Phillyist Playlist: Bob Dylan at the Liacouras Center
What to Do with Your Transpass
Jonathan Safran Foer at the Free Library
Playlist Rewind: Stevie Wonder
Constitution Center Invites Artists to Revisit WPA
This Phillyist would like to know who thinks feeding children is bad. Who, precisely, would look at a group of kids coming to school without lunch, and believe that it is okay for them to remain hungry?
In this case, it is the USDA. They are seeking to end Philadelphia's unique 17-year-old program of Universal Feeding. It is through this program that children in 200 city schools receive free meals without their parents needing to fill out paperwork if at least 72 percent of the student population is considered "impoverished" according to the state standard. In many cases, the meals given by the school are the only nourishment these kids receive. The eligible schools and children are some of the most underserved in the city. Depriving them of meals to satisfy bureaucratic red-tape is simply untenable.
USDA Deputy Undersecretary Janey Thornton said "it isn't fair" that Philadelphia is the only city in the nation with the program. Sure, maybe more cities should implement it. It isn't as though there are wealthy children sneaking into the dilapidated neighborhood schools to cop a free serving of tater tots.
"I do not understand this," Senator Arlen Specter said in an interview this week. "You'd think it'd be pretty hard to be against motherhood, milk, and children." He, Governor Rendell, Senator Robert Casey Jr., and Representative Joe Sestak are all fighting to stop the change.
Ending the program means each child would need to have their parents fill out paperwork on their behalf regarding the family's income in order to continue receiving free or reduced cost lunch. This might sound simple, but it really isn't. The city will be forced to spend money (possibly more than what the lunches themselves are worth) getting out the word about the change, and then process and verify the paperwork, which also costs money. Additionally, any child whose parent was unwilling or unable to fill out the papers would no longer receive the meals. Rendell's secretary of policy and planning, Donna Cooper, explained that poor families frequently "eschew paperwork." The children without papers would simply go hungry. And this hunger would be fair. That's the argument of the USDA.
What crap.
Image credit: Flickr user chidorian
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As a teacher in a poor district, I find it so unbelievable that the USDA would allow these children to go hungry. How about they bring in the USDA and let THEM tell the students they can't have breakfast. Then let them stay with those students and let THEM tell them AGAIN that they can't have lunch. I have parents that don't fill out paperwork, parents that don't send their kids with the money they need if they're on reduced lunch. Instead of turning them away, we feed them anyway--I have a feeling that's what these teachers and cafeteria workers will end up doing.
This is absolutely reprehensible.
I'm always so frustrated whenever our bureaucracy outpaces our humanity in the schools. Like Specter said, who's against feeding kids?
Perhaps we as individuals can raise money get food donations etc. on our own without Government? I'm willing to be a part of that. Who else is in ? Don't wait around for someone else to do it . Plenty of supermarkets and restaurants would be willing as well. I'm optimistic, but need sweat equity in reality.