It used to be that kids without money were “poor”, then they became “disadvantaged” and then most recently “at-risk”. Well now a well intentioned state senator from California wants to call them “at hope” kids. “Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin says negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success…”
Now I get the intent and I am all for raising the self esteem of all kids, especially those who aren’t born with the same advantages as others. However, I think this label does nothing more than to sugar coat the problems. Kids are NOT considered “at-risk” so they have a descriptor of themselves. They are “at-risk” as a wake up call for the rest of us to get involved to make sure they continue down the right path and get the tools they need to be successful. Changing the name IMO to “at hope” doesn’t change anything but make some people feel good about their word choices.