‘It’s embarrassing to the kids’: Students who owe lunch money will only get a cold jelly sandwich, district says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
‘It’s embarrassing to the kids’: Students who owe lunch money will only get a cold jelly sandwich, district says
MAY 08, 2019
When students in Warwick, R.I., line up in the cafeteria next week, they’ll have no shortage of lunch options . Do they want a chicken Parmesan melt? Hummus and fresh vegetables with tortilla crisps? Pizza? Sweet potato tater tots? A burger? Something from the deli bar? Or, in the popular all-day-breakfast category, pancakes with a cheese omelet and a side of bacon?
But for some, making a decision won’t be necessary. Starting on Monday, any student with unpaid lunch debt will be automatically given a sunflower seed butter and jelly sandwich instead of hot food, the city’s school district announced on Sunday. Officials told the Providence Journal that the policy is necessary because the district is owed tens of thousands of dollars in lunch money, on top of contending with a budget deficit in the millions.
But critics argue that since children have no control over their parents’ finances, they shouldn’t be penalized or potentially subjected to public humiliation because of their inability to pay.
“I just don’t think it’s fair to hold the kids responsible,” Heather Vale, who has two children attending a middle school in the district, told WLNE . “I think it’s embarrassing to the kids because now everyone’s going to know why these children are receiving the lunch that they are.”
Although one local restaurant owner offered $4,000 to wipe out students’ debts, her donation was rejected by school administrators. “Every idea I had got shut down,” Angelica Penta told WJAR on Tuesday, barely concealing her frustration.
The controversy is the latest episode to draw attention to what critics have labeled “lunch shaming.” In schools nationwide, students have been branded with stamps , given unappealing cheese sandwiches , or even had their lunches thrown away after employees discovered that they were in arrears. In 2015, a Colorado cafeteria worker said that she had been fired for giving free food to hungry elementary school students, one of whom had broken down in tears. Similarly, in 2016, a lunch worker in Pennsylvania quit in protest after she was forced to refuse a hot meal to a student because he couldn’t pay for it.
“As a Christian, I have an issue with this,” Stacy Koltiska, the Pennsylvania cafeteria worker who resigned in disgust, told The Washington Post at the time. “It’s sinful and shameful is what it is.”
In Warwick, a suburb of Providence, close to 40 percent of students in pre-K through 12th grade qualified for free or reduced-price lunches in previous years. While such programs are intended to make sure that no children go hungry, students nationwide often end up incurring debt because their parents make just slightly too much to qualify for subsidized meals, experts told The Washington Post’s Heather Long last year.
In other cases, families fail to complete the necessary annual paperwork, which requires disclosing a considerable amount of personal information. Under the Trump administration, Long reported, some immigrant families have become fearful that asking for assistance could make it harder for them to achieve permanent residency status in the future.
Harried parents may also simply forget to check on their children’s account balances. “Life gets in the way sometimes, and to penalize kids for, you know, one, two dollars to me is crazy,” Julie Roberts, a Warwick parent, told WLNE .
States including Virginia, California and New Mexico have banned “lunch shaming” in recent years, saying it unfairly stigmatizes students growing up in poverty. In Rhode Island, legislation requiring all students to receive the same hot lunch regardless of their financial circumstances is pending, according to the Journal . Other communities in the state have faced similar controversies. In December, officials in Cranston, which neighbors Warwick, were widely criticized for hiring a collection agency to track down families with outstanding school lunch debt.
School administrators have said that such extreme measures are necessary due to budget shortfalls. Karen Bachus, the Warwick School Committee’s chairwoman, told the Journal that the district is owed more than $40,000 in lunch money. Other officials told WJAR and the Warwick Post that the total was actually closer to $77,000. Due to a $4 million deficit, the district has already cut back on janitorial services and is looking at eliminating a popular mentoring program that now lacks funding, the Journal also reported.
Nationwide, concerned parents and community members have taken matters into their own hands , fearing that students will be bullied when their classmates discover that they can’t afford lunch or struggle to concentrate in class because they’re hungry. In 2016, writer Ashley C. Ford inspired her Twitter followers to wipe out over $100,000 of outstanding lunch debt in Minneapolis schools. Even if a parent had the ability to pay off their balance but had neglected to do so, she told NBC’s “Today” that was no reason their child should suffer.
Earlier this month, the mother of Philando Castile, who was fatally shot by a police officer in 2016, gave a Minnesota high school $8,000 to settle roughly 100 students’ lunch debts in honor of her son. Castile was a cafeteria worker who had been known for paying for students’ lunches out of his own pocket if they were short on cash, and a crowdfunding campaign last year raised more than $178,000 to continue that legacy.
Penta, the Rhode Island restaurant owner, tried to do the same thing.
In March 2018, reports began circulating that a student in the neighboring town of West Warwick had his lunch thrown away by a cafeteria worker because he didn’t have enough money in his account. Incensed, Penta started a fundraising drive and placed donation jars by the cash registers at the restaurants that she and her husband co-own in both Warwick and West Warwick.
Administrators in West Warwick were happy to accept her donation of $4,000 and apply it to students’ accounts, Penta told WPRI . That district, which is separate from Warwick Public Schools, also announced that students would no longer be denied a hot meal based on their ability to pay.
In Warwick, things went very differently. On Sunday, Penta wrote on Facebook that she had met with district officials about paying off students’ lunch debt on two separate occasions, and tried to offer them an additional $4,000. The second time, she said, she had left in tears after they refused to accept the check. As a result, the recent news that students who couldn’t afford lunch would be getting a cold sandwich came as a blow to her.
“To me, a SunButter and jelly sandwich is lunch shaming, because you’re basically telling all the other kids that you can’t afford lunch and you don’t have any lunch money,” she told WPRI.
In a statement to local media , Warwick officials said that they had to turn down the money because otherwise they would have had to decide which students it should benefit.
“Each time these offers were made, Warwick Public Schools stated that the school department was not in the position to single out or identify specific students that should be selected for a reduction in their lunch debt while excluding others,” the statement said.
Administrators also noted they had suggested that Penta should create a program to decide which students would have their lunch debt erased, and review the applications herself. For now, that’s more or less what she’s doing.
“If you need help reach out to me,” she wrote on Facebook on Sunday, encouraging any Warwick parent who couldn’t afford school meals to contact her. “There is no need for any child to be denied a hot lunch. We never know a child’s or their family’s situation, everyone struggles at some point. "
In the meantime, Penta’s neighbor has set up a GoFundMe page , hoping to wipe out all the debt held by students across the district and overcome administrators’ objections.
“If we can raise all the money, then they’re not choosing kids,” Penta told the Warwick Post .
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
The state governments have a responsibility to educate all the children in their state and to promote the welfare of all children. Give all the kids food at lunchtime and put it in the budget as such. There will always be people who cant or wont pay. Has nothing to do with the kids, unless they are independently wealthy.
"‘It’s embarrassing to the kids’: Students who owe lunch money will only get a cold jelly sandwich,"
Jelly Sandwiches are GREAT ! Still make one to this day.
I love 'em !
Children need more than a cold jelly sandwich to fill them up and help them learn.
It's only Lunch. They still have "Parent" made "Big Breakfasts" and "Great Dinners", right ?
Why aren't these "Parents" making "Cheap Lunches" to put in that really cool cheap lunch box they shower on their kids too ?
Oh....It's a "Public School" problem. I FORGOTS !
It's ALWAYS someone else's problem.
So ALL the children should be given jelly sandwiches for lunch. Is that your position?
If it's "Free", don't look a "Gift" horse in the mouth. (The proverbial saying 'don't look a gift horse in the mouth' means don't be ungrateful when you receive a gift.)
The "Parents" can make their OWN kids a better lunch, any time they want. The Problem is....Parents don't "Want to"..... enough !
Is there something wrong with jelly sandwiches?
Should people with money be barred from buying whatever lunch they want?
Apparently, paying to raise your own kids you CHOSE to bring into the world is now EVERYONE'S responsibility because some parents refuse to accept that job.
Actually the school district takes on that responsibility when they set up schools so that many kids cannot go home for lunch.
We can see that the schools acknowledge that responsibility when they offer the poor kids a jelly sandwich instead of nothing.
don't breed if you can't feed
Sure--elementary kids get to go home for lunch, because all those buses run for free with unpaid drivers!
SMH
And what would they go home to when most families have two working parents?
Those little bastards! If they can't afford to eat lunch, fuck 'em!
Pretty sure that THIS: "don't breed if you can't feed"
refers to the PARENTS who chose to bring kids into the world and then don't take proper care of them, instead relying on society as a whole to do their job for them.
Funny, the same people who are against feeding poor children are the same ones who want to ban abortion and teach abstinence-only sex ed, thus ensuring there will be a lot more unwanted pregnancies. Apparently their fight for the rights of fetuses end if it becomes an actual child.
So you think parents who refuse to or can not pay for their own kids' lunches are somehow going to cook them a healthy lunch if they can only come home? The same folks who can not send their kid to school with a lunch?
That's ridiculous!
Actually, for all school-age children born in America--their parents had a choice to make, and they chose to bring a kid they can't afford into the world instead of aborting them.
it is NOT society's job to parent FOR real parents.
Right, punish the children because their parents may not be able to afford to feed them well.
They shouldn't have had kids, but that big uuuuuge Screen TV and Mega Apple phone look Grrrrrrreat !
Is giving a hungry kid something to eat now considered "punishment"?
Weird shit there.
Agreed. I don't think people should have kids they can't afford to raise. Which is why I'm such a proponent of Planned Parenthood (the best organization for preventing unwanted pregnancies), comprehensive sex ed that is NOT abstinence only, wide availability of birth control, etc. But it seems that the people who screech the loudest against feeding hungry children are the people who are against these things.
A jelly sandwich.
A meal fit for a king.
You want to make a quick peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, but you open up the cupboard and the peanut butter is gone! What should you do? Don't panic. Just follow this simple guide to create a jelly sandwich, which can be just as delicious as a PB&J if done correctly.
The only thing left to do is enjoy your edible masterpiece!
Sorry, but support of PP has done nothing to do with this.
A meal is a meal to someone hungry.
To my knowledge, no one is forcing the kids to eat anything at all.
Why should the kids suffer because of the parent's decisions or their inability to find a better paying job? If the child does learn then you are only perpetuating poverty.
It is time to embrace that we live in an interdependent and very interconnected society and that we have a responsibility to care for those who are young, aged, impoverished and sick.
Is this an example of your morality? You are a Christian so is this how Jesus taught to followers to treat others?
Tell that to a hungry child who might not have had enough to eat the night before or sufficient breakfast that morning?
I believe the kids are being fed, kind of the point of the whole article, don't ya know!
And as you have often pointed out, we all need to leave our religion out of the public eye, so my morals aren't really any of your business.
If you think someone who is hungry won't eat a jelly sandwich----think again.
Then it is WAY past time for people to support those they have chosen to bring into the world. Why burden society because their parents won't do the right thing?
I say that is child neglect and child endangerment--having kids you can not support.
Pretty sure the last time you commented on a school lunch article, you said that the little brats should shut up and eat their lunch. Well, these "little brats" are being fed lunch, they get a pb&J, an apple and a milk, at least in my school district. Make up your mind what side you are on. Last article was about kids not liking the lunch and this one is about a pb&J and parents not paying for or affording lunch(hard to believe, since there is free or reduced lunch at EVERY school).
put it to good use!
Exactly!
Even though both of you are working right now, don't have any kids because you never know what will happen in the future. In fact, you can't be careful so you might as well get a vasectomy now, while you're covered by insurance, because if you have a kid now, later you might be struggling and not be able to make ends meet once your kid gets into school.
Plan for the worst in the future and don't breed because if you do you might have to count on your society for a helping hand.
The HORROR.
Some may feel that as an interconnected society, we owe it to each other to take care of any life we choose to bring into this world.
You know that won't fly in today's world--too many people depending on others to provide for them and their offspring.
"Let society pay for it all!"
I followed the advise I gave
Like a sane, responsible person would. Good for you---I wish everyone who chooses to have kids would have been so responsible.
So true, some of the rations we had in the military would clearly make many folks who didn't serve puke their guts out.
Well, to be honest ..... i felt like puking more than once with some of that stuff but if you were hungry enough you ate it anyway.
That said, a cold jelly sandwich would have been welcome over some of that crap. Heck, it woulda been an extra bonus if it was cold in most cases.
[deleted]
'Pretty sure the last time you commented on a school lunch article, you said that the little brats should shut up and eat their lunch. Well, these "little brats" are being fed lunch, they get a pb&J, an apple and a milk, at least in my school district. Make up your mind what side you are on. Last article was about kids not liking the lunch and this one is about a pb&J and parents not paying for or affording lunch(hard to believe, since there is free or reduced lunch at EVERY school).'
Excuse me?
That was regarding the healthy lunches which the little fucking bastards were throwing away and then complaining that they were hungry.
I'm pretty sure - I don't appreciate you crawling out of the woodwork and attacking me.
You cannot punish the children for the action of the parents. What happened to the pro-life conservatives, or is this an admission that your concern for that baby ends at the start of 4th trimester? That stance isn't pro-life but is instead a forced birth stance.
Conservatives also should not support economic policies that cause downturns and recessions because people get hurt when the economy crashes and they lose their jobs. Those aren't just numbers on a balance sheet but lives being destroyed and people being made homeless or going hungry. The harm often lasts for a generation.
We are an interconnected and interdependent society because if we were not then we would not need federal and state constitutions to create rules how the government would perform and what rights we have.
That's real nice.
WTF does that have to do with people irresponsible enough to bring kids into the world that they can't or won't support?
You clearly and probably deliberately don't pay attention.
My views on abortion are these:
I am not against abortion, but do feel it is a piss poor method of contraception in today's world with so many forms of BC readily and cheaply available.
I believe people who can't afford to have kids should avail themselves of BC and IF it fails, have an abortion instead of depending on others to do your job.
Enlighten me--what kind of economic system has no downturns and recessions?
It means that we as a society must care for the poor, aged and the sick. Put yourself in their shoes and what would you want someone to do for you if you were a school-aged child who was hungry? Where is your compassion for others?
Your bible tells you that you must do the same thing, or was that passage removed from the GOP bible. Matthew 25:40.
An economic policy that properly regulates corporations. This is why Glass-Steagall was created, but the GOP has rolled that idea back twice in the search of more profit, despite the fact that every time they did the economy crashed.
And we do ..... a lot!
One can debate if its enough or not but one CAN NOT debate that a significant amount of time and money is spent taking care of folks in those categories.
It is. It's a significant amount of help and growing each year in most cases.
Gee, for someone highly critical of Christians in particular and someone who advocates for a VERY strict separation of church and state, you damn sure don't hesitate to pull religion into the argument. Sorry, but as YOU always love to point out, we are a secular society. keep your religion out of this, please.
I am all for feeding the kids. Seems like the school district is doing exactly that. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to criticize irresponsible parents.
That is laughable. I can't hardly believe you bothered to type that crap.
Regulating corporations is a function of law--not economics. Are you blaming lawmakers for irresponsible parents now?
Man, Democrats and loads of progressive liberals couldn't tout the profits corporations were making under Obama enough, so another fail.
remember this?
Corporate Profits — Corporate profits have soared under Obama. After-tax profits were running at an annual rate of just under $1.8 trillion in the July-October quarter of last year, the most recent figures available. That’s down somewhat from the previous quarter — which was a record. But still 166 percent higher than in the quarter just before Obama entered office.
Obama's Numbers (January 2016 Update) - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/
I am not saying that individual churches must do it. I am saying that people must understand that we are a very interconnected and interdependent society and support public policies that help others who are needy. We have the social safety net because of the idea that the churches will be able to meet the needs of the poor, sick and aged didn't work during the Great Depression. That idea that the churches will do it ignores the facts that most of their members are middle and poor who are also the people who are most likely to be affected by economic crashes. These people can not help others when they themselves are unemployed, hungry and poor. The fact that church attendance is at a low and still dropping only drives that point home. The simplistic and greedy libertarian idea that everyone has to take care of themselves ignores that fact that we are an interdependent society. This is another example of not being able to see the forest because they only see the individual trees.
then stop trying to bring religion into it. This isn't a religious topic, so why are you still trying to make it one? KEEP IT SEPARATE, like you demand for everything else regarding religion. Don't be hypocritical about it.
Penalizing a child and telling them that they cannot have the nutritionally necessary meal to allow them to effectively learn is not doing nearly enough. Give the kid the same lunch as everyone else and stop making them feel bad for being poor in front of their friends. Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself what you would want someone to do for you! That ide is the basic concept of morality. Why is it that other countries can provide students with higher quality meals for all and we are still penalizing the poorest among us while at the same time we virtually canonize the rich who harm others to earn accumulate that wealth? Many conservatives claim that the US is a Christian country but Jesus fed the multitudes and the poor and never asked for a dime. That was supposed to send a message but apparently, his conservative followers in the US didn't get understand it.
There is growing because the economic divide between the rich and poor is getting wider by the month. For a successful consumer economy, we must have economic policies that put money in the hands of the poor and middle class that spend it and drive the economy making more billionaires only takes that money out of circulation. The middle class is dying and the few that exist are hanging on with happy thoughts and zip-ties. This is from a conservative source and even they admit that it is a long term problem that must be addressed.
Why exactly is that I, as an atheist, know the bible and can quote it to people who claim to be Christian? Matthew 14:13-21
Your own religious beliefs tell you not to do what you are doing, unless those beliefs only apply to your behavior on Sunday morning between 9:00 and noon.
It absolutely does. We were talking about how people shouldn't have kids they can't support - and that's what PP does best. It provides sex ed and birth control - when I first started having sex, my boyfriend and I went to a 30 minute class at the local PP where they talked about all the options, pros and cons, etc. It was great.
I used to work at a McDonald's when I was 18 and on Sunday mornings right after church they would come to McDonald's for their coffee, etc. Most of them were insufferable assholes.
They paid their penance and went right back to being shitty to people.
Which is exactly what every school i ever went to did and suspect most schools still do.
I don't need to because i lived it. We weren't exactly "poor" but my parents packed all of our lunches because it was cheaper that what the schools charged. That money was better spent on other necessities like clothes or food for the entire family. You were automatically branded as poor by other kids when you brown bagged it.
It doesn't take "lunch" for kids to know who is poor and who isn't. They already know.
What am I doing besides asking you to leave religion out of a discussion that has nbothing to do with religion?
Why do you INSIST on making this a religious discussion?
Are you claiming that the parent of these school-age children did not have access to birth control and abortion services?
This still doesn't have anything to do with parents not taking responsibility for kids they CHOSE to bring to life.
If there is something in my post that escapes your understanding, I have an hour to kill and can explain it to you.
Then you know that the school should not be making it worse for these kids. They already feel like outcasts among their peers.
My dad died of cancer when I was a high school sophomore and despite having Blue Cross medical insurance at his job, plus life insurance, we were left with more than $125K in medical debts. Things were tough for more than a few years. My mom was an RN but she now had 3 teenagers to feed on a nursing salary and pay off those debts.
Your religious beliefs are supposed to guide how you act, especially toward others.
I know those people all too well. They swear that they love Jesus, but as soon as they walk down the steps from the church they would stick a knife in your back for $10.00, all the while swearing how devout of a Christian they are.
If I felt the need to be preached to, I would go to someone who does it and believe sin it, not the likes of you.
BTW, what is supposed to guide YOUR actions?
I don't see you making this a religious discussion. I see another poster making this a religious issue. I don't see you preaching to anyone.
Blinders all nice and snug?
Nothing wrong with trying to keep the "Christians" around here honest
You might want to read Matthew 23.
I am a Humanist. I also support Quaker and Buddhist ideas. Life is not just about us. care for others and they will care for you because it is in our enlightened self-interest to do so, plus it is the moral thing to do.
'It absolutely does. We were talking about how people shouldn't have kids they can't support - and that's what PP does best. It provides sex ed and birth control - when I first started having sex, my boyfriend and I went to a 30 minute class at the local PP where they talked about all the options, pros and cons, etc. It was great.'
Exactly. I went there to get birth control when I was 16 and no unexpected pregnancies!
I might. Especially if it was relevant to this topic--which it isn't, of course.
No need for proselytizing, but, hey, thanks!
OK and when they get pregnant and want an abortion, you also say no.
Kids happen.
Why should they suffer?
If they are going to claim to be a Christian then I am going to hold them to the tenants of that belief or hoist them on their own petard as I prove them to be obvious hypocrites.
Yep, as you have proven, it is a damn shame that the parents of these kids didn't avail themselves of PP services, BC, or abortion before choosing to bring a kid into the world they can't support.
I would be the worst minster ever. I have a severe public speaking problem because of my anxiety and my sarcasm would either go over their heads or it would enrage them.
I wouldn't be a good therapist either because I have the emotional intelligence of a rock.
Well, that's all swell, as long as you recognize your own hypocrisy by invoking Christianity into something that normally would have you screaming about the separation of church and state!
Condoms are waaaaay cheaper than an iPhone.
These are too:
"No insurance?
No problem.
We understand it isn’t always available. That’s why we offer affordable birth control regardless of your coverage."
It's even cheaper to just make lunch from home for your child.
How can Planned parenthood do that work when Republicans constantly want to defund them of the funds that pay for those fiscally pragmatic services as a way of pandering to their socially conservative voters.
Partisan actions have long term implications that conservatives often ignore and when they do they blame everyone but themselves for the expensive problems that their short-term emotional thinking created.
You can smoke in the back, but you can wave your lighters during the praise band encores.
Holding you to your voluntary religious beliefs is nothing to do with the separation of church and state because I am not legislating anything. I am merely poiying out your hypocracy in an argument. I am not requiring your church to do anything.
This should have read...... you cannot wave your lighters.........
My typo ruined the 1980s hair band joke.
A cross on school property isn't legislating anything, either, but I bet you would raise hell with it!
I am not a hypocrite--I want the kids to be fed.
I'm just not willing to let the parents off the hook in all cases.
It is the obvious state endorsement of a religion, which violates both concepts of the separation of church and state. Those ideas are the state endorsement of one religion over another, and the state endorsement of religious belief over non-belief. You do not need to be religious to be moral because the golden rule has no religious connotations to it. I am a Humanist but not once have I ever advocated placing the humanist symbol on public property that there wasn't already a religious symbol on it as a show of 1st Amendment parity.
If the parents have the obvious means to pay for the meals then they should but the idea of telling the kid to be happy with a jelly sandwich, to go without lunch or telling the parents to get a second job is an intellectually dishinest solution to poverty.
Which religion does it endorse? Please be specific.
I never claimed otherwise, so the point is rather silly. Why do you attempt to argue that which no one is disputing?
A cross is the obvious symbol of the Christian religion. Don't try to play evasive games and ask which sect it belongs to.
Haven't other religions used the cross?
Doesn;t the Red Cross use the cross?
Would you be upset if the Red Cross conducted anything at a school?
it all boils down to this:
You USE Christianity when it suits your purposes, and demean it at other times.
You want strict separation, but then demand that people use Christian values when it suits you.
Be nice if you just picked one thing to do.
This argument is laughably asinine.
Why would the Red Cross try to erect a permanent cross in the front yard of a public school? Has anyone ever claimed that the Red Cross was a constitutional violation when they had a sign advertising that they were holding a blood donation drive at a public school? In what alternate conservative universe is the Red Cross a religion?
Who could possibly confuse the red cross symbol, that has equal arms, with a Christian cross which does not have 4 equal arms?
People who say they are Christians made the choice of their own volition, so if they are going to claim that they are a Christian then shouldn't they live by the tenants of that religion that they chose, or is that an example of religious persecution?
[deleted]
It's only lunch.
For fucks' sake.
What ya doin' waaaaaaay down here ?
"It's only lunch."
Exactly....and "Free taboot !
Yea, and the "little brats" should be thankful for it and eat it. Thats what you said in a previous seed about school lunches. I guess they should only be grateful for certain school lunches?
'Yea, and the "little brats" should be thankful for it and eat it. Thats what you said in a previous seed about school lunches. I guess they should only be grateful for certain school lunches?'
The little bastards were throwing away their healthy lunches and complaining they were hungry.
Again, 'I'm pretty sure' I don't appreciate you crawling out of the woodwork and attacking me, again.
They turned down $4,000???
Couldn't decide who to give credit to? That's easy give it to fist kid that is hungry today. It is a donation
Yeah, that was monumentally stupid, but it is a deep blue state, after all.
Who cares where the money comes from if the debt is paid?
Exactly, I do not understand why a business (the cafeteria) would do this. Seems incredibly dumb
I agree that they should have taken the money. I don't get that. It does feel like they are trying to shame the poor.
Call me naïve (you won't be the first) but I can't believe that's the purpose of refusing the money, so I'll stick with my original assertion of incredibly dumb (I actually suspect they are not allowed to accept donations due to some bureaucratic regulations)
If they have 500 kids who owe then just divide it up by 500 and apply $8 to each kids lunch debt. Why is that so hard to figure out? If it's 1000 kids then credit $4 to each debt, but don't turn away willingly given donations. Even if it's 10,000 kids who have lunch debt, apply that 40 cent credit to each debt. They're supposed to be a school district educating kids, but turning away well intentioned charity is just stupid.
"Students who owe lunch money will only get a cold jelly sandwich"
Seems the "Students" should ask their parents …..WHY ?
Unless the "Students" are taking parents money those Parents supply them for the "Lunch" Account, and are using that gifted money for something else, instead of handing it to the School Lunch Program.
Hmmmmmm…….
As the person who ran my school's lunch program, that is not how it works. The parents send the money in.
Snail Mailed, FedX'd, maybe hand carried?
So we Still have a Parent Problem.
Like I noted:
"Seems the "Students" should ask their parents …..WHY ?"
Money is collected at the beginning of the month by the teacher at the desk. We then check them off a list. The money is not going missing.
I didn't say anything about the school misplacing money in my comments. I referenced in one of my ideas, that the kids may be getting the money from their parents, and then not turning it over to the lunch program at all, and then using it for something else they want, thus putting themselves in the "Red" at school.
While I'm all for holding the parents accountable, I don't like the idea of withholding a hot lunch from an elementary school child. At the younger ages they cannot hold their parents accountable and it's very wrong IMO to take a hot lunch away from a child like that. I can kind of see withholding from a high school aged child as part of going thru high school is supposed to be also teaching them to be responsible for themselves. But the biggest problem I see here is something that has been going on for years, the one size fits all solution.
Public schools.. the hell with it. Raise property taxes by a few bucks and have all meals provided out of the tax money. Let's stop hurting small children when the people who are wrong are the parents.
Why should MY taxes go up because of a few dead beats ?
Raise the derelict parents taxes, NOT MINE.
In today's liberal progressive world, it is YOUR responsibility to feed and raise others' kids.
Individual responsibility must be shunned at all costs to the general public!
That's for SURE !
It's like they are doing it on purpose.
"Friends with Kids"
Two best friends decide to have a child together while keeping their relationship platonic, so they can avoid the toll kids can take on romantic relationships.
Because you are part of society. How do you tax people who are already living in poverty?
I pay the "Required Taxes", that fund society already.
It's not my "JOB" to go above and beyond that "Requirement", unless "I WANT TO" !
Or and this is just an alternate solution the school can continue to hold those responsible for their indebtedness to ya know pay off their debt (whether parent and/or child).
I'm all for holding a parent responsible. I'm even on board with holding a high school aged student responsible. I don't agree with holding a young child responsible, that in my opinion is just cruel. It's not the child's fault and the child surely cannot hold the parent responsible. The school has all the necessary records, even public shaming in the newspaper against the parent.
I just don't agree with punishing children who have no ability to correct the situation.
Well I can see a couple of circumstances where a child would be at fault. I actually don't see this as an attempt to do so I more see it as an attempt to get the message to parents to pay the debt.
Also while not a great lunch, to me a PB and J is an acceptable one. I pretty much grew up having jam sandwiches (I hate PB) for lunch at school, at least until I started making my own (and even then I still had to be budget conscious)
How do you do that, if you just don't have the money? None of you even know how a school lunch program works but you are all talking as experts.
But they are not even getting a PB&J. Go back and read. They are getting a sunflower seed butter and jelly sandwich, so basically fat and Jelly.
Nut butters have fat but they also have protein and fiber.
Still sounds acceptable to me, as I stated I didn't have anything much better for school lunch as a kid
Just my opinion then the parents should be brown bagging their kids lunches or accept what the school provides for free. Maybe I'm just too old but I don't understand how lunch is the schools problem at all, it wasn't till high school that I even attended a school with a cafeteria (and even then if you didn''t have the money in hand to pay at the register you didn't get anything)
Lol now get off my lawn ya little hooligans.
So, now we are using food to teach class distinctions and enforce economic divisions among children.
We spend enormous amounts of money to ensure that class curricula is politically correct, that every asinine theory of education is pursued, and that every student is capable of passing a standardized test developed outside the classroom by academic theorists but we absolutely must use food to teach children that money is more important than academic performance.
And the sad thing is that economics and money management isn't being taught in the classroom, it's being taught in the lunch room in the form of class distinctions. Our education system is badly broken and is pursuing the wrong priorities.
There are some who insist that if we only devote yet more money to schools, all will be well.
I can't understand how these things aren't being taught. Knowing how to properly manage money is something that EVERYONE needs to know ... it's ridiculous that it's not a required part of every school curriculum, and is expanded on every year.
IMO the emphasis of primary education has become to prepare students for college. Students are being provided academic knowledge but aren't being provided practical knowledge.
So true. Civics isn't being taught in most schools either. Not good.
The way our schools are performing, not much else of value is being taught either evidently.
“As a Christian, I have an issue with this,”
Though not a Christian, as a human being I take issue with it.
While I agree it is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children, I fail to see the point of humiliating the kid because their parents are putzs.
US Military Budget: Components, Challenges, Growth - The Balance
True in concept but since our defense spending as percentage of our GDP has been trending down significantly for many decades and social spending spending has been trending up using the same metric ..... perhaps you are looking in the wrong place for answers.
Kids being hungry is bad.
I wonder if parents had money for cigarettes, beer, tattoos, fancy cellphones, ect, ect?
I also wonder if the hungry kids had expensive athletic shoes and cell phones?
From experience ...... you really don't want to know the answer to that .....
OK so obviously none of you have ever seen what a good many of these kids look like or know what their home lives are like. That is why it's so hard to have this discussion with people who have never dealt with this population. Everyone has preconceived ideas with no facts.
Do you really think that these families who may have trouble providing enough food for their children that they have unlimited money for cigarettes, beer, tats, fancy cell phones, expensive athletic shoes and big screen TVs??????
As a certain poster is fond of saying - SMDH
Also, blinders snug and tight?
How empathetic and compassionate of you.
Way to go.
The hair on his face is dirty, dread-locked, and full of mange
He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you fucking slob, " is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues
Then you really might know what it's like
Then you really might know what it's like
Then you really might know what it's like
He said, "don't worry about a thing, baby doll I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But three months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "god damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls"
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
Then you really might know what it's like
Then you really might know what it's like
Then you really might know what it's like
I've seen a tough man cry
I've seen a loser win and a sad man grin
I heard an honest man lie
I've seen the good side of bad and the downside of up
And everything between
I licked the silver spoon drank from the golden cup
And smoked the finest green
I stroked the fattest dimes at least a couple of times
Before I broke their heart
You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start
He liked to hang out late he liked to get shit-faced and keep the pace with thugs
Until late one night there was a big gun fight and max lost his head
He pulled out his chrome .45, talked some shit, and wound up dead
Now his wife and his kids are caught in the midst of all of this pain
You know it comes that way at least that's what they say when you play the game
God forbid you ever had to wake up to hear the news
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to lose
Then you really might know what it's like
Then you really might know what it's like to have to lose
My students parents worked. They got paid crap. When you apply for lunch you see their W2's as part of how you apply. Those that can pay some did. Those who lived below the poverty line didn't. Only a very few were "losers" and the children suffered all the way around.
Not all of us were blessed to come from good homes.
I disagree Perrie. I suspect most of have us experienced this either as kids, parents or both.
I think the key thing to remember here is most schools do offer free and/or reduced cost lunches and its the same food all the other kids get.
I've been away from schools for awhile but i can't believe its changed that much.
They are not getting PB&J. They are getting a sunflower seed butter and jelly sandwich. Fat and jelly. Very healthy.
My parents both worked and I was on a food reduced lunch because they didn't make enough. When my dad lost his job, it took him 2 years to get a new one. I have been on the other side of this.
And btw.. back in the good old days, they fed me the same meal that everyone else had and I ate it.
I've seen worse.
You ever seen kids go without due to a parents drug addiction? No?
Then you're the one who doesn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
SOSDD there.
They do in the NYC school districts. That is where I taught. I am not sure what you are disagreeing about.
The drug addicted parents are not filling out the lunch forms. We have to send the school social worker to the residence to see what is going on. If we see that is the case, we report the parents and the kids are fed. Should we punish the kids for being born to families that are defective?
And drug addicts are not most of the cases.
This is what I mean by most of you don't know how the programs work.
I thought you were implying the situation (jelly sandwich) in this seed was typical.
My bad.
Kids don't ask to be born. Are they supposed to suffer?
No problem.
That is why I always ask when I am not sure
I never said they were. You are reading, very heavily, into what i said.
I think its best i leave this conversation now.
Enjoy
Huh? What just happened here?
As a kid, though married, my mother was the sole breadwinner [dad had another 'family' he was supporting better than us]. Mom applied for us to get school lunches and we qualified.
In those days, those of us who got 'free' lunches worked a couple days a week scraping plates and stacking them on carts. Then we got to have our lunch.
I remember being humiliated as hell putting on an apron and standing there scraping other students garbage.
It only lasted for a short while [mom got a promotion] but it sure as hell left a mark. This article brought it right to the fore.
IMHO, it took courage for my ferocious mother to ask for help. I respect her for it. She did it in our best interest.
I'll just say that just because a kid is living at or below the poverty line doesn't mean that they don't come from a good home.
When I was a kid I went home for lunch, but those were the days when mothers were stay-at-home. The schools back then did not serve ANY lunches. I can understand why recently both parents may need to work, but then what's wrong with a decent lunch box lunch? Are the parents so irresponsible they refuse to provide one in which case their children should be put in foster homes, or are they so poor they can't afford a loaf of bread, and if THAT'S the case why does the USA hold itself out as being the most desirable "Land of Opportunity" in which to live?
Children are being made pawns in a cruel game that is anything but Christian. No child can be made responsible for their parents, it is crazy. Christians, true Christians who believe in sharing and believe in the parable of Jesus sharing the loaves and fishes as an example of true Christian charity should step up now. There is a new charity setup to donate and cover the entire debt for this school district.
The question really should be: where is the money going, that is already collected, that could be paying for free lunches?
The answer is simple in most districts. Its going to wage and benefits. Mainly benefits these days.
So those mean old school teachers/workers are stealing food right out the kids mouths.
Hard to believe they are punishing those kids like that.
Teacher budgets and school food budgets are not from the same source. This is what I mean by people not knowing about how this works.
Do away with the breakfast bar. What is it with all these choices. Omelette, pizza, hummus, Parmesan melt, burger, deli bar...
No wonder they are in debt. It seems like they want to run a full, for profit restaurant inside the school.
When I went to school there was one choice, one meal served a day. Everyone got the same thing.
I also do not like jelly. It is gross.
We had a main dish or soup - those were the choices.
We had one choice in elementary and middle school.
In high school, there was usually (not always) a choice of a hot entree or a salad bar.
I agree that if they simplified their choices, they would be more financially efficient.
Also, sometimes the entree was chili and... a peanut butter sandwich. So TBH, I don't really have a problem with a kids eating a nut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. I did growing up, and still sometimes do today.
This is a rough subject for me. I grew up dirt poor. Small town, rural, every body knew the other's business. My father was the town drunk, my mother held down low paying jobs as long as she had a running vehicle. We did not live "in town", so stores, jobs were a fair distance from out home. My father worked construction. Laid off every winter, so money and food was scarce. Hand me down & thrift store clothes, laundromat every week - just enough undergarments to make it to the next trip to the laundromat. Harassment in school was horrible.... we did end up on the "free lunch program". The lunch tickets were held by the teacher and handed to you at lunch time. The normal lunch tickets (ones that parents would purchase for their kids weekly) were the size of a credit card. The "free" tickets were the size of a post card and yellow. I hated it - The teacher would call your name and you would have to walk to her desk to get the ticket. It was humiliating.
As for all of you that keep saying the kids should ask their parents "why" - my brother did that once & he got smacked around for the question. My point is until you live it - you have no idea.
If you can be "shamed" over a sandwich, you should be ashamed that you're weak and pathetic enough to be shamed over a sandwich. You don't need a piece of pizza, you need a backbone.
They are children at the margins, they probably haven't been given the necessary skills for life from neglect or abuse, or they are in poverty. They are children! Some pretty callous thinking. There are so many hard working families who don't have enough.
Yes. They are children. They are not batshit crazy adults with ridiculous amounts of emotional baggage.
I've worked with kids since 1988. Kids are not ashamed over a sandwich.
But crazy adults are famous for projecting their craziness onto unwitting bystanders.
OMG, you must work with kids who are doing swimmingly then. The thing is, you are expecting more from the most disadvantaged kids than ones with stable lives. The poverty leads to a lot of mental issues as well as other hurdles to overcome. Stigma from school is the last thing they need, it can be their only refuge of normality AND meal sometimes! And kids can be brutal to them for being poor. But hey, take a whack at them so Trump doesn't have to pay taxes for his bad business decisions and CEO's can add a few million to their bonuses. Poor kids don't have a voice so its easy to make cuts to their programs.
If "swimmingly" means "utterly impoverished, living in subsidized housing, and having no good role models at home", then yeah...that's them.
OK...so I get that you're passionate about poor kids, even if you may not know any. That's wonderful, and I applaud you for it. I'm passionate about them, too, which is why I've spent all the years and money trying to create opportunities for them.
But yeah, I have higher expectations of them. I have to. Failing to do that would betray the trust they put in me.
They have a bigger hill to climb. They know it, I know it, and pretending it isn't that way means a person isn't trustworthy. Lowering expectations simply puts the emotion of the adult over the well being of the kid. It's poisonous and self-serving, and they recognize instantly what you're doing. The practice has been systemic for decades and it has very nearly destroyed black men as a whole.
But this story isn't about disadvantaged kids. Disadvantaged kids get their lunch paid for by the US Govt. That describes 38% of Warwick ISD students. They're not getting some fru-fru safflower butter sandwich....which....BTW....what the hell is that about? They're getting USDA approved terrible tasting full cafeteria lunch, just like they always do
It doesn't lead to hurdles. They're built in. It also doesn't lead to mental issues. That's super-soft guilty white liberalism talking. Kids in the projects are stronger than anyone in the outside world imagines. There is almost nothing they can't do if they know how.
What they lack is knowledge of how to get out of poverty, which we deny them by continually lowering standards because bleeding hearts "feel sorry" for them.
Often two meals. Paid in full by Uncle Sam. One of the few social programs we don't screw up.
Again, we're not talking about those kids. We're talking about middle class kids.
Wait... you think that soft as cotton privileged kids are going to be "brutal" to double hard project kids who experience violence on a daily basis? Over a safflower butter sandwich vs a kale and quinoa salad? Really? In what alternative universe does this happen?
I would ask what this possibly has to do with Trump or CEOs, but I sense that will lead us further down a wholly delusional batshit rabbit hole, and I'm just not interested.
It is a kid. That is like telling an eight year old to grow up.
It also sounds like teaching a kid how to swim by throwing the child in the deep end of the pool.
Yes. They're kids.
They don't experience shame the way adults do. They are still developing.
This is about hyper emotional adults who can't control their own runaway "feelings" and are creating drama from thin air to supply their own addiction for it.
If you don't think kids that young feel shame and embarrassed about being singled out for being poor, you have no clue whatsoever.
Oh, the immense irony.
Poor kids are on free lunch. Really poor kids are on free lunch and breakfast. It's a federal program that's been around for decades. This isn't about poor kids.
This is about middle class adults who haven't gotten around to paying a bill and a school district trying to settle accounts before they let out for summer. It's also about other silly, histrionic, drama queen adults whose failure to get clear of their own emotional baggage causes them to think a sandwich is going to somehow emotionally scar a kid.
Your traditional concession. Excellent.
So glad you now see it my way.
If we have hungry kids in our schools now and people argue who's fault it is and the lunch budget can't afford more than a jelly sandwich, why do some want to let more people come into our country?
We can't take care of the people we already have.
Overpopulation makes all problems worse
Point well taken. Do you think illegal immigrants at our borders are getting more than a jelly sandwich? Damn right they are.
That said, it's not that we can't afford it. It's just that the money is going somewhere else as noted above. In school systems its mainly to rising wage and benefit costs. Having spent nearly a decade on a school board, each year the main line items that always went up as a percentage of our total budget was wage/health/pension. Sometimes significantly. Bond initiatives to raise more revenue fail regularly. Tax payers are already fed up. Although i suspect if a Bond initiative came up to "specifically" pay for "only" school lunches for the less fortunate, it would pass easily.
Most schools don't need to do that however since they already have a program that pays for full lunches. Not just jelly sandwiches.
Has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
It is very much on topic as it was brought up several times about being interconnected society, This is a connection in that it adds to the problem and diverts recourses
If we already have poor kids getting a jelly sandwich and more poor kids are let in, will the fist ones then only get half a jelly sandwich?
Nope not on topic. Has nothing to do with it.
Keep up the good work work charger.
Spot on ...... spot on!