22 more schools add breakfast, lunch programs
Toolbox
By Darren M. Allen Vermont Press Bureau - Published: September 3, 2004
MONTPELIER – Something new is on the menu for thousands of Vermont's public school students this year – breakfast.
As a result of a state law requiring schools that don't offer lunch or breakfast to put the question to their town's voters, 22 schools will begin offering meal programs for the first time.
Most of the new meals are federally funded breakfast programs, according to the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger. This year's new programs come after seven were added last year, bringing to 11,000 the number of students who now have access to school meals who didn't two years ago.
"School meals are extremely beneficial to students whose families may be struggling to provide nutritious food," Rep. Robert Dostis, the campaign's executive director and the Waterbury Democrat who sponsored the school meal law, said Thursday.
According to the campaign, nearly 20 percent of the students served by the new programs are from low-income households, making them eligible for free- or low-cost school meals.
The vast majority of the state's 324 schools participate in the decades-old programs. The federal school lunch program began after World War II, and school breakfasts began in the 1960s. But Dostis said he was alarmed that there were still schools where students couldn't get a healthy bite to eat, a view shaped by his own hunger as a student.
"In my experience growing up hungry, there was one teacher who once in a while would give me a free lunch ticket," Dostis said. "Maybe twice a month I was able to eat lunch."
While the federal lunch program was well established by the time the campaign began, implementing school breakfasts has been another matter. In 1987 – more than two decades into the federal program – only 22 of the state's schools offered breakfast. The number climbed to over 200 by 1995, and topped 260 by 2002.
Towns whose schools failed to offer either meal were required under the new law — passed in 2003 – to ask their voters to weigh in on the matter by June 30. Towns where votes were not scheduled automatically are required to offer both meals beginning this year, resulting in nine new meal programs.
However, voters in towns representing a total of 31 schools decided against instituting new programs. Of those schools, 18 offer no meals at all, while 13 offer only lunch.
In some of those towns, school administrators opposed the creation of new or additional federal meal programs. In Hartford, the superintendent and a principal said that their schools are able to handle the problem of hungry children without the imposition of a federal program: at White River School, staff members keep donated milk and cereal for any student who asks.
The mechanics of the new law – including putting the question to a town vote – were opposed by some superintendents, many of them expressing frustration at what they perceived as yet another unfunded mandate from Montpelier.
"Obviously, we were and are supportive of nutrition for kids," said Jeffrey Francis, the executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association. "It was always the process under the law that was challenging to us. In many cases, the districts that were not offering these programs had good practical reasons why they were not."
Dostis said the impetus behind last year's law was a concern that too many students were foregoing meals before or during the school day, some of them denied the only opportunity they had for nutritious food. He said the law was not meant to be a mandate.
"Some schools said it's a mandate because it forces them to make a decision," Dostis said.
One of the schools that made the decision was Sharon Elementary School, which is celebrating more than a year of offering breakfast to its students.to provide nutritious food," Rep. Robert Dostis, the campaign's executive director and the Waterbury Democrat who sponsored the school meal law, said Thursday.
According to the campaign, nearly 20 percent of the students served by the new programs are from low-income households, making them eligible for free- or low-cost school meals.
The vast majority of the state's 324 schools participate in the decades-old programs. The federal school lunch program began after World War II, and school breakfasts began in the 1960s. But Dostis said he was alarmed that there were still schools where students couldn't get a healthy bite to eat, a view shaped by his own hunger as a student.
"In my experience growing up hungry, there was one teacher who once in a while would give me a free lunch ticket," Dostis said. "Maybe twice a month I was able to eat lunch."
While the federal lunch program was well established by the time the campaign began, implementing school breakfasts has been another matter. In 1987 – more than two decades into the federal program – only 22 of the state's schools offered breakfast. The number climbed to over 200 by 1995, and topped 260 by 2002.
Towns whose schools failed to offer either meal were required under the new law — passed in 2003 – to ask their voters to weigh in on the matter by June 30. Towns where votes were not scheduled automatically are required to offer both meals beginning this year, resulting in nine new meal programs.
However, voters in towns representing a total of 31 schools decided against instituting new programs. Of those schools, 18 offer no meals at all, while 13 offer only lunch.
In some of those towns, school administrators opposed the creation of new or additional federal meal programs. In Hartford, the superintendent and a principal said that their schools are able to handle the problem of hungry children without the imposition of a federal program: at White River School, staff members keep donated milk and cereal for any student who asks.
The mechanics of the new law – including putting the question to a town vote – were opposed by some superintendents, many of them expressing frustration at what they perceived as yet another unfunded mandate from Montpelier.
"Obviously, we were and are supportive of nutrition for kids," said Jeffrey Francis, the executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association. "It was always the process under the law that was challenging to us. In many cases, the districts that were not offering these programs had good practical reasons why they were not."
Dostis said the impetus behind last year's law was a concern that too many students were foregoing meals before or during the school day, some of them denied the only opportunity they had for nutritious food. He said the law was not meant to be a mandate.
"Some schools said it's a mandate because it forces them to make a decision," Dostis said.
One of the schools that made the decision was Sharon Elementary School, which is celebrating more than a year of offering breakfast to its students.
We have more children who we know are eating breakfast now than before," said Shelia Moran, the school's principal. "With the program, we are avoiding a separate but equal situation. We know that children need to eat, and this is a very egalitarian way to make sure our students aren't hungry."
Contact Darren Allen at darren.allen@timesargus.com or darren.allen@rutlandherald.com
37