When the school joined California’s Free Lunch Program this fall, many students were expecting the same lunch and snack options as in the past with the added bonus that they would be free.
That hasn’t been the case.
The National School Lunch Program requires all schools who have at least 40% of their student body population eligible for federal aid programs to participate in the program. Our district only has 7.3% of students who qualify, a drastic increase in comparison to the 0.4% in the 2018-19 school year. The district has changed its policy based upon state level legislation, which reimburses the school six cents more than a normal paid lunch would cost. The program has evolved into slow steps toward free meals in all public schools across the state.
What many students don’t know is that the cafeteria staff has been trying to incorporate old elements into the new program, but is restricted by new rules, whether regarding extra prices or food quality.
Financial benefits for countless families outweigh any personal preferences, but there are many differences in the food compared to the old program. Countless students have gotten lunch at least once from the new program and found problems with both its organization and the food itself. All decisions made regarding the program are at a district level, and many of the cafeteria workers have little to no control over what they serve.
State law requires all districts partaking in the program to include a certain amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, starch, beans and milk in meals during a week. In some meals, vegetables are simply boiled and placed on top of the main course. This has led to unpleasant flavor combinations — such as stale pasta salad served with a noodle stir-fry — that have not been received well by the majority of the student body.
The distinction between non-vegetarian and vegetarian options is also not clear. Vegetarian meals are marked with a sticker declaring them so; however, the section for vegetarian meals is often empty. Providing sufficient vegetarian options that are always in stock would prompt more vegetarian students to participate in the program while encouraging them to take the provided meals rather than purchasing snacks as substitutes.
In addition to the free entrees, there are paid sides offered as well. Some lunch items, like burritos, have seen sky high prices up to $6. These are unnecessarily overpriced, and should either be included as part of the free meal, or marked on a menu as paid, just as second meals are.
Countless students are still paying for sides, enjoying Izze and chocolate chip cookies along with their less tasty main meal, so why not make options? Providing a paid meal track like last year would allow students to pay for higher quality meals while offering free options for students who want to reap the benefits of the new program. Leaving students with options allows them to take a free meal when they are interested in what’s being served, but pay for a larger portion when they are more hungry.
The majority of Saratoga families can afford to pay for lunches, and allowing both unpaid and paid options can help both financially conscious families and those willing to pay for better quality food. The program is a step in the right direction to support all students, but with a few modifications, it can reach almost unanimous approval from students and their parents.
