More on school meals
There was some discussion at last night's BOE meeting (during public comment) about school lunches, largely centering on the packaging, but also touching on the quality of the food. I don't know how many other ways there are for me to say this, but I will keep on saying it until every well-meaning person who is serious about improving the school meal programs gets it: whatever it is you are asking for, be it easier-to-handle packaging, additional cutlery, higher quality food, more organics, or more salad bars - whatever - IT WILL COST MORE MONEY!
Our school district is already directing about $1.5 million of general fund money to Student Nutrition Services to cover the shortfall between the revenue the program brings in, and the cost to provide school meals. That is $1.5 million of money which would otherwise be available for classroom needs, like paying for more paraprofessionals. So, for those of you who want to see improvements, are you saying that you believe that the district should direct even more general fund money to SNS to pay for (as an example) plastic knives to accompany the "sporkette"? This would indeed make it easier for students to handle the entrees which require cutting, but would cost in the vicinity of $200,000 extra per year (at current meal participation levels). Please tell me where that $200,000 should come from. I believe that sum is enough to pay for at least three paraprofessionals; shall we ask that there be more staff layoffs so that the students can have more cutlery? Or should $200,000 in cuts to the cost of food be found to cover the cost of the cutlery. Let's see – we could switch back from the fresh fruit currently served (at a cost of about 18 cents apiece) to the cheap, sugar and fat-laden commodity apple turnovers served in the bad old days (a bargain at less than 10 cents apiece). That would save some money – would that be a net improvement, trading fresh fruit for more cutlery?
To repeat – there is NOTHING that SNS can do to improve school meals that won't involve taking money from something else. It is time for everyone who wants to see improvements in the school meal program to take their anger and their rhetoric to the people who CAN do something about it. As Commissioner Wynns so eloquently put it last night, "It is time to make the people who are supposed to be paying for school meals, really pay for them!"
Funding for school meals is covered by the federal Child Nutrition Act, which is up for reauthorization in 2009. The USDA is taking public comment right now and continuing through October 15th. All public comment will become part of the public record and will be provided to Congress to inform their discussions around the reauthorization of the Act.
Congress allocates the money for the school meal programs, and they need to hear two things. First, the school meal funding level for high cost of living areas like San Francisco needs to be increased. At present, the federal government provides $2.49 per free lunch served in all of the 48 contiguous states, but Alaska and Hawaii get more – schools in Hawaii get $2.91, while those in Alaska get a whopping $4.03. This is because of the higher cost of bringing food and supplies into these two remote states, but costs are higher than average here in San Francisco too. As I write this, gasoline prices in 38 states are averaging below $4 per gallon, while California averages $4.24 (only 3 states are higher – Connecticut at $4.25 and yes, Alaska and Hawaii.) The federal government is aware that the cost of living is higher here, and they pay federal employees here a differential to make up for their higher living expenses. If SFUSD received $4.03 per free lunch served, as schools in Alaska do, there would be no SNS deficit, $1.5 million would be returned to the classrooms to provide for students' academic needs, and there would be even better food served in the lunch program too.
The second thing Congress needs to hear is that the income ceiling for eligibility for free meals needs to be raised in high cost of living areas like SF. Presently, a family of 4 with two adults each working 40 hours per week at minimum wage jobs, earn too much to qualify for free meals for their children. The cutoff for eligibility for this family is $38,203, but their 40 hour work weeks at SF's minimum wage of $9.36 an hour earn them $38,937. Impossible to imagine parents raising two kids without assistance on under $39,000 a year in SF, where the rent on even a one bedroom apartment (for 4 people!) would cost about half of their annual income, but the children of this imaginary family would not qualify for subsidized school meals. According to The Insight Center for Community Economic Development, the self sufficiency standard (amount of income necessary to live without government assistance) for this family of four in SF is about $52,500. This is probably why so many students come to school each day ineligible for free lunch, but with no money to pay for their meal. SNS feeds these students anyway, but can collect only about 25 cents of government money for the meal. Raising the limit on how much a family can earn and still qualify for free lunch to a more realistic level here in SF, like $50,000 instead of $38,000, could enable thousands of low income children to qualify, and bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional government funds to help pay for higher quality food.
Over 60 years ago, the federal government recognized its responsibility to ensure that a nutritious hot lunch would be available to every school aged child. It's asking too much to expect schools to fashion tasty and appealing meals out of government surplus commodities. The government must spend enough on school meal programs to provide high quality fresh food, grown and prepared close to home, to allow our children to thrive and achieve.
To let Congress know how you feel about these issues, and why we need both a higher reimbursement rate for free meals and a higher income eligibility ceiling to qualify for free meals, please go to Request for Public Comments for Use in Preparing for 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and WIC
Or send comments directly to CNDProposal@fns.usda.gov
--- Dana Woldow
Our school district is already directing about $1.5 million of general fund money to Student Nutrition Services to cover the shortfall between the revenue the program brings in, and the cost to provide school meals. That is $1.5 million of money which would otherwise be available for classroom needs, like paying for more paraprofessionals. So, for those of you who want to see improvements, are you saying that you believe that the district should direct even more general fund money to SNS to pay for (as an example) plastic knives to accompany the "sporkette"? This would indeed make it easier for students to handle the entrees which require cutting, but would cost in the vicinity of $200,000 extra per year (at current meal participation levels). Please tell me where that $200,000 should come from. I believe that sum is enough to pay for at least three paraprofessionals; shall we ask that there be more staff layoffs so that the students can have more cutlery? Or should $200,000 in cuts to the cost of food be found to cover the cost of the cutlery. Let's see – we could switch back from the fresh fruit currently served (at a cost of about 18 cents apiece) to the cheap, sugar and fat-laden commodity apple turnovers served in the bad old days (a bargain at less than 10 cents apiece). That would save some money – would that be a net improvement, trading fresh fruit for more cutlery?
To repeat – there is NOTHING that SNS can do to improve school meals that won't involve taking money from something else. It is time for everyone who wants to see improvements in the school meal program to take their anger and their rhetoric to the people who CAN do something about it. As Commissioner Wynns so eloquently put it last night, "It is time to make the people who are supposed to be paying for school meals, really pay for them!"
Funding for school meals is covered by the federal Child Nutrition Act, which is up for reauthorization in 2009. The USDA is taking public comment right now and continuing through October 15th. All public comment will become part of the public record and will be provided to Congress to inform their discussions around the reauthorization of the Act.
Congress allocates the money for the school meal programs, and they need to hear two things. First, the school meal funding level for high cost of living areas like San Francisco needs to be increased. At present, the federal government provides $2.49 per free lunch served in all of the 48 contiguous states, but Alaska and Hawaii get more – schools in Hawaii get $2.91, while those in Alaska get a whopping $4.03. This is because of the higher cost of bringing food and supplies into these two remote states, but costs are higher than average here in San Francisco too. As I write this, gasoline prices in 38 states are averaging below $4 per gallon, while California averages $4.24 (only 3 states are higher – Connecticut at $4.25 and yes, Alaska and Hawaii.) The federal government is aware that the cost of living is higher here, and they pay federal employees here a differential to make up for their higher living expenses. If SFUSD received $4.03 per free lunch served, as schools in Alaska do, there would be no SNS deficit, $1.5 million would be returned to the classrooms to provide for students' academic needs, and there would be even better food served in the lunch program too.
The second thing Congress needs to hear is that the income ceiling for eligibility for free meals needs to be raised in high cost of living areas like SF. Presently, a family of 4 with two adults each working 40 hours per week at minimum wage jobs, earn too much to qualify for free meals for their children. The cutoff for eligibility for this family is $38,203, but their 40 hour work weeks at SF's minimum wage of $9.36 an hour earn them $38,937. Impossible to imagine parents raising two kids without assistance on under $39,000 a year in SF, where the rent on even a one bedroom apartment (for 4 people!) would cost about half of their annual income, but the children of this imaginary family would not qualify for subsidized school meals. According to The Insight Center for Community Economic Development, the self sufficiency standard (amount of income necessary to live without government assistance) for this family of four in SF is about $52,500. This is probably why so many students come to school each day ineligible for free lunch, but with no money to pay for their meal. SNS feeds these students anyway, but can collect only about 25 cents of government money for the meal. Raising the limit on how much a family can earn and still qualify for free lunch to a more realistic level here in SF, like $50,000 instead of $38,000, could enable thousands of low income children to qualify, and bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional government funds to help pay for higher quality food.
Over 60 years ago, the federal government recognized its responsibility to ensure that a nutritious hot lunch would be available to every school aged child. It's asking too much to expect schools to fashion tasty and appealing meals out of government surplus commodities. The government must spend enough on school meal programs to provide high quality fresh food, grown and prepared close to home, to allow our children to thrive and achieve.
To let Congress know how you feel about these issues, and why we need both a higher reimbursement rate for free meals and a higher income eligibility ceiling to qualify for free meals, please go to Request for Public Comments for Use in Preparing for 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and WIC
Or send comments directly to CNDProposal@fns.usda.gov
--- Dana Woldow
Labels: Nutrition, SFUSD Politics
5 Comments:
I dont know how people do it. unemployment is up but when I look at all the high paying jobs online (& yes low paying) I just cant help but think many people dont realize the number of employers hiring and the salaries they are offering...not minimum wage either:
http://www.realmatch.com
http://www.simplyhired.com
http://www.monster.com
Does anyone HAVE to be unemployed?? I dont get it
Perhaps if we eliminated costly salad bars from the minority of SFUSD schools that currently have them, the quality of school lunches for ALL SFUSD kids could be improved. Is this being considered?
The salad bars in our schools are funded by a grant from the City which was given for this specific purpose - ie, that money could not be used for anything but salad bars. Offering more fresh produce is the improvement to school lunches most requested by students, parents and staff; the goal to to be able to open a salad bar in every school, so that every student can benefit. Just because the money is not available to open a salad bar in every school all at once does not mean that the entire project should be abandoned, does it? More salad bars will open next school year, and with luck, within a couple more years, we will reach the goal of a salad bar at every school.
You only meet your goal if the foods offered at the salad bars were actually freshed...
OF COURSE BETTER MEALS = MORE MONEY! Duh. Any 10 year old could you tell you that. The solution of the people are charged in working on nutrition is supposed to come up with is: a) how do we find more money, and b) how can we utilize the money we have now?
The salad greens and raw vegetables offered at the salad bars are all fresh, delivered several times a week directly to the schools. The fruit is mostly fresh whole fruit (like apples, oranges, or pears), although occasionally cups of unsweetened applesauce or pineapple chunks packed in pineapple juice (not syrup) are offered.
Beginning next year, the salad bars will also feature additional items on selected days, including whole kernel corn and cooked beans, which will enable vegetarian and vegan students to add protein to their salad (beans and corn, eaten together, provide all of the amino acids necessary to make a complete protein, just like meat.) Condiments such as pickles and salsa will also be offered at the salad bar on days when they complement the hot lunch.
As to your question about "how do we find more money?", I refer you back to the original post. The federal government provides the money to pay for the school meal programs, so it is to the federal government that everyone should take their demands for more money, so that the meal program can offer higher quality food. The original post gives two links that concerned readers can use to send their comments to the USDA, which will in turn provide this public comment to Congress to inform their discussions around the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.
If you are willing to do just one thing to try to get better meals for our student, please, I urge you to speak up and let Congress know that they need to fund this program adequately. Congress only listens to the public on this issue once every 5 years, and that time is right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home