A friend of mine went ballistic this week over the Board of Education’s rejection of a proposed increase in the price of school meals. In an email, he blasted the decision as “sad” and “a poor joke.”
The state DOE needs to be renamed the state Department of Welfare.
the board of education actually thinks lunch for $2.35 and breakfast for $1 is too expensive ….. in the year 2010???? that is just sad.
Did Hawaii become part of Cuba? if not, why is there so much focus on the cost of lunch when the lack of education in Hawaii is the real problem that leads to sustained poverty for way too many people? what a poor joke. Pressure needs to be placed on Abercrombie to appoint to appoint people who can oversee a useful education system in this state.
It seems to me that the presumption that affordable school meals are somehow separate from learning problems is invalid. So I replied.
I think you’re wrong on this one.
Kids can’t learn when they’re hungry.
We have a very large percentage of kids who qualify for free meals, but that likely means many more just out of that category.
If a family has several children, the cost of meals ads up to several hundred dollars a month.
Rationally, subsidizing meals is less expensive than paying for the additional educational infrastructure necessary to try to squeeze additional performance out of hungry kids.
So lighten up on the Cuba rhetoric.
Kids nutrition is directly related to educational performance and ability to learn. There’s plenty of research to back that up.
The BOE apparently had a similar view. Its press release offers this explanation:
“A hungry student cannot learn,” Toguchi said, noting that new meal prices just took effect in January, when lunch rose from $1.25 to the current $2.20, and breakfast increased from 35 cents to 95 cents.
“While some families may be able to absorb what appears to be a modest increase, students in the so-called ‘gap’ group would not qualify for free and reduced lunch,” Toguchi added. “These are the very same families whose students are also ineligible for state subsidies available for afterschool programs and bus transportation – services that have already become more expensive.”
What’s interesting is that while the increase was rejected by an 8-2 vote of the board, the vote came as an abrupt about face. The recommendation from the board’s Committee on Administrative Services cited no arguments against the proposal, although it did observe that student achievement could suffer if more students skipped meals, and some jobs could be cut if fewer students bought lunches.
But the committee concluded the price hike was necessary to comply with SB 160 SD2, passed as Act 26 (2009), which mandates that fees cover half of the costs of the student meals. There is no indication in the committee reports or record of testimony that anyone other than the Department of Education took a position on the bill, and it passed without controversy.
A bit more reporting is certainly in order to see what brought about what seems to be a very abrupt turn against the fee proposal.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These responses are missing the point that the focus needs to be on the crappy public education on Hawaii, unless we want a state where people are permanently poor and poorly educated. Sorry, but this is a little more important than the price of a $1 for breakfast vs. 95 cents for breakfast. Will cheaper food fix this genuine long-term problem — Many, many people who move to Hawaii are warned not to send their kids to public school (and it’s for reasons other than food prices!)
For people who insist they can’t afford food for their kids (but who usually afford a nice car) is it economically and socially wise for these people to choose to live a life they can’t afford in Hawaii, and for everyone else always to pay for it? Is there an entitlement in the US constitution that states everyone needs to be able to live in expensive Hawaii, not Colorado? I must have overlooked it.
If so, then it must always be an enlightened decision to dodge reality and go into denial over the oncoming consequences. The consequence? Hawaii’s continually weak public schools. Kids who graduate and go nowhere in life.
Rejecting a nickel increase in breakfast prices helps fix this? Why don’t we just mail a nickel to everyone in Hawaii everyday — that will just save everyone for Christmas!
Bottom Line: The BOE made this maneuver because it took a spanking in the November elections.
Sadly, too many people on both sides of the US political spectrum act as if determined, short-sighted arguments in black boxes will solve everything. In other words, I’m already guessing that some people are going to get my points and some just won’t. So be it. I’m standing by them. Some of us don’t live in a world with a moon made of Whole Foods goat cheese. Hawaii needs to fix its weak public schools, which is just about any high school other than Moanalua and Kaiser. A nickel for that!
“Let them eat cake!”
But what if cake costs a whole dollar! lol
🙂
Aloha,
there are many good schools in Hawaii, you have to look. Kahuku is more than football. It has a solid academic program. It has management and administrative issues and there are teachers there who have put in their thirty years and are no longer teaching. i see that as a management problem.
the problem with the schools has much to do with administrative crap. and the entire bogus “leave no child behind”. The fact that private schools are so accepted has an effect, the parents who would be most involved in the education of their kids, and holding the school to account, have opted out of the system.
also, you have politicians making decisions about education and very, very few have their children in the public schools, so they are not personally effected by the decisions they make.
Have any of you looked at the quality of the lunches lately though? While I hate the idea of kids going hungry (I really, really do) and our middle class house has noticed the impact of the rising school lunch prices, the quality has taken a nose dive. I suspect it’s because they really do not have enough money to plate a decent lunch.
6 years ago, when my oldest was in K, they had real food: real fruit (oranges, papaya, pineapple), real chicken, non processed, non frozen pizza, etc. Now my youngest is in 2nd, and the food is appalling. ALL the chicken is processed (nuggets, patties, etc). The pizza is frozen/reheated. The fruit all comes from a can. There are items on the menu like “chicken nuggets over pasta” and “nachos”. How are those healthy, balanced meals?
It’s a hard choice to make, but I’m really scared for our kids with what they are presented as good lunch choices. Along with the standard of education that they get as well….
Education and jobs? That’s a joke? Where are the jobs for anyone?
The kids need to be well educated enough so they can get to Mainland colleges and find work away from the Islands. The only jobs here are very low level and require little education, often not even English speaking skills.
Even a few years ago it was better. Now it’s just impossible.
Just as an aside, any increase in the cost of school meals will hit an unlikely target — teachers — yet again. I can’t tell you how many teachers I know who buy lots of meals for their students, especially in rural areas where parents are too shame or too paranoid (e.g., Puna), to do the paperwork necessary for their kids to free/reduced price meals. These teachers buy meals themeselves because they can’t get hungry kids to learn. And, wouldn’t you know it, they’re almost forced into it because we’re judging our teachers based on whether their students learn. I don’t care how good the teacher is; if kids are thinking about the last meal they didn’t get or the next meal they may not get, no one can teach them.
Penny wise. Pound foolish.
Thank you for perfectly summarizing my thoughts in just 4 words! Well done!
Penny wise. Pounding beer!
Those who want to give meals to all kids below the cost of the food seem to be unaware that a federal program gives free or reduced-price meals at school to kids whose parents have low incomes.
What’s wrong with charging full price to kids whose parents can afford it? What’s wrong with a kid bringing lunch from home if the cafeteria price is too high?
I wonder if the people who don’t want to raise the price of school meals will therefore also oppose raising the salaries of the cafeteria workers, the custodians who clean the cafeteria, etc.
[commented slightly edited]
Thank god my kid got accepted into KSBE where health and nutrition of students is considered an important part of a child’s education.
Right on the mark Carrie. I have a nephew who goesto Kahuku HS. When he tells me what they serve in the cafeteria for meals I’m shocked-everything fried and starch on top of starch. And he gives me a funny look when I ask if they serve any fresh fruit.