# Free and reduced lunches



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

It occured to me the other day that kids on free and reduced lunch probably had parent/s that were getting food stamps/EBT to pay for the family's food. Isn't this double dipping, because the EBT is supposed to be covering lunch for the kids?

Doesn't seem right to me.

Also, and this is just stupid, IMO, if a certain percentage of a school's population (I think 85%) is elegible for free and redced lunches, it is free lunches for all!


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 3, 2011)

not that i disagree but who is going to pay for that small percentage that don't qualify...the feds wont so it would then have to come out of the school budget


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

there are more programs than just food stamps that people qualify for as well, like WIC. i don't think any of them are set up to be mutually exclusive. the amount people qualify for with food stamps varies from person to person as well, there are different amounts paid out. IMO, it's better to offer the poor kids a free lunch than watch them go hungry.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 3, 2011)

Free lunch?!? Where?!?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> not that i disagree but who is going to pay for that small percentage that don't qualify...the feds wont so it would then have to come out of the school budget


I don't know this for sure, but the way I understand it F&amp;RL is mandated by the feds, but is paid for by the school districts. So all F&amp;RLs are paid or locally. That bothers me a bit. Quite a lot actually.


----------



## roadwreck (Jun 3, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> Free lunch?!? Where?!?


There's cake in the break-room!


----------



## csb (Jun 3, 2011)

Our school district has a pretty large population that qualifies for free/reduced. The reduced amount income is above the food stamps cutoff, if I recall correctly. We also have the "Friday Food Bags" which makes sure that kids have food to bring home for the weekend. Social workers were finding kids from around town that simply did not eat unless it was provided by the school. Starting next week there are also free lunches provided at various schools. There's no income requirements...they just have to be kids.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 3, 2011)

I see that as sort back firing...or at the very least a catch 22. You want to make sure kids aren't starving, but parents now know the kids will bring home food so they try even less on providing food. When the program runs out of money or gets cut completely they are now at a bigger disadvantage because they were used to getting food.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

csb said:


> Social workers were finding kids from around town that simply did not eat unless it was provided by the school.


That's not good at all. And it teaches, in a roundabout way, that the government will always provide for you; a lesson some take into adulthood.

What was it the road to he11 was paved with again?


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

the kids were already going hungry all weekend long, so the parents were already not providing


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 3, 2011)

i just meant it gives them no incentive to try harder.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

^Sure doesn't.



> the kids were already going hungry all weekend long, so the parents were already not providing


Of course they weren't. Why should they if the government will do it?

The government started a culture of poverty trying to wage the war on poverty.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> ^Sure doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what i'm saying is you have it backwards. the parents weren't trying which forces the government to protect the children. sending bags of food home on fridays with students is a relatively new program. it was formed because the children weren't being provided for. there are fewer jobs available than people on unemployment. getting off their butts and working isn't always a possibility. there will always be people taking advatage of the system, but that's not who it's there for. it's for the innocent victims of poverty. or the victims of wall street's greed. just because there are bunch of moochers out there doesn't mean the others don't deserve protection.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > ^Sure doesn't.
> ...


Nope, I have it right, you just came in from the middle. 

The parents learned from their parents that the government would provide for them and feed the kids if they didn't. That's why it is a cycle of poverty.

Cycle has been repeated three or four generations in some of the kids in elementary school. And there's really no good way out of the situation.

But, if the parents aren't providing for the kids needs over the weekend, wouldn't the children be better served by removing tem from the home? I'd wager they're being neglected in other ways, too.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


While I agree there a fair amount in this cycle, I disagree that the majority incapable of providing for their families by choice. I definately don't agree that removing the children from their families is the best choice in the majority of cases. If you have any experience with the foster/adoption process, you would know that once children reach a certain age (typically school-age), their chances of finding a permanent home is very low. Plus, there are just as many foster parents abusing the government assistance programs as there are natural parents.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > PsychoNumber1 said:
> ...


exactly.

no matter how you look at it. hungry students are at a disadvantage as they will have a harder time keeping up with their peers, which will make it tough for them to get a good education and break the cycle. there are always exceptions of course. it's sad to see the number of kids go hungry in our country. we have all of this excess wealth and people want to refuse a decent meal to a child because there's a chance that the parents are POS goverment teet sucks.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > PsychoNumber1 said:
> ...


They are better off in a foster home or orphanage that _may_ neglect or abuse them, than they are in a family situation where they _already are _being abused.

I mean, come on. How can anyone in good conscience let a kid stay with parents that won't feed it? That's insane.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

But back to my original point, the kids are already provided with means to get nourishment by the government via EBT. Wheter or not they are actually getting fed by their parents shoulldn't be a function of the school district.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


Fair Enough.



Capt Worley PE said:


> I mean, come on. How can anyone in good conscience let a kid stay with parents that won't feed it? That's insane.


It's not that they won't feed them, it's more commonly a can't.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> But back to my original point, the kids are already provided with means to get nourishment by the government via EBT. Wheter or not they are actually getting fed by their parents shoulldn't be a function of the school district.


the program would then have to exclude families with EBT. however, if you qualify for one chances are you qualify for both. the programs know this and don't exlude one from the other, it's in their design. it's not doubling dipping if this is the way the system is meant to work.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> It's not that they won't feed them, it's more commonly a can't.


If they're getting EBT, it IS a won't.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > It's not that they won't feed them, it's more commonly a can't.
> ...


EBT doesn't cover 100% of the cost of food needs in most cases


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 3, 2011)

I think the difference is that the Free/Reduced lunch program allows the children to eat the "hot lunch" provided at school. I don't believe Stamps/EBT is an allowable payment option for school cafeterias. I understand those who live on this assistance have the option of bringing their own lunches at home, but I think the goal (set forth by the school and parent groups) is so that there is some assurances that the children will recieve at least one well-rounded meal in a day.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Dexman PE said:
> ...


Boloney! You can buy a ton of staples for low cost. Ain't going to be steak tartare or anything like that, but staples are fairly cheap.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> I think the difference is that the Free/Reduced lunch program allows the children to eat the "hot lunch" provided at school.


That may depend on the district, which would make sense. I'm pretty sure they get a bolney sammich, milk, and an apple here.

The probalem the administrators had was that these kids would then go buy $2 worth of ice cream. Parents complained about that (rightly so, IMO), and since the school couldn't do anything about the kids buying it, they took out the ice cream icebox. So no desserts for anyone.


----------



## csb (Jun 3, 2011)

I'd like to clarify the Friday Food Bags- these are NOT government provided at all. They are a community effort, sponsored by several businesses and individuals in town, that is operated by volunteers, lowering the overhead cost. Kinda the sort of things that's brought up when the debate of "Do we give money to the government to provide for the needy or do we directly provide for the needy?" comes up.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


there are people who apply and qualify for less than $100 in assistance per month. they are low income and the gov't is not providing for 100% of their meals.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 3, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> ....... we have all of this excess wealth .....


*LIBERAL ALERT !!! *Someone has had the Kool-Aid.

please, introduce me to ONE person (who is of sound mind) that says they have TOO MUCH MONEY. Who has this excess wealth you speak of?

honestly.

If you say "other people" then you are justifying spending someone else's money for a program. Socialism/Communism.

I agree with the comments above that our government is spreading poverty by breeding a mindset of gubment teet suckers.

I have as much compassion for children as anybody, but I would like to see this "bags for Friday" program include a lesson with it. Maybe to get a take home bag, you should do a chore around the school, like collect loose paper for recycling, or help the teacher clean the chalk boards, or put chairs on the desks, etc. etc. etc. AT LEAST HELP FOSTER A VALUE TO WORK. for crying out loud.

It may be a tiny little lesson that plants a seed in a young kids mind, that helps break the generational cycle.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 3, 2011)

Also,

I need to introduce these people to some of my in-laws. Those old Italians can feed 20 people a month of $100 worth of pasta and sauce. Geesh.

(just might not have any meatballs)


----------



## csb (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... we have all of this excess wealth .....
> ...


look at all of excess spending the government already has. how about cutting 10% of the "defense" budget for hungry kids. we have plenty of money.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 3, 2011)

csb said:


> I'd like to clarify the Friday Food Bags- these are NOT government provided at all. They are a community effort, sponsored by several businesses and individuals in town, that is operated by volunteers, lowering the overhead cost. Kinda the sort of things that's brought up when the debate of "Do we give money to the government to provide for the needy or do we directly provide for the needy?" comes up.


Indeed. My sister started a Blessings in a Backpack program at my niece and nephew's school in Quincy, IL. Her and a few other volunteers pack backpacks with staple-type foods every Friday to send home with the kids on F&amp;RL. All of the food is donated, and all of the work is done by volunteers. But if I understand the liberal stance correctly, nothing like this would happen if it weren't for the Dear Leaders in Washington DC.



PsychoNumber1 said:


> look at all of excess spending the government already has. how about cutting 10% of the "defense" budget for hungry kids. we have plenty of money.


"Excess spending" is right..."we have plenty of money" is VERY incorrect. As proof, please take a look at the current national debt.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 3, 2011)

the national debt is a result of poor policies. we have more money per capita than the majority of the rest of the world. we aren't poor.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 4, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> look at all of excess spending the government already has. how about cutting 10% of the "defense" budget for hungry kids. we have plenty of money.


So rather than the federal government providing for the common defense of its people, you'd rather they feed the hungry kids? Surely you recognize that as a private citizen it's pretty hard to defend your life, liberty, and property against foreign aggression. And surely you recognize that as a private citizen it's pretty easy to grow some tomatoes in a garden. Why would you want the federal government to do for you what you can already do, at the expense of something you can't do?


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 4, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > look at all of excess spending the government already has. how about cutting 10% of the "defense" budget for hungry kids. we have plenty of money.
> ...



have you seen the defense budget and how much it's swollen in recent years? a 10% cut is $60+ billion dollars. it has more than doubled since before 9/11 and we are no more safe now. all we've done is taken away rights from ordinary citizens. the amount spent on iraq and afghanistan no longer has anything to do with our defense either. and you understand that not everyone has access to land capable of growing their own vegetables/fruits, right?


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 4, 2011)

SapperPE said:


> The other issue is that the parents don't find other means, so what we make the kids go hungry, so they don't learn as much in school, disrupt the class for the other kids, and then what happens, they fail out, don't get an education and lo and behold, what opportunity did they miss because we didn't give them a warm meal. Then we can blame them for not making a better life for themselves and get mad at them when they go on food stamps later in their lives just like their parents are. Feed the kids, give them at least the opportunity to learn.


I don't follow this is a cause-and-effect connection. Feeding != Opportunity To Learn. Public Eduction == Opportunity to Learn.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 4, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> have you seen the defense budget and how much it's swollen in recent years? a 10% cut is $60+ billion dollars. it has more than doubled since before 9/11 and we are no more safe now. all we've done is taken away rights from ordinary citizens. the amount spent on iraq and afghanistan no longer has anything to do with our defense either. and you understand that not everyone has access to land capable of growing their own vegetables/fruits, right?


Run for public office or join the Department of Defense (military or civil service)... but being an armchair quarterback doesn't make you any more justified than the rest. If you've got a better idea for our national defense, make it heard and make it count!

Yes, I know not every inner-city family has the backyard to grow their own garden. But that's a free choice they make rather than living in a rural area.


----------



## cdcengineer (Jun 4, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... we have all of this excess wealth .....
> ...


I like this approach as well.. Teach kids that goods things can be a direct result of hard work.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 4, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> SapperPE said:
> 
> 
> > The other issue is that the parents don't find other means, so what we make the kids go hungry, so they don't learn as much in school, disrupt the class for the other kids, and then what happens, they fail out, don't get an education and lo and behold, what opportunity did they miss because we didn't give them a warm meal. Then we can blame them for not making a better life for themselves and get mad at them when they go on food stamps later in their lives just like their parents are. Feed the kids, give them at least the opportunity to learn.
> ...


there are direct and indirect connections between good nutrition and the ability of a child to learn. there are many articles on the subject out there. here's one:

http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publicatio...ps/ResRep18.pdf


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 4, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> PsychoNumber1 said:
> 
> 
> > have you seen the defense budget and how much it's swollen in recent years? a 10% cut is $60+ billion dollars. it has more than doubled since before 9/11 and we are no more safe now. all we've done is taken away rights from ordinary citizens. the amount spent on iraq and afghanistan no longer has anything to do with our defense either. and you understand that not everyone has access to land capable of growing their own vegetables/fruits, right?
> ...


i am making it heard and known, right here, right now :laugh:

i think you're out of touch when it comes to how easy it is for someone with no money to uproot and move to a better life. especially in this economy with the number of jobs available.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 5, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> IlPadrino said:
> 
> 
> > SapperPE said:
> ...


Thanks for the link... it's appreciated. Please note I didn't write "ability" to learn, I wrote "opportunity" to learn. I think that's where the public interest in schooling ends. Beyond that, it's up to parents or guardians to ensure the student makes the most of the opportunity.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 5, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> i am making it heard and known, right here, right now :laugh:
> i think you're out of touch when it comes to how easy it is for someone with no money to uproot and move to a better life. especially in this economy with the number of jobs available.


But you've also got to make it count! I think we're getting off-track with the "move to a better life" angle. I am confident in my conviction that given all the public assistance available, *no* family has to go hungry or malnutritioned - even if they can't grow their own tomatoes.

But I surely cede your point... most of us are "out of touch" with a lot of this because we take parenting seriously (my son would get fed before I do!).

Here's a question: do you think it's fair to create public summer education programs that are only available to those who qualify for free or reduced lunch? A friend's kid really wanted to go to a summer science camp with his schoolmates... but he couldn't because the program was only available to those getting lunch assistance.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 5, 2011)

OK... reading _What is the relationship between child nutrition and school outcomes?_ has got me thinking...

The USDA has abandoned the food pyramid and replaced it with MyPlate, a dumbed-down version that makes mealtime selection pretty simple:







Government-provided school lunches have got to be healthy. Do children getting subsidized school lunches like the nutrition? Should schools force the nutrition on children who don't qualify for subsidized school lunch? Make everyone eat school lunches?


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 5, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Here's a question: do you think it's fair to create public summer education programs that are only available to those who qualify for free or reduced lunch? A friend's kid really wanted to go to a summer science camp with his schoolmates... but he couldn't because the program was only available to those getting lunch assistance.


i don't think it's fair at all. i grew up in that category of my parents made too much money to qualify for free programs and whatnot, but didn't make enough money to send me there either.


----------



## PsychoNumber1 (Jun 5, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> OK... reading _What is the relationship between child nutrition and school outcomes?_ has got me thinking...
> The USDA has abandoned the food pyramid and replaced it with MyPlate, a dumbed-down version that makes mealtime selection pretty simple:
> 
> 
> ...


at my daughter's school they have rules on what's allowed and what isn't allowed in lunch/snack bags. they aren't allowed to have soda and they aren't supposed to bring things like candy or cookies either, as they are empty calories. the school lunches should have proper nutrition, but there are days where I don't understand why they ever selected to serve what they did. The other day my daughter wanted a school lunch instead of me making one like I usually do. It was "mexican haystacks," which was basically tortilla chips with cheese. They had the standard choice of fruit and milk as well, but still chips do not a lunch make. I understand that we as parents really need to step it up and make sure our children are well fed. I'm a big advocate of personal responsibility. However, I know there are people out there that ended up with kids who don't really care. It's important that there is something out there to help out the kids with crappy parents, because they are the victims. And maybe school should look at what the kids are being sent with, because even well off people make some bad decisions as well. it reminds of reading this a while back:

http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/ff9...8_year_old_for/


----------



## IlPadrino (Jun 5, 2011)

PsychoNumber1 said:


> It's important that there is something out there to help out the kids with crappy parents, because they are the victims. And maybe school should look at what the kids are being sent with, because even well off people make some bad decisions as well. it reminds of reading this a while back:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/ff9...8_year_old_for/


On this I think we agree completely... but it's a balance between personal responsibility and government intrusion. I don't think it's about public assistance to the poor.


----------



## MGX (Jun 5, 2011)

We should call it 'nutritional terrorism' and bring up parents on war crime charges.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jun 5, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> Free lunch?!? Where?!?


Right here baby!!!! Breakfast, lunch, and dinner...no charge. The commute home kind of sucks and the neighbors are kind of crabby so it's still not a great trade off.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

^What a whiner. 

You'd complain if water was wet and the sky is blue.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 6, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> Also,
> I need to introduce these people to some of my in-laws. Those old Italians can feed 20 people a month of $100 worth of pasta and sauce. Geesh.
> 
> (just might not have any meatballs)


That's what I was thinking. Might not be the most exciting meals, but you can live off $100/month easily. Based on the loaded shopping carts I've seen, I'd say $100/month is an outlier.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

The thing is that you can go cheaper on groceries if you buy low quality, super processed stuff. If you want to eat healthy it's kinda pricey.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 6, 2011)

^^ True.

But, I don't think I should have to pay for lazy ass bad parents to feed Filet Mignon's to their kids, when I don't spend the $$ to feed that kind of stuff to my own kids.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

^Agreed.

I'd be for healthy but no frills.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 6, 2011)

^Which is why I think there should be an approved list of what you can buy with EBT. Better yet, take the EBT card in once a week and pick up a pre-selected box of food items for the family to use for the week.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

When I lived in a pretty poor, rundown town in VT, I'd regularly get stuck on line behind people trying to by alcohol, lotto tickets, cigarettes, etc. with food stamps. It was ridiculous.


----------



## csb (Jun 6, 2011)

WIC has set guidelines for what can be purchased with that money. Our system is set up like a debit card and is just swiped at the cash register. I've been behind people who have the cart split up into the WIC food, which is cheerios and milk and whatnot and then they spend separately for root beer and other junk. For WIC the program has a set purpose- to make sure pregnant women and young children eat well.

Food stamps don't have a similar restrictions and I almost wonder about putting them in place. Here's the list from USDA for SNAP benefits:



> “Junk Food” &amp; Luxury Items The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
> 
> Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
> 
> ...


http://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/retailers/eligible.htm

It raises the question for me- if I was out of a job and forced to take government assistance (God forbid), would I stick to the staples? Or would it be a nice reminder of better times to throw some Oreos in the cart every once in awhile? I know I currently shop with that mindset and I spend my own money. I think I'd have a harder time spending someone else's money on things like RedBull (which is eligible).

Of course, if I had no conscience about it all and I was spending the money like someone owed it to me, then hell yes I'd buy whatever I wanted and then I'd complain I didn't get enough.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 6, 2011)

Powdered Milk, and Gubment Cheese


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 6, 2011)

csb said:


> It raises the question for me- if I was out of a job and forced to take government assistance (God forbid), would I stick to the staples? Or would it be a nice reminder of better times to throw some Oreos in the cart every once in awhile? I know I currently shop with that mindset and I spend my own money. I think I'd have a harder time spending someone else's money on things like RedBull (which is eligible).
> Of course, if I had no conscience about it all and I was spending the money like someone owed it to me, then hell yes I'd buy whatever I wanted and then I'd complain I didn't get enough.


Honestly,

I think if either of us were out of our job, we would take these things into consideration, since we know it is people's hard earned tax money. And I'm sure there are many on current assistance that do think that way as well.

I think its the habital offenders that cheat the system and abuse it, is what makes most of us angry and ruin it for everyone.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 6, 2011)

back to the original topic sort of...It will be intereting to see what goes on for schools around here. It's still several years away before I have to deal with that but it will like be one of those 80-90% are free/reduced lunch program. But I've noticed there is sort of a generation gap. Those families with kids middleschool/highschool age right now are a little better off than those in town with elementary school and younger aged kids.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

> Food stamps don't have a similar restrictions and I almost wonder about putting them in place. Here's the list from USDA for SNAP benefits:


CSB - When I said 'food stamps' I meant in the generic sense. These folks had a debit card like thing they would swipe for covered items.

Watching them argue with the cashier about how they should be able to get cigarettes on government assistance money was both amusing and sad.



> I think its the habital offenders that cheat the system and abuse it, is what makes most of us angry and ruin it for everyone.


Everyone runs into hard times now and again, and I have no problem with government assistance for those people for a limited time until they are back on their feet. The chronic moochers not even trying are the ones that piss me off.


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 6, 2011)

normally if more than 30% of the school is on free or reduced lunch you will want to move to another school district (seriously) the quality of the schooling is going to be much much worse


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 6, 2011)

The district just won another one of those ribbon awards for teaching excellence.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 6, 2011)

You might want to check the validity of that award, snick. Not saying it isn't valid, but I've noticed a lot of schools popping up with awards that make me wonder 'htf could that school win anything?'


----------



## csb (Jun 6, 2011)

Road Guy said:


> normally if more than 30% of the school is on free or reduced lunch you will want to move to another school district (seriously) the quality of the schooling is going to be much much worse


We only have one school district in town. I also attended elementary school where the free/reduced accounted for about 85% of the lunches. I turned out okay (tic tic).


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 6, 2011)

csb said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > normally if more than 30% of the school is on free or reduced lunch you will want to move to another school district (seriously) the quality of the schooling is going to be much much worse
> ...


same here, one school district for the town...sort of a waste of resourses as all the towns around here are their own school district.

The kids graduating HS in town seem to be turning out ok. Lots of college acceptances, and not just community colleges.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

csb said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > normally if more than 30% of the school is on free or reduced lunch you will want to move to another school district (seriously) the quality of the schooling is going to be much much worse
> ...


I went to school in a town with two school districts as well. But all the taxes went to the district we were in so there'd be no point in attending the other, despite the fact that they were equidistant.

I don't think there were too many kids on reduced lunches there. It was an affluent suburb where the majority of folks were white collar working class but living outside their means to look like they were rich. Nothing like seeing little Johnny get a sportscar for his 16th birthday, then his parents not being able to afford college.


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 6, 2011)

ok. rural community??

here in the Atlanta suburbs, if your kids school is mostly on free lunch you move  but we have 24 high schools in one county so its a little easier choosing..


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

Sizeable suburb of NYC.


----------



## csb (Jun 6, 2011)

Biggest town in the state at 51,000. There's another school district, but it handles the towns 30 miles away.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 6, 2011)

I'm stuck in the biggest town in my state as well, and it basically sucks.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 6, 2011)

csb said:


> We only have one school district in town. I also attended elementary school where the free/reduced accounted for about 85% of the lunches. I turned out okay (tic tic).


Does your parole officer agree with that assessment?

j/k


----------



## csb (Jun 6, 2011)

I'm still on my work plan, so it's okay


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 6, 2011)

I just saw something on the local news about a program to feed kids on F&amp;RC during the summer break. I just caught the end of the story, so I'm not sure of frequency (5 days/week, 1 day/week, etc.), but I did hear that it's a locally-organized, federally-funded program.


----------



## csb (Jun 6, 2011)

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/summer/



> 7. Who is eligible to get meals?
> Children 18 and younger may receive free meals and snacks through SFSP. Meals and snacks are also available to persons with disabilities, over age 18, who participate in school programs for people who are mentally or physically disabled.
> 
> 8. How many meals do participants receive each day?
> ...



However, I just realized I'm part of the problem. Our day care gets reimbursed for feeding our kid under these guidelines:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/care/programba...s/FR_Notice.pdf

Which is really odd to me, because all of the parents at our day care make well above assistance range, but the government still sends our care provider a check.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 8, 2011)

Food Stamps used to buy lobster and porterhouse steaks.

Then he sells the stuff at 50% of its value for a profit.



> Louis Wayne Cuff, a 33-year-old Menominee man was arraigned in 95th District Court in Menominee last week for food stamp trafficking, a felony. Cuff's arrest resulted from a month-long joint investigation by the State Department of Human Services' Inspector General and the Menominee County Sheriff's Department. Cuff allegedly bought the lobster, steak and Mountain Dew and resold it for 50 cents on the dollar.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 9, 2011)

I can not argue with feeding kids that are disadvantaged.

I just hope that we can break the generational cycle's and teach these kids a strong work ethic and strong sense of self-value.

If a day-care provider is getting Gub-ment checks when their clientele is affluent people, then we need a Dateline 'Fleecing of America' investigation.  (I'm in the wrong binness)


----------



## csb (Jun 9, 2011)

It happens in all the day cares! Leave my lady alone


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 9, 2011)

Yep. My daycare lady gets Fed $ for food too. I have to fill out a form every year listing incomes.


----------

