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

In article <BJ-dnXREWa_iXhTVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Stephanie
says...
>
>hedgehog42 wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 7:39 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Breakfast programs don't just help the ones we usually think of as
>> needing it -- the kids of parents who can't afford healthy food or
>> don't understand the relation****p between breakfast and learning. The
>> programs also help kids whose parents have to leave for work before
>> the school bus gets there, and who therefore can't make sure the kid
>> makes healthy choices.
>
>
>Can't? Can't set out breakfast the day before? Can't arrange to pay for 
>breakfast at the cafeteria? And so are entitled to having it provide at 
>taxpayer expense? At the expense, perhaps, of a decent set of
manipulatives? 
>Or teacher education grants? Or curriculae?

I think she means, they can't be there to *make sure* that, for example
their
fourth grader, actually eats the breakfast.  See above?  "...make sure..:?

>
>I exhagerate for the sake of effect.
>
>
>> And they also help the kids who dawdle too long
>> over breakfast at home, or who have to leave in the morning before
>> they're actually hungry enough to eat anything (that was me). Our
>> suburban high school, which has relatively few kids who qualify for
>> free/reduced price breakfast and a lot of kids from well-off
>> households,  offers it for this reason.
>>
>
>
>For the record, entitlement is not only objectionable to me when it is 
>received by underpriviledged! Quite the opposite, in fact. But food
programs 
>are one teeny tiny spec in the larger issue I raised.
>
>In  our state, tax resources are shared across schools in the state. Our 
>town's taxes do not stay in our town, as it used to be. That makes the 
>economics of these kinds of programs different.

Ah, so students from resource-poor districts aren't also hit by
resource-poor
schools?   You say that like it's a Bad Thing.

Banty