New Haven Independent

Posted by: ginacoggio | March 9, 2006 9:50 AM

I think it's great that the district will be providing free lunches for these schools. I wish more schools could qualify and I also wish students' families didn't need to fill out the forms. It would be awesome if all students in this district could get free lunches.

My real problem, however, lies in the quality of these free lunches. I know kids always complain about the quality of lunches--I think it's an historical complaint, certainly it was when I was in school. But I have to tell you....the lunches that the district provides are horrendous. I've had some of them. And they're *terrible.* It's no wonder more kids don't want to fill out the forms to get free lunch because the quality of the food is so bad. Who wants free lunch if they're not even going to eat it? I'm not saying kids should be getting Filet Mignon and Salmon. I am saying that they need to get healthy, fresh, good quality, tasty food.

Free food is one thing. Food that's edible is quite another.

Posted by: Lovebabz | March 9, 2006 10:10 AM

I remember when Ina started working on this issue. She stopped by my house and handed me this form and asked me to fill it out. Yikes! it was a chore! She quietly set out to make the changes necessary to get free lunch for all kids regardless of economic backgrounds. This is what real leadership is about. Doing the work without cameras and media and hype. Kudos to Dr. Mayo for supporting this effort. Kids can't learn if kids are hungary. When your a kid you want to fit in and you want to belong, the last thing you want to do is self-identify as poor, or hungary. This is a great opportunity to break down one more barrier in the life of a child. Thanks Ina and Dr. Mayo for thinking Kids First!

Posted by: Bruce | March 9, 2006 3:45 PM

No, there is NOT a "free lunch". Where on earth do you think that lunch comes from? I'm paying for it. I really don't mind supporting those who can't afford it, but now I'm buying for lunch for rich kids on St Ronan Street. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: Leslie | March 9, 2006 8:13 PM

Bruce, it is true, that our taxes pay for these lunches. However, the article states clearly that 70% (!!!) of New Haven students qualify for free lunch anyway. Of the other 30% of students, not all eat school lunch - some may bring lunch from home. So I would estimate that we're only paying for a few more lunches than before. It's a small price to pay to let low-income students eat without being stigmatized.

Posted by: Michelle | March 10, 2006 8:25 AM

Bruce, Okay, we get your point, but really, how many St. Ronan area youth attend public schools? I would venture a guess of maybe 2%. And are you really so spiteful that you would deny the majority-- of poor, hungry kids from Goffe or wherever-- an added, albeit slim, dignity just to make sure 100 kids systemwide buy their fake meat and cold canned beans? Chances are kids from well-to-do families bring their lunches anyway. A suggestion: Spend your energies pursuing your point on something more far-reaching. You're making yourself look sad and evil and you're probably not.

Posted by: Bruce | March 10, 2006 8:57 AM

If 70% of students qualify and we cover 100%, then we are paying 43% more than we should. That's an extremely high margin of excess. My point here really is that this money is not free. It comes from somewhere. More specifically, it comes out of working peoples' pockets.

I think there are better ways to avoid the stigma. How about offering pre-purchased tickets to pay for meals? That way no one knows whose meals have been subsidized.

Posted by: Joe | March 10, 2006 3:26 PM

Bruce: Even if a kid on St. Ronan Street is actually attending New Haven schools and getting a free lunch, you and I are most likely not buying their lunch for them. His or her parent on St. Ronan Street who pays 300 to 500% more in taxes than the average New Haven homeowner is probably covering the bill.

Posted by: Jeff | March 10, 2006 5:00 PM

This debate is like deck chairs on the Titanic. Very sad that there is much more debate around the stigma of children and their free lunches than there is about the stigma of coming out of NHPS in 12th grade equipped with only 8th grade skills.

Posted by: Marissa | March 11, 2006 8:31 AM

I think the real issue here is further reaching than the fake meat or the St.Ronan Street kids. What slapped me in the face was the fact that we here in New Haven have a school district in which 70% of students come from homes that meet a criterion of economic hardship that qualifies them for free lunch. What the issue really warrants is a hard look into what we can do to assist these families at the root of their problem and address the cyclical problem of urban poverty. Senator John Edwards is championing a campaign to address just that. We can all use our indignant voices and put them to good use. Go to the website http://www.promiseandopportunity.com/ .
There are explanations of what this grassroots movement wishes to accomplish and how we can help. The figures on poverty are alarming, to say the least. While the free lunch program puts food in mouths, what happens when these kids go home or worse when they leave the schools to continue life thereafter? Should we not take it a step further than feeding them for a day, and instead teach them to fish?

Posted by: JoesDinerClosingSoon | March 12, 2006 12:07 AM

Kids who's family need help buying lunch should not have any stigma whatsoever. BUT, in a year of 9% property tax increase, it is ludicrous to have public dollars pay for the ones (apparently 30%) who do not need it. How many kids will take advantage of their parents having no clue of current events and continue to ask for cash for lunch? This is the wrong solution to a minor problem. So all those on Section 8 don't feel bad, I SHOULD GET a rent subsidy too!

Posted by: Editor | March 12, 2006 5:20 PM

Note to readers: This is 100 percent federal money. This program doesn't come out of local property taxes.

Posted by: Ned | March 13, 2006 8:12 AM

If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And please stop whining about how difficult it is to raise kids when you have a low wage job. Duh, simple math.
Ultimately all government money, federal, state or local is appropriated from the taxpayers.

Posted by: Marissa | March 13, 2006 9:27 AM

Ned, a warming show of empathy on your part. I hope you never have to face the kind of reality that many of these families are forced to live every day. Sometimes the situation you are born into is damning enough to alter your future and sometimes we need to help others that are in need. So what you want is as a taxpayer to only contribute to programs that benefit you directly? You begrudge those that need the help your hard earned dollars? Go ahead and walk up to a hungry kid sitting at the lunch table with nothing and tell him why you are more deserving of food than he. Because you work harder? Because his parents made a poor financial choice in having him? I am sure he will understand.

Posted by: ned | March 13, 2006 1:58 PM

Marrissa: Some people fall on hard times and need help. On the other, hand some people are just mindless breeders and "the kind of reality that many of these families are forced to live every day" results from a lack of family planning. 6.5 billion people on Earth - breeding kids that you can't feed isn't special or a miracle, it's not deserving of praise, or virtuous due to the suffering it creates - it's totally irresponsible. Nowhere did I propose "to only contribute to programs that benefit [me] directly", although that would be an interesting debate (if only it were possible). Neither do I claim to be "more deserving of food than [a hungry kid]". That comment is all hysteria conjecture and a lame attempt at guilt tripping, on your part. The school lunches are reportedly so bad that the kids don't even want to eat them. That seems like punishment and a waste of resources to me. And if the parents aren't even motivated enough to fill out a form, what does that say about them?

Posted by: marissa | March 13, 2006 6:36 PM

Ned, you may try to justify any of what you write but the fact is you can not punish a child for what may or MAY NOT be the fault of the parent. The kid is hungry, if the food is good, bad or in-between the kid needs to eat. Is there any issue to debate about that?

Posted by: bruce | March 14, 2006 10:20 PM

Marissa, I agree with you 100%. I think we serve our society best by keeping our children fed and educated.

Maybe I differ from others, but my complaint is that we working people must now buy lunch not just for needy children, but for the children of families that can well afford it. I think there are better ways to address social stigmas and lengthy paperwork.