Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeydad
Schools get more Federal funding based on the number of students enrolled in the National School Lunch Program. I work with these numbers firsthand.
They're just trying to boost their numbers with this move.
Some city schools have 70,80, even 90+% enrollment in "free lunches". I know urban areas typically have poverty issues, but you can not tell me that only 1 out of 10 kids live in a home where parents can afford to make them a PB&J sandwich. I think more kids gets enrolled because the schools are pushing it, and the parents are too lazy to take care of their kids. There are actually school districts where you have to opt out instead of sign up, because they don't want anyone to "feel bad about asking for assistance".  |
First, it is apparent from my reading of the article that, despite the headline, there is no policy to ban home made lunches. In fact,
probably due to parent response, if the policy existed at one school, it no longer does so.
As to Title I grants, you're right - schools get more per pupil funding if a certain number of children are eligible for the federal free lunch program. I am sure that money is a motivator to some extent. Given the cash strapped nature of urban schools, I find that completely understandable. Further, from my experience with various adminstrators, I would be loathe to imply some evil intent behind their attempts to receive more funding. Rather, most administrators I have dealt with are searching for ways to provide better books, materials and human resources for all their students and particularly for their more socially disadvantaged students. Sure, there are lazy incompetents out there just looking to justify their positions, but that is true in any corporate environment (yes - even in the vaunted private sector).
As to the enabling aspects, I agree they exist and agree that they are idiotic - attempting to protect someone's "feelings" so that they don't have to face reality is ultimately crippling and leads to a feeling of entitlement and a disassociation from the civic society (i.e.- I am not taking this money from other people, I am taking it from "the Government")(As another example of this, in Baltimore those on public assistance receive "Independence" cards to be used like ATM Debit cards. I always think how Orwellian this is - they should be called "Dependence" cards, but that would make people feel bad. Sickening).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeydad
Some school officials I've heard on a local talk radio show claimed that a lot of city school students wake up before their parents, whose career is collecting welfare, not actually working. The kids have to get themselves up, try to find breakfast or eat it at school...and get lunch provided. Sad.
We all know Chicago is one of the biggest welfare places there is. This move just motivates parents even LESS to take care of their kids. |
Your right. Clearly these children who motivate themselves to attend school should be punished instead of rewarded. We should absolutely damn the children for the failings of their parents.
As with most of these types of issues, I suggest the answer is not so black and white as you choose to make it. Yes, I agree, free breakfest and lunch creates a disincentive for the parents. However, using your example, these parents are already failing to provide for something I would consider to be a basic parental duty (feeding your child). So we should further punish the children of crappy parents by failing to provide them food? Don't we want these kids in school? Isn't some education better than none? By providing an incentive for the children to attend schools (good food), aren't we teaching them that responsible personal behavior (attending school) provides larger benefits? Isn't teaching personal responsibility a goal which we should be striving to teach these children? Particularly in light of the evident lack of such teaching in the home?
You know what? this is one of those cases where I believe we, as a society, ere on the side of promoting healthy children, even at the risk of disincentivizing parents, in order to provide children educational opportunities and, hopefully, to assist them in becoming productive members of society. In my mind, it is one government's fundamental duties to protect and care for the weakest most disadvantaged members of the society. It is one of the basic reasons we form a government - to provide mutual assistance and protection i.e. "to provide for the general welfare".