Rep. Jack Kingston Proposes That Poor Students Sweep Floors In Exchange For Lunch

[OneStepAtATime]

attending a charter school is a choice. It is not the neighborhood school to which a student is assigned by address. So, those parents are choosing to comply with the breakfast policy or accept consequences. 

I agree, but why make this policy?  How is this helping the kids at that school by requiring them to eat pop tarts?  Did they really think this through?

[mytwomonkeys]

He's an idiot.

[LaxMom]

I think he needs a visit from a few Christmas spirits.

I think he's already gotten into the Christmas spirits.

[OneStepAtATime]

Maybe part of the school's philosophy is that kids do better when they eat breakfast.  Free food might be seen as a perk of the school for some parents.  Different strokes for different folks.  I imagine some people think this is great.  Maybe they don't have a problem with Pop Tarts.  KWIM?

yeah, I guess so.  I know that for some ANY food would be welcome.  I just wish they were allowed to bring their own food from home if they choose to.  I have a friend who worked hard to get her kids into this school because the school they are zoned for is so bad but her kids do a LOT better with a healthier meal than just processed sugars...

[Cinder]

A family member teaches in a school that offers breakfast to all because of high poverty.  This school is near a major military base.  Maybe Mrs. Mungo can weigh in on this....

 

The junior enlisted ranks don't make a whole lot of money. If you're single it's manageable as you will likely live in the dorm and eat in the dining hall. But if you have a family it can be difficult. I recall helping one year, near Christmas, with distributing vouchers (for food, clothing, toys) to needy families in the community. One young woman was only concerned with getting vouchers for toys for her children. She wouldn't take the food vouchers--"I already get food stamps." You can imagine how startled I was, a few days later, to see her at the commissary. I couldn't help remembering her statement about food stamps. It was my first real awareness of poverty in the military.

[StaceyinLA]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I agree with the above poster who referred to prison inmates. How could someone even THINK of requiring something like this of children while our tax dollars pay for murderers, rapists, and child molesters to not only have 3 timely meals each day, but cable TV and free college.

 

This is really the most pathetic thing I've heard in a while.

[Jane in NC]

The junior enlisted ranks don't make a whole lot of money. If you're single it's manageable as you will likely live in the dorm and eat in the dining hall. But if you have a family it can be difficult. I recall helping one year, near Christmas, with distributing vouchers (for food, clothing, toys) to needy families in the community. One young woman was only concerned with getting vouchers for toys for her children. She wouldn't take the food vouchers--"I already get food stamps." You can imagine how startled I was, a few days later, to see her at the commissary. I couldn't help remembering her statement about food stamps. It was my first real awareness of poverty in the military.

 

Sigh...We, as a nation, can do better, can't we?

 

For my nephew, it is one thing to have students who haven't seen their deployed parent(s) for a while. It is another if those children are not properly fed. 

 

I think there are a whole lot of uppity-ups who deserve coal in their Christmas stockings.

[Parrothead]

What an idiot.

[zoobie]

I agree, but why make this policy? How is this helping the kids at that school by requiring them to eat pop tarts? Did they really think this through?

It could be tied into funding. Maybe grants from the FDA? I would bet they are involved in research seeing how it raises test scores, attendance, whatever markers of success the area uses.

 

Head Start is a dual purpose program--nutrition and education because people realized there was a huge gap between kids aged out of WIC yet too young to be in school. So very sad that this is a problem here in the US.

[elegantlion]

Someone needs to send him this on a plaque: 

 

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain

[bolt.]

For many children school lunch is their only meal of the day. Yes, it is neglect if their parents won't feed them properly but in many cases it's that they can't due to poverty. At least with school meals they are given at least 1 meal (and possibly 2 as most schools now offer breakfast as well). What would be a better solution?

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. You'd have to either refuse benefits or be using them for other-than-their-intention in order to be in that situation.

 

But, yeah, refusing to feed your children is completely beyond any societal norm here. If anyone caught a hint that your children regularly lacked for supper, the response from child protection would be very swift.

 

Tolerated levels of child poverty include not having enough clothing, lacking footwear or winter gear, not being properly babysat while young, not having transportation, being fed cheap undernourishing meals -- we do have child poverty. But going unfed: that's against the law. It leads to foster care.

[MomtoCandJ]

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. You'd have to either refuse benefits or be using them for other-than-their-intention in order to be in that situation.

 

But, yeah, refusing to feed your children is completely beyond any societal norm here. If anyone caught a hint that your children regularly lacked for supper, the response from child protection would be very swift.

 

Tolerated levels of child poverty include not having enough clothing, lacking footwear or winter gear, not being properly babysat while young, not having transportation, being fed cheap undernourishing meals -- we do have child poverty. But going unfed: that's against the law. It leads to foster care.

Sometimes a family can qualify for free breakfast and lunch but not SNAP benefits. (Yes we would fall under this if dd went to public school)

[bolt.]

Is it coming from the "value" that this way you can make sure children get daily food (since they are blameless) without having to socially support the family unit as a whole (since it might contain adults who are to blame and should not be sheltered from the consiquences of their choices)? Kind of the idea that you can let impoverished adults shoulder their own burdens, but the kids shouldn't suffer alongside? Is that why schools are the chosen venues for these feeding programs, instead of widespread programs to feed impoverished people of all ages?

[meena]

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. You'd have to either refuse benefits or be using them for other-than-their-intention in order to be in that situation.

 

But, yeah, refusing to feed your children is completely beyond any societal norm here. If anyone caught a hint that your children regularly lacked for supper, the response from child protection would be very swift.

 

Tolerated levels of child poverty include not having enough clothing, lacking footwear or winter gear, not being properly babysat while young, not having transportation, being fed cheap undernourishing meals -- we do have child poverty. But going unfed: that's against the law. It leads to foster care.

 

That's interesting. Our foster care system is already inadequate for the amount of children needing care; I can't imagine what would happen if children were also removed for lack of food. Also, foster care is very disruptive to a child. I would rather feed a child than take him away from his family, as long as they are not willfully neglecting or abusing him and the lack of food is not a constant problem.

 

Sometimes a family can qualify for free breakfast and lunch but not SNAP benefits. (Yes we would fall under this if dd went to public school)

 

Yes, that's how it was for my family when I was a child.

[swellmomma]

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. You'd have to either refuse benefits or be using them for other-than-their-intention in order to be in that situation.

 

But, yeah, refusing to feed your children is completely beyond any societal norm here. If anyone caught a hint that your children regularly lacked for supper, the response from child protection would be very swift.

 

Tolerated levels of child poverty include not having enough clothing, lacking footwear or winter gear, not being properly babysat while young, not having transportation, being fed cheap undernourishing meals -- we do have child poverty. But going unfed: that's against the law. It leads to foster care.

 

Yup.  I was thinking the same thing.  And while we may be a social country with benefits many time a family can be living in poverty and not qualify for benefits.  For example, I was deemed to have to much income to qualify for any supports because of my child support and child tax benefit(what all parents in canada qualify for), I was unable to work due to my health issues and those of the kids and routinely had to choose between food, utilities and rent.  I went hungry skipping meals to make sure there was enough for the kids.  We don't have things like WIC and food stamps in Canada and food pantries can only be accessed 1-2 times a month depending on your city (at least in this province) and they do not give much food.  There is no free lunches, the schools that offer a lunch do charge for it, I know the school I work in now charges $60 a month per child for 3 lunches a week, the other 2 days you have to provide it.  The school my kids attended had no lunch program and had very strict food rules you had to follow meaning lunches were expensive to make and send and if you missed them you were in trouble.  Missing once they accept it was an error and give your kid crackers with cheese whiz, a 2nd time you are called in for a parent meeting with the principal, a 3rd time and you get a visit from CPS.  WHen investigated by CPS one of the very first questions they ask you and your kids is how many times a day they eat and they check your fridge and cupboard for ample amounts of food.  This was questioned of us right after they saw the kids had no signs of physical abuse.  No proper winter gear, no money for school supplies, even lack of bathing etc is tolerated but kids going hungry means everyone is calling the authorities on you.

[Amy in NH]

We have plenty of programs to feed adults as well around here.  Really, anyone who goes without food around here has to try hard.

 

I think schools become these places because they are under a lot of pressure to make sure kids succeed.  If the kids have all sorts of reasons making that difficult, it will be nearly impossible for them to succeed (especially to the the level expected). 

 

I don't get upset about free food ever.  We have a ridiculous excess of food do we not?  There really is no reason anyone needs to go without food.

 

Now the next step would be to give people more nutritious food (but that's another issue).

 

Schools are also community centers where children are concentrated to simplify the provision of these types of services.

[NicAnn]

We have plenty of programs to feed adults as well around here. Really, anyone who goes without food around here has to try hard.

 

I think schools become these places because they are under a lot of pressure to make sure kids succeed. If the kids have all sorts of reasons making that difficult, it will be nearly impossible for them to succeed (especially to the the level expected).

 

I don't get upset about free food ever. We have a ridiculous excess of food do we not? There really is no reason anyone needs to go without food.

 

Now the next step would be to give people more nutritious food (but that's another issue).

I'd just like to share a story based on a few posts I've read here. DH and I were very low income for a while. We had to go the food bank, thought about living in our car, the whole nine. Anyway, I had to work extremely hard to get food for my family. DH and dd have Celiacs and most free food is highly processed and wheat based. DH could eat it if he had too, at least for a few days, but DD could not. It would have killed here if I ha given her the food bank food. Thankfully, things got better, but I shudder to think where we'd be if it hadn't.

Anyway, this thread just brought up some memories.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I still maintain that the hubris and self absorption necessary to get elected to national ofice is usually incompatible with understanding the daily workings inside a public school. You really can't underestimate just how detached these guys are when school is a magic box kids go into for 12 years, and hi profile fathers visit maybe twice a year.

[NicAnn]

Yeah I said "around here". My sister went through some similar troubles as a single person with a disability. It is so odd in terms of those people who fall through the cracks and don't get what they need. I think people would be very surprised by it.

 

Here though..they give out free everything with no questions asked.

Yeah I know you said in your area. I was just saying, in general, it's easy to get lost.

[Slartibartfast]

They are very Shakespearian.

 

Yeah but with more smarm and less  elocution. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Ehhhhhhh it DOES HAPPEN, as demonstrated here, but I really truly honestly CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHY. I do. not. under. stand.

 

When DH enlisted, he had to sign a statement (I had to sign it as well) saying that he understood how much money he'd be making at and out of bootcamp, and then he had to get a waiver for it because he had three dependents (me and 2 kids). They prefer to you only have 1 dependent, and he got lucky to get the waiver: his branch of service doesn't give them out for too many dependents any longer.

 

It was TIGHT, but not harrowingly so....and we had two kids in diapers and formula, and we did not get wic and I never worked....AND we lived on the economy (not in housing), paying more than we got in housing allowance, at the time, and we were totally fine. I literally don't understand how people can't make it on military salary. And my husband wasn't even deployed (so not getting hazardous duty pay).

 

Extenuating circumstances and all that, but it happens *far* too often.

Maybe it depends on the cost of living where they are stationed?  I will have to ask my mom, 'cause I really don't know.  My dad was military and sometimes we lived in tiny little boxes and ate tiny little meals (although Mom always made it seem like a wonderful banquet) and sometimes we had pretty big homes with lots of food (at least it seemed like lots of food to me).  We bounced all over the country.  I never asked but is there a change in the pay basis depending on where you are stationed?  Because cost of living varies extremely widely so if there is no differentiation, what might be fine pay for one area would NOT stretch nearly as far in another.

[JuanitaL]

Ehhhhhhh it DOES HAPPEN, as demonstrated here, but I really truly honestly CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHY. I do. not. under. stand.

 

When DH enlisted, he had to sign a statement (I had to sign it as well) saying that he understood how much money he'd be making at and out of bootcamp, and then he had to get a waiver for it because he had three dependents (me and 2 kids). They prefer to you only have 1 dependent, and he got lucky to get the waiver: his branch of service doesn't give them out for too many dependents any longer.

 

It was TIGHT, but not harrowingly so....and we had two kids in diapers and formula, and we did not get wic and I never worked....AND we lived on the economy (not in housing), paying more than we got in housing allowance, at the time, and we were totally fine. I literally don't understand how people can't make it on military salary. And my husband wasn't even deployed (so not getting hazardous duty pay).

 

Extenuating circumstances and all that, but it happens *far* too often.

 

You don't understand why enlisted families qualify for free/reduced lunch, WIC, etc. (or) you don't understand why they can't make it without them (or) accept the services they qualify for? We're retired enlisted, after about year 15 we finally started figuring out how to manage our relatively low income. I'm guessing the pay rates and income eligibility guidelines for free lunch have roughly kept pace with each other - (under that assumption) the last time my kids were in school my husband's pay grade and years in service would have given us $2923.50/month. Income guidelines for free lunch for a family of 5 are $2987/month.

 

 

(for some reason I can't copy& paste this morning, I just googled 2014 Military pay scale and income eligibility guidelines for lunch program)

[fairfarmhand]

A family member teaches in a school that offers breakfast to all because of high poverty.  This school is near a major military base.  Maybe Mrs. Mungo can weigh in on this....

If I remember correctly, most children of deployed military qualify for the program. (I think that's what my friend who's married to a military guy told me)

[fairfarmhand]

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. You'd have to either refuse benefits or be using them for other-than-their-intention in order to be in that situation.

 

But, yeah, refusing to feed your children is completely beyond any societal norm here. If anyone caught a hint that your children regularly lacked for supper, the response from child protection would be very swift.

 

Tolerated levels of child poverty include not having enough clothing, lacking footwear or winter gear, not being properly babysat while young, not having transportation, being fed cheap undernourishing meals -- we do have child poverty. But going unfed: that's against the law. It leads to foster care.

Here there are families who are working VERY hard, doing all that they can, and it's JUST NOT ENOUGH. They aren't feeding their kids because they don't want to, it is literally because they can't.

[TracyP]

Here there are families who are working VERY hard, doing all that they can, and it's JUST NOT ENOUGH. They aren't feeding their kids because they don't want to, it is literally because they can't.

 

Who? Where? I often hear this, but it does not jive with my personal experience. I know 2 situations where the kids were not consistently being fed at home. I have no doubt that the parents didn't want that to happen, but they were not doing all they could. I'm not saying I don't believe it. I'm just trying to understand. I really would like to know what is happening in these situations where the parents are doing all they can and they can't feed their kids. Thanks.

[fairfarmhand]

Who? Where? I often hear this, but it does not jive with my personal experience. I know 2 situations where the kids were not consistently being fed at home. I have no doubt that the parents didn't want that to happen, but they were not doing all they could. I'm not saying I don't believe it. I'm just trying to understand. I really would like to know what is happening in these situations where the parents are doing all they can and they can't feed their kids. Thanks.

Mostly single moms getting no child support. My sil was raised by one. They barely made it. In fact, if not for help from family, they would not have made it.  Her mom worked VERY VERY hard but had limited intelligence and skills. (probably learning disabled) I think of my sil's family of origin when these discussions come up. She did her best but it wasn't really enough.

[TracyP]

Mostly single moms getting no child support. My sil was raised by one. They barely made it. In fact, if not for help from family, they would not have made it.  Her mom worked VERY VERY hard but had limited intelligence and skills. (probably learning disabled) I think of my sil's family of origin when these discussions come up. She did her best but it wasn't really enough.

 

This is similar to how my husband grew up. I know that in his situation, his mom was not doing all she could do. She will tell you that she was, but dh says differently. Maybe she was not intelligent enough to know better.  I don't know how to look at that. But the support/welfare was there.

[bolt.]

Here there are families who are working VERY hard, doing all that they can, and it's JUST NOT ENOUGH. They aren't feeding their kids because they don't want to, it is literally because they can't.

Yeah, I'm having probably a culture-guided response to that. Since we define "not being provided with adequate food" as child abuse -- I find rationalization around the idea of a family that just "can't" stop abusing their kids that way (for whatever reason) really creepy.

 

If I couldn't feed my kids, or find a way to have them fed, I think if call CPS on myself. Providing for their basic nutritional needs doesn't feel like "sorry, just can't do it" is an option. They need food to live. If I can't secure a food source, I'm not a fit parent.

 

Not saying that I wouldn't use a school feeding program -- I would, if there were any. I'm not talking about feeding kids on family resources alone... I'm trying to say: "How is it that a significant proportion of most (?) US schools need this level of intervention? And why is if considered a normal thing -- to have children without having the resources to feed them and keep them alive?" In my circles, that would be a calamity. Perhaps in poorer circles it would be a constant risk and a scary threat (food insecurity)... But it's not something that's just widespread and acceptable, motivating a whole nation to turn schools into soup kitchens because there are just so many who would starve without it.

 

I'll leave it. I'm not trying to argue -- just trying to understand the interesting differences between neighbour societies. I've learned a bit from this conversation. Thanks.

[mrsrevmeg]

The majority of people we have coming to our church for assistance are single mothers or grandparents raising grandchildren. Most of the time these are people who do love their children, they just have no money to feed them or pay their bills. Maybe  there was a catastrophic illness in the family, maybe someone lost their job, who knows. We also see a lot of generational poverty in the crisis pregnancy center in our town. Sometimes people are not doing all they can, sometimes they are. They all need help. Could anyone really just say (of the parents) "well too bad, you should do better."?

[bolt.]

No, not that, but Canafian society does say, "We're going to have to keep your child safe and healthy while you get back on your feet. Here are some things that have worked for others in your catastrophe. You can try them, or you can try something else, but until you can reliably feed your child -- we will. Please try to recover ASAP. Let us know if we can help."

 

I think perhaps if there were fewer benefits (or preventative measures) aimed (roughly) at most of the catastrophic things that could befall a family -- then maybe there would be too many near-starvation children, and they'd have to remain in neglectful homes... Our safety net is often at least somewhat successful in mitigating things like catastrophic illness, job loss and crisis pregnancy. It leads to fewer instances where "benefits plus intense effort" still results in starving children. Not never, of course. Canada is not utopia. I just see widespread school feeding programs as an indication of so *many* children in the US in that situation.

[swellmomma]

Here there are families who are working VERY hard, doing all that they can, and it's JUST NOT ENOUGH. They aren't feeding their kids because they don't want to, it is literally because they can't.

 

And families here are working just as hard to support their families.  They are doing all they can, and many other things slide in favor of food.  It's weird you know, I have heard Americans disparage Canada for being a socialist country and yet we don't have nearly as many security nets to deal with low income/poverty, especially in relation to food (not only no WIC, food stamps, lunch programs etc but also no couponing to lower costs, our food, cleaning supplies, diapers etc already cost so much more than the US).  Heck even things like the other day I saw on amazon.com packages of pine sol, 3- 144oz bottles for under $30.  On amazon.ca, so the Canadian site, ONE 144oz bottle was $95.  We can't order things like that from the US.  So I think that is why bolt is asking these questions.  Our cost for food is higher than the USA, there is no way to reduce costs with coupons, or other sources of food help, and yet it is an expectation that you will provide at least 3 meals a day, of at least somewhat nutritional content or you will be charged with neglect.  It's not like parents living in that situation are not working their butts off to make it possible, which your comment implies, like only those in the US work so hard doing all they can. If one is actually doing all they can they should be able to feed their children, it wouldn't be the best quality food, or the most diverse, it may be oatmeal and rice& beans day in and day out, but they would be fed without relying on widespread school lunch programs.  Especially in a country that allows you to get hundreds of $$ of groceries for a couple bucks if you coupon, use food stamps or whatever other systems there are in place. 

 

I can see why bolt is curious as to the differences, because honestly it doesn't make sense to claim they wimply can't feed their children so they must eat the free lunches at school, because where we live it is an expectation that you will feed your children, period, no matter how poor you are.  If you are so poor you can't/won't then chances are you are homeless and relying on a shelter for help getting on your feet in which case child services is already monitoring things, or you are not doing all you can and child services will be investigating you for neglect in failing to provide the necessities of life. 

[stripe]

In Canada anyone who consistantly can't or won't feed their children has them removed from the home by social services. Of course, they would be encoraged to get the 'welfare' benefits those kids deserve, and to spend that money appropriately on their children's food and shelter -- long before it came to the point of removal. 

I'd think it would be cheaper to give people money towards food than go through the expense of staff time to remove them from the home, plus provide ALL their needs once they were taken out of the home.

 

I think it's obvious that virtually all parents want more than anything to have their children healthy and well-fed. The parents who don't are likely mentally unstable, addicted to something, or otherwise disturbed.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'd think it would be cheaper to give people money towards food than go through the expense of staff time to remove them from the home, plus provide ALL their needs once they were taken out of the home.

 

I think it's obvious that virtually all parents want more than anything to have their children healthy and well-fed. The parents who don't are likely mentally unstable, addicted to something, or otherwise disturbed.

 

Right. And even forgetting the money, it boggles my mind that one would choose to put kids through the emotional turmoil and upheaval of removal from their home and parents when the fix is as easy as food assistance. Frankly, food assistance is the easy part.

[stripe]

Right. And even forgetting the money, it boggles my mind that one would choose to put kids through the emotional turmoil and upheaval of removal from their home and parents when the fix is as easy as food assistance. Frankly, food assistance is the easy part.

There's a disturbing article in a recent New Yorker about a woman who had her son removed from the home. It started when she left him at home alone (obviously a bad idea), but the objection seemed ultimately to be that they were afraid something could go horribly wrong (tiny chance of really bad outcome) rather than the likely decent outcome, even though both the child and the mother would be permanently scarred, so that severing parental rights was somehow the "safe" choice because there would (theoretically) be a higher chance of the boy not being killed by an abusive caretaker. (The mother, incidentally, was neither poor nor uneducated.) I found the whole thing almost breathtakingly awful.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/02/131202fa_fact_aviv

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't know all the ins and outs of why some families don't seem to be able to make it and others do o.k. with very little.  I do know that I see a lot of people I know personally who struggle to feed their kids because they have never been given effective life skills.  Either the parents didn't teach them or they didn't have parents to show them how or something, but they get into debt quickly, they don't know how to plan ahead, and they keep making the same mistakes over and over (I was like that when I first went out into the real world).  

 

I also know that catastrophic events can and do put people in extremely difficult and unexpected circumstances. I have friends struggling terrifically with that right now.  Their kids are not starving, though.  There are days when things are really, really lean, but they are not starving.

 

My SIL sees a lot of extreme poverty where she teaches, but she teaches autistic kids and many of them have other needs that cost money to take care of so it becomes a choice of medical or grocery money...the food at the school means that they can use the money for the medical equipment, etc. that the child needs to function.

 

I also have a friend who lives way below the poverty line based on income.  She did not complete high school, but she did get her GED.  She may not be highly educated but she learned really early on how to budget, be frugal, make things and repair things herself, she is a really good cook, she works hard at whatever job she can get (as does her husband) she does not drink to get drunk or do any drugs and they managed to save up enough money to buy a tiny plot of land for their very old used trailer.  The husband swaps labor for parts to fix the trailer and the family never seems overly stressed about money.  The kids are well fed and happy.  They are saving for a better car since the one they drive ($300 used and not working until he repaired it) is really on its last leg.  

 

Every family is different, every circumstance is different but I do wonder why whole schools and communities need free meals?  I don't want anyone to go hungry.  Just wonder what questions we should be asking here....  What is happening in the community as a whole that would require free breakfast and lunch for some but in a community just down the road this service is not needed?  And what could be done to help fix whatever problems there are long-term?  What systems that are currently in place are not working since some kids are living with no food or a limited food source?   And i am talking about the U.S. since that is where I currently live.

[stripe]

I do think some people need and want advice about cooking, shopping, paying their bills, finances, personal conduct, jobs, education, and such topics, that they really don't have a firm understanding of, or don't have anyone to ask. 

 

My husband has an enormous number of people come to him for advice, on all sorts of things. I think as an immigrant, he has a really different perspective on some things. Somewhat like my grandma's, actually! Some people's problems are just .... sigh. But there are lots of illogical aspects to life as a poor person in this country, so that normally good decisions actually have undesirable outcomes.

 

A really interesting program in Oakland, CA called the Family Independence Initiative  was profiled about a year ago on NPR

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/13/155103662/struggling-families-lift-themselves-out-of-poverty

 

[Alte Veste Academy]

Frankly, food assistance is the easy part.

 

And this is the hard part:

 

...a lot of people I know personally who struggle to feed their kids because they have never been given effective life skills.  Either the parents didn't teach them or they didn't have parents to show them how or something, but they get into debt quickly, they don't know how to plan ahead, and they keep making the same mistakes over and over (I was like that when I first went out into the real world).  

 

I also know that catastrophic events can and do put people in extremely difficult and unexpected circumstances. I have friends struggling terrifically with that right now.  Their kids are not starving, though.  There are days when things are really, really lean, but they are not starving.

 

My SIL sees a lot of extreme poverty where she teaches, but she teaches autistic kids and many of them have other needs that cost money to take care of so it becomes a choice of medical or grocery money...the food at the school means that they can use the money for the medical equipment, etc. that the child needs to function.

 

Every family is different, every circumstance is different but I do wonder why whole schools and communities need free meals?  I don't want anyone to go hungry.  Just wonder what questions we should be asking here....  What is happening in the community as a whole that would require free breakfast and lunch for some but in a community just down the road this service is not needed?  And what could be done to help fix whatever problems there are long-term?  What systems that are currently in place are not working since some kids are living with no food or a limited food source?   And i am talking about the U.S. since that is where I currently live.

 

 

 

I also have a friend who lives way below the poverty line based on income.  She did not complete high school, but she did get her GED.  She may not be highly educated but she learned really early on how to budget, be frugal, make things and repair things herself, she is a really good cook, she works hard at whatever job she can get (as does her husband) she does not drink to get drunk or do any drugs and they managed to save up enough money to buy a tiny plot of land for their very old used trailer.  The husband swaps labor for parts to fix the trailer and the family never seems overly stressed about money.  The kids are well fed and happy.  They are saving for a better car since the one they drive ($300 used and not working until he repaired it) is really on its last leg.

 

And how to teach this. It is as much attitude as education. Also hard.

[LaughingCat]

 Especially in a country that allows you to get hundreds of $$ of groceries for a couple bucks if you coupon, use food stamps or whatever other systems there are in place. 

Hundreds of $$ of groceries for a couple bucks if we coupon?   Yeah, and if we just eat at Subway we lose 100's of lbs too - just look at Jared. :lol:  (sorry, but that cracked me up - couponing to save big money is not so easy as it might appear). 

 

But seriously....  I think mostly it is just a historical difference -  the school lunch program came out of the Great Depression from my understanding - helping the farmer while also helping the kids who needed food.   And once programs like that start, people start to rely on them and expect them and they become ingrained in the culture pretty quickly (IMO)

[lovinmomma]

I don't know all the ins and outs of why some families don't seem to be able to make it and others do o.k. with very little.  I do know that I see a lot of people I know personally who struggle to feed their kids because they have never been given effective life skills.  Either the parents didn't teach them or they didn't have parents to show them how or something, but they get into debt quickly, they don't know how to plan ahead, and they keep making the same mistakes over and over (I was like that when I first went out into the real world).  

 

I also know that catastrophic events can and do put people in extremely difficult and unexpected circumstances. I have friends struggling terrifically with that right now.  Their kids are not starving, though.  There are days when things are really, really lean, but they are not starving.

 

My SIL sees a lot of extreme poverty where she teaches, but she teaches autistic kids and many of them have other needs that cost money to take care of so it becomes a choice of medical or grocery money...the food at the school means that they can use the money for the medical equipment, etc. that the child needs to function.

 

I also have a friend who lives way below the poverty line based on income.  She did not complete high school, but she did get her GED.  She may not be highly educated but she learned really early on how to budget, be frugal, make things and repair things herself, she is a really good cook, she works hard at whatever job she can get (as does her husband) she does not drink to get drunk or do any drugs and they managed to save up enough money to buy a tiny plot of land for their very old used trailer.  The husband swaps labor for parts to fix the trailer and the family never seems overly stressed about money.  The kids are well fed and happy.  They are saving for a better car since the one they drive ($300 used and not working until he repaired it) is really on its last leg.  

 

Every family is different, every circumstance is different but I do wonder why whole schools and communities need free meals?  I don't want anyone to go hungry.  Just wonder what questions we should be asking here....  What is happening in the community as a whole that would require free breakfast and lunch for some but in a community just down the road this service is not needed?  And what could be done to help fix whatever problems there are long-term?  What systems that are currently in place are not working since some kids are living with no food or a limited food source?   And i am talking about the U.S. since that is where I currently live.

Honestly? I think the wages are too low. I'm not going to use myself as an example, because I may get emotionally frustrated. LOL However, I can use most of our neighbors as an example.

My single friend neighbor doesn't have any man in her life. She has 3 kids. She works full time plus over time when she can get it. She has a GED. She works hard. She makes around the ballpark of $8.75 per hour at typically 35-40 hrs per week. That's $340 per week for 40 hours. That's $1360 per month. Rent is $675 per month and is the absolutely cheapest place I have found around (not a good neighborhood). There are 2 bedrooms. So, that leaves her with  $685 per month. We spend $200 per month on fuel to get to school and work, but maybe she spends less (doubtful- her work is further and more often since I work 12 hr shifts) but lets say $175/ That's leaves her with $510. Ok. She doesn't have cable (neither do we) or anything like that but she has gas, water, wasterwater, trash, and electric. I spend $250 per month on all of that but I work really hard to be efficient. Assuming she does the same thing that leaves her with $260 per month. None of this is including bus fees ($150 per semester PER CHILD), FOOD, clothing (cheap at goodwill), car payment if she has one, phone (we spend $40 per month on a phone), car insurance (ours is low),etc. Spread it around however you like but it's just not that easy. She has worked 2 jobs at a time, but most of the time it's hard to find 1 job much less 2.   

[nmoira]

When I saw this, I thought he's got it backwardsl: It's the rich kids who should be made to "volunteer" to help them stave off affluenza. Just kidding of course, but, man, what an arse. Children shouldn't have to earn their food... surely we can set the bar a bit higher than that?

 

Now, I'm all for kids being encouraged to help out and being taught the value of work, sharing, and community, but that's *all* children.

[Lisbeth]

Mormons have an internal welfare system, and based on an inventory taken of what they have already, and careful consideration they can get specific food items and other help.  Many Mormons/Mormon missionaries volunteer on LDS farms, in our canneries, on our ranches, for free.  The family who is given the free food/help is expected to volunteer to give back, in those same storehouses or etc.

 

I think the way schools are set up, having poor children work in the sight of the other children would be very difficult and rough.  However, the parents should have to give back time, somehow.

 

I am constantly torn between not wanting people (especially children) to suffer, and on the other hand, not making poverty so cushy that people have no motivation to pull out of it.  If you constantly make everything full of perks for nothing, it leads to generational welfare families - why should they work?  Work is for suckers!  Why not have 5 kids I can't feed?  Someone else will take care of it!  I have family members like this.  I hear how they talk.

 

It is a serious problem.  I am not an ogre, I HATE when kids don't have what they need.  However, there is also a lot of abuse of the system.  And there is no dignity in training kids from a young age to take handouts for everything.

 

I don't have a great solution.

[nmoira]

That's interesting. I grew up with neighbors that had the exact opposite philosophy. Their children were expected to get their chores done if they wanted to eat. No one was taught to expect that they were kings and were going to be served by the rest of the family.

There's a big difference between "work for" as is being proposed by Jack Kingston and having responsibilities because we are are part of a family or community.

[bolt.]

I'd think it would be cheaper to give people money towards food than go through the expense of staff time to remove them from the home, plus provide ALL their needs once they were taken out of the home.

 

I think it's obvious that virtually all parents want more than anything to have their children healthy and well-fed. The parents who don't are likely mentally unstable, addicted to something, or otherwise disturbed.

To be clear, welfare and subsidies to parents, while not generous will generally be enough to feed children -- if the parents feed the children with it, and if there are no other catastrophes going on. Kids are removed oy after parents are unable to get by *with* assistance, or if there is some other issue. CPS is (ideally) supposed to work to help before moving to remove children in situations of neglect. That would include assistance getting signed up for any available money for food.

 

You can still have huge problems: but there is no way that 50 to 80 percent of families attending a school would have problems on that scale.

[unsinkable]

That's interesting.  I grew up with neighbors that had the exact opposite philosophy. Their children were expected to get their chores done if they wanted to eat.  No one was taught to expect that they were kings and were going to be served by the rest of the family.  

 

My dad grew up in the Depression. In his family if you wanted to eat, you hunted and farmed. End of story.

[Jane in NC]

My dad grew up in the Depression. In his family if you wanted to eat, you hunted and farmed. End of story.

 

Commodity based school lunch programs did exist during the Depression.  Perhaps your father's community did not participate but many communities relied on these programs.

 

[Mergath]

Mormons have an internal welfare system, and based on an inventory taken of what they have already, and careful consideration they can get specific food items and other help.  Many Mormons/Mormon missionaries volunteer on LDS farms, in our canneries, on our ranches, for free.  The family who is given the free food/help is expected to volunteer to give back, in those same storehouses or etc.

 

I think the way schools are set up, having poor children work in the sight of the other children would be very difficult and rough.  However, the parents should have to give back time, somehow.

 

I am constantly torn between not wanting people (especially children) to suffer, and on the other hand, not making poverty so cushy that people have no motivation to pull out of it.  If you constantly make everything full of perks for nothing, it leads to generational welfare families - why should they work?  Work is for suckers!  Why not have 5 kids I can't feed?  Someone else will take care of it!  I have family members like this.  I hear how they talk.

 

It is a serious problem.  I am not an ogre, I HATE when kids don't have what they need.  However, there is also a lot of abuse of the system.  And there is no dignity in training kids from a young age to take handouts for everything.

 

I don't have a great solution.

 

The majority of parents receiving assistance do work, usually multiple jobs.  I'm sure the schools would rather that these parents spend what precious little free time they have bonding with their children than scrubbing cafeteria tables (and taking the jobs away from the janitors) to teach them some arbitrary lesson.  Poor people know what work is.  Believe me.

[unsinkable]

Commodity based school lunch programs did exist during the Depression.  Perhaps your father's community did not participate but many communities relied on these programs.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're trying to correct me and saying that my dad was not telling the truth in that he had to hunt and farm in order to eat in his family or sharing a tangential fact.

[LucyStoner]

Bolt., while we have more programs here in the USA than you do in Canada, it's a messy patchwork here. In Canada the tax system and welfare options work in that they are keeping significantly more children out of poverty. The programs here in the USA are often designed to target very specific things rather than empower people to make their own choices. You don't have food stamps there in Canada but your welfare benefits are substantially larger for those who do qualify. I do think that our system is much more guided by a sense of paternalism and making sure the money goes where intended. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is what it is.

That said, years and years of being poor and working for charities here. IME It is rare, very rare to find a family who is choosing to not have enough food or who wouldn't find a way to make it work without the school lunches. But if they know it's available they are going to take it and put their own resources to other needs.

 

Edited a bit to make it clearer.  

[Jane in NC]

I'm not sure if you're trying to correct me and saying that my dad was not telling the truth in that he had to hunt and farm in order to eat in his family or sharing a tangential fact.

Sorry, I was sharing a tangential fact which is why I clarified that your father's community may not have had commodity based lunch in his schools. 

 

My mother grew up on a dairy farm and was not hungry during the Depression.  My grandfather on my dad's side was a commercial baker so my Dad did not starve either--although he had a carb filled childhood.  One look at Dorothea Lange's photographs brings the point of inadequate food during the Depression home.

 

Look, I love the Greatest Generation, but people sometimes forget that social programs existed prior to our own time period.  I just wanted to point out that some people during the Depression were given government aid--this is not a novel idea.  Further, in my community, there are many who rely on hunting and fishing for protein sources. Not everyone stands with hands out stretched expecting aid.

 

Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention.

[LucyStoner]

Wow, why did I not realize you live in Canada?

 

I guess I have not been paying attention. LOL

No. The differences between Canada and "down here" were the subject though. I am close to Canada geographically but very much in the United States. Unless the other Washington secedes. Which seems, um, unlikely. :)