Improving School Lunches in Philadelphia Schools - Research Paper Example

Improve lunches in Philadelphia schools Improving school lunches in schools is an integral step especially when it is integrated in state schools such as those in Philadelphia. However, Philly has suffered the misfortune of serving unhealthy food to its pupils, thus, becoming a subject for improvement and inculcation of new programs. According to the National School Lunch Act (NSLA), it is the prerogative of the federal government to give learners free or low-cost school lunch meals. This is often given only to eligible students under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Consequently, Philly has been compelled to campaign against the distribution of pre-plated lunches predispose students tasteless and bad food toxic for their health (Dalton 134). Alternatively, as this paper will demonstrate, it is essential to improve lunches in Philadelphia schools through feasible methodologies that favor all stakeholders. Improvement of lunch programs, for instance, in other states lies both on (NSLA) and (NSLP) in terms of initiating a progressive school feeding plan. In Boston, stakeholders supplied hot lunches to students under the guidance of the Boston School Committee. This central kitchen system was formerly started as an experimental program supported by extensive federal aid. On that account, while Philly schools have incorporated such goals and objectives in serving most of its learners, it has failed to provide certain items. For example, milk and sandwiches are usually missing in school lunches because of reduced funding from the state (Dunn 122). Similarly, the number of learners supersedes the local farms that supply the materials for producing the essential items mentioned above. This demonstrates that only a few areas are served with adequate lunch program. According to the Philadelphia Urban Food and Fitness Alliance (PUFFA), school districts found in Philly enjoy the monopoly of distributing school lunch offerings. These include baby carrots, blended fruit juice, and Tuna salad. Others entail nacho chips, beef patty and 1 percent milk. Overall, like other states such as Massachusetts, Boston, and New York school districts in Philly need to establish local committees that oversee student welfare in lunch programs. Another important element entails Commodity Donation Program that continues to thrive in form of a nutritional standpoint. It is a phenomenon evident in Boston especially when infused with the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation. In Philly, because of numerous local farms that produce dairy products, surplus pork, and organic milk that are essential in administering costs of budgeting, students impose eligibility guidelines. These guidelines are aligned with the Care Food Program that mostly provides free lunches and nutritionally balanced foodstuff. Additionally, while Philly’s Special Milk Program has not affected the economic status of most citizens, it is still reimbursed through a nutrition service (Food and Nutrition Board et al 159). It means (NSLP) has the mandate of serving 30.5 million including the provision of other additional commodities such as surplus agricultural stocks. Extension of the school program, therefore, involves reducing dependency on federal aid and providing decent meals for students. In the same capacity, schools in Philly should collaborate with agricultural departments to create effective mechanisms that include establishing menus acceptable to learners. It is equally a manifestation of how school lunches are given to children in urban and elementary schools found in Philly. Likewise, schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio have equally succeeded in implementing rigorous team nutrition that match with dietary guidelines. This indicates that it is upon Philly to copy a few steps that include introducing childcare institutions that give milk to learners both for free and at a subsidized price. Boston, for instance, is a testimony of infusing both on experimental basis and a feeding program that is operated within the context attracting bids while engaging food-service companies. Philly has demonstrated this through its Youth United for Change (YUC) student activists that often collaborates with (NSLP) and (NLSA). On that scope, the integration of the Summer Food Service Program is essential because it is instrumental toward identifying eligible participants for additional commodities and commodity foods. As a result, this initiates a precedent for nutrition services that assists all learners irrespective of their family backgrounds (Hamid 109). Philly has, thus, attempted to include the needy and privileged kids in their school lunch program. It means the institution reduces the danger of malnutrition before it transforms into a national concern. Federal participation, hence, ensures that lunch services are inculcated into the school curriculum to provide learners with a platform for boosting his academic success. Consequently, it introduces the principles that attempt to balance economic status of parents when rolling out food programs that are long-term in context. The long-term policy has divided student opinion because while in Philly most prefer foodstuff such as chicken nuggets, meatballs, and hotdogs, other states think otherwise. This is because states such as Boston and New York prioritize big cutbacks to cater for other pertinent services such as health and physical education for the students (Phoenix & Walter 108). Consequently, all funding emanates from the federal government totaling 98 percent disbursed to Philly public schools. This funding under the management of U.S.D.A. ensures that National School Lunch Program is fully implemented while giving huge discount in pre-plated meals such steaks and cheese. Distribution of organic milk is, therefore, under the strict budget of food allotment that charges 25 cents for milk while overall school lunch at between $1.39 and $2.73. Unfortunately, constant breach of bidding rules poses a serious problem to Philly schools because federal funding is not harmonious. School Districts are thus compelled to share the meager funding to supporting an ever expanding student population currently at 64, 000. It differs with the number of charters accorded to satellite schools when they distribute school lunch programs to most underprivileged pupils in Philly. Statistics indicate that government units in Philadelphia allot underprivileged pupils maximum quantity in terms of school lunch. It indicates that instances of undernourishment and malnutrition are reduced through concerted collaboration with charitable institutions as has been happening in Boston and Massachusetts. According to the National School Lunch Program, eligibility for food depends on available resources and materials. Overall, service meals target approximately 64,000 lunches for satellite cafeterias providing fresh meal and other assorted nutritional components. Contrastingly, 72,000 schools are mandated to serve 8.4 million children under the School Lunch Program to enhance nutrition service (Levine 117). Therefore, it is within Philly’s goal and objective to design a distribution channel that does not favor certain students. This is because this would cause inequality in state schools that wholly depend on the disbursement of federal aid especially in cases where school districts have minimal voice in policy making (Rosen 178). However, the roles and responsibilities of School Committee is to incorporate learning, behavior, nutrition through the equitable distribution of lunch programs to needy students. This has the potential of affirming an effective personality geared toward eating decent foodstuff that enables students to bond with their peers. It, therefore, is imperative for American schools to strive at providing meals to it students not only as a nutritional role but to boost academic success. This implies that states are tasked with involving several stakeholders that encompass the federal government and School Districts. Similarly, while federal government offers funding for school lunch, Philly, unlike other states such as Massachusetts and Boston, integrates school opinion in determining both quality and quantity (Jensen 143). In other words, Philly is better in distributing meals because it does introduce bias or favoritism hence attracting students from diverse communities. In other words, while considering the economic status of most learners, Philadelphia state attempts to use local farms as available resources of uplifting lives. It also uses corporations to subsidize food products preferred by students. Works Cited Dalton, Sharron. Our Overweight Children: What Parents, Schools, and Communities Can Do to Control the Fatness Epidemic. Mason, OH: University of California Press. 2004. Print. Dunn, Carolyn. Nutrition Decisions: Eat Smart, Move More. Mason, OH: SAGE. 2013. Print. Food and Nutrition Board et al. School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children. Mason, OH: SAGE. 2010. Print. Hamid, Tarek. Thinking in Circles About Obesity: Applying Systems Thinking to Weight Management. Mason, OH: Springer. 2009. Print. Jensen, Michael. Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues [4 volumes]. New York, NY: Springer. 2010. Print. Levine, Susan. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America's Favorite Welfare Program. New York, NY: Princeton University Press. 2011. Print. Phoenix, Laurel & Walter, Lynn. Critical Food Issues: Problems and State-of-the-Art Solutions Worldwide. New York, NY: SAGE. 2009. Print. Rosen, Evelyn. The Philadelphia Fels, 1880-1920: A Social Portrait. New York, NY: SAGE. 2000. Print. Read More