Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

On Jul 24, 7:39 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Banty wrote:
> > In article <QvGdnRTSDMkYSBXVnZ2dnUVZ_sbin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Stephanie
> > says...
>
> >> Pologirl wrote:
> >>> 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
>
> >> Point... WOOOOOOSSHHHHHH
>
> > Dewoo****fy please, because I also missed the point, and didnt know it
> > until now.
>
> > Batny
>
> The trend toward entitlement not being good for those who wind up
entitled
> and where it ends. (One could easily argue that how bad that is must be
> measured against the bad of being in a stinky family situation.) Also
the
> spending of resources on taking care of these issues not being good for
> everyone's education.

Schools are offering breakfast programs not solely out of bleeding
hearts. They are doing it because the money they receive from the
government is based partly on performance. And research has shown that
a good breakfast increases performance throughout the afternoon  (you
can't make up the deficit of a missed breakfast even with a super-
nutritious lunch). Feeding the kids means the test scores go higher.

Oddly enough, these breakfasts aren't just benefiting the kids whose
parents can't afford good food or don't understand the relation****p
between breakfast and learning.  They also help kids who won't eat
when they first wake up (I was one of those, before school breakfasts_
and don't "feel hungry" until later. And they help kids whose parents
have to leave for the day before the kids' bus comes or before the kid
walks to school.

If the scores go up and the school gets more money, then most
administrators would consider the breakfast program a sound
investment.

Lori G.
Milwaukee