school lunch
The connection between hunger and reduced learning is widely accepted and is at the heart of the 76-year-old federal school lunch program. Credit: MinnPost file photo by Erin Hinrichs

It might be an idea whose time hasn’t come, at least not yet. But a program that emerged from the federal government’s response to COVID-19 has planted the idea in food security, education and legislative circles that all students should get free breakfast and lunch if they choose, regardless of family income.

Called universal school meals and advocated under the banner hunger-free schools, the concept is that it is better to serve meals to all students than it is to engage in the bureaucratic exercise of application and vetting and the resulting stigma of identifying low-income students.

The connection between hunger and reduced learning is widely accepted and is at the heart of the 76-year-old federal school lunch program. There are also increasing concerns that current eligibility leaves out children who are at risk of being “food insecure.”

“Many students who don’t qualify for free and reduced price meals are not wealthy,” Darcy Stueber, the manager of school nutrition for the Mankato school district told a House committee. “They are middle-class families making ends meet every day.”

For the last two school years, the concept was tested by one of the congressional responses to the pandemic – waivers that allowed schools to offer meals to all students and also provided additional dollars. That COVID-related program ends June 30 and Minnesota legislative attempts to fund it with state money didn’t succeed. Still, the idea doesn’t appear to be going away.

“One of the good things we can point to during the pandemic that is something good that happened is this transformation to ‘we can just feed all the kids in the school,” said Leah Gardner, the policy director of the Hunger Free Schools coalition. “That spurred us on to launch the campaign.”

That was 18 months ago. And the experience with the federal waiver program was positive, she said, with student participation rates going up. Parents who got used to the program will learn come fall that what was free will no longer be. Low-income parents and school administrators will again have to fill out and process applications that show income levels.

Under the National School Lunch Program, families with income below 130 percent of the federal poverty level can receive free meals and those between 130 percent and 185 percent of poverty can receive meals at reduced prices. The USDA estimates that in 2020, 76.9 percent of all meals under the program were free or at reduced prices.

The pandemic waivers expanded the program and while there were hopes that Congress would extend it, the money was not included in the springtime COVID relief package. While some Democrats pointed fingers at Republicans, President Biden had not included the extension and its $11 billion annual cost in his $22 billion pandemic supplemental request.

States have sought to do the work themselves. California and Maine adopted universal free lunch programs. Colorado voters will decide in November whether to pay for the program with state tax dollars.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz proposed using  $183 million a year from the state revenue surplus to pay for school meals for all. That cost would grow to nearly $400 million in the next two-year budget period. While that expansion was included in House File 1729 by Rep. Sydney Jordan, DFL-Minneapolis, it was not included in the House education omnibus bill.

A related provision to expand a federal program that pays for universal school meals in high-poverty areas remains in play in talks between the House DFL and Senate GOP but that would require agreement and a special session of the Legislature – neither a sure thing.

Jordan said universal meals grew out of the issue of making lunch shaming illegal in Minnesota. Then the pandemic lunch program showed how it could work.

“Lunch shaming is terrible but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem that there are children going hungry in school and kids can’t learn when they’re hungry,” she said. “Why the federal program is important is it proved that we as policy makers can feed children, and it’s popular.”

The expense of the program caused it to be left out of the House education budget, Jordan said. The $183 million annual price tag is comparable to the Senate and House offers of reducing the special education cross subsidy, a perennial priority of school districts, that range from $195 million to $255 million.

“It’s also a new issue, one we’re still building momentum for,” Jordan said.

Walz said he is still interested in pursuing the funding in coming years.

“The amount of food that goes to waste, the capacity of this country to feed our students, the research that shows what happens when you do it and reducing that stigma … we just thought it was the right thing to do,” he said. “We’re not done with the issue.”

Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who often takes the lead on children and family programs for the administration, called the expansion “smart, a great long-term investment.”

“We’ll be studying the effects of this pandemic for a long time. We have all suffered losses big and small. But one of the positives is that feeding kids is something that works,” Flanagan said. “There’s a normalization of this and I think that’s powerful.”

Universal school meals is partly an extension of recent efforts against lunch shaming – the stories from some lunchrooms where students were embarrassed for having lunch debt. A 2021 law change made it illegal for schools to stigmatize students over lunch debt, there remains concern among school nutritionists that eligible students don’t apply because of the social stigma that goes with a program that serves low-income families.

“They know lunch shaming is clearly illegal but kids aren’t going to eat a meal if they think it will put their parents into collection,” Gardner said. “It’s invisible how this plays out. Kids are skipping meals. They are hungry but they don’t want to put their parents into a bad position.”

Steuber of Mankato schools said districts still have to try to get parents to pay unpaid school bills.

“As a food service director, I did not get into the business to become a debt collector,” she said.

A small piece of universal lunch programs was in play when session ended in May and could be again if a special session is convened, something now further at risk with Walz’s statement Thursday that talks are at an impasse. House Democrats included $8.3 million for the next school year and $16.5 million for two school years in the next budget biennium to help expand use of the federal Community Eligibility Provision program, known as CEP.

Under CEP, districts can provide school meals for all students if the school or district has a high-enough percentage of students living in poverty – 40 percent being “directly certified” for free meals. There are about 300 schools and a handful of districts meet the eligibility measurements. But the program is optional and only half of eligible schools take advantage of the funding. Minnesota ranks 47th among states in taking part.

One reason for that, says Matt Shaver, the policy director for the advocacy group EdAllies, is that the federal reimbursement for the program doesn’t cover the cost. That is especially true if the student body has between 40 percent and 60 percent directly certified. 

The money in the House DFL education offer would cover those unpaid costs, Shaver said.

Jordan’s House File 1985 would require schools to adopt the program and the money would cover administrative costs for those districts and provide some extra funding to fill gaps between costs and federal reimbursements. Unlike the universal school meals bill, this issue has bipartisan support with Sen. Zach Duckworth, R-Lakeville, sponsoring the companion Senate File 1902.

Expanding CEP could help solve a problem caused by the school lunch for all programs. That is, it doesn’t use a free-and-reduced-price lunch metric to determine which schools qualify. Currently, many special school funding programs – most unrelated to food – distribute money based on a school’s or school district’s percentage of students who are financially eligible for lunch assistance.

Gardner said CEP uses broader metrics such as data from the Census or the prevalence of eligibility for general food assistance such as the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or SNAP as well as the recently added metric of medical assistance. Minnesota’s addition of Medicaid could help more schools qualify.

Join the Conversation

23 Comments

  1. Please, enough of the “free lunch” talk, it is not free, taxpayers will pay for it. Another program that will never sunset and grow bigger and bigger. It will have “Feeding our Future” elements and another feel good program will be a boondoggle.

    1. Now that is rich:

      Good old Joe is all for subsidizing Chilean copper mining companies to the tune of a billion plus, but the idea of offering some hungry kid a free lunch is, wait for it…

      “A Boondoggle”

      boon·dog·gle
      /ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl/
      Learn to pronounce
      INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN

      verb
      waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.

  2. First and foremost, Nothing is Free. Someone is paying the bill and another unfunded state program is nothing more than increase in taxes for those who work for a living. Mark those words, “work for a living”.
    I was born and raised in the shadow of the Bois Forte reservation and attended school from grade seven through twelve with reservation students. I also had an aunt that taught at the reservation elementary school which was much more of a government form of attempting to be everything to all and failed in all facets attempted. Free lunch was the factor that stood out identifying the reservation students, but there were subtle programs that were in place to attempt to guarantee that this group of students would succeed in life, as long as it was free. When the elementary reservation students became part of our student body over 50% were from the reservation. This was a class of about 70 students. Six years later at graduation the class was 26 students, two from the reservation and neither were part of the original class from six years prior. What does this tell you about the democrats plan which amounts to only one thing, that being throw some money at it and the problem will go away. Taxing timmy is beside himself unable to spend every dime of the state surplus plus future unfunded amouts in his attempt to keep the party in office and control the people.
    Kids need to have food in their stomachs and I would never deny a child food, but these individuals or their parents receive child tax credits which are meant to support the children, not the parents/guardians life style. A simple accounting entry which would reduce the tax credit equal to the amount of the cost of the program. Don’t say it can’t be done, specific dollars follow each student for school funding and funds for federal programs/loans/grants are denied to post secondary students because of the tax status of hard working individuals disqualifies their children who are really adults, 18 plus, who are responsible students and pay their debts, but if you pay no taxes, you will not be in arrears will you? Then again, what would happen to all the “illegal alien parents” residing amoung us? Again a problem to great for a democrat to resolve with their only form of resolution, that being tossing money at the problem and in their minds, it will go away.
    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” What say ye now???

    1. So in other words, you’ll be happy to deny children food, just not in person, and in the service of fighting the ephemeral concept of “moral peril”, so your vestigial conscience won’t need to be troubled by the guilt you barely experience anyway? Got it.

    2. There is no ‘tangled web’ of deception here. The goal was to insure that students have nutritious meals so they can be ready to learn. I’m sorry if that is a bridge too far for your tax dollars. I am sure you are just as circumspect about the expensive meals that businesses can write off on their taxes.

      I am someone who grew up on (not adjacent to) a poor reservation in northern Minnesota and who has also taught in public school for more than 40 years in a rural district where free and reduced lunches play a significant role in preparedness for our students. All those years of me eating (and paying for) school lunches. Boy, I have really ben putting something over on all you hard working folks. Of course, I could have been having an expensive lunch with a client and writing it off rather than enjoying my 5-star tater tots and mystery meat.

      I won’t deny the reservation can be a dead end. Might it just be a byproduct of the near extinction of their culture by the dominant European invaders? I am sure institutional racism plays no role, either. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a dead end and I have many Ojibwa friends who successfully defy your stereotype.

      The conservative solution is always ‘tough love’, meaning little to no help for anything. Ever. I sometimes think being conservative is believing the worst of everyone and then being surprised when they aren’t as bad as you thought. Of course, liberals are accused of believing the best in everyone, and then being disappointed when those people let you down. Not sure where I truly fall on that set of extremes, but I hope I veer toward the latter as much as I can.

  3. “One of the good things we can point to during the pandemic that is something good that happened is this transformation to ‘we can just feed all the kids in the school…” OF COURSE!

    This is urgent, because the Federal program ends June 30th. McConnell says he doesn’t want the spending. The Republican Minority leader says it is Biden’s fault, USDAs fault, yada yada yada–the Republican Senate opposes it. Who are these people serving?

    The Federal program is the source of the shaming and debt problems.

    It sure looks like Republicans will spend money on poor people only if forced to do so. Minnesota must be the good guys once again if kids are to have any food security.

  4. The fact that we, as a nation, even have to debate things like this is embarrassing. School lunch should just be free, period. That poor kids have to feel stigmatized for being on a free or reduced price lunch program is unacceptable. That schools have to try and collect, or as they’ve done in recent years, take kids’ lunches away from them for unpaid lunch debt, is disgusting. I realize a few folks might bring up the “but how will we pay for it?” line that gets peddled around. We could start by drastically reducing the budget for the Pentagon, which siphons billions each year with no accountability. We could also stop giving tax breaks to the richest 1% and wealthiest corporations. The fact is there is no reason anyone in this country should be hungry, but it’s shameful when kids go to school and have to wonder if they will eat.

    1. Come now, if conservatives aren’t allowed to mock and shame the poor, what will they do for entertainment?

    2. I think the debate is not should kids get free food, it is what is the most cost efficient way that ensures the money is being used properly. It is easy to say, have a free breakfast or lunch, harder to ensure people are not playing the system. I am for it if it is a state and fed funding program and not based on property taxes and if some of the funding comes from perhaps cutting the child tax credit. Yes there are wealthy and not wealthy who take advantage of programs/loopholes, but then make this a program many can get behind–maybe a small breakfast supplement such as yogurt cups and granola bars and a lunch that uses locally sourced food and is healthy. I also go back to fair wages, all these programs overlook the need for decent wages.

      1. Good point – much of it does go back to fair wages. If every wage earner in this country was paid the living wage they deserved this wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t think breakfast needs to be anything elaborate – oatmeal or cereal, and takeaway fruit like a banana or an apple. It doesn’t have to be elaborate to be effective. However, to eliminate the stigma of the free and reduced programs, it should just be free. Kids find enough ways to bully one another; shaming the kid in front of you because it’s obvious he has free lunch … that’s one that’s easily preventable.

      2. Mostly agree, but in this case I don’t think we need to worry too much about anyone gaming the system. Providing some breakfast options and a decent lunch for everyone helps students get ready to learn, so universal lunch is in line with the overall mission. (Locally sourced is a nice touch).

        This would also mean districts wouldn’t have to rely food service and vending machine snacks as sources of revenue. Not everything needs to be monetized.

    3. Excellent response. Finland, Sweden, Estonia, among other nations have free lunch programs for all students, and some nations have, or are considering, free breakfast programs. With the increasing number of students experiencing hunger and/or homelessness, there is no reason the USA cannot have universal free breakfast and lunch programs.

    4. I always wonder how much the district is paying the administrator to hunt down lunch debts. It seems like it would be a more efficient use of our money to just feed everyone lunch and cut the clerks who are getting paid dollars to count pennies.

    1. You mean providing a basic benefit to children that most Minnesotans support?

  5. The school my children attend took advantage of the federal money and provided ‘free’ breakfast and lunch to all students this year. Be careful what you wish for. The quality of the food was not very good and my kids complained all the time about how poor the food was. Breakfast items were usually pretty good but the lunches were not. Often items promised would be out and things like the salad bar were very thin in selection. Part of this, I’m sure, is due to the same supply chain issues that everyone else is dealing with. My point is that while free lunches may sound like a good thing, in reality they may be much less than what we’d all expect.

  6. Turn it into a charity and then you folks can feed everyone and anyone you would like. It is not society’s responsibility to feed your child. It is also not society’s responsibility to house you, get you a car, a phone and a computer although the Leftie’s here think it is.
    Nothing is free, if you want to be successful get off the government dole and get a good job.

    1. Nope. Wanna live in our free, prosperous society that allows you the privilege of living as a resource hog, a drain on the rest of us to satisfy your unending thirst for money and status? Pay up, or go start your own.

  7. The School’s response to Covid was atrocious. They shut down and hid, when they didn’t have to. Our kids suffered, and they will be scarred from that experience forever. Now we are going to fix it with ‘free’ lunch? Well nothing is free. These families who need it are already being subsidized through other programs for ‘free’ food. Don’t give me that ‘do you want to starve the children’? Universal free lunch, Universal income, Universal healthcare, Universal Cell Phones, whats next and who is going to pay for all this?

    1. It’s fun to say “What’s next?” when the US has tried exactly zero of those ideas despite their resounding success in other countries.

    2. Us, because that’s what a well ordered society does. Wanna live in a social Darwinist jungle, fighting your neighbors for whatever scraps you can manage? Move.

Leave a comment