Every child deserves a free school lunch—full stop

It should not be considered “radical” to want children to eat. For them to have access to enough food so they can spend their school days learning and absorbing information and experiences, rather than being distracted and starving. Free school lunch—actually, make that all school meals—should be a right for every child.

But in this country, having access to food (especially food high in nutritional value) is a privilege. Students who attend public school should have free school meals, full stop.

Why? The People’s Policy Project breaks it down in a succinct, logical way.

In the United States, 50 million kids receive free education in over 100,000 public schools. That education costs $800 billion annually. Half of these children use free school buses to get to school. That transportation service costs $30 billion annually. At these free public schools, kids have access to bathrooms, playgrounds, gyms, books and technology equipment at no cost to them.

And yet, no one considers public education and everything that comes with it to be some sort of luxury or amenity. So what’s the deal with making kids pay for lunch? Especially kids who come from families living at, below, or near the poverty line. Or kids who come from families that don’t have the money to send them to school with lunch in tow.

Related: Nearly 14 million kids aren’t getting enough food right now—and that needs to change

Each year, schools serve 4.9 billion lunches to a monthly average of 30 million students. The total cost of the 4.9 billion lunches is around $21 billion per year. The People’s Policy Project reports that in 2019, user fees covered $5.6 billion of this cost. In 2022, user fees covered $0.7 billion of the cost. The rest was covered by public subsidies as part of the free and reduced-price lunch program.

The cost of school lunches is a fraction of one percent of the cost of public K-12 schooling.

Last week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill that approves free, universal school meals—making Minnesota the fourth state to provide free school meals as a permanent part of the school day. California, Colorado, and Maine have also adopted the free meal policy since the onset of the pandemic.

“I know that providing free breakfast and lunch for our students is one of the best investments we can make to lower costs, support Minnesota’s working families, and care for our young learners and the future of our state,” said Gov. Walz. “This bill puts us one step closer to making Minnesota the best state for kids to grow up, and I am grateful to all of the legislators and advocates for making it happen.”

Here is what we know, inarguably, about well-fed children. Because unfortunately, there are powerful people who will make an argument against feeding kids.

• Well-resourced kids tend to be more productive and less destructive adults.
• Well-fed kids learn better and are less likely to engage in destructive behaviors that distract their peers.
• Well-fed kids are better able to grow, learn, play and participate in their communities and society overall.
• Well-fed kids are resilient.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) believes, based on thorough research and first-hand experience, that good nutrition is the bedrock of child survival and development.

So why on earth do some people, especially legislators, oppose universal free school meals?

Some argue that having children pay for their food at school is an important way to get children to understand responsibility. (Though that seems moot, doesn’t it, when you can be both responsible and poor? And that logic doesn’t seem to apply to literally every other aspect of free public schooling, either.) Others argue that because most schools operate on a lunch payscale—meaning children whose families are part of lower income brackets pay a reduced fee—it demonstrates how income is distributed in society.

I don’t know about you, but not one iota of that reasoning is greater or more important that feeding a hungry child. Or making sure a child who can’t afford to eat at school isn’t shamed by school staff, their peers, or their political representatives for it. Because in many public schools across the country, poor kids are often “lunch shamed” and denied food, or they’re given a smaller, less nutritious option while accruing school lunch debt.

Related: School cafeterias are finally giving kids what they really want: Lunchables

There are better ways for kids to learn “personal responsibility” than going into debt in fourth grade because their parents don’t earn enough money for their child to eat a chicken patty sandwich and some carrots.

Though there are still 46 states that haven’t adopted free school lunch as a universal policy, that doesn’t mean we’re helpless to the powers that be. You can, at any time, call just about any public school and offer to pay off the lunch debt for any student (or multiple students.) It doesn’t matter how big or small the amount is—you’d be doing a wonderful thing for a child in need when their political representatives have failed them.

To me, the fact that “school lunch debt” is a phrase that even exists is a pretty big indicator that we’re failing as a society.

Kids don’t need debt. Kids need lunch.