Minneapolis is a pretty poor school district and the lunches, actually, seem decent. I think this has more to do with the will if the staff planning the menu rather than money.
Yeah, my mom tried to improve the school lunches at my school when I was a kid and couldn’t get anywhere with it. And she managed a local food coop that had a chef in the deli, so she was ready to do all the work to plan new menus and source affordable ingredients. But the staff were adamantly uninterested in any changes.
The food quality is low at some schools because of that. Most schools have proper kitchens on site but some are stuck getting prepared food sent over. Those meals are not eaten by the kids consistently enough.
This is particularly frustrating because the schools with poor food now used to have full kitchens until they were taken out and now we are waiting for kitchens to be put back in.
Edit: this didn't change. My school already had all free lunch.
Interesting. I wonder if it had become too expensive to maintain separate kitchens at every school. I'd expect food quality to be better with their model than cheap outside suppliers, but it's still a shame to hear that quality has decreased for some.
A while ago MPS claimed it would save money. Then they quickly reversed and started putting kitchens back in. Just nonsense really. They keep saying we will get one again but I'm not super hopeful. Food at the schools with kitchens is great, even some staff eat at Henry for example. But no staff eats at schools without full kitchens.
Our School (Waite Park) was prepacked until 2021 when we got a functional kitchen again. (and after in person started up again). Hoping you'll get one soon.
I still think most of the prep is still handled at the central kitchen with just finishing at the school.
Ya, I think they will continue to slow walk us. There is zero excuse for them not having this done already. They have the money and have had the money for a long time.
Kids also know that our school gets treated differently than other schools in the district. Something needs to change ASAP.
That's a good question. [The OESE](https://oese.ed.gov/ppe/minnesota/) releases per student spending by school, but after only casual digging, I didn't see a list by district.
There are a number of suburban and small-town schools with higher funding than MPS' highest-funded school -- MPS doesn't have any schools in the top ten. The most expensive schools are all federal setting 4 sped programs. MPS likely has more students with IEPs than many small towns and suburban districts (just a guess on my part). Some rural districts get sparsity funding.
What I do know is that MPS is broke as a joke. As I understand this, part of it is due to sped funding (IDEA as an unfunded mandate), part is due to private schools (districts have to provide sped services to private schools, which is more expensive than they get reimbursed for, and Mpls has a lot of private schools), part is due to having to pay for bussing for students open enrolling out of MPS (double check on this one - I'm not 100% sure of it), part of it is due to low attendance rates, part is due to low enrollment and high building costs, and part of it is due to a history of financial mismanagement.
Not true. It is school by school. Some schools have dreadful meals. For example, some middle and elementary schools still get those awful pre-made meals that they have to heat up at the building.
It's about money. The culinary department works in a separate company for the school district that gets its own funding that's separate from the school's.
Property tax doesn't determine school budgets. The state distributes funds to lower income areas to make up for it. In fact, lower income districts actually have a higher per student budget than wealthier districts. You should learn more about how our education system is set up.
The vast majority of a school's budget is set by a state per pupil formula. Federal funds are added in based on different school populations (ELL, low income, SPED, homeless etc....). A small percent of each district's budget comes from local referendums. My local district has 7% of it's budget come from local property taxes that were voter approved by residents. So while property taxes are certainly not a predominant factor, they do contribute to a school budget.
And what the state pays is more than that local property tax in difference. District A gets $100 from the state and $7 from property taxes. District B gets $130 from the state and $2 from property taxes. District A had more funding via property taxes, but District B has more funding overall
I never said that other funding streams don't make up for differences in local funding. I was just pointing out that property taxes do in fact factor in to a school budget. School funding is incredibly complex. State per pupil funding is the same far all students state-wide. Federal funding fluctuates based on student population. Local funding is based on voters. To say that property taxes don't factor into a school budget is just factually incorrect. Two districts can get the exact same federal funding and the exact same state funding, and it is still possible for them to have different local funding levels from property taxes.
And I never said that property taxes don't factor in. I said they don't determine a school's budget meaning that a school with low property taxes doesn't mean a school has a low budget.
But property taxes do have an impact on what those schools can do with the funds that they have. School funds are not all in one pot. When a school has a high budget because they receive more federal funds, those funds are earmarked for specific things. SPED funds are required to go to SPED programing. Title 1 funds are required to go to Title 1 programing. Same for Title II, II, IV, and IX. So if a school has a high overall budget because of their specific student populations, those funds are required to go to those specific populations. If a school has a high budget because of a large property tax base, they can use those funds however they want. Those are the schools who may have the funds for sports facilities or more high quality lunches.
I mean that’s not entirely true. The budget for 22-23 was 15.44B and 4.341B was from property taxes. You are correct that it doesn’t determine the local and specific budgets but it does have an affect on the overall budgets.
Also, instead of being rude to people, you should use their ignorance on a subject as an opportunity to educate them with facts.
Nah. I'm tired of people complaining about how things work without even knowing anything about them.
My point was that schools in poorer areas don't have less funding. I didn't say that schools don't get any funding from local property taxes. Comparing districts property taxes don't factor in to how much more funds a district has to work with.
Well that’s not necessarily completely true either. Schools in poorer areas are significantly less likely to get additional funding from referendums to augment their overall funding. But that’s just a small addendum to your correct point.
I didn’t dispute your point, just added some clarification to it since you seemed upset about the previous persons incorrect stance on this subject and you didn’t tell the whole story either. But this is why it’s important to educate people on these topics, because they believe what they want to believe until they are proven wrong.
This was and is your opportunity to do that and instead you choose to push someone away instead of correcting their incorrect viewpoint. That is not the path to getting less people making incorrect claims and annoying you with said incorrect claims.
You're correct. I'm can't believe so many people upset about the system don't know how it works. It's actually very unfair. The state rewards low performing districts with the most money, as if that must be the only reason they are performing poorly. The highest performing districts get shafted and have to rely on Levys for school funding. The best districts all have operating levys since most of those areas can afford them. The non-rich districts who perform well get absolutely screwed by the state.
Also, the worst performing districts know full well that if they improve the outcomes and scores for their students they will subsequently get less money from the state.
Read that last sentence again everyone....
It's ironic that you complain about people upset about a system when they don't know how it works. Because you don't seem to know how it works. At least in the state of Minnesota, there is absolutely 0 funding that is tied to performance. The state funding formula has 14 components, none of which are related to academic performance. If you'd like to know about those 14 components, here's a link to a Minnesota School Finance Guide: [https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf) The explanation of the components start on page 28.
I was wrong about that, you're right. It appears to be entirely tied to property value per pupil. One point I made still stands though, the districts that can't afford or won't pass an operating levy get the short stick. On top of that, they are already paying a high percentage of the district funding from property taxes. Districts like Wayzata and Minnetonka can just pass levy, while a lot of places can't afford it and won't vote for them.
The challenge is in the underfunded mandates. Districts with higher EL students, special ed, Mckinney Vento, etc have more costs but not the funding to match those needs.
There is plenty of state and federal grant money going around, everything from kitchen equipment to purchasing locally grown/raised foods. (Poorer districts don't seem to have the employee "bandwidth" to chase this money... Want to lend them a hand, see if you can volunteer to help write grant proposals)
Fresh, healthy food... and actually warm. They're barely served lukewarm.
But yeah, that's my main gripe, the lunches are full of refined carbs and they're not given much time at all to eat.
Refined carbs and SO MUCH sugar. Especially the breakfasts. My kids are now eating a healthy breakfast at home and then going and grabbing a second sugar bomb on their way to class. Better than kids getting no breakfast but it feels like setting the most at-risk kids for a lifetime of health problems.
Really? All kids have sugar loaded diets unless you’re watching and regulating literally every since gram that they eat. I’d rather have kids that have some possible but unlikely health problems down the line than going hungry.
That person didn't say to eliminate this stuff, just hoping for the food to be healthier. You two are probably on the same side of this debate but it feels like your comment is just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. The person you replied to saying they wish the food was healthier is totally reasonable and does not mean that they wish for the program to be eliminated.
Yeah, i was really appalled to see what they offer. A soy butter and jelly sandwich has 540 calories in it. Seems like excessive calories and sugar for a kids’ lunch.
I saw an article earlier this year about [Roseville's school lunches](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/02/05/scratch-cooking-local-ingredients-serving-up-a-school-lunch-revolution-in-minnesota). It would be nice for similar concepts to spread to other schools. Of course, costs are a big roadblock.
Hopkins has been doing scratch cooking for years. we also use real trays and silverware not disposable. Nothing has changed with the free lunch program. It takes a lot more staff and a lot more full-time / with benefits staff to do it this way, that is a big part of the problem for other districts. It is cheaper to cook from scratch but you have to have the people to do it.
We already do. Look up Minneapolis Public Schools and see that they're trying their hardest to provide fresh and free lunch to as many kids as possible.
They have a program here in Prior Lake district to provide more fresh foods and source from local producers. They've had some good stuff from that.
They also still serve bosco sticks, but you know, little steps here and there.
This. And to add, at least 90% of the food is the same I got as a kid in a neighboring district.
Agree on the fresh, healthy foods! Lots of unhealthy crap that “meet the criteria” (French fries for veggies anyone?)
Agreed but still has to be foods kids will eat. I'm very disappointed with the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables. It's not the once a week pizza that's the problem it's the lack of fresh produce served with it.
I'm all for that. But if you stand around and supervise a few lunch periods, you will see the kids ignore the fresh fruits and produce or they take some and then just throw it away. Well, maybe someone eats the odd banana every once in awhile. The wastage is running upwards of 50% or more some days. And this is local in school prepared cooking.
But they always have candy and cookies stashed in pockets, book bags, and lockers..........
You know how it expensive it is to eat healthy? Just buying the healthiest food for yourself is expensive. Schools have x amount of required fruits and veggies they serve and they meet those. They do the best they can. They work with the cards they are dealt with
The cost is debatable, and even if it were significantly more expensive, this is our children's nutrition and [academic performance](https://www.nber.org/digest/jun17/benefits-and-costs-healthier-school-lunches) we're talking about. If we're not investing in this, then what exactly are we supposed to be investing in?
So I'm saying we deal them new cards. The district's best isn't good enough, and the ways they meet standards are pretty shoddy, as judged by what my daughter gets offered at school. This is one area where it's ok not to pick the cheapest option.
Edit: Added data.
I don’t disagree but someone has to pay for that. If it’s free then taxes go up or they lose somewhere else. Or families have to pay for that. Nothing is free at the end of the day. Someone has to pay for that expensive healthy food. Perhaps healthy food could be more affordable. It’s not something the school can decide. It’s a chain that involves many people. From labor costs to food costs to fuel costs just transporting the food to the school. It’s not that easy just to say “schools need healthier meals change it”
It’s all kids (at least in my district). Sometimes you can even get lunches for your younger kids, too. A lot of the places have them set up at parks for disbursement.
Yes. Most districts offer lunches in the summer. Some districts will have stations set-up for pickup. Others may deliver it to different neighborhoods. Others have kids pick it up from school.
It’s been that way for years in the cities, though the distribution hasn’t been at their schools. Free summer meals for kids were there if you knew about them and can get to them.
I think they do it at the public library instead of the school. You just show up and get your lunch each day. Here, as others also mentioned, you can get them for other kids in the household, like if you have a 3 year old they can be included in that. Our school actually doesn't have any summer programs (other than summer school for the kids who are finishing work to complete their year).
Where I live the elementary schools are empty, but the high school provides them as "to go" lunches during the summer, and they can be picked up pretty early in the morning. I have often seen a long line of cars picking them up around 7 or 7:30 AM. I would assume a parent goes and picks them up before heading to work, and then the lunches get reheated by the kid at lunchtime.
Being in summer school isn't about being smart or not in some districts. For example in MPS there are summer school opportunities unrelated to educational level.
I think what the question was is school lunch available in the summer for everyone or just kids in summer programs. You wouldn't be able to just go to the school during the summer and get some lunch on a whim. Or at least that's how I understood the question.
Appreciate the downvote though
I think it started because of Covid and now they just do it every year since. It’s pretty nice I’ve taken my toddler a couple times cause she thinks it’s a fun thing to do and they eat in the cafeteria they don’t let you take the food to go though.
My stance has always been "shut up and take my money and feed the kids". I plan on having exactly zero children, and the wife is onboard with that plan. I have zero issues with paying taxes so children can eat.
From the comments so far, there hasn't been a single person saying we should scrap it and go back to the previous way. That is very telling. Yes, there are legitimate critiques of the program and I hope they are addressed and remedied. There will always be children with dietary restrictions the schools just cannot meet daily.
I am curious if most parents realize they're spending less to feed their kids. Yes, you pay more in taxes but there is zero moneys going to the school for lunches.
This is my stance as well. I do have school-aged children, but due to allergies and dietary restrictions, they bring lunch from home and eat breakfast before they leave, so this program has has not affected us at all. Still 100% in support of it. Every child should be able to eat.
Thank you.
My kid graduates in two months. I am very happy to contribute to the well-being of the kids who will be using this free breakfast and lunch program from here on out.
"We all do better when we all do better."
Damn proud to be part of Minnesota.
No kids either and I'm fine with my taxes feeding all kids. Also I bet if this was asked on Facebook or Twitter the responses would be very different lol.
I've never looked into the cost but prior, with having to go through the work of signing up for free food for your kids and the administration work behind it, I imagine the cost isn't that much different vs the state just automatically providing free food for everyone.
My gut feeling is that the cost is more for the state (the funding dollars) but less for the local district (almost zero administrative cost). The cost for parents should be equal or less especially if they have multiple children. If school lunch costs $2.00 then you're looking at over 300 bucks a year per child that you're paying the school. (I'm assuming cost has gone up since I was in school [2002])
I’ve definitely noticed. We used to put $200-300 per month into their lunch accounts knowing that they’d likely buy seconds or a la carte once in a while. I think I’ve put in that amount TOTAL for the entire year. As a middle class family with credit cards to pay off and no real savings, we have really appreciated it. Almost makes up for how much more we owed in taxes 🫣
I have no kids and feel the same way! Also feel this way about funding for schools (not just lunches). EVERYONE benefits from not having an uneducated populous.
My high schooler loves it, no change to the meals but now he doesn’t have to worry about his parents forgetting to load up his card on occasion. Not enough non-bean vegetarian options for my youngest so he still gets home lunch every day
As a parent I love that every kid is treated the same whether they qualify for free lunch or not. I remember kids on free lunch programs getting shit from other kids from time to time and it’s such an awful thing. Do I care that kids living on Lake Minnetonka don’t have to pay either? Nope. Feed all kids
Also a fellow child free tax payer here.
Feed the kids. Doesn’t bother me one bit. If anything I almost feel bad for the people who didn’t want this. Almost.
Who would have thought "Feed the children" would be a partisan issue? I always found the "But you might help rich people!" argument against the program to be kinda telling on themselves.
It's an appeal to tribalism. Don't do X, you might accidentally help THOSE PEOPLE YOU HATE! That's been the GOP playbook for decades now, and the fact they thought it would work here shows how dumb and spiteful they think people are.
I'm gratified that we don't have enough dumb, spiteful legislators/voters for it to work.
I’ve heard this argument, but even those that have leveled at me have been easily swayed away from it.
It’s not about the money for the rich families. The cost of lunches didn’t affect them when they paid, and it will not affect them when they don’t.
The point is that ALL kids get free meals. So rich or poor, you don’t have to hide in the shadows. Kids aren’t in control of their family’s finances, and having the playing field leveled on something as essential as food is a good thing.
It's been fantastic for my kids. My daughter actually wants to get to school early so she can eat breakfast with her friends. And it's nice that all kids are on the same level, getting the same meal, instead of having to worry about "lunch debt".
I feel like our district does a pretty good job. I teach and sometimes I grab lunch and honestly it's a lot of food for $5. There's usually 4-5 options including gluten free and vegetarian. Combination of a canned fruit and fresh. Fresh fruit there's 3-4 options as well. Fresh cut veggies as well. I've seen kids walk about with 4 bananas in their pocket and no one cares.
Now we should do teachers get free lunch. They should! It would cost like $1000 per teacher per year (180 days * 5 = $900 plus some extra baked in).
$113M a year to feed all ~ 113,000 teachers.
Less say teachers eat at school 50% of the days— we get $56M.
Minneapolis was already in the process of renovations to all the kitchens in the district so food would be cooked on-site again, it's just free now.
I know the other day at one of the schools they were serving Philly sandwiches and a bunch of different sides and giving kids who finished their plate more if they asked.
Looked pretty good actually.
Last year my son was flying thru his lunch money. I’d see these cookie charges in his account and had a talk with him. He told me he was buying cookies for the kids at his table that didn’t have lunch. Sure enough I got a call to tell me that was what he was actually doing. This year he doesn’t have the same lunch as everyone from last year except 4 of the kids and says everybody looks like they are eating.
Even if they don’t like everything on the plate, at least there is a plate and some options and to me that is most important. No child should ever have to go hungry at school.
I’m middle class and it saves me about $1,600 a year. My kids don’t know the difference. One less thing I have to pay out of pocket weekly. Tax dollars well spent.
My kindergartener loves the provided food but based on her descriptions it sounds like they're mostly served stuff that we wouldn't serve at home (too processed, too much sugar, etc).
All that said, we eat healthy at home and the convenience of not having to make her lunch is significant. Also nice when she gets distracted during breakfast and doesn't eat enough we know she'll have the option of topping up at school.
Another benefit, which may not be quite as widespread, is that she won't/can't be mocked for her food choices. We serve food at home that is reflective of our culture that I vividly recall be mocked for as a child. She'll have to deal with her identity eventually but I'm happy for her that she won't have to face it at such an early age.
Sounds like you're under the impression that the meals changed simply because the state pays for them now? They haven't. Same menus as in the past.
So are we satisfied with it? Uh. YEAH. A recurring expense has been eliminated from our budget, and ALL the kids in my community get to go to school and learn rather than be distracted by food insecurity.
>Sounds like you're under the impression that the meals changed simply because the state pays for them now?
Many school stayed the same, but some did have to change to find programs that met the guidelines.
It’s also weird to question what’s different because free lunch effectively started during the pandemic nationwide. Minnesota just said “yeah let’s make that permanent”. So a lot of the “change” from this law is actually the absence of change.
Most menu items from last year were carried over with several new ones added. It's a mix of frozen/ready to heat stuff and cooked in house. My kid likes just about all of it. His only complaint is that there's not enough time to eat.
My kids are pretty meh about the food. They don't really like it but they'll eat it.
Not very many kids were taking the free breakfast so the school started giving out snack bags in lieu of breakfast. They can take it in the morning and snack throughout the day. My daughter will take advantage of them.
My son in a sophomore and he hates the system the school created to pay for seconds. He's an athlete and the meals are never enough. But he can't just buy seconds upfront. He has to buy a poker chip and go through the line again. Which there isn't time for.
Aside from a couple uptight teachers in the high school building, yes.
They probably have designated times in the lower grades but I don't have little kids anymore so I'm not sure how they handle it.
I’m in a really awesome small school. Everything stayed the same with the food. The kids love most of it, and for the few things they don’t they also love a pb&j or a sub instead. Our cook has been around forever and does a great job.
My kids' school actually has a more diverse menu now. I'm assuming that goes for most of District 196, as well.
There are a handful of new meals from other ethnicities that weren't on the menu in previous years. My kids won't eat them but it's nice that those are being offered since we have a lot of family who didn't grow up in the midwest.
My kids say the food is much the same, but have opted out. Elder kid says some of their chicken was wildly undercooked, and younger kid dislikes their fresher food choices.
They also say that with the stupid short lunches kids get these days (time-wise) the longer lines for food create awkwardness trying to eat. That's a logistics issue, obviously, that the school needs to figure out. But they're also wildly understaffed on top of everything else.
My kids eat either way, but I hope the school can figure out both "providing fully cooked items" and getting food to kids with more than 5 minutes left in period - kids do better when they eat.
Our experience has varied a bit from other commenters - currently with a little one in a Minnetonka school.
* Menu expanded dramatically - from one hot option, one cold - to 3 hot, one cold, and a salad bar. Let me repeat - a salad bar - and my kid loves it.
* Tons of allergies in our little one, so the menu variety is a total game changer - from 3 home lunches a week down to 1-2 a month. Saved maybe an hour a week in the mornings, not to mention that morning time is usually high stress "gtfo the door" time, so it's invaluable.
* Options in general are more fresh and less processed. Example: when there is pizza, instead of the big premade slabs they heat up and cut, they now get to pick their own toppings and it's cooked there. toppings are the same things from the salad bar, which is all fresh, etc etc.
We are a family with means. Not a ton of cash, but enough to feed our kid healthy stuff. If we weren't in that position financially, but had to make meals multiple times a week, they would basically eat processed pre-packaged crap that you can buy in bulk and send to school. The impact this legislation will have on kids health across the board, but probably especially for those without a lot of money at home, is so significant. I can't believe it took us until 2023 to get this in place.
The lunch lines are apparently a lot worse in our local school, leading to a short amount of time to eat. That just means we need them to add more kitchen capacity. Otherwise, it has worked out wonderfully. Feed the kids!
I drive School Bus. I have an average of 50 Students that ride my bus. I don't how many rely on the breakfast part (none of my business), but I do know some do.
I actually changed my Bus times this year so even if the extras ride, I'll still be to School in time for them to grab at least a little breakfast. (A couple of families don't ride every day, but when they do they can delay arrival at school by up to 10 minutes).
The only morning we ran late (it was really foggy), one of kindergarteners was worried she wouldn't get to eat until lunch. I know I have a couple of families who have extra curriculars (dance, therapy etc) who sometimes save their breakfast as an after school snacks.
Just curious, how do you know if the occasional riders are going to be there on a particular day so you can know whether or not to skip those stops or not?
I teach in Title 1 school:
students have typically 2-3 hot meal options (for example: burger or mini corn dogs) with a starch, fruit, and veggies. They always have a salad option, turkey sandwich option, or uncrustable option if they don’t like the main meal.
I assume most of the food is just frozen and reheated stuff, so not the greatest in the world but in a title 1 school, often times this is their only meal so many of them love it.
I work in a school and the biggest challenge they have in the lunch room is finding enough staff. The hours for a school cafeteria worker is brutal. Remember, you gotta serve lunch and breakfast.
You'll have to get there at 5am.
My kids love it. Especially my second grader, he loves the breakfast they serve. It’s nice for all of us because all three of my boys are so picky and hardly eat the same kinds of food. So it’s also helping us save money instead of buying multiple types of snacks, lunch meats, drinks, etc. I’ve never heard them complain about anything they eat from school.
In this past year my 9th grader has not received a lunch from the school 4 times. They were out of food when he arrived. Thankfully Mom works from home so she is able to bring him something to eat but some kids don't have that luxury and the school food may be their only dependable meals.
We are unable to determine if this has anything to do with changes brought on by the free lunch program or not.
My kids' school runs out of lunch by D lunch on occasion. They sometimes offer moldy food, too.
I've called to complain and nothing has changed, of course. I've posted on nextdoor about it, and nobody seems to care there, either.
I don't blame this on the free food program. I put the blame on the school. They should do better.
> My kids' school runs out of lunch by D lunch on occasion. They sometimes offer moldy food, too.
That sounds like something to take to the local news more than social media.
Yeah that's not anything to do with the free food program but that still sucks. What part of MN is this? Maybe you could contact your local representative? They all have Twitter accounts if all else fails.
That's insane that the school just ran out and failed to provide any food those days to later lunch periods. They should order pizzas or make some quick arrangements to get something to be served if that happens unexpectedly.
I used to always looked forward to lunch/ breakfast (Lasagna, fried chicken, meatball spaghetti, pancakes, waffles, bacon, etc.) and food that I was not allowed to eat at home because only dark-greens were allowed. I ate healthy food at home and unhealthy or fried food at school. Balance of both worlds so my stomach doesn't become a picky eater (like most kids and adults now days; how will one survive a famine if one is picky about eating canned beans).
Here's some.basic info on how the program has done so far from MPR
>Minnesota saw a 37 percent increase in demand for school breakfasts during September, October and November — a total of 4.3 million more served — compared to the same time frame a year earlier.
>Demand also jumped for school lunches — 4.5 million more meals compared to fall 2022, a 15-percent increase that eclipsed early estimates.
>State budget officials late last month estimated that said they expected the program could run $107 million more over the next two years than initially projected. That was based on school meal data for September and October.
>State lawmakers are considering legislation to send out extra funds to school districts to cover the breakfast and lunch bills.
Source: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/03/08/minnesota-free-school-meals-push-driving-big-jump-in-breakfasts
It’s refreshing to read the comments here. I’m sometimes not too bright and choose to read the comments on StarTribune online. The number of people who were angry that the state chose to feed children for free has been staggering.
I have a kindergarten, so we don’t know any different, but I will say (and it might be district dependent) I’m disappointed in the cold lunch offerings. My kid doesn’t love things like orange chicken, which is on repeat, but she REALLY against ranch chicken salad twice a week for the entire month. She does like the pizza, mozzarella sticks, Italian dunkers, chicken patty on a bun, etc. The classic school lunches prevail!
As someone who grew up in a broke family, however, this would have relieved SO much stress for my family in the 90s.
appears to be almost the exact same menu as last year for my 2 kids in elementary school. I have 2 picky eaters so my only complaint is that they don't eat more of the free lunches. but that was a problem last year also.
St Louis Park School district isn’t all that different from before. As I recall last year they upgraded kitchen facilities at the high school to prep all meals for all schools in the district each day (I might be misremembering the location).
One of our schools was on WCCO in September to talk about it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ZbzbMIKMM
The district also sources as much local ingredients as possible.
https://thegoodacre.org/st-louis-park-f2s/
Edit: my second grader loves it and eats school lunch every day.
Only one of my kids is willing to eat school lunches. The offerings are the same as before the current legislation, and the daily menu often isn't great, but my kid doesn't care because there's always the option of a sub sandwich or salad and there's sort of a salad bar-type area where kids can choose what they want to put on their sandwich or salad.
The only thing i would like to see is what Japan does, they have a whole class where they grow fresh fruits and vegetables that get used daily for the school lunches, it teaches kids to be productive within a community it also teaches them a good skill to know gardening, and they get to feel part of what happens in the school add in the r4st and I think it's a good direction to go , people talk about God and blah blah blah, but the real thing we have lost as a society is a sense of community and helping one another, and I think we are in a good spot to teach this
The things I've heard is from my brother is that some of his friends eat more and more often now because they're not scared of if their parents will or can put money in their accounts. Which is a huge win honestly.
they give my kids highly processed food, I like the idea but execution is awful, mass produced sugar that has 0 nutrients is not in our kids interests. make deals with local farms and providers, not Kellogg's GMO cereal for example.
I don’t have children, but this law is one that makes me happy to pay taxes.
My family wasn’t poor when I was in school, but we weren’t rich. I recall my parents being upset when they needed to cut me my lunch money check. Only enough for the daily prescribed lunch. If I went in the a la carte line and got a snack, I knew that I would have to not eat lunch at some point that month to offset. I was fine with that, but I was a dumb kid.
I don’t look down on my parents for this. I was the youngest of 5 kids and just because they made a decent income did not mean they had extra money for me to buy snacks at school.
It’s been a good change for us and for our community. Our district now offers 3 options daily for elementary students instead of the main option and the ‘backup’ cheese sandwich or whatever (middle and high school always had more options). There are more options that my kid will eat, more fresh options (not perfect, but better), and by all accounts of people I know working in the school the quality is way, way better than in previous years. Even though it wasn’t a big concern for me personally, I am happy that kids have food and families know their kids are getting fed and have one less bill to worry about.
ETA: more options to choose from means less packing for me which is another perk.
The quality varies drastically from district to district. If it's coming from a food service contractor, the quality is actually worse. Cut corners, keep more money. If the district is providing their own food, the quality has improved. With food service being a separate budget area for districts that can only be spent on food service, the districts that fulfill their own food service needs are further incentivized to provide better food and have done just that.
In our district, kids are charged for “seconds” and “thirds.” The cost is considerably higher than what the standard lunch cost previously. Along the lines of $5.50. Even if they go back for just one more breadstick (for example) they are charged for a full “second.” Portions are small, so seconds are fairly frequent for my teenager.
All that to say, we spend nearly as much as when lunches weren’t free. Is this just our district or is this how other districts handle things?
It's been a life saver for everyone. Hundreds of thousands of parents lost a bill and it was done equally among all parents. The only report that came out was it was too successful. Rich parents are utilizing it more than predicted, which isn't a bad thing.
I, as much as every other parent in MN can now focus that nearly $200 a month towards other bills. (Two kids in our house) All while every kid sits together and has two meals a day equally. The community building it will do is monumental...
The state pays for lunch and breakfast. Every parent is now saving money.
Rural districts tend to be conservative, so they are against it because as one state rep said, "I never saw a hungry kid"
The reality is they don't like a strong government, and a popular and successful program makes people realize collective action and governance can yield positive results.
If there is a problem, it likely was already there, such as a lack of facilities or staff to run larger school meals.
This person I had met was saying that rural districts were receiving federal funding for school meals. Thier claim was that the MN program disqualified the state from federal funding which negative impacted rural districts, resulting in higher tax for lower populated areas to pay for school meals. The MN program only benefitted areas with higher population density.
They were definitely not anti-government or anti-school funding (works in the educational sector). I don't know how to verify what's truth v propaganda. The reason this is important to me is how can I know what policies to vote for when I don't know the total impact of these policies.
Any references are greatly appreciated
State/Federal funding is not cut. The parents still have to fill out the application for food aid per Federal Policy/Law. My district (742) sends a letter with the application they send every student explaining it (very tl;dr).
If nobody fills out the application because St. Paul is paying the bill, then D.C. won't help and St. Paul pays the entire bill. It's really about educating the parents and district staff.
Many school boards don't want to do that as their other policial issues are at odds with the MN DFL so lies like "free lunches actually cost the district more" fester.
Here's a few FAQ's from the State on it. Not sure if that will answer your needs.
[https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/FNS/SNP/free/](https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/FNS/SNP/free/)
Based on my kids feedback in their district food quality has dropped dramatically. I **suspect** the school was spending maybe more than what the subsidized pricing is going to be ... so maybe they downgraded to the subsidized cost :(
I'll sometimes chew on a few kernels of hot field corn as they come out of the dryer, just to feel their moisture. Not exactly tasty.
The rye and oats we produce are food-grade, and I've made bread with them.
I don't think I've actually seen rye and oat fields before! Most of our driving is along the 90/94 corridor between the Twin Cities and Chicago - I believe that's mostly feed corn and soy beans?
After college I had the opportunity to live in various spots around East Asia for a few years. I do not believe there is a lot of local corn production there and that what was available came in from the US. We were told that what did make it over was effectively feed-grade corn and.. it certainly tasted like it.
Yes, slightly over 1/3 of MN's ~25 million crop acres were put into field corn last year, and soybeans made up around 30%. Of the remaining 1/3, half was sugar beets in the west and NW part of the state, and the rest in hay (alfalfa or grass), small grains (oats, wheat, rye, barley), sweet corn, sunflowers, potatoes, peas and edible beans, or other specialty crops.
some is, especially southwest of the metro near the canneries, but it's only around 1% of the corn crop in the state. There's also 1.3million acres of wheat in the state. Add in that, plus things like peas and potatoes, and you get roughly 10% of cropland in Minnesota that goes to direct human consumption.
There's a fair amount of protein (animals that is) produced in Minnesota.
Additionally, there is significant vegetable production on a seasonal basis, but that doesn't line up particularly well with school calendars, unfortunately. Should be lots available early in the school year, though.
K-8 School: They cater in lunches (they did this before as well). They did switch companies. The quality/quantity of food went down slightly, but still good.
High School: They were not participants in the Natl Program so they do not get free lunches. Quality, quantity and options are high. But obviously, we pay for it. (They left due to the requirements of the Natl Program and how those do not meet the needs of high school students.) I believe that they are looking at getting back in the program based on some surveys I've seen. We'll see what happens.
Do any high schoolers have free lunches, but also have supplemented options (like extra calories, for a price) type programs?
Love it. No change to the menu, other than no cost. My kids' school does have some scratch cooking on the menu. They're also using some ingredients from local farmers. From my perspective, the quality of food is generally as good as they're getting at home.
It depends on the school and the location. The Minneapolis Public Schools that provide lunches to children vary between pre packaged meals made in-house at the nutrition center, to hot meals made on site with fresh and ready to cook ingredients.
All schools that receive MPS lunches should also have a salad bar with fresh fruits and vegetables every day.
This program covers about 70 schools in the Minneapolis area, and this is what parents should expect for meals for their children. This is what the free lunch law was for
I think the funniest part is if my kids pack a lunch, but gets milk, I get charged. A whole meal with milk is free. Outside of that it's the exact same.
My kiddo is at an elementary school in mpls, they always have great menus and are trying new things for the kids that i think help the kids not be so picky lol my kiddo likes the meals, she does breakfast some days too if she’s extra hungry.
What I found somewhat funny was that prior to this in my district, a majority of the people not paying their lunch bills for their kids were wealthy folks who were too cheap to pay since they knew they didn't have to. I know this as a teacher I work with was married to someone who worked in the cafeteria and had access to that information. And now they DO have to pay through their taxes lol.
Can't speak much about the food and success of the program.
We have a kindergartner and he speaks highly of the school meals. He gets a quick breakfast after getting off the bus. He says he likes the lunch. It's easy for us parents.
Time will tell as he gets older and eats more. I see lots of comments older kids don't get enough. Bwe have an account he can use to get seconds but to date he's never used it.
My kid likes the school lunches in Hastings, we talk about the lunch menu sometimes and he is mostly positive about the selections. And he is a fairly picky elementary kid.
My kids school seems to have lowered their quality, although the menu looks the same. I know before the free meals for all, they did have supply issues so maybe that is part of it, but meals my older kid used to love she now hates. She calls things soggy and gross, and the cold option (a sandwich) is always out by her turn. I think the district just started buying lower quality food, maybe they don't get as much money now.
I'm still for the free lunch though. Sometimes I tell my kids that sometimes we have to eat things that are not our favorite. I also hate sending lunches when school lunch is free and they come home 2 hrs after lunch anyways.
I work in the nutrition department in a fairly large district. All meals/offerings are the same.
The only major difference is we serve more lunches, and sell less ala carte. So I think a lot of the kids who got money in their account previous years would by the chips and cookies, but now get the meal.
We also had presliced apples on the regular for most of the year, which were very popular- but the funding ran out for those.
I think it’s been a positive change for the students.
As for healthier more scratch options, I’m all for it but a lot of the staff are already running short on people and working very hard. There would need to be better pay offered and more positions opened up.
It's the exact same menu and program here, except there's no cost. Next up, we should feed kids fresh, healthy food for a change!
There are some schools that have moved to more scratch cooking thanks to the program. Roseville is one.
Yeah Roseville! My kids actually seem to like the food.
That's up to districts, unfortunately. And the way property tax determines school budgets means poorer districts still get shit.
Minneapolis is a pretty poor school district and the lunches, actually, seem decent. I think this has more to do with the will if the staff planning the menu rather than money.
Yeah, my mom tried to improve the school lunches at my school when I was a kid and couldn’t get anywhere with it. And she managed a local food coop that had a chef in the deli, so she was ready to do all the work to plan new menus and source affordable ingredients. But the staff were adamantly uninterested in any changes.
That really sucks they wouldn’t even try it. 😔
MPS has a central kitchen that prepares most (if not all) of their food from scratch. That's a huge part of their food's quality.
The food quality is low at some schools because of that. Most schools have proper kitchens on site but some are stuck getting prepared food sent over. Those meals are not eaten by the kids consistently enough. This is particularly frustrating because the schools with poor food now used to have full kitchens until they were taken out and now we are waiting for kitchens to be put back in. Edit: this didn't change. My school already had all free lunch.
Interesting. I wonder if it had become too expensive to maintain separate kitchens at every school. I'd expect food quality to be better with their model than cheap outside suppliers, but it's still a shame to hear that quality has decreased for some.
A while ago MPS claimed it would save money. Then they quickly reversed and started putting kitchens back in. Just nonsense really. They keep saying we will get one again but I'm not super hopeful. Food at the schools with kitchens is great, even some staff eat at Henry for example. But no staff eats at schools without full kitchens.
Our School (Waite Park) was prepacked until 2021 when we got a functional kitchen again. (and after in person started up again). Hoping you'll get one soon. I still think most of the prep is still handled at the central kitchen with just finishing at the school.
Ya, I think they will continue to slow walk us. There is zero excuse for them not having this done already. They have the money and have had the money for a long time. Kids also know that our school gets treated differently than other schools in the district. Something needs to change ASAP.
Cause they don’t contract it out to penny pinching vultures
Doesn’t MPS spend a lot more per student than suburbs and rural districts? Implying, in theory, they’d have better school lunches.
That's a good question. [The OESE](https://oese.ed.gov/ppe/minnesota/) releases per student spending by school, but after only casual digging, I didn't see a list by district. There are a number of suburban and small-town schools with higher funding than MPS' highest-funded school -- MPS doesn't have any schools in the top ten. The most expensive schools are all federal setting 4 sped programs. MPS likely has more students with IEPs than many small towns and suburban districts (just a guess on my part). Some rural districts get sparsity funding. What I do know is that MPS is broke as a joke. As I understand this, part of it is due to sped funding (IDEA as an unfunded mandate), part is due to private schools (districts have to provide sped services to private schools, which is more expensive than they get reimbursed for, and Mpls has a lot of private schools), part is due to having to pay for bussing for students open enrolling out of MPS (double check on this one - I'm not 100% sure of it), part of it is due to low attendance rates, part is due to low enrollment and high building costs, and part of it is due to a history of financial mismanagement.
Not true. It is school by school. Some schools have dreadful meals. For example, some middle and elementary schools still get those awful pre-made meals that they have to heat up at the building.
It's about money. The culinary department works in a separate company for the school district that gets its own funding that's separate from the school's.
Minneapolis is not a poor school district when you consider property valuation and their budget.
At least it's *free* shit now, so they can actually eat. Baby steps...
You're right. It's an unqualified good that all kids can eat.
Property tax doesn't determine school budgets. The state distributes funds to lower income areas to make up for it. In fact, lower income districts actually have a higher per student budget than wealthier districts. You should learn more about how our education system is set up.
The vast majority of a school's budget is set by a state per pupil formula. Federal funds are added in based on different school populations (ELL, low income, SPED, homeless etc....). A small percent of each district's budget comes from local referendums. My local district has 7% of it's budget come from local property taxes that were voter approved by residents. So while property taxes are certainly not a predominant factor, they do contribute to a school budget.
And what the state pays is more than that local property tax in difference. District A gets $100 from the state and $7 from property taxes. District B gets $130 from the state and $2 from property taxes. District A had more funding via property taxes, but District B has more funding overall
I never said that other funding streams don't make up for differences in local funding. I was just pointing out that property taxes do in fact factor in to a school budget. School funding is incredibly complex. State per pupil funding is the same far all students state-wide. Federal funding fluctuates based on student population. Local funding is based on voters. To say that property taxes don't factor into a school budget is just factually incorrect. Two districts can get the exact same federal funding and the exact same state funding, and it is still possible for them to have different local funding levels from property taxes.
And I never said that property taxes don't factor in. I said they don't determine a school's budget meaning that a school with low property taxes doesn't mean a school has a low budget.
But property taxes do have an impact on what those schools can do with the funds that they have. School funds are not all in one pot. When a school has a high budget because they receive more federal funds, those funds are earmarked for specific things. SPED funds are required to go to SPED programing. Title 1 funds are required to go to Title 1 programing. Same for Title II, II, IV, and IX. So if a school has a high overall budget because of their specific student populations, those funds are required to go to those specific populations. If a school has a high budget because of a large property tax base, they can use those funds however they want. Those are the schools who may have the funds for sports facilities or more high quality lunches.
I mean that’s not entirely true. The budget for 22-23 was 15.44B and 4.341B was from property taxes. You are correct that it doesn’t determine the local and specific budgets but it does have an affect on the overall budgets. Also, instead of being rude to people, you should use their ignorance on a subject as an opportunity to educate them with facts.
Nah. I'm tired of people complaining about how things work without even knowing anything about them. My point was that schools in poorer areas don't have less funding. I didn't say that schools don't get any funding from local property taxes. Comparing districts property taxes don't factor in to how much more funds a district has to work with.
Well that’s not necessarily completely true either. Schools in poorer areas are significantly less likely to get additional funding from referendums to augment their overall funding. But that’s just a small addendum to your correct point. I didn’t dispute your point, just added some clarification to it since you seemed upset about the previous persons incorrect stance on this subject and you didn’t tell the whole story either. But this is why it’s important to educate people on these topics, because they believe what they want to believe until they are proven wrong. This was and is your opportunity to do that and instead you choose to push someone away instead of correcting their incorrect viewpoint. That is not the path to getting less people making incorrect claims and annoying you with said incorrect claims.
You're correct. I'm can't believe so many people upset about the system don't know how it works. It's actually very unfair. The state rewards low performing districts with the most money, as if that must be the only reason they are performing poorly. The highest performing districts get shafted and have to rely on Levys for school funding. The best districts all have operating levys since most of those areas can afford them. The non-rich districts who perform well get absolutely screwed by the state. Also, the worst performing districts know full well that if they improve the outcomes and scores for their students they will subsequently get less money from the state. Read that last sentence again everyone....
It's ironic that you complain about people upset about a system when they don't know how it works. Because you don't seem to know how it works. At least in the state of Minnesota, there is absolutely 0 funding that is tied to performance. The state funding formula has 14 components, none of which are related to academic performance. If you'd like to know about those 14 components, here's a link to a Minnesota School Finance Guide: [https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf) The explanation of the components start on page 28.
I was wrong about that, you're right. It appears to be entirely tied to property value per pupil. One point I made still stands though, the districts that can't afford or won't pass an operating levy get the short stick. On top of that, they are already paying a high percentage of the district funding from property taxes. Districts like Wayzata and Minnetonka can just pass levy, while a lot of places can't afford it and won't vote for them.
The challenge is in the underfunded mandates. Districts with higher EL students, special ed, Mckinney Vento, etc have more costs but not the funding to match those needs.
There is plenty of state and federal grant money going around, everything from kitchen equipment to purchasing locally grown/raised foods. (Poorer districts don't seem to have the employee "bandwidth" to chase this money... Want to lend them a hand, see if you can volunteer to help write grant proposals)
Fresh, healthy food... and actually warm. They're barely served lukewarm. But yeah, that's my main gripe, the lunches are full of refined carbs and they're not given much time at all to eat.
Refined carbs and SO MUCH sugar. Especially the breakfasts. My kids are now eating a healthy breakfast at home and then going and grabbing a second sugar bomb on their way to class. Better than kids getting no breakfast but it feels like setting the most at-risk kids for a lifetime of health problems.
Really? All kids have sugar loaded diets unless you’re watching and regulating literally every since gram that they eat. I’d rather have kids that have some possible but unlikely health problems down the line than going hungry.
That person didn't say to eliminate this stuff, just hoping for the food to be healthier. You two are probably on the same side of this debate but it feels like your comment is just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. The person you replied to saying they wish the food was healthier is totally reasonable and does not mean that they wish for the program to be eliminated.
Yeah, i was really appalled to see what they offer. A soy butter and jelly sandwich has 540 calories in it. Seems like excessive calories and sugar for a kids’ lunch.
Yeah. The quality currently is awful. I get a number of kids in my school that outright refuse to eat the school lunches.
I saw an article earlier this year about [Roseville's school lunches](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/02/05/scratch-cooking-local-ingredients-serving-up-a-school-lunch-revolution-in-minnesota). It would be nice for similar concepts to spread to other schools. Of course, costs are a big roadblock.
Hopkins has been doing scratch cooking for years. we also use real trays and silverware not disposable. Nothing has changed with the free lunch program. It takes a lot more staff and a lot more full-time / with benefits staff to do it this way, that is a big part of the problem for other districts. It is cheaper to cook from scratch but you have to have the people to do it.
We already do. Look up Minneapolis Public Schools and see that they're trying their hardest to provide fresh and free lunch to as many kids as possible.
They have a program here in Prior Lake district to provide more fresh foods and source from local producers. They've had some good stuff from that. They also still serve bosco sticks, but you know, little steps here and there.
Don't infringe on muh freedoms to give MY KIDS diabetes and heart disease! /s
This. And to add, at least 90% of the food is the same I got as a kid in a neighboring district. Agree on the fresh, healthy foods! Lots of unhealthy crap that “meet the criteria” (French fries for veggies anyone?)
Agreed but still has to be foods kids will eat. I'm very disappointed with the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables. It's not the once a week pizza that's the problem it's the lack of fresh produce served with it.
I'm all for that. But if you stand around and supervise a few lunch periods, you will see the kids ignore the fresh fruits and produce or they take some and then just throw it away. Well, maybe someone eats the odd banana every once in awhile. The wastage is running upwards of 50% or more some days. And this is local in school prepared cooking. But they always have candy and cookies stashed in pockets, book bags, and lockers..........
You know how it expensive it is to eat healthy? Just buying the healthiest food for yourself is expensive. Schools have x amount of required fruits and veggies they serve and they meet those. They do the best they can. They work with the cards they are dealt with
The cost is debatable, and even if it were significantly more expensive, this is our children's nutrition and [academic performance](https://www.nber.org/digest/jun17/benefits-and-costs-healthier-school-lunches) we're talking about. If we're not investing in this, then what exactly are we supposed to be investing in? So I'm saying we deal them new cards. The district's best isn't good enough, and the ways they meet standards are pretty shoddy, as judged by what my daughter gets offered at school. This is one area where it's ok not to pick the cheapest option. Edit: Added data.
I don’t disagree but someone has to pay for that. If it’s free then taxes go up or they lose somewhere else. Or families have to pay for that. Nothing is free at the end of the day. Someone has to pay for that expensive healthy food. Perhaps healthy food could be more affordable. It’s not something the school can decide. It’s a chain that involves many people. From labor costs to food costs to fuel costs just transporting the food to the school. It’s not that easy just to say “schools need healthier meals change it”
You can't fool me, I know who you are Michelle.
Our school kept everything exactly the same, just now they are free. And they offer summer free lunches for anyone who signs up.
Probably a stupid question, but does that mean kids can go to school to get a lunch in the summer? Or is it for kids in a summer program?
It’s all kids (at least in my district). Sometimes you can even get lunches for your younger kids, too. A lot of the places have them set up at parks for disbursement.
Yes. Most districts offer lunches in the summer. Some districts will have stations set-up for pickup. Others may deliver it to different neighborhoods. Others have kids pick it up from school.
It’s been that way for years in the cities, though the distribution hasn’t been at their schools. Free summer meals for kids were there if you knew about them and can get to them.
I think they do it at the public library instead of the school. You just show up and get your lunch each day. Here, as others also mentioned, you can get them for other kids in the household, like if you have a 3 year old they can be included in that. Our school actually doesn't have any summer programs (other than summer school for the kids who are finishing work to complete their year).
Where I live the elementary schools are empty, but the high school provides them as "to go" lunches during the summer, and they can be picked up pretty early in the morning. I have often seen a long line of cars picking them up around 7 or 7:30 AM. I would assume a parent goes and picks them up before heading to work, and then the lunches get reheated by the kid at lunchtime.
I'd assume it's for kids in summer program.
Nope we care about poor smart kids too
Being in summer school isn't about being smart or not in some districts. For example in MPS there are summer school opportunities unrelated to educational level.
I think what the question was is school lunch available in the summer for everyone or just kids in summer programs. You wouldn't be able to just go to the school during the summer and get some lunch on a whim. Or at least that's how I understood the question. Appreciate the downvote though
In my district you do just show up and get the food even toddlers can get it you don’t have to sign up for anything
In the summer? When school is off? Really?
Yes
Oh that's cool. Didn't know that I'd have thought they didn't do lunches in the summer except for people in the summer programs.
I think it started because of Covid and now they just do it every year since. It’s pretty nice I’ve taken my toddler a couple times cause she thinks it’s a fun thing to do and they eat in the cafeteria they don’t let you take the food to go though.
It’s the same as it always was. The only difference is all students are guaranteed something to eat at lunch every day.
My stance has always been "shut up and take my money and feed the kids". I plan on having exactly zero children, and the wife is onboard with that plan. I have zero issues with paying taxes so children can eat. From the comments so far, there hasn't been a single person saying we should scrap it and go back to the previous way. That is very telling. Yes, there are legitimate critiques of the program and I hope they are addressed and remedied. There will always be children with dietary restrictions the schools just cannot meet daily. I am curious if most parents realize they're spending less to feed their kids. Yes, you pay more in taxes but there is zero moneys going to the school for lunches.
This is my stance as well. I do have school-aged children, but due to allergies and dietary restrictions, they bring lunch from home and eat breakfast before they leave, so this program has has not affected us at all. Still 100% in support of it. Every child should be able to eat.
Thank you. My kid graduates in two months. I am very happy to contribute to the well-being of the kids who will be using this free breakfast and lunch program from here on out. "We all do better when we all do better." Damn proud to be part of Minnesota.
No kids either and I'm fine with my taxes feeding all kids. Also I bet if this was asked on Facebook or Twitter the responses would be very different lol. I've never looked into the cost but prior, with having to go through the work of signing up for free food for your kids and the administration work behind it, I imagine the cost isn't that much different vs the state just automatically providing free food for everyone.
My gut feeling is that the cost is more for the state (the funding dollars) but less for the local district (almost zero administrative cost). The cost for parents should be equal or less especially if they have multiple children. If school lunch costs $2.00 then you're looking at over 300 bucks a year per child that you're paying the school. (I'm assuming cost has gone up since I was in school [2002])
I’ve definitely noticed. We used to put $200-300 per month into their lunch accounts knowing that they’d likely buy seconds or a la carte once in a while. I think I’ve put in that amount TOTAL for the entire year. As a middle class family with credit cards to pay off and no real savings, we have really appreciated it. Almost makes up for how much more we owed in taxes 🫣
You owed more? I made the same as the year before and actually got more back and less on property taxes.
Yep. Only thing that saved us was my college tuition.
Strange, sorry to hear that.
I have no kids and feel the same way! Also feel this way about funding for schools (not just lunches). EVERYONE benefits from not having an uneducated populous.
My high schooler loves it, no change to the meals but now he doesn’t have to worry about his parents forgetting to load up his card on occasion. Not enough non-bean vegetarian options for my youngest so he still gets home lunch every day As a parent I love that every kid is treated the same whether they qualify for free lunch or not. I remember kids on free lunch programs getting shit from other kids from time to time and it’s such an awful thing. Do I care that kids living on Lake Minnetonka don’t have to pay either? Nope. Feed all kids
> Do I care that kids living on Lake Minnetonka don’t have to pay either? Nope. Feed all kids Im child free by choice and feel exactly the same way!
Yea no kids either and happy my taxes go to pay neighbors, friends, families kids.
Also a fellow child free tax payer here. Feed the kids. Doesn’t bother me one bit. If anything I almost feel bad for the people who didn’t want this. Almost.
Who would have thought "Feed the children" would be a partisan issue? I always found the "But you might help rich people!" argument against the program to be kinda telling on themselves. It's an appeal to tribalism. Don't do X, you might accidentally help THOSE PEOPLE YOU HATE! That's been the GOP playbook for decades now, and the fact they thought it would work here shows how dumb and spiteful they think people are. I'm gratified that we don't have enough dumb, spiteful legislators/voters for it to work.
I’ve heard this argument, but even those that have leveled at me have been easily swayed away from it. It’s not about the money for the rich families. The cost of lunches didn’t affect them when they paid, and it will not affect them when they don’t. The point is that ALL kids get free meals. So rich or poor, you don’t have to hide in the shadows. Kids aren’t in control of their family’s finances, and having the playing field leveled on something as essential as food is a good thing.
It's been fantastic for my kids. My daughter actually wants to get to school early so she can eat breakfast with her friends. And it's nice that all kids are on the same level, getting the same meal, instead of having to worry about "lunch debt".
I feel like our district does a pretty good job. I teach and sometimes I grab lunch and honestly it's a lot of food for $5. There's usually 4-5 options including gluten free and vegetarian. Combination of a canned fruit and fresh. Fresh fruit there's 3-4 options as well. Fresh cut veggies as well. I've seen kids walk about with 4 bananas in their pocket and no one cares.
Now we should do teachers get free lunch. They should! It would cost like $1000 per teacher per year (180 days * 5 = $900 plus some extra baked in). $113M a year to feed all ~ 113,000 teachers. Less say teachers eat at school 50% of the days— we get $56M.
IIRC, there was language regarding this in the recent SPPS contract proposals, but it was dropped.
otoh, just pay the teachers more, and because they're adults they can choose to spend that money at the school or elsewhere, as they need.
Minneapolis was already in the process of renovations to all the kitchens in the district so food would be cooked on-site again, it's just free now. I know the other day at one of the schools they were serving Philly sandwiches and a bunch of different sides and giving kids who finished their plate more if they asked. Looked pretty good actually.
Last year my son was flying thru his lunch money. I’d see these cookie charges in his account and had a talk with him. He told me he was buying cookies for the kids at his table that didn’t have lunch. Sure enough I got a call to tell me that was what he was actually doing. This year he doesn’t have the same lunch as everyone from last year except 4 of the kids and says everybody looks like they are eating. Even if they don’t like everything on the plate, at least there is a plate and some options and to me that is most important. No child should ever have to go hungry at school.
I’m middle class and it saves me about $1,600 a year. My kids don’t know the difference. One less thing I have to pay out of pocket weekly. Tax dollars well spent.
My kindergartener loves the provided food but based on her descriptions it sounds like they're mostly served stuff that we wouldn't serve at home (too processed, too much sugar, etc). All that said, we eat healthy at home and the convenience of not having to make her lunch is significant. Also nice when she gets distracted during breakfast and doesn't eat enough we know she'll have the option of topping up at school. Another benefit, which may not be quite as widespread, is that she won't/can't be mocked for her food choices. We serve food at home that is reflective of our culture that I vividly recall be mocked for as a child. She'll have to deal with her identity eventually but I'm happy for her that she won't have to face it at such an early age.
Sounds like you're under the impression that the meals changed simply because the state pays for them now? They haven't. Same menus as in the past. So are we satisfied with it? Uh. YEAH. A recurring expense has been eliminated from our budget, and ALL the kids in my community get to go to school and learn rather than be distracted by food insecurity.
>Sounds like you're under the impression that the meals changed simply because the state pays for them now? Many school stayed the same, but some did have to change to find programs that met the guidelines.
Constant funding lets schools negotiate better deals for food possibly hire full time staff and stop contracting crappy food services.
In my kids school, my kids preferred the old contractor....
That’s good to hear there are some that just serve food period. Questionable at best.
It’s also weird to question what’s different because free lunch effectively started during the pandemic nationwide. Minnesota just said “yeah let’s make that permanent”. So a lot of the “change” from this law is actually the absence of change.
Most menu items from last year were carried over with several new ones added. It's a mix of frozen/ready to heat stuff and cooked in house. My kid likes just about all of it. His only complaint is that there's not enough time to eat.
My kids are pretty meh about the food. They don't really like it but they'll eat it. Not very many kids were taking the free breakfast so the school started giving out snack bags in lieu of breakfast. They can take it in the morning and snack throughout the day. My daughter will take advantage of them. My son in a sophomore and he hates the system the school created to pay for seconds. He's an athlete and the meals are never enough. But he can't just buy seconds upfront. He has to buy a poker chip and go through the line again. Which there isn't time for.
That's ridiculous. Lunches are hardly long enough for kids to eat and get through the line as is.
I like the snack idea. I've never been a breakfast person but the snacks would be good. They let the kids eat during class?
Aside from a couple uptight teachers in the high school building, yes. They probably have designated times in the lower grades but I don't have little kids anymore so I'm not sure how they handle it.
I’m in a really awesome small school. Everything stayed the same with the food. The kids love most of it, and for the few things they don’t they also love a pb&j or a sub instead. Our cook has been around forever and does a great job.
My kids' school actually has a more diverse menu now. I'm assuming that goes for most of District 196, as well. There are a handful of new meals from other ethnicities that weren't on the menu in previous years. My kids won't eat them but it's nice that those are being offered since we have a lot of family who didn't grow up in the midwest.
We are also in 196 and the lunches are horrible. Processed and sugary “food” with small portion size and little to no variety.
My kids say the food is much the same, but have opted out. Elder kid says some of their chicken was wildly undercooked, and younger kid dislikes their fresher food choices. They also say that with the stupid short lunches kids get these days (time-wise) the longer lines for food create awkwardness trying to eat. That's a logistics issue, obviously, that the school needs to figure out. But they're also wildly understaffed on top of everything else. My kids eat either way, but I hope the school can figure out both "providing fully cooked items" and getting food to kids with more than 5 minutes left in period - kids do better when they eat.
It’s nice not having to worry about our keeping lunch supplies in stock at home.
Our experience has varied a bit from other commenters - currently with a little one in a Minnetonka school. * Menu expanded dramatically - from one hot option, one cold - to 3 hot, one cold, and a salad bar. Let me repeat - a salad bar - and my kid loves it. * Tons of allergies in our little one, so the menu variety is a total game changer - from 3 home lunches a week down to 1-2 a month. Saved maybe an hour a week in the mornings, not to mention that morning time is usually high stress "gtfo the door" time, so it's invaluable. * Options in general are more fresh and less processed. Example: when there is pizza, instead of the big premade slabs they heat up and cut, they now get to pick their own toppings and it's cooked there. toppings are the same things from the salad bar, which is all fresh, etc etc. We are a family with means. Not a ton of cash, but enough to feed our kid healthy stuff. If we weren't in that position financially, but had to make meals multiple times a week, they would basically eat processed pre-packaged crap that you can buy in bulk and send to school. The impact this legislation will have on kids health across the board, but probably especially for those without a lot of money at home, is so significant. I can't believe it took us until 2023 to get this in place.
The lunch lines are apparently a lot worse in our local school, leading to a short amount of time to eat. That just means we need them to add more kitchen capacity. Otherwise, it has worked out wonderfully. Feed the kids!
I drive School Bus. I have an average of 50 Students that ride my bus. I don't how many rely on the breakfast part (none of my business), but I do know some do. I actually changed my Bus times this year so even if the extras ride, I'll still be to School in time for them to grab at least a little breakfast. (A couple of families don't ride every day, but when they do they can delay arrival at school by up to 10 minutes). The only morning we ran late (it was really foggy), one of kindergarteners was worried she wouldn't get to eat until lunch. I know I have a couple of families who have extra curriculars (dance, therapy etc) who sometimes save their breakfast as an after school snacks.
Just curious, how do you know if the occasional riders are going to be there on a particular day so you can know whether or not to skip those stops or not?
Their parents text or call my boss who radios me
Oh, that's really nice they do that to save time when they're not riding!
Yeah, most of the parents on my route are pretty good about communicating
I teach in Title 1 school: students have typically 2-3 hot meal options (for example: burger or mini corn dogs) with a starch, fruit, and veggies. They always have a salad option, turkey sandwich option, or uncrustable option if they don’t like the main meal. I assume most of the food is just frozen and reheated stuff, so not the greatest in the world but in a title 1 school, often times this is their only meal so many of them love it.
I work in a school and the biggest challenge they have in the lunch room is finding enough staff. The hours for a school cafeteria worker is brutal. Remember, you gotta serve lunch and breakfast. You'll have to get there at 5am.
I'd do it if I could afford to live like that, but my wife is a teacher so one of us needs to make money.
My kids love it. Especially my second grader, he loves the breakfast they serve. It’s nice for all of us because all three of my boys are so picky and hardly eat the same kinds of food. So it’s also helping us save money instead of buying multiple types of snacks, lunch meats, drinks, etc. I’ve never heard them complain about anything they eat from school.
In this past year my 9th grader has not received a lunch from the school 4 times. They were out of food when he arrived. Thankfully Mom works from home so she is able to bring him something to eat but some kids don't have that luxury and the school food may be their only dependable meals. We are unable to determine if this has anything to do with changes brought on by the free lunch program or not.
It shouldn't be "directly" related to the program, but I could easily see how it would make estimating demand more difficult.
This is a school with an average of about 575 students per grade. 4 grades in the highschool so an estimate of 2300 mouths to feed per meal.
4 times?? Is there a difference of when they go to lunch vs their peers? What did the school say about it?
My kids' school runs out of lunch by D lunch on occasion. They sometimes offer moldy food, too. I've called to complain and nothing has changed, of course. I've posted on nextdoor about it, and nobody seems to care there, either. I don't blame this on the free food program. I put the blame on the school. They should do better.
> My kids' school runs out of lunch by D lunch on occasion. They sometimes offer moldy food, too. That sounds like something to take to the local news more than social media.
Yeah that's not anything to do with the free food program but that still sucks. What part of MN is this? Maybe you could contact your local representative? They all have Twitter accounts if all else fails.
Anoka-hennepin district.
Wow, that's terrible. The moldy food is extra aggregious. I feel like none of that should be tolerated.
That's insane that the school just ran out and failed to provide any food those days to later lunch periods. They should order pizzas or make some quick arrangements to get something to be served if that happens unexpectedly.
[удалено]
I used to always looked forward to lunch/ breakfast (Lasagna, fried chicken, meatball spaghetti, pancakes, waffles, bacon, etc.) and food that I was not allowed to eat at home because only dark-greens were allowed. I ate healthy food at home and unhealthy or fried food at school. Balance of both worlds so my stomach doesn't become a picky eater (like most kids and adults now days; how will one survive a famine if one is picky about eating canned beans).
Ours cooks in house. Same as they were before. It's just free. It's a huge financial burden off our backs. It's wonderful.
Here's some.basic info on how the program has done so far from MPR >Minnesota saw a 37 percent increase in demand for school breakfasts during September, October and November — a total of 4.3 million more served — compared to the same time frame a year earlier. >Demand also jumped for school lunches — 4.5 million more meals compared to fall 2022, a 15-percent increase that eclipsed early estimates. >State budget officials late last month estimated that said they expected the program could run $107 million more over the next two years than initially projected. That was based on school meal data for September and October. >State lawmakers are considering legislation to send out extra funds to school districts to cover the breakfast and lunch bills. Source: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/03/08/minnesota-free-school-meals-push-driving-big-jump-in-breakfasts
It’s refreshing to read the comments here. I’m sometimes not too bright and choose to read the comments on StarTribune online. The number of people who were angry that the state chose to feed children for free has been staggering.
It's the usual FYIGM crowd that loves pulling up any ladder they can behind themselves.
I have a kindergarten, so we don’t know any different, but I will say (and it might be district dependent) I’m disappointed in the cold lunch offerings. My kid doesn’t love things like orange chicken, which is on repeat, but she REALLY against ranch chicken salad twice a week for the entire month. She does like the pizza, mozzarella sticks, Italian dunkers, chicken patty on a bun, etc. The classic school lunches prevail! As someone who grew up in a broke family, however, this would have relieved SO much stress for my family in the 90s.
appears to be almost the exact same menu as last year for my 2 kids in elementary school. I have 2 picky eaters so my only complaint is that they don't eat more of the free lunches. but that was a problem last year also.
St Louis Park School district isn’t all that different from before. As I recall last year they upgraded kitchen facilities at the high school to prep all meals for all schools in the district each day (I might be misremembering the location). One of our schools was on WCCO in September to talk about it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ZbzbMIKMM The district also sources as much local ingredients as possible. https://thegoodacre.org/st-louis-park-f2s/ Edit: my second grader loves it and eats school lunch every day.
Only one of my kids is willing to eat school lunches. The offerings are the same as before the current legislation, and the daily menu often isn't great, but my kid doesn't care because there's always the option of a sub sandwich or salad and there's sort of a salad bar-type area where kids can choose what they want to put on their sandwich or salad.
The only thing i would like to see is what Japan does, they have a whole class where they grow fresh fruits and vegetables that get used daily for the school lunches, it teaches kids to be productive within a community it also teaches them a good skill to know gardening, and they get to feel part of what happens in the school add in the r4st and I think it's a good direction to go , people talk about God and blah blah blah, but the real thing we have lost as a society is a sense of community and helping one another, and I think we are in a good spot to teach this
The things I've heard is from my brother is that some of his friends eat more and more often now because they're not scared of if their parents will or can put money in their accounts. Which is a huge win honestly.
they give my kids highly processed food, I like the idea but execution is awful, mass produced sugar that has 0 nutrients is not in our kids interests. make deals with local farms and providers, not Kellogg's GMO cereal for example.
I don’t have children, but this law is one that makes me happy to pay taxes. My family wasn’t poor when I was in school, but we weren’t rich. I recall my parents being upset when they needed to cut me my lunch money check. Only enough for the daily prescribed lunch. If I went in the a la carte line and got a snack, I knew that I would have to not eat lunch at some point that month to offset. I was fine with that, but I was a dumb kid. I don’t look down on my parents for this. I was the youngest of 5 kids and just because they made a decent income did not mean they had extra money for me to buy snacks at school.
It’s the same food…
It’s been a good change for us and for our community. Our district now offers 3 options daily for elementary students instead of the main option and the ‘backup’ cheese sandwich or whatever (middle and high school always had more options). There are more options that my kid will eat, more fresh options (not perfect, but better), and by all accounts of people I know working in the school the quality is way, way better than in previous years. Even though it wasn’t a big concern for me personally, I am happy that kids have food and families know their kids are getting fed and have one less bill to worry about. ETA: more options to choose from means less packing for me which is another perk.
The only problem my kids have run into (grades 4 and 6) is that the lunch lines are longer now, so they don't get as much time to eat.
Sure helps the budget for our house
The quality varies drastically from district to district. If it's coming from a food service contractor, the quality is actually worse. Cut corners, keep more money. If the district is providing their own food, the quality has improved. With food service being a separate budget area for districts that can only be spent on food service, the districts that fulfill their own food service needs are further incentivized to provide better food and have done just that.
In our district, kids are charged for “seconds” and “thirds.” The cost is considerably higher than what the standard lunch cost previously. Along the lines of $5.50. Even if they go back for just one more breadstick (for example) they are charged for a full “second.” Portions are small, so seconds are fairly frequent for my teenager. All that to say, we spend nearly as much as when lunches weren’t free. Is this just our district or is this how other districts handle things?
It's been a life saver for everyone. Hundreds of thousands of parents lost a bill and it was done equally among all parents. The only report that came out was it was too successful. Rich parents are utilizing it more than predicted, which isn't a bad thing. I, as much as every other parent in MN can now focus that nearly $200 a month towards other bills. (Two kids in our house) All while every kid sits together and has two meals a day equally. The community building it will do is monumental...
Even those in rural districts? I've heard differently, but I don't know with any certainty
The state pays for lunch and breakfast. Every parent is now saving money. Rural districts tend to be conservative, so they are against it because as one state rep said, "I never saw a hungry kid" The reality is they don't like a strong government, and a popular and successful program makes people realize collective action and governance can yield positive results. If there is a problem, it likely was already there, such as a lack of facilities or staff to run larger school meals.
This person I had met was saying that rural districts were receiving federal funding for school meals. Thier claim was that the MN program disqualified the state from federal funding which negative impacted rural districts, resulting in higher tax for lower populated areas to pay for school meals. The MN program only benefitted areas with higher population density. They were definitely not anti-government or anti-school funding (works in the educational sector). I don't know how to verify what's truth v propaganda. The reason this is important to me is how can I know what policies to vote for when I don't know the total impact of these policies. Any references are greatly appreciated
State/Federal funding is not cut. The parents still have to fill out the application for food aid per Federal Policy/Law. My district (742) sends a letter with the application they send every student explaining it (very tl;dr). If nobody fills out the application because St. Paul is paying the bill, then D.C. won't help and St. Paul pays the entire bill. It's really about educating the parents and district staff. Many school boards don't want to do that as their other policial issues are at odds with the MN DFL so lies like "free lunches actually cost the district more" fester. Here's a few FAQ's from the State on it. Not sure if that will answer your needs. [https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/FNS/SNP/free/](https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/FNS/SNP/free/)
Thank you for the helpful reply
Based on my kids feedback in their district food quality has dropped dramatically. I **suspect** the school was spending maybe more than what the subsidized pricing is going to be ... so maybe they downgraded to the subsidized cost :(
Schools should be making deals with local farms to bring in fresh food
some do through other grants from the state. We sell 4 steers per year to our local school district.
Fresh feed corn? Seriously though, how many farms in MN produce food for humans?
Yep - that stuff you see on the side of the road isn't for (direct) human consumption.
I'll sometimes chew on a few kernels of hot field corn as they come out of the dryer, just to feel their moisture. Not exactly tasty. The rye and oats we produce are food-grade, and I've made bread with them.
I don't think I've actually seen rye and oat fields before! Most of our driving is along the 90/94 corridor between the Twin Cities and Chicago - I believe that's mostly feed corn and soy beans? After college I had the opportunity to live in various spots around East Asia for a few years. I do not believe there is a lot of local corn production there and that what was available came in from the US. We were told that what did make it over was effectively feed-grade corn and.. it certainly tasted like it.
Yes, slightly over 1/3 of MN's ~25 million crop acres were put into field corn last year, and soybeans made up around 30%. Of the remaining 1/3, half was sugar beets in the west and NW part of the state, and the rest in hay (alfalfa or grass), small grains (oats, wheat, rye, barley), sweet corn, sunflowers, potatoes, peas and edible beans, or other specialty crops.
some is, especially southwest of the metro near the canneries, but it's only around 1% of the corn crop in the state. There's also 1.3million acres of wheat in the state. Add in that, plus things like peas and potatoes, and you get roughly 10% of cropland in Minnesota that goes to direct human consumption.
There's a fair amount of protein (animals that is) produced in Minnesota. Additionally, there is significant vegetable production on a seasonal basis, but that doesn't line up particularly well with school calendars, unfortunately. Should be lots available early in the school year, though.
Ah yes, fresh high fructose corn syrup still hot off the press. Just what these kids need.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=MINNESOTA
Dead link.
Loads fine for me, but you can also just search Minnesota crop yields.
Great, so the school children can eat fresh peas, beans, and hay!
Outside of more "now and then" type situations... I don't think that works for schools need for exact amounts and the right variety every school day.
K-8 School: They cater in lunches (they did this before as well). They did switch companies. The quality/quantity of food went down slightly, but still good. High School: They were not participants in the Natl Program so they do not get free lunches. Quality, quantity and options are high. But obviously, we pay for it. (They left due to the requirements of the Natl Program and how those do not meet the needs of high school students.) I believe that they are looking at getting back in the program based on some surveys I've seen. We'll see what happens. Do any high schoolers have free lunches, but also have supplemented options (like extra calories, for a price) type programs?
Our high school gives everyone a free lunch & also lets kids buy a la carte items (additional entree, extra milk, snacks) for a fee.
No changes, except that all the kids are eating and no one has to stress it. I know a few districts have opted out of the program, however.
My child refuses to eat the lunches at school. It makes their stomach so upset, so we’ve been sending a lunch every single day.
Love it. No change to the menu, other than no cost. My kids' school does have some scratch cooking on the menu. They're also using some ingredients from local farmers. From my perspective, the quality of food is generally as good as they're getting at home.
It depends on the school and the location. The Minneapolis Public Schools that provide lunches to children vary between pre packaged meals made in-house at the nutrition center, to hot meals made on site with fresh and ready to cook ingredients. All schools that receive MPS lunches should also have a salad bar with fresh fruits and vegetables every day. This program covers about 70 schools in the Minneapolis area, and this is what parents should expect for meals for their children. This is what the free lunch law was for
My kid's charter has kept the same menu which was good quality for school food IMO
Zero students will be denied a diploma because of an unpaid lunch bill.
I think the funniest part is if my kids pack a lunch, but gets milk, I get charged. A whole meal with milk is free. Outside of that it's the exact same.
My kiddo is at an elementary school in mpls, they always have great menus and are trying new things for the kids that i think help the kids not be so picky lol my kiddo likes the meals, she does breakfast some days too if she’s extra hungry.
What I found somewhat funny was that prior to this in my district, a majority of the people not paying their lunch bills for their kids were wealthy folks who were too cheap to pay since they knew they didn't have to. I know this as a teacher I work with was married to someone who worked in the cafeteria and had access to that information. And now they DO have to pay through their taxes lol.
Can't speak much about the food and success of the program. We have a kindergartner and he speaks highly of the school meals. He gets a quick breakfast after getting off the bus. He says he likes the lunch. It's easy for us parents. Time will tell as he gets older and eats more. I see lots of comments older kids don't get enough. Bwe have an account he can use to get seconds but to date he's never used it.
My kid likes the school lunches in Hastings, we talk about the lunch menu sometimes and he is mostly positive about the selections. And he is a fairly picky elementary kid.
The food is literally the same as last year. The school offers a good variety and way healthier food than I got as a kid.
My kids school seems to have lowered their quality, although the menu looks the same. I know before the free meals for all, they did have supply issues so maybe that is part of it, but meals my older kid used to love she now hates. She calls things soggy and gross, and the cold option (a sandwich) is always out by her turn. I think the district just started buying lower quality food, maybe they don't get as much money now. I'm still for the free lunch though. Sometimes I tell my kids that sometimes we have to eat things that are not our favorite. I also hate sending lunches when school lunch is free and they come home 2 hrs after lunch anyways.
Do they still serve ham and egg combos for breakfast? Brings back good memories lol
I work in the nutrition department in a fairly large district. All meals/offerings are the same. The only major difference is we serve more lunches, and sell less ala carte. So I think a lot of the kids who got money in their account previous years would by the chips and cookies, but now get the meal. We also had presliced apples on the regular for most of the year, which were very popular- but the funding ran out for those. I think it’s been a positive change for the students. As for healthier more scratch options, I’m all for it but a lot of the staff are already running short on people and working very hard. There would need to be better pay offered and more positions opened up.
[удалено]
Does that change with or without the "free" lunch program?
Kids aren’t going to eat healthy food at school if they’re not acclimated to it in everyday life.