Way to go Wyoming Valley West (Pa.) School District!

And what do you propose – just let the kids go hungry?

Please sir, can I have some more?

It’s also possible that the powers that be encourage children to ring up ala carte items like extra cookies and ice cream on their account and then the parents are responsible. And while it’s certainly on the parents to set boundaries for the kid’s spending, I know the automatic system my son’s school uses doesn’t let me see an itemized list of his charges–so I don’t know really know where the money is going. I didn’t know he COULD buy ala carte items until he mentioned casually one day he’d had an extra cookie. We certainly didn’t have that option in Kinder.

Excellent point. Why don’t you send them $450 to cover one of those most in arrears? We know from your post that you are righteosly indignant. Now is the moment for you to pony up some cash and peckerslap us that you are no mere poseur.

I’m surprised there are this many posters who can’t tell the difference between filing a lawsuit to take kids from homes and sending a letter threatening to file a lawsuit to take kids from homes.

Can y’all stop acting like anyone went to court? Or that there’s any actual intention to do so?

It’s as if you don’t understand what an empty threat is.

Rather analogous to the economics of universal health care, and some of the regressive and ignorant attitudes against it.

It’s as if you don’t understand what idiocy is.

That’s possible, but if that’s what it is, it’s 100% on them, IMO. I know those are moneymaking schemes, but allowing a child to charge an item without explicit parent opt-in seems to me a type of unenforceable legal contract.

Our school has those a la carte items, but a kid whose account is more than like $10 in arrears can’t get them, can only get a regular lunch. (I don’t remember the exact amount).

This should be a trivial policy change to make.

Who the fuck are you talking about? The irony in your acting like others lack understanding is too rich to bear.

I know what an empty threat is. When you threaten someone falsely in the hope that they’ll believe your misinformation and give you money, there’s a name for that.

I don’t understand this from the OP’s article:

They’re not paying for their kids’ food because they’re unhappy that the district spent money on other kids’ food?

Kidless, and yet I pay school tax/assessments because it is part of the social contract.

For some kids, it may be the most nutritious meal they actually manage to get in a day, the poor very frequently live in food deserts and subsist on convenience foods, and cheaper foods. When I did the USDA thing for US Foodservice, we provided real foods, not just frozen pizza, nuggets and prepackaged puddings. The schools and other institutions I handled also had a budget for fresh fruit and veggies, and certain things like canned tomato sauce and frozen or canned vegetables and fruits.

Is it possible word got out they weren’t chasing poor families who fell in arrears, so like the ‘not so poor’ families felt left out and wanted their share? And that’s how this maybe got to where it is? Now the school is between a rock and a hard place, a no win position really.

Just saying there could be more to this than it seems.

Not so much that the district spent money on other kids’ food - more “ if they don’t have to pay , I’m not gonna pay”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There could be more to it. But absent crazy hypotheticals, there is no excuse for lying about the law in order to intimidate parents.

For sure. My point is that I wouldn’t put it past a district to extend credit to students to spend to raise funds, and then go after the parents for the deficit. It’s totally unethical.

GOOD, because that’s what the outrage is about.

Let me spell it out really clearly: taking my kid away would be the worst thing you could do to me. And of course, it would be even worse for him.

Threatening to do that over a relatively trivial debt is beyond the fucking pale. Frankly, it ought to be a felony to do so, absent evidence that the child needed to be protected/rescued from his/her own parents. (You can probably guess how I feel about our border policies.)

Sure, find a way to collect the damn money. But that can surely be done without threatening to take people’s kids away from them. Your JAQ is bullshit, and has about as much to do with what this thread is about as Jeff Bezos does.

Imagine someone said “I don’t support locking children in cages, but how are we supposed to enforce immigration laws?” What would that mean?

By asking such a question, you defend the act.

I mean, there are obviously several other answers. How do you get the money? Well, most states get it from the free lunch programs, sponsored by the federal and state governments. Some will take money from elsewhere in the budge and run fundraisers. Tax raising is often a thing, where going up a few 10ths of a cent is enough to fix the problem. Those who owe money are often turned over to collectors, if it really is an issue of them withholding rather than not being able to afford it.

There are plenty of answers, so it would be really weird if you were asking that question legitimately. Same as there are multiple ways to enforce immigration without child cages.

Dude, don’t act like your namesake. You’ve said it was an unfortunate coincidence. So don’t JAQ off.

Nevermind.

Probably a good thing I don’t have kids, because if someone threatened to take my kid away over a small dollar amount like this, I’d be swearing vengeance against that person until the ends of the Earth. Legal retribution first… Eternal harassment and letting everyone they ever work with until the end of time know what kind of shit bag they are second.

Maybe it’s a persuasion technique, like the kind Dilbert creator Scott Adams is always touting. This official knows there is nothing he can do to force his will on every parent and recoup all the money in short order. With only a tiny effort the persuasion technique veiled as a rhetorical threat inserted into the letter might convince 40-60% to quickly pay what they owe.

I’m pretty sure that’s called coercion.