Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!
California schools are basically daycare centers.
“Decades of underinvestment in schools, culture battles over bilingual education, and stark income inequality have made California the least literate state in the nation, as Capitol Weekly reported.
Nearly 1 in 4 people over the age of 15 lack the skills to decipher the words in this sentence. Only 77% of adults are considered mid- to highly literate, according to the nonpartisan data crunchers at World Population Review.“
https://edsource.org/updates/california-has-the-lowest-literacy-rate-of-any-state-data-suggests
Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!
Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of rich people and companies in CA. Most of the rich people still live in CA.
And programs like this are subsidizing them.
I have zero problem with providing free or inexpensive school lunches to children who actually need them, but a) there should be some limit on income so that we don't waste money to provide subsidized meals to people who can afford them and b) the food needs to be good enough that the students will actually eat it, since wasted food helps no one.
There are a lot of rich people and companies in CA. Most of the rich people still live in CA.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.
This will result in worse food for the kids that need it
If all children get free lunch then the children of poor families are not embarrassed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is it really free?
it's free to the kids, and to the families who don't make much since they don't pay much in taxes.
CA has a $97 billion surplus. It's nice that they are using it to feed kids. I grew up in CA and was lower income. I remember vividly being in 1st grade and being hungry and couldn't wait till snack time when they gave us a few crackers. This was before Prop 13 passed. Once that passed, the free snacks went out the window, along with a bunch of other services and programs.
A one time surplus or a surplus every year?
? can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years?
One that's extremely bad at budgeting.
I bet any state would just love to be this bad at budgeting then. LOL
I'll ask again: can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years
Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.
This will result in worse food for the kids that need it
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is it really free?
it's free to the kids, and to the families who don't make much since they don't pay much in taxes.
CA has a $97 billion surplus. It's nice that they are using it to feed kids. I grew up in CA and was lower income. I remember vividly being in 1st grade and being hungry and couldn't wait till snack time when they gave us a few crackers. This was before Prop 13 passed. Once that passed, the free snacks went out the window, along with a bunch of other services and programs.
A one time surplus or a surplus every year?
? can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years?
One that's extremely bad at budgeting.
I bet any state would just love to be this bad at budgeting then. LOL
I'll ask again: can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.
This will result in worse food for the kids that need it
I think this is true. The food in our district was noticeably worse
When it was free to all
Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!