On Jul 24, 3:53 pm, "Donna Metler" <dmmet...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Pologirl" <polog...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:6012a4eb-a579-41e3-8969-6184dba77314@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The hard facts of life are that, if a child is sent to school without
> > breakfast or provision for lunch, then sending the child home is
> > unlikely to get them fed.
>
> > A better option would be to provide a school breakfast as well as a
> > school lunch.
>
> > Pologirl
>
> I think Stephanie's point is-where does it end? I spent 8 years teaching
in
> schoolwide Title I schools, where the number of students who didn't
qualify
> for free breakfast and lunch could be counted on one hand. There was a
> program where students could take home backpacks of food over weekends.
> There was a free after school program, and students who stayed late got
an
> after school snack and another, larger evening "snack", which was really
a
> sack dinner. We had the Health department come in and do physicals and
> immunizations. We had someone else come in and do dental exams and
sealants.
> The counselor and school based social worker constantly were arranging
for a
> child to get a vison exam and gl*****, or hearing tests and hearing
aids, or
> medical treatment of some sort.
>
> We had uniforms, and if parents requested it, the students would be
given
> two uniform bottoms and three ****rts. We also provided socks, shoes and
> underwear.
>
> While parents were given a supply list, it was considered optional and
we
> weren't allowed to require purchase of anything. Most teachers stocked
up on
> school supplies in the sale to supplement what the school provided,
knowing
> that otherwise, we'd have nothing by December. When a bunch of
businesses
> donated a lot of surplus office supplies, teachers waited hours in 100
> degree heat, outside, for the chance to fill a shopping bag, because
ther
> were never enough school supplies. Yet, usually it wasn't that there
wasn't
> enough provided, but that the students would waste, abuse, damage, and
> outright steal from the class. I'm not sure what a given child thought
he'd
> do with a dozen boxes of crayons, but, yes, we had incidents of theft of
> crayons, pencils, glue and the like.
Not surprising. Good steward****p probably hasn't been modeled in their
home environment. And there are parents who take kids along on
shoplifting jaunts -- I've read it in police re****ts -- so there
probably are a lot more who don't take the trouble to march a kid back
to the grocery store to return a pack of gum that got swiped.
> Charity groups provided Christmas gifts to our students, and many of our
> kids came in talking about getting gifts from Salvation Army Angel tree
and
> other sources as well. Based on what these kids claimed to get for
> Christmas, many of them got more than many of our teachers could afford
to
> get their own kids.
Of course, some may be inflated to impress their peers, a la Eleanor
Estes' "The Hundred Dresses".
> And there was always more being demanded. Later after school care hours.
> Extended school year. Saturday school. More field trips, but not paid
for by
> parents. Programs to send books home for students to keep. Reading
incentive
> programs that gave away computers and bicycles. Test improvement
programs
> that sent playstations and Leap Pads home with students. Band
instruments
> and extracurricular music programs...all at no cost to the parents.
> I admit that at times it made me sick. Not that the kids didn't deserve
all
> the extras, but that, in so many cases, there was no awareness that
these
> were things that someone, somewhere had worked and paid for, and there
> wasn't just an infinite supply. The children had a right to go to
school,
> and somewhere along the way, it had morphed into "if you're low enough
> income to live in this neighborhood, you have a right to all this other
> stuff, too".
That's an awareness that I don't think you can expect kids to have
unless you make a point of emphasizing that they, unlike other kids in
their class, are charity cases. But really, the kids whose parents do
pay for instrument rental, s****ts fees, tutoring, etc., aren't always
likely to recognize that someone (MOM! DAD!) had to work X amount of
hours to get the money to pay for it, and that someone (MOM! DAD!)
gave up new shoes, lunch with co-workers, new gl*****, whatever in
order for it to happen
> I recently read a news article about the possibility of setting up dorms
for
> homeless students or students "At risk" of homelessness in order to keep
> them in school. I'm sure that if we'd had a dorm, we'd have had a lot of
> parents applying to get their child in there.
Are you talking about the SEED program's urban boarding schools?
http://www.seedfoundation.com/about_seed/index.aspx
I once interviewed once of the co-founders. Very impressive young man
and most ambitious, impressive program. But a lot of what they do is
intense makeup work, both academically and in life skill, in a
nurturing environment.
Maybe for some parents it's a "gimme gimme" thing. ("Wow, one less
mouth to feed!") But they soon find out there's a fair amount of
commitment required from the families as well.
Some parents find it a wrenching sacrifice to give up day to day
contact with their kids, but one they make to keep kids out of gangs,
in housing with heat or without roaches, or fed. Or to give the kid
better op****tunities than they themselves had. If you get the kid out
of the lousy environment they actually have a better chance of
breaking away from it.
There are moments when I can understand wondering "when will it stop".
But really, all the "stuff" those kids get is small potatoes compared
to the foundation for life that kids get when they're lucky enough to
have a parent or parents who understand what parenting is about, and
who aren't so exhausted or time-crunched in providing for their kids
that they can parent them.
Lori G.
Milwaukee
|
