Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
As an educator at a Title I elementary school in St. Paul, I was troubled by the June 20 commentary “Can we argue with free food in schools? Maybe.” The author argues against a program that ensures my students have enough food to eat each day. Title I schools are public schools in disadvantaged areas that require federal funding to offset limited local tax bases. In simple terms, this means I work with students actively experiencing homelessness, food insecurity and severe economic instability. Reading an opinion piece advocating for more insecurity in the lives of these children forced me to write a response:
Myth No. 1: Increased waste
The article cited a Harvard University study claiming that universal meals increase waste. But a Harvard-led study found no rise in food waste after implementation of new nutritional standards for school breakfasts and lunches in 2012. Further, a 2023 Harvard article noted income-based programs caused “shame, anger and loneliness” among food-insecure kids, with 42% of eligible families saying their children would skip meals unless they were free for all.
Myth No. 2: That schools drive food waste
A 2023 Gallup and MITRE survey found most waste occurs in households, not schools. The commentary author’s push for a voucher program ignores this reality and cherry-picks data to target public assistance.
Myth No. 3: That meals don’t meet nutritional standards
The claim that school lunches are “barely edible” or “reinforce junk food” is false. Every Minnesota public school provides fruit, vegetables and complex carbs daily. Menus are publicly available online.
Myth No. 4: That accountability is lacking
It is, in fact, built in. Every school employs full-time nutrition service professionals to oversee meal preparation and tracking.
Myth No. 5: That universal programs feed bureaucracy
The author paradoxically criticized universal programs as bureaucratic while advocating for means testing, a system requiring unelected officials to determine eligibility. These systems are definitionally more bureaucratic than universal programs put in place by democratically elected leaders.
