# data[].attributes.body
This is an account of a student's hot lunch being taken away because the owed less than $10 of lunch money. The child's grandma said the district should "change their policy or find a different way other than embarrassing the kids."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Ohio elementary school student had his hot lunch taken away and was given a cheese sandwich instead because he had a $9.75 unpaid balance, the boy's grandmother said.

Jefferson Sharpnack, 9, had a hot lunch that included cheese sticks and sauce at Green Primary School in Uniontown, his grandmother, Diane Bailey, told NBC affiliate WKYC. It was taken away on a day last week that happened to be Jefferson's birthday.

"I can't believe that it's cost effective to throw away food and give them cheese and bread," Bailey said. "When he got off the bus, he said 'worst birthday ever.'"

The boy told WKYC he was "a little hurt" by the incident.

Bailey said she had received a letter from the school saying that Jefferson had an unpaid balance of $9.75, which she said she had arranged to pay with a check. But when her grandson went to school, he was denied the hot lunch because of the balance.

She said the district should "change their policy or find a different way other than embarrassing the kids."

A spokesperson for Green Local Schools told NBC News in a statement Tuesday that in addition to the cheese sandwich, Jefferson received a side dish and a serving of milk to drink.

Julie McMahan, the district's director of community relations, said younger students with unpaid balances were given a cheese sandwich while older students got a cheese quesadilla.

That policy has now been changed.

Jeff Miller, superintendent of Green Local Schools, responded to the incident in a statement on Facebook saying that all students in the district will now "receive the standard lunch for the day at their respective buildings regardless of their account balance."

"We are sensitive to the financial hardship families incur and challenges presented due to the cost of school breakfast and lunches," he said. "Our staff, in coordination with Family Support Specialists, will continue to work with families to ensure they have access to all available resources to assist with purchasing school meals."

The incident is the latest in a string of similar events in school districts responding to students' lunch debts.

The Cherry Hill School District in New Jersey faced pushback last month after an assistant superintendent proposed giving tuna sandwiches to students who owe more than $10 and no food to those with a negative balance higher than $20.

In July, the Wyoming Valley School District in Pennsylvania sent a letter to parents warning that unpaid lunch debts could lead to their children being placed in foster care. The district later apologized after accepting a local CEO's $22,000 donation to clear the debt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9-year-old student's hot lunch is taken away over a $9.75 unpaid balance, grandmother says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Ohio elementary school student had his hot lunch taken away and was given a cheese sandwich instead because he had a $9.75 unpaid balance, the boy's grandmother said. Jefferson Sharpnack, 9, had a hot lunch that included cheese sticks and sauce at Green Primary School in Uniontown, his grandmother, Diane Bailey, told NBC affiliate WKYC.

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the pandemic, students had to meet specific criteria to be eligible for free lunch. Households whose annual income fell within 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold were eligible for free meals, while those that made between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold received discounted ones. Students just above that margin were not considered eligible even if they were still struggling to make ends meet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anti-hunger advocates argue that meals are a basic need schools should provide at no cost during the pandemic. Sonny Perdue says there's no funding for it.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has doubled down on its refusal to let schools serve free meals to all students this fall-despite rising food insecurity and pleas from anti-hunger advocates, school nutrition officials, and lawmakers.

"While we want to provide as much flexibility as local school districts need during this pandemic, the scope of this request is beyond what USDA currently has the authority to implement and would be closer to a universal school meals program which Congress has not authorized or funded," Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue wrote in a letter last Thursday explaining the decision.

The announcement was prompted by a request from Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Representative Robert Scott of Virginia. On August 14, the lawmakers asked the agency to extend crucial regulatory waivers that would allow schools nationwide to serve meals at no cost to all children, regardless of whether they were enrolled students, and regardless of whether they technically qualified for free lunch.

Before the pandemic, students had to meet specific criteria in order to qualify for USDA's free and reduced price lunch program. Households whose annual income fell within 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold were eligible for free meals, while those that made between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold received discounted ones. In areas where at least half of a school's student body qualified for free lunch, officials could offer lunch at no cost to all kids. In all these cases, USDA would reimburse schools for the bulk of the costs of providing free meals.

[Subscribe to our 2x-weekly newsletter and never miss a story.]

Then in March, as the economy contracted and unemployment soared, USDA issued regulatory waivers permitting all schools to serve free breakfast and lunch to all children, including those not of school-age or enrolled in private institutions. School nutrition officials welcomed the move, which allowed many districts to serve as de facto hunger relief organizations within their communities. USDA said that initial waivers were possible thanks to a boost in funding from the Families First coronavirus relief bill, but that it needed another infusion of cash to extend them.

This means that schools will soon have to begin charging for meals again and tracking meal debt among kids who can't pay.

"This is a basic need for all people," says Michelle Hammond, food services director of the Roaring Forks School District in Colorado, which will no longer be able to provide free meals to all kids under the age of 18 in the coming school year. "[Money] should not be a hindrance for our kids."

In his letter defending the choice to not extend waivers, Perdue appeared to suggest that families would be able to continue meeting their nutritional needs elsewhere.

"Americans are a generous people, and there are already opportunities for breakfast, lunch, and snacks, and weekend meals for children in need," he wrote. But many fear that that won't be enough.

"I think that is just atrocious and horrifying," Shelly said in a previous interview about the lack of waivers. "It just blows my mind that we can't take care of our community."

Unless USDA reverses its decision, families will have to wait until next month before Congress even considers legislation to authorize funding for free school meals.

That's because Republican and Democratic lawmakers failed to come to an agreement about future coronavirus relief last week, leaving additional school lunch funding-as well as unemployment benefits, eviction moratoriums, and emergency funding for numerous other programs-in limbo. Then they went on recess.
Correction: A previous version of this story suggested that Sonny Perdue was referring to nonprofit food distribution efforts is his letter noting that "there are already opportunities for...meals for children in need." A USDA representative clarified that Perdue was referring to other federal programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDA doubles down against allowing schools to serve free lunch to all children this fall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-hunger advocates argue that meals are a basic need schools should provide at no cost during the pandemic. Sonny Perdue says there's no funding for it. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has doubled down on its refusal to let schools serve free meals to all students this fall-despite rising food insecurity and pleas from anti-hunger advocates, school nutrition officials, and lawmakers.

# data[].attributes.body
What I am realizing now is schools need more support and funding on a federal level, giving ALL students the opportunities for free meals at ALL times, even after the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
While reading this article I was thinking "If schools can provide free food to all students during the pandemic, at what point are they going to end the program and tell kids no?".
One school stated that by including all students it saves them time from doing the paperwork that distinguishes which children are eligible or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday that it will continue to reimburse schools for free meals to all students regardless of their income level through the 2021-22 school year.

All students have been offered free meals since the pandemic started.

At Desert Sands Unified School District schools, about 70% of its students typically qualify for free meals. Extending the program to all students also eliminates the administrative time and paperwork necessary to distinguish between students who qualify for free meals and those who don't.

"There's that group of families that normally would have to pay, but might have found it hard to come up with those extra funds during these times, so that's huge for those parents not to have to worry about that," said Dan Cappello the Director of Student Nutrition at Desert Sands Unified. "And it's a reduction of paperwork for us, which puts us in position to hand out meals more quickly and efficiently."

Capello said that the district has provided 5.5 million meals through an outdoor drive-up system since the pandemic began in March 2020.

With students in classrooms on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday at Desert Sands schools, the district distributes a week's worth of meals on Wednesdays to reduce the amount of traffic at schools.

"Literally overnight we went from working in air-conditioned cafeterias to serving meals outside and being exposed to the weather and a whole new circumstance," Cappello said. "They've adapted well to it and the volume of meals we're putting out on a daily basis is huge. It's remarkable how fast the staff made the transition. And the community has been heart-warming, the signs and cards and the thanks we get from kids."

Palm Springs Unified and Coachella Valley Unified are Community Eligibility Provision districts, meaning that all student meals are free. But Tuesday's announcement of the extension of waivers by the USDA still has an impact, particularly in their quest to provide local produce.

"The waivers will allow an additional reimbursement for the year, which will help with continuing to purchase fresh locally grown produce," said Stephanie Bruce the Nutrition Services Director at Palm Springs Unified. "This will definitely help as we have seen price increases and supply chain issues that will continue into next year."

She said that since the pandemic began, Palm Springs Unified has served 8,031,866 meals curbside and 1 million pounds of fresh, locally grown produce.

The USDA said this waiver will allow schools and districts flexibility as they figure out the best way to serve their students with an eye toward the fall.

"States and districts wanted waivers extended to plan for safe reopening in the fall; USDA answered the call to help America's schools and childcare institutions serve high quality meals while being responsive to their local needs as children safely return to their regular routines," USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a news release. "This action also increases the reimbursement rate to school meal operators so they can serve healthy foods to our kids. It's a win-win for kids, parents and schools."

It's not known if the USDA will continue along this same path for the 2022-23 school year, but Cappello said a groundswell is building for free meals for all students to be the rule and not a pandemic-forced exception.

"There's a big push to work on universal free meals, you know we pay for books and we pay for all kinds of educational equipment but for some reason meals are not considered the same as other educational expenses so it will be very interesting to see how this goes," he said. "But I'm hopeful at some point that we'll see universal free meals in the United States."
Shad Powers covers education for The Desert Sun. Reach him at shad.powers@desertsun.com. This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: USDA extends free meals for all students through 2021-22 school year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDA extends free meals for all students through 2021-22 school year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday that it will continue to reimburse schools for free meals to all students regardless of their income level through the 2021-22 school year. All students have been offered free meals since the pandemic started. At Desert Sands Unified School District schools, about 70% of its students typically qualify for free meals.

# data[].attributes.body
California recently launched the universal school meal program for 2022-23, providing free meals to all student, regardless of income. Maine is set to adopt the program as well, and I am hoping all other states follow in their lead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free school meals for all here to stay in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California will launch a universal school meals program in the 2022-23 school year, ensuring all students have access to stigma-free food.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly support a policy where all students can receive free meals, both breakfast and lunch when attending schools. I think the lenses that created by opinion on this topic came from being on the reduced lunch plan in middle school and high school, receiving lunches for only 25 cents a day. I know this helped my family out along with many other families. Our district was then funded to have free meals for everyone, which was a blessing to many families and students in the area. My perspective may be limited by not knowing the extent of government funding and budgets but I do know that food is essential and would overall help students not just eat a meal but focus in school and succeed academically as well.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of opinions from someone who does not support the free lunch programs, calling the parents who can not provide adequate lunches "lazy" and "feeding off the government." The author of this article may have had his lenses shaped by growing up in a wealthy or middle class environment, never being in a situation where food at home was scarce. (Just a theory)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House Republicans are being unfairly demonized for considering legislation that would cut back on the number of students receiving free or reduced-price school lunches.

Many conservatives, The Washington Post fiercely proclaims, "hate" the federal program, which enables "a record number of poor kids" to eat breakfast. The Trump administration could "target" the school lunch program and "take aim at immigrant children," the Philadelphia Public School Notebook dramatically declares.

The school lunch debate is a fantastic illustration of the left doing what it does best: promoting a false narrative that paints Republicans as cruel tyrants who delight in depriving the needy of life's basics. It's terrible political imagery for the right, and as is so often the case, the mainstream media is getting away with spinning the facts into a fiction that fits their liberal agenda.

According to the latest School Breakfast Scorecard, an annual report released Tuesday by the Food Research and Action Center, school breakfast participation among low-income kids grew 3.7 percent in the 2015-2016 school year, The Washington Post reports. "More than 12 million low-income kids now eat breakfast at school, up almost 50 percent from 10 years ago."

The number of low-income children relying on the government to feed them hits a record high during the Obama years, and yet somehow Trump is the enemy here? Why isn't the left outraged that there are 50 percent more children whose parents appear unable to provide for them?

I say "appear" unable to provide for them because free and reduced-priced lunches, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is not exactly a proxy for poverty.

"While the percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunch can provide some information about relative poverty, it should not be confused with the actual percentage of students in poverty enrolled in school," NCES reported in 2015. "In 2012, just over half of public school children were eligible for free/reduced price lunches. In contrast, the actual poverty rate of public school students was 22 percent. Despite the correlation between the two measures, it is important to understand that they differ in important ways and that the difference is growing."

Whether the students who are receiving these meals really need them subsidized or not isn't the point for liberals, because their goal is to grow government, and with it, a generation of government-reliant pawns who wouldn't dare bite the hand that literally feeds them.

What's more, for all their professed concern for the welfare of our nation's children, the left seems curiously oblivious to data showing how beneficial family, not government, involvement is to a child's health.

"Studies show that a diminished parental role in a child's nutritional development has real consequences," writes Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. "And that's exactly what happens when government takes on the role of primary food-provider for school-age children."

Gunlock points to a 2010 Ohio State University study suggesting "preschool-aged children are likely to have a lower risk for obesity if they regularly engage in one or more of three specific household routines: eating dinner as a family, getting adequate sleep, and limiting their weekday television viewing time."

Notice "eat every meal at school" and "rely on Michelle Obama Michelle LeVaughn Robinson Obama Erykah Badu apologizes for being 'terrible guest' at Obama's birthday party Boxing judge suspended after racist tweets, controversial scorecard Photos of Obama's 60th birthday party leak out MORE to dictate your nutritional needs" are not listed among the suggestions for reducing obesity.

Feeding a child is the fundamental duty of a parent. If it's true, as Gunlock writes (and evidence supports), that "the federal school lunch program has evolved into a program serving not only poor children, but children whose parents, for whatever reason, have decided not to prepare a home-packed meal for their school-bound child," then the federal government must filter the truly needy from the rest who seem to be simply lazy.

Republicans aren't talking about suddenly pulling the rug out from under millions of impoverished children who have grown to rely on the free lunch program. What needs to happen is a systematic reduction in the size and scope of the federal safety net. Those who don't really need it need to be cut off immediately, and those who do currently need it need to be weaned off.

Enacting free-market solutions would go a long way in stimulating the economy and empowering parents to provide for their families.

The number of low-income kids relying on government schools for food would decrease, and so would everyone else's tax burden. Parents would also be reminded of the pride and joy that comes from providing for one's family, and they need to know that bonding with a child at the grocery store and the dinner table is a thousand times better for his or her development than any government-subsided meal could ever be.
Teresa Mull is a research fellow in education policy at The Heartland Institute. The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why cutting back 'free' school lunches would be a favor to families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House Republicans are being unfairly demonized for considering legislation that would cut back on the number of students receiving free or reduced-price school lunches. Many conservatives, The Washington Post fiercely proclaims, "hate" the federal program, which enables "a record number of poor kids" to eat breakfast.

# data[].attributes.body
The article from thecounter.org stated that during the pandemic it was possible to allow waivers for all children even if they didn't meet the criteria, but lack of funding may mean schools will have to start charging students again.

# data[].attributes.body
Although this study is from 2005 so it may not be completely relevant, it does say that that children from food-insecure and marginally secure households receive a larger proportion of their food and nutrient intakes at school than do children from highly secure households. To me this means that children whose families have less money typically rely on the food they receive at school to feed them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Using 2005 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment survey, this study examines the contribution of school meals to the food and nutrient intake of children in food-secure, marginally secure, and food-insecure households. The study finds that children from food-insecure and marginally secure households receive a larger proportion of their food and nutrient intakes at school than do children from highly secure households. This difference is partially explained by the higher participation rates of the insecure and marginally secure in school meal programs. The average amount of foods and nutrients consumed were similar across food security levels, except that children from marginally secure households consumed fewer calories (and thus nutrients) than both other groups. Breakfast skipping was significantly more common among the food-insecure and marginally secure children. Even at schools with breakfast programs, 20 percent of children from food-insecure and marginally secure households did not eat breakfast, for reasons that will require further study to explore.

This study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under acooperative research contract with USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS)Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Program (FANRP): contract number59-5000-8-0101 (ERS project representative: Katherine Ralston). The viewsexpressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.

Keywords: Children, nutrition, United States, school lunchrooms, cafeterias, food security, nutrition surveys, school meals, National School Lunch Program, National School Breakfast Program, MyPyramid
In this publication...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children's Food Security and Intakes from School Meals: Final Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using 2005 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment survey, this study examines the contribution of school meals to the food and nutrient intake of children in food-secure, marginally secure, and food-insecure households.