Schools try different tacks to collect on lunches
January 5, 2013 at 1:53 pm in Grand Forks Herald
School districts in North Dakota and Minnesota have struggled with the delicate issue of delinquent lunch accounts, which some believe puts children in the middle. Hand stamping is one thing the districts have tried to manage the issue. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
30 
43
I believe we covered this once before Schurkey: how does putting the parent in jail and the kid in foster care solve the problem? You are sounding like a Fox News soundbite: great drama but no substance. Not to mention any attachment to reality whatsoever.
Exactly where are you going to find these foster parents? If you have an answer social service would love to know; they do not have enough for what they already have.
What’s next: work houses?
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
25
You garanshee their paychecks.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
15
You are assuming they actually work.
I am not liberal. I despise giving an adult something for nothing. If you collect welfare I have a job for you. The city employee union may scream, but you will be picking up trash and mowing the park lawn, and helping the third grader to learn to read.
I don’t have a problem holding parents responsible. I reject your notion that holding the did responsible for being born to losers is an acceptable course of action.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
15
If we as a society aren’t prepared for the children to feel the pinch of their parents failures, then we’ll just keep going the way we are. Govt using kids against society and taking our liberties away in their names. How about there being a path to add the cost of the meals to property taxes ? As long as we aren’t willing to address any problem that ends with the idea of “the children”…politicians will be using it against us. Personally, I don’t really care if someone elses kid gets lunch or not…I’m too busy making sure mine are cared for and fed. Maybe everyone who’s really that worried about “the children” should take the strays into their homes…yeah, I didn’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
Wow, just wow… Apparently you’ve never had to suffer economic hardship. I hope you never have to. Granted most of these situations aren’t that, but a few maybe. Yes good idea, lets starve the kids…not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
19
If you suffer economic hardship you reset your priorities. And if the first one is not feeding your own kids, you have no business being a parent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
14
THANK YOU thank you thankyouthankyou.
SOMEBODY gets it.
Pawn the TV, pawn the stereo, pawn the gun collection, cut back on beer and chips and meth and pot. Move to a smaller apartment, sell the second car…motorcycle…snowmobile…GET A SECOND JOB. The kids should NOT suffer because you’re holding onto luxury items or a self-destructive lifestyle while dumping the care and maintenance of your children onto the taxpayer.
Is that REALLY so tough to understand???
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
25
Meanwhile, you seemingly excuse biological units for not taking responsibility for their spawn.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
12
I have no choice. You have not given me one concrete, workable solution that holds the parents responsible. As I said above, all of your suggestions to date hold the child responsible.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
25
If they are on welfare I’m already giving them food stamps. If they aren’t working, THEY HAVE TIME TO PACK A FLIPPING BREAKFAST/LUNCH!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
6
I bet these parents remember to pay their cell phone bill.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
4
With five kids it was easy when they were younger and all I did was buy lunch tickets every two weeks. Now that completely changed when my sons were in high school. At the high school I put money on their accounts but the school let them eat what ever they wanted. I didn’t catch on to this right away but when I did we set a policy at our house. They were eating twice as much as they needed to. It was a win for the school…they were making a small fortune off of us.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
9
I gave them enough for a hot lunch ($2.75 or $3.25). If they ate a hot lunch, great. If they ate two hershey bars and a bag of chips: I did not care, I did my job. If they were hungry that was their problem.
I paid for their lunch because a hungry child can not/will not learn. By high school they have enough common sense to make choices. If they choose to be stupid, that is their problem. They still better bring home the grades.
Like I said, I did my job.
Like or Dislike:
21 
7
Well good for you dad. For the record I did mine too. Currently all 5 of my sons are attending UND. The twins graduate in May but the triplets still have two years left after this one.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Schools don’t make money off of the school lunch program. If parents don’t want their child’s hand stamped pay your bill it’s that simple. If they don’t pay for their child’s lunch then everyone else does (through the money the school loses or has to use to cover your unpaid bill). At our school once the account is more than $10 delinquent the child gets a peanut butter sandwich and milk. It’s not the school that is humiliating the child it’s the parents with their irresponsibleness. Schools should be in the education busienss not feeding children two times a day. Take responsibility for your children you had them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
5
Can’t have Peanuts in a public school. Therefore no Reeses in the vending machine, and no peanut butter in the kitchen.
There’ll be at least one kid in the school with an allergy. Therefore, NOBODY gets to have peanut products.
I’m sure the business world is exactly the same. One employee in the company has a food allergy, the whole company becomes a “whatever”-free zone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
6
“There’ll be at least one kid in the school with an allergy. Therefore, NOBODY gets to have peanut products.”
I believe there was a story in the Herald sometime ago about that very issue: a peanut allergy of one student. Her mother got the school to outlaw peanuts. The question then arises: will the kid expect everyone else to capitulate to her the rest of her life? Seems that’s the lesson the mother has taught her.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
6
“I believe there was a story in the Herald sometime ago about that very issue: a peanut allergy of one student. Her mother got the school to outlaw peanuts.”
Welcome to Park River. Welcome to South Middle School in Grand Forks. First Guess: Welcome to EVERY school in Grand Forks. I’m surprised it isn’t State-Wide. Maybe it is.
Everyone suffers so that a few special students aren’t inconvenienced. VanSickle made a big mistake, which has been compounded over the years by including more and more students into the “Special” category; and then forcing the bulk of the students to accept the restrictions and limitations imposed by the few. Society is becoming lowest-common-denominator. No surprise that all those “scientific studies” place education in the USA well below the highest-performing countries: Do the higher-performing countries have to deal with all the Special-crap we’ve inflicted on ourselves?
Lots of stuff is going to change when I’m Emperor.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
Schurkey:
Society has been lowest common denominator for quite some time. You can’t change that. It comes from two hundred years of people being taught that we are all born equal and that we begin life as a blank slate.
We are not born equal and we are born with much of our future written for us. We are far from a blank slate.
If we start by recognizing that fact then it is easier to accept people where they are at and move them to where they need to be (their potential). Under our present system everyone gets a medal because no one wants to admit they are not as smart as they think they are.
Life is neither fare nor always fun. That said, it is not that difficult to succeed either. That is if you are given the right tools.
Right now we give the wrong tools and wonder why only those that fit the definition of average succeed.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
I am honestly at the point where I would vote for you to become Emperer.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
LOL! Great comment, senior lopez!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I only learned about the dangers of peanut allergies this way: when my grandson had a birthday party, and invited a very nice boy, his mother called my daughter-in-law to make sure there would be no peanuts around because of his allergy. It was the first birthday party that little boy had ever been invited to because his allergy to peanuts was so severe that he needed an epi-pen with him everywhere he went. Here was an otherwise normal kid who could be killed by peanuts. Literally killed. If he were your son would you be so callous?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Stephen/Argyle has a good system. They started a program to look online at your lunch account balance, there is no reason to let it go to a negative balance. If you are in the negative, the lunch lady will make sure she embarres you in front of everyone by telling you that you are out of money. I wonder if the Janitor and teachers that fill their faces in the kitchen pay?
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
19
” responsibility ”
This is a concept which is fast disappearing from American society.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
6
“fast disappearing?”
People with no sense of responsibility have always been with us in about the same proportion as always. We think things are unique when we are alive, but what you say is no more true than it was in the past.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
They have always been around, yes. It’s been in recent decades that they have been rewarded.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
Realist, you are correct that people without a sense of responsibility have been around forever. As Gene also correctly notes, what has changed is the expanding role of government which has enable people to continue to remain without a sense of responsibility. The school meal program is in my opinion a good example. The school lunch program itself is subsidized, so even those required to pay full price are actually receiving government assistance. Even with that subsidy, children who live in a family with income up to 130% of the Federal poverty level receive free meals. Children who live in homes that have income equal to 200% of the Federal poverty level receive reduced price meals. Add on top of that that most of those families also receive SNAP benefits (up to 165% of the Federal poverty level) which is not reduced to account for the fact that the children are already receiving free meals at school. To put a number on that, children living in a family of four that has annual income of $46,100 per year are getting reduced cost school meals.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
The government has good reason to subsidize this program. It all started when WWII recruits were turned away from service because an astonishing number of young men were malnourished. After the war, they redirected food commodities to rural schools for lunch programs to address this issue. Blocks of cheese, macaroni, dry beans, potted meat were delivered to township one-room schools so that the nutritional standards would be improved so that America’s fighting force would be as strong as possible. Now, with the obesity problem, the government has altered school lunch requirements so that kids get a healthier mix of food, not because they want control over local lunches, but because young adults are too fat to be in the military. Government has always had a role in school lunches, but not because they want to be big brother, but because we need to remain militarily strong.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Gene,
Once again it would be harder for you to be farther off the mark if you were for the nickname and sacred idol.
Since when is it a elementary school/Jr High student’s responsibility to take the heat for the parent?
Again, you make for a great sound bite, but in this instance I have yet to see one realistic solution from you.
Very disappointing
Like or Dislike:
9 
17
Care to quote where i put the onus on the child?
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
You have repeatedly said that parents need to take responsibility for their children. That is true, but what if they don’t? That is where your Fox News mentality fails.
I am a nurse. I deal in practicalities. You can’t eat: I feed you. You can’t urinate: I have a tube for that. You need a full belly to learn: I figure out how to get you food.
By stopping at the parents, you pat yourself on the back and leave the kid hungry. Like Schurkey above: if they are overdrawn they don’t eat.
That might make Schurkey feel better about himself, but the end result is the same: a hungry kid and $10.000 plus a year in state educational subsidies wasted because hungry kids do not learn.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
18
“You have repeatedly said that parents need to take responsibility for their children. That is true, but what if they don’t? That is where your Fox News mentality fails.”
When parents fail their parental responsibilities, they should stand in front of a judge, explain why they FAILED, and expect to receive punishment of some sort for neglecting/abusing their kids. The severity and form of punishment can be debated; the need for it cannot.
They should NOT (figuratively) stand in front of a bank teller, and deposit yet another “assistance” check–a reward for continuing to fail.
When there are negative consequences for failure instead of rewards for failure, there will be less failure. Society wins.
Currently, tattoos seem to be more important than family obligations. Society loses.
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
“Very disappointing”
This from someone whose only validation of his stand on the nickname was the “I’m a victim” fallacy.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
Jeez…kinda smooth how flying nurse snuck that reference to the nickname in there, kinda like a mallet to the head smooth…. Way I see it, flying nurse is all over the place on this issue. I see mention of responsibility, then I read that the kid shouldn’t take the heat for the parents. If the kid doesn’t take the heat, then who should…the rest of society? We all pay higher taxes to feed YOUR kids, because you won’t? Where’s the fairness in that? And how does this process make the parents more responsible? They continue their behaviors, because there’s no stimulus for them to change…and we’re the ones who’ve enabled them. Lets be frank…there’s NO situation where these deadbeat parents will be held to pay for the services they’ve recieved…because there’s simply no one out there that will bring the heat and make them out to be the deadbeats that they are. Its easier to tax the crap outta the rest of us to cover the cost, than feel guilty about pointing out someone flawed parenting skills. Society is broken, and we have the nanny state to thank for it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
In all reality, not feeding a high schooler, while stupid and short sighted (you think you have behavior problems now), it would not be damaging. You cannot say the same for the younger grades.
It is quite simple: pay now or pay later when you have another half educated sociopath running around waiting for his bed in prison to open up.
In AZ we had a group of people that wanted to pass a law that you had to show your immigration status before you got any immunizations. These mental giants wanted their kids going to school with kids who had whooping cough, diphtheria, polio, all those things we worked so hard to eradicate in the first place because they couldn’t bear the thought of an illegal getting anything but deported.
Short sighted and no common sense.
It was wrong in AZ and it is just as wrong here.
It is not appropriate, no matter how many languages you speak, to blame the kid for the parents.
Come up with a solution that holds the parent responsible while meeting the needs of the kid and I’m all ears.
So far all I am hearing is reruns of Hannity.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
13
Flyingnurse, I think you are missing the point. The proliferation of government programs are increasing the problem, not decreasing the problem. Your argument is weak because it relies on extremes, i.e. the child whose family lives in a shelter and has no ability to provide proper nutrition. If the programs were limited to children who were truly in need there wouldn’t be a problem. However, when a family of four making $46,100 annually is given reduced priced meals because their children are going to school hungry that is a conscious choice not to be responsible for your own children. By allowing the program to expand to all children government has stepped in to assume the role of parent, and once it has assumed that role there are more than a few parents who will gladly abdicate their own responsibility; and ironically will likely complain about the results. Should children in need be provided with assistance, absolutely. Should the government expand its role to allow parents to abdicate their responsibility, no. Many people believe we have crossed the line to the point where many families will the ability to provide for their children have elected to allow the government to provide meals. The operative question is at what income level should the government provide free school meals. The “poverty threshold” set by the Federal Government is the line at which an individual has or does not have the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society. In my opinion, if your family of four has the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society your kids do not need free school meals or reduced priced meals. As it currently exists, free meals are provided to families with 130% of the poverty threshold and reduced prices are given to families with 200% of the threshold. If your kids regularly show up at school and have been neglected by your failure to provide proper nutrition the solution is to take action against the parents and not to facilitate their poor choices. Needy children can and should be fed but that does not require enabling poor parenting choices.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
Joe, do you believe everything the federal government puts on paper? Having three children myself, I would not want to live on $46K a year.
FN, I admire your stance on this issue! You are a good soul.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
Seriously? Sociopaths running rampant because they didn’t get school lunches? This kinda minset is why things are broken, with no fix in sight. If you squeal loud enough that its “for the children” then you can get anything you want…and the beauty is that you never have to prove if your original premise had even a shred of reality in it. Show me a school where half the kids went hungry during the day, and thus turned into sociopaths…and I might listen. But I highly doubt there’s any real info to back that claim…
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Has the cafeteria food gotten better these days? Back in my day they could give that slop away. You brown bagged it until you were old enough to drive somewhere else for lunch.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
correction: couldn’t give that slop away
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Many high schools don’t want the kids to leave the building so they switched to a deli style with a salad bar and fast food items. They still serve a hot lunch which is cheaper, basically for the kids on SNAP.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I feel sorry for the kids on SNAP ..but not for having their hand stamped.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
pffft.. I say put a big ass stamp in the middle of their forehead. If the parents are dead beat enough to not ensure that they either have funded the kids account, or sent them with a packed lunch a little public humiliation will do their kids some good.
I can GUARANTEE that the parents will never let it happen again.
and before you think I’m being sarcastic, I’m as serious as a heart attack.
Like or Dislike:
12 
17
So as if this post there are 5 people who don’t feel that letting their children know they are deadbeat isn’t a good thing….. hmm, then stop being a dead beat. You are the person who felt you were a ‘big boy’ or ‘big girl’ and could handle the responsibility of having children so deal with the responsibility.
I’ll bet that I’ll find at least one HDTV in those houses, I’ll bet that I’ll find a lot of ‘I want’ items in those houses. Get a clue folks, your wants come after your needs and parental responsibilities. Feeding your children, or providing the means for them to be fed in my opinion is your primary responsibility, not the rest of society at large.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Two-thirds–probably more–of the deadbeat parents WOULDN’T be deadbeats if Society actually expected something from them instead of making excuses for failure, and providing excessive handouts. Mostly, the problem is “Lazy”; and allowing them to get by with it is a license to continue to avoid their responsibilities. Too much “safety net” actually encourages irresponsible behavior.
Therefore, when I say that parents who won’t feed, clothe and house their children should face prison time, I’m expecting that for two-thirds of the cases, the parent(s), if forced to stand in front of a judge, would probably choose to shape-up and take care of their responsibility instead of ducking-out and dropping the burden on the taxpayer. Parent isn’t robbed of self-respect by accepting handouts, kid can feel some pride in the family, and the taxpayer isn’t abused by an “entitlement mentality” that’s become unbelievably top-heavy, a burden to the whole country. EVERYONE wins when excess charity is avoided.
That leaves some small proportion of deadbeats who are worse-off than just “lazy-because-it’s-tolerated-and-encouraged”. Either they start taking their medication, or YES, the kids should be taken from the home and placed with someone else; and I’d go so far as to demand sterilization of the “parent” in such a case based on a proven history and inclination of neglecting/abusing their kids. THAT’s an appropriate use of tax money. We quit sterilizing simpletons; and that’s another correctable mistake.
The best possible solution is to dramatically reduce enforced charity based on Tax Code. When charity becomes voluntary, lots (not all) of supposedly “mentally ill” people will get hungry and go back to work–which will vastly improve society.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
It is the responsibility of the parents to feed their children.
Not to do so, is CHILD NEGLECT.
If the family is poor, they can apply for reduced meal prices. If not then pay the bill, so your child(ren) can eat.
Schools are not the only place this type of debt takes place. People can take their child(ren) to the clinic, get medical attention and then not pay the bill either.
Public schools are public funded, so the problem is out in the open, where school lunch is not paid.
How many clinics, hospitals, etc. have a debt problem, where parents do not pay the medical bills, for their children???
Parents need to set their priorities.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Okay, so we don’t want to deny the kids a meal or publicly humiliate them. Fine.
How about we require the parental unit to “friend” a school staffer on Facebook? Said “friend” cannot be “un-friended” nor can their comments be blocked/deleted/edited so that what they post on the parental unit’s “wall” becomes invisible to the parental unit’s other “friends”.
“Hello, So-and-So….this is the lunch lady. Your child’s lunch account is delinquent. Your high score on Bejeweled Blitz has thus far failed to rectify the situation. We would like some money please…..”
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
To me times have not changed. I see 3 things going on. Kids are irresponsible and not informing their parents that they’re lunch accounts are low. Some parents don’t care and expect they’re 16 yo to be an adult and take care of it themselves out of the kids pocket. And finannaly kids who come from a family that qualify but will not take a handout or do not know it exists. You cannot use a one size fits all method for dealing with this issue. Rubber stammping or feeding them peanut and butter fairly punishes the lazy kids while embarressing the kids who have no control because they’re parents are not providing for them. With the technology we have today a automated call, email, and typed letter should be sent out with a letter informing parents of the reduced lunch program. If no action is taken within an acceptable amount of time the bill is sent to collections and the parents take the penalty. No child should go unfed in a school. A school is a place of nonjudgement by the staff and should be a place where kids should not fear being a singled out by the staff for something they have little control over.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
The City of Grand Forks and a thousand other companies are currently accepting AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS for the utility bills, telephone bills, monthly payments on this ‘n’ that.
Why can’t the School Board demand automatic payments for kid’s school expenses? The account never goes upside-down, because they just process the charges directly to the bank account the parent has chosen and authorized to accept those charges.
That way, the automatic payment for “assistance” deposited into that account by one arm of our dysfunctional Federal and State governments can be automatically withdrawn to cover costs associated with an arm of our dysfunctional local government.
When the checking or savings account is overdrawn, the bank can send notes to the parent (and charge NSF fees) instead of the school system sending notes to the parent. Now the kid isn’t humiliated, and the parent WILL stand in front of a judge when needed based on NOT PAYING THEIR DAMNED BILLS.
There y’ go. I’ve done the heavy lifting. Problem solved.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Well said Shurkey! This was what I was also thinking could work. I wish we had this option!
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
The school already has an automated lunch account. We are notified when our child’s account hits a low balance by email. I believe this automated system is referred to as mylunchmoney. As DC and FN pointed out this automated system have other benefits such as snooping on your children’s eating habits. Very convenient system if you ask me. No excuses from this parent not to have your children’s lunch account in a good standing.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Joe 46000 dollars a year for a family of 4 is not living large. That equals 23000 from eachparental unit if they are both footing the bill equally or 46000 dollars to support 3 children. Add a housing payment, daycare if needed, electrical, car payment, gas, phone bill, clothes, food, ect.. that 46000 does not go very far. There are many reasons to have an income at that level some are under your control such as not persuing higher education, one parnetal unit being laid off, or one parental unit leaving and not supporting they’re half. But go ahead and judge those less fortunate than yourself.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
Ron, the “poverty threshold” set by the Federal Government is the line at which an individual has or does not have the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society. For a family of four that level is $23,050. I do not believe that a family of four which has 200% ($46,100) of the annual income necessary to obtain the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society is in need of reduced price school provided meals. All of the items you have listed in your post are included within “the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society”, and $46,100 is twice that amount. You are correct that the family of four is not “living large”, but that is not the question; the question is whether or not they have enough to provide the basic necessities of life and $46,100 has been determined to be twice the amount necessary.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
” 46000 dollars a year for a family of 4 is not living large. That equals 23000 from eachparental unit if they are both footing the bill equally or 46000 dollars ”
Wait, slow down just a tad.
Okay, so 46,000 divided by 2 equals 23,000.
Got it….thanks!
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Housing, food, childcare, electricity, clothing, and gas(heating bill) are goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society?
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
Ron, yes the vast majority of American do have food, clothing and shelter and take those items for granted, i.e. they are able to provide themselves with those items. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to budget and make decisions about how they allocate their income. The purpose of defining the poverty threshold is to identify the level of income necessary to meet those basic requirements. If you fall below that level you are presumed to not have those basic necessities, but the converse is also true; if you are above the poverty level there is a presumption that you can satisfy those basic needs.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
#1 The average wage in Grand Forks is no where near 46 thousand a year !! #2 is there not enough bulling going on without marking our children? And #3 where do you get off with the idea that every child that is getting reduced lunches is also getting other government assistance ? or the insulting remarks about the parents of these children . There are many wonderful parents here that just can’t make ends meet.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
So what would you propose as a solution? The average wage aside, the alleged “bullying” issue aside, this is right at the beginning of the article:
“In early December, some young students from Win-E-Mac School in Erskine, Minn., returned home with their hands stamped.
It was a reminder to their parents that their lunch accounts were delinquent. Win-E-Mac had tried phone calls, emails, letters and even home visits, but found those efforts not effective, according to Superintendent Randy Bruer.”
Good grief. Phone calls were made. Emails and letters were sent. Even HOME VISITS were given a try. And yet some accounts were still delinquent. What SHOULD be done? Students that are eligible for reduced price or free meals should get them. However, allowing accounts to become delinquent, (whether the student is paying full-price OR getting a reduced price), shouldn’t be an ongoing problem. If it IS an ongoing problem, and attempts to DISCRETELY address the delinquent accounts via emails,letters, and home visits has FAILED, then what ought to be done? I don’t think playing the victim card is going to solve anything, and if that sounds harsh Jean, consider this: Who is aware of what their household income is? Who is aware of what their monthly expenses are? Whose responsibility is it to contact the school, (or some assistance agency or program), and work something out? That responsibility lies with the parent(s). Doing NOTHING, which results in the lunch accounts they’re COMPLETELY AWARE OF to become delinquent….solves/accomplishes/addresses not one single thing.
What would you propose?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Jean, I am not sure who your post was intended to respond to. The North Dakota median income was $51,704 in 2011 and Minnesota’s was $56,954; median is the point at which half of the sample is higher and half of the sample is lower. The average is actually higher. With regard to your comment number three, it is simply a function of mathematics. Free meals apply to families at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level and reduced lunches are provided to students whose families are at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level . SNAP benefits are provided to families at or below 165% of the Federal Poverty Level. Simply applying the math indicates that all students receiving free meals are also eligible for SNAP benefits and a large number of those receiving reduced price meals are also eligible for SNAP benefits. I don’t think anyone posted that all free/reduced meal recipients received SNAP benefits, but a majority appear to be eligible. It is the expansion of reduced cost meals to families that have the ability to provide their own meals that troubles me. Free meals and reduced cost meals should be provided to students that are truly in need. In my opinion those in need do not include families that are at or near the median income level which is approximately 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
Note that none of my posts have made “insulting remarks” about any parents. Calling for an end to government subsidies for parents with annual income at or near the median income level is an indictment of how government programs with good initial intentions can become excessive. This discussion proves how hard taking back government assistance can be because any call to restrain the free/reduced meal program is met with the assertion that the proponent of change is trying to starve children. The same is true for attempts to reduce defense spending, farm programs and any other program that redistributes money from one group of people to another. In this case, helping children in need does not justify providing reduced cost meals to families with incomes up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
If you can’t afford kids you need to plug it, or tie a knot in it.. That is the responsible thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Joe smith stated. “By allowing the program to expand to all children government has stepped in to assume the role of parent, and once it has assumed that role there are more than a few parents who will gladly abdicate their own responsibility; and ironically will likely complain about the results. Should children in need be provided with assistance, absolutely. Should the government expand its role to allow parents to abdicate their responsibility, no. Many people believe we have crossed the line to the point where many families will the ability to provide for their children have elected to allow the government to provide meals. The operative question is at what income level should the government provide free school meals. The “poverty threshold” set by the Federal Government is the line at which an individual has or does not have the goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society. ”
Later you established housing, food, clothing, electricity, heating, and childcare are “goods and services commonly takeb for granted by members of mainstream society”
This is not offensive joe? I can only conclude from your comments that you say these people using a program that helps them provide the neccessaties in life are letting the government take care of they’re buisness and ungrateful for the things they have.
I can tell you this you have no idea what it is like to start a family from scratch with 0 financial support from the outside (not talking about the government) It is damn tough. Everyones situation is different and you can not label people based on they’re income.
Please tell me joe what is the average rate for daycare in grand forks?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Can’t afford kids? DON’T HAVE ANY.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
If you can’t afford kids, you need to tie a knot in it.. It isn’t societies problem to support your lack of judgement.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Ron, the language you have quoted is the language used by the Federal Government to define “Poverty Level”. Sorry if it offends you, but that is the definition provided by the Federal Government.
Ron, you have yet to address the question of why people who have an annual income near the median income level and 200% of the poverty level should be receiving financial assistance to purchase already subsidized school meals. Your comment referencing the difficulty of starting a family from scratch necessarily implies that you feel the government should be providing financial assistance for school meals to approximately one half of the country when they start families; $46,100 is just under the median income indicating that one half of families are above that amount and one half are below that amount. I do view a government program that was initially intended to assist poor people that has expanded to include almost half of the country as excessive. Poor families should be given assistance, families earning 200% of the Poverty Level which is twice the amount determined to be necessary to obtain the goods and services commonly taken for granted by mainstream members of society.
Ron, your assumptions about me are not correct, but we have very different perspectives. I admire, not envy, people who succeed. I embrace the opportunity to enjoy the rewards of hard work rather than finding ways to penalize people for those efforts. I am a huge fan of the welfare reform implemented by President Clinton and a Republican control congress; those reforms understood that it is necessary to strike a balance between helping those in need and creating dependency. A program intended to help poor children that now encompasses almost half of all households is closer to the dependency end of the spectrum rather than the need end of the spectrum. Even JFK understood that Americans should ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them. We have very different perspectives, but your assumptions about me a very wrong.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
The solution is simple scott. Pass the bills on to a debt collection agency after multiple attempts to settle the account has failed. We do not need to punish students who have parents that cannot fill out a form for assistance or pay they’re bill.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
The problem with debt collection is that the company will never receive all of the funds that they are owed. You have to pay them for those services.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“The solution is simple scott. Pass the bills on to a debt collection agency”
What a marvelous idea Ron. How far in arrears should the accounts be allowed to get before this takes place? What kind of dollars do you think administrators are talking about here on a per-student basis? Are you going to turn over MULTIPLE accounts to collections for a few bucks apiece? And whose job will that be? Will we have a dedicated staffer or two JUST keeping track of delinquent lunch accounts and categorizing them? The ones that are just a couple of bucks short go into *this* pile. The ones that are over $35 in the red go into *that* pile. Then once the delinquent funds are collected from the agency, that student’s lunch account will be put into some probationary classification for “X” number of weeks….so it’s payment timeliness can be observed. Is that the kind of solution Ron has in mind?
At the beginning of the school year Ron, folks are clued in on details about how things like lunch fees are handled. It should come as no surprise at ANY time later on. The expectation that it be handled as agreed upon at the beginning of the school year should be considered completely normal and ordinary.
How is this situation any different than any other bill or expense that needs to be handled by the parent or guardian?
Turn it over to a collection agency? Really?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
And if it is the student throwing away the letters and the parents get a collection notice, most parents have solutions for that. Ground they’re arse to kingdom come!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Oddly enough Ron, nobody has ever had to send a letter home with my kid saying money is owed for things that, well…I know money is owed for. So I guess I preemptively avoided the possibility of the “lost letter” excuse.
Oh, there have been occasions where a letter has come home requesting funds for this or that, but that was added-on/extra-curricular stuff such as a school trip or something similar. I simply cannot imagine myself requiring emails, letters, and home visits to remind me that my kid’s meals are an expense I’m responsible for….especially since the topic came up during registration. I also can’t imagine a scenario in which food my kid had already consumed was tallied up….so the total could be sent to a collection agency in the hope they could shake the dollars from my pockets.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
* OOPS, Emperor!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Did someone not cuddle you enough when you were young shurkey. You seem to have some major compassion and anger issues.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Nothin’ wrong with compassion Ron.
Sometimes though, well-intentioned “compassion” morphs into coddling.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
I have plenty of compassion for taxpayers, motorists, and employees.
I have considerable anger at deadbeats, parasites, and “all-purpose-losers” who park on their asses and let the rest of us pay their bills. They inflict the predictable results of bad decisions on the pocketbooks of “everyone else”.
I have considerable anger at politicians who actually encourage and reward failure–bank bailouts and Wall-Street bailouts are every bit as evil as enabling people to continue to make the same bad decision(s) every month.
The Constitution provides for the GENERAL welfare of the Citizens; not the SPECIFIC welfare of an INDIVIDUAL. Individual PEOPLE, and individual CORPORATIONS (Artificial People) are NOT ENTITLED TO DIRECT TAXPAYER-FUNDED SUPPORT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
If only politicians could read the Constitution.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
I noticed you stated “could” read the constitution, not “would”…noticed and approved by the way. LOL
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I will quote the beatles, All we need is love. Love, love, is all we need! There are many children that come from low income families that have a better homelife and become more productive citizens than some children of well to do families. To simply say a couple cannot have children because they are not well off is a pretty arrogant and ignorant point of view.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
I didn’t say well off.. I said if you can’t afford them. I grew up in a poor household but I wanted for nothing. I had food, shelter and clothing. Most of it was hand me downs, but I had clothes. My parents didn’t shirk their responsibilities. After my parents got divorced we had some rough times. I brown bagged my lunch the whole time I was in school, because it was cheaper to feed me a baloney sandwich and a container of apple sauce then it was to buy the hot lunch.
There was even a time in our lives when my mother went on assistance, that was the time between when my father left, and my mother got her nursing license back up to snuff so she could practice again. You want to talk about embarrassment, those were the times. Having to fill out pretty much everything about your life on paper for someone to review.
In the world today we don’t want to embarrass anyone, it isn’t PC. I’ll tell you what.. That singular time in my life is what drove me to ensure I would never have to be on government assistance ever again.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Scott, you asked for solutions. I simply provided one suggestion. Sorry it does not meet your approval. Here are a couple more. Withhold report cards, withhold graudation, make the children ineligible for extra corricullar activites, What is your solution? I sure would like to hear yours
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I asked for solutions Ron, because the folks that were against anything that offended or embarrassed anyone, (especially the kids), SAID they were against those things. YOU were among them.
Here’s one of your quotes:
“Rubber stammping or feeding them peanut and butter fairly punishes the lazy kids while embarressing the kids who have no control because they’re parents are not providing for them”
So rubber stamping or feeding them PB&J “embarrasses the kids who have no control”.
Okay, let’s go with that. But wait….in THIS post you’re now suggesting barring them from extra-curricular activities OR, (this one is even better), WITHHOLDING GRADUATION!
Imagine you were a kid with a delinquent lunch account, and you had to choose between:
1) being given a PB&J
2) having your hand stamped
3) not getting to graduate with your classmates
Which of those would you find the MOST embarrassing?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
” The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today’s dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn’t have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen… The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimmum.”
” According to the panel’s recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care. [51]”
As you can see the poverty line is extremely flawed because it uses an exact dollar amount but does not account for all financial factors effecting the individual person. Some of these factors can be self inflicted and some factors may be out of the persons control. It is not one size fits all. $46000 may be a small fortune to some and a struggle for they’re neighbor 3 doors down.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
It is one thing to embaress a child for they’re own actions, but it is another to embaress that child for something they have little to no control over. It is a complicated issue, there is 0 reason for the children to have a below 0 balance in they’re lunch account. Sometimes it is they’re fault for not letting the parents know, sometimes it is the parents fault for not using common sense and monitering/paying they’re bill, and than you have the minority where it is an actual lack of income… and these people have to use the programs provided to them by the government. So who do we embarress/punish? That is the issue at hand.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Oil money ! The children get fed and the tax payer don”t get nailed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
“Oil money”
Wrong answer. Just because there’s a State surplus (for now) doesn’t mean every deadbeat “parent” should get additional freebies. Watch and see what happens to that surplus once the Special Interest groups bribe the legislators. It’ll be like a lottery winner–famous today, broke and suicidal in five years.
The whole problem is that the government doesn’t respect tax dollars, and keeps throwing them away on useless crap that Society doesn’t need; or on some kind of crusade that Society doesn’t benefit from.
As long as people know that they can toss their bills on the State–thanks to bleeding-hearts who cry “Think of the Children”–they have NO reason to procreate responsibly.
It’s like Doritos–crunch all you want, we’ll make more. Pop out all the puppies you can, the State will throw more money at you. Thus today’s parasite parents produce the next and larger generation of deadbeats, the situation is ultimately WORSE than if we’d simply insist that people pay for their own offspring, and rely on VOLUNTARY CHARITY when essential.
VOLUNTARY CHARITY is self-regulating. When folks feel their contribution is being abused…they stop contributing. If only the tax code had such a perfect feedback mechanism.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Jean, “oil money” is from taxes and other fees/levies. While the state of North Dakota recieved about 375 million in lease and royalty payments associated with public land, the majority of “oil money” is from extraction production taxes (750 million) and state/local property and income taxes (822 million). It may be a differnt set of people paying the taxes than those that pay state income tax and property taxes, but the majority of the “oil money” is still taxes. Note, I am not commenting on whether or not those taxes are fair, but the assertion that using “oil money” prevents taxpayers from “getting nailed” is not not correct; it is simply a preference to use taxes collected from those paying increased taxes related to oil production.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
So many people want to spend that money. If anything I would only spend the interest earned off of it, just like a smart retiree would do. Let it make some money people.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Guess I didn’t State my comment correctly.What I meant is the money is already there.and as for saving the money , for what ? Special interest groups will still be around in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scott, did I not say it was a complicated matter. These are options that could be taken after multiple attempts and serious deliquancy. I truely support withholding extra curricular activities. 2 reasons 1. They are a privelage and not a right. 2. That really will get little johny’s daddies attention. Just imagine how fast his account will be back in the black if johnny cannot play football or omg hockey!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Another fine “solution”. But what about the kids with delinquent accounts that aren’t participating in or attending extra curriculars?
Read the story again Ron. Right at the beginning it said stamping was tried, and “it was amazing how quickly they responded”. In other words, it sounds like it was effective.
Nothing you’ve offered up would be as effective, and some of what you’ve come up with would be a complete boondoggle.
Having ideas is fine Ron, but do like most other folks and think about ‘em before scooting up to the keyboard.
Back to your football and hockey example for a sec. Imagine making the team and NOT being able to participate because a lunch account is delinquent. How is THAT somehow “less embarrassing” than a hand stamp or a PB&J for lunch?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Whoever it was in the school systems that ever thought hand-stamping any kid because the parent(s) didn’t pay, they need to reflect on their own shame issues. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING makes sense about such an action by an adult.
For those of you lamenting about people who don’t pay, don’t take responsibility, etc., you are making some general statements about people who each have their own unique situations.
Why don’t you take on the celebrities or the administrators and others who get frequent and free perks – just because of their status or potential assistance/service they can provide the givers. Years ago I worked in a college setting where those who flew to whatever conference or meeting (for work) were able to personally keep the frequent flyer miles for their own personal vacations, etc. A university administrator had parties at his home (funded by the college) because booze wasn’t allowed on the campus. Guess where the extra booze stayed when the party was over?
It’s so easy to keep kicking those who are down already, but most of you wouldn’t take on someone who could potentially make life rough for you if you’d out the perks of those who have some political power.
And Gene, guess what that administrator (and others referenced) taught their kids about entitlements?
It works both ways, folks. It works both ways.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
“Most of you wouldn’t take on someone who could potentially make life rough for you …. ”
Total BS … you don’t know a damn thing about anyone on here. You are a mouth piece with a bad attitude.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Wow. I must have hit a nerve devils.
Good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only reason you come on here is to slam people. How sad for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t waste your emotions on me, devils. Look within.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stay real prairie. The next time you need to blow off some steam you know where to find me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’ve managed to reveal just how personal you took comments that were NOT directed at you specifically.
Telling. Very.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“. A university administrator had parties at his home (funded by the college) because booze wasn’t allowed on the campus. Guess where the extra booze stayed when the party was over?”
Don’t know what college that was, but it wasn’t in ND. Here legislative appropriations cannot be spent on booze. The money either comes from an unencumbered slush fund or from someone’s pocket.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Oh, but it was. It was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It may have been an ND school, but the booze came from a non-appropriated account.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0