Last week The Valley Reporter’s Valley Viewpoint question asked people for their thoughts on a proposed bill in the Vermont Senate that would make free school meals universal in five years.
The three community members were in favor of the idea and we are too. One of those who responded last week aptly questioned the five-year phase-in, asking, “What about the kids who are hungry now?”
Another community member said she supported the state stepping in to make sure kids aren’t hungry, especially in light of the tenuous state of politics in Washington where social and human service programs may be under assault.
Senator Debbie Ingram’s S.223 would require that all Vermont schools move to universal meals by 2025. The bill also calls for schools to do everything possible to encourage and maximize participation and in so doing maximizing federal funding that comes to the state for school meals.
Universal school lunch means no children have to pay for breakfast or lunch at school. It means no students have to bring lunch money. It means schools don’t need to track which children’s parents have paid and which children’s parents can’t afford to pay. It means that no child in Vermont would have to face the stigma of getting to the head of the lunch line and being told they could not have lunch.
It’s no secret that kids in school can achieve their primary job – learning – if their stomachs aren’t grumbling. Universal school meals will improve academic outcomes, strengthening our schools and our future workforce.
There are many pragmatic, rational, logical reasons for making school breakfasts and lunches free of charge, but the moral imperative is the most compelling reason to keep kids and good nutrition and learning free from the financial concerns.
If we, as a society, agree that some kids merit free school breakfasts and lunches, we, as a society, can agree that all kids merit free school breakfasts and lunch. No child should ever be faced with any stigma around a family’s ability to pay.
It’s the right thing to do and we agree that it can and should happen sooner than the five years the current version of the bill calls for.
