Join the conversation

Encourage your readers to check out the link and read it completely. The quote is taken out of context, and refers to children who are over the age of 16 and (in her opinion) should be working to help their families during the summer.

There's nothing wrong with being opposed to free school lunches. AT ALL. We're already paying for food stamps for these families. It's a form of coercion on the part of the government to get the children into the school building.

Since when did "compassion for the poor" equal "support for government feeding programs?" The two do not necessarily always go together.

Thank you for the comment, Mrs. C. You're quite right, Representative Smith was referring to children over age 16 when she made that particular comment, but she does advocate abolishing the entire program. So, if hunger is a positive motivator for children over 16, what is it for younger children? An irritant? A punishment?

I think we simply disagree on the importance of summer meals programs. Food stamps hardly fill the need, and a recent report found that, before the economic downturn, a full 20% of Missouri children grappled with hunger: http://feedingamerica.org/our-network/the-studies/~/media/Files/research....

Your argument about coercion puzzles me. As it happens, churches host most of the summer feeding stations. Is THAT coercion? Even if that weren't the case, what's so terrible about giving parents the option of bringing children into a public school building to receive a meal during the summer? Are churches being coercive--luring the unsuspecting into church buildings--when they fund soup kitchens on their own dime? Hardly.

Tell ya what. Eliminate "compulsory education" and then we can talk apples to apples. No one is compelled to pick a church by law, or "homechurch." If they were, and the Baptists had all the free food...

Hmmm...

I have to admit that I'm still a bit perplexed. You're suggesting that luring children into public schools during the summer is bad, because education before age 16 is compulsory? Am I to believe that those children wouldn't be attending public schools if it weren't for those dog-gone summer lunch programs?

Are low-income parents who would otherwise be eagerly homeschooling their children sending them to public schools because of free summer lunch programs? Or would it be better for them not to educate their children at all, freed from the chains of compulsory education?

I just can't quite figure out how the offer of free or subsidized food for low-income children amounts to coercion.

LOL Ok... here goes...

Why compulsory education at all? I mean, who am *I* to tell another parent how to raise his children? Why should children, say, who plan to take over their father's landscaping business be compelled to study British Literature 101? :]

Honestly, I'm just arguing that if one were COMPELLED to pick a church, or worse, if you were ASSIGNED to the church that happened to be closest to your house regardless of your personal convictions if you didn't shell out a lot of money for a "private" church option, that it would be a decent argument to throw the churches into the equation. ("Don't like it? Join the PTA and try to change the doctrinal statement. Good luck.")

I'm laughing imagining it. And yet, we cannot deny the idea of "one must learn to read, write and do basic mathematics" is in and of itself an almost doctrinal statement. Paternalistic, even. I have a non-verbal autistic child. Who is to say that I have failed as a parent should he never read and write, or even speak? And yet, in a few years he may do all of these things because he is who he is. His abilities will be gently encouraged and we'll know in time what he's capable of doing. :]

In any event, there are many publicly-funded carrots and sticks that work in favour of public schools to the detriment of other choices (since a "choice" must be made).

But now I'm reading the preceeding comments and wondering if we're discussing the same thing... are we talking of free and reduced lunches overall, or soup-kitchen style feeding stations? (Perhaps I misunderstand because our high school's summer school did NOT have the cafeteria open, and I live in Missouri, so I assumed free lunches for kids in public school was the central question. In addition, I have never seen any such soup-kitchen sort of thing in a school. Ever.) If the latter, it would be no different, I imagine, than allowing people to vote in a school building so long as it is privately funded, etc.

And yes, in answer to your question, I think often it would be better for lower-income folks "not to educate their children at all," thus allowing them to be "freed from the chains of compulsory education." But again, who am I to make their choices for them?

FWIW, I do have two older children in public high school who CHOOSE to be there. But I've also observed (particularly in the lower grades) that parents often send their children to public school the second they're eligible and view it as free child care. In my view, it hampers the educational experience of those students who truly want to learn. It forces teachers to deal with unruliness because when education is compelled and/or viewed as a right, it's rather difficult one to "deny." IMO public schools suffer as a result. I haven't even gotten around to my personal feelings in regard to IDEA and this mystical "least restrictive environment" unicorn.

Back to the hunger as a good motivator. I don't think there's a problem with having children skip lunch if they forgets their lunchbox at home once in a while. Kids don't starve over one lunch missed, or even two or three. If anything, we should be worried about the overfed and overindulged ones who do not see the consequences of their actions.

God bless ya if you've read this far! Serves me right for trying to do dinner and type at the same time! :]

If they FORGET their lunchBOXES. Yes, I went to kollij. Not that that was necessary. *wink*

Oh boy, Mrs. C.

I think we just disagree.

I believe in compulsory education and in the value of free and reduced-priced lunch meals. I even cherish the hope that at least most children will get exposure to English literature :) I hate to impose on parents, but I don't see compulsory education as an imposition. Instead, I see it as a kind of insurance that all children get a reasonable shot at life. It makes me sleep better at night to think that the children of parents who cannot or won't give them the best opportunities are getting at least some level of education. In fact, I'd sleep a whole lot better if I knew that more children were learning to a higher standard.

Despite our disagreement, it seems clear to me that, thanks to your passion, commitment and gentle encouragement, your non-verbal autistic child will have a terrific chance of reading and writing before too long.

Thanks for typing and eating with such facility!

Awww...

Of *course* we disagree. That's why we've both chosen different professions. And that's ok. I think you have to have some level of "buy-in" to do this every schoolday. I mean, that's why I'm homeschooling my middle kids all through July and August... so we can take off during that first week of public school and to go to the empty pizza parlor have field trips without fighting crowds. Thanks to public school, all this is possible. :]

I arrived at the conclusion that the state is not the best arbiter of what constitutes an "education" through a long and bitter process that entailed, among other things, one of my older autistic sons being locked in a closet by staff on several occasions. (YES, I actually have *three* autistic sons, so fortunately/unfortunately I know a lot about autism.)

I guess I look at states like Vermont where special needs children are pretty much state property (educationally speaking, they are in fact slaves to the state and that is NOT too strong a word when you have encountered your own child in a cement cell more than once) and go, "Why?" Why do they get to decide what's best for my child? For any child?

Mind you, the staff at our district special-needs preschool is absolutely *wonderful.* I would trust them with any child, any time. I have every intention of enrolling my two-year-old although it is not compulsory. Just knowing it is NOT compulsory, that I can stop at any time with a note and a goodbye if I'm unhappy with his treatment, is a great source of comfort to me.

But who should decide what is best for a child? Should my children have to be subject to whatever teachers happen to be on staff at a given moment? I'm thinking just along the lines of "choice" here.

Mind you, I LOOOOVE literature, so tough noogies for my kids, that's part of our curriculum. And I plan to make my homeschoolers suffer through every. one. of the McGuffey Readers before moving on to that detestable British Lit. :p

Sorry for my long silence, Mrs. C. A looming Board meeting and an adorable two-month old insomniac have kept me from commenting.

That wakeful pint-sized girl compels me to keep this comment short. I think we'll have to continue to disagree, though your personal experiences sound awfully compelling. I still believe compulsory education is a prerequisite of a healthy democracy (ironic as that may sound), though parents certainly need to retain a primary and vital influence over their children's educations--assuming that the parents are not abusive, neglectful, or simply incapable, of course. Children with special needs do not always have the best experience in public schools--though your account of your district's pre-school is heartening. Yet, the private systems don't always serve them well, either--in many cases, not at all. Would that all parents were as capable as you clearly are.

I love your insistence on teaching your children literature! The only McGuffey's Readers I've read date to the late 19th century, so I'm not entirely sure how they branched out in later years. In any event, English literature should give your children much nourishment over the years. You can tell them they'll thank you for it when they're older!

Sounds like a normal two-month old schedule to me...

BTW, these *are* the 1879 readers, reprinted by Landmark Baptist Press. They're actually very popular with more conservative homeschoolers.

And YES, it *is* heartening to see what is going on at the preschool. And I more than heartily agree with you on private systems not meeting all needs. I just feel that *my* children should not be sacrificial lambs for the sake of "the system" that may well serve most children adequately. :]