Parents owe their children good meals
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Sandy Wall
I would like to respond to the Dec. 14 letter about the number of Guilford County children (48 percent) who “qualify for” free or reduced-cost school meals, as well as the Dec. 20 Counterpoint.
First, while that large percentage is rather alarming, it should be noted that probably not all who “qualify” for reduced-cost meals apply. That said, I agree with the gist of the letter-writer’s message: If you have children, it is your responsibility, not the government’s, to feed them. It’s not very costly to create nutritious breakfasts and lunches at home for school-aged children, nor is it terribly expensive to pay for meals from the school cafeteria.
The home of any parent who applies for free or reduced-cost meals for his or her child should be visited by a social worker to determine need. But the county does not have resources to do this. If these families claim to be financially unable to feed their children a decent breakfast and/or lunch, then what other basic needs are going unmet?
What are these parents spending their time and money on? Are the refrigerator and pantry stocked with the basics needed for a decent breakfast and lunch? Or would we find soda, chips, candy, doughnuts and other high-calorie but non-nutritious items?
Does the family spend its money on cell phones, designer shoes and clothing, custom rims for cars, pay-per-view movies, cosmetics, dining at McDonald’s? If so, then these parents can well afford to feed their children.
As for the Counterpoint (“The bigger rip-offs demand attention”) which mentions the incredible mismanagement and waste of funds and fraud at the national level and concludes with, “the energy used to fight reduced-lunch fraud is much needed in other places,” I would remind the writer that fiscal responsibility (or irresponsibility) begins at home.
The “trillions of dollars missing from the Pentagon” and war costs are beyond the average person’s comprehension and seemingly beyond our capability to correct. But waste, fraud and irresponsibility at the local level we can understand and take steps to correct. We should expect county and school officials to do so.
The writer lives in High Point.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Want to know the answer to this? Go to the supermarket, the first of next month. Watch the number of folks with nice clothes, cell phones, the car they leave in! I watched this yesterday.
I was told (hearsay) that a poll was done in Virginia, and over 68% of the children on free lunches, had cable tv.
I think we no longer take care of the needy, we have expanded to the greedy!
Posted on January 2, 2009 5:46 AM
I see two problems here: abuse of a program and children not being properly fed before going to school (and if you don't think that causes problems, ask any elementary school teacher).
Do we punish the hungry (and/or improperly fed) children because of their parents' bad/uneducated choices or should we look for non-bureaucratic ways to address the causes? Sending in lifestyle morality police from Social Services just seems absurd and would be even more financially wasteful.
Maybe communities (neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc.) could begin to talk about ways to address the causes of these problems within their own locality. Draw on the Colleges and Universities to study the situation and to work with families.
With tricky social problems like these, blame and condemnation are easy and quick, but solutions take insight and time.
Posted on January 2, 2009 9:10 AM
$3/day for school lunch is $60/month. That's the cable bill, or a light smoker's monthly bill. You expect folks to give that up if the gov't. is offering to pay it for free?
Posted on January 2, 2009 11:37 AM
It's a catch-22. It's not illegal to own a cellphone, have cable, eat junk food, and live beyond your means, no matter how poor you are.
Yet studies conclusively prove that children who eat a nutritious breakfast learn better, faster, more, and are better behaved.
It's an nice thought to get on the poor parents who don't want to budget, and want the finer things in life. But it's the kids who pay the price.
Our social services system doesn't have the resources or the teeth to identify and impose consequences on abusers of the system.
But just as many parents are doing the best they can, and don't live extravagantly. Their kids should not be punished.
Posted on January 2, 2009 5:11 PM