Faced with the understandable problem of over $200,000 in unpaid school lunch fees, the Edmonds School District is cracking down. That's fine. Their solution isn't:
In an effort to recoup $207,763 in unpaid lunch fees from last year, the Edmonds School District is taking food away from kids who owe lunch money. After students go through the lunch line and fill their trays with food, cashiers at all Edmonds schools are supposed to check and see if each student owes money. If a student owes at least $10 and can't pay for lunch, the cashier is supposed to replace the student's tray with a sandwich of cheddar cheese on whole-grain bread and no drink.
Contrast that with the approach of other local school districts facing a similar - and again understandably difficult - dilemma:
Other schools in Snohomish County have similar policies, but most give kids fruit and a drink in addition to a sandwich.In Mukilteo schools, students can receive up to five lunches and five breakfasts without paying. Students who keep forgetting their money are then given a sandwich, milk, fruit and vegetables, spokesman Andy Muntz said. In Monroe, students can charge two meals and then are given a cheese sandwich, a piece of fruit and milk.
Read through the whole article and it's easy to see this is an exceptionally awkward problem that defies an obvious and easy solution. Yet, assessing all the details in question you really have to wonder what some people in the Edmonds School District was thinking.
Yes, a lot of the individual decisions involved seem to have some logic...in a silo. But in sum, their ultimate policy is fantastically stupid. The end result: kids have a tray with a hot lunch taken out right of their hands and instead given a meager replacement with not so much as a cup of water. What's next? A siren going off at the register to alert other students and a scarlet dollar sign sticker being pasted on the kids forehead?
I've given some thought to this, trying to come up with a polite way to describe the adults that made the ultimate decisions here, but there isn't. They're acting like complete jackasses.
It's tough enough getting kids outside in junior and senior high to sign up for the free-and-reduced price meals they qualify for in school (it's a stigma issue). That makes this sort of obnoxious response to a legitimate problem absolutely moronic.
Taking lunch literally out of the hands of elementary school kids. Is it any wonder schools employ therapists these days?
There are few things that irk this father more than the thought of needy kids going without school supplies and food during the school day because adults can't remove their heads from their sometimes ample backsides. School can be tough enough on disadvantaged kids without adults throwing an absolutely unnecessary wrench into the works.
Other local school districts seemed to have figured out a way to deal with this problem with a lot more grace. The adults in the Edmonds School District responsible for this policy ought to be ashamed.
UPDATE: annoying typo fixed.
UPDATE II: Shaming partially accomplished. The Edmonds School District responds to complaints - and probably uses some actual adult decision making at school district HQ - by deciding, you know what, we can probably provide those kids with some milk like every other school district figured out how to do.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 10, 2008 08:06 PM | Email ThisThis just shows that once again Christine past State budgets are best for the union and NOT the children...
Posted by: Glenno on September 10, 2008 08:11 PMHence, some school boards choose to use the general fund to pay for the lunches so that the burden doesn't fall on those who 'can afford' to pay for those who can't.
Posted by: Doug on September 10, 2008 09:51 PMMy hat's off to those employees who are making sure the kids get their hot lunch....the district already budgets for them to lose $200K on the meals.
At the same time it makes sense for them to attempt to get the kids into the free and reduced count - after all, a huge portion of the state funding (i.e. all-day Kindergarten) is based on the free and reduced percentage in the districts. Those districts that have aggressively helped parents apply for free and reduced have recieved lots of extra dollars from the state.
Posted by: Doug on September 10, 2008 10:54 PMdeadbeat parents? illegal aliens? losers scamming the system? socialism? why is it that many perents have $$ for kids' cell phones, latest fashions, electronic toys etc yet we all must put extra supplies & lunches into the community pool? or is it the collective?
what am i missing from the picture, save those few single parents/families (legal citizens) really struggling and fairly entitled due to military service or a nasty divorce? and why does a school have to be a cradle to grave institution too? expansion of basic mission? like the social security system?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 11, 2008 05:16 AM
Also, If there is such a stigma attached, why has the School lunch program expanded exponentially since its inception? In fact, some have proposed that lunches also be made available when SCHOOL IS NOT IN SESSION during the summer. No wonder this is such a welare state mentallity, they've learned since childhood that if you just hold out your hand long enough, someone will be shamed into giving you something for nothing.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 11, 2008 06:12 AMWhen I worked for a local school district, the kids most likely to end up mooching a lunch were those students whose parents gave them lunch money, and they spent it at 7-11 on the way to school. (The low income kids had lunch cards, the other kids either had pre-purchased lunch cards, or cash.)Cash had a way of disappearing before the student arrived--gum and other important junk. Talking to the parents wasn't much help--many felt that they had given "Johnny" money for lunch and if he had spent it--tough! Go hungry! This put us in a bad spot--parents unwilling to pay, and Johnny with no food.
We solved the "problem" by giving these kids a thick peanut butter sandwich and nothing else. It wasn't to shame them, it was to provide food that wasn't as attractive as a hamburger and get them to buy into the notion that every choice has a result to be lived with.We usually didn't have them back again. One thick sandwich solved the problem.
Posted by: Camille on September 11, 2008 06:12 AMSo the dem's really do wish to starve our kids and give them cold food.
WOW I'm having fun with this one. Dino jump on this ad quick.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 06:26 AM"When school started last week, 2,750 students owed $10 or more. After five days, $45,269 has been repaid from 961 students, according to the district."
I'd say that is a success story in recouping losses and a life lesson learned for both student and parent in a very short time period. This should have been mentioned in the SP post for full context. Yes, sometimes shame IS a tremendous motivator.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 11, 2008 06:28 AMAs far as signing up for free lunches, do they even verify whether or not somebody qualifies? My mother used to work as the cashier at an elementary school and they didn't check anything. If you signed up for the free lunch program, you got free lunches. She would see kids who were getting free luches who had cell phones abd were being picked up by parents driving $60,000 cars.
Posted by: Ken on September 11, 2008 06:58 AMThis is not "about the children." This is about holding people (parents) accountable. I agree with most of what you write, Eric, but I think you are quite wrong on this one.
Ken,
The school districts are supposed to verify whether the child qualifies for free or reduced price lunches, not the lunch lady. But, the lunch lady should be verifying the child against a listing of some kind when they go through the line?
I also think that they ought to announce random audits on the free and reduced lunch cost programs with hefty fines for those that signed dishonestly. I bet you'd see usage of this government handout drop by half overnight.
Posted by: johnny on September 11, 2008 07:41 AMHEY buddy, don't be picking on Duffman's "beer" budget! (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 08:10 AMBut embarrassing the kids isn't the way. What the district should do is put the names and amounts of debt owed in the PTSA newsletters. That way you get the parents' attention and help solve the problem. (Although someone would probably sue even if they owed the money.)
Districts are operating so close to the bone I give Edmonds at least a pat on the back for refusing to just let it go.
Posted by: westello on September 11, 2008 08:27 AMBut they don't. There's too much money from both federal and state sources at risk to cut. Many of the programs the school offers are based on how many "free lunches" they have signed on.
It's the act of physically taking the hot lunch tray out of the kid's hand that is an idiotic system. Edmonds appears to be unique in both doing that and in not even giving the kids getting the simpler lunch something to drink.
I object in large part because in my experience, a significant number of kids in this position are not a function of created by kids themselves or the parents mooching off the system...or errant use of money on Starbucks, 7-11, etc. It's by kids that don't actually have resources for a variety of reasons.
Yes, by all means sign the kids up for free-and-reduced price lunch that are eligible. Punish scofflaws who flout the system and force them to pay up. But taking food directly out of a kids hands when other districts have found ways to handle the matter much more gracefully is a terrible policy.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 11, 2008 08:44 AMShaming the student is making him/her perform cafeteria "jester" routines to a captive audience of students who could afford the school lunch, not handing them a cheese sandwich. This kind of coddling kids leads to "wanna be coddled" adults and the cyle of learned helplessness continues generation to generation. Don't cry about the rise of the welfare state and then want the state to start handing out hot food trays to any poindexter who's "parents" for one reason or another, have chosen to abandon their parental responsibilities and decided their childs upkeep is up to the state run school system (i.e. you and me).
Posted by: Rick D. on September 11, 2008 08:58 AMI misrepresented the number of students who have paid - it was not 22% but nearly 35% (34.9)
The amount collected from those students accounted for 22% of the total debt.
Sorry for the mix up.
I live in Mukilteo and yes we have it here too?
were not a poor city either.
I applaud Eric and those commenters who are being both compassionate and realistic here.
Posted by: Bruce on September 11, 2008 11:06 AMWhen was the last time any of you ever heard of any school system VOLUNTARILLY cutting any program without a budget gun aimed at their heads?
There is no 'income verification;' if there were, the actual number of kids on the program would at least bear some passing resemblence to the percentage of people in a district actually consider 'impoverished.'
Posted by: hinton on September 11, 2008 11:18 AMSorry, Eric, but I think that you've run up against the craziness of rabid conservatives. There's just no common sense there... just this single minded devotion to punishing the "undeserving" without any other consideration. I mean, who really cares about starving or malnourished kids when there's a point to be made?
@27: When was the last time any of you ever heard of any school system VOLUNTARILLY cutting any program without a budget gun aimed at their heads?
Classy. Really classy.
Posted by: demo kid on September 11, 2008 03:10 PMBefore 2004, the district provided no meals to students who did not pay. That year, district officials decided they didn't want kids going without food....Since then, losses mounted and spiked last spring, possibly because of the downturn in the economy, officials said. ~ Herald article
Which proves anytime a parent is allowed to shirk their parental obligations, they'll take full advantage of it. I don't recall reading about students fainting in classrooms or hallways due to malnutrition prior to 2004 in the Edmonds school district. You know why? because Poindexter went home and said, "hey, I need lunch money cuz I'd prefer not to go without lunch again tomorrow."...and viola!!...since the parent was disturbed from watching Oprah for a millisecond, the kid either got the money or the parent wrote a check to cover 3,6,9 months of school lunches during a commerical break.
As the poster above referenced, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I don't want the school administration taking on the job of collections agent and calling nearly 3,000 households to beg for the money the parents owe for their child.Imagine the administrative time,effort and cost to collect nearly $50,000 by just picking up the phone....let alone 207K...anyone care to bet me whether they'd achieve that mark in just 5 days with that method? anyone?
What's next? a clothing allowance? We can't have kids showing up in rags and holey shoes can we? It might shame them afterall...
Unless you want 8 year olds to start working a side job to pay for the lunches their deadbeat parents won't pay (and what is more true to the point is that in some cases, the parent is choosing monthly what bill to pay and what bill to have go delinquent), then you find a way to feed these kids.
Eliminate the entire IRS? All for it. Whack ICC, EPA, and a whole host of other agencies? Let's do it.
Fact is, you feed hungry kids. Public education is the golden ticket every single kid, no matter how screwed up their parents are, gets in order to make something of themselves DESPITE their parents.
Rick, I wouldn't be surprised to find out you are working for Fannie Mae.
Posted by: Matthew Kelly on September 12, 2008 03:46 PMFact is, they did!!
Yet more open mouth hyperventilating by nannystaters.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 13, 2008 10:19 AM