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
American school provide lunch, but there is a fee for it. But the food is basically produced in bulk, where they pick a meal for that day and only serve those items. For example, a meal may be a piece of chicken, some potatoes, some beans, a piece of fruit, a slice of cake or serving of custard, and a serving of milk.
They will often publish the school lunch menu weekly so that parents know what will be served.
But some kids don’t want to eat what is on the menu, so parents send a packed lunch with the kid. If the kids brings their own lunch then they aren’t charged for the school lunch.
As others have said, the school can’t force the kid to eat, but they can make sure that every kid has something to eat.
Families that can afford to pay do, and families that can’t afford to pay don’t. The school knows pretty well which families can and can’t afford to pay. They know because some kids are always dressed nicely in new clothes and shoes and arrive with clean hands and faces and hair, and some kids are always dressed in old, worn clothes and shoes and maybe only get a bath once a week. Basically it’s the “haves” and the “have nots”.
It sucks, for the kids because they know and they are teased about it.
But regardless of their wealth, every kid gets something to eat. For some it may be the only meals they get.
Latest Answers