School should be seen as a place where students receive the help and resources they need, however when resources are abused problems can arise. For numerous students living in or below the poverty line, having money to pay for a school lunch is nearly impossible, therefore schools should not punish students that are truly struggling to make their economic ends meet. However, a conflict does come up when the students that are able to afford a lunch, simply do not pay, especially when the debt is erased for all and students that can afford a lunch go unpunished. If a student legitimately cannot pay for a school lunch, then often times the student could receive free meals from the school and then it is not reasonable to restrict these students from participating in activities. However if a student is able to pay the fees and is choosing not to, in a way that could be considered stealing and I feel that those students should be punished since they are intentionally not paying rather than actually not being able to pay for a lunch.
Food is a human necessity and no child should be deprived of it just because they’re less financially stable than others. By taking food away from a poor student, it’s almost like they’re telling the student that it’s their own fault that they’re poor, which is not ever the case. It also makes the child feel outcasted or unwanted in the school. Schools districts already make a large amount of profit, and I can’t imagine most of that comes from the food they serve at lunch. The article even stated they were limiting the food of students who were twenty dollars in debt. Twenty dollars? Really? Is that twenty dollars going to make such a difference in the school that it’s required that you cut off what could be the only thing a student eats all day? I’d imagine it’d be very beneficial to give free food to the students in need, creating a higher morale and a more welcoming environment.
1
Food should be a basic right for everyone, no matter their financial situation. This is something that we as humans need to survive, and not having enough money should not determine if you live or die. Now in a perfect world, this would work. However, in a world where everything costs a premium, it would be incredibly hard to do this. The money that you pay for your food oftentimes goes into the labor that the workers put in to grow or cook the food you are buying. Unfortunately, making food free and a basic right for everyone would mean that farmers and chefs would no longer earn an income. School, on the other hand is a business that does generate some income. Some of this income should in fact go to providing lunch for free to those who can not afford it. These are kids, who oftentimes cannot work to pay for their own food, nor should they have to do so. Because they cannot do anything about the lack of food they may have, the school should provide them with food, to keep them nourished and healthy. If schools cannot find the money in their budget, perhaps they could create a donation system where those who have money to spare can donate to help pay for some kid’s lunches.
The whole idea of not giving a student lunch due to their financial status does not sit right with me personally, I stand with giving every student the same opportunity to eat lunch as everyone else. It’s sad to see how many kids don’t eat durning lunch time and have to sit there and watch their friends eat meanwhile they’re starving and all because they don’t have enough money or they don’t have that type of money to spare and I understand that it may only be 3-4 dollars but some people can’t be throwing that type of money away on school lunch. Sadly, these kids have to make sacrifices in order to have a roof under their heads and not eating lunch during school hours is one of them and to me punishing them for not being able to afford the food is not fair when truly it is not their fault.
Personally, I believe that lunch should be free for any student. Being held accountable for not being able to pay your lunch can be very embarrassing for a student and may make them feel like they don't deserve a meal. In most cases, when students accumulate lunch money 'debt', it is because their family cannot afford to pay it because their financial situation does not allow it. It is completely understandable that the schools who issue out penalties to these students don't want to be losing money but, they shouldn't go about it that way. The government has enough money to be providing food for each student in each school. This would benefit so many people since some kids rely on their school lunch for a decent meal if they can't have one at home. Even right now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are schools who are packing lunches for students that need it even while we are not physically attending schools. If there are districts that can do this, why can't others do it? It is embarrassing to think that the people in charge of taking care of students don't want to provide a meal to a student just because they can't pay for it. If anything they should happily do anything they can to insure they receive a proper meal everyday.
After reading the article, I defiantly do not agree that children should be held accountable for their school lunch debt. Though others might disagree, it has to be kept in mind that we are talking about children. Their family’s financial situation is not their fault and completely out of their control. What also has to be kept in mind is the different situations they could possibly be in. Their families could be going through something at the moment or their parents just simply forgot. Rather than punishing the child, threatening foster care, or sending home letters, a solution that could be taken is a simple call to the parent. This call doesn’t have to be harsh or threatening but nice and helpful. You could tell the parents that there is debt and ask them if they need any help resolving the debt. This could solve many problems and avoid the embarrassment of the child . In my opinion school lunch should be free. Like the article mentioned school lunch is way overpriced. From experience the lunch isn’t worth the what is charged. Often times most of the food ends up in the trash anyways. Another reason I believe it should be free is because of the different situations the child’s family could be in. Many children are homeless and eating at school is something they look forward to. Making school lunch free would just make it easier for children to get access to it. To conclude, school lunch debt should be the least of a children’s worries and punishing them for it is absurd.
In my opinion, students should not have to pay for a school lunch. If the student can't afford it, the school should not try and shame them about it. They may already feel ashamed at the fact that they can't afford lunch, so to publicly shame them and their parents is ridiculous. Although I believe that the parents should try and make sure their child has enough to eat, shaming them will in no way help make sure their child is fed. The only thing that this public humiliation is causing is for the child and their family to feel worse about not being able to pay. School lunches should be free, to begin with, is it not a basic right for a child to be able to have food without having to worry about the price. This will only cause children who aren't as financially well off to feel worse about their situation, even when it is not their fault.
I believe students, no matter what grade or financial status should be offered free lunch; it's something that should be unquestionable. The government should be held to provide free school lunches. They spend money on things that are far less helpful. I also think shaming adults, let alone students, will do more harm than good. You're shaming people for not having enough money for food, in what universe is that a fair thing to do? There are families who can barely pay for necessities, let alone school lunch fees. When a school does have lunch fees, and a kid goes over a limit, to shame them is so messed up. That overdue fee should be between the parents and the school, not, and I repeat, not the child. To summarize, the government should be held accountable for providing free school lunches, and don't ever shame a child for something out of their capability.
Hello, my name is Ireland and I attend Carver HSES in the city of Philadelphia. Students should always be provided school lunch no matter what grade they’re in or what financial circumstance they’re in. I don’t think students or adults should be punished for not being able to pay for school lunch. Some families barely have enough cash for bills, meaning they’ll have a hard time scraping up money for lunch. Also, some people only are able to eat at school so these punishments will do tons of harm. I have never had to pay for school lunch, but I could only imagine that it must feel bad to have these punishments, possibly leading to bullying. For these lunch bills, I think the government should be held accountable for paying for student free lunches, especially if it’s a public school. Free lunches at school should be a given as everyone has different problems going on at home that could result in them not being able to pay. I have always been given free lunch, which I’m very grateful for, which is something students around the globe should also be able to experience. Every family, no matter how wealthier or how poor, should receive a free school lunch everyday without shame. To conclude this, students and adults should not be punished for not having lunch money.
NO, why should be punished for not having lunch money. some kids can't afford lunch moneys or their parents don't have any money to give them. sometimes some schools should make lunch free for the students don't have any lunch.
That's almost comically outrageous. Punishing students for not having enough money to eat? Even if a punishment were warranted, it isn't the not eating part enough of a punishment? In third grade I moved to Florida and went to a school there for a year. For some reason, one iḿ not very knowledgeable about, I was the only one in my class that had to purchase lunch. And one day, I just didn't have money and stopped eating at school altogether. The stress of standing in line for 10 minutes and wondering if it 'll be one of those days where I have to pay, was too much for my childish mind to handle. To put restrictions and punish children for something they cannot obtain alone, is stupid.
I believe to a certain extent they shouldn’t cause its really not there fault or that they should have free lunch
I would love to say without any of ands or buts. Yes I believe that you should be able to get school lunch even if you can’t afford it. I mean that’s telling a kid you won’t feed him/her because they can’t pay.
Then there are gonna be they “well where do we get the money from” people. Also the “that’s what it’s like in real life people.” While I see that the money thing would be a problem I sure we could fit it in somewhere. I know I say that, but I don’t really know much about how any of that works. So I can say that I feel it should be free.
It just feels wrong to me morally I guess. I just have reserves about it because well I don’t really know where the money goes now or where it could be put.
As far as it being how it happens in the real world. The people were talking about are just children. At this age they should still be taken care of, it’s the grace period that everyone should get in their lives in my opinion.
As a student who did have this problem when they were younger for a good part of their lives it was hard. I had to admit to the lunch lady that I was hungry and that I didn't have money. However because of policies they could only let me have a few lunch meals but then eventually had to give me dry sandwiches. So its hard for kids to have to deal with financial stability that their parents are supposed to deal with. The kids should not be expected to deal with their food situation, that should be between the school and the parents.
These are kids. How can we as a country justify not giving poor kids food. It is ridiculous. We can beat around the bush and talk about the few who can actually afford it or the low amount of money that is given to schools, but the fact remains that we as a very prominent, rich country, are allowing kids to not be fed.
In our schools, we should not be able to punish someone just because they do not have the financial means to pay for school lunches. This policy shames the students, and is cruel by making them go throughout their day hungry. Also, the students can in no way are to blamed for this, and should not be held accountable. If a student is in debt, it should be taken up with the parents alone.
Whatever needs to be done, we must do it, more taxes, less funding for other non-essential things, anything. It might be difficult to get the money, but everyone should see the moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate in this country.
I do not think that students should be punished for not having lunch money. It is not the child’s fault that they do not have money. If a child does not have enough money for school food and is denied lunch, they won’t have any energy for the rest of their day.
I think no student should have to pay for lunch at all, and it should all be provided by schools. Given my perspective, I’m obviously against punishing kids for not being able to pay. I can understand the idea of punishing parents, but punishing kids is absolutely ludicrous, and doesn’t do anything to fix the problem. Schools should reach out to see what’s wrong and they should make an effort to do what they can so students are treated well and better cared for. Punishing them by not letting them go to prom or not having yearbooks is unfair and regressive.
I hope to see a future where no student has to pay for lunch. It may not be practical right now, but I think we’ll get there someday. Kids should be able to eat without punishment no matter what. That shouldn’t be up for debate, it should be an accepted truth.
I think that school lunches should not be paid for by students. In order to learn effectively, students need proper nutrition. It is part of the cost of education, just like books.
I do not think that students should be punished for not having lunch money. I think that they should set up a financial aid program to help students with a lesser income. This could prevent shame and hunger at school.
Students should not have to pay for school lunch, because everyone should be able to eat despite family income or if all their school lunches were paid off. In the article, Sunny Reed, a mother, shares her views on schools making children pay for their school lunches and punishing them if they are not paid off, “‘It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s punishing children for being poor’”(Daniels, 2019, para. 6). Reed is saying this because low-income families that do not meet the requirements for free, or reduced lunch, cannot always pay for school lunches all the time when they have to put food on the table at home and pay the bills(Punishing the child for this is cruel since he/she cannot control their parents income). With this knowledge becoming more and more known to other schools, about their students, many schools in some states have taken action on making lunch free, “In 2017, New York City joined Boston, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas in offering all students free school lunch”(Daniels, 2019, para. 11). Many schools in different states want to make sure that no kid is going home hungry, because they cannot pay for school lunch all the time or their lunch debt.
I feel as though students should not have to pay for lunch “Holding children publicly accountable for unpaid lunch bills is hardly unusual.” Kids charge their accounts because they want to eat but do not have money to pay. They should not be in trouble for not having money to pay the school. People go to school all day and have to pay for lunch or not eat. Students should be able to get free food at school because food helps you get through the day and kids need food. It is okay to have to pay for snacks and things but everyone should get a free breakfast and free lunch to get through the day. You may never know if a kid is eating or that when they come to school is the only time they are eating. Not everyone is able to afford school food even though it may not be much.
School lunch is much needed for a students' health and well-being, especially for low-income parents. I think that recieving free lunch is stressfree for students and their parents, since they don’t have to worry about paying for their kids meal. I also do agree that “adult(s) are responsible for providing funds for meal purchases” (Daniels, 2019, 9). Unless the students parent doesn’t make much money, then it should be an exception. Students should get “meals through the free and reduced meal programs,” (Daniels, 2019, 9) because it ensures that students have the nutrition they need throughout the day to learn. Therefore, students should get free school lunch if their parents have low-income.
I think that students shouldn't be punished based off of their/family’s financial status. I think that the “tuna fish sandwich “policy is unfair and cruel. This school district should not be making children eat tuna fish sandwiches because they cant pay for school lunch. It isn't necessarily the child's fault that their family can't afford school lunch. Which means that the child shouldn't be punished for not being able to pay for school lunches.
When I served as Home and school president I asked the school to try something different by telling any students who had free or reduced lunch fee to put anything on a side table that they didn’t not want. It only referred to packaged, unopened items and any student who was without lunch or still hungry could go and pick up something rather than go hungry. It only was done for a day since the lunch personnel said it was not allowed and if a student did not want something in their lunch they would have to throw it away. I saw good food being wasted day after day and go into the trash and couldn’t do a thing about it. What a waste. Children go around hungry and should not be penalized for being so. Some parents save up for yearbooks and proms so children will have something good to remember. Children may only get a meal once a day at home as parents do not meet qualifications for free or reduced lunch only by as little as $5. Feed our children...don’t penalize them for their parents actions or the inability to pay. They are our future and a hungry child is thinking more about their grumbling stomach rather than learning and studying.
No child has a choice on their family's financial standing. Considering that it is mandatory by law to send your child to school over a certain age, it is only natural that said schools should provide food for their dozens, hundreds, or thousands of students. But should this food be free? Well, like Clara Barton states, even jailed citizens get three meals a day for free. The standards of American prisons aren't exceptionally high, so if they can serve three free meals, schools can afford to serve one. As stated before, children cannot control the financial standing of their family. This applies to younger children especially, under the age of sixteen, who, in some cases, do not even have a basic understanding of their family's finances and also cannot get a job to make money themselves. Eating is a right, especially in a country such as the United States. Students should not be punished for having lunch debt by having a single-choice meal. However, the policy for restricting the purchase of yearbooks or prom tickets, for example, is a bit less radical. Prom tickets are not a necessity to a person, while food is.
Students should not be punished for being poor, but in some schools if your family does not earn a certain amount of money, the school will supply you with free lunches so there shouldn't be much of a debt for students who are poor. Now regarding the punishment for not being allowed to buy a year book from the school if you owe more than 75$ makes perfect sense to me. If you can afford to buy a year book then you might as well pay off that debt first before trying to purchase an item of the same price from the school.
Students should not be punished for not having enough money to pay off debts. Instead of school excluding them for having financial struggles they would talk to the parents and see how the school can help them out. The school can make a plan like a couple of dollars a month. This could work both ways because the school gets their money, the kid eats, and the parents have time to pay off the debt. It is not right for cherry hill to embarrass and degrade these students and their families.
This is harsh, kids should not be treated like this. Kids should not get punished for being poor. They could be starving kids because they may not have food or even a home. So for some kids this is all they eat so they could of possibly killed kids.
i believe punishing kids for things they cannot help sometimes is cruel and unusual. as someone who has been on the free and reduced lunch program it was quite embarrassing before i got in the program. i can recall when i was served a slice of cheese between a hamburger bun and not even a milk. the fact people are even considering making students feel bad about this is Ludacris. school districts should keepthe process of dealing with lunch debts to the parents but not with threats of foster care.
Students should not be punished for not being able to afford school lunch because people have financial problems “students who owe more than $75 from buying yearbooks or prom tickets, and from participating in nonacademic field trips and some extracurricular activities.” if kids can afford other things and are just not paying for their lunch fees then they should not be able to pay for other things. Those who actually do not have the money should not be punished. Kids may not be able to afford lunch and that is not their fault so they should not be punished for their problems. If a kid is being punished for not having money to pay for food that is targeting the kid and it may make the kid sad or angry because they can not may for food.
I don’t believe students should be punished for something they cannot control, such as their parents financial standpoint. Punishing students for not having enough money to buy their own lunch is absurd and shameful. There are different ways to confront this problem, whether that be a school fundraiser to help pay for the kids whose parents don’t have the money for a school lunch, or a community event to help raise money. While free school lunches are an option, I believe they also bring shame in the way the school present them. At our school in Arkansas, people go into debt when it comes to school lunches all the time, but yet the school doesn’t punish students for not having the money they need to have lunch. Refusing a student to eat, taking them out of extracurricular activities, and making them feel lower than another student is uncalled for in the school system. I believe there are different routes schools can take to help fund these lunches and also make the cafeteria a better place for the less fortunate student.
I think it is terrible that they are taking away the opportunity to participate in different activities from the student just because students can not afford to pay for school lunch. Their are so many kids out there, that have families who struggle financially. It's hard for students when they want to take the opportunity and play certain sports to win a metal and make their family proud but having that one thing come in their way from taking this big opportunity which is money. We shouldn’t have to treat someone like an animal just because they do not have the amount of money that they need to erase their hunger.
What I think that obviously it is important for children to get their necessary nutrients but also if we decided to give all the food for free then over the year that would cost the school over 1000000 so you could still give assist for people in debt but you can't pay for everyone
(1/2) The very fact that this is a conversation is honestly not only disgusting but terrifying. To begin, 77.5% of people in the US are in debt (Amnesty Int., USA), so to restrict a basic necessity for life if parents can’t pay is horrible and greatly unfair as many if not most parents struggle with their finances. This doesn’t even begin to address the fact that the punitive measures given out for such failures to pay aren’t directed at the parents, those who actually control the household finances and actually pay for the lunches, but instead land on the CHILDREN of these people who have no control over ANY of their parents actions. Perhaps even more disgusting is the fact that, “nearly half of all school districts used some form of shaming to compel parents to pay bills.” (USDA) While this situation is already bad, this treatment towards common children isn’t even the beginning, as a school district “sent letters home warning parents that if they did not repay overdue lunch bills, they could lose their children to foster care.” (The Associated Press) I simply cannot comprehend why people believe this is an adequate reaction and solution to this problem. To take the children, and thus livelihood away from struggling parents because of their economic status is despicable and horrifying, as what else can the government do when they have your children as a playing card.
3
Should students be punished for not having lunch money? Of course not! Students who do not have the financial aid to buy lunch should receive a free lunch. Many kids go home and are not served dinner. Their only food is provided at school.
Some state that if they allow people to not pay their debts then the people “with financial means who have just chosen not to pay what is owed”(Cherry Hill’s district superintendent 2019) will take it as even though they can pay for the lunch they are allowed not to. This is why schools should have a paper that parents fill out at the beginning of the year that shows they truly do not have enough money to afford the school lunches. Then if a student is in debt and doesn't have that paper filled out they will not receive a lunch until they pay their debts or until they fill out the paper.
I think it is important that schools make school lunch available to all students, even the ones who can’t afford it. Teachers constantly preach about how lunch affects the school day, along with breakfast and any other nutrition you eat throughout the day, but how are people supposed to stay focused when they can’t even afford their meal? I think that the free and reduced lunch program that is going on now is a really great way to handle the situation, and I personally think it’s a good way for kids to still get their meal in. I am not saying that we should feed them very good food, but I don’t think it is fair to only offer food to the people who have money because it is just like everything else in the world; it’s expensive.
The article talks about how some schools are punishing students who have money that is overdue that is more than $75 by not letting them purchase yearbooks, prom tickets, or even go on field trips with the school. One kindergarten teacher spoke out and said, “It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s punishing children for being poor.” Not very many kids have control of what their parents do with their money so punishing children for unpaid bills is very unfair. I don’t think that it is teaching them anything, and that if anything it embarrasses them.
(2/2) Ironically, the most important piece of evidence as to why this policy shouldn’t be applied comes from those who are applying it, as Cherry Hill’s Superintendent says these people, “have just chosen not to pay what is owed.” To see such ignorance from a school superintendent is horrendous, and proves the disconnect from punishment to punisher and seals the case on how this policy should not be implemented.
3
Students should not be punished for not having lunch money because it is mainly their parents fault for their financial position. If they are being held back from things like a field trip or prom, I don’t see it being a big deal. If they really wanted to attend that event, they could find a job to earn money for it. I do believe though cities like New York, Dallas, Boston, Detroit and Chicago are doing great things like providing free lunch for students.
I believe the school district near Scranton, Pennsylvania is taking the situation too far. They “Sent letters home warning parents that if they did not repay overdue lunch bills, they could lose their children to foster care, according to The Associated Press.” I mean, seriously!? Take their own children away, for not paying the overdue lunch money? I do not understand such a thing.
@Hoganmeiser While I see your point I don't completely agree with you. You are right that it is the parents fault that the student isn't provided with the funds needed to buy lunch. That being said, it is the parents' responsibility to speak with the school about their financial problems in an attempt to find a payment plan that works for both them and the school.
I also think that schools do need to provide free and reduced lunches to students who need it, but not to all students. I think that it is great that some of these schools are providing free meals to students, but if a student can afford to buy lunch then they should have to pay.
In my opinion there should be no charge for any of the students....all the lunches should be offered at no charge. The kids need a nutritious meal if they are going to learn. No fees for food and providing the free sack lunch if they "owe the company store" while providing some food (chips? really? NOT nutritious and is junk food) also marks that child as "poor" and that causes shame and social issues at school. Wear uniforms, eliminate the "fashion status" items that they can indulge in on their personal time and provide a free healthy hot lunch to all students and eliminate all the social pressures on these children so they can focus on learning.....also provide a hot breakfast too if possible, it is essential to learning. Tax payer $ should be used in the most meaningful ways....if you want to get solid educational outcomes I think nutritious food for the students is far more important than endless meaningless testing.
2) When students are punished for not paying lunch bills it can severely harm their sense of self worth. Having to worry about being punished for not having enough money can make a student ashamed to go to lunch at school. According to Reed, “ ‘Excluding them and punishing them — what are you teaching them?’ ”(Daniels, 2019). Teaching kids that they have to be punished because of their financial status is teaching them that they should be ashamed of themselves and their family. School should be a safe and comfortable environment where students feel accepted; having them publicly excluded because they cannot pay for lunch takes away from this.
4) Students should not have to pay for school lunches, it should be free for everyone. Many families do not have the financial means to pay for food for their children. According to the article, “Some individuals have even offered to pay off debts that are owed by students” (Daniels, 2019). Children should not have to be exposed to debt at such a young age; schools like New York and Illinois are much farther ahead than some on ending school lunch fees. Students should feel comfortable going to lunch and not having to pay. Many school meals don’t even provide enough food to fill a child’s stomach. Having them pay money when they can’t always afford it causes unnecessary problems that could be resolved by free lunches.
I do not think that students should be punished for not being able to afford lunch. When I read about the “tuna sandwich” policy in Cherry Hill I immediately said to myself “what?!”. I was shocked. Students should not be banned from extracurricular activities for not being able to afford lunch; there needs to be another solution. It is hard to believe that it is allowed for principles to ban students “from participation in nonacademic field trips and some extracurricular activities”(Daniels, 2019, 2) just because they can not afford a school lunch. There needs to be a different way to handle this problem.
Is this really what we have come to as a country? In the most recent controversy involving schools, students who have committed the heinous crime of… NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD LUNCH will now be able to be punished by the school for owing more than $20, and the range of punishments can be extended if they owe more than $75.
We have come to a situation where, in a first-world country, students go hungry lest they buy lunch with money they don’t have. And while some people are condemning the New Jersey school that has started the controversy, others are comparing it to filling up your car’s gas tank. Does nobody see the problem with that analogy? Yes, in a perfect world, students would pay for their own food, and schools wouldn’t need to worry about it. But this isn’t a perfect world, and these are kids. Kids shouldn’t be punished for the crime of eating.
I think the root of the problem is the root of a lot of problems: our school systems are underfunded, leading to situations where students have to pay for lunch. The school budget needs a huge increase, or we will continue to see headlines like this in the news.
There should be some sort of action taken in regards to students having negative lunch balances, however these actions should not include publicly shaming or excluding them from extracurricular activities. At my school we used to have a policy where if our balance was negative we were first told to bring money the next day, if this occurred again the next day we were given a sack lunch. These lunches, while not as good as the other food still included a sandwich, chips, fruit, and vegetables. We would continue getting this sack lunch until our balance was paid off. Some might see this as publicly shaming, but it still allows the child to eat, and is a lot better than the new policy where if a child can not afford a meal, it is taken from them and thrown away, sending the kid away empty handed and putting the school out a meal. This meal that has now been thrown away will have to be paid for by the school where as if the meal was given to the child and added to their balance, it would eventually be paid off. Another policy that could be put into place to encourage students to pay off meal debt would be to not allow a student to enter the next grade or graduate unless it is paid off. If a student is financially incapable of paying for the lunch then there are free and reduced lunch options for students, and their peers will never know they are receiving this help.
@Jaiden Pearson
I do not agree with the "students to pay off meal debt would not be allow a student to enter the next grade". If the student was underprivileged this would be extremely unfair. It would add unnecessary stress to the student to repay his debts at the end of the year, especially during finals. The only thing the student should be worried about is succeeding in school so he can get a proper job in the future.
I think that students shouldn't have to pay for school lunch because it is more helpful for parents on a budget, and most kids don't have money and can't get it from their parents to be able to pay for a school lunch. Then, when students start to go in debt for getting lunch without paying, they get stressed on trying to figure out how they are going to pay it off. Parents are already get money taken out of their checks for taxes, and their taxes go to schools, so its unfair for them to have to pay more money for their childs school lunch.
@TEC, Brooklynn B I agree, I don’t think kids should have the weight of money on their shoulders at such a young age. I also think this kind of punishment creates embarrassment for the kids when they have to sit out on field trips, or even their senior prom. A lot of families struggle with even being able to provide for their kids at home, so I think the least the school system can do is provide some kind of lower priced lunch for the less fortunate.
Students should not be punished for what children are not capable of which is there financial situation. No child should be told no you can not have food because you have no money but they are at school all day for 6-8 hours each day 5 days a week. Most school lunches in my schools and i have only been to public schools has been either 2.50 or 3.20 for lunch was the highest and lowest but that everyday for a family who can barely afford food alone a house over there head is a lot to deal with and some people don't understand that situation because they were fortunate enough to be born into a family that can support them as some just cant see the darkness in life.
1
I think parent's shouldn't pay for school food, because as a parent you already pay a lot of bills so paying for school lunch is another bill. Some parents don't have enough money for another bill. And either way parents pay taxes and taxes go to schools. So it would be unfair to pay taxes and a school lunch bill.
1
Why should you pay a place that you are being forced daily, to go to, to eat ? There are several roll's in effecting a students learning process, and hunger plays an important one but in a negative way. If a student can't afford lunch how can the learn about anything if there constantly thinking of food, they cant!
1
Most student at your school gets lunch right? But the real question is Whether or not they EAT it , about 8% of the kids at our schools waste them and or throw them away , chuck salads at their friends or just plain and simple get the lunch and doesn't eat it or touch their food. And the kids who actually need the lunch cannot get because they are i debt to the lunch people and is in so much debt they can either have a '' Tuna Sandy'' or no lunch at all. But to hold those kids from Prom is wrong, they might have waited how ever long to save their money up for their Prom and by the district taking that away is like stabbing them in the heart.
1
I believe that students shouldnt be punished based on how much lunch money their parents can give them throughout the year. The kids who cannot pay for school lunch, have to feel left out, and as if they're not as important as the kids who can. Children now, get talked about, and told things that they'll never forget, and only make their insecurities grow larger. Meloche expresses his thoughts and feelings about school lunches, in 2017, “Simply erasing the debt does not help those who need support and compassion and meals through the free and reduced meal programs” (qtd. In Daniels, 2019). I personally think that if a parent makes a certain amount of money, and their child continuously says they cannot provide enough money for lunch at school, it should be free. Parents have enough things to worry about, bills, mortgage, car payments, etc., and thinking about giving their son or daughter $3 everyday is a bit overwhelming. Students should not be judged, or punished for something they cannot control, such as buying a lunch.
At my school, students do have to pay, but there are no severe consequences to those in debt. The lunch ladies don't let the debt go too far, after a certain amount of lunches bought while in debt they don't let the students have a lunch. That sounds harsh, but there are snacks offered that are free. I think that allowing lunch debt to affect after-school sports is unfair.
I think students that can’t afford lunch should not be punished at all. Also I believe that it’s wrong to exclude kids from extracurricular activities just because they couldn’t buy lunch. But when my mom had financial problems and I couldn’t afford lunch there was a paper my mom filled out so I could get free lunches. According to Nicole Daniels, the lunch policy in Cherry Hill, N.J. says “It allows principals to block student who owe more than $75 from buying yearbooks or prom tickets, and from participating in nonacademic field trips and some extracurricular activities” (Daniels, 2019). I think that it’s wrong to punish kids that are already going through rough times because they are too poor to pay for lunch.
1
@Austin I agree, I think students who can't pay for lunch should not be punished, especially not by excluding them from sports or clubs. This might be the only escape a child has from a rough home life. It is not the student's fault if they can't pay for lunch, and they have to eat somehow. Blocking children from purchasing prom tickets and yearbooks is worse, because they may have saved up the little money they might have to buy those. In my opinion I don't think students should have to pay for lunch at all, I believe it should be funded by the school. I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren when she says that it is "cruel and punitive."
Is that even a real question. I find it kind of funny the fact that we even have to pay for lunch. We are already obligated to come to school so why not just give us the free food. Not all families are financially stable for them to be paying for lunch and other necessities. We shouldn't have to pay for any type of food. We should be fed. Schools and districts should put themselves in their students shoes and notice the struggles that some families are going through. Checking up on students is a great way to get to know them and what they need. Students should not get punished for not having lunch money and if they do the district and school need to check themselves.
1
Students shouldn't be punished for not having money, I usually have a $40 dept at my school but they let me cause they know ill pay it back and if I don't they can just call home and my mother will. my point, as long as ts paid back it shouldn't be a problem. Norwood High School, Norwood, MA
I don't think students should be punished if they don't have their lunch money. They are not the ones in control of whether they have money or not, it's usually their parents. To punish a kid based on their parent's actions isn't right.
I believe students should not be shamed due to their financial problems. The schools should understand that some parents cannot pay because the money they do have goes to food at home, clothes for their children, bills, and to a mortgage or rent so their kids are not sleeping on the streets. If the schools have such an issue with kids who can not pay because they are unable to, instead of punishing them, they should actually help and not make the kid feel even more embarrassed or shameful then they already probably feel. It is not like the students wished upon themselves to not be able to pay for lunch if they are not able to it is most likely for a bigger reason then people just assume.
America was founded on the freedom of choice as one of the core principles. Giving kids “free” lunches is not in fact free. Money doesn’t grow on trees, it comes out of people’s pockets. So If a school is offering kids a free lunch they are simply pushing the charges up on totem pole until someone’s higher taxes can cover the expenses. They did not choose to pay that. They (because of their income) were forced to pay that. That is no freedom of choice.
I think it is an amazing cause to give needy or underprivileged kids free lunches. I would want to to put my tax dollars towards it, but I still think I should have that choice. A good way around this system is to form a charity.
Another example of a charity option is that for a long time, America has been the piggy bank of the world, a country in need shakes us around a little bit we give them some change. I’m not saying that American shouldn’t give money to countries in need, I just think we shouldn’t do it AS much. Or at least give taxpayers the ability to choose.
Both of these examples back up a system where there would be a list of charities you could choose from when writing your Form 1040 (personal federal income tax returns form) and just so everyone did something, you had to pick two. This would increase the freedom of choice and the overall satisfaction of helping somebody (as you purposely picked who you wanted to assist), But yes, I believe kids should have a free lunch if necessary, just not in the same way.
I think students in this position might feel shameful, as they and their family cannot pay off the fees to just eat lunch at school. If the school starts punishing nad taking away privileges, I would not think that's fair, especially if the school did not have a program for students with financial struggles, giving free lunches/breakfasts. Students today might feel bitter towards school and staff (associating staff with the school board). During lunchtime, the students might not show it but they might feel frustrated and ashamed knowing that every day, when they go to simply eat during the school day with their peers, they are losing privileges and experiences of school, like prom and field trips.
High school or middle school students should not be given a free pass for their student lunch debt. This policy simply encourages students to take advantage of the system and never learn financial responsibility. Schools should seek to foster growth in their students. The ones who are struggling to keep up with lunch bills now will struggle even more later in life. Instead of relieving or ignoring the debt for the students, the schools should give students the education on finances they need by providing an opportunity to pay off the debt within the system.
The school should provide the students with the opportunity to work in the cafeteria one hour before school. One hour before school should provide enough credit for one week of lunch. Students that qualify for free or reduced lunch should be given twice as much lunch credits, so they can get breakfast and lunch every day for only a one hour session. This policy will ensure that students that either can’t afford or don’t pay their lunch bills can find a way to responsibly work for it. This will keep anyone from being unnecessarily punished for being financially disadvantaged. Students will be provided with responsibility and will not be shamed for struggling to pay their lunch bills.
@Anders Olsen
I don’t understand that you don’t want kids to have, basically free lunches, but I do understand and like that you are coming up with a solution to try to combat that. Instead of the child making up the work, the adult should or even better, find a way to help the adults/kids pay for it. Instead of a free lunch meal, I guess it would turn out like a charity.
@Anders Olsen I agree that students need to take responsibility and not be given free lunch when they are in financial debt, that is not a good lesson to learn for the future. Although the idea of making students work in the cafeteria is a great idea, I think that the parents should because food should not be a child's issue to worry about at this age.
I personally agree with school districts trying to find solutions to the lunch money crisis going on right now. Especially coming from a family that wasn't the richest but lived check to check. I think we should focus a little less on new basketball jerseys or new sports equipment and get food in the belly of the students of the school
Children and teens deserve and need food for their growth, health, energy, and so much more. Many families do not have the funds to send their child to school with lunch money. Without lunch, teens will not be able to have energy for the rest of the day and will inevitably fall behind in school. Even when I go a day without eating lunch I see the toll it takes on my body. It should not be a question whether we should be giving students who can’t afford lunch a free one. It should just happen. It is not fair to punish a child for a parent not in a position to provide for them. I believe the school should have a policy for certain students with severe money struggles to be able to obtain free lunches.
In the related article it states how some schools are not allowing students who owe the school 75$ or more to buy prom tickets, participate in field trips, and purchase yearbooks. The students are being punished for something they can’t control. Another school sent students, who owed the school money, home with letters for their parents that said if they do not pay this debt they could lose their child to foster care.
In my opinion we should be helping these families instead of dividing us and shaming them.
In my opinion i do think that students should be punished for owing large amounts of money for their lunches. I think the tuna sandwich is a reasonable solution for owing a lot of money i think this because the tuna sandwich costs less money. I don't particularly agree with restricting students from extracurricular activities because this doesn't have much correlation with their lunch. In my opinion it is not being punished for not having lunch money it is being punished for owing money to the school that the school needs. In most schools there are free lunch plans that students can sign up for I believe these plans are paid for by the government. I think that students should pay for their own lunches unless they are absolutely unable to and in that case they can sign up for the free lunch plan. At my school I do pay for my own lunch but some students do not. I am not sure about any rules we have if students do not pay off their debt.
This article talks about how some schools have decided to punish students who owe a lot of lunch money, some of the punishments included not being able to buy prom tickets, yearbooks, and not being allowed on field trips. I think this is a very unfair thing to do to children. They may not even be aware that they owe money and it should not be their responsibility. I think instead of this strange punishment system they should call home and talk to the parents about this.
Also its possible that the school is unaware about some financial issues that could be going on at the child's home. There are many students and families who cannot afford to pay for their children to have school lunch every day but some families may be able to afford school lunch but they are just too lazy to pay what was owed to the school and that is not ok.
No, I believe punishing students for not having lunch money is a ludicrous idea. The overall idea of the “Tuna Fish Sandwich policy” looked good on paper but when it was in place it proved faulty. For some students, their entire life revolves around a sport they play, and if they are unable to play because of lunch debt, well I find that extremely unfair.
If I was punished for not having lunch money and was under privileged I would feel offended and annoyed because I am forced to go to a government funded program “school”, and I have to stay there instead of working for money. It would be humiliating if everyone saw you getting punished for not having enough money. Put yourself in that persons shoes, how would you feel?
I feel parents are the ones responsible for paying for their kids lunches. If parents cant provide a student with food, the school should provide them with it, but social security should see where the student is living and whether its a healthy place to grow up. Students should not be held accountable for lack of lunch money. The idea of free food for everyone is a great idea, for those who cant afford food will more likely come to school. For those families who pay taxes and can afford lunch need to realize the kids who cant afford lunch, its not their fault.
@Dakota Snyder I liked how you mentioned how owing debt would not allow you to play sports. I think this is a great point to make, because for some kids, sports is the best part of their day. It keeps them in school and out of trouble. Taking that away over something they can not control creates new problems, by trying to avoid another.
Students should not lose privileges to school activities because they owe money for lunches but I do think the tuna-sandwich policy is a good one. The tuna sandwich policy will continue to feed kids even if they are in debt or can’t pay anything but it forces them to have the same lunch, promoting the kids and the parents to pay the money off. It serves more as a final option instead of a punishment. This policy shouldn’t be the only one; free and reduced lunches should be offered to families in need before the sandwich policy.
Truly punishing kids by excluding them from school activities such as prom and field trips is unacceptable. School’s often pressure students to participate in school activities and sudden rejecting a select few because of debt is hypocritical. The kids who do go on the trips will start to notice the absent ones and bully and taunt them or exclude them from playing on the playground and hanging out. In addition, excluding them from trips won’t fix the problem of the parents’ debt, which is the exact reason why school systems like Cherry Hill are refusing donations.
If they can buy a yearbook and can afford to go to prom then they can afford lunch. Students shouldn’t be allowed to go to prom and to buy a yearbook if their school account has a substantial fine.
While some see preventing these students from participating in these school activities as “cruel and punitive,"these schools aren’t in the wrong. Field trips and going to prom are expensive, and if they can get the money to buy their tickets then they can get the money they need to buy lunch. Food is a need attending prom is a want, and their priority should be buying food not a prom ticket.
While I believe that the school should be allowed to prevent these students from attending some activities when they have a fine, they shouldn't be allowed to use shaming students as a method to get their money. “Focus on the adult(s) responsible for providing funds for meal purchases, rather than focusing debt collection efforts on the child.” The parents are the provider so making the children feel bad about owing money by only allowing them a tuna sandwich isn’t fair, and isn’t gonna get schools their money.
So stop students with fines from going to prom, buying a yearbook, and going on the field trip. I think the schools have every right to, but I draw the line at shaming. Don’t call out the kids who can’t afford their lunch, because while some might be able to pay off the fine others can’t. Those students who can’t afford their lunch shouldn’t be shamed for being poor.
1
@Abigail Bowles I disagree with you when you say that students who can't afford lunch shouldn't be able to go to prom. I understand the idea but I think it would just backfire.
Personally if I saved up money for a really long time for a yearbook or prom and then somebody told me I couldn't go I would be really upset. Honestly if I was denied prom, I would use this money on something else for me and not pay the lunch fee.
Students shouldn't have to use their own money on lunch. It is their parents problem that they can't afford lunch. Excluding the students from these activities would be doing exactly what you are advocating against in your comment. Not allowing students to participate in normal high school activities is "Making the children feel bad about owing money". High school only happens once. Senior prom only happens once. If a student wants to participate in prom, they should be allowed too. Life is more important than a bit of lunch money.
The reason the system of punishing students for not paying the lunch bill is still used because it works in a few aspects. It makes sure that students pay for the food they are eating, which isn’t that unfair when you look at it that way. The system is unfair when it comes to punishing those who can’t pay the bill. In this scenario, schools could provide a reduced cost plan for the students who need it. The families that need it could sign up for the plan so they could pay the lesser amount that they need.
My school has a similar issue to that of the Cherry Hill High Schools. We too are on a plan that punishes students when they do not pay for their debts, with the punishments going as far as not allowing a student to graduate if they haven’t paid their debt. This is definitely an issue that is not overlooked at our school though. After a hurricane hit the area, the county provided lunches for free for the entire month. This shows that some schools are ready to make a change, but haven’t yet.
@Jackson Bruins I like what you have had to say about this topic. I would like to add that the "Tuna Sandwich" policy in Cherry Hill does also keep kids from extracurriculars and even school-related activities, such as clubs, sports, and even prom. It is beyond silly to punish a kid for being underprivledged by excluding and not allowing them to participate in school-related activities, just because of a school lunch debt. Sports are a big part of our teenage lives, and I know for a fact that many students that do play sports might not be able to afford their lunches. I am not saying there is anything wrong with your response. In fact, I believe and agree with everything you have said. I am just adding on to what you have said by including the consequence of not participating in activities most teen's in high school look forward to, and how unfair it is to prevent them from being a kid due to their parent's financial situation.
2/2 That averages to $165.465 per student and for a family living paycheck to paycheck, this amount if huge. It can not just be paid back all at once, it would take many months or years, and all of that time these students would not be allowed to participate in certain activities just because of this hindrance. Overall, this punishment does not solve the issue, it just creates more.
I think there should be a basic lunch that everyone should get. For those that are willing to pay extra money should have other options to choose from. I think that if some kids don't have the money to buy school lunch they probably don't have the money to eat food at home. I also don't think that at a young age they can't do anything to help financially. For this reason I don't think they should not be able to get food.
The reason the system of punishing students for not paying the lunch bill is still used because it works in a few aspects. It makes sure that students pay for the food they are eating, which isn’t that unfair when you look at it that way. The system is unfair when it comes to punishing those who can’t pay the bill. In this scenario, schools could provide a reduced cost plan for the students who need it. The families that need it could sign up for the plan so they could pay the lesser amount that they need.
My school has a similar issue to that of the Cherry Hill High Schools. We too are on a plan that punishes students when they do not pay for their debts, with the punishments going as far as not allowing a student to graduate if they haven’t paid their debt. This is definitely an issue that is not overlooked at our school though. After a hurricane hit the area, the county provided lunches for free for the entire month. This shows that some schools are ready to make a change, but haven’t yet.
Students should not be punished for not having lunch money. Our school has a system for people who cannot buy lunches at full price every day called free and reduced lunch. Free and reduced lunch allows parents to get their kids lunch for, as the name suggests, a reduced cost compared to other kids.
However, parents who still cannot pay for meals at this reduced price often leave their kids without the ability to purchase any food at all. Schools have tried to battle this by giving students free lunches by covering the cost, but most of the time they fail due to not having enough money. Schools have also tried to take the money part out of it and give students different, but free lunches. This has also failed due to the lunch provided not being nutritious enough to feed a kid who is trying to learn. But schools shouldn’t leave a kid starving, right?
It’s our job to help kids learn and grow but they can’t do that on an empty stomach.
Shaming students is never the answer. Students shouldn't have to be embarrassed, eating a tuna sandwich that shows that they cannot pay for their food, they should be shown compassion and given food by the district. Chances are if the student's family can't afford a three-dollar school lunch or breakfast, they also are having a hard time affording food at home. The students who are being barred from getting school lunches are the ones who need them most.
I fully agree with the policy enacted by New York to provide free lunch to everyone. Let's face it, as a country we have the means to provide school children with food, so let's figure something out for the good of our youth and our entire nation. I applaud Elizabeth Warren for using her platform to bring national attention to this issue. Often, in Presidential elections, smaller but more personal issues like that get overshadowed by the really big issues, and I think it is great that a campaign as big as hers is focusing on the school lunch issue.
Also, from an academic standpoint, if students are nourished, they will perform better in class and be able to retain more information for big standardized tests. Also, if food is unavailable at home, having free lunches at school could bolster attendance.
The policy of Cherry Hill is downright deplorable and needs to be fundamentally altered to serve the needs of the children. A war is raging, and I assure you, districts like Cherry Hill are on the wrong side of history.
When it comes to lunch at school, I believe that students should not be punished for not having lunch money. There are some people who can't afford paying for their lunch and punishing them for that is not okay. Some schools have a policy for people without lunch money, and these people sometimes receive a “cheese sandwich” that is bread with one slice of cheese. This whole process with school lunches should not be approved, because students should be able to get a good meal even without the five dollars they have to spend on their meal.
What’s strange is this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of schools debt shaming their students. Just this week, I read another article detailing about students in Minnesota having their hot lunches thrown away if they have a mere balance of $15. This is ludicrous compared to the students in Cherry Hill that owe over $75.
What’s even more crazy is that students are complaining over getting a meal. A tuna sandwich is still food. I would be grateful if my school still gave me food without paying. If a student feels embarrassed that they’re eating a tuna sandwich, they should talk to the school board about ways to give underprivileged children a variety of affordable food options. Another idea is free lunches for all students. If New York City, a city with 8 million people can give free lunches to their students, surely a smaller city can too.
Superintendent Meloche thinks that it’s unfair to pay back the money owed when privileged kids have also been skipping out on paying lunches. If it’s such a big deal to him, why doesn’t he privately seek out the 34 teens that owe over $75 and sign them up for free lunch programs? They might not know that this is an option, or don’t know who to speak with to sign up. Instead of punishing them and taking away the extracurricular options they need to get into better universities and get out of their current situations, they should be helped. How are they supposed to escape their circumstances if no one will give them the resources to do so?
1/2 In my opinion, schools should always provide free lunches for students, and it is diabolical that they would get punished for having lunch debt. School is the one place to make a difference in students lives, and this difference does not only have to be educational. If you have undernourished kids, giving them lunch credit can change them just as much as a teacher can. The impact that a meal, even if it's just a free lunch, can have on a child is phenomenal. It has been proven that test scores and focus in the classroom improves with how well fed the students are, so in that respect, it really is crucial to provide free meals to create a better learning environment. Why would we pass up on such an easy way to help people and benefit the entire community?
After reading the article, I believe that the policy at Cherry Hill is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Why would they punish the student for financial responsibilities completely out of their control? By doing this, they are just further hurting children who already have limited opportunities, perpetuating a cycle of poverty in our own country. I agree more with the guidelines issued by the Agriculture Department; punishing the parents should be the only kind of punishment involved, if there is any. One thing I found shocking was that of the $16,500 of lunch debt in Cherry Hill, $5,625.81 was owed by just 34 students.
One thing that can be concluded from this article, is that Cherry Hill’s lunch policies are a mess. Ms.Lang’s contradictory comment, “I don’t think they’re trying to shame them. We are a great community, and we take care of our people.” says it all about the mishaps and misunderstandings Cherry Hill’s administration has faced in attempting to get more students to pay their lunch fines.
Everything in this article proves against Ms.Lang’s claim that Cherry Hill HIgh School isn’t trying to shame anyone. Cherry Hill may not be trying to shame students for the fact that they are poor, but all of the punishments which Cherry Hill has enforced for students not paying their lunch fines, such as preventing students from attending prom, joining extracurricular activities, and participating in nonacademic field trips are all forms of shaming students, and making them feel guilty about their ‘wrongdoings’ by excluding them from fun and social events.
Based on what’s been given in the article, I find it hard to believe the administration of Cherry Hill’s school’s take care of their people, when they continue to display an it’s-your-problem modo when it comes to paying for some kids only real meal of the day.
1
I personally think that they shouldn't hold students accountable for having lunch debts and they definitely shouldn't humiliate them either. I know in the county I live in we have the option to either pay for lunch or get free lunch, and they don't make a big deal about it to us students they simply let us get the food and if we own money they simply call our parents to inform them.
Reading the article I think its outrageous to exclude them from school function and activities for owing money because their parents can't afford it I also think they should give the option for free lunch. If they owe money most the time it's cause they don't have the money to pay for it in the beginning not because they simply just don't wanna pay for it. The free lunch system isn't for the lazy and its not erasing the debt but at least the children would get to eat. Sometimes the school is their only way of eating
It’s wrong to punish students for having overdue lunch bills. They should not implicitly suffer for being poor. Everyone should agree on that.
With that being said, though, I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a bit.The core of this article is that student’s lunch debt ought to be handled with more nuance at schools or school lunch ought to be free entirely. One could argue that there are simply cheaper lunch options than school lunch. School lunch where I live is $2.40 for a small entrée, fruit choice, and milk. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my experience, two weeks worth of sandwich material is far less than two weeks worth of school lunches offered at a school. To site a certain unnamed Twitter user’s analogy: “they had filled up their car’s gas tank that day and ‘no Democrat offered to pay for it.’” They chose to get gas. They chose to get a car that gets worse MPG. They chose to drive the car instead of riding public transport. Thus, no one paid for them. In that sense, why should the government pay for people to use a more expensive option?
I don't think that giving students a tuna fish sandwich is a punishment rather than a way to keep the school from losing too much money feeding its students. Just because you don't like the food they serve you because your poor is your own fault. What is ridiculous is that schools not letting students in debt buy prom tickets or yearbooks. They are cutting off windows into memories for the students. Those students should be fed and are given the chance to, but rather go hungry. I do agree that schools should give some free lunches, but not all the time and the parents and school officials should consolidate on a plan to pay back that money spent on feeding the kids. But schools should not threaten the parents of children who cannot afford lunches.
His name is Xavier, and he can’t do all the things that other highschoolers who have money, can do. He is too busy trying to help his family stay completely out of poverty buy working hours into the night at a local supermarket, to make enough money to help pay rent for his apartment, which he shares with his mother and siblings. But what is really disheartening is that everyday he still isn't able to afford food at the school cafeteria. In turn he literally goes around to other people and asks for food that they don't want, or that they are done with. I help him of course, but something should be worked out between the school and poor families to find a reasonable price for school lunches for families with low income.
@Matthew Byrnes Forcing kids to eat something different because they cant afford it is not ok. It makes them an easy target for bullies to pick on them and isn't fair to the kids at all. Everyone should receive the same meal no matter what their economic situation is.
Part 2: Of course, this is all silly, really. Children can’t have jobs. Parents can’t always go grocery shopping. Sometimes, kids really can’t even afford to make sandwiches. These students- these children- should not be punished or left to suffer in debt merely for being born poor.It is immoral to force students to suffer as a result of how they were born. The level playing field does not exist, not even within our own school system, and I fundamentally believe that any arguments levied against a universal breakfast/lunch plan in a school setting are inherently flawed.
I think that punishing people for being poor is the wrong move, be it child or parent. Whoever thought these policies would be a good idea and made them reality is heavily blinded, it’s not their fault, excluding the parents who actually neglect their child. The article stated that schools threaten or do something equally malicious (my words) to get parents to pay bills. If they think like that, then they aren’t worrying about the welfare of their students and their situations, but instead how wealthy they get off the sub par slip they sell to students.
The article says kids who owe more than 75$ in certain schools were banned from buying yearbooks, going to prom and other things. They can’t help it if they are poor, and you might be thinking to yourself, “Hey, this can also hurt kids that just don’t pay for their lunch!” This most certainly won’t, once they get a hold of the consequences, they will pay just enough so they won’t be affected and poorer kids don’t have that option and have to deal with the injustice. It also says that other schools won’t punish kids, but adults instead, by threatening to take their kids away and put them into foster care. That is definitely still punishing the child, as well as the adult(s) because you are taking the child away from the (hopefully) loving parent. Kids need their parents and that won’t solve anything, the article even states that schools need to stop punishing and start helping the poorer families.
Students should not be punished for not having enough money to pay off debts. Instead of school excluding them for having financial struggles they would talk to the parents and see how the school can help them out. The school can make a plan like a couple of dollars a month. This could work both ways because the school gets their money, the kid eats, and the parents have time to pay off the debt. It is not right for cherry hill to embarrass and degrade these students and their families.
Free lunch should not be in effect unless there was a natural disaster. At my high school hurricane Florence did some damage and we had free lunch for a month which is ethical because most families had to use their money for renovation for their house. But if lunch is free for a whole year schools wouldn't make as much money which lunch is a source of income for them. Also kids wouldn't learn how to pay back people or even use their money wisely. “Simply erasing the debt does not help those who need support and compassion and meals through the free and reduced meal programs,”This can also cause students to have things given to them rather than working for it.
I believed we should not be punished because some students may be struggling outside of school and can't afford lunch. They should still be able to eat lunch. We should not have to worry about trying to find some money just to eat at school. This might be students first time eating that day and they deserve to eat even if they cant afford it.
I believe we should its a responsibility thing to keep up money things like that just like when you grow up in the real world cause not having it as a kid can be a problem as an adult
@Kafale rivers I don't believe that financial problems should deprive a student from their lunch or their school experiences. I disagree about how you need to "keep up money things" because students are often unable to help their financial state and it is not their fault to be less privileged than others. Yes, not having money as an adult is a big problem in our money-based society but how are kids supposed to do anything about that? This situation has changed from concern over the wellbeing of students who are not financially stable to concern over the money that the school is taking in.
@Kafale rivers how is it a responsibility for the kids though? i can't imagine elemen middle school students worried about their school lunch debt. the students for high school i can understand because they are respnsibleto a certain extent. i believe the lunch debt problem relies more in the adults hands when they are younger. by leaving it in the adults hands for younger kids it can teach the kids responsibility and break the cycle of leaving unpaid debts when they grow older.
It is not right to punish students who can't afford school lunch. I think that if the students just keeps forgetting to pay it they should be reminded and then if they still don't pay it because they just don't want to then schools should punish them. The school should find out why the students are paying lunch before jumping to conclusions. If there family can't pay it then don't punish them and give them free lunch. They should not restrict the people that cant pay lunch from extracurricular activities, but if they can pay lunch and just refuse not to for some reason than schools should ban students from some extracurricular activities until they pay the money back. I have been punished before for not paying my lunch money. It feels awful, students who go throughout that line probably feel embarrassed that they can't pay there lunch while other students are able too. At my high school there is free lunch, reduced lunch and full priced lunch. Your parents have to fill out a form based on their income and if their income is below a certain point than students get free or reduced lunch. If your parents fill out the form and there kids need to pay full price for lunch. I think the most important thing is to give all students a health meal and deal with the money they owe later on.
@Payton Otto I totally agree with you. You had many great points to back up your argument as well. Denying a child food because pay at that moment is not fair. A school day is about 8 hours, and at our school our lunch is only 25 minutes. Kids are hungry from all that brain power they have exerted throughout the day until lunch comes around. They need food to fuel themselves back up for the rest of the school day.
I agree that there should be a warning is fees are overdue for lunch. If the fee keeps growing then I feel there needs to be a parent meeting with whoever presides over lunch and figure out the problem. Why they have overdue fees? and How could the problem be solved? It is unfair to just not give one food because they have fees. There is always a reason and especially at school, everyone needs to eat.
It it inappropriate to punish student who in incapable of paying for lunch at school but the kid who are able to afford it and just don't pay should be punished. I think that the "Tuna sandwich policy" is a step in the right direction but the schools could simply be doing better if they could afford it. I believe that restricting students access to extracurricular activities can be subjective to the student and makes them singled out.
If I was a student at this school, not able to afford money for lunch, I would be very scared to buy lunch. Just by hearing the word “punished” is a big burden to students for any situations they are in. This will make students feel extremely uncomfortable while buying their lunch. Also, other kids around them are going to judge them for being poor. Being poor is not the student’s fault because there can be family circumstances, but punishing them for being poor is not the right way the school should act. Schools are not helping the students to feel comfortable, but they are making them not want to come to school. Sunny Reed whose son attends kindergarten in Cherry Hill states, “Excluding them and punishing them — what are you teaching them” (35). Punishing the students will not help anyone or anything, but it will only make the situation worse.
School Lunch should be free for every kid. It’s not the kids fault that he/she doesn’t have any money in their Lunch account, it’s more the parents fault. Kids that don’t have money and can’t eat lunch during the day can really take a toll on their education. They will most likely be less focused in class and have way less energy than those who actually were able to afford lunch. Beyond that, schools all over America should make school lunch free and available for all kids no matter their circumstances.
@Lexi If lunches were free schools would not have a constant source of income. rather than free lunch the parents and schools should get together and make a payment plan that is beneficial for the family and the student. The only time school lunch should be free is when a natural disaster has occurred and everyone is in need of a free lunch.
I think if a school denies a child's lunch because they can’t pay that, that is some type of child abuse. It is not the child's fault that the parents don’t have money to get them a school lunch, but it's likely that the school lunch is the only meal they might have. I the parent can’t pay $3.00 for lunch how are they paying for dinner and breakfast. Also not allowing children to participate in after school activities because they can’t pay for lunch is outrageous. That is punishing kids for being poor and to me that's not right.
The “tuna sandwich” policy in the Cherry Hill School District, is or was similar to my school’s policy (I am unsure if they still do this) because I remember that if a student could not pay for the school lunch our lunch lady would give them a cheese sandwich. This cheese sandwich was 2 pieces of old bread with grows cheese in the middle. Sorry but that is not a lunch and my little 2nd grade self knew that. I would hope that schools offer free or reduced lunch options like my school does now but still a tuna sandwich because you don’t have money is not right.
(1/2) I think the policies of the Cherry Hill School district are ridiculous. Some people can’t afford to pay for lunch every day, and, as mentioned in the article, the amount of money used to pay for lunches can build up to be $75 or higher. If you imagine paying that all at once, it’s a lot of money. Public schools are meant to be supported by taxes. If parents wanted to pay a lot of money for their child’s education, they would have sent them to a private school. I understand that some people may have the money, and just don’t want to pay, but does it matter? Eating shouldn’t be a privilege reserved for kids born into families with money. It should be a right.
If the school decides to just starve the kids who can’t afford food, it could be considered child abuse. Some schools offer breakfast so that poorer kids don’t go hungry, and if suddenly they decide to starve those who can’t pay for lunch, what’s the point? Maybe they think some kids are just TOO poor. That they aren’t as important, and don’t deserve the things that other kids, those born into families with more money, deserve.
Being able to eat and have food is a natural human right. A right that shouldn't be placed on a scale of poor to middle class to rich. A right that no one, but especially children, should ever have to worry about. When kids go to school, they do so to learn, and somehow maybe strive to make this world a better place for the next generations. Without proper nutrition at such a prominent age in their lives for growth and development, their ability to learn, focus, function, grow, and develop is all stunted significantly.
Rules and regulations regarding school lunch fees should not be punishable for children. Kids shouldn't have to go to school and fret about whether or not they'll receive food that day. Kids shouldn't have to miss out on getting a yearbook or going to prom with their friends or going on field trips as a learning experience. Kids of all ages should be able to rest easy knowing that at school, they will get lunch and not be shamed for owing money, that really their parents owe, not them.
As stated in the article, "in Cherry Hill, N.J., that restricts students who owe more than $20 to a tuna sandwich lunch. Using tactics such as this to punish kids is basically teaching them that the school's main priority isn't their well being and safety, but rather money. Kids should never feel as though they are doing something wrong by eating school lunch.
(2/2) Playing sports shouldn’t be restricted to those with more money. People without money sometimes NEED to excel at a sport because, since they have no money, they’ll need a scholarship to get into college. The poor will only stay poor if they have no way to advance their position in society. Also, if some kids are intentionally excluded from certain activities, that puts a divide between them and their peers. Their peers will know why they aren’t allowed to do certain things, and these kids may be bullied on top of being excluded and starved and underprivileged.
reading this topic made me made and angry i mean like what is the school thinking. i´m a student at columbia heights and we fill out a form to see if we are eligible for free or reduced lunch. i mean this just me feel sad for the students who went to this school i mean the students might be poor or not enought money to even buy new clothes. i meant eating lunch is like a fuel for students to move on in school but if they cant get nutrition then they cant focus and learn when they are hungry in class.
Preventing students from buying lunch is a punishment that makes sense. After all, some school libraries prevent you from checking out books if you have unpaid fines. That said, books aren’t as essential to human health as food.
Preventing students from participating in other school activities, is not only excessive but also prevents them from becoming more engaged in school. Then again considering most school lunches are two to three dollars, being 75$ in debt is also surprising. That’s around three to five weeks of not paying school fines. That along with the fact that some schools even offer free lunches if your eligible.
On one hand, the family may not have known if their school offered free lunches and as such did not try to register. On the other the school either doesn’t offer free lunches or denied the family free lunch, in which case they shouldn’t punish children from poor families if the school did not allow them to accommodate for their financial status.
Like how Sunny Reed said, “What are you teaching them?” if you’re denying students the right to participate in school activities and denying them a meal to go through their day, it completely negates the intended purpose of a school.
School lunch is around three dollars, and if it’s too hard to pay that debt for five entire weeks I don’t think the real problem is whether or not a kid gets to buy a yearbook or not. School shouldn’t be a place where kids are worried by debts or financial status.
A school should be a safe place, a place where you feel like you belong and where you don’t have to worry if your going to eat lunch today or not, only down part is, I said should. Not only is this tuna sandwich a way of singling kids and like the article said creating a “badge of shame” they are limiting the kids and punishing them by not allowing fun field trips and keeping them from buying a yearbook. The worst of it is, some kids aren’t legally old enough to work to make money and are forced to depend on their family, others have more to worry about than just eating. Schools should be able to understand that and help them in their situation, try to be as flexible as possible not make things harder for them.
@Lizbeth Bolanos
I completely agree with what you're saying. People who depend of their schools for nourishment shouldn't be punished and shamed for that. Maybe school administrations don't always realize that a portion of their student body might not know when their next meal will be and are counting on school to provide that for them. I think schools should be way more understanding of and sensitive to the needs of their students by taking into account that some are not as well off as others. Punishing these students is far from the right solution.
Sadly, this topic reflects our capitalistic society in all its glory. One pays, one receives a lunch. If one does not pay, then there are consequences because it causes an imbalance in the economic means of our society. Every child needs to eat a lunch because it is shown for a child to do well in school with this extra fuel and break from a school lunch. If one cannot pay for school lunch and the school doesn't give them a free one then it leads to the students' embarrassment and hunger. This is a problem that needs to be fixed through programs that allow children to get lunch even if they do not have the money. The debt should also be put on the parents. Schools need to take the time to do background checks and have families answer questions about their financial needs before taking lunch away from a child. That is just cruel because, at a young age, not every child can support themselves financially without their parents. Through having the school take this extra time, it can show who desperately needs the lunches or the child that is just not paying their dues. It is very drastic for a child to have consequences, such as taking away field trips and privileges. A system needs to be made where it is the schools' responsibility to support all their students of different economic statuses. Every child deserves the right to access lunch under any circumstances.
Throughout my sister and I’s many years of schooling, we’ve probably spent tons of money on school lunches. It used to be a pizza Friday every week at my school, and I’d spend five dollars each week along with my sister. That’s ten dollars every week, which is forty bucks a month, and with about nine months of school, that’s around 360 dollars for a slice of pizza, a drink, and ice cream for a schoolyear.
When you translate that to a family who doesn’t have access to those funds for their kids every day, lunch disappears as an option. If schools start punishing kids for not being able to pay for their lunch, that’s just cruel. They’re telling a child that they can’t have basic needs fulfilled.
The issue lies not with the child and not with the parent, but the school. Punishing children for being impoverished is such a corrupt way to gain money, and when you take away extracurriculars, all it does is make your school look even worse. The county shouldn’t be shaming parents and students in an attempt to get money. They should be teaching a child life skills to deal with the real world.
Kids not being allowed to buy prom tickets, racking up insane bills, and not being able to play sports is the wrong way for a school system to earn money. School should be a learning environment for kids, not a county’s way of trying to make a profit.
@Hope Heinrichs I agree that there are better, less cruel ways for schools to earn money. Students shouldn’t be prevented from attending other school events just because they can’t afford a basic meal. It is not their fault they can’t afford it so they shouldn’t have to face these consequences.
I very strongly believe that students should not be punished if they can not afford a school lunch. It is not a child’s fault whatsoever that they can not afford a school lunch and if a school punished them for that that is absolutely ridiculous. All schools should provide free breakfast and lunch for underprivileged students because you never know what a child may be going through and it may be the only meal they will receive. I think it would make a student feel absolutely awful if they got punished or shamed for not being able to afford lunch. Ultimately, it is the parent’s responsibility to pay for the lunch or to talk with the school about not being able to afford to pay. I think that if parents have enough money to pay for lunch then they must pay, but if they do not have enough money the government should pay. No student will be able to get through their day if the can not eat. Hungry students will not be able to concentrate and their grades will start to plummet. But more importantly, students’ health will suffer if they do not get enough good nutrition.
I think it's wrong to punish students who can't pay for their lunches. Students who come from poor families should not be held accountable for their financial status, especially since eating is an important contributor to healthy students. It is hard to focus on class with an empty or aching stomach. There are worse policies than the one at Cherry Hill, because the students are still provided a lunch. However, being limited to one option may make students feel exposed or insecure, considering this may bring attention to those who can't afford a lunch. While most high school students are very kind, mob mentality and the rude outliers could pick on the student for getting this lunch. Students should not have to be worried about their financial status impacting whether or not they eat at school, or focus in class. They shouldn't have to dread lunchtime. I think that, if a student consistently isn't able to pay for their lunch, a system should be put in place. They could request extra lunch funding to make up for the unpaid lunches, but if possible, the parents should try to help pay as well. Free lunch would be a great feature in high schools, but would require permission from the town board, and someone would have to pay for the lunch program. In my school, we have to pay for our lunches. I'm lucky enough to not know what happens to those who can't pay, seeing as it's never been an issue for me. Students should be able to eat, no matter their financial status.
Many students are not able to afford lunch on a daily basis and it can often be an outrageous amount of money being spent on school lunch every week. I know many students' parents pay $100 every few weeks just for their kids to buy lunch that often isn't that good. For a school to be punishing students who cannot afford to pay the outrageous prices of school lunch is very wrong. Many people have most of their best memories from high school, and for students to be excluded from these memory-making events such as prom and fun field trips it is wrong and they shouldn't be taken away from those things because of lunch debt.
I can understand wanting to block getting lunch if the student is in debt by more than a few dollars for lunch, but if the student truly cannot pay front on for their lunch, they should see their dean or principle about that to get help. But for others who can afford the lunch, but decide just not to pay for a while, the punishment seems necessary for the student.
@Shylah I actually agree with this quite a bit. Students who are unable to pay for lunches are one thing, but students who don't pay for lunches because they don't want to are in another boat altogether.
i think it is very unfair that any school would punish a student for a lunch bill, i believe that all schools should provide a lunch weather it be pizza or a simple turkey sandwich, schools take the responsibility of taking care of your student during the day you wouldn't want to pick you kid up from say 2nd grade and then them telling you that they haven't eating all day because the school said so. how would everyone in the office feel about all the pissed off parents who are going to come in the complain about their kid not eating at all? also the school would be losing more and more money from this because if they are preventing students from getting prom tickets and yearbooks so how would the school compensate for all of the loss in money?
I believe that students shouldn't be punished if they can't pay for lunch. Having a policy that affects children from doing thing in school because they can't pay for lunch is wrong. Its a better idea for lunch to be free because more people actually eat lunch. from my personal experience more people eat when they don't have to pay or wary about when they will get lunch money. I have to pay for lunch at my school but not all schools do. I have been to a school where we didn't have to pay for lunch.
@Armani i agree with the point you made about more students wanting to eat when they don't have to worry about having to pay for lunch, i too didn't have to pay for lunch and i can also confirm that i ate everyday then, students should be allowed to eat no matter what because in order to think you must eat something
Dear New York Times, The policy that Cherry Hill has made is very heartbreaking and disgusting to hear. From my understanding, Cherry Hill is all about money and not about children growing up being successful in life. Its sad to hear that schools are becoming more and more about money and not for the sake of children needs.For example, to learn and become what they wanna be in the future once they leave school is on most of kids minds everyday when they step foot into school. everyone comes to school with a new agenda on their mind. in the article it states " The school board considered amending that policy and denying lunch to students who where more than $20 in debt. Having to hear this coming from a school should be more focused on because the children their need our help. many people including the government should help in some way because it seems to me that these kids are put in danger. no one knows the history or how these children lifestyles are for the school to take away their food.some kids may cant afford is because their parents are going though personal things and some may be in the process of being homeless. no child should ever have to go through not eating all day after doing hard work in their classes. this school should be shut down or be inspected because this is not how children should be treated. they will have to remember this for the rest of their lives.
@David I agree, the overall system used by Cherry Hill High School is unfair to the poorer students and families that rely on school lunches. A lack of food in children’s stomachs makes it harder for students to learn and do the quality work that they need to do. My question for you is what solutions can you think of for this problem? The system obviously isn’t working at the time, and we need to find a good way to take care of the students who need financial support for school lunches, without promoting people who choose not to pay for the lunches.
@David I agree, the overall system used by Cherry Hill High School is unfair to the poorer students and families that rely on school lunches. A lack of food in children’s stomachs makes it harder for students to learn and do the quality work that they need to do. My question for you is what solutions can you think of for this problem? The system obviously isn’t working at the time, and we need to find a good way to take care of the students who need financial support for school lunches, without promoting people who choose not to pay for the lunches.
I don’t believe that students should be punished for not having lunch money. For it’s not their fault that their parents don’t have the money for it. The “tuna sandwich” that is mentioned in the article is more than what other students were given at the school I attend. Not allowing students to participate in extracurricular activities is cruel. For some sports do not cost anything to participate in. Not allowing students to get involved because their parents can’t afford food, is not fair to the child who wants to be active. I personally don’t know what it’s like to not have lunch money, however; I do know that if students can’t afford lunch at school than their parents most likely can’t afford food at home. Some parents are living off of food stamps. Having the school not provide food is child abusement. Schools claim that they try and help all students, but by not allowing a child to get lunch is not helping the child. The parent is responsible for paying for their child's lunch. Schools should offer a program that parents can apply to get free lunches or reduced meal prices.
I believe that lunch shouldn’t be free, but it should be cheaper than what it is. My parents pay for me to have lunch at school. I have never been the child who can’t get lunch because I’m overdue money. For the children who can't afford lunches, the school gives them two pieces of bread with a piece of cheap cheese between the slices.
I think that students should receive help instead of punishment for not having enough money for lunches. Sometimes it’s hard for students to remember to have their parents put in money, so the school should send an email or even call. My school calls and it has helped me remember. I just don’t think any punishments should be in order for any of this.
Kids should definetly not be punished if they don’t have lunch money. They could have money problems at home and not be able to pay, or their parents could just have a low income. They shouldn’t get it trouble for that though because they can’t help it. We shouldn’t let kids go hungry because they can’t pay for lunch.
I don't think students should be punished for not being able to afford school lunch and restricting students’ ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Because I think not being able to afford school lunch is not a student's fault. It is problem of family situation. So I think to punish students is not good.
I do not think that students should be punished for not paying their school lunch nor have to pay for lunch. I feel this way because every student comes from different financial background and may not be able to afford lunch ever day. The best way to fix this problem would be financial aid for students who can’t afford lunch every day or just free lunch in general. I feel like punishing students for not being able to Pay for lunch is cruel and necessary. If a student can not pay for their school lunch we shouldn’t force a child to go home hungry .
Dear New York Times, The policy that Cherry Hill has made is very heartbreaking and disgusting to hear. From my understanding, Cherry Hill is all about money and not about children growing up being successful in life. Its sad to hear that schools are becoming more and more about money and not for the sake of children needs.For example, to learn and become what they wanna be in the future once they leave school is on most of kids minds everyday when they step foot into school. everyone comes to school with a new agenda on their mind. in the article it states " The school board considered amending that policy and denying lunch to students who where more than $20 in debt. Having to hear this coming from a school should be more focused on because the children their need our help. many people including the government should help in some way because it seems to me that these kids are put in danger. no one knows the history or how these children lifestyles are for the school to take away their food.some kids may cant afford is because their parents are going though personal things and some may be in the process of being homeless. no child should ever have to go through not eating all day after doing hard work in their classes. this school should be shut down or be inspected because this is not how children should be treated. they will have to remember this for the rest of their lives.
I do not think that schools should punish children for not having lunch money. I think a free school lunch program is the best solution. Children have no control over their family’s financial situation, and punishing them won’t do any good if it’s absolutely impossible for their family to afford the school lunch. Food is required to live, and denying that right to children just because they were born less fortunate is not right.
Students should not have to pay for a school lunch every day. Every student that is coming to school to learn and develope should be entitled to a free meal every day. You need nutrition and energy to be able to learn and receive a good education, so therefore it should be a requirement. If school districts like New York and Illinois can make lunch free for all of their students, so can other school districts.
I do not think that students should be punished for not being able to afford school lunch. Every student deserves a healthy breakfast and a healthy lunch. Not everyone has enough money to afford a lunch every day, and they should not be punished for being poor. I think it is completely wrong to not only deny students their lunches, but to deny them their prom priveleges. Also, extracurricular activities, like clubs or sports, are really fun and if a student goes to a school where they give a lot of homework, they can be an oppurtunity to have fun without much stress. I think all schools should give free lunch to children because, again, all students deserve a healthy lunch. My school gives free lunches, and I completly support that because every student has access to healthy lunches. For the Cherry Hill School District, I think forgiving lunch debt to poor students is a good idea because even if it gives wealthier families the chance to exploit the system, each student, wealthy or not, gets a healthy lunch.
I think that students shouldn’t need to pay for school lunches at all. Before I transferred schools, my old school charged a little over two dollars. The lunches didn’t even taste or look that good. But my new school has better tasting lunches that are completely free! Students also shouldn’t have to buy lunch everyday. If students can’t pay for lunch, they should just bring their own lunch. I get school lunch about once a week, but that would be about 10 dollars a month. Paying for lunch shouldn’t be a thing in the first place.
Students should not be punished for not having lunch money. In my school we have free lunches for everyone. Also students should not be required to eat lunch. At some schools lunches are expensive, and if a school punishes someone for not paying for that lunch every day of the school year that is humiliating to the student.
I go to Masterman. At Masterman students do not have to pay for lunch. I believe that this is a good solution because If students have to announce their financial state it can lead to them being shamed. However, sometimes I think what Masterman could accomplish if they required kids to pay for their lunches. At Masterman, some things like the quality of the bathrooms could be majorly improved. Masterman could easily pay for this if they required kids to pay for lunch money. In the end, Masterman had a choice to either improve the quality of their school or allow kids with less financial abilities to eat lunch. I believe that the decision Masterman made was thoughtful and selfless. I agree with this decision.
Children who are not capable to pay for school lunches should not be forced to go home hungry as a punishment. If the family cannot pay, their school lunch debts should be forgiven. The family strongly recommended to apply for free or reduced lunches. A punishment such as not being able to buy a prom ticket is a different matter altogether. If the family can but does not desire to pay their lunch debt, then I think lunches should not be taken away. However appropriate punishments are not being able to go to prom, or other extremely costly events like some trips, repeated letters home, phone calls if the problem persists, and if needed a face-to-face conference. But never should a child be forced to home hungry.
“Do you have to pay for school lunch? Are there rules at your school about what happens if a student cannot pay for lunch or accumulates debt? Do you agree or disagree with your school’s approach?”
I don’t think students should be punished for not having lunch money. My school is a public school, and you don’t have to pay for lunch. You are limited to only one lunch per day. In order for you to get a lunch, you have to put your student identification number in the machine. I agree with my schools approach. In the past, if your parents made a set amount of money, you had to pay. I don’t necessarily think we should bring that method back. However, I believe students should get an option to donate money to the lunch ladies or supplies for the lunches, because some of my friends are financially capable to. I don’t think lunch itself should cost money, though. Some parents do not have enough money to pay for that. The donation won’t be mandatory, or course, but I’m sure the school would appreciate extra money.
All kids should be given the opportunity to eat lunch every day at school that is healthy and sustaining without the kid having to worry if they have enough money. Being a kid, you never want to stress about financial problems especially if it is at school. At my school, you can get free breakfast and lunch every day. All you have to do is enter your student ID number and you can grab lunch or sign in and take breakfast. I think that all schools should use a system like this or similar to it.
I think all students should have the option to get school lunch no matter their financial struggles at home and even if you can afford it and you don't bring it doesn't mean you should get punished. I do not agree with the “Tuna sandwich policy” because it limits kids to food that most kids don't like and they have no options when it comes to what they eat. I think schools should know the financial status in people's homes so they can know what someone needs help with, and not just lunch but for school supplies and warm clothes.
I do not think that students should be punished for being unable to afford school lunch. I personally have the luxury of not paying for my lunch, but I do feel bad for those who don´t. I think that students everywhere should have healthy lunches provided by the government. From my perspective, it must make students uncomfortable and they will avoid eating lunch if humiliated by being unable to pay while others can. Lunch for them becomes a negative part of the day for many students. Thus, not eating is an unhealthy behavior for students, which can affect their education tremendously.
I do not think that students should be punished for not being able to afford school lunch because it is not their fault for their parents inability to pay up. I think that restricting students’ ability to participate in extracurricular activities is going too far because what does sports have to do with lunch? The school is taking things away from the students that they might enjoy.
I think it feels horrible to be punished for not having lunch money because it shows that you don't have anything to eat and that your poor. I think it would make students feel anxious and upset to go to school because they know they don't have anything to eat for lunch.
I think that the students parents are responsible for making sure that their child has lunch money but at the bigger extend the government as well, as a lot of children across the United States sometimes have to worry about if there is going to be food on the table at home as well.
I think that students should not have to pay for school lunches and that it should be free. I think that the school districts that made the students lunches free are doing a great job because now they don't have to worry about having lunch.
I don't have to pay for lunch because my family is lower middle class and no one has a current job. I luckily don't have to worry about food because we manage to scrape by.
Maurice Vetri 7-1
Julia R. Masterman
At my school lunch is free. You simply just have to walk up to one of the lunch people who are working at either the hot or cold food bar and type in your ID number and then you can enjoy your lunch. I agree with my school's approach for one main reason. Some students' families might not have the money to pay for lunch every single day, so offering a free daily lunch allows students who come from a home where they can’t pay every day for lunch an opportunity to eat lunch.
Maurice Vetri 7-1
Julia R. Masterman
At my school lunch is free. You simply just have to walk up to one of the lunch people who is working at either the hot or cold food bar and type in your ID number and then you can enjoy your lunch. I agree with my school's approach for one main reason. Some students' families might not have the money to pay for lunch every single day, so offering a free daily lunch allows students who come from a home where they can’t pay everyday for lunch an opportunity to eat lunch.
I believe that all school lunches should be free between Kindergarten and Twelfth grade. This is because people are already paying taxes, and not everyone can afford to pay for their lunches. In The School District of Philadelphia all schools are required to provide free lunches for lunch periods as well as breakfasts before school. This is very convenient for many reasons. If a kid forgets his lunch and has to pay for a lunch from school he may be punished by his parents. If a girl doesn’t have enough time to make her own breakfast, she can just grab a granola bar and cardboard carton of milk to eat during advisory. As well, having penalties for mounting debt is a system with many flaws. For example, in Cherry Hill they give kids with $20+ dollars in debt only a tuna sandwich for lunch. If a kid dislikes tuna, they just won’t eat. Now you have a kid who is expected to focus during classes and exercise during gym class on an empty stomach These are many reasons why it is much better to just have free school lunches and/or breakfasts.
No, I don’t think you should punish students for their parents inability to pay up. I do not think you should punish students for being poor. And no, I do not condone to shaming students over something they most likely have no control over. Some students are unable to afford their own lunch in school and I don’t see the point in punishing students over something that is necessary for survival. About 17% of children in the United States experience limited or uncertain availability of safe, nutritious food at some point during the year. If schools are able to provide nutrition to kids who need it, why punish the students who can’t afford it?
3
@Elina Chen I agree with what you have to say about the punishment of children who cannot afford or forget lunch money. For many students, school lunch is their main meal of the day due to poverty.
For the most part, it is the parent or guardian’s responsibility to pay for food. Therefore, punishing students for something that is outside of their control should not be permitted. It is especially terrible to shame a child in this way.
I do think that if a family has the means to pay for lunch, they should be held accountable. But that issue should be handled among adults and not involve students.
@Elina Chen
I feel students aren't being punished for their inability to afford school lunches, but instead being held accountable. Cherry Hill schools are restricting their student with more than 75$ in debt from purchasing year books and prom tickets. Some see this as "punishing children for being poor," but its really a fair argument. What lesson would we be teaching students if we let them feel these responsibilities didn't also come along with consequences. I understand that a child cannot be held responsible for living in poverty, but they also need to understand that you cannot just be given what other what others have purchased.
On the other hand, I feel schools should find ways to assist those who aren't capable of paying for school lunch. Students are in school for 7 and a half hours a day. For some, that can be a days work. But since we have to sit through learning Pythagorean theorem, some cannot afford to buy or even pack a lunch everyday. If schools require us to be there for a full day, there should be a policy set in place that children must be fed.
I strongly believe both these ideas, although they seem to contrast one another.
I don’t think students should have to be punished if they can’t pay for school lunches because we never know what kind of lives they have outside of schools. They might be in a financial problem and can’t afford to pay for it. Also, their lunch at school might be the only thing they would eat the whole day. Students aren’t able to get a part-time job until 14 years old and even then the money they get might be used for something more important, such as for a sick family member. Anyways, maybe schools should consider lowering their prices or even giving their lunches for free because then some unfortunate kids could get one good meal every day.
3
I believe that the parents are responsible to provide their children with the money regarding meals. But many families do not have the financial means to spend on school lunch. I think that opening a program for under-privileged kids may be able to assist in this crisis is even if only temporarily. Saying that the school can make food “free” is an answer that is much to simple for this complex situation. There are many kids in the world whose parents can afford to pay for lunch but it is not a priority to them to have the money every day while there are children who do not have enough money to have consistent meals.
If students are consistently unable to pay for school lunches, I believe they shouldn't held accountable for something they most likely don't have control over. Schools should provide students with the access to free lunches along with breakfast, we don't know the day to day lives of students so for many the food they are provided with at school could be all they eat in a day for many reasons so by schools denying them the access to a free meal can add another stress factor onto anything else they may be going through and even mess with them psychologically. Many students don't get jobs up until their sophomore year summer leading to their junior year, and even then the money they earn may be needed to help pay things elsewhere so why not lend a helping hand when we have the funds and resources to do so.
If students are consistently unable to pay for school lunches, I believe they shouldn't held accountable for something they most likely don't have control over. Schools should provide students with the access to free lunches along with breakfast, we don't know the day to day lives of students so for many the food they are provided with at school could be all they eat in a day for many reasons so by schools denying them the access to a free meal can add another stress factor onto anything else they may be going through and even mess with them psychologically. Many students don't get jobs up until their sophomore year summer leading to their junior year, and even then the money they earn may be needed to help pay things elsewhere so why not lend a helping hand when we have the funds and resources to do so.
If students are consistently unable to pay for school lunches, I believe they shouldn't held accountable for something they most likely don't have control over. Schools should provide students with the access to free lunches along with breakfast, we don't know the day to day lives of students so for many the food they are provided with at school could be all they eat in a day for many reasons so by schools denying them the access to a free meal can add another stress factor onto anything else they may be going through and even mess with them psychologically. Many students don't get jobs up until their sophomore year summer leading to their junior year, and even then the money they earn may be needed to help pay things elsewhere so why not lend a helping hand when we have the funds and resources to do so.
If students are consistently unable to pay for school lunches, I believe they shouldn't held accountable for something they most likely don't have control over. Schools should provide students with the access to free lunches along with breakfast, we don't know the day to day lives of students so for many the food they are provided with at school could be all they eat in a day for many reasons so by schools denying them the access to a free meal can add another stress factor onto anything else they may be going through and even mess with them psychologically. Many students don't get jobs up until their sophomore year summer leading to their junior year, and even then the money they earn may be needed to help pay things elsewhere so why not lend a helping hand when we have the funds and resources to do so.
If students are consistently unable to pay for school lunches, I believe they shouldn't held accountable for something they most likely don't have control over. Schools should provide students with the access to free lunches along with breakfast, we don't know the day to day lives of students so for many the food they are provided with at school could be all they eat in a day for many reasons so by schools denying them the access to a free meal can add another stress factor onto anything else they may be going through and even mess with them psychologically. Many students don't get jobs up until their sophomore year summer leading to their junior year, and even then the money they earn may be needed to help pay things elsewhere so why not lend a helping hand when we have the funds and resources to do so.
All students come from different families and different financial situations, and as a result of this some students are not as fortunate as others. But should we really punish students for something they have no control over? I would say no, and I believe that no student should be denied food- a basic right that we all deserve. Denying a student school lunch may also have psychological effects. If a student is unable to afford a school lunch, he may be bullied by other students in school. Why should a student have to endure all of this hardship, especially when they have no control over it, if there is a solution? Many schools are paid by the government, so a portion of that money could be allotted to school lunches- giving all kids the ability to obtain a school lunch. This simple solution could solve a problem that has affected the lives of many students in America.
Some students don't have enough money to buy their lunch at school. School for all children should be a place where they can feel welcome, not a place where they are ashamed of where their family stands financially. Every one should be able to get a French lunch everyday at school. Especially since one in every four children is malnourished, children should be able to have at least one good meal a day. Regardless of whether or not they have the money for it.
No i don’t think kids should be punished for not having money because their family may not be able to provide it and they should still be able to eat.
Students should not be punished for late lunch bills. Many students are unable to get jobs until at least junior year due to age limits, and must ask their parents for money. Furthermore, their parents my not have the finances to support their child buying a lunch that is actually big enough to be a lunch.
I don’t think that students should be punished IF it is just a 1 or 2 time thing and they truly can’t pay for it because it wouldn’t be fair if they didn’t feed them lunch but if it was repetitive and they took advantage of it then they should be punished
Students should not be blamed for their unpaid lunch bills. Up until at LEAST the 11th grade most kids don't have a steady income for themselves and thus have no way to provide their own lunches. It is a parent's responsibility to provide life's necessities and this includes lunches. However, family income should also be taken into consideration. A lot of kids go without food outside of school period except for the occasional meal sent home by school programs. We shouldn't deprive these kids of food while they are at school. Most schools make lunches based on how many kids they expect to have which means a lot of the time there is extra food. In other places such as Bryant, there are multiple food types made available, all made in bulk, which provides a LOT of leftovers. We know this because one of the cafeteria workers comes around yelling about discounted food - they discount it because otherwise it will spoil. Either way it costs schools money which obviously they can afford, so why is it so difficult for them to provide food to these self-sufficient kids? Why can't we take a little bit of money out of the other overblown programs within schools to help out kids in need? Kids cannot control their parents financial decision or situations and thus cannot be reasonably blamed for an unpaid lunch fine.
Students should not have to pay for school lunch. Everybody should have the chance to eat something, and if somebody forgets to bring money for such a basic need, then are you going to punish them? It isn’t the best food out there, but at least you get to have a chance to eat. To pay for schools and to support the school, you should donate to the school. For my school, since I live in Philadelphia, lunch food is free. In the article, it states that some schools would not let you get lunch if you have over $20 in debt, so are you just going to starve them until they give you money? You do not know their lives. Some families are struggling to even provide their children to attend schools, and you’re just going to make them pay for something that should be free? To me, that seems extremely selfish. It should not be the child giving the school money.
I personally believe that students should not have to buy lunch. Lunches should be free. Food is a requirement for people to live. Food is most important to children in elementary through middle school. Without food students wouldn’t be able to grow as quickly as others and may suffer from malnutrition, which might lead them to the hospital. Although maybe $5 a day for lunch may seem like a measly amount, it really isn’t for some families because they don’t earn enough money. This is exactly why Food Stamps was created so that everybody in the U.S. could have food without worry. Personally my school doesn’t require me to pay for lunch but if it did I doubt you could use a Food Stamps card to get the food for free. Both low-income, high-income, and the people in the middle should be able to get lunch without the stress of having to be punished.
@Jack Zhou I agree that lunches should be free in schools. With an empty stomach, students can't focus clearly. I think it is over-the-top to punish children that can't afford the lunch. It is unfair for students who's parents earn low-incomes. The schools should provide a one meal if the student can't afford he other meals. Schools should not shame the kids to pay the bills, they can't help if they are poor or rich.
Maurice Vetri 7-1
Julia R. Masterman
At my school lunch is free. You simply just have to walk up to one of the lunch people who is working at either the hot or cold food bar and type in your ID number and then you can enjoy your lunch. I agree with my school's approach for one main reason. Some students families might not have the money to pay for lunch every single day, so offering a free daily lunch allows students who come from a home where they can’t pay everyday for lunch an opportunity to eat lunch.
I don't think that students should be punished for not being able to afford school lunch. I think that the school should try to look into the income of the parents. Also, the school should strike a deal. For example, if this houses parents don't make enough money, then the school could offer then a number of free lunch's. If the amount goes over, than the family could go talk with the school. Lunch is important for all students, so no matter what, students should be able to eat a filling lunch.
1
No, I don’t have to pay for a school lunch. The lunch at my school is free and everywhere else in the School District of Philadelphia. Lunch used to cost $1, but that was changed 5 years ago. Since you don’t have to pay for a school lunch there are no such things as lunch debts. I agree with my school’s approach because it is reasonable and fair. It doesn’t make sense to make children or their families pay for a meal. Also, more children will get school lunch if it is free. If you can’t pack your own lunch, then you can get school lunch. But if school lunch you may not eat lunch at all.
I think students should not be punished for not being able to afford school lunch. Everyone who goes to a school should be able to have a healthy and sustaining lunch. Not everyone comes from the richest family some people may not be able to afford a daily lunch. At my school there is a free lunch and breakfast every morning and afternoon, now I understand that not every school can afford to do that and lunch money from students is a large sum of the schools income. However, every student should get something to eat at lunch time. Students may not be able to eat any food at home and they can’t at school either! That’s outrageous but what’s abysmal is that students could be punished for not having any money to eat, like Sunny Reed, said, “It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s punishing children for being poor.”
1
@Ana Sorrentino. I completely agree with what you have to say. A child should be given the opportunity to eat lunch every day at school, that is healthy and sustaining, without having to worry about whether or not they have enough money to pay for it.
@Ana Sorrentino I completely agree. If the family can’t provide enough money for lunch, then why should the child face the penalty. They didn't do anything wrong, they just couldn't afford the prices of a school lunch day-to-day. If kids don’t have food then they won’t be fueled and as a child you need food as a way of staying healthy even if that means the school has to provide free food for kids who can’t afford it.
I think that students should not be punished for not being able to afford school lunch. Food is a necessity for everyone in the world, and schools should provide it for free. If they won’t provide it for free, then they should at least make it a price where students aren’t getting debt from school lunch. If a family is too poor to afford school lunch, then I think those students should get it for free. The students are trying to get an education so they can help their family in the future, but the school lunch money is just doing the opposite. They are getting debt just because they want food? Also, I think that the “tuna sandwich” policy is so dumb. The school can’t be spending THAT much money for school lunch that they have to not let students get lunch if they have a debt of $20. $20! That’s really not fair. Students should have the basic right of being able to get food. However, I think the second penalty makes a bit more sense. It’s still unfair to the students, but it makes sense. I think that if the student has over $75 of debt for school lunch, they really shouldn’t focus on extracurricular activities.
In conclusion, I think that being able to get food at school for free should be a basic necessity for all students, and even if it isn’t free, it should be affordable. My school has free lunch every day and I think others should as well.
1
@Brandon Chiem Why should they not be focusing on extracurricular activities? Students whose families do not choose to pay for their children's lunch I agree should be punished by not being able to participate in extracurricular activities. But, a student whose family cannot pay for lunch is likely to live in a low-income area. These children are likely to be at risk from violence, drugs, or maybe pressured to join gangs. Being in an extracurricular activity may be a huge help psychologically keeping them away from drugs and violence. @Brandon Chiem Why should they not be focusing on extracurricular activities? Students whose families do not choose to pay for their children's lunch I agree should be punished by not being able to participate in extracurricular activities. But, a student whose family cannot pay for lunch is likely to live in a low-income area. These students may be at risk of violence, drugs, or gangs. Being in an extracurricular activity may be a huge help psychologically keeping them away from drugs and violence.
I believe that lunch as school is something that should be guaranteed for all students. The schools should make sure that the students who are less fortunate than others are treated the same way , in terms of the lunchroom. School lunches should not be constricted to students who can afford it only. I do not think punishment should be used for kids who can not afford to pay for their lunch. Instead using some type of positive reinforcement would incorporate the need to change but in a less mentally harming and overall better way. If they cannot afford to pay for lunch over multiple weeks the school should set up a certain financial aid program that would help kids get their lunch. I remember when I was in junior high, some students would not have any money on their lunch card. The school would provide them with a ham and cheese sandwich and an apple just how I’m Tracey Tully’s article the lunch policy in Cherry Hill, New Jersey did something similar.
In my opinion, students should not be the ones paying for the lunch money in the first place. The statement: “ Holding children publicly accountable for unpaid lunch bills is hardly unusual.” should not be true at any school. For middle school/high school, students should not be punished for leaving lunches unpaid; let alone, they pay for it themselves. It should be the parent or guardian of said child’s job to cover any school expenses up until university/college.
I think that the parent or school is responsible for paying off a student’s lunch because the student themself doesn’t make money so they don’t have money to pay for it. Parents however, make money everyday and should be able to provide the money for their child, or make food for them to bring to school. I do not think that students should be held accountable if they didn’t have school lunch money because they don’t have a source of income. The only time they get money is during their birthday or Christmas, unless they get an allowance. Therefore, they don’t have a lot of money, and shouldn’t be blamed for not paying for school lunch.
@Sammy Abusaab I get what you're trying to say but why should parents be held accountable? Why should anyone be held accountable? It's really not fair to have to pay for school lunch anyways. What if the parent(s) barely gets enough money to provide for themselves. I think school lunches should be free, rather than having people pay for them.
School Lunch should be free for every kid. It’s not the kids fault that he/she doesn’t have any money in their Lunch account, it’s more the parents fault. Kids that don’t have money and can’t eat lunch during the day can really take a toll on their education. They will most likely be less focused in class and have way less energy than those who actually were able to afford lunch. Beyond that, schools all over America should make school lunch free and available for all kids no matter their circumstances.
@Nico Guillen I completely agree. If a kid is not old enough to bring any money home to the family, then why should the child face the penalty. They didn't do anything wrong, they just couldn't afford the prices of a school lunch day-to-day. A parent should have enough wealth to provide the essentials in life such as lunch, and if the parent can't afford that then the child shouldn't be put at blame.
@Nico Guillen Yes, I agree that no food for a student really changes how they work. I go without food a lot because I don't want to eat and I feel a lot less energetic. However, I don't believe it's the parent's fault. A lot of families barely have enough money to make do.
Students should not be punished if they don’t have lunch money. There aren’t people out to cheat the lunchroom system, they either forgot or they do not have parents that can provide them with a couple dollars to eat lunch everyday. This article makes me question, since when has hot lunches ending up in trash become better than ending up in a child’s stomach. I think this is a question we must ask ourselves in order to view from a different perspective. Children should not be penalized for not having money, especially if it is out of their control. Not only does that prove that there school district is greedy, it also shows that they stand for the wrong things. Our society has trouble with recognizing where to draw the line between childhood and adulthood and that causes questions like this to arise. In conclusion it’s important to remember that school breakfast/ lunch is all the food some kids get and since schools strive to make their environment “safe” then they should not punish children for the money that they don’t make.
3
I think students in this position might feel shameful, as they and their family cannot pay off the fees to just eat lunch at school. If the school starts punishing nad taking away privileges, I would not think that's fair, especially if the school did not have a program for students with financial struggles, giving free lunches/breakfasts. Students today might feel bitter towards school and staff (associating staff with the school board). During lunchtime, the students might not show it but they might feel frustrated and ashamed knowing that every day, when they go to simply eat during the school day with their peers, they are losing privileges and experiences of school, like prom and field trips.
1