Educators raise alarm about childhood hunger
Why it matters: The growing fears among educators come at a time when food prices remain high five years after the onset of the COVID pandemic and a growing percentage of Georgia public school students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches.
The big picture: Proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal food assistance program serving more than 41 million Americans, could exacerbate an already dire issue, experts say.
Around 40% of SNAP benefits go to children, per USDA data.
What they're saying:"SNAP is one of the most effective tools we have as a nation to address childhood hunger," Sarah Steely, director of No Kid Hungry Virginia, told Axios.
"It provides families with that extra help to put food on the table so that kids can have access to consistent nutrition all year round, especially filling the void during school breaks."
The latest: Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) of teachers said they were concerned about food insecurity in the communities where they teach, per a survey of 1,000 K-12 public school teachers.
It was commissioned by meal kit provider HelloFresh in partnership with No Kid Hungry, a campaign focused on ending childhood hunger.
"Teachers are sounding the alarm that the state of hunger in this country and in their classrooms is really unacceptable," Steely said.
Zoom in: 67.5% of public school students were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch as of Oct. 1, 2024, according to Georgia Department of Education data.
That's up from 63.7% reported on Oct. 1, 2023 and 59.3% documented a year before that.
Flashback: A federal program that provided free school lunches to all students, no matter their household income, came to a halt in 2022 when Congress didn't continue the pandemic-era waiver.
Georgia opted out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Summer EBT Program, which would have provided free summer lunch to students in low-income households.
House Bill 60, which would have provided free meals to Georgia students, failed to gain traction during this year's legislative session.
The Georgia Department of Education does have a Seamless Summer Option, under which districts can opt in to provide free meals to students.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
In the US, a factual National Archives still exists — but for how long?
When I arrived in New York City two years ago — a Russian journalist fleeing my country after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine — I was routinely asked: 'Do all Russians support Putin?' A good question, perhaps, but I'm unable to provide a fact-based answer. When a regime like Russia silences the press, takes control of all branches of government and installs loyalists to oversee historical records, the truth quickly disappears, becoming accessible only to the ruler's inner circle. Since Trump's inauguration, conversations in the U.S. have changed. Now, when I meet Americans, they rarely mention Russian politics outside of the Ukraine war. Instead, they share their anxieties about their own country, often with a nervous laugh. I recognize that laugh. In Russia, independent journalists and human rights activists spent years laughing over worst-case scenarios — until every single one of them came true. My Ukrainian friends have become masters of gallows humor. Then Americans ask: 'What should we do? What advice do you, who have seen this happen in your country, have for us here in the U.S.?' This again makes me laugh, given we weren't exactly successful in stopping our own dictator. Still, hindsight does provide some clarity, and while I don't have immediate solutions, I do have two urgent suggestions: Safeguard your independent media and defend your national archives. The war in Ukraine shows how, without a strong independent press and by employing a warped version of history, a dictator can act however they please. While outsiders struggle to understand how Russians accept Putin's justification for the invasion as a mission to 'de-Nazify' Ukraine, a country led by a Jewish president, or as the reclamation of historically Russian territory (a claim that quickly unravels under serious historical scrutiny), the reality is that within Russia these narratives are now embedded in the national story. This is the result of a deliberate reshaping of the historical narrative by the government. Putin's first steps in controlling Russia's narrative was dismantling the post-Soviet independent media. It began with television, shuttering the independent NTV channel under the pretense of a business dispute. He then tightened his grip on the media through laws, including the ' foreign agent ' designation, jailing reporters he disagreed with. Three days after invading Ukraine in 2022, he imposed military censorship, forcing over 1,500 journalists into exile. Today, it is illegal for journalists to contradict the government's version of events. This is why, in 2023, a few fellow exiled journalists and I launched the Russian Independent Media Archive: to preserve the fact-based journalism the Kremlin was so intent on erasing. Today, the archive holds 3.5 million documents from 131 (and counting!) independent national, regional and investigative outlets dating back to Putin's first years in office. Designed to resist takedowns and censorship, with a powerful search engine, the Russian Independent Media Archive is open to all, empowering readers, researchers and historians to challenge propaganda about a particular era with truth, and to answer questions with verified facts. Others are better placed than I to say if a similar closing down of free speech and independent media is possible in the U.S.. The signs are certainly there in the Trump administration's accelerated book banning campaign, ending federal funding for NPR and PBS and shutting down Voice of America. Beyond that, Trump has unleashed a wave of chaotic actions that have directly harmed innocent people and disrupted businesses both in the U.S. and around the world — from mass deportations and abrupt firings to sweeping tariffs and threats of international conflict. Amid this endless barrage of harmful actions, one seemingly benign yet potentially extremely dangerous move risks slipping by unnoticed: Trump's bid to take control of the National Archives' leadership. Putin closed Russia's archives stealthily, cloaking his actions in language that maintained an illusion of transparency. In 2004, he signed a Federal Archives Law restricting access to anything labeled a 'state secret.' Today, that list includes 119 broad categories — enough to conceal almost anything from public view. As a result, we Russians no longer have access to a trusted record of our country's past. If Americans know the National Archives, it's usually as the home of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But it's much more than a home for documents. It safeguards billions of records vital to government transparency, public accountability, historical preservation, veterans' services and the integrity of elections. These documents hold facts upon which a great many important decisions are made. If access were restricted or content altered or erased, as is already happening on numerous government websites, truth, as in Russia, begins to disappear. For as Orwell presciently wrote in 1984, 'he who controls the past controls the future.' Covering tracks, destroying evidence, blocking websites, interfering in elections, distorting history — it's hard to say who does it better, Putin or Trump. But there's still a crucial difference between my country and yours: In the U.S., your institutions are intact enough that if I ask, 'Do all Americans support Trump?' you could still answer based on facts. The question now becomes: For how much longer?
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump order aims to make it easier to remove the homeless off the streets
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order making it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets and get them treatment elsewhere. The order also calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others,' according to a White House fact sheet. On the surface, it's framed as a solution — but underneath, it represents a troubling expansion of forced institutionalization, with few real answers about long-term care or housing. Trump's recent executive order on homelessness, which prioritizes forced relocation of unhoused people to treatment centers and penalizes open-air encampments, reads more like a campaign tactic than a compassionate or effective public policy. While public frustration around homelessness is understandable, this order channels that frustration in the wrong direction — targeting symptoms instead of causes, and people instead of systems. Framing homelessness as a threat to public safety rather than a humanitarian crisis is not only dangerous — it's inaccurate. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe …' This kind of language paints unhoused people as violent offenders, despite studies — like one from the University of Central Florida — showing that unhoused individuals are typically arrested for nonviolent infractions like public intoxication or shoplifting, not for violent crime. In fact, research shows they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Trump's approach to homelessness relies on institutionalization, encampment sweeps, and prioritizing states that crack down on outdoor sleeping. But it offers no real investment in building or preserving affordable housing — which experts across the political spectrum agree is the core issue. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said it best: 'Trump's expected actions are reckless, expensive, and make homelessness worse. … Real leaders focus on solutions, not on kicking people when they are down.' Supporters of the order argue that it gets people into treatment, but forced treatment rarely leads to long-term recovery — especially when it's divorced from stable housing. Research has consistently shown that Housing First, which prioritizes placing people in permanent housing before mandating treatment or sobriety, reduces homelessness by up to 88 percent and lowers costly emergency care visits. The problem isn't that Housing First failed — it's that we've underfunded and inconsistently applied it across the country. This order also disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities — groups who are already overrepresented in the unhoused population. And in cities like D.C., where Trump is directing federal agencies to evict people from public parks, the move will simply push people out of sight, further away from services and case managers. A few high-profile, tragic incidents involving homeless individuals should not dictate national policy. Fear should not be driving our response to poverty. If we want real results, we need real solutions: housing, mental health access, wraparound services — and most importantly, humanity. Homelessness isn't a crime. And treating it like one won't solve it.
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance Chances of Beating Leading Democratic Candidates in 2028—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Vice President JD Vance held a narrow lead over three potential Democratic presidential candidates who have led recent surveys of the 2028 primary, according to a new Emerson College poll released Friday. Newsweek reached out to Vance's office and each of the candidates for comment via email. Why It Matters Vance, President Donald Trump's second-in-command, is viewed as a potential Republican front-runner in the 2028 election, when Democrats will aim to win back control of the White House. Although the Democratic primary is still years away, prospective candidates are already making early moves, such as fundraising, building national name recognition, and traveling to key primary states to meet with voters. Early polling can provide insights into how Americans view potential candidates ahead of the election, although surveys aren't always predictive this far in advance. What To Know The Emerson College poll found that Vance held a single-digit lead over three potential candidates: former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The poll surveyed 1,400 U.S. voters from July 21 to July 22, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Of those three, Buttigieg was held to the tightest margin, with 44 percent backing Vance for president and 43 percent supporting Buttigieg. Buttigieg fueled speculation that he could run for president earlier this year when he announced he would opt out of running statewide in Michigan, where he has lived since his time in President Joe Biden's administration. Newsom, who traveled to early-voting primary state South Carolina this summer, received 42 percent support against Vance's 45 percent, according to the poll. Vice President JD Vance participates in a debate in New York City on October 1, 2024. Vice President JD Vance participates in a debate in New York City on October 1, Ocasio-Cortez, who is a favorite of many progressives, received 41 percent to Vance's 44 percent. Ocasio-Cortez hasn't signaled she plans to run for president, and is also speculated to be a potential Senate candidate against incumbent New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. It notably did not ask about former Vice President Kamala Harris, who has not said whether she plans to run again. She is also reportedly considering a bid for California governor. The poll also found that 47 percent of respondents disapproved of Trump's job performance, while 46 percent approve of him so far. An Overton Insights poll released last month showed that Harris would have a slight lead over Vance, with 45 percent of respondents backing her and 42 percent supporting Vance. That poll surveyed 1,200 registered voters from June 23 to June 26, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.77 percentage points. What People Are Saying Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, wrote in the polling memo: "A key takeaway from the ballot tests is that about 13% of the electorate remains persuadable, while the other 87% have already settled on a party preference." Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in May: "Democrats do not have the best brand around here or in a lot of places. There's a lot of reasons for that. Some fair, and some not fair." California Governor Gavin Newsom told The Wall Street Journal in June: "I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold." What Happens Next The 2028 presidential race will continue to unfold over the coming years. Typically, candidates do not announce plans to run until after the midterms, which will be held next November. But speculation about who may be gearing up for a presidential run is sure to continue.
