by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
A school district in rural Pennsylvania has been in the news lately after someone in the school's administrative staff sent a letter home to parents whose children were behind in paying for their school lunches. The Wyoming Valley West School District of Pennsylvania sent out "hundreds" of letters telling parents that if their children's lunch bills were not brought up to date, the families would be referred to the state's "Dependency Court" and the children "could" wind up being placed into foster care.
Many news sources reported, at least in their headlines, that the letter had stated the children "would" be placed into foster care. That was fake news.
As someone who has worked as a school teacher and an administrator, a state child welfare worker and an administrator, a paid journalist, and a mental health provider (licensed clinical social worker), I have quite a bit that I could say on this matter, from several perspectives - and as a retiree, I have the time to say it.
So you might want to refill that coffee cup, because here goes . . .
First of all, there is no school district in the entire country, at least of which I am aware, that has the power to summarily place a child in foster care. Taking children out of their homes and putting them in foster care requires the action of a judge - apparently through the "Dependency Court" in Pennsylvania and through other forms of state courts in other locations. My own state has "juvenile court" system which works within the state's district courts to handle serious matters involving children - including their placement into foster care and the (hopefully) subsequent return to their natural parents.
The school district in Pennsylvania was correct in the way it stated the threat - foster care could result - but it was a threat, and an extreme bullying tactic - and a few sacrificial school administrator heads will probably roll before all of the dust has settled. The press was wrong in the way it portrayed the case in the headlines which gave the clear implication that the school actually had the power to place children in foster care. That is never the case. And the school district was wrong in making the payment of school lunches into such an extreme issue. There are smarter ways to handle a personal matter of such importance.
There is a certain subset of individuals in this country who get very angry at the idea of schools feeding children. They are opposed to the notion that their tax dollars might be putting food on the trays of poor and minority students - and anytime a brown child, or even a poor white one, is fed at public expense, that is overt socialism in the minds of these aggrieved taxpayers - not all of whom actually pay taxes. When a school district chooses to make the payment for meals into a local political issue, the ensuing fallout can ripple far beyond just lunch bills, and can negatively impact a wide array of school programs and responsibilities.
One way to turn down the heat on a situation like this without threatening to remove children from their homes is for school administrators to meet with families and try to get them qualified for the federal government's free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs. All students take home forms for free and reduced meals at the beginning of the year, but, as every parent of a school-age child knows, not every form makes it home, and, of those that do and get filled out, not every form makes it back to school.
Administrators can invite parents in for a conference regarding alternative ways to get meals into the bellies of their children, but many parents work - often several jobs - and coming to the school during regular work hours in often not an option. Another option, and one I have practiced many times, is for the school administrator to take his forms and go on a home visit. Again, many parents work during the days, and sometimes it takes an evening visit in order to catch parents at home. That's a lot of extra work, and not every school administrator is up to the challenge. It's much easier just to crank out a mass threat and shovel it into the mail.
Another option is to use local resources. There are a few kind-hearted individuals in every community who will step forward and help out if they suspect that a need exists - and add to that school support groups like the local PTA, as well as church and civic organizations, and a program as basic as school meals can be kept alive without going to war with the community or embarrassing hungry little kids.
As an elementary school principal in the 1980's, one of the biggest controversies that I ever stepped into was when I volunteered my school to be a test site for school breakfasts in our county. The program was sponsored by the federal government and contained provisions for "free and reduced" meals, something which benefited nearly half of our school's population. Several people of means in the community were livid that the school was planning to spend more of "their" money to feed poor kids.
Our staff stood strong in the face of that opposition, making the school breakfast program a success that soon spread to all of the other elementary schools in the county.
Here are two important things that I learned from that school breakfast experience: First, attendance improved. Kids are more likely to get up and come to school in the mornings if they know that breakfast is waiting. (Did you know that not every family has adequate food at home? And did you know that not every parent is at home in the mornings or capable of waking their children for school - and that not every parent even cares if their child goes to school or not?). When attendance improves, at least in Missouri, the amount of aid paid by the state goes up, and that paid by the local level goes down - so that was an added benefit to the program. It actually saved the locals money.
The second benefit of the program was that overall student behavior improved after the breakfast program was initiated. Maybe your child had a great breakfast at home and didn't need the food offered at school, but if that roustabout who sits next to her everyday behaves better, then your child's school experience is likely to be better as well.
Children benefit from access to regular meals and good nutrition, and when children benefit, so does America. Instead of subsidizing farmers by turning their corn into ethanol and pumping it into our cars, why not turn that corn into cornflakes and invest it where it will bear an actual return - in our kids?
There is nothing immoral or wrong with feeding children, but there is something morally wrong about threatening families who are already being degraded by living in poverty. A nation that can send people to the moon can surely give a hungry child a sandwich and a carton of milk.
Feed those kids, dammit! Not only is it the Christian thing to do, feeding hungry children is one investment that will quickly begin paying returns across all of society. And it's the right thing to do!
Citizen Journalist
A school district in rural Pennsylvania has been in the news lately after someone in the school's administrative staff sent a letter home to parents whose children were behind in paying for their school lunches. The Wyoming Valley West School District of Pennsylvania sent out "hundreds" of letters telling parents that if their children's lunch bills were not brought up to date, the families would be referred to the state's "Dependency Court" and the children "could" wind up being placed into foster care.
Many news sources reported, at least in their headlines, that the letter had stated the children "would" be placed into foster care. That was fake news.
As someone who has worked as a school teacher and an administrator, a state child welfare worker and an administrator, a paid journalist, and a mental health provider (licensed clinical social worker), I have quite a bit that I could say on this matter, from several perspectives - and as a retiree, I have the time to say it.
So you might want to refill that coffee cup, because here goes . . .
First of all, there is no school district in the entire country, at least of which I am aware, that has the power to summarily place a child in foster care. Taking children out of their homes and putting them in foster care requires the action of a judge - apparently through the "Dependency Court" in Pennsylvania and through other forms of state courts in other locations. My own state has "juvenile court" system which works within the state's district courts to handle serious matters involving children - including their placement into foster care and the (hopefully) subsequent return to their natural parents.
The school district in Pennsylvania was correct in the way it stated the threat - foster care could result - but it was a threat, and an extreme bullying tactic - and a few sacrificial school administrator heads will probably roll before all of the dust has settled. The press was wrong in the way it portrayed the case in the headlines which gave the clear implication that the school actually had the power to place children in foster care. That is never the case. And the school district was wrong in making the payment of school lunches into such an extreme issue. There are smarter ways to handle a personal matter of such importance.
There is a certain subset of individuals in this country who get very angry at the idea of schools feeding children. They are opposed to the notion that their tax dollars might be putting food on the trays of poor and minority students - and anytime a brown child, or even a poor white one, is fed at public expense, that is overt socialism in the minds of these aggrieved taxpayers - not all of whom actually pay taxes. When a school district chooses to make the payment for meals into a local political issue, the ensuing fallout can ripple far beyond just lunch bills, and can negatively impact a wide array of school programs and responsibilities.
One way to turn down the heat on a situation like this without threatening to remove children from their homes is for school administrators to meet with families and try to get them qualified for the federal government's free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs. All students take home forms for free and reduced meals at the beginning of the year, but, as every parent of a school-age child knows, not every form makes it home, and, of those that do and get filled out, not every form makes it back to school.
Administrators can invite parents in for a conference regarding alternative ways to get meals into the bellies of their children, but many parents work - often several jobs - and coming to the school during regular work hours in often not an option. Another option, and one I have practiced many times, is for the school administrator to take his forms and go on a home visit. Again, many parents work during the days, and sometimes it takes an evening visit in order to catch parents at home. That's a lot of extra work, and not every school administrator is up to the challenge. It's much easier just to crank out a mass threat and shovel it into the mail.
Another option is to use local resources. There are a few kind-hearted individuals in every community who will step forward and help out if they suspect that a need exists - and add to that school support groups like the local PTA, as well as church and civic organizations, and a program as basic as school meals can be kept alive without going to war with the community or embarrassing hungry little kids.
As an elementary school principal in the 1980's, one of the biggest controversies that I ever stepped into was when I volunteered my school to be a test site for school breakfasts in our county. The program was sponsored by the federal government and contained provisions for "free and reduced" meals, something which benefited nearly half of our school's population. Several people of means in the community were livid that the school was planning to spend more of "their" money to feed poor kids.
Our staff stood strong in the face of that opposition, making the school breakfast program a success that soon spread to all of the other elementary schools in the county.
Here are two important things that I learned from that school breakfast experience: First, attendance improved. Kids are more likely to get up and come to school in the mornings if they know that breakfast is waiting. (Did you know that not every family has adequate food at home? And did you know that not every parent is at home in the mornings or capable of waking their children for school - and that not every parent even cares if their child goes to school or not?). When attendance improves, at least in Missouri, the amount of aid paid by the state goes up, and that paid by the local level goes down - so that was an added benefit to the program. It actually saved the locals money.
The second benefit of the program was that overall student behavior improved after the breakfast program was initiated. Maybe your child had a great breakfast at home and didn't need the food offered at school, but if that roustabout who sits next to her everyday behaves better, then your child's school experience is likely to be better as well.
Children benefit from access to regular meals and good nutrition, and when children benefit, so does America. Instead of subsidizing farmers by turning their corn into ethanol and pumping it into our cars, why not turn that corn into cornflakes and invest it where it will bear an actual return - in our kids?
There is nothing immoral or wrong with feeding children, but there is something morally wrong about threatening families who are already being degraded by living in poverty. A nation that can send people to the moon can surely give a hungry child a sandwich and a carton of milk.
Feed those kids, dammit! Not only is it the Christian thing to do, feeding hungry children is one investment that will quickly begin paying returns across all of society. And it's the right thing to do!
No comments:
Post a Comment