School Food Programs

[bolt.]

Recent events have brought to mind that with school closures, it can be difficult to maintain child feeding programs that are usually delivered through school settings.

As a Canadian, school food programs are unfamiliar to me. I've had two near-equal yet completely opposite reactions when I think about it.

My first thought is, "Why aren't people more uncomfortable with the knowledge that a huge portion of children are being raised by people who either can't or won't feed them?" -- I feel shocked by the idea that the kind of behaviour that I consider serious abusive neglect (having children and not providing food for them) is seen as a commonplace condition -- something to be solved on the scale of cities, by handing out daily food to hungry neglected kids -- not something of serious concern. It's not a crime to starve your children? Why not?

My second thought is, "Why isn't someone feeding Canadian children?" -- I do know that lots of kids 'skip' breakfast before school. I know that some kids (often the same kids) don't make the effort to bring a packed lunch. This is especially prevalent as 'kids' get older and parents view them as more independent. It's not that there isn't food, it's that there isn't a lot of parent-initiated focus on making sure kids feel required and supported in the executive function skills that enable them to rise and eat a nutritious meal before they leave for school, and pack food to take with them for the day. Parents of kindergartners (even when they have financial struggles) do these things, put parents of 9th graders don't. In addition, we do have parents in poverty: food insecurity makes this whole dynamic worse. Is this not something kids deserve to have their society solve for them if their parents won't? Are we just being so individualistic that we don't notice that kids are going hungry?

What are your thoughts about school food programs? Which of my responses makes more sense to you? Who feeds kids in your area?

 

[Ottakee]

So many kids on free/reduced lunches DO have working parents.  Wages in parts of the US are so low that 2 parents can be working full time and STILL qualify for food programs.  It isn't abuse/neglect often, just a lack of resources.

In the school program where I work, all of the students quality for free lunch as they are over 18 and disabled.  Again they might be working but not earning enough.

I read stories of families where children were starving for lack of money to buy food and I am ever so thankful that these programs exist 

Our local district is handing out meal packs to kids each week during school closure.  They ran out of food today as the demand is so high, esp with the mandatory stay at home order starting at midnight.....many more parents might be out of work again.

[DesertBlossom]

I feel the same way you do. And it's all made worse when I feel like the government does a poor and inefficient job at solving it. When DH was teaching in an inner-city school they wanted him to encourage all kids to take food items during snack time, even if they didn't eat them, so that the school could get their funding. What kind of message does that send to kids when we tell them to take it and just throw it away? 

[bolt.]

5 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Wages in parts of the US are so low that 2 parents can be working full time and STILL qualify for food programs.  It isn't abuse/neglect often, just a lack of resources.

So, in Canada, it would be child neglect to not find a way to feed a child -- regardless of one's income. Social services would be called, and a series of attempts to support the family in crisis would take place. There are welfare payments, and supports for parents, and subsidized housing and a lot of ways that social services would attempt to care for the family so the family could care for the child. It wouldn't always have the ideal outcome, but things would be tried.

Between having some work, and getting some government money: there really isn't a way to make so little money that you can't feed a child on milk, oatmeal, ham sandwiches, carrots, apples, rice, potatoes, ground beef and beans. There are parents who spend the money otherwise, and there are parents who can't get the time and help they need to make good cheap food happen in real life, and there are uniquely challenging circumstances... But, I mean, in terms of the actual money being the deciding factor: is that a legitimately normal circumstance where you are? I mean that's some abject rock-bottom poverty. If that's the sort of thing that happens a lot... doesn't it strike you as possibly the wrong way to run a society? Shouldn't abject rock-bottom "Can't afford a loaf of bread this week" poverty be rare in a developed nation? 

Why is it that families that would be considered "in crisis" in Canada are considered perfectly average just a few hundred km further south? Why is the depth and prevalence of poverty a ho-hum thing? Why is "Ok, here's some food kid." -- considered a reasonable solution?

[Ottakee]

Bolt.   I think in the US our government food assistance, etc assumes the kids eat at school....therefore it is a lower amount.

It is a very complex problem.  

[hs03842]

-

Edited June 8, 2020 by JoyKM

[SereneHome]

I KNOW I shouldn't respond, I just know it!!

I come from a country where food shortage was a very very real thing. I know many in US think that there is food shortage here. Trust me - there really isn't. And it's cheap. Really really cheap. And no, you don't have to know how to cook. And you don't even have to have a full kitchen. You can feed yourself and your family. It might not always be the healthiest way, but OMG, you can feed a family on the cheap in US.

But somehow, somewhere along the way it became completely acceptable that schools and govt became responsible for feeding the children. I got slammed on here about a year ago when I said that it really shouldn't be their responsibility. While no one called me actual names - many very rude and mean things were implied.

I also find it very interesting how people pick and choose in which areas of their life they want to have govt involved.

anywhooo.....

[hs03842]

-

Edited June 8, 2020 by JoyKM

[prairiewindmomma]

My feelings are so, so complex about food programs in school.

Fundamentally, I think schools should be focused on education and less on providing all of the stop gap services that they currently do.  They provide mental health services, because they aren't funded (adequately) by our nation. They provide health care services, because these aren't funded by our nation. They provide meals, because many families struggle financially.  They provide extended before and after school childcare, because these things aren't funded.  We live in a nation where wealth is distributed very, very inequally.  I *do* think we should be taxing the ultra-wealthy by quite a bit more.  I *do* think we should have inheritance taxes to a larger degree than we do.  We *used* to have these things, but they were systematically taken apart by our legislators, and to some degree by our judiciary.  (And I say this having gone to a lot of professional legal seminars on how to structure wealth management to maximize tax avoidance.)

What model do I think we should adopt because we live in a less ideal world? I think we should adopt a more Euro model---of providing actual FOOD to our children...salads, soups, fresh bread.  We should not be providing high fat, high salt, highly processed foods. We should be modeling GOOD nutrition and helping our children develop taste for nutritious meals.  We should be having school gardens, and teaching food prep.

[hs03842]

-

Edited June 8, 2020 by JoyKM

[bolt.]

I've read historical books where some sort of workers go on strike, and 'their children are starving' -- so some wealthy person will step up and 'feed the children' without a morsel for the adults who (supposedly) bring it on themselves.

Sometimes child feeding programs feel like that... It seems like there's a latent perception that poor people 'bring it on themselves' that they are in poverty, therefore nobody moves to feed or fund the adults of a poor family. Instead they seem to intentionally work around the parents -- making sure that their charity only feeds the 'innocent' children (taking place at school with the parents absent) without solving or assisting the real problem in any meaningful way.

Edited March 24, 2020 by bolt.

[Tanaqui]

In a great many nations, schools provide free food for all students regardless of income. The US is hardly unique here - indeed, what we provide isn't that great compared to some places.

[Ottakee]

43 minutes ago, JoyKM said:

I agree with you so much here.  The real solution is to invest in the community as a whole--then we will start seeing children thrive.  If one is opposed to all social programs on principle, I would urge them to at least invest in ones for children.  Investing in children--giving them as good a start as we can as a community--will pay us back eventually.  

This reminds me of the articles I have read about some European countries (can't remember but possibly Denmark of Sweden) where the schools are COMMUNITY schools.  All schools across the country are equally funded and there are very few private schools.  The article claimed that it made the community pull more together for ALL of the students.

I work in Special Education and much of what I do is social worker type things.....helping set up doctors/dentist appointments, helping navigate the local mental health system, working to get social security disability, helping secure food cards for those that qualify, etc.  There is just not a lot out there to help my special needs students, most of whom are their own guardians.  I love what I do and am glad to help but often my role in our classroom is very much a social worker type roll.

[Happy2BaMom]

The school lunch (& then breakfast) programs started because kids were coming to school unfed (& with no lunch) and it was really affecting their ability to learn (who knew?).

I've heard a lot of criticism about school lunch programs over the years but I've heard no alternative proposals to deal with the problem (other than the implication that the programs shouldn"t be in place...which I guess means the kids should just be allowed to be hungry?).

It's very telling that food benefits for children are held up for scrutiny, yet no one bats an eye over corporate welfare. I haven't been able to find more updated figures (from a reliable, non-partisan source, that is) with a quick search, but in 2006, the US spent 50% more on corporate welfare than on food stamps and housing assistance.  We won't even go into the subsidies, tax breaks, and special benefits that farmers, churches (I'm thinking of the mega-million-$ large ones, not your local community churches), and politicians get.

Yet I've never once heard a politician calling for corporate CEOs or politicians to go through routine drug screens in order to qualify for benefits. And I've seen very few (if any) posts wondering why & how the US government got into the business of routinely handing out sh*t-tons of cash to the haves.

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

The school lunch (& then breakfast) programs started because kids were coming to school unfed (& with no lunch) and it was really affecting their ability to learn (who knew?).

I've heard a lot of criticism about school lunch programs over the years but I've heard no alternative proposals to deal with the problem (other than the implication that the programs shouldn"t be in place...which I guess means the kids should just be allowed to be hungry?).

It's very telling that food benefits for children are held up for scrutiny, yet no one bats an eye over corporate welfare. I haven't been able to find more updated figures (from a reliable, non-partisan source, that is) with a quick search, but in 2006, the US spent 50% more on corporate welfare than on food stamps and housing assistance.  We won't even go into the subsidies, tax breaks, and special benefits that farmers, churches (I'm thinking of the mega-million-$ large ones, not your local community churches), and politicians get.

Yet I've never once heard a politician calling for corporate CEOs or politicians to go through routine drug screens in order to qualify for benefits. And I've seen very few (if any) posts wondering why & how the US government got into the business of routinely handing out sh*t-tons of cash to the haves.

 

So I am not picking on you, but this sentiment is very much what I find......insulting and useless and so counterproductive.

It's always this assumption that if you don't agree with free lunches, you just don't want to feed "the kids". And then always, always always the topic of corporate welfare comes up. ALWAYS! And then it's all about rich vs poor. Always.

And this type of "debate" never gets anywhere bc people start bringing up all kinds of subjects that really have nothing to do with the original topic.

And that's unfortunate bc may be, just may be there could be some good conversation and may be some good ideas would start to flow. And may be someone would read about some good ideas and start implementing them.

But nope, it's always "the evil rich who don't want to feed the children" vs "poor angels who are being taken advantage of"

[bolt.]

2 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

The school lunch (& then breakfast) programs started because kids were coming to school unfed (& with no lunch) and it was really affecting their ability to learn (who knew?).

I've heard a lot of criticism about school lunch programs over the years but I've heard no alternative proposals to deal with the problem (other than the implication that the programs shouldn"t be in place...which I guess means the kids should just be allowed to be hungry?).

It's very telling that food benefits for children are held up for scrutiny, yet no one bats an eye over corporate welfare. I haven't been able to find more updated figures (from a reliable, non-partisan source, that is) with a quick search, but in 2006, the US spent 50% more on corporate welfare than on food stamps and housing assistance.  We won't even go into the subsidies, tax breaks, and special benefits that farmers, churches (I'm thinking of the mega-million-$ large ones, not your local community churches), and politicians get.

Yet I've never once heard a politician calling for corporate CEOs or politicians to go through routine drug screens in order to qualify for benefits. And I've seen very few (if any) posts wondering why & how the US government got into the business of routinely handing out sh*t-tons of cash to the haves.

 

Could you clarify how the ideas in your post are connected in your country? Is it just that your federal government funds a great many different things, including child food programs, economic stimulus and various tax incentives all at the same time? I don't see the connections or the relevance.

I'm curious whether or not you think your country is impoverished enough that so very many parents are presumed unable to feed their children -- and if you are at all uncomfortable with those thoughts about how widespread such poverty is. I wonder if you have any insights as-to why and how it came about that people don't feel a deep ethical duty or social pressure to feed their own children all day every day.

I'm curious if you think of it as one of the rights of children to be fed during the school day as citizens and students, regardless of the economics of their families. I'm familiar with some countries who view school day food this way: just a part of being educated in a public school system.

I'm curious who feeds kids in your area and how it works. Do you have any 'criticisms' or alternate ideas?

I'm curious whether you think of child-focused school day feeding as a way to address the effects of poverty while intentionally avoiding assisting the whole family? Many countries address child poverty by providing welfare funding to their parents -- then holding the parents accountable under the law if they neglect their children's basic needs. What  do you think is the motivation behind some countries who are reluctant to fund entire families and focus solely on feeding children directly?

I'm sure you have a lot of actual thoughts about child food programs... I'm not sure why you aren't sharing them.

[DesertBlossom]

I don't know why you assume that someone who who has concerns about school lunch programs doesn't also have issues with corporate welfare.

I think if we're gonna feed the poor kids at school (which seems to be a large percentage in a lot of schools) let's just feed all the kids. Let's make it part of the regular school system budget that everyone is served a free hot lunch at school unless you prefer your homemade lunch. And make it a good lunch, dang it. I think I would prefer that over these programs where kids who don't actually "need" the snacks and meals are practically begged to participate so that their schools continue to get special funding.

It concerns me that when parents can't or won't do something for their kids, the solution is for the government to take over the responsibility and do it for them. We should be doing something to lift the whole family and help the parents to become more self-sufficient. I will admit that I don't know what that is or how that would look though on a community wide scale. But I worry about encouraging a sense of dependence upon the government. 

[KungFuPanda]

8 hours ago, bolt. said:

Recent events have brought to mind that with school closures, it can be difficult to maintain child feeding programs that are usually delivered through school settings.

As a Canadian, school food programs are unfamiliar to me. I've had two near-equal yet completely opposite reactions when I think about it.

My first thought is, "Why aren't people more uncomfortable with the knowledge that a huge portion of children are being raised by people who either can't or won't feed them?" -- I feel shocked by the idea that the kind of behaviour that I consider serious abusive neglect (having children and not providing food for them) is seen as a commonplace condition -- something to be solved on the scale of cities, by handing out daily food to hungry neglected kids -- not something of serious concern. It's not a crime to starve your children? Why not?

My second thought is, "Why isn't someone feeding Canadian children?" -- I do know that lots of kids 'skip' breakfast before school. I know that some kids (often the same kids) don't make the effort to bring a packed lunch. This is especially prevalent as 'kids' get older and parents view them as more independent. It's not that there isn't food, it's that there isn't a lot of parent-initiated focus on making sure kids feel required and supported in the executive function skills that enable them to rise and eat a nutritious meal before they leave for school, and pack food to take with them for the day. Parents of kindergartners (even when they have financial struggles) do these things, put parents of 9th graders don't. In addition, we do have parents in poverty: food insecurity makes this whole dynamic worse. Is this not something kids deserve to have their society solve for them if their parents won't? Are we just being so individualistic that we don't notice that kids are going hungry?

What are your thoughts about school food programs? Which of my responses makes more sense to you? Who feeds kids in your area?

 

I think you are misunderstanding how these programs work.  If they didn't exist, most families would manage to feed their children.  They'd find a way.  School lunch programs provide a great relief to strained family budgets and people do count on them remaining in place when they make those budgets.  The vast majority of families who qualify for free or reduced lunch at schools are not people who starve or neglect their children.  They simply make below the x amount required to qualify for these programs.  Yes, for many families this food keeps them from completely sinking financially, but they're not abusive they're just poor.  Americans are comfortable with "socialized" education and food programs in a way that they're not comfortable with other socialized services.  Nobody knows why. 

A lot of these same families would also qualify for food stamps or supplemental food through the Women's Infant's and Children's program (WIC).

Edited March 24, 2020 by KungFuPanda

[Tanaqui]

43 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think you are misunderstanding how these programs work.  If they didn't exist, most families would manage to feed their children.  They'd find a way.  School lunch programs provide a great relief to strained family budgets and people do count on them remaining in place when they make those budgets.  The vast majority of families who qualify for free or reduced lunch at schools are not people who starve or neglect their children.  They simply make below the x amount required to qualify for these programs.  Yes, for many families this food keeps them from completely sinking financially, but they're not abusive they're just poor.  Americans are comfortable with "socialized" education and food programs in a way that they're not comfortable with other socialized services.  Nobody knows why. 

A lot of these same families would also qualify for food stamps or supplemental food through the Women's Infant's and Children's program (WIC).

 

Yes. Nobody here is wringing their hands wondering why Canadian parents are so neglectful they can't pay to take their child to the doctor, they have to let the government do it. In Canada, they have single payer health care. In the US, we have free school lunch and breakfast for poor kids. The existence of these things in either country does not imply parents who use those benefits don't take care of their kids.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Tanaqui

[BarbecueMom]

I grew up with some food insecurity as a kid, as did many of my friends and classmates, and it wasn’t as simple as not having actual food and not having money for food.  I’d say that was only about 30% of the issue (and in our house, income increases generally led to more financial problems, sigh).  At least in my house, the other problems were organizational deficits, extremely picky eating on the parent’s part (she’s cried because the holiday dinner salad had too many vegetables in it...), lack of energy to prepare food as a single parent, and just not being home nearly as much as the kids were.  I’m sure at times we qualified for free/reduced lunch, but mom usually spun in circles like a glitching robot when it came to things like paperwork and tasks, so we never got it.  The glitching robot thing was probably the root problem, but that definitely doesn’t meet the bar for neglect, and they don’t test for that before letting you take a child or two home to raise.  🤷‍♀️

If there were no school lunches, we would have had *something*.  It would have had HFCS in it because my mom still thinks “natural” versions taste like dirt, lol.

[happypamama]

8 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think you are misunderstanding how these programs work.  If they didn't exist, most families would manage to feed their children.  They'd find a way.  School lunch programs provide a great relief to strained family budgets and people do count on them remaining in place when they make those budgets.  The vast majority of families who qualify for free or reduced lunch at schools are not people who starve or neglect their children.  They simply make below the x amount required to qualify for these programs.  Yes, for many families this food keeps them from completely sinking financially, but they're not abusive they're just poor.  Americans are comfortable with "socialized" education and food programs in a way that they're not comfortable with other socialized services.  Nobody knows why. 

A lot of these same families would also qualify for food stamps or supplemental food through the Women's Infant's and Children's program (WIC).

WIC only runs for kids up to age 5, so mostly it quits before school age, precisely because kids who qualify for WIC also likely qualify for free or reduced lunch.  I think food stamps also assume that school age kids are getting free or reduced lunch.  

 

I personally like the idea of a good, nutritious lunch just being part of everyone's school day.  (Not the fast food junk that seems to be what my local school serves.)  That seems like it would be more efficient in general than figuring out who gets free or reduced lunch, and far less emotionally damaging.  I would very much support involving kids in preparing food too as part of their curriculum.  In elementary school, it folds in easily into a practical math/science/civics program, and in high school, it can certainly count as elective credit in food science, home ec, institution management, whatever.

 

I know places around here do offer summer lunch for kids, and I have heard that they encourage anyone, even those who don't normally get free/reduced school lunch, to take it in order to keep their numbers up.  They're offering lunches for any kids under 18 right now, regardless of whether or not you go to their schools.  We haven't tried them, because getting everyone loaded up is more than I feel like doing, and we aren't at the point where we *need* it, but I think it's nice that they're offering.  I do think parents probably would figure out ways to feed their kids, at least most of them, but I'm ALL for making things a little easier on parents who need a boost.  I don't love the quality of school lunch right now, but if it saves a single mom or a couple working multiple jobs a little stress, I'm okay with that because I have had times when things were really tight, and "it just takes five minutes" adds up fast.  Feed the children.  

[MarieCurie]

The school lunch program in the US started during the great depression. It was a way to feed kids and keep farmers from going under by buying up what they produced.

My understanding from Canadian family members is that in Canada there is more welfare for families so they can buy the food for the children's lunches rather than provide them through the schools.

[bolt.]

9 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Yes. Nobody here is wringing their hands wondering why Canadian parents are so neglectful they can't pay to take their child to the doctor, they have to let the government do it. In Canada, they have single payer health care. In the US, we have free school lunch and breakfast for poor kids. The existence of these things in either country does not imply parents who use those benefits don't take care of their kids.

Nobody here is wringing their hands at all. 

I was under the impression that child feeding programs are a poverty alleviation strategy for children whose families lack needed resources? I've never seen the US described as anything like a single-payer "national food care system" designed to simply incorporate eating into the educational day for all students everywhere.

There are countries who run public schools that way -- students are at school for lunchtime, so lunchtimes is one of the things that happens at school. It's an interesting model that I'm curious about too. (I was hoping somebody who lives in such a country might contribute their perspective.)

[Tanaqui]

Bolt, these are your exact words:

Quote

My first thought is, "Why aren't people more uncomfortable with the knowledge that a huge portion of children are being raised by people who either can't or won't feed them?" -- I feel shocked by the idea that the kind of behaviour that I consider serious abusive neglect (having children and not providing food for them) is seen as a commonplace condition -- something to be solved on the scale of cities, by handing out daily food to hungry neglected kids -- not something of serious concern. It's not a crime to starve your children? Why not?

 

That looks like handwringing to me. I've certainly never asked why Canadians aren't more uncomfortable with the knowledge that a huge portion of children are being raised by people who either can't or won't provide medical care if they have to pay out of pocket?

[bolt.]

20 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Bolt, these are your exact words:

 

That looks like handwringing to me. I've certainly never asked why Canadians aren't more uncomfortable with the knowledge that a huge portion of children are being raised by people who either can't or won't provide medical care if they have to pay out of pocket?

We don't have to pay out of pocket for healthcare. We've never had to pay out of pocket. Nobody ever pays out of pocket. The rich don't pay out of pocket. The poor don't pay out of pocket. Kids don't pay out of pocket. Neither do adults. I've never opened my wallet (to pay) in any healthcare setting in my whole life. In fact, it's illegal to pay out of pocket for (most) covered services. Nobody even thinks about the cost of medical services. Nobody purchases it. It's not something you could buy if you wanted to... So I don't understand the similarity here.

I'm confused why you think my curiosity about other country's poverty alleviation strategies and their connection to schools has anything to do with "handwringing" -- I'm expressing surprise why Americans aren't uncomfortable. I can see that they aren't uncomfortable. I wondered why that is, because I imagine that I would find that idea uncomfortable, yet Americans seem to believe it easily.

I don't think that serious abusive neglect is happening -- I see programs designed to partner with parents who can't feed their kids. Therefore I assume the kids are fed by the programs. Therefore there is no neglect. The discomfort comes from the perception that 'if not for the programs' something else would be happening. Is it really widespread child starvation? Probably not. (Or is it?) Why then are the programs run the way they are? I'm curious as to what situational factors or cultural beliefs are in play that I'm missing.

[Hilltopmom]

Many low income school districts do in fact have free breakfast and lunch for all students. Grant funded. No need to apply for it and no stigma.

[In the Bight]

Are you sure school food programs don't exist in your area? I live in Canada and my kids' schools have always provided both breakfast and lunch to kids in need, both in Ontario and now in Newfoundland. I'm sure these programs don't exist in every school, but I always assumed they were common across the country.

At my kids' schools, the breakfast program runs on donations and is available to all students. Many kids whose parents can afford to feed them breakfast choose to eat at school with their friends, and their parents support the program with donations. Out of that money, the schools also provide lunch to a small number of students who arrive without lunch for whatever reason. If a child came to school regularly without lunch, the school would speak to the family and then contact social services if necessary, but they would also continue providing lunch as long as the child was hungry. In Newfoundland, there's also a formal school lunch program in some schools. 

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

If these food programs were not there, its likely that some students would experience malnutrition due to the tight family budget and adults not having the time or equipment to prepare nutritious family meals.   Some would not, as they do garden and keep/hunt animals, just as the great-great-grandparents did here or the aunts/uncles/gps do back home.

 

Indeed, one of the reasons that school lunches are a federal program (rather than locally run) is because recruits in WWI and WWII were so often suffering from the results of childhood malnourishment.