Subsidizing School Lunches

You know what this tells me?

Nearly four in 10 Wisconsin elementary students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch last school year, and the proportion of low-income elementary students has climbed every year of this decade, according to state Department of Public Instruction data analyzed by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

The threshold to qualify is too low.  You can’t seriously convince me that nearly 40% of Wisconsin families are too poor to pay for their kids’ lunch. 

1. I thought child obesity was the crisis.

   Posted by james wigderson on September 20, 2009 at 1815 hrs




2. You can’t seriously convince me that nearly 40% of Wisconsin families are too poor to pay for their kids’ lunch.

   I can’t…but government bureaucrats and like-minded liberals certainly do try, every single day.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2009 at 1936 hrs




3. You can’t seriously convince me that nearly 40% of Wisconsin families are too poor to pay for their kids’ lunch

   Well…....

   Before or after State taxes, fees, and charges?

   Posted by dad29 on September 20, 2009 at 2035 hrs




4. Some of you guys can help me out, but aren’t there many different government aid and benefit formulas tied to the percentage of “free and reduced lunch” children in your district or area?

   I don’t really know what I’m talking about, but I’ll bet there is some “Acorn” padding being done as it relates to the reporting and counting of this status. I think you want to have a lot of F/R/L to maximize government dollars flowing your way.  But I could be 100% wrong on that.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2009 at 2148 hrs




5. how much do you want to bet that most of the qualifying families all have 2 or more cell phones, and cable(probably not basic) and more then one tv? I bet that most of them (say ~80%) on that list could pay for there own kids lunch (or better yet make it at home!) for less then the cost of the cell/cable bill!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0137 hrs




6. Nothing personal against anyone, but school lunches don’t appear to me to be very healthy.  Cheese fries and corn dogs?  My daughter takes her lunch, and wouldn’t have it any other way…

   Posted by Smeety on September 21, 2009 at 0759 hrs




7. School districts love that number. They parlay that into all kinds of additional funding,  They use it up against any testing results to show their low income students are the reason they cant improve test scores.  I wonder who checks the forms for accuracy???  I think the parent fills them out and thats it.  Their could be errors and omissions that might alter the figure.  But I do not think school districts are motivated to trim the list in any way,

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0804 hrs




8. Growing up my family did not have a lot of money. In fact my dad worked two jobs.  However, we still found enough money to eat and sitll put some in the basket at Church.

   Of course if you are giving something away for free more people will come.  That will in turn make your numbers go up.

   Also, will they have to show their W2’s in order to qualify?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0827 hrs




9. I’m not as skepitcal about the need or the percentage as much as I am about the whole verification process.  Yes, the subsidy will help the school district, but only in terms of the preparation costs of meals; it “shouldn’t” impact other funding, but unfortunately it does.  All school districts use the number of subsidzed lunches as a measure of need or wealth.

   My wife is an elementary teacher in Fairfax Co, VA, one of the wealthier counties in the DC Metro area; it is also one of the top rated school districts in the country.  Yet, I was surprised about the number of kids receiving subsidized lunches at her school.  What her district has discovered is that even though the county as a whole is “wealthier” than most, there is a significant gap in income for young families with young children and it varies by neighborhood; i.e., some schools have more subsidized lunches, some have less.

   The whole purpose of subsidizing lunches is to “guarantee” that kids eat a good lunch everday (I know, subject to debate about the menu).  In other words, it ensures that a child (whose family that say gets paid in the beginning of the month but may not have resources at the end of the month to prepare or pay for lunch for their kids) will eat lunch no matter what. 

   I have to assume that most of us on this board have never had to worry about resources for their child’s lunch.  But the reality is many people are not as fortunate, and the number will grow before it improves.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0914 hrs




10. The bar is not too low.  Unfortunately, the economy has pushed too many families below the bar right now.  These stats will go down when the economy gets better.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1413 hrs




11. You have to be out of your mind, if you think the US economy, while its not doing well now, is so bad that ~40% of the People in Wisconsin are below the poverty line, and or are so poor that they cant get food from home.  How about they quit eating out all the damn time and cook from home.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1419 hrs




12. The poverty line is not the qualifier for a “subsidized” lunch.  The poverty line is generally the qualifier for a “free” or “100% subsidized” lunch, where as there is a sliding scale based on income/ability to pay/income gap for a “reduced price” lunch.  Both of these scenarios comprise the “subsidized lunches” total that is approaching 40%.

    I’m not justifying it one way or the other, just trying to offer an explanation based upon my experiences in VA and CA.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1440 hrs




13. Laker provides a good point for dagamore.  40% are not getting free lunch.  Some are getting reduced lunch prices using a sliding income scale. 

    Take a look at the stats for the increase.  They follow the downturn in the economy. 

    And dagamore, if you have a hard time believing that many families are struggling to pay their bills right now, go volunteer at a church food pantry.  They will tell you the same thing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1522 hrs




14. Definitely one overused, wasteful handout that I still don’t have a problem with.  So many of these programs like the child care crap that has been going on, are rife with fraud, and hurt the very people they aim to help.  In this case, if a few too many kids get lunch at my expense, I’m ok with that.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1917 hrs




15. Just because sometimes actual numbers are good for people to know…

    - The cutoff for free lunch is 130% of federal poverty level (FPL).  For a two-person household, that’s $18,941.  For a four-person household, it’s $28,665.

    - The cutoff for reduced-price lunch is 185% of FPL.  For a two-person household, that’s $26,955.  For a four-person household, it’s $40,793.

    Also, everyone who qualifies for reduced-price lunch pays the same price.

    A two-parent household with two kids qualifies for reduced-price lunches if they make less than $41k.  Like Carrie said, is it really hard to believe those FRPL numbers given how dour the economy has been lately?  It’s especially true if one parent stays home or is unemployed.

    I’m with Curt.  I think that as government programs go, this is a pretty easy one to defend.  If we expect kids to do well in school, they need to eat.  Kids should never be punished because of their parents’ shortcomings, whether it’s that they’re irresponsible or just that they don’t make a lot of money.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 21, 2009 at 2313 hrs




16. If you listen to the White House the stimulus is working and things are looking up.

    However, this story would seem to indicate the opposite.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Why don’t we bring back the cheese lines that we had when I was a kid.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1205 hrs




17. One of my in-laws works at the local public school. She’s seen this first hand and attributes the large “free lunch” population to the fact that they’re FORBIDDEN to ask for documentation of need. Thus, ANYONE who asks gets the benefit.

    And the cost doesn’t end there. By getting free lunch the kids in her school also get free attendance at the municipal pool, snacks at the library, etc.

    Sweet gig if you’re less than scrupulous.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1218 hrs