Despite free and reduce lunches always being available throughout schools in America, the numbers of kids who need them have never been so high. According to the New York Times of data from the Department of Agriculture, recipients of this program rose to 21 million from 18 million. In addition, states such as Nevada, Florida, New Jersey and Tennessee have had four-year increases of 25 percent or more.Obviously, the recession has hit many families hard, however, many families didn't think they were ever going to need this meal program for their children, now they do. For example, lay offs in large factories and corporations trigger an increase for the need of the meal plan. Sarah White, the state director of school nutrition, says that,“When a factory closes, our school districts see a big increase", which shows the impact of these lay-offs.
Even so, families still need to qualify for these benefits, despite there financial problems. According to the New York Times Article, "$29,055 for a family of four — are eligible for free school meals. Children in a four-member household with income up to $41,348 qualify for a subsidized lunch priced at 40 cents". As a result, not all families can receive benefits.
Nevertheless, the statistics are shocking and continuously growing and according to Leah Schmidt, a district's nutrition director, “This is the neediest period I’ve seen in my 20-year career".
(Image: Steve Hebert for The New York Times. More than 100 students eat a free dinner daily after classes at Ingels Elementary School in Kansas City, Mo. The Hickman Mills C-1 district feared students would otherwise go to bed hungry.)
11 comments:
It's not surprising that there is an increase in the number of free or reduced lunches needed in America. The recession has caused a lot of damage to our economy which has ultimately resulted in an increased need in relief programs. I feel like the government will have to make a tough decision soon. Either they increase the amount of money that goes to relief which will cause a bigger deficit, or they cut spending in that section which will cause increased poverty in our society. This question is open to anyone, is there another solution to this problem? Or, which would be the better decision to follow?
I completely agree with Reiko and Jennifer. First of all though, I think that schools need to be more proactive and vigilant, schools should help families fill out the free lunch forms accurately and can be understood in their native language. In terms of being laid off, I think that there should be some sort of provision for families to qualify if their parents are suddenly laid off or their income is drastically reduced. What happens when a school sends the notices home it's based on an annual income like Reiko said, therefore there's not always a safety net for families who become immediately in need of support. In other words the eligibility needs to be more flexible in order to meet the immediate needs of the families. I think that what also makes it hard is it all depends on where you live, costs of living varies.
I agree with Kimi, it is imperative that every family that is struck down by unemployment is given a break. Because of the nation's recession, low income families deserve support from the government in order for their children to be offered equal opportunities. Unfortunately, excessive government spending has been detrimental to the economy and the wasted money should've gone towards improving the nation's internal issues. Otherwise, parents of a lower socioeconomic status would be maintaining stable jobs and wouldn't need their sons/daughters to apply for reduced lunches at school.
Oh, but there is no such thing as a free lunch! As Jennifer said, more money going into the program increases deficit, although not by a significant percentage. School lunches are not particularly healthy anyway, underscored by the tomato sauce on pizza being declared a vegetable; maybe families should consider making cheap lunches instead.
I agree with Nicola. While I do agree that these families need financial help, its very difficult to provide them with such help when their are so many who need it and the nation itself is drowned in debt. It would be great to be able to provide everyone who needed it with free lunches, but right now the country does not have the money to support all these people. As hard as it is in this economy, families need to find ways to support themselves with out depending on the government to help them every step of the way.
I for one agree with what both Nicola and Raquel stated. Although it may be hard for these families now and providing lunches for their children, they might as well just make cheaper lunches at home for their kids. In addition to being cheaper, there is no limitation on how healthy you are then able to make them. As for the relief programs, choices will have to be made my the government as Jennifer said because of the increase in unemployment. As far as who pays what for the school lunches, it should be more specific than what their income is, like where they might live like Kimi said.
I strongly disagree with Raquel's argument.
Reduced lunches are not a major financial burden for the government, so it's somewhat ridiculous to think that people in poverty shouldn't be eligible for a reduced lunch.Yes it would be nice if everyone got free lunch, but the government is completely responsible for the well-being of the child while they are at school.
You need to remember that schools are run through the government, and they are technically government institutions.During school, the government is completely responsible not only for the child's safety, but also making sure they aren't starving from 8-3.
How is a kid supposed to learn if he's starving all day?
Following Nicola's thread about pizza being categorized as a vegetable, I think it is really concerning that increased need for school provided lunches is coinciding with a lack of funding in the California school system. The cheaper options are going to the less healthy ones. Although its difficult during tough financial times, I think parents should attempt to make cheap homemade lunches for as long as possible.
By the way, under the standards that deemed pizza a vegetable, tobacco would also be considered a vegetable.
In response to Curtis's comment, I don't think the government is in charge of what children eat. The government can institute health codes and guidelines etc., but it will never be in their power to regulate what kids eat and when they eat it. Rather it is the responsibility of the family to feed their kids and in the situation where they can not provide a lunch for their child, there needs to be a program in place. We don't have to feed the kids filet mignon. As Curtis stated, providing cheap lunches for students is not going to exponentially widen government debt. As more families need such a program, it just needs to be provided. I don't think there is a serious issue with the current system or qualifications needed for a family to use the system. As more families get hurt by the current financial crisis, more families will be eligible for the system. No, not every family will receive benefits, but there needs to be a standard of qualification that deems a sustainable amount of families eligible for the program. Otherwise the system would be relied upon by families, and would no longer be a benefit for the needy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but there needs to be the proper amount of sympathy and efficiency in any system. Perhaps providing smaller snacks, or supplements to lunches that lower income families can provide for their children could be implemented? Maybe for a specific income bracket?
I feel like the lunch program is a good idea, but needs to have a little more thought but into them. I know from going to Aragon, that the lunches provided from the lunch line and extremely unhealthy. I feel like we need to ask ourselves if people who don't have the money to pay for a lunch should be made to eat the unhealthy food which can hurt their bodies, and lead to weight problems.
Post a Comment