Schools giving breakfast to all students

[idnib]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/38bb63200a934cbf83fc23adc6eddbdd/school-districts-parents-odds-over-breakfast-class

 

Why is this bothering me? Wasted food? Nutritional propaganda? Lost classroom time?

 

I can see the good side as well (food for all the kids, less shame about free breakfast if everyone has it, possibly better learning outcomes)  but somehow it feels...encroaching. I guess going to the cafeteria early is a problem, so to fix that it's now in the classroom and part of class time.

 

It feels like it's being driven by money, although some people working on it I'm sure have more altruistic motives.

 

Other thoughts?

 

 

 

Instead of providing low-income students free or reduced-price meals in the cafeteria, they're increasingly serving all children in the classroom. Food policy advocates say the change increases equity, however, it's fueled a backlash from parents and teachers. They contend that it takes up class time that should be devoted to learning and wastes food by serving it to kids who don't want or need it.

 

[PeacefulChaos]

Idk.  Overall I don't really see it as a bad thing, assuming that the food is being eaten (there are lots of kids who will eat a second breakfast even if they had one at home lol), that it's healthy, and that it is happening during a time that won't take away from any education that would have been happening during that time.

[vonfirmath]

There are also allergy concerns over serving food in the classrooms.

[Mandylubug]

When mine went to school via school bus, they were on the bus over an hour. So, by the time they'd reach class, it would be 2 hours since their last meal and many times they would be starving way before lunch time.

 

I could see feeding all kids before class as a good thing.

 

However, I can also see the issues with allergens, lost learning time, etc.

[Ali in OR]

It wouldn't bother me at all. You've heard of home schoolers who do "school at home"--this seems more like public schoolers doing "home school at school". We eat while learning all of the time. I can easily believe that for many or most students, having a little something to eat first thing at school with their own class at their own desk would be a good thing. They wouldn't be trying to learn while hungry (I do believe this is an issue for many) and they could build a kind of family atmosphere in the class. If I was teaching in that scenario, I could see using the time to chat casually with individual students or read a good book to the class. And I don't think it would be that hard to minimize food waste--reuse leftovers elsewhere. Serve what will get eaten.

[LucyStoner]

If it were actual breakfast it wouldn't bother me. It does bother me here though because the school breakfasts are almost all carbs and processed sugar. The regulars: blueberry muffins, donut sticks, cinnamon rolls or mini cold waffles. Always with 4 ounces of juice. I wouldn't want my kids eating that as their only breakfast and if I feed them a balanced meal with protein, whole grains, possibly some dairy and definitely fresh fruit at home first, I don't want them stuffing a donut stick down just because it is available. My older son would just decline but my younger son would be like, woo hoo sweet rolls.

 

When I was a child the breakfasts were generally either hot (eggs, sausage, pancakes or something) and/or Cherrios with milk. That was in the cafeteria. I am not sure why the breakfasts are so crappy now.

[Mandylubug]

I would just hope it wasnt poptarts and sugary cereal served every day like our public school did :/

[plansrme]

I think that feeding my kids is my responsibility, not the school's, and would not be in favor.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

If it were actual breakfast it wouldn't bother me. It does bother me here though because the school breakfasts are almost all carbs and processed sugar. The regulars: blueberry muffins, donut sticks, cinnamon rolls or mini cold waffles. Always with 4 ounces of juice. I wouldn't want my kids eating that as their only breakfast and if I feed them a balanced meal with protein, whole grains, possibly some dairy and definitely fresh fruit at home first, I don't want them stuffing a donut stick down just because it is available. My older son would just decline but my younger son would be like, woo hoo sweet rolls.

 

When I was a child the breakfasts were generally either hot (eggs, sausage, pancakes or something) and/or Cherrios with milk. That was in the cafeteria. I am not sure why the breakfasts are so crappy now.

Agreeing, I am seeing the same thing here. Sugar and processed carbs for the breakfast options.

 

I do think breakfast for all is a good idea, as long as it is a healthy breakfast.

[marbel]

I have mixed feelings.  First, there is a knee-jerk reaction to "mission creep" in the school system.  Families in the US already eat few meals together; maybe no one eats breakfast as a family anymore but it still seems like another way to pull kids away from the family.  But as I said that is just the initial reaction.

 

In general, I believe it is the parents' responsibility to feed their children, not the schools'.  Of course I also understand that there are people who cannot provide their kids with a nutritious breakfast through no fault of their own.  (And no doubt there are parents who could provide it, but simply won't.)  I also understand that it could be difficult for kids to be in the 'free breakfast' group at school. 

 

If I had a kid in school it would seem ludicrous to me to have my kid given food paid for with taxpayer dollars when I can provide breakfast.  (If the breakfasts are funded some other way, I missed it, sorry).   As a taxpayer, I am pretty sure that there are better uses for those funds than blueberry muffins for middle-class and above kids.   As an individual, I would contribute to a fund to help pay for those breakfasts - healthy foods, not muffins and donuts - so it wouldn't come from taxpayer dollars.

 

But, I don't have a real solution to the problem of kids who don't get breakfast. I want kids to get breakfast.  I think I would have my kids refuse the breakfast, and send a snack for them to eat during that time.  But perhaps at that point the money would have been spent, and the food would be wasted anyway.  I guess I could have them take the donuts and bring them home for me. 

 

 

 

[DesertBlossom]

Oooh, I'm getting on my soap box.  I find this policy infuriating. I do believe it's overstepping the bounds of what public schools are meant to do.  

 

DH taught in a k-8 school where all the kids were given breakfast in the classroom and an afternoon snack. At the beginning, it was all highly-processed junk. However, the teachers were supposed to encourage the students to take a certain number of items, and throw it away if they didn't want it, just so that the school could check it off and get the funding they were being bribed with.

 

Over the years, the food quality did get better as they tried to add in fresh fruits and vegetables. But it was a policy that always bothered DH as it took up his classtime and he felt the food was wasted. 

 

The school already provided a free hot breakfast before school, but apprently that wasn't considered enough because some kids might not get to school in time for the free breakfast.  

 

I understand that some kids won't get a good breakfast and that some parents are failing to provide their children with the basic necessities. However, I think as community we need to focus on strengthening families, rather than taking over the parental responsibilities for everyone just because a few aren't capable of it.

 

I put this up there with weekly flouride treatments in the classroom. Yes, kids need dental care. School is not the place for it.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Oooh, I'm getting on my soap box.  I find this policy infuriating. I do believe it's overstepping the bounds of what public schools are meant to do.  

 

DH taught in a k-8 school where all the kids were given breakfast in the classroom and an afternoon snack. At the beginning, it was all highly-processed junk. However, the teachers were supposed to encourage the students to take a certain number of items, and throw it away if they didn't want it, just so that the school could check it off and get the funding they were being bribed with.

 

Over the years, the food quality did get better as they tried to add in fresh fruits and vegetables. But it was a policy that always bothered DH as it took up his classtime and he felt the food was wasted. 

 

The school already provided a free hot breakfast before school, but apprently that wasn't considered enough because some kids might not get to school in time for the free breakfast.  

 

I understand that some kids won't get a good breakfast and that some parents are failing to provide their children with the basic necessities. However, I think as community we need to focus on strengthening families, rather than taking over the parental responsibilities for everyone just because a few aren't capable of it.

 

I put this up there with weekly flouride treatments in the classroom. Yes, kids need dental care. School is not the place for it.

 

Some parents can't provide it. Life happens, unexpectedly. 

 

School is the logical place to meet the needs since the vast majority of children go to school. 

[Eagle]

8% of children in the U.S. have food allergies. Having food in the classroom and having it be semi-mandatory further isolates these children. It also seems like a huge additional risk towards children having an allergic reaction at school.

[OneStepAtATime]

DS briefly went to a school where it was required that he eat the breakfast they served to all students in the classroom before school started for the day.  I know they were providing breakfast to all because there are a lot of impoverished areas here so many kids go hungry all the time.   I get that.  It makes sense.  My SIL is a teacher and she runs into this at her school in the next district.  It is heartbreaking. I am grateful that kids that might not have had any food at all were getting fed.  

 

I wasn't happy at all about DS not being allowed to bring his own breakfast, though, or to just eat at home and not have to deal with the school breakfast.  And I was really not happy about them pretty much trying to strong arm him to eat the food  they were providing even if he had eaten at home and was not hungry.

 

But what also really aggravated me was that they served mostly pop tarts and sometimes a sugary orange flavored drink.  It was not healthy.  At all.  And it was honestly pretty disruptive.  The teacher had 30 kids eating poptarts with crumbs everywhere and stick insides getting smeared everywhere and it took forever to get it all cleaned back up again and focused on school for the day.  They were already rushed trying to cram everything in.  This just ate up more time and made them rush even more.....

 

And the food allergy issue is also a very serious consideration.  I have many relatives with food allergies.  

[DesertBlossom]

Some parents can't provide it. Life happens, unexpectedly. 

 

School is the logical place to meet the needs since the vast majority of children go to school. 

 

Which is why most schools already provide hot breakfast in the cafeteria before school.  But schools don't need to be taking over breakfast entirely.

 

And like I said, from what I've seen, it's junk food that gets thrown away anyway.  

[Annie G]

I can't get upset over this. Sometimes the breakfast is crap, like muffins. Sometimes it's a chicken biscuit or a piece of fruit or a bowl of cereal. Some kids come to school hungry and I'm ok with food in the classroom if it helps some of the kids.  Yeah, there is wasted food and the offerings are often high in carbs. But I can't get upset with it.  Nobody is telling kids they have to eat it. If I had a kid in school and I didn't want them to eat it, I would train them not to take any. 

 

There are a lot of hungry kids in our school district. I feel for them. 

[redsquirrel]

around here, the kids can buy breakfast just like they can buy lunch. They get a plastic card they swipe and no one knows if it is free or reduced or full price.  Almost everyone I know who sends their kids to school takes advantage of the breakfast at school option. Even those who make and send a lunch will have their kids buy breakfast, or second breakfast, at school. So, it might be 'mission creep' but when given the choice, it's one that many families embrace.

 

People do it for a number of reason. Some kids, as mentioned above, have a looong bus ride and could really do with at least snack before starting their day. Other families find that they would rather spend the time together just getting ready to leave rather than yelling 'eat your breakfast'. Other people say their kids aren't that hungry when they get up and will eat a better meal after being up for a while. One friend, whose kid went to a no breakfast school for a while, liked it much better when they moved into our district. Before that she was reduced to spooning cereal into her half asleep five year old's mouth while he waited for the bus. He takes a long time to wake up, lol. It's better if he eats later.

 

The options are plain bagels and bread with toppings such as cream cheese or butter or jam, muffins, cheerios or chex cereal, fruit, juice or milk. There is a no nut section of the cafeteria and some schools have nut free rooms etc. The kids come in and pick what they want from different categories. It doesn't seem much different than what my kids eat at home (cereal and milk most mornings). It doesn't take time out of the school day, and all the elementary schools around here are lucky enough to have cafeterias. 

 

I just don't see it as a big deal

[Annie G]

DS briefly went to a school where it was required that he eat the breakfast they served to all students in the classroom before school started for the day.  I know they were providing breakfast to all because there are a lot of impoverished areas here so many kids go hungry all the time.   My SIL is a teacher and she runs into this at her school in the next district.  It is heartbreaking. I am grateful that kids that might not have had any food at all were getting fed.  

 

I wasn't happy at all about DS not being allowed to bring his own breakfast, though, or to just eat at home and not have to deal with the school breakfast.  And I was really not happy about them pretty much trying to strong arm him to eat the food  they were providing even if he had eaten at home and was not hungry.

 

But what also really aggravated me was that they served mostly pop tarts and sometimes a sugary orange flavored drink.  It was not healthy.  At all.  And it was honestly pretty disruptive.  The teacher had 30 kids eating poptarts with crumbs everywhere and stick insides getting smeared everywhere and it took forever to get it all cleaned back up again and focused on school for the day.  They were already rushed trying to cram everything in.  This just ate up more time and made them rush even more.....

 

And the food allergy issue is also a very serious consideration.  I have many relatives with food allergies.  

 

Schools I know who serve breakfast in the classroom do not require kids to take any food and allow kids to bring their own if they want.   That would bug me. But that's not how the program is supposed to be run. Boo for your ds's old school. 

[Heatherwith4]

My first thought was - this sort of stuff is why my kids don't go to school. But then, I know there are hungry kids in our school district and in other school districts everywhere. So if they are getting fed, even if it's not the healthiest, then it's a plus in my book. However, it should not be mandatory.

[OneStepAtATime]

Schools I know who serve breakfast in the classroom do not require kids to take any food and allow kids to bring their own if they want.   That would bug me. But that's not how the program is supposed to be run. Boo for your ds's old school. 

Yeah, I was honestly shocked.  I was told flat out he could not bring his own breakfast and that they did not really want the kids eating at home because then they wouldn't want to eat at school.  Why is that an issue, I asked?  

 

1.  They would have nothing to do while the other kids were eating and might get disruptive.

2.  Then they would get hungry sooner than the other kids and might get cranky and disruptive.

3.  What I am serving at home might not be healthy enough so they are better off just eating at school. 

 

I was told all three of those things by the teacher and the administrator.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

8% of children in the U.S. have food allergies. Having food in the classroom and having it be semi-mandatory further isolates these children. It also seems like a huge additional risk towards children having an allergic reaction at school.

 

I have a food allergy, true allergy not a sensitivity.

 

 

I still think making sure kids get food is a good thing.

[Alicia64]

I know this won't be popular, but it's what I think: these are gov't schools encouraging dependency. Parents should feed their own kids breakfast.

 

I think there is an ulterior motive. Encouraging dependency doesn't ultimately work in anybody's favor.

 

Alley

[Mergath]

I know this won't be popular, but it's what I think: these are gov't schools encouraging dependency. Parents should feed their own kids breakfast.

 

I think there is an ulterior motive. Encouraging dependency doesn't ultimately work in anybody's favor.

 

Alley

So from this, should we assume you think that schools shouldn't feed kids at all? What about a kid whose parents can't provide breakfast or lunch? Do you really think the child should go hungry because of the parents' situation and/or choices?

[marbel]

I have a food allergy, true allergy not a sensitivity.

 

 

I still think making sure kids get food is a good thing.

 

I don't get your point.

 

No one is saying that kids getting food isn't a good thing.  But allergies can add complexity to the task of schools feeding kids.

[Annie G]

I know this won't be popular, but it's what I think: these are gov't schools encouraging dependency. Parents should feed their own kids breakfast.

 

I think there is an ulterior motive. Encouraging dependency doesn't ultimately work in anybody's favor.

 

Alley

 

I feel like this is going to make your head explode: Breakfast in the Classroom is funded by the Walmart Foundation. 

 

I'm not quite as cynical to think they are intentionally trying to foster dependency, but I do think the schools believe they know better than parents.  

[Butter]

My nephew is in a free breakfast for all school district.  His family does not qualify for free or reduced meals, but something like over 80% of the kids in his school do.  My sister absolutely loves that breakfast is provided at the school.  It means a few more minutes of sleep each morning for the kids and one less thing to worry about in the morning before school craziness.  It would have been awesome if breakfast was provided at the elementary school when my boys were in public school.  I spent 20 minutes every morning trying to get them to eat before rushing off to school.

 

For those kids who would not get breakfast at home, this is fabulous.  I suspect the benefits very much outweigh to allergy risks (schools ask for allergy info so that's probably not even a big issue) or lost class time.  Well-fed kids do better in school.  The breakfasts at our local school and that my nephew gets at his school (in another state) are not the pop tart variety.

[Daria]

My old school did it.  I saw lots of plusses.  

 

Breakfast every day was a carb, a protein or milk, and fresh fruit.  3 days a week it was some kind of whole grain cereal, with milk and a piece of fruit.  Two days a week it was "hot breakfast" which might be whole grain pancakes and a piece of sausage, or a bagel with cream cheese (not "hot" but that's how it was classified) or a little tub of yogurt and a whole grain muffin.  Those things came with fruit too.  

 

Kids could take the breakfast or not, but if they took it, then they had to take it all.  They couldn't pick and choose.  At the beginning of the year, there would be a lot of extra food, because they'd over order rather than take a chance on under ordering.  The hot food was thrown out if it wasn't eaten, but we'd keep the cereal and fruit and let kids take it home, and they'd keep the milk and just order less the next day.  Yes, there were apples thrown away with only a few bites taken, but it wasn't huge amounts of wasted food.

 

I like a lot of things about it.  One was that kids who were late still got to eat, and they didn't miss any more instruction since they could have the food at their desks.  In addition, when we had breakfast before school, staffing a cafeteria before school was really challenging.  People don't want to work for half an hour or an hour, so it's often understaffed.  Sometimes the staff kept order by having the kids all sitting quietly, which meant that they'd come in the classroom already having used up their ability to sit still.  Sometimes there was no order and the kids would come to you having already gotten in an argument, or worse, and you'd lose instructional time sorting that out.  

 

The food was peanut/nut free, and there were vegetarian and non-dairy options.  Technically, if a kid had another allergy they could order a special meal to be sent, but in all my years I only had one kid whose parents went to that trouble.  Generally, the kids with allergies just ate breakfast at home, or brought something, or they knew which foods they could take.  

 

Overall, I thought it was a good program, but if other schools are forcing kids to eat the food, and serving donuts, I can see why people would object.

[Rosie_0801]

My dd would be telling them she didn't know what an e was if they fed her like that.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

So from this, should we assume you think that schools shouldn't feed kids at all? What about a kid whose parents can't provide breakfast or lunch? Do you really think the child should go hungry because of the parents' situation and/or choices?

 

Yeah, I don't understand the kind of thinking that thinks kids should just go hungry if their parents can't or don't get them fed.

 

 

Let em all starve? Ugh, what a world.

[AimeeM]

I guess parents don't have to let their kids participate. The problem I would have if I sent my child to such a school is that I serve a healthier breakfast at home, and I certainly do not want them eating the crap that passes for breakfast that *I've* seen to my child when they've already had breakfast. 

Beyond that, I have 2 kiddos who do NOT eat breakfast. Their stomachs just aren't up to eating that early, so it would be wasted food, or my child would feel forced into doing something that would inevitably make them feel crappy all morning.

[Alicia64]

I feel like this is going to make your head explode: Breakfast in the Classroom is funded by the Walmart Foundation. 

 

I'm not quite as cynical to think they are intentionally trying to foster dependency, but I do think the schools believe they know better than parents.  

 

Making comments like "head explode" seems like you're trying to shut down dissension. I don't happen to agree with you. In the adult world, that's considered okay. Debate is fine.

 

Can you provide a link about Walmart -- because I've never heard that.

 

According to this link the breakfast programs federally funded: http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/school-breakfast-program/

 

The School Breakfast Program provides per meal cash reimbursements to public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions that provide free and reduced-price breakfasts to eligible children. The program is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which provides funding for the program, and at the state level by either the state department of education or agriculture. USDA provides a list of state administering agencies on its website.

 

My understanding is that it's extremely easy to qualify so I'm also concerned that tax money is being used for families that have Smart phones, TV's etc. and are getting free food. (Not that I'm saying they're being stupid. They're following laws. They're getting free food.)

 

I grew up in a world where parents provided breakfast for their kids. I think it should stay that way. The animals get that they're supposed to provide for their babies and I think we should stick with the plan.

 

I also worked in a welfare agency years ago when moms were given more money, the more kids they had. Guess what? They purposely had more kids so they'd get more money. I got out of the business because it was so depressing, but I think they've reformed some of the welfare laws.

 

Still. Can't we be polite and agree to disagree?

 

Alley

 

[EmilyGF]

Our local schools have sometimes done that. I feel sort of bad about it because it eats into the day (half an hour). Another school stopped the practice because mice infested the classrooms after cleaning wasn't done properly.

 

My friend's children took advantage of it by telling their classmates they would take any uneaten fruit, but she ended up just sending her kids to school late because she didn't consider the breakfasts nutritious (the fruit was OK, the rest wasn't to her standards).

[Spryte]

Parent of a child with multiple LTFAs here, and I still think a healthy breakfast is a good idea. Not donut sticks, of course. I do, however, think it needs to be in a cafeteria. Not the classrooms. For kids with severe food allergies, keeping classrooms free of food in general goes a long way toward safety.

 

But then, what do I know? We chose to HS rather than send a child with LTFAs to a school that didn't think it even necessary to create the very basic peanut-free classroom, or keep prescribed epipens accessible to teachers in classrooms with allergic kids. Clearly, I'm out of step here.

[Daria]

Making comments like "head explode" seems like you're trying to shut down dissension. I don't happen to agree with you. In the adult world, that's considered okay. Debate is fine.

 

Can you provide a link about Walmart -- because I've never heard that.

 

According to this link the breakfast programs federally funded: http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/school-breakfast-program/

 

The School Breakfast Program provides per meal cash reimbursements to public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions that provide free and reduced-price breakfasts to eligible children. The program is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which provides funding for the program, and at the state level by either the state department of education or agriculture. USDA provides a list of state administering agencies on its website.

 

My understanding is that it's extremely easy to qualify so I'm also concerned that tax money is being used for families that have Smart phones, TV's etc. and are getting free food. (Not that I'm saying they're being stupid. They're following laws. They're getting free food.)

 

I grew up in a world where parents provided breakfast for their kids. I think it should stay that way. The animals get that they're supposed to provide for their babies and I think we should stick with the plan.

 

I also worked in a welfare agency years ago when moms were given more money, the more kids they had. Guess what? They purposely had more kids so they'd get more money. I got out of the business because it was so depressing, but I think they've reformed some of the welfare laws.

 

Still. Can't we be polite and agree to disagree?

 

Alley

 

The school breakfast and lunch program were started because child malnutrition was a huge problem in the U.S..  So huge, that the U.S. army was turning away large numbers of WW2 draftees because of health problems caused by malnutrition.  

 

So, before WW2, we definitely can't say that "parents provided breakfast for kids", because many apparently didn't.  Since shortly after WW2, school meals began.  So we also can't say "parents provided breakfast for kids" because many kids were getting their meals at school.

 

When, exactly, did you grown up?

[luuknam]

My 2nd grader's school in NY is almost the same as redquirrel's, except they use a code rather than a card. Incidentally, his previous 3 schools (in different districts) in Texas all also used codes. So no-one knew whether the kids were free, reduced or full price.

 

In his first year of pre-K they sometimes ate lunch in the classroom, because he was in a mixed SpecEd/regular ed room, and some of the kids were too easily overwhelmed by the cafeteria. Which seems like a valid reason.

 

He's also supposed to bring a snack every day. It's either eaten in the morning if lunch is scheduled late, or in the afternoon, if lunch is scheduled early (this depends on the grade he's in - it does not vary by day). In his first and third school every kid had to bring snack about once a month for the entire class. I don't remember if he had snack in his 2nd school - I think not, since he was in a half-day program that year.

 

The breakfasts and lunches provided by the schools he's attended have never been gourmet meals, but they've been pretty decent.

 

Incidentally, he's never had a kid with a food allergy in his class, despite this being the 4th school he's attended and having been in school since he was 3yo. I know, because I make it a point to ask the teacher before sending in a birthday snack or the monthly class snack duty in the years we had that. The school cafeteria has options for kids with allergies.

 

ETA: he doesn't have food allergies either.

[Daria]

Parent of a child with multiple LTFAs here, and I still think a healthy breakfast is a good idea. Not donut sticks, of course. I do, however, think it needs to be in a cafeteria. Not the classrooms. For kids with severe food allergies, keeping classrooms free of food in general goes a long way toward safety.

 

But then, what do I know? We chose to HS rather than send a child with LTFAs to a school that didn't think it even necessary to create the very basic peanut-free classroom, or keep prescribed epipens accessible to teachers in classrooms with allergic kids. Clearly, I'm out of step here.

 

As a teacher who has had many kids with LFTA's in my class, I'd much rather deal with school breakfast, than snack.

 

Before we did school breakfast, we did midmorning snack, either with parents providing for their own kids, or with parents taking turns providing for the whole class.  We were peanut/nut free, but every year there were incidents where parents forgot or misread labels.  The closest call we had in my classroom was when a parent sent in a bag (one of those twin packs from a double box) of what we thought was cheerios.  My para was pouring it onto plates for the kids when I thought "those look really shiny" and tasted one.  Then I picked up my nut allergic student (this was PreK) and carried her out of the room.  

 

With school breakfast, we had much more control over what the kids ate.  Everything was nut/peanut free, and if there was another problematic ingredient, we knew in advance and could make a plan.

 

I agree with you 100% that state laws on epipens need to be changed in many places.  In our schools, kids can self carry if they're able to "self administer", which basically means the youngest kids, those most likely to put the wrong things in their mouths, are the least protected.

[newhsmom]

One of my family members works at a school that provides breakfast for every student.  She is constantly shocked by how much sugar is in the items that are offered to the children.  There is also a ton of waste every single day.  I don't know if most kids have already eaten before coming to school or if they don't like the choices being offered.  I can't imagine how much this program costs the government.  She works in a middle class area so it always surprises me that her school is a part of the breakfast program. 

[Annie G]

Making comments like "head explode" seems like you're trying to shut down dissension. I don't happen to agree with you. In the adult world, that's considered okay. Debate is fine.

 

Can you provide a link about Walmart -- because I've never heard that.

 

According to this link the breakfast programs federally funded: http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/school-breakfast-program/

 

The School Breakfast Program provides per meal cash reimbursements to public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions that provide free and reduced-price breakfasts to eligible children. The program is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which provides funding for the program, and at the state level by either the state department of education or agriculture. USDA provides a list of state administering agencies on its website.

 

My understanding is that it's extremely easy to qualify so I'm also concerned that tax money is being used for families that have Smart phones, TV's etc. and are getting free food. (Not that I'm saying they're being stupid. They're following laws. They're getting free food.)

 

I grew up in a world where parents provided breakfast for their kids. I think it should stay that way. The animals get that they're supposed to provide for their babies and I think we should stick with the plan.

 

I also worked in a welfare agency years ago when moms were given more money, the more kids they had. Guess what? They purposely had more kids so they'd get more money. I got out of the business because it was so depressing, but I think they've reformed some of the welfare laws.

 

Still. Can't we be polite and agree to disagree?

 

Alley

http://beyondbreakfast.org/partners-breakfast-in-the-classroom-billion-walmart/

 

This is one link, but there are others.  

 

I said the Walmart comment because on this board there are a lot of people who hate Walmart and any program they participate in is seen as evil. That's all.  And the poster I replied to said she thought the program was pushed because the schools want to foster dependency and I opined that it might be something else. 

 

I don't believe I was being impolite, and I am not here to stir up trouble.  I have had my eyes opened because my sister works in a school that has a large population of low income kids. I agree that parents should feed their kids, but I don't have a solution for the 'kids are hungry' problem.    I think you and I agree more than you might think. 

 

The school breakfast program is a different program than Breakfast in the Classroom.  

[T'smom]

I am absolutely in favor of anything that helps kids get fed. Of all the things to get upset at a school for, feeding kids seems to be a strange thing to pick! The schools here serve breakfast the way they serve lunch- you swipe your card and go through the line. I know more than a few kids who eat breakfast at home and at school. My MIL watches my niece and nephew before school in the morning and then takes them to school. Apparently for awhile my nephew was eating at home, then at MILs, and then again at school! Around here, it is only funded if you qualify for it. Otherwise parents pay just like they do for lunch. I have had several friends confused about how their kids lunch money was running out so fast- it was because they were buying breakfast too! They weren't upset about it though. Just surprised. I assume they still feed their kids at home and let them eat again at school if they want to.

[luuknam]

The school breakfast and lunch program were started because child malnutrition was a huge problem in the U.S..  So huge, that the U.S. army was turning away large numbers of WW2 draftees because of health problems caused by malnutrition.  

 

Those kids would have grown up during the Great Depression though, which was not a normal situation. It doesn't really say much about child malnutrition rates before the Great Depression. People who qualify for free breakfast/lunch typically also qualify for WIC (although I think 5yo is the cutoff for that) and food stamps (BTDT).

 

I'm for school breakfast and lunch though, because even if parents have food stamps or sufficient income it doesn't mean they'll actually give their kids a (healthy or other) breakfast before sending their kids to school. You could argue that if they don't, CPS should get involved for child neglect, but school breakfast is probably a cheaper, easier, and more realistic solution than that.

[marbel]

Those kids would have grown up during the Great Depression though, which was not a normal situation. It doesn't really say much about child malnutrition rates before the Great Depression. People who qualify for free breakfast/lunch typically also qualify for WIC (although I think 5yo is the cutoff for that) and food stamps (BTDT).

 

I'm for school breakfast and lunch though, because even if parents have food stamps or sufficient income it doesn't mean they'll actually give their kids a (healthy or other) breakfast before sending their kids to school. You could argue that if they don't, CPS should get involved for child neglect, but school breakfast is probably a cheaper, easier, and more realistic solution than that.

 

This is a question and not an argument.  But... if parents are able to but not giving their kids breakfast, isn't there a good chance that there is other neglect going on?  And if so, isn't it possible that school breakfast is only a partial solution? 

 

I'm not a fan of CPS descending on families for no reason.  I am not promoting the idea of CPS visiting families of kids getting free breakfast to be sure they are not being neglected in other ways.  Maybe.  I'm not sure now, after reading that.  It's bothering me though. 

 

[LucyStoner]

Those kids would have grown up during the Great Depression though, which was not a normal situation. It doesn't really say much about child malnutrition rates before the Great Depression. People who qualify for free breakfast/lunch typically also qualify for WIC (although I think 5yo is the cutoff for that) and food stamps (BTDT).

 

I'm for school breakfast and lunch though, because even if parents have food stamps or sufficient income it doesn't mean they'll actually give their kids a (healthy or other) breakfast before sending their kids to school. You could argue that if they don't, CPS should get involved for child neglect, but school breakfast is probably a cheaper, easier, and more realistic solution than that.

The income cut off for free/reduced lunch is about $44k for a family of 4. There is no WIC for kids over 5 and a great many families who qualify for free and reduced lunch do not qualify for food stamps.

 

If we had a draft going on right now many young people would be turned away due to obesity and health problems associated with eating too many low quality calories. Lots of kids are malnourished today. Unfortunately, donut sticks, pop tarts and juice aren't really helpful in turning that around.

[Alicia64]

http://beyondbreakfast.org/partners-breakfast-in-the-classroom-billion-walmart/

 

This is one link, but there are others.  

 

I said the Walmart comment because on this board there are a lot of people who hate Walmart and any program they participate in is seen as evil. That's all.  And the poster I replied to said she thought the program was pushed because the schools want to foster dependency and I opined that it might be something else. 

 

I don't believe I was being impolite, and I am not here to stir up trouble.  I have had my eyes opened because my sister works in a school that has a large population of low income kids. I agree that parents should feed their kids, but I don't have a solution for the 'kids are hungry' problem.    I think you and I agree more than you might think. 

 

The school breakfast program is a different program than Breakfast in the Classroom.  

 

Using terms like "head exploding" is inflammatory no matter how you cut it. I did find the Walmart info, but the amount they're donating is a drop. in. the. bucket for what the breakfast at school programs cost.

 

Animals know they need to feed their children. Again, I grew up in a culture (70's) when it would never occur to parents that the school would feed their kids.

 

In 2011, the school breakfast program cost the U.S. 3 billion: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SBPfactsheet.pdf. Walmart donated. (Walmart donated 3 million in '11 to Breakfast in the Classroom.)

 

Speaking of the Great Depression, I had a grandma and grandpa go through it and they learned to squirrel away money. I can guarantee you that my Gram would not have a Smart phone today or a pricey cable package. And she's be embarrassed to have someone else feed her kids.

 

In CA I think they started feeding lunches during summer too. Encouraging this kind of dependency isn't what you'd do for your 25 year old adult-kid. You'd know inherently that it would be detrimental for her or him to keep forking over money. Dependency doesn't put anybody on their feet.

 

Alley

[zoobie]

This is a question and not an argument. But... if parents are able to but not giving their kids breakfast, isn't there a good chance that there is other neglect going on? And if so, isn't it possible that school breakfast is only a partial solution?

 

I'm not a fan of CPS descending on families for no reason. I am not promoting the idea of CPS visiting families of kids getting free breakfast to be sure they are not being neglected in other ways. Maybe. I'm not sure now, after reading that. It's bothering me though.

 

Upwards of 20% of children in the US are considered "food insecure." We are reducing SNAP benefits. Spending money on food seems like a much better solution than further criminalizing poverty. I agree that school breakfasts aren't a perfect solution.

 

I don't think it should automatically follow that a child who is hungry is neglected. I know my grandparents didn't neglect my dad, yet he remembers being hungry growing up. His dad was an enlisted Army man, when the pay was worse than it is now. They used to feed the kids dinner first and the parents would sit outside while the kids ate. The boys would eat until they were full and the parents would eat whatever was leftover, if anything was leftover. My dad figured out why when he was still in elementary school. He refused to eat unless his parents ate some too. Sure there are some people who don't feed their kids when they have the means, but I think most are trying to spread what they do have around as best they can.

[luuknam]

The income cut off for free/reduced lunch is about $44k for a family of 4. There is no WIC for kids over 5 and a great many families who qualify for free and reduced lunch do not qualify for food stamps.

 

I'm pretty sure that the kids getting free lunch do come from families that qualify for food stamps. Reduced lunch would be different. W/e.

[marbel]

Upwards of 20% of children in the US are considered "food insecure." We are reducing SNAP benefits. Spending money on food seems like a much better solution than further criminalizing poverty. I agree that school breakfasts aren't a perfect solution.

 

I don't think it should automatically follow that a child who is hungry is neglected. I know my grandparents didn't neglect my dad, yet he remembers being hungry growing up. His dad was an enlisted Army man, when the pay was worse than it is now. They used to feed the kids dinner first and the parents would sit outside while the kids ate. The boys would eat until they were full and the parents would eat whatever was leftover, if anything was leftover. My dad figured out why when he was still in elementary school. He refused to eat unless his parents ate some too. Sure there are some people who don't feed their kids when they have the means, but I think most are trying to spread what they do have around as best they can.

 

I get what you are saying, and I don't believe in criminalizing poverty, but I was talking about people who have the ability/means to give their kids breakfast but do not.   Of course I'm not equating a hungry child with neglect.   I'm talking about people who simply don't do it, even though they could do it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 

[zoobie]

Using terms like "head exploding" is inflammatory no matter how you cut it. I did find the Walmart info, but the amount they're donating is a drop. in. the. bucket for what the breakfast at school programs cost.

 

Animals know they need to feed their children. Again, I grew up in a culture (70's) when it would never occur to parents that the school would feed their kids.

 

In 2011, the school breakfast program cost the U.S. 3 billion: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SBPfactsheet.pdf. Walmart donated. (Walmart donated 3 million in '11 to Breakfast in the Classroom.)

 

Speaking of the Great Depression, I had a grandma and grandpa go through it and they learned to squirrel away money. I can guarantee you that my Gram would not have a Smart phone today or a pricey cable package. And she's be embarrassed to have someone else feed her kids.

 

In CA I think they started feeding lunches during summer too. Encouraging this kind of dependency isn't what you'd do for your 25 year old adult-kid. You'd know inherently that it would be detrimental for her or him to keep forking over money. Dependency doesn't put anybody on their feet.

 

Alley

Pathetic that Wal-Mart donated $3 million to this program (and received tax breaks), yet its employees cost the public $6.9 billion in public assistance, which I don't think includes school meals.

 

Children went hungry when we grew up in the 1970s. Possibly fewer did, but that was because people had greater access to food stamps and WIC. And greater access to unemployment, especially during the 1970s recession. Those programs have been positively gutted since then, thanks in part to the fictitious "welfare queen" popularized by some politicians.

[luuknam]

This is a question and not an argument.  But... if parents are able to but not giving their kids breakfast, isn't there a good chance that there is other neglect going on?  And if so, isn't it possible that school breakfast is only a partial solution? 

 

I'm not a fan of CPS descending on families for no reason.  I am not promoting the idea of CPS visiting families of kids getting free breakfast to be sure they are not being neglected in other ways.  Maybe.  I'm not sure now, after reading that.  It's bothering me though. 

 

 

I didn't mean it would be a complete solution. But a partial solution is still better than no solution. Truly neglectful parents will probably show it in more ways than just not giving their kids a nutritious breakfast before school. CPS in most places is overworked as is.

[idnib]

Wow, so many posts while I was making dinner. I tried liking all of them because everyone was contributing interesting info to the discussion, but I'm out of likes.

 

It's interesting to me that the parents of UCLA Community School, with 81% low income students, are trying to opt out because they feel it takes away instructional time from low income and ESL kids compared to others.

[3 ladybugs]

Kaiser Shipyards needed women to work in them in WWII. In order to accomidate them, they set up daycare centers right there. To make things even easier, when the woman got off work, she would get her child(ren) and a meal for all of them (dinner). I learned this when I was studying child care in college. I thought at the time that it sounded cool and wondered if anyone else had tried it.

 

Then I see stories like this and realize that is next. Parents will give birth to a child, care for them for 2-3 years then put them in school where the child will be fed and educated and even bring some home. The parents will really only have to parent for a couple of hours tops a day, and all day on the weekend ( oh no! Cooking!) I fail to see the point. Needless to say I don't think kaiser's shipyards were a good permanent solution.