Free breakfast at schools

[DCJenn]

Granted, there is a ton of pork from the Feds on down, (let's all take the Alaskan Bridge to nowhere, shall we?) the school lunch programs are usually fairly well run (I know this because when you have MR/DD adults who are eligible for Special Education until age 21 and 11mo they are eligible for the school lunch programs, so...the crafty and wise day program will ensure that there's an education component so that the clients will be able to get the breakfasts and lunches as well. and - do the people living in group homes need this? Probably not, but disability wreaks havoc on parents and 75% of the time the parents split up and the disabled young adult ends up living with mom who only has 75% of the earning potential of dad and they invariably end up getting public assistance and Medicaid...)

So- while I'm sure there are things that could be tightened up or changed about the programs, I think that it's probably one of the better run systems- the school systems get the cash and spend it on their own providers.

Jenn

[Flynn]

I can see both sides to this, truly.

When the chips are down though I tend to lean towards the breakfast idea. What bothers me is the "free." Nothing is free. I would like it more if there were a "community service" commitment attached to the meal. I realize that would be a nightmare to regulate and paying the adults in charge would be just the first step -- with that being said I still don't like the "free" label.

Kids need food and some parents need help. I'm all for pitching in. I just think there should be some work involved for any recipient regardless of financial background.

They don't provide free breakfast at every school in the district. But if the school has something like over 70% of the kids enrolled in the free or reduced lunch program, then they automatically do free breakfast for all children. There are some parts of the cities where the demographic is much different and it isn't as much of a need as it is here.

[SueC]

That last comment was me, I forgot to login.

[mommax3]

That whole free lunch/breakfast = community service idea just really rubs me the wrong way, even though I can agree with it for *some* recipients of gov't help.

Doesn't it bother anyone else that kids who through no fault of their own are from struggling families should *also* have to pick up trash around the school or whatever in order to have the right to eat?!!!! If the richest society in the world can't pick up the tab for poor children to have food, something is wrong, imo.

Many schools are requiring community service for all their students, which I think is great, but there is no need to stigmatize kids who already start off with some strikes against them.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

The wildly inefficient beauracratic government is hardly the best solution for raising a child. I can think of a lot of better solutions - but they require a complete overhaul in our culture and current bloated government organizations.

Please elaborate on the better solutions.

The KidStop program at our school provides a morning and afternoon solution that is convenient for working parents and most convenient for children. Before school, children can have breakfast, read and do some other scheduled activities. After school, they have homework time with teachers available to help and then an array of planned activities. In addition, kids are in the school and are permitted to attend the variety of academic extensions (with parental consent and payment, of course) that are offered after school.

We have never used it, but I know people who have. Their children love it. One little girl went during the school year only..mom doesn't work summers....and she used to beg to go at least once a week during the summer months to see her friends and be involved in the planning of some of the group activities. I don't think it has adversely affected her in the least.

There are no optimal solutions for parents that don't have much of a choice about working...especially low income families. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.

kris

Kids need food and some parents need help. I'm all for pitching in. I just think there should be some work involved for any recipient regardless of financial background.

But isn't the whole point that kids who are from poorer families benefit from the free breakfast? How would it possibly be okay to have the poor kids in the school do community service in exchange for food?

[DCJenn]

Having people participate in exchange for food works only if everyone gets the food and everyone participates, otherwise it becomes a class system. Poor kids=janitors, maids, laundry personnel, Rich kids- watch.

I think an ideal is the program that is used at Berkeley- they had a display farm at the Smithsonian this summer-

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html

Unfortunately, the growing season is somewhat limited in most of the country. It is a great program though.

jenn

I really believe the district would do more good in looking at the big picture of how to improve the education they are giving these children. Feeding everyone breakfast does not make up for a poor curriculum. Poverty is a real issue and some people, many people in fact, have to rely on the schools for help but the school is doing a huge disservice to these children if they don't educate them in a manner that will help them succeed.

No matter how strong the curriculum, a child with an empty stomach will not learn effectively.

As mentioned in other posts, only pulling the "needy" kids out to feed them will only help to ostricize them. Arranging for breakfast to be earlier requires that a parent be available to drive the kid to school early -- or are we suggesting 2 bus runs?

[SueC]

Yeah, I couldn't bear to watch the little kindergarten kids who can't afford breakfast to be wiping up tables after my daughter eats. Honestly, if that were the case, I'd insist my kid pitch in as well.

[PrincessFiona]

That whole free lunch/breakfast = community service idea just really rubs me the wrong way, even though I can agree with it for *some* recipients of gov't help.

Doesn't it bother anyone else that kids who through no fault of their own are from struggling families should *also* have to pick up trash around the school or whatever in order to have the right to eat?!!!! If the richest society in the world can't pick up the tab for poor children to have food, something is wrong, imo.

Many schools are requiring community service for all their students, which I think is great, but there is no need to stigmatize kids who already start off with some strikes against them.

Sally

I'm with you on that one, Sally. Perhaps the parents could donate an hour a week to volunteer in the classroom or help on the weekend to clean up the playground, etc ...but the kids shouldn't have to be involved in that at all. The problem, of course, is that many of these kids aren't coming from families where the parents are sitting on the sofa all day drinking beer and watching TLC...the parents tend to work 1 or more low income jobs...and can't really afford to take time off of work.

Actually, I know everyone will disagree with me on this, but I do not believe that it is the place of the schools to require any kind of community service for children at all. Reading/writing/'rithmatic...and I'll handle the rest, thanks....But that's a thread all it's own and I'm sure I'd be taken down in flames...so I won't start it.

kris

[Flynn]

I see all your points and I come from a mother who used her own money to buy breakfast foods for her low-income kindergarten classes for years. She worked 10 years in a high-risk school and eventually it just got too sad for her to stand. Ironically, she then went to an upper middle class school where the kids didn't lack food or clothing -- rather some lacked attention from their parents who both worked high powered jobs.

Anyway, there has to be a way to get kids the food they need WITHOUT paying for all the kids who don't need it.

When I was in Jr. High kids bought lunch and breakfast all the time. Many parents bought ahead so you had a card with money on it. Some kids from low-income households received free cards but nobody knew because the cards were all the same and a lot of kids had money on their cards and didn't use cash.

I'm all for feeding the kids. I'm against throwing more money than necessary at a problem when there might be some other way to spend exactly what a problem will cost and not a penny more.

realised my point was already brought up...nevermind.

[Rapunzel]

The wildly inefficient beauracratic government is hardly the best solution for raising a child. I can think of a lot of better solutions - but they require a complete overhaul in our culture and current bloated government organizations.

Please elaborate on the better solutions.

What government can do:

1. Allow greater opportunities for religious charities to contribute for the help of the fatherless (such as my church which runs a vast, highly efficient, no-waste charitable organization).
2. Remove the federal government from jobs which it does not have the Constitutional right to oversee (such as education - which is the arena of the state governments) and, thus, significantly lower federal income taxes freeing up funds for the state governments to directly control (via increased state income tax or other taxes)
3. Give significant tax-breaks to adults that choose to adopt (in order to offset the astronomically high prices incurred during an adoption).
4. Remove any tax penalties related to becoming a married couple (the only way government can really do much to stop the hemorrhaging of the basic building block of society - the family unit).
5. Automatically withdraw child support from every man who fails to pay it. If a man continues to default on his child support payments and/or cannot maintain a job to do so after repeated warnings - sterilize him. And, then throw him in jail. That will immediately stigmitize the practice of being a sperm donor and not taking care of the lives you bring into the world.

The complete overhaul of our current society would involve a great many other things that cannot really be controlled by our government. And, knowing the moral relativism of so many on this board would be instantly poo-pooed no matter what statistics and facts I produced to back up my suggestions.

[Rapunzel]

The problem, of course, is that many of these kids aren't coming from families where the parents are sitting on the sofa all day drinking beer and watching TLC...the parents tend to work 1 or more low income jobs...and can't really afford to take time off of work.

With what evidence do you back up that rather sweeping assertion? I am interested in hearing the professions, work habits, and work histories of the parents of children who qualify for tax-payer funded meals - the meals for which I pay.

Actually, I know everyone will disagree with me on this, but I do not believe that it is the place of the schools to require any kind of community service for children at all. Reading/writing/'rithmatic...and I'll handle the rest, thanks....But that's a thread all it's own and I'm sure I'd be taken down in flames...so I won't start it.

I quite agree with you on that. It is not the area of government schools to teach morality.
_________________