Real food - is that too much to ask?

[Nukeman]

http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/

Found this just for you Con, you say its a small amount I say otherwise so do others...

Fill it out and turn it in: that’s the message thousands of school districts send parents each year when they offer applications for the federal government’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP). And each year, millions of parents comply. But new data suggest that the process for verifying eligibility for the program is fundamentally broken and that taxpayers may be picking up the tab for participation by ineligible families. The NSLP, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at an annual cost of $8 billion, serves 31 million American children each day. The program’s goal is to help low-income students succeed in public and private school classrooms by ensuring they have adequate nutrition, a mission that is compromised if substantial funds are being spent on ineligible families or the program fails to reach the neediest students.
Determining the extent of program fraud and error is important, as the entitlement is associated with other streams of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Eligibility data are widely used as proxies for poverty rates, thereby influencing funding for myriad government programs and informing both school district policies and policy research. For example, NSLP participation rates serve as the main criteria for the allocation of federal Title I funds to schools. Those schools with a higher percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch also receive a larger discount on the federal government’s E-Rate program, which facilitates access to telecommunications services for schools and libraries.

personally 8 billion dollars jsut for free lunch and breakfast for a group of kids whose parents are already receiving WIC and food stamps is NOT a drop in the bucket, Its a damn big hole in the bucket fo waste......

[ConHog]

Every little project is little. Now add up how much money we spend yearly "taking care" of others. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Children need to learn responsibility and parents should be teaching it to their kids. Whether I add $1 a year to the pot or $500 shouldn't matter. Teach parents to be better parents instead of teaching the kids to live off the government.

Jim listen to yourself, how is telling a kid they can't have lunch because their parents are fucktards going to teach THEM anything? It won't , it's just being mean. You talk about what's right? What's right is not punishing the kid for the sin of the father.

BUT here's the theory behind free meals.

USUALLY the kids who receive free meals come from homes where the parent(s) just don't give a shit. They don't care if the kid eats, they don't even care if the kid goes to school. Now we all know that most kids aren't going to school if a parent doesn't make them right? And we can all agree that education is the key to getting people out of that lifestyle right? So logic would dictate that it is society's best interest to keep kids in school, right?

Okay then if a kid isn't getting fed at home and he knows he can get something to eat at school, hey guess what? He's likely to get his ass to school, if not for anything else but to get something to eat. And hey once there, we might actually get him to learn something.

Do soome people abuse this? Absolutely; but do some actually take the help offered and make something better of themselves, and then when they have kids those kids aren't on welfare? Yep, it happens, ALL the time.

It's an investment now to hopefully save tax dollars in the future.

http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/

Found this just for you Con, you say its a small amount I say otherwise so do others...



personally 8 billion dollars jsut for free lunch and breakfast for a group of kids whose parents are already receiving WIC and food stamps is NOT a drop in the bucket, Its a damn big hole in the bucket fo waste......

Now you're talking about fraud and waste. Both of which I completely agree should be put to an end. I would almost bet money that we could feed teh same number of kids for half the money or less if we did so.

[Nukeman]

Now you're talking about fraud and waste. Both of which I completely agree should be put to an end. I would almost bet money that we could feed teh same number of kids for half the money or less if we did so.

That is what this entire thread has been about, the WASTE and the FRAUD involved with these children getting something for free just because their parents are a bunch of morons.

From the time I was 8 years old I got myself up, ate breakfast, washed my hair, got dressed and got on the bus. Now my parents BOTH worked 2 jobs in order to have food in the house, my mom made sure we had lunch money every Monday for school (5.00 for 5 lunches). They really haven't gone up that much over the last 30 years. In fact I think we pay 1.65 for our kids each day..

Know what happened if I lost my money on the way to school?? I DIDN'T GET A LUNCH, because my parents worked to damn much and tough shit on me for losing my money... So yaa I look at this a fraud, waste, and plain lazyness on the worthless parents, should the kids have to suffer for poor parents yes and no. If we make it easy for the parents and they know there will always be this safety net with no reprecussions if used they will continue to SUCK, if they have to work or help in the making of those free meal maybe just maybe we can save some money and the kids that actually need the service will get it instead of all the others.

On a side note one of my sons friends receive free lunches and breakfast, both parents work the have a nice house ON THE LAKE, 2 nice cars yet no money for lunch. hmmmm why is that????

[logroller]

But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS

Well the kids get the free lunch, not the parents who got the food stamps; and not every person who gets free/reduced lunch gets food stamps. We had bad parenting before free lunches...so how would removing that solve the bad parenting problem? I'm reminded of the mom who sent her kid to school without proper apparel for winter weather after he got kicked off the bus-- hypothermia, that'll teach 'em responsibility, right?

There are so many families that see their kids as cash machines. 7 kids and you get lots of welfare and other government goodies. Then the parents don't parent, and now WE get to foot the bill for their little machines.

Its interesting how people frame the issue. Sure there are bad parents, no one contests this; but from an legislative/administrative POV, its about how to best teach these kids the fundamentals, isn't it? Reading, writing etc...

Please show me a written code, rule or standard which instructs the teaching of personal responsibility within public education. Something tells me won't find one, b/c that's what the parents are supposed to do.

[ConHog]

"ahahhahhahahah I'll teach you a lesson about your dad being welfare, no lunch for you."

[Nukeman]

Well the kids get the free lunch, not the parents who got the food stamps; and not every person who gets free/reduced lunch gets food stamps. We had bad parenting before free lunches...so how would removing that solve the bad parenting problem? I'm reminded of the mom who sent her kid to school without proper apparel for winter weather after he got kicked off the bus-- hypothermia, that'll teach 'em responsibility, right?



Its interesting how people frame the issue. Sure there are bad parents, no one contests this; but from an legislative/administrative POV, its about how to best teach these kids the fundamentals, isn't it? Reading, writing etc...

Please show me a written code, rule or standard which instructs the teaching of personal responsibility within public education. Something tells me won't find one, b/c that's what the parents are supposed to do.

Exactly, but by making everything free we take away the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, they are no longer responsibile for the basic needs of their own chidren. that breeds lazyness and a "give me more free shit" mentality.

Where does it stop, when is enough, enough!! Where do you draw the line?? i am sure someoned else will draw it further than you so it NEVER STOPS........

"ahahhahhahahah I'll teach you a lesson about your dad being welfare, no lunch for you."

To quote a friend of mine.

"Its a hard world, full of hard choices, we all have a problems get over it". Now that seams rather harsh on the surface but it has a lot of truth to it...

[ConHog]

Exactly, but by making everything free we take away the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, they are no longer responsibile for the basic needs of their own chidren. that breeds lazyness and a "give me more free shit" mentality.

Where does it stop, when is enough, enough!! Where do you draw the line?? i am sure someoned else will draw it further than you so it NEVER STOPS........

Exactly the opposite. By giving them a reason to come to school we encourage them to take full advantage of the opportunity and better themselves so they don't remain in the same life.

To quote a friend of mine.

"Its a hard world, full of hard choices, we all have a problems get over it". Now that seams rather harsh on the surface but it has a lot of truth to it...

Choices? DOes a kid CHOOSE for his parents to be on welfare? LOL Jesus Christ.

[Nukeman]

Exactly the opposite. By giving them a reason to come to school we encourage them to take full advantage of the opportunity and better themselves so they don't remain in the same life.

I say bullshit.. Here is why most of those kids in those situations are the one that also benefit from "free" or "reduced" college education yet MOST roughly 80-90% NEVER take full advantage.

I know in Indiana we have "21st century scholars" you have to be a certain income level to qualify that is a FULL RIDE IN STATE TUITION at a state school. the demographic it is aimed at rarely use it for its intended purpose but hey its ONLY money and we gave these kids free lunches to get them to go to college and then gave them free college that they used for a year or 2 than dropped out and they are making more money be having kids and throwing them in the system.

IT NEVER F***ING ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Choices? DOes a kid CHOOSE for his parents to be on welfare? LOL Jesus Christ.

NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....

[ConHog]

I say bullshit.. Here is why most of those kids in those situations are the one that also benefit from "free" or "reduced" college education yet MOST roughly 80-90% NEVER take full advantage.

I know in Indiana we have "21st century scholars" you have to be a certain income level to qualify that is a FULL RIDE IN STATE TUITION at a state school. the demographic it is aimed at rarely use it for its intended purpose but hey its ONLY money and we gave these kids free lunches to get them to go to college and then gave them free college that they used for a year or 2 than dropped out and they are making more money be having kids and throwing them in the system.

IT NEVER F***ING ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so you throw those who are fraudulently using the system in jail . you don't take the system that IS helping those who actually take advantage away though. NO ONE is denying that assholes abuse the help offered. But if you are honestly saying that NO honest people are helped in a positive way then I'm dismissing you as not being serious in this thread.

[fj1200]

Um, FJ? What is it you think DFCS does, exactly? Because they do not help parents get on benefits, they just remove kids from "unfit" homes, and they put parents on monitoring. Let's see if I have this straight: Instead of doing the simpler and easier thing of providing some basic food at the place the kids have to be at , you instead want every school calling Child Services about their kids that didn't bring a lunch or lunch money? Clearly you've never worked in a school before, because this would completely swamp DFCS.

With all due respect you miss the point. First, my apologies for misidentifying the proper agency that can provide food and perhaps a little bit of education on the matter of breakfast and lunch, but second, the idea is that without the coddling of parents by continually removing responsibility from them they may actually step up and be parents and providers and educators to their children of how to make sure that they are able to take care of themselves. My oldest in third grade takes his lunch every day to school and is in charge of packing it himself, not that he makes is successful every time, but he gets a lunch and doesn't rely on the school to eat.

And what exactly do you propose we do with all the extra prepared food that, by law, has to be thrown out at the end of the day? Bear in mind it can not be given away, or taken home with faculty, it's gotta get dumpstered. We have a monumental amount of extra food, so giving some to the poor kids isn't going to change the food budget at all in schools. It will simply change how much is being thrown away, of good to no one.

I'm not even sure the relevance of that.

You know why schools offer lunches? Because kids and faculty gotta eat, and some parents are horrific cooks (My buddy O'Toole's mom couldn't manage Oodles of Noodles.), while others are too busy working 1-4 jobs and just don't have enough time to prep a lunch. Sure, we could let all the kids off campus to snag something at McDonald's, but uh, aren't we talking in this thread about how that sort of food is detrimental to our children's health? Second, you would have kids leave and not return, which is a hassle for the school, or get injured/sick during the lunch period. Third, it's inefficient, and would waste valuable classroom time to the logistics of the thing. So, it's simply easier, and more convenient to have the cafeteria on premises, and if we've gotta have the cafeteria on premises, then there's extra food to be had, so we might as well make sure everyone's taken care of.

How many schools do NOT provide lunches? Kids still manage to eat and so do the faculty and staff. Why do you fall into the trap that if these things are not provided that mass starvation will occur? My issue is that we create massive programs that must encompass all which in reality only need to be tweaked to help out the few. Do you really think that having a cafeteria with all the cooking requirements and the staff and logistics that go with it are central to the core competency of a school providing education?

Cooking? We're talking about a sandwich or a Lunchable.

[ConHog]

NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....

LOL so you're solution is rather than spend $8B (and we both agree that number should be cut in half at least) that we should instead take kids away from their parents and then PAY foster parents to raise them (you do realize the government pays for the care of foster kids right?)

That doesn't save you any money, AND taking a child away from his parents isn't teaching that kid a lesson. You are punishing the kid for something the parents did (or or in this case did NOT do.)

[Nukeman]

so you throw those who are fraudulently using the system in jail . you don't take the system that IS helping those who actually take advantage away though. NO ONE is denying that assholes abuse the help offered. But if you are honestly saying that NO honest people are helped in a positive way then I'm dismissing you as not being serious in this thread.

So we throw the idiot parents in jail where it cost even more money!! I have never stated that "no child should receive" this or that, what I and others have been saying is that this a parental issue on most accounts and needs to be addressed as one instead of putting a "food bandaid" on the underlying issue, you and those that refuse to see it as that are the ones creating a massive group of "give me's" and thats it,

Sure there are a few that ACTUALLY need the help but the vast majority do not!!! the school lunches are NOT that expensive, especialy for what the kids get. I have 3 in regular school and 1 in college right now I know how much I spend on their food and if your telling me that a parent cant come up with 20 dallars a month for 9 months (roughly 200.00$ for the school year) for those meals your fooling yourself and I would just as quickly dismiss you as being over sensitive!!!

LOL so you're solution is rather than spend $8B (and we both agree that number should be cut in half at least) that we should instead take kids away from their parents and then PAY foster parents to raise them (you do realize the government pays for the care of foster kids right?)

That doesn't save you any money, AND taking a child away from his parents isn't teaching that kid a lesson. You are punishing the kid for something the parents did (or or in this case did NOT do.)

Yes.. Yes I do and that money is given to take care of those kids and at least that money is going to the children that ACTUALLY NEED IT.... (about 18.00 a day) as for taking the kid away from his parents! I would have to say they really arent parents if they cant supply the basics needed to take care of their children....

[ConHog]

So we throw the idiot parents in jail where it cost even more money!! I have never stated that "no child should receive" this or that, what I and others have been saying is that this a parental issue on most accounts and needs to be addressed as one instead of putting a "food bandaid" on the underlying issue, you and those that refuse to see it as that are the ones creating a massive group of "give me's" and thats it,

Sure there are a few that ACTUALLY need the help but the vast majority do not!!! the school lunches are NOT that expensive, especialy for what the kids get. I have 3 in regular school and 1 in college right now I know how much I spend on their food and if your telling me that a parent cant come up with 20 dallars a month for 9 months (roughly 200.00$ for the school year) for those meals your fooling yourself and I would just as quickly dismiss you as being over sensitive!!!

Parents who are abusing the system? Yes , throw them in jail. Same with ANYONE who is abusing any sort of welfare. But using the system and abusing it are not the same thing.

And I also agree that in many cases parents are getting help they don't need. Fine up the standards, that still isn't the same thing as eliminating a program altogether.

Oh, and I am sensitive to making sure kids get lunch. I'd vote to shut down our football program before I'd vote to do away with the free lunch program. They are kids.

[logroller]

NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....

You assume there aren't those in foster care who would do the exact thing.

How many schools do NOT provide lunches? Kids still manage to eat and so do the faculty and staff. Why do you fall into the trap that if these things are not provided that mass starvation will occur? My issue is that we create massive programs that must encompass all which in reality only need to be tweaked to help out the few. Do you really think that having a cafeteria with all the cooking requirements and the staff and logistics that go with it are central to the core competency of a school providing education?

I could say the same thing for mandating a minimum number of instructional minutes. The old adage, you can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, applies well here. Schools, govt et al, are bound by certain constitutional limitations, esp. due process/equal protection. The amount of paperwork and subsequent time required to do anything on a case-by-case basis leaves all but the most extreme cases unattended-- so you get sweeping legislation instead. Not because its functionally more effective, but because its more efficiently created. Again, this is a critique of institutionalization, and another reason why the Feds shouldn't fund educational institutions. But that's not to say feeding kids is without merit; it just needs to be addressed at the state level, with independent monitoring by the feds. I thought that's how a republic was supposed to operate.

[ConHog]

You assume there aren't those in foster care who would do the exact thing.


I could say the same thing for mandating a minimum number of instructional minutes. The old adage, you can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, applies well here. Schools, govt et al, are bound by certain constitutional limitations, esp. due process/equal protection. The amount of paperwork and subsequent time required to do anything on a case-by-case basis leaves all but the most extreme cases unattended-- so you get sweeping legislation instead. Not because its functionally more effective, but because its more efficiently created. Again, this is a critique of institutionalization, and another reason why the Feds shouldn't fund educational institutions. But that's not to say feeding kids is without merit; it just needs to be addressed at the state level, with independent monitoring by the feds. I thought that's how a republic was supposed to operate.

A perfectly reasonable solution and I can tell you most involved with schools would love to see the DoE reigned in but kept in place a a federal oversight.