Classroom Central supports students, teachers for upcoming school year
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: 'Supporting you': Classroom Central packs record number of backpacks for Carolinas students
Classroom Central is an organization that provides free school supplies to teachers for their students. With teachers welcoming their students back into the classroom next week, the need for resources continues to grow.
Teachers are able to go to Classroom Central once a month to shop for their students and their classrooms.
'We work with schools that have at least half of their kids receiving a meal subsidy,' said Karen Calder, the organization's executive director. 'Last year, we served a little over 200 schools. This year it's over 300 in six school districts.'
Kelly Beckham, who has been teaching for 30 years, has over 800 students because she's in her school's library. She said she can't afford to buy supplies for all of her kids.
'Prices are going up and it's becoming even more out of reach for a lot of our families,' said Beckham.
Classroom Central said teachers in North Carolina tend to outspend their counterparts in other states. On average, they spend $1,400 out of their own pockets each school year.
Angela Walker, a teacher from Union County, said she has spent thousands of dollars in the past four years. Walker said it's not just that the items from Classroom Central are free. The organization also saves time for busy teachers.
'This little bit of time is nothing compared to what I would have to spend doing it myself,' said Walker.
Donations from the community have allowed Classroom Central to have such a big impact. The organization is allowing al parties involved to focus on what's most important.
'To be effective educators and effective leaders,' Caldwell said.
The shelves need to be stocked at Classroom Central in order for teachers to get everything they need for their students.
Channel 9 is holding a special School Tools collection tomorrow from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Classroom Central is located at 2116 Wilkinson Boulevard, just outside Uptown.
If you want to help those in need, all you have to do it drive up and drop off your donation. There's no need to even get out of the car.
WATCH: Growing need: Classroom Central supports 300+ schools with supplies
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Woman in Open Relationship Breaks Down 1 Unrealistic Rule When It Comes to Cheating in Non-Monogamous Marriage
On her "Openly Committed" TikTok page, Danielle shares lessons learned from her own 15-year non-monogamous marriage NEED TO KNOW Open relationship specialist Danielle, who shares advice on her "Openly Committed" TikTok page, is addressing the issue of cheating in non-monogamous partnerships She referenced her own 15-year open marriage, which has been successful due to her and her husband's flexible and evolving rules Danielle also shared her opinions on the type of rules that aren't realistic or sustainable in a non-monogamous relationship According to one relationship expert, a non-monogamous agreement doesn't mean all extramarital activity is above board. TikToker Danielle — who does not publicize her last name in her "Openly Committed" relationship coaching practice — took to social media on Tuesday, Aug. 19, to share her opinion on whether or not it's possible for one partner to cheat if they are in a "consensual, non-monogamous relationship." She began by referring to common definitions of cheating in monogamous relationships, which can differ from couple to couple. Danielle noted how some people may draw the line at "texting or talking to an ex," while others might only associate infidelity with "an emotional or physical relationship with another person." In open relationships like her own, she said certain "rules and agreements" are often "a little bit more complicated." She referenced the fluctuating terms she and her husband have set over the course of their 15-year marriage. "Our rules have evolved and changed over that time," Danielle explained. "We've had to iterate, especially as we've become parents and changed jobs and moved countries [and] had partners with slightly different agreements that we had to accommodate." She also pointed out the difference between an "unforgivable" transgression and a breach that doesn't necessarily break up the relationship. The former situation can be due to an agreement that "might not be realistic to maintain," like if partners allow physical intimacy but prohibit anything with emotional attachments. Danielle said this is a common rule set by newly open couples, though it's not particularly sustainable. "I don't think we can control who we fall in love with. Oftentimes, physical intimacy leads to emotional intimacy, so that's one example of an agreement that might work in the short term but might not in the long term," she told her 221,300 followers. In order to fix a salvageable instance of "cheating," Danielle advised her viewers to "come together and talk about what went wrong." She continued, "How do we avoid that in the future? What do we want to do differently do? Our rules have to change." Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
E&E News
3 minutes ago
- E&E News
Feds yank ‘blanket' rule used to protect threatened species
The Fish and Wildlife Service will stop applying a long-standing rule that gives many threatened species the maximum level of federal protection. Described as a 'pause,' the agency's freeze on the Endangered Species Act's 'blanket 4(d) rule' will last until the agency formally rescinds it. The rule automatically grants threatened species the same strict protections provided to endangered species, unless specific exemptions are written. Under the new agreement, every species proposed for future listing as threatened will get its own specific 4(d) rule. Advertisement 'This is a meaningful step toward restoring the original intent of the Endangered Species Act by ensuring that regulations are informed by science and motivate recovery efforts,' said Jonathan Wood, the vice president of law and policy at the Property and Environment Research Center.
New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
My Relative Insulted My Trans Fiancé. Do I Have to Tolerate Her Intolerance?
I recently got engaged to the love of my life — a kind, intelligent, beautiful woman who shares my vision for the future. She's transgender, and I'm a cis woman. This has never mattered to me; she's simply my partner. The problem lies with my conservative family. Some of them hold hostile views toward trans people. While they've said nothing to me directly, I recently learned that one of my relatives referred to my fiancée as 'that thing' and said, 'He, she, who knows?' This relative has met my fiancée, who 'passes' as a woman to anyone who sees her. This didn't come from confusion — it felt malevolent. My relative and I already had a strained relationship, not speaking for years because of family drama. We reconnected recently, and I sent them a heartfelt message saying, essentially, 'I believe you are a good and compassionate person and would like to have a relationship.' The response was not as sincere, in my opinion, and basically brushed off my olive branch. We are both young, not even out of college. I had hoped that seeing other perspectives through education would change or at least soften my relative's thinking, but clearly it hasn't. I haven't told my fiancée what was said about her and don't plan to. I just want to know how much grace I owe someone like this relative. Am I wrong to feel that I've waited long enough for change and that, for my own peace and my future family's, it's time to move on? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: You mentioned that your fiancée 'passes' in an effort to contextualize your relative's cruelty. But, of course, no one should have to look a certain way to be treated with dignity; plenty of cisgender men and women also don't accord with the stereotypes of their gender. All are entitled to be treated according to their identity. Courtesy isn't merely a matter of manners — treating people with appropriate respect is an ethical obligation. Your relative's remark would have been inexcusable under any circumstances. But beyond the views your relative has expressed, they don't sound like someone who treats you with care or warmth. We don't owe closeness to people just because they're family. And while shared histories can make us want to offer grace, grace has its limits. You're building a life with someone you love. It's more than fair to decide who gets to be part of that life — and who doesn't. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
