I was all set to publish a piece about our oleaginous "leader" when I came across the following editorial in today's Newport News Daily Press.
This is a story about a city school board denying food to students. It may not be a big earth-shattering bit of news, but the writer references federal programs, which suggests this kind of outrageous behavior may happen in places other than Virginia.
Whether the actions outlined in this story stemmed from ignorance or a dislike of federal policy that led to a school corporation cutting off its nose to spite its face, it's something that must be fought--especially if other school boards across the country might contemplate similar action.
Please read it.
The phrase "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" has been used for many decades to reflect that there is always some sort of price tag, even when something is nominally free of charge. In recent years, it has come to be used as a cultural mantra by those decrying welfare, unemployment benefits or anything else perceived to be an entitlement.
Sometimes however, the phrase can be
taken literally.
Take, for example, Hampton's public
school cafeterias.
Families put funds into a student's
meal account. One lunch is $1.85 for elementary school students, and $2.05 for
high school students — unless the family qualifies for a discount. A breakfast
is 90 cents. If a student comes through the line with a meal but is found to
have insufficient funds in that account, he or she is given some time to
scramble around the room in an attempt to scare up some quick cash.
If that fails, the meal is taken
away and thrown in the trash.
This had been Hampton's informal
practice for high school students in recent years. This spring, however, the
decision was made to establish a formal policy to be in line with requirements
from the federal Department of Agriculture and the state Department of
Education. The policy review committee, comprised of school division employees,
was apparently in a magnanimous mood: It recommended high school students be
allowed to "charge" one breakfast and one lunch to an insufficient
account before the cafeteria staff begins taking food away and throwing it into
the trash.
Younger students can charge up to 10, which is in keeping with the
previous practice for that age.
This policy, even with the update
that allows a limited number of meals on credit, is unthinkable. It is
unnecessarily cruel and doesn't even have the benefit of saving money.
This last detail was apparently lost
on the members of the Hampton School Board when they approved this policy. It
was Macayla Smith, a Kecoughtan High School senior at the time and a nonvoting
student representative on the board, who offered some food for thought: "I
just have a question. ... If you're throwing it away, at the end of the day,
aren't you still paying for that meal?"
The answer: Yes, of course. Food
costs just as much in the trash can as it does in a student's belly.
Is there a reason that a teenager
should be the only one to raise this rather obvious question? (Perhaps one or
more parents could have raised it, but none stood to address the issue before
the School Board. Whether this reflects disinterest or tacit approval is not
clear.) Some of the School Board members appeared to be as offended by this
detail as the student rep was, but that did not stop them from unanimously
approving the policy.
Let's state this clearly and
unequivocally: Under no circumstances should a school's policy involve
throwing a student's food away. Frankly, it is astonishing that anyone
should have to establish this ground rule, but apparently we do. It makes no
economic sense, and it is counterproductive to educational goals, since a
hungry student is likely to be distracted and lethargic by the end of the
school day.
There are obvious alternatives that
are not so unnecessarily wasteful and inefficient. Alternatives that do not
call to mind unfortunate comparisons to Oliver Twist, bowl in hand, trembling
before a scowling Mr. Bumble.
Take, for example, the current
practice in Newport News schools. If a student's cafeteria account has run out,
he or she can receive a certain number of meals on credit (depending on the
student's age). Once the limit is reached, the student is instead given an
alternate meal consisting of a cheese sandwich, a piece of fruit and a serving
of milk – a smaller, less expensive plate that provides some sustenance and
nutrition to a growing body and an active mind. The Newport News procedures
specifically state: "Food trays will not be taken away from
students."
There are any number of reasons why
a family might let a student's cafeteria account run dry. They range from the
sympathetic (poverty) to the understandable (forgetfulness) to the callous
(don't care). Not one of those is the fault of the child, and not one should be
used as a rationale for making a student go hungry.
Yes, letters and/or phone calls go
out to parents informing them of the deficient account. Sometimes those
notifications go out immediately, and sometimes after a period of several days.
In the interim, more hungry students and more discarded meals.
It's hard to see who actually
benefits from this. Not the students or their teachers. Not even the school
district, which still pays for the food that gets tossed. Under the Newport
News policy, yes, there are a certain number of "free lunches" given
away — but the cost is minimal, and it is still a better option. It would be a great
day if the biggest waste in a city's budget was supplying sandwiches and milk
to students who would otherwise go hungry.
The School Board should change this
policy before the next school year begins. Parents and students should speak
up.
Young minds should not be distracted
by hunger when there are resources available. Not in our schools.
The Newport News Daily Press, 25 June 2017 www.dailypress.com
--Richard Brown