Study: School lunch programs might break poverty cycle

[usregimechange]

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Teens who live in households where food is scarce suffer academically, but a new study has found that government programs to provide meals in schools can reverse this effect.

According to the researchers, the findings suggest that school programs aimed at reducing so-called food insecurity can break an insidious cycle of poverty: poor children go hungry, get bad grades, don't go on to college and fail to rise out of their socioeconomic status -- raising children whose lives follow the same unfortunate narrative.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_105926.html

[WhiteTara]

1. gosh, I thought we had settled that ages ago

It's so strange we have to keep pointing out the obvious so often.

[bobbolink]

10. Of course its not settled. There's a new generation of ignorance.

Its not like this is information one would see on the local nightly news. :(

We must keep pushing this info!

[donco6]

11. We have free breakfast for all kids, and free summer feeding program.

We fed over 10,000 meals last summer. It was so easy and inexpensive. It's a travesty it's not available everywhere.

[bobbolink]

13. That is great news.... please write it out in an OP!

Thanks! :yourock:

[Dappleganger]

2. Free breakfast makes a huge difference, too.

Can you imagine how many kids cannot concentrate in the morning because they haven't had anything to eat?

[bobbolink]

4. Yet, the Black Panthers were considered so bad....while they provided those breakfasts.

Maybe they were on to something?

[readmoreoften]

8. +1

[donco6]

3. We lobbied our Representative several years ago.

We wanted to eliminate the "Reduced" lunch category and roll everyone into Free or Paid. He told us he thought parents should just pack lunches and that schools shouldn't be in the lunch business.

He's gone now.

[Catshrink]

6. Must have moved to AZ

That's the attitude here.

[bobbolink]

7. Free School Lunches for all....Free for All: Fixing School Food in America,

Another central concern of Free for All is school hunger—an ironically persistent problem in an age of plenty and excessive freedom of choice. Schools have largely failed to reduce the stigma that accompanies accepting a free lunch. In many schools, nonpaying children stand in separate lines from their classmates, and in some California schools they are the only students who eat inside in the cafeteria rather than outside in the pay-as-you-go food court, because the trays cannot be taken out of doors. Poppendieck is justifiably outraged by this insensitivity, which segregates children by income and leads some to skip meals so as to avoid cruel jibes from their wealthier friends.

Her solution to the problem of stigma, which feeds the problem of hunger, is not novel but is nonetheless radical. As the book’s title suggests, she recommends free school lunches for all children. She estimates that such a universal food program would cost roughly twice today’s expenditures: from about $12 billion to about $25 billion. Whatever may recommend it, it is therefore unlikely to be enacted. Poppendieck explores many possibilities for finding the money, and frankly acknowledges that they present a tricky seesaw of progressive and regressive conundrums. Taxing soft drinks in schools, for instance, is a sensible idea, but such a tax, like all regressive taxes, would fall disproportionately on the poorest students, and therefore offers an unsatisfactory means of paying for universally free lunches that are meant to help the poor. A universal program is also regressive by its very nature because it would spread resources currently directed toward poor children to children from middle- and even upper-class families. In interviews with Poppendieck, cafeteria workers in Beverly Hills chafed at the notion that taxes on their meager incomes should provide free lunches for the BMW-driving crowd. Poppendieck too quickly writes off more practicable (and less expensive) solutions like swipe cards, which would disguise whether and how much each child pays.

However problematic and politically untenable a program of universally free school lunches may be, Poppendieck is right to confront the scourge of school hunger alongside the problem of laissez-faire junk food consumption by children. In a sense, we currently occupy the two worst extremes: overweight youth living off vending machine confections coexisting with students who cannot get enough to eat because the school system is chronically broke. Orwell would be appalled.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.odonnell.html

[Gabi Hayes]

9. but but but but that would mean, in essence, not being able to provide us

with a couple of carriers, a few boomers, or some B-2s

what sort of comsymp agenda is that?

no more plowshares!

[Starry Messenger]

5. k&r

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. But hunger is a motivator!

In her June newsletter, State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-MO) provided several “commentaries” to a press release from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services on a summer food program. The program provides “food during the summer for thousands of low-income Missouri children who rely on the school cafeteria for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year.” Davis, who serves as the chairwoman of the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families, questioned whether the program is “warranted,” and extolled the hidden benefits of child hunger:

Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. <...> Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another. <...> Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break. <...> It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts.

A report by Feeding America found that one in five Missouri children currently lives with hunger. Taking apart Davis’ other arguments, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial noted that most of the summer feeding program sites are actually hosted by churches and that the program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, fed 3.7 million meals at a total cost of less than $9.5 million last summer — “a pretty good use of federal money.” (HT: DailyKos diarist Dem Beans)

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/21/cynthia-davis-hunger/