
increased by 23 points in Delaware while in Connecticut, they decreased by 2
points. DelawareÕs African-American fourth-graders now read at higher levels
than their peers in Connecticut.
á
The gap in math
achievement separating Latino from White eighth-graders in Minnesota is 10
points larger than the gap in Virginia, a state educating a similar proportion
of Latino students (33 points vs. 23 points).
The wide variation
between states in achievement for the same groups of students demonstrates just
how important state policies and practices are. ÒIf race and poverty mattered
more than what happens in schools, then NAEP scores for low-income students and
students of color would be more consistent from state to state,Ó said Daria
Hall, senior policy analyst for the Education Trust.
Focus on
Opportunities to Learn
The data are clear:
what states do matters a lot when it comes to student achievement. But far too
often, state policies and practices work to the direct disadvantage of
low-income and minority students. For example:
á
In New York, schools in
the highest poverty districts have $2,065 less to spend per pupil than schools
in the most affluent districts.
á
In Illinois, students
in high-poverty secondary schools are more than three times as likely as
students in low-poverty schools to have a teacher lacking even a minor in the
subject theyÕre teaching (47 percent vs.15 percent).
á
In Michigan,
African-American students represent 20 percent of the stateÕs K-12 enrollment
but just 5 percent of the students enrolled in Advanced Placement English
Language and Composition courses.
North
Carolina Report:
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/summaries2006/NorthCarolina.pdf
In
preparation of the launch of the Data Quality Campaign, the National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA)
conducted a survey, with the support of The Broad Foundation and The Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, about state data systems to determine the number of
states that have built the infrastructure to tap into the power of longitudinal
data. This report provides an overview of the findings of the August 2006
survey in addition to a state-by-state analysis of the policy implications of
each state's data system.
The Power of
Longitudinal Data
Longitudinal data
matches individual student records over time, from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and into
post secondary education. States are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to improve student achievement. But without quality data, they are essentially
flying blind. Policymakers need to act now to put in place the policies and
resources to ensure that each state has a longitudinal data system and the
culture and capacity to translate the information into specific action steps to
improve student achievement. When states collect the most relevant data and are
able to match individual student records over time, they can answer the questions that are at the core
of educational effectiveness. Longitudinal data (data gathered on the same
student from year to year) makes it possible to:
á
Determine the
value-added of specific schools and programs by following individual students'
academic growth;
á
Identify consistently
high-performing schools so that educators and the public can learn from best
practices;
á
Evaluate the impact of
teacher preparation and training programs on student achievement; and
Based on
responses to the 2006 NCEA survey, only a few states can answer each of these
priority questions facing policymakers and educators today.
Which schools produce the strongest academic growth for their students?
(23 states can answer this question)
Alaska
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Alaska),
Colorado
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Colorado), Delaware (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Delaware),
Kansas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Kansas),
Kentucky (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Kentucky),
Louisiana (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Louisiana),
Massachusetts (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Massachusetts),
Minnesota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Minnesota),
Nebraska (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Nebraska),
Nevada (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Nevada),
New Mexico (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=New
Mexico),
New York (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=New
York),
North Dakota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=North
Dakota),
Ohio (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Ohio),
Rhode Island (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Rhode
Island),
Tennessee (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Tennessee),
Texas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Texas),
Utah (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Utah),
Vermont (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Vermont),
Virginia (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Virginia),
Washington (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Washington),
West Virginia (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=West
Virginia),
Wisconsin (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Wisconsin)
What achievement levels in middle school indicate that a student is on
track to succeed in rigorous courses in high school? (5 states can answer this
question)
Arkansas
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Arkansas),
Florida
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Florida),
Georgia
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Georgia),
Texas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Texas),
Utah (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Utah)
What is each school's graduation rate, according to the 2005 National
Governors Association graduation compact? (26 states can answer this question)
Alabama
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Alabama),
Alaska
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Alaska),
Arizona
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Arizona),
Arkansas
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Arkansas),
Colorado (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Colorado),
Delaware
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Delaware),
Florida
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Florida),
Iowa (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Iowa),
Kansas
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Kansas),
Louisiana (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Louisiana),
Massachusetts (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Massachusetts),
Minnesota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Minnesota),
Nevada
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Nevada),
New Hampshire (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=New
Hampshire),
New Mexico (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=New
Mexico), North Dakota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=North
Dakota),
Ohio (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Ohio)
Oregon
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Oregon),
South Dakota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=South
Dakota),
Texas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Texas),
Utah (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Utah),
Virginia
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Virginia),
Washington (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Washington),
West Virginia (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=West
Virginia),
Wisconsin
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Wisconsin),
Wyoming (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Wyoming)
What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous
courses or performance on state tests) are the best predictors of students'
success in college or the workplace? (4 states can answer this question)
Arkansas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Arkansas),
Florida (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Florida),
Georgia (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Georgia),
Texas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Texas
What percentage of high school graduates who go on to college take
remedial courses? (14 states can answer this question)
Alabama
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Alabama),
Alaska
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Alaska),
Arkansas
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Arkansas)
Florida
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Florida),
Georgia
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Georgia),
Hawaii
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Hawaii),
Louisiana
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Louisiana),
Massachusetts (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Massachusetts),
North Dakota (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=North
Dakota),
Oregon
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Oregon),
Texas (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Texas),
Vermont
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Vermont),
Washington (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Washington),
Wyoming
(http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Wyoming)
Which teacher preparation programs produce the graduates
whose students have the strongest academic growth? (9 states can answer this
question)
Delaware (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Delaware),
Kentucky (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Kentucky),
Louisiana (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Louisiana),
New Mexico (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=New
Mexico), Ohio (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Ohio),
Rhode Island (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Rhode
Island),
Tennessee (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Tennessee),
Utah (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=Utah),
West Virginia (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=West
Virginia
For
the complete report go to:
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/
For
North Carolina results go to:
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/state.cfm?st=North%20Carolina
During
last school year, North Carolina public schools reported 10,959 acts of crime
and violence among the state's almost 1.4 million students, according to the 2005-06
Report on School Crime and Violence presented to State Board of Education
members this morning.
This
total correlates to 7.90 acts per 1,000 students, an increase from 2004-05 when
that number was 7.49 acts per 1,000 students. Most of the increases were
reported in categories of "possession" rather than acts of violence:
possession of a controlled substance in violation of law, possession of a
weapon excluding firearms and powerful explosives and possession of an
alcoholic beverage.
Although
the 2005-06 Report on School Crime and Violence shows increases in the number
of acts reported by local school districts, it's important to note that nearly
one-half (43 percent or 998 schools) of all schools reported no acts of crime
or violence. In fact, 75 percent (1,746 schools) of all schools reported five
or fewer acts last year.
As
in past reports, four categories of incidents are responsible for 93 percent of
all reported offenses. They are possession of a controlled substance in
violation of law, possession of a weapon excluding firearms and powerful
explosives, possession of an alcoholic beverage and assault on school personnel
not resulting in serious injury.
Seven
incident types decreased in 2005-06: assault resulting in serious injury, bomb
threat, possession of a firearm or powerful explosives, sexual assault not
involving rape or sexual offense, robbery without a dangerous weapon, burning
of a school building and rape.
The
total number of occurrences for each reportable act is listed below. Categories
marked with an asterisk experienced an increase in 2005-06.
|
Possession of a controlled substance in violation of law |
4,427* |
|
Possession of a weapon excluding firearms and powerful explosives |
3,845* |
|
Possession of alcoholic beverage |
1,053* |
|
Assault on school personnel not resulting in serious injury |
862* |
|
Assault resulting in serious injury |
176 |
|
Bomb threat |
134 |
|
Possession of a firearm or powerful explosives |
128 |
|
Assault involving use of a weapon |
111* |
|
Sexual offense |
89 |
|
Sexual assault not involving rape or sexual offense |
62 |
|
Robbery without a dangerous weapon |
42 |
|
Taking indecent liberties with a minor |
20 * |
|
Burning of school building |
4 |
|
Robbery with a dangerous weapon |
3 * |
|
Kidnapping |
2 * |
|
Death by other than natural causes |
1 |
|
Rape |
0 |
As
in previous years, the number and frequency of acts is the lowest in elementary
schools (grades pre-K-5) and highest at the high school level.
As
with many types of crime reporting, it is difficult to gauge causes for annual
increases or decreases. Changes in overall numbers and rates per 1,000 students
can be the result of more thorough reporting and better enforcement of laws in
addition to actual increases in the number of offenses committed on school
grounds.
Today's report is based on information provided by all 115
local school districts and 94 public charter schools. Under North Carolina law,
schools are required to report certain acts of crime and violence to law
enforcement. In addition, the law requires that the State Board of Education
monitor and report annually on incidents of crime and violence in public
schools. This reporting requirement began in 1997-98 with 14 reportable acts, a
list that was expanded in 2001-02 to its current 17 reportable acts.
Charts
are attached to provide local school district numbers by incident and act.
Table 6A. Total Number of Acts
for Each LEA 2005-06:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/newsroom/news/2006-07/table6a.pdf
Table 6B. Total Number of Acts
for Individual Schools in each LEA 2005-06:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/newsroom/news/2006-07/table6b.pdf
2005-2006 Annual Report on
School Crime and Violence:
During
the 2005-2006 school year, 285,754 low-income North Carolina students
participated in the School Breakfast Program, according to the School
Breakfast Scorecard 2006. The
Scorecard is issued annually by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) to
measure participation in the School Breakfast Program.
For
every 100 low-income children that participated in the National School Lunch
Program, 50.4 also received free and reduced-price breakfasts. If North
Carolina schools increased school breakfast participation by serving 60 out of
100 low-income children eating lunch, they would help 54,415 more children and
gain an additional $11,354,732 in federal funding.
In
North Carolina, 97.6 percent of schools that offer school lunch also offer
school breakfast, ranking North Carolina 6th out of the 50 states
and the District of Columbia. The School Breakfast Program began as a pilot
program in 1966 as a way to make sure children were able to start the school
day ready to learn. Numerous studies have found that breakfast in the morning
improves childrenÕs school achievement and health.
ÒReaching a lot more children with breakfast in
schools is probably the cheapest and fastest way to improve childrenÕs learning
and health, improve attendance and, of course, reduce hunger,Ó said Jim Weill,
president of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). ÒItÕs essential that
more schools serve breakfast, adopt steps like breakfast in the classroom and
reach out to more children.Ó
Nationally,
the program has grown to include 7.7 million low-income children. To get even
more children and schools participating, FRAC recommends that all schools
participate in the school breakfast program, even offering universal breakfast,
which provides breakfast at no charge to all students who want it. Schools can
encourage higher participation among children by providing breakfast in the
classroom, Ògrab and goÓ breakfast or offering breakfast after first period.
These successful strategies have been used by states to boost participation in
the program.
The full report, School Breakfast Scorecard 2006, is available at
http://www.frac.org/pdf/2006_SBP.pdf