The National School Lunch Program Essay

The author’s ethos by describing some of the current uses for the funds being provided, demonstrating the concerns, and showing the aggravations that some Americans towards the issue. Waters and Heron state “Parent advocacy groups like Better School Food have rejected the National School Lunch

One in six children in the United States do not know when they will get their next meal. Children who are facing hunger struggle in school, are more likely to repeat a grade, have developmental concerns and have behavioral problems. The National School Lunch Program has brought meals to millions of children from food insecure families for free or reduced rates.

This article by Great Schools is addressed to parents considered about the current school lunches provided to the children in their district. Unlike any other source, this one focuses solely on 3 organizations that advocate. The diversity of the listed projects gives an opportunity to expand on different approaches to solve the various problems of the lunch program. However, there is no attempt to address the current issues of our system, requiring a previous understanding of how the school lunch system currently operates.

The NSLP is “a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946” (National). It was created after a study was conducted by congress into why so many young men did not meet the requirements of the WWII draft. It was found that there was a connection between physical deficiencies and malnutrition during adolescence. After the study was published, the government took it upon itself to regulate what children ate. Its focus has now been shifted from battling malnutrition to battling childhood obesity, yet there are plenty of statistics that denote childhood obesity is not caused entirely by poor food choices.

The National School Lunch Program is an enormous federal program that has grown to become the second largest U.S. food and nutrition assistance program in both numbers of children served. In 2009, over 31 million children participated in the NSLP each school day at a cost of 9.3 billion to the Federal government. The SBP reached 11 million children at an additional cost of 2.4 billion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the program on the federal level and provides oversight of the states agencies that are responsible for the program, in Georgia, the department of education manages the statewide program. Ultimately, the success of the program resides with the local school district or each individual school food authority who implement the program to the students. The laws establishing the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program stated that schools had to run their nutrition programs profit free and set the monetary per meal rates to reimburse the individual school. Rates for school year 2009 were $2.72 for free lunches, $2.32 for reduced cost lunches and $.26 for paid lunches. Today, almost half of all lunches served are provided free to students, with an additional 10 percent provided at reduced prices. Although schools are not required to offer NSLP meals, 94 percent of schools, both public and private, choose to participate in the program. Little

One in three Americans kids are obese or over weight which is a staggering and alarming rate at the same time. So looking 20 years into the future that number could double if nothing is said and done about what we are eating. The public school food in school lunches are unhealthy for many alarming reasons, but not much can be done immediately due to strict guidelines and budgets that schools must follow. A lot of it goes to kids not exercising, and more time watching TV, or playing on the computer. And now days more families have less time to make nutritious home made meals. So they tend to eat School cafeteria lunches that have minimal nutrition’s and harmful calories. To prevent your kid from being over weight mean adapting what you eat, and having to exercise at least 60 minutes a day. If the changes are made to change school lunches, it can help them from being obese, children can improve their lifestyle choices, and lastly it prevents them from getting harmful diseases.

Nearly 100,000 schools in America participate in the National School Lunch Program. Lunches created as part of this

Children in America are faced with different choices every day. Some of these choices can be either good or bad for them. But these children don't really know the consequences of their actions, but the school does. Schools are serving unhealthy and un properly cooked meals to children every single day. These food companies make big money from these schools because the schools just buy the lunches so the kids will eat something. The schools don't really care what goes into the students stomachs, but as long as the school meets the requirements it's okay. Then the students just eat it because it looks and taste good, but they don't have an idea of what their eating is made out of or where it has been before. The government needs to start making school lunches more healthy for these students, if not then then unfortunately the number of obese children will rise.

The National School Lunch Program needs to standardize and regulate their set nutritional standards at all schools to help curb the growing prevalence of childhood obesity and other weight related diseases.

This legislation increases access to healthy food for low-income children, first by setting new standards to the free-lunch program that increase the number of eligible children by 115,000. This is facilitated by federal reimbursement for schools in areas with high concentrations of low-income children and the elimination of paper applications. For these children, the lunch they receive at school may be the only meal they can depend on every day. One of the goals of this legislation is to make sure that this one meal is as healthy and nutritious as possible, so the USDA has been granted authority to create nutritional standards for all foods sold in schools. The bill allocates $4.5 billion to implement new health standards, and reimburses an average of six extra cents per meal for schools that meet the new nutrition standards. Another use of the funds included in this bill includes providing resources for schools to utilize local farms and gardens that provide fresh produce. A study from Social Science & Medicine, Lee, 2012, suggests that availability of local foods is linked to healthier weights. The bill also required the USDA to develop new nutrition standards for the meals and

The goal of any educational institution should be to have postive impacts on the whole child. Nutrition is one aspect of the whole child that schools could improve upon. For a variety of reasons, there is a disconnect between the educators of a school building and those responsible for student’s nutrition. At school, students have a unqiue opportunity to make decisions about their nutrition, with the assistance of their parent in some cases. The following literature review investigates the National School Lunch Program in its effects on childhood obesity. The workshop to follow offers a plan to help impact childhood obesity through family education.

Obesity is crucial in this country, in order for there to be a change we need to start serving healthy foods at schools. The First Lady Michelle Obama brought this healthy lunch concern to the educational system. California’s Department of Education Nutrition Services provides fresh fruit and vegetables to students as a supplement throughout the day. California’s schools have moved ahead to support Hunger-Free Kids policy. The local government regulates school districts including Los Angeles Unified School District to serve whole grains, fruits and vegetables versus foods high in calories. The Hunger-Free Kids policy allowed public schools to serve healthy lunches preventing obesity.

One of the core values of social work is service, whose goal is “to help people in need and to address social problems”.2 The goal of the National School Lunch Program is consistent with the values of social work through the cooperation among the three agencies of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The FNS serves as the primary liaison between USDA and local education agencies. It is responsible for the general administration of the National School Lunch Program. The FSA and the AMS work hand in hand as the purchasing and delivery arm. In the past 68 years, over 31 million children have been served nutritious lunch in more than 101,000 public or non-profit private schools that participated in the National School Lunch Program.1

Schools in high-poverty areas with most children in need of free or reduced lunch, tend to do well with these new regulations. However, schools will less kids eligible for free or reduced lunch do not do so well, and a lot of districts in this category have dropped the program. Theory is that schools with more children than not eligible for free or reduced lunch, are more likely to eat what is served to them. “Some of our students show up for breakfast and haven’t had anything to eat since lunch the day before” (Hill). The Executive Director of Nutritional services points out a harsh fact, and the good these lunch programs bring to table.

First, students instantly stopped buying the school’s lunches as often as they had. They despised the new rules and guidelines that they were forced to follow in order to have school lunches. Second, students had been way more disruptive and hadn’t been paying attention in class because they hadn’t ate their lunches. Academic scores went down and cause similar problems. Third, hundreds of schools lost thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars just because students weren’t buying the lunches. Voorheesville Superintendent Teresa Thayer Snyder claimed that the district she worked in lost $30,000 in the first three months. In upstate New York, districts completely abandoned the program altogether because by the end of the year, they had lost over $100,000. Finally, students in athletic programs had a lot of problems with this as well. After school practices and games had students burn around 200 calories, and in high school, this caused some issues. In high school cafeterias, the limits were anywhere from 750-850 calories. All of these problems led to students bringing in junk food either from home or from convenience stores nearby the