I know this story is a couple of weeks old, but I just caught it.
From the Twitter feed of The Hill:
New Jersey school district proposes banning students with lunch debt from field trips, prom https://t.co/CmT6jQgtZf pic.twitter.com/45JMCjOiM4
— The Hill (@thehill) October 19, 2019
From the embedded story:
The Cherry Hill school district, located just outside Philadelphia, passed the new rule Tuesday night at a school board meeting.
Under the policy, students with a negative balance will be able to get a hot meal, but not a la carte items. The if debt goes over $75, high school students will be prohibited from going to school dances including prom until the debt is fully repaid.
The rule will be enforced at the principals’ discretion, but also allows middle and high school students to be banned from extracurricular activities and going on field trips until the balance is paid off.
In August, the Cherry Hill school district also came under fire when it proposed giving only tuna sandwiches to students who owed more than $10 and refusing to serve kids who had a balance of more than $20.
So students who allow lunch debt to rack up will still be able to eat, they just won’t be able to get goodies or participate in prom and sports.
This doesn’t seem that harsh to me. The internet has a vastly different opinion. This is cruel and the US is evil. Kids shouldn’t be punished for not paying for the lunch they eat.
Except this is a real problem. As reported by CNN:
75% of US school districts report student meal debt.
Though the median amount of unpaid student meal debt for school districts is $2,500, there’s significant variance. School districts reported debt ranging from the single digits to more than $856,000, SNA said.
“Once that debt is considered uncollectible … then the school district is required to pay off the debt, and that would have to come from general funds,” Pratt-Heavner said. This means that schools already strapped for cash have to take out money for educational activities and materials to cover lunch money.
So the kids that don’t pay for lunch end up hurting the educational opportunities of other students by depriving them of academic resources.
Although the average price of a middle school lunch is $2.68, the cost can add up for families, especially those with several children. Kids from low-income families can receive assistance, though not all families apply and some are deemed ineligible.
Students from families whose incomes are at or below 130% of the poverty level qualify for free school meals. Children whose family incomes are between 130% and 185% of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. For the 2018-19 school year, 130% of the poverty level was $32,630 for a family of four, according to SNA.
So there are plenty of resources out there for poor families, it’s often the case that the parents just don’t bother to fill out the paperwork and apply for the free lunch program.
This news was breaking about the same time as the protest (riot) in NYC subways against the NYPD crackdown on fare beaters.
Keep in mind that the NYC MTA faces a $200 Million deficit and that soon it may have to cut services because of that. The 500,000 daily turnstile jumpers are part of this problem. Not to mention the lack of funds is causing current subways to be in a chronic state of disrepair.
But who cares that New Yorkers who pay for their rides are suffering having to ride on broken and filthy subways (most of who are middle and working-class people), it’s “not fair” that poor people have to pay $2.75 to ride and will get arrested if they don’t pay.
“A service [school lunch, public transportation, etc.] exists but it’s inconvenient for me to pay for it so I won’t. My refusal to pay for a service I use causes other people who do pay for it to suffer a reduction in service and quality. My selfishness hurts others. When the system decides that I need to be held accountable for not paying for the services I use, I will protest and riot and attack cops and demand other people with more money than I pay off my debt.”
When you are taught that you shouldn’t have to pay for a school lunch as a kid, and you decide as a young adult that you shouldn’t have pay for your subway ride either, you get it into your head that you shouldn’t have to pay for anything really.
Let other people pay for your healthcare and housing and vital needs.
This is socialism in the small things.
This metastasizes into socialism in the big things.
I have no direct experience with either the Cherry Hill school system (BTW one of the richest areas in New Jersey), or the NYC subway, however in other cities I have lived in, the school lunch programs and mass transit systems are heavily subsidized by tax payers. The Taxpayers who support these services, and then pay the fees charged (that do not cover costs), pay twice for the “privilege” of having their children eat a bland lunch they don’t like or riding on a dirty and worn out transit system. Note, some school districts are trying to prohibit “Brown Bagging it,” because those who are unable to bring a lunch are envious of the more palatable food brought from home.
Since my son entered public school we have been told he cannot buy lunch with cash. We have to use the district payment system. Anytime his balance is below $10 we get an alert. Anytime he accidentally goes negative we get non stop alerts.
Maybe the solution is require cash payments only. Worked when I was in school. No money, no food. Poor children are exempted anyway through the free and reduced lunch program. Stop teaching children that debt is the way to live.