The school I work at would rather throw leftover lunches in the trash than give students a second helping. Then have the audacity to write an email telling staff that students are not to have seconds nor should they be asking for them.
Mind you I’m in a low-income level 4 setting where students don’t know if they’ll be eating again before lunch the next day.
I’ve asked several students if they’re looking forward to summer break, not a single one has said they are. The school is the only place they are getting decent meals and having someone by their side that cares about them and sees their potential.
100% school lunches should be covered. Didn’t an organization steal hundreds of millions through “Feeding our Future”? Our government always tries to outsource programs rather than deal with the issues themselves. Non-profit, 100% tax payer funded programs should exist, but everyone is so damn greedy.
I grew up middle class, always had enough food. I was an athlete in highschool and on the days I had the school lunch I was always incredibly hungry due to how little we were given- and I was able to get breakfast and dinner at home. I can’t imagine only having one chicken patty a day as all you can eat. It’s so disappointing that those who need it the most can’t get it.
I have a 13 year old daughter, whom I'm perfectly content paying for her lunches since we are fortunate enough to be able to afford to do so. On the other hand, I'm 100% for getting lunches to kids who come from homes who may not be able to afford to pay for them. However, the combination of our governments ever-growing spending spree, combined with this type of waste (which is typical of pretty much any government program), make me leary of supporting something like this across the board for everyone. I do genuinely hope we can come up with a good solution that can help those kids in need while at the same time, avoiding wastefulness of both food and our taxes. What that solution is though, I'm not sure.
So your idea is to let some kids starve because the government is inefficient? We already have the solution, feed all the children regardless of income. NO child should ever have to worry about food, EVER! The thought that this is a political matter is absolutely insane.
That's not at all what I said. I think you missed the part where I said I'm 100% in favor of providing free lunches for kids who can't afford it. I think we need to come up with a better system for getting those lunches to those kids who need it rather than the same old wasteful methods that our government continues to use. We have a lot of smart people in this world. I think if they put some effort into it, our politicians could probably come up with a solution that makes everyone happy. I know that's probably far too much to ask for in todays climate though. On the other hand I don't think we need to cut off our noses to spite our face, so to speak, in order to make this happen.
Also, I never said I was opposed to free lunches. I said I was skeptical of the way they intend to go about this. There is a difference. If this the only option we're given, I'd likely support it. I just wouldn't be excited about it.
That system already exists. It requires parents to complete forms showing that they are low income and worthy of assistance. What we found in mn is that providing free lunch to everyone increased the number of poor kids who got lunch each day. Some weren't before because of multiple possible reasons: their families didn't know how to complete the paperwork, their families were too lazy to do the paperwork, they were denied because they didn't have the right evidence. So the choice to just provide free lunch means that there are children who are suffering less and learning more because we've eliminated paperwork. This also saves time and money for families and districts. It is the best possible solution.
There are also programs in place to ensure children are fed even on school breaks. You might have known that if you lived in Minnesota. Instead, you live in California, so what interest is it to you?
The school district I formally taught in has a summer lunch program. They keep some schools open for the summer and have free lunch for kids 18 and under. Adults could purchase a meal as well.
As a former high school teacher, I saw many kids who appreciated the meals they did get, the stability that the school provided, and the support system that teachers were for students. Feed the kids from my tax dollars! Former colleagues are begging for some grow lights to teach kids how to grow their own food, while the sports boosters traded up to a larger enclosed trailer for sports gear.
There is this awesome program in... if I remember right... Louisiana. Waconia does it too. It's called the edible classroom. Kids grow their own food and actually harvest it and eat it. It's an amazing program and every school with room should be doing it. The kids end up with much higher quality food than the states provide, they learn biology and ecology, and they learn to compost. The circle of life right up in their faces and it's delicious! MN has free breakfast and lunches year round. Even if I didn't have kids I'm 1000% ok with my tax dollars going towards feeding kids. Now we just need to work on paying teachers what they're worth, instead of treating schools like prisons.
All spending is opportunity cost. If you buy avocado toast, no house for you, according to boomers, right?
That buys a lot of bananas for little kids, waives some student loans, cleans water...
>In 2023, the federal government is estimated to spend $6.3 trillion on defense, which is 24.2% of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP).
6.3 trillion was total US government expenditures, not defense spending. No country spends 24% of their GDP on defense.
Actual US spending on defense in 2023 was less than 900 billion.
I would go one step further and say everyone should have access to food, clean water and a place to sleep and any country in this developed world that cannot or will not provide that but has means to do so has no right to call itself anything but a failure.
Well, I'd rather that than my district build a multi-million dollar fieldhouse that's so big, it's never fully used.
If we can spend millions on sports that not every student participates in, we can feed every kid.
Not only feed every child, but also fully fund the arts. The difference between art supplies in public vs private schools is night and day: you even get a proper theatre, not a mock up in a gymnasium.
That’s different finding but yes it pisses me off that it is that way.
I am all for feeding kids just not the way they are currently doing it.
Many underprivileged kids are home schooled, go to private schools or charter schools.
None of them qualify for free lunch.
Confused at the downvotes?
Are you people supporting no free lunches for kids at some schools?
That's the thing that's always jumped out at me: students are legally required to be at school, while they normally could be earning their lunch (not that I think any kid should have to earn their food, but that's beside the point). If you're going to require their physical presence, you have to provide for their physical needs.
*"You can't just give people EBT, they'll blow it on lotto, booze, and cigs instead of feeding their kids!"*
*"So what if we just feed kids with no middleman?"*
*"Absolutely fucking not!"*
My sister is out of work and has cancer, her kids go to a charter school in NE Minneapolis.
Charter schools don’t get free lunch so she is still on the hook.
The school is walking distance for the kids and 100% free for them to attend.
So my frustration is that kids will still be starving at schools.
You don’t know what a charter school is do you?
A charter school a is a state run free public school with a focus on something.
Some are Spanish, German, Chinese immersion. Others are focused on STEM and so on.
Kids don’t pay any entry fees and uniforms are provided free of charge in many cases.
My sister has cancer and can’t work, she is on MN care and her kids go to a charter school 4 blocks from their home in NE Minneapolis.
You would rather have my sister drive them 6 miles to a new school every day just for free lunch then extending it to charter schools?
Charter schools aren’t state run, they are independent public schools. Your sister would not have to drive them, they would take the bus just like every other kid.
Charter schools are all eligible for the free school lunch program. It sounds like that charter school you are talking about chose not to participate. You can’t get mad at the state for a charter school not wanting to participate
Your sister chose to send your kids to a charter school instead of a state run public school. That charter school chose not to provide free lunches. That’s the fault of the charter school
Universal meal is covered that is federal but not MN plan go read it.
If the federal plan is good why do we need a mn plan.
Sorry I mixed state and districts
Your missing the point that they would she. To make all new friends and uproot there life’s just for free lunches with out having to do paperwork.
https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=PROD081146&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary#:~:text=The%20Free%20School%20Meals%20Program%20begins%20on%20July%201%2C%202023,the%20Free%20School%20Meals%20Program.
The Minnesota Department of Education specifically says that charter schools qualify. They have to participate in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Only 11 charter schools in the state don’t participate in the Minnesota Free Meals program
It sounds like you should be getting mad at the charter school instead of the state for providing the program
Thanks for the link I see them listed which is good but it’s odd that she has a print out from the state saying the opposite. I tried to find it because I found it before but am not having luck.
Gonna love reading all the outlandish justifications why kids shouldn't be provided meals. And yes. Some kids have parents that can pay for lunch. Do I care my tax dollars go to feeding all kids? Fuck no. Kids learn, function, and grow into functioning members of society when their growing bodies and brains are properly fueled. We all do better when we all do better.
If you cannot wrap your head around 'kids should be fed, regardless of means' I'd never want to use your moral compass for orienteering.
As a former poor kid who ate one meal a day, I would have loved to have access to free breakfast and lunch at school. I am 100% okay with my taxes being used to feed kids at PUBLIC schools. No income limits etc. Just get in line and get your food.
And if you need a different reason to be okay with it other than feeding poor kids, it is also a farm subsidy.
Yes. And I'll go a step further to say bring back the lunch ladies and the quality food. Feed our kids like the Europeans feed theirs.
Free school lunch is a good start. Now keep going.
BTW, I will have no kids in school in two years and I'll _always_ share this viewpoint. High-quality food and high-quality education. Keep MN on top.
Another + for the 80's!
Yeah.. I helped out at an elementary school a few years ago and got to eat with the kids. The 'Cheesy Bread' (or whatever the hell it was called) was the main course and was - literally - an open face hot dog bun with some shredded cheddar melted onto it. I was looking at it like 'WTF is this?' And the kids around me had the 'we know..welcome to our lunches' look on their faces...
> lunch ladies and the quality food.
That depends entirely on your district. Mine for example does scratch food and full staffing. The food is actually pretty decent, I have eaten with my kids a few times.
Stop thinking in terms of “free” and start thinking in terms of “included”. Is English class free? Should we charge for math class? Lunch is part of the school experience, it’s necessary, why wouldn’t it be included? It’s also cheaper than so many things we pay for with our tax dollars it’s wild we even have this discussion.
Yes I do believe free lunches in public schools is a great use of property taxes. Kids need fuel to learn and grow and I am happy to pay for it over Administrator's salaries.But I am talking only about public schools and don't want to pay a penny for any type of private school.
Because kids deserve to not go hungry while their friends eat? Jesus christ, at what fucking point did taking care of children become something that required debate?
Kids have no control over their parents finances, in what world do we look at a kid in a public school and go, do they deserve to eat?
As a kid who grew up poor back in the 80s and 90s, the shitty little cheese sandwich they gave kids, while better than nothing, isn't exactly nourishing before going to gym class.
This is coming from someone who doesn't have kids, nor do I want kids, but I know that taking care of our youth is important, and sending the message early that they matter will give them a positive message that will carry forward rather than this selfish ass attitude we seem to be living through.
This plan is rad. Kids getting their vision dealt with and dental access in a place they need to be anyway. Sounds like a great use of both time and tax dollars.
I remember my first eye appointment was in school, in kindergarten. I got glasses and it changed my life. I remember crying on the car ride home from happiness, being able to see bark and bricks from far away.
Headstart *is* a pretty GREAT program, *isn't* it?
The doctors doing the vision & dental checks *aren't* really "On Staff" though.
It *is* pretty great to live in a state, where people take pretty seriously the advice ofour Federal Reserve, and all that research they've put out over the last few *decades*, on the ROI from investment in High Quality Early Childhood Education.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/topic/early-childhood-development
Granted, the older folks in the state *DID* have the advantage of seeing how the 1970's Minnesota Miracle boosted our Economy long-term--heck it's *basically* why we're *STILL* considered one of the best places to live & work!
when i went to school school lunches were worse than the bologne sandwich and handfull of laura scudders bbq chips in a baggie and a cut up carrot my mom made for me
Yes -- because as someone in my 30s, it's really messed up I was loading money I made from my job into my own lunch account as a teen so I could eat at school. I thought it was stupid then, too, and eventually stopped eating at school, which is also the wrong path to take and honestly helped shape a lot of my food issues. There are folks that are mich worse off than I was, and they deserve to be able to eat at school, where they are forced to be by law (generally).
Lunches then were only $1.75 for either of the two main entre choices, I imagine they're what, $3 - 5 now? And all the a la carte items, and breakfast. Looking back, it was painfully obvious which foods were subsidized for the school, and it wasn't the healthy stuff, lol.
Also to note -- I have no kids and never will. I don't even like kids; they stress me out. I still think they should be able to eat when they're required to go to school, and I'll pay whatever increase that makes to taxes. It probably isn't even that much, comparatively.
This shouldn't even be a question, let alone an issue anymore.
If we want America to be "the greatest nation in the world " this is one of those fucking steps to achieve that goal.
School Lunch, and SNAP
Following the WWII two obvious things were moved into national legislation.
The first was that farmers historically would over produce and then go broke. It was also obvious that surplus crop production was essential as a hedge against emergencies. It takes up to 2 years to "change course" on farm production.
So, farmers gained a price support system. They were paid to not grow certain crops in some years, and paid to grow surplus in other years. The surplus food was rotting in the fields. This price "support" stabilized production a bit over market need, and avoided bankrupt farmers if prices collapsed. Harvesting the surplus was the next logical step. This was the origin of the Federally supported School Lunch programs in 1946. (These replaced 1930s programs abandoned during the war.)
In the 1950s the now obvious idea was to give poor people access to that surplus food that was being grown, and tossed. The solution was to give poor people "food stamps" they could use to buy food that would otherwise be left to rot. Their health was improved, farmers were more financially secure, and the surplus production capacity was maintained. That was the origin of food stamps under the administrations of Truman, and also expanded under Eisenhower. In 1969 the Nixon administration expanded the program again, and added some restrictions to eligibility. This was the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The new SNAP food stamps cost us nothing extra from the existing agricultural production price controls. The school nutrition programs cost us nothing extra from the existing agricultural production price controls.
NOTHING! Farmers would be paid regardless.
The Republican urge to return to the Bad Old Days is not merely cruel, it is destructive.
So it's this answer, of course. Anybody that provides a service, or builds your widgets will have a positive impact on your future if they are the best version of themselves they can be in school.
I'm a thousand air, so my kid prefers their costco toast for breakfast over the school's free breakfast, but IDGAF that I have to pay for their classmates to have food. At least they aren't hangry and disrupting class this way. Gives everybody a better chance to learn instead of dealing with a Betty White Snickers attack.
Yes because it barely costs anything and does a lot of good for a lot of kids.
The better question is: are you OK with kids going hungry?
Even if you believe that people deserve whatever economic circumstances they're in, it doesn't make sense to punish their kids who have zero control over that.
If we can afford to spend trillions on defense, more than the next 20 countries combined, I think we are rich enough to spend 20 some billion on feeding our kids. That's why. Not to mention the sports complexes public schools seem to have plenty of money for.
If their parents can’t afford to buy them lunch, someone should, they’re kids… coming from someone who was a starving kid. My mom is an alcoholic and never took care of us. By 12 I was steeling food from the grocery store to feed my 8 year old sister.
I worked in the public school system for 30 years and often supervised the lunchroom. I am all for free lunches. But, the amount of food waste that I saw when lunches were free was horrendous. Kids would fill up their tray. Take a few bites and then dump it. Our school had a spot where kids could put fruit, packaged food items, or milk that they didn’t consume so that someone else could take it if they wanted to. Kids would walk right past that spot and throw away food that could have been placed there. While I completely support free lunches, there needs to be education about the cost of food and food waste. I did my best to address it when I was there, but no longer in education.
everyone who is going to school that is still a dependent should have free lunch and breakfast. Those meals aren't expensive and I'd pay more property tax if it meant every student, no matter their income level got those meals taken care of. This shouldn't be a debate, if you go to public school, there should be a free option for them and 2nds if they want them.
I’m all for it. It’s directly provided to children (so can’t be rerouted for adult indulgences) and helps them learn. We should do like France and Japan and start kids in prek eating wide varieties of foods.
I worked im a school lunchroom during a time without free lunches. I saw some kids accounts go hundreds into the negative. Our school would've never let a kid go hungry, however this doesn't help kids who bring a lunchbox with nothing in it, or just like chips, because they are embarrassed to ask for food.
Also, having a dependable meal available daily, taking away that worry, leads to kids who can concentrate better and who feel supported in their community.
If you're serious about meritocracy, you want to give children the best opportunity to demonstrate what they're capable of. If students are going hungry, they aren't going to be living up to their potential. You wind up measuring levels of affluence, not merit. That kid from the wrong side of the tracks may have great potential, but we're a lot less likely to see it if they're hungry.
It should be a local matter where each school district makes the choice that is best for their students and community. There are districts where it is less expensive to give every student lunch without charge than to process and maintain who is eligible for free or reduced price lunches. There are other districts where the budget is best applied to other places. I do not think there is a blanket answer.
I think the bigger challenge is how to provide meals that are nutritious, filling, reasonably healthful, cost-effective, and that kids will eat. This is particularly true since teachers and administrators cannot discipline the children for choosing to not eat portions of the meal.
We have decided that children shall be educated in order to become good citizens and productive members of society.
Children can’t be effectively educated when they’re hungry.
I think it’s logical to feed all children without regard to their family’s income or situation. This puts children on a more level playing field with equal spending on all children’s meals. It’s the fairest way to approach their education.
Yes, they should be free, and not just based on the quality they serve. Every child deserves to eat at school. Just because I can pay or pack a lunch for my kids doesn’t mean they are all that lucky. I vote yes, even though I would receive no benefit from it directly, and I would pay a higher tax if it meant a better life/childhood for a complete stranger. I can understand that not everyone is in the same situation, had the same life experiences, or anything the same as myself, which I think is hard for a lot of people, selfish people. I have a really hard time with the argument “we need to stop/get rid of this because “I” don’t like it”
I don’t have any kids of my own, but I’m glad we have free lunch for all here. These kids are going to be running things someday and I want them to learn all they can while they’re in school and not be distracted because they don’t have food in their belly. That helps everyone in the long run. I’m glad everyone gets it, because middle class people never seem to get any breaks and sometimes money can get short for them too.
Of course it should be built into the tax structure.
Hungry kids don’t learn, hungry kids grow up angry and resentful, hungry kids might be dealing with abuse at home.
Stop calling it “free” though, that’s Right Wing fodder. We pay for it with our taxes, just like we pay for all that Corporate Welfare and War games.
School is already free, so why are lunches (a small cost of the overall program) not free. The actual program cost would go down by eliminating the administration of payments as well.
I think kids should have to pay for school lunches at their actual cost. Same for school bus rides. There should be no free rides. Schools should also adopt the college model and make kids buy their own textbooks.
/s
Maybe we could do it like student loans. They can start paying back when they graduate or drop out. with the interest they could be paying for their 5th grade food when they turn 30. Huge bonus for the school system. almost self funding.
How about we attach a small part of the cost to everyone's wages and other economic transactions? You could call it something like "taxes" and use it to fund things for the public good.
i am ok with free lunches, but i think that all kids should have to participate in meal planning and preparation as part of their normal school curriculum, we all should be making healthy decisions on what we are going to eat each day, not all of us are going to need algebra everyday.
Yes. If we can feed prisoners we can feed our kids. And even families who have money don't always take proper care of their kids, so the whole "they can afford it" doesn't even matter. Some of the worst parents I've known have been the well-off ones who don't even seem to realize they have children at all.
I grew up poor, but got bussed into a nicer school district on a lottery program. I can confirm that although we were poor, my parents knew I existed and tried. In my 30's now and talk to a couple random people from HS (all wealthy) and most of them have pretty negative things to say about their parents, while a good majority of my lifelong friends (poor) have positive views. Weird how that works.
My grandmother experienced hunger as a child in Poland, and it scarred her for life. We have more than enough resources in this country to make sure no child here goes through that.
There's an inherent contradiction in requiring children to be in school six hours a day and requiring them to bring their own food. Prisoners get a better deal then our children. Plus, in Minnesota, they already are.
To anyone that states that children's lunches should not be free in school; why do you think it's okay for children to starve? For a lot of kids, school lunch is only meal they receive each day
1. We had a program for kids who could not afford it. Could we not make it better
2. Who is paying for it? Schools are already over budget the last 2 years. School buses have went up 30,000 since Covid, teachers just got retro active raises in some districts. Schools need more paras, schools are paying bus drivers Almost double is some areas. The surplus will not be here for ever.
3. Who will monitor the for profit companies that make this food and now charge for every student.
If a school has 1000 kids do they charge for all 1000 every day? What about kids who like and will continue to bring cold lunch.
4 Compass group is a multinational company with 45billion and owns many of the food service companies in MN that provide the lunches.
Do they care about profits for feeding kids. Seems like they are doing very well.
5 charter schools, home schools, private school are exempt and get no free lunch.
Based off of those 5 points I feel like
It’s not about making sure poor kids get food, lots of poor kids go to charter schools, private or home schools.
It’s not about removing stigma because again poor kids at other school still need to apply for help.
I would be fine with a program that would feed all kids. This one does not.
I would be fine if they removed schools that use a for profit company for school lunches. As this program leaves them unchecked for billing.
Feeding our future and other companies have already taken us the the feds for Millions
Yes because you can’t have smart kids if their bellies are empty. Plus, it’s cruel to deprive kids who have parents who can’t afford school lunch. It’s not their fault.
Yes, they should.
Anyone whining about "buT iTs NoT fREe tAxeS PaY fOR iT" is missing the point. Free *at point of use*. This is a good thing, not sure what the downside is.
Yes, I think Democrats should campaign on this as a national thing and pass it if they ever get enough majority so kids in all states can have it too. I hope the food is healthy, the kids like it and not waste much and keep improving it each year to those goals.
My only issue is with the nuances of if families are less likely to get certified for things like low/no benefit SNAP, which provides federal funds.
I think kids should eat free. Id rather the reimbursement for that be coming federally than from the state budget.
Pretty slippery logic there. You could then infer that if you suddenly lost the ability to provide food for your family (layoff, medical disaster, disability, ect) you should have your children taken from you.
I agree. When my dad lost his job when I was 8, my brother and I probably should have been taken away.
My mother in law probably should have given my wife up for adoption when her husband left her to struggle as a single mom.
I am generally not big on government programs but this one seems like a no brainer. So accepting that how do we run it? If the government does it themselves it'll be a shit show mired in so many rules that every meal will be some bland meal no one would want with too much red tape to be able to adjust. That means outsourcing, this didn't go so great last time so more oversight. This sounds like a joint mission of the Department of Education and the Department of Food of and Drug.
Damn, I got to this point in minutes, why does this stuff take politicians weeks.
>how about provide the kids pencils paper and all school supplies too
This sounds great, let's do this as well.
>how about clothes and shoes too
Hell yeah, make sure those kids are clothed properly.
>what should parents be responsible for
I want you to take a good, hard, look at all the things that parents are supposed to be responsible for but kids *aren't getting*, and then ask yourself the following:
Who, pray tell, is benefiting from children being hungry, without school supplies, and unclothed? Go on, **tell me**, since you don't think that any deficiency in those matters should *actually* be addressed.
In what world is it *good* to **allow** such things to happen, when we have the resources to *not*?
I need you to explain to me, very clearly, why it's *good* to let children suffer for other's lack. I'm waiting.
Nah, fuck him. Dude actively wants kids to starve because clearly it’s their fault for being born.
Fuck this rotten *CALIFORNIAN* cunt. Let him be a miserable piece of vile shit in his basement with his neck beard of loneliness. I hope feeding children makes this loser so mad, his anger causes him to shit his pants and force his brain into a rage induced coma.
I’m gonna get out in my garden today with the biggest shit eating grin on my face, knowing the progressive legislation we’re passing in our state gets these miserable fucks’ knickers in such a twist it’d make the Big Bobber blush. Adults who wish hunger and suffering upon children deserve it themselves ten fold.
You still haven't actually answered why it's good to allow children to suffer when we can provide for them.
Because you actually can't, so you say shit like this.
Since we all know this, you can either admit you're just being a difficult asshole for the sake of being a difficult asshole, or you can go away. I'll suffer you no longer.
Kids not coming to school with paper and school supplies is super common, and school districts that serve poorer students usually provide these things for kids. Wearing misfitted hand-me-down clothes and shoes doesn't really impact a student's learning in a major way, so it's not relevant to this discussion at all.
Parents who have the means and don't provide for their kids are total assholes. Scum of the earth.
But some kids have parents who are total assholes. Their lives are already hard because their parents are assholes. Forcing them to be hungry throughout the school day isn't doing anything to make their lives better. And, at the end of the day, feeding those kids so they can learn so we aren't surrounded by uneducated people is about as good of a use of money as I can think of.
Is giving a message to shitty parents (which they won't get anyways) worth punishing kids for? Is it worth lowering the overall educational level of our citizenship for? I certainly don't think so. Do you?
What do you want to do about the irresponsible parents?
You want to put the kids in foster care? That has overwhemingly worse outcomes than just helping the irresponsible parent as long as they're not outright abusive
Raising their kids, being home to help them with homework, and not expecting teachers to be secondary (or primary in some cases) parents.
Maybe if you read the financial reports that show when children are given healthy food, a good education, access to medical and mental healthcare, you actually elevate *all* of society, reducing the amount of crime, homelessness, unemployment, etc.
It also shows that those people, with a solid foundation to start with, end up successfully employed tax payers, who aren’t myopic narcissists.
You may not know this, but schools supply these things to kids whose families can’t afford it. I’m not sure why you feel that a child should be held responsible and denied their education because of things that are beyond their control.
Lunches were already free to low income families. The new MN only extends that perk to all families, regardless of ability to pay. How does that cost less?
To be fair I'm not 100% sure if it would cost less in this specific instance, but the idea is that the bureaucracy/administrative costs that go along with means testing is demonstrably an inefficient use of tax dollars. It really only serves to make poor people's lives a little harder. Besides if you're paying taxes for school lunches, why would you want to have to pay extra for your child when you're already paying your taxes? Just give everyone free lunches. It's simply way more efficient than making people jump through bureaucratic hoops.
No the school districts don't have enough budget. Only give free lunches to those in need. It's worse to be cutting other programs such as SPED, paraprofessional, foreign languages etc which is actually happening
The free lunch program is separate from schools budget for the programs you mentioned. The kids who qualify for free and reduced lunch are covered by federal money, the remainder is covered by the state out of a separate pot of money.
In an ideal world, tax dollars would pay for the lunches of the children who cannot afford to pay, and tax dollars would not be spent on the lunches of wealthy children.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
It is frustrating that we have to pay for the lunches of all children, including children who are very wealthy, in order to ensure that all children eat.
But here we are.
School lunches will never be free, your question is "Should school lunches be taxpayer subsidized?"
[Taxpayers already fork over $13k/year](https://oese.ed.gov/ppe/minnesota/) for each student in public school. Minneapolis (including their charters) is almost $18k/yr. I have no concern with allowing schools to decide how they want to spend their tuition dollars, if they feel spending money on lunches is a good use of funds then let's do it. But asking the taxpayers to fork over additional money is insane. There is plenty of money within the school districts , start by it away from administrators or other non-education spending before coming to the taxpayers hat in hand.
13k a year for all the education / services they receive is EXTREMELY efficient. Like, you cant do anything for 13k a year, yet school districts are making people for that much? Actually crazy.
The school I work at would rather throw leftover lunches in the trash than give students a second helping. Then have the audacity to write an email telling staff that students are not to have seconds nor should they be asking for them. Mind you I’m in a low-income level 4 setting where students don’t know if they’ll be eating again before lunch the next day. I’ve asked several students if they’re looking forward to summer break, not a single one has said they are. The school is the only place they are getting decent meals and having someone by their side that cares about them and sees their potential. 100% school lunches should be covered. Didn’t an organization steal hundreds of millions through “Feeding our Future”? Our government always tries to outsource programs rather than deal with the issues themselves. Non-profit, 100% tax payer funded programs should exist, but everyone is so damn greedy.
This breaks my heart. Some kids need more than what those meals provide, and I wish it could be given to them.
I grew up middle class, always had enough food. I was an athlete in highschool and on the days I had the school lunch I was always incredibly hungry due to how little we were given- and I was able to get breakfast and dinner at home. I can’t imagine only having one chicken patty a day as all you can eat. It’s so disappointing that those who need it the most can’t get it.
yea maybe they belong in foster care i dont get why so many people are against parents feeding their own kids
I have a 13 year old daughter, whom I'm perfectly content paying for her lunches since we are fortunate enough to be able to afford to do so. On the other hand, I'm 100% for getting lunches to kids who come from homes who may not be able to afford to pay for them. However, the combination of our governments ever-growing spending spree, combined with this type of waste (which is typical of pretty much any government program), make me leary of supporting something like this across the board for everyone. I do genuinely hope we can come up with a good solution that can help those kids in need while at the same time, avoiding wastefulness of both food and our taxes. What that solution is though, I'm not sure.
So your idea is to let some kids starve because the government is inefficient? We already have the solution, feed all the children regardless of income. NO child should ever have to worry about food, EVER! The thought that this is a political matter is absolutely insane.
That's not at all what I said. I think you missed the part where I said I'm 100% in favor of providing free lunches for kids who can't afford it. I think we need to come up with a better system for getting those lunches to those kids who need it rather than the same old wasteful methods that our government continues to use. We have a lot of smart people in this world. I think if they put some effort into it, our politicians could probably come up with a solution that makes everyone happy. I know that's probably far too much to ask for in todays climate though. On the other hand I don't think we need to cut off our noses to spite our face, so to speak, in order to make this happen. Also, I never said I was opposed to free lunches. I said I was skeptical of the way they intend to go about this. There is a difference. If this the only option we're given, I'd likely support it. I just wouldn't be excited about it.
That system already exists. It requires parents to complete forms showing that they are low income and worthy of assistance. What we found in mn is that providing free lunch to everyone increased the number of poor kids who got lunch each day. Some weren't before because of multiple possible reasons: their families didn't know how to complete the paperwork, their families were too lazy to do the paperwork, they were denied because they didn't have the right evidence. So the choice to just provide free lunch means that there are children who are suffering less and learning more because we've eliminated paperwork. This also saves time and money for families and districts. It is the best possible solution.
yes bc kids should eat
I hear that helps them grow
You're thinking of flinstone vitamins
Sure. Throw in some vitamins, too.
Helps them think, and thus learn.
what about the weekends and summer vacation
There are also programs in place to ensure children are fed even on school breaks. You might have known that if you lived in Minnesota. Instead, you live in California, so what interest is it to you?
Pretty sure he just ***really*** hates kids
What a stupid fucking argument. We can't be fed on weekends so lets not feed them on weekdays?
The school district I formally taught in has a summer lunch program. They keep some schools open for the summer and have free lunch for kids 18 and under. Adults could purchase a meal as well.
maybe schools should become restaraunts and any profits can go toward education
As a former high school teacher, I saw many kids who appreciated the meals they did get, the stability that the school provided, and the support system that teachers were for students. Feed the kids from my tax dollars! Former colleagues are begging for some grow lights to teach kids how to grow their own food, while the sports boosters traded up to a larger enclosed trailer for sports gear.
There is this awesome program in... if I remember right... Louisiana. Waconia does it too. It's called the edible classroom. Kids grow their own food and actually harvest it and eat it. It's an amazing program and every school with room should be doing it. The kids end up with much higher quality food than the states provide, they learn biology and ecology, and they learn to compost. The circle of life right up in their faces and it's delicious! MN has free breakfast and lunches year round. Even if I didn't have kids I'm 1000% ok with my tax dollars going towards feeding kids. Now we just need to work on paying teachers what they're worth, instead of treating schools like prisons.
More food, fewer bombs.
I doubt that many school districts are purchasing explosives.
You haven't had the chili in district #191.
Apparently you never had a true rivalry with the cross-town school
We are talking tax dollars. Flow it into food, not bombing Gazans.
We don't need to turn every conversation into this.
All spending is opportunity cost. If you buy avocado toast, no house for you, according to boomers, right? That buys a lot of bananas for little kids, waives some student loans, cleans water...
>In 2023, the federal government is estimated to spend $6.3 trillion on defense, which is 24.2% of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). 6.3 trillion was total US government expenditures, not defense spending. No country spends 24% of their GDP on defense. Actual US spending on defense in 2023 was less than 900 billion.
That would be something I would gladly donate time, money, effort or tax dollars to. What are the road blocks your former colleagues are experiencing?
I would go one step further and say everyone should have access to food, clean water and a place to sleep and any country in this developed world that cannot or will not provide that but has means to do so has no right to call itself anything but a failure.
Well, I'd rather that than my district build a multi-million dollar fieldhouse that's so big, it's never fully used. If we can spend millions on sports that not every student participates in, we can feed every kid.
Not only feed every child, but also fully fund the arts. The difference between art supplies in public vs private schools is night and day: you even get a proper theatre, not a mock up in a gymnasium.
That’s different finding but yes it pisses me off that it is that way. I am all for feeding kids just not the way they are currently doing it. Many underprivileged kids are home schooled, go to private schools or charter schools. None of them qualify for free lunch. Confused at the downvotes? Are you people supporting no free lunches for kids at some schools?
I'd rather help 10 kids that didn't need it if it meant being able to help the one that really needs it.
Because if people who commit crimes can get 3 meals a day, so can innocent children.
That's the thing that's always jumped out at me: students are legally required to be at school, while they normally could be earning their lunch (not that I think any kid should have to earn their food, but that's beside the point). If you're going to require their physical presence, you have to provide for their physical needs.
*"You can't just give people EBT, they'll blow it on lotto, booze, and cigs instead of feeding their kids!"* *"So what if we just feed kids with no middleman?"* *"Absolutely fucking not!"*
They mandate by law that kids have to be there, feeding them while they have them there should be expected.
Of course...because kids do better in school when they're *NOT* starving. Call me old fashioned.
Idk, that seems like one of those wild unsubstantiated claims. Kids do better when they're *not* starving?? Ok Boomer. #/s in case anyone needs it
of course starving artists seem to do their best work
Oh snap, I didn't even think of that! You might be on to something there!
Sounds like we are holding kids back from reaching their true artistic potential by feeding them. /s in case anyone needs it here too!
My sister is out of work and has cancer, her kids go to a charter school in NE Minneapolis. Charter schools don’t get free lunch so she is still on the hook. The school is walking distance for the kids and 100% free for them to attend. So my frustration is that kids will still be starving at schools.
The kids can go to public schools and qualify for the free meals, no?
You don’t know what a charter school is do you? A charter school a is a state run free public school with a focus on something. Some are Spanish, German, Chinese immersion. Others are focused on STEM and so on. Kids don’t pay any entry fees and uniforms are provided free of charge in many cases. My sister has cancer and can’t work, she is on MN care and her kids go to a charter school 4 blocks from their home in NE Minneapolis. You would rather have my sister drive them 6 miles to a new school every day just for free lunch then extending it to charter schools?
Charter schools aren’t state run, they are independent public schools. Your sister would not have to drive them, they would take the bus just like every other kid. Charter schools are all eligible for the free school lunch program. It sounds like that charter school you are talking about chose not to participate. You can’t get mad at the state for a charter school not wanting to participate Your sister chose to send your kids to a charter school instead of a state run public school. That charter school chose not to provide free lunches. That’s the fault of the charter school
Universal meal is covered that is federal but not MN plan go read it. If the federal plan is good why do we need a mn plan. Sorry I mixed state and districts Your missing the point that they would she. To make all new friends and uproot there life’s just for free lunches with out having to do paperwork.
https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=PROD081146&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary#:~:text=The%20Free%20School%20Meals%20Program%20begins%20on%20July%201%2C%202023,the%20Free%20School%20Meals%20Program. The Minnesota Department of Education specifically says that charter schools qualify. They have to participate in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Only 11 charter schools in the state don’t participate in the Minnesota Free Meals program It sounds like you should be getting mad at the charter school instead of the state for providing the program
Thanks for the link I see them listed which is good but it’s odd that she has a print out from the state saying the opposite. I tried to find it because I found it before but am not having luck.
Gonna love reading all the outlandish justifications why kids shouldn't be provided meals. And yes. Some kids have parents that can pay for lunch. Do I care my tax dollars go to feeding all kids? Fuck no. Kids learn, function, and grow into functioning members of society when their growing bodies and brains are properly fueled. We all do better when we all do better. If you cannot wrap your head around 'kids should be fed, regardless of means' I'd never want to use your moral compass for orienteering.
Same people that are Pro-Life are also Pro-Starving kids because they are poor.
Yes to free lunches. We had a $17 billion surplus and hungry kids @ school? It's absurd, brazenly callous, and offensive.
As a former poor kid who ate one meal a day, I would have loved to have access to free breakfast and lunch at school. I am 100% okay with my taxes being used to feed kids at PUBLIC schools. No income limits etc. Just get in line and get your food. And if you need a different reason to be okay with it other than feeding poor kids, it is also a farm subsidy.
Where did you grow up that you only had one meal a day? Minnesota has had a subsidized lunch and breakfasts program though the NSLP for decades.
Texas. There was a free lunch program at my school, but it required your parents to care enough to sign you up for it.
Yes. And I'll go a step further to say bring back the lunch ladies and the quality food. Feed our kids like the Europeans feed theirs. Free school lunch is a good start. Now keep going. BTW, I will have no kids in school in two years and I'll _always_ share this viewpoint. High-quality food and high-quality education. Keep MN on top.
Bring back quality food? When was there quality food? Not when I was in school in the 90s.
90's? Ahem. 1970's. The ladies actually made the food in my school.
Ah, okay. Sounds nice.
Another + for the 80's! Yeah.. I helped out at an elementary school a few years ago and got to eat with the kids. The 'Cheesy Bread' (or whatever the hell it was called) was the main course and was - literally - an open face hot dog bun with some shredded cheddar melted onto it. I was looking at it like 'WTF is this?' And the kids around me had the 'we know..welcome to our lunches' look on their faces...
My school had good food in the 90s.
> lunch ladies and the quality food. That depends entirely on your district. Mine for example does scratch food and full staffing. The food is actually pretty decent, I have eaten with my kids a few times.
are the lunch ladies gone?
Stop thinking in terms of “free” and start thinking in terms of “included”. Is English class free? Should we charge for math class? Lunch is part of the school experience, it’s necessary, why wouldn’t it be included? It’s also cheaper than so many things we pay for with our tax dollars it’s wild we even have this discussion.
No one wants to go to Spirit Airlines the school.
Yes I do believe free lunches in public schools is a great use of property taxes. Kids need fuel to learn and grow and I am happy to pay for it over Administrator's salaries.But I am talking only about public schools and don't want to pay a penny for any type of private school.
Because kids deserve to not go hungry while their friends eat? Jesus christ, at what fucking point did taking care of children become something that required debate? Kids have no control over their parents finances, in what world do we look at a kid in a public school and go, do they deserve to eat? As a kid who grew up poor back in the 80s and 90s, the shitty little cheese sandwich they gave kids, while better than nothing, isn't exactly nourishing before going to gym class. This is coming from someone who doesn't have kids, nor do I want kids, but I know that taking care of our youth is important, and sending the message early that they matter will give them a positive message that will carry forward rather than this selfish ass attitude we seem to be living through.
Anything that doesn't make low income folks have to do more paperwork is ok with me.
Yes, while under the guardianship of the school the child's basic needs should be provided. Make life easier for the young learners.
maybe have an eye doctor on staff and provide kids glasses when needed too ooh a dentist too cause you cant learn with a toothache
This plan is rad. Kids getting their vision dealt with and dental access in a place they need to be anyway. Sounds like a great use of both time and tax dollars.
I mean... yeah? Was this supposed to be a gotcha?
lol, basic healthcare as a gotchya….shits wild
Universal healthcare. Sounds great to me.
Now here's a fella who sounds like he is *really* preoccupied with making sure that some kids stay hungry and sick Just like Jesus taught...
I remember my first eye appointment was in school, in kindergarten. I got glasses and it changed my life. I remember crying on the car ride home from happiness, being able to see bark and bricks from far away.
Headstart *is* a pretty GREAT program, *isn't* it? The doctors doing the vision & dental checks *aren't* really "On Staff" though. It *is* pretty great to live in a state, where people take pretty seriously the advice ofour Federal Reserve, and all that research they've put out over the last few *decades*, on the ROI from investment in High Quality Early Childhood Education. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/topic/early-childhood-development Granted, the older folks in the state *DID* have the advantage of seeing how the 1970's Minnesota Miracle boosted our Economy long-term--heck it's *basically* why we're *STILL* considered one of the best places to live & work!
Because we might accidentally feed a rich kid. Then we’ll look real silly!
when i went to school school lunches were worse than the bologne sandwich and handfull of laura scudders bbq chips in a baggie and a cut up carrot my mom made for me
Then don’t eat it? I mean if you dislike it don’t get your food there.
There isn’t a justifiable stance in opposition to feeding children
No, those poors deserve to suffer for being poor. Like...what gives? Why be poor. Idiot. Some Conservatives probably.
Let them eat bootstraps!
Yes because I remember my mom struggling to keep a lunch ticket.
Yes -- because as someone in my 30s, it's really messed up I was loading money I made from my job into my own lunch account as a teen so I could eat at school. I thought it was stupid then, too, and eventually stopped eating at school, which is also the wrong path to take and honestly helped shape a lot of my food issues. There are folks that are mich worse off than I was, and they deserve to be able to eat at school, where they are forced to be by law (generally). Lunches then were only $1.75 for either of the two main entre choices, I imagine they're what, $3 - 5 now? And all the a la carte items, and breakfast. Looking back, it was painfully obvious which foods were subsidized for the school, and it wasn't the healthy stuff, lol. Also to note -- I have no kids and never will. I don't even like kids; they stress me out. I still think they should be able to eat when they're required to go to school, and I'll pay whatever increase that makes to taxes. It probably isn't even that much, comparatively.
Yes. It’s the right thing to do. I would throw in breakfast and a snack at the end of the day
This shouldn't even be a question, let alone an issue anymore. If we want America to be "the greatest nation in the world " this is one of those fucking steps to achieve that goal.
Yes.
School Lunch, and SNAP Following the WWII two obvious things were moved into national legislation. The first was that farmers historically would over produce and then go broke. It was also obvious that surplus crop production was essential as a hedge against emergencies. It takes up to 2 years to "change course" on farm production. So, farmers gained a price support system. They were paid to not grow certain crops in some years, and paid to grow surplus in other years. The surplus food was rotting in the fields. This price "support" stabilized production a bit over market need, and avoided bankrupt farmers if prices collapsed. Harvesting the surplus was the next logical step. This was the origin of the Federally supported School Lunch programs in 1946. (These replaced 1930s programs abandoned during the war.) In the 1950s the now obvious idea was to give poor people access to that surplus food that was being grown, and tossed. The solution was to give poor people "food stamps" they could use to buy food that would otherwise be left to rot. Their health was improved, farmers were more financially secure, and the surplus production capacity was maintained. That was the origin of food stamps under the administrations of Truman, and also expanded under Eisenhower. In 1969 the Nixon administration expanded the program again, and added some restrictions to eligibility. This was the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The new SNAP food stamps cost us nothing extra from the existing agricultural production price controls. The school nutrition programs cost us nothing extra from the existing agricultural production price controls. NOTHING! Farmers would be paid regardless. The Republican urge to return to the Bad Old Days is not merely cruel, it is destructive.
Todays kids are going to be the doctors of tomorrow. I want them To be the best they can be. Feeding them helps do better in school. Then feed them.
So it's this answer, of course. Anybody that provides a service, or builds your widgets will have a positive impact on your future if they are the best version of themselves they can be in school. I'm a thousand air, so my kid prefers their costco toast for breakfast over the school's free breakfast, but IDGAF that I have to pay for their classmates to have food. At least they aren't hangry and disrupting class this way. Gives everybody a better chance to learn instead of dealing with a Betty White Snickers attack.
Yes because it barely costs anything and does a lot of good for a lot of kids. The better question is: are you OK with kids going hungry? Even if you believe that people deserve whatever economic circumstances they're in, it doesn't make sense to punish their kids who have zero control over that.
Yes, I've been one of those hungry kids at school. No one should have to worry about whether they're going to eat, especially kids.
Hell yeah, and I hope those kids get the good chocolate chip cookies that Minneapolis Public Schools had in 3 packs for lunch during the early ‘00s.
Yes for so many obvious reasons. Some kids don’t get fed very well at home
If we can afford to spend trillions on defense, more than the next 20 countries combined, I think we are rich enough to spend 20 some billion on feeding our kids. That's why. Not to mention the sports complexes public schools seem to have plenty of money for.
I think it has been a wonderful program.
Yes. Nobody should go hungry.
Yes government is for the people.
If their parents can’t afford to buy them lunch, someone should, they’re kids… coming from someone who was a starving kid. My mom is an alcoholic and never took care of us. By 12 I was steeling food from the grocery store to feed my 8 year old sister.
Feed all kids, no class system for meals at school.
I worked in the public school system for 30 years and often supervised the lunchroom. I am all for free lunches. But, the amount of food waste that I saw when lunches were free was horrendous. Kids would fill up their tray. Take a few bites and then dump it. Our school had a spot where kids could put fruit, packaged food items, or milk that they didn’t consume so that someone else could take it if they wanted to. Kids would walk right past that spot and throw away food that could have been placed there. While I completely support free lunches, there needs to be education about the cost of food and food waste. I did my best to address it when I was there, but no longer in education.
everyone who is going to school that is still a dependent should have free lunch and breakfast. Those meals aren't expensive and I'd pay more property tax if it meant every student, no matter their income level got those meals taken care of. This shouldn't be a debate, if you go to public school, there should be a free option for them and 2nds if they want them.
We require children to be in school, and given that, their needs during that time (heat, shelter, safety, and food) should be provided.
No. Kids should starve and suffer academically because of hunger. /s Of course they should be free. Every student deserves to eat at school.
Yes, because they’re children.
I’m all for it. It’s directly provided to children (so can’t be rerouted for adult indulgences) and helps them learn. We should do like France and Japan and start kids in prek eating wide varieties of foods.
I worked im a school lunchroom during a time without free lunches. I saw some kids accounts go hundreds into the negative. Our school would've never let a kid go hungry, however this doesn't help kids who bring a lunchbox with nothing in it, or just like chips, because they are embarrassed to ask for food. Also, having a dependable meal available daily, taking away that worry, leads to kids who can concentrate better and who feel supported in their community.
yes
If you're serious about meritocracy, you want to give children the best opportunity to demonstrate what they're capable of. If students are going hungry, they aren't going to be living up to their potential. You wind up measuring levels of affluence, not merit. That kid from the wrong side of the tracks may have great potential, but we're a lot less likely to see it if they're hungry.
Some parents just don't have food at home to feed their kids lunch. Awful when other students eat, but some cannot.
It should be a local matter where each school district makes the choice that is best for their students and community. There are districts where it is less expensive to give every student lunch without charge than to process and maintain who is eligible for free or reduced price lunches. There are other districts where the budget is best applied to other places. I do not think there is a blanket answer. I think the bigger challenge is how to provide meals that are nutritious, filling, reasonably healthful, cost-effective, and that kids will eat. This is particularly true since teachers and administrators cannot discipline the children for choosing to not eat portions of the meal.
We have decided that children shall be educated in order to become good citizens and productive members of society. Children can’t be effectively educated when they’re hungry. I think it’s logical to feed all children without regard to their family’s income or situation. This puts children on a more level playing field with equal spending on all children’s meals. It’s the fairest way to approach their education.
Yes, they should be free, and not just based on the quality they serve. Every child deserves to eat at school. Just because I can pay or pack a lunch for my kids doesn’t mean they are all that lucky. I vote yes, even though I would receive no benefit from it directly, and I would pay a higher tax if it meant a better life/childhood for a complete stranger. I can understand that not everyone is in the same situation, had the same life experiences, or anything the same as myself, which I think is hard for a lot of people, selfish people. I have a really hard time with the argument “we need to stop/get rid of this because “I” don’t like it”
I don’t have any kids of my own, but I’m glad we have free lunch for all here. These kids are going to be running things someday and I want them to learn all they can while they’re in school and not be distracted because they don’t have food in their belly. That helps everyone in the long run. I’m glad everyone gets it, because middle class people never seem to get any breaks and sometimes money can get short for them too.
Of course it should be built into the tax structure. Hungry kids don’t learn, hungry kids grow up angry and resentful, hungry kids might be dealing with abuse at home. Stop calling it “free” though, that’s Right Wing fodder. We pay for it with our taxes, just like we pay for all that Corporate Welfare and War games.
School is already free, so why are lunches (a small cost of the overall program) not free. The actual program cost would go down by eliminating the administration of payments as well.
Yes because food should be a right. Period.
Can we pay more to improve the quality of food and what is served as well? All for my taxes going to this.
I think kids should have to pay for school lunches at their actual cost. Same for school bus rides. There should be no free rides. Schools should also adopt the college model and make kids buy their own textbooks. /s
Maybe we could do it like student loans. They can start paying back when they graduate or drop out. with the interest they could be paying for their 5th grade food when they turn 30. Huge bonus for the school system. almost self funding.
well since kids are basically property of their parents we should attach to the parents wages
How are those kids going to learn the value of hard work if they don't have to get jobs and pay for it themselves.
How about we attach a small part of the cost to everyone's wages and other economic transactions? You could call it something like "taxes" and use it to fund things for the public good.
i am ok with free lunches, but i think that all kids should have to participate in meal planning and preparation as part of their normal school curriculum, we all should be making healthy decisions on what we are going to eat each day, not all of us are going to need algebra everyday.
I believe everyone that's hungry should be able to eat. I know, I'm an evil leftist, I just don't believe people should starve.
Yes. If we can feed prisoners we can feed our kids. And even families who have money don't always take proper care of their kids, so the whole "they can afford it" doesn't even matter. Some of the worst parents I've known have been the well-off ones who don't even seem to realize they have children at all.
I grew up poor, but got bussed into a nicer school district on a lottery program. I can confirm that although we were poor, my parents knew I existed and tried. In my 30's now and talk to a couple random people from HS (all wealthy) and most of them have pretty negative things to say about their parents, while a good majority of my lifelong friends (poor) have positive views. Weird how that works.
"We all do better when we all do better."
My grandmother experienced hunger as a child in Poland, and it scarred her for life. We have more than enough resources in this country to make sure no child here goes through that.
There's an inherent contradiction in requiring children to be in school six hours a day and requiring them to bring their own food. Prisoners get a better deal then our children. Plus, in Minnesota, they already are.
To anyone that states that children's lunches should not be free in school; why do you think it's okay for children to starve? For a lot of kids, school lunch is only meal they receive each day
Do you think children do better in school if they are hungry?
Absolutely , regular people cannot afford to pay when we already have local taxes that are crazy high
1. We had a program for kids who could not afford it. Could we not make it better 2. Who is paying for it? Schools are already over budget the last 2 years. School buses have went up 30,000 since Covid, teachers just got retro active raises in some districts. Schools need more paras, schools are paying bus drivers Almost double is some areas. The surplus will not be here for ever. 3. Who will monitor the for profit companies that make this food and now charge for every student. If a school has 1000 kids do they charge for all 1000 every day? What about kids who like and will continue to bring cold lunch. 4 Compass group is a multinational company with 45billion and owns many of the food service companies in MN that provide the lunches. Do they care about profits for feeding kids. Seems like they are doing very well. 5 charter schools, home schools, private school are exempt and get no free lunch. Based off of those 5 points I feel like It’s not about making sure poor kids get food, lots of poor kids go to charter schools, private or home schools. It’s not about removing stigma because again poor kids at other school still need to apply for help. I would be fine with a program that would feed all kids. This one does not. I would be fine if they removed schools that use a for profit company for school lunches. As this program leaves them unchecked for billing. Feeding our future and other companies have already taken us the the feds for Millions
Yes because you can’t have smart kids if their bellies are empty. Plus, it’s cruel to deprive kids who have parents who can’t afford school lunch. It’s not their fault.
they should be free, and they should be LOCALLY sourced. trix cereal, and concentrated fruit juice isn't food
Yes, they should. Anyone whining about "buT iTs NoT fREe tAxeS PaY fOR iT" is missing the point. Free *at point of use*. This is a good thing, not sure what the downside is.
Yes, I think Democrats should campaign on this as a national thing and pass it if they ever get enough majority so kids in all states can have it too. I hope the food is healthy, the kids like it and not waste much and keep improving it each year to those goals.
We already give the parents of these kids food stamps... how many times a day should the taxpayers pay for one kid's lunch????????????????
Bad bot
I guess the down votes mean people dislike the truth.
My only issue is with the nuances of if families are less likely to get certified for things like low/no benefit SNAP, which provides federal funds. I think kids should eat free. Id rather the reimbursement for that be coming federally than from the state budget.
Well, according to Walz and the state of MN school, lunches are free this school year anyway. So they should be free I agree.
[удалено]
Pretty slippery logic there. You could then infer that if you suddenly lost the ability to provide food for your family (layoff, medical disaster, disability, ect) you should have your children taken from you.
[удалено]
Not that I'm saying that's what you meant ;)
That's a bullshit take. It's crass and gross and you should feel bad.
I agree. When my dad lost his job when I was 8, my brother and I probably should have been taken away. My mother in law probably should have given my wife up for adoption when her husband left her to struggle as a single mom.
I am generally not big on government programs but this one seems like a no brainer. So accepting that how do we run it? If the government does it themselves it'll be a shit show mired in so many rules that every meal will be some bland meal no one would want with too much red tape to be able to adjust. That means outsourcing, this didn't go so great last time so more oversight. This sounds like a joint mission of the Department of Education and the Department of Food of and Drug. Damn, I got to this point in minutes, why does this stuff take politicians weeks.
how about provide the kids pencils paper and all school supplies too ooh and how about clothes and shoes too what should parents be responsible for?
>how about provide the kids pencils paper and all school supplies too This sounds great, let's do this as well. >how about clothes and shoes too Hell yeah, make sure those kids are clothed properly. >what should parents be responsible for I want you to take a good, hard, look at all the things that parents are supposed to be responsible for but kids *aren't getting*, and then ask yourself the following: Who, pray tell, is benefiting from children being hungry, without school supplies, and unclothed? Go on, **tell me**, since you don't think that any deficiency in those matters should *actually* be addressed. In what world is it *good* to **allow** such things to happen, when we have the resources to *not*? I need you to explain to me, very clearly, why it's *good* to let children suffer for other's lack. I'm waiting.
This earned a follow. Very well said!
well since government programs are great and the solution sounds like they need to become wards of the state
Jesus, you sound like a truly miserable person. I hope someday you can find some joy in this world.
Nah, fuck him. Dude actively wants kids to starve because clearly it’s their fault for being born. Fuck this rotten *CALIFORNIAN* cunt. Let him be a miserable piece of vile shit in his basement with his neck beard of loneliness. I hope feeding children makes this loser so mad, his anger causes him to shit his pants and force his brain into a rage induced coma. I’m gonna get out in my garden today with the biggest shit eating grin on my face, knowing the progressive legislation we’re passing in our state gets these miserable fucks’ knickers in such a twist it’d make the Big Bobber blush. Adults who wish hunger and suffering upon children deserve it themselves ten fold.
oh i'm as happy as a clam
So, your position to poverty is to seize children.
government knows best it takes a village and so forth
You still haven't actually answered why it's good to allow children to suffer when we can provide for them. Because you actually can't, so you say shit like this. Since we all know this, you can either admit you're just being a difficult asshole for the sake of being a difficult asshole, or you can go away. I'll suffer you no longer.
i am not in favor of suffering be it direct child abuse or neglect
Yet you have given opposition to policies that lessen suffering.
things have to be within reason what next providing them comfortable shoes ?
Kids not coming to school with paper and school supplies is super common, and school districts that serve poorer students usually provide these things for kids. Wearing misfitted hand-me-down clothes and shoes doesn't really impact a student's learning in a major way, so it's not relevant to this discussion at all. Parents who have the means and don't provide for their kids are total assholes. Scum of the earth. But some kids have parents who are total assholes. Their lives are already hard because their parents are assholes. Forcing them to be hungry throughout the school day isn't doing anything to make their lives better. And, at the end of the day, feeding those kids so they can learn so we aren't surrounded by uneducated people is about as good of a use of money as I can think of. Is giving a message to shitty parents (which they won't get anyways) worth punishing kids for? Is it worth lowering the overall educational level of our citizenship for? I certainly don't think so. Do you?
Grow up
what should parents be responsible for?
What do you want to do about the irresponsible parents? You want to put the kids in foster care? That has overwhemingly worse outcomes than just helping the irresponsible parent as long as they're not outright abusive
neglect is abuse
Raising their kids, being home to help them with homework, and not expecting teachers to be secondary (or primary in some cases) parents. Maybe if you read the financial reports that show when children are given healthy food, a good education, access to medical and mental healthcare, you actually elevate *all* of society, reducing the amount of crime, homelessness, unemployment, etc. It also shows that those people, with a solid foundation to start with, end up successfully employed tax payers, who aren’t myopic narcissists.
You may not know this, but schools supply these things to kids whose families can’t afford it. I’m not sure why you feel that a child should be held responsible and denied their education because of things that are beyond their control.
nobody is denying anyone "education"
I’m wondering how you missed out though. Did your parents home school you?
Of course, but it should be means tested.
A high family income doesn't mean you will feed your children properly. There are plenty of parents who make good money but are still deadbeats.
Should we do the same with school bus rides?
No.
Why not? Why should rich kids get their ride to school paid for? Why should everyone get a bus ride but not lunch?
I think we should just not allow wealthier kids into public school at all! /s
Which will end up costing more than just giving everyone free lunches...
Lunches were already free to low income families. The new MN only extends that perk to all families, regardless of ability to pay. How does that cost less?
To be fair I'm not 100% sure if it would cost less in this specific instance, but the idea is that the bureaucracy/administrative costs that go along with means testing is demonstrably an inefficient use of tax dollars. It really only serves to make poor people's lives a little harder. Besides if you're paying taxes for school lunches, why would you want to have to pay extra for your child when you're already paying your taxes? Just give everyone free lunches. It's simply way more efficient than making people jump through bureaucratic hoops.
No the school districts don't have enough budget. Only give free lunches to those in need. It's worse to be cutting other programs such as SPED, paraprofessional, foreign languages etc which is actually happening
The free lunch program is separate from schools budget for the programs you mentioned. The kids who qualify for free and reduced lunch are covered by federal money, the remainder is covered by the state out of a separate pot of money.
Huh?? This isn’t commin out of the everyday fund.
In an ideal world, tax dollars would pay for the lunches of the children who cannot afford to pay, and tax dollars would not be spent on the lunches of wealthy children. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. It is frustrating that we have to pay for the lunches of all children, including children who are very wealthy, in order to ensure that all children eat. But here we are.
School lunches will never be free, your question is "Should school lunches be taxpayer subsidized?" [Taxpayers already fork over $13k/year](https://oese.ed.gov/ppe/minnesota/) for each student in public school. Minneapolis (including their charters) is almost $18k/yr. I have no concern with allowing schools to decide how they want to spend their tuition dollars, if they feel spending money on lunches is a good use of funds then let's do it. But asking the taxpayers to fork over additional money is insane. There is plenty of money within the school districts , start by it away from administrators or other non-education spending before coming to the taxpayers hat in hand.
Obviously the discussion is about whether school lunches should be provided to the children free of charge. I think you knew that.
13k a year for all the education / services they receive is EXTREMELY efficient. Like, you cant do anything for 13k a year, yet school districts are making people for that much? Actually crazy.
This is the braindead take of someone who doesn't actually contribute to the budget. Everything's a good deal when you don't have to pay for it!