Advertisement

Board details limits on free lunch

 
Published Oct. 14, 1999|Updated Sept. 30, 2005

The superintendent says free lunches could cost the district $75,000, but a School Board candidate disputes his assessment.

When students return to classes today after their five-day weekend, they will again be given hot meals even if they have no money and are not part of the federal free lunch program.

But the free lunches won't go on indefinitely. The School Board on Tuesday decided to allow elementary school students to charge up to three meals; after that, they will have to pay what they owe before they can charge any more. The policy will apply only to the basic meal and will not include extra items such as snacks.

The charge policy will not apply to middle or high school students. After Tuesday they will have to pay or have an approved free lunch application.

That decision bought the board time to seek a permanent solution to a problem that has vexed district officials for more than a year. At Tuesday's meeting and on Wednesday, several other concerns were raised, many related to the financial aspects of the controversy.

+ Superintendent Pete Kelly said that serving free lunches to everyone cost the system $2,000 last week alone. He estimated that giving away lunches could cost $75,000 or more, money he said could come from classrooms.

+ Cindy Cino, a recently declared School Board candidate, disputed Kelly's assessment, saying the Food Service Department expects to earn $50,000 in interest from investments in the upcoming year. "I don't think that the School Board is being honest when they say that they're going to have to take money from classrooms," she said.

+ District officials are backing away from earlier reports that up to 1,000 students had lunch trays taken from them and the food thrown away. They say now that the figure is much lower.

+ And state Education Commissioner Tom Gallagher continues to watch the situation. His office said Gallagher "does not want to appear insensitive to the district's financial position," but wants to be sure that all children are fed school lunches.

"The commissioner is still concerned about the situation and wants to continue to work with the district and to monitor," said JoAnn Carrin, spokeswoman for commissioner Gallagher.

Three weeks ago, after the grace period ended for parents to file new free and reduced price lunch forms for their children, students were dropped from the program's list. As they reached the cashier in their lunchrooms, they had their meal replaced with a sandwich and milk.

Officials now say that not all those meals landed in the trash, but they have no figures to indicate how much food was pitched out.

The scene ignited a firestorm of criticism which culminated last week with a strong denunciation by Gallagher, who told the Times through a spokeswoman that he was "morally outraged" by the district's actions.

In the meanwhile, the district served free lunches. Kelly said the cost, about $2,000 last week, was inflated because some students who do not qualify for free or reduced-price lunches took advantage of the controversy and ate for free. Because the district cannot treat children on free lunches any different from paying children, free meals were available to everyone.

Kelly said he understands the value of good nutrition for students, "But at the same time, we have to be educationally accountable, and that's the hard part of this."

Kelly explained that the program must be solvent to avoid having to tap the general fund, which pays for teacher salaries, educational supplies and the operation of the schools. In past years, the general fund has contributed nearly $300,000 a year to the Food Service program.

On Wednesday, Cino said district figures indicate that the program expects to earn $50,000 in interest from investments in the upcoming year.

Cino also pushed the School Board to use the fact that some parents haven't filled out forms as an indicator that those children might be neglected in other ways, too. She suggested officials go to homes and find out if the children are getting the care they need.

Assistant superintendent David Hickey said that, after officials pare the number of unreturned forms down to the lowest possible, they will consider sending out social workers. They might also consider another idea suggested by the Department of Education. They might contact the state Department of Children and Families, because parents are required to feed their children.

School officials also have talked about other solutions, including hiring people to stand at the front of lunch lines to tell students whether they qualify for a regular meal or merely the sandwich and milk. But that would cost an estimated $100,000.

Kelly said several changes are in the works to provide even more notification to parents whose children qualify for free and reduced price lunches this year when next year's deadline rolls around.

"Once again, this is about manpower," he said. "Because people have not been following through with their responsibilities, the school system is suffering. . . . And all of you know that the state is breathing down our necks on this, so we need to find a solution that fits Citrus County."

Board Chairwoman Patience Nave said,"There's been a great deal of focus on what the district has failed to do. But this is about what the parents failed to do."

Board member Carl Hansen said he wanted to be sure the district could collect the charges from parents, but he didn't want to see children embarrassed again after the third charge.

On Nov. 9, the board will hold a public hearing to change the policy and allow elementary school charges. Between now and a special meeting on Oct. 26, elementary students will still be fed.