Most of the comments about the post are in the vein of asking why "we" should be responsible to feed "your" kid. It never fails to amaze me how in one breath conservatives are talking about family values and "faith-based" anything and then in the next breath slam social programs that take care of the needy among us.
Here's one of my comments:
"You guys are all around the answer in your posts, but nobody's quite hit it because you're somewhat blinded to it. Let's try this:I want to do more about this soon... so watch this space.
- Should most people be allowed to procreate without further education, instruction and licensing? No.
- Are some "parents" negligent, some criminally, for not feeding or otherwise taking care of their children? Yes.
- Should DCFS (or equivalent) be called in some cases where kids chronically come to school so hungry they cannot do their work? Yes.
BUT...
- Are there parents out there who are
1) Not there in the morning when their kids leave for school because they are: selling crack, turning tricks, in jail, at work at Wal*Mart?
2) Out of work and truly unable to make ends meet with foodstamps and welfare?
3) Out of it because of drug or alcohol dependence?
4) Living in a car?
Answer: YES!
So then what? Are we as a nation - or even as individuals - so penurious, though so rich, that we would let these children go to school (where they must take umpteen standardized tests per year) so hungry that they cannot learn? Maybe not every school needs to feed every child, but how do you know which ones need the breakfast? Do you "means test" every child?
And what is the cost of feeding breakfast to children at school verses the later cost of those who will fail and/or drop out? Those costs are too hard to put into an easy spreadsheet so they are typically discounted.
Are we really so cheap?"
No comments:
Post a Comment