On 9/7/2014 3:42 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/6/2014 3:30 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 14:44:51 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/6/2014 2:25 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:05:46 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I suggested.... if you think there is a need for a breakfast
>>>>>> program in your local school get a bunch of people together to
>>>>>> volunteer
>>>>>> their time to raise funds, find sponsors and do the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't forget that the same kids who need breakfast on school days
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> probably need it on weekends and holidays too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I support a charity that delivers lunch to needy kids during the
>>>>> summer.
>>>>
>>>> Typical American generosity!
>>>>
>>>>> I am also happy to support hungry kids with my tax dollars during the
>>>>> school year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hungry kids impact their entire class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tara
>>>>
>>>> They may, but we need to make sure it's not abused by lazy parents
>>>> looking for one less thing to have to do in the morning.
>>>
>>> Get real,
>>
>> I am.
>>
>>> far cheaper to simply feed the class rather than setting up
>>> a committee to make sure nobody receives it who it is felt should not
>>> receive it.
>>
>> Financial aid is means tested, the same metrics and assets can be used
>> for this.
>>
>> Ergo the "far cheaper" premise is unproven.
>>
>>
>>> What do you say to the child whom the committee decides
>>> has parents who can feed it ? So sorry, see your parents ?
>>
>> I say, CPS!
>>
>> And post haste too.
>>
>> School administrators are trained to look for such abuses and report
>> them.
>>
>> In addition ANY hungry kid, even be it for sleeping late and missing
>> breakfast should be addressed on a needs basis each day.
>>
>> Keep good records and the system is ultimately self-regulating, by one
>> means or another or both.
>>
>> Make blanket unsupervised programs and expect rampant abuse - this is
>> a lesson most of us have seen played out far too many times.
>
>
> As I mentioned in another reply, it isn't always easy to spot abuse.
> And often when we think we might see it, the kid will be quick to deny
> it for various reasons. One being fear of taken from their siblings.
> One being fear of being abused even more at home. Another being fear of
> being put into foster care and getting perhaps new and different forms
> of abuse. From what I have read there are some foster parents who are
> only in it for the money and they don't treat the kids well.
>
> When I was a kid, my friend had a dad who was a cop. I don't think her
> mom worked but she never seemed to be home. She had a younger brother
> and there was always a foster kid, female around age 16. The foster kid
> was kept in a tiny room in the basement and they were expected to stay
> there unless there was work to be done. They did the laundry for the
> family, the cooking, cleaning etc. They also babysat. I rarely saw
> these girls. One came up and made popsicles for us when my friend asked
> her to. That's when my friend told me that her parents got them so they
> could use them for these purposes. They were not treated as family
> members. More as servants. I can't speak in these cases if there was
> abuse but there was a whole slew of other weird things about this
> family, some of which I may never know. My mom knew some things but
> wouldn't tell me.
>
> Also, many teachers and other people are reluctant to call CPS. They
> may see something that they don't think is right but they likely can't
> prove anything and often the kid isn't going to admit to anything being
> wrong.
>
> I can think of two kids from my elementary school years. Both were
> always filthy. So filthy that they smelled vile. Because of this they
> earned not so nice nicknames. One also had some sort of physical
> problem that caused him to walk on his toes. His nickname had to do
> with that but the other was called Smelly _____. Name calling seemed to
> be tolerated in those days. I never called them names to their faces
> and felt sorry for them. They didn't seem to have any friends.
>
> I just assumed that they must come from households that were so poor
> that they couldn't afford soap or water or new clothes. But after
> reading some of the books I have of true stories of abuse, this in and
> of itself is a form of abuse. The parents force the kids to dress in
> rags and will not let them bathe. I guess I will never know if that was
> the case with those two boys. But it may well have been.
>
> Sadly there is no cut and dried solution. And while I don't feel that
> it is up to me or even up to the school to feed every kid, I also don't
> want kids to go hungry and someone has to do it. So I don't mind if
> some of my taxes go for that.
Of course there isn't a single solution, it's a systemic problem and as
such requires systemic fixes.
I listed nut a few, and they are sound.
There is no reason that those who require breakfasts can not be tracked
each day and the resultant data analyzed and compared against individual
teacher commentaries.
In the case of students whose parents are just lazy - after a certain
number of "oops" meals - start billing them - game over.
In the case of those who use the program each day, a brief interview
with the parents or guardians and metrics on income level is sufficient.
There are _always_ answers, if we have the objectivity to look for them.