Do wrap-around resources, 3 free meals, after-school activities, etc. move the needle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

So it's ok for schools to ensure that kids can eat at school -- because why? -- but it's not ok for schools to ensure that kids have clothes to wear on their way to school, or that kids have food to eat on weekends when they're not at school, or that kids' parents (if they don't already know) are taught about ways to help their children at school? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

So it's ok for schools to ensure that kids can eat at school -- because why? -- but it's not ok for schools to ensure that kids have clothes to wear on their way to school, or that kids have food to eat on weekends when they're not at school, or that kids' parents (if they don't already know) are taught about ways to help their children at school? Why?

DP, but this is the first time I’ve heard that bureaucracy is too convenient for the public.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it does "move the needle."

I had family members who never graduated from high school. (I am white btw) The dad had a job and they had a couple children, but when they accidentaly had a third child they could not keep up.

Their kids received free breakfast and lunch, graduated from high school, and all three were able to find jobs in trades that paid more than their parents and were able to get out of the cycle of poverty. All are able to support their kids, who are also graduating from high school and either getting job training or going to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes or no? If not, how did all this creep into schools? It blows my mind to hear about all the services the local title 1 primaries offer.

No. Millions of $$$$$, cradle to grave, taxpayer-funded dental, health, ESOL, counseling, teens' daycare will not make up for ZERO parenting or understanding of education from an illiterate, unskilled, uneducated single mother illegal immigrant. MCPS has lots of data on this given its sanctuary city status the last 30 years. Dismal graduation rates, "timing out" of HS at age 21, teen pregnancy rates high, crime up, poor english and writing skills.
throwing more money at it - and constantly at the expense of the rest of the student base - is not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. We've gutted social services, and now it's up to the schools to keep poor kids fed, safe, and out of the cold, and up to the jails to care for the addicted and mentally ill.

If we funded those services, maybe we could stop pouring endless money into schools that has no direct application to education. Yes, I get it that you can't learn if you're hungry, but feeding people is at least one step removed from the central point of a school.

Welcome to income inequality. When we address it as a nation so that everyone is making a decent wage, living in decent housing and getting access to decent health care, we won’t need to provide so many of these services through the school. If you want to see what that looks like (fixing schools by first addressing the income gap), google Pahsi Salberg and the school reform in Finland.

Also, google Finland tax rate.

52% NO PROBLEMO!

I can only make $32K a year on the books otherwise we lose all our government benies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never heard of all that and if they do, good. It only benefits the kids. If you want it for your kid, move to one of those schools.

That's because your kids don't attend a Title 1 school.

Private schools have RIdgewell's Catering for meals, very tasty and convenient. Now we don't have to bother packing lunch boxes or wolfing down breakfast at 7am! Yes, it greatly helps the children learn to serve food, eat together, try out new foods and eat a well-balanced diet. Plus, they are not always hungry at 7am like they are at 8:30am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. We've gutted social services, and now it's up to the schools to keep poor kids fed, safe, and out of the cold, and up to the jails to care for the addicted and mentally ill.

If we funded those services, maybe we could stop pouring endless money into schools that has no direct application to education. Yes, I get it that you can't learn if you're hungry, but feeding people is at least one step removed from the central point of a school.

What do you mean we have gutted social services? You have no idea. Food stamps doubled between 2000 and 2008, and again between 2008 and 2014. Medicaid expansion, Earned Income Tax Credit expenditures keep increasing, CHIP, WIC, etc., etc. Then we layer all of the school stuff on top.

I agree about the mentality ill, but I am guessing that any attempt to do more residential care would be seen as evil by civil libertarians. Frankly, more inpatient and long term treatment is what is needed.

We keep importing poor and uneducated people, so we have a lot of poverty.

- social worker

+1

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a foreigner with a child in a Title 1 school. Sure there is some turning the needle, slowly but surely. Yes, genetics, 0-4 gap, and abuse of generosity do exist. Yet, what else is there to do? Parents won’t step up if kids are made their resposibility.
What I don’t understand is why the US is importing more poverty. Don’t you already have people to take care of who didn’t even ask to be here?
Trump’s remark is rude and gross but...? Not the countries, but why do you guys need more poor uneducated people? They don’t even work in the fields??

Mo kids = Mo money. We at SS admin office all the time signing up the bebes for their due.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

Clothing and food home are not coming from social service budgets or even gov't. They are from private donations or food pantries that the teachers/staff do probably on their own time. Why on earth would you take that away beyond being selfish?

[Anonymous]

No.
No amount of government services and subsidies can achieve what good, stable parenting can by literate, educated, law-abiding parents.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think freebies move the needle. It’s like if you start feeding stay cats, they tell their buddies where to find the food and suddenly more show up.

The resources have to be tied to be limited and come with strings. I’m all for setting time limits on aid and requiring that those who receive aid attend parenting, personal finance, English language, job training, or other classes that will help lift them out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

So it's ok for schools to ensure that kids can eat at school -- because why? -- but it's not ok for schools to ensure that kids have clothes to wear on their way to school, or that kids have food to eat on weekends when they're not at school, or that kids' parents (if they don't already know) are taught about ways to help their children at school? Why?

Because the school cafeteria is a necessary capital/staff expenditure that is part of all.schools. So add a meal or two at marginal cost. Fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

Clothing and food home are not coming from social service budgets or even gov't. They are from private donations or food pantries that the teachers/staff do probably on their own time. Why on earth would you take that away beyond being selfish?

Because it starts out as one teacher with granola bars in her drawer, and turns into an office or classroom space becoming a food pantry, with significant resources devoted to maintaining it. As I said above, if it truly doesn't impact the school budget or instructional needs, and just happens to be housed at the school for convenience, then sure. That's not what people are talking about here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feeding kids is fine with me; food has always been part of what schools do.

But clothes, food sent home, parent classes, etc., etc., unless they are coming out of a different social services budget, and use separate staff, but just happen to be housed at the school as a convenient place to contact the parents? Nope. I'd like to see that go.

So it's ok for schools to ensure that kids can eat at school -- because why? -- but it's not ok for schools to ensure that kids have clothes to wear on their way to school, or that kids have food to eat on weekends when they're not at school, or that kids' parents (if they don't already know) are taught about ways to help their children at school? Why?

Because the school cafeteria is a necessary capital/staff expenditure that is part of all.schools. So add a meal or two at marginal cost. Fine.

No, it's not. They used to build schools without cafeterias. No reason they couldn't do it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think freebies move the needle. It’s like if you start feeding stay cats, they tell their buddies where to find the food and suddenly more show up.

The resources have to be tied to be limited and come with strings. I’m all for setting time limits on aid and requiring that those who receive aid attend parenting, personal finance, English language, job training, or other classes that will help lift them out of poverty.

Most of the people you are thinking about are already living quite well financially working as gardeners, house cleaners, nannies, all under the table. However they are illiterate and often too busy to parent. Plus, no point of buying books- yet, they take kids to Disneyland and buy them game consoles and smartphones.
Trust me, I know, my child is in school with their kids.