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
>what the article implies is that children are being indebted for free school lunches
I don’t think it’s always the case that school lunches are free to the students. They’re not exactly expensive, but some money, which is still significant for kids with no way of earning income and parents maybe unable or unwilling to pay.
One way of mitigating the cost is for the school to allow a student’s lunch account to go in the negative, meaning they still get to eat but accrue debt that has to be repaid at some point. I don’t know what happens if it isn’t as I only ever brought my own lunch rather than buy, but there could maybe be other penalties for the kid.
Yes it sounds terrible and dystopian. Some of us don’t like it, and others maybe think it’s fine and appropriate.
Latest Answers