gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming from the article that these kids were signed up for the lunch program, but their parents hadn't paid into it for quite some time. The school could have just given them no food, but decided to give them cheese sandwiches so they'd have something to eat. Whether one is receiving the lunch at a reduced price (or free) based on economic situation isn't going to be known or announced in the lunch line itself, and I don't think that was really the issue. The cost is determined elsewhere. The parents simply hadn't paid for the lunches and the school had been just giving them free lunches anyway and trying to collect the money owed, but when that didn't work had to put their foot down (sorta).
You didn't even read the linked article did you?If you had, you would have seen:
In some cases, parents are waiting for approval to participate in government-aided lunch programs. We all know how easy it is for you to gloss over the full deal to meet your ends but jesus man, that's a bit much.
And as Dr. Hill (quoted in the article) said "We are taking an adult problem, and the children are the ones getting the punishment for it" is absolutely correct. It's not right in any manner.
In my opinion, the school fees you pay twice a year (or once, whatever) should include a % of what it would cost the school to feed a child for the year. Yea, it's the rich paying for the poor (go ahead Gbaji, just say it) but it does solve the problem in budgeting.