No free lunch: Schools get tough on deadbeats

[Slacker]

I'm not really sure I'm getting this. In our district (on Long Island, in New York) we have a free/reduced lunch program, where poor families can apply to get free lunches. If they don't apply, or their families are prosperous enough that it's not necessary, then they have to buy their lunches. We don't generally enforce it too hard with the K-2 age kids, but when they get to be a certain age, they need to have a ticket and money, or they're getting a cheese sandwich or PB&J.

And I'm sorry-your precious child doesn't want to go back to school because she had to eat a cheese sandwich? Really? Honestly? Someone should slap some sense into both her and you before it's too late.

[Broomstick]

Sounds like a way of fucking over poor parents to me. Especially the bit about how some districts aren't serving anything if they can't pay. Even then I can't see how a cold cheese sandwich is enough to get anyone through the day.

It's not for the whole day, it's for lunch, and it is accompanied by fruit and milk.

I've eaten a cold cheese sandwich (and a cup of tea) every day for breakfast over 35 years. A big difference, of course, is that I choose to do that whereas these children have no alternative other than not to eat lunch. The only problem I can see here (other than a lactose/allergic child) is that these children are being singled out. Perhaps alternating with other sandwich filling would be a viable option.

[Broomstick]

Your all or nothing philosophy is neither rational nor effective, regardless of what responsibility the parents bear in raising their kids, there is a solid case for providing food at the schools in order to improve academic performance and there is NOT a legitimate reason why schools can't develop an alternate cost effective menu that actually DOES meet nutritional requirements in addition to not stigmatizing the children whose parents aren't paying. This was a half assed knee jerk reaction from frustrated school officials who didn't bother thinking it through.

There is a problem with people in the US who should apply for aid of one sort or another and who don't. These aren't kids who are enrolled in the "free lunch" program, these are kids who aren't in that program. For a transitory financial problem the kids can eat a cheese sandwich a day for a week or so without dropping dead. If the family really can't afford either lunch money or a bag lunch they need to apply to the free lunch program.

CHEESE AND MILK aren't cheap, that particular menu choice smacks of tradition more than anything else.

What other protein are you suggesting for less cost? Peanut butter? Too many kids with allergies. Traditional lunch meats are full of fat and salt, just like cheese. Cheese and milk not only provide protein, they also provide calcium and vitamin D which many children (and adults) are lacking. There are a lot worse things that could be offered.

Also, "process cheese food", which isn't exactly real cheese but a cheap, cheese-like food, is often cheaper than other forms of sandwich filling. Not the greatest nutritionally, no, but a lot better than an empty belly.

All of that being said, i personally wouldn't mind seeing the school lunch program expanded to include a dinner at afterschools, and massively reduce both the weekly alotment and variety of choice to adults without a disability. Feed the kids and let the parents remain motivated to find work.

Oh, yeah, great job - I've been motivated to find work for 16 months now, still don't have any. These aren't normal times, one can look for work, be qualified for work, do everything right and still not be hired.

Also, current foodstamp programs allot $25 per week per adult for food. Go live on just that for month and come back and tell me we should reduce the allotment. Sure, you can get enough calories at that price, but good nutrition? Ha! Good luck with that - there's a reason I bust my ass planting a garden when I'm poor. It's the only way to get a balanced diet.

[Broomstick]

You are oversimplifying the shit out of this. from a practical standpoint, thats NOT a nutritious meal,

% Daily Value*

Calories 670g
Total Fat 46 g 71%
Saturated Fat 17 g 85%
Cholesterol 75 mg 25%
Sodium 935 mg 39%
Total Carbohydrates 40 g 13%
Dietary Fiber 4 g 16%
Sugars 8 g
Protein 26 g
Calcium 580 mg

^ estimated nutritional value of a 'cheese sandwich.' Doesn't actually look that bad, although I will have to defer to an actual nutritionist's assessment.

That's abhorrent. 670 calories (total, for kids, being around 1,500 max), over 2/3rds of which are coming from fat? 85% of your daily alloted saturated fat (which is, of course, different for children, meaning less)? 71% of your total fat intake for the day? This should only be some kid's meal if it meant that kid was also keeping to a diet that restricted fat from other sources, especially saturated fat.

Um... are you aware that children, particularly prepubescent children, actually DO require more/higher percentage of fat than adults do? A diet too low in fat can actually impair brain and nervous system development. Of course, far too many children get too much fat, but if the family is so poor they can't feed the kid lunch then the likelihood of that goes down considerably. Also, this is NOT intended to continue long term. As I pointed out, if the family can't pay for lunch they need to apply for the free lunch program which is, if I recall correctly, better from a nutritional standpoint. Considering that a significant number of children don't eat breakfast, this isn't outrageous. Ideally, the sandwich would be on whole grain bread - that estimate uses white bread.

As I mentioned before, my concern is more with lactose intolerant/allergic children than OMIGOD! They're feeding poor kids less-than-ideal sandwiches!

[Kanastrous]

As I mentioned before, my concern is more with lactose intolerant/allergic children than OMIGOD! They're feeding poor kids less-than-ideal sandwiches!

Which might make them feel bad. Don't forget the most important part...

[Melchior]

Which might make them feel bad. Don't forget the most important part...

While I don't dispute that a diffuse sense of excessive entitlement exists in certain age groups, a prosperous society that is unable to provide varied, adequate and healthy meals to his children suffers a miserable ethical failure, especially if this happens ultimately because of a perverse fixation on maximizing the impact of wealth discrepancies (some posters argued that the current system does not punish the poor enough, even; smells of Calvinism).
It's not like these persons choose to be born in poor and/or irresponsible families and they have no ability to effect the situation, so they are understandable in their feelings of humiliation, since the culture that they are immersed in has made poverty into something shameful in order to be able to justify this kind of treatment.

[Questor]

OK, here is how it works here.

All students are issued an ID card with their photo and a barcode. That barcode is linked to a computer system that allows parents to put money on it. It is also linked to the database of students who are on free/reduced price lunch.

A child can pay with cash or by scanning their ID card. There is no stigmatization, as there is no visible way to tell if a student is on free/reduced lunch, or if they simply have a charged up account.

This is not affecting student on the free/reduced price lunch, which at least here, also provides breakfast. This is affecting student whose parents will/can not pay for their lunch, but also will/can not get on the free/reduced price lunch program.

I have not seen incredible stigma attached to the reduced price lunch program, in fact, I know of a few kids who brag about getting everything for free.

EDIT: I don't doubt that a stigma exists, I was just offering a counter example. I have had a student try to push me around using it, and it was a surreal experience

[Erik von Nein]

Um... are you aware that children, particularly prepubescent children, actually DO require more/higher percentage of fat than adults do? A diet too low in fat can actually impair brain and nervous system development.

Yes, I'm not functionally retarded. They still should not be getting that much fat, especially that much saturated fat, from one source that's mostly just empty calories.

Of course, far too many children get too much fat, but if the family is so poor they can't feed the kid lunch then the likelihood of that goes down considerably. Also, this is NOT intended to continue long term. As I pointed out, if the family can't pay for lunch they need to apply for the free lunch program which is, if I recall correctly, better from a nutritional standpoint. Considering that a significant number of children don't eat breakfast, this isn't outrageous. Ideally, the sandwich would be on whole grain bread - that estimate uses white bread.

Ideally they shouldn't be eating it in the first place. The chances of them using whole grain bread instead of Wonderbread are slim-to-none. I'm also quite well aware of the fact that children aren't likely to eat breakfast, but most children area also likely to have terrible diets and to be obese. This solution isn't going to help the problem.

Yeah, they say it's temporary but we'll have to see how temporary it is. In the mean time it's a detriment to the children's health.

I'm not super outraged about this, like you so try to mock. I'm just saying that, much like the meals they serve children normally, the food is terrible for them when it's served every day.

[mr friendly guy]

Some American kids get free lunch?

I never did in primary or high school. We either had to bring it or pay for it. I also understand American kids don't have to wear a school uniform, so from a financial point of view, parents don't necessary waste more money on clothes (aside from the usual the child wears, unless they want to insist that their child compete by getting fashionable clothes).

I am sorry, but compare to here, those parents have it good.

[Sea Skimmer]

Some American kids get free lunch?

The National School Lunch Program was introduced all the way back in 1946 in the US, you have to be within 130% of the poverty guidelines to get it free, but you can be up to I think 200% and get a reduced price. The program costs the US federal government something like 9 billion bucks a year. The lunches must meet federal standards, which specify how many calories may come from fat ect... but its up to the schools to decide exactly what to serve.

[ArmorPierce]

Some American kids get free lunch?

I never did in primary or high school. We either had to bring it or pay for it. I also understand American kids don't have to wear a school uniform, so from a financial point of view, parents don't necessary waste more money on clothes (aside from the usual the child wears, unless they want to insist that their child compete by getting fashionable clothes).

I am sorry, but compare to here, those parents have it good.

Actually I think its been mostly stated that American kids not wearing uniforms actually cost more money since parents then goes out and have to buy an entire wardrobe for their kids.

[Themightytom]

One meal out of three can probably remain unchanging without being harmful. The school can take responsibility for one out of three meals per day; the parents can take responsibility for the remaining two.

why would you even assert that "the parents of children who are enrolled in the school lunch program can provide two solid meals to offset the poor one they recieve at school"
when first of all, the parents in that constiuency are pre-screened for parents who present evidence that they CAN'T (By ualifying for it) And second when the parents present evidence that they have even LESS ability than the program is designed for (IE: Don't Pay even when their child is stuck eating cheese sandwiches every day and is vocally complaining at home).

the unfortunate reality remains that efforts on the part of counselors will never put an end to picking-on, bullying, mocking and stigmatization. It's true that you can probably moderate the problem, which is worthwhile, but you are not going to eradicate it.

The point is to moderate the natural competiveness into healthy areas not dysfunctional ones. besides bullying isn't "The work of the divvel" or "Genetic" and is a learned behavior, that can be studied understood, and countered, hence my complete disdain of your assertion that it must be inevitable.

And since you can't eradicate it, it's something the students will (a) have to continue dealing with and (b) something they'd better develop the ability to deal with, sooner rather than later. The point remains that there's a difference between feeding people at state expense when necessary, and making them feel good about the fact that they are being fed at state expense (which frankly is not something that anyone should be encouraged to feel good about).

That is akin to giving someone a kleenex instead of a flu shot. Sure there is bullying in the "real world" but most of that is learned behavior from people who had no interventions growing up, but then again you think bullying and identity formation black magic and will happen no matter what we do.

There's a difference between feeding adults adequate sustainance and taking a holistic perspective when dealing with children in a school setting. You can't let go of your resistance to the idea that food has a psychological impact, the best you can do is concieve that it "might make people feel good" which is so utterly simplistic I'm at a loss.

Okay, what is your alternate recommendation for an effective way to handle the debts incurred?

*Put money for schools into the stimulus package to account for a spike in service utlization, already being done
*Effective collaboration between government aid agencies non profits and schools to better organize and distribute resources in terms of training consultation and material or financial assitance with the goal of creating a transitional training mentality.
*Stimulaate the economy and get people OFF of the system before they get too accustomed to it, stop dicking around with politics and self interest.

Bullshit. Maybe that's how you personally regard charity.

or maybe you have little or no formal background in Non-profits, social justice civic engagement and don't recognize a well established concept.

Is there any evidence for this dastardly plan, or did you just cook this up, yourself?.

and most of all your apparent unfamiliarity with the concept of ego and the role it actually DOES play in education.

The resources to which one has access have nothing to do with whether or not people cater to your ego. There are middle-class parents who raise their kids with perspective and a sense of proper place and identity. There are poor parents who pump up their kids to believe that their shit smells like roses and they can do no wrong, at all. I've encountered both many times. I suspect that my experience is probably not unique.

...and there are poor parents who have never been to college and do not support their children in any such attempt. There are children who are ostracized because they try to do things differently than "Everyone else in their neighborhood" and I'm not even oing to get into pressures gangs put on youths. Your assuming everyone starts out at the same place in terms of positive ego and identity developement regardless of social class or economic factors, and therefore anyone recieving support that you in your...lack of any knowledge or experience... deem unneccesary is somehow being "Catered to".


If you don't mind my asking, were you ever actually ON the school lunch program?

[Mayabird]

I'm curious if these schools also serve breakfasts of any kind. The elementary school I went to would serve some basic biscuits, milk, and cereal. I forget what they cost but I remember they had reduced cost and free breakfasts as well to the students who got free or reduced lunches. I mention this because of the people saying that schools only serve one meal a day and the kids would be going without breakfast anyway, but I don't want to slog through all the shit-slinging again to pick out the quotes.

[spaceviking]

No argument with taking necessary funds from sports, if the funds are there.

What do you have against sports? A lot of the time when schools have high level sports programs that moneys from private donation and fundraising. I'd be pretty pissed if I helped raise money for my kids team just to get that money appropriated.

[Darth Yoshi]

Even so, school sports programs still receive funding from the district. Considering that people are more likely to donate uniforms to the football team than new microscopes for the bio lab, reallocating the budget won't affect the sports programs as adversely as the rest of the school.

[Beowulf]

I see a lot of people talking around each other in this thread. If a child is eligible for a free meal and is signed up for it, then they get it, and the federal government pays for it. This school which is giving cheese sandwiches for lunch is only giving them to students who parents who haven't signed up for the free meal program, and still can't pay up for the normal price of the meal.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm curious if these schools also serve breakfasts of any kind. The elementary school I went to would serve some basic biscuits, milk, and cereal. I forget what they cost but I remember they had reduced cost and free breakfasts as well to the students who got free or reduced lunches. I mention this because of the people saying that schools only serve one meal a day and the kids would be going without breakfast anyway, but I don't want to slog through all the shit-slinging again to pick out the quotes.

Mine had that too, and the impression I get overall is that it is considered a norm for any major school at this point. The Federal government has had program to pay for it for low income families too since the 1960s, called simply The School Breakfast Program. Eligibility is the same as the free lunch program. So this means you can get the Feds to pay for two meals a day for you children, five out of seven days a week, so 10 out of 21 in a week. That works out to be a pretty big number of meals over an entire school year.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Breakfast/A ... tSheet.pdf

I do feel sorry for the fact that many families in America do struggle that much to do something so basic, but a great many school districts are hurting an awful lot right now. When you start getting 300 grand in outstanding bills that’s something you have to do something about, even if its only getting people signed up for programs, not repayment. I'm sure if the Feds run out of money in the funds to pay for it, more will be voted. We sure as fuck print enough for other stuff, and you can expect Obama will be doing various minor things like changing regulations to increase eligibility.

[Ender]

Sounds like a way of fucking over poor parents to me. Especially the bit about how some districts aren't serving anything if they can't pay. Even then I can't see how a cold cheese sandwich is enough to get anyone through the day.

You need to spend more time being hungry. A cheese sandwich isn't ideal for the nutritional reasons listed on page 1. But having a cheese sandwich, fruit, and milk isn't some kind of punishment here. My only gripe is the no protein bit.

[loomer]

Cry me a fucking river for these kids and their families. "I don't want to go to school!" because I had to eat a cheese sandwich for lunch? Oh, piss off. I understand it can't possibly taste as good as greasy, salt laden cafeteria pizza and fries, but it's probably fucking healthier for you - and for kids who can't afford lunch (more likely their parents won't spare the money from other things), they probably don't have the healthiest diet to begin with.

My family was poor as shit (two unemployed parents, high rent) and here in Aus, we also had to buy uniforms AND food (though I'd like to point out that at Aussie schools the canteen is OPTIONAL, not some mandatory standard thing like it seems to be over there). And you know what we did? It was called a home lunch - a vegemite sandwich (turns out I'm allergic to yeast, so... oops.), some dried fruit, maybe an apple or a pear. The odd treat of a piece of chocolate or little container of jelly. It doesn't sound all that different from a cheese sandwich, some fruit and some milk in general - only the variety available, and frankly, that shouldn't be too hard to provide either. Add peanut butter to the list of approved sandwich materials, maybe add lettuce and ham and (when in season) tomatoes, and you have yourself a cheap list of foodstuffs that will do the job just fine.

These kids will be just fine with that amount of food for lunch, they will be just fine with the so called social stigma, and their parents should stop trying to pay off their bling bling so maybe they can give their kids prepacked lunches.

[Uraniun235]

Do students no longer bring their lunch in a bag? I took bag lunches every day in high school. I made them the night before and stuck them in the fridge. Is this so terribly difficult? I mean I realize elementary school kids might not be best at making their own lunches, but surely their parents could take ten minutes to prepare a lunch in the evening.


Hell, I was glad I took bag lunches. The lines to get food were atrociously long. (When they increased the classroom capacity from ~1300 to ~2000, they neglected to increase the cafeteria and gym capacity as well.) Those chumps had to wait in line for a good portion of their lunch break - I got my pick of whatever seating I wanted.

[Broomstick]

One meal out of three can probably remain unchanging without being harmful. The school can take responsibility for one out of three meals per day; the parents can take responsibility for the remaining two.

why would you even assert that "the parents of children who are enrolled in the school lunch program can provide two solid meals to offset the poor one they recieve at school"
when first of all, the parents in that constiuency are pre-screened for parents who present evidence that they CAN'T (By ualifying for it) And second when the parents present evidence that they have even LESS ability than the program is designed for (IE: Don't Pay even when their child is stuck eating cheese sandwiches every day and is vocally complaining at home).

TOM, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT THAT THE KIDS WITH THE CHEESE SANDWICHES ARE NOT IN THE THE FREE LUNCH PROGRAM!

The kids aren't in the program and the parents aren't paying the bill for their lunches. The parents need to either pay the damn bill, or get their kids on the program. The school is NOT required to give the kid's anything, but they are giving them a sandwich, fruit, and milk anyway

*Put money for schools into the stimulus package to account for a spike in service utlization, already being done

There is already money in the system for free lunches, the trick the family has to apply in the first place. The Cheese Sandwich Squad here hasn't even applied to the program (except for one kid, who was temporarily eating cheese until the application went through).

*Stimulaate the economy and get people OFF of the system before they get too accustomed to it, stop dicking around with politics and self interest.

The Cheese Sandwich Squad isn't on the system - that's part of the problem. If they WERE they wouldn't be stuck with just the cheese sandwiches and we wouldn't be having this squabble.

Some American kids get free lunch?

Yep, some do. It was one of those Evil Democratic programs that started, as mentioned, in 1946. It was done for two reasons - to help poor, hungry school children, and to help subsidize agricultural production. There was that embarrassing ketchup incident during the Reagan administration, but largely it's be a pretty successful program. Hard to argue against feeding poor kids, after all.

[Lagmonster]

No argument with taking necessary funds from sports, if the funds are there.

What do you have against sports? A lot of the time when schools have high level sports programs that moneys from private donation and fundraising. I'd be pretty pissed if I helped raise money for my kids team just to get that money appropriated.

Even more reason to not have a sports budget within the school. Have fund raisers and community cash if you want a football team. Let the district put its money into educational things, such as books or better facilities and staff. Or, if it happens to be a priority of yours, to better quality food than 33-cent processed shit-on-a-shingle.

[Coyote]

And I'm sorry-your precious child doesn't want to go back to school because she had to eat a cheese sandwich? Really? Honestly? Someone should slap some sense into both her and you before it's too late.

I was under the impression it was because she was pulled out of the lunch line in front of her peers and given the "poor person meal".

[Coyote]

No argument with taking necessary funds from sports, if the funds are there.

What do you have against sports? A lot of the time when schools have high level sports programs that moneys from private donation and fundraising. I'd be pretty pissed if I helped raise money for my kids team just to get that money appropriated.

School sports programs are the Defense Budgets of schools: sacred cows that absorb an incredibly high per-person amount of money. They demand a lot of very specialized and expensive equipment and resources, and a great deal of school efforts go to supporting the sports teams-- which represent a tiny fraction of the school's student population.

So a handful of kids are absorbing a lion's share of money and attention. At best, the other kids get nothing out of the deal; at worst it fosters the mentality that the athletes represent an "elite class" that is catered to at the expense of others.

[B5B7]

As a non-American the concept of free lunches is an alien concept.
Note this text that was next to photo in original article:

Danessa Vigil, 7, right, and her sister, Mya Williams, 6, wait for the school bus in Rio Rancho, N.M. Danessa said she hated the cheese sandwiches she had to eat before being enrolled in the free lunch program.

The bit I have bolded is significant in regard to what is given in the article, as it gives a partial different perspective - that it was only a temporary occurrence of "cold cheese sandwich eating".