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

[Anonymous]

No, it makes very little change. We are in ACPS and the same issues have been occurring for generations and the same services have been in place for almost that long.

Schools should go back to focusing on education and social services organizations should focus on social services.

[Anonymous]

You know the answer to this: no.

[Anonymous]

I think it makes a dent. My school is very diverse in terms of SES and race. The number of middle class kids getting inter agency counseling has risen dramatically. I think it is a combination of the break up of the family and the direction our culture has taken. Schools are now expected to provide for kids the way families used to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes a dent. My school is very diverse in terms of SES and race. The number of middle class kids getting inter agency counseling has risen dramatically. I think it is a combination of the break up of the family and the direction our culture has taken. Schools are now expected to provide for kids the way families used to.[/quote]

This, bolded is precisely the problem. We aren't encouraging parents to break out of the cycle of poverty. In fact, in my experience in social services, more is expected by the parents. More services create additional problems. Schools are expected to feed, clothe, supply and waive fees for low income students. Parents expect translation services, parent liaisons, free programs, access to charity outreach. Instead of a one time emergency help situation, aid goes for PreK-12.

[Anonymous]

Well why would you need to provide for your kids if the government does it for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes a dent. My school is very diverse in terms of SES and race. The number of middle class kids getting inter agency counseling has risen dramatically. I think it is a combination of the break up of the family and the direction our culture has taken. Schools are now expected to provide for kids the way families used to.[/quote]

This, bolded is precisely the problem. We aren't encouraging parents to break out of the cycle of poverty. In fact, in my experience in social services, more is expected by the parents. More services create additional problems. Schools are expected to feed, clothe, supply and waive fees for low income students. Parents expect translation services, parent liaisons, free programs, access to charity outreach. Instead of a one time emergency help situation, aid goes for PreK-12.

I wrote the first paragraph. I agree with the second. However, I don't want to see kids being punished because their patents are idiots. I have taught long enough to see many of those kids get to college.

[Anonymous]

So am I right that the question is "should we feed hungry children if it doesn't increase their test scores?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes a dent. My school is very diverse in terms of SES and race. The number of middle class kids getting inter agency counseling has risen dramatically. I think it is a combination of the break up of the family and the direction our culture has taken. Schools are now expected to provide for kids the way families used to.[/quote]

This, bolded is precisely the problem. We aren't encouraging parents to break out of the cycle of poverty. In fact, in my experience in social services, more is expected by the parents. More services create additional problems. Schools are expected to feed, clothe, supply and waive fees for low income students. Parents expect translation services, parent liaisons, free programs, access to charity outreach. Instead of a one time emergency help situation, aid goes for PreK-12.

I'm a historian. The records are definitive that this is not a case of "providing" shifting from family to government, instead kids just went without (and got less education, and died younger). Child poverty dropped significantly and hit its lowest rate in the late 1960s with the war on poverty programs introduced during the Johnson administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "move the needle" mean? I am asking sincerely. What are wrap-around resources?

Um.. does all of this ACTUALLY elevate scores, reading levels, etc.

Slowly, incrementally yes -- at least in the early grades. Look at DCPS which is slowly doing better with young children -- e.g. grades 3-5.

DCPS is "doing better" because higher SES families are raising the average. The bottom half is still just as bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are wrap around activities? I don’t know of any schools that serve three meals. We just added breakfast this year to make two, but few utilize it.

3 meals: Breakfast, lunch, snacks..."dinner" meal served during after-school programs (which is de facto free baby sitting).

[Anonymous]

Eating three meals a day and having after school activities seemed to make a difference with my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eating three meals a day and having after school activities seemed to make a difference with my children.

Did you or the school provide them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So am I right that the question is "should we feed hungry children if it doesn't increase their test scores?"

No, the question seems to be based on the assumption that the only possible reason one would feed hungry children would be to increase their test scores. The OP seems to think that the question you're proposing has already been answered with a definite "No".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes a dent. My school is very diverse in terms of SES and race. The number of middle class kids getting inter agency counseling has risen dramatically. I think it is a combination of the break up of the family and the direction our culture has taken. Schools are now expected to provide for kids the way families used to.[/quote]

This, bolded is precisely the problem. We aren't encouraging parents to break out of the cycle of poverty. In fact, in my experience in social services, more is expected by the parents. More services create additional problems. Schools are expected to feed, clothe, supply and waive fees for low income students. Parents expect translation services, parent liaisons, free programs, access to charity outreach. Instead of a one time emergency help situation, aid goes for PreK-12.

I'm a teacher in District Heights and I have a sincere question for anyone opposed to school services like these: what would you have the children do though? Let them stay hungry and cold and left out of enriching extra curricular activities?

I think many in our schools would do whatever we can to help students: I (like many teachers I know) keep a drawer of granola bars, water bottles, socks, pads, crackers, etc. for students to grab if they're in need. They can't learn if their basic needs aren't met!

[Anonymous]

They do.