Free and reduced lunches

[Capt Worley PE]

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]

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]

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]

Free lunch?!? Where?!?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

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&RL is mandated by the feds, but is paid for by the school districts. So all F&RLs are paid or locally. That bothers me a bit. Quite a lot actually.

 

[roadwreck]

Free lunch?!? Where?!?

There's cake in the break-room!

 

[csb]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[snickerd3]

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

 

[Capt Worley PE]

^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]

^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.

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]

^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.

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.

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]

^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.

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.

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.

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]

^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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

^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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

^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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair Enough.

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]

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.