Yesterday on my drive to Oakland I was listening to a talk radio show and the subject of "free school lunches for all" came up. A principal from a school that provides meals to all called in and I thought he did an exceptional job of explaining and defending the program. Also, the talk radio hosts did a great job of challenging the program. It was the kind of respectful, earnest discussion that I enjoy hearing about difficult problems, and it's why I listen to this particular show when I drive to work each day during the school year :-)
To summarize, if I may, the principal said that kids can't learn if they're hungry, and while this program should only be a stopgap measure, it's still necessary. The radio hosts said that if parents don't have to feed their kids, why would they ever be motivated to buy food and provide for their kids?
I don't want to provide any more information than this as I think you should hear the discussion firsthand, so I seriously encourage you to go here and listen to the principal's call (it starts at 33:45 and ends at about 38:30). I hope you'll be as impressed as I was about how well both sides conducted themselves and presented their arguments.
Last year I wrote about my own school district's participation in the summer "we'll feed your kids at no cost to you" program here.
2 comments:
I heard the same interview, live, and your synopsis is accurate. Still don't want it to be a program I need to pay for. The aforementioned talk show, (and why are we avoiding the name? It's gone national via podcast) is easily the best news talk show I've ever heard.
The problem with school lunches is the same problem we deal with in terms of personal income. Not everyone needs the same meal and not everyone deserves the same income. I've heard football players begging other kids for extras from their plates and I've seen tiny girls throw away entire lunches. I don't think anyone is capable of determining someone else's hunger level.
Post a Comment