<p>Sorry–I’m just appalled! Maybe it’s where you come from, but I have never heard of stamping kids because “that’s the only way a message can be sent to parents.” Probably the same areas that allow hitting kids, too.</p>
<p>Maybe they could tattoo report cards on kids’ foreheads, too.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if “using” the kids serves another purpose. Even a young child is aware of these accts. If the stamped-handed child knows that his acct is low, he’s going to do one or more of the following:</p>
<p>1) remind parents
2) not go up to the lunch line
3) tell parents he needs to bring his lunch until money is in the acct.</p>
<p>Kids really do NOT want to go up with a tray full of food and be told…oops…no food for you. Now that would be embarrassing.</p>
<p>I’m late on bills sometimes, but I wouldn’t want the late notice scotch-taped to my kid’s head.</p>
<p>that’s cuz you’re paying3tuitions ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>head-desk. :(</p>
<p>^me too…</p>
<p>This reminds me of the “where are you from?” thread. The argument, “I have been in that position and it didn’t bother me and therefore there is no problem” just isn’t very compelling to me.</p>
<p>Garland: “Sorry–I’m just appalled! Maybe it’s where you come from, but I have never heard of stamping kids because “that’s the only way a message can be sent to parents.” Probably the same areas that allow hitting kids, too.”</p>
<p>Because a stamp on the hand telling parents it is time to send in more lunch money is JUST like giving kids six good ones with the paddle. Or something. Cue the Deliverance music. How do you feel about the cute little animals cutouts we put on yarn to get little kids onto the correct school bus? Are you horrified that we shame the bunny rabbit kids because the turtle kids know the bunny rabbit bus goes to a less affluent area?</p>
<p>deb922 - the book was “A Conspiracy Of Decency: The Rescue Of The Danish Jews During World War II” by Emmy Werner.</p>
<p>A great read.</p>
<p>small town school districts can be EXTREMELY political. We may never know why she was really fired.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s as bad as hitting, certainly, but I would be concerned if the school was making involuntary marks on my child’s body. I’ve never heard of such a thing. I don’t like the shaming possibility, either (although the “free” cheese sandwich is probably enough to cause that).</p>
<p>lerkin, I’m curious, who did you think was paying for your child’s lunch?</p>
<p>alwaysamom,</p>
<p>I don’t remember anymore the exact sequence of events. My son is 16 now. </p>
<p>From what I remember, I paid the initial amount and put significant (for elementary school lunches) amount of money into the account. I usually put enough to last a while because I don’t want to worry about running out. Anyway, I did not keep track of the account (in fact I never do) and at some point the stamping began.</p>
<p>If you think the hand stamps are okay, do you think we should go back to identifying kids who receive free lunches? If there was a good reason to let those kids keep their financial circumstances private, why does that reason not apply to students who do not participate in that program?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My son told me that kids hate those sandwiches, so usually the other kid would just buy extra items or lunch and share with the kid who has no lunch money in their account. Or the kid would just skip lunch and maybe get only milk that comes with the sandwich.</p>
<p>He also told me that some lunch ladies are more lenient on when the sandwiches are given instead of extending line of credit. The only strict cutoff happens about 2 weeks before the school ends.</p>
<p>P.S. Since there is no school today, my kids are home (cold weather). I asked both of my kids (one is in HS and another one is in elementary school) and both of them did not think there was anything offensive about stamps, nor did they hear anything about this from their classmates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The stamps telling parents that they should replenish the accounts have nothing to do with parents’ financial situation. The default threshold is $5.00. I set the threshold to $15 because I’d like couple of days heads up so that my kids accounts do not go negative. This particular stamp says NOTHING regarding parents financial circumstances. </p>
<p>If the parents do not replenish the account on time, the school contacts parents privately to discuss the situation. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why people do not see these two as completely unrelated. It is really not a big deal.</p>
<p>I know I’ve seen my kid purchase “4 cookies” and “2 bags of chips” and she’s not a 4 cookie eater so pretty sure she’s feeding her friends and vice versa (she’s admitted it). She’s been fed a time or two as well (at the middle school/high school level).</p>
<p>Lots of families with no particular financial stresses let their kids’ lunch accounts (and library accounts) go negative. Sometimes it is just disorganization. Some parents fund the account, and then the student (middle or HS) buys a lot of a la carte items and exhausts the account when the parent doesn’t expect that. These days a lot of schools no longer allow a la carte purchases, so perhaps it is less of a problem. </p>
<p>If there’s shame involved, it is more likely at the high school level, where eating hot lunch pretty much completely labeled you as a kid getting free/reduced price lunch. Maybe it has changed now, but when my D was in high school, they sold very, very few full-pay hot lunches.</p>
<p>When I was in high school, I think most people did get hot lunches. It was definitely not just the poor kids, that’s for sure. There was a point in time where my sack lunch was made fun of, because I couldn’t afford hot lunch! But we never had these lunch accounts so that is a new concept for me, if we were buying lunch we had cash or a punch card. I graduated in 2007 so it has been a while. I am not sure what that has to do with the question I asked.</p>
<p>Your other point, that we can’t REALLY tell the difference between kids with financial problems and kids whose parents have money but just choose not to pay their bills on time, doesn’t really carry much meaning to me.</p>
<p>Ema,</p>
<p>You are missing a point. The stamp in question has nothing to do with financial circumstances of the parents. It also has nothing to do with whether or not the parents pay their bills on time. It only indicates that it is time to replenish lunch account because it is below a certain threshold, which can be set very high. Unless the parents make sure that the balance does not fall below the threshold, the kid gets a stamp at some point. The stamp has no other meaning beyond that.</p>
<p>Some kids are stamped, an involuntary mark as Hunt points out. Some aren’t stamped. Sneetches?</p>
<p>I’m with Hunt; quite apart from the issue of whether or not it is shameful, I’m not wild about the idea of putting any kind of a mark on a person, which in this context strikes me as vaguely dehumanizing. If I were a parent in this district, I’d instruct my child to say politely and calmly “Excuse me, but I did not give you permission to touch me” when the authority figure asked them to present their hand for stamping. </p>
<p>Maybe it is does take more effort for a school to call or otherwise track down parents who don’t respond to a note. That’s tough. The school’s primary responsibility is to provide a safe and welcoming environment for the children under their care. This includes an emotionally healthy environment.</p>
<p>I’m not missing the point, I just don’t agree with you. Whether or not accounts are current is not the entire school’s business.</p>