During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools had to close down and go remote. For some children, this meant they lost their only guaranteed meal of the day.
To combat this the government provided aid so all students would get free lunch. However, this ended when the pandemic did. This program should not have been stopped.
Since then numerous states have implemented their own version of a universal lunch program, Massachusetts included.
This has made a huge difference for children in these states and it has shown. Massachusetts ranks first in student success, and no state that provides universal lunches ranks outside the top 20 besides New Mexico.
Recently Vice President nominee and Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz implemented universal free lunch. This was not without opposition, however.
“I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry,” said Republican Sen. Steve Drazskowski.
That is a real quote and a real reason given to oppose children receiving free school lunches.
Despite what Sen. Drazskowski says, Minnesota’s poverty rate is 9.3%; while lower than the national average, it’s not zero.
This guaranteed meal also gives students an incentive to go to school. In Minnesota, the attendance rate jumped 5% from 69% to 74%.
This might come as a surprise to certain republican senators from Minnesota but children can focus better when they are not going hungry during the school day.
Lunches provided by the government also have to meet a nutrition standard, this means children will have access to a healthy option that would otherwise be unavailable.
Another positive aspect of having universal free lunches for students is getting rid of the unnecessary red tape and requirements of families trying to obtain free and reduced lunches. If a family is even $100 over the household income limit, they can be denied the benefit. This means the child could go hungry the whole time they are in school.
As stated before this can lead to a lack of focus and decreased ability to learn. There are also the moral implications of letting a child go hungry when you have the resources to feed them.
Let’s take the average salary of a random government job like a Minnesota state senator, they make $51,000 per year. Minnesota spends 481 million dollars to feed 821,000 students. That averages out to $508 to feed a student for a whole school year. That means the salary of one senator could feed about 100 students for a year.
A free lunch for all would also eliminate the stigma of needing a free lunch. A study done by Nourish Lab found that 42% of families with children eligible for free or reduced-priced meals reported their child would be less likely to eat a school meal next year if it was not free for all children.
Making sure students have all the resources they need to be successful in school should be one of our top priorities as a nation. Yet only eight states have a program in place to make sure all students are fed. That means 42 other states have work to do.
