Dear Mayor Jim Langfelder,
I appreciate that you are taking the time to read my proposal and I promise that you will not be disappointed with what I have to say. Currently, I am a junior Social Work major at the University of Illinois Springfield, with plans to get my MSW and become a DCFS Investigator in Illinois. I am very passionate about this subject, and after reading this, I hope you are too.
For years I have lived with the gnawing feeling of guilt that there are hundreds and hundreds of children in Springfield that do not receive adequate meals every day. These children live in a world where going without a meal or two every single day is normal, but just because it is normal for them, does not mean it is right. We live in one of the most developed countries in the world, yet we allow our children to go hungry. Thinking about this issue in that context makes it feel like an impossible feat to conquer, and that is why I am writing you this letter today.
Even though we cannot change the entire country’s hunger crisis, we can take steps to change our cities. That is why I am proposing the policy of Free Universal School Lunch for all children attending public schools throughout Springfield, Illinois. The children that already get free or reduced lunches are forced to be ridiculed by peers (and sometimes staff) every single day because of their qualification for free lunches, and the ones that have lunch debt, that their parents cannot pay, are oftentimes made to eat nothing but a cold sandwich and a milk.
After reading the article “America’s New School Lunch Policy: Punishing Hungry Students for Their Parents Poverty,” Steven Singer elaborates on a few ideas policymakers have had to punish poor parents for their child’s lunch debt. One policy was created by the Trump Administration and was “a plan to tighten eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could result in hundreds of thousands of the poorest children losing automatic eligibility for free school lunches,” which makes no sense because, although it is punishing parents, this will only create more families with lunch debt. Another ridiculous idea is forcing children whose parents cannot pay their lunch debt to be put in foster homes (Steven Singer describes how school officials in Wyoming Valley West school district in Pennsylvania warned parents that they could be taken to dependency court if they did not pay school lunch debts, and threatened that a plausible result could be having their children placed in foster care). As if our country does not already have a serious enough issue with too many children in the foster care system. Finally, “the [Pennsylvania] state legislature even voted in June to reinstate lunch shaming—the practice of denying lunch or providing low-cost meals to students with unpaid lunch bills’ (Singer). That just proves how little Pennsylvania cares for its children, the literal future of this country. But, I hope Illinois is different.
So, why should you consider consider implementing healthy Universal Free School Lunches in the city of Springfield, Illinois?
For many children, school lunch is the only nutrition they receive. Yet just recently, the Trump Administration posed to “...lower nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program...” which only hinders the “...13 million or more children living in food-insecure households” that may only get their school lunch as a meal in any given day (M. Carney). The idea that our children matter so little to this administration that they will take away nutritious meals to save a buck is absolutely beyond my comprehension. It proves where their priorities lie, which is not in humanity, but rather in the economy. I’m glad that you are not like them.
Implementing Universal Free School Lunch in Springfield would not only improve the “health and nutrition” of our children but would also save us from the issues of student lunch debt and humiliating children whose parents cannot afford to pay for their lunches (M. Carney). It probably comes as no surprise that schools segregate the children who have free or reduced lunches from their peers. I myself experienced this segregation. When I was growing up, I received free lunches, and I remember my peers being aware of this because the kids that had free or reduced lunches were forced to stand at the back of the line. I am still unaware as to why my school did this, but sometimes I feel as if they were somehow punishing us for our parent’s poverty. As I got older, we began scanning our fingers to get our lunches, and all the kids who had free lunches did not have to scan their fingers – again reiterating the fact that we were poor. On top of this humiliation, I had to watch my mother struggle to put adequate meals on the table for my sister and me while she oftentimes had to go without. So, the fact that my school was humiliating me for poverty that was beyond my control while I also had to watch my family struggle to make ends meet, showed me how little the adults running the system care about children. These experiences I had as a child are why I am so passionate about providing a system that not only provides adequate and healthy meals for its children but also saves families the burden and embarrassment of applying for free or reduced lunches.
On top of saving families from these burdens, Universal Free School Lunches benefit the schools as well. This may not seem true because the money for these lunches must come from somewhere and people automatically assume it would be coming out of the school districts pocket. According to the article “Universal Free School Meals: Comparing Funding Options to Create Hunger-Free Schools,” there are three different school meal funding options that would provide healthy and free meals for all children (Universal 1). In other words, there are options that provide the funding schools need for this, at no cost to them, with other benefits included. Some of these benefits are reduced or eliminated stigma, elimination of the financial barrier of paying for school meals, reduction in paperwork for school nutrition staff, streamlined meal service operations, elimination of the hassle of dealing with unpaid meal debt, and fewer students turned away due to inability to pay (Universal 1). This funding not only directly helps the kids and their families, but also helps save the schools from the immense burden of the free and reduced lunch system.
The first funding, according to this article, is the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which gives “high-poverty schools... when the identified student percentage is at least 40%...” the funding to feed the students both breakfast and lunch for free (Universal 1). This would help in Springfield because in school district 186 we have 55.4% of our children described as low-income (see the School Report Card from the IBSE at https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/district.aspx?districtid=51084186025&source=studentcharacteristics&source2=lowincome). CEP would also make it easier on the school itself because they would no longer have to worry about lunch debt and free/reduced lunch paperwork. There is no impact on education funds because
“Schools are federally reimbursed based on the Identified Student Percentage (ISP). The ISP is multiplied by 1.6 to determine the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the federal free meal rate. The remainder of meals served will be reimbursed at the federal paid meal rate. A group of schools using CEP receives school meal reimbursements based on the total enrollment and total ISPs of all schools in the group” (Universal 2).
In other words, all of the money used on the meals will be fully reimbursed at no cost to the school. This is a viable option, the only problem being that not every school in Springfield would apply, just the schools where over 40% of the student body is living in poverty.
Here are the percentages of low-income students at the middle schools and high schools in District 186:
19% Iles Elementary (which has a middle school program): 32% Springfield High School 48% Franklin Middle School (541 students) 56% Springfield Southeast High School63% Lanphier High School 61% Grant Middle School 71% Springfield Learning Academy73% Jefferson Middle School 74% Washington Middle School
The second funding, called Provision 2, allows all school districts to be eligible to give their students free breakfast and/or lunch (Universal 1). This is obviously different from CEP because it does not exclude any district. Again, schools would no longer have to worry about the tedious paperwork of free and reduced lunch. This is a good option because there could be a lot of children in districts that CEP excludes that need the free lunches even if majority of their peers do not. There is no impact on education funding because
“In the first/base year, schools count the meals served by fee category (free, reduced-price, or paid) and determine the percentage of meals served in each fee category. All meals are offered at no cost to all students during the first/base year. In years 2-4, schools receive reimbursement based on the percentage of meals served in each fee category during the base year” (Universal 2).
In other words, these schools are reimbursed for the free lunches offered to all students regardless of whether they are free, reduced, or paid. Again, this option is different from CEP because it offers funding to any school district that wants it, rather than solely on the districts that are “-high-poverty" (Universal 2).
The third provision, called Non-Pricing, allows any school district eligibility to offer its students free breakfast and/or lunch (Universal 1). This is different from CEP but the same as Provision 2. Like the other two, schools would no longer have to worry about student lunch debt and free/reduced lunch paperwork. Schools are federally reimbursed for meals “... based on the number of meals served in each of the fee categories (free, reduced-price, and paid). No fees are collected from students” (Universal 2). In other words, the schools will be reimbursed for the meals, regardless of whether the student falls into the category of free, reduced, or paid lunches. The only issue with Non-Pricing is that there is a possibility that it could potentially impact education funding.
Without a doubt, there are provisions that schools can use in order to provide their students with free meals at school, at no cost to the school. On top of this no-cost for the school, it helps erase the burden lunch debt has on schools and eliminates the extra-work of paperwork dietary staff must deal with. Students would no longer have to be humiliated if they received free or reduced lunches, and kids that somehow do not qualify that need to qualify, would no longer have the burden of receiving inadequate meals (cold sandwich and milk) because their parent cannot afford to pay their lunch fines.
This is a policy that I would very much like you to consider because, unlike our federal government, you can choose to care more about the people than ‘the money.’ Students, regardless of their parent’s poverty, should be provided adequate and nutritious meals. Rather than having ridiculous guidelines on free or reduced lunch eligibility, that some students who need it do not receive because guidelines are so strict, we should be providing all students with universal free school lunch. It is obvious that there is immense poverty riddled throughout Springfield, and this is one step we can take to release some burden off of parent’s shoulders.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration of this policy,
Here are some more numbers to think concretely about this issue.
Springfield’s District has 14,063 students, and 55% of those are low income students (from households with income low enough to receive free meals or reduced-price 40¢ meals). The income threshold for free meals is 130% of poverty, and the threshold for 40¢ meals is 185% of poverty. For a single parent with one child in school, the thresholds in 2020 would be $1,828 per month for free lunches and $2,658 per month for reduced price lunches. Assuming those single parents were working full time, for 155 hours per month, their hourly wages would be below $12.05 per hour to get free lunches and below $17.15 per hour to get the reduced priced lunches for their child.
Currently, the Federal government supports school lunches with about $3.42 per child who gets a free lunch, $3.02 for children who get reduced-priced lunches, and $0.33 for students who pay for their own school lunches (the kids making fun of those who got free lunches didn’t really know that the government was paying over 30¢ to keep their lunch costs down, did they?) Assume that the 55% of students in 186 are divided with 91% of those getting free lunches and 9% getting reduced priced lunches, (that estimate is based on the fact that nationally there are 20.2 million free lunches and 1.8 million reduced price lunches and 7.7 million full price lunches, for which the government is subsidizing about 32¢ per meal, served each day in the USA (https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/)
That would mean each day 7,102 students are getting free lunches and 633 are getting reduced-price lunches. Assume 3/4 of the remaining children buy school lunches at full price (and others bring lunches from home instead of buying school lunches), and that means 4,726 buy “full price” lunches at $3.42 per meal and 1,582 bring meals made at home. So, we get this:
children
|
Feds pay
|
Kids pay
|
Actual cost to district for providing meals
|
Net to school per meal
|
School District income each meal
|
|
Free
|
7102
|
$3.42
|
$0.00
|
$3.00
|
$0.42
|
$2,982.84
|
40¢
|
633
|
$3.02
|
$0.40
|
$3.00
|
$0.42
|
$265.86
|
Full Price
|
4726
|
$0.32
|
$2.75
|
$3.00
|
$0.07
|
$330.82
|
From Home
|
1582
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
If we provided free meals to everyone without participating in the CEP:
children
|
Feds pay
|
Kids pay
|
Actual cost to district for providing meals
|
Net to school per meal
|
School District income each meal
|
|
Free
|
7102
|
$3.42
|
$0.00
|
$3.00
|
$0.42
|
$2,982.84
|
40¢
|
633
|
$3.02
|
$0.00
|
$3.00
|
$0.02
|
$12.66
|
Full Price
|
4726
|
$0.32
|
$0.00
|
$3.00
|
-$2.68
|
-$12,665.68
|
From Home
|
1582
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
$0.00
|
So, if there were no other sources of income, and meals cost the District $3.00 per child per meal, the district would be losing $9,670 per day to cover the cost of giving everyone a free lunch (assuming there were still about 1,600 kids who didn’t come to school that day or came and brought their own lunches). With 175 days in a school year (https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/District.aspx?source=environment&source2=numberschooldays&Districtid=51084186025) we multiply $9,670 by 175 to see that offering free lunches to all students will cost about $1,692,000 per year. There would also be cost savings associated with having no personnel collecting money for the free lunches, but on the other hand, the district would probably charge for treats and extra drinks and other things not on the regular lunch menu, so the total cost savings on labor are perhaps in the order of only about 4,000 labor hours per year, which might bring the net cost down to $1,650,000. District 186 has a budget of $130 million, but the state estimates that it needs $190 million to adequately fulfill its mission of educating all the children. A shift of resources from where the district had been earning $626,000 per year on the school lunch system, to one where it was spending $1.65 million would reallocate about 2% of the school district’s resources from its education mission to its health & nutrition mission. If we could increase the school’s overall budget through contributions from city and county governments, or raise taxes slightly, maybe we could raise 3% or 4% of the funding for our school, and then that would cover the free lunches and give us a little left over to help get from our current $130 million toward the desired (needed) $190 million.
Raising the money to cover the free lunches after the federal government stops paying for this would require about $2 million in additional revenue. That would work out to something like $60 per household (that is a very approximate and rough estimate). Each household in Springfield would pay about $5.00 per month in additional taxes to feed the children in Springfield. Landlords would raise rents by an additional $5 per month. I think if you explained the benefits to this, and how it helps us create the sort of society we want, you might get people to look at that extra cost in their taxes and decide it is a worthwhile investment, and you could pass a tax increase to cover this.
Raising the money to cover the free lunches after the federal government stops paying for this would require about $2 million in additional revenue. That would work out to something like $60 per household (that is a very approximate and rough estimate). Each household in Springfield would pay about $5.00 per month in additional taxes to feed the children in Springfield. Landlords would raise rents by an additional $5 per month. I think if you explained the benefits to this, and how it helps us create the sort of society we want, you might get people to look at that extra cost in their taxes and decide it is a worthwhile investment, and you could pass a tax increase to cover this.
Looking at the District 186 website, it seems that in school year 2018-19 the school was participating in CEP, and lunches were free for everyone in District 186.
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)All schools in District #186 are part of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) through the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. CEP will be providing all students a healthy breakfast and lunch each day at no charge to the students for the school year 2018-2019. Although students receive a meal at no cost, they will still be able to purchase extra items (extra milk, juice, water, etc.) at a nominal cost.
References
Chaney, M. (2018, December 14). Making Healthy School Lunches Free for All Should Be a National Priority. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2018/12/14/making-healthy-school-lunches-free-for-all-should-be-a-national-priority/
Universal Free School Meals: Comparing Funding Options to Create Hunger-Free Schools. No Kid Hungry. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/providing-universal-free-school-meals_0.pdf
Singer, S. (2019, July 24). America’s New School Lunch Policy: Punishing Hungry Students for Their Parent’s Poverty. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/24/americas-new-school-lunch-policy-punishing-hungry-students-their-parents-poverty
No comments:
Post a Comment