Thursday, February 13, 2014

There's No Free Lunch?

Times short so I'll leave it that I stuck my foot in it again by questioning where parental accountability fits into this discussion.  It seemed to be totally absent...
MinnPost Tray Pulling Gets Political

Here is the earlier post.
MinnPost Tray Pulling

On a lighter note....  Seinfeld No Soup For You...

One more thought...  It is kind of strange that the MinnPost folks are attacking the Public School folks on this.  Most Teachers, Lunch Ladies and School Admins I know are really into the kids.  I am guessing if there is a food problem, there is a much bigger issue on going with the child's parents or the child.  I thought these MinnPost people are the ones who say they trust the Public Ed system implicitly.  Amazing how fast they turned on them.

19 comments:

Sean said...

If you see the world in binary terms, where it's either "my team" or "your team", I guess I can see how this would be so confusing for you.

John said...

Does that mean you want to let the irresponsible parents off the hook and blame the schools /gov't also?

John said...

If there are teams, did I accidentally get on the wrong one today? I mean here I am defending public schools while left leaning people attack them. May be it is a freaky Thursday experience.

Usually I only end up defending them against far right folks...

Sean said...

No, I'm not in favor of letting irresponsible parents off the hook. It's possible to hold parents accountable, though, without punishing the children.

John said...

Good to hear, no one on that other team seems interested in addressing the parent portion of this problem...

I proposed that the kids get to eat, and the parents get a visit from the police and social services to see if there are other issues that should be dealt with... If it is just an oversight I am pretty sure it wouldn't happen again. If there are real problems maybe help can be given.

jerrye92002 said...

As usual, government cannot properly make a bologna sandwich, given the bread and meat. So, government wants to give the kids a good lunch because they're poor and the parent can't afford a bologna sandwich. But not so poor that the lunch can be free, so when the parents don't pay, we decide to give the lunch away free anyway. In other words, what government subsidizes, we get more of, which is parents willing to spend their money on weed rather than lunch for their kids.

I think you have the right idea, John, but the stupidest part of this seems to be that perfectly good food is being tossed away rather than eaten. That sounds like something government would do, and so does spending more money to "fix" a problem that government caused in the first place.

I feel like Scrooge saying, "Are there no food stamps"? If the kids would go without lunch unless government gives it to them, where did the food stamps go? What does it cost for a bologna sandwich and some carrot sticks?

John said...

Subsidy Amounts

I think we are talking about the group of kids where the government pays $2.76 and the parents only pay $.40 for lunch.

So we are paying ~14/wk and the parents only pay $2 per week. Personally I don't think we are asking to much of these Parents.

John said...

Besides my point that I have never met a "soup nazi" in my school visits. The school personnel typically are left leaning, caring, nurturing people. I just don't see them yanking the tray and tossing the food. I think this has gotten way political and blown far out of proportion...

jerrye92002 said...

Well, except that this ruckus started because cafeteria workers WERE yanking away the hot meal and throwing the food away! No doubt some of these same caring individuals were also involved in confiscating lunches that parents had packed because they weren't up to Mrs. Obama's standards.

All of this simply re-proves three things: 1) that good people in a bad system produce bad results; 2) that when government subsidizes parental irresponsibility we get more of it; and 3) that none of this is about helping kids but it IS about control.

John said...

So if a white man shoots a black man in Utah, lots of white men are racist killers? Give me a break...

Or it proves that there were at least 2 really foolish conservative or grumpy underappreciated lunch people in a Utah school...
Utah School Throws Lunch

This seems like a Right wing conspiracy story run rampant. I just found it amusing that the Liberal folks got out their pitch forks, torched and joined the Conservatives in storming the castle also... "Kill the Monster!!!"

John said...

Some days I really wish I could play on MPP again, especially when Eric posts things like this and no body takes the time to comment. I am sure my comments would promote some disagreement and likely return visits.

My thought after reading Eric's "$3,500,000 is a bargain" to make this problem go away post was...

Why are we only discussing the $ .40/lunch kids. What if I decide to stop paying the $2.74 per meal rate for my kids to have lunch? (ie $3.10 - $.36)

Who's going to pay the bill so my kids can have lunch? Since I still have 2 kids in K-12, that would be $5.52/day or nearly $955 per year. This is starting to sound pretty good.

jerrye92002 said...

Wow. How you can even read that MPP bilge is beyond me. But it's the typical liberal mindset. Never mind expecting parental responsibility, just dump it all on the taxpayers. What's a few million bucks, anyway? As the late, great Sen. Dirksen once said, "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon we're talking real money."

Since there is no end to the amount of good that can be done with Other People's Money, there is no end to the desire of liberals to spend it on objects of their "compassion." Never mind whether it is the best way of accomplishing the desired goal, or if it is effective, or if it runs counter to human nature or encourages people to be responsible.

Laurie said...

My children have missed quite a few lunches, not because we are too poor to pay, but because we are too disorganized. First because he might not remember to tell us until a couple of days of no lunch, then because we don't immediately add $ to his account.

If I was making school policy I would give the child lunch, then have the parent robo called every day until $ are put into the account. After 2 weeks I would have a person, such as a school social worker if there is one, make a call to see what the trouble is. I would give the schools extra $ to implement such a policy

jerrye92002 said...

Very sensible, Laurie, but I'm afraid it's treating the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is call "a free lunch" and it breeds irresponsibility. It used to be that part of a parent's job was to put lunch in a sack every day for the kid (or in his Roy Rogers lunchbox). Then we got hot lunches and some parents found it easier to give the kid lunch money and assume the bully wouldn't take it. Now, home-packed lunches are frowned upon and everybody is supposed to take the "nutritious" Obama-approved lunch and like it. It's just not the right way to go about solving the problem of hungry kids.

John said...

Okay Jerry, enlighten us.

What is the way to deal with hungry kids who have poor or deadbeat parents?

Laurie, First I have missed you. Second I think yours is a good answer.

jerrye92002 said...

I like Laurie's answer, too, but as I say it doesn't get at the problem, just the symptom.

So, if the parents are poor, they are already eligible for welfare of various kinds, which is intended first and foremost to make sure those kids get fed. The responsibility still falls on these parents, just like everybody else. Now, if the kid shows up without a bag lunch and without money for hot lunch, then somebody should notice and somebody needs to be making a house call to find out why. IMHO, the number of "irresponsible parents" is a tiny fraction of what you seem to believe it is. It's just that we have rewarded irresponsible behavior through the welfare system and thus get a lot more of it.

Besides, if we quit making subsidized lunches part of the school funding formula, maybe the kids can get an education, too.

Laurie said...

It's nice to be missed. Sean has been doing a good job representing a liberal pt of view in my absence.

I have been swamped with paper work this month and have also taken up walking on the tread mill in a big way. So far this month I have logged 80 miles, watched a dozen movies, and dropped 6 lbs. Maybe I will learn to use the Dragon speech program I bought recently and post blog comments while I walk.

John said...

Laurie,
Great to hear, keep up the exercising.

Jerry,
Food isn't part of the school funding formula, it is part of the Farm Bill.

As for the number of irresponsible parents, it took just a few to make this whole issue blow up.

jerrye92002 said...

"Food isn't part of the school funding formula, it is part of the Farm Bill."

No, a big part of school funding is based on "free and reduced lunch" numbers. It is how inner city schools get twice the funding that suburban schools do, to account for students "in poverty," just as you always say we must. Except it isn't working.

"As for the number of irresponsible parents, it took just a few to make this whole issue blow up." Yes, but an irresponsibility that government created, and government employees caused to "blow up" when they tried to fix it. Typical government-- making a muck of fixing the problem that government caused in the first place.