Lunch Controversy

[Riven]

I just saw a news video about some states and schools having an "alternate lunch" for people who don't pay their kids' lunch bills.

Instead of the hot lunch like their peers who's parents actually pay, they get a cold sandwich, fruit, and milk/juice.

I know what I think, but what do YOU think!

 

[Megan]

I guess I feel, why should the kids have to suffer because of their parents neglect to pay the bills? It was not the kids fault... and will lead to bigger problems (getting picked on, for instance).

 

[Chinniechantel]

We had that at my school when I was a kid. I felt bad for the people who could not pay and had to get the cold lunch, it is embarrassing as a kid I am sure. I was also in MN where about half the class didn't have to pay, so it was not that bad, but in a situation where it is only a few kids, it does seclude the kids in a time in their lives where being popular and liked are very important. And bullys can be so mean. So I don't know- but all I do know is that making kids suffer because of the low incomes of their parents makes me sad.

 

[Twilight Chinchillas]

I honestly don't know what to think on the subject. We have had this policy in place at our school for at least 3 yrs now. I do see how it would single kids out for not being able to pay, but back in my day as a student all kids got a hot lunch regardless. There are free and reduced lunches for those based on income, so that's an option, but do see some blame on dead beat parents who have the money and just don't pay on time like their are supposed to. It's a no win situation no matter how you look at it. The schools up here are struggling because of all the budget cuts, but so is everyone else....

 

[Riven]

My personal view is that is money that should be spent on educating, not feeding.

I pay $30 a week for my kids' lunches, figure four weeks and that's $120 a month that I'd LOVE to save.

I personally think that if they don't have lunch money they should get an alternate meal, or the regular meal, but after so long the parent should be reported for child neglect. It's not any different than not feeding your child at home if you ask me. It's irresponsible.

And yes, there are free and reduced lunch programs. If someone has applied and are waiting the answer, then that should be taken into consideration.

Life is not fair unfortunately, and if it's allowed then it will continue.

 

[addictedtochins]

How cruel and ridiculous, punish the kids because of their parents and the economy. I don't see any real savings anyway between a sandwich and a slice of pizza. I imagine most of the costs involved are labor and transportation.

 

[pricklesnquills]

My personal view is that is money that should be spent on educating, not feeding.

I pay $30 a week for my kids' lunches, figure four weeks and that's $120 a month that I'd LOVE to save.

I personally think that if they don't have lunch money they should get an alternate meal, or the regular meal, but after so long the parent should be reported for child neglect. It's not any different than not feeding your child at home if you ask me. It's irresponsible.

And yes, there are free and reduced lunch programs. If someone has applied and are waiting the answer, then that should be taken into consideration.

Life is not fair unfortunately, and if it's allowed then it will continue.

I think I agree with you.

But really, what is so humiliating about eating a sandwich instead of gross cafeteria pizza?

 

[Chinniechantel]

But really, what is so humiliating about eating a sandwich instead of gross cafeteria pizza?

That they have to.

 

[beanjelly]

I remember this story from a while back--if I remember correctly, the "cold" lunches were served to children whose parents were late in paying their lunch bills, not to those who were on free/reduced lunch. The free/reduced lunch kids ate the same as everybody else.

So they're not singling out the poor ones, but they are singling out those whose parents may be irresponsible, forgetful, etc. And I don't think they automatically went to the "cold" lunch after one time--I think it was if a large debt had been racked up.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Since the child has no control over the situation, it is pretty unfair that they are singled out--but you've got to recoup the money somehow. Because you KNOW they get made fun of!

 

[Mander]

When I was in school you either brought your lunch with you from home or you didnt have a lunch. We didnt have a cafeteria until high school and then you had to pay for your lunch at lunch time so if you didnt have money or you didnt bring your own lunch then you didnt eat. School money should be spent on education, parents are resposible for feeding their children. I dont go to work and expect them to feed me because I cant afford to buy lunch. JMO

 

[Riven]

I remember this story from a while back--if I remember correctly, the "cold" lunches were served to children whose parents were late in paying their lunch bills, not to those who were on free/reduced lunch. The free/reduced lunch kids ate the same as everybody else.

So they're not singling out the poor ones, but they are singling out those whose parents may be irresponsible, forgetful, etc. And I don't think they automatically went to the "cold" lunch after one time--I think it was if a large debt had been racked up.

This is correct.

Mander, that was what I thought too. I don't go to McDonald's and expect free food for my kids because I can't or don't want to pay for it. I don't understand how it's not child neglect, it's EXPECTING someone else to feed your child for you. That is not responsible. These schools are not REQUIRED to give these children anything for lunch. Would it be any more embarrassing if they just didn't get to eat?

Regardless of income or anything, some people will always "take a free meal" when they can. If I knew that if I didn't pay for school lunch and my kids would still get to eat anyway, why WOULD I pay?

It is not a free will donation, this is FEEDING your children. When my kids run out of lunch money at school and if I haven't sent any they come home with a huge stamp on their hand that says LUNCH MONEY, and I send a check.

 

[EveningChin]

I believe this is only for primary/elementary school. As cruel as children can be I believe it si better to have them fed and teased then hungry and teased. No lunch at all will get them teased all the same. Its a tough issue as we would all like to see children loved, protected and treated fairly as they have such little control over their lives. I like the fact that the schools are making an attempt to feed all children in their care while still trying to defend the money given to them for education. As has been said before this doesn't/shouldn't effect the kids on reduced/free lunches only the parents who forget to pay. I also agree that after so much time the parents should be reported for neglect.

Unfortunetly, teasing is a part of life and children can be cruel. I don't think it really matters if its about lunches or hair cut or anything out side their control.

 

[Rickman]

Mander - I was in the same boat, being the oldest of 9, and we had no cafeteria for hot lunches, "back in the day!" Didn't bring, or forgot it - go hungry! There were no "extras!"
Riven - I can totally understand what you're saying, too! Nowadays, if the parents don't care if their children eat, they should have a conversation with DCFS about neglect, as it sounds intensional!

 

[mapache315]

Why not just feed ALL the kids the cold lunch, and save the school system that much more money?

 

[greychins]

When I was in school you either brought your lunch with you from home or you didnt have a lunch. We didnt have a cafeteria until high school and then you had to pay for your lunch at lunch time so if you didnt have money or you didnt bring your own lunch then you didnt eat. School money should be spent on education, parents are resposible for feeding their children. I dont go to work and expect them to feed me because I cant afford to buy lunch. JMO

This is how it was when I went to school. Even in elementary school, I remember my dad would give me the $2 per day for lunch, and if I lost the money, I didn't eat. Alternatively, if I didn't bring money and didn't bring my lunch from home, I didn't eat. I think it should be the parent's responsibility as to whether the kid eats or not. Maybe that's cruel, but I don't think the school should have to be responsible for that. While I think the fact that (in this article) all the kids eat, I really don't think the ones with idiot parents should be singled out with the cold lunch, if the free lunches are the hot lunch. That being said, I still think it's the parents' responsibility, and I don't think the school should have to be responsible for feeding the kid, AT ALL, if the parent doesn't pay or the kid doesn't bring their lunch.

 

[FiaSpice]

When I was in school you either brought your lunch with you from home or you didnt have a lunch. We didnt have a cafeteria until high school and then you had to pay for your lunch at lunch time so if you didnt have money or you didnt bring your own lunch then you didnt eat. School money should be spent on education, parents are resposible for feeding their children. I dont go to work and expect them to feed me because I cant afford to buy lunch. JMO

That's how it worked for me too. But in primary school, we did have some things for sale: like apple, yogourt etc., but you'd have to ask your parents money. Anyway, my mom was a "stay-at-home-mom" and unless it was ugly outside, I ate at home. In high school, most of the time I brought my lunch and sometimes ate at the cafeteria.

 

[Becky]

Schools are mandated to serve certain things. At least in Michigan, they are also expected to pay for themselves, rather than take money out of the general fund.

We send notes home with our kids weekly if they owe money. We allow several days of being in the hole, but then they are given sandwiches, fruit and milk. Noone goes hungry, but we can't afford to feed kids for free.

BTW- the sandwich, etc., is cheaper. There is no manpower involved- they give them the frozen PBJ sandwiches with no crusts. Most of the kids love them!

 

[arf2184]

I work in a hospital kitchen/cafeteria. We function basically the same as a school cafeteria, just instead of students, we have patients.

I don't see anything wrong with giving a kid a sack lunch vs. hot, but I don't see how it's saving anybody any money. The food still has to be bought and delivered and the sandwiches and everything prepped by an employee. They throw away so much food in most cafeteria settings that a cold lunch may actually be an increase in cost as it requires prepping additional food to the hot food, some of which will likely be thrown away anyhow.

Your kids lunch is a bill just like any other. Parent's should pay up, but at the same time the kid shouldn't be punished if the parent didn't pay. You can't learn on an empty stomach and thats the whole point of school. My parent's frequently forgot to give me lunch money so I ran out many times. I was still allowed to eat, but I didn't get a free meal...the cost of the meal was just deducted from my account once there was money in it.

On another note, I went to an awesome junior high where the principal was a firm believer in a good lunch program. Everyday the students had two to three options for lunch: one or two hot food options or a cold sack lunch. The main hot food option was the same as any school lunch. The sack lunch was a sandwich (with many sandwich options to choose from), fruit, and cookies or chips. The second hot foodg option was usually pizza, hamburger, hot dog, or that sort of thing, and a bag of chips. This was not offered everyday. In this setting, the majority of the school bought lunch daily; rarely did kids bring their own from home. The sack lunches were quite popular, especially on days when the hot food was something weird, like fish tacos. I wish all school lunch programs were like that. Unfortunately I only went there for a year, then we moved. I started bringing my own lunches from home most of the time.

 

[AnimalsR4Me]

We had this policy in place in my school as well. K-12, it was the same. We were allowed to go a couple days to be " in the hole" and then we were given a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and milk. No fruit, however, our school ALWAYS had a tub of fresh bread and butter and peanut butter and usually jelly out, and it was fully accessible to all students, including those who were only able to have the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. So, lets say Timmy's mom is an alcoholic, and didn't get lunch money for the last week. On Monday, he is allowed only to have peanut butter and jelly and a milk. However, he is able to return to the table as many times as he wants to get additional PB&J's...Sure, the school isn't saving any money by allowing him to have that extra, but it just may be the only meal he is provided. This was the case of a quite a few kids at my school. Sad as it was, it was the reality. I lived in town where nearly everyone came from a farm, so if they were able to have another meal at home, it may not have been nearly as much as they were offered at home......So, do I think they should be able to give them just a PB&J and say "bring money and you'll get hot lunch" I suppose so.. Do I think it's fair that parents expect the food at school to be paid for? Nope. Sorry, my mind is totally wandering. I don't think I made any sense

On a side note....I LOVE those frozen PB&J sandwiches without the crust..They're "uncrustables" and they're DELICIOUS! MM strawberry

 

[PeaceB2U]

My school allows students up to five charges before they serve a PB&J sandwich until charges are paid. Reminders are sent home with students when a charge is made.

I've worked in a school for 15 years and there is another side to this issue. I've seen teachers and our school secretary work with parents to try to get them to fill out applications for free/reduced lunches so their child can have a hot meal. Multiple copies are often sent home and ignored. In many cases, the parents will not take time to fill out an application until their child starts getting a "cold meal".

I've also witnessed many a student bring in money to purchase pencils, paper, erasers, toys, etc.from the school store, yet not have money to purchase a lunch.

So yeah, I take a bit of offense when schools are bashed for serving "cold meals" to those students who aren't paying. Where else are you going to be fed without paying?

And before someone says that I'm being cold hearted to those students who can't afford to pay for a lunch let me also say I can't count the number of times I've seen teachers in my school bring in food for students to take home in backpacks, purchase winter clothing for students who don't have any, or purchase supplies for those in need. This comes from a teacher's own pocket not school funding. Teachers do care about their students.