California passes free school lunch for all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!

PP Here.. agree... Prop 13 really did a number on their school budgets. It's part of why we moved.

[Anonymous]

It’s great. Breakfast too. They revamped the food programs so the food will be fresher and locally sourced.

It’s a good use of surplus funds. As a Californian, I definitely approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.

This will result in worse food for the kids that need it

I think this is true. The food in our district was noticeably worse
When it was free to all

And wasted. Kids would get food just to try it and then throw it out. Then, kids that were later in line got barely anything - like one nugget and two baby carrots. What if the kids that really need food are at the back of the line?

Before last year, I thought free lunch for all was a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really free?

it's free to the kids, and to the families who don't make much since they don't pay much in taxes.

CA has a $97 billion surplus. It's nice that they are using it to feed kids. I grew up in CA and was lower income. I remember vividly being in 1st grade and being hungry and couldn't wait till snack time when they gave us a few crackers. This was before Prop 13 passed. Once that passed, the free snacks went out the window, along with a bunch of other services and programs.

A one time surplus or a surplus every year?

? can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years?

One that's extremely bad at budgeting.

I bet any state would just love to be this bad at budgeting then. LOL

I'll ask again: can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years

I am sure the citizens appreciate it. Across 38 million citizens, that's an extra $2,500 for every person. Is California going to give it back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.

This will result in worse food for the kids that need it

If all children get free lunch then the children of poor families are not embarrassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really free?

it's free to the kids, and to the families who don't make much since they don't pay much in taxes.

CA has a $97 billion surplus. It's nice that they are using it to feed kids. I grew up in CA and was lower income. I remember vividly being in 1st grade and being hungry and couldn't wait till snack time when they gave us a few crackers. This was before Prop 13 passed. Once that passed, the free snacks went out the window, along with a bunch of other services and programs.

A one time surplus or a surplus every year?

? can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years?

One that's extremely bad at budgeting.

I bet any state would just love to be this bad at budgeting then. LOL

I'll ask again: can you tell me what state had a $97b billion surplus in one year, let alone multiple years

Sounds like California is overtaxing its residents. No wonder they're leaving.

Can't wait to see what happens when California is only populated by freeloading illegals and the rich in their castles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bad idea. The food last year was way worse because it did not actually cover costs in the same way the prior split with paying kids did.

This will result in worse food for the kids that need it

If all children get free lunch then the children of poor families are not embarrassed.

How are they embarrassed the normal way? All the kids have codes and they just punch them in at checkout - whether paying or not.

[Anonymous]

You get what you pay for, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Of course middle class and above kids will turn their noses up at school food because they have food at home. Truly poor kids aren't turning down edible food.

Good for California kids!

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of rich people and companies in CA. Most of the rich people still live in CA.

And programs like this are subsidizing them.

I have zero problem with providing free or inexpensive school lunches to children who actually need them, but a) there should be some limit on income so that we don't waste money to provide subsidized meals to people who can afford them and b) the food needs to be good enough that the students will actually eat it, since wasted food helps no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are a lot of rich people and companies in CA. Most of the rich people still live in CA.

And programs like this are subsidizing them.

I have zero problem with providing free or inexpensive school lunches to children who actually need them, but a) there should be some limit on income so that we don't waste money to provide subsidized meals to people who can afford them and b) the food needs to be good enough that the students will actually eat it, since wasted food helps no one.

You forget that income limits require employees to verify data and burocracy
The cost to monitor, process and enforce a program will be much more than an extra bowl of chicken noodle soup

[Anonymous]

You all think rich people are sending their kids to public schools and therefore actually be eating the free lunches?! Nonsense. Any excuse to inflict more suffering on the poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!

California schools are basically daycare centers.

“Decades of underinvestment in schools, culture battles over bilingual education, and stark income inequality have made California the least literate state in the nation, as Capitol Weekly reported.

Nearly 1 in 4 people over the age of 15 lack the skills to decipher the words in this sentence. Only 77% of adults are considered mid- to highly literate, according to the nonpartisan data crunchers at World Population Review.“

https://edsource.org/updates/california-has-the-lowest-literacy-rate-of-any-state-data-suggests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the quality of their education is low!

California schools are basically daycare centers.

“Decades of underinvestment in schools, culture battles over bilingual education, and stark income inequality have made California the least literate state in the nation, as Capitol Weekly reported.

Nearly 1 in 4 people over the age of 15 lack the skills to decipher the words in this sentence. Only 77% of adults are considered mid- to highly literate, according to the nonpartisan data crunchers at World Population Review.“

https://edsource.org/updates/california-has-the-lowest-literacy-rate-of-any-state-data-suggests

It is so, so bad, most people have no idea. Maybe decline was inevitable and Covid was just the final nail in the coffin. I don't see how it turns around.

[Anonymous]

Yet people are dying to get into California's public universities!