Free meals for all Detroit schoolchildren in fall

**begingri** · August-16-11, 06:50 PM

BY TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

All Detroit Public Schools students will receive free breakfast, lunch and snacks in an effort to remove the stigma of being from a low-income family.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture program chose Michigan as one of three states to participate in the pilot program. Charter schools and districts in Michigan can participate if at least 40% of students are eligible for public assistance.

“One of the primary goals of this program is to eliminate the stigma that students feel when they get a free lunch, as opposed to paying cash,” said DPS Chief Operating Officer Mark Schrupp. “Some students would skip important meals to avoid being identified as low-income. Now, all students will walk through a lunch line and not have to pay. Low-income students will not be easily identifiable and will be less likely to skip meals.”

Although not required to participate, parents are still being asked to fill out a survey that includes income analysis to ensure that children, schools and the district will continue to receive millions of dollars in benefits and resources from the state and federal governments, as well as private grants. Program funding dependent on the surveys includes tutoring, after-school programs, field trips, technology and equipment, DDOT bus cards, free college testing, enrichment activities and others.

The Community Eligibility Option is among the early reforms enacted under President Obama’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which authorized the USDA to select up to three states to test the option in School Year 2011-12. A main factor in choosing the finalists was the prevalence of high-poverty areas. The option will be offered to more states in successive years, and will be available to all states beginning School Year 2014-15.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110816/NEWS01/110816004/Free-meals-all-Detroit-schoolchildren-fall?odyssey=mod|mostview

**Bham1982** · August-16-11, 07:23 PM

Most Detroit schools have north of 80% or even 90% free lunches, so no big change.

Though I have always found the free breakfast/lunch program very, very sad. Parents can't even feed their children nowadays? Isn't that the absolute most basic human need? They can't afford even a piece of fruit? Do they have vehicles, nice clothes, hairstyles, etc.? What's with the weird priorities?

I generally favor social welfare spending, and am not advocating the removal of this program, but I find it a very damning indictment of society. We seem really screwed up if basically an entire city of parents can't even be counted on for a bowl of cereal.

**Patrick** · August-16-11, 07:41 PM

A lot of kids dont want to be "stimatized" by getting a free lunch...I guess many simply don't take advantage of it.

**Scottathew** · August-16-11, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Most Detroit schools have north of 80% or even 90% free lunches, so no big change.

Fox2 said it was 40%, but that doesn't seem right.

I hope this helps out enrollment. Get your butt to school, you get free food, with or without your paperwork done.

I do agree that a very high percentage qualify, so high that it just makes sense to not charge.

**Roq** · August-16-11, 07:51 PM

If even one kid who is hungry eats something because of this program, then in my opinion it's a good program regardless if parents really should be feeding their own kids.

**Bham1982** · August-16-11, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Roq

If even one kid who is hungry eats something because of this program, then in my opinion it's a good program regardless if parents really should be feeding their own kids.

I agree, which is why I reluctantly support the program. Can't blame the kids for their parents' faults. The poor kids have enough chaos in their lives.

**canuck** · August-16-11, 07:58 PM

The US has always been the number one giver of food to poor countries around the planet. Kudos for that, even if it is largely dependant on the farm subsidies conundrum. I think this meal giving along with home economics classes where kids and parents learn to cook wholesome food is a right thing.

**rjk** · August-16-11, 08:47 PM

Looking at the photo of the school lunch, there's a gooey main entree, some sort of pie, chocolate milk, and some iceberg lettuce which I'm guessing usually ends up in the garbage because it's so bland. No wonder so many kids are fat and out of shape.

I don't have a problem with this program, only that they're giving these kids crap food.

Dr. Emil · August-16-11, 08:55 PM

There are programs that help kids get lunch in the summer months because if they aren't getting the free meal at school, they ain't eating. With that kind of abject poverty, only the most heartless bastards would have a problem with tax monies being used in that manner.

**Bham1982** · August-16-11, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Emil

With that kind of abject poverty, only the most heartless bastards would have a problem with tax monies being used in that manner.

This is where I disagree. Detroit, by global standards, has comparatively little "abject poverty". Spiritual poverty, yes. But, by relative economic standards, Detroit is a place that should be able to feed its children.

If it were a nation, Detroit would be a wealthy nation. It has three times the median household income of middle income countries like Brazil and Mexico.

About 80% of Detroit households have personal vehicles. About half of Detroit households are homeowners. Virtually 100% have television, phone and electricity, and in-home washers/dryers and dishwashers are the norm.

These are very rare things, even in middle income countries [[ok, not the phone, TV, or electricity, but yeah, everything else). Yet 90% of Detroit children receive free meals. I don't blame the kids, but I do blame the parents and our misplaced priorities.

**Jimaz** · August-16-11, 09:12 PM

I have a feeling this is just a start to something far greater.

**Novine** · August-16-11, 09:21 PM

"About 80% of Detroit households have personal vehicles. About half of Detroit households are homeowners. Virtually 100% have television, phone and electricity, and in-home washers/dryers and dishwashers are the norm."

I would question a lot of these stats. I doubt that half of Detroit households are homeowners. They may live in a house but a number of those are likely rentals and you often have multi-generational households where Grandma and Grandpa own the home but the kids can't afford to own a house. As for TVs and phones, you make it sound like those are luxury items. A kid working at McDonalds can afford all of those items. As for appliances, you can get low-end appliances fairly cheap. They aren't examples of wealth.

**English** · August-16-11, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

I have a feeling this is just a start to something far greater.

Me too. I'm very pleased about this.

**Hypestyles** · August-16-11, 11:19 PM

this should have been done decades ago. This should be replicated in all school districts nationwide. Children should not starve because of the political selfishness of a few.. Amazing how this is being spun as a sop to welfare cheats..

**DetroitTeacher** · August-17-11, 06:27 AM

Cooley provided free breakfast, lunch [[and a snack for the after school students) for everyone during the 2009-2010 school year. Everyone ate free [[if they wanted the extras, the kids had to purchase them...fries, chips, etc). The principal himself provided this program for the kids. The stigma associated with going through the free lunch line was horrible. No one wanted to do it. This way, no kid goes hungry because of the embarassment of getting a free lunch. Kids were let into the buidling early and put in the lunchroom. The kids who wanted to eat breakfast, ate...free. The lunch program was a great success and many kids confided in us that school was the only place they got a hot, decent meal. Not one kid ever went hungry. Just about each kid I knew ate the free lunch because, well, it was free to everyone.

I fully support this program because I see, firsthand, the benefits. Should parents be feeding their kids? Yes. Do most of them have a bridge card? Yes. Do some of them spend/trade the bridge card for stuff not used to feed the kids? Yes. The kids can't help that they were born into poverty. Yes, priorities are screwed up. A young lady last year had not one pair of shoes that she could wear to school. She had flip flops [[which are not allowed). She was borrowing other kid's shoes. When we found this out, she had a new pair of sneakers that we purchased for her. She said her people didn't care and figured the flip flops were just fine [[purchased at the dollar store). I am sure the only way she ate anything nutritious was with the free lunch program but she was embarrassed to get the free lunch. With this program, everyone is the same and no kid has to go hungry.

**DetroitTeacher** · August-17-11, 06:34 AM

Most of my students live in rentals and they move frequently. Some have no electricity or running water. I would say that 50%+ don't have in home laundry facilities. Many of their parents have no working vehicle. Most of my students don't work because there aren't any jobs out there for the kids, like there once was. If they do work, that money is taken by parents for stuff like rent and household expenses. I have some kids who are downright homeless, living in a shelter or flopping at friends' houses [[with their parent). 80% is really way too high a number because it's not what I am seeing each day.

Originally Posted by Novine

"About 80% of Detroit households have personal vehicles. About half of Detroit households are homeowners. Virtually 100% have television, phone and electricity, and in-home washers/dryers and dishwashers are the norm."

I would question a lot of these stats. I doubt that half of Detroit households are homeowners. They may live in a house but a number of those are likely rentals and you often have multi-generational households where Grandma and Grandpa own the home but the kids can't afford to own a house. As for TVs and phones, you make it sound like those are luxury items. A kid working at McDonalds can afford all of those items. As for appliances, you can get low-end appliances fairly cheap. They aren't examples of wealth.

**English** · August-17-11, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

"About 80% of Detroit households have personal vehicles. About half of Detroit households are homeowners. Virtually 100% have television, phone and electricity, and in-home washers/dryers and dishwashers are the norm."

I would question a lot of these stats. I doubt that half of Detroit households are homeowners. They may live in a house but a number of those are likely rentals and you often have multi-generational households where Grandma and Grandpa own the home but the kids can't afford to own a house. As for TVs and phones, you make it sound like those are luxury items. A kid working at McDonalds can afford all of those items. As for appliances, you can get low-end appliances fairly cheap. They aren't examples of wealth.

Completely agreed. You and DetroitTeacher have your fingers on the pulse of the situation going into the 2011-2012 school year.

**Detroitej72** · August-17-11, 08:07 AM

I say this program is long overdue. As was stated above, this is the only opportunity many kids get for a nutritious meal. As a civilized society, we should feel morally obligated to provide for our children to be feed. I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to this policy.

bartock · August-17-11, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

"About 80% of Detroit households have personal vehicles. About half of Detroit households are homeowners. Virtually 100% have television, phone and electricity, and in-home washers/dryers and dishwashers are the norm."

I would question a lot of these stats. I doubt that half of Detroit households are homeowners. They may live in a house but a number of those are likely rentals and you often have multi-generational households where Grandma and Grandpa own the home but the kids can't afford to own a house. As for TVs and phones, you make it sound like those are luxury items. A kid working at McDonalds can afford all of those items. As for appliances, you can get low-end appliances fairly cheap. They aren't examples of wealth.

I wouldn't question those stats, I think Bham is right on. It is a matter of priorities for the parents. $5,000 homes and $50,000 cars sort of thing. 25 cent bag of chips and a pop for breakfast. Skinny children with obese mothers.

It is not the kids' fault, and I think the meal program is a wonderful idea going to the core of what may ail students in the district. What I think is sad is that government/quasi-government is stepping into the shoes of parents who aren't responsible enough to make their children their number one priority.

**DetroitTeacher** · August-17-11, 08:33 AM

That's a pizza bagel for the entree. Typical school lunches don't look like this. The kids always get a veggie [[not just a starch, either) of some sort, fresh fruit, milk/juice, a dessert, and a main entree. It's balanced and it's nutritious. The photo is a stock photo and is not what the kids actually get. Some days lunches are better than other days. If a kid is hungry, it serves the purpose and is edible. I've had a school lunch or two and they aren't THAT bad [[not something I would eat each day but the kids seem to be OK with them).

Originally Posted by rjk

Looking at the photo of the school lunch, there's a gooey main entree, some sort of pie, chocolate milk, and some iceberg lettuce which I'm guessing usually ends up in the garbage because it's so bland. No wonder so many kids are fat and out of shape.

I don't have a problem with this program, only that they're giving these kids crap food.

**Thames** · August-17-11, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitTeacher

Cooley provided free breakfast, lunch [[and a snack for the after school students) for everyone during the 2009-2010 school year. Everyone ate free [[if they wanted the extras, the kids had to purchase them...fries, chips, etc). The principal himself provided this program for the kids. The stigma associated with going through the free lunch line was horrible. No one wanted to do it. This way, no kid goes hungry because of the embarassment of getting a free lunch. Kids were let into the buidling early and put in the lunchroom. The kids who wanted to eat breakfast, ate...free. The lunch program was a great success and many kids confided in us that school was the only place they got a hot, decent meal. Not one kid ever went hungry. Just about each kid I knew ate the free lunch because, well, it was free to everyone.

I fully support this program because I see, firsthand, the benefits. Should parents be feeding their kids? Yes. Do most of them have a bridge card? Yes. Do some of them spend/trade the bridge card for stuff not used to feed the kids? Yes. The kids can't help that they were born into poverty. Yes, priorities are screwed up. A young lady last year had not one pair of shoes that she could wear to school. She had flip flops [[which are not allowed). She was borrowing other kid's shoes. When we found this out, she had a new pair of sneakers that we purchased for her. She said her people didn't care and figured the flip flops were just fine [[purchased at the dollar store). I am sure the only way she ate anything nutritious was with the free lunch program but she was embarrassed to get the free lunch. With this program, everyone is the same and no kid has to go hungry.

So, what I'm reading here, and on many other threads, is that there are at least 84,000 parentless children in the COD. Other than the school, they have no access to food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I like English's idea of orphanages. Although she did not use the word specifically, she said:

Originally Posted by English

I've said this on almost every DPS thread we've had here, but we need for DPS schools to operate more like 24-7-365 comprehensive "life centers." Three meals per day, combining the functions of a traditional school with a community center, health clinic, police mini-station, and safe house. We need to minimize the amount of time that kids, especially young ones, spend in chaotic homes and dangerous neighborhoods......Remember that Chicago teen who was beat to death,Derrion Albert? He was a studious young man with a bright future. Imagine if he didn't have to walk home that evening. Imagine if he'd been able to stay at school[....

The cost wouldn't be much if all the money paid out for housing, food, and education on behalf of these children was channeled into the orphanages.

They would at least be fed, clothed, educated, and safe.

DPS teachers would just report to work in a classroom at the orphanage instead of their current classrooms and the kids would be surrounded by people that care about them.

**Bham1982** · August-17-11, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by bartock

What I think is sad is that government/quasi-government is stepping into the shoes of parents who aren't responsible enough to make their children their number one priority.

Bingo. You said it much better than me.

I would only have children if I was prepared to make them my number one priority in life. I am just amazed at adults who treat their own children as less important than cable TV or a new hairstyle.

And again, I'm not against the program. In fact, I think govt. should expand its role in the lives of poor children. It's just really, really sad that so many parents can't or won't step up to the plate.

**DetroitTeacher** · August-17-11, 09:01 AM

I think people should take care of their kids, true. MANY of my kids report that what food they have in the house isn't nutritious...think chips and pop. MANY of my kids are offered something from the dollar menu at McD's for dinner. There are some parents who take care to see that their kids are eating properly with fresh fruit and veggies. Most of the kids eat high starch, high carb foods [[breads, rolls, donuts, fast food, potatoes). The program for free meals at school offers kids who don't get anything at home an opportunity to eat. It also offers those who don't have lunch money [[for whatever reason) a chance to get a meal, free, without the stigma of the free lunch line. Many of my kids come to school because it's the safest place they have to go and they can eat during the day. That is sad. I'm not saying that ALL kids face this situation but many do...one kid didn't eat all day because of the stigma of the free lunch line [[no breakfast, no lunch and a bag of chips for dinner). I went and stood in the lunch line for him and got his lunch [[I had first talked to the lunch lady and told her who I was getting the lunch for so she could check his name off of the list for the free lunch). THAT is why he didn't eat. He didn't want anyone to know he qualified for the free lunch. He scarfed the food down in my classroom and ate with me. No one was the wiser [[as far as the kids were concerned). They just figured I was getting the lunch for myself.

I'm happy about this program. If we can offer the kids a hot meal then we should. Not one kid should be going hungry in this country!

**JBMcB** · August-17-11, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitTeacher

I'm happy about this program. If we can offer the kids a hot meal then we should. Not one kid should be going hungry in this country!

Aren't you pointing out that the main reason kids are going hungry, or aren't eating well, isn't lack of access to food, but various social factors?

The lunch programs are nice, but just a band-aid to a larger problem. I'm not sure why people insist that good food costs more than bad food - for the price of a single McDonald's "value" meal you can buy enough vegetables to make salads for a week.

**English** · August-17-11, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by bartock

I wouldn't question those stats, I think Bham is right on. It is a matter of priorities for the parents. $5,000 homes and $50,000 cars sort of thing. 25 cent bag of chips and a pop for breakfast. Skinny children with obese mothers.

It is not the kids' fault, and I think the meal program is a wonderful idea going to the core of what may ail students in the district. What I think is sad is that government/quasi-government is stepping into the shoes of parents who aren't responsible enough to make their children their number one priority.

I definitely would question those stats, simply because the past 10-15 years have completely decimated urban communities across the nation.

For argument's sake, let's say that you are correct. It may be sad that government is stepping in, but honestly, what's the alternative? Either you force people to be good parents [[how do you do that?), or you do whatever it takes.

If we wish to engage in coercion, we will become a very different society. I'm willing to have that conversation here, in Lansing, and in DC if we need to have it. But let's extend the conversation beyond "oh, these adults SUCK -- these kids don't have a chance!" And then 20 years later, we are having the same conversation about the parenting skills of today's kids.