Is Feeding the Kids at School the Next Great Reform?
Feeding kids at school makes so much sense. When you feed them at school, especially poor kids, you accomplish multiple goals. First, of course, you help ensure that their nutritional needs are met, not only for the students’ health, but to improve their academic results. Experts like David Berliner, emeritus, Arizona State U, have long listed lack of nutrition on the list of barriers to school success for poor kids.
On top of this, in these times of accelerated income polarization, this type of project removes one and ideally two meals from the budget of a poor family. Instead of handing out cash, it guarantees that the money is well spent freeing up family money for rent, transportation and the like.
Alongside dentacare, pharmacare, and $10 a day childcare, these programs constitute what some economists call ‘the social wage’, just like a benefits package to a unionized worker. The economics of these programs is proven to deliver far more service that individuals could ever afford on their own. It is the principle behind medicare. The beauty of these redistributive policies is that you can guarantee that they will be used exactly for their intended purpose, and not drift into the underground economy.
A left-of-center policy must pass three criteria - it must:
1) be progressive naturally, it must 2) be popular, and 3) be affordable within reason. Polling from the UK shows support in the 72% range, notwithstanding the wording of
the question. We can probably assume that this support goes even higher in the target ridings of any progressive party. Polling from the Breakfast Clubs of Canada lists 84% support, but new polling may need to come from a traditional pollster, without any perceived interest involved.
Around the world, the New Left Front came 1st in the French elections, partially on a promise to dramatically expand on school meals. Many countries already have fairly comprehensive school food programs. Two of the best are in Finland and Japan. Since the 1940s all public school children in Finland from pre-primary to upper secondary, (K-12) get one free meal every school day. Japan also supplies free meals from elementary grades to the end of junior High. Also noteworthy are the programs in South Korea, Sweden and the already existing program in France that the NLF wants to expand. Governor Tim Walz, of Minnesota, recently named VP running mate of Kamala Harris, is famous for expanding an existing school breakfast and lunch program into a universal program meaning, K12, no means test. Naturally, the Republicans fought the program.
There are a number of other reasons to support school food programs aside from reducing family food budgets, food insecurity, guaranteeing nutrition, better academic results, it reduces stress on families, usually mothers, regarding what to pack, and early morning stress. There are also issues around childhood obesity, and school behavior. There is emerging research in both these areas, to back these up, but common sense tells us that if two out of three meals a day are designed by professional nutritionists, that will have a profound effect on obesity, even post graduation as food habits are formed.
Bad behavior is so ubiquitous today that all potential solutions have to be on the table. Bad behaviour even has its own pathology today as a “conduct disorder”. Again, research is beginning to show, but common sense supports, the notion that a hungry or poorly nourished youngster is more likely to act out in socially destructive ways.
They say there is no free lunch and they are right. What does it cost? Cui bono or who pays, who benefits? Well, one way to estimate the numbers is that it costs Minnesota $500USD million per year to run a universal program, a Cadillac program, meaning breakfast, and lunch for every student public or private. Ontario is 3X the population of Minnesota so roughly $2 BillionCDN on a $32 Billion education budget. BC for example, is just slightly smaller than Minnesota so just under $600CDN million. However, is it necessary to begin with a Cadillac program? School boards and provinces have incredibly detailed data on the socio-economic status of every school in their jurisdiction. A city or a province could estimate that 20% of the schools are significantly poorer than the rest and begin there. This would cost BC roughly $120 million, Ontario $350 million.
However, there would also be, we can assume, tremendous savings. Students who do better academically are much more likely to become highly productive members of society whether that means high tech, or nursing or skilled trades. Kids who do poorly are much more likely to need social services in the future, or worse, generate costs for more Ontario Works (welfare) cops, courts, and prisons. This is all before we factor in the costs of an unhealthy society, against the savings of a healthier society, on doctors and hospitals. In short, this is a ‘pay me now or pay me much more later’ proposition. Would you rather pay to change your oil every 5000 km or pay for a new engine?
From a strictly political POV, school food programs check all the boxes to advance a progressive agenda, naturally already begun by the Wab Kinew and the
Manitoba NDP with support from the NDP supported Trudeau Liberals, but this is wide open for support from Greens, BQ, even Tories if they are so inclined, It should be noted that Project 2025, the very conservative Heritage Foundation, is very clear in its opposition to feeding kids at school. The politics are heavily tilted against conservative. Good policy is good politics. Any progressive political party or politician can make things very awkward for conservative by coming out for the creation or expansion of school food projects.
It polls extremely well, and even better with the “progressive available vote”. It's difficult to think of a better use of the money. It even puts teachers, support staff and their unions in a very favourible light to campaign for a program that does not relate, directly, to self interest.
Aroundworld, the New Left Front came 1st in the French elections, partially on a promise to dramatically expand on school meals. Many countries already have fairly comprehensive school food programs. Two of the best are in Finland and Japan. Since the 1940s all public school children in Finland from pre-primary to upper secondary, (K-12) get one free meal every school day. Japan also supplies free meals from elementary grades to the end of junior High. Also noteworthy are the programs in South Korea, Sweden and the already existing program in France that the NLF wants to expand. Governor Tim Walz, of Minnesota, recently named VP running mate of Kamala Harris, is famous for expanding an existing school breakfast and lunch program into a universal program meaning, K12, no means test. Naturally, the Republicans fought the program.
There are a number of other reasons to support school food programs aside from reducing family food budgets, food insecurity, guaranteeing nutrition, better academic results, it reduces stress on families, usually mothers, regarding what to pack, and early morning stress. There are also issues around childhood obesity, and school behavior. There is emerging research in both these areas, to back these up, but common sense tells us that if two out of three meals a day are designed by professional nutritionists, that will have a profound effect on obesity, even post graduation as food habits are formed.
Bad behavior is so ubiquitous today that all potential solutions have to be on the table. Bad behaviour even has its own pathology today as a “conduct disorder”. Again, research is beginning to show, but common sense supports, the notion that a hungry or poorly nourished youngster is more likely to act out in socially destructive ways.
They say there is no free lunch and they are right. What does it cost? Cui bono or who pays, who benefits? Well, one way to estimate the numbers is that it costs Minnesota $500USD million per year to run a universal program, a Cadillac program, meaning breakfast, and lunch for every student public or private. Ontario is 3X the population of Minnesota so roughly $2 BillionCDN on a $32 Billion education budget. BC for example, is just slightly smaller than Minnesota so just under $600CDN million. However, is it necessary to begin with a Cadillac program? School boards and provinces have incredibly detailed data on the socio-economic status of every school in their jurisdiction. A city or a province could estimate that 20% of the schools are significantly poorer than the rest and begin there. This would cost BC roughly $120 million, Ontario $350 million.
However, there would also be, we can assume,
tremendous savings. Students who do better academically are much more likely to become highly productive members of society whether that means high tech, or nursing or skilled trades. Kids who do poorly are much more likely to need social services in the future, or worse, generate costs for more Ontario Works (welfare) cops, courts, and prisons. This is all before we factor in the costs of an unhealthy society, against the savings of a healthier society, on doctors and hospitals. In short, this is a ‘pay me now or pay me much more later’ proposition. Would you rather pay to change your oil every 5000 km or pay for a new engine?
From a strictly political POV, school food programs check all the boxes to advance a progressive agenda, naturally already begun by the Wab Kinew and the
Manitoba NDP with support from the NDP supported Trudeau Liberals, but this is wide open for support from Greens, BQ, even Tories if they are so inclined, It should be noted that Project 2025, the very conservative Heritage Foundation, is very clear in its opposition to feeding kids at school. The politics are heavily tilted against conservatives. Good policy is good politics. Any progressive political party or politician can make things very awkward for conservatives by coming out for the creation or expansion of school food projects.
.
It polls extremely well, and even better with the “progressive available vote”. It's difficult to think of a better use of the money. It even puts teachers, support staff and their unions in a very favourible light to campaign for a program that does not relate, directly, to self interest.
