START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,532,796 people care about Health Policy

5 Reasons to Give All Kids a Free School Lunch

5 Reasons to Give All Kids a Free School Lunch

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but exceptions should be made for children. After encountering problems with its free/reduced lunch program, several school districts in cities around the country are experimenting with a new way of handling cafeteria payments: free meals for all students, regardless of their families’ income.

This year, some Boston schools will join schools in other cities like Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta in handing free lunches to all of its students – no questions asked. To qualify for this radical approach, which is funded by the federal government, school districts must have a high concentration of economically disadvantaged students.

The program seems promising, so why not afford the same offer to all American students? Here are five reasons to give every child in the country a free lunch:

1. No More Hungry Children

 

Although most of the kids who go hungry throughout the day would technically qualify for a free or reduced lunch, getting that meal isn’t always so simple: parents aren’t always made aware of this option, essential paperwork doesn’t get filled out due to language barriers, and pride and embarrassment stops some from applying at all.

By allowing every kid a free lunch, many obstacles are erased. Without the structural failures and excuses, no student should have to go without a midday meal. That goes for kids of all economic backgrounds, too. How often does a student forget his or her lunchbox or money at home?

2. School Employees are No Longer Debt Collectors

 

Most teachers and faculty are in the profession because they care about kids; therefore, it’s difficult to stand by and watch their students go hungry. When they notice a student foregoing lunch, they’ll often lend kids personal money or let them have it on a credit system from the cafeteria.

Subsequently, this puts the staff in the uncomfortable position of trying to track down the money later. Their jobs are complicated enough without having to call parents and guardians to ask for money – often in cases where they know there isn’t money available.

As a result, a lot of these loaned lunches go unpaid. Boston estimated that it lost $350,000 annually by fronting lunches in these circumstances, and the money had to be taken from other areas of the educational budget just to cover them. By having federal funds to cover the lunches for everyone, school officials no longer have to worry about taking funds marked for instructional purposes just to feed its students.

3. It Eliminates the Class Divide

The existing free/reduced lunch system seems to wind up reinforcing a class divide amongst students. Kids who bring a lunch are considered well-to-do, while those who wait in a cafeteria line are considered poorer.

Previously, Boston ran into some problems when it received money to give a portion of its needy students free breakfast. All of the students could see which kids were receiving complimentary milk and pastries when others were assumed to have eaten breakfast at home. This not only arouses jealousy on the part of the kids who don’t get food, but shame in the kids who had to get special treatment.

In eliminating the obvious sense of who “needs” free food, it will also eradicate the stigma attached to the cafeteria meals. Our children should be nourished, not shamed.

4. Lunches Lead to Learning

While an argument could be made that funds should be applied toward educational instruction, not food, the counterargument is that students need to be fed to ensure proper education. There are multiple studies that show kids who eat breakfast perform better at school. Surely, the same logic would carry over to lunch: students who aren’t nourished cannot focus on academics.

In fact, the healthier the meals are served to kids, the better the kids do. Schools that commit themselves to providing nutritious meals found that not only did grades and test scores improve, but behavioral problems decreased dramatically. If offering healthier meals can make that much of a difference, consider how much we’re hindering our students who are not eating lunch at all.

5. Nutritional Possibilities

On the topic of nutrition, just think of the potential health benefits that a school-wide free lunch program could yield. A school-wide free lunch means an increase in students of all economic levels eating the cafeteria’s food and less junk food being brought in from home. This boosted school lunch participation could result in healthier kids… provided the proper food is served.

What better way to start tackling childhood obesity than by overhauling the school lunch program? Efforts are already underway to raise nutrition standards in school lunches. While we’re finding a way to give all students a complimentary meal, we could also find ways to give them healthier options.

Read more: , , , , , , , , ,

Photo credits: Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

93 comments

+ add your own
12:38AM PDT on Apr 20, 2014

Thank you

4:36AM PDT on Oct 6, 2013

1 reason not to: we can't afford it.

9:51AM PDT on Sep 22, 2013

now food stamps are on the chopping board, school meals albeit green slime is the only meal left for our kids.

5:56PM PDT on Sep 15, 2013

Start investing in your future! You reap what you sow...and it sure ain't compassion...

10:44PM PDT on Sep 14, 2013

thank you, for the article and some good comments.

4:26AM PDT on Sep 14, 2013

I believe that this approach to school meals was started in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at schools that had a high number of economically disadvantaged students. As I recall, this approach actually saved money, because the schools no longer had to pay people to take care of all the paperwork.

For those who say that poor people should not have so many children, the size of families on welfare is lower than the size of families not on welfare. And anyone who is anti-choice and anti-birth control has no right to stigmatize people who can not afford to feed the children they have.

10:30AM PDT on Sep 11, 2013

so much yes! no child should have to be hungry

2:46AM PDT on Sep 11, 2013

I know from experience that trying to teach a child who is hungry is a waste of time and therefore a waste of education so we should be making sure that children are nourished properly before the day begins. In the UK some schools had a 'breakfast club' for children unable to get breakfast at home (and parents who had to leave early for work). I always thought that this sounded like a good idea. I believe it was subsidised in some way so that a child just needed a minimal amount in payment. Any child was eligible for this if it was needed.

10:48AM PDT on Sep 10, 2013

sound great to me.

2:03AM PDT on Sep 10, 2013

ty

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.