There is no such thing as a free meal.
Someone is going to pay for the meal somewhere along the line, the reason for this is that the money for the meal will have to come from tax payers money, eg. Your parents. And that is the end of my bit of this amazingly beautiful argument. Thank you for reading
No, it shouldn't.
All public school students should not receive free breakfast and lunch regardless of their income because taxpayer's money provides for these meals and this hurts the tax payers. If parent's cannot afford to send their kids to school with a decent lunch then those kids should get a free lunch, but what is the use giving a free lunch to kids whose parents can clearly afford it? I personally don't even go to public school and my parents would be paying for these 'free' lunches.
Waste and allergies
Schools should not provide free lunch because think of all the waste from the children not liking the food or the child doesn't eat veggies with this attitude there will be a lot of food going to waste. Also think of how many children have allergies 19.6% of Australians have food allergies the lunch ladies will also have to tend to every child's needs and there isnt enough time in the school day top do that.
I am too lazy to bring lunch.
So you want the government to educate you and since you are too lazy to bring a lunch we will provide one for you, Now you get out of school and the government now has to find you a job or give you money for unemployment and or welfare and or food stamps and or section 8 (free housing). I make over $100,000 /yr and bring a PBJ sandwich every day. Why ? Because it is easy to make and cheap. Get off your lazy ass and help yourself for a change.
It will make the school lead away from their true purpose
Firstly, if schools have to provide free meals for their students, they will have to divert from their true purpose - to provide the environment for learning to students. Diverting their resources available into creating free meals for the students will mean that money that was used to create new learning facilities will be cut in order to provide the free meals. Also, who is to say that the food provided by the school is even suitable for the students? Schools will have to resort to using fast meals in order to provide students with meals on time, and most fast food options aren't the types nutritionists will advise. Allergies will mean that food restrictions will be made in order to prevent an anaphylactic reaction. This will mean that it is possible for fish, eggs, gluten, nuts, dairy, and much more to be banned in order for anaphylactic students to be able to have and enjoy free meals, otherwise they will have to bring meals themselves. Isn't that discrimination to those we need to look out for most? We also need to take into consideration that not all students like the healthy options some schools will offer, choosing to avoid it. This will mean that students will miss out on lunch, which is even worse then having to pay for it. Free meals simply cannot compare to the care and love mothers put into making their child lunches, and only parents know the likes and dislikes of their child, so why step into their shoes and make matters worse? Diverting resources into food will also imply that the wage of staff may have their hard earned wages cut, or even lose their jobs, and on top of that, the school needs to provide even more money to hire chefs, nutritionists, and food officials in order to make the free meals. Australia is already in the deep end in terms of economy, and we definitely don't have the budget to support such a high costing initiative like providing free meals for all students.
There is a opportunity to do that. If you really need it get money support if you have to. So uh, NO! *seriously face*
Let's face it the country is going broke. Just because they want to be nice they give the rich people a chance to have free lunch. If you can't pay for that is another thing, they have a program for that, but if you can pay you should this is one way that the school gets their money. If the school goes broke your child may end up in a bad school all because you didn't want to pay for school lunch. Well guess what you can pack your lunch if you want. Packing lunch isn't too expensive. I mean if you have to McDonalds is on almost every corner for a reason! Anyway that is just my thought. (P.S. It is right)
No students should have free lunch
Feeding children is the responsibility of the parents not the school. School free lunch program should be eliminated. It is not expensive or time consuming to pack a lunch for your children. If you can't even do this simple task, maybe you should have thought about it before having them.
Cost is Too High
Because the United States is already in so much debt, we do not have the money to be putting towards lunch for people who can (and can't!) afford their own. While it is true that school is a legal obligation, parents have a responsibility to feed their children both at home and at school.
Not all deserve free meals
If you cannot fully support your child, dont have one in the first place. Those that can, sure, go ahead. But offering free meals to all is stupid. When I was younger, my father paid for school meals, and I enjoyed it, and shared it with my friends who couldn't afford it. It made sure I had vegetables and the like.. There is nothing wrong with that. When I got old enough I made my own lunches and there is nothing wrong with that. And my god it doesn't cost an arm and a leg for some bread and butter. You don't need to eat duck and cavier for lunch kids.
TINSTAAFL- There is no such thing as a free lunch
In Economics, the first thing we learned was TINSTAAFL, which means there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is going to have to pay for it. My school does have free breakfast, and is nice because its free and easy because its on campus. But so much food is thrown away, because they serve old cheap fruit, that no one is willing to eat. Now on to the free lunch subject, I think it should be abolished there was a girl in 8th Grade who was on free and reduced lunch, but she also bought chips, cookies, soda, and snickers with her lunch, and that would cost the same as a school lunch. And I believe its not fair for people actually paying for the school lunches, for the lunches to be of lower quality. When Im paying $2.50 for a lunch, and I get a terrible chicken sandwich, because thats the only thing that is actually edible, but I get the same quality as the kid standing behind me in line, who gets it free. And the biggest complaint I have is that if you don't have money in your account, or you forget to bring it. They don't even FEED you. But they can give it away for free, but no if a paying child forgets it, to bad for you.
It is a mystery why any child would be left to go hungry, but apparently you can be fired for helping to ensure it doesn't happen.
Last week a woman working in the lunch room of a Colorado elementary school was fired for giving children who had forgotten their lunch money free meals. However, rightfully so, she doesn't feel sorry for it and would do it again.
35 year-old Della Curry told ABC News' Clayton Sandell, "I was let go for not charging for all of the food I gave to the students. I would have kids start crying when I told them they didn't have money in their account because they were terrified of getting the cheese sandwich."
Despite being a lovely human being and making sure children weren't forced to leave the lunch room hungry, she lost her job, which is pretty freaking confusing. The policy of the elementary school is to allow students a hot lunch three times when they forget their money, and on the fourth time they are given a hamburger bun with a single slice of cheese and a carton of milk. Although the parent's accounts are charged for the three meals a child is allowed to miss, the question is raised as to whether or not it is ethical to house children in an environment where their nutritional needs are not being met.
The National School Lunch Program was put into place to prevent events like this from happening, yet there seems to be something missing from the equation. According to the USDA, the lunch program invites all students whose parental income is below the poverty line to free hot lunches. Furthermore, students can receive discounted lunches if their household income is close to the poverty line. Students whose families live above the poverty line are expected to pay full price. One would think that it would be simple to provide students the necessary nutrition, but the USDA School Lunch Program doles out billions back to participating schools each year in reimbursment for these meals. At the end of the day, schools set the price of their lunches, and the program will reimburse back the school depending on a percentage. Essentially the government will reimburse schools for the cost of lunch up to 2.93 for students receiving free lunch, indicating that that's the general price meals should run for in the current school system. However, the topic is tricky seeing as most schools are already incredibly underfunded and understaffed. To support a cafeteria a school needs to pay workers and for supplies for said lunches. However, in the case of Della Curry the food she was being asked to deny students was being thrown away at the end of each day.
It's clear our children cannot go hungry, and the idea that some young minds are being sent back to classrooms on practically empty stomachs cannot stand.
In 2013, a study was conducted by Feeding America and found that 15.8 million children in America alone live in food-insecure houses. This means that most of the time these children are coming to school hungry or going back to a house where they may not have access to the most nutritious dinners. For optimal cognitive growth, a child needs roughly 1400 calories of food per day and a variety of whole grains, protein, fruits and vegetables. When a child comes from a low-income family, their dietary needs are more often than not already falling short of what they need to learn. When you add in the factor of schools not being able to fiscally provide children with at least one meal a day that is healthy and filling, the child's learning abilities are impaired.
Being hungry makes it difficult to focus, makes a child's mood more surly and makes it more difficult for them to retain information. In short, when we are unable to provide our students with their nutritional needs their education is failing them. This is something Della Curry understood when she fought against the idea of providing a child with simply bread and cheese for lunch. When you consider that the cost to feed and house a federal prisoner per year is $31,286 per inmate in taxpayer dollars and it costs roughly $10,615 to send a child to public school per year, the answer seems simple to provide more nutritional options to children in-school. I'm not suggesting that federal prisoners be treated to less. I'm simply pointing out that when you stare at the fiscal numbers between the two institutions, it would ultimately benefit our future to pour more money into feeding hungry bodies and minds.
In the specific case of Della Curry it's difficult to determine whether these children she was providing lunch for were taking part in the assisted lunch program or whether they simply were forgetting their money at home. However, this shouldn't have factored into the equation: children should be provided with a hot, nutritious meal in schools whether they come from affluent families or not.
When you begin deciding which students should be assisted and which ones should not, you bring up the emotional baggage that comes with asking a child to tell you they're unable to feed themselves at home. By implementing across-the-board free breakfast and lunches to students, the school system is investing in the mental and physical well-being of the future of our country.
Della Curry is a woman who did what anyone with a heart would: she gave help to those who needed and asked for it. Her firing represents a deep disconnect the american education system has with seeing learning as a holistic thing children must immerse themselves in.
By asking Curry to turn away students without lunch, the school district was asking her to send back fatigued minds into the classroom. How can we expect children to succeed when their dietary needs are not being met? How can we expect our literacy rates to rise if our youth's brains are too distracted by hunger to focus on the information we expect them to know?
It is impossible to deny how costly an across-the-board lunch and breakfast program would cost, but it is also impossible to deny how necessary it is. Without feeding our children we are letting them know that their hunger is an afterthought, that their minds are not worth molding properly, and that we will continue to push along the future of our country with abandon.