School Lunches No More?

[klunderbunker]

So apparently at an elementary school in Colorado, several students' lunch accounts have had big charges built up on them over the course of the first semester of school, many of which going over $100. The school district has said that they have over $10,000 in debt due to this. Their solution to this is that anyone with a charge of over $6 isn't allowed to get anything at all, even pay cash that day.

Is this fair? Elementary kids have been given peanuts or sunflower seeds and other similar things, while middle and high school kids get nothing at all. I understand that the district wants their money, but to potentially take away the person's only hot meal of the day seems unfair. While there's obviously going to be people that abuse the charging system, there's no way that everyone that has such a situation with their account is taking advantage of it. I can almost understand the high school people not being able to buy anything, but the middle school kids seems a bit much. People in high school can be responsible enough to take care of some financial issues, but people 12-14 years old is a different story entirely. If nothing else don't let them charge anything but pay at once, but if they've got the money in hand for that day, to not let them buy because of a debt is ridiculous. Am I looking too hard at this or is this unfair?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I think if they're completely denying the children their right to eat, even if those 'said children' are willing to pay up-front for that day's meal.. it's not only wrong, but in some cases I'm sure it will be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The School System and the meals (Breakfast for some, and Lunch for all) are the only meals the Government and the School boards can be assured that children get. While everyone would like to hope and assume they eat regularly at home, and have a nice dinner, in some cases that isn't always true. I know, I've had friends who've gone without dinner and their school meals have been it for them.

So with that said, to deny children the right to eat, even with them openly opting to pay for it on that day.. it should be outlawed and illegal.

I, too, understand a School system's right to expect and want their money. But how could you possibly take that out on the children? Even High School kids. I don't care if you're 12, or 18.. fact is, not every teenager between the ages of 16-19 have jobs because they want to fully focus on school. So how could they possibly be expected to pay.

Another issue is, when I was in school they had programs for children who's Parent's couldn't afford meals, and they got it for free, or through a state-funded program. Why isn't something similar to that taking effect over this? Have the system's changed so much since my time in school, that they no longer even offer this type of federal and state funding??

Outrage isn't even the word to describe what it must be like to see School systems willingly denying children the right to eat. It's borderline cruelty with the intent to hurt.

 

[2012isbs]

At my school we have a system where after six chages you can only get Peanut butter sandwich and skim or 1% milk on a paper plate it looks bad when I'm having a Hamburger and I see kids eating a PB sandwich and MIlk but atleast it's something, but my school does have a Low income free lunch set up we also have table washers that get free lunch.
To take away someone's lunch away completly is cruel while the "cool" kids with eating disorders waste the lunch they get. I am just disgusted by the Idea of a child my age or younger going hungry for days. If those kids aren't eating breakfast either how the helll to make through the school day or after school activity one meal at night if that a day.
The superindentants for schools that do that need to be Fired infact I would personally hire Trump or Vince to do that.

 

[Richard]

In Australia this would not be a problem I don't think because the schools around here, not sure about other places but I'm pretty confident they run the same way, but there's no debt or charging, it's just that if you bring money to school that day, you can buy your lunch, if you don't have any money on you, then you can't purchase anything, much like a McDonalds or other shops. There's no charging going on and I think the whole concept of charging someone for lunch and then building up a debt is a bit silly because there would be people taking advantage of it.

Also, with the fact that students are bringing money in their wallet to purchase food but are not able to is wrong, shouldn't that be considered illegal, denying food to students who are able to purchase it?

 

[klunderbunker]

That's true about the people bringing money. There's a place on American dollars that says something to the effect of "This bill is legal tender and is usable in all debts, public and private." In that case, isn't denying people the right to use this money going against the laws of the federal government? It's also unfair to not let them pay at the time. Sure they owe a debt, but what is it benefiting the the school to not take in that money? Isn't feeding the kids as well as bringing in some money, and not wasting some of the food that otherwise might not get eaten a bad thing? At least get something out of it.

 

[Richard]

All true points.

A school is supposed to educate and look after the students of the school from (generally) 9 - 3 and part of that is providing food to be able to be purchased and consumed. On an Australian note I took out of my wallet, it says "This Australian Note is Legal Tender Throughout Australia And It's Territories" and denying its use would also be illegal throughout Australia as well.

I would have thought that the school principal or whoever would want students who are able to purchase the food to not go hungry, because I'm going to assume from personal experience, if you're hungry, you're not able to concentrate as well as you can since you're just going to be thinking about food, which can affect student performance.

It's definately neglegence on the part of the school.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd think that as well. If someone is hungry and hasn't been able to purchase anything, I for one would be ticked off at the school and be thinking about getting out of there as fast as possible and finding some food. It's another instance of schools being turned into a business rather than a place to learn. It sickened me enough that you had to pay to rent your textbooks in highschool. We had a charge system but it was one where we could put money into an account and once it ran out I think you were allowed two charges. That's not terrible, but you could always pay daily as well. They'd get angry but you wouldn't be held without food. The claim is that they don't owe you a meal. They may not, but it's not exactly the responsible thing not to do.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think if they're completely denying the children their right to eat, even if those 'said children' are willing to pay up-front for that day's meal.. it's not only wrong, but in some cases I'm sure it will be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

That's where you're wrong Will. They're not denying these kids the right to eat. They're denying these kids something for nothing.

School is not a daycare, and it's not a soup kitchen. It's fucking expensive to run a school, and with No Child Left Behind fucking schools over left and right, without the proper funding to see it out, the last thing schools can afford is thousands of dollars of debt.

The School System and the meals (Breakfast for some, and Lunch for all) are the only meals the Government and the School boards can be assured that children get. While everyone would like to hope and assume they eat regularly at home, and have a nice dinner, in some cases that isn't always true. I know, I've had friends who've gone without dinner and their school meals have been it for them.

Then that's the fault of the parents who don't provide for their children. It's not the responsibility of schools to make up for shitty parenting.

Schools are a place for education, not a place to solve the world's ills. It's no wonder the education system suffers so much. Not only do we have to teach, we also have to provide free meals, babysitting service, teach morals and values, serve as friends and moderators, not to mention try and keep the violence and drugs out of school.

So with that said, to deny children the right to eat, even with them openly opting to pay for it on that day.. it should be outlawed and illegal.

Agreed. So let's start throwing the parents in jail who aren't giving their children money to eat. But, let's not blame schools, many of which can barely meet ends meet as it is.

I, too, understand a School system's right to expect and want their money. But how could you possibly take that out on the children? Even High School kids. I don't care if you're 12, or 18.. fact is, not every teenager between the ages of 16-19 have jobs because they want to fully focus on school. So how could they possibly be expected to pay.

How can you expect an institution that doesn't offer goods for sale to run a deficit?

Another issue is, when I was in school they had programs for children who's Parent's couldn't afford meals, and they got it for free, or through a state-funded program. Why isn't something similar to that taking effect over this? Have the system's changed so much since my time in school, that they no longer even offer this type of federal and state funding??

They DO offer that. Free and Reduced Lunch is a federally funded program. It requires ALL public schools to send home a letter and a form to parents, informing them of the right to free and reduced lunch, based upon income.

Outrage isn't even the word to describe what it must be like to see School systems willingly denying children the right to eat. It's borderline cruelty with the intent to hurt.

Again, Will, schools aren't denying them the right to eat, it's the parents who are deadbeats and won't pay the bills that are denying them the right to eat.

It's time to put the blame where it belongs.

I am just disgusted by the Idea of a child my age or younger going hungry for days.

Then pay your fucking lunch bill.

The superindentants for schools that do that need to be Fired infact I would personally hire Trump or Vince to do that.

How many people in your family are or have been superintendents?

I have 2.

That's true about the people bringing money. There's a place on American dollars that says something to the effect of "This bill is legal tender and is usable in all debts, public and private." In that case, isn't denying people the right to use this money going against the laws of the federal government?

The problem, if I were a guessing man, is not that they are not letting them pay for lunch, they are not letting them pay for lunch AT lunch. There are MANY reasons for this. Where I work, kids are allowed to bring money before school to pay off their lunch debt, and I'm sure it's the same way there.

It's also unfair to not let them pay at the time.

Sure it is. Why is it unfair to expect kids to pay their money beforehand? Do you realize how dangerous it is to handle money, not to mention the time it would take to do it? It'd be a nightmare. I'm thinking of my own school, when I have lunch duty. The kids have 25 minutes, from the time the bell rings to the time it ends lunch. In 25 minutes, 150 kids have to get their meals, sit down, eat, and dump their tray. By the time the last kid goes through the line, they are down to about 10 minutes. If you were to allow people to pay for lunch when they get their meal, then some people may not even have time to go through the line. Not to mention, the kids who owe money, still have no incentive to pay their debt.

Sure they owe a debt, but what is it benefiting the the school to not take in that money?

What if the money get stolen? What if kids don't get through in time? What if the kid takes more than they pay for?

Why the fuck can they not just pay before school?

It's definately neglegence on the part of the school.

No it's not, it's the school trying to look after the kids who actually do what they are supposed to. Why should other kids suffer because some kids don't pay their bills, costing the school thousands of dollars?

I'd think that as well. If someone is hungry and hasn't been able to purchase anything, I for one would be ticked off at the school and be thinking about getting out of there as fast as possible and finding some food.

Or maybe just paying the fucking bill? Would that be so difficult?

It's another instance of schools being turned into a business rather than a place to learn.

I assure you, not by choice of the school.

It sickened me enough that you had to pay to rent your textbooks in highschool.

You can thank your Federal Government, and No Child Left Behind for that.

The claim is that they don't owe you a meal. They may not, but it's not exactly the responsible thing not to do.

And neither is not paying your bills. But, I guess once you gorw up and move out on your own, the IRS will just go ahead and let you live your life normally, even if you don't pay your tax bill, right? The electric company won't shut off your electricity, and I'm sure there will be no shortage of restaurants that will allow you to not pay for your dinner, correct?


The people in this thread are incredibly ignorant, and you're all just sniffing up each other's asses. You have to be able to look at it from the OBJECTIVE position, not the one that tugs your heartstrings.

You want to blame someone for kids not eating. Then send the parents to jail. Because THEY are the reason their kids don't eat. Just like Will said earlier, about how the school lunch may be the only good meal the kids get in a day, that blame goes on the parents. Is it right to make the kids suffer? No, but again, it's not the school that's making them suffer, it's the parents who don't pay the bills.

 

[klunderbunker]

You'll get no argument from me on NCLB. One of the dumbest pieces of legislation I've ever seen.

I can understand doing what you're suggesting to people that simply won't pay, but at the same time should kids in 2nd and 3rd grade suffer for this? It's one thing to punish people that have the ability to pay and can be talked to about something like this. How do you talk to an 8 year old about something like this. I get that the school is being ripped off in this situation, but at the same time it's not fair to cut off defenseless children.

You call us ignorant. Alright then. I'm not sure what grades you teach but I believe you said it was middle/high school? What would you do if you saw someone that was in the lowest grade that never ate because they had ran up a bill and simply didn't have the money to pay for the meal or the charges on the account? They should suffer because their parents are deadbeats?

 

[Slyfox696]

I can understand doing what you're suggesting to people that simply won't pay, but at the same time should kids in 2nd and 3rd grade suffer for this?

No, they shouldn't. But, it's not the fault of the school that they are, but rather the fault of their own care providers. It is not the responsibility of the school to serve a soup kitchen. The schools in this country already have more demands on their money than many can afford. They can't be asked to also to run up massive food deficits because parents won't pay.

How do you talk to an 8 year old about something like this.

You tell them that their parents need to give them money if they wish to eat a school lunch. Also, keep in mind, it's not saying that the school won't allow them to BRING a lunch, either. Have you ever been to a public school, where kids can't bring their own lunch?

If they don't have money on their account, then they should bring a lunch. Or pay their bill. Or not.

I get that the school is being ripped off in this situation, but at the same tie it's not fair to cut off defenseless children.

I agree. But, let's put the blame where it belongs, not on the school, who already has more demands upon it than it ever should or was intended.

You call us ignorant.

Yes. My grandfather was a superintendent and in charge of a districts' finances. My mother is currently a superintendent and in charge of districts' finances. The stuff that the school has money allotted to is ridiculous, and the conditions upon getting state and federal aid is even more ridiculous. While I don't know half of where our money goes and comes from, I do know all the incredible demands on the money. And, as far as districts go, ours is in pretty decent shape, due to a pretty good tax revenue from businesses. But, not all public schools can claim that, and not all can afford thousands of dollars in debt.

What would you do if you saw someone that was in the lowest grade that never ate because they had ran up a bill and simply didn't have the money to pay for the meal or the charges on the account?

If I was moved enough to take action, I call their parents and tell them that their child wasn't getting food during the day, because they needed to pay their bill. Of course, I'm sure they already know that, and it would be a wasted call, but if I really felt that moved to do something, that is what I would do.

They should suffer because their parents are deadbeats?

Why should my child suffer from a lesser education because they don't pay their bills, or sign up for free and reduced lunch? Because all the money that isn't paid has to be taken from somewhere...why should it comes from my children's education?

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not saying that the school should be the ones who have the main responsibility on this. Of course the parents should be the ones that are the main providers. I mean the school should step in if the parents simply don't respond. Bringing lunches would be fine. I don't care where they get their meals as long as they get something. If that's not an option though for whatever reason, I simply refuse to believe that the school is so strapped for cash that they can't afford some PB and J or something like that. While there will always be people taking advantage of the schools, if all other options are exhausted then the school should step in somehow. If they won't and the parents don't, then who will?

 

[The Bearded One]

How is there a debt? How are the kids getting their food without paying for it? If they were on free lunch it would make sense, but we had to pay for our lunches. If we didn't have money, we weren't eating. But that doesn't mean that the school should take lunch away. They were the ones stupid enough to give it away and get that far in the hole. If they do take away lunch, the students could just take something from home.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Can you blame the school for not allowing them food they haven't paid for? It's the same as if you were in a restuarant - would they let you eat if you told them you didn't have the money to pay?

The one part of it I don't understand is they don't give them food, even if they have money on the day. I think that part is unfair - if they have money, they get food. but in general, if you don't have money to pay, you don't have food to eat. I think the schools should start going home to the parents, and asking why they're not giving their child money to eat.