A case for free school food

A case for free school food; twin rivalry
By Sarah Halzack
Washington Post Writers GroupBy Lisa Bonos
Washington Post Writers Group
Posted: 04/11/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/books/ci_14847706



Free For All: Fixing School Food in America by Janet Poppendieck, $27.50


In "Free for All," sociology professor Janet Poppendieck explains how nutrition-deficient meals came to dominate America's school cafeterias and outlines a slew of problems in the national school lunch and breakfast programs.

Poppendieck identifies shortcomings at virtually every layer of the system, from inefficient government-mandated paperwork to school kitchens ill-equipped to do anything beyond defrost frozen meals. Outside the bureaucracy, there are other obstacles to healthy eating: Kids gravitate toward seductive but unhealthy items, such as cookies or chips, even when more nutritious items are available.


"The biggest problem is the stigma that comes from being different," she writes, "from being marked as poor, from being unable to pay in a culture that places excessive value on being able to pay and a school food subculture that increasingly views children as 'customers.' "

To that end, she argues convincingly that lunches should be free for all students, a measure that would remove shame from the equation for those who need the program while cutting costs associated with determining who qualifies for free or reduced- price meals.

they should eat!!

:mad:

Why feed those kids who don't do sports? :sarcasm:

Sadly - that's pretty much the attitude in my area...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8176965&mesg_id=8178133

And posters here think this is just fine.

"Who *are* we?" Michael Moore

My son's school is slashing budgets just like everyone else. HOWEVER - they did do a fundraiser -- for new SPORTS equipment.

Kids go hungry - but the Jocks get new and better uniforms. And the irony -- the football team sucks big time. Always has.

Someone in the school is making money on the side pushing this crap.

to get a new submarine."

From my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days.

Back then, at least there weren't so many kids going hungry!

No books in the richest country in the world is a SIN.... kids going hungry is A MORTAL SIN!

We get the farmers who are paid subsides Not to plant....We require they do work for their money...providing free food for our schools....

of wheat to the nearist school lunch rooms. Couse someone has to pay to mill it into flour and then there is the problem of most school kitchen staffs not knowing how to turn flour into bread.

We subsidize farmers not to plant and not to raise livestock. Most of these are R.W. anti welfare (LOL) teahadists and large multi-nationals. We pay them billions$. Wow, if you had the raw material, WHEAT, beef, veggetables...and you actually made these welfare farmers work for their money, I think we could pay to have it processed so we could feed the children. Do you think it is a better policy to pay these corporations not to farm?

to feed a population of 300 million. Plus what we ship out of the country. Scale has some value in farming. A tractor or a combine costs a whole hell of a lot more than a toyota.

.

The other day you argued that scientific advancement is a waste of money because people go without in this country. But now you want to give out free food to people who can afford it? In other words, we don't have money to figure out how the universe works, but we have money to prevent hurt feelings in the lunch line????

Personally, I'd like free groceries so nobody feels bad about using food stamps. Somebody call Safeway and let them know I'll be by at about 6. Thanks.

:popcorn:

Many countries seem to get by fine "giving out" free health insurance to even those who can afford it. There is value in creating a single, equal tier of government services

That's pretty analogous to our current situation in school lunches, actually.

edit: I'm all for increasing the quality of school lunches and reducing lunch-line stigma by making free/reduced lunch buyers less obvious. It's entirely possible to do both without giving out free lunches to everybody. For that matter, eliminating a funding mechanism and dramatically increasing the number of users isn't going to increase the quality of school lunches, so all that's going to happen is a new class divide will be created between kids who bring lunch from home and those who don't, unless the plan is to make all the kids eat the same thing, which isn't feasible due to allergies, religious restrictions on diet, picky kids, and the simple fact that parents a say in what their kids eat.

And by doing so, they get to enjoy the same services everyone else gets to.

As far as private options...well, I doubt you can do this with food, but in regards to health care where I live in BC, they are illegal (other than people being internatiuonal health tourists).

In most countries I know of with universal health care, private health practitioners and supplemental private insurance are available.

I can't imagine that a self-funded lunch option would not be available, unless the plan would involve patting kids down to make sure they didn't smuggle in a sandwich...

"In most countries I know of with universal health care, private health practitioners and supplemental private insurance are available."

BTW, in Canada at least, supplemental private insurance doesn't pay for basic care. It pays for services that are not covered (vision/dental/drugs or whatever the government plan doesn't have full coverage on)

Im not familiar a ton of other systems, but in Canada, there are a load of private health practicioners, but it is in violation of the Canadian Health Act for any of them to directly bill a patient. Hence, it de facto outlaws the ability to pay for services out of pocket or queue jump into some sort of alternative private system.

So at the end of the day, EVERYONE has access to the same basic insurance that pays for the same procedures at the same facilities (private or public). Its a single, equal insurance for everyone with no access fees for services or ability for the rich to get better/faster care. Therefore, the level of services that people recieve does not correlate to how large one's bank account is. Expaning on this egalitarian parelell (though the United States does not believe in egalitarianism), why should the level of education or nutrition one recieves while being educated correlate to the size of their parent's bank account?


"I can't imagine that a self-funded lunch option would not be available, unless the plan would involve patting kids down to make sure they didn't smuggle in a sandwich"

They can do it when they are patting them down for guns

:applause:

THAT is quotable!

Now, prepare to be skewered for it. :yourock:

:toast:

We would rather give Billion$ to the wealthy and their corporations rather than feed people and give universal healthcare? Wow..

Plus, food stamps come on a card nowadays and no-one can tell who's using a credit card or food stamps.

I don't know how they work it in your state, but at most stores here you have to tell the cashier if you're using EBT benefits, they punch something in, loudly ask "cash or food?" and then you have to swipe a card that looks like no bank card on planet earth, and half the time it fails and they have to punch the number in while the people in line glare at you.

Trust me, I've done it. It's really not any less obvious than paper food stamps, which I had to use a time or two as well when my son was small. WIC checks are worse though, they take forever and seem almost purposely designed to make whoever is behind you in the line want to strangle you.

Of course, liberals want it both ways these days. They are competing at cutting taxes while trying to look like they are expanding government services.

I get that the middle class tax burden doesn't need to be large. But the society could still function if they paid a little bit more and the rich paid a whole fuck lot more.

If the issue is the quality of meals, fix the guidelines so that they reflect current nutritional understanding and concerns, change the priorities written into the law (currently the school lunch program is an agricultural price support program first and foremost, feeding kids well is a secondary priority,) and make better food. Or better yet, fix the food stamp program and other social programs so families can afford to feed their kids a healthy lunch whether it's a school day or not.

If the issue is the stigma of free/reduced lunch, many schools have already instituted methods using swipe cards or finger scans to deal with that which do not make the funding source apparent in the lunch room*, so there's no need to change who gets school lunch just to correct the social stigma.

*Back when I was a kid and we rode dinosaurs to school, they used punch cards. Some families paid in full, some paid partially and some got free lunches, but everybody who got school lunch had a punch card with their name on it. It was not apparent on our end who paid and who didn't. Of course, we knew who had money and who didn't anyhow because we all knew who wore what, whose parents drove what and who lived in what part of the neighborhood, so a blind transaction system for school lunches isn't going to eliminate class differences anyhow, and neither would free lunches for everybody.

If universal public education didn't exist, many of the wealthier children would already be going to private school. In such a context, I ask, "Why raise taxes to educate these kids who already get schooling? Why not just raise a little funds and send the poor kids to shitty time schools made out of abandoned trailers? Why should we pay for schooling the children of the politicians who write the laws (and therefore, control the quality of the public school system)? Why should we have such lawmakers and the rest of society have a shared vested interest in funding an equal, quality universal education system?"

Universal free lunch won't eliminate class inequality. First of all because it's not possible, the school system can't prepare a meal for every kid's dietary needs (the only systems I know of that try are prisons, and they get sued over dietary issues constantly) and second of all because doing so would either increase costs considerably, reduce the already low quality of the food or both. All that would happen is the new class divide would be between kids on school lunch and kids with outside lunches.

We are talking about expanding an already tax funded socialized service (free universal education). Lunches are a component of such system, though currently handled in a philosophically contradictory manner.

I am not advocating total market marxism. A public school's cafeteria isn't exactly what I consider a marketplace, but rather a component of an a priori necessary public service, so you should not slippery-slope any further than that.

the ones they feed now, and they're not equipped to meet the nutritional needs of every kid. Schools are laying off teachers, they're closing campuses. Many schools would require significant site upgrades to be able to prepare lunches for all kids, which isn't remotely affordable right now, as well as increased staffing to have any hope of preparing quality meals in such quantities.

It's not possible. And there's no reason for it to be attempted, as expanding free lunch won't make lunch better, it will just spread the budget even thinner, reduce the already bad quality, and shift stigma from identifiable free lunch kids to any kids who eat school-provided lunch. It would be easier to increase quality of food for a smaller population of kids on school lunch, and non-stigmatized lunch systems are readily available and in many cases nearly free to implement.

You are simply claiming "It is not the responsibility of the school to feed every kid", rather than actually proving it to be so.

Isn't creating a system that ties food quality to one's wealth, which exists within an egalitarian, socialistic public service, inherently contradictory? These are PUBLIC cafeterias that are built with tax payer dollars, to be utilized by a socialized service. Isn't it the responsibility of the state to use these in the same manner (to provide equal and quality service to everyone) as they use the classrooms they built?

This existing contradiction would rather indicate the current approach is what has it wrong regarding responsibility. Hell, if lunch wasn't neccessary to have during the administration of the necessary public service, the nation wouldn't pay to block out this time period, nor would it have built the lunch facilities, nor would it already be employing the lunch staff. It seems they already pay a good deal, through some sense of responsibility, to allow there to be a necessary lunch time in the first place.


"which isn't remotely affordable right now"

Fine. Increase taxes. Its just a moot point, because people aren't arguing for the perpetual existence of the status quo here.


"expanding free lunch won't make lunch better"

I'm all for making lunch better. Thats what big ideas are all about, and both can be done. I was never able to eat lunch at a public school because of it being utter shit (though I ate 3 meals at a private university).

including many that are dire needs. Some of those should probably result in tax increases. Creating a new program to meet a need (school meals for kids who are not poor) that does not exist, and expanding school kitchens and staff payrolls to create it is not a worthwhile expenditure. Frankly, it's stupid when we don't even have enough teachers in the schools right now. We have better things to spend money on. California isn't even going to buy new textbooks for almost a decade, due to the mess our budget is in, so I have no idea how they are expected to pay to feed every kid in the state 260+ times a year, let alone to do so with higher quality food and to accommodate allergies and kids who need kosher/halal/celiac safe/veg meals and who knows what else, or fight off the lawsuits if they didn't, or if they screwed up.

Your argument about not providing services to those who aren't in need just doesn't hold water based on countless precedents of benefits being made for everyone. Even the rich get Social Security, Medicare, and public education, BTW.

Using the state of the country as an excuse to not enact egalitarian reform is sad. It is when things are most in dire need that the country is most pliable to create such reforms. If the New Deal is any example...

When is the right time for equality and social justice? For some, never.

That would mean dealing with actual needs, not wasting money on free lunches for kids whose families can afford to feed them.

Ya still don't get those familes will be paying for em, right?

:rofl:

Thanks.

and i think i agree :)

(and i, fwiw, support vouchers and have NEVER been accused of being a socialist or progressive)

We (taxpayers) pay HUGE amounts of money to (mainly) corporate farms, Not to grow food and livestock. Instead, lets require these (mostly wealthy, even the "small farmers" get large payments). Instead, lets make those "free ride at our expense" corporate "farms", earn their money. They should grow the crops, raise the livestock and instead of "flooding the market" with these products, they should be used to feed the poor. come on, we have an Ohio Senatorial candidate (teahadist of course), running on a "no more welfare" platform. He is paid over a quarter of a million $$ annually to not plant crops on his farm. Anti-welfare? You'd be amazed how many neo-cons are government subsidized farmers. Lets make them work for their money.. Isn't that capitalism?

for those cards in my state (WIC and Food Stamps on same card), plus only one check out line takes them...sorta like the kids on free lunches.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But with this shit economy, you'll find some who can NOT afford it.

I *think* we should have assurances that people in this country -- EVERYONE -- doesn't go to bed hungry on a daily basis, before we start planet hopping.

And I'm pro-science. But I'm pro-PEOPLE first.

The schools here send them out to everybody and beg every parent to apply whether their kid wants school lunch or not, as they get more funding for underprivileged kids based on the number of kids on free/reduced cost lunch.

They have too much STUFF.

Those formulas kick people to the curb for having 5 dollars more than the limit. Many, many people who normally wouldn't dream of applying for it (because they had money) now get told to take a hike.

Thanks for playing. :eyes:

I'm all for expanding access and for using figures for determining financial need that account for local variations in cost of living, but the solution to imperfect access to an anti-poverty program is not to throw the doors open to everybody whether they need it or not.

as little as a few bucks and they are screwed.

It's very telling about just how nasty our society has become, when people go hungry and some spend hours defending it.

I'd rather not deal with people who think it is OKAY to let people go hungry. HUNGER is the problem. Arguing the case with a miser certainly doesn't fix it.

It's the beancounting, *measure it out to the last ounce* miserly BS that is really causing problems for the people who NEED HELP.

Honestly - arguing small crap like this in this day and age makes me EMBARRASSED for this country.

People are hungry -- fucking FEED them. PERIOD.

The program is already sliding scale, some families don't get free lunch but they get lunch at a reduced rate. I'm all for moving eligibility upward generally and in particular in areas with high costs of living. But it would take a lot less money to increase the caps on the program than to open it up to all and sundry, especially since doing so would require increased staffing and larger kitchens at most schools, and that money simply isn't available and would be better spent on legitimate anti-poverty measures than on feel-good handouts to the middle class.

:applause:

Your whole post is quote-worthy!

You make me remember a late, great DUer, Sapphire Blue. She would be applauding this post of yours!

We have body fat testing for our sport. They had to get doctor's notes in order to compete. There was a family of two brothers--nothing but skin and bone. The only real meal they had was their school lunch. One of the kids had an almost full time job after practice to pay his family's rent. It was a pretty sad case showing just how bad people are off nutrition wise. I always bought them lunch and dinner when traveling, even though it wasn't my "responsibility".

Yet, DUers would rather come here to vilify *me* than to pay attention to what is happening to the nation's children.

That is beyond disgusting! Its not about *me*---it is about the kids you are describing!

SHAME!!! :cry: :nuke:

"I *think* we should have assurances that people in this country -- EVERYONE -- doesn't go to bed hungry on a daily basis, before we start planet hopping."

You have MY vote! :yourock:

Not to mention, that everyone should HAVE a bed!

on a free lunch program? It is embarrassing, and I know I skipped plenty of lunches to avoid it. Like the article says, there is a stigma attached to it, but you wouldn't know unless you were on such a program. A lot of kids on this program do get teased about it, especially in high school. There is enough stress in school without giving assholes extra ammunition. Raise my property taxes- I will gladly pay them.

Especially if the schools would switch to more nutritious food.
:)

What a concept, eh?

With the amount they charge, I agree it makes sense to just make it free, and make it healthier.

But then, this isn't a country that runs of logic. :(

The schools will continue to pump out pizza, chicken (yeah right) nuggets and french fries to our kids. Great healthy meals.

French fries, some sort of breaded fish fillet. That is the type of crap they serve now. There is a new program on TV now by Jaime Oliver, that is showing how crappy the food being served is, and how tough it is to get kids to eat it anything that is healthy. It will take at least a generation before the kids will eat healthier (if they are lucky)the system is broken and the author is correct, but the FDA guidelines won't be changing any time soon. Which is too bad.

My question is this, if all the kids are given free meals...what about the parents that wish to send their kids with healthy packed lunches? Will they be discouraged from sending their kids lunches because the other kids parents can't or won't provide home prepared meals?

-MR

I'm sure you can find much better things to nitpick.

Try looking hungry children in the eye while you do so, 'K?

Yeah, those schools are going to be patting down those kids for those healthy brown bag lunches their parents want to send to school -- we ain't taking no stinking godless foodstuffs from parents into our school - no sirree bob! :sarcasm:

Is that the *my daddy's bigger than your daddy* school of argumentation?

Your homework - go back and READ the article. :eyes:

:)

Just to be controversial. Haha....

Free food is worthless to those who cannot eat it

At some point, people have to be willing to advocate for what they want, rather than expecting it to be there automagically, and refusing to participate when they don't speak up.

is on free or reduced cost lunch to mark them as most likely failing, mind you this is a large inner city district that has come up with "creative" ways to triage students but I have read of suburban districts doing this too

That makes me take all the more seriously the author's suggestions.

Thank you! :yourock:

"Poppendieck is particularly critical of the programs' pricing system, which alloows some students to get free or reduced-price meals based on their parents' low incomes, but singles them out in the process."

Is it a cost or is it an investment?

For me, it's an investment. Now, let's work to get the maximum return on that investment. Let's make the experience FOR ALL INVOLVED as rewarding and pleasant as possible.

:yourock:

or other very wealthy places to get free food. And I don't think this is the answer to shitty school food.

Why give those millionaires' children free education afterall? They can afford to send them to a private school

I actually went to a private school that "sold" a meal plan. Most parent availed themselves of it because it was a good deal. Some didn't for a variety of reasons. What was interesting in hindsight was I'm sure some of the children weren't "buying" it, but it was part of their "scholarship" or whatever. But there was no real way of knowing. Schools could "sell" meal plans and students and parents could "choose" to purchase them, or not. But students on any form of assistance would just get the same "meal plan card" that everyone else does.

We definitely need to see better nutrition in school lunches. And getting away from stigmatizing the children who need assistance is positive.

A hungry kid doesn't learn very well.

:yourock: for seeing that between the lines.

Hunger can be quite a learning incentive


It works every time, except when it invokes riots and kids use their pencils as shanks

:rofl:

OK, its actually sad that so many "progressives" can't get the point... sigh...

thanks for trying to get it across the divide. :yourock:

Too many times, even the kids whose parents technically made "too much" to qualify still went without lunch, because their parents had peripheral expenses (like child support or the expenses of caring for an elderly family member) that ate up a large chunk of their income, leaving their ACTUAL income (as opposed to their "official" income) far below what they'd need to afford school lunch.

Perhaps it's a regional phenomenon; West Virginia is very poor, so there are a lot of people here who spend money supporting other relatives who don't necessarily live IN their home. I've been doing this for years with my Mom. We probably pay $2-3k a year in the form of cash supplemental support for her, and since the government considers that money a "gift" (as opposed to the reality, which is that I can't let my Mom starve or go without electricity to run her oxygen concentrator) then it's still money that counts against our "income", even though it's not money we get to keep. Thankfully it's not a problem for us YET, as we are still below the limit for free/reduced lunch. But for someone on the borderline, that kind of situation can make the difference.

I was also victimized as a child by the other kids because I had a pink "free lunch" card, while the better-off kids had a blue "pay lunch" card. I realize that such tormenting might seem trivial to people who've not had to bear it day after day, year after year, but believe me, the hurt adds up over time.

It is sad that there are DUers who laugh at the hurt that is caused, but I deeply respect your courage in stating the obvious... hurt hurts.

:yourock: :pals:

:hi:

sure shows the REAL attitude of "progressives". :(

:yourock:

This much was revealed in the liberal-guided health reform debate.

Hence, the un recs should come as no surprise.

Its just very sad, and is further dividing the country, and raising the rage level.

"Progressives" have changed the content, but not the process. There are very good peace people who won't come here because of the hostility and lack of deep understanding, and that is a loss for us all.

students.

"Mother knows best" is obsolete because "government knows best".

But by God, keep your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!

:rofl:

neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (James Madison)

ON EDIT: Complete Madison's quote

Yeah, government exists to mitigate the greed and moronism that guide men to constantly create pain and suffering. Funny how that quote goes to support government intervention more than discount it.

Man isn't going to regulate himself. Man isn't going to ensure there is a saftey net for the less fortunate, all by his lonesome.

with the Bush/Cheney duo or some other pair for 4 or 8 years.

My experience teaches me "what goes around, comes around".

Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

Yeah, they sucked, but at least they didn't run over hungry serfs who get in the way of their horse carriage. Without government (even one operating in the favor of the rich), all you have running the show is the rich. And they will have armys.

that advance us toward a corporate state.

SCOTUS is complicit in that scheme and approve laws that effectively neuter state power and the will of We the People.

Without that government, your local Lord would just send his soldiers to collect your crops, wealth, and daughters whenever he wants

congress and president gave them perhaps a trillion dollars of taxpayer debt for their evil deeds.

Sure an occasional corporate crook serves time in prison but only when they got so greedy that it exposed the inexorably strangle hold being tightened by corporatists on We the People.

I'm not saying the status quo is right. Rather, I'm suggesting alternatives of decentralization are far worse. Government will always be and always come about, and it can come about it worse forms (and better). There are a whole lot of rules on the book protecting you that would fall to the wayside in seconds if the government up and decided to resign one day; the wealthy would take their place and exert their own form of law which would be far less "benevolent".

:hi:

:rofl:

thanks for the kick. Every time you do so, it gets more recs.

I appreciate it.

polarizing issue -- whether government should provide conception to grave care for every person regardless of their ability to work?

That question is not going to be answered by people exchanging opinions on some internet forum.

you are actually liberal?

:shrug:

She says it's full of kids begging for unfinished items off of other kids plates. The school lunch is the only decent meal many of those kids get in a day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/education/01lunch.html?pagewanted=print

Further confirmation that some would rather go hungry than admit that their parents are unable to provide for their needs. Every other objection - from the 'nanny state' argument to the one that gives the rich a 'free ride' - are all so much SHIT that pales in comparison to the importance of basic human needs such as nutrition and alleviating hunger. Priorities, people, priorities!

thank you.... excellent find! :yourock:

it is spot on- once you enter middle school is where it begins. People might not want to admit it, but teenagers can be vicious little bastards.

an increase in my property taxes to ensure all kids get free meals at school (breakfast, too). I had to be on the free lunch programs when I was growing up, and it is kind of embarrassing (to me it was) to give your name to the cashier while every one else is paying for it. I skipped many lunches because of this. Feed all the children for free, then there is no distinction. Hell, raise property taxes 10%, that would be fine with me (with an exemption for people below a certain income level).

Maybe it was because you experienced it for yourself, so you know firsthand what it does to a kid.

This divide is why I have come to question the idea that it is so important to have a "Strong" middleclass. The more affluent people become, the less atuned they are to what it is like to struggle, and the more they believe that they did it themselves so others can, too. It is a false idea that is creating a more and more harsh society, and that is certainly doing NONE of us any good.

Thank you for sharing your experience! :yourock:

"I got mine" attitude that some espouse in this thread. Yeah, I got mine- I make $32 and hour, live in a cozy 2100 square foot house that will (hopefully) be paid off in 4 more years. I "got" mine because I was lucky to have a good public education and had availability to school loans. I benefitted from the system, now I pay back into that system so, hopefully, others can benefit the way I did. Taxes are the price of living in a civilization, and I gladly pay mine. When a few suffer, we all suffer eventually. Oh, and :yourock: too.

"fortunate", and those who are closed-hearted, and therefore closed-fisted, talk about "responsibility" and "pulling up by the bootstraps".

You sound like a person who is firmly planted in reality, with a good dose of human humility.

In other words, you sound like a very good citizen.

I, too, was appalled at first to see the true attitudes of "I got mine" here at DU. I am no longer surprised, but it certainly doesn't make me proud of this country, or this party.

I would like to think there are more like you than the "I got mine" type, but experience says it is no longer true.

Thank you. Sincerely Thank You.

I'm going to edit to add.... The attitudes here remind me of the 60s story of The Hip Woman. You know, the story about the Warm Fuzzies vs. the Cold Pricklies.

Guess which is winning.... :(

we have become way too wrapped up in ourselves. Consumerism and stupid TV rule the land. But maybe I see things different as I am only separated from Appalachian coal mining by 2 generations (and still had relatives that were trapped in it)

can do it alone, and triumph over all kinds of adversity. While some may, as you have, to believe that they did it all themselves is ridiculous, and, more....its very damaging.

But that is what we have become. And that leads to the empty self-absorption.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps". I wish I could believe in hell, because I would like to imagine him there.

affluent.

While I would like to blame it all on Raygun, the people I know who are the most solidly into their control and bigotry have no use at all for ANY of the RW, and certainly not Raygun.

It has to do with the whole Oprah "I dood it myself" crap.

It is a fear of being vulnerable.

When you are so financially self-sufficient that you feel like you don't need anyone for anything at anytime, it is threatening to see people who DO need. The fear of that threat leads to the bigotry, which they don't see because of the threatening nature of it.

On the other hand, someone like you who knows all too well just how luck plays a part, and how quickly it can all go away, has a bit more humility, and therefore, more compassion for others.

I donated.

They just quit.

I don't get that.

?????????

lifestyle choice of raising children have to contribute taxes on our property to pay for educating them but should we really have to also pay to remove stigmas involved with how much they pay to eat?

(And spare me the part about how your child is going to be wiping my ass one day)

:hi:

shame about the small handful of very active tea party trolls infesting this thread, but hey, at least they are keeping it bumped :)

When I was a kid we got red lunch tickets. Kids getting free and reduced lunches had blue tickets. Now, that's what I would call stigmatizing and making a child feel shame. This was in the 70s.

Zoom to 2010 to my son's lunchroom. Unless a child brings his or her own lunch from home, all the children eat the same meal as everyone else. They use the register and children give their last names. Only the person working the register knows who is reduced, free, or pays full price.

free lunches for all would remove the stigma felt by the poorer children and also encourage them to make healthier choices for their meals. School might be the only place where some of these kids can get a decent meal, not that the parents don't try, but sometimes it is just unaffordable.

... it's unlikely to improve the nutritional standards of school lunches. That has rather more to do with the supply end of this equation.

stigma attached to being singled out.

Isn't this a good argument for uniforms (as in the same kind of shirts/trousers/skirts) for all kids? Some kids cannot afford designer clothes.

Sounds good to me!

People are afraid some rich person will get a free lunch- who the hell cares? They probably won't even want to eat it, free or not. Get some perspective people!

:kick:

It is so obvious.

And of course the same argument is to be made for health care.

There's absolutely no way for anyone to know whether they're on free or reduced lunch or whether they are drawing on the funds that parents have deposited into their meal accounts.

It's a great system, no cards to lose, and most of all, no social stigma whatsoever (at least as far as lunch is concerned).

because I couldn't afford it. Would have loved to do so, had countless hungry days at school.