Homeless Schoolkids
There’s a great piece in the NYT about the challenge facing school districts burdened with a surging number of homeless kids:
Charity is one child in a national surge of homeless schoolchildren that is driven by relentless unemployment and foreclosures. The rise, to more than one million students without stable housing by last spring, has tested budget-battered school districts as they try to carry out their responsibilities — and the federal mandate — to salvage education for children whose lives are filled with insecurity and turmoil.
The instability can be ruinous to schooling, educators say, adding multiple moves and lost class time to the inherent distress of homelessness. And so in accord with federal law, the Buncombe County district, where Charity attends, provides special bus service to shelters, motels, doubled-up houses, trailer parks and RV campgrounds to help children stay in their familiar schools as the families move about.
There’s a lot we could do in the United States to improve the quality of education that kids coming from troubled households receive. But it’s an inherently challenging enterprise, far beyond the task of teaching to kids who have a stable home to reliably return to every night. And there’s also a lot we could be doing to directly cut down on the number of children in poverty.
56 Responses to “Homeless Schoolkids”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 6th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
More sad victims of the Keynesian central bank boom/bust cycle.
It’s very sad that these little victims are too powerless to fight back against the Yglesias/Krugman “stimulus” onslaught on their lives and security.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Let them eat war.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“And there’s also a lot we could be doing to directly cut down on the number of children in poverty.”
Yes, like let in fewer illegal immigrant poor people.
Let’s face it, Matt is a closet immigration restrictionist. Several times per week he tees up major social problems for which the simplest, cheapest, and most effective way to keep the problem from getting worse is to cut down on illegal immigration.
Of course, he would be driven out of polite society if he followed his logic to its conclusion, but he knows what he’s doing.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
When responding to the American parents of school children protesting the president asking them to “help him” as part of his speach to school children Yglesias said — “It shows the level of paranoia that something as innocuous as the president telling children to work hard has sparked this kind of response,” said Matthew Yglesias from the Centre for American Progress, a left-leaning think-tank. “This is an indication of the lack of willingness on the part of the Republican leadership to work with the president,” he added. Source:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4e4823a-9b1c-11de-a3a1-00144feabdc0.html
So let me get this strait, Matt. Parental outrage, such as mine, that the president would reach the long arm of the government into our classrooms is an indication of Republican leadership that is not willing to work with the president? Can you spin it any more Matt?
I am an independent and do not want politicians from either party spewing their garbage in the classroom. Especially when one of the topics was “how can children help the president” which was later taken out of the speach.
However, my outrage has absolutely nothing to do with paranoia or the Republican Leadership. It has to do with my rights as a parent to keep liars (politicians) and those who would indoctrinate or do harm, away from my children.
It has to do with “Trust” in government politicians MATT. Not everyone puts their faith and trust in government politicians Matt. I suggest that you dig deep for that, so called, liberal tolerance and make a attempt to see the other side of the issue rather than attack it with false tags. If Bush tried to do a mass indoctrination of our children like obama is now, you liberals would be up in arms. And, so would I. Would that still mean we were paranoid, Matt?
September 6th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I’d like to give a good, hearty FUCK YOU to three of the four people who have commented on this thread.
We have
A) an economic idiot
B) an avowed recist
C) a faux-outraged “parent” who is indulging in rampant hypocrisy
I know the comment section here is generally pretty lame, but good god what is wrong with you dipshits?
September 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Parental outrage, such as mine, that the president would reach the long arm of the government into our classrooms is an indication of Republican leadership that is not willing to work with the president?”
No. In your case, it is just an indication that you are a moron.
“It has to do with my rights as a parent to keep liars (politicians) and those who would indoctrinate or do harm, away from my children.”
He was indoctorating your children in the beliefs that they should work hard and that they should graduate. I can see why you find that threatening.
Smarter trolls, please.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
*indoctrinating*
typo.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
So let me get this strait, Matt. Parental outrage, such as mine, that the president would reach the long arm of the government into our classrooms is an indication of Republican leadership that is not willing to work with the president? Can you spin it any more Matt?
I am an independent and do not want politicians from either party spewing their garbage in the classroom. Especially when one of the topics was “how can children help the president” which was later taken out of the speach.
However, my outrage has absolutely nothing to do with paranoia or the Republican Leadership. It has to do with my rights as a parent to keep liars (politicians) and those who would indoctrinate or do harm, away from my children.
It has to do with “Trust” in government politicians MATT. Not everyone puts their faith and trust in government politicians Matt. I suggest that you dig deep for that, so called, liberal tolerance and make a attempt to see the other side of the issue rather than attack it with false tags. If Bush tried to do a mass indoctrination of our children like obama is now, you liberals would be up in arms. And, so would I. Would that still mean we were paranoid, Matt?
Are you just trolling, or are you seriously so insecure in your parenting that you fear one speech by the President of the United States extolling the values of hard work and education could overwhelm the years of parenting you have invested in your child, abrogate their capacity for independent thought, and “indoctrinate” them? I really can’t think of any current American politician I would want to serve as any type of role model for my daughter, but I can think of few things that worry me less than this speech.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
The topic is homeless school-children and just look at some of these responses. Why not just be honest and say you don’t give a flying fuck about homeless children, you have your pet peeves to nurse and will do so at every opportunity.
Please don’t have children.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Remember the similar outrage when President Bush, President Bush, and President Reagan addressed classrooms?
No?
Me neither.
But remember, despite the fact that we just witnessed a month-long astroturf campaign in which Republican activists lied about being ordinary folks who are just terribly concerned about a policy proposal by Barack Obama, fevered paranoia about the horrors of students watching the president speak about working hard in school is a completely organic, ordinary response from America’s parents.
Uh huh.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Hey Fencedude:
The depth and breadth of your refutation of my post is awe-inspiring.
For 100 years, you regressives have been blaming the lack of government programs for poverty. When the paradigm soon shifts, it will be great sport mocking and blaming you clowns for the programs that actually caused the poverty.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Right Bob, Europe is one huge ghetto. Is this a “Someday the real world will show you our libertarian fantasy is right” statement. Or is it a “Republicans always knew what would work” but the progressive fantasy ruined it”.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You know what’s great about being a liberal?
You don’t have to invent a speculative future in order to mock your political opponents for their failures.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Obviously the posters here want to return to the good old days, when the kiddos were pretty-much required to go to work in the mills and earn an honest living. THEN they wouldn’t be homeless, by gawd, Obviously its their own farkin’ fault.
What’s that you say, joe from lowell? All the mills closed 60 years before any of these defective kids were born? That some of their parents didn’t even live in this country then? Well then its obviously the grandparent’s fault.
Jesus the stench of Dickensian social Darwinism is a truly awful smell.
Send ‘em to the workhouses, I say.
Oh and by the way, don’t let the horny teenage buggers have any information about how NOT to have any more of the little bleeders, either.
[/snark]
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/08/20/revere_parent_group_fighting_contraceptive_policy_at_high_school
September 6th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
A growing underclass is a great victory for conservatives. They have all been Donner Party fans, even if they didn’t know it. The beauty part is the underclass is silent politically. The Teabaggers are the ones just a step away from the underclass. If they fall into it they disappear. Ashamed.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Idiots. This problem is obviously the consequence of inadequate public transit, suburban sprawl zoning, and the invasion of Iraq.
For my next trick, I’ll explain how adopting my ideal policy positions on each of those issues is, in a bizarre coincidence, also a brilliant political strategy for the Democrats.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I really hope that no one posting here is in the field of education. Social, cultural, political abstraction are wonderful on the internet, but what to do any of these responses have to do with students who are homeless?
I don’t think it is a stretch to say that students who are living in temporary situations is an almost invisible crisis. The often cited statistic in the field is that a child loses 4 to 6 months of academic progress every time they switch schools. Many students who are in these types of situations are switching schools many times a year, due to unaffordable housing, length of stay restrictions at shelters, schools not wanting them, and a whole host of other reasons. I had a student last year who had been to 6 different schools by March. The academic, as well as socio-emotion repercussions of such circumstances are devastating.
I work for one of the countries largest school districts with their Homeless Education Program. We received federal funds last year, to help us address the over 12,000 and growing number of students in our district who are “homeless” (this includes double-up families). Prior to the funding, we were barely able to fulfill the requirements of the McKinney-Vento act, which provides the legal framework and funding for Homeless Education. Now we are not only fulfilling these requirements, but also have programs for tutoring in homeless shelters, youth outreach to keep students in school, and an initiate with the local housing authority to help families in our district secure stable housing.
Are there problems, yes. But there are also tangible, meaningful results, to a dire problem, which is more than can be said for many of our social ills.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
You don’t have to invent a speculative future in order to mock your political opponents for their failures.
Bobbis is actually visiting from 100 years in the future, where Reanimated Zombie Mises and Animatronic Hayek are his benevolent overlords and spiritual guides.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
The mere act of responding to your drivel was giving it more consideration than it warranted. You should feel lucky.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“For 100 years, you regressives have been blaming the lack of government programs for poverty. When the paradigm soon shifts, it will be great sport mocking and blaming you clowns for the programs that actually caused the poverty.”
There was no poverty 100 years ago? Who knew?
Smarter trolls, please.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Perhaps we can all agree that these stupid wars are impovering us.
Glenn Greenwald was excellent this week.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:21 am
So far the children are homeless because of the Keynesian Milton Freedman, because they were forced out of their mansions in Mexico by the porous border (maybe there’s too much salt on our side?), and because off-topic drive-bys are afraid of what the superintendent might say to their children.
I don’t know what Mr. Yglesias did to deserve having so many people defecate on his blog, but a toilet is a better destination for that material.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Remember the similar outrage when President Bush, President Bush, and President Reagan addressed classrooms?
That’s why the Obama administration claimed this was unprecedented? Because it had been done 3 times before? Man are you dumb.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I wouldn’t put my real name on that garbage, either.
This isn’t a question of your feelings. Bush, Bush, Reagan – they all addressed classrooms. It’s been rather widely reported, you know.
Apparently, I’m not dumb enough to have missed that.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Apparently, I’m not dumb enough to have missed that.
Apparently the Obama administration is, because they were claiming this was a first. Maybe they were just claiming that because of the study guides being distributed. “What can you do to help the president.” Oh, wait, they removed that because even they saw that as a little creepy.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:14 am
So, a politician is hyping an event, and the unique horror of that development has set you all atwitter.
You bedwetters are funny. Teh socialists are coming for your children!
I love the way you think there are a lot of you, and all of the people watching are laughing WITH you, instead of AT you.
It brings back happy memories of when Sarah Palin and the Real Americans were marching to inevitable victory. Or when the huge anti-immigrant backlash was going to doom the Democrats in 2006.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:17 am
There’s just something about Obama that sends the right wing around the bend.
What could it be, what could it be?
September 7th, 2009 at 10:33 am
It’s going to be a lot of fun watching the wingnuts try to scramble away from their opposition to this speech.
“Oh, no, I was never opposed to the president telling kids to stay in school and work hard. Perish the thought! That was, uh, some other guys. Who aren’t Real Conservatives. Why, I believe they’re leftist plants. Yes, that’s it, this whole thing was staged by Democrat plants to make conservatives look bad. Can we talk about something else now?”
September 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
So, a politician is hyping an event, and the unique horror of that development has set you all atwitter.
That’s funny. It started out as an unprecedented event, a first of it’s kind, the President addressing all the school kids at once. Then when the event got a little scrutiny, “but, but, but Bush did it and Reagan did it.”
There’s just something about Obama that sends the right wing around the bend.
I don’t know, maybe it’s that he appoints a truther and a communist as a Czar, avoiding the pesky senate confirmation process.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Not to change back to Mr. Yglesias’ original subject or anything, but I remember when I worked in downtown San Francisco in the 80’s and was used to the homeless or near homeless on the streets that I was shocked whenever there was a school holiday that was a work day for me by how many of them had their children with them on my noontime walks.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Van Jones – who exactly is making the “unprecedented” claim you keep throwing out? Perhaps you have a link or two?
A Google search for “unprecedented” and “address” shows a lot of interesting (and pretty unhinged) sites CLAIMING that President Obama’s address to school children is “unprecedented”. So far most of those claiming that the address is unprecedented seem woefully ignorant of past Administration’s “precedents” and appear to have their own axes to grind. Like you.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
A scheduled speech by President Obama will be “the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.”
Arne Duncan on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 in a letter to principals.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Not surprising you didn’t publish the link, Van Jones.
Googling on the quote gets me a lot of wing-nut sites but nothing worth trusting.
Going to the Dept. of Education web site gets me the actual announcement. Now it is headlined “President Barack Obama to Make Historic Speech to America’s Students” – but no claims about firsts, or “unprecedented”. So perhaps a bit of hyperbole, as stated earlier, but hardly the red meat you seem to think you are waving.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
http://www.ednews.org/articles/teacher-prep-for-president-obama-9-8-09-speech-to-students.html
I guess you weren’t looking in the right spot. Or is Ednews.org a “wingnut sight?”
September 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I’ll accept your apology now. Thanks.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Yep, I owe you an apology – missed ednews in the slew of nutter sites that showed up using that phrase.
Of course “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” is still a pretty innocuous statement – a bit of hyperbole at best. But rave on – and you can save lots of time by posting your actual links first.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
That’s big of you. But I’m not raving, just proving my point that you can’t have it both ways. Saying it’s the first time and then when you get some critisizm, saying but Bush and Reagan did it also.
Did you really think that I would make up a quote by the Sec. of Education?
September 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Van Jones – the whole sentence has meaning. The claim as I read it does not say this is the first time a US President has addressed school children. It says it is the first time a US President has addressed school children on a specific set of topics.
So when President Obama is attacked for addressing school children AT ALL, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that other Presidents have, in fact, talked to school children in a number of different venues, including national addresses.
So what’s your point?
September 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What did Reagan and Bush talk about? Missile defense?
September 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Let’s see, back in 1991, George H.W. Bush “in an address to students at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC, which was videotaped for broadcast to students around the country. In his remarks, the president discussed the America 2000 education initiatives and urged the schoolchildren to remain in school” – C-Span Archives.
So we have one prior case and he did cover staying in school, but since only a few students saw it live and it was videotaped for later rebroadcast the “direct” part still gives the current Ed. Sec. some cover.
Hmmm – Reagan gave a speech to students from four middle schools in the Old Executive office that was broadcast live and taped, so there’s something of a “direct” precedent but it was on economics and a plug for his tax policies, so a miss on staying in school. MediaMatters
September 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Remember the similar outrage when President Bush, President Bush, and President Reagan addressed classrooms? Joe from Lowell
Take your beef up with him.
So, initially, it was historic and a first, then, when it is criticized, oh no, it was done before. And now, you are saying it’s both a first and it’s been done before. This is a pointless exercise.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
This is a pointless exercise.
Fuck off, then, you sockpuppeteering shitlicker.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
That’s why the Obama administration claimed this was unprecedented?
What the fuck is wrong with you, you morally damaged dipshit? A post about homeless schoolchildren and this is what you get freaked out about? Right-wingers are, essentially, morally defective human beings, and I think this thread just provides a bit more evidence of that simple and undeniable fact. They hate the American people. It’s rare to see this level of sheer resentment that someone might deign to talk about the poor and instead have to use the opportunity to vent about the fringe hobbyhorses of that demented philosophy called movement conservatism in this country.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
So, in other words, there is nothing remotely novel about the president addressing school children.
It is merely the subject – persisting and succeeding in school – that is sending shivers down your spine.
Wow, that’s idiotic. Yes, persisting and succeeding in school is such a socialist doctrine, and so removed from the values of mainstream America.
You have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that there is anything inaccurate about my statement. It has been demonstrated that Bush, Bush, and Reagan addressed classrooms, and you have demonstrated not a whit of evidence that there was any outrage.
But there’s something about Obama that causes you to feel uniquely frightened. Whatever could it be?
September 7th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
People make up throwaway handles when they intend to write horse shit so embarrassing that they don’t want it thrown in their face later.
Right, Mixner?
September 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
response
You know, Mixner, I don’t think the conspicuous display of stupidity you just engaged in is quite as convincing an argument as you seem to believe.
Do you think that there is anybody who is going to read It says it is the first time a US President has addressed school children on a specific set of topics and be confused at the distinction, just because you’re pretending not to understand it?
September 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.”And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”
Patricia Schroeder, then a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, said the speech showed “the arrogance of power,” and that the White House should not be “using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education.
That was before daddy Bush’s speech. So, eat it, bitch!
Also, the reason for the Van Jones handle is obvious. It is the only way that name will ever be mentioned on this blog.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
If homelessness is the problem then take the children from their unstable home lives and place them in public care until their parent/parents can offer stability and proper nurture.
As to Oba wan Bama’s speech to students it is clear that what is unprecedented is his addressing all the nation’s public (and I assume some private) school students in a single mass feed.
And yes there is something slightly creepy about any elected official of any party doing so because it smacks of personality cult. Do we really want to further encourage that undemocratic tendency in our politics?
This is completely independent of the speech content.
Further this will inevitably tend to further politicize our educational system, a bad thing.
And the simple truth is that either party would object to an opposition president doing so just as the Democrats have in the past in lesser cases.
And they were right to do so.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
But there’s something about Obama that causes you to feel uniquely frightened. Whatever could it be?
So what was Gephardt’s and Schroeder’s problem with daddy Bush? was it his? gasp! race?
September 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
#49- you’re an idiot.
Just jumps right out at a casual glance. Quite remarkable.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Have to listen to “personality cult” after Bush. Just fuck yourself with a chainsaw.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Speaking as a classroom teacher in a terribly poor district, and a school with kids who can’t afford the reduced-price (to $0.50) lunches, I assure you that regardless of how they became poor and how anyone changes the dynamic of poverty in America, the effects are profound. I have seen or heard of students fainting from hunger. They steal food, or things to sell for money to buy food. Dynamics in a home with insufficient food leads to a range of unhealthy habits (e.g., insufficient sleep) that impacts the abilities, to say nothing of desires, to learn algebra, US history, etc. Sometimes I feel as if few of my charges are actually learning because they have scant ambition to improve their conditions (Mom and Dad are poor and *they* seem to be doing OK), leading to extremely tepid motivation to succeed in school if they even know what that means. These kids slam the door to their futures without a clue in the world, and not having the very bottom row of Maslow’s heirarchy handled is a big part of that.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Just how much of a f*ckface do you need to be to think that it is OK for children to be undernourished or homeless.
Rob, I have worked in the past with kids at an inner city school as well as in a (very poor) developing country, and what you say is very true. Undernutrition is a major factor in academic performance. As is an unstable home situation. We should try and address these problems, and those who don’t like it should go f*ck a pig.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Actually, Mixner, “the president shouldn’t be wasting resources talking to school kids” would have been a perfectly fine argument against Obama’s speech. I would have disagreed, but it would have 1) been based on something that actually exists, as opposed to idiotic theories about “socialist indoctrination” and “Obama’s army,” and 2) demonstrated that the complainer’s objection is based on an actual, if arguable, principle, as opposed to a rather obvious personal hatred that begs the question of the complainer’s motivation.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
It has been demonstrated that Bush, Bush, and Reagan addressed classrooms, and you have demonstrated not a whit of evidence that there was any outrage.
“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.”And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”
Patricia Schroeder, then a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, said the speech showed “the arrogance of power,” and that the White House should not be “using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education.
Again, eat it, bitch!
September 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html