“A businessman said he would settle the debts but the board rejected his offer.” (Is that NotJrvedivici? 
)
I didn’t know school lunch debt even existed.
Most school districts in the US use payment cards or accounts of some sort rather than cash for school lunches. There are those who feel that holding people accountable for debts (not keeping their accounts up to date) is okay when you plaster children’s faces across media and social media and accuse financially strapped schools of starving children (as opposed to their parents). Cherry Hill decided that a reasonable balance was to say if you don’t pay your bills you can’t participate in extracurricular activities. The schools are not a bank, and lending money is out of the charter and yet they find themselves doing so.
I do find the prospect of turning down a donation to be really odd. I suspect there is more to the story than reported.
Vouchers are used in our area. Lunch is $1.60 US last I was aware. Shaming past due balances from parents/minor children is something our surrounding community called out a few years back as unnecessary in resolving school provided meals. I throw my hands in the air in complete gobsmacked reaction when educators can’t find more resourceful solutions than punishing a child or making public sensitive issues.
Is the point if you can afford prom or activities than you can afford your lunch tab? Because it takes proof to qualify for a voucher and sometimes an entire family village to afford a prom.
3 Likes
We’re not necessarily talking about subsidized meals. These are people who just don’t pay their bills but fork out for clothes and meals and limos and prom tickets. We’re generally talking about entitlement, not poverty.
I’m not in the we camp. There are far too many details btwn A and Z for me to join the we camp…with due respect to those who are.
I have long thought that All students should have their lunch provided by the school system. But those fancy new football fields seem to be more important than anything else.
