New department seeking to take over Knox County Schools clothing center

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — A new department may be taking over the Knox County Schools Clothing and Resource Center as the Board of Education is set to consider their proposal.
In February, the board sought proposals from groups looking to take over the operations of the clothing center, which distributes clothes to more than 2,000 students each year. The proposals were considered by the Clothing Center Committee, which recommended the proposal from the Knox County Schools' School Culture Department to the board.
'Without them, I wouldn't be here' Survivor reunites with heroes who saved his life
The board will discuss the proposal during the May 5 work session and consider it during the regular meeting on May 8.
The School Culture Department focuses on the social and emotional well-being of students and looks for ways to eliminate disparities in both academic achievement and discipline. Under the proposal, school social workers would take over the clothing center.
Under the proposal, KCS will work with community partners to provide clothing to students identified by a school social worker as having a need. The social worker will then complete the online referral form, and the order will be sent to the student within 24 hours. Students will receive five outfits, one pack of underwear, and one pack of socks per semester. Items like personal hygiene products and kitchen supplies will be available as donations come in.
$700M Knox County Schools budget proposal includes additional $19.7M for staff
KCS social workers will choose the community partners. The proposal lays out that they will make 10 contacts each year to request support for the clothing center. For the 2025-2026 school year, KCS will partner with 865 Academies, Project SEARCH, and National Honor Society students to help with clothing drives and to help wash donated clothing.
In addition, the proposal says that KCS will employ two full-time employees to ensure orders are filled within 24 hours. They anticipate needing more than 10 volunteers each week, although the exact number is still being determined.
To read the full proposal, click here.
READ: More top stories on WATE.com
The center was created in 1935 during the Great Depression and has maintained operations for decades. Roughly 20% of KCS students are considered economically disadvantaged by the state of Tennessee. In October 2024, center volunteers said they were moved from their longtime location to a facility at Cedar Bluff Preschool without warning.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

8 hours ago

• Forbes

No, Once Again, The Federal Reserve Did Not Cause The Great Depression

Notorious gangster Al Capone attempts to help unemployed men with his soup kitchen "Big Al's Kitchen ... More for the Needy." The kitchen provides three meals a day consisting of soup with meat, bread, coffee, and doughnuts, feeding about 3500 people daily at a cost of $300 per day. The Federal Reserve did not cause the Great Depression. To pretend that it did is to believe that central planners dictate access to capital from the proverbial Commanding Heights, and that the central planners were 'stingy' in the 1930s. The fatuous Fed/1930s narrative raises a basic question: why are successful investors paid so well? The answer is simple: the returns from well-allocated capital are enormous. That's why there are so many well-paid investment bankers scouring the globe, and competing feverishly with each other to match the world's greatest business and business ideas with capital. The rewards from well-allocated capital are once again enormous, which is why Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute, could probably be persuaded to rethink his analysis of the 1930s from a recent book review published in the Wall Street Journal. Glock's review of George Selgin's False Dawn accepts as true the conventional, Milton Friedman view of the 1930s that the Fed mistakenly caused the downturn through what Glock described as a 'contraction in the economy's' so-called 'money supply.' Glock is focused on symptoms, not causes. To understand why, readers need only ask why as they're reading this opinion piece that there are copious amounts of dollars circulating in the New York City borough of Manhattan, but quite a bit fewer in the Bronx. Is this the Fed at work, or is there quite a bit more productive economic activity taking place in Manhattan? Crossing the country to Beverly Hills, why so many dollars in one of California's best-known cities but so few in Banning, a California town 93 miles away? Considering the above phenomenon globally, why do dollars liquefy exchange in Caracas, Teheran and Pyongyang? Did the Fed drop so-called 'money supply' into all three? More realistically, money in circulation mirrors production. It's abundant where production is, less so where production is less evident. Where there's production there's always money precisely because the rewards from matching production with capital are so impressive. As Ludwig von Mises put it long ago, 'No individual and no nation need fear at any time to have less money than it needs.' Precisely. The monetarist, Friedman-ite narrative about the 1930s that just won't die suggests that in response to alleged Fed tightness with so-called 'money supply,' private, profit-motivated sources of credit didn't respond to the opportunity of a lifetime whereby they brought capital, 'money,' and money equivalents to the world's biggest, most dynamic economy. The view isn't serious. Where there's dynamism, there's always money in abundance. To believe otherwise, as in to believe that the Fed and President Roosevelt restrained money circulating in the U.S., is for Glock and other free-market types to imply 'market failure' whereby global investors who were and are rewarded for effectively allocating capital, chose not to, fell asleep, or both. No. Not a chance. For much of the U.S.'s existence, productivity stateside has proven a powerful lure for global capital. This was true before the 1930s, and it's been true since. That's why the U.S. has always run 'trade deficits,' which were and are nothing more than a signal of the U.S.'s attractiveness as a destination for global investment. Considering the historical flow of capital to its highest use, we can then easily conclude that reduced money in circulation didn't cause the 1930s, rather it was an effect of awful policy not just from FDR, but also President Hoover. Money in circulation reflected the atrocious policy that plainly restrained production. No, yet again, the Federal Reserve did not cause the Great Depression.

Yahoo

4 days ago

• Yahoo

Trump Said a Block of His Tariffs Will Cause ‘Economic Ruination' — Is He Right? Experts Weigh In

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning on Truth Social earlier this month, declaring that if courts block his tariffs, it would mean the 'economic ruination' of the U.S. The Court of International Trade had previously blocked the action of using an emergency law to enact tariffs, per Fox Business. However, that ruling has since been paused. Check Out: Learn More: The president argues that without his tariffs, America would face hostile foreign trade practices. But is Trump's prediction grounded in economic reality, or does the evidence suggest a different outcome? Trump's 'economic ruination' warning stems from his belief that tariffs are essential to protect against foreign retaliation, per The Economic Times. He has positioned his tariff policy as crucial for preventing other nations from imposing retaliatory measures that could devastate the U.S. economy. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff vision included a 10% duty on all imports and higher rates for select countries. He promised that these measures will revitalize American manufacturing, create jobs and generate federal revenue while reducing dependence on foreign goods. Read Next: Is President Trump's claim that blocking his tariffs would lead to 'economic ruination' supported by U.S. economic history? The most notable example we have to look to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports. According to the U.S. Senate's official history, this move triggered widespread retaliation and deepened the Great Depression. While that was a long time ago, many modern economists have also warned of tariffs' negative impacts. FT Adviser explained that the ramifications of tariffs now could be more severe, as we now have an interconnected global financial system and supply chains. That being said, 'there are always legitimate goals behind tariffs,' FT Adviser reported. And the Trump administration believes these tariffs are necessary to take back the 'economic sovereignty' of the U.S. and protect U.S. workers, per The White House. Many believe that the tariffs themselves will cause many economic consequences. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has sharply downgraded U.S. growth forecasts, projecting GDP growth to fall from 2.8% in 2024 to just 1.6% in 2025. It attributes its outlook to a variety of risks, including tariff increases and inflation. 'Trump's assertion that a block of his tariffs will cause 'economic ruination' is merely his futile attempt to cling on to his disastrous economic policies,' said Meg K. Wheeler, CPA, a financial educator and the founder of The Equitable Money Project, which offers accessible financial education to support marginalized small business owners in building generational wealth in order to eradicate economic inequity. She noted that American consumers have already begun feeling devastating effects from rising prices and there have been no meaningful changes to trade due to the tariffs. Her assessment aligns with broader economic research by Penn Wharton Budget Model, which shows these tariffs will reduce GDP and cause middle-income households to lose money. However, Stephen Miran, a Harvard-trained economist and the head of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Trump, holds a different view. He told Politico that the tariffs will result in fairer trade, with the U.S. having the leverage to ensure that foreign trading partners pay the tariffs rather than U.S. companies or consumers. He told Politico that tariffs will not destroy economic activity regardless of whether tariff rates stay where they are or eventually change with any trade deals. Ultimately, some say the tariffs will benefit Americans, while others warn of negative economic impacts. But Americans will have to wait and see what the full impacts of tariffs — or a tariff pause — will be. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value 6 Big Shakeups Coming to Social Security in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump Said a Block of His Tariffs Will Cause 'Economic Ruination' — Is He Right? Experts Weigh In Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Wall Street Journal

15-06-2025

• Wall Street Journal

‘False Dawn' Review: The Mirage of Recovery

For those who lived through the Great Depression, the strangeness of it was hard to convey. The nation had suffered no great natural disaster. The farmers were still farming, and the factories were still standing. Yet there lay rotting food that people couldn't afford to buy and empty factories next to shanty towns filled with the unemployed. In 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the presidency with the promise to restore prosperity. But he and his advisors had no clear explanation for the collapse and his subsequent New Deal would amount to a series of experiments. FDR admitted to the nation that some of his proposals took the nation down 'a new and untrod path.' If they failed to 'produce the hoped-for results, I shall be the first to acknowledge it.' George Selgin's 'False Dawn' asks if the New Deal's varied experiments produced the promised recovery. In dispassionate, careful and finally devastating detail, 'False Dawn' shows that, with a few exceptions, FDR's experiments did not work. And he did not acknowledge it. Based simply on raw numbers, the case for the New Deal is not strong. Although the economy did recover from its nadir when FDR took office in 1933, by 1939 the unemployment rate was still 17%. After six years of supposed recovery, the economy was in worse shape than in any other recession of that century or the following one. The American public is right to link the Great Depression with the '30s, during most of which FDR was president.