“Schools Facing Cuts if Lunches Aren’t Paid For” by Fernanda Santos
New York Times, February 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09lunches.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education
New York Times, February 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09lunches.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education
Topic: Unpaid school lunch fees threaten New York City public schools’ budgets.
Summary: With millions of dollars owed to New York City’s Education Department for meals served to students, the department has threated that money owed will be docked from school’s budgets to settle the debt. According to the article, “the city has absorbed at least $42 million in unpaid lunch fees” since 2004. However, with recent budget cuts, this is something the department can no longer afford to let slide. It has created a situation where principals are becoming debt collectors for parents who can’t afford school lunch fees (regular price: $1.50/lunch and reduced price: 25 cents/lunch). Even though most parents only owe between $20-$30, collectively, $2.5 million is owed for the first three months of the school year!
Intended audience: General Public
Key Points:
- Many people owe money to the schools for unpaid lunch fees. “Economic troubles have forced parents into delinquency”. Some of these families qualify for free lunch, but have not turned in eligibility forms.
- If owed money is not paid to the Education Department, schools budgets will be docked the amount owed.
- This is a problem many schools/districts around the Nation are facing. Some schools have a policy that students owing money do not receive the same school lunch as others.
Relevance: This article ties slightly into one I posted previously related to school lunches and obesity. It touches on ethical issues of withholding lunches from students who may not be able to afford to pay and what the potential ramifications to individual school budgets may be in those cases.
I feel like we can't afford to let kids go hungry. That can't be the option. Sounds like a big problem. I wouldn't even know where to begin to figure it out.
ReplyDeleteI kind of feel bad for the administrators and principals of the schools. It is really placing them in a tough position. I agree with Jessica, you can't let the students go hungry, but lunch has got to be financed somehow. And understand if they keep pushing those deadlines back, its hard to approach a parent and say,"you need to pay your lunch fee, or we will take it out on the kids.." I'm curious to know how many of those parents are actually unable to pay the fee, just can't afford it, and how many have gotten used to letting the bill pile up, knowing that the schools will feed the kids regardless if they pay. I never really had to think about this, when I was in elementary school I qualified for free lunch. My parents never had to deal with paying lunch fees. It's just interesting that there is always some kind of issue when dealing with education, doesn't have to be a giant one, but there is always something with someone out there trying to find a way to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in seeing how the whole thing plays out as well. One piece of the article that surprised me was that many of the kids with outstanding balances actually qualify for free or reduced price lunches - there are just many families that haven't filed the required paperwork to receive the benefit! I agree that letting kids go hungry can't be the solution, and it doesn't sound like schools are letting that happen (hence the problem in the first place). I liked one school's solution of offering a sandwich (cold lunch) to students who owe money. All I ever had was a sandwich and milk from the school for lunch when I was a kid - maybe a cookie for desert or some crackers to go with it. The kids can still get enough to eat without the school having absorb the higher cost of unpaid "hot lunch".
ReplyDelete