Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am open to the idea that administrative costs may be more than the cost of providing free lunches to all students, but I would want to see the numbers that prove this. Do you have any data on administrative costs for school lunch programs? And are there any data on what percentage of school lunch food is actually eaten by students?

No I do not
But I have come across news articles in foreign media where it was stated that providing a universal benefit is cheaper due to eliminating administrative costs
Another example is the amount of money that was granted by EU to help with the migrant crisis of 2015 and how very little of that was for the migrants.
I can find more examples if you are interested, I would bet that US systems do run into similar issues. So it is universal

By this logic, we should stop charging for metro.

I’d ditch my car and happily ride were it free!

Interestingly, Estonia eliminated bus fees in Tallinn
You can google and research the subject if you are interested
I think Latvia has high speed internet as a human right

People are ditching cars, you might save money by renting one for the weekends if that is the only time you need it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am open to the idea that administrative costs may be more than the cost of providing free lunches to all students, but I would want to see the numbers that prove this. Do you have any data on administrative costs for school lunch programs? And are there any data on what percentage of school lunch food is actually eaten by students?

No I do not
But I have come across news articles in foreign media where it was stated that providing a universal benefit is cheaper due to eliminating administrative costs
Another example is the amount of money that was granted by EU to help with the migrant crisis of 2015 and how very little of that was for the migrants.
I can find more examples if you are interested, I would bet that US systems do run into similar issues. So it is universal

By this logic, we should stop charging for metro.

I’d ditch my car and happily ride were it free!

My kids go to a California public school, and I agree lunches are pretty good. The PP who said they’re like museum cafe lunches is correct. We have things like chicken wraps, chicken tikka masala, soba noodles, and there are always healthy vegan options. They get breakfast and snack during nutrition break also.

There are enough crappy CA schools & poverty to bring down the average, but our own district is likely better than FCPS and most definitely better than MCPS.

I absolutely agree that poor children are getting horribly educated, but this is true everywhere in this country

Anonymous wrote:I think people are applying their own school lunch experiences to all CA school lunches. There was a big push to make school food healthier and more kid friendly/likable years ago. I know not every district is the same, but my kids’ elementary school has a garden and they all have class time in the garden and an after school club that tends it (along with parent volunteers). They supplement the school lunches with the veggies they grow (the kids get so excited knowing they grew the food they’re eating), and they have a farmers market with the rest of the produce to help raise funds.

I just checked the menu for my daughter’s high school and today for breakfast they’re offering cereal (daily), breakfast sandwich, or pancakes. For lunch the choices are penne with turkey meat sauce, chicken and bacon salad, or red beans and rice. Other days they offer things like carnitas burritos, veggie burritos, minestrone, pizza, veggie pasta, veggie chow mein, chicken wraps. I’ve seen them, and they don’t look bad. It sort of reminds me of what you’d get at a museum cafe. It’s not particularly great or memorable, but there’s a variety and it’s decent. One thing I like is that when they list veggie/vegetarian options, they generally mean loaded with veggies rather than meat free. I checked the next district over and they seem similar. They have a daily option of yogurt with granola, chicken sandwich, Caesar salad with or without chicken, cheeseburger, and a rotating entree that includes things like chili, burritos, maple glazed chicken, chicken sliders.

When I was in school, we had things like pizza that was essentially cardboard with tomato sauce and cheese sprinkled on top, a salad made of lettuce and ranch dressing, and various other slop. My kids’ experience is quite different.

This. The California bill also explicitly includes money for kitchen upgrades and higher quality food. It is possible to do this with slightly more investment and commitment on the part of school districts. The ROI on feeding all kids, not just UMC kids whose parents have time and resources, healthy and nutritious food. The fact that we've underinvested in childhood nutrition for so long is the real travesty.

Anonymous wrote:DD isn’t a picky eater but she refused to eat the food in FCPS last year. Powdered Mac-n-cheese is gross and has been linked to cancer. Why is it still be served every week? I’d much rather pay for higher quality food and subsidize the poor kids so they receive healthier meals. This year FCPS is charging again but I don’t see any difference in the menus. Does anyone know if the food will be better?

I think the food is, at least for the most part, starting from a better place at most CA public schools. I haven't done an actual study, but just glancing at the available menus, CA had healthier, varied options. The money being used for the free lunches is also meant to be used for fresh, healthy, local food when possible. The Berkeley USD is a leader in providing healthy school lunches. Alice Waters made a huge effort to improve meals for kids in Berkeley. Some of the healthiest counties for kids are in CA, so it makes sense that parents value healthy food options in school. It's not like in some parts of the country where health and eating well aren't valued as much so parents don't care that schools aren't improving over the processed foods we remember from childhood.

I think, besides the healthier food culture in CA compared to most of the US, two other factors really play into the lunches being decent here. CA is very diverse, especially the large cities. The menus reflect that somewhat. It's not just Taco Bell style taco Tuesday, but varied foods from hispanic and asian culture. Americanized versions like at American Chinese or Mexican restaurants, sure, but variety. Kung Pao chicken, veggie chow mein, pork burritos, veggie burritos, beef tostadas, cheese tamales, chicken and broccoli, banh mi, etc. The other is that the school districts, at least where I live, won't let one school in the district have a different menu than the other schools. Parents can't fundraise and hire a caterer for their kids' school and leave the other schools in their district eating processed junk. This means parents have to advocate for the whole district if they want lunches to be better at their kids' schools, so the poor kids/poor schools are going to benefit just from being in the same district. Some of the districts are smaller, so it's less impactful, like Berkeley (there aren't any really poor public schools in Berkeley), but in Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area it's impactful. I'm sure it's the same in LA.

I think it's kind of funny that instead of being happy for the kids who are getting better food as a result of this, or the relief to MC and LMC families who might appreciate the relief of getting free meals. Instead it's crapping on CA suggesting mismanaging funds, or crapping on school lunches as being awful and no one wants them anyway. This could be very impactful for real people, improving their daily lives. This is a wonderful gift to so many families and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Said the person who has obviously never worked in a school. All the kids grab the free, crappy lunch. Most of it winds up in the trash because it's disgusting. So by your logic, the "poor" kids are forced to eat truly horrendous food? Btw, kids are kids. The kids that truly need subsidized lunches are throwing away the crap food because A) they would rather starve than eat it, and/or B) they don't want to be the person seen eating the crap food.

Tell us about how you've seen kids get into a fist fight over food on a Monday because they haven't had a meal over the weekend. School is the only place some kids can get food. Step out of your bubble.

DD isn’t a picky eater but she refused to eat the food in FCPS last year. Powdered Mac-n-cheese is gross and has been linked to cancer. Why is it still be served every week? I’d much rather pay for higher quality food and subsidize the poor kids so they receive healthier meals. This year FCPS is charging again but I don’t see any difference in the menus. Does anyone know if the food will be better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am open to the idea that administrative costs may be more than the cost of providing free lunches to all students, but I would want to see the numbers that prove this. Do you have any data on administrative costs for school lunch programs? And are there any data on what percentage of school lunch food is actually eaten by students?

No I do not
But I have come across news articles in foreign media where it was stated that providing a universal benefit is cheaper due to eliminating administrative costs
Another example is the amount of money that was granted by EU to help with the migrant crisis of 2015 and how very little of that was for the migrants.
I can find more examples if you are interested, I would bet that US systems do run into similar issues. So it is universal

By this logic, we should stop charging for metro.

Anonymous wrote: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

did you know that the median income in some of these high col cities is something like $150K? In 99% of the country, that would not be considered "middle class", but in rich CA cities, that is considered MC, and those MC families might appreciate free milk, which is very expensive now a days. Fruit, too, is very expensive, but in CA, the fruit is also very fresh for most of the year, unlike in the DC area.