Caffeinated Politics

Above the fold in the Sunday edition of the Wisconsin State Journal, readers were again discovering the latest about a topic that our public schools simply need to address head-on.

The Madison School District total meal debt stood at $488,533.94 as of early January, although spokesperson Ian Folger said that’s unlikely to be the amount the district has to cover at the end of the school year, as families pay off their debts in response to district prodding.

This is one of those issues that I revisit that screams out for a solution across our state. The story about Madison public schools pops up every now and then, but we are not unique in the problem. There’s a strange contradiction in how we talk about education in general. We rightly insist that every child deserves a fair shot, that classrooms should be places of opportunity, and that learning is the great equalizer. Yet every day, in school cafeterias, we allow something as basic as food to become a source of shame, stress, and financial strain. Publicly funded school meals, paid for through either federal or state tax dollars, are not a radical idea. As I read the newspaper story, I could count on a few fingers why my arguments make sense. First, it’s a practical solution. Second, it’s a basic humane policy. Third, it’s an economically responsible solution to a problem we’ve allowed to linger for far too long.

The very notion of “lunch debt” should give us pause. We’re talking about children and our neighborhood kids. Some of them, as where I live, are too young to understand the concept of debt at all. I am not alone in knowing families who can’t afford those bills. As a consequence, the debt piles up. Districts send letters for payment. And all of this unfolds because a child dared to be hungry. For households living paycheck to paycheck, and there are more such homes with school-age kids than we might wish to recognize, this debt can be destabilizing. A $40 tab might mean skipping a utility payment. A $100 balance might mean choosing between groceries and gas. These are not abstract concerns; they’re the daily reality for many families.

On top of the financial strain, there’s the emotional toll. Children are acutely aware of social differences, and they can be unforgiving in ways adults sometimes forget. Being on a federal assistance meal program can mark a child as “other” in a space where social hierarchies are already fragile. Whether it’s simply the knowledge that their meal is “free” when others are paying, the stigma is real. No child should have to navigate that minefield just to eat.

In my middle school years, a friend needed free lunches. Part of his way of paying for food was to be responsible for making sure all the garbage was picked up and the large plastic bags tied and placed in a corner. Along with another guy, we would help him so he could have some time with us before classes resumed. I recall how he expressed his unease with us helping him. He was embarrassed and frustrated. Kids know when they’re singled out. Lunch debt, cafeteria shaming, and the stigma of “free lunch” labels erode self-worth and lower self-confidence. Universal programs restore dignity.

If you want to step back from this issue on a moral level, then let us consider that we have data from academic research showing that a hungry child is not a focused child. They’re not absorbing math lessons or analyzing stories. They’re thinking about food. When we talk about improving test scores, closing achievement gaps, or supporting students with behavioral challenges, we rarely acknowledge the obvious fact. A well-fed child learns better. Universal, prepaid school meals, which can include breakfast, are not just a nutrition policy, but an education policy that pays in the long run for the funds we would invest into it now.

Some argue that universal school meals are too expensive. But the truth is, we’re already paying for the consequences of not feeding kids properly. We pay through administrative overhead for means-testing. We pay through collection efforts. We pay through the long-term costs of poorer educational outcomes. Funding meals through tax dollars streamlines the system. It eliminates bureaucracy, reduces stigma, and ensures that every child—regardless of family income—has access to the same basic nutrition. It’s the same logic we apply to public libraries, fire departments, and K–12 education itself. We don’t ask children to pay a fee before entering a classroom. Why should lunch be any different?

At its core, the argument for publicly funded school meals is about dignity. It’s about making a simple promise to every child: when you come to school, you will be fed. You will be cared for. You will not be shamed for circumstances beyond your control. That promise is well within our reach. All it requires is the political will to treat school meals as the public good they are. Finally, this issue is not left or right. It is simply about right and wrong. Let’s feed every child. No exceptions. No conditions.