Yay for higher taxes on the rich!
2 Likes
Just leave the basic system as it is and garnish federal payments as necessary and wages if it comes to that.
Congratulations and good to see that you have come to that position.
None of that makes “school lunch shaming” “against the law”.
Aw!
Are you afraid they couldn’t then afford their CostCo memberships?
SACRAMENTO – Building on the Administration’s commitment to focus on proposals that benefit the state’s parents, families and children, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed legislation to expand protections to students in the state’s K-12 public schools.
“Creating a ‘California for All’ means ensuring schools are inclusive, accepting, and welcoming of all kids. These bills help move us closer to that goal,” said Governor Newsom.
Earlier this year, Napa County elementary school student Ryan Kyote called national attention to how kids at his school were shamed and singled out because of inadequate funds in their school lunch accounts. He showed how at many schools across the country, students whose parents are not able to pay for their lunch are given a cheaper, “alternative” lunch that causes them to stick out from their peers. Governor Newsom met with Kyote earlier this year and committed to working on the issue.
SB 265 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) outlaws that practice, ensuring all students receive a state reimbursable meal of their choice, even if their parent or guardian has unpaid meal fees. Specifically, SB 265 amends the Child Hunger Prevention and Fair Treatment Act of 2017 to require all local educational agencies, including school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools that provide free and reduced meals, to invalidate policies that call for a student whose parent or guardian has unpaid meal fees be given an alternative meal.
“I want to thank Ryan for his empathy and his courage in bringing awareness to this important issue,” added Governor Newsom.
So the Gov. signed into California Law legislation that banned the practice of “School lunch shaming.”
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 49557.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
49557.5.
(a) For purposes of this section, “local educational agency” means a school, school district, county office of education, or charter school.
(b) (1) A local educational agency, including a local educational agency in which there is a school that is required to serve a free or reduced-price meal during the school day pursuant to Section 49550 and at which all pupils are not eligible to be served breakfast and lunch under the Community Eligibility Provision or Provision 2 of the federal National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1751 et seq.), shall ensure that a pupil whose parent or guardian has unpaid school meal fees is not denied a reimbursable meal of the pupil’s choice because of the fact that the pupil’s parent or guardian has unpaid meal fees and shall ensure that the pupil is not shamed or treated differently from other pupils`. This paragraph does not prohibit a school from serving an alternative reimbursable meal to a pupil who may need one for dietary or religious reasons, or as a regular menu item.
In order to ensure that schools across the state provide sufficient and nutritious lunches to all pupils regardless of any outstanding meal fees, it is necessary for this bill to go into immediate effect.
Bill Text - SB-265 Pupil meals: Child Hunger Prevention and Fair Treatment Act of 2017.
The best scenario would to not create a child that you can not afford to care for.
Really? Exactly how is a person supposed to know that in say 10 years time they will be made redundant?
Yeah…make up excuses and to hell with these children that are born into this form of abuse…and now have the greatest probability to repeat this EXACT same thing, a generation later.
I tend to agree on just making school lunches free, the cost to provide lunch and breakfast comes in around $4 a day, for a 180 day school year that’s $720, or less than ten percent of what we spend per student, factor in the number of students who already get them for free and it would probably be less than a 5% increase in current school funding. And that is ignoring all of the overhead of administrating a paid and subsidized program. Save everyone the hassle and put it in the budget.
1 Like
I am most definitely questioning whether you have any knowledge of the circumstances of the families involved or whether your comments were baseless.
I have no knowledge of any individual situations…none. What I do know is that innocent children suffer for the many, many, many avoidable mistakes of those that brought them into this world and that the greatest probability is…they are destined to repeat it.
That said…the children should be treated the same in school and not singled out. Everyone having the same provided lunch is a good thing. I’d even take it a step further and have them all wear the same clothing too.
So in summary, your comments were entirely baseless in the context of this thread.
2 Likes
If you consider the welfare of children as “baseless”…that’s your prerogative.
I never said that the children’s welfare was of no concern. What I was pointing out was that you were not privy to the circumstances of the families involved and in my opinion your generalisation was not appropriate. I gave one example where a family might be in financial difficulties through no fault of their own.
And? Being pro-choice in regard to not making the bad choice to create children you can’t afford to provide for is not remotely the same as being pro-choice to kill them if you do.
Because only the rich pay taxes?
1 Like
Most of them, yes.
So other people pay taxes. Do they not get a say where the taxes go in society?
