Schools cut lunch options for kids who can't pay

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41631002/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition


A few things came to my mind while reading this. Kids who can't pay at one school get one hot meal and then after that it's a cheese sandwich and a juice box...apparently they're going to save money serving the poor kids that instead of a full lunch of...whatever the hell they're eating today. And yet I can't help but wonder, how much more money would they save if they did away with hot lunches altogether and gave EVERYBODY, even the upper class kids, that for lunch every day?

'Take it or leave it' right? So why not give everybody that ultimatum? They'd probably save a LOT of money that way since

They want to serve their pupils nutritious meals, but they also don't want to run a deficit or take money from academic programs to do it.

right, God forbid anybody should think of cutting sports programs which they harrass the public with bake sales and car wash fundraisers all through the school year for, and using that money instead to feed everybody.

And on another hand, this is what's happening to the kids who don't sign up for free lunches and don't pay for their own...why they're not signed up, I don't know, but I also don't get how they could be getting lunches in the first place if they're not paying.

And on another hand for these kids you've got to wonder why their parents don't just send lunch to school with them. Now, there is a matter of for some kids, they have to rely on school lunches and breakfasts if they're going to eat at all that day before dinner, but I don't think this is the case with everybody. A lot of people are going on in the comments section are going on about how a lot of these parents can afford all the latest in big TVs and cell phones and all of that, but they expect somebody else to foot the bill on their kids' lunches, and I don't doubt this is the case for some of them.

All the same, I can't see how anybody benefits from the kids being punished because their parents either don't make enough money or didn't sign them up, that's the question they've got to answer, WHY aren't the parents signing their kids up for the free lunch programs? And if not that, why aren't they sending their kids to school with a lunch from home?

One thing I will say about bake sales and things like that:

I teach color guard, and I know that the money we spend we have to raise ourselves. So it's not like we're mooching from the school and taking away from kids who can't afford lunches. That's coming from our hard work. The staff already gets paid next to nothing. It's not quite as simple and just cutting funding from after=schools actitivies.

When I was in school, the only way a kid could get a free lunch if they couldn't pay was if their parents called in ahead and made an arrangement. When I was in the 7th grade, there was a kid in one of my classes who came from a low income family and had that kind of a setup. He was embarrassed and would try and skip lunch, but the cafeteria workers would actually hunt him down at the table he sat and give him food in front of everybody.

I can't believe that any district was giving regular portion lunches free of charge without any eligibility paperwork having been filled out. That setup was a way to ask for abuse of the system. Personally, I don't think the kids should be given much, if anything, if they have not signed up for a free lunch. Yeah, the kids should be able to sign up themselves to protect hungry kids from parents who don't give a damn.

A few things came to my mind while reading this. Kids who can't pay at one school get one hot meal and then after that it's a cheese sandwich and a juice box...apparently they're going to save money serving the poor kids that instead of a full lunch of...whatever the hell they're eating today. And yet I can't help but wonder, how much more money would they save if they did away with hot lunches altogether and gave EVERYBODY, even the upper class kids, that for lunch every day?

That would never happen, nor should it. Once school lunches can be compared to prison lunches the whole school lunch system will serve only low income because a majority of other kids will be brown bagging it.

And yet these kids aren't asking to be poor and unable to buy their lunch so why should they be reduced to, as it was pointed out at one school, crackers and cheese for lunch when everybody else gets something hot and dessert?


But I would STILL like to know how these kids were getting lunches without paying for them in the first place, isn't the rule if you're short you have to put something back, so if you don't have any money, how are they getting anything?

Supernova wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41631002/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition


A few things came to my mind while reading this. Kids who can't pay at one school get one hot meal and then after that it's a cheese sandwich and a juice box...apparently they're going to save money serving the poor kids that instead of a full lunch of...whatever the hell they're eating today. And yet I can't help but wonder, how much more money would they save if they did away with hot lunches altogether and gave EVERYBODY, even the upper class kids, that for lunch every day?

'Take it or leave it' right? So why not give everybody that ultimatum? They'd probably save a LOT of money that way since

They want to serve their pupils nutritious meals, but they also don't want to run a deficit or take money from academic programs to do it.

right, God forbid anybody should think of cutting sports programs which they harrass the public with bake sales and car wash fundraisers all through the school year for, and using that money instead to feed everybody.

And on another hand, this is what's happening to the kids who don't sign up for free lunches and don't pay for their own...why they're not signed up, I don't know, but I also don't get how they could be getting lunches in the first place if they're not paying.

And on another hand for these kids you've got to wonder why their parents don't just send lunch to school with them. Now, there is a matter of for some kids, they have to rely on school lunches and breakfasts if they're going to eat at all that day before dinner, but I don't think this is the case with everybody. A lot of people are going on in the comments section are going on about how a lot of these parents can afford all the latest in big TVs and cell phones and all of that, but they expect somebody else to foot the bill on their kids' lunches, and I don't doubt this is the case for some of them.

All the same, I can't see how anybody benefits from the kids being punished because their parents either don't make enough money or didn't sign them up, that's the question they've got to answer, WHY aren't the parents signing their kids up for the free lunch programs? And if not that, why aren't they sending their kids to school with a lunch from home?

We don't qualify for free lunches, but 70% of the students in our school are on it. We normally make 50k a year for a family of 7, so it's not THAT easy to qualify for them, imo. I can't imagine how all those families making less than us make it day to day.

I think that parents are busy or can't be bothered. There's no excuse really, even if you are poor but not poor enough (like us, lol) a pb&J, some carrot sticks, a yogurt and a bottle of water is a fine lunch for a kid to bring to school and super cheap.

Indeeeed, it's one thing to bring a cheese sandwich from home but when that's what the SCHOOL is giving you for lunch...when they're serving everyone else hot vegetables and macaroni and cheese and dessert and everything, I think that's pretty screwed up because if the kid can't afford to bring thier own lunch to school, they basically ARE depending on the cafeteria to eat before dinner that day, and some of them depend on it for breakfast too. And yet you don't hear about that, I imagine they either have to pay for breakfast too or sign up for that, if they don't pay for that, what're they going to get, a piece of toast?

Supernova wrote:Indeeeed, it's one thing to bring a cheese sandwich from home but when that's what the SCHOOL is giving you for lunch...when they're serving everyone else hot vegetables and macaroni and cheese and dessert and everything, I think that's pretty screwed up because if the kid can't afford to bring thier own lunch to school, they basically ARE depending on the cafeteria to eat before dinner that day, and some of them depend on it for breakfast too. And yet you don't hear about that, I imagine they either have to pay for breakfast too or sign up for that, if they don't pay for that, what're they going to get, a piece of toast?

at our school everybody gets free breakfast, but it's an elementary school and they get there early for it, it's not the same as lunch, that every kid goes to. If you want your kid to eat breakfast at school, they can eat breakfast at school.

And yet these kids aren't asking to be poor and unable to buy their lunch so why should they be reduced to, as it was pointed out at one school, crackers and cheese for lunch when everybody else gets something hot and dessert?

Why? Because they get it free. As soon as my kid is getting the bare minimum, such as a juice, cheese and crackers/bread, in his paid lunch, two things are going to happen. First, he will eat lunches I pack more and second, I will expect to pay a lot less than the $2.25 per school lunch when he eats there.

So few kids would pay for a bare minimum lunch like that. They would take food from home, and then school lunch would eventually become completely stigmatized. The majority of kids in line would be low income.

And I can only attest to what it is like here. And of course my view on it is based on that. Here, it is volumes easier to get free lunch than it is wherever TPP lives. Here, if you have a family of four and are making in the neighborhood of $50K, you will get reduced lunch.