A recent Mlive article by Monica Scott called "50 Michigan school districts with the most homeless students" was quite enlightening as to a problem of our area that isn't looked at often enough.  Surely enough, Ludington Area School District (LASD) was among those 50 school districts with the most identified homeless students, with 200 amongst a student population of 2154 (9.3%).  Effectively, if you had a representative class in Ludington schools with 22 students in it, you would be expected to have two of those students be homeless for all or part of the school year.

And if that seems to be a high rate, then you would be correct because even though there are 23 districts with more homeless students reported than the 200 for LASD, only three of those have a higher rate of students being homeless (if you don't count a private charter school called Covenant House Academy in Detroit that specializes in matriculating homeless and at-risk students).  The two highest of those three are not that far away, being in neighboring counties of Oceana and Newaygo:

Hart Public Schools:  228 homeless, 1350 student population. 16.9% homeless

Grant Public Schools:  247 homeless, 1846 student population.  13.4% homeless

Oddly enough, in areas that Mlive has identified as the 10 worst areas for homeless in MI their rates of homeless students in their areas public schools seem to be manageable and a bit less than Ludington's Grant's and Hart's (which is melded with other rural areas into second place):

10.  Ann Arbor 1.7% of students are homeless

9.  Saginaw  not on the list

8.  Kalamazoo  6.9%

7.  Flint  7.9%

6.  St. Claire Shores  not on the list

5.  Pontiac  9.1%

4.  Lansing  6.4%

3.  Grand Rapids  3.8%

2.  Balance of State (non-urban areas including Ludington, Hart, Grant)

1.  Detroit  1.3% 

So rural areas have a general homeless problem second only to Detroit, and among those areas, and urban areas, Ludington public schools has a homeless student population rate that finishes fourth in the state.  The state where homelessness has grew much more than other states in the last decade:

Let that sink in while you consider that five out of nine voting adults in this Ludington school district voted in May to take $100 million dollars out of the hands and control of individuals currently with homes/businesses and invested that fortune in upgrading and constructing new public school buildings.  They achieved this without making much of a case about why the existing schools were not adequate for instruction or safety, or could be with a much smaller investment.  No mention was ever made in the marketing of this proposal as to how it would affect the homeless of the area.

It was so easy to let big architecture and construction companies over a hundred miles away make those decisions for us, take all that money away from our county, and for our school district to overlook the homeless student problem in order to divert the local resources to get them costly and unnecessary purchases made without proper competitive bidding. 

While nearly one in ten of their students, likely to grow in number, fail to have an apartment or a home to call their own.  

Views: 659

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How do the school systems know the students are homeless and under what conditions they are living. This sounds like another made up scenario so lefties can start new programs and soak the tax payers. This reminds me of the feed America scam where they say 1 in 6 children go hungry. Anyone can get food stamps. If kids are hungry it's because of bad parenting. If students are homeless it's most likely because of a bad home life caused by bad parents. If I've learned anything it's that there are very few bad kids but there are a whole bunch of bad parents.

I had to re-read the article about the 50 schools with most homeless students and do additional research to answer your question, one which I also had when writing this.  Homeless students, as defined by the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, are those who “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”  This includes:

(a) Children sharing housing due to economic hardship or loss of housing;
(b) Children living in "motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camp grounds due to lack of alternative accommodations"
(c) Children living in "emergency or transitional shelters"
(d) Children whose primary nighttime residence is not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation (e.g. park benches, etc.)
(e) Children living in "cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations.

One would suspect those children (and appropriate caregiver) would be using assistance programs that pertain to their 'homeless' status, rather than just self-identifying themselves as homeless to somebody from the government going around the school asking such questions.  One could try to justify Ludington's high rate by rationalizing that the local homeless service providers are proactive, but that may be a stretch.  

I am suspicious that Hart's outlying status may be as a result of the influx of transient labor that arrives to handle the asparagus season each spring for up to a couple of months during the school year, and that Ludington's and Grant's numbers might also get inflated for that very reason.

I've been getting a lot of ads featuring "No school means no lunch" on the sides of my social media that allow ads, unlike the ad-free edges of the Ludington Torch.  They feature the mug of a depressed looking child and you're supposed to think that they are not getting fed.  Yet, some of the chubby-cheeked kids they show could probably miss quite a few lunches and still be okay.  People with extra time and money need to help out some of our deserving neighborhood families that could use that little help in these trying times.  If you need help connecting, be advised there are at least 200 kids around, they shouldn't be that difficult to find.

   Can't say it all bad parenting as the kids get up and actually go to school. Free lunch might be a motivation though.  As Willy stated , another fake report that someone dreamed up. Not saying that it's all false but put in a few more categories and get more homeless 

   

The reduction in homelessness was exaggerated by the Granholm administration when Jenny made Michigan the welfare magnet state of the Great Lakes. Michigan offered the best benefits of surrounding states, we attracted a new block of Democratic voters which subsequently lead to our one state recession.

When Michigan changed governors, the benefits were changed to be more in line with surrounding states, the economy improved and homelessness became less as issue. That and the rebounding national economy lead to the 68% reduction in the homeless.

It will be interesting to see what happens under Gov. Gretch's administration, my money would be on her returning Michigan back to a welfare magnet state and a rise in the homeless which she will try to blame on President Trump. 

I knew a family that came all the way from Idaho to get Michignan's generous benefits. That was during Granholm's social experiment. They were a family of 6 and they even bragged about why they came to Michigan. Now the entire U.S. has become a welfare state to illegals. It has to stop.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service