4
0

School District Refuses Gift to Pay Off Student Lunch Debt


 invite response                
2019 Jul 24, 11:25am   3,412 views  15 comments

by NuttBoxer   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Comments 1 - 15 of 15        Search these comments

1   WookieMan   2019 Jul 24, 2:03pm  

How is it about controlling kids? Are the schools supposed to just "eat" these lunches so to speak? I'm pretty sure there are merit based systems in every district across the nation that accommodate families with limited income.

The story reads like this was people that could pay, but just weren't paying. Not sure what that has to do with the kids. They at least still got a lunch, they just weren't paying for something they should have been paying for. So yeah, it's all about the money the parents weren't paying for lunch....

Noble gesture by the guy looking to pay the $22k in debt. But if the parents have financial means to pay for the lunch, then pay for it. If they don't, then make one at home. You can pack a lunch for a child for probably a buck a day. If you can't afford that, maybe shouldn't have had kids.
2   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 24, 2:08pm  

So the school is now in charge of deciding what a responsible parent should do? As in looking over our shoulder? How far do you think school authority should extend here?

If it was just about money, they would have it paid already.
3   WookieMan   2019 Jul 24, 2:35pm  

NuttBoxer says
So the school is now in charge of deciding what a responsible parent should do? As in looking over our shoulder? How far do you think school authority should extend here?

If it was just about money, they would have it paid already.


Parents should pay for their kids lunch. This isn't complicated. If they don't have the means, fill out the documents to get the free lunch (probably shouldn't have had a kid(s) in the first place - oh well, responsibility is going out the window now too).

If you have the means, pay up or pack your own lunch. There is no ulterior motive here. It's lazy parenting.

Question, is your landlord "looking over your shoulder" when you don't pay the rent? Not sure how the concept is any different.
4   Misc   2019 Jul 24, 2:43pm  

WookieMan says
NuttBoxer says
So the school is now in charge of deciding what a responsible parent should do? As in looking over our shoulder? How far do you think school authority should extend here?

If it was just about money, they would have it paid already.


Parents should pay for their kids lunch. This isn't complicated. If they don't have the means, fill out the documents to get the free lunch (probably shouldn't have had a kid(s) in the first place - oh well, responsibility is going out the window now too).

If you have the means, pay up or pack your own lunch. There is no ulterior motive here. It's lazy parenting.

Question, is your landlord "looking over your shoulder" when you don't pay the rent? Not sure how the concept is any different.


Any landlord would take the money for rent from a third party no questions asked.
5   WookieMan   2019 Jul 24, 3:12pm  

Misc says
Any landlord would take the money for rent from a third party no questions asked.


Nah. "IF" I made a bad tenant decision I'd want them out quick. Accepting ANY payment just prolongs the drama and bullshit with a bad tenant. Cut your losses and move along.

I also said the 3rd party offer was noble. That doesn't excuse the fact that lazy parents just didn't pay or give their kids lunch money. This is about right and wrong. If you're into not paying for your lunch when you have the ability to, I'd consider that person a douche bag. They should be publicly shamed. This isn't about control or parents or kids. You received a service/good, flipping pay for it.
6   WookieMan   2019 Jul 24, 3:14pm  

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this post or something. Is this a legitimate argument that these parents shouldn't pay for a good/service their child received when they have the means? Hopefully I'm having a blonde moment, but I don't believe my reading skills have "Mueller'd" me yet.
7   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 24, 3:56pm  

WookieMan says
Question, is your landlord "looking over your shoulder" when you don't pay the rent? Not sure how the concept is any different.


Your landlord owns your house. Translation - your school owns your kids?
8   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 24, 4:01pm  

WookieMan says
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this post or something. Is this a legitimate argument that these parents shouldn't pay for a good/service their child received when they have the means?


You haven't answered why the school cares who pays for the lunch. Also haven't read about the school threatening to take parents to court for negligence if lunches aren't paid.

If it was really about the money, debt gone.
9   WookieMan   2019 Jul 25, 5:18am  

NuttBoxer says
WookieMan says
Question, is your landlord "looking over your shoulder" when you don't pay the rent? Not sure how the concept is any different.


Your landlord owns your house. Translation - your school owns your kids?


So the school didn't purchase the lunch they provided???? The lunch fairy just gave it away to the school and they therefore give them for free to kids? What am I missing here. Just because it's the government, it doesn't mean you don't have to pay something for it. The comparison remains accurate.

NuttBoxer says
You haven't answered why the school cares who pays for the lunch. Also haven't read about the school threatening to take parents to court for negligence if lunches aren't paid.


Because for the third time, if you have the means and didn't sign up for free lunch you are stealing. Plain and simple. The school should have taken that guys offer to wipe out the debt (so we agree there) and still went after the parents that weren't paying. Good lesson to teach children that they don't have to pay for shit and there are no consequences. This is scary if this is widespread thought in America.

You steal $75 in clothing you're getting charged and if you get an ass hole judge, maybe a day or so in jail. And yes, not sending your kid without lunch money can be a mistake occasionally (although it's mostly digital now, so again, no excuse).

The $75 racked up in the image I'd argue is negligence though if the parent can swing the cash for lunch. That's probably 20-30 school lunches in my district. You're talking fucking up 20% of the school year practically (actually school days, not calendar days). That's what I'd call abysmal parenting. I'd be ashamed of myself if that happen. I've got two kids in school and they do school lunches and we pack them sometimes. In 3 years we've yet to forget money or packing a lunch. And I'm admittedly not dad of the year (all the time at least).
10   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 25, 10:15am  

What your analogy is lacking brings up the point I'm making. The only way the school can secure their asset(lunch, not the kids), is to stop offering it. But I'm pretty sure they won't for fear of lawsuit. This is the reason I was given by the head of the school lunch program for my daughters previous elementary district. And yes, that's all kinds of fucked up, but the school, rather than address that issue, is doubling down on controlling your kids by threatening to break up families.

I guess I should have included more of my background knowledge on this issue, as I had to call the guy I mentioned to force them to permanently deny my daughter a lunch card at her former school. The food is disgusting, and we are very strict on diet, so she eats food from home. But wouldn't you know, if a kid can get a card and pick out food without their parents being around, they will. Is that right that I can be charged for food I never gave my daughter permission to eat? This shit is why schools should ONLY provide education and restrooms, NOTHING ELSE.
11   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jul 25, 3:43pm  

Ironic that the people who work in the School District and rejected the donation probably vote for all kinds of increased social programs that require forcible contributions under penalty of law.

12   Onvacation   2019 Jul 25, 6:36pm  

NuttBoxer says
This shit is why schools should ONLY provide education and restrooms, NOTHING ELSE.

And water, good clean water.
13   WookieMan   2019 Jul 26, 3:32am  

NuttBoxer says
But wouldn't you know, if a kid can get a card and pick out food without their parents being around, they will. Is that right that I can be charged for food I never gave my daughter permission to eat? This shit is why schools should ONLY provide education and restrooms, NOTHING ELSE.


I tend to agree with the last part of this statement. Although I don't think it's realistic. Unfortunately there are people that had children that shouldn't have had them. Those kids do need to eat and it makes the teachers job much harder if they've got hungry kids in their class that are likely trouble makers anyway because of no structure or discipline at home.

These free lunch programs are one of the few beneficial things government can do in my opinion. I hate it at the same time though because it rewards lazy, fucked up parents, but the kids didn't have a choice of which sperm they were and whose vag they came out of.

Now back to the first part of the quote above. I'd agree most lunchroom food at schools is marginal at best. But first, and I don't know your daughters age and am not trying to be a dick, but at some point she has to learn accountability. I get it might happen once or twice with the lunch card, but once you found out you should have had a talk with her that she can't do that. And again, please don't take this as me judging you or your child, that's not my place, I speaking more generally.

Second, and this is a judgement of the district you're in, but who the hell is still using a lunch card system? Especially where the kid has the choice to participate in the first place? It should all be digital with the funds in the system if they want a school lunch that day. Otherwise they're out of luck. I'm in a rural school district with roughly 2k residents and we've entered the 21st century a while ago. I find it stunning you're in a district that gives out a card (that the child either chooses to take or is forced to apparently) and bill retroactively for lunches. That's 1995 stuff. I recall as a kid you'd have to pay to receive the lunch card prior to getting the food. So I'm confused about what your school is doing or allowing as that's a sign of a very poorly run school district.
14   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 26, 10:42am  

Onvacation says
And water, good clean water.


My daughter takes a water bottle. Tap water is all most schools offer, and in the city, that's no bueno.
15   NuttBoxer   2019 Jul 26, 10:52am  

WookieMan says
Those kids do need to eat and it makes the teachers job much harder if they've got hungry kids in their class that are likely trouble makers anyway because of no structure or discipline at home.


That touches on the bigger issue of public education being mandatory. Can you guess my opinion on that?

WookieMan says
I get it might happen once or twice with the lunch card, but once you found out you should have had a talk with her that she can't do that.


Absolutely correct. We had a stern talk with our daughter, and she did get into trouble. She's definitely more accountable now due to her age, but at certain points fighting this over a few years, I had to give her a pass due to her age, and the fact that it would only come up at the beginning of the school year. So she had all summer to forget about it, and I expected she wouldn't have a card, but it is not easy to get your kid removed permanently from having a lunch card.

WookieMan says
So I'm confused about what your school is doing or allowing as that's a sign of a very poorly run school district.


As I mentioned, when talking with the guy who headed up the lunch program, the cards are there because of fear of lawsuit. He sided with me that as parents, we are responsible for our kids nutrition, not the school, but it's the age we live in. And it's also the problem that is unique to education systems that steadily attempt to replace parents with the state. Sex ed, food, counselors that talk about more than just education with students, without parent consent or knowledge. The threat to break up families is not surprising if you start with the fact that the state decides your kids should be educated, not you.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions