No free lunch: Schools get tough on deadbeats

[His Divine Shadow]

It seems to me that this is a problem that could be solved by making the food free and having all school cafeterias in the country to follow a scheduled plan on what they make. Here the lunch schedules are laid out as so to provide students with the nutrition they require.

[Coyote]

It seems to me that this is a problem that could be solved by making the food free and having all school cafeterias in the country to follow a scheduled plan on what they make. Here the lunch schedules are laid out as so to provide students with the nutrition they require.

I'd be up for this myself, but it would require a massive increase in taxes to fund it, and that's where most Americans put the brakes on. Americans have no idea how easy we have it with taxes in this country, or how truly unregulated we are. Any little rule or tax is seen as near-fascist level oppression, regardless of how much help it would provide the general public. It's a major flaw in our national community, IMO.

[Kanastrous]

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"

It's their responsibility. If they will not fulfill that responsibility, it does not fall to the public schools to pick up the slack. Schools were organized for the purpose of education, not nutrition. If there's an inescapable necessity to provide one meal per day in order to enable students to focus, okay. Past that, fuck it, schools are not feeding centers.

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)

As Broomstick must be getting very tired of repeatedly pointing out to you, there are full-on programs intended to provide regular school lunches to parents who qualify. The cheese-sandwich business covers parents who have not enrolled their children in those programs.

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).

(1) I pull a hair for complaining children. Even vocally complaining ones. I'm being handed free food that's not to my taste! The injustice! Trade places with kids who are belly-distended from hunger, who have every bit as much natural right to eat, as you do, then get back to me about the horrors of eating one cheese sandwich-plus-fruit-plus-milk meal, per day.

(2) The parents who present evidence of their inability to pay to the correct program get signed up for free regular lunches for their kid, as Broomstick is still repeatedly pointing out, for your benefit.

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.

*chuckle* you'll go far in that line of work, all right.

besides bullying isn't "The work of the divvel" or "Genetic"

Don't put words in my mouth, asshole. Quote my text where I indicated a belief that bullying is a consequence of genetics or demonic possession, or fucking admit that you can't.

and is a learned behavior, that can be studied understood, and countered, hence my complete disdain of your assertion that it must be inevitable.

The fact that bullying is about as old as our recorded history, and that it still persists to this day despite the cleverness of people like yourself who think they'll find a wavey-wand to magic it away, is all the evidence necessary to prove that some degree of bullying is and will remain inevitable.

And, my use of terms like 'wavey-wand' and 'magic' does not mean that I find the matter an opaque and mysterious black box; far from it. It's a damned simple phenomenon that some people choose to make complex to justify their own positions.

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.

They are not 'black magic' and they will continue, no matter what we do. Can you moderate bullying? Sure, the staff at the schools I attended moderated bullying, which is a matter of maintaining discipline. Will you "cure" bullying and make it go away forever? No, and if you believe that you will, that makes *you* the believer in happy-happy magical solutions.

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.

I understand that food and food-related matters can have a psychological influence. I just dismiss the importance of that influence, so long as the person is getting adequate calories to function as required.

You appear to want to treat human beings the way that grocers treat those crystal pears from Japan - swaddle everybody up in soft protective cushiony webbing so that their interactions with the world are all play-skool padded and can be relied upon to never experience challenge, sadness, awkwardness or hardship. A great way to produce people with no coping skills, at all, who are going to be mighty surprised when they eventually leave the cocoon and get bitch-smacked by a world which is not calibrated to make them feel good about themselves as its primary purpose.

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.

I don't need a formal background in Non-profits, etc to recognize that your statement to which I responded, is a steaming pile of horseshit. You presumed to state as blanket fact that contributors to charity do so out of selfish, self-serving motivations. Well fuck you, pal, you don't know dick about how, why, and to whom I (or any other individual) make charitable contributions of our money, resources and time. Take your precious 'well-established concept' and shove it; you have zero insight into why other individuals contribute to charity.

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.

Which does not necessarily have anything to do with the parents' reinforcement of their child's ego.

There are children who are ostracized because they try to do things differently than "Everyone else in their neighborhood"

Which does not necessarily have anything to do with the parents' reinforcement of their child's ego.

Your assuming everyone starts out at the same place in terms of positive ego and identity developement regardless of social class or economic factors,

You have a reading comprehension problem. Read this again, slowly and carefully:

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.

^ that's an explicit indication that everybody does *not* start out in the same place. And class/economics do not determine everything; that's simple-minded. There are wealthy parents who fail to raise their children well, and there are poor people who succeed in doing so.

and therefore anyone recieving support that you in your...lack of any knowledge or experience... deem unneccesary is somehow being "Catered to".

This is the last post I'm going to waste on this conversation with you, because you evidently aren't actually reading what I write in response.

I did not indicate that there was a problem with 'catering to' the school-lunch needs of hungry kids. I indicated that there's a problem with catering to the egos of the people involved. Take the fucking free food and maybe even show some gratitude for the fact that we don't let you go hungry as so many other people do, in the world, and shut your fucking cheese-sandwich hole when it comes to the complaints. Don't like the free food? Here's a simple solve: don't accept it. Take your misplaced pride, apply some ketchup, and fucking eat that.

[Darth Wong]

Why should schools provide lunch at all? My kids' school doesn't provide lunch; the parents pack a lunch for their kids. Since when are dining facilities and all of the associated administrative overhead a necessary part of the public school system?

[AMT]

Why should schools provide lunch at all? My kids' school doesn't provide lunch; the parents pack a lunch for their kids. Since when are dining facilities and all of the associated administrative overhead a necessary part of the public school system?

Because some people make the assumption that since schools provide authority over a child while in the school's custody, the school must provide all needs for the student while in their custody, including lunch, even though there's nothing showing such a responsibility whatsoever.

[Darth Wong]

It frankly seems absurd to me that schools feed the kids. Wouldn't parents prefer to have more control over their own kids' diet? This entire school lunch administration should be scrapped, the money returned to the budget, and the parents told to pack a damned lunch for their kids.

[Kanastrous]

School meal programs reportedly started as a specific fix for a specific problem: kids coming through the door sufficiently hungry that they couldn't focus on the work and lessons being taught.

Seems like it's been expanded from there to a sort of conception that schools are generally to be used for feeding centers, and that anyone not supportive of that idea are Bad People.

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a working social safety net so that poor parents can actually afford to feed their kids rather than relying on schools to do so?

[Kanastrous]

Sure, put a pinko socialist pressure dressing on the sucking chest wound.

We're Americans, pal, we get by with band-aids.

[Coyote]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a working social safety net so that poor parents can actually afford to feed their kids rather than relying on schools to do so?

It would, but then again that would be taxes and that means socialism!

There's the idea that since the government demands that the kids be at school, then the government should provide for that mid-day meal.

[His Divine Shadow]

I dunno, the arguments are still the same here in Finland and Sweden despite the having some of the worlds most generous welfare systems. Giving kids a real and healthy meal at school is beneficial to all is the word, especially those with poor parents or parents that just don't give a damn.

I suppose it's also a matter of culture and inertia, school provided food has been part of the culture here for a loong time, it'd feel weird to me if it where otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

I feel the opposite way: I always took a boxed lunch with me to school when I was a kid, and the idea of schools spending money to build kitchens and cafeterias and hand out government-supplied lunches seems completely absurd to me.

[AMT]

I feel the opposite way: I always took a boxed lunch with me to school when I was a kid, and the idea of schools spending money to build kitchens and cafeterias and hand out government-supplied lunches seems completely absurd to me.

It's a cultural thing by now, I expect. It's happened for several generations and is ingrained in our society, despite the fact its an evil socialist program and whatnot.

To be honest, the entire system should be overhauled. While they provide options, as stated before, most of them are heavy in salt, carbs, and fat, with little nutrtional value.
In addition, lots of schools are getting into partnership programs with fast food places to provide food as well!

In my old High School, for example, we had monthly "mcdonalds days" and "pizza hut days" where, rather then the govt food, you got a hamburger, cheeseburger, and mcdonalds small fry. (and could buy more for 60 cents per).

Same with pizza hut. You could get an entire pizza.

Either way, not a very good system IMO

ETA: The above also doesn't take into account the 60 cent soda and fruitopia's you could buy, or the otis spunkmyer muffins either

[Minischoles]

I feel the opposite way: I always took a boxed lunch with me to school when I was a kid, and the idea of schools spending money to build kitchens and cafeterias and hand out government-supplied lunches seems completely absurd to me.

It might seem absurd, but it works at least decently well over here in the UK (not been in primary or secondary school in a while so can't tell you what the nutrition is like). There has also recently been some big drives towards better nutrition in school lunches, with things like the removal of soft drinks and fast food being allowed in the school, as well as healthy meals being prepared, which is a contrast to how it was when I went, when it was generally chips, beans and something like pizza. It actually doesn't cost that much, IIRC from the program that was done about this it only costs along the lines of 26 pence per child (don't quote me on that, this program was on last year).

[Dooey Jo]

I feel the opposite way: I always took a boxed lunch with me to school when I was a kid, and the idea of schools spending money to build kitchens and cafeterias and hand out government-supplied lunches seems completely absurd to me.

The discussion in Sweden is always about schools not spending enough money on food. People ask why prisoners should get better food than the kids (supposedly this is true, and the school meals tend to be not very tasty in many schools, but I've never tasted prison food), but the idea to let the kids bring their own food is rarely brought up, other than to criticise it when some "rogue" school does it. School meals are very convenient for the kids and parents, though, and it guarantees that all kids have access to a hopefully nutritious meal. It's easier to force the schools to make healthy food, than the parents or kids themselves.

[Darth Wong]

Debates about nutrition content of school lunches? Why have the government deciding what your children should eat at all? FEED YOUR OWN KIDS. That's the only way you can guarantee the quality of what they're eating. I honestly can't believe so many people think this is some kind of revolutionary concept.

[Coyote]

A lot of people are ignorant (or don't care) about proper nutrition. It also doesn't help that fat-saturated, sugary, corn-syrup enhanced food is often much cheaper (and supported by bigger advertising budgets) than other foods that are healthier. For some kids, the school lunch is the only shot they have at a properly balanced diet.

But all this reflects a much larger problem in our society: people are too lazy to get educated; people believe that indulging their kids' desire for junk food shows them that they love them; the bad food is subsidized and cheper while the good food is expensive and not as well known. And so on.

[Rogue 9]

In addition, lots of schools are getting into partnership programs with fast food places to provide food as well!

In my old High School, for example, we had monthly "mcdonalds days" and "pizza hut days" where, rather then the govt food, you got a hamburger, cheeseburger, and mcdonalds small fry. (and could buy more for 60 cents per).

How is that even allowed?

Personally, I think that if they must have a school lunch program (I agree that packing lunch is a much better idea, but good luck selling it; I doubt it's politically feasible in most states), it needs to be done right. Unfortunately, healthy food (that's any good, anyway; good luck getting the kids to eat tofu) is much more expensive than mass-produced junk. (For the same reason, parents who cannot afford paying for current school lunches would likely pack junk food for their kids to take to school, which of course would not help the nutrition problem in the slightest.) The current arrangement really is nearly the worst combination of traits it could have; not only are schools paying huge costs to do something that it really shouldn't have to do (feed the children), but they're doing a poor job of it on top of that.

[AMT]

In addition, lots of schools are getting into partnership programs with fast food places to provide food as well!

In my old High School, for example, we had monthly "mcdonalds days" and "pizza hut days" where, rather then the govt food, you got a hamburger, cheeseburger, and mcdonalds small fry. (and could buy more for 60 cents per).

How is that even allowed?

Independent school system that was set in a suburb and for the suburb only? Money changing hands and people looking the other way? It... happens, unfortunately.

[[R_H]]

A law was recently introduced here (or is in the process of becoming a law) which gives the authorities the possibility of fining parents who's children (under the age of 16) don't come to school prepared (not enough sleep, uncomplete homework or not feed adequately). No lunch programs at school either, no cafeteria. It's the responsibility of the parents to feed their children, they're the parents, not the school.

[Darth Ruinus]

In addition, lots of schools are getting into partnership programs with fast food places to provide food as well!

In my old High School, for example, we had monthly "mcdonalds days" and "pizza hut days" where, rather then the govt food, you got a hamburger, cheeseburger, and mcdonalds small fry. (and could buy more for 60 cents per).

How is that even allowed?

Every single day my high school would order around 20 - 30 pizzas from Pizza Hut and serve them out in place of the school lunches at two special cafeteria windows.

[Themightytom]

This is the last post I'm going to waste on this conversation with you, because you evidently aren't actually reading what I write in response.

fair enough, if you stick to that this will be my only rebuttal.

other readers might want to scroll past, some of the arguments in here might already have been stated I left the page open on my lunch break and had to wait until work was done to finish it.

It's their responsibility. If they will not fulfill that responsibility, it does not fall to the public schools to pick up the slack. Schools were organized for the purpose of education, not nutrition. If there's an inescapable necessity to provide one meal per day in order to enable students to focus, okay. Past that, fuck it, schools are not feeding centers.

Your entire argument is that its parents responsibility, to feed their children and they are therefore the only ones who should do anything about it. My response is that there is a proven link between nutrition and education,
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/uploaded ... RY2005.pdf

Schools are doing their job by ensuring that children are properly nourished, they are the most efficient place to monitor health and nutrition of children and they are the ones accountable for academic performance.

You disagree that schools should not be "Feeding centers" What data do you have that demonstrates this?

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"

you danced around the original question so I am reposting it, because the issue here is that schools can see a parent sending a child to school with no way to eat either in terms of funds, or with actual food, and you DON'T Think this is evidence that they can't provide food? if you think they are just griffing the system, as opposed to being legitimately unable to pay, why would you not advocate instead for better investigation by DCYF type agencies?

As Broomstick must be getting very tired of repeatedly pointing out to you, there are full-on programs intended to provide regular school lunches to parents who qualify. The cheese-sandwich business covers parents who have not enrolled their children in those programs.

So now instead of arguing schools aren't feeding centers you are arguing that schools shouldn't feed children of parents who are behind on their payments if the parents have not demonstrated a need to recieve supportive services.

if youw ant to drop your "No feeding centers" argument and jump on broom stick's argument, you would have to acknowledge the school lunch program is legitimate. Once you do that it becomes clear that while one program is specifically diesigned to be nutritious and improve academic performance the other is... not.... one is federally supported and the other is... not...
one is constructive, and the other is ... not.
I pointed out the cheese sandwich wasn't a nutritious meal, and I argued that there are legitimate reasons for a school to provide nutritious meals.

Broomsticks argument:

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

But before I could reply he got there on his own,

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.

What is being decribed here is a "second" free lunch program for people who didn't provide the paperwork for the legitimate one, in fact when this happened up here they were giving parents on the REDUCED lunch program shit because they weren't paying the REDUCED lunch fees and we had a little tuna sandwich program going on.

They specifically stated that the cheese sandwich menu is for parents who owe them money because the schools can't access reinbursement money from the government until parents fill out the paperwork. hence my previous statement that was an intentional motivation effort.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/

What the hell? Where is the Cheese Sandwich program, I see it nowhere!


http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/ ... Manual.pdf
According to this no one should be eating a cheese sandwich for more than ten days!
Except that according to that there is no cheese sandwich diet...

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).

(1) I pull a hair for complaining children. Even vocally complaining ones. I'm being handed free food that's not to my taste! The injustice! Trade places with kids who are belly-distended from hunger, who have every bit as much natural right to eat, as you do, then get back to me about the horrors of eating one cheese sandwich-plus-fruit-plus-milk meal, per day.

Who gives a crap about YOUR reaction? My point is a parent stuck with a complaining child is recieving regular encouragement to fill out their fricking paperwork and still they don't. That is evidence they can't, either because they don't know how to or they are unable to. Don't understimate confusion or logistics, they cause a lot of problems that can be solved by handing someone a form and telling them how to fill it out. WHY??? So that the school can balance its budget. You'd rather assign blame (burden of responsibility) and exthol the virtues of an idea that is clearly lacking, than fix the problem.

(2) The parents who present evidence of their inability to pay to the correct program get signed up for free regular lunches for their kid, as Broomstick is still repeatedly pointing out, for your benefit.

No broomstick pointed out that the parents who DOCUMENT evidence of their inability to pay are enrolled in free or reduced lunch/ Sending your children to school without a lunch, repeatedly and regularly is presenting evidence without documentation of cause.

The point is to moderate the natural competiveness into healthy areas not dysfunctional ones.

*chuckle* you'll go far in that line of work, all right.

You sound stupid when you say that, you should channel your frustration at things you don't understand into learning about them rather than deriding them.

Don't put words in my mouth, asshole. Quote my text where I indicated a belief that bullying is a consequence of genetics or demonic possession, or fucking admit that you can't.

then keep your mouth shut if your not saying anything, you frequently reject the idea that bullying is a learned behavior that can be modified but supply no opposite theory.

The fact that bullying is about as old as our recorded history, and that it still persists to this day despite the cleverness of people like yourself who think they'll find a wavey-wand to magic it away, is all the evidence necessary to prove that some degree of bullying is and will remain inevitable.

So we strip away your rhetoric and get

"Bullying is about as old as our recorded history and persists to this day [science] is all of the evidence neccesary to prove that some degree of bullying is and will remain inevitable."

I'm not sure if you are disputing the value of attempting to understand these "phenomena" rationally, or whether you are unsatisfied that two of the newest fields in science haven't solved the problem within the span of the century or so they have existed.

Expecting instant control over something you don't understand sounds like magic to me. You present evidence that you are a precontemplative moron.

And, my use of terms like 'wavey-wand' and 'magic' does not mean that I find the matter an opaque and mysterious black box; far from it. It's a damned simple phenomenon that some people choose to make complex to justify their own positions.

then what causes it?

I understand that food and food-related matters can have a psychological influence. I just dismiss the importance of that influence, so long as the person is getting adequate calories to function as required.

Then you don't fully understand.

So you propose that it doesn't matter what you eat, as long as it contains adequate calories. I challenge you to eat enough Zyprexa to meet your daily caloric needs and see what happens.

You appear to want to treat human beings the way that grocers treat those crystal pears from Japan - swaddle everybody up in soft protective cushiony webbing so that their interactions with the world are all play-skool padded and can be relied upon to never experience challenge, sadness, awkwardness or hardship. A great way to produce people with no coping skills, at all, who are going to be mighty surprised when they eventually leave the cocoon and get bitch-smacked by a world which is not calibrated to make them feel good about themselves as its primary purpose.

You appear unable to differentiate between applying positive strategies suggested by research and social masturbation. You live in a messy world.

I don't need a formal background in Non-profits, etc to recognize that your statement to which I responded, is a steaming pile of horseshit. You presumed to state as blanket fact that contributors to charity do so out of selfish, self-serving motivations. Well fuck you, pal, you don't know dick about how, why, and to whom I (or any other individual) make charitable contributions of our money, resources and time. Take your precious 'well-established concept' and shove it; you have zero insight into why other individuals contribute to charity.

Wow touch a nerve did I?

My comment ALSO referred to HOW as well as WHY. But thank you for clarifying that you give to feel good and not to enact change, your emotionally charged righteous response speaks volumes.

The reason the HOW is important is because some contributions are charitable while some are deliberately applied to some extent. You can throw money at the beggar in the street, or you can buy him a cup of coffee because you dont want him to drink, or you can (Having invested the time and effort to become familiar with resources and comfortable with people) provide suggestions as to where he can go for help after identifying what precisely his needs are.

Your assuming everyone starts out at the same place in terms of positive ego and identity developement regardless of social class or economic factors,

You have a reading comprehension problem. Read this again, slowly and carefully:

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.

^ that's an explicit indication that everybody does *not* start out in the same place. And class/economics do not determine everything; that's simple-minded. There are wealthy parents who fail to raise their children well, and there are poor people who succeed in doing so.

and therefore anyone recieving support that you in your...lack of any knowledge or experience... deem unneccesary is somehow being "Catered to".

You're an idiot and you set qualifiers based on your own set of obviously middle class values on everything you just wrote. I have underlined them for YOUR reading comprehension assistance so that you can more clearly see that i was illustrating different value systems at work which would result in the developement of positive ego with consequences deemed negative in a broader context. I don't know whether you actually ARE middle class or if you just picked up what you believe is a set of ideals from public media. The "Starting point" I was referring to is not only access to equal access to opportunity but an understanding of where the finish line is.

I did not indicate that there was a problem with 'catering to' the school-lunch needs of hungry kids. I indicated that there's a problem with catering to the egos of the people involved.

I understand what you are stating and I disagree that the ego is unimportant, I consider it a demonstrated need ffor a child, which if unmet will generate long term problems we will still end up dealing with as a society.

Take the fucking free food and maybe even show some gratitude for the fact that we don't let you go hungry as so many other people do, in the world, and shut your fucking cheese-sandwich hole when it comes to the complaints. Don't like the free food? Here's a simple solve: don't accept it. Take your misplaced pride, apply some ketchup, and fucking eat that.

Don't take it so personally when people reject your charity your doing it for them not you.
right?

[Themightytom]

Every single day my high school would order around 20 - 30 pizzas from Pizza Hut and serve them out in place of the school lunches at two special cafeteria windows.

I think the high school nutrition requirements are completely different because the case for nutrition= cognitive developement has more weight in younger children we had the pizza option as well, on the other hand opinions on nutrition have changed a lot since I was a kid.

[Stark]

In my old High How is that even allowed?

I was actually under the impression this sort of thing was quite common in the US. Like Mike, the idea that a school should provide food is bizarre, but the image of corporatised cafeteria spaces in US highschools training the new generation of fat unhealthy eaters isn't a new one to me. Given what's said often about the poor level of funding or resources in US schools it doesn't surprise me that these kind of things are attractive to administrators.

[Rogue 9]

I suppose I was spoiled going to a well-funded high school, then, because the administration where I went would never consider that. We got pizza once in a blue moon, and there were always vegetables and fruit no matter what the entree was. Not that it mattered to me, since I usually packed lunch anyway.