By babar

June 25, 2010 8:32 PM | Link to this

I really hate to hear that the food is that horrible. I guess they figure if they’re hungry, they’ll eat anything, but why would give them unhealthy food when we’re trying to re-educate young people to take better care of themselves? How sad.

By Max

June 26, 2010 8:47 AM | Link to this

Christina Dendy:”Here’s what we have to fix:……” Well, Ms. Dendy, I think you’re trying to fix the wrong problem. The task of schools is to EDUCATE, not provide food for kids who skipped breakfast or whosae parents can’t pack lunches. Once a noble idea emerging from LBJ’s ‘Great Society,’ subsidized food programs at schools has proven to be inefficient, inquitable, and a teaching tool that if parents can’t do their job the state will step in and do it badly for them. Getting out of the food service business might be a wise consideration for districts under budget duress, and, if kids come to school unfed there is a state mandate for all teachers to report this as a suspected incident of child neglect; it is not education’s job to ensure kids are fed, clothed, or have parents capable of honoring their moral responsibilities.

By Davdiss2

June 26, 2010 9:43 AM | Link to this

Everyone needs to contact their congressman and complain about the fed trying to provide more nanny-state, cradle to grave care and feeding of the people. Schools should teach. It’s sad that a teacher at what is touted, by Dayton at least, as a competent building within their district is in favor of the over-providing of parts of the parents’ responsibility. A member of the OEA should recognize the separation needed between state’s rights in education and the current federal democrat takeover attempts. ———-But I forgot, did Stivers serve as one of the locations for obama’s campaign speeches? The union may not allow Constitutional thinking.================CAll your congressman’s office about this further reach into spending money on feeding other people’s kids.

By Max

June 26, 2010 10:14 AM | Link to this

DAVID; While I agree with your sentiments, I don’t think this is as much a political problem as it appears. This is a situation of bad thinking habits inherited over the years and never really questioned by either party. Instead of dealing with the core issues, yes, liberal thinking is aligned with a continuation of this ‘sugar pill’ approach as if they are really making a difference. While districts make cuts to teachers and staff, few cut these lunch programs because of the federal and state money, then it goes to ‘onion peeling’ about what the programs provide in nutrition. This is simply outside the vestiges of education. If parents don’t feed their kids, send Children Services. That’s their job, not the schools’.

By irishguy

June 26, 2010 11:57 AM | Link to this

I grew up as one of 7 kids. My folks sacrificed to send us to Catholic school were there was no food served. Mom was able to feed us Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner every day. I still think parents could and should do a better job of feeding their kids than any gov’t agency. Schools are there to teach kids, not feed them.

By Max

June 26, 2010 1:29 PM | Link to this

I agree with most here. I wonder how the same parents who can’t do the breakfast thing or fix a lunch would feel if, while waiting on their kids’ fat soaked happy meal the counter help launched into a language arts discussion or tested the kids on the multiplication tables. Based upon what I see in the school zones there’s quite a few kids who could miss a meal now and then; teachers as well. By the way, while on the subject, when I go to Miami Valley hospital I notice the nurses there are extremely overweight….My point is those who seem to be, of claim to be, in charge of our ‘health’ welfare are, themselves, the worst offenders.

By Really???

June 26, 2010 3:59 PM | Link to this

It is unreal to me that there are comments on here that are berating the school for daring to provide our children with food at all. Perhaps YOU did not eat well before commenting on this well thought out article, because as your misguided political rant demonstrates, when people don’t eat properly, they can’t think, much less learn properly. It would be nice if all children came from an environment in which their parents fed them and fed them well. However, that is not the reality and ranting that it should be will not make it so. Further, the liberal thought process that puts the lunch programs in the schools is the same one that funds the social services that would help the children whose parents neglect them. Do away with one and you do away with it all. Refusing to take care of the communities children just because you think their good for nothing parents SHOULD be doing it is fruitless thinking that lends itself to the problem, not the solution. Otherwise, excellent article and I couldn’t agree more.

By Kevin S.

June 26, 2010 4:45 PM | Link to this

I agree with “Really???” Getting a proper, nutritious meal increases brain functioning and makes the child more likely to live up to get the most out of their education and live up to their full potential. That outcome is good for everybody. Furthermore, the critics don’t seem to get that some parents can’t afford to provide their children with nutritious meals, since junk food is often cheaper than healthy food and some inner city areas don’t even have a grocery store within shouting distance.

By shirley

June 26, 2010 4:45 PM | Link to this

The Federal Govt thought it possible that ALL children will be educated & on grade level by a given time - it failed miserably!!! What makes anyone w/ a brain think they are going to force these children to eat the healthier food?? Have you ever watched what gets thrown away on a daily basis??? Gosh, the Feds have failed our education system, what makes you think they can feed our children?

By Max

June 28, 2010 10:15 AM | Link to this

REALLY and KEVIN: I don’t think anyone would argue against kids deserving adequate nutrition and warm winter coats. My issue is it IS NOT an education/school issue; it is a ‘tag on’ which has been, wrongly, conventionally accepted as a ‘right’ under the state constitution which provides for equal access to education. The moral and legal responsibility for kids rests firmly with the parents/guardians, not schools. There are non-school, government agencies as well as faith-based groups to assist parents. I have seen first hand that, yes, too many kids view going to school as a ‘relief’ from their home situation. As poignant and sad as that is, this is outside the mandate of schools, their administration, and faculty. Yes, it is true in any school environment there are going to be ‘have’s’ and ‘have not’s’ and that is the very nature of public education. It is not the role of education to address society’s many inequities while providing equal access to education. It is also not the role of schools to educate parents concerning their responsibilites to their children. But, to have a free breakfast/lunch program and complain about what is being dispensed for free gives ample notice the programs are another case of failure by the state and local school districts. The State has taken radical steps in the past 5-10 years making parents accountable for the welfare of their children; for example, failure to pay child support results in a bench warrant for arrest and an appearance before a judge. THAT is where these issues belong for a meaningful, comprehensive resolution, not the schools. If kids are not being fed at home, all school teachers are REQUIRED UNDER LAW to report all suspicions of neglect. Not feeding a kid is neglect. Feeding neglected kids at school - pop tarts or prime rib - does nothing to deal with the problem while taking away more from district and State budgets.

By Max

June 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Link to this

KEVIN: “…junk food is often cheaper than healthy food…” ——-This is a common misconception. On a cost per pound basis, fresh food is much cheaper than snacks and fast food; for example, a 75-cent, 1-ounce candy bar goes for $12 a pound. Compare that to healthier snacks, such as grapes at $2 a pound, and the math does the rest. The health benefits of fresh food speak for themselves. A meal for 4 at a fast food restaurant costs MORE than feeding the same 4 with home cooked meals using fresh ingredients. The problem, again, lies at the feet of the parents to prepare reasonably healthy meals for their kids. The bad eating habits are taught at home and unless addressed at that level there is nothing - however well intentioned - schools can or should do.——-“Getting a proper, nutritious meal increases brain functioning and makes the child more likely to live up to get the most out of their education and live up to their full potential.”—— This is true but not a task for the schools to perform any more than what a child could ‘live up to their potential’ based upon a religious faith.

By Daddy Warbucks

June 28, 2010 4:12 PM | Link to this

If you use your head, or simply care enough to do it. You can feed a child very well on very little $$. Many parents are too lazy or too stupid to put in the effort it requires. You can feed a kid a good nutritional meal, but if that’s the only one the get, it will be a total failure in keeping children in good health. 400 lb. welfare baby brood mares are the problem. These kids would get 3 squares in an orphanage and an education. It will never change until parents are held responsible for the welfare of their kids. Some parents should lose the right to be parents.

By Max

June 29, 2010 8:26 AM | Link to this

Daddy: My point exactly. I think this ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ is romantic nonsense supporting government intrusion into parental responsibility. As long as parents are not held accountable for not feeding and providing for their offspring we will continue receding into the shadows of the welfare state and create another generation of dependency regardless of education’s efforts. Educators MUST maintain a professional distance between themselves and their charges.

By Jim

June 29, 2010 9:03 AM | Link to this

@Max, “The task of schools is to EDUCATE, not provide food for kids” You don’t seem to understand that hungry kids don’t learn very well. It’s a sad reality I agree, but one that must be dealt with if we want our children to learn.

By Dendy

June 29, 2010 9:03 AM | Link to this

There is too much to respond to here in a quick blow but two things stand out: 1) First, the emphasis on shifting from schools to child serves and the legal system to handle parents who neglect or cannot afford to feed their children. Most of you concerned about the role of schools are ignoring the fact that doing as you suggest simply shifts the burden and generates a whole host of other potential issues. In the meantime, those children don’t get fed … their lives become potentially more problematic. Ask anyone in the family justice system or children’s services: more children and families moving through those circuits is not a good thing. The most important thing is and should be what provides the most direct and healthful benefit to our children. Not just your family’s children, but y’s and their neighbor’s and so on. They are all part of our community, and their well-being “trickles around” to affect everyone. Yes, we should be grateful to have food for our children at all. My primary concern is that much of that food is contributing to other health conditions that affect children, and again, the rest of society. School is about education. Many parents and non-parental adults demonstrate a regular lack of knowledge (or will) about nutrition. It is more fundamental in some ways even than our core subjects. What better place to start instilling good habits? Changes to the school lunch program could well tie in with studies in both science and health/P.E. to the benefit of all involved. Most of these comments do not reflect systemic thinking. Any time you suggest chopping off an arm of government, especially one as long as the National School Lunch Program, you’re not considering the far-reaching affects. Do you really want to lay off that many hard-working individuals? Perhaps you’re suggesting the government pay to retrain them for work in children’s services and family courts? The NSLP has the potential not only to serve schools/students/families/teachers well but also to benefit the community—through jobs, and if done properly, through economic benefit to LOCAL and STATE farms and food producers.

By Jim

June 29, 2010 9:12 AM | Link to this

@Max,”this ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ is romantic nonsense supporting government intrusion into parental responsibility.” Max, you’re correct in best of all possible worlds. However, I taught school in DPS, and saw first hand how many poor children come to school hungry. Saying is isn’t the schools responsibility, doesn’t make the problem go away. FYI, schools have been providing free lunch and breakfast for those that qualify for years. It’s good to see them raising the standards to provide healthier foods.

By Max

June 29, 2010 10:22 AM | Link to this

Dendy and Jim: First of all I am sensitive to the social problems many children face. During my masters degree candidacy I work in poor, urban, deep south school districts for two summers. What I found in those schools was an approach just the opposite of what you are advocating. Instead of ‘free lunches’ the districts eliminated school lunches all together. It was found the kids, poor or otherwise, preferred to bring their lunches or go home for the lunch hour. The side issue, quality of school lunches, becomes a moot point from the school’s point of view with kid’s choice being considered. Is it education’s job to monitor students’ eating habits? The answer is obviously, no. While a noble ideal, education’s efficacy in social issues is DOA because while schools may have a ‘captive’ audience for 8 hours a day, that does not address the problem’s causes and remedies in the long term. Your argument that because of the overwhelming task facing Childrens and Social Services the schools are on ‘point’ to give temporary remedy is self defeating in premise and results. I fully understand the compassion and empathy felt when seeing these kids daily. I also understand that being an educator comes with professional boundaries that must be established in order to teach all kids regardless of their home environment. As a suggestion to the problem - not the symptoms - schools are required to isolate and send home kids who have a fever. That’s a health issue the schools don’t treat, but have a parent/guardian take care of the health problem. Nutrition, by most accounts, is a health problem for many children today. So, why not call the same parent/guardian to pick of the child who has not had breakfast or packed a lunch and feed him/her? This approach seems to address the problem and cause, if, as you say, this is a health concern. What can be more instructive and educational to a parent than be inconvenienced enough to make the school’s position - as well as society’s - with just one phone call? Schools use this approach daily even in detention for behavior infractions. The more you remove parents from their responsibilities the more you enable them to neglect their children.

By Max

June 29, 2010 10:38 AM | Link to this

JIM: “FYI, schools have been providing free lunch and breakfast for those that qualify for years.” ——Jim, as a former educator myself I think you know because a policy is ‘generally accepted’ for years does not make it a good policy. There have been grand, all encompassing social reforms from FDR to LBJ which have been successful and those which have been failures as long term policies. This - the free lunch programs - is one of those needing careful review in the context of education’s mission and parental responsibility. Prior to the early 1960’s a morning prayer was socially acceptable in public schools. Society changed its attitudes towards that and ever since school districts have been in litigation for overstepping their sole mandate; to provide an equitable education for all students legally required to attend school. Schools cannot administer religion, medical care, food stamps, etc., all of which fall under the domain and purvue of parents. Free lunches is a subsidy not unlike food stamps. It is a social issue not one for education to negotiate.

By Max

June 29, 2010 11:14 AM | Link to this

Dendy: “Most of these comments do not reflect systemic thinking. Any time you suggest chopping off an arm of government, especially one as long as the National School Lunch Program, you’re not considering the far-reaching affects. Do you really want to lay off that many hard-working individuals?”——-Dendy, I think I have specifically addressed the ‘systemic’ issue directly as it pertains to the parameters of education’s mission. Employment of lunchroom staff is nice but not a necessity for schools to accomplish their goals. I think you’re are clouding the boundaries of two distinctly different entities and arguing it is in the best interest of the kids. I have yet to hear from any educator, local, or state school board the reason proficiency and ACT test scores are dropping is because the students didn’t have breakfast. While I don’t subscribe to any political party platform or propensity for spending, or not, this is a ‘common sense’ issue being expanded to possible effects of unrelated jobs, goals, etc. which are not education’s concerns. Any subsidy - free lunches - that comes with no solution to the subsidy’s need is creating a systemic dependency upon that subsidy. As a teacher, you know the time to make a difference is to hold those legally accountable for childrens’ welfare is when they are children; not when they become adults producing more subsidized kids. Painting over the cycle of neglect and feeling good about it may work for you, but it does a disservice to kids now and the future.

By Zorro

June 29, 2010 4:32 PM | Link to this

Max: While I agree with you that employment of lunchroom staff is not central to this discussion, you seem to take it upon yourself to define “the parameters of education’s mission.” Considering that public education did not always exist in this country, and as you yourself state has changed with society’s attitudes, the role of schools in society is subject to debate and is and has always been in a state of flux. As Ms. Dendy points out, shifting the burden back to parents who don’t or cannot feed their children creates a whole new set of issues and does not benefit the children now. If you are dealing with parents who are irresponsible or without adequate resources, the school represents the best way to attempt to break the cycle. You are not going to make parents responsible by referring them to social services. You may never have heard from an educator that scores are dropping because students didn’t have breakfast, but it is difficult to believe that hungry or malnourished children make optimal learners, and when is the last time you heard that social services or the legal system has made anyone into a responsible parent? Schools provide meals—Ms. Dendy argues that they should be healthy rather than unhealthy. It is really difficult to argue against that. You argue that schools shouldn’t provide meals and that proper agencies should force parents to feed their children, whether they can or not. Do you really believe that parents want their children to go to school hungry? Yes, the problem goes much deeper than this, but healthy meals for children who might not otherwise get them is a beginning.

By Max

June 30, 2010 12:22 PM | Link to this

Zoror: I am in general agreement with you and Ms. Dendy about what the problem is. I firmly believe “returning the burden back to the parents” is indicative of the problem’s source; that ‘burden’ - I prefer ‘responsibility’ - should have never been taken from parents by the schools. Taking Ms. Dendy’s arguement of systemic context and education’s role, there is a problem with the ‘poverty’ defense in that feeding kids who don’t get fed at home is just one facet of a larger neglect picture. Where do schools stop if the noble goal of children coming to school physically able to concentrate on school work is a total concern, not just a cosmetic action? Kids not fed at home may not have utilites. Do schools pay for that as well? My point is the problem is far greater and outside the scope of education’s job. I will add here, paranthetically, I opposed the mandate to report suspicion of neglect, endangerment, abuse etc., for teachers. It essentially clogged a Childrens Services system in which (the last figures I saw) found 80-85% of all reports recieved were deemed unfounded. Again, education’s attempts to temper social problems causes more than it resolves. So, I respectfully disagree the school is the best way to address these deeper social issues. Those things must be addressed in the home and courts system, not the lunchroom. No, I can argue against healthy kids. But, I argue if a kid takes a lunch filled with junk food, that is not the schools’ responsibility to intervene. Ms. Dendy’s point of view is, granted, generally accepted. Perhaps our basic philosophies of education differ as well. IF nutrition is, again, a health issue then it IS, regardless of what schools do, a legal and moral responsibility of parents. Schools cannot be legally held accountable for not feeding students. Also, schools do not administer ANY medical treatment, nor should they. The same is true of school funded lunch subsidies. Childrens’ health issues must be addressed by those specialized in those professions. Schools might feed kids a meal or two during the school year but what do the kids eat when school is in recess? The problem is the same and remains. Zooro, I sincerely think free meals is not a ‘beginning’ step; it is a continuation of dependency and subsidizing irresponsible parenting in just one area with the reasonable expectation other neglect/abuse exists outside the school’s vision.

By Max

June 30, 2010 12:53 PM | Link to this

Errata: I ‘CAN’T’ argue against healthy kids.

By Zorro

June 30, 2010 6:28 PM | Link to this

Maxx: I don’t know that we really are in general agreement about what the problem is. There are many reasons why children may need meals at school, and they don’t all stem from neglect or abuse. Sometimes it is just plain economic—maybe just circumstances beyond the control of the parents. Feeding healthy meals to children while they are at school is an easy thing to do. You may call it cosmetic to the problem, and it may well be, but it puts food in empty stomachs now and can help create a better learning environment for these students and for everyone in the classroom. We can debate parental responsibility, causes and solutions, but whatever they are is separate from the immediate problem of children in need who did nothing to create their situation. In the schools, we have the capability to do what is right for these children, and when they are in school, we should do that. This discussion has strayed from the topic of the column—providing healthy meals to children in schools. You don’t believe that we should provide meals, I do. The fact is that we are providing meals, so let’s make them healthy and nourishing. It doesn’t make sense to not do that.

By Max

July 1, 2010 10:13 AM | Link to this

Zorro, I think we’re all in agreement it is a societal expectation that parents provide the essentials for their children to develop, enjoy a safe living enviroment, and be provided with the essentials - including education - which enable them to reach adulthood with minimum risks. Where we disagree is it is a matter of law. I refer you and Ms. Dendy to O.R.C. 2151.03 (2); “A neglected child is any child : (2)(C)(C) Whose parents, guardian, or custodian fails to provide proper or necessary subsistence (or sustenance?), education, medical or surgical care or treatment, or other care necessary for the child’s health, morals, or well-being;” So, under the State Mandate to report ‘suspicions’ of neglect, teachers and schools are in violation of that mandate and selectively ignoring the O.R.C. by providing free lunches and NOT making a report to the proper authorites. On the other hand, if one of these children brings a pocket knife or OTC medication to school, under the zero tolerance policy, that same child is suspended. My point is that it is not educators’ place to pick and choose which part of the law they honor. The reason for these child protection laws is for those qualified to deal with the problems be able to do so in a comprehensive manner. The State Mandates to REPORT were also legislated for the very reason you’re arguing it is best to ‘treat the results’ rather than the problem. So, I respectfully disagree with your view that “There are many reasons why children may need meals at school, and they don’t all stem from neglect or abuse.” You don’t know that and that’s precisely why the legislature specifically stated it is NOT the job of educators to “investigate or make determinations” in issues regarding child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. The only requirement is to REPORT. If you read the O.R.C. the operative words are ‘parent/guardian’, not schools, and not teachers. The only legal standing educators have is if they FAIL to report and it is later found that failure to be material in a child’s injury or worse. So, I argue teachers and schools assume an unecessary liability when trying, again, as noble as those intentions may be, to alleviate hunger when, in fact, doing so without reporting neglect is in violation of the law and perpetuates a continuation of parental neglect. Economic factors, again, cannot be dealt with by schools. There are agencies tasked with that.——The authority for reporting is: “2151.421 Reporting child abuse or neglect. (A)(1)(a) No person described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section who is acting in an official or professional capacity and knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect, that a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, or physically impaired child under twenty-one years of age has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or NEGLECT of the child shall fail to immediately report that knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect to the entity or persons specified in this division. Except as provided in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the public children services agency or a municipal or county peace officer in the county in which the child resides or in which the abuse or neglect is occurring or has occurred. In the circumstances described in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the entity specified in that section.” Now, I again ask if compliance with the law in the best interest of children statewide is trumped by good-will ideologies which exist contrary to the law? I say, no.

By Max

July 1, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this

Zorro, to the issue of ‘nutritious’ food in the lunchroom, since school funded lunches are not ‘right’s’ under the education section of Ohio’s Constitution, I think it’s up to local districts to decide substance and means issues. The underlying issue in those decisions, of course, is cost and if there is a positive consumer (the kids) response. This also raises the issues of whether or not some schools allow kids to go home for lunch and other logistics such as belief-based dietary restrictions and allergies. My overall point is whether or not school lunches, in general, make any sense at all.

By Max

July 1, 2010 12:17 PM | Link to this

I’ll cut off my responses here with a final opinion. If we, as a society, have systems in place specialized in addressing the needs while enabling a safe environment for all children, then those systems’ authoritive boundaries must be respected. It is not the job of the judiciary or its reporting agencies to teach. In fact, ‘ignorance’ while not a defense is a common factor found in many cases of neglect. That, in itself, demonstrates the lack of efficacy any free lunch can have on the child and parents in terms of ‘education.’ Students are not the teachers’ children; they are in school, as mandated by law, to receive equitable education. To Ms. Dendy, I firmly believe as budgets are scrutinized and the legal conflicts arise, I doubt whether sacrificing academic teaching positions to fund free meals would be palatable. That is what arises when ideologies outside the scope of your profession are ‘systemically’ connected to your one and only task; to educate and trust the systems in place to do their jobs as well. The blurring of the borders, while a continuation of postmodernism’s misplaced fuzzy logic in social policy making, places children in more jeopardy for longer periods of time. It is unfortunate that parents have to choose between paying utilities and buying food. There are relief agencies to deal with that. Even when receiving aid, parents are still facing choices between a pack of cigarettes and packing a lunch. Often, the kid comes second or last. That’s sad, disturbing, and, according to the O.R.C., a failure to provide adequate food to a child is against the law. Until the law is changed or educators are given specific exemptions from the law, then that’s what we have. By taking a proactive position and informing parents of this, educators could do much more in relieving the district’s financial burden and appeal to faith based groups to assist with greater community effect towards changing attitudes of parental responsibilities in the poorer neighborhoods. Parents can be poor and still be good parents. I think the Biblical parable of teaching one(parents) to fish is far more effective than continuing subsidies of free fish. It is a moral imperative that the total welfare of children be addressed in that context.