At my kids lunch the basic lunch is still a bargain and free or reduced for many kids.
However schools have “a la carte” items that are priced higher on the side (ex. cookies and deserts) and kids want those items added on.
In your above example the cafeteria worker broke a rule. Maybe her punishment was too hard, I dont know. Maybe she had done this too many times. Maybe she was showing favoritism. Maybe their was claim of racial bias (it happens). I do know lunch programs still must show a balanced budget and if it doesnt, well vendors and workers still have to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.
This is part of the trend of schools contracting out things like payroll and IT services. Recently our local school district outsourced its substitute teacher program to Kelly temp services (and EVERYONE hates it). The woman in the above article was fired by the contractor.
Yes this lowers costs by reducing payroll but at what cost to quality?
This lawmaker wanted to make the kids that got free school lunches sweep floors and wash dishes because learning that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” is a more important lesson that actual schoolwork. Go Republicans!
Outsourcing to the lowest bidder is the reason. I’ve seen it, one school district even doesn’t have it’s own kitchen and depends on bids for companies to bring food in for the kids, which realistically means that in addition to being flavorless it is also cold by the times the kids get it.
In another school district lunches (and breakfasts, and afterschool meals for those who attend that free program), are totally free for the students. For all students, rich and poor and inbetween, There is no way to pay if you wanted to, however, though there are choices, it’s a standard sized meal, so if you want more then they serve you are SOL as you cant get more even if you can pay for it, or you can bring it from home.
It’s also a way to feed kids that aren’t economically disadvantaged a hot meal that parents don’t have to screw with. It also provides cheap/free meals to those that are poor. The program does more than one thing.
What in that article makes you think the student in question is economically disadvantaged and qualifies for federal subsidy? I’m not seeing anything.
When I worked for a child advocacy group, we claimed a pretty damn well off school district had a huge percentage of students who qualified for “free or reduced price lunch” (aka FREEP.) A reporter called the school district to verify our claim, and their replay was, “I’m surprised the number is that low.”