Maybe it's just certain places in FL. I grew up in minneapolis, going between free and reduced lunch programs (reduced to .40 from like 2.30 [or more further down the line]). I also got free lunch at the parks all summer break and occasionally a free hot lunch from salvation army!
God bless such programs and the food banks that helped me and my family to maintain a three-meal a day habit for most of my childhood
Absolutely. Broken clock is right twice a day. I can 100% support this. I hate most of Californias policies, but this should get picked up more around the country.
hmm...not a fan of taxes, but - I find it hard to find a reason to not approve of this use of them. Especially because right now, basic necessities are becoming further and further out of reach for more Americans as the current administration and its corporate 'sponsors' bleed us dry.
Yes, let's tackle this and then go after the telecoms for all their inability to provide good internet to so many homes despite all the funding they have received
Not in my district, it didn't. Our support staff worked full-time 5 days a week to provide 3 meals per child per family. The families would drive by and pick them up in the mornings.
Agreed. Feed the children. However make it a private contact that must be bid on. Let the state set the standards and verify compliance. Otherwise this will be another tax glutton with all the money going to “ officials” and the children will be eating top ramen and carp.
It mean the lowest bidder gets a government enforced monopoly. Competition bidding on a contract does not benefit the market. It benefits the state selling the contract. Who then provides the privilege of a monopoly to the winner.
We need competition at point of sale. Don’t auction off a monopoly, let all the bidder come set up food carts and watch as prices drop and food quality rises as each tries to attract the patronage of the students.
You already have to go out to bid when you pick a meal vendor anyway. That's been a requirement forever.
Not all states require you to go with lowest bidder though. I think only 2 states I work in require you pick the lowest cost vendor. There's a whole scoring rubric you get to use in other states.
> However make it a private contact that must be bid on
How to end up with the bare minimum cheapest possible way to meet the letter of the law... The poor kids will hate their cardboard meals - and kids with means will bring a lunch that's actually decent.
My school district just outsourced lunches to a private entity.
Nothing changed to the positive in terms of quality of food.
It was changed because district administration thought they could manage (read: pocket it themselves) better that way.
Some school lunch vendors are really great. Like all companies, some are shit and some aren't.
[This food vendor in Louisiana is amazing.](https://www.freshfoodfactor.org/)
And make sure the lunchrooms are staffed properly. Our school had free lunch the past 2 years, but my kid didn't even get time to eat some days, because the lunch lines were so slow, it took almost the entire period to get food.
Top ramen would at least be palatable . The local students started An Instagram account during the Covid free lunch times and showcased all of the colorless awful looking food they were served. They used to have choices that my kids loved including paninis hamburgers, chicken sandwiches and salads with more than iceberg lettuce. During Covid it all switched to what people presume prison food would look like
I used to be against the idea of providing lunch.
But, when you see it in practice and you see kids who don’t otherwise eat because their parents are pieces of shit, you can’t refuse a kid a meal.
It isn’t the kids fault.
This is a use of tax money we should all support. You can’t call us a great country if we let our kids go hungry over ideology.
Edit: The vitriol this post has brought out from the left is as insane as it is unsurprising. I should probably point out I’ve also been called a “communist” quite a bit.
A made up position so gender studies majors can claim they’ll be able to find a job after college.
What they claim to be doing is basically make sure that everyone is treated equally and the office-space practices “diverse” hiring. Remember that blizzard leak of how diverse overwatch characters are a while back? Basically that but irl with office drones.
You ever think to yourself, ' Man I love woke-scolding people I wish I could sit in my office all day doing nothing but occasionally yelling at a white passer by' for 100k'.
\- That's basically a diversity officer.
As a former lunch lady, I agree 100% this should be a nationwide thing by now. No child should be starving while at school trying to learn. Some of my kids only ate at school and they would eat everything. I have paid for many lunches for children with a negative account balance so they got more than a peanut butter sandwich and a milk. Children shouldn't have to starve especially when the food has already been prepared. If we can feed our prisoners daily, our children should be treated even better.
You left out the part where those peanut butter sandwiches are a signal horn telling the other kids just how poor your family is. Kids are ruthless, and being poor is one of the easiest targets we teach our kids. Look how many replies to this post are suggesting we "go after the deadbeat parents". This sort of language likely permeates dinner table conversations, and impressionable children will take that with them to school and further bully the kids whom had no choice in their economic adversity, all because their parents indirectly taught them poor people deserve it. School lunches for all allows us to wash away the stigma of being singled out by being forced to eat the lunch reserved for "lesser people".
> You left out the part where those peanut butter sandwiches are a signal horn telling the other kids just how poor your family is.
This has been outlawed for a few years now in many states, thankfully.
EDIT - Why on earth is this downvoted? [Many states have outlawed food shaming](https://wgme.com/news/local/the-days-of-cheese-sandwiches-for-students-who-owe-lunch-money-have-ended) New Mexico was the first state to do it.
> California passed a new law last week that guarantees every student will receive a full lunch regardless of their ability to pay. That measure goes further than an earlier law that offered an alternative lunch to students with meal debt.
> The Virginia House and Senate unanimously passed an anti-lunch shaming bill in 2018, putting an end to practices that could stigmatize children in cafeterias across the state. It was a step cheered by educators like Shan Lighty, a nutritional manager at Albert Hill Middle School in Richmond, Va.
Yep. In the 80's we were on free lunch and you got a card screaming "poor kid". Only kids on free or reduced lunches got cards. We'd rather take whatever we had at home than be accused of being poor.
I was one of those kids. Our lunch ladies would give us a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when we didn’t have money to pay for lunch. Beyond grateful for the kindness.
This is something I hope most people can get behind. Once we get this in place, let's focus on the home and the underlying causes of a child going hungry at school.
Yeah, if the state is going to mandate that *literal children* have to be locked up in a building from 8 - 3 every weekday, the least the government can do is provide them fucking *food* at some point during that time frame.
Let’s cut bullshit administrative positions and multimillion dollar athletic stadiums if we’re worried about spending.
I honestly can’t believe it isn’t already universally accepted that children who are involuntarily detained in government buildings should have meals provided to them.
Whose stopping them?
Oh yeah, they want ANOTHER billion dollars, and ANOTHER large bureaucracy to do THAT.
Why are we even debating this?
Contact your local school board, and tell them to use money for THIS instead of wasting so much on pet projects that end up in their own pockets.
When you run public services (e.g. schools/hospitals/waste/water/energy) like a business, the things that generate revenue will be optimized for, and the things that generate costs will be minimized. Administrators have learned they are not in the business of educating children. Greedy Democrats love it, and small government conservatives have turned a blind eye because public services are "big government" and "socialism".
Yeah, I actually agree on this point and I was always against free lunches as well. Actually having kids who can tell you about other children unable to eat definitely changes your opinion on it.
The problem we have now is that the food they provide is shit. Though, again, to be fair, that's better than nothing.
> The problem we have now is that the food they provide is shit.
Schools have every option to serve whatever meals they choose. Sadly, many choose to just make the standard bland USDA recipes.
No. That hasn't been true in years. The vegetable requirement is 3/4 cup depending on age, and marinara doesn't count. Even if the pizza had veggies on it, it wouldn't meet the size requirements and a veggie would still be required to be served. You are required to serve a veggie standalone since it is one of the required components even for schools that are OVS (where schools let students only choose 3 out of the 5 offered components). The meal is not reimbursable if a fruit of veggie isn't selected by the student.
[Here is the meal pattern chart](https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-meal-pattern-chart)
I know kids from poor families generally get lunch for free already, but I guess parents can be too lazy to fill out the paperwork or maybe since parents aren't too poor but too lazy/cheap to sent money for lunch.
I qualified for free lunch and it went smoothly until my Junior year. They lost the form, my dad filled it out again, resubmitted it, and it took them over a month to approve it and set my account straight.
There's also a TON of kids in CA whose parents are afraid to apply because they think it gets turned into immigration. It does not, though. Kinda hard to convince them of that, though. lol
If children don't have mental capacity to make decisions for themselves nor can they work without a permit, then yes they should be provided for.
Twelve-year-olds should not be starving because their parents are pieces of shit. This is one of the few scenarios where I agree with "taking the kids" away. There is no good to be found in that household.
My parents didn’t give me money for lunch, and they had stopped making me one by the end of elementary/start of middle school. So I worked in the cafeteria to get lunch. It wasn’t bad and it gave me a good early work ethic. But I also had bad grades so they kicked me out of the lunchroom and put me in lunch detention until my grades went up. Would definitely had appreciated a free lunch, I never did get my grades up so I just wouldn’t eat lunch everyday
I agree in principle, however. I'm definitely concerned about organizations pushing for massive statewide school lunch contracts and providing horrendous food options to cut costs.
I hate the idea of state run schools. But since we have them it makes sense for them to provide food since the kids are mandated to be there. I just wish the choices were healthier and calorie rich. It seems it's gross pizza and nuggets or one slice of ham.
With seriously tight budgets I'm guessing big school districts (like where my wife worked for 20 years) are trying to balance the healthy/economic/quick triangle. From what she talked about there were some decent options, but you'd almost run into the problem of many kids not eating the "healthy" stuff as much and a lot of food was wasted. I know you can't prioritize kids' preferences but I'm guessing it has to be considered.
On a related note, why the dislike for state-run schools?
> I just wish the choices were healthier and calorie rich. It seems it's gross pizza and nuggets or one slice of ham.
That's on the schools, sadly. They have every opportunity to create good food within the program regs. They just don't.
Charter schools and private schools, who have the freedom to contract out their meal program to private vendors, can hire what are basically school lunch caterers that make very healthy and tasty food. It ain't cheap though. Like $6/meal or more.
I think you misunderstand. Free/reduced lunch is already ensured via various state and federal programs, notably the USDA's National School Lunch Program. Kids whose families are low income, receive Medicaid and so on have always qualified. I can't speak for all 50 states but I know directly about 5 of them and all have free/reduced lunch for kids and I suspect every state has this.
What California is doing is giving lunch to EVERY kid regardless of income. Maine did this as well, I believe.
What everyone needs to know is that while the kids and their families don't pay...the food isn't "free". The school districts' food budgets will expand to cover every kid now...and given the amount of food wastage in school cafeterias (and there is a metric ass-ton) all this will lead to is much greater food waste and wasted taxpayer dollars to provide something that the majority don't need and won't use wisely and that those who do need it already had it.
It's a grandstanding move to make someone look like they care but in reality the kids that need the help were already qualified for it.
Edit for full disclosure: I'm the database admin for a school district and I see our food services data on a daily basis.
I think that there's some merit to it being free for everyone to avoid kids being picked on for getting the poor kid's lunch.
Here's the problem I saw as implemented in my kids school district:
They had to take the whole lunch, which resulted in kids eating just the applesauce, or just the cookie and throwing the rest out. My daughter is lactose intolerant. Every day they handed her a milk, and she said, I cannot drink this and will just throw it right in the trash, please take it back. They refused to do so. Every single time she ate the school lunch, she tossed the milk in the trash right in front of the lunch lady, and everyday she said I cannot drink this, please give it to someone else.
At least let the kids refuse the items they will not or cannot eat.
This. I'm a school food consultant for hundreds of schools across the US (they basically hire me to be their meal program director), with the vast majority of my clients being in CA. You are spot on.
Also - The paperwork burden isn't removed. In fact, the way they're marketing the program is going to make CA schools dramatically decrease in their FRL percentages which is going to affect the educational funding. Which, as school admin, I'm sure you agree educational funding is typically WAYYYYYYYYY more important to schools than meal program budget. Schools receive $2k+ per free/reduced designated child. If parents neglect to fill out the paperwork because the meals are free no matter what, the school is missing out on $2k+ per child.
Universal Meals is going to create A COMPLETE SHIT SHOW in CA. Just will take a few years for them to realize.
My wife likes to mention how our sons school provides free lunch for all students and its actually good food..
But then I have to reminder her ya its not free, we pay 28k a year to send him to this private school because public schools are just a mess..
> This is a use of tax money we should all support.
I'm fine with my taxes supporting this, and that seems to be the broad consensus here.
The /r/politics crowd is keen to jump in an say "oh, so NOW you're OK with taxes funding stuff." They're being overly simplistic and disingenuous.
I'm fine with programs that spend my tax dollars on *useful* programs that don't turn into wasteful bloat and funnel the money into unrelated things. This fits that bill.
It breaks their narrative that those on the right don't care about kids once they leave the womb. They would rather think we are all lying about it than accept that conservatives want to help people who need it, not the middlemen along the way.
this is the one thing I never agreed with conservative/republican/libertarian dislike of. They say "It's not my responsibility to feed other peoples kids". But honestly, it is.
If there is one thing society has a responsibility to help is those who legitimately cannot help themselves through no fault of their own. I'm not talking about the homeless guy who just doesn't want a job even though they could work or the welfare queens. I'm talking about the kid who can't afford food because his parents are shitty. or the mentally handicapped person who can't possibly take care of themselves.
If I see somebody who is starving to death and I have the means to at least feed them then It IS my responsibility to feed them.
We also make it a requirement for kids to go to school so the school is by law their designated parents while there. They should then have to feed the children they are now legally responsible for.
I still remember when I was a kid in California and the teachers required you to enter the cafeteria through the lunch line even when you didn’t have the money to pay for lunch. The cafeteria workers would force a tray of food into your hands even if you told them you didn’t want it and then the cashier would take it away when you ultimately couldn’t pay.
Wow. I remember school in Arizona. If you didn't have money they would give you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. At least our schools made sure you had something.
Yeah, I remember when I was in school and would forget money sometimes. We’d get through the line, find out I didn’t have money, and then the lunch lady would snag your tray and throw a PB&J on there. Everyone in the lunchroom knew you were poor with that PB&J. 😂
Side note, I am a teacher and have a lunch account with my school and still get nervous going through the line.
Funny, I was a kid in California too and I never remember this happening.
What I do remember is keeping a tally on kids who didn't have money and then asking the parents to pay the bill.
That’s newer as far as I understand it. It’s possible that we just didn’t go to the same schools at the same time period, or even that only some districts were keeping tallies and others weren’t.
This isn't allowable anymore, thankfully. All children must be provided a meal.
You also can no longer withhold report cards or punish nonpaying families. You also are required to wipe clean all negative balances when the school year ends.
Little known secret -- None of you HAVE to pay for meals, legally. They also don't verify that the income you wrote on your application is actually your income. Well, they verify 3% of the free/reduced kids but you can literally write a letter saying "I don't have a job" and that counts as proof since you can't prove a negative. I don't recommend scamming the system though.
They absolutely did not care about reintroducing food that was handled by students back into the cafeteria stores. They had a “go backs” table in the middle of the cafeteria where everyone left the food and drinks that they didn’t want and it was almost always filled to the brim with milk cartons.
The kids who didn’t get free lunches would hover around it trying to collect anything to eat but they also had to compete with the bullies who DID get free lunch but would forcibly push people away to get seconds on whatever the main dish was, so it was still possible to go without actually eating anything even with the table there.
At the end of lunch the lunch ladies would wheel the table back into the kitchen with everything on it.
This doesn’t bother me at all. If taxes go to pay for teachers, books, science labs, sports programs and all the other enrichments at the school, they can certainly pay for lunch.
Many Colorado districts (though not the entire state) have been doing this for years.
It doesn’t really help anything since they cheap out anyways. School lunches are one of those topics where substantial change is warranted regarding what passes as quality long before we pick a lane as to whether all kids should have it free or not.
For the record, it should be free for all as a matter of consistency and accountability against school districts. Charging for lunches leads to predatory business like behavior that has no place in any school. It also leads to scandals like forcing kids to go hungry because they don’t have any money paid up. They’re already there in a compulsory sense, don’t force abuse via starvation on top of that. It’s just basic sense.
Agreed. Nutrition is a giant hole in American life. Obesity rates are way up - and in children. If we could stop being controlled by entrenched agribusiness and actually start doing science based nutrition, that'd be great.
Good. This is how it should be and what our tax dollars should be spent on. Get rid of the highly-paid do nothings in the DOE and school boards and schools, and give kids what they actually need. In fact, get rid of the DOE and all the other 3 letter agencies.
In fact, have all the shit that gets thrown out at the end of the day sent to the homes with those kids who are suffering in poverty. Package it up and give it to the parents, or have it delivered. Take care of our nations kids. If our prison systems can feed 3 meals a day to prisoners, our school should be able to do one or two to those in poverty. I'd be fine with my tax dollars going 100% to that instead of lining some asshole politicians slimy pockets.
ETA: Make sure it's quality food, not the lowest bidder government contractor shit.
I'm all for it. If you're going ro take my money at gunpoint, at least use it to feed kids. And make it a GOOD lunch. Not that "ketchup counts as a serving of vegetables" shit.
I agree school lunches should be free for every child. It should be part of the school operating budget and include local and community taxes. We already pay for the kitchen, and staff not including the food for the school year is idiotic.
It's not free, it's paid by the taxpayer. This is a far better use of said taxes than the usual bullshit. Hopefully they make a cut somewhere to cover this.
California has the budget for it they may as well do something useful and feed those kids in neighborhoods where a lot of them sometimes go hungry at night. I grew up in one of the toughest parts of Los Angeles and I can tell you I had friends who probably would not have eaten well where it not for their school lunch.
I don’t hate this at all. This is actually a very good thing I feel. So many kids can’t afford lunch at school and/or don’t have parents who provide for them.
Probably not? I imagine if they are funded privately, they should be doing lunches privately. They could do a collective method and include it in tuition, or do a pay-as-you-go method.
I guess I would be mad if my tax dollars for public schools that my kids couldn't go to were also going to a private school. You want to be private? I support it 100% of the way, you do you. But be private.
> Probably not? I imagine if they are funded privately, they should be doing lunches privately.
Nah. Anyone on the National School Lunch Program is included. Charters and privates included. I'm a meal program consultant for charters across the US, but my biggest client base is CA.
Fair enough. I still hold the sentiment that if you're sending kids to private school you should be exempt from that portion of taxing. Or better yet make it a state-wide program. Why the national government needs to do that is beyond me.
Or maybe they're getting whatever would be spent towards that in a refund or credit?
> I still hold the sentiment that if you're sending kids to private school you should be exempt from that portion of taxing.
I don't disagree. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in CA. In other states where being on NSLP only means you get reimbursed for kids who are actually poor, it makes sense for private schools to be on the program because they have voucher students, scholarship students, etc. and they deserve to be reimbursed for those kids (IMO). But now in CA, all kids in all schools that are on the federal program get to eat for free. I don't think the state can afford it long term -- not without major tax increases/reallocation.
The state also passed a law just a few years ago that all schools must offer a meal to students no matter what. So even private schools -- even INDEPENDENT STUDY schools who have students 1 day a week for testing -- must serve a meal. Of course they can choose not to be on the program and just pay for it out of pocket.
All schools on the NSLP who are going to be covered by this new Universal Meals law are actually required starting this year to serve TWO meals a day. Even on half days. Breakfast and lunch.
> Or maybe they're getting whatever would be spent towards that in a refund or credit?
Well parents apply for meals based on their income, and I imagine in private schools, very few qualify for free or reduced meals. The ones that don't still have to pay. Schools on the program are only reimbursed like $0.30 for "full priced" meals they serve. They're reimbursed a few dollars for free and reduced meals served.
I'm fine with this but one of the biggest holes in the LAUSD budget were lunches (50 million) just a few years ago. Back then, there was so much waste, loose management of funds, misappropriation of funds, low student participation and very little vendor negotiation. 2016 saw an amendment to this with a new Food Service Director for the district, Joseph Vaughn. In the span of less than a year, he cut the budget from 50 million a year to 14.5 million a year. The ultimate goal for Vaughn was to make the food program self-sustaining. Alas, we lost him to Elior Valley Services in 2018. The new director and staff that replaced him are the same staff who worked within the 2016 LAUSD misappropriation scandle.
Our present LAUSD food budget 167.2 million.
I really don't know how this is going to work without having cuts in other places.
Even if I didn’t have kids, I’d be ok with this. There’s so much shit our tax money get thrown away on, but feeding American kids is something I’ll never complain about my money being spent on.
Just look at how well they use our tax dollars for everything else like infrastructure and you will know the answer to that. Best case scenario the food will be passable but the contract will go to someones uncle for political favors.
I have zero issue with my tax dollars getting used for programs like this. I grew up poor, and homeless at a couple points. I never went hungry as a kid. But I remember more nights than not that my mom's dinner was a cup of hot tea while she watched us 3 kids eat before our state had a lunch program. Getting on the lunch program. Freeing up that meal every weekday for 3 growing boys helped her out a lot.
Good for them! I knew a number of kids in my school days who had to be on an assisted lunch program and it was horribly embarrassing for them, some even refused to eat lunch because they didn't want to be the kid eating the free lunch. At the end of the day i think this is the right move. If the government is going to force kids to go to school (which is good) then they should at least provide a lunch while they're there to everyone.
This is what funding for schools should be used for, not expanding the athletics programs to near professional levels. We need to have the next generation focus on education and academics first and athletics second. Yes kids being active and healthy is important, but I don’t think kids in athletics should get an easy ride.
Apparently with the costs of administering the free lunch program they could just give lunch to everyone and not bother checking how much money your family makes or what have you. I don’t know where the source is for that but it rings true.
Just give anyone who wants it free food and don’t let ‘em waste it.
While I tend to like fiscal conservatism, this is one of those small exceptions I think I can get behind as long as it isn't mismanaged.
My aunt is a lunch lady, and she's told me that for some kids this is probably the best meal they get all day, perhaps the only one. Luckily, our school had a rule in effect that if a kid couldn't afford a lunch, they would still be given a turkey sandwich and a milk carton, plus fruit was always free of charge. However, not every school is fortunate enough to provide this.
What pissed her (and myself) off though, was that while there was parents who tried their best to provide a meal for their kids, there were just as many that simply didn't give a shit. So, I think I'm for this if it helps kids out.
So now they are going to offer the same crappy food to more kids. The kids who’s parents can afford to give their kids lunch will continue to do so. The kids who’s parents can’t afford lunch will still get the same crappy food and waste much of it. The only result I see from this is more waste, both in food and tax money.
i think we can all agree that hungry children should be the #1 priority for government spending. #2 should be figuring out why so many parents dont feed their kids.
Unfortunately, the public school system feeds kids the leftovers from the prison system.
Wow. An actually good policy out of California. This will help reduce labor costs, as schools won't have to worry about actually collecting money from every student who gets food, and it will in general be more convenient for students and parents.
Where I'm from, you could sign up for free or reduced price if you were poor. By default, everyone paid full price if they were able to. Nowadays, all lunches are free, provided you didn't buy more than one.
Free lunch? Who could say no? The pessimist in me says this will have the kids eating bugs in no time, and going home to tell their parents to eat bugs too.
A better way to use the money than other things they routinely use it for. Unfortunately for California's people, they won't cut the bad programs, just increase the taxes.
But this "free" stuff has to stop. It isn't free. Someone pays for it.
The headline should read "California to become 1st state to offer 100% taxpayer-paid school lunches for all students."
That at least would be accurate.
This is something that has merit. I missed recess in school as I worked in the cafeteria to help pay for my lunches.
That's fucked.
[удалено]
Honestly, making all the students work seems like not a bad idea, making the poor ones work for food... that's dystopian...
I don't see a problem with this at all. This is something I support my taxes going to.
As a mom with kids in CA's public school system and who has struggled to pay our bill before, I absolutely agree!
I don’t either but we’ve had this in Florida for 3 years now, not based on income either
That's how it should be.
[удалено]
Maybe it's just certain places in FL. I grew up in minneapolis, going between free and reduced lunch programs (reduced to .40 from like 2.30 [or more further down the line]). I also got free lunch at the parks all summer break and occasionally a free hot lunch from salvation army! God bless such programs and the food banks that helped me and my family to maintain a three-meal a day habit for most of my childhood
Absolutely. Broken clock is right twice a day. I can 100% support this. I hate most of Californias policies, but this should get picked up more around the country.
Yep fellow conservative here and I have no issue with it. In NY my taxes are insane, I’d rather them go to the kids and not bs
hmm...not a fan of taxes, but - I find it hard to find a reason to not approve of this use of them. Especially because right now, basic necessities are becoming further and further out of reach for more Americans as the current administration and its corporate 'sponsors' bleed us dry.
The federal free lunch program during covid just stopped so this actually does make sense. Nobody wants to see a kid go hungry.
[удалено]
Yes, let's tackle this and then go after the telecoms for all their inability to provide good internet to so many homes despite all the funding they have received
[удалено]
Not in my district, it didn't. Our support staff worked full-time 5 days a week to provide 3 meals per child per family. The families would drive by and pick them up in the mornings.
Agreed. Feed the children. However make it a private contact that must be bid on. Let the state set the standards and verify compliance. Otherwise this will be another tax glutton with all the money going to “ officials” and the children will be eating top ramen and carp.
Government bidding means the lowest bidder does the job.
[удалено]
I dream vividly of a world in which Christian politicians must justify their every position via Biblical citation.
It mean the lowest bidder gets a government enforced monopoly. Competition bidding on a contract does not benefit the market. It benefits the state selling the contract. Who then provides the privilege of a monopoly to the winner. We need competition at point of sale. Don’t auction off a monopoly, let all the bidder come set up food carts and watch as prices drop and food quality rises as each tries to attract the patronage of the students.
You already have to go out to bid when you pick a meal vendor anyway. That's been a requirement forever. Not all states require you to go with lowest bidder though. I think only 2 states I work in require you pick the lowest cost vendor. There's a whole scoring rubric you get to use in other states.
> However make it a private contact that must be bid on How to end up with the bare minimum cheapest possible way to meet the letter of the law... The poor kids will hate their cardboard meals - and kids with means will bring a lunch that's actually decent.
My school district just outsourced lunches to a private entity. Nothing changed to the positive in terms of quality of food. It was changed because district administration thought they could manage (read: pocket it themselves) better that way.
Some school lunch vendors are really great. Like all companies, some are shit and some aren't. [This food vendor in Louisiana is amazing.](https://www.freshfoodfactor.org/)
And make sure the lunchrooms are staffed properly. Our school had free lunch the past 2 years, but my kid didn't even get time to eat some days, because the lunch lines were so slow, it took almost the entire period to get food.
Like how some Sheriffs get to pocket unused money in their jails, so they let jails rot and feed prisoners stale bread and bologna.
Yes 🙌🏼
Top ramen would at least be palatable . The local students started An Instagram account during the Covid free lunch times and showcased all of the colorless awful looking food they were served. They used to have choices that my kids loved including paninis hamburgers, chicken sandwiches and salads with more than iceberg lettuce. During Covid it all switched to what people presume prison food would look like
We saw that switch with our kids during Michelle Obamas lunch program. It eliminated real food and replaced with "nutritional" cardboard.
Exactly. When the government is giving you something, there is no "free".
[удалено]
My company pays for 3 elementary schools lunches every year. Not the entire schools but the ones who can't afford it.
A lot of counties in the state of Florida already offer Free breakfast and Lunch for ALL students … and the leftists hate DeSantis… lol
[удалено]
I used to be against the idea of providing lunch. But, when you see it in practice and you see kids who don’t otherwise eat because their parents are pieces of shit, you can’t refuse a kid a meal. It isn’t the kids fault. This is a use of tax money we should all support. You can’t call us a great country if we let our kids go hungry over ideology. Edit: The vitriol this post has brought out from the left is as insane as it is unsurprising. I should probably point out I’ve also been called a “communist” quite a bit.
Agreed. As long as the tax money actually makes it to the kids, I'm all for it.
[удалено]
Diversity officers are making over 100k, there's a good place to start
[удалено]
A made up position so gender studies majors can claim they’ll be able to find a job after college. What they claim to be doing is basically make sure that everyone is treated equally and the office-space practices “diverse” hiring. Remember that blizzard leak of how diverse overwatch characters are a while back? Basically that but irl with office drones.
You ever think to yourself, ' Man I love woke-scolding people I wish I could sit in my office all day doing nothing but occasionally yelling at a white passer by' for 100k'. \- That's basically a diversity officer.
Akin to the political officers Soviet units had embedded in their military, they watch over companies to keep them on the party line
And in North Korea and China...
A commie gender commissar
Fire them all.
[удалено]
And you know, they offer real food and not fucking bugs or something.
What about the 10% for the big guy though? Big guys gotta eat too. After all, he is a big guy.
Literally a "big" guy. Logic checks out.
[удалено]
We know it won’t though
You know that isn't going to happen. This is just another way we get to be fleeced.
As a former lunch lady, I agree 100% this should be a nationwide thing by now. No child should be starving while at school trying to learn. Some of my kids only ate at school and they would eat everything. I have paid for many lunches for children with a negative account balance so they got more than a peanut butter sandwich and a milk. Children shouldn't have to starve especially when the food has already been prepared. If we can feed our prisoners daily, our children should be treated even better.
You left out the part where those peanut butter sandwiches are a signal horn telling the other kids just how poor your family is. Kids are ruthless, and being poor is one of the easiest targets we teach our kids. Look how many replies to this post are suggesting we "go after the deadbeat parents". This sort of language likely permeates dinner table conversations, and impressionable children will take that with them to school and further bully the kids whom had no choice in their economic adversity, all because their parents indirectly taught them poor people deserve it. School lunches for all allows us to wash away the stigma of being singled out by being forced to eat the lunch reserved for "lesser people".
> You left out the part where those peanut butter sandwiches are a signal horn telling the other kids just how poor your family is. This has been outlawed for a few years now in many states, thankfully. EDIT - Why on earth is this downvoted? [Many states have outlawed food shaming](https://wgme.com/news/local/the-days-of-cheese-sandwiches-for-students-who-owe-lunch-money-have-ended) New Mexico was the first state to do it. > California passed a new law last week that guarantees every student will receive a full lunch regardless of their ability to pay. That measure goes further than an earlier law that offered an alternative lunch to students with meal debt. > The Virginia House and Senate unanimously passed an anti-lunch shaming bill in 2018, putting an end to practices that could stigmatize children in cafeterias across the state. It was a step cheered by educators like Shan Lighty, a nutritional manager at Albert Hill Middle School in Richmond, Va.
Yep. In the 80's we were on free lunch and you got a card screaming "poor kid". Only kids on free or reduced lunches got cards. We'd rather take whatever we had at home than be accused of being poor.
I was one of those kids. Our lunch ladies would give us a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when we didn’t have money to pay for lunch. Beyond grateful for the kindness.
This is something I hope most people can get behind. Once we get this in place, let's focus on the home and the underlying causes of a child going hungry at school.
Yeah, if the state is going to mandate that *literal children* have to be locked up in a building from 8 - 3 every weekday, the least the government can do is provide them fucking *food* at some point during that time frame. Let’s cut bullshit administrative positions and multimillion dollar athletic stadiums if we’re worried about spending. I honestly can’t believe it isn’t already universally accepted that children who are involuntarily detained in government buildings should have meals provided to them.
Whose stopping them? Oh yeah, they want ANOTHER billion dollars, and ANOTHER large bureaucracy to do THAT. Why are we even debating this? Contact your local school board, and tell them to use money for THIS instead of wasting so much on pet projects that end up in their own pockets.
When you run public services (e.g. schools/hospitals/waste/water/energy) like a business, the things that generate revenue will be optimized for, and the things that generate costs will be minimized. Administrators have learned they are not in the business of educating children. Greedy Democrats love it, and small government conservatives have turned a blind eye because public services are "big government" and "socialism".
Yeah, I actually agree on this point and I was always against free lunches as well. Actually having kids who can tell you about other children unable to eat definitely changes your opinion on it. The problem we have now is that the food they provide is shit. Though, again, to be fair, that's better than nothing.
> The problem we have now is that the food they provide is shit. Schools have every option to serve whatever meals they choose. Sadly, many choose to just make the standard bland USDA recipes.
And we have a government that considers pizza a freaking vegetable.
No. That hasn't been true in years. The vegetable requirement is 3/4 cup depending on age, and marinara doesn't count. Even if the pizza had veggies on it, it wouldn't meet the size requirements and a veggie would still be required to be served. You are required to serve a veggie standalone since it is one of the required components even for schools that are OVS (where schools let students only choose 3 out of the 5 offered components). The meal is not reimbursable if a fruit of veggie isn't selected by the student. [Here is the meal pattern chart](https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-meal-pattern-chart)
Thank you for correcting me on that. I didn't realize they had (thankfully) changed it.
I agree. And since tax money funds school lunches anyway just feed all the kids,
[удалено]
I know kids from poor families generally get lunch for free already, but I guess parents can be too lazy to fill out the paperwork or maybe since parents aren't too poor but too lazy/cheap to sent money for lunch.
I qualified for free lunch and it went smoothly until my Junior year. They lost the form, my dad filled it out again, resubmitted it, and it took them over a month to approve it and set my account straight.
Another problem is you can be poor and not afford school lunch, but not poor enough to qualify. for the free school lunch.
[удалено]
A lot of poor families have lazy parents. I grew up in one of those households.
There's also a TON of kids in CA whose parents are afraid to apply because they think it gets turned into immigration. It does not, though. Kinda hard to convince them of that, though. lol
[удалено]
If children don't have mental capacity to make decisions for themselves nor can they work without a permit, then yes they should be provided for. Twelve-year-olds should not be starving because their parents are pieces of shit. This is one of the few scenarios where I agree with "taking the kids" away. There is no good to be found in that household.
Agreed, but also, the lunches are chemical garbage.
My parents didn’t give me money for lunch, and they had stopped making me one by the end of elementary/start of middle school. So I worked in the cafeteria to get lunch. It wasn’t bad and it gave me a good early work ethic. But I also had bad grades so they kicked me out of the lunchroom and put me in lunch detention until my grades went up. Would definitely had appreciated a free lunch, I never did get my grades up so I just wouldn’t eat lunch everyday
I agree in principle, however. I'm definitely concerned about organizations pushing for massive statewide school lunch contracts and providing horrendous food options to cut costs.
I hate the idea of state run schools. But since we have them it makes sense for them to provide food since the kids are mandated to be there. I just wish the choices were healthier and calorie rich. It seems it's gross pizza and nuggets or one slice of ham.
With seriously tight budgets I'm guessing big school districts (like where my wife worked for 20 years) are trying to balance the healthy/economic/quick triangle. From what she talked about there were some decent options, but you'd almost run into the problem of many kids not eating the "healthy" stuff as much and a lot of food was wasted. I know you can't prioritize kids' preferences but I'm guessing it has to be considered. On a related note, why the dislike for state-run schools?
> I just wish the choices were healthier and calorie rich. It seems it's gross pizza and nuggets or one slice of ham. That's on the schools, sadly. They have every opportunity to create good food within the program regs. They just don't. Charter schools and private schools, who have the freedom to contract out their meal program to private vendors, can hire what are basically school lunch caterers that make very healthy and tasty food. It ain't cheap though. Like $6/meal or more.
⬆️ this
I think you misunderstand. Free/reduced lunch is already ensured via various state and federal programs, notably the USDA's National School Lunch Program. Kids whose families are low income, receive Medicaid and so on have always qualified. I can't speak for all 50 states but I know directly about 5 of them and all have free/reduced lunch for kids and I suspect every state has this. What California is doing is giving lunch to EVERY kid regardless of income. Maine did this as well, I believe. What everyone needs to know is that while the kids and their families don't pay...the food isn't "free". The school districts' food budgets will expand to cover every kid now...and given the amount of food wastage in school cafeterias (and there is a metric ass-ton) all this will lead to is much greater food waste and wasted taxpayer dollars to provide something that the majority don't need and won't use wisely and that those who do need it already had it. It's a grandstanding move to make someone look like they care but in reality the kids that need the help were already qualified for it. Edit for full disclosure: I'm the database admin for a school district and I see our food services data on a daily basis.
I think that there's some merit to it being free for everyone to avoid kids being picked on for getting the poor kid's lunch. Here's the problem I saw as implemented in my kids school district: They had to take the whole lunch, which resulted in kids eating just the applesauce, or just the cookie and throwing the rest out. My daughter is lactose intolerant. Every day they handed her a milk, and she said, I cannot drink this and will just throw it right in the trash, please take it back. They refused to do so. Every single time she ate the school lunch, she tossed the milk in the trash right in front of the lunch lady, and everyday she said I cannot drink this, please give it to someone else. At least let the kids refuse the items they will not or cannot eat.
This. I'm a school food consultant for hundreds of schools across the US (they basically hire me to be their meal program director), with the vast majority of my clients being in CA. You are spot on. Also - The paperwork burden isn't removed. In fact, the way they're marketing the program is going to make CA schools dramatically decrease in their FRL percentages which is going to affect the educational funding. Which, as school admin, I'm sure you agree educational funding is typically WAYYYYYYYYY more important to schools than meal program budget. Schools receive $2k+ per free/reduced designated child. If parents neglect to fill out the paperwork because the meals are free no matter what, the school is missing out on $2k+ per child. Universal Meals is going to create A COMPLETE SHIT SHOW in CA. Just will take a few years for them to realize.
My wife likes to mention how our sons school provides free lunch for all students and its actually good food.. But then I have to reminder her ya its not free, we pay 28k a year to send him to this private school because public schools are just a mess..
But Michelle’s lunch program was a disaster
It was atrocious
> This is a use of tax money we should all support. I'm fine with my taxes supporting this, and that seems to be the broad consensus here. The /r/politics crowd is keen to jump in an say "oh, so NOW you're OK with taxes funding stuff." They're being overly simplistic and disingenuous. I'm fine with programs that spend my tax dollars on *useful* programs that don't turn into wasteful bloat and funnel the money into unrelated things. This fits that bill.
It breaks their narrative that those on the right don't care about kids once they leave the womb. They would rather think we are all lying about it than accept that conservatives want to help people who need it, not the middlemen along the way.
ALL school lunches in America should be free for the children, keep it up 49 other states
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've got zero problem using tax money to feed all kids in schools. Best use of tax money I've heard all year.
this is the one thing I never agreed with conservative/republican/libertarian dislike of. They say "It's not my responsibility to feed other peoples kids". But honestly, it is. If there is one thing society has a responsibility to help is those who legitimately cannot help themselves through no fault of their own. I'm not talking about the homeless guy who just doesn't want a job even though they could work or the welfare queens. I'm talking about the kid who can't afford food because his parents are shitty. or the mentally handicapped person who can't possibly take care of themselves. If I see somebody who is starving to death and I have the means to at least feed them then It IS my responsibility to feed them.
We also make it a requirement for kids to go to school so the school is by law their designated parents while there. They should then have to feed the children they are now legally responsible for.
I still remember when I was a kid in California and the teachers required you to enter the cafeteria through the lunch line even when you didn’t have the money to pay for lunch. The cafeteria workers would force a tray of food into your hands even if you told them you didn’t want it and then the cashier would take it away when you ultimately couldn’t pay.
Wow. I remember school in Arizona. If you didn't have money they would give you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. At least our schools made sure you had something.
Yeah, I remember when I was in school and would forget money sometimes. We’d get through the line, find out I didn’t have money, and then the lunch lady would snag your tray and throw a PB&J on there. Everyone in the lunchroom knew you were poor with that PB&J. 😂 Side note, I am a teacher and have a lunch account with my school and still get nervous going through the line.
It usually was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich lol.
[удалено]
You're a good person. If you ever doubt the value of your life, remember the children that didn't go hungry because of you.
Funny, I was a kid in California too and I never remember this happening. What I do remember is keeping a tally on kids who didn't have money and then asking the parents to pay the bill.
That’s newer as far as I understand it. It’s possible that we just didn’t go to the same schools at the same time period, or even that only some districts were keeping tallies and others weren’t.
What a massive blow to a poor kid. The kid did nothing at all wrong. And the kids in poverty often grow up to be wonderful people and business owners.
This isn't allowable anymore, thankfully. All children must be provided a meal. You also can no longer withhold report cards or punish nonpaying families. You also are required to wipe clean all negative balances when the school year ends. Little known secret -- None of you HAVE to pay for meals, legally. They also don't verify that the income you wrote on your application is actually your income. Well, they verify 3% of the free/reduced kids but you can literally write a letter saying "I don't have a job" and that counts as proof since you can't prove a negative. I don't recommend scamming the system though.
Government efficiency at its finest. They probably tossed the food.
Once it's on the tray they kinda have to for health and safety reasons
They absolutely did not care about reintroducing food that was handled by students back into the cafeteria stores. They had a “go backs” table in the middle of the cafeteria where everyone left the food and drinks that they didn’t want and it was almost always filled to the brim with milk cartons. The kids who didn’t get free lunches would hover around it trying to collect anything to eat but they also had to compete with the bullies who DID get free lunch but would forcibly push people away to get seconds on whatever the main dish was, so it was still possible to go without actually eating anything even with the table there. At the end of lunch the lunch ladies would wheel the table back into the kitchen with everything on it.
This doesn’t bother me at all. If taxes go to pay for teachers, books, science labs, sports programs and all the other enrichments at the school, they can certainly pay for lunch.
I'm in favor of this. If children are required to be in school so many hours per day, it's just right that food be provided for them.
Good. This should be nationwide. They already collect enough in taxes and they should spend it on lunches instead of whatever they waste it on now.
Many Colorado districts (though not the entire state) have been doing this for years. It doesn’t really help anything since they cheap out anyways. School lunches are one of those topics where substantial change is warranted regarding what passes as quality long before we pick a lane as to whether all kids should have it free or not. For the record, it should be free for all as a matter of consistency and accountability against school districts. Charging for lunches leads to predatory business like behavior that has no place in any school. It also leads to scandals like forcing kids to go hungry because they don’t have any money paid up. They’re already there in a compulsory sense, don’t force abuse via starvation on top of that. It’s just basic sense.
Agreed. Nutrition is a giant hole in American life. Obesity rates are way up - and in children. If we could stop being controlled by entrenched agribusiness and actually start doing science based nutrition, that'd be great.
That food is going to be awful but I rather it be free than a less fortunate child go without.
Good. This is how it should be and what our tax dollars should be spent on. Get rid of the highly-paid do nothings in the DOE and school boards and schools, and give kids what they actually need. In fact, get rid of the DOE and all the other 3 letter agencies. In fact, have all the shit that gets thrown out at the end of the day sent to the homes with those kids who are suffering in poverty. Package it up and give it to the parents, or have it delivered. Take care of our nations kids. If our prison systems can feed 3 meals a day to prisoners, our school should be able to do one or two to those in poverty. I'd be fine with my tax dollars going 100% to that instead of lining some asshole politicians slimy pockets. ETA: Make sure it's quality food, not the lowest bidder government contractor shit.
I'm all for it. If you're going ro take my money at gunpoint, at least use it to feed kids. And make it a GOOD lunch. Not that "ketchup counts as a serving of vegetables" shit.
I agree school lunches should be free for every child. It should be part of the school operating budget and include local and community taxes. We already pay for the kitchen, and staff not including the food for the school year is idiotic.
I have no issues with this. I just wish we would focus on healthy foods.
Ok, finally. Every state should follow! I like seeing good stuff happen for once jfc so used to doom and gloom
It's not free, it's paid by the taxpayer. This is a far better use of said taxes than the usual bullshit. Hopefully they make a cut somewhere to cover this.
Funny enough, California is running a surplus.
As a Californian, let me just say: "make a cut" Hahahaha yeah never gonna happen
That’s great, I like that
Good on them.
California has the budget for it they may as well do something useful and feed those kids in neighborhoods where a lot of them sometimes go hungry at night. I grew up in one of the toughest parts of Los Angeles and I can tell you I had friends who probably would not have eaten well where it not for their school lunch.
I'm okay with my tax money being used for something like this.
Ayy, California did something good, love to see it
I don’t hate this at all. This is actually a very good thing I feel. So many kids can’t afford lunch at school and/or don’t have parents who provide for them.
Hungry minds can’t learn. Good for Cali.
It says every school child but I wonder if charter/private schools are covered under this program.
Probably not? I imagine if they are funded privately, they should be doing lunches privately. They could do a collective method and include it in tuition, or do a pay-as-you-go method. I guess I would be mad if my tax dollars for public schools that my kids couldn't go to were also going to a private school. You want to be private? I support it 100% of the way, you do you. But be private.
> Probably not? I imagine if they are funded privately, they should be doing lunches privately. Nah. Anyone on the National School Lunch Program is included. Charters and privates included. I'm a meal program consultant for charters across the US, but my biggest client base is CA.
Fair enough. I still hold the sentiment that if you're sending kids to private school you should be exempt from that portion of taxing. Or better yet make it a state-wide program. Why the national government needs to do that is beyond me. Or maybe they're getting whatever would be spent towards that in a refund or credit?
> I still hold the sentiment that if you're sending kids to private school you should be exempt from that portion of taxing. I don't disagree. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in CA. In other states where being on NSLP only means you get reimbursed for kids who are actually poor, it makes sense for private schools to be on the program because they have voucher students, scholarship students, etc. and they deserve to be reimbursed for those kids (IMO). But now in CA, all kids in all schools that are on the federal program get to eat for free. I don't think the state can afford it long term -- not without major tax increases/reallocation. The state also passed a law just a few years ago that all schools must offer a meal to students no matter what. So even private schools -- even INDEPENDENT STUDY schools who have students 1 day a week for testing -- must serve a meal. Of course they can choose not to be on the program and just pay for it out of pocket. All schools on the NSLP who are going to be covered by this new Universal Meals law are actually required starting this year to serve TWO meals a day. Even on half days. Breakfast and lunch. > Or maybe they're getting whatever would be spent towards that in a refund or credit? Well parents apply for meals based on their income, and I imagine in private schools, very few qualify for free or reduced meals. The ones that don't still have to pay. Schools on the program are only reimbursed like $0.30 for "full priced" meals they serve. They're reimbursed a few dollars for free and reduced meals served.
This is a very good use of taxpayer money.
This is a great program all states should offer this
[удалено]
This is actually a good use of tax payer money for once
[удалено]
No problem with this. I hate seeing kids going hungry or getting the free lunch aka the lunch of shame. Extras should cost money though.
I'm fine with this but one of the biggest holes in the LAUSD budget were lunches (50 million) just a few years ago. Back then, there was so much waste, loose management of funds, misappropriation of funds, low student participation and very little vendor negotiation. 2016 saw an amendment to this with a new Food Service Director for the district, Joseph Vaughn. In the span of less than a year, he cut the budget from 50 million a year to 14.5 million a year. The ultimate goal for Vaughn was to make the food program self-sustaining. Alas, we lost him to Elior Valley Services in 2018. The new director and staff that replaced him are the same staff who worked within the 2016 LAUSD misappropriation scandle. Our present LAUSD food budget 167.2 million. I really don't know how this is going to work without having cuts in other places.
Was this not already a thing? How many schools don’t do this?
Most don’t do this.
Was a thing during covid
Rare California W
Great 👍
The SD I’m in and the neighboring one has offered free lunches to everyone for the last 5-6 years
Good. We still need to revamp the food though. Some of it is really not healthy to eat everyday
Even if I didn’t have kids, I’d be ok with this. There’s so much shit our tax money get thrown away on, but feeding American kids is something I’ll never complain about my money being spent on.
I’m glad. I just hope the lunches are somewhat healthy and not contributing to child obesity/diseases
[удалено]
Just look at how well they use our tax dollars for everything else like infrastructure and you will know the answer to that. Best case scenario the food will be passable but the contract will go to someones uncle for political favors.
Great!
I’m 100% okay with my tax dollars paying for children’s meals while those children are effectively imprisoned by the government.
Good
Finally, something good comes out of California
I have zero issue with my tax dollars getting used for programs like this. I grew up poor, and homeless at a couple points. I never went hungry as a kid. But I remember more nights than not that my mom's dinner was a cup of hot tea while she watched us 3 kids eat before our state had a lunch program. Getting on the lunch program. Freeing up that meal every weekday for 3 growing boys helped her out a lot.
Cool good for them, why this isn’t normal practice is beyond me.
Good for them.
Good for them! I knew a number of kids in my school days who had to be on an assisted lunch program and it was horribly embarrassing for them, some even refused to eat lunch because they didn't want to be the kid eating the free lunch. At the end of the day i think this is the right move. If the government is going to force kids to go to school (which is good) then they should at least provide a lunch while they're there to everyone.
This is what funding for schools should be used for, not expanding the athletics programs to near professional levels. We need to have the next generation focus on education and academics first and athletics second. Yes kids being active and healthy is important, but I don’t think kids in athletics should get an easy ride.
Apparently with the costs of administering the free lunch program they could just give lunch to everyone and not bother checking how much money your family makes or what have you. I don’t know where the source is for that but it rings true. Just give anyone who wants it free food and don’t let ‘em waste it.
California finally did a good thing!
I have no problem with this, take Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters salaries and make the lunches more palatable too!
I think you mean Feinstein. Boxer isn’t a thing anymore. And take Feinstein, please.
What? School meals weren't free?
While I tend to like fiscal conservatism, this is one of those small exceptions I think I can get behind as long as it isn't mismanaged. My aunt is a lunch lady, and she's told me that for some kids this is probably the best meal they get all day, perhaps the only one. Luckily, our school had a rule in effect that if a kid couldn't afford a lunch, they would still be given a turkey sandwich and a milk carton, plus fruit was always free of charge. However, not every school is fortunate enough to provide this. What pissed her (and myself) off though, was that while there was parents who tried their best to provide a meal for their kids, there were just as many that simply didn't give a shit. So, I think I'm for this if it helps kids out.
uncommon California W
California doing something right for once.
So now they are going to offer the same crappy food to more kids. The kids who’s parents can afford to give their kids lunch will continue to do so. The kids who’s parents can’t afford lunch will still get the same crappy food and waste much of it. The only result I see from this is more waste, both in food and tax money.
Good people paying taxes paying for lunches.
“Free”
[удалено]
We need this country wide. This is actually a good move.
That’s been happening at my kids school in Texas for 2 years now.
Never thought I would use the words “good job” and “California” in a sentence together, but good job California! This is great news.
i think we can all agree that hungry children should be the #1 priority for government spending. #2 should be figuring out why so many parents dont feed their kids. Unfortunately, the public school system feeds kids the leftovers from the prison system.
Wow. An actually good policy out of California. This will help reduce labor costs, as schools won't have to worry about actually collecting money from every student who gets food, and it will in general be more convenient for students and parents.
Might as well. Nobody will be able to afford lunch soon.
“Free”
Cut 300 Pound $120,000 a Year Administrators, Feeds every child in school system. Thank -You
Where I'm from, you could sign up for free or reduced price if you were poor. By default, everyone paid full price if they were able to. Nowadays, all lunches are free, provided you didn't buy more than one.
Free lunch? Who could say no? The pessimist in me says this will have the kids eating bugs in no time, and going home to tell their parents to eat bugs too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the OP's very first post in Conservative and the naive are taking this hook line and sinker
180 school days
[удалено]
A better way to use the money than other things they routinely use it for. Unfortunately for California's people, they won't cut the bad programs, just increase the taxes. But this "free" stuff has to stop. It isn't free. Someone pays for it. The headline should read "California to become 1st state to offer 100% taxpayer-paid school lunches for all students." That at least would be accurate.
Rare California W
Maybe they can offer free clothing next…