Didn’t you answer this question in your own OP? “Some kids are going hungry because their families are too proud.”
Is it worthwhile to try to feed kids whose parents are too proud? Yes, obviously. Is it worth infinity money? No, obviously not. How much more can be said without knowing what this will actually cost?
As I mentioned in the last thread (about mandatory school lunches), the application process for free and reduced priced lunches is a pain in the ass. And the school really really wants those applications turned in, whether or not you will qualify for FRPL or not, whether or not you intend to get your kid the FRPL or not, because they use the data on them to qualify for OTHER grants and programs (which does make me wonder how they’re going to change the bureaucracy around those other programs now that they’re dropping the FRPL program). So there was this 4 page form that they had to waste time and paper begging us to send back for weeks every year. Then there’s all the gathering and processing that happens on the school level so they know who to keep bugging and then the district level and then the state level. At least three sets of eyeballs had to go over every page of every form - and that doesn’t even begin to cover the time and expense of printing letters to the home or actually administering and running the program after eligibility is determined for each student.
Will my daughter get the free lunch her district and the USDA has decided everyone in her school qualifies for? Probably not. It’s still inedible crap, and as long as I can afford to send her with healthy fresh food, I will. But I am relieved that if she forgets her lunch or we are running late one day, she will be fed nonetheless, and it will be a little more healthful than stale prepacked plain American “cheese” on white bread (the past “kid forgot her lunch” lunch).
Well maybe if you actually read the thread you’d understand it. The question asked is should we feed the children ALREADY being fed by their parents. The ones who DON’T need charity for the sole purpose of reducing the stigma associated with applying for a “free lunch”.
That’s what the threads about. It’s not about starving babies or eating puppies.
Well it could be if the consensus wants it to be. :rolleyes:
Well, feeding all of the students does not reduce or eliminate the need for the parents to apply for free/reduced lunch. The district gets reimbursed per plate and those applications determine the reimbursement rate. All of the student lunches are subsidized. The difference is in the rate per kid.
I began my career in a district in the Rio Grande Valley. The majority of students qualified for free/reduced lunch and still needed to complete the paperwork. However, the district found it cost-effective to go ahead and give all of the kids free lunch. Money-handling has costs and it simply wasn’t worth the trouble. It was costing them more to collect the lunch money than it was just to give the lunch away.
WARNING: The following statement will make the heads of the fiscal conservatives on this board explode. Some not-so-conservatives may suffer palpitations, too.
Here’s the deal. In order for this free-lunch-for-all to make financial sense to the district, EVERY student had to be served a lunch. So, EVERY kid went through the lunch line. (Remember, the district is reimbursed for EVERY lunch and breakfast served, not just the free/reduced ones.) An alarming number of students took the lunch that was served, dumped it in the trash at the end of the line, then went to the junk food line and paid cash for junk food. Some ate lunch packed at home. (Breakfast was also free, but not mandatory.)
Honestly, as liberal as I am, this really bothered me. I’m in favor of feeding kids and I don’t really care how much it costs. I didn’t like that it did not teach the children any sort of appreciation for the resources they have been given. I have no idea if that district still does that.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Wasted food is nothing but borrowed money thrown away. There is literally no hope for this country if this is the answer to 17 trillion dollars of debt.
I’m in favor of feeding kids and I greatly care how much it costs because escalating debt eventually collapses on itself and those in need will starve.
I saw what he said. And I stand by what I said as well. And some of these kids who are being fed by their parents who CANNOT AFFORD IT, but pay anyways because they’re too proud, or too embarassed to apply for free lunches.
This isn’t “charity”. How is this any different from providing a free education for all students, even though some parents can obviously afford to send their kids to private schools? We don’t make public schools for the “poor kids” only, and tell that they have to PROVE that they can’t afford tuition.
An easy solution to this, and one which would also save a great deal of money, would be to eliminate “extra side stuff.” In this country, schools offer all students one lunch and, barring allergies or other special dietary restrictions, students all eat the same lunch. Students are generally not permitted to refuse lunch on the basis of “I think peas are gross.” (Enforcing this from an early age also means there are far fewer picky eaters here than in the United States)
They also don’t pay for their lunch at school, parents pay for it monthly as part of normal school fees and can apply for reduced rates if necessary. This removes any “stigma” because all kids get the same lunch and none of the kids are paying for it.
It may have to do with lessening the work load for whatever bureaucracy handles the applications and other paper work for the program. If a school has 500 children and 300 of them are on the lunch program anyway, well, fuck it, let’s just give the other 200 children a free lunch and forget about processing all this paper work.
I’m pretty sure the whole impetus behind selling the extras is to MAKE money. It’s the plate lunches that costs contractor/vendor money.
Also, I’m not in favor of force feeding children foods they detest. A lot of people’s palate don’t mature until young adulthood. And even if they don’t, picky eaters are not a plague on society.
And isn’t a free meal for kids actuary cheaper than a “free” education?
Says the person who never heard of “economies of scale”.
I’ll just throw this out there, once you’re no longer asking the students to pay for their meals, you can fire the cashier, sell the POS system, and no longer pay for your “lunch card” infrastructure that you get from a 3rd party.
Well maybe the babies could eat the puppies. Synergy and all.
But seriously, the think the U.S. can’t afford this? A week of Iraqi Adventure costs more.
Not to mention the likely savings from eliminating cash handling expenses and staffing.
What benefit does stigma have in the educational setting? Social science has determined that it has negative effects. I’m not aware of any research showing it offers benefits.
Research is also indicating that more and more families are losing their grasp on middle-classdom and living in areas that have high concentrations of poverty. I am not a social scientist, but I’d wager the stigma of a free/reduced lunch is greater on kids from families who were once middle-class than those who have always been poor. Imagine how it must be to go through K-5 feeling sorry for the “poor kids” who have to eat the school lunch, and your dad loses his job when you enter the 6th grade and suddenly you’re one of those poor wretches. Cousin hand-me-downs or school uniforms can obscure signs of class status in one’s physical appearance. But if you’re waving that orange lunch card around, there will be no doubt what kind of kid you are.
Kids are viscious so-and-sos. Even when they aren’t, kids are often insecure and constantly searching for external affirmation that they “belong”. You can beliieve that these factors shouldn’t make a difference to the ability to learn the 3R’s, but they do. Skipping meals is not conducive for learning. Eating junk food from the vending machine so no one knows you can’t afford a decent lunch isn’t either.
I think you “saw what he said” in the same sense that you quoted the correct poster.
As usual. Richard Parker is correct. I can’t believe we’re this far into the discussion and no one has offered up the actual cost. Now, I suspect it will be relatively small, but I don’t see how we can say yes or no without knowing the actual cost.
What’s next? Free housing for all families with school age children? Socialism is not a viable model.
They are providing some children (and most children at many schools) free lunches already. And appeals to fears of socialism are ridiculous in this context. We are talking about a socialized school system. You might as well tell the Army the private sector could do a better job.
The US has the highest incarcenation rate in the world. Just as embarrassing, it’s academic performance is also low compared to other developed countries.
If you ask me, these two things alone indicate that the current model is not working.
Some counties and city schools around here have gone free-lunch-for-everyone, even in the wealthiest parts of the counties. I have 0% problem with it. There are few better uses of tax money I can think of than providing healthy lunches to kids, even if they could otherwise afford it themselves.
I have a Republican friend who complains about the wasted tax money going to pay for lunches for well-off kids. When they only went to poor kids, he complained about “wealth redistribution” because the rich families were subsidizing the poor kids’ lunches through taxes.