Feeding ALL of our kids ...

jacee · May 23, 2012

Hamilton ON, Parkview Secondary School

Parkview is a vocational secondary school serving inner city kids who've fallen behind their peers through elementary school. The small school size and class size and special supports and services attempt to encourage success for students who've experienced too little of it in their lives. Poverty is issue number one, with poor nutrition the chief culprit:

In order to ensure that all students achieve their ful potential, we know that we must begin to level the playing field. We know that not all our students come to school with the same resources: economic, social emotional, and health-related. The HWDSB fights poverty and its effects every day and we firmly believe that the way out of poverty is through education. Our staff aims to support students living in poverty through all-inclusive and non-obtrusive programs. The Dawgs (Hamilton Bulldogs semi-pro hockey team) Breakfast Program will help break some students out from the cycle of poverty.

http://schools.hwdsb.on.ca/parkview/2011/02/17/bulldogs-breakfast-and-lunch-program/

Paul Beattie, the principle at Parkview Secondary for the last four years, said he was “shocked” at the economic disparity he found when he first took over Parkview.

Not sure what rock this principal was formerly living under that he didn't know the extreme poverty that exists in EVERY community. More likely on top of the 'rock' (escarpment) that we call "the mountain". Downtown is a different story than living in the bubble of the burbs. Better late than never though ...

He said about 95 per cent of the students were iving either at or below the low-income cut-off, with a high number of families living on less than $18,000 annually.

“I was blown away this existed in our city,” he said At the time the student absenteeism rate at the school was about 35 per cent, he said mostly because they were hungry. One day he found a teen curled up in a fetal position in a hallway crying because his stomach hurt from not eating for a day and a half.

...

In 2009-10, the school introduced the breakfast program, and immediately teachers saw the improvements in their students performance. In 2011 the school’s student absenteeism rate dropped to about 11 per cent, he said

http://www.sachem.ca/news/article/242609

Some might say 'Why aren't these kids parents feeding them properly?

Because they're ... in jail, drinking/doing drugs, mentally/physically disabled, or just entirely overwhelmed and unable to cope. Whatever ... it's IRRELEVANT because there's not likely anything we can do about that.

But we can feed the kids.

Want to 'get tough' on crime and substance abuse?

FEED THE KIDS so they have a chance at achieving success.

Canuckistani · May 23, 2012

Absolutely. Saves a lot of money down the road in lost productivity, criminal justice and health care. But we have to do more than just feed the kids, we also have to provide the kind of support and educational enrichment that poor parents can't provide, so the kids can do well in school. Or, maybe it would be better to provide the support to the parents so they can feed and properly parent the kids. Have homecare workers that help manage finances, ensure they're not spent on drugs, etc. Again, I think it would save a bundle down the road, just as having homecare workers for seniors saves money when they don't have to go to a nursing home or hospital.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Canuckistani

August1991 · May 23, 2012

What do we mean by poverty? Not what Dickens or Blake or Mayhew meant. Today, no one seriously expects to go hungry in England or to live without running water or medical care or even TV. Poverty has been redefined in industrial countries, so that anyone at the lower end of the income distribution is poor ex officio, as it were—poor by virtue of having less than the rich. And of course by this logic, the only way of eliminating poverty is by an egalitarian redistribution of wealth—even if the society as a whole were to become poorer as a result.

Theodore Dalyrymple, What is Poverty?

I offer this random quote:

Epidemiologists estimate that the higher rate of cigarette consumption among the poor accounts for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest classes in England—and to smoke that much takes money.

IOW, the high taxes on cigarettes are, in effect, a tax on the poor.

Edited May 23, 2012 by August1991

Canuckistani · May 23, 2012

Theodore Dalyrymple, What is Poverty?

I offer this random quote:

IOW, the high taxes on cigarettes are, in effect, a tax on the poor.

Ah, the old less inequality = total equality red herring, all the while singing the praises of the far lesser inequality we have since Dickensian Times.

I don't know about England, but as the OP shows, in Canada we do have hunger. And I doubt if all those morally shiftless poor would just quit smoking it would solve the problem.

In a modern, complex, interdependent society, we understand that that sins of the fathers are not just visited on the children, but on us all. From a pure objectivist standpoint, it makes sense for the state to support children to grow into adults who contribute to the common weal and draw less on our social supports. Less inequality (within limits) makes us all richer, not poorer.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Canuckistani

Signals.Cpl · May 23, 2012

Theodore Dalyrymple, What is Poverty?

I offer this random quote:

IOW, the high taxes on cigarettes are, in effect, a tax on the poor.

Yeah, and lottery is also a tax on the poor.

GostHacked · May 23, 2012

Theodore Dalyrymple, What is Poverty?

I offer this random quote:

IOW, the high taxes on cigarettes are, in effect, a tax on the poor.

If you are poor, cigarettes would be considered a luxury. Do I eat this week, or smoke this week ... hmmm hard choice.

jacee · May 23, 2012

Attendance is up 24%.

Because there's free food in the school.

How basic is that?

May 23, 2012

Attendance is up 24%.

Because there's free food in the school.

How basic is that?

Pretty basic. Now I don't need to use my own money for food, so's I can buy more weed...

August1991 · May 24, 2012

Ah, the old less inequality = total equality red herring, all the while singing the praises of the far lesser inequality we have since Dickensian Times.
I don't know about England, but as the OP shows, in Canada we do have hunger. And I doubt if all those morally shiftless poor would just quit smoking it would solve the problem.

It's not a red herring at all. The conditions on Indian reserves should convince you that the State cannot provide general welfare.

In a modern, complex, interdependent society, we understand that that sins of the fathers are not just visited on the children, but on us all. From a pure objectivist standpoint, it makes sense for the state to support children to grow into adults who contribute to the common weal and draw less on our social supports.

But how can the (bureaucratic) State do this?

Canuck, you (and the Left in general) avoid this critical question. More taxpayer money, and more social programmes, typically make the problem worse.

Dalyrymple gets it right:

Arriving as a young doctor in Africa 25 years ago, I was horrified at first by the physical conditions, the like of which I had never experienced before.
....

Yet nothing I saw—neither the poverty nor the overt oppression—ever had the same devastating effect on the human personality as the undiscriminating welfare state. I never saw the loss of dignity, the self-centeredness, the spiritual and emotional vacuity, or the sheer ignorance of how to live, that I see daily in England. In a kind of pincer movement, therefore, I and the doctors from India and the Philippines have come to the same terrible conclusion: that the worst poverty is in England—and it is not material poverty but poverty of soul.

Edited May 24, 2012 by August1991

August1991 · May 24, 2012

Attendance is up 24%.
Because there's free food in the school.

How basic is that?

Jacee, this is one experiment in one school. Many other factors could explain the change in attendance, including in particular a school principal who is desperate to prove himself right and twists the numbers.

The past 50 years or so are replete with various similar experiments. They have something in common: they involve taxpayer money and they invariably lead in the long run to worse conditions (so obvious that they defy number twisting).

Why? I'll take this State-provided breakfast as an example. What incentive does it create for families/parents to get their act together? This policy just encourages even more slovenly behaviour. And what do the children learn? That bureaucrats are supposedly more reliable than their own family/friends. (This is a terrible life lesson because it is so dangerously wrong.)

---

I agree absolutely that children above all should be protected. And in some cases, more money can make a difference.

But call me cynical if you will, I just don't think that unionized teachers in the very bureaucratic setting of modern Canadian schools will help in any way these kids in the long run. This breakfast programme amounts to modern-day residence schools.

Edited May 24, 2012 by August1991

Canuckistani · May 24, 2012

It's not a red herring at all. The conditions on Indian reserves should convince you that the State cannot provide general welfare.

More money, and more social programmes, will likely make the problem worse.

Dalyrymple gets it right:

And yet you quote him

What do we mean by poverty? Not what Dickens or Blake or Mayhew meant. Today, no one seriously expects to go hungry in England or to live without running water or medical care or even TV.

What is it that changed the Dickensian situation but the very things Dalrymple decries? I think this idea of the noble poor is a sham - things were even more brutish and mean for the poor in Dickens' time.

Just throwing money at a situation may not do much. As you say, on remote Indian reserves where there isn't a hope in hell of most people having a job, we've just facilitated an exchange for the traditional way of life to welfare dependency. OTOH, something like this food program, that addresses a specific need and supports kids to learn and have the better possibility of a future is money well spent.

We've relegated people to welfare and underemployment, because our technological society doesn't really need so many people to function. The idea was they would be consumers and drive industry, but with ever widening wage inequality, they can't even participate in that very well.

Some people will always need welfare, they are so damaged no matter what we do they won't be able to work. But most people will do much better given meaningful work and a decent pay check to go with it. Since we don't have private enterprise jobs for all of them, we should be creating jobs that don't have a profit attached to it, but still have value. Ie a high level form of workfare. Those few who really refuse to work but are able to would get the bare minimum or even nothing. But those people on workfare should be earning enough for a decent life and be able to save enough to educate or otherwise upgrade themselves if they can. The place to start with that is creating emotionally and physically healthy children, and this program has a part to play there.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Canuckistani

August1991 · May 24, 2012

And yet you quote him What is it that changed the Dickensian situation but the very things Dalrymple decries? I think this idea of the noble poor is a sham - things were even more brutish and mean for the poor in Dickens' time.

Here, we might part ways. The main difference between ordinary life in 1850 England and 2000 China is technology, and trade.

Because of technology and trade, hundreds of millions of people, billions, now live better lives.

Over the past 150 years, centralized bureaucratic State social welfare programmes have arguably made things worse. That was the conclusion of Deng Xiao Ping, among others.

Just throwing money at a situation may not do much.

Throwing taxpayer money at a situation, through a bureaucratic system, won't do much.

Nevertheless, money can sometimes make a difference, and bureaucrats can sometimes do good. Imagine.

Edited May 24, 2012 by August1991

Michael Hardner · May 24, 2012

The past 50 years or so are replete with various similar experiments. They have something in common: they involve taxpayer money and they invariably lead in the long run to worse conditions (so obvious that they defy number twisting).

You are selective in your examples. You use the example of mismanagement of reserves as 'proof' that state welfare can't be managed. Here, you dismiss a successful program... why ?

You're arriving at the discussion with your conclusion in hand. We need to do some more in-depth thinking as a group than you have done here in order to improve. Yes, there are definitely things that can be done better but shallow arguments don't help advance either point of view.

Michael Hardner · May 24, 2012

Throwing taxpayer money at a situation, through a bureaucratic system, won't do much.

Nevertheless, money can sometimes make a difference, and bureaucrats can sometimes do good. Imagine.

I like this - you're starting to peek inside the problem a little more. Bureaucracy is a necessary disease, and one that people notoriously shrug their shoulders over then walk away. It's hard to manage things, and citizens are the ones who have the toughest job of all - paying attention. I say it's the toughest, because people don't do this.

jacee · May 24, 2012

Jacee, this is one experiment in one school. Many other factors could explain the change in attendance, including in particular a school principal who is desperate to prove himself right and twists the numbers.

The past 50 years or so are replete with various similar experiments. They have something in common: they involve taxpayer money and they invariably lead in the long run to worse conditions (so obvious that they defy number twisting).

Why? I'll take this State-provided breakfast as an example. What incentive does it create for families/parents to get their act together? This policy just encourages even more slovenly behaviour. And what do the children learn? That bureaucrats are supposedly more reliable than their own family/friends. (This is a terrible life lesson because it is so dangerously wrong.)

---

I agree absolutely that children above all should be protected. And in some cases, more money can make a difference.

But call me cynical if you will, I just don't think that unionized teachers in the very bureaucratic setting of modern Canadian schools will help in any way these kids in the long run. This breakfast programme amounts to modern-day residence schools.

Funny how some people disparage and dismiss psychology and other social sciences ... until it suits them to use pseudo-psychology to 'justify' (eg) withholding food from hungry kids. Make your argument without resorting to "incentive" arguments, please, because human behaviour is much more complex than that and you aren't an expert on it.

And make your argument without reference to "families/parents get(ting) their act together" because that's a much larger problem than the school can solve. They can only deal with the realities of their students (many of whom have no family support at all and live on their own. KIDS ARE HUNGRY. FEED THEM. Pretty simple.

Also, as the article says clearly, this is a 'charity' food program, not governement funded.

Your prejudice against teachers is noted and dismissed as irrelevant. No they didn't twist the numbers: No need to.

Kids deserve food. They are not successful in school if they are hungry.

This "experiment" has been repeated in thousands of schools, over and over again for decades. Not only does attendance improve, but attentiveness in class and achievement and longer term success.

Who in their right mind would punish kids so harshly as to withhold food, knowing that they are hungry and failing because of it?

"Yes I see you are hungry and I have this sandwich for you ... but first we have to have a conference with your parents to see whether you deserve this sandwich.". How sick is that!

GMAFB!! <_<

Dad's in jail and Mom's oxy habit is consuming all the food money and she's getting too old for hooking and new boyfriend ... WHAT-EVER!

Feed the kids so they have a hope of breaking the cycle.

Edited May 24, 2012 by jacee

Fletch 27 · May 24, 2012

Should we clothe them as well? Now what kind of shoe's would be acceptable to you for them to wear? Nike's or Reebok's? Im thinking we should also provide the girls with Nice hand-bags, maybe "Coach bags" for the pencils and compasses.. The boys should have nice jeans too.. So they dont stick out and we they can all "conform".. I think we should also make sure they wake up in the mornings nicley, maybe provide them with teeth whitening toothpaste.. And, I cringe when i see the little darling standing outside waiting for the bus in the Winter.. That cant be conductive to "good learnin'".. Im A-OK with the "provide the kiddies with heated shelters" cause.

Funny how some people disparage and dismiss psychology and other social sciences ... until it suits them to use pseudo-psychology to 'justify' (eg) withholding food from hungry kids. Make your argument without resorting to "incentive" arguments, please, because human behaviour is much more complex than that and you aren't an expert on it.

And make your argument without reference to "families/parents get(ting) their act together" because that's a much larger problem than the school can solve. They can only deal with the realities of their students (many of whom have no family support at all and live on their own. KIDS ARE HUNGRY. FEED THEM. Pretty simple.

Also, as the article says clearly, this is a 'charity' food program, not governement funded.

Your prejudice against teachers is noted and dismissed as irrelevant. No they didn't twist the numbers: No need to.

Kids deserve food. They are not successful in school if they are hungry.

This "experiment" has been repeated in thousands of schools, over and over again for decades. Not only does attendance improve, but attentiveness in class and achievement and longer term success.

Who in their right mind would punish kids so harshly as to withhold food, knowing that they are hungry and failing because of it?

"Yes I see you are hungry and I have this sandwich for you ... but first we have to have a conference with your parents to see whether you deserve this sandwich.". How sick is that!

GMAFB!!

Dad's in jail and Mom's oxy habit is consuming all the food money and she's getting too old for hooking and new boyfriend ... WHAT-EVER!

Feed the kids so they have a hope of breaking the cycle.

Canuckistani · May 24, 2012

We should clothe them. Give them shoes without holes, winter coats, etc. We should do what it takes to have them grow up healthy both mentally and physically. If the parents can't or won't do it, the kids should not suffer for it. It will save us a lot of money down the road.

Fletch 27 · May 24, 2012

Its a miracle that we survived this long.. I mean.. how did the kids in the 1930's survive.. Its uncanny.. I mean really... With no federally funded "North Face" winter jackets and Kodiak boots...

We should clothe them. Give them shoes without holes, winter coats, etc. We should do what it takes to have them grow up healthy both mentally and physically. If the parents can't or won't do it, the kids should not suffer for it. It will save us a lot of money down the road.

Canuckistani · May 24, 2012

Charity. Same as is being proposed here. I prefer the state to do it in an organized fashion.

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Fletch 27 · May 24, 2012

What was it that Adolf Hitler prefered the State to do in an organized fashion?? Its been such a long time since my history class... Its comforting when the State has thier hands in the day to day dealings..

Charity. Same as is being proposed here. I prefer the state to do it in an organized fashion.

guyser · May 24, 2012

What was it that Adolf Hitler

Oops you lose!

Over the top mockery , stupid assertions , invoking Hitler.

Not to mention you have a piss poor idea of history. We have always clothed and fed kids who couldnt.

But you go on making follish kodiak boots, north face comments. :rolleyes:

Canuckistani · May 24, 2012

What was it that Adolf Hitler prefered the State to do in an organized fashion?? Its been such a long time since my history class... Its comforting when the State has thier hands in the day to day dealings..

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

The children of the depression created the most successful and egalitarian welfare states ever. They saw what deprivation caused, and wanted a better world for their children. Unfortunately those children took it all for granted and started listening to the neo-cons and their promise they could have it all for nothing. Who needs taxes. Yet 90% of Canadians want govt services to stay the same or increase, while only 46% are willing to pay more taxes for it. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

Michael Hardner · May 24, 2012

Its a miracle that we survived this long.. I mean.. how did the kids in the 1930's survive.. Its uncanny.. I mean really...

Thanks for being precise in specifying the year you want to turn the clock back to.

Topaz · May 24, 2012

Well, the way I'm looking at it is...I rather give $200.00 to the Food Bank then to let the Feds have it through taxes at income tax time. Support a kid, not the wasteful feds.