2 ms·
This was in the mid-2000s. And your second point has zero relevance because my state (WA) had a separate program for reduced / free lunches for children in pove
by fzeroracer 4y ago
This was in the mid-2000s. And your second point has zero relevance because my state (WA) had a separate program for reduced / free lunches for children in poverty. As a result of that, I believe free school lunches should be universal, per the program being cancelled.
Do you have any more assumptions you'd like to make?
- oefrha 4y agoThe second point is relevant because smaller scale, more targeted programs existed before and can continue regardless of this sweeping program.
- fzeroracer 4y agoExcept the smaller scale programs are less funded and have to make specific concessions to exist. Most of the lunches served at my school were unhealthy and everyone had to eat the same thing regardless of allergies or other problems. So you had poor kids being stigmatized because they would get a free lunch or trade their lunch with someone else because they were lactose intolerant. You could ask pretty much anyone that grew up in that time and they'd talk about eating things like cheap hamburgers or pizza squares. That's why this sweeping program was important because food costs money, and giving schools more money for food means better and healthier selections for kids. I'm getting the feeling you never dealt with this problem growing up.