@Wellspring
Please state who is going to pay for lunches because they are not free.
Why would there be an update article? The money already given will offset the cost of food provided to and not paid for by the students (nor by the government programs which pay for the school food for the needy). The funds will be used to offset the current balance and consistent with its purpose, future balances, which should reasonably be expected to grow.
The parents who paid for the Swiss ski trip but not their kid’s lunch bill are not going to suddenly have a change of heart and do the right thing. The kid will eat no matter what, that has already been decided.
Because I am skeptical of “Go Fund Me” accounts in general, and in particular for something like this. Who exactly are the people who started the accounts? They could simply take all the money for themselves. It’s happened before!
Who pays for the electricity? Who pays for the gym equipment? Who pays for the books? Who pays for the water? Who pays for the art supplies? Who pays for administering the collection of payment for lunches? Who pays for determining which kids get free or reduced lunches? In the vast web of funding and expenditure that is public education is there no possibility of reordering priorities?
I’m confused by your question, wellspring. As you know, the public school budgets are a matter of public disclosure, as are the funding sources (taxpayers, some state money some federal money). You should be able to ascertain the revenue and expenditures of a public school quite easily and the guidelines on free school lunch are all published
I’m still puzzled as to why this is a bad thing. The world we live in is not perfect nor will it ever be. There will always be some who prefer to game the system and they exist at all economic levels. As a solution we are to punish their kids? Out of all the wrongs that exist in this world - or even within public schools - this is the one that upsets people to where they diss a company making a donation so the school doesn’t have to worry about any of the payments this year?
Personally, I hope there are a lot more Chobanis out there who step up for their own community and don’t worry quite so much about punishing kids for the sins of their parents.
Otherwise, I agree that one ought to beware of GoFundMe accounts… When one talks about gaming various systems, that one seems to be hit more often than some others.
I never claimed it was a bad thing, Creekland, nor criticized Chobani. Behavior which we incentivize is going to occur more frequently, that is the nature of incentives.
I know around here some groups give away free coats, free backpacks, free food, free Christmas presents, and similar. I don’t see any rush of people able to afford those things on their own standing in line to get them. I’m sure there are some, but I don’t see where it’s “everyone” or even really a significant number compared to the whole. I think most folks who can afford things themselves prefer to pay for them themselves. Those who plan to game the system are the minority and I suspect would stay that way.
Regardless, it just isn’t right to punish the kids for the sins of their parents. One of my siblings is horrible with finances and definitely games systems (public and private). I’m glad I’m not responsible for her decisions. I also don’t feel it would have been right to punish her son for her decisions. He’s his own person now as an adult and has been able to learn to do things differently with some extra coaching vs just learning from her.
Is offering cold lunch punishing the kids? For years, I packed a cold lunch for my kids.
As a young child - before kindergarten, one of my oldest memories was how my older sisters and brother got to walk home from school for lunch with us - I remember I got to help set the table, as mom would have soup and sandwiches for all of us. Before I finished elementary school, they had taken away the privilege of students leaving school grounds at lunchtime. So I brown bagged it - and I even got a wonderful thermos bottle that held warm soup. I suppose they’ve taken those away with the peanut butter sandwiches, too.
When my pups were in elementary school, I attended most of the school board meetings as an interested parent - budgets were tight and the programming they needed was often threatened. One year, as they were presenting the school budget, the topic of student delinquent accounts was raised - and as the school board members reviewed the list of names and amounts - which was kept confidential from the public - it became evident that children of two members of the school board, and two of the school finance director’s children - had delinquent accounts over the $10 amount that triggered the warning letters. The Superintendent was doing his best to not publicly identify anyone, and there was gentle teasing by several of the board members, but the meeting minutes reflected that two school board members abstained from voting on the acceptance of that report.
It was pretty much required to mail a physical check in those years, as they didn’t have an option to pay by credit card or automatic debit online yet. But I can understand how easy it could be to fall behind without being nefarious.
Now, I volunteer in the Family Resource Center in an inner-city school. The school provides free breakfast and lunch to all students. The school requires uniforms, and as the kids outgrow them, we have dedicated space for hand-me-downs. A local company has sponsored our program for the past several years, and provided tokens for the laundromat next door, so kids can wear clean uniforms. I have seen families who can’t afford detergent, try to overstuff the machines.
It is easy to want to suggest that people falling behind or otherwise needy are just gaming the system, or just don’t prioritize their kids. Especially for people who don’t truly understand how hard poverty is on a family.
I would much rather see our program, currently run by volunteers with donations and grants, be funded properly with state and federal tax dollars, but until it is, I welcome the generous donations from companies like Chobani - every little bit helps. There are children coming in for breakfast on Mondays that I am pretty sure did not have much to eat over the weekend other than the few granola bars we gave them the Friday before.
I understand that there are wide varieties of need in the real world of public schools. I know that many of the people who regularly post here are really kind and generous people, and I applaud everyone who is doing what they can to become part of the solution. I just want to caution those that imply that incentivizing behavior will make it occur more frequently is not somehow a desirable outcome. Perhaps walk three miles in another man’s moccasins.
Offering certainly isn’t. Restricting certainly is. “Everyone else can have the pizza offered today if they want it, but you only get the sandwich due to something your parents did” is totally different than “Which would you like, pizza or sandwich?”
I used to trade my hot lunch for my best friend’s sack lunch. Her mom made a mean egg salad sandwich.
This district wasn’t offering a cold lunch. According to an official in the district their plan was to remove the hot item from the student’s tray, toss it in the trash, and replace it with a cold sandwich.
The problem is the school district was convinced the majority of its debts were by families of means, so it was not just a few outliers gaming the system. We actually have a whole rational system in place to feed poor kids at school, even 3 meals a day year round in some schools, so before we promote an end run around that system, can we analyze why you think it isn’t working?
If the rules in place don’t work, fine, change the rules. But don’t just ignore them. Some part of that school’s population actually followed the rules, filed the forms, and the school gets money from the feds to feed their kids. I appreciate that those parents actually followed the rules, but there really is no reason for them to keep doing so. The school will lose out on some of its fed reimbursement then, but the result for the kids is the same, so no reason for anyone to file those forms at all. It may be fine with everyone that the kids eat anything, but it does rather gut the Fed money for the school, which was likely not the intended result.
And to add to the above, the school in question stated that in lieu of completed forms, it would have accepted a phone call from a parent stating need, even temporarily. It really doesn’t sound like so much to ask, a phone call or a note. Maybe we should let the kid eat anything, since he can’t send the note, but file a report with child protective services.
My questions about who pays were illustrative; obviously the expenditures are a matter of public record for the most part. My point, which I apparently failed to make clear, is why is food different from all other consumables provided by a school that requires children to be there the entire school day? It’s not in most schools’ budgets now, but budgets can change.
Are other kids choosing hot lunch? Or pizza, which was mentioned as a la carte. Do you feel pizza is more nutritious? And it wasnt just a cold sandwich. It was a veggie.fruit, and milk, as well.
What Do you want to serve?
@Wellspring, the fact that only 4 countries in the world provide free lunch to all in compulsory education rather suggests that there is not widespread public support to do so. Many school districts can barely balance their budgets as it is and presumably do not wish to take on this massive undertaking with no current public pressure or matching funding to do so.
Pizza is not always a la carte. Sometimes it is the main dish of the day. I used it as an example because it’s one of the most loved meals and is easy to type.
According to many of our exchange students, in other countries kids can still go home for lunch. They don’t always have cafeterias like US schools do.
I work for the government legal service in my country. Public debt collection in the realm of education is part of my responsibility. I am really expensive for the state, and it sometimes annoys me that the many small claims I collect do not even pay my salary.
I tell myself and others that it is about equity. Those are public funds, governed by public rules and we cannot let people get away with flaunting them, because in the end, people will stop playing by the rules altogether. I work mostly international cases, and I notice very strong attitude differences among cultures concerning public funds, private responsibility, accountability (eg answering letters and providing income statements vs “playing dead”, and the line isn’t drawn by wealth, whether on the micro or the macro level).
Someone is picking those fruit, milking those cows, chopping those veggies, pouring that milk. They don’t make too much money either, and they pay taxes, even if it’s not all that much, for the district to offer lunch to students who really can’t afford it. And if they can’t, they need to fill in that form.
I’d say that 90 % of my fruitless cases are generated because people simply play dead and don’t provide information. I have to initiate proceedings to just start that first step. Some can pay and some cannot, but we need to find out.
I don’t think it’s right, as @roycroftmom sarcastically stated, to just decide “the kids will eat”. I do not think that a kid should be given lunch once that first letter pointing out the negative balance, preferably with the free meal form attached, has gone out. Frankly, I’d prefer for mp child to be given lunch unless parents either sign the automatic debit form or the free lunch application (so at least you only have to go after those who forget to check the balance on their checking account).
If the child is not eating because the parents are not paying, not sending a bagged lunch AND not filling in the form, social services must get involved because that is major neglect. Sometimes you have to FORCE a parent to get involved. I can’t tell you how happy I am when a parent at least picks up the phone to call me. We ALWAYS find a solution. Those who play dead even though their child’s welfare is at stake ought to be shaken out of their stupor, for the child’s sake.
And those who just can’t be bothered because they know their child will eat no matter what? I’ll happily prosecute them to the full force of the law no matter how small the claim and draw my expensive salary for it, because that is simply disrespectful.
Or of course, decide, as a polity, that all kids should be given lunch regardless if income level, but offer the five a day vegetables and fruit that the kids won’t get at home, drawing on regional sustainable production. That’d be a win win for everyone. But a pipe dream.