Trump administration ending Michelle Obama's girls education program

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,308
USA
Perhaps because it's not about helping people in this country - and because it has an Obama named attached...

" 'Let Girls Learn' had several years of funding already baked," she said. "We were hopeful that given that, it could continue. But obviously elections have consequences, and nobody knows that better than we."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/trump-michelle-obama-girls-education/index.html

"Perdue was set to unveil a rule change "providing regulatory flexibility for the National School Lunch Program" during a visit to Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg. It wasn't immediately clear how Perdue's announcement would alter the nutritional makeup of school lunches nationwide, though health advocacy groups warned that backtracking could prove dangerous for children."

I do hope whatever is decided moves the needle forward not back when it comes to nutrition in schools.
 

DrewDaHilp1

macrumors 6502a
Mar 29, 2009
578
11,573
All Your Memes Are Belong to US
"The "Let Girls Learn" program, which she and President Barack Obama started in 2015 to facilitate educational opportunities for adolescent girls in developing countries, will cease operation immediately, according to an internal document obtained by CNN."

How about we worry about educating our own citizens before we go focusing on educating third worlders?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
school lunch program needs to be scrapped.it's a waste with plenty of it going to .........waste.

from link.
While aspects of the initiative's programming will continue, employees have been told to stop using the "Let Girls Learn" name and were told that, as a program unto itself, "Let Girls Learn" was ending.
so they are seemingly just killing the name of it.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,801
4,843
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
How about we worry about educating our own citizens before we go focusing on educating third worlders?
There is plenty of education to be had in this country for those who truly desire it.

My understanding is that this program was focused on places where education was purposely withheld from girls, like places in the Middle East and Africa. I have no idea how effective it is/was, but it's interesting that the article states that most of the program activities will continue, just not under the name "Let Girls Learn".
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
There is plenty of education to be had in this country for those who truly desire it.

My understanding is that this program was focused on places where education was purposely withheld from girls, like places in the Middle East and Africa. I have no idea how effective it is/was, but it's interesting that the article states that most of the program activities will continue, just not under the name "Let Girls Learn".
extremist groups might target those learning there , so it makes sense to remove the name from it.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,308
USA
extremist groups might target those learning there , so it makes sense to remove the name from it.
Especially if that name is associated with a successful program under Michelle Obama. Why would Trump (any of them) want a success they can't take credit for? Rebrand it and call it their own!
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat and BeeGood

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
Especially if that name is associated with a successful program under Michelle Obama. Why would Trump (any of them) want a success they can't take credit for? Rebrand it and call it their own!
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018
Malala: The girl who was shot for going to school
in other stone age areas they get shot for going to school, Kudos to M.O for helping them learn, give it a different name and keep them as safe as possible.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,308
USA
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

in other stone age areas they get shot for going to school, Kudos to M.O for helping them learn, give it a different name and keep them as safe as possible.
I'll wait to see what the new branding is called before I judge. I hear Trump U is available - and doesn't have the word girl in it...
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,801
4,843
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
extremist groups might target those learning there , so it makes sense to remove the name from it.
That's perfectly fine if that is what's going on. So why not state that? Why isn't the administration saying, "In the interest of protecting the girls the program serves from harm, we are changing the name to something less conspicuous".
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
That's perfectly fine if that is what's going on. So why not state that? Why isn't the administration saying, "In the interest of protecting the girls the program serves from harm, we are changing the name to something less conspicuous".
because you can see through cheeto hitler, he is IMHO working on dismantling whatever obama did, this may be part of it but it's only being re-branded and not killed. IIRC that was his campaign promise and he is working on it
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/01/27/how-trump-managed-to-undo-obamas-legacy-in-one-week/#217186141c4f

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barack-obama-trump-transition-executive-orders-544838

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+I+will+undo+Obama&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS520US520&oq=trump+I+will+undo+Obama&aqs=chrome..69i57.6159j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 

mac_in_tosh

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2016
352
4,553
Earth
AP reports: "New nutrition standards for school lunches were announced today: Schools won't have to cut the salt in kids' meals just yet. And they can skip the whole grains and replace the non-fat milk with 1 percent. That's the word from the Trump administration on Monday."
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
AP reports: "New nutrition standards for school lunches were announced today: Schools won't have to cut the salt in kids' meals just yet. And they can skip the whole grains and replace the non-fat milk with 1 percent. That's the word from the Trump administration on Monday."
hope kids start eating again instead of throwing it in the trash like they have been
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,121
Rock Ridge, California
"The "Let Girls Learn" program, which she and President Barack Obama started in 2015 to facilitate educational opportunities for adolescent girls in developing countries, will cease operation immediately, according to an internal document obtained by CNN."

How about we worry about educating our own citizens before we go focusing on educating third worlders?
That's a wonderful sentiment, unfortunately it's not one that this administration seems to share as strongly as you.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-education/2017/03/education-funding-outlook-bleak-under-trumps-budget-219012

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2017/03/trump_cut_teacher_funding_meaning_schools.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-03-28/trump-administration-to-request-18-billion-in-domestic-spending-cuts-for-2017

It's one thing to make cuts to educational programs abroad, it's another thing to make cuts as well to domestic educational programs, and NOT use any savings to shore up the shortfalls. That's just plain making cuts en masse to educational as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,240
quae tangit perit Trump
Read the article.

First, the argument against the Obama program came from:

...A key lobbying group, the School Nutrition Association, released recommendations earlier this month to scale back federal nutrition standards she championed and were set under the Obama administration. The group is a national nonprofit professional organization representing over 57,000 members in the school food service industry, per its website.
Second, from the article:

...Researchers in 2016 study of a Washington state school district found that the program resulted in increases in the levels of six nutrients in the schools' meals, and found that school meal participation did not change when the law when into effect.
Nutrition went up, meal participation remained steady. Its as if the few anecdotes of students complaining about the lunch room food were just anecdotes.

And, really, this is no surprise. Cafeteria food has always sucked, but the Obama-era structure tried to improve nutrition. The fact that some cafeteria decided to serve "mystery mush" is not because of the rules, instead that's because some school administrator decided to buy the cheapest thing he could find.

(My college's cafeteria was widely known as the same contractor that served prison meals, so no wonder so much of the food was mystery goop. This is how I kept myself in beer money by making Sunday chili in the dorm's kitchen and charging people for $2 for a bowl.)

Moreover, many schools used the program to build gardens and create food-to-table programs, allowing fresh organic vegetables to be included in the school lunch.

As usual, conservatives rushed for an easy way to bash the Obamas without attempting to understand the implications of the program—kids got healthier lunches.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
Read the article.

First, the argument against the Obama program came from:



Second, from the article:



Nutrition went up, meal participation remained steady. Its as if the few anecdotes of students complaining about the lunch room food were just anecdotes.

And, really, this is no surprise. Cafeteria food has always sucked, but the Obama-era structure tried to improve nutrition. The fact that some cafeteria decided to serve "mystery mush" is not because of the rules, instead that's because some school administrator decided to buy the cheapest thing he could find.

(My college's cafeteria was widely known as the same contractor that served prison meals, so no wonder so much of the food was mystery goop. This is how I kept myself in beer money by making Sunday chili in the dorm's kitchen and charging people for $2 for a bowl.)

Moreover, many schools used the program to build gardens and create food-to-table programs, allowing fresh organic vegetables to be included in the school lunch.

As usual, conservatives rushed for an easy way to bash the Obamas without attempting to understand the implications of the program—kids got healthier lunches.
anecdote on your way, at my daughters school when the wife worked there plenty ended up in the trash. this is Murika, home of honey boo boo so it's easy to see kids just dumping it & complaining.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,240
quae tangit perit Trump
anecdote on your way, at my daughters school when the wife worked there plenty ended up in the trash. this is Murika, home of honey boo boo so it's easy to see kids just dumping it & complaining.........
Sure, but how much food was rejected before the program was enacted? How was the program enacted? Did the program at that school change its contract? Did the change sustain over time, or did kids simply adjust?

In other words, what confounding variables make this anecdote meaningless?

And, moreover, if some students refuse to eat the carrots because they want french fries, should the school lunch program be about giving kids want they want, or what they need?

Again, estimates showed that kids got more vitamins and most kids continued to get lunches, and since there wasn't a sudden malnutrition crisis, we can estimate that kids probably complained for a bit, but continued eating the food.

Stop going for the easy answer. Why would a lobbying organization, along with conservatives, give a whit about the food habits of American school children?

Because they care? (Cue for laughter)

No, because the lobbying organization was working for contractors that made school lunches who believed the new rules under Michelle Obama's program made producing this food more expensive. Rather than using cheap fillers—like pink slime in "chicken nuggets"—they were required to dig up a vegetable or two. And, that hit their bottom line so they complained and turned this into political juice that "Freedom fry" conservatives were only too happy to carry.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
Sure, but how much food was rejected before the program was enacted? How was the program enacted? Did the program at that school change its contract? Did the change sustain over time, or did kids simply adjust?

In other words, what confounding variables make this anecdote meaningless?

And, moreover, if some students refuse to eat the carrots because they want french fries, should the school lunch program be about giving kids want they want, or what they need?

Again, estimates showed that kids got more vitamins and most kids continued to get lunches, and since there wasn't a sudden malnutrition crisis, we can estimate that kids probably complained for a bit, but continued eating the food.

Stop going for the easy answer. Why would a lobbying organization, along with conservatives, give a whit about the food habits of American school children?

Because they care? (Cue for laughter)

No, because the lobbying organization was working for contractors that made school lunches who believed the new rules under Michelle Obama's program made producing this food more expensive. Rather than using cheap fillers—like pink slime in "chicken nuggets"—they were required to dig up a vegetable or two. And, that hit their bottom line so they complained and turned this into political juice that "Freedom fry" conservatives were only too happy to carry.
it's a 4 BILLION "food" program, if course things got more expensive and we paid for it. my daughter took her own lunch till it was no longer "cool" to do so :( "Mija, these pendejos wish they could have a torta for lunch" oh well.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Ending the "Let Girls Learn" program is just another example of what a petty, spiteful, small-minded, short-sighted little piece of human waste Donald Trump is.

There really isn't any rational reason to do this: Most of the money comes from private sources or NGOs. The relatively small amount (<$50 million) of US Government funding is already "baked in" to the budgets. The program has had some demonstrated successes that far outweigh its costs.

In developing countries, there is a very real problem with adolescent girls being excluded from the educational system. And research has shown that keeping girls in school combats everything from over-population and poverty to the spread of fundamentalist extremism.

But Donald "grab 'em by the *****" Trump has got better things to do. Congress has just allocated an extra $120 million to provide security for Trump and his adult children. That's in addition to the hundreds of millions already budgeted for Presidential security. And $120 million is several times the annual "Let Girls Learn" budget.

The additional funding, which comes after weeks of mostly behind-the-scenes lobbying, reflects the tremendous costs associated with protecting the lifestyle of Mr. Trump and his family. And it is likely to provide relief to those who have borne the brunt of the effort — if only for the next five months, when the current fiscal year ends.
 
Last edited:

mac_in_tosh

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2016
352
4,553
Earth
hope kids start eating again instead of throwing it in the trash like they have been
So we just sink to the lowest common denominator, give the kids the cheap junk they are used to eating and seeing in advertisements and don't try to reverse the continuing rise in the cost of health care that will ultimately bankrupt the nation? That seems like a great policy.

I guess in addition to being climate change deniers, the GOP is also against well-established nutritional science. Of course, I wouldn't expect more from our overweight, junk-food loving Tweeter-In-Chief.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,025
Criminal Mexi Midget
So we just sink to the lowest common denominator, give the kids the cheap junk they are used to eating and seeing in advertisements and don't try to reverse the continuing rise in the cost of health care that will ultimately bankrupt the nation? That seems like a great policy.

I guess in addition to being climate change deniers, the GOP is also against well-established nutritional science. Of course, I wouldn't expect more from our overweight, junk-food loving Tweeter-In-Chief.
if you give the kids lobster & they throw it away, are they not hungry enough for you?
kids don't eat apples/veggies at HOME, you think they will eat them at school?