During the last week of class, we were to read the conclusion of Free for All. In the conclusion, Poppendieck feels that food issues are on the radar more now than they were before. This shows that there is a desperate need to transform food. The food made now is different since programs were first developed, including the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Also, school programs keep getting new rules added to them, but none are eliminated. The price of school food is viewed as a cost to be minimized rather than an investment. With this, we realize that children’s well being has not been the central focus and it should be the primary goal of schools. Poppendieck explores different questions that arise regarding children …show more content…
In reality, most people do not like the idea of paying for lunches that families could afford. Why should meals be covered if families can pay for them? This is something I am conflicted on because I can see both sides of it. In one hand, I agree with them because the school has to make money somehow and if children are eating the lunch, it is the family’s responsibility to pay for it. I mean parents pay for breakfast and dinner, so why does lunch make a difference? In the other hand, school lunches are a part of the school day and help children stay focused, so the school should cover them. This is Poppendieck’s answer to the question because she feels it should be free for all. There is this three-tier system that is the most fundamental problem with the system. Essentially, the three-tier system includes free lunches, reduced price lunches, and full price lunches. This causes a rise in competitive foods because those who can afford it are not buying the lunch the school provides. Then, the people who are on free or reduced price lunches feel isolated and stigmatized. If lunches were free for all, it would eliminate the stigma and all the kids would be getting more …show more content…
In some schools, there is this child-as-customer model in which children are advertised to and it takes advantage of them. Schools are basically ignoring their adult responsibility because they are letting companies such as Pepsi and Fritos advertise to children. Schools can establish better eating habits at a young age and if schools focused on healthier school lunches, children might be more inclined to eat healthy. Poppendieck insists that school cafeterias should not be seen as businesses. School cafeterias are subject to rules and do not have control over certain things. They are treated like a business, but cannot run like one. Once we stop treating school cafeterias like businesses, they can run how they want and serve healthier meals that children will want to
middle of paper ... ... But after seeing the plight of the current free and reduced system, and looking at how much it would cost comparatively to other government ventures, I understood that universal free could definitely be a possibility and a welcomed change to the current system. Overall, this book was a very eye-opening read that I would suggest to everyone, especially those that want to see school lunches evolve into something awesome not only for children but also for agriculture. After reading this book, I am ready to get out there and try to pursue change in the school lunch system so that my children’s generation can go to school knowing that they will be fed right, responsibly, and without fear of being stigmatized.
Though proponents of this method argue that it has lowered meal debt and the amount of families failing to pay, Stacy Koltiska refutes this claim by saying: “[The ones making these policies] are suits at a board meeting… They are not the ones facing a child and looking them in the eye and taking their food away.” While it is irrefutable that debt in schools is a problem that must be tackled, it is not a justifiable excuse to take a child’s midday meal out of his or her hands and throw it into a trash can because his or her parents can not put money into their child’s lunch account. There is no excuse for denying a child a hot meal or making them go hungry during the school day for something that is not their fault. Their dietary and nutritional needs are not a bargaining tool for the school system to use under any
Fast-food franchises are an important part of many high schools income. This money, provided by the students, goes towards extra academics, sports, even art and music programs. When high schools could just as easily serve the same portions of regular school cafeteria food, and make the same amount of revenue by charging the same price.
Schools are spending too much money with this program that could be spent on other benefits for schools. Rather than using the money to get students new technology or property it 's wasted on a lunch program that students do not enjoy nor want to purchase. In the Article, “School Lunch Food is Not Fresh, Students Say” Journalist Audrey Levine interviews high school students about they feel about their school lunches. “It’s way too expensive now, but I’m still buying,” said senior Stephanie Huang. “And I don’t think more people are bringing lunch because
Unhealthy foods are what make the money for schools and that is why they serve them for students. (Schlafy) Schools feel like they need the extra money in the budget, even though it is at the student’s expense. Data shows that nearly 60% of all middle schools in the US serve soda from vending machines. (Schlafy) Soda is very high in sugar and is not at all good for children, but it is still sold in school vending machines. The ways food in schools is now are way too high in fats and sugars. This is not good for the children and very bad in the long run. Elementary schoolchildren have an estimated $15 billion of their own money that they can use to buy whatever they want in schools, and parents have almost another $160 billion to give students for food money. (Schlafy) Big businesses see this as a big source of profit and therefore encourage children to buy their products, and want them to be offered in school because of th4e likelihood of children buying the business’s product. All in all, obesity in the US is greatly influenced by the foods offered in schools
has to spend more money on changing school lunch system from eliminating unnecessary spending portion of system and create farming class. As reported by Cooper, “ The National School Lunch Program needs 8 billion dollars to feed 30 million children a year to serve high quality foods.” However, this price of amount has to be double to serve healthy foods to students because our next generation has to grow up with high quality foods not with low quality foods. Moreover, according to Cooper, the U.S. spends more than 100 million dollars on fast foods portion which the U.S. suppose to spend less amount of money on fast foods to improve the entire food system of the country. If the U.S. government lower the expense of fast food system and raises the amount of money for school lunches, entire schools of the U.S. would get positive results. For example, students could brainstorm very fast as Albert Einstein, and gain more energy to work out on their gym classes. Furthermore, school have to create agriculture class for students to have strong knowledges in foods. Students can literally be ware of what they eat at their lunch times; they will know vegetables grow in the ground and how foods are really fresh. Therefore, schools must provide farming class as in Berkeley; students have rights to know how foods are important to them. As a result, students could get a lot of benefits for changing school
For the majority of high school students having the option to go home for lunch or to go somewhere to eat would be the ultimate dream. High school students do not think about the dangers and worry that open campus lunch would cause for staff and parents. They do not think about the small sum of students who would spend that time doing drugs or making messes at local businesses. There would also be an amount of students who would not return, or they may be late returning to school due to traffic at fast food places. Faculty would also have the fret of an increase of car accidents caused from the limited time students would have to go wherever and get back before their next class. On the other hand, students would learn responsibilities and time management. Parents would be forced to give their children money to eat out. Along with the money on their school lunch accounts, or they would be apart of the free lunch school program. Schools cannot have open campus lunches
Since the beginning of time, schools were always a place we could trust. A place where we could send our kid(s) off to without worry of what they may be learning, doing, or eating, but perhaps we should be. As the craving of fast food is growing, so is the demand for it. Some schools have taken advantage of this and brought fast food into their schools, providing it for lunch. A high school in California serves McDonald’s, Subway, and even Quiznos to their students for lunch (Lehmann). The school claims the kids are more likely to buy school food when they see brand foods (n.p.). Schools get money from the National School Lunch Program for every meal they serve, but that money from the government only covers so much (n.p.). To pay the rest of the lunch staff, facilities costs, and food, schools turn to the money they make by selling lunches and breakfast to their students (n.p.). Another school in California has even tried to mimic Round Table, a brand name pizza in their area, with healthier ingredients, but was only able to sell 250-300; when they sold Round T...
In other words, the food is not delicious and there are not many choices. Also, when children don’t get proper nutrition, they have trouble focusing on school. Most students do not buy lunch because they feel it is unappealing and do not like the food served. Many students go to other kids and ask for food. In addition, many students do not eat breakfast, so they rely on lunch to fuel them for the day.
“More than 76 percent of schools sell soft drinks and sweetened fruit drinks, but fewer than half offered bottles water. Fewer than 15 percent sell low-fat or nonfat yogurt, and fewer than one third order skim milk. Only 25 percent of schools say they've reduced fats and oils in recipes.”(Spake, 2). Choices at lunch range from greasy to unidentifiable. Most students eat school lunches five days a week. So most of the food they eat throughout the week comes from the school cafeteria. Although, the schools do tend to offer healthy choices such as salads, subs, skim milk, and unlimited fruits and vegetables. “Each week Phoenix students are served a variety of fruits and vegetables from guava to grapes and jicima to red peppers. School officials hope that by exposing children to fruits and vegetable they may develop a taste for them and request their parents to buy them.”(Bailey, 1). Real meat is becoming an issue in schools. “According to reports issued by the Physicians Committee for responsible Medicine (PCRM) the USDA dumps hundreds of millions of pounds of surplus beef, chicken, cheese, and pork on the National School lunch Program.”(Lord, 42). Chicken isn't whole white meat; some of it doesn't even taste like meat! Let’s move on to unhealthy foods. There are unlimited amounts of un...
...y school lunches are best because they teach children good food from bad. They could use those skills for future use. By teaching children across the nation at an early age can increase the chances of them carrying no diseases in the near future.
Kalafa, Amy. Lunch Wars: How to Start a School Food Revolution and Win the Battle for Our Children's Health. New York: Jeremy P. Tacher/Penguin, 2011. EBook Reader.
We should not have longer school lunches. Longer school lunches has a great impact on everyone in school, it makes this issue worse. Students need what is best for them, which they already have. Short school lunches helps improve learning skills and lets students comprehend better. Our lunches are good as they are right now. We should not allow students to leave during school lunch.
Students learn and do their best when they are hungry, and uncomfortable! That makes perfect sense right? If you’re like most Americans, this may be one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever heard. I know I have never done anything better hungry. Many students sit through their lunch time at school because they have no food to eat because they don’t have the money to afford it, or they are not able to bring food from home for various reasons. This is why many schools have free and reduced lunch programs. But not everybody can apply for these programs; even middle class families in today’s economy sometimes can’t give their child cash every day. Times are tough, and every family is different. These are good programs, but they are not good enough. One child missing a meal, and going hungry is too many in my book. That’s why I think it should be at least a state law in North Carolina, if not a federal law, that offers free lunch in all public schools for all students, regardless of income. This way it’s simple, cost effective and easy, and nobody will be singled out, or go hungry if they do not bring their lunch from home.
So why are we having our children take classes feeling hunger. Our children cannot learn on an empty stomach therefore free meals should be provided at their school. If schools provide free lunch then children wont be hungry, school employees wont feel like debt collectors, there will be no economical class division based on where they get their lunch from, and lastly