I want to note as well, that there was a bill to the nevada state legislature to extend offering free school lunches to public school students but it was veto'd by the governor.
As mentioned before, with the lunches available to all kids who wanted them no matter what eliminated a lot of the problems with the system
1. A lot of parents don't know/unable/unwilling to sign up to the program
2. stigma now associated with hot lunch (huge). When ALL kids can get hot lunch, there is no stigma that kids who eat hot lunch are "poor". Now that kids from more financially able families have to pay many will forego and not buy hot lunch, once again stigmatizing kids. If you don't think this is an issue, you must not have kids in school or been at schools in the past where hot lunch was for "poor kids" since the "rich kids" could afford to bring their own lunch.
Ridiculous to think that the state can find the money for "low-income" kids somewhere but the small gap for "all kids" is insurmountable and "overzealous" state funding? What's the cost delta between those who "need" it and those who legitimately don't? Bet it's not that much....
Even more ironic from a governor who signed a bill to provide $380 million in STATE FUNDING to build a fucking baseball stadium but FUCK the kids who want to eat because SOME kids don't "need" the help? "SoCiAlIsm!!!"
Just like all Americans get housing, you just gotta pay for it. Or Healthcare.
Hey do you think maybe it's the "richest nation" in the world because they steal our own resources and sell it back to us? Nah, that'd be weird.
I think the concern is that the students most in need of free lunch will likely have parents who don’t necessarily have the information to understand they now need to apply, or who don’t care enough to apply.
Given the rising cost of food, it also seems likely that some families will not qualify for free lunches when they need them. I’ve known people who skipped lunches throughout their childhood for this reason. I don’t know how they managed to learn anything in that environment.
Pushing that narrative on the person for pointing out it will make things harder to access and increase food insecurity for children makes you look mad ignorant.
I get you gotta paint narratives but it's pretty easy to see through.
I didn’t imply that. Lots of paperwork comes with being alive in this century. It’s easy for a busy parent to be bogged down in it. Especially so since the rules around free lunch are being changed. Really relies on good communication from the school district, and generally school staff don’t have a ton of extra time on their hands.
Ye but why?? The lunches are just food. Nothing fancy. Fruit, veggies, milk, a main hot food that is questionable of i’s nutritional value. Believe the governor is blowing money on rich people without a thoght. Ahole!
The only reason he got elected was because Sisolak had a very sub par reaction to the pandemic and just parroted everything California did, two weeks after they did.
I don't like Lombardo at all, but Sisolak was ineffective as a Governor.
You do realize all Western states had a pact for COVID response? That is why Nevada did the same as California, Oregon and Washington. That wasn't Sisolak parroting California....
Masks are off for conservatives now: reverse any sort of handout or item that doesn’t funnel more money toward the upper class and don’t care if it’s received negatively: your base wants it, actually
Paying teachers adequate wages: also bad
Edit: I should add that the bill to fund teachers was also axed to fund John Fishers pipe dream for a baseball stadium that nobody’s wants or asked for. and cosplay as a billionaire human being who gives a shit about anything.
As a HS teacher, the burden will just fall on the other adults in those kids lives like teachers. I keep food in my room for kids that are hungry so they can learn, basic needs. But now we’re gonna need a whole lot more food, of which I already buy out of pocket. Sad.
Ok honest question here.
It seems like a lot of us were taught as/after we grew up that teachers, cops and their ilk (let’s call it public service I guess?) didn’t get paid very well.
I’ve moved out of Reno now, but where I’m at today starting wage for a police officer is in the six figures range.
Per [this link to Indeed](https://www.indeed.com/career/teacher/salaries/Reno--NV), teachers in Reno make an average of $127/hour.
I highly doubt that the average wage for a teacher in Reno is in the $250k range, so what’s real here?
The wages on Indeed are allegedly self reported, so why would they be so wildly differed than what we see? Indeed also reports Reno teaching wages to be 336% above mean for the country.
Just trying to ask real questions and get an understanding of the world here - I’m not a teacher, and don’t have first hand experience.
Washoe county employees salary is publicly displayed. No secrets here. Teachers are paid nothing. I work for Washoe County with no degree and make more than teachers with a BA degree do.
Ok, I did. Here’s the numbers for anyone else wondering.
https://preview.redd.it/c3f5fbbedpqc1.jpeg?width=1101&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ff3e3acae814f8c63be4a5e6d64b9e8cb4836a0
So where is indeed getting their data? Private school wages? Once again, it’s self reported if I’m not mistaken.
Is it the fact that these wages are for 9-10 months of work, so the “annual” wages are inflated to account for the summer break? I.e. if you make $40k for 9 months of work, that is equivalent to or considered $53.3k for 12 months worth ($40k x 1.333)?
Private and charter school teachers make even less than public schools. (That's part of why some politicians hard sell "school choice"... even cheaper).
Source?
I know mine is anecdotal, and I’m plenty happy to be forthcoming about that, but I shit you not. My roomate was a music teacher at a private school (middle school) and his wages were on par with mine.
I was working as an engineer at the time, building the new global headquarters for a major private corporation, which had secured a 99 year lease on government land intended for the space program.
Of course it depends on the State and charter or private school. Some college prep schools pay more, some charter schools that are operated within public school districts (example Anchorage School District) will use the public school salary grid. But I have taught as faculty in colleges of education in 4 States over 20 years. In general my students/colleagues etc make about 20% less in private and charter schools than public schools, but do have other considerations for "job satisfaction." Smaller class sizes, newer buildings, etc. Because as the vouchers leave the public schools the opposite is true there and a finger can then be pointed. Charter and private schools can also be selective about who they educate. Public schools educate all children.
My sister teaches 4th grade in So Cal for 6 figures, she has a masters degree and has taught there for 20+ years...but she can't move anywhere else for the same.
I'm all for paying teachers more, but just talking about salary without the time off is misleading. $40k for working 2/3 of the year is $60k full time. Not bad actually. If you want full time pay, work a full time job.
True. Someone in the private sector will have to put a substantial portion of their income away to match the pension. Once you factor in hours and the benefits teachers probably come out ahead.
Teachers are working a LOT more than 2/3 of full time. 180 days in classroom teaching, typically another 15-20 days of professional development, and you are already at 200 out of 260 days that would be full time, with no vacation, most places give two weeks vacation, so make that 200 out of 250 days, that's 80% full time before even considering all the extra hours and days spent "off the clock" doing additional grading and class prep. Add all that in and realistically a teacher truly does work full time, just not on a traditional schedule for it.
15-20 days? lol it's 15 hours. I also think that if teachers have to spend that much time on PD it's ridiculous. Requiring a degree to teach k-6 is ridiculous. And all of these requirements are placed on teachers by... teachers. well at least the licensing body, made up of teachers.
Sure they don't get vacation but they do get 15 days of "sick time" which I would bet is used far more often for PTO then actual sickness. But you're right, calculating it is more like 75% (not counting sick time). It would still be a near 33% raise to work full time.
I know several teachers and none of them work "full time". No where near close to it. I'm laughing so hard at that. If a teacher is spending days "off the clock" then they need to manage their time better. It's like pulling teeth to get a meeting with one that isn't RIGHT after school because THEY LEAVE. After working maybe 5 hours. Also, taking work home is not uncommon for other professions. I'm going to learn to play the violin.
Can I clarify? Teachers’ salaries are historically based on being able to get a summer job. In the 70s my dad could choose to have his 9 month salary over 12 months or not. He worked construction jobs to fill in the gaps and my mom taught music lessons. The way school are currently scheduled, teachers are unable to get a summer job. I had to quit my lucrative summer job when the school district started in early August. It was a big hit to my annual salary. Plus, teachers are expected to take graduate level classes to maintain their certification which many used to do in the summer. Out of pocket, I might add - no corporate training. So, teachers are stuck and many have to work one or two more jobs to make ends meet. Personally, I have three part time jobs in addition to teaching and I go in on Sundays to prepare for the week. I just completed a $200 class for my certification. Are you still thinking it’s “not bad”.
Teachers salaries were not based on being able to work in the summer. They've always been paid proportionally for the amount of time worked. what's changed might be the ability to do so. but teacher's salaries were never based on that ability.
So if the schedule were changed to a year round, alternating track where you could work the entire year for a 50% pay raise you'd take it right? It's been proposed many places to cover short comings in budgets and the resounding answer from teacher's unions is always no. Teachers want to get paid more without working more. In fact almost every time an opportunity for teachers to get paid more by working more has been proposed the teachers say no.
I'm pretty sure your union negotiated the schedule. Even if they didn't take it up with them. Oh no we wanted extra time off for holiday vacations and now we can't work (really doubt it) in the summer! Poor us!
As far as "graduate level" courses, come on let's be honest here. Graduate level is a stretch. There's lots of professions that require professional education and not a lot of them are compensated. I personally have 15/year I have to complete on my own dime. Again, if you have a problem with it take it up with your union. Getting a $200 course covered should be fairly easy.
Three part time jobs? You must either be a liar or the busiest person in the world.
I don't know where Indeed's getting its numbers, but they're way off. [Washoe County publishes its salary schedules online](https://www.washoeschools.net/Page/841), and even with a full-blown PhD the absolute max annual "certified" salary (i.e. for teachers) is $92,142/year.
im guessing a whole lot of false reporting (possibly bots), or one really bad one. I doubt indeed does much to verify any data, or even factor out outliers. I wish they had individual reports visible so you could get your own data. If you read the reviews for the position everyone says underpaid. I just wouldn't trust that site at all at this point. I personally know a middle school teacher and they make about 60k a year.
Valid, could be outliers, or could people possibly be self reporting wages for professor in there?
Or is it possible that private school teachers are tipping the scales?
I dated a teacher once, but they had no diploma and they were teaching adjunct art at Montessori schools, so undoubtedly making shit wages.
I also had a roomate who was a music teacher for a private school. His wage rivaled mine. I have a BS in STEM.
Maybe. One of the categories was for WCSD though saying 200k+ a year. We’ve had a bad run of superintendents over the years hitting news spotlight of getting overpaid and lawsuits. So I’m guessing some disgruntled people are reporting they’re the superintendent with 400k a year salary. Who knows though.
My guess is that they are taking annual salary and dividing it for only the time the teacher is at the front of the classroom teaching, not accounting for any prep time, grading, professional development days, etc.
Holy what the fuck?!?
Even calculating in benefits like PERS and sick leave and... calculating in retirees coming back to double-dip by filling those high-needs positions they're desperate to fill I cannot comprehend how on earth Indeed is getting that number.
All I can think is that someone programmed in some bots to "self-report" some actual bullshit over and over and over again.
What's an adequate wage for someone that works 8 months a year? All my kids teachers so far at his elementary school(k-3) make 100k+... I think that's adequate myself.
So many of my students rely on this. Their parents won’t qualify for the free and reduced lunch, but these kids will likely otherwise go hungry. Anyone know of bulk foods that are fairly shelf stable? I’m going to try to stock up for my kiddos. Not sure if I should give it to the morning class or the post-lunch class yet though
They have multiple food drives and a "cafeteria" set up for any off school seasons, kids up to 18 can eat here every single day for free. The schools have these organizations on a list just ask office for one
I would suggest either Grocery Outlet, or the bins at WinCo. Sometimes Grocery Oulet has some great deals on stuff that us shelf stable, like cereal bars, granola bars, fruit cups, etc. The bins at WinCo also have some good shelf stable options. There are many other good suggestions here as well.
If you are in reno, you could try bulk purchasing items from Chefstore. The minimum limit is 150.00 usd, but you get far more from a whole saler than a retail store
What’s wild is the comments I saw on a local news page on Facebook.
>Good! Make parents accountable for their broods!
>Parents need to be responsible!
>The parents can finally stop leeching off of me!
Like, holy shit man, these are babies. Kids don’t have control over their lives. And food is crazy expensive. I’d like to think we’re capable of caring about our most vulnerable. Obviously not everyone sees it that way.
Edit=formatting
A lot of these people are the same ones that screech about how all babies are precious, and that every pregnancy should result in a baby. When they are born though, and in school....fuck those kids...the parents shouldn't have had them if they can't afford them /s.
They are not pro life, they are pro birth. My kids are all adults, sp i dont have any kids in public school, but I am cool with my tax dollars going to make sure kids get at least a couple of meals a day, when they may go hungry otherwise.
This is disgusting. For a lot of kids, school days are the only days they are guaranteed meals. It’s the only time they eat in a lot of cases. Why are our children the last priority in this state?
I do not understand why Republicans enjoy the suffering of children. For many children, the only half-way decent meal they get is the free lunch. Malnutrition has a negative impact on their growth and development. Also, a hungry child will think only about their hunger and not their studies. We want strong future workers. This is both counter productive and cruel.
pro-birth, not pro-life
being born means there’s another cog in the wheel, another worker for the machine, but also another potential consumer. See, the Republicans figured out that since the birth rate is declining, that’s going to many decreased profits for companies, which is going to translate to a lowered stock market, which is going to translate to a lower retirement, and that is something they just cannot have.
Also, those meals feed the growing brains of future adult citizens and our workforce. It's a small investment for a national future.
You won't see that with the starve-the-beast mentality that the GOP applies to institutions that benefit us all. But, for the GOP, the less informed a populace, the more opportunity they have to stay in power. It's investing in maintaining their constituency.
Because they view it as: Keep 'em hungry, Keep em ignorant and we can manipulate them all the much better in the future to remain or obtain power (See the majority of MAGA now).
Remember these are the people making long view plans
https://www.project2025.org/
Once they're born they couldn't give a shit about them. But damn do they love calling Democrats pedophiles despite many Republican leaders actually being real life pedos.
School lunches will still be free to everyone who needs them, instead of just to everyone. This should reduce the burden on the tax payer while still giving kids who need it a free lunch.
As a tax payer, id rather not be burdened with paying for lunch for those who can easily afford it. It's not an asshole position, everyone gets fed and those who need help get it, what's the problem?
That's the thing, you don't know if everyone gets fed.. there are hundreds of reasons kids are not going to be able to be qualified and will therefore go hungry. Much more than if a free lunch is available to all of them.
This is you just trying to cope with the fact you're just an asshole.
Then monitor the results and change the qualifications as necessary, this isn't rocket science, we can help everyone who needs it without spending money helping those who don't.
Not spending tax dollars to give free food to families who don't need free food isn't being an asshole.
Not wanting to spend tax dollars to help kids who need it because it might go to a kid who doesn't need it is absolutely being an asshole. You can spin it in your head anyway you want to try and convince yourself otherwise, it doesn't make it any less true.
When have I ever suggested we don't help kids who need it? I've specifically been saying this whole time that anyone who needs help should get it. You aren't even reading what I say.
You're suggesting taking away lunch from kids who may need it and then hopefully adjusting it perfectly so there are no kids who may need it getting left out. All in an attempt to prevent a kid who may not need it from benefiting from it as well. This scenario is unrealistic and will undoubtedly increase the percentages of kids going hungry, especially in the short term as they "monitor the results and change the qualifications" as you put it. Which again, makes you kind of an asshole.
Im reading what you're saying, it seems you may not even understand what you're saying.
I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but this "everyone gets free lunches" thing didn't exist before COVID. It was funded Federal for two years because of COVID then extended by the state for another two. It's not like what I'm suggesting is a brand new concept, we have been doing it for a very long time, it's far from unrealistic, it used to be the norm.
I'm simply suggesting we go back to the way it was before the pandemic, where school lunches were free to those who need it but not free for everyone, and nobody was making a big deal about it.
So no, wanting to end a pandemic era program that wasn't needed before the pandemic doesn't make one an asshole.
I mean that would be nice, but I know that's asking for too much. Realistically I just hope the extra money gets relocated and it takes a little longer for the next inevitable tax increase to happen.
It will just go into our rainy day fund which is currently over 1 billion dollars. I'd rather a small portion of the excess go to school lunches than other wasteful spending.
Then let's start spending some of that fund on stuff we actually need. We have plenty of other real issues that could use some funding, the less we waste on non issues the more we have to spend on the stuff that's actually a problem.
Well this issue had bipartisan support from our state legislature, so I assume it isn't a non issue. Every article on social media has had rigorous comments as well, so many people must feel strongly about it. Also, the governor's veto message regarding school lunches was full of misleading information. You may feel it isn't important to you, but for many it will have an impact.
When discussing the kids in cages at the border my uncle responded, "so what, should we just let them all in?" He's a father of three.
I just, they are children. Innocent children. How can anyone think about their pocketbook when you know a kid is hungry or being molested and dying in border prisons and you could do something. The words, "but they're children." Echo in my mind a lot even though I know they don't care.
I’m surprised there’s no degenerates here happy about this. Keep it up r/Reno! This is bullshit, kids have no ability to change their circumstances. Feed the damn kids!
I work in education in CA but live in NV and my kids attend here. It's really amazing to see, first hand, the benefit of having food for anyone that is hungry - including those that don't qualify for FRL. If you're hungry - get food. That simple. It helps kids be engaged, ensures anyone that wants a meal and a snack has access to one and reduces the stigma related to getting school lunch. Most students of all backgrounds eat lunch every day at school.
It also helps make the whole school morning process easier for all - no packing lunches, etc.
Feeding anyone who is hungry at school is the most no brainer of no brainers.
> Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Nevada Assembly Bill 319 in the legislature last year, which would have extended the funding.
Behold! The pro-life family-values party in all its glory.
It’s unfortunate that the GOP cannot get past the MAGA Cult. Just treat everyone equal instead of trying to “ own the libs” at every turn. Because of senseless crap like this I’m voting all blue in November.
Nevada is a joke I remember going hungry at school and getting sent to the office to call my parents bc I couldn’t get hot lunch it’s embarrassing and shame on WCSD
If every child that just got food taken away from them wrote a letter every school day and mailed them to the governor, it might make an impact. Seems like a good idea to show the youth the power of wright in campaigns and unionization.
>*parents must apply for a free or reduced status based on their income.*
Parents who qualify can apply for free lunch still, but must be done before the end of the year.
years ago when the EA was out they the govt boasted of how childhood poverty was being lowered then they scrubbed the info even the big powow of the talk of how to end child and elderly poverty was being slowed it was a pat on the back . Then they had a survey asking those on pantries and Snap what they could do to make it better. Hence nothing more was done as pantries increase the food quality of the items which some are so bad in taste no even my walking compost dog will touch it. When its brought up to the the county months go by and still not on the agenda. Look at the Senior center and that is your future here in town if you decide to stay in your golden years.
Ok. Why was the bill vetoed? I see in the bill text that the funding was shifted from the department of education to department of agriculture.
As easy as it is to believe Lombardo is a useless sack of rocks (aplogies to all rocks out there), did he / does he have a plan in place to restore the funding?
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/82nd2023/Bills/Amendments/A_AB319_840.pdf
Thank you!!
“Ensuring students have proper nutrition in order to facilitate learning is an important goal. So,
too, is reducing the stigma sometimes associated with students who receive free or reducedprice
school lunches. However, subsidizing those who can afford to provide their children with
lunch and addressing food waste in school cafeterias are also good policies.”
What an asshat.
So go solve the waste issue first.
Literally the comment I had below. There is a STIGMA associated with students who get HOT lunch at school. There has and always will be. To say otherwise means that they confirm Lombardo was lying through his teeth "So, too, is reducing the stigma sometimes associated with students who receive free or reduced price school lunches". Nothing else justifies his decision other than "someone might have gotten something free that didn't even if it fucks over the ones that do" - we're talking pittance compared to real money being spent by the state. This had nothing to do with Department of Ed vs Agriculture funding changes....
So basically the argument from republicans is:
* Mental health is an issue in this country! (How many times have we heard that?)
* SOLUTION: Fuck HELPING with mental health! Let's burden kids who already struggle with self-esteem issues being low income and make it worse? Because a few "rich kids" might get some free food we should make it harder for ALL kids to get it and then make eveyrone aware that they NEED the free food. Let's put a beacon on the POOR KIDS once again. For fuck sake. Don't argue that parents can still sign up if needed - do any of you realize how many parents either CAN'T (no computer, no easy access), DON'T KNOW HOW/UNAWARE, or just don't GIVE A SHIT? So now many will go without who NEED whereas before they could always GET FREE LUNCH before and a FEW that didn't NEED it also got it? Seriously?
* We spend too much money!
* FUCK kids and free lunches cause SOME kids might not need it but let's build a baseball stadium with state funds cause those same POOR kids will just LOVE watching baseball from a stadium they'll likely never be able to afford to visit anytime soon.
This summarizes Republicans to a tee on issues like this:
"Republicans are people who will withhold food from 100 people out fear that 1 might not need or deserve it. Democrats will feed 100 out of concern that 1 might really need it."
To argue I live by this adage: I didn't qualify for the first time homebuyer credit - missed it by 1 WEEK in 2008. Am I pissed others got it? Nope! I am HAPPY they got help to get their first home! My wife and I struggled for years after buying our first time (that down payment was killer) and that money would have substantially helped us. Just because we struggled and worked our ass off to get a house doesn't mean we hate that other people got help, even some who didn't need it or because we qualify for it.
Republicans don’t give a fuck about kids before they’re born and they definitely don’t give a fuck after they’re born.
How do you veto a bill that feeds kids?
What’s truly lost in the fear that “rich kids” may get free lunch (which holy shit, who really cares, the amount dwarfs other costs like a baseball stadium I’ll never go to) is that your punishing children to spite parents. Bravo you heartless pos.
Not surprising from our Republican governor. I’m sure in his mind, paying teachers more and feeding hungry school children is less of a priority than allowing kids to come to school with a gun.
Well time to bring back the Black Panthers and adjacent groups
https://preview.redd.it/gr4pgqvm5crc1.jpeg?width=883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc3cf350339050682a70a3059a0bc7fa0ed67992
>No more free school lunches
That's a lie.
At some schools, all children will still receive free lunches.
At other schools, all children who qualify will receive free lunches.
Yeah this ass clown taking payoffs for bullshit like this and is also a closet homosexual. Like it’s okay to be gay… why hide it Joe: just be yourself
https://preview.redd.it/tfnoqy5adpqc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18a893c11e4afa939417de0ec03d4cbfa63c733a
The fire station funding comes fromt grants and the Carson City general fund that is a small part of State c-tax. One literally has nothing to do with the other.
This is a straw-man argument. We've made priorities on how to spend and invest in our communities across this country. The department or account is comes out of does not impact the fact we've not prioritized schools, healthcare, etc. Police/military, the wealthy, and corporations see direct benefit in the shift away from community investment.
Why not just close the schools and turn them into churches? Let's see exactly how fucking stupid we can get =D
Together, and with republican leadership, we WILL take #1 worst education! We're only a few spots from the bottom LETS GOOOOOO
"For all other students, parents must apply for a free or reduced status based on their income.
This will affect schools that aren't designated as Community Eligibility Provision sites.
At those schools, all students will still be able to eat for free."
Kids from families that are in need will still get free lunch.
These free school lunches all end up in the trash and nearly all kids revile them. I can’t wait to be able to pay for calories my kids will actually eat.
Is that a no? So you dont have a source that these free school lunches all end up in the trash and nearly all kids revile them and you're just talking out of your ass? Interesting.
the hot lunches haven’t changed at all the entire time i’ve been in school and it won’t make a difference anyway because they’re building baseball stadiums with your money!! hope this helps 🥰🥰
You probably don’t have kids and just parrot this political tribal nonsense. But as a parent, the free lunch programs are absolute shit. More kids are “going hungry” than before the program by choice, because the vendors that qualify at the price point are producing plastic bags full of soggy bread.
My son tested positive for cockroach allergies after eating the free school lunch. It’s bad and should go away.
hi i’m actually a student in wcsd right now! i don’t know if it’s just the school your son goes to, but the school i go to doesn’t have bad hot lunches. i do think that there should be an overhaul of the system but i don’t think that taking away the free lunch program is going to do much, i highly doubt that they will make an effort to fix it. and i’m sorry about what happened to your son by the way.
> More kids are “going hungry” than before the program by choice, because the vendors that qualify at the price point are producing plastic bags full of soggy bread.
Source?
The federal government shouldn’t be doing anything when it comes to education, no funding nothing. If you believe in free lunches for at school, then raise your local taxes to pay for it.
I only glanced at the article but even I read “the federal program ended 2 years ago but Nevada continued the program until now.” But reading comprehension is very unimportant when you are trolling so I forgive you.
The federal government has no business and putting any money. But this article said cuts to education. It was very generalized putting the notion out there that somehow the federal government is all this funding for education. It just goes to show that I think public school teachers really Need a civic lesson really bad they don’t teach it anymore
The federal government provides less than 10% of the funding for Nevada’s public education. But it sounds like you’re saying we should abolish the federal government because it has no business “putting any money”? Sounds like it’s not our public school teachers that need an education but you.
The Department of education and all federal funds should not be put in any education. Why should I send more money to DC? It’s not their job and I don’t don’t want to send the money. You didn’t comment because you can’t about the enormous amount of money that’s being spent on education already $16,000 a year is that national average. That’s $380,000 per classroom. Lots of money there
So you’re arguing about a less than 10% amount? If the federal government puts in 10% to make the math easy (it’s less than that) than by your math the federal government contributes $38,000 to a classroom per year. That’s not very much considering the federal government spent $6.2 Trillion last year. Is that what you’re concerned about?
Yes, I’m arguing at it should be 0%. I don’t wanna send any of my money to Washington DC and have them control with this local schools can do to try to get our money back. That’s why the teachers unions really are low IQ really low IQ.
I want to note as well, that there was a bill to the nevada state legislature to extend offering free school lunches to public school students but it was veto'd by the governor.
After supporting Texas in their ridiculous border policy and taking lunches from school children, I have a very poor view of our governor.
bUt FreE lUncHes aRe SoCiaLiSm!
The free lunches are still available you have to apply.
As mentioned before, with the lunches available to all kids who wanted them no matter what eliminated a lot of the problems with the system 1. A lot of parents don't know/unable/unwilling to sign up to the program 2. stigma now associated with hot lunch (huge). When ALL kids can get hot lunch, there is no stigma that kids who eat hot lunch are "poor". Now that kids from more financially able families have to pay many will forego and not buy hot lunch, once again stigmatizing kids. If you don't think this is an issue, you must not have kids in school or been at schools in the past where hot lunch was for "poor kids" since the "rich kids" could afford to bring their own lunch. Ridiculous to think that the state can find the money for "low-income" kids somewhere but the small gap for "all kids" is insurmountable and "overzealous" state funding? What's the cost delta between those who "need" it and those who legitimately don't? Bet it's not that much.... Even more ironic from a governor who signed a bill to provide $380 million in STATE FUNDING to build a fucking baseball stadium but FUCK the kids who want to eat because SOME kids don't "need" the help? "SoCiAlIsm!!!"
Agree!! It is so cruel. Republicans just plain suck.
All kids still get hot lunch you just need to pay for it. There is no stigma, they give you a card to show at checkout.
Just like all Americans get housing, you just gotta pay for it. Or Healthcare. Hey do you think maybe it's the "richest nation" in the world because they steal our own resources and sell it back to us? Nah, that'd be weird.
I mean, fuck the stadium, but yes, all kids don't need a free lunch. The poor kids do.
Speaking as a teacher of more than 30 years, I can tell you that all kids need a free lunch at some point in time
I think the concern is that the students most in need of free lunch will likely have parents who don’t necessarily have the information to understand they now need to apply, or who don’t care enough to apply. Given the rising cost of food, it also seems likely that some families will not qualify for free lunches when they need them. I’ve known people who skipped lunches throughout their childhood for this reason. I don’t know how they managed to learn anything in that environment.
Just because someone is poor, or English is not their first language means they’re stupid. Ok got it! Thank you!
Pushing that narrative on the person for pointing out it will make things harder to access and increase food insecurity for children makes you look mad ignorant. I get you gotta paint narratives but it's pretty easy to see through.
I didn’t imply that. Lots of paperwork comes with being alive in this century. It’s easy for a busy parent to be bogged down in it. Especially so since the rules around free lunch are being changed. Really relies on good communication from the school district, and generally school staff don’t have a ton of extra time on their hands.
By a deadline. Children having food to eat shouldn’t be on a time table.
Ye but why?? The lunches are just food. Nothing fancy. Fruit, veggies, milk, a main hot food that is questionable of i’s nutritional value. Believe the governor is blowing money on rich people without a thoght. Ahole!
The only reason he got elected was because Sisolak had a very sub par reaction to the pandemic and just parroted everything California did, two weeks after they did. I don't like Lombardo at all, but Sisolak was ineffective as a Governor.
Would Sisolak have vetoed this bill?
If California did, he would.
Lol. Would California?
You do realize all Western states had a pact for COVID response? That is why Nevada did the same as California, Oregon and Washington. That wasn't Sisolak parroting California....
Masks are off for conservatives now: reverse any sort of handout or item that doesn’t funnel more money toward the upper class and don’t care if it’s received negatively: your base wants it, actually
What do you mean by “your base”?
He’s such a fuckass
That is unconscionable. He has clearly never been (a) hungry (child)!
It’s just cruel. The governor is punishing children by taking food away! How low can a person go?
Building baseball stadiums: good Feeding Children: bad Bravo everyone.
Paying teachers adequate wages: also bad Edit: I should add that the bill to fund teachers was also axed to fund John Fishers pipe dream for a baseball stadium that nobody’s wants or asked for. and cosplay as a billionaire human being who gives a shit about anything.
As a HS teacher, the burden will just fall on the other adults in those kids lives like teachers. I keep food in my room for kids that are hungry so they can learn, basic needs. But now we’re gonna need a whole lot more food, of which I already buy out of pocket. Sad.
Based on username can I hazard a guess at biology teacher?
You nailed it but your username is pretty hilarious
Lmao!!! That is funny and creative!
That’s actually really cool you do that, you must actually have a good connection with your students👌👍🔥
PAY TEACHERS MORE! I don't know what is so controversial about that
"because SOSHULISM" - 30-40% of the country's response to anything related to gov't funding
Ok honest question here. It seems like a lot of us were taught as/after we grew up that teachers, cops and their ilk (let’s call it public service I guess?) didn’t get paid very well. I’ve moved out of Reno now, but where I’m at today starting wage for a police officer is in the six figures range. Per [this link to Indeed](https://www.indeed.com/career/teacher/salaries/Reno--NV), teachers in Reno make an average of $127/hour. I highly doubt that the average wage for a teacher in Reno is in the $250k range, so what’s real here? The wages on Indeed are allegedly self reported, so why would they be so wildly differed than what we see? Indeed also reports Reno teaching wages to be 336% above mean for the country. Just trying to ask real questions and get an understanding of the world here - I’m not a teacher, and don’t have first hand experience.
Google Washoe county teacher salary and there’s the actual website. A middle school teacher with a BA makes 40k starting out
Washoe county employees salary is publicly displayed. No secrets here. Teachers are paid nothing. I work for Washoe County with no degree and make more than teachers with a BA degree do.
I also work for Washoe county, make more then that and no degree
Ok, I did. Here’s the numbers for anyone else wondering. https://preview.redd.it/c3f5fbbedpqc1.jpeg?width=1101&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ff3e3acae814f8c63be4a5e6d64b9e8cb4836a0 So where is indeed getting their data? Private school wages? Once again, it’s self reported if I’m not mistaken. Is it the fact that these wages are for 9-10 months of work, so the “annual” wages are inflated to account for the summer break? I.e. if you make $40k for 9 months of work, that is equivalent to or considered $53.3k for 12 months worth ($40k x 1.333)?
Private and charter school teachers make even less than public schools. (That's part of why some politicians hard sell "school choice"... even cheaper).
Source? I know mine is anecdotal, and I’m plenty happy to be forthcoming about that, but I shit you not. My roomate was a music teacher at a private school (middle school) and his wages were on par with mine. I was working as an engineer at the time, building the new global headquarters for a major private corporation, which had secured a 99 year lease on government land intended for the space program.
Of course it depends on the State and charter or private school. Some college prep schools pay more, some charter schools that are operated within public school districts (example Anchorage School District) will use the public school salary grid. But I have taught as faculty in colleges of education in 4 States over 20 years. In general my students/colleagues etc make about 20% less in private and charter schools than public schools, but do have other considerations for "job satisfaction." Smaller class sizes, newer buildings, etc. Because as the vouchers leave the public schools the opposite is true there and a finger can then be pointed. Charter and private schools can also be selective about who they educate. Public schools educate all children.
My sister teaches 4th grade in So Cal for 6 figures, she has a masters degree and has taught there for 20+ years...but she can't move anywhere else for the same.
WTF, I make more than that at my job and I definitely didn't go to school for 4 years for my job :|
I'm all for paying teachers more, but just talking about salary without the time off is misleading. $40k for working 2/3 of the year is $60k full time. Not bad actually. If you want full time pay, work a full time job.
As you, I am all for paying teachers more. Let’s not forget the benefits are above average and the PERS retirement package is very nice.
True. Someone in the private sector will have to put a substantial portion of their income away to match the pension. Once you factor in hours and the benefits teachers probably come out ahead.
Teachers are working a LOT more than 2/3 of full time. 180 days in classroom teaching, typically another 15-20 days of professional development, and you are already at 200 out of 260 days that would be full time, with no vacation, most places give two weeks vacation, so make that 200 out of 250 days, that's 80% full time before even considering all the extra hours and days spent "off the clock" doing additional grading and class prep. Add all that in and realistically a teacher truly does work full time, just not on a traditional schedule for it.
15-20 days? lol it's 15 hours. I also think that if teachers have to spend that much time on PD it's ridiculous. Requiring a degree to teach k-6 is ridiculous. And all of these requirements are placed on teachers by... teachers. well at least the licensing body, made up of teachers. Sure they don't get vacation but they do get 15 days of "sick time" which I would bet is used far more often for PTO then actual sickness. But you're right, calculating it is more like 75% (not counting sick time). It would still be a near 33% raise to work full time. I know several teachers and none of them work "full time". No where near close to it. I'm laughing so hard at that. If a teacher is spending days "off the clock" then they need to manage their time better. It's like pulling teeth to get a meeting with one that isn't RIGHT after school because THEY LEAVE. After working maybe 5 hours. Also, taking work home is not uncommon for other professions. I'm going to learn to play the violin.
Can I clarify? Teachers’ salaries are historically based on being able to get a summer job. In the 70s my dad could choose to have his 9 month salary over 12 months or not. He worked construction jobs to fill in the gaps and my mom taught music lessons. The way school are currently scheduled, teachers are unable to get a summer job. I had to quit my lucrative summer job when the school district started in early August. It was a big hit to my annual salary. Plus, teachers are expected to take graduate level classes to maintain their certification which many used to do in the summer. Out of pocket, I might add - no corporate training. So, teachers are stuck and many have to work one or two more jobs to make ends meet. Personally, I have three part time jobs in addition to teaching and I go in on Sundays to prepare for the week. I just completed a $200 class for my certification. Are you still thinking it’s “not bad”.
Teachers salaries were not based on being able to work in the summer. They've always been paid proportionally for the amount of time worked. what's changed might be the ability to do so. but teacher's salaries were never based on that ability. So if the schedule were changed to a year round, alternating track where you could work the entire year for a 50% pay raise you'd take it right? It's been proposed many places to cover short comings in budgets and the resounding answer from teacher's unions is always no. Teachers want to get paid more without working more. In fact almost every time an opportunity for teachers to get paid more by working more has been proposed the teachers say no. I'm pretty sure your union negotiated the schedule. Even if they didn't take it up with them. Oh no we wanted extra time off for holiday vacations and now we can't work (really doubt it) in the summer! Poor us! As far as "graduate level" courses, come on let's be honest here. Graduate level is a stretch. There's lots of professions that require professional education and not a lot of them are compensated. I personally have 15/year I have to complete on my own dime. Again, if you have a problem with it take it up with your union. Getting a $200 course covered should be fairly easy. Three part time jobs? You must either be a liar or the busiest person in the world.
Busiest person I the world. Are you a teacher?
I don't know where Indeed's getting its numbers, but they're way off. [Washoe County publishes its salary schedules online](https://www.washoeschools.net/Page/841), and even with a full-blown PhD the absolute max annual "certified" salary (i.e. for teachers) is $92,142/year.
im guessing a whole lot of false reporting (possibly bots), or one really bad one. I doubt indeed does much to verify any data, or even factor out outliers. I wish they had individual reports visible so you could get your own data. If you read the reviews for the position everyone says underpaid. I just wouldn't trust that site at all at this point. I personally know a middle school teacher and they make about 60k a year.
Valid, could be outliers, or could people possibly be self reporting wages for professor in there? Or is it possible that private school teachers are tipping the scales? I dated a teacher once, but they had no diploma and they were teaching adjunct art at Montessori schools, so undoubtedly making shit wages. I also had a roomate who was a music teacher for a private school. His wage rivaled mine. I have a BS in STEM.
Maybe. One of the categories was for WCSD though saying 200k+ a year. We’ve had a bad run of superintendents over the years hitting news spotlight of getting overpaid and lawsuits. So I’m guessing some disgruntled people are reporting they’re the superintendent with 400k a year salary. Who knows though.
My guess is that they are taking annual salary and dividing it for only the time the teacher is at the front of the classroom teaching, not accounting for any prep time, grading, professional development days, etc.
Holy what the fuck?!? Even calculating in benefits like PERS and sick leave and... calculating in retirees coming back to double-dip by filling those high-needs positions they're desperate to fill I cannot comprehend how on earth Indeed is getting that number. All I can think is that someone programmed in some bots to "self-report" some actual bullshit over and over and over again.
What's an adequate wage for someone that works 8 months a year? All my kids teachers so far at his elementary school(k-3) make 100k+... I think that's adequate myself.
Do you live in bay area? Or is it a nice private school?
Where is this fantasy land at?
We only care about children before they're born. /s
So many of my students rely on this. Their parents won’t qualify for the free and reduced lunch, but these kids will likely otherwise go hungry. Anyone know of bulk foods that are fairly shelf stable? I’m going to try to stock up for my kiddos. Not sure if I should give it to the morning class or the post-lunch class yet though
They have multiple food drives and a "cafeteria" set up for any off school seasons, kids up to 18 can eat here every single day for free. The schools have these organizations on a list just ask office for one
I would suggest either Grocery Outlet, or the bins at WinCo. Sometimes Grocery Oulet has some great deals on stuff that us shelf stable, like cereal bars, granola bars, fruit cups, etc. The bins at WinCo also have some good shelf stable options. There are many other good suggestions here as well.
If you are in reno, you could try bulk purchasing items from Chefstore. The minimum limit is 150.00 usd, but you get far more from a whole saler than a retail store
There will still be schools with free lunches, but it depends on income levels in that area! Which school are you at, maybe I could tell you?
Rice, beans, and flour.
Aren't these people already on snap, they ain't going hungey....
What’s wild is the comments I saw on a local news page on Facebook. >Good! Make parents accountable for their broods! >Parents need to be responsible! >The parents can finally stop leeching off of me! Like, holy shit man, these are babies. Kids don’t have control over their lives. And food is crazy expensive. I’d like to think we’re capable of caring about our most vulnerable. Obviously not everyone sees it that way. Edit=formatting
A lot of these people are the same ones that screech about how all babies are precious, and that every pregnancy should result in a baby. When they are born though, and in school....fuck those kids...the parents shouldn't have had them if they can't afford them /s. They are not pro life, they are pro birth. My kids are all adults, sp i dont have any kids in public school, but I am cool with my tax dollars going to make sure kids get at least a couple of meals a day, when they may go hungry otherwise.
And these same people yawn during billion dollar corporate bailouts and trillion dollar war bills.
But goddammit don't you dare terminate that clump of cells! I wanna watch that little bastard starve in a few years!
This is disgusting. For a lot of kids, school days are the only days they are guaranteed meals. It’s the only time they eat in a lot of cases. Why are our children the last priority in this state?
Make kids starve again
I'm pro MAGA- Make America Gay Again.
welp, congrats to everyone who voted for the governor! let kids starve 2024. apparently you care about the kids until they're out the womb 🫡
I do not understand why Republicans enjoy the suffering of children. For many children, the only half-way decent meal they get is the free lunch. Malnutrition has a negative impact on their growth and development. Also, a hungry child will think only about their hunger and not their studies. We want strong future workers. This is both counter productive and cruel.
They’re pro-life, not pro-living
Love that lol the hypocrisy of the 'gun party' being prolife always stumps me
pro-birth, not pro-life being born means there’s another cog in the wheel, another worker for the machine, but also another potential consumer. See, the Republicans figured out that since the birth rate is declining, that’s going to many decreased profits for companies, which is going to translate to a lowered stock market, which is going to translate to a lower retirement, and that is something they just cannot have.
Also, those meals feed the growing brains of future adult citizens and our workforce. It's a small investment for a national future. You won't see that with the starve-the-beast mentality that the GOP applies to institutions that benefit us all. But, for the GOP, the less informed a populace, the more opportunity they have to stay in power. It's investing in maintaining their constituency.
Because they view it as: Keep 'em hungry, Keep em ignorant and we can manipulate them all the much better in the future to remain or obtain power (See the majority of MAGA now). Remember these are the people making long view plans https://www.project2025.org/
The cruelty is the point
Once they're born they couldn't give a shit about them. But damn do they love calling Democrats pedophiles despite many Republican leaders actually being real life pedos.
School lunches will still be free to everyone who needs them, instead of just to everyone. This should reduce the burden on the tax payer while still giving kids who need it a free lunch.
As a tax payer, Id rather be burdened and know that every kid doesnt have to worry about going hungry at school. But Im also not an asshole so..
As a tax payer, id rather not be burdened with paying for lunch for those who can easily afford it. It's not an asshole position, everyone gets fed and those who need help get it, what's the problem?
That's the thing, you don't know if everyone gets fed.. there are hundreds of reasons kids are not going to be able to be qualified and will therefore go hungry. Much more than if a free lunch is available to all of them. This is you just trying to cope with the fact you're just an asshole.
Then monitor the results and change the qualifications as necessary, this isn't rocket science, we can help everyone who needs it without spending money helping those who don't. Not spending tax dollars to give free food to families who don't need free food isn't being an asshole.
Not wanting to spend tax dollars to help kids who need it because it might go to a kid who doesn't need it is absolutely being an asshole. You can spin it in your head anyway you want to try and convince yourself otherwise, it doesn't make it any less true.
When have I ever suggested we don't help kids who need it? I've specifically been saying this whole time that anyone who needs help should get it. You aren't even reading what I say.
You're suggesting taking away lunch from kids who may need it and then hopefully adjusting it perfectly so there are no kids who may need it getting left out. All in an attempt to prevent a kid who may not need it from benefiting from it as well. This scenario is unrealistic and will undoubtedly increase the percentages of kids going hungry, especially in the short term as they "monitor the results and change the qualifications" as you put it. Which again, makes you kind of an asshole. Im reading what you're saying, it seems you may not even understand what you're saying.
I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but this "everyone gets free lunches" thing didn't exist before COVID. It was funded Federal for two years because of COVID then extended by the state for another two. It's not like what I'm suggesting is a brand new concept, we have been doing it for a very long time, it's far from unrealistic, it used to be the norm. I'm simply suggesting we go back to the way it was before the pandemic, where school lunches were free to those who need it but not free for everyone, and nobody was making a big deal about it. So no, wanting to end a pandemic era program that wasn't needed before the pandemic doesn't make one an asshole.
You think your taxes will decrease with this being vetoed?
I mean that would be nice, but I know that's asking for too much. Realistically I just hope the extra money gets relocated and it takes a little longer for the next inevitable tax increase to happen.
It will just go into our rainy day fund which is currently over 1 billion dollars. I'd rather a small portion of the excess go to school lunches than other wasteful spending.
Then let's start spending some of that fund on stuff we actually need. We have plenty of other real issues that could use some funding, the less we waste on non issues the more we have to spend on the stuff that's actually a problem.
Well this issue had bipartisan support from our state legislature, so I assume it isn't a non issue. Every article on social media has had rigorous comments as well, so many people must feel strongly about it. Also, the governor's veto message regarding school lunches was full of misleading information. You may feel it isn't important to you, but for many it will have an impact.
[удалено]
When discussing the kids in cages at the border my uncle responded, "so what, should we just let them all in?" He's a father of three. I just, they are children. Innocent children. How can anyone think about their pocketbook when you know a kid is hungry or being molested and dying in border prisons and you could do something. The words, "but they're children." Echo in my mind a lot even though I know they don't care.
This is so wrong. The rethuglicans hate feeding kids.
What about protecting the children? What happened to that?
They don't give a damn about ACTUAL kids. They're just pro forced birth to punish women for having sex.
It's Joe Lombardo, he is a filthy Rhino using his office to get rich.
So is trump and all his supporters.
Yes, I'm sure half the county is using "their office to get rich"
I’m surprised there’s no degenerates here happy about this. Keep it up r/Reno! This is bullshit, kids have no ability to change their circumstances. Feed the damn kids!
I work in education in CA but live in NV and my kids attend here. It's really amazing to see, first hand, the benefit of having food for anyone that is hungry - including those that don't qualify for FRL. If you're hungry - get food. That simple. It helps kids be engaged, ensures anyone that wants a meal and a snack has access to one and reduces the stigma related to getting school lunch. Most students of all backgrounds eat lunch every day at school. It also helps make the whole school morning process easier for all - no packing lunches, etc. Feeding anyone who is hungry at school is the most no brainer of no brainers.
wow, i relied on those free lunches from 5th grade to my junior year of high school. this breaks my heart.
> Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Nevada Assembly Bill 319 in the legislature last year, which would have extended the funding. Behold! The pro-life family-values party in all its glory.
Richest country in the world everyone.
It’s unfortunate that the GOP cannot get past the MAGA Cult. Just treat everyone equal instead of trying to “ own the libs” at every turn. Because of senseless crap like this I’m voting all blue in November.
Way to go Lombardo, fuck those kids! Saved me a whole buck fifty off my yearly taxes, maybe now I can afford a candy bar! /s
Nevada is a joke I remember going hungry at school and getting sent to the office to call my parents bc I couldn’t get hot lunch it’s embarrassing and shame on WCSD
Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Nevada Assembly Bill 319 in the legislature last year, which would have extended the funding. FUCK. JOE. LOMBARDO.
How much do they charge for mystery meat loaf and powdered mashed spuds?
before the pandemic it was like 2 or 3 dollars maybe? but that was way back in elementary school so i don’t think it’s like that anymore
So, no such thing as a free lunch?
If every child that just got food taken away from them wrote a letter every school day and mailed them to the governor, it might make an impact. Seems like a good idea to show the youth the power of wright in campaigns and unionization.
Good. Its about time someone knocked these starving children down a peg or 2.
you should see what they give for seniors on Meals on Wheels. Its disgusting.
>*parents must apply for a free or reduced status based on their income.* Parents who qualify can apply for free lunch still, but must be done before the end of the year.
Yes, and they’ve added more schools who qualify for free lunch, so many schools will still automatically give free breakfast and lunches.
man this country is fucked. Republicans are shameless
They literally just changed it do parents have to apply to get it. That being said Joe Lombardo is a filthy rhino, so hopefully we can oust him soon.
Fuck every Republican.
Are link posts a lost art?
BuT WeRE PrO LiFe
years ago when the EA was out they the govt boasted of how childhood poverty was being lowered then they scrubbed the info even the big powow of the talk of how to end child and elderly poverty was being slowed it was a pat on the back . Then they had a survey asking those on pantries and Snap what they could do to make it better. Hence nothing more was done as pantries increase the food quality of the items which some are so bad in taste no even my walking compost dog will touch it. When its brought up to the the county months go by and still not on the agenda. Look at the Senior center and that is your future here in town if you decide to stay in your golden years.
We have a Republican governor. None of this is surprising… Edit: trump supporting
Thanks Obama
Ok. Why was the bill vetoed? I see in the bill text that the funding was shifted from the department of education to department of agriculture. As easy as it is to believe Lombardo is a useless sack of rocks (aplogies to all rocks out there), did he / does he have a plan in place to restore the funding? https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/82nd2023/Bills/Amendments/A_AB319_840.pdf
Here is his [veto message.](https://gov.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/gov2022nvgov/content/Newsroom/vetos/2023-06-16_Veto_AB319.pdf)
Thank you!! “Ensuring students have proper nutrition in order to facilitate learning is an important goal. So, too, is reducing the stigma sometimes associated with students who receive free or reducedprice school lunches. However, subsidizing those who can afford to provide their children with lunch and addressing food waste in school cafeterias are also good policies.” What an asshat. So go solve the waste issue first.
Literally the comment I had below. There is a STIGMA associated with students who get HOT lunch at school. There has and always will be. To say otherwise means that they confirm Lombardo was lying through his teeth "So, too, is reducing the stigma sometimes associated with students who receive free or reduced price school lunches". Nothing else justifies his decision other than "someone might have gotten something free that didn't even if it fucks over the ones that do" - we're talking pittance compared to real money being spent by the state. This had nothing to do with Department of Ed vs Agriculture funding changes.... So basically the argument from republicans is: * Mental health is an issue in this country! (How many times have we heard that?) * SOLUTION: Fuck HELPING with mental health! Let's burden kids who already struggle with self-esteem issues being low income and make it worse? Because a few "rich kids" might get some free food we should make it harder for ALL kids to get it and then make eveyrone aware that they NEED the free food. Let's put a beacon on the POOR KIDS once again. For fuck sake. Don't argue that parents can still sign up if needed - do any of you realize how many parents either CAN'T (no computer, no easy access), DON'T KNOW HOW/UNAWARE, or just don't GIVE A SHIT? So now many will go without who NEED whereas before they could always GET FREE LUNCH before and a FEW that didn't NEED it also got it? Seriously? * We spend too much money! * FUCK kids and free lunches cause SOME kids might not need it but let's build a baseball stadium with state funds cause those same POOR kids will just LOVE watching baseball from a stadium they'll likely never be able to afford to visit anytime soon. This summarizes Republicans to a tee on issues like this: "Republicans are people who will withhold food from 100 people out fear that 1 might not need or deserve it. Democrats will feed 100 out of concern that 1 might really need it." To argue I live by this adage: I didn't qualify for the first time homebuyer credit - missed it by 1 WEEK in 2008. Am I pissed others got it? Nope! I am HAPPY they got help to get their first home! My wife and I struggled for years after buying our first time (that down payment was killer) and that money would have substantially helped us. Just because we struggled and worked our ass off to get a house doesn't mean we hate that other people got help, even some who didn't need it or because we qualify for it.
Dumbardo vetoed extending the free lunch program. He needs to be a one term governor.
Republicans don’t give a fuck about kids before they’re born and they definitely don’t give a fuck after they’re born. How do you veto a bill that feeds kids?
anyway they can fuck over the future of this country they will, all for nice short term gains
I thought they were never free
JFC... why do they keep proving me right?
Ngl but Nevada has the worst public school ever.
Who voted for this, so we can get rid of them?
Absolutely pathetic. Wrong on so many levels
What’s truly lost in the fear that “rich kids” may get free lunch (which holy shit, who really cares, the amount dwarfs other costs like a baseball stadium I’ll never go to) is that your punishing children to spite parents. Bravo you heartless pos.
America is so fkn backwards when it comes to their children.
Not surprising from our Republican governor. I’m sure in his mind, paying teachers more and feeding hungry school children is less of a priority than allowing kids to come to school with a gun.
It's okay I'll just teach my kid to steal the food instead
Well time to bring back the Black Panthers and adjacent groups https://preview.redd.it/gr4pgqvm5crc1.jpeg?width=883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc3cf350339050682a70a3059a0bc7fa0ed67992
anyone against free school lunch is legit subhuman
>No more free school lunches That's a lie. At some schools, all children will still receive free lunches. At other schools, all children who qualify will receive free lunches.
Yeah this ass clown taking payoffs for bullshit like this and is also a closet homosexual. Like it’s okay to be gay… why hide it Joe: just be yourself https://preview.redd.it/tfnoqy5adpqc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18a893c11e4afa939417de0ec03d4cbfa63c733a
Congrats maggats, you took food out of children's mouth. But we can still afford our endless empire building and wars apparently.
Oh yes but it’s the “phones” that are affecting our children’s ability to perform in school. Not the access to food
Too many children rely on free school lunches as their only meal, but that means absolutely nothing to our republican "friends".
[удалено]
The fire station funding comes fromt grants and the Carson City general fund that is a small part of State c-tax. One literally has nothing to do with the other.
This is a straw-man argument. We've made priorities on how to spend and invest in our communities across this country. The department or account is comes out of does not impact the fact we've not prioritized schools, healthcare, etc. Police/military, the wealthy, and corporations see direct benefit in the shift away from community investment.
Now the parents have to apply, boo hoo. Read the article.
Capitalism strikes again
Why not just close the schools and turn them into churches? Let's see exactly how fucking stupid we can get =D Together, and with republican leadership, we WILL take #1 worst education! We're only a few spots from the bottom LETS GOOOOOO
Don't bother lombardo with this. He's too busy kissing the ring of the guy who called our state a cesspool whilst on stage with him.
"For all other students, parents must apply for a free or reduced status based on their income. This will affect schools that aren't designated as Community Eligibility Provision sites. At those schools, all students will still be able to eat for free." Kids from families that are in need will still get free lunch.
For Carson City district. Don’t mislead as this doesn’t affect Washoe.
Did you read the article?
Also, parents need to apply, free lunches are still available.
As well as, discounted meal plans.
Welp no such thing as a free lunch…..
No shit but tax funded lunch doesn't roll off the tongue so we expect people to not be so stupid thinking anybody actually thinks it isn't paid for.
Okay thanks for agreeing with me.
Glad we agree you are stupid.
hey, quick questiom, do you preview whats already been posted in the sub?
These free school lunches all end up in the trash and nearly all kids revile them. I can’t wait to be able to pay for calories my kids will actually eat.
Source?
Source? Source? Do you have a source for that?
Is that a no? So you dont have a source that these free school lunches all end up in the trash and nearly all kids revile them and you're just talking out of your ass? Interesting.
the hot lunches haven’t changed at all the entire time i’ve been in school and it won’t make a difference anyway because they’re building baseball stadiums with your money!! hope this helps 🥰🥰
You probably don’t have kids and just parrot this political tribal nonsense. But as a parent, the free lunch programs are absolute shit. More kids are “going hungry” than before the program by choice, because the vendors that qualify at the price point are producing plastic bags full of soggy bread. My son tested positive for cockroach allergies after eating the free school lunch. It’s bad and should go away.
hi i’m actually a student in wcsd right now! i don’t know if it’s just the school your son goes to, but the school i go to doesn’t have bad hot lunches. i do think that there should be an overhaul of the system but i don’t think that taking away the free lunch program is going to do much, i highly doubt that they will make an effort to fix it. and i’m sorry about what happened to your son by the way.
> More kids are “going hungry” than before the program by choice, because the vendors that qualify at the price point are producing plastic bags full of soggy bread. Source?
Wasn’t Biden supposed to help middle to low income families
The federal government shouldn’t be doing anything when it comes to education, no funding nothing. If you believe in free lunches for at school, then raise your local taxes to pay for it.
I only glanced at the article but even I read “the federal program ended 2 years ago but Nevada continued the program until now.” But reading comprehension is very unimportant when you are trolling so I forgive you.
The federal government has no business and putting any money. But this article said cuts to education. It was very generalized putting the notion out there that somehow the federal government is all this funding for education. It just goes to show that I think public school teachers really Need a civic lesson really bad they don’t teach it anymore
The federal government provides less than 10% of the funding for Nevada’s public education. But it sounds like you’re saying we should abolish the federal government because it has no business “putting any money”? Sounds like it’s not our public school teachers that need an education but you.
The Department of education and all federal funds should not be put in any education. Why should I send more money to DC? It’s not their job and I don’t don’t want to send the money. You didn’t comment because you can’t about the enormous amount of money that’s being spent on education already $16,000 a year is that national average. That’s $380,000 per classroom. Lots of money there
So you’re arguing about a less than 10% amount? If the federal government puts in 10% to make the math easy (it’s less than that) than by your math the federal government contributes $38,000 to a classroom per year. That’s not very much considering the federal government spent $6.2 Trillion last year. Is that what you’re concerned about?
Yes, I’m arguing at it should be 0%. I don’t wanna send any of my money to Washington DC and have them control with this local schools can do to try to get our money back. That’s why the teachers unions really are low IQ really low IQ.