School lunch shaming

[Monello]

I didn't even know this was a thing.

This week, New Mexico passed the nation's first bill on putting an end to "lunch shaming" in its school system. The new legislation will eliminate the practice of holding children accountable for their unpaid school meal debt.

let them eat cake

 

[Lurk]

So now kids, who may be on food assistance plans through the gummint, don't even have to pay with EBT or food stamps to eat on the State's tab? If kids can eat without paying, their lunch money now becomes a target of the thugs who noogie your noggin until you give up your lunch money. No matter, you can stiil eat.

 

[vraiblonde]

Honestly, I'm not against providing free school lunches for children. If they wanted to make that part of the school budget, that would be peachy with me. I don't know how anyone could take issue with feeding a hungry child.

My question regarding this story is, what's the deal? Low income families typically receive free or reduced school lunch, at least they did when my kids were in school because we always got the form in the first week of the school year. So if these kids' parents can't afford to feed them, they should be getting free or reduced lunch anyway, so why would this even be a thing?

And why would the kids be "shamed" or held accountable anyway? Last time I checked, it was the parents' responsibility to provide their children with food. So why wouldn't the school shame parents and make them work in the cafeteria to pay off lunch debt?

Here's the story in the NYT - some of it is progbot nonsense, but much of it is pure common sense:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...h-shaming.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I have no idea why schools would punish children because their Mommy and Dad forgot to or won't give them lunch money. That seems needlessly cruel to me.

 

[Hijinx]

Honestly, I'm not against providing free school lunches for children. If they wanted to make that part of the school budget, that would be peachy with me. I don't know how anyone could take issue with feeding a hungry child.

My question regarding this story is, what's the deal? Low income families typically receive free or reduced school lunch, at least they did when my kids were in school because we always got the form in the first week of the school year. So if these kids' parents can't afford to feed them, they should be getting free or reduced lunch anyway, so why would this even be a thing?

And why would the kids be "shamed" or held accountable anyway? Last time I checked, it was the parents' responsibility to provide their children with food. So why wouldn't the school shame parents and make them work in the cafeteria to pay off lunch debt?

Here's the story in the NYT - some of it is progbot nonsense, but much of it is pure common sense:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...h-shaming.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I have no idea why schools would punish children because their Mommy and Dad forgot to or won't give them lunch money. That seems needlessly cruel to me.

Likeyou I have nothing against feeding the hungry or being sure the kid has something to eat at the school.
In the story it mentioned punishing the kids by making them help clean up the cafeteria. I see nothing wrong with having the kids help clean the cafeteria
not as punishment but as an every day thing. In Japan the kids sweep the floors and clean the place. American kids have it too easy.

 

[Lurk]

I have no idea why schools would punish children because their Mommy and Dad forgot to or won't give them lunch money. That seems needlessly cruel to me.

Remember, Mooch changed a lot of school lunch rules over the past 8 years?