| The December 6 1996, trial ruling by the Superior Court against the school districts | Page 35 |
The Superior Court stated that the percentage of children living below the poverty rate is an indication of the number of students who are "at-risk" of educational failure and "at-risk" of dropping out. The Superior Court measured student poverty rates by the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunches.
1992/1993 - Percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunches:
| Petitioner Districts | Comparison Districts |
|---|---|
| Claremont - 41% | Lebanon - 20% |
| Franklin - 35% | Gilford - 13% |
| Pittsfield - 44% | Moultonborough - 20% |
| Lisbon - 23% | Lin-Wood - N/A |
| Allenstown - 18% | Rye - 2% |
Free and reduced lunches are frequently used as an economic indicator. Children who live in families at 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free lunches and those who live in families at 180 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced cost lunches.
Claremont - One third of all first grade students, 60 students, should be participating the Reading Recovery program, but the district's lack of resources limits participation to only 15 students. Sixty children need Chapter One special services, but only 24 could be funded. The high school's Alternative Program is located in several windowless rooms in the basement due to a shortage of space. The students in the Alternative School have access to just one book per subject for an entire class.
 |
basement of Stevens High School |
Pittsfield - There are no special programs or alternative schools for "at-risk" students.
Allenstown - Children with speech and language needs are tutored in a bathroom. The district is unable to provide intervention programs to address discipline problems. As a result, the middle school has a padded room where children with discipline problems are held so they can be "safely out of control" until their parents or the police arrive for them.
Franklin - There is an "at-risk" program at the middle school, but there is no Alternative School or program for "at-risk" students in the elementary or the high school. There are not enough resources to provide Reading Recovery teachers and reading specialists for the children that need them.
 |
Back | Next |  |