So I’ve come across this piece of news where a so called „Arbys foundation“ payed 1000000$ to schools so that they can pay off their student‘s debts.
Now what I am wondering about, what does that mean exactly? Because what the article implies is that children are being indebted for free school lunches, which seems to lack a lot of nuance and would be illegal if it was true.
Does it simply mean that the schools themselves have to come up to pay, or is it a matter of the city government?
PS: I am German therefore I may have screwed up with the grammar and possibly the vocabulary too.
In: Economics
Most schools within the USA require school lunches to be paid for by either the students or the students’ parents. As schools cannot deny students food by law, they instead require parents pay the cost of the lunches at a later date (debt). The cost per meal depends on the school, and how they handle the debt also depends on the school. Some schools will simply pay for the cost themselves if parents do not pay, but other schools will try their hardest to go after parents with lunch debts. Most often by they force parents to pay by withholding transcripts, which can seriously stunt scholarship and college applications.
Low income families are able to qualify for free lunch vouchers depending on the school. Depending on the setup, either the school or state or federal government will pay the lunch bill for these families. But the requirements to get on free lunch waivers can be obtuse and if you miss the paperwork deadlines, you do not get free lunches.
In most if not all schools, you can bring in a lunch from home. If you are smart about it, bringing a lunch from home can be very cheap (and it helps with picky eaters). However, as schools cannot deny students food, there is absolutely nothing stopping a misbehaving child from ordering lunch every day no matter how expensive it is for the parent. Some families also are simply too poor to afford to pay for all of their children’s meals, even at home.
Latest Answers