Comments on: “Healthy Schools”: Where’s The Money?

By: Ed Bruske

Ed Bruske — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:26:21 +0000

Kathryn, y ou’re correct about the breakfasts served by D.C. Public Schools. The biggest impact might fall on charter schools, which operate independent of the DCPS. I don’t know how many students would be eligible for free breakfasts in charter schools who aren’t getting them now. As for lunch, there is a huge difference between the federally subsidized program in public schools and the meals paid with tuition at Sidwell Friends. Public schools receive federal funds based on the number of meals they actually serve. They are under incredible pressue to entice kids to eat those meals or lose lots of money. That’s why you see many school cafeterias taking advantage of every possible loophole in the nutrition standards so they can repeatedly offer things like french fries, pizza, tater tots–stuff kids really go for. The huge benefit of the funding structure at Sidwell Friends is that the cafeteria managers don’t have to worry about reimbursement, so they can fashion menus that actually benefit the kids. I’m guessing they also have more money to work with.

Joni, thanks for that clarification. It makes perfect sense, and it corresponds to the kind of things I saw at my daughter’s charter school where I was a volunteer reader in the mornings and often saw kids eating breakfast in the classroom.

By: joni_pod

joni_pod — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:51:10 +0000

Eating snacks in the classroom is fairly common practice on test days, when educators want to make sure children are at their best. By incorporating food into the course of the school day, we can make sure all children have an opportunity to eat, not just those whose parents bring them early. There is also sometimes stigma around eating breakfast at school, because it is often only eaten by children who are eligible for free breakfast. Eating in the classroom neutralizes that.

By: kathrynbaer

kathrynbaer — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:36:20 +0000

You’re asking an excellent question—one that occurred to me when I first read about the Cheh bill. But I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here.

First, unless I’m much mistaken, the D.C. public school system already has a universal breakfast program. What the Cheh legislation would do is move the program into the classrooms of schools that serve many low-income students. It would cost more only to the extent that meals cost schools more than the federal government will reimburse. More on this below.

According to a new report by the Food Action and Research Center, fewer than half of the children in D.C. public schools who get free or reduced-price lunches also participate in a school breakfast program. This is common nationwide and probably due to a number of barriers. In-class breakfasts are a good way of addressing them. For more on this, see my posting at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/more-children-need-in-school-breakfasts.

Second, schools already operate according to a model very similar to what you describe as Sidwell Friends’. They offer food choices that kids can eat—or not—as they see fit. I can’t see how the fact that the meals are federally-subsidized makes any difference—except, of course, that the meals must meet certain nutrition standards and that they cost the schools less. The higher nutrition standards the Cheh bill would establish—or something close—will almost certainly be adopted at the federal level.

However, the federal subsidies are undoubtedly too low. What we need to do, I think, is get behind higher funding levels and the extension of free in-school meals to children up to 185% of the federal poverty line. The latter wouldn’t cost the District a dime if it were part of the reauthorized Child Nutrition Act.

In short, the costs of the Cheh legislation would be substantially less if energy were put behind improving school meal programs at the federal level. Her bill strikes me as aspirational. Not the sort of the thing our local government can—or should—adopt in these difficult economic times. Recall that, at this point, D.C. can’t even provide shelter for all the homeless families that need it.

By: Ed Bruske

Ed Bruske — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:50:29 +0000

MG, I think this is one of those things that child nutrition and hunger specialists advocate. I’m embarrassed to say I am not really up to speed on this particular issue. However, I do know that kids arriving late did occasionally take breakfast in my daughter’s classroom. Perhaps it’s another means of making sure that kids have every opportunity to start the day with something nutritious in their belly.

By: mossgathers

mossgathers — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:16:33 +0000

What would be the benefit of allowing kids to eat in the classrooms? I can see teachers having fits over that one unless they also allow space for dining tables in the rooms. Eating at your desk is inappropriate for adults and children and doesn’t encourage mindful eating.