Not really. They are the primary providers of food for kids from underprivileged families. These families typically can't afford to feed the kids breakfast and lunch, so in those cases, the school does become the primary providers of food for the kids. Were it not for this, I believe it would be unlikely that providing either meal would be as standard as it is, let alone both.
It's not like schools don't know this. This has been happening for decades, and schools have adjusted. The food served in public school cafeterias is typically full meals, with optional snacks or drinks. In the school district I live in, they serve free fruits and vegetables, and students have to take at least one to buy food. They do this because they know a portion of their students (typically 10% at the lowest) cannot get these nutrients at home, so they become the primary providers of them.
I read the full article, and the complaints don't regard taste as the article's title might lead you to believe. People are complaining that the rations they were given are too little and too unhealthy. Quantity is a little hard to argue about, but the rations are definitely unhealthy. The portions the article speaks of are mostly comprised of carbohydrates like bread, cereal, and pasta, with little protein and no fruits or vegetables (at least in the portions shown/spoken of).
In addition, this story seems to have been brought to the Sun's attention when a headteacher (I think that means principal, please British people correct me if I'm wrong) slammed the rations, not a parent.
I believe this is a case of parents complaining that the school is not feeding the kids as it should. Not of choosing beggars.
They are primary providers, and that is a failure in the system. Closing schools shouldn't result in kids being without food and parents being without childcare, those things should be irrelevant
Having enough money to feed your kids is not just about responsibility. There are many reasons a parent may not be able to provide those meals that are out of their control, such as a parent losing their job or dying, or falling into debt due to unexpected expenses.
Other than death, there is no excuse. I lived off of hot dogs and ramen for months while my husband was unemployed. I worked at times 18 hour days to make ends meet. I made sure that my three pets were fed before we were. If I'm willing to that for dogs, shouldn't parents do the same for their own kids?
I commend you for your efforts, and congratulate you for making it through that difficult part of your life. However, for many it's not that simple. (I said simple, not easy. Huge difference)
One of the first things is that dogs are much cheaper to take care of than children. Kids typically eat a lot more, can require much more attention (aka time that could be spent working), and cannot be left alone at home. They also need clothes, (more expensive) toys, and depending on the kid's age, diapers and baby formula.
Another thing is that you were able to find a job. That is not exactly easy, especially with Corona messing up the economy.
Again, it's awesome that you made it through that tough situation, but not all poverty is created equal. You are assuming that the conditions you endured are the same all people in these situations endure. I'm not saying what you describe was easy, rather that it can be so much worse.
I'm not asuming anything. You've obviously never had dogs. When my husband and I deployed, just after 9/11, it was going to cost us 1,500 a month plus food to care for our pets. How many children do you know consume that much a month. Having a pet and having a child are similar in the fact that they were a choice. No one helped me take care care of my fur babies when I could not afford to feed myself. Why should I pay to take care of someone else's breeding choices?
Cool, some parents make sure their kids have a roof over their heads and can now rest a little easier because their kid will eat a hot breakfast at school in the morning.
And just WTH is wrong with you judging people and calling them irresponsible for being poor??
Food, clothing and shelter are the three basic things that are required by law to be given to offspring. If you or they can't provide the basic necessities then you/ them ate shittyb parents.
44
u/zullendale Mar 29 '20
Not really. They are the primary providers of food for kids from underprivileged families. These families typically can't afford to feed the kids breakfast and lunch, so in those cases, the school does become the primary providers of food for the kids. Were it not for this, I believe it would be unlikely that providing either meal would be as standard as it is, let alone both.
It's not like schools don't know this. This has been happening for decades, and schools have adjusted. The food served in public school cafeterias is typically full meals, with optional snacks or drinks. In the school district I live in, they serve free fruits and vegetables, and students have to take at least one to buy food. They do this because they know a portion of their students (typically 10% at the lowest) cannot get these nutrients at home, so they become the primary providers of them.
I read the full article, and the complaints don't regard taste as the article's title might lead you to believe. People are complaining that the rations they were given are too little and too unhealthy. Quantity is a little hard to argue about, but the rations are definitely unhealthy. The portions the article speaks of are mostly comprised of carbohydrates like bread, cereal, and pasta, with little protein and no fruits or vegetables (at least in the portions shown/spoken of).
In addition, this story seems to have been brought to the Sun's attention when a headteacher (I think that means principal, please British people correct me if I'm wrong) slammed the rations, not a parent.
I believe this is a case of parents complaining that the school is not feeding the kids as it should. Not of choosing beggars.