A few years ago, so few high schoolers ate breakfast in Vermont’s Essex Westford School District that the cafeteria looked like “a ghost town” in the morning, recalls Scott Fay, the director of child nutrition.
But now that breakfast is free for all students, kids are packing the cafeteria to talk, munch on fresh cranberry-orange bread, and finish homework before the first bell.
“It’s really amazing to see that transition,” said Fay, who helped lobby for the Vermont law that expanded free meals. That’s “what real equity looks like in our cafeterias,” he said. “It’s all these kids coming together in the morning, eating.”
Fresh-baked breakfast bread has been a hit with students in the Essex Westford School District. (Image courtesy of Essex Westford School District)
Proponents say that rise in participation is a success story because it means fewer kids are hungry at school and that families have more money to spend on groceries at home. But it’s also brought some logistical challenges and — perhaps more importantly — higher-than-expected costs. That’s raising concerns in some states about the long-term sustainability of these programs. In their first year of operation, universal free school meal programs came in over budget in at least six of the eight states that offer them.
And there may be a limit to how far universal meals can expand. There’s a federal bill in Congress, but so far the policy has passed only in Democratic-controlled legislatures. Republican-led states have generally opposed universal meals due to concerns about cost and parental responsibility.
“The Legislature has added $20-30 million in property tax pressure to pay for school meals for all students, including those from affluent families,” Vermont’s Republican Gov. Phil Scott said in a statement last year when he allowed the bill to pass into law without his signature. “This will be paid for by all Vermonters, including those with low incomes.”
Why universal meal programs cost more than expected
The main reason several states’ programs are over budget is that more kids ate breakfast and lunch than expected. Most of the kids who are new to eating for free would have paid full price in the past, and now states are picking up their tab.
Some states had a more sophisticated method for devising a budget, while others used estimates from the pandemic — when the federal government paid for all students to eat for free. That didn’t turn out to be great predictors of demand because so many kids were absent during that time. On top of that, the cost of food is high, and federal reimbursement rates for meals aren’t keeping up.
