Free and Reduced Lunches: Should they be funded?
In the most recent election, cutting back government federal spending was a huge issue for both candidates. Perfectly related is the question as to whether or not publicly funded schools should provide free and/or reduced lunches for students who come from underprivileged homes. However, there are statistics supporting the fact that students, now more than ever, qualify for these free and reduced lunches. This brings up another question, can the funding for this program, or programs like these, be cut? Or will this lead to a greater disparity in nutritional value in meals for high school students?
The most important thing that concerns free and reduced lunch programs around the United States is funding. Some believe that funding cuts can be afforded in the educational system, however they definitely cannot be afforded in regards to free and reduced lunch programs. Students who receive these lunches grow in number with each passing year, which gives good reason for this continued funding.
While America "boasts" a rather high obesity rate, funding is cut for lunches for students which are well-balanced and prepared for students to receive the right amount of nutrients. "If the Government is concerned with obesity and health problems in later life, how can it possibly underestimate the power of healthy school food from the age of four or five, all the way up to 18?" This question was proposed by Craig Fettes, operations director, education, at Elior UK.This is a perfectly phrased question, because if students are not receiving a healthy, affordable alternative to their campus lunches, how can students be taught the correct eating patterns?
While America "boasts" a rather high obesity rate, funding is cut for lunches for students which are well-balanced and prepared for students to receive the right amount of nutrients. "If the Government is concerned with obesity and health problems in later life, how can it possibly underestimate the power of healthy school food from the age of four or five, all the way up to 18?" This question was proposed by Craig Fettes, operations director, education, at Elior UK.This is a perfectly phrased question, because if students are not receiving a healthy, affordable alternative to their campus lunches, how can students be taught the correct eating patterns?
It is made apparent through both of the YouTube clips posted, the video of President Obama's speech regarding his proposed education funding scheme, and the video regarding the changes made during the 1990's to education funding, and the free and reduced lunches program, that funding is essential to a well planned nutritional upbringing for youth in the United States. As President Obama explains, the money that schools receive for federally funded educational systems is contingent on said school's academic performance. For example, higher scores in a standardized curriculum/ testing procedures will lead to schools being granted more money to take care of programs such as free and reduced lunches, extra-curriculur activities, and pay for lunch monitors, hall monitors, ect. President Obama displays the absolute importance of funding for American educational institutions.
So, what's the answer?
The education system of the United States, or the public education system at least, has always been well-funded federally by the United States government. For the continuance of improved nutrition, improved awareness, and improved value of education, the funding must remain intact, but also the individual institution plays a large role as well. A school which receives a federal grant also has to plan the spending/usage of the grant money in a responsible manner, by dividing the grant into the different sections of the school. So, not only will these grants help improve nutrition in classrooms, but will improve the overall academic success in the public educational institutions in America.