There doesn’t seem to be much real evidence of it, just assumptions.
Regards,
Shodan
The reason for the program is also an assumption. As I said way back in the beginning, my district has this program. It was never presented as being about “stigma”. It is simply cheaper to extend free lunch to all when 90% qualify anyway.
The OP mentioned 40%, so I assume it is not cheaper in that case.
Regards,
Shodan
It certainly does. The mindset that leads to things like this:
There may be a valid argument as to whether or not free lunches for everyone is more cost-effective than a selective program of subsidies, an argument that really has to look at long-term societal impacts and not just short-term savings, and that needs to fairly assess the value of paying hundreds of millions of dollars for an administrative bureaucracy whose sole purpose is screening for eligibility. And that argument is impossible to have with Republicans. They’re so obsessed with stopping “handouts” and “entitlements” that they have spared no effort to try to overturn the whole lunch subsidy program altogether, just as they’ve been trying to scuttle the ACA. To them, it’s not about costs, it’s about ideology. As with health care, they’re willing to pay more for a system that deprives the “undeserving”, because any kind of universal benefit is the slippery slope to socialist hell. :rolleyes:
In this thread we have at least one person personally admitting to going hungry rather than be shamed by the free lunch process. We also have personal experiences of the shaming that has gone on, and continues to go on, to single out children who qualify for free lunch. Do you want the link for the district that was stamping the hands of free lunch kids, so they could carry that marker with them throughout the day?
Why do I think they come up with this? Obvious to me. The people drawn this the administration of this program support it, love it, feel it’s doing amazingly good work and would like to see more of it.
Do you really think the administrators of this programs aren’t biased toward that?
Is that hard to understand? Most people in most walks of life want to see more they do expanded.
As I said before, that’s the threshold to apply, not to qualify, and it’s basically just the line for Title I funding of any kind. The program is designed for schools and districts where lunch revenues are a rpunding error. When it was implemented here, not one word was said about “stigma.”
Although pencils and costumes for the school play are not provided by our district - both are provided by parents - or teachers out of their incredibly posh incomes. Books - well, some books are provided by the district, but I did give the English class my daughter was in enough copies of To Kill a Mockingbird for the whole class to read it because the school did not have copies, nor funding, and the kids wanted to read it and the English teacher wanted to change the curriculum to accommodate their interest - the only way to do that was to find private funding - which was me. We’ve also bought other books - though never for the whole class, and in order to have any books to take home (say, Math books so you can do your homework) you must buy them - they cannot be removed from school. (Anyone need an Algebra book?)
Now, I know that kids getting fed is an important thing, but I really wish we would focus our education dollars on education - things like books - and not on other social welfare initiatives - things like getting fed. Getting fed needs to be done, but not out of education dollars.
The problem isn’t important enough or wide enough to justify the expense. The problem never existed.
What’s next, the kids who don’t have $300 for sneakers are given Air Jordans so they won’t be embarrassed. This is a non-problem that takes away from the next generation who is going to need to money. Eventually the train of excessive spending is going to derail and there won’t be any money to pay for the basics.
And when the socialists think they can just go to the well and extract it from the wealthy they’ll find out the wealthy had enough money to pick up and leave.
Just out of curiosity, what state do you live in?
Maybe they’ll move to Sweden. Or Canada. Or the UK. 
Minnesota, which has well funded education and pretty darn good test scores when you compare against the national average. But we don’t buy pencils or drama costumes to get there. And we don’t have enough books in our poorer districts.
Can anyone cite this program being implemented in a district with fewer than 85% free or reduced lunch? Can anyone cite an official source claiming the main concern is the stigma of poverty? I feel like both sides are arguing the same strawman, just on different sides.
Oh please please please! Can we buy them tickets now? I have a list of rich assholes that I’d love to send somewhere else, where they’ll be taxed at triple the rate they are now and the government in question won’t think twice about confiscating everything they own the first time they open their mouths.
But sometimes there are political reasons to keep those administrative costs up. Because JOBS!
What is this ‘cost to the next generation?’ nonsense, anyway? Good nutrition hasn’t done that much for the current educational system.
Poor nutrition is not something to be solved by the school system, anyway.
I am all for free school lunches, but, your argument is a bit whackey.
Actually, yes it has. The effects of nutrition on early cognitive development are very well studies, and we have ample evidence for how that affects scholastic achievement, gathered from countries (Japan, Korea, etc.) which have rapidly improved nutrition in a short period of time, and from countries like India where there is a wide spread. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that school feeding programs is an inexpensive, effective way to address the issue.
Well you can try to buy them tickets to some hell hole but I’m pretty sure they’ll opt to buy their own and move to a better place. You can wave to them at the proverbial dock as they sail away while singing the praises of the politicians who drove them away.
Except again, we’re not talking about feeding the poor in this thread so your input doesn’t address the issue.
There’s ample evidence that borrowing money for problems that don’t exist raises the level of debt which in turn takes money away from solving actual problems. As debt grows the percentage of taxes used to pay the interest rises which means the percentage of taxes available to spend on current programs declines.
People ask why communities need to keep raising the levies on taxes to cover the same old services. This is why. You never see a levy campaign that says “we’re too stupid to spend within our means so please give us more money to service the debt”. “we pinkie swear we’ll be more responsible this time”.