Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with but understand the rationale behind a lack of support for extensive social services in schools including a lot of free food. What I truly do not understand is the opposition to translation. If the idea is that engaged, invested families who support their children's education are what is needed to lift children out of poverty and low achievement, how does making engagement less accessible to parents by refusing to provide translation services further that goal?

For what it's worth, I'm a social services provider based in a Title 1 school. There is certainly a mentality among some parents that they have a lower obligation to provide for their children because things like free uniforms, free food, extensive assistance with social-emotional functioning, etc. is all available at school. The flip side to this is that for children, school is where they are most easily reached. If their parents are NOT invested in helping their kids succeed, removing services from school will likely result in fewer kids getting services that support success, since we would then need to rely on parents bringing them to and from appointments.

PP back to add that I have no opposition to translation services, but like most socio-economic services, it's mismanaged and abused. I shouldn't have to call a contracted translation service in CA to conference call a parent to ask about a student's absences or to discuss why an acutely ill student needs to go home. The parent liaison is over-burdened. The ESOL student parents are not, as a whole, attempting to speak English. Sure, a few are taking English lessons, but where's the motivation? You can call any FCPS school and announce, "Spanish?" and you'll get to speak to someone in Spanish. We end up segregating these families in the interest of "translating." Principal meet and greets with only Spanish-speaking parents? My school spent outrageous time and effort sending home translated paperwork and forms, only to have most returned or "lost." The parent liaison bore the burden and ended up meeting individually with a few parents to go over forms and explain policies. Most were unable to read in their native language or were asking their school age children to translate.

PP here. Okay. I generally agree that translation is not done in an effective way. The school where I work is 45% ELL. I'd estimate that the parent community is probably 70% Spanish-speaking and that probably half of them do not speak English well enough to communicate in a nuanced way about their child's education in English. I appreciate the many truly bilingual staff members we have in my school, and frankly, I wish that people who sign up to teach or work in schools with a known high percentage of Spanish speakers would attempt to learn Spanish as well. Sign up for language classes. Use Rosetta Stone. Hell, use Duo Lingo - it's better than nothing.

Talking about literacy in their native language is a separate issue, to me, from opposition to providing translated materials. I know that in some parts of this area, there is also the need for translation into languages other than Spanish. For me, though, it's Spanish. If we need Amharic or Vietnamese, we call Language Line, but people who are making calls about absences have some proficiency in Spanish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with but understand the rationale behind a lack of support for extensive social services in schools including a lot of free food. What I truly do not understand is the opposition to translation. If the idea is that engaged, invested families who support their children's education are what is needed to lift children out of poverty and low achievement, how does making engagement less accessible to parents by refusing to provide translation services further that goal?

For what it's worth, I'm a social services provider based in a Title 1 school. There is certainly a mentality among some parents that they have a lower obligation to provide for their children because things like free uniforms, free food, extensive assistance with social-emotional functioning, etc. is all available at school. The flip side to this is that for children, school is where they are most easily reached. If their parents are NOT invested in helping their kids succeed, removing services from school will likely result in fewer kids getting services that support success, since we would then need to rely on parents bringing them to and from appointments.

PP back to add that I have no opposition to translation services, but like most socio-economic services, it's mismanaged and abused. I shouldn't have to call a contracted translation service in CA to conference call a parent to ask about a student's absences or to discuss why an acutely ill student needs to go home. The parent liaison is over-burdened. The ESOL student parents are not, as a whole, attempting to speak English. Sure, a few are taking English lessons, but where's the motivation? You can call any FCPS school and announce, "Spanish?" and you'll get to speak to someone in Spanish. We end up segregating these families in the interest of "translating." Principal meet and greets with only Spanish-speaking parents? My school spent outrageous time and effort sending home translated paperwork and forms, only to have most returned or "lost." The parent liaison bore the burden and ended up meeting individually with a few parents to go over forms and explain policies. Most were unable to read in their native language or were asking their school age children to translate.

Anonymous wrote:4:02 again. We as teachers in schools like these are constantly asked to give give give. We had an angel tree for holiday gifts for needy students and the expectation was $25 per gift. I took two students’ names. I was walking to my car one afternoon and the student was riding up to the school on his hover board while using his iPhone. Mom has her nails done weekly. I know because I sponsor an after school club, which I’m not compensated for, and the sister told me that her mom uses that time to go get her nails done.

Yes, there are truly needy kids out there and no kid should ever have to go hungry. That’s why I volunteer with Manna and have a stash of food in my classroom for when it’s needed. But the wants vs. needs issue is real and I think parents need to be held more accountable for their choices. Education of parents needs to be considered so that habits can change.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with but understand the rationale behind a lack of support for extensive social services in schools including a lot of free food. What I truly do not understand is the opposition to translation. If the idea is that engaged, invested families who support their children's education are what is needed to lift children out of poverty and low achievement, how does making engagement less accessible to parents by refusing to provide translation services further that goal?

For what it's worth, I'm a social services provider based in a Title 1 school. There is certainly a mentality among some parents that they have a lower obligation to provide for their children because things like free uniforms, free food, extensive assistance with social-emotional functioning, etc. is all available at school. The flip side to this is that for children, school is where they are most easily reached. If their parents are NOT invested in helping their kids succeed, removing services from school will likely result in fewer kids getting services that support success, since we would then need to rely on parents bringing them to and from appointments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

The OP's post specifically asked about these provisions "creeping into schools".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

Of course it does. When you pay for them, the school has more money for other priorities.

When the mission of one institution, like schools, is expanded to include what should be the mission of other institutions, like social services, then it becomes difficult to allocate the money fairly. Because, obviously, preventing starvation is always more important than new textbooks or smaller classes. So when can we work on those other, educational priorities, when the social service basics could, conceivably, consume most of the institutions funds and time if allowed to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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 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 agree. I wrote something similar to this in another thread and got blasted for it. I’ve taught in title 1 and Focus schools for 15 years. People don’t truly understand until they work with this population every day. Parents learn how to work the system well and become conditioned to expect that their responsibilities as parents will be met by the school or social services. The kids end up learning that needs are supplied by the school and wants are supplied by their parents. Yes, I’m painting with a broad brush but it’s ultimately doing the kids a disservice as it is very difficult to break the cycle of poverty with this mentality.