"Free lunch for all" coming back to some schools?

[Anonymous]

There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Yup!

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

Taxpayer money. You and I are paying for this food that gets thrown out daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

Taxpayer money. You and I are paying for this food that gets thrown out daily.

True. The (voting) farmers are getting the money regardless. That's who it's really for. The rest is just bookkeeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Free lunch for all means that those who need it but for whatever reason can't/don't apply can eat. For example, those whose parents' income is just above the line but it's still a hardship, those who are scared to fill out government forms because of immigration status, those whose parents aren't organized enough to fill out and return the form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Yup!

But not tho. The universal free breakfast was instituted because it was cheaper to provide it for all students than the pay the administrative costs of sorting out who qualified and distributing it only to them. And students who qualified were also not going to get the breakfast because of the stigma. So by providing it to all, costs were lowered and more kids who needed it got breakfast, which is the goal anyway.

Teaching summer school, the school lunches have been ok actually. I've eaten it every day and it's not gourmet and I could pack a better lunch from home, but for a free meal that I didn't have to make, it's fine. We've had baked chicken nuggets, sliders, grilled cheese, chicken patty, hot ham and cheese, and of course pizza. Again, not anything I'd call delicious, but it's ok. My biggest complaint is that the produce is gross. We've had peaches a bunch of days, but they're hard as a rock. If they were ripe, the kids would eat them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Yup!

But not tho. The universal free breakfast was instituted because it was cheaper to provide it for all students than the pay the administrative costs of sorting out who qualified and distributing it only to them. And students who qualified were also not going to get the breakfast because of the stigma. So by providing it to all, costs were lowered and more kids who needed it got breakfast, which is the goal anyway.

Teaching summer school, the school lunches have been ok actually. I've eaten it every day and it's not gourmet and I could pack a better lunch from home, but for a free meal that I didn't have to make, it's fine. We've had baked chicken nuggets, sliders, grilled cheese, chicken patty, hot ham and cheese, and of course pizza. Again, not anything I'd call delicious, but it's ok. My biggest complaint is that the produce is gross. We've had peaches a bunch of days, but they're hard as a rock. If they were ripe, the kids would eat them.

No. That is not true. It is not cheaper to provide free lunch to every single MCPS student than it is to provide free lunch only to the students who need it.

[Anonymous]

It’s not just MCPS. I just read this article about food waste. Seems to be an issue elsewhere also.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/school-janitor-sparks-outrage-image-120000204.html

Sometimes when people get things for free, it’s harder to see the value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Yup!

But not tho. The universal free breakfast was instituted because it was cheaper to provide it for all students than the pay the administrative costs of sorting out who qualified and distributing it only to them. And students who qualified were also not going to get the breakfast because of the stigma. So by providing it to all, costs were lowered and more kids who needed it got breakfast, which is the goal anyway.

Teaching summer school, the school lunches have been ok actually. I've eaten it every day and it's not gourmet and I could pack a better lunch from home, but for a free meal that I didn't have to make, it's fine. We've had baked chicken nuggets, sliders, grilled cheese, chicken patty, hot ham and cheese, and of course pizza. Again, not anything I'd call delicious, but it's ok. My biggest complaint is that the produce is gross. We've had peaches a bunch of days, but they're hard as a rock. If they were ripe, the kids would eat them.

No. That is not true. It is not cheaper to provide free lunch to every single MCPS student than it is to provide free lunch only to the students who need it.

This thread is about universal free meals in SOME schools now. Basically where there are so many students who qualify, it's cheaper to provide for all the students AT THAT SCHOOL than to sort out who qualifies. Nobody suggested it's cheaper to provide free lunch for "every single MCPS student."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

Taxpayer money. You and I are paying for this food that gets thrown out daily.

True. The (voting) farmers are getting the money regardless. That's who it's really for. The rest is just bookkeeping.

I work for a farmer lobbying group. Yes we support the existing / old school lunch program and it is an important buyer. But we aren’t the ones lobbying for free lunch/breakfast for all nor do I think most other ag associations are either. Not sure who is pushing so hard for keeping the expansion but it’s not the farm lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a similar thread when MCPS discontinued universal free lunches. Here is a link to that thread, as well as my thoughts on the subject, which I originally posted on that other thread.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/75/1065889.page

Really? Six pages and nobody’s quoted TANSTAAFL yet? Compared to the rest of my family, I don’t really qualify as a geek. I can’t believe I’m the only one who made this connection.

Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiment “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”. While I absolutely agree we need to help those who need help and that no child in our county should go hungry, everything has an opportunity cost. The more we spend on free lunches, the less we can spend on other worthy causes, at least without increasing debt, which will eventually have its own consequences. I am fully capable of paying my children’s lunches. Sometimes they packed a lunch and other times they purchased the school lunch which, however poor the quality, was not terribly expensive to begin with. Moreover, while our family was comfortable, we’re nowhere near the high income end of Montgomery County, much less DCUM. I’m happy for MCPS to provide free lunches to lower income families and to set a higher qualifying income standard to cover more kids. I find it totally unnecessary, wasteful, and practically obscene to give charity to people who don’t need it when it could be used to help those who do.

I agree. There are limited funds.

MCPS should (and does) provide free lunch to those who need it. It’s wasteful to provide free lunch to everyone. And it also lowers the quality of the lunches.

Free lunch for all means that those who need it but for whatever reason can't/don't apply can eat. For example, those whose parents' income is just above the line but it's still a hardship, those who are scared to fill out government forms because of immigration status, those whose parents aren't organized enough to fill out and return the form.

When I was at a Title 1 school, they made sure everyone filled out those forms. Like, staff sat with you and filled them out with an interpreter on the phone if needed. They knew that so much money depended on those forms that they were chasing every single form down. No organization needed on the family’s part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

Taxpayer money. You and I are paying for this food that gets thrown out daily.

True. The (voting) farmers are getting the money regardless. That's who it's really for. The rest is just bookkeeping.

I work for a farmer lobbying group. Yes we support the existing / old school lunch program and it is an important buyer. But we aren’t the ones lobbying for free lunch/breakfast for all nor do I think most other ag associations are either. Not sure who is pushing so hard for keeping the expansion but it’s not the farm lobby.

wink-wink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of "free lunch" money comes from the USDA ag programs designed to pay off voting farmers; the surplus crops get turned into school breakfasts and lunches.

Taxpayer money. You and I are paying for this food that gets thrown out daily.

True. The (voting) farmers are getting the money regardless. That's who it's really for. The rest is just bookkeeping.

I work for a farmer lobbying group. Yes we support the existing / old school lunch program and it is an important buyer. But we aren’t the ones lobbying for free lunch/breakfast for all nor do I think most other ag associations are either. Not sure who is pushing so hard for keeping the expansion but it’s not the farm lobby.

There is plenty of taxpayer money to be had. Clearly someone is profiting from free lunch for all (or free lunch for as many as possible).