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

[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.

It hasn't changed at all from when we were kids. Or, you didn't go to MCPS or went to one of the special DCUM schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

How many MCPS schools have free after care programs? After care is generally fee based but some parents may get a voucher for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I don't get how people are acting as if this is new. Any good teacher like you has been doing this for many many years. Those posters just turned a blind eye to it and are wanting to pretend it impacts their kids when it doesn't. It only impacts the teachers who go to the kindness and more importantly, expense of doing it. Its not like these posters are looking to donate food or anything else to help these kids.

Isn't it good kids test scores are lower? Then those whose kids are doing really well can maintain their bragging rights.

Seriously, what kind of person are you for not being ok that kids are fed and well cared for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP:--does it end the cycle of poverty? Do the kids that receive wrap around services "get out"? Can they get a job that provides a better life for their children? Do they understand how the world works enough that they can avoid poverty for their children?

How is proving meals to kids going to end the cycle of poverty? Are the working class jobs with living wages going to come back?

[Anonymous]

What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

Another ex, they don't do their homework because parents are too busy "working two jobs" to help. Ok, so does the M-F free after school baby sitting, err I mean tutoring, move the needle or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

Another ex, they don't do their homework because parents are too busy "working two jobs" to help. Ok, so does the M-F free after school baby sitting, err I mean tutoring, move the needle or not?

Homework doesn't move the needle. Judging people because they don't help with homework moves the needle in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous]

Another benefit of aftercareis that it can keep kids in a safer environment and might be able to prevent other issues like joining a gang.

Some successful models like Geoffrey Canada’s school in Harlem required full-day participation and year-round attendance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

WHAT jobs? Do we have some abundance of decent paying working class jobs?

The reason people are in poverty working for Walmart and McDonalds isn't that they had low test scores in high school. It's that these jobs do not pay a living wage.

Even if Walmart hired only valedictorians with high SATs to work 29 hours a week at minimum wage, those smartypants students would still be poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

I don't want us to feed kids so they get good test scores. I want us to feed kids because they are hungry.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

WHAT jobs? Do we have some abundance of decent paying working class jobs?

The reason people are in poverty working for Walmart and McDonalds isn't that they had low test scores in high school. It's that these jobs do not pay a living wage.

Even if Walmart hired only valedictorians with high SATs to work 29 hours a week at minimum wage, those smartypants students would still be poor.

I think the idea is you give kids food today so they are not hungry and can learn. They do better in school and on tests. Then they go to college or trade school and get a job that pays a living wage.

So the question is—is this happening? Are the kids that are graduating now and have had the benefit of free meals going going to college or trade school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always see as the pitch for all of this is that low-income kids can't learn without x y z. For ex, hungry kids don't pay attention then have low test scores. So, are these fully fed kids now learning more, which will qualify them for jobs, or not?

WHAT jobs? Do we have some abundance of decent paying working class jobs?

The reason people are in poverty working for Walmart and McDonalds isn't that they had low test scores in high school. It's that these jobs do not pay a living wage.

Even if Walmart hired only valedictorians with high SATs to work 29 hours a week at minimum wage, those smartypants students would still be poor.

I think the idea is you give kids food today so they are not hungry and can learn. They do better in school and on tests. Then they go to college or trade school and get a job that pays a living wage.

So the question is—is this happening? Are the kids that are graduating now and have had the benefit of free meals going going to college or trade school?

I think it's happening. I hear stories about "the first one in the family to go to college" all the time, successful adults who had food stamps as a kid, and other similar things. It's just not happening in huge waves because poverty creates a huge minefield that students have to get through. It's not just about having enough food to eat, doing homework, ect. It's about staying out of trouble because there isn't a fancy lawyer to keep them out of jail, staying away from the easy access to drugs, not getting pregnant, not getting depressed and giving up, not getting randomly killed, ect. These programs are more "slow and steady" vs. "wham-bam bibbidi-bobbidi fixed".

[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.[

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!

To answer your question, yes, that's what I think should happen. Because it will take something like that happening for parents to understand that they have to provide for their child.

I have no doubt if schools stopped all those services that parents would be breaking down the doors complaining that the school isn't doing their job. I think they truly do not understand that it is their job as a parent.

I think if you never, ever end the freebie cycle that kids never see their parents providing so you end up with another generation of kids who feel they are entitled to have schools provide food, snacks, school supplies, uniforms/clothes, hair cuts, extra curricular, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, you, historian, stop with the facts that go against my uninformed opinion! I dislike spending my money on taxes that feed other people's children but still want to self congratulate on what a good person I am. I need a narrative in which my selfishness helps people!