LA school district to fingerprint scan kids @ lunch???

[rbell]

Say what???

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/10/04/lausd-to-biometrically-scan-students-at-lunchtime/

Superintendent Ramon Cortines says struggling students who receive free lunches would no longer have to pay with embarrassing tickets.

Being most students get the free or reduced plan, not sure how this is embarrassing.

Not to mention--this has become a racket, anyway. Students around the country are now encouraged, whether they need to or not, to sign up for the free/reduced meals. Happens here all the time. Happens in FL, GA, and TX at schools my relatives attend.

Funny how this school system can't pay its bills or its faculty--yet they find millions to waste on such stupidity.

And people wonder why thousands of us are removing our kids from the colossal failure known as government schools?

 

[TC]

I don't see how a fingerprint scan in front of everybody is less embarrassing than having a ticket punched.

 

[abcgrad94]

Just think of all the extra lunches they could give away free if they didn't spend money on the finger print technology.

 

[rbell]

Maybe they're worried about embarrassing the 10% that don't get free/reduced lunches...

I'm really confused by this policy. Honestly? I think that someone simply made a sweetheart deal on the fingerprint scanners, and they're simply skimming off the top.

Education's the best cash cow in the country, anyway. You can make more money than you could possibly spend. Of course, since "it's for the chiiiiiiiiildren," who on earth would ever oppose any of it?

 

[jaigner]

Funny how this school system can't pay its bills or its faculty--yet they find millions to waste on such stupidity.

My school has been doing this for several years because it's easier than the old system.

The state pays for free and reduced lunch where I work. It doesn't cost the school anything.

Also, a lot of these children are hungry and some only can eat at school. It's true that some abuse the system and that others are because parents are lazy, but let's not forget that hungry children can have a nutritious meal.

In all our haste to put down the poor, we fail to remember that it's a vicious cycle that some people can't get out of.

 

[rbell]

My school has been doing this for several years because it's easier than the old system.

The state pays for free and reduced lunch where I work. It doesn't cost the school anything.

Also, a lot of these children are hungry and some only can eat at school. It's true that some abuse the system and that others are because parents are lazy, but let's not forget that hungry children can have a nutritious meal.

In all our haste to put down the poor, we fail to remember that it's a vicious cycle that some people can't get out of.

Get ready for a shock: I'm ready to see kids get nutritious meals.

Here's my issues, though:

The state pays for free and reduced lunch where I work. It doesn't cost the school anything.

It does cost somebody something. This food, and all its associated costs, doesn't materialize out of thin air. Does a kid need it? Fine...I can handle that expenditure.

But let's not pretend that it "doesn't cost." It does. A lot.

Secondly: I have a huge problem with the active recruitment of kids for free/reduced meals. It's a racket, folks:

• The more free/reduced meal kids you have, the higher percentage the school gets to report on its reports.
• The higher the F/R meal percentages, the more lax the standards for the school...and the more handouts the school gets.
• Thus, let's recruit all the free/reduced meal kids we can: That will make our school look better, because our scores are then mitigated by the "fact" that "x percent receive free/reduced lunches/breakfasts."

It's a big, fat, dishonest racket. It's all about money, handouts, and inflating one's scores so that even more money and handouts become available.

My wife's best friend brought me a letter sent home with her kid. They were encouraged to sign up for it. They were encouraged to do so, "even if you don't think you qualify, or don't think you need it."

I called the school superintendent. They said there wasn't really anything they could do.


Ah, yes...public education: Where else can you institutionalize theft, dishonesty, and bureaucracy--all at public expense?

 

[rbell]

In all our haste to put down the poor, we fail to remember that it's a vicious cycle that some people can't get out of.

I missed this little gem first time around.

So....let me get this straight: Because I believe folks ought to be honest, and not receive benefits for which they aren't entitled (or don't need)--I'm "putting down the poor?"

And people wonder why liberals cannot be trusted. It's because you all refuse to be intellectually honest.

 

[sag38]

Darn, now kids won't be able to do what I used to do. I didn't buy meal tickets from the school. I bought them at half price from the kids who got free meals .

 

[billwald]

Many poor people don't get benefits that they are entitled to by law because they don't understand the program.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Critics say the plan to biometrically identify students could lead to civil rights violations,...

Yes, if they can do it to feed these kids, they can do it for voter regulation, just check finger prints when you vote.

And as rbell said, someone is paying, in this state it is mainly the property owners.

 

[abcgrad94]

Also, a lot of these children are hungry and some only can eat at school. It's true that some abuse the system and that others are because parents are lazy, but let's not forget that hungry children can have a nutritious meal.

If this were completely true I would agree, but unfortunately the meals are NOT nutritious. All through high school I qualified for the free lunch as did 95% of the other kids. Every single day we had french fries, tater tots, or something else (meat patty) that was deep fried. Every. Single. Day. A typical lunch menu was: a hamburger, french fries, milk, jello, and for our vegetable, we got a slice of tomato and piece of lettuce for the sandwich. The healthiest meal included deep fried chicken strips, corn, and mashed potatoes with pudding for dessert. The free breakfast was somewhat better because occasionally they served eggs along with the biscuit and sausage, and you did get orange juice if you wanted it. Most days the entire lunch was nothing but grease and carbs. I lost 20 pounds my senior year by bringing my own lunch every day instead of eating the school lunch. I worked evenings and used my earnings to buy my own lunch food, even though I qualified for the "free" lunch.

 

[jaigner]

If this were completely true I would agree, but unfortunately the meals are NOT nutritious.

I take your point, but in Texas theyve done away with particularly unhealthy foods. Almost everything is baked and they have fruit and veggies every day. Cheese must be low-fat, no mayo is served, barely any butter or oil is used. No lard, salt, or refined sugar.

They're not the tastiest things and not always the most healthy, but it's a far cry from the school lunches I had at this age twenty or so years ago.

 

[jaigner]

And people wonder why liberals cannot be trusted. It's because you all refuse to be intellectually honest.

I'm no liberal. It bothers me when people abuse the system. But I also recognize that it's not that easy. Plus, we're talking about children here.

I don't know what goes on in your state, and you may very well be right on, but in Texas, standards are not lowered for poorer schools. The school I work in is 90% free/reducede lunch, and we have some of the highest academic ratings in the district. We're held to the same academic standards and ratings as everyone else.

We do, however, qualify forfunding on the basis of our economic level. If this qualifies as a racket, I don't know, but I do know that it helps out children who cannot affordthe same academic privileges as in higher economic areas. Plus, we can't fundraise because parents don't have it. We can't get as much community and business support because there is little corporation in our area and local businesses are struggling. That's just the way it is. It does help us pay for some of the amenities that we wouldn't otherwise get. And when you get to see children excel when they have so much against them, it's wonderful.

Also, our meals are nutritious. Nothing is fried, lots of veggies and fruit are served, no lard, little butter or oil, and no sugar.

 

[Salty]

.

... The school I work in is 90% free/reducede lunch, ....

If that many are eligible for free lunch, than you must live in a very poor area. Which might mean the school gets a higher % of its funding from state, then is paid in local taxes.

Now the question is why such a high rate of free lunches.
Illegals?
As indicated be before, there is no free lunch. Somebody is paying for it (just check my signature at the bottom of my post)

Salty

 

[jaigner]

If that many are eligible for free lunch, than you must live in a very poor area. Which might mean the school gets a higher % of its funding from state, then is paid in local taxes.

Now the question is why such a high rate of free lunches.
Illegals?
As indicated be before, there is no free lunch. Somebody is paying for it (just check my signature at the bottom of my post)

It's not the poorest of the poor in terms of extreme poverty, but most of the families are on the lower end.

All the students who enroll must present birth certificates and legal paperwork. There are many immigrants, but the children must have documents.

It's obvious that someone pays for it. So what? The kids need food.

 

[preachinjesus]

And people wonder why liberals cannot be trusted. It's because you all refuse to be intellectually honest.

That's a pretty slanderous thing to say.

 

[jaigner]

That's a pretty slanderous thing to say.

Hmmm...I don't get it. Who's the liberal? Salty?

 

[Salty]

It's obvious that someone pays for it. So what? The kids need food.

So whats wrong with a Peanut butter and Jelly sandwich and 1/2 of an apple.
How did these poor kids eat before all the school lunches and breakfasts.

If I'm not mistaken school breakfast started when the Feds REQUIRED school busing. Some kids were on the school bus for 1 or 2 hours - if that were the case, I could understand why they needed a hot breakfast. But then again - thats just one more way for the govt to control people.

You might say that some parents are too lazy to cook kids breakfast - well if that the case, get CPA involved and call it what it is - child abuse.
One word - RESPONSIBILITY ! Something sorely lacking in these United States.

 

[jaigner]

You might say that some parents are too lazy to cook kids breakfast - well if that the case, get CPA involved and call it what it is - child abuse. One word - RESPONSIBILITY ! Something sorely lacking in these United States.

Sounds good, but it's not that simple. There is not a ticket out of poverty for everyone. There are also people who work very, very hard to support their families, but are still poor. It is deeper than irresponsibility. I work in a very hardworking neighborhood where people exhaust themselves to provide. But they're still poor.

There are some parents I know that are irresponsible and neglectful, and most of them have had CPS on them at some point.

 

[abcgrad94]

With all the other stuff our tax dollars pay for, school lunches are at the bottom of my gripe list. No, the system isn't the best, but there are worse things we pay for. Stuff like abortions, medicaid for unwed moms who continue to birth children year after year, pet pork spending for certain politicians. I'll save the real squawking for the bigger, more liberal, spending.