Alternative Lunches for Students

A student is only allowed to accumulate $10 worth of unpaid meal charges.

"Once they have reached that $10, and there is not a family situation, we are going to provide an alternate meal that will be a white bread cheese sandwich and a white milk," Cox said.

source


So I know we've had a thread on this before, probably about a year ago, but it's happening in my hometown now and to an extent I don't approve of.

These kids are only allowed to have 5 cheese sandwiches, then they have to pack their lunch. Sounds all fine and dandy, right? But these are the children of parents who aren't even giving them lunch money, who's to say their parents will pack their lunch for them?

It mentions "family situation" so anyone with limited income would be able to qualify for free or reduced lunch as normal, but what about the parents who just don't want to pay for school lunch? I find it unfair to nail it all on the child who may end up going hungry. I'm fine with the cheese sandwich, but no meal at all seems cruel to me. I think the school could spare some bread and cheese for a child's hungry belly. Especially since they're giving out free full meals as it is.

I just hope for their sakes, the kids that do end up in this situation get packed lunches at home.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Heatburger]

I understand your point and I hate to see kids going hungry, but this isn't the schools responsibility. It's the parents and DHS. I would say that if a child gets denied a meal, the school needs to report that as an abuse case.

Do you know what is wonderful about this system they have set up? In my school, we are only allowed 5$ of credit. and then, all you get is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. And what i have seen, living in a poor farming town, kids just dont even have the money for lunch because the parents dont feel like they should have to, or dont care. Now, like me, i get reduced lunch and it takes a while for $.25 to fill up 5 dollars. I see kids whose parents dont even take advantage of the free or reduced lunch program, so a kid can only eat a real lunch for 4 days because lunch is $1.25, and then they get a processed "state-approved" cheap version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. its depressing because i see kids who go everyday without food because they cannot afford it

I'm sure that schools could find the money if they cut administrator pay instead of starving kids.

I know I will be seen as cold and heartless, but this is my take on the situation. Let me start by saying that children are very precious, and a great responsibilty.

First, people should not have more kids than they can adequately take care of. I have many kids, and I would love to have more. However, my common sense tells me that I cannot afford more. I am not only looking at the current day to day expense of my children, and their mothers, but for future expenses like college.

Next, if a person does not have the means to adequately take care of their children, they should explore the multitude of social programs already available. If they qualify for free or reduced lunch, they should take it. If not, they should take a look at their budget and fix it.

To close, let me say that it is ultimately the parents responsibility to make sure that their children eat. It is not the schools responsibility to budget in feeding children that do not qualify for free or reduced lunches. If children continuously show up to school without lunch or lunch money, then I think someone needs to call child protective services. Not feeding your children is abuse. There is no way around it. Abuse, plain and simple.

Just want to point out that I am in no way saying that anyone should not have children. What I am saying is take care of your children or lose them.

The powers that be have spent a great deal of time and effort ensuring that the last generation or three of kids has been able to have sex, freedom from authority, unplanned parenthood and given them a welfare society to fall back on.

Now they have yet another generation being raised by generations that were taught to be useless and selfish just as long as they kept voting in the same old pay for votes - society destroying losers. These most recent parenting wonders won't work for their food stamps,welfare and handouts. Why should they be made to do something as unsavory as provide for their kids when they can't even provide for themselves?

It's just not fair to raise them from infancy and teach them to be useless and selfish but to expect them to forget all they've learned and suddenly be responsible and caring when they have kids which they obviously aren't capable of caring for in the first place.

How can you cruel and inhuman people expect others to feed their own kids?

We all know that's the schools job.... and of course those terrible and selfish taxpayers.

I went away for a few moments and had another thought.

Just how many of those children are given money for lunch, and they choose not to spend it on what it was given to them for?

Originally posted by Heatburger

A student is only allowed to accumulate $10 worth of unpaid meal charges.

"Once they have reached that $10, and there is not a family situation, we are going to provide an alternate meal that will be a white bread cheese sandwich and a white milk," Cox said.

source


So I know we've had a thread on this before, probably about a year ago, but it's happening in my hometown now and to an extent I don't approve of.

These kids are only allowed to have 5 cheese sandwiches, then they have to pack their lunch. Sounds all fine and dandy, right? But these are the children of parents who aren't even giving them lunch money, who's to say their parents will pack their lunch for them?

It mentions "family situation" so anyone with limited income would be able to qualify for free or reduced lunch as normal, but what about the parents who just don't want to pay for school lunch? I find it unfair to nail it all on the child who may end up going hungry. I'm fine with the cheese sandwich, but no meal at all seems cruel to me. I think the school could spare some bread and cheese for a child's hungry belly. Especially since they're giving out free full meals as it is.

I just hope for their sakes, the kids that do end up in this situation get packed lunches at home.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Heatburger]

I'd say go after the parents......If you can afford to feed your child then you should....

Why would you not want to feed your child and give them the best opportunity to succeed in life?

Mom...do you really need a 4th purse ?

Dad....stay away from the black jack table.....


Once again...It's not the parents that can't afford it.....that is understandable...

these are the ones than can ....

What a shame ...

hmm, I went to school in the 90's mainly. In a pretty small town in Canada. We were never provided lunches by the school, it was entirely up to us to pack them. Occasionally we would have what were referred to as "hot lunch" days where we could get hot dogs or something for a buck.

There's not very many extremely poor people where I went to school, but no one was well off. I just don't understand how so many places can have so many people that can't pack a lunch for their kids at school. Kids need nourishment throughout the day just to function for school.

Is Canada that much better for the average? I think so. I also think it quite ironic that its Americans screaming about socialism complaining about the lack of free school lunch's. It's not the governments job to put food in your kids mouth, its yours.

reply to post by king9072


I'm not saying it's the government's job, but it's also unfair and unhealthy to let a kid go hungry because their parent won't pay. I personall would make sure my kids ate before I did, but not all parents think the same.

I agree with some other posters that said they should go after the parents. Yes. Definitely, but during that time I think the school should spare 2 slices of bread and some cheese for a bit more than 5 days.

Originally posted by king9072
hmm, I went to school in the 90's mainly. In a pretty small town in Canada. We were never provided lunches by the school, it was entirely up to us to pack them. Occasionally we would have what were referred to as "hot lunch" days where we could get hot dogs or something for a buck.

There's not very many extremely poor people where I went to school, but no one was well off. I just don't understand how so many places can have so many people that can't pack a lunch for their kids at school. Kids need nourishment throughout the day just to function for school.

Is Canada that much better for the average? I think so. I also think it quite ironic that its Americans screaming about socialism complaining about the lack of free school lunch's. It's not the governments job to put food in your kids mouth, its yours.

Yeah, it was like that for me too in the 1960s. And what did my mom pack me? Cheese sandwiches! LOL

But today almost all schools have a cafeteria program and in poorer areas they provide not only lunch, but breakfast too.

This really doesn't bother me because for some of those kids, the school meals are all the food they'll get that day. Some of the inner city kids at the high school level don't drop out just because of the food they will receive.

It's a sad mark on our society that some parents are so ill equiped to feed their children, in some cases spending all their money on their own substance addictions.

I don't think children should suffer because of parental failure.

Societies walk a fine line if they decide to take basic needs away from people. As much as some would like to think, 'well, if they are hungry enough, poor enough, they'll just be more motivated to work'.

But sadly it doesn't work that way. Desparate people in those situations are more likely to turn to crime to meet their needs, than get a job. So law makers have to decide between fuller jail cells or fuller bellies.