Last December, the issue was raised concerning the distribution
of free and reduced price lunches to Live Oak students during
brunch and lunch. Currently, the students who qualify for free or
reduced-price lunches are directed to four lines on the side of the
cafeteria building.
Last December, the issue was raised concerning the distribution of free and reduced price lunches to Live Oak students during brunch and lunch. Currently, the students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches are directed to four lines on the side of the cafeteria building. This is a clear violation of the California Educational Code regarding school lunch lines.
The code states that “children participating in the National School Lunch Program shall not be required to use a separate dining area, go through a separate serving line, enter the dining area through a separate entrance, or consume their meals or milk at a different time.”
For more than six years, Live Oak students who utilize the free and reduced price lunches have been forced to wait in separate lines on the other side of the cafeteria building.
There is absolutely no reason for this and the fact that it’s been this way for so long completely amazes me. Students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches are still offered the same meal for $1.50 in the regular lines, so why not have all students get them in the same place?
Because of this isolated line system, many students who really need this lunch program don’t apply because of the embarrassment of being forced to stand in a separate line from other students. I don’t blame them, either. High school prejudices create a hostile environment for the student who doesn’t have the exact same shoes or clothes as everyone else. Imagine having to stand in a line designated entirely for free or reduced price lunch students.
With fewer students applying for the lunch program because of the demeaning line system, our statewide test ranking is meaningless in comparison to other schools. Live Oak is being stacked up against other higher-ranking schools statistically, based on the income levels of the families of the students. The stats are all based on how many students apply for the free or reduced lunch program.
The income levels of students’ families are considered when schools are evaluated for programs. School performance is analyzed with the same considerations and it is assumed that students who qualify for the program are participating in it.
Having two separate food distributing sections is also discouraging students from making healthy eating choices. By serving the free lunch in one area, it is considered to be a reduced lunch, and other students won’t buy it. Instead of buying the deli sandwich, side of both fruit and vegetables, and milk that are served in the free and reduced line, they buy burritos and slices of pizza.
Having separate lunch lines is not only degrading to those students who have to use them but it also shows how far behind Live Oak is compared to other high schools. Have we learned enough to prevent this mistake at the new school?
I found out that all students at Gilroy High School either purchase a month’s worth of food tickets or, if they qualify, they’re given the tickets at a free or reduced price. The tickets all look the same and the students can use them in any line. There are also three food trailers located in the quad during brunch and lunch, where free and reduced price lunch students can use their tickets for anything except ‘a la carte’ items, such as chimichangas, donuts, pizza, etc.
Fremont High School in Sunnyvale uses the same method of buying or receiving a month’s worth of food tickets, which are accepted in every food service line.
Soquel and Santa Teresa high schools both use an ATM-like card, which every student scans through a keypad machine and enters their five-digit student identification number. When the card is scanned, the money in the account appears. Food service workers are able to identify whether the student is in the free or reduced program, but this is not revealed to other students. Oak Grove High School uses a similar method with a system where the students just punch their number into the machine without the hassle of carrying a card.
All these schools have discreet ways of identifying which students use the free or reduced price lunch program. It is not surprising that not one school that I spoke with had students segregated in a separate line.
After calling all these high schools to research their methods, I realized just how touchy a subject it really is. I was directed to many supervisors because the lunch coordinators were “not able to speak about that kind of information.”
In fact, the woman in charge of distributing lunch at San Benito High School in Hollister, after being asked for information about their method of distributing the free and reduced lunch, said, “I think I’m going to keep that information to myself.” Then she hung up on me. She also said she was unaware of their system of distributing the food. I’m glad I don’t attend school at San Benito, because if the lunch lady doesn’t even know how she distributes the food, who knows if she is even aware of what she’s serving? Fried chicken or fried rodent?
After the Board meeting, the Live Oak administration announced that they would plan a new food service program that provides access in a non-segregated area.
“It should be standardized lines. It’s its own form of discrimination the way it currently is,” said Live Oak counselor Tim McGuire.
My big question is, why did it take this long to begin working on the necessary changes?
“We’ve raised the question every year since I’ve been here,” said Co-principal Richard Knapp. “There was not a clear understanding of the law by us and the District Office.”
For more than six years, students have been experiencing discriminatory treatment, even though the issue was supposedly brought up every year.
“It’s absolutely irresponsible,” said Co-principal Nancy Serigstad. “We’ve visited other schools and seen methods of being very discreet. The fact that these students can be easily identified and that there’s a stigma attached to free lunch is absolutely shameful.”
All it took was one student who presented his concerns to the Board for trustees to finally acknowledge that change was necessary. Live Oak student body President Andy Cunningham presented the issue to the board after hearing about the Educational Code violation.
“I had heard about it when I was at a school site council meeting. I just felt that it was something that should be changed,” said Cunningham.
Janet Fotti is the new Director of Student Nutrition for the Morgan Hill Unified School District and has been working hard to initiate a new lunch distribution system. Fotti would like to close the free and reduced lines and have one window become the “Meal Deal” line.
The Meal Deal line would be where the free and reduced lunches would be served, but the line would be designated for all students. She hopes to improve the quality of the food to create an incentive for more students to buy those meals instead of the ‘a la carte’ items. There would also be a Deluxe Meal that would include a non-carbonated beverage and dessert with the regular meal. For students not on the program, an additional 75 cents would be added to the $1.50 price.
The new plan will be presented to the Board on Monday and, if approved, will be implemented on April 1. The new plan is definitely an improvement, but it’s still a form of segregation. Students with free and reduced lunches can only receive them in the Meal Deal line. Granted, all students will have access to that line. But still, shouldn’t every student have access to every line?
The real answer to the problem would be to give every student a card that they scan when at the lunch counter. That way every student can use every line, and only the lunch lady knows who has the free and reduced lunches. This is exactly how it should be and how it’s already done in several other high schools around the area.
It is time for Morgan Hill to leave the Stone Age and create a kinder system that protects every student’s right to privacy.
