Ethical Issues Raised by Detroit’s Free Lunch Program

The National Review recently criticized Detroit’s free lunch program. All Detroit kids, not just those under the poverty line, are awarded a free lunch under the federal government’s $4.5 billion expansion of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. I’ve seen these meals, and calling them healthy is a bit of a stretch, but what’s wrong with more free lunches, often the best meal of the day for some of these kids? “(Detroit is one of three pilot programs starting this month for a free-for-all that will ultimately cover similar districts nationwide.)”

The government justifies giving wealthy kids the same deal as the poor kids. The National Review quotes the Detroit News: “We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma,” according to Aaron Lavallee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman. In other words, the federal government does not want to stigmatize poor kids by singling them out for free lunches. Instead, give everyone free lunches. Well, we could, of course, end the stigmatization problem by giving no one free lunches, but that defeats the purpose of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. Giving everyone free lunches, however, raises ethical issues that need to be addressed.

Taxpayers desire a safety net or welfare programs, because they don’t want their cities to look like Nairobi or Cairo, multitudes of desperately poor begging for survival and offering their children to strangers for a few dollars. Taxpayers are willing to support county hospitals, state welfare payments, food stamps, college scholarships, affirmative action, housing projects, and school lunches as long as they believe that the poor (and therefore, society) benefit. When taxpayers no longer trust that the government’s transfer payments are helping the needy, support for those programs will end. Government officials that give everyone the same benefit in order to spare deserved recipients’ feelings erode support for an otherwise worthwhile program.

Second, the money wasted on middle class patrons could be better spent helping the target population. Instead of feeding middle class kids, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act could spend that money on the needy, giving away free breakfasts or after-school snacks at a homework club.

Third, expanding the recipients to the middle class in order to spare the poor kids’ feelings is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Governments are obligated to spend the people’s money as carefully and parsimoniously as possible. Anything short of this standard is theft.

Lastly, economists explain that people do not efficiently use resources that are incorrectly priced. In the former Soviet Union, bread was kept artificially cheap by government edict. It was under priced, selling for pennies, and loaves were wasted and used for soccer balls. (See Jim Rogers’ Investment Biker for this and other examples.) When schools give lunches away, much of the food ends up on the ground or in the garbage. I saw this with my own eyes while student teaching at an inner-city school. Large amounts of free food littered the school yard after every lunch. Why? Some kids didn’t like what was offered and some, despite their poverty, still managed to buy something else to take the place of the free and unappreciated food. The mess attracted seagulls and other pests. I can only imagine how much food will be wasted if the Detroit pilot program becomes popular.

Students at my school punch in a number at the food service station. No one watching knows if the food is discounted. Cards can also be used. How is it done at your school?

Tiger Mother in the Classroom

 

“My pappy taught me to work hard, but he never taught me to like it.” Abraham Lincoln

Books on tape (or CD) are my favorite technological invention. I listened to Amy Chua’s bestseller, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, on my commute. (See a summary and balanced review here. See a negative, snarling review of the book here)

I think both of the above reviewers miss the essence of the book. Children don’t want to work hard if left to their own devices. Parents and teachers must give children a stomach for hard work and assist them in developing persistence and an ability to weather setbacks. Only then can success and enjoyment begin.

Teaching differs little from parenting. Outside of AP classes, not many high school sophomores want to work hard. Even fewer want to work hard reading history. Fewer still want to study the World History standards mandated by California professors. These standards include Plato and Aristotle, the English Bill of Rights, the French Revolution, and British Industrialization. That’s only part of the curriculum for the first semester.

Good innovative high school history teachers employ partnering, group activities, simulations, debates, and technology. We work hard to keep students engaged in material that isn’t engaging on its own. We’ll do whatever it takes. If they don’t do the work offending students are punished with lectures about what it takes to succeed, remediation sessions, and, of course, poor grades. We will train you to work hard. Like Abe Lincoln’s pappy, we don’t care if you like it or not.

When these kids have matriculated they have a sharper focus on what they want to pursue in life, and some decide to get a college degree. The first two years as an undergraduate are, again, filled with university and major requirements, many not to the student’s liking. The minority that get through those first two years and attempt upper division college work finally explore courses of interest. That’s a lot of years in school satisfying others' requirements, about 15 years, before a student gets to follow his or her bliss. Let’s hope that someone has taught these kids the art of persistence somewhere along the way.

 

Rahm is Right—A Longer School Day Will Increase Student Achievement

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel has offered bonus pay to teachers that waive union contract rules and keep children in school longer each day. See the New York Times article here. A teachers’ union rep calls the mayor a “Republican” and opposes his education policy. The union is misguided, and Chicago students, on the low end of instructional time compared to other urban schools, can only benefit from increased instructional time. How do I know? Just compare a wealthy school district (my kids’ district) and a middle-class district (where I teach), located  about 20 miles from each other.

My children attend a wealthy high school district that tests very high compared to other California schools. I teach at a district that is not as generously supported by taxpayers and private donors, and my district’s API (state test) scores are not as high. This situation is no surprise to anyone who has examined the strong correlation between average family income and standardized test scores. The richer the school district, the higher the test scores.

Do rich parents genetically produce smarter children? Do they buy more books for their kids along with the sports cars? Or do smart people become rich and procreate, cloning kids just like them?

Perhaps the causal link between wealth and API scores may lie elsewhere—in instructional time.

Wealthier families support their local public schools through property taxes and donations to school foundations. That money, in turn, supports additional instructional time for the students, especially the lower level students, and those students increase their achievement. In turn, API scores dramatically increase. Middle- and lower-middle class families raise much less money through property taxes and direct donations. These districts can’t afford increased instructional time. The state of California does not even out the funding discrepancies by contributing more money to the poorer districts.

My kids’ high school exemplifies the disparity between richer and poorer districts. My own children must attend after-school tutoring if they fail an exam. They must attend a homework club if they didn’t prepare well the night before or didn’t turn in an important assignment. These kids would encounter no consequences (besides a poor grade) in a poorer high school (i.e., the high school where I teach) and no chance to relearn the material. Additionally, my children's teachers are contracted to work a lot more than I am: ten hours more per week. That adds up to 400 more hours of lesson planning and evaluating the efficacy of instruction. When my children need extra time with a teacher they get it, and teachers accomplish more in preparing and evaluating their practice. API scores skyrocket as a result. Rahm is right.