Free breakfast at schools

[Rapunzel]

Since what needs to happen (which I mention in a previous post) will not happen because there are too many who either stand to lose government money over such decisions or because there are too many who think emotionally and not rationally, I think Flynn makes a very good point:

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.

[PrincessFiona]

[quote:7a0ab]
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.

[/quote:7a0ab]

I can give several examples from this area....though there are children here in that circumstance, many of the low-income kids who get free meals are in single-parent homes due to death and divorce (mostly divorce). Unfortunately, there aren't laws that automatically garnish wages. Those are also the same kids that end up spending the most time in daycare...because it is usually the single mom working a low-paying job or two.

I know of an example where the parents both work...she is a secretary and he is a school maintenance worker...they have two children and own a small home. After their youngest child experienced a life-threatening accident and their medical bills basically bankrupted them, they also are on a free meal plan for their daughter (currently in school). Both parents still work.

Another family has a handicapped child and mom is unable to work because she is at home caring for the child. Their other child gets free lunches because the dad's income is too low...though he works full-time.

That being said, there are adults who have mental illness, alcoholism, drug addictions and various problems and maybe shouldn't be in the position to be raising children...but they are...and the kids shouldn't be punished any more.

I would gladly pay my taxes for meals for children...over a bridge to BFE in Alaska.

[quote:c601f]Quote:


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.[/quote:c601f]

It seems like you are assuming the opposite, though I realize you didn't say that. I also know a lot of people who have children that qualify for tax-payer funded meals, and I don't feel I need to write out their professions, work habits and histories to prove their children qualify for something as small as a free breakfast (some are even med student families, being a student sure doesn't pay very well, and we have some friends who have had a very difficult time financially). DH and I have lived in some very poor areas of town and gotten to know people who have kids that qualify for free breakfast (as well as other government-funded programs). In addition, DH puts in quite a few hours at the free clinic and sees even more of this population. They are hard working people doing the jobs nobody else wants to, trying to get by with what they have. I'm not saying there are not people who try to work the system, but I am saying that in my experience, that is rarely the case. A free breakfast, in my opinion, is a good thing to spend my tax dollar on.

[mommax3]

Quote:


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.

Are you kidding me with this? I would have thought with the backgrounds that you and your husband have (which many of us here share, btw) you would have PLENTY of evidence on this one at your fingertips. I know for a fact that the family of a beginning teacher with a couple kids who is a single wage earner will qualify for reduced lunches for sure in many states, depending on the teacher salaries where they are. Most of the enlisted members of our military w/children qualify, also. Here are some figures from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governan...s/IEG05-06.pdf
A family of 3 that makes $20,917 a year qualifies for free lunch/breakfast. If they make $29,767, they qualify for reduced meals. A family of 5 can make $41,829 and still qualify for reduced meals.

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)

Also, given the fact that teacher salaries differ not only from STATE to STATE, but from community to community, and that the STATES each choose the standardized tests that supposedly measure student progress (which is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I digress) and each STATE has a Dept. of Education, why do you continue to say that the federal gov't is overseeing education? The school lunch (breakfast) program is overseen by the Dept. of Agriculture, not an educational agency. States are already largely in charge of the education of the students in their schools, including funding that education, which is why poor states = poorly performing schools in our nation. I would love to see that inequity turned around.

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.

I agree with you in theory, Flynn, but in practice it is a little trickier. Because most of our schools' populations are based on attendance zones, if 80% of the kids qualify for free or reduced meals, why don't the other 20%, who presumably live in the same neighborhoods, etc.? The truth is *probably* not that they are so much better off, but that their parent(s) can't get it together to fill out the paperwork that is required to qualify. When you are dealing with children (not adults, who bear more responsibility for the choices they make) who may not be getting regular meals otherwise, I think that we should err on the side of feeding everyone rather than risk missing someone.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

Tara,

We're slowly converting Sally :> She just doesn't know it yet...she'll be sporting that 'Hillary 2008' signature before she knows it.

[PrincessFiona]

The sad reality is that there will always be children/adults that fall through the cracks of any system, even something that is very well run. You can't just look at a group of people from the outside and say, well we'll feed these kids but not these. So if you are going to advocate feeding all the children in a lower socioeconomic school in an effort to make sure all the children have been fed then you have to advocate that for every school.

Of course you can...why can't you. Instead of framing it like "we'll feed the people in this school," you can say "we'll provide free/subsidized meals for children from this income.

There is nothing wrong with that...right?

[PrincessFiona]

Of course...you're next, Tara :>

kris

[mommax3]

We're slowly converting Sally She just doesn't know it yet...she'll be sporting that 'Hillary 2008' signature before she knows it.

:: :: ::

Be careful.....my feelings about the woman can only be expressed with the use of (gasp) *profanity*!

[mommax3]

Sally, don't let them draw you to the dark side Just say to yourself, "I will not support Hillary, I will not support Hillary..."

No worries on that front Tara, I promise you.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

Of H course i we l aren't l really a trying r to y convert Sally. We know 2 she won't 0 fall 0 for our cheap 8 tricks!

:>

[mommax3]

I would be willing to bet that our schools small effort to feed every child is more efficient than the government school lunch program because we come together as a community to make sure every child is cared for.

I think it is great that there is this type of program in your community, Tara. Keep in mind that what the feds provide is a *subsidy*.....they don't lock and load and march into the lunchroom separating the children by income level! It is still administered on the local level. Most schools have some kind of deal where they provide peanut butter sandwiches or something for kids who forget their lunch or their lunch money. The sad truth, though, is that in communities where *most* of the kids qualify for help, there isn't a lot of community involvement in the schools, due to a variety of reasons, NONE OF WHICH are the fault of the kids. I believe it is reasonable to assume that when 80% of the kids qualify, the other 20% might be kids that are just falling through the cracks.

But where does that end? If you would rather err on the side of caution then you better start feeding all of the children in all of the schools in every district. There are hungry children in even the most affluent suburbs in this country.

It ends by establishing a point at which the vast majority of kids at the school DO qualify.....in the original situation that Sue posted about, it was 80%. I agree that there are hungry kids everywhere. In affluent districts, let the community step forward. In poor districts, let my tax dollars provide the community that doesn't exist.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

Or maybe she will

[PrincessFiona]

CONDI '08 :ra:

Oh gawd...Condi? How can you possiby support Condi but be anti-hillary? Must start a new debate..and...when you're least expecting it...I will start working on you. :>

[Meenah]

You guys are funny
I heard theat Ted Kennedy is running as Hillary's VP candidate.

Luanne