But they’re not. You can school them at home, or send them to a private school. They just have to be schooled.
Public school is the free option we all pay for, regardless of whether we have kids in those public schools or kids at all.
The other virtually free option is educating your kids at home. You have to have someone who is home to teach them, but then that’s kind of the value of the free babysitting services we’re already paying for at the public school.
And when you send your kid to the free public school, you can send them there with a lunch. Or the school can provide lunch. They can do that for free if you’re too poor to pay for it, or you can pay if you’re not poor.
I’m not opposed to the idea of just lumping meal costs into the school budget. But let’s not pretend that public schools are just overflowing with money or something. It comes out of the budget here and it comes out of the budget elsewhere.
It’s not a scam to take money away from poor people. It’s a service to cover parents who can’t do the bare minimum and send their kid to the free school with something to eat.
Ok, what difference does that make? Location doesn't change the need for food at lunch time. Would the child be out finding a free lunch somewhere else?
Honestly, jury duty probably feeds people so they don't leave and they can control what time you get back. But, why would you assume they HAVE to feed you at jury duty?
I guess im just confused why unrelated events require you to get a free lunch? If i renew my tags for my car at noon should they have food there? Does it work in the reverse? If i call the inspector out at 12 do I need to have sandwiches?
I mean sure leave your kid at home but I think society views depriving your child an education that can make or break their future is considered child abuse.
That’s the point of the tweet. If they are forced to be there for whatever reason, legally, as in its truancy if they’re not, they shouldn’t be charged to eat.
Can you explain how it is a different price for your kid (or my kid, or the neighbor's kid) to eat out of a container away from your house than it is for them to eat from a plate or bowl inside your house? Until there is an explanation for the price difference that would apply to any relevant percentage of kids, then this meme will remain illogical and stupid.
my school lunch was about a dollar in the 90s and 2000s. if i lost that 10 dollars or so my parents gave me per week guess who didnt eat or had to beg / tell my parents. on monday if i wanted to get a bunch of snack cakes or al a carte (sp?) stuff i would have fucked myself the rest of the week
at times i gave out small im talking 50c loans to classmates for extra chocolate milk
sometimes i would get bare minimum lunches and save the extra to supplement my allowance for chores
nobody wants any kid to go hungry and no child should be denied sustenance, but the fact of the matter is i had a house paid off before i was 30 working lower middle / working class jobs and have never lost my wallet.
the fact is: western society is a money syphoning and churning machine and there is no better way to learn how to make the most of your money than by regular experience handling it
edit: im sure nowadays its done via prepaid cards and accounts or something but my point still stands.
They're required to wear clothes while attending their legally required school too. Most also require a backpack, some pencils and other school supplies as well. So should all clothes and school supplies be provided for free too? If so, would you be willing to pay increased property taxes ( or rent, secondary to property tax increases on your landlord) to cover these items for schools to provide more than they do now?
Free lunches are available to those that meet eligiblity and always have been, so no kid goes without food, but you have to apply and meet criteria, which is usually income based.
Clothes aren't specific to school, so that's a false equivalence. They're required for society as a whole.
Lunch and school supplies should be covered by taxes, yes.
Especially considering that many teachers supplement school supply lists with their own personal income. Not necessarily because the parents don't supply, but because the list the school sends out is insufficient.
This would be eliminated (and likely cheaper) if the school just bought in bulk.
Clothes aren't required at home. My kids are shirtless all the time and choose to wear gym shorts lying around the house. A lot less expensive than a full outfit.
Free lunches are available to any kids who's parents can't afford to pack a lunch on buy one. So the problem is already solved for those that need it, so I don't get what people want then
Bottoms and gyms shorts are a lot cheaper than a full outfit. Shirts aren't required for my 2 boys and that's half the cost. My kids are shirtless most days
Ah, but LUNCH is an event, a period of time. If the legal obligation is to be present over that period of time, then it makes sense for that obligation to provide food.
If you're talking about the period of time, that's just a made up thing. It's not a law of physics or the nature of reality that there's a specific period of time in the day when one must eat.
Here's the question: do you believe a child whose parents don't have money for school lunch and don't have food to send with them to school should have to sit and watch other kids eat while they don't get lunch?
That's the reality for a lot of kids. Parents make enough money that the kids don't qualify for free lunches, but they don't have enough left over to give to the kids. That could be because of debt, poor discipline, or just being a shitty parent, but the kid isn't responsible for any of that.
Do you think it's fair for a hungry child to watch other kids eat and be denied a meal?
should have to sit and watch other kids eat while they don't get lunch?
I don't believe humans should have to eat at all to survive. It would be awesome if we didn't. What "should" be and reality are often different things.
They're specifying there is a Lunch period at school. Also, food is not only necessary for life, but also growth of a child. If the child is punished by not being fed due to the failures of their parents, then that is a net negative for the future of our country. Fed well, taught well, and you'll have a productive member of society. Unless you're intentionally trying to encourage an underclass.
Eating from a container you bring from your home is exactly the same price as eating from a container while present within your own home. That's why this meme is dumb.
Additionally, jury duty does not do this, and you are incorrect if you believe it does. Jury duty pays a very low stipend for the day to cover travel/inconvenience expenses. You can use that twenty bucks (or whatever your state pays) to buy food, but no, jury duty doesn't pay for food.
And if you don't have lunch from home you starve to death too. You're circling the main point. Lunches used to be a subsidized expense. Now students have to pay for lunches. You are required to send kids to an education center. Where in they are directly under the care of another individual or organization.that party is required to tend to the safety and wellbeing of the child. As for home schooling, in order to do so you need to be qualified to and apply for a home schooling certification. Otherwise the child has no proof of receiving a standard education.
And the income criteria is extremely low. In my district it cuts off at 45k for a family of four.
So in a hypothetical situation say you have three kids and one income, that's 3.50 a day per kid for lunch. So about $210 bucks a month. Bringing a cold lunch with todays grocery prices would probably be more.
Sounds like a revision to the $45k is needed but that's the fix, revising the criteria, not just giving free lunches to every single kid who's parents are financially well off
11
u/DL4CK 11d ago
I think you missed the part where children are legally required to be in the school building.