California to Give School Children Two Meals a Day

by Pa Rock

Retired Educator

There is plenty of research to back up the following two statements - though I am not going to cite any because this is not a research paper, and the statements are also basic common sense.  

1.  Children behave better when they have food in their stomachs - and are therefore easier to teach and less disruptive in the classroom;  and,

2.  Well-fed children pay attention and learn better than those who are hungry.

Hot lunches prepared and served at school aren't anything new.  We had a cafeteria with hot lunches when I was in a small rural elementary school more than sixty years ago.  (Those meals were 25 cents a day with a carton of white milk included - with chocolate milk being offered on Fridays!  The meals were greatly appreciated!)

About thirty years ago many school districts also began offering their students breakfast as well as lunch.   I was an elementary school principal when breakfasts were first coming about, and I volunteered our little school to be a test site for school breakfasts.  One of my first "learnings" from that experience was that young children who had often arrived late at school in the past due to inadequate assistance or supervision at home, now began getting themselves up and to school primarily in order to have breakfast.  The entire school staff quickly noticed improvements in behavior and learning.

The federal government helps to fund school meals by allocating money to the states based on the number of students whose families suffer some degree of poverty.  The terms "free" and "reduced" lunches became commonplace as some students qualified, based on their parents' incomes, to  receive their meals on a subsidized basis.  Various schemes were employed to try to combat the social stigma of being on free or reduced lunches by keeping those students' identities confidential, but the other kids always knew.

There were other issues in addition to the social stigma of being poor and getting a government "handout."  Parents whose first language wasn't English had trouble understanding and filling out the forms that would allow their children to be able to eat on a free or reduced basis - and there were always some in every community who felt strongly that the disadvantaged should stay that way and were openly hostile to school breakfast and lunch programs.

Feeding children at school has been a very productive and successful endeavor, but it has also drawn much political fire.   

California, a state that traditionally leads the way on social issues, has a new law on the books that involves school meals.    The "Free School Meals for All Act," was signed into law by Governor Newsom last year and will be implemented beginning this fall.   The program, funded by the state, will offer a school breakfast and lunch, free of charge, to every student in California's public schools on every day that school is in session.  The income stigma will be erased because the same meals will be provided to all students at no cost.

The state of Maine has reportedly already followed California's lead and will be implementing its own version of a "universal meal program."

Parents may be stuck in poverty due to bad choices which they have made, or they may be trapped in financial insecurity because of things beyond their control.  But regardless of what led to a family's impoverished circumstances, the children are victims in the drama and consequently not to blame for their situations.  

There is nothing un-American, immoral, or wrong with feeding children, and it is clearly, in fact, a Christian thing to do.  California and Maine have taken significant steps in fighting child hunger and poverty, but there is still much to do - even in those two states.   America should not rest until every child in our country has ready access to three nutritious meals a day - every day of the year - and when that heady goal is achieved, we should then turn our attention to the rest of the world.

Defeating hunger, especially among children, should certainly be a central focus of any "pro-life" crusade.