<p>Thank you for posting this. I read the entire series in one sitting, and then shared it with my son.</p>
<p>He is working at a similar urban school, and was struck by the similarities he sees in the children he works with. The children he works with are beautiful, bright, and eager in kindergarten, and by fourth or fifth grade they seem to turn a corner. Family situations are sometimes heartbreaking. Kids loose skills over every school break.</p>
<p>For years I have thought that public boarding schools would be effective, and ultimately would save money. </p>
<p>The loss of the grandmother’s ashes almost sent me over the edge.</p>
<p>I’ve just read the last two installments. The story of the dead baby was gutwrenching. I’m glad that Dasani’s family has a nice place to live, for the moment. As others have mentioned, the glare of the NYTimes spotlight undoubtedly had a lot to do with this, and with the reforms at Auburn. We all know that there are thousands of other families with the same problems, who were not fortunate enough to attract the attention of an extremely talented and compassionate writer. Dasani has some advantages. She is beautiful, intelligent, talented and determined, and we all hope that this and the help the family is getting now will be enough for her to succeed. </p>
<p>There is already a great deal of money being spent to help people like Dasani’s family. It is clear from the articles that this money is not being used effectively. The agencies responsible for managing it appear to be staffed by incompetent or even criminal people. </p>
<p>One thing that I find striking: many people I know have fewer children than they wanted. Most people have to make decisions about how many they can support, financially and otherwise. The few very large families I know of now (leaving aside the Duggars) are wealthy. When middle and upper-middle class parents accept the need to limit family size, why shouldn’t poor people have to do the same thing? Of course, there is no humane way to enforce family size limits. But it seems to me that much smaller families are the first step in solving this overwhelming problem.</p>
<p>I’ve read a few comments on the articles. As usual, the NYTimes commenters are thoughtful and intelligent. I loved this comment:</p>
<p>“Stories like these remind me of a question I have pondered for a long time: for all of the talk about the importance of taking personal responsibility for breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness, what exactly do we define as the magic turning point in a person’s life that they should be able to overcome horrific circumstances like Dasani’s? What is the exact point that an inability to do so is considered a moral failure? …
I am not advocating that we absolve anyone of personal responsibility for their life choices. But I do think we need to have a little more compassion that the bridge between a childhood of suffering and an adulthood as a functioning member of society is all too frequently in disrepair. And it’s a hard one to cross if you haven’t ever seen anyone go before you.”</p>
<p>You realize there are many ways good-hearted people can become involved, programs that do exist that many of us could commit to. Fostering, becoming a committed mentor (as with CASA,) Big Sisters/Big brothers, in-school volunteer, after-school help at a homework center, opening your home to a summer Fresh Air Fund kid. I’m pretty sure a few here could help pull together a good list. I mean our engagement, not just our donations. Think about it. Compassion is just the starting line.</p>