Monday, August 29, 2005
The Breakfast of Big Government
Personally I think it is getting harder and harder to parent these days, but I'm guessing that's not the case for most.
Spunky posted about the School Breakfast Program and the government's hopes to increase participation.
Why don't they just take the children full time and let the parents check them out like a library book when they want to spend time with them? It seems to be the next logical step don't you think?
Wow, so let me get this straight...all I have to do is get everyone ready in the morning, which doesn't even include breakfast anymore, stick them on a bus, have them ride the bus to some sort of after-school program after school, and pick them up from there and take them to some sort of sport/lesson/etc.? So all I'll have to deal with then is supper (which is easy to do in the car by driving thru, doncha think?), homework, and bedtime. Cool - maybe 3 hours, 4 hours tops that I actually have to spend with my children and still call myself a "parent?" Where can I sign up?
NOT.
(Note, I know some of you (Barb hee hee) have your kids in some sort of institutional school, and you aren't really who I'm talking about. It's the push by the government, and sadly, by society in general, to outsource our parenting to other entities. The mainstream parent goes along with it with absolutely no clue.)
27 Comments:
your so luck i love ya Keer! ;-)
but yes, i hear what they say also...it is a sad state of affairs
LOL Barb!
http://frugalforlife.blogspot.com/2005/08/borrow-people-must-have-library-card.html
This is not as far-fetched as you think. You can now check people out of the library, in the Netherlands.
Argh!
This bugs me SOOOOOO much. I could rant for ages, but I won't. Parents are supposed to actually parent, but it seems that we're just not as capable as the government. [insert rolling eyes and barfing icons here]
Bugs me too. Big time.
You know what is even a bit scarier? Here the bus will take your child to school, the school will feed them breakfast and lunch. Then the bus will either take them home, or drop them off at the Y. Where they can run amuck all over until you pick them up at 8:30.
Julana,
Oh my! Why am I not surprised that it's in the Netherlands???
Virginia,
I was being conservative with what time the parents actually picked the kids up from some sort of after-school care. I'm SO not surprised about the Y keeping them till 8:30!
Ugh, ugh, double ugh.
I'm not sure that this is such a sinister plan as some would make it into. I think that the realities in our society are that many, many parents have a lifestyle that either financially or in time and energy, prevents them from doing the kind of parenting that would be considered historically traditional. In my own area there is a lot of poverty and I doubt that many children would get a decent breakfast without the help of the school. Is it the parent's job to feed the child? Yes! But, if they do not have the money for healthy food or the time to get the child up and fed before the school bus and the parent's own time to get out the door to work...is it so bad for the school to provide the breakfast?
Many children go to day care after school, so I am not sure how it is so bad for the school to provide after school programs, help with homework, extra curricular activities, etc. as an additional resource or an alternative. It probably saves parents tons of money, and helps keep the children occupied and safe instead of running the streets after school before their parents get home.
I'm not saying it's ideal. I'm just saying that it's a response to a widespread need in our society.
I think I'll write more about this at my own blog, since this is getting long-winded. So, if you're interested, come on by. dollymama.blogspot.com
The thing is that many times the parents who don't NEED to take advantage of these programs do anyway, to get their kids "out of their hair." They are wanting to expand the breakfast program to kids who don't even really NEED it.
In our little local paper I happened to see the income guidelines for the free/reduced meal programs at school. They were quite high - definitely not just poverty-level (really nowhere near it). So pretty much anyone could take advantage of the free breakfast. That's what I'm talking about - it's not just for the poor whose kids would go without breakfast, it's for the kids whose parents would prefer for the school to feed them rather than feed them themselves even though they have the means.
I'm not talking about the parents who have no other choice but to use these programs. I'm talking about the parents who willingly are turning their children over to be raised by the state (and then claiming that they - the parents - are "raising" their children).
OK, so maybe some people do not "need" the program according to your opinion. But, what then? Don't offer the program at all? Only offer it to those who go through some (possibly complicated) enrolling process, and then have the participating children labeled as "poor kids" and further increase their stigma in life...? Or, just let people live according to their own conscious?
I am not positive about this, but it seems that the guidelines for the free and reduced meals are set by either the state or federal gov't. In my area I would say that in order to qualify for free meals the family would indeed have to make very little money. I have some friends that really struggle financially and live very humbly, and their kids do not qualify for free OR reduced meals at their schools. I wish they did, because they could use it!
I am not sure why the concern about whether or not other parents say they are raising their children, despite doing it with little hands-on work. Yes, it may be annoying to those of us who spend our lives with our children. But, really, who cares that other people have school feed their kids breakie and then say they raise their own kids? Nobody can cheapen my efforts in raising my children, so I don't let things like this ruffle my feathers.
Yes Sparrow THANK YOU!!!
My POINT is that in general parents in today's society expect everyone else to take care of their kids but then turn around and claim that they are raising them. I'm NOT talking about the parents who are busting their bu**s and still can't make ends meet. I'm talking about the parents who ship their kids off to free/reduced breakfast at school and then some sort of after-school program to "get them out of their hair." And then pat themselves on the back for "what a good job their doing raising their kids."
DollyMama, I'm not sure if you read Spunky's post that I'm referring to or the article that she's referring to, but I'm sort of repeating what they are saying as well.
HI again,
Well, I have addressed a lot of this over at my blog, although some of it is obviously veering off from the point you are making.
I am curious about your view that in general parents today want to pawn their kids off on everybody else. How did you come to hold this view? This hasn't been my experience, although I possibly haven't been around as wide a range of people as you have.
I have actually been surprised by people who were unwilling to allow their children to take part in extra school activities solely because they felt it took them away from home too much, or because it was not a program they felt their family truly had need of. These are people whose kids will always go to public school, people who went back to work and put their babies in day care at 6 weeks of age, etc. These are people who, despite their choices/needs to be working and outsource their children's education, still care about family dinners and spending time pushing kids on the swings in the back yard.
Sure, there are plenty of selfish people out there who love to get their kids out of their hair. Frankly, if that is their attitude, maybe the children are better off at an after school program with somebody who truly likes to be with children and who is talented at helping them learn and grow in positive ways. Know what I mean? Some of what you are talking about here is heart issues, and those can't be legislated.
As far as shipping kids off to school breakfast, you don't have to get there early for breakfast. They just go on the bus and then have time to eat while the other kids sit and wait until it is time to go to their classes. It is not time that they would have been at home sitting around the kitchen table.
I'm coming at this from the perspective of a Christian mother of 6 who homeschooled for 6 years, then put kids into school for 2 years in honor of losing my mind plus having 3 babies in 3 years, and now I have 2 kids being homeschooled and 3 attending public school. I think I have a much broader perspective now that I've experienced the other side of the educational coin. :)
"I am curious about your view that in general parents today want to pawn their kids off on everybody else. How did you come to hold this view?"
It's just the impression that I get (but I'm not the only one) as I watch the news, see people in the stores, etc. I know the types of families that you're talking about, and I too am GLAD that they are pulling back on activities and such!
Spunky has actually written a post on this type of thing as well: Outsourcing Parenthood Of course there are exceptions, but in general this is the thought process in today's society.
Also I wanted to say I completely hear ya about parental responsibility! I agree with you! The big BUT in all of this, though, is what to do from here? I agree that the school breakfasts probably don't need to be expanded such that every kid just automatically eats breakfast at school. But, if we are going to offer services in response to true needs, doesn't that always leave the possibility that a few will take advantage?
I think we live in a society that has really stripped parents of true enjoyment of their children. Heck-people don't even know if it's ok to spank their kid or raise their voice or be an authority in their child's life--no wonder they want to escape them! The kids are running wild and the parents don't know what to do about it.
There's a lot more than that. I think it's pretty well ingrained in our society and I don't think that something like school breakfasts is going to make or break any of it.
BTW, I did read the article Spunky wrote and the one she wrote *about.* I didn't see them say it was a free breakfast...did it? It looks like a comparable breakfast to what many kids would get at home. Doesn't sound that great to me, but....it's better than nothing!
Oh I totally agree, getting rid of the breakfast programs isn't going to solve anything. All of this is just one more symptom that society is going down the tubes. And another glaring reminder that in general the church is failing - failing at what "true religion" is (caring for the poor and needy) and failing to make disciples. (But that's probably another blogpost for another day. ;-) )
I'm not sure if Spunky's post or the article said "free" or not...but I guess if the breakfasts AREN'T free and parents are just sending their kids for some animal crackers and apple juice instead of feeding them at home...that's even worse! :-P
I've just now reading Spunky's Outsourcing Parenthood post....it's getting my ire up, I can tell ya. :)
I think there's a lot more to it than just parents don't want to do their jobs. It's way bigger than laziness or a lack of love for our kids.
The breakfasts weren't animal crackers! It said juice, milk, cereal, and something whole grain. Isn't that right?
Yes, churches are failing. I mention that in my blog post too. To me, if the church is failing, and the government both takes the money from those that should know better and should be taking care of those in need, plus plunders those that would not, I think it's not a half bad way to go about it. :)
I don't know that I agree that this is one more indicator that society is going down the tubes. On the other hand, home education increases exponentially every year!
You know, I have to wonder if it's the chicken or the egg that came first in all of these outsourcings, so to speak.
Did schools start offering what they do in order to take the burden off the parents, or because they saw that parents were no longer meeting a crucial need in children's lives?
"Offered in seven different varieties, one menu, for example, includes General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios(R), animal crackers, and Mott's(R) Apple Juice." - New 'Grab & Go' Breakfast on the Menu at Schools This Fall
threefold,
I applaud your ministry to those in need. I imagine it is a tiring, never-ending road. I wish there were more Christians reaching out in Jesus' name to the poor and hurting of the world.
With the 2 income people using after school care, where do you think the kids would be if not at the school? (I am not saying this snotty. I am seriously wondering if you think they would be home with parents, at day care, or whatever.) I am thinking that if they were going to be at day care or something, the situation is largely the same for the kids. Although I agree that in this type of case the gov't should not have to pay for someone else to have errand time!
OK, animal crackers it is! Yukk!
I'm curious what others have in their communities for after school programs. The only thing we have in ours is extra help for reading or math, and the kids have to be recommended into it by their teachers.
So, I don't know what other communities have. Is it stuff like art classes or ballet or other extra curriculars? Or is it babysitting and tutoring?
Yeah. What Holly said. LOL!
Excellent points, Sparrow! How sad about that mom!!! Bless her heart!
Thanks Sparrow. Good points!
Just for sake of discussion, Kirsten :), I asked my husband last night if he felt that parents today in general are looking to have the school system take over their parental responsibilities, or that parents were pretty much always looking for ways to pawn their kids off on others. He works with guys whose kids all go to public school, and works with the public at large, especially parents of young children. His opinion was NO, that this has not been his experience. He has had a similar experience as I have had, that he had been surprised at the people who were well aware of a line that they did not want to cross between their job as parents, and stuff that the school should or should not provide for their kids. I just thought that was interesting.
I hope you know, Kirsten, I really enjoy your blog and am not here to duke it out with you. :) I love to examine attitudes and beliefs, and with my experiences on both sides of the educational (and other!) fence, it sometimes seems like my specialty to debunk myths that others hold near and dear. Hope you are enjoying the conversation as much as I am. :)
While some parents are looking to completely pawn off their children to others and have little "toys," I think that many of them are just oblivious to how they are letting the state have control over their children, and they don't really mind it all that much.
Once at church (church!), there was a new couple. I heard that she was a SAHM. As a new member of that church and one of 2 SAHMs in the church, I thought I'd introduce myself and make her feel welcome. I told her, "Oh I hear you're a stay at home mom too!" She said with much disdain, "Yeah, for NOW." She had a 5mo and a something else - I think 4yo???? She is the type I'm talking about - has absolutely no problem with some day care or school having control over her child.
It's one thing to prayerfully choose those options, and it's another to willingly hand over your responsibilities to other authorities.
Sometimes it's not an overt thing, but it's there nonetheless. I know that there are parents out there who try hard to remain the #1 authority in their children's lives and to say no to things that would interfere. But I've seen it with my own eyes far too many times to discount it.
Back to Keer "Unplugged"
