Trending
A dunce-cap debate moment is emerging in the Michigan Legislature.
For those too young to remember, the dunce cap was a go-to prop to punish kids who misbehaved in class or to separate "slow learners" from the rest of the class, dating back to its first appearance in 1624 and in Europe well before that.
One article on the use of the cap described it as having a humiliating and traumatizing impact on the wearer of the pointed conical hat with a big letter D at the base. Yet it was still common in American classrooms up until the 1950s, when it was stopped.
Today, we would describe the impact of the cap on kids with the term "stigma," which brings us to state Sen. Darrin Camelliri. The Democratic chair of the K-12 school aid budget has found what he terms is another form of stigmatization.
So he inserted $160 million of your tax dollars to provide a free breakfast and lunch for every student, regardless of family income, to address that stigma.
You'll recall that the free food federal program was originally hatched to make sure low-income children, who might not get a meal in the morning at home, would not be at a scholastic disadvantage because of the lack of getting the "most important meal of the day."
So, why expand all that to everyone?, you might ask, as someone in the legislative process did the other day.
"There is a lot of stigma around kids who receive free lunch ... and, therefore, the creation of a difference of who gets free lunch and who doesn't does create a lot of problems for the state," the school budget chair asserts.
But West Michigan Republican state Sen. Thomas Albert, who sits on the school budget committee, begs to differ.
"Probably the biggest thing I wish we'd do differently is the $160 million to buy a free lunch for everybody, regardless of whether their parents are millionaires or billionaires," he argues.
And when asked about the stigma (dunce cap) assertion, he counters: "I'd love to have a conversation about that. Provide the evidence. It's just a talking point. There is nothing behind it. There's no studies that I've seen. It's all anecdotal."
However, a quick google on the issue of non-universal lunch programs reveals a whole host of reports and papers on the issue. Congress has also introduced legislation to "prohibit lunch shaming practices" and one report on the "school meal stigma" suggests that teachers have a different attitude about those children, who can demonstrate "feelings of shame, hopelessness and isolation."
The universal meal strategy, one study says, helps to "arguably mitigate meal stigma and its consequences for students."
Back to Sen. Albert, who argues for taking part of the $160 million and diverting it into a program to give $14,000 for 4-year-olds to be in an early education program five days a week and 36 weeks a year.
"It's a heck of a lot better" to give greater access to education to 4-year-olds, he contends.
Obviously, Sen. Camelliri does not concur, which sets the stage for what one hopes will be a reasoned exchange on which approach is better.
The good news is that both sides want to do what they feel is best for the student.
But, at this read, they just can't agree on what that should be: a free lunch for everyone or a free preschool education?
How would you vote?