{"id":5,"date":"2008-10-01T15:40:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-01T20:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.elca.org\/faithlens\/2008\/10\/01\/september-24-october-1-2008-school-district-quickly-suspends-controversial-policy\/"},"modified":"2015-12-03T15:36:20","modified_gmt":"2015-12-03T20:36:20","slug":"september-24-october-1-2008-school-district-quickly-suspends-controversial-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.elca.org\/faithlens\/september-24-october-1-2008-school-district-quickly-suspends-controversial-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"September 24-October 1, 2008 – School district quickly suspends controversial policy"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span><\/span><\/strong>
Warm-up Question:<\/span><\/strong> Tell about a time when you have changed your mind about something important. <\/span><\/div>\n

At the beginning of the school year, the Edmonds, Washington school district had implemented a new policy: students who owed more than $10.00 in the cafeteria would have their hot lunches confiscated and replaced with a cheese sandwich and no drink. Because of food safety rules, the confiscated lunches had to be thrown away. Previously, students who didn\u2019t have lunch money had been allowed to charge their lunches. <\/span>

District officials acknowledged that implementing the policy was difficult, and that they were seeking to balance the district\u2019s need to be financially responsible with making sure that the kids were fed. At the end of the last school year, the district was owed $207,763 in unpaid lunch fees, and officials realized that the district could not long afford to continue the pattern of allowing students with delinquent lunch accounts to continue charging.<\/p>\n

Many of the students who owed money would qualify for the government sponsored free lunch or reduced price lunch program for low-income families, but had not filled out the paperwork. Others came from families who could pay, and who did settle their debts as soon as their kids had their hot lunches confiscated. Within five days, 35% of those who owed money had paid their debt. Some parents had been unaware that their children had been charging cafeteria lunches instead of eating the lunches they had packed from home; other parents had simply neglected to keep their children\u2019s cafeteria lunch accounts current.<\/p>\n

The policy quickly proved to be controversial. Some cafeteria workers refused to cooperate with the new school policy, and refused to take milk and fruit away from young kids. Some workers had begun donating money to buy lunches for kids who would otherwise be served a sandwich. “They’re children and it’s not their fault,” said one cashier. “For some of these kids, it’s the only decent meal they get in a day. Could you do it? Could you look into a kindergartner’s eyes and take away their lunch and give them a cold cheese sandwich and nothing else? I just can’t. If I lose my job over it, OK.”<\/p>\n

Public reaction to the policy was primarily negative, although some had applauded the school district for its “tough love” efforts, noting that someone would not expect to eat at a restaurant without paying, and that it is the parents, not the taxpayers, who are responsible for feeding the children. Many others criticized the district for wasting food by throwing it away and for unfairly punishing the students because of their parents\u2019 failure to pay.<\/p>\n

In response to the criticisms, the Edmonds School District quickly revised the policy to allow students to keep their milk, and, a few days later, announced that it was temporarily suspending the policy. The school district also announced that it would develop a new policy regarding students with delinquent cafeteria lunch accounts.
<\/span><\/p>\n

Discussion Questions<\/span><\/strong> <\/p>\n