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

[Anonymous]

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

Because obviously if kids aren't increasing their test scores they should just starve /sarcasm

[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.

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

Food cost have skyrocketed while we just have remain stagnant so it doesn't surprise me. I thought the chip program was discontinued due to political infighting.

[Anonymous]

No. The question is ‘Why are schools taking on the responsibility for feeding/clothing/raising kids?’ And, how much money should we spend on that.

Those are two completely valid questions.

We’re in MCPS, at a FOCUS school and there are plenty of resources for families at our school. Have the counselors direct families to them.

[Anonymous]

The thing that's always missing from these conversations (and here are SO many of them in lots of places) is the perspective of the people receiving these services. I mean, yeah, they're not here on DCUM, but are there academic or government studies and resources that actually delve into whether these families think the services benefit them, in what ways, what's unnecessary, what's needed most, etc? For the most part, it's human nature to want more free stuff. But there have to be insightful perspectives out there from the family side. Perhaps even some who think it's not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that's always missing from these conversations (and here are SO many of them in lots of places) is the perspective of the people receiving these services. I mean, yeah, they're not here on DCUM, but are there academic or government studies and resources that actually delve into whether these families think the services benefit them, in what ways, what's unnecessary, what's needed most, etc? For the most part, it's human nature to want more free stuff. But there have to be insightful perspectives out there from the family side. Perhaps even some who think it's not helping.

No. I think what the families I know would say is: here are all the other needs that aren't being met. Not that they don't need what they are currently receiving. Are you for real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that's always missing from these conversations (and here are SO many of them in lots of places) is the perspective of the people receiving these services. I mean, yeah, they're not here on DCUM, but are there academic or government studies and resources that actually delve into whether these families think the services benefit them, in what ways, what's unnecessary, what's needed most, etc? For the most part, it's human nature to want more free stuff. But there have to be insightful perspectives out there from the family side. Perhaps even some who think it's not helping.

No. I think what the families I know would say is: here are all the other needs that aren't being met. Not that they don't need what they are currently receiving. Are you for real?

Agreed, although at some point there needs to be some understanding that it isn't an endless pit. Attended a meeting where mostly illegal immigrant parents were complaining they had to wait in line to get translation help on FCPS documents as if there wasn't a library computer or a friend they could turn to. There are hundreds of languages spoken here. It's impossible to assume that FCPS can provide language translation on all of them at a moment's notice. There has to be a cutoff between what is essential and what is desired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that's always missing from these conversations (and here are SO many of them in lots of places) is the perspective of the people receiving these services. I mean, yeah, they're not here on DCUM, but are there academic or government studies and resources that actually delve into whether these families think the services benefit them, in what ways, what's unnecessary, what's needed most, etc? For the most part, it's human nature to want more free stuff. But there have to be insightful perspectives out there from the family side. Perhaps even some who think it's not helping.

No. I think what the families I know would say is: here are all the other needs that aren't being met. Not that they don't need what they are currently receiving. Are you for real?

Yes, I suppose you're right. I was thinking more of well-meaning bureaucrats driving changes with no input, but I ignored the fact that the changes are driven by visibly in need children. I wonder what the parents would say about why schools should parent their kids. Sob stories? Genuine belief that it's the school's role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I suppose you're right. I was thinking more of well-meaning bureaucrats driving changes with no input, but I ignored the fact that the changes are driven by visibly in need children. I wonder what the parents would say about why schools should parent their kids. Sob stories? Genuine belief that it's the school's role?

I'm not sure what you mean by "schools parenting kids".

[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

Food cost have skyrocketed while we just have remain stagnant so it doesn't surprise me. I thought the chip program was discontinued due to political infighting.

meenwhile SNAP usage is on the decline http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-participation-640500

[Anonymous]

If move the needle = fewer criminals and crime, then yes, we are slowly moving the needle if you compare to previous decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My daughter is in third grade in a relatively well-off school, and a lot of kids from her grade, DD included, buy lunch at the school cafeteria. It is not free for us, and it is not 'unpopular'.

Makes me wonder why Title 1 kids don't eat food - for free - that our relatively more affluent children have to buy.

PP, there's no such thing as a "Title I kid".

Title one identifies a school with a high percentage of parents with lower incomes who get free lunches. Many kids bring their lunches as the school lunches are gross. Just because it is free doesn't mean it is good or healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I don't think most people are comparing now with pre-welfare. The debate is whether schools should be providing social services (directing time, effort and money away from education). People can feed and clothe their children with existing social services. There are several reasons why this might not happen: 1) the family is illegal and does not qualify for public assistance (although between nonenforcement of fraudulent SS numbers and citizen children, this isn't much of a barrier; 2) the family over spends on housing by living in high cost areas (like MoCo); or 3) they misspend the money they do have by focusing on wants instead of needs (cigarettes, soda, etc.).

The question is whether we want to double spend on feeding, clothing, medical care, etc. or not, and risk providing a low quality education to everyone as our systems reorient toward social services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Food cost have skyrocketed while we just have remain stagnant so it doesn't surprise me. I thought the chip program was discontinued due to political infighting.

meenwhile SNAP usage is on the decline http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-participation-640500

Two reasons: lower unemployment in an improving economy and illegals who got nervous being on federal welfare rolls, even for their citizen children. Food stamps are "an entitlement" so have not been cut.

[Anonymous]

People - if you want to argue that poor people are being mistreated, please keep up. CHIP had been funded through March. It is like every other part of our government: on gap spending.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/news/economy/chip-funding/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think most people are comparing now with pre-welfare. The debate is whether schools should be providing social services (directing time, effort and money away from education). People can feed and clothe their children with existing social services. There are several reasons why this might not happen: 1) the family is illegal and does not qualify for public assistance (although between nonenforcement of fraudulent SS numbers and citizen children, this isn't much of a barrier; 2) the family over spends on housing by living in high cost areas (like MoCo); or 3) they misspend the money they do have by focusing on wants instead of needs (cigarettes, soda, etc.).

The question is whether we want to double spend on feeding, clothing, medical care, etc. or not, and risk providing a low quality education to everyone as our systems reorient toward social services.

First let's establish that people can feed and clothe their children with existing social services and that this actually is "double spending".

Then let's discuss what happens to the children when people don't (whether or not they can).