As the previous post noted, the Trump administration wants to eliminate the after school program, because it doesn’t raise test scores. Budget director Mick Mulvaney said the same thing about feeding children: it doesn’t raise their test scores, so why pay for it?
Peter Greene was appalled. Is that the reason we feed children? To raise their test scores?

“Well, we’ve all seen it by now:

“There is no evidence that food helps raise test scores….

“Reformsters, this is at least partly on you. This is the logical extension of the idea that only hard “evidence” matters, and only if it is evidence that test scores go up. We’ve dumped play, understanding of child development, and a whole bunch of not-reading-and-math classes because nobody can prove they help raise test scores to the satisfaction of various reformsters. It was only a matter of time until some literal-minded shallow-thinking functionary decided that there was no clear linkage between food and test scores…

“Meanwhile, I suppose we could conduct a study that establishes that students who have actually starved to death get lower results on standardized tests. And then we could work out the increments for exactly how much food is useful for getting test results. It may be that just some bread and water are all that’s necessary (crusts only). Maybe just one bowl of gruel a day.

“Lord knows we don’t want to waste money feeding hungry children if we’re not going to get decent test scores in return. You are never too young to start understanding that if you choose to be poor, you’ll have to earn whatever scraps your betters decide you deserve.”