I am keenly aware of the need, because my daughters participated in a similar program for about a year or so. This story brought back memories and how grateful I was for this option and how much they enjoyed it. Although my kids did have the advantage of a hot, family, sit down dinner every night, I realize that many do not have that. It IS about more than food. Any emphasis is mine.

Breakfast is served: Free meal programs aim to fight child hunger

Before the day’s assignments begin, kindergarteners at Enrico Fermi School No. 17 in Rochester, N.Y., know there’s one ritual that always comes first: eating together.

Their teacher, Marie Rice, has already placed each child’s breakfast of apples, cereal, milk and cheese sticks on their desk. Before digging in, Ja’Cariya Clayton, 5, helps two less dexterous 4-year-old boys open their food packaging.

It’s the first year the preK-8 school has offered breakfast in the classroom, a program that’s no-cost to families and is curbing hunger and tardiness, school officials say. “Our kids are not used to getting a lot,” said David Brown, Food Service Director at Rochester City School District, where 90 percent of the kids are eligible for free or reduced meals and several kids are in and out of homeless shelters. “Anything we can do to ‘wow’ them is always appreciated.”

Similar class time meal programs have been adopted in several states including Arkansas, West Virginia, Vermont and Colorado, where ‘Breakfast After the Bell,’ requires hundreds of schools to make breakfast available in the classroom, after first period or as a grab-and-go cart.

Breakfast in the classroom starts the day in “a very calm and quiet manner,” Rice said of her 28 students. “They view themselves as more of a family because they are dining together.”

When asked how she feels after eating breakfast, Ja-Cariya thought for a moment before saying, “Happy.” Her favorite part: “Eating a meal with my friends.”

Zacari Spraggins, 5, like most of the kids in class, doesn’t eat breakfast at home. Eating at school, he said, “helps me keep awake.”
........
Soon, said Principal Ralph Spezio, School No. 17 will transition into serving hot breakfast, such as waffles, eggs and breakfast pizza.

“One thing that’s important, especially in high poverty neighborhood is … in order to learn, you have to feel cared for, you have to feel safe, you have to feel emotionally calm,” he said. “Everybody knows that having a good breakfast is the start of a good day for fueling the brain and learning. It also tells children that we care about them.”

Breakfast in the classroom is bound to become even more prevalent next year when a new government program goes nationwide.
............
Giving kids structure outside the home

Kindergarten teacher Janice Tillmon, who has taught at Detroit’s Brewer Elementary-Middle School for the past two years, said, “It benefits my kids in three ways: nutritionally, socially and emotionally.”

When school begins, two students are assigned to go to the cafeteria and bring breakfast back to the room. Two others pour milk, making sure everyone has just the right amount.

“It helps them feel like they have a sense of belonging,” Tillmon said.

One day, she said, a kindergartner known for her perfect attendance came in late, missed breakfast, and was acting up in class. Tillmon took the child aside to find out what was wrong, and the girl began to cry.

Finally she admitted she was hungry – because the last time she ate was at school, the day prior.

“She had a relationship with me, so she could tell me she hadn’t eaten since yesterday,” said Tillmon, who quickly sent her student to the lunchroom to get some food.

At Brewer Elementary-Middle School, the breakfast program has improved attendance, and had a “phenomenal” impact on tardiness, according to Principal Cecily Wilson, who said she’s seen a 40 percent decrease in students arriving late to school.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/brea ... ild-hunger

These programs are near-and-dear to my heart ~ I have seen first-hand the problems when young kidlets are hungry, and that is NOT uncommon in high poverty areas ~ we offer breakfast and lunch at school, but I always bring a treat of some kind for the kidlets I'm working with ~ the kidlets call it my "bribe" to them to focus ~ I do it because it strengthens the "bonding" between us ... and because IT WORKS!

Sooz

Don't you know that these programs will only make people dependent on the government instead of providing for themselves?

(I think I just exceeded my sarcasm limit for the day.)

That "sense of belonging" got to me for some reason. It made me think about the number of kidlets that live in shelters, or live isolated for other reasons. Helping others and eating together forms a strong bond. Because it's breakfast, as opposed to lunch, it's more relaxed and intimate (for want of a better word). What you do, sooz, is great! Food is such a basic need that many forget there are those who deal with it on a daily basis.

Breakfast programs work. they can be expensive and complicated to set up (food service has tonnes of regulations--as soon as you start serving food you are technically a restaurant and can be inspected by the health inspectors) but they are worth it. they can be a huge factor in which kids manage to get an education and get themselves out of poverty--because if you can't feed your brain it can't learn. it gives them a window into a better more stable life than possibly their parents have provided.

i hate the way the discussion has been going on anti poverty issues. these are not handouts--these kids are all of our future and are worth the investment. we need to truly begin to think like a global community.

How many of our problems in society would be so much smaller if we did more of this. It isn't a handout, it's an investment. Can we say the poor kids are getting an equal education if they have to try to learn when hungry? What would happen if we ever changed the priorities in this country and made sure every child had at least one healthy meal a day? How about every person having at least one healthy meal a day? How about 2 a day? How about we throw in more schools like Sooz's? Make an effort to find the area of interest for each kid and make sure there are charter schools available. If the kids can do so well with their little games, they aren't dumb, we can't throw them away.

Little steps. Make sure at no point does the child feel no one cares. I'm no great brainiac but I've known this for decades. Why is it taking so long. These are our children. What kind of society has to sit and debate whether or not kids get a healthy meal every day?

I am glad that it's changing some at least. I love these programs. What about the days when kids aren't in school? Do they have solutions in mind for that?

i hate the way the discussion has been going on anti poverty issues. these are not handouts--these kids are all of our future and are worth the investment. we need to truly begin to think like a global community.

Some seem to think that government should not be involved in this, that it should be left to to churches, etc. Maybe that's fine for some things like clothing and furniture. We have places that do that here. But food is entirely different. Food is needed daily and needs to continually restocked and charitable groups often do not have enough. And there is huge difference between telling something you don't have a winter coat to give them and telling them you have no food to give them.

The other argument we hear is that providing "hand-outs" takes away peoples need to fend for themselves. OK, I'm sure that applies in some cases, but not all and not even most.

Yet so many conservative Republicans take a stand against these sort of programs. Republicans vote to cut food stamps, but would they agree to any military cuts?

Eisenhower said;

“Modern weapons take food from the hungry and shelter from the homeless: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Where happened to that kind of Republican? Today he'd be called a socialist.

what makes it great coming from Eisenhower is that THE MAN WAS A GENERAL. if anyone would see the utility of the mechinations of war, it would be HIM. i really love where he ended up in his later years. it takes a great man to question the very foundation of his existence. Ike was a great man.

It's too bad that Republicans don't look to him as a model to follow. But then they would probably turn him into someone that stood for what they want instead of what he said and did, much as they have done with Reagan.

What does it mean when Macro and I are both praising a Republican from 60 years ago?!

it means simply this: that the party has come a long way from it's roots. and that, imo, is a very bad thing.

I totally agree with both those points.

Sorry guys but I strongly disagree that Eisenhower was a great man or great American or should be a model for anyone. He did not stand up against McCarthyism even though he knew it was wrong. He played the political games of appeasement and shedding of principles and shredding of the Constitution to win the Presidency. That was one of the darkest periods of our history and he helped make it darker.
He also totally supported adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance and praised the bill as he signed it, again shredding the Constitution. Hey, sounds like the current repubs are using him as a model.

Regarding McCarthy;

Dwight Eisenhower found Joseph McCarthy's demagoguery reprehensible. As a military man he had been able to distance himself from petty political crusades in the name of the greater cause. But in 1952, as a first time candidate for the office of the presidency, he found it would be a good deal more difficult to maintain his political purity. When McCarthy delivered a blistering attack against former Secretary of State George C. Marshall, calling him "a man steeped in falsehood," candidate Eisenhower was faced with a dilemma. A popular member of his own party was publicly disparaging a man Ike considered a valued mentor. Eisenhower's personal and political instincts came into conflict during a campaign stop in McCarthy's home state of Wisconsin. Eisenhower was prepared to deliver a defense of Marshall, praising him "as a man and a soldier," and condemning the tactics of McCarthy as a "sobering lesson in the way freedom must not defend itself." But noble intentions gave way to political reality. Aware of McCarthy's huge base of support and not willing to risk losing votes in a crucial state, Eisenhower delivered his speech minus the defense of Marshall and the condemnation of McCarthy. It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/eisenhower-politics/


Regarding adding "under God";

While I have never liked that action and I agree that he was wrong to do it, I can't see it as comparable to Watergate or the Iraq War or numerous other actions by presidents.

As I said, he threw away his principles for politics and kissed McCarthy's ass. Politics was more important than principle and the Constitution. He turned his back on good people. He betrayed friends. Yes, he felt guilty later. That's what makes him especially bad in my mind. He knew McCarthy was wrong. People's constitutional rights were being violated but he thought it was ok for the President of the United States to allow that? He allowed the executions of the Rosenbergs even though he knew the trial had many flaws, but he didn't want to be seen as going easy on Communists. People's lives were destroyed. It wasn't against the law to be a Communist. But he allowed the witch hunts and burnings. The President swears to defend the Constitution. He knowingly betrayed that but they are the ones who got executed. Yeah, really good man, that Ike.

John, obviously, we don't hold the same value for the Constitution. He was saying our nation was a Christian nation. I find that unacceptable, unconstitutional, and wrong.

Ha, he was wrong and shouldn't have done it, but he's still a model? because others have done what you think is worse? Sorry, we really disagree. Imo, there is nothing a president can do that is worse than shredding the Constitution. Nixon did it, Bush did it, imo, Obama has done it by leavng in a lot of Bush crap. None of them has come close to what Eisenhower allowed from McCarthy.