Free Universal School Lunch

Introduction

As everybody is aware, it is virtually impossible to create a policy that pleases everybody and has no flaws and/or controversies. This is because of an issue known as inevitable error, which is the idea that there will always be errors or problems with a policy that cannot be solved. Clearly these controversies about policies must be taken into serious consideration and weighed heavily, but they do not always need to make it to where policies are not enacted, but hopefully the cons can transform the policies to better suit as many people’s agenda as possible. In the following paper the basic overview of what Free Universal School Lunch will be addressed, along with the pros and the cons of this policy. 

Basic Overview of Free Universal School Lunch

Poverty in the United States is a serious issue that impacts hundreds of thousands of children every single day. These children oftentimes go hungry while at home because their parents cannot afford to feed them adequately, which is why school breakfast and lunches are extremely important for so many of these children to have at their disposal. Free Universal School Lunch allows for all children to have access to free school lunch, and sometimes even breakfast, which eliminates many issues. One key issue this eliminates, on top of ensuring hungry children are fed, is the segregation of poor children from their peers. There is much evidence that children who receive free or reduced lunches at school are separated from their peers in the lunch line, or the other children are able to see their balance and know that they are either getting their lunches free or reduced, which can cause a lot of humiliation amongst poorer children. This humiliation and segregation amongst children can lead to bullying, low self-esteem and shame.

Arguments in favor of Free Universal School Lunch

Through the free and reduced lunch system already in place, families must meet very strict and specific criteria in order to qualify for these lunches. This has recently become a bigger issue because the Trump Administration enacted a policy that would “...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” (Chaney, 2018). In other words, hundreds of thousands of children will have lunch debt and go hungry at school because the requirements to receive SNAP benefits have been made more difficult, which directly correlates to the requirements needed to receive free and reduced lunches. This issue could be solved if every single student received free lunch. It would eliminate the issues of segregating poor children from wealthy children and alleviate the stress of parents that do not qualify for SNAP and free/reduced lunches from scrambling to pay for school lunches they cannot afford. Another pro of Free Universal School Lunch is the fact that there will no longer be free and/or reduced lunch paperwork for people to have to fill out. According to “The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch Meals,” 

“...paper applications can yield errors, and some children who need meals can fall through the cracks due to transient families, language barriers and other communication breakdowns. When access to school meals is no longer linked to the application and income verification process, there is less room for error and all children are eligible to eat” (Levin & Hewins). 

In other words, eliminating paperwork reduces the risk of students not receiving free or reduced lunch as a result of errors beyond their control. The system sometimes fails to see where there is need, which can leave people behind, but with Universal Free School Lunches, this issue is gone. Another argument in favor of universal free lunches brought up by Levin & Hewins is that “Schools no longer have to foot the bill for unpaid meal fees or try to collect them from families. This allows school nutrition staff to focus on preparing and serving healthy meals and eliminates a significant financial burden for school districts and families.” This is such a crucial pro because it not only emphasizes the importance of healthy meals for these children, which many of them do not receive at home, but also shows how this policy would positively impact the school districts by saving them time and resources.

In essence, if persons are very concerned about children with low incomes going hungry, and they worry that children who ought to receive free meals at school are not getting those meals, they may prefer a universal free lunch program, as such a program would eliminate the problem of children being financially unable to purchase meals. Such a program totally removes the error of denying services or food to persons who should be getting those services. Such a policy would provide free lunches to many students who do not require such assistance, but if someone is not very concerned with that type of error, then the universal free lunch system may be a favored policy.

Arguments Against Free Universal School Lunch

As stated previously, with any policy, there will always be inevitable error. Free Universal School Lunch is not an exception to this, so it is important to note the injustices or inefficiencies this policy can produce. One problem presented by McDonald, is the idea that Free Universal School Lunch would make it less likely for children to bring their own lunches from home since the school lunch would be free (2019). This is an issue because school lunches are not known for being healthy, and there is significant evidence to suggest that “children who ate school lunches were more likely to be obese than children who brought a lunch from home—despite entering kindergarten with the same obesity rates” (McDonald, 2019). In other words, promoting Free Universal School Lunch, in a way, is encouraging children to not bring their own lunches to school, which means they will be eating unhealthier school lunches and the obesity rates could increase. Another argument presented by Mull, is that the Universal Free School Lunch system creates more people reliant on the government for assistance (2017). This is an issue because the more people that are living on any type of government assistance are less likely to “bite the hand that feeds them” (Mull, 2017), which then makes bigger government more likely. This then leads to the government being in control of the children’s nutrition, which takes away “parental role in a child’s nutritional development” (Mull, 2019). All in all, this is an argument that is in favor of preserving family values, and the Free Universal School Lunch hinders these values.

There are also issues of fairness to consider. The funds for universal free lunches would come from the Federal Income Tax, or perhaps state taxes on incomes, sales, and property. Everyone would pay. Free lunches would be universal, meaning all children could receive their free lunches. The implications are that wealthy children who had no need of free school lunches would be getting a benefit they didn’t need, while working-class and middle class families would be paying for the wealthy children’s lunches through their taxes. Further, if children do not pay for their lunches, they could potentially adopt an attitude that devalued their meals, and they might be more prone to wasting food. Restaurants near schools, where students might frequently go for lunches or after-school food, would possibly see a decline in their business, and the proprietors of such restaurants would certainly perceive this as unfair competition. Finally, school lunches typically include meat, and the consumption of animal flesh is deeply offensive to some persons, based on their religious or ethical values. Promoting the consumption of animals during school lunches may benefit ranchers and large-scale factory livestock operations, but this is an inefficient use of the planet’s resources, and contributes to global warming, so unless vegetarian or vegan options are available, the continuing emphasis on meat consumption during school lunches raises ethical issues for taxpayers whose convictions are ignored when the government promotes all school children to eat animals without paying for the costs of producing such food.

Conclusion

As noted, when weighing the decision to enact or not enact a policy, it is crucial to consider the pros and the cons of that policy. This is to ensure that all sides of the argument are heard and provides the means of altering the policy if need be to eliminate as many of its errors as possible. Free Universal School Lunch would create an avenue where poor children are provided meals without their parents having to worry about how they will pay for those meals, but also promotes obesity in children and is thought to make people rely more on the government. Altogether, the pros of Free Universal Free Lunches seem to outweigh the cons. 

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/

Levin, M., & Hewins, J. The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch. CFPA. https://cfpa.net/ChildNutrition/benefits_of_universal_free_meals_7_26_16.pdf

McDonald, K. (21 January 2019). It’s Clear the Federal Government Shouldn’t Be Involved in the School Lunch Business. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/its-clear-the-federal-government-shouldn-t-be-involved-in-the-school-lunch-business/

Mull, T. (24 February 2017). Why cutting back “free” school lunches would be a favor to families. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/321021-why-cutting-back-free-school-lunches-would-be-a-favor-to