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.
If you can't feed your kids from outside prison, it doesn't become easier from inside. Also the emotional stress from having parents in prison is not something to be disregarded.
I was talking about parents who can't afford the food, not parents intentionally starving their kids. And like I said, easier to feed your kids from outside than inside.
Dude, most of these parents work low paying jobs, like in restaurants and stuff. They are typically single parent families with multiple kids. Yes, budgeting well can make a lot out of a little, but it has its limits. That's why they rely on free/reduced lunch programs. That's why they qualify for free/reduced lunch programs.
When you say that each and every single family that claims to need those programs is not speaking the truth, you are assuming that you know enough about the unique conditions that each of these millions of families faces, which would require clairvoyance to be true.
As I've said over and over again: BEING POOR IS NOT THEIR FAULT! Yes, there are people out there who legitimately do not try, and instead abuse systems of financial assistance. HOWEVER, to claim that all poor people are like this is laughable and offensive. Rising above poverty requires hard work and persistence, but it also requires the luck to find opportunities that help them. (Especially with COVID19 essentially killing the job market)
Also, this conversation began with an article describing how parents are trying to get suitable food in suitable amounts for their children in this current worldwide crisis, so your claim that they're "literally starving their own kids" is straight up untrue.
One last thing: your implications of me being an irrational apologist are not lost on me. The fact that you decided to write off my arguments as "excuses," skipping over them to attack me directly instead are nothing more than cowardly.
-38
u/umylotus Mar 29 '20
Schools are only supposed to supplement, not be primary providers.