New York City public school students do better on state testing when they all receive a free lunch, regardless of income, says a new study out of Syracuse University’s Center for Policy Research. Obvious? Perhaps. But in a day and age where students are still regularly shamed for having school lunch “debt,” it’s an important conclusion to draw out explicitly. It’s also pertinent today when the Trump administration is considering a slice on who qualifies for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which has a direct impact on who automatically qualifies for free and reduced lunches. The worst-case scenario? As covered previously here at Daily Kos, one million kids could lose their automatic free lunch because of that change alone.
What would stop these horror stories? Universal free lunch in public schools.
To get into specifics, this study looked at universal free lunch programs in New York City middle schools. Researchers compared how students did on their state testing (subjects included math and reading) before they all had universal free lunch and after they had universal free lunch.
In simple terms, as illustrated in the paper published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, researchers found that the score increase was equivalent to 6-10 weeks of additional learning for students who did not previously qualify for free lunch and about 3-5 weeks for students who were already part of the lunch program. Interestingly, researchers found that the free lunch program had a more significant impact on students who were not, technically, low income. Why? There are a few possible scenarios here.
First, many students who qualify for free or reduced lunch don’t receive them—either because of paperwork issues, literacy barriers, or families have inconsistent information, like a non-permanent address. There are also many families who can’t afford school lunches but, technically, don’t qualify for the program based on income. There are also people who may qualify but don’t participate in the program based on stigma.
“Whether previously eligible or newly eligible for school food, many students’ families are struggling financially to make ends meet,” Liz Accles, executive director of Community Food Advocates, explained. “So the fact that more students are eating and getting well-balanced nutritious meals, it would seem at least logical that would have a positive impact on academic performance.”
To conduct this study, researchers zeroed in on schools that offered universal free lunch to students between 2010 and 2013. For context, Mayor Bill de Blasio decided to offer free lunch to all New York City public school students in 2017 and had begun making them available across middle schoolers in the years in between. Students had access to free breakfast, too.
Even if free lunch didn’t have any educational impact on kids, it’s still the right thing to offer students. But over the years, studies from various angles confirm that kids do better in school when they’re fed. Universal lunch programs also dissolve potential for shaming and bullying in the cafeteria, which saves kids emotional stress and trauma. No more worrying about whether or not your parent or guardian put lunch money in your backpack—and no more worrying that the cafeteria worker is going to give you a cold meal instead of a hot one.
Cities including Boston and Detroit have also begun universal free lunch programs.
Today, we have school districts trying to ban students with lunch “debt” from going to the prom or even attending school field trips. Children are having their lunches removed from their trays and replaced with cold cheese sandwiches. Schools have debated whether or not to offer kids with “debt” only a tuna sandwich. Feeding kids helps them do better academically—but it’s worthwhile even if it only provides them nutrition. Universal free lunch is a win all around, test scores or not.
